Epstein Drop Three

January 5, 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 1327 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT 9 (File Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 26 **ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 1 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 UNCERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT DISCLAIMER IN THE MATTER OF 2 Virginia L. Giuffre v. 3 Ghislaine Maxwell 4 The following transcript of proceedings, or any 5 portion thereof, in the above-entitled matter, taken 6 on any date, is being delivered UNEDITED and 7 UNCERTIFIED by the official court reporter at the 8 request of ordering attorney. 9 This is an unofficial transcript, which should 10 NOT be relied upon for purposes of verbatim citation 11 of testimony. 12 This transcript has not been checked, proofed 13 or corrected. It is a draft transcript, NOT a 14 certified transcript. As such, it may contain 15 computer-generated mistranslations of stenotype code 16 or electronic transmission errors, resulting in 17 inaccurate or nonsensical word combinations, or 18 untranslated stenotype symbols which cannot be 19 deciphered by non-stenotypists. Corrections will be 20 made in the preparation of the certified transcript, 21 resulting in differences in content, page and line 22 numbers, punctuation and formatting. 23 This uncertified unedited transcript contains 24 no appearance page, certificate page, index or 25 certification. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 26 **ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 2 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 START TIME: 8:57 a.m. 2 THE COURT REPORTER: Do you declare under 3 penalty of perjury to tell the truth, the whole 4 truth, and nothing but the truth? 5 THE WITNESS: 6 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: In the mart /O*F 7 Virginia L Jeffrey verses Ghislaine Maxwell. 8 Today's date June 24, 2016, and time is 9 8:59 a.m. this is videotaped deposition of Tony 10 Figueroa. Counsel please truce /THEFL after 11 which the court reporter will swear in the 12 witness. 13 MR. EDWARDS: Brad adards I represent 14 Virginia Giuffre. And Virginia Giuffre is here 15 with me as well. 16 MS. MENNINGER: Laura manager on behalf of 17 gelen Maxwell, the Defendant. She is not here. 18 (Off the record at 9:01 a.m.). 19 A Yes. 20 MS. MENNINGER: 21 Q Good morning? 22 A Good morning. 23 Q Can you state your full name and spell 24 your last name for the record? 25 A My name is Anthony Lewis Zach Figueroa Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 26 **ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 138 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 /EUFPB 2001? 2 MS. MENNINGER: /TPOPBLGZ form /TPOUPBLZ. 3 A No. 4 Q How do you know that? 5 A Because she did not have a job anywhere 6 else. 7 Q How frequently during that period of time 8 would she be going over to Jeffrey epistipes house? 9 MS. MENNINGER: Object to the form 10 foundation. 11 A When I was with her she would go over 12 there two weeks out of every month. 13 Q And how often what is the frequency you 14 would be the person take her to his house? 15 MS. MENNINGER: /TPOPBLGZ form /TPOUFRPZ. 16 A Pretty much whenever she was leaving to go 17 on a trip I would drive her there. 18 BY MR. EDWARDS: 19 Q Times when she went therein during the day 20 and came back that night? 21 A Yes. 22 Q And would you be the person that drove her 23 on those occations too? 24 A No. 25 Q She would drive herself on those Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 26 **ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 139 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 occasions? 2 A Yeah. 3 Q Were there times when you drove her to the 4 airport, the private airport? 5 A The private airport I picked her up from. 6 I never drove her there. 7 Q Did you see epi/SPAOEPB airplane at the 8 airport? 9 A Yes. 10 Q What did it look like? 11 A Object form. 12 A A big black leer jet I guess it was. I 13 don't know. It was a pretty nice black jet. 14 Q Did you observe Virginia entering or 15 exiting that airplane? 16 A Yes. 17 Q And other than Virginia what other people 18 did you observe entering or exiting that airplane? 19 A I'm pretty sure Jeffrey and Ms. Maxwell 20 were both there. 21 Q Can you tell me the first time that you 22 met Ms. Maxwell. Describe that occasion? 23 A Like I said we were just pretty much I was 24 in the house hang out and she was in the kitchen she 25 was there one of the times I guess. And pretty much Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 26 **ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 143 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 Q How many times did you go to Jeffrey 2 epi/STAOEPBZ pool area? 3 A Like three times. 4 Q And on the three occasions that you went 5 to Jeffrey epi/STAOEPBZ pool area who else was by 6 had pool parea? 7 A I understand nobody like I was liltry just 8 sitting out there by myself waiting for her to get 9 done talking with him. But pretty much everytime I 10 was at that house there was just random girls the 11 chef and Ms. Maxwell. 12 Q At this time in 2000 one your how old are 13 you. What is your date of birth? 14 A March 4th 1982. I'm 34. 15 Q Okay. So in 2001 you about 19? 16 A Yeah. 17 Q When you were at Jeffrey epi/STAOEPBZ 18 house and by the pool? 19 A Uh-huh. 20 Q I your describing other girls that were in 21 had house did youknow these other hours? 22 A No they were like fraught different 23 countries. 24 Q Hoe did you know they waere from different 25 contries? Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 26 **ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 144 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 A Because whenever they would talk or I 2 would hear them say blah blah or she would tell me 3 this girl was this place and that girl was thaw that 4 place. 5 Q Would could tell from the accent? 6 A Yeah. 7 Q Would you ever talk to these girls? 8 A Not really. I mean sometimes I would. 9 But not like a conversation about asking what they 10 were doing ear. 11 Q At this time 19 years old. Can you tell 12 me what the age range of these girls you describing 13 that are foreign girls at Jeffries house? 14 MS. MENNINGER: Objection form 15 /TPAUFRPBGZ. 16 A They looked about Virginia's age. They 17 all looked about that about 17, 18. But I don't 18 know. I did not ask hem how old they were so I 19 don't know the exact number. 20 BY MR. EDWARDS: 21 Q Okay. And when you were in the house by 22 the pool by yourself you said Virginia was just I 23 guess describing one occasion Virginia was just talk 24 to them? 25 A Jeffrey I don't know about what. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 26 **ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 145 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 Q Was Ms. Maxwell the? 2 A I'm not sure I know she was only there 5 3 or six times out of the whole time I was with her 4 that I met her. 5 Q All right. And each of the five or six 6 times that you met Ms. Maxwell do I understand it 7 correctly that it was inside Jeff sephouse? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Each of the 5 or six times that you met 10 Ms. Maxwell inside of Jeffrey's house was your 11 conversation with her always fairly similar stoowhat 12 you described? 13 A Yeah, it was never like I never talked to 14 her as I would like Jeffrey. Like she never set 15 down with me I had a conversation 0 high how you 16 doing blew blew ahow doing and that would be it. 17 Q Okay. 18 Q And when St. The first time you met 19 Jeffrey Epstein in relationship the the first time 20 you met Ms. Maxwell. Meaning did you meet him 21 first. Second? 22 A I met Jeffrey first. 23 Q How did how were you introduced to Jeffrey 24 Epstein? 25 A Just high this is Jeffrey this is Tony, Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 26 **ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 146 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 you know, just casually. 2 Q When is the first time that you were asked 3 by anyone to bring other girls Jeff /AEF 4 epi/STAOEPBZ house? 5 A Pretty much right after she left. When 6 she would go on trips. They would just ask me if I 7 would find like Jeffrey would say when you get back 8 find more girls to have here blue blue this and 9 that. And then after she went to thiland when he 10 was calling me searching for her he would throw that 11 in there randomly do you have any girls. And then 12 where is Virginia at. Like trying to seem like he 13 was trying to get more information about her than 14 anything after she left but make it seem like still 15 wanted me to be around kind of. 16 Q Okay. 17 A But I don't know exactly. 18 Q Okay. So in the beginning? 19 A Uh-huh. 20 Q Of your going over to Jeffrey Epstein 21 house primary it was just you and Virginia? 22 A Yeah,. 23 Q At someintp point in time Virginia starts 24 recruiting other girls to go to the house; is that 25 right? Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 26 **ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 148 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 Q Describe for us what these girls looked 2 like that were being brought to the house? 3 MS. MENNINGER: Object to the form found 4 vague time to place. 5 BY MR. EDWARDS: 6 Q Sorry let me prephrase the question during 7 this 2001 period if you were driving Virginia and 8 another girl to the house, what type of girls would 9 you be driving? 10 MS. MENNINGER: Form form foundation. 11 A Pretty much like young looking teenager 12 girls 16, 17, really pretty. 13 Q How did you know that's what was being 14 requested that that age range and that look and? 15 A I just assumed that that's what most guys 16 are into. 17 Q Girls that looked like Virginia? 18 A Yeah. 19 Q When you would bring girls over to the 20 house were you looking for some sort of professional 21 mussuese or massge experience? 22 A Just get friends that I knew from school. 23 Q And that's what Jeffrey wanted? 24 A Yeah. 25 MS. MENNINGER: Object form founds. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 26 **ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 149 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 BY MR. EDWARDS: 2 Q How did you know what Jeffrey wanted? 3 A That's what he asked me. 4 Q What would he ask you? 5 A Ask me to try to find gills a resem 6 believed like somewhat that type. 7 Q And when you would bring these girls that 8 resem believed Virginia or some type would Jeffrey 9 Epstein pay you? 10 A Yes cension form /STKPWHROUPBGZ. 11 Q Would Jeffrey pay you every time? 12 A Ojbection form foundation. 13 A Yes. 14 Q And how much would he pay you foreach girl 15 that you brought to him? 16 A Object form founds. 17 A Two hundred dollars apiece. 18 Q Where would this transaction tace place? 19 A Object to the form. 20 MS. MENNINGER: Object to the form 21 /TPOUFRPBLZ the living room. 22 BY MR. EDWARDS: 23 Q And how much money do you think overall 24 Jeffy epistein paid you for bringing girls to him? 25 A Me personal or us together. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 26 **ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 152 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 Q Sure. How how often did Jeffy Epstein ask 2 you to bring girls to the house? 3 A Pretty much as much as possible like he 4 would tell us as men girls we could bring the 5 better, so... 6 Q When you say us who are the us? 7 A Me I Virginia. 8 Q So walking me through an example of that 9 you would go thohouse with Virginia and describe 10 what would happen that ultimately let to this 11 conversation that you just describe would Jeff /AEF 12 Epstein? 13 A Well because /THRAOEU explain that. 14 Q Sure you I Virginia my initial question 15 was I think you initial answer was is as often 16 Jeffrey bring girls to him as muffin as possible as 17 many osto us. Us being you I Virginia. So walk ame 18 through an example go thohouse and then where do you 19 have this discussion where did you have this 20 discussion what words did he use what did he tell 21 you specifically? 22 A Specifically he just said see if you can 23 find firls. It was in the living room. There's a 24 little desk that is where I normally talk to him. He 25 would sit behind the so you have any nor girls you Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 26 **ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 153 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 want to beak in a cupp for nis weekend and like I 2 said pretty much every time I went there if I knew 3 /KPWEBLS I could bring to him I started bring ilto I 4 guessee liked then they would start doing stuff 5 without me so then slowy just fading out, you know. 6 Q Squat this point Jeffrey Epstein in the 7 living room and Virginia to bring other girls? 8 A Uh-huh. 9 Q Was he using the world massage anymore? 10 A No,ee did not say anything like that just 11 is saying to bring them. 12 Q At that stage where this conversation a 13 happening dud you already settle conversation and 14 Virginia you knew what was actually at the house as 15 apoid I'ma masagge therapist? 16 A I'm not positive but I don't doubt it. 17 Q Once you were hin house with Virginia and 18 you were having these conversation with Jeffy 19 Epstein was it obviously to you whata happening that 20 house? 21 A I mean it was obvious to me. Like I said 22 I never witnesses any of the stuff so... 23 Q Of course? 24 Q What would you tell the girls that you 25 would bring to Jeffrey's what the did you del the Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 26 **ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 154 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 Jeffries house to get them to the house. 2 A Well I told them that it was for a 3 massage. And I told them obviously that if people 4 when they get massaged I don't know going to expect 5 more from you or not. If he does tell him know it's 6 up to you if you want to go. And they would still 7 do it it. 8 Q How did you know to use the word massage 9 to get the girls to Jeffrey epi/STAOEPBZ house? 10 A I did not want to straight up be like why 11 don't you jerk this guy off for money so... 12 Q You thought that was a better way to get 13 them to the house? 14 A Yeah, sounded a little bit more 15 professional aguess not as bad. 16 Q Okay. 17 Q When you brought other girls to the house 18 aside from Virginia where was elenmax in the house? 19 A Object form /STKPWHROUPBZ brought other 20 girls to the house aside from Virginia was 21 Ms. Maxwell in the house? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Where was Ms. Maxwell in the house when 24 you brought other girls to the house aside from 25 Virginia? Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 26 **ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 155 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 A In the kitchen. 2 Q And on these occasions would you see 3 Ms. Maxwell in the kitchen? 4 A Yes. 5 Q On these occasion when you would bring 6 girls other the Virginia to the house and 7 Ms. Maxwell was in the kitsch would Ms. Maxwell see 8 the girl you brought to the house? 9 A Yes. 10 A Form foundation. 11 Q And when you would brink these girls other 12 than Virginia to Jeff /AEF epi/STAOEPBZ house I see 13 Ms. Maxwell in the kitchen were you with the girl 14 that you just brought? 15 A Yes. 16 MS. MENNINGER: /TPOPBL form foun. 17 BY MR. EDWARDS: 18 Q I during these occasion what conversation 19 if any did Ms. Maxwell have knyefe girls you 20 brought? 21 A Not much pretty mump like I said when I 22 take the girls all it would just a friendly 23 conversation with everybody and just high what's 24 your name asking about what they do and where they 25 are and stuff like that. It was never anything like Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 26 **ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 156 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 sexual talk or anything like that. 2 Q Okay. So just so have a good image of that 3 bring a girl authority when you brought a other than 4 verge into -- what door did you enter Jeffrey 5 Epstein's house? 6 A When you pull up to his house a walkway 7 where higarage is like off to the side that's the 8 bay I always go. 9 Q I know the sider door by the kitchen? 10 A Yeah. 11 Q So on one of occasions if you can think to 12 one of the occasion brought a girl into the kitchen 13 other than Virginia? 14 A Uh-huh. 15 Q And Ms. Maxwell an in the kitchen, did you 16 and this /OEURT girl that you were bringing over sit 17 there and together have this small stalk and 18 McMaxal? 19 A Yeah. 20 MS. MENNINGER: Fom form foundation. 21 A Yes. 22 Q And how long would you and one of these 23 other girls sit there and have this small talk with 24 Ms. Maxwell? 25 A No more than 10 or 15 minutes. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 26 **ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 157 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 Q What were you waiting for? 2 A Pretty much her to take them up stairs 3 then I would leave. I would wait for them to be 4 like we're ready. And I would be all right. See you 5 later and I would leave. 6 Q You were waiting for who to take who up 7 stairs? 8 A I had seen Ms. Maxwell take a girl up 9 there well not up there visibly but I watched her 10 leave had room with one. 11 Q Up stairs? 12 A Well, I didn't see the stairs. Like in 13 the kitchen there's not like you have to go all 14 around and all that shit. 15 Q Let me just understand what you did see 16 then. So you brought a girl over. We're talking 17 about an instance where you brought another girl 18 over to the house? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And your in the kitchen with this other 21 girl and Ms. Maxwell? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And what did you actually see in terms of 24 of where did that girl and with whom? 25 A I just saw them leave the room. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 26 **ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 158 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 Q Together? 2 A Together. And assumed that they were 3 heading up to massage room. 4 Q Because that was the purpose of bringing 5 her over? 6 MS. MENNINGER: Objection. 7 A Yeah. 8 MS. MENNINGER: Form founds. 9 BY MR. EDWARDS: 10 Q When during that circumstance? 11 Q So you undderstand the circumstance I'm 12 talking about you bring a girl into the kitchen and 13 Ms. Mackle is in the kitchen? 14 A Uh-huh. 15 Q And you see Ms. Maxwell and this girl 16 leave the kitchen? 17 A Yes. 18 Q When during that circumstances do you get 19 paid? 20 A I gid paid before anything happens period. 21 I walk in the door talk to Jeffrey and then he hands 22 me my money walk back to kitchen say by and leave. 23 And then like I said at some point and seen her 24 before when I was leave walking the girl out the 25 living room out through the kitchen. So she could Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 26 **ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 159 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 have taken up stairs she could have not but I 2 definitely seen her walking. 3 Q On how many occasionings? 4 Q /KWROPBLT might I told me this but how 5 many occasion did you bring girls into the kitchen 6 and the three of you, you the girl you brought and I 7 /STKPWEULian Maxwell have conversation? 8 A Not many. I only met her maybe six times. 9 Q Each of the times you met gillian Maxwell 10 in Jeffrey epi/STAOEPBZ house did you have girls 11 that were being brought to Jeffrey? 12 A Everything time at the house it was either 13 with Virginia or some girl. I never went there by 14 myself. 15 Q He did not have a use for you? 16 A Yeah, he did not need me. 17 Q All right. That beginning of the 18 deposition I believe tell me if I got this wrong I 19 believe talk about it time Virginia just gone to 20 thiland talking to you in telephone? 21 A Uh-huh. 22 Q And you believe Jeff /AEF was supposed to 23 pay the phone bill; is that correct? 24 A Yeah. 25 Q Why did you believe Jeffrey Epstein was Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 26 **ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 161 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 lead to where is she, so... 2 Q How did Jeffrey Epstein have you telephone 3 number? 4 A I would imagine from Virginia. 5 Q Okay. What prior to her going did he call 6 you on the telepone? 7 A I mean sometimes he would have his 8 assistant call thee but he did call me sometimes. 9 Q Which assistant call you of jiffy 10 sep/STAOEFRPBZ I can't remember her name but his 11 main asigh? 12 Q Would sarah callin cal lyou? 13 A I believe that's her. 14 Q Gillian Maxwell call you? 15 A I think she might have once or twice. 16 I'm not positive but I'm pretty sureee did. 17 Q Would the calls that gill wherein Maxwell 18 made to you been during the time that you were 19 living with Virginia or after Virginia had left? 20 A It was while living together. 21 Q And what would be what did Virginia what 22 did gillian Maxwell say to you when she called you 23 while living? 24 A 25 MS. MENNINGER: Objection miscontact when Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 26 **ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 162 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 watt. 2 A And what say what did he say? 3 Q Yes. 4 A Just ask mead had anybody else lined up. 5 Q Anything else lined up for what? 6 A Objection form /TPOUFRPBLDZ. 7 A For Jeffrey. 8 Q Let me fix this. Gill when gillian 9 Maxwell would call you during the time that you were 10 living with Virginia she would ask you what 11 specifically? 12 MS. MENNINGER: Fom form foundation. 13 A Just if I had found any ear girls just to 14 bring the Jeffrey. 15 Q Okay. 16 A Pretty much everytime a conversation with 17 any of them it was either asking Virginia where she 18 was ask the asking her to get girls or asking me get 19 girls. 20 Q Let's go to that second categorying you 21 just identified asking Virginia to get girls. How 22 many times were you in a room where specifically 23 gill max would ask Virginia to bring girls? 24 A Not that I can recall. 25 Q How many times when you say thigh asked Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 26 **ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 169 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 Q How often would Virginia according to 2 Virginia how much would Virginia and /PH*BGS maxal 3 go out look forg girls? 4 A I stopped asking after a while. I would 5 imagine every time but I don't recall. 6 A Every time when she was telling you or you 7 were asking that's what was happening. 8 A Yeah. 9 Q All right. And going back to when he 10 finally told you that having sex with these people? 11 A Uh-huh. 12 Q It was the people she told you that she 13 was having sex with Jeffp /STAOEPB Ms. Mackual 14 andthol other girls did you understand all the other 15 girls were? 16 A I just assumed justthol girls that heever 17 had at his house I never on a personal basis with 18 pretty much anyone except for the ones I went to 19 school with so... 20 Q And? 21 Q Of the girls brought to had us or that you 22 observed Virginia bring to the house how many of 23 them were professional masuesses? 24 A Zero. 25 Q What was the age range of the girls that Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 22 of 26 **ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 170 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 you start with you that you brought with Jeffy 2 Epstein. Object to the form foundation? 3 A Well had age-age brought for sure were 4 around my age. I met them through school people 5 where knew actually hung out with. 6 Q What were the age range of the girls your 7 observe thad Virginia brought to the house? 8 MS. MENNINGER: Object to the form 9 foundation. 10 A I like I said I never asked them how old 11 they all seemed like there were younger. 12 Q Are you bring you bring 253540 year olds 13 to the house? 14 A No. 15 Q So within a range? 16 A I'd say probably 16 to 19. 17 Q Okay. 18 MS. MENNINGER: /TPOPBLG /TPORP foundation 19 sore slipping it in afterwards but... 20 BY MR. EDWARDS: 21 Q Yousaid when you were at the house you saw 22 naked photos what is the naked photo? 23 A Pictures of people naked. 24 Q Photohad ezpeople that were faked? 25 A Yeah. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 23 of 26 **ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 185 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 /STKRAUP /UPD some a/KAEUZsiobe the inside. 2 A Yes. 3 Q Hung out the by had pool? 4 A Yes. 5 Q On the /KWEUFPB? 6 A Yes? And in total of the times you went 7 if soohad house you saw Ms. Maxwellout gut tall ix. 8 A Five or six times. 9 Q Total? 10 A Tote. 11 Q Not fix? 12 A /PAOERLD all together. 13 Q /WROU brought? 14 A All together period. 15 Q I thought you said asking you questions 16 that Ms. Maxwell ever Jude bring girls? 17 A I don't remember saying had a. 18 Q Tell me when did Ms. Macual ask row to 19 bring a girl? 20 A Never /EUFRP person like liltally on it 21 phone once or twice. 22 Q Did Ms. Maxwell call you /TPR-BGSly? 23 A No. 24 Q How many times do you think Ms. Mackle? 25 A Ever just a few couple times onceoy twice. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 24 of 26 **ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 186 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 Q /PHUPLG ort of /TAOEUFPL pretty much his 2 assistant? 3 Q How do you know /PH*GS Maxwell's voice? 4 A Sounds British. 5 Q So-so someone British acthe /SHAOEFRPBLG 6 told me who she was? 7 Q And what did see say wheni called you 8 asked you to bring gills? 9 A High a gillian Jeffy wandering had anybody 10 to could come /STKPWHROEFRB when did that happen. 11 A I'm not exactty shirr of time /TPRAEUFPL. 12 Q After the road house grillo /PW-F? 13 A Probably I would think before I'm pretty 14 sure pretty positive. 15 Q /TPWH-FR /HOED house grill wray? 16 A After started going back to work with 17 Jeffrey /STAUPLD talking to her went back to him I 18 never Todd to Ms. Mackual again after the had to 19 been before that. 20 Q When /TKPEUD you stop talking to? 21 A Just /TWAOEPBT there never like she was 22 anything more than a high how are you kind a thing 23 not like when I talked to Jeffy ask me about stuff 24 and hold an information with her just hay hours your 25 mom see yeah not anything detail. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 25 of 26 **ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 205 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 A /HRO*EUTSeredered not like debate that. 2 Q So you waiver reading it if you like all 3 right. Thank you very much for you time? 4 (Off the record at 1:23 p.m.) order order. 5 MS. MENNINGER: Orderered. 6 BY MS. MENNINGER: 7 Q 8 MR. EDWARDS: Yeah I wand a copy. 9 Cology dense said. /EUFPLTS disc 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 26 of 26 Exhibit 1 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 13 B O I E S, S C H I L L E R & F L E X N E R L L P 40 1 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD• SUITE •200 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 22 • PH . 954 .356.00 1 • FA X 954.356.0022 VIA E-MAIL Laura A. Menninger, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 lmenninger@hmtlaw.com Re: Guiffre v. Maxwell June 30, 2016 Case No. 15-cv-07433-RWS Dear Laura, Meredith L. Schultz, Esq. E-mail: mschultz@bsfllp.com I write pursuant to this Court's June 20, 2016, Order regarding search and production from Defendant's electronic media. Accordingly, please use IMAP Capable software (or a functional equivalent) to capture all of the sent/received emails from Ms. Maxwell's various email accounts, including but not limited to the following: (1) GMaxl@ellmax.com (and any other accounts at ellmax.com); (2) gmax I (@mindspring.com (and any other accounts at mindspring.com); (3) any of Ms. Maxwell's email account associated with The Terramar Project (including any account ending in@theterramarproject.org); and (4) any other email accounts either used in the past, or currently in use. Additionally, please use FileSeek software (or a functional equivalent) to retrieve any data, including electronic documents (such as Word documents; PDFs; Excel sheets; etc.), from Ms. Maxwell's devices, including personal computers, work computers, any tablets, and any phones. This includes any cloud storage accounts. Please confirm that you have imaged Ms. Maxwell's hard drives and other devices. Once you have gathered that data onto a platform (such as Summation or its functional equivalent), please run the below search terms. Since the Court ordered us to negotiate the search terms, please let me know if you think additional terms would be appropriate or whether you object to any terms, and your basis thereof. When applying the search terms, the search terms need to "hit" on documents even if the terms are embedded within other words. So, for example, the term "acuity" would yield a hit on the document, even if the word in the document is "acuityreputatoin." To return a hit on those WWW .BSFLLP.COM Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 13 Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 2 of 12 embedded terms, I request that you use "wildcards" to ensure that embedded terms are located. (Wildcard characters are used to expand word searches into pattern searches by "replacing" single or multiple characters.) Where there are a specific number of characters needed to be included, a single wildcard will achieve that purpose. For example, in some programs, ! is used for single character wildcards, and * is used for multiple character wildcards. For instance: (a) Single character wildcard example: a search for L!n! will return "long," "link," "lane," "lone," etc. (b) Multiple character wildcard example: a search for chil* will return "children," "chill," "chilling," etc. (c) Mixed use ofwildcards: a search for L!n* will return "lines," "lining," "linty," etc. Accordingly, the below search terms are submitted with wildcard characters to be applied in the manner of the examples above. Please apply them as such with whatever characters is required by the software/platform that you will be using. Similarly, regarding how the terms are combined (AND or OR). OR should expand your results while AND will restrict result to only those which include all the terms. Additionally, I want to clarify that I would like all of the metadata to be searched in addition to the text of the documents. For example, if the search term is "acuity," "hits" should include all the document that include the word "acuity" in their text OR in their metadata (this includes words in items such as email subjects, filenames, as well as any documents which include that word somewhere within their text). I also wanted to point out another special syntax with regard to proximity searching. This is a search that finds words within a specified distance from one another. On some software, this is represented as w/#, so a search for "meet w/2 greet" will return "meet and greet," "greet and meet" and "meet and nicely greet." Please apply accordingly. Additionally, for searches for people's initials in the search terms, please use "exact matches," "stand alone," or "literal" terms (see, e.g., PA, AD, JE, GM). Finally, the search terms are not to be treated as case-sensitive, meaning that the terms should be searched according to their letters, regardless of whether they are represented in the list as containing upper case or lower case letters. The following are the applicable search terms. 1) jefl' 2) geofl' 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 13 Jane Doe 2 Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 3 of 12 3) epst! !n* 4) jeevacation* 5) j* w/2 *jep* 6) j* w/2 *jeep* 7) roberts* 8) g!!ff!!* 9) virginia* 10) jenna* 11) jena* 12) genna* 13) andrew* 14) prince* 15) royal* 16) PA 17) JE 18) GM 19) AD 20) 21) - GX 22) massage* 23) masseur* 24) therapist* 25) ellmax* 26) mindspring* 27) gmax* 28) emmy* 29) taylor* 30) sara* 31) kellen* 32) kensington * 33) vikers* 34) dubin* 35) eva* 36) glen* 37) brunel* 38) jean* 39) luc* 40) nadia* 3 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 13 Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 4 of 12 41) marcinko* 42) *copter* 43) chopper* 44) pilot* 45) manifest* 46) log* 47) flight* 48) passport* 49) terramar* 50) southern* w/3 district* 51) palm* w/3 beach* 52) state* /3 attorney* 53) ross* 54) gow* 55) acuity* 56) victoria* w/3 secret* 57) al!n* 58) all!n* 59) dersh* 60) law.harvard.edu * 61) alandersh* 62) 63) 64) new* w/3 mexico* 65) NM 66) virgin* w/3 island* 67) usvi* 68) little* w/3 st* 69) little* w/3 saint* 70) st* w/3 j* 71) saint* w/3 j* 72) lsj* 73) Iago* 74) clinton* 75) BC 76) HC 77) HRC 78) police* 4 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 13 Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 5 of 12 79) cop* 80) fbi* 81) federal* w/3 bur* 82) bur* w/8 inves! * 83) sex* 84) abuse* 85) toy* 86) dildo* 87) strap* w/3 on* 88) vibr* 89) sm* w/3 101 * 90) slave* 91) erotic* 92) servitude* 93) abernathy* 94) brillo* 95) high* w/3 school* 96) secondary* w/3 school* 97) campus* 98) duke* 99) york* 100) licen!e* 101) assault* 102) juvenile* 103) seal* 104) joint* w/3 defen* 105) jda 106) roadhouse* 107) grill* 108) illegal* 109) immune* 110) prosecut* 111) law* w/3 enforc* 112) jane* w/3 *doe* 113) hospital* 114) hotel* 115) suite* 116) villa* 5 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 13 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 6 of 12 117) model* 118) actress* 119) france* 120) paris* 121) zoro* 122) ranch* 123) vanity* w/ 3 fair* 124) alexander* 125) kathy* 126) miles* 127) james* 128) austrich* 129) phil* 130) barden* 131) - 132) fary* 133) boothe* 134) laura* 135) evelyn* 136) boulet* 137) boylan* 138) bee* 139) bunner* 140) casey* 141) carolyn* 142) carolin* 143) paul* 144) cassell* 145) sharon* 146) churcher* 147) cousteau* 148) alexandar* 149) devansan* 150) 151) 152) edwards* 153) amanda* 154) ellison* 6 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 13 Jane Doe 2 Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 7 of 12 155) cimberly* 156) espinosa* 157) Tatiana* 158) farmer* 159) maria* 160) nn* 161) fekkai* 162) crystal* 163) figueroa* 164) anthony* 165) tony* 166) freeh* 167) louis* 168) dare* 169) gany* 170) garvin* 171) meg* 172) sheridan* 173) gibson* 174) but!e* 175) graff* 176) fred* 177) phil* 178) guderyon* 179) 180) 181) harrison* 182) shannon* 183) victoria* 184) hazel* 185) brittany* 186) henderson* 187) jaffe* 188) carol* 189) kess* 190) kutikoff* 191) pete* 192) listerman* 7 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 13 Jane Doe 2 Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 8 of 12 193) lyons* 194) bob* 195) meister* 196) jamie* 197) melanson* 198) lyn! * w/100 miller* 199) 200) 201) 202) 203) vanessa* 204) mullen* 205) pagano* 206) mary* 207) paluga* 208) stan* 209) potting er* 210) recarey* 211) reiter* 212) richards* 213) sky* 214) rothstein* 215) forest* 216) sawyer* 217) doug* 218) schoetlle* 219) cecelia* 220) stein* 221) mark* 222) tafoya* 223) brent* 224) tindall* 225) kevin* 226) kim* 227) thompson* 228) tuttle* 229) vaghan* 230) cresenda* 8 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 13 Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 9 of 12 231) valdes* 232) valla* 233) martiza* 234) vazquez* 235) vick* 236) ard* 237) jarr!d* 238) weisfeld* 239) courtn!y* w/5 wild* 240) alessi* 241) rizzo* 242) rinaldo* 243) biddle* 244) sophie* 245) sofie* 246) degeo* 247) anouska* - 249) - fontanilla * 250) lynn* 251) jo* w/3 jo* 252) gramza* 253) grant* 254) waitt* 255) ted* 256) theod* - - - - - 1111 260) kovylina* - - 263) - lang* - 265) - listerman* 266) lopez* 267) cindy* 268) lutz* 9 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 13 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 10 of 12 269) mellawa* 270) brah* 271) jay* 272) 273) - 274) - mitrovich* 275) andrea* 276) peadon* 277) bill* 278) francis* 279) preece* 280) dara* 281) louella* 282) rabuyo* 283) robson* 284) haley* 285) adriana* 286) mucinska* 287) spamm* 288) visosky* 289) doug* OR dan* w/100 wilson* 290) igor* 291) zinoview* 292) allyson* 293) alyson* 294) alison* 295) allison* 296) chambers* 297) Gwendolyn* 298) beck* 299) Kelly* 300) Kelley* 301) Bovina* 302) ron* 303) burkle* 304) max* 305) cordero* 306) vald* 10 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 13 Jane Doe 2 Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 11 of12 307) cotrin* 308) chauntae* 309) dav* 310) teala* 311) ry!n* 312) dionne* 313) anders!n* 314) Rosalie* 315) fr!!dman* 316) tiffany* 317) Kathryn* 318) eric* 319) erik* 320) Lesl* 321) groff* 322) clair* -- - 325) - gina* 326) ignatieva* 327) bret* 328) adam* 329) perry* 330) liffman* 331) Michael* 332) mike* 333) cheri* 334) lynch* 335) todd* 336) 337) 338) Joanna* 339) sjoberg* 340) leslie* 341) wexner* 342) underage* 343) under!age* 344) minor* 11 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 13 Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 12 of 12 345) daily* w/10 mail* 346) daily* w/10 news* 347) lie* 348) obvious* w/10 lie* 349) sex w/3 toy* 350) nipple* 351) schoolgirl 352) school w/3 girl 353) us w/3 att* 354) United w/3 states w/3 att* 355) Guggenheim 356) Pedophil* 357) Paedophil* 358) Gerbil* 359) Traffic* 360) Bed* 361) Bath* 362) Masturbate* 363) Ejaculate* 364) Masseuse* 365) Lingerie 366) Boies* 367) Mccawley* 368) Schultz* Meredith L. Schultz MLS:dk 12 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 13 Exhibit 2 (File Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 16 (*6''3& $POGJEFOUJBM State v. Jeffrey Epstein Public Record No:16-208 State Files SAO Disc 7 of 7 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 16 02/11/2015 Page 2296 Public Records Request No.: 16-268 (*6''3&
$POGJEFOUJBM Ja Jane Doe 2 Mercedes Benz 600 2001 Black Mercedes Benz 600 1997 Black Licence: G 14KCT Mercedes Benz 600 Conv 1998 Silver Licence: RAS85L Suburban 2001 Black I ' ,.r,..CiJ l:;:Ji) Licence: WGE53R '/' ~ Crysler Mini Van 1996 White Licence: WGE52A Cobra Grand 1993 Green Volvo ✓--- 1998 / ' Mrs Epstein / / Oil Well / VEIDCLES ( 561 ) 309-6415 Rear (561) 379-9390·-~t "'~ _'&c,..,._ ~Jr }(?)Py (561) 758-1672 Rear (561) 818-8867 Front (561) 346-7141 (561) 371-1686 (561) 308-5700 (561) 686-3707 900 Southern Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33405 Tel: (561) 835-9374 Mercedes Benz of Palm Beach 4000 Okeechobee Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Att: Shawn Adison Tel: (561) 689-6363 Roger Dean Chevrolet 2235 Okeechobee Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Tel: (561) 683-8100 Nestor Auto Repairs 2600 Florida Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Tel: (561) 835-0809 Nestor Auto Repairs 2600 Florida Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Tel: (561) 835-0809 Volvo Palm Beach 5544 Okeechobee Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33417 Tel: (561) 471-7600 Oil change every 3 000 miles Registration, insurance and yearly inspection papers to be kept in the glove compartment of each vehicle Spare keys are kept in the key box in the office Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 16 02/11/2015 Page 2297 Public Records Request No.: 16-268 (*6''3&
$POGJEFOUJBM Jane Doe 2 Muvico Parisian Bishop Water Co Carmine Giardini's C'est Si Bon Publix Super Market Wild Oats Pharmacy City Place 545 Hibiscus Street West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Tel: (561) 833-0400 GROCERY STORES ll'i Tel: (561) 582-1367 c;w~ 2401 PGA Boulevard, Suite 172 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 280 Sunset Avenue Palm Beach, FL 33480 Tel: (561) 659-6503 265 Sunset Avenue Palm Beach, FL 33..480 Tel: (561) 655-4120 7735 South Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33405 Tel: (561) 585-8800 Ru-i-.r￾fiij-bottled water (large and sn;iall} Fish, meat, gourmet foods Gourmet foods General, cleaning, toiletries Health Foods HEALTH & BEAUTY Greens Pharmacy 151 North County Road Palm Beach, FL 33480 Tel: (561) 832-4443 Lewis Pharmacy 235 South County Road Palm Beach, FL 33480 Tel: (561) 655-7867 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 16 02/11/2015 Page 2298 Public Records Request No.: 16-268 (*6''3&
$POGJEFOUJBM Water Electricity Gas Sewer Trash Removal Telephone UTILITIES City of West Palm Beach 226 Cypress Lane Palm Springs, FL 33461 Tel: (561) 965-sno Florida Power and Light General Mailing Facility Miami, FL 33188-0001 Tel: (561) 697-8000 Florida Gas Company 401 South Dix·ie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Tel: (561) 832-0872 City of West Palm Beach 226 Cypress Lane Palm Springs, FL 33461 Tel: (561) 965-5770 Water shut-off for entire property is located next to the mailbox on the sidewalk. City of West Palm Beach Daily (Monday -Frida~ 226 Cypress Lane . . Palm Springs, FL 33461 1 l('.a, c 1 ~-,, \,\1, 1 \\,, v, j 1o&-l t-l a>~ Tel: (561) 965-5770- Lv 0\.e,.... Y\? ("lo\) 0:-("~ ffi)?..:t. \n,\.-\1-o'f\"\~.A ETC ' 2921 N Australian Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33407 Tel: (561) 881-8118 Bell South Tel: (561) 780-2611 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 16 02/11/2015 Page 2299 Public Records Request No.: 16-268 (*6''3&
$POGJEFOUJBM Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Plumber Pool Tree Trimming Storage USA Car Detailing Foster Plumbing General plumbing repairs 2800 Westgate Avenue West Palm Beack, FL 33409 Roto Rooter Blocked drains 6600 NW 12th Avenue, Suite 213 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 Tel: (561) 832-1495 Hackl Pools 1331 Central Terrace Lake Worth, FL 33460 . (!, ~a;f '- Tel: (561) 588-7493 \)1.1/ County Wide Tree Service Tel: (561) 371-5786 STORAGE 5580 Okeechobee Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33417 Tel: (561) 683-9955 VEIDCLES each Wa q e,01?..c,e ./ GI ec, 11 lcr If. ii 71-L/ 6 W 1 >t /} J/e flo y 11 -lo'7 l]eqc/2 r / 53126 Monday and Thursday at 10:30am Clean pool, filter, ad ~~Gi6~ First Monday in May and November 1 O ft x 20 ft unit available ~.G. 1 ·2. 4 .s aj v:..-l tw. ~)'h'.\o~~/~ 3 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 16 02/11/2015 Page 2300 Public Records Request No.: 16-268 (*6''3&
$POGJEFOUJBM Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 FedEx Post Office Air Conditioning Awnings Cable Service Carpenter Carpet Cleaners Computers MAIL & DELIVERY SERVICES 1-800-463-3339 Account No: - Drop-off box is next to Palm Beach National Bank on Worth Avenue 401 South County Road West Palm Beach, FL Tel: (561) 832-0697 lVIAINTENANCE Cassidy Air Conditioning 501 Fern Street West Palm Beach, FL 33401 - \l zL~ Tel: (561) 833-6331 . ·' ~ t ~-. American Awning Company 537 Pine Terrace West Palm Beach, FL 33405 Tel: (561) 832-7123 Adelphia Cable 1401 North Point Parkway West Palm Beach, FL 33407 Tel: (561) 478-8300 Stanley Steamers Tel: (561) 586-5700 Merry Rugs Tel: (561) 588-8588 0022 Monthly service contract First Monty of ~very mo~h -:)0 0 ~<c c.'--- v--,lA,(/VI.) Wall to wall Loose rugs Palm Beach consultants: Chad Banta Peter Kapopoulos Tel: I , Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 16 02/11/2015 Page 2301 Public Records Request No.: 16-268 (*6''3&
$POGJEFOUJBM Jane Doe 2 TRAVEL Pilots Larry Visoski ✓ Dave Rodgers Larry Morrison Mr Epstein's planes Jet Aviation Ms Maxwell's plane Raytheon C1 V\ c.., 5c.J \-o•. Commercial Airlines Air France American British Airways Continental Delta South African Airways United US Air (561) 233-7241 Procedure for leaving cars at the airport Leave car at Jet Aviation landing strip Leave the keys in the car Advise Jet Aviation Tail-#909JE or Tail #908JE They will tag and pull car to plane upon arrival 1-888-835-9782 Contract No: Air 4 Tail# ... TA Always a Beech Jet or Hawker 1-800-237-2747 1-800-433-7300 1-800-24 7-9297 1-800-525-0280 1-800-221-1212 1-800-722-9675 1-800-241-6522 1-800-428-4322 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 16 02/11/2015 Page 2302 Public Records Request No.: 16-268 (*6''3&
$POGJEFOUJBM Jane Doe 2 Household Banking Account Bicycles Newspapers Magazines Francis Peadon House Cleaning Services The Breakers Comedy Comer The Mar-a-Lago Club BANKING Palm Beach National Bank 125 Worth Avenue Palm Beach, FL 33480 Tel: (561) 653-5594 BICYCLES Palm Beach Bicycle Trail Shop 223 Sunrise Avenue Palm Beach, FL 33480 Tel: ( 561) 659-4583 ~ Colo \r\ \.c.\ ~2¼ L /wo ·y \.Ir.. /\vi. . ..... ~ V\ Lcr l/\"' ~ Lq; <::>V\O .....- Account No: Send to Eric Gany for reconciliation $1,000 Petty Cash Float Mongoose Crossway 450 Raleigh Aluminium 300 Mercedes Benz Cignal Sports Bike Schwinn World Huffy Santa Fe Raleigh Sport Scott Boston BOOKSTORES Publix Super Market 265 Sunset Avenue Palm Beach, FL 33480 Tel: (561) 655-4120 Main Street News 255 Royal Poinciana Way Palm Beach, FL 33480 Tel: (561) 833-4027 CLEANING SERVICE One South County Road Palm Beach, FL 33480 Tel: (561)655-6611 2000 South Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Tel: (561) 833-1812 1100 South Ocean Boulevard Palm Beach, FL 33480 Tel: (561) 832-2600 very Tuesday and Wednesday :00am - 4:00pm Francis and Pastora Peadon) Renew car park stickers every September Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 16 02/11/2015 Page 2303 Public Records Request No.: 16-268 (*6''3&
$POGJEFOUJBM Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Electrician Exterminator Garden Service Garage Doors Gates Irrigation Landscape Spraying Locksmith Painter Energy Efficient Electric Tel: (561) 655-7211 Palm Beach Exterminating Tel: (561) 689-0808 Alan Stopek Efflorescence Jerome Pierre The Ooorsmith 4160 NW First Avenue Boca Raton, FL 33431 Tel: 561 391-7768 Contact is Ken First Monday of every month at 10:30am Also use for termite tent Part-time help. Billed through Alan Stopek. In residence: Daily from 6.30am Not in residence: Mon - Fri from 2pm - 5pm Also maintains Mrs Epstein's property on Saturday mornings. Reich Metal Fabricators/\ 0 ""' Back door gate switch - above garage door /--.. \ controls. When open, round red light is on. Tel: (561) 585-3173 J V\ 't\ t/ Dolphin Sprinkler Inc Tel: (561) 844-8082 J')"'6t"' Academy Services Tel: (561) 478-4629 Wilson Rowan Locksmiths 625 South Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Front door gate switch - in telephone outlet above the kitchen telephone Arrange through Alan Stopek Bill ~ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 16 Page 2304 o.: 16-268 (*6''3&
$POGJEFOUJBM Jane Doe 2 J Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 ~ s\J;t '. ~ ~ ~ ~~ -~ _· ~?A'\ k s io1~\(( _ 1:>~tLL, - •t<:"' ?""" "\ I ~}>cf'~ .,L \3 ,- V'A,U (_ k" - ~ I - y~ ~ i l,,t )i ~ \p-1,,c;J~~o~ - -r-;;I.JI o.oD~c~ &,--- c6o'36 ite l)h1~ \ 2..-, -~~ct011 je)M Luu k , -- ~ v-~tb ik tovfoM ~ N r/ ~il~ L6\, ~ .. , ~ -0 . - [.ll •• ~ U(c ~ - ,,· \ L0 ~ ti CoJ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 16 02/11/2015 Page 2305 Public Records Request No.: 16-268 (*6''3&
$POGJEFOUJBM Jane Doe 2 JaJane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 , Address / Telephone Sheet # 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach Fl, 33480 Name Mr. Jeffrey Epstein (NYSG LLC 457, Madison Avenue 4th Floor Address New York, NY 10021. I Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell Accountants Eric Gany f <" • l=~J:> ~~NN~ ~l-~ • Bella K.lein-Accountanf.\ C'Pct f\"i Ce 1 'h, ~e-"() ') Assistants Leslie Groff (JE Sec) Cecelia Helan Kim Mciuh1U1 Cemp89 ~""~ 1>..,._,1.& Property Keith Blumberg Engineer ~ 7 ~ "ttt) 24, •l\l~ 0. ·1 .. • 5C.l.lcOeTI LE Computers 'O 'D Mark Lumberg Residences of Mr. Jeffrey Epstein 9 East 71 ' 1 Street. New York NY 10021 Mr. Jeffrey Epstein Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell Staff House Manager Jojo House Manger Lynn Staff Phone Chef Brent Tindall Telephone/Fax Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 16 02/11/2015 Page 2306 Public Records Request No.: 16-268 (*6''3&
$POGJEFOUJBM Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Palm Beach Contractors General Plumbing Customer Service represeotative Amy 561 585 259 I Electrical Reel Power Inc Lenny (electrician) 5617060827 Gates Samco Systems Sam (owner) 5617194832 Service gate switch: above garage door controls, when round light is on Front gate switch: just above the telephone outlet kitchen area Garage doors The Door Smith fuc Telephones Southern Bell (repairs) Internal Phone system ( NEQ Repair and Programming AJarm System Benham [ndustries Inc Locksmith Wilson & Rowan A/C Maintenance John C Cassidy Handyman Carlos (cl!IJ)enter) 4-i,CC.\ r•·d..v Landscape Alan Stopeck _y Pest Control X/ Palm Beach Exterminator Irrigation Dolphin Sprinkle Pool Heating National Pool Service Pool Maintenance Hack Pool Service Tree Trimming Country Wide Trees Carpet Cleaners Stanley Steamers Merry Rug Keith Kelly Keith 24 hr service Kim When needed Monday/ Thursday Twice, swnmer/winter wall to wall area rug 561 780 2355 561 8818118 854 491 411 2 561 655 3637 561 844 8082 561 478 4696 561 585 8866 561 588 7493 561371 5786 5615865700 5615888588 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 16 02/11/2015 Page 2307 Public Records Request No.: 16-268 (*6''3&
$POGJEFOUJBM Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Cable Adelphia cable Cable TV Bottled Water. Bishop water company A vion water Upholsterer Frank Jeanes Gas Gas Energy Inc (Joe Di Giovanni) aU gas repairs) Laundry equipment May Tag Painter Sam Contact Lenny Storage Storage USA 5580, Okeechobee Blvd Unit 6218 Grocery & General Household items General Grocery Publix 265, Sunset Ave Gourmet food c· est si boo 289, Sunset Blvd Carmines 2401 PGA Blvd Take 95 North to PGA Blvd Too Jays Gravelox/ Nova sliced salmon Green Pharmacy 151 ., N Cowily Road Flowers Extra tOll.dl flowers Hardware Home Depot Sewell Hardware 528 Clematis Street Newspapers Main Street News 255, Royal Poinciana Way Post Office 401 , South County Road, Car Detailing Taxi Service/Limo FedEx Recycling Trash collection Cars Mercedes of Palm Beach Chevrolet George Dan Tischen # 114420816 (Monday & Thursday) Every Thursday 6AM to 5PM M-F once a day Early Morning Auto Repairs Gray Sunoco 340 South County Nestor Auto 2600, Florida A venue GasolineGray Sunoco 561~0 561582 1367 - 561 963 0505 1800 622 4729 561 683 5835 561 655 4120 5616596503 5617759233 5616556545 5618324443 561 835 8000 5618320783 561 832 7171 5618334027 I : f I I 1800 463 3339 561 689 6393 561 683 8100 561 655 6645 5618350809 0 0 (. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 16 02/11/2015 Page 2308 Public Records Request No.: 16-268 (*6''3&
$POGJEFOUJBM Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 • --- .' t. :J+fTEL lf _ J -::::---- (( Ovit ~f' 1)~ 5z_~ f 2-: - irfp I t)Ps-· I . 1 ,-JC <-0 ~,' ·\ , r . - T , Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 16 02/11/2015 Page 2309 Public Records Request No.: 16-268 (*6''3&
$POGJEFOUJBM Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Ja Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 ~-d.~ - li{\~ 1:1s-r"wi Ad..~~""-c..._ - fl [I, 5•, ST PO'\ C\-0.A - C, lt G (OW~"' re~ Lvt.., - S('t)t'\~J t-t~M"-t') m~vs <.,/4 /o} ~ 33.0 "L A-M~ w, ll bt \\tr~ e... t, ~ ?,o '°""' - t-{l~lo>- 1:ooi'M ~~ l.LJc - f'ou....- 5.ec-.Sov\ S"t'L--1..ttx> ~++- .... c, \t 2'I I),;- t. •• 4 o tJ ""t\,\.....L:-t.. - c.oftq f of" ~"""'~-t. Bu'll\S - 1oJ➔ A~r14 . Cof"I\ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 16 EXHIBIT 8 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 4 United States District Court Southern District Of New York --------------------------------------------------X Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, v. 15-cv-07433-RWS Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. -----------------------------------------------X DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S INITIAL F.R.C.P. 26(a)(l)(A) DISCLOSURES Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 26(a)(l)(A), Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell makes the following disclosures: I. IDENTITIES OF INDIVIDUALS LIKELY TO HA VE 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 1327-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 4 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 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." 7. 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 Plaintiffs false statements to the press and in court pleadings, as well as the events of 1999-2002 concerning Plaintiff and Defendant. 8. Anthony Figueroa Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Mr. Figueroa may have knowledge concerning matters at issue, including Plaintiff's activities during 1996- 2002. 9. Louis Freeh Address unknown at this time Mr. Freeh may have knowledge concerning travel of Bill Clinton. I 0. Robert Giuffre Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Mr. Giuffre is may have knowledge concerning matters at issue, including Plaintiff's activities during 2002-2016 and her damages allegations. 11 . Ross Gow Acuity Representation 23 Berkeley Square London WIJ 6HE Mr. Gow may have knowledge concerning matters at issue, including the publication of statements in the press in 2011-2015 concerning Plaintiff and Defendant. 3 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 4 Dated: February 24, 2016. Respectfully submitted, s/ Laura A. Menninger Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374) HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303.831.7364 Fax: 303.832.2628 lmenninger@hmflaw.com Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on February 24, 2016, I electronically served this DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S INITIAL F.R.C.P. 26(A)(J) DISCLOSURES via e-mail on the following: Sigrid S. Mccawley Borns, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 smccawley@bsfllp.com s/ Laura A. Menninger Laura A. Menninger 7 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 4 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 MOTION TO ENFORCE THE COURT’S ORDER AND DIRECT DEFENDANT TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS FILED UNDER SEAL1 Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions. On June 20, 2016, this Court Ordered Defendant to sit for a second deposition because her refusal to answer questions posed in her first Deposition (June 20, 2016 Sealed Order, filed in redacted version at D.E. 264-1). Yet, during her second deposition, Defendant again refused to answer numerous questions regarding sexual activity related to Jeffrey Epstein in contravention of this Court’s Order. Accordingly, the Court should direct her to fully answer the relevant questions. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 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, DE1, at ¶ 27 (Giuffre “described Maxwell’s role as one of the main women who Epstein used to procure under-aged girls for sexual activities 1 Defendant has labelled her entire deposition transcript as Confidential at this time. - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 17 2 and a primary co-conspirator and participant in his sexual abuse and sex trafficking scheme”). Numerous other witnesses, with knowledge of Defendant’s activities, have testified to the same: x See Schultz Declaration (“Schultz Decl.”) at Composite Exhibit 1, Excerpts from May 18, 2016, Deposition of Johanna Sjoberg at p. 34:20-35:1. “Q. And did you -- what did you understand her to mean? A. [Maxwell] was implying that I did not get Jeffrey off, and so she had to do it. Q. And when you say "get Jeffrey off," do you mean bring him to orgasm? A. Yes.” . . . “How long did you work for Jeffrey and Ghislaine? A: I believe it was five years, 2001 to 2006. Q. And how many massages did Epstein receive per day on average? THE WITNESS: Three.” Id. at pg. 30:15-25. . . “Q. Did Jeffrey ever tell you why he received so many massages from so many different girls? A. He explained to me that, in his opinion, he needed to have three orgasms a day. It was biological, like eating.” Id. at p.32: 9-16. x See Schultz Decl. at Composite Exhibit 2, Excerpts from June 24, 2016, Deposition of Tony Figueroa at pg. 200:5-18; 96:8-15. “Q. …when Ghislaine Maxwell would call you during the time you were living with Virginia, she would ask you what specifically? A. Just if I had found any other girls just to bring to Jeffrey. Q. Okay. A. Pretty much every time there was a conversation with any of them it was either asking Virginia where she was at, or asking me to get girls.” “Q What has -- what is that? A. That her [Virginia] and Maxwell and Jeffrey would obviously be doing stuff, all three of them together. Like I said that they would all go out to clubs to pick up girls and try to find them to bring back for Jeffrey. And then she told me about how, like I said, her and Ms. Maxwell and Jeffrey were all intimate together on multiple occasions.” x See Schultz Decl. at Composite Exhibit 3, Excerpts of June 21, 2016, Deposition of Detective Recarey at pg. 29:11-20. “Q. “Okay. During your investigation, what did you learn in terms of Ghislaine Maxwell's involvement, if any? THE WITNESS: Ms. Maxwell, during her research, was found to be Epstein's long-time friend. During the interviews, Ms. Maxwell was involved in seeking girls to perform massages and work at Epstein's home.” x See Schultz Decl. at Composite Exhibit 4, Excerpts from June 10, 2016, Deposition of Rinaldo Rizzo at pg. 52:8. “A. What happens next when Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein and a 15-year-old girl walk into Eva Anderson's home? . . . “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 is just rambling, and I'm like what, and she said -- I asked her, I said what? And she says yes, I was on the island, I don't know how I got from the island to here. Last afternoon or in the afternoon I was on the island and now I'm here. And I said do you have a -- this is not making any sense to me, and I said this is nuts, do you have a passport, do you have a phone? And she says no, and she says Ghislaine took my passport. And I said what, and she says Sarah took her passport and her phone and gave it to Ghislaine Maxwell, and at that point she said that she was threatened.” Id. at pg. 56:2-24 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 17 3 x See Schultz Decl. at Composite Exhibit 5, Excerpts from June 1, 2016, Deposition of John Alessi at pg. 28:6-15. “Q. And over the course of that 10-year period of time while Ms. Maxwell was at the house, do you have an approximation as to the number of different females -- females that you were told were massage therapists that came to the house? THE WITNESS: I cannot give you a number, but I would say probably over 100 in my stay there." Id. at pg. 30:15-25 “Q: Did you go out looking for the girls -- A. No. Q. -- to bring -- A. Never. Q. -- as the massage therapists? A. Never. Q. Who did? A. Ms. Maxwell, Mr. Epstein and their friends, because their friends relayed to other friends they knew a massage therapist and they would send to the house. So it was referrals.” In response to Ms. Giuffre’s assertions about Defendant recruiting of females for sexual purposes, Defendant has made the sweeping claim that Ms. Giuffre’s assertions are “entirely false” and “entirely untrue.” Complaint, DE 1, at ¶ 31. Accordingly, this Court directed as follows: Defendant is ordered to answer questions relating to Defendant’s own sexual activity (a) with or involving Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein”), (b) with or involving Plaintiff, (c) with or involving underage females known to Epstein or who Defendant believed or intended might become known to Epstein, or (d) involving or including massage with individuals Defendant knew to be, or believed might become, known to Epstein. Defendant is also directed to answer questions relating to her knowledge of sexual activities of others (a) with or involving Epstein, (b) with or involving Plaintiff, (c) with or involving underage females known to Epstein or who Defendant believed were known or might become known to Epstein, or (d) involving or including massage with individuals Defendant knew to be or believed might become known to Epstein. (FN. Each of the aforementioned lists are disjunctive.) The scope of Defendant’s answers are not bound by time period, though Defendant need not answer questions that relate to none of these subjects or that is clearly not relevant, such as sexual activity of third-parties who bear no knowledge or relation to the key events, individuals, or locations of this case. See Schultz Decl. at Exhibit 6, Sealed June 20, 2016, Order at p. 10 (Emphasis added). Despite this instruction from the Court, during her deposition, Defendant refused to answer many questions related to “sexual activity with or involving Jeffrey Epstein, with or involving Plaintiff . . . or involving or including massage with individuals Defendant knew to be or believed were known to might become known to Epstein.” The result was that at a number of - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 17 4 points throughout her deposition, Defendant refused to answer questions about subjects integral to this lawsuit, including questions about a student, Joanna Sjoberg, who Defendant recruited from her school to give massages to, and have sex with, Jeffrey Epstein under the guise of hiring her to answer phones. For example, Defendant refused to answer questions about recruiting Ms. Sjoberg for sex with Epstein: Q. So is it fair to say that Johanna was initially hired to answer telephones, according to your testimony? MR. PAGLIUCA: This has already been testified to Mr. Boies. We are repeating testimony now. MR. BOIES: I think in the context of the witness’ answers, these are fair questions. Now, I’ve asked you before, if you want to instruct her not to answer, if you want to go to the judge, we are happy to do that, but I would suggest in the interest of moving it along, that you stop these speeches. MR. PAGLIUCA: You are not moving it along is the problem, so maybe we should call the court and get some direction here, because I am not going to sit here and rehash the testimony we already gave. MR. BOIES: That’s fin[e]. [At this point a telephone call was placed to Judge Sweet’s chambers]. See Schultz Decl. at Composite Exhibit 7, Excerpts from July 22, 2016, Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell at pg.78:17-79:14. MR. BOIES: So how did it happen, Ms. Maxwell, that Joanna, who had been hired to answer the phones, ended up giving massages to you and Mr. Epstein. MR. PAGLIUCA: I’m going to instruct you not to answer the question. This has been previously , the subject of your former deposition, it doesn’t fall into any of the categories ordered by the court, and so you don’t need to answer that. Id. at pg.81:15-25. Defendant’s counsel’s instruction not to answer was improper. This Court’s Order stated: “Defendant is also directed to answer questions relating to her knowledge of sexual activities of others . . . involving or including massage with individuals Defendant knew to be or believed Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 17 5 might become known to Epstein.” Ms. Sjoberg is an important witness in this case – one of the witnesses Ms. Giuffre has deposed. She is an individual Defendant knew to be known to Epstein, who knew and interacted with Ms. Giuffre when Ms. Giuffre was underage, and who participated in massage and sexual activities with Epstein. Defendant knew that Ms. Sjoberg was known to Epstein as Defendant recruited her to massage Epstein and participate in sexual activities during those massages. And Ms. Sjoberg testified directly about Defendant’s involvement, including Defendant’s offer or an expensive camera in exchange for sex: Q. Was there anything you were supposed to do in order to get the camera? A: I did not know that there were expectations of me to get the camera until after. She [Maxwell] had purchased the camera for me, and I was over there giving Jeffrey a massage. I did not know that she was in possession of the camera until later. 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. Q. And did you -- what did you understand her to mean? A. She was implying that I did not get Jeffrey off, and so she had to do it. Q. And when you say "get Jeffrey off," do you mean bring him to orgasm? A. Yes. See Schultz Declaration at Composite Exhibit 1, Excerpts from May 18, 2016 Deposition of Johanna Sjoberg at p. (P. 34:5-35:1). Q: …. What did you understand Maxwell to mean when she said 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: Yes, I took that conversation to mean that is what was expected of me.” Id. at p. 142:25-143:14 (Emphasis added). - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 17 6 In the wake of this specific deposition testimony from Ms. Sjoberg, during her own recent deposition, Defendant continued to refuse to testify about Ms. Sjoberg’s massages and sexual activity with Epstein: Q. Did Mr. Epstein pay Johanna for the massages that she gave Mr. Epstein? Mr. Pagliuca: You just asked this question, and I told her not to answer. I will tell her not to answer again for the same reasons. Q. Do you know how much Mr. Epstein paid Johanna to give massages? Mr. Pagliuca: Same instruction to the witness. Why do you believe this is within the scope of the court’s order? Mr. Boies: Because of the court’s reference to massages, and because I think how much a girl who was hired to answer the phone was paid to give a “massage” goes to whether there actually was or was not sexual activity involved. Mr. Pagiluca: The witness has testified there wasn’t. Mr. Boies: Perhaps it will surprise you, I think it should not, that I do not believe in my deposition I need to simply accept her characterization without cross-examination. Now that’s something the judge can decide, but a question as to how much this young girl was being paid for a “massage,” I think goes directly to the issue of sexual activity. See Schultz Decl. at Composite Exhibit 7, Excerpts from July 22, 2016 Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell at pg. 82:25-84:6. Additionally, Defendant refused to answer questions concerning the sexual abuse involving herself, Mr. Epstein, and Annie and Maria Farmer, described in a Vanity Fair article: “What do you have on the girls?” [Epstein] would ask the question over and over again. What I had “on the girls” were some remarkably brave first-person accounts. Three on￾the-record stories from a family: a mother and her daughters [Maria Farmer, Annie Farmer, and their mother] who came from Phoenix. The oldest daughter, an artist whose character was vouchsafed to me by several sources, including the artist Eric Fischl, had told me, weeping as she sat in my living room, of how Epstein had attempted to seduce both her and, separately, her younger sister, then only 16. He’d gotten to them because of his money. He promised the older sister patronage of her art work; he’d promised the younger funding for a trip abroad that would give her the work experience she needed on her resume for a place at an Ivy League university, which she desperately wanted - and would win. The girls’ mother told me by phone that she had thought her daughters would Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 17 7 be safe under Epstein’s roof, not least because he phoned her to reassure her, and she also knew he had Ghislaine Maxwell with him at all times. When the girls’ mother learned that Epstein had, regardless, allegedly molested her 16-year-old daughter, she’d wanted to fight back. “I Tried to Warn You about Sleazy Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein in 2003,” Vicky Ward, January 6, 2015, Daily Beast Article (Emphasis added). Defendant would not answer many questions concerning her role with in the molestation of these girls while she was sharing a house with Maria Farmer and Jeffrey Epstein: Q. Do you know whether or not Maria Farmer was ever at Mr. Wexner’s property in Ohio? Mr. PAGLIUCA: Can you tell me how that relates to this order, counselor? MR. BOIES: Yes, I think it goes directly to the sexual activity related to Maria Farmer and what Mr. Epstein was doing with Maria Farmer. Again, you can instruct not to answer. MR. PAGLIUCA: I’m trying to understand why you are asking these questions before I - MR. BOIES: I’m asking these questions because these are people who not only have been publicly written about in terms of the sexual activity that they were put into in connection with Mr. Epstein, but the person who wrote about them is someone who talked to the witness about it, and I think that this is more than easily understood cross￾examination. MR. PAGLIUCA: Your question was, do you know whether or not Maria Farmer was ever at Mr. Wexner’s property in Ohio. MR. BOIES: Yes. And if you let her answer, you will see where it leads. If you won’t let her answer, the judge is going to determine it. And I just suggest to you that you stop these speeches and stop debating, because you are not going to convince me not to follow-up on these questions. If you can convince the court to truncate the deposition, that’s your right, but all you’re doing is dragging this deposition out. MR. PAGLIUCA: You have the opportunity to give me a good faith basis why you are asking these questions. MR. BOIES: I have given you a good faith basis. MR. PAGLIUCA: You haven’t. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 17 8 MR. BOIES: Then instruct not to answer. MR. PAGLIUCA: I am giving you the opportunity to say why you are asking the questions, and why I’m telling her not to answer and I am entitled to know that. MR. BOIES: You are not entitled to know why I’m asking the question. You are only entitled to know that it relates to the subject matter that I am entitled to inquire about, and I don’t think the judge is going to think that, you know, where Mr. Epstein shipped Maria Farmer off to is outside the scope of what I’m entitled to inquire about. See Schultz Decl. at Composite Exhibit 7, Excerpts from July 22, 2016 Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell at pg. 99:6-101:20. Defendant’s counsel also stopped a line of questioning in which Defendant was asked if she recalled several girls Tony Figueroa brought over to give a “massage” to Epstein. The Court will recall that Mr. Figueroa previously testified in this case that he brought underage girls to Epstein at Defendant’s behest, and that Defendant called him, asking him to bring the girls.2 Accordingly, at Defendant’s recent deposition, Ms. Giuffre’s counsel attempted to follow up on this subject: Q. Have you ever heard the name of Carolyn Andriamo, A-N-D-R-I-A-M-O? A. I don't recollect that name at all. 2 Tony Figueroa testified that Defendant called him and asked him to bring girls over, and that there were no “legitimate” massages: “Q. Any of the girls that you are aware of having gone to the house - either because you brought them or Virginia - as you sit here today, do you believe any of them were brought over to be legitimate masseuse? A. Nope.” See Schultz Decl. at Composite Exhibit 2, Excerpts from June 24, 2016, Deposition of Tony Figueroa at pg. 245:1-8. “Q. And how long would you and one of these girls sit there and have this small talk with Ms. Maxwell? A. No more than 10 or 15 minutes. Q. All right and what were you waiting for? A. Pretty much her to take them upstairs. And then I would leave. Like I would have to wait for them to be like, ‘All right. Well we’re ready.’ And I would be like ‘All right. See you later.’ And then I’d leave. And they would go do whatever.” Id. at pg. 193:14-25. “Q. During this 2001 period, if you were driving Virginia and other girl to the house, what type of girls would you be driving? A. Pretty much like young looking teenagers 16, 17. Really pretty. You know.” Id. at pg. 182:4-10. - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 17 9 MR. PAGLIUCA: Mr. Boies, those names are on Exhibit 26, which we have already gone over and she said she didn't recognize those people, so now we are just repeating things that we went over. MR. BOIES: I am in the context of seeing if I can refresh her recollection, because these are women that who she also does not recall, brought over to Mr. Epstein's residences, and I also want to make a very clear record of what her testimony is and is not right now. Again, you can instruct her not to answer if you wish. MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm trying to get to nonrepetitive questions here. You basically asked the same question three times. Then we get a pile of notes that get pushed up to you, you read those. Then you ask those three times, and then we go to another question. So it's taking an inordinately long amount of time and it shouldn't. MR. BOIES: I think that is a demonstrably inaccurate statement of what has been going on, and I attribute -- maybe I shouldn't attribute it at all. But if you want to instruct not to answer, instruct not to answer. If you don't, again, all I will do is request that you cease your comments. I can't do that. All I can do is seek sanctions afterwards. See Schultz Decl. at Composite Exhibit 7, Excerpts from July 22, 2016, Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell at pg. 154:20-156:10. Based on Defendant’s refusal to answer questions related to specific girls, Mr. Boies was forced to discontinue asking questions about these victims. Defendant also refused to answer questions concerning the “sexual activities of others . . . involving or including massage with individuals Defendant knew to be or believed might become known to Epstein,” when she refused to answer a question about the records she kept of the young girls who would perform massage and sexual activities with Epstein: Q. Was there a list that was kept of women or girls who provided massages? MR. PAGLIUCA: This has been previously deposed on. This is not part of the court's order, I will tell her not to answer. MR. BOIES: You are going to tell her not to answer a question that says was there a list of women or girls who provided massages? MR. PAGLIUCA: She has been previously deposed on this subject. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 17 10 MR. BOIES: I think this is squarely in the court's order, but if you instruct her not to answer, you instruct her not to answer. MR. PAGLIUCA: We'll find out. Id. at pg. 184:14-185:6. Q. “In 2005, were you aware of any effort to destroy records of messages you had taken of women who had called Mr. Epstein in the prior period? MR. PAGLIUCA: Don’t answer that question. It’s outside the court’s order. Id. at pg. 177:5-11. Ample evidence in this case establishes that not only did Defendant recruit underage girls for massage and sexual activities with Epstein, but that she participated in calling the girls; getting other people to bring girls; talking to the girls; taking massages from and leaving messages about the girls; and scheduling the girls to come over. Accordingly, questions concerning written records documenting Defendant’s involvement in, and knowledge of, the girls who “massaged” Epstein is clearly within the ambit of this Court’s Order. For example, a message from July of 2004 records Defendant, “Ms. Maxwell,” giving a message to Mr. Epstein as message from (an underage girl who was 14 years old on the date of the message) that “ is available on Tuesday no one for tomorrow.” See GIUFFRE001465. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 17 11 See Schultz Decl. at Composite Exhibit 8, Messages Involving Defendant3 . In the investigation of Mr. Epstein’s sex crimes against minors, law enforcement was able to confirm identities of underage victims through the use of the names recorded these messages, which were recovered from Epstein’s trash.4 Accordingly, the messages, and the girls described therein, are fully within the ambit of this Court’s Order. 3 GIUFFRE001523; GIUFFRE001427; GIUFFRE001451; GIUFFRE001454; GIUFFRE001460; GIUFFRE001461; GIUFFRE001464; GIUFFRE001465; GIUFFRE001436; GIUFFRE001435; GIUFFRE001472; GIUFFRE001474; GIUFFRE001492; GIUFFRE001553; GIUFFRE001388; GIUFFRE001555; GIUFFRE001556; GIUFFRE001557; GIUFFRE001392; GIUFFRE001526; GIUFFRE001530; GIUFFRE001568; GIUFFRE001536; GIUFFRE001538; GIUFFRE001541; GIUFFRE001546; GIUFFRE001399; GIUFFRE001402; GIUFFRE001405; GIUFFRE001406; GIUFFRE001449; GIUFFRE001409; GIUFFRE001410; GIUFFRE001411; GIUFFRE00; etc. 4 Palm Beach Police Officer Recarey was deposed about information pulled by police officers from trash discarded by Epstein from his home: Q. The next line down is what I wanted to focus on, April 5th, 2005. This trash pull, what evidence is yielded from this particular trash pull? THE WITNESS: The trash pull indicated that there were several messages with written items on it. There was a message from HR indicating that there would be llB'!\llU'@'t'CIJ.il CAI.I. l\ l5 Mc~~li LE°' " @N ,_T_U_t:~-, ,- -- _ NO ,· t::l N il·Fe"ft/~ £JMO~~ ~ ft Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 17 12 Finally, Defendant also refused to answer foundational questions that are necessary to precede questions authorized by this Court, such as: x “In terms of preparing for this deposition, what documents did you review?” See Schultz Decl. at Composite Exhibit 7, Excerpts from July 22, 2016, Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell at 174:2-4. x Now, have you ever engaged in oral sex? Id. at 18:14-15. x Q. Did you ever have oral sex with anyone in any of Mr. Epstein's five homes that you've identified other than Mr. Epstein? Id. at 20:7-10. x Did you, in the 1990s and 2000s, engage in sexual activities other than intercourse with women other than what you have testified to already? Id. at 89:24-90:3. an 11:00 appointment. There were other individuals that had called during that day. Q. And when you would -- when you would see females' names and telephone numbers, would you take those telephone numbers and match it to -- to a person? THE WITNESS: We would do our best to identify who that person was. Q. And is that one way in which you discovered the identities of some of the other what soon came to be known as victims? THE WITNESS: Correct. See Schultz Decl. at Composite Exhibit 3, Excerpts of June 21, 2016 Deposition of Detective Recarey at pg. 42:14-43:17. Recarey went on to describe the importance of the information: Q. Did you find names of other witnesses and people that you knew to have been associated with the house in those message pads? THE WITNESS: Yes. Q. And so what was the evidentiary value to you of the message pads collected from Jeffrey Epstein's home in the search warrant? THE WITNESS: It was very important to corroborate what the victims had already told me as to calling in and for work. Id. at 78:25 -79:15. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 17 13 In sum, Defendant refused to answer important questions relating to the following topics that were authorized by this Court’s Order: (1) Defendant’s information relating to and knowledge of the circumstances of Johanna Sjoberg performing massages and sex acts upon Epstein; (2) Defendant’s information relating to and knowledge of the circumstances relating to the abuse of Maria Farmer and her sister by Defendant and Epstein; (3) Defendant’s information relating to and knowledge of any lists or records of girls who gave “massages” to Epstein; (4) Defendant’s involvement with messages (or related documents) showing Defendant’s knowledge of, and involvement in, the scheduling of underage girls for massage and sex with Epstein, and any destruction of evidence related to these messages (or related records); (5) foundational questions that were necessary precedent to asking questions authorized by this Court’s Order; and (6) all related questions that arise out of any response Defendant provides within the parameters of the Court’s June 20, 2016, Order. DISCUSSION The Court should compel Ms. Maxwell to answer questions in the topic areas where she refused to answer during her recent deposition. Topics 1 - 4 above are central parts of this case, and Topics 5 and 6 link directly to central parts of this case. Ms. Giuffre, and now other knowledgeable witnesses, have explained and testified that Defendant not only had knowledge of Epstein’s massages and sexual activity with others, but she actively facilitated the sexual massages through recruiting young females and underage girls for the purpose of “massage” and sexual activity. And proof that Defendant both had knowledge of, and was involved in, these schemes and encounters, will further help prove that Defendant’s statements to the press that Virginia’s allegations were “obvious lies” was itself an obvious lie. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 17 14 The questions Defendant refused to answer fall squarely within this Court’s earlier order. Defendant can have no legitimate basis for obstructing the search for truth by refusing to answer. The Court should, again, compel Defendant to answer all these questions. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(i); see, e.g., Kelly v. A1 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(b)(1)). Defendant cannot claim that such questions were outside the scope of this Court’s order, as they directly relate to (1) her knowledge of individuals who provided “massage” to Epstein and (2) her knowledge of sexual activities of others with or involving Epstein. Defendant’s knowledge of the individuals involved in the sex/”massages” relating to Epstein, and her knowledge about the sex/”massage” related to Epstein is precisely what this Court directed her to answer. See also, Condit v. Dunne, 225 F.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 as Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 17 15 they are relevant to a defense of substantial truth, mitigation of damages, or impeachment of plaintiff.”); Weber v. Multimedia 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 . . . .”). Moreover, generally speaking, instructions from attorneys to their clients not to answer questions at a deposition should be “limited to [issues regarding] privilege.” Morales v. Zondo, Inc., 204 F.R.D. 50, 54 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). In this case, defense counsel once again ranged far beyond the normal parameters of objections and gave instructions directly in contravention of this Court’s Order directing Defendant to answer exactly the type of questions posed to her. In light of Defendant’s willful refusal to comply with this Court’s Order directing Defendant to answer questions related to the Court’s June 20, 2016, Order, including topics enumerated above, Ms. Giuffre also seeks attorneys’ fees and costs associated with bringing this motion, as well as fees and costs associated with re-taking Defendant’s deposition. CONCLUSION Defendant should be ordered to sit for a follow-up deposition and directed to answer questions regarding the topics enumerated above. Dated: July 29, 2016 Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 17 16 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) 585-52025 5 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 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 17 17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 29th day of July, 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 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 17 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 MEREDITH SCHULTZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENFORCE THE COURT’S ORDER AND DIRECT DEFENDANT TO ANSWER DEPOSITON QUESTIONS FILED UNDER SEAL I, Meredith L. Schultz, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my knowledge as follows: 1. I am a associate 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 March 28, 2016 Order granting my Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice. 2. I respectfully submit this Declaration in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions Filed Under Seal. 3. Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 1 are true and correct copies of Excepts from the May 18, 2016 Deposition of Johanna Sjoberg. 4. Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 2 are true and correct copies of Excerpts from the June 24, 2016 Deposition of Tony Figueroa. 5. Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 3 are true and correct copies of Excerpts from the June 21, 2016 Deposition of Detective Joseph Recarey. 6. Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 4 are true and correct copies of Excerpts from the June 10, 2016 Deposition of Rinaldo Rizzo. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 4 7. Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 5 are true and correct copies of Excerpts from the June 1, 2016 Deposition of John Alessi. 8. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of June 20, 2016 Order from Judge Sweet. 9. Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 7 are true and correct copies of Excerpts from the July 22, 2016 Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell. 10. Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of Messages Involving Defendant. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. /s/ Meredith L. Schultz______________ Meredith L. Schultz, Esq. - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 4 3 Dated: July 29, 2016. Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Meredith Schultz Meredith Schultz (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 1327-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 4 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 29th day of July, 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 to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic Court Filing System 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/ Meredith L. Schultz Meredith L. Schultz Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 4 COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1 (File Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CASE NO. 15-CV-07433-RWS Page 1 ------ -------- ---- ---------------------- --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 1327-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 9 1 Q. Page 30 Did you observe her to be young when you 2 met her? 3 4 5 6 MS . MENNINGER: Objection, vague as to time . THE WITNESS: All of the women were 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 12 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation . 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 18 19 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading and foundation. 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 25 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation. THE WITNESS: Three. MAGNA8 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 Page 32 to object and then you can still answer. No one is going to stop you from answering. I just need to get the objection on the record, in the same way she needs to be able to talk 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 You can answer. 14 Q. 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. 18 statement? 19 20 A. Q. And what was your reaction to that I thought it was a little crazy. 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. MAGNA8 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 9 1 camera? 2 3 MS . MENNINGER: Objection, leading . THE WITNESS: Yes. 4 BY MS . McCAWLEY: Page 34 5 Q. Was there anything you were supposed to do 6 in order to get the camera? 7 8 9 10 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading . THE WITNESS: I did not know that there were expectations of me to get the camera until 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 t he camera for you, but you 16 cannot receive it yet because you came here and 17 didn 1 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 11 get Jeffrey off, 11 do you 25 mean bring him to orgasm? MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 9 1 2 A. Q. Page 35 Yes Did Ghislaine ever describe to you what 3 types of girls Jeffrey liked? 4 5 A. Q. Model types. 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 12 mine. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. He did not tell me . He told a friend of And what do you recall about that? MS. MENNINGER: Objection, hearsay, foundation. THE WITNESS : He wanted to have a friend of mine come out who was cardio-kickboxer instructor. She was a physical trainer. And so I brought her over to the house and he told my friend Rachel that -- he said, You see that girl over there laying by the pool? She was 19 . And he said, I just took her virginity. And my friend Rachel was mortified. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 9 Page 142 1 exposed her bra, and she grabbed it and pulled it 2 down. 3 4 Q. A. Anything else? 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 11 12 13 A. Q. A. Q. She implied that , yes . In what way? Sexually. 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 SE'.RVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 9 Page 143 1 when she said you hadn 1 t finished the job, with 2 respect to the camera? 3 4 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form. 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 11 12 MS . MENNINGER: Obj ection, leading, form, foundation. 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 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, hearsay . THE WITNESS: 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 blow job, so she started to unzip his pants, and he said, No, no, no, you just have to be awake for MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-7 Filed 01/05/24 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 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF AFFIDAVIT ) ) Page 157 I, , being first duly sworn, do hereby acknowledge that I did read a true and certified copy of my deposition which was taken in the case of GIUFFRE V. MAXWELL, taken on the 18th day of May, 2016 , and the corrections I desire to make are as indicated on the attached Errata Sheet . STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF CERTIFICATE Before me personally appeared to me well known/ known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to and before me that he executed the said instrument in the capacity and for the purpose therein expressed. Witness my hand and official seal , this day of (Notary Public) 24 My Commission Expires: 25 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 9 COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 2 (File Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-8 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CASE: 15-cv-07433-RWS VIRGINIA GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, V. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. ___________ / DATE: TIME : PLACE: VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF TONY FIGUEROA Volume 1 of 2 Pages 1 - 157 Taken at the Instance of the Defendant Friday, June 24 , 2016 Commenced: Concluded: 8:59 a.m. 1:22 p.m. Southern Reporting Company B. Paul Katz Professional Center (SunTrust Building) One Florida Park Drive South Suite 214 Palm Coast, Florida 32137 REPORTED BY: LEANNE W. FITZGERALD, FPR Florida Professional Reporter Court Reporter and Notary Public Southern Reporting Company www.Southernreporting.com - (386)257-3663 1 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-8 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 8 1 Q 96 I guess my question is: Did she ever tell 2 you that she had started as a regular masseuse for 3 him and then transitioned to something other than a 4 masseuse? 5 A No She never said that it transitioned . 6 But she ended up explaining to me what had happened 7 before , so ... 8 Q What has -- what is that? 9 A That her and Ms. Maxwell and Jeffrey would 10 obviously be doing stuff, all three of them 11 together. Like I said, that they would all go out 12 to clubs to pick up girls and try and find them to 13 bring back for Jeffrey. And then she told me about 14 how, like I said, her and Ms. Maxwell and Jeffrey 15 were all intimate together on multiple occasions . 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Q A Q A Q A Q A When did she tell you this? I'm not exactly sure on the dates . Was it while you were still together? Yes . Did you -- had you met Ms. Maxwell? Yeah, I had met her a couple of times . When did you meet Ms. Maxwell? Dates, I ' m unsure of . But it was pretty 24 much, like I said, at Jeffrey's house in the 25 kitchen. Southern Reporting Company www. Southernreporting.com - (386)257-3663 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-8 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 8 182 i Foundation. Vague as to time and place . 2 BY MR. EDWARDS: 3 Q Sorry. Let me rephrase the question. 4 During this 2001 period, if you were 5 driving Virginia and another girl to the house, what 6 type of girls would you be driving? 7 8 9 MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Form. Foundation. A Pretty much like young-looking teenager 10 girls. I mean, 16, 17. Really pretty. You know . 11 BY MR. EDWARDS: 12 Q All right . How did you know that that 1 s 13 what was being requested, that that age range and 14 that look and that 1 s what was 15 A I just assumed that that ' s what most guys 16 are into, you know, so ... 17 18 19 Q A Q Girls who looked like Virginia? Yeah. All right . When you would bring girls 20 over to the house, were you looking for some 21 professional masseuse or somebody with massage 22 experience? 23 A Like I said, I would just get friends that 24 I knew from school , so .. . 25 Q And that ' s what Jeffrey wanted? Southern Reporting Company www. Southernreporting.com - (386)257-3663 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-8 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 8 193 1 you can think to one of the occasions where you 2 brought a girl into the kitchen other than 3 Virginia 4 Uh-huh (affirmative). 5 A Q and Ms. Maxwell is in the kitchen, did 6 you and this other girl that you were bringing over 7 sit there and together have this small talk with 8 Ms. Maxwell? 9 1 0 11 12 A Yeah. MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Form. Foundation . A Yes. 13 BY MR. EDWARDS: 14 Q And how long would you and one of these 15 other girls sit there and have this small talk with 16 Ms. Maxwell? 17 18 19 A Q A No more than, like, 10 or 15 minutes . All right. And what were you waiting for? Pretty much her to take them upstairs. 20 And then I would leave. 21 Like, I would wait for them to be , like, 22 "All right. Well, we're ready. " 23 And I would be, like , "All right. See you 24 later. '' And then I ' d leave. And they would go do 25 whatever . Southern Reporting Company www.Southernreporting.com - (386 )257-3663 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-8 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 8 1 2 3 MS . MENNINGER: Objection . Form. Foundation. A For Jeffrey. 4 BY MR. EDWARDS: 5 Q All right . Let me fix this. Ghislaine 6 when Ghislaine Maxwell would call you during the 7 time that you were living with Virginia, she would 8 ask you what, specifically? 9 10 11 MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Form . Foundation. A Just if I had found any other girls just 12 to bring to Jeffrey . 13 BY MR. EDWARDS: 14 15 Q A Okay . Pretty much every time there was a 200 16 conversation with any of them, it was either asking 17 Virginia where she was at, or asking her to get 18 girls, or asking me to get girls. 19 Q All right. Let's go to that second 20 category you just identified, which is asking 21 Virginia to get girls. How many times were you in a 22 room where specifically Ghislaine Maxwell would ask 23 Virginia to bring girls? 24 25 A Q None that I can recall . Okay . How many times -- when you say they Southern Reporting Company www.Southernreporting.com - (386)257-3663 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-8 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 8 1 2 Q 245 Okay. Any of the girls that you are aware of having gone to the house either because you 3 brought them or Virginia -- as you sit here today, 4 do you believe any of them were brought over to be a 5 legitimate masseuse? 6 7 8 MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Form. Foundation. Opinion. A Nope. 9 BY MS. MENNINGER: 10 Q All right. How long aft er Virginia left 11 to go to Thailand did you continue to bring girls to 12 Jeffrey Epstein? 13 A Not, like, at all. Maybe, like, once. 14 Like I said, pretty much after she left and did not 15 come back, he was gone, I think, also. And then he 16 came back and was, like, "Oh, where is Virginia?" 17 And that was pretty much, like I said, he was just 18 throwing in, "Can you bring somebody b y ," just to 19 make it seem like he wanted me to still be around. 20 I was, like -- and pretty much after she was gone, 21 that was basically it. 22 Q All right. You described that every time 23 that you would bring girls, Jeffrey Epstein would 24 pay you $200 apiece; correct? 25 A Uh-huh (affirmative) . Southern Reporting Company www.Southernreporting.com - (386)257-3663 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-8 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 8 1 2 3 STATE OF FLORIDA 4 COUNTY OF FLAGLER 5 6 257 CERTIFICATE OF OATH 7 I, the undersigned authority, certify that TONY 8 FIGUEROA personally appeared before me on 9 July 5, 2016, and was duly sworn . 10 11 WITNESS my hand and official seal this 5th day 12 of July, 2016 . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Leanne W. Fitzgerald Notary Public - State of Florida My Commission No. FF060921 Expires: February 8, 2018 Digital Certificate Authenticated By Symantec Southern Reporting Company www .Southernreporting.com - (386)257-3663 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-8 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 8 EXHIBIT 6 (File Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------x VIRGINIA L. GUIFFRE, Plaintiff, - against - GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. ----------------------------------------x APPEARA N CES: Counsel for Plaintiffs BOEIS, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP USDCSDNY \ I DOCUMENf ,. ELECTRONICALLY FP r·{ \; . I DOC #: --~,.,.,.,,.. J DATEFll...ED: SJ~\ 15 Civ . 7433 (RWS) OPINION 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 By: Sigrid S. Mccawley, Esq. Meredith L. Schultz, Esq. Counsel for Defendants HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East Tenth Avenue Denver, CO 80203 By: Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffreys. Pagliuca, Esq. 1 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 21 Sweet, D.J . Eight discovery motions are currently pending before this court. 1. Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre ("Giuffre" or "Plaintiff") has moved for an order of forensic examination, ECF No. 96. As set forth below, this motion is granted in part and denied in part. 2 . Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwell") or ("Defendant") has moved to compel Plaintiff to disclose alleged on-going criminal investigations by law enforcement, ECF No. 101. As set for below, this motion is denied. 3 . Plaintiff has moved to compel Defendant to answer deposition questions, ECF No. 143. This motion is granted. 4 . Defendant has moved to compel non-privileged documents, ECF No. 155. As set forth below, this motion is denied. 5 . Plaintiff has moved for leave to serve three deposition subpoenas by means other than personal service, ECF No. 160. As set forth below, this motion is granted in part and denied in part. 6. Defendant has moved to compel attorney-client communications and work product, ECF No. 164. As set forth below, this motion denied. 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 21 7. Plaintiff has moved to exceed the presumptive ten deposition limit, ECF No. 172 . As set for.th below, this motion is granted in part and denied in part. 8 . Plaintiff has ~oved for leave to file an opposition brief in excess of the 25 pages permitted under this Court's Individual Rules of Practice. This motion is granted. r . Prioz Pro~edings Familiarity with the prior proceedings and facts of this case as discussed in the Court's prior opinions is assumed. See Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS), 2016 WL 831949 (S,D.N.Y, Feb. 29, 2016) ; Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ, 7433 ( RW S ) ( S . D . N . Y . May 2 , 2 0 1 6 } • Plaintiff filed her motion for clarification of the Court's March 17, 2016 Order anci for forensic examination on April 13, 2016. By Order dated April 15, 2016, the motion for clarification was denied on the basis that further clarification was unnecessary. Oral argument was held with respect to forensic examination on May 12, 20:!.6, at whj_ch time the matter was deemod fully submitted. 3 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 21 Defendant filed her motion to compel Plaintiff to disclose ongoing criminal investigations by lqw enforcement, or in the alternative to stay proceedingsF on April 18 1 2016. Oral argument was heard and the motion granted in part and denied 1n part on April 21, 2016 . ?laintiff was directed to submit the relevant materials for in camera review. Plaintiff did so on April 28 1 2016. Plaintiff filed her motion to compel Defendant to answer deposition questions on May 5, 2016. Oral argument was held on May 12, 2016, at which time the matter was deemed fully submitted. Defendant filed her motion to compel non-privileged doc~ments on May 20, 20:6. By Order dated May 23, 2016, the motion ~as set for argument on June 2, 2016. The motion was taken on submission on that date . Defendant filed a reply on June 61 2016. Plaintiff filed her letter motion for leave to serve three depositions subpoenas by means other than personal service. By Order dated May 27, 2016, the mot~on was set for argument on June 2, 2016. The motion was taken on submissio~ on that date . 4 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 21 Defendant filed her motion to compel attorney~client communications and work product on May 26, 2016. By Order dated May 27, 2016, the motion was set for argument on June 21 2016. The motion was taken on submission on that d~te. Defendant filed a reply on June 6, 2016 Plaintiff filed her motion to exceed the presumptive ten deposition limit on May 27, 2016. By Order dated June 6, 2016, the motion was set returnable on June 16, 2016, at which time the motion was deemed fully submitted. ?laintiff filed her motion for leave to file excess pages on June l, 2016. II. Applicable Standards Rule 26 ~createfs1 many options for the district judge . . [to] manage the discovery process to facilitate prompt and efficient resolution of the lawsuit.n Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 599, 118 S. Ct. 1584, 1597f 140 L. Ed. 2d 759 (1998 ) . It ~vests the trial judge with broad discretion to tailor discover.y narrowly and to dictate the sequence of discovery. " Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598, 118 S. 5 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 21 Ct. 1584 , 1597 , 140 L. Ed. 2d 759 (1998) . The District Court may expand or limit the permitted number and time limits of depositions, direct ffthe time, place, and manner of discovery or even bar discovery on certain subjects," and may ffset the timing and sequence of discovery " Id. at 598-99; Fed. R. Civ . P. 26 (b) (2 ) (A) , Consequently, the Court has wide discretion in deciding motions to compel. See Grand Cent. P'ship. Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473, 488 (2d Cir.1999). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 states: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense￾including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. If a party objects to discovery requests, that party bears the burden of showing why discovery should be denied. Freydl v. Meringolo, 09 Civ. 07196(BSJ) (KNF) , 2011 WL 256608-7, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2011). 6 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 21 III. The Motion For an Order of Forensic Examination Is Granted in Part and Denied in Part Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) (3 ) (Cl requires the parties to state their views and proposals as to preservation of electronically stored information ("ESI") and the form of production of ESI. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) (3) (C) . Defendant having admitted to deletion practices that indicate relevant documents and also refused to detail document search methods, good cause exists to warrant court supervised examination of her electronic devices. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is granted in part . Defendant is ordered to collect all ESI by imaging her computers and collecting all email and text messages on any devices in Defendant's possession or to which she has access that Defendant used between the period of 2002 to present . Defendant is further directed to run mutually-agreed upon search terms related to Plaintiff's requests for production over the aforementioned ESI and produce responsive documents within 21 days of distribution of this opinion. 7 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 21 IV. The Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Disclose Ongoing Criminal Investigations is Denied The public interest privilege "exists to encourage witnesses to come forward and provide information in criminal investigations carried out by [law enforcement] without fear that the information will be disclosed.n Sanchez by Sanchez v. City of New York, 201 A.D.2d 325, 326, 607 N.Y.S.2d 321 (1994). A party seeking disclosure of such information "first must demonstrate a compelling and particularized need for access" beyond "[g]eneral and conclusory allegations." Id. The Court then weighs application of the qualified privilege by balancing the need for production against the potential harm to the public from disclosure. Id. After review of the materials in camera, the qualified public interest privilege as set forth in Sanchez has been established with respect to the submitted documents. Defendant has articulated no need for the documents. Accordingly, the balance weighs in favor of the privilege, and the motion to compel is denied. To preserve the record, Plaintiff is directed to file under seal a comprehensive copy of the log and documents within 21 days of distribution of this opinion. 8 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 21 V. The Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions is Granted Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant to answer uU~ ~i 1s regarding her knowlodge of adult sexual activityr which defense counsel instructed Defendant not to answer during her deposition. ~where a party objects tc a discovery requestr the objecting party bears the burden of demonstrating specifically how, despite the broad and liberal construction afforded the affidavits or offering ev~dence revealing the nature of the burden." John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Book Dog Books, LLC, 29a F. R. D. 184, 186 {S.D.N.Y. 2014} marks and brackets omitted) ~ r _ r, .e r naJ Defendant tas submitted that she has not put her private affairs at issue, and that s1Jch questions are . qlLy Ln - "" iV··. Notwithstanding, the questions are directed to reveal relevant answers regarding Defendantrs knowledge of Plaintiff's ~!legations. That knowledge goes directly to the truth or falsity of the alleged defarr.ation, a key e l e 1ier r 9 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 21 . . Furthermore, privacy concerns are alleviated by the protective order in this case, drafted by Defendant . Defendant is ordered to answer questions relating to Defendant's own sexual activity (a) with or involving Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") , (b) with or involving Plaintiff, (c) with or involving underage females known to Epstein or who Defendant believed or intended might become known to Epstein, or (d) involving or including massage with individuals Defendant knew to be, or believed might become, known to Epstein. Defendant is also directed to answer questions relating to her knowledge of sexual activities of others (a) with or involving Epstein, (b) with or involving Plaintiff, (c) with or involving underage females known to Epstein or who Defendant believed were known or might become known to Epstein, or (d) involving or including massage with individuals Defendant knew to be or believed might become known to Epstein. 1 The scope of Defendant's answers are not bound by time period, though Defendant need not answer questions that relate to none of these subjects or that is clearly not relevant, such as sexual activity of third-parties who bear no knowledge or relation to the key events, individuals, or locations of this case. 1 Each of the aforementioned lists are disjunctive . 10 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 21 VI. The Motion to Compel Non-Privileged Documents is Granted in Part and Denied in Part Defendant has sought to compel the following documents: (1) attorney-client communications regarding media advice; (2) pre￾existing documents transmitted to counsel; (3) documents shared with or communicated to unidentified third parties; (4 ) documents primarily for the purpose of providing business advice; (5) documents subject to an unidentified common interest or joint defense protection. Plaintiff has represented that all responsive "attachments" Defendant seeks to compel have been produced . Accordingly, this request is denied. Defendant seeks to compel attorney-client communications that include "third parties" on the basis that Plaintiff's privilege log is deficient for identifying individuals as "professionals retained b y attorneys to aid in the rendition of legal advice." A review of Plaintiff's privilege log shows Plaintiff has expressly claimed privilege, described the nature of the withheld documents, communications, and tangible things not produced, and generally logged communications in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (b) (5) (A) (ii) . "Unless 11 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 21 the client waives privilege; an attorney or his or her employee, or any person who obtains without the knowledge of the client evidence of a confidential communication made between the attorney or his or her employee and the client in the course of professional employment, shall not disclose, or be allowed to disclose such communication, nor shall the client be compelled to disclose such communication." N.Y. C.P.L.R. 4503 (McKinney) (emphasis added). The conduct explicitly described by statute as privileged does not operate as waiver, and again Defendant has provided no factual basis to suggest Plaintiff has misrepresented the identity or role of the third-parties listed . Defendant's request is denied. Defendant's challenge to the common interest privilege claims is likewise unavailing. Regardless of whether Plaintiff has reflexively claimed the common interest privilege in each entry does not vitiate the otherwise applicable privilege claims made, and Defendant has provided no factual foundation to establish waiver or failure of the other claimed privileges. Finally, with respect to the media and business advice communications, Defendant has marshaled no evidence to support her speculation that the documents logged as privileged are improperly withheld other than the fact that one member of 12 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 21 Plaintiff's legal team is an author . Plaintiff has represented to the Court and via a detailed privilege log that the communications in question are privileged. Stan Pottinger, the author in question, is a barred attorney of record in this case, incomparable to Defendant's media agent (and non-attorney) Ross Gow. That Pottinger has written non-legal material, or even whether his "primary occupation in the most recent years [is] as a novelist ," is irrelevant to whether his communication with Plaintiff as her counsel was for the purpose of providing legal advice. Similarly, Bradley Edwards, who Defendant has already challenged, is an attorney of record in this case, and Defendant has provided no evidence other than the fact of his representation of Plaintiff's non-profit to doubt that the communications logged are privileged. Having provided no grounds to doubt the sworn representations of Plaintiff's counsel, Defendant's motion to compel these communications is denied. Defendant is granted leave to refile the motions with respect to media and business advice on the basis of relevant and non-specious factual support. Court intervention should not be invoked to resolve routine discovery matters on the basis of a supposition of bad faith. Further filing of frivolous or vexatious motions lacking sufficient factual support to support a colorable argument (or 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 21 on the basis of misrepresented or false facts o r law) will be met with sanctions. VII . The Motion for Leave to Serve Three Deposition Subpoenas By Means Other than Personal Service is Granted in Part and Denied in Part Plaintiff seeks to compel subpoenas to serve Nadia Marcinkova, Sarah Kellen, and Jeffrey Epstein. The request is denied with respect to Epstein as moot. No opposition having been filed and the testimony of Marcinkova and Kellen being relevant to falsity of the defamation at issue, the motion is granted wi th respect to Marcinkova and Kellen. VIII. The Motion to Compel Attorney-Client Communications and Work Product is Denied Defendant argues that "Edwards and Cassell preemptively filed an action against Dershowitz proclaiming they did not violate Rule 11 [and i]n doing so, they voluntarily put at issue and relied on: a) their good faith reliance on information communicated to them by Plaintiff, and b) their work product 14 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 21 r .. . showing that their filing was reasonably investigated and substantially justified." Def.'s Reply in Supp. Mot. to Compel all Att'y-Client Comrns. and Att'y Work Product at 8-9 (Def.'s Reply on AC"). The Broward County, Florida Court ruled on this argument in Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz and Defendant argues in reply that this order is non-binding, and was issued prior to Plaintiff's testimony. Id. at 1 . Defendant was not a party to the Florida case. Nevertheless, Defendant's argument is nearly identical to Dershowitz's. Defendant argues Plaintiff's testimony arose after the ruling in the Florida case, however, the principle of that argument is the same: Defendant placed her attorney-client communications with Edwards and Cassell at issue by relying on the content of those communications in Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz. The Florida Court's ruling is therefore highly relevant privilege has not been waived. 2 The motion is accordingly denied. 2 The Court declines to address the choice of law issue, as application of Florida or New York at-issue doctrines are not outcome determinative in this instance and thus no determination is necessary. Compare Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., 940 So. 2d 504, 510 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) ("for waiver to occur under the at issue doctrine, the proponent of a privilege must make a claim or raise a defense based upon the privileged matter and the proponent must necessarily use the privileged information in order to establish its claim or defense.") with Chin v. Rogoff & Co., P.C., No. 05 CIV. 15 ----------~------- Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 21 Jane Doe 2 • ' IX. The Motion to Exceed the Ten Deposition Limit is Granted in Part and Denied in Part As of the filing of Plaintiff's reply on June 13, 2016, Plaintiff has deposed Defendant, Ms. Sjoberg, Mr. Alessi, Mr . Rodgers, and Mr. Rizzo and scheduled the depositions of Mr. Epstein, Mr. Gow, _ , Ms. Kellen, Ms. Marcinkova, Mr. Recarey, and Mr. Brunel. Plaintiff now seeks leave of the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 (2) (A) (i) take three additional depositions: Mrs . Alessi, Mr. Reiter, and newly raised in Plaintiff's reply, Former President Clinton . Discovery being well under way and depositions having been scheduled for more than ten individuals, the motion is timely. "The 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 8360(NRB), 2008 WL 2073934 , at *5 (S. D.N.Y. May 8, 2008) ("New York courts have held that an 'at issue' waiver occurs "where a party affirmatively places the subject matter of its own privileged communication at issue in litigation, so that invasion of the privilege is required to determine the validity of a claim or defense of the party asserting the privilege, and application of the privilege would deprive the adversary of vital information."). 16 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 21 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) . Plaintiff proposes limiting the length of the proposed depositions to limit any undue burden that might result. Defendant argues the depositions would be unduly cumulative and duplicative This case revolves around factual issues between Plaintiff and Defendant. The testimony of Mrs. Alessi concerning relevant facts may tend to either establish or negate falsity of the allegedly defamatory statement. The limited burden of this additional deposition, further mitigated as Plaintiff proposes, is therefore outweighed by the benefit of resolving this case on the merits. The motion with respect to this additional deposition is granted. The relevance of the testimony of Mr. Reiter and President Clinton have not been adequately established. The motion as to these two depositions is denied. Defendant's request for costs and fees is denied pursuant to this Court's previous ruling with respect to costs and fees. 17 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 21 • X. The Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages is Granted Plaintiff sought leave to file excess pages in response to Defendant's motion to compel attorney-client communications and work product. To the extent the motion is not moot, leave is granted. XI. Conclusion As set forth above: the motion for an order of forensic examination is granted in part and denied in part; the motion to compel to compel Plaintiff to disclose alleged on-going criminal investigations by law enforcement is denied; the motion to compel Defendant to answer deposition questions is granted; the motion to compel non-privileged documents is denied; the motion for leave to serve three deposition subpoenas by means other than personal service is granted in part and denied in part; the motion to compel attorney-client communications and work product is denied; the motion to exceed the presumptive ten deposition limit is granted; the motion for leave to file an opposition brief in excess of the 25 pages permitted under this Court's Individual Rules of Practice is granted. This opinion resolves ECF Nos. 96, 101, 143, 155, 160 , 164, 172r and 182 . 18 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 21 For purposes of managing the filings in this case, the parties are further directed to comply with the Court's Individual Rules of Practice by providing all future motion papers in their full non-redacted form, complete with related declarations and exhibits, in a single complete bound hard copy delivered to Chambers at the time of filing. All soft-copies must be provided by attachment of a single PDF in its full non￾redacted form, including all related declarations and exhibits irrespective of whether each attachment or declaration is intended to be filed under seal. Soft-copies must be provided in addition to, not in lieu of, hard-copies. This matter being subject to a Protective Order, the parties are directed to meet and confer regarding redactions to this Opinion consistent with that Order. The parties are further directed to jointly file a proposed redacted version of this Opinion or notify the Court that none are necessary within two weeks of the date of receipt of this Opinion. It is so ordered. 19 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 21 .. New York, NY June '"')..o , 2016 20 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 21 COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 7 (File Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 23 Confidential Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X VIRGINIA L . GIUFFRE , Plaintiff , -against - Case No . : 15-cv-07433-RWS GHISLAINE MAXWELL , Defendant . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X **CONFIDENTIAL** Continued Videotaped Deposition of GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the Defendant herein , taken pursuant to subpoena, was held at the law offices of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, 575 Lexington Avenue , New York, New York, commencing July 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 ( 866 ) 624 - 6221 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 23 Page 18 1 2 Confidential G. Maxwell - Confidential A. I think everyone here can 3 understand what intercourse is, is when you 4 have sex. I don't know how to say 5 intercourse any other way, having sex wi th 6 somebody. Perhaps you would like to define 7 it for me . Q. I 8 1 m trying to get your definition 9 right now because you are the witness. When 10 you use the term intercourse , what are you 11 referring to? 12 A. I'm referring to a penis entering 13 someone ' s vagina. 14 15 sex? 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. Now, have you ever engaged in oral In my life? MR . PAGLIUCA: There are specific areas that the court has allowed inquiry into, and those are delineated in the court ' s order of June 2 0th. The open-ended "Have you ever engaged in oral sex" is not part of the court ' s order at page 10 , and the court specifically indicated that sexual activity of third parties who bear no MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 23 Confidential Page 20 1 G. Maxwell - Confidential 2 anyone in any of Mr. Epstein ' s five homes 3 that you have identified? 4 5 6 7 A. Q. A . Q. Yes . With whom? Mr. Epstein . Did you ever have oral sex with 8 anyone in any of Mr. Epstein ' s five homes 9 that you've identified other than 10 Mr. Epstein? 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA : I 'm going to instruct you not to answer, unless you tie it to a specific individual related to this case per the court ' s order . MR. BOIES: I think the court ' s order specifically permits this question wi th respect to occasions related to this case. If you instruct her not to answer, all you 1 re going to do is bring her back. That ' s up to you . MR. PAGLIUCA : It's up to you as the questioner, Mr . Boies. The court ' s order says the defendant need not answer questions that relate to none of these subjects or that is clearly not relevant MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 23 Confidential Page 78 1 G . Maxwell - Confidential 2 Johanna? 3 4 A . Q . I would not know. I would say no . Did you engage in sexual activities 5 with Johanna? 6 A . No . 7 Q. Do you know how Johanna came to 8 know Mr Epstein? 9 A. I met her at her university and she 10 came to answer phones. 11 Q. When you say she came to answer 12 phones , where? 13 A . In Palm Beach . 14 Q. At Mr. Epstein ' s home in Palm 15 Beach? 16 17 A . Q. Yes . So is it fair to say that Johanna 18 was initially hired to answer telephones , 19 according to your testimony? 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: This has already been test i fied to Mr. Boies . repeating testimony now. We are MR. BOIES: I think in the context of the witness 1 answers , these are fair questions. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 23 Page 79 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 Confidential G. Maxwell - Confidential Now, I ' ve asked you before , if you want to instruct her not to answer, if you want to go to the judge , we are happy to do that, but I would suggest , in the interest of moving it along, that you stop these speeches . MR. PAGLIUCA: You are not moving it along is the problem , so maybe we should call the court and get some direction here, because I am not going to sit here and rehash the testimony we already gave. MR . BOIES : That ' s fine . THE VIDEOGRAPHER : The time is 1 0: 51 a .m. and we are going off the record. (Whereupon , an off-the - record discussion was held. ) THE VIDEOGRAPHER : The time is 10:56 a.m. and we are going back on the record. This begins DVD No . 3 . MR. BOIES : We have just had a call with Judge Sweet ' s chambers, Judge Sweet is not available and his chambers MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 23 Page 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Confidential G. Maxwell - Confidential or argue this in front of Judge Sweet . But I will simply start referring you back to the transcript and instructing the witness not to answer when I think we are getting into some things that have been asked and answered already . MR. BOIES : Exactly the procedure that I have proposed from the beginning . If you think a question is out of bounds , instruct not to answer and we 13 will then let the judge decide it . 14 BY MR. BOIES: 15 Q. How did it happen , Ms. Maxwell , 16 that Johanna, who had been hired to answer 17 the phones, ended up giving massages to you 18 and Mr. Epstein? 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: I ' m going to instruct you not to answer the question . This has been previously, the subject of your former deposition, it doesn't fall into any of the categories ordered by the court, and so you don ' t need to answer that. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVrCES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 23 Page 82 1 2 Confidential G. Maxwell - Confidential Q. Was Johanna paid for the massages 3 that she gave you? 4 A. I didn ' t pay her , so I believe she 5 was paid. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 22 23 Q. Who paid her? A. I don't know who paid her . MR. PAGLIUCA : Again, you ' ve already answered that there was no sexual activity between yourself and Mr. Epstein related to these massages . That's record testimony today. That's within the scope of the court ' s order . The rest of this is outside the scope of the court ' s order, and I instruct you not to answer. MR. BOIES : You are taking the position that as long as she said says that a massage did not involve sexual activity, we cannot ask about massages . That ' s your view? MR. PAGLIUCA : questioning , yes . On this particular 24 BY MR. BOIES: 25 Q. Did Mr. Epstein pay Johanna for the MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 23 Page 83 1 Confidential G. Maxwell - Confidential 2 massages that she gave Mr. Epste in? 3 4 5 6 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: You just asked this question , and I told her not to answer. I will tell her not to answer again for the same reasons Q. Do you know how much Mr . Epstein 8 paid Johanna to give massages? 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR , PAGLIUCA: Same instruction to the witness. Why do you believe this is within the scope of the court 1 s order? MR. BOIES: Because of the court 1 s reference to massages , and because I think how much a girl who was hired to answer the phone was paid to give a 11 ma ssage 11 goes to whether there actually was or was not sexual activity involved . MR. PAGLIUCA: The witness has testified there wasn't. MR. BOIES: Perhaps it will surprise you, I think it should not , that I do not believe in my deposition I need to simply accept her characterization without cross-examination. Now, that ' s MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 23 Page 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 84 Confidential G. Maxwell - Confidential something the judge can decide , but a question as to how much this young girl was being paid for a "massage " , I think goes directly to the issue of sexual activity . MR. PAGLIUCA: Here is the problem, Mr. Boies , at the first deposition, there were very limited instructions not to answer and the witness was not told not to answer questions about how much people were paid or not paid or any of those subject matters. The witness was only instructed not to answer about sexual activity concerning adults in the home . None of this came up during the deposition, and you just don't get a chance to redo the deposition because you feel like you want to . So the judge 1 s order is in the context of the instructions to the witness not to answer in the first deposition, which is simply sexual activity involving adults, which was the MAGN-A9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 23 Confidential Page 89 1 G. Maxwell - Confidential 2 were sex toys or devices used in sexual 3 activities in Mr . Epstein ' s property in the 4 Virgin Islands? 5 6 7 8 MR. PAGLIUCA : and foundation . No . Obj ection to form A. Q. Do you know whether Mr . Epstein 9 possessed sex toys or devices used in sexual 10 activities? 11 12 13 14 MR. PAGLIUCA: and foundation . No . Obj e ction to form A. Q. Did you ever assist Mr . Epstein in 15 obtaining sex toys or devices used in sexual 16 activities? 17 18 19 20 MR. PAGLIUCA: and foundation No. Objection to form A . Q. In the 199 0s and 2 000 s , did you 21 ever have possession of or use sex toys or 22 devices used in sexual activities? 23 24 A. Q . No . Did you, in the 199 0 s and 2 00 0s , 25 engage in sexual activities other than MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 23 Confidential Page 90 1 G. Maxwell - Confidential 2 intercourse with women other than what you 3 have testified to already? 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: First of all , I object to the form and foundation and it's also outside of the court ' s order because it's unclear as you question, and I specifically direct you to the last line of the court's order: Sexual activity of third parties who bear no knowledge or relation to key events , individuals or locations in this case . MR . BOIES : This simply asks yes or no , and I think that it is an appropriate question given some of the witness ' prior answers, but there is no point in debating it, because if you instruct her not to answer, the judge will decide whether it's appropriate . MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm just telling you if you tie it to something in this case , I will let her answer . MR. BOIES: Are you instructing her not to answer? MR. PAGLIUCA : Yes , unless you tie MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 23 Page 99 1 2 Confidential G. Maxwell - Confidential A. I don ' t recal l ever hearing such a 3 thing. 4 5 6 Q . A. Q. You know Mr. Les Wexner , correct? I do. Do you know whether or not Maria 7 Farmer was ever at Mr . Wexner ' s property in 8 Ohio? 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: Can you tell me how that relates to this order, counselor? MR. BOIES: Yes , I think it goes directly to the sexual activity related to Maria Farmer and what Mr . Epstein was doing with Maria Farmer . Again, you can instruct not to answer. MR. PAGLIUCA : I ' m trying to understand why you are asking these questions before I MR. BOIES: I ' m asking these questions because these are people who not only have been publicly written about in terms of the sexual activity that they were put into in connection with Mr. Epstein, but the person who MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 23 Page 100 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 Confidential G. Maxwell - Confidential wrote about them is somebody who talked to this witness about it, and I think that this is more than easily understood cross-examination . MR. PAGLIUCA: Your question was , do you know whether or not Maria Farmer was ever at Mr. Wexner ' s property in Ohio . MR . BOIES : Yes . And if you let her answer, you will see where it leads . If you won 1 t let her answer, the judge is going to determine it . And I just suggest to you that you stop these speeches and stop debating, because you are not going to convince me not to follow-up on these questions . If you can convince the court to truncate the deposition, that ' s your right , but all you ' re doing is dragging this deposition out . MR. PAGLIUCA: You have the opportunity to give me a good faith basis why you are asking these questions MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 23 Page 101 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 Confidential G. Maxwell - Confidential MR. BOIES: faith basis. I have given you a good MR. PAGLIUCA: You haven ' t. MR. BOIES: Then instruct not to answer. MR. PAGLIUCA: I am giving you the opportunity to say why you are asking the question, and why I 1 m telling her not to answer and I am entitled to know that MR. BOIES : You are not entitled to know why I'm asking the question. You are only entitled to know that it relates to the subject matter that I am entitled to inquire about, and I don ' t think the judge is going to think that , you know, where Mr. Epstein shipped Maria Farmer off to is outside the scope of what I 1 m entitled to inquire about. THE WITNESS: Can we take a break? MR. BOIES: Only if you commit not to talk to your counsel during the break. THE WITNESS: That ' s ludicrous . MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 23 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Page 154 1 2 Confidential G. Maxwell - Confidential Q. Insofar as you were aware , did 3 Virginia Roberts ever have a male friend that 4 visited her at the Epstein residences? 5 6 A. I don ' t recall ever seeing a man with Virginia. I believe she had a fiance 7 that I was aware of , I think, but that's all . 8 Q. When were you aware that Virginia 9 Roberts had a fiance? 10 A. I can't say I became aware from 11 reading all this stuff, or I was aware of it 12 13 at the time I don't know. Q. Did you ever meet Virginia Roberts ' 14 f iance? 15 A. I don ' t think I ever did. I don ' t 16 recall meeting any men with Virginia. 17 18 19 20 Q. A. Q. Do you know I never heard that name before. Have you ever heard the name of 21 Carolyn Andriamo, A-N-D-R-I-A-M-0? 22 23 24 25 A. I don't recollect that name at all . MR. PAGLIUCA: Mr. Boies, those names are on Exhibit 26 , which we have already gone over and she said she MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 23 Page 155 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 Confidential G. Maxwell - Confidential didn't recognize those people , so now we are just repeating things that we went over. MR. BOIES: I am in the context of seeing if I can refresh her recollection, because these are women that Mr . Figueroa, who she also does not recall, brought over to Mr . Epstein ' s residences , and I also want to make a very clear record of what her testimony is and is not right now. Again, you can instruct her not to answer if you wish . MR. PAGLIUCA: I ' m trying to get to nonrepetitive questions here . You basically asked the same question three times. Then we get a pile of notes that get pushed up to you, you read those. Then you ask those three times , and then we go to another question. So it's taking an inordinately long amount of time and it shouldn't. MR. BOIES: I think that is a demonstrably inaccurate statement of LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 23 Page 156 1 2 Confidential G. Maxwell - Confidential what has been going on, and I 3 4 attribute -- maybe I shouldn 1 t attribute i t at all . 5 But if you want to instruct not to 6 answer , instruct not to answer. If you 7 don 1 t, again, all I will do is request 8 that you cease your comments. I can 1 t 9 do that. All I can do is seek sanctions 10 afterwards . 11 BY MR. BOIES : 12 13 14 15 Q. A. Q. A. Ms. Maxwell . Mr. Boies . What? I 1 m replying . You said Ms . 16 Maxwell , I said Mr. Boies. 17 Q. Do you have a question? 18 A . No . 19 Q. I have a question . 20 A. I ' m sure you do . 21 Q. During the time that you were in 22 the property or at the property that 23 Mr. Epstein has in the Virgin Islands , were 24 you aware of Mr . Epstein getting any 25 massages? MAGNA& LEGAL. SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 23 Page 174 1 2 3 Confidential G. Maxwell - Confidential court's order . Q. In terms of preparing for this 4 deposition, what documents did you review? 5 6 7 8 9 10 MR. PAGLIUCA : To the extent I provided you with any documents to review, I will tell you that's both it ' s privileged and I instruct you not to answer. Q. Did your lawyer provide you with 11 any documents to review in preparation for 12 this deposition that refreshed your 13 recollection about any of the events that 14 occurred? 15 16 17 18 MR . PAGLIUCA : question . No. You can answer that A. Q . How many documents did your lawyer 19 provide you with? 20 21 22 A. Q. MR. PAGLIUCA: One , I believe . One document . You can answer . Was that a document 23 that had been prepared by your attorney , or 24 was it a document from the past? 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: I will tell you not MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 23 Page 177 1 2 3 4 5 Confidential G. Maxwell - Confidential MR. PAGLIUCA: Don ' t answer that question. order. It 1 s outside the court ' s Q. In 2 00 5 , were you aware of any 6 effort to destroy records of messages you had 7 taken of women who had called Mr. Epstein in 8 the prior period? 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: Don ' t answer that question. order. It ' s outside the court ' s MR. BOIES: I said I would give you a break every hour It 1 s been an hour. MR. PAGLIUCA : Do you want a break or do you want to keep going? THE WITNESS: Keep going . MR. BOIES: What I told you before , you asked for a break every hour I am happy to give you a break at a fixed time. What I 1 m not happy to do is interrupt a chain of examination . So if you want a break now , we will take a break now. If you don 1 t want a break now , we will not break for another hour. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 23 Page 184 1 2 3 Confidential G. Maxwell - Confidential Q. A. Next one is Heidi - - Tony is Virginia's guy that you 4 5 6 asked me about I don't know Tony . Q. A. I asked you about a Tony Figueroa Right , I don ' t know him , so I 1 m 7 guessing , I don I t know him . 8 Q. Nicole? 9 A. No. 10 Q . Colleen? 11 A. No. 12 Q . Crystal? 13 A . I don't know who these people are . 14 Q. Was there a list that was kept of 15 women or girls who provided massages? 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: This has been previously deposed on. This is not part of the court's order, I will tell her not to answer. MR . BOIES: You are going to tell her not to answer a question that says was there a list of women or girls who provided massages? MR. PAGLIUCA: She has been previously deposed on this subject. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 23 Page 185 1 2 3 4 5 6 Confidential G. Maxwell - Confidential MR. BOIES: I think this is squarely in the court's order, but if you instruct her not to answer, you instruct her not to answer. MR . PAGLIUCA: We ' ll find out. 7 BY MR. BOIES: 8 Q. I take it you don ' t know the ages 9 of any of these people? 10 11 A. The ones that I did recognize were roughly my age. The ones I don ' t know , I 12 wouldn ' t have a clue . 13 Q. Did you, or insofar as you are 14 aware anyone , maintain a list of females that 15 provided massage services to Mr. Epstein at 16 his residences? 17 18 19 20 21 MR. PAGLIUCA: and foundation. Objection to form You can answer if you can A . Q . I don't know anything about a list . Let me go back to Exhibit 28. I 22 want to go down this list, excluding 23 Mr. Epstein himself, and just ask you a 24 series of the same essential questions about 25 each one. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 22 of 23 Page 197 1 2 3 4 5 Confidential CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that GHISLAINE 6 MAXWELL , was duly sworn by me and that the 7 deposition is a true record of the t~stimony 8 given by the witness . 9 10 11 12 13 14 Les Registered Professional Reporter Dated: July 22 , 2 016 15 (The foregoing certification of 16 this transcript does not apply to any 17 reproduction of the same by any means , unless 18 under the direct control and/or supervision 19 of the certifying reporter . ) 20 21 22 23 24 25 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 23 of 23 COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 8 (File Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 ·•. -,·-::-~"':11~~·--."':~.?4 "' 4</YfyMP.JjLjj#. OS#;_,. • • ; ' ·{)t~( \ 0 "I sen+ yY\O.\. \ -to +hefY co-rrec...+- ~r-e.ss a.v.d. c.RU~d -Post ~, c.c=.. -\o ~a...,t<_ Su.'V'"G CL\\ ~~ Ma..:\ c....ui~\ \oe. ¾'-+' "1't) ~ (%) -:X: '3,e,y., e.t:h..J-e. ..(_ ...\-i., C. u:t.\o I e.. COn-,pq.~ -..\-o U!l~e. °"' ~~s&a.~, ~ii,s i ~ ~ -e.,~· ~o-o'f'\e.S +- 0,.ppo,n+,n~. ·6 hi_s)a.,'ne. asf(:ed v #-r M<.:. -\o ~~e.... A°'-f.)aOOl~e("\+· b~~se -+h~ lV )0· ~e'_., 1l>lv~ f?.qo&°' dQe..'5 rto-t fle4 ~ ~\e.a.x- r~~p~~Of'l . <f) S\-\.v~ Co~PAi-J"-1 uJ,u....· ~e; ~rl<-1/ _ --rH-J}e..S'D'f\C-{ -,c:, ,he'1sul,(:c <&#U 7T€1e.. AJ G}( -r -to ~ H, s LA ,-,u~ 1s <]) i:1..51~ . . ,# t:!' S-lf vifG/2- t.v' I u Al Or 1!,t)t,.,L "'Dt>WIJ. ~ ' SA02969 -.: •::. -·: I GIDFFRE001523 i L j I Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 IMPORTANT MESSAGE TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO see YOU WILL CALL AGAIN . WANiS TO SEE YOU RUSH ,RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION SIGNED 1184 J IMPORTANT fVl.ESSAGEJ FOR &-zt.-/ OATE ________ A.M. TIME ___ P.M. M-.,------,----------- OF ______________ _ • PHONE-==,.,,=,-----===------=-==~ AREl,.COOE HUMBER" EXTENSION . TELEPHONE;D PLEASl;.CAU:. . :CAME.TO.SEEYOU WILL CALL AGAIN : WANTS to SEE'. YOU RUSH RETURNS) Y.OUA CALL • SPECIAL ATTENTION ---------------'\ I lfy1PORTANT .MESSA<:iE ·, FOR '\- £ DATE ; / _,,, 2 F _,,., ~ ,,. • ?Q A_M, 0. 1 __. ,fr.,. r TIME 19 · ; P.M. M 01ilQ k / /t £ {RJ·S": £ tr OF ___ _ PHONE-,AA=EA,.,..COO!:i= EXTENSION TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTl_\)N MESSAGE ____________ _ SIGNeo,_ /2,1/7 .... _.___;...__ _______ --;-;;;tt=e,c • j I'M~_9RTANT -~ESSACi·E f: .r·c • CAME TO SEE YOU ""1, • • ~ . . W..wfS TO SEE YOU • :RETtIBNEO YOiJA CALL MESSAGE l}J {J-,.J ·fj •• IF ~f.{l Z • 1. A.M. TIME ! 'Q CV P..M. ~LL CALLAGAfN • ' RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION SAO01456 GIUFFRE00 1427 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 oF ______________ _ PHONE/ MOBIL-------------- TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU Wit.I. C.ALLAGAIN WANTS 10 SEE YOU RUSH RETUANED YOUR nAI.L SPECIAl ATTEfllTlON SIGNED: ~ 1184 : [. IMPORTANT MESSAGE]· FOR CY?tf c''J)S/.e;:'h PHONE/ A.M. P.M. MOBILE----~-=--------- TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANT~ TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE------------- ctrGNED 11&4 - -· •• . ' .. ·{ IMPORTANT MESSAGE l FOR ,fa--(/ M OF ______________ _ PHONE/ /~'/~ / . < ( MOBILE_1.._. ____________ _ • TELEPHONED ;J< Pt.EASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOIJ WILL. CALL AGAIN W~NTS TO SEE 'YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE---~--------- SIGNED a, 1184 .·,,. J IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR 01~ f'h & ..X t;,. (/ DATE 1//? J/Of7 TIMES'"-' ."J 7 ~: M--''--------------- ·of ______________ _ PHONE/ M98ILE-·.------------- / PLEASE CALL CAME i'O SEE YOU Wilt CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED VOUR CAU. SPECIAL ATTEITTION MESSAGE------------- ; '• ,. SA02827 SIGNED n 1fa: : / • I: GIUFFRE001451 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I ,. . FOR ., OF __ PHONE/ MOBILE TELEPHONED CAME TO SEE YOU WANT$ TO SEE YOU RETIJRNED YOUR CALL PLEASE CALL WILL CALL AGAIN RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE------------ SIGNED &t￾1184 . [_..IMPORTANT MESSAGE I CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS-1'0 SEE YOU RUSH RETUANeo YOUR CALL SPE<;,rAL ATTENTION MESSAGE------------~ .. r SIGNED SIi •• ' a..:!::=.::::;::;;;===;;;;===;;;;;;=;;;;;::;;;;;;.;;·t!!!t84~ '.:-.l - . .. ···~'' - I IMPO~TANT MESS~GE I • FOR M:$ I MAX~ E: u .... DATE 041 ;)S J ~ 4 11ME 6 • 55 M6, N ECOL€ Hf.5SE ·TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SE!: YOU WILL CAllAGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTEITTION MESSAGE a. 1184 IMPORTANT MESSAGE fOR___."-""'-',__._,_~---------.--- A.M. OATE . M C:lhislai oe TIME \ PJA. ·, OF _____________ _ MOBILE PHONE/____________ ' _ TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE you RUSH ·RETURNED YOUR-CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION j>l'\\ro 'sxAs.h • \:t-c\c'-Lj \7:i ?\-c,'1 ns (C. cwv\ · 00 9 h:;:c:M) oc LQ "' ... -STbtf w,~"' tt"'s\c,i Qt SAO2830 GillFFRE001454 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 -----------· •• ----------..... I iMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR /JS.f J 1· ! 6j- . DATE f~t M~ E 1)$1'2.ll TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION SIGNED a 1184 ·• ., -~:, ' .:- .• j ., IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR HI?.. t'. (1;. /..f t N DATE TIME g. Jo ~:J: M .S: A- 1e._,4,- If .. OF PHONE/ . MOBILi:: TELEPHONED V PLEASECAU CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CAU. SPECIAL ATTENTION ME!jGE 1LL c A-L..L --Enc.. tc SIGNED a 1184 :: TELEPHONED· V PLEASECALl v CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN wmrs TO SEE YOU RUSH RETUANED YOUfi CAIL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGf ___________ _ GA l..Le,D SA02833 SIGNED 1f - GIUFFRE001457 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 I IMPORTANT M-ESSAGE I I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I Fo; \ f?tt cf' _u -- u A.M. DATE 11ME P.M. FOR 61o£o6L o.+ D'11'FEF6~ \\·1' I< f;, f'.S 1t 1gME 7 . .f4 • ~ • M Cth1s)c~i r\:e • OF c. a 1 \Ji r:.\ M OF tv\.5. M-A:XW E-l L PHONE/ PHONE/ MOBILE • MOBIL" TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAMf: TO SEE YOU WIU CALL AGAIN CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO S.EE YOU RUSH WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH REllJRNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE MESSAGE\\ C P.LLE.D J)Lf 1 Nor VE:.R"I i'·MPO-R..1tl\fJ ll SIGNED a .1184 SIGNED t a. 1184 ' l . . . . . ... ~.. . - . . . - ~ .. -- ·- . . ... . .. ..,. . . . . .. ... ·-···· .. ...... - ' ... . .. . . ...... . . .. 1 I IMPORTANT M .ESSAG~ I. ~R E ~-rE. 1 N. , TELEPHONED v' PLEASE CALL v CAME lp SEE YOU __ WILL CALLAGAIN WANT$ TO SEE YOU ROSH· -3 RSl'URNEO YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION C..ALL f>ftl...j:. I I MESSAG~ •• ! ,; \ '•! SIGNED: ~ a 1184 I ,•, . J f: IMPORTANT .MESSAGE I 'FOR • M f<, • . E. PS ,E. t l\l DATE G/(,/04 ~ • TIME S-.s1 ~: ~:.. ::fON"/ PHONE/ MOBILE CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE: YOU RUSH l'IETUANED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENflON MESSAGE ·~ WllL BE- Co.MlN6 ·AT H , _. H A.M.:~~ODt\ 'i. .... .. .. :-:-: ... T..~ .. .. ~ ";... ,. • ,- SA02836 a ·SIGN~ 1184. GillFFRE001460 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 ! ; A.M. __ .___P.M. M _____________ _ OF __ _ PHONE/ MOBILE TELEPHONED CAME TO SEE YOU WANrS TO SEE VOU REiURNEO YOUR CALI. PlEASECALL Will CAl.:L AGAJN RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE------------ -, ..... SIGNED a 1184 ~ • • • • • • • • - • • • • • - • - • I n • • SAGE FOR A,,l\'lt DATE _______ TIME-'' · ___ P.M. M _____________ _ OF-------------- PHONE/ MOBIL<-------------- TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILLCALLAGAIN • WANrS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALI. SPECIAL ATTENTION . • SIGNED B/IJ • tl84 I l I IMPORTANT MJ;:SSAGE I· FOR-~__,__,__.......,. SA~ A _______ f/ ,--__ DATE OF WANTS TO SEE YOU · ·RETURNED YOUR CALL SIGNED {{k... WILL CALL AGAIN RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION ,. t11l4 :.IMPORTANT MESSAGE A.M. ___ F'.t.l. M-----------~~ _,,.t __ OF-H--.. :?---~-/24~~-=-+-o/ _/ - PHONc/ MOBILE------------- :· TELEPHONED •i.- 1iLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPl:CIAL ATTENTION MESSA.GE------------ SA02837 SIGNED GIUFFRE001461 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR 1-j~--£. :f· 1,c:.,f r/. i .- ! 1..( • DATE :;: '1 ·::,. eo 4- TIME ··_;, .-~·-f ~ TELEPHONED • • Pl.EASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU Will CAU... AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETIJl'lNED YOUR CALl ' SPECIAL ATTENTION ·MESSA.GE----------- c ft'(.:(_ tp .: SIGNED : j 1-MPORTANT MESSAGE I f-OA Stt~ AH • DATE I I q ] O 1i"' TEI..EPHONEO CAME TO SEE. YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU RNEDYOURCALL PLEASE CALL WILL CAU...AGAJN RUSH· SPECIAL ATTENTION fL. · -Litt L 1 Jf f: It /2}; 1/l:- Jt ttsnf . . SIGNED· , aa {184 IMPORTANT MESSAGE TELEPHONED .,,.,- PLEASE CALL , __ CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALLAGAlN WANTS TO SEE VOU RUSH RETURNED·VOUR CALL • SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE----------- : .! SIGNED . : ' . . a ll!ld j IMPORTANT JYI.ESSAG~ ( FOR·''\ NI!. . F /.s. J E A .,../ -. -, OATc( in TIME···bJ.£ ·_ef M $ MAY t:se.lL i OF ;> .. ;\i\ j{t..J\/ Pl-:!ONEt-- MOBIL~.._ _____________ . _ TELEPHONED V PLEASE CALL ~AME_ TO SEE YOU Wfl.L CALL AGAIN· WANTS TO see YOU RUSH .F.IETlJRNED YOUR CAil. SPECIAL ATTENTION ____ ..... SA02840 SIGNED a . 1184 GIUFFRE0O 1464 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 [ IMPORTANT MESSA.GE I • •• J'Yf'.l /• t "" I FOR-_._-'--'--'--------:----- ~;..,.:;.._-'---'-. - TIME b -. .3(3.: ~ TELEPHONED . , v Pl.EASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU ~LL CALLAGA1N • RUSH YOUR CALI. SPEC1At,. ATTENTION MESSAGE p L C. l\"L L j r r, u r: __ '!:> SIGNED ...... _,. a 1184 IMPORTANT MESSAGE· FOA__..,:.:...:....o.~-/fi=~~/_'1--_· _____ _ DA~ TIME f C • 3l- ::_ M _ _ ,·· TELEPHONED v PL.EASECAU. v CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SE:E YOU RUSH ·RETlfANEO YOUR CAU. SPECIAL ATTl:NTION [. 1 • ' } IMPORTANT MESSAG~-, FOR 'lf{R . Ff'.g?Ei/V CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE-------------'- SIGNED a 1184 IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR-,.:.,.:.:....!..l.__-=.:...='--'--"""-'~----- ·OATF 7 q / 01 TIMI= 11 ~so ~ M OF PHONE/'. MO~=--------""---- . TELEPHONED i.,' CAME TO SEE YOU SA02841 GIUFFRE001465 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 ..; ... \I .... "' ~ , ~ } ~ :'! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !! ~ ~ ~- ~ .13 I] (§ !"" ~ ~ ~ !J ~ ~ [J !.9 '·" I.~ I~ ,~ !. >-' f 1, I.~- 1...~~ I A= I .,-M .a IMPORTANT MESSAGE I I ~ -~- '£"~':°'}..-..,,--·@~'' FOR '-j;; .. ._.'!ft::;/-·~ .. ·-?:+=·--2...::-, .".'. ·l '.\ • • . - .f ~ ,, .,.... .- , . . -· ., . 1 . -q ~ . , . . · . r . . A.M. DATE :' ·- ~ ' , ... '· :tiMli? I ' P.M. M , OF I _ .... PHONE/'" t··-" .(.:- . --·· \ J '< • l--. -~-·,. • , ,Jt:::-1 \.-. j""' ·j r . / ._, '-.:, L. _, MOBILE ' TELEPHONED _ .. , .... PLEASECAU. CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU --- RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE ~- ' . SIGNED ~ 1184 f IMPORTANT M,ESSAGEt FOR !H ii/ "".;:.-•r' .,,.:.:._z· ,.~-1 • ,;' ' . '· •. (· A.M. DATE TIME P.M. ' , ' ; '. -- \·.A !, M .• . ~ r- --t OF.....: PHONE/ /:t . \ , .. ., .- ....... ~- ....... MOBIi~ f· -~---- -· ~·-· I ~ I TELE~ONED l ... P'EASE~LL ·- --f. , ,. I ·w1l...LCALLAGA1~'. i CAME TO SEE YOU ! WANTS TO SEE Y0U :RUSH . . AETURNl;0 YOUR CALL . ·SPEtlALATTENTION .. MESSA~E r 1r--e !fJ ! iJ s e.~ j o--r,..\ l -·[' 7: -;:z,u-~ ()q _,I SIGNED m 1184 TELl:PHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALI.. AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CAU SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE ~h.e· _ s~d,.-"~\ .-1[ 't:~k- ~-- ~ .. d~--., ~-· • •. h.,./ • ·, SIGNED &: 1184 IMPORTANT fy\ESSAG~ {-,.-._ ·- _.QF ______________ _ ··PHONE/ ,MOBILE----~--------- • :: 'f$t:.El';'HONED •. ~>.ME TO SEE YOU '. WANTS TO SEE YOU .•, . ·: RETURNEO YOUR_ CALI, StGNEO PlEAS~CALL Wll:L CALL AGAIN RUSH ·SPECIAL ATTENTION - SAO01465 GIUFFRE001436 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 ii ' ; ; ~ ~ ; i ~ ~ ~ :> = , = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !J ~ .. • $ •. , ~-- ~; !J J!J ~ ~ 8 ~- ~ ~ ~s ~i ~~ !eta I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR -J 1;. i:::F .-~~- c·1 M TELEPHONED "" -PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU W~LL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION ' ' s1aNEo rsH· r, k tV'' ~~.-;..,_;: a 1184 I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I TEl£PHONED CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE,YOU RETURNED voui:i CIU.l. 1 • PLEASE CALL WILL CALL AGAIN RUSH Sf'EC1Al. ATTENTION .. • . • ·•~ ~ t l "\ & 1184 I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I M ______________ _ TELEPHONED CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU RETURNED YOUR CALL SIGNED PLEASE CALL Wlll CALL AGAIN RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION ~ 1184 I IMPORTANT MESSAGE] FOR MR· tP51t:.1"1 -1)1,~i,·-4 I • ·•h'-~ A:M. DATE t , ~ J • ~_. - TIME P.M. M OF f\-l:, Ml\ '/\'Jc.LL PHONE/ MOBIL!': TELEPHONED :.~ PLEASE CALL ,,, .... • CAf\,tE TO SEE YOU WILL CALLAGAlN • WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED VO"UR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE ,, "\€.Lt... 1-l \M -Y<J {ALL "-·1 E:. ,. ,, ' - SAO01464 - :i,_ SIGNED T\1./\. Si, 1164 GIUFFRE001435 l I I i j ' ! ' Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 r i p f ? r IMPORTANT MESSAGE I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOA_.::::~O~~"P"-:.-------- - DATE g: TIME~· 0 .PHONE'/ -:' MOBILE------------~ TELEPHONED , • PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH REllJRNEIJVOUR CALl. SPECIAL ATTENTION SIGNED ... , _.,,, ........ ,.. 1184 I IMPORTAN~1MESSAG~ ,. \ ... -· ~ v-· , FOO ..... ' r· .. ; AM. I ·-c DATE TIME•· f'.M. :M-..... • -~·(· •' .·; ' l. ·J J\ ,!I,. t I - OF' "t - PHONE/ . ' .· J MOBR.E .. .. - TELEPHONED . i,.EASECALL .. "i. CAME TO SEE 't'OU ffibl.C/'!~AGAIN \. ~ WAN'T.:S TO SEE YOU RUSH·· -,' RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE : i f ' SIGNED'. a 1184 , ...... PHONE/ MOBILE ________ _,_ ___ _ .. · ' TELE:PHONED CAME TO SE.E YOU WANTS 10 SEE YOU . REnJRNEO YOUR CALI. PLEAsE CALL . • WILL CAU. AGAIN AUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION _______________ : SIGNED .. 1184 !.'IMPORTANT MESSAGE I .,. WANTS-TO SEE YOU RETURNED YOU!=! CALL SPECIALATTENTI.ON : j MESSAGc.----.....--------- ,·: .. i ... ! SA02845 SIGNED GIUFFRE00 1469 j ; ' ~ I l Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe I IMPQRTANT MESSAGE I J - ' • RUSH RETURNEC> VOUA CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE_.._._._ •.._.,.___...., __ . _ _,.(.L..A ..... ll..,.£...,f)"-1-. __ _ '.SH£. t~Ji.~ An J l::\E 'Nfv SIGNED a 11&4 J tMpORTAN-~M'ESSAGE J- · 'i:l • FOR \ g l-- j o.e.TE O ~-.Au~ PHONE/ ..... ", .. MQBI.__ ___ __,...,_ ______ _ TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU' ' WIU. CALLAGAfN WANTS. TO S~E YOU RUSH RETUBNED \'OUR CAll. SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE----------=----- J?e;1Jitro- y-::,.1 r. • r :oo· SIGNED_._ SA02848 a· .::_ 118'4 OF ~ \,:·. I - I ) . ·J :· I . I - ., PHONE/ r , , _;.1 1' MOBILE .. TELEPHO"(ED PLEASECAL.L. CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALLAGAlN WANTS TO SEE YOU RtJSH RETURNEO YOUR CALL • SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE SfGNED a 1184 :: J IJ\'.'.lP(?.WANT MESSAGE I =~A~E M G.h:.1·W-o1t1 JL Of _____________ _ r.'6°J~v' TELEPHONEO PLEASE CALL CAME TO see YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETORNEO YOUR CALL SPECfAL ATTENTIQli MESSAGE $\It • LE.. 1 _ L/V.:F...y 6-o 1~f ::w1..y -~uH/T 1..-;i f'"8 Pe.:\~B-:J GIUFFREOO 14 72 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 51 Ja Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 [! t:. r.: Ii t! f! f! t! ;-.0 t: :rl!l lt.e 'I ... :!:> J.~ J.~ ·1 ;1·-~ •· !It 1!.t :·t -. ~- J'-~ J,~ l~· l~- ~e ~~ lil" ~i ~ . . fl ' i I ' ~·- I ' i I IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR :... DATE M OF RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION / MESSAGE----------~- / , SIGNED 1 .• ·-. $; 1184 IMPORTANT M_ESSAGE fOR_-'-,l r---,:,,-;.:.IU..;.." .............,,_' ?~.--=·. ~>4"""'-~-- A.M. DATE _______ TIM'E.,.......,..... __ P.M. M-~~.........,__---;,.-~"'-"·; ,r;...c.,,.t~J· ~k:.....-. - WANTii TO ~EE YOU FIETURNl:D YOUR CALL M~E- ·r0e RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION .•I ·. ] . '. (_IMPORTANT MESSAGE f FOR ;£- . •. • P.) • :;:;, A. . -..----......... --TIMFJ • .. ~~- TELEPl:IONB> CAME TO SEE VOU WANTS TO SEE YOU RETURNED YOUR CALL SIGNED PI.E/\SECAU. WILL CALL AGAIN RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION a 1184 :'J • • • "N.1-ESSAG . . ,OF--------'------ M08,u:;.. PHONE/ _____________ _ Ta.EPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO.SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURN,EO YOUR CALL SPECfAI. ATTENTION ~- a'_; ~Sl::;:GN:,::E~D;;;;· __ • =========;;;;;;.l1!ll184~ • ·;- SIGNED __ ,, 1' I SAO2850 a: -1·. GIUFFRE001474 I l I l i i j j l I j r Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 1.- ' [1MPORTAN:f MESSAGE I FOR ;59{S-&. l • DAlE \ 1-t~ - O\.J TlME .1. ~-:t-O M OF_ PHONE! _MOBILE_ . CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU RETURNED YOUR CALL MESSAGE SIGNED WILL 9AU. AGAIN RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION a 1184 .I IM-~ORTA.NT MESSAGE I :1~ CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURN~OYOUR CALL · SPECIALATTENTION MESSAGE----.---~-----,-- SIGN • •' • a 1184 · J . ~: i,J . T IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR-=-..p..-1-=.~~==~~) _____ _ -~ '~:;::.,_~ OATE.(.!p.:s..ii~::...:::~,.___j_-11M~. :.}ro.dt 5a.'ta/(j P.HONEJ MOBI~----------------- TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO.SEE YOU RUSH .. -l'tETIJANl;D 'r'.()UR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION CAME-TO SEE YOU WILL C~LAGAIN WANTS TO SEE \IOU RUSH . RETIJRN!g) V0IJR"CAI.L . ~PEClALATTENTJON MESSAGE----------,---- SIGNED SA02939 1184 - GIUFFRE001493 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 r ' TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU Will. CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSI-I 'RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE------------- SY\ee..r·e c::,e,lA a 1lll4 I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR _ __,_-1-:.-='--'hol...11-~:::._.:_' _____ _ DATE----1-:E,,,f.....1.t:::1.J.~=t....- 4~'2u M .,s, Of _ _..,_ ___________ _ PHONE/ MOBILE ____________ _ TaEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN . . • '~ANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION ME~SAGE------------- SIGNED 1184 • . . .... . - . --·· •,~• .t ··- ... -·- ..... --....... - -- . -...... ' ... ........... -. ' ' .. -.. ··l·tMPORTANT MESS.AGE l" FOA--'-'~Y-..--,....._'-;i~·-·."'£.......c..-.~•-------- DATE--i.J!..+-!..Ll::l.f-1.L,.;;:ll-- M ~ OF------=---------- PHONE/ M091 TELEPHONED CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS ro SEE YOU RETURNED YOUR CALL PLEASE CALL WILL CAU.AGAIN RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION i - ; 'i . I .:ivlPORTANT tylESSAGE· ., • A.M. TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU AIJSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION • MESSAGE------------- SA02938 GIUFFRE001492 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 ) IMPORTANT MESSAGE I 'IJ.. ~ r,, FOA---~~~:;:::,_~1'4:::.i..:::2.--____ _ TELEPHONED f'LEASECAlL CAME TO SEE YOU WIUCALLAGAIN WPJffS TO SEE YOU RUSH ReTIJRNEO YOUR~ SPECIALATTa,rr!ON SIGNED IMPORTANT MESSAGE TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO·SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS :rP SE.E YOU RUSH· RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION• MESS~GE------------ ' , . SIGNEQ a 1184 ' -,. ·•:,; ' ,. .! ,. I; TELEPHONED PU:ASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU • WILL CALL AGAIN WANTSTO~EEYOU ~USH' RETURNED YOUR CALL Sf'ECIALATTElfrlON MESSAGE------------ ............ .. ·-· --······ ,.. ... -· .... ····-••.-•·· ... -·•'"'• ---·- ... -................... . , IMPORTANT MESSAG'E DATE__.-~,_..,_ _____ _ g.'cc) M J--~ OF_....,,.... ___________ _ MO~·u:_' PHONE/ ___________ _ TELEPHONED.· PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CAl.:.L:'AGAJN WANTS TO SEE YOU .RUSH RETIJRNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENlJON MESSAGE ~ S~ro vV~u czi\~ ~-<- \l SA02943 ~5f;p\ a,, SIGNED 1184 ':, ' GIUFFRE001497 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 J IMPORTANT MESSAGE I ' . FOR ::J ,::f_·: ' ,...,,, TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILLCALLAGAIN , WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH • ! • - - -- -RETURNED YOUR CALL '$PEdlALA1TENTION I l MESSAGE------------ !' I i §? \ Q '2 .,S G ge,IA. Y\-1 !9 SIGNED 1184 - I· IMPORTANT MES~AGE I : FOR TELEPHONEO PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNEO YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATIEITTION MES~E------------ SIGNED a U84 j 1MPORTANT MESSAGE ( FOR • OF _____________ _ .PHONE/ MOBI~------------ TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN· WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH •• AETUFINE;DYOURCAt.t: •• ·SPECMl:ATTEt.mON MESSAGE-,-.------------ d~Q;~t! ccdL SIGNED a· 1184 -~-------------- PHONE/ MOB~-----------------.---- "TELEPHONED PLEASE·_<;;ALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO see YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CAlL SPECIAL ATTEt.mON . . . ti SA02949 SIGNED_ -----==;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;::::;;;;;,.!1~18:.,4 - GIUFFRE001503 I Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 ~ ~ ~- 4- 4 4). ~ 4 :;f. 4). ~ :a ~ ~-- ~' ~., ~'. ~ j a a(· al ·, .. 1· IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALI.AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH. RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE------------ Pl t::ef J f' I call J,,,r SIGNED 1184 ·• f IMPORT-A-NT MESSAGE J-"·. FOR ,:. .' ·•:.:; • 'l irtJ ' ttl • A,M .• IME;Vi•tV-~'. . :· CAME TO SEE YOU • Wlri-'CAU. AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETUF.INED YOUR CALL , SPECIAL ATTENTION . .',; •.i I iMPORTANT·Mt;:,~$AGE I FOR zr: ... £ ' TELEPHONED Pl.EASE CALL· CAME TO SEE YOU • :WIU. CALL. AGAIN '.1-------,f---1+--------t---1 • , WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH flETIJRNED YOUR OAU. SPECIAL ATTefnoN . MESSAGE------------ SIGNED a, 1184 f lMPORTANT.M'.E'.$$AGE;:I • ·1; FOR ~ • t- f'!:'-f~ I M' • ·. • ~; .M: ,. TIME // : J_q . -~ 1 M ' Of _____________ _ PHONI:/" MOBJ..._ ________ ._..a... __ _ TELEPHONED PLEASE CAU. , • CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN ·•· WANTS TO SEE ¥OU RUSH .• RETURNED YOUR CALL SPEC/AL ATTENTION i_ SA02967 SIGNED ~=~=;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;======;;;;;;t;;..Ji11J!84~ Sa -SIGNED c,(!88,,~ . • .. ·. ' .. ·- .,_- .• .:··· . GIUFFRE00 1521 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 51 Jane Doe 2 I 170RTANT MESSAGE I FOR ;}¾y: DATE w 5° /p>f TIME /:J':j ~ M ~-~ t'aJ/1.e OF _____________ _ MOBI....._--... PHO~~ __________ _ TELEPHONED c] PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATI'ENTION MESSAGE------------ ·120:( .::/4_, SIGNED a 1184 I. IMPORTANT MJ;:S~Aq_,::J FOR . A.Mo DATE TIME P.M; ' ,, I M ' OF PHONE/ MOBIL"'" TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CAU, AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE • M_._ CAME TO SEE YOU I • j ; WANTS TO SEE·YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE------.-------- :9;e. µadd Zle. & SIGNE IMPORTANT fy\ES~A,GE M . OF _ _.__ ___________ _ PHONE/ MGBILE------------- TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME: TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECiALATTENTION MESSAGE------------ '· s A02998 .. SIGNED 1~1 GIUFFRE001553 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 TELEPHONED (:AME TO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU RETURNED YOUR CAll MESSA~- • ~a-?e SIGNED Pl.EASE·CAU. WILL CAI.L AGAIN RUSH SPECIAl.AlTENTION a 1164 f IMPORTANT ME$:~AGE 1· . . . . OF _____________ _ PHONE/ MOBL~-----'--------- TELEPHONED .~EASE CALL . CAME TO SEE YOU Will CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH AETUR~D YOUR CALI.: SPEClAL ATTENTION .- hc.-c￾IMPORTANT MESSAGE OF----:----------- ~i[if '/4~,. .hc-t+ c -r '-/ TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO S!=E YOU WILL ~ALLAGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIALATTENTION • MESSAGE------------ G-Oih'-1' . ~c.-l ~ SIGNED . I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I .FOR-,~~..._.......,.c......... _______ _ : • -:~ Tl~l' / 2_ .··21 ~ TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEe YOU WILLCALLAGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RE.T.URNEO YOUR CALI.. SP.ECIAL ATTENT!()II{ ... SA02968 _:·.:u • \(~:~ .. ~·/ ;f$.4 GIUFFRE001522 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 22 of 51 Jane Doe 2 , __ ., __ . ___ _ • ••-••--•--•-•• .. •--•--••--•-•••_.'ho .. , --•WO<#_,..,.. _______ •••••-.-•-••-••••--•••-•---•-•-----.. -•._ __ _ I •M1RTANT MESSAGE 1 FOR _· E . DATE z) t. 7 ) 0> TrME /cJ.' 18 M---.----~------,-.....--- OF /9,s - _/7.Cl y Wt'/( PHONE/ MOBILE ____________ _ TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETIJRNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION SIGNED IMPORTANT MESSAGE M r TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILLCALLAGAIN . WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION a 1184 I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR J. ,1..... . r-- :. ' c,_ • DATE Z/.z~"/-c:>>- 4:~01~ TIME , M Geo.VJ L (AC OF PHONE/ /Jc: .;t:;Mc.rfc.,.. :::I/ MOBu.E 9" TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU FiUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPEClAL ATTENTION MESSAG~E 1/, / -'O J{'J . (~.t,/ /411/VJ SIGNED -r: a 1184 QF _____________ _ PHONE/ MOBILE------------- TELEPHONED ,~-PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH FIE11.JRNED YOUfl CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION S.A.001067 GIUFFRE001388 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 23 of 51 Jane Doe 2 IJVlt'UK IAN I . i ' OF _____________ _ PHONE/ MOBILE .,,. TELEPHONED t\ PLEASECAU. CAME TO SEE YOU-... Wlt.L CALLAGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL qAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE //,!/ s /""cMII, SA03000 IMPORTANT MESSAGE -- ,__ ____________ __,., WANTS TO SEE YOU AETI.lRt,IEO YOUR CALL I srGNEO RUSH-- SPECIAL ATTENTION 1184 - I IMPORTANT MESSAG~-f FOR 1,.,../.,/..,,--e:..t".4 ·. • • .. 1-?t? -7 /· 0 1:>~_- /I' -:r,ClJ&.: DATE I G T,_ · TIME • ~V P.~, M~~-A . • OF ____________ _ ' ~~~-'----....;.;.·• ------- TaEPHONEO CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU RETUfWEO YOUR CALL '<IEP: PLEASE CAU. WILLCALLAGAIN RUSH SPECIALATTENTION ----- • ' ei 1184 GIUFFRE001555 t Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 24 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 ___ 6 :os f'.M. · lELEPHO~ED P~ CALL CAME TO SEE YOU Wilt CALL AGAIN WANTS TO see YOU RUSH RETIJRNED YOUR CAl.1 • $PEQlAL ATTENTION ' ' l ! ! } ' i j IMPORTANT M~SSAQ~. SIGNED .. a 1~84 . . -• • i • •" ---- - •--- •• •- •· 0 0 -• •- ... • ·• ■••·-- ~ •--• M ..... - ••- -·----·-- ■ .. ••• .. •• •\ . . . . I IMPORTANT..11/\E~SA9E I 0--n1s,lcUr>c I FOR OATli 02 llfiDS:- TIME • . 1·SO&. · M C.hf'J t!tA" re. • OF, PHONE/ MOBILE ·TaEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAMeTO SEE YOU WILL CALL.AGAIN RUSH WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION RETURNED YOUR CALL S_PECIALA1iEN:flON - MES~ ·~· ev\..}[. ' ~{)..lk. . SAO300 1 GIUFFRE001556 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 25 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 IMPORTANT MESSAGE ~R---,,~~'----"'----------- DATE...,..._£--___,..,=-="'-----TIME 12; 9 0 ~ M Ch:0 ·,.,e, Of _____________ _ PHONE/ Mom~------------ TELEPHONED (\ PlEASECAll CAME TO SEE YOU WILLCALLAGAIN WANTS TO SEE: YOU RUSH AEl'tJANEO YOUR CALL SPEC!ALATTENTION MES~ -:-re cno rifdt doe..sn 7J SIGNED t1 H ; ; a 1184 [IMPORTANT MESSA9-E I FOR l. { TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALLAGA!N WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION 1 ! ' i . i j I I ! I i l . i i • . SAO3002 SIGNED IMPORTANT -MESSAGE· OF _____________ _ PHONE/ MOBI------------- TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU Will CALL AGAIN • WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH￾RETURNED YOUR CALL SPEC'1ii.ATTENT10N SIGNED IMPORTA.NT MESSAGE TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU "WILL CALLAGAIN WANTS TO SSE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION rJrue ofl fcia.. _, ~J. ?q;?ef.5 ----- ;, GIUFFRE001557 r I i l j ! r l +· ) t Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 26 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 •l .-i 4!. J At! JOI I 4! I .ei I ... ~ .-1 I 4! .. ill .... I -8 ; . I .. ~ JI'.: 4! A! . l , I .ei All Jlt J l ' ! I IMPORTANT MESSAGE ' FOR rt-( TELEPHONED PLEASECA1.L CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YotlR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION / ' SIGNED a 1184 I IMPORTANT MESSAGE., E. FOR~=-'---.-"'-,----------~ 1 TELEPHONED PLEASECAl.L CAME TO SEE YDU WlLL CAU AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH _,..-~ AffiJANED YOUR CALL SPl::CIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE------------ J. a . 1184 : . ...-...., __ CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU RETURNEC! YOUR CALL SIGNED SPECIAL ATTENTION 1184 - I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR 7}Ll ' }] . /1'1. a;< vvJL/.___ 3 Jo& Jvr- TIME q: 01· ~ TELEPHONED v· PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALI.. SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE------------ 41 ~ UM # SA001071 SIGNED a 1184 GIUFFREOO 1392 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 27 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 j lMPQRTANT MESSAGE I '-I /..I ~:?1:-~~,¥\_.; FOR - ---,_.."-'- . .r;Jr ...._,,,-,..--/-,------------ OATE '-I / .,t-,f,,• / 0 .S TIME / - ! ?· _;::, M __ --.:..l_!'_~ e,_,,'-,.../ .,,_~_~1+-------- Of ______________ '• _,I _ PHONE/ MOBILE-~------------ Tptf:PHONED v·· PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WIU.CALLAGAfN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION SIGNED c<. IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR '--J·n.4_ ~ • 't'~\.ut.. OF_ PHONE/ - J ' - a 1184 MOBILE-------------- TELEPHONED v ....... • PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALLAGA0 IN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION . r. _I SIGNED.. c:;:;:;,,:.-.,1 j IMPORTANT MESSAGE J - FOR--a''---=-· _r::....-,..·-------- oATE ~// J /.~ _,< M ___., I ,,.. .,i' ! . • , -? OF PH MOBILE _____________ _ TELEPHONED PLEASECAlL CAME TO SEE YOU WIU.. CALL AGMN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE------------- SIGNED ,. 1184 I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR J:·, 1=-, ' ' DATE 5 ,_, 'J,R,}(,l<; ...:::, TIME 1z•;iS~ J I • M S <? f· ctl "1 OF PHONE/ MOBILE ·TELEPHONED PLEASEC~ CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WAm"S TO SEE YOU RUSH RETU1'NEO YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE -- SAO01414 - -r mi C:lt::U'IIICn ~ ... GIUFFRE001446 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 28 of 51 l I.IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR-..P,..'1-1-,;.W..:::/---------,---- DATE--=~~...µ~~-TIME /2.:-d) ~ M-..LL...L.C.L..lo<~~::...r..:==---------- OF·---------------- PHONE/ MOBILE • TELEPHONED x PLEASECAU CAME TO SEE YOU V WlLL CALL AGAIN WANTSTO SEE YOU RUSH RET\JRNEO YOUR CAil. SPECIAL ATTENTION ~ YI \:iZ • ,,:) J -fh,·r- -th~ '01'1 -1 l:fj 1184 :-JIMPORTANT MESSAGE I" _ fOR ~TE a;o ffi! 05 TIME , , :01 ~ • M Cec,•( /Ja., OF PHONE/ MOBIL'" TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL ·CAMe TO SEE YOU WlLLCAL1.AC3AIN WANTS TO llEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE • ~ Tl. l¥J ~ ;:;; bL pl.••:atJe , . C=cn - ; - . t s SIGNED 1:.:'I .. ,. : . ! . j ' .. I IMPORTANT MESSAGE]. FOR :r: t:. " DATE 311.1 I b_s TIME 7 ~CJ$"~ /. ;,5 It ( ·wed~r ~ M OF PHONE/ •. .. MOBILE . ; lE.EPHONED PLEASEOALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILi. CAt;LAGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETIJRNB) YOUSJ CALL SPECIAL ATTE'NTION' MESSAGE - .. .. . ·-· .. - ....... . SIGNED l. 11! • E D&:2:·'f'-, ;) =.L,4,4'-l,A..c.J'o'I· . , ... . -~ ....;:;.--=;,:..;.:.~::;:_--:..---------'·• ·s, PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WIU. CAU.AGAfN. • WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH ' RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAl.,AlTENT!ON' MEBSAGE--~--------'- Tia:i ~e ·cq;l{f. -d. i A02972 SIGNE • 1 t184 .:1 GIUFFRE001526 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 29 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 ~/; .. · I -: . . . : f . • ~: - . .t • [ E ! '; .. -· I . .. •, [ . ~ ~~t I • · . . .. ~ i·· -~~ ,• .. .-· . . . . I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR .:tfi_ t t v<j_ DATE !Lt JtJ Io .J TJME r/2 : JO~ .. ::: M" ?h~{wf4, OF PHONE/ MOBILE TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL K CAME TO SEE YOU WIU. CAU.AGAIN ~I_... WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SP SCI AL ATTENTION MESSAGi:- -·· .. SIGNED a 1184 I tMPORTANr MEssAaE 1 FOR ~?/ DATE# ~ • M-' .,,.., •• OF_ PHONE/ MOBILE. CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS TO"SEE YOU • "HEn.lRN.ED YOUR CALL RUSH .f;PEQIAL ATTENTION ·MESSAGE------------ i . SIGN .. . ' .. -·· - .... .... --····-·· ---- -···· ·-·~ ..... ---- --· . .1. i --·. ·- • _______ ........ ···--- ... ·-- ------ -·------ ··- -- 11&4 -.... . FOR • E PHONE/ MOBILE------------- TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME 10 SEE YOU WILL CALI.AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH AETUFINED YOUR CAJ.L SPECIAL ATTENTION SIGNED -" i ' ! I IMP?RTANT MESSAGE.-J FOFl,,'"·,r. E .· ., D • I I • A.M. ---P.M; M OF __________ __,;;...... . ·.· __ 'PHONE/ .·, .. :. :, - MOBILE _______ _,-_.· ....,-::.'-'-:· ..... · __ _ TELEPHONED PI.EASECAU. CAME TO SEE: YOU WlLL CALL.AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETUFINED YOUfl CAU. SPECiALATTENTION MESSAGE------'------- 5ht: w~1,1/ _-nd:nn.~ SA02975 -I I SIGNED,________ ----- --- •• • .,,, GruFFRE001530 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 30 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 f IMPORTANT MESSAGf: I : lr1! j I ;rp .... Z,:t;O ~ M _____________ _ TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED VOUA CAU. SPECIAL ATTENTION . . ME GE_,,,::........;;~.....,...---"--'--''-r-+--- 0( Sht J,..J CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU RETURNED YOUR CALL RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION a 1184 MESSAGE ___ ...__ _______ _ ,. i I ·I lfy'IPORTANT MESSAGmE I ·::: /:/1~~: r zq 9-/1.- :. TIME _ 1~. I{- M _ _.,_,,_ ___ ---,,_ ______ _ I. ( ,..-. • OF ~ / ~ •• - -• ,., PHONE/ MOBILE. TELEPHONED CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU RETURNED YOUR CAlL f'LEASEOAU.. Will. CAll. AGAIN RUSH SPECIALATTEN1.10N M~AGE------------ .... ,I. ·t· . •,- .. ,.·~.·: .... -~·-/'__,..-..... ~--)----.,...----. j /: .,"r~·, (.• ,~- - ._.. ~:....- .. ,. -./~ n :. ·•· ,, 1-.. SIGNED f-.. ! 11.l 1164 1. --··· - ... -- ' ' ' :• I ..JMPO~ANT MESSAGE I FOR f:(:trt~ ." DATE , zr:i L-r nME /.'OS-:-~ M 6-h /s { ~r ;,,,rc_ ' •• OF PHONE/ 1140Bl1 "' • TELEPHONED PLEASE CAl.L • f-7 CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN .WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALl SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE ::::fr. f C-<.J(. cd_/. /-Ju- bu ,,/c. .. - : .. SA03013 SIGNED GIUFFRE001568 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 31 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Ja Jane Doe 2 I IMPORTANT MESSAG~ FOR • • • TELEPHONED. )< PLEASE CALt:. . CAME TO SEE YOU Will. CAU. AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED '{OUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSME------------ IMP,.ORTANT"MESSAGE PHONE! ,, 1184 - MOBILE ________ ,_ .• ___ _ TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WIU. c.ALL AGArN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION J.: ...,i ! J I i I i I i SA02 f IMPORTANT MESSAGE r FOR .Y· E. : - DATE __ 5.....,_1/:""""'~<+½_l7..;;..r_s' __ T!ME 3 ~ ~6 tJjl M - OF PHONE/ MOBILE-----,--------- . TELEPHONED PLeASECALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALLAGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH -RETI)RNEO YOUR CALL sp~Ol,N.Al'TE.NTION MESSAGE------------ SIGNED 1184 •· ... .. . . . ~.... . . - --., __ -·- --· --~ .. - -- --· ---- -···- ... - ... -- . . ' l·_'IMJ>()RTAN·T MESSAGE I ~R~ 'I Dj - OO TIMV'. I~ M .01) RQ,7( : ---- • OF "PHONE/ MOBILE. TELEPHONED PLEA/;jE CALI. CAMETOSEEYOU Wlµ. CALI.AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU • RUSH RETURNED YOUR CAL/- )(_ SPEclAL ATTENTION , ., MESSAGE - - . < • - 980 .. I SIGNED a 1184 GillFFRE001535 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 32 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 • ( IMPORTANT MESSAGE I I IMPORTANTM.E~S~~E I \ :!( ...... - FOR I : : ; DATE '5f2?/a·s- TIME g .' lO ff:' M Ee:.u.: FOR ~ e_ : '>.Jvpr .. . .• A.M 'DATE TIME • .7 ' 2" .Q ~ /libXwel( - M -./11;-S I OF .. OF PHONE/cd MOBJLE 6.tJv {a.,Jl b.-0'4> C. .. PHONE/ MOBl1 S:: TELEPHONED . , .· PLEAS!; CALL ~ TELEPHONED X- PLEASECAU. .. .. CAME TO SEE YOU· WILL CALL AGAIN CJWE: TO SEE. YOU WILL CALL AGAIN .. wmrs TO SEE YOU RUSH WANTS TQ SEEYOU RUSH RETUANl~IYYOUR ~ SPECIAL ATTENTION RETlJRNED YOUR CAil. - ~~CIALATTENTIOl'f . .. - ·MESSAGE MESSAGC -···· .. ., - .. .. • ~-"1 ·--· ' .• ...... .. . . , ,.:. ......... SIGNED a 1184 , • SIGNEn --r 11ft --·- , __ •• --·-·-· ·-·· -- -··· -- -·-·-·--··- -·-· - 1 --- -· - · -·- • ·.IM'PORTANT MESSAGE IMPORTANT MESSAGE PHONE/ MOmLE-----.....c.....------- TELE!'HONED PLEASE CALL TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL :· .CAME TO SEE: YOU WILL CAI.L AGAIN CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALI.AGAIN WANTS TO SEe·vou RUSH WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH AETUF!NEO YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION RETURNED YOUR CALL ' • SPEOIALATTENTION MESSA~E------------ SA02981 '.SIGNED ---► GIUFFRE001536 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 33 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 TELEPHONED CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU RETURNED YOUR CAll ....... .. .;. TELEPHONED CAME TO. SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU Ri;TURNED YOUR CALL .... , ···--- .. j IMPORTANT MESSAGE ' FOR ~E= DAT!; • J/ J'.l J b5°' TIME ] :o{ ~ M L es/t 'e //Ve ~J,,r OF PHONE/ .. MOBILE .. PLEASE CALL TELE?HONED PU:ASEOALL WILL CAtLAGArN CAME TO SEE YOU WiLL CALL AGAIN RUSH WANT$ TO see YOU RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION FltTIJRNED YOUR CALL SPECIALATTENTIOl'f MESSAGE - .. .. .. - . . .. - SIGNED l. a 1184 , 1184 : • ~lb · -··- ••• ··- -·- ..... --·- ·· - · . I. ·-- --··· .. -· '·- .... _ ............ - · ·--· ·-·-·· ---·. - • •• PLEASE CALL WILL CALL AGAIN RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION ; ~ . . i SA02983 a 1184 WANTS TO SEE YOU RETURNED YOOR CALL WILL CALL AGAIN' . RUSH ' SPECIAL ATTENTION / GIUFFRE001538 ! l i ! l ' l i Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 34 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 f 1MPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR DATE f!;Jtls- TIME fJ2 ; /0 ~::.· M. 6,h?s f. Q/i ½?. OF PHONE/ MOBIIC TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL K· : CAME TO S~ YOU Wlll CALL AGAIN ~ 1--" WANTS TO $EE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MES~GE , .. SIGNED a 1184 OF ______________ _ -PHONE/ MOBI~------------- TELEPHONEO , PLEASeCAU. CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALLAGAIN WANTS to SEE YOU RUSH RETVRNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION ME:SSAGi:.-E-------.-----,,,--- _5 hc IA/<'vrl rUn [v1 t J tMPORTAN'f MESSAGE I FOR ~r-e:. 'I DATE fl 4it1 .s'. TIME...,..;.=.~~!::I M..:. ,-- - CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH "RETURNED YOUR CALL ·SPECIAL ATTI:NTION MESSAGE------------- SIGNED .l . ---- -· - ·- .. ·-· -............. - . t., 11M ) IMPORTANT MESSAGE:! OAT TIME--- OF _____________ _ 'PHONE/ MOBIL..._ _______________ • ;(:' _ TELEPHONED PLEASECAJ..L CAME TO SEE YOU WILLCAU.AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPEciALATTENTION MESSAGE-------------- :Sb t°!' Wl'Vli _·t:u nn~. SA02986 ----- a L.::S:;;IGN::.!EO~~~====;;.;;===;;;..,.;;;;;..~"t1i1!!J<1 -ls-~S:;IG::,::N:,:ED;:_;;=====;;;;;;;;;.;=;;;;;,:;;=;..:1:l.!164~- GIUFFREOO 1541 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 35 of 51 Ja Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 TELEPHONED • )< PLEASE CALL . CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION TaEPHONED PLEASECAU CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CAU.AGAIN WAtlTS TO SEE YOU RUSH flETURtEO YOUR CAU. SPECIAL ATTENTION ( IMPORTANT MESSAGE f' FOR J· E. DATE 5hfaf . TJME 3 ! ott}j? M TELEPHONED . • PL.EASE CALI. . CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALLAGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETVRNEDYOUA'CAU. SPECIAl:.ATTENTION MESSAGE------------- Of ______________ _ PHONE/ MOBILE_· ____________ _ TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME'fOSEE.YOU WlLL CAU.AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH REnlRNEO YOUR CALL SPECIALATTENTION MESSAGE------------- SAO2990 GIUFFRE001545 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 36 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 · I ~MPORTANT MESSAGE I \. ~ ... _.,, ........ FOR / : •' PATE ~/2 4/tJ\- M Ly~- - TIME g: 10 f:: OF ___ : -,-______ ....._ ___ _ ~call dQy TaEPHONED . ,· PLEASE CALL ~-"' CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED"YOUR CALL SPEqlALATTENTION ·MESSAGE---------------- SIGNED -.- 11S4 , , ; l I IMPORTANT JytESS~GE I FOR Y, t;_ · -/./ • ·,· AM DATE > ~.2/t? £ TIME .,7 ' 2 0 . • M /lfrS /i,te;r /Wt! I( QF _________ _,__ ____ _ PHONE/ MOEit.....__ ____________ __, TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME. TO SEE YOU WILL CAU.AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE--------'----'------ SIGNED - a 1184 ··-- -· ·-- ·--- ·-·- --·. -- ·r ·-., •• _ -···· --- .. • . • ·--· .... , .. ,.. •.. /J IMPORTANT JYlESSAClE TELEPHONED WANTS TO SEE' YOU RETURNED YOUR CALL PLEASE CALL WlLL CALL AGAIN RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSA~E------------- •l ; ' . i 8A02991 ' PHONE/ -MOB/,....._ _____ ....... ____ ~-- TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILLCALLAGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RETURNED YOUR CALL ; ' SPECIAL ATTENTION GJUFFRE0O 1546 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 37 of 51 J Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 .vur • I I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR .Ji~ PHONE/ MOBJ........_ __ --'----------- TELEPHONED ti PLEASE CALL i/ CAME TO SEE YOU .WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTEl'ITION MESSAGE------------- SIGNED iJ1 11&4 IMPORTANT MESSAGE TEL.fPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO see YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE------------- SIGNED 8> 1184 I IMPORTANT MESSAGE l FOR--.=t--·-·-~E=--·--------:;,,,-, DATE 6fi > l~f r M_---:c;=::.-•__..._.M..-:-•------ OF ______________ _ PHONE/ MOBILE------------- TELEPHONED 1X PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU Wlll CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION SIGNED I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR ~. J. ,1 E'p~~1 ·~ • l, I t.J r TIME / ';} : -:J._f~ M Of ______________ _ PHONE/ .. ~- MOB~E---------------- TELEPHONED PtEASECAlL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALLAGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH Rffi.JRNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE-----------~- SAO01078 SIGNED GIUFFRE00 1399 .. I 1 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 38 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 .. I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR ;;:,- £' DATE ,1~/o~ TIME~ f t M OF G.·. l!J_, PHONE/ MOBILE • TELEPHONED "'x. PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU ,, WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS.TO SEE YOU RUSH '. RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE -- SIGNED ~. BT 1184 - ~- . --.. -··- ---- ··-- -· •••. I - l • ! l ' OF ______________ _ PHONE/ MOBILE _____________ _ l'EL.EPHONED • CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU PLEASE CALL WILL CALL AGAIN RUSH .. . 111!4 - ; f IMPORTANT MESSAGE ' FOR ,J:. E. DATE QF ______________ _ PHONE/ MOBILE------------- TB.EPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE------------- SIGNED PHONE/ MOBII .E-------'------- TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL ~ETOSEEYOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIALATTENTlON • SA001081 SIGNED GIUFFRE001402 l I l i I ! ! Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 39 of 51 Jane Doe 2 I IMPORTANT MESSAGE] FOR :r..· £·. DATE & l I j_ L <7 >.- A.M, TIME P.M, M •. • Ce'c-1/,'a OF PHONE/ MQBIIC TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH AETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MES~E - e~ al/I ,·J_ Vt.Pi,,{ ab !Ou±. r.0£,,~tttv1ce C 12. ti a. -1:. .s. II rt SIGNED .,- & 1184 J 1MPORTA·NT 'MESSAGE' I FOR ""1 t::. . ,/ ,nrl'f,."""~ · . ., . A.M. OATE TIME P.M, M OF -~<¥).:::\1\V\~ PHONE/ 'MOBILE TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CAI.LAGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIALATTENTION MESSAGE ! ~ .5'vi<? c.\.c;<;lS(J\ \ uo \,~ jc ('C.,w ~ -l c.. ·l \)1<:=> • u.1c,v i e s. L,d C<:t H 0!~1( l-£ -~OU u.,o_ \A,-\ C).._ l...\,\o.ss~ e ±:::> f'~ () VE' ◊\/ 0-. {'-\-~ y 4JI\ ~ , VV..Q\J\ € SIGNED 1164 ·• IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR r ~ DATE2's."/07f/0~ TIME /J:4:;, . M frd:n r ht!.clZU off!-z ·c C OF ____________ _ PHONE/ MOBILE-------------- TEl.EPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNEO YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION PHONE/ MOBILE..;..·-----,-------- TELEPHONED Pll:ASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU Will CALI. AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR OAU. SPECIAL ATTENTION SA001084 SIGNED GIUFFRE001405 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 40 of 51 ., i i !' i ! ! r i I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR J=•E. DATE 8 l I :J..Jo:>- TIME 4·:12 ~ M (i. M. OF PHONE/ MOBII..E TELEPHONED X PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CAU.AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETI.IRNED YOUR CAU SPECfAL ATTENTION MESSAGE she. tc.lt ( I m ,.. ,2. .z. ~~ dt-1 Cl.lA//-'/'Jl..1,p KJA,';) 't, l tA e_ "rl- . SIGNED ..,..._ a-. 1184 I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I \--· FOR •• -:; ·t AM. DATe ________ TJME--~P.M. M ______________ _ OF __ _..._...;;a..:.~--=--=---------- 0 o.\l oh MOBI......_ PHONEI ____________ _ M ______________ _ QF ______________ _ PHONE/ MOBILE------------~ TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN - SIGNED _I IMP. . ANT MESSAGE I FOR--.--,f--'-.-.--.._ _____ ....,....._=" DATE...-j:.=f-ll,.L,C...J..JL<~~---T~E-~-- M °'. ..,,. l OF------~-------- PHONE/ MOBILE ____________ _ TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALLAGAIN * i 1/.-t?Q fl/'1 ,, i i O&J085 t __ SIGNED ~ J· a ~=:=:.=======;;;;;;;===;;;;;;.J,;11~84U : 1.,,:;:S;.:;:IGN::,;:;:ED:._=====•=====;..:1.lil184:u -~-I GIUFFRE001406 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 41 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 f IMPORTANT MESSAGE J FOR ___ --;....! .....,~_t--..,F__. ________ _ ....... ..J. .-; i ~ 1· /.• .4 • .v ~ .-,•-, A,. . DATE ---,----.-~'-;.1-,? -~ -_-• .;, __ TIME ,,- -' ' __ -., - P.~. ,.. •• , J ' f ' ~lcf-'"'.j•,...,..•- M_-,.<-,._._!--'·=---r .... f""',~-"-1,....,· J__.,<.,_-,._i ------ OF ______________ _ PHONE/ M08'l.E _____________ _ TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION SIGNEO -.- ..._, ai￾1Hl4 I tMPORTANT MESSAGE I -.F FOR--=,t----'------------ TELEPHONED ~EASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WIL_L CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE vou· RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL • SPECIALATTENTIOlil a ---i1R4 I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I --· FOR T . /'~·.- DATE 'S ,·. I.,...-~, ,- .... ...:. _/ c:' ..e!:. . ,.· t' ·.> TIMI;: :-; : 2 ~-ti- ) ./>._/ /. -/.,,,, M (:-·. 4 -_ OF PHONE/ •. MOBILE TELEPHONED )( PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU Will CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE . --- Bil SIGNED ; 1184 ~ I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOA ~-: E ..:;J ! • I _,. A.M . DATE ¢' /7 7. /,-,;~ TIME P.M. I ~ , it-1 M , ,, OF PHONE/ ·' OOSILE· .. . . TELEPHONED )l -PLE¥E CA/1. CAME TO SEE YOU ~ILL Cf.LL A0AIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH ·.- RETOONEO YOUR CALL 'SPECl~_-A'fTENTION MESSAGE - SAO01477 --- SIGNED ,· $ 1184 GIUFFREoo 1449 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 42 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 __. : ~ ; ~: _., 8 1 ~ --- - -J IMPORTANT MESS~u ... ,- ~,. j FOR 1 (1./i. • J . t::,-;, :de,'\ n) .;_3 c ·-' J ." /f A.M. TIME ___ __..eJ....,M. M OF _______________ _ Pl-fONE/ MOBILE ______________ _ TEI.EPHO~EO PLEAS6 CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL C.A.LLAGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSl-f llETUANEO YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE-------------- --..fl SIGNFO· c:r- .. 1184 IMPORTANT MESSAGE FQR _____ ;t,, ______ ✓~· . __ t;a..~ ..... P._d_~_, ..... :..iL--__ _ ; TIME ,/.j." o? I ~ PHONE/ MOBILE--------------- TELEPHONED ✓ PLE~i::cAU CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNl:D YOUR CALL SPEelAt.ATTENTION ·MESSAGE-=------------- 0[), - - r·~{ -------, ..l 1184 -·- ' ...... ORTANT MESSAGE I FOR "\ .:. A.M. DATE TIME P.M. M OF •~)..~:, t~ '• .'l . PHONE/ MOBILE TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTSTO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE \ tff. r.• r...-1 . l \.-:~l··-·(- V\··· ....... ., .. 'i •· ~• \ · .... ") J r;-' ~ .. ·.•, \ \ ., ..,. '- [ ~ ·' SIGNED a, 1184 ( IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR /;-'4 · J £.p£M ·1 • l ·,·~'fill TIME J • .:;, P.M. M￾OF _______________ _ PHONE/ MOBIL1e---------,-------- TELEPHONED' .,.. PLEASE CALL 0AME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN. RUSH I SPECIAi.ATTENTiON WANTS 10 SEE VOU RETURNED YOUR CALL MESSAGE-------------- , _ _. .-1. SAO01449 a SIGNED 1t84 GIUFFREOO 1420 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 43 of 51 Jane Doe 2 I IMPORTANT MESSAGE ' FOR DATE M PHONE/ MOBIL TELEPHONED CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU RETURNED YOUR CALL : .,v '·1 -/v>. l .,. ·-.. d. SIGNED TIME PLEASE CALL WJLLCALLAGMN RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION A.M. P.M. a,_ 1184 f IMPORTANT MESSAGE J FOR :JC::.. DATE M TELEPHONED CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS 70 SEE YOU RETURNED YOUR CAl:l. M~GE - I ~o. se ·ca.\l SIGNED TIME Pi.EASE CALL WILL CALL AGAIN RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION !?C,\c k A.M. P.M. a 1184 '. I ' ~ I ' \i.C. f IMPORTANT MESSAGE.I FOR ~z; DATE M OF Ad\r~ I)_ \A.CA PHONE/ MOBI TELEPHONED CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE VOU RETURNED YOUR CALL • I • ,:_ - - - .: ~ SIGNED TIME PLEASECAll WILL CALI. AGAIN RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION A.M. P.M. a 1184 J 1MPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR A.M. 00 TIME P.M. ·" M PHONE/ MOBILE TELEPHONED PLE/ISI: CALL . CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE 7" l!j s! tMc1~1E? ~do. v'\S @: ~~ \,S ~ ·011086 SIGNED -· .. V ,r ,:~ ·~· .. ~ _, ,, . - (j:f,.TfHE!D, t i j j j ! ! I l i ' Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 44 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 [ IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR ..;;:-~. DATE .9 j L't/ll , .s- TIME 5.·4,0 ~ ...... I M ,,, - OF PHONI:/ MOBILi= TELEPHONED· X PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE ·'' SIGNED ) a 1184 1. IMPORTANT MESSAGE J FOR ,J:- E. DATE .:JI 4/-os TIME' J ,· z s ~ M 8 d~ I~ k1 °' OF ______________ _ PHONE/ MOB!~------------- Tl:1.EPHONED X PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU Will CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE 'you RUSH RETUflNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE---1,_._:~r..u~~..,;.a._ h o e SIGNED ..... OF ______________ _ PHONE/ MOBILE--------------- TELEPHONED ✓ PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WIU. CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALl SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE---------~--.--- J'.../l.,,_, --w--1/ . ~ :A..t.: ,Y .~ ,.. -~ .-· ~ :--, _,. ~ -~ -·~ ·::.i ".J SIGNED ,,~ l -,-...:· ... . . . .. _ .. ' . . ·-··- .. ' .. . ... -· ' - ... -·- .. - . :: I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I ; .- :- FOR 72kt C J • E;; f'<"+e j • '1 ;. -~ CJ L-st Lor · TIME .:Z: oa-~: .• DATE j' - . , ;. M ' .... ,. - -(., ·- ~~ OF .- PHONE/ •' MOBILE ~ ? TELEPHONED V PLEASE CALL :-, CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH ~~: FIETUANED YOUR CAU. SPECIAL ATTENTION :• ,., ~·, ~ MESSAGE .. ,. ... -- -.-- .• :-:1· ~r '- .- .- SAO01089 -.- - SIGNEn of( a {1 -· 1184 --~ "' . -~- GruFFREDD1409 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 45 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 •,. i· f ; I I i j I I i ! ,. ,· i ! I . - ~ ~ ) IMPORTANT MESSAGE] DATe __ _,-t-, __ ro--1/~o_:1' __ TIME M_G=---. 0---1'1-<.-.:... _____ _ Of ______________ _ PHONE/. MOBIL.__ ____________ _ TELEPHONED CAME TO SEE YOU WAl<fTS TO SEE YOU SlGNED PLEASE CALL WILL CALL AGAIN RUSH at. 1184 I IMPORTANT ME~~SAGE f FOR-7"t"_._E---:~·-------~ !1 ~ l o / 0 s- TIME fl : u; P. . OATS. M_.._c; ........ ---'-M___._._, ----- OF ______________ _ PHONE/ MOBIL,,__ ____________ _ TELEPHONED CAME TO Sl:E YOU WAITTS TO SEE YOU - _ . ....,r<.1ANT MESSAG,LJ OF ______________ _ PHONE/ MOBILE------------- TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE--------------- 5 :tJ l!J P /Y SIGNED a 1184 I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR r E. TIME M Of ______________ _ PHONE/ MO Br,._.__ ___________ _.,._ TELEPHONED PL.EASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU Wilt. CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAi.ATTENTION ;It SAO01090 GIUFFRE001410 I ;.. ' Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 46 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 ( IMPORTANT MESSAGE] FOR J:· E. D E/2.'.$'0~. M OF ______________ _ PHONE/ • MOBILE------------- TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME: TO SEE YOU WIUCAlLAGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH • RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE--...,....,.----,----+----- Zai? h~r 11,,1 SIGNED - I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR J-E_- - A.M. p M OF Pl-i . ' ., MOBlt. . ..._ ____ -'--------- iELEPHONED CAME TO see YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU RETURNED YOUR CALL SIGNED PLEASE CALL WILL CAU.AGAIN RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION l\L 1184 -- I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I DATE __ !J4/_1_o+/ ... 0 __ 5 __ .,.,.,. ___ TIME--!...lc....L--= M-0:--·· _/_'1--=-. _' • ____ _ OF ______________ _ PHONE/ MOBLE--------------- TELEPHONED CAME TO SEE YOU .- .- OF------------------ MOBILE P HONE/ _____________ _ TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAUUTENTION SAO0I091 ~: I L.:;:Sl:!!GN~E;,:;D;;:;;;t;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;=;;;;;_;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;:;===;;;;..l;11!,2:84!J. > ! ·~ j • 1 GIUFFREOD141 l l l Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 47 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Ja Jane Doe 2 · I rMPORTANT MESSAGE f FOR ..:;f C.-... · DATE ~j I ;-, I O 5 TIME 3 ~, ( i! . M A ob-1~uo, Of ______________ _ PHONE/ MOBILE .... ------------- TELEPHONED CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU RETURNED YOUR CALL SIGNED PLEASE CALL WILL CAU. AGAIN RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION a 1184 f JMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR /1'1A · ✓ . e-·,,.......,__, II Os PHONE/ MOBlu...---.----------- 'Ta.EPHONED ECALL GAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH AEl\JRNED YOUR CALL SPE'C!ALATTENTION MESSAG"'------------- SIGNED a 1184 ; j .. ' r IMPORTANT MESSAGE , FOR ~£ A.M. DATE ________ TIME ___ P.M • M ______________ _ OF N PHONE/ MOBILE ____________ _ TELEPHONED ·Pt.EASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH REnJRNED YOUR CAU. SPECIAL ATTENTION SIGNED I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR---=.]:+-·-'t:;.=-.;...• _______ _ DATE _j / 1 O IC, 5,- TIME~ ~~ M Rd1-,a vr "\ ;~ OF PHONE/ MOBILE TELEPHONED CAME TO SEE VOU WANTS TO SEE YOU RETURNED YOUR CALL ·oo SIGNED PLEASE CALL WILL CALLAGAIN RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION ,I. be o SAO01093 .~ ~ -~ ~ :• :r ' ,, :: ; ;, ~ ,Y ,v .~ .~ ,- .-,Y -~- -~ •" ~ ,Y .v ..... .... - ~ -,.. ~· ,Y ::: :... .v .... . v .... - ,Y ,, 118' i:: ,v ·== GIUFFRE001413 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 48 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR_~-~r- ___ .~E ....... __. _________ ~ -..J . ! ?.:i'"'' TIMF 2-~•56_~ OF _______________ _ PHONE/ MOBILE-------------- TaEPHONED X PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WlLL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SP EClAL ATTENTION MESSAGE-------------- SIGNED a,, 1184 I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR • CAME TO SEE YOU Will. CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CAtl SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE-------------- I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR :r- ..E DATE 1olt Lr22~ TIME q ·-·~:1·) ·L ._..-> • • _5,: ' 7 • , M . a.;,-a::z/.:2 OF ' PHONE/ MOBILE TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WIU CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE t /.., - - - 1 ~-..ct-~lii!Pd_ l!i!: • I 1111: I &I /t_///1 Ol,{.C/ ; - 4/>/l ~"' s: It / SIGNED -r a, 1184 I-IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOA---· ....... E __ . ________ ""'?"~ TELEPHONED X PLEASE CALL CAME TQ SEE YOU :WILL CALL AGAIN .WANTS TO SEE YOU 'RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE-------------- SAO01469 -.-' &, SIGNED _ __,......_ __________ 1184 GIDFFRE00I441 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 49 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 I IMPORTANT MESSAGE f FOR_-+-.,__._,_ ______ _..:...._...,,...~ DATE /C/z /&'J,.. TIME /{1; Y ... ~ . . M _5ak1l1 OF _______________ _ PHONE! MOBILE _____________ _ TELEPHONED CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU SIGNED PLEASECAJ..L WILL CALL AGAIN RUSH a, 1184 I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOA f!:U. J . t;- R?+e1 ·~, ··•• I I !_; • T n or & ? • ~ _.., A.M. ._.,..1_.A. • .... J TIME c,< • V P.M. M OF---------------~ • PHONE/ MOB~E-----'----------- TELEPHONED ;/ PLEASE CAU. CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CAU. AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED VOUR'CALL 'SPECIAL ATTs-lTION S!GNEO a￾u84 J IMPORTANT MESSAGE r FOR J:· E ' .J , / TELEPHONED -X PLEASE CALL CAME TO SE!:: VQU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CAU. SPECtAL ATTENTION MESSAGE----~-------- SIGNED IA 1184 ) IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR--J=-+-·-,~E~~----------,,.--,-- DAT ' 0 I Z TELEPHONED X PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAlN WANTS TO SEE V©lJ RUSH RETIJANEO YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE-------------- SAO01470 a- SIGNEo _____________ HA4 GRJFFRE00 1442 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 50 of 51 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Ja Jane Doe 2 r. II [ IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR-----1----~E----~--------- CAME TO SEE YOU Will CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE------------- SIGNED - a, 1184 j IMPORTANT MESSAGE f FOR .]:· e.. . DATE / t!'/J/c,_;,- TIME ~r: ( 0 A M ___5"' 0 1 ~ /2 OF ______________ _ PHONE/ M081LE-------------- TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALLAGA1N WANr5 TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED ~OUR CALL SPECIAL ATTEJ\ITION I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I f'OR X: E. TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CAlL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU AUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE------------....,....--,---,--- /.,4.M v~u -u.# _/;/,-~,, SIGNED PHONE/ a 1184 MOBILE------------~- TELEPHONED ✓ PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE------------- SAO01471 .._p GIUFFRE001443 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 51 of 51 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 SUBMISSION REGARDING “SEARCH TERMS” AND NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER CONCERNING FORENSIC EXAMINATION OF DEVICES ............................................. 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 1327-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 11 1 Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell (“Ms. Maxwell”) respectfully files the following Submission Concerning Search Terms and Notice of Compliance with Court Order regarding Forensic Examination of Devices, as follows: INTRODUCTION Defense counsel has already run the amended list of search terms proposed by Plaintiff on each applicable device and as to each email account to which Ms. Maxwell has access. Based on those searches, not one single additional responsive and non-privileged document has been identified. Ms. Maxwell’s original search for responsive documents was complete at the time it was conducted in February 2016. The recent forensic imaging and searches have merely confirmed as much. Plaintiff has sent defense counsel, this Court and Ms. Maxwell on a costly, time-consuming and burdensome wild goose chase that has yielded not so much as a single goose feather. It is time to call off the hunt. Submission Concerning Search Terms The Requests for Production Ms. Maxwell served Responses and Objections to Plaintiff’s First Discovery Requests on February 8, 2016. Those requests sought, inter alia: x all communications with thirteen specific witnesses, namely Jeffrey Epstein, Virginia Roberts, Prince Andrew, Ross Gow, Alan Dershowitz, Emmy Taylor, Sarah Kellen, Glenn and Eva Dubin, Jean Luc Brunel, Nadia Marcincova and Bill and Hillary Clinton (RFPs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 17, 32 and 37) x documents relating to various topics include massages (RFP 5 and 29), travel records (RFPs 8, 9, 14 and 39), a civil deposition in 2010 (RFP 19), and Ms. Maxwell’s professional affiliation with Jeffrey Epstein (RFPs 10, 11, 12, 15, 20, 23, 24, 30); x documents relating to any contact between Ms. Maxwell and law enforcement (RFP 13 and 38); x photos of females under the age of 18 (RFP 7), of any time inside a home or aircraft of Epstein (RFP 15), of Plaintiff (RFP 18); Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 11 2 x documents relating otherwise to Plaintiff including her hospital records (RFP 25), passport (RFP 26), monetary payments made to her (RFP 27), her employment (RFP 28), and any person to whom she gave a massage (RFP 29). Ms. Maxwell conducted a thorough search of her email systems and her devices prior to her production on February 8, 2016. All documents identified as responsive were reviewed by counsel and either produced or placed on a privilege log. The First Responses were the subject of litigation in March and April 2016. This Court limited the scope of a number of the requests (see Transcript of March 17, 2016 and Order of April 15, 2016 (Doc. # 098), and Ms. Maxwell later produced, pursuant to this Court’s Order, documents that originally had been withheld pursuant to privilege. As of April 18, Ms. Maxwell’s production of documents responsive to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents was complete. Plaintiff served a Second set of Requests for Production on April 14. Those Requests primarily concerned police reports about Plaintiff’s various contacts with law enforcement and how the defense was able to obtain those publicly-available documents (RFP’s 1-5, 19). The Second Requests also sought: x Joint Defense Agreements with Mr. Epstein and Mr. Dershowitz (RFPs 6, 7, 9 and 10) and communications with Mr. Dershowitz’s counsel (RFP 11); x “all documents concerning Virginia Giuffre” (RFP 12); x any contracts with or agreement for legal fees to be paid by Epstein (RFP 13-15); x documents concerning public statements made by Ms. Maxwell (RFP 17-18). Again, Ms. Maxwell and her counsel conducted a thorough search and produced any responsive non-privileged documents. To date, Ms. Maxwell has produced 1,130 pages of documents. Litigation concerning whether the searches conducted were thorough enough then ensued leading to the instant submission. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 11 3 Search Terms On June 20, 2016, this Court Ordered Defendant is ordered to collect all ESI by imaging her computers and collecting all email and text messages on any devices in Defendant's possession or to which she has access that Defendant used between the period of 2002 to present. Defendant is further directed to run mutually- agreed upon search terms related to Plaintiff's requests for production over the aforementioned ESI and produce responsive documents within 21 days of distribution of this opinion. On June 30, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel provided a list of 368 search terms. See Menninger Decl. Ex. A. Plaintiff’s proposal included astoundingly broad terms, to wit: x “Terramar” -- both the name of Ms. Maxwell’s non-profit and x x x “max*” – part of Ms. Maxwell’s last name, as well as all of her paternal relatives’ names. x “GM” -- Ms. Maxwell’s initials. x common words such as “hotel,” suite, villa, “bed,” “bath,” and “lingerie.” Plaintiff’s originally proposed search terms would literally hit on every single email from either Ms. Maxwell’s personal or her business email addresses, as well as every document related to the non-profit, The Terramar Project, that Ms. Maxwell founded and runs. Plaintiff’s originally proposed terms also failed to relate to the actual discovery requests upon which they were to be based. For search terms 124-341, Plaintiff took her own Rule 26 disclosures, separated the first and last names of each witness she had identified, and asked that they be searched individually (along with “wild card character searches”), even though, as described above there were only 13 specific witnesses for whom Plaintiff had actually sought all communications. For example, Plaintiff wanted the names Bill, Mark, Phil, Bob, Mike and Todd Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 11 4 searched yet there is no RFP related to those names, nor the vast majority of the other listed first and surnames.1 By correspondence of July 14, Ms. Maxwell’s counsel specifically identified the problematic terms, agreed to a limited list, and requested a substantive conferral call on this issue. See Menninger Decl., Ex. B. In that correspondence, Defendant’s counsel gave specific reasons for the objection to a number of the terms that were problematic in that they called for the search of common words, names or phrases that would likely result pulling documents completely unrelated to this case. Id. Counsel also suggested proposed limiting terms with respect to names of individuals to appropriately limit the scope and target the search. Id. (suggesting limitations on searches of names to “make some effort to match them to actual people who have some relationship to this case (like first name /3 last name or some parts thereof)”). After explaining the appropriate and well-reasoned objections to certain terms, defense Counsel agreed to search over 110 of Plaintiff’s proposed search terms, despite the fact that many of those terms were objectionable. Id. (“Although many of your other search terms are a 1 On or about June 27, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel Bradley Edwards and Defendant’s counsel Jeffery Pagliuca held a telephone meet and confer conference on a number of issues. Among the issues raised by Mr. Pagliuca was the overbreadth of the proposed search terms. The discussion was left that Mr. Edwards would talk with Plaintiff’s team of lawyers to narrow the scope, as Mr. Pagliuca understood it. Thus, contrary to the representation in the Motion, Ms. Maxwell’s counsel did inform Plaintiff’s counsel of their disagreement with the proposed search terms. As well, Mr. Pagliuca informed Mr. Edwards that because he, Laura Menninger and Ms. Maxwell were all traveling on vacations in the weeks before and after the 4th of July holiday, that they would need additional time to comply with the Court’s Order and provide the production. Mr. Pagliuca and Mr. Edwards agreed that productions would be made prior to Ms. Maxwell’s second deposition, scheduled by agreement on July 22, 2016. Based on this discussion, defense counsel was blindsided when they received the Motion for Sanctions, anticipating that they would soon be receiving a substantially limited and modified list of proposed search terms to permit search and production prior to the July 22 deposition. In the interim, all of Ms. Maxwell’s electronic devices had been sent for imaging. Defense counsel corresponded with Plaintiff’s counsel upon receipt of the Motion for Sanctions, requesting that it be withdrawn (without prejudice), pending completion of conferral on the search terms as required by this Court’s specific and general orders on conferral. It appears there was a miscommunication between Plaintiff’s own counsel on this issue, as well as between counsel for both of the parties; but, it was clearly just that – a miscommunication and misunderstanding on where things stood. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 11 5 tremendous stretch, I can agree to them in the interest of getting the search done on a timely basis.”).2 Having heard nothing from Plaintiff’s counsel by the close of business on July 15, 2016, Ms. Maxwell’s counsel ran the 110 of Plaintiff’s proposed terms on the forensic images of Ms. Maxwell’s electronic devices and email accounts, including both Because of the breadth of the 110 terms proposed by Plaintiff, the original search resulted in approximately 9,000 documents and communications containing one or more term in the content or meta-data. The volume of the documents is explained by the breadth of the terms searched, resulting in pulling non-relevant, non-responsive information from Ms. Maxwell’s electronic devices and emails, including thousands of underwater photos related to Ms. Maxwell’s non-profit, the word “passport” due to the fact that the Terramar Project includes an “ocean passport” program, as well as numerous family holiday photos. All of the documents were reviewed individually by counsel for Ms. Maxwell for responsiveness to Plaintiff’s discovery request, pursuant to this Court’s Order. Of those documents, the only responsive documents were either communications between Ms. Maxwell and current counsel or were communications with, or prepared at the request of, Ms. Maxwell’s UK Counsel, Philip Barden, 2 Defense counsel specifically requested a telephone conference to discuss any of the other terms, noting that the search would need to proceed over the weekend to permit review and production of any documents prior to Defendant’s deposition on July 22, 2016. Id. (“I am available by telephone today and tomorrow to discuss the issues raised herein. If I do not hear from you, I will presume that you are in agreement to the remainder of the terms being run on the devices.”). Plaintiff’s counsel did not timely respond to the July 14, 2016 letter, the clearly articulated counter-proposed terms (over 110 of the 368 proposed by Plaintiff), or set a time to discuss the articulated objections to other terms. Instead, on July 18, 2016, Plaintiff’s filed a response to the Letter Motion to Strike for Failure to Confer, inexplicably and inaccurately claiming 1) that defendant is running “secret search terms” and 2) claiming that defendant’s counsel refused to confer despite the clear conferral letter and request for telephone conference. See July 18, 2016 Letter to the Court from M. Shultz. 3 Plaintiff also requested searches of old email accounts of Defendant, t. Ms. Maxwell has been able to access the ” account and it contains no responsive documents. Ms. Maxwell has been unable to access and does not recall ever using that account. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 11 6 in anticipation of a potential lawsuit in the United Kingdom. See Menninger Decl. at paragraph 8. The documents concerning Mr. Barden have been added to the privilege log. Id. Upon receipt of Plaintiff’s Response to the Letter Motion to Strike for Plaintiff’s failure to confer, the undersigned reiterated that there were no “secret search terms” and that Plaintiff’s own proposed terms were used, as limited. See Menninger Decl., Ex. C. Defense counsel also reiterated the request for Court Ordered conferral, again offering times to confer that would permit any additional terms to be run, documents reviewed and production of non-privileged responsive documents (if any) prior to Ms. Maxwell’s July 22, 2016 second deposition. Id. Plaintiff’s Revised List of Search Terms Finally, on July 19, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to a telephone call with the undersigned to discuss the lack of responsive documents to the 110 search terms already run, as well as the remaining objectionable terms and their purported relevance. During the call, Plaintiff’s counsel argued that their proposed search terms numbered 124-341 were relevant because they were witness names “related to massages” (RFP 5). That justification was clearly lacking because the terms included names like “Dore Louis,” who is a lawyer for witness Johana Sjoberg and whose wife works with Ms. McCawley. They also included Plaintiff’s treating physician Karen Kutikoff, Plaintiff’s literary agent Jarred Weisfeld, Plaintiff’s mother Lynn Miller, Detective Joe Recarey, Mr. Edwards’ law partner Scott Rothstein, and countless other people who would have no knowledge of any massages nor otherwise were related to the discovery requests at issue. See Menninger Decl. Ex. A. Moreover, Ms. Maxwell already had run the Plaintiff’s proposed terms related to massages, including “massage,” “masseuse,” “masseur,” and “therapy.” In effect, Plaintiff proposed search terms sought to expand her discovery requests from communications with a discrete set of individuals to all communications 1111 - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 11 7 with anyone that Plaintiff believed was or might be a witness, although no discovery requests called for such communications. Consequently, during the conferral call, Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to withdraw the vast majority of objectionable terms. She also agreed to supply a list of witnesses who she believes truly might in some way relate to “massages” and submit that to defense counsel. See Menninger Decl., Ex. D. Plaintiff thereafter provided an additional 66 terms, all names, which Plaintiff claims she has some reason to believe are “related to massages.” Menninger Decl. Ex. E. Ms. Maxwell does not believe that searching these terms is appropriate, because, for example, the names include a journalist (Vicky Ward), Mr. Epstein’s elderly secretary, and various business people that form part of Plaintiff’s false narrative regarding her “sex trafficking,” and searching for names in the absence of a topic (i.e., massages) is well-beyond the actual requests for production. Nevertheless, Ms. Maxwell did in fact run all of the names proposed by Plaintiff against the forensic images of Ms. Maxwell’s computers and her email accounts. The second search yielded 284 additional documents, each of which were reviewed individually by counsel for Ms. Maxwell. Menninger Decl. paragraph 8 and 9. Again, not a single responsive, non-privileged document was located; the vast majority of documents were pleadings from this case. The complete list of terms run against Ms. Maxwell’s electronic devices and email accounts as agreed to by the parties is attached. Menninger Decl., Ex. F. Compliance with the Court’s Order to run agreed to terms was completed by July 21, 2016, prior to Ms. Maxwell’s second deposition. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 11 8 Other Email Accounts In addition to her home and work email addresses, Plaintiff also requested that Ms. Maxwell access two other email accounts that Plaintiff believes are associated with Ms. Maxwell, specifically . Ms. Maxwell has used the account as a “spam account,” i.e., an account address to use when registering for retail sales notifications and the like. Nevertheless, undersigned counsel gained access to that account and searched all of the documents contained therein, including in folders for inbox, trash and sent. The email account contained no responsive documents. Ms. Maxwell does not recall ever using an account with . She has attempted unsuccessfully to access that account. Counsel’s own attempts to access the account yields a message: “The email address you entered is not an email address or ID.” Counsel for Ms. Maxwell has no reason to believe that the account exists. Conclusion WHEREFORE, counsel for Ms. Maxwell through a certified forensic examiner has: a. imaged the hard-drives of Ms. Maxwell’s devices; b. imaged the servers containing emails from Ms. Maxwell’s personal and business email accounts; c. searched those forensic images for the search terms proposed by Plaintiff – including 110 from the first list and the additional 66 terms sent on July 19. Counsel for Ms. Maxwell has reviewed the documents obtained from the searches described above as well as thoroughly searched the email account . No additional responsive, non-privileged documents were identified in that process. An updated privilege log reflecting communications with Mr. Barden has been produced to Plaintiff. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 11 9 Ms. Maxwell hereby respectfully requests that: i. Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre’s Motion for an Adverse Inference Instruction Pursuant to Rule 37(b), (e) and (f), Fed. R. Civ. P., be stricken; ii. Ms. Maxwell be awarded the costs of engaging the forensic examiner. Dated: August 1, 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 1327-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 11 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on August 1, 2016, I electronically served this Defendant’s Submission regarding “Search Terms” and Notice of Compliance with Court Order Concerning Forensic Examination of Computer Device via ECF 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/ Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 11 EXHIBIT A Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 13 B O I E S , S C H I L L E R & F L E X N E R LL P 40 1 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD• SUITE 1200• FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 22 • PH. 954.356.00 1 • FAX 954 .356.0022 VIA E-MAIL Laura A. Menninger, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th A venue Denver, Colorado 80203 lmenninger@hmtlaw.com Re: Guiffre v. Maxwell June 30, 2016 Case No. 15-cv-07433-RWS Dear Laura, Meredith L. Schultz, Esq. E-mail: mschultz@bsfllp.com I write pursuant to this Court's June 20, 2016, Order regarding search and production from Defendant's electronic media. Accordingly, please use IMAP Capable software (or a functional equivalent) to capture all of the sent/received emails from Ms. Maxwell's various email accounts, including but not limited to the following: (1) (and any and any other accounts at (3) any of Ms. Maxwell's email account associated with The Terramar Project (including any accoun ; and (4) any other email accounts either used in the past, or curren y m use. Additionally, please use FileSeek software (or a functional equivalent) to retrieve any data, including electronic documents (such as Word documents; PDFs; Excel sheets; etc.), from Ms. Maxwell's devices, including personal computers, work computers, any tablets, and any phones. This includes any cloud storage accounts. Please confirm that you have imaged Ms. Maxwell's hard drives and other devices. Once you have gathered that data onto a platform (such as Summation or its functional equivalent), please run the below search terms. Since the Court ordered us to negotiate the search terms, please let me know if you think additional terms would be appropriate or whether you object to any terms, and your basis thereof. When applying the search terms, the search terms need to "hit" on documents even if the terms are embedded within other words. So, for example, the term "acuity" would yield a hit on the document, even if the word in the document is "acuityreputatoin." To return a hit on those WWW .BSFLLP.COM Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 13 Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 2 of 12 embedded terms, I request that you use "wildcards" to ensure that embedded terms are located. (Wildcard characters are used to expand word searches into pattern searches by "replacing" single or multiple characters.) Where there are a specific number of characters needed to be included, a single wildcard will achieve that purpose. For example, in some programs, ! is used for single character wildcards, and * is used for multiple character wildcards. For instance: (a) Single character wildcard example: a search for L!n! will return "long," "link," "lane," "lone," etc. (b) Multiple character wildcard example: a search for chil* will return "children," "chill," "chilling," etc. (c) Mixed use of wildcards: a search for L!n* will return "lines," "lining," "linty," etc. Accordingly, the below search terms are submitted with wildcard characters to be applied in the manner of the examples above. Please apply them as such with whatever characters is required by the software/platform that you will be using. Similarly, regarding how the terms are combined (AND or OR). OR should expand your results while AND will restrict result to only those which include all the terms. Additionally, I want to clarify that I would like all of the metadata to be searched in addition to the text of the documents. For example, if the search term is "acuity," "hits" should include all the document that include the word "acuity" in their text OR in their metadata (this includes words in items such as email subjects, filenames, as well as any documents which include that word somewhere within their text). I also wanted to point out another special syntax with regard to proximity searching. This is a search that finds words within a specified distance from one another. On some software, this is represented as w/#, so a search for "meet w/2 greet" will return "meet and greet," "greet and meet" and "meet and nicely greet." Please apply accordingly. Additionally, for searches for people's initials in the search terms, please use "exact matches," "stand alone," or "literal" terms (see, e.g., PA, AD, JE, GM). Finally, the search terms are not to be treated as case-sensitive, meaning that the terms should be searched according to their letters, regardless of whether they are represented in the list as containing upper case or lower case letters. The following are the applicable search terms. 1) jefl' 2) geofl' 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 13 Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 3 of 12 3) epst! !n* 4) jeevacation* 5) j* w/2 *jep* 6) j* w/2 *jeep* 7) roberts* 8) g!!ff!!* 9) virginia* 10) jenna* 11) jena* 12) genna* 13) andrew* 14) prince* 15) royal* 16) PA 17) JE 18) GM 19) AD 20) AH 21) GX 22) massage* 23) masseur* 24) therapist* 25) ellmax* 26) mindspring* 27) gmax* 28) emmy* 29) taylor* 30) sara* 31) kellen* 32) kensington * 33) vikers* 34) dubin* 35) eva* 36) glen* 37) brunel* 38) jean* 39) luc* 40) nadia* 3 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 13 Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 4 of 12 41) marcinko* 42) *copter* 43) chopper* 44) pilot* 45) manifest* 46) log* 47) flight* 48) passport* 49) terramar* 50) southern* w/3 district* 51) palm* w/3 beach* 52) state* /3 attorney* 53) ross* 54) gow* 55) acuity* 56) victoria* w/3 secret* 57) al!n* 58) all!n* 59) dersh* 60) law.harvard.edu * 61) alandersh* 62) 63) 64) new* w/3 mexico* 65) NM 66) virgin* w/3 island* 67) usvi* 68) little* w/3 st* 69) little* w/3 saint* 70) st* w/3 j* 71) saint* w/3 j * 72) lsj* 73) Iago* 74) clinton* 75) BC 76) HC 77) HRC 78) police* 4 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 13 Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 5 of 12 79) cop* 80) fbi* 81) federal* w/3 bur* 82) bur* w/8 inves! * 83) sex* 84) abuse* 85) toy* 86) dildo* 87) strap* w/3 on* 88) vibr* 89) sm* w/3 101 * 90) slave* 91) erotic* 92) servitude* 93) 94) 95) high* w/3 school* 96) secondary* w/3 school* 97) campus* 98) duke* 99) york* 100) licen!e* 101) assault* 102) juvenile* 103) seal* 104) joint* w/3 defen* 105) jda 106) roadhouse* 107) grill* 108) illegal* 109) immune* 110) prosecut* 111) law* w/3 enforc* 112) jane* w/3 *doe* 113) hospital* 114) hotel* 115) suite* 116) villa* 5 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 13 Jane Doe 2 Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 6 of 12 11 7) model* 118) actress* 119) france* 120) paris* 121) zoro* 122) ranch* 123) vanity* w/ 3 fair* 124) alexander* 125) kathy* 126) miles* 127) james* 128) austrich* 129) phil* 130) barden* 131) bjorlin* 132) fary* 133) boothe* 134) laura* 135) evelyn* 136) boulet* 137) boylan* 138) bee* 139) bunner* 140) casey* 141) carolyn* 142) carolin* 143) paul* 144) cassell* 145) sharon* 146) churcher* 147) cousteau* 148) alexandar* 149) devansan* 150) 151) 152) edwards* 153) amanda* 154) ellison* 6 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 13 Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 7 of 12 155) cimberly* 156) espinosa* 157) Tatiana* 158) farmer* 159) maria* 160) nn* 161) fekkai* 162) crystal* 163) figueroa* 164) anthony* 165) tony* 166) freeh* 167) louis* 168) dore* 169) gany* 170) garvin* 171) meg* 172) sheridan* 173) gibson* 174) but!e* 175) graffl' 176) fred* 177) phil* 178) guderyon* 179) hall* 180) AH 181) harrison* 182) shannon* 183) victoria* 184) hazel* 185) brittany* 186) henderson* 187) jaffe* 188) carol* 189) kess* 190) kutikoffl' 191) pete* 192) listerman* 7 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 13 Jane Doe 2 Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 8 of 12 193) lyons* 194) bob* 195) meister* 196) jamie* 197) melanson* 198) lyn! * w/100 miller* 199) marvin* 200) 201) 202) 203) 204) mullen* 205) pagano* 206) mary* 207) paluga* 208) stan* 209) potting er* 210) recarey* 211) reiter* 212) richards* 213) sky* 214) rothstein* 215) forest* 216) sawyer* 217) doug* 218) schoetlle* 219) cecelia* 220) stein* 221) mark* 222) tafoya* 223) brent* 224) tindall* 225) kevin* 226) kirn* 227) thompson* 228) tuttle* 229) vaghan* 230) cresenda* 8 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 13 Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 9 of 12 231) valdes* 232) valla* 233) martiza* 234) vazquez* 235) vick* 236) ard* 237) jarr!d* 238) weisfeld* 239) courtn!y* w/5 wild* 240) alessi* 241) rizzo* 242) rinaldo* 243) biddle* 244) sophie* 245) sofie* 246) degeo* 247) anouska* 249) fontanilla * 250) lynn* 251) jo* w/3 jo* 252) gramza* 253) grant* 254) waitt* 255) ted* 256 265) listerman* 266) lopez* 267) cindy* 268) lutz* 9 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 13 Jane Doe 2 Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 10 of 12 269) mellawa* 270) brah* 271) 272) 273) 274) mitrovich* 275) andrea* 276) peadon* 277) bill* 278) francis* 279) preece* 280) dara* 281) louella* 282) rabuyo* 283) robson* 284) haley* 285) adriana* 286) mucinska* 287) spamm* 288) visosky* 289) doug* OR dan* w/100 wilson* 290) igor* 291) zinoview* 292) allyson* 293) alyson* 294) alison* 295) allison* 296) chambers* 297) Gwendolyn* 298) beck* 299) Kelly* 300) Kelley* 301) Bovino* 302) ron* 303) burkle* 304) max* 305) cordero* 306) vald* 10 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 13 Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 11 of12 3 07) cotrin * 308) chauntae* 309) dav* 310) teala* 311) ry!n* 312) dionne* 313) anders!n* 314) Rosalie* 315) fr! !dman* 316) tiffany* 317) Kathryn* 318) eric* 319) erik* 320) Lesl* 321) groff* 322 325) 326) ignatieva* 327) bret* 328) adam* 329) perry* 330) liffman* 331) Michael* 332) mike* 333) cheri* 334) lynch* 335) todd* 336) tom* 337) Pritzker* 338) Joanna* 339) sjoberg* 340) leslie* 341) wexner* 342) underage* 343) under!age* 344) minor* 11 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 13 Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 12 of 12 345) daily* w/10 mail* 346) daily* w/10 news* 347) lie* 348) obvious* w/10 lie* 349) sex w/3 toy* 350) nipple* 351) schoolgirl 352) school w/3 girl 353) us w/3 att* 354) United w/3 states w/3 att* 355) Guggenheim 356) Pedophil* 357) Paedophil* 358) Gerbil* 359) Traffic* 360) Bed* 361) Bath* 362) Masturbate* 363) Ejaculate* 364) Masseuse* 365) Lingerie 366) Boies* 367) Mccawley* 368) Schultz* Meredith L. Schultz MLS:dk 12 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 13 EXHIBIT B Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-14 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 4 1 From: Laura Menninger Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 2:35 PM To: Meredith Schultz Cc: Jeff Pagliuca; Sigrid S. McCawley - Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (smccawley@bsfllp.com); 'brad@pathtojustice.com' (brad@pathtojustice.com) Subject: Giuffre - Conferral regarding search terms Meredith – I am writing to you, in compliance with the Court’s Order, to negotiate the search terms for the search of our client’s electronic devices. While Jeff raised many of these issues orally with Brad last week, I am including them in written form so that there can be no dispute about our position. I do object to the vast number of your 368 search terms. Most are not tied to any Request for Production served on Ms. Maxwell, nor the Court’s Orders limiting those requests. Terramar – Search term 49 is “Terramar.” While we are searching our client’s terramar email address for otherwise responsive documents, this search term would pull up thousands of documents related to her work for that organization which are (a) non-responsive and (b) irrelevant to this action. We will not agree to this standalone search term. Witness Names With regard to the search terms numbered 124-341, insofar as I can tell, you have simply broken apart the first and last names of every witness included within your Rule 26 disclosures. However, you never submitted a RFP seeking all communications between our client and your witnesses. There are some RFPs which identify individual witnesses whose communications with our client you sought (e.g., 1 – Epstein, 2, -Plaintiff, 3-Prince Andrew Kellen, Dubins, Brunel and Marcincova, 17-Gow, 37-Clintons) and I will include those names within our searches. As to other names included on the list, many are incredibly common names (e.g., Bill, Mark, Phil, Pete, Bob, Mike, Todd) which you are asking to search as standalone terms, i.e., divorced from the accompanying surnames or first names. You have included the name “max*” well aware that our client’s surname, and that of all of her paternal family members, will begin with those three letters together. Your search terms thus are likely to yield every single email sent or received by our client, or her family members, or any other document in her possession with her own name on the document or in the metadata, in other words hundreds of thousands of non-responsive documents. Your search terms include “bill” and thus are likely to include every bill that our client has received or sent or discussed. Your search terms include Philip Barden who the court has already ruled maintains an attorney-client relationship with our client (and to the extent others are copied on his emails, those would be captured by searches for the other people’s names). You included my client’s boyfriend of many years, though he is not on any witness list or in any RFP. In sum, I will not agree to the search terms regarding witness names numbered 124-341 unless you (a) provide me with an actual RFP to which they each relate, and (b) make some effort to match them to actual people who have some relationship to this case (like first name /3 last name or some parts thereof). Lawyer Names What is your basis for search terms numbered 366-368: McCawley, Schultz and Boies? Likewise to the extent Mr. Edwards and Cassell are also included in the witness list, what is your basis for searching for documents referencing them? These search terms seemed designed to pull privileged attorney-client communications and do not correspond to any RFP. We will not agree to these terms. - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-14 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 4 2 Common Words You have included a number of words that relate to common items and place names. Please explain which RFP allows for a search of the following terms: 50 – Southern District (which will pull up every attorney-client communication that refers to our case and includes any pleading) 51 – Palm Beach (a place our client lived for many years) 64 – New Mexico 66-72 – USVI by various names 113 – hospital 114 – 116 – hotel, suite, villa (every single travel record related to our client’s travel which the Court has not ordered) 119 – 120 – Paris, France 121 – 122 – Zoro, Ranch 360 – Bed 361 – Bath 365 - Lingerie Other Words Many other words have no relationship to this case. Please advise me as to (a) which RFP they correspond to and (b) your good faith basis for seeking these search terms in relation to any such RFP: 93 – Abernathy 94 – Brillo 355 – Guggenheim 358 - Gerbil Conferral Although many of your other search terms are a tremendous stretch, I can agree to them in the interest of getting the search done on a timely basis. According to our forensic expert, running a search on Ms. Maxwell’s devices of all 368 terms will take more than a week. I am available by telephone today and tomorrow to discuss the issues raised herein. If I do not hear from you, I will presume that you are in agreement to the remainder of the terms being run on the devices. That should allow a production of documents in time for Ms. Maxwell’s continued deposition next week. I am intentionally not taking a position regarding the other demands you provided in your letter of June 30 at pages 1-2. The searches will be conducted in accordance with standard practices in the industry and the Court ordered us to negotiate search terms only. -Laura Laura A. Menninger Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Main 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 lmenninger@hmflaw.com www.hmflaw.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended • - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-14 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 4 3 recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving it in any manner. Thank you. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-14 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT C Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 5 1 From: Laura Menninger Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 2:27 PM To: 'Meredith Schultz' Cc: Jeff Pagliuca; 'Sigrid S. McCawley - Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (smccawley@bsfllp.com)'; ''brad@pathtojustice.com' (brad@pathtojustice.com)' Subject: RE: Giuffre - Conferral regarding search terms Dear Meredith, I am in receipt of your opposition to the Letter Motion to Strike your Motion for an Adverse Inference. The representations in the Response are perplexing, particularly in light of the below email communication in which I specifically 1) informed you of the search terms that we would run derived from your list, and 2) specifically requested a telephone conference on the issue of search terms pursuant to the Court’s Order and prior to any such search. Your representation to the Court that we are running “secret search terms unilaterally chosen by Defendant” is simply inaccurate. As clearly set forth in the below email communication, in order to move production forward, we invited discussion regarding our plan to run a subset of the search terms that you selected. The items excluded from the search were those terms you proposed that were unattached to any discovery request, or would result in the selection irrelevant documents due to the commonality of the term or their irrelevance to this case, such as TerraMar. The terms run are not “secret” and not selected by the defense – they are “the remainder of the terms” not specifically discussed in the below email. For avoidance of doubt, it is your proposed list, excluding items 49, 50, 51, 64, 66-72, 93-94, 113, 114-116, 119-120, 121-122, 124-341, 355, 358, 360, 361, and 365, 366-368. Second, and again contrary to the representation in your Response, I specifically requested a time for a telephone conferral to discuss the search terms. Specifically, I stated “I am available by telephone today and tomorrow to discuss the issues raised herein.” Despite this clear request for a call if there were issues you wished to discuss, or if you had specific RFP’s to which the excluded terms related, I heard nothing from you on Thursday afternoon or Friday to set a time to discuss the terms or the issues raised regarding overbreadth. As such, we proceeded processing your list with the exceptions set forth. I will reiterate my offer to set a call to discuss the excluded terms to determine if there are agreeable additions. In light of the deposition scheduled for Friday and the time it takes to run searches, any call would need to be set prior to noon MT tomorrow. Please advise, one way or the other, if you are satisfied with the list or if you would like to set a call. -Laura Laura A. Menninger Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Main 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 lmenninger@hmflaw.com www.hmflaw.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended • - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 5 2 recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving it in any manner. Thank you. From: Laura Menninger Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 2:35 PM To: Meredith Schultz Cc: Jeff Pagliuca; Sigrid S. McCawley - Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (smccawley@bsfllp.com); 'brad@pathtojustice.com' (brad@pathtojustice.com) Subject: Giuffre - Conferral regarding search terms Meredith – I am writing to you, in compliance with the Court’s Order, to negotiate the search terms for the search of our client’s electronic devices. While Jeff raised many of these issues orally with Brad last week, I am including them in written form so that there can be no dispute about our position. I do object to the vast number of your 368 search terms. Most are not tied to any Request for Production served on Ms. Maxwell, nor the Court’s Orders limiting those requests. Terramar – Search term 49 is “Terramar.” While we are searching our client’s terramar email address for otherwise responsive documents, this search term would pull up thousands of documents related to her work for that organization which are (a) non-responsive and (b) irrelevant to this action. We will not agree to this standalone search term. Witness Names With regard to the search terms numbered 124-341, insofar as I can tell, you have simply broken apart the first and last names of every witness included within your Rule 26 disclosures. However, you never submitted a RFP seeking all communications between our client and your witnesses. There are some RFPs which identify individual witnesses whose communications with our client you sought (e.g., 1 – Epstein, 2, -Plaintiff, 3-Prince Andrew Kellen, Dubins, Brunel and Marcincova, 17-Gow, 37-Clintons) and I will include those names within our searches. As to other names included on the list, many are incredibly common names (e.g., Bill, Mark, Phil, Pete, Bob, Mike, Todd) which you are asking to search as standalone terms, i.e., divorced from the accompanying surnames or first names. You have included the name “max*” well aware that our client’s surname, and that of all of her paternal family members, will begin with those three letters together. Your search terms thus are likely to yield every single email sent or received by our client, or her family members, or any other document in her possession with her own name on the document or in the metadata, in other words hundreds of thousands of non-responsive documents. Your search terms include “bill” and thus are likely to include every bill that our client has received or sent or discussed. Your search terms include Philip Barden who the court has already ruled maintains an attorney-client relationship with our client (and to the extent others are copied on his emails, those would be captured by searches for the other people’s names). You included my client’s boyfriend of many years, though he is not on any witness list or in any RFP. In sum, I will not agree to the search terms regarding witness names numbered 124-341 unless you (a) provide me with an actual RFP to which they each relate, and (b) make some effort to match them to actual people who have some relationship to this case (like first name /3 last name or some parts thereof). Lawyer Names Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 5 3 What is your basis for search terms numbered 366-368: McCawley, Schultz and Boies? Likewise to the extent Mr. Edwards and Cassell are also included in the witness list, what is your basis for searching for documents referencing them? These search terms seemed designed to pull privileged attorney-client communications and do not correspond to any RFP. We will not agree to these terms. Common Words You have included a number of words that relate to common items and place names. Please explain which RFP allows for a search of the following terms: 50 – Southern District (which will pull up every attorney-client communication that refers to our case and includes any pleading) 51 – Palm Beach (a place our client lived for many years) 64 – New Mexico 66-72 – USVI by various names 113 – hospital 114 – 116 – hotel, suite, villa (every single travel record related to our client’s travel which the Court has not ordered) 119 – 120 – Paris, France 121 – 122 – Zoro, Ranch 360 – Bed 361 – Bath 365 - Lingerie Other Words Many other words have no relationship to this case. Please advise me as to (a) which RFP they correspond to and (b) your good faith basis for seeking these search terms in relation to any such RFP: 93 – Abernathy 94 – Brillo 355 – Guggenheim 358 - Gerbil Conferral Although many of your other search terms are a tremendous stretch, I can agree to them in the interest of getting the search done on a timely basis. According to our forensic expert, running a search on Ms. Maxwell’s devices of all 368 terms will take more than a week. I am available by telephone today and tomorrow to discuss the issues raised herein. If I do not hear from you, I will presume that you are in agreement to the remainder of the terms being run on the devices. That should allow a production of documents in time for Ms. Maxwell’s continued deposition next week. I am intentionally not taking a position regarding the other demands you provided in your letter of June 30 at pages 1-2. The searches will be conducted in accordance with standard practices in the industry and the Court ordered us to negotiate search terms only. -Laura Laura A. Menninger Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Main 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 lmenninger@hmflaw.com Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 5 4 www.hmflaw.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving it in any manner. Thank you. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 5 EXHIBIT D Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 6 1 From: Laura Menninger Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 11:33 AM To: 'Meredith Schultz' Subject: RE: Giuffre - Conferral regarding search terms Meredith: I write to confirm our oral conferral. Please let me know if you disagree with the following or if there is some other agreement you think we reached: 1. I will endeavor to have my client gain access to an earthlink account that you believe is hers. Your basis for that belief is a disk you produced last week, obtained pursuant to a FOIA request, that contained at Page 2035 an address book from approximately 2005 which has that earthlink account name next to Ms. Maxwell’s name. 2. Terramar – You have withdrawn that as a standalone search term. I have represented to you that we have searched all Terramar emails for otherwise responsive documents as well as 3. Witness names – You believe that search terms 124-341, which are witness names broken up into first and last names from your Rule 26 list, relate to your RFP number 5 (“All documents relating to massages…”). I represented to you that I have searched for the terms “massage,” “masseur,” “therapy” etc. as you requested, but you would still like me to search a subset of 124-341 surnames names for all communications with certain witnesses that you believe relate to “massages.” I said I would look at your list, when you send it, and evaluate whether we still object to running those more limited names to see if there are any communications that “relate to massages.” I still object that the search terms involving names is too broad and burdensome for me to have to review all communications with those individuals to try to discern what you believe may or may not relate to a “massage.” 4. Lawyer names – You have withdrawn. 5. Common words – You have withdrawn with the exception of “lingerie,” which I will run to see if it relates in some way to RFP 5 (“massages”). 6. Other words – a. You have withdrawn #93 Abernathy and #94 Brillo. b. I maintain my objection to Guggenheim, the name of a museum which you represented to me pertains in some way to allegations made by witnesses Farmer, but for which no documents or other information has been shared (i.e., I have never seen any allegations by witnesses Farmer). Because there is no RFP to which I believe that term relates, and it is the name of a museum, I object to running that search term. c. Gerbil – You have withdrawn. 7. Additionally: a. I advised you that I was not able to search for # because those letters are the first part of my client’s longstanding email address, and search for that term will yield literally every single email she has sent or received. I believe you have withdrawn that requested search term. b. I advised you that I was not able to search for initials at #16-21 and 75-77. To the extent those initials represent people from whom you have requested all communications (and which the Court has limited to 1999-2002 and post-2002 as they relate to sex trafficking), for example, Jeffrey Epstein, Prince Andrew, I am searching for and producing responsive documents, so there is no need to search for the - - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 6 2 initials. With regards to , you told me that is “ and there is no standalone request for communications with her. -Laura Laura A. Menninger Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Main 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 lmenninger@hmflaw.com www.hmflaw.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving it in any manner. Thank you. From: Laura Menninger Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 2:27 PM To: 'Meredith Schultz' Cc: Jeff Pagliuca; 'Sigrid S. McCawley - Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (smccawley@bsfllp.com)'; ''brad@pathtojustice.com' (brad@pathtojustice.com)' Subject: RE: Giuffre - Conferral regarding search terms Dear Meredith, I am in receipt of your opposition to the Letter Motion to Strike your Motion for an Adverse Inference. The representations in the Response are perplexing, particularly in light of the below email communication in which I specifically 1) informed you of the search terms that we would run derived from your list, and 2) specifically requested a telephone conference on the issue of search terms pursuant to the Court’s Order and prior to any such search. Your representation to the Court that we are running “secret search terms unilaterally chosen by Defendant” is simply inaccurate. As clearly set forth in the below email communication, in order to move production forward, we invited discussion regarding our plan to run a subset of the search terms that you selected. The items excluded from the search were those terms you proposed that were unattached to any discovery request, or would result in the selection irrelevant documents due to the commonality of the term or their irrelevance to this case, such as TerraMar. The terms run are not “secret” and not selected by the defense – they are “the remainder of the terms” not specifically discussed in the below email. For avoidance of doubt, it is your proposed list, excluding items 49, 50, 51, 64, 66-72, 93-94, 113, 114-116, 119-120, 121-122, 124-341, 355, 358, 360, 361, and 365, 366-368. Second, and again contrary to the representation in your Response, I specifically requested a time for a telephone conferral to discuss the search terms. Specifically, I stated “I am available by telephone today and tomorrow to discuss the issues raised herein.” Despite this clear request for a call if there were issues you wished to discuss, or if you had specific RFP’s to which the excluded terms related, I heard nothing from you on Thursday afternoon or Friday to set a ■ - • -- Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 6 3 time to discuss the terms or the issues raised regarding overbreadth. As such, we proceeded processing your list with the exceptions set forth. I will reiterate my offer to set a call to discuss the excluded terms to determine if there are agreeable additions. In light of the deposition scheduled for Friday and the time it takes to run searches, any call would need to be set prior to noon MT tomorrow. Please advise, one way or the other, if you are satisfied with the list or if you would like to set a call. -Laura Laura A. Menninger Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Main 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 lmenninger@hmflaw.com www.hmflaw.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving it in any manner. Thank you. From: Laura Menninger Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 2:35 PM To: Meredith Schultz Cc: Jeff Pagliuca; Sigrid S. McCawley - Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (smccawley@bsfllp.com); 'brad@pathtojustice.com' (brad@pathtojustice.com) Subject: Giuffre - Conferral regarding search terms Meredith – I am writing to you, in compliance with the Court’s Order, to negotiate the search terms for the search of our client’s electronic devices. While Jeff raised many of these issues orally with Brad last week, I am including them in written form so that there can be no dispute about our position. I do object to the vast number of your 368 search terms. Most are not tied to any Request for Production served on Ms. Maxwell, nor the Court’s Orders limiting those requests. Terramar – Search term 49 is “Terramar.” While we are searching our client’s terramar email address for otherwise responsive documents, this search term would pull up thousands of documents related to her work for that organization which are (a) non-responsive and (b) irrelevant to this action. We will not agree to this standalone search term. Witness Names • - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 6 4 With regard to the search terms numbered 124-341, insofar as I can tell, you have simply broken apart the first and last names of every witness included within your Rule 26 disclosures. However, you never submitted a RFP seeking all communications between our client and your witnesses. There are some RFPs which identify individual witnesses whose communications with our client you sought (e.g., 1 – Epstein, 2, -Plaintiff, 3-Prince Andrew Kellen, Dubins, Brunel and Marcincova, 17-Gow, 37-Clintons) and I will include those names within our searches. As to other names included on the list, many are incredibly common names (e.g., Bill, Mark, Phil, Pete, Bob, Mike, Todd) which you are asking to search as standalone terms, i.e., divorced from the accompanying surnames or first names. You have included the name “max*” well aware that our client’s surname, and that of all of her paternal family members, will begin with those three letters together. Your search terms thus are likely to yield every single email sent or received by our client, or her family members, or any other document in her possession with her own name on the document or in the metadata, in other words hundreds of thousands of non-responsive documents. Your search terms include “bill” and thus are likely to include every bill that our client has received or sent or discussed. Your search terms include Philip Barden who the court has already ruled maintains an attorney-client relationship with our client (and to the extent others are copied on his emails, those would be captured by searches for the other people’s names). You included my client’s boyfriend of many years, though he is not on any witness list or in any RFP. In sum, I will not agree to the search terms regarding witness names numbered 124-341 unless you (a) provide me with an actual RFP to which they each relate, and (b) make some effort to match them to actual people who have some relationship to this case (like first name /3 last name or some parts thereof). Lawyer Names What is your basis for search terms numbered 366-368: McCawley, Schultz and Boies? Likewise to the extent Mr. Edwards and Cassell are also included in the witness list, what is your basis for searching for documents referencing them? These search terms seemed designed to pull privileged attorney-client communications and do not correspond to any RFP. We will not agree to these terms. Common Words You have included a number of words that relate to common items and place names. Please explain which RFP allows for a search of the following terms: 50 – Southern District (which will pull up every attorney-client communication that refers to our case and includes any pleading) 51 – Palm Beach (a place our client lived for many years) 64 – New Mexico 66-72 – USVI by various names 113 – hospital 114 – 116 – hotel, suite, villa (every single travel record related to our client’s travel which the Court has not ordered) 119 – 120 – Paris, France 121 – 122 – Zoro, Ranch 360 – Bed 361 – Bath 365 - Lingerie Other Words Many other words have no relationship to this case. Please advise me as to (a) which RFP they correspond to and (b) your good faith basis for seeking these search terms in relation to any such RFP: 93 – Abernathy 94 – Brillo 355 – Guggenheim 358 - Gerbil Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 6 5 Conferral Although many of your other search terms are a tremendous stretch, I can agree to them in the interest of getting the search done on a timely basis. According to our forensic expert, running a search on Ms. Maxwell’s devices of all 368 terms will take more than a week. I am available by telephone today and tomorrow to discuss the issues raised herein. If I do not hear from you, I will presume that you are in agreement to the remainder of the terms being run on the devices. That should allow a production of documents in time for Ms. Maxwell’s continued deposition next week. I am intentionally not taking a position regarding the other demands you provided in your letter of June 30 at pages 1-2. The searches will be conducted in accordance with standard practices in the industry and the Court ordered us to negotiate search terms only. -Laura Laura A. Menninger Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Main 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 lmenninger@hmflaw.com www.hmflaw.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving it in any manner. Thank you. • - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT E Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-17 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 6 1 From: Meredith Schultz <mschultz@BSFLLP.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 11:24 AM To: Laura Menninger Cc: Sigrid McCawley; Jeff Pagliuca; Brad Edwards; Paul Cassell (cassellp@law.utah.edu) Subject: RE: Conferral regarding forensic search Follow Up Flag: Follow Up Flag Status: Flagged Laura, Please see my additions in-line, in black, below to your email sent yesterday. My in-line communication should also be responsive to the email that you just sent. If I have left anything out, please let me know. Thanks, Meredith Meredith L. Schultz BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-356-0011 ext. 4204 Fax: 954-356-0022 http://www.bsfllp.com From: Laura Menninger [mailto:lmenninger@hmflaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 1:33 PM To: Meredith Schultz Subject: RE: Giuffre - Conferral regarding search terms Meredith: I write to confirm our oral conferral. Please let me know if you disagree with the following or if there is some other agreement you think we reached: 1. I will endeavor to have my client gain access to an earthlink account that you believe is hers. Your basis for that belief is a disk you produced last week, obtained pursuant to a FOIA request, that contained at Page 2035 an address book from approximately 2005 which has that earthlink account name next to Ms. Maxwell’s name. Please advise of the processes you are undertaking to access the account, and the process you undertook to ascertain that the mindspring account no longer exists. 2. Terramar – You have withdrawn that as a standalone search term. I have represented to you that we have searched all Terramar emails for otherwise responsive documents as well as . 3.Witness names – You believe that search terms 124-341, which are witness names broken up into first and last names from your Rule 26 list, relate to your RFP number 5 (“All documents relating to massages…”). I represented to you that I have searched for the terms “massage,” “masseur,” “therapy” etc. as you requested, - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-17 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 6 2 but you would still like me to search a subset of 124-341 surnames names for all communications with certain witnesses that you believe relate to “massages.” I said I would look at your list, when you send it, and evaluate whether we still object to running those more limited names to see if there are any communications that “relate to massages.” I still object that the search terms involving names is too broad and burdensome for me to have to review all communications with those individuals to try to discern what you believe may or may not relate to a “massage.” I disagree with your objection that reviewing (and producing relevant) documents containing these discrete surnames is too broad a request or overly burdensome, particularly, as you have not presented any numbers of documents associated with those names, since you have not yet run the terms. Should one of the names somehow yield thousands of documents, please let me know, and I’m certain we can come to an agreement to adjust the term so as to not yield an unmanageable result. As it is, I would expect these discrete surnames to yield a reasonable number of “hits,” as most are not common words (more on that below). Per our conversation, there are a number of individuals who we have reason to believe were either: (1) victims of the “massages;” (2) witnesses the “massages” (including people who have knowledge of the “massages”); or (3) perpetrators of the “massages,” either by having a “massage” themselves, arranging for another to have a “massage,” or by arranging for a girl to give a “massage” (either directly or through another girl). The following are surnames of the aforementioned individuals, all of which are taken from the parties’ Rule 26 disclosures. Individuals who possess the same last name will be represented once by the common name. Names enumerated in Plaintiff’s individual requests are absent from this list pursuant to your representation that those names have been run. The vast majority of the surnames are fairly uncommon (e.g., ), therefore, I assume from the outset that any “hits” they yield will relate to the individual, and be limited in number. For those surnames are more common, or have other meanings (e.g., ), I have noted the full name for ease of reference. For those names, please use a reasonable, good-faith syntax to capture communications with those individuals -- Sometimes that takes some trial-and-error – I’m happy to be of any assistance with regard to that process. Please let me know what your syntax you ended up using for those terms. x Alessi x Biddle x Brunel x Casey (this is a sur-name to Caroly Casey) x Chambers x Cordero x Cotrin x Cousteau x Davies x DeGeorgieou x Dionne x Dubin x Espinoza x Farmer x Ward x Fekkai Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 - - - - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-17 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 6 3 x Figueroa x Fontanilla x Friedman x Gibson-Butte x Gramza x Gany x Grant x Groff x Hazel (surname of Claire Hazel) x Harrison (surname of Shelley Harrison) x Ignatieva x Kovylina x Liffman x Lopez (surname of Cindy Lopez) x Lutz x Lynch (surname of Cheri Lynch) x Meister x Mellawa x Minsky x Mitrovich x Mullen x Pagano x Paluga x Peadon x Pritzker x Preece x Rabuyo x Rizzo x Robson x Ross (surname of Adriana) x Mucinska (former surname of Adriana) x Sjoberg x Spamm x Stein (surname of Cecilia) x Valdes (surname of Cresenda) x Vazquez x Valenzuela x Visosky x Wexner x Wild (surname of Courtney) x Zinoview 4. Lawyer names – You have withdrawn. Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 J - - - I - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-17 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 6 4 5. Common words – You have withdrawn with the exception of “lingerie,” which I will run to see if it relates in some way to RFP 5 (“massages”). 6.Other words – a. You have withdrawn #93 Abernathy and #94 Brillo. b. I maintain my objection to Guggenheim, the name of a museum which you represented to me pertains in some way to allegations made by witnesses Farmer, but for which no documents or other information has been shared (i.e., I have never seen any allegations by witnesses Farmer). Because there is no RFP to which I believe that term relates, and it is the name of a museum, I object to running that search term. c.Gerbil – You have withdrawn. 7.Additionally: a. I advised you that I was not able to search for because those letters are the first part of my client’s longstanding email address, and search for that term will yield literally every single email she has sent or received. I believe you have withdrawn that requested search term. b. I advised you that I was not able to search for initials at #16-21 and 75-77. To the extent those initials represent people from whom you have requested all communications (and which the Court has limited to 1999-2002 and post-2002 as they relate to sex trafficking), for example, Jeffrey Epstein, Prince Andrew, I am searching for and producing responsive documents, so there is no need to search for the initials. With regards to , you told me that is “ and there is no standalone request for communications with her. -Laura Additionally, please inform me what steps you have taken to ascertain that the is no longer in existence. Similarly, please keep me informed of your steps to access the Please pursue all available avenues to access those accounts, as Ms. Giuffre did with regard to her email accounts. Finally, Ms. Maxwell’s produced documents that indicate that she has an iPad, etc. Please confirm that you have imaged her iPad as well as her phone in order to obtain the data from both (text messages, etc.). One last thing - it occurred to me that in our discussion of terms that were run/not run and to be run/and not to be run, I don’t believe we discussed the terms containing individuals’ email account addresses, specifically Mr. Epstein and Mr. Dershowitz. (If we did discuss that, apologies for my lack of memory). Please confirm that you have run the terms associated with their email addresses. Specifically, these were the terms: 1) jeevacation* 2) j* w/2 *jep* 3) j* w/2 *jeep* 4) dersh* 5)law.harvard.edu* 6) alandersh* Please let me know if you have any questions. Please treat this email as confidential under the Protective Order as it contains the names of underage victims of sexual abuse. Thank you, - ■ - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-17 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 6 5 Meredith Meredith L. Schultz BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-356-0011 ext. 4204 Fax: 954-356-0022 http://www.bsfllp.com From: Laura Menninger [mailto:lmenninger@hmflaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 1:01 PM To: Meredith Schultz Cc: Sigrid McCawley; Jeff Pagliuca; Brad Edwards; Paul Cassell (cassellp@law.utah.edu) Subject: Conferral regarding forensic search Meredith – Apart from (i) the list of witness names you believe might be associated with the term “massage” (“massage” and related terms that you requested have been searched), (ii) the word “lingerie”, and (iii) we have completed the forensic copy, search, retrieval and review of all hits on our client’s devices and email accounts as directed by the Court based on agreed to search terms, including those agreed to in our conferral yesterday. After review of more than 9,000 documents and files containing your search terms, the only documents located not previously produced are 6 privileged documents which we will add to our log. We also located a number of privileged communications between our client and myself following the onset of litigation in this case which will not be logged consistent with both parties' agreed to practice. As predicted, no responsive non-privileged documents resulted from the exercise. I will keep you apprised of the results of the “lingerie” and status of ability to access the account. If you want me to consider running additional witness names because you believe those people may relate to RFP 5 regarding “massages”, please forward those names to me and your basis. -Laura The information contained in this electronic message is confidential information intended only for the use of the named recipient(s) and may contain information that, among other protections, is the subject of attorney-client privilege, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this electronic message is not the named recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and no privilege is waived. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this electronic message and then deleting this electronic message from your computer. [v.1] - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-17 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT F Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 5 1 Search Terms Defendant Has Already Searched From Plaintiff’s June 30th proposed list: (note: Plaintiff’s numbers have been used) 1) jef* 2) geof* 3) epst! !n* 4) jeevacation* 5) j* w/2 *jep* 6) j* w/2 *jeep* 7) roberts* 8) g!!ff!!* 9) virginia* 10) jenna* 11) jena* 12) genna* 13) andrew* 14) prince* 15) royal* 22) massage* 23) masseur* 24) therapist* 26) mindspring* 28) emmy* 29) taylor* 30) sara* 31) kellen* 32) kensington * 33) vikers* 34) dubin* 35) eva* 36) glen* 37) brunel* 38) jean* 39) luc* 40) nadia* 41) marcinko* 42) *copter* 43) chopper* 44) pilot* 45) manifest* 46) log* 47) flight* 48) passport* 52) state* /3 attorney* 53) ross* 54) gow* 55) acuity* 56) victoria* w/3 secret* Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 5 2 57) al!n* 58) all!n* 59) dersh* 60) law.harvard.edu * 61) alandersh* 73) lago* 74) clinton* 75) BC 76) HC 77) HRC 78) police* 79) cop* 80) fbi* 81) federal* w/3 bur* 82) bur* w/8 inves! * 83) sex* 84) abuse* 85) toy* 86) dildo* 87) strap* w/3 on* 88) vibr* 89) sm* w/3 101 * 90) slave* 91) erotic* 92) servitude* 95) high* w/3 school* 96) secondary* w/3 school* 97) campus* 98) duke* 99) york* 100) licen!e* 101) assault* 102) juvenile* 103) seal* 104) joint* w/3 defen* 105) jda 106) roadhouse* 107) grill* 108) illegal* 109) immune* 110) prosecut* 111) law* w/3 enforc* 112) jane* w/3 *doe* 117) model* 118) actress* 123) vanity* w/ 3 fair* 342) underage* Jane Doe 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 5 3 343) under!age* 344) minor* 345) daily* w/10 mail* 346) daily* w/10 news* 347) lie* 348) obvious* w/10 lie* 349) sex w/3 toy* 350) nipple* 351) schoolgirl 352) school w/3 girl 353) us w/3 att* 354) United w/3 states w/3 att* 356) Pedophil* 357) Paedophil* 359) Traffic* 362) Masturbate* 363) Ejaculate* 364) Masseuse* From Plaintiff’s July 20 proposed list x Alessi x Biddle x Brunel x Casey (this is a sur-name to Caroly Casey) x Chambers x Cordero x Cotrin x Cousteau x Davies x DeGeorgieou x Dionne x Dubin x x Espinoza x Farmer x Ward x Fekkai x Figueroa x Fontanilla x Friedman x Gibson-Butte x Gramza x Gany x Grant x Groff Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 I - I - - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 5 4 x Hazel (surname of Claire Hazel) x Harrison (surname of Shelley Harrison) x Ignatieva x Kovylina x Liffman x Lopez (surname of Cindy Lopez) x Lutz x Lynch (surname of Cheri Lynch) x Meister x Mellawa x Minsky x Mitrovich x x Mullen x Pagano x Paluga x Peadon x Pritzker x Preece x Rabuyo x Rizzo x Robson x Ross (surname of Adriana) x Mucinska (former surname of Adriana) x Sjoberg x Spamm x Stein (surname of Cecilia) x Taylor x Valdes (surname of Cresenda) x Vazquez x Valenzuela x Visosky x Wexner x Wild (surname of Courtney) x Zinoview Jane Doe Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 I - I I I Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 5 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 SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR ADVERSE INFERENCE INSTRUCTION BASED ON NEW INFORMATION Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this Supplement to her Motion for Adverse Inference Instruction Based on New Information. Eleven months into this case, and after the close of fact discovery, Defendant continues to refuse to abide by her most basic and fundamental discovery obligations. A summary of this ongoing and willful non-compliance, as well as a supplement to her motion for an adverse inference instruction based on new information, follows. Most notably, Defendant claims to have run search terms and reviewed over 10,000 documents, but, remarkably, claims that not a single document - not one - is relevant to this litigation, and therefore produced nothing with respect to the search. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On October 27, 2015, Ms. Giuffre submitted her first set of Requests for Production. Defendant failed to make a reasonable search or production of her documents, and Ms. Giuffre sought relief from the Court numerous times: - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 21 2 x Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery (DE 20) - Defendant’s Motion to Stay - Denied (DE 28). x Plaintiff’s February 26, 2016 Letter Motion to Compel Defendant to Sit for Her Deposition (DE 63) - Granted (DE 106). x Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Documents Subject to Improper Claim of Privilege (DE 33) - Granted in Part (DE 73). x Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Documents Subject to Improper Objections (DE 35) - Granted in part (106). x Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order Regarding Defendant’s Deposition (DE 70) - Defendant’s Motion Denied (DE 106). x Plaintiff’s Motion for Forensic Examination (DE 96) - Granted in part (June 20, 2016 Sealed Order). x Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions (DE 143) – Granted (June 20, 2016 Sealed Order). x Plaintiff’s Motion for Adverse Inference Instruction (DE 279) - Pending. x Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce the Court's Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions (DE 315) - Pending. On June 20, 2016, this Court Granted in Part Ms. Giuffre’s Motion for Forensic Exam, and directed Defendant to capture her data and run mutually agreed-upon search terms. The Court also ordered Defendant to produce documents to Ms. Giuffre by July 11, 2016. (This part of the Court’s Order is not under seal and can be found at DE 264-1). On June 30, 2016, and on July 8, 2016, counsel for Ms. Giuffre sent letters to Defendant following up on this Order and proposing search terms (attached as exhibits to DE 279). Defendant did not respond. The July 11, 2016, deadline passed without any production from Defendant. On July 13, 2016, Ms. Giuffre moved for an adverse inference instruction (DE 279). Thereafter, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to strike Ms. Giuffre’s motion for an adverse inference instruction, directing the parties to submit search terms to the Court on August 1, 2016, advising that “[a] briefing schedule and the submission date will be set after search terms are determined.” (DE 301). Pursuant to this Court’s July 22, 2016, on Monday, August 1, 2016, Ms. Giuffre filed the list of search terms that Ms. Giuffre believes should be run over Defendant’s data. (DE 323). • Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 21 3 II. DISCUSSION At a minimum, the Court should direct Defendant to run the search terms in the list originally submitted by Ms. Giuffre. More broadly, the Court should grant Ms. Giuffre’s request for an adverse inference based on the incurable prejudice she has suffered as a result of Defendant’s failure to comply with her discovery obligations and this Court’s June 20, 2016, Order. A. Defendant’s Refusal to Even Run Ms. Giuffre’s Name as a Search Term. Defendant has been recalcitrant in running even the most basic searches of electronic data. For example, in a letter sent on June 8, 2016, and in a meet and confer call on July 26, 2016, counsel for Ms. Giuffre asked Defendant to run Ms. Giuffre’s name as a search term to find documents responsive to (for example) Ms. Giuffre’s Request No. 12, which sought Defendant’s documents relating to Ms. Giuffre. That request was refused in writing on Friday, July 29, 2016, at 7:02 p.m. (EST). See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, July 29, 2016, 7:02 p.m., Letter from Ty Gee to Ms. Schultz (refusing to run Ms. Giuffre’s name as a search term as part of effort to identify responsive documents). Specifically, Mr. Gee’s letter said that such a search term was inappropriate because it was “guaranteed” to generate “thousands of hits”: - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 21 4 Having represented that running Ms. Giuffre’s that name was an “extraordinary and unreasonable” task “guaranteed to have thousands of hits, and someone would have to review every hit …” (McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1 at pg. 2 (emphasis added)), a mere three days later, on Monday, August 1, 2016, Defendant seemingly reversed her position, and represented to the Court that she had, in fact, run Ms. Giuffre’s names as search terms. (DE 321-6). But, contrary to the previous claim that it would be enormously burdensome to sort through these “hits,” Defendant now claimed that she had not found any responsive documents. It is possible that Defendant changed her mind over the weekend and reversed course. And, it is possible that Defendant did run those recently-contested terms over the weekend. And, it is possible that Defendant, over the weekend, gathered a team of lawyers to review the “thousands of hits” yielded by those terms. And, it is possible that not a single one of Defendant’s thousands of documents bearing Ms. Giuffre’s name was relevant to this action. All these things are possible, but none is likely. Either way, Defendant’s refusal to even include Ms. Giuffre’s name as a search term (either in reality or in the position she took on Friday) is evidence of Defendant’s continued bad faith and complete avoidance of her discovery obligations. The case centers on Defendant’s In your June 8 letter, apparently acknowledging the overbreadth of the RFP, you suggest the defendant could respond by conducting an electronic search for plaintiff's various names-searching all documents in defendant's possession. Setting aside that this is not what the RFP asked for, that too would entail an extraordinary and unreasonable amount of time and money, since plaintiff's various names are guaranteed to have thousands of hits, and someone would have to review every hit to determine, e.g., whether the document previously was provided to you, whether the document is not subject to production because of privilege, or whether it was a false hit. What would be the purpose of such an enormous expenditure of time and money? You have not said, but it appears fairly obvious that this is fishing with a drift net. We decline your request to engage in this exercise. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 21 5 defamatory statements made about Ms. Giuffre. Obviously, Ms. Giuffre has a compelling need to obtain Defendant’s documents about her, and she has accordingly requested Defendant’s communications concerning her. Defendant’s documents concerning Ms. Giuffre are directly relevant to this action, particularly because Defendant has created multiple drafts of statements to the press defaming Ms. Giuffre. Throughout the months of motion practice concerning these issues, and throughout all of the meet and confers, Defendant’s counsel has never presented a case supporting the far-fetched position that documents in the possession of the Defendant, and containing explicit references to Ms. Giuffre, are irrelevant and not subject to discovery. Defendant’s refusal to use Ms. Giuffre’s name as a search term, in light of Ms. Giuffre’s requests for production, and in light of the defamation claim in this case, is so unfounded and obstructionist that it constitutes a violation of this Court’s Order, whether or not Defendant actually engaged in the “extraordinary and unreasonable” task of running the term over the weekend. The refusal to run this term is particularly inappropriate in light of this Court’s order directing the Defendant to run “mutually agreed” upon search terms. It is impossible for Ms. Giuffre’s counsel to begin working with opposing counsel to craft appropriate search terms when they refuse to extend minimal cooperation - first by completely ignoring Ms. Giuffre’s multiple attempts to negotiate terms, then by ignoring the deadline to produce documents, and then by refusal to run the most basic search term. The first term that should be run in this defamation action - the most fundamental term - is Ms. Giuffre’s name. Defendant’s refusal to run that term is palpably unreasonable. Defendant’s refusal to cooperate is even more egregious given Ms. Giuffre’s extensive efforts to provide discovery to Defendant. Ms. Giuffre has complied with Defendant’s overly￾Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 21 6 broad discovery requests that sought documents concerning dozens of individuals, including Ms. Giuffre’s close family members. To comply with these extraordinarily broad requests, Ms. Giuffre ran search terms constituting the names of all these individuals. For example, Ms. Giuffre has run the following names as search terms, including Defendant’s name, over her data: x Ghislaine (the defendant) x Maxwell (the defendant) x Jeffrey (Jeffrey Epstein) x Epstein (Jeffrey Epstein) x Sky Roberts (the name Ms. Giuffre’s father and brother) x Lynn, Roberts (the name of Ms. Giuffre’s mother) Indeed, to date Ms. Giuffre has produced 8,321 pages of documents in her possession. Fact discovery has now closed. Ms. Giuffre has requested that Defendant negotiate search terms with her as far back as March 10, 2016. This Court ordered Defendant to run mutually agreed upon search terms and produce relevant documents. Yet Defendant has yet to make any document production pursuant to this Court’s June 20, 2016, Order. B. Defendant’s Other Failures to Produce Documents Defendant’s ignoring the July 11, 2016, court-ordered deadline to produce documents pursuant to mutually agreed upon terms, and Defendant’s recalcitrance in searching for documents related to Ms. Giuffre are not the only examples of Defendant’s failure to make appropriate discovery. Defendant claims to have run a number of Ms. Giuffre’s search terms, yet claims that such a search yielded no responsive documents, save the few added to Defendant’s privilege log. Defendant did not provide any “hit” information to show which terms yielded results, or how many results they yielded. Defendant claims to have reviewed over 10,000 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 21 7 documents containing the search terms and remarkably states that none – not a single one of the documents are responsive or relevant to the issues in this matter. Defendant’s representation is simply implausible, as a review of Defendant’s interactions with several of the important players in this case makes clear. i. Ross Gow The Court will recall that Ross Gow is Defendant’s London-based press agent, who shares Defendant’s attorney, Philip Barden, and who was connected with Defendant’s statements about Ms. Giuffre in both 2011 and 2015. Defendant admitted that she used Mr. Gow in 2011 in relation to Ms. Giuffre’s claims: Q. And then below there is an email from Philip Barden to you and cc'ing Ross Gow on January 11, 2015. Do you see that? A. Uh-huh. Q. It says, Dear Ghislaine, as you know I have been working behind the scenes and this article comes from that. It helps but doesn't answer the VR claims. I will get the criminal allegations out. This shows the MOS will print truth, not just a VR voice piece. We can only make the truth by making a statement. What did he mean when he said, I will get the criminal allegations out, what was he referring to? A. I have no idea. Maxwell Dep. Tr. at 405:13-406:7 (April 22, 2016) (McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2). Defendant has admitted that she again used Mr. Gow in 2015 to issue a statement relating to Ms. Giuffre: Q. This is an email from you on January 10, 2015 to Philip Barden and Ross Gow. The statement you had before you earlier, that, if you can pull that in front of you, the one page press release that you gave. You might know from memory. Was the press release that you issued with the statement about Virginia issued in or around January 2, 2015? A. As best as I can recollect. Maxwell Dep. Tr. at 361:4-13 (April 22, 2016) (McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2). - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 21 8 Indeed, Defendant retained counsel to further assist Mr. Gow: Q. Did you authorize Ross Gow to issue that statement on your behalf in January of 2015? A. I already testified that that was done by my lawyers. Maxwell Dep. Tr. at 273:6-10 (April 22, 2016) (McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2). In both years, 2011 and 2015, Defendant communicated with her counsel, communicated with her public relations agent, and caused a statement regarding Ms. Giuffre to be released publically, whereupon it was disseminated abroad. Yet, Defendant claims that she has no communications related to Ms. Giuffre beyond the handful of communications this Court ordered her to produce after the Court’s in camera review. (DE 73). ii. Eva Dubin Defendant also appears to be claiming that she had not had even a single communications with Eva Dubin, Defendant’s long-time friend whose husband was implicated in sexual abuse by Ms. Giuffre’s deposition testimony. Defendant admitted that she is friends with Eva Dubin and admitted to visiting her home from time to time. Q. Is Eva Dubin one of your friends? A. Yes. Maxwell Dep. Tr. at 57:22-23 (April 22, 2016) (McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2). Q. You remember from time to time being at the Dubin residence, correct? A.I do. Maxwell Dep. Tr. at 163:6-8 (July 22, 2016) (McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3). The Dubins are closely connected to this case. Indeed, Rinaldo Rizzo, the Dubins’ butler, was in tears as he recounted Defendant bringing a fifteen-year-old girl to Eva Dubin’s home. The girl, in utmost distress, told Mr. Rizzo that Defendant had stolen her passport and tried to make her have sex with Epstein on his private island, and then threatened her. Rizzo Dep. Tr. at Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 21 9 52:8-57:23 (June 10, 2016) (McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4). Ms. Giuffre has also implicated Eva Dubin’s husband, Glen Dubin, as someone who was involved in Defendant and Epstein’s sex trafficking ring. And yet, Defendant would have the Court believe that Defendant and her friend never communicated about Ms. Giuffre’s testimony. There are no emails; no text messages produced. iii. : Q. Do you remember speaking with a female by the name of ? A. Yes. Q. And is that -- did you learn from about ? THE WITNESS: That's correct. Q. And what did you understand interaction with Jeffrey Epstein to be? THE WITNESS: was allegedly dating Jeffrey Epstein at the time. And s and were roommates. During that time, had met with and went shopping with her at the Palm Beach Mall, where they purchased items from Victoria's Secrets. After spending the day together, they went over to the Palm Beach house, where Epstein requested to see what was purchased. She was a little reluctant initially, but because of the fact that it was his money that purchased the items, she showed the outfit that she had purchased at Victoria's Secrets. He had asked her to try it on, at which time she did. She went back to the house at another time, where she was going to meet with and Epstein. They went for a bike ride, but had a - - - - - - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 21 10 massage, which Epstein walked in on while she was getting a massage. He asked her to turn over, expose her breasts to him. I think he performed a chiropractic move on her. And she was completely uncomfortable with the whole situation. Recarey Dep. Tr. at 106:2-107:20 (June 21, 2016) (McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5). Indeed, one of the witnesses who gave testimony in this case, Even Defendant has admitted involvement with her and Epstein: Q. Does know Jeffrey Epstein? A. Can you ask again, please? Q. Does know Jeffrey Epstein? A. What do you mean by know? Q. Has she met her him before? A. I can't recollect a time when -- I've seen with Jeffrey but -- Q. You are not sure -- A. I know they know either other. I can't testify to a meeting between them. Maxwell Dep. Tr. at 270:18-271:8 (April 22, 2016) (McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2). Q. Why do you think that might know Jeffrey? ~------- ~--- Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 21 11 A. Because you know, I know Jeffrey. Maxwell Dep. Tr. at 271:18-22 (April 22, 2016) (McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2). Yet, Maxwell now wants this court to believe that she has no responsive communications with relevant to this case. C. Defendant’s Failures to Search All Email Accounts Perhaps part of the reason that Defendant has failed to produce responsive document is that still refusing to collect data from all of her email accounts. In particular, Defendant has not collected data from her account nor produced relevant documents from her account. Both email accounts are listed as part of Defendant’s contact information gathered by the police from Epstein’s home, and turned over to the Palm Beach County State Attorney as part of the investigation and prosecution of Epstein: See (DE 280-2), Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office, Public Records Request No.: 16- 268, Disc 7 at p. 2305 (GIUFFRE007843). i. The mindspring.com Account As evidenced from the police collection above, , was an email address Defendant used while she was with Epstein. Id. In her filing with this Court, Defendant represented that this was merely a “spam” account “to use when registering for retail sales notifications and the like,” and that it contains no relevant documents. Br. at pg. 8. Of course, if she wasn’t using the or the , what email address was Defendant using while she was with Epstein, and why hasn’t that account been disclosed and searched? This Court should order Defendant to disclose all email accounts she has used from 1999 to the present. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 21 12 At any rate, both recent testimony in this case, and older testimony in a related case, completely belies Defendant’s claim that her account was merely for “spam.” Jeffrey Epstein’s house manager, Juan Alessi testified that was in daily use by the Epstein household to send and receive messages, a household to which Defendant belonged: Q. So when there would be a message from one of them while they were out of town, they would call you, call you on the telephone? A. I haven't spoken to Ghislaine in 12 years. Q. Sorry. I'm talking about when you worked there and you would receive a message that they were coming into town, would that be by way of telephone? A. Telephone, and also, there was a system at the house, that it was MindSpring, MindSpring I think it's called, that it was like a message system that would come from the office. Q. What is MindSpring? A. It was a server. I think it was -- the office would have, like, a message system between him, the houses, the employees, his friends. They would write a message on the computer. There was no email at that time. Q. Okay. So what computer would you use? A. My computer in my office. Q. And so was part of your daily routine to go to your computer and check to see if you had MindSpring messages? A. No. That was at the end of my stay. That was the very end of my stay. I didn't get involved with that too much. But it was a message system that Jeffrey received every two, three hours, with all the messages that would have to go to the office in New York, and they will print it and send it faxed to the house, and I would hand it to him. Q. Did it look like the message pads that we've been looking at? A. No, no, nothing like that. Q. Was it typed-out messages? - c============-=-=-=-=-=iiiiiiiiiiiii Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 21 13 A. Yes, typed-out messages. Q. Just explain one example of how it would work. Let's say that Ghislaine wanted to send him a message on MindSpring. How would that work? A. An example? Q. Sure. A. It got so ridiculous at the end of my stay, okay? That Mr. Epstein, instead of talking to me that he wants a cup of coffee, he will call the office; the office would type it; they would send it to me, Jeffrey wants a cup of coffee, or Jeffrey wants an orange juice out by the pool. Q. He would call the office in New York. They would then type it in MindSpring? A. Send it to me. Q. How would you know to check for it? How would you know to look for this MindSpring? A. Because I was in the office. I was there. I was there. And we have a signal when it come on and says, Hey, you've got mail. Q. Okay. A. Every day. Every day it was new things put in. That's why I left, too. Q. Do you know who set up the mind spring system? A. It was a computer guy. It was a computer guy who worked only for Jeffrey. Mark. Mark Lumber. Q. Was he local to Palm Beach? A. No. He was in New York. Everything was set up from New York. And Mark Lumber, I remember he came to Palm Beach to set up the system at the house. Alessi Dep. Tr. at 223:5-225:17. (June 1, 2016) (McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7). Accordingly, mindspring was a server set up for Jeffrey Epstein and his household to use to communicate to one another, and was, in fact, used in this manner. - - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 21 14 The sworn testimony of Janusz Banasiak, another of Epstein’s house managers, from the case L.M. v. Jeffery Epstein and Sarah Kellen, 1 gives a fuller representation of how Defendant, and others in Epstein’s sex-trafficking ring, used their accounts on Epstein’s mindspring server: Q. Okay. Were you aware that Mr. Epstein used a Citrix program to link various computers? Did you know that? A. Yeah. I use Citrix too in my computer for exchanging e-mails and get through Internet. *** Q. That's not something that you were, you were privy to? You weren't, you weren't in the loop of the sharing of information in the house in terms of the computers being connected through any server? A. I don't really know what, how, how to answer your question because Citrix is for the whole organization to exchange e-mail between employees. Q. All right. You used the term? A. So, even my computer is connected to Citrix. I can receive mail and I can e-mail information to employee within organization. But I don't know if you can see to each computer what is going on on another computer. *** Q. You have used the term organization, you can share within the organization. What do you -- just so I can understand what you're calling the organization, what do you mean by that word? A. People employed by Jeffrey Epstein. There are a few groups of people, his office in New York and I guess -- *** Q. Okay. The other people mentioned as co-conspirators are Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, and Nadia Marcinkova. So we'll get to them in a minute but first just so we stay on the track of who was in the organization, is Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross and Nadia Marcinkova all people that you would also consider within the organization? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So, we just added three more names to it. Who else would you consider, Ghislaine Maxwell? 1 Case No.: 502008CA28051XXXXMB AB, In the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 21 15 A. Yes. 56:13-17; 5:2-14; 58:1-7; 60:21-61:7 (February 16, 2010) (Emphasis added) (McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 8). Defendant’s email account was part of Epstein’s account through which he communicated with his employees and other members of his household, including his co-conspirators Sarah Kellen, Nadia Marcinkova, and the Defendant. This email account likely has (or had) myriad of communications between and among Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein, Defendant and Sarah Kellen, Defendant and Nadia Marcinkova, and others. This email account is the one most likely to have the most relevant documents in this case, as it was used by Jeffrey Epstein and his sex trafficking organization. The fact that this account - an account created for the sole purpose of enabling Defendant and others to communicate with Jeffrey Epstein - has no communications with Epstein or the other co-conspirators, is extremely strong indicia that someone destroyed those email communications. Their destruction warrants an adverse inference instruction. And, at the very least, the Court should direct Defendant to retrieve her data from the Citrix server or any other applicable server upon which the mindspring.com account was hosted. ii. The Account The account bears Defendant’s initials, and, again, listed as part of her contact information gathered by the police from Epstein’s home, and turned over to the Palm Beach County State Attorney as part of the investigation and prosecution of Epstein: - - M Gh laine axweU Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 21 16 See (DE 280-2), Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office, Public Records Request No.: 16- 268, Disc 7 at p. 2305 (GIUFFRE007843) Because of Defendant’s refusal to search this important email account, any production yielded from any search terms will necessarily be incomplete. Indeed, this failure is particularly prejudicial, as this account appears to be the one she used while she was with Epstein, and therefore, the one she used during the time period Defendant was abusing Ms. Giuffre. Defendant does not appear to have pursued access to this account very far. This inaction lies in stark contrast to Ms. Giuffre’s efforts to recover data. Ms. Giuffre has sent executed releases to Microsoft for her inaccessible account, and even issued a Rule 45 Subpoena to Microsoft for the production of her account data. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 9, Microsoft Subpoena. At a minimum, the Court should direct the Defendant to take these steps to access the earthlink.net email account. D. An Adverse Inference Instruction is Appropriate. In light of this clear and persistent pattern of recalcitrance, the Court should instruct the jury that it can draw an adverse inference that the Defendant has concealed relevant evidence. Defendant has yet to provide responsive information. And even if Defendant were, at this late date, to run Ms. Giuffre’s proposed search terms over her data (which has not yet been collected), such a production would be both untimely and prejudicial. Fact discovery has closed. Numerous depositions have already been taken by Ms. Giuffre without the benefit of these documents. The window for authenticating the documents through depositions has shut. Expert reports are due at the end of the month, and Ms. Giuffre’s experts do not have the benefit of reviewing these documents. Late production of information robs Ms. Giuffre of any practical ability to use the discovery. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 21 17 The Second Circuit has stated, “[w]here documents, witnesses, or information of any kind relevant issues in litigation is or was within the exclusive or primary control of a party and is not provided, an adverse inference can be drawn against the withholding party. Such adverse inferences are appropriate as a consequence for failure to make discovery.” Bouzo v. Citibank, N.A., 1993 WL 525114, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (internal citations omitted). The Defendant’s continued systemic foot-dragging and obstructionism – even following the Court’s June 20 order – makes an adverse inference instruction with regard to Defendant’s documents appropriate. An adverse inference instruction is appropriate when a party refuses to turn over documents in defiance of a Court Order. See Lyondell-Citgo Refining, LP v. Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A., 2005 WL 1026461, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2005) (denying application to set aside Magistrate Judge Peck’s order entering an adverse inference instruction against defendant for failure to produce documents that the Judge Peck had ordered Defendant to produce). Accordingly, because a “party’s failure to produce evidence within its control creates a presumption that evidence would be unfavorable to that party” an adverse inference should be applied with respect to Defendant’s failure to produce “in order to ensure fair hearing for [the] other party seeking evidence.” Doe v. U.S. Civil Service Commission, 483 F. Supp. 539, 580 (S.D. N.Y., 1980) (citing International Union v. NLRB, 148 U.S. App. D.C. 305, 312-317, 459 F.2d 1329, 1336-41 (D.C.Cir.1972)). “An adverse inference serves the remedial purpose of restoring the prejudiced party to the same position he would have been in absent the wrongful destruction of [or willful refusal to produce] evidence by the opposing party.” Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 296 F.R.D. 168, 222 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (granting an adverse inference when defendants refused to produce documents pursuant to the District Court’s order). Where “an adverse inference ... is sought on the basis that the evidence was not produced in time for use at trial, the party seeking the instruction must Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 21 18 show (1) that the party having control over the evidence had an obligation to timely produce it; (2) that the party that failed to timely produce the evidence had ‘a culpable state of mind’; and (3) that the missing evidence is ‘relevant’ to the party's claim or defense such that a reasonable trier of fact could find that it would support that claim or defense.” Id. (citing Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306 F.3d 99, 108 (2d Cir. 2002)). Furthermore, as discussed in detail in Ms. Giuffre’s Motion for an Adverse Inference Instruction (DE 315), an adverse inference is appropriate regarding the documents that Defendant is withholding under the Second Circuit’s test set forth in Residential Funding. Defendant has admitted to deleting emails as this Court noted in its Order. Defendant has not collected what data remains from at least half of her email accounts. An adverse inference is equally appropriate if the non-compliance was due to Defendant’s destruction of evidence. See Brown v. Coleman, 2009 WL 2877602, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2009) (“Where a party violates a court order—either by destroying evidence when directed to preserve it or by failing to produce information because relevant data has been destroyed—Rule 37(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the court may impose a range of sanctions, including dismissal or judgment by default, preclusion of evidence, imposition of an adverse inference, or assessment of attorneys' fees and costs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b); see Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306 F.3d 99, 106–07 (2d Cir.2002)”). See also Essenter v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 2011 WL 124505, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2011); and Rule 37(e), Fed. R. Civ. P. (“If electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it . . . the court: (2) only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation may: (A) presume that the lost information was unfavorable to Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 21 19 the party; (b) instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable to the party; or (C) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment.”). The Court may also wish to consider the possibility of a having a neutral, third-party expert review Defendant’s production. In her filing with the Court on Monday, August 1, 2016, Defendant represented that she ran hundreds of search terms - including the names of people involved in the sex trafficking ring with whom she still associates in the present - and got zero “hits” for any of them. That is strong indicia that Defendant intentionally deleted documents. This strongly suggests that relevant documents either lie in the two email accounts that were not searched or Defendant has deleted these communications. Defendant does not state that the individual who examined Defendant’s devices attempted to recover Defendant’s deleted email and other documents, or attempted to identify if and when a hard drive was wiped. In these circumstances, the Court should allow an independent forensic expert review the computer and all her email accounts to determine whether responsive materials exists and have either not been produced or have been deleted. The Court could then use that information in determining whether an adverse inference is appropriate. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Ms. Giuffre respectfully request that this Court grant her motion for an adverse inference jury instruction pursuant to Rule 27(b), (e), and (f), with respect to the electronic documents and electronic communications that this Court Ordered her to produce, allow a forensic review of her computer to evaluate whether material was intentionally deleted; and direct Defendant to recover any remaining mindspring.com data from the applicable server. - Dated: August 8, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 21 20 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 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 21 21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 8th day of August, 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 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 21 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 SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR ADVERSE INFERENCE INSTRUCTION BASED ON NEW INFORMATION 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 Supplement to Motion for Adverse Inference Instruction Based on New Information. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of July 29, 2016, Correspondence from Ty Gee. 4. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of Excerpt from April 22, 2016, Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell. 5. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of Excerpt from July 22, 2016, Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell. 6. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from June 10, 2016, Deposition of Rinaldo Rizzo. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 4 7. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from June 21, 2016, Deposition of Detective Joseph Recarey. 8. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from May 18, 2016, Deposition of Johanna Sjoberg. 9. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from June 1, 2016, Deposition of Juan Alessi. 10. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of the sworn testimony of Janusz Banasiak. 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of Rule 45 Subpoena to Microsoft. 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 1327-20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 4 3 Dated: August 8, 2016. Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. 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 1327-20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 4 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 8th day of August, 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 to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic Court Filing System 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 1327-20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT 2 (Filed Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 11 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 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 11 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 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 11 Page 270 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 A. She helps with my not-for-profit 3 ocean foundation and any other related 4 activities that I may have. 5 Q. Is she paid for by Jeffrey Epstein? 6 A. No. 7 Q. She is paid for by you? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. When did you first meet 10 ? 11 A. I don't recollect exactly, sometime 12 maybe 2002, 2003. 13 Q. How did you meet her? 14 A. I don't recollect exactly how we 15 met. 16 Q. Did Jeffrey introduce you to her? 17 A. I don't recollect how we met. 18 Q. Does she know Jeffrey Epstein? 19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 20 form and foundation. 21 A. Can you ask again, please? 22 Q. Does know Jeffrey 23 Epstein? 24 A. What do you mean by know? 25 Q. Has she met her him before? - - MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 11 Page 271 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 3 form and foundation. 4 A. I can't recollect a time when 5 -- I've seen with Jeffrey but -- 6 Q. You are not sure -- 7 A. I know they know either other. I 8 can't testify to a meeting between them. 9 Q. Do you know where in New Jersey she 10 lives? 11 A. No 12 Q. You don't know a city? 13 A. No. 14 Q. How long has she worked for you? 15 A. Sometime 2002, 2003. 16 Q. To the present? 17 A. Yeah. 18 Q. Why do you think that 19 might know Jeffrey? 20 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 21 form and foundation. 22 A. Because you know, I know Jeffrey. 23 Q. Have you seen them together? 24 A. I already testified I have not seen 25 them together, to my recollection. - - MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 11 Page 272 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. Is it your testimony that 3 knows Jeffrey Epstein through the work 4 that she does for you? 5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 6 form and foundation. 7 A. I don't recollect, and I don't 8 recollect how I met and I can't testify 9 to what relationship is or is not with 10 Jeffrey. 11 Q. Have you ever talked to Jeffrey 12 about ? 13 A. I don't know what you mean. 14 Q. In any way, have you ever had a 15 conversation with Jeffrey about ? 16 A. In what context. 17 Q. In any context. Have you ever 18 talked to Jeffrey Epstein about ? 19 A. works for me so it's entirely 20 possible that in the course of conversations 21 since 2002, 2003 that a conversation in which 22 name would have come up is entirely 23 possible. 24 Q. I provided you with and I'm sorry, 25 I don't know all the numbers, but the - - - - - - - MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 11 Page 273 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 statement that was issued by Ross Gow that 3 should be a single page still in your stack 4 of exhibits there. 5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Exhibit 10. 6 Q. Did you authorize Ross Gow to issue 7 that statement on your behalf in January of 8 2015? 9 A. I already testified that that was 10 done by my lawyers. 11 Q. So did you authorize your lawyers 12 to issue a statement on your behalf through 13 Ross Gow in January of 2015? 14 A. It was determined that I had to 15 make a statement in the United Kingdom 16 because of the appalling lies and I just 17 thought of some new ones. 18 Virginia's statement that I 19 celebrated her 16 birthday with her. We can 20 all agree that that's entirely impossible. I 21 didn't meet her until she was 17 and other 22 lies she perpetrated that she had a diary and 23 we all know is a complete fake. That's not a 24 diary. It was just a book she was writing 25 that you helped sell to the press, as if it MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 11 Page 361 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 (Maxwell Exhibit 17, email, marked 3 for identification.) 4 Q. This is an email from you on 5 January 10, 2015 to Philip Barden and Ross 6 Gow. The statement you had before you 7 earlier, that, if you can pull that in front 8 of you, the one page press release that you 9 gave. You might know from memory. 10 Was the press release that you 11 issued with the statement about Virginia 12 issued in or around January 2, 2015? 13 A. As best as I can recollect. 14 Q. I want to turn your attention to 15 the document I just handed you which is Bates 16 No. 001044, from you to Philip Barden and 17 Ross Gow. It says in the first sentence, I'm 18 out of my depth to understand defamation, 19 other legal hazards and I don't want to end 20 up in a lawsuit aimed at me from anyone, if I 21 can help it. Apparently, even saying 22 Virginia is a liar has hazards. 23 You knew at the time you called 24 Virginia a liar in early January of 2015 that 25 that was something that would result in a MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 11 Page 405 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 with Virginia Roberts. 3 Q. I'm marking this as Maxwell 25. 4 (Maxwell Exhibit 25, email, marked 5 for identification.) 6 Q. I'm showing you what has been 7 marked as Maxwell 25. 8 This is an email dated January 11, 9 2015 at the top? 10 Do you see that that from Jeffrey 11 to you? 12 A. Uh-huh. 13 Q. And then below there is an email 14 from Philip Barden to you and cc'ing Ross Gow 15 on January 11, 2015. 16 Do you see that? 17 A. Uh-huh. 18 Q. It says, Dear Ghislaine, as you 19 know I have been working behind the scenes 20 and this article comes from that. It helps 21 but doesn't answer the VR claims. I will get 22 the criminal allegations out. This shows the 23 MOS will print truth, not just a VR voice 24 piece. We can only make the truth by making 25 a statement. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 11 Page 406 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 What did he mean when he said, I 3 will get the criminal allegations out, what 4 was he referring to? 5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 6 form and foundation. 7 A. I have no idea. 8 Q. Were there criminal allegations 9 about Virginia that either your lawyer or 10 press agent were leaking to the press? 11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form 12 and foundation. 13 A. I have no idea. 14 Q. Did you ask him what he meant when 15 he said, I will get the criminal allegations 16 out? 17 A. I don't recollect the conversation. 18 Q. Did you direct him to leak to the 19 press criminal allegations about Virginia 20 Roberts? 21 A. I already testified that I have no 22 knowledge of what you are asking me. 23 Q. Were you copied on this email, 24 correct? 25 A. I was. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 11 Page 416 1 2 CERTIFICATE 3 4 5 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the witness, 6 GHISLAINE MAXWELL, was duly sworn by me and 7 that the deposition is a true record of the 8 testimony given by the witness. 9 10 _______________________________ 11 Leslie Fagin, Registered Professional Reporter 12 Dated: April 22, 2016 13 14 15 (The foregoing certification of 16 this transcript does not apply to any 17 reproduction of the same by any means, unless 18 under the direct control and/or supervision 19 of the certifying reporter.) 20 21 22 23 24 25 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 11 EXHIBIT 5 (Filed Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 5 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 June 21, 2016 9:17 a.m. C O N F I D E N T I A L Deposition of JOSEPH RECAREY, 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 1327-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 5 Page 106 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 Q. Do you remember speaking with a female by 3 the name of ? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And is that -- did you learn from 6 about ? 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 8 foundation. 9 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 10 BY MR. EDWARDS: 11 Q. And what did you understand 12 interaction with Jeffrey Epstein to be? 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 14 foundation. 15 THE WITNESS: was allegedly 16 dating Jeffrey Epstein at the time. And 17 and were roommates. 18 During that time, had met with 19 and went shopping with her at the Palm Beach 20 Mall, where they purchased items from 21 Victoria's Secrets. 22 After spending the day together, they went 23 over to the Palm Beach house, where Epstein 24 requested to see what was purchased. She was a 25 little reluctant initially, but because of the - - - - - - - - MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 5 Page 107 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 fact that it was his money that purchased the 3 items, she showed the outfit that she had 4 purchased at Victoria's Secrets. He had asked 5 her to try it on, at which time she did. 6 She went back to the house at another 7 time, where she was going to meet with 8 and Epstein. They went for a bike ride, but 9 had a massage, which Epstein walked in on 10 while she was getting a massage. 11 He asked her to turn over, expose her 12 breasts to him. I think he performed a 13 chiropractic move on her. And she was 14 completely uncomfortable with the whole 15 situation. 16 BY MR. EDWARDS: 17 Q. Did you ever attempt to interview 18 ? 19 A. I'm trying to recall. I believe I may 20 have. I just -- off the top of my head, I can't 21 remember whether I did or didn't. 22 Q. Okay. At some point in time did you 23 encounter Alan Dershowitz? 24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 25 foundation. - - - - MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 5 Page 365 2 3 CERTIFICATE OF OATH 4 STATE OF FLORIDA ) 5 COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE ) 6 7 I, the undersigned authority, certify 8 that JOSEPH RECAREY personally appeared before me 9 and was duly sworn. 10 WITNESS my hand and official seal this 11 24th day of June, 2016. 12 13 KELLI ANN WILLIS, RPR, CRR 14 Notary Public, State of Florida My Commission No. EE911443 15 Expires: 2/16/16 16 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 5 EXHIBIT 6 (Filed Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 4 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 1327-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 4 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 Jane Doe 2 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 4 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 1327-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT 7 (Filed Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-24 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 6 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 June 1, 2016 9:12 a.m. C O N F I D E N T I A L Deposition of JOHN ALESSI, 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 1327-24 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 6 Page 223 1 JOHN ALESSI 2 Q. You never received emails from either of 3 them? 4 A. No, sir. 5 Q. So when there would be a message from one 6 of them while they were out of town, they would call 7 you, call you on the telephone? 8 A. I haven't spoken to Ghislaine in 12 years. 9 Q. Sorry. I'm talking about when you worked 10 there and you would receive a message that they were 11 coming into town, would that be by way of telephone? 12 A. Telephone, and also, there was a system at 13 the house, that it was MindSpring, MindSpring I 14 think it's called, that it was like a message system 15 that would come from the office. 16 Q. What is MindSpring? 17 A. It was a server. I think it was -- the 18 office would have, like, a message system between 19 him, the houses, the employees, his friends. They 20 would write a message on the computer. There was no 21 email at that time. 22 Q. Okay. So what computer would you use? 23 A. My computer in my office. 24 Q. And so was part of your daily routine to 25 go to your computer and check to see if you had MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-24 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 6 Page 224 1 JOHN ALESSI 2 MindSpring messages? 3 A. No. That was at the end of my stay. That 4 was the very end of my stay. I didn't get involved 5 with that too much. But it was a message system 6 that Jeffrey received every two, three hours, with 7 all the messages that would have to go to the office 8 in New York, and they will print it and send it 9 faxed to the house, and I would hand it to him. 10 Q. Did it look like the message pads that 11 we've been looking at? 12 A. No, no, nothing like that. 13 Q. Was it typed-out messages? 14 A. Yes, typed-out messages. 15 Q. Just explain one example of how it would 16 work. Let's say that Ghislaine wanted to send him a 17 message on MindSpring. How would that work? 18 A. An example? 19 Q. Sure. 20 A. It got so ridiculous at the end of my 21 stay, okay? That Mr. Epstein, instead of talking to 22 me that he wants a cup of coffee, he will call the 23 office; the office would type it; they would send it 24 to me, Jeffrey wants a cup of coffee, or Jeffrey 25 wants an orange juice out by the pool. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-24 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 6 Page 225 1 JOHN ALESSI 2 Q. He would call the office in New York. 3 They would then type it in MindSpring? 4 A. Send it to me. 5 Q. How would you know to check for it? How 6 would you know to look for this MindSpring? 7 A. Because I was in the office. I was there. 8 I was there. And we have a signal when it come on 9 and says, Hey, you've got mail. 10 Q. Okay. 11 A. Every day. Every day it was new things 12 put in. That's why I left, too. 13 Q. Do you know who set up the mind spring 14 system? 15 A. It was a computer guy. It was a computer 16 guy who worked only for Jeffrey. Mark. Mark 17 Lumber. 18 Q. Was he local to Palm Beach? 19 A. No. He was in New York. Everything was 20 set up from New York. And Mark Lumber, I remember 21 he came to Palm Beach to set up the system at the 22 house. 23 Q. Did you become aware at some point in time 24 that there was a bag or a briefcase of cash that was 25 in the house? MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-24 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 6 Page 236 1 JOHN ALESSI 2 CERTIFICATE OF OATH 3 STATE OF FLORIDA ) 4 COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE ) 5 I, the undersigned authority, certify 6 that JOHN ALESSI personally appeared before me and was duly sworn. 7 WITNESS my hand and official seal this 1st day of June, 2016. 8 9 Kelli Ann Willis, RPR, CRR 10 Notary Public, State of Florida Commission FF928291, Expires 2-16-20 11 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 12 CERTIFICATE 13 STATE OF FLORIDA ) 14 COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE ) 15 I, Kelli Ann Willis, Registered Professional Reporter and Certified Realtime 16 Reporter do hereby certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the 17 foregoing deposition of JOHN ALESSI; that a review of the transcript was not requested; and that the 18 transcript is a true record of my stenographic notes. 19 I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not a relative, employee, attorney, or counsel of any 20 of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' attorney or counsel connected 21 with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action. 22 Dated this 1st day of June, 2016. 23 24 KELLI ANN WILLIS, RPR, CRR 25 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-24 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT 8 (Filed Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 12 Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) 2d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 Page 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO:502008CA028051XXXXMB AB L.M. Plaintiff, -vs- JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND SARAH KELLEN, Defendants. ______________________________/ DEPOSITION OF JANUSZ BANASIAK Tuesday, February 16, 2010 10:09 - 2:30 p.m. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1500 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Reported By: Cynthia Hopkins, RPR, FPR Notary Public, State of Florida Prose Court Reporting Job No.: 1317 GIUFFRE004424 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 12 Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) 2d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 Page 55 1 A. One was in cabana. One, the other second one 2 was in living room and one was in small office next to 3 the kitchen. 4 Q. All right. In your time at the house 5 prior to that, is it fair to say those computers had 6 never been removed before? 7 A. I remember that there was to bring some new 8 ones to replace them at some point. I don't know 9 remember exactly if it was for upgrading, but they 10 change computers very often I would say. 11 Q. All right. But the computers -- the 12 removal by Adriana and this individual, that wasn't 13 done -- we're talking about a different -- that's 14 not a time where they were replacing computers. 15 This was just removing computers from the house? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And did you receive any explanation as to 18 why the computers were being removed from the house? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Did you ever have occasion to use any of 21 the three computers that were removed from the 22 house? 23 A. No. I never, I never, you know, touch them, 24 never use them. I have my own computer in my office, so 25 I use this computer. GIUFFRE004478 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 12 Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) 2d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 Page 56 1 Q. Is your computer in your office -- 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Let me finish. Is the computer in your 4 office linked up with the three computers that were 5 removed from the house? Meaning, can you look at 6 the system and see what is on those three computers? 7 A. No, no. 8 Q. Is it your understanding that those three 9 computers are linked with one another or do you 10 know? 11 A. I don't know, but I, I doubt it. They are 12 separate I guess. 13 Q. Okay. Were you aware that Mr. Epstein 14 used a Citrix program to link various computers? 15 Did you know that? 16 A. Yeah. I use Citrix too in my computer for 17 exchanging e-mails and get through Internet. 18 Q. Okay. So, is it your understanding that 19 the only connection then through Citrix with these 20 computers, these various computers that were in 21 Mr. Epstein's home, was for e-mail purposes? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Okay. To your knowledge, you're not 24 familiar with those computers sharing other files or 25 information? GIUFFRE004479 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 12 Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) 2d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 Page 57 1 A. No. 2 Q. That's not something that you were, you 3 were privy to? You weren't, you weren't in the loop 4 of the sharing of information in the house in terms 5 of the computers being connected through any server? 6 A. I don't really know what, how, how to answer 7 your question because Citrix is for the whole 8 organization to exchange e-mail between employees. 9 Q. All right. You used the term? 10 A. So, even my computer is connected to Citrix. 11 I can receive mail and I can e-mail information to 12 employee within organization. But I don't know if you 13 can see to each computer what is going on on another 14 computer. 15 Q. You don't know about -- 16 A. Is that your question? 17 Q. You don't know about shared files? 18 A. No. 19 Q. You only know that the one computer can 20 e-mail the other? 21 A. Right. 22 Q. But that can happen with any two computers 23 in the world pretty much. You can send e-mails to 24 each other, right. 25 A. Yes. GIUFFRE004480 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 12 Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) 2d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 Page 58 1 Q. You have used the term organization, you 2 can share within the organization. What do you -- 3 just so I can understand what you're calling the 4 organization, what do you mean by that word? 5 A. People employed by Jeffrey Epstein. There are 6 a few groups of people, his office in New York and I 7 guess -- 8 Q. Who are those people by name that you 9 would consider within the Jeffrey Epstein 10 organization? 11 A. His accountant, his -- 12 Q. Who is that? 13 A. Bella Klen. 14 Q. What is it? 15 A. Bella Klen. K-l-i-n. E-n, I'm sorry. 16 Q. Bella, B-e-l-l-a? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Is that somebody in New York? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Is that a male or female? 21 A. Female. 22 Q. And you understand that's his accountant? 23 A. Right. 24 MR. GOLDBERGER: Just to get the spelling 25 correct is it K-l-e-i-n? GIUFFRE004481 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 12 Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) 2d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 Page 59 1 THE WITNESS: K-l-e-n. 2 MR. MERMELSTEIN: K-l-e-n. 3 BY MR. EDWARDS: 4 Q. And in addition to Bella Klen, who else 5 would you have considered to be in Jeffrey Epstein's 6 organization? 7 A. Rich Kahn. Richard Kahn. 8 Q. And how do you spell the last name? 9 A. K-a-h-n. 10 Q. And where is he located? 11 A. New York office. 12 Q. What does he do? 13 A. I guess he was involved with the accounting. 14 Q. And who else? 15 A. Leslie. I would think I would say secretary. 16 Q. Leslie Groff? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And is she also in the New York office? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. What do you understand her role to be? 21 A. Secretary I would say. 22 Q. Did she also schedule appointments for 23 these young females to come to Jeffrey Epstein's 24 house? 25 MR. GOLDBERGER: Form. GIUFFRE004482 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 12 Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) 2d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 Page 60 1 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 2 BY MR. EDWARDS: 3 Q. We'll go back to that but I tell you why I 4 ask. If you don't know then you don't know, but in 5 the course of Mr. Epstein's -- you're aware that he 6 did plead guilty to a couple felonies in state 7 court, right? 8 A. Right. 9 Q. Well, in the course of the negotiation 10 with the federal government and the U.S. Attorney's 11 Office, they, the agreement between Mr. Epstein and 12 the U.S. Attorney's office mentions people that are 13 called co-conspirators of Epstein. And Leslie Groff 14 is named as one of those co-conspirators. 15 Do you know what involvement, if any, that 16 she had with the crimes that were being 17 investigated? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. I am not aware of this. 21 Q. Okay. The other people mentioned as 22 co-conspirators are Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, and 23 Nadia Marcinkova. So we'll get to them in a minute 24 but first just so we stay on the track of who was in 25 the organization, is Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross and GIUFFRE004483 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 12 Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) 2d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 Page 61 1 Nadia Marcinkova all people that you would also 2 consider within the organization? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. So, we just added three more names 5 to it. Who else would you consider, Ghislaine 6 Maxwell? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And who else? 9 A. Who was working there? 10 Q. Bella, Richard Kahn, Leslie Groff, 11 Ghislaine Maxwell, Nadia, Sarah, Adriana. 12 A. I think Harry was involved with the 13 accounting. 14 Q. Okay. 15 A. I don't recall his last name. 16 Q. Somebody else involved with the 17 accounting? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Okay. Any of those people that you just 20 named, were any of those people that you just named 21 the person that you described as the gentleman that 22 assisted Adriana in removing the computers from the 23 house prior to the search warrant being executed? 24 A. No. You mean the one who show up to do those 25 computers? GIUFFRE004484 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 12 Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) 2d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 Page 62 1 Q. Right. The one who helped Adriana move 2 it. 3 A. No, it wasn't. 4 Q. Had you ever seen that individual on the 5 property, on Mr. Epstein's property at 358 Albrillo 6 Way prior to him assisting Adriana in removing the 7 computers from the home? 8 A. No. 9 Q. That was their first time seeing him? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Had you ever seen him since that date? 12 A. No. 13 Q. And to this date you don't know who that 14 individual was? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Were you told that the -- let me rephrase 17 that. I guess you told me that anything that 18 happened in the home in terms of guests coming over 19 or things of that nature, you would be forwarned 20 about it, right? 21 A. Right. 22 Q. So, when was the first time that you 23 learned that Adriana and some gentleman that you had 24 never met would be coming to the home to remove the 25 computers? GIUFFRE004485 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 12 Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) 2d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 Page 63 1 A. I got the phone call from her that there would 2 be -- I don't know what time it was in the house in 3 certain time and they would pick up those computers. 4 Q. Okay. And you got a phone call from 5 Adriana? 6 A. Right. 7 Q. Why were you called by Adriana to tell you 8 that Adriana and would be coming over to, with some 9 other gentleman to remove the computers. Do you 10 know why you were told that? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Would Adriana call every time she would 13 come over? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Okay. 16 A. I mean, any, any time coming to the house, 17 they always let me know who is coming when they are 18 arriving or whatever. 19 Q. Back in 2000, sorry. 20 A. I said even if Jeffrey Epstein arriving at the 21 house, I always know what time and which day he would be 22 here or another person, so I would be aware of what was 23 going on and I would be prepared. 24 Q. Who besides you back in 2005 lived at the 25 house full time; just you? GIUFFRE004486 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 12 Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) 2d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 Page 191 1 CERTIFICATE OF OATH 2 THE STATE OF FLORIDA 3 COUNTY OF PALM BEACH 4 5 6 I, the undersigned authority, certify that 7 JANUSZ BANASIAK personally appeared before me 8 and was duly sworn on the 16th day of February, 9 2010. 10 11 Dated this 28th day of February, 2010. 12 13 14 15 _________________________________ 16 Cynthia Hopkins, RPR, FPR 17 Notary Public - State of Florida My Commission Expires: February 25, 2011 18 My Commission No.: DD 643788 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 GIUFFRE004614 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------X VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. 15-cv-07433-RWS --------------------------------------------------X Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions Filed Under Seal ......................................... 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 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 27 i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. 2 I. PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS CLAIMED UNANSWERED REQUIRES DENIAL OF THE MOTION ............................................. 8 II. THE REQUESTED TOPIC AREAS ARE CUMULATIVE, DUPLICATIVE AND NO GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR PERMITTING ADDITIONAL DEPOSITION TIME ...... 10 III. COUNSEL INSTRUCTED MAXWELL NOT TO ANSWER TO ENFORCE THE COURT’S ORDER AND TO PREVENT HARASSMENT BY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL .................................................................................................................................... 13 A. Objected to Question Number 1: ....................................................................................... 13 B. Objected to Questions Number 2 and 3. ............................................................................ 14 C. “Objected” to Question Number 4. .................................................................................... 15 D. “Objected” to Question Number 5 ..................................................................................... 15 E. “Objected” to Question Number 6 ..................................................................................... 15 F. Objected to Question Number 7 ........................................................................................ 16 G. Objection to Question Number 8 ....................................................................................... 17 H. Objections to Questions 9, 10, and 11. .............................................................................. 17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .............................................................................................. 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 27 1 Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, by and through her counsel, hereby submits the following Response in Opposition (“Response”) to Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions Filed Under Seal (“Motion”), as follows: INTRODUCTION This lawsuit presents one relatively simple question: is Plaintiff’s claim that she was sexually abused, sexually trafficked and held as a “sex slave” by Jeffrey Epstein between 1999 and 2002 “with the assistance and participation of” Ms. Maxwell substantially true? Plaintiff already has admitted, under oath, that substantial portions of her story are untrue; she has so far refused to say under oath what other lies printed by the press about her story are untrue, but has admitted that journalist Sharon Churcher “got it wrong.” For example, Plaintiff has admitted that she did not meet Ms. Maxwell or Mr. Epstein in 1999 (or in 1998) at the age of 14 or 15, as she previously has sworn and as she told members of the press. Declaration of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca “Pagliuca Decl.”), Composite Ex. A (Testimony of Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre on May 3, 2016), at 26-27, 220-226. Plaintiff admitted that she did not spend her sweet 16th birthday with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell as she included in her book manuscript, her Jane Doe #102 Complaint and in the story she sold to the Daily Mail. Id. at 102. Plaintiff’s counsel has admitted that it was a mistake to sue Alan Dershowitz for defamation, after he provided them documentation establishing he never was in their client’s presence, nor did he have sex with her. Pagliuca Decl., Ex. B. And Plaintiff’s story about attending a dinner party with Bill Clinton on Little St. James was debunked by none other than former FBI head, Louis Freeh. Id. Yet, undeterred, Plaintiff and her counsel continue to use this lawsuit to seek discovery of matters far afield of the one simple question posed in the defamation claim, to explore events that occurred well past 2002, when Plaintiff lived in Australia and had no contact with Ms. Maxwell or Mr. Epstein. The current witch-hunt has now expanded into the private personal life Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 27 2 of defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. The harassing, extended, repetitive, cumulative and redundant continued deposition of Ms. Maxwell should be concluded. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On April 22, 2016 Plaintiff deposed Ms. Maxwell for a full seven hours. The transcript of that deposition is 418 pages long. Ms. Maxwell did not assert any privilege against self￾incrimination and was questioned extensively about, among other things: her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, her knowledge of “sexual trafficking,” sex with minors, non-consensual sex, sex involving the Plaintiff and others, sex involving Plaintiff and Mr. Epstein, sex involving the Plaintiff and Ms. Maxwell, sex involving the Plaintiff, Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein. She was asked questions about whether she recruited girls for Ms. Epstein to have sex with, her knowledge of Ms. Epstein’s sex with a number of people. She was asked questions about “sex toys,” pornographic images, child pornography, and nudity at Mr. Epstein’s house. Ms. Maxwell answered these questions, and many others, to the best of her ability. See Pagliuca Decl., Composite Exhibit C (Transcript of (First) Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell on April 22, 2016). During her first deposition, Ms. Maxwell was freely questioned and testified about the following: x She never had a sexual encounter with Plaintiff, ever. Id. at 76:3-11. x She never saw Plaintiff massage Mr. Epstein. Id. at 75:12-24. x She never saw Jeffrey Epstein and Plaintiff in a sexual situation. Id. at 75:23- 76:l. x She did not have a set of outfits for Plaintiff to wear. Id. at 69:1-24, and again at 117:4- 15. x She had no knowledge of any non-consensual sex acts involving Mr. Epstein. Id. at 55:5- 15. x She never had non-consensual sex with anyone. Id. at 62:19-20 & 63:23-25. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 27 3 x She did not train Plaintiff to “recruit” other girls for massages or sexual massages. Id. at 81:21- 82:7. x She never arranged for or asked Plaintiff to have sex with anyone. Id. at 58:6-11. x She never gave a massage with Plaintiff in the room with Mr. Epstein. Id. at 19:16-21. x She never gave a massage to Mr. Epstein with a female that was under the age of 18 in the room. Id. at 22:11-14. x She never observed Mr. Epstein having a massage given by an individual, a female, who was under the age of 18. Id. at 22:15-18. x She never had sex with . Id. at 38:19-23. x She never observed Jeffrey Epstein having sex with Id. at 38:24- 39:2. x She was unaware if Jeffrey Epstein was having sexual contact with when she was 13 years old. Id. at 39:3-5. x She was never involved in an orgy with . Id. at 40:16-18. x She had no knowledge of whether was involved with sex with Jeffrey Epstein and girls over the age of 18. Id. at 46:13-16. x She had no knowledge of whether recruited other girls for sex with Jeffrey Epstein. Id. at 46:17-21. x She did not know the precise nature of Jeffrey Epstein’s relationship with Sara Kellen. Id. at 48:5-6. x She was unaware of any sexual acts with masseuses and Jeffrey Epstein that were non￾consensual. Id. at 55:5-15. x She discussed her knowledge of Annie Farmer. Id. at 55:17- 56:20. x She had no knowledge of Annie Farmer telling the police that Jeffrey Epstein sexually assaulted her. Id. at 56:16-20. x She had no knowledge of Emmy Taylor having sex with Jeffrey Epstein. Id. at 65:10-15. x She never had sex with Jeffrey Epstein, Plaintiff, and Emmy Taylor. Id. at 65:8-10. x She had no knowledge of Emmy Taylor bringing females to the house to massage Jeffrey Epstein. Id. at 67:5-13. x She had no knowledge about a basket of sex toys. Id. at 70:25- 75:4 and again at 242:3- 243:13. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 27 4 x She was unaware of Jeffrey Epstein ever having his nipples pinched while having sex with a minor. Id. at 82:23-83:4. x She never met anyone underage in London to provide a massage for Jeffrey Epstein. Id. at 97:25-98:5. x She had no knowledge about Jean Luc Brunel bringing girls to Jeffrey Epstein for the purpose of providing massages. Id. at 99:2-21. x She never participated in obtaining visas for foreign girls. Id. at 100:9. x She did not believe it was Jeffrey Epstein’s preference to start sex with a massage. Id. at 100:10-20. x She never trained a female under the age of 18 at Jeffrey Epstein’s home. Id. at 157:5-10. x She has no knowledge whether ever asked females to come over to see Jeffrey Epstein for the purpose of sexual massage. Id. at 268:21-24. x She had no knowledge of any sexual relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Anouska DiGeorgio. Id. at 305:5-23. x She was aware of and understood that she was Jeffrey Epstein’s girlfriend and spent a lot of time with him in 1999-2000. Id. at 364:5-365:11. Because Ms. Maxwell had not, by virtue of becoming a defendant in this case, injected her entire personal sexual history into this litigation counsel for Ms. Maxwell, during the first 7 hour deposition, instructed Ms. Maxwell to not answer questions related to consensual sexual activity with adults. No objection was raised, and no instruction to not answer lodged, to questions regarding Ms. Maxwell’s knowledge of sexual activity (consensual or non-consensual) by Mr. Epstein or others with children, Plaintiff, or other persons. No objections were made, or instructions to not answer, to questions about whether Ms. Maxwell assisted Mr. Epstein in the alleged sexual trafficking of the Plaintiff from 1999 to 2002. Ms. Maxwell answered questions about sexual trafficking, prostitution, her job with Mr. Epstein, and police reports related to Mr. Epstein. Ms. Maxwell was questioned, without any instruction not to answer, about message pads, phone lists, the hiring practices related to massages, hiring practices in general, whether Jeffrey Epstein had a scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages and whether Jeffrey Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 27 5 Epstein’s assistants would arrange times for underage girls to perform sexual massages. Pagliuca Decl., Ex. C at 253-55. She was extensively questioned about various message pads recovered from Jeffrey Epstein’s home by the Palm Beach Police Department. Id. at 147:23- 167:23. She was extensively questioned regarding her knowledge about Johanna Sjoberg. Id. at 307:6-312:12. She was extensively questioned about a list containing names and phone numbers under the heading “Massage Florida.” Id. at 313:18 – 334:8. Simply stated, with the exception of her adult consensual sex life, Plaintiff was free to question Ms. Maxwell, and in fact questioned Ms. Maxwell on any topic. Importantly, Plaintiff’s original motion recognized this fact, seeking only to response Plaintiff on one subject: “Defendant should be ordered to sit for a follow-up deposition and directed to answer questions regarding her knowledge of alleged “adult” sexual activity.” Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition Questions, WHEREFORE Clause, at 10 (Doc. # 143). On June 20, 2016 the Court issued its Order allowing Ms. Maxwell to be re-deposed on a limited basis. The Court authorized questioning relating to: 1. Ms. Maxwell’s sexual activity with or involving Jeffrey Epstein; 2. Ms. Maxwell’s sexual activity with or involving the Plaintiff; 3. Ms. Maxwell’s sexual activity with or involving underage females; 4. Ms. Maxwell’s sexual activity involving or including massage with individuals Ms. Maxwell knew were or were likely involved with Mr. Epstein; 5. Ms. Maxwell’s knowledge of sexual activities of others with or involving Epstein; 6. Ms. Maxwell’s knowledge of sexual activities of others with or involving Plaintiff; 7. Ms. Maxwell’s knowledge of sexual activity of others with underage females known to Epstein or believed to be known to Epstein; 8. Ms. Maxwell’s knowledge of sexual activity of others involving massage with individuals Ms. Maxwell knew or believed might be known to Epstein. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 27 6 The continued deposition was expressly limited to the above eight categories, and the Court instructed that Ms. Maxwell “need not answer questions that relate to none of these subjects or that is clearly not relevant, such as sexual activity of third-parties who bear no knowledge or relation to key events, individuals, or locations of this case.” Order of June 20, 2016 at 10 (Doc. # 264-1). Presumably the Court did not authorize repetitive questioning about topics that had been asked and answered in the prior deposition. Ms. Maxwell had already been subjected to, and fully answered, questions related the majority of the 8 topics in her first 7-hour deposition. Questions related to topics 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 had all been answered in the negative, i.e., Ms. Maxwell did not have any sexual contact with the Plaintiff (2), did not have sexual contact with any underage females (3), did not have any sexual contact with anyone during a massage (4); had no knowledge of Epstein’s sexual activity other than with Ms. Maxwell (5); had no knowledge of sexual activity with others and the Plaintiff (6); and Ms. Maxwell’s knowledge of sexual activity of others with minors. Topics 4 and 8 had been substantially answered, in the negative. The instruction not to not to answer questions about sexual activity and massages was limited to any activity involving consensual adults. See Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition Questions at 10 (Doc. #143). Given that the majority of the questions had already been posed and answered over a full seven-hour time period one might reasonably assume that Ms. Maxwell’s second deposition would be short and direct. Unfortunately, Plaintiff’s counsel chose to ignore the Court’s Order, repeatedly sought to reopen previously completed deposition topics and tried to ask questions about new topics completely unrelated to the limited purpose authorized. Pagliuca Decl., Ex. D (Transcript of (Second) Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell on July 22, 2016). The entire deposition was far beyond the specific request made by Plaintiff in her Motion that Ms. Maxwell Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 27 7 be required to answer questions about adult consensual sexual activity – the only questions on which instructions were given in the first deposition. Yet, broad latitude was given by counsel in the deposition, permitting pages of duplicative, redundant examination on countless topics which had already been asked and fully answer in the first disposition. By way of example: Duplicative Topic of Questioning First Deposition (Exhibit C) Second Deposition (Exhibit D) Circumstances surrounding her first meeting of Plaintiff and if she held herself out as a professional masseur 14:9-19:18 35:11-36:20 213:5-220:3 65:4-70:5 If she saw women under the age of 18 (first deposition) or 21 (second deposition) at Epstein’s houses 12:22-14:8; 22:15-24:9; 99:2-100:4; 122:19-122:14 71:20-73:18 Her knowledge of Ms. Sjoberg, her job, how she was hired, and if Ms. Maxwell ever received massages from Ms. Sjoberg 59:7-63:16; 286:23-293:13; 307:6-312:12 74:2-78:191 Knowledge of or meetings with Maria or Annie Farmer 55:20-56:20; 62:21-25 95:14-98:10; 103:19-113:22 Her knowledge of Nadia Marcinkova and interactions with Mr. Epstein 40:19-47:14 120:22-122:5; 126:22-129:12 1 Consistent with Ms. Maxwell’s testimony, Ms. Sjoberg testified that 1) all massages she gave to Ms. Maxwell were ordinary professional massages, and never of a sexual nature; 2) Ms. Maxwell and she never engaged in any sexual activity, nor was it ever requested; and 3) all interactions she had at Mr. Epstein’s property of a sexual nature were consensual activities while she was an adult. Pagliuca Decl., Ex. E, at 94-96; 101; see generally Response at 20-21, infra. - - - - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 27 8 Duplicative Topic of Questioning First Deposition (Exhibit C) Second Deposition (Exhibit D) Her knowledge of Sara Kellen, when she last spoke to Ms. Kellen, what Ms. Kellen’s job was, and her knowledge of sexual relations between Ms. Kellen and Mr. Epstein 47:15-49:18; 56:21-57:11; 254:25-256:8; 328:21-329:6; 396:4-21; 411:14-412:22 117:14-118:9; 125:2-126:21 Her interactions with Alfredo Rodriguez 329:7-330:12; 331:9-335:10 129:15-132:6 Her knowledge concerning Jean Luc Brunel’s sexual activities or interaction with Mr. Epstein 379:22-380:18; 99:14-21; 116:19-117:3; 166:21-167:23 150:6-17 Her knowledge of the identities of a list name titled “Massage – Florida” from an address book marked in the first deposition and discussed at length 312:15-334:8 179:16 -184:15 THE QUESTIONS I. PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS CLAIMED UNANSWERED REQUIRES DENIAL OF THE MOTION Plaintiff broadly, and inaccurately, claims now that at her second deposition, Ms. Maxwell “refused to answer many questions” related to sexual activity or “refused to answer questions about subject integral to this lawsuit.” Motion at 3-4. This assertion is patently dispelled by a review of the second deposition transcript which is 193 pages long. Pagliuca Decl., Ex. D. The deposition began at 9:04 a.m. and concluded at 2:51 p.m. The total time Ms. Maxwell testified in this deposition was 4 hours and 52 minutes for a total combined deposition - • Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 27 9 time of 11 hours and 52 minutes. A total of 787 questions were posed to Ms. Maxwell in the second deposition. Ms. Maxwell answered every question posed to her that fell within the scope of the June 20 Order, many that were outside the scope, and countless questions that had been asked and answered in her first deposition. It is difficult to discern precisely what questions Plaintiff is complaining about in her Motion because of her generalized and non-specific complaints. Plaintiff fails to cite to a single instruction not to answer that 1) falls within the scope to the Court’s Order and 2) that was not answered when properly rephrased to fall within the scope of the Order. S.D.N.Y. Local Rules require that: A party seeking or opposing relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 through 37 inclusive, or making or opposing any other motion or application, shall quote or attach only those portions of the depositions, interrogatories, requests for documents, requests for admissions, or other discovery or disclosure materials, together with the responses and objections thereto, that are the subject of the discovery motion or application, or that are cited in papers submitted in connection with any other motion or application. See also Civil Local Rule 37.1. The failure to comply with Rule 37.1 and set forth the particular questions or responses Plaintiff claims are deficient is “enough to require denial of the motion.” Sibley v. Choice Hotels Int'l, No. CV 14-634 (JS) (AYS), 2015 WL 9413101, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2015) (denying motion to compel where party failed to identify the specific questions and responses to interrogatories claimed deficient); see also Kilkenny v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP, No. 05 CIV. 6578NRB, 2008 WL 371808, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2008) (denying motion to compel where specific questions and objection were not provided, noting rule 37.1 is “This is not an academic or ritual requirement. . . . Court cannot be tasked with performing the functions of Kilkenny's legal counsel [by identifying claimed deficiencies] and thereby seen as advocating for one party over another.”; Frattalone v. Markowitz, No. 91 CIV. 5854 (LMM), 1994 WL 494878, at *3 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 27 10 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 1994) (permitting reopening of deposition only if party could specifically identify areas of inquiry previously foreclosed). To the extent Plaintiff has not identified specific questions that Ms. Maxwell was instructed not to answer she has waived any issue related to the questioning. II. THE REQUESTED TOPIC AREAS ARE CUMULATIVE, DUPLICATIVE AND NO GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR PERMITTING ADDITIONAL DEPOSITION TIME Plaintiff’s proffered “topic areas” that she would like to re-open the deposition to cover – again – makes clear that what she is asking for is additional time – in excess of the almost 12 hours she has already had – to ask questions that have already been answered. This is impermissible under Rule 30(d)(1) which prohibits depositions in excess of 7 hours seeking the type of duplicative and cumulative testimony Plaintiff seeks. The only testimony cited in the Motion are instances in which Ms. Maxwell had already fully testified on the topic area. First, she cites questions concerning Johanna Sjoberg, a witness who has been deposed in this case. What Plaintiff ignores is that Ms. Maxwell had already been fully examined concerning her knowledge about Ms. Sjoberg and answered every question, with the exception of a single questions regarding adult consensual sexual activity which was answered in the second deposition. See Pagliuca Decl., Ex. C at 59:7-63:16; 286:23-293:13; 307:6-312:12 & Ex. D at 77:24 – 78:6 (“Q. Did Mr. Epstein, insofar as you believe, engage in sexual activities with Johanna? A. I would not know. I would say no. Q. Did you engage in sexual activities with Johanna? A. No.”). Despite this, leeway was given, and 5 pages of repeated testimony concerning Ms. Sjoberg commenced and was permitted until the duplicative nature of the testimony was simply too much. See Pagliuca Decl., Ex. D at 74:2-78:19. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 27 11 Second, Plaintiff inaccurately complains that Ms. Maxwell refused to answer questions concerning sexual activity involving two women named Annie and Maria Farmer. Motion at 6. Not so. Ms. Maxwell answered questions for fully 13 pages of her deposition concerning the Farmers. See Pagliuca Decl., Ex. D at 95-98 and 103-113. Ms. Maxwell answered well over 76 questions relating to Annie and Maria Farmer including who they are, when she met them, whether she ever saw them at Epstein’s homes or her own home, whether Epstein ever had sex with them, whether they worked for Epstein, whether they flew on planes together, gave or received massages, participated in any sexual activities with one another, where they lived, the description of their living environments, and whether journalist Vicky Ward ever told Ms. Maxwell that Epstein had engaged in sexual activities. Id. This was on top of the questions that Ms. Maxwell had already answered at her first deposition that were nearly identical: who are the Farmers, how did you meet them, whether they ever made any allegations of sexual abuse by Epstein, or whether Ms. Maxwell had ever had non-consensual sexual contact with Annie Farmer. Pagliuca Decl., Ex. C at 95:14 -98:10 & 103:19-113:22. In fact, at the first deposition, Ms. Maxwell did not refuse to answer a single question regarding the Farmers. Thus, all of the questions at the second deposition were redundant, cumulative and outside of the Court’s Order. The only question that Ms. Maxwell refused to answer was: “What did Vicky Ward tell you about Maria Farmer when she talked to you?,” after which she answered another 10 pages of questions that centered around whether Vicky Ward had said specific things regarding the Farmers. Pagliuca Decl., Ex. D at 103-113. Ms. Maxwell has already flatly denied she had any knowledge of the allegations posited by reporter Vicky Ward. Plaintiff is not permitted to re-depose Ms. Maxwell on issues already covered, or which she had the opportunity to cover, in the first 7-hour deposition, particularly in light of the - - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 27 12 additional 4.5 hours permitted in the second deposition and the fact that she answered in the second deposition the only pertinent questions permitted by the Court Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1) (“the court must allow additional time consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2) if needed to fairly examine the deponent”) (emphasis added). Rule 30(d)(1) requires a court to guard against redundant or disproportionate discovery, stating that any additional deposition time must be consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2), prohibiting, among other things, cumulative and duplicative testimony. The duplicative nature of the “topics” requested by Plaintiff is demonstrated by the previously cited testimony. It is compounded by the fact that Ms. Sjoberg has fully testified concerning how she came to work for Epstein, what she did while working for him, and how she was paid. See This Response at 20-21, infra. The redundancy of the requested testimony (much of which is outside the scope of the Order) prohibits a finding of good cause for reopening – yet again – Ms. Maxwell’s testimony. See Kleppinger v. Texas Dep't of Transp., 283 F.R.D. 330, 333 (S.D. Tex. 2012) (“a party seeking a court order to extend the duration of the examination must show ‘good cause’ to justify such an order” including showing information is not duplicative and cumulative). Of course, Ms. Maxwell and her counsel had no desire to subject Ms. Maxwell to a third deposition, thus permitting many questions that far exceeded the scope of the Order. When called on to explain how extraneous questions were proper, Plaintiff’s counsel refused to proffer why certain questions were within the Court’s order leaving Ms. Maxwell’s counsel no option, on a few occasions, to instruct Ms. Maxwell to not answer. Plaintiff’s counsel’s refusal to simply explain how objectionable questions were within the scope of the permitted deposition makes clear that they were not, and should act as a waiver. See, e.g., Pagliuca Decl., Ex. D at 99-101. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 27 13 III. COUNSEL INSTRUCTED MAXWELL NOT TO ANSWER TO ENFORCE THE COURT’S ORDER AND TO PREVENT HARASSMENT BY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL The only questions to which counsel for Ms. Maxwell instructed her not to answer were those that she had already answered or were outside the Court’s Order permitting a re-opening of the deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2) (instruction not to answer appropriate “when necessary to … enforce a limitation ordered by the court”). Plaintiff loosely points to eleven questions in her Motion. She omits parts in which the question had already been answered, and she implies an instruction not to answer where none was given. None of the cited questions merits the re￾opening of Ms. Maxwell’s deposition for a third bite at the apple. A. Objected to Question Number 1: “So how did it happen, Ms. Maxwell, that Joanna, who had been hired to answer phones, ended up giving massages to you and Mr. Epstein.” In Ms. Maxwell’s first, 7 hour, deposition she was questioned extensively about her relationship with Ms. Sjoberg. See Pagliuca Decl. Ex. C at 59-63; 112-113; & 307-309. Consistent with the Defendant’s position at that time, Plaintiff was free to ask, and asked, questions about Ms.Sjoberg with the exception of consensual adult sexual contact. The only instruction to not answer was limited to consensual adult sexual contact, of which there was none. (Although in fact, Ms. Maxwell testified in her first deposition that the massages with Ms. Sjoberg did not involve sex.). See Pagliuca Decl. Ex. C at 61:14-15.. In Ms. Maxwell’s second, 4.5 hour deposition, she was again questioned extensively about Ms. Sjoberg. The questioning begins on page 74 of the transcript. Plaintiff’s counsel asked dozens of questions about Ms. Sjoberg without any instruction to not answer. When the questions became repetitive to the questions asked at the first deposition and strayed outside the Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 27 14 Court’s Order counsel for Ms. Maxwell sought guidance form the Court, which was not available. Notwithstanding that the examination was repetitive, Ms. Maxwell responded to questions, without instruction not to answer, that were within the Court’s Order. She testified that she did not have any sexual relationship or contact with Ms. Sjoberg and was unaware of any sexual contact between Mr. Epstein and Ms. Sjoberg. See Pagliuca Decl. Ex. D at 77:24- 78:6. She also testified about Ms. Sjoberg and massages, both in her first deposition and the second. See Pagliuca Decl. Ex. C at 59-63; 112-113; & 307-309 and Ex. D at 74-82:8. When the question about Ms. Sjoberg answering phones for was asked for the fourth time, the instruction not to answer was given. These questions had been asked in the first deposition, could have been asked in greater detail in the first deposition, and were answered in both depositions prior to the instruction not to answer being given: Ms. Sjoberg was hired to answer phones and sometime after that went to massage school and began giving massages. Ms. Maxwell was not sure how the transition occurred but believed “that she went to massage school and became a professional masseuse.” Id., at 75:10-11. B. Objected to Questions Number 2 and 3. “Did Mr. Epstein pay Johanna for the massages that she gave Mr. Epstein?” “Do you know how much Mr. Epstein paid Johanna to give massages?” Plaintiff has selectively and misleadingly provided only a portion of the transcript related to this issue and ignores the fact that Plaintiff, in the first deposition, asked questions on the same topic. Moreover, Ms. Maxwell previously testified that she did not pay Ms. Sjoberg and did not know who paid her. See Pagliuca Decl. Ex. C at 59-63; 112-113; & 307-309 and Ex. D at 82:2- 7. - I Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 27 15 C. “Objected” to Question Number 4. “Do you know if Maria Farmer was ever at Mr. Wexner’s property in Ohio?” This question is completely outside the Court’s June 20, 2016 Order as it does not relate to Ms. Maxwell, Mr. Epstein, massages, sex, or any property identified in this case. Regardless, the witness was never instructed to not answer the question and did not refuse to answer questions about the Farmers. After the question was posed, counsel for Ms. Maxwell simply asked for an explanation as to how the question was within the Court’s Order. The witness was not instructed not to answer. It appears that after considering the request for a proffer as to how the question was within the Court’s Order, the question was withdrawn and a different question was posed: “Mr. Boies: Let me approach it this way.” … Did Ms. Ward tell you that?” The questioning about the Farmers continues many pages thereafter. See Pagliuca Decl., Ex. D at 99- 113. D. “Objected” to Question Number 5 Without any record support Plaintiff claims that “Defendant’s counsel also stopped a line of questioning in which defendant was asked if she recalled several girls Tony Figueroa brought over to give a ‘massage’ to Epstein.” Plaintiff cites no specific instruction not to answer because one was never given. Ms. Maxwell answered questions about Mr. Figueroa and was questioned extensively regarding lists of names, about which Ms. Maxwell had no knowledge. Plaintiff was not forced to “cease questioning” about any person. The questioning occurred and Ms. Maxwell responded. E. “Objected” to Question Number 6 “Was there a list that was kept of women or girls who provided massages?” The “list” was introduced as Exhibit 13 to Ms. Maxwell’s first deposition. Ms. Maxwell was questioned extensively about the “list” and testified, without objection about the list. In her - - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 27 16 second deposition, the same Exhibit 13 was introduced and Ms. Maxwell was asked, without objection, questions relating to specific names on Exhibit 13. See Pagliuca Decl., Ex. C at 312- 334 and Ex. D at 179- 89. Exhibit 13 was a document prepared by someone other than Ms. Maxwell, was not maintained by Ms. Maxwell and over which Ms. Maxwell had no control. Given the extensive testimony on the subject in both depositions, it was appropriate to instruct the witness to not answer the question. This debate, however is unnecessary because the question was asked again in a slightly different form and answered: Q: “Did you, or insofar as you are aware anyone, maintain a list of females that provided massage services to Mr. Epstein at his residences?” A: “I don’t know anything about a list.” Id., Ex. D at 185:13-20. No follow up questions were asked after this answer. F. Objected to Question Number 7 “In 2005, were you aware of any effort to destroy records of messages you had taken of women who had called Mr. Epstein in the prior period?” Ms. Maxwell was previously deposed about documents purportedly seized when Mr. Epstein’s house was searched by the Palm Beach Police Department. See Pagliuca Decl., Ex. C at 312-19. The Court’s June 20, Order did not reopen the deposition to allow for baseless questions about the destruction of evidence in 2005. Alleged destruction of records has nothing to do with any of the 8 areas that the Court addressed. Accordingly, the objection is well founded. Plaintiff’s tortured explanation about how the question fits into the Court’s Order is nonsense. - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 27 17 G. Objection to Question Number 8 “In terms of preparing for this deposition, what documents did you review?” Ms. Maxwell was instructed to not answer the question as it related to privileged communications between Ms. Maxwell and counsel. Ms. Maxwell was asked if any of the documents refreshed her recollection about any of the events that occurred. Her response was: “No.” A follow up question was asked as to whether counsel provided Ms. Maxwell with any documents and the answer was “One, I believe.” The communication between Ms. Maxwell and counsel was privileged, did not refresh her recollection, and the question was properly objected to. H. Objections to Questions 9, 10, and 11. “Now have you ever engaged in oral sex?” “Did you ever have oral sex with anyone in any of Mr. Epstein’s five homes that you’ve identified other than Mr. Epstein?” “Did you, in the 1990s and 2000s, engage in sexual activities other than intercourse with women other than what you have testified already?” All of these questions were prohibited by the Court’s Order because they were related to unidentified “third-parties who bear no knowledge or relation to the key events, individuals, or locations of this case.” The question “Now have you ever engaged in oral sex?” is not tied to any person place, event or time. It is clearly out of bounds. Ms. Maxwell did, in fact, answer the question about oral sex with individuals other than Mr. Epstein when the locations were specified, i.e, planes; New York; Palm Beach; New Mexico; Paris; and the Virgin Islands. See Pagliuca Decl., Ex. D, Excerpts from July22, 2016 Maxwell Deposition pp. 21-23. (The answer was “no”.). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 27 18 The question: “Did you, in the 1990s and 2000s, engage in sexual activities other than intercourse with women other than what you have testified already?” is also prohibited by the Court’s Order as it is not tied to a person, location, or key event associated with this case. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides, in relevant part, that "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party ….” Although the scope of discovery is deliberately broad, a Court is not "required to permit plaintiff to engage in a `fishing expedition' in the hope of supporting his claim." McGee v. Hayes, 43 Fed.Appx. 214, 217 (10th Cir. 2002) (unpublished opinion); see also Tottenham v. Trans World Gaming Corp., 2002 WL 1967023, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.2002) ("Discovery, however, is not intended to be a fishing expedition, but rather is meant to allow the parties to flesh out allegations for which they initially have at least a modicum of objective support") (quotations omitted); Hardrick v. Legal Services Corp., 96 F.R.D. 617, 618 (D.D.C.1983) (courts should, remain concerned about "fishing expeditions, discovery abuse and inordinate expense involved in overbroad and far-ranging discovery requests.") (quotation omitted). "[B]road discovery is not without limits and the trial court is given wide discretion in balancing the needs and rights of both plaintiff and defendant." Gomez v. Martin Marietta Corp., 50 F.3d 1511, 1520 (10th Cir.1995) (quotation omitted). Although relevance in discovery is broader than that required for admissibility at trial, "the object of inquiry must have some evidentiary value before an order to compel disclosure of otherwise inadmissible material will issue." Zenith Electronics Corp. v. Exzec, Inc., No. 93 C 041, 1998 WL 9181, at *2 (N.D.I11.1998) (quoting Piacenti v. Gen. Motors Corp., 173 F.R.D. 221, 223 (N.D.I11.1997)). Courts have also recognized that "[t]he legal tenet that relevancy in Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 27 19 the discovery context is broader than in the context of admissibility should not be misapplied so as to allow fishing expeditions in discovery." Id. (quotation omitted). Under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure any party may move the court, for good cause shown, for a protective order regarding pretrial discovery “which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Although the Rule contains no specific reference to privacy or to other rights or interests that may be implicated, such matters are implicit in the broad purpose and language of the Rule.” Seattle Times Company v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 (1984). It is important to consider, again, that Ms. Maxwell is the defendant in this action. She has not put her private affairs at issue. She simply denied that she assisted Jeffrey Epstein in the sexual trafficking of the Plaintiff. It is also important to recognize that Ms. Maxwell is not Mr. Epstein and Mr. Epstein’s alleged conduct after Plaintiff left the country is not an issue in this defamation case. The Plaintiff has no personal knowledge of any of Mr. Epstein’s activities after 2002. Accordingly, any statements by Plaintiff about Mr. Epstein’s activities occurring after 2002 are her opinions, not facts that are subject to any defamation claim. I. THE PURPORTED “FACTUAL BACKGROUND” CITED BY PLAINTIFF IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES IN THE CASE OR THIS MOTION As Carl Sandburg famously said, “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.” In this case, rather than pound the table, Plaintiff tries to distract from the issues at hand – whether Ms. Maxwell fully answered all questions posed – by pointing to selective misleading quotes from various other witnesses who have been deposed in this case. When viewed in their entirety, those witnesses neither support Plaintiff’s single claim for defamation nor her claim for Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 27 20 relief in this Motion. In direct contradiction to Plaintiff’s fabricated story, the witnesses actually testified as follows: Johanna Sjoberg worked as a masseuse for Jeffrey Epstein for 5 years from 2001-2006, while she was aged 21-26, including 1 ½ years that Plaintiff claims she was his “sex slave”. As to that experience, Ms. Sjoberg testified: x She never saw underage girls with Jeffrey Epstein or Ms. Maxwell and was “surprised” by the allegations of underage girls. Pagliuca Decl., Ex. E at 102. She never witnessed anyone underage in the presence of Epstein and Maxwell. Id. at 29. She only witnessed masseuses who were her age or older and they wore “normal” clothes. Id. at 31-32. x She never was asked by Epstein or Maxwell to give sexual massages to any of their friends or any famous people and the massages she gave Epstein’s friends were purely non-sexual. Id. at 112-116. x She never gave any type of sexual massages to Ghislaine Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell never asked her to get naked during a massage, never asked for any sexual contact with her, and she remained appropriately draped during any massages. Ms. Maxwell was never present when she gave massages to Mr. Epstein. Id. at 95-97. x Plaintiff appeared to Ms. Sjoberg to be some type of assistant who possibly also gave massages to Epstein. Id. at 19. She never seemed traumatized, she never reported to her any inappropriate requests or contact by Epstein or Maxwell, never said she had been sexually trafficked, she freely came and went. Id. at 113-16. In the only massage by Plaintiff of Epstein that Ms. Sjoberg observed, Plaintiff was fully clothed, on a beach, and it was non-sexual. Id. at 27. Ms. Sjoberg never saw Plaintiff in the presence of any famous people, apart from Prince Andrew and she did not observe anyone asking Plaintiff to do anything sexual, nor did Plaintiff report to her that anything sexual had occurred, even though Ms. Sjoberg inquired. Id. at 85, 87, 113 & 120. Plaintiff disappeared from the Epstein home about June 2001 when attempts to contact her led to a seemingly drugged-out boyfriend who could not explain her whereabouts. Id. at 92. x Despite hundreds of times in the Epstein home, Ms. Sjoberg only saw a few photos of adult women in topless poses in the bathroom of Epstein, there was no child pornography in the homes, and she does not recall any naked photos of Plaintiff. Id. at 25, 29, 42, 103- 106. x Ms. Sjoberg observed no orgies or sexual contact occur in the open at Epstein’s homes or on his planes. Id. at 94, 102. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 22 of 27 21 x Ms. Maxwell asked her if she knew any friends who might be interested in being masseuses, but the one she brought was an adult; Ms. Maxwell never asked for “underage” participants. Id. at 141, 152-53. x Whatever sexual contact occurred between Ms. Sjoberg and Mr. Epstein was between “consenting adults,” as she told the police in 2006, and she only was “expected” to have sexual intercourse in 2005, after she had worked for him for 4 years. Id. at 101, 147. x Ms. Sjoberg respects Ms. Maxwell and is impressed by her talents. Id. at 55, 94-95, 97- 98, 147 She have a lot of fun the last time they hung out in 2006. Id. at 98. Joe Recarey, the lead investigator of Jeffrey Epstein from the Palm Beach County Police Department, testified at his deposition, that (in contrast to Plaintiff’s claims): x He and other investigators interviewed approximately 30-33 females in connection with the case and identified approximately 17 victims. Pagliuca Decl., Ex. F at 179, 334. x Ms. Maxwell was never a suspect in their investigation, was not a target of the grand jury investigation, nothing of Ms. Maxwell’s was seized from the home during execution of the search warrant, and Ms. Maxwell was never observed at the Epstein home during the police surveillance. Id. at 177, 211-12,214-16, 257. x None of the victims identified Ms. Maxwell as having “recruited” them to come give massages to Epstein. Id. at 180-82, 191-93, 195. x None identified Ms. Maxwell as even being at the house when they were there, or paying them, or instructing them on what to wear or how to act, or ever of having spoken to them. Id. x None were ever sexually trafficked to other men; Jeffrey Epstein was the only person with whom they had any sexual contact. Id. at 300-301. x None were ever asked to spend the night with Epstein, or travel with them. Id. x He did not observe any child pornography or any photos of naked women in the home when he went to help install cameras to catch a thief in Mr. Epstein’s home in 2002 (who turned out to be butler Juan Alessi). Id. at 288-90. Juan Alessi. He served as the butler for approximately 10 year period at Mr. Epstein’s home in Palm Beach. He testified that: Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 23 of 27 22 x The majority of masseuses that came to the house were over the age of 20. Pagliuca Decl., Ex. G at 200. x Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell found the massage therapists from the high-end spas nearby, including the Breakers, Boca Raton and Mar-a-Lago, as Mr. Alessi confirmed when he called them at their jobs to arrange home visits. Id. at 187-88. x The massage therapists were paid by check. Id. at 166. x Plaintiff was working at one of these spas when she was hired, wearing an old￾fashioned nurse’s type uniform. Id. at 174. x Contrary to Plaintiff’s main story, she did not go upstairs with Mr. Epstein the first time she came over and he did not drive her home. Id. at 192. Tony Figueroa – Plaintiff’s live-in boyfriend during the time that she worked for Mr. Epstein, testified that: x He and Plaintiff used a substantial quantity of drugs during this time period which affected both of their memories. Pagliuca Decl., Ex. H at 129-32 (describing their daily use of “weed,” their joint regular use of “Xanax,” as well as use of cocaine, Xanax, Ecstasy and acid). x Jeffrey Epstein is the one who called him and asked him to bring other females to give massages. Id. at 104-107. In particular, Mr. Figueroa denied that Ms. Maxwell ever asked him to bring a girl to Jeffrey: Q: Did Jeffrey call you directly about getting more girls? A: Yes. Q: On the phone? A: uh-huh (affirmative) Q: What did he say? A: He was just asking me if I had any other girls that wanted to come work… Q: And did he pay – he paid you personally? A: Yeah. He handed me $200 for every girl that I walked in that door, whether they did stuff with him or not. Q: In cash? A: Cash. Q: Did you ever get paid by Ms. Maxwell for that? A: No. Q: Did you ever bring a girl to Ms. Maxwell? A: No. Q: Did Ms. Maxwell ever call you and ask you to bring a girl to her? A: No. Q: Did Ms. Maxwell ever call you and ask you to bring a girl to Jeffrey? Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 24 of 27 23 A: No. Id. at 106-07. x He did not have any discussions with these females (who were adult) about what was entailed with the job other than massages. Id. at 104-105. x Later in his testimony, upon leading questions from Mr. Edwards, Mr. Figueroa committed a complete about-face: Q: Would Ghislaine Maxwell call you? A: I think she might have actually called me once or twice. I’m not positive, but I’m pretty sure she did…. Q: …What did you say? What did she say? A: She would just ask me if I had anybody lined up, so…..for Jeffrey. x Mr. Figueroa testified that he was arrested for grand theft the same night that he dropped Plaintiff off to go to Thailand, he served time, and only recently had his rights restored. Id. at 67-69. Rinaldo Rizzo. Mr. Rizzo was a butler for Mr. Glenn and Dr. Eva Dubin at their home in upstate New York. In addition to his history of litigation against the Dubins and his admitted hope to receive compensation from his testimony, his deposition is so palpably incredible as to be potentially sanctionable. Pagliuca Decl., Ex. I at 11. In any event, none of Mr. Rizzo’s testimony related to Ms. Maxwell’s participation in massages, sex with underage minors, or sex with adults, and thus is further irrelevant to the issues presented by the Motion. CONCLUSION Because Ms. Maxwell fully answered all questions within the Court’s Order (and many that were not) at her continued deposition, she respectfully requests the Court deny Plaintiff’s - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 25 of 27 24 Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions Filed Under Seal. Further, because Plaintiff brought this Motion without a valid basis to assert that she refused to answer any question that was (a) within this Court’s Order and (b) not already responded to either at her first deposition or during this deposition, Ms. Maxwell requests that the fees and costs associated with defending this Motion be imposed on Plaintiff, her counsel or both. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca 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 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 26 of 27 25 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on August 8, 2016, I electronically served Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions Filed Under Seal via ECF 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/ Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 27 of 27 EXHIBIT A Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-27 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 6 *,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 1327-27 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of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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 1327-27 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 6 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 1327-27 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 6 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 1327-27 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of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$QGZKHQGLG\RXJLYH 22 WKHPWRKHU" 23 $:KHQVKHFDPHRXW 24 4:KHQZDVWKDW" 25 $6RPHWLPH,EHOLHYHLQHDUO\ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-27 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 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, 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 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 38 6 (Pages 18 to 21) Page 18 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 meet Mr. Epstein? 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 4 and foundation. 5 Q. You can answer. 6 A. I just explained. 7 A. I spent the entire time talking to 8 Virginia's mother outside the house so the 9 answer to the question is no. 10 Q. No, did you not walk her up and 11 introduce her to Mr. Epstein? 12 A. I just said no. 13 Q. Did you participate in a massage 14 this first time when she first came to the 15 home and you were speaking with her mother, 16 she was in the home, is that correct, you 17 brought her into the home? 18 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 19 and foundation. 20 A. I will repeat again, I was standing 21 outside with her mother so very difficult for 22 me to do anything else at that time so no, I 23 did not take her upstairs. 24 Q. Did you participate -- 25 A. Virginia lied 100 percent about 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 Page 20 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 you not to answer that question. I 3 don't have any problem with you asking 4 questions about what the subject matter 5 of this lawsuit is, which would be, as 6 you've termed it, sexual trafficking of 7 Ms. Roberts. 8 To the extent you are asking for 9 information relating to any consensual 10 adult interaction between my client and 11 Mr. Epstein, I'm going to instruct her 12 not to answer because it's not part of 13 this litigation and it is her private 14 confidential information, not subject to 15 this deposition. 16 MS. McCAWLEY: You can instruct her 17 not to answer. That is your right. But 18 I will bring her back for another 19 deposition because it is part of the 20 subject matter of this litigation so she 21 should be answering these questions. 22 This is civil litigation, deposition and 23 she should be responsible for answering 24 these questions. 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: I disagree and you Page 21 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 understand the bounds that I put on it. 3 MS. McCAWLEY: No, I don't. I will 4 continue to ask my questions and you can 5 continue to make your objections. 6 Q. Did you ever participate from the 7 time period of 1992 to 2009, did you ever 8 participate in a massage with Jeffrey Epstein 9 and another female? 10 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection. Do not 11 answer that question. Again, to the 12 extent you are asking for some sort of 13 illegal activity as you've construed in 14 connection with this case I don't have 15 any problem with you asking that 16 question. To the extent these questions 17 involve consensual acts between adults, 18 frankly, they're none of your business 19 and I will instruct the witness not to 20 answer. 21 MS. McCAWLEY: This case involves 22 sexual trafficking, sexual abuse, 23 questions about her having interactions 24 with other females is relevant to this 25 case. She needs to answer these MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 38 7 (Pages 22 to 25) 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 -- Page 23 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. I'm not talking about friends. I'm 3 talking about individuals -- 4 MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm going to object 5 to you interrupting the witness who was 6 answering your question. The question 7 was, have you ever seen anyone, female 8 under the age of 18 at the house and 9 that's the question she was answering. 10 If you want to strike that question and 11 ask another question, feel free, but let 12 the witness respond, please. 13 MS. McCAWLEY: I will do that. 14 Q. Have you ever observed a female 15 under the age of 18 at Jeffrey Epstein's home 16 that was not a friend, a child -- one of your 17 friend's children? 18 A. Again, I can't testify to that 19 because I have no idea what you are talking 20 about. 21 Q. You have no idea what I'm talking 22 about in the sense you never observed a 23 female under the age of 18 at Jeffrey 24 Epstein's home that was not one of your 25 friend's children, is that correct? Page 24 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 3 and foundation. 4 A. How would I possibly know how 5 someone is when they are at his house. You 6 are asking me to do that. I cannot possibly 7 testify to that. As far as I'm concerned, 8 everyone who came to his house was an adult 9 professional person. 10 Q. Are you familiar with the police 11 report that was issued in respect to the 12 investigation in this matter? 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 14 and foundation. 15 Q. Are you familiar with the police 16 report that was used in this matter, the 17 investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, has been 18 produced as a document in this matter? 19 A. I have seen a police report. 20 (Maxwell Exhibit 1, police report, 21 marked for identification.) 22 Q. The police report that you have in 23 front of you, can you turn to page 28 of that 24 report, the numbers are on the top right-hand 25 corner. Page 25 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 You will see some redactions in 3 this report, Ms. Maxwell, the redacted 4 information is redacted because it reveals 5 the name of a minor, someone who is under the 6 age of 18. 7 On page 28, in the third paragraph, 8 about halfway down, it says, Roberts stated 9 she performed the massage naked. At the 10 conclusion of this massage, Epstein paid 11 RobSON $200 for the massage. He explained, I 12 know you are not comfortable put I will pay 13 you if you bring some girls. He told her the 14 younger the better. Robson stated once tried 15 to bring a 23 year old to Epstein and he 16 stated the female was too old. 17 Have you heard Mr. Epstein use the 18 phrase the younger the better? 19 A. I have no recollection of hearing 20 that. 21 Q. Have you used the phrase in talking 22 to Ms. Roberts and asking her to recruit 23 females for Mr. Epstein, the younger the 24 better? 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 38 11 (Pages 38 to 41) 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 ? 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 11 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 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. Page 41 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. Did you hire her? 3 A. First of all, I don't hire girls 4 like that, so let's be clear, I already 5 testified to that, and I have no idea what 6 you are referring to. 7 Q. When you say girls like that, what 8 do you mean? 9 A. I hire people who are professional 10 at the house. You are asking if I hired 11 somebody to do what, I don't know what you 12 are talking about. I hired people to work in 13 the homes. 14 Q. What was Nadia Marcinkova doing? 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 16 and foundation. 17 A. I have no idea what Nadia 18 Marcinkova was doing. I didn't hire her and 19 I don't know what you are referring to. 20 Q. You met Nadia Marcinkova? 21 A. I testified I did. 22 Q. Did she work for Jeffrey Epstein? 23 A. I have no idea what she did. 24 Q. Have you flown on planes with Nadia 25 Marcinkova? - - - - - - 1111 - 1111 - - - - MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 38 13 (Pages 46 to 49) 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. Page 47 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. Does she fly with Larry Veseski 3 (phonetic), one of Jeffrey's pilots? 4 A. I have no idea. 5 Q. Are you a pilot? 6 A. I am. 7 Q. Have you flown with Jeffrey Veseki? 8 A. I have. 9 Q. Have you flown with Nadia 10 Marcinkova? 11 A. What do you mean by flown? 12 Q. Have you been on planes with her? 13 A. I already testified I don't recall 14 having her on a plane with me. 15 Q. Do you know Sarah Kellen? 16 A. I do. 17 Q. When did you first meet her? 18 A. I don't recall exact dates. 19 Q. Did you meet her with the purpose 20 of hiring her to work for Jeffrey or having 21 Jeffrey hire her? 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 23 and foundation. 24 A. No. 25 Q. What was her relationship with Page 48 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Jeffrey? 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 4 and foundation. 5 A. I don't know exactly the nature of 6 her relationship but she worked for him. 7 Q. What did she do? 8 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 9 and foundation. 10 A. At the time she when was with him I 11 believe she traveled with him and helped with 12 his travel arrangements. 13 Q. Did she bring girls to the house to 14 give massages to Jeffrey? 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 16 and foundation. 17 A. I don't know what Sarah did. 18 Q. So you never observed Sarah 19 bringing girls to the home to give massages 20 to Jeffrey? 21 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 22 and foundation. 23 A. I don't understand the question, 24 what did you mean bring? 25 Q. Did you ever observe Sarah Page 49 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 inviting, bringing, walking anyone into the 3 home to give a massage for Jeffrey? 4 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 5 and foundation. 6 A. I don't recollect anything like 7 that. 8 Q. Are you aware that Sarah Kellen was 9 a co-conspirator, named as a co-conspirator 10 in the case involving Jeffrey Epstein? 11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 12 and foundation and also calls for a 13 legal conclusion. 14 MS. McCAWLEY I'm just asking if she 15 is aware of that. 16 A. I am aware. 17 Q. Who paid Sarah Kellen? 18 A. I have no idea. 19 Q. Did you ever arrange payment for 20 any of the employees at the home? 21 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form. 22 A. What do you mean by arrange? 23 Q. Were you ever in charge or 24 responsible for paying individuals at the 25 home, that worked there? MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 38 15 (Pages 54 to 57) 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 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 Page 56 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 sexual acts on her? 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 4 and foundation. 5 A. I have not heard that. 6 Q. How do you know Annie Farmer? 7 A. Annie Farmer had a sister and her 8 sister introduced Annie Farmer, I believe, to 9 Jeffrey. 10 Q. Was Annie Farmer under the age of 11 18? 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 13 and foundation. 14 A. I don't recall how old Annie Farmer 15 was. 16 Q. Did she tell police that Jeffrey 17 Epstein assaulted her sexually? 18 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 19 and foundation. 20 A. I never heard that. 21 Q. Did Sarah Kellen recruit or bring 22 girls to the home that were under the age of 23 18? 24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 25 and foundation and I think this has been 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 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 38 16 (Pages 58 to 61) 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, 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? 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 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. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 38 17 (Pages 62 to 65) 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. 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. Page 64 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. Did you have sex with her? 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: This is the same 4 instruction about consensual or 5 nonconsensual. 6 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 form and foundation. 14 A. How would I know what somebody else 15 did. 16 Q. You weren't involved in the sex 17 between Jeffrey, Emmy and yourself? 18 A. We already -- 19 Q. Were you involved with sex between 20 Jeffrey, Emmy and yourself? 21 MR. PAGLIUCA: Everyone is talking 22 over each other. You heard the 23 question. 24 Again, you you know what the 25 instruction is. If there is any 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. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 38 21 (Pages 78 to 81) Page 78 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 over to the house in Palm Beach to give 3 massages? 4 A. It's important to understand that I 5 wasn't with Jeffrey all the time. In fact, I 6 was only in the house less than half the 7 time, so I cannot testify to when I wasn't in 8 the house how often she came when I wasn't 9 there. 10 What I can say is that I barely 11 would remember her, if not for all of this 12 rubbish, I probably wouldn't remember her at 13 all, except she did come from time to time 14 but I don't recollect her coming as often as 15 she portrayed herself. 16 Q. How many times a day on an average 17 day would Jeffrey Epstein get a massage? 18 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 19 form and foundation. 20 A. When I was at the house and when I 21 was there with him, he received a massage, on 22 average, about once a day. 23 Q. Just once? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Were there days when he received Page 79 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 four or five? 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 4 form and foundation. 5 A. When I was present at the house, I 6 never saw something like that. 7 Q. Do you know if Virginia was 8 required to be on call at all times to come 9 to the house if Jeffrey wanted her there? 10 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 11 form and foundation. 12 A. I have no idea of the arrangements 13 that Virginia made with Jeffrey. 14 Q. When Virginia was in New York, 15 would Virginia sleep at Jeffrey's mansion in 16 New York? 17 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 18 form and foundation. 19 A. I don't recollect her being in New 20 York and I have no idea where she slept. 21 Q. You don't ever remember seeing 22 Virginia Roberts in New York? 23 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 24 form and foundation. 25 A. I would barely recollect her at Page 80 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 all, except for this story. 3 Q. Do you recall Virginia Roberts 4 calling you because she was having a medical 5 crisis and you and Jeffrey taking her to the 6 hospital? 7 A. I have heard this absurd story and 8 if any part of it were true I would remember 9 that. I do not. 10 Q. You don't remember taking her to 11 the hospital? 12 A. It's not that I don't remember it, 13 it didn't happen. 14 Q. How do you know it didn't happen? 15 A. That's the sort of memory you would 16 recall. 17 Q. Do you recall, you said you don't 18 remember her being at the New York mansion. 19 When you were in New York would you stay at 20 the New York mansion with Jeffrey? 21 A. I stayed from time to time. 22 Q. Do you recall Virginia being at the 23 New York mansion when Prince Andrew came to 24 visit? 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 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. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 38 22 (Pages 82 to 85) 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 Page 83 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Epstein ever having sex with an underage 3 minor and asking them to pinch his nipples? 4 A. I am not. 5 Q. So I'm going to direct you to, I 6 believe it's Maxwell Exhibit 1, the police 7 report. 8 Are you aware that over 30 under 9 age minors gave testimony to police that they 10 were engaged in sexual acts during, 11 quote-unquote, massages. 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: The witness needs to 13 find Exhibit 1. Exhibit 1 -- if you can 14 hand me that please. 15 Q. So now with respect to the police 16 report, are you aware that over 30 underage 17 girls, meaning under the age of 18 gave 18 reports to police that they were assaulted 19 sexually by Jeffrey Epstein during massages? 20 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 21 form and foundation. 22 A. I read the police report. That's 23 all I can testify to. 24 Q. Are you aware of what is in the 25 police report? Are you aware that there were Page 84 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 30 girls -- 3 A. I did not count the number of girls 4 and I did read the police report. I can only 5 testify to what I read. 6 Q. So you are aware that the police 7 report contains reports from 30 underage 8 girls? 9 A. I can't testify to what the girls 10 said. I can only testify to the fact that I 11 read a police report that stated that. 12 Q. Were you working for Jeffrey -- you 13 said you worked for him off an on until 2009, 14 is that correct? 15 A. I helped out from time to time. 16 Q. So you were working with him during 17 the time period when these underage girls 18 were visiting Jeffrey's home? 19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 20 form and foundation. 21 A. I was not -- what year, I need 22 years. 23 Q. How about let's say 2005? 24 A. I'm not sure I was at the house at 25 all in 2005, maybe one day, maybe. Page 85 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. How about 2004? 3 A. I was present for his mother's -- 4 his mother died in 2004 so I was there for 5 his mother's death and the funeral and I was 6 at the house maybe a handful of days, again. 7 Q. I would like to direct you to, you 8 have it pulled together now, it's page 39, 9 Bates stamped Giuffre 00040? 10 A. Can you repeat that, please. 11 Q. Sure. 00040. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. At the top of that document, about 14 three lines down, you see the redacted 15 portions where there is black so it blacks 16 out the name. 17 A. I see black redacted portions. 18 Q. That's a black redaction of the 19 name of the minor and there is -- I will 20 represent for the record that's what it is. 21 You can contest that but I'm not asking about 22 the name of the minor. 23 Five lines down, it says, She was 24 just 16 years of age. 25 Do you see that? MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 38 25 (Pages 94 to 97) Page 94 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. I'm asking the questions. I know 3 what this case is about. I'm trying to -- I 4 will ask you questions if you don't 5 understand the question I can break it down 6 for you. I'm happy to do that. 7 A. Break it down a lot please. 8 Q. I will do that. 9 The question is, have you ever said 10 to anybody that you recruit other girls -- 11 A. Why don't you stop there. 12 Q. Let me finish my question. 13 Have you ever said to anybody that 14 you recruit girls to take the pressure off 15 you, so you won't have to have sex with 16 Jeffrey, have you said that? 17 That's the question? 18 A. You don't ask me questions like 19 that. First of all, you are trying to trap 20 me, I will not be trapped. You are asking me 21 if I recruit, I told you no. Girls meaning 22 underage, I already said I don't do that with 23 underage people and as to ask me about a 24 specific conversation I had with language, we 25 talking about almost 17 years ago when this Page 95 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 took place. I cannot testify to an actual 3 conversation or language that I used with 4 anybody at any time. 5 Q. Have you ever said to anybody that 6 you recruit other females over the age of 18 7 to take the pressure off you to having to 8 have sex with Jeffrey? 9 A. I totally resent and find it 10 disgusting that you use the word recruit. I 11 already told you I don't know what you are 12 saying about that and your implication is 13 repulsive. 14 Q. Answer my question. 15 A. I just did. 16 Q. Have you ever said to anybody that 17 you recruit females -- 18 A. I don't recruit anybody. 19 Q. That's an answer. So you never 20 said that? 21 A. I'm testifying that I cannot 22 testify to an actual language -- 23 Q. It's a yes or no. 24 A. I will not testify to an actual 25 statement made 17 years ago, so I cannot Page 96 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 testify to actual language. 3 Q. So you won't testify to anything 4 I'm asking you 17 years ago about a statement 5 you made. How do you know it's 17 years ago? 6 A. We are talking about a time in 7 2000, right? 8 Q. Have you ever said that to anybody? 9 A. I'm 54 years old so you are asking 10 me in my entire life, what words are you 11 asking me in my entire life? 12 Q. Your entire life is limited by the 13 time you were with Jeffrey, this is the 14 question. 15 A. Let's time limit the question you 16 are asking me. 17 Q. So from, let's say, I think you 18 said you started with him in 1992, is that 19 correct, and finished with him in 2009. 20 So from 1992 to 2009 have you ever 21 said to anybody that you recruit other and we 22 will start with girls to take the pressure 23 off you to have sex with Jeffrey? 24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 25 form and foundation. 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 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 38 26 (Pages 98 to 101) 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. 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 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. Page 101 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 A. Massage is for health benefits. 3 Q. When did you first meet Jeffrey? 4 A. Some point in 1991. 5 Q. And did Jeffrey know your father? 6 A. No. 7 Q. How were you introduced to Jeffrey? 8 A. Some friend introduced us. 9 Q. Can you describe your relationship 10 back in 1991, was it friendship or was it 11 girlfriend relationship or was it a work 12 relationship, what was your relationship in 13 1991? 14 A. It was just friendly. 15 Q. Then I believe you testified you 16 began working for him in 1992, is that 17 correct? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. In 1992 I know you gave me the 20 description of the work that you were 21 performing for him, how much was he paying 22 you, do you remember? 23 A. I don't recall. 24 Q. Do you know for example in 2001 how 25 much he was paying you? MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 38 27 (Pages 102 to 105) Page 102 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 A. I don't recall. 3 Q. Did it change over the years or did 4 the payment remain the same? 5 A. I believe over the course of time 6 it increased a little bit. 7 Q. Was that the -- was that payment 8 the payment that -- was the payment made with 9 respect to the jobs, the work you were 10 performing for Jeffrey, was that your sole 11 income at that time? 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: I object to the 13 form. I'm also going to instruct you 14 not to answer about sources of -- your 15 personal sources of income outside of 16 Mr. Epstein at all. 17 MS. McCAWLEY: What's the basis for 18 that? 19 MR. PAGLIUCA: It's confidential, 20 it's not part of this lawsuit. 21 MS. McCAWLEY: We have a protective 22 order and it is part of this lawsuit 23 with respect to our damage claims. 24 MR. PAGLIUCA: It's not and, in 25 fact, you are not entitled to ask Page 103 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 financial information of a defendant in 3 this kind of case, in a defamation case 4 unless and until there is a finding that 5 you are entitled to punitive damages. 6 That is clear in New York case law, both 7 state and Federal. 8 MS. McCAWLEY: We disagree on that 9 point and we will come back to that. 10 Q. From the source of payment from the 11 source of Jeffrey, from your work, can you 12 give me a range on that, do you know was it 13 over $100,000? 14 A. I just testified I don't recall. 15 Q. You don't don't know if it was 16 $500,000? 17 A. It was less than that. 18 Q. Somewhere between 100 and 500, 19 would that be fair to say? 20 A. I believe it was between 100 and 21 $200,000. 22 Q. Did Jeffrey during the time that 23 you were working for him purchase a town home 24 for you? 25 A. The subject of the townhouse is, I Page 104 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 worked for it and I had a loan, we did loans. 3 Q. So a loan through Jeffrey? 4 A. I don't recall the exact 5 transaction. 6 Q. Did he purchase for you a 7 helicopter during the time you were working 8 for him? 9 A. It was his helicopter. 10 Q. When did you obtain your pilot 11 license? 12 A. I believe it was '98 or '99. 13 Q. Was that for both airplanes and 14 helicopters or just helicopters? 15 A. Just helicopters. 16 Q. Have you ever flown President 17 Clinton on your helicopter? 18 A. That is another one of Virginia's 19 lies. 20 Q. The question is have you ever done 21 that? 22 A. I have never flown President 23 Clinton at any time ever, in any helicopter, 24 in any place, any time, in any state, in any 25 country, at any time anywhere. Page 105 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. Have you ever had dinner with 3 President Clinton at Jeffrey's home, at any 4 of Jeffrey's homes? 5 A. No, I don't believe so. 6 Q. Have you traveled on Jeffrey's 7 planes with President Clinton? 8 A. Yes, I have. 9 Q. Would that have been in 2002? 10 A. It's very hard for me to recollect 11 exact dates but that sounds about right. 12 Q. Was that during the time that 13 Virginia was working for Jeffrey? 14 A. I don't know that Virginia ever did 15 work for Jeffrey. I don't exactly know if 16 she testified to her so-called duties, we 17 know she is a serial liar so I can't testify 18 to what she did or didn't do. So I object to 19 that characterization of her. So repeat the 20 question, please. 21 Q. Can you read the question back? 22 (Record read.) 23 Q. You can answer the question. 24 A. What was the question again? 25 Q. When you were traveling on the MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 38 28 (Pages 106 to 109) Page 106 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 plane with President Clinton, was that during 3 the time, it was 2002, that you were on a 4 flight with Clinton, was that during the time 5 Virginia was working for Jeffrey? 6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form. 7 Misstates the witness' answer and if you 8 can answer the question, you can answer 9 it. 10 A. Well, like I said, I don't recall 11 exactly when I flew with him. I don't recall 12 when Virginia, we know what Virginia claims 13 when she left, so I can't answer the 14 question. I have no idea. 15 Q. Do you know Prince Andrew? 16 A. I do. 17 Q. How long have you known him? 18 A. A very long time. 19 Q. Since you were a child? 20 A. I really -- it's so long, it's 21 really a long time ago. I just don't recall. 22 Q. Do you remember how you first met 23 him? 24 A. No, I do not. 25 Q. Did you introduce him to Jeffrey? Page 107 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 A. That would be another of Virginia's 3 lies and the lies you perpetrate. I never 4 introduced Prince Andrew to Jeffrey Epstein 5 at any time ever, so just add that the to 6 long list of lies. 7 Q. Did Jeffrey know Prince Andrew? 8 A. Clearly he knew him. I think we 9 have that answer but how -- yeah. 10 Q. Do you know how Jeffery met Prince 11 Andrew? 12 A. I do not know Jeffrey met Prince 13 Andrew. What I do know is that I did not 14 introduce them. That is one of the many 15 lies. Are we tallying all the lies? 16 Q. Do you know when Jeffrey met Prince 17 Andrew? 18 A. I do not know when Jeffrey met 19 Prince Andrew. 20 Q. Did you ever introduce Prince 21 Andrew to any girls under the age of 18 who 22 were not friends of yours children? 23 A. I have not introduced Prince Andrew 24 to anyone that I am aware of other than 25 friends of mine who have kids under that age Page 108 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 that he may have met socially through me. 3 Q. Did you ever introduce Prince 4 Andrew to Virginia in London? 5 A. I understand her story about London 6 but again, her tissue of lies is extremely 7 hard to pick apart what is true and what 8 isn't. Actually I wouldn't recollect her at 9 all but for her tissue stories about this 10 situation. 11 Q. So did you ever introduce Prince 12 Andrew to Virginia in London? 13 A. I have no recollection. 14 Q. Did Virginia ever stay at your home 15 in London, your town home? 16 A. I know she claims she did but if 17 you are asking me here today to remember 18 specifically, I cannot. 19 Q. Do you remember taking a trip with 20 Virginia to travel over to Europe, including 21 London? 22 A. So I have seen her reports and I 23 have seen the plane reports. I see she says 24 she was on that but again, I really have no 25 recollection of her. Page 109 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. Did you know that she was 17 at the 3 time of that trip? 4 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 5 form and foundation. 6 A. I have -- 7 Q. Did you know she was 17 at the time 8 of that trip? 9 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 10 form and foundation. 11 A. I didn't even know she was on the 12 trip. 13 Q. Did you hold her passport for her 14 when she was traveling? 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 16 form and foundation. 17 A. I have no recollection whatsoever 18 of her even being on the trip nor holding her 19 passport. 20 (Maxwell Exhibit 4, picture, marked 21 for identification.) 22 Q. I'm showing you what we marked as 23 Maxwell Exhibit 4. 24 Can you take a look at that picture 25 for me? MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 38 29 (Pages 110 to 113) Page 110 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 A. I've looked at it. 3 Q. Are you in that picture? 4 A. I am. 5 Q. Is that Prince Andrew in the 6 picture as well? 7 A. It is. 8 MR. PAGLIUCA: I don't believe this 9 has been produced to us in discovery by 10 you. 11 MS. McCAWLEY: The picture? 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. 13 MS. McCAWLEY: It has. 14 MS. MENNINGER: Is it the same 15 exact photograph. 16 MS. McCAWLEY: I believe so. We 17 will find one. The picture has been 18 produced a number of times. 19 MR. PAGLIUCA: I've seen different 20 iterations of this, I don't believe I 21 have ever seen this. 22 MS. McCAWLEY: We had them blow it 23 up on a page so she could see it. We 24 could use an article. 25 While you are looking for that, I Page 111 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 will skip ahead. Hold that until we can 3 find one that has the Bates range on it. 4 Q. Do you recall Virginia being at 5 your London town home? 6 A. I do not. 7 Q. Do you recall going to dinner with 8 Prince Andrew, Jeffrey Epstein and Virginia 9 Roberts in London, at any time? 10 A. I do not. 11 Q. Do you recall going to a place 12 called Club Tramp with Prince Andrew, Jeffrey 13 Epstein and yourself and Virginia Roberts? 14 A. I would just like to state for the 15 record that Prince Andrew is a very famous 16 person, I know you are aware because you like 17 to use him so often in your press stories -- 18 please let me finish. Were he at Tramp, at 19 any time, that would be reported by the 20 press. I do not have any recollection of it 21 and I doubt it actually happened. 22 Q. You don't recall that. 23 Do you recall taking Virginia 24 shopping when you were in London to buy an 25 outfit to meet Prince Andrew? Page 112 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 A. No, I don't. 3 Q. Where in your town home -- we will 4 come back to that. 5 Do you have guest bedrooms in your 6 town home in London? 7 A. I do. 8 Q. How many? 9 A. Two. 10 Q. Did Prince Andrew ever visit 11 Jeffrey and you in New York? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Do you remember him visiting you 14 and Jeffrey in New York in the spring of 15 2001? 16 A. Again, I can't testify to any 17 specific dates. 18 Q. So you don't have a recollection of 19 that? 20 A. I have a recollection -- you've 21 asked me if I have a recollection of being in 22 New York but if you are asking for a date, I 23 cannot confirm that date. 24 Q. Do you remember Prince Andrew being 25 present in New York for a party where Johanna Page 113 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Sjoberg was also present? 3 A. I don't recollect. 4 Q. Do you recall ever giving Prince 5 Andrew a gift of a puppet that was in the 6 same -- that looked like him? 7 A. I never gave him a gift of a 8 puppet. 9 Q. Did Jeffrey ever give him a gift of 10 a puppet? 11 A. No, not that I am aware of. 12 Q. Have you ever given him any gifts? 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection, 14 foundation. 15 A. I know Andrew -- 16 Q. Have you ever given him any gifts 17 that you remember when he came to Jeffrey's 18 home in New York? 19 A. I don't recall giving him any gifts 20 in New York. 21 (Maxwell Exhibit 5, picture, marked 22 for identification.) 23 Q. I think I directed you to page 24 0034. 25 Is that a picture that was taken at MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 38 30 (Pages 114 to 117) Page 114 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 your London town home? 3 A. I have no idea what this picture 4 was taken. I know what she purports it to be 5 but I'm not going to say that I do. 6 Q. Do the surroundings look like your 7 London town home? 8 A. They are familiar. 9 Q. Do you know who took this picture? 10 A. I do not. 11 Q. Did Jeffrey Epstein take the 12 picture? 13 A. I just testified I don't know who 14 took the picture. 15 Q. So you don't know if Jeffery 16 Epstein took the picture? 17 A. When I tell you I don't know who 18 took the picture, it doesn't mean him -- I 19 don't know who took the picture. You can 20 come up with 50 names, I still do not know 21 who took the picture. 22 Q. Did you observe Prince Andrew go 23 into a room with Virginia alone in your town 24 home? 25 A. I cannot recall. As I have said, Page 115 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 no. 3 Q. Did Prince Andrew ever tell you 4 that he had sex with Virginia Roberts? 5 A. He did not. 6 Q. Did Jeffrey Epstein ever tell you 7 that Prince Andrew had sex with Virginia 8 Roberts? 9 A. He did not. 10 Q. Did Prince Andrew ever visit -- let 11 me back up for a moment. We talked about 12 Jeffrey's homes, did Jeffrey have a home in 13 the U.S. Virgin islands called Little St. 14 James? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Did Prince Andrew ever visit that 17 island -- are you aware of Prince Andrew ever 18 visiting Jeffrey's island? 19 A. I am aware of that, yes. 20 Q. Do you know how many times he 21 visited? 22 A. I do not. 23 Q. Do you know if he visited when 24 Virginia was on the island? 25 A. I do not. 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 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. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 38 38 (Pages 146 to 149) Page 146 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 one of his planes? 3 A. There was a bed on one of his 4 planes that folded out, yes. 5 Q. Do you recall whether with respect 6 to this being in Santa Fe, do you recall 7 whether you were there for some form of a 8 party? 9 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 10 form and foundation. 11 A. I don't recall the trip at all and 12 this looks like a total work trip, not a 13 party trip. 14 Q. What would be the difference 15 between a work trip and a party trip? 16 A. Just that I would be on trips for 17 work and I believe that this looks like, AP 18 looks like it's one of the -- probably one of 19 the designers and the time would meet with a 20 trip to decorate the house, just the timing 21 of it. 22 Q. So would Virginia be brought on 23 trips that were for the purpose of work and 24 decorating the house? 25 A. Like I said, I never worked with Page 147 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 her but you would have to ask Jeffrey what he 3 brought her on the trip for. 4 Q. But she would travel with him when 5 there was a work trip like this? 6 A. I can't -- I'm seeing that she is 7 on this flight but I have no idea what she is 8 doing, he invited her, it would not be my 9 job. 10 Q. What about Nadia Bjorlin, would she 11 regularly travel with Jeffrey on flights? 12 A. I have no idea, you would have to 13 look through the flight logs. I have no 14 idea. 15 Q. Your recollection is -- what is 16 your recollection, do you recollect Nadia 17 traveling often on flights with Jeffrey? 18 A. Absolutely not. No, not at all. I 19 don't recollect her actually on the flight at 20 all. 21 Q. I think you can set that aside for 22 the moment. 23 (Maxwell Exhibit 9, message pad 24 pages, marked for identification.) 25 Q. We will mark as Exhibit 9 these Page 148 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 excerpts from -- we will identify what they 3 are but from the message pads. 4 Did you want to correct anything? 5 A. I want to make an addendum. 6 Would you mind rereading the last 7 question back to me? 8 (Record read.) 9 A. I also just want to say that at 10 this point I cannot recollect flying to 11 parties. Jeffrey went for work so -- was 12 this in Santa Fe, this flight as well. 13 Q. The flight we were looking at, yes 14 but it was to Santa Fe -- 15 A. I don't recall going to any parties 16 in Santa Fe at any time but certainly flying 17 to Santa Fe for a party seems highly 18 improbable. 19 Q. So I'm going to direct your 20 attention to the document that I set before 21 you which is Bates number and it 22 has different Bates numbers because it's a 23 smaller version of the larger production. 24 These are the pages I will be asking about. 25 In the time that you were working Page 149 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 with Jeffrey in Palm Beach, do you recall a 3 process for taking, anybody at the house 4 taking messages when incoming phone calls 5 came in? 6 A. You are supposed to take a message 7 and receive the message and write the message 8 down. Who was the message was for, what time 9 it was taken and who took it and what the 10 message was, obviously. 11 Q. Does what's in front of you look 12 familiar with respect to the message pads 13 that you would have used at the house? 14 A. It is familiar. 15 Q. I'm going to direct your attention 16 to the second page of it? 17 MR. PAGLIUCA: These all have SAO 18 numbers on them or Bates ranges and I 19 don't see any of your Bates ranges on 20 these. I know you have produced message 21 pads but those have your Bates range 22 numbers on them and I'm wondering if 23 these are different documents. 24 MS. McCAWLEY: It's the same, just 25 ours have the Bates underneath them. - MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 38 39 (Pages 150 to 153) Page 150 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 These were produced as part of the rule 3 26 discovery. We can get the additional 4 Bates if you want. 5 Q. The one I'm asking about first is 6 the . You can look at that and then 7 I will identify the Bates number referenced 8 in this case. 9 I want to direct your attention to 10 the top right-hand corner just so I have an 11 understanding of how these messages were 12 taken. So I see that it says at the top it 13 says in the for line it says Ms. Maxwell and 14 the date of and then I see under the 15 M line it looks like Necole Hesse or 16 something like that, a phone number and a 17 message saying returning your call and on the 18 bottom it looks like . 19 Explain to me, is this -- does this 20 represent taking down a message for you 21 from Ms. Hesse, is that how these work? 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 23 form and foundation. Go ahead. 24 Q. My question is, I'm trying to 25 understand how the messages were taken. Page 151 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Looking at this message pad, where it says 3 signed , can you tell me who was? 4 A. I cannot. 5 Q. You do not know. 6 Typically when these messages were 7 taken in your practice when you were there, 8 would the individual who took the message 9 write their name on the message? 10 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 11 form and foundation. 12 A. I don't recollect, you can ask who 13 wrote it so you can find out who it was. 14 Q. Do you know who Necole Hesse is? 15 A. I don't. 16 Q. I'm going to direct your 17 attention -- do we have a Bates number for 18 that? 19 MR. EDWARDS: . 20 Q. Giuffre for that one. 21 I will direct your attention to the 22 first page which has the on it. 23 A. Okay. 24 Q. Now at the top of that document, on 25 the right-hand side, the message that reads Page 152 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 for JE, date 1/02/03, message Caroline Casey 3 and then it's signed GM. 4 Is that your signature? 5 A. That's not my handwriting. 6 Q. Would other people take a message, 7 how did this process work, is there someone 8 else in the house with the initials GM? 9 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 10 form and foundation. 11 A. I cannot answer that. It's not my 12 handwriting. 13 Q. I'm trying to understand how this 14 gets there. If you took a message and didn't 15 write it down, would someone else record that 16 message for you? 17 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 18 form and foundation. 19 A. All I can tell you, this is not my 20 handwriting so I cannot -- I have no idea 21 what that is. 22 Q. Was the practice that, what was the 23 practice when someone answered the phone with 24 these message pads, what were they supposed 25 to do? Page 153 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 A. They were supposed to take a 3 message and the time and date and give the 4 message. 5 Q. Were they supposed to indicate who 6 took the message? 7 A. They were but it wasn't -- I don't 8 really recall the actual process. I can see 9 from here it looks like you were supposed to 10 but that's not my handwriting so I can't say 11 what that was. 12 Q. Do you know who Caroline Casey is? 13 A. No, I don't. 14 Q. Do you know whether Caroline Casey 15 was under the age of 18? 16 A. I just testified I couldn't 17 remember who she was so it would be difficult 18 to know how old she was. 19 Q. Do you know if she was coming to 20 the house to provide massages? 21 A. I don't remember who she is at all, 22 so no. 23 Q. And then I would like to direct 24 your attention to the message right 25 underneath it. Which says JE, - - 1111 1111 - - -- - MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 38 40 (Pages 154 to 157) Page 154 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 and has a phone number and the message says, 3 wants to know if she should bring her friend 4 tonight. 5 What is that message referring to? 6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 7 form and foundation. 8 A. I can't possibly know. 9 Q. Did individuals at the house take 10 messages for underage girls to come over and 11 bring friends for the purpose of providing 12 massages? 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 14 form and foundation. 15 A. How would I possibly know what you 16 are talking about. 17 Q. Did you record messages at the 18 house? 19 A. It's not my job. 20 Q. You did from time to time record 21 messages? 22 A. Hardly ever. 23 Q. But you did from time to time do 24 it? 25 A. I'm just saying I hardly ever took Page 155 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 messages, very, very, very, very 3 infrequently. 4 Q. Do you know if brought her 5 friend over on that night? 6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 7 form and foundation. 8 A. One, I don't know what this message 9 is, I don't know if I was in Palm Beach, I 10 don't know who is, I don't know who 11 is and I don't know what this message 12 is referring to. 13 Q. So on January 2nd of 2003, were you 14 in Palm Beach? 15 A. I don't know. 16 Q. Where would you have been other 17 than Palm Beach at the time? 18 A. I could have been anywhere. 19 Q. Where did you typically live? 20 A. What are you asking me? 21 Q. So for example, in 2003, where was 22 your primary residence, was it wherever 23 Jeffrey was living and staying or was it 24 independent of that? 25 A. What was the date again. Page 156 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. In 2003? 3 A. The end of 2003? 4 Q. January, the beginning. 5 A. I don't know, I could have been 6 anywhere, Jeffrey and I were leading almost 7 separate lives by then. 8 Q. If you were at the house that day, 9 did you recall seeing anybody by the name of 10 11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 12 form and foundation. 13 A. I don't know if I was at the house, 14 so I can't testify to that. 15 Q. Let's flip back to the next page, 16 the one we were on before the , the 17 message towards the bottom that says, for 18 Jeffrey, message of Ghislaine. And it says, 19 Would it be helpful to have and then redacted 20 come to Palm Beach today to stay here and 21 help train new staff with Ghislaine. Who 22 were you referring to in that message; do you 23 remember? 24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 25 form and foundation. Page 157 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. The question is, do you recall this 3 message? 4 A. I do not recall this message. 5 Q. Do you recall training a female 6 under the age of 18 at Jeffrey's home? 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 8 form and foundation. 9 A. I never trained a female under the 10 age of 18 at Jeffrey's home. 11 Q. Did you ever say it would be 12 helpful to have a female under the age of 18 13 come to Palm Beach today to stay here and 14 help train new staff with Ghislaine? 15 A. I never asked anyone under the age 16 of 18 come to help train new staff. 17 Q. I'm going to flip to the next page 18 which is . 19 A. By the way, that is not my 20 handwriting and it's not dated and I couldn't 21 possibly tell you who that is. 22 Did you hear that? 23 Q. You got your testimony on the 24 record. 25 . 1111 - - - - - - - MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 38 41 (Pages 158 to 161) Page 158 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 A. Yes. 3 MR. EDWARDS: Giuffre . 4 Q. I'm going to direct your attention 5 to the top right-hand corner, for Mr. 6 Epstein, , message , a phone 7 number and called. 8 Do you know who is? 9 A. I don't. 10 Q. Do you know that was 15 at 11 the time she left this message? 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 13 form and foundation. 14 A. I don't know who is. 15 Q. And then I'm going to direct your 16 attention to the bottom left which is a 17 message JE message of Jean Luc and the 18 message says, He just did a good one, 18 19 years, she spoke to me and said I love 20 Jeffrey. 21 Was Jean Luc referring to sex with 22 an 18 year old in that message? 23 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 24 form and foundation. 25 A. How could I know what Jean Luc is Page 159 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 referring to. 3 Q. Do you know if Jean Luc had sex 4 with an 18 year old that he referenced to 5 Jeffrey Epstein? 6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 7 form and foundation. 8 A. How could I possibly know. 9 Q. Did Jeffrey Epstein or Jean Luc 10 ever tell you that Jean Luc had sex with an 11 18 year old? 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 13 form and foundation. 14 A. I have no idea what you are talking 15 about. 16 Q. Did they ever tell you that? 17 A. I have no recollection of ever 18 hearing such a ridiculous thing. 19 Q. I will turn to the next page which 20 is SAO 2841? 21 MS. MENNINGER: Do you have the 22 Bates number? 23 Q. The bottom right-hand corner, Mr. 24 Epstein, the date , Ms. Maxwell, it 25 says, , it says, quote, is Page 160 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 available on Tuesday, no one for tomorrow. 3 Is this a message you took? 4 A. It's not my handwriting and I don't 5 know who R is. 6 Q. So when it says Ms. Maxwell in the 7 line there, is that you calling for Mr. 8 Epstein? 9 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 10 form and foundation. 11 A. I didn't write it, I don't know 12 when this message was taken. I don't even 13 know what it's referring to and I don't know 14 what my name is doing on that message pad. 15 Q. I know you said you only took them 16 a few times. Do you have a recollection of 17 taking messages of females who would call the 18 house to indicate whether or not they were 19 coming over? 20 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 21 form and foundation. 22 A. Give me a date range. 23 Q. On 7/9/04. 24 A. How would I know if I'm in Palm 25 Beach, most likely not. Page 161 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. I'm asking if you have a 3 recollection of taking messages for girls who 4 would call the house -- 5 A. Girls. 6 Q. Females, who would call the 7 house -- 8 A. Over the age of 18. 9 Q. is 15. 10 A. I don't know who is, so I 11 can't testify anything to . 12 Q. Your name is on the message. 13 A. I didn't put it there and I don't 14 know what it's doing there. 15 Q. So your testimony is you didn't 16 take this message? 17 A. I obviously didn't take the 18 message, it's signed by somebody R, it's not 19 my handwriting. We don't know if I'm in Palm 20 Beach. 21 Q. Did you arrange for to have 22 his friend come over on Tuesday of 23 this week? 24 A. I don't know who is so it 25 would be hard for me to arrange anything with - - - - - - 1111 - 1111 ~ _ ___.___ ____ 1111 __ ____, MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 38 42 (Pages 162 to 165) Page 162 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 someone I don't know. 3 Q. Why is your name reflected on this 4 message pad? 5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 6 form and foundation. 7 A. I have no idea. You would have to 8 ask whoever took the message. 9 Q. Did you, in the course of your 10 work, regularly take messages for Jeffrey 11 Epstein? 12 A. I already testified I hardly ever 13 did. 14 Q. Would you, in the course of your 15 work, regularly set up appointments for 16 females to come over and give massages for 17 Jeffrey Epstein? 18 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 19 form and foundation. 20 A. Can you specify, females, you mean 21 adults over the age of 18. 22 Q. Did you regularly set up for 23 Jeffery adults over the age of 18 to come for 24 massages? 25 A. I didn't regularly do that, no. Page 163 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. Would you take messages with 3 respect to females over the age of 18 to come 4 over for a massage? 5 A. I already testified I hardly ever 6 did take messages. 7 Q. But would you? 8 A. I already testified, I hardly 9 ever -- 10 Q. I know hardly ever, but did you? 11 A. Over the course of time it is 12 possible I may have taken a couple, I have no 13 recollection. I hardly ever did and I did so 14 irregularly that it would hard for me to 15 pinpoint. 16 Q. Did you ever take a message for a 17 female under the age of 18 to come over for a 18 massage or for any other reason to be with 19 Jeffrey Epstein? 20 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 21 and foundation. 22 A. I hardly ever took a message. I 23 have absolutely no way of knowing, maybe one 24 of my friends' daughters called to say they 25 were coming to visit me. I have never taken Page 164 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 messages, I don't know about how I would 3 possibly know if somebody I spoke to, one or 4 two times I took a message is, how old they 5 would be but I have never taken a message 6 where I was aware of anything being under the 7 age of 18 and I probably took it so 8 infrequently, it would be impossible. 9 Q. Can you turn to it 10 should be the next page. 11 A. Uh-huh. 12 Q. Do you see at the top, it says, for 13 Mr. J. 11/8/04 and then the name is 14 redacted. It says, I have a female for him. 15 Why would a minor be calling 16 Jeffrey to say they have a female for him? 17 Do you know? 18 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 19 form and foundation. 20 A. First of all, I don't know that's a 21 minor, I don't know who took the message. 22 Q. I will represent to you these are 23 police reports and minor's names have to be 24 redacted for privacy purposes? 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the Page 165 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 form and foundation. 3 Q. Do you know why a minor child would 4 be calling Jeffrey and leaving a message to 5 say, quote, I have a female for him? 6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 7 form and foundation. 8 A. I can't testify anything about this 9 message, I don't know anything about it. 10 Q. I'm going to direct your attention 11 to the next page . If you look at 12 the bottom left, you are going to see a 13 message for Jeffrey, from , it 14 says she doesn't have a number and left a 15 message that she called. 16 Do you know who is? 17 A. I do not. 18 Q. Do you know that was 19 13 at the time she placed this call to 20 Jeffrey? 21 A. I don't know who is. 22 Q. Would Jeffrey regularly have 13 23 year olds call and leave messages? 24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 25 form and foundation. - - MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 38 43 (Pages 166 to 169) Page 166 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 A. How would I possibly, these were 3 messages taken when I was not at the house 4 and I have no idea who they are nor how old 5 they are nor anything. 6 Q. How do you know you weren't at the 7 house on this day? 8 A. I was hardly at the house in 2005. 9 Q. So you could have been there, you 10 just don't know? 11 A. In the five days I might have been 12 there in 2005, I suppose it's possible but 13 it's unlikely. 14 MR. PAGLIUCA: Do you know why this 15 isn't redacted if you are representing 16 all the names of people who are underage 17 have been redacted from these records. 18 MS. McCAWLEY: I think it was -- my 19 assumption is it was a miss by the 20 police department. 21 Q. I will direct your attention to 22 so you will skip a page and go back, 23 it's the final page in the message pads and 24 you will see on the top left for Jeffrey, on 25 6/1/2005 from Jean Luc Brunel with a phone Page 167 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 number. It says, quote, He has a teacher for 3 you to teach you how to speak Russian. She 4 is two times eight years old. Not blond. 5 Lessons are free and you can have your first 6 today if you call. 7 Do you know whether Jean Luc Brunel 8 sent a Russian girl that was 16 years old 9 over to Jeffrey Epstein's home? 10 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 11 form and foundation. 12 A. I do not know. 13 Q. Did you ever observe a Russian girl 14 that was 16 years old come to Jeffrey 15 Epstein's home? 16 A. I am not aware of any 16 year old 17 Russian girl that I can recall in Jeffrey 18 Epstein's home. 19 Q. Do you know whether Jeffrey Epstein 20 had sex with a 16 year old Russian girl? 21 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 22 form and foundation. 23 A. I do not know. 24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: It's 12:25. 25 This will be the end of disk 3, we are Page 168 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 off the record. 3 (Recess.) 4 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N 5 (Time noted: 1:21 p.m.) 6 G H I S L A I N E M A X W E L L, 7 resumed and testified as follows: 8 EXAMINATION BY (Cont'd.) 9 MS. McCAWLEY: 10 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: It's now 1:21, 11 we're starting disk No. 4. We are back 12 on the record. 13 Q. Ms. Maxwell, before the break, we 14 were talking about and I think it's one of 15 the exhibits that's marked in front of you, 16 I'm not sure of the number, but the police 17 report that I showed you earlier today. 18 Now that you have knowledge of the 19 police report and the criminal investigation 20 with respect to Jeffrey Epstein, do you 21 believe that Jeffrey Epstein abused any minor 22 children? 23 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 24 form and foundation. 25 A. Can you repeat the question please Page 169 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 and break it down so it's more 3 understandable. 4 Q. Now that you have the police report 5 that I showed you this morning that you had 6 an opportunity to look at. 7 A. You gave it to me, I did not look 8 at it. 9 Q. The questions that I asked you 10 about the police report -- you are aware 11 there is a police report? 12 A. I am aware there is a police 13 report. 14 Q. You are aware there was a criminal 15 investigation of Jeffrey Epstein? 16 A. I am aware that there was that. 17 Q. Now that you are aware of those two 18 things and having talked to Jeffrey Epstein, 19 do you believe Jeffrey Epstein sexually 20 abused minors? 21 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 22 form and foundation. 23 A. Can you reask the second part of 24 that question please. 25 Q. Sure. The two documents we were - - MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 22 of 38 62 (Pages 242 to 245) Page 242 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 please? 3 Q. Is it an obvious lie that you had 4 sex toys in Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach 5 house? 6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 7 form and foundation. 8 A. Did Virginia say that? 9 Q. I'm asking you a question. 10 Is it an obvious lie that you had 11 sex toys in Jeffrey Epstein's house? 12 A. I don't recall any sex toys. 13 Q. If someone said had you sex toys, 14 would that be an obvious lie? 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 16 form and foundation. 17 A. Like I said -- can you be more 18 specific about the house or whatever, what 19 exactly you are referring to, what's a sex 20 toy? 21 Q. Yes. How would you define a sex 22 toy? 23 A. No. I need you to define a sex 24 toy, I don't have enough knowledge of sex 25 toys. Page 243 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. I will define it based on the 3 dictionary's definition, which is an object 4 or device used to sexually stimulate or 5 enhance sexual pleasure. 6 A. What's your question, please? 7 Q. The question is, is it an obvious 8 lie that you had sex toys in Jeffrey 9 Epstein's Palm Beach house? 10 MR. PAGLIUCA: Same objection. 11 Q. You can answer. 12 A. Like I said, I do not have any 13 recollection of sex toys in Jeffrey's house. 14 Q. Is it a lie, is it an obvious lie 15 that you took pictures of nude girls? 16 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 17 and foundation. 18 A. We already covered this. Girls we 19 are not referring to -- I can only testify to 20 taking pictures of adult people and I already 21 testified they are not nude, per se. That 22 every picture that I ever took and which they 23 were very limited, always by request, the 24 people would be covered or it would be a hand 25 or a foot. There was never any pictures that Page 244 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 I took of people would only have been 3 mainstream type magazine type photos and any 4 photos I took could have been very happily 5 and expected to be displayed on your parents' 6 mantel piece or grandparents' mantel piece. 7 Q. Is it a lie that you approached 8 females to bring them to Jeffrey Epstein? 9 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 10 form and foundation. 11 A. Please ask the question, again. 12 Q. Sure. Is it a lie that you 13 approached females to bring them to Jeffrey 14 Epstein? 15 A. I don't know what you are asking 16 me. 17 Q. I'm asking you, if it's a lie that 18 you approached females to bring them to 19 Jeffrey Epstein? 20 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 21 form and foundation. 22 A. You are not asking me a good 23 question, sorry. 24 Q. You don't get to choose the 25 questions. Page 245 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 A. I would like to answer your 3 questions but you are not asking me a 4 question that I can answer. 5 Q. What about that is causing you 6 pause where you can't answer the question? 7 A. You are trying to trap me and 8 that's not fair, so I already testified that 9 I hire people across the board, so I would 10 hire architects, decorators, pool people, 11 exercise instructors, gardeners, cooks, 12 chefs, cleaning people. So I, in the course 13 of a very long time when I would hire people 14 I hired people to work for Jeffrey. So I'm 15 happy to testify to hiring people for every 16 possible conceivable proper job that you 17 could conceive of within the context of 18 Jeffrey's life and homes. 19 Q. Is it a lie that you approached 20 females to bring them to Jeffrey Epstein for 21 the purpose of performing massages? 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 23 form and foundation. 24 A. Again, I have already testified 25 that part of the job that I had was to hire MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 23 of 38 64 (Pages 250 to 253) Page 250 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 agree to that? 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 4 form and foundation. 5 Q. Are they under the age of 18? 6 A. We already established that you can 7 be a masseuse in Florida at age 17. That 8 does not make it inappropriate. 9 A. I'm not saying appropriate or 10 inappropriate. I'm just asking if there were 11 any exercise instructors that were under the 12 age of 18. 13 A. I am not aware if anybody was but I 14 don't want to full out and say you oh she 15 said, we already established you can be a 17 16 year old masseuse and have it not be 17 something that is not appropriate. So when 18 you say that and then you go, well, you come 19 back and say something, now we can establish 20 that Virginia was 17 but you can be a 17 year 21 old legal masseuse, but I am not aware to 22 your point. 23 Q. Who were the other 17 year old 24 masseuses that you were aware of? 25 A. I am not aware of any. Page 251 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. Were there any 16 year year old 3 masseuse that you are aware of? 4 A. I am not aware. 5 Q. Any 15? 6 A. I just want to be clear. The only 7 person that I am aware of who claims to have 8 been a -- we have to -- we established 9 Virginia now is 17, given she has changed her 10 age so many times. The only person that I am 11 aware of that was a masseuse at the time when 12 I was present in the house was Virginia. 13 Q. Is it an obvious lie that Jeffrey 14 Epstein had a sexual preference for underage 15 miners? 16 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 17 form and foundation. 18 A. Can you ask the question again? 19 Q. It is it an obvious lie that 20 Jeffrey Epstein had a sexual preference for 21 underage minors? 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 23 form and foundation. 24 A. Can you ask the question again? 25 Q. Is it an obvious lie that Jeffrey Page 252 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Epstein had a sexual preference for underage 3 minors? 4 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 5 and foundation. 6 A. I cannot testify to what 7 Jeffrey's -- 8 Q. You don't know his preference? 9 A. You handed me a stack of papers 10 from the police reports and that's what I've 11 read but I have no knowledge, direct 12 knowledge, of what you are referencing. 13 Q. So you don't know, you don't know 14 in your own mind that Jeffrey Epstein had a 15 sexual preference for underage minors, is 16 that correct? 17 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 18 form and foundation. 19 Q. Is that correct? 20 A. Please ask the question again. 21 Q. You don't know in your own mind 22 that Jeffrey Epstein had a sexual preference 23 for underage minors? 24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 25 form and foundation. You have to pause, Page 253 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 let me object, answer the question. 3 Listen to her question, pause, I object, 4 you answer. 5 Q. So you don't know in your own mind 6 that Jeffrey Epstein had a sexual preference 7 for underage minors? 8 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 9 form and foundation. 10 Q. You can answer. 11 A. I cannot tell you what Jeffrey's 12 story is. I'm not able to. 13 Q. Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme 14 to recruit underage girls to use them for 15 purposes of sexual massages? 16 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 17 form and foundation. 18 A. Can you ask me again, please? 19 Q. Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme 20 to recruit underage girls to recruit them for 21 sexual massages? 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 23 form and foundation. 24 A. Can you ask it a different way? 25 Q. Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 24 of 38 65 (Pages 254 to 257) Page 254 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 to recruit underage girls for sexual 3 massages? 4 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 5 form and foundation. 6 Q. If you know. 7 A. I don't know what you are talking 8 about. 9 Q. Is it an obvious lie that Virginia 10 Giuffre was a minor the first time she was 11 taken to Jeffrey Epstein's house? 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 13 form and foundation. 14 A. So we've already established that 15 Virginia was 17 and we have established that 16 her mother brought her to the house and that 17 she came as a masseuse, age 17, which is 18 legal in Florida. 19 Q. Would Jeffrey Epstein's assistants 20 arrange times for underage girls to come to 21 the house for sexual massages? 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 23 form and foundation. 24 A. What are you talking about? 25 Q. Sure. Would Jeffrey Epstein's Page 255 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 assistants, I think earlier you mentioned, we 3 talked about Sarah Kellen who worked in the 4 role as an assistant or Nadia Marcinkova. 5 Would Jeffrey Epstein's assistants arrange 6 times for underage girls to come over the 7 house for sexual massages? 8 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 9 form and foundation. 10 A. Again, I read the police reports so 11 this is all happening according to the police 12 reports when I am no longer at the house so I 13 can't testify to what Jeffrey's assistants 14 did when this kind of activity as alleged in 15 the reports. 16 Q. So you don't know? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Would Jeffrey Epstein's assistants, 19 meaning Sarah Kellen, Nadia Marcinkova or any 20 other assistant that you are aware of from 21 the time you worked there take nude 22 photographs of underage girls? 23 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 24 and foundation. 25 A. During what period of time? Page 256 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. During any period of time you 3 worked, did you observe that? 4 A. I did not observe any such 5 photographs. 6 Q. Are you aware if they took those 7 kinds of photos? 8 A. I am not aware. 9 MR. PAGLIUCA: Can we take a 10 five-minute break. 11 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: It's 2:58 and we 12 are off the record. 13 (Recess.) 14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: It's now 3:10. 15 We're starting disk No. 6 and we are 16 back on the record. 17 Q. Ms. Maxwell, was it an obvious lie 18 when Virginia said she was sent to Thailand 19 by Epstein in September of 2002? 20 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 21 form and foundation. 22 A. I have no knowledge of Virginia 23 being sent to Thailand. 24 But may I say something? 25 Q. There is not a question pending Page 257 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 unless you want to clarify something. 3 Did you want to clarify that? 4 A. No, I just wanted to say something. 5 Q. Is it an obvious lie when Virginia 6 said she was given instructions to maintain 7 telephone contact with you while she was in 8 Thailand? 9 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 10 form and foundation. 11 A. Can you repeat the question? 12 Q. Is it an obvious lie when Virginia 13 said she was given instructions to maintain 14 telephone contact with you when she was in 15 Thailand? 16 MR. PAGLIUCA: Same objection. 17 A. I have no idea what instructions 18 Virginia was given, if any, when she went to 19 Thailand. 20 Q. So you know she went to Thailand? 21 A. I know she claimed she went to 22 Thailand from having read it but given that 23 she lied about everything it's hard to know 24 what is true and not true. 25 Q. Would it make any sense for her to MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 25 of 38 68 (Pages 266 to 269) Page 266 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 can see the dates. 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Can you identify a 4 Bates number, please. 5 Q. , which was at the top says, 6 . I'm going to refer you, 7 at the same time, to the flight logs which 8 were marked, the thicker document that looks 9 like this with all the log entries on it. 10 I'm going to refer you to page -- 11 MR. PAGLIUCA: That's Exhibit No. 12 6, correct? I'm trying to keep the 13 record straight. 14 MS. McCAWLEY: I don't have Exhibit 15 numbers on mine. That's Giuffre . 16 MR. PAGLIUCA: Hang on one second. 17 A. Can you repeat the number please. 18 Q. . And if you will look on 19 that page at the entry, under 20 starting with the and then it runs 21 down to the, looks like the , that first 22 entry has President Clinton, Kevin Spacey, 23 Chris Tucker, Jeffrey Epstein and the 24 initials GM. 25 Do you remember taking a trip with Page 267 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 President Clinton during September of 2002? 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 4 form and foundation. 5 A. Can you repeat the question, 6 please? 7 Q. Do you remember taking a trip with 8 President Clinton during September of 2002, 9 that's the 21st, it looks like, through the 10 27th? 11 A. I don't remember the dates. I 12 couldn't testify to when we actually did it 13 but I do remember the trip itself. 14 Q. So you were traveling with Jeffrey 15 Epstein and President Clinton at the same 16 time Virginia was headed to Thailand, is that 17 correct? 18 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 19 form and foundation. 20 A. I don't know, is that right? 21 Q. If you look at September 27 on the 22 document that I gave you, the first document 23 and then you referred to, if you look in the 24 same as above lines, you will see the travel 25 group with President Clinton? Page 268 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 MR. PAGLIUCA: Are you asking her 3 to compare the documents or are you 4 asking her what her personal knowledge 5 is. 6 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm asking if she can 7 look at the doubts and tell me if she 8 recalls that she traveling with 9 President Clinton at the same time this 10 document reflects Virginia was in 11 Thailand. 12 A. I can't testify to any dates. I 13 couldn't tell you. I can see a date and I 14 can see a date but I can't tell you that I 15 have a memory of the dates. I have a memory 16 of the trip, I don't have a memory of the 17 time. 18 Q. Who is ? 19 A. . 20 Q. What is her address? 21 A. I don't know. 22 Q. Does she live in the United States? 23 A. She does. 24 Q. In what state? 25 A. I believe in New Jersey somewhere. Page 269 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. Do you have her phone number? 3 A. Not memorized. 4 Q. Do you have the ability to get her 5 phone number? 6 A. Of course. 7 Q. Has she ever asked -- has 8 ever asked other girls to come over to 9 see Jeffrey Epstein for the purpose of a 10 sexual massage? 11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 12 form and foundation. 13 A. Can you ask the question again 14 please. 15 Q. Has ever asked girls to 16 come over to see Jeffrey Epstein for the 17 purpose of a sexual massage? 18 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 19 foundation. 20 A. Can you ask again, please? 21 Q. Has ever asked girls to 22 come over to see Jeffrey Epstein for the 23 purpose of sexual massage? 24 A. I have no personal knowledge. 25 Q. What does do for you? 1111 - - ■-• - MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES - - - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 26 of 38 73 (Pages 286 to 289) Page 286 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 moment there is such a document, just 3 hypothetically, and assuming for the 4 moment that it is going to get produced 5 somewhere, if it hasn't already been 6 produced, obviously that would involve a 7 waiver, a future waiver of the 8 privilege. I think that's the answer to 9 the question. 10 Q. Has the document been produced, do 11 you know? 12 A. You have everything that I have 13 given you, so if you can't -- if it's not in 14 those documents, I don't know what to tell 15 you. 16 Q. Your lawyers haven't withheld any 17 documents? 18 A. They are right here. You can ask 19 them. 20 Q. I'm asking you. 21 A. I don't know what -- they're 22 lawyers. 23 Q. When we were talking earlier about 24 Prince Andrew, I asked you whether you had 25 ever given him a gift of a puppet. Page 287 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Did you ever, not as a gift, did 3 you ever see in the presence of Prince Andrew 4 a puppet? 5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 6 form and foundation. 7 A. Can you be more direct, please? 8 Q. Sure. Were you ever in a room with 9 Prince Andrew where there was a puppet? 10 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 11 form and foundation. 12 A. Can you be more specific please and 13 can you bound it by time and be more 14 specific, whatever you are actually asking 15 me? 16 Q. Were you ever in a room with Prince 17 Andrew in New York in Jeffrey Epstein's home 18 where there was a puppet? 19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 20 form and foundation. 21 A. What sort of puppet are you asking 22 me? 23 Q. Any kind of puppet? 24 A. You need to be more descriptive. I 25 don't know what you mean by puppet, there is Page 288 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 hand puppets, all sorts of puppets. 3 Q. Is there any puppet you've ever 4 seen in Jeffrey Epstein's home in the 5 presence of Prince Andrew? 6 A. Again, puppet, you know, there is 7 lots of types of puppets. 8 Q. Any type of puppet. 9 A. If you want to give me a 10 description of the puppet, I would be perhaps 11 be able to say. 12 Q. Any type of puppet? 13 A. Can you be more detailed? 14 Q. Have you ever seen a puppet in 15 Jeffrey Epstein's home in the presence of 16 Prince Andrew? 17 A. My understanding of a puppet is a 18 small handheld item you have in a circus. I 19 have never seen that. 20 Q. Have you ever seen a puppet which 21 is defined as a movable model of a person or 22 animal that is used in entertainment and 23 typically moved either by strings or 24 controlled from above or by a hand inside it? 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the Page 289 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 form and foundation. 3 A. I have not seen a puppet that fits 4 exactly that description. 5 Q. Have you seen any puppet that fits 6 any description? 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 8 form and foundation. 9 A. Can you reask the question, please? 10 Q. Yes. 11 Have you seen any puppet that fits 12 any description in the presence of Prince 13 Andrew in Jeffrey Epstein's home? 14 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 15 form and foundation. 16 A. I am not aware of any small 17 handheld puppet that was there. There was a 18 puppet -- not a puppet -- there was a -- I 19 don't know how would you describe it really, 20 I don't know how would you describe it. Not 21 a puppet, I don't know how you would describe 22 it. A caricature of Prince Andrew that was 23 in Jeffrey's home. 24 Q. Did you use that caricature to put 25 the hand of the caricature on Johanna MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 27 of 38 74 (Pages 290 to 293) Page 290 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Sjoberg's breast? 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 4 form and foundation. 5 A. I don't recollect. I recollect the 6 puppet but I don't recollect anything around 7 the puppet. You characterized puppet, I 8 characterize it as, I don't know, as a 9 characterization of Andrew. 10 Q. Do you recollect asking Virginia 11 Roberts to sit on Prince Andrew's lap with 12 the caricature of Prince Andrew? 13 A. I do not recollect that. 14 Q. What do you remember about the 15 caricature of the Prince Andrew caricature 16 when you were in the presence of Prince 17 Andrew, Virginia Roberts and Johanna Sjoberg? 18 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 19 form and foundation. 20 A. I don't recollect the story as told 21 by Johanna or Virginia. I don't even know 22 who -- I remember the caricature of Prince 23 Andrew and I remember Prince Andrew but I 24 don't recall anything else around the 25 caricature. Page 291 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. Did you give it to him? 3 A. I did not. 4 Q. Who gave it to him? 5 A. I don't think it was given to him 6 at all. 7 Q. Did he bring it? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Was it something that was at the 10 house? 11 A. As best I recollect. 12 Q. Was it something that you saw at 13 the house in advance of Prince Andrew's 14 arrival? 15 A. Again, I don't real -- I recollect 16 the caricature, I recollect Prince Andrew, I 17 don't recollect much else around the 18 caricature. 19 Q. Was there a party going on in the 20 house at the time you recollect the 21 caricature? 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 23 form and foundation. 24 A. You have to be way more specific? 25 Q. Do you remember, you said you Page 292 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 recollect this caricature, you recollect 3 Prince Andrew being there. Do you recollect 4 a party going on at the time of that 5 interaction with Prince Andrew and the 6 caricature? 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 8 form and foundation. 9 A. I don't recollect a party -- first 10 of all, they weren't really parties -- I 11 don't recollect a party -- I don't know what 12 you mean by party in the context of that 13 scenario. 14 Q. Who do you recollect being at the 15 home during the time Prince Andrew was there 16 with this caricature? 17 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 18 form and foundation. 19 A. I only recollect myself with Prince 20 Andrew, I don't recollect anybody else. 21 Q. You don't recollect Jeffrey Epstein 22 being there? 23 A. Actually, no. 24 Q. You don't recollect Johanna Sjoberg 25 being there? Page 293 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 A. No. 3 Q. You don't recollect Virginia 4 Roberts being there? 5 A. No. 6 Q. It was just you and Prince Andrew? 7 A. I am not saying it was just me and 8 Prince Andrew, you are asking me do you 9 remember. I only remember Prince Andrew, I 10 remember Prince Andrew and the caricature but 11 I can't place the caricature and everybody 12 else in the same context, the same timeframe 13 you are asking me. 14 Q. Would Prince Andrew typically 15 travel with Secret Service or some sort of 16 security when he would come to visit you and 17 Jeffrey in New York? 18 A. Typically he would have somebody. 19 Q. Would they be in the house or 20 outside of the house? Would they usually 21 stay in the house or outside of the house, in 22 other words guarding the doors or would they 23 come inside? 24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 25 form and foundation. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 28 of 38 77 (Pages 302 to 305) Page 302 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 he and Virginia Roberts were together in the 3 presence of Prince Andrew? 4 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 5 form and foundation. 6 A. I can't speak to what Jeffrey would 7 say. 8 Q. Has he talked to about Virginia 9 Roberts' statement that she was in the 10 presence of Prince Andrew? 11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 12 form and foundation. 13 A. I have not discussed individual 14 presences with Virginia. That's not -- I'm 15 only concerned with what I know to be the 16 stuff about me. So my focus has always been 17 the lies and the obvious lies as something I 18 can personally attest to. I cannot possibly 19 talk for anything else. 20 Q. Has Jeffrey Epstein said to you 21 anything along the lines of Virginia is lying 22 when she says she met Prince Andrew? 23 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 24 form and foundation. 25 A. Again, I'm not talking about what Page 303 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 she says as regards to other people. I can 3 talk to things as regards to me. 4 Q. I'm asking if Jeffrey ever said 5 that to you? 6 A. I don't recollect specific 7 conversations along those things. 8 Q. You don't recollect him saying that 9 to you? 10 A. I don't recollect him saying to me 11 that Virginia didn't meet Prince Andrew. I'm 12 sure that wouldn't be a conversation that we 13 would have. It doesn't effect me whether -- 14 so I'm really only concerned about the lies 15 that were told as regards to me. 16 Q. Can Jeffrey Epstein confirm or deny 17 whether you sent Virginia to give Glenn Dubin 18 a massage? 19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 20 form and foundation. 21 A. I can't say what Jeffrey would say, 22 I can tell you I didn't. I can't tell you 23 what anybody else. 24 Q. Have you discussed with him 25 Virginia's allegation that she gave Glenn Page 304 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Dubin a massage? 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 4 form and foundation. 5 A. I didn't know that she did say 6 that. 7 Q. Do you know whether Jeffrey Epstein 8 has ever sent anybody to Glenn Dubin to 9 perform a massage for him? 10 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 11 form and foundation. 12 A. I couldn't possibly recollect 13 whether he did anything like that. 14 Q. Did you ever send anybody, not 15 Virginia, anybody else over to Glenn Dubin's 16 home for a massage? 17 A. Not to the best of my knowledge. 18 Q. Do you know one of Alexander 19 Dixon's friend by the name of Anuska 20 DiGeorgio? 21 A. I do recollect a person of that 22 name. 23 Q. How do you know her? 24 A. I don't recollect. 25 Q. Did you meet her through Jeffrey? Page 305 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 A. I don't recollect. 3 Q. Do you recall when you met her? 4 A. I do not recollect. 5 Q. How many times have you seen Anuska 6 DiGeorgio in your life? 7 A. The only reason I remember is 8 because it's an unusual name but I couldn't 9 tell you anything else. 10 Q. You didn't see her on a regular 11 basis, she wasn't one of your friends? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Was Anuska DiGeorgio a masseuse? 14 A. Not to my knowledge. 15 Q. Do you have knowledge of whether 16 she had a sexual relationship with Jeffrey 17 Epstein? 18 A. I have no knowledge of that. 19 Q. When was the last time you spoke 20 with her? 21 A. A very long -- I have no idea. 22 Q. Would it be years? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. What do you remember about Anuska 25 DiGeorgio? MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 29 of 38 78 (Pages 306 to 309) Page 306 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 A. Nothing really. 3 Q. Do you remember what she looks 4 like? 5 A. I would just be speculating on how 6 I remember. I couldn't describe her. 7 Q. Do you recall traveling with her? 8 A. I don't. 9 Q. Did you ever go to her home? 10 A. I don't believe I did. 11 Q. Do you know where she lives? 12 A. I don't. 13 Q. Would you have met her through 14 Jeffrey Epstein? 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 16 form and foundation. 17 A. I already testified I don't 18 recollect how I met her and I remember her 19 because her name is very unusual. 20 Q. So what's your -- what recollection 21 do you have of her, do you have a specific 22 recollection of meeting her somewhere, you 23 just don't know when that was or how do you 24 know that name Anuska DiGeorgio? 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the Page 307 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 form and foundation. 3 A. I don't know why the name is -- I'm 4 sorry -- I can't -- I have no idea. I 5 recognize the name but that's it. 6 Q. Was Johanna Sjoberg a masseuse? 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 8 form and foundation. 9 A. What are you asking me, I'm sorry? 10 Q. 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 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 21 form and foundation. 22 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 Page 308 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 massages from her. 3 Q. Did you ever have any sexual 4 interaction with her? 5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 6 and foundation and I'm going to instruct 7 you if we're talking about any 8 consensual adult contact, you are not 9 allowed to answer the question. 10 Q. Did you have any sexual contact 11 with her in the presence of Jeffrey Epstein? 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Same instruction. 13 Q. Did you have any sexual contact 14 with her in the presence of anybody other 15 than Jeffrey Epstein? 16 MR. PAGLIUCA: Same instruction. 17 Q. How many massages did you receive 18 from Johanna? 19 A. I really don't recall but a fair 20 amount. 21 Q. Did the massages involve sex? 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm going to 23 instruct you not to answer. 24 Q. Have you ever engaged in sex with 25 any female? Page 309 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm going to 3 instruct you not to answer. 4 MS. McCAWLEY: I want the record to 5 reflect that Ms. Maxwell's attorney is 6 directing her not to answer this series 7 of questions. 8 MR. PAGLIUCA: It definitely does. 9 Q. Were you responsible for 10 introducing Anuska to Jeffrey Epstein? 11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 12 form and foundation. 13 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 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 18 form and foundation. 19 A. Again, I don't like the 20 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 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 30 of 38 79 (Pages 310 to 313) Page 310 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 3 form and foundation. 4 A. That's not how I would characterize 5 that. 6 Q. How would you characterize it? 7 A. I have testified that I'm 8 responsible for finding professional people 9 to work in the homes, age appropriate adult 10 people, so from pool attendants, to 11 gardeners, to chefs, to housekeepers, to 12 butlers, to chauffeurs and one of the 13 functions was to be able to answer the 14 telephones and in the context of finding 15 someone to answer the telephones, I did look 16 to try to find appropriate people to answer 17 the phones. 18 Q. So did you find Johanna for 19 purposes of that role? 20 A. So in the course of looking for 21 somebody to answer phones at the house, 22 Johanna was one of the people who said that 23 she was willing to answer phones. 24 Q. Did you approach her at her school 25 campus? Page 311 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form 3 and foundation. 4 A. I honestly don't recall how, in 5 that moment, how I met Johanna and how she 6 came to get the job but... 7 Q. Did you typically, in your work for 8 Jeffrey Epstein, would you typically go to 9 school campuses to try to find individuals to 10 work for Jeffrey Epstein? 11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 12 form and foundation. 13 A. I never -- what do you mean by 14 school? Let's characterize school. 15 Q. Any kind of school. 16 A. Obviously not. I never went to any 17 school with young people. Johanna, I believe 18 came from an adult university, as I would 19 know in England, so university, I went there 20 but I never went, as I best recollect, 21 anywhere else. 22 Q. Did you -- what university was it 23 that you went to? 24 A. I don't recall the university that 25 she went to right now. Page 312 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. Would you visit more than one 3 university to try to find individuals to work 4 for Jeffrey Epstein? 5 A. As I recollect, I think that's, in 6 fact, the only university I went to. 7 Q. Did you go there more than once? 8 A. I think I went twice. 9 Q. Who else did you find from that 10 university, was there anybody other than 11 Johanna? 12 A. I don't recollect, I'm sorry. 13 Q. We are going to mark this as 14 Maxwell 13? 15 (Maxwell Exhibit 13, documents, 16 marked for identification.) 17 Q. Can you take a look at the document 18 I put in front of you, please. 19 Are you familiar with this 20 document? 21 A. I'm familiar with this actual 22 document. 23 Q. How was this document created? 24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 25 form and foundation. Page 313 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 A. I don't know how this document was 3 created. 4 Q. You were involved in the creation 5 of this document? 6 A. I think you can see from the date 7 that it's 2004, 2005, so no. 8 Q. You weren't involved in the 9 creation of this document. 10 Did you -- we talked earlier about 11 Mr. Epstein's house, I'm talking about the 12 Palm Beach house where you said there was a 13 computer on the desk, that employees had 14 access to -- people who worked for Jeffrey 15 Epstein may have had access to? 16 A. I think anybody could have had 17 access to that. 18 Q. Was that computer used, if you know 19 to keep a log of addresses and phone contact 20 information for Jeffrey Epstein? 21 A. Are we talking about when this 22 document was created. 23 Q. In general, was there, on that 24 computer during the time that you were 25 present with Jeffrey Epstein, was there a MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 31 of 38 80 (Pages 314 to 317) Page 314 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 mechanism by which you kept electronic 3 information of names and addresses of 4 individuals that he knew? 5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 6 form and foundation. 7 A. I can't testify to what was on that 8 computer or not after I was gone. 9 Q. Not when you were gone, when you 10 were there. If Jeffrey wanted to call, for 11 example, say Les Wexner, would someone be 12 able to go to that computer to pull up the 13 address information and phone contact 14 information for that individual? 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 16 form and foundation. 17 A. I couldn't possibly say. 18 Q. Did you ever have to keep track of 19 address or phone contact information for 20 Jeffrey Epstein? 21 A. That was not my job. 22 Q. Did you ever do it? 23 A. I am not responsible for keeping 24 his numbers so that wasn't my job at all. 25 Q. But did you ever do it? I know Page 315 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 it's not your job but did you ever do it, did 3 you ever keep phone contact information for 4 him? 5 A. During the course of the time we 6 were together, if he gave me a telephone 7 number, I would give it to an assistant to 8 put in the computer, I could do that. 9 Q. Would he ask you for contact 10 information for different individuals, if he 11 wanted to contact someone? 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 13 form and foundation. 14 A. In the course of the long period of 15 time when I was there, it certainly would be 16 possible for him to ask me for a telephone 17 number and if I had the -- I wouldn't always 18 have it -- I'm sure it happened. 19 Q. Was there a hardcopy book in 20 addition to the computer, a hardcopy book 21 that you could look for numbers that were 22 relevant to Jeffrey Epstein's life and 23 something on the computer or was it just an 24 electronic version? 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the Page 316 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 form and foundation. 3 Q. Was there a hard copy book as well 4 as something on the computer or was there 5 only electronic information on the phone 6 numbers? 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 8 form and foundation. 9 A. I can only testify to what I know 10 obviously, and I believe that this is a copy 11 of a stolen document. I would love to know 12 how you guys got it. 13 Q. I'm asking during the time you 14 worked for Jeffrey Epstein, was there a 15 hardcopy document of any kind that kept phone 16 numbers for Jeffrey Epstein, if he needed to 17 contact someone? 18 A. The stolen document I have in front 19 of me that you have is what you are referring 20 to. 21 Q. So there was, during your time when 22 you were there, there was no other, you 23 mentioned there was information on a 24 computer. Was there any hardcopy document 25 that you could refer to to find someone's Page 317 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 number? 3 A. You have the stolen document in 4 front of you. 5 Q. You had access to this when you 6 worked for Jeffrey Epstein? 7 A. This is, I believe, the book that 8 was stolen, that was the hardcopy of whatever 9 was there. 10 Q. So when you were working for 11 Jeffrey Epstein, you were able to access this 12 book? 13 A. This book -- if this is what this 14 is, I believe it was, this is the stolen 15 document from his house. 16 Q. And you were able to access it when 17 you worked for him? 18 A. It was a document that was printed 19 that you could, if you needed to, look for a 20 number. 21 Q. Do you know how this book was 22 created? 23 A. No. 24 Q. When you referred to it a moment 25 ago, to a stolen document, when Alfredo MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 32 of 38 81 (Pages 318 to 321) Page 318 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Rodriguez turned this document over to the 3 FBI, are you aware he described it as a 4 document that came from your computer? 5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 6 form and foundation. 7 A. I have no idea what he said or 8 didn't say, so if you want me to reference 9 something he said, you need to show it to me. 10 Q. Did you keep this document, an 11 electronic copy of it, on your personal 12 computer? 13 A. I don't recollect. 14 Q. If you had to update something, for 15 example, if there was a new number, a new 16 individual that Jeffrey had hired that you 17 were going to track, would you input that 18 information into this document on your 19 computer? 20 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 21 form and foundation. 22 A. I've already testified that I'm not 23 responsible for updating and keeping these 24 records. 25 Q. Did you have this document on your Page 319 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 computer, your personal computer? 3 A. I told you, I don't recollect 4 having this document on my computer. 5 Q. Do you know what computers this 6 document was on, if more than one? 7 A. I'm sorry, this is a long time ago 8 and I don't recall exactly how this was all 9 managed. 10 Q. If you didn't create this document, 11 do you know who did? 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 13 form and foundation. 14 A. I don't. 15 Q. I'm going to direct your attention 16 to part of this document. It's towards the 17 back, it's going to be page 91 and it has 18 bates label Giuffre 001663. I'm going to 19 direct your attention to the section that 20 says, Massage Florida. 21 Did you input any of the names or 22 numbers under that section? 23 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form 24 and foundation. 25 A. So this document is produced in Page 320 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 2004, 2005, so, no. 3 Q. But I'm sorry, correct me if I'm 4 misunderstanding your testimony, I thought 5 you said when you were working with Jeffrey, 6 that this document existed and it was 7 something you utilized? 8 A. I can't possibly tell you what 9 numbers were added or not added subsequent to 10 my departure. 11 Q. So you can't recall if you added 12 any of these numbers? 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 14 form and foundation, mischaracterizes 15 the witness' testimony. 16 Q. Are there any numbers on here or 17 names that you recognize that you would have 18 entered into this section? 19 A. I already testified that I'm not 20 responsible for inputting numbers and names 21 into this so I would not be able to tell you. 22 Q. Are there any names or numbers 23 under this section, Massage Florida, that you 24 would have provided to an assistant to input 25 into this document? Page 321 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 A. I can't possibly say. 3 Q. Do you see under Massage Florida, 4 about halfway down the first column, do you 5 see a number that says Johanna's cell? 6 MR. PAGLIUCA: What page? 7 Q. It's 91, Bates number 001663. 8 About halfway down, it says in the first 9 column, it says Johanna's cell. 10 Do you see that? 11 A. I do. 12 Q. Would you have provided after, I 13 know you didn't hire her, Jeffrey hired her 14 but after you brought her to Jeffrey, would 15 you have given her cell phone number to an 16 assistant to input into this document? 17 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form 18 and foundation. 19 A. I didn't bring her to Jeffrey, the 20 way you characterize and I would have no 21 knowledge of how this number ended up in this 22 book. 23 Q. I believe you, and I will try to 24 use your words so we are clear, you met 25 Johanna, is that correct? MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 33 of 38 82 (Pages 322 to 325) Page 322 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And then she began working for 4 Jeffrey? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Would you have provided whomever 7 was in charge of keeping this updated with 8 Johanna's cell number so you would be able to 9 contact her if needed? 10 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 11 form and foundation. 12 A. I don't know. It could have been a 13 number of different ways, it it could have 14 been Jeffrey who gave it to somebody. 15 Q. You just don't remember doing that? 16 A. I do not. 17 Q. Now, as you look -- I want you to 18 take a look at the Florida massage list, it's 19 three columns there. 20 Do you, as you look at those names 21 on the various columns, do you know the ages 22 of any of the girls in this list? 23 A. I don't know. One, I don't know 24 who all the people are on this list and I 25 certainly don't know the ages. Page 323 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. Do you know what their 3 qualifications are? 4 A. I don't know who the people are in 5 general so of course I don't know what their 6 qualifications are. 7 Q. Do you know why Jeffrey has so many 8 masseuses listed in Florida in his book here? 9 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 10 form and foundation. 11 A. Again, this book was created post 12 my departure, so I couldn't explain why all 13 these people were here. 14 Q. When you were there, you said this 15 book existed? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. So when you were there, were there 18 a number of masseuses listed under the 19 Florida massage? 20 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 21 form and foundation and 22 mischaracterization of the witness' 23 testimony. 24 Q. I'm asking you a question. 25 When you were there, were there a Page 324 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 number of masseuses listed under the Florida 3 massage section? 4 A. When I was there, I would have, of 5 course there would have been some masseuses 6 listed but I could not tell you who or how 7 many and this -- I could not possibly because 8 I wouldn't remember. 9 Q. Do you know why Jeffrey would have 10 had so many names listed under his massage 11 Florida? 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form 13 and foundation. 14 A. I can't testify to why Jeffrey has 15 so many. 16 Q. Did he use a different masseuse 17 every day? 18 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 19 form and foundation. 20 Q. You can answer. 21 A. When I was there he had a massage 22 roughly every day, one masseuse, and mostly 23 he would have them at random times, so it 24 would be difficult if you just only had one 25 person, man, woman, for an adult massage, to Page 325 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 come and be available for whatever time it 3 was. So he would have more than one person 4 that he could call for a massage because at 5 any given time the one that he called first 6 may not have been available. 7 Q. So would it typically be a 8 different person each day that would give him 9 a massage? 10 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 11 form and foundation. 12 A. It would be, when I was there, 13 based on availability. 14 Q. Would it surprise you to learn that 15 the Federal Government found that some of the 16 girls on this list under massage Florida were 17 under the age of 18? 18 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 19 form and foundation. 20 A. I can't testify to what the 21 government found or did not find because I 22 would have no knowledge of it. 23 Q. I'm asking if you would be 24 surprised by that? 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: Form and foundation. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 34 of 38 83 (Pages 326 to 329) Page 326 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 A. I have knowledge of it. I can't 3 speculate. 4 Q. On the second column, towards the 5 bottom, there is the name, it's one up from 6 the bottom, there is the name Gwendolyn Beck, 7 do you know Gwendolyn Beck? 8 A. I do. 9 Q. Who is she? 10 A. She was a friend of Jeffrey's. 11 Q. Is she a masseuse? 12 A. She, I don't think she was a 13 masseuse, no. 14 Q. Why would be she listed under 15 Florida massages? 16 A. An input error. 17 Q. Is this list any individual that 18 would have sex with Jeffrey? 19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 20 form and foundation. 21 A. I wouldn't have any knowledge of 22 that. 23 Q. Do you know if Jeffrey had sex with 24 Gwendolyn Beck? 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form Page 327 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 and foundation. 3 A. First of all, I wouldn't have any 4 knowledge of that. 5 MS. McCAWLEY: We are going to take 6 a quick break. 7 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: It's now 4:39 8 and we are off the record. 9 (Recess.) 10 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: It's now 4:54 11 and we are as back on the record 12 starting disk number 8. 13 Q. Ms. Maxwell, we were talking 14 earlier about the journal and I believe you 15 said in 2004, 2005, you were no longer 16 working and responsible for that journal, is 17 that correct? 18 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 19 form and foundation. 20 A. What are we referring to, this 21 document right here? 22 Q. Yes. 23 A. I don't know who is the author of 24 this or I can't tell you what is in here 25 versus what would have been here when I was Page 328 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 around. I can't testify to that. 3 Q. Were you around in 2004, 2005? 4 A. I already testified that I was 5 there when Jeffrey's mother passed away and 6 so you know, I did visit for her passing and 7 I believe I was there for a couple of days in 8 2005. 9 Q. So if an employee of Mr. Epstein in 10 2004 said that you were the employee's direct 11 supervisor, would that be incorrect? 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form 13 and foundation. 14 A. What employee, what's the 15 circumstances and what is the story, I don't 16 know what you are asking me. 17 Q. If Alfredo Rodriguez said in 2004 18 when he was hired, you were his direct 19 supervisor, would that be true? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Were you in 2004 supervising Sarah 22 Kellen? 23 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form 24 and foundation. 25 A. I never supervised Sarah Kellen. Page 329 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. Did Sarah Kellen take orders from 3 you? 4 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 5 form and foundation. 6 A. She worked for Jeffrey. 7 Q. If Alfredo Rodriguez said you had 8 knowledge of underage girls coming to 9 Jeffrey's home for the purpose of sex, would 10 you contend that that is truthful? 11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 12 form and foundation of the question. 13 A. I have no idea what you are talking 14 about, I'm sorry. 15 Q. If Alfredo Rodriguez said that you 16 have knowledge of underage girls coming to 17 Jeffrey's home for the purpose of having 18 massages involving sex, would you say that 19 that statement is truthful? 20 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 21 form and foundation. 22 A. I can't testify to what Alfredo 23 said or didn't say. 24 Q. I'm saying if Alfredo said that you 25 had knowledge that there were girls coming MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 35 of 38 84 (Pages 330 to 333) Page 330 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 over to the house that were underage for the 3 purposes of sex, would that statement be 4 true? 5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form 6 and foundation. 7 A. I can't testify to what Alfredo 8 said or didn't say or what he thought. 9 Q. Did you have knowledge of underage 10 girls coming to Jeffrey Epstein's house for 11 the purpose of sex? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Earlier I believe you testified, 14 correct me if I'm wrong, that the document 15 that is in front of you, the thicker document 16 was a stolen document. 17 Do you know who stole that 18 document? 19 A. I have read that Alfredo stole the 20 document. 21 Q. And where have you read that? 22 A. I believe it was reported in the 23 press. 24 Q. Earlier we were talking about the 25 computers at Jeffrey Epstein's home. Did you Page 331 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 have a computer that was your computer 3 located in Jeffrey Epstein's home? 4 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form 5 and foundation. 6 A. I've testified to the computer 7 already. Even when I was around, there was a 8 computer that people had access to. 9 Q. So is Alfredo Rodriguez telling the 10 truth when he says that he downloaded that 11 book from your computer? 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 13 form and foundation. 14 A. I couldn't possibly tell you what 15 Alfredo did or didn't do or said or didn't 16 say. 17 Q. Was it on your computer? 18 A. I already testified I have no idea 19 where this document came from. 20 Q. Did you have a list of names of 21 individuals with contact information for 22 Jeffrey Epstein on your personal computer? 23 A. Again, that wasn't my computer. I 24 already said that was a computer that lots of 25 people would have, so I have no recollection Page 332 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 of this document being on it, so I don't know 3 where this came from. 4 Q. I understand the computer at the 5 house that you're referencing. On a personal 6 computer of yours, did you have that 7 document? 8 A. I don't know where this document 9 came from, so I can't possibly say this 10 document was on any computer that I may have 11 had access to. 12 Q. On a personal computer of your own, 13 did you have lists of the phone numbers and 14 contact information relating to Jeffrey 15 Epstein? 16 A. Like everybody, I have an address 17 book but I can't possibly testify to where 18 this thing came from. 19 Q. Was it your address book or was it 20 addresses that related to Jeffrey Epstein? 21 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 22 form and foundation. 23 A. I don't know what you're asking me. 24 Q. On your personal computer, the 25 address book you are referencing, was it your Page 333 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 address book with individuals you knew or was 3 it an address book for your employer, Jeffrey 4 Epstein? 5 A. Jeffrey has his situation and I 6 have no -- this is Jeffrey's, it came from 7 his home, so I can't testify to anything 8 about this in that period of time. 9 Q. So you didn't have on your computer 10 a list of contact information for individuals 11 that was related to Jeffrey Epstein? 12 A. I don't recall exactly what I had 13 back in 2004 and 2005, so I can't say what I 14 had back then that relates to his addresses, 15 I can't recall. 16 Q. So is it possible that someone 17 could have downloaded from your personal 18 computer a list of names and address that 19 were affiliated with Jeffrey Epstein? 20 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 21 form and foundation. 22 A. This didn't come from any computer 23 of mine. 24 Q. But is it possible that someone 25 could have downloaded a list of names and MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 36 of 38 85 (Pages 334 to 337) Page 334 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 addresses affiliated with Jeffrey Epstein 3 from your computer? 4 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 5 form and foundation. 6 A. I already said, I didn't have a 7 computer there, so I don't know where this 8 came from, I have no idea. 9 Q. I'm going to read to you some 10 testimony from Alfredo Rodriguez's deposition 11 and it's on page 370 and I want to ask you a 12 question about it, if it's true or false? 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm going to object 14 unless you show the witness the 15 document. 16 MS. McCAWLEY: I will pass it. We 17 are not going to mark it. We will skip 18 it. 19 Q. Did you ever tell Alfredo Rodriguez 20 that he better watch out and better keep his 21 mouth shut with respect to what occurred at 22 Mr. Epstein's home? 23 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 24 form and foundation. 25 A. It doesn't sound like anything I Page 335 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 would say. 3 Q. Did you ever threaten Alfredo 4 Rodriguez in any way if he were to disclose 5 information he learned from his employment 6 with Jeffrey Epstein? 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 8 form and foundation. 9 A. I'm happy to answer. No, I never 10 threatened him in any way. 11 Q. Were you concerned that he was 12 going to disclose that Jeffrey Epstein was 13 trafficking underage girls? 14 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 15 form and foundation. 16 A. First of all, there are so many 17 things wrong with that question, but I have 18 no knowledge of what you are talking about. 19 Q. Have you ever contacted or 20 instructed anyone to contact any witness in 21 this case for the purposes of threatening 22 them not to testify in this case? 23 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 24 form and foundation. 25 A. I have never called anybody with Page 336 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 reference to this case with any, anything you 3 just mentioned, I never threatened anyone. 4 Q. Have you ever directed anyone to 5 call any witnesses relevant to this case and 6 threaten them not to testify? 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 8 form and foundation. 9 A. I never done such a thing. 10 Q. Did Jeffrey Epstein or you ever ask 11 any female, regardless of age, to carry 12 Jeffrey's baby for him? 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 14 form and foundation. 15 Q. Or anything along those lines? 16 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 17 form and foundation. 18 A. Can you repeat the question, 19 please? 20 Q. Did you or Jeffrey Epstein ever ask 21 any female, regardless of age, to carry 22 Jeffrey Epstein's baby for him? 23 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 24 form and foundation. 25 A. Are you asking -- Page 337 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. To become pregnant, did you or 3 Jeffrey Epstein ever ask any female to become 4 pregnant and carry Jeffrey Epstein's baby for 5 you or for Jeffrey? 6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form 7 and foundation. 8 A. You need to be very specific. I 9 have no idea what you are talking about. 10 That's completely rubbish. 11 Q. Did you or Jeffrey Epstein ask any 12 female to become pregnant and carry his baby 13 for either him or you? 14 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 15 form and foundation. Go ahead. 16 A. I can't testify to anything Jeffrey 17 did or didn't do when I am not present, but I 18 have never asked anybody to carry a baby for 19 me. 20 Q. Or anything along those lines? 21 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 22 and foundation. 23 Q. I want to make sure we are talking 24 about the same thing, not physically carry a 25 baby, I mean become pregnant with a baby? MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 37 of 38 92 (Pages 362 to 365) Page 362 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 lawsuit, is that correct? 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 4 form and foundation. 5 A. I have legal advice that I took. 6 Q. But you knew in early January by 7 making a statement calling Virginia a liar 8 that you were subjecting yourself to a legal 9 dispute with her? 10 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 11 form and foundation. 12 A. I took legal advice as to what 13 should be said and not be said and the legal 14 advice that came from the United Kingdom 15 was -- 16 MR. PAGLIUCA: You are not allowed 17 to talk about any legal advice that you 18 got from anybody that's a lawyer. 19 A. Sorry. 20 Q. So is it correct without telling me 21 what you talked to your lawyers about that 22 you knew because this is dated January 10 23 that when you made this statement in early 24 January, January 2 of 2015 you knew that 25 calling Virginia a liar would subject you to Page 363 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 a legal action, isn't that correct? 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 4 form and foundation. As to what you 5 knew -- whatever she knows would be 6 privileged. 7 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm asking if she 8 knows. I'm not asking her to tell me 9 about her privileged communications. 10 A. All I can say is I asked a question 11 and received legal advice. 12 (Maxwell Exhibit 18, email, marked 13 for identification.) 14 Q. This is an email dated January 15, 15 2015 from Jeffrey Epstein to you? 16 A. Uh-huh. 17 Q. It states in the first line, do you 18 want to come out and say she was the 19 girlfriend during the time? 20 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 21 form and foundation of the question and 22 actually the word is , there 23 is no vowel in there. 24 MS. McCAWLEY: I was just trying to 25 pronounce it. Page 364 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. This email reads do you want 3 , without a vowel, to come out and say 4 she was the girlfriend during the time. 5 Who was Jeffrey Epstein referring 6 to? 7 A. I believe he was referring to 8 . 9 Q. Why was he asking you if you wanted 10 to come out and say she was the 11 girlfriend? 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 13 form and foundation. 14 A. The way the press and you were 15 characterizing me is I was with Jeffrey 16 throughout this entire period of time and I 17 was not. 18 Q. Was with Jeffrey during this 19 period of time? 20 A. I believe she was. 21 Q. Did Jeffrey come out and tell the 22 press it was and not you that was with 23 him as he is proposing here? 24 A. I don't believe he did. 25 Q. Did you want him to do that? Page 365 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 A. No, I didn't ask him to do 3 anything. No. 4 Q. So do you know in January of 2015, 5 was his girlfriend? 6 A. 2015, I have no idea who was his 7 girlfriend in 2015. 8 Q. I'm sorry, you are correct. 9 In the period of 1999 to 2002, was 10 his girlfriend? 11 A. They spent a lot of time together. 12 Q. Did you talk to about going 13 to the press and saying that she was the 14 girlfriend and not you? 15 A. I have never spoken to 16 Q. Was offered any money to 17 make a statement that she was the girlfriend? 18 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 19 form and foundation. 20 A. I have no idea. I have never 21 spoken to and I don't know anything -- 22 I have no idea. 23 (Maxwell Exhibit 19, email, marked 24 for identification.) 25 Q. That's an email from Jeffrey to - - - - - - - - - - - - MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 38 of 38 EXHIBIT E Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 35 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 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 35 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? MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 35 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 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 35 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 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 35 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 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 35 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 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 35 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 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 35 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 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 35 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 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 35 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 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 35 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 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 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 35 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 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 35 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 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 35 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 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 or Sarah appearing 9 to act like Jeffrey's girlfriend? 10 A. , 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, - - - MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 35 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. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 35 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 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 35 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 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 35 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 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 35 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. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 35 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 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 35 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 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 22 of 35 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 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 23 of 35 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 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 24 of 35 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 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 25 of 35 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 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 26 of 35 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. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 27 of 35 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 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 28 of 35 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 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 29 of 35 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 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 30 of 35 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 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 31 of 35 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 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 32 of 35 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 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 33 of 35 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 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 34 of 35 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 BD's Mongolian Barbecue. 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. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 35 of 35 January 5, 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 1328 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 1 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 Jeffrey S. Pagliuca In Support Of Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions Filed Under Seal I, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed in the State of Colorado and admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York pro hac vice. 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 Response In Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions Filed Under Seal. 2. Attached as Exhibit A (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of excerpts from the deposition of Virginia Giuffre, designated as Confidential under the Protective Order. 3. Attached as Exhibit B are true and correct copies of Bates stamped documents GM_00523-00528. .......................................... Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 3 2 4. Attached as Exhibit C (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of excerpts from the April 22, 2016 deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell, designated as Confidential under the Protective Order. 5. Attached as Exhibit D (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of the July 22, 2016 deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell, designated as Confidential under the Protective Order. 6. Attached as Exhibit E (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of excerpts from the deposition of Johanna Sjoberg, designated as Confidential under the Protective Order. 7. Attached as Exhibit F (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of excerpts from the deposition of Detective Joseph Recarey designated as Confidential under the Protective Order. 8. Attached as Exhibit G (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of excerpts from the deposition of Juan Alessi, designated as Confidential under the Protective Order. 9. Attached as Exhibit H (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of excerpts from the deposition of Tony Figueroa, designated as Confidential under the Protective Order. 10. Attached as Exhibit I (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of excerpts from the deposition of Rinaldo Rizzo, designated as Confidential under the Protective Order. Dated: August 8, 2016 By: /s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Jeffrey S. Pagliuca - - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 3 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on August 8, 2016, I electronically served this Declaration Of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca In Support Of Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions Filed Under Seal via ECF 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/ Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT F Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 26 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 June 21, 2016 9:17 a.m. C O N F I D E N T I A L Deposition of JOSEPH RECAREY, 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. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 26 Page 178 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 3 Q. Then there's a category, victim 4 information, and then we have listed, I believe, a 5 total of 17 individuals that the Palm Beach Police 6 Department incident report lists as alleged victims 7 in this case, correct? 8 A. Correct. 9 Q. And are you aware as to whether or not 10 that list was supplemented after July 25th, 2006, in 11 the investigative incident report? 12 A. I'm not sure if it was updated or not. 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: I don't know if we want to 14 mark this or not. I can hand you what I 15 believe to be a more recent, or I think you 16 actually brought one with you -- 17 THE WITNESS: I did. 18 MS. SCHULTZ: If you're talking about the 19 document that he brought with him, I had it 20 Bates labeled. 21 MR. PAGLIUCA: We can show him that. I 22 think I have the same document here. And we 23 can -- I guess we'll mark that as 11. 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 26 Page 179 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 (The referred-to document was marked by 3 the court reporter for Identification as 4 Deposition Exhibit 11.) 5 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 6 Q. If you look at the -- is that what you're 7 looking at? 8 MS. SCHULTZ: That's mine. I just wanted 9 to make sure it's the same. 10 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 11 Q. If you go into the third -- I think it's 12 the third page of that document, we then end with VI 13 17 Juno. 14 Do you see that? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. So that would tell me that there were no 17 individuals listed as additional victims as of the 18 conclusion of your investigation in this case; is 19 that correct? 20 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 21 foundation. 22 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 23 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 24 Q. Okay. So let's stick with Exhibit 1, and 25 let's go to Narrative No. 1, which is on page 11 of Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 26 Page 180 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 Exhibit 1. Are you with me? 3 A. Uh-huh. 4 Q. Okay. Again, this was information that 5 was obtained by Detective Pagan, correct? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. And it's true, is it not, that this 8 alleged victim never claimed to have been recruited 9 by Ghislaine Maxwell; true? 10 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 11 foundation. 12 THE WITNESS: Correct. 13 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 14 Q. And this individual, alleged victim No. 1, 15 never identified Ghislaine Maxwell as being at 16 Mr. Epstein's house when she was there, correct? 17 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 18 foundation. 19 THE WITNESS: I don't believe so. 20 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 21 Q. You don't believe so -- 22 A. I don't believe so. 23 Q. That she ever identified Ghislaine Maxwell 24 as being in the house? 25 A. Right. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 26 Page 181 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 Q. Okay. She never -- this individual, 3 victim No. 1, never claimed that Ghislaine Maxwell 4 paid her any money, correct? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. And this individual No. 1 never claimed 7 that Ms. Maxwell instructed her what to wear, 8 correct? 9 A. Right. 10 Q. This individual never claimed that 11 Ghislaine Maxwell told her how to act, correct? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. This individual never claimed to have met 14 Ghislaine Maxwell ever, correct? 15 A. I don't believe so, no. 16 Q. This individual never claimed to even have 17 spoken to Ghislaine Maxwell ever, correct? 18 A. I don't believe so, no. 19 Q. And when you say "I don't believe so, no," 20 that means my statement to you is correct; is that 21 right? 22 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form, foundation. 23 THE WITNESS: Well, you're saying "ever." 24 I don't know if she's ever, ever spoken to -- 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 26 Page 182 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 3 Q. To Detective Pagan. 4 A. Right. To my knowledge, I don't know, 5 because Detective Pagan is the one who actually 6 interviewed her. So I don't know to the answer of 7 "ever." So not to my knowledge. 8 Q. Certainly, nothing in Exhibit 1, Narrative 9 1 reflects that this individual ever met or talked 10 to or spoke to Ghislaine Maxwell, right? 11 A. Right. Not to my knowledge. 12 Q. And, indeed, you would agree with me that 13 if this individual claimed that Ms. Maxwell had 14 something to do with the events listed in Narrative 15 1, you would have folded up on it, as the 16 investigating detective, right? 17 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to the form. 18 THE WITNESS: Either myself or Detective 19 Pagan would have. 20 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 21 Q. Sure. And when you got the case six 22 months later, if there hadn't been follow-up, you 23 would have followed up on it, right? 24 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form. 25 THE WITNESS: Correct. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 26 Page 191 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And then you asked various individuals who 4 was there when you went to Mr. Epstein's house, 5 right? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. And you then, to the best of your ability, 8 recorded those answers, I take it, as to who was 9 there, right? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And with regard to AH, she never said 12 anything about Ghislaine Maxwell being at 13 Mr. Epstein's house, did she? 14 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 15 foundation. 16 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 17 Q. To you? 18 A. I don't believe she did. 19 Q. Okay. And if she did, it's likely that 20 you would have recorded it, correct? 21 A. Correct, and it would be on the -- it 22 would be on the tape. 23 Q. Right. 24 She never claimed, , that Ms. Maxwell 25 paid her, right? Jane Doe Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 26 Page 192 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 3 foundation. 4 THE WITNESS: Correct. 5 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 6 Q. She never claimed that -- never claimed 7 that Ms. Maxwell instructed her about what to wear, 8 correct? 9 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to the form. 10 THE WITNESS: Correct. 11 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 12 Q. never claimed that Ms. Maxwell told her 13 how to act at Mr. Epstein's house, correct? 14 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form. 15 THE WITNESS: Correct. 16 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 17 Q. never claimed to have met Ghislaine 18 Maxwell anywhere, correct? 19 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form. 20 THE WITNESS: I don't believe so, no. 21 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 22 Q. Okay. If we go on to individual alleged 23 victim No. 3, AY, the same question: AY never 24 identified Ms. Maxwell as someone she knew or 25 interacted with in any fashion, correct? Jane Doe Jane Doe Jane Doe Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 26 Page 193 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form. 3 THE WITNESS: No. 4 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 5 Q. No, she did not? 6 A. No, she did not. 7 Q. Okay. The same with individual No. 4, 8 alleged victim FP: Again, FP never claimed to have 9 met with Ms. Maxwell, correct? 10 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 11 foundation. 12 THE WITNESS: I don't believe so, no. 13 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 14 Q. Okay. And FP never identified Ms. Maxwell 15 as someone being at Mr. Epstein's house, correct? 16 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 17 foundation. 18 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 19 Q. And if you need to look at your report -- 20 A. No, I don't -- I don't believe so. The 21 only people that recalled Ghislaine at the house 22 was -- 23 Q. Sjoberg? 24 A. Johanna Sjoberg. 25 Q. Who was over the age of 18, correct? Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 26 Page 194 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 3 foundation. 4 THE WITNESS: And Venero, Christina 5 Venero. 6 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 7 Q. Who is an adult as well? 8 MS. O'CONNOR: Object to form. 9 THE WITNESS: Yes. 10 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 11 Q. So out of your entire report, the only two 12 people who ever said anything about Ms. Maxwell were 13 Ms. Sjoberg, who I believe was 23 when you 14 interviewed her? 15 A. Right, but she was -- 16 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 17 foundation. 18 THE WITNESS: She was -- she had worked 19 there for quite some time, so you would have to 20 back up, I think, a year or two. 21 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 22 Q. She was an adult when she worked there? 23 A. Right. She was over the age of 18, right, 24 let's put it that way. 25 Q. And she was not listed by you as a victim Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 26 Page 195 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 as part of this case, right? 3 A. Correct, because it was between two 4 consenting adults. 5 Q. Exactly. 6 And so that's Ms. Sjoberg, and then the 7 other individual, I think you said Bolero; is that 8 right? 9 A. Venero, Christina Venero. She's a -- 10 Q. Adult masseuse, correct? 11 A. Yes. I remember she had lots of tattoos. 12 Q. Tatts, right. 13 But the 17 individuals that you listed in 14 Exhibit 1, none of those individuals ever said the 15 word -- the words "Ghislaine Maxwell" during the 16 course of this investigation to you, correct? 17 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 18 foundation. 19 THE WITNESS: I don't believe so. It 20 would be on the tapes if they did. 21 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 22 Q. Well, or it would be in your report, 23 right? 24 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 25 foundation. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 26 Page 211 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. And then Mr. Epstein is arrested and ends 4 up pleading guilty and all of that, right? 5 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form. 6 THE WITNESS: I think there was a 7 non-prosecution agreement prepared between the 8 Feds and some kind of agreement was made. But, 9 yes, he did end up pleading guilty. 10 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 11 Q. All right. 12 Now, based on the questions that were 13 asked of you in the grand jury, it's fair to say 14 that Ms. Maxwell was not a target of the grand 15 jury's investigation, correct? 16 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 17 foundation. 18 THE WITNESS: Not based on the questions 19 that the state was asking me, no, the state 20 wasn't... 21 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 22 Q. In fact, it's fair to say that you never 23 said Ms. Maxwell's name in the grand jury, right? 24 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 25 foundation. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 26 Page 212 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 THE WITNESS: No. Based on the questions 3 that the state was asking, no. 4 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 5 Q. Were you aware of who was being issued 6 subpoenas by the grand jury? 7 A. No. But it wasn't the actual subpoena 8 from the grand jury; it came from the State 9 Attorney's Office. 10 Q. At the direction of the grand jury, 11 though, right? 12 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 13 foundation. 14 THE WITNESS: I don't know. Again, I 15 don't know. 16 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 17 Q. I would like to talk a little bit about 18 the surveillance that you initiated at Mr. Epstein's 19 house, okay? 20 Can you tell me when the surveillance 21 began? 22 A. It would have started under Detective 23 Pagan and gone through -- 24 Q. The entire investigation? 25 A. Pretty much trash pulls. We stopped the Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 26 Page 214 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 Q. And so these were video cameras? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. And so whoever was coming and going, 5 whenever -- an officer saw somebody coming or going, 6 they would videotape that person; is that correct? 7 A. Or they would just leave the video 8 rolling, time lapse. 9 Q. And did you have the opportunity to 10 observe any of that video? 11 A. I did observe a couple, but the person who 12 actually set it up would review it and then submit a 13 supplement to the report. 14 Q. Okay. It's true that none of the video of 15 the surveillance led to the identification of 16 Ghislaine Maxwell as coming or leaving the house 17 during the time of surveillance, correct? 18 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 19 foundation. 20 THE WITNESS: I don't know. I didn't see 21 all of the video, so I can't -- I can't attest 22 to that. 23 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 24 Q. Okay. Did anybody report to you that 25 Ms. Maxwell was seen coming or going? Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 26 Page 215 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form, foundation. 3 THE WITNESS: I don't recall. 4 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 5 Q. If someone had reported to you that 6 Ms. Maxwell was seen coming or going, you would have 7 recorded it in your Palm Beach Police Department 8 incident report, Exhibit No. 1, correct? 9 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 10 foundation. 11 THE WITNESS: I would have told the 12 officer who was conducting the surveillance or 13 reviewing the video to document it in the 14 supplements. 15 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 16 Q. And there is no documentation in the 17 supplement of Ms. Maxwell either coming or going 18 from Mr. Epstein's house during this time frame, 19 correct? 20 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to the form. 21 THE WITNESS: I don't believe so. I 22 don't -- I don't -- I don't believe so. 23 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 24 Q. And, again, so we're on the same page, 25 when you say "I don't believe so," I interpret that Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 26 Page 216 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 as her name is not in here as someone who was 3 incoming or going; am I correct in my 4 interpretation? 5 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 6 foundation. 7 THE WITNESS: Again, I don't know. I 8 don't believe so. 9 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 10 Q. I'm just trying to understand what "I 11 don't believe so" means, okay? 12 A. I don't -- I don't believe it's in the 13 report, no. 14 Q. Okay. "I don't believe it's in the 15 report" that she was ever seen coming or going, 16 right? 17 A. Right, that's what I'm saying. 18 Q. All right. We're on the same page. 19 The trash pulls, do you recall how many 20 trash pulls were done? 21 A. There were numerous trash pulls done. 22 There was trash pulls down under Detective Pagan and 23 under my request. 24 Q. As I understand the trash pull protocol, 25 you or someone at your direction or Detective Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 26 Page 257 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 A. I don't believe clothing was seized. 3 Q. To your knowledge, did you seize any 4 property belonging to Ghislaine Maxwell from the 5 home? 6 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 7 foundation. 8 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure. Not to my 9 knowledge. 10 BY MS. SCHULTZ: 11 Q. Okay. No one ever came to you and said, 12 Could you please return these items to Ms. Maxwell, 13 correct? 14 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form. 15 THE WITNESS: No. 16 BY MS. SCHULTZ: 17 Q. All right. 18 You did that with Janush? 19 A. Yes, he had photos and -- 20 Q. But nothing like that ever happened with 21 Ms. Maxwell, correct? 22 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form. 23 THE WITNESS: No. 24 BY MS. SCHULTZ: 25 Q. Ms. Maxwell was not present when you Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 26 Page 288 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 Did you observe any child pornography when 3 you were in Mr. Epstein's home? 4 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form. 5 THE WITNESS: Not in that area where I was 6 at, no. 7 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 8 Q. Well, you had to walk into the house, 9 right? Through an entranceway? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. You didn't observe any child pornography 12 in the entranceway, correct? 13 A. No. 14 Q. And then you had to walk from the 15 entranceway to where the office was, correct? 16 A. Which was straight back, it was right 17 there. 18 Q. You are going through a hallway and a kind 19 of an open area, correct? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. You didn't observe any pictures of 22 neighborhood children when you were walking through 23 that area, did you? 24 A. I don't recall. 25 Q. That's something that would have stuck out Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 26 Page 289 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 in your mind, right? Correct? 3 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to the form. 4 THE WITNESS: Yes. 5 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 6 Q. And you're a peace officer, obligated to 7 arrest when a felony is committed in your presence, 8 correct? 9 A. Correct. 10 Q. And the possession of child pornography is 11 a felony, correct? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. And had you seen any child pornography in 14 Mr. Epstein's house when you were there installing 15 these cameras, you would have done something about 16 it, correct? 17 MS. SCHULTZ: Object for form. 18 THE WITNESS: Right. 19 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 20 Q. You wouldn't have just walked out and 21 said, Nice pics, have a nice day, correct? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. So is it fair to say the entire time you 24 were in Epstein's house, whether it's 2002, 2003, 25 you did not observe any child pornography, right? Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 26 Page 290 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to the form. 3 THE WITNESS: Not in the areas I was in. 4 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 5 Q. You don't recall seeing any pictures of 6 naked women, do you? 7 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form. 8 THE WITNESS: Again, I was only confined 9 to where that desk was. That's where I set up 10 the camera, and then after it was set up, I 11 left. 12 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 13 Q. Okay. But, again, all I'm asking you is 14 wherever you were, you didn't see any pictures of 15 naked women? 16 A. Right. No, I didn't see any. 17 Q. And at the time you recall that he had 18 these surveillance cameras already installed; is 19 that true? Other cameras, the clock cameras? 20 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form. 21 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure if he had the 22 cameras installed or not. I can't recall. 23 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 24 Q. Why would he need your cameras if he 25 already had cameras? Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 26 Page 300 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 None of these alleged victims claimed to 3 have ever traveled with Mr. Epstein, correct? 4 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form. 5 THE WITNESS: No. 6 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 7 Q. No, they did not? They did not travel 8 with Mr. Epstein, right? 9 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form. 10 THE WITNESS: I don't believe so, no. 11 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 12 Q. None of them reported that to you? 13 A. Not reported, correct. 14 Q. None of them reported to you that they 15 ever spent the night with Mr. Epstein, did they? 16 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form. 17 THE WITNESS: I don't believe so. 18 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 19 Q. None of them ever reported being 20 trafficked by Mr. Epstein to other men, correct? 21 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form, foundation. 22 THE WITNESS: I don't believe so. 23 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 24 Q. The only other men that any of these 25 alleged victims -- the only man that any of these Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 22 of 26 Page 301 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 alleged victims ever claimed to have any contact 3 with that was sexual in nature was Mr. Epstein, 4 correct? 5 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 6 foundation. 7 THE WITNESS: Yes. 8 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 9 Q. Okay. None of these alleged victims ever 10 claimed to have been sent to another location to 11 have sex with another man, correct? 12 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 13 foundation. 14 THE WITNESS: I don't believe so. 15 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 16 Q. Meaning my statement is correct; is that 17 right? 18 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form. 19 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 20 Q. I'm just trying to -- 21 A. Meaning I don't believe they've ever said 22 that. I don't recall any of them ever saying... 23 Q. Had they claimed that they were sent 24 somewhere else to have sex with another man, you 25 would have followed up on that, correct? Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 23 of 26 Page 302 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form. 3 THE WITNESS: Correct. 4 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 5 Q. And none of them ever claimed to have been 6 sent to another location to give another man a 7 massage, correct? 8 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form. 9 THE WITNESS: No, not the victims. 10 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 11 Q. Right. That's who I'm talking about. 12 A. I believe Sjoberg did. 13 Q. Who is an adult, right? 14 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form. 15 THE WITNESS: Right. 16 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 17 Q. We covered this, I believe: None of them 18 ever was on Mr. Epstein's airplane, correct? 19 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form. 20 THE WITNESS: I believe one of the victims 21 were, but not to a private island. I think 22 they went -- they didn't go to a private 23 island; they went to some other trip. 24 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 25 Q. I think maybe you're referring to AH, who Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 24 of 26 Page 303 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 went to New York but on a commercial flight. Does 3 that jog your memory? 4 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form. 5 THE WITNESS: No. 6 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 7 Q. Okay. Do you recall who it is? 8 A. It would have been FP. 9 Q. Okay. Was on Mr. Epstein's airplane? 10 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form. 11 THE WITNESS: I believe so. 12 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 13 Q. Would that be reflected in Exhibit 1? 14 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form. 15 THE WITNESS: But she flew alone. It 16 wasn't like Epstein was there. She went 17 someplace else, not to his private island, 18 nothing to do with Epstein. It was something 19 she wanted to do. And I think she flew on his 20 plane, but it was, like, her by herself. 21 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 22 Q. Alone. 23 A. Right. 24 Q. With a pilot? 25 A. Right. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 25 of 26 Page 334 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 BY MS. SCHULTZ: 3 Q. Was it your impression at the time that 4 those statements could incriminate her? 5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 6 foundation. 7 THE WITNESS: Yes. 8 BY MS. SCHULTZ: 9 Q. You testified earlier that you interviewed 10 approximately 30 or 33 girls, correct? 11 THE WITNESS: Yes. 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 13 foundation. 14 BY MS. SCHULTZ: 15 Q. Did the course of your investigation -- 16 through the course of your investigation, did you 17 find that all 30 or 33 of the girls knew one 18 another? 19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 20 foundation. 21 THE WITNESS: Some did, some did not. 22 BY MS. SCHULTZ: 23 Q. Okay. Among the girls who did not know 24 one another, were their accounts of what happened at 25 Jeffrey Epstein's house similar? Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 26 of 26 EXHIBIT H Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 14 Video Deposition of Tony Figueroa (Volume 1) 1 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CASE: 15-cv-07433-RWS VIRGINIA GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. _______ ! DATE: TIME: PLACE: VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF TONY FIGUEROA Volume 1 of 2 Pages 1 - 157 Taken at the Instance of the Defendant Friday, June 24, 2016 Commenced: 8:59 a.m. Concluded: 1:22 p.m. Southern Reporting Company B. Paul Katz Professional Center (SunTrust Building) One Florida Park Drive South Suite 214 Palm Coast, Florida 32137 REPORTED BY: LEANNE W. FITZGERALD, FPR Florida Professional Reporter Court Reporter and Notary Public Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 14 :MHIS (ITSWMXMSR SJ 8SR] *MKYIVSE :SPYQI   7SYXLIVR 6ITSVXMRK 'SQTER] 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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 14 :MHIS (ITSWMXMSR SJ 8SR] *MKYIVSE :SPYQI   7SYXLIVR 6ITSVXMRK 'SQTER]    HMH RSX GSQI FEGO JVSQ 8LEMPERH#  % =IEL - IRHIH YT KIXXMRK MR WSQI XVSYFPI  [MXL MX ERH - KSX MX MQTSYRHIH %RH LIV HEH KSX  MX - KYIWW FIGEYWI - SFZMSYWP] GSYPHRX  5 ;LEX OMRH SJ XVSYFPI HMH ]SY KIX MRXS [MXL  XLEX XVYGO#  % - IRHIH YT KIXXMRK EVVIWXIH JSV KVERH  XLIJX - IRHIH YT XEOMRK E FYRGL SJ <ERE\ ERH  WXIEPMRK E FYRGL SJ WXYJJ SR XLI [E] FEGO JVSQ  HVSTTMRK LIV SJJ EX XLI EMVTSVX XS KS XS 8LEMPERH  5 -R XLEX  MR XLEX   % -R XLEX XVYGO ]IW  5 3OE] ,S[ [EW XLEX GEWI VIWSPZIH#  % - IRHIH YT KIXXMRK GLEVKIH [MXL E JIPSR]  %RH - QIER - KSX Q] VMKLXW FEGO PMOI PEWX ]IEV  WS  5 +VIEX  (MH ]SY LEZI XS WIVZI ER] XMQI#  % - HMH - [IRX XS NEMP JSV  -Q RSX  I\EGXP] WYVI &YX XLIR - [EW SR TVSFEXMSR JSV E  PSRK XMQI WS  5 %RH XLEX EPP WXIQQIH JVSQ ER MRGMHIRX  [LIVI ]SY [IVI HVMZMRK 1W 6SFIVXW XVYGO#  % 8LEX [EW XLI I\EGX  [LIR - [EW HVSTTMRK  LIV SJJ EX 8LEMPERH  SV XS XLI EMVTSVX XS KS XS Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 14 :MHIS (ITSWMXMSR SJ 8SR] *MKYIVSE :SPYQI   7SYXLIVR 6ITSVXMRK 'SQTER] 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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 14 :MHIS (ITSWMXMSR SJ 8SR] *MKYIVSE :SPYQI   7SYXLIVR 6ITSVXMRK 'SQTER]    5 ;EW MX SRI IZIRX SV QSVI XLER SRI IZIRX#  % -Q TSWMXMZI MX [EW QSVI XLER SRI  5 ;L] HS ]SY WE] XLEX#  % &IGEYWI XLI] [IVI EP[E]W [MXL IEGL SXLIV  0MOI ER] XMQI WLI [SYPH XEPO XS QI EFSYX XLIQ KSMRK  XS HS WXYJJ MX [EW [MXL LIV ERH 1W 1E\[IPP 0MOI  XLI] [IVI EP[E]W SYX PMOI XV]MRK XS KIX KMVPW ERH  [LEXRSX  5 3OE] (MH ]SY IZIV TEVXMGMTEXI MR KIXXMRK  KMVPW#  % =IW &YX  5 8IPP QI [LEX ]SY QIER ;LEX HMH ]SY HS#  ;LIR ]SY WE] KIX KMVPW [LEX HS ]SY QIER#  % 4VIXX] QYGL - KSX WSQI SJ Q] JVMIRHW XLEX  - ORI[ FIGEYWI :MVKMRME [EW PSSOMRK JSV SXLIV KMVPW  XS KS SZIV XLIVI FIGEYWI .IJJVI] [EW KMZMRK YW   ETMIGI JSV IZIV] SRI XLEX [I FVSYKLX SZIV %RH  -PP  TVIXX] QYGL - [SYPH KIX JVMIRHW XLEX - [IRX  XS WGLSSP [MXL ERH - [SYPH XEOI XLIQ SZIV XLIVI ERH  MRXVSHYGI XLIQ ERH XLIR - [SYPH NYWX PIEZI  5 ;LEX HMH ]SY XIPP XLIQ XLI] [IVI KSMRK XS  HS#  % % QEWWIYWI PMOI ERH XLIR - XSPH XLIQ   - [EW PMOI 2S[ PMWXIR - [EW PMOI -Q  PIXXMRK ]SY ORS[ - HSRX ORS[ [LEX LIW KSMRK XS EWO Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 14 :MHIS (ITSWMXMSR SJ 8SR] *MKYIVSE :SPYQI   7SYXLIVR 6ITSVXMRK 'SQTER]    ]SY XS HS &YX ]SY ORS[ LI SFZMSYWP] LEW QSRI]  [MPPMRK XS TE] JSV WXYJJ 7S [LEXIZIV LETTIRW -  HSRX =SY ORS[ - HSRX ORS[ -ZI RIZIV FIIR YT  XLIVI -ZI RIZIV WIIR [LEX LETTIRW YT XLIVI  =SY ORS[ -  ]SY ORS[ &YX EW JEV EW -  XSPH XLIQ MX [EW NYWX E QEWWIYWI NSF  &YX ER] XMQI WSQISRI 3L ]SYVI KSMRK XS  FI E QEWWIYWI PMOI XLI] EP[E]W NYQT XS XLI  GSRGPYWMSR ]SY ORS[ LETT] IRHMRKW FPEL FPEL  FPEL FPEL ]SY ORS[ WS  5 =SY RIZIV LEH ER] HMVIGX GSRZIVWEXMSRW  [MXL XLIWI KMVPW#  % 2S - RIZIV EWOIH XLIQ [LEX LEH LETTIRIH  IZIV  5 ;LEX EVI XLI REQIW SJ WSQI SJ XLIWI KMVPW  XLEX ]SY VIQIQFIV#  % - VIQIQFIV XEOMRK  ?TLSRIXMGA %RH - ORS[ WLI IRHIH YT FVMRKMRK WSQI  SXLIV KMVPW EPWS  &YX [I QIX XLMW SXLIV KMVP  [IPP MX [EW  EGXYEPP] LIV FS]JVMIRH [I QIX - QIX LMQ  - XLMRO  MX [EW EX +SPH 'SEWX SV 7SYXL %VIE -X [EW SRI SJ  XLSWI WGLSSPW XLEX - QIX LMQ EX %RH LMW KMVPJVMIRH  IRHIH YT [SVOMRK JSV LMQ EPWS %RH - XLMRO WLI KSX  QSVI KMVPW JSV LMQ EW [IPP Jane Doe 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 14 :MHIS (ITSWMXMSR SJ 8SR] *MKYIVSE :SPYQI   7SYXLIVR 6ITSVXMRK 'SQTER]    5 (S ]SY ORS[ LIV REQI#  % - XLMRO MX [EW 'EVSP]R  'EVSPMRI  'EVSP]R  - HSRX ORS[  WSQIXLMRK PMOI XLEX  5 (MH .IJJVI] GEPP ]SY HMVIGXP] EFSYX  KIXXMRK QSVI KMVPW#  % =IW  5 3R XLI TLSRI#  % 9LLYL EJJMVQEXMZI   5 ;LEX HMH LI WE]#  % ,I [EW NYWX EWOMRK QI MJ - LEH ER] SXLIV  KMVPW XLEX [ERXIH XS GSQI [SVO  5 3OE] -W XLEX XLI XIVQ XLEX LI YWIH#  % =IEL  5 %RH HMH LI TE]  LI TEMH ]SY TIVWSREPP]#  % =IEL ,I LERHIH QI  JSV IZIV] KMVP  XLEX - [EPOIH MR XLEX HSSV [LIXLIV XLI] HMH WXYJJ  [MXL LMQ SV RSX  5 -R GEWL#  % 'EWL  5 (MH ]SY IZIV KIX TEMH F] 1W 1E\[IPP JSV  XLEX#  % 2S  5 (MH ]SY IZIV FVMRK E KMVP XS 1W 1E\[IPP#  % 2S  5 (MH 1W 1E\[IPP IZIV GEPP ]SY ERH EWO ]SY Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 14 :MHIS (ITSWMXMSR SJ 8SR] *MKYIVSE :SPYQI   7SYXLIVR 6ITSVXMRK 'SQTER] 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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 14 :MHIS (ITSWMXMSR SJ 8SR] *MKYIVSE :SPYQI   7SYXLIVR 6ITSVXMRK 'SQTER] 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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 14 :MHIS (ITSWMXMSR SJ 8SR] *MKYIVSE :SPYQI   7SYXLIVR 6ITSVXMRK 'SQTER] 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EJJMVQEXMZI   5 =IW SV RS#  % =IW 7SVV]  5 =SY QEHI ]SYV S[R TYVGLEWIW SJ [IIH#  % 9LLYL EJJMVQEXMZI   5 =SY   % =IEL 1] RIMKLFSV EGXYEPP] EGVSWW XLI Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 14 :MHIS (ITSWMXMSR SJ 8SR] *MKYIVSE :SPYQI   7SYXLIVR 6ITSVXMRK 'SQTER] 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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 14 :MHIS (ITSWMXMSR SJ 8SR] *MKYIVSE :SPYQI   7SYXLIVR 6ITSVXMRK 'SQTER] 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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 14 :MHIS (ITSWMXMSR SJ 8SR] *MKYIVSE :SPYQI   7SYXLIVR 6ITSVXMRK 'SQTER]    16 )(;%6(7 3FNIGX XS XLI JSVQ  % 9Q RS &IGEYWI XLI] [IVI Q] JVMIRHW -  QIER XLI] [SYPH LERK SYX NYWX XS TPE] ZMHIS KEQIW  ]SY ORS[ -X [EW NYWX WSQIXMQIW MX KSX [MPH  WSQIXMQIW MX HMHRX =SY ORS[ WSQIXMQIW [I [IVI  EPP NYWX GLMPPMRK WQSOMRK WSQIXMQIW [I [IVIRX  =SY ORS[ MXW NYWX PMOI MX NYWX EPP HITIRHIH SR  [LS [EW XLIVI ERH [LEX [EW KSMRK SR EX XLI XMQI -X  [EW RSX PMOI [I EP[E]W LEH VERHSQ TISTPI NYWX  WLS[MRK YT EX XLI ETEVXQIRX -X [EW EP[E]W TVIXX]  QYGL PMOI XLI WEQI KVSYT SJ TISTPI XLEX [SYPH GSQI  SZIV  &IGEYWI XLEX KY] %RXLSR] LI EGXYEPP] [EW  WXE]MRK MR XLI ETEVXQIRX EGVSWW JVSQ YW [MXL -  FIPMIZI  - GERX VIQIQFIV XLIWI X[S FVSXLIVW  REQIW &YX XLIVI [EW XLIQ SZIV XLIVI ERH XLIR  XLIVI [EW  HEQR - GERX VIQIQFIV XLIMV REQIW  &YX XLIVI [EW X[S FVSXLIVW XLEX PMZIH XLIVI 8LIQ  X[S %RXLSR] Q] JVMIRH 1EVMS 0MOI MX [EW NYWX  TVIXX] QYGL XLI WEQI TISTPI XLEX EP[E]W [SYPH NYWX  GSQI SZIV ERH NYWX ]SY ORS[ LERK SYX ERH GLMPP  1] JVMIRH ;IW  5 %RXLSR] [EW PMZMRK MR ER ETEVXQIRX MR XLI  WEQI GSQTPI\#  % =IEL Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 14 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 to Compel Responses to Defendant’s Second Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff, and for Sanctions ............................................. 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 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 40 i TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 2 I. PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORY RESPONSES ARE DEFICIENT. .............................. 2 II. PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS TO THE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ARE DEFICIENT. ............................................................................................................................................. 21 III. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION ARE DEFICIENT. 25 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 35 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................................... 37 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 40 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Bauman v. 2810026 Canada Ltd., No. 15-CV-374A(F), 2016 WL 402645, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2016) ..................................................................................................................................... 14 Bruno v. CSX Transp., Inc., 262 F.R.D. 131, 133-34 (W.D.N.Y. 2009) ...................................... 15 Pokigo v. Target Corporation, 2014 WL 6885905, at **2-3 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2014) .............. 15 Walls v. Paulson, 250 F.R.D. 48 (D.D.C. 2008) ........................................................................... 33 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1)................................................................................................................. 34 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(3)................................................................................................................. 34 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5) ................................................................................................................. 34 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 40 1 Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(B) to compel Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre to provide responsive answers to Ms. Maxwell’s Second Set of Discovery Requests, attached as Exhibit A to Declaration of Laura A. Menninger (“Menninger Decl.”). Certificate of conferral. Undersigned counsel certifies counsel for Ms. Maxwell has conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the subject matter of this Motion. Based on the conferral, Plaintiff’s counsel wrote a letter declining to supplement any of the responses to the Second Set of Discovery Requests. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Plaintiff has brought a lawsuit alleging Ms. Maxwell defamed her. The defamation consisted of Ms. Maxwell’s defensive statements denying Plaintiff’s repeated, false allegations that Ms. Maxwell had subjected plaintiff to “sex trafficking” while Plaintiff was 15 years old. Plaintiff alleged in her Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) disclosures that she has suffered noneconomic injury of “not less than” $30 million, medical expenses of “not less than” $100,000, and lost earnings of “not less than” $5 million.1 She also has requested punitive damages of $50 million. Despite claiming defamation damages exceeding $80 million, Plaintiff routinely has stonewalled our efforts to obtain basic information about the nature of the alleged defamation and the scope of her alleged damages. Plaintiff’s frustration of our discovery efforts has impeded our ability to prepare a defense. Illustrative is Interrogatory No. 6, propounded on Plaintiff in Ms. Maxwell’s Second Set of Discovery Requests, which are at issue in this Motion. We are entitled to know each allegedly defamatory statement that is the subject of this lawsuit. Plaintiff and her counsel have alleged 1 Seven months after claiming she had suffered $5 million in “past and future lost wages” and “past and future los[t] … earning capacity and actual earnings,” Plaintiff on June 24, 2016, abruptly withdrew all claims for alleged lost wages, earning capacity and “actual earnings.” Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 40 2 that Ms. Maxwell has published “numerous” false statements, yet Plaintiff stubbornly refuses to identify each of these allegedly false statements. Interrogatory No. 6 asked simply that for each allegedly false statement, Plaintiff “identify … the exact false statement.” True to form, Plaintiff identified only statements referenced in her Complaint and refused to provide any other “exact false statement[s]” allegedly published by Ms. Maxwell. ARGUMENT This Motion concerns improper objections and evasive and other improper responses to six interrogatories, eleven requests for admissions, and six requests for production of documents. See Menninger Decl., Ex. B (Plaintiff’s Responses and Objections to Ms. Maxwell’s Second Set of Discovery Requests). The Court should compel Plaintiff to: x submit responsive answers to the interrogatories, and identify what information, if any is being withheld on the basis of which objection; x answer the requests for admissions in compliance with Rule 36(a)(4); x for each objection to a request to produce, identify what documents are being withheld on the basis of which objection; and x produce all documents that are the subject of requests for production at issue in this Motion. We respectfully submit that Plaintiff’s responses were not made in good faith and the objections were not interposed in good faith and, accordingly, the Court should award Ms. Maxwell reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing this Motion. I. Plaintiff’s interrogatory responses are deficient. Interrogatory No. 5. Identify each Communication that You or Your Attorneys have had with any author, reporter, correspondent, columnist, writer, commentator, investigative journalist, 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; Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 40 3 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: Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Rule 33 as its subparts, in combination with the other interrogatories, exceed the allowable twenty-five interrogatories. Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product protections, and any other applicable privilege or protection as stated in the General Objections. Ms. Giuffre further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome as it is not limited in time, manner, or subject matter. The request is grossly over broad in that it does not require the communication to have any connection with Ms. Giuffre or this case whatsoever. Indeed, a response to this interrogatory would require each of Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys to research and find any communication they have ever had with a journalist, for every year of their practice, regardless of what case was involved, and regardless of what year the communication was made. Ms. Giuffre’s attorney’s, collectively, have worked on hundreds (if not thousands) of matters, and collectively have well over 100 years of combined practice experience. Accordingly, a request that each of these attorneys list all communications with the media is facially overbroad. Additionally, Ms. Giuffre objects to this Interrogatory because a response would cause Ms. Giuffre the incredible and undue burden of having to catalogue literally hundreds of communications that she has already produced in this case. Moreover, Ms. Giuffre objects because this interrogatory calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Communications with the media regarding cases that bear no relation to the subject matter of this case, from decades in the past, are facially invalid and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Giuffre additionally objects to the extent that this interrogatory seeks the communications of her attorneys, any author, reporter, correspondent, columnist, writer, commentator, investigative journalist, photojournalist, newspaper person, freelance reporter, stringer, or any other employee of any media organization or Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 40 4 independent consultant as such interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Furthermore, Ms. Giuffre is not obligated to produce anything currently in the possession of Defendant Maxwell or her attorneys. Notwithstanding such objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced her responsive communications, which are found in documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE007566. Objection 1.2 The interrogatory does not exceed the limit. Plaintiff alleged Interrogatory No. 5 exceeds the 25-interrogatory limit. Plaintiff is wrong. She failed to take into account that the Second Set of Discovery Requests merely repeated five (5) interrogatories that were propounded in the First Set of Discovery Requests. Defendant objected in her Responses to the First Set on the ground the interrogatories were propounded prematurely. Plaintiff double-counted those interrogatories. Second, Plaintiff’s argument is wrong because she counted every subpart as a separate interrogatory, regardless of whether all the subparts are related by subject matter. That is an improper way to count interrogatories. Rule 33(a)(1) itself provides that for a subpart to count as a separate interrogatory, it must be “discrete.” Among the courts that have dealt with this issue, “there has developed a common denominator on how to weigh an interrogatory’s subparts as independent and discrete.” Bartnick v. CSX Transp., No. 1:11-CV-1120 GLS/TRF, 2012 WL 1565057, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2012). An interrogatory’s subparts are to be counted as separate and discrete subparts only “if they are not logically or factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the primary question,” id. (citing cases). Further, Local Rule 26.3(c) provides a uniform meaning of “identify” with respect to persons and documents and requiring the “type,” date, addressee and recipient of documents or, alternatively, production of same and as to persons, the name, addresses and last known place of 2 Many of Plaintiff’s objections were repeated for numerous interrogatory responses. To avoid repetition in this Motion, we number each discrete objection serially. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 40 5 employment. Here, each of the interrogatories—even those like No. 5 with subparts— propounded by Ms. Maxwell constitute a single interrogatory under Rule 33(a)(1). Objection 2. Plaintiff’s unreasonable reading of the interrogatory. Plaintiff objected that the interrogatory is not limited in “time, manner or subject matter.” The objection is not well taken. Local Rule 26.4(b) provides in part that “[d]iscovery requests shall be read reasonably” (emphasis supplied). So read, this interrogatory is limited to communications Plaintiff and her attorneys have had with media representatives concerning the subject matter of this lawsuit. Notably, setting aside Plaintiff’s unreasonable interpretation of the interrogatory, Plaintiff provided no responsive answer whatsoever. Plaintiff also argued that with respect to her attorneys the interrogatory required the attorneys to disclose their communications with media representatives “for every year of their practice, regardless of what case was involved, and regardless of what year the communication was made.” That is an unreasonable—absurd—interpretation of the interrogatory. Objection 3. There is no undue burden. Plaintiff objected that the interrogatory imposes upon her an “undue burden” because she would have to “catalogue literally hundreds of communications that she has already produced in this case.” So long as Plaintiff admitted—as she does—that her and her attorneys’ communications with media representatives regarding the subject matter of this lawsuit are relevant, she cannot complain of an “undue burden” because she and her attorneys have communicated “hundreds” of times with media representatives. Such an unreasonable view of the law would permit a party to resist providing relevant information by claiming she has too much relevant information. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 40 6 Objection 4. The requested information is relevant. Piggybacking on Objection 2, Plaintiff objected that “Communications with the media regarding cases that bear no relation to the subject matter of this case, from decades in the past, are … not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” (emphasis supplied). As already discussed, the interrogatory requested information about Plaintiff’s and her attorneys’ communications with media representatives concerning the subject matter of this action. Plaintiff and her attorney’s communications with the media are directly relevant to numerous defenses available to Ms. Maxwell, including without limitation, her self-defense privilege, whether Plaintiff is a limited public figure, Ms. Maxwell’s right to fair comment, that Ms. Maxwell’s comments did not affect Plaintiff’s reputation, Plaintiff’s contributory negligence, Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate, and Plaintiff’s damages are the proximate result of her own conduct or the conduct of others. Objection 5. No privilege applies. Plaintiff has interposed the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine.3 It is inconceivable that Plaintiff or her attorneys have a good faith basis to interpose the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine over their communications with media representatives. In any event, they have failed to explain any factual basis for interposing the privilege or doctrine. 3 Plaintiff also attempted to interpose “any” objection listed in her “general objections.” In her “general objections” Plaintiff asserted—generally and redundantly—“any applicable privilege, including but not limited to, attorney client privilege, work product privilege, joint defense privilege, public interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege [sic].” Such a broad, general and generic assertion of privilege is ineffective to preserve any privilege, even if one existed. P. & B. Marina, Ltd. P’ship v. Logrande, 136 F.R.D. 50, 54 (E.D.N.Y. 1991) (“A general allegation or blanket assertion that the privilege should apply is insufficient to warrant protection.”), aff’d sub nom. P&B Marina Ltd. v. LoGrande, 983 F.2d 1047 (2d Cir. 1992). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 40 7 Plaintiff’s deficient answer. “Notwithstanding” her objections, Plaintiff “answered” by referring the defense to 7,566 pages of documents (“Ms. Giuffre has already produced her responsive communications, which are found in documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE007566.”). The vast majority of these documents do not contain any communications between Plaintiff and her lawyers, on the one hand, and media representatives, on the other. The answer is improper. See, e.g., In re Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair Sys. Prod. Liab. Litig., No. MDL 2327, 2013 WL 8744561, at *3 (S.D.W. Va. July 26, 2013) (finding interrogatory responses insufficient where they instructed plaintiffs to search mass of documents for requested information); Nickerman v. Remco Hydraulics, Inc., No. C 06-2555SI, 2007 WL 3407437, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2007) (“Despite repeated admonitions against doing so, plaintiffs continue to provide general and vague responses and to direct defendants to masses of documents…. Neither defendants nor the Court should be expected to comb through literally thousands of pages of documents searching for documents that might support plaintiffs’ IIED claims.”). Interrogatory No. 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: Ms. Giuffre objects because the information interrogatory above is in the possession of Defendant who has failed to comply with her production obligations Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 40 8 in this matter, and has failed to comply with her production obligations with this very subject matter. See Document Request No. 17 from Ms. Giuffre’s Second Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell.1 Maxwell has not produced all “URL or Internet addresses for any internet version of such publication” that she directed her agent, Ross Gow, to send. Ms. Giuffre further objects because the information requested above is in the possession of Defendant’s agent, who caused the false statements to be issued to various media outlets. Ms. Giuffre has not had the opportunity to depose Maxwell’s agent Ross Gow; therefore, this answer remains incomplete. Consequently, Ms. Giuffre reserves the right to modify and/or supplement her responses, as information is largely in the possession of the Defendant and her agent. Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Rule 33 as its subparts, in combination with the other interrogatories, exceed the allowable twenty-five interrogatories. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request because it is in the public domain. Ms. Giuffre also objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client/work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege stated in the General Objections. Notwithstanding such objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced her responsive communications, which are found in documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE007566. Objection 6. Plaintiff cannot answer by stating that Ms. Maxwell already has the information. Plaintiff “object[ed]” to the interrogatory because the answer to the interrogatory, she alleged, “is in the possession of [Ms. Maxwell]” and her agent, or “is in the public domain.” Such an objection is improper: [T]o the extent defendant objects that certain requests … seek information equally available to plaintiff, “courts have unambiguously stated that this exact objection is insufficient to resist a discovery request.” St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd., CNA v. Commercial Fin. Corp., 198 F.R.D. 508, 514 (N.D. Iowa 2000); see also City Consumer Servs., Inc. v. Horne, 100 F.R.D. 740, 747 (D. Utah 1983) (“It is ‘not usually a ground for objection that the information is equally available to the interrogator or is a matter of public record.’” (citation omitted)); United States v. 58.16 Acres of Land, 66 F.R.D. 570, 573 (E.D. Ill.1975) (“Generally, an interrogatory is proper although the information sought is equally available to both parties.”). Thus, plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to Interrogatory no. 13 should be granted. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 40 9 National Acad. of Recording Arts & Scis., Inc. v. On Point Events, LP, 256 F.R.D. 678, 682 (C.D. Cal. 2009). Subpart objection. Plaintiff argued Ms. Maxwell’s interrogatories exceed the limit. This already is addressed above in the discussion of Objection 1. Objection 7. No privilege applies. Plaintiff objected that the information requested in the interrogatory is “protected by the attorney-client/work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege.” The assertion of privilege is frivolous. The interrogatory requested the false statements that Plaintiff attributes to Ms. Maxwell and that were published anywhere in the world. These statements are the very subject of this lawsuit. No such statement is subject to a privilege belonging to Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s deficient answer. “Notwithstanding” her objections, Plaintiff answered by referring the defense to the documents she previously had produced “Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE007566.” As discussed above, it is improper to answer an interrogatory by referring to an undifferentiated mass of documents. Plaintiff also “supplement[ed]” her answer with a “list of publications.” This answer is non-responsive. The interrogatory required Plaintiff, among other things, to provide each “exact false statement” that she attributes to Ms. Maxwell and that was published anywhere in the world. This entire case centers on Plaintiff’s claim that Ms. Maxwell published false statements about Plaintiff and now Plaintiff refuses to identify those statements. The question is not whether Ms. Maxwell knows what statements have been made in the press; the question is which statements does Plaintiff contend are false. ■ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 40 10 Interrogatory No. 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; 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: Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Rule 33 as its subparts, in combination with the other interrogatories, exceed the allowable twenty-five interrogatories. Ms. Giuffre also objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client/work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege stated in the General Objections. Without waiving the aforementioned objections, Alan Dershowitz published statements about Ms. Giuffre in January 2015 and thereafter that remain in the public realm. Ms. Giuffre does not have knowledge as to every time and place that she was defamed by Dershowitz, and she is not required to provide such an exhaustive list as all relevant instances of defamation are available through public sources, and identification of the numerous publically made statements would be unduly burdensome. Furthermore, upon information and belief, all defamatory statements made towards Ms. Giuffre by Dershowitz are within the knowledge and possession of Maxwell and her attorneys or can be easily obtained by contacting Dershowitz. Subpart objection. This is addressed above in the discussion of Objection 1. Privilege assertion. This is addressed above in the discussion of Objection 7. For the same reasons discussed there, this interrogatory does not request any privileged information. It is inconceivable that a statement about Plaintiff that allegedly is false and published would be protected from discovery by a privilege held by Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s deficient answer. “Notwithstanding” her objections, Plaintiff purported to answer the interrogatory. The answer is woefully deficient. She answered that she had been Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 40 11 defamed by Alan Dershowitz, but she failed to provide any information about the allegedly defamatory statements made by Mr. Dershowitz. For example, she failed to disclose “[t]he exact false statement[s]” made by Mr. Dershowitz, the date of the publication, the publishing entity, and the other information required in the interrogatory. As justification for her failure to answer the interrogatory fully, Plaintiff argued she “does not have knowledge as to every time and place that she was defamed by Dershowitz.” That argument is meritless. This interrogatory required Plaintiff to disclose her knowledge as to each of the interrogatory’s subparts. She improperly failed to disclose this information. Plaintiff argued that “identification of the numerous publically [sic] made statements would be unduly burdensome.” She also argued that Mr. Dershowitz’s defamatory statements “are within the knowledge and possession of [Ms. Maxwell] and her attorneys or can be easily obtained by contacting [Mr. Dershowitz].” Neither was a responsive answer. To the extent they were offered as objections, they are meritless. See National Acad. of Recording Arts & Scis., 256 F.R.D. at 682 (cited in discussion of Objection 5). Interrogatory No. 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: - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 40 12 Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Rule 33 as its subparts, in combination with the other interrogatories, exceed the allowable twenty-five interrogatories. Ms. Giuffre also objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client/work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege stated in the General Objections. Ms. Giuffre refers to the list of witnesses identified in her Revised Rule 26 Disclosures. Also, notwithstanding previously-noted objections, Ms. Giuffre testified in Edwards v. Cassell, Broward County Case Number CACE 15-000072 on January 16, 2016, regarding the subject matter requested. See GIUFFRE005094- GIUFFRE007566. Ms. Giuffre additionally testified regarding the subject matter requested in this interrogatory on in the above-captioned case in her deposition on May 3, 2016. Additionally, Ms. Giuffre was trafficked to other individuals whose name she never learned or whose names she does not remember. Identification of any other individuals would be irrelevant and unduly burdensome. Moreover, as specifically provided in Rule 33.3(b), “[d]uring discovery, interrogatories other than those seeking information described in paragraph (a) [] 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.” Because Ms. Giuffre has provided an answer to this interrogatory in her deposition, which was a more practical method of obtaining the information sought, this interrogatory is improper under the Local Rules as well as wholly duplicative. Subpart objection. This is addressed above in the discussion of Objection 1. Privilege assertion. This is addressed above in the discussion of Objection 6. It is inconceivable that any privilege applies to the identities of individuals to whom Plaintiff alleges she was sexually trafficked. This is a frivolous assertion of privilege. Plaintiff’s deficient answer. Instead of identifying individuals as required by the interrogatory, Plaintiff instead “refer[red]” to her Rule 26 disclosures, her testimony in a Florida state case, and her earlier deposition in this case. This is non-responsive and evasive, in violation of Rule 37(a)(3). See, e.g., Public Storage v. Sprint Corp., No. CV 14-2594-GW PLAX, 2015 WL 1057923, at *17 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2015) (“Plaintiffs may not answer the interrogatory by generally referring Defendant to the pleadings filed in this case, documents produced, opt-in questionnaires, depositions, or declarations…. [A] responding party may not answer an interrogatory by directing the party propounding the interrogatory to find answers from Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 40 13 previously produced documents or identified witness lists.”), appeal dismissed (Mar. 30, 2016); Smith v. Trawler Capt. Alfred, Inc., No. 2:12-CV-2866-DCN, 2014 WL 1912067, at *3 (D.S.C. May 13, 2014) (“Smith’s cursory references to the pleadings, his deposition, and his medical records are not responsive answers to defendants’ interrogatories.”); DirectTV, Inc. v. Puccinelli, 224 F.R.D. 677, 680 (D. Kan. 2004) (“defendant may not direct plaintiffs to find answers from previously produced documents or identified witness lists”) (internal quotations omitted). Interrogatory No. 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: Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory because it violates this Court’s Order. The Court has excluded the production of medical records from prior to 1999, stating, “the damage issue relates, in my view, solely to the defamation.” (April 21, 2016, Hearing Transcript at 20:23-24). This holding applies to pre-1999 medical records. As this interrogatory is not limited to the time period ordered by this Court, Ms. Giuffre objects. Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory in that it is overbroad and not limited in scope to the medical information relating to the abuse she suffered from Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein. Ms. Giuffre objects because Rule 26 does not allow discovery that is so burdensome as to require a Herculean effort by an adult to track down every possible prescription ever written for Ms. Giuffre, or every physician who ever treated Ms. Giuffre, even as a small child. Such a request is not only impractical Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 40 14 and unduly burdensome, but likely impossible. Accordingly, such an interrogatory is merely for the purpose of imposing a burden on Ms. Giuffre and her attorneys, not to mention the purposes of harassment. Pursuant to the Rules, if requested documents are not yielded in a “reasonable inquiry,” Ms. Giuffre is not obligated to expend all of her time and resources on a quest to gather medical files from her birth to the present to find any prescriptions ever written for her for anything at all.[4] Ms. Giuffre is not certain as to her the sum of her medical expenses from 1999 to the present, and therefore is unable to answer that subpart. Ms. Giuffre is not aware of what health insurance carrier or other organization paid for her historical medical expenses unless it is identified on the records produced to the Defendant. Finally, Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the doctor-patient privilege, and any other applicable privilege stated in the General Objections. Ms. Giuffre further objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Rule 33 as its subparts, in combination with the other interrogatories, exceed the allowable twenty-five interrogatories. Ms. Giuffre further objects to this request in that it is overbroad and seeks confidential medical information of a sex abuse victim and is not limited in scope to the issues in this case. Without waiving such objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced her responsive documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE007566, and supplements such documents as follows….[5] Objection 8. Pre-1999 medical records are discoverable. Plaintiff had requested damages allegedly suffered from being the “victim of sex trafficking” dating back to 1999. On April 21, 2016, the Court ruled that Plaintiff’s damages are limited to harm from the alleged defamation. Regarding Ms. Maxwell’s request for records pre-dating 1999, the Court said: “As for the pre-’99 medical records, based on where we are at the moment, I do not believe that those are relevant … [b]ecause the damage issue relates … solely to the defamation.” Tr. 20:21-24 (Apr. 21, 2016). Plaintiff objected to this interrogatory on the ground it requested pre-1999 medical information in “violat[ion]” of the Court’s ruling. The objection should be overruled. The issue 4 Plaintiff’s voluminous arguments and argumentative citations to case law—inserted into her multi-page “objections”—are omitted in this Motion. 5 Immediately following this paragraph was a tabular chart listing names of healthcare providers, the healthcare provided, Plaintiff’s counsel’s efforts undertaken to obtain records, and documents produced to the defense. On July 29, 2016, Plaintiff supplemented the chart. The supplementation did not cure the deficiencies. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 40 15 before the court in April concerned discovery of Plaintiff’s medical records because those records bore on her claim she had suffered “sex trafficking” damages. Interrogatory No. 13 does not seek medical information for that purpose. Plaintiff has alleged she has suffered more than $30 million in noneconomic damages from the allege defamation; she intends to request an additional $50 million in punitive damages related at least in part on the alleged conduct that caused the noneconomic damages. The defense intends to show that Plaintiff for financial and other improper reasons manufactured her allegations of “sex trafficking” and created from whole cloth her alleged $30 million in noneconomic damages from “defamation.” Some of the most relevant and material evidence concerns pre-1999 medical records and information, which contradict some of Plaintiff’s sworn testimony about the alleged “sex trafficking.” For example, Plaintiff has testified Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell subjected her to sex trafficking in 1998. Yet, in 1998 Plaintiff was an inpatient resident at a drug rehabilitation facility. As another example, Plaintiff has alleged that Ms. Maxwell’s denial in 2015 of Plaintiff’s allegations of sex trafficking caused her to ingest ever greater quantities of anti-anxiety and other prescription medications, for which Plaintiff is seeking noneconomic damages. Yet, Plaintiff’s pre-1999 medical records will establish that Plaintiff was a longtime drug addict—addicted to prescription and other drugs. Additionally, based on Plaintiff’s claims of having suffered $30 million in mental pain and anguish, among other noneconomic damages, Ms. Maxwell is entitled to pre-1999 medical records to establish the mental and emotional baseline for Plaintiff and to determine her preexisting mental and emotional condition, since under no circumstances is Ms. Maxwell liable for Plaintiff’s preexisting mental and emotional condition. See, e.g., Bauman v. 2810026 Canada Ltd., No. 15-CV-374A(F), 2016 WL 402645, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2016); Pokigo v. Target - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 40 16 Corp., 2014 WL 6885905, at **2-3 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2014) (plaintiff’s preexisting mental and physical conditions relevant to plaintiff’s damage claim); Bruno v. CSX Transp., Inc., 262 F.R.D. 131, 133-34 (W.D.N.Y. 2009) (granting discovery of plaintiff’s medical records relating to plaintiff’s substance abuse and mental health treatment where disclosure was likely to reveal evidence of alternative or intervening causes for the damages claimed by plaintiff). Objection 9. The interrogatory is not overbroad. The interrogatory required Plaintiff to identify healthcare providers who treated her for specified conditions, e.g., mental conditions and addiction, “prior to” any alleged defamation of her by Ms. Maxwell. Plaintiff’s “overbreadth” objection argued that the interrogatory was not “limited in scope to the medical information relating to the abuse she suffered from Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein.” The premise is wrong. Plaintiff, who is suing for more than $80 million in damages and who claims to have suffered more than $30 million in noneconomic damages, including “pain and suffering,” cannot be heard to complain about an interrogatory requesting the identities of healthcare providers who treated her before the alleged defamation-related injuries. Plaintiff’s pre-defamation physical and mental condition is the baseline for her claim for damages and is therefore highly relevant. See, e.g., This Mot., at 15-16 (citing cases). The interrogatory is not unduly burdensome. We incorporate here the discussion above on Objection 3, and supplement as follows. Plaintiff implicitly concedes that her physical and mental condition before the alleged defamation is relevant to this lawsuit. Her complaint about burdensomeness suggests only that her “pre-defamation” physical and mental condition was so complex or required so much medical attention that it would be unduly burdensome for her to “track down” all her medical providers. The simple answer is twofold. One, relevant and Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 40 17 discoverable information does not become immune from discovery or “unduly burdensome” because there is a lot of it. Two, when a plaintiff alleges, as here, that she has suffered more than $30 million in physical and mental injury from an allegedly defamatory denial of her claim of sex trafficking, the defense is entitled to know her physical and mental condition before and after the alleged defamation. Relatedly, Plaintiff argued that if she has made a “reasonable inquiry,” she cannot be required to “expend all of her time and resources on a quest to gather medical files.” To begin with, the interrogatory does not require Plaintiff to “gather medical files.” Additionally, the interrogatory does not require Plaintiff to expend “all of her time and resources” to gather documents, and Plaintiff has not done so. Finally, although Plaintiff has provided the identity of some healthcare providers, it is far from clear she has made a “reasonable inquiry” required by the interrogatory. No privilege applies. The assertion of the doctor-patient privilege is frivolous. The identities of Plaintiff’s healthcare providers are not subject to privilege. Regardless, Plaintiff has placed her physical and mental condition and the identities of those who treated her condition in issue by alleging $50 million worth of physical and mental injuries. Subpart objection. This is addressed above in the discussion of Objection 1. Plaintiff’s deficient answer. “Without waiving [her] objections,” Plaintiff answered she “has already produced her responsive documents” and referred the defense to 7,566 pages of undifferentiated documents. The answer is non-responsive. Interrogatory 13 is not a request for production of documents. Additionally, as discussed above at page 7 of this Motion, it is improper for a party to answer an interrogatory by reference to an undifferentiated mass of documents. ■ - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 40 18 By way of example only, Plaintiff’s mother, father, boyfriend, and ex-fiance all have testified that in 1998 and 1999, . Further, Plaintiff has claimed as losses “medical expenses of ‘not less than’ $100,000,” yet her interrogatory response states simply that she “is not certain as to her the sum of her medical expenses from 1999 to the present, and therefore is unable to answer that subpart. Ms. Giuffre is not aware of what health insurance carrier or other organization paid for her historical medical expenses.” This is non-responsive. It is insufficient to claim that one is “not certain” of the answers as to medical expenses when she is seeking ‘not less than’ $100,000 in damages from that category. Interrogatory No. 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: Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it is overbroad and invades Ms. Giuffre right to privacy (including her constitutionally-protected right of privacy) by seeking confidential information relating to the sexual abuse of a minor 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, and for a period when she was a minor child. The Court has excluded the production of medical records from prior to 1999, stating, “the damage issue relates, in my view, solely to the defamation.” (April 21, 2016, Hearing Transcript at 20:23-24). This holding applies equally to pre-1999 sexual assault…. Additionally, it has become increasingly clear that Defendant’s counsel is seeking these documents for the improper purpose of harassment …. Ms. Giuffre also objects to this request because such events would have taken place in Florida, and information relating to those events is protected from Jane Doe 2 - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 40 19 disclosure by law. Florida statutes protect “[a]ny information in a videotaped statement of a minor who is alleged to be or who is a victim of sexual battery . . . which reveals that minor’s identity.” Fla. Stat. § 119.071. Additionally, Fla. Stat. 985.036 protects records where a juvenile is a victim of a crime. Further, Section 794.026, Fla. Stat., creates a civil right of action against an individual who communicates to others, identifying information concerning the victim of a sexual offense. Additionally, Second, Fla. Stat. § 985.04 and Fla. Stat. § 985.054 make juvenile law enforcement records confidential from members of the public, and states that information obtained by a law enforcement agent participating in the assessment of a juvenile is confidential. Finally, certain of the police reports implicate Ms. Giuffre’s involvement with the Florida Department of Children and Families, see e.g., GM_00750, and if such reports are part of the State’s Department of Children and Families’ records, they are confidential pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 39.202(6). Accordingly, Ms. Giuffre objects to this request …. Ms. Giuffre additionally 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. Ms. Giuffre objects on the basis that Defendant is not entitled to a full￾scale production of everything that has happened throughout the entire course of her life time [sic], particularly the time sought in this request which predates Defendant’s meeting and abuse of Ms. Giuffre…. Furthermore, discovery concerning Ms. Giuffre’s prior sexual assault is not relevant to the claim at issue in this case, the defenses at issue, or the damages claimed, and therefore well outside the scope of discovery permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26…. Giving testimony on such irrelevant, but painful, topics would be extraordinarily embarrassing, oppressive, and traumatic for Ms. Giuffre, and it is wholly irrelevant to any party’s claim or defense. Accordingly, such discovery is not sought in good faith. This request is particularly improper as it cannot conceivably lead to admissible evidence…. Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Rule 33 as it, in combination with the other interrogatories, exceed the allowable twenty-five interrogatories. Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client/work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege stated in the General Objections. Additionally, to the extent that it is available to Ms. Giuffre, all of this information is already in the possession of Maxwell as she obtained and produced police reports regarding Ms. Giuffre, which Ms. Giuffre did not have in her possession. Ms. Giuffre was also questioned for seven hours in her May 3, 2016, deposition by Defendant’s attorney…. Objection 10. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 22 of 40 20 Plaintiff has no valid “privacy” objection. This interrogatory requested the identity of individuals who Plaintiff believes “subjected [her] to, or with whom [she] engaged in, any illegal or inappropriate sexual contact, conduct or assault prior to June 1999,” and basic information relating to such improper actions, e.g., date, whether a police report was filed. None of this illegal or inappropriate sexual contact, conduct or assault is within the right to privacy. To the extent any right of privacy is applicable, the Court’s Protective Order affords Plaintiff all the privacy to which she is entited. Objection 11. There is no “harassment.” Federal Rule of Evidence 412, commonly referred to as the rape-shield law, does not apply in a defamation action such as this where the evidence would be offered to show that the alleged defamatory statements are true or did not damage plaintiff’s reputation. See Advisory Committee Notes, 1994 Amendments, Federal Rule of Evidence 412 (“in a defamation action involving statements concerning sexual misconduct in which the evidence is offered to show that the alleged defamatory statements were true or did not damage the plaintiff’s reputation, neither Rule 404 nor this rule will operate to bar the evidence”). Certainly, if evidence of prior alleged sexual assaults (whether unfounded or not) are admissible in this action, ipso facto they are discoverable under the standards of Rule 26 previously articulated. Plaintiff has alleged Ms. Maxwell’s denial of Plaintiff’s allegations of sex trafficking caused her to suffer in excess of $30 million in compensatory damages. There is an abundance of evidence suggesting that well before she met Ms. Maxwell, Plaintiff had engaged in illegal sex activities or falsely claimed she was the victim of illegal sex activities. Information relating to Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 23 of 40 21 this subject is hardly harassing. To the contrary, it constitutes evidence relevant to the defense of this action. Objection 12. No law bars a responsive answer to this interrogatory. Plaintiff argued that Florida laws bar the interrogatory and relieve her of the obligation to provide a responsive answer. This is a frivolous argument. The Florida laws prohibit Florida agencies from disclosing certain information about sexual assault victims. Plaintiff is not a state agency. None of the laws is relevant to this action, where a defamation plaintiff claiming to be the victim of sexual trafficking sues a defendant for reputational injury and is required in discovery to provide information about illegal sex activities. Subpart objection. This is addressed above in the discussion of Objection 1. No privilege applies. The discussion above relating to Objection 6 applies here. None of Plaintiff’s illegal sex activities, whether she was a willing participant or a victim, is cloaked with any privilege. Plaintiff’s deficient answer. Plaintiff suggested she is not required to answer because the requested information “is already in the possession of [Ms. Maxwell].” As discussed on page 8 of this Motion, a party may not resist a discovery request by asserting that the party seeking discovery “already is in possession” of the requested information. II. Plaintiff’s answers to the requests for admission are deficient. Plaintiff’s responses to the following requests for admissions are deficient: RFA No. 1. Admit that you were not 15 years old when you first met Ghislaine Maxwell. Response: Denied in part. At the time Ms. Giuffre made the statement, many years after the events occurred, she firmly believed she was 15 years old when she was Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 24 of 40 22 recruited away from her job at Mar-a-Lago by Ghislaine Maxwell. She later obtained some records from Mar-a-Lago which indicated that she was employed there during the year 2000. From January, 2000 through August 9, 2000, she was 16 years old; from August 9, 2000 through December 2000 she was 17 years old. While she now knows, based on this discovery, that she was not 15 years old, she now has conclusive proof that she was an underage minor when Ghislaine Maxwell approached her, recruited her, introduced her to Jeffrey Epstein, and sexually trafficked her as an underage minor. RFA No. 2. Admit that you were not 15 years old when you first met Jeffrey Epstein. Response: Denied in part. At the time Ms. Giuffre made the statement, many years after the events occurred, she firmly believed she was 15 years old when she was recruited away from her job at Mar-a-Lago by Ghislaine Maxwell. She later obtained some records from Mar-a-Lago which indicated that she was employed there during the year 2000. From January, 2000 through August 9, 2000, she was 16 years old; from august 9, 2000 through December 2000 she was 17 years old. While she now knows, based on this discovery, that she was not 15 years old, she now has conclusive proof that she was an underage minor when Ghislaine Maxwell approached her, recruited her, introduced her to Jeffrey Epstein, and sexually trafficked her as an underage minor. RFA No. 3. Admit that you were not 15 years old at the time you claim you were sexually trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. Response: Denied in part. At the time Ms. Giuffre made the statement, many years after the events occurred, she firmly believed she was 15 years old when she was recruited away from her job at Mar-a-Lago by Ghislaine Maxwell. She later obtained some records from Mar-a-Lago which indicated that she was employed there during the year 2000. From January, 2000 through August 9, 2000, she was 16 years old; from August 9, 2000 through December 2000 she was 17 years old. While she now knows, based on this discovery, that she was not 15 years old, she now has conclusive proof that she was an underage minor when Ghislaine Maxwell approached her, recruited her, introduced her to Jeffrey Epstein, and sexually trafficked her as an underage minor. RFA No. 4. Admit that Ghislaine Maxwell did not celebrate your 16th birthday with You. Response: Denied in part. At the time Ms. Giuffre made the statement, many years after the events occurred, she firmly believed she was 15 years old when she was recruited away from her job at Mar-a-Lago by Ghislaine Maxwell. She later obtained some records from Mar-a-Lago which indicated that she was employed Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 25 of 40 23 there during the year 2000. From January, 2000 through August 9, 2000, she was 16 years old; from August 9, 2000 through December 2000 she was 17 years old. While she now knows, based on this discovery, that she was not 15 years old, she now has conclusive proof that she was an underage minor when Ghislaine Maxwell approached her, recruited her, introduced her to Jeffrey Epstein, and sexually trafficked her as an underage minor. While she now knows, based on this discovery, that it could not have been her 16th birthday that Ghislaine celebrated, she now has conclusive proof that she was an underage minor when Ghislaine Maxwell approached and recruited her for illegal purposes, and she remembers celebrating a birthday with Ghislaine Maxwell. RFA No. 5. Admit that Ghislaine Maxwell did not make a joke on your 16th birthday after You blew out an array of candles and said You “would be soon getting too old for Jeffrey’s taste, and soon they’d have to trade me in.” Response: Denied in part. At the time Ms. Giuffre made the statement, many years after the events occurred, she firmly believed she was 15 years old when she was recruited away from her job at Mar-a-Lago by Ghislaine Maxwell. She later obtained some records from Mar-a-Lago which indicated that she was employed there during the year 2000. From January, 2000 through august 9, 2000, she was 16 years old; from august 9, 2000 through December 2000 she was 17 years old. While she now knows, based on this discovery, that she was not 15 years old, she now has conclusive proof that she was an underage minor when Ghislaine Maxwell approached her, recruited her, introduced her to Jeffrey Epstein, and sexually trafficked her as an underage minor. While she now knows, based on this discovery, that it was not her 16th birthday that she celebrated with Ghislaine Maxwell, she now has conclusive proof that she was an underage minor when Ghislaine Maxwell approached and recruited me for illegal purposes, and she remember celebrating a birthday with Ghislaine Maxwell, during which she made the referenced joke. RFA No. 6. Admit that you did not work at Mar-a-Lago when you were 15 years old Response: Denied in part. At the time Ms. Giuffre made the statement, many years after the events occurred, she firmly believed she was 15 years old when she was recruited away from her job at Mar-a-Lago by Ghislaine Maxwell. She later obtained some records from Mar-a-Lago which indicated that she was employed there during the year 2000. From January, 2000 through August 9, 2000, she was 16 years old; from August 9, 2000 through December 2000 she was 17 years old. While she now knows, based on this discovery, that she was not 15 years old, she now has conclusive proof that she was an underage minor when Ghislaine Maxwell approached her, recruited her, introduced her to Jeffrey Epstein, and sexually trafficked her as an underage minor. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 26 of 40 24 RFA No. 7. Admit that you did not work for Jeffrey Epstein for four years. Response: Denied in part. At the time she made the statement, many years after the events occurred, and based purely from memory without the assistance of any documents, she firmly believed she was with Jeffrey Epstein over a four year period. With the assistance of various records obtained after she made that statement, she now knows that she was not with Jeffrey Epstein for four years. She was sent to Thailand by Jeffrey Epstein in September 2002 and that was the last time she saw him. RFA No. 8. Admit that You did not spend four years as an underage sex slave for Jeffrey Epstein. Response: Denied in part. At the time she made the statement, many years after the events occurred and based purely from memory without the assistance of any documents, she firmly believed she was with Jeffrey Epstein over a four year period. With the assistance of various records obtained after she made that statement, she now knows that she was not with Jeffrey Epstein for four years; however she was a sex slave for Jeffrey Epstein for years. RFA No. 13. Admit that You never observed Al Gore on the island of Little St. James. Response: Denied in part. Her memory from 15 or more years ago is that it was on the island where she met Mr. Gore, although she has testified that she could have been incorrect on that location. While traveling with Epstein and Maxwell, she met so many people and was taken to so many places as a minor that perfect recall of exact locations is difficult, but based on her best recollection, denied. In Request for Admissions Nos. 1-8 and 13, Plaintiff answered “[d]enied in part” and then provided a narrative that implicitly admitted the request for admission while explaining why she believed otherwise at an earlier time. None of these responses is proper. Rule 36(a)(4) provides in relevant part: If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 27 of 40 25 (emphasis supplied). Plaintiff denied only “a part of a matter” and therefore was required to “specify the part admitted.” In Request for Admissions Nos. 1-8 and 13, Plaintiff failed to specify any part that was admitted. Her answers violate Rule 36. Request for Admission No. 12. Admit that You never had a conversation with Bill Clinton regarding him flying with Ghislaine Maxwell in a helicopter. Response: Objection. Defendant Maxwell has clearly incorrectly interposed and comingled the facts which comprise the foundation of this request for admission. Ms. Giuffre has never alleged that she “had a conversation with Bill Clinton regarding him flying with Ghislaine Maxwell in a helicopter.” Instead, Ms. Giuffre has alleged, “I flew to the Caribbean with Jeffrey and then Ghislaine Maxwell went to pick up Bill [Clinton] in a huge black helicopter that Jeffrey had bought her.” Sara Nathan, Bill Clinton Pictured with Jeffrey Epstein’s Social Fixer, Daily Mail, (12 January 2015). As a threshold matter, a court must determine whether the statements set forth in a request for admissions satisfy the formal requirements of Rule 36 …. Consequently, Ms. Giuffre objects to answering this request for admission as it is based on “half-truths,” which make it impossible to answer without a qualified response. Plaintiff objected to this request for admission and provided no answer. That is improper. The request required Plaintiff to admit whether she had a conversation with President Clinton regarding him flying in a helicopter with Ms. Maxwell. Either she is able to admit this request in full or in part, or she is able to deny the request in full or in part, as Rule 36 requires. She may not object and refuse to admit or deny. III. Plaintiff’s responses to requests for production are deficient. RFP No. 1. All Communications and Documents identified in Interrogatories 5- 14, above. Response: Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney￾client/work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege stated in the General Objections. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request on the grounds that it is Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 28 of 40 26 wildly 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, as described more fully above in response to the interrogatories. For example, Interrogatory Number 5, would cover documents spanning over 100 years collectively from attorneys, and compliance with this production request would be literally impossible due to the untethered scope of the request. 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. No privilege applies. As discussed above in connection with Plaintiff’s assertion of privilege in her interrogatory responses, see, e.g., This Motion, at 9, no privilege applies to the information requested in Interrogatory Nos. 5-14. Nor does any privilege apply to the communications and documents identified in those interrogatories. The RFP is not overbroad. Plaintiff’s overbreadth objection appears to be the same as its overbreadth objection interposed in response to the interrogatories. For the reasons discussed in response to Plaintiff’s Objection 9, see This Motion, at 16, the objection is meritless. The RFP is not unduly burdensome. Plaintiff’s burdensomeness objection is premised on an unreasonable reading of the interrogatories. That objection is meritless. See This Motion, at 5. The RFP does not implicate Plaintiff’s right to privacy. As discussed above, see This Motion, at 20, Plaintiff has no right to privacy to the information requested in the interrogatories or to the related communications and documents. RFP No. 4. All Documents relating to any Communications between or among You or Your attorneys or any agent for You or Your attorneys, and any of the following individuals or with their attorneys, agents or representatives: a. Any witness disclosed in Plaintiff’s Rule 26(a) disclosures; b. Any witness disclosed in Defendant’s Rule 26(a) disclosures; c. Any witness identified by You in response to Interrogatory No. 8 and No. 14. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 29 of 40 27 Response: Ms. Giuffre objection to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome in that it is not limited in time, and it seeks documents relating to hundreds of individuals. Ms. Giuffre objects because compliance with this request is unduly burdensome. For example, this request seeks documents relating to over 100 individuals, and has no date or time limitations or subject matter limitations whatsoever. 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. Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client/work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege stated in the General Objections. Specifically, counsel’s communications with witnesses are protected under the work product doctrine. 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. Ms. Giuffre further objects as this request 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 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. Ms. Giuffre additionally objects to the extent that this request seeks the communications of her attorneys, as such request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. This is especially true given that certain attorneys for Ms. Giuffre additionally represent other individuals listed on the Rule 26 Disclosures in separate legal matters, and revelation of such communications would violate privileges that do not belong to Ms. Giuffre, but rather belong to other victims of sexual abuse who have not waived such privileges. Accordingly, Ms. Giuffre is withholding these documents from production based on her objections. Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE007566, which includes her communications with many of the individuals set forth in this request. However, producing documents with the additional, newly-added individuals would be overly burdensome, as there is no limitation as to time period, scope or subject-matter. The objections are meritless. As to burdensomeness, the relevance of the requested communications is obvious, as the witnesses all have information relevant to the factual issues in Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 30 of 40 28 this case. Plaintiff argued that the request encompasses “over 100” witnesses; notably, however, Plaintiff did not claim she and her attorneys have communicated with even 20, let alone 100, witnesses, nor has she disclosed the volume of documents actually implicated by this request; so Plaintiff has failed even to make a prima facie case of burdensomeness. As to “privacy,” no such right to privacy is implicated in this request; even if it were, the Court’s Protective Order more than adequately protects that right. As to assertions of privilege or immunity over any responsive document, to the extent any privilege or immunity applies, Plaintiff must comply with her duties under Local Rule 26.2 and Federal Rule 26(b)(5). The “objection” that Plaintiff has no duty to produce because the defense “already has” the requested documents is meritless. See This Motion, at 8 (citing cases). That Plaintiff’s attorneys represent or have represented other clients and have had non￾privileged, non-immunized communications with the witnesses described in the request is not a relevant fact for purposes of discovery in this case. So long as the Plaintiff and her attorneys have responsive documents, those documents must be produced. Plaintiff’s deficient response. Notwithstanding her objections, Plaintiff responded that she previously produced 7,566 documents, some of which, she said, include requested documents. That is a deficient response. In violation of Rule 34(b)(2)C), Plaintiff has failed to state whether she is withholding documents. Additionally, Plaintiff may not answer a Rule 34 request by referring the defense to a mass of undifferentiated documents. DirecTV, 224 F.R.D. at 682 (holding that Rule 34 response referring opponent to previous production was “improper”: “Plaintiff was required to identify the particular documents or to organize and label them to correspond to these specific requests. There is nothing in the record indicating that Plaintiff did so. Thus, Plaintiff’s partial responses to these requests did not comply with Rule 34(b).”). - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 31 of 40 29 RFP No. 9. All Documents concerning any Communications between You or Your attorneys and any witness in the case captioned Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Case No. 08-ev-80736-KAM, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (“CVRA” case). Response: Ms. Giuffre objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, particularly as it calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and because it would require the review of hundreds of thousands of documents which would take hours upon hours of attorney time. Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client/work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege stated in the General Objections. With regard to communications by Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys, this request seeks clearly privileged materials, because Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys represent not only Ms. Giuffre (Jane Doe 3) in the CVRA matter, but also Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doe 4. Any communications between the four Jane Does, via Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys, would be plainly be subject to attorney client protection, not to mention work product protection as well. With regard to contact with “witnesses,” the request is vague, unduly burdensome, and overbroad. The CVRA case centers on issues surrounding whether the U.S. Government failed to confer and otherwise protect the rights of victims (including Janes Does 1, 2, 3, and 4) during plea negotiations with Jeffrey Epstein. Accordingly, some of the main “witnesses” in the case are the Government prosecutors who handled the plea negotiations. Several of the same prosecutors who handled the plea negotiations are also involved in defending the CVRA case. The CVRA has been in litigation for nearly eight years, and there have extensive communications with the prosecutors (including communications concerning approximately 10,000 pages of documents that were requested by victims’ counsel and provided to Judge Marra for in camera review). The request appears designed to target all of these communications, and such communications, going back eight years, would necessitate a review of several hundreds of thousands of emails over that time to identify communications with the Government prosecutors. The burden would be substantial and the relevance would be essentially non-existent. Whatever communications Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys would have had with government prosecutors about CVRA notifications concerning a prosecution of Epstein would not shed light on whether Defendant Maxwell defames Ms. Giuffre in attacking her as, for example, a liar. Moreover, many materials related to this case remain under Judge Marra’s protective order. Accordingly, before Ms. Giuffre’s counsel could even have the option to release certain materials that the Government has provided to him as an attorney in the case, defendant Maxwell would have to approach Judge Marra and seek a modification of the protective order. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 32 of 40 30 The request is also vague because it is not clear precisely what “witnesses” Defendant Maxwell is concerned about. There have, for example, between communications between Ms. Giuffre’s lawyers and lawyers for Mr. Epstein and Mr. Dershowitz connected with procedural and other aspects of this case. Again, the relevance of such communications seems basically non-existent to the action. But because the case has spanned eight years, collecting such communications would be difficult and overly burdensome. Moreover, Defendant Maxwell has a close working relationship and/or joint defense arrangement with both Mr. Epstein and Mr. Dershowitz. There is no reason to burden Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys will collecting such communications when she can collect them in other ways. RFP No. 10. All Documents concerning any Communications between you or your attorneys and any witness or potential witness in Edwards and Cassell v Dershowitz (“Dershowitz” case). Response: Ms. Giuffre objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, particularly as it calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and because it would require the review of hundreds of thousands of documents which would take hours upon hours of attorney time. It is not clear what the phrase “concerning” is designed to cover. As a third-party witness in that action, Ms. Giuffre had numerous communications with, for example, her attorneys in relation to that matter, and therefore, these communications are subject to the attorney client privilege and protected by the work product doctrine. It unclear what documents “concerning” communications with “witnesses” refers to, and it could expansively cover a vast number of documents, emails, and other communications that have taken place over the course of this litigation. With regard to communications by Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys, this request seeks clearly privileged materials (or materials covered by the work product doctrine). With regard to “witnesses” or “potential witnesses,” the request is vague, unduly burdensome, and overbroad. The Dershowitz case centers on issues surrounding whether the Ms. Giuffre’s lawyers (Edwards and Cassell) had conduct a sufficient investigation before filing a motion to join Jane Doe 3 (and Jane Doe 4) into the CVRA case. That investigation involves not only attorney￾client materials, but also work product protections for Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2. This request, then, covers communications going back eight years, and it would involve a review of several hundreds of thousands of emails over that time to identify communications relevant to the potential “witnesses” who might have been able to shed light on the claims in the CVRA case and, in turn, whether sex abuse had been committed by Alan Dershowitz. The burden would be substantial and the relevance would be essentially non-existent. Such a burden is not countenanced by Rule 26 or the prevailing case law. Whatever communications Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys may have had as part of their (work product protected) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 33 of 40 31 investigation would not shed light on whether Defendant Maxwell defames Ms. Giuffre in attacking her as, for example, a liar. The request is also vague because it is not clear precisely what “witnesses” Defendant Maxwell is concerned about. There have, for example, between communications between Ms. Giuffre’s lawyers and lawyers for Mr. Epstein and Mr. Dershowitz Again, the relevance of such communications seems basically non-existent to the action. But because their investigations have spanned eight years, collecting such communications would be difficult. Moreover, Defendant Maxwell has a close working relationship and/or joint defense arrangement with both Mr. Epstein and Mr. Dershowitz. There is no reason to burden Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys with collecting such communications when she can collect them in other ways. Indeed, in light of the fact that Maxwell and Dershowitz have a close working relationship, it is unduly burdensome that Maxwell seeks these items not from her ally but from attorneys for her legal adversary. RFP Nos. 9 and 10 request documents concerning communications between Plaintiff or her attorneys and various witnesses. Because the responses are substantially identical, we combine here the discussion of both RFPs and Plaintiff’s respective responses. As to alleged burdensomeness and overbreadth, we refer the Court to the discussion above of the same objections interposed in response to RFP No. 4. As to relevance, such communications with witnesses certainly bear on Plaintiff’s claim and Ms. Maxwell’s defense, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). As to assertions of privilege or immunity over any responsive document, to the extent any privilege or immunity applies, Plaintiff must comply with her duties under Local Rule 26.2 and Federal Rule 26(b)(5). RFP No. 11. Any statement obtained by You or Your attorneys from any witness or potential witness in the CVRA case. Response: Ms. Giuffre objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, particularly as it calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and because it would require the review of hundreds of thousands of documents which would take hours upon hours of attorney time. Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client/work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege stated in the General Objections. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 34 of 40 32 Ms. Giuffre objects because the term “statement” is vague and ambiguous, unduly burdensome and overbroad. With regard to communications to Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys, this request seeks clearly privileged materials, because Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys represent not only Ms. Giuffre (Jane Doe 3) in the matter, but also Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doe 4. The CVRA case centers on issues surrounding whether the U.S. Government failed to confer and otherwise protect the rights of victims (including Janes Does 1, 2, 3, and 4) during plea negotiations with Jeffrey Epstein. The CVRA has been in litigation for nearly eight years, and there have extensive communications with the prosecutors (including communications concerning approximately 10,000 pages of documents that were requested by victims’ counsels and provided to Judge Marra for in camera review). It is not clear whether the request is designed to request all of these communications as “statements,” but if it does capture these communications going back eight year, it would involve a review of several hundreds of thousands of emails over that time to identify communications with the Government prosecutor. The burden would be substantial and the relevance would be essentially non-existent. Whatever statements Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys obtained from government prosecutors about CVRA notifications concerning a prosecution of Epstein would not shed light on whether Defendant Maxwell defames Ms. Giuffre in attacking her as, for example, a liar. Moreover, many materials remain under Judge Marra’s protective order. Accordingly, before Ms. Giuffre’s counsel could even have the option to release certain materials that the Government has provided to him as an attorney in the case, defendant Maxwell would have to approach Judge Marra and seek a modification of the protective order. The request is also vague because it is not clear precisely what “statements” Defendant Maxwell is concerned about. There have, for example, between communications between Ms. Giuffre’s lawyers and lawyers for Mr. Epstein and Mr. Dershowitz connected with procedural and other aspects of this case. Again, the relevance of such communications seems basically non-existent to the action. But because the case has spanned eight years, collecting such communications would be difficult. Moreover, Defendant Maxwell has a close working relationship and/or joint defense arrangement with both Mr. Epstein and Mr. Dershowitz. There is no reason to burden Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys will collecting such statements when she can collect them in other ways. RFP No. 12. Any statement obtained by You or Your attorneys from any witness or potential witness in the Dershowitz case. Response: Ms. Giuffre objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, particularly as it calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and because it would require the review of hundreds of thousands of documents which would take hours upon hours of attorney time. Ms. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 35 of 40 33 Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client/work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege stated in the General Objections. Ms. Giuffre objects because the term “statement” is vague and ambiguous, unduly burdensome and overbroad. The Dershowitz case centers on issues surrounding whether the Ms. Giuffre’s lawyers (Edwards and Cassell) had conduct a sufficient investigation before filing a motion to join Jane Doe 3 (and Jane Doe 4) into the CVRA case. That investigation involves not only attorney￾client materials, but also work product protections for Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2. The request potentially covers communications or “statements” going back eight years, and it would involve a review of several hundreds of thousands of emails over that time to identify “statements” made by any “witness” or “potential witness” who might have been able to shed light on whether sex abuse had been committed by Alan Dershowitz. The burden would be substantial and the relevance would be essentially non-existent Whatever communications Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys may have had as part of their (work product protected) investigation would not shed light on whether Defendant Maxwell defames Ms. Giuffre in attacking her as, for example, a liar. With regard to communications to Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys, this request seeks clearly privileged materials, because Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys represent not only Ms. Giuffre (Jane Doe 3) in the matter, but also Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doe 4 in the CVRA litigation. The CVRA has been in litigation for nearly eight years, and there have extensive communications with the prosecutors (including communications concerning approximately 10,000 pages of documents that were requested by victims’ counsels and provided to Judge Marra for in camera review). It is not clear whether the request is designed to request all of these communications as “statements,” but if it does capture these communications going back eight year, it would involve a review of several hundreds of thousands of emails over that time to identify communications with the Government prosecutor. The burden would be substantial and the relevance would be essentially non-existent. Whatever statements Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys obtained from government prosecutors about CVRA notifications concerning a prosecution of Epstein would not shed light on whether Defendant Maxwell defames Ms. Giuffre in attacking her as, for example, a liar. The request is also vague because it is not clear precisely what “statements” Defendant Maxwell is concerned about. There have, for example, between communications between Ms. Giuffre’s lawyers and lawyers for Mr. Epstein and Mr. Dershowitz connected with procedural and other aspects of these cases. Again, the relevance of such communications seems basically non-existent to the action. Moreover, Defendant Maxwell has a close working relationship and/or joint defense arrangement with both Mr. Epstein and Mr. Dershowitz. In light of the fact that Maxwell and Dershowitz have a close working relationship, it is Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 36 of 40 34 unduly burdensome that Maxwell seeks these items not from her ally but from attorneys for her legal adversary. There is no reason to burden Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys will collecting such statements when she can collect them in other ways. RFP Nos. 11 and 12 request statements Plaintiff has obtained from witnesses in related cases. Because the responses are substantially identical, we combine here the discussion of both RFPs and Plaintiff’s respective responses. As to alleged burdensomeness and overbreadth, we refer the Court to the discussion above of the same objections interposed in response to RFP No. 4. As to relevance, the written statements of the witnesses certainly bear on Plaintiff’s claim and Ms. Maxwell’s defense, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). As to Plaintiff’s blanket assertions of privilege or immunity over witness statements, to the extent any privilege or immunity applies, Plaintiff must comply with her duties under Local Rule 26.2 and Federal Rule 26(b)(5). While some witness statement might qualify for work product protection, it is clear that some do not, e.g., witness statements that do not reveal an attorney’s mental impressions. See, e.g., Tuttle v. Tyco Elecs. Installation Servs., Inc., No. 2:06-CV-581, 2007 WL 4561530, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 21, 2007) (“Affidavits are normally not protected by the work product doctrine for the very reason that an affidavit purports to be a statement of facts within the personal knowledge of the witness, and not an expression of the opinion of counsel. Further, Defendants should not be frustrated in their ability to test the perception and credibility of these affiants.”) (internal quotations omitted). Plaintiff has failed to sign her interrogatory responses. Rule 33(b)(5) requires that a party answering interrogatories sign her answers. Plaintiff has failed to do so, despite a request from defense counsel. This violation of Rule 33(b)(5) subjects Plaintiff to sanctions. See, e.g., Walls v. Paulson, 250 F.R.D. 48 (D.D.C. 2008) Ms. Maxwell is entitled to attorney fees incurred in making this Motion. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 37 of 40 35 Under Rule 37(a)(5), if a party is required to file a motion to compel discovery responses and the motion is granted or disclosure or discovery is provided after filing, “the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.” By signing the objections, Plaintiff’s counsel certified the responses and objections were: (i) consistent with these rules and warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law, or for establishing new law; (ii) not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1). The sanction for improper certifications of objections requires “the court, on motion or on its own, must impose an appropriate sanction on the signer, the party on whose behalf the signer was acting, or both. The sanction may include an order to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the violation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(3). Sanctions are appropriate here. Plaintiff’s counsel have interposed improper, sometimes frivolous, objections, and Plaintiff without any substantial justification has simply refused to answer discovery requests. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court should compel Plaintiff to: 1. Overrule Plaintiff’s objections to discovery requests; 2. Provide complete responses Interrogatories 5-8, 13-14, and state what information, if any, information is being withheld on the basis of objection; 3. Provide answers to requests for admissions that comply with Rule 36; 4. Specifically state for each objection made to the requests for production what, if any, documents are being withheld and the specific objection under which it is being withheld; Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 38 of 40 36 5. Undertake a reasonable and diligent inquiry for all documents requested in RFP Nos. 1, 4, 9-12 that are in her possession, custody or control, and produce them. Ms. Maxwell further requests under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g) and 37(a)(5) that the Court enter an Order for attorney costs and fees incurred in preparing and prosecuting this Motion. Dated: August 10, 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 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 39 of 40 37 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on August 10, 2016, I electronically served this Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant’s Second Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff, and for Sanctions via ECF 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/ Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 40 of 40 EXHIBIT B Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 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 RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND DEFENDANT’S INTERROGATORIES, PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26, 33, 34, Plaintiff hereby serves her responses and objections to Defendant’s Second Set of Discovery Requests and serves her Answers to Defendant’s Requests for Admission. GENERAL OBJECTIONS Defendant’s Discovery Requests violate 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 in this case, including subparts, in violation of Rule 33. Ms. Giuffre objects to Defendant’s Second 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 privilege, public interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 2 Ms. Giuffre objects to the requests to the extent Defendant’s Second 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 Second Set of Discovery Requests are 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. Ms. Giuffre further objects because Defendant’s Second Set of Requests for Production seeks 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 would 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 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 additionally 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 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 3 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, from 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 to 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 minor victim of sexual trafficking. Ms. Giuffre objects to the requests to the extent they are overly broad and unduly burdensome. Ms. Giuffre’s responses to Defendant’s Second Set of Discovery Requests as 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 has produced documents and information in response to these Requests. Ms. Giuffre incorporates her above-listed general objections in the responses herein. INTERROGATORIES 5. Identify each Communication that You or Your Attorneys have had with any author, reporter, correspondent, columnist, writer, commentator, investigative journalist, 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; Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 4 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 Rule 33 as its subparts, in combination with the other interrogatories, exceed the allowable twenty-five interrogatories. Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product protections, and any other applicable privilege or protection as stated in the General Objections. Ms. Giuffre further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome as it is not limited in time, manner, or subject matter. The request is grossly over broad in that it does not require the communication to have any connection with Ms. Giuffre or this case whatsoever. Indeed, a response to this interrogatory would require each of Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys to research and find any communication they have ever had with a journalist, for every year of their practice, regardless of what case was involved, and regardless of what year the communication was made. Ms. Giuffre’s attorney’s, collectively, have worked Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 5 on hundreds (if not thousands) of matters, and collectively have well over 100 years of combined practice experience. Accordingly, a request that each of these attorneys list all communications with the media is facially overbroad. Additionally, Ms. Giuffre objects to this Interrogatory because a response would cause Ms. Giuffre the incredible and undue burden of having to catalogue literally hundreds of communications that she has already produced in this case. Moreover, Ms. Giuffre objects because this interrogatory calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Communications with the media regarding cases that bear no relation to the subject matter of this case, from decades in the past, are facially invalid and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Giuffre additionally objects to the extent that this interrogatory seeks the communications of her attorneys, any author, reporter, correspondent, columnist, writer, commentator, investigative journalist, photojournalist, newspaper person, freelance reporter, stringer, or any other employee of any media organization or independent consultant as such interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Furthermore, Ms. Giuffre is not obligated to produce anything currently in the possession of Defendant Maxwell or her attorneys. Notwithstanding such objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced her responsive communications, which are found in documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE007566. 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 I of Your Complaint, including: Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 6 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 the nature of the publication, whether in print, internet, broadcast or some other form of media. Response to Interrogatory No. 6: Ms. Giuffre objects because the information interrogatory above is in the possession of Defendant who has failed to comply with her production obligations in this matter, and has failed to comply with her production obligations with this very subject matter. See Document Request No. 17 from Ms. Giuffre’s Second Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell.1 Maxwell has not produced all “URL or Internet addresses for any internet version of such publication” that she directed her agent, Ross Gow, to send. 1 Request No. 17 stated: 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. In response, Defendant stated: “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 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 7 Ms. Giuffre further objects because the information requested above is in the possession of Defendant’s agent, who caused the false statements to be issued to various media outlets. Ms. Giuffre has not had the opportunity to depose Maxwell’s agent Ross Gow; therefore, this answer remains incomplete. Consequently, Ms. Giuffre reserves the right to modify and/or supplement her responses, as information is largely in the possession of the Defendant and her agent. Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Rule 33 as its subparts, in combination with the other interrogatories, exceed the allowable twenty-five interrogatories. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request because it is in the public domain. Ms. Giuffre also objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client/work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege stated in the General Objections. Notwithstanding such objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced documents responsive to this request; Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE007566, and supplements such responsive documents with the following list of publications. While the identification of an exhaustive responsive list would be unduly burdensome, in an effort to make a good faith effort towards compliance, Ms. Giuffre provides the following examples, which are incomplete based on the aforementioned reasons: Date Nature Publishi ng Entity Statement/URL Januar y 2, 2015 Internet Ross Gow Jane Doe 3 is Virginia Roberts - so not a new individual. The allegations made by Victoria Roberts against Ghislaine Maxwell are untrue. The original allegations are not new and have been fully responded to and shown to be untrue. Each time the story is re told it changes with new salacious details about public figures and world leaders and now it is alleged by Ms. Roberts that Alan Dershowitz is involved in having sexual relations with her, which he denies. Ms. Roberts’s claims are obvious lies and should be treated as such and not publicized as news, as they are defamatory. Ghislaine Maxwell's original response to the lies and defamatory claims remains the same. Maxwell strongly denies allegations of an unsavoury nature, which have appeared in the British press and elsewhere and reserves her right to seek redress at Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 8 the repetition of such old defamatory claims. Januar y 3, 2015 Internet Telegrap h http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/11323872/Prince￾Andrew-denies-having-relations-with-sex-slave-girl.html Januar y 4, 2015 Internet Express http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/550085/Ghislaine-Maxwell-Jeffrey-Epstein￾not-madam-paedophile-Florida-court-case-Prince-Andrew Januar y 3, 2015 Internet Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2895366/Prince-Andrew-lobbied￾government-easy-Jeffrey-Epstein-Palace-denies-claims-royal-tried-use-influence￾help-billionaire-paedophile-2008-police-probe.html Januar y 3, 2015 Internet Huffingt on Post http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/03/duke-of-york-sex-abuse￾claims_n_6409508.html Januar y 4, 2015 Internet Jewish News Online http://www.jewishnews.co.uk/dershowitz-nothing-prince-andrews-sex-scandal/ Januar y 2, 2015 Internet Bolton News http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/national/11700192.Palace_denies_Andrew_s ex_case_claim/ Januar y 5, 2015 Internet / Broadca st NY Daily News http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/alleged-madame-accused-supplying￾prince-andrew-article-1.2065505 Januar y 5, 2015 Internet / Broadca st AOL UK http://www.aol.co.uk/video/ghislaine-maxwell-declines-to-comment-on-prince￾andrew-allegations-518587500/ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 9 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; 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 interrogatory in that it violates Rule 33 as its subparts, in combination with the other interrogatories, exceed the allowable twenty-five interrogatories. Ms. Giuffre also objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client/work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege stated in the General Objections. Without waiving the aforementioned objections, Alan Dershowitz published statements about Ms. Giuffre in January 2015 and thereafter that remain in the public realm. Ms. Giuffre does not have knowledge as to every time and place that she was defamed by Dershowitz, and she is not required to provide such an exhaustive list as all relevant instances of defamation are available through public sources, and identification of the numerous publically made statements would be unduly burdensome. Furthermore, upon information and belief, all defamatory statements made towards Ms. Giuffre by Dershowitz are within the knowledge and possession of Maxwell and her attorneys or can be easily obtained by contacting Dershowitz. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 10 8. Identify the individuals referenced in Your pleadings filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Jane Doe I 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 Rule 33 as its subparts, in combination with the other interrogatories, exceed the allowable twenty-five interrogatories. Ms. Giuffre also objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client/work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege stated in the General Objections. Ms. Giuffre refers to the list of witnesses identified in her Revised Rule 26 Disclosures. Also, notwithstanding previously-noted objections, Ms. Giuffre testified in Edwards v. Cassell, Broward County Case Number CACE 15-000072 on January 16, 2016, regarding the subject matter requested. See GIUFFRE005094- GIUFFRE007566. Ms. Giuffre additionally testified regarding the subject matter requested in this interrogatory on in the above-captioned case in her deposition on May 3, 2016. Additionally, Ms. Giuffre was trafficked to other individuals whose name she never learned or whose names she does not remember. Identification of any other Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 11 individuals would be irrelevant and unduly burdensome. Moreover, as specifically provided in Rule 33.3(b), “[d]uring discovery, interrogatories other than those seeking information described in paragraph (a) [] 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.” Because Ms. Giuffre has provided an answer to this interrogatory in her deposition, which was a more practical method of obtaining the information sought, this interrogatory is improper under the Local Rules as well as wholly duplicative. 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 Rule 33 as it, in combination with the other interrogatories, exceed the allowable twenty-five interrogatories. Ms. Giuffre also objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client/work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege stated in the General Objections. Ms. Giuffre incorporates by reference herein her Revised Rule 26 disclosures. Notably, Ms. Giuffre’s Rule 26 disclosures have been revised to reflect that she is not seeking a specific monetary damage in the form of a specific lost wage claim. 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; Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 12 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; g. whether health insurance or some other person or organization or entity has paid for the medical expenses; and h. 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 because it violates this Court’s Order. The Court has excluded the production of medical records from prior to 1999, stating, “the damage issue relates, in my view, solely to the defamation.” (April 21, 2016, Hearing Transcript at 20:23-24). This holding applies to pre-1999 medical records. As this interrogatory is not limited to the time period ordered by this Court, Ms. Giuffre objects. Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory in that it is overbroad and not limited in scope to the medical information relating to the abuse she suffered from Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein. Ms. Giuffre objects because Rule 26 does not allow discovery that is so burdensome as to require a Herculean effort by an adult to track down every possible prescription ever written for Ms. Giuffre, or every physician who ever treated Ms. Giuffre, even as a small child. Such a request is not only impractical and unduly burdensome, but likely impossible. Accordingly, such an interrogatory is merely for the purpose of imposing a burden on Ms. Giuffre and her attorneys, not to mention the purposes of harassment. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 13 Pursuant to the Rules, if requested documents are not yielded in a “reasonable inquiry,” Ms. Giuffre is not obligated to expend all of her time and resources on a quest to gather medical files from her birth to the present to find any prescriptions ever written for her for anything at all. See, e.g., Manessis v. New York City Dep't of Transp., No. 02 CIV. 359SASDF, 2002 WL 31115032, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2002) (concluding that “ability to pursue discovery regarding [plaintiff’s] medical records should be limited in some manner”); Evanko v. Electronic Systems Assoc., Inc., No. 91 Civ. 2851, 1993 WL 14458 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 1993) (applying the New York state physician-patient privilege, and holding that where plaintiff claimed that she suffered emotional distress, defendants did not have “a license to rummage through all aspects of the plaintiff's life in search of a possible source of stress or distress,” including plaintiff’s medical records); Wachtman v. Trocaire College, 532 N.Y.S.2d 943, 944 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988) (holding that the scope of a waiver of the physician-patient privilege in personal injury cases is “limited and does not permit discovery of information involving unrelated illnesses and treatment”); Sgambellone v. Wheatley, 165 Misc.2d 954, 958, 630 N.Y.S.2d 835, 838 (N.Y. Sup.Ct. 1995) (holding that in a personal injury action, plaintiff's waiver of the physician-patient privilege “is not a wholesale waiver of all information about the plaintiff’s entire physical and mental conditions but a waiver only of the physical and/or mental condition that is affirmatively placed in controversy”) (emphasis in original). Finally, Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the doctor-patient privilege, and any other applicable privilege stated in the General Objections. Ms. Giuffre further objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Rule 33 as its subparts, in combination with the other interrogatories, exceed the allowable twenty-five interrogatories. Ms. Giuffre further Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 14 objects to this request in that it is overbroad and seeks confidential medical information of a sex abuse victim and is not limited in scope to the issues in this case. Without waiving such objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced her responsive documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE007566, and supplements such documents as follows: MEDICAL PROVIDER HEALTHCARE PROVIDED ACTION TAKEN RELATED GIUFFRE PRODUCTION Dr. Olsen 3/8/16 Letter Request Giuffre005342-005346 St. Thomas More Hospital Records (Dr. Olsen) Giuffre005492-005496 St. Thomas More Hospital Records (Dr. Olsen) Centura Health 5/23/16 Letter Request Giuffre005498 Centura Health Release Form (All Medical Records) Giuffre005501-005569 Responsive Records (Centura Health) Dr. Carol Hayek 3/8/16 Ltr Request 4/28/16 Ltr Request Giuffre and counsel contacted physician’s office via telephone and email to follow up. Dr. Chris Donahue 4/5/16 Ltr Request Giuffre 006631-006635 (Dr. Donahue) Dr. John Harris/Dr. Majliyana . 4/5/16 Ltr Request Giuffre005315 005322 The Entrance Medical Centre (Dr. John Harris and Dr. Darshanee Mahaliyana) Dr. Wah Wah 4/5/16 Ltr Request Giuffre005339 005341 Central Coast Family Medicine (Dr. Wah Wah) Dr. Sellathuri 4/5/16 Ltr Giuffre005089 005091 (“Dr. M. Sella”) Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 15 MEDICAL PROVIDER HEALTHCARE PROVIDED ACTION TAKEN RELATED GIUFFRE PRODUCTION Request Royal Oaks Medical Center 4/5/16 Ltr Request Giuffre005347 005349 Royal Oaks Medical Center’s Response (No Records) NY Presbyterian Hospital Produced Giuffre003258 003290 New York Presbyterian Hospital Campbelltow n Hospital/ Sydney West Hospital Produced Giuffre003193 003241 Camselltown Hospital/Camden Hospital (Dr. Elbeaini) Giuffre003242 003257 Macarthur Health Service (Dr. Elbeaini) Sydney West Hospital / Westmead Hospital Produced Giuffre 003291-003298 Sydney West/Westmead Hospital Dr. Karen Kutikoff Release Provided to Defendan t’s Counsel 04/29/16 Sent via e-mail signed release to Menninger (obtain records directly). Wellington Imaging Associates Release Provided to Defendan t’s Counsel 04/29/16 Sent via e-mail signed release to Menninger (obtain records directly). Growing Together Release Provided to Defendan t’s Counsel 04/29/16 Sent via e-mail signed release to Menninger (obtain records directly). Ms. Judith Lightfoot 5/4/16 Ltr Request Giuffre 005431-005438 Medical Release Form with documents (Ms. Lightfoot) Giuffre006636 Correspondence stating no further records available. Dr. Mona Devanesan 3/28/16 Ltr Evidence of efforts to obtain records and of Dr. Devanesan’s retirement were Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 16 MEDICAL PROVIDER HEALTHCARE PROVIDED ACTION TAKEN RELATED GIUFFRE PRODUCTION Request produced as GIUFFRE005335-5338. Dr. Scott Robert Geiger ER Treating Physician Giuffre 005498-005569 Centura Health Medical Release Form (Requested Entire Medical Record) Dr. Joseph Heaney ER Treating Physician Giuffre 005498-005569 Centura Health Medical Release Form (Requested Entire Medical Record) Donna Oliver, PA ER Treating Physician Referral ENT Giuffre 005498-005569 Centura Health Medical Release Form (Requested Entire Medical Record) Dr. Michele Streeter ER Treating Physician Giuffre 005498-005569 Centura Health Medical Release Form (Requested Entire Medical Record) The records in the chart above bear the date of treatment, the type of treatment, and indicate whether the treatment was inpatient or outpatient. Ms. Giuffre is not certain as to her the sum of her medical expenses from 1999 to the present, and therefore is unable to answer that subpart. Ms. Giuffre is not aware of what health insurance carrier or other organization paid for her historical medical expenses unless it is identified on the records produced to the Defendant. Subpart (h) is an inappropriate interrogatory; however, for each provider listed above, Ms. Giuffre already submitted medical releases for all records related to Ms. Giuffre. 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. Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 17 Response to Interrogatory No. 14: Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it is overbroad and invades Ms. Giuffre right to privacy (including her constitutionally-protected right of privacy) by seeking confidential information relating to the sexual abuse of a minor 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, and for a period when she was a minor child. The Court has excluded the production of medical records from prior to 1999, stating, “the damage issue relates, in my view, solely to the defamation.” (April 21, 2016, Hearing Transcript at 20:23-24). This holding applies equally to pre-1999 sexual assault for two reasons. First, sexual assault is not only a crime, but a physical injury, and an injury for which medical treatment is needed and for which a forensic medical exam is often performed. Accordingly, any documentation of sexual assault is necessarily akin to a medical record, and therefore precluded under the Court’s April 21, 2016 Order. Furthermore, this Court’s holding likely expands specifically to sexual abuse and assault prior to 1999, because the holding was in response to the following argument from Ms. Menninger: “She has also alleged, for example, that many, several, three, I think, at last count, or four individuals had sexually abused her prior to ever meeting Mr. Epstein.” (April 21, 2016, Hearing Transcript at 11:24-12:2). Additionally, it has become increasingly clear that Defendant’s counsel is seeking these documents for the improper purpose of harassment as part of Defendant’s counsel’s campaign to blame the victim and make Ms. Giuffre (who was 15 years old or younger at the time of the requested documents). Maxwell’s counsel has used offensive language in this proceeding at every turn. First, Ms. Menninger called Ms. Giuffre a “professional victim” in open court. (January 14, 2016 Hearing Transcript at 5:9). Then, Mr. Pagliuca stated that Ms. Giuffre “cried Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 18 rape” in reference to police reports describing incidents that took place when Ms. Giuffre was fourteen years old. (March 21, 2016, meet and confer call). Then, Defendant’s responses to Ms. Giuffre’s interrogatories shockingly called this victim of sexual abuse a “sexually permissive woman.” (Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories). This last blame-the￾victim contention is strange and ironic for two reasons. First, Ms. Giuffre was a minor child, not a “woman,” when Defendant sexually abused her. Second, it was Defendant and Mr. Epstein who trafficked her to other individuals - therefore, it was Defendant and Mr. Epstein’s “permission” given to others to use Ms. Giuffre’s sexually. Such language from Defendant and her counsel is wholly inappropriate. Ms. Giuffre also objects to this request because such events would have taken place in Florida, and information relating to those events is protected from disclosure by law. Florida statutes protect “[a]ny information in a videotaped statement of a minor who is alleged to be or who is a victim of sexual battery . . . which reveals that minor’s identity.” Fla. Stat. § 119.071. Additionally, Fla. Stat. 985.036 protects records where a juvenile is a victim of a crime. Further, Section 794.026, Fla. Stat., creates a civil right of action against an individual who communicates to others, identifying information concerning the victim of a sexual offense. Additionally, Second, Fla. Stat. § 985.04 and Fla. Stat. § 985.054 make juvenile law enforcement records confidential from members of the public, and states that information obtained by a law enforcement agent participating in the assessment of a juvenile is confidential. Finally, certain of the police reports implicate Ms. Giuffre’s involvement with the Florida Department of Children and Families, see e.g., GM_00750, and if such reports are part of the State’s Department of Children and Families’ records, they are confidential pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 39.202(6). Accordingly, Ms. Giuffre objects to this request for the reasons stated in this paragraph. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 19 Ms. Giuffre additionally 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. Ms. Giuffre objects on the basis that Defendant is not entitled to a full-scale production of everything that has happened throughout the entire course of her life time, particularly the time sought in this request which predates Defendant’s meeting and abuse of Ms. Giuffre. A victim of sexual abuse should not be re-abused by having to disclose events that occurred prior to the time that she was sexually abused by Maxwell and her co-conspirators. Furthermore, discovery concerning Ms. Giuffre’s prior sexual assault is not relevant to the claim at issue in this case, the defenses at issue, or the damages claimed, and therefore well outside the scope of discovery permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Specifically, Ms. Giuffre’s sexual abuse as minor child neither proves nor disproves Defendant and Epstein’s sexual abuse; therefore, it is not within the scope of discovery permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, particularly since the December 1, 2015, amendments to the Rule. “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Giving testimony on such irrelevant, but painful, topics would be extraordinarily embarrassing, oppressive, and traumatic for Ms. Giuffre, and it is wholly irrelevant to any party’s claim or defense. Accordingly, such discovery is not sought in good faith. This request is particularly improper as it cannot conceivably lead to admissible evidence. While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 controls the limits of discovery, FRE 412 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 20 informs discovery over the boundaries of the proper inquiry into an alleged sexual assault victim's sexual conduct and history. Silva v. Pioneer Janitorial Servs., Inc., No. CIV.A. 10- 11264-JGD, 2011 WL 4729783, at *1 (D. Mass. Oct. 4, 2011). See also Gibbons v. Food Lion, Inc., No. 98–1197–CIV–T–23F, 1999 WL 33226474, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb.19, 1999) (stating that a majority of courts that have considered whether Fed. R. Evid. 412 is applicable to discovery “have found that Rule 412 has significance in the resolution of a discovery dispute”). “As explained in the Advisory Committee Notes regarding the 1994 amendments to Rule 412, ‘[t]he rule aims to safeguard the alleged victim against the invasion of privacy, potential embarrassment and sexual stereotyping that is associated with public disclosure of intimate sexual details and the infusion of sexual innuendo into the factfinding process.’ Moreover, although the Advisory Committee Notes acknowledge that the procedures set forth in the Rule for determining the admissibility of evidence relating to an alleged victim's past sexual conduct or predisposition do not apply to discovery, they nevertheless provide as follows: In order not to undermine the rationale of Rule 412 ... courts should enter appropriate orders pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) to protect the victim against unwarranted inquiries and to ensure confidentiality. Courts should presumptively issue protective orders barring discovery unless the party seeking discovery makes a showing that the evidence sought to be discovered would be relevant under the facts and theories of the particular case, and cannot be obtained except through discovery. In an action for sexual harassment, for instance, while some evidence of the alleged victim's sexual behavior and/or predisposition in the workplace may perhaps be relevant, non-workplace conduct will usually be irrelevant. Silva, 2011 WL 4729783, at *1. (emphasis added). Accordingly, Ms. Giuffre objects to this request based on the Federal Rules of Evidence and prevailing case law applying such Rules. Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Rule 33 as it, in combination with the other interrogatories, exceed the allowable twenty-five interrogatories. Ms. Giuffre Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 21 objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client/work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege stated in the General Objections. Additionally, to the extent that it is available to Ms. Giuffre, all of this information is already in the possession of Maxwell as she obtained and produced police reports regarding Ms. Giuffre, which Ms. Giuffre did not have in her possession. Ms. Giuffre was also questioned for seven hours in her May 3, 2016, deposition by Defendant’s attorney. Finally, where a party possesses records and documents obtained or generated illegally, the court has the equitable power to vindicate and protect the rights of the parties affected. Socialist Workers Party v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 666 F. Supp. 621, 623 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). For all of the foregoing reasons, Ms. Giuffre objects to this request. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 22 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 22 REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 1. Admit that you were not 15 years old when you first met Ghislaine Maxwell. Response to Request For Admission No. 1: Denied in part. At the time Ms. Giuffre made the statement, many years after the events occurred, she firmly believed she was 15 years old when she was recruited away from her job at Mar-a-Lago by Ghislaine Maxwell. She later obtained some records from Mar-a-Lago which indicated that she was employed there during the year 2000. From January, 2000 through August 9, 2000, she was 16 years old; from August 9, 2000 through December 2000 she was 17 years old. While she now knows, based on this discovery, that she was not 15 years old, she now has conclusive proof that she was an underage minor when Ghislaine Maxwell approached her, recruited her, introduced her to Jeffrey Epstein, and sexually trafficked her as an underage minor. 2. Admit that you were not 15 years old when you first met Jeffrey Epstein. Response to Request For Admission No. 2: Denied in part. At the time Ms. Giuffre made the statement, many years after the events occurred, she firmly believed she was 15 years old when she was recruited away from her job at Mar-a-Lago by Ghislaine Maxwell. She later obtained some records from Mar-a-Lago which indicated that she was employed there during the year 2000. From January, 2000 through August 9, 2000, she was 16 years old; from august 9, 2000 through December 2000 she was 17 years old. While she now knows, based on this discovery, that she was not 15 years old, she now has conclusive proof that she was an underage minor when Ghislaine Maxwell approached her, recruited her, introduced her to Jeffrey Epstein, and sexually trafficked her as an underage minor. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 23 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 23 3. Admit that you were not 15 years old at the time you claim you were sexually trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. Response to Request For Admission No. 3: Denied in part. At the time Ms. Giuffre made the statement, many years after the events occurred, she firmly believed she was 15 years old when she was recruited away from her job at Mar-a-Lago by Ghislaine Maxwell. She later obtained some records from Mar-a-Lago which indicated that she was employed there during the year 2000. From January, 2000 through August 9, 2000, she was 16 years old; from August 9, 2000 through December 2000 she was 17 years old. While she now knows, based on this discovery, that she was not 15 years old, she now has conclusive proof that she was an underage minor when Ghislaine Maxwell approached her, recruited her, introduced her to Jeffrey Epstein, and sexually trafficked her as an underage minor. 4. Admit that Ghislaine Maxwell did not celebrate your 16th birthday with You. Response to Request For Admission No. 4: Denied in part. At the time Ms. Giuffre made the statement, many years after the events occurred, she firmly believed she was 15 years old when she was recruited away from her job at Mar-a-Lago by Ghislaine Maxwell. She later obtained some records from Mar-a-Lago which indicated that she was employed there during the year 2000. From January, 2000 through August 9, 2000, she was 16 years old; from August 9, 2000 through December 2000 she was 17 years old. While she now knows, based on this discovery, that she was not 15 years old, she now has conclusive proof that she was an underage minor when Ghislaine Maxwell approached her, recruited her, introduced her to Jeffrey Epstein, and sexually trafficked her as an underage minor. While she now knows, based on this discovery, that it could not have been her 16th birthday that Ghislaine celebrated, she now has conclusive proof that she was an underage minor when Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 24 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 24 Ghislaine Maxwell approached and recruited her for illegal purposes, and she remembers celebrating a birthday with Ghislaine Maxwell. 5. Admit that Ghislaine Maxwell did not make a joke on your 16th birthday after You blew out an array of candles and said You “would be soon getting too old for Jeffrey’s taste, and soon they’d have to trade me in.” Response to Request For Admission No. 5: Denied in part. At the time Ms. Giuffre made the statement, many years after the events occurred, she firmly believed she was 15 years old when she was recruited away from her job at Mar-a-Lago by Ghislaine Maxwell. She later obtained some records from Mar-a-Lago which indicated that she was employed there during the year 2000. From January, 2000 through august 9, 2000, she was 16 years old; from august 9, 2000 through December 2000 she was 17 years old. While she now knows, based on this discovery, that she was not 15 years old, she now has conclusive proof that she was an underage minor when Ghislaine Maxwell approached her, recruited her, introduced her to Jeffrey Epstein, and sexually trafficked her as an underage minor. While she now knows, based on this discovery, that it was not her 16th birthday that she celebrated with Ghislaine Maxwell, she now has conclusive proof that she was an underage minor when Ghislaine Maxwell approached and recruited me for illegal purposes, and she remember celebrating a birthday with Ghislaine Maxwell, during which she made the referenced joke. 6. Admit that you did not work at Mar-a-Lago when you were 15 years old. Response to Request For Admission No. 6: Denied in part. At the time Ms. Giuffre made the statement, many years after the events occurred, she firmly believed she was 15 years old when she was recruited away from her job at Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 25 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 25 Mar-a-Lago by Ghislaine Maxwell. She later obtained some records from Mar-a-Lago which indicated that she was employed there during the year 2000. From January, 2000 through August 9, 2000, she was 16 years old; from August 9, 2000 through December 2000 she was 17 years old. While she now knows, based on this discovery, that she was not 15 years old, she now has conclusive proof that she was an underage minor when Ghislaine Maxwell approached her, recruited her, introduced her to Jeffrey Epstein, and sexually trafficked her as an underage minor. 7. Admit that you did not work for Jeffrey Epstein for four years. Response to Request For Admission No. 7: Denied in part. At the time she made the statement, many years after the events occurred, and based purely from memory without the assistance of any documents, she firmly believed she was with Jeffrey Epstein over a four year period. With the assistance of various records obtained after she made that statement, she now knows that she was not with Jeffrey Epstein for four years. She was sent to Thailand by Jeffrey Epstein in September 2002 and that was the last time she saw him. 8. Admit that You did not spend four years as an underage sex slave for Jeffrey Epstein. Response to Request For Admission No. 8: Denied in part. At the time she made the statement, many years after the events occurred and based purely from memory without the assistance of any documents, she firmly believed she was with Jeffrey Epstein over a four year period. With the assistance of various records obtained after she made that statement, she now knows that she was not with Jeffrey Epstein for four years; however she was a sex slave for Jeffrey Epstein for years. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 26 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 26 9. Admit that you were no younger than 17 years old when you worked at Mar-a￾Lago. Response to Request For Admission No. 9: Denied. After thorough investigation, she has only been able to discover the year in which she worked at Mar-a-Lago was 2000, and consequently was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, for sex with Epstein. The month has not been made available, therefore denied. 10. Admit that You never observed Ghislaine Maxwell ever have any sexual contact with any person under the age of 18. Response to Request For Admission No. 10: Denied. 11. Admit that You never observed Bill Clinton on the island of Little St. James. Response to Request For Admission No. 11: Denied. 12. Admit that You never had a conversation with Bill Clinton regarding him flying with Ghislaine Maxwell in a helicopter. Response to Request For Admission No. 12: Objection. Defendant Maxwell has clearly incorrectly interposed and comingled the facts which comprise the foundation of this request for admission. Ms. Giuffre has never alleged that she “had a conversation with Bill Clinton regarding him flying with Ghislaine Maxwell in a helicopter.” Instead, Ms. Giuffre has alleged, “I flew to the Caribbean with Jeffrey and then Ghislaine Maxwell went to pick up Bill [Clinton] in a huge black helicopter that Jeffrey had bought her.” Sara Nathan, Bill Clinton Pictured with Jeffrey Epstein’s Social Fixer, Daily Mail, (12 January 2015). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 27 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 27 As a threshold matter, a court must determine whether the statements set forth in a request for admissions satisfy the formal requirements of Rule 36: “(e)ach request for admissions must be direct, simple and ‘limited to singular relevant facts,’” United States v. Consolidated Edison Co., 1988 WL 138275 (E.D.N.Y. [Dec. 15, 1988] ) (quoting S.E.C. v. Micro–Moisture Controls, 21 F.R.D. 164, 166 (S.D.N.Y.1957)), so that “it can be admitted or denied without explanation.” [8 C. Wright & A. Miller,] Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2258 [(1970)]. A request “should not state ‘half a fact’ or ‘half-truths' which require the answering party to qualify responses.” Havenfield Corp. v. H & R Block, Inc., 67 F.R.D. 93, 96–97 (W.D.Mo.1973); Dubin, 125 F.R.D. at 375–76. See also Thalheim v. Eberheim, 124 F.R.D. 34, 35 (D.Conn.1988) (court must consider phraseology of requests as carefully as that of answers or objections). Consequently, Ms. Giuffre objects to answering this request for admission as it is based on “half-truths,” which make it impossible to answer without a qualified response. 13. Admit that You never observed Al Gore on the island of Little St. James. Response to Request For Admission No. 13: Denied in part. Her memory from 15 or more years ago is that it was on the island where she met Mr. Gore, although she has testified that she could have been incorrect on that location. While traveling with Epstein and Maxwell, she met so many people and was taken to so many places as a minor that perfect recall of exact locations is difficult, but based on her best recollection, denied. 14. Admit that You never had sexual contact with Alan Dershowitz. Response to Request For Admission No. 14: Denied. 15. Admit that You never had sexual contact with Andrew, Duke of York. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 28 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 28 Response to Request For Admission No. 15: Denied. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 29 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 29 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 1. All Communications and Documents identified in Interrogatories 5-14, above. Response to Request For Production No. 1: Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client/work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege stated in the General Objections. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request on the grounds that it is wildly 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, as described more fully above in response to the interrogatories. For example, Interrogatory Number 5, would cover documents spanning over 100 years collectively from attorneys, and compliance with this production request would be literally impossible due to the untethered scope of the request. 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. 2. All Documents reviewed or relied upon in answering Interrogatory Nos. 5-14 above. Response to Request For Production No. 2: Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client/work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege stated in the General Objections. 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 for the reasons stated above in response to interrogatories, and in that it seeks to invade the privacy rights of a sex abuse victim and is meant for the improper purpose of harassing and intimidating this victim. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 30 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 30 3. All Documents reviewed or relied upon in answering Requests for Admission Nos. 1-15 above. Response to Request For Production No. 3: Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client/work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege stated in the General Objections. 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. Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE007566. 4. All Documents relating to any Communications between or among You or Your attorneys or any agent for You or Your attorneys, and any of the following individuals or with their attorneys, agents or representatives: a. Any witness disclosed in Plaintiff’s Rule 26(a) disclosures; b. Any witness disclosed in Defendant’s Rule 26(a) disclosures; c. Any witness identified by You in response to Interrogatory No. 8 and No. 14. Response to Request For Production No. 4: Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 31 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 31 Ms. Giuffre objection to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome in that it is not limited in time, and it seeks documents relating to hundreds of individuals. Ms. Giuffre objects because compliance with this request is unduly burdensome. For example,, this request seeks documents relating to over 100 individuals, and has no date or time limitations or subject matter limitations whatsoever. 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. Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client/work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege stated in the General Objections. Specifically, counsel’s communications with witnesses are protected under the work product doctrine. 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. Ms. Giuffre further objects as this request 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 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. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 32 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 32 Ms. Giuffre additionally objects to the extent that this request seeks the communications of her attorneys, as such request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. This is especially true given that certain attorneys for Ms. Giuffre additionally represent other individuals listed on the Rule 26 Disclosures in separate legal matters, and revelation of such communications would violate privileges that do not belong to Ms. Giuffre, but rather belong to other victims of sexual abuse who have not waived such privileges. Accordingly, Ms. Giuffre is withholding these documents from production based on her objections. Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE007566, which includes her communications with many of the individuals set forth in this request. However, producing documents with the additional, newly-added individuals would be overly burdensome, as there is no limitation as to time period, scope or subject-matter. 5. 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. Any of the individuals identified by You in response to Interrogatory No. 8 and No. 14. Response to Request For Production No. 5: 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 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 33 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 33 Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE007566, and will produce non￾privileged documents responsive to this Request and will continue to supplement her production limited to documents that do not depict images of her minor children. 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. Furthermore, Ms. Giuffre has now produced the pictures in her possession related to the above-referenced case. Any remaining photographs not produced are solely in the possession of the Defendant and her co-conspirators. 6. All Documents concerning any Communications between you or your attorneys and any witness or any potential witness in Giuffre v. Maxwell. Response to Request For Production No. 6: Ms. Giuffre objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, particularly as it seeks documents relating to hundreds of 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. Giuffre and between Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Giuffre. Ms. Giuffre further 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. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 34 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 34 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. Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE007566, 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. Ms. Giuffre will produce Ms. Giuffre’s counsel’s communications with attorneys for witnesses in this case from the date of filing this litigation to the present that are related to this litigation. 7. All Documents concerning any Communications between You and Your attorneys and Johanna Sjoberg or her lawyer, Marshall Dore Louis. Response to Request For Production No. 7: Ms. Giuffre objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, particularly as it calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and not waiving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre will produce Ms. Giuffre’s counsel’s communications with Marshall Dore Louis from the date of filing this litigation to the present. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 35 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 35 8. All Documents concerning any Communications between You and Your attorneys and Allyson Chambers or her lawyer, Marshall Dore Louis. Response to Request For Production No. 8: Ms. Giuffre objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, particularly as it 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 will produce Ms. Giuffre’s counsel’s communications with Marshall Dore Louis from the date of filing this litigation to the present relating to the above-captioned case. 9. All Documents concerning any Communications between You or Your attorneys and any witness in the case captioned Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Case No. 08-ev-80736-KAM, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (“CVRA” case). Response to Request For Production No. 9: Ms. Giuffre objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, particularly as it calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and because it would require the review of hundreds of thousands of documents which would take hours upon hours of attorney time. Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney￾client/work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege stated in the General Objections. With regard to communications by Ms. Giuffre's attorneys, this request seeks clearly privileged materials, because Ms. Giuffre's attorneys represent not only Ms. Giuffre (Jane Doe 3) in the CVRA matter, but also Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doe 4. Any communications Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 36 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 36 between the four Jane Does, via Ms. Giuffre's attorneys, would be plainly be subject to attorney client protection, not to mention work product protection as well. With regard to contact with "witnesses,” the request is vague, unduly burdensome, and overbroad. The CVRA case centers on issues surrounding whether the U.S. Government failed to confer and otherwise protect the rights of victims (including Janes Does 1, 2, 3, and 4) during plea negotiations with Jeffrey Epstein. Accordingly, some of the main "witnesses" in the case are the Government prosecutors who handled the plea negotiations. Several of the same prosecutors who handled the plea negotiations are also involved in defending the CVRA case. The CVRA has been in litigation for nearly eight years, and there have extensive communications with the prosecutors (including communications concerning approximately 10,000 pages of documents that were requested by victims’ counsel and provided to Judge Marra for in camera review). The request appears designed to target all of these communications, and such communications, going back eight years, would necessitate a review of several hundreds of thousands of emails over that time to identify communications with the Government prosecutors. The burden would be substantial and the relevance would be essentially non-existent. Whatever communications Ms. Giuffre's attorneys would have had with government prosecutors about CVRA notifications concerning a prosecution of Epstein would not shed light on whether Defendant Maxwell defames Ms. Giuffre in attacking her as, for example, a liar. Moreover, many materials related to this case remain under Judge Marra’s protective order. Accordingly, before Ms. Giuffre’s counsel could even have the option to release certain materials that the Government has provided to him as an attorney in the case, defendant Maxwell would have to approach Judge Marra and seek a modification of the protective order. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 37 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 37 The request is also vague because it is not clear precisely what "witnesses" Defendant Maxwell is concerned about. There have, for example, between communications between Ms. Giuffre's lawyers and lawyers for Mr. Epstein and Mr. Dershowitz connected with procedural and other aspects of this case. Again, the relevance of such communications seems basically non-existent to the action. But because the case has spanned eight years, collecting such communications would be difficult and overly burdensome. Moreover, Defendant Maxwell has a close working relationship and/or joint defense arrangement with both Mr. Epstein and Mr. Dershowitz. There is no reason to burden Ms. Giuffre's attorneys will collecting such communications when she can collect them in other ways. 10. All Documents concerning any Communications between you or your attorneys and any witness or potential witness in Edwards and Cassell v Dershowitz (“Dershowitz” case). Response to Request For Production No. 10: Ms. Giuffre objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, particularly as it calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and because it would require the review of hundreds of thousands of documents which would take hours upon hours of attorney time. It is not clear what the phrase "concerning" is designed to cover. As a third-party witness in that action, Ms. Giuffre had numerous communications with, for example, her attorneys in relation to that matter, and therefore, these communications are subject to the attorney client privilege and protected by the work product doctrine. It unclear what documents "concerning" communications with “witnesses” refers to, and it could expansively cover a vast number of documents, emails, and other communications that have taken place over the course of this litigation. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 38 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 38 With regard to communications by Ms. Giuffre's attorneys, this request seeks clearly privileged materials (or materials covered by the work product doctrine). With regard to "witnesses" or “potential witnesses,” the request is vague, unduly burdensome, and overbroad. The Dershowitz case centers on issues surrounding whether the Ms. Giuffre's lawyers (Edwards and Cassell) had conduct a sufficient investigation before filing a motion to join Jane Doe 3 (and Jane Doe 4) into the CVRA case. That investigation involves not only attorney-client materials, but also work product protections for Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2. This request, then, covers communications going back eight years, and it would involve a review of several hundreds of thousands of emails over that time to identify communications relevant to the potential "witnesses" who might have been able to shed light on the claims in the CVRA case and, in turn, whether sex abuse had been committed by Alan Dershowitz. The burden would be substantial and the relevance would be essentially non-existent. Such a burden is not countenanced by Rule 26 or the prevailing case law. Whatever communications Ms. Giuffre's attorneys may have had as part of their (work product protected) investigation would not shed light on whether Defendant Maxwell defames Ms. Giuffre in attacking her as, for example, a liar. The request is also vague because it is not clear precisely what "witnesses" Defendant Maxwell is concerned about. There have, for example, between communications between Ms. Giuffre's lawyers and lawyers for Mr. Epstein and Mr. Dershowitz Again, the relevance of such communications seems basically non-existent to the action. But because their investigations have spanned eight years, collecting such communications would be difficult. Moreover, Defendant Maxwell has a close working relationship and/or joint defense arrangement with both Mr. Epstein and Mr. Dershowitz. There is no reason to burden Ms. Giuffre's attorneys with Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 39 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 39 collecting such communications when she can collect them in other ways. Indeed, in light of the fact that Maxwell and Dershowitz have a close working relationship, it is unduly burdensome that Maxwell seeks these items not from her ally but from attorneys for her legal adversary. 11. Any statement obtained by You or Your attorneys from any witness or potential witness in the CVRA case. Response to Request For Production No. 11: Ms. Giuffre objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, particularly as it calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and because it would require the review of hundreds of thousands of documents which would take hours upon hours of attorney time. Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney￾client/work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege stated in the General Objections. Ms. Giuffre objects because the term “statement” is vague and ambiguous, unduly burdensome and overbroad. With regard to communications to Ms. Giuffre's attorneys, this request seeks clearly privileged materials, because Ms. Giuffre's attorneys represent not only Ms. Giuffre (Jane Doe 3) in the matter, but also Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doe 4. The CVRA case centers on issues surrounding whether the U.S. Government failed to confer and otherwise protect the rights of victims (including Janes Does 1, 2, 3, and 4) during plea negotiations with Jeffrey Epstein. The CVRA has been in litigation for nearly eight years, and there have extensive communications with the prosecutors (including communications concerning approximately 10,000 pages of documents that were requested by victims’ counsels and provided to Judge Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 40 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 40 Marra for in camera review). It is not clear whether the request is designed to request all of these communications as “statements,” but if it does capture these communications going back eight year, it would involve a review of several hundreds of thousands of emails over that time to identify communications with the Government prosecutor. The burden would be substantial and the relevance would be essentially non-existent. Whatever statements Ms. Giuffre's attorneys obtained from government prosecutors about CVRA notifications concerning a prosecution of Epstein would not shed light on whether Defendant Maxwell defames Ms. Giuffre in attacking her as, for example, a liar. Moreover, many materials remain under Judge Marra’s protective order. Accordingly, before Ms. Giuffre’s counsel could even have the option to release certain materials that the Government has provided to him as an attorney in the case, defendant Maxwell would have to approach Judge Marra and seek a modification of the protective order. The request is also vague because it is not clear precisely what "statements" Defendant Maxwell is concerned about. There have, for example, between communications between Ms. Giuffre's lawyers and lawyers for Mr. Epstein and Mr. Dershowitz connected with procedural and other aspects of this case. Again, the relevance of such communications seems basically non-existent to the action. But because the case has spanned eight years, collecting such communications would be difficult. Moreover, Defendant Maxwell has a close working relationship and/or joint defense arrangement with both Mr. Epstein and Mr. Dershowitz. There is no reason to burden Ms. Giuffre's attorneys will collecting such statements when she can collect them in other ways. 12. Any statement obtained by You or Your attorneys from any witness or potential witness in the Dershowitz case. Response to Request For Production No. 12: Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 41 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 41 Ms. Giuffre objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, particularly as it calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and because it would require the review of hundreds of thousands of documents which would take hours upon hours of attorney time. Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney￾client/work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege stated in the General Objections. Ms. Giuffre objects because the term “statement” is vague and ambiguous, unduly burdensome and overbroad. The Dershowitz case centers on issues surrounding whether the Ms. Giuffre's lawyers (Edwards and Cassell) had conduct a sufficient investigation before filing a motion to join Jane Doe 3 (and Jane Doe 4) into the CVRA case. That investigation involves not only attorney-client materials, but also work product protections for Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2. The request potentially covers communications or “statements” going back eight years, and it would involve a review of several hundreds of thousands of emails over that time to identify “statements” made by any “witness” or “potential witness" who might have been able to shed light on whether sex abuse had been committed by Alan Dershowitz. The burden would be substantial and the relevance would be essentially non-existent Whatever communications Ms. Giuffre's attorneys may have had as part of their (work product protected) investigation would not shed light on whether Defendant Maxwell defames Ms. Giuffre in attacking her as, for example, a liar. With regard to communications to Ms. Giuffre's attorneys, this request seeks clearly privileged materials, because Ms. Giuffre's attorneys represent not only Ms. Giuffre (Jane Doe 3) in the matter, but also Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doe 4 in the CVRA litigation. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 42 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 42 The CVRA has been in litigation for nearly eight years, and there have extensive communications with the prosecutors (including communications concerning approximately 10,000 pages of documents that were requested by victims’ counsels and provided to Judge Marra for in camera review). It is not clear whether the request is designed to request all of these communications as “statements,” but if it does capture these communications going back eight year, it would involve a review of several hundreds of thousands of emails over that time to identify communications with the Government prosecutor. The burden would be substantial and the relevance would be essentially non-existent. Whatever statements Ms. Giuffre's attorneys obtained from government prosecutors about CVRA notifications concerning a prosecution of Epstein would not shed light on whether Defendant Maxwell defames Ms. Giuffre in attacking her as, for example, a liar. The request is also vague because it is not clear precisely what "statements" Defendant Maxwell is concerned about. There have, for example, between communications between Ms. Giuffre's lawyers and lawyers for Mr. Epstein and Mr. Dershowitz connected with procedural and other aspects of these cases. Again, the relevance of such communications seems basically non-existent to the action. Moreover, Defendant Maxwell has a close working relationship and/or joint defense arrangement with both Mr. Epstein and Mr. Dershowitz. In light of the fact that Maxwell and Dershowitz have a close working relationship, it is unduly burdensome that Maxwell seeks these items not from her ally but from attorneys for her legal adversary. There is no reason to burden Ms. Giuffre's attorneys will collecting such statements when she can collect them in other ways. Dated: July 1, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 43 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 43 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 Telephone: (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 Telephone: (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 Telephone: (801) 585-5202 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 1, 2016, I electronically sent the foregoing document to the counsel below via e-mail. 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 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 44 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 44 jpagliuca@hmflaw.com Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 45 of 45 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK VIRGINIA GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, -against￾GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. No. 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED INTERVENOR ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ’S MOTION FOR PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION AND UNSEALING OF JUDICIAL DOCUMENTS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MODIFICATION OF PROTECTIVE ORDER Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP 600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor New York, New York 10020 (212) 763-5000 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 32 i TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................................... iii-v PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.....................................................................4 I. MS. GIUFFRE’S ALLEGED RELATIONSHIP WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND BELATED ACCUSATIONS AGAINST PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ..............................................................4 II. MS. GIUFFRE AND HER ATTORNEYS’ CONTINUING INSISTENCE ON, AND REPETITION OF, ACCUSATIONS AGAINST PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ..............................................................5 III. THE EXCULPATORY EMAILS, REPLY BRIEF, AND MANUSCRIPT ..............................................................................................6 IV. THE REVELATION OF THE EXCULPATORY DOCUMENTS TO PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ ..............................................................................11 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................11 I. PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO INTERVENE UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 24(B) ..............................11 A. There Is Significant Overlap Between the Subject Matter of the Original Action and This Motion ....................................................12 B. There Is No Risk of Undue Delay or Prejudice .........................................12 C. Professor Dershowitz Has a Compelling Interest in Access That Is Not Represented by Any Existing Party ........................................13 II. THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE COMMON LAW REQUIRE PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS ................................14 A. Legal Standard ...........................................................................................14 1. The Common Law Test .................................................................15 2. The First Amendment Test ............................................................15 B. The Requested Documents Are Judicial Documents .................................16 C. The Common Law Right of Access Applies to the Requested Documents .................................................................................................17 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 32 ii 1. The Weight of the Presumption of Access Is Strong .....................17 2. There Are No Countervailing Interests That Outweigh the Right of Access ........................................................................19 D. The First Amendment Guarantees Access to the Requested Documents .................................................................................................20 III. ALTERNATIVELY, THE PROTECTIVE ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PERMIT DISCLOSURE OF THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS ................22 CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................26 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 32 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES PAGE NO(s). Cases Alexander Interactive, Inc. v. Adorama, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 6608, 2014 WL 4346174 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014) ...................................... 16 Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., 805 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1986) ................................................................................................. 16 Chi. Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2001) ........................................................................................ 16 Dandong v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., No. 10 Civ. 8086, 2012 WL 6217646 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2012) ....................................... 16 Diversified Grp., Inc. v. Daugerdas, 217 F.R.D. 152 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) ...................................................................................... 11 Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2004).............................................................................................. 22 Gucci Am., Inc. v. Guess?, Inc., No. 09 Civ. 4373, 2010 WL 1416896 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2010) ....................................... 16 In re EPDM Antitrust Litig., 255 F.R.D. 308 (D. Conn. 2009)................................................................................. 23, 24 In re Gushlak, No. 11-MC-0218, 2012 WL 3683514 (E.D.N.Y. July 27, 2012) ............................... 17, 19 In re N.Y. Times Co., 828 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1987).............................................................................................. 18 In re Newsday, Inc., 895 F.2d 74 (2d Cir. 1990)................................................................................................ 19 In re Omnicom Grp., Inc. Secs. Litig., No. 02 Civ. 4483, 2006 WL 3016311 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2006) ............................... 17, 19 In re September 11 Litig., 262 F.R.D. 274 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ...................................................................................... 23 Jane Doe #1 v. United States of America, No. 08 Civ. 80736 (S.D. Fla.) ....................................................................................... 4, 21 Jessup v. Luther, 227 F.3d 993 (7th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................................ 12 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 32 iv Lenart v. Coach Inc., 131 F. Supp. 3d 61 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) ................................................................................. 19 Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Techs., Inc., 998 F.2d 157 (3d Cir. 1993).............................................................................................. 16 Long Island Lighting Co. v. Barbash, 779 F.2d 793 (2d Cir. 1985).............................................................................................. 18 Louissier v. Universal Music Grp., Inc., 214 F.R.D. 174 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) ...................................................................................... 22 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onodaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006)....................................................................................... passim Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (1966) .......................................................................................................... 14 Mokhiber v. Davis, 537 A.2d 1100 (D.C. Ct. App. 1988) .......................................................................... 19, 21 Newsday LLC v. Cnty. of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2013).............................................................................................. 14 Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) .......................................................................................................... 13 S.E.C. v. Oakford Corp., No. 00 Civ. 2426, 2001 WL 266996 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2010) ...................................... 17 S.E.C. v. TheStreet.com, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001)........................................................................................ 22, 24 Schiller v. City of N.Y., No. 04 Civ. 7922, 2006 WL 2788256 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2006) .............................. 13, 17 Skyline Steel, LLC v. PilePro, LLC, No. 13 Civ. 8171, 2015 WL 556545 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2015) ......................................... 19 Tradewinds Airlines, Inc. v. Soros, No. 08 Civ. 5901, 2016 WL 3951181 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2016) ............................... 23, 24 U.S.P.S. v. Brennan, 579 F.2d 188 (2d Cir. 1978).............................................................................................. 11 United States v. Amodeo (Amodeo I), 44 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 1995)................................................................................................ 14 United States v. Amodeo (Amodeo II), 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995)........................................................................................ 14, 17 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 32 v United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323 (1950) .......................................................................................................... 18 United States v. Erie Cnty., 763 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 2014).................................................................................. 15, 20, 21 United States v. Erie Cnty., No. 09 Civ. 849, 2013 WL 4679070 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2103) ..................................... 12 United States v. Graham, 257 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2001).............................................................................................. 15 United States v. Martoma, No. S1 12 Cr. 973, 2014 WL 164181 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2014) ........................................ 20 United States v. Sattar, 471 F. Supp. 2d 380 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ............................................................................... 16 Vazquez v. City of N.Y., No. 10 Civ. 6277, 2014 WL 11510954 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2014) ..................................... 22 Westmoreland v. CBS, Inc., 752 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1984)................................................................................................ 14 Rules & Statutes Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 .................................................................................................................... 11, 14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 .............................................................................................................. 22, 24, 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 .......................................................................................................................... 18 Other Authorities Casey Sullivan, Alan Dershowitz Extends Truce Offer to David Boies Amid Bitter Feud, BLOOMBERG LAW (Apr. 11, 2016), https://bol.bna.com/alan-dershowitz-extends￾truce-offer-to-david-boies-amid-bitter-feud/ ...................................................................... 6 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 32 1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT At nearly 78 years of age, Alan M. Dershowitz, the highly regarded Harvard Law professor, criminal defense lawyer, and author, is entitled to enjoy the reputation for strict personal rectitude that he has earned. Unfortunately, however, over the course of the last year and a half, that reputation has been unfairly sullied, tainted by false and grotesque allegations of pedophilia and rape peddled to the press by Virginia Giuffre, the plaintiff in this lawsuit, and republished all over the world. Professor Dershowitz has done everything in his power to combat this assault on his reputation, from proclaiming his innocence in public, to marshalling every bit of information within his control to demonstrate that the allegations cannot be true, to submitting to a full investigation of the charges by former federal judge and FBI Director Louis Freeh, who exonerated him. And still the stories keep coming. Now, having been named as a witness in this action by both plaintiff and defendant, Professor Dershowitz has been granted access to certain materials subject to this Court’s stipulated Protective Order and filed under seal—and those materials, some of them in Ms. Giuffre’s own words, confirm his absolute innocence. They demonstrate that Ms. Giuffre did not accuse Professor Dershowitz of sexual misconduct until years after she first named other prominent men who she claimed had abused her; that there was “no proof” that Professor Dershowitz had ever done anything wrong; and that Ms. Giuffre concocted her malicious allegations against Professor Dershowitz, and used his name in her statements and book proposal, not because he abused her—he didn’t—but because he is famous and she believed that his name would help sell the book. In this application, Professor Dershowitz seeks to intervene in this case for the limited purpose of obtaining relief that is modest and narrowly tailored: the unsealing of portions of a brief filed in connection with a motion to quash a subpoena (“Reply Brief”), and certain emails Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 32 2 submitted as part of that same motion (“Emails”), as well as a draft of Ms. Giuffre’s memoir (“Manuscript”) that was filed in connection with a motion to extend the parties’ deadline for deposition discovery. Unsealing of these three documents (the “Requested Documents”) is required because they are all judicial documents to which a presumption of public access applies. In the alternative, if the Court declines to unseal the Requested Documents on the basis that they are judicial documents, Professor Dershowitz seeks modification of the Court’s March 18, 2016 stipulated Protective Order to permit the dissemination of the Requested Documents. The Requested Documents concern allegations by Ms. Giuffre whose substance has already been widely aired in public—including, apparently, on camera to ABC News—and which have been widely circulated for sale to publishers and journalists. Ms. Giuffre’s efforts to gain publicity and a book deal based on public interest in her claims should forfeit any asserted right to maintain the confidentiality of these documents. Separately and together, the Requested Documents demonstrate that the allegations of sexual misconduct against Professor Dershowitz—which were lodged by Ms. Giuffre in public court filings and repeated worldwide in the press—are nothing more than a recent fabrication, a made up story designed to increase commercial interest in Ms. Giuffre’s book and promote its sale to a publisher and eventually to readers. Accessing these materials without restriction, and making them public, is essential to Professor Dershowitz’s ability to defend himself. There is no basis for the Requested Documents to remain secret, much less for their secrecy to be maintained by court order. Ms. Giuffre has done everything in her power to publicize her false allegations against Professor Dershowitz: through her lawyers, she publicly filed the accusations in a federal court proceeding; she and her lawyers stood by her claims, in both court filings and public statements to the media, even after her lawyers had issued a public statement acknowledging that filing them had been a “mistake;” she shopped a book manuscript Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 32 3 to agents, publishers, and the press with the goal of maximizing the public attention paid to her slanderous story; and she even sought and obtained a lengthy interview with ABC News with the intent that it be broadcast on national television news programs. Ms. Giuffre and her attorneys cannot credibly argue that documentary evidence undermining the accusations she has spent years working to make public are “secret” and should be kept so under the authority of this Court. Disclosing the Requested Documents would violate no right of privacy. By publicly leveling false accusations against Professor Dershowitz in graphic detail and seeking to publicize those accusations in the media, Ms. Giuffre has forfeited any claim that her own (defamatory) words are somehow confidential. Indeed, what Ms. Giuffre’s own counsel have referred to as the “strong current media interest in the case”—which Ms. Giuffre has worked to sustain, including by selling her story—bolsters the public’s right to access the Requested Documents. Were Ms. Giuffre to prevail in her efforts to suppress these documents of high public interest, the result would be absurd and unfair: Ms. Giuffre’s false allegations would remain in the public record, while the innocent victim of her slanders would be barred from using her own words to disprove them. No one should be permitted to game the legal system so perversely. The law recognizes Professor Dershowitz’s right to the Requested Documents under the First Amendment, the common-law right of access to judicial documents, and governing Second Circuit jurisprudence, which forbids sealing and secrecy for their own sake. Here, having waived any privacy interest she may have had by both disseminating the allegations against Professor Dershowitz and by filing this lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell, Ms. Giuffre should not be heard to say that her own words, and the words of those with whom she communicated, are somehow “confidential.” They are not. This Court should grant Professor Dershowitz the right to intervene in this action and unseal the Requested Documents. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 32 4 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. MS. GIUFFRE’S ALLEGED RELATIONSHIP WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND BELATED ACCUSATIONS AGAINST PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ In 2006, Professor Dershowitz was retained by financier Jeffrey Epstein to join a team of lawyers hired to defend Epstein against accusations that he had solicited sex workers and had inappropriate sexual encounters with underage girls.1 Declaration of Alan M. Dershowitz (“Dershowitz Decl.”) ¶¶ 6-7. In 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to certain offenses involving sex with minors. Id. ¶ 7. Ms. Giuffre has alleged that she was one of Epstein’s victims, although Epstein was neither charged nor convicted of any conduct toward her. Id. ¶ 8. Ms. Giuffre claims that she was held as a “sex slave” and trafficked by Epstein, who she alleges facilitated sexual encounters with a number of men. Id. In the period from 2006 through 2014, Ms. Giuffre submitted to interviews with law enforcement, told her story to the media, drafted a tell-all memoir, and filed a lawsuit alleging that Mr. Epstein had trafficked her to many of his prominent associates. Id. ¶¶ 10-14. During this period, Ms. Giuffre never once claimed to have had any sexual contact with Professor Dershowitz, much less that he had sexually abused her. Id. Then, in December 2014, Ms. Giuffre—represented by attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell—filed a motion to join an action (the “CVRA Action”) that had been initially filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in 2008 by another of Mr. Epstein’s alleged victims, who was designated as “Jane Doe.” Jane Doe #1 v. United States of America, No. 08 Civ. 80736 (S.D. Fla.) (hereinafter, Doe v. USA); Dershowitz Decl. ¶ 16. In late 2014 and early 2015, Ms. Giuffre’s lawyers alleged in public court filings in the CVRA Action that Mr. Dershowitz had had sex with Ms. Giuffre on numerous occasions while she was a minor, including in Florida, on 1 Professor Dershowitz had been acquainted with Mr. Epstein through academic events for a number of years prior to his retention as Mr. Epstein’s counsel, but had neither witnessed nor heard about allegations of sexual misconduct by Mr. Epstein before being hired to represent him. Dershowitz Decl. ¶ 6. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 32 5 Mr. Epstein’s private planes, in the British Virgin Islands, in New Mexico, and in New York. Dershowitz Decl. ¶ 17. Unlike much of the record in the CVRA Action, these allegations were not sealed; instead, they were filed publicly without any evidence to support them and without affording Professor Dershowitz an opportunity to dispute them. Id. Although Ms. Giuffre elaborated these false allegations in subsequent filings, eventually, the presiding judge in the CRVA Action struck them as a sanction against the lawyers who had filed them. But the damage to Professor Dershowitz’s reputation had been done—and it would persist. Id. ¶¶ 18-19. In the wake of the grotesque allegation that he is a pedophile and a sex criminal, Professor Dershowitz loudly and publicly defended himself. In January 2015, Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Cassell, sued Professor Dershowitz for defamation, citing comments he made in his own defense. Id. ¶ 21. During discovery in that action, Ms. Giuffre never produced the Emails or the Manuscript despite a court order requiring her to provide all statements referencing Professor Dershowitz by name; she also falsely testified under oath in her deposition that she never exchanged emails with Sharon Churcher or other members of the press about Professor Dershowitz. Id. ¶¶ 22-23. The defamation action ultimately settled in April 2016, and the parties released a joint statement in which attorneys Cassell and Edwards admitted that it was a mistake to accuse Professor Dershowitz of sexual misconduct in their filings in the CVRA Action and withdrew those allegations. Id. ¶ 24 & Ex. H. Also in April 2016, Professor Dershowitz released the results of a thorough investigation led by former FBI Director and federal judge Louis Freeh, which found that “the totality of the evidence” “refutes the allegations made against” Professor Dershowitz by Ms. Giuffre. Id. ¶ 25 & Ex. I. II. MS. GIUFFRE AND HER ATTORNEYS’ CONTINUING INSISTENCE ON, AND REPETITION OF, ACCUSATIONS AGAINST PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ Despite the settlement of the defamation case and the resulting joint statement, the court order striking the “lurid” allegations against Professor Dershowitz in the CVRA Action, and the Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 32 6 results of Judge Freeh’s investigation, Ms. Giuffre and her counsel have republished Ms. Giuffre’s allegations against Professor Dershowitz. Id. ¶ 26. For example, on April 8, 2016, just after the settlement of the defamation case, Mr. Cassell and Mr. Edwards made a court filing that stated that Ms. Giuffre “reaffirms” her allegations against him, and that their mistake in filing those allegations in the CVRA Action was merely “tactical.” Id. ¶ 26 & Ex. J. David Boies, another of Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys in this case, was described as saying that Ms. Giuffre “stands by her allegations” against Professor Dershowitz. See Casey Sullivan, Alan Dershowitz Extends Truce Offer to David Boies Amid Bitter Feud, BLOOMBERG LAW (Apr. 11, 2016), https://bol.bna.com/alan-dershowitz-extends-truce-offer-to-david-boies-amid-bitter-feud/. These statements—which falsely imply that Professor Dershowitz is guilty of sexual misconduct—are highly injurious to his reputation, especially when they come from otherwise-credible lawyers. Id. ¶ 26. The claim that Professor Dershowitz engaged in sexual misconduct with Ms. Giuffre has also continued to receive attention in the press. See id. ¶ 27 & Ex. K. Professor Dershowitz has learned that Ms. Giuffre sat for an interview with ABC News, presumably as part of her efforts to increase public interest in (and the commercial value of) her “story.” Id. ¶ 27. The interview was announced on social media by an organization with which Mr. Edwards is associated and was said to be slated to appear on ABC’s Good Morning America, World News Tonight, and Nightline programs. Id. While the ABC News interview apparently has not yet run, there is no assurance that it will not run in the future. Id. III. THE EXCULPATORY EMAILS, REPLY BRIEF, AND MANUSCRIPT Each of the Requested Documents corroborates Professor Dershowitz’s claims of innocence and undermines both Ms. Giuffre’s credibility generally and the veracity of her accusations against Professor Dershowitz specifically. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 32 7 First, the Emails, consisting of one exchange dated May 10-11, 2011 and another dated June 8, 2011, discuss, among other topics, Ms. Giuffre’s Manuscript, which purports to recount her experiences with Epstein and other prominent people. Id. ¶ 34. Within the May 2011 exchange, Ms. Giuffre writes to Ms. Churcher on May 10, 2011: “Hello gorgeous, I hope this message comes to you on a bright, sunny day!!! I took your advice about what to offer Sandra and she accepted. Were drawing up a contract through her agent right now and getting busy to meet my deadline. Just wondering if you have any information on you from when you and I were doing interviews about the J.E. story. I wanted to put the names of these assholes, oops, I meant to say, pedo’s, that J.E. sent me to. With everything going on my brain feels like mush and it would be a great deal of help!...” Dershowitz Decl., Ex. A at GIUFFRE004096-97. In an e-mail dated May 11, 2011, Ms. Churcher replies to Mrs. Giuffre, urging her to use Professor Dershowitz’s name in her book proposal despite the lack of any evidence of his involvement in wrongdoing: Don't forget Alan Dershowitz...JE’s buddy and lawyer..good name for your pitch as he repped Claus von Bulow and a movie was made about that case...title was Reversal of Fortune. We all suspect Alan is a pedo and tho no proof of that, you probably met him when he was hanging put [sic] w JE.” Id. at GIUFFRE004096.2 The June 8, 2011 exchange shows Ms. Churcher corresponding with a book agent to promote Ms. Giuffre’s book; Ms. Giuffre is copied on the message. Ms. Churcher mentions Professor Dershowitz as one of Epstein’s lawyers, together with Kenneth Starr, but not as an abuser: Hi Jarred Hopefully you have Virginia' s book pitch by now. She has some amazing names which she can share with you in confidence and I think she also has a human interest story that 2 The relevant excerpts of the Requested Documents are reproduced herein without any alterations or corrections to spelling, grammar, or typographical errors. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 32 8 could appeal to the Oprah/female set as well as the Wall Streeters who follow Epstein — a hedge fund king. Here are a few of our stories about Virginia, plus some examples of the massive US and other international media pickup. Vanity Fair are doing a piece I believe in their August issue. The FBI have reopened the Epstein case due to Virginia’s revelations. I also am attaching a link to a NY Magazine profile of Epstein.....written before his world combusted. The FBI believe he was essentially running a private — and mobile -- brothel for some of the world’s richestand most influential men. He got off the first time round after retaining Kenneth Starr (who witchhunted Bill Clinton) and Alan Dershowitz (von Bulow's appeal lawyer, who inspired the movie Reversal of Fortune). The US Justice Dept is investigating corruption allegations against at least one prosecutor involved in the case. Best regards, Sharon Id. at GIUFFRE004028-29. The Emails were filed under seal in connection with Ms. Churcher’s motion to quash her deposition subpoena. Dershowitz Decl. ¶ 38. The Reply Brief, also filed under seal in pertinent part, characterizes these emails from Ms. Churcher’s perspective, asserting as follows: Churcher makes no suggestion that [Ms. Giuffre] had sexual contact with Dershowitz. To the contrary, she states that there was ‘no proof’ that he was a ‘pedo’—which directly contradicts such a suggestion in itself—but only that [Ms. Giuffre] ‘probably met him when he was hanging out with [Jeffrey Epstein]’. Dershowitz Decl., Ex. M at 8. Finally, the Manuscript—which was filed in connection with Ms. Maxwell’s opposition to Ms. Giuffre’s request for an extension of the deposition discovery deadline—further corroborates that Ms. Giuffre’s allegations against Professor Dershowitz are a recent fabrication. The draft mentions Professor Dershowitz only once, claiming, falsely, that he once walked into a room while Ms. Giuffre was in bed after a sexual encounter with Jeffrey Epstein: Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 32 9 Jeffrey’s business was running well from the looks of his attentiveness the office he owned in the Upper East Side of Manhattan. Alan Dershowitz, his colleague in finances and personal solicitor, a bird of the same feather, I had seen hanging around the island and Jeffrey’s Manhattan mansion, more and more these days. Alan’s taste for the young and beautiful was a bias for a blooming business relationship between him and Jeffrey. After an explicit session of Jeffrey’s vulgar pilgrimage into my body, we were interrupted by a knock at the door by Jeffrey’s good friend, Alan. I wrapped myself up in Jeffrey’s pink bed sheets, which is the color preference he chose to sleep in because it reminded him of the same color of his own words " Pussy", and covered my face from the unexpected intrusion. Jeffrey got up and wrapped a towel around his loins and answered the door completely calm. Opening the bedroom door and letting Alan inside they began to converse about business immediately, right in front of me. Jeffrey started to tell Alan what needed to be done while he jostled some notes down quickly. I peeked my head from underneath the covers thinking they were too wrapped up in their work to notice me get up and dressed, and Jeffrey turned back to me and told me to just stay there this would only take a second. Going back to Alan he turned his focus back into work and hustled out a few more orders before letting Alan out of the door and returning his attention to me. Dershowitz Decl., Ex. B at 112. Putting aside that this account is a complete fabrication— Professor Dershowitz had no business dealings with Mr. Epstein and was not his lawyer at the time in question—the Manuscript contains no mention anywhere of any sexual contact between Professor Dershowitz and Ms. Giuffre, or between Professor Dershowitz and any other person. Indeed, though the Manuscript describes sexual encounters Ms. Giuffre allegedly had with a different member of the Harvard faculty—whom she identifies by name and physical characteristics—it levels no such accusation against Professor Dershowitz. Dershowitz Decl. ¶ 37. The Requested Documents, taken together with other evidence currently in the public record, prove the following: x Before her email correspondence with Sharon Churcher in 2011, Ms. Giuffre did not in any way accuse Professor Dershowitz of sexual abuse, Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 32 10 even though she had accused other prominent people of abusing her and had plenty of opportunity to do so. x In an exchange of emails in 2011, Ms. Churcher, who was advising Ms. Giuffre about how to maximize her payments for selling her story, first raised the idea of mentioning Professor Dershowitz in connection with the alleged abuse, despite the fact that there was “no proof” that he was involved. x After receiving this email, Ms. Giuffre did in fact put Mr. Dershowitz in her book draft, but she conspicuously did not accuse him of sexual abuse or even any sexual contact, even though she explicitly named others who she claimed had abused her. x In a subsequent email exchange between Ms. Churcher, Ms. Giuffre, and Mr. Weisfeld, Ms. Churcher described several categories of prominent individuals with whom Ms. Giuffre claimed to have had sexual encounters. Professor Dershowitz’s name, along with that of Kenneth Starr, is mentioned in the email, but only as one of the lawyers who negotiated Mr. Epstein’s plea agreement, not as one the “amazing names” of those who allegedly abused Ms. Giuffre. x Ms. Giuffre lied during her deposition in the defamation case brought by her lawyers against Professor Dershowitz, testifying that there were no emails between herself and Ms. Churcher that mentioned Professor Dershowitz by name. Her lawyers did not correct this testimony. x In her Reply Brief, Ms. Churcher has confirmed that Professor Dershowitz was not among the prominent individuals that Ms. Giuffre was accusing of sexual misconduct. The Reply Brief affirmatively argues that Ms. Churcher was “not suggesting” that Professor Dershowitz had sex with Ms. Giuffre, but merely mentioned him to remind Ms. Giuffre that Epstein and Professor Dershowitz knew each other. Id. ¶ 43. The Requested Documents strongly corroborate Professor Dershowitz’s denials of Ms. Giuffre’s malicious and false allegations against him, and undermine her credibility by showing that she has lied under oath about him before. Id. ¶ 44. Because Ms. Giuffre and her lawyers continue to publicly stand by Ms. Giuffre’s accusations against Professor Dershowitz, he has a compelling need to use the Requested Documents in defending his reputation. Id. ¶ 47. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 32 11 IV. THE REVELATION OF THE EXCULPATORY DOCUMENTS TO PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ In or about May 2016, Professor Dershowitz was named as a witness in this case by both plaintiff and defendant. Id. ¶ 29. Thereafter, he was contacted by defense counsel Ms. Laura Menninger, in anticipation of his possible future testimony. Id. ¶ 30. After Professor Dershowitz agreed to abide by the terms of the stipulated Protective Order in this case (the “Protective Order”), Ms. Menninger sent Professor Dershowitz the Requested Documents to review pursuant to a provision permitting documents produced confidentially in discovery to be shown to potential witnesses. See id. ¶¶ 30, 32; Ex. L. Professor Dershowitz was previously unaware that the Requested Documents existed. Id. ¶¶ 40-41. ARGUMENT I. PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO INTERVENE UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 24(B) “On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1), provided the proposed intervenor “has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact,” id. R. 24(b)(1)(B). The decision to permit intervention under Rule 24(b) is discretionary, U.S.P.S. v. Brennan, 579 F.2d 188, 191 (2d Cir. 1978), though the Court “must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3). “Additional relevant factors include the nature and extent of the intervenors’ interests, the degree to which those interests are adequately represented by other parties, and whether parties seeking intervention will significantly contribute to the full development of the underlying factual issues in the suit and to the just and equitable adjudication of the legal questions presented.” Diversified Grp., Inc. v. Daugerdas, 217 F.R.D. 152, 157 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). “It is well-settled that intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b) is the proper procedure for a third party to seek to modify a protective order in a private suit.” Id. (collecting authorities). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 32 12 Likewise, permissive intervention “has generally been found to be most appropriate for a non￾party to intervene in order to assert the right to public access” for judicial documents. United States v. Erie Cnty., No. 09 Civ. 849, 2013 WL 4679070, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2103) (collecting authorities), rev’d on other grounds, 763 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 2014). Here, all relevant considerations support granting Professor Dershowitz’s motion for permissive intervention. A. There Is Significant Overlap Between the Subject Matter of the Original Action and This Motion Many courts have held that a non-party’s assertion of a right to access sealed or confidential litigation materials itself presents a question of law common among the parties and the proposed intervenor, satisfying the prerequisites for permissive intervention. “[W]hen a district court enters a closure order, the public’s interest in open access is at issue and that interest serves as the necessary legal predicate for intervention.” Jessup v. Luther, 227 F.3d 993, 998 (7th Cir. 2000). “Because an intervenor asserting the right of public access is not becoming a party to the underlying merits of a case, further specificity is not required.” Erie Cnty., 2013 WL 4679070, at *5. Even if a more particularized showing of factual or legal commonality were needed, Professor Dershowitz could easily make it. This lawsuit concerns the veracity of Ms. Giuffre’s allegations of sexual abuse—allegations of which Professor Dershowitz has been a repeated target. The Requested Documents are relevant to the credibility both of Ms. Giuffre’s claims generally and of her allegations against Professor Dershowitz specifically. Both parties have listed Professor Dershowitz as a key witness in this case, Dershowitz Decl. ¶ 29, and he is likely to provide testimony as the litigation proceeds. B. There Is No Risk of Undue Delay or Prejudice Professor Dershowitz’s motion seeks extremely narrow and tailored relief: the unsealing of a small number of already-filed documents or the modification of a blanket Protective Order as to one discovery document. Dershowitz Decl. ¶ 3. In the context of this complex case, where Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 32 13 a number of discovery disputes and other applications have been submitted to the Court in just the last few weeks, this modest request is unlikely to appreciably affect the schedule of the litigation or to delay its ultimate disposition. See Schiller v. City of N.Y., No. 04 Civ. 7922, 2006 WL 2788256, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2006) (noting that intervention “for the limited purpose of challenging strictures on the dissemination of information should not impede the progress of the litigation”). C. Professor Dershowitz Has a Compelling Interest in Access That Is Not Represented by Any Existing Party As the Supreme Court has recognized, the public’s right to access judicial proceedings and documents extends well beyond those with direct interests in the subject matter of the litigation at issue: “American decisions generally do not condition enforcement of this right on a proprietary interest in the document or upon a need for it as evidence in a lawsuit.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (noting that “the citizen’s desire to keep a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies” is a sufficient basis to compel access). Even if a more concrete stake were needed, Professor Dershowitz has a compelling interest in obtaining and disclosing the Requested Documents, which corroborate his denials of Ms. Giuffre’s heinous allegations against him and undermine her credibility. He also plans to rely on them to defend against a request for sanctions against him that is pending on appeal in a Florida court. Dershowitz Decl. ¶ 46. Although Professor Dershowitz has valiantly fought to clear his name—by, among other efforts, marshaling incontrovertible proof of his innocence, asserting defamation claims in court, and commissioning a thorough investigation led by a respected former federal judge that exonerated him—he has found himself unable to stem the tide of media reports and public statements by Ms. Giuffre and her lawyers labeling him a pedophile and sexual abuser. Professor Dershowitz seeks to intervene here to assert his First Amendment and Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 32 14 federal common-law rights to access information he needs to defend his hard-earned reputation. That interest is more than a sufficient basis to permit intervention under Rule 24(b). II. THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE COMMON LAW REQUIRE PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS A. Legal Standard “Federal courts employ two related but distinct presumptions in favor of public access to court proceedings and records: a strong form rooted in the First Amendment and a slightly weaker form based in federal common law.” Newsday LLC v. Cnty. of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156, 163 (2d Cir. 2013). “Underlying that First Amendment right of access is the common understanding that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs.” Westmoreland v. CBS, Inc., 752 F.2d 16, 22 (2d Cir. 1984) (quoting Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966)). Similarly, the common law right of access, which “is said to predate the Constitution,” United States v. Amodeo (Amodeo I), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995), rests on “the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice,” United States v. Amodeo (Amodeo II), 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995). Both the First Amendment and common law rights of access create a presumption against secrecy for “judicial documents.” See Newsday, 730 F.3d at 164 (First Amendment); Amodeo I, 44 F.3d at 145-46 (common law). The Second Circuit has explained that “the item filed must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process in order for it to be designated a judicial document.” Amodeo I, 44 F.3d at 145. Once an item’s status as a “judicial document” has been established, the common law and the First Amendment demand distinct analyses to determine whether the presumption of access is overcome. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 32 15 1. The Common Law Test In determining the applicability of the common-law right of access to a given document, courts are charged with determining the weight of the presumption of access under the particular circumstances presented. The presumption applies to all judicial documents, but the strength of the presumption varies according to the importance of a given document in the judicial process. The weight afforded to the presumption of access is “governed by the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power and the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onodaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006). The Second Circuit has explained that “documents that directly affect an adjudication and play a significant role in determining litigants’ substantive rights receive the benefit of a relatively strong presumption, while the public interest in other documents is not as pressing.” United States v. Graham, 257 F.3d 143, 153 (2d Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “Finally, after determining the weight of the presumption of access, the court must balance competing considerations against it.” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Such countervailing factors include but are not limited to the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency and the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 2. The First Amendment Test Even where the common law right of access is found to be inapplicable, the First Amendment may still require disclosure of judicial documents. The First Amendment right of access is “stronger than its common law ancestor and counterpart.” United States v. Erie Cnty., 763 F.3d 235, 239 (2d Cir. 2014). In deciding First Amendment access claims, the Second Circuit considers “(a) whether the documents have historically been open to the press and general public (experience) and (b) whether public access plays a significant positive role in the Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 32 16 functioning of the particular process in question (logic).” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “Once a First Amendment right of access to judicial documents is found, the documents may be sealed only if specific, on the record findings are made demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). B. The Requested Documents Are Judicial Documents For a document to appropriately be deemed a “judicial document,” “[i]t is sufficient that the document was submitted to the Court for purposes of seeking or opposing an adjudication.” United States v. Sattar, 471 F. Supp. 2d 380, 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). Here, the Emails and the Reply Brief have been submitted to the Court in connection with Ms. Churcher’s efforts to quash her deposition subpoena and Defendant’s opposition to those efforts, while the Manuscript was submitted to the Court in connection with a motion to extend the deposition discovery deadline. Accordingly, all qualify as “judicial documents.” Courts in this district3 have repeatedly held that documents submitted in support of or opposition to a discovery motion are judicial documents. See, e.g., Alexander Interactive, Inc. v. Adorama, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 6608, 2014 WL 4346174, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014) (“Here, the documents to be submitted are in support of a motion to compel discovery and presumably will be necessary to or helpful in resolving that motion. They are, therefore, judicial documents.”); Dandong v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., No. 10 Civ. 8086, 2012 WL 6217646, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2012) (applying presumption of public access to papers filed in connection with a motion for reconsideration of a discovery order); Gucci Am., Inc. v. Guess?, Inc., No. 09 Civ. 4373, 2010 WL 1416896, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2010) (holding that “declarations and a 3 Some federal Courts of Appeals have suggested that the presumption of access does not apply to documents filed in connection with discovery motions. See, e.g., Chi. Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1312-13 (11th Cir. 2001); Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Techs., Inc., 998 F.2d 157, 165 (3d Cir. 1993); Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., 805 F.2d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 1986). But the Second Circuit has never adopted such a rule, and the weight of district court authority in the Southern District of New York rejects this approach. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 22 of 32 17 memorandum of law” seeking to limit discovery “clearly constitute ‘judicial documents’”); In re Omnicom Grp., Inc. Secs. Litig., No. 02 Civ. 4483, 2006 WL 3016311, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2006) (holding that letter briefs and attached exhibits submitted to the court in connection with a privilege dispute were “submitted in this case to request the court to exercise its adjudicative powers in favor of the parties’ respective views of a discovery dispute” and therefore were judicial documents); Schiller, 2006 WL 2788256, at *5 (holding that briefs and supporting papers submitted in connection with a dispute over the confidentiality of discovery materials were “created by or at the behest of counsel and presented to a court in order to sway a judicial decision” and were therefore “judicial documents that trigger the presumption of public access”); S.E.C. v. Oakford Corp., No. 00 Civ. 2426, 2001 WL 266996, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2001) (applying presumption of access to judicial documents to motion papers filed in connection with a discovery dispute); see also In re Gushlak, No. 11-MC-0218, 2012 WL 3683514, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. July 27, 2012) (holding that documents filed in support of and opposition to a motion for discovery assistance, including motions to quash, were judicial documents). The Requested Documents were submitted to the Court to influence its adjudication of the motion to quash and the motion to extend the deposition deadline, and they are therefore judicial documents. C. The Common Law Right of Access Applies to the Requested Documents 1. The Weight of the Presumption of Access Is Strong Treating materials submitted in connection with a discovery motion as judicial documents that the public may presumptively access gives effect to the purposes of the common law right, which is to facilitate public monitoring of the exercise of judicial power. “Monitoring both provides judges with critical views of their work and deters arbitrary judicial behavior.” Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1048. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 23 of 32 18 The motion in connection with which the Emails and the Reply Brief were submitted concerns whether the Court should overrule a claim of privilege and compel testimony on pain of contempt. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(g) (providing that the court “may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey [a] subpoena or an order related to it”). Compelling testimony is a quintessential exercise of coercive judicial power that the public is entitled to monitor. See United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 331-32 (1950) (elaborating the importance of balancing “the great power of testimonial compulsion” against exemptions “grounded in a substantial individual interest which has been found, through centuries of experience, to outweigh the public interest in the search for truth”). Just as disclosure of pretrial suppression proceedings in criminal cases “enhances the basic fairness of the judicial process and the appearance of fairness that is essential to public confidence in the system,” In re N.Y. Times Co., 828 F.2d 110, 114 (2d Cir. 1987), affording access to proceedings concerning the permissibility of civil discovery provides an important check on the exercise of Article III power. Likewise, the Court should afford a strong presumption of access to the Manuscript, which was submitted as part of Defendant’s opposition to a request to extend a discovery deadline. The Second Circuit has recognized that a district court’s decisions concerning the scope and timing of discovery may “affect a party’s substantial rights.” Long Island Lighting Co. v. Barbash, 779 F.2d 793, 795 (2d Cir. 1985). As one court has aptly explained: The discovery process is clearly an important element of civil litigation. The manner in which it proceeds may prove decisive to the outcome of particular disputes, and the availability of mandatory discovery has greatly affected the way in which our courts do justice. Moreover, discovery procedures have become a continuing focus of controversy and reform within the judiciary and the legal community. This debate has arisen precisely because discovery is so important in trial practice. If we take as our standard that the public’s right of access attaches to decisions ‘of Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 24 of 32 19 major importance to the administration of justice, then discovery motions and hearings fall within the ambit of this right. Mokhiber v. Davis, 537 A.2d 1100, 1112 (D.C. Ct. App. 1988) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Courts in this district have repeatedly recognized that filings submitted in connection with a motion to alter the pace or schedule of litigation are subject to public access. See, e.g., Lenart v. Coach Inc., 131 F. Supp. 3d 61, 72 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (applying presumption of public access to “papers filed in connection with [a] motion to stay”); Skyline Steel, LLC v. PilePro, LLC, No. 13 Civ. 8171, 2015 WL 556545, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2015) (same). “While adjudication of the ultimate merits of the case arguably triggers the highest degree of protection against sealing, this does not imply that motion papers addressed to a discovery dispute do not trigger the public-access presumption.” In re Omnicom Grp., 2006 WL 3016311, at *4. Because the Requested Documents were submitted by the parties in connection with discovery motions to be adjudicated by the Court, “those documents are entitled to the strongest presumption of public access.” In re Gushlak, 2012 WL 3683514, at *4. 2. There Are No Countervailing Interests That Outweigh the Right of Access The limited unsealing Professor Dershowitz seeks threatens none of the harms courts have recognized as sufficient to outweigh the right of access to judicial documents. As an initial matter, Professor Dershowitz seeks to reveal unflattering (and false) statements about himself. Thus, the general rule “that the common law right of access is qualified by recognition of the privacy rights of the persons whose intimate relations may thereby be disclosed,” In re Newsday, Inc., 895 F.2d 74, 79 (2d Cir. 1990), has no application. Nor does Ms. Giuffre possess any claim to privacy concerning the information Professor Dershowitz seeks to unseal. The Requested Documents discuss her allegations against a number of public figures, and relate to the preparation of a book manuscript with the goal of international publication and distribution. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 25 of 32 20 Nothing could be less private. Indeed, both Ms. Giuffre’s relationship with Ms. Churcher and the nature of her allegations against Professor Dershowitz have been the subject of publicly available court filings in this and other actions and of numerous media stories. Dershowitz Decl. ¶¶ 15-20, 26-27; Ex. K. Any claim to confidentiality has been waived. See infra Part III. In short, the Requested Documents contain none of the kinds of information that give courts pause in granting public access to judicial documents. “The information at issue . . . does not involve the type of medical, health-related, family, or personal financial matter to which courts grant the greatest protection.” United States v. Martoma, No. S1 12 Cr. 973, 2014 WL 164181, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2014). It involves only contemporaneous evidence of a scheme to cook up false and defamatory allegations against Professor Dershowitz. He is entitled to access and use that evidence to defend himself. D. The First Amendment Guarantees Access to the Requested Documents Even if the common law did not compel the conclusion that the Requested Documents must be made public, the First Amendment would supply an alternative basis for their disclosure. The First Amendment presumption of access to judicial documents applies when “experience and logic” indicate that “the documents have historically been open to the press and general public,” and that “public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question.” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120 (internal quotation marks omitted). With respect to the experience prong, the Second Circuit has held that “the notion of public access to judicial documents is a capacious one: the courts of this country have long recognized a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents,” in order to facilitate public monitoring. Erie Cnty., 763 F.3d at 241 (internal quotation marks omitted). Discovery motions and the documents supporting them are routinely filed in courts across the country without sealing and with the understanding that such Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 26 of 32 21 documents are publicly accessible. And while the relatively recent history of modern civil discovery practice means there is no ancient common-law analogue to the contemporary discovery motion, “[t]his absence, of course, is not surprising, for compelled discovery is a child of the first Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopted in 1938.” Mokhiber, 537 A.2d at 1111. “It would make little sense to shut off access for what is, practically speaking, a new kind of judicial process just because that particular procedure did not exist at common law. Instead, the public should enjoy the right to view new kinds of proceedings when they are like traditional ones in this significant respect: that access will serve the same values and policies which underlie” the public right of access. Id. at 1112. As to the logic prong of the Second Circuit’s test, it is clear that public monitoring has an important role to play here. Ms. Giuffre’s allegations against Professor Dershowitz have been the subject of significant public interest and have been discussed at length in an array of international news stories. Indeed, in the CVRA Action, Ms. Giuffre’s own counsel cited “strong current media interest in the case” to oppose sealing the pleadings, pointing to Ms. Churcher’s stories among others as examples. Doe v. United States, No. 08 Civ. 80736 (S.D. Fla.), ECF No. 51, at 7. “The issues involved are manifestly ones of public concern and therefore ones which the public has an interest in overseeing.” Erie Cnty., 763 F.3d at 242. Because experience and logic dictate that the First Amendment right of access applies to the Requested Documents, their continued sealing would only be permissible on the basis of “specific, on-the-record findings that higher values necessitate a narrowly tailored sealing.” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 126. Here, no such findings have ever been made; indeed, the Court has granted boilerplate sealing applications with no findings or judicial scrutiny whatsoever. See, e.g., ECF No. 254. There would be no basis to find that continuing secrecy is warranted, let alone “essential to preserve higher values.” Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 27 of 32 22 III. ALTERNATIVELY, THE PROTECTIVE ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PERMIT DISCLOSURE OF THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS Even where discovery materials are found not to be judicial documents, that does not automatically entitle them to confidential treatment. See Vazquez v. City of N.Y., No. 10 Civ. 6277, 2014 WL 11510954, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2014). Here, although Professor Dershowitz is in rightful possession of the Requested Documents, he is prohibited from disseminating them by the parties’ stipulated, blanket Protective Order. See Dershowitz Decl. Ex. L. That order permits the parties to designate documents as confidential without particularized judicial scrutiny, which is how the Requested Documents became subject to a protective order in the first instance. Because there is no basis for judicial protection of the Requested Documents, the Protective Order should be modified to permit its disclosure. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) permits issuance of a protective order only upon “good cause shown,” and requires that such orders issue only “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” “[I]f good cause is not shown, the discovery materials in question should not receive judicial protection and therefore would be open to the public for inspection.” Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 142 (2d Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). A protective order requires “particular and specific demonstration of fact as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements” showing the harm that would result from disclosure. Louissier v. Universal Music Grp., Inc., 214 F.R.D. 174, 177 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). The Second Circuit’s general rule that a protective order should not be modified “absent a showing of improvidence in the grant of the order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need,” S.E.C. v. TheStreet.com, 273 F.3d 222, 229 (2d Cir. 2001), applies only when the parties have reasonably relied on the protective order in producing discovery. That is not the case here, where the protective order is a sweeping and generic stipulation permitting the parties, Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 28 of 32 23 and not the Court, to set the standards for access. “A blanket protective order is more likely to be subject to modification than a more specific, targeted order because it is more difficult to show a party reasonably relied on a blanket order in producing documents or submitting to a deposition.” In re EPDM Antitrust Litig., 255 F.R.D. 308, 319 (D. Conn. 2009). “Stipulated blanket orders are even less resistant to a reasonable request for modification.” Id. “An examination of Second Circuit case law reveals the following factors are relevant when determining whether a party has reasonably relied on the protective order[:] (1) the scope of the protective order; (2) the language of the order itself; (3) the level of inquiry the court undertook before granting the order; and (4) the nature of reliance on the order.” In re September 11 Litig., 262 F.R.D. 274, 277 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, all four factors weigh against a finding of reasonable reliance. First, the Protective Order contains “expansive language granting the parties broad latitude to self-designate materials” as confidential, making it unreasonable for any party to rely on the prospect of indefinite and ironclad confidentiality protections in producing discovery. See EPDM, 255 F.R.D. at 320. Second, the Protective Order allows challenges to confidentiality designations, see Dershowitz Decl., Ex. L ¶ 11, and permits the Court to modify the order “at any time” for good cause, id. ¶ 14. “Given this provision, it is difficult to see how the [parties] can reasonably argue that they produced documents in reliance on the fact that the documents would always be kept secret.” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 126. Third, “[t]he level of inquiry undertaken before the Order was entered also weighs in favor of modification because the Court ‘so ordered’ the parties’ stipulation without having cause to determine whether all the documents covered actually warranted protection.” Tradewinds Airlines, Inc. v. Soros, No. 08 Civ. 5901, 2016 WL 3951181, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2016). While this practice can be salutary to the extent it preserves judicial resources and Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 29 of 32 24 promotes efficiency in complex civil discovery, it strongly weakens the parties’ claim to a reasonable expectation that every document marked confidential will remain subject to a Rule 26(c) order indefinitely. See EPDM, 255 F.R.D. at 319. “Finally, the nature of the reliance on the Order weighs in favor of modification because there is no indication that the [parties] relied on the Order to produce documents they would not have otherwise disclosed.” Tradewinds Airlines, 2016 WL 3951181, at *2. Indeed, Ms. Giuffre could not reasonably have believed that she could avoid disclosing her own descriptions of, and communications about, the very subject matter of this lawsuit, which she commenced. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 125. Even if the parties’ reliance on the Protective Order could be deemed reasonable, which it cannot, Professor Dershowitz would handily satisfy TheStreet.com’s requirement of a compelling need or extraordinary circumstance. First, as one Court in this district explained recently, “courts within this circuit have found there to be a ‘compelling need’ or ‘extraordinary circumstance’ warranting modification where a blanket protective order is entered without a showing of good cause.” Tradewinds Airlines, 2016 WL 3951181, at *2 (collecting authorities). More importantly, under the circumstances, Professor Dershowitz’s need for the Requested Documents is undeniable. They strongly corroborate his denials of the sexual abuse allegations Ms. Giuffre belatedly levied against him, which were themselves first presented in documents filed publicly on a federal court docket. Dershowitz Decl. ¶ 43. Professor Dershowitz has a compelling need to use all available evidence to defend himself against Ms. Giuffre’s allegations, which have persisted despite a thorough investigation exonerating him and continue to be republished in the media. Dershowitz Decl. ¶¶ 16, 18, 45. Professor Dershowitz will also use the Requested Documents to defend against a sanctions motion that is pending in a state court in Florida, providing an independent basis to modify the Protective Order. See id. ¶ 46. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 30 of 32 25 In contrast, there is no basis for a finding of good cause to protect the content of the Requested Documents, all of which concern Ms. Giuffre’s own allegations. She cannot credibly claim that disclosure will cause her “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Indeed, Ms. Giuffre has waived any claimed to confidentiality. She has publicly filed her accusations of sexual misconduct against an array of individuals, including Professor Dershowitz, in at least two lawsuits besides this one. Dershowitz Decl. ¶¶ 10-12, 15-20. She has sold her story to the media and sat for extensive interviews with Ms. Churcher and other reporters about the very same allegations that are the subject of the Requested Documents. Id. ¶¶ 13, 26-27. She even “agreed to waive her anonymity” in order to disseminate her story publicly. Sharon Churcher, Exclusive: Girl at Center of Underage Sex Procurement Case That Scandalised America Describes How She Was Introduced to the Prince, MAIL ON SUNDAY, Feb. 27, 2011. More recently, Ms. Giuffre sat for an interview with ABC News, hoping to increase public interest in her allegations. Dershowitz Decl. ¶ 27. Although the interview has not yet aired, it could be broadcast at any time, likely repeating once again the same allegations for which Ms. Giuffre has claimed confidentiality in the context of litigation discovery. See id. And her lawyers have continued to give interviews insinuating Professor Dershowitz’s guilt even after reaching a settlement with him and agreeing to release a public statement withdrawing their own public filing of the accusations against him. See Dershowitz Decl., Ex. H. In short, disseminating the information contained in the Requested Documents, which she has designated “confidential” in the context of this lawsuit, has been Ms. Giuffre’s life’s work for years. Having made every effort to publicize these allegations for personal and commercial gain, Ms. Giuffre should not be permitted now to make an abrupt about-face and claim that they are entitled to this Court’s protection from public dissemination. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 31 of 32 26 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Professor Dershowitz respectfully requests that the Court grant his motion for permissive intervention and unseal the Requested Documents, or in the alternative modify the Protective Order to permit their dissemination. Dated: August 11, 2016 New York, New York EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP ___________/s/_________________ Andrew G. Celli, Jr. David A. Lebowitz 600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor New York, New York 10020 (212) 763-5000 Attorneys for Proposed Intervenor Alan M. Dershowitz - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 32 of 32 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 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENFORCE THE COURT’S ORDER AND DIRECT DEFENDANT TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS Plaintiff, Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, files this Reply in Support of her Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions. Defendant argued that Mr. Boies’ questions were outside this Court’s Order. That is simply untrue. Defendant refused to answer questions that go to heart of the type of questions this Court specifically ordered Defendant to answer: they could not be more on-point. None of Defendant’s arguments change the language of this Court’s Order. None of Defendant’s arguments change the questions Defendant refused to answer. Accordingly, Ms. Giuffre’s motion should be granted. I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Defendant begins her brief with snippets of her self-serving testimony. As the Court is aware, all of this testimony is directly contradicted by the myriad of other witnesses in this case who have testified at deposition, including Defendant’s own witness, Tony Figueroa. Defendant has claimed in her deposition that she did not procure girls for sex with Epstein nor notice the Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 12 2 hundreds of young girls who came and went from the home she shared with Epstein. Her testimony is directly refuted by multiple witnesses. Tony Figueroa, Defendant’s own witness, testified that Defendant called him directly, asking him to bring girls over, that he did bring girls under the age of 18 over, and that he knew about Defendant’s threesomes with Ms. Giuffre and Epstein.1 Johanna Sjoberg testified that Defendant recruited her for sex with Epstein under the guise of answering phones. That phone job lasted one day, because her second day Defendant asked her to start giving massages, and it soon made it clear that Sjoberg’s purpose was to bring Epstein to orgasm so Defendant didn’t have to all of the time.2 Chillingly, Rinaldo Rizzo, Defendant’s friend’s house manager, through tears, described how Defendant tried to force a 15 year old Swedish girl to have sex with Epstein through threats and stealing her passport.3 Juan Alessi, Epstein’s house manager, testified that Defendant was one of the people who procured the over 100 girls he witnessed visit Epstein, and that he had to clean Defendant’s sex toys.4 Lynn Miller testified that Defendant became Ms. Giuffre’s “new momma,”5 though Defendant claims that she would not even remember Ms. Giuffre were it not for these 1 See McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit 4, Figueroa June 24, 2016 Dep. Tr. Vol. 1 at 96-97 and 103 (Figueroa testified that Plaintiff told him about threesomes with Defendant and Epstein which included the use of strap-ons); and Vol. 2 at 200 (Figueroa testified that Defendant called him inquiring if he had found any other girls for Epstein). 2 See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, Johanna Sjoberg’s May 18, 2016 Dep. Tr. at 8-9, 13, 33-35, 142- 143. 3 See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 6, Rinaldo Rizzo’s June 10, 2016 Dep. Tr. at 52-60. 4 See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7, Juan Alessi’s June 1, 2016 Dep. Tr. at 28, 52-54. 5 See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 8, Lynn Miller’s May 24, 2016 Dep. Tr. at 115. 1111 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 12 3 proceedings (apparently, also forgetting the 23 flights she shared with Ms. Giuffre on Epstein’s private jet,6 known colloquially as the “Lolita Express”7 ). Police Detective Joseph Recarey, who led the investigation of Epstein, testified that Defendant procured underage girls for Epstein.8 Indeed, on the morning that Recarey executed the search warrant on Epstein’s Palm Beach Property, Defendant, herself, called Epstein’s housekeeper Louella Rabuyo, and told her not to come over to their house that day until the afternoon.9 And though Defendant refused to admit that she flew with Ms. Giuffre,10 Epstein’s pilot, Dave Rodgers, testified that the passenger listed on his flight log bearing the initials – GM – was in fact Ghislaine Maxwell and Rodgers was the pilot on at least 23 of the flights in which Defendant flew with Plaintiff.11 6 See Maxwell’s April 22, 2016 Dep. Tr. at 78-79, 144 (barely recollects Plaintiff at all); see also McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 9, Excerpted Rodgers Dep. Ex. 1 (flight records evidencing Defendant (GM) flying with Ms. Giuffre). 7 See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 10, “All aboard the ‘Lolita Express’: Flight logs reveal the many trips Bill Clinton and Alan Dershowitz took on pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s private jet with anonymous women” at The Daily Mail, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article￾2922773/Newly-released-flight-logs-reveal-time-trips-Bill-Clinton-Harvard-law-professor-Alan￾Dershowitz-took-pedophile-Jeffrey-Epstein-s-Lolita-Express-private-jet-anonymous￾women.html (January 22, 2015). 8 See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 11, Detective Joseph Recarey’s June 21, 2016 Dep. Tr. at 29-30. 9 See McCawley Decl.at Exhibit 12, Louella Rabuyo’s October 20, 2009 Dep. Tr. at 81-83. 10 See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1 Maxwell’s April 22, 2016 Dep. Tr. at 120-127, 132-133 and 145. 11 See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 13, David Rodgers’ June 3, 2016 Dep. Tr. at 18, 34-36; see also Exhibit 9, Excerpted Rodgers Dep. Ex. 1 at flight #s 1433-1434, 1444-1446, 1464-1470, 1478-1480, 1490-1491, 1506, 1525-1526, 1528, 1570 and 1589. - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 12 4 Both Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova invoked the Fifth Amendment when asked about Defendant trafficking girls12 in a previous action, and both failed to show up for their depositions in this case. Also in a previous action, Alfredo Rodriguez, another house manager, testified that Defendant “knew what was going on” with the underage girls, and threatened him about telling others.13 Tellingly, Defendant has not been able to procure a single witness - not one - who can testify that Defendant did not procure girls for sex with Epstein and did not participate in the sex. Even one of her own witnesses, Tony Figueroa, testified that she both procured girls and participated in the sex. Indeed, those who knew her well, who spent considerable time in her and Epstein’s shared household, have testified that she was Epstein’s procuress. With every deposition taken, the chorus of voices accusing Defendant of being a procurer of girls for Epstein grows louder and stronger, corroborating Ms. Giuffre’s account, and proving that Defendant defamed her when she called her a liar.14 In her Response brief, Defendant puts forth the number of questions posed to her in her deposition; however, the important number is omitted: how many questions she actually answered. What Defendant fails to tell the Court is how many questions - and how much deposition time - was taken up by Defendant engaging in improper behavior. Defendant spent much of her time refusing to answer basic questions so that they had to be repeated multiple 12 See McCawley Decl. at Exhibits 14-15, Sarah Kellen’s March 24, 2010 Dep. Tr. at 37-40, 100; and Nadia Marcinkova’s April 13, 2010 Dep. Tr. at 29-35, 47-49. 13 See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 16, Alfredo Rodriguez’ July 29, 2009 Dep. Tr. at 176-177; 169-172. 14 Defendant claims that “Plaintiff’s counsel has admitted that it was a mistake to sue Alan Dershowitz for defamation, after he provided them documentation establishing he never was in their client’s presence, nor did he have sex with her.” This is simply untrue. - - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 12 5 times. She also spent much of her time feigning incomprehension of simple sentences and common words, also causing the same question to be posed to her multiple times. For example, defendant pretended not to understand the question, “Do you believe that Epstein abused minors?,” causing it to be repeated multiple times. Q. . . . do you believe that Jeffrey Epstein abused any minor children? A. Can you repeat the question please and break it down so it's more understandable. Q. Now that you have the police report that I showed you this morning that you had an opportunity to look at. A. You gave it to me, I did not look at it. Q. The questions that I asked you about the police report -- you are aware there is a police report? A. I am aware there is a police report. Q. You are aware there was a criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein? A. I am aware that there was that. Q. Now that you are aware of those two things and having talked to Jeffrey Epstein, do you believe Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused minors? A. Can you reask the second part of that question please. Q. Sure. The two documents we were talking about, the document and the investigation, you said you are aware of and after having talked to Jeffrey Epstein, do you believe Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused minors? A. What do you mean I talked to Jeffrey, you need to break the question down further. *** Q. Let's take those two things. After knowing those two things, do you believe that Jeffrey Epstein abused minor children? A. Can you explain what you mean by the question actually. Q. I think the question speaks for itself. I will try again. I will say it one more time because I want you to be able to understand it. Knowing that you have the police report here and knowing about the criminal investigation, do you believe that Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused minors? This sequence goes on and on. Counsel for Ms. Giuffre had to ask Defendant whether she believed Epstein abused minors fourteen more times after this exchange. 15 Still, Defendant never answered the question. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, Maxwell’s April 22, 2016 Dep. 15 See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, Maxwell’s April 22, 2016 Dep. Tr. at 170, 171, 173 (twice), 174 (twice), 175 (twice), 176 (twice), 178, 182 (twice), and 183. Counsel for Ms. Giuffre had to repeat other questions when Defendant did not answer them (e.g., asking about Defendant’s knowledge of abuse of minors in Epstein’s home, See McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 1, Maxwell’s April 22, 2016 Dep. Tr. at 90, 168-169). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 12 6 Tr. at 168:18 - 181:24. It appears that Defendant’s misleading tally of questions posed to her includes all the times questions were repeated or needlessly re-worded due to her obstructionist deposition tactics. Indeed, Defendant, who claimed her professional role with Epstein was to pay the pool guy,16 has a master’s degree from Oxford University’s Balliol College. Yet, throughout the deposition, she feigned incomprehension of basic questions, and even of basic words. Defendant pretended she did not know what a “puppet” is. See McCawley Decl at Exhibit 1, Maxwell’s April 22, 2016 Dep. Tr. at 287-290. Other examples of Defendant’s feigned incomprehension of basic questions to avoid answering questions can be found attached at Exhibit 1, Maxwell’s April 22, 2016 Dep. Tr. at 8:23-9:18 (pretending she did not know what a “female” is); 51:13 - 54:14 (pretending she didn’t understand what “sexual acts” were); 69:25-71:16 (pretending she doesn’t know what “sex toys” are); 87:8-91:3 (pretending that the dozens of police reports made by underage girls abused by Epstein were all “lies”). Defendant also repeatedly asked for simple questions to be rephrased, pretending that she did not understand. Specifically, she requested that questions be repeated or re-asked at least twenty-eight times. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, Maxwell’s April 22, 2016 Dep. Tr. at 9, 13, 22, 26, 39, 50, 85, 93, 97, 98, 105, 121, 168-169, 187, 189, 201, 221 (two times), 239, 241, 257, 267, 278-279, 287, 289, 291, 336, and 377. Sometimes changing tact, she also asked for the questions to be broken down/apart. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, Maxwell’s April 22, 2016 Dep. Tr. at 26, 93-94, 168-169, 170. Defendant is correct that there was much repetition in her deposition: many questions were asked multiple times when Defendant did not provide an answer, and many were asked multiple times at Defendant’s own request. 16 See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, Maxwell’s April 22, 2016 Dep. Tr. at 50:18-24. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 12 7 Defendant complains in her brief about the length of time she was deposed. That, too, was her own-doing. Her deposition would have been much shorter (and the second one avoided entirely) if she answered the questions posed to her the first time. Indeed, she was playing games, giving non-answers, and feigning incomprehension. It was Defendant’s refusal to answer questions that caused this Court to order her to sit for a second deposition. That could have been avoided by simply answering the questions the first time. Defendant’s behavior not only wasted everyone’s time, but revealed that she could provide no answer to those questions that could aid in her defense. Moreover, Defendant put forth a detailed chart to show that certain questions were “duplicative or redundant,” but, tellingly, did not include Defendant’s responses in the chart. The reason is clear: Defendant’s non-communicative “non-answers” from her first deposition necessitated their repetition. II. DISCUSSION The Court’s Order was clear. Among other things, the Court ordered Defendant to answer questions related to her knowledge of the sexual activities of others with or involving Epstein. Defendant is ordered to answer questions relating to Defendant’s own sexual activity (a) with or involving Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein”), (b) with or involving Plaintiff, (c) with or involving underage females known to Epstein or who Defendant believed or intended might become known to Epstein, or (d) involving or including massage with individuals Defendant knew to be, or believed might become, known to Epstein. Defendant is also directed to answer questions relating to her knowledge of sexual activities of others (a) with or involving Epstein, (b) with or involving Plaintiff, (c) with or involving underage females known to Epstein or who Defendant believed were known or might become known to Epstein, or (d) involving or including massage with individuals Defendant knew to be or believed might become known to Epstein. (FN. Each of the aforementioned lists are disjunctive.) The scope of Defendant’s answers are not bound by time period, though Defendant need not answer questions that relate to none of these subjects or that is clearly not relevant, such as sexual activity of third-parties who bear no knowledge or relation to the key events, individuals, or locations of this case. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 12 8 See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, June 20, 2016 Sealed Order at p. 10 (Emphasis added). As articulated in the moving brief, Defendant refused to answer four categories of questions that were directly within the ambit of this Court’s Order. First, Defendant refused to answer many questions about Johanna Sjoberg, who was recruited by Defendant, and subsequently abused by and had sex with Jeffrey Epstein. Questions relating to her involvement with Epstein and Defendant are directly within the ambit of the Court’s Order. The Court should direct the Defendant to answer questions relating to Johanna Sjoberg because they are “questions relating to [Defendant’s] knowledge of sexual activities of others with or involving Epstein.” Second, Defendant refused to answers concerning Maria and Annie Farmer. Defendant was involved in Epstein’s sexual abuse, and grooming for sexual abuse, of Maria Farmer and Annie Farmer, respectively. Notably, Annie Farmer was only 16 years old at the time: a familiar yet still disturbing theme running through Defendant and Epstein’s lifestyle. Therefore, questions relating to Defendant’s involvement with, knowledge of, and observations of both Annie and Maria Farmer are within the ambit of this Court’s Order because they are “questions relating to [Defendant’s] knowledge of sexual activities of others with or involving Epstein.” Third, Defendant refused to answer questions regarding girls brought to “massage” Epstein by Tony Figueroa. Questions regarding the girls who Defendant asked Mr. Figueroa to bring to the house to “massage” Epstein are also directly within the ambit of this Court’s Order. Fourth, and related to the third topic, questions about Maxwell’s knowledge of, and interactions with, any of the girls who came over to “massage” Epstein are all within the ambit of the Court’s Order. Questions concerning Defendant’s knowledge of and involvement with these girls are (1) “questions relating to [Defendant’s] knowledge of sexual activities of others with or Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 12 9 involving Epstein;” (2) “questions relating to [Defendant’s] knowledge of sexual activities of others . . . with or involving underage females known to Epstein or who Defendant believed were known or might become known to Epstein;” (3) “questions relating to [Defendant’s] knowledge of sexual activities of others . . . involving or including massage with individuals Defendant knew to be or believed might become known to Epstein.” Defendant also refused to answer foundational questions that are necessary precedent to the question authorized by this Court. The Court should direct Defendant to answer those questions, and all related questions that arise out of any response Defendant provides within the parameters of the Court’s June 20, 2016 Sealed Order. As recounted more fully in the moving brief, the questions Defendant refused to answer fall squarely within this Court’s earlier order. Defendant can have no legitimate basis for obstructing the search for truth by refusing to answer. The Court should, again, compel Defendant to answer all these questions. Defendant claims that "[i]t is difficult to discern precisely what questions Plaintiff is complaining about in her Motion because of her generalized and non-specific complaints.” Br. at 9. To the contrary, Ms. Giuffre set forth excerpts from the deposition transcript showing exactly what questions Defendant refused to answer. To wit, Defendant failed to answer “So is it fair to say that Johanna was initially hired to answer telephones, according to your testimony?” (Plaintiff’s Brief at 4); “So, how did it happen, Ms. Maxwell, that Joanna, who had been hired to answer the phones, ended up giving massages to you and Mr. Epstein?” (Id.); “Did Mr. Epstein pay Johanna for the massages that she gave Mr. Epstein?” (Plaintiff’s Brief at 6); and “Do you know whether or not Maria Farmer was ever at Mr. Wexner’s property in Ohio?” (Plaintiff’s Brief at 7). The brief also set for the instance wherein Mr. Pagliuca instructed the Defendant not Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 12 10 to answer any more questions with respect to whether she knows certain girls who came over to Epstein’s home to massage him, “Q. Have you ever heard the name Carolyn Andriamo, A-N-D￾R-I-A-M-O? A. I don’t recollect that name at all. MR. PAGLIUCA: those names are on Exhibit 26, which we have already gone over and she said she didn't recognize those people, so now we are just repeating things that we went over. MR. BOIES: I am in the context of seeing if I can refresh her recollection, because these are women that Mr. Figueroa, who she also does not recall, brought over to Mr. Epstein's residences, and I also want to make a very clear record of what her testimony is and is not right now.” (Plaintiff’s Brief at 8-9). See McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 3, Excerpts from Maxwell July 22, 2016 Dep. Tr. at 154-156. Defendant cannot make a credible argument that these questions, or their subject matter, are outside the scope of the Court’s Order. All of them relate to Defendant’s knowledge of individuals who “massaged” Jeffrey Epstein (Johanna Sjoberg), who were brought to their house to “massage” Jeffrey Epstein (Carolyn Andriamo and myriad other girls who Figueroa brought at Defendant’s behest); and who were massaged by Defendant herself (Annie Farmer at 16 and Maria Farmer). Mr. Boies’ unanswered questions are all directly within the ambit of this Court’s Order. Again, Defendant’s arguments do not change the language of this Court’s Order; nor do they change the questions Defendant refused to answer. Defendant must answer these questions. III. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, Ms. Giuffre respectfully requests that this Court grant her Motion, and direct the Defendant to answer the disposition questions Mr. Boies posed to her. Dated: August 12, 2016 Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 12 11 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) 585-520217 17 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 1328-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 12 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 12th day of August, 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 1328-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 12 1 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 MOTION TO ENFORCE THE COURT’S ORDER AND DIRECT DEFENDANT TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS 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 Enforce the Court’s Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions. 3. Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Excerpt from April 22, 2016, Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell. 4. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of June 20, 2016 Sealed Court Order. 5. Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of Excerpt from June 22, 2016, Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell. 6. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-8 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 4 2 June 24, 2016 Deposition of Tony Figueroa. 7. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from May 18, 2016, Deposition of Johanna Sjoberg. 8. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from June 10, 2016, Deposition of Rinaldo Rizzo. 9. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from June 1, 2016, Deposition of Juan Alessi. 10. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from May 24, 2016, Deposition of Lynn Trude Miller. 11. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 9 are true and correct copies of flight logs excerpted Rodgers Dep. Ex. 1. 12. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of January 22, 2015 Dailymail.co article “All aboard The Lolita Express’: Flight Logs. 13. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 11 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from June 21, 2016, Deposition of Detective Joseph Recarey. 14. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 12 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from October 20, 2009, Deposition of Louella Rabuyo. 15. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 13 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from June 3, 2016, Deposition of David Rodgers. 16. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 14 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from March 24, 2010, Deposition of Sarah Kellen. 17. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 15 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from April 13, 2010, Deposition of Nadia Marcinkova. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-8 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 4 3 18. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 16 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from July 29, 2009, Deposition of Alfredo Rodriguez. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley______________ Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. Dated: August 12, 2016. Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. 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 1328-8 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 4 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 12th day of August, 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 to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic Court Filing System 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 1328-8 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT 2 (Filed Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK USDC SDNY \,_ ll DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FP \ : \ DOC#:----...... :\ ----------------------------------------x l!::n==tATE=Fll= · ~=HJ=~==~~2c=1=.:-f;;.;; "~=Ja~r --~-, .. ::=:,J VIRGINIA L. GUIFFRE, Plaintiff, 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS) - against - GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. ----------------------------------------x APPEARANCES: Counsel for Plaintiffs BOEIS, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 By: Sigrid S. Mccawley, Esq. Meredith L. Schultz, Esq. Counsel for Defendants HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East Tenth Avenue Denver, CO 80203 By: Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Esq. 1 OPINION Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 21 Sweet, D.J. Eight discovery motions are currently pending before this court. 1. Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre ("Giuffreu or "Plaintiffu) has moved for an order of forensic examination, ECF No. 96. As set forth below, this motion is granted in part and denied in part. 2. Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwellu) or ("Defendantu) has moved to compel Plaintiff to disclose alleged on-going criminal investigations by law enforcement, ECF No. 101. As set for below, this motion is denied. 3. Plaintiff has moved to compel Defendant to answer deposition questions, ECF No. 143. This motion is granted. 4. Defendant has moved to compel non-privileged documents, ECF No. 155. As set forth below, this motion is denied. 5. Plaintiff has moved for leave to serve three deposition subpoenas by means other than personal service, ECF No. 160. As set forth below, this motion is granted in part and denied in part. 6. Defendant has moved to compel attorney-client communications and work product, ECF No. 164. As set forth below, this motion denied. 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 21 7. Plaintiff has moved to exceed the presumptive ten deposition limit, ECF No. 172. As set forth below, this motion is granted in part and denied in part. 8. Plaintiff has moved for leave to file an opposition brief in excess of the 25 pages permitted under this Court's Individual Rules of Practice. This motion is granted. I. Prior Proceedings Familiarity with the prior proceedings and facts of this case as discussed in the Court's prior opinions is assumed. See Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS), 2016 WL 831949 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 29, 2016); Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2016). Plaintiff filed her motion for clarification of the Court's March 17, 2016 Order and for forensic examination on April 13, 2016. By Order dated April 15, 2016, the motion for clarification was denied on the basis that further clarification was unnecessary. Oral argument was held with respect to forensic examination on May 12, 2016, at which time the matter was deemed fully submitted. 3 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 21 Defendant filed her motion to compel Plaintiff to disclose ongoing criminal investigations by law enforcement, or in the alternative to stay proceedings, on April 18, 2016. Oral argument was heard and the motion granted in part and denied in part on April 21, 2016. Plaintiff was directed to submit the relevant materials for in camera review. Plaintiff did so on April 28, 2016. Plaintiff filed her motion to compel Defendant to answer deposition questions on May 5, 2016. Oral argument was held on May 12, 2016, at which time the matter was deemed fully submitted. Defendant filed her motion to compel non-privileged documents on May 20, 2016. By Order dated May 23, 2016, the motion was set for argument on June 2, 2016. The motion was taken on submission on that date. Defendant filed a reply on June 6, 2016. Plaintiff filed her letter motion for leave to serve three depositions subpoenas by means other than personal service. By Order dated May 27, 2016, the motion was set for argument on June 2, 2016. The motion was taken on submission on that date. 4 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 21 Defendant filed her motion to compel attorney-client communications and work product on May 26, 2016. By Order dated May 27, 2016, the motion was set for argument on June 2, 2016. The motion was taken on submission on that date. Defendant filed a reply on June 6, 2016. Plaintiff filed her motion to exceed the presumptive ten deposition limit on May 27, 2016. By Order dated June 6, 2016, the motion was set returnable on June 16, 2016, at which time the motion was deemed fully submitted. Plaintiff filed her motion for leave to file excess pages on June 1, 2016. II. Applicable Standards Rule 26 "create[s] many options for the district judge . [to] manage the discovery process to facilitate prompt and efficient resolution of the lawsuit." Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 599, 118 S. Ct. 1584, 1597, 140 L. Ed. 2d 759 (1998). It "vests the trial judge with broad discretion to tailor discovery narrowly and to dictate the sequence of discovery." Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598, 118 S. 5 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 21 Ct. 1584, 1597, 140 L. Ed. 2d 759 (1998). The District Court may expand or limit the permitted number and time limits of depositions, direct "the time, place, and manner of discovery, or even bar discovery on certain subjects," and may "set the timing and sequence of discovery." Id. at 598-99; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(A). Consequently, the Court has wide discretion in deciding motions to compel. See Grand Cent. P'ship. Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473, 488 (2d Cir.1999). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 states: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense￾including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. If a party objects to discovery requests, that party bears the burden of showing why discovery should be denied. Freydl v. Meringolo, 09 Civ. 07196 (BSJ) (KNF), 2011 WL 256608-7, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2011). 6 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 21 III. The Motion For an Order of Forensic Examination Is Granted in Part and Denied in Part Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 2 6 ( f) ( 3) ( C) requires the parties to state their views and proposals as to preservation of electronically stored information ("ESI") and the form of production of ESL Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) (3) (C). Defendant having admitted to deletion practices that indicate relevant documents and also refused to detail document search methods, good cause exists to warrant court supervised examination of her electronic devices. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is granted in part. Defendant is ordered to collect all ESI by imaging her computers and collecting all email and text messages on any devices in Defendant's possession or to which she has access that Defendant used between the period of 2002 to present. Defendant is further directed to run mutually-agreed upon search terms related to Plaintiff's requests for production over the aforementioned ESI and produce responsive documents within 21 days of distribution of this opinion. 7 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 21 IV. The Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Disclose Ongoing Criminal Investigations is Denied The public interest privilege "exists to encourage witnesses to come forward and provide information in criminal investigations carried out by [law enforcement] without fear that the information will be disclosed." Sanchez by Sanchez v. City of New York, 201 A.D.2d 325, 326, 607 N.Y.S.2d 321 (1994). A party seeking disclosure of such information "first must demonstrate a compelling and particularized need for access" beyond "[g]eneral and conclusory allegations." Id. The Court then weighs application of the qualified privilege by balancing the need for production against the potential harm to the public from disclosure. Id. After review of the materials in camera, the qualified public interest privilege as set forth in Sanchez has been established with respect to the submitted documents. Defendant has articulated no need for the documents. Accordingly, the balance weighs in favor of the privilege, and the motion to compel is denied. To preserve the record, Plaintiff is directed to file under seal a comprehensive copy of the log and documents within 21 days of distribution of this opinion. 8 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 21 V. The Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions is Granted Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant to answer questions regarding her knowledge of adult sexual activity, which defense counsel instructed Defendant not to answer during her deposition. "Where a party objects to a discovery request, the objecting party bears the burden of demonstrating specifically how, despite the broad and liberal construction afforded the federal discovery rules, each request is not relevant or how each question is overly broad, burdensome or oppressive by submitting affidavits or offering evidence revealing the nature of the burden." John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Book Dog Books, LLC, 298 F.R.D. 184, 186 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (citations, internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Defendant has submitted that she has not put her private affairs at issue, and that such questions are highly intrusive. Notwithstanding, the questions are directed to reveal relevant answers regarding Defendant's knowledge of Plaintiff's allegations. That knowledge goes directly to the truth or falsity of the alleged defamation, a key element of Plaintiff's claim. 9 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 21 Furthermore, privacy concerns are alleviated by the protective order in this case, drafted by Defendant. Defendant is ordered to answer questions relating to Defendant's own sexual activity (a) with or involving Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), (b) with or involving Plaintiff, (c) with or involving underage females known to Epstein or who Defendant believed or intended might become known to Epstein, or (d) involving or including massage with individuals Defendant knew to be, or believed might become, known to Epstein. Defendant is also directed to answer questions relating to her knowledge of sexual activities of others (a) with or involving Epstein, (b) with or involving Plaintiff, (c) with or involving underage females known to Epstein or who Defendant believed were known or might become known to Epstein, or (d) involving or including massage with individuals Defendant knew to be or believed might become known to Epstein. 1 The scope of Defendant's answers are not bound by time period, though Defendant need not answer questions that relate to none of these subjects or that is clearly not relevant, such as sexual activity of third-parties who bear no knowledge or relation to the key events, individuals, or locations of this case. 1 Each of the aforementioned lists are disjunctive. 10 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 21 I VI. The Motion to Compel Non-Privileged Documents is Granted in Part and Denied in Part Defendant has sought to compel the following documents: (1) attorney-client communications regarding media advice; (2) pre￾existing documents transmitted to counsel; (3) documents shared with or communicated to unidentified third parties; (4) documents primarily for the purpose of providing business advice; (5) documents subject to an unidentified common interest or joint defense protection. Plaintiff has represented that all responsive "attachments" Defendant seeks to compel have been produced. Accordingly, this request is denied. Defendant seeks to compel attorney-client communications that include "third parties" on the basis that Plaintiff's privilege log is deficient for identifying individuals as "professionals retained by attorneys to aid in the rendition of legal advice." A review of Plaintiff's privilege log shows Plaintiff has expressly claimed privilege, described the nature of the withheld documents, communications, and tangible things not produced, and generally logged communications in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (b) (5) (A) (ii). "Unless 11 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 21 the client waives privilege, an attorney or his or her employee, or any person who obtains without the knowledge of the client evidence of a confidential communication made between the attorney or his or her employee and the client in the course of professional employment, shall not disclose, or be allowed to disclose such communication, nor shall the client be compelled to disclose such communication." N.Y. C.P.L.R. 4503 (McKinney) (emphasis added). The conduct explicitly described by statute as privileged does not operate as waiver, and again Defendant has provided no factual basis to suggest Plaintiff has misrepresented the identity or role of the third-parties listed. Defendant's request is denied. Defendant's challenge to the common interest privilege claims is likewise unavailing. Regardless of whether Plaintiff has reflexively claimed the common interest privilege in each entry does not vitiate the otherwise applicable privilege claims made, and Defendant has provided no factual foundation to establish waiver or failure of the other claimed privileges. Finally, with respect to the media and business advice communications, Defendant has marshaled no evidence to support her speculation that the documents logged as privileged are improperly withheld other than the fact that one member of 12 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 21 Plaintiff's legal team is an author. Plaintiff has represented to the Court and via a detailed privilege log that the communications in question are privileged. Stan Pottinger, the author in question, is a barred attorney of record in this case, incomparable to Defendant's media agent (and non-attorney) Ross Gow. That Pottinger has written non-legal material, or even whether his "primary occupation in the most recent years [is] as a novelist," is irrelevant to whether his communication with Plaintiff as her counsel was for the purpose of providing legal advice. Similarly, Bradley Edwards, who Defendant has already challenged, is an attorney of record in this case, and Defendant has provided no evidence other than the fact of his representation of Plaintiff's non-profit to doubt that the communications logged are privileged. Having provided no grounds to doubt the sworn representations of Plaintiff's counsel, Defendant's motion to compel these communications is denied. Defendant is granted leave to refile the motions with respect to media and business advice on the basis of relevant and non-specious factual support. Court intervention should not be invoked to resolve routine discovery matters on the basis of a supposition of bad faith. Further filing of frivolous or vexatious motions lacking sufficient factual support to support a colorable argument (or 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 21 on the basis of misrepresented or false facts or law) will be met with sanctions. VII. The Motion for Leave to Serve Three Deposition Subpoenas By Means Other than Personal Service is Granted in Part and Denied in Part Plaintiff seeks to compel subpoenas to serve Nadia Marcinkova, Sarah Kellen, and Jeffrey Epstein. The request is denied with respect to Epstein as moot. No opposition having been filed and the testimony of Marcinkova and Kellen being relevant to falsity of the defamation at issue, the motion is granted with respect to Marcinkova and Kellen. VIII. The Motion to Compel Attorney-Client Communications and Work Product is Denied Defendant argues that "Edwards and Cassell preemptively filed an action against Dershowitz proclaiming they did not violate Rule 11 [and i]n doing so, they voluntarily put at issue and relied on: a) their good faith reliance on information communicated to them by Plaintiff, and b) their work product 14 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 21 showing that their filing was reasonably investigated and substantially justified." Def.'s Reply in Supp. Mot. to Compel all Att'y-Client Comms. and Att'y Work Product at 8-9 (Def.'s Reply on AC"). The Broward County, Florida Court ruled on this argument in Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz and Defendant argues in reply that this order is non-binding, and was issued prior to Plaintiff's testimony. Id. at 1. Defendant was not a party to the Florida case. Nevertheless, Defendant's argument is nearly identical to Dershowitz's. Defendant argues Plaintiff's testimony arose after the ruling in the Florida case, however, the principle of that argument is the same: Defendant placed her attorney-client communications with Edwards and Cassell at issue by relying on the content of those communications in Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz. The Florida Court's ruling is therefore highly relevant privilege has not been waived. 2 The motion is accordingly denied. 2 The Court declines to address the choice of law issue, as application of Florida or New York at-issue doctrines are not outcome determinative in this instance and thus no determination is necessary. Compare Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., 940 So. 2d 504, 510 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) ("for waiver to occur under the at issue doctrine, the proponent of a privilege must make a claim or raise a defense based upon the privileged matter and the proponent must necessarily use the privileged information in order to establish its claim or defense.") with Chin v. Rogoff & Co., P.C., No. 05 CIV. 15 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 21 Jane Doe 2 IX . The Motion to Exceed the Ten Deposition Limit is Granted in Part and Denied in Part As of the filing of Plaintiff's reply on June 13, 2016, Plaintiff has deposed Defendant, Ms. Sjoberg, Mr. Alessi, Mr. Rodgers, and Mr. Rizzo and scheduled the depositions of Mr. Epstein, Mr. Gow, ._, Ms. Kellen, Ms. Marcinkova, Mr. Recarey, and Mr. Brunel. Plaintiff now seeks leave of the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(2) (A) (i) take three additional depositions: Mrs. Alessi, Mr. Reiter, and newly raised in Plaintiff's reply, Former President Clinton. Discovery being well under way and depositions having been scheduled for more than ten individuals, the motion is timely. "The 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 8360(NRB), 2008 WL 2073934, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2008) ("New York courts have held that an 'at issue ' waiver occurs "where a party affirmatively places the subject matter of its own privileged communication at issue in litigation, so that invasion of the privilege is required to determine the validity of a claim or defense of the party asserting the privilege, and application of the privilege would deprive the adversary of vital information."). 16 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 21 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). Plaintiff proposes limiting the length of the proposed depositions to limit any undue burden that might result. Defendant argues the depositions would be unduly cumulative and duplicative. This case revolves around factual issues between Plaintiff and Defendant. The testimony of Mrs. Alessi concerning relevant facts may tend to either establish or negate falsity of the allegedly defamatory statement. The limited burden of this additional deposition, further mitigated as Plaintiff proposes, is therefore outweighed by the benefit of resolving this case on the merits. The motion with respect to this additional deposition is granted. The relevance of the testimony of Mr. Reiter and President Clinton have not been adequately established. The motion as to these two depositions is denied. Defendant's request for costs and fees is denied pursuant to this Court's previous ruling with respect to costs and fees. 17 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 21 • X. The Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages is Granted Plaintiff sought leave to file excess pages in response to Defendant's motion to compel attorney-client communications and work product. To the extent the motion is not moot, leave is granted. XI. Conclusion As set forth above: the motion for an order of forensic examination is granted in part and denied in part; the motion to compel to compel Plaintiff to disclose alleged on-going criminal investigations by law enforcement is denied; the motion to compel Defendant to answer deposition questions is granted; the motion to compel non-privileged documents is denied; the motion for leave to serve three deposition subpoenas by means other than personal service is granted in part and denied in part; the motion to compel attorney-client communications and work product is denied; the motion to exceed the presumptive ten deposition limit is granted; the motion for leave to file an opposition brief in excess of the 25 pages permitted under this Court's Individual Rules of Practice is granted. This opinion resolves ECF Nos. 96, 101, 143, 155, 160, 164, 172, and 182. 18 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 21 For purposes of managing the filings in this case, the parties are further directed to comply with the Court's Individual Rules of Practice by providing all future motion papers in their full non-redacted form, complete with related declarations and exhibits, in a single complete bound hard copy delivered to Chambers at the time of filing. All soft-copies must be provided by attachment of a single PDF in its full non￾redacted form, including all related declarations and exhibits irrespective of whether each attachment or declaration is intended to be filed under seal. Soft-copies must be provided in addition to, not in lieu of, hard-copies. This matter being subject to a Protective Order, the parties are directed to meet and confer regarding redactions to this Opinion consistent with that Order. The parties are further directed to jointly file a proposed redacted version of this Opinion or notify the Court that none are necessary within two weeks of the date of receipt of this Opinion. It is so ordered. 19 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 21 New York, NY June ·µ , 2016 20 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 21 COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 3 (Filed Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 23 Confidential Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X VIRGINIA L . GIUFFRE , Plaintiff , -against - GHISLAINE MAXWELL , Defendant . Case No . : 15-cv-07433-RWS ----- --- - - x **CONFIDENTIAL** Continued Videotaped Deposition of GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the Defendant herein taken pursuant to subpoena, was held at the law offices of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, 575 Lexington Avenue , New York, New York, commencing July 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 ( 866 ) 624 - 6221 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 23 Page 18 1 2 Confidential G. Maxwell - Confidential A. I think everyone here can 3 understand what intercourse is, is when you 4 have sex. I don't know how to say 5 intercourse any other way, having sex wi th 6 somebody. Perhaps you would like to define 7 it for me . 8 Q . I ' m trying to get your definition 9 right now because you are the witness. When 10 you use the term intercourse , what are you 11 referring to? 12 A. I'm referring to a penis entering 13 someone ' s vagina. 14 15 sex? 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. Now, have you ever engaged in oral In my life? MR . PAGLIUCA: There are specific areas that the court has allowed inquiry into, and those are delineated in the court ' s order of June 2 0th. The open-ended 11 Have you ever engaged in oral sex" is not part of the court ' s order at page 10 , and the court specifically indicated that sexual activity of third parties who bear no MAGNA·9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 23 Confidential Page 20 1 G. Maxwell - Confidential 2 anyone in any of Mr. Epstein ' s five homes 3 that you have identified? 4 5 6 7 A. Q. A . Q. Yes . With whom? Mr. Epstein . Did you ever have oral sex with 8 anyone in any of Mr. Epstein ' s five homes 9 that you've identified other than 10 Mr. Epstein? 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA : I ' m going to instruct you not to answer, unless you tie it to a specific individual related to this case per the court ' s order . MR. BOIES: I think the court ' s order specifically permits this question wi th respect to occasions related to this case. If you instruct her not to answer, all you ' re going to do is bring her back. That ' s up to you . MR. PAGLIUCA : It's up to you as the questioner, Mr. Boies. The court ' s order says the defendant need not answer questions that relate to none of these subjects or that is clearly not relevant MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 23 Confidential Page 78 1 G. Maxwell - Confidential 2 Johanna? 3 4 A . Q. I would not know . I would say no . Did you engage in sexual activities 5 with Johanna? 6 A . No . 7 Q. Do you know how Johanna came to 8 know Mr Epstein? 9 A. I met her at her university and she 10 came to answer phones. 11 Q. When you say she came to answer 12 phones , where? 13 A . In Palm Beach 14 Q. At Mr. Epstein ' s home in Palm 15 Beach? 16 17 A . Q. Yes . So is it fair to say that Johanna 18 was initially hired to answer telephones , 19 according to your testimony? 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: This has already been test i fied to Mr. Boies . repeating testimony now. We are MR. BOIES: I think in the context of the witness 1 answers , these are fair questions. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 23 Page 79 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 Confidential G. Maxwell - Confidential Now, I ' ve asked you before , if you want to instruct her not to answer, if you want to go to the judge , we are happy to do that, but I would suggest , in the interest of moving it along, that you stop these speeches . MR. PAGLIUCA: You are not moving it along is the problem , so maybe we should call the court and get some direction here, because I am not going to sit here and rehash the testimony we already gave. MR . BOIES : That ' s fine . THE VIDEOGRAPHER : The time is 1 0: 51 a .m. and we are going off the record. (Whereupon , an off-the record discussion was held . ) THE VIDEOGRAPHER : The time is 10:56 a.m. and we are going back on the record. This begins DVD No . 3 . MR. BOIES : We have just had a call with Judge Sweet ' s chambers, Judge Sweet is not available and his chambers MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 23 Page 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Confidential G. Maxwell - Confidential or argue this in front of Judge Sweet. But I will simply start referring you back to the transcript and instructing the witness not to answer when I think we are getting into some things that have been asked and answered already . MR. BOIES : Exactly the procedure that I have proposed from the beginning . If you think a question is out of bounds , instruct not to answer and we 13 will then let the judge decide it . 14 BY MR. BOIES: 15 Q. How did it happen , Ms . Maxwell , 16 that Johanna, who had been hired to answer 17 the phones, ended up giving massages to you 18 and Mr. Epstein? 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: I ' m going to instruct you not to answer the question ~ This has been previously, the subject of your former deposition, it doesn't fall into any of the categories ordered by the court, and so you don ' t need to answer that. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 23 Page 82 1 2 Confidential G. Maxwell - Confidential Q. Was Johanna paid for the massages 3 that she gave you? 4 A. I didn ' t pay her , so I believe she 5 was paid . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 22 23 Q. Who paid her? A. I don 1 t know who paid her . MR. PAGLIUCA : Again, you ' ve already answered that there was no sexual activity between yourself and Mr. Epstein related to these massages That's record testimony today. That's within the scope of the court ' s order . The rest of this is outside the scope of the court ' s order, and I instruct you not to answer. MR. BOIES : You are taking the position that as long as she said says that a massage did not involve sexual activity, we cannot ask about massages . That ' s your view? MR. PAGLIUCA : questioning , yes . On this particular 24 BY MR. BOIES: 25 Q. Did Mr. Epstein pay Johanna for the MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 23 Page 83 1 Confidential G. Maxwell - Confidential 2 massages that she gave Mr. Epste in? 3 4 5 6 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: You just asked this question , and I told her not to answer. I will tell her not to answer again for the same reasons Q. Do you know how much Mr . Epstein 8 paid Johanna to give massages? 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR PAGLIUCA: Same instruction to the witness. Why do you believe this is within the scope of the court 1 s order? MR. BOIES: Because of the court 1 s reference to massages , and because I think how much a girl who was hired to answer the phone was paid to give a "ma ssage" goes to whether there actually was or was not sexual activity involved . MR. PAGLIUCA: The witness has testified there wasn't. MR. BOIES: Perhaps it will surprise you, I think it should not , that I do not believe in my deposition I need to simply accept her characterization without cross-examination. Now, that ' s MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 23 Page 84 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 Confidential G. Maxwell - Confidential something the judge can decide . but a question as to how much this young girl was being paid for a "massage " , I think goes directly to the issue of sexual activity MR. PAGLIUCA: Here is the problem, Mr. Boies , at the first deposition, there were very limited instructions not to answer and the witness was not told not to answer questions about how much people were paid or not paid or any of those subject matters. The witness was only instructed not to answer about sexual activity concerning adults in the home . None of this came up during the deposition, and you just don•t get a chance to redo the deposition because you feel like you want to . So the judge 1 s order is in the context of the instructions to the witness not to answer in the first deposition, which is simply sexual activity involving adults, which was the MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 23 Page 89 1 Confidential G. Maxwell - Confidential 2 were sex toys or devices used in sexual 3 activities in Mr . Epstein ' s property in the 4 Virgin Islands? 5 6 7 8 MR. PAGLIUCA : and foundation . No . Obj ection to form A. Q. Do you know whether Mr . Epstein 9 possessed sex toys or devices used in sexual 10 activities? 11 12 13 14 MR. PAGLIUCA: and foundation . No. Obj e ction to form A. Q. Did you ever assist Mr Epstein in 15 obtaining sex toys or devices used in sexual 16 activities? 17 18 19 20 MR . PAGLIUCA: and foundation No. Objection to form A . Q. In the 199 0s and 2 000 s , did you 21 ever have possession of or use sex toys or 22 devices used in sexual activities? 23 24 A. Q. No . Did you, in the 199 0 s and 2 00 0s , 25 engage in sexual activities other than MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 23 Confidential Page 90 1 G. Maxwell - Confidential 2 intercourse with women other than what you 3 have testified to already? 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: First of all , I object to the form and foundation and it's also outside of the court ' s order because it's unclear as you question, and I specifically direct you to the last line of the court's order: Sexual activity of third parties who bear no knowledge or relation to key events , individuals or locations in this case . MR . BOIES : This simply asks yes or no , and I think that it is an appropriate question given some of the witness ' prior answers, but there is no point in debating it, because if you instruct her not to answer, the judge will decide whether it's appropriate _ MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm just telling you if you tie it to something in this case , I will let her answer . MR. BOIES: Are you instructing her not to answer? MR. PAGLIUCA : Yes , unless you tie MAGNA8 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 23 Page 99 1 2 Confidential G. Maxwell - Confidential A. I don ' t recal l ever hearing such a 3 thing. 4 5 6 Q . A. Q. You know Mr . Les Wexner , correct? I do. Do you know whether or not Maria 7 Farmer was ever at Mr . Wexner ' s property in 8 Ohio? 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: Can you tell me how that relates to this order, counselor? MR. BOIES: Yes , I think it goes directly to the sexual activity related to Maria Farmer and what Mr . Epstein was doing with Maria Farmer . Again, you can instruct not to answer. MR. PAGLIUCA : I ' m trying to understand why you are asking these questions before I MR. BOIES: I ' m asking these questions because these are people who not only have been publicly written about in terms of the sexual activity that they were put into in connection with Mr. Epstein, but the person who MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 23 Page 100 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 Confidential G. Maxwell - Confidential wrote about them is somebody who talked to this witness about it, and I think that this is more than easily understood cross-examination . MR. PAGLIUCA: Your question was , do you know whether or not Maria Farmer was ever at Mr. Wexner ' s property in Ohio . MR . BOIES : Yes . And if you let her answer, you will see where it leads If you won 't let her answer, the judge is going to determine it . And I just suggest to you that you stop these speeches and stop debating, because you are not going to convince me not to follow-up on these questions . If you can convince the court to truncate the deposition, that ' s your right , but all you ' re doing is dragging this deposition out . MR. PAGLIUCA: You have the opportunity to give me a good faith basis why you are asking these questions . MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 23 Page 101 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 Confidential G. Maxwell - Confidential MR. BOIES: faith basis. I have given you a good MR. PAGLIUCA: You haven ' t. MR. BOIES: Then instruct not to answer. MR. PAGLIUCA: I am giving you the opportunity to say why you are asking the question, and why I'm telling her not to answer and I am entitled to know that MR. BOIES : You are not entitled to know why I'm asking the question. You are only entitled to know that it relates to the subject matter that I am entitled to inquire about, and I don ' t think the judge is going to think that , you know, where Mr. Epstein shipped Maria Farmer off to is outside the scope of what I 1 m entitled to inquire about. THE WITNESS : Can we take a break? MR. BOIES: Only if you commit not to talk to your counsel during the break. THE WITNESS : That ' s ludicrous . MAGNA9 Ll::GAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 23 Page 154 1 2 Confidential G. Maxwell - Confidential Q. Insofar as you were aware , did 3 Virginia Roberts ever have a male friend that 4 visited her at the Epstein residences? 5 6 A. I don 1 t recall ever seeing a man with Virginia. I believe she had a fiance 7 that I was aware of , I think, but that's all . 8 Q. When were you aware that Virginia 9 Roberts had a f iance? 10 A. I can't say I became aware from 11 reading all this stuff, or I was aware of it 12 13 at the time I don't know . Q. Did you ever meet Virginia Roberts ' 14 fiance? 15 A . I don ' t think I ever did. I don ' t 16 recall meeting any men with Virginia . 17 18 19 20 Q. A . Q . Do you know - - • I never heard that name before . Have you ever heard the name of 21 Carolyn Andriamo, A-N-D-R-I-A-M-0? 22 23 24 25 A . I don 1 t recollect that name at all . MR. PAGLIUCA: Mr. Boies, those names are on Exhibit 26 , which we have already gone over and she said she MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 23 Page 155 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 Confidential G. Maxwell - Confidential didn't recognize those people , so now we are just repeating things that we went over. MR. BOIES: I am in the context of seeing if I can refresh her recollection, because these are women that Mr . Figueroa, who she also does not recall, brought over to Mr. Epstein ' s residences , and I also want to make a very clear record of what her testimony is and is not right now. Again, you can instruct her not to answer if you wish MR. PAGLIUCA: I ' m trying to get to nonrepetitive questions here . You basically asked the same question three times. Then we get a pile of notes that get pushed up to you, you read those. Then you ask those three times , and then we go to another question. taking an inordinately long amount of time and it shouldn't. MR. BOIES: I think that is a demonstrably inaccurate statement of LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 23 Page 156 1 2 Confidential G. Maxwell - Confidential what has been going on, and I 3 4 attribute -- maybe I shouldn ' t attribute i t at all . 5 But if you want to instruct not to 6 answer , instruct not to answer. If you 7 don' t, again, all I will do is request 8 that you cease your comments. I can't 9 do that. All I can do is seek sanctions 10 afterwards . 11 BY MR. BOIES : 12 13 14 15 Q. A. Q. A. Ms. Maxwell . Mr. Boies . What? I'm replying , You said Ms 16 Maxwell , I said Mr. Boies. 17 Q. Do you have a question? 18 A . No . 19 Q. I have a question 20 A. I ' m sure you do . 21 Q. During the time that you were in 22 the property or at the property that 23 Mr. Epstein has in the Virgin Islands , were 24 you aware of Mr . Epstein getting any 25 massages? MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 23 Page 174 1 2 3 Confidential G. Maxwell - Confidential court's order . Q. In terms of preparing for this 4 deposition, what documents did you review? 5 6 7 8 9 10 MR. PAGLIUCA : To the extent I provided you with any documents to review, I will tell you that's both it ' s privileged and I instruct you not to answer. Q. Did your lawyer provide you with 11 any documents to review in preparation for 12 this deposition that refreshed your 13 recollection about any of the events that 14 occurred? 15 16 17 18 MR . PAGLIUCA : question . No. You can answer that A. Q . How many documents did your lawyer 19 provide you with? 20 21 22 A. Q. MR. PAGLIUCA: One , I believe . One document . You can answer . Was that a document 23 that had been prepared by your attorney , or 24 was it a document from the past? 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: I will tell you not MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICE$ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 23 Page 177 1 2 3 4 5 Confidential G. Maxwell - Confidential MR. PAGLIUCA: Don ' t answer that question. order. It 1 s outside the court ' s Q. In 2 00 5 , were you aware of any 6 effort to destroy records of messages you had 7 taken of women who had called Mr. Epstein in 8 the prior period? 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: Don ' t answer that question. order. It ' s outside the court ' s MR. BOIES: I said I would give you a break every hour MR. PAGLIUCA : It 1 s been an hour. Do you want a break or do you want to keep going? THE WITNESS: Keep going . MR. BOIES: What I told you before , you asked for a break every hour I am happy to give you a break at a fixed time. What I ' m not happy to do is interrupt a chain of examination . So if you want a break now , we will take a break now. If you don 1 t want a break now , we will not break for another hour. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 23 Page 184 1 2 3 Confidential G. Maxwell - Confidential Q. A. Next one is Heidi - - Tony is Virginia's guy that you 4 5 6 asked me about I don't know Tony. Q. A . I asked you about a Tony Figueroa Right , I don ' t know him , so I ' m 7 guessing , I don I t know him . 8 Q. Nicole? 9 A. No. 10 Q . Colleen? 11 A. No. 12 Q . Crystal? 13 A . I don't know who these people are . 14 Q . Was there a list that was kept of 15 women or girls who provided massages? 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: This has been previously deposed on . This is not part of the court 1 s order, I will tell her not to answer . MR . BOIES: You are going to tell her not to answer a question that says was there a list of women or girls who provided massages? MR. PAGLIUCA: She has been previously deposed on this subject. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 23 Page 185 1 2 3 4 5 6 Confidential G. Maxwell - Confidential MR. BOIES: I think this is squarely in the court's order, but if you instruct her not to answer, you instruct her not to answer. MR. PAGLIUCA: We ' ll find out. 7 BY MR. BOIES: 8 Q I take it you don ' t know the ages 9 of any of these people? 10 11 A. The ones that I did recognize were roughly my age. The ones I don ' t know , I 12 wouldn ' t have a clue . 13 Q. Did you, or insofar as you are 14 aware anyone , maintain a list of females that 15 provided massage services to Mr. Epstein at 16 his residences? 17 18 19 20 21 MR. PAGLIUCA: and foundation. Objection to form You can answer if you can A . Q. I don't know anything about a list . Let me go back to Exhibit 28. I 22 want to go down this list, excluding 23 Mr. Epstein himself, and just ask you a 24 series of the same essential questions about 25 each one. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 22 of 23 Page 197 1 2 3 4 5 Confidential CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that GHISLAINE 6 MAXWELL , was duly sworn by me and that the 7 deposition is a true record of the t~stimony 8 given by the witness . 9 10 11 12 13 14 Les Registered Professional Reporter Dated: July 22 , 2 016 15 (The foregoing certification of 16 this transcript does not apply to any 17 reproduction of the same by any means , unless 18 under the direct control and/or supervision 19 of the certifying reporter . ) 20 21 22 23 24 25 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 23 of 23 COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 4 (Filed Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 11 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 11 www.Southernreporting.com - (386)257-3663 Southern Reporting Company 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CASE: 15-cv-07433-RWS VIRGINIA GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. ____________________/ VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF TONY FIGUEROA Volume 1 of 2 Pages 1 - 157 Taken at the Instance of the Defendant DATE: Friday, June 24, 2016 TIME: Commenced: 8:59 a.m. Concluded: 1:22 p.m. PLACE: Southern Reporting Company B. Paul Katz Professional Center (SunTrust Building) One Florida Park Drive South Suite 214 Palm Coast, Florida 32137 REPORTED BY: LEANNE W. FITZGERALD, FPR Florida Professional Reporter Court Reporter and Notary Public Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 11 www.Southernreporting.com - (386)257-3663 Southern Reporting Company 96 1 Q I guess my question is: Did she ever tell 2 you that she had started as a regular masseuse for 3 him and then transitioned to something other than a 4 masseuse? 5 A No. She never said that it transitioned. 6 But she ended up explaining to me what had happened 7 before, so... 8 Q What has -- what is that? 9 A That her and Ms. Maxwell and Jeffrey would 10 obviously be doing stuff, all three of them 11 together. Like I said, that they would all go out 12 to clubs to pick up girls and try and find them to 13 bring back for Jeffrey. And then she told me about 14 how, like I said, her and Ms. Maxwell and Jeffrey 15 were all intimate together on multiple occasions. 16 Q When did she tell you this? 17 A I'm not exactly sure on the dates. 18 Q Was it while you were still together? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Did you -- had you met Ms. Maxwell? 21 A Yeah, I had met her a couple of times. 22 Q When did you meet Ms. Maxwell? 23 A Dates, I'm unsure of. But it was pretty 24 much, like I said, at Jeffrey's house in the 25 kitchen. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 11 www.Southernreporting.com - (386)257-3663 Southern Reporting Company 97 1 Q Was it earlier in the time you were with 2 her, or... 3 A It was about -- I'd say about six months 4 or so. I don't know. I'm not exactly positive. 5 Q All right. So at the time you met 6 Ms. Maxwell, had Ms. Roberts already told you that 7 she had been intimate? 8 A No. She had told me about that, I 9 believe, after I had max- -- after I had already met 10 her. 11 Q Okay. And tell me everything that you 12 remember about what Ms. Roberts said about being 13 intimate with Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein at the 14 same time. 15 A I remember her talking about, like, 16 strap-ons and stuff like that. But, I mean, like I 17 said, all the details are not really that clear. 18 But I remember her talking about, like, how they 19 would always be using and stuff like that. 20 Q She and Ms. Maxwell and Mr Epstein would 21 used strap-ons? 22 A Uh-huh (affirmative). 23 Q How did you feel about that? 24 A I just -- obviously not happy about it. 25 Q What did you say? Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 11 www.Southernreporting.com - (386)257-3663 Southern Reporting Company 103 1 A I did not. 2 Q When the FBI interviewed you, did you 3 mention this to them? 4 A I mentioned -- anything they asked me, I 5 did not hold anything back. 6 Q Okay. Do you recall specifically talking 7 about sex with the Prince? 8 A I -- I don't recall talking to them about 9 that, but, I mean, it's -- it could be possible. 10 Q Other than sex with the Prince, is there 11 anyone else that Jeffrey wanted Ms. Roberts to have 12 sex with that she relayed to you? 13 A Mainly, like I said, just Ms. Maxwell and 14 all the other girls. 15 Q Ms. Maxwell wanted -- Jeffrey wanted 16 Virginia to have sex with Ms. Maxwell? 17 A And him, yeah. 18 Q And did she tell you whether she had ever 19 done that? 20 A Yeah. She said that she did. 21 Q And when did she tell you that? 22 A I'm not sure on the date. 23 Q And what did she describe having happened? 24 A I believe I already told you that. With 25 the strap-ons and dildos and everything. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 11 www.Southernreporting.com - (386)257-3663 Southern Reporting Company 104 1 Q Was it one event or more than one event? 2 A I'm positive it was more than one. 3 Q Why do you say that? 4 A Because they were always with each other. 5 Like, any time she would talk to me about them going 6 to do stuff, it was with her and Ms. Maxwell. Like, 7 they were always out, like, trying to get girls and 8 whatnot. 9 Q Okay. Did you ever participate in getting 10 girls? 11 A Yes. But... 12 Q Tell me what you mean. What did you do? 13 When you say 'get girls,' what do you mean? 14 A Pretty much I got some of my friends that 15 I knew, because Virginia was looking for other girls 16 to go over there, because Jeffrey was giving us $200 17 apiece for every one that we brought over. And 18 I'll -- pretty much I would get friends that I went 19 to school with, and I would take them over there and 20 introduce them, and then I would just leave. 21 Q What did you tell them they were going to 22 do? 23 A A masseuse, like, and then I told them -- 24 I was, like, "Now, listen." I was, like, "I'm 25 letting you know I don't know what he's going to ask Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 11 www.Southernreporting.com - (386)257-3663 Southern Reporting Company 157 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 2 STATE OF FLORIDA ) 3 ) COUNTY OF VOLUSIA ) 4 5 6 7 I, Leanne W. Fitzgerald, Court Reporter, do hereby certify that I was authorized to and did 8 stenographically report the deposition of TONY FIGUEROA; and that the foregoing transcript is a 9 true record of my stenographic notes. 10 I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney, or counsel of any of the 11 parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' attorneys or counsel connected with the 12 action, nor am I financially interested in the action. 13 Dated this 5th day of July, 2016. 14 15 16 17 18 19 __________________________________ 20 Leanne W. Fitzgerald, FPR Florida Professional Reporter 21 Digital Certificate Authenticated 22 By Symantec 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 11 ZZZ6RXWKHUQUHSRUWLQJFRP 6RXWKHUQ5HSRUWLQJ&RPSDQ\ 158 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CASE: 15-cv-07433-RWS VIRGINIA GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. ____________________/ VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF TONY FIGUEROA Volume 2 of 2 Pages 158 - 258 Taken at the Instance of the Defendant DATE: Friday, June 24, 2016 TIME: Commenced: 8:59 a.m. Concluded: 1:22 p.m. PLACE: Southern Reporting Company B. Paul Katz Professional Center (SunTrust Building) One Florida Park Drive South Suite 214 Palm Coast, Florida 32137 REPORTED BY: LEANNE W. FITZGERALD, FPR Florida Professional Reporter Court Reporter and Notary Public Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 11 www.Southernreporting.com - (386)257-3663 Southern Reporting Company 200 1 MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Form. 2 Foundation. 3 A For Jeffrey. 4 BY MR. EDWARDS: 5 Q All right. Let me fix this. Ghislaine -- 6 when Ghislaine Maxwell would call you during the 7 time that you were living with Virginia, she would 8 ask you what, specifically? 9 MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Form. 10 Foundation. 11 A Just if I had found any other girls just 12 to bring to Jeffrey. 13 BY MR. EDWARDS: 14 Q Okay. 15 A Pretty much every time there was a 16 conversation with any of them, it was either asking 17 Virginia where she was at, or asking her to get 18 girls, or asking me to get girls. 19 Q All right. Let's go to that second 20 category you just identified, which is asking 21 Virginia to get girls. How many times were you in a 22 room where specifically Ghislaine Maxwell would ask 23 Virginia to bring girls? 24 A None that I can recall. 25 Q Okay. How many times -- when you say they Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 11 www.Southernreporting.com - (386)257-3663 Southern Reporting Company 258 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 2 STATE OF FLORIDA ) 3 ) COUNTY OF VOLUSIA ) 4 5 6 7 I, Leanne W. Fitzgerald, Court Reporter, do hereby certify that I was authorized to and did 8 stenographically report the deposition of TONY FIGUEROA; and that the foregoing transcript is a 9 true record of my stenographic notes. 10 I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney, or counsel of any of the 11 parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' attorneys or counsel connected with the 12 action, nor am I financially interested in the action. 13 Dated this 5th day of July, 2016. 14 15 16 17 18 19 __________________________________ 20 Leanne W. Fitzgerald, FPR Florida Professional Reporter 21 Digital Certificate Authenticated 22 By Symantec 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 11 EXHIBIT 5 (Filed Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 35 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 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 35 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. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 35 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 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 35 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 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 35 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. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 35 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 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 35 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 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 35 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 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 35 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 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 35 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. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 35 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 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 35 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. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 35 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 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 35 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? MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 35 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 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 35 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. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 35 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, MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 35 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 ? 23 A. In Palm Beach. 24 Q. At Jeffrey Epstein's home? 25 A. Yes. Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 - ■ - MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 35 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 Jane Doe 2 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 35 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 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 35 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? MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 22 of 35 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 -- MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 23 of 35 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. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 24 of 35 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 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 25 of 35 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 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 26 of 35 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 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 27 of 35 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 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 28 of 35 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. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 29 of 35 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 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 30 of 35 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 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 31 of 35 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. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 32 of 35 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 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 33 of 35 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 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 34 of 35 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 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 35 of 35 EXHIBIT 12 (Filed Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 9 GIUFFRE004386 • • • L.M., Condensed Transcript IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT vs. IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, CASE No. 502008CA028051XXXXMB AB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEPOSITION OF LOUELLA RABUYO VOLUME! October, 20, 2009 10:10 a.m. 515 N. Flagler Drive Suite 200-P West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Reported By: Teresa Whalen, RPR, FPR, Notary Public, State of Florida • ESQQ.!.R~ Toll Free: 866.709.8777 Facsimile: 561.394.2621 Suite 600 4440 PGA Boulevard Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 www.esquiresolutions.com Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 9 GIUFFRE004390 • • • Louella Rabuyo - Vol ume I October 20, 2009 9 11 1 head or shake your head, and she can't take that down. 1 that it's clean and~t:1rQPriatel}'. what's this ... 2 A All right. 2 Q And as I understand this property, there is a main house and then there's also a staff house on the property; is that right? 3 Q It's also very easy to say uh-huh or huh-uh, 3 4 but it kind of looks the same on paper, so you can't do 4 s that either. I'm going to wait until you finish your s A Yes, sir. 6 answer, and you have to wait until I finish my question, 6 Q And when the guests would come over, would you stay in the main house, or would you go to the staff house? 7 because if we talk over one another, then the court 7 a reporter can't get it down. a 9 A Okay. Yes, sir. 9 MR. REINHART: Can we get a time frame to the 10 Q All right. So if you don't understand the 10 question? 11 question, tell me you don't understand and I'll try to 11 BY MR. EDWARDS: 12 ask a better question. 12 Q Over the last five years while you worked there. 13 A Yes. - .... -.:::-:,-,., 13 14 Q Okay. So you ere hired in November of 2004 14 A l usually stay in the staff house and do the laundry, then I go to the kitchen and then tidy the kitchen. 15 to be the housekeeper for Mr. Epstein? 1s 16 A Yes. 16 1 7 Q And when :,,ou were hired who exactly hired 17 Q You were hired in November of 2004, and what 1 a you, who •· let me strike that. 1a were your hours that you worked there back in November 19 When you were hired to be the housekeeper for 19 of 2004 when you were hired? 20 Mr. Ef1stein, who did :,,ou interview with? 20 A Eight to five. 21 A Ms. Maxwell. 21 Q How many days a week? 22 Q ts that Ghislaine Maxwell or jus 2 2 A Depends. 23 [aine Maxwell? 23 Q How would the schedule be relayed to you? 24 A Ghislaine Maxwell. 24 A When Mr. Epstein is there, then I'm supposed 25 Q And where did the interview take place? 25 to report, but usually it's five days a week. 10 1 2 l A At 358 El Brillo Way . 1 Q So am t correct in understanding that there 2 Q nd what did Ms. Maxwell and :,,ou speak 2 was one schedule when Mr. Epstein was in town, and the 3 prior to your being hired as the housekeeper? 3 schedule may be a little bit different if Mr. Epstein 4 A (Myduties 4 was out of town? s Q And what did she tell you your duties would s A Yes, sir. 6 e? 6 Q All right. Tell me the differences when 7 A To tidy, to make beds, do laundry. 7 Mr. Epstein is in town versus when Mr. Epstein was not a Q Did she tell you what would ak place in the a in town. 9 ouse on a day-to-day basis? 9 A If he stays like three or four days, then I'm 1 0 A No. 1 o supposed to be there, and then the house is to be 11 12 13 14 l ~ 16 17 18 19 Q So going into that position you had no idea 11 cleaned. And then when they do not come, then l can who the guests would be or who the peof1le coming in the 12 either go there, or I'm given free days off. house would be, or what would generally go on? 13 A Can :,,ou im~ the question? 14 Q Sure. When you talked about with 1s Ghislaine Maxwell at this interview our duties being 16 you would make the bed and tidy up, did she also tell 1 7 you that there would be a lot of gu~ there would be a few guests, did she talk to you about that at all? 18 19 Q Three days off? A No. A free day. Q Oh, okay. But typically back in 2004 when you were hired, you worked an average of about five days a week; is that correct? A Yes. Q Alt right. And l guess by the way that you're 20 A Sne mentioned that If there are guest~ we 20 explaining it, If Mr. Epstein was in town for a longer 21 ave to, like ou ow, i:1repare the oom and what's 2 2 this, attend to the guests. 23 Q And what d_&},ou understand that to mean that 24 you have to attend to the guests? 2 s A You have to prepare the room and see to it • ESQ 12.!BJ;.~ 21 period of time, you may work more than five days, and if 22 Mr. Epstein was not in town, you may work less than five 23 days? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Okay. Did )IOY ever talk to Mr. Epstein prior Toll Free: 866.709.8777 Facsimi le: 561.394.2621 Suite 600 4440 PGA Boulevard Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 www.esquiresolutions.com Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 9 GIUFFRE004391 Louella Rabuyo - Volume I 13 1 to being h1roo? 1 2 A No, sir. -~~ 2 3 Q ere did this meeting, within the house wne 3 4 did the meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell take place? 4 5 A In the living oo . s 6 Q Aside from tellingyou that_.you were going to 6 7 be rl!guire to ma e t e lleds an ·ust general! lid UJ:l 7 s did she specify anything else that you would be required s 9 to do? 9 10 A No. 10 11 Q Where had you worked prior to working for 11 12 Mr. Epstein? 12 13 A I work as a certified nursing assistant. 13 1 4 Q Where? 14 15 A At that time I was doing private duty. 15 16 Q How long have you been a certified nursing 16 October 20, 2009 15 Q Did she tell what you would be pald at that time? A Notyet. Q Did you show up that Saturday? I guess that's November 17th of 2004? A No, that's not. Q No. Was ii prior to November 17th of 2004, or after? A After. Q Okay. The interview that you first went to was November 17th, 2004 with Ms. Maxwell; is that the date that you gave us? A I cannot remember. Q The only reason I'm using that date is I believe the question I asked was when did you start working for Mr. Epstein, and I thought the date that you 1 7 assistant? 17 gave me was November 17th, 2004. 10 A Since about ten years. 1s A Yes. 19 Q And what made you change professions from 19 Q Okay. And in the course of this whole thing, 2 o being a certified nursing assistant to be a housekeeper 20 it sounds likfilOu interviewed with Ghislaine Maxwell 21 for Mr. Epstein? 21 there were other interviewees,_you received a call and 22 A The agency called me that there is an 22 u were as <ecl to try u on a Saturda~ 2 3 interview; if I like, I go to, so that's how it started. 23 Yes. 24 Q And when you went to the interview obviousJy 24 Q And where does that Saturday fall in related 2 s ,you're going to this very big house arig_.you talked to 25 to November 17th, 2004? 14 16 1 Ghislaine Maxwell right? 1 A When I accepted the job offer. 2 A Yes. 2 Q Okay. And did they tell you al that time when 3 Q And did you decide right then that you liked 3 you accepted the job offer how much you were going to be 4 this and that you were going to change professions and 4 s you were going to be his housekeeper? s 6 A No. 6 7 Q Okay. Then walk me through that, how did you 7 s go about eventually accepting the position? s 9 A I didn't expect to be hired because there 9 1 o sic) interview peo1>le that 1 o 11 were to be interviewed. 11 12 a Okay. 12 13 A And then I receive a call from Ms. Maxwell 1f 13 14 I like, I can O~ ·0UI 1 4 rs a Okay. Did she tell you how long this try-out 1s 1 6 period would last? 16 1'Q A No. ~~ , 1 7 18 Q And whafcll ')'OU le er when she made that 1s 19 offer for you to try out? -~~ 1.9 2 o I toldlierlhat I am still taking care of this 20 21 l)alient, so sJie said if you like ')'OU can come Saturda¼ 21 ·22 nd try II. 22 23 Q OkaU!)d what did you tell er did you 23 24 accept that? 24 25 A Yes, I did. 25 • Es Q 1!..!.BJ;; paid? A Yes. Q What was that? A II was 32,000 per annum Q And has your salary increased over time? A Yes, sir. (Q And ca ou walk us throug the increments of increase in,_your salary? It was promisecf ~ y-e-a~n')'~increase. By whom? ~ xwell. Was ttial at the time when you were interviewed. or took the job? Yes, sir. Q Did she promise you what your yearly increase would be? A No. a And have you received a yearly increase every year? A !did. Q And what has that yearly increase been? A Up to 42 . Toll Free: 866. 709.8777 Facsimile: 561.394.2621 Suite 600 4440 PGA Boulevard Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 www.esquiresolutions.com • • • Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 9 GIUFFRE004402 • • • Louella Rabuyo - Volume I 57 1 intentionally exposes the genitals in a lewd or 2 lascivious manner, or intentionally commits any 3 other sexual act that does not involve actual 4 physical or sexual contact with the victim in the 5 presence of a victim who is less than sixteen years 6 of age commits lewd or lascivious exhibition. An 7 offender eighteen years of age or older who 8 commits a lewd or lascivious exhibition commits a 9 felony of the second degree. 10 Have you seen that crime committed in 11 Mr. Epstein's house? 12 A No, sir. 13 MR. CRITTON: Form. 14 BY MR. EDWARDS: 15 Q Are you aware of the allegations by multiple 16 female girls that allege that these are the crimes that 17 were taking place behind closed doors when they were 18 just minor females; are you aware of those allegations? 19 MR. CRITTON: Form. 20 MR. REINHART: Do you understand the question? 21 MR. CRITTON: Asked and answered. 22 MR. REINHART: Do you understand the question? 23 MR. CRITTON: And argumentative. 24 THE WITNESS: From the news, I heard that from 25 the news. 5 8 l BY MR. EDWARDS: 2 a And are you atso aware that many of these 3 girts did not know one another that were these female 4 masseuses, are you aware of that? 5 MR. CRITTON: Form. 6 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 7 BY MR. EDWARDS: 8 Q Okay. When these girts that would come - 9 Where these females that would come over where 10 you were told they were giving massages would come over, 11 how many would come over at any time, meaning would they 1 2 come over with twenty at time, or one at a time? 1 3 MR. CRITTON: Form. 14 THE WITNESS: Sometimes one at a time. 15 BY MR. EDWARDS: 16 a And given the number of these females that are 17 making these allegations, doesn't it cause you to 18 believe the allegations that there are so many of them 19 and their stories are so strikingly similar as to what's 20 taking place in Mr. Epstein's bedroom? 21 MR. CRITTON: Form, predicate, Sp€CUlation, 22 argumentative. 2 3 THE WITNESS: I don't know what's happening in 24 the bedroom, I did not see anything that cause me 25 alarm. ~ ESQ 12IB~~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 1 6 1 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 October 20, 2009 59 BY MR. EDWARDS: Q Have you ever worked for anyone that had this many young females come over to his house every day? A No, sir. Q Have you ever heard anybody say that these girls are making this up or that this did not happen, these sexual acts did not happen in Mr. Epstein's bedroom? MR. CRITTON: Form, argumentative. BY MR. EDWARDS: Q By that I mean Mr. Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell? A No, sir. No. Q Did Sarah Kellen ever say any of these girls were making this up? A No, sir. MR. CRITTON: Form. BY MR. EDWARDS: Q So these girls are making these allegations, you work in Mr. Epstein's house? A Yes. Q And you've never heard anybody deny these allegations, have you? MR. CRITTON: Form, argumentative. THE WITNESS: I do my job, we don't, like, talk. 60 BY MR. EDWARDS: a So is that a no, you've never heard anybody deny that? MR. CRITTON: Form. THE WITNESS: No, sir. BY MR. EDWARDS: a hen was the last lime you talked to Ghislaine Maxwell? A I answer the phone when she ... a Okay. When you first started working there back in November of 2004, she was the person who you interviewed with, right? A Yes, sir. a Was she somebody who you would regularly see at the house during that period of time? A Not regular. a How often would you see her in the house back in the late 2004, when you were hired, through 2005? A Three limes. Q Three times a week? A No. During the period of that I was there. Q Okay. During the entire five-year period you were there you only saw Ghislaine Maxwell three times? A (0 Not five years. Okc!Y- From the end of 2004 throug]lgQ95 you Toll Free: 866.709.8777 Facsimile: 561.394.2621 Suite 600 4440 PGA Boulevard Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 www.esquiresolutions.com Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 9 GIUFFRE004403 Louella Rabuyo - Volume I October 20, 2009 61 63 1 saw her three times? 1 MR. CRITTON; But if you just asked her, say 2 A Yes, sir. 2 did you ever have a discussion with her about it, 3 Q During - 3 if she says yes, then we'll find out what it is. 4 A Marlie more or less three times 4 If she didn't have one, why ask the question? 5 a During 2006 how often did you see her? 5 Go ahead. 6 A 2006? He was in New York so I saw her. 6 THE WITNESS: There was no discussion. 7 Q You worked for Jeffrey Epstein but you worked 7 MR. REINHART: There's no question pending. a in New York? I'm sorry. s Wait for Mr. Edwards to ask his question and answer 9 A I saw Ms. Maxwell in New York. 9 the question if you understand it. 10 Q I think I understand. Primarily, though, you 10 BY MR. EDWARDS: 11 were still working at the 358 El Brillo location? 11 12 A Yes. 12 13 Q However, at some point in time that year you 13 14 ooli a trip to the New Yorll house and you saw her there? 14 15 A In her house. 15 16 (Q, In Ghislaine Maxwell's house? 16 11 A Yes. 11 18 Q What was the occasionJQr..you to go see her up 1 8 19 there? 19 20 A Lyn was having I think surgery. 2 o 21 Q And when was that? 21 22 A I cannot recall the month, but it's I think 22 23 2006. 2 3 24 Q So this is after the criminal investigation 24 25 into Mr. Epstein, or before, if you remember? 25 62 Q How long were ou at Ghislaine Maxwell's house this time that you visited her in 2006? MR. CRITTON: Form. THE WITNESS: I cannot remember, because I go ... BY MR. EDWARDS: 0 Back and forth? s Q From West Palm Beacn to New York? A Yes 0 Why were ~ou up in Ghislaine Maxwell's house in NewYorll? A I help over the re when she has a p<!(!y. Q Okay. And then after the party you would return to West Palm Beach? 64 1 MR. CRITTON: Form, predicate. 1 A Yes. 2 THE WITNESS: 2006? After. 2 (g, While you were up there, during any of the 3 BY MR. EDWARDS: 3 times that ~ou were up there, did you nave any 4 Q Okay. And while you were up there with 4 conversations with Ghislaine Maxwell? 5 Ghislaine Maxwell, did you talk to her about the s A I think once. But it was oh, and what's this, 6 criminal Investigation of Mr. Epstein? 7 A No, sir. 6 ii was just oh, I'm sorry about the bad news. That's 7 it. a Q At any point in time when you were up there. s Q You said that? 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 did she say to you or you overtieard -- let me ask you 9 this way: Did she say to you that the allegations are 1 o false-· 11 MR. CRITTON: Form. 12 BY MR. EDWARDS: 13 Q •· that are being made against him? 14 MR. CRITTON: Form. There's no predicate that 15 a discussion ever took place about anything. 16 THE WITNESS: There was no discussion about 17 that. 18 MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Critton, if you could just 19 object to the form. Obviously this witnesses just 20 takes your words and she's going to recite them to 21 me. If you want to say lack of predicate, okay, 22 fine. But to say no discussion took place and then 2 3 she says no discussion took place, we're leading 24 the witness here, it's obvious. 2s 8 ESQ 1!.IBJ;~ A Because we have only, like, short conversation, we just don't really, like, talk-talk. Q When you're saying that a statement was made I'm sorry about the bad news, who made the statement to whom; she made it to you, or you made it to her? A She made it. But that was •· I really cannot remember how it was how, but it was, like, I'm sorry about the news. Q Okay. What news was she referring to when she said to you I'm sorry to hear about the bad news? A She not say anything. I just·· I do not say anything about what the bad news is. Q Okay. I guess what I'm asking is did you have a death in the family or something happen to you personally? Or why would she say this to you, if you know? A No. Toll Free: 866. 709.8777 Facsimile: 561.394.2621 Suite 600 4440 PGA Boulevard Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 www.esquiresolutions.com • • • Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 9 GIUFFRE004404 • • • Louella Rabuyo - Volume I October 20, 2009 65 67 1 Q You have no idea why she said that statement? 1 Q What did she say when you answered the phone? 2 A I think that it was about the news that was 2 A Oh, she was happy. l was happy to hear her l goi g on about Mr. E11stein. 3 voice. And then she said oh, she was also happy to -- 4 MR. CRITTON: Move to strike as speculation. 4 she was so nice on the phone. 5 BY MR. EDWARDS: 5 a What did she say? 6 Q And did she elaborate on the news about 6 7 Mr. Epstein? 7 8 A No, sir. s 9 Q During that conversation where she makes a 9 10 statement that she's sorry about the news, did she ever 10 11 tell you that the allegations being made against him are 11 12 false or unfounded or untrue? 12 13 MR. CRITTON: Form. 13 14 THE WITNESS: Our conversation was short. 14 15 BY MR. EDWARDS: 15 16 a So the answer is no? 16 17 A No. ~~~- 11 1s Q What is your understanding of 10 19 Ghislaine Maxwell's role in Jeffrey Epstein's life back 19 20 n 2004 and 2005 and 2006? 20 21 MR. CRITTON: Form. 21 22 E WITNESS: She told me he was his boyfriend 22 23 (sic), 23 24 BY MR. EDWARDS: 24 25 Q Ghislaine Maxwell told you that 25 66 1 1 2 2 3 Q And then over the next year and a hatt when 3 4 :.Jeffre}' Epstein was in West Palm Beach, you onjy saw 4 s Ghislaine Maxwell at the house a~roximately three 5 ~ tt~~ 6 7 A Yes, sir. 7 8 Q Did you still believe that Ghislaine Maxwell s 9 ancl Jeff re}' Epstein were bo rlend and girlfriend? 9 10 MR. CRITTON: Form. 10 11 THE WITNESS: At that time or what time? 11 12 BY MR. EDWARDS: ~~~ 12 13 a Yeah. Back then in 2004, 2005. 13 14 A Yes. 14 15 Q All right. Is it your understanding that they 15 16 are still boyfriend and girlfriend today? 16 17 A I don1 know. 1 7 18 Q Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, do they 10 1 9 still talk to one another today? 19 20 A I do not know, sir. 20 21 Q What is the last time that_you talked to 21 22 Ghislaine Maxwell? 22 23 A She called the house and I answered the phone. 23 l4 Q 24 2r;; A 25 A Oh, nice talking to you, Louella. a Then did she ask to speak to somebody else? A To Mr. Epstein. Q Aside from the telephone call one month ago, how many times has she called the house in the last year? A That was my only, what's this, my -- the time that I was answer the phone and it was Ms. Maxwell. Q Do you know why she called Mr. Epstein? A I do not know, sir. Q Have you ever seen scheduling logs, either on a computer or on paper, with girls' names on it and numbers? A No. No, sir. Q Have you ever seen the names of these females that are alleged to have been masseuses written on anything? A Yes, sir. Q What have you seen them written on? A I just saw names, and that's it. 68 Q Just the names, or the telephone numbers as well? MR. CRITTON: Form. THE WITNESS: I cannot remember. BY MR. EDWARDS: a Where did you see this? A We have like butler's pantry and there's a telephone there. Q Is this in the staff house or the main house? A No. The main house. a And do you know who wrote the names? A No, sir. a How do you know that these were the names of the females that were alleged to have been masseuses? A Because there is time. Q What do you mean, there is time? A Sometimes name and then the time, that's it. Q What does the time indicate? A I cannot remember. Q The time to you •· you know, I'm watching what you're doing, but the court reporter is not able to draw a picture of it. So I guess what I'm asking is you're saying there is -- on the left-hand side there is a name, and on the right-hand side corresponding to that name there is a time written down? Is that what you Toll Free: 866.709.8777 Facsimile: 561.394.2621 Suite 600 4440 PGA Boulevard Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 www.esquiresolutions.com Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 9 GIUFFRE004408 • • • Louella Rabuyo - Volume I October 20, 2009 81 83 1 A When I came back to report, that's how I 1 Q So are we talking about the dax e olice 2 learned. 2 went to Jeffrey Epstein's house you did not go in the 3 Q Elaborate on that for me. What do you mean, 3 morning but you went after lunch and the police had 4 when you came back to report that's how I learned? 4 s A I reported in the afternoon, and then that's s 6 how I learned that the police came. 6 7 Q All right. And when we!'.!Ll'OU •· _you're now 7 a saying you came back to report and you learned that the a 9 ~lice had already come to the house r!ght? 9 10 A Yes, sir. 10 11 Q Prior to that occasion when was the 1:1revious 11 12 ime thlil._you were at the house? 12 13 A The day before. 1 3 14 Q Okay. And the da before you left your shift 14 1 s at roughly five o'clock? 15 16 A I cannot remember. I usuall leave 5:00 or 1 6 17 5:30 1 7 1a Q But sometime late in the afternoon? 10 19 A Yes. -.-.- re. 19 20 a 20 21 warrant was issued, you had seen no police officers in 21 n or around the house? 22 23 A No. 23 24 Q And then the next day _you reported to the job 24 2s a hattirne? 25 1 2 1 1 A The next QIDI? Q The next dax. 82 A I report in the afternoon. Q Was there a reason wh }'OU reported in the 1 2 3 4 s afternoon? s i; A Ms. Maxwell called me 6 7 q) When ctid she call you? 7 0 A During hat dax s e said Louella a 9 report in the afternoon 9 1 n Q She called_you early in the morning? 10 11 A Not early 11 12 Q Normal!Y_you would report to the house between 1 2 13 eight and nine o'clock, right? 1 3 1 4 A es sir. 14 1s Q Soinorderforxounottoarriveatthe 1 s 16 house she had to have called xou before eight or 1 6 1 7 nine o'clock, right? 1 7 1 e A Yes. 1 0 19 a Okay. So aJ.)proximately what time does 19 20 Ms. Maxwell call ou to tell you you can ree_ort to the 20 21 house later on that dax? 21 ?.?. A I cannot remember really the time. 2 2 23 a OKa . What time did you actuallx report to 23 24 the house? 2 4 2'> A After lunch about •· maxbe after lunch. 25 @ ESQQIBJ;; already left? A Oh. No. When I went there nobody was there. no policemen were around. a Who was at the house then? A Janusz, and Douglas, the architect. a Schoettle? A Yes. Q And did you have a discussion with them? A No. Q How did you know the police had been to the house? A Janusz told me. a When? A When I arrive. Q That's what I was asking you when I said did you have a discussion with them, meaning Janusz and Douglas. A Okay. Being because them - with Janusz only. Q What did he say? A He said the police came and, what's this, took away some stuff. Q Did he say what they took? 84 A He said pictures. Q Did he tell you which pictures? A No, sir. a Aside from pictures, what else did the police take, as Janusz told you? A He did not elaborate. a All right. Prior to the police going to the house and taking pictures, do you remember seeing pictures around Mr. Epstein's house? A Yes. Q Do you remember seeing pictures of naked or nude females around Mr. Epstein's house? A Not around, in his closet. Q In Mr. Epstein's closet you would see•· describe what you would see related to females in pictures. A Some have topless. Q Is this a big closet? A No. Not really big, it's just this big, not so big. a Okay. Were these pictures that could be seen by •· strike that. Do you know of any other pictures of females that were confiscated by the police that did not come from Mr. Epstein's closet? Toll Free: 866. 709.8777 Facsimile: 561.394.2621 Suite 600 4440 PGA Boulevard Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 www .esquiresolutions.corn Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 9 GIUFFRE004420 ' ' • • • Louella Rabuyo - Volume I 129 1 STATE OF FLORIDA 2 COUNTY OF PALM BEACH 3 4 5 I, lhe undersigned aulhorily, certify !hat 6 LOUELLA RABUYO personally appeared before me on lhe 20th 7 of October, 2009, and was duly sworn. 8 9 Dated this 30th day of October, 2009. 10 11 12 13 1 4 Teresa Whalen, RPR, FPR 15 Nota,y Public - Stale of Florida My Commission Expires: 4125/11 16 My Commission No.: DD 644533 17 Job# 118991 18 19 20 n 22 23 24 25 130 1 CERTIFICATE 2 STATE OF FLORIDA 3 COUNTY OF PALM BEACH 4 5 I, Teresa Whalen, Registered Professional Reporter and Nota,y Public in and for lhe Slate of 6 Florida at Large, do hereby certify that the aforementioned witness was by me first duly sworn to 7 testify the whole truth: that I was authorized to and did report said deposition in stenotype; and 8 that the foregoing pages are a true and correct lranscriplion of my shorthand notes of said 9 deposition. 10 I further certify that said deposition was 11 taken at the lime and place hereinabove set forth and that lhe taking of said deposition was commenced and completed as hereinabove set oul. 12 I further certify that I am nol attorney or 13 counsel of any of Iha parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel of party connected l4 wilh the action, nor am I financially interested In the action. 15 The foregoing certfficalion of this transcript 16 does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means unless under the direct control and/or direction 17 of the certifying reporter. 18 19 Dated this 30th day of October, 2009. 20 21 22 Teresa Whalen, APR, FPR 23 Job # 118991 24 25 October 20, 2009 Toll Free: 866. 709.8777 Facsimile: 561.394.2621 Suite 600 4440 PGA Boulevard Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 www.esquiresolutions.com Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 9 EXHIBIT 13 (Filed Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-14 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 7 Confidential 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 June 3, 2016 9:07 a.m. C O N F I D E N T I A L Deposition of DAVID RODGERS, 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 1328-14 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 7 Confidential Page 18 1 DAVID RODGERS 2 flyer person, then you would reduce it to an 3 initial? 4 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 5 foundation. 6 MR. REINHART: You can answer the 7 question. 8 You can answer the question, if you can 9 answer the question. You are allowed to answer 10 t h e q u e s t i o n , i f y o u u n d e r s t a n d t h e q u e s t i o n . 11 B Y M R . E D W A R D S : 12 Q . I ' m t r y i n g t o u n d e r s t a n d y o u r t e s t i m o n y . 13 I s i t , i f y o u c a m e t o k n o w t h a t p e r s o n - - 14 A . U h - h u h . 15 Q . - - a s a f r e q u e n t f l y e r p a s s e n g e r , y o u 16 w o u l d b e g i n t o r e d u c e t h a t p e r s o n ' s n a m e t o a n 17 i n i t i a l a t s o m e p o i n t ? 18 M R . P A G L I U C A : S a m e o b j e c t i o n . 19 T H E W I T N E S S : W e l l , w e d o n ' t r e a l l y h a v e a 20 f r e q u e n t f l y e r p r o g r a m t h a t w e d o , s o t o s p e a k . 21 A l o t o f t i m e s I w o u l d d o i t b e c a u s e i f y o u 22 w o u l d w r i t e o u t e v e r y b o d y ' s n a m e t h e r e i s n o t 23 e n o u g h s p a c e , y o u k n o w , t o g e t e v e r y b o d y ' s n a m e 24 i n t h a t l i t t l e s q u a r e t h e r e . 25 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-14 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 7 Confidential Page 34 1 DAVID RODGERS 2 Q. -- is that right? 3 And is that -- is Ghislaine Maxwell 4 somebody that through the years 1995 through 2013 5 was somebody who flew very frequently? 6 A. What were the years again? 7 Q. The years of this book, 1995 -- 8 A. I wouldn't say through 2013. But, yes, 9 '95 through 2000 sometime. Probably, I would have 10 t o g o b a c k a n d - - w e l l , y o u c a n s e e i n t h e r e . 11 Q . W e w i l l g e t t o i t . 12 A . T h e r e w i l l b e a p o i n t w h e r e y o u d o n ' t s e e 13 h e r m u c h . B u t t o s a y i t w e n t t h r o u g h 2 0 1 3 w o u l d n o t 14 b e a c c u r a t e . 15 Q . L e t ' s d o i t t h i s w a y : T h e p e r s o n t h a t y o u 16 h a v e r e f l e c t e d o n n u m e r o u s n o t a t i o n s - - 17 A . Y e s . 18 Q . - - t h r o u g h h e r e a s G M - - 19 A . Y e s . 20 Q . - - j u s t b y t h e i n i t i a l s , a r e w e a b l e t o 21 s a f e l y k n o w t h a t t h a t i s G h i s l a i n e M a x w e l l ? 22 A . Y e s . 23 M R . P A G L I U C A : O b j e c t t o f o r m a n d 24 f o u n d a t i o n . 25 M R . E D W A R D S : C o u r t r e p o r t e r , d i d y o u g e t MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-14 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 7 Confidential Page 35 1 DAVID RODGERS 2 the answer? 3 THE REPORTER: Yes. The answer came 4 before the objection. 5 BY MR. EDWARDS: 6 Q. So on the next flight, the next day, from 7 Palm Beach to SAF. Is SAF Santa Fe? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And it indicates JE and GM. 10 A r e w e a b l e t o t h e n k n o w t h a t t h o s e 11 p a s s e n g e r s o n t h a t f l i g h t w e r e J e f f r e y E p s t e i n a n d 12 G h i s l a i n e M a x w e l l ? 13 A . Y e s . 14 M R . P A G L I U C A : O b j e c t t o f o r m a n d 15 f o u n d a t i o n . 16 B Y M R . E D W A R D S : 17 Q . A n d w h e r e w o u l d y o u l a n d a t S A F ? I s t h a t 18 a n a i r p o r t ? 19 A . I t i s a n a i r p o r t . 20 Q . I s i t a p r i v a t e a i r p o r t ? 21 A . N o . I t ' s - - a i r l i n e s g o i n t h e r e . 22 Q . D i d J e f f r e y E p s t e i n a l s o h a v e a l a n d i n g 23 s t r i p a t h i s p r o p e r t y i n N e w M e x i c o ? 24 A . H e d i d a t o n e t i m e . 25 Q . W h a t w o u l d t h a t - - d o y o u r e m e m b e r w h a t MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-14 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 7 Confidential Page 36 1 DAVID RODGERS 2 that code would be? 3 A. I don't believe there was a code. 4 Q. All right. Were there times that you 5 landed either the Gulfstream or the Boeing -- 6 A. No. 7 Q. No. 8 MR. REINHART: Let him finish the question 9 before you answer. 10 T H E W I T N E S S : O h , I ' m s o r r y . 11 B Y M R . E D W A R D S : 12 Q . S u r e . W e a r e d o i n g f i n e s o f a r . B u t t h e 13 c o u r t r e p o r t e r i s t a k i n g d o w n a l l o f o u r q u e s t i o n s 14 a n d a l l o f o u r a n s w e r s . W e a r e c o m m u n i c a t i n g w e l l . 15 A . O k a y . 16 Q . B u t w h e n I g o t o r e a d t h i s b a c k , w e m a y 17 n o t g e t t h a t . 18 A . O k a y . G o a h e a d . 19 Q . S o w e r e t h e r e t i m e s w h e r e y o u l a n d e d o n e 20 o f J e f f r e y E p s t e i n ' s p l a n e s o n h i s p r i v a t e l a n d i n g 21 s t r i p a t t h e N e w M e x i c o p r o p e r t y ? 22 A . Y e s . B u t n o t t h e G u l f s t r e a m a n d n o t t h e 23 B o e i n g . 24 Q . W h a t p l a n e d i d y o u l a n d o n h i s p r o p e r t y ? 25 A . T h e C e s s n a 4 2 1 . A n d p r o b a b l y a MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-14 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 7 Confidential Page 216 1 DAVID RODGERS 2 A. I don't recall if he did nor or not. 3 Q. Okay. And do you know, does anybody have 4 a transcript of that deposition, to your knowledge? 5 A. I don't. 6 MR. PAGLIUCA: That is all of the 7 questions I have. 8 THE WITNESS: Okay. 9 MR. EDWARDS: What exhibit are we on? 10 M R . R E I N H A R T : 8 w a s t h e l a s t e x h i b i t . 11 M R . E D W A R D S : I w a n t t o s h o w t h e w i t n e s s 12 w h a t I p u l l e d o f f t h e I n t e r n e t . I w a n t t o a s k , 13 i s t h a t t h e p l a n e ? T h e a n s w e r m a y v e r y w e l l b e 14 n o . 15 M R . P A G L I U C A : T h e e x a c t p l a n e ? 16 M R . E D W A R D S : Y e a h , t h e e x a c t p l a n e . 17 ( T h e r e f e r r e d - t o d o c u m e n t w a s m a r k e d b y 18 t h e c o u r t r e p o r t e r f o r I d e n t i f i c a t i o n a s 19 D e p o s i t i o n E x h i b i t 9 . ) 20 M R . R E I N H A R T : Y o u m e a n b a s e d o n t h e 21 s e r i a l n u m b e r ? 22 M R . E D W A R D S : O r t h e r e a r e s o m e p i c t u r e s 23 f r o m t h e i n s i d e o f i t , t o o . 24 M R . R E I N H A R T : T h e p l a n e , y o u m e a n t h e 25 B o e i n g o r - - w e h a v e t a l k e d a b o u t a c o u p l e o f MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-14 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT 14 (Filed Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 6 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 UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT SOUTiiERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, -vs• VOLUME I OF Ill JEFFREY EPSTEL'I, Defendant. Related cases: 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-8038 I, 08-80994 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 ------ - ---------'' VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SARAH KELLEN Wednesday, March 24, 20 I 0 10:37 • 6:51 p.m. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1500 West Palm Beach, Florida 3340 I Reported By: Cynthia Hopkins, RPR, FPR Notary Public, State of Florida Prose Court Reporting Services Job No.: 1484 Pagel Page 2 IN THE CfRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CfRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502008CA028058XXXXi\1.B AD E.W., Plaintiff, ·VS· VOLUMEIOFIU JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ------ ----------' VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SARAH KELLEN Wednesday,March 24, 2010 I 0:37 • 6:51 p.m. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1500 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Reported By: Cynthia Hopkins, RPR, PPR Notary Public, State of Florida Prose Court Reporting Services Job No.: 1484 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 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 3 IN TIIE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502008CA028051XXXXMB AB L.M., Plaintiff, -vs- VOLUME I OF JU JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. - ------ -------~' VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SARAH KELLEN Wednesday, March 24, 2010 I 0:37 - 6:51 p.m. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1500 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Reported By: Cynthia Hopkins, RPR, FPR Notary Public, State ofFlorida Prose Court Reporting Services Job No.: 1484 Page 4 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTii JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE No.502008CA037319XXXXMB AB B.B. Plaintiff, ·VS· VOLUME I OF UI JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND SARAH KELLEN, Defendants. VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SARAH KELLEN Wednesday, March 24, 2010 10:37-6:51 p.m. 250 Australian A venue South Suite 1500 West Palm Beach, Florida 3340 I Reported By: Cynthia Hopkins, RPR, FPR Notary Public, State of Florida Prose Court Reporting Services Job No.: 1484 (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. 1 (Pages 1 to 4) (561) 832-7506 GIUFFRE00 1671 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 6 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 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 21 answer the question based on her Fifth l Amendment privilege. 2 THE WITNESS: On the instruction ofmy 3 lawyer, 1 must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 4 BY MR. KUVIN: 5 Q. Who introduced you to Jeffrey Epstein the 6 first time that you met him? 7 MR. RHEINHART: Same instruction. 8 THE WITNESS: On the instruction ofmy 9 lawyer, l must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 10 BY MR. KUVIN: 11 Q. Did Ghislaine Maxwell introduce you to 12 Jeffrey Epstein for the first time? 13 MR. RHEINHART: Same instruction. 14 THE WITNESS: On the instruction ofmy 15 lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 16 BY MR KUVIN: 1 7 Q. When was the first time you were in 18 Jeffrey Epstein's home located on El Brillo Way on 19 Palm Beach Island? 2 0 MR. RHEINHART: Object to the form of the 21 question as compound and assuming facts not 2 2 before the witness. And I instruct the witness 2 3 not to answer based on her Fifth Amendment 2 4 privilege. 2 5 Page 22 THE WITNESS: On the instruction ofmy 1 lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 2 BY MR. KUVIN: 3 Q. Would you agree with me that 4 Jeffrey Epstein owns a home at 358 El Brillo Way, 5 Palm Beach Island, Florida? 6 MR. RHEINHART: Instruct the witness not 7 to answer based on her Fifth Amendment 8 privilege. 9 THE WITNESS: On instruction ofmy 10 counsel, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment 11 right. 12 BYMR. KUVIN: 13 Q. Would you agree with me that you've been 14 in that home numerous times? 15 MR. RHEINHART: Instruct the witness not 16 to answer the question based on her Fifth 1 7 Amendment privilege. 18 THE WITNESS: On instruction of my lawyer, 19 I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 2 0 BY MR. KUVIN: 21 Q. Would you agree with me that you have gone 22 on Jeffrey Epstein's plane numerous times? 23 MR. RHElNHART: Object to the form. It 2 4 assumes facts that are not present for the 2 5 Page 23 witness, and I will instruct the witness not to answer based on her Fifth Amendment privilege. THE WITNESS: On the instruction ofmy lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. BY MR. KUVIN: Q. Would you agree with me that Jeffrey Epstein owns numerous planes, private planes? MR. RHEINHART: Instruct the witness not to answer. THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. BY MR. KUVIN: Q. And you've been on every one of those private planes; isn't that true? MR. RHEINHART: Object to the fonn. It assumes facts not before the witness, and I . ~ will instruct the witness not to answer based } on her Fifth Amendment privilege. THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 1 BY MR. KUVlN: Q. Ma'am, isn't it true that you've seen the passenger manifest for Jeffrey Epstein's plane? MR. RHEINHART: Object to the form. It Page 24 assumes facts that are not established as known to this witness, and I instruct the witness not to answer the question based on her Fifth Amendment privilege. THE WITNESS: On the instruction ofmy lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. MR. KUVIN: Let me show you what we'll mark as Exhibit 2. (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2 was marked for identification.) MR. KUVIN: Thank you. MR. RHEINHART: Do you want to zoom in on • it like you did the last time? " MR. KUVIN: No, that's fine. MR. RHEINHART: Take your time. MR. KUVIN: And flip through. BY MR. KUVlN: Q. All right. Ma'am, would you agree with me that this is a passenger manifest for one of Jeffrey Epstein's airplanes? MR. RHEINHART: Instruct the witness not to answer the question based on her Fifth Amendment privilege. THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC . 6 (Pages 21 to 24) (561) 832-7506 GIUFFRE00l676 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 6 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 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 37 THE VfDEOGRAPHER: We're now on video 1 record at I l :0 I a.m. 2 MR. KUVIN: Just for the video record and 3 for the written record Katherine Ezell and Amy 4 Ederi have now appeared and are present in 5 person. 6 MR. GOLDBERGER: Just one more matter for 7 the record. Jack Goldberger, on behalf of 8 Jeffrey Epstein. Rather than impose a fonn 9 objection to every question, I think we have 10 reached an agreement that on behalf of 11 Mr. Epstein, I am adopting the fonn objections 12 that Mr. Rheinhart is making on behalf of his 13 client ounc pro tune to the beginning of this 14 deposition. 15 MR. KUVIN: No objection. 16 MR. GOLDBERGER: Okay. 1 7 BY MR. KUVIN: 18 Q. All right. All right. Ms. Kellen, would 19 you agree with me that there was an agreement 2 0 between Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwel~ 21 Jean-Luc Brunel, yourself and Nadia Marcinkova to 2 2 bring in girls from out of state that were underage? 2 3 MR. RHEINHART: Object to the form of the 24 question as leading, as compound, and instruct 2 5 Page 38 the witness not to answer based on her Fifth Amendment privilege. THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my lawyer I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. BY MR. KUVIN: Q. 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 that were underage from out of state for sexual contact? MR. RHEINHART: Object to the form of the question as leading and compound, and I instruct the witness not to answer based on her Fifth Amendment privilege. THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my lawyer I must invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege. BY MR. KUVIN: Q. All right. Let me show you what we've premarked as Plaintiffs Exhibit 3. Do you recognize this as the passenger manifest for one of Jeffrey Epstein's planes? MR. RHEINHART: I object to the form of the question. It assumes facts that this witness, evidence that this witness has no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 39 1 personal knowledge and instruct her not to 1 answer based on her Fifth Amendment privilege. l It's also compound. THE WlTNESS: On the instruction ofmy lawyer l must invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege. BY MR. KUVIN: Q. The witness says that you may not have knowledge or we don't know whether you have knowledge regarding this passenger manifest, so let me ask you, do you have any knowledge about this passenger manifest? MR RHEINHART: Object to the fonn of the question as ambiguous as to this and what a manifest is, and also her knowledge, and I will , instruct her not to answer based on her Fifth Amendment privilege. THE WlTNESS: On the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege. BY MR. KUVIN: Q. Based on the objection, do you know what a manifest is? - ••• • •• MR. RHEINHART: Object to the form of the question as ambiguous and instruct her not to !?age 40 answer based on her Fifth Amendment privilege. THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my lawyer I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. BY MR. KUVlN: Q. Have you heard the word "manifest" before? MR. RHEINHART: I'll instruct the witness not to answer based on her Fifth Amendment privilege. THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my 1 lawyer l must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. BY MR. KUVIN: Q. Would you agree with me, ma'am, that you have seen this passenger manifest, listed as Exhibit 3, in the past? MR. RHEINHART: I'll instruct the witness not to answer based on her Fifth Amendment privilege. THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my lawyer I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. BY MR. KUVIN: Q. Who is Zinta Broukis? MR. RHEINHART: I'll instruct the witness not to answer based on her Fifth Amendment privilege. THE WlTNESS: On the instruction of my (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. 10 (Pages 37 to 40} (561) 832-7506 G1UFFREOO I680 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 8 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 Page 97 MR. RHEINHART: Same instruction. THE WITNESS:· On the instruction ofmy lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege. BY MR. KUVJN: Q. Have you ever worked as a professional model? MR. RHEINHART: May I consult? MR. KUVIN: Sure. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 MR. RHEIN HART: You can answer the 10 question. 11 THE WITNESS: Yes. 12 BY MR. KUVIN: 13 Q. When? 14 A. I don't remember. I don't remember the dates. 15 It was at least maybe ten years ago. 16 Q. And you're how old now? 1 7 MR. RHEJNHART: I'll instruct the witness 18 not to answer the question. Nice try. 19 Instruct you not to answer based on 2 0 your Fifth Amendment privilege. 21 THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my 2 2 lawyer, I'm going to invoke my Fifth Amendment 2 3 privilege. 2 4 MR. KUVIN: I'm just trying to find out. 25 Page 98 MR. RHEJNHART: Like I said, good try. Move oo. BY MR. KUVIN: Q. With respect to your work as a professional model, what company did you work for? MR. RHEINHART: Instruct the witness not to answer based on the Fifth Amendment privilege. THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my lawyer, I invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege. BY MR. KUVIN: Q. What is your wtderstaoding of Mr. Epstein's involvement with the modeling industry? MR. RHEINHART: Standing objection, and instruct the witness not to answer based on Fifth Amendment, on that basis. THE WITNESS: Upon the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege. BY MR. KUVIN: Q. Were you ever promised anything regarding your modeling career by Jean-Luc Brunel? MR. RHEINHART: Instruct the witness not to answer based on Fifth Amendment, also 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 Page assumes facts that have not been established and it's compound. THE WITNESS: On the instruction ofmy lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege. MR. RHEINHART: And to clarify the objection is that it assumes that she's ever met or knows anything about Jean-Luc Brunel. BY MR. KUVIN: Q. Were you ever promised anything regarding your modeling career by Jeffrey Epstein? MR. RHEINHART: Same objection, instruct the witness not to answer. THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege. BY MR. KUVIN: Q. You would agree with me that there is a financial arrangement between Jean-Luc Brunel and Jeffrey Epstein, do you not? MR. RHEINHART: Objection. It assumes she has any knowledge of either Mr. Epstein or Mr. Brunel, and as to that she is going to invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege. The question is compound and therefore ambiguous. Page 100 THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege. BY MR. KUVIN: Q. Would you agree with me that Ghislaine Maxwell provides underage girls to Mr. Epstein for sex? MR. RHEINHART: Objection to the fonn. It assumes she knows anything at all about Ghislaine Maxwell and asks her to assume that she does, and therefore it is compound and ambiguous, and I would instruct her not to answer. THE WITNESS: Upon the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege. MR. KUVIN: That's a good point. Take a look at what we'll mark as Exhibit 10. (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. IO was marked for identification.) MR. KUVIN: All me to show it to the camera first. MR. RHEINHART: Okay. MR. KUVIN: Okay. THE WITNESS: Okay. 25 (Pages 97 to 100) (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 G1UFFREOOI695 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Page 445 reasonably designed to lead to discoverable 1 evidence. 2 BY MS. EZELL: 3 Q. Did you facilitate these acts as well as 4 assisting Mr. Epstein in avoiding police detection? 5 MR. REINHART: Same instruction. 6 BY MS. EZELL: 7 Q. Do you know when and by whom the computers 8 were removed from the El Brillo mansion? 9 MR. REINHART: Objection to the form, lack of 10 foundation, and it also assumes knowledge of a 11 place known as the El Brillo mansion. So instruct 12 the witness not to answer the question based on the 13 Fifth Amendment. 14 THE WITNESS: At the instruction ofmy lawyer, 15 l must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 16 BY MS. EZELL: 1 7 18 Q. Was Jane No. 103 invitedtojustcomeandhang 18 19 out at the El Brillo mansion? 19 2 0 MR. REJNHART: Objection to the form, same as 2 0 21 the previous question. It assumes knowledge of a 21 22 place known as the El Brillo mansion and a person 22 23 bythenameofJaneNo. 103. ltiscompoundand 23 2 4 lacking in foundation. 2 4 25 THE WITNESS: at the instruction ofmy lawyer, 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 Page 446 I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. BY MS. EZELL: Q. Have you called any girls under the age of 18 in Palm Beach or West Palm Beach in the last six years? MR. REINHART: For any purpose? MS. EZELL: Yes. THE WITNESS: Can you repeat the question? BY MS. EZELL: Q. Have you cal led any girls under the age of 18 in Palm Beach or West Palm Beach in the last six years? MR. REINHART: You can answer that yes or no, ifyoukn_ew· THE f ITNESS: I don't think so. MS. EZELL: I don't have any other questions. Thankytju. THE yroEOGRAPHER: All set? MR. ¥INHART: Yes. THE YIDEOGRAPHER: This concludes today's videotapf deposition of Sarah Kellen. MR. REINHART: Hold on, I'm sorry, one last thjng. Since you're the last defense person or plaintiffs lawyer standing, l guess you need to advise her she has the right to read or waive on the record. MS. EZELL: You do have the right to read this 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 Page 447 deposition or you may waive reading and allow the court reporter to simply type it up and distribute it to the lawyers who order it. Do you choose to read or waive? THE WITNESS: Waive. MS. EZELL: Thank you. MR. REINHART: Thank you. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay, this concludes today's videotape deposition of Sarah Kellen. The time is 18:51. (Witness excused.) (Deposition was concluded.) Page 448 CERTIFICATE THE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH r, Rachel W. Bridge, Registered Professional Reporter, Florida Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at large, do hereby certify that I was authorized to and did report said deposition in stenotype; and that the foregoing pages are a true and correct transcription of my shorthand notes of said deposition. I further certify that said deposition was taken at the time and place hcroinabove set forth and that the taking of said deposition was commenced and completed as hereinabove set out. I further certify that I am not attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel of party connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action. The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means unless under the direct control and/or direction of the certifying reporter. Dated this 9th day of April, 1; ' ~~a~~~~R • 21 (Pages 445 to 448) (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 Electronically signed by Rachel Bridge (201-272-617-4627) 905d1499-0cd8-4599-a2a0-6d38827b68c6 GIUFFRE00 1786 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT 15 (Filed Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO . 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, vs . JEFFREY EPSTEIN , et al ., Defendants . ______________________ / Related Cases : 08-80119, 08-80232 , 08-80380 , 08-80381 , 08 -80994 , 08-80811 , 08-80893 , 09-80469 , 09-8-591 , 09-80656 , 09-80802 , 09-81092 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF NADIA MARCINKOVA TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF DATE : April 13 , 2010 U.S. Legal Support (561) 835-0220 GJUFFRE00l 164 1 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 8 l 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 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 1 6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 to his house to sexunlly molest; is thnt right? MR. VAREM/\: Object to the form. A Fift h. Q The lirst time site went to Jeffrey Epstein's house wns in 2002 when she was only 14 years old; is that true? MR. VA REMA: Objectto the form. I\ Fifth. Q In fact in 2002 you were only 18 years old or so yourself; is that right? A Fifth. Q And E.W. is somebody you observed nt Jeffrey Epstein's house on more than 100 occasions between 2002 and 2005, n time period between 14 nncl 17 years of age for her; is thnt right? MR. YAREMA: Object tothc fonn. A Fifth. Q And each time E.W. wns summoned to Jeffrey Epstein's house, it was for the 1>urposcs of Jeffrey Epstein sexunlly molesting her, correct? MR. VAREMA: Object to the form. A Fifth . Q If it was not Jeffrey Epstein personally 27 cnlling E.W., you observed Snrnh Kellen to cnll E.W. for the purposes of her coming over and pleasing Jeffrey Epstein sexually, correct? MR. VAREMA: Object to the fo rm. A Fitlh. Q And do you remember the instance where Jeffrey Epstein instructed you to lay down naked nnd engage in a threesome with E.W. nnd Jeffrey Epstein? MR. VAREMA: Object to the fo 1111 . A Fifth. Q Do you remember that that ch1ring that threesome, Jeffrey Epstein demanded E.W. to strnddle you nnd otherwise engage sexually with you while .Jeffrey Epstein was using vibrators and/or dildos on you? MR. VAREMA : Object to the form. A Fifth. Q In addition to your sexual interactions with E.W., isn't it true that you have used strn1>-on dildos nnd vibrntors on other undernge minors at Jeffrey Epstein's direction? MR. YAREMA: Object lo the fo1111. A Fifth. Q You have given ornl sex to undcrnge l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 6 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 2 4 25 28 minor females? MR. V AREMA: Object 10 the form. A Fifth . Q You have received ornl sex from underage minor l"cmalcs'! MR. VAREMA: Object to thefonn. A Finh. Q All of these sexual acts with minor females involving yon happened in the presence of Jeffrey Epstein? MR. VAREMA: Object to the fo1111. A Fifth. Q During your lnternction with nndernge minor females in a sexual manner, isn't it true that Jeffrey Epstein would pnrtici1>ate in the sexual acts and the net would he over upon .Jeffrey Epstein ejaculating, correct? MR. V/\ REMA: Object to the fonn. A Fi fth. Q Did Jeffrey Epstein tell you, thnt when E.W. wns 1111 underage minor female, he forced her to give him oral sex? MR. VAREMA: Object to thc fonn. A Fifth. Q Do you remember E.\.V, coming over, n 2 9 young girl, with braces on, and going up into Jeffrey Epstein's bedroom on numerous occasions to be sexually molested? MR. V AREM A: Object to the fo nn. A Fillh. Q Do you know when it was thnt Jeffrey Epstein developed his plan or scheme to gain access to hundreds of underage minor females for the JHrrposes of his sexual grntilicntion? MR. VA REM A: Object to the fom1. A Fifth . Q Were you n part of the planning of that scheme of J effrey Epstein's to gnin access to underage minor females? MR. VA REMA: Object to the form. A Fifth. 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 vnricty of underage minor females? MR. V /\REMA: Object to the form. A Fift h. Q Is Snrnh Kellen somebody thnt was also 8 (Pages 26 to 29 ) U.S. Legal Support (561) 835-0220 GJUFFRE00 1171 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 8 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 4 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 22 23 24 25 30 involved in the plnnnlng or this scheme to gnin 1 nccess to underage minor fcmnlcs? 2 MR. YAREMA: Object to the form. 3 A Fifth. 4 Q When is the first time thnt you observed 5 Jeffrey Epstein's method of enticing or inducing 6 undcrngc minor rcmnlcs into scxunl nets with him 7 inside his bedroom? 8 MR. YA REM A: Object to the fonn. 9 A Fifth. 10 Q Isn't it true that nrtcr nn underage 11 minor fcmnle was brought to Jeffrey Epstein's 12 house, typically Snrah Kellen, or Adrinnn or 13 yourself would lead that underage minor female to 1 4 Jeffrey Epstein's bedroom nnd lenve them alone in 15 the room; is that trne? 16 MR. YAREMA: Object to the form. 1 7 A Fifth. 18 Q Then Jeffrey Epstein would appcnr either naked or wearing a towel; is that true? MR. VAR.EMA: Object to the fonn . A Fifth. Q This is his habit or method of 01>crntio11, every single time, nnd that's something thnt he hns told you about his sexual 31 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 internction with underngc minors; is that true? l MR. YA REM A: Object to the fonn . 2 A Fifth. 3 Q And he would direct or demnncl or 4 instruct the undernge minor remnle to remove her 5 clothing; is thnt true? 6 MR. YAR.EMA: Object to the form. 7 A Fifth. 8 Q Then he would perform one or more lewd 9 or lascivious 01· sexunl nets on the underage 10 minor femnlc. Is thnt true? 11 MR. VAR.EMA: Object to the form. 12 A Fifth. 13 Q And you have observed Jeffrey E11stein 14 engage in sexua l interaction with underage minor 15 fema les on hundreds nnd hundreds of occasions, 16 correct? l 7 MR. YAREMA: Object lo the form. 18 A Fifth. 19 Q And you have observed ,Jeffrey Epstein 20 using vibrntors nnd sexual toys on underage 21 minors, true? 22 MR. YAREMA: Object to thcfonn. 23 A Fifth. 24 Q In fact, he has also used vibrators and 25 sex toys on you, correct? A Fifth. Q And he has instructed you to use sex toys and vibrators on other undernge minor fema les, correct? MR. YAREMA: Object to the form . A Fifth. 32 Q You have observed Jeffrey Epstein digitnlly penetrate the vagiun of underage minor remnles, inclu ding E.W., correct? MR. Y AR.EMA: Object to the form. A Fifth. Q As part or his plnn to avoid detection by lnw enforcement, you hnve observed Jeffrey Epstein to pny these underage minor females to be quiet, correct? MR. YA REM A: Object to the form. A Fifth. Q And this is something that he has told you he docs, for the purposes of grooming these underage minor females, nnd avoiding law enforcement detection, correct? MR. YAREMA: Object to the fonn . A . Fifth. Q Jeffrey Epstein has talked to you nbout the psychology of brainwnshing or grooming underage minor remnles to perform for him sexually, hnsn't he'? MR. YAREMA: Object to the fo rm. A Fifth . Q And Snrnh Kellen has also spoken with 33 you about the methodology behind gnining ncccss to and grooming underage minor females for sex? MR. YAREMA: Object to form. A Fifth. Q Isn't it true that Chislnine Maxwell nncl yourself nnd Sn rah Kellen hnd access to a muster list of underage minor femnles names and phone numbers so that they could be culled? MR. GOLDBERGER: Timeout. Are you talking lo me, counsel? MR. HOROWITZ: Nodding my hc.1d, back at you. You were nodding at me. MR. GOLDBERGER: I wasn't nodding al you. I'm not talking to you, I'm not communicating with you .. I don't know what you think we are doing here. You said "It is true," and I hove no idea what you are talking nbout. Don't interrupt the deposition, okay? 9 (Pages 30 t o 33: U.S. Legal Support (561) 835-0220 GJUFFRE00 1172 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 8 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 1/J 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. HOROWITZ: I th ink you interrupted. MR. GOLDBERGER: I didn't do a thing-- MR. EDWARDS: I don't know what's lrnppencd here. It hns deteriorated here for no reason whatsoever and has nothing to do with me or the witness. 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 MR. GOLDBERGER: You're 100 percent 7 correct. 8 MR. EDWARDS: Can we go back to it. 9 MR. GOLDBERGER: Absolutely. 10 MR. EDWARDS: Perfect. 11 The silent tight disrupted me. I lost 12 where I am now. 13 MR. GOLDBERGER: Sorry. 14 MR. EDWARDS: Can you read it back. 15 THE COURT REPORTER: Certainly. 16 (The record was read.) 17 MR. EDWARDS: I'll rephrase the 18 question. 19 Q Isn't it true that yourself, Ghislaine 20 Mnxwell and Sarah Kellen had access lo a master 21 of list of underage minor l'emnles nnmes and phone 22 numbers so they could be cnllecl for the purpose 23 of coming to Jeffrey Epstein's house to be 2 4 sexually molested? 25 35 MR. YAREMA: Object to the form. 1 A Fifth. 2 Q How man)' undcrnge minor females a re on 3 Iha t master list? 4 MR. YAREMA: Object to the form. 5 A Fifth. 6 Q Are there photographs of these underage 7 minor females on thnt master list? 8 MR. YAREMA: Object to the fo1111. 9 A Fifth. 10 Q Is that muster list saved on a computer 11 system, ns has been testilicd to in the past'! 12 MR. YAREMA: Object to the fo nn. 13 A Fifth. 14 Q Has Jeffrey Epstein talked to you :ibout 15 the success of his scheme to procure undernge 16 minor females? 17 MR. YAREMA: Object to thcfonn. 18 A Fifth. 19 Q By thnl, I mean, the method where he 20 molests an undernge minor female, then offers 21 them additional money if they will bring him 22 other undernge minor females to molest; are you 23 fomilinr with that system'? 24 MR. YAREMA: Object to the form. 25 36 A Fifth. Q In addition to that system, isn't it true that Jeffrey Epstein trnffics underage minor females through a modeling agency? MR. YA REMA: Object lo the fonn. A Fifth. Q Is n modeling agency that he is involved in with Jenn Luc llrunel; you know who that is right? MR. YA R.EM A: Object to the form. A Fifth. Q Arc you familiar with MC-2 or MC-Squared Modeling Agency? A Fifth . Q You know Jean Luc Brunel, right? MR. YAREMA: Object to the fonn. A Fifth . Q Is ,Jean Luc Brunel somebody that you have been made to perform on sexually? MR. YAREMA: Objccltothefonn. A Fifth. Q .Jenn Luc Brunel is somebody that you know to also he a child molester, true? MR. YAREMA: Object to the fonn. A Fifth. Q This is somebody who for yen rs the public has known of .Jenn Luc Brunel as a child molester, true? MR. YA REMA: Object to the fonn. A Fifth. 37 Q In fnct, that is the only thing Jeffrey Epstein and Jean Luc Brunel have in common, is their obsession for underage minor females, correct? MR. YAREMA: Object to the form. A Fifth. Q And the modeling agency is but one other mechanism used by Jeffrey Epstein to gain access to underage minor females for sex, true? MR. YAREMA: Object to the form. A Fifth. Q I rend you the statute earlier on Lewd and Lascivious Molestation, Chapter 800.04, nnd that's something that you have witnessed Jeffrey Epstein violate on hundreds of occasions, correct'! MR. YAREMA: Object to the form. A Fifth. Q And somethin g that you have witnessed Jeffrey E1>stein speciflcn lly violate, against 10 (Pages 34 to 37) U.S. Legal Support (561) 835-0220 GJUFFRE00 1173 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 8 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 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 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 46 A Fifih. Q Thnt pnrticular messnge indicates it is from Nadia. You're the only "Nadia" in the honse; is that correct? MR. VAREMA: Object to the fonn. A Fi fth . Q This ls n cnll from you inclicnting that nnnot work todny nnd - will be here nt 4:00 p.m.;" is thnt right? MR. VAR.EMA: Object to the fo rm? A Fifth. Q Who is - ? A Fifth. MR. VAR.EMA: Object to the form . Q That's an underage minor female tJ1at was scheduled to be molested nt Jeffrey Epstein's house'? MR. VAR.EMA: Object to the fonn. A Fifth. Q You scheduled thnt act of molestation; is that right? MR. VAR.EMA: Object to the form. A Fifth . Q And - will bent the house nt 4:00 p.m. - is another underage minor female; 47 is that correct? MR. VAREMA: Object to the form. A Fifth. Q That's somebody else that you were schedu ling to come to his house at 4:00 p.m. for ,Jeffrey Epstein to engage in sexual nets with her, while she was an underage minor, true? MR. Y AREMA: Object to the form. A Fifth. Q Do you know Les \Vexuer? A Fifth. Q That's somebody that you know owns and operates the Victoria's Secret, the Limited? MR. Y AREMA: Object to the form. A Is that a question? Q Is that somebody that you know to own Victoria's Secret or operate Victoria's Secret'? A Fifth. Q Do you know if Jeffrey Epstein slill tall<s with Leslie Wexner? MR. YAREMA: Object to the form. A Fifth. Q Do you know Jane Doe-102? A Fifth. Q Are you aware of Jeffrey Epstein and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 4 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 48 Ghislaine Maxwell's sexual interaction with .Jane Doc-102 when she wns n minor? MR. VA R.EMA: Object to the fonn . Q This is one or many undernge minor females thnt was trafficked basically a1·011n1l the globe to be sexually exploited and abused; is that correct? MR. YA REM A: Object 10 the form. A Fifth. Q Was that typical of Jeffrey Epstein nnd Ghislaine Mnx,well to sexually abuse minors on Jeffrey Epstein's airplane? MR. YA REM A: Object to the fonn. A Fifth. Q And nlso typical or Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein to prostitute or pimp out underage minors to friends? MR. YAREMA: Object to the form. A Fifth. Q By "friends," I am talking specifically about people of royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen and other professional or personal acquaintances? MR. YA REMA: Object to the form. A Fifth. 49 Q Were you with Jeffrey Epstein on his birthday when one of his friends sent to him 12 -- sorry, three 12-year olds for the purposes of Jeffrey Epstein sexually abusing them? MR. VAREMA: Object to the fonn . A Fifth . Q How many occasions have you observed Jeffrey Epstein to receive ns gifts from friends, underage minor fema les for tJ1e purposes of him sexually nbusing them? MR. VAR.EMA: Object to the fonn . A Fifth. Q These three 12-year olds were from li'rnnce. Were they sent to him on his birthday by Jean Luc Brunel or by somebody else? MR. YAREMA: Object tofonn. A Fifth. Q 1-luve you ever been made to engage in sex with 12-ycar olds? MR. YAREMA: Object to the fo1111. A Firth. Q Is it trnc that Jeffrey Epstein makes you dress up ns a 12-year old? MR. VA REMA: Object to the form. A Fifth. 13 (Pages 46 to 49 : U.S. Legal Support (561) 835- 0220 GJUFFRE00 1176 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 8 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 58 60 Alnn Dershowitz, menning he continued to sexu ally 1 Q Whnt wns the purpose of that night'! abuse minors despite Alnn Dershowitz being a 2 MR. YAREMA: Object to the fo rm. guest in the house? 3 A Fitlh. MR. YAREMA: Object to the fonn . 4 Q Did you sign a conlidcntinlity agreement A Fifth. 5 with Jeffrey Epstein? Q Alan Dershowitz never cngnged in any 6 MR. YAREMA: Object 10 the form. sexual activity with these underage minors; isn't 7 A Fifth. that true? 8 Q When is the last time that you observed MR. YAREMA: Object to the form. 9 Jeffrey Epstein have sex with a minor? A Fifth. 10 MR. YAREMA: Object to the fo rm. Q Have you been made to have sex with 11 A Fifth. Ghislaine Maxwell? 12 Q Since being on probation, has Jeffrey MR. YAREMA: Object to the form. 13 IJ:pstcin been able to, or has he flown to his A Fifth. 14 island '! Q Do you know ? 15 MR. Y AREMA: Object lo the form. A Filth. 16 A Fil\h. Q Similar to you being .Jeffrey Epstein's 17 Q To your knowledge, has Jeffrey IJ:pstein sex sin vc, is , or was 18 flown to New York while on probation or community Ghislaine Mnxwell's sex slnve? 19 control? MR. YA REMA: Object lo the fo1111. 20 MR. YAREMA: Object to the fonn. A Fifth. 21 A Fifth. Q Ghislnine Maxwell is somebody who you 22 Q Isn't it true that he has flown both to know to be bi-sexunl, true? 23 New York :tnd to his island, and you have MR. YAREMA: Object to the fo rm. 24 accompnnied him on those trips, since he was on A Fifth. 25 community control? 59 61 Q You lmow that Ghislnine Ma.xwell engnged 1 MR. YAREMA: Object to the form. in sexual acts with underage minor females, true? 2 A Fifth. MR. YAREMA: Object to the form. 3 Q Isn't it also true that Jeffrey Epstein A Fifth. 4 has indicated to you that he will always engage Q This is yet another friend of Jeffrey 5 in sex acts with underage minor females? Epstein's that is into the act of molesting 6 MR. VAR.EMA: Object to the fonn . underage minor females, right? 7 A Fifth. MR. Y AREM A: Object to the fonn . 8 Q ht fact, that's something that he hns A Fifth. 9 told you, tha t he believes he is entitled to do; Q Now, you are the next participnnt in 10 isn't that right? that activity, meaning you have been groomed to 11 MR. YAREMA: Object to the form . enjoy nnd appreciate the acts of sex with 12 A Fifth. underage minors, true'! 13 Q Isn't it true that Jeffrey Epstein MR. YAREMA: Object to the fonn . 14 believes 1111<1 has told you that if he doesn't A Fifth. 15 physically force the undernge minor female into Q Has Jeffrey Epstein instructed you to 16 any act, then he is entitled to engage in sex lie to his Probation Officer in nny wny? 17 with nny underage minor fenrnle despite the nge? MR. YAREMA: Object to the fonn. 18 MR. YAREMA: Object to the fo1111. A Fifth. 19 A Fifth. Q Mr. Visoskl testified thnt you took a 20 Q What is the youngest fcmn le you have helicopter night within the Inst year with 21 witnessed or observed Jeffrey Epstein to engage Jeffrey Epstein to Miami. Do you remember thnt 22 in sex with ? llight? 23 MR. Y AREMA: Object to the form. MR. YAREMA: Object to the fonn. 24 A Fifth. A Fifth. 25 Q Do you luwe II bnnk account at Chase Bnnk 16 (Pages 58 to 61 : U.S. Legal Support (561) 835-0220 GIUFFRE00 1179 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 8 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 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2,1 25 98 A Fifth. Q Did you know that J effrey Epstein gave A.O. a d igital camern? MR. YAREMA: Object to the form. A Fifth. MS. EZELL: I don't have any other questions. Thank you. MR. GOLDBERGER: You still have your microphone on. You must have something on your mind, Brad. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. EDWARDS: Q Ms. Marciukovn, through the whole dny you've ta ken the Firth 0 11 just about every si ngle question. Is there nuy reason why we shou ld not presume that the a nswer to these questions would incriminate you? MR. YAREMA: Object to the form. A The Fifth. Q The reason that you have taken the Fifth is because the questions you have been asked wou ld have been nnswered in the affirmative and you 're a fraid of prosecution for your involvement, true? MR. GOLDBERGER: Don't answer that question. It interferes with the attomey/client relationship that I have with Ms. Marcinkova and any discussions she and I may have had would come under that privilege. You can try and dance around that, but I'm simply 1101 going to allow her to answer that question. If you want 10 b1ing it up with the Judge, you can. MR. EDWARDS: Thanks, Jack. MR. GOLDBERGER: Okay. THE V IDEOGRAPHER: Off the video record al I :41 p.111 . THE COURT REPORTER : You're ordering this, Brad? MR. EDWARDS: Yes. Copies? MS. EZELL: Yes. MR. YAREMA: Yes: 99 l 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 THE COURT REPORTER: is that right? And Adam wanted it; 18 19 MR. EDWARDS: Yes. (Time noted: I :45 p.m.) 20 tz1 22 23 tz4 tz5 100 THE STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF PALM BEACH) I, TERRI BECKER, a Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public for the State or Florida at Large, do hereby certiry that I reported the videotaped deposition ol'NADIA MARCINKOVA, the WITNESS, called by the PLAINTIFF in the abo,•e-entitled action; that the witness was duly sworn by me; that the foregoing pages, numbered from I 10 I 04, inclusi ve, constitute a true record of the deposition by said witness. I further certify that I am not allorney or counsel or any of the parties, nor a relative or employee of any allorncy or counsel connec ted with the action, nor financially interested in the action. WITNESS MY HAND and ollicial seal in the City of West Palm Beach, County ol'Palm Beach, '""~~)~~.s~g, TERRI BECKER, Registered ,;,. ,~ Pro lessiona I Repm1cr and Notmy Public, State of Florida at Large. My Commission expires March 13, 2011. THE ST ATE OF FLOIUDA) COUNTY OF PALM BEACH) The foregoing certificate was 101 acknowledged before me this ______ _ day of _______ 2010. Notary Public, State ofFlorida. My commission No. Expires March 13, 201 I. 26 (Pages 98 to 101 U.S. Legal Support (561) 835-0220 GJUFFREOO 1189 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 8 EXHIBIT 16 (Filed Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-17 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 6 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 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 2 JANE DOE NO. 6, Case No: 08-CV-80994 1 VIDEOTAPED Plaintiff, 2 DEPOSITION Vs 3 of JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 4 ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ Defendant. 5 I 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. 12 BY: STUART MERMELSTEIN, ESQ. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 18205 Biscayne Boulevard 13 Suite 2218 Defendant. Miami, Florida 33160 I 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 I 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 EPSTEIN, PODHURST ORSECK 22 BY: KATHERINE W. EZELL Defendant. 25 West Flagler Street I 23 Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33130 24 Attorney for Jane Doe 101 and 102. 25 Page 3 JANE DOE NO. 11, Case No: 08-CV-80469 1 Plaintiff, APPEARANCES: Vs 2 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 3 LEOPOLD-KUVIN 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-80591 Attorney for 8. 8. 6 Plaintiff, 7 RIOiARD WILLITS, ESQ. 2290 10th Avenue North Vs 8 SUite 404 Lake Worth, Florida 33461 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 9 Attorney for C.M.A. 10 BURMAN, CRITTON, LUmER & Defendant. 11 COLEMAN, LLP BY: ROBERT CRITTON, ESQ. JANE DOE NO. 102, Case No: 09-CV-80656 12 515 North Flagler Drive Plaintiff, SUite 400 Vs 13 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Attorney for Jeffrey Epstein. 14 Defendant. 15 16 ALSO PRESENT: 17 JOE LANGSAM, VIDEOGRAPHER 1031 Ives Dairy Road 18 Suite 228 19 North Miami, Florida - - - 20 July 29, 2009 21 11:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 22 23 24 25 Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688 7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141 Page 4 ' Page 5 2 (Pages 2 to 5) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-17 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 6 Page 166 1 written down anywhere? 2 A. No. 3 Q. It's my understanding that C. and T. 4 either came to his house alone to visit with Mr. 5 Epstein or brought other girls in their age group 6 to Mr. Epstein. 7 Were you familiar with that type of 8 recruitment process of girls bringing other girls? 9 MR. CRITTON: Form. 10 THE WITNESS: Yes. 11 BY MR. EDWARDS: 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 Q. Can you tell me more about what you know about girls bringing other girls that are relatively the same age to come to Jeffrey Epstein's house and to use your words, have a good time? MR. CRITTON: Form. THE WITNESS: It's hard to know who they knew. But I think that was -- they feel better themselves when they're in a group than going by themselves, but I don't know somebody recruiting. BY MR. EDWARDS: Q. Okay. And you've talked about, at least referred to yourself I believe to the police and Page 167 as well today as a human ATM machine. Right? MR. CRITTON: Form. THE WITNESS: Something like that. I was supposed to carry cash at all times. BY MR. EDWARDS: 6 Q. One of the primary reasons why you 7 carried cash was to pay the girls in this age 8 group of C. and T. for whatever happened at the 9 house. Right? 10 MR. CRITTON: Form. 11 THE WITNESS: Yes. 12 BY MR. EDWARDS: 13 Q. That's a fair statement. Right? 14 MR. CRITTON: Form. 15 THE WITNESS: Yes. 16 BY MR. EDWARDS: 17 Q. Okay. And when C., let's use her for 18 example, would bring somebody else to the house, 19 did you pay C. as well as whomever she brought to 20 the house, pay them both? 21 A. No, I pay only one person. 22 Q. Okay. My understanding, and tell me if 23 this is wrong or you can corroborate this, is that 24 Mr. Epstein would pay the girl that was actually 25 performing whatever was happening in the room -- Page 168 1 for now we'll call it a massage -- as well as 2 anybody who brought that person over to the house, 3 they would both get paid cash. Are you familiar 4 with that? 5 MR. CRITTON: Form. 6 THE WITNESS: No. 7 BY MR. EDWARDS: 8 Q. If C. brought another girl over to the 9 house and C. stayed downstairs but this other girl 10 went upstairs with Mr. Epstein, which one would 11 you pay? 12 A. I don't know because I was told who to 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 1 Q. What about Ghislaine Maxwell? 2 MR. CRITTON: Form. 3 THE WITNESS: You're talking about the 4 boss. I don't know. 5 BY MR. EDWARDS: 6 Q. To your knowledge was Ghislaine Maxwell 7 aware of these girls that are in the age group of 8 C. and T. coming to Jeffrey Epstein's house to 9 have a good time? 10 MR. CRITTON: Form. 11 THE WITNESS: I have to say something. 12 Mrs. Maxwell called me and told me not to 13 ever discuss or contact her again in a 14 threaten way. 15 BY MR. EDWARDS: 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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. 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 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-17 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 6 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 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 170 Page 172 Q. Is this the cell phone that was issued to 1 precisely did she say? you by Mr. Epstein? 2 A. She said I forbid you that you're going A. No, it was my personal phone. I was 3 to be -- that I will be sorry if I contact any of already -- 4 her friends again. Q. Gone? 5 Q. Okay. Other than you will be sorry if A. Yeah, this is three, four months down the 6 you contact any of my friends again did she say road. 7 anything else about what you know about Mr. Q. So if you left in -- 8 Epstein and/or what goes on at his house? A. February, March -- it was May or June. 9 A. She said something like don't open your Q. Of 2005? 10 mouth or something like that. But you have to A. Yes. 11 understand, I'm a civil humble, I came as an Q. And you got a call from Ghislaine Maxwell 12 immigrant to service people, and right now you out of the blue? 13 feel a little -- I'm 55 and I'm afraid. First of A. Yes. 14 all, I don't have a job, but I'm glad this is on Q. And do you know what prompted that 15 tape because I don't want nothing to happen to me. telephone call? 16 This is the way they treat you, better do this and A. Because I contact somebody in New York to 17 you shut up and don't talk to nobody and -- get a job. 18 Q. When you say this is the way they treat, Q. Who was that person? 19 who specifically are you talking about when you A. I contact Jean-Luc and I contact Eva, the 20 say the word they? Swedish girl, she used to be very good friends 21 A. Maxwell. with Mr. Epstein because she asked me she need 22 Q. And usually when you say the word they, somebody in New York. 23 you're not only talking about one person -- Q. What does Eva do? 24 A. Wealthy people. A. Eva was a model many years ago and he 25 Q. Are you also putting Jeffrey Epstein in Page 171 Page 173 married -- Eva is the mother of the girl who was 1 that category? on the wall. 2 MR. CRITTON: Form. Q. Who is on the wall of Mr. Epstein's 3 THE WITNESS: I didn't talk to him house? 4 directly most of the time. A. Yeah. 5 BY MR. EDWARDS: Q. All right. There is a younger girl model 6 Q. What's the reason why if you were his that's on the wall of Mr. Epstein's house and this 7 head of security that you wouldn't have more lady Eva is her mother? 8 direct contact with him? Why is that? A. Yes. 9 MR. CRITTON: Form. Q. And at some point in time you called her 10 THE WITNESS: He wanted that way, you in New York to get a job? 11 know, so, yeah, I have to talk to Sarah, A. That's right. 12 Sarah is not available talk to Lesley in New Q. And you also called Jean-Luc Bernell? 13 York. He didn't want to be disturbed. That's his name. Right? 14 BY MR. EDWARDS: A. Jean-Luc, yeah, I don't remember his last 15 Q. Even while you were in the same house name. 16 with him he still had other people you could talk Q. Does that sound familiar to you, Jean-Luc 17 to directly but he was not one of them? Bernell? 18 A. Yeah. A. Yeah. 19 Q. When you were fired you were not fired Q. What did Eva and/or Jean-Luc say about 20 directly by him? employing you? 21 A. No. A. No, they said they're going to find out 22 Q. It was through somebody else? and obviously the first thing they did was talk to 23 A. Ms. Maxwell. Mrs. Maxwell. 24 Q. Okay. But it was for upsetting him for Q. She made a telephone call to you and what 25 taking the wrong car? - 44 (Pages 170 to 173) Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688 7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-17 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 6 Page 174 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Okay. Ever since this communication that 3 Ms. Maxwell made to you where she called you 4 sometime in May or June of 2005, and have you felt 5 threatened? 6 A. Yes. 7 MR. CRITTON: Form. 8 BY MR. EDWARDS: 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Have you felt reluctant to come forward and give truthful, honest, and full disclosure of all information that you know about this case? MR. CRITTON : Form. THE WITNESS: I said this off the record but I will say it on the record, being in the Epstein case for me resulted in two years I have -- I won't bring the names but I was in the third interview to get hired as a household manager in Palm Beach and they told me you are the Jeffrey Epstein guy. Not in the sense I did something wrong because of the scandal, so they shun the job away from me. And so I was afraid that -- this is very powerful people and one phone call and you finish, so I'm the little guy. Even I'm wearing a tie I'm a -- I'm talking Page 175 1 from my heart. This is the way it is. 2 BY MR. EDWARDS: 3 Q. I feel for you, I'm sorry that you have 4 to be in this position. 5 MR. CRITTON: Move to strike this. 6 BY MR. EDWARDS: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Well, when you applied for these jobs and they turned you down and gave you the reason that you're the person involved in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, was it that they are associated or friends with Jeffrey Epstein or is it that you have information and you have this confidentiality but you're revealing some certain information that Mr. Epstein would not like? MR. CRITTON: Form. THE WITNESS: Both. BY MR. EDWARDS: Q. Both? A. Both. Q. And since then given what you just told us about these people being very powerful, are you afraid for your life given the fact that you're involved to some extent in this case? MR. CRITTON : Form. THE WITNESS: I just start thinking about 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Page 176 this. Because I went through -- the first time I went to the deposition I was in Palm Beach and I did my duty, I mean, I tell what I know, but now I know there is more digging, all I want is this to be to get on with my normal life and stuff. BY MR. EDWARDS: 8 Q. So when you come here today to testify, 9 your main objective is to get back to your normal 10 life and get out of the spotlight of this case. 11 Yes? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And in doing so have you held back some 14 of the details that you know about that happened 15 in this case to remove yourself from the 16 spotlight? 17 MR. CRITTON: Form. 18 THE WITNESS: No, sir. 19 BY MR. EDWARDS: 20 Q. Okay. Have you ever talked to Ghislaine 21 Maxwell after that telephone call where she called 22 you and you felt threatened? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Okay. So going back to where we started 25 here was, does Ghislaine Maxwell have knowledge of Page 177 1 the girls that would come over to Jeffrey 2 Epstein's house that are in roughly the same age 3 group as C. and T. and to have a good time as you 4 put it? 5 MR. CRITTON: Form. 6 THE WITNESS: Yes. 7 BY MR. EDWARDS: 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And what was her involvement and/or knowledge about that? MR. CRITTON: Form. THE WITNESS: She knew what was going on. BY MR. EDWARDS: Q. You referred to her at one point in time as Jeffrey Epstein's companion. But then later on you said that if she flew she flew on a different airplane and oftentimes or sometimes she slept in a different bed from Mr. Epstein. Did that seem unusual to you? MR. CRITTON: Form. THE WITNESS: It was odd but, I mean, and again, everything is odd in Palm Beach. BY MR. EDWARDS: Q. Okay, I don't mean to laugh. A. Mr. Epstein fly to Jet Aviation, she fly to Galaxy Aviation, but they never flew the same 45 (Pages 174 to 177) Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688 7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-17 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 6 Page 266 1 BY MR. LANGINO: 2 Q. Are you currently in fear of Mr. Epstein? 3 A. Not at this particular moment but it's 4 something I have to be worry about, yes. 5 Q. Are you personally afraid of criminal 6 prosecution? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Do you believe that you did anything 9 illegal? 10 A. Illegal, no. 11 MR. LANGINO: I have no further 12 questions. Thank you. 13 MR. CRITTON: We're going to break in 14 about 15 minutes. Do you want to start and 15 go for 15 minutes or do you want to -- it's 16 up to you. 17 MS. EZELL: I'll start. 18 MR. WILLITS: When are we going to quit, 19 folks? 20 MR. CRITTON: In 15 minutes. 21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Might as well change 22 tapes. 23 MR. EDWARDS: Bob has to get back so 24 we've agreed we're going to come back some 25 other time. 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 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.) Page 268 1 THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ) 2 COUNTY OF DADE. ) 3 4 5 I, the undersigned authority, certify 6 that ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ personally appeared before 7 me on the 29th day of July, 2009 and was duly 8 sworn. 9 10 WITNESS my hand and official seal this 11 31st day of July, 2009. 12 13 14 15 MICHELLE PAYNE, Court Reporter 16 Notary Public - State of Florida 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 of said videotaped deposition was commenced and completed 12 as hereinabove set out. 13 I further certify that I 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. 16 The foregoing certification of this 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 MICHELLE 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 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-17 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 6 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 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS 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 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 50 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 II. DEFENDANT’S ENTIRE MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED ...........................................1 III. MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES SHOULD BE DENIED ...............................................................................................................................2 A. Interrogatory No. 5.................................................................................................. 2 1. Ms. Giuffre’s Counsel’s Communications With the Media Are Outside the Scope of Rule 26 and Any Attempt at Collection Would be Unduly Burdensome ..............................................................................2 2. Defendant is Already in Possession of Ms. Giuffre’s Communications With the Media ...........................................................................................3 B. Interrogatory No. 6.................................................................................................. 5 C. Interrogatory No. 7.................................................................................................. 8 D. Interrogatory No. 8................................................................................................ 10 E. Interrogatory No. 13.............................................................................................. 10 1. Ms. Giuffre Has Answered This Interrogatory Completely .....................10 2. This Court Has Already Ruled Against Defendant on Pre-1999 Medical Records, so Defendant is Estopped From Bringing This Argument ..................................................................................................15 3. This Request is Overly Burdensome and Disallowed Under New York Law ..................................................................................................17 4. The Physician-patient Privilege Applies to These Documents ................19 F. Interrogatory No. 14.............................................................................................. 20 1. This Discovery is Barred by FRE 412 ......................................................20 2. This Request if Propounded for Improper Purposes and Harassment ......21 3. This Request Seeks Irrelevant Information ..............................................22 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 50 ii 4. Sexual Assault Records are a Medical Event and Are Barred by This Court’s Order ............................................................................................23 5. Information About Ms. Giuffre’s Sexual Abuse is Protected by Florida Statutes .........................................................................................24 6. Defendant Makes Misrepresentations to the Court ..................................25 7. Defendant Has Violated the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) ...............25 IV. PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ARE NOT DEFICIENT AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED ......26 A. Requests for Admission Nos. 1-8 and 13.............................................................. 26 B. Requests for Admission Nos. 12 ........................................................................... 28 V. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S OVERLY BROAD REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION ARE COMPLIANT WITH HER DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE APPLICABLE RULES AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED ....................................................................................30 A. Request for Production No. 1................................................................................ 30 B. Request for Production No. 4................................................................................ 36 C. Request for Production No. 9................................................................................ 36 D. Request for Production No. 10.............................................................................. 40 E. Requests for Production No. 11 and No. 12 ......................................................... 40 VI. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................42 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................................... 44 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 50 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases Blodgett v. Siemens Industry, Inc., 2016 WL 4203490 (E.D.N.Y., 2016)......................................................................................... 2 Does 1 and 2 v. United States, 817 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (S.D. Fla. 2011) .................................................................................... 39 Does v. United States, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................. 39 Dubin, 125 F.R.D 372 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). ............................................................................................. 30 Elghanian v. Schachter, 1997 WL 607546 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ............................................................................................ 1 Evanko v. Electronic Systems Assoc., Inc., No. 91 Civ. 2851, 1993 WL 14458 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 1993) ................................................... 17 Gibbons v. Food Lion, Inc., No. 98-1197-CIV-T-23F, 1999 WL 33226474 (M.D. Fla. Feb.19, 1999) .............................. 21 Havenfield Corp. v. H & R Block, Inc., 67 F.R.D. 93 (W.D.Mo.1973) .................................................................................................. 30 Jane Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736 (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2008).............................................................................. 38 Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, 950 F. Supp. 2d 1262 (S.D. Fla. 2013) .................................................................................... 39 Manessis v. New York City Dep’t of Transp., No. 02 CIV. 359SASDF, 2002 WL 31115032 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2002) ............................. 17 S.E.C. v. Micro-Moisture Controls, 21 F.R.D. 164 (S.D.N.Y.1957) ................................................................................................ 30 Sgambellone v. Wheatley, 165 Misc.2d 954, 630 N.Y.S.2d 835 (N.Y. Sup.Ct. 1995) ...................................................... 17 Silva v. Pioneer Janitorial Servs., Inc., No. CIV.A. 10-11264-JGD, 2011 WL 4729783 (D. Mass. Oct. 4, 2011) ......................... 21, 22 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 50 iv Spin Master Ltd. v. Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Service, Inc., 2016 WL 690819 (W.D.N.Y., 2016) ....................................................................................... 30 T. Rowe Price Small-Cap Fund, Inc. v. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., 174 F.R.D. 38 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ............................................................................................... 31 Thalheim v. Eberheim, 124 F.R.D. 34 (D.Conn.1988).................................................................................................. 30 United States v. Consolidated Edison Co., 1988 WL 138275 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 1988) ........................................................................... 30 Wachtman v. Trocaire College, 532 N.Y.S.2d 943 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988) ............................................................................... 17 Statutes 18 U.S.C. § 3771 ..................................................................................................................... 38, 39 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(9) .................................................................................................................. 39 Fla. Stat. § 39.202(6)..................................................................................................................... 25 Fla. Stat. § 480.041 ....................................................................................................................... 19 Fla. Stat. § 794.026 ....................................................................................................................... 25 Fla. Stat. § 985.036 ....................................................................................................................... 25 Fla. Stat. § 985.04 ......................................................................................................................... 25 Fla. Stat. § 985.054 ....................................................................................................................... 25 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 ................................................................................................................... passim Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i) ......................................................................................................... 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).......................................................................................................... passim Fed. R. Civ.P. 26(c) ...................................................................................................................... 21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 33.3 .................................................................................................................. .9, 35 Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a)(5) ................................................................................................................. 30 Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 .......................................................................................................................... 30 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 50 v Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4) ................................................................................................................. 29 Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(5) ................................................................................................................. 29 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 ............................................................................................................................ 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.1 ................................................................................................................ passim Fed. R. Evid. 412 ................................................................................................................... passim Other Authorities 8 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2258 ............................................... 30 Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771 ............................................................... 38 Andrew Taslitz, “Rape and the Culture of the Courtroom” (1999) .............................................. 26 Pub. L. 114-22, Title I, § 113(a), (c)(1), May 29, 2015, 129 Stat. 240, 241................................. 39 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 50 1 Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre (“Ms. Giuffre”), by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel and her baseless Motion for Sanctions (DE 354). I. INTRODUCTION For the third time, Defendant attempts to elevate a routine discover dispute into something over which she seeks sanctions, despite the complete lack of a basis for sanctions and a complete lack of case law supporting her request.1 All three of Defendant’s requests for sanctions have been frivolous, legally unreasonable, without factual foundation, and for an improper purpose. Rule 11 provides for the imposition of sanctions in those circumstances. See Elghanian v. Schachter, 1997 WL 607546, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (Sweet, J.) Indeed, in Defendant’s entire “argument” for sanctions, she only cites one case - a case from the District of the District of Columbia - for the proposition that Plaintiff should be sanctioned because her interrogatory responses were unsigned.2 However, Defendant’s interrogatory responses are also unsigned. Defendant’s thirty-seven page brief is riddled with these half-truths in a grasping attempt to distort reality as the documentary and testimonial evidence piles up against her. By Defendant’s logic, Ms. Giuffre should have already moved for sanctions against Defendant for Defendant’s unsigned interrogatories, but unlike Defendant, Ms. Giuffre would not burden the Court with a frivolous request for sanctions. II. DEFENDANT’S ENTIRE MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED Defendant’s motion violates Local Rule 37.1, and should be denied for that reason before the Court even reaches the merits. Local Rule 37.1 states that, “upon any motion or application 1 Defendant’s first baseless request for sanctions was improperly raised in a response brief (DE 228) to a routine motion for extension of time - a motion this Court granted (June 23, 2016, Minute Order). Defendant’s second baseless request (DE 231) centered on the fact that Ms. Giuffre listed her physicians in response to interrogatories instead of in her Rule 26 disclosures. 2 Ms. Giuffre has signed her amended interrogatories, and has served them on Defendant. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 50 2 involving discovery or disclosure requests or responses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, the moving party shall specify and quote or set forth verbatim in the motion papers each discovery request and response to which the motion or application is addressed.” For the majority of discovery items upon which Defendant moves, Defendant has wholly failed to do this. Instead, Defendant edits out a great deal of Ms. Giuffre’s answers and objections to the interrogatories, skipping entire data sets put forth in response to the interrogatories, and skipping Ms. Giuffre most cogent objections. This is improper conduct. Upon a motion to compel, a Court is called upon to evaluate the discovery requests as well as the responses and objections. Local Rule 37.1 is designed to protect against the exact type of self-serving editing of the opposing party’s objections that Defendant has done in this brief. Accordingly, the Court should deny Defendant’s motion in its entirety for failure to comply with Local Rule 37.1. See Blodgett v. Siemens Industry, Inc., 2016 WL 4203490, at *1 (E.D.N.Y., 2016) (denying motion without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 37.1 (which is the same rule in the Eastern District of New York)). III. MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES SHOULD BE DENIED A. Interrogatory No. 5 1. Ms. Giuffre’s Counsel’s Communications With the Media Are Outside the Scope of Rule 26 and Any Attempt at Collection Would be Unduly Burdensome Interrogatory No. 5 seeks a catalogue of Ms. Giuffre and her counsel’s communications with the media, broadly defined, and without limitation of time or subject matter. First, the interrogatory request should be denied because Ms. Giuffre already produced her communications with the media, which included production of close to 200 e-mails. Despite having these key communications, Defendant is now pushing for all communications that any of Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 50 3 her counsel ever had with any media without any time or subject matter limitation. The search for, and production of, all communications involving her counsel and the media is unduly burdensome and wholly irrelevant. Given the nature of Ms. Giuffre’s counsel’s practices, the media reach out to Ms. Giuffre’s counsel frequently, regarding a number of issues, and none of Ms. Giuffre’s counsel catalogue or record any of these communications. Complete retrieval would be inordinately burdensome. Even Defendant’s more limited request put forth in the instant motion seeking communications with the media regarding this case is overly broad. This would require a marshaling of enormous resources, and under Rule 26(b)(1), there is no need expressed by Defendant to justify this heavy burden. Notably, Defendant has deposed Ms. Giuffre in detail on topics relating to media inquiries and she also has of Ms. Giuffre’s e-mail communications with the media produced by Ms. Giuffre. This request should be denied on these grounds alone. Though she claims Ms. Giuffre’s counsel’s communications with the media somehow go to her defenses, tellingly, Defendant fails to explain how they do, or put forth any case law in support this proposition. Additionally, there’s no explanation (or case law) as to how any such communications could go to Defendant’s damages. Defendant does not explain and does not elaborate. Defendant has failed to articulate relevance or any supporting case law for this discovery, and the request should be denied for this reason as well. 2. Defendant is Already in Possession of Ms. Giuffre’s Communications With the Media Regarding Ms. Giuffre’s communications with the media, Defendant already has them. And, importantly, Defendant didn’t have to hunt and peck for these communications, as she is trying to lead the Court to believe. Ms. Giuffre’s communications with the media consist of email communications between Ms. Giuffre and Sharon Churcher, and Ms. Giuffre and Jarred Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 50 4 Weissfeld. The overwhelming majority of them were produced in her second rolling production and continued on a rolling basis through the fifth production (all of which were small productions). Specifically, there are approximately 175 of these documents, and all were produced within a narrow Bates range.3 Defendant had knowledge of these documents as soon as Ms. Giuffre produced them. Moreover, these documents are featured in Defendant’s briefs, Defendant issued subpoenas to both Sharon Churcher and Jarred Weissfeld months ago, and Defendant has deposed Ms. Giuffre about her media contacts. See McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit 1, Defendant’s May 31, 2016, Subpoenas to Churcher and Weissfeld. Yet, Defendant cited a number of cases wherein discovery was buried amid voluminous productions so as to be hidden or to cause delayed or cumbersome discovery of them. They are inapposite. Defendant didn’t have to “comb through literally thousands of pages of documents” to “find” these. Again, they were presented to Defendant in small production batches, starting with the second production. Moreover, Defendant can gather all of these documents via an electronic search with a simple keystroke. By suggesting to the Court that Ms. Giuffre’s communications with the media were somehow hidden or buried in her production, Defendant makes an argument in bad faith. Indeed, Defendant’s argument is tantamount to making a false representation to the Court. Finally, all of these communications were email communications. So, on their face, they tell Defendant “the date of any such Communication;” “the form of any such Communication, whether oral or written and if written, the format of any such Communication;” “the identities of all the persons involved in such Communication” (this is revealed from the to/from/cc lines); and the other data. Defendant also knows, very well, the identities of the individuals involved 3 These communications were produced at Giuffre003191-4274; Giuffre004275-4301; Giuffre004302-4371; Giuffre004372-4746; Giuffre004747-5092. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 50 5 (including the identity of the organization with which they are affiliated), particularly as the communicators each received one of Defendant’s subpoenas. At the end of the day, the only thing Ms. Giuffre could do to answer this any more than she already has is to go through the burdensome and redundant exercise of writing down, for each of the approximately 175 emails, (1) the fact that it is an email; (2) what name appears in the “to” field; (3) what name appears in the “from” field; (4) what name appears in the “cc” field; and (5) what date appears on the email. Ms. Giuffre submits to the Court that making such a catalogue is a redundant exercise that is not appropriate under Rule 26(b)(1) which, under the 2015 amendment, takes into account “the parties’ relative access to relevant information.” Ms. Giuffre also submits to the Court that moving to compel Ms. Giuffre to make such a list based on documents she already produced to the Defendant is frivolous and a waste of resources. B. Interrogatory No. 6 Defendant’s Interrogatory No. 6 seeks any “false statements” attributed to Defendant that were published. Defendant also seeks the date, place, and form of publication, publishing entity, the URL address, etc., of all such statements. Ms. Giuffre knows, with certainty, of certain statements made by Defendant, and, together, they are the subject of this action. Ms. Giuffre made a listing of various websites that published those statements in response to this interrogatory. This compilation was part of Ms. Giuffre’s interrogatory answer that Defendant misleadingly omits from her motion in violation of Local Rule 37.1. Based upon Ms. Giuffre’s answer, there is nothing else to compel. Yet, Defendant moves to compel answers that Ms. Giuffre does not have. Specifically, Ms. Giuffre does not have the knowledge (and certainly does not have the documents relating to) every time Defendant may have defamed her. That is information that lies solely in the possession of the Defendant. Indeed, Ms. Giuffre sought this very information from Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 50 6 Defendant in her Requests Nos. 17 and 18, in which she requested 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” and “all documents concerning which individuals or entities You or Your agents distributed or sent any statements concerning Ms. Giuffre referenced in Request No. 17 made by You or on Your behalf.” Defendant objected to these requests and refused to produce any documents. Ms. Giuffre’s motion to compel is pending. As stated above, Ms. Giuffre knows that Defendant defamed her through the statement issued on her behalf by Ross Gow, and she knows Defendant defamed her when she affirmed that statement on video the next day in New York. But, she doesn’t know all Defendant’s defamatory statements, nor does she know where Defendant made them, or to whom she issued them. Defendant is trying to turn logic on its head with this request which, essentially, says: “You tell me the people to whom I have sent my own defamatory statements.” Indeed, Defendant’s own language belies her argument. In the instant brief, Defendant says: “The interrogatory required Plaintiff, among other things, to provide each “exact false statement” that she attributes to Ms. Maxwell and that was published anywhere in the world.” How Ms. Giuffre can know every person to whom Defendant made defamatory statements is unexplained. For example, if Defendant took her defamatory statements to a media outlet that chose not to publish them, there is no way for Ms. Giuffre to know that. The only person who knows the full extent of Defendant’s defamation of Ms. Giuffre is defendant, which is why Ms. Giuffre sent her a request for the same information. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 50 7 However, to make a good faith effort of a response, Ms. Giuffre compiled many examples of Defendant’s defamation, examples that were absent from Defendant’s brief, in contravention of Rule 37.1: Date Nature Publishing Entity Statement/URL January 2, 2015 Internet Ross Gow Jane Doe 3 is Virginia Roberts - so not a new individual. The allegations made by Victoria Roberts against Ghislaine Maxwell are untrue. The original allegations are not new and have been fully responded to and shown to be untrue. Each time the story is re told it changes with new salacious details about public figures and world leaders and now: it is alleged by Ms. Roberts that Alan Dershowitz is involved in having sexual relations with her, which he denies. Ms. Roberts’s claims are obvious lies and should be treated as such and not publicized as news, as they are defamatory, Ghislaine Maxwell’s original response to the lies and defamatory claims remains the same. Maxwell strongly denies allegations of an unsavoury nature, which have appeared in the British press and elsewhere and reserves her right to seek redress at the repetition of such old defamatory claims. January 3, 2015 Internet Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfam ily/11323872/Prince-Andrew-denies-having-relations￾with-sex-slave-girl.html January 4, 2015 Internet Express http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/550085/Ghislai ne-Maxwell-Jeffrey-Epstein-not-madam-paedophile￾Florida-court-case-Prince-Andrew January 3, 2015 Internet Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article￾2895366/Prince-Andrew-lobbied-government-easy￾Jeffrey-Epstein-Palace-denies-claims-royal-tried-use￾influence-help-billionaire-paedophile-2008-police￾probe.html January 3, 2015 Internet Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/03/duk e-of-york-sex-abuse-claims_n_6409508.html January 4, 2015 Internet Jewish News Online http://www.jewishnews.co.uk/dershowitz-nothing￾prince-andrews-sex-scandal/ January 2, 2015 Internet Bolton News http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/na tional/11700192.Palace_denies_Andrew_sex _case_claim/ January 5, 2015 Internet/ Broadcast NY Daily News http:/www.nydailynews.com/news/world/alleged￾madame-accused-supplying-prince-andrew-arti cle-1.2065505 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 50 8 January 5, 2015 Internet/ Broadcast AOL UK http:/www.aol.co.uk/video/ghislaine-maxwell￾declines-to-comment-on-prince-andrew-allegations- 518587500/ Ms. Giuffre recently updated this response to include an additional URL containing defamatory content: January 8, 2015 Internet The Sun https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/6754/princ e-andrews-pal-ghislaine-groped-teen￾girls/?CMP=spklr-128508300-Editorial-TWITTER￾TheSunNewspaper-20150108-News Spending hours trolling the Internet for additional examples of entities that have published Defendant’s defamatory statements is not appropriate under Rule 26(b)(1), which takes into account “whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs the likely benefit.” Here, scouring the Internet for additional examples of the publication of the defamatory statements that are already known (and, illogically, for those that are unknown) is not an appropriate discovery request. If Defendant would respond to Ms. Giuffre’s requests, Ms. Giuffre would be able to answer this interrogatory in full. Only Defendant has access to a comprehensive list of her defamatory statements and of the outlets to which she distributed them. Indeed, as the Court knows from the documents it reviewed in camera and found were not privileged, Defendant and Dershowitz were regularly communicating regarding how best to attack Ms. Giuffre. Accordingly, the Court should deny Defendant’s motion C. Interrogatory No. 7 This interrogatory seeks a catalogue of all of defamatory statements made against Ms. Giuffre. This Interrogatory calls for a legal conclusion as to what statements constitute “defamation,” and is, thus, improper, particularly as it is not limited to what has already been determined to be defamatory. Specifically, this interrogatory calls for Ms. Giuffre to search for Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 50 9 any statements made about her, throughout the internet and other sources, and determine whether or not they constitute defamation. Accordingly, this request is overly broad. See December 29, 2005 Discovery Order, American Civil Liberties Union, et. al. v. Alberto R. Gonzales, No. 98-- 5591, at p. 6 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 29, 2005) (“I find that interrogatory P is over-broad because it is not limited to speech defendant has already determined to be ‘harmful to minors’ under COPA but appears to command defendant to search for all speech over the entire internet and determine whether it is harmful to minors. As a result, defendant need not response to plaintiffs’ interrogatory P.”), at McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, for ease of reference. Alan Dershowitz is the only other known person to defame Ms. Giuffre. As with Interrogatory No. 5, there is no way for Ms. Giuffre to know the full extent of Alan Dershowitz’s defamation of her. She knows that he has called her a “prostitute” and a “bad mother” during his press conferences. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3, Local 10 News article dated January 22, 2015. But, Ms. Giuffre does not know the full extent of Alan Dershowitz’s defamation, nor has she conducted legal analysis regarding any such defamation. Any party could attempt a Google search of such things to locate certain sources on the internet, but that is not what is contemplated by Rule 26(b)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such an exercise is unduly burdensome, and such information is well outside of Ms. Giuffre’s possession, custody, and control. Moreover, only Alan Dershowitz (Defendant’s joint defense partner) knows the comprehensive list of his defamatory statements and of the outlets to which he distributed them. Rule 26(b)(1) limits the scope of discovery based on an evaluation of “the parties’ relative access to relevant information.” As Dershowitz himself has admitted, he is actively involved with Defendant in this litigation. Defendant’s access to this information relative to Ms. Giuffre’s is unparalleled. It is unduly burdensome for Ms. Giuffre to troll the Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 50 10 internet for any instances of Dershowitz defaming her. He is not a party to this action. And, Ms. Giuffre’s single count of defamation does not allege in facts in relation to Dershowitz. Accordingly, the Court should deny Defendant’s motion. D. Interrogatory No. 8 Defendant seeks a list of all the individuals to whom Epstein trafficked Ms. Giuffre. Under Local Rule 33.3 interrogatories “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.” Defendant has already lit upon “a more practical method of obtaining the information sought.” She asked Ms. Giuffre for this information in her deposition. Moreover, Dershowitz, Defendant’s joint defense partner, asked for this information when he took her deposition, and Ms. Giuffre produced that deposition transcript to Defendant. This request is redundant, as this information has already been sought and Ms. Giuffre responded to questions at her May 3, 2016, deposition. See, e.g., May 3, 2016, Giuffre Dep. Tr. at 192-193, 200; 14; 191-193; 193-194; 201-202; 2020-203; 204; January 16, 2016, Giuffre Dep. Tr. at 15; 34; 50-51; 24; 41; 45; 51-54; 6; 38; 24-25; 18-19; 21; 61; 17-18; 20-21; 33; 18; 15-16; and 21. E. Interrogatory No. 13 1. Ms. Giuffre Has Answered Interrogatory No. 13 Completely As discussed above, Defendant’s entire motion violates Local Rule 37.1, but she does so most egregiously here. This interrogatory seeks Ms. Giuffre’s health care provider for any physical, mental, or emotional condition, prior to the Defendant’s defamation. Defendant does not include Ms. Giuffre’s hard-won and fulsome answer, which includes a bevy of providers going back many years. The reason for Defendant’s Rule violation with regard to this Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 50 11 interrogatory is quite obvious, and done in bad faith. Ms. Giuffre listed every physician known to her. The list is extensive. It looked like this: “Health Care Providers known to Ms. Giuffre who may have provided treatment subsequent to the defamation are as follows4 : x Dr. Steven Olson, x Dr. Chris Donohue, x Dr. Peter Del Mar, x St. Thomas More Hospital, x Ms. Judith Lightfoot, 4 Health care providers known to have provided treatment both prior to and subsequent to Defendant’s January 3, 2015 defamation of Ms. Giuffre are listed in the supplemental responses for both Interrogatories 12 and 13. There may be additional crossover of providers that have treated Ms. Giuffre prior to the defamation, listed in the supplemental response to Integratory 13, who also provided treatment subsequent to the defamation. Ms. Giuffre reserves the right to revise, amend, and supplement her response to Interrogatory No. 12 with providers listed in her supplemental response to Interrogatory 13 if and when she becomes aware of any additional crossover. Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 50 12 x Medicare Australia x Dr. Rauf Yousaf, x CVS Pharmacy x Walgreens Pharmacy “Health Care Providers known to Ms. Giuffre who may have provided treatment prior to the defamation are as follows5 : x Dr. John Harris x Dr. Darshanee Majaliyana x Dr. K. L. Lee 5 Health care providers known to have provided treatment both prior to and subsequent to Defendant’s January 3, 2015 defamation of Ms. Giuffre are listed in the supplemental responses for both Interrogatories 12 and 13. There may be additional crossover of providers that have treated Ms. Giuffre subsequent to the defamation, listed in the supplemental response to Integratory 12, who also provided treatment prior to the defamation. Ms. Giuffre reserves the right to revise, amend, and supplement her response to Interrogatory No. 13 with providers listed in her supplemental response to Interrogatory 12 if and when she becomes aware of any additional crossover. Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 50 13 x Dr. M. Sellathurai x Dr. Carol Hayek, x Dr. Ahmed El Moghazi, x Dr. Stephen Edmond, x Campbelltown Hospital, x Westmead Hospital, x Ms. Judith Lightfoot, x Royal Oaks Medical Center, Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 50 14 x Dr. Mona Devanesan, x Dr. Karen Kutikoff x Wellington Imaging Associates x Dr. Ranjit Thind, x Medicare Australia x Dr. Wah Wah San, x CVS Pharmacy x Walgreens Pharmacy 6 In addition, counsel for Ms. Giuffre made multiple phone calls to potential medical records custodians in and attempt to locate Dr. Kutikoff’s records. These efforts were unsuccessful. 7 On information and belief, this occurred after 1999 and prior to the January 3, 2015 defamation. Based on the uncertainty of the exact date, Ms. Giuffre reserves the right to revise, amend, and supplement her responses to Interrogatories 12 and 13. 8 Records from Medicare Australia are generally limited to 3 years. Ms. Giuffre is continuing to pursue additional records from prior to July 19, 2013 through their offices in Australia. 9 Ms. Giuffre has now identified Dr. Wah Wah San and Dr. Wah San to be the same provider to the best of her knowledge. She had previously listed both names. Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 - Jane Doe 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 50 15 Additionally, since Ms. Giuffre served this answer, she has learned of three other physicians who may have treated her, and have served Defendant with that information: x Dr. Timothy D. Hartwig, D.O.was identified in records produced by CVS pharmacy. Ms. Giuffre has requested those records, see GIUFFRE008346-8348. x Dr. James T. Nichols, M.D. was identified in records produced by CVS pharmacy. Ms. Giuffre has requested those records, see GIUFFRE008349-8351. x Dr. Rodolfo Torres Jr., M.D. was identified in records produced by CVS pharmacy. Ms. Giuffre has requested those records, see GIUFFRE008352-8354. Local Rule 37.1 exists for a reason. These answers are nowhere in Defendant’s brief. Ms. Giuffre is not withholding any medical records after 1999, including her pediatric records. The Court should deny Defendant’s request. 2. This Court Has Already Ruled Against Defendant on Pre-1999 Medical Records, so Defendant is Estopped From Bringing This Argument regarding Interrogatory No. 13 Defendant makes another argument bad faith. Defendant tries to argue - to the very Court that held otherwise - that medical records are discoverable prior to 1999. That is false. That was not the Court’s holding. The Court already, and specifically, rejected Defendant’s argument: MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, the next topic are plaintiff’s medical records. THE COURT: I think I understand that. There is one thing, though. Are there any pre ‘99 medical records? MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, the case law is quite clear that injuries that were preexisting -- THE COURT: I’m sorry. Excuse me. Go ahead. MS. MENNINGER: Jane Doe 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 50 16 THE COURT: What’s the basis of your statement that we will call it the flashback? MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I believe -- THE COURT: Because, quite frankly, I was unaware of that. Is that my error? Are you telling me something that’s not quite right? *** THE COURT: . . . The medical records of the period ‘99 to 2002 will be produced and the plaintiff will indicate whether that production is complete or, if it isn’t complete, when it will be complete. As for the pre-’99 medical records, based on where we are at the moment, I do not believe that those are relevant. Because the damage issue relates, in my view, solely to the defamation. If that changes in any way, I will revisit that issue. April 21, 2106 Hr. Tr. at 11:15-12:25; 20:17-25. Nothing since the hearing has changed. Ms. Giuffre has not added a claim or a new category of damages or made any representations concerning her pre-1999 medical history. The Court has heard Defendant’s argument, and correctly rejected it. Defendant puts forth no new argument or facts that should disturb this ruling. Defendant tries to argue that she only wants the “names” of the physicians, and not the records. This argument is fatally flawed. The names of Ms. Giuffre’s physicians are necessarily part of her medical records. Additionally, the identity of a physician’s name also gives information regarding the type of medical treatment Ms. Giuffre received, particularly if that physician is specialist or works within a certain field. Jane Doe 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 22 of 50 17 The tail is already wagging the dog regarding Ms. Giuffre’s search for, and production of, her medical records from 1999 to the present, the overwhelming majority of which are not at all relevant to this defamation case. Again, this Court held that Ms. Giuffre does not have to disclose her pre-1999 medical records, and Defendant gives no reason to disturb that ruling. Defendant is thus estopped from making this argument. 3. Interrogatory No. 13 is Disallowed Under New York Law Being granted some medical discovery is not unlimited under New York law. See, e.g., Manessis v. New York City Dep’t of Transp., No. 02 CIV. 359SASDF, 2002 WL 31115032, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2002) (concluding that “ability to pursue discovery regarding [plaintiff’s] medical records should be limited in some manner”); Evanko v. Electronic Systems Assoc., Inc., No. 91 Civ. 2851, 1993 WL 14458 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 1993) (applying the New York state physician-patient privilege, and holding that where plaintiff claimed that she suffered emotional distress, defendants did not have “a license to rummage through all aspects of the plaintiff’s life in search of a possible source of stress or distress,” including plaintiff’s medical records) (emphasis added); Wachtman v. Trocaire College, 532 N.Y.S.2d 943, 944 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988) (holding that the scope of a waiver of the physician-patient privilege in personal injury cases is “limited and does not permit discovery of information involving unrelated illnesses and treatment”). Even in a personal injury action (as opposed to a defamation action), the opposing party does not have carte blanche access to all medical records. See Sgambellone v. Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 23 of 50 18 Wheatley, 165 Misc.2d 954, 958, 630 N.Y.S.2d 835, 838 (N.Y. Sup.Ct. 1995) (holding that in a personal injury action, plaintiff’s waiver of the physician-patient privilege “is not a wholesale waiver of all information about the plaintiff’s entire physical and mental conditions but a waiver only of the physical and/or mental condition that is affirmatively placed in controversy”). 4. Interrogatory No. 13 is Overly Burdensome Defendant’s request for Ms. Giuffre’s pediatric medical records is also overly burdensome. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if requested documents are not yielded in a “reasonable inquiry,” Ms. Giuffre is not obligated to expend all of her time and resources on a quest to gather medical files from her birth to the present. Defendant wrongly suggests that it is only burdensome because her “mental condition was so complex or required so much medical attention that it would be unduly burdensome for her to ‘track down’ all her medical providers.” This is mere fiction, like much of Defendant’s brief, but even Defendant’s fictitious argument cuts against her request: she admits it is burdensome. At any rate, Ms. Giuffre made no such claim about the nature of the burden. It is one thing for Defendant to argue the law, but it is improper to make up facts. Ms. Giuffre’s claim of burden is based on the fact that it is burdensome for anyone to track down pediatric medical records from one’s childhood because such records are hard if not impossible to find. Like all children, as a child, Ms. Giuffre was not responsible for seeking, arranging, paying for, or managing her health care. She does not remember any physicians or their names or any treatments.10 There is no practicable or non￾burdensome way of obtaining that information. This Court already denied this request for good reason. 10 Ms. Giuffre has provided pediatric records that she was able to collect from the time period she was with Defendant an Epstein including an emergency hospital visit when Ms. Giuffre was underage that Defendant and Epstein took her to in New York City. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 24 of 50 19 Defendant’s request for pediatric records is also overly-broad because, as this Court correctly noted, Ms. Giuffre is not seeking damages based on anything prior to Defendant abusing her. Defendant has told the Court that before she was sexually trafficked her as a minor, Tellingly, Defendant does not state upon what basis she makes the claim that they are relevant, nor does she say what relevance it has on Defendant’s defamation of her in 2015. Of course, Defendant has no supporting case law. Finally, Ms. Giuffre does not allege that she was trafficked by Defendant in 1999. Through discovery, Ms. Giuffre has been able to obtain documents that established that Defendant trafficked her starting in the summer 2000. Ms. Giuffre was 16 until August 9 of 2000, and was 17 thereafter. Defendant seems to think that it is much better, or even excusable to traffic a 16 or 17 year old than a 15 year old. Maxwell Dep. Tr. 33:3-4 (April 22, 2016) (“Virginia Roberts who your [sic] are referring to was a masseuse aged 17”). See McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 4. Of course, like the other young girls they abused, Ms. Giuffre was not a massage therapist.11 Despite Defendant’s view that being a older than 15 is fine for massaging her convicted pedophile boyfriend, the law makes it illegal to traffic humans at any age; particularly when they are children under the age of 18. 5. The Physician-patient Privilege Applies to Information sought by Interrogatory No. 13 The physician patient privilege most certainly applies to an individual’s pediatric medical records. The identity of a physician’s name also gives information regarding the type of medical treatment Ms. Giuffre received, particularly if that physician is specialist. Defendant cites no case law whatsoever in her argument that no privilege applies to this information. 11 See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, Recarey Dep. Tr. at 125:16-23 (“Q. Did you ever ascertain whether or not FP had any formal training in massage therapy? THE WITNESS: She did not. None of the high school girls that I interviewed or anyone under the age of 18 had any formal massage training.”) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 25 of 50 20 Defendant says that Ms. Giuffre’s claim of medical damages somehow necessitates Defendant having access to Ms. Giuffre’s childhood medical records. This argument is without merit. As Defendant knows, as was explained in detail in Ms. Giuffre’s Rule 26 disclosures, Ms. Giuffre’s claim of damages relates to the harm she suffered by being publically defamed by Defendant, who was also her abuser. Defendant has no case law to back up the claim that Ms. Giuffre’s childhood records are necessary for any category of damages; therefore, it should be denied. F. Interrogatory No. 14 Defendant asks for a list of all of the people who have subjected Ms. Giuffre to sexual abuse prior to 1999. This request is plainly harassing, and covers sexual abuse Ms. Giuffre experienced in the years prior to turning 16. 1. This Discovery sought in Interrogatory No. 14 is Barred by FRE 412 This discovery is not relevant as this evidence is barred under Federal Rule of Evidence 412, which applies to civil cases. Defendant’s argument under Federal Rule Evidence 412 is completely misplaced. The Rule absolutely applies in this defamation action. Defendant cannot show evidence of a child being raped in order to show that her defamatory statements are untrue or did not harm Ms. Giuffre’s reputation. Such an argument is unsupported by case law, and Defendant cites to none. Defendant defamed Ms. Giuffre when she was thirty-one years old. There is no way that Defendant can make a credible argument that someone raping Ms. Giuffre when she was 14 somehow affects the truth of Defendant’s 2015 defamatory statements. Nor can the rape of a child prove an absence of damage to Ms. Giuffre’s reputation as an adult. Indeed, Defendant is wrongfully attempting to publicize the fact that Ms. Giuffre was raped as a 14 year old (See Motion for Protection Order DE 335). Neither logic nor case law support this position. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 26 of 50 21 This request is particularly improper as it cannot conceivably lead to admissible evidence. While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 controls the limits of discovery, FRE 412 informs discovery over the boundaries of the proper inquiry into an alleged sexual assault victim’s sexual conduct and history. Silva v. Pioneer Janitorial Servs., Inc., No. CIV.A. 10- 11264-JGD, 2011 WL 4729783, at *1 (D. Mass. Oct. 4, 2011). See also Gibbons v. Food Lion, Inc., No. 98–1197–CIV–T–23F, 1999 WL 33226474, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb.19, 1999) (stating that a majority of courts that have considered whether Fed. R. Evid. 412 is applicable to discovery “have found that Rule 412 has significance in the resolution of a discovery dispute”). “As explained in the Advisory Committee Notes regarding the 1994 amendments to Rule 412, ‘[t]he rule aims to safeguard the alleged victim against the invasion of privacy, potential embarrassment and sexual stereotyping that is associated with public disclosure of intimate sexual details and the infusion of sexual innuendo into the factfinding process.’ Moreover, although the Advisory Committee Notes acknowledge that the procedures set forth in the Rule for determining the admissibility of evidence relating to an alleged victim’s past sexual conduct or predisposition do not apply to discovery, they nevertheless provide as follows: In order not to undermine the rationale of Rule 412 ... courts should enter appropriate orders pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) to protect the victim against unwarranted inquiries and to ensure confidentiality. Courts should presumptively issue protective orders barring discovery unless the party seeking discovery makes a showing that the evidence sought to be discovered would be relevant under the facts and theories of the particular case, and cannot be obtained except through discovery. In an action for sexual harassment, for instance, while some evidence of the alleged victim’s sexual behavior and/or predisposition in the workplace may perhaps be relevant, non-workplace conduct will usually be irrelevant.” Silva, 2011 WL 4729783, at *1. (emphasis added). Accordingly, Ms. Giuffre objects to this request based on the Federal Rules of Evidence and prevailing case law applying such Rules. 2. Interrogatory No. 14 is Propounded for Improper Purposes and Harassment Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 27 of 50 22 Interrogatory No. 14 seeks information concerning Ms. Giuffre being sexually abused as a child. It is worth recalling that this request is being propounded by Defendant, who sexually abused Ms. Giuffre as a child. The purpose of this request appears to be nothing other than harassment. Defendant is not entitled to a full-scale production of everything that has happened to Ms. Giuffre through the entire course of her life time, particularly with regard to events that clearly predate Defendant’s meeting and abusing Ms. Giuffre. A victim of sexual abuse should not be re-abused by having to disclose to one of her abusers (plus all the abusers who are her joint defense partners, including Jeffrey Epstein) details of other childhood sexual abuse. This Court’s Protective Order allows convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein to see all discovery in this case, even that marked confidential. The discovery sought here is not pertinent to any issue in the case and would merely serve to feed Defendant Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s prurient and continued interest her. It has become increasingly clear that Defendant’s counsel is seeking these documents for the improper purpose of harassment. Ms. Giuffre was only 14 years old at the time of the sexual assault. Yet Defendant’s responses to Ms. Giuffre’s interrogatories shockingly called this child victim of sexual abuse a “sexually permissive woman.” (Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories). This blame-the-victim strategy is ironic for two reasons. First, Ms. Giuffre was a minor child, not a “woman,” when Defendant sexually abused her. Second, it was Defendant and Mr. Epstein who trafficked her to other individuals - therefore, it was Defendant and Mr. Epstein’s “permission” given to others to use Ms. Giuffre’s sexually. In any event, Defendant can have no legitimate purpose for this discovery. 3. Interrogatory No. 14 Seeks Irrelevant Information Furthermore, discovery concerning Ms. Giuffre’s prior sexual assault is not relevant to the claim at issue in this case, the defenses at issue, or the damages claimed, and therefore well Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 28 of 50 23 outside the scope of discovery permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Specifically, Ms. Giuffre’s sexual abuse as minor child neither proves nor disproves Defendant and Epstein’s sexual abuse; therefore, it is not within the scope of discovery permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, particularly since the December 1, 2015, amendments to the Rule. “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Engaging in discovery on such irrelevant, but painful, topics would be extraordinarily embarrassing, oppressive, and traumatic for Ms. Giuffre, and it is wholly irrelevant to any party’s claim or defense. Accordingly, such discovery is not sought in good faith. Additionally, to the extent that it is available to Ms. Giuffre, all of this information is already in the possession of Maxwell as she obtained and produced police reports regarding Ms. Giuffre, which Ms. Giuffre did not have in her possession. Ms. Giuffre was also questioned for seven hours in her May 3, 2016, deposition by Defendant’s attorney. 4. Sexual Assault Records are Records a Medical Event, and Are Barred by This Court’s Order - Discovery Related to Interrogatory No. 14 is Inappropriate Moreover, this Court has excluded the production of medical records from prior to 1999, stating, “the damage issue relates, in my view, solely to the defamation.” (April 21, 2016, Hearing Transcript at 20:23-24). This holding applies equally to pre-1999 sexual assault records for two reasons. First, sexual assault is not only a crime, but a physical injury, and an injury for which medical treatment is often needed and for which a forensic medical exam is often Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 29 of 50 24 performed. Accordingly, any documentation of sexual assault is necessarily akin to a medical record, and, therefore, precluded under the Court’s April 21, 2016 Order. 5. Information Sought in Interrogatory No. 14 related to Ms. Giuffre’s Sexual Abuse is Protected by Florida Statutes Finally, this abuse took place in Florida, and information relating to those events is protected from disclosure by law. Florida statutes protect “[a]ny information in a videotaped statement of a minor who is alleged to be or who is a victim of sexual battery . . . which reveals that minor’s identity.” Fla. Stat. § 119.071. Additionally, Fla. Stat. § 985.036 protects records where a juvenile is a victim of a crime. Further, Fla. Stat § 794.026 creates a civil right of action against an individual who communicates to others, identifying information concerning the victim of a sexual offense. Additionally, Second, Fla. Stat. § 985.04 and Fla. Stat. § 985.054 make juvenile law enforcement records confidential from members of the public, and states that information obtained by a law enforcement agent participating in the assessment of a juvenile is confidential. Finally, certain of the police reports implicate Ms. Giuffre’s involvement with the Florida Department of Children and Families, see e.g., GM_00750, and if such reports are part of the State’s Department of Children and Families’ records, they are confidential pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 39.202(6). While Defendant, a sex abuser of minors, says that the Protective Order is all the privacy Ms. Giuffre needs regarding being raped as a 14 year old, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence, Florida statutes, and case law say otherwise. Indeed, Defendant is engaging in double-speak on the Protective Order: her joint defense partner Alan Dershowitz is attempting, through his baseless motion to intervene, to challenge the confidential designations of various documents in the case, and strip away the Protective Order’s protections. Finally, Defendant incorrectly states “[n]one of this illegal or inappropriate sexual contact, conduct or Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 30 of 50 25 assault is within the right to privacy.” Defendant cites no case law or statutes to back this up. Of course, the opposite is true, as evidenced by the statutes and case law cited above. 6. Defendant Makes Misrepresentations to the Court regarding Interrogatory No. 14 Defendant wrongly states, in the public record, there is “an abundance of evidence suggesting that well before she met Ms. Maxwell, Plaintiff had engaged in illegal sex activities or falsely claimed she was the victim of illegal sex activities.” This is a lie. There is evidence that Ms. Giuffre was raped as a child and there is evidence that she was abused as a child. There is no evidence that Ms. Giuffre did anything illegal sexually and there is no evidence that she “falsely claimed” she was raped. It is an old story to discredit the victim of sexual abuse by lying about and using that victim’s sexual past. See “Rape and the Culture of the Courtroom,” by Andrew Taslitz (1999). Federal Rule of Evidence 412, and all the rape shield laws, were erected to forbid this inappropriate tactic. Id. With no self-reflection, Defendant asserts that she is seeking documents relating to Ms. Giuffre’s sexual activities as a child “whether she was a willing participant.” However, the time-frame on this request was before Ms. Giuffre’ could possibly be a “willing participant,” because she was well under the age of consent. 7. Defendant Has Violated the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) in Her Argument Concerning Interrogatory No. 14 Defendant’s statements about Ms. Giuffre “falsely claiming” to be a victim constitute a misrepresentation to the Court, and it is violation of the Protective Order. Ms. Giuffre has designated police reports concerning her rape as a fourteen year old to be confidential under the Protective Order. In contravention of that Order and in contravention of Ms. Giuffre’s designation, Defendant put that in the public realm by her filing DE 354, which did not redact this information. This Court should sanction Defendant for such behavior. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 31 of 50 26 IV. PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ARE NOT DEFICIENT AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED Before rebutting Defendant’s unsupported arguments, she notes for the Court that for 27 out of 33 answers to Request for Admission Ms. Giuffre served upon Defendant, Defendant began her answer with the phrase, “Denied in Part.” Now, Defendant complains that Ms. Giuffre used the same phraseology in response to some of Defendant’s Requests for Admission. Such a complaint is unfounded. A. Requests for Admission Nos. 1-8 and 13 At the time of filing the Complaint, to the best of her recollection, Ms. Giuffre recollected that she met Defendant in the summer 1999 when she was working at Mar-a-Lago, a club in Palm Beach, Florida. Based on documents produced pursuant to litigation, Ms. Giuffre has learned that, instead, she met Defendant at the Mar-a-Lago club in 2000. During the summer of 2000, Ms. Giuffre was 16 until August 3, when she turned 17. Accordingly, Ms. Giuffre has learned that she did not meet Defendant when she was 15, but, rather, likely at 16. Either way, Ms. Giuffre was indisputably a minor when Defendant recruited her to have sex with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, with whom Defendant shared a household. Thereafter, Ms. Giuffre flew on Epstein’s private jets with over Defendant 23 times while she was a minor. Defendant makes much ado that she recruited a 16 or 17 year old for sex with Epstein rather than a 15 year old, and makes much ado over Ms. Giuffre’s mistaken memory. Ms. Giuffre did not attend middle school or high school in a linear fashion, nor did she have any continuity of residence during those years. Instead, Ms. Giuffre’s middle school and high school years were tumultuous. Based on her Palm Beach County, Florida records, it appears that, according to those records, for the 1993-1994 school year, when Ms. Giuffre’s was 10, Ms. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 32 of 50 27 Giuffre attended fifth grade in Florida, at the Loxahatchee Elementary School.12 However, for the 1994-1995 and the 1995-1996 school years, there are no records.13 Indeed, it appears that for the 1996-1997 school years, when she was 13, Ms. Giuffre attended Crestwood Middle School, but was only present, at most, 40 days of the 180-day school year.14 For the 1997-1998 school years, when Ms. Giuffre was 14, it appears she attended Royal Palm Beach High School, but was absent 33 days, failed the grade, and had to repeat it. It is unsurprising that school year had so many absences and lack of academic standing: when she was 14 years old, she was raped. In both January and February of that school year, she was reported missing by her mother. GM_000752-754; GM_00783. Later in February, Ms. Giuffre was the victim of sexual assault. GM_00756-758; GM_00759; GM_00766. Ms. Giuffre has no records for the following school year. For the 1998-1999 schoolyear, records show that when Ms. Giuffre was supposed to be repeating 9th grade, Ms. Giuffre was absent at least 25 days. GM_00888. After 9th grade, Ms. Giuffre doesn’t continue school. In, the next schoolyear, from 1999-2000, the transcript first reflects that there were no courses taken in 1999, and starting in June of 2000, the transcripts reflects a “Grade 30” school code. “Grade 30” means that Ms. Giuffre was supposed to be on a GED course plan. GM_00888; 00893. After that, flight logs show, and Epstein’s pilot testified, that Ms. Giuffre was on 44 flights on Epstein’s jet, before she turned 18, flying all over the country and internationally. During this time period, according to school records, Ms. Giuffre attended school for, at most, 13 days at Royal Palm Beach High School (GM_0888) for 10th grade, then spent, at most, possibly 56 days at Survivor’s Charter school (out of a 180 day school year). (GM00888). Ms. Giuffre then was 12 See McCawley Decl. at Sealed Exhibit 6, School Records, GM_00888. 13 Id. 14 Id. GM_00888. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 33 of 50 28 back with Defendant and Epstein, and went on five more flights on Epstein’s plane before finally escaping abroad. Accordingly, the records and testimony in this case establish that Ms. Giuffre had no continuity of education or residence or other markers that normally anchor specific events in time for a high schooler. Instead, she attended multiple schools sporadically, she was sexually assaulted at 14, she ran away from home multiple times, and then ended up being abused by Defendant and Epstein, traveling all around. It is not surprising that Ms. Giuffre had trouble identifying specific calendar dates. At any rate, in compliance with Rule 36(a)(4), Ms. Giuffre stated which part of the statement she denies. She denies statements involve her age. She was not 15, but 16, turning 17 in August the summer she was trafficked by Defendant and when she met Epstein. She was sexually trafficked as a minor child by Defendant and Epstein; she did celebrate one of her teenage birthdays with Defendant; Defendant did tell her that she would soon be too old for [convicted pedophile] Jeffrey Epstein’s taste; she did work at Mar-a-Lago the summer of 2000 when she was a minor; she did work for Epstein from 2000-2002. Ms. Giuffre will not deny those parts of Defendant’s requests for admission; and she did see recall seeing Al Gore during the time she was with Epstein and Defendant. B. Requests for Admission Nos. 12 Ms. Giuffre’s objection to Request for Admission No. 12 is correct pursuant to Rule 36(a)(5), Fed. R. Civ. P.15 Rule 36(a)(5) states “[t]he grounds for objecting to a request must be stated. A party must not object solely on the ground that the request presents a genuine issue for trial.” Ms. Giuffre’s objections are compliant with this Rule. Here, Defendant has made up a 15 Again, in violation of Local Rule 37.1, Defendant omits the case law that Ms. Giuffre put forth in support of her objection. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 34 of 50 29 fictitious scenario and asks Ms. Giuffre to admit or deny it. This fictitious scenario is not something that Ms. Giuffre has ever alleged. As stated in the objection, Defendant has interposed and comingled facts which comprise the foundation of this request for admission. Specifically, Ms. Giuffre has never alleged that “she had a conversation with Bill Clinton regarding him flying with Ghislaine Maxwell in a helicopter.” Instead, Ms. Giuffre has been quoted by a reporter as saying, “I flew to the Caribbean with Jeffrey and then Ghislaine Maxwell went to pick up Bill [Clinton] in a huge black helicopter that Jeffrey had bought her.” Sara Nathan, Bill Clinton Pictured with Jeffrey Epstein’s Social Fixer, Daily Mail, (12 January 2015). As a threshold matter, a court must determine whether the statements set forth in a request for admissions satisfy the formal requirements of Rule 36: “(e)ach request for admissions must be direct, simple and ‘limited to singular relevant facts,’” United States v. Consolidated Edison Co., 1988 WL 138275 (E.D.N.Y. [Dec. 15, 1988] ) (quoting S.E.C. v. Micro–Moisture Controls, 21 F.R.D. 164, 166 (S.D.N.Y.1957)), so that “it can be admitted or denied without explanation.” [8 C. Wright & A. Miller,] Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2258 [(1970)]. A request “should not state ‘half a fact’ or ‘half-truths’ which require the answering party to qualify responses.” Havenfield Corp. v. H & R Block, Inc., 67 F.R.D. 93, 96–97 (W.D.Mo.1973); Dubin, 125 F.R.D. at 375–76. See also Thalheim v. Eberheim, 124 F.R.D. 34, 35 (D.Conn.1988) (court must consider phraseology of requests as carefully as that of answers or objections). At the end of the day, in making a determination under Rule 35(a)(5), “the Court is reminded that the ‘purpose of the rule is to reduce the costs of litigation by eliminating the necessity of proving facts that are not in substantial dispute, to narrow the scope of disputed issues, and to facilitate the presentation of cases to the trier of fact.’” Spin Master Ltd. v. Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Service, Inc., 2016 WL 690819, at *18 (W.D.N.Y., 2016) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 35 of 50 30 (emphasis added), quoting T. Rowe Price Small-Cap Fund, Inc. v. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., 174 F.R.D. 38, 43 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). Admitting or denying this statement does not eliminate the necessity of proving facts, as this is not a fact in dispute. It does not narrow the scope of disputed issues. It does not facilitate the presentation of the case to the trier of fact. Admitting or denying this request for admission no more furthers the case than asking Ms. Giuffre, for example, to admit or deny that the sky is green. Ms. Giuffre has made neither statement - therefore, it is outside the scope of requests for admission. Of course, what Defendant is attempting with this request for admission is obvious. Defendant has made up a scenario Ms. Giuffre never claimed to have happened in order to induce her to deny it, so that Defendant can, later, falsely claim to a jury that Ms. Giuffre lied about the scenario. The Court should not countenance this type of blatant gamesmanship. Accordingly, Ms. Giuffre had objected to answering this request for admission as it is based on “half-truths,” which make it impossible to answer without a qualified response. V. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S OVERLY BROAD REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTOIN ARE COMPLIANT WITH HER DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE APPLICABLE RULES AND DFEENDANT’S MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED A. Request for Production No. 1 Defendant puts forth no case law in support of her motion to compel Request No. 1. Request No. 1 seeks “[a]ll communications and documents identified in Interrogatories 5-14, above. Again, in violation of Local Rule 37.1, Defendant fails to tell the Court what those interrogatories are. The Court should know that Defendant’s Interrogatories 5-14 are as follows: 5. Identify each Communication that You or Your Attorneys have had with any author, reporter, correspondent, columnist, writer, commentator, investigative journalist, 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; Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 36 of 50 31 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. 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 I 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 the nature of the publication, whether in print, internet, broadcast or some other form of media. 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; 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. 8. Identify the individuals referenced in Your pleadings filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Jane Doe I 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 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 37 of 50 32 e. any Documents You have to support or corroborate Your claim of such sexual trafficking. 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. 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. 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.” 12. Identify any Health Care Provider from whom You received any treatment for any 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. 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; g. whether health insurance or some other person or organization or entity has paid for the medical expenses; and Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 38 of 50 33 h. For each such Health Care Provider, please execute the medical and mental health records release attached hereto as Exhibit A. 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. Regarding documents related to Interrogatory No. 5, as described above, Ms. Giuffre has already produced her communications with the media, and a request for communications among her counsel and the media is overly-broad to the point of total impracticality and absurdity. Therefore, this request should be denied. Regarding documents related to Interrogatory No, 6, Ms. Giuffre has already produced documents (or world-wide-web links to documents) in which Defendant has defamed her. Any more exhaustive search of the internet for additional documents, is not something contemplated by the Local Rules. Additionally, Ms. Giuffre has no documents related to any other defamation of Ms. Giuffre Defendant may have caused. Therefore, there is nothing further to “compel,” and this request should be denied. Defendant should be producing this responsive material, not Ms. Giuffre. Regarding documents related to Interrogatory No. 7, Ms. Giuffre does not have documents relating to other’s defamation of her. She knows of a few statements made by Alan Dershowitz, but causing Ms. Giuffre to go through a time-consuming, burdensome, and, frankly, emotionally upsetting, exercise of searching around for whatever else he may have said is outside the scope of Rule 26, as discussed above, particularly as Ms. Giuffre has not based any part of her claim off of those statements. Accordingly, this request should be denied. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 39 of 50 34 Regarding documents related to Interrogatory No. 8, seeking all documents relating to individuals to whom Ms. Giuffre was trafficked, Ms. Giuffre has already produced the documents in her possession. She has produced the photo of her when she was 17, taken inside Defendant’s apartment, with Prince Andrew’s hand around her bare waist while she was standing next to Defendant, and she has produced the deposition transcript wherein she testified about to whom she was trafficked, in Edwards v. Cassell, Broward County Case Number CACE 15- 000072 on January 16, 2016. See GIUFFRE005094- GIUFFRE007566. Ms. Giuffre additionally testified regarding the subject matter requested in this interrogatory on in the above-captioned case in her deposition on May 3, 2016, and that deposition transcript is also within Defendant’s possession. Because Ms. Giuffre has provided an answer to this interrogatory in her deposition, which was a more practical method of obtaining the information sought, this interrogatory is improper under the Local Rules as well as wholly duplicative. Regarding documents related to Interrogatory No. 9, which seeks Ms. Giuffre’s employment history, Ms. Giuffre has already answered that, and produced any corresponding documents she has and has obtained since the commencement of litigation. Ms. Giuffre dropped her claim for lost wages in her Amended Rule 26 disclosures rendering this interrogatory irrelevant which seeks over 20 years of employment information. Defendant puts forth no case law for the proposition that she is entitled to this discovery. Accordingly, Defendant’s request should be denied. Regarding documents related to Interrogatory No. 10 requests information concerning Ms. Giuffre’s income. Ms. Giuffre has already produced her responsive document, including bank statements showing electronic funds transfers. Accordingly, there is nothing to compel regarding this Interrogatory, and Defendant’s request should be denied. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 40 of 50 35 Regarding documents related to Interrogatory No. 11, which concerns facts about Ms. Giuffre’s lost wages, Ms. Giuffre has withdrawn her lost wage claim, and therefore, this interrogatory is no longer relevant. Regarding documents related to Interrogatory No. 12, concerns Ms. Giuffre’s health care providers subsequent to the defamation. Ms. Giuffre has already produced the documents and medical records associated with these providers, as described above. Accordingly, there is nothing to compel regarding this Interrogatory, and Defendant’s request should be denied. Regarding documents related to Interrogatory No. 13, concerns Ms. Giuffre’s health care providers prior to the defamation. Not only has Ms. Giuffre disclosed her health care providers from 1999 through the present, but she has retrieved and produced her medical records, and executed and sent releases for each and every one of them. Regarding any documents that may exist relating to any pre-1999 medical records, Ms. Giuffre incorporates her argument regarding the same, above, including the doctor-patient privilege. Regarding documents related to Interrogatory No. 14, which concerns sexual assault Ms. Giuffre experienced as a young teenager, prior to Defendant’s sexual assault of her while still a minor, Ms. Giuffre has no documents beyond the police reports that Defendant produced. This request should be denied, anyway, pursuant to the statues and case law set forth above. Despite Defendant’s efforts to hide the vast categories of documents that fall within the ambit of Interrogatory No. 1 (in contravention of Local Rule 37.1), as the Court can see, Interrogatory No. 1 is a sprawling, over-broad, request, that seeks documents that are either (1) non-discoverable pursuant to this Court’s April 21, 2016, Order; (2) protected by statutes and case law; (3) protected by the doctor-patient privilege; (4) are wholly irrelevant to this action; and (5) seek documents that are not within the possession, custody or control of Ms. Giuffre, or Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 41 of 50 36 are unduly burdensome. As described in full above, Ms. Giuffre has produced what documents she has in response to these requests. This Court should deny Defendant’s motion to compel the documents related to this request for all of the foregoing reasons. B. Request for Production No. 4 Defendant puts forth no case law in support of her motion to compel Request for Production No. 4. In this request, Defendant deliberately targets attorney-client privileged communication by seeking communications between Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys and the nearly 100 individuals on Ms. Giuffre’s witness list, with no date or subject matter limitations. This is an improper request. Certain attorneys for Ms. Giuffre represent other individuals listed on the Rule 26 Disclosures in separate legal matters, and revelation of such communications would violate privileges that do not belong to Ms. Giuffre, but rather belong to other victims of sexual abuse who have not waived such privileges. In her brief, Defendant urges the Court to overlook the facial overbreadth of her requests and, instead, read them “reasonably.” Based on a reasonable reading of this request, Ms. Giuffre has produced her counsel’s communications with the attorneys for witnesses on Ms. Giuffre’s disclosures that took place subsequent to filing the complaint,16 including communications with counsel for Johanna Sjoberg (which is also responsive to Defendant’s Request No. 7, seeking those communications specifically). Requiring anything further would be overly burdensome, and would violate the attorney-client privilege of third-parties. C. Request for Production No. 9 16 The overwhelming majority of Ms. Giuffre’s counsel’s communications with witnesses’ counsel were email communications on which Defendant’s counsel were copied. Ms. Giuffre did not produce email communications in which Defendant’s counsel were copied, as such an exercise is unnecessary. Instead, Ms. Giuffre’s counsel produced communications with witnesses’ counsel upon which Defendant’s counsel was not copied. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 42 of 50 37 Defendant’s Request for Production No. 9 is, possibly, the best example of facial overbreadth in this entire dispute. Therefore, it is unsurprising that Defendant puts forth no case law in support of her motion to compel Request for Production No. 9. In this request, Defendant seeks all documents concerning any communications between Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys and “any witness” in the case captioned Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Case no. 08-cv￾90736-KAM, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the Crime Victim’s Rights Act case, or “CVRA case”). Some background on the CVRA case is necessary to address the overbreadth of this Request. In 2008, one of Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys, Bradley J. Edwards (soon joined by co-counsel, and former United States District Court Judge, 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-situated victims of sex crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein, a politically-connected billionaire. See Complaint filed in Jane Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736, DE 1 (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2008). It will not surprise the Court that the victims alleged that, while they were underage girls, Epstein and his co-conspirators sexually abused them in his Florida mansion under the guise of obtaining “massages.” The victims further alleged that the Government concealed from them a plea bargain under which the federal government extended to Epstein a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) in exchange for Epstein’s guilty plea to low level state offenses. The CVRA case has been litigated for nearly eight years, with litigation continuing to date. Jane Does 1 and 2 have achieved many precedent-setting victories in the case, including a ruling that the CVRA rights of victims could apply before charges were filed, Does 1 and 2 v. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 43 of 50 38 United States, 817 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (S.D. Fla. 2011); 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 Epstein’s 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 victims “[t]he right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement). With regard to communications by Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys, this request seeks clearly privileged materials, because Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys represent not only Ms. Giuffre (Jane Doe 3) in the CVRA matter, but also Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doe 4. Any communications between the four Jane Does, via Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys, plainly would be subject to attorney￾client protection, joint prosecution protection, and work product protection as well. With regard to contact with “witnesses,” the request is vague, unduly burdensome, and overbroad. The CVRA case centers on issues surrounding whether the U.S. Government failed to confer and otherwise protect the rights of victims (including Janes Does 1, 2, 3, and 4) during plea negotiations with Jeffrey Epstein. Accordingly, some of the main “witnesses” in the case are the Government prosecutors who handled the plea negotiations. Several of the same prosecutors who handled the plea negotiations are also involved in defending the CVRA case. The CVRA has been in litigation for nearly eight years, and there have extensive communications with the prosecutors (including communications concerning approximately 10,000 pages of documents that were requested by victims’ counsel and provided to Judge Marra for in camera review). The Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 44 of 50 39 request appears designed to target all of these communications, and such communications, going back eight years, would necessitate a review of several hundreds of thousands of emails over that time to identify communications with the Government prosecutors. The burden would be substantial and the relevance would be essentially non-existent. Whatever communications Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys would have had with government prosecutors about CVRA notifications concerning a prosecution of Epstein would not shed light on whether Defendant Maxwell defamed Ms. Giuffre. Moreover, many materials related to this case remain under Judge Marra’s protective order. Accordingly, before Ms. Giuffre’s counsel could even have the option to release certain materials that the Government has provided to him as an attorney in the case, defendant Maxwell would have to approach Judge Marra and seek a modification of the protective order. The request is also vague because it is not clear precisely what “witnesses” Defendant Maxwell is concerned about. There have, for example, been communications between Ms. Giuffre’s lawyers and lawyers for Mr. Epstein and Mr. Dershowitz connected with procedural and other aspects of this case. Again, the relevance of such communications seems basically non￾existent to the action. But because the case has spanned eight years, collecting such communications would be difficult and overly burdensome. Moreover, Defendant Maxwell has a close working relationship and/or joint defense arrangement with both Mr. Epstein and Mr. Dershowitz. There is no reason to burden Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys will collecting such communications when she can collect them in other ways. Defendant fails to make an argument addressing Ms. Giuffre’s overbreadth argument and undue burden argument. Defendant also fails to make an argument explaining any relevance of Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 45 of 50 40 these documents. And, again, Defendant puts forth no case law in support of her position to compel. The Court should deny this request. D. Request for Production No. 10 This request seeks the same documents as Request No. 9 with regard to the Dershowitz litigation.17 Defendant sets forth no new or differentiated argument with regard to this request, and Defendant puts forth no case law in support of her motion to compel Request for Production No. 10. This request has nearly all of the same defects as Request No. 9. For the reasons stated above, it should be denied. E. Requests for Production No. 11 and No. 12 With these requests, Defendant seeks “statements” obtained from witnesses in the CVRA case and the Dershowitz case, described above. This request directly targets privileged documents. In this discussion, Defendant puts forth her one and only example of case law. However, Defendant’s District of Ohio case is not applicable. It holds that affidavits are not normally protected as work product. Even should this Court adopt this premise, and adopt Defendant’s argument, there are not affidavits to produce. Based on the best of their recollection, Ms. Giuffre’s counsel do not have any affidavits that are (1) not part of the docket/filings in the CVRA case in the Southern District of Florida, or (2) not already produced to Defendant in this litigation. Even looking for such documents it would require the review of hundreds of thousands of documents which would take hours upon hours of attorney time. Again, the CVRA case centers 17 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 Cassell and Edwards filed the joinder motion in the CVRA case, Dershowitz took the airwaves to attack not only Jane Doe 3’s allegations against him, but also Cassell and Edwards’ decision to file the allegations. Cassell and Edwards then filed a state law defamation action against Dershowitz in Broward County, Florida. Ultimately, Cassell, Edwards, and Dershowitz agreed to settle their defamation case. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 46 of 50 41 on issues surrounding whether the U.S. Government failed to confer and otherwise protect the rights of victims (including Janes Does 1, 2, 3, and 4) during plea negotiations with Jeffrey Epstein. It has been in litigation for nearly eight years, and there have been extensive communications with the prosecutors (including communications concerning approximately 10,000 pages of documents that were requested by victims’ counsels and provided to Judge Marra for in camera review). It is not clear whether the request is designed to request all of these communications as “statements,” but if it does capture these communications going back eight year, it would involve a review of several hundreds of thousands of emails over that time to identify communications with the Government prosecutor. The burden would be substantial and the relevance would be essentially non-existent. Whatever statements Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys obtained from government prosecutors about CVRA notifications concerning a prosecution of Epstein would not shed light on whether Defendant Maxwell defamed Ms. Giuffre. Moreover, many materials remain under Judge Marra’s protective order. Accordingly, before Ms. Giuffre’s counsel could even have the option to release certain materials that the Government has provided to him as an attorney in the case, defendant Maxwell would have to approach Judge Marra and seek a modification of the protective order. The request is also vague because it is not clear precisely what “statements” Defendant Maxwell is concerned about. There have, for example, been communications between Ms. Giuffre’s lawyers and lawyers for Mr. Epstein and Mr. Dershowitz connected with procedural and other aspects of this case. Again, the relevance of such communications seems basically non￾existent to the action. But because the case has spanned eight years, collecting such communications would be difficult. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 47 of 50 42 Finally, if Defendant is now seeking sworn affidavits, there is no practicable way to search for those things. As stated above, upon counsel’s best memory, any affidavits are part of the CVRA case docket or already produced in this litigation. If there happen to be others, to search for them, through 8 years of litigation, would certainly be a Herculean task, and not one that would necessarily yield any responsive documents. Defendant’s requests are poorly drafted. Defendant’s arguments are unavailing. And, Defendant’s sole case does not go to this request regarding “statements.” Even an attempt at compliance would be grossly overly burdensome. The Court should deny Defendant’s motion to compel with regard to these requests. VI. CONCLUSION Defendant’s brief is bereft of case law, lacking the authority upon which this Court can grant her overly-broad requests, many of which have already been fully satisfied. Similarly, Defendant’s motion for sanctions is completely baseless, and should be denied. For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Giuffre respectfully requests Defendant’s Motion to Compel and for Sanctions be denied in its entirety. DATED: August 17, 2016. Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Meredith Schultz 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 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 48 of 50 43 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) 585-520218 18 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 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 49 of 50 44 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 17, 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 to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic Court Filing System 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/ Meredith Schultz Meredith Schultz Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 50 of 50 COMPOSITE EXHBIT 3 (File Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 4 Alan Dershowitz: 'Sex slave' accuser is serial liar, prostitute Famed attorney slams woman who claims he had underaged sex with her Author: Bob Norman, Reporter, bnorman@Local10.com @ Published On: Jan 22 2015 06:03:14 PM EST Updated On: Jan 22 2015 06:20:00 PM EST PEMBROKE PARK, Fla. - Well-known attorney and Miami Beach resident Alan Dershowitz emphatically denied allegations made in g newly-filed court papers that he had sex six times with an underage girl y p p g g who at the time was serving as a "sex slave" for wealthy financier -- and convicted sex offender -- Jeffrey Epstein. Related: Billionaire's 'sex slave' details allegations against Prince Andrew, Dershowitz g g , "This is a woman who is a serial liar," Dershowitz told Local 10 News reporter Bob Norman. "She's lied, lied, lied, lied." "But she wasn't lying about being sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein," said Norman. "That is a different issue," said Dershowitz. "That is between her and Jeffrey Epstein." Alan Dershowitz: 'Sex slave' accuser is serial liar, prostitute | News - Home Page 1 of 3 http://www.local10.com/news/alan-dershowitz-sex-slave-accuser-is-serial-liar-prostitute/3... 2/19/2015 .com Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 4 The woman is Virginia Roberts g , one of as many as 40 women who allege that Epstein recruited them while they were minors into a sex ring based at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Roberts alleges in a 14-page affidavit -- which included newly-released photos she said were taken by Epstein when she was 15 -- that Epstein groomed her as "sex slave" to gratify not only him but his powerful friends. She wrote that she was introduced to Epstein at the mansion by heiress Ghislaine Maxwell, the daughter of the late British publisher Robert Maxwell, on the pretext that she would be paid to give him a "massage," which she wrote was Epstein's "code word for sexual encounters." "From the first time I was taken to Epstein's mansion that day, his motivations and actions were sexual, as were Maxwell's," Roberts writes in the affidavit. "My father was not allowed inside. I was brought up some stairs. There was a naked guy, Epstein, on the table in the room. Epstein and Maxwell forced me into sexual activity with Epstein ... I was paid $200." She wrote that she then began working for Epstein, and traveling around the country and world with him. "Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell trained me to do what they wanted, including sexual activities and the use of sexual toys," she wrote. "The training was in New York and Florida at Epstein's mansions. It was basically every day and was like going to school ... I was trained to be 'Everything a man wanted me to be.' It wasn't just sexual training -- they wanted me to be able to cater to all the needs of the men they were going to send to me." In the affidavit, she alleges that Dershowitz was one of those men and that she had sex with him six times beginning when she was 16 at Epstein's residences, as well as on his jet and private island. She also added details about her allegations that Epstein -- who served 13 months in jail after being convicted of soliciting a minor for sex in 2008 -- ordered her to have sex on three occasions with Prince Andrew in London at the age of 17, paying her $15,000 after the first instance. Read the entire 14-page affidavit here 4p g . Dershowitz said Roberts was a prostitute and questioned whether she is now, at the age of 31, a fit mother for her three children. "She's now an admitted prostitute," said Dershowitz. "I can tell you she is still a prostitute: she is selling these false stories now for money about me. That is a form of prostitution." "Do you have any concern calling her a prostitute when she was victimized at such an early age by a wealthy man?" Norman asked. "She was not victimized ... she made her own decisions in life," said Dershowitz. "But at the age of 15 some would say ... she was taken advantage of," said Norman. "I'm talking about the age of 19," said Dershowitz. "But it started when she was 15," said Norman. "I am not involved in that," he said. "I have no knowledge of that. That's between her, and the federal government and the people who victimized her. All I know is she has victimized me. At the age of 31 she has made up false allegations against me. She is a mother of three children, and she is now living a lie to her three children and the question is whether she is an adequate mother of her three children going around selling her false stories of prostitution." Dershowitz is an admitted long-time friend of Epstein's who frequented his homes at the time Roberts and other young girls were in Epstein's employ. But he insisted he never saw an underage girl in Epstein's company. A former Epstein employee, the late Alfredo Rodriguez, testified under oath that Dershowitz was at the Palm Beach mansion at the same time underage girls were at the home. Alan Dershowitz: 'Sex slave' accuser is serial liar, prostitute | News - Home Page 2 of 3 http://www.local10.com/news/alan-dershowitz-sex-slave-accuser-is-serial-liar-prostitute/3... 2/19/2015 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 4 "That's not true," said Dershowitz. "I was never in Jeffrey Epstein's house or any of the houses in the presence of any young woman. Now were there other young women in other parts of the house giving massages when I wasn't around? I have no idea of that. I can only say I never saw a young underage woman. If I had I would have left the house and never come back, period." He told Norman that he had one massage at Epstein's home and it was with an adult woman. "I kept my underwear on during the massage," he said. "I don't like massages particularly." One of the more salacious allegations made by Roberts is that Dershowitz "was so comfortable with the sex that was going on that he would even come and chat with Epstein while I was giving oral sex to Epstein." Dershowitz called that allegation absurd. "Alan Dershowitz was standing there and talking about what? The weather, the stock market? It's the most preposterous thing imaginable," said Dershowitz. Dershowitz, who has issued a denial to Roberts' basic claims in a sworn affidavit of his own, said he would willingly be deposed on the matter. Roberts' attorneys have claimed that Dershowitz has refused to submit to deposition. When questioned about it, Dershowitz said he would be deposed in the case, but only after Roberts and her two lawyers are deposed. The lawyers have sued Dershowitz for defamation after he alleged they should be disbarred for initially putting Roberts' allegations in court papers. "I am happy today to express my willingness to be deposed after the three of them are deposed," he said. "That's the order it should occur because they are the accusers. I am the one who is defending myself against their accusations." Follow Local 10 News on Twitter @WPLGLocal10 @ Copyright 2015 by Local10.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. © 2015 © 2015 Alan Dershowitz: 'Sex slave' accuser is serial liar, prostitute | News - Home Page 3 of 3 http://www.local10.com/news/alan-dershowitz-sex-slave-accuser-is-serial-liar-prostitute/3... 2/19/2015 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 4 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 FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MOTION FOR THE COURT TO DIRECT DEFENDANT TO DISCLOSE ALL INDIVIDUALS TO WHOM DEFENDANT HAS DISSEMINATED CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION ........................................... 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 1328-20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 14 i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 Factual Background ........................................................................................................................ 2 I. THE DOCUMENTS AT ISSUE ARE NOT CONFIDENTIAL............................................. 4 A. Plaintiff’s Police Records Are Publicly Available from Law Enforcement Agencies in Florida and Colorado ....................................................................................................... 4 B. No State Statute Forbids Disclosure of the Documents ....................................................... 6 C. All Documents Were Redacted Appropriately By the Law Enforcement Agencies ........... 8 II. PLAINTIFF HAS WAIVED ANY ARGUMENT AS TO CONFIDENTIALITY ................ 9 A. Plaintiff Failed to Timely Move this Court to Uphold Her Designation of the Documents as Confidential ................................................................................................................. 9 B. Plaintiff’s Counsel Has Repeatedly and Publicly Filed In This Case Numerous Publicly Available Police Reports With Redacted Juvenile Information ...................................... 9 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................................... 12 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 14 1 Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell (“Ms. Maxwell”) files this Response (“Response) in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and Motion for the Court to Direct Defendant to Disclose All Individuals to Whom Defendant Has Disseminated Confidential Information (“Motion”) (Doc. #335), and states as follows: INTRODUCTION Plaintiff does not want to make public police reports which already are public and are freely available to any private citizen, media outlet or company who lodges a simple request with the relevant law enforcement agency. Her motives for hiding the information from the public eye are easily discernible from a simple review of the police reports. In painstaking detail, the reports contemporaneously document the falsity of Plaintiff’s claims against Ms. Maxwell, and therefore the substantial truth of statements attributed to Ms. Maxwell. The police reports are among the best records of Plaintiff’s lies. They are public documents and there is no good faith basis for Plaintiff’s attempt to render them hidden from public view, in her public lawsuit designed to promote her well-orchestrated media campaign. The police reports reflect as to the late 1990s and early 2000s, Plaintiff’s substantial substance abuse, her lack of credibility, her failures of memory and her selective use of law enforcement. Regarding the year 2015, the police reports demonstrate Plaintiff’s tumultuous home life, bearing no relationship to any press statements or alleged defamation and providing alternative causation to any of Plaintiff’s now-claimed emotional distress. It makes perfect sense that Plaintiff would want to shield from the public eye these unflattering truths about her past and current circumstances. Yet, just because a document is unflattering does not make it “confidential,” under the terms of the protective order at issue in this case. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 14 2 Factual Background Through sheer investigative determination, and in the face of Plaintiff’s sworn denial that she has had any contact with law enforcement officials from 1996 to the present apart from supposed “active investigations involving Ghislaine Maxwell,” counsel for Defendant unearthed numerous records of such contacts. In the time period just before and during her alleged “sexual slavery” to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, Plaintiff interacted with law enforcement on numerous occasions. x November 1997 - Plaintiff, then 14 years old, was observed by law enforcement officers drunk in the backyard of a home during the middle of the school day. She was not “raped,” as the Motion claims. She was observed engaging in a simulated sex act with her boyfriend who was then 17 years old. As all of the witnesses described, Plaintiff had voluntarily become intoxicated, made numerous passes at various members of their group, almost fallen into a canal, and then, when spotted by the school truancy officer, offered to have sex with him in exchange for not telling her parents she had failed to go to school that day. Both Plaintiff and her 17-year old boyfriend verified they had had sexual intercourse in the days before the report, and the boyfriend was charged with having sexual contact with a minor. Those were not the false allegations of sexual contact. Rather, on the way to the detox unit at the hospital, Plaintiff claimed she had been forcibly sexually assaulted by her friends. Plaintiff’s claim of forced sexual assault was expressly refuted by the witnesses, who also verified Plaintiff’s attempt to get out of trouble by offering to have sex with the truancy officer. While the young man was charged with statutory rape based on the admitted sexual intercourse, charges against him were ultimately dropped. Declaration of Laura A. Menninger (“Menninger Decl.”), Ex. A (GM00784- 00801). Consistent with Florida law, the records were redacted by the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office for the identities and other identifying information of all juveniles as well as Plaintiff’s parents. x January 1998 – In contradiction to Plaintiff’s sworn testimony that she ran away from home at the age of 13, lived on the street for “months” without word from her family, and ultimately was rescued by the FBI in a SWAT raid from the clutches of a sexual predator named Ron Eppinger, the police documented a call from Plaintiff’s mom that she ran away from home due to her recent “attitude change,” “drug use” and “possible cult activities,” was found four days later by her brother and returned to her family who had decided to involuntarily place her in a drug rehabilitation facility. Menninger Decl., Ex. B (GM00750-00754, 00783-00785). No reference to Ron Eppinger, an FBI SWAT raid, or months without family contact are reflected in the reports. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 14 3 x February 1998 - This report by the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office documents Plaintiff’s second false allegation of sexual assault in a four month period. Plaintiff, during the four days she was a runaway from home, asked to go out “partying” with two male friends of her boyfriend. After a ten-month investigation which included line-ups, witness interviews, and other police investigation, the prosecuting authorities decided against filing charges against the two based on Plaintiff’s “lack of credibility” and “no substantial likelihood of success at trial.” Menninger Decl., Ex. C (GM00755-00775). Consistent with Florida law, the records were redacted for the identity and identifying information as pertains to Plaintiff. These same reports document that Plaintiff was a resident at a drug rehabilitation facility from at least February 1999 until December 1999, whereas she has sworn in deposition testimony, in affidavits, in pleadings, and in the Complaint in this case, that she was a “sex slave” to Jeffrey Epstein beginning in June 1999. x June 10, 2001 – Plaintiff’s ex-fiancé, Michael Austrich, called the police after Plaintiff and her boyfriend, entered the apartment and the boyfriend punched Austrich in the face. Plaintiff apparently fled the scene with her boyfriend prior to the arrival of the police. The report documents that Plaintiff had a fiancé in or around June 2001, when she claims she was a “sex slave” to Jeffrey Epstein, that she lived in an apartment, and that she freely came and went with her boyfriend, including leaving the scene of a crime. Menninger Decl., Ex. D (GM00780-782). Plaintiff was not a claimed victim of this crime. x August 3, 2001 – Plaintiff (then a week shy of her 18th birthday) called police regarding a theft of cash from her shirt pocket in her apartment, during a party she was hosting there with a number of friends. The police took a report from Plaintiff, questioned her friends, but failed to apprehend a suspect. Menninger Decl., Ex. E (GM00777-00779). This report is during the time Plaintiff allegedly was a “sex slave” to Jeffrey Epstein. The report documents that she was not then being held captive by Mr. Epstein, was living independently in an apartment with her boyfriend and another friend, and that she obviously possessed the wherewithal at that time to contact law enforcement for perceived criminal law violations. x March 4, 2002 – Plaintiff (then 18) was charged with theft from her employer, the Roadhouse Grill. According to the police reports and court records, Plaintiff left mid-shift at approximately 7:45 p.m. and took all of the money from the tip jar. Menninger Decl., Ex. F (GM00802-809) The reports contradict Plaintiff’s claimed “sexual slavery,” by demonstrating she was working as a waitress at the same time. They also show that Plaintiff had an active warrant for her arrest at the time she moved to Australia in September 2002. Plaintiff was not a juvenile at the time and was charged as an adult. x June 2, 2002 Police report reflects Plaintiff’s call for a civil assist. Plaintiff (then 18 years old) complained that her then landlord threw her abandoned belongings out as trash after she moved to a new location. The landlord said she had abandoned the items and yelled as she left: “You can keep the rest you bastard!” Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 14 4 Notably, the police report documents that neither the residences she was moving from or to involved the apartment Plaintiff claims was rented for her by Jeffrey Epstein and where she testified she lived exclusively from June 1999 until September 2002. Menninger Decl., Ex. G (GM00748-00749). Plaintiff was not a juvenile and the case was not documented as a crime. Likewise, in Colorado, police records reflect that in March 2015, Plaintiff and her husband went to a bar drinking in the middle of the day, became intoxicated and returned home, wherein they became involved in a fight regarding the welfare of the family dog. Menninger Decl., Ex. H (GM00810-00840). Plaintiff alleges she was assaulted by her husband as witnessed by at least one of their children. Plaintiff’s husband was charged with domestic violence, pled guilty and was placed on probation. Designation as Confidential After receiving Defendant’s production of the police reports pursuant to Rule 26 disclosures, Plaintiff wrote a letter requesting the Documents be designated Confidential. Counsel for Ms. Maxwell promptly responded that the documents are publicly available and therefore should not be designated as “Confidential.” See Declaration of Meredith Schultz, Ex. 1. While Plaintiff wrote a letter outlining the same frivolous legal arguments she incorporates here and as addressed more fully below, defense counsel never acquiesced to her request and she failed to pursue a judicial determination of the matter until August 8, 2016, nearly three months later, thus, Plaintiff has waived any claim of confidentiality. I. THE DOCUMENTS AT ISSUE ARE NOT CONFIDENTIAL A. Plaintiff’s Police Records Are Publicly Available from Law Enforcement Agencies in Florida and Colorado Any private citizen, media outlet, or public entity can legally obtain the police reports at issue by interposing a simple request to the law enforcement agency and paying any applicable Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 14 5 copying and redaction fees. As such, there is no “privacy” interest in preserving these documents obtained in such fashion as “Confidential” under the Protective Order. Indeed, in February 2015, the New York Daily News apparently obtained the police reports concerning Plaintiff’s false claim of sex assault from February 1998, interviewed one of the two boys accused and the lawyer for the other, and published substantial details obtained from the police reports. See Oren Yaniv, “Alleged ‘sex slave’ of Jeffrey Epstein, Prince Andrew accused 2 men of rape in 1998, but was found not credible,” New York Daily News (Feb. 23, 2015), http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/sex-slave-prince-andrew-accused-2-men-rape￾1998-article-1.2125569 (last accessed Feb. 24, 2016). Remarkably, Plaintiff’s counsel provided an interview for that article and gave her own inaccurate characterization of the prosecuting authority’s findings. See, id. (“’For the prosecutors to describe her as not credible means only that they did not think they had sufficient evidence to win. But she was raped,’ the lawyer said in a statement.”). Unfortunately, counsel’s characterization of the police reports is directly contradicted by the police reports themselves, which found that Plaintiff “lacked credibility” and there was a “no reasonable probability of success at trial.” Compare id. and Menninger Decl., Ex. C (GM00775) (“this case is no filed due to the victim’s lack of credibility and no substantial likelihood of success at trial”). The prosecutor did not say (as counsel claimed in the news article) that they lacked “sufficient evidence” to win. Now, Plaintiff’s counsel having put her own false public spin on the Palm Beach authorities’ findings wants to preclude others from correcting the public record with the actual findings contained in the report. The records are not confidential because they are accessible by the public, can be (and have been) accessed by the media, and Plaintiff’s counsel has inaccurately characterized the - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 14 6 finding regarding Plaintiff’s credibility to the media, and thus cannot be heard to complaint that the records – exposing her mischaracterization – should be kept from the public eye. B. No State Statute Forbids Disclosure of the Documents There is no merit to Plaintiff’s seriously misleading—and groundless—argument that various Florida and Colorado statutes forbid disclosure of the police reports. They do not. Plaintiff cites sections Florida Statutes 39.202(6), 119.071, 794.026 and 985.04 & .036 and Colorado Revised Statutes §§ 13-90-107(k) & 19-1-301, et seq., as support for her arguments.1 None of these statutes support her arguments. Florida Laws Section 39.202 does not apply to the Documents. That provision relates to records held by the Florida Department of Children and Families. Each Florida document at issue here is stamped prominently as “Certified Copy by the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office.” Menninger Decl., Ex. A-F. None of the Documents were obtained from the Department of Children and Families. Section 39.202 relates to records held by that Department related to child abuse and neglect. None of the Florida documents relates to child abuse or neglect. Section 119.071 exempts from Florida’s open-records laws any videotaped statement of a minor who is allegedly the victim of sexual battery. First, there is no “videotaped statement” of Plaintiff contained within the Documents. Fla. Stat. § 119.071(2)(j)(2)(a). Second, the prohibitions only apply to the identity of the alleged victim. See id. & subsection (2)(h)1.b (“the identity of a person who is a victim of any sexual offense” exempt from Florida open-records laws). Here, the defense obtained identity-redacted copies of the police reports and disclosed them to Plaintiff. Indeed, the Sheriff’s Office completed and provided a form with a list of state requirements regarding redaction and, consistent with their practice, checked the box indicating 1 Plaintiff also cited Fla. Stat. § 985.054. There is no such statute. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 14 7 redactions pursuant to “119.071(2)(h)(1) Identity of victim of sexual battery, lewd and lascivious offense upon a person less than 16 years old, child abuse, sexual offense.” Menninger Decl., Ex. C (GM00755) and Ex. B (GM00784). Accordingly, the Sheriff’s Office did not violate section 119.071 by producing identity-redacted copies of police reports concerning Plaintiff. Florida Statutes Section 985.036 and 985.04(1)(a) pertain to juvenile-justice records, none of which are included within the Documents. In fact, a “child” is defined by that sub￾section to apply only to “mean[] any person under the age of 18 or any person who is alleged to have committed a violation of law occurring prior to the time that person reached the age of 18 years.” The records pertaining to Plaintiff’s commissions of crimes occurred after she was 18 years old. Florida Stat. 985.03. None of the Documents are juvenile-justice records; they are police reports. Finally, section 794.026 bears no relevance to the Florida Documents. That statute creates a cause of action by a sexual crime victim against any person who, “prior to open judicial proceedings,” communicates “the name, address, or other specific identifying information” concerning the victim. The statute is irrelevant here. One, the identifying information in the police reports in this case was redacted, and therefore was not communicated to anyone. No “name, address or other specific identifying information” is contained in the documents. Two, the case at bar is an “open judicial proceeding”2 involving Plaintiff as a person who falsely has claimed to be a sexual assault crime victim; a number of such open judicial proceedings have preceded this one and, accordingly, the statute is inapplicable. 2 Miami Herald Publ’g Co. v. Chappell, 403 So. 2d 1342, 1344 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981). - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 14 8 Colorado Statutes Plaintiff also cites Colorado statutes which, she claims, support the proposition that her identity as the victim of domestic violence is protected by Colorado law. It is not. Section 13- 90-107(k),3 is a testimonial privilege statute, not a document-confidentiality statute. That provision forbids a victim’s advocate from being required to testify concerning any communications with an alleged victim of domestic violence or assault. No one has sought testimony from any victim’s advocate in these proceedings. The Colorado documents also do not contain Plaintiff’s communications to any victim’s advocate. Menninger Decl., Ex. H. Plaintiff also cites Colorado Rev. Stat. § 19-1-301 and 302 for the proposition that the identities of her children cannot be disclosed. Those provisions maintain the confidentiality of records pertaining to juvenile justice actions against children. The documents at issue do not relate to any such action; the children were witnesses to an alleged crime committed by Plaintiff’s husband against her, not the subjects of any criminal action themselves. C. All Documents Were Redacted Appropriately By the Law Enforcement Agencies The police reports from Florida that pertain to juveniles who are alleged victims of criminal sexual conduct (as opposed to Plaintiff’s own criminal conduct as an adult and her request for civil assist as an adult) were redacted consistent with Florida law. Indeed, both reports wherein she made allegations of sexual misconduct were provided along with a checklist demonstrating that the law enforcement agency redacted the reports consistent with Florida law. The Florida law protects the identity of the alleged victim and the police reports produced by Defendant were all identity-redacted. See Menninger Decl., Ex. C and B (GM00755 and 00784). 3 “A victim’s advocate shall not be examined as to any communication made to such victim’s advocate by a victim of domestic violence…or a victim of sexual assault, in person or through the media of written records or reports without the consent of the victim.” C.R.S. § 13-90-107(k)(1). - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 14 9 Plaintiff has not cited any authority for the redaction of information from the Colorado police reports. II. PLAINTIFF HAS WAIVED ANY ARGUMENT AS TO CONFIDENTIALITY A. Plaintiff Failed to Timely Move this Court to Uphold Her Designation of the Documents as Confidential The Protective Order in this case puts the onus on the person seeking a “Confidential” designation to either (a) resolve the matter with the opposing party, or (b) seek Court resolution. The Protective Order at ¶ 11 provides: “If the parties cannot resolve the objection within ten (10) business days after the time the notice is received, it shall be the obligation of the party designating the information as CONFIDENTIAL to file an appropriate motion requesting that the Court determine whether the disputed information should be subject to the terms of this Protective Order. If such a motion is timely filed, the disputed information shall be treated as CONFIDENTIAL under the terms of this Protective Order until the Court rules on the motion. If the designating party fails to file such a motion within the prescribed time, the disputed information shall lose its designation as CONFIDENTIAL and shall not thereafter be treated as CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with this Protective Order.” (Doc. # 62) It is undisputed that the defense challenged Plaintiff’s designation of the materials as Confidential on May 18, 2016 and it is also undisputed that the parties could not resolve the objection within ten days after notice of the objection was received. Plaintiff did not file a motion requesting the Court to determine whether the material should be subject to the Protective Order for three months, hence, she did not file such a motion within the prescribed time, and the Protective Order now commands that the “disputed information shall lose its designation as Confidential” and “shall not thereafter be treated as Confidential.” Id. B. Plaintiff’s Counsel Has Repeatedly and Publicly Filed In This Case Numerous Publicly Available Police Reports With Redacted Juvenile Information In complete contradiction to her legal position in this Motion, Plaintiff and her counsel have repeatedly filed in public documents associated with this case, police reports from Florida Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 14 10 pertaining to alleged victims of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein. Beginning December 10, 2015 when Plaintiff filed her Response in Opposition to the Motion to Stay (Doc. # 21-7), then again on March 14, 2016 (Doc. # 55-2) and on May 5, 2016 (Doc. #144-3), May 11, 2016 (Doc. # 153- 6), and May 27, 2016 (Doc. # 173-8), Plaintiff filed on ECF Palm Beach Police Department reports that contain references to alleged juvenile victims of sexual misconduct, with the names of the alleged victims redacted. If Plaintiff truly believes that police reports with redacted identifying information such as these are “confidential,” why has she been the one to publicly disseminate such reports? Where did she obtain these reports? Was it “theft” of “sealed juvenile records” for her to have those police reports? It would seem the juveniles referenced in the reports filed by Plaintiff, juveniles who have never brought public defamation lawsuits, juveniles who have never been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the tabloids for their stories, are entitled to more protection from publicity than is Plaintiff. Her position that identity-redacted police reports should be kept Confidential is belied by her own repeated, public, self-serving court filings in this case. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, Ms. Maxwell requests the Court enforce the Protective Order, deny Plaintiff’s motion to make publicly available police reports “Confidential” under the terms of the Protective Order in this case, and award attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the filing of this Response to Ms. Maxwell. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 14 11 Dated: August 18, 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 1328-20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 14 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on August 18, 2016, I electronically served this Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and Motion for the Court to Direct Defendant to Disclose All Individuals to Whom Defendant Has Disseminated Confidential Information via ECF 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/ Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 14 EXHIBIT A Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 19 GM_00784 PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE C 119.071 (2)( c) Active criminal intellige Information C 1 rn.071 (2)(e) Confession C 3E>t,.171 (15) Identity of 911 service C 11 ~W71 (2)(d) Surveillance t niques, procedures, an inventory of law enforcement resources, policies or to mobilization, deployment or tactical operati s C 119.071 (2)(1) Assets of crime victim 119.071 (5)(a)(5) Social se r r 39 r CENTRAL RECORDS MPTIONS/CONFIDENTIAL igative C C entification Information (Fingerprints, palm ormants reports are confidential for period of 60 days after (2)(h)(1) Identity of victim of sexual battery, lewd and ascivious offense upon a person less than 16 years old, child abuse, sexual offense C 985.04(1) Juvenile offender records formation contained in a motor vehicle record telligence/investigative inform ice agency C 11 ~3 . d) Extra fee if request is voluminous or requires extensive r personnel, technology CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE COPY RIC L. BRADSHAW, SHERIFF Tracking 16-04-2729 RP 97-002687 Date: 04/25/2016 Revised 03/04/201 I Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 19 GM_00785 Date: 4/25/16 Time: 8:52:07 Day Of Week .. Occur From Date: Dept Class .. Street Number City .. , .. Zone/division Location Type Report Officer: supervisory Emp: Verif. Employee: Case Status Dt: ROYAL PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Offense Report Page~ 1 Program: CMS301L Tuesday Report Date 11/04/97 10:52 Occur To Date SEX OFFENSE - LEWD AND LASCIVIOUS WILLOWS, 156 MARTIN CIR ROYAL PALM BEACH, FL 33411 Zone Two (2) (So of Okee/E thr Wil) RES-SNGL FAMILY Case Status MANCINO, JR, DOMINIC HUGHES, THOMAS 11/09/97 MANCINO, JR, DOMINIC 11/04/97 11/25/97 . : 11/04/97 10:55 : 11/04/97 10:52 . : CLEARED BY ARREST ************ Case Number Dept Class . Case Status Investigator CASE MAN AGE MEN T INFORMATION************* .. 1-97-002687 . : SEX OFFENSE - LEWD AND LASCIVIOUS . : CtEARED BY ARREST Case Status Dt.: 11/25/97 , . ROBKIN, R. ***ASSIGNMENT HISTORY*** case Number .. 1-97-002687 Dept Unit Investigator. : ROBKIN, ROBERT Supervisor Assignment Date: 11/04/97 . . . . . . . . DETECTIVE PERVENECKI, DAVID ********************* 0 FF ENS E REPORT # l ******************* State Class . : Sex Offenses - Incest/Indecent Exp Attmpt/Comm.itt: Committed Statute/Ordin : 800.04 State Dispo .. Mult UCR Disposition: Cleared by Arrest Exception Clear: ARRESTED ON PRIMARY OFFENSE Arrest Case No.: 1-97-006345 People Arrested: 1 *********PROPERTY INFORMATION # Category. . . PROP/EVIDENCE--NO VALUE UCR Prop Type CONSUMABLE GOODS Quantity. Description . : SEAGRAMS VO LIQUOR Value Recovered by . OFC. MANCINO Recovered Date Property type FOOD/LIQUOR/CONSUMABLE Recovery value *********PROPERTY INFORMATION # Category . . . SAFEKEEPING UCR Prop Type Quantity . . . 1 Serial number W/BOOKS, PAPERS AND CLOTHING 1 ********************* : 1.00 11/04/97 1.00 1 2 ********************* MISCELLANEOUS Description . BOOK BAGS Value . . . . : 1.00 11/04/97 1.00 Recovered by . OFC. MANCINO Property type MISCELLANEOUS Recovered Date Recovery value *********PROPERTY INFORMATION # Category . . . PROP /EVIDENCE- -NO VALUE UCR Prop Type MISCELLANEOUS Quantity. Serial number BACKYARD OF 156 MARTIN CIRCLE Description .. POLAROID PICTURES Value Recovered by . OFC. MANCINO Recovered Date Property type MISCELLANEOUS Recovery value *********PROPERTY INFORMATION # 3 ********************* 1.00 11/04/97 1.00 4 4 ********************* CERTIFIED lO BE A TRUE COPY RIC L. BRADSHAW, SHERIFF Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 19 GM_00786 Date: 4/25/16 Time: 8:52:07 ROYAL PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Offense Report Page: 2 Program: CMS301L 1-97-002687 (Continued) Category . . . UCR Prop Type PROP/EVIDENCE--NO VALUE CLOTHING AND FURS Quantity. Name ..•.. ADIDAS Description Value . . . . Recovered Date Recovery value 65.00 Recovered by 11/04/97 15:25 Property type 65.00 *********PROPERTY INFORMATION # Category. . . PROP/EVIDENCE--NO VALUE UCR Prop Type CLOTHING AND FURS Quantity. Description . SOCKS Value Recovered by. OFC. WIKSE Recovered Date Property type CLOTHING/FURS Recovery value *********PROPERTY INFORMATION # Category. . . PROP/BVIDENCE--NO VALUE UCR Prop Type CLOTHING AND FURS Quantity ... Description .. JENCO Value Recovered by. : OFC. WIKSE Recovered Date Property type CLOTHING/FORS Recovery value *********PROPERTY INFORMATION # Category. . . PROP/EVIDENCE--NO VALUE UCR Prop Type CLOTHING AND FURS Quantity. Description . : BOXER SHORTS Value Recovered by. : OFC. WIKSE Recovered Date Property type CLOTHING/FURS Recovery value ********* p R Category ... UCR Prop Type Name ..... Value . . . . Recovered Date Rei;.;uvt::.Ly value OPERTY INFORMATION # PROP/EVIDENCE--NO VALUE CLOTHING AND FURS Quantity. MECCA Description . . 30.00 Recovered by. 11/04/97 15:25 Property type 30.00 *********PROPERTY INFORMATION # Category. . . PROP/EVIDENCE--NO VALUE UCR Prop Type CLOTHING AND FURS Quantity. Name . . . . . : BUSCH Description . : Value . . . . 15. 00 Recovered by . Recovered Date 11/04/97 15:25 Property type Recovery value 15.00 *********PROPERTY INFORMATION # Category. . . PROP/EVIDENCE--NO VALUE UCR Prop Type CLOTHING AND FURS Quantity ... Description . : GREEN/WHITE SHIRT Value Recovered by. : OFC. WIKSE Recovered Date Property type CLOTHING/FORS Recovery value *********PROPERTY INFORMATION # 1 SHOES OFC. WIKSE CLOTHING/FURS 5 ********************* 1 1.00 11/04/97 15:25 1.00 6 ********************* 1 55.00 11/04/97 15:25 55.00 7 ********************* 1 5.00 11/04/97 15:25 5.00 8 ********************* 1 T SHIRT OFC. WIKSE CLOTHING/FURS 9 ********************* 1 BUSCH T SHIRT OFC. WIKSE CLOTHING/FORS 10 ********************* 1 30.00 11/04/97 15:20 30.00 11 ********************* CERTIFIED Dir. TO BE A TRUE coov r\l \.., L. BRADSHAW, SHERIFF Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 19 GM_00787 Date: 4/25/16 Time: 8:52:07 ROYAL PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Offense Report Page: 3 Program: CMS301L 1-97-002687 {Continued) category ... UCR Prop Type : PROP/EVIDENCE--NO VALUE CLOTHING AND FURS Quantity. Name ..... 26 RBTREDD Description . Value . . . . Recovered Date Recovery value 59.00 Recovered by. 11/04/97 15:20 Property type 59.00 *********PROPERTY INFORMATION # Category. . . PROP/EVIDENCE--NO VALUE OCR Prop Type CLOTHING AND FURS Quantity. Name . . . . . [\t1AX SPORT Description • Value . . . . 1. 00 Recovered by . : Recovered Date : 11/04/97 15:20 Property type Recovery value 1.00 *********PROPERTY INFORMATION # Category. . . PROP/EVIDENCB--NO VALUE UCR Prop Type CLOTHING AND FORS Quantity. Description . BOXER SHORTS Value Recovered by. OFC. WIKSE Recovered Date Property type CLOTHING/FURS Recovery value : *********PROPERTY INFORMATION # Category . . . PROJ?/EVIDENCE--NO VALUE UCR Prop Type CLOTHING AND FURS Quantity. Description . : SOCKS Value Recovered by. : OFC. WIKSE Recovered Date Property type CLOTHING/FURS Recovery value *********PROPERTY INFORMATION # Category . . . PROP/EVIDENCE--NO VALUE UCR Prop Type CLOTHING AND FURS Quantity. Name . . . . . NIKE Description Value . . . . 90. 00 Recovered by Reccverad Date 11/04./97 14:40 Pr oper ty type Recovery value 90.00 *********PROPERTY INFORMATION # Category. . . PROP/EVIDENCE--NO VALUE . . . . . . UCR Prop Type CLOTHING AND FURS Quantity ... Description T SHIRT Value Recovered by . OFC. WIKSE Recovered Date Property type CLOTHING/FURS Recovery value *********PROPERTY INFORMATION # Category. . . PROP/EVIDENCE--NO VALUE UCR Prop Type CLOTHING AND FURS Quantity. Description . BOXER SHORTS Value Recovered by. OFC. WIKSE Recovered Date Property type CLOTHING/FURS Recovery value *********PROPERTY INFORMATION # 1 SHOES OFC. WIKSE CLOTHING/FURS 12 ********************* 1 PANTS OFC. WIKSE CLOTHING/FURS 13 ********************* 1 1.00 11/04/97 15:20 1.00 14 ********************* 2 1.00 11/04/97 14:40 1.00 15 ********************* 2 SHOES OFC. WIKSE CLOTHINGiF"uR.s 16 ********************* 1 1.00 11/04/97 14:40 1.00 17 ********************* 1 1.00 11/04/97 14:40 1.00 18 ********************* CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE COPY RIC L. BRADSHAW, SHERIFF Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 19 GM_00788 Date: 4/25/16 Time: 8:52:07 ROYAL PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Offense Report Page: 4 Program: CMS301L l-97-002687 (Continued) Category ... UCR Prop Type Serial number Value .... Recovered Date Recovery value PROP/EVIDENCE--NO CLOTHING ~p FURS BL/WHT 25.00 11/04/97 14:40 25.00 VALUE Quantity Description Recovered by Property type 1 CLINCH SHIRT OFC. WIKSE CLOTHING/FURS *********PROPERTY INFORMATION # ~tegory.. . . PROP/EVIDENCE--NO VALUE 19 ********************* OCR Prop Type CLOTHING AND FURS Quantity . , .. Name. . . . . THIRD RAIL Description Value . . . . 35.00 Recovered by Recovered Date 11/04/97 14:40 Property type Recovery value 35.00 *********PROPERTY INFORMATION # Category ... : PROP/EVIDENCE--NO VALUE UCR Prop Type ; CLOTHING~ FURS Quantity. Serial number : MULTI COLOR LEATHER Description . . Value . . . . 10.00 Recovered by. Recovered Date 11/04/97 14:40 Property type Recovery value 10.00 1 THIRD RAIL JEANS OFC. WIKSE CLOTHING/FURS l BELT OFC. WIKSE CLOTHING/FURS *********VEHICLE INFORMATION # 1 ********************* Case number . : 1-97-00~687 *********COMPLAINANT INFORMATION - # 1 ************ case Number -97-002687 Street Number City . . . . Home Phone No. Birth Date .. Oper Lie entry Sex . . . . . Last Name ness Phone Birth Country Race . . ... Ethnic Origin **************SUSPECT/ ARRESTEE INF 0 Case Number .. 1-97-002687 Prompt valid in: Street Number City . . . . . Horne Phone No. Birth Date .. Birth Country : Race . .. . . . : Ethnic Origin Minimum Weight Hair Length . Complexion . . Teeth . . . . Speech . . . . Arrest Case No.: Unknown White WHITE 150 Short (Up to 1/2") Medium Normal Normal 1-97-006345 usinees Phone Maximum Age . Oper Lie entry Sex . . . . . Minimum Height Hair Color ... Bye Color .. : Facial Hair . : Build Status Shirt . . . 561/000-0000 Unknown Black BLACK 561/000-0000 17 Unknown Male 509 Black Brown Mustache Only MEDIUM Arrested BLK BAGGY PANTS # 1 ** **************SUSPECT/ ARRESTEE I N F O R M A T I O N - # 2 ** CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE COPY RIC l. BRADSHAW, SHERIFF Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 19 GM_00789 Date: 4/25/16 Time: 8:52:07 ROYAL PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Offense Report Page: 5 Program: CMS301L Case Number . : 1-97-002687 Street Number City . . . . . County .... Business Phone Maximum Age . : ~M BEACH 407/000-0000 17 United States 1-97-0~ued) Prompt valid in: - Home Phone No. Birth Date . . : Birth City : Birth Country Oper Lie No .. V616410800810 FL United States Race ..... Ethnic Origin Maximum Height Maximum Weight Hair Color Hair Style . . : Complexion . . : Teeth Speech .... i Pants . . . White WHITE 504 120 Black Parted in Center Fair Normal Normal BLK JEANS sex . . . Male Minimum Height 504 Minimum Weight 120 Occupation. . . . STUDENT Hair Length . : Medium (Up to 2") Eye Color Blue Facial Hair . . . Mustache Only Build . : MEDIUM Status . : still Suspect ************** Case Number Street Nwnber City . . . . . V I C T I M INFORMATION : 1-97-002687 Home Phone N~ Birth Date·.~ Oper Lie entry Unknown Sex . . . . . Female Residency Type Royal Palm Beach Victim Type . . Juvenile ********* 0 THER PERSON case Number Person Type Street Number • 1-97-002687 City .... Home Phone No. Birth Date .. Oper Lie entry sex . . . . . PERSON 6/22/1983 14 Unknown Female ********* 0 THE R PERSON Case Number .. 1-97-002687 Person Type . , OTHER PERSON Street Number : City ..... : County . . . . Business Phone Birth City .. Race . . .. - . : Ethnic Origin : Weight . . . . PALM BEACH 407/000-0000 WEST PALM BEACH, FL White WHITE 110 Prompt valid Business Phone Birth Country Race ..... Ethnic origin Residency Sts INFORM Last Name Bus ness Phone Birth Country Race ..... Ethnic Origin : 561/000-0000 Unknown White WHITE Full Year 561/000-0000 Unknown White WHITE I N F O R M A T I O N - # 2 ********* Last Name 334110000 Home Phone No. Birth Date .. Birth Country Sex . . . Height .... :~ United States Female 505 CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE COPY RIC L. BRADSHAW, SHERIFF Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 19 GM_00790 Date: 4/25/16 Time: 8:52:07 ROYAL PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Offense Report Page: 6 Program: CMS301L 1-97-002687 (Continued) ******************~*********NARRATIVE # l *************************** Original Report Reported By: MANCINO, JR, DOMINIC A. 11/05/97 Entered By.: JARRETT, DAWN M. 11/10/97 on 11/4/97 at 1052 hours, I responded to 156 Martin Circle in regards to six juveniles acting suspicious in the backyard of 156 Martin Circle. On arrival I met with Adella onen a elderly b/f complainant at 10:55 hours. Ms. Oneal stated that at approximately 1045 hours, she woke from her sleep. Oneal stated that she looked into her backyard and observed six juveniles in her back yard three w/m 1 s and three w/f's. Oneal stated that while she was watching the juveniles she observed that a blonde w/f was acting very intoxicated. Oneal stated that she observed a w/m wearing a jacket and baggy black pants kissing and laying on top of the intoxicated w/f. Oneal stated that while the intoxicated w/f was laying on the ground all of the other subjects were slapping her across the face yelling at the intoxicated w/f to wake up. I then walked into the backyard of I observed the six subjects laying on the ground near the canal. As I was walking towards the subjects I observed a w/m laying on top of a blonde, w/f. I observed that the w/f was wearing a multi colored dress which was above her hips, she had her legs wrapped around the w/m•s hips and her ankles were locked together. I observed that the w/m was moving his hipe side to side and he was moving his pelvic area in a up and down motion. observed ·r then the identified other and four the juveniles two on who to of each her as - ~ - The two females were sittin were just west of - and in an upward position and they atre J} p· 1 j dand wo other ma es who were aying own was The and The four subjects and laughing. I then had---get off of--- I observed that --was very-ri'i'c'oxicated, she ~e to stand on her legs. ~unable to crawl and she was clutching onto-crying, holding his leg's and around his neck. Based on condition, a ambulance was called to transport her to to check on her condition. I then met with ........ an is mot er. I advised of his Miranda rights~stated that he understood. stated that-- - and over~ome at at 0930 hours . Collazo stated that his mot e upset to see the five inside her home and not in school. stated his mother made all the subjects leave the house stated that after his ride did not show up to take him to a job interview he went outside, talked to a neighbor, then took some pictures of hie home that was recently placed on the CERTIFIED fO BE A TRUE COPY RIC L. BRADSHAW, SHERIFF Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 19 GM_00791 Date: 4/25/16 Time: 8:52:07 ROYAL PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Offense Report Page: 7 Program: CMS301L rand canal. from fa ling into I then aske intercourse with he did or ever has had sexual that liquor she drank. liquor and he said that if he was the person thatfjiffve stated he did not give an never had sexual relations wit ii -· The six juvenile's were handled in the following manner. Mr. yo~. and was turned over to his mother at andllllllllllllllwer ... trans orted e west Palm Beach Truancy Center Of . was transported to the hqspital. implied thats e sexual intercourse with some of the people t t I observed in the rear of to the emergency persons that was in the ambulan . I then was advised of this information and this incident was turned over to the Detective Division. ****************************NARR AT IV B # 2 *************************** SUPPLEMENT Reported By: WIKSE, JOHN C. 11/04/97 Entered By.: JARRETT, DAWN M. 11/10/97 On 11/5/97 at 1113 hours, I was dispatched as a backup unit to 156 Martin Circle in reference to a juvenile call. Upon arrival I met with Sgt. T. Hughes who was standing with a group of six juveniles, three w/m and three w/f. Ofc. Mancino was present and had already run all of the-names through dispatch who had called the and confirmed that all present was ruan, wi e excep ion of • who is not enrolled in school. RPB EMS was also o~ scene ea ing with one of the w/f who was identified as ------ It appeared that ---had been drinking and sh~tand and was ~al. EMS transported - to Sgt. Hughes asked me to transport one of e back to the High School and obtain a contact parents. Upon my arrival at the High School I dropped the student services office and I proceeded to the nurses o fices where I obtained four emergency contact numbers for---- parents. I attempted all of these numbers numerous-~- CERTIFIED TO BE. A TRUE COPY RIC L. BRADSHAW, SHERIFF Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 19 GM_00792 Date: 4/25/16 Time: 8:52:07 ROYAL PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Offense Report Page: 8 Program: CMS301L 1-97-002687 {Continued) avail. I called down to the and asked to speak with who told me that , while enroute to e hospital, had found grass an wig material in the patients panties and had received a spontaneous statement from the patient in reference to being raped. I notified Sgt, Hughes of this and he had me respond to the E.R. to ~tectives. Upon arrival, at the E.R., I met with ............ who stated that while enroute to the E.R. she was conducting a head to toe evaluation when the patient stated that she had to urinate. Pa~ was assisting - remove her panties when she not~d twig particles in the crotch area of..-..panties as well as a small amount of blood, an unknown cl~ce, and ~ which appeared to be semen. She also saw abrasions on---buttocks. -...began screaming, "they held me down, they fucked me, they fu~ 11 I told them to stop, I thought they were my friends! Why would they do this to me? Am I pregnant? l Am I pregnant?! 11 I told ------that I would need a witness statement from her in r~ statements. She advised that she would complete the witness statement at the Fire Station and drop it off at the Police Station. I remained at the E.R. and made several more attempts to contact parents, again to no avail. Approximately 20 minutes later Detectives Pervenecki and Robeson responded to the E.R. and took over. I returned to the Police Department where Sgt. Hughes told Ofc. Wensyel and I to go find -- ---and---- Sgt. Hu s o us t ~othing ~s. ~eede~e evidence and to ask them to come in on a While enroute to ---........residence at ... .........._ Ofc. Wensyel and I w~ Wildcat Way at Willows Park when we noticed ......... crossing the road. Ofc. Wensyel stopped and spoke w~agreed to come in voluntarily. we then .w;oceeded to --........... where I was able to locate] • and notify~e situation. Marcus also agreed to come in voluntaril y . Ofe. Wensyel transported both individuals to the P.D. while emained four photo's of the residence/yard located at Upon completing this I responded to contact with w/m, who to come in on a voluntary basis. Upon arrival at the Royal Palm Beach Police Department I made contact with Ofc. Mancino and gave him the pictures that I had taken. All juveniles had been separated and notifications were made to their parents. Det. Robkin responded and was briefed on the situation. I took each individual into the traffic office and had them change clothes. I placed their old clothing into evidence bags and Ofc. Mancino placed these bags into evidence bins. ****************************NARRATIVE # 3 **********************i**** SUPPLEMBNT Reported By: ROBESON, JERRY R. 11/04/97 Entered By.: JARRETT, DAWN M. 11/10/97 CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE COPY RIC L BRADSHAW, SHERIFF Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 19 GM_00793 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4/25/16 Time; 8 : 5 2 : 0 7 ROYAL PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Offense Report Page: 9 Program; CMS301L -------------------------------------------~----------------------------------- 1-97-002687 (Continued) On Tuesday, November 4, 1997 I was dispatched to Palm's West ~ Hospital in reference to a suspicious incident. The juvenile victim, ~ was transported to the hospital-Royal Palm Beach There were allegations made by that she may have been forced to have sex. (See original report. Patricia Badu-Tweneboah, Counselor/Advocate from Victim Services was dispat~he hospital. Patricia met with the victim and the parents oflllllllllllllt in reference to the incident. A rape kit was done at the hospital by I interviewe , d .......... at the hospital. After dent o the~ed that had me chool. On Sunday, November 2, They spent the entire day with fat his residence. on Tuesday, ted that she dropped ---off at· r school. They also st~ a prev ous y een sexually active but, felt that she was no currently sexually active. After the examination was done by I interviewed -said that she didn't go to school and was with and a group of friends. There were males and females in the group. some of t~iles ..... didn't know because she only met them today ....... eaid~e remembers her legs being opened and being touched by individuals. She stated that her friends were laughing~ something to the effect of "you will like it or enjoy it 11 • ---had her clothes on during the incident. She said that ehe had about five sips of alcohol and all her friends were drinking. J f j ■ said· that she had known ..... only a few days and she ha een sexually active with him. ~o remembered being kissed on her lips by a female that possibly was her friend, intervf ~w. Virginia. appeared to be very lethargic du:t'ing the After the interview, I transpo ... the collected evidence to the police station and proceeded to the residence at -.a ~ I met with Mr. and Ms.---- s . .-..said that a group of juveniles in~ her~ at around 9:00 A.M. --was at home, so she questioned him about the juveniles and~ they were some of his friends. At around 9:30 A.M., Ms ....... told---that the group had to leave from her resi~ Aroun~ A.M. , ..... told his mother that he was going to take pictures of thei~ence for their neighbor (the neighbor is helping them sell their residence). At about 11:00 A.M., Ms. -stated that she saw the Royal Palm Beach Fire Rescue with an unknomi girl. Mr. -said that he wasn't missing any liquor from his residence. on Wednesday, November 5, 1997, Marcus Collazo came to the CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE COPY RIC L. BRADSHAVV, SHERIFF Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 19 GM_00794 Date: 4/25/16 Time: 8:52:07 ROYAL PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Offense Report Page: 10 Program: CMS301L 1-97-002687 (Continued) police station in reference to property. I released two lighters, paper, seven dollars and sixteen cents, and a key on a weave. The property wasn•t listed on the property sheet due to the property being inside the pants pockets. ****************************NARRATIVE # 4 *************************** SUPPLEMENT Reported By: ROBKIN, ROBERT G. 11/04/97 Entered By.: DRAHOS, KATHLEEN E. 11/26/97 On 11/4/97 at approximately 1215 hours, this investigator received a phone call at my home advising me of a possible sexual battery investigation. I was told to go to Palms West Hospital and met with Sgt. D. Pervenecki and if possible the victim. This Detective arrived at the hospital at approximately 1300 hours and met with Sgt. Pervenecki, Detective J. Robeson and the victim's parents. After a brief conference with the above, I went to the Police Station to meet with the responding officers and to conduct this investigation. After speaking wit conduct interviews with (S-3) . res onding officers, I then began to (S-1)-------.. {S-2), and They were al at the~n. I first met with S-3, I advised him that he was not under arrest and that he was wi er no obligation to answer any of my questions. I also asked him if he knew that this investigation was about. He told me that he thought it was because the victim had gotten very drunk. I asked to relate what had occurred this date, he stated that he had seen S-1 ~ prior to school at-...... house and there had been som~ion about skipping~ says that he went to school and since he is in the "on '"'raining prog1°ar1i 11 he gets out ear ly. .t1e is employed at Wings u, even though they are not open. When he got out of school, he ran int girlfriend and anot~later identified as They all walked to----house where they met and the victim. ---says that th~t a ouse until hi~ mad and tol~to have is riende leave. They were sitting in the driveway of the house and he says that he hear••••• and his mother yelling at each other. All of the kids then went into the backyard. ----says that he does not know where the victim got liquor f~e became very drunk. He says that she was so drunk that she fell down several times and had to be pulled up an incline by her legs, to keep from falling into a canal. She was also acting very drunk by talking and laughing. CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE COPY RIC L. BRADSHAW, SHERIFF Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 19 GM_00795 --------------------------------------------------~--~------------------------- Date: 4/25/16 Time: 8:52:07 ROYAL PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Offense Report Page: 11 Program: CMS301L ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- l-97-002687 (Continued) According to---- they had only hung out for 15 or 20 minutes before the~ived. ~ays that he did not see anyone molest or sexually viola~m. wrote out a statement, it is included in this record. It should be noted that I was unable to record ......... statement ~~f a malfunction with the tape rec~hen interviewe~ He was also advised that he was under no obligation to talk to me, he stated that he understood. I asked him to tell me what he had done on this date. This statement was taped. He told me that he had got up at 7:08 AM and left for school. He ran into Nissensohn and he had told him that they were gong to cut school today. £ was with the victim {they are bo riend and f~~~f~!~n~~~ vt;t~~:rjjfmately 0845 to 0900 hours,an and went to his house to skip and hang ou€. WhTie they were . here sometime around 0930 hours, his mother told hirn to have his friends go away. He says that he did. ~lso says that at this time he was also approached by his neighbor, who is a real estate agent and is selling his par~. said that he needed to take pictures of the bouse ........ sta es at after he sent his friends away, he took some pictures and approximately 40 to 45 minutes later, his friend, - (S-2) came and got him. He was told that his girlfriend was drd'mt""and out of control. he then went behind the house at~ and found the victim to be very drunk. She was fall~ting along the canal bank. It was necessary for him and the other subjects to physi~ally pull her up the bank by her legs and at times also carry her away from the c~l t<:> prevdent her fromlfhallinhg if' n. d I a says that aitt one point, in or er to contra er e oun it necessary to s a straddle on her. It was at this point that the police arrived. says that he has no knowledge of anyone "messing" with the victim. Since the victim. and t.liis subject are boyfrie:n.d and girlf:r:iend, I asked if he was having intercourse with the victim. re use to answer this question. I then asked if he had had sex wi the victim on this date he then stated no, not today. -also wrote out a statement, it is a part of this report. The last person that I interviewed was similar to the others except he states that arrived at his house produced the bottle of his story is after everyone He says that he, his girlfriend _,_.....-..i. and the victim all were at - house skipplng~ says that he watched the victim drink from the bottle and get very drunk. He also says that in order to cut the taste of the liquor, ~k oranges from the orange tree in the yard where they were . ...... says tha~ried to sober up the victim, he even went and got some food~ee to give her, but nothing worked~ According to••••all six of them were sitting around, under CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE COPY RIC L. BRADSHAW, SHERIFF Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 19 GM_00796 Date: · Time: 4/25/16 8:52:07 ROYAL PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Offense Report Page: 12 Program: CMS301L 1-97-002687 (Continued) some trees at the cap.al bank, drinking at different times ..... and the victim might have kissed, but there was no seriou~ or touching that he saw. He did say that the victim was crawling around on her seat and butt, and at times she would scoot about on her fanny and her dress and panties would ride up. It was necessary for them to physically restrain her to keep her from falling into the canal. AT one point, it became necessary for-----to sit on top of the victim to keep her from going into the~ It was then that the police arrived. This statement was taped and he also wrote out a statement which is included in this report. After taking these statements from the above subjects, they were all released to their parents. Their clothing was confiscated and placed into property by the responding officers, to be sent to the lab for testing. See property receipts. This investigator then conducted an interview with Fire/Rescue Officer Ellen F. Delai who was in the rescue wagon with tbe victim while she was being transported to the hospital. She states that the victim had indicated to her that she had been assaulted, and she had also seen what appears to be blood on the victims underpants. See her written statement for details and also the Fire/Rescue report. Detective Robeson, who had been at the hospital with the victim returned to the station. He had the victims clothes and the contents of the "Rape Kit 11 , these were placed into property. Det. Robeson also took a taped statement from the victim at the hospital, this is also in property. ~approximately 1700 hours, I received a phone call from ....... He told me over the phone at this time that he wanted to keep the record straight and he then stated that he and the victim were actively having sex. He said that the last time that they had sex was on 11/3/97 in t he morning. - also asked e i f he could come to the station and talk to me about the case. I told him to come on in. He arrived at my office at approx. 1730 hours, ~ith his father. After I explained this investigation to Mr.,....... the son --......requested ~ to speak with me in private ...... was very upset at the possibility that soin'e"""a'rhis friends might have abused his girlfriend and he wanted me to know that he was willing to cooperate in anyway that he cou~t to the bottom of this incident. During this conversation ..... also told me that he had supplied the liquor to the other teenagers but he did not expect the victim to get so drunk. • At this time, - also admitted to me that he and the victim are sexually active and the last time that they had intercourse was on Monday morning {11/3/97}, he also says that they always use protection when they make love. This statement was not CERTIFIED TO BE A 'TRUE COPY RiC L. BRADSHAW, SHERIFF Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 19 GM_00797 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4/25/16 Time: 8 : 52 : 0 7 ROYAL PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Offense Report Page: 13 Program: CMS3OlL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-97-002687 (Continued} recorded nor taped. I asked ■]] f? what he knew about the other people involved. He said that' as ar as he knew, these people were his friends. He had known them for a long while. I asked him if he knew the subj ec--.. he sated that she was new to the school and he had just rec~her. Her boyfriend is someone named I then asked--to tell me about the subject . He told me ~is Ian's girlfriend, and that she ie 11 :kh. , asked how he knew this a~told me that he had seen her kissing other girls. He also~hat she tells people that she is "bi 11 • ~ repeated several times that he was very upset about his gir~eing assaulted. I advised him to not do anything that would get him into trouble, and if he learned or heard any information for him to contact me. He agreed to do so. On 11/5/97 at approx. 1600 hours the victim, came to the police station with her parents to be interviewed by this investigator. I first met with the victim and her parents and explained the investigation to this point, I also answered several questions that they had. I then met privately with the victim to discuss her recollection of the events of the previous day. The victim told me that she had gone to school on 11/4/97, but as planned she and her friends cut after the first hour. The~o her boyfriend's ....... house and hung around until Mrs ...... ran them off. Shetiien'says that she and the others, min_J Q went in back of some houses at a canal and started to drink. She says that she became very drunk and does not remember much. She does remember falling down and someone grabbing at her legs, but she does not know who. She also says that she has a vivid recollection of being kissed by a girl, but she is not sure if it is~, and she thinks that she was being held down. People toldiie'rt.o relax, that she would like it, but she does not recall anything happening. I asked the victim if she recalls anything being inserted into her at anytime. She stated "no". I also asked her if she was having any discomfort or soreness in her vaginal area or buttocks area, she again replied no, also asked if it was time for her period, or if she was having any types of cramps, she stated, NO. I asked~im if she was sexually active, she told me that she and~were. I then asked her when was the last time that they had had sex. She told me Monday morning {11/3/97). She also said that they used a rubber, they always used protection. I then asked her if she could explain why there might be traces of blood in her panties. She could offer no explanation. She also repeated that she is past her period and she is not injured that she knows of. I also inquired as to the victim's relationshi!!liith - She says that they are friends, I asked her if . is gay or ~I 11 bi", she then told me tha- had told her that e e was asked the victim if she had ever fooled around with ...... , she said no. CERTIFIED TO si= A TRUE COPY RiC L. BRrt\OSHAW, SHERIFF Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 19 GM_00798 Date: 4/25/16 Time: 8:52:07 ROYAL PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Offense Report Page: 14 Program: CMS301L 1-97-002687 (Continued) I aaked her if she remembered the ride to the hospital, she told me that it was very vague, she does not recall her conversation with the rescue personnel. Because of certain statements that were made by the victim to the fire/rescue people, I felt that it was necessary to clear up some points. The victim had stated to the rescue people that "they had fucked me". I asked her if she knew the meaning of the word "fuck0 , she said that it meant to have sex. The victim had asked the fire/rescue personnel several times if she were pregnant because of what happened. I then asked the victim if she knew how a person becomes pregnant. She then told me that you get pregnant from having sex. After conducting this interview the victim requested that some of her prQperty be returned to her. She wanted her book bag and some clothing that was not submitted as evidence. These items were returned to her {see property receipt). On~his date approximately 1830 hours, this investigator went to and met with--........ Her parents were no , s e agreed to speak~ed her to relate to me the vents of the day before. ■■■ltold me that she had cut school with the other kids and bad gone to-house. She told me that-----Mom had told them to lea~ had supplied the~ttle of liquor and they had drank some of it. ---~leave to do something and he left the victim who acco~~was already drunk. This was somewhere around 1000 to 1030 hours ...... says that the victim was so drunk that she was scooting and~ around on the grass with her dress up and she was also making passes at the other boys who were there. states that she saw the victim grab Ian by the butt and by the -crouch and she also attempted to do the same to-- she would also ask them for~ states that she~ the vi~t~~t.~hey were~ause s~e kept asking~for him. I asKea ~ it sne saw anyone 1n any way nave any sexuaL contact with the victim, she states that the only thing that she saw at anytime was S-1 kissing the victim, but there was never any sex. I also asked her if at anytime did she kiss the victim or caress her in anyway. She stated nnon. I then asked her if she saw the victim place anything inside herself, she again said no. I then asked if she had anything to add before ending this interview. Crystal then asked me if I knew what the victim had said to the police officer when they came to the scene. I advised her no, for her to tell me. -states that when the police first arrived, the victim was very belligerent and was denying being drunk. When she {victim) realized that the police were going to take some sort of action, she told one of the officers that "If you don't tell my parents, I'll fuck you". According to he officer ignored this comment. this concluded the w. The phone number shown for ---on the report is not right, the correct phone number is 792-~ CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE COPY RIC L. BRADSHAW, SHERIFF Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 19 GM_00799 Date; 4/25/16 Time: 8:52:07 ROYAL PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Offense Report Page: 15 Program: CMS301L 1-97-002687 {Continued} I then went to •I and met with- ..... and her parents. AS before, I as ed her to tell me about ~nts of the day before. She told me that she had cut.school at around 0830 hours and she and her friend had gone to house. --says that she arrived there at around 0900 _hours she thins, siie""'aTso" states that the victim was already drunk when she got there ........ states that she thinks that she was with the other peopleTorarou"nd 2 hours. During that time she did not see anyone do anything to the victim. She did say, as did_, that the victim made passes at the other boys who we~ent but no one did anything with her. I asked her if she saw-- make any pass at the victim, or if she saw her kiss the victim. Kristin said no to this. -also told me that the victim had propositioned the police officer who came to the scene. I also, asked her how well she knew the victim, she told me that this was the first time that she had ever met her. ~ahd nothing else to add at this time. This concludes the interviews with the people involved. All of the evidence that has been collected will be sent to the PBSO for testing and analysis. It is unknown at this time as to why the victim had blood in her panties or where it came from. The victims parents were advised by this officer to seek medical advice and aid for their daughter, as well as possible counseling of some type. All of the clothing submitted and confiscated are being submitted to the crime lab for testing. See attached lab request. The information contained in this report will be sent to the State Attorney's Office for review in regard to possible charges of Lewd and Lascivious conduct to a child under 16 years of age against Collazo, because of his admission and the victims admission to having sexual intercourse. This is in violation of FSS 800.04 (2). Besides this admission, a simulation of sexual intercourse was also witnessed by the responding officer upon his arrival, This is a violation of the same statute. All the evidence, (clothing, liquor and lab evidence etc. has been sent to the crime lab on 11/7/97). It should be noted that-- was arrested on 11/6/97 for Aggravated Battery in an unre"iatec:icase. He is now in the County Jail and is charged as an adult. ****************************NARRATIVE # 5 *************************** SUPPLEMENT Reported By: ROBKIN, ROBERT G. 11/19/97 Entered By.: DRAHOS, KATHLEEN E. 11/26/97 On 11/19/97 the listed subject, ■••■ who is currently being held in the Palm Beach Count ail on unrelated charges was served with a Probable Cause Affidavit, charging him with two counts of Lewd and Lascivious conduct with a child under 14 years of age. • CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE COPY RIC L. BRADSHAW, SHERIFF Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 19 GM_00800 Date: 4/25/16 Time: 8:52:07 ROYAL PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Offense Report Page: 16 Program: CMS301L 1-97- 002687 {Continued) The PC Affidavit, Rough Arrest Form, and filing packet are all a part of this case file. ****************************NARRATIVE # 6 *************************** PROBABLE CAUSE Reported By: ROBKIN, ROBERT G. 11/17/97 Entered By.: DRAHOS, KATHLEEN E. 11/26/97 At the rear of , Palm Beach County; Florida when the responding patrol wiita arr ved at the above scene, Officer Mancino who was the first on the scene observed the defendant laying on top of the victim. Both the defendant and the victim were both laying on the ground, the victim was laying on her back and according to Officer Mancino her dress was above her hips and her legs were wrapped around the defendants midsection. Both the defendant and the victim were clothes. The defendant was wearing his pants and the victim was wearing a pair of "Garfield the cat• underpants. As stated, the defendant was on top of the victim in the missionary position both the victim and the defendant were undulating their hips and bodies, in a simulated sex act (dry humping). According to Officer Mancino the defendant's hips were moving in and out of the victim's pelvic area. 'l'he victim was also making moaning and groaning sounds. On this same date at approximately 1730 hours, while at the police station, the defendant was being interviewed by this detective. He was not under arrest and had come to the station on his own. During this interview, the defendant told me that he and the victim had been having sex on a regular basis. The last time being on 11/3/97 at the defendants house at-----..., royal palm Beach, Florida. On 11/5/97, this Dete~the victim at the police station. AT this time, the victim also told me that she and the defendant have had sex several times in the past. The last time was on 11/3/97 in the AM hours at the defendants housa. She also stated that they used protection, they always sued protection. The defendant is in the county jail on unrelated charges, he will be served with this arrest at that location. ****************************NARRATIVE # 7 *************************** SUPPLEMENT Reported By: ROBKIN, ROBERT G. 12/23/97 Entered By.: JARRETT, DAWN M. 12/30/97 On this date (12/23/97} this investigator went to the Palm Beach s.o. and picked up the items that were being tested by the lab. Nothing of any evidentiary value was found. I have alao contacted the owners of the clothing and have advised them to pick up their belongings. CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE COPY RIC L BRADSHl\W, SHERIFF Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 19 GM_00801 Date: 4/25/16 Time: 8:52:07 ROYAL PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Offense Report Page: 17 Program: CMS301L 1-97-002687 (Continued) I have also been advised by the State Attorneys Office that they do not choose to prosecute defendant Collazo for the charges of Lewd and Lascivious conduct. See attached letter from the S/A office. At this time this case is closed because there is no need for any further police action. ****************************NARRATIVE # 8 *************************** SUPPLEMENT Reported By: ROBESON, JERRY R. 12/23/97 Entered By.: JARRETT, DAWN M. 12/30/97 The property listed on the attached property receipt was returned to the owner, Ian Varvaro on December 23, 1997 at 1907 hours. ****************************NARRATIVE # 9 *************************** SUPPLEMENT Reported By: ROBKIN, ROBERT G. 12/23/97 Entered By,: JARRETT, DAWN M, 12/30/97 on 12/23/97, Ms. Janice Magrane who is Adam Niseoneohn's mother came to the police station and picked up her sons clothes which had been returned from P.B.S.O. See property receipt. ****************************NARRATIVE # 10 ************************** SUPPLEMENT Reported By: FARRON, CHRISTOPHER s. 10/30/02 Entered By.: FARRON, CHRISTOPHER s. 10/30/02 Due to the fact,the statute of limitations has run out on this case, the property was destroyed. ****************************NARRATIVE # 11 ************************** SUPPLEMENT Reported By: GEROULD, GLENN A. 4/03/03 Entered By.: GEROULD, GLEJ:i!N A. 4/03/03 The evidence in this case has been destroyed. ****************************NARRATIVE # 12 ************************** Supplemental Reported By: PERVENECKI, DAVID A. 5/08/03 Entered By.: PERVENECKI, DAVID A. 5/08/03 Reviewed By: Gl.ANNOTTI(DAVIS, ERIN M. 5/22/03 The property listed in this case has been destroyed. ****************************NARRATIVE # 13 ************************** Supplemental Reported By: PERVENECKI, DAVID A. 5/07/03 Entered By.: PERVENECKI, DAVID A. 5/07/03 Reviewed By: GIANNOTTI(DAVIS, BRIN M. 5/23/03 The property listed in this case has been destroyed. * * * * * * * * * *******END OF REPORT***************** GERTI Fl ED TO BE A TRUE COPY RiC L. BJ~ADSHAW, SHERIFF Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 19 EXHIBIT C Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 22 GM_00755 PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE r 1 '19.071 (2)(c) Active criminal intellige r Information 1 '19.071 (2)(e) Confession 3€>!5.171 (15) Identity of 911 seHvice 1 'I 9.071 (2)(d) Surveillance t niques, procedures, an inventory of law enforcement resources, policies or to mobilization, deployment or tactical operati 1 'I !rn71 (2)(1) Assets of crime victim 119.071 (5)(a)(5) Social se r 94 CENTRAL RECORDS MPTIONS/CONFIDENTIAL igative r entification Information (Fingerprints, palm reports are confidential for period of 60 days after (2)(h)(1) Identity of victim of sexual battery, lewd and ascivious offense upon a person less than 16 years old, child abuse, sexual offense r 985.04(1) Juvenile offender records formation contained in a motor vehicle record telligence/investigative infor ice agency 1 'I!~. d) Extra fee if request is voluminous or requires extensive r pe,rsonnel, technology CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE COPY RIC L. BRADSHAW, SHERIFF Tracking 16-04-2729 CN: 98-041883 Date: 04/25/2016 Revised 03/04/2011 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 22 GM_00756 OQS - Viewing Case Number 98041883 Page 1 of20 PALM BE AC H CO UN. TY SHER IF F' S OFFICE PAGE 1 CASE NO. 98041883 0 FF ENS E REPORT CASE NO. 98041883 911: N SEXUAL * C O N F I D E N T I * DISPOSITION: INACTIVE DIVISION: ROAD PATROL * SIGNAL CRIME CODE: 1 NON CRIME CODE: 110A 02/28/98 SATURDAY ZONE: B71 GRID: B DEPUTY I.D.: 3257 NAME: BURES DAVID ASSIST: TIMED 1603 A 1618 C 1705 OCCURRED BETWEEN Dl\.TE: 02/28/98 , 1630 HOURS AND DATE : , ,QOOO HOURS EXCEPTION TYPE: INCIDENT LOCATIO ,r:;; NO . OFFENSES: 01 NO. OFFENDERS: 02 NO. VEHICLES STOLEN : 0 NO. PREMISES ENTERED: 0 LOCATION: PARK/ WOODLANDSd FIELD NO. VICTIMS: 01 NO. ARRESTED: FORCED ENTRY: 0 WEAPON TYPE: HANDS/ FISTS OFFENSE NO. 1 FLORIDA STATE NAME LIST: 794 011 SUSPECT KEVIN P THOMPSON SEX: M RACE: W HT: 602 WT: 230 HR: RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: 12435 N 52 RD BUSINESS PHONE: 561 -000-0000 OFFENSE INDICATOR : . OFFENSE 1 VICTIM NUMBER: 1 CIS CODE 110A EYE: BLUE FL 33417 05/15/1980 EYE: BLUE ROYAL PALM FL 33411 HOME PHONE: 561 000-00661 /j HOME PHONE:561 000-0000 VICTIM TYPE: JUVENILE • RESIDENCE TYPE: COUNTY i Rli:SIDENCE STATUS: FULL YEAR EXTENT OF INJURY: NONE I _,·· INJURY TYPE(l): NOT APPLICABLE , INJURY TYPE(2): NOT APPLICABLE VICTIM RELATION: ACQUAINTANCE printed by Employee Id#: 8557 on April 25 , 2016 11:05 :24AM CERTIFIED • 1 TO BE A TRUE COPY RIC LA~RADSHAW, SHERIFF http://oqs.pbso.org/index.cfm?fa=dspCase&fromrec=l&srhta=e0c5956785e628dd-4CFE5... 4/25/2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 22 GM_00757 OQS - Viewing Case Number 98041883 Page 2 of20 PALM BE AC H COUNTY SHER IF F'S OFFICE PAGE 2 NO. 98041883 0 F FENS E REPORT CASE NO. 98041883 REPORT NUMBER: 1 FLORIDA V~CTIM? N WEATHER: CLOUDY WITNESS TO CRIME KNOWN ? . N CAN VICTIM I.D. SUSPECT? Y WILL VICTIM PROSECUTE ? . . Y IS M.O. SIGNIFICANT? LATENTS LIFTED? ... TAG NUMBER KNOWN ? .. SUSPECT NAME KNOWN? ... SUSPECT LOCATION KNOWN N STOLEN PROPERTY TRACEABLE? EVIDENCE LEFT AT SCENE? ... SUSPECT'S VEHICLE KNOWN? .. N PROPERTY DAMAGE? .......... N DISPOSITION: INACTIVE 8 AT 1600 HOURS I RESPONDED TO A CONFIDENTIAL L CATIO REFERENCE A COMPLAINTOF SEXUAL BATTERY. UPON ARRIVAL I\MET WITH THE ON-DUTY COUNSELOR, WHITE FEMALE, DOB 122864. M STATED, EARLIER IN THE DAY SHE ONE OF THE OCCUPANTS HOME THAT THE OCCUPANT WAS RAPED APPROX!-" MATELY AGO AT AN UNKNOWN LOCATION IN LOXAHATCHEE. IDENTIFIED THE VIqTIM AS WHITE FEMALE, n. I THEN MET WITH MS. , WHO STATED THAT APPROXIMATELY THREE AND HALF WEEKS AGO SHE WAS PIC FROM HER BOYFRIEND'S HOUSE (WHICH IS IN CITY OF ROYAL PALM BEACH, FLORIDA), BY TWO WHITE MALE ACQUAINTANCES OF HERS. STATED THAT BOTH WERE IN THEIR TWENTIES. L, , : '. <: ~REFUSED TO PROVIDE IDENTIFICATION OR A DESCRIPTION OF THE TWO WHITE MALES. r:.~,;:';);;i STATED THAT SHE WAS DR BY THE TWO WHITE MALES TO A WOODED AREA SOMEWHERE IN LOXAHATCHEE. SHE O STATED THAT THEY ALL CONSUMED ALCOHOL AND SMOKED MARIJUANA, AND THAT MS. WAS INTOXICATED DURING THIS INCIDENT. STATED ONCE THE VEHICLE WAS MALES HAD FORCED SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH RESIST BOTH WHITE MALES BY STATING TO THEM, N r:~r! STATED AFTER THE SEXUAL INTERCOURS WOODED AREA, BOTH WHITE .-~;;,::: ill STATED SHE DID OF THE WHITE MALES WAS DROPPED OFF, AND SHE WENT HOME WITH THE OTHER WHITE MALE TO HIS RESIDENCE AT AN UNKNOWN LOCATION. MS. 1111111 STATED ONCE IN THE>BEDROOM OF THE RESIDENCE, ONCE AGAIN THE WHITE MALE HAD FORCED SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH HER. STATED THAT SHE WAS NOT INJURED AS A RESULT. WHEN/ASKED ONCE AGAIN TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON THE IDENTITY OR THE DESCRIPTION/OF THE SUSPECTS, SHE REFUSED. SGT. ST. CYR, ID 359, WAS NOTIFIED AND RESPONDED. THE DETECTIVE BUREAU WAS NOTIFIED. THEY STATED/THEY WOULD CONDUCT A FOLLOW-"UP REFERENCE THIS CASE. CASE INFORMATION WAS GIVEN. THE DISPOSITION IN THIS CASE WILL BE CLASSIFIED AS INACTIVE PENDING FURTHER printed by Employee Id#: 8557 on April CERTIFIED ll:05:24AM TO BE A TRUE COPY RIC L. BRADSHAW, SHERIFF http://oqs.pbso.org/index.cfm ?fa=dspCase&fromrec= 1 &srhta=e0c5956785e628dd-4CFE5. .. 4/25/2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 22 GM_00758 OQS - Viewing Case Number 98041883 Page 3 of 20 PALM BE AC H CO UN~ Y SHER IF F' S OFFICE PAGE 3 CASE NO. 98041883 0 FF EN'S E REPORT CASE NO. 98041883 INVESTIGATIVE LEADS. END OF NARRATIVE. D. BURES/ID 3257/TRANS: 3/3/98/PS/#754if 2/28/98/1730 HRS. DISPOSITION: INACTIVE 8557 on April 25, 2016 ll:05:24AM CERTIFIED 1' ,ro BE A TRUE COPY Rly L BRADSHAW, SHERIFF http://oqs.pbso.org/index.cfm ?fa=dspCase&fromrec= 1 &srhta=e0c5956785e628dd-4CFE5. .. 4/25/2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 22 GM_00759 OQS - Viewing Case Number 98041883 Page 4 of20 P A L M B E A C H C O U N . T Y S H E R I F F' S O F F I C E PAGE , >> 1 NO. 98041883 SUPPLEMENT 1 0 F F>E NS E REPORT CASE NO. 98041883 DISPOSITION: OPEN DIVISION: DETECTIVE 911: 'N. SEXUAL" BAT";l'.ElRY SIGNAL CODE;: * CRIME CODE: C O N F I D E N T I /A . L * NON CRIME CODE: * 03/31/98 SATURDAY ZONE: B71 GRID: DEPUTY I.D . : 3553 NAME: ARNOLD OCCURRED BETWEEN DATE : 02/28/98 , 1630 HOURS AND DATE: EXCEPTION TYPE: INCIDENT LOCATION : < CITY: STATE: TIME D 1603 A 1618 0000 HOURS APT. NO. : ZIP::'.' NO. OFFENSES: 01 N0. <9~FENDERS: 02 NO. VEHICLES STOLEN: 0 NO. PREMts:E$ 11ENTERED: 0 LOCATION: PARK/ WOODLAND NO. VICTIMS: 01 NO. ARRE FORCED ENTRY: 0 WEAPON TYPE: HANDS/ FISTS/ FEET OFFENSE NO . 1 FLORIDA STATE ,,STATUTE : 794 011 CIS CODE 110A ON 3-12-98, I RECEf;'ltD A CALL FROM MRS. - !l~.: ~:~!il;i INQUIRYING WHO ; WOULD BE INVESTIGATING . HER DAUGHTER'S SEXUAL BATTERY INVESTIGATION. I CHECKED THE SIU LOG AND FOUND THAT THE CASE HAD NOT BEEN ASSIGNED. I WAS NEXT UP ON THE CASE ROTATION LIST SO I ASSIGNED THE CASE TO MYSELF As sGT . sToRMEs WAs OFF . MRi/r;J,~if'SI TOLD ME THAT HER DAUGHTER Is CURRENTLY RESIDING AT A CONFIDENTIAL LOCATION AND THAT I SHOULD CONTACT •.a ;;'lilll TO SPEAK WIT.H HER DAUGHTER. ON 3-13-98, I CALLED T (CONFIDENTIAL LOCATION) TO SET UP AN INTERVIEW APPOINTMENT WITH Jl~~lt~,. llli!tl IS NOT AVAILABLE AND I LEFT A MESSAGE FOR HER TO PLEASE CALL BACK . ON 3-16-98, I RECEIVED A MESSAGE FROM llfl!:A!i. I CALLED HER BACK AND SHE WAS NOT AVAILABE . ON 3-17-98, I LEFT. FOR A CONFERENCE IN HUNSTVILLE, ALABAMA AND DID NOT RETURN TO WORK UNTIL ·3 ON 3-24-98, I AGAIN CALLED APPOINTMENT WITH 111\'l"f.'.'(j NOT AVAILABLE AND I A MESSAGE. 3-30-98 I WAS ABLE TO MAKE CONTACT WITH & !·- AND WE SET UP INTERVIEW FOR .Siil - ON 3-31-98 AT 2 : 30PM. DET. ~OLD/3553 RAMIREZ/4213/4-21-98 C 1705 printed by Empl oyee Id#: 8557 7 .on \ April 25, 2016 11:05:24AM i O . 9ERTIFIED k BE A TRUE COPY ~IC L. BRADSHAW, SHERIFF http://oqs.pbso.org/index.cfm?fa=dspCase&fromrec=l&srhta=eOc5956785e628dd-4CFE5... 4/25/2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 22 GM_00760 OQS - Viewing Case Number 98041883 Page 5 of20 PALM BE AC H CO UN T ,Y SHER IF F'S OFFICE PAGE 1 CASE NO . 98041883 SUPPLEMENT 2 0 F F ';E NS E REPORT CASE NO. 98041883 C O N F I D E N Ti,I L SEXUAL BATTERY * * SIGNAL CODE: CRIME CODE: NON CRIME CODE: ZONE: B71 GRID: DEPUTY I. D. : 3553 NAME: ARNOLD OCCURRED BETWEENDATE: 02/28/98 , 1630 HOURS AND DATE : DISPOSITION: OPEN DIVISION: DETECTIVE * SATURDAY TIMED 1603 A 1618 C 1705 HOURS EXCEPTION TYPE:: • INCIDENT LOCATION: . •. APT. NO.: CITY : STATE : ZIP : ' NO . OFFENSES : 01 NO : <OFFENDERS : 02 NO. VEHICLES STOLEN: 0 NO . PREMI~E,S .,ENTERED : 0 LOCATION : PARK / WOODLANDS .,/ FIELD NO . VICTIMS : 01 NO . ARRESirED: ' 0 FORCED ENTRY: 0 WEAPON TYPE : HANDS/ FISis) FEET ,;)i, • OFFENSE NO. 1 FLORIDA STATE ST~TUTE: 794 011 CIS CODE 110A ON 3-31- 98 AT 3: 00PM, • I INITIATED A SWORN TAPED STATEMENT WITH -~'!1;1::1 IN REFERENCE TO A SEXUAL BATTERY INVESTIGATION. • .,. HAD A VERY QUIET DEMEANOR AND AT TIME SEEMED VERY RELUCTANT TO DISCUSS SENSITIVE. FACTS ABOUT THIS CASE, WHICH IS NOT UNU TIME WA • OTIONAL AND CRIED DURING THE INTERVIEW . SAID THAT SHE,, MET THE SUSPECTS FROM THIS INCIDENT AT A PARTY SEVERAL WEEKS PRIOR TO/ THE ASSAULTS, WHICH OCCURRED SOMETIME AROUND THE 1ST OF FEBRUARY. ON THE NIGHT OF THE ASSAULT, - WAS AT HER BOYFRIEND'S HOUSE PLAYING VIDEO GAMES DOES NOT WANT TO DISCLOSE THE IDENTITY OF HER BOYFRIEND AT THIS TIME) . THE SUSPECTS PULLED UP TO _.., S B(?;:t'FRIEND' S HOUSE AT APPROXIMATELY 10: 00PM ON THE DATE OF THE ASSAULT AND ASKED·•. HIM IF HE WANTED TO GO OUT DRINKING. - BOYFRIEND COULD NOT GO;, BUT HE TOLD THE SUSPECTS THAT WAS THERE THAT SHE HAD RUN AWAY. , ''SUSPECTS CAME INSIDE OF THE IF SHE WANTED TO ,.GQ DRINKING WITH THEM. AS STATED EARLIER, HAD MET THE SUSPECT BEFORE AND SHE SAID SHE FIGURED IT WOULD MEAN FREE DRINKS SO SHE DECIDED TO GO. • · f~;i1191 .._ SAID THAT SHE AND THE SUSPECTS ' DRANK FOR ABOUT FIFTEEN MINUTES . AT HER BOYFRIEND'S HOUSE PRIOR TO LEAVING . illli,_;fil SAID THAT SHE DRANK A FEW SHOTS OF EITHER TEQUILLA OR VODKA BEFORE THEY LEFT . ONCE IN THE CAR, If~ SAID THAT SHE HAD ABOUT FIVE BEERS AND SHE WENT ON TO TELL ME THAT SHE BECAME VERY DRUNK. I ASKED flilalll WHICH OF THE TWO SUSPECTS WAS DRIVING THE,, .CAR AND SHE printed by Emp.loyee Id #: 8557 on ,C:Jlf>.r i.1 25, 2016 11:05:24AM CERTIFIED TO·l?E A TRUE COPY RIC k BRADSHAW, SHERIFF http://oqs.pbso.org/index.cfm ?fa=dspCase&fromrec= 1 &srhta=e0c5956785e628dd-4CFE5... 4/25/2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 22 GM_00761 OQS - Viewing Case Number 98041883 Page 6 of20 PALM BEACH SUPPLEMENT 2 SHER IF F' S OFFICE PAGE 2 NO. 98041883 SE REPORT CASE NO. 98041883 DISPOSITION: OPEN REPLIED "KEVIN" (UNKNOWN LAST NAME). SHE AND THE TWO SUSPECTS ARRIVED AT A WOODED AREA IN CALLED "WOODSIES". I ASKED FOR A DESCRIPTION OF KEVIN'S CAR AID THE CAR HAD "NORMAL "LIKE VELVET, WHICH INDICATES THEY PROBAB RE CLOTH SEATS. SAID THAT SHE DID NOT KNOW THE MAKE OR MODJilI,<OF THE CAR, BUT SHE THAT IT WAS AN OLDER CAR, EITHER PURPLE OR MAROON IN COLOR. DID NOT KNOW IF IT WAS A TWO DOOR OF FOUR DOOR OR ANY OTHER INFORMATION. FOR A DESCRIPTION OF KEVIN AND SHE SAIO THAT HE IS A WHITE ELY TWENTY-THREE YEARS OF AGE, LONG BLONDE HA.IR, MODERATELY OXIMATELY 5'11, WITH A DIRTY BLONDE GOATEE AND DIRTY BLONDE SAID THAT THE SUSPECT NEVER MENTIONED A PLACE OF E DURING THEIR CONVERSATION. AT THIS TIME SAID SHE DID NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE ER 2 BECAUSE SHE IS CLOSE FRIENDS WITH HIS BROTHER ULD JEOPARDIZE THAT FRIENDSHIP. AT "THE WOODSIES" liflli11il~!illl!l SAID THAT SHE PASSED OUT. WHEN SHE AWOKE, SHE WAS LYING ON THE FRONT SEAT OF KEVIN'S CAR WITH HER PANTS AROUND HER ANKLES AND SUSPEQT NUMBER 2 (THE UNIDENTIFIED SUSPECT) ON TOP OF HER ENGAGING IN FORCED rVAGINAL INTERCOURSE. f:i;~f::;ij SAID THAT KEVIN (SUSPECT WAS ATTEMPTING TO .FORCE HER TO PERFORM ORAL SEX ON HIM. INTERCOURSE ON HER. I ASKED SEX ON HER AS SHE PREVIOUSLY WOULD TAKE TURNS FORCING VAGINAL ABOUT SUSPECT NUMBER 1 FORCING ORAL AND SHE SAID THAT HE FORCED THE HEAD OF HIS PENIS IN HER MOUTH. iii&lifl SAID THAT SHE TOLD THE SUSPECTS THAT SHE WAS TIRED AND THAT SHE DID NOT WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS ACTIVITY. [ '.i.["7,~:::1 WENT ON TO TELL ME THAT SHE WAS HAVING HER PERIOD DURING THE ASSAULT AND SHE REMEMBERS WAKING UP AND FINDING HER PANTS AROUND HER ANKLES AND SHE HAD A FEMININE PAD INSIDE OF HER. SAID THAT SHE REMEMBERS TELLING THE SUSPECTS SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF "YOU'RE HAVING SEX WITH ME ILE I'M ON MY PERIOD AND THAT'S GROSS". I ASKED lf,~ffflmt1J~! IF THE SUSPECTS SAID ANYTHING WHILE THIS WAS HAPPENING SHE THEN SAID THAT SHE REMEMBERS THEM SAYING SOMETHING STUPID LIKE, ARE YOU HAVING FUN BABY. tyi;~\¾1Jji'iiJw'i~i:i ALSO SAID KEVIN WOULD LAUGH AND MAKE STUPID COMMENTS TO HER DURING THE ASSAULT. I ASKED SHE SAID THEY DID NOT. INSIDE OF HER. FIVE TO SEVEN HOURS. ITHER OF THE SUSPECTS USED PROTECTION AND S UNSURE IF EITHER.OF THE SUSPECTS ESTIMATED THAT THE AS AULT PROBABLY REPORTED THAT KEVIN (SUSPECT #1) FORCED SE INTERCOURSE WITH HER AT LEASTONE TIME, BUT WAS UNSURE OF ANY ADDITIONAL ENCOUNTERS. SAID<.THAT #2 (UNIDENTIFIED SUSPECT) FORCED SEXUAL I.NTERCOURSE printed by Employee Id#: 8557 on April CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE COPY RIC LBRADSHAW, SHERIFF http://oqs.pbso.org/index.cfm?fa=dspCase&fromrec= 1 &srhta=e0c5956785e628dd-4CFE5. .. 4/25/2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 22 GM_00762 OQS - Viewing Case Number 98041883 Page 7 of20 PALM BEACH SUPPLEMENT 2 SHER IF F' S OFFICE PAGE 3 NO. 98041883 SE REPORT CASE NO. 98041883 DISPOSITION: OPEN ON HER MORE THAN TWICE. THE WOODED AREA, RETURNED WITH SUSPECT #2 RESIDENCE WHERE HE HAD SEXUAL INTERCOUR H 11 1111 SUSPECT #2 THAT IT WAS HER TURN, (MEANING SHE S TO BE ON TOP DURING INTERCOURSE) . ~~t'~(~;,t;:~jfl)j TOLD HIM SHE WAS TO() ... TIIIBD TO DO ANYTHING. SAID THAT SUSP~CT 12 PARENTS AND BROTHER'WERE HOME AT THE TIME OF THE EN<::()UNTER AT HIS RESIDENCE. ,,''}'13:01 '.·•\; SAID THAT HE~ FRIEND (SUSPECT #2' S BROTHER) SAW HER INSIDE OF THE RESIDENCE IN THE MORNING. I ~~KE!) [::,u:;;:z;d IF SHE TOLD ANYONE WHAT HAPPENED A!-1[)$1lE SAID SHE TOLD HER\BOYFRIEND THAT SHE HAD CONSENTED TO SEXUAL INTERCOURSE SUSPECTS. I ASKED ITEMS BACK FROM.KEVIN'S CAR. SHE SAID SHE IS MISSING A CLE PURSE WITH BLACK T WHICH CONTAINED MAKEUP AND OTHER PERSON DOES NO ER IF ANY OF HER CLOTHES WERE LEFT IN KEVIN)$ CAR. IN CONCLUDING THE INTERVIEW, I ASKED IF ANYTHING ELSE HAPPENED THAT WE DID NOT DISCUSS AND SHE SAID "THEY PERFORMED ORAL SEX ON ME". I ASKED j;::~&- IF BOTH SUSPECTS DID THIS AND SHE REPLIED "KEVIN DID, I DON'T REMEMBER IF JOSH DID" . WITH THAT LAST QUOTE, INADVERTENTLY IDENTIFIED SUSPECT NUMBER #2 AS JOSH. AT THE TIME NAME, SHE DID NOT REALIZE IT. I ASKED 11::']l]II ABOUT THE BEER THE SUSPECTS GAVE HER AND SHE SAID THAT THEY GAVE HER FIVE BOTTLES OF BEER AND SHE SAID IT WAS EITHER MICHELOB OR BUSCH. I ASKED (11.,::':..f:JI IF THE SUSPECTS GAVE HER ANY DRUGS AND SHE REPLIED "MARIJUANA". I ASKED HER WHO GAVE HER MARIJUANA AND SHE REPLIED "JOSH". ft.;,i.&~,.ffB THEN REALIZED THAT SHE HAD IDENTIFIED JOSH AS THE OTHER SUSPECT AND SHE BECAME VERY UPSET WITH HERSELF AND STARTED TO CRY. I ASKED HOW MUCH POT SHE SMOKED AND SHE A COUPLE OF JOINTS. THIS CONCLUDED THE INTERVIEW AND I SWORE IN AGAIN AFTER THE INTERVIEW TO CONFIRM THAT ALL THE INFORMATION SHE HAD GIVEN WAS THE TRUTH AND SHE SWORE THAT IT WAS. ON 4-1-98 AT 1515HRS, I SPOKE WITH MRS. ABOUT MY INTERVIEW WITH ;;,1r~;i;;zcft\l\1llj; I ASKED HER IF SHE COULD PROVIDE • s BOYFRIEND• s NAME AND SHE SAID THAT SHE WOULD FIND HIS NAME AND CALL ME BACK. AT 1535HRS ON 4-1-98, MRS. I?I}t~:t;'\%;r,\.(1 CALLED ME BACK WITH .. ,."' BOYFRIEND'S NAME. MRS . [:;'. •t.'..~j SAID HIS NAME IS TONY FIGUEROA AND HIS PHONE NUMBER IS 792-9076. MRS. ;irj:fj~~:~ ALSO SPOKE ABOUT HER DAUGHTER'S PAST DRUG ABUSE AND ALSO HOW MANY KIDS IN ROYAL PALM BEACH ARE INVOLVED IN DRUGS, WITCHCRAFT AND ANIMAL SACRIFICE . MRS . ~tfn{J'fi'if SAID THAT SHE HAS ATTEMPTED TO DISCUSS THE DRUG PROBLEM WITH THE PRINCIPAL AT ROYAL printed by Employee Id#: 8557 on lO ,..,~ERTIFIED o._ A TRUE COP L .. vBRAD....,HAW 0 . Y , SHERIFF http://oqs.pbso.org/index.cfm ?fa=dspCase&fromrec= 1 &srhta=e0c5956785e628dd-4CFE5 .. . 4/25/2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 22 GM_00763 OQS - Viewing Case Number 98041883 Page 8 of20 PALM BEACH COU SHER IF F' S OFFICE PAGE 4 NO. 98041883 SUPPLEMENT 2 0 F SE REPORT CASE NO. 98041883 DISPOSITION: OPEN BEACH HIGH SCHOOL AND SHE SAID THAT SHE HAS.HAD LITTLE SUCCESS IN CONVINCING PRINCIPAL THERE IS A PROBLEM. FURTHER FOLLOW UP INVESTIGATION ON THIS WILL BE FORTHCOMING, THEREFORE CASE REMAI:N$ CLASSIFIED AS OPEN . .... ARNOLD/3553 RAMti:REZ/4213/4-21-98 printed by Emp1oyee 7 on Apri1 25, 2016 11:05:24AM CERTIFIED ··\'[:: ? ·r: r':\u. E COPY EL. A " SHERIFF http://oqs.pbso.org/index.cfm?fa=dspCase&fromrec=l&srhta=eOc5956785e628dd-4CFE5... 4/25/2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 22 GM_00764 OQS - Viewing Case Number 98041883 Page 9 of20 P A L M B E A C H C O U N ·T Y S H E R I F F' S O F F I C E PAGE c,l CASE NO. 98041883 SUPPLEMENT 3 0 FF ENS E REPORT CASE NO. 98041883 SIGNAL CO ZONE: B71 C O N F I D E N T?.I .A L * * CRIME CODE: NON CRIME CODE: DEPUTY I.D.: 3553 NAME: ARNOLD DATE: 02/28/98 , 1630 HOURS AND DATE: DISPOSITION: OPEN DIVISION: DETECTIVE * 06/16/98 SATURDAY SSIST: TIMED 1603 A 1618 C 1705 , 0000 HOURS EXCEPTION TYP INCIDENT LOCATION: APT. NO.: CITY:.c· STATE: ZIP:Y' _:;:-+ ? NO. OFFENSES: 01 NO . :COFFENDERS: 02 NO. LOCATION: PARK / WOODLANDS ;j .FIELD VEHICLES STOLEN: 0 NO. PREM~•SES ENTERED : 0 NO . VICTIMS: 01 NO. ARRESTED :'· 0 FORCED ENTRY: 0 WEAPON TYPE: HANDS/ FI~TS / FEET OFFENSE NO. 1 FLORIDA STATE STATUTE: 794 011 CIS CODE 110A INVESTIGATIVE EFFORTS TO IDENTIFY THE LAST NAME OF SUSPECTS IN THIS CASE HAVE MET WITH NEQ\.TIVE .cRESULTS AT THIS TIME. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT IT IS DIFFICULT TO MAKE CQNTACT WITH THE VICTIM BECAUSE SHE IS HOUSED AT A CONFIDENTIAL/LOCATION AND CALLS TO THE PATIENTS ARE STRICTLY Lfi.tl:TED. FURTHER INVESTIGATION WILL BE ,,FORTHCOMING. DET. ARNOLD/3553 '' RAMIREZ/4213/6-29-98 printed .by, Enq,loyee Id #: 8557 on April 25, 2016 ll:05:24AM. .. . CERTIFIED ·•• TO BE A TRUE COPY RI.C Ls .. 8HADSHAW, SHERIFF http://oqs.pbso.org/index.cfm ?fa=dspCase&fromrec= 1 &srhta=e0c5956785e628dd-4CFE5. .. 4/25/2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 22 GM_00765 OQS - Viewing Case Number 98041883 Page 10 of20 PALM BEACH SUPPLEMENT 4 CO U NZT Y SHER IF F' S 0 F F 'E NS E REPORT 0 F F I C E PAGE;;.,:,, - 1 , CASE NO. 98041883 CASE NO. 98041883 911: N DISPOSITION : OPEN DIVISION : DETECTIVE SEXUAL BATTERY SIGNAL CODEC: CRIME CODE: * CONFIDENT I . AL * NON CRIME CODE: * SATURDAY ZONE: B71 ID: DEPUTY I.D.: 3553 NAME: ARNOLD OCCURRED BETWEEN DATE: 02/28/98 , 1630 HOURS AND DATE : EXCEPTION TYPE: INCIDENT LOCATION: CITY:· STATE : ,. '; .';'.;_: ."" APT. ;NO.: ZIP: TIMED 1603 A 1618 C 1705 HOURS NO . OFFENSES : 01 No : ;.,QFFENDERS: 02 NO . VEHICLES STOLEN: 0 NO . PREMISES ENTERED : 0 LOCATION : PARK / WOODLANDS,,/;., ,FIELD NO . VICTIMS: 01 NO . ARRESTJ/:~_:' 0 FORCED ENTRY: 0 WEAPON TYPE : HANDS / FISTS OFFENSE NO. 1 FLORIDA STATE ST~ TUTE: 794 011 CIS CODE 110A /, (:(.:)\;·'° _, WHILE CONDUCTING FOLLOW UP INVESTIGATION IN AN ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN TUE LAST NAMES OF THE SUSPE:CTS IN THIS CASE, I WAS REFERRED TO A SUBJECT B't THE NAME OF NICHOLAS SILVAGE AS THE PERSON WHO MIGHT KNOW THE LAST NAME OF A SUBJECT IDENTIFIED ONLY.,~ /,JOSH IN THE REPORT. ON 7-29- 98, I RESPONDElYTO THE MCDONALDS RESTAURANT IN ROYAL PALM BEACH WHERE I MADE CONTACT WITH NIC:HOLAS SILVAGE (7 - 6-81). I ASKED SILVAGE IF HE WAS FAMILIAR WITH ANY SUBJ:i;:_CTS BY THE NAME OF JOSH. HE INDICATED THAT HE KNEW A SUBJECT BY THE NAME OF ''JOSH BUNNER . SILVAGE INDICATED THAT JOSH WAS APPROXIMATELY EIGHTEEN YEARS OF Ag E -,,AND THAT HE IS APPROXIMATELY SIX FEET TALL , 180LBS . PALMS SHOWS A LAST KNOWN ADDRESS OF 15396 SAN DIEGO DR. FOR JOSH'S BROTHER, NICHOLAS BUNNER . ~11'FORST WILL BE MADE TO ATTEMPT TO LOCATE AND INTERVIEW JOSH BUNNER IN REGARDS''TO THIS INVESTIGATION . PRIOR TO SPEAKING TO BUNNER THOUGH, I AM ATTEMPTINp . !,cf OBTAIN A PHOTO OF HIM SO I CAN PRESENT A PHOTO LINEUP TO THE VICTIM To ' co~IRM THAT THIS IS THE PERPETRATOR OF HER CRIME BEFORE HE IS INTERVI.EWED IN REGARDS TO THE ALLEGATIONS . FURTHER INVESTIGATIVE LEADS WILL ~E FORTHCOMING, THEREFORE CASE REMAINS CLASSIFIED AS OPEN. DET i ARNOLD/3553 RAMIREZ/;4213/8-6-98 printed by Employee Id # : ' 855 7 on Apri l 2 5 , 2 016 11 :05 : 2 4AM .. CERTIFIED JTO BE A TRUE COPY RIC L ~RADS HAW, SHERIFF http://oqs.pbso.org/index.cfm ?fa=dspCase&fromrec= 1 &srhta=e0c5956785e628dd-4CFE5 .. . 4/25/2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 22 GM_00766 OQS - Viewing Case Number 98041883 Page 11 of 20 PALM BEACH COU SUPPLEMENT 5 0 F SHER IF F' S OFFICE PAGE 1 NO. 98041883 SE REPORT CASE NO. 98041883 DISPOSITION: OPEN DIVISION: DETECTIVE 911: N L SEXUAL BATTERY SIGNAL CODE: CRIME CODE: * C O N F I D E N NON CRIME CODE: * * WEDNESDAY ZONE: B71 GRID: DEPUTY I.D.: 3553 NAME: ARNOLD DATE: 02/28/98 , 1630 HOURS AND DATE: TIMED 1603 A 1618 C 1705 OCCURRED BE HOURS EXCEPTION TYP: INCIDENT LOCATION: STATE: APT. ZIP NO. OFFENSES: 01 NO. OFFENDERS: 02 NO. VEHICLES STOLEN: 0 NO. PREMISES ENTERED: 0 LOCATION: PARK/ WOODLAND~)fFIELD NO. VICTIMS: 01 NO. ARRESTED: 0 FORCED ENTRY: 0 WEAPON TYPE: HANDS/ FEET OFFENSE NO. 1 FLORIDA STATE 794 011 CIS CODE 110A ON AUGUST 11, 1998 AT APPROXIMATELY 1800 HOURS I RESPONDED TO CONFIDENTIAL LOCATION), WHERE I MADE CONTACT WITH f1ffli\,i!~:,:i~ IN REGARDS TO SHOWING HER A PHOTO LINEUP OF A POSSIBLE SUSPECT IN HER SEXUAL BATTERY CASE. I PRESENTED r,~-_;:::Y;-~ A PHOTO LINEUP CONTAINING SIX YOUNG WHITE MALES AND ASKED HER IF THE PERTETRATOR OF HER CRIME WAS IN THIS PHOTO LINEUP AND ~~:\.: , ll IMMEDIATELY BECAME EMOTIONALLY UPSET AND POINTED TO THE SUBJECT IN THE NUMBER FOUR POSITION OF THE PHOTO LINEUP. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE SUBJECT IN POSITION NUMBER FOUR OF THE PHOTO LINEUP IS JOSHUA B. BUNNER (WHITE MALE, 10/02/79). BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE VICTIM HAS MADE A POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION THAT JOSH BUNNER IS ONE OF THE SUBJECTS THAT RAPED HER ON OR ABOUT FEBRUARY 1, 1998, I WILL T TO LOCATE BUNNER AND CONDUCT AN INTERVIEW WITH HIM IN REGARDS TO THIS CA OCATED AND AN INTERVIEW IS CONDUCTED, THE PEN. BART ARNOLD ID #3553 08/17/98/DAW/#3495 printed by Employee IS REMAIN CLASSIFIED AS RIC on April 25, 2016 11:05:24AM OeRTIFIED A TRUE COPY DSHAW, SHERIFF http://oqs.pbso.org/index.cfm?fa=dspCase&fromrec=l&srhta=eOc5956785e628dd-4CFE5... 4/25/2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 22 GM_00767 OQS - Viewing Case Number 98041883 Page 12 of 20 PALM BE AC H COUNT~ SHER IF F' S OFFICE PAGE .1 CASE NO. 98041883 SUPPLEMENT 6 0 FF ENS E REPORT CASE NO. 98041883 CONFIDE N T: I AL SEXUAL BATTERY * * SIGNAL CODE: CRIME CODE: NON CRIME CODE: ZONE: B71 Gl:UD: DEPUTY I.D.: 3553 NAME: ARNOLD OCCURRED BETWEEN DATE: 02/28/98 , 1630 HOURS AND DATE: EXCEPTION TYPE: INCIDENT LOCATION: CITY: · STATE: DISPOSITION: OPEN APT . . NO.: ZIP:t DIVISION: DETECTIVE * WEDNESDAY TIMED 1603 A 1618 C 1705 HOURS NO . OFFENSES: 01 No .<:oFri:NDERS: 02 NO. VEHICLES STOLEN: 0 NO. PREMISES ENTERED: 0 LOCATION: PARK / WOODIAND~,;'/ ,,FIELD NO. VICTIMS: 01 NO. ARRES;TED :·· 0 FORCED ENTRY: 0 WEAPON TYPE: HANDS / FISTS/ FEET OFFENSE NO. 1 FLORIDA STATE 794 011 CI$ CODE 110A AS REPORTED IN THE/PREVIOUS SUPPLEMENT, MADE A POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION THATJOSH BUNNER WAS ONE OF THE SUBJECTS THAT RAPED HER ON/OR ABOUT MARIJH 1ST, 1998. THE PBSO PALMS COMPUTER SHOWED A CURRENT ADDRESS OF BUNNER FOR. 1§396 SANDIEGO DR. IN LOXAHATCHEE. ON 8-13-98, I RESPONDEb. TOTHAT ADDRESS IN AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE CONTACT WITH BUNNER. THERE WAS A LOCKED ~:rE AND NO ONE APPEARED TO BE HOME. I CONTACTED PBSO DISPATCH TO SEE,,.IF THEY COULD FIND A NUMBER FOR THE RESIDENCE AND THIS MET WITH NEGATIVE RESULTS. I LEFT MY BUSINESS CARD AT THE RESIDENCE WITH A NOTE TO HAVE JOSH CALL ME AT THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE. ON 8-17-98 AT APPPROXIMATELY 3 :30PW; I AGAIN RESPONDED TO 15396 SANDIEGO DR. IN AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE CONTACT WITH JOSHUA BUNNER AND THIS TIME I WAS SUCCESSFUL. I ASKED JOSH IF HE"WO)JLD BE WILLING TO SPEAK WITH ME IN REGARDS TO AN ONGOING SHERIFF'S OFFft:~~f? J:NVESTIGATION AND HE AGREED TO DO THIS. I TOLD JOSH THAT HE WAS NOT REQUIRED JO BE SUBJECT TO THIS INTERVIEW AND IF HE DECIDED TO CONDUCT THE INTERVIEW HE COULD TERMINATE THE INTERVIEW AT ANY TIME. PRIOR TO GOING ON TAPE, :I ONLY ASKED JOSH BUNNER ABOUT .HIS FRIEND KEVIN AND ABOUT ANY TYPE OF HOBBIES THAT HE AND THOMSPON ENGAGE IN TOGETHER. AT 3:48PM, I INITIATED A TAPED INTERVIEW WITH JOSH BUNNER INSIDE OF MY UNMARKED VEHICLE PARKED IN THE FRONT OF BUNNER'S RESIDENCE AT 15396 SANDIEGO DR.. AGAIN, I TOLD JOSH THAT HE COULD TERMINATE THE INTERVIEW ANY TIME THA~.HE WANTED TO AND GO BACK INSIDE OF HIS HOUSE. ·\ rOS_H SAID THAT HE UNDERSTOOD T~IS. printed by Emp.loyee Id#: 8557 on .. Api i.l 25, 2016 11:05:24AM ------------------------------- ----------------------·--~~~--- ------------------- \ ... CERTIFIED ' ro BE A TRUE COPY RIC½· BRADSHAW, SHERIFF http://oqs.pbso.org/index.cfm?fa=dspCase&fromrec=l&srhta=eOc5956785e628dd-4CFE5... 4/25/2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 22 GM_00768 OQS - Viewing Case Number 98041883 Page 13 of 20 P A L M B E A C H C O U N r T Y S H E R I F F' S O F F I C E PAGE / 2 CASE NO . 98041883 SUPPLEMENT 6 0 F F i E N S E R E P O R T CASE NO. 980 .. 41883 DISPOSITION : OPEN JOSH TOLD ME THAT HE HAS KNOWN KEVIN,•. THOMPSON FOR ABOUT TWO YEARS. I ASKED BUNNER IF HE KNEW A GIRL BY THE NAME 0 CONFIRMED THAT HE DID. I ASKED BUNNER HOW HE< 'THAT, HE KNEW HER AS A FRIEND AND HE WENT ON TO SAY THAT THEY (BUNNER AND KEVJ:N\ THOMPSON) TOOK HER OUT DRINKING. I TOLD BUNNER THAT illiilll{~ttfl HAD MADE ALLEGATIONS THAT SEXUAL ACTIVITY OCCURR]j:D BETWEEN SHE, BUNNER AND THOMPSON AND THAT THIS.<SEXUAL ACTIVITY WAS NOT CONSENSUAL ON HER PART AND JOSH BUNNER REPLIED ' "THAT'S NOT TRUE". I ASKED HIM ,IF IT WAS CONSENSUAL AND HE REPLIED "YES". BUNNEF/ WENT ON TO TELL ME THAT THEY WERE DRINKING BEERS IN A WOODED AREA IN LO~TCHEE CALLED THE WHOOPTIES . JOSH INITI~L; SAID / !'HAT -•~ ROBBERT$ HADt;TW9 • OR THREE BEERS. JOSH ALSO SAID THAT e!:':~1 WAS PLAYING LIKE SHE WAS G9ING TO GO TO SLEEP WHILE THEY WERE IN THE WOODS';. I ASKED JOSH ..:BUNNER TO TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT AND HE SAID "WE HAD SEX':.BASICALLY" . I ASKED JOSH WHO HE MEANT BY SA)l:i:NG 'WE HAD SEX AND HE REPLIED "ALL OF US", REFERRING TO JOSH, KEVIN THOMPSbN AND l:f.iilill! - · I ASKED JOSH WHERE THIS HAPPENED AND HE REPLIED "IN. ' THE CAR". I ASKED JOSH BUNNER ABOUT HIS SEXUAL ENCOUNTER WITH f-IJilll!.;i . AND HE SAID "IT JUST HAPPENED, .,LIKE THAT, IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU PLAN FOR". I ASKED BUNNER IF HE USED ANY",PROTECTION AND HE SAID THEY USED A CONDOM. I ASKED BUNNER IF HE OR KEVIN .WAS 'l'HE FIRST ONE TO HAVE SEX WITH lfJ,ji~\1'11 AND HE SAID "THAT WOULD PROBABLY_,J 3E ME" . I ASKED BUNNER HOW THE SEXUAL ACTIVITY GOT STARTED AND HE REPLIED "SHE WAS DRINKING AND SHE WAS ABOUT TO.<,PASS OUT AND I SAID YOU CAN'T GO TO SLEEP, WE• RE STILL DRINKING BEERS/! : \1osH SAID - REPLIED II I , M GOING TO GO TO SLEEP" AND HE SAID "NO'f-<:. YOU CAN'T GO TO SLEEP" . JOSH SAID THAT P.i,_ SAID TO HIM SOMETHING TO Tf~E( EFFECT OF WHY DON'T YOU KEEP ME AWAKE. :i /' I ASKED BUNNER IF THEY WERE ABLE TO KEEP ~,;:s::wF] AWAKE AND HE SAID WAS AN INCENTIVE AT THE TIME, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING, IF YOU WERE IN SAME POSITION". I ASKED BUNNER IF THERE WAS ANY TALK PRIOR TO THE ACTUAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY ABOUT THEM HAVING SEXUAL RELATIONS AND HE SAID THERE WAS · NOT ANY TALK OF THAT. I ASKED BUNNER TO TELL .ME .EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED ABOUT HE · AND ~ HAVING SEX AND HE SAID "WE WERE HAVING INTERCOURSE BASICALLY" . I ASKED HIM WHERE THAT WAS AND HE REPLIED '"IN KEVIN'S CAR, IN THE FRONT SEAT II • I ASl_CEp , BUNNER HOW THEY WERE POSITIONED AND HE SAID IT WAS HARD TO DESCRIBE . 'HE SAID THAT KEVIN WAS IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT AND THAT · HE WAS IN THE PASSENGE,R SEAT AND THAT SHE <BIIIII> WAS IN THE MIDDLE. ' I ASKED BUNNER HOW HE WAS ABLE TO HAVE INTERCOURSE WITH g:}f.:~::t IN THAT ' POSITION p rinted b y Employee Id #: 8557 on Aj;)ri.1 11:05:24AM . . CERTIFIED . i O BE A TRUE COPY RIC l. B~ADSHAW, SHERIFF http://oqs.pbso.org/index.cfm ?fa=dspCase&fromrec= 1 &srhta=e0c5956785e628dd-4CFE5. .. 4/25/2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 22 GM_00769 OQS - Viewing Case Number 98041883 Page 14 of 20 th;;::-·· PALM BE AC H CO U ~TY SHER IF F'S OFFICE PAGE 3 CASE NO . 98041883 SUPPLEMENT 6 0 F F ,E N ' S E REPORT CASE NO. 98041883 DISPOSITION : OPEN AND HE SAID "LEANING OVER THE FRONT SEAT".,,,, ,AT THIS POINT, KEVIN ASKED T THIS (INTERVIEW) WAS ABOUT BEFORE WE CARRIED ON ANY FURTHER. I TOLD HIM HAT fi;, ,,, <;l;i}l!N MADE A REPORT THAT HE AND KEVIN · }W?ED HER AND I EXPLAINED I S .ATTEMPTING TO GET THE STATEMENTS FROM HE IN AS TO EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. AT THAT POINT, KEVIN TOLD ME THAT S SLEPT AROUND. • I ASKED BUNNER IF SHE (iJ!/£~;;/,,11) HAD CLOTHES AND HE SAID SHE HAD PANTS~ A SHIRT ON. I ASKED HIM HOW HE WAS ABLE TO HAVE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH HER WITH HER CLOTHES ON AND HE SAID THAT SHE TOOK THEM OFF . JOSH INDICATED i,.THAT l1illlllil WAS ON TOP OF HIM AT ONE POINT DURING THE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE\,.' I ASKED JOSH BUNNER WHAT KEVIN THOMPSON WASi D\)ING AT THAT POINT AND HE SAID "WATCHING". JOSH WENT ON TO TELL ME THAT "AT>NO POINT DID I HEAR No·, '< I ~ GUESS THAT'S THE IMPORTANT THING" . ,.f~?/:>\.-r: I ASKED <JOSH B,t1NNER WHAT HE WITNESSED BETWEEN KEVIN AND --AND HE SAID "THEY PRO,CE]j:DED TO HAVE INTERCOURSE, I GUESS SHE DIDN'T LJ;KE IT WITH KEVINSO THAT STOPPED PRETTY QUICKLY". I ASKED JOSH IF tr•~- TOLD, KEVIN RE ED SHE DID NOT . I ASKED JOSH WHAT HE MEANT BY THE STATEMENT ABOUT STOPPING THE SEX QUICKLY WITH KEVIN AND HE • REPLIED "I GUESS SHE HIM THE IMPRESSION THAT SHE DID NOT WANT TO HAVE INTERCOURSE WITH HIM, BUT .. SHE NEVER SAID NO, THAT'S THE MAIN THING THAT MATTERS. I NEVER HEARD NO OUT ,, OF HER MOUTH" . I ASKED JOSH HOW KEVIN AND --ENDED UP HAVING SEXUAL' INTERCOURSE AND HE REPLIED "I GUESS I JUST FINISHED AND THEY PROCEEDED". ,;, I ASKED JOSH BUNNER HOW KEVIN AND l1illlllil WERE POSITIONED AND HE SAID "AT ONE POINT , I GUESS - WAS FACING HIM, BUT THEN THEY WERE ON THE SEAT AND THEY WERE AT AN ANGLE TOWARDS; <.THE STEERING WHEEL I GUESS" . I ASKED JOSH IF KEVIN THOMPSON FORCED INTERCOURSE ON ill/!1111 AND HE REPLIED "NO" . I ASKED HIM IF HE WAS '$URE AND HOW HE KNEW THAT AND HE SAID "BECAUSE ONCE SHE GAVE UP, HE DION' T WANT/•~ORE TO DO WITH IT , HE KNEW THAT SHE DION' T WANT HIM" . '•: /i I ASKED JOSH IF IIE:~• HAD SEX WITH!'Hl!l AND KEVIN AT THE SAME TIME HE SAID "NO". I ASKED JOSH IF HE SAW KEVIN .·'AND ~:;:,-~.,,:•,:; HAVING ORAL AND HE SAID "NO". I ASKED JOSH WHAT HIS DEFINITION OF SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WAS AND HE SAID "PENIS FLOWING THROUGH THE VAGINA". . I . ASKED JOSH WHAT HIS DEFINITION OF ORAL SEX WOULD BE AND HE SAID " CARESSING . PRIVATE PARTS". I TOLD ~OSH WHEN I USED THE TERM ORAL SEX THAT I MEAN IN REGARDS TO A FEMALE WOULD. BE HER PUTTING HER MOUTH ON A PENIS AND IN REGARDS TO A MALE IT WOULD BE HIM PUTTING HIS MOUTH ON A VAGINA. I ASKED HIM IF HE UNDERSTOOD THAT AND HE SAID THA;r' HE DID . I ASKED JOSH IF ~--, PERFORMED ORAL;:SEX ON KEVIN AND HE REPLIED "NO" . I ASKED JOSH IF KEVIN PERFORMED ORAL SEX ON miWJfJ;J1 AND HE REPLIED "NOi 1 • ,,, , I ASKED JOSH IF l1illlllil PERFORMED ORAL SEX; ON HIM AND HE REPLIED "NO" . I ASKED JOSH IF HE PERFORMED ORAL SEX ON !,'::]$:~111~1 AND HE pri nte d by Emp1oyee Id#: 8557 on CERTIFIED , . TO BE A TRUE COPY RICL BRADSHAW, SHERIFF http://oqs.pbso.org/index.cfm?fa=dspCase&fromrec=l&srhta=eOc5956785e628dd-4CFE5... 4/25/2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 22 GM_00770 OQS - Viewing Case Number 98041883 Page 15 of20 PALM BE AC H COUNTY SHER IF F'S 0 F F I C E PAGE ·•·. • 4 NO . 98041883 SUPPLEMENT 6 0 F FE NS E REPORT CASE NO. 980,~1883 DISPOSITION: OPEN REPLIED NO . I WENT OFF TAPE AT 4:06PM TO LOOK OVER THE .REPORT. I WENT BACK ON TAPE 4:09PM AND I DID NOT ASK JOSHBUNNER ANY QUESTIONS OFF TAPE AND WHEN WERE BACK ON TAPE I ASKED HIM IF THIS WAS TRb:\f AND HE CONFIRMED THAT NO Q~l;lTIONS WERE ASKED OFF TAPE. I ALSO RE-CONFIRMED/ WITH JOSH BUNNER THAT HE COULD TERMINATE THE INTERVIEW AT ANY TIME. I ASKED JOSH BUNNER IF HE REMEMBERED HE AND KEVIN fICKING UP ~ flt,~!fl~- AT ,-1:IER BOYFRIEND ' S HOUSE AND HE DID NOT REMEMBER . I _ASKED JOSH IF HE SAID EARLIERi IN THIS INTERVIEW THAT VIRGININA ALMOST PASSED 'SJUT AND HE SAID "NO, SHE!: ACTING LIKE SHE WAS GOING TO GO TO SLEEP". I ASKED JOSH BUNNER IF fllll11BI• r;.: tikriil~ APPEARED INTOXICATED AND HE sAID nyi;:s, :i: G~s~ so" . I AGAIN AsKEq :"$-q"s'ii' 'IF HE REMEMBERED HOW MANY BEERS !~ !.illl HAD<AND HE REPLIED NO. I ALSO ASKED JOSH IF HE KNEW HOW OLD WAS AND HE REPLIED NO. I ASKED JOSH IF HE HAD ANY RECOLLECTION IF WAS ON HER PERIOD ;AND HE SAID HE HAD NO RECO!.LECTION. I ASKED JOSH BUNNER '·HOW MANY TIMES HE HAD SEXUAL INTERCOURSE H ·,. r~r:;1111 liti;,~·.:;;i~ AND Hf ,;REPLIED "TWICE". HE SAID ONE (ECNOUNTER) HAPPENti::>' IN THE FRONT SEAT AND ONE (ENCOUNTER) HAPPENED IN HIS ROOM AT HIS HOUSE AFTER THEY LEFT THE WOODED AREA . JOSH BUNNER THEN SAID "MAY''-I ASK WHAT THIS IS ABOUT". I REMINDED ,,_,,(;,,· ;,·- JOSH THAT I HAD ANSWERED THAT ' QUESTION EARLIER AND I AGAIN WENT ON TO TELL HIM THAT -~.;.,~ - REPORTED {,THAT SHE WAS RAPED BY HE AND KEVIN THOMPSON . I ASKED JOSH IF HE REMEMBERED ME TELLING HIM THAT EARLIER IN THE INTERVIEW AND HE REPLIED "I REMEMBER NOW, I HAVE A BAD MEMORY". AGAIN , I ASKED JOSH BUNNER IF HE:tHAD ANY MEMORY OF KEVIN FORCING SEXUAL INTERCOURSE ON ~#JI AND HE SAID "NO, I WAS PRETTY INTOXICATED MYSELF, EVERYBODY WAS INTOXICATED". :(::ASKED JOSH IF KEVIN COULD HAVE FORCED INTERCOURSE ON --AND HE SAID ,i3i CAN'T SAY YES AND I CAN'T SAY NO, I WAS OUT OF THE CAR SOME OF THE TIME' ' . I TOLD JOSH THAT Mi.~11 REPORTED THAT TH,E:t RETURNED TO HIS HOUSE AND SEXUAL INTERCOURSE IN HIS ROOM AND HE CONFIRMED THAT THIS WAS TRUE. I SKED JOSH HOW --LEFT HIS RESIDENCE AND ,HE SAID SHE WENT ON THE BUS WITH ''.HIS BROTHER. I WENT OFF TAPE AT 4:07PM TO REVIEW MY REPORT. I WAS BicK, ON TAPE AT 4 : 18PM AND I ASKED JOSH ON TAPE IF 'r•D ASKED HIM ANY QUESTIONS OFF TAPE·' AND HE REPLIED "NO SIR" . I . TOLD JOSH BUNNER THAT [/]!l&:'11 REPORTED THAT THEY • SMOKED POT AND THAT THEY SMOKED ONE OR TWO JOINTS AND I ASKED HIM IF HE REMEMBERED HOW MANY THEY SMOKED ANp ,, HE SAID "NO". I ASKED HIM IF IT WOULD HAVE BEE:N _AT LEAST ONE (JOINT) AND HE REPLIED "I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER SMOKING POT". I ,TOLD JOSH BUNNER THAT 9l811■ SAID THAT THEY HAD SMOKED TWO JOINTS AND <iI ASKED IF HE REMEMBERE ' THAT AND HE SAID "NO" . JOSH MADE THE STATEMENT " I MAYBE printed by En;>.loyee Id#: 8557 on Apri.l 2 5 ,:,,2016 11:05 :24AM CERTIFIED . TO BE A TRUE COPY RIG L §RADSHAW, SHERIFF http://oqs.pbso.org/index.cfm?fa=dspCase&fromrec=l&srhta=eOc5956785e628dd-4CFE5... 4/25/2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 22 GM_00771 OQS - Viewing Case Number 98041883 Page 16 of 20 PALM BEACH COU SUPPLEMENT 6 0 F SHER IF F' S OFFICE PAGE 5 NO. 98041883 SE REPORT CASE NO. 98041883 DISPOSITION: OPEN REMEMBER SMOKING A BOWL, A PIPE". I ASKED JOSH IF THE BOWL OR PIPE HAD MARIJUANA IN IT AND HE REPLIED YES. I ASKED JOS REMEMBERED IF KEVIN SMOKED ANY OF THE MARIJUANA AND HE REPLIED "I URE HE DID". I ASKED JOSH IF THIS WAS BEFORE OR AFTER THE SEXUAL INTERCO AND HE REPLIED "PROBABLY PRIOR TO ENDING THE INTERVIEW, I TRIED TO ASK JOSH SOME "CLEAN UP" QUESTIQ~S. I ASKED JOSH IF THE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE BETWEEN HE AND WAS FORCED;AND HE REPLIED NO. I ASKED HIM HOW MANY BEERS HE HAD THAT AND REPLIED ?'ABOUT EIGHT OR NINE". I ASKED JOSH IF HE REMEMBERED HOW LONG THEY WERE OUT IN THE WOODS AND HE REPLIED NO. I SAID THAT INDICATED THEY WERE THE FIVE HOURS. I ASKED JOSH IF THAT RIGHT AND HE ED "NO, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN AN HOUR OR TWO" AFTER T INT VIEW, JOSH WENT INSIDE AND SPOKE TO HIS FA JOSH'S NFORMED ME THAT HE WANTED TO CONTACT JOSH'S ATTORNEY. IN THE MEANTIME, I PREVIOUSLY ASKED JOSH IF HE WOULD SHOW ME KEVIN THOMPSON'S HOUSE HE AGREED TO DO THIS. JOSH'S FATHER DROVE WITH US AS WE DROVE TO THE ACREAGE/AREA OF ROYAL PALM BEACH WHERE JOSH IDENTIFIED 12435 N. 52ND RD. AS BEING THE RESIDENCE OF KEVIN THOMPSON. AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED WITH KEVIN THOMSPON REGARDING THESE ALLEGATIONS. I AN AGREEMENT WITH RICK SAT~,<:I?HE ATTORNEY FOR JOSH BUNNER, THAT JOSH CAN TURN HIMSELF IN TO MYSELF.JI.T THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE ON MONDAY, 8-24-98 AT 2:30PM. PENDING FURTHER FOLLOW UP INVESTIGATION, CASE WILL REMAIN CLASSIFIED AS OPEN. DET. ARNOLD/3553/RAMIREZ/4213/8-26~98 CERTIFIED TO ee A TRUE COPY 8FVU)SHAW, SHERIFF http://oqs.pbso.org/index.cfm?fa=dspCase&fromrec=1&srhta=eOc5956785e628dd-4CFE5... 4/25/2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 22 GM_00772 OQS - Viewing Case Number 98041883 Page 17 of 20 PALM BEACH COU SHER IF F'S OFFICE PAGE 1 NO. 98041883 SUPPLEMENT 7 0 F SE REPORT CASE NO. 98041883 C O N F I D E N L * * DISPOSITION: CLEARED BY ARREST DIVISION: DETECTIVE * CRIME CODE: NON CRIME CODE: CODE: 110A 08/25/98 WEDNESDAY D: DEPUTY I.D.: 3553 NAME: ARNOLD BART TIMED 1603 A 1618 C 1705 OCCURRED BETWEEN DATE: 02/28/98 , 1630 HOURS AND DATE: 0000 HOURS EXCEPTION TYPE: INCIDENT LOCATION: STATE: APT. ZIP NO. OFFENSES: 01 NO.<OFFENDERS: 02 NO. VEHICLES STOLEN: 0 NO. PREMISES ENTERED: 0 LOCATION: PARK/ WOODLANDS FIELD NO. VICTIMS: 01 NO. ARRE$ 1 FORCED ENTRY: 0 WEAPON TYPE: HANDS/ F / FEET OFFENSE NO. 1 FLORIDA STATE 794 011 CIS CODE 110A ON 08/24/98, AT 1430 HOURS, I MET WITH JOSHUA BUNNER IN THE LOBBY .PF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE. JOSHUA BUNNER HAD COME TO TURN HIMSELF IN REGARDS TO PROBABLE CAUSE FOR HIS ARREST FOR A CHARGE OF LEWD ASSAULT UPON A UNDER 16 YEARS OF AGE. I TOOK;,JOSHUA UPSTAIRS WHERE PAPERWORK CONCERNING HIS ARREST WAS COMPLETED. JOSHUA WAS TRANSPORTED AND TURNED OVER TO THE PALM BEACH COUNTY JAIL. CASE IS CLEARED BY ARREST, BJ]T STILL REMAINS UNDER INVESTIGATION CONCERNING SUSPECT KEVIN THOMPSON, DET. BART ARNOLD (3553) / JP TRANS.,70.8/28/98 CERTIFIED BE A TRUE COPY BRADSHAW, SHERIFF http://oqs.pbso.org/index.cfm?fa=dspCase&fromrec=1&srhta=eOc5956785e628dd-4CFE5... 4/25/2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 22 GM_00773 OQS - Viewing Case Number 98041883 Page 18 of 20 PALM BE AC H COUNT<¥ SHER IF F' S OFFICE PAGE 1 NO. 98041883 SUPPLEMENT 8 0 FF/ENS E REPORT CASE NO. 98041883 * CRIME CODE: C O N F I D E N L * NON CRIME CODE: DEPUTY I.D.: 3553 NAME: ARNOLD OCCURRED BETWEEN DATE: 02/28/98 , 1630 HOURS AND DATE: EXCEPTION TYPE: DISPOSITION: CLEARED BY ARREST DIVISION: DETECTIVE * WEDNESDAY TIMED 1603 A 1618 C 1705 HOURS INCIDENT LOCATION: APT. NO.: STATE: ZIP: NO. OFFENSES: 01 NO. FFENDERS: 02 NO. VEHICLES STOLEN: 0 NO. PREMISES ENTERED: 0 LOCATION: PARK/ WOODLANDS./ .. FIELD NO. VICTIMS: 01 NO. ARRESTED: 1 FORCED ENTRY: 0 WEAPON TYPE: HANDS/ FEET OFFENSE NO. 1 FLORIDA STATE 794 011 CIS CODE 110A ON 9-3-98, I WAS FINALLY ABLE TO MAKE CONTACT WITH KEVIN P. THOMPSQN IN REGARDS TO THIS INVESTIGATION. I INFORMED KEVIN THAT I NEEDED TO SPEAK WITH HIM ABOUT A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND ASKED HIM WHEN HE WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO COME TO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE FOR AN INTERVIEW. THOMPSON INFORMED ME THAT HE WAS AVAILA;ILE ON THIS SAME DATE (9-3-98) AND WE AGREED TO MEET AT THE SHERIFF'.$ OFFICE AT 6:00PM. I MET WITH KEVIN THOMPSON AND/HIS FATHER IN A CONFERENCE ROOM AT THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AT APPROXIMATELY\6:00PM. I EXPLAINED TO MR. THOMPSON AND TO KEVIN THE ALLEGATIONS IN THIS .CASE CONCERNING THE FACT THAT ['.,:"Ji:] WAS REPORTING THAT §HE HAD BEEN RAPED BY KEVIN THOMPSON AND JOSHUA BUNNER. I ASKED KEVIN THOMPSON IF HE WOULD BE WILLING TO PROVIDE ME A STATEMENT IN REGARDS TO THESE ALLEGATIONS AND HE WAS AGREEABLE TO THIS. KEVIN'S FATHER, MR. THOMPSON WA$ JWSO IN AGREEMENT THAT KEVIN SHOULD PROVIDE A STATEMENT. MR. THOMPSON REQUESTED TO LEAVE THE BUILDING TO SMOKE !GARRETTE, DURING WHICH TIME I CONDUCTED A ED INTERVIEW WITH KEVIN OMPSON. PRIOR TO ASKING KEVIN THOMPSON THE FACTS CO CERNING THE ALLEGATIONS IN THIS)CASE, I READ HIM HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS AND HE CONFIRMED THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THOSE MIRANDA RIGHTS AND SIGNED A MIRANDA RIGHTS CARD. KEVIN THOMPSON ADMITTED THAT HE HAD ENGAGED IN SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH flflil!ilil'J!@llK lllifflfllllll ON OR ABOUT ~HE.DATE IN QUESTION AND THOMPSON ADMITTED THAT JOSHUA BUNNER WAS THERE ALSO. KEVIN THOMPSON INDICATED IN HIS INTERVIEW THAT THE SEXUAL ACTIVITY BETWEEN HE AND 111mr111111~111111 WAS CONSENSUAL NOT printed by Employee Id#: 8557 25, 2016 11:05:24l!M CERTIFIED BE A TRUE COPY L. E;HADSHAW, SHERIFF http://oqs.pbso.org/index.cfm ?fa=dspCase&fromrec= 1 &srhta=e0c5956785e628dd-4CFE5... 4/25/2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 22 GM_00774 OQS - Viewing Case Number 98041883 Page 19 of 20 PALM BEACH COU SHER IF F' S OFFICE PAGE 2 NO. 98041883 SUPPLEMENT 8 0 F FORCED AS REPORTED BY ON OR ABOUT 9-14-98, I CONFERRED VIN THOMPSON WAS TO BE PROCESSED BASED SE REPORT CASE NO. 98041883 DISPOSITION: CLEARED BY ARREST IGHBORS CONCERNING HOW ACT THAT HE WAS NOW AN ULT, BUT THAT HE WAS A JUVENILE AT THE TIME CRIME WAS COMMITTED. SGT\ NEIGHBORS INFORMED ME THAT THOMPSON SHOULD THEREFORE BE PROCESSED AS A JUVENILE. I ASKED SGT. NEIGHBORS IF IT WAS PERMISSIBLE TO PROCESS THOMPSON AT THE JAIL AND THEN RELEASE HIM TO HIS FATHER.<AND SGT. NEIGHBORS INFORMED ME. THAT THIS WAS OKAY. ON $"14.t-98, KEVIN THOMPSON WAS BROUGHT TO THE SHERIE'F' $/OFFICE BY HIS FATHER AND .. ALSO ATTORNEY MICHAEL SALNICK. I TOOK THOMPSON. TO THE JAIL WHERE HE WAS PHOTOGRAPHED AND PRINTED AND THEN RELEASED BACK TO)HIS FATHER'S CUSTODY. CASE REMAINS CLEARED BY ARREST. FOR VERBATIM STATEMENT OF KEVIN THOMPSON'S INTERVIEW, PLEASE TO THE VIDEO TAPE ON.JF!LE IN THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE EVIDENCE ROOM. DET. ARNOLD/3553 RAMIREZ/4213/9-30-98 printed by Emp1oyee Id#: 8557 on Apri1 CeRTIFIED T©E!E A 'f~UE COPY RIC L. BFU\OSHAVV, SHERIFF http:/ /oqs.pbso.org/index.cfm ?fa=dspCase&fromrec= 1 &srhta=e0c5956785e628dd-4CFE5 ... 4/25/2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 22 GM_00775 OQS - Viewing Case Number 98041883 Page 20 of20 PALM BEACH COU SHER IF F' S OFFICE PAGE 1 NO. 98041883 SUPPLEMENT 9 0 F SE REPORT CASE NO. 98041883 911: N C O N F I D E N SEXUAL BATTERY * * SIGNAL CODE/: CRIME CODE: NON CRIME CODE: ZONE: B71 GRID: DEPUTY I.D.: 3553 NAME: ARNOLD OCCURRED BETWEEN DATE: 02/28/98 , 1630 HOURS AND DATE: EXCEPTION TYPE: INCIDENT LOCATION: STATE: L APT. ZIP NO. OFFENSES: 01 NO. NDERS: 02 NO. VEHICLES STOLEN: 0 NO. DISPOSITION: CLEARED BY ARREST DIVISION: DETECTIVE * WEDNESDAY TIMED 1603 A 1618 C 1705 HOURS 0 LOCATION: PARK / WOODLAND~(/; FIELD NO. VICTIMS: 01 NO. ARRESTED: 1 FORCED ENTRY: 0 WEAPON TYPE: HANDS/ FEET OFFENSE NO. 1 FLORIDA STATE 794 011 CI$ CODE 110A I RECEIVED A LETTER>FROM ASA TERESA BOWMAN CONCERNING THE FILING DISPOSITION ON THIS CASE. BOWMAN'S LETTER SAID THAT THIS CASE IS NO DUE TO THE VICTIM'S LACK OF CREDIBILITY AND NO SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS AT TRIAL. A COPY LETTER HAS BEEN FORWARDED TO CENTRAL RECORDS. DET. ARNOLD/3553 RAMIREZ/4213/12-8-98 CERTIFIED RI .tp BE A TRUE copy .p L. BRADSHAW, SHERIFF http://oqs.pbso.org/index.cfm?fa=dspCase&fromrec=1&srhta=eOc5956785e628dd-4CFE5... 4/25/2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 22 of 22 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 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING FINANCIAL INFORMATION Plaintiff, Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, files this Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order Regarding Financial Information (DE 370). Defendant’s financial information is highly relevant to this case, particularly in light of Ms. Giuffre’s punitive damages claim as well as press reports suggesting that the Defendant may be selling her assets in New York and transferring the money outside the jurisdiction. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for a protective order should be denied.1 I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT As recounted by Defendant (DE 370 at 1-3), Ms. Giuffre has served discovery requests on Defendant, seeking certain financial information from the Defendant. The requests are narrowly tailored to the time frame related to this case, as the requested information concerns 1 Contemporaneous with the filing of this response to Defendant’s motion for a protective order regarding financial information, Ms. Giuffre has also filed a motion to compel Defendant to produce the requested financial information. This parallel filing is apparently required because Ms. Giuffre does not simply seek the negative relief of denial of Defendant’s requested protective order but also the affirmative relief of a Court order requiring production of the materials. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 22 2 financial information from just the time during which Defendant has defamed Ms. Giuffre (2015 to present). As with most of the other discovery requests she has received, Defendant has chosen not to produce any information. Instead, she has filed this motion for a blanket protective order, arguing that financial discovery has no relevance whatsoever to any issue in this case. Of course, given the broad scope of discovery, the Court can grant Defendant’s motion only if no relevance exists at all. But in fact, Defendant’s financial information is highly relevant to at least three issues in this case. First, Defendant’s recent efforts to conceal assets from the reach of this Court proves consciousness of her guilt of sex trafficking. Second, Defendant’s financial affairs will show dependence on Epstein for financial support, an issue highly relevant to motive.2 Third, as Defendant herself appears to admit, the discovery is relevant to the size of the punitive damage award that the jury should enter in this case. Facts relevant to each of these three points are set out in order below. A. Discovery of Financial Information is Relevant to Show Defendant’s Transfer of Assets Out of the Jurisdiction after the Commencement of Litigation and thus Her Consciousness of Guilt. The requested financial information is relevant to issues relating to Defendant’s apparent attempt to conceal assets from the Court. The timing of recent events is telling here. As the Court will recall, in court pleadings filed December 30, 2014, Ms. Giuffre initially publicly alleged Defendant had sexually abused her. On September 21, 2015, Ms. Giuffre filed her lawsuit against Defendant here in the Southern District of New York. (DE 1.) Ms. Giuffre is seeking at least $50 million in compensatory and punitive damages from Ms. Maxwell. Just a few months after the suit was filed, on April 28, 2016, the New York Post reported that 2 As recently as 2005, Defendant was on Epstein’s Palm Beach House bank account for Palm Beach. Bates Number SAO FOIA disc 7 (bates Giuffre 007590) at p. 93-95. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 22 3 Defendant, “the daughter of the late disgraced press baron Robert Maxwell, has sold her townhouse at 116 E. 65th St. for $15 million.” See http://nypost.com/2016/04/28/alleged-epstein￾madam-sells-16m-manhattan-townhouse/. When questioned about the sale, Defendant’s representative refused to comment. See id. (broker Shari Scharfer Rollins, of Douglas Elliman, did not return calls). The transfers of assets, likely out of the jurisdiction of this Court, provides evidence of consciousness of criminal guilt and civil liability. Clearly, Ms. Giuffre is entitled to explore all the circumstances surrounding the timing and consummation of this sale, including whether Defendant has now secreted these assets someplace where they may be difficult to reach, such as in the United Kingdom (where, on information and belief, Maxwell is a UK citizen holding a UK passport) or elsewhere. Maxwell’s removal and apparent concealment of assets takes place against a backdrop of disregard of court orders by Maxwell and others involved in the Epstein sex trafficking organization. In 2009, before suit was ever filed in this case, Maxwell was served with a subpoena for a deposition in a civil case against Jeffrey Epstein. After extensive discussion and coordinating a convenient time and place, as well as ultimately agreeing to a confidentiality agreement prepared by Maxwell’s attorney, at the eleventh hour Maxwell’s attorney informed plaintiff’s counsel that Maxwell’s mother was very ill and that consequently Maxwell was leaving the country with no plans to return. The deposition was cancelled. Yet a short time later, Maxwell was photographed at Chelsea Clinton’s wedding in Rhinebeck, New York, confirming the suspicion that she was indeed still in the country and willing to say anything to avoid her deposition. Similarly, the Court is familiar with the long (and still on-going) effort of Ms. Giuffre’s efforts to take the depositions of those who participated with Defendant in sexual abuse -- Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 22 4 including Jeffrey Epstein, Nadia Marcikova, and Sarah Kellen – depositions that have thus far been defeated by evasions of service of process and other similar maneuvers. See DE 160, Motion for Leave to Serve Three Deposition Subpoenas by Means Other than Personal Service, which this Court granted on June 20, 2016; DE 308, Motion for Finding Civil Contempt against Sarah Kellen for Ignoring Subpoena (pending); DE 310, Motion for Finding of Civil Contempt against Nadia Marcinkova for Ignoring Subpoena (pending). Similarly, the Court will recall that Ms. Giuffre was recently forced to resort to the Hague Convention in an effort to depose Maxwell’s spokesman, Ross Gow, about statements he made on Defendant’s behalf. See DE 306, Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery to Serve and Depose Ross Gow (pending); DE 330 and 331, Application for Letters Rogatory (application granted and letter issued by the Court on August 11, 2016 (DE 358)). Against the backdrop of these repeated evasion efforts, Defendant’s sale of $15 million in assets appears even more alarming. And, evidence of consciousness of guilt is admissible in criminal cases, even where the standard of proof is much higher than in a civil case. See, e.g., United States v. Amuso, 21 F.3d 1251, 1258 (2d Cir. 1994) (recognizing admissibility of evidence from which a jury could find consciousness of guilt). Ms. Giuffre it entitled to explore all the circumstances surrounding Ms. Maxwell’s apparent efforts to hide assets.3 B. Discovery of Financial Information is Relevant to Show a Financial Link to Epstein. In addition to providing evidence Defendant is hiding assets, the financial information will help to establish an important link between Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein. Drawing again 3 The Court should review Defendant’s reply to this pleading carefully to see if she represents to the Court that the $15 million in assets she has apparently concealed will be made available to satisfy any judgment that Ms. Giuffre might obtain in this case. If Defendant fails to make such a representation, the Court can draw the obvious inference that Defendant is attempting to hide her assets to escape responsibility for paying any ultimate judgment here. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 22 5 on a published article from the New York Post, it appears that Defendant’s townhouse (among other assets) might be part of a covert payoff from Epstein to Defendant. As the Post reports, “[a] lawyer with links to Epstein reportedly bought the townhouse for Maxwell, who has allegedly never earned enough or inherited enough to make the purchase on her own.” http://nypost.com/2016/04/28/alleged-epstein-madam-sells-16m-manhattan-townhouse/. This article suggests that Defendant is reliant upon Epstein for tremendous financial support, which certainly provides a strong motive for her to provide favors to Epstein – including providing him with underage girls for sex. It also provides a strong motive for her to lie at trial about Epstein’s (and her own) sex trafficking. Indeed, to conceal these facts, other media reports suggest that the reason that Defendant was trying to sell her townhouse “quietly” was perhaps “to put some distance between herself and Epstein, who owns a mansion a few blocks away.” http://pagesix.com/2015/02/02/accused-epstein-madam-quietly-selling-ues-townhouse/. Again, perhaps there is some innocent explanation for these secretive efforts. But, if so, Defendant has declined to provide it. See id. (noting Defendant’s “rep didn’t comment”). C. Discovery of Financial Information is Relevant to the Issue of the Size of any Punitive Damages. Financial information regarding Defendant is also highly relevant to Ms. Giuffre’s punitive damages claim. Of course, it is well-settled law that “evidence of a tortfeasor’s wealth is traditionally admissible as a measure of the amount of punitive damages that should be awarded.” City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 270 (1981). As explained by the Reporters of the American Law Institute’s Restatement of Torts, when considering the size of punitive damages “[t]he wealth of the defendant is also relevant, since the purposes of exemplary damages are to punish for a past event and to prevent future offenses, and the degree of Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 22 6 punishment or deterrence resulting from a judgment is to some extent in proportion to the means of the guilty person.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908, cmt. e (1979). Defendant does not attempt to quarrel with the proposition that her vast wealth is relevant to Ms. Giuffre’s punitive damages claim. See, e.g., DE 370 at 6 (citing case allowing information about a defendant’s wealth to be presented to the jury). Instead, it appears that her only argument concerns the timing of the disclosure of such information, an issue discussed below. For purposes of setting out the salient facts, then, it is enough to note here that even Defendant has to ultimately concede that discovery about her financial information is relevant to this case. II. DISCUSSION Because discovery regarding Defendant’s financial circumstances and recent transactions is relevant to this case for multiple reasons, Ms. Giuffre is entitled to discovery regarding that information. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a), a party may request that another party produce documents in her possession so long as the documents are within the scope of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b), which allows for broad discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. Information within this scope of permitted discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. Relevance is still to be “construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on” any party's claim or defense. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Fayda, No. 14CIV9792WHPJCF, 2015 WL 7871037, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2015) (granting motion to compel). For reasons explained above, the financial information sought is relevant to issues in this case, and, accordingly Defendant’s motion for a protective order should be denied. There is also no sound reason for delaying discovery on these issues. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 22 7 A. Discovery of Financial Information is Appropriate Pre-Trial to Avoid the Need to Summon Two Separate Juries to Hear the Evidence in the Case. Seemingly recognizing the fact that discovery regarding her financial information is appropriate, Defendant’s ultimate argument appears not to be that the discovery is improper, but rather that it should be delayed until after the trial starts. Thus, Defendant’s first specific argument section is that financial “discovery is not appropriate pre-trial.” DE 370 at 6. In support of this proposition, Defendant’s lead citation is a forty-year-old New York case, Rupert v. Sellers, 48 A.D.2d 265 (4th Dept. 1975). But as much more recent authority from the Southern District of New York explains, Rupert is inapplicable to discovery issues because the case relates solely to the sequence with which evidence can be produced at trial: [Defendant’s] reliance on Rupert v. Sellers, 48 A.D.2d 265, 368 N.Y.S.2d 904 (4th Dep’t 1975), for the proposition that punitive damages discovery is not appropriate until a plaintiff has first established liability is misguided since federal law and not state law governs questions of procedure such as discoverability. Hazeldine v. Beverage Media, Ltd., No. 94 Civ. 3466 (CSH), 1997 WL 362229, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 1997) (citations omitted). Moreover, while the Second Circuit “has cited Rupert with approval, it has done so for the proposition that evidence of a defendant's wealth should not ‘be brought out at trial unless and until the jury has brought in a special verdict that the plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.’ ” Id. (citations omitted). It has not held that financial discovery such as that sought here may only be taken after a liability determination. Pasternak v. Dow Kim, 275 F.R.D. 461, 463 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). Defendant also cites another decision from this court, Collens v. City of New York, 222 F.R.D. 249, 254 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). DE 370 at 7. But Collens does not stand for the proposition that financial discovery is broadly barred, but only that on the facts of that case no such discovery was required. As a recent case from the District of New Jersey explains in allowing pre-trial discovery of financial information for punitive damages purposes: Defendants assert that until there has been a finding of liability by the jury, punitive damage discovery is not appropriate. Defendants rely on Collens, where the court stated that because the issue of punitive damages is generally bifurcated Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 22 8 from issues of liability, and punitive damages issues thus may never arise, punitive damage discovery was not necessary at the pretrial stage. See Collens, 222 F.R.D. at 254. Plaintiffs assert that the same jury will decide both liability and punitive damages issues and that, as a practical matter, there is no time to conduct discovery—including depositions of the individual police officers—between the liability verdict and the charge to the jury on punitive damages. Plaintiffs' counsel represented at oral argument that if Defendants are concerned with maintaining the confidentiality of the individual police officer defendants' personal information, Plaintiffs will agree to a confidentiality order and the sealing of those portions of the deposition transcripts and documents that disclose such information until such time as there is a finding of liability, if any, as to the individual police officer defendants. . . . Insofar as Plaintiffs assert a claim under 42 U.S .C. § 1983, the Court notes that “evidence of a tortfeasor's wealth is traditionally admissible as a measure of the amount of punitive damages that should be awarded[.]” City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 270 (1981). Therefore, interrogatories seeking information about Defendants' financial condition are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence on the issue of punitive damages. Graham v. Carino, No. CIV.09-4501 JEI/AMD, 2010 WL 2483294, at *3 (D.N.J. June 4, 2010). That pre-trial discovery on financial matters is allowed when a punitive damage issue is present in a case is confirmed by Tillery v. Lynn, 607 F. Supp. 399, 402-03 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). To leave the discovery until later would be burdensome on the jury – meaning that a common approach is to allow financial discovery to proceed pre-trial and then to later bifurcate the trial itself into liability and punitive damages phases: Discovery as to defendant's personal assets may be undertaken by plaintiff at this time. It would be unduly burdensome to plaintiff, and most particularly a jury and the court, to delay resolution of the issue as to the amount of punitive damages, if any, which should be awarded until discovery as to defendant's personal assets had been completed. However, as the New York courts have recognized, “defendant's wealth should not be a weapon to be used by plaintiff to enable him to induce the jury to find the defendant guilty of malice, thus entitling plaintiff to punitive damages.” Rupert v. Sellers, 48 A.D.2d 265, 272, 368 N.Y.S.2d 904, 912 (4th Dep't 1975). Accord, Chilvers v. New York Magazine Company, Inc., 114 Misc.2d 996, 453 N.Y.S.2d 153 (N.Y.Co.Sup.Ct.1982). Accordingly, in the interest of justice and to avoid any undue prejudice during the liability phase of this action, the trial will be bifurcated. . . . Therefore, defendant's motions for partial summary judgment and to stay discovery as to his financial status are denied. Tillery v. Lynn, 607 F. Supp. 399, 402-03 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (Motley, J.). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 22 9 The holding in Tillery was endorsed in Hazeldine v. Beverage Media, Ltd., No. 94 CIV. 3466 (CSH), 1997 WL 362229, at *2-*3 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), which explained” “Tillery followed this preferred course by bifurcating the trial, see Simpson, 901 F.2d at 283, but allowing pre-trial financial discovery to proceed.” Most cases in most jurisdictions outside the Southern District of New York have reached exactly the same conclusion and allowed pre-trial discovery of financial information for punitive damage purposes.4 4 See, e.g.: x CEH, Inc. v. FV Seafarer, 153 F.R.D. 491 (D.R.I.1994) (plaintiffs were not required to establish prima facie case on issue of punitive damages before they could obtain pretrial discovery of financial information of defendants; plaintiffs had alleged facts sufficient to make a non-spurious claim for punitive damages and that was sufficient to warrant discovery); x E.E.O.C. v. California Psychiatric Transitions, 258 F.R.D. 391 (E.D.Cal.2009) (evidence of employer's current financial worth was relevant to issue of punitive damages, and thus was discoverable in Title VII action alleging sexual harassment and retaliation, where complaint sought punitive damages, deposition evidence indicated that employer may have acted in reckless disregard of female employees' federal rights, and privacy concerns could be addressed with protective order); x Grosek v. Panther Transp., Inc., 251 F.R.D. 162 (M.D. Pa. 2008) (there was no good cause to issue protective order preventing discovery of defendants’ financial condition until determination was made that punitive damages were warranted; plaintiffs stated claim for punitive damages, and delaying discovery until after discovery of evidence supporting punitive damages would have been inefficient and delayed conclusion of the case); x Vieste, LLC v. Hill Redwood Dev., No. C-09-04024 JSW DMR, 2011 WL 855831, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2011) (allowing pre-trial discovery of Defendants' net worth and financial condition because it was clearly relevant to the issue of punitive damages); x Charles O. Bradley Trust v. Zenith Capital, LLC, 2005 WL 1030218, at *3 (N.D.Cal. May 3, 2005) (while some federal courts have required a prima facie showing of entitlement to punitive damages before ordering discovery, the majority have not and listing cases); x In re Aqua Dots Products Liability Litigation, 270 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 2010), aff'd, 654 F.3d 748 (7th Cir. 2011) (plaintiffs' discovery regarding financial information from manufacturer and distributor of recalled children's toy was discoverable in a product liability action. Plaintiffs sought punitive damages, and the distributor and manufacturer were arguably principal actors); x Oakes v. Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D. 281 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (because defendants asserted a counterclaim seeking punitive damages, they could obtain discovery regarding Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 22 10 Defendant also cites a decision from Judge Cote in Tyco Intern. Ltd. v. Walsh, which allowed a delay in seeking discovery of financial information in that case because it was not clear if the issue would become relevant. But that case involved peculiar circumstances, which permitted discovery of financial information to be bi-furcated without any burden on the Court. Specifically, that case involved a bench trial, which allowed a delay between the liability phase and punitive damages phases of the trial. As the Court explained. “it would be premature to force the defendant to produce his net worth information at this time. If necessary, plaintiff will have an opportunity to obtain discovery on the defendant's financial circumstances as part of any post-trial discovery. Since the trial in this matter is a bench trial, no jury will be burdened by any delay occasioned by this discovery period.” Tyco Int'l Ltd. v. Walsh, No. 02-CV-4633 (DLC), 2010 WL 3000179, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 30, 2010). Of course, exactly the opposite situation exists here. Defendant would apparently have the Court delay until the jury returns with its verdict in favor of Ms. Giuffre before allowing discovery to proceed on Defendant’s financial circumstances. As a practical matter, this would seem to require sending the jury empaneled to hear liability issues home and then selecting a new, second jury on punitive damages issues – a new jury which would have to somehow be shown all of the previous testimony from the liability phase. See Hazeldine v. Beverage Media, Ltd., No. 94 CIV. 3466 (CSH), 1997 WL 362229, at *2-*3 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (“allowing pre-trial plaintiffs' net worth; California limitations on such discovery did not apply in federal court); x Caruso v. Coleman Co., 157 F.R.D. 344 (E.D. Pa. 1994) (“In products liability action, plaintiffs would be allowed discovery of defendants’ financial statements and total sales revenue on the ground they are relevant to the issue of punitive damages; information regarding punitive damages is as discoverable as information that relates to liability, and discovery could proceed without prior proof of prima facie case on punitive damages.”). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 22 11 discovery [of financial information] avoids the inefficiency of a discovery delay between the liability and damages phases of trial, as well as the need to assemble a second jury.”). Finally, Defendant relies upon Guccione v. Flynt, for the proposition that financial discovery is not appropriate on punitive damages issues here. But that case was sui generis with peculiar facts that render it inapplicable here. See Guccione v. Flynt, No. 83 CIV. 8020 RWS, 1985 WL 255, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 1985) (“It should be apparent to anyone forced to review these papers and the issues presented by this action that two men with ample resources are employing lawyers and occupying space and time in the justice system to continue their personal feud. Regrettably there is to date no apparent basis to avoid the unappetizing task of ruling on these motions.”). Moreover, in that case, the Court in fact ordered the Defendant to produce financial information to be turned over to plaintiff’s counsel at the time of trial. See id. at 1. While that solution may have worked well in that case, it is not satisfactory here. Defendant is not an established businessperson with regularly-kept disclosure statements reporting income and related financial information. Instead, Defendant is participant in a covert, sex trafficking organization with mysterious financial arrangements and apparent, recent efforts to conceal assets. In such circumstance, Ms. Giuffre is not required to take the Defendant’s net worth statement at face value, but instead is entitled to receive it well in advance of trial so that she may investigate its accuracy. Finally, this Court has previously rejected exactly the same arguments that are being made here. This Court explained that “[w]hile bifurcation may be the preferred method of resolving disputed issues of liability and damages, as it prevents prejudice to the defendants by keeping financial evidence out of the liability phase of the trial, this does not mean that plaintiffs should be denied pretrial financial discovery.” Hamm v. Potamkin, No. 98 CIV. 7425 (RWS), 1999 WL 249721, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 1999). This Court explained that “[a]s far as the Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 22 12 general timing of financial disclosures is concerned, plaintiffs need not wait until after a finding of liability or a preliminary finding of damages to obtain discoverable financial information from defendants.” Id. Those conclusions were well-reasoned then, and remain well-reasoned now. Just as the Court refused to deny pretrial financial discovery to the plaintiff in that case, it should not deny Ms. Giuffre pretrial financial discovery here. Pre-trial discovery is the only way to ensure that Ms. Giuffre will be able to discover all the information that she needs for each of the three purposes outlined in Part I above. B. Discovery of Financial Information Should Not Be Delayed until a Ruling on Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion. Defendant also tries to interpose one last stalling argument: That discovery of financial information should await a ruling on her anticipated summary judgment motion. This argument should be rejected for two reasons: First, any argument that Defendant might advance in a summary judgment motion would border on frivolous given the overwhelming evidence establishing her involvement in sex trafficking. Second, because the trial is drawing near, waiting for summary judgment motions to be decided would unreasonably compress the time available to Ms. Giuffre’s counsel to investigate Defendant’s financial information. Defendant anticipates that she will “likely” file a summary judgment motion which will include an argument concerning the “substantial truth” of Defendant’s statements. DE 370 at 9. The Court will notice that even Defendant herself is not prepared to write that she will be able to prove the truth of her statements – inserting the qualifying word “substantial” in front of the word “truth,” presumably, because of the avalanche of evidence showing her deep involvement in Epstein’s sex trafficking. Defendant does not explain, for instance, how she will argue that the Court should grant summary judgment rather than allow the jury to hear Ms. Sjoberg’s testimony of how Defendant lured her from her school to have sex with Epstein under the guise Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 22 13 of answering phones cannot be given to the media.5 Similarly, Defendant fails to explain why a jury shouldn’t be allowed to consider Mr. Rizzo’s testimony about how Defendant took the passport of a 15-year-old Swedish girl and threatened her when she refused to have sex with Epstein.6 And certainly a reasonable jury could reach a verdict in Ms. Giuffre’s favor based solely on Mr. Alessi’s testimony about how Defendant brought girls over for Epstein,7 or Mr. Figueroa’s testimony about how Defendant would call him to bring over underage girls, and how Defendant and Epstein would have threesomes with Ms. Giuffre.8 The Court is familiar with that avalanche of mounting evidence showing sex trafficking,9 which is presumably why Defendant makes only a half-hearted effort to suggest that she has a serious summary judgment motion based on “substantial truth.” Instead, she gamely suggests that summary judgment might be proper on grounds that Ms. Giuffre is somehow a “libel-proof” plaintiff. DE 370 at 9. Here, too, Defendant’s argument that the facts on this issue will be so 5 See McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit 1, Johanna Sjoberg’s May 18, 2016 Dep. Tr. at 8-9, 13, 33-35, 142-143(testifying that Defendant recruited her for sex with Epstein under the guise of answering phones, a job that lasted one day, because her second day Defendant asked her to start giving massages, and it soon made it clear that Sjoberg’s purpose was to bring Epstein to orgasm so Defendant didn’t have to all of the time). 6 See McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit 2, Rinaldo Rizzo’s June 10, 2016 Dep. Tr. at 52-60 (Defendant’s friend’s house manager, through tears, described how Defendant tried to force a 15 year old Swedish girl to have sex with Epstein through threats and stealing her passport) 7 See McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit 3, Juan Alessi’s June 1, 2016 Dep. Tr. at 28, 52-54 (Epstein’s house manager, testified that Defendant was one of the people who procured the over 100 girls he witnessed visit Epstein, and that he had to clean Defendant’s sex toys) 8 See McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit 4, Figueroa June 24, 2016 Dep. Tr. Vol. 1 at 96-97 and 103 (Figueroa testified that Plaintiff told him about threesomes with Defendant and Epstein which included the use of strap-ons); and Vol. 2 at 200 (Figueroa testified that Defendant called him inquiring if he had found any other girls for Epstein) 9 See, e.g., McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit 5, Detective Joseph Recarey’s June 21, 2016 Dep. Tr. at 29-30 (the detective who led the investigation of Epstein, testified that Defendant procured underage girls for Epstein); David Rodgers’ June 3, 2016 Dep. Tr. at 18, 34-36; see also Exhibit 6 Excerpted Rodgers Dep. Ex. 1 at flight #s 1433-1434, 1444-1446, 1464-1470, 1478-1480, 1490-1491, 1506, 1525-1526, 1528, 1570 and 1589 (Epstein’s pilot testified that the passenger listed on his flight log bearing the initials – GM – was in fact Ghislaine Maxwell and Rodgers was the pilot on at least 23 of the flights in which Defendant flew with Plaintiff), etc. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 22 14 clear-cut as to deprive Ms. Giuffre of her right to jury trial borders on frivolous. Ms. Giuffre is a courageous young woman who has come forward to reveal the broad dimensions of a sex trafficking ring – a criminal conspiracy that involved Defendant. That fact, alone, is enough to send the issue of damages to Ms. Giuffre’s reputation to a jury, particularly because any other approach would “require[] the Court to make factual findings regarding plaintiff's reputation for a particular trait.” Church of Scientology Int'l v. Time Warner, Inc., 932 F. Supp. 589, 594 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (refusing to grant summary judgment on a libel proof plaintiff argument), aff'd 238 F.3d 168 (2d Cir. 2001); see also id. citing Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Anderson, 746 F.2d 1563, 1568 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (“To begin with, we cannot envision how a court would go about determining that someone's reputation had already been ‘irreparably’ damaged—i.e., that no new reader could be reached by the freshest libel” (Scalia, J.) (emphasis in original)), vacated on other grounds, 477 U.S. 242 (1986). Defendant also predicts that Ms. Giuffre will “have a nearly insurmountable task to demonstrate that [Defendant] acted with the requisite degrees of malice.” DE 370 at 10 (emphasis added). Of course, the qualifier gives away the game – a “nearly” insurmountable task is not one on which summary judgment is appropriate. And, in any event, once Ms. Giuffre proves at trial (as she will) that Defendant was deeply involved in Epstein’s sex trafficking ring, it becomes obvious that Defendant’s attacks on Ms. Giuffre’s credibility were uttered with malice. Defendant knew full well, for example, that Ms. Giuffre’s statements that Defendant was involved in Epstein’s sex trafficking were not “obvious lies.” She knew that because she had been involved in (among other things) procuring multiple underage girls for Epstein to sexually abuse10 – including Ms. Giuffre herself. 10 See Message Pads concerning Defendant (GIUFFRE001523; GIUFFRE001427; GIUFFRE001451; GIUFFRE001454; GIUFFRE001460; GIUFFRE001461; GIUFFRE001464; Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 22 15 Further proof of malice comes from Defendant’s extraordinary lack of memory about her involvement in the abuse.11 For instance, Defendant cannot even recall a single flight on Epstein’s private jet with Ms. Giuffre, even though flight logs show that Defendant had 23 flights with Ms. Giuffre while Ms. Giuffre was underage, and Epstein’s own pilot confirmed those records.12 And Defendant cannot recall the circumstances under which a photograph was taken of her, Ms. Giuffre, and Prince Andrew – all inside Defendant’s London apartment. Based on Defendant’s convenient and near total amnesia about documented incriminating events alone, a reasonable jury could find that she acted deliberately and maliciously when she arranged for false and defamatory statements about Ms. Giuffre to be transmitted (literally) around the globe. Defendant is also less than forthcoming about the evidence that Ms. Giuffre will be able to produce at trial. Presumably recognizing that the statements her press agent (Ross Gow) released to the media were false and defamatory, Defendant states that there is “no other indicia of [Defendant] authorizing any statement [by Gow] regarding [Ms. Giuffre.” DE 370 at 10. While there are many problems with that claim, perhaps it is enough to point out that Defendant’s motion was filed on August 12, 2016 – and then, just four days later, on August 16, 2016 – defense counsel disclosed to Ms. Giuffre’s counsel an email revealing quite clearly that GIUFFRE001465; GIUFFRE001436; GIUFFRE001435; GIUFFRE001472; GIUFFRE001474; GIUFFRE001492; GIUFFRE001553; GIUFFRE001388; GIUFFRE001555; GIUFFRE001556; GIUFFRE001557; GIUFFRE001392; GIUFFRE001526; GIUFFRE001530; GIUFFRE001568; GIUFFRE001536; GIUFFRE001538; GIUFFRE001541; GIUFFRE001546; GIUFFRE001399; GIUFFRE001402; GIUFFRE001405; GIUFFRE001406; GIUFFRE001449; GIUFFRE001409; GIUFFRE001410; GIUFFRE001411; GIUFFRE00; etc.); See McCawley Dec. at Sealed Composite Exhibit 4 Figueroa Dep. Tr. at page 200:5-12 (Defendant called him to bring girls and he brought 16 and 17 year olds). 11 See, e.g., McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 7, Maxwell’s April 22, 2016 Dep. Tr. at 78-79, 144 (barely recollects Plaintiff at all); see also McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 6, Excerpted Rodgers Dep. Ex. 1 (flight records evidencing Defendant (GM) flying with Ms. Giuffre 12 See McCawley Dec. at Sealed Composite Exhibit 5, David Rodgers’ June 3, 2016 Dep. Tr. at 18, 34-36; see also Exhibit 6, Excerpted Rodgers Dep. Ex. 1 at flight #s 1433-1434, 1444-1446, 1464-1470, 1478-1480, 1490-1491, 1506, 1525-1526, 1528, 1570 and 1589. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 22 16 Defendant and Gow had been coordinating the attacks on Ms. Giuffre. In November 10, 2015, after this defamation suit was filed, Defendant continued to use Gow as her press agent, as demonstrated in her email addressed to “Ghislaine [Maxwell] and Philip [Barden, attorney for Maxwell]”, Gow forwarded a press inquiry from the New York Times and then asked “[p]lease advise how you wish to respond.” See McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 8. In addition, since Defendant filed the instant motion, Ms. Giuffre has discovered an article that refers to a yet another of Defendant’s defamatory statements, not previously known to Ms. Giuffre. It is quoted in an article from The Sun (online), titled: “Prince Andrew’s pal Ghislaine ‘groped teen girls,’” located at https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/6754/prince-andrews-pal-ghislaine-groped￾teen-girls/. Presumably, if further evidence of the linkages between Defendant and her press agent are required, those will be established during the deposition of Gow – which likely explains why Defendant has refused to make her press agent available for deposition, forcing Ms. Giuffre to resort to the Hague Convention to try to obtain his testimony. See DE 358, this Court’s Issuance of a Letter Rogatory. Finally, waiting until any summary judgment is decided will effectively make it impossible for Ms. Giuffre to investigate financial issues. As things stand now, summary judgment motions must be filed by October 28, 2016. Given the ordinary time required for a response and a reply – and then a further decision by this Court – very little time would remain for the Ms. Giuffre to evaluate and investigate any financial information that might be provided by Defendant at that time. Clearly, the better approach is to allow that discovery now. See, e.g., Munoz v. Manhattan Club Timeshare Ass'n, Inc., No. 11-CV-7037 JPO, 2012 WL 479429, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2012). - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 22 17 III. DISCOVERY OF DEFENDANT’S FINANCIAL INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE CONFINDED TO A NET WORTH STATEMENT. Perhaps recognizing that it is inevitable that her financial information will be relevant in this case, Defendant makes one last argument that discovery of financial information should be “limited to a sworn affidavit of net worth.” DE 370 at 13. Whatever may have been the circumstance warranting limitations in other cases, the circumstances here make that approach highly inappropriate. Once again, it is important to remember that this is not a case involving, for example, a public-traded company with audited financial statements, or a situation involving otherwise-incontestable financial information. Cf. Hamm v. Potamkin, No. 98 CIV. 7425 (RWS), 1999 WL 249721, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 1999) (for purposes of pre-trial punitive damages discovery, directing corporate defendants “to produce a financial affidavit containing a statement of its total net worth and listing its income, assets, and liabilities for the past three years”). Instead, this case involves a shadowy criminal organization, involving a kingpin with vast wealth (Jeffrey Epstein, a reported billionaire), and multi-million dollar transactions to others in the organization such as Defendant (e.g., the apparent concealed transfer, through an attorney associated with Epstein, of an apartment to Defendant worth, in 2015, $15,000,000). Given the strong possibility of wrongdoing lurking here, a mere declaration of net worth promises to be next to worthless. To provide a simple example, if Defendant were to testify at trial she had a net worth of only ten million dollars – and not provide information about where she had hidden the fifteen million dollars associated with the sale of her apartment – then Ms. Giuffre will have little effective way to challenge the claim. Moreover, as noted above, the record is replete with multiple examples of Defendant failing to recall obvious and highly incriminating facts. Given Defendant’s amnesia about important events, it seems obvious that she may similarly be Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 22 18 forgetful about how many assets she has available to satisfy a judgment in this case – forgetfulness that can be easily concealed with an unelaborated net worth statement. In addition, a net worth statement will not give Ms. Giuffre all the evidence to which she is entitled. For example, Defendant has refused to comply with a discovery request seeking information about her connection to the Clinton Foundation, claiming that such a request is “obviously intended to harass and embarrass” her. DE 370 at 11. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is Defendant who intends to argue at trial that Ms. Giuffre has made inaccurate statements about various interactions with former-President Bill Clinton. Of course, if Defendant (or any of her organizations) is receiving funding from the Clinton Foundation, that would provide a clear motive for her to slant testimony on this subject. Ms. Giuffre is entitled to explore this clear possibility of bias by obtaining information of the financial connections between Defendant and the Clinton Foundation. Indeed, upon information and belief, Defendant owns and controls at least two corporations: Ellmax, LLC, and The TerraMar Project. Ms. Giuffre lawfully served both entities with a Rule 45 Subpoena requesting documents.13 No response was made by either entity. Defendant can use both of these entities as vehicles for hiding her assets. Defendant makes no argument that it will be difficult for her to assemble the information in question. And given that much of the information requested involves readily accessible information (such as a bank statement), no such claim is plausible. Instead, her argument ultimately rests that on the claim that the inquiries involve confidential information that is unduly intrusive. But at this discovery stage of the proceedings, all of Defendant’s financial information can be provided to Ms. Giuffre’s counsel under the protection of the existing Protective Order 13 See McCawley Dec. at Composite Exhibit 9, Subpoena to Ellmax LLC; Subpoena to The TerraMar Project. - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 22 19 (DE 62). As this Court has previously explained, in allowing discovery of financial information for punitive damage purposes, “any privacy interests defendants may have in confidential financial information produced to plaintiffs can be secured by the protective order issued by this Court.” Hamm v. Potamkin, No. 98 CIV. 7425 (RWS), 1999 WL 249721, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 1999). Nothing in Defendant’s motion establishes that Ms. Giuffre should be barred from the kinds of ordinarily discovery that often accompanies cases in which the financial dealings of a defendant are discoverable. This argument is also belied by the fact that Defendant sought, and received, Ms. Giuffre’s personal financial information. Specifically, she sought any payment information relating to the media. See Defendant’s First Set of Requests for Production at No. 30. Ms. Giuffre provided documents responsive to this request, which included her personal bank records. Defendant takes the contradictory and self-serving position that discovery concerning the personal finances of Ms. Giuffre is appropriate, yet discovery concerning her own finances is somehow inappropriate. At the very least, the Defendant should be required to produce a “statement of [her] total net worth and listing [her] income, assets, and liabilities for the [relevant] years,” as this Court ordered in a previous case. Hamm v. Potamkin, No. 98 CIV. 7425 (RWS), 1999 WL 249721, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 1999). But because that formulation came from an earlier case involving reputable corporate entities with (apparently) audited financial statements, the discovery here should be much broader – and should include all of the significant requests made by Ms. Giuffre. For example, Defendant should also be required to identify all financial transactions involving (directly or indirectly) Jeffrey Epstein, the Clinton Foundation, Ellmax LLC, The TerraMar Project, and any other person listed in the Rule 26 disclosures of either side in this case. Transactions with potential witnesses in this case are highly relevant to bias and other trial - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 22 20 issues. And because of concern that the Defendant is concealing assets, she should also be required to reveal all significant (greater than $10,000) assets or other monetary transfers in since the beginning of January 1, 2015, as well as all transfers of assets or money outside of this Court’s jurisdiction, including transfers overseas. IV. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, Ms. Giuffre respectfully requests that this Court deny Defendant’s motion for a protective order barring discovery into her financial situation. In a contemporaneously-filed motion to compel, Ms. Giuffre also respectfully requests that the Court grant a motion to compel Defendant to answer questions about her financial information. Dated: August 22, 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 1328-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 22 21 Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 383 University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801) 585-520214 14 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 1328-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 22 22 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 22th day of August, 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 1328-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 22 of 22 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 MCCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING FINANCIAL INFORMATION I, Sigrid 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 Order granting my Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice. 2. I respectfully submit this Declaration in Support of Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order Regarding Financial Information. 3. Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from May 18, 2016, Deposition of Johanna Sjoberg. 4. Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from June 10, 2016, Deposition of Rinaldo Rizzo. 5. Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from June 1, 2016, Deposition of Juan Alessi. 6. Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from June 24, 2016 Deposition of Tony Figueroa. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-24 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 4 7. Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from June 21, 2016, Deposition of Detective Joseph Recarey and June 3, 2016, Deposition of David Rodgers. 8. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from June 3, 2016, Deposition of David Rodgers Exhibit 1. 9. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from April 22, 2016, Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell. 10. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of November 10, 2015 Correspondence from Ross Gow to Ghislaine Maxwell. 11. Attached here to as Sealed Composite Exhibit 9 are true copies of Ellmax, LLC and The TerraMar Project Subpoenas. 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 1328-24 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 4 3 Dated: August 22, 2016. Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. 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 1328-24 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 4 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 22nd day of August, 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 to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic Court Filing System 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 1328-24 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 4 COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1 (Filed Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-25 Filed 01/05/24 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. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 10 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 1328-25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 10 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 1328-25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 10 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 1328-25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 10 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 1328-25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 10 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 1328-25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 10 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 1328-25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 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 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 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 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 10 COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 4 (Filed Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 6 www.Southernreporting.com - (386)257-3663 Southern Reporting Company 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CASE: 15-cv-07433-RWS VIRGINIA GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. ____________________/ VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF TONY FIGUEROA Volume 1 of 2 Pages 1 - 157 Taken at the Instance of the Defendant DATE: Friday, June 24, 2016 TIME: Commenced: 8:59 a.m. Concluded: 1:22 p.m. PLACE: Southern Reporting Company B. Paul Katz Professional Center (SunTrust Building) One Florida Park Drive South Suite 214 Palm Coast, Florida 32137 REPORTED BY: LEANNE W. FITZGERALD, FPR Florida Professional Reporter Court Reporter and Notary Public Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 6 www.Southernreporting.com - (386)257-3663 Southern Reporting Company 96 1 Q I guess my question is: Did she ever tell 2 you that she had started as a regular masseuse for 3 him and then transitioned to something other than a 4 masseuse? 5 A No. She never said that it transitioned. 6 But she ended up explaining to me what had happened 7 before, so... 8 Q What has -- what is that? 9 A That her and Ms. Maxwell and Jeffrey would 10 obviously be doing stuff, all three of them 11 together. Like I said, that they would all go out 12 to clubs to pick up girls and try and find them to 13 bring back for Jeffrey. And then she told me about 14 how, like I said, her and Ms. Maxwell and Jeffrey 15 were all intimate together on multiple occasions. 16 Q When did she tell you this? 17 A I'm not exactly sure on the dates. 18 Q Was it while you were still together? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Did you -- had you met Ms. Maxwell? 21 A Yeah, I had met her a couple of times. 22 Q When did you meet Ms. Maxwell? 23 A Dates, I'm unsure of. But it was pretty 24 much, like I said, at Jeffrey's house in the 25 kitchen. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 6 www.Southernreporting.com - (386)257-3663 Southern Reporting Company 97 1 Q Was it earlier in the time you were with 2 her, or... 3 A It was about -- I'd say about six months 4 or so. I don't know. I'm not exactly positive. 5 Q All right. So at the time you met 6 Ms. Maxwell, had Ms. Roberts already told you that 7 she had been intimate? 8 A No. She had told me about that, I 9 believe, after I had max- -- after I had already met 10 her. 11 Q Okay. And tell me everything that you 12 remember about what Ms. Roberts said about being 13 intimate with Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein at the 14 same time. 15 A I remember her talking about, like, 16 strap-ons and stuff like that. But, I mean, like I 17 said, all the details are not really that clear. 18 But I remember her talking about, like, how they 19 would always be using and stuff like that. 20 Q She and Ms. Maxwell and Mr Epstein would 21 used strap-ons? 22 A Uh-huh (affirmative). 23 Q How did you feel about that? 24 A I just -- obviously not happy about it. 25 Q What did you say? Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 6 www.Southernreporting.com - (386)257-3663 Southern Reporting Company 103 1 A I did not. 2 Q When the FBI interviewed you, did you 3 mention this to them? 4 A I mentioned -- anything they asked me, I 5 did not hold anything back. 6 Q Okay. Do you recall specifically talking 7 about sex with the Prince? 8 A I -- I don't recall talking to them about 9 that, but, I mean, it's -- it could be possible. 10 Q Other than sex with the Prince, is there 11 anyone else that Jeffrey wanted Ms. Roberts to have 12 sex with that she relayed to you? 13 A Mainly, like I said, just Ms. Maxwell and 14 all the other girls. 15 Q Ms. Maxwell wanted -- Jeffrey wanted 16 Virginia to have sex with Ms. Maxwell? 17 A And him, yeah. 18 Q And did she tell you whether she had ever 19 done that? 20 A Yeah. She said that she did. 21 Q And when did she tell you that? 22 A I'm not sure on the date. 23 Q And what did she describe having happened? 24 A I believe I already told you that. With 25 the strap-ons and dildos and everything. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 6 www.Southernreporting.com - (386)257-3663 Southern Reporting Company 200 1 MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Form. 2 Foundation. 3 A For Jeffrey. 4 BY MR. EDWARDS: 5 Q All right. Let me fix this. Ghislaine -- 6 when Ghislaine Maxwell would call you during the 7 time that you were living with Virginia, she would 8 ask you what, specifically? 9 MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Form. 10 Foundation. 11 A Just if I had found any other girls just 12 to bring to Jeffrey. 13 BY MR. EDWARDS: 14 Q Okay. 15 A Pretty much every time there was a 16 conversation with any of them, it was either asking 17 Virginia where she was at, or asking her to get 18 girls, or asking me to get girls. 19 Q All right. Let's go to that second 20 category you just identified, which is asking 21 Virginia to get girls. How many times were you in a 22 room where specifically Ghislaine Maxwell would ask 23 Virginia to bring girls? 24 A None that I can recall. 25 Q Okay. How many times -- when you say they Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT 8 (Filed Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-27 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 3 1 ________________________________ From: Ross Gow Sent: 10 November 2015 18:16 To: Gmax; Philip Barden Subject: Fwd: Inquiry from The New York Times Hi Ghislaine and Philip Please advise how you wish to respond... Best Ross ---------- Forwarded message ----------From: Meier, Barry Date: Tuesday, 10 November 2015 Subject: Inquiry from The New York Times To: Mr. Gow, Good day. I am a reporter for the Times and it is my understanding that you represent Ghislaine Maxwell. I am working on an article about the legal fallout from the Jeffrey Epstein case. I anticipate mentioning the lawsuit filed earlier this year by Virginia Roberts Guiffee against Ms. Maxwell. How does she respond? Kindly advise by close of business Thursday, November 12, 2015. And call me if you have any questions. Regards, Barry Meier -- The New York Times 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 212-556-1917 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01141 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-27 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 3 2 -- Ross Gow Managing Partner www.acuityreputation.com<http://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 the attention and use of the named addressee(s). If you are 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-mail 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 virus checker and procedures. No responsibility is accepted by ACUITY Reputation Limited for loss or damage arising from the receipt or use of this e-mail. This email is intended for the addressee named within only. It may contain legally privileged or confidential information. If you are not the named individual you should not read this email and if you do so, you must not under any circumstances make use of the information therein. If you have read this email and it is not addressed to you, please notify IT@devonshires.co.uk and confirm that it has been deleted from your system and no copies made. Devonshires Solicitors is the trading name of Devonshires Solicitors LLP, registered in England and Wales with company number OC397401 at the address below. This Firm is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under the name of Devonshires Solicitors LLP and registration number 619881. This Firm does not accept service by electronic mail or facsimile. A list of members is open to inspection at the address below. Devonshires Solicitors, 30 Finsbury Circus, London EC2M 7DT tel +44 (0)20 7628 7576 fax +44 (0)20 7256 7318 Where instructions have been given by Devonshires Solicitors to a barrister to work on a client’s matter, we notify you, on behalf of that barrister, that you have the right to make a complaint about the service provided by that barrister or about the conduct of their Chambers. A copy of the barrister and / or their Chambers’ complaints procedure may be obtained by contacting the Senior Clerk of that Chambers, whose contact details can be found online, or from us. Complaints may be made direct to the barrister / their Chambers. Please note that there may be a time limit for bringing your complaint. You may also have the right to ask the Legal Ombudsman to consider your complaint at the end of the complaints process. Information on complaints to the Legal Ombudsman, including the details of strict time limits to bring a complaint, may be found at http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk. The Devonshires Foundation is proud to support Action for Kids (reg. charity 1068841), Wide horizons (reg. charity 1105847), and Theatre Royal Stratford East (reg. charity 233801) during 2014/2015. Please consider the environment before printing this email. CONFIDENTIAL GM_01142 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-27 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT 9 (Filed Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 24 AO 88B (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Pem1it Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Southern District of New York Virginia L. Giuffre Plaintiff V. ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 15-cv-07 433-RWS To: Ghislaine Maxwell Defendant SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS OR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISES IN A CIVIL ACTION Ellmax, LLC c/o Registered Agent CT Corporation System, 1200 S Pine Island Road, Plantation, Florida 33324-4413 (Name of person to whom this subpoena is directed) ~ Production: YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and to permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the material: See Schedule A (attached). Place: Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011 Date and Time: 06/27/2016 5:00 pm 0 Inspection of Premises: YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit entry onto the designated premises, land, or other property possessed or controlled by you at the time, date, and location set forth below, so that the requesting party may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it. I Place: I Date and Time: 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: 06/15/2016 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 Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd . #1200, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301; 954-356-0011 Notice to the person who issues or requests this subpoena If this subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or the inspection of premises 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 1328-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 24 AO 88B (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Jnformation, or Objects or to Penni! Inspection of Premises 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 person as follows: 011 (date) ; or 0 I returned the subpoena unexecuted because: 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 Sen1er 's address Additional information regarding attempted service, etc.: Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 24 AO 88B (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises 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 s11bstantial expense. (2) For Other Discovery. A subpoena may command: (A) production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things at a place within 100 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) A voiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must talce 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---0n a party or attorney who fails to comply. (2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit ln5pection. (A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce documents, electronically stored infonnation, 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---0r to producing electronically stored info1mation in the form or fonns requested. The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. Ifan 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 ifit requires: (i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information; or (ii) disclosing an umetained 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. (l) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored infonnation: (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 not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding must produce it in a form or fonns in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable fmm 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 inforn1ation 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 malcing the claim may notify any party that received the infonnation of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified infonnation and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must talce reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the paity 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 1328-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 24 1 To: Ellmax, LLC EXHIBIT A DEFINITIONS Wherever they hereafter appear the following words and phrases have the following meanings: 1. “Plaintiff” in the above captioned action shall mean the plaintiff Virginia Giuffre formerly known as Virginia Roberts. 2. “Defendant” in the above captioned action shall mean the defendant Ghislaine Maxwell and her employees, representatives or agents. 3. “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. 4. “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. 5. “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, Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 24 2 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 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. 6. “Employee” includes a past or present officer, director, agent or servant, including any attorney (associate or partner) or paralegal. 7. “Including” means including without limitations. 8. “Jeffrey Epstein” includes Jeffrey Epstein and any entities owned or controlled by Jeffrey Epstein, any employee, agent, attorney, consultant, or representative of Jeffrey Epstein. 9. “You” or “Your” hereinafter means Ellmax, LLC and any employee, agent, attorney, consultant, related entities or other representative of Ellmax, LLC. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 24 3 INSTRUCTIONS 1. Production of documents and items requested herein shall be made at the offices of Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 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. e) “Including” shall mean “including without limitation.” Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 24 4 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. 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. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 24 5 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). 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 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 24 6 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 (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 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. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 24 7 DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED PURSUANT TO THIS SUBPOENA 1. All email from your server containing the term “Epstein.” 2. All documents containing the term “Epstein.” 3. All records of donations made by Jeffrey Epstein or related entities. 4. All email from your server containing the term “Giuffre.” 5. All documents containing the term “Giuffre.” 6. All email from your server containing the term “Virginia.” 7. All documents containing the term “Virginia.” 8. All email from your server containing the term “vr” or “VR.” 9. All documents containing the term “vr” or “VR.” 10. All email from your server containing the term “Dershowitz” or “dershowitz.” 11. All documents containing the term “Dershowitz” or “dershowitz.” 12. All email from your server containing the term “jeevacation.” 13. All documents containing the term “jeevacation.” 14. All email from your server, and all other documents, relating to sex abuse. 15. All email from your server, and all other documents, relating to trafficking of any females. 16. All emails and all documents reflecting any placements of employees You have made with Jeffrey Epstein or related entities. 17. All emails and all documents reflecting any contracts You have concerning Jeffrey Epstein or related entities. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 24 AO 88B (Rev. 02/ 14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action U NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Virginia L. Giuffre for the Southern District of New York Plaintiff V. ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 15-cv-07 433-RWS Ghislaine Maxwell Defendant SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS OR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISES IN A CIVIL ACTION To: TerraMar Project, Inc. c/o Registered Agent National Corporate Research, Ltd.; 1025 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 1130, Washington, DC 20005-3516 (Name of person to whom this subpoena is directed) ~ Production: YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and to permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the material: See Schedule A (attached). Place: Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW Washington, DC 20015 (954) 356-0011 Date and Time: 06/27/2016 5:00 pm 0 Inspection of Premises: YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit entry onto the designated premises, land, or other property possessed or controlled by you at the time, date, and location set forth below, so that the requesting party may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it. I Place: I Date and Time: 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: 06/16/2016 CLERK OF COURT Signature of Clerk or Deputy Cle rk Attorney 's signature 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 Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd. #1200, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301; 954-356-0011 Notice to the person who issues or requests this subpoena If this subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or the inspection of premises 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 1328-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 24 AO 88B (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises 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 l served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows: 0 11 (date) ; or 0 I returned the subpoena unexecuted because: Unless the subpoena was issued on bt:half of ihe 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 1328-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 24 AO 88B (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Jnfomrntion, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises 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. (I) 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 pa,ty or a party's officer; or (ii) is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial expense. (2) For Otl1er 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 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 snbpoenR. The ~0mt 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 foes---on a party or attorney who fails to comply. (1) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection. (A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce documents, electronically stored infonnation, or tangible things, or to pe1111it the inspection of premises, need not appear in person al Lhe 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 pem1it 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 fonn or fonns requested. The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. Ifan objection is made, the following rules apply: (i) At any time, on notice lo 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 com1 for the district where compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that: (i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; (ii) r~quires 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 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 info1mation; 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 \\~ll be reasonably compensated. (c) 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 lriformation Not Specified If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored infonnation, the person responding must produce it in a form or fonns in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable fonn 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 infom1ation from somces 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) lnformalion Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed infonnation 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) Iriformation Produced. lfinformation 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 infonnation until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the infonnation if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly present the information under seal to the com1 for the district where compliance is required for a determination of the claim. The person who produced the infonnation 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 1328-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 24 AO 88B (Rev. 02/ 14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Virginia L. Giuffre for the Southern District of New York Plaintiff V. ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 15-cv-07 433-RWS Ghislaine Maxwell Defendant SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS OR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISES IN A CIVIL ACTION To: TerraMar Project, Inc. c/o Registered Agent National Corporate Research, Ltd.; 1025 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 1130, Washington, DC 20005-3516 (Name of person to whom this subpoena is directed) -i Production: YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and to permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the material: See Schedule A (attached). Place: Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW Washington, DC 20015 (954) 356-0011 Date and Time: 06/27/2016 5:00 pm 0 Inspection of Premises: YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit entry onto the designated premises, land, or other property possessed or controlled by you at the time, date, and location set forth below, so that the requesting party may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it. I Place: I Date and Time: 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: 06/16/2016 CLERK OF COURT Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk Attorney's signature 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 Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd. #1200, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301; 954-356-0011 Notice to the person who issues or requests this subpoena If this subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or the inspection of premises 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 1328-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 24 AO 88B (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, lnformation, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises 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 person as follows: 0 11 (date) ; or 0 J returned the subpoena unexecuted because: Unless the subpoena was issued on bdialf of Lhe 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 1328-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 24 AO 88B (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Infomrntion, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises 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. (I) For u 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 patty or a party's officer; or (ii) is commanded lo attend a trial and would not incur substantial expense. (2) For Other Discovery. A subpoena may command: (A) production of documents, electronically stored infonnation, 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 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 ~0n1t 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 foes---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 infonnation, or tangible things, or to pem1it the inspection of premises, need not appear in person al 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 lo pennit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a wTitten objection to inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises---or to producing electronically stored infonnation in the fo1m or fonns 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) rt;quires 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 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 info1mation; or (ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or infonnation 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. (c) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena. (I) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored infonnation: (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 lriformation Not Specified If a subpoena does not specify a fonn for producing electronically stored infonnation, the person responding must produce it in a fonn or fo1ms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable fonn 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 inforn1ation 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 infonnation 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) lnformalion Withheld A person withholding subpoenaed infonnation 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 infonnation 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 infonnation 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 clain1 is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the infonnation 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 infonnation must preserve the infonnation 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 1328-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 24 To: TerraMar Project, Inc. EXHIBIT A DEFINITIONS Wherever they hereafter appear the following words and phrases have the following meanings: 1. "Plaintiff' in the above captioned action shall mean the plaintiff Virginia Giuffre formerly known as Virginia Roberts. 2. "Defendant" in the above captioned action shall mean the defendant Ghislaine Maxwell and her employees, representatives or agents. 3. "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. 4. "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. 5. "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, Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 24 TerraMar Project, Inc. Schedule A contracts, offers, agreements, reports, objects, tangible things, work papers, transcripts, minutes, reports and recordings of telephone or other conversations or communications, or of interviews 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. 6. "Employee" includes a past or present officer, director, agent or servant, including any attorney (associate or partner) or paralegal. 7. "Including" means including without limitations. 8. "Jeffrey Epstein" includes Jeffrey Epstein and any entities owned or controlled by Jeffrey Epstein, any employee, agent, attorney, consultant, or representative of Jeffrey Epstein. 9. "You" or "Your" hereinafter means TerraMar Project, Inc. and any employee, agent, attorney, consultant, related entities or other representative of TerraMar Project, Inc. 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 24 TerraMar Project, Inc. Schedule A INSTRUCTIONS 1. Production of documents and items requested herein shall be made at the offices of Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, 5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW Washington, DC 20015, 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. e) "Including" shall mean "including without limitation." 3 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 24 TerraMar Project, Inc. Schedule A 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 nan1e 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. 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. 4 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 24 TerraMar Project, Inc. Schedule A 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). 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 5 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 22 of 24 TerraMar Proj ect, Inc. Schedule A 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 1328-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 23 of 24 TerraMar Proj ect, Inc. Schedule A DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED PURSUANT TO THIS SUBPOENA 1. All email from your server containing the term "Epstein." 2. All documents containing the term "Epstein." 3. All records of donations made by Jeffrey Epstein or related entities. 4. All records of donations made by William Jefferson Clinton, the Clinton Global Initiative, the Clinton Foundation (a/k/a William J. Clinton Foundation, a/k/a the Bill, Hilary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation), or the Clinton Foundation Climate Change Initiative. 5. All email from your server containing the term "Giuffre." 6. All documents containing the term "Giuffre." 7. All email from your server containing the term "Virginia." 8. All documents containing the term "Virginia." 9. All email from your server containing the term "vr" or "VR." 1 0. All documents containing the term "vr" or "VR." 11. All email from your server containing the term "Dershowitz" or "dershowitz." 12. All documents containing the term "Dershowitz" or "dershowitz." 13 . All email from your server containing the term "jeevacation." 14. All documents containing the tem1 "j eevacation." 15. All email from your server, and all other documents, relating to sex abuse. 16. All email from your server, and all other documents, relating to trafficking of any females. 7 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 24 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. ____________________________/ DECLARATION OF SIGRID MCCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO DIRECT THE DEFENDANT TO DISCLOSE ALL INDIVIDUALS TO WHOM DEFENDANT HAS DISSIMINATED CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION (DE 335) I, Sigrid 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 Order granting my Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice. 2. I respectfully submit this Declaration in Support of Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion for Protective Order and to Direct The Defendant To Disclose All Individuals to Whom Defendant has Dissiminated Confidential Information (DE 335). 3. Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 1 are true and correct copies of Excerpts from June 24, 2016, Deposition of Tony Figueroa; May 18, 2016, Deposition of Johanna Sjoberg; June 10, 2016, Deposition of Rinaldo Rizzo; June 1, 2016, Deposition of John Alessi; May 24, 2016, Deposition of Lynn Miller; June 21, 2016, Deposition of Detective Joseph Recarey; and June 3, 2016, Deposition of David Rodgers. . 4. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of Flight Logs - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 4 from Exhibit 1 of June 3, 2016, Deposition of David Rodgers. 5. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from July 22, 2016, Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell. 6. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from April 22, 2016, Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. /s/ Sigrid McCawley ______________ Sigrid McCawley, Esq. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 4 3 Dated: August 23, 2016. Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. 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 1328-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 4 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 23rd day of August, 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 to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic Court Filing System 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 1328-29 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 4 COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1 (Filed Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 40 www.Southernreporting.com - (386)257-3663 Southern Reporting Company 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CASE: 15-cv-07433-RWS VIRGINIA GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. ____________________/ VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF TONY FIGUEROA Volume 1 of 2 Pages 1 - 157 Taken at the Instance of the Defendant DATE: Friday, June 24, 2016 TIME: Commenced: 8:59 a.m. Concluded: 1:22 p.m. PLACE: Southern Reporting Company B. Paul Katz Professional Center (SunTrust Building) One Florida Park Drive South Suite 214 Palm Coast, Florida 32137 REPORTED BY: LEANNE W. FITZGERALD, FPR Florida Professional Reporter Court Reporter and Notary Public Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 40 www.Southernreporting.com - (386)257-3663 Southern Reporting Company 96 1 Q I guess my question is: Did she ever tell 2 you that she had started as a regular masseuse for 3 him and then transitioned to something other than a 4 masseuse? 5 A No. She never said that it transitioned. 6 But she ended up explaining to me what had happened 7 before, so... 8 Q What has -- what is that? 9 A That her and Ms. Maxwell and Jeffrey would 10 obviously be doing stuff, all three of them 11 together. Like I said, that they would all go out 12 to clubs to pick up girls and try and find them to 13 bring back for Jeffrey. And then she told me about 14 how, like I said, her and Ms. Maxwell and Jeffrey 15 were all intimate together on multiple occasions. 16 Q When did she tell you this? 17 A I'm not exactly sure on the dates. 18 Q Was it while you were still together? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Did you -- had you met Ms. Maxwell? 21 A Yeah, I had met her a couple of times. 22 Q When did you meet Ms. Maxwell? 23 A Dates, I'm unsure of. But it was pretty 24 much, like I said, at Jeffrey's house in the 25 kitchen. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 40 www.Southernreporting.com - (386)257-3663 Southern Reporting Company 97 1 Q Was it earlier in the time you were with 2 her, or... 3 A It was about -- I'd say about six months 4 or so. I don't know. I'm not exactly positive. 5 Q All right. So at the time you met 6 Ms. Maxwell, had Ms. Roberts already told you that 7 she had been intimate? 8 A No. She had told me about that, I 9 believe, after I had max- -- after I had already met 10 her. 11 Q Okay. And tell me everything that you 12 remember about what Ms. Roberts said about being 13 intimate with Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein at the 14 same time. 15 A I remember her talking about, like, 16 strap-ons and stuff like that. But, I mean, like I 17 said, all the details are not really that clear. 18 But I remember her talking about, like, how they 19 would always be using and stuff like that. 20 Q She and Ms. Maxwell and Mr Epstein would 21 used strap-ons? 22 A Uh-huh (affirmative). 23 Q How did you feel about that? 24 A I just -- obviously not happy about it. 25 Q What did you say? Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 40 www.Southernreporting.com - (386)257-3663 Southern Reporting Company 103 1 A I did not. 2 Q When the FBI interviewed you, did you 3 mention this to them? 4 A I mentioned -- anything they asked me, I 5 did not hold anything back. 6 Q Okay. Do you recall specifically talking 7 about sex with the Prince? 8 A I -- I don't recall talking to them about 9 that, but, I mean, it's -- it could be possible. 10 Q Other than sex with the Prince, is there 11 anyone else that Jeffrey wanted Ms. Roberts to have 12 sex with that she relayed to you? 13 A Mainly, like I said, just Ms. Maxwell and 14 all the other girls. 15 Q Ms. Maxwell wanted -- Jeffrey wanted 16 Virginia to have sex with Ms. Maxwell? 17 A And him, yeah. 18 Q And did she tell you whether she had ever 19 done that? 20 A Yeah. She said that she did. 21 Q And when did she tell you that? 22 A I'm not sure on the date. 23 Q And what did she describe having happened? 24 A I believe I already told you that. With 25 the strap-ons and dildos and everything. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 40 www.Southernreporting.com - (386)257-3663 Southern Reporting Company 200 1 MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Form. 2 Foundation. 3 A For Jeffrey. 4 BY MR. EDWARDS: 5 Q All right. Let me fix this. Ghislaine -- 6 when Ghislaine Maxwell would call you during the 7 time that you were living with Virginia, she would 8 ask you what, specifically? 9 MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Form. 10 Foundation. 11 A Just if I had found any other girls just 12 to bring to Jeffrey. 13 BY MR. EDWARDS: 14 Q Okay. 15 A Pretty much every time there was a 16 conversation with any of them, it was either asking 17 Virginia where she was at, or asking her to get 18 girls, or asking me to get girls. 19 Q All right. Let's go to that second 20 category you just identified, which is asking 21 Virginia to get girls. How many times were you in a 22 room where specifically Ghislaine Maxwell would ask 23 Virginia to bring girls? 24 A None that I can recall. 25 Q Okay. How many times -- when you say they Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 40 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 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 40 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 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 40 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 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 40 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 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 40 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 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 40 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 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 40 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 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 40 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 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 40 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 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 40 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 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 40 Page 52 1 R. Rizzo - Confidential 2 Q. Did you learn whether your 3 perception was correct? 4 MR. PAGLIUCA: Same objection. 5 A. It was younger. Yes, I did. 6 Q. How old was this girl? 7 A. 15 years old. 8 Q. What happens next when Ghislaine 9 Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein and a 15-year-old 10 girl walk into Eva Anderson's home? 11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form. 12 Foundation. 13 A. They proceed into the dining room 14 area, which is across from the living room 15 area. I go into the kitchen and I hear a 16 conversation start. Very muffled, I could 17 not hear any particulars about the 18 conversation whatsoever. 19 My wife and I are in the kitchen 20 preparing the evening meal. Eva brings the 21 young girl into the kitchen. In the kitchen, 22 there is an island with three barstools. Eva 23 instructs the young girl to sit to the 24 furthest barstool on the right. 25 Q. Describe for me what the girl MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 40 Page 53 1 R. Rizzo - Confidential 2 looked like, including her demeanor and 3 anything else you remember about her when she 4 walks into the kitchen. 5 A. Very attractive, beautiful young 6 girl. Makeup, very put together, casual 7 dress. But she seemed to be upset, maybe 8 distraught, and she was shaking, and as she 9 sat down, she sat down and sat in the stool 10 exactly the way the girls that I mentioned to 11 you sat at Jeffrey's house, with no 12 expression and with their head down. But we 13 could tell that she was very nervous. 14 Q. What do you mean by distraught and 15 shaking, what do you mean by that? 16 A. Shaking, I mean literally 17 quivering. 18 Q. What happens next? 19 A. We were, again, the absurdity, 20 never introduced. Like you would walk into a 21 room and say this is -- so my wife and I are 22 in the kitchen and this young girl is sitting 23 there. It was a very uncomfortable moment. 24 I look at my wife. And so I want to ease the 25 moment, and so I introduced myself and I MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 40 Page 54 1 R. Rizzo - Confidential 2 introduced my wife, and she doesn't really 3 respond. 4 And I asked her, are you okay? And 5 she doesn't really respond. Nothing verbal, 6 no cues, her head is still down. I ask her 7 if she would like some water, tissue, 8 anything, and she basically doesn't respond. 9 Q. You ask her for a tissue? 10 A. If she would like a tissue or some 11 water at the time. 12 Q. Was she crying at the time? 13 A. My perception, she was on the verge 14 of crying. And I'm trying to loosen the 15 situation every way I know how, so the only 16 way I knew how, and I thought maybe this will 17 comfort her, I said oh, by the way, do you 18 work for Jeffrey. 19 And she says that, I guess kind of 20 made her feel comfortable, because maybe it 21 was that comment or my persistence, and she 22 said yes. So I said, what do you do? And 23 she says I'm Jeffrey's executive assistant, 24 personal assistant. Which, from looking at 25 her, just didn't seem to suit. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 40 Page 55 1 R. Rizzo - Confidential 2 And I blurted out: You're his 3 executive personal assistant? What do you 4 do? And she says I was hired as his 5 executive personal assistant. I schedule his 6 appointments. 7 And I'm shocked, and I blurt out: 8 You seem quite young, how did you get a job? 9 How old are you? And she says to me, point 10 blank: I'm 15 years old. 11 And I said to her: You're 15 years 12 old and you have a position like that? At 13 that point she just breaks down hysterically, 14 so I feel like I just said something wrong, 15 and she will not stop crying. My wife and I 16 were at a loss for words, and I keep on 17 trying to console her, and nothing I was 18 saying, are you all right, do you need a 19 tissue, do you need water, consoles her. 20 And then in a state of shock, she 21 just lets it rip, and what she told me was 22 just unbelievable. 23 Q. What did she say? 24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 25 and foundation. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 40 Page 56 1 R. Rizzo - Confidential 2 A. She proceeds to tell my wife and I 3 that, and this is not -- this is blurting 4 out, not a conversation like I'm having a 5 casual conversation. That quickly, I was on 6 an island, I was on the island and there was 7 Ghislaine, there was Sarah, she said they 8 asked me for sex, I said no. 9 And she is just rambling, and I'm 10 like what, and she said -- I asked her, I 11 said what? And she says yes, I was on the 12 island, I don't know how I got from the 13 island to here. Last afternoon or in the 14 afternoon I was on the island and now I'm 15 here. And I said do you have a -- this is 16 not making any sense to me, and I said this 17 is nuts, do you have a passport, do you have 18 a phone? 19 And she says no, and she says 20 Ghislaine took my passport. And I said what, 21 and she says Sarah took her passport and her 22 phone and gave it to Ghislaine Maxwell, and 23 at that point she said that she was 24 threatened. And I said threatened, she says 25 yes, I was threatened by Ghislaine not to MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 40 Page 57 1 R. Rizzo - Confidential 2 discuss this. 3 And I'm just shocked. So the 4 conversation, and she is just rambling on and 5 on, again, like I said, how she got here, she 6 doesn't know how she got here. Again, I 7 asked her, did you contact your parents and 8 she says no. 9 At that point, she says I'm not 10 supposed to talk about this. I said, but I 11 said: How did you get here. I don't 12 understand. We were totally lost for words. 13 And she said that before she got 14 there, she was threatened again by Jeffrey 15 and Ghislaine not to talk about what I had 16 mentioned earlier, about -- again, the word 17 she used was sex. 18 Q. And during this time that you're 19 saying she is rambling, is her demeanor 20 continues to be what you described it? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Was she in fear? 23 A. Yes. 24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 25 and foundation. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 22 of 40 Page 58 1 R. Rizzo - Confidential 2 Q. You could tell? 3 A. Yes. 4 MR. PAGLIUCA: Same objection. 5 A. She was shaking uncontrollably. 6 Q. What happens with this 15-year-old 7 girl next? 8 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 9 and foundation. 10 A. As she is trying to explain, and 11 I'm asking questions because I'm as feared as 12 she is at this point. We hear people 13 approach and she just shuts up. 14 Q. What happens next? 15 A. Eva comes in and tells her that she 16 will be working for Eva in the city. 17 Q. As what? 18 A. As a nanny. 19 Q. Did you see this girl again? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And when? 22 A. On a flight maybe a month or so to 23 Sweden. 24 Q. What was the purpose of the flight? 25 A. We were going to Sweden for the MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 23 of 40 Page 59 1 R. Rizzo - Confidential 2 summer. 3 Q. Who was on the flight? 4 A. The Dubin family. 5 Q. As well as this girl? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. What happens? 8 A. One thing that I forgot to mention 9 is during our initial conversation, I asked 10 her what her name was and she said her name 11 was Caroline. 12 Q. What happened with Caroline? 13 A. We flew to Sweden, we stopped at an 14 airport that we didn't usually stop at and 15 she got off the plane. 16 Q. Just so that I make sure I 17 understand, who it was that she says asked 18 her for sex on the island, who was that? 19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form. 20 Foundation. 21 A. She didn't specify who asked for 22 sex. She said that they asked for sex. 23 Immediately after that she put Ghislaine and 24 Sarah into the conversation. 25 Q. Taking her passport? MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 24 of 40 Page 60 1 R. Rizzo - Confidential 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. From -- are there any other 4 incidents or occurrences that you observed 5 personally with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine 6 Maxwell? 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 8 and foundation. 9 A. Not that I can recall. 10 Q. This last event that you described, 11 what's the timeframe when that occurred? 12 A. Late 2004, 2005. 13 Q. When did you resign your employment 14 from the Dubin family? 15 A. I think roughly October. 16 Q. Of what year? 17 A. 2005. 18 Q. Why? 19 A. My wife and I had discussed these 20 incidents, and this last one was just, we 21 couldn't deal with it. 22 Q. When you left your employment with 23 the Dubin family, did you have a job? 24 A. When we finally left, I stayed on 25 three months after my resignation, I had a MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 25 of 40 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 June 1, 2016 9:12 a.m. C O N F I D E N T I A L Deposition of JOHN ALESSI, 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 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 26 of 40 Page 28 1 JOHN ALESSI 2 Q. And where did the massage therapists -- 3 where did they come from? 4 A. Most, they came from Palm Beach. Palm 5 Beach County. 6 Q. And over the course of that 10-year period 7 of time while Ms. Maxwell was at the house, do you 8 have an approximation as to the number of different 9 females -- females that you were told were massage 10 therapists that came to the house? 11 MR. PAGLIUSCA: Object to form and 12 foundation. 13 THE WITNESS: I cannot give you a number, 14 but I would say probably over 100 in my stay 15 there. 16 BY MR. EDWARDS: 17 Q. And many of the times would the females 18 come only one time and not return? 19 MR. PAGLIUSCA: Object to form and 20 foundation. 21 BY MR. EDWARDS: 22 Q. Let me ask that a different way. 23 Were there times when some of these 24 females that would come to the house, and you were 25 told that they were massage therapists, would come MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 27 of 40 Page 52 1 JOHN ALESSI 2 MR. PAGLIUSCA: Object to form and 3 foundation. 4 THE WITNESS: Himself. Himself. 5 BY MR. EDWARDS: 6 Q. And you do not know the ages of the 7 various massagists, right? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Did you have occasion to clean up after 10 the massages? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Okay. And that is after both a massage 13 for Jeffrey Epstein, as well as clean up after a 14 massage that Ghislaine Maxwell may have received? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And on occasion, after -- in cleaning up 17 after a massage of Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine 18 Maxwell, did you have occasion to find vibrators or 19 sex toys that would be left out? 20 MR. PAGLIUSCA: Object to form and 21 foundation. 22 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. 23 BY MR. EDWARDS: 24 Q. Can you describe the types of vibrators or 25 sex toys that you found left out after a massage MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 28 of 40 Page 53 1 JOHN ALESSI 2 that Jeffrey Epstein had just received or Ghislaine 3 Maxwell had just received? 4 MR. PAGLIUSCA: Object to form and 5 foundation. 6 THE WITNESS: It was probably two to three 7 times, I would say. It was not all the time. 8 I would find things like a dildo, it's called a 9 double. I hate to say it because these ladies. 10 But I find these things, put my gloves on, took 11 it out and rinse it, and put it in 12 Ms. Maxwell's closet. 13 BY MR. EDWARDS: 14 Q. Why would you put the dildo or sex toy in 15 Ms. Maxwell's closet? 16 A. Because I knew that's where they were 17 kept. 18 Q. How did you know that the sex toys were 19 kept in Ms. Maxwell's closet? 20 A. Because I know where everything was in 21 that house. Every single room, every single thing, 22 it was a place, it was placed by me, by the cleaning 23 lady or my wife. Every -- everything that happened 24 in that house, I knew it. 25 Q. Who showed you where the dildo or sex toys MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 29 of 40 Page 54 1 JOHN ALESSI 2 were kept in the house the first time? 3 MR. PAGLIUSCA: Object to form and 4 foundation. 5 THE WITNESS: Nobody. Nobody show me. 6 BY MR. EDWARDS: 7 Q. You just saw it? 8 A. I saw it. 9 Q. So you knew where to put it back? 10 A. Yeah. We had to open the closet, clean 11 the closet, put the clothes in place, put the shoes 12 in place, put everything in place. So it was a 13 matter of tidying things up. 14 Q. Did you ever find any costumes? 15 A. I saw one shiny black costume, but I 16 didn't even know -- 17 Q. Where did you see it? 18 A. The same place. 19 Q. In Ms. Maxwell's closet? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And where was Ms. Maxwell's closet in the 22 house? 23 A. In the house? It was in the opposite side 24 of his bathroom. It was her bathroom in the master 25 bedroom. It was in the middle. So it was on the MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 30 of 40 *,8))5( 96 0$;:(// 'HSRVLWLRQ /<11758'(0,//(5  BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF WK6WUHHW6XLWH 'HQYHU&RORUDGR  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 31 of 40 $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF /<11758'(0,//(5  1 A Because I wasn't told any different. 2 Q Do you know where any -- any source of 3 that information came from? Was it Sky? 4 A It came from Sky. 5 Q Okay. And what do you recall him telling 6 you about when Virginia stopped working at 7 Mar-a-Lago? 8 A She was in a discussion with Mrs. Maxwell 9 to educate her and take her under her wing and be her 10 new momma. That's what I heard. 11 Q Okay. And who told you that? 12 A Sky. 13 Q Okay. And do you remember when Sky told 14 you that? 15 A I don't remember. 16 Q Okay. Did you learn anything else about 17 that, other than what you just said? 18 A No. 19 Q Okay. Do you know where she went to work 20 after Mar-a-Lago? 21 A I think she went with Mrs. Maxwell. 22 Q But do you know where, physically? 23 A Physically, Sky and I dropped her off one 24 day at Mrs. Maxwell's. I did not speak with 25 Mrs. Maxwell. I didn't have anything to say to her. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 32 of 40 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 June 21, 2016 9:17 a.m. C O N F I D E N T I A L Deposition of JOSEPH RECAREY, 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 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 33 of 40 Page 29 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 Ghislane Maxwell? 3 A. I wanted to speak with everyone related to 4 this home, including Ms. Maxwell. My contact was 5 through Gus, Attorney Gus Fronstin, at the time, who 6 initially had told me that he would make everyone 7 available for an interview. And subsequent 8 conversations later, no one was available for 9 interview and everybody had an attorney, and I was 10 not going to be able to speak with them. 11 Q. Okay. During your investigation, what did 12 you learn in terms of Ghislane Maxwell's 13 involvement, if any? 14 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 15 foundation. 16 THE WITNESS: Ms. Maxwell, during her 17 research, was found to be Epstein's long-time 18 friend. During the interviews, Ms. Maxwell was 19 involved in seeking girls to perform massages 20 and work at Epstein's home. 21 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 22 foundation. 23 BY MR. EDWARDS: 24 Q. Did you interview -- how many girls did 25 you interview that were sought to give or that MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 34 of 40 Page 30 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 actually gave massages at Epstein's home? 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 4 foundation. 5 BY MR. EDWARDS: 6 Q. Approximately. 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Same objection. 8 THE WITNESS: I would say approximately 9 30; 30, 33. 10 BY MR. EDWARDS: 11 Q. And of the 30, 33 or so girls, how many 12 had massage experience? 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 14 foundation. 15 THE WITNESS: I believe two of them may 16 have been -- two of them. 17 BY MR. EDWARDS: 18 Q. Okay. And as we go through this report, 19 you may remember the names? 20 A. Correct. Let me correct myself. I 21 believe only one had. 22 Q. And was that -- was that one of similar 23 age to the other girls? 24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 25 foundation. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 35 of 40 Confidential 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 June 3, 2016 9:07 a.m. C O N F I D E N T I A L Deposition of DAVID RODGERS, 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 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 36 of 40 Confidential Page 18 1 DAVID RODGERS 2 flyer person, then you would reduce it to an 3 initial? 4 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 5 foundation. 6 MR. REINHART: You can answer the 7 question. 8 You can answer the question, if you can 9 answer the question. You are allowed to answer 10 t h e q u e s t i o n , i f y o u u n d e r s t a n d t h e q u e s t i o n . 11 B Y M R . E D W A R D S : 12 Q . I ' m t r y i n g t o u n d e r s t a n d y o u r t e s t i m o n y . 13 I s i t , i f y o u c a m e t o k n o w t h a t p e r s o n - - 14 A . U h - h u h . 15 Q . - - a s a f r e q u e n t f l y e r p a s s e n g e r , y o u 16 w o u l d b e g i n t o r e d u c e t h a t p e r s o n ' s n a m e t o a n 17 i n i t i a l a t s o m e p o i n t ? 18 M R . P A G L I U C A : S a m e o b j e c t i o n . 19 T H E W I T N E S S : W e l l , w e d o n ' t r e a l l y h a v e a 20 f r e q u e n t f l y e r p r o g r a m t h a t w e d o , s o t o s p e a k . 21 A l o t o f t i m e s I w o u l d d o i t b e c a u s e i f y o u 22 w o u l d w r i t e o u t e v e r y b o d y ' s n a m e t h e r e i s n o t 23 e n o u g h s p a c e , y o u k n o w , t o g e t e v e r y b o d y ' s n a m e 24 i n t h a t l i t t l e s q u a r e t h e r e . 25 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 37 of 40 Confidential Page 34 1 DAVID RODGERS 2 Q. -- is that right? 3 And is that -- is Ghislaine Maxwell 4 somebody that through the years 1995 through 2013 5 was somebody who flew very frequently? 6 A. What were the years again? 7 Q. The years of this book, 1995 -- 8 A. I wouldn't say through 2013. But, yes, 9 '95 through 2000 sometime. Probably, I would have 10 t o g o b a c k a n d - - w e l l , y o u c a n s e e i n t h e r e . 11 Q . W e w i l l g e t t o i t . 12 A . T h e r e w i l l b e a p o i n t w h e r e y o u d o n ' t s e e 13 h e r m u c h . B u t t o s a y i t w e n t t h r o u g h 2 0 1 3 w o u l d n o t 14 b e a c c u r a t e . 15 Q . L e t ' s d o i t t h i s w a y : T h e p e r s o n t h a t y o u 16 h a v e r e f l e c t e d o n n u m e r o u s n o t a t i o n s - - 17 A . Y e s . 18 Q . - - t h r o u g h h e r e a s G M - - 19 A . Y e s . 20 Q . - - j u s t b y t h e i n i t i a l s , a r e w e a b l e t o 21 s a f e l y k n o w t h a t t h a t i s G h i s l a i n e M a x w e l l ? 22 A . Y e s . 23 M R . P A G L I U C A : O b j e c t t o f o r m a n d 24 f o u n d a t i o n . 25 M R . E D W A R D S : C o u r t r e p o r t e r , d i d y o u g e t MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 38 of 40 Confidential Page 35 1 DAVID RODGERS 2 the answer? 3 THE REPORTER: Yes. The answer came 4 before the objection. 5 BY MR. EDWARDS: 6 Q. So on the next flight, the next day, from 7 Palm Beach to SAF. Is SAF Santa Fe? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And it indicates JE and GM. 10 A r e w e a b l e t o t h e n k n o w t h a t t h o s e 11 p a s s e n g e r s o n t h a t f l i g h t w e r e J e f f r e y E p s t e i n a n d 12 G h i s l a i n e M a x w e l l ? 13 A . Y e s . 14 M R . P A G L I U C A : O b j e c t t o f o r m a n d 15 f o u n d a t i o n . 16 B Y M R . E D W A R D S : 17 Q . A n d w h e r e w o u l d y o u l a n d a t S A F ? I s t h a t 18 a n a i r p o r t ? 19 A . I t i s a n a i r p o r t . 20 Q . I s i t a p r i v a t e a i r p o r t ? 21 A . N o . I t ' s - - a i r l i n e s g o i n t h e r e . 22 Q . D i d J e f f r e y E p s t e i n a l s o h a v e a l a n d i n g 23 s t r i p a t h i s p r o p e r t y i n N e w M e x i c o ? 24 A . H e d i d a t o n e t i m e . 25 Q . W h a t w o u l d t h a t - - d o y o u r e m e m b e r w h a t MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 39 of 40 Confidential Page 36 1 DAVID RODGERS 2 that code would be? 3 A. I don't believe there was a code. 4 Q. All right. Were there times that you 5 landed either the Gulfstream or the Boeing -- 6 A. No. 7 Q. No. 8 MR. REINHART: Let him finish the question 9 before you answer. 10 T H E W I T N E S S : O h , I ' m s o r r y . 11 B Y M R . E D W A R D S : 12 Q . S u r e . W e a r e d o i n g f i n e s o f a r . B u t t h e 13 c o u r t r e p o r t e r i s t a k i n g d o w n a l l o f o u r q u e s t i o n s 14 a n d a l l o f o u r a n s w e r s . W e a r e c o m m u n i c a t i n g w e l l . 15 A . O k a y . 16 Q . B u t w h e n I g o t o r e a d t h i s b a c k , w e m a y 17 n o t g e t t h a t . 18 A . O k a y . G o a h e a d . 19 Q . S o w e r e t h e r e t i m e s w h e r e y o u l a n d e d o n e 20 o f J e f f r e y E p s t e i n ' s p l a n e s o n h i s p r i v a t e l a n d i n g 21 s t r i p a t t h e N e w M e x i c o p r o p e r t y ? 22 A . Y e s . B u t n o t t h e G u l f s t r e a m a n d n o t t h e 23 B o e i n g . 24 Q . W h a t p l a n e d i d y o u l a n d o n h i s p r o p e r t y ? 25 A . T h e C e s s n a 4 2 1 . A n d p r o b a b l y a MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-30 Filed 01/05/24 Page 40 of 40 United States District Court Southern District of New York Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. ________________________________/ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL (DE 345) 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 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-31 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 13 1 Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre (“Ms. Giuffre”), by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this Reply in Support of her Motion to Compel (DE 345). I. ARGUMENT A. This Court should Order Production of Documents Responsive to Requests Nos. 1-3 Defendant characterizes the police reports (and information therein) concerning Ms. Giuffre as a minor as both “highly relevant” (Br. at 4) and “irrelevant” to this action (Br. at 5). On page 4, Defendant claims that actual police reports are “highly relevant,” stating: “the publicly available, redacted police reports are part of the record and constitute highly relevant evidence in this action.” But, on the very next page, when discussing the information gleaned from those police reports that Mr. Pagliuca had prior to the conferral call, Defendant claims the information from the police reports is “irrelevant,” stating: “The records requested are irrelevant. Plaintiff has asserted a single claim for defamation based on Ms. Maxwell’s denial of her outrageous allegations of ‘sex trafficking.’ The dispositive question is whether the denial was defamatory. RFP No. 1 seeks documents Mr. Pagliuca allegedly ‘reviewed and/or relied upon’ in allegedly making statements stating that Plaintiff previously made false accusations of sexual assault.” (Br. at 5). (Emphasis original). How Defendant purports to distinguish between the actual police reports as “relevant,” and the information contained in the police reports as “irrelevant,” is unexplained. However, logic would dictate that if the police reports are “relevant,” so, too, is the information contained therein and how it was acquired. For that reason, this Court should grant Ms. Giuffre’s requests Nos .1-3. Defendant states that the material responsive to Ms. Giuffre’s requests Nos. 2-3 constitute “privileged communications between (a) Ms. Maxwell’s attorneys and Ms. Maxwell, (b) defense counsel and their agents, and between (c) defense counsel with joint defense or common interest privileges concerning obtaining or receiving 'local police[] findings or opinions’ and ‘statements Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-31 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 13 2 made by law enforcement or any state attorney.’” (Br. at 9). Ms. Giuffre understands this winding sentence to mean that documents responsive to Requests Nos. 2-3 constitute communications between Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein and Alan Dershowitz or their counsel. As discussed at length in the moving brief, Defendant bears the burden to show that there is a joint defense agreement among them, but she refuses to disclose the joint defense agreement, and this Court, months ago, has already ordered Defendant to turn over her communications with Epstein and Dershowitz that she purported were privileged. (See April 15, 2016 Order). Accordingly, this Court should grant Ms. Giuffre’s requests Nos. 2-3. B. This Court should Order Production of Documents Responsive to Requests Nos. 6-7; 9-10; and 11. These requests concern joint defense agreements between and among Defendant, Epstein, and Dershowitz, and communications among counsel for Defendant and Epstein and Dershowitz. In Defendant’s objections submitted to Ms. Giuffre in response to the request for the joint defense agreement between her and Dershowitz, she stated that she “has been unable to locate any documents responsive to this Request.” In her brief, she says that “there is no joint defense agreement to produce.” (Br. at 9). There are two problems with this position. First, Defendant is withholding responsive documents consisting of communications between Dershowitz/Dershowitz’s counsel and Epstein/Epstein’s counsel. Defendant does not, and cannot, refute the case law that puts the burden on establishing a joint defense privilege applies on the party claiming it, which must be shown through evidence. Defendant has put forth no evidence of these agreements. In fact, Defendant states that no such agreement exists with Dershowitz, and she is refusing to reveal the agreement with Epstein. Even if any privileges apply to the actual joint defense agreement with Epstein (and, in many cases, Courts find no privilege applies whatsoever), Defendant has to make that showing. This response brief does not Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-31 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 13 3 make that showing. “Such showings must be based on competent evidence, usually through affidavits, deposition testimony, or other admissible evidence.” Egiazaryan v. Zalmayev, 290 F.R.D. 421, 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citations omitted). Defendant has put forth no affidavits or testimony, but, instead, filed declarations of counsel for Epstein and Dershowitz, indicating their “belief” that a common interest exists.1 Should the Court consider these declarations to be “competent evidence” to establish that a joint defense agreement exists between Defendant and Dershowitz and Epstein (though neither declaration state that an agreement exists), Ms. Giuffre submits that it should not have taken motion practice to elicit such “evidence” as it is Defendant’s burden to produce this evidence. Second, these agreements are plainly relevant to the defamation claim in this case. This Court has previously ordered Defendant to produce emails in which both Epstein and Dershowitz were active in assisting Defendant draft defamatory statements against Ms. Giuffre. See April 15, 2016 Order. Defendant has set forth the defense that her defamatory statements are “substantially true,” and “cannot realistically have cause impairment to Plaintiff’s reputation.” The emails between and among Defendant, Epstein, and Dershowitz, show that that the three of them conspired specifically to damage Ms. Giuffre’s reputation. They also reveal that Defendant’s defamatory statements are not “substantially true.” The joint defense agreement(s) show Defendant’s ongoing and continued relationship with Dershowitz and Epstein, which is relevant to her defenses. Both of these individuals had a hand in Defendant’s statements to the public. At the very least, the Court should conduct an in camera review of any joint defense agreements that exist to determine their relevance to both the defamation claim and the multiple affirmative defenses offered by Defendant. See Steuben Foods, Inc. v. GEA Process Engineering, Inc., 2016 1 Strangely, Defendant redacted both the names of counsel and the names of Epstein and Dershowitz in these filings. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-31 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 13 4 WL 1238785, at *2 (W.D.N.Y., 2016) (granting Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of paragraph 5 of defendant’s joint defense agreement, since that paragraph is relevant to the claims and defenses). C. This Court should Order Production of Documents Responsive to Requests No 12. In this request, Ms. Giuffre seeks the documents that concern her. Defendant tells the Court, “[c]conspicuously missing is any explanation of why a request for ‘all documents concerning’ Plaintiff would not require review and production of every document the defense has in this case.” (Br. at 14). Both common sense and common attorney competencies belies this statement.2 First, it is expected that the overwhelming majority of documents “concerning” Ms. Giuffre are attorney-client communications or work product created after the filing of this lawsuit. Such documents do not even require extensive review as they are protected by privilege, and can be categorically logged pursuant to the Local Rules and governing case law.3 Therefore, there is no merit to Defendant’s burden claim. Moreover, throughout the months of motion practice concerning these issues, and throughout all of the meet and confers, Defendant’s counsel has never presented a case supporting the far-fetched position that non-privileged documents in the possession of the 2 Furthermore, Ms. Giuffre’s correspondence suggesting just how these documents can be collected electronically without undue burden also belies any claim of ignorance on how to collect and produce documents responsive to this request without reviewing “thousands” of presumptively privileged communications. 3 See also Southern District of New York Local Civil Rule 26.2(c); Am. Broad. Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., 2013 WL 139560, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2013) (“the Court notes that [parties] . . . are presented with a number of option that . . . could mitigate the burden . . . including . . . exclusion from the privilege logs of documents created after the commencement of litigation . . ..”) (Emphasis added); United States v. Bouchard Transp., 2010 WL 1529248, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2010) (“First, privilege logs are commonly limited to documents created before the date litigation was initiated. This is due to the fact that, in many situations, it can be assumed that all documents created after charges have been brought or a lawsuit has been filed and withheld on the grounds of privilege were created “because of” that pending litigation.”) (Emphasis added). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-31 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 13 5 Defendant, and containing explicit references to Ms. Giuffre, are irrelevant and not subject to discovery. What should be reviewed and produced are the documents in Defendant’s possession concerning Ms. Giuffre that are outside the scope of privilege. This would include, for example, Defendant’s communications with third parties that concern Ms. Giuffre. The Court has already seen examples of some of these communications in its in camera review, and it ordered Defendant to produce Defendant’s communications concerning Ms. Giuffre that she exchanged with Epstein, Ross Gow, and others. This request targets documents like those. Defendant has not argued any burden applies to such a collection. Furthermore, if Defendant had collected her electronic data pursuant to this Court’s order, an electronic search - few key strokes - would both identify these documents and eliminate the communications to/from Defendant’s attorneys that fall under the ambit of privilege. This is a basic request for documents concerning one of the parties, and one that would be issued in almost any litigation. Defendant’s continued refusal to produce documents concerning Ms. Giuffre is made in bad faith and shows that she is hiding additional incriminating documents4 (including those regarding a recently-discovered defamatory statement in the January 8, 2015, article, discussed, infra, at p. 6-7). An adverse inference instruction is appropriate in this circumstance, as more fully briefed in Ms. Giuffre’s August 8, 2016, Memorandum of Law on the same (DE 338). 4 After the close of discovery and after the depositions have been taken in this matter, just days ago, Defendant produced a critical e-mail asserting that it’s exclusion from production was a “clerical error.” The e-mail proves that the Defendant has continued to use Ross Gow as her “image consultant” and media relations agent during the course of this lawsuit to interface with the media. See McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 1, GM_01141, November 10, 2015 email from Ross Gow to Defendant. This runs directly contrary to Defendant’s representations to this Court that she has no ability to produce Ross Gow for a deposition and instead has forced Ms. Giuffre to spend thousands of dollars to track down a person who is in Defendant’s employ. - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-31 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 13 6 D. This Court Should Order Production of Documents Responsive to Requests No 17 and 18. Requests Nos. 17 and 18 seek 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” and “all documents concerning which individuals or entities You or Your agents distributed or sent any statements concerning Ms. Giuffre referenced in Request No. 17 made by You or on Your behalf.” In other words, Ms. Giuffre is seeking what statements about Ms. Giuffre Defendant distributed and to whom. This is another basic request, particularly in a defamation case. Moreover, the only person who knows the full extent of Defendant’s defamation of Ms. Giuffre is Defendant. In her brief, Defendant states that “the defense previously produced responsive documents.” It is likely that Defendant is referring to the press release email communication from Mr. Gow to various media outlets. The defamatory statements contained therein are referenced in Ms. Giuffre’s Complaint. Since filing the instant motion, Ms. Giuffre has become aware that Defendant caused additional defamatory statements to be published. This is important. Ms. Giuffre has discovered an article that refers to a different defamatory statement, not contained in the above-state press release. See McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 2, January 8, 2015, The Sun (online) article: “Prince Andrew’s pal Ghislaine ‘groped teen girls,’” (Miss Maxwell’s spokesman branded the accusations against her a “web of lies and deceit” — adding: “None of these allegations are on oath. “These girls are saying anything they want for money.”). Communications bearing this language are responsive to these requests, as is the publication in which Ms. Giuffre discovered Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-31 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 13 7 it. Defendant has produced no documents at all related to this statement made by her representative. This is a statement made to a major publication on behalf of Defendant. “Reasonable inquiry,” as required by Rule 26, Fed. R. Civ. P., would have easily yielded documents relating to this statement issued on Defendant’s behalf. Yet, Defendant did not produce documents relating to that defamatory statement, and is now caught in another discovery violation for her failure to produce documents related to that January 8, 2015, statement. Defendant cannot refuse to provide Ms. Giuffre with the extent of the publication of Defendant’s defamatory statements nor can she decide, merely, to provide self-selected documents relating to the defamatory statements Ms. Giuffre knows about at the time. Wanting to hide the fact that her defamation was on a greater scale than originally known to Ms. Giuffre is not a proper objection, and withholding from discovery Defendant’s additional defamation constitutes a discovery violation. The Court should order Defendant to fully comply with the requests in Nos. 17 and 18, including the production of documents related to the statement issued on her behalf to The Sun as reported in the January 8, 2015, article, above. E. The Documents Improperly Logged Defendant has withheld communications with Alan Dershowitz’s counsel claiming a common interest/joint defense privilege. As stated above, Defendant claims that there exist no joint defense agreement between her and Mr. Dershowitz. (Br. at 9). Yet, Defendant has agreed to provide non-party Dershowitz all the discovery materials in this case, and Dershowitz has clearly agreed to assist Defendant in this litigation. It is Ms. Giuffre’s position that an agreement must still be evidenced in order to invoke the common interest/joint defense privilege by affidavit or similar evidence. See Von Bulow by Auersperg v. Von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 147 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1015, 107 S.Ct. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-31 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 13 8 1891, 95 L.Ed.2d 498 (1987); Bowne of N.Y.C., Inc. v. AmBase Corp., 150 F.R.D. 465, 472 (S.D.N.Y.1993). Egiazaryan v. Zalmayev, 290 F.R.D. 421, 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). A “declaration” from Dershowitz’s counsel stating that she “believe[s] Professor Dershowitz and Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell have a common interest”5 is not evidence of a joint defense agreement, and Defendant still fails to carry her burden. Accordingly, this Court should compel the production communications with Dershowitz’s counsel. The “declaration” of Epstein’s counsel similarly falls short. See Indyke Dec. at ¶ 4 (“I consider Mr. Epstein and his lawyers and Ms. Maxwell and her lawyers to have a common interest.”) Therefore, if the Court finds that these declarations do not satisfy Defendant’s burden under Egiazaryan, it should compel Defendant to produce those documents. F. A Forensic Review is Appropriate in these Circumstances Since filing the instant motion, Defendant has produced another communication between her and Ross Gow, and another email between her and Jeffrey Epstein. Defendant explained that they were not produced “following the Court’s in camera review in April” due to “clerical error.” See McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 3, August 16, 2016 letter form Laura Menninger.6 One of these documents is an April 2015, email between Defendant and Epstein. Defendant complains to the Court that a forensic review would invade her privacy (br. at 20-21), while at the same time, she and her joint defense partner both seek to strip away Ms. Giuffre’s privacy by revealing confidential documents under the Protective Order. However, 5 Declaration of Mary E. Borja (DE 387). 6 In one of the communications, she states that she would like “Barden” to reply to “one further allegation” and Epstein writes back, “ok.” This document was not produced until after the close of discovery, and therefore, Defendant was never deposed on (1) why she was seeking Epstein’s permission for a having Barden make a “reply;” (2) what Epstein’s relationship was with Barden; (3) or who drafted the original communication at the bottom of the email, as it does not appear to have been created by either Defendant or Epstein. (Pending before this Court is Ms. Giuffre’s motion to reopen Defendant’s deposition.) (DE 315/356). See GM_01143-1144. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-31 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 13 9 Defendant fails to mention that a forensic review would not give Ms. Giuffre - or the Court, or anyone in the world - access to, or knowledge of “highly sensitive information” that is not directly responsive or directly relevant to this case. Ms. Giuffre requested a forensic exam by an independent, third-party technician (not conducted by Ms. Giuffre or her agents), who would be bound by the terms of this Court’s Protective Order or any other strictures necessary to maintain Defendant’s privacy. Therefore, this argument is without merit. Additionally, Defendant’s case law is easily distinguishable. Abidor v. Napolitano, 990 F. Supp. 2d 260, 280 (E.D.N.Y. 2013), is a case brought by criminal defense lawyers challenging the inspection by governmental entities (Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection) of electronic devices individuals brought across the border under Fourth Amendment grounds.7 Of course, there are no Fourth Amendment implications in this case raised by having a neutral third-party (who is not a state actor) assist Defendant in recovering relevant/deleted material from her electronic data in this civil case. Similarly, U.S. v. Galpin, 720 F.3d 436, 447 (2d Cir. 2013), is a criminal case involving possession of child pornography, evidence of which was found through a government search of a party’s computer. These cases are inapposite. Furthermore, in her Rule 45 subpoenas to Microsoft and Apple, Defendant sought unfettered access all of Ms. Giuffre’s sent and received email (and attendant metadata), regardless of the relevance, and regardless of content. Defendant’s subpoenas, combined with her argument made to this Court to support them, surely belies Defendant’s expressed concern 7 Of course, the Fourth Amendment protects individuals from search and seizure by state actors, and states: “"[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." U.S. Const. amend. IV. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-31 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 13 10 about privacy. (This Court quashed those subpoenas, see June 23, 2016, Minute Entry). Defendant cannot argue to the Court in June that it is appropriate for her to receive unfettered access to every email Ms. Giuffre ever sent or received from two accounts, and then, in August, argue to the Court that it is inappropriate for a neutral third-party to review Defendant’s electronic documents for deleted (or unproduced) responsive documents - a process through which, importantly, neither Ms. Giuffre nor the Court gets access to all of Defendant’s data (unlike Defendant’s subpoenas which would give all data directly to her). To the contrary, neither Ms. Giuffre nor the Court would ever see or know about Defendant’s personal data unless it is non-privileged, and directly responsive to the requests for production that this Court has already, specifically allowed. Finally, Defendant denies using her gmax1@mindspring.com account for anything other than spam, despite the fact that the account was set up by Jeffrey Epstein for the purpose of sending electronic communications to members of his household. See DE 338; Alessi Dep. Tr. at 223:5-225:17. (June 1, 2016) (McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4); Banasiak Dep. Tr. at 56:13-17; 5:2-14; 58:1-7; 60:21-61:7 (February 16, 2010) (Emphasis added) (McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5). Defendant denies knowledge of her , and has not pursued access to that account, despite the fact that the account name bears her initials and was part of her contact information gathered by the police from Epstein’s home, and turned over to the Palm Beach County State Attorney as part of the investigation and prosecution of Epstein. See (DE 280-2), Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office, Public Records Request No.: 16-268, Disc 7 at p. 2305 (GIUFFRE007843). Yet, Defendant has not disclosed what email account she did use while she abused Ms. Giuffre, and has never searched that account nor produced documents from it. Accordingly, a forensic exam is called for at this time. ■~-----Jane Doe 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-31 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 13 11 Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Meredith Schultz 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) 585-52028 8 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 1328-31 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 13 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 24, 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 to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic Court Filing System 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/ Meredith Schultz Meredith Schultz Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-31 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 13 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 MCCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL (DE 345) I, Sigrid 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 Order granting my Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice. 2. I respectfully submit this Declaration in Support of Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (DE 345). 3. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of November 10, 2015, Correspondence from Ross Gow to Ghislaine Maxwell. 4. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of January 8, 2015, Online Article from The Sun. 5. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of August 16, 2016, Correspondence from Laura Menninger. 6. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from June 1 2016, Deposition of John Alessi. - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-32 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 4 7. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from February 16, 2016, Deposition of Janusz Banasiak. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. /s/ Sigrid McCawley ______________ Sigrid McCawley, Esq. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-32 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 4 3 Dated: August 24, 2016. Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. 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 1328-32 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 4 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 24th day of August, 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 to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic Court Filing System 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 1328-32 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT 1 (File Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-33 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 3 1 ________________________________ From: Ross Gow Sent: 10 November 2015 18:16 To: Gmax; Philip Barden Subject: Fwd: Inquiry from The New York Times Hi Ghislaine and Philip Please advise how you wish to respond... Best Ross ---------- Forwarded message ----------From: Meier, Barry Date: Tuesday, 10 November 2015 Subject: Inquiry from The New York Times To: Mr. Gow, Good day. I am a reporter for the Times and it is my understanding that you represent Ghislaine Maxwell. I am working on an article about the legal fallout from the Jeffrey Epstein case. I anticipate mentioning the lawsuit filed earlier this year by Virginia Roberts Guiffee against Ms. Maxwell. How does she respond? Kindly advise by close of business Thursday, November 12, 2015. And call me if you have any questions. Regards, Barry Meier -- The New York Times 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01141 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-33 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 3 2 -- Ross Gow Managing Partner ACUITY Reputation www.acuityreputation.com<http://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 the attention and use of the named addressee(s). If you are 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-mail 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 virus checker and procedures. No responsibility is accepted by ACUITY Reputation Limited for loss or damage arising from the receipt or use of this e-mail. This email is intended for the addressee named within only. It may contain legally privileged or confidential information. If you are not the named individual you should not read this email and if you do so, you must not under any circumstances make use of the information therein. If you have read this email and it is not addressed to you, please notify IT@devonshires.co.uk and confirm that it has been deleted from your system and no copies made. Devonshires Solicitors is the trading name of Devonshires Solicitors LLP, registered in England and Wales with company number OC397401 at the address below. This Firm is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under the name of Devonshires Solicitors LLP and registration number 619881. This Firm does not accept service by electronic mail or facsimile. A list of members is open to inspection at the address below. Devonshires Solicitors, 30 Finsbury Circus, London EC2M 7DT tel +44 (0)20 7628 7576 fax +44 (0)20 7256 7318 Where instructions have been given by Devonshires Solicitors to a barrister to work on a client’s matter, we notify you, on behalf of that barrister, that you have the right to make a complaint about the service provided by that barrister or about the conduct of their Chambers. A copy of the barrister and / or their Chambers’ complaints procedure may be obtained by contacting the Senior Clerk of that Chambers, whose contact details can be found online, or from us. Complaints may be made direct to the barrister / their Chambers. Please note that there may be a time limit for bringing your complaint. You may also have the right to ask the Legal Ombudsman to consider your complaint at the end of the complaints process. Information on complaints to the Legal Ombudsman, including the details of strict time limits to bring a complaint, may be found at http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk. The Devonshires Foundation is proud to support Action for Kids (reg. charity 1068841), Wide horizons (reg. charity 1105847), and Theatre Royal Stratford East (reg. charity 233801) during 2014/2015. Please consider the environment before printing this email. CONFIDENTIAL GM_01142 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-33 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT 5 (File Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-34 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 7 Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) 2d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 Page 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO:502008CA028051XXXXMB AB L.M. Plaintiff, -vs- JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND SARAH KELLEN, Defendants. ______________________________/ DEPOSITION OF JANUSZ BANASIAK Tuesday, February 16, 2010 10:09 - 2:30 p.m. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1500 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Reported By: Cynthia Hopkins, RPR, FPR Notary Public, State of Florida Prose Court Reporting Job No.: 1317 GIUFFRE004424 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-34 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 7 Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) 2d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 Page 56 1 Q. Is your computer in your office -- 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Let me finish. Is the computer in your 4 office linked up with the three computers that were 5 removed from the house? Meaning, can you look at 6 the system and see what is on those three computers? 7 A. No, no. 8 Q. Is it your understanding that those three 9 computers are linked with one another or do you 10 know? 11 A. I don't know, but I, I doubt it. They are 12 separate I guess. 13 Q. Okay. Were you aware that Mr. Epstein 14 used a Citrix program to link various computers? 15 Did you know that? 16 A. Yeah. I use Citrix too in my computer for 17 exchanging e-mails and get through Internet. 18 Q. Okay. So, is it your understanding that 19 the only connection then through Citrix with these 20 computers, these various computers that were in 21 Mr. Epstein's home, was for e-mail purposes? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Okay. To your knowledge, you're not 24 familiar with those computers sharing other files or 25 information? GIUFFRE004479 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-34 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 7 Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) 2d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 Page 57 1 A. No. 2 Q. That's not something that you were, you 3 were privy to? You weren't, you weren't in the loop 4 of the sharing of information in the house in terms 5 of the computers being connected through any server? 6 A. I don't really know what, how, how to answer 7 your question because Citrix is for the whole 8 organization to exchange e-mail between employees. 9 Q. All right. You used the term? 10 A. So, even my computer is connected to Citrix. 11 I can receive mail and I can e-mail information to 12 employee within organization. But I don't know if you 13 can see to each computer what is going on on another 14 computer. 15 Q. You don't know about -- 16 A. Is that your question? 17 Q. You don't know about shared files? 18 A. No. 19 Q. You only know that the one computer can 20 e-mail the other? 21 A. Right. 22 Q. But that can happen with any two computers 23 in the world pretty much. You can send e-mails to 24 each other, right. 25 A. Yes. GIUFFRE004480 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-34 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 7 Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) 2d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 Page 58 1 Q. You have used the term organization, you 2 can share within the organization. What do you -- 3 just so I can understand what you're calling the 4 organization, what do you mean by that word? 5 A. People employed by Jeffrey Epstein. There are 6 a few groups of people, his office in New York and I 7 guess -- 8 Q. Who are those people by name that you 9 would consider within the Jeffrey Epstein 10 organization? 11 A. His accountant, his -- 12 Q. Who is that? 13 A. Bella Klen. 14 Q. What is it? 15 A. Bella Klen. K-l-i-n. E-n, I'm sorry. 16 Q. Bella, B-e-l-l-a? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Is that somebody in New York? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Is that a male or female? 21 A. Female. 22 Q. And you understand that's his accountant? 23 A. Right. 24 MR. GOLDBERGER: Just to get the spelling 25 correct is it K-l-e-i-n? GIUFFRE004481 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-34 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 7 Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) 2d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 Page 60 1 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 2 BY MR. EDWARDS: 3 Q. We'll go back to that but I tell you why I 4 ask. If you don't know then you don't know, but in 5 the course of Mr. Epstein's -- you're aware that he 6 did plead guilty to a couple felonies in state 7 court, right? 8 A. Right. 9 Q. Well, in the course of the negotiation 10 with the federal government and the U.S. Attorney's 11 Office, they, the agreement between Mr. Epstein and 12 the U.S. Attorney's office mentions people that are 13 called co-conspirators of Epstein. And Leslie Groff 14 is named as one of those co-conspirators. 15 Do you know what involvement, if any, that 16 she had with the crimes that were being 17 investigated? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. I am not aware of this. 21 Q. Okay. The other people mentioned as 22 co-conspirators are Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, and 23 Nadia Marcinkova. So we'll get to them in a minute 24 but first just so we stay on the track of who was in 25 the organization, is Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross and GIUFFRE004483 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-34 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 7 Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) 2d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 Page 61 1 Nadia Marcinkova all people that you would also 2 consider within the organization? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. So, we just added three more names 5 to it. Who else would you consider, Ghislaine 6 Maxwell? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And who else? 9 A. Who was working there? 10 Q. Bella, Richard Kahn, Leslie Groff, 11 Ghislaine Maxwell, Nadia, Sarah, Adriana. 12 A. I think Harry was involved with the 13 accounting. 14 Q. Okay. 15 A. I don't recall his last name. 16 Q. Somebody else involved with the 17 accounting? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Okay. Any of those people that you just 20 named, were any of those people that you just named 21 the person that you described as the gentleman that 22 assisted Adriana in removing the computers from the 23 house prior to the search warrant being executed? 24 A. No. You mean the one who show up to do those 25 computers? GIUFFRE004484 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-34 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 7 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 LEAVE TO FILE A SUR-REPLY OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S MISREPRESENTATIONS OF FACT TO THE COURT ......................................... Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca HADDON, MORGAN, AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 303.831.7364 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-35 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 10 1 Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell (“Ms. Maxwell”) files this Motion for Leave to File a Sur￾Reply or, Alternatively, to Strike Plaintiff’s Misrepresentations of Fact from her Reply In Support of Motion For Protective Order And To Direct The Defendant To Disclose All Individuals To Whom Defendant Has Disseminated (sic) Confidential Information (Doc. #388), and states as follows: INTRODUCTION Plaintiff’s Reply makes material misrepresentations of fact. Those misstatements cannot stand in a filed, albeit redacted, pleading. Ms. Maxwell has never “admitted” to having “threesomes with multiple different girls.” (Reply at 4). That is a misstatement of fact compounded by Plaintiff’s intentional omission of the previous page of deposition testimony which exposes the falsehood. Similarly, Detective Joe Recarey never “testified that Defendant procured underage girls for Epstein.” (Reply at 4) To the contrary, he testified that all of the underage girls he interviewed never mentioned Ms. Maxwell at all. These are but a few of the misrepresentations of fact contained in Plaintiff’s Reply. Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell seeks leave of the Court to file a Sur-Reply or, alternatively, moves the Court to strike from Plaintiff’s Reply the misstatements of fact. PLAINTIFF’S MISSTATEMENTS OF FACT 1. “Defendant’s own admission of how she and Epstein had threesomes with multiple different girls whose names she can’t even remember…” (Reply at 4). Ms. Maxwell testified that on a “few occasions” she engaged in sexual activity with Jeffrey Epstein and another adult woman. Specifically, when asked to describe the woman, Ms. Maxwell testified: Q. Can you describe any of the people with whom you engaged in sexual activities at Mr. Epstein's home in Palm Beach? A. The description that I have is somebody who is roughly my age, and I recall a blond and I recall a brunette, and that's pretty much what I recall. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-35 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 10 2 (Tr. at 57:5-13). Q. The women with whom you engaged in sexual activities with Mr. Epstein and yourself and the other women, were they older or younger than you? A. Same age as me. (Tr. at 62:10-14). It is an outright misrepresentation to this Court that Ms. Maxwell admitted to any sexual contact with a “multiple different girls.” A “girl” is a female child. See, e.g., Cambridge University Dictionary, “Girl: a female child or young woman, especially one still at school” (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/girl) (last accessed August 25, 2016). Ms. Maxwell described these few occasions as occurring in the late 1990s when she was in her late 30s, with women who were the “same age as me.” Plaintiff well knows that it is irrelevant to this lawsuit whether Ms. Maxwell engaged in consensual, adult sexual activities with women. There is no allegedly defamatory statement that has anything to do with Ms. Maxwell’s private adult sex life. It is an abuse of this litigation process to even ask Ms. Maxwell such questions. Instead, Plaintiff’s flagrant misrepresentation is designed to support her false assertion that Ms. Maxwell participated in sexual activities with underage girls, which she did not and indeed, no witness other than Plaintiff has claimed that she has. Plaintiff intentionally omitted the deposition pages from Ms. Maxwell’s testimony which clarified the age and misstated in her Reply that she “admitted” to “threesomes with multiple girls.” This was an intentional misrepresentation of fact. 2. “Ms. Giuffre was the child victim of sexual abuse, which is undisputed.” (Reply at 9) If there is one thing this litigation makes clear, it is heavily disputed that Ms. Giuffre was the child victim of sexual abuse. Ms. Maxwell has absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Ms. Giuffre was the child victim of any sexual abuse. As she testified at her deposition: Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-35 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 10 3 Q. Do you know what happened during the massage appointments with Jeffrey Epstein and Virginia Roberts? A. No. Q. Were you ever present to view a massage between Jeffrey Epstein and Virginia Roberts? A. I don't recollect ever seeing Virginia and Jeffrey in a massage situation. Q. Do you ever recollect seeing them in a sexual situation? A. I never saw them in a sexual situation. Q. Did you ever participate in sex with Virginia Roberts and Jeffrey Epstein? A. I never ever at any single time at any point ever at all participated in anything with Virginia and Jeffrey. And for the record, she is an absolute total liar and you all know she lied on multiple things and that is just one other disgusting thing she added. (4/22/16 Tr. at 75-76). The Palm Beach State’s Attorney’s Office, the Palm Beach Police Department and the Royal Palm Beach Police Departments all likewise have never concluded that Plaintiff was a “child victim of sexual abuse.” Rather their reports reflect Plaintiff’s false allegations of being a “child victim of sexual abuse” in situations such as getting in trouble for running away from home, getting in trouble for not attending school, getting in trouble for using alcohol and marijuana. There is absolutely nothing “undisputed” about Plaintiff’s claim of victimhood. Furthermore, Plaintiff left unredacted her assertion that it is “undisputed” that Ms. Roberts was the child victim of sexual abuse, leaving the mis-impression with the public that Ms. Maxwell has in some way conceded that to be true. She has not. 3. “Detective Joseph Recarey … testified that Defendant procured underage girls for Epstein” (Reply at 3, n.4). In fact, Detective Recarey testified that none of the underage girls interviewed in connection with his investigation into Epstein claimed to have been hired by Maxwell; in fact, none of them mentioned Ms. Maxwell at all. The two women he interviewed who were hired by Ms. Maxwell both said they gave professional, adult massages to Epstein. - - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-35 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 10 4 Q. So out of your entire report, the only two people who ever said anything about Ms. Maxwell were Ms. Sjoberg, who I believe was 23 when you interviewed her? A. Right, but she was -- She was -- she had worked there for quite some time, so you would have to back up, I think, a year or two. Q. She was an adult when she worked there? A. Right. She was over the age of 18, right, let's put it that way. Q. And she was not listed by you as a victim as part of this case, right? A. Correct, because it was between two consenting adults. Q. Exactly. And so that's Ms. Sjoberg, and then the other individual, I think you said Bolero; is that right? A. Venero, Christina Venero. She's a – Q. Adult masseuse, correct? A. Yes. I remember she had lots of tattoos. Q. Tatts, right. But the 17 individuals that you listed in Exhibit 1, none of those individuals ever said the word -- the words "Ghislaine Maxwell" during the course of this investigation to you, correct? A. I don't believe so. It would be on the tapes if they did. (Tr. 194-195). 4. “Ms. Sjoberg’s testimony of how Defendant lured her from her school to have sex with Epstein under the guise of answering phones…” (Reply at 4). In truth, Ms. Sjoberg (an adult at the time, attending college) testified that Ms. Maxwell asked her to “massage feet,” which is something she had recently been doing on her mission trip, that she later became a professional masseur, that she came to engage in “consensual, adult” sexual contact with Epstein through no involvement of Ms. Maxwell, that any sexual intercourse with Epstein took place in 2005 when Ms. Maxwell was no longer around, and that Ms. Maxwell never participated in nor asked her to participate in any sexual conduct. (Tr. at 8, 13, 49, 50-52, 99, 101, 147). 5. “Mr. Rizzo’s testimony about how Defendant took the passport of a 15-year-old Swedish girl and threatened her when she refused to have sex with Epstein” (Reply at 4). Plaintiff’s continued reliance on the testimony of Mr. Rizzo is tantamount to suborning perjury. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-35 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 10 5 Mr. Rizzo’s testimony is vehemently denied by all individuals involved, including his former employers, a respected medical professional and her husband a well-respected businessman. His account does not accord with any reports made to law enforcement (Mr. Rizzo himself did not make any reports to law enforcement regarding the events that he says occurred 12 years ago). Further, Mr. Rizzo said the events were so “shocking” that he quit his job, but he later admitted he returned to the same job a short time later. Mr. Rizzo has been in litigation against his employers and admitted he contacted Mr. Edwards to represent him hoping he could make more money from this case. 6. “Mr. Alessi’s testimony about how Defendant brought girls over for Epstein” (Reply at 4). In truth, Mr. Alessi testified that the massage therapists for Mr. Epstein were over the age of 18 and that he only assisted Ms. Maxwell in hiring adult massage therapists from high end spas such as Breakers Hotel, Mar-a-Lago, or Boca Raton Resort and Hotel. The only underage person he saw at the house was and she was never naked or participating in massages. (Tr. at 165, 182, 188). 7. “Mr. Figueroa’s testimony about how Defendant would call him to bring over underage girls and how Defendant and Epstein would have threesomes with Ms. Giuffre” (Reply at 4). In fact, convicted felon Tony Figueroa denied that Ms. Maxwell called him at all. Q: Did you ever bring a girl to Ms. Maxwell? A: No. Q: Did Ms. Maxwell ever call you and ask you to bring a girl to her? A: No. Q: Did Ms. Maxwell ever call you and ask you to bring a girl to Jeffrey? A: No. (Tr. at 106-07). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-35 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 10 6 He had no personal knowledge whether anything other than massage occurred with the females that went over to Mr. Epstein’s home: Q. Well, you said you observed bringing a girl over. A. No. I'm just saying -- like, I brought them over, yes. But I have never observed anything, like, sexual. Never anything -- like to where it would be an illegal activity. Like, any time I was there, everybody was dressed. They were all talking like it was just, like, people hanging out in a room, you know what I mean? There was never anything going on when I was there, so... Q Do you have any personal knowledge as to whether anything other than a massage took place between Jeffrey and these girls? A No. Q You did not see anything? A Nope. Q They didn't tell you afterwards anything happened? A Nope. (Tr. at 116). He testified that all of the females he brought over were his age, or at most a year younger, and he was 20. (Tr. at 234) Further, he never saw any sexual activity occur between Plaintiff and Mr. Epstein: Q Ms. Roberts described sexual acts that she participated in with Jeffrey; correct? A Yes. Q And you did not observe that? A No. (Tr. at 121). 8. “Defendant and/or Her Joint Defense Partners Previously Fed [Plaintiff’s False Claims of Sexual Assault] to the Media” (Reply at 9). Ms. Maxwell, and her “joint defense partners,” have never “fed” to the media anything about Plaintiff’s various false claims of sexual abuse. To the contrary, all of the email exchanges between Ms. Maxwell, Mr. Gow, Mr. Epstein and others indicate Ms. Maxwell’s extreme reluctance to be involved with the media. The email quoted by Plaintiff in her Reply at page 5 simply shows that Mr. Gow picked up on the media’s Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-35 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 10 7 independent reports of Plaintiff’s false allegations of sexual assault and sent that information to Ms. Maxwell. There is nothing in Mr. Gow’s email then or afterwards which suggests he or Ms. Maxwell or anyone else they know “leaked” the story. Indeed, there is nothing to suggest that Ms. Maxwell had access to Plaintiff’s police reports in February 2015. The police reports were obtained, by Plaintiff’s admission, in April 2016. This is pure unsupported speculation and slander on the part of Plaintiff’s counsel, ironically, the very people who misrepresented to the press the contents of the police reports and hid from production all of the other instances of Plaintiff’s contact with law enforcement. ARGUMENT None of these factual assertions bear on the issue before the Court -- whether Plaintiff’s publicly available criminal files should be deemed “confidential” under the Protective Order. None of the witnesses has anything to do with Plaintiff’s false claims of sexual assault as a child, nor her domestic violence. Indeed, in what is an almost daily occurrence in this case, Plaintiff has selectively misquoted portions of deposition transcript testimony in an effort to mislead the Court into believing there is evidence of Ms. Maxwell’s guilt, a topic in the exclusive province of the jury, so as to improperly influence the Court’s discovery rulings. Ms. Maxwell cannot stand idly by while Plaintiff misrepresents to the Court and says, for example, that she confessed to participating in threesomes with “girls.” Reply at 4. No such admission occurred. It is a violation of candor to the Court to claim otherwise. Likewise, Detective Recarey never concluded in his investigation that Ms. Maxwell “procured underage girls for Epstein.” In fact, quite the opposite, Detective Recarey found no evidence that Ms. Maxwell ever even met any of the underage girls he interviewed. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-35 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 10 8 Ms. Maxwell seeks leave of the Court to file a Sur-Reply to refute these baseless, false misrepresentations to the Court that Plaintiff included within her Reply, if Plaintiff does not honor her obligations under Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 to withdraw them of her own accord. Dated: August 25, 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 1328-35 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 10 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on August 25, 2016, I electronically served this Defendant’s Motion For Leave To File A Sur-Reply Or, Alternatively, To Strike Plaintiff’s Misrepresentations Of Fact To The Court via ECF 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/ Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-35 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 10 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 Leave to File A Sur-Reply Or, Alternatively, to Strike Plaintiff’s Misrepresentations of Fact to the Court 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 in this action. I respectfully submit this Declaration in support of Ms. Maxwell’s Motion for Leave to File A Sur-Reply Or, Alternatively, to Strike Plaintiff’s Misrepresentations of Fact to the Court. 2. Attached as Exhibit A (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of excerpts from the July 22, 2016 deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell, designated as Confidential under the Protective Order. .......................................... Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-36 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 3 2 3. Attached as Exhibit B (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of excerpts from the April 22, 2016 deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell, designated as Confidential under the Protective Order. 4. Attached as Exhibit C (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of excerpts from the deposition of Detective Joseph Recarey designated as Confidential under the Protective Order. 5. Attached as Exhibit D (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of excerpts from the deposition of Johanna Sjoberg, designated as Confidential under the Protective Order. 6. Attached as Exhibit E (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of excerpts from the deposition of Juan Alessi, designated as Confidential under the Protective Order. 7. Attached as Exhibit F (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of excerpts from the deposition of Tony Figueroa, designated as Confidential under the Protective Order. Executed on August 25, 2016 By: /s/ Laura A. Menninger Laura A. Menninger - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-36 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 3 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on August 25, 2016, I electronically served this Declaration Of Laura A. Menninger In Support Of Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File A Sur-Reply Or, Alternatively, to Strike Plaintiff’s Misrepresentations of Fact to the Court via ECF 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/ Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-36 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT D Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-37 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 11 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 1328-37 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 11 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 1328-37 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 11 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 1328-37 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 11 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 1328-37 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 11 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 1328-37 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 11 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. A school called Palm Beach Academy of 25 Health and Beauty in Lake Park, Florida. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-37 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 11 Page 52 1 Q. And when did do you that? 2 A. That would have been, I believe, in 2003. 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. The Lane Spa in Palm Beach Gardens. 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. Thirty-six. 15 Q. Can you tell me about your first meeting 16 with Ghislaine Maxwell? 17 A. Sure. I was sitting on a bench 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 Jane Doe 2 ■ MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-37 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 11 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 1328-37 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 11 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 1328-37 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 11 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 1328-37 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 11 EXHIBIT E Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-38 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 5 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 June 1, 2016 9:12 a.m. C O N F I D E N T I A L Deposition of JOHN ALESSI, 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 1328-38 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 5 Page 165 1 JOHN ALESSI 2 at 358 El Brillo Way; is that correct? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Now, when counsel for the Plaintiff was 5 asking you questions, he kept referring to females 6 as girls, okay? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. So is it fair to say that other than 9 , you understood at the time that any of the 10 massage therapists that were being -- giving 11 massages at 358 El Brillo Way were over the age of 12 18; is that correct? 13 MR. EDWARDS: Objection, argumentative, 14 counsel testifying. 15 THE WITNESS: Most of them. 16 BY MR. PAGLIUSCA: 17 Q. Okay. And you talked a little bit about 18 paying for massages. Now, as I understand it, 19 people who were getting massages at 358 El Brillo 20 Way were paid $100 per massage; is that right? 21 A. That was -- everybody got $100 an hour. 22 Q. Okay. And you never paid more than $100 23 to anyone who gave a massage, correct? 24 A. Not for one, but I paid more if they were 25 four massages; I would pay $400, $500. Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 - - MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-38 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 5 Page 182 1 JOHN ALESSI 2 his equipment for yoga and exercising there. They 3 have a treadmill, exercise equipment. They have a 4 bathroom. And there was the pool. 5 And behind the pool was the lake, the 6 Intracoastal lake, and we had a boat, a couple -- we 7 had -- at one time we had those jet -- jet flows. 8 Q. Jet skis? 9 A. Jet skis. We had a couple of those. And 10 that was it. 11 Q. Was the pool private? 12 A. Very much, yeah. It was no access to the 13 street. There was no access -- no view from any 14 neighbors or anything like that. 15 Q. Okay. You were asked some questions by 16 Mr. Edwards about ; is that right? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. To your knowledge, she was the only person 19 at El Brillo that was under the age of 18? 20 A. To my knowledge, yes. 21 Q. Okay. And you recall seeing her with her 22 mother at the house, correct? 23 A. The first couple of times, after, she came 24 with her mother. 25 Q. And you don't ever recall her spending the Jane Doe 2 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-38 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 5 Page 188 1 JOHN ALESSI 2 person; I recommend her to you? 3 A. Yes, he would give to me the number. 4 Q. And most of the people, I take it, were 5 from these spas or clubs; is that right? Most of 6 the massage people? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And do you know, did they have what I'll 9 call regular day jobs at the spas, and then they 10 would come into Mr. Epstein's after? 11 MR. EDWARDS: Objection, speculation. 12 THE WITNESS: I think so. 13 BY MR. PAGLIUSCA: 14 Q. Okay. And why do you think so? 15 A. Because they were working at the Breakers, 16 and sometimes I have to get in touch with these 17 people. I used to call -- have to call the Breakers 18 or the Mar-a-Lago or the -- all the clubs. There be 19 clubs, even in Boca Raton, the Boca Raton Resort and 20 Hotel. They have a great spa. I had to call these 21 people, Can you come in at 10:00 tonight? 22 Q. You would know they were working there 23 because you would talk to them there? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. I'm going to have you take a look at MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-38 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 5 EXHIBIT F Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-39 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 8 Video Deposition of Tony Figueroa (Volume 1) 1 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-39 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 8 :MHIS (ITSWMXMSR SJ 8SR] *MKYIVSE :SPYQI   7SYXLIVR 6ITSVXMRK 'SQTER]     92-8)( 78%8)7 (-786-'8 '3968 7398,)62 (-786-'8 3* 2); =36/  '%7) GZ6;7  :-6+-2-% +-9**6)  4PEMRXMJJ  Z  +,-70%-2) 1%<;)00  (IJIRHERX  CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC  :-()38%4)( ()437-8-32 3* 832= *-+9)63%  :SPYQI  SJ   4EKIW       8EOIR EX XLI -RWXERGI SJ XLI (IJIRHERX   (%8) *VMHE] .YRI    8-1) 'SQQIRGIH  EQ  'SRGPYHIH  TQ  40%') 7SYXLIVR 6ITSVXMRK 'SQTER] & 4EYP /EX^ 4VSJIWWMSREP 'IRXIV  7YR8VYWX &YMPHMRK 3RI *PSVMHE 4EVO (VMZI 7SYXL  7YMXI  4EPQ 'SEWX *PSVMHE   6)4368)( &= 0)%22) ; *-8>+)6%0( *46  *PSVMHE 4VSJIWWMSREP 6ITSVXIV 'SYVX 6ITSVXIV ERH 2SXEV] 4YFPMG  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-39 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 8 :MHIS (ITSWMXMSR SJ 8SR] *MKYIVSE :SPYQI   7SYXLIVR 6ITSVXMRK 'SQTER]    5 (S ]SY ORS[ LIV REQI#  % - XLMRO MX [EW 'EVSP]R  'EVSPMRI  'EVSP]R  - HSRX ORS[  WSQIXLMRK PMOI XLEX  5 (MH .IJJVI] GEPP ]SY HMVIGXP] EFSYX  KIXXMRK QSVI KMVPW#  % =IW  5 3R XLI TLSRI#  % 9LLYL EJJMVQEXMZI   5 ;LEX HMH LI WE]#  % ,I [EW NYWX EWOMRK QI MJ - LEH ER] SXLIV  KMVPW XLEX [ERXIH XS GSQI [SVO  5 3OE] -W XLEX XLI XIVQ XLEX LI YWIH#  % =IEL  5 %RH HMH LI TE]  LI TEMH ]SY TIVWSREPP]#  % =IEL ,I LERHIH QI  JSV IZIV] KMVP  XLEX - [EPOIH MR XLEX HSSV [LIXLIV XLI] HMH WXYJJ  [MXL LMQ SV RSX  5 -R GEWL#  % 'EWL  5 (MH ]SY IZIV KIX TEMH F] 1W 1E\[IPP JSV  XLEX#  % 2S  5 (MH ]SY IZIV FVMRK E KMVP XS 1W 1E\[IPP#  % 2S  5 (MH 1W 1E\[IPP IZIV GEPP ]SY ERH EWO ]SY Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-39 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 8 :MHIS (ITSWMXMSR SJ 8SR] *MKYIVSE :SPYQI   7SYXLIVR 6ITSVXMRK 'SQTER] 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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-39 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 8 :MHIS (ITSWMXMSR SJ 8SR] *MKYIVSE :SPYQI   7SYXLIVR 6ITSVXMRK 'SQTER] 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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-39 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 8 :MHIS (ITSWMXMSR SJ 8SR] *MKYIVSE :SPYQI   7SYXLIVR 6ITSVXMRK 'SQTER] 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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-39 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 8 :MHIS (ITSWMXMSR SJ 8SR] *MKYIVSE :SPYQI   7SYXLIVR 6ITSVXMRK 'SQTER] 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ane Doe 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-39 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 8 EXHIBIT D Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-40 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 3 Jane Doe 2 To: Marianne Strong[mariannestrong@stronglit.com] From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Fri 2/21/2014 1:17:22 PM Importance: Normal Subject: Re: NYC Post Inquiry re : Jeffrey Epstein Received: Fri 2/21/2014 1:17:22 PM Dearest marianne, While all of this infonnation would be great to have brought to light., it is in no favour or intention for me to put myself and story out there for nothing. I w contact Orad Edwards lo see ifhe would still like to do a piece with Emily, and maybe even later down the track., when all is said and done there just might be a helluva piece for the page 6. God Bless you and yours .. .Take Care, Jenna On Thursday, 20 February 2014 4:16 PM, Marianne Strong <mariannestrong@stronglit.com> wrote: Dear Jenna￾While I believe that your Jeffrey Epstein expose has tremendous merit, the only role that we can play is one where we are not recompensed unless we are hired to do Public Relations and make a story happen at some later point. Lord Colin Campbell and I do have huge respect for his countrywoman, the English-born Emily Smith. Colin is Scottish a1 his nephew is the Duke of Argyll, one of Scotland's primary, noble families. Today Emily is one of the most noted, plus influential columnists in the United States, and yes, she is a friend of mine. We can pop off an an-esting column item as a favor to her- if indeed the item is applicable for Page Six? But it must have true gravitas. No money changes hands in such a news release to a publication! If it helps, have your attorney write a suggested column￾oriented item re your case and if it's written in 'journalistic style,' Colin and I can pop it off to Emily, as a possible piece f, her renowned Page Six column. It's called 'pure favor time' to Emily from the owner of the item, plus the press person wh may or may not elect to pop it into print. I certainly do feel that down the long, winding road, your case has merit! God willing that it puts that piece of human scurr back behind bars! Should you win the day, yes, T do believe that you can create a mighty manifesto on prostitution as it exists in the U.S.A. in the years leading up to 2014- one that has real literary possibilities. If you win the case, contact us and perhaps we can get it printed in a N.Y.C. newspaper? If you lose, a press release has nothing favorable for you, obviously, and should be avoided. Good luck and God Bless, Maiianne Strong On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Virginia Giuffre Hi Marianne, I hope you have been well since our last conversation. we lrnve been enjoying the amazing pre-spring heat. here in florida , I hope you do visit soon the weather is absolutely splendid this year and it would be finally nice to meet you in person with so much we already know about each other and hopeful!: more to come I! /\bout the NYC Post, as you already know J have an extremely informative piece of the recent proceedings to tell both truth and justice as well as the past history of the ill-esteemed billionaire mid registered sex offender .. kffrey Epstein, that I unforhmately served four years as his persona l and abused sex slave 10 , most of those years underage, and trust me J would like nothing more than the world to know all about the inequality of the government to act appropriately and violate our rights as victims by giving Jeffrey Epstein a plea lxirgain and immunity to only take accreditation for one account of the sensitive subject of procuring us undernge girls for the usage ofprostin1tion internationally to some of the world's most intluential people. But with that comes a lot of responsibility for me to consider or "my neck on the line too" so to speak. Even though there is over forty women that were once vulnernble girls that looked like the "sweet girl next door" but now that they have been taken advantage ofby this "disgusting wall street tyrant" most of them have led a very unhealthy lifestyle since having served Jeffrey. such as drug addictions and prostitution and do not hold accreditation to talk ... according to Jeffrey and his team of minion lawyers. lVliraculously since l came to light with the trnth and speaking out against him in 2011 , the CONFIDFNTIAI. Ci!lJFFRE0038 IO Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-40 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 3 Jane Doe 2 FBI have reopened the case which as you know has cuJTent proceedings in which I am involved in. There are many branches that lead out 011 this incredibly taunting story of perversion of the governmental system and the one's that seem to fly above the law. I am not giving up or giving in this to 111 is something I must do to break a large chain of serial sex abuse happening for too long now. We have spoken in great deal about what kind of piece yon would like to present to the NYC Post but we haven't spoken about any contract of any sort anc I do need to know as much as you and the Post do, that we will all be "legally" okay bringing out this story as long as everything that is printed is I 00% factual and prove worthy. There is also another major paper that has followed the story for a while and has worked with me before, they're asking me again for the exclusive story bu updated and obviously the end outcome from the judicial decision. I have held out because you told me about your contact Emily with the NYC Post and I appreciate you trying to make big headlines for the story and hopefully one clay the book ... plus I just like working with someone I can somewhat trnst, which is a rare find in this world! But if they're selling something this headline worthy and going to sell many papers and not to mention the "on￾linc" inputs, I would also like to know that I am going to prorit from this as well. If the NYC Post can agree to arrange a reasonable contract, above the competitors offer, then I will be able to give you all of the factual infonnation that would give your mate Emily a great piece that l know is proceeding to be a rarily in the justice system, as well as being so rare of an atrocity, a new article pertaining to Jeffrey, has just been written into state law, which l also have a copy of. I look forward to your response and hopefully more to come. Call me if needed. - All the best, Jenna Matianne Strong President Marianne Strong Literary Agency 65 East 96th Street New York, NY 10128 Office: 212-249-1000 Fax: 212-831-3241 Web: www.stronglit.com E-mail: m ariannestron g@stron gli t. com The Marianne Strong Literary Agency has represented writers of quality fiction and non-fiction since 1978. Located on Manhattan's Upper East Side, the agency seeks to aid writers in the publication of works which advance the national conversation on matters of politics, economics, health, religion, and art. CONFIDFNT!Al. (illJFFRF-:003811 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-40 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 3 United States District Court Southern District of New York Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. ________________________________/ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE (DE 362) 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 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 31 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND........................................................ 3 A. [REDACTED]........................................................................................................... 3 B. The Litigation Involving Dershowitz - The Florida Defamation Case................... 5 II. DERSHOWITZ RELEASES CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION IN VIOLATION OF A FLORIDA COURT ORDER .................................................................................... 8 III. THE PROTECTIVE ORDER IN THIS CASE .................................................................. 9 IV. ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................... 10 A. Legal Standard ...................................................................................................... 10 B. These Are Not Judicial Documents and Therefore Should Not be Disclosed...... 11 C. Even Were the Court to Deem the Documents to be Judicial Documents, the Presumption of Access is Weak............................................................................ 15 D. No Right of Access Exists Under the First Amendment ...................................... 18 E. The Second Circuit Has a Presumption Against Modifying Protective Orders Upon Which Parties Reasonably Relied ............................................................... 20 1. The Record in this Case Shows That the Protective Order Was Not Improvidently Granted.............................................................................. 20 2. The Parties and Deponents in This Case Have Reasonably Relied Upon the Protective Order .................................................................................. 21 3. Dershowitz Seeks These Materials For an Illegitimate Purpose Which Disqualifies Him from Relief.................................................................... 22 4. Under This Court’s Order, Non-Parties Cannot Challenge Confidentiality Designations and Dershowitz has Already Agreed to be Bound by the Parties’ Confidentiality Designations ....................................................... 24 V. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 31 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases Alexander Interactive, Inc. v. Adorama, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 6608, 2014 WL 4346174 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014)........................................ 15, 16 Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., 805 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.1986).......................................................................................................... 13 Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061 (7th Cir.2009) ................................................................................................... 13 Calloway v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 115 F.R.D. 73 (M.D. Ga. 1987)................................................................................................ 24 Chi. Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir.2001) ................................................................................................. 13 Dandong v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., No. 10 Civ. 8086, 2012 WL 6217646 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2012)............................................... 15 Dorsett v. County of Nassau, 289 F.R.D. 54 (E.D.N.Y. 2012).......................................................................................... 22, 23 Dorsett v. County of Nassau, 762 F.Supp.2d 500 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) ........................................................................................ 17 Edmondson v. State of Neb. ex. rel. Meyer, 383 F.2d 123 (8th Cir. 1967) .................................................................................................... 25 Flynn v. Hubbard, 82 F.2d 1084 (1st Cir. 1986)..................................................................................................... 25 Forsyth County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2009 WL 1312511 (N.D. Ga. May 8, 2009)............................................................................. 25 Gosmile, Inc. v. Dr. Jonathan Levine, D.M.D. P.C., 2012 WL 1382557 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)......................................................................................... 14 In re September 11 Litigation, 262 F.R.D. 274 (S.D. N.Y. 2009) ............................................................................................. 21 In re Teligent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53 (2d Cir.2011)......................................................................................................... 21 In re Zyprexa Injunction, 474 F.Supp.2d 385 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) .................................................................................. 17, 19 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 31 iii Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola, Inc., 165 Fed.Appx. 878 (2d Cir.2005)............................................................................................. 23 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein, No. 9:08-cv-80119-cv-KAM (S.D. Fla. Sept. 8, 2009) .............................................................. 4 Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880 (2d Cir.1982)....................................................................................................... 17 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................. 12 Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Technologies, Inc., 998 F.2d 157 (3d Cir. 1993)...................................................................................................... 13 Levin v. U.S., 633 Fed. Appx. 69 (2nd Cir. 2016)....................................................................................... 1, 10 LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 1997)........................................................................................................ 5 Liz Claiborne, Inc. v. Mademoiselle Knitwear, Inc., 1996 WL 346352 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 1996) ........................................................................ 1, 10 Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. My Other Bag, Inc., 156 F.Supp.3d 425 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)......................................................................................... 17 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006)...................................................................................................... 15 Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir.1979)....................................................................................................... 22 MasterCard Intern. Inc. v. Visa Intern. Service Ass'n, Inc., 471 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2006)...................................................................................................... 11 Medical Diagnostic Imaging, PLLC v. Carecore Nat., LLC, 2009 WL 2135294 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)......................................................................................... 23 Newsday LLC v. County of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2013)................................................................................................ 19, 20 Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 98 S.Ct. 1306, 435 U.S. 589 (1978).......................................................................................... 24 S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001)...................................................................................................... 14 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 31 iv Stern v. Cosby, 529 F.Supp.2d 417 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)......................................................................................... 16 U.S. v. Amodeo ("Amodeo I"), 44 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 1995)................................................................................................. passim U.S. v. Amodeo ("Amodeo II"), 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995)............................................................................................... passim Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3)............................................................................................................. 1, 10 Other Authorities 8A Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2044.1 (3d ed. Westlaw 2012) ............................................ 21 ALAN DERSHOWITZ, TAKING THE STAND: MY LIFE IN THE LAW (2013)....................................... 24 "Did Dershowitz Shell Out Big Bucks to Get Settlement in Sex Case?" by Vivia Chen, April 12, 2016.................................................................................................... 9 Federal Practice and Procedure § 2044.1 (3d ed. Westlaw 2012) ................................................ 21 How Alan Dershowitz Bullied Rape Victims to Protect a Serial Child Molester,” by Rania Khalek, January 10, 2015 ............................................................................................ 5 The Talented Mr. Epstein, by Vicky Ward, in Vanity Fair (Jan. 2005) ......................................... 3 Vanity Fair Reminds Us When Jeffrey Epstein Wasn’t a Creep, by Ray Gustini, in The Wire (June 21, 2011) ............................................................................. 3 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 31 1 I. INTRODUCTION The Court has before it a request from a non-party (Alan Dershowitz) to intervene in this case for the purpose of extracting and publicizing several emails and a draft manuscript from the Protective Order that has long been entered in this case. Dershowitz does not seek public access of these documents for the legitimate purpose of informing the public on this Court’s adjudication of its Article III powers. Instead, Dershowitz make clear that his purpose is to advance his own agenda, and continue to wage his media war on Ms. Giuffre, as he has already appeared on national news calling her a “prostitute” and a “bad mother.”1 This is not the typical intervention case where a non-party seeks documents it lacks access to, or where a news organization seeks to inform the public on court proceedings. Here, Alan Dershowitz seeks to inject himself into this litigation for the wrongful purpose of conducting a public smear campaign of Ms. Giuffre. He has no interests beyond his own. And, he has already violated another court order directing him to stop wrongfully leaking confidential information to the media. Unsurprisingly, Dershowitz’s motion fails to cite a single case in which a court granted a non-party, who already possessed the sealed documents in dispute, the right to freely disseminate those documents in the public domain for self-serving purposes. His motion for permissive intervention is committed to the discretion of the Court, and the Court should deny it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3); Liz Claiborne, Inc. v. Mademoiselle Knitwear, Inc., 1996 WL 346352, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 1996) (Sweet, J.) (denying leave to intervene); Levin v. U.S., 633 Fed. Appx. 69, 70 (2nd Cir. 2016) (affirming denial of motion to intervene, “[b]ecause of the fact-intensive nature of an intervention decision, we review for ‘abuse of discretion’ a district court's order denying intervention . . . by permission.”) 1 McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 1, Local 10 News, January 22, 2015. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 31 2 Indeed, the documents in question could hardly “confirm his absolute innocence.” DE 364 at 1. The documents do not directly bear on Ms. Giuffre’s sworn and detailed statements about how Dershowitz sexually abused her, statements that are corroborated by a mountain of supporting evidence.2 Instead, according to Dershowitz, these materials create some sort of a web of circumstantial inferences suggesting his innocence. His attenuated reasoning hardly provides the kind of compelling reason needed to pierce the Protective Order. Instead, Dershowitz seeks these documents for the primary purpose of conducting a media blitz against Ms. Giuffre in advance of trial – clearly to assist his joint defense partner, Defendant Maxwell, by poisoning the jury pool in this case. Dershowitz has no legal basis for his request. The documents in questions are not judicial documents, and thus neither a First Amendment nor common law right of access applies. Moreover, both the parties in this case have long reasonably relied on the existing Protective Order. Under that order, numerous documents involving child sex abuse and other sensitive subjects have been placed under seal. If Dershowitz is permitted to cherry pick the documents that he finds favorable and extract them from the protective order to serve his purposes, it would seem only fair that Ms. Giuffre be permitted to lift the protective order from currently￾confidential documents and testimony in the court file which would support her position. This Court entered the Protective Order “upon a showing of good cause.” Dershowitz is not a party to this litigation and provides no sound reason for modification. Accordingly, this Court should deny Dershowitz’s motion in its entirety. 2 As an overview, Dershowitz, who touted Epstein as a close friend, flew on Jeffrey Epstein’s private jet 15 times from 1996 through 2006, which was during the time period that Jeffrey was actively assaulting a number of minor children. Twice Dershowitz flew with Sarah Kellen, who was Defendant’s right hand recruiter of these underage girls. McCawley Dec at 2, Dershowitz Flights. While Dershowitz said he was “never” in the places where Virginia was during the period of 2000 – 2002, public records directly contradict this statement and show that he actually had an apartment in New York not far from Epstein’s home for a year from 2000 – 2001. McCawley Dec. at 3. While there is mounting evidence to support Ms. Giuffre’s allegations of Dershowitz’s involvement, that issue is not something the Court needs to decide because this case is about Defendant Maxwell’s conduct, not Dershowitz. - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 31 3 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Abundant Evidence Supports Ms. Giuffre’s Sworn Testimony That Alan Dershowitz Sexually Abused Her Dershowitz says he needs to see several documents because they will somehow “demonstrate that the allegations of sexual misconduct . . . are nothing more than a recent fabrication . . . .” DE 364 at 2. To the contrary, they will in no way prove the allegations are a “fabrication,” given the mountain of evidence supporting Ms. Giuffre’s sworn testimony. Ms. Giuffre has not made vague assertions, but described in detail what Dershowitz did to her and where.3 In response to Ms. Giuffre’s sworn testimony, Dershowitz does not argue that any witnesses will be able to prove his innocence. Instead, he tries to build a circumstantial case that he could not have committed the sexual abuse. Dershowitz now claims, for example, that at the time of the abuse, he was merely “acquainted with Mr. Epstein through academic events . . ..” DE 364 at 4.4 But in 2005 (before news of Epstein’s criminal prosecution broke), Dershowitz stated “I’m on my 20th book … The only person outside of my immediate family that I send drafts to is Jeffrey.”5 Dershowitz has also been quoted as saying that, even if Epstein went bankrupt, “I would be as interested in him as a friend if we had hamburgers on the boardwalk in Coney Island and talked about his ideas.”6 Dershowitz also claims that he never saw “Epstein in the presence of underage girls.” DE 364 at 3.7 This lack of observation is remarkable given that Epstein brazenly and repeatedly 3 Id. at 88-91, McCawley Dec at Exhibit 4, describing Dershowitz’s abuse of her in Epstein’s New York mansion. 4 In earlier media statements, Dershowitz took an even more extreme position, stating that “I have never been alone with . . . Jeffrey Epstein.” UMAR News, Jan. 5, 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXzcxsiQv7Q. And yet (among other occasions), a flight log shows Epstein and Dershowitz traveling together—alone. 5 The Talented Mr. Epstein, by Vicky Ward, in Vanity Fair (Jan. 2005). 6 Vanity Fair Reminds Us When Jeffrey Epstein Wasn’t a Creep, by Ray Gustini, in The Wire (June 21, 2011). 7 While Dershowitz swore under oath that he never saw any naked photos at Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion, the recently released video taken by the Palm Beach Police department during its investigation, reveals naked photos in a number of the common areas of Epstein’s Palm Beach home. McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 5. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 31 4 abused numerous underage girls in his Florida mansion, his New York mansion, and several other places that Dershowitz apparently admits he visited on multiple occasions. In 2009, one of Epstein’s household employees, Juan Alessi, testified about the parade of young “massage therapists” entering Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion, and that Ms. Giuffre was one of the girls who came to Epstein’s mansion.8 Alessi also saw many celebrities came to the Florida mansion, including “a very famous lawyer that I’m sure you know, Alan Dershowitz.” Id. at 70:9-25. Alessi testified that Dershowitz came to the mansion “pretty often . . . at least four or five times a year” and would stay overnight “two [or] three days.” Id. at 73:22-25. Ms. Giuffre came to the house when Dershowitz was there. Id. at 73:18-20. And, importantly, Dershowitz got massages while he was visiting Epstein’s home. Id. at 74:1-4.9 The private, upstairs room where Dershowitz got his “massages” was the room where Defendant Maxwell had “a laundry basket . . . full of those toys.” Id. at 76:11-15. In 2009, Epstein’s butler, Alfredo Rodriguez, testified that Dershowitz was at Epstein’s mansion when underage girls were there to give massages.10 Rodriguez also testified that Dershowitz was present alone at the home of Jeffery Epstein, without his family, in the presence of young girls.11 It also appears that Rodriguez would later circle Dershowitz’s name in Epstein’s address book as among the people with important information for the FBI to collect regarding sex trafficking. In addition, Sarah Kellen, Nadia Marcinkova, and Adrianna Mucinska all 8 Juan Alessi Depo. at 46:21- 47:4, 48:18-25, Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein, No. 9:08-cv-80119-cv-KAM (S.D. Fla. Sept. 8, 2009), McCawley Dec at Exhibit 6. 9 While Dershowitz loudly proclaimed to the media that he had “never” received a massage at Jeffrey Epstein’s home, he later retracted that knowingly false statement and admitted to having a massage. McCawley Dec at Exhibit 7. 10 Alfredo Rodriguez Depo. at 278:13-25, 279:9-280:2, Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein (excerpts attached as Exhibit 8). 11 Id. at 199:12-13, 279:9-12, 426:16-25, 427:1. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 31 5 implicated Dershowitz by invoking their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination12 when asked questions about Dershowitz’s connection to Epstein’s abuse, including a specific question about whether Dershowitz had been involved with massages by young girls. McCawley Dec., Composite Ex. 9.13 Finally, in Dershowitz’s vociferous attacks on Ms. Giuffre here, the Court will see an eerie parallel to the Jeffrey Epstein criminal investigation. Back in 2005, when the Palm Beach Police Department was first investigating Epstein’s sexual abuse, the Department accumulated overwhelming evidence placing underage girls at Epstein’s residence who gave statements that they were being sexually abused, the accounts bearing chillingly similar details. As he did to Ms. Giuffre, Dershowitz called those girls liars and defamed them as prostitutes,14 in an effort to convince the State Attorney that these girls could not even believably establish that they had ever even gone to Epstein’s mansion. Later, Dershowitz would remarkably write to tell the Justice Department that “Epstein never targeted minors.” B. The Litigation Involving Dershowitz - The Florida Defamation Case15 12 In a civil proceeding such as this one, Ms. Giuffre is entitled to an inference in her favor when a witness takes the Fifth Amendment rather than answer a relevant question where that witness is associated with the other side of the case or otherwise in an adverse position to the victims. LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir. 1997). 13 Dershowitz also refers to an “investigation” he paid for by former FBI Director Louis Freeh in an effort to proclaim his innocence. DE 364 at 5. Interestingly, while Dershowitz has provided a one-paragraph summary of the investigation to the press, he has not chosen to make the specifics of the investigation public, including what Freeh learned about Defendant Maxwell’s involvement in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking organization. 14 “How Alan Dershowitz Bullied Rape Victims to Protect a Serial Child Molester,” by Rania Khalek, January 10, 2015, https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/rania-khalek/how-alan-dershowitz-bullied-rape-victims-protect-serial￾child-molester; see also McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 10, Recarey Dep. Tr. at 109:13-110:3 (“Q. What -- what types of persuasions did Alan DERSHOWITZ use in an attempt to dissuade the prosecution of Alan DERSHOWITZ [sic] or his associates? THE WITNESS: Let’s see. He not only had -- when they went out and badgered the victims, they went through all social media, found photographs of these victims either holding an alcoholic beverage and calling them -- you see they're not saints. You know, they're consuming alcohol under the age of 21. Basically trying to dirty the victim as much as possible.” 15 Dershowitz says that he “loudly” proclaimed his innocence, but he also attacked Professor Cassell and Ms. Edwards. Dershowitz also repeatedly and publicly attacked Ms. Giuffre, as discussed as greater length below. At no point did Cassell and Edwards ever agree that their client, Ms. Giuffre, was mistaken in her allegations against Dershowitz. See generally, Cassell Dec. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 31 6 Dershowitz also misleadingly describes the Florida defamation action16 between himself and Cassell and Edwards. Remarkably, Dershowitz fails to note that same documents he seeks here (to use in the next installment of his media campaign) are the exact type of documents that Judge Lynch quashed from Dershowitz’s subpoena he served on Ms. Giuffre in the Florida Action. In short, a judge has already ruled that Dershowitz should be denied access to these documents. This baseless motion is nothing more than an attempt to make an end-run around Judge Lynch’s Order, by coming to this Court, and asking for what he was denied by another court. Indeed, Dershowitz fails to reveal three significant facts to this Court. First, Dershowitz fails to reveal to this Court is that he has already been sharply rebuked by a Florida judge for his efforts to take confidential materials to the media. Second, Dershowitz fails to tell this Court that the only ongoing component to his Florida Action concerns sanctions against him for violating that Court’s Order by his continuing to reveal confidential materials.17 Third, Dershowitz fails to tell this Court that the judge in the Florida Action already denied his request to access these materials.18 The parties to the Florida Action have settled all claims. Accordingly, there is no “compelling need” to reveal these documents to the media as they are wholly immaterial to whether Dershowitz should be sanctioned for violating Judge Lynch’s order, as it pertained to non-party Ms. Giuffre. In other words, the content of these confidential documents has no bearing on the disposition of the Florida Appeal, and Dershowitz cannot claim otherwise. Ms. Giuffre was not a party to the litigation between the attorneys in the Florida Action. During the course of the litigation, however, Dershowitz subpoenaed discovery from Ms. 16 Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz, Case No. CACE 15-000072, in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial circuit in and for Broward County, Florida (the “Florida Action”), presided over by Judge Lynch. 17 McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 11, June 2, 2016 Notice of Appeal. 18 McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 12, November 12, 2015 Order on Motion to Quash. I Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 31 7 Giuffre. In particular, Dershowitz sought to obtain from Ms. Giuffre (a non-party to the action) all of her emails with the media. The Court granted in part Ms. Giuffre’s Motion to Quash and, among other things, denied Dershowitz’s discovery request relating to communications with media and denied Dershowitz’s request for “manuscripts or writings.”19 Dershowitz produced many documents in the course of discovery in that case – ironically, documents that he quickly placed under a protective order in Florida. Id. Dershowitz claims that the Churcher email somehow exonerates him, but the brief mention does no such thing. Indeed, while asserting that there is no “proof” that Dershowitz is a pedophile, Ms. Churcher also stated that “[w]e all suspect Alan is a pedo[phile].”20 21 Similarly, Dershowitz believes that an excerpt from Ms. Giuffre’s manuscript she was somehow suggests his innocence, even though the passage in question recounts Dershowitz intruding on Epstein while he was sexually abusing Ms. Giuffre. DE 364 at 9. Apparently Dershowitz believes that because he is not described more often and prominently in the manuscript, that is proof of her 19 Judge Lynch Quashed discovery from non-party Virginia Giuffre on the Following: (1) Request 9 – “All documents concerning any communications by Jane Doe #3 or on Jane Doe #3’s behalf with any media outlet concerning Dershowitz or the Federal Action whether or not such communications were “on the record” or “off the record;” (2) Request 17 “All documents concerning any actual or potential book, television or movie contracts or deals concerning Jane Doe #3’s allegations about being a sex slave;” (3) Request 18 “All documents concerning any monetary payments or other consideration received by Jane Doe #3 from any media outlet in exchange for her statements whether ‘on the record’ or ‘off the record’ regarding Epstein, Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, Duke of York, and/or being a sex slave;” (4) Request 20 “All documents showing any payments or renumeration of any kind made by Epstein or any of his agents or associates to you from January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2002;” and (4) Request 23: “All manuscripts and/or other writings whether published or unpublished, created in whole or in part by Jane Doe #3 concerning Epstein and any of his agents or associates.” 20 Dershowitz asserts that before this May 11, 2011, email was sent by Ms. Churcher, that Ms. Giuffre “did not in any way accuse Professor Dershowitz of sexual abuse . . . .” DE 364 at 9-10. But the support for this assertion appears to be a statement from Asst. U.S. Attorney Jeff Sloman that Dershowitz’s name had not come up in 2006 to 2008 when Dershowitz was helping to negotiate Jeffrey Epstein’s plea deal. Dershowitz Dec., ¶ 5 (referring to unnamed Asst. U.S. Attorney). However, because of Dershowitz’s penchant for twisting words, Mr. Sloman has sent a corrective note that he left the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 2008 and does not know what the investigation of Epstein revealed after that time. Also, Dershowitz does not recount in his statement of facts that in March 2011, two months before Ms. Churcher sent the email in question to Ms. Giuffre, Ms. Giuffre had told attorney Jack Scarola in a recorded interview that Dershowitz has relevant information about Epstein’s sexual abuse. 21 Dershowitz wrongly suggests to this Court that Ms. Giuffre answered questions incorrectly in her deposition. Ms. Giuffre answered questions to the best of her recollection. Ms. Giuffre had never sent an email to Ms. Churcher with Dershowitz’s name in it – instead, as Dershowitz recounts, Ms. Churcher turns out to have sent one email to Ms. Giuffre with Dershowitz’s name in it. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 31 8 innocence. But this inference is inconsistent with Ms. Giuffre’s description of the manuscript, in which she explained “[n]ot everything in it is – not everything is in there . . ..” McCawley Dec. at 13, Giuffre Dep. Tr. at 41. II. DERSHOWITZ RELEASES CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION IN VIOLATION OF A FLORIDA COURT ORDER The pending sanction motion in the Florida Court is an illustrative example of how Dershowitz willingly violates Court orders. On December 11, 2015, in a transparent attempt to play his case to the media rather than try it before the court, Dershowitz filed a false affidavit with the Florida court purporting to describe confidential settlement communications with Giuffre’s counsel and attempting to discredit Giuffre. He filed his affidavit in the public court file, despite knowing Ms. Giuffre’s standing objections. He then alerted the media (specifically the New York Times) to these statements. After Giuffre filed an emergency motion to seal the affidavit, the court found in favor of Ms. Giuffre that the communications in the affidavit were in fact confidential settlement negotiations that should not have been disclosed and granted Giuffre’s motion. McCawley Dec., Ex. 15. During the hearing, the Florida court admonished Dershowitz not to reveal any other confidential settlement negations: MS. MCCAWLEY: Your Honor, if the intent here is to continue to spew the confidential settlement negotiations and have Dershowitz go to New York or other locations to say these things again, I would object to that. I think this Court needs to be very stern in its response that these are not appropriate to be disclosed. THE COURT: Well, I think he is aware of that. MR. SAFRA [Dershowitz’s attorney]: I'm aware, and I will convey to my client. . .22 Ms. Giuffre had a pending motion for sanctions against Dershowitz for his conduct in wrongfully revealing and flatly mischaracterizing these settlement disclosures. McCawley Dec. 22 McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 14, December 18, 2015, Emergency Motion to Seal Hr. Tr. at 25:23-26:9 (emphasis added). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 31 9 Sealed Ex. 16, Motion for Sanctions. Before that motion was heard, Dershowitz willfully violated the court’s order and again disclosed the confidential settlement communications, for which Giuffre again sought sanctions. McCawley Dec. Sealed Ex. 17, Supplement to Motion for Sanctions. However, before the sanction motions were heard, Dershowitz settled the underlying litigation. Dershowitz has insisted upon keeping confidential the monetary settlement that resolved the claims against him.23 The trial court declined to retain jurisdiction to hear Ms. Giuffre’s sanctions claims after the settlement. Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys have appealed the ruling to the Florida Court of Appeals and filed an opening brief on August 25, 2016. III. THE PROTECTIVE ORDER IN THIS CASE This is a case concerning sex abuse of minors, brought by a woman who was herself a minor victim of sex abuse. Accordingly, this Court has recognized from the outset the paramount importance of a protective order in this case, announcing at one of the first hearings in the case that that “of course there should be a protective order in this case.”24 Thereafter, on March 18, 2016, “[u]pon a showing of good cause,” the Protective Order was entered (DE 62 at p.1). The following month, this Court sought even greater strictures regarding the Protective Order.25 Furthermore, as this Court will remember, it twice allowed the parties to submit suggested redactions to the public versions of its Orders (DE 135; June 20, 2016, Order26). While 23 “Did Dershowitz Shell Out Big Bucks to Get Settlement in Sex Case?” by Vivia Chen, April 12, 2016 at http://thecareerist.typepad.com/thecareerist/2016/04/did-dershowitz-shell-out-money-for-settlement-in-case￾sex.html 24 March 17, 2016, Hearing Transcript at 4:25-5:1. McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 18. 25 “However, I’m also going to ask the parties to agree upon an order that would expand the confidentiality agreement to this extent to this extent, to require the plaintiff to indicate to me and to the defense if there is anyone else who is going to be active in this litigation. I’ll tell you why I feel this way. I want to be sure that we can enforce the confidential aspect of that agreement, and I think that could be critical down the line. That’s the reason for those requests.” April 21, 2016, Hearing Transcript at 6:24-7:6. McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 19. 26 “This matter being subject to a Protective Order, the parties are directed to meet and confer regarding redactions to this Opinion consistent with that Order. The parties are further directed to jointly file a proposed redacted version of this Opinion or Notify the Court that none are necessary within two weeks of the date of receipt of this Opinion.” June 20, 2016, Sealed Order at p. 19. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 31 10 the redactions were agreed to by the parties, they were solely at Defendant’s request.27 Indeed, this Court temporarily placed the entire docket under seal. June 23, 2016, Order. DE 251. Under these rulings, both parties designated hundreds of pages of materials confidential under the Court’s Order. IV. ARGUMENT A. Legal Standard The Court may deny Dershowitz’s motion without even reaching the merits of whether the contested documents are judicial documents, which they absolutely are not. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3); Liz Claiborne, Inc. v. Mademoiselle Knitwear, Inc., 1996 WL 346352, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 1996) (Sweet, J.) (denying leave to intervene); Levin v. U.S., 633 Fed. Appx. 69, 70 (2nd Cir. 2016) (affirming district court’s denial of motion to intervene, explaining “[b]ecause of the fact-intensive nature of an intervention decision, we review for ‘abuse of discretion’ a district court's order denying intervention . . . by permission.”). Accordingly, this Court can deny Dershowitz’s motion on the grounds that taking these documents to the media would prejudice Ms. Giuffre and because, having sat on the documents for months, the motion is untimely.28 Dershowitz ’s motion mentions, then proceeds to ignore, the policy rationale that underlies both the First Amendment and common law right of access to judicial documents. Both 27 Without a good faith basis, Defendant proposed redacting this Court’s reference to Jeffrey Epstein’s name (44 times) and the Court’s reference to Alan Dershowitz’s name (10 times) from this Court’s Order. DE 135 Ms. Giuffre made no objection to Defendant’s self-serving maneuver to avoid being closely associated with Epstein and Dershowitz in the public eye. 28 The Court should not even reach the substance of Dershowitz’s motion, as he has failed to meet the requirements for permissive intervention, which, as Dershowitz admits, include timeliness. MasterCard Intern. Inc. v. Visa Intern. Service Ass'n, Inc., 471 F.3d 377, 390 (2d Cir. 2006). In MasterCard the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion for permissive intervention on timeliness grounds. That decision is highly persuasive here. First, Dershowitz has known of his potential “interest” in this case long before it was filed in September of 2015, as evidenced by the email communications between Dershowtiz and Defendant the Court reviewed in its in camera review before ordering Defendant to produce them. Yet Dershowitz waited until after discovery closed and until after he was safe from receiving a notice of deposition in this matter, before he filed his intervention motion. Unsurprisingly, his motion is devoid of any claim that his motion is timely, because such an argument could never succeed given Dershowitz ’s long-held knowledge of Ms. Giuffre and her allegations, the disposition of this case, and the fact that he sat on these documents for months before seeking relief. - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 31 11 legal principles exist so that courts may have accountability to the public; they do not exist to enable individuals on a personal vendetta to advance a public smear campaign against a victim of childhood sexual abuse. U.S. v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995) (“Amodeo II”) (“The presumption of access is based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.”). Indeed, the motion to intervene is devoid of any citations to precedent that allows an individual to exploit these bedrock legal principles solely for his personal benefit, rather than the public at large. Furthermore, the Court should not overlook the fact that that Dershowitz already possesses these documents because they were sent to him by Maxwell’s counsel who has named him as a witness, and, as demonstrated below, the Second Circuit does not provide a right of access to protected material when an individual seeks to use it solely for harm. B. These Are Not Judicial Documents and Therefore Should Not be Disclosed The Court can end its legal analysis of this motion quickly, as, contrary to Dershowitz’s suggestion, the documents in question are not judicial documents. This fact is fatal to the motion, as neither the First Amendment nor the common law right of access applies in a scenario where the materials in question are not judicial documents. U.S. v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995) (“Amodeo I”) (noting material must be a “judicial document” to be “accessible to the public”). Dershowitz only became aware of the documents he now seeks because Ms. Giuffre produced them in discovery. It is established law in the Second Circuit that documents simply exchanged in the civil discovery context do not come within the purview of the First Amendment or the common law right of access. “Documents that play no role in the performance of Article III functions, such as those passed between the parties in discovery, lie entirely beyond the Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 31 12 presumption’s reach…” Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1050. Dershowitz suggests that because a subpoenaed third party filed one of the documents as an attachment to a motion to quash, and because Defendant filed the others as an exhibit to an opposition to extend discovery, that converts them into judicial documents and triggers the presumption of access. This argument is unavailing. The Second Circuit has held that the “mere filing of a paper or document with the court is insufficient to render that paper a judicial document subject to the right of public access. We think that the item filed must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process in order for it to be designated a judicial document.” Amodeo I, 44 F.3d at 145. A review of the case law reveals that every circuit to have directly addressed this point has found that documents filed as exhibits to non-dispositive discovery motions do not qualify as judicial documents. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (“We have, however, carved out an exception to the presumption of access to judicial records for a sealed discovery document [attached] to a non-dispositive motion, such that the usual presumption of the public's right of access is rebutted”) (internal citation and quotations omitted); Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061, 1075 n. 8 (7th Cir.2009); Chi. Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1312–13 (11th Cir.2001) (holding that “material filed with discovery motions is not subject to the common-law right of access, whereas discovery material filed in connection with pretrial motions that require judicial resolution of the merits is subject to the common-law right”); Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., 805 F.2d 1, 10 (1st Cir.1986) (“Although we agree that the public has a right of access to some parts of the judicial process, we conclude that this right does not extend to documents submitted to a court in connection with discovery proceedings.”); Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Technologies, Inc., 998 F.2d 157, Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 31 13 164 (3d Cir. 1993) (“holding that discovery motions and supporting materials are subject to a presumptive right of access would make raw discovery, ordinarily inaccessible to the public, accessible merely because it had to be included in motions precipitated by inadequate discovery responses or overly aggressive discovery demands. This would be a holding based more on expediency than principle.”). Therefore, five federal appellate courts have already rejected the argument that Dershowitz advances here. Dershowitz acknowledges that the Second Circuit has not yet reached this specific issue, but the holdings in Amodeo I and Amodeo II demonstrate that when the Second Circuit reaches this issue, it will reach exactly the same result. In Amodeo II the Second Circuit held that documents “passed between the parties in discovery, lie entirely beyond the presumption’s reach…” Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1050. In Amodeo I the Second Circuit noted the “mere filing of a paper or document with the court is insufficient to render that paper a judicial document subject to the right of public access.” Amodeo I, 44 F.3d at 145. Additionally, in the case cited by Dershowitz, S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 233 (2d Cir. 2001), the Second Circuit rejected an argument that would “transform every document that a court reviews into a ‘judicial document’ presumptively open to the public, despite well-settled law to the contrary.” The Second Circuit has held (1) discovery materials are not judicial documents; (2) the mere filing of a document with the court does not render it a judicial document; and (3) a court simply reviewing a piece of discovery material does not make the document a “judicial document.” Therefore, there is no question that the Second Circuit would resolve the issue at hand in exactly the same way that every other circuit to address the issue has. This Court should follow every other circuit, and the guidance from the Second Circuit, and find that the mere Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 31 14 filing of a piece of discovery material as part of a non-dispositive discovery motion does not convert the material into a judicial document. Finally, the Churcher emails cannot qualify as “judicial documents” on the separate and independent basis that the Court has not considered them, as the motion to which they are attached is still pending.29 Here again, Dershowitz’s motion misses the point of the First Amendment and common law rights of access. It is not the filing of a piece of discovery that makes it a judicial document, it is the Court’s review and consideration of that document that converts the document’s status. Gosmile, Inc. v. Dr. Jonathan Levine, D.M.D. P.C., 2012 WL 1382557, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (“Court did not weigh these documents [attached as exhibits] in its review of the parties' motions, considers them immaterial to the motions, and therefore does not consider them to be judicial documents.”). As Ms. Giuffre has shown, these principles exist for the accountability of the courts to the public, not for the personal benefit of an individual. In the face of this uniform precedent from the courts of appeal, Dershowitz cites only to a handful of district court opinions, many of which do not support the relief he seeks. For example, in Dershowitz’s first-cited case, Alexander Interactive, Inc. v. Adorama, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 6608, 2014 WL 4346174, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014), the Court proceeded to deny access and instead sealed the materials at issue. In Dandong v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., No. 10 Civ. 8086, 2012 WL 6217646, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2012) the court noted the materials at issue were nothing more than legal argument, and it gave the parties time to show “good cause” for keeping the documents sealed. The Court can reject these outlier opinions out of hand, as they do not comport with the holdings of the First, Third, Seventh, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, nor are they in-line with the Second Circuit’s case law in Amodeo I, Amodeo II and TheStreet.Com. 29 It may well be the case that the Court never considered Ms. Giuffre’s draft manuscript in ruling on the motion for extension of time in relation to the opposition motion to which it was attached. The Order makes no mention of it. DE June 20, 2016, Order. If the Court did not consider those exhibits, they do not qualify as judicial documents. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 31 15 There simply is no legal basis for this Court to find that the documents Dershowitz seeks qualify as “judicial documents.” First, it is not clear that this Court has even reviewed or considered them, and if it has not, that fact alone is dispositive. Second, the law throughout the country is clear that routine, raw discovery materials submitted as exhibits to non-dispositive discovery motions do not convert into “judicial documents” and trigger a right of public access. The Court should find that these documents are not “judicial documents” and summarily deny Dershowitz’s motion. C. Even Were the Court to Deem the Documents to be Judicial Documents, the Presumption of Access is Weak Even if the Court found these documents to be judicial documents - which they categorically are not - Dershowitz’s motion still fails because the common law presumption of access is extremely weak and easily overcome here by countervailing factors. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that if a court finds documents to be judicial, it must then assess the weight of the presumed access and determine if countervailing factors override the presumption). Once again, Dershowitz’s own cited cases are his undoing. In Alexander Interactive, the Court found that because the documents were submitted merely as exhibits to a motion to compel, “the presumption in favor of public access is weak.”2014 WL 4346174 at *2. It then proceeded to seal the documents in question, despite acknowledging the public right of access. See also Stern v. Cosby, 529 F.Supp.2d 417, 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (“the presumption of public access - if any - that attaches to the transcript and videotape is low, at best. No such presumption attaches at all to the videotape, and even if the transcript is filed for purposes of a motion to compel, the presumption that would attach to the transcript would be low. On any such motion, I Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 31 16 would not be making any decision on the merits, but I would simply be reviewing excerpts of the transcripts to resolve a discovery dispute.”). This ruling is in-line with the Second Circuit’s directive regarding how to assess the weight of the presumption of access. “[T]he presumption of access must be governed by the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power and the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts. Generally, the information will fall somewhere on a continuum from matters that directly affect an adjudication to matters that come within a court's purview solely to insure their irrelevance.” Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1049. This is not a situation where the documents were relied upon as part of a dispositive summary judgment motion (where the presumption is highest). If the Court relied on the documents at all, which is not clear, it was for the limited purpose of determining entitlement to discovery. In this context, as the courts in Alexander Interactive, Stern and Amodeo II noted, the presumption is weakest. Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1050 (“Where testimony or documents play only a negligible role in the performance of Article III duties, the weight of the presumption is low and amounts to little more than a prediction of public access absent a countervailing reason.”). Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880, 893 (2d Cir.1982) (“Discovery involves the use of compulsory process to facilitate orderly preparation for trial, not to educate or titillate the public.”); In re Zyprexa Injunction, 474 F.Supp.2d 385, 423 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (“Nonparties who are prohibited from accessing confidential documents . . . cannot claim an infringement on their freedom of speech: The right to speak and publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information. . . Discovery involves the use of compulsory process to facilitate orderly preparation for trial, not to educate or titillate the public.”) (internal citations and quotations omitted); Dorsett v. County of Nassau, 762 F.Supp.2d 500, 519 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (“Assuming for the sake of argument that the Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 31 17 IAU Report did satisfy the judicial document inquiry, since the Report was passed between the parties in discovery, it lies entirely beyond the presumption's reach.”). Given that the presumption of access here is weak, if it exists at all, Ms. Giuffre easily overcomes it with her countervailing evidence. With regard to her draft manuscript, it is protected under trade secret and copyright law, and Dershowitz has no legal right to disseminate it to a public audience.30 Courts routinely seal materials in support of filings when they contain proprietary or similarly protected content.31 Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. My Other Bag, Inc., 156 F.Supp.3d 425, 445 N7 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (“As for competing considerations that counsel in favor of allowing the parties to file their briefs under seal, the privacy interests of the parties in preventing the public disclosure of private business figures and communications are not insignificant. The Court therefore concludes that the balance of interests is in favor of allowing the parties' briefs to be filed under seal.”). This decision is particularly instructive here, as it involved summary judgment filings, where the access presumption is highest, as opposed to the discovery brief exhibits at issue here, where the presumption is lowest. Finally, the privacy and sensitivity of the information here is particularly compelling in light of what Dershowitz intends to do if the Court allows him to disseminate these documents. His prior conduct reveals, without a shred of doubt, that he has a personal vendetta against Ms. Giuffre, and he will take these documents and attempt to publicly disparage Ms. Giuffre, as he has done in the recent past. The Second Circuit does not allow a court to unseal private and 30 Ms. Giuffre has testified at her deposition in this case that her draft manuscript does not contain everything that happened to her. McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 13, Giuffre Dep. Tr. at 41. Tellingly, Dershowitz does not seek to lift the confidentiality of the testimony of all the witnesses in this case which reveals a significant sex trafficking ring. Instead, Dershowitz seeks to reveal evidence which he can spin in an attempt to legitimize his public relations campaign against her, while keeping secret the evidence that would directly refute his spin. 31 Similarly, with regard to the Churcher emails, those are the same “private business communications” that the court in Louis Vuitton found adequate to justify sealing the filings at issue. Indeed, the Second Circuit expressly recognizes such privacy rights as a legitimate basis to overcome the presumption of access. Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1051 (“Such interests, while not always fitting comfortably under the rubric ‘privacy,’ are a venerable common law exception to the presumption of access.”). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 22 of 31 18 otherwise protected material to enable a non-party to conduct a public smear campaign. Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1051 (“The nature and degree of injury must also be weighed. This will entail consideration not only of the sensitivity of the information and the subject but also of how the person seeking access intends to use the information…personal vendettas…need not be aided.”) (Emphasis added). In sum, the documents Dershowitz seeks involve no presumption of access whatsoever, as they are not judicial documents, but were the Court to find otherwise, the applicable presumption of access would be the lowest that exists under Second Circuit law. Ms. Giuffre requests that, in accord with the governing law, the Court hold that her proprietary interests outweigh any weak presumption of access. D. No Right of Access Exists Under the First Amendment Dershowitz should not have advanced a First Amendment right of access argument because it is wholly without merit. First and foremost, the documents at issue must be “judicial documents” to trigger a First Amendment right of access, and, as stated above, the materials at issue here are not. Newsday LLC v. County of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156, 166 (2d Cir. 2013) (“We must conduct an independent review of the Report to determine (a) whether it is a judicial document to which the First Amendment right applies”) (emphasis added). Should the Court find otherwise, there remains no right of access under the First Amendment. As the Second Circuit has said, “[e]ven when it applies, moreover, the First Amendment right creates only a presumptive right of access.” Id. at 164 (Emphasis original). The right does not attach here because Dershowitz’s motion fails the Second Circuit’s “experience and logic” test for triggering a First Amendment right of access. That test “asks both whether the documents have historically been open to the press and general public and whether public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question.” Id. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 23 of 31 19 Dershowitz’s motion fails both parts of the test. “Protective orders prohibiting dissemination of materials discovered before trial are not the kind of classic prior restraint that require[ ] exacting First Amendment scrutiny.” In re Zyprexa Injunction, 474 F.Supp.2d at 417 (Internal quotations omitted). He argues that materials filed as part of discovery motions are routinely filed and available for public view. That argument is meritless, as it ignores the existence of the Protective Order in this case. Moreover, there is no “historical openness” to the press of a party’s raw discovery materials, quite the opposite. As Ms. Giuffre established above, the Second Circuit has found that there is no public right of access to material exchanged in discovery. Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1050 (documents “passed between the parties in discovery, lie entirely beyond the presumption’s reach…”). And again, the Court should not lose sight of the policy rationale behind the First Amendment right of access: the accountability of the courts to the public. Dershowitz does not want to monitor this Court in any way whatsoever; instead, he wants to use this Court as a vehicle to conduct a public relations campaign against Ms. Giuffre. The Court will recall that Dershowitz has a joint-defense agreement with Defendant and is fully aligned with her interests in this case. Far from assisting the public in reviewing this Court’s work, Dershowitz seeks to spread misinformation, engage in hateful personal attacks, and taint the jury pool that will hear Ms. Giuffre’s case. The Court should not allow such callous abuse of a First Amendment right, particularly as there is no merit to Dershowitz’s claim (Br. at 21) that “public monitoring has an important role to play here.” This claim is a smokescreen to cover his improper motives. Dershowitz suggests there has been “significant public interest” in Ms. Giuffre’s allegations against him, but that is irrelevant here for two reasons. First, Ms. Giuffre is not lodging accusations against Dershowitz in this case. Those allegations appeared in - - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 24 of 31 20 the CVRA case Dershowitz references, and the Court will note that the CVRA court denied as moot Dershowitz’s intervention attempt there. Second, public interest in a case would only matter if the material was sought to allow the public to monitor the Court’s actions (which is why the courts in this district often recognize a news agency’s standing to challenge protective orders32), not to feed any purported interest in Dershowitz personally. Again, the First Amendment right protects the public’s right to oversee the function of the Court; it does not exist to assist Dershowitz in pursuing his personal vendetta against Ms. Giuffre. Newsday, 730 F.3d at 164 (“the need for public access to court proceedings is grounded in the need for federal courts ... to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.”) (emphasis added). The Court must reject Dershowitz’s misguided attempt to manipulate a public right for his personal benefit. E. The Second Circuit Has a Presumption Against Modifying Protective Orders Upon Which Parties Reasonably Relied The Second Circuit has expressly acknowledged that its protective order modification test has, as a general matter, a “strong presumption against the modification of a protective order, and orders should not be modified absent a showing of improvidence in the grant of the order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need.” In re Teligent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53, 59 (2d Cir. 2011) (affirming denial of motion to lift confidentiality provisions of the protective order).33 1. The Record in this Case Shows That the Protective Order Was Not Improvidently Granted 32 Not only is Dershowitz not a news agency, and therefore, should not be allowed to challenge the Protective Order, but his interests are fully represented by Defendant, as evidenced by Defendant’s privilege log (showing communications between Dershowitz’s counsel and Defendant’s counsel); Defendant’s sharing confidential documents with Dershowitz; and the 2015 email, sent over 9 months prior to this action, between Dershowitz and Defendant (that this Court ordered Defendant to produce to Ms. Giuffre after its in camera review) discussing Ms. Giuffre. Defendant cannot credibly claim that his and Defendant’s interests are not aligned. 33 8A Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2044.1 (3d ed. Westlaw 2012) (asserting that the Second Circuit has “embraced a very restrictive attitude toward modification of protective orders,” “emphasiz[ing] the need to foster use of protective orders as a means of facilitating discovery as a reason for resisting modification that would tend to make the orders appear unreliable”). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 25 of 31 21 Despite Dershowitz’s argument, the Protective Order, entered “[u]pon a showing of good cause,” was not improvidently granted. (DE 62 at p.1). Indeed, even after the entry of the Protective Order, this Court has articulated its concern for preserving the protections of the Protective Order: “I want to be sure that we can enforce the confidential aspect of that agreement, and I think that could be critical down the line.”34 Indeed, “once a discovery protective order is in place, the applicable standard requires plaintiff seeking to modify the order to show improvidence in the grant of the protective order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need.” In re September 11 Litigation, 262 F.R.D. 274 (S.D. N.Y. 2009). Dershowitz’s attempts to claim improvidence, carelessness, or shortsightedness of this Court in granting the Protective Order are unavailing. To the contrary, this Court has, twice, found the case warrants a stringent Protective Order, and has specifically expressed concern for its ongoing efficacy.35 Dershowitz cannot point to a single reason why the Protective Order was improvidently granted other than the fact that it hinders the ability of him, a third party, to select certain documents to use in a pre-trial smear campaign against one of the parties. Ms. Giuffre submits that one of the merits of the Protective Order is that it forecloses a pre-trial any media circus (created by either side) which would taint the jury pool. 2. The Parties and Deponents in This Case Have Reasonably Relied Upon the Protective Order The Second Circuit has been hesitant to permit modifications that might “unfairly disturb the legitimate expectations of the parties or deponents.” Dorsett v. County of Nassau, 289 F.R.D. 54, 64 (E.D.N.Y. 2012). Indeed, “[i]t is presumptively unfair for courts to modify protective orders which assure confidentiality and upon which the parties have reasonably relied.” Id., 289 F.R.D. at 64 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (internal citations and quotations omitted) (denying motion to lift 34 April 21, 2016, Hearing Transcript at 6:24-7:6. (McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 19). 35 March 17, 2016, Hearing Transcript at 4:25-5:1, supra; April 21, 2016, Hearing Transcript at 6:24-7:6, supra - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 26 of 31 22 confidentiality of report of policing failures surrounding the murder of a young mother). “Consequently, in a major decision in this field, Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir.1979), the Second Circuit determined that ‘absent a showing of improvidence in the grant of a Rule 26(c) protective order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need ... a witness should be entitled to rely upon the enforceability of a protective order against any third parties.’” Id., quoting Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d at 296 (denying governmental access for criminal investigative purposes civil deposition transcripts taken under a protective order). In this case, Ms. Giuffre - and multiple other deponents - reasonably relied on this Court’s Protective Order in giving testimony and producing documents. Indeed, Ms. Giuffre has given testimony about being sexually assaulted in reasonable reliance upon the privacy of the Protective Order; furnished personal medical records under in reasonable reliance upon the Protective Order; and produced personal emails with close family members in reasonable reliance upon of the Protective Order. Medical Diagnostic Imaging, PLLC v. Carecore Nat., LLC, 2009 WL 2135294, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (denying motion to modify protective order because parties and third parties have reasonably relied upon the terms of the protective order). Under Martindell, this Court cannot take away those protections after the fact.36 3. Dershowitz Seeks These Materials For an Illegitimate Purpose Which Disqualifies Him from Relief “A litigant's purpose in seeking modification of an existing protective order is also relevant for determining whether to grant a modification. Requests to modify protective orders so that the public may access discovery materials is arguably subject to a more stringent 36 “The Second Circuit has explicitly rejected the notion that the Martindell standard should be limited to cases where the government seeks to modify a protective order. Rather, Martindell has been applied even when the third party seeking access to discovery is a private litigant. Dorsett v. County of Nassau, 289 F.R.D. at 66, citing Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola, Inc., 165 Fed.Appx. 878, 880 (2d Cir.2005). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 27 of 31 23 presumption against modification because there is no public right of access to discovery materials.” Dorsett, 289 F.R.D. at 65 (Internal citations and quotations omitted). Dershowitz’s own words admit the true purpose behind the instant motion, and wholly contradict the flimflam he has presented to this Court: “My goal is to bring charges against the client and require her to speak in court.”37 Indeed, in over 50 statements to the press, he has explained to the world (if not this Court) his reasons for maintaining his attacks on Ms. Giuffre in the media, in which he has publicly called her a “prostitute” and a “bad mother” to her three minor children. McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 20, Local 10 News, January 22, 2015. For example, Dershowitz has made the following statements: ! “The end result of this case should be she [Jane Doe No. 3] should go to jail, the lawyers should be disbarred and everybody should understand that I am completely and totally innocent.” McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 21, CNN International, New Day, January 6, 2015. ! Dershowitz also stated, in an interview in Newsmax, that he is “considering” bringing a lawsuit against Jane Doe No. 3. “And we’re considering suing her for defamation as well, but right now she was trying to hide in Colorado and avoid service, but we found her and we served her and now she’ll be subjected to a deposition.”38 By his own words, Dershowitz wants to intimidate and harass Ms. Giuffre with the specter of his sending her “to jail.”39 Even Dershowitz’s own cited cases militate against the Court feeding his proposed public relations campaign: Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 98 S.Ct. 1306, 1312, 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978) (“It is uncontested that the right to . . . copy judicial records is not absolute . . . access has been denied where court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes”). In 37 McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 22, Australian Broadcasting System (ABC), January 6, 2015. 38 McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 23, Newsmax, April 8, 2015 39 Dershowitz has previously written: “There’s an old saying: ‘If you have the law on your side, bang on the law. If you have the facts on your side, bang on the facts. If you have neither, bang on the table.’ I have never believed that, but I do believe in a variation on that theme: If you don’t have the law or legal facts on your side, argue your case in the court of public opinion.” ALAN DERSHOWITZ, TAKING THE STAND: MY LIFE IN THE LAW (2013). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 28 of 31 24 Nixon, the Supreme Court warned that lower courts should “exercise an informed discretion as to the release” of materials, because, “[o]therwise, there would exhibit a danger that the court could become a partner in the use of the subpoenaed material to gratify private spite or promote public scandal, with no corresponding assurance of public benefit.” Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 98 S.Ct. at 1315, 435 U.S. at 603 (internal citations and quotations omitted).Under Nixon, this Court should not allow itself to be Dershowitz’s partner in gratifying his private spite and promoting public scandal that would necessarily prejudice Ms. Giuffre.40 4. Under This Court’s Order, Non-Parties Cannot Challenge Confidentiality Designations and Dershowitz has Already Agreed to be Bound by the Parties’ Confidentiality Designations in Exchange for Receipt of Documents The Protective Order (DE 62) does not allow non-parties, like Dershowitz, to make a challenge to the confidentiality designations or the efficacy of the Order. To the contrary, the Protective Order only states that parties can object to the confidentiality designations: “A party may object to the designation of particular CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION by giving written notice to the party designating the disputed information . . . it shall be the obligation the party designating the information as CONFIDENTIAL to file an appropriate motion requesting that the Court determine whether the disputed information should be subject to the terms of this Protective Order.” (DE 62 at ¶ 11, p. 4). This Court’s Protective Order does not allow for non￾parties to challenge these designations. Accordingly, Dershowitz cannot challenge the designations under this Order. 40 Similarly, under applications to intervene under Rule 24(a), numerous courts have declined to allow a mere “reputational” interest to justify intervention. Calloway v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 115 F.R.D. 73, 74 (M.D. Ga. 1987) (“interest in his reputation alone . . . does not constitute the required interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the present action necessary to allow intervention”); Flynn v. Hubbard, 82 F.2d 1084, 1093 (1st Cir. 1986) (“the church “merely claim[ed] a generalized injury to reputation [that] identifies no legal detriment arising from a default judgment against Hubbard.”); Edmondson v. State of Neb. ex. rel. Meyer, 383 F.2d 123 (8th Cir. 1967) (“The mere fact that Edmondson’s reputation is thereby injured is not enough [to support intervention].”); Forsyth County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2009 WL 1312511, at *2 (N.D. Ga. May 8, 2009) (interest in protecting its reputation . . . is not direct, substantive, or derived from a legal right”). • Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 29 of 31 25 Importantly, Dershowitz admits that he has agreed to be bound by the provisions of the Protective Order in exchange for receiving the documents. Accordingly, he has agreed to the confidentiality restrictions placed on the documents, no matter what the documents contained. As Dershowitz explicitly admits that he agreed to be bound by the Protective Order so that he could be privy to all of the discovery in this case, he also agreed to be bound by its confidentiality provisions, as well as the provisions that only allow parties to bring challenges to the Protective Order. V. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Court should deny Dershowitz’s motion in its entirety. August 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 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 30 of 31 26 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 29, 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 to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic Court Filing System 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/ Meredith Schultz Meredith Schultz Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 31 of 31 EXHIBIT 6 (Filed Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-42 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 5 Page 1 Page 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 On behalf of the Defendant: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 2 ROBERT J. CRITTON, ESQUIRE CASE No.08-CV-80 11 9-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON BURMAN, CRITTON & LUTTIER JANE DOE NO. 2, 3 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 Plaintiff, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 -vs- 4 Phone: 561.842.2820 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, rcrit@bclclaw.com 5 mpike@bclclaw.com Defendant. 6 Related cases: 7 08-80232, 08-80380, 98-80381, 08-80994, 8 08-80993, 08-8081 I, 08-80893, 09-80469, 9 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 10 11 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF WAN ALESSI 12 VOLUME ! 13 Tuesday, September 8, 2009 14 10:12 a.m. - 3:45 p.m. 15 16 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard 17 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 18 19 20 Reported By: 21 Sandra W. Townsend, FPR Notary 22 Public, State of Florida PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY 23 West Palm Beach Office 24 25 Page 2 Page 4 1 APPEARANCES: 1 - - - 2 On behalf of the Plaintiffs: 3 RICHARD WILLITS, ESQUIRE 2 EXHIBITS RICHARD H. WILLITS, P.A. 3 - - - 4 2290 I 0th Avenue North, Suite 404 Lake Worth, Florida 33461 4 5 Phone: 56 1.582.7600 NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE reelrhw@hotmail.com 6 5 7 STUART MERMELSTEIN, ESQUIRE 6 Exhibit number 1 Photographs 45 MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. 8 18205 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2218 7 Exhibit number 2 Transcript 130 Miami, Flo1ida 33 160 8 Exhibit number 3 Incident Report 137 9 Phone: 305.93 1.2200 ssm@sexabuseatto1ney.com 9 Exhibit number 4 Incorporation Papers 149 10 ahorowitz@sexabuseattomey.com 10 Exhibit number 5 Incorporation Papers 150 11 WILLIAM J. BERGER, ESQUIRE ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER 11 12 40 1 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1650 12 Fo,t Lauderdale, Florida 33301 13 Phone: 954.522.3456 13 bedwa.rds@rra-law.com 14 14 15 KATHERINE W. EZELL, ESQUIRE 15 PODHURST ORS ECK, P.A. 16 25 We 16 st Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, Flo1ida 33 I 30 17 17 Phone: 305.358.2800 1josefsberg@podhurst.com 18 18 kezell@podhurst.com 19 19 ADAM J. LANGINO, ESQUIRE LEOPOLD KUVIN 20 20 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 21 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 334 10 21 Phone: 561.5 15.1400 22 skuvin@leopoldkuvin.com 23 22 23 24 24 25 25 (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. 1 (Pages 1 to 4) (561) 832-7506 Electronically signed by Sandra Townsend (401-377-676-2895) Electronically signed by Sandra Townsend (401-377-676-2895) 76ef564a-4a1c-4dee-87ac-479898cc; GIUFFRE00009 l Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-42 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 5 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 17 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 45 MS. EZELL: I'm going to ask -- I don't know 1 whether you've still been serially designating 2 Exhibits or whether we're doing them separately for 3 deposition. 4 MR. CRITTON: I think we cannot trust that 5 people will do them serially. I'd do them with 6 each one. 7 MS. EZELL: Then would you mark this, please, 8 as Exhibit 1 to this deposition. 9 And I'm just going to state on the record that 1 O I will keep that original. We will not attach it 11 to the deposition. 12 (Exhibit number 1 was marked for 13 identification purposes and retained by Counsel for the 14 Plaintiffs.) 15 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's -- 16 BY MS. EZELL: 1 7 Q. Cm1 you identify that -- the young woman in 1 8 those pictures? 1 9 A. Yes. 20 Q. Who is it? 21 A. That's V. -- V. Now that you says R., that 22 is V.R. definite, a hundred percent. 2 3 MR. CRITTON: Let me just note my objection, 2 4 as I did in A. Rod's deposition or Mr. Rodriguez's 2 5 Page 46 deposition, that I know you're going to confiscate 1 Exhibit number 1. I think it's inappropriate. I 2 think I should be allowed to have a copy of 3 Exhibits that are being used in deposition. But 4 I'll file a motion with the Court so we don't get 5 into a pulling match over your Exhibits. 6 MR. BERGER: I would ask that the court 7 repo1ter initial that. 8 MS. EZELL: Sure. 9 Oh, you did? 10 MR. WILLITS: She marked it. 11 MR. BERGER: Did she put her initials or did 12 she just put a number or a letter? 13 MR. CRITTON: She's nodding that she did 14 everything that she usually does, which mem1s, 15 initials, date m1d number. 16 MR. MERMELSTEIN: You cm1 talk. 17 MR. WILLITS: But when you talk, use your 18 initials. 19 BY MS. EZELL: 20 Q. How old did you think V.R. was at the time she 21 begm1 coming to Mr. Epstein's home? 22 A. She could have been 17, 18, 19. 23 Q. Could she have also been 15? 24 MR. CRITTON: Form. 25 Page 47 THE WITNESS: Could have been. But, you know I am not -- I don't think I am a very good judge of ages. If you ask me how old you are, I really couldn't tell you. MR. CRITTON: Kathy thinks she's 25. MS. EZELL: In my dreams. THE WITNESS: Now, again, I must tell you, I was never told to check any i.d.s on any of the people who work at the house. BY MS. EZELL: Q. I understand that. And, so, I think I'm just trying to establish that you didn't consider it part of your job description to worry about or consider the ages -- A. No. Q. -- of the young women that came there? A. Absolutely not. Absolutely not. Q. And, so, you never really focused on that or particularly thought about it if they seemed young? MR. CRITTON: Form. THE WITNESS: I don't-- I didn't see that many young girls, you know, young, underage girls at the house. I never saw except the two girls that I mentioned that I think it was underage was N. for sure because she was still in high school. Page 48 And she -- she had dinner with her mother, a couple times with her mother. And she become an actress. She's an actress and she has done movies. And he help her in her career. That's the only girl that I knew she was young because she was going to high school and I pick her up from high school sometimes. But she was not a massage therapist. She will go for dinner. And they will go for the movies and she sang sometimes because she was a singer. So she sw1g at the house. Beautiful girl . Very talented. That's the only girl that I know that it was -- I would says, underage. BY MS. EZELL: Q. Okay. Did -- who told you that V.R. was a massage therapist? A. Nobody. Q. Did you assume that she was a massage therapist because you were told she was coming to give massage? A. No. I assumed she was a massage therapy because I was -- I drove Ms. Maxwell to Mar-a-Iago, Donald Trump's residence. And I wait in the car while Ms. Maxwell got a -- I think it was a facial or massage. I don't know. But that day I remember this girl, V., (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY , INC . 12 (Pages 45 to 48) (561) 832 - 7506 Electronically signed by Sandra Townsend (401-377-676-2895) Electronically signed by Sandra Townsend (401-377-676-2895) 76ef564a-4a1c-4dee-87ac-479898cc; GIUFFRE000 l 02 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-42 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 5 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 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 Page 69 MR. CRITTON: Form. 1 THE WITNESS: No, not that I can remember. 2 BY MS. EZELL: 3 Q. Do you know ifhe and Mr. Epstein were 4 involved in any businesses together? 5 A. Mr. Epstein, I never knew what businesses he 6 was involved. He will -- I was completely shut off of 7 all of the business, except for the office, transfer of 8 communications or faxes. But I have no idea of the 9 relationship with other business partners. 1 O Q. Did you ever have to deal with his -- the 11 office in New York with someone named Lesley in Nev 12 York? 13 A. The secretary? 14 Q. Yes. 15 A. Yeah. I would call -- I would call Lesley 16 almost every day or other secretaries, they live in New 1 7 York. Basically it came a point when Mr. Epstein will 18 call New York and New York call me to do things for 19 Mr. Epstein. But he was on the phone or busy or 2 O something and he would call the office and the office 21 will send me an e-mail or call me or -- it was a 22 constant report with the office in New York. 2 3 Q. And did you in turn sometimes call New York t, 2 4 get a message to Mr. Epstein? 2 5 Page 70 A. Yes. 1 Q. Did you ever overhear Mr. Epstein talking to 2 any people that you would consider celebrities? 3 A. Yes. I knew some -- many celebrities. 4 Q. Who -- what celebrities did you understand 5 that he spoke with? 6 A. He spoke to it? 7 Q. Yes. 8 A. I don't know who he spoke to because I never 9 listen to his conversations. But I saw guests at the 10 house that were celebrities. 11 Q. Who did you see at house? 12 A. Many. !twas !twas- 13 It was Prince Andrew. It 14 was Princess Sarah. 15 Q. Princess? 16 A. Sarah, the wife of Andrew. 1 7 Q. SarahFerguson? 18 A. Ferguson. 19 And it was a couple Misses, Misses Yugoslavia, 2 0 Miss Germany that I don't even know the names. But the) 21 were a lot of queens and other famous people that I 2 2 can't remember. It was a very famous lawyers that I'm 2 3 sure you know, Alan Dershowitz, who spend at tl1e house 2 4 couple times. And he slept tl1ere. He -- Princess 25 Page 71 Diane's secretary, she stay there for a week with her kids and we took care of her. Who else? Mr. Trump. That's a celebrity. Mr. Robert Kem1edy, Junior. Mr. Frederick Fekkai. Q. Who is that? A. Fekkai, Frederick Fekkai, the famous hairstylist. Who else? I don't think I can remember anymore. Q. David Copperfield, the magician? A. No, I never saw him. Q. You never saw him. Now, would these -- the people that you named were all people that you saw visiting in the home? A. Yes. Also was a Noble Prize winners, the -- I can't remember his name. It was an old gentleman. He was a Noble Prize, chemistry, I think, or mathematics. There was a couple -- a couple of those, very -- also, we had at one time at the house, it was a reunion of very Noble Prize winners. But I don't know. They're not famous, I guess. I can't remember their names. Very important people. Q. Was that a dim1er or a reception? A. I think it was a lllllch. Q. A lunch. President Clinton, did you ever -- Page 72 A. I met President Clinton on Mr. Epstein's plane in the last, I think it was the last month or just before I left -- I left, I met President Clinton in Miami at his plane. We drove him to Miami. Q. And do you know, was that a trip -- were they going on a trip to Africa? A. I hear about it, but it was not when I was there. Q. So that was not the time that you drove -- A. No, I was already out. Q. And Kevin Spacey, did you ever meet him? A. No. I hear about it on the news, but I never met him. Q. Were Prince Andrew and Princess Sarah friends of Ms. Maxwell? A. Both of them. Q. Both Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein? A. Yeah. Q. Did -- did they ever have massages when they were there? A. Prince Andrew did. I think Sarah was there only once and for a short time. I don't think she slept in there. I cannot remember. I think she was visiting Wellington and she came to the house and we met her. But Prince Andrew, yes, Prince Andrew spent weeks witr (561) 832 - 7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC . 18 (Pages 69 to 72) (561) 832 - 7506 Electronically signed by Sandra Townsend (401-377-676-2895) Electronically signed by Sandra Townsend (401-377-676-2895) 76ef564a-4a1c-4dee-87ac-479898cc; GIUFFRE000108 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-42 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 5 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 1 3 14 15 1 6 17 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 73 us. 1 Q. Where would he sleep? 2 A. In the main room, the main guest bedroom. 3 That was the blue room. 4 Q. And, so, when he would come and stay, during 5 that time would he frequently have massages? 6 MR. CRITTON: Form. 7 THE WITNESS: I would says, daily massages. 8 They have a daily massage. 9 BY MS. EZELL: 10 Q. Was it sometimes more than one a day? 11 A. I can't remember ifhe had more than one, but 12 I think it was just a massage for him. We set up the 13 tables and -- 14 Q. Do you have any recollection ofV.R. coming to 15 the house when Prince Andrew was there? 16 A. It could have been, but I'm not sure. 1 7 Q. Not sure. When Mr. Dershowitz was 18 visiting, -- 19 A. Uh-huh. 20 Q. -- how often did he come? 21 A. He came pretty -- pretty often. I would says, 22 at least four or five times a year. 2 3 Q. And how long would he stay typically? 24 A. Two, three days. 2 5 Page 74 Q. Did he have massages sometimes when he was 1 there? 2 A. Yes. A massage was like a treat for 3 everybody. If they want it, we call the massage and 4 they have a massage. 5 Q. Now, Mr. Trump had a home in Palm Beach, 6 correct? 7 A. Uh-huh. 8 Q. So he didn't come and stay there, did he? 9 A. No, never. 1 O Q. He would come for a meal? 11 A. He would come, have dinner. He never sat at 12 the table. He eat with me in the kitchen. 13 Q. Did he ever have massages while he was there? 14 A. No. Because he's got his own spa. 1 5 Q. Sure. 16 MS. EZELL: I don't have any other questions 1 7 right now. I'd just like to reserve if something 18 comes up to ask. But, otherwise, you may go ahead. 19 MR. LANGINO: It is noon, so I don't know wha 2 O everybody else's schedule is. I don't know how 21 you're feeling. 2 2 THE WITNESS: I am fine. 23 MS. EZELL: I do have another question. May I 24 ask it? 25 Page 75 MR. LANGINO: Go ahead. Sure. BY MS. EZELL: Q. You said that you set up the massage tables. And would you also set up the oils and the towels? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. And I think I read one time you said they used 40 or 50 towels a day? MR. CRITTON: Fom1. THE WITNESS: That's correct. There was a tremendous amount of work in the house, especially laundry towels, because they were -- we have towels, piles of towels. And they use in the pool. There was a lot of people in the pool and there were a towel that went in the floor, we have to go and pick it up, wash it. So it was -- it was a lot of towels, yes. BY MS. EZELL: Q. And did you ever have occasion to go upstairs and clean up after the massages? A. Yeah, uh-huh. Q. Did you ever find any vibrators in that area? A. Yes. I told him, yes. MS. EZELL: And did you ask that? I'm son-y. MR. CRITTON: Yes. MS. EZELL: I don't know how I missed that. Page 76 BY MS. EZELL: Q. Since I did miss it, if you don't mind, let me just ask you again. Would you describe for me what kinds of vibrators you found? A I'm not familiar -- not too familiar with the names, but they were big dildos, what they call the big rubber things like that (indicating). And I used to go and put my gloves on and pick them up, put them in tht sink, rinse it off and put it in Ms. Maxwell -- Ms. Maxwell had in her closet, she had, like, a laundry basket, one of those laundry basket that you put laundn in. She have full of those toys. And that was -- and that was me being professional, leaving the room ready for bed when he would come back to the room again. Q. Okay. A That happened a few times, few times. Q. Were there other sex toys that you found in the area -- A. No. Q. -- sometimes? You mentioned she kept them in a basket in her closet? A She kept them in her basket. She had some videos there and she have a costume there. I know that she bought it, that she brought it with her. (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY , INC . 19 (Pages 73 to 76) (561) 832 - 7506 Electronically signed by Sandra Townsend (401-377-676-2895) Electronically signed by Sandra Townsend (401-377-676-2895) 76ef564a-4a1c-4dee-87ac-479898cc; GIUFFRE000 l 09 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-42 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 5 COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 8 (File Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-43 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 8 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 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 Plaintiff, Vs JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. I Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688 7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141 Page 1 GIUFFRE00025 l Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-43 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 8 Page 198 1 that tape it's going to be Assistant Attorney 2 Weiss and Detective Recarey asking questions? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. It says, during the sworn taped statement 5 Mr. Rodriguez stated he was employed by Jeffrey 6 Epstein for approximately six months. 7 I think we already talked about that. 8 I'm skipping ahead a little bit. 9 If Rodriguez needed to relay a message to 10 Epstein he would have to notify Epstein's 11 secretary Lesley in New York who would then notify 12 Epstein's personal assistant Sarah who would relay 13 the message to Epstein. 14 A. Yeah. 15 MR. CRITTON: Form. 16 BY MR. EDWARDS: Q. That's pretty much the process you described? A. Yes, it was normal procedure. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Rodriguez stated Epstein did not want to see or hear the staff when he was in the 1 2 3 4 residence? MR. CRITTON: Form. THE WITNESS: That's correct. BY MR. EDWARDS: Q. That's something you agree with? A. Yes. MR. CRITTON: Form. BY MR. EDWARDS: Page 199 5 Q. Rodriguez advised Mr. Epstein had many 6 guests. 7 In addition to the girls who are roughly 8 C. and T. age who had come to the house to have a 9 good time, who were some of the other guests that 10 you know of, if you know their name? 11 MR. CRITTON: Form. 12 THE WITNESS: I mentioned Alan Page 200 1 friends, I will say, yeah. 2 Q. Then you mentioned that you typed into 3 Google, I guess you Googled Prince Andrew and Bill 4 Clinton. Why would you pick those names, were 5 they associated with Mr. Epstein? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And what is your understanding as to how 8 Prince Andrew is associated with Jeffrey Epstein? 9 A. Because there were pictures with him 10 together. 11 Q. In the house? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Many pictures or are we talking about 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 one? A. Many pictures. Q. Were these pictures that looked that appeared to be at social events, at Mr. Epstein's house or where? A. Mrs. Maxwell took him to England to introduce him to the royalty. Q. Is it's your understanding that Ghislaine Maxwell knew Prince Andrew and introduced -- A. Yes. Q. Is it also your understanding that at some point in time Ghislaine dated or had a Page 201 romantic relationship with Prince Andrew? MR. CRITTON: Form. THE WITNESS: I don't know that. BY MR. EDWARDS: Q. Do you know around what time period it was that Mr. Epstein was introduced to Prince Andrew? A. 2003, I believe. Q. How do you know that? A. I've heard dates. Q. From people in the Epstein group? A. Yes. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Dershowitz. 13 Q. Okay. BY MR. EDWARDS: 14 Q. That's a lawyer from Harvard? 15 A. Yes. The magician, David Copperfield, 16 some other lawyers from New York, you know. There 17 were some other guests. 18 Q. And how frequently would these other 19 guests come over? 20 A. Once a month, something like that. 21 Q. Okay. So if it's only once a month and 22 you were only there six months you're saying you 23 only saw six guests come over in addition to -- 24 A. They have people, you know, they have 25 MR. CRITTON: Let me note my objection, move to strike, it's based on -- his testimony is based on hearsay. BY MR. EDWARDS: Q. During the six month period of time when you worked directly for Mr. Epstein, how often did Mr. Epstein get together with or hangout with Prince Andrew; if you know? A. I didn't see him once. Q. You never saw Prince Andrew at the house? A. No, no, he called. Q. I'm sorry, how often would he call? 51 (Pages 198 to 201) Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688 7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141 GIUFFRE00030 1 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-43 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 8 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 I " 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. CONDENSED 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 Plaintiff, vs JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. I Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688 7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141 Page 270 NON PARTY (VR) 000315 GIUFFRE00 l 004 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-43 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 8 1 APPEARANCES: 2 3 RICHARD WILLITS, ESQ. 2290 10th AVenue North 4 Suite 404 Lake Worth, Florida 33461 5 Attorney for C.M.A. 6 7 Appeared via telephone. BURMAN, CRITTON, LlJTTIER & 8 COLEMAN, LLP BY: ROBERT CRITTON, ESQ. 9 515 North Flagler Drive Suite 400 10 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Attorney for Jeffrey Epstein. 11 12 13 ALSO PRESENT: 14 JOE LANGSAM, VIDEOGRAPHER 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 CONTINUED INDEX OF EXAMINATION 2 WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS 3 4 s 6 7 8 ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ (By Ms. Ezell) 278 (By Mr. Willits) 334 (By Mr. Critton) (By Mr. Edwards) 338 441,467 453,469 464 419, 454, 468 (By Mr. Langino) 452 9 10 11 12 CONTINUED INDEX OF EXHIBITS 13 PLAINTIFF'S PAGE 14 3 Drawing 315 i6 5 Photo9raph 331 17 6 Photograph 331 18 7 Photograph 331 19 8 Photograph 331 20 9 Report 446 21 (Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 were retained by Ms. Ezell.) 22 23 24 25 Page 275 Page 276 1 2 3 4 Page 277 Deposition taken before MICHELLE PAYNE, Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at Large, in the above cause. 5 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is a continuation 6 of the deposition of Alfredo Rodriguez. 7 Today is Friday, August the 7th, the year 8 2009, starting time approximately 1:15 p.m. 9 Will the court reporter please swear in 10 the witness? 11 Thereupon, 12 ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ, 13 having been first duly sworn or affirmed, was 14 examined and testified as follows: 15 MR. CRITTON: Before we get started just 16 with regard to Ms. Ezell represents Jane Doe 17 101 and 102, the alleged time of her 18 incidents as of least have been plead in the 19 complaint for 101 is '99 -- I'm sorry, '98 20 through 2002, with Jane Doe 102 the Spring 21 of -- Spring/Summer of 2003. Mr. Rodriguez 22 never even began employment until '04 and 23 '05. I think her questioning I think -- I 24 can't say she doesn't have standing based on 25 the court order, but I would say it's Page 278 1 completely irrelevant and immaterial and has 2 no probative value with regard to this 3 particular witness based upon the two 4 clients at least that are in suit at this 5 point in time. 6 MS. EZELL: As Mr. Critton well knows I 7 represent a number of other clients whose 8 cases have not been filed and I believe we 9 do have standing to ask questions, and I do 10 intend to do that today. 11 EXAMINATION 12 BY MS. EZELL: 13 Q. Mr. Rodriguez, you stated last time that 14 there were guests at the house, frequent guests, 15 friends from Harvard. 16 Do you remember that testimony? J./ /-\ , 1'--'t IIIQQIII, 18 Q. And was there a lawyer from Harvard named 19 Alan Dershowitz? 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Yes, ma'am. Q. And are you familiar with the fact that he's a famous author and famous lawyer? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. How often during the six months or so that you were there was Mr. Dershowitz there? 3 (Pages 275 to 278) Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688 7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141 NON PARTY (VR) 000317 GIUFFRE00 1006 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-43 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 8 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 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 279 Page 281 A. Two or three times. 1 Q. Can you tell me where those were? Q. And did you have any knowledge of why he 2 A. One in the kitchen, and the one in the was visiting there? 3 formal -- the main entrance. And there was one A. No, ma'am. 4 more added later on, but there is two when I was Q. You don't know whether or not he was a 5 working there. lawyer -- acting as a lawyer or whether he was 6 Q. Could you just give me a rough sketch of there as a friend? 7 the house of where the main entrance was and where A. I believe as a friend. 8 the kitchen was? Q. Were there also young ladies in the house 9 A. I'm not an architect but it's something at the time he was there? 10 like this. This is the kitchen, this is the main MR. CRITTON : Form. 11 entrance. THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am. 12 Q. Will you mark the kitchen with a K, BY MS. EZELL: 13 please, and the main entrance with ME? Q. And would those have included, for 14 A. This is the pool. instance, Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcenacova? 15 Q. The pool? A. Yes, ma'am. 16 A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Were there other young ladies there when 17 Q. And in the upper left? Mr. Dershowitz was there? 18 A. In the terrace, yeah, there was a balcony MR. CRITTON: Form. 19 here. THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am. 20 Q. And where were the staircases? BY MS. EZELL: 21 A. This is one, the kitchen, one in the Q. Do you have any idea who those young 22 foyer, and the pool. women were? 23 Q. Okay. And would you just put an F where A. No, ma'am. 24 the foyer staircase began? And KS where the Q. Were any of those the young women that 25 kitchen staircase began. Page 280 Page 282 you have said came to give massages? 1 And you said that later another staircase A. Yes, ma'am. 2 was added? Q. And do you have any idea whether or not 3 A. Yeah, we rehabilitated this, you know, Mr. Dershowitz was also receiving massages? 4 but you asked me how many stairs there were, to A. I don't know, Ma'am. 5 answer your question there were three. Q. I want to ask you to take this piece of 6 Q. Three. So where was the third one? paper, please, and a pencil -- 7 A. The pool, this leads to the pool. MR. WILLITS: Can anybody hear me? 8 Through the outside master bedroom you could go MS. EZELL: Yes. Can you hear me? 9 downstairs to the pool. MR. WILLITS: I've heard nothing for 10 Q. Okay. A stairway then from the outside, about a minute or so. 11 from outside the master bedroom? MR. CRITTON: Can you hear me now? 12 A. Yes, ma'am. MR. WILLITS: Yes. 13 Q. Down to the pool? MS. EZELL: I'm asking questions, I'm 14 A. Yes, ma'am. sorry. 15 Q. One of your duties was to answer the MR. CRITTON: Why don't we go off the 16 door. Is that correct? recora ror a secona. 1/ 1-\, ic:,1 11 1aa111. (Thereupon, a discussion was held off the 18 Q. Which door would you answer? record.) 19 A. Mainly the kitchen. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the 20 Q. And why was that, why would people mainly record. 21 come to the kitchen? BY MS. EZELL: 22 A. I'll say it was for practicable reasons Q. Mr. Rodriguez, you indicated that there 23 because not to go to the main -- it was shorter were several staircases in the house? 24 because the entrance was here, so this was the A. Yes, ma'am. 25 driveway and we used to take into the back door of 4 (Pages 279 to 282) Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688 7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141 NON PARTY (VR) 000318 GIUFFRE00 1007 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-43 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 8 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 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 it 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I Page 423 Page 425 York house? 1 Q. And is your understanding that Mr. A. He will have massages. 2 Epstein was intimate with any of those girls? MR. CRITTON: Form. 3 MR. CRITTON: Form. BY MR. EDWARDS: 4 THE WITNESS: Yes. Q. And are we still talking about a habit of 5 BY MR. EDWARDS: two a day? 6 Q. With all of them? MR. CRITTON: Form. 7 MR. CRITTON: Form. THE WITNESS: I don't know that. 8 THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR. EDWARDS: 9 BY MR. EDWARDS: Q. Okay. So for the time period when you 10 Q. With Sarah as well? have been familiar with Mr. Epstein and known his 11 A. Yes. habits, is it fair to say that he would have 12 MR. CRITTON: Form. roughly two girls a day in that same age group 13 BY MR. EDWARDS: wherever he was? 14 Q. With-? A. Yes. 15 A. Yes. MR. CRITTON : Form. 16 MR. CRITTON: Form. BY MR. EDWARDS: 17 BY MR. EDWARDS: Q. All right. And have you talked to 18 Q. And the girls who would come over on the anybody that has given you similar information 19 airplane? from his Island home? 20 MR. CRITTON: Form. I A. No. 21 THE WITNESS: Yes. Q. Do you know any of the girls that have 22 BY MR. EDWARDS: been over to his Island? 23 Q. Did you ever have occasion to go into the A. Yes. 24 bedroom and find the vibrators or back massagers Q. And who are they? 25 out after Mr. Epstein was in the room with any of I Page 424 A. Nadia, the girls who used to stay at the 1 the girls that came over on the plane? Page 426 1 home in El Brillo used to go over there to the 2 MR. CRITTON: Form. Island. 3 THE WITNESS: Yes. Q. When he would have these girls -- I guess 4 BY MR. EDWARDS: we've kind of categorized them as the girls who 5 Q. So that's something that would be out would come over with him on an airplane and stay 6 after the girls that came over on the plane or the at the house. 7 girls that came over for the massages? A. Yes. 8 A. Yes. Q. When they would be staying at the house 9 MR. CRITTON: Form. would he also have the local Palm Beach girls 10 BY MR. EDWARDS: coming over that you were told to call masseuses? 11 Q. And at the time when you were house A. Yes. 12 manager you had a 15-year old daughter? Q. So these girls that came on the airplane 13 A. Yes. with him, were they also -- did they also have 14 Q. Did she live down here? knowledge that these young girls were coming over 15 A. In New Jersey. to give massages? 16 Q. Okay. When Alan Dershowitz was at the - ·~ . ·11,. _ ,,.a. I 1 - • V 11,, ,., , .... w ... "" .l u1, .... _,.., ....... "" .... , ..................... , ............ , - THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 18 Palm Beach girls would come over to the house BY MR. EDWARDS: 19 while he was there but you're not sure if he had a Q. Okay. Who are the girls from the 20 massage from any of those girls. airplane other than - that you remember? 21 A. Exactly. A. Sarah. There were so many, sir, I don't 22 Q. And what would he do while those girls recall right now. But Sarah is for sure, - 23 were at the house? was one of the main girlfriends, but I don't 24 MR. CRITTON: Form. remember that. 25 THE WITNESS: He will read a book with a 40 (Pages 423 to 426) Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688 7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141 NON PARTY (VR) 000354 GIUFFRE00 1044 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-43 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 8 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 glass of wine by the pool, stay inside. BY MR. EDWARDS: Q. Did he ever talk to any of the girls' A. I don't know, sir. Page 427 Q. Certainly he knew that they were there? MR. CRITTON: Form. THE WITNESS: I don't know, sir. BY MR. EDWARDS: 9 Q. Do you know how Sarah Kellen knows Mr. 10 Epstein? 11 A. No, sir. 12 Q. Or how long she's known him? 13 MR. CRITTON: Form. 14 THE WITNESS: She was on board two years 15 or a year and a half before I came on board. 16 BY MR. EDWARDS: 17 Q. Okay. 18 A. So it's probably 2003 or 2. 19 Q. All right. You mentioned this Citrix 20 system. 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Is that a system that was used to operate 23 the phones and the computers? 24 A. The computers mainly. 25 Q. All right. But you then also described 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 J.O Page 428 some system where someone would call on the telephone and that would be automatically downloaded to the computer? A. Yeah, you can retrieve who called in a transcript written who called, what's the message, the time so you have it on a piece of paper, you can print it out. Q. Is it your understanding that is also part of the Cltrix system? A. Yes. Q. AH right. Did you have an e-maif? A. Right now, yes. Q. No, when you were working at ·· A. Yes, I did. Q. ·- Mr. Epstein? Page 429 1 usually it's Yahoo dot com or at Bellsouth dot 2 net. 3 A. It was very uncommon. I don't remember, 4 sir. 5 Q. Did everybody in the -· I think you 6 called it the organization, did everybody have 7 e-mails? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. Would that include Nadia? 10 A .. Yes. 11 Q. All right. And did Mr. Epstein have an 12 e-mail? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Did you ever correspond with Mr. Epstein 15 by e-mail? 16 A. Yes. 17 MR. EDWARDS: You can go ahead. 18 THE WITNESS: That's the only one that I 19 remember. 20 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay, we're off the 21 record. 22 (Thereupon, a recess was had.) 23 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the 24 record with tape number four. 25 BY MR. EDWARDS: Page 430 l Q. Mr. Rodriguez, what was Mr. Epstein's e-mail? 1 2 3 A. Jeep project at something -- Jeep 4 project •· I can't remember it right now. 5 Q. Okay. In the course of this next 10 or 6 15 minutes •• 7 A. I can recall. 8 Q. -- if it comes to you just tell me. So 9 it was Jeep project •• 10 A. Like Jeep, the brand name Jeep, Jeep 11 project at -· I can't remember. 12 Q. Okay. Was that his only e-mail to your 13 knowledge? 14 A. No. 15 Q. He had other e-mail addresses? A '\.,I __ 17 A. Yes. 17 Q. Do you know what any of his other e-mail 18 Q. And did all of the e-mails end the same 18 addresses were? 19 way such as Epstein's house dot com or something? 19 20 A. Yes. 20 21 Q. Okay. What was Sarah Kellen's e-mail? 21 22 A. I don't remember. 22 23 Q. What was your e-mail? 23 24 A. Staff house •• I don't remember, sir. 24 25 Q. Do you recall how it ended? I mean 25 A. No, I don't remember. Q. Do you know who the carriers were for the other e-mail addresses owned by Jeffrey Epstein? A. No, sir. Q. Whether it was Yahoo or hot mail or -· A. No, none of those. Q. Okay. Was this Jeep project e-mail run 41 (Pages 427 to 430) Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866·7688 7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141 NON PARTY (VR) 000355 GIUFFRE00 1045 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-43 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 8 EXHIBIT 9 (Filed Under Seal) .D$"8-&:
%&$-"3"5*0/ $0.104*5& Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-44 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO . 08-CV- 80893-CIV-MARRA/ JOHNSON JANE DOE , Plaintiff, vs . JEFFREY EPSTEIN , et al ., Defendants . ---------------------- Related Cases : 08 - 80119 , 08-80232 , 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994 , 08 - 80811 , 08-80893 , 09- 80469 , 09-8-591 , 09 - 80656 , 09 - 80802 , 09-81092 I VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF NADIA MARCINKOVA TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF DATE : April 13, 2010 U.S. Legal Support (561) 835-0220 1 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-44 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 14 l 2 3 1) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 4 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 1 6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 54 56 A Fiftb . 1 Jeffrey Epstein s11ecifically flew to Palm Beach Q Do you know Bill Clinton? 2 for the purposes of engaging in sex net with A Fifth. 3 Jane Doc'! Q You have been on Jeffrey Epstein's 4 MR. YAREMA: Object to the fom1 . airplane with Bill Clinton? 5 A Fifth. MR. VAREMA: Objecl lo the form. 6 Q Ge11ernlly, isn't it true .Jeffrey Epstein A Fifth . 7 would rly from place to 11lacc for the purpose of Q Isn't take true you have IJeen on Jeffrey 8 engaging i11 sexual activity with minors at his Epstein's airplane with Dong Band, nm Clinton's 9 destination? righthnnd man'! 10 MR. VAREMA: Object lo the fo rm. MR. VAREMA: Objccl to U1c fo rm. 11 A Fifth. A Fifth. 12 Q Isn't it tru e Uiat he employed numerous Q f-lnve you witnessed im()roper sexunt 13 1>eople l"or the sole purpose of scheduling activity between Jeffrey Epstein nncl minors 14 nppointments with undernge miuor females nt ench while he was in tJ1e presence of BIii Clinton? 15 destination he lauded? MR. YAREMA: Objecl lo the fo rm. 1 6 MR. VAR.EMA: Object to the form. A Fifth. 17 A Fifth. Q How ma ny times have you l"idden on the 18 Q Whnt is Jeffrey E pstein's rclalionship nirplane with Jean Luc Brunel'! 19 with Sandy Berger? MR. YAREMA: Object to the fonn. 20 MR. YAREMA: Obj ect to the fonn. A Fifth. 21 A Fifth. Q Each time that Jenn Luc Brunel visits 22 Q Do you know what Jeffrey Epstein's Jeffrey Epstein's hou se, does he bring underage 23 relationship is with Alnn Dershowitz? minors to Jeffrey Epstein's house to engage in 24 MR. VA REMA: Object to the fonn. sex with? 25 A Finh. 55 57 MR. VAR.EMA: Object to the fo 1111 . l Q Thnt's somelJody who you know to have A Fifth. 2 stayed at Jeffrey Epstein's house on many Q Do you know Glenn Dubin? 3 occasions, correct'? A Fifth. 4 MR. YA REMA: Obj ect to the form. Q Do you know Aline Weber'? 5 A Fifth. A Fifth. 6 Q And also somebody who you know to have Q Is that somebocly thnt was n sexual abuse 7 been at the house when E.W. was in Jeffrey victim at one point in time or Jeffrey Epstein 8 Epstein's bedroom getting sexually nlJused, and Jean Luc Brunel? 9 correct? MR.. VAR.EMA: Object to Lhe fo nn . 10 MR. YAR.EMA: Object to the form. A Fifth. 11 A Fi ft h. Q Between 2002 and 2005 when E.W. was 12 Q Alnn Dershowitz is also somebody that abused by J effrey Epstein sexu:tlly, isn't it true 13 you also know to have been at the hou se wh en L.M. that Jeffrey Epstein took flights to Palm Beach 14 was being sexually abused in Jeffrey Epstein's for the purposes of sexually abusing E.W.? 15 bedroom, correct'? MR. VAR.EMA: Objecl to the fo rm. 16 MR. VAR.EMA: Object to the form. A Fifth. 17 A Fifth. Q And between those same years of 2002 and 18 Q Generally, Alan Dershowitz is familiar ioos, isn't it true thal Jeffrey E1,stei11 took 19 with Jeffrey Epstein's habit of engaging in airplnne nights to Pnlm Bench from places 20 sexual acts with minors on a <laily basis, outside ol" the State, to engage in sexual acts 21 correct? witl1 L.M.? 22 MR. YAREMA: Object to the form. MR. YAREMA: Obj ect to th e form. 23 A Fitlh. A Fifth. 24 Q When Alan Dershowitz was in town, Q From 2003 through 2005, i n't it true 25 Jeffrey Epstein did not break his schedule l"or 15 (Pages 54 to 57 ) U.S. Legal Support (561) 835-0220 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-44 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 14 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 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 1 8 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 58 60 Alan Dcrshowi t;o;, meanin g he con tinued lo sexually 1 Q What was the purpose of that night'! abuse minors despite Al an Dcrshowitz being a 2 MR. YA REMA: Object to the fo1111 . guest in the house? 3 A Fifth . MR. YAREMA: Object to the form. 4 Q Did you sign a confidcnliality agrcc111cnl A Firth. 5 with Jeffrey Epstein? Q Alan Dcrshowitz never engaged in any 6 MR.. YAREMA: Objccl to the fo rm. sexual :ictivity with these undernge minors; isn't 7 A Fiflh. that true? B Q When is the last time that you observed MR. YAREM A: Object to the form. 9 Jeffrey Epstein have sex with a minor? A Firth. 10 MR. YA REMA: Object to lhe form. Q l:lave you been made to have sex with 11 A Fifth. Chislninc Mi\:ovell? 12 Q Since being on probation, has .Jeffrey MR. VA R.EMA: Object to the form. 13 Epstein been able to, or has he tlow11 to his A Fifth. 14 island? Q Do you know Emmy Taylor? 1 5 MR. YA REMA: Object to the form. A Fifth. 1 6 A Fifih. Q Similar to you being Jeffrey Epstein's 17 Q To your knowledge, has .lcfTrcy Epstein sex slave, is Emmy Tnylor, or was Emmy Taylor 18 flown to New Vork while on probation or community Ghislnine Maxwell's sex slave'? 19 control? MR. YAREMA: Object to U1e fo 1111. 20 MR. YA REMA: Object to the fo rm. A Fifth. 21 A Fitlh. Q Ghislaine Maxwell is somebody who you 22 Q Isn't it true that he has flown both to know to be bi-sexual, true? 23 cw York and to his island, and you have M R. YAREMA: Object to the fonn. 24 accompanied him on those trips, since he was on A Fifth . 25 community conl1·ol? 59 61 Q You know that Ghislaine Maxwell engngccl 1 MR. YAREMA; Object to the form. in sexual acts with underage minor females, true? 2 A Fifth. MR. YA REMA: Object to the fonn . 3 Q Isn't il also true that Jeffrey Epstein A Fiflh. 4 has indicated to you that he will always engage Q This is yet another friend of Jeffrey 5 in sex acts with underage minor females? Epstein's that is into the net of molesting 6 MR. YAREM A: Object to the fon n. undernge minor fenrnlcs, right? 7 A Fifth. MR. YAREMA: Obj ect to the fo1rn . 8 Q In fnct1 that's something that he has A Fifth . 9 told you , thnt he believes he is entitled to do; Q Now, you are the next participnnt in 10 isn't that right'! that activity, meaning you have been groomed to 11 MR. YAREMA: Object to the form. enjoy and apprecin te the acts of sex with 12 A Fifth. u11<lcrage minors, true'! 13 Q Isn't it true that Jeffrey Epstein MR. YAREMA: Object to the fo nn. 14 believes and bas told you that if he doesn't A Fift h. 15 physically force the underage minor female iuto Q Mas ,l effrcy Epstein instruclccl you to 16 any act, then he is entitled lo engage in sex lie to his Prnbalion Officer in any way? 1 7 with any underage minor female despite the age? MR. Y/\REMA: Object to the fo1m. 18 MR. Y AREMA: Object to tht: form. A Fifth. 19 A Fifth. Q Mr. Visosld testified that you took a 20 Q Whnt is the youngest female you have helicopter llight within the last year with 21 witnessed or observed Jeffrey Epstein to eng:ige .Jeffrey E11stei11 to Miami. Oo you remember thn t 22 in sex with? llight? 23 MR. YAREMA: Object to the form. MR. YAREMA: Object to the form. 24 A Firth. A Fifth. 25 Q Do you haven bank account at Chase Bnnk 16 ( Page s 58 t o 61) U.S. Legal Support (561) 835-0220 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-44 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 14 1 2 3 4 5 '! 3 9 Hl L 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 2<1 25 Page 187 llNlThD STATES DlSTRlCT COURT SOUTHERN DrSTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08•ClV ·80 I l 9•MA1UW JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, -vs- VOLUME II OF III JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defundant. Rclut1:<l ;;i.se~; 08-80232,08-08380,08-80381,08-80994 08-80993, 08-8081 t, 08·80893, 09-R0469 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SARAH KELLEN Wednesday, .March 24, 2010 10:37 - 6:51 p.m. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1500 West Palm Beach, Flodda 33401 l 7. 3 5 6 ., , 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 Page 189 TN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, r LORIDA CASE NO. :;o2Q08CA0W051XXXXMB AB LM., P!aiat1rr: VOLUME 11 OF Ill JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defen<fuuL VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SARAH KELLEN Wetloi;,sday, March 24, 2010 10:37 • 6:51 p.m. 250 Australim1 Avenue South West Pulm Beach, F!urida33401 1 ! I ~ ~ 1 t , i , ~ i l. [ I l "' ~ > Reported By: i Cynthia Hopkins, Ri>R, FPR } Notary Public, State of Florida i Pfu$e' Court Reporting ·~ Reported By: 21 = Cynthia Hopkins, Rl'R, Fl'R 22 ! Nota.ry Public, State of florida I 2 3 } Pro$e Court R,,.,....>rtini;i_ l ·2 :, ~ J(lb No.: 1484-,,v i 2 s i ---'------------------~--l1--------------------------t~ Page l88 Page 190 l IN1'HE CIRCUIT COURT OF TIIE lSTHJUDICIAL CIRCUIT l IN Tim C!RClJIT COURT or THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL i IN AND FOR PALM DTIACII COUNTY, l<LORIDA CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH CO1JNTY. fLOR!DA l CASE N0 . .5020DliCA028058XXXXIV!B AD 2 CASE No.502008CA037319X~1H AB • i E.W., Plaintiff, VOUll\4E U OF HI J~H'Re.Y 8f'ST8N . DEPOS!TION OF SARAH KELLEN WcdIB:sday, March 24, 20!0 10:37 - 6:5 \ p.m. 250 Australian Avenue South West Pa!m Beach, F!orida 3340 ! Reported D_y: Cynthia Hopkins, RPR, fPR N ota1,· Pub!ic, State .of Florida Prnse CCJW1 RepDrliug 3 I S.S. j ; .-,. •"'"""· voLUMEII o, m I JEFFREY El'STE!N -, ' 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 AND SARAH KEU.EN, Det~dants. v1OF.OTAPED DBJ:OSfTION OF SARAH KELLEN Wednesday, Mardt24, 2010 10:37 • 6:51 p.m, 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1500 West Palm Bca.:h, Florida 3340 I kepvrt~d By; C~11thia Hopkins, RPR, FPR Notary Public, SlUl\l ofFlurida Pr,ise Court Reporting Ser;,ices Joo No.: 1484 1 (Pages 187 to 190) (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-44 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 14 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 2 3 4 5 ,. 'O 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 :. 0 ll ::. 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2.1. 22 23 24 25 Page 211 the shape of a penis and vagina. Once again,. not necessarily with respect to lv1r. Epstein's home, in your entire 1ifo have you ever seen soap in the shape of a penis and vagina? A. Not that I recall. Q. Do you ever recall being in Ohio? MR. RHETN"HART: Ever in her life? lv1R. KUVIN: The state, ever in her tife. BYMR. KUVffi: Q. Let's start there, recall being in the State of Ohio for any reason? A. Maybe for a layover, but not that l specifically remember. Q. Okay. Do you know an Ivan Robles? A. No. Q. Have you seen a gentleman by the name of Alan Dershowitz at the home of Jeffrey Epstein before? MR. RHEINHART: Objection to the form. Standing objection, presumes knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein or his home. lnstruc-t the witness not to answer. THE W[TNESS: On the instruction ofmy la,,.vyer, l must exercise my Fifth Amendment right. Pa-ge 212 BY MR. KUVlN: Q. Have you ever heard of the El Zorro Ranch Corporation? MR, RHB!Nlil\RT: lnstruot the witness not to answer based on her Fifth Amendment priv:ilege. THE WITh'"ESS: On the instruction of my lawyer f must exercise my Fifth Amendment right. BY MR. KUVTN: Q. Have you ever heard of the New York Strategy Group'? MR. RHEINBART: Same instruction. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 7.2 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 'THE WITNESS: On the instruction ofmy 14 lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment tight. 1 :t 5 BY MR.K(.JVlN: \ 16 Q. Have f, you eve-r heard of the Ghislaine , l 7 Corporation? / 18 MR. RHEINHART: Same instruction. I 19 THE WITNESS: On the instruction ofmy I 20 lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. ! 21 BY MR. KlNlN: i 22 Q. Have you ever heard of the Financial Strategy Group? MR. RHEJNHART: Same instruction. l 23 ! I 24 j 25 Page 213 THE WITNESS: On the instruction ofmy lawyer, T must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. BYMR. KUVIN: Q. Do you agree that these corporations that I just mentioned were utilized by Jeffrey Epstein in an attempt to have sexual relationships with underage girls? MR. RHElNHART: Objection to the fonn as to compound, and also assumes knowledge of Mr. Epstein, a.s;ks for more than one answer to the question. I would instruct her not to answer based on her Fifth Amendment privilege because the question assumes knowledge of Mr. Epstein. THE WITNESS: Upon instruction ofmy lawyer I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. MR. KUVIN: l think r am <lone. Hang on one second. All right. I appreciate it. That's all the questions l have at this time. Reserve the right to ask any follow-up questions if other attorneys raise new and different issues by their questioning. MR. R.HEINHART: Understood. !vfR. KUVIN: Pass the witness at this time. Page 214 Who ,wmts to go? Mr. Horow1tz, do you have a microphone? MR. HOROWITZ: l do, CROSS (SARAH KELLEN} BY MR. HOROWITZ: Q. Ms. Kellen, did you use the telephone numbei:, the- at any time between ·2001 and2006'? A. On the advice ofmy lawyer, T mu$t exercise my Fifth Amendment right. Q. Did you use the telephone number - between 200 I and 2006 at Jeffrey Epst.:in's expense? :MR. RHEJ}UfART: O~jection to the funn in that it assumes knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein. Standing objection a.~ previously stated with. Mr. Kuvin. [nsltuct lhe witness not to an~wer, based on her Fifth Amendment right. THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my lawyer, I must e,xercise my Fifth Amendment right. BY l'vffi. HOROWITZ: Q. Did you use the telephone number - at Jeffrey Epstein's direction? MR. RHEINHART: Same objection as the 7 (Pages 211 to 214) {561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AG.ENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-44 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 '? 8 9 1G 11 12 13 14 15 16 n 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Page 315 So can we focus on the specific questions l that she can answer or from which you can draw 2 an adverse inference if asked properly, and 3 let's move it along. 4 Page 317 THE WITNESS: On the instruction ofmy lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege. BY MR. WEJSSING: t { [Jc i MS. EZELL: Each young woman's case is ari 5 j Q. Do you know Alan Der.;howitz? ] individual case, and we have the right to ask, 6 MR. RHEINHART: The question was asked and ~ ask whatever questions that we need to with 7 regard to each one. 8 MR+ RHETNHART: I..... 9 MR. GOLDBERGER: Let's just go forward 1 C until 5:00 and see vlhere we're at. 11 BY MR. Vv'ETSSING; 12 Q, Did you know that Jeffrey Epstein received 13 sexual gratification from directing others to 14 sexually abuse minor children? 15 MR. RHEINHART: Objection to the fonn. 16 THE WITNESS; On the instruction of my l 7 lawyer, 1 must invoke the Fifth Amendment 18 answered about three-and-a-half hours ago. ! ,l THE WITNESS: On the instruction ofmy ! lav.yer, I mm,i invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege. BY MR. WElSSING: Q, Do you knmv David Copperfield? MR. RHEINHART: That question was asked abo'ut three-and-a-half-hours ago. THE WITNESS: On the instmction ofmy lawy;:r, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege. BY MR. WEISSING: right. 1.9 Q. In addition to his place at, in Palm .BY MR. WElSSING: 20 Reach, are you av.-are thatJeffrey Epstein has an Q. Did you knmv that Jeffrey Epstein received 21 apartment located at 30 I East 66th Street, Apartment sexual gratification from directing Marcinkova to 22 14G through E in New York? sexuaJly abuse minor children? 23 MR. RJ-1EJNIL4RT: That question was asked MR. RHEJNHART: Objection to the form. lt 24 about four hours ago. Tt's been asked and ____ 2_5_, ___ ai_s_su_m_e_,s_k_n_o_w_le_d_g_e_o_f_a_pe_·r_so_n_n_a_m_e_d_M_ar_c_in_k_o_va_. __ 2_s ____ ans_·w_c_re_'d_. _____________ _____,j Page 316 Pagie 318 ! ~ l It is otherwise compound and objectionable. 1 THE WITNESS: At the instruction of my ~ 2 THE WITNESS: On the instru«;,1.ion of my 2 lawyer, I invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege. ] 3 lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 3 BY ivtR. WEISSING: .. 1 4 MR. WBISSING: Let's go offtherecord. for 4 Q. While in New York,have you procured ~ 5 a moment. 5 underage minor children to engage in sex1.ial acts ·~ 6 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Are we an good with 6 with Jeffrey Epstein at that location? i '? going. off the record? 7 MR. RHErNHART: Object to the form. i 8 MR. RHBJNHART: Yeah, that's fine. 8 THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my J. 9 MR. HOROWITZ: Yes. 9 lawyer, 1 must invoke my Fifth Amendment ~ 10 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're nowoffthe 10 privilege. ·· 11 record at4:22 p.m. 11 BY MR. WEISSrNG: ] 12 {A briefrecess was held.) 12 Q. With regard to the minor children procured ~ 13 fflE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the 13 for him at that location, were they school children ~ 14 record It is 4 :24 p.m. 14 in the New York area? ~ 15 BY MR. WEISSING: 15 MR. RHEINHART: The previous question, j 16 Q. Do you know Nadia Marcinkova? 16 objection to the form. The same as all the i 17 MR. KUVIN: Marcinkova. 17 previous qnestions, it assumes a .fact lhat's ffilj 18 THE WITNESS: On the insttuction of my 18 not been established. It can't fairly be ~ 19 lawyer, 1 must invoke my Fifth Amendment 19 armvered. ,~ 2 0 privilege. 20 THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my 1 ~ 2 1 BY MR. WEISSJNG: 21 lawyer, l must invoke my Fifth Amendment ~ 2 2 Q. Do you know - have you procured minor 22 privilege. i 2 3 children to have sexual relations with 23 BY MR. WETSSfNG: ~ 2 4 Nadia Marcinkova at Jeffrey Epstein's mansion? 24 Q. Did Jeffrey Epstein have sexual encounters ~ 25 l'v1R RHEINHART: Objection to the fonn. 2 5 with underage people while at that apartment? i ·r,~:,,":';(")r-,j•;,7.5',l~·,r-~=-:--, , -i.,.;;~~.'F.~J.< ~Tr.r.-,,n;•m~.(-,,"!(;$,;,rr,;,~ ~ ":'=;;,·= ,;:j:~.J'".":'l~W~H~-;i ; ,-~,.~ .... ~"-·'''"'~'."C-•;1--i.,:-~,l-,..,-•. 7~-~,,--!;r::'!!~'":'' ''~lj'.~ll"'.:'Jl~')~~~,~1".~;:,.:.11!1;••?;) .. ~r1; "::4:':",,,~.$(rl":'U~1,r:~;-;;,,1=-.,.,. ..... ~ ... ~i",./,"'O,;;.•!'-":'~i..:.: .... ••"':•~·f'-'"'•~'~·-A•,'i.p,.,~.,- •,..,._,_.~,:··.•·.!,,'~:•,:;1\.'i~;,~)·•..;:.~ •;.;,,;) '"'1' >•J•"\H'i"s1J 33 (Pages 315 to 318) (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORT I NG AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7 506 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-44 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COCRT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-CIV-8011.9-MARRA/JOHNSON JJ.1'JE DOE NO . 2 , Plaintiff, -vs- VOLUME III OF III JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. --------- ------------ Related cases: 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SARZ\H KELLEN Wednesday, March 24, 2010 10:37 - 6:51 p.m. I I 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1500 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Reported By: Rachel W. Bridge, RPR, FPR Notary Public, State of Florida Prose Court Reporting Services J"ob No . : 14 8 4 (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 Electronically signed by Rachel Bridge (201-272-.617-4627) 905d1499-0cd8-4599-a2a0-6d38827b68c6 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-44 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 14 1 2 3 5 6 ..., I 8 9 10 11 l?. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2G .?.l 22 23 24 25 Page 433 know what the Edge Group wa~, but whatever, you can answer thc question. THE \vTfNESS; At the instruction of my lawyer, I must choose to invoke my Fifth Amendment right. BY MS. EZELL: Q. Do )'(JU know Max Brockman? MR. REINHART; rm sony, ean you repeat? BY MS. EZELL: Q. Do you know a Max Brockman? MR. REINHART: [ believe that was asked and answered alr~ady, but-- THE WITNESS: At the instrrn:.tion ofmy lawyer, l must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. BY MS. EZELL; Q. Have you ever been photographed with Max Brock.man at an Edge Science dinner? A. At the instruction ofmy lawy-.,, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. MR. REINHART: You should let me -- l need to OQ]ect to the form of the question first, out go ahead. I know we an want to get out of here. Uo ahead, TIIE WITNESS: Say it again. MR. REINHART: No, you ilre okay. Go ahead, Ms. Ezell. Thank you. 1 2 3 4 5 6 .., I 8 i 9 ! 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 !?age BY MS. EZELL: Q. Do you want to respond? I didn't give you time. MR RElNHAR T: rve instructed her not to ~nswer the question. Let's move on. RY MS. EZELL: Q. Do you recal! a dinner at El Brillo Way attended by David Copperfield where Jane No. 103 was a guest'! MR. REfl\Tf-lART: ObjC(,1:ion to the form, lack of foundation, and a standing objection as to her knowledge of anything involving El Brillo Way or j Jeffrey Epstein. Instruct her not to answer. ~ THE WITNESS: At the instruction of my la,vyer, .j l must invoke my Fifth. Amendment right. BY M'S. EZELL: Q. What is the rcle.tionship between Jeffrey Epstein and David Copperfield? MR. REINHART: Objection to fonn, Iack of foundation as to her knowledge of either one of those people. Instruct her not to answer . THE WITNESS: At the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my fifth Amendmeitt right. BY MS. EZELL: Q. To your knowledge, do they recruit girls for I i ~ I § * u 1 ~ ~ ·""" """ ·---------------------+----------------------- -i,< l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1-0 ll 12 13 :. 4 :;_5 16 17 l8 19 20 21 22 2 3 24 25 Page 434 BY MS. EZELL; Q. Do you know whether Jeffrey Epstein attended the Edge Science dinner in Monterey, California? MR. REINHART: Objection to the fonn, lack of foundation. Instruct the witness not to ans,ver. THE WITNESS: At the instn.1ction ofmy lawyer, 1 must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. BY .MS. EZELL: Q. You testified a moment ago that you were phot0graphed nude by your boyfriend or a former boyfriend and that you hoped there arc no photographs disseminated elsewhere. At what age were-those photographs taken? MR. REINHART: l'm going to instntct her not to answer that. Tt has nothing to do with anything. It's not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable evidence. We can move on. BY MS. EZELL: Q. Were you in any way damaged by that expericnct:? MR. REINHART: Same instruction. Let's move on. BY MS. EZELL: Q. Do you have any re1::,rrets? !.\1R. REINHART: Same instruction. Move on. 1 2 3 4 .5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 l .'3 14 15 l.6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pace 436 ~ .. i one another? ~ MR. REINHART: Object to the form, compound, ~ and again, lack offoundation. fnstruct her not to ~ ; answer. ., THE WITNESS: i-\.t the instruction ofmy lawyer, f. 't· I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. I BY MS. EZELL: :\ Q. To your knowledge, are they involved in any ij sexual trafficking of young women? i MR. RETNHART: Object lo lhc form for the i ~ reasons previously stated. Also calls for a legal ~ conclusion as to 1tvhat sexual trafficking is. i ~i Instruct her not to answer. ~ THE WITNESS: At the instruction of my lawyer, ~ I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 1 1 \f BY MS. EZELL: ;1 Q. I believe you a~ked about Allen Dcrshowitz J earlier. MR. REINHART: Twice. BY MS. EZELL: Q. And were instructed not to answer. MR. REINHART: Twice. BY MS. EZELL: Q. All right. I'm going tQ ask again on behalf ofmy client. Are you aware of the friendship between 18 (Pages 433 to 436) (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 Electronica!fy signed by Rachel Bridge (201-272-617-462n 905d1499-0cd8-4599-a2a0-6d38827b6Sc5 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-44 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 14 1 2 3 4 6 '7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. 22 23 24 23 1 2 Page 437 Alkn Dershowitz and Jetttey Epstein? MR. REINHART: And for the third time, I'll object to the form and instruct ht.-r not tn answer the question. THE WITNESS: For the third time, I take the advice of my lawyer and invoke my Fifth Amendment right. BY MS. EZELL: Q. V..'hen Allen Dershowitz comes to Palm Bettch, he stays at the El Hrillo mansion, doesn't he? MR. REINHART: Objection to the fonn. There is no foundation for her having any knowledge of anything having to do with a person by the name of Allen Dcrshowitz. I instruct her not to answer. THE WllNESS: At the instruction of my law_yer, I mtist invoke my Fifth Amendment right. BY MS. EZHLL: Q. Vt'hc:1 Allen Der~howit:r~ or has Allen Dcrshowitz ever been there when young ladies CliITIC to give massages? MR. REINHART: Same objection stated to the previous question. Same instruction. THE WITNESS: At the instmction of my lawyer, r must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. BY MS.EZELL: 1 2 3 4 "' ._, 6 7- B 9 10 E 12 13 14 15 1. 6 17 18 19 20 2 :L 22 23 24 BY MS. EZELL: Q. Do you know that when David Copperfield is in lown, he give.~ Jeffrey Epstein tickets and Jeffrey gives some to young worrK-·n to attend those shows? MR. REINHART: Object to the form, multiple, compound question, and a complete lack of foumlulion. Instruct the witness not to 1mswcr. THE WITNESS: At the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. BY MS. EZELL: Q. And do you know that those girls are invited back stage after the show? MR. REINHART: Same objection, complete lack ! a -lI } }; * _ ~ , J ~ ' it of foundation, and standing objection previously ij stated. '' THE WITNESS: At the instruction of my lawyer, i I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. ~ BY MS. EZELL: i Q. Do you r1;,•mernber on or about, in or about March j of2005 having conversations with one of the young women 'i who came to the house to give massages about her .f l conversations with Jane No. 103'? ¾ MR. REINHART: OQje<.iion to the form, standing objection, lack of foundation. Instruct the {~ l i Has Allen Dershowitz ever been the beneficiary 2 5 witness not to answer, because the question implies I •~-~_._,,__., _ _.__.,,,y , , ••-•-"•{¥ -"--•f•• - •~•-•no-'y'.,•~•I_. __ - •••• ••• -••••_.,,_ ~,_,,_, •••• '•'•"'""• •• "•M'~"'•"•"•• I' ,,_,__,,,~ ........... ••--•• • - •-"•;,,. • • • "•••••••,_,_.,,_...,, . ,_,,__,..,_,,_......,,._,_,,._,. , ~ , , -_, ,_, ,,.._,_,...,,,_,,__, ,,,.,._,,,- ... ,,_,, _. ,_,..,,,_M..,.,__,_,_.,_,._ , __ ,_,_,..,_.,_,_,,.._,_,_, ,,_ Q. Page 438 ?age 440 ; l that she has auy knowledge at all of El Brillo Way. ! BY MS. ~ EZELL: ~ of those massages? MR. REINHART: Same objection and same 2 3 Instruction. 3 Q. Same question -- sorry. 4 THE WITNESS: At the instmction ofmy la\1,yer, 4 A. At the in1!t3'uction of my lawyer, I must choose .5 I must invoke my Fifih Amendment righl. .S to invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege. 6 BY MS . . EZELL: 6 Q. Same question as to March of 2006. 7 Q. Do you knov: John Casablanca? 7 MR .. RE1NHART: Same objection and same B .A. Never heard that name before. 8 instruction. ~: 9 Q. Have you ever heard ofa wor1d-fomou::; 9 THE \.\i1TNESS: At the instruction ofmy lawyer, ~ l 0 lllusionist whose stage name is David Coppe1field? l 0 l must choose to invoke my Fifth Amendment ti 1 :l MR. REINHAflT: That's also been asked at l~st 11 privilege. ti 12 three times. T11l instruct her again not to answer 12 BY MS. EZELL 13 thcque~tion. l J Q. Do you have any recollection ofa conversation ~ 14 THE- WITNESS: At the instruction of my lawyer, :L 4 in which one of1he young women told Jane No. 103 that i 1 5 I mnst invoke my Fifth Amendment right l 5 those girls who, those girls who would help Jeffrey in i 16 BY MS. EZELL: l 6 regard to the Investigation would be compensated and ~ <l 1 7 Q. Have you ever gone to one of David :, 7 those who would not or who would hurt him in the { ~ 8 Copperfield's shows? i 8 investigation would be dealt with? f 19 MR REINHART: Objection to form, lack of 19 MR. REINHART: Objection to the form, lack of ._! 2 0 foundation <1s to knowledge of any person by the 2 0 foundation, compound question. Instruct the I 21 name of David Copperfield. fnslruct her not to 2 1 witness not to answer, because the question implies f 2 2 answer. 2 2 some knowledge of anything relating to a person by 2 3 THE WITNESS: At the instruction ofmy lawyer, 2 3 the name of Jeffrey Epstein. f 2 4 I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 2 4 THE V/fTNESS: At the instructilm of my lawyer, 2 5 2 5 I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. ,:,,·,:-, · ;,;, : :1: =.•i•...-,.-:,,;,:•:.-:,:-:-, ·~-··i~~r:~r1,:;:i,,:~1.rn~1~f'!<!"i,,t,<;.l~~tt1.>~~--f",::,i~.:rf':<."~::..,:;~i~,: ~1:0,~;•:<i.:e;";,~i,·,i1: • ;:,·,;; , ., , .. ~ .:.:.- ••• ,.,, , •• ,,~ .-. •.. - " •·•·' ~.:,. ,,.._. •· M"-"•~Y-• ,:u•.,-:n,,A,_ • .,.,,,-, ,,..,~,,.- , , ,.,, .,._~ ,· .i.,. • • .,,.,.•,.f. -~-,.,.•.,;,-! ...: ~;,,,,~•~·.-,f,.:.-;,10'~~1; 11~....;.•,-.? ;~~l:<f•.<~;~ i-l>t;,~;~;..-,>t{;.)lp),u.:..i\)<.<;tlUo.., ~ 19 (Pages 437 to 440) (561} 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. {561) 832-7506 Electronically signed by Rachel Bridge (201-272-617-4627) 905d1499-0Cd84599..a2a0-6d38827b68c6 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-44 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 14 UNITED S'I'ATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No . 08 -CV- 80893- CIV- MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. , De fendants. DEPOSITION OF ADRIANA ROSS Volume 1 of 1 Pages 1 through 138 Videotaped Monday, March 15, 2010 10: 13 a.m. - 12:42 p .m. U.S. Legal Support 515 East Las Olas Boulevard, 3rd Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Stenographically Reported By: Janet L. McKinney, RPR, FPR, CLR Registered Professi onal Reporter Florida Professional Reporter Certified LiveNote Reporter U.S. Legal Support (954) 463-2933 1 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-44 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 14 1 2 3 4 7 8 9- 10 1: .. 12 13 H 15 16 1"i lE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 $ ti 7 s 9 10 ll l2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 l 22 23 24 25 34 A. I refuse to uu~wt:r. l Q. And Jeffrey Epstein and/or Ghi:ilaiue MaxweH 2 obtained and purchased pa$sports for l:5-year-old Jimc 3 Doc 102 to transport her to !'aim Bcacb, ;'!cw York City 4 Santa Fe, Los An~eles, San Francisco, St. Louis, as 5 well ,M Europe, the-Caribbean, and Africa; are you 6 aware of that? 7 A. [ refure to answer. 8 MR. PIKE: Fonn. 9 Q. It's also alleged that Jeffrey Epstein in 10 additiou to u1olestiug Jane Doe 102 ah:mg with Ghislaine 1 :i. M11Xwcll fon:cd her lo have sex with other models, 12 actresses, and cckbritks? l'.! A. I refuse to answer, 14 MR. (JIKE: Form. 1::, Q. It also indicates that Jeffrey l\:pstcin 16 transported other minor girls from Turkey, the Czech 1 7 Republic, Asii1, and other countric~. Arc you aware of 1 E that? 19 t1R. PTKF.: Farm. 20 A I refuse to answer. 21 Q. Is Jeffrey Epstein involved in the 22 iuteruatioual cbild sex trade? 2 3 MR. PIKE: Fonn. 24 A I !'~fuse io ruiSwet. 2 5 Q. Is Jean Luc Brunel his partner in that International child sex trade? MR. PIKE: Form. A. I r-:fusc to answer. Q. Are you aware that after •· that Jcffrc)· l:!:pstein forced Jane Doc 102 to have sex with other 35 adult male peers incluuing royalty, politician~, academici:rns, businessmen aod/or other prort:;;sional amJ pcrronal acqmd11la11ces of Jeffrey Epstei11's? i MR. PIKE: Fom1. A. I refuse to ilnswer. Q. b that suructhing tlrnt he did wilb girls other than Jane Doc 102'! MR. Pl.KE; Form. A I refose tu mis wt,. Q. Arcu' t you familiar with Jefrrey Epstein's pcactkc of pimping_ out underage minor fem1des to other people that ha~·c the same sexual obse$$iuu \\'ith umlcragc minors? MR. PIKE: Form. A. l refu~e lo unswer. Q. And doesn't he bcnctH l'irnUicially from lhut sex trade? MR. PIKE: form, A I refuse to aaswcr. 1 2 3 4 5 6 ., I 8 9 10 11 '.L 2 3.3 }4 16 17 18 19 20 7.1 22 23 24 36 Q. J1111c Doc 102 ulthmdcly e~;:apc<f from him and left to Australia, ii that your understanding'! A. l refuse to unswer. MR. P !KE: !-\,rm. Q. Have you ever spoken with Jane Uoe 102"! A l refuse to answer. Q. On one of Epstein's birthdays a friend of Jeffrey Epstein sent to him 12 •· three 12-year-old girls from FrAnce who spoke no English for Epstein to sexually o:ploit and ahu$e and after doing !W lte sent thel11 back to France the next day. Are you familiar with that? MR PIKE: Forni. A hefo,e to answer. Q. Isa't that ~omelhing that is fairly romruon for Mr. Epstt:in? A. I refuStl to answer. MR. PIKE: Fortu. Q. W llo are the friends that 8cnd to Jeffrey Epi;tein underage minor females for his birthday so that be can Ahu~e? A. I refuse to answer. MR. PIKE: Fomi. Q. b oe.e of those friends Jean Luc Rn.mel? A. I reftlse to answer. 37 Q. Ha-Ye you ever met Prim:c Audn:w? A. I refose to answer. Q. Has Prince Andrew lwcn im·olH-d with underngE minor female!> to your knuw k:dge? A. l refuse to answer. Q. Have 1·ou ever met Alan Dershowitd A. I refuse to answer. Q, When Alan Dershowitz smys at Jeffrey Epstein's house isn't it tme that he has been at the l1ouse when underage ntinor females have been in the b~droorn with .Jeffrey Epstein? A. T refuse to answer. Q. Has •· nre you familinr with the media publkation or 0111ine resource RadarOnliue? A. I refiise to answer. Q. Is that something that you a.~st~ted Mr. Epstein with when he purcha~ed RadarOnline? A l refhse 10 ansy,-cr_ Q. And do you know his busine.~'! partner in that endeovo1·? A 1 refose to answer. Q. fan't it also true tlmt lte used RrtdarOnline as another wa) to gain access to u11derage minor females for ~ex? ~1R. PIKE: Fo!m. 10 (Pages 34 to 37) U.S. Legal Support (954} 463-2933 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-44 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 14 Jane Doe 2 l .:, 5 6 7 8 9 10 l1 12 1.3 14 15 16 1'i' 18 19 20 n 22 23 24 2S 78 underage minor females staying at those various condominium~ located at JOI Ea~i 66th Stf\:ct? 2 A. I rc:fuse to filtS\¥er. ~ Q. And those females get work visas to say that 4 they're models, h11t actually they are pro.~titnted 011t 5 by Jeffrey Epstein and John Luc Brunel, con·ect? 6 A. I refose to answer. 1 MR PIKE Form. 8 Q. And Htrious businessmen aad politicians arom1d 9 New Yurk and W~·hingtou, D.C. go to those apartments, 10 frequently to have sex ,,..itb uuderage minors; is that ' 11 true? 12 A I refuse to answer. 13 Q. Dv you remember a tlight on December 3rd, 2004 14 that you took witb Jeffrey Epstein, Nadia Marcinkova, 15 Sarah Kellen. and somebody with initialll SH•· 16 A. I refuse to ans;vcr. 1, Q. - from JFK to PBI? 18 MR. PTKE: Fom1. 19 Q. Do you remember that? 20 A. I refose to answer. 21 Q. Wtio is SH? 22 A. I refuse tu unswer-. 23 Q. Is that an underage minor? 2 4 A. l rcfim: to answer. 2 5 80 MR. PIKE: Funn. Q. And you flew to bill Island, right? A. l refuse to answer . MR. PIKE: Fonu. Q. You flew to New Mexico? A I refa~e to imswer. l\1R. PIKE: Fom1. Q. You (fow to Ne1 ... Jersey? !Vffi.. PIKE: Form. A. t refuse ro a11swer. Q. Se ... ernl ur the flighb are just yoursd(, Jeffrey Eps1ei11, and Samii Kellen. WJ1at did you do 011 those flights? MR. PIKE: Form. A. I refuse to answer. Q. \\"ho's Adam Perrylang? A. I refa~c to unswer. Q. Is that somebody that you were made to have sex with? A. I refuse t(l answer. Q. Did Jeffrey Epstein ever make you hitve sex with any females? MR PIKE: Form. A. I refuse to answer. Q. Did he ever make you ha\·e ~:l with ~my ofhi?o !---------------··--"" '-"'-·• --19 i 1 2 3 4 ti 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 l!, 16 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 '' f Q. Do yon renumber a flight that you took j December ?7th with Nadia Marcinkov.a and .feffrey Epstein? A. I refuse to answer. Q. What airport is thi.i;. TlST? A. I refuse to am,wer. Q. Do you know Dong Rand? A. I refuse to answer. Q, Isn't th.at Rill Clinton's assistant? A. I refuse to answer. Q. Vou'11e been on the airplane with him before? A. I refuse to answer. Q. H a'l-·e you been on the airplane with Bill Clinton before? A. I refuse to answ~. Q, Whoi\-? A. I refuse to answer. Q. That's ~omebody you've flown with on .Jeffrey Epstein'~ plane on numerou§ occasions, correct? MR. PIKE: Form. A. l refuse to answer. Q. In fact, during the year 2005 you flew on Jeffrey Epstein's plane would you say more than 50 times? A. I refhse to answer. 1 2 3 4 $ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 '..., .l, 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 friend.~? MR. PIKE: } 'orm. A. I refuse to answer. Q. Who is Sandy Berger? A. I refuse to !lllswcr. 81 Q. That's somebody else that wa~ affiliated with Bill Clinton at one point in time, correct? A. l refuse to an:rwcr. Q. A close friend of Jeffrey Epstein's? MR. PIKE: Form. A. I rcfu~c to un~wer. Q. He called the hou!W within three wci.,ks of tire search ,varrnnt being c:u:cutcd. Did he lip off Jeffrey Epstein? P..1R PIKE: Fonu. A. I refosi: to answer. Q. Is he ~omi:bod) that's involved willl underage minors'? A. T refuse to answer. Q. Do you know Igor Ziiu,vw~·? A. I refu~e to answer. Q. Andrea Metrovich? A. l refuse to answer. Q. Have you flown on the airplane with Alu Oershowitz before? 21 (Pages 78 to Bll U.S. Legal Support (954) 463-2933 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-44 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 n 18 19 20 2: 23 2'.I 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 2S 24 25 82 MR.PIKE: Fonn, 1 A. I refuse to answer. 2 Q. And .Jean C.uc Brunel is somebody who you have 3 been on fue afr()hlne with .~everal times, correct'! 4 A. I refuse to answer. 5 MR. PIT<E'. Forni. 6 Q. And when Je1rn Lue Brunel 151 on this airplane 7 then: lll'e underage minor - minor ft/males on the 8 airplane with )'UU. eorred? 9 MR. PIKE: Form, l 0 A l refo:;e to answer. ll Q. IJ; then: a back room tot-his airplane? b 12 there any wrt oheparation or is it all one big room'! 13 !\1R. PIKE: FQrm. 14 /\. I refuse to answer. 15 Q. So If Jeffrey Epstein and ,lean Luc Brunet are 1 6 engJtged in !¾\lC acts with underage minors did ynu - l 7 A I refuse - 1::3 Q. Sorry - did you observe 1111y of lhcmi acts? 1 9 ,\. r refuse to aJ1swer. 20 MR PIKE: fom1. 21 Q. And on numerous oftbe nights the flight logs 22 Indicate someone's name then oftenthnei1 initlal9> but 2 3 sometimesitwouldjust say "three fe1nalts". Do you 24 know why? 25 H3 A. I refuse to answer. !v1R. PIKE: Form. 2 Q. Who's Claire fla»:d? 3 A. l refuse to answer, q Q. Do you know Jo.Jo and Lynn FontaoeUa? 5 A. I reibsc to answer. 6 Q. They're the house managers up ar the mansion 7 up in Manhattan, <orred? 8 MR. PIKE: Form. 9 A. I refuse to a.'ISWer. 10 Q. And they assist Mr. &pstetn In engiiging in 11 underage se:< with minors in New York, eorre.:i? 12. MR. PIKE: Form. 13 A. 1 refuse to answer. 14 Q. Tiley also maintain a pretty tlO$C rrll1tionship 15 with the police? 16 A, I rc~ lo amwer, l 7 Q. And that'.s a blg component abo, right, that l S Jeffrey Epstein has- ls friendly with the law 19 enforcement, eorm:t? 2 0 MR. PIKE: Form, 21 A. l refuse 10 answer. 2 2 Q. Like law enforcement would do favori; for nol 23 only .Jeffrey Ep.~lein b11t ltis various assistaats. If 2 4 you were sp~din~ around rhe neighborhood they wouldn't ;! 5 84 give you a ticket, correct? MR. PIKE: Fonn. A. I refuse to answer. Q, Was it ever your job to call the polire department and ask rf any police reports were oa file or agyl,,Qdy 00111plaim:d about tbc a;:tivitics al Jeffrey Epstein's housi:? MR. PIKE: Fonn, A. I t1;fuse to answer. Q. Have yo11 ever gone physically to the 1iol~e department? A, I refuse to awwer. Q, Was thcl'C a tlight ,vltere you flew alone with Jean Luc Brunel? A. I refuse to answer. Q. Have you ever flown on the plane with Prince Andrew? MR. PIKE: Fonn. A, I refuse to answer. Q. Do you know Ziola Braukis? A. I refuse to answer. Q. That's another model that Jeffrey Epskin knows, correct? A. I refuse to answer. MR. PlKE: Fonn. 85 Q. Somebody that he had en_gaged in sex with whe11 she '!HS underage? ,o,.. I refuse to answer. Q. She actually got a modeling contract out of it! MR. PIKE: Fonn. A. I refuse to M SWl:f, Q. Why does Jean Luc Brunel and Jeffrey Epstl:in lly together so often? 1V1R PIKE: form. A. 1 refuse to answer. Q. And why does Ghislaine MaXlvdl abu Hy so often witti Jeffrey Epstein a11,d Jean Luc Brunel? A. I refuse to answer. MR. PIKE: Fonn. Q. fsn't it true tltat all th~e ut them nre obsessed and ;iddicted to sex wllh underage minors? MR. PIKE: f onn. A. r 1eftise lo ur1:.wer. ·MR. Plk'"E: Brod, how much longer do yoo have? MR, EDWARDS: How long? You want co take a break? MR, PIKE; Yeah, MR. EDWARDS: Sure. It's going a lot fusrer than ! thought it would. 22 {Pages 82 to BS) U.S. Legal Support (954) 463-2933 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-44 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 14 January 5, 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 1330 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 1 1 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 PAUL G. CASSELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED INTERVENOR ALAN M. DERSHWOITZ’S MOTION FOR PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION I, Paul G. Cassell, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my knowledge as follows: BACKGROUND 1. I am a licensed attorney in the state of Utah. I am authorized to practice before this Court pursuant to this Court’s Order granting my Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice. 2. I respectfully submit this Declaration in opposition to Proposed Intervenor Alan M. Dershowitz’s Motion for Permissive Intervention and Unseal of Judicial Documents, or in the Alternative Modification of the Protective Order. 3. I am the Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law and University Distinguished Professor of Law at the S.J. Quinney College of Law, where I teach criminal procedure, criminal, and crime victims’ rights. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 13 2 THE FLORIDA CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT CASE 4. Since July 2008, I have been involved in important and precedent-setting crime victims’ rights litigation in the Southern District of Florida trying to protect the rights of various victims under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. Along with Florida co-counsel Bradley J. Edwards, I have been pursuing a federal case pro bono on behalf of two young women who were sexually abused as underage girls by Dershowitz’s close personal friend – Jeffrey Epstein. 5. On July 7, 2008, Mr. Edwards filed an emergency petition to enforce the rights of “Jane Doe No. 1” and “Jane Doe No. 2” under the CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771, alleging that the Government had failed to provide them rights with regard to a plea arrangement it was pursuing with Epstein. DE 1,1 Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736 (S.D. Fla.). As the case developed, it became clear that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida had concealed from Epstein’s victims a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) that they had reached with Epstein. 6. During the litigation, Mr. Edwards and I have won several important victories for our clients, including a ruling that the CVRA can apply to protect crime victims’ rights even before an indictment is filed. See Paul G. Cassell, Nathanael J. Mitchell & Bradley J. Edwards, Crime Victims’ Rights During Criminal Investigations? Apply the Crime Victims’ Rights Act Before Criminal Charges are Filed, 104 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 58, 67-69 (2014) (describing litigation concerning Epstein). 7. In the course of that case, on October 11, 2011, the victims filed discovery requests with the Government, including requests specifically seeking information about 1 In this section of the Declaration, all references to docket entries will be to CVRA case in the Southern District of Florida, No. 9:08-cv-80736. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 13 3 Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, and others. Further efforts from the Government to avoid producing any discovery followed (see generally DE 225-1 at 4-5),2 ultimately leading to a further Court ruling in June 2013 that the Government should produce documents. DE 189. The Government then produced about 1,500 pages of largely irrelevant materials to the victims (DE 225-1 at 5), while simultaneously submitting 14,825 pages of relevant materials under seal to the Court. The Government claimed that these pages were “privileged” for various reasons, attaching an abbreviated privilege log. 8. While these discovery issues were pending, in the summer of 2014, Mr. Edwards and I contacted Government counsel to request their agreement to add two additional victims to the case, including Ms. Virginia Giuffre (who was identified in court pleadings as “Jane Doe No. 3”). Edwards and I sought to have her added to the case via stipulation, which would have avoided the need to include any detailed facts about her abuse. Weeks went by and the Government – as it had done on a similar request for a stipulation to add another victim – did not respond to counsel’s request for a stipulation. 9. Finally, on December 10, 2014, despite having had four months to provide a position, the Government responded by email to counsel that it was seeking more time, indicating that the Government understood that victims’ counsel might need to file a motion with the court on the matter immediately. DE 291 at 3-5. Rather than file a motion immediately, victims’ counsel waited and continued to press the Government for a stipulation. See id. at 5. Finally, on December 23, 2014 – more than four months after the initial request for a stipulated joinder into the case – the Government tersely indicated its objection, without indicating any 2 Jeffrey Epstein also attempted to block discovery of materials, leading to an Eleventh Circuit ruling that the victims’ discovery efforts were proper. Doe v. Epstein, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 13 4 reason: “Our position is that we oppose adding new petitioners at this stage of the litigation.” See DE 291 at 5. 10. Because the Government now contested the joinder motion, Edwards and I prepared a more detailed pleading explaining the justification for granting the motion. One week after receiving the Government’s objection, on December 30, 2014, Ms. Giuffre (i.e., Jane Doe No. 3) and Jane Doe No. 4 filed a motion (and later a corrected motion) seeking to join the case. DE 279 and DE 280. Uncertain as to the basis for the Government’s objection, the motion briefly proffered the circumstances that would qualify the two women as “victims” eligible to assert rights under the CVRA. See 18 U.S.C. 3771(e) (defining “crime victim” protected under the Act). With regard to Ms. Giuffre, the motion indicated that when she was a minor, Jeffrey Epstein had trafficked her to Dershowitz and Prince Andrew (among others) for sexual purposes. Jane Doe No. 3 stated that she was prepared to prove her proffer. See DE 280 at 3 (“If allowed to join this action, Jane Doe No. 3 would prove the following . . . . “). The motion also provided specific reasons why Jane Doe No. 3’s participation was relevant to the case, including the pending discovery issues regarding Dershowitz and Prince Andrew. DE 280 at 9-10 (explaining several reasons participation of new victims was relevant to existing issues). 11. After the motion was filed, various news organizations published articles about it. Dershowitz also made numerous media statements about the filing, including calling Jane Doe No. 3 “a serial liar” who “has lied through her teeth about many world leaders.” http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/06/us/dershowitz-sex-allegation/. Dershowitz also repeatedly called Edwards and me “two sleazy, unprofessional, disbarable lawyers.” Id. He made many similar remarks of an equivalent character, and also stated in media appearance that if we had Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 13 5 done one hour of work investigating Ms. Giuffre’s allegations of sexual abuse against him, we would have immediately seen that those allegations were false. 12. On January 5, 2015, Dershowitz filed a motion to intervene to argue to have the allegations stricken. DE 282. Dershowitz also argued that Ms. Giuffre had not provided a sworn affidavit attesting to the truth of her allegations. 13. On January 21, 2015, Edwards and I filed a response for our clients, Ms. Giuffre and Jane Doe No. 4. DE 291. The response enumerated nine specific reasons why Ms. Giuffre’s specific allegations against Dershowitz were relevant to the case, including the fact that Ms. Giuffre needed to establish that she was a “victim” in the case, that pending discovery requests concerning Dershowitz-specific documents were pending, and that Dershowitz’s role as a defense attorney in the case was highly relevant to the motive for the Government and defense counsel to conceal the plea deal from the victims. DE 291 at 17-26 & n.17. The response included a detailed affidavit from Ms. Giuffre about the sexual abuse she had suffered from Epstein, Dershowitz, and other powerful persons. DE 291-1. 14. On February 6, 2015, Edwards and Cassell filed a further pleading (and affidavit from Ms. Giuffre, see DE 291-1) in support of her motion to intervene. 15. On April 7, 2015, Judge Marra denied Ms. Giuffre’s motion to join the case. Judge Marra concluded that “at this juncture in the proceedings” details about the sexual abuse she had suffered was unnecessary to making a determination “of whether Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 should be permitted to join [the other victims’] claim that the Government violated their rights under the CVRA. The factual details regarding with whom and where the Jane Does engaged in sexual activities are impertinent to this central claim (i.e., that they were known victims of Mr. Epstein and the Government owed them CVRA duties), especially considering Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 13 6 that the details involve non-parties who are not related to the respondent Government.” DE 324 at 5 (emphasis in original). While Judge Marra struck those allegations, he emphasized that “Jane Doe 3 is free to reassert these factual details through proper evidentiary proof, should [the victims] demonstrate a good faith basis for believing that such details are pertinent to a matter presented for the Court’s consideration. Judge Marra then denied Ms. Giuffre’s motion to join the case, but allowed her to participate as trial witness: “The necessary ‘participation’ of [Ms. Giuffre] . . . in this case can be satisfied by offering . . . properly supported – and relevant, admissible, and non-cumulative – testimony as needed, whether through testimony at trial . . . or affidavits supported in support [of] the relevancy of discovery requests.” DE 324 at 8 (emphasis deleted). 16. In a later supplemental order, Judge Marra stated that the victims “may re-refile these documents omitting the stricken portions.” DE 325. The victims have since refiled these documents. 17. The CVRA case continues to be litigated, and the victims filed a comprehensive motion for summary judgment earlier this year. See DE 361 (filed Feb. 10, 2016; government response not yet filed). THE FLORIDA DEFAMATION CASE 18. In about early January 2015, following the filing of Ms. Giuffre’s motion to join the CVRA case, Dershowitz launched a media attack not only on Ms. Giuffre but also on Mr. Edwards and me. Dershowitz repeatedly and publicly attacked the two of us, saying such things as “if these lawyers, these sleazy unprofessional, unethical lawyers, Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards, if they had just done an hours’ worth of research and work, they would have seen she is lying through her teeth.” 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 1330-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 13 7 19. Rather than try these questions in the media, Mr. Edwards and I filed a defamation action in Florida against Dershowitz. We were represented by well-known Florida attorney Jack Scarola. 20. During the course of the defamation action, I explained the significant work – far in excess of one hour – that Mr. Edwards and I had done to investigate Ms. Giuffre’s sworn allegations that Dershowitz had repeatedly sexually abused her. I explained that work at length in my deposition in the case. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the first day of my deposition testimony in the case. Pages 61-117 explain some of the work that Mr. Edwards and I did to corroborate Ms. Giuffre’s allegations before filing them in the CVRA case. 21. My deposition testimony includes the following information that Mr. Edwards and I relied upon in believing the truth of Giuffre’s allegations: a. The Palm Beach Police Department put together an 87-page report based on witness interviews and other evidence documenting sexual abuse of dozens of minor girls occurring in Epstein’s Florida mansion – a location where Ms. Giuffre said Dershowitz had abused her; b. The Palm Beach police report showed the sexual abuse was occurring on a daily basis and, indeed, in some cases as much as two or three times in one day in circumstances that would have made it obvious to a visiting guest that young girls were coming to the home for sexual purposes; c. Flight logs for Epstein’s private jet showed that Epstein (accompanied by Ms. Maxwell) flew Ms. Giuffre to the New York City area, a location where Ms. Giuffre said Dershowitz had abused her; Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 13 8 d. Epstein’s flight logs appeared to be disguising the identity of all of the passengers on Epstein’s plane by using such notations as “one female.” e. A very well-regarded Florida lawyer (Bob Josefsberg), who was selected by the U.S. Government to represent the victims of Epstein’s sexual abuse, had found Ms. Giuffre to be credible and in 2009 filed a civil complaint for her alleging not only sex abuse by Epstein but also by “academicians” -- a group into which Dershowitz fell; f. Shortly after Josefsberg filed the complaint for Ms. Giuffre alleging “academicians” had abuse her, one of Josefsberg’s partners, Ms. Ezell, began conducting depositions in Epstein-related cases asking about Dershowitz’s awareness of sexual abuse; g. Dershowitz showed up on flight logs for Epstein’s private jet, including a flight with an (apparently young) woman named “Tatiana” who did not appear to serve any business purpose for Epstein; h. When asked about Dershowitz, Epstein took the Fifth rather than indicate that Dershowitz was not involved in any criminal activities – a fact from which an obvious adverse inference could be drawn that Dershowitz was, indeed, involved in Epstein’s crimes; i. In moving down from the top of Epstein’s criminal conspiracy to the next echelon, three women – Sarah Kellen, Adrianna Mucinska, and Nadia Marcinkova – all took the Fifth when asked about Dershowitz’s awareness of Epstein’s sexual abuse of underage girls or whether Dershowitz was involved in massages with young girls; Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 13 9 j. Kellen, Mucinska, and Marcinkova were all covered by a highly unusual non￾prosecution agreement (negotiated by, among others, Epstein defense attorney Alan Dershowitz) that provided immunity from prosecution for sex trafficking not only to Epstein but also to his “potential co-conspirators”; k. One of Epstein’s household employees, Juan Alessi, said that Dershowitz visited Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion four or five times a year, staying two or three days when he went there – and Alessi was able to identify a photograph of Ms. Giuffre as someone who was at the mansion as the same time as Dershowitz; l. Another Epstein household employee, Alfredo Rodriguez, said that during the time of his employment (2005), Dershowitz visited Epstein’s mansion at the same time as “massages” by underage girls were occurring in the mansion; m. When Rodriguez was arrested by the FBI trying to sell Epstein’s “little black book” of contacts and phone numbers, he appeared to have circled the name of Alan Dershowitz as someone who had information about Epstein criminal activities; n. Dershowitz had indicated in 2003 that he was an extremely close friend of Epstein – indeed, that the only person outside his immediately family with whom he shared drafts of his books was Epstein; o. Attempts had been made to depose Dershowitz or otherwise obtain information from him about his knowledge of Epstein’s sexual abuse in 2009, 2011, 2013, and January 2015, and he had avoided all those efforts; Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 13 10 p. Dershowitz had told the Palm Beach Police Department that he was going to make Epstein available to answer questions about sex abuse of underage girls, but then repeatedly rescheduled those meetings, ultimately never producing Epstein – a pattern of deception that appeared to be designed to deliberately delay the investigation; q. Dershowitz’s pattern of avoiding depositions (and helping Epstein avoid questioning) was consistent with a pattern of other persons who were involved in Epstein’s international sex trafficking organization evading efforts to obtain information from them; r. Ms. Giuffre had alleged abuse by other powerful friends of Epstein, including Prince Andrew, and there was a photograph showing Prince Andrew with his arm around Ms. Giuffre apparently taken in London (where she said the sex abuse had taken place). Sealed Exhibit 1, Depo. of Paul Cassell (Oct. 16 & 17, 2015), at 61-117. 22. Ms. Giuffre was not a party to the litigation between Dershowitz, Mr. Edwards, and me. 23. During the course of the litigation, however, Dershowitz sought to obtain discovery from Ms. Giuffre. In particular, Dershowitz sought to obtain from Ms. Giuffre (a non￾party to the action) all of her emails with the media. The Court denied his discovery request. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the court’s order denying that discovery. 24. Dershowitz produced many documents in the course of discovery in that case – and, ironically, he placed many document under a protective order in Florida. Attached hereto as Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 13 11 Sealed Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the court’s protective order, which Dershowitz used to keep documents under seal. 25. On January 16, 2016, Dershowitz took Ms. Giuffre’s deposition. As noted earlier, Ms. Giuffre recounted in detail repeated acts of sexual abuse by Dershowitz. See McCawley Dec., Ex. 4 at 88-91. 26. Ultimately, Dershowitz settled the defamation case. That settlement included both a public statement and confidential monetary payments. As part of the settlement, Edwards and I withdrew our allegations against Dershowitz in the defamation case contained in the then￾pending summary judgment motion and Dershowitz withdrew his allegations of unethical conduct, as reflected in the Notice of Withdrawal of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 4. 27. As Mr. Edwards and I 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. 28. Contrary to representations made by Dershowitz in his brief (DEC ¶24 at pg. 5), in settling our personal defamation case against Dershowitz, Edwards and I have never reached any conclusion that Ms. Giuffre – our client -- was mistaken in her allegations that Dershowitz sexually abused her. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 13 12 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. /s/ Paul G. Cassell ______________ Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Dated: August 29, 2016. Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Meredith Schultz 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 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) 585-52023 3 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 1330-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 13 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 29, 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 to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic Court Filing System 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/ Meredith Schultz Meredith Schultz Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 13 EXHIBIT A Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 40 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 RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST SET OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS TO PLAINTIFF Plaintiff hereby serves her 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.” Local Civil Rule 33.3(b), (c). The interrogatories you served violate Local Rule 33.3 and we ask Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 40 2 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, in violation of Rule 33. We ask that you immediately withdraw those interrogatories that exceed the 25 interrogatory limit set by Rule 33. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 40 3 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, agency privilege, investigative privilege, spousal privilege, doctor/patient privilege, accountant/client 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 broad under Rule 26(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. Specifically, Ms. Giuffre objects to the requests as Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 40 4 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. Ms. Giuffre incorporates her above-listed general objections in the responses herein. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 40 5 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. 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. 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 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 40 6 information she has presently to the best of her recollection 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. ! Ms. Giuffre lived and travelled with Jeffrey Epstein and stayed at his various mansions in New York, Palm Beach, New Mexico (Zorro Ranch), and U.S.V.I. ! 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 family. ! 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. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 40 7 ! 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, but is not certain of the date. At this location, Ms. Giuffre lived with Robert Giuffre. ! 50 Bondeena Rd., Glenning Valley, NSW from approximately 2009 - 2013 but is not certain of those dates. At this location, Ms. Giuffre lived with Robert Giuffre. ! 5035 Winchester Drive, Titusville, FL from approximately 2013 to 2014 but is not certain of those dates. At this location, Ms. Giuffre lived with Robert Giuffre. ! 1270 J. Street, Penrose, CO 81240, from approximately 2014 – 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. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 40 8 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 She can recall having the following cell number Ms. Giuffre had a Facebook account for a short time but it is no longer active. 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. Ms. Giuffre responds that she has been represented by the following attorneys: Bob Josefsberg and members of his firm; Stan Pottinger, Brad Edwards from Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.; Paul Cassell, a Professor of Criminal Law at the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah; David Boies and Sigrid McCawley of Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP. 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: Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 40 9 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 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 agency privilege, investigative privilege, spousal privilege, accountant client privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre responds as follows: 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. As to other investigations by law enforcement, Ms. Giuffre objects as this seeks information covered by the investigative privilege. 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 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 40 10 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 agency privilege, investigative privilege, spousal privilege, accountant client 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 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 40 11 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 agency privilege, investigative privilege, spousal privilege, accountant client 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; Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 40 12 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. 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. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 40 13 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 product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the agency privilege, investigative privilege, spousal privilege, accountant client 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 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 agency privilege, investigative privilege, spousal privilege, accountant client privilege, and any other applicable privilege. 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. 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 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 40 14 the nature of the Income, whether a loan, investment proceeds, legal settlement, asset sale, gift, or other source. 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. 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 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; Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 40 15 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 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 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, the agency privilege, investigative privilege, spousal privilege, accountant client privilege, and any other applicable privilege. 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; Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 40 16 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 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, the agency privilege, investigative privilege, spousal privilege, accountant client 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 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 40 17 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. 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 to this request in that it seeks information that is protected by the attorney client, work product, joint defense, investigative, spousal 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 the forgoing objections Ms. Giuffre produces herewith non￾privileged documents bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE003190 and will continue to supplement this production. Ms. Giuffre is withholding documents based on her objections. 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, joint defense, investigative, spousal and other applicable Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 40 18 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 the forgoing objections Ms. Giuffre has produced non￾privileged documents bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE003190 and will continue to supplement this production. Ms. Giuffre is withholding documents based on her objections. 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. 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, joint defense, investigative, spousal and other applicable privileges. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it is not limited in time period. Subject to the forgoing objections, Ms. Giuffre has produced non-privileged documents bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE003190 and will continue to supplement this production. Ms. Giuffre is withholding documents based on her objections. 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 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 40 19 attorney client, work product, joint defense and other applicable privileges. Ms. Giuffre is withholding documents based on this objection. 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: 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 objects to this request in that it is overly broad seeking documents relating to over 60 individuals. 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 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 40 20 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. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request to the extent is seeks documents protected by the attorney client, work product, joint defense, investigative 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. Ms. Giuffre is producing herewith non-privileged documents bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE003190 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) e. Ron Eppinger f. Bill Clinton g. Stephen Hawking h. Al Gore Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 40 21 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. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request to the extent is seeks documents protected by the attorney client, work product, joint defense, investigative or any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre is producing herewith non￾privileged documents bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE003190 and will continue to supplement this 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. 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). 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 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 22 of 40 22 documents to Ms. Giuffre’s request seeking communications between the Defendant and Ms. 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, investigative or any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre is producing herewith non￾privileged documents bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE003190 and will continue to supplement this 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 for 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. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request to the extent is seeks documents protected by the attorney client, work product, joint defense, investigative or any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre is producing herewith non-privileged documents bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE003190 and will continue to supplement this production. Ms. Giuffre does not have “original, native format,” as requested so she is Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 23 of 40 23 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 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, investigative 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. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it is not limited to rental agreements relevant to this action, so it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Ms. Giuffre produces is producing non-privileged documents bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE003190 and will continue to supplement this production. 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, investigative or any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre produces herewith documents bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE003190 and will continue to supplement this production. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 24 of 40 24 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, investigative or any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre does not have any non-privileged documents responsive to this request 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 objects to this request to the extent is seeks documents protected by the attorney client, work product, joint defense, investigative or any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre produces herewith documents bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE003190 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 to the extent is seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the agency privilege, investigative privilege, spousal privilege, accountant client 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 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 25 of 40 25 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 does not have any non-privileged documents responsive to this request. 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 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 agency privilege, investigative privilege, spousal privilege, accountant client privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre produces herewith documents bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE003190 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 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 agency privilege, investigative privilege, spousal privilege, accountant client 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 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 26 of 40 26 harass and embarrass her. Ms. Giuffre produces herewith non-privileged documents bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE003190 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 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, the agency privilege, investigative privilege, spousal privilege, accountant client 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 does not have any non-privileged documents created during the time period responsive to this request. 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 objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the agency privilege, investigative privilege, spousal privilege, accountant client privilege, and any other Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 27 of 40 27 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. Ms. Giuffre produces herewith documents bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE003190 and will continue to supplement this production. 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 agency privilege, investigative privilege, spousal privilege, accountant client 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. 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 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 28 of 40 28 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 agency privilege, investigative privilege, spousal privilege, accountant client privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre is in possession of a 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, 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 objects to this request to the extent is seeks documents protected by the attorney client, work product, joint defense, investigative, spousal 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. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 29 of 40 29 Response to Request No. 21 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, joint defense/common interest privilege, the agency privilege, investigative privilege, spousal privilege, accountant client privilege, and any other applicable privilege. 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 objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the agency privilege, investigative privilege, spousal privilege, accountant client privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre produces herewith documents bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE003190 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 objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the agency privilege, investigative privilege, spousal privilege, accountant client privilege, and any other Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 30 of 40 30 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. 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 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, investigative or 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. Ms. Giuffre produces herewith documents bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE003190 and will continue to supplement this request. 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, joint defense/common interest privilege, the agency privilege, investigative privilege, spousal privilege, accountant client privilege, and any other applicable privilege. At this point in time, Ms. Giuffre has not found any non￾Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 31 of 40 31 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 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 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, investigative or any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre is limiting her production to prescription drugs that relate to the abuse she suffered and the defamation by Defendant. Ms. Giuffre is withholding responsive documents that are irrelevant to this lawsuit, but is producing documents relating to prescription drugs relating to her treatment for sexual abuse she suffered, and relating to conditions or symptoms arising after Defendant’s defamatory statement. Ms. Giuffre produces herewith documents bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE003190 and will continue to supplement this request. 27. All Documents, written or recorded, which reference by name, or other description, Ghislaine Maxwell. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 32 of 40 32 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 agency privilege, investigative privilege, spousal privilege, accountant client privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request to the extent it seeks proprietary or copyright protected materials. Ms. Giuffre produces herewith documents bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE003190 and will continue to supplement her production. Ms. Giuffre is withholding documents responsive to this request based on her objections. 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 agency privilege, investigative privilege, spousal privilege, accountant client 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.” Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 33 of 40 33 Response to Request No. 29 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 agency privilege, investigative privilege, spousal privilege, accountant client privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request to the extent it seeks proprietary or copyright protected materials. Ms. Giuffre produces herewith non-privileged documents bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE003190 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, joint defense/common interest privilege, the agency privilege, investigative privilege, spousal privilege, accountant client 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. Ms. Giuffre produces herewith non-privileged documents bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE003190 and will continue to supplement her production. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 34 of 40 34 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. Response to Request No. 31 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 agency privilege, investigative privilege, spousal privilege, accountant client 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. Ms. Giuffre produces herewith non-privileged documents bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE003190 and will continue to supplement her production. Ms. Giuffre is withholding documents responsive to this request. 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 to this request to the extent is seeks documents protected by the attorney client, work product, joint defense, investigative or 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. Ms. Giuffre produces herewith non-privileged documents bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 35 of 40 35 GIUFFRE003190 and will continue to supplement her production. Ms. Giuffre is withholding documents responsive to this request. 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, joint defense/common interest privilege, the agency privilege, investigative privilege, spousal privilege, accountant client 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. Ms. Giuffre produces herewith non-privileged documents bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE003190 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 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 36 of 40 36 objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the agency privilege, investigative privilege, spousal privilege, accountant client privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request to the extent is seeks proprietary and copyright protected material. Ms. Giuffre produces herewith non privileged documents bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE003190 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 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, joint defense/common interest privilege, the agency privilege, investigative privilege, spousal privilege, accountant client privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request to the extent is seeks proprietary and copyright protected material. Ms. Giuffre produces herewith documents bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE003190 and will Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 37 of 40 37 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 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, joint defense/common interest privilege, the agency privilege, investigative privilege, spousal privilege, accountant client privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre produces herewith documents bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE003190 and will continue to supplement her production. 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. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 38 of 40 38 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 agency privilege, investigative privilege, spousal privilege, accountant client 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. Ms. Giuffre produces herewith documents bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE003190 and will continue to supplement her production. Dated: March 16, 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 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Ellen Brockman Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 575 Lexington Ave New York, New York 10022 (212) 446-2300 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 39 of 40 39 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on March 16, 2016, I electronically served Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre’s Responses and Objections to Defendant’s First Set of Discovery Requests on the following: Laura A. Menninger, 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 By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley______ Sigrid McCawley Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 40 of 40 EXHIBITD Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 26 United States District Court Southern District of New York Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS V. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. I -------------- PLAINTIFF, VIRGINIA GIUFFRE'S FOURTH REVISED DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 26 COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Virginia L. Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, and serves this revised disclosure pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and states as follows: A. Witnesses: 1. Virginia L. Giuffre c/o Sigrid S. Mccawley, Esq. Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200 Miami, Florida 33301 Tel: (954) 356-0011 Email: smccawley@bsfllp.com Plaintiff - information regarding Defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell's conduct that is the subject of this action 2. Ghislaine Maxwell c/o Laura A. Menninger, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th A venue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com Defendant in this action. CONFIDENTIAL as to victims' identity pursuant to Court's June 23, 2016 Order Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 26 3. Juan Alessi Telephone number unknown at this time May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 4. Maria Alessi Telephone number unknown at this time May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 5. Kathy Alexander Address unknown at this time. Telephone number unknown at this time. Believed to be in South Africa. May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 6. Miles Alexander Address unknown at this time. Telephone number unknown at this time. Believed to be in South Africa. May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 7. Doug Band President of Teneo Holdings, 601 Lexington Avenue, 45th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Tel: (212) 886-1600 Was present on flights with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and President Clinton and may have knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's sexual trafficking conduct and interactions with minors. 8. Gwendolyn Beck 2 CONFIDENTIAL as to victims' identity pursuant to Court's June 23, 2016 Order Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 26 May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 9. Sophie Biddle May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 10. Was present on flights with Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and Virginia Guiffre and may have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 11. Fary Bjorlin Address Unknown Telephone Number Uknown May have information relating to Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 12. Kelly Bovino Telephone number unknown at this time May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 13. Jean Luc Brunel c/o Joe Titone, Esq. 621 South East 5th Street, Pompano Beach, FL 33060 Tel: (954) 729-6490 3 CONFIDENTIAL as to victims' identity pursuant to Court's June 23, 2016 Order Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 26 Was present on flights with Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and Virginia Guiffre and has information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 14. Ron Burkle Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct. 15. - Address unknown at this time. Telephone number unknown at this time Worked for Ghislaine Maxwell and has information about Ghislaine Maxwell's recruiting of girls for Jeffrey Epstein. 16. Carolyn Casey Address unknown at this time. Telephone number unknown at this time. May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 17. Alyson Chambers c/o Marshall Dore Louis, Esq. Sinclair, Louis & Zavertnik, P.A. 40 N.W. 3rd Street, Suite 200, Miami, FL 33128 Tel: (305) 374-0544 Worked for Jeffrey Epstein as a masseuse during the time that Virginia Giuffre was living and traveling with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, and has information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct. 18. William Jefferson Clinton 55 West 125 Street New York, NY 10027 Travelled with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and may have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct. 4 CONFIDENTIAL as to victims' identity pursuant to Court's June 23, 2016 Order Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 26 19. Maximilia Cordero Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct. 20. Valdson Cotrin Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct. 21. Chauntae Davies Telephone number unknown at this time Was present on flights with Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and may have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 22. Teala Davies Telephone number unknown at this time Was present on flights with Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and may have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 23. Anouska DeGeorgieou Telephone number unknown at this time May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 24. Alan Dershowitz c/o Richard A. Simpson, Esq. WILEY REIN, LLP 1776 K Street NW Washington, D.C. 20006 5 CONFIDENTIAL as to victims' identity pursuant to Court's June 23, 2016 Order Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 26 Tel: (202) 719-7000 Has knowledge of Defendant's conduct that is the subject of this action. 25. Ryan Dionne Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct. 26. Eva Anderson Dubin Telephone number unknown at this time Was present on flights with Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and has information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 27. Glen Dubin Telephone number unknown at this time Was present on flights with Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and has information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 28. Address unknown at this time. Telephone number unknown at this time. May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 29. Prince Andrew Albert Christian Edward, Duke of York Buckingham Palace Rd, London SWlA lAA Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors, including Virginia Giuffre. 6 CONFIDENTIAL as to victims' identity pursuant to Court's June 23, 2016 Order Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 26 30. Records Custodian for Travel for Prince Andrew Albert Christian Edward, Duke of York Buckingham Palace Rd, London SWlA lAA Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors, including Virginia Giuffre. 31. Jeffrey Epstein c/o Marty Weinberg, Esq. 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000, Boston, MA 02116 Has knowledge of Defendant's conduct that is the subject of this action and knowledge of his sexual trafficking operation and other co-conspirators. 32. Tatiana Espinoza Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 33. Annie Farmer Address unknown at this time. Telephone number unknown at this time. Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors, including Virginia Giuffre. 34. Marie Farmer Address unknown at this time. Telephone number unknown at this time. Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors, including Virginia Giuffre. 35. Vicky Ward Address unknown at this time Telephone unknown at this time 7 CONFIDENTIAL as to victims' identity pursuant to Court's June 23, 2016 Order Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 26 Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors, including Virginia Giuffre. 36. Frederic Fekkai Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Has knowledge of Defendant's conduct that is the subject of this action. 37. Tony Figueroa Telephone number unknown at this time Has knowledge of Defendant's conduct that is the subject of this action. 38. Luciano "Jojo" Fontanilla Jeffrey Epstein's staff member in his various homes and may have knowledge of Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein's inappropriate conduct with underage girls. 3 9. Lynn Fontanilla Telephone number unknown at this time May have knowledge of Defendant's conduct that is the subject of this action. 40. Michael Friedman Telephone number unknown at this time Former house staff and may have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with minors. 41. Rosalie Friedman Telephone number unknown at this time 8 CONFIDENTIAL as to victims' identity pursuant to Court's June 23, 2016 Order Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 26 Former house staff and may have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with minors. case. 42. Ross Gow Acuity Representation 23 Berkeley Square London WU 6HE Defendant's press agent who has knowledge of the defamatory statements in this 43. Tiffany Kathryn Gramza Telephone number unknown at this time May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors 44. - Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct. 45. Amanda Grant Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct. 46. Lesley Groff Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct. 47. 9 CONFIDENTIAL as to victims' identity pursuant to Court's June 23, 2016 Order Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 26 Has information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and abuse and interaction with underage minors. 48. Claire Hazel Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors 49. Shelly Harrison Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors 50. Gina Ignatieva Address Unknown Telephone number unknown at this time May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 51. Brett Jaffe Address noted on Defendant's Rule 26 disclosures Defendant's attorney. 52. Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors 10 CONFIDENTIAL as to victims' identity pursuant to Court's June 23, 2016 Order Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 26 53. Sarah Kensington Vickers formerly Sarah Kellen c/o Bruce Reinhart, Esq. McDonald Hopkins LLC 505 S Flagler Dr Ste 300 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5942 Tel: 561- 472-2121 Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interactions with minors. 54. Tatiana Kovylina Telephone number unknown at this time May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors 55. Telephone number unknown at this time Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors 56. Adam Perry Lang Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Traveling chef for Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and may have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 57. Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors 58. Michael Liffman 11 CONFIDENTIAL as to victims' identity pursuant to Court's June 23, 2016 Order Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 26 Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct. 59. Peter Listerman Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors 60. Cindy Lopez Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors 61. Melinda Lutz Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors 62. Cheri Lynch Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 63. Nadia Marcinko formerly Nadia Marcinkova c/o Jack Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger, & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Ave South, Ste 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 Tel: (561) 659-8300 12 CONFIDENTIAL as to victims' identity pursuant to Court's June 23, 2016 Order Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 26 Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors 64. Bob Meister May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 65. Todd Meister May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors 66. Brahakmana Mellawa Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time House staff who may have know ledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 67. Jayarukshi Mellawa Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time House staff who may have know ledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 68. Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 69. Andrea Mitro vi ch Address Unknown Telephone number unknown at this time. 13 CONFIDENTIAL as to victims' identity pursuant to Court's June 23, 2016 Order Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 26 Knowledge of Defendant's conduct that is the subject of this action. 70. Bill Peadon Telephone number unknown at this time House staff that may have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 71. Francis Peadon Telephone number unknown at this time House staff that may have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 72. Tom Pritzker Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 73. Dara Preece Address Unknown Telephone Unknown at this time May have knowledge of Defendant's conduct in this action. 74. Louella Rabuyo Address unknown at this time Telephone unknown at this time House staff that may have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 7 5. Joseph Recarey Telephone number unknown at this time. 14 CONFIDENTIAL as to victims' identity pursuant to Court's June 23, 2016 Order Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 26 Detective Recarey was the chief investigator of the crimes committed at Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach mansion and has information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 76. Chief Michael Reiter Telephone number unknown at this time. Police Chief Reiter oversaw the investigation of the crimes committed at Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach mansion and has information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and abuse of underage minors. 77. Bill Richardson Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 78. Rinaldo Rizzo c/o Robert Lewis, Esq. Freeman Lewis LLP 228 E. 45th Street, 1 ih Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: 212-980-4084 Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 79. Haley Robson Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 80. Sky Roberts 15 CONFIDENTIAL as to victims' identity pursuant to Court's June 23, 2016 Order Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 26 Family member who may have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 81. David Rodgers c/o Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq. McDonald Hopkins LLC 505 S Flagler Dr Ste 300 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5942 Tel: 561- 472-2121 Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 82. Adriana Ross formerly Adriana Mucinska c/o Alan S. Ross, Esq. Tel: (305) 858-9550 Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 83. Johanna Sjoberg c/o Marshall Dore Louis, Esq. 40 N.W. 3rd Street, Suite 200, Miami, FL 33128 Tel: (305) 374-0544 Worked for Jeffrey Epstein during the time when Virginia Giuffre was living and traveling with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Johanna Sjobjerg was also present at an occasion with Prince Andrew, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Virginia Giuffre when Ms. Giuffre was a mmor. 84. Kelly Spamm Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 85. Cecilia Stein Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time 16 CONFIDENTIAL as to victims' identity pursuant to Court's June 23, 2016 Order Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 26 May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 86. Emmy Taylor Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 87. Evelyn Valenzuela Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct. 88. Larry Visosky c/o Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq. Tel: (561) 202-6360 Telephone number unknown at this time Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 89. Leslie Wexner c/o John W. Zeiger, Esq., Zeiger, Tigges & Little LLP 41 South High Street, Suite 3500, Columbus, Ohio 43215 Tel: (614) 365-9900 Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 90. Courtney Wild c/o Bradley Edwards, Esq. FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Tel: (954) 524-2820 17 CONFIDENTIAL as to victims' identity pursuant to Court's June 23, 2016 Order Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 26 Has information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 91. Doug Wilson Family member who may have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 92. Igor Zinoview Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 93. All females identified in the police reports or identified through the United State's Attorney's office during or through the criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirators. 94. All other then-minor girls, recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, whose identities Ms. Giuffre will attempt to determine, with whom Defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, have engaged in sexual activity. 95. All pilots, chauffeurs, chefs, and other employees of either Defendant Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein with knowledge of Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein's inappropriate conduct with underage girls. 96. All staff and employees at the Mar-a-Lago Club during 1999-2002. 97. All other witnesses learned through discovery process. B. Relevant Documents: 1. All files held by the Palm Beach Police Department or the Palm Beach State Attorney's office which are publically available. 2. All press releases of Ghislaine Maxwell or on her behalf 18 CONFIDENTIAL as to victims' identity pursuant to Court's June 23, 2016 Order Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 26 3. The video(s) of Ghislaine Maxwell adopting the January, 2015 press statement. 4. All newspaper or other media where Ghislaine Maxwell's press release appears 5. All evidence obtained by the Federal Bureau of Investigations which relate in any way to Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell. 6. All 302 statements that relate in any way to Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell. 7. All evidence obtained by the FBI or United States Attorney's office by or through the criminal investigation of Alfredo Rodriguez. 8. All documents relating to the previous subpoenas served on Defendant for her deposition and all documents related in any way to that deposition. 9. All documents evidencing visitors or passengers at any of Jeffrey Epstein owned or controlled property or aircraft. 10. All documents demonstrating the relationship between Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell. 11. All photos of Ghislaine Maxwell at Chelsea Clinton's wedding. 12. All documents or information refuting statements made by Ghislaine Maxwell. 13. All documents and information relating to Prince Andrews travel, including travel to New York City and the Caribbean, in 1999 to 2002. 14. All documents and information from Shopper's Travel evidencing travel, flight records or passenger manifests during the relevant period. 15. All documents and information from David Rigg, Aviation Insurance Agent evidencing travel, flight records or passenger manifests during the relevant period. C. Exhibits: 1. Palm Beach Police Department report and documents contained within Jeffrey Epstein's criminal files, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 2. March 10, 2011 Statement on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell by Media agent Ross Gow, attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 3. September 3, 2008 Victim Notification Letter, attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 4. May 1, 2009 Complaint in Jane Doe No. 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein, CIV-09-80656, in the Southern District of Florida, attached hereto as Exhibit 4. 19 CONFIDENTIAL as to victims' identity pursuant to Court's June 23, 2016 Order Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 26 5. FBI 302 Statement, attached hereto as Exhibit 5. 6. Flight Logs, attached hereto as Composite Exhibit 6. 7. Message Pads from Law Enforcement from trash pull of Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach home, attached hereto as Exhibit 7. 8. Jeffrey Epstein's Phone Book, also referred to as his "Black Book," attached hereto as Exhibit 8. 9. Deposition of Sarah Kellen, attached hereto as Composite Exhibit 9. 10. Deposition Transcripts of Juan Alessi, attached hereto as Exhibit 10. 11. Deposition Transcripts of Alfredo Rodriguez, attached hereto as Exhibit 11. 12. January 2, 2015 Corrected Joinder Motion [DE 280] filed in the CVRA action pending in the Southern District of Florida, attached hereto as Exhibit 12. [All paragraphs between "The Government then concealed from Jane Doe No. 3 the existence of the NPA (pg. 3) and "The Government was well aware of Jane Doe No. 3 when it was negotiating the NPA" (pg. 6) were stricken by Judge Marra.] 13. January 21, 2015 Declaration of Jane Doe No. 3 filed in the CVRA action pending in the Southern District of Florida, attached hereto as Exhibit 13. [Paragraphs 4, 5, 7, 11, 13, 15, 19-53, and 59 were stricken by Judge Marra] 14. February 6, 2015 Declaration of Jane Doe No. 3 filed in the CVRA action pending in the Southern District of Florida, attached hereto as Exhibit 14. [Paragraphs 7- 12, 16, 39 and 49 were stricken by Judge Marra.] 15. November 25, 2015 Affidavit of Virginia Giuffre, filed in the Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell v. Alan Dershowitz matter, pending in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, attached hereto as Exhibit 15. 16. Virginia Roberts' passport, attached hereto as Exhibit 16. 17. Judge Thomas Lynch's January 12, 2016 Confidentiality Order regarding Virginia Giuffre's deposition, attached hereto as Exhibit 17. 18. Documents produced and bates labelled Non-Party VR 000001 - Non-Party VR 000644, in the Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell v. Alan Dershowitz matter, pending in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, attached hereto as Exhibit 18. 19. Victims Refuse Silence Articles of Incorporation and Amendment, attached hereto as Composite Exhibit 19. 20. Victims Refuse Silence By-laws, attached hereto as Exhibit 20. 20 CONFIDENTIAL as to victims' identity pursuant to Court's June 23, 2016 Order Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 26 D. 21. Victims Refuse Silence 2016 Annual Report, attached hereto as Exhibit 21. 22. January 3, 2015 Daily Mail article: "Harvard Law Professor Named Alongside Prince Andrew in 'Sex Slave' Case Accuses Alleged Victim of 'Making Up Stories,"' attached hereto as Exhibit 22. 23. January 3, 2015 Press Statement issued by Ross Gow to Express set forth in "Ghislaine Maxwell: I was not a madam for paedophile," attached as Exhibit 23. 24. January 4, 2015 Statement by Ghislaine Maxwell to New York Daily News Reporter "Alleged Madam Accused of Supplying Prince Andrew With Underage Teen for Sex Spotted in NYC-As He's Seen Cutting Swiss Vacation Short to Face Queen," attached hereto as Exhibit 24. 25. February 1, 2015 Mirror article: "Prince Andrew's Pal Ghislaine Maxwell May Sue Over Madam Allegations," attached hereto as Exhibit 25. 26. September 23, 2007 Red Ice Creations Article "Prince Andrew's Friend, Ghislaine Maxwell, Some Underage Girls, and A Very Disturbing Story," attached hereto as Exhibit 26. 27. Photographs, attached hereto as Exhibit 27. 28. April 13, 2010 Deposition Transcript of Nadia Marcinkova, attached hereto as Exhibit 28. Computation of damages: 1. Physical, psychological and psychiatric injuries and resulting medical expenses - in an amount of approximately $ 102,200 present value. a. Computation Analysis: 1. Giuffre has had to receive treatment for the psychological harm as a result of Maxwell's conduct towards Giuffre. 11. The average annual expenditures for mental health services for adults 18-64 in the United States is $1,751. 111. Giuffre needs continuing care as a result of the harm she has suffered. Ms. Giuffre was born August 9, 1983 and was 31.4 years old at the beginning of 2015 when the alleged harm occurred. The average remaining life expectancy for a 31 year old female is 51.1 years. 1v. Based on a remaining life expectancy of 51.1 years, annual healthcare cost growth of 3.3% and a discount rate of 2.7%, the present value of expected treatment costs is $102,200 as of 1/1/2015. 21 CONFIDENTIAL as to victims' identity pursuant to Court's June 23, 2016 Order Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 22 of 26 b. Supporting Evidence: 1. Ms. Giuffre is in the process of collecting records from her physicians 11. Ms. Giuffre's testimony 111. Ms. Giuffre is in the process of retaining an expert to calculate damages, and will provide further information through expert disclosure. 2. 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. a. Computation Analysis 1. Under New York law, defamation per se as alleged in this case presumes damages and special damages do not need to be plead and proven. See Celle v. Filipino Reporter Enterprises Inc., 209 F.3d 163, 179 (2nd Cir. 2000) (Second Circuit holding that '[i]f a statement is defamatory per se, injury is assumed. In such a case 'even where the plaintiff can show no actual damages at all, a plaintiff who has otherwise shown defamation may recover at least nominal damages' and the Second Circuit also confirmed an award of punitive damages). Ms. Giuffre has been severely damaged by the defamation of the defendant, by calling her claims of sexual abuse "obvious lies". The defamation caused Ms. Giuffre to re-live the sexual abuse she previously endured. Ms. Giuffre has suffered and continues to suffer from the pain, 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. The computation of this amount is in the province of the jury but Ms. Giuffre contends, including but not limited to, awards in other similar matters, that the amount is not less than $30,000,000.00. Ms. Giuffre is in the process of retaining an expert, and will provide further information through expert disclosure. b. Supporting Evidence 1. Ms. Giuffre's testimony 22 CONFIDENTIAL as to victims' identity pursuant to Court's June 23, 2016 Order Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 23 of 26 11. Witness testimony 111. Awards in similar matters 1v. Ms. Giuffre is in the process of retaining an expert, and will provide further information through expert disclosure. 3. Punitive Damages - to be based upon all relevant factors, including the egregious nature of Defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell's conduct and the need for a large award to punish and deter conduct in view of the vast wealth of Defendant Maxwell, in an amount not less than $50,000,000.00. a. This calculation is in the province of the jury. 23 CONFIDENTIAL as to victims' identity pursuant to Court's June 23, 2016 Order Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 24 of 26 Dated: June 24, 2016. Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: Isl Sigrid Mccawley Sigrid Mccawley (Pro Hae Vice) Meredith Schultz (Pro 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 3 3 3 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 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. 24 CONFIDENTIAL as to victims' identity pursuant to Court's June 23, 2016 Order Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 25 of 26 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Disclosure Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 has been provided by United States mail and electronic mail to all counsel of record identified below, on this 24th day of June, 2016. Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, , Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th A venue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com Email: jpagliuca@hmflaw.com 25 By: Isl Sigrid Mccawley Sigrid Mccawley CONFIDENTIAL as to victims' identity pursuant to Court's June 23, 2016 Order Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 26 of 26 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK VIRGINIA GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, -against￾GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. Index No. 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS) REPLY DECLARATION OF ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE AND UNSEAL ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ declares under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct: 1. I am personally familiar with the facts set forth in this Reply Declaration, which I submit in further support of my pending motion to intervene and to unseal the “Requested Documents,” as that term is defined in Paragraph 3 of my August 11, 2016 Declaration. Introduction and Overview 2. Rather than offering a valid and proper basis for opposing my motion, the papers submitted on behalf of plaintiff Virginia Roberts Giuffre—particularly, the lengthy declaration of Paul Cassell, one of Ms. Giuffre’s lawyers and a former federal judge—are little more than an effort to revive and further the false and scurrilous allegations of sexual misconduct that compelled me to seek the Court’s assistance in the first place. As his declaration makes clear, Mr. Cassell has crossed the line from being a legitimate advocate for a client, to being a lawyer who is seeking to justify his own conduct in the face of compelling evidence that his client is a thoroughgoing liar. That was, after all, the gravamen of Mr. Cassell’s defamation case against me: the assertion, now repeated at length before this Court, that Ms. Giuffre’s lawyers Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 27 2 had a valid basis for disseminating her false, grotesque and impertinent allegations against me in a public filing. And it is that “fight,” essentially, that Mr. Cassell reignites in his declaration in this matter. To be clear, this not a fight that that I started and it is certainly not one that I am asking this Court to referee or resolve in any way. I am only asking that the Court refuse to allow its Protective Order, which was entered based upon a stipulation that explicitly contemplated that the Order might be modified, from being used to prevent me from disclosing documents that reveal the truth. Having now, again, been subjected to an unfair and unwarranted false attack on my credibility and reputation for personal rectitude, I have no choice but to respond on the merits. 3. I begin by, again, swearing under oath that I did not sexually abuse Virginia Roberts Giuffre, and that any allegation or suggestion to the contrary is categorically false. I never had sexual contact with Ms. Giuffre of any kind, and, to my knowledge, I never even met her until her deposition in 2016. By swearing to this, I am deliberately exposing myself to a perjury prosecution and disbarment if I am not telling the truth. If Ms. Giuffre were to submit an affidavit repeating her false allegations against me, I would welcome and cooperate with a criminal investigation by any prosecutorial office as to whether it is Ms. Giuffre or I who is committing perjury. It is inescapably clear that one of us is lying under oath. I know it is not me. 4. Against this backdrop, and the facts set forth in my August 11, 2016 Declaration, Mr. Cassell, on his client’s behalf, has put into the record a declaration replete with factual inaccuracies, omissions, and flat-out misrepresentations. Among other things, he misstates important elements of both the Crime Victims’ Rights Act lawsuit filed by Ms. Giuffre, and others, in Florida (the “CVRA Action”), and the defamation lawsuit that he and his Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 27 3 colleague, Bradley Edwards, brought against me (Edwards v. Dershowitz, Case No. CACE 15-000072 (Cir. Ct., Broward Cnty., Fla.)). Moreover, he elides or mischaracterizes testimony gathered in those and other proceedings in order to make them appear inculpatory of me when, in fact, they are just the opposite. 5. In doing so, Mr. Cassell seeks to accomplish two goals simultaneously: first, to suppress information—the Requested Documents—which exculpates me from the charges of sexual misconduct, while allowing Ms. Giuffre and her allies to publicly disseminate those selected “facts” that, they believe, support her allegations against me; and, second, to prove that Mr. Cassell—and , by extension, his colleague Mr. Edwards and Ms. Giuffre’s current lawyers at Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP—have a valid factual basis for continuing to press Ms. Giuffre’s false allegations. Mr. Cassell’s effort is an unmitigated failure, as this declaration demonstrates. 6. While much of the Cassell Declaration goes far beyond what is reasonably required to respond to the instant motion, and while it surely has the distinct air of “protesting too much,” I cannot stand mute in the face of this continuing assault on my character. As this declaration and the accompanying reply brief will demonstrate, the charges against me are baseless, and unsealing the Requested Document is the only proper response to Ms. Giuffre’s efforts to smear me through the legal process. 7. In its effort to block the unsealing of the Requested Documents and to justify Ms. Giuffre’s lawyers’ decision to represent her, the Cassell Declaration cites five sources: (i) a Palm Beach Police Department Report dated July 19, 2006; (ii) flight logs for the aircraft owned by Jeffrey Epstein; (iii) the fact that a “very well-regarded Florida” lawyer filed a civil complaint against Mr. Epstein on Ms. Giuffre’s behalf which accused “academicians” Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 27 4 associated with Mr. Epstein of abusing her; (iv) the testimony of Juan Alessi and Alfredo Rodriguez, two household employees of Mr. Epstein; and (v) what Mr. Cassell alleges is a “pattern of deception” by me to keep the “truth” from coming out. I will address each of these, in detail, in turn. As will immediately become clear, the information presented by Mr. Cassell in no way substantiates Ms. Giuffre’s claims. To the contrary, much of the evidence contradicts Ms. Giuffre’s version of events. In addition, I offer a few final points about matters that demonstrate clearly that Ms. Giuffre is not a credible witness. The Palm Beach Police Department Report 8. The Cassell Declaration cites a July 2006 Palm Beach Police Department Report, which identified Jeffrey Epstein’s home in Palm Beach as a location at which Mr. Epstein allegedly abused minor victims. Mr. Cassell contends that this Report supports Ms. Giuffre’s account that I abused her at the Palm Beach home. See Cassell Decl., ¶ 21(a)-(b). But, as Mr. Cassell conceded in his deposition in the Edwards defamation case, my name does not even appear in the Palm Beach Police Department Report—much less does the Report contain an allegation that I sexually abused someone. See Ex. O at 31 (Deposition Transcript of Paul G. Cassell, October 16-17, 2015). 9. Mr. Cassell asserts that the Palm Beach Police Report “showed the sexual abuse was occurring on a daily basis” at the Epstein mansion, and thus “that [it] would have made it obvious to a visiting guest that young girls were coming to the home for sexual purposes.” Cassell Decl., ¶ 21(b). Putting aside the conclusory nature of the inference (For example, by what means would it be “obvious,” and to which “guests?” I would think that if someone were doing something illegal, such as arranging trysts with underage girls, they would take measures to conceal their conduct), the statement is entirely irrelevant to me. First, I was not present in that home—or on Mr. Epstein’s private island, or at his New Mexico ranch, or on 1111 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 27 5 his airplane—during the time Ms. Giuffre was associated with him. Dershowitz Decl.,1 ¶ 9. Nothing about Ms. Giuffre’s relationship with Mr. Epstein, or her age, could have been “obvious” to me, because I never met her. Second, there is simply no evidence that Mr. Epstein’s alleged abuse of minor victims at his home in Palm Beach was “obvious” or known to any “visiting guests,” given that the abuse took is alleged to have taken place in a separate part of the house, namely Mr. Epstein’s private bedroom. 10. Ms. Giuffre and her counsel have alleged that she was not the only “young girl” that I had sexual contact with – i.e., that there were others. Of course, no such persons have ever presented themselves to corroborate this accusation. Nonetheless, Mr. Cassell latched on to this allegation as a “basis” for his filing in the CRVA Action, which named me as a serial abuser. 11. Demonstrating how little Mr. Cassell really had to go on in this regard, I ask the Court to consider Mr. Cassell’s response to a question put to him in deposition concerning who, other than his client, he had reason to believe was abused by me. All Mr. Cassell could muster was this: [CASSELL]: …I have 24 names in mind as possible sexual abuse victims that Dershowitz may or may not have abused. And I have not been able to pinpoint exactly what happened, because the people who would be in the best position to help me sort out what the names were [--] specifically Jeffrey Epstein, among others [--] have refused to cooperate and give me those names” (emphasis added). Ex. O at 36-37. 12. The very idea that Mr. Cassell could claim that, without more, a mere list of alleged victims that he believes that I “may or may not have abused” would provide a basis for publicly accusing me of heinous crimes, well illustrates Mr. Cassell’s mindset. 1 Citations to “Dershowitz Decl.” refer to my August 11, 2016 moving declaration. Exhibits O through X are attached to this Reply Declaration. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 27 6 13. As the record demonstrates, I could not have abused Virginia Roberts Giuffre because, as the records establish, I was never in Mr. Epstein’s Palm Beach home, private island, ranch or airplane during the two years that she was associated with Mr. Epstein. The Palm Beach Police Department Report neither corroborates Ms. Giuffre’s false accusation, nor supports the decision by Mr. Cassell, Mr. Edwards and the other lawyers for Ms. Giuffre to publicly accuse me of such pedophila. The Flight Logs 14. In his Declaration, Mr. Cassell suggests that the flight logs of Mr. Epstein’s private jet showing Ms. Giuffre travelling to New York support the conclusion that I abused Ms. Giuffre in New York, because I was a visiting scholar at N.Y.U. and lived in N.Y.U. housing during the 2000-2001 academic year. See Cassell Decl., ¶ 21(c). This allegation, and the string of inferences necessary to make it “work,” is patently absurd. Millions of people were present in the New York City area when Ms. Giuffre travelled there; it is simply not reasonable to infer from my presence in New York at the same time, apparently, as Ms. Giuffre that I sexually abused her—there or anywhere else. 15. In his deposition in the defamation case against me, Mr. Cassell acknowledged that my name did not appear in the aircraft flight logs during the time period in which Ms. Giuffre was associated with Mr. Epstein: [CASSELL]: The face of the flight logs for the relevant period of time, we can call it the hot period of time or whatever you want, did not reveal the presence of Mr. Dershowitz on those flights, yes. Q: Okay. So during the period—well, actually, there’s no flight log that shows Virginia Roberts and Professor Dershowitz on the same airplane, correct? A: That’s my understanding, yes. Ex. O at 205. • Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 27 7 16. Desperate to draw some connection between me and young girls on the airplane, Mr. Cassell also states that the flight logs show me and “an apparently young woman named ‘Tatiana’ who did not appear to serve any business purpose for Epstein” flying together on Mr. Epstein’s plane with Mr. Epstein and other individuals. See Cassell Decl. ¶ 21(g) (internal parentheses omitted). What his declaration conveniently fails to mention is that the flight in question took place on November 17, 2005, years after Ms. Giuffre’s association with Mr. Epstein concededly ended. See McCawley Decl., Ex. 2 at GIUFFRE007135. The connection between a flight in 2005 and Ms. Giuffre’s alleged abuse is, of course, non-existent: by 2005, Ms. Giuffre was living in Australia. 17. But that is just a detail. As Mr. Cassell well knows, Tatiana Kovylina, the woman who flew on Mr. Epstein’s plane with us and several other people in 2005, was 24 years old at the time of the flight. During my deposition in the Edwards case, I was asked about and shown photos of “Tatiana”; I said that I thought she appeared to “about 25” years old. It turned out that my estimate was correct. This exchange followed: [DERSHOWITZ]: … I must say that during the recess, my wife Googled Tatiana and found out that she was, in fact, 24 years old in 1995 [sic - 2005]2 , at the time she flew on that airplane. So that my characterization of her as about 25 years old is absolutely correct. And the implication that you sought to draw by showing me those pictures was not only demonstrably false, but you could have easily discovered that the implication you were drawing was demonstrably false by simply taking one second and Googling her name as my wife did.” Ex. P at 216-17 (Deposition Transcript of Alan M. Dershowitz, October 16, 2015). 2 In fact, I meant the year 2005. According to Wikipedia, Ms. Kovylina was born on November 4, 1981. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatiana_Kovylina. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 27 8 18. Mr. Cassell was present at my October 2015 deposition in the Edwards case, and he is aware of Tatiana Kovylina’s actual age. Yet, in his Declaration to this Court, he continues to suggest that her presence on Mr. Epstein’s airplane in 2005 supports the inference that I was aware of Mr. Epstein’s alleged abuse of Ms. Giuffre in 2000-2002, and that I participated in such conduct. Cassell Decl., ¶ 21(g). While Mr. Cassell cloaks this suggestion in language concerning “information [he and Mr. Edwards] relied upon in believing the truth of Ms. Giuffre’s allegations,” that is too clever by half. Id. at 21. The inference that he asks this Court to draw is that the presence of Ms. Kovylina supports the allegations against me. That is simply false. Ms. Giuffre̓s Civil Complaint and Her Claim of Abuse by ͆Academicians͇ 19. In his Declaration, Mr. Cassell states that he believed Ms. Giuffre’s allegations that I sexually abused her, in part, because Bob Josefsberg, “a very well regarded Florida lawyer,” apparently believed her, having filed a civil complaint against Mr. Epstein on her behalf. Cassell Decl., ¶21(e). The Josefsberg-filed civil complaint did not name me. 20. Mr. Cassell was not relieved of his professional obligation to investigate the bona fides of Ms. Giuffre’s claims simply because a different lawyer had already decided to file a case on her behalf. Mr. Casssell’s reliance on the case filed by Mr. Josefsberg is particularly inappropriate because the Josefberg-drafted case does not name me as an abuser. Moreover, Mr. Josefsberg has continued to maintain a personal and professional relationship with me, something he would not have done if he believed I had abused his client—a fact that Mr. Cassell and the other lawyers could have readily ascertained. 21. Nor was it reasonable to accuse me of pedophila based on the fact that Ms. Giuffre alleged in the Josefsberg-drafted civil complaint that she had been trafficked by Jeffrey Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 27 9 Epstein to “academicians.” Id. As Mr. Cassell is well aware, Jeffrey Epstein was heavily involved in funding academic research at Harvard and kept an office there,3 and he was consequently friendly with many academics, including David Gergen, Marvin Minsky, Larry Summers, Stephen Kosslyn, Henry Rosovsky, Howard Gardner, and Stephen Jay Gould, among others. Many of these academics engaged in the same behavior that apparently led Mr. Cassell to believe Ms. Giuffre’s allegations that I had abused her. According to workers at Mr. Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion, he received visits from “friends from Harvard” and other “very important people.” Ex. U at 28 (Deposition Transcripts of Alfredo Rodriguez, July 29, 2009 and August 7, 2009). All of the “evidence” that Ms. Giuffre and her lawyers claim implicates me is equally applicable to dozens of other academics and public figures who were associated with Mr. Epstein—including Larry Summers, Stephen Hawking, Henry Rosovsky, Nathan Myhrvold, Steven Pinker, Martin Nowak, Daniel C. Dennett, David Gergen, George Church, Richard Dawkins, Gerard ‘t Hooft, David Gross, Frank Wilzek, Howard Gardner, Stephen Jay Gould, and many others. 22. Of course, Ms. Giuffre’s credibility on these matters is nil. To cite one example, Harvard Professor is one of the “academicians” Ms. Giuffre has accused. In the Manuscript that I am trying to unseal, Ms. Giuffre describes having sex with in great detail: Two weeks later, as if Jeffrey was trying to lighten my spirits, he told me I would be going to his island to meet a new client. He is a 3 My relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, prior to when he was accused and I became one of his lawyers, was academic and intellectual in nature. Along with many prominent academics, I attended seminars and other events, mostly at his office in Cambridge. I did send him my manuscripts to review and I acknowledged his intellectual input in the acknowledgments to several of my books. Many other academics were acquaintances of Mr. Epstein. They interacted with him on a somewhat regular basis, including during the time period in which he was allegedly abusing Ms. Giuffre, and yet, to my knowledge, they had no idea that he may have engaged in sex acts with minors, because he kept his private life completely separate from his academic life. I have never see Mr. Epstein with an underage girl. - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 27 10 . I would be spending two days with him showing him around the island, dining with him, and treating him to a massage whenever he wanted. Without Jeffrey even verbalizing the need to have sex with him, he told me to keep him happy like I had my first client… … By the time dinner was served and another red wine bottle later, he seemed to get funnier. I made fun of his tousled hair and he poked at me for my skinny legs, calling me a wanna-be￾anorexic. When dessert was brought out he asked if he could receive one of the delightful massages he has been hearing about from Jeffrey. I gulped more red wine down and sweetly complied with his offer, dreading the moment I’d have to see his naked body, let alone touch it… I gave the massage my earnest as I always had, and quickly got through having intercourse with him. Not wanting to make any foreplay or anything extravagant out of it, I let him think that’s as good as it got, and by the smile on his face, I thought I had done enough. Dershowitz Decl., Ex. B at GIUFFRE004192-93. In her deposition in the Edwards defamation lawsuit, she later denied having sex with “Q: Have you ever met a ? A: Possibly. Q: Do you know one way or the other? A: Do I know? Q: You said possibly? A: I was introduced to lots of political, scientific, academic, so there is a possibility I could have met him. Q: Did you ever have sex with ? A: No. Dershowitz Decl., Ex. G at 27. - - - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 27 11 23. It is inconceivable that Ms. Giuffre could have forgotten about having sex with a man she described in such detail in her Manuscript. She either lied for money in her Manuscript, or committed perjury in her deposition. 24. The same Manuscript that names and describes a sexual encounter with him in great detail does not mention me as someone with whom she claims to have had sex. To the contrary, it mentions me only as someone who had a discussion with Mr. Epstein in his bedroom after he had had sex with Ms. Giuffre. See Dershowitz Decl., ¶ 37. This entirely fabricated story was obviously inserted as the result of the email exchange between Ms. Giuffre and Sharon Churcher in which Ms. Churcher urges Ms. Giuffre to include my name in her manuscript in order to make it more marketable. See Dershowitz Decl., ¶ 35. It is imperative for me to be able to use those currently-sealed documents—the Emails and the Manuscript in particular—to refute the false allegations against me that have been repeated in public filings in this case, and to support the truth, i.e., that Ms. Giuffre never accused me prior to the CVRA Action. Indeed, because they show that the story about me is of very recent vintage, such documents corroborate the information provided to me by Ms. Giuffre’s best and oldest friend: namely that Ms. Giuffre had never accused me of having had sex with her until she felt pressured to do so by her lawyers. This point—that her accusation against me is a recent fabrication—is central to my defense against the false charges that the lawyers in this case continue to level against me, and I have a right to be able to respond to them by self-proving documents. 25. Ms. Giuffre has also claimed to have had sex with such prominent individuals as former , former Governor of New Mexico Bill Richardson, the late renowned M.I.T professor Marvin Minsky, the chairman of the Hyatt Corporation Tom Pritzker, the former Prime Minister of Israel Ehud ~------- --- - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 27 12 Barak, Prince Andrew of England, another unnamed prince, and several unnamed “foreign presidents,” among others. See, e.g., Dershowitz Decl., Ex. G at 10, 15, 18, 20, 24, 38. She has even claimed that all of these individuals, and me, had sex with her without using a condom.4 26. To summarize: before choosing to file the Motion for Joinder in the CVRA lawsuit that publicly accused me of pedophilia, Mr. Cassell and Mr. Edwards were aware, or should have been aware, of several other individuals who would fit the description of “academicians” described in the civil complaint submitted by Bob Josefsberg. Moreover, they were aware, or should have been aware, of glaring problems in Ms. Giuffre’s credibility. Yet, Ms. Giuffre’s lawyers decided to treat her as a credible witness, and to accuse me of a heinous crime on the basis of her inconsistent and incoherent testimony alone. I was the only “academician” named as an abuser, despite the fact that Ms. Giuffre had identified other prominent academics as sexual partners. I believe that I was accused by her because my name— along with that of Prince Andrew—was certain to garner international publicity. Mr. Epstein̓s Associates Plead the Fifth 27. In his Declaration, Mr. Cassell asserts that, because three of Epstein’s associates—Sarah Kellen, Adrianna Mucinska, and Nadia Marcinkova—asserted their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when questioned about me, it was reasonable for him to draw “adverse inference” to the effect that I “was, indeed, involved in Epstein’s crimes.” 4 Q. Were condoms ever used with Professor Dershowitz? A: No, and they weren’t used with any other people as well. Q: Were the other people that you were sexual [sic] trafficked to? A: No. Dershowitz Decl., Ex. G at 177-78. - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 27 13 Cassell Decl., ¶ 21(h). Mr. Cassell’s assumption would be laughable, were not so insidious and improper. 28. In the first place, even a second-year law student knows that adverse inferences can only be drawn against a party who either invokes the Fifth Amendment in a civil case him or herself, or controls the witness who does so (as in an employer-employee relationship). See LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 123-24 (2d Cir. 1997). Obviously, I have never refused to answer questions about Ms. Giuffre’s absurd and false allegations against me—I have repeatedly denied them outright, under oath—and I exercise no control over any of Mr. Epstein’s associates who invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege. There is absolutely no legal basis for an “adverse inference” to be drawn against me by virtue of the privilege invocation by people I barely know and do not control. 29. More importantly, Mr. Cassell’s “reliance” on this invocation is, itself, based on a distortion. The fact is, the three women—Sarah Kellen, Adriana Mucinska, and Nadia Marcinkova—all asserted their Fifth Amendment privileges when answering every single question posed to them in their depositions, not solely in response to questions about me. For example, here is this exchange from the deposition of Ms. Kellen: Q: Did you ever meet Bill Clinton? . . . . A [Kellen]: On the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. Q: Did you ever fly with these three gentlemen and Jeffrey Epstein to Africa on Jeffrey Epstein’s 727 airplane? . . . . A: At the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 27 14 Ex. R at 39-40 (Deposition Transcript of Sarah Kellen, March 24, 2010). 30. Of course, Mr. Cassell did not draw an “adverse inference” against President Clinton, nor did he accuse the former president of abusing Ms. Giuffre. It would have been unreasonable to have done so.5 31. As Mr. Cassell well knows, witnesses risk waving their Fifth Amendment privilege by invoking it only selectively. This is why defense attorneys generally advise their clients to claim the Fifth as to all questions. Therefore, the associates’ invocation of their Fifth Amendment privilege when questioned about me cannot substantiate any claim that I abused Ms. Giuffre. Had these individuals been asked if they knew whether I had assassinated John F. Kennedy, they would have taken the Fifth. It is irresponsible for Mr. Cassell, who should know better given his experience as a federal judge, to make that absurd claim. 32. In truth, I sincerely wish that Mr. Epstein’s associates had not invoked the Fifth Amendment with regard questions about me. Had they testified fully and truthfully, I would have been shown to have done nothing wrong. The Testimony of Juan Alessi and Alfredo Rodriguez 33. In his Declaration, and in the CVRA filings in December 2014 and January 2015, Mr. Cassell attempts to “place” me at Mr. Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion in the time period during which Ms. Giuffre alleges she was there, to connect me to “sex toys” alleged 5 Likewise, Ms. Kellen, Ms. Mucinska, and Ms. Marcinkova asserted their Fifth Amendment privilege when questioned about a number of celebrities, including David Copperfield, Kevin Spacey, and Les Wexner, among others. One of the prosecuting attorneys, frustrated by this tactic observed: I think it’s absolutely absurd that she’s objecting to some for these questions or taking the Fifth to some of these questions. I mean, I want to Sid [sic] to ask her now if the sky is blue. I think she’s going to take the Fifth to that question, as well. Ex. R at 12. - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 27 15 to have been inside the mansion, to imply that I had received a sexual “massage” at the mansion, and to suggest that the appearance of my name, circled, in Jeffrey Epstein’s address book was inculpatory—all by reference to the testimony of two of Jeffrey Epstein’s “household employees,” Juan Alessi and Alfredo Rodriguez. Cassell Decl., ¶ 21(k)-(m). This effort fails under even cursory scrutiny. 34. First, Mr. Cassell asserts that “Juan Alessi said that [Alan] Dershowitz visited Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion four or five times a year, staying two or three days when he went there.” Cassell Decl., ¶ 21(k). He then asserts that “Alessi was able to identify a photograph of Ms. Giuffre as someone who was at the mansion as [sic] the same time as Dershowitz.” Id. Mr. Cassell’s characterization of the Alessi testimony is simply false. Juan Alessi never testified that Ms. Giuffre was at Epstein’s home in Florida at the same time as me. 35. Mr. Cassell’s assertion is apparently based on the following portion of Juan Alessi’s deposition: Q: Do you have any recollection of V.R. coming to the house when Prince Andrew was there? A: It could have been, but I’m not sure. Q: Not sure. When Mr. Dershowitz was visiting,-- A: Uh-huh. Q: --how often did he come? A: He came pretty -- pretty often. McCawley Decl., Ex. 6 at 73. 36. But, as the audio recording of this testimony makes clear (and I am happy to provide it), Mr. Alessi’s “uh-huh” was simply an acknowledgment that he was about to respond to a question about how often I came to the home during the many years he worked - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 27 16 there. It was not, as Mr. Cassell misleadingly suggests, an affirmation that Ms. Giuffre and I were present at Mr. Epstein’s house at the same time. 37. In fact, Mr. Alessi has since provided an affidavit flatly denying that he saw both Ms. Giuffre and I at the Palm Beach mansion at the same time. “I was never asked by any attorneys if Virginia Roberts came to the house when Mr. Dershowitz was there. If I had been asked, I would have answered that I never saw Virginia Roberts at the house when Mr. Dershowitz was there.” Ex. Q at ¶ 19 (Affidavit of Juan P. Alessi, January 13, 2016). Indeed, in his affidavit, Mr. Alessi goes on to say, “I never saw Mr. Dershowitz do anything improper or be present while anyone else was being improper.” Id. 38. Juan Alessi’s affidavit also confirms that Mr. Cassell and Edwards failed to interview him as part of their supposed “investigation” into Ms. Giuffre’s claims, and consequently grossly misrepresented the statements he made in his deposition: The following statement made by Virginia Roberts’s attorneys and their own attorney in a filing on December 4, 2015 is not accurate and is a misrepresentation of what I said in my deposition: “Alessi was able to identify a photograph of Ms. Giuffre as someone who was at the mansion as [sic] the same time as Dershowitz. As far as I can recall, since I gave my deposition in 2009, I have never been asked by Brad Edwards or Paul Cassell about my knowledge regarding Virginia Roberts or Alan Dershowitz or about my 2009 deposition testimony. Id. at ¶¶ 20-21. 39. In an effort to “place” me in proximity to “sex toys” at the Palm Beach mansion, Mr. Cassell and Mr. Edwards also misrepresented other aspects of Juan Alessi’s testimony. For example, in an affidavit, Mr. Alessi states that: Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 27 17 The following statement made by Virginia Roberts’s attorneys in a filing on January 21, 2015 is not accurate and is a misrepresentation of what I said in my deposition: “the private, upstairs room where Dershowitz got his ‘massages’ was one that contained a lot of vibrators—Maxwell had a ‘laundry basket… full of those toys’ in that room.”” . . . . I did not state or imply that vibrators or sex toys were found after massages in other rooms used by guests because that was not the case. Guests having massages did not have massages in Mr. Epstein’s private bedroom suite. This area was private and off￾limits to guests, which I explained to the lawyers during my deposition. Id. at ¶¶ 9-10. 40. Juan Alessi undermines numerous other elements of Ms. Giuffre’s account as well. For example, Mr. Alessi did not see “any photographs of Virginia Roberts in Mr. Epstein’s house”—partially naked or otherwise. Id. at ¶ 17. And, contrary to Ms. Giuffre’s description, massages were not simply a code word for sexual encounters. Many guests at the Epstein mansion received massages from professional masseuses—and all of whom were, as Mr. Alessi testified, “overage” to “maybe mid-forties.” Id. at ¶ 8. Indeed, despite working for Jeffrey Epstein for many years, Mr. Alessi was “unaware of any masseuses being under the age of 18.” Id. This statement in itself completely undermines Mr. Cassell’s underlying assumption—that I, at the very least, should have known of Mr. Epstein’s alleged wrongdoing by virtue of visiting his Florida home on several occasions. 41. To be clear, the only massage I recall receiving at the Epstein home was conducted by a professional masseuse—a woman in her in her 30s or 40s. This occurred well outside the timeframe when Ms. Giuffre was associated with Mr. Epstein and I acknowledged this in numerous interviews shortly after Ms. Giuffre accused me.6 In addition, there were never 6 See, for example: Bob Norman, “Alan Dershowitz: ‘Sex Slave’ Accuser is Serial Liar, Prostitute,” Local 10 News, 22 January 2015, available at http://www.local10.com/news/alan-dershowitz-sex-slave-accuser-is-serial-liar￾Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 27 18 any sex toys in any room I ever stayed in, nor were there any visible pictures of naked young women. My children and grandchildren stayed in the rooms in question at Mr. Epstein’s home during Christmas of 2005. I would never have allowed my family to stay in a home with such items, nor would I have stayed in such a home. 42. Mr. Cassell also seeks to rely upon the deposition of Alfredo Rodriguez, an employee of Jeffrey Epstein for the proposition that I was present in Mr. Epstein’s home in 2005 at the same time as some young women—including Ms. Kellen and Ms. Marcinkova7 —and “local girls” who gave massages. See Cassell Decl., ¶ 21(l). But Mr. Rodriguez was clear that he did not know whether I received a massage, and did not know if I was aware that there were young girls present in the house: “Q: Okay. When Alan Dershowitz was at the house I understood you to say that these local Palm Beach girls would come over to the house while he was there but you’re not sure if he had a massage from any of those girls. A: Exactly. Q: And what would he do while those girls were at the house? . . . . A: He will read a book with a glass of wine by the pool, stay inside. Q: Did he ever talk to any of the girls? A: I don’t know, sir. Q: Certainly he knew that they were there? . . . . prostitute. I never denied having one professional massage. I did truthfully state that it was a lie to claim that I had sexual massages in a room full of sex toys. 7 Ms. Kellen was in her late 20s and to my knowledge, was a legitimate employee of Mr. Epstein. Ms. Marcinkova was, to my knowledge, an adult friend of Mr. Epstein. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 27 19 A: I don’t know sir.” Ex. U at 426-27. 43. Mr. Rodriguez’s testimony contained nothing inculpatory of me and, inasmuch as it concerned the period 2005 and later, it has absolutely no bearing on Ms. Giuffre’s allegations about me, since Ms. Giuffre left Mr. Epstein’s orbit in 2002. 44. Mr. Cassell also refers to Mr. Epstein’s “little black book” of contacts and phone numbers, which Alfredo Rodriguez had stolen. Mr. Cassell claims that “[Rodriguez] appeared to have circled the name of Alan Dershowitz as someone who had information about Epstein[’s] criminal activities.” Cassell Decl., ¶ 21(m). Of course, what Mr. Rodriguez did or didn’t write or circle in Mr. Epstein’s address book is probative of nothing. In fact, however, the address book contained the circled names of many celebrities and other individuals, including Donald Trump, Flavio Briatore, and Courtney Love, among others.8 Even the late Elie Wiesel’s name and redacted phone number was in the “black book.” And yet, Mr. Cassell seems to have falsely assumed that, among those individuals whose names were in the book circled, only I was a possible accomplice of Mr. Epstein: Q: Donald Trump was a friend of Jeffrey Epstein; is that not correct? A: I really don't -- my understanding is yes, but I -- I don’t have a lot of information about Trump. Q: It’s true also, is it not, that Mr. Trump was a frequent visitor to Mr. Epstein’s residence? A: I -- I know that he visited frequent. I -- I don’t have a lot of information about Trump. Q: And his name is circled in this book; is it not? 8 Including Peter Soros, Joseph and Florina Rueda, Alberto Pinto, Valda Veira Cotrin, Evan Anderson, Michelle Campos, Eric Gany, Cindy Lopez, Timothy Newcombe, Douglas Schoettle, Caroline Stark, Larry Visoski, Tom and Pat Sawyers, Lynn Fontanella, Christophe Gaie, Bill Maronet, Mike Pazulo, Alan Stopek, and Bruce King. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 27 20 A: I believe it is. Q: Based on him -- assuming he’s a frequent visitor to Mr. Epstein’s home, and that he’s a friend of Mr. Epstein’s, and that his name is circled in this book, do you infer that he was engaged in criminal sexual abuse of minors? A: No. Ex. O at 233. The Allegation That I Engaged in a ͆Pattern of Deception͇ 45. The Cassell Declaration asserts that “[a]ttempts had been made to depose Dershowitz or otherwise obtain information from him about his knowledge of Epstein’s sexual abuse in 2009, 2011, 2013, and January 2015, and he had avoided all those efforts.” Cassell Decl., ¶ 21(o). Mr. Cassell also claims that I did not make Epstein “available to answer questions about sex abuse of underage girls.” Id. ¶ 21(p). Mr. Cassell describes this as “a pattern of deception” that was “consistent with a pattern of other persons involved in Epstein’s international sex trafficking organization.” Id. ¶ 21(p)-(q). Again, these assertions are false or misleading, and absurd in equal measure. 46. During my representation of Jeffrey Epstein, I was a member of an extensive legal team, which collectively decided how Epstein should interact with law enforcement during their investigation. Together with other members of the legal team, I, among others, communicated with the Palm Beach State Attorney’s Office—including scheduling meetings to depose Epstein—at the behest of the client. This behavior does not constitute a “pattern of deception;” instead, it reflects a legal strategy, devised by a team of defense lawyers aiming to secure the best possible result for their client. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 27 21 47. Moreover, Mr. Cassell’s claim that I dodged a subpoena or systematically avoided providing information to his and Mr. Edwards’ lawyer, Jack Scarola, is demonstrably false. 48. Although a legal assistant for Bradley Edwards, one of Ms. Giuffre’s lawyers, once claimed that I was served with a subpoena in 2009, this was not true; I was never served with a subpoena, and contemporaneous documentary evidence proves as much. 49. In August 2011, another attorney representing Ms. Giuffre, Jack Scarola, called me to ask that I provide information on Mr. Epstein’s alleged abuse of minors, and particularly young women. I responded on August 15th, in writing that, if Mr. Scarola were to provide me with a more detailed request, I would try to provide any relevant non-privileged information. See Ex. S at SCAROLFA 016566 (Scarola Correspondence, August-September 2011). Mr. Scarola wrote back to me on August 23rd, stating that “We . . . have reason to believe that you have personally observed Jeffrey Epstein in the presence of underage females, and we would like the opportunity to question you under oath about those observations.” Id at SCAROLA 016567. I replied that “If you in fact have such testimony it is perjurious. I have never seen Epstein in the presence of an underage female.” Id. at SCAROLA 016570. 50. Despite this unambiguous answer, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Scarola attempted to subpoena me in 2013. This time, they left a subpoena with an assistant to another faculty member at Harvard Law School—an improper form of service. I again made it clear to them that I had no relevant non-privileged information to provide, and that I had been instructed by my client not to volunteer any information. There was no follow up by Mr. Scarola and no attempt to serve me properly. 1111 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 27 22 51. At no point did Mr. Edwards, Mr. Scarola, or any of their associates tell me that Ms. Giuffre had accused me of sexual abuse, because, at that point, she had not. Had I been accused at that time, I would have provided records demonstrating the falsity of any such allegations. Other Facts That Show that Ms. Giuffre Lacks Credibility 52. Inasmuch as Mr. Cassell is inviting this Court to accept Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s assertions about me, other examples of her lack of credibility are relevant. 53. In the first place, Ms. Giuffre has been demonstrated to have made up wildly implausible tales for financial gain. In 2011, for example, Ms. Giuffre was interviewed by Sharon Churcher at The Daily Mail, and provided detailed accounts of an alleged encounter with Bill Clinton on Jeffrey Epstein’s private island in the Caribbean. In exchange for that interview, Ms. Giuffre was paid $160,000. Ms. Giuffre’s account of meeting Clinton is both completely unbelievable on its face, and demonstrably untrue. For example, she claims that: “Ghislaine Maxwell went to pick up Bill [Clinton] in a huge black helicopter that Jeffrey had 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.” Ex. T at 2-3 (Daily Mail Article, March 5, 2011). Ms. Giuffre then described, in detail, a dinner with President Clinton, Jeffrey Epstein and others on Little St. James Island, which Mr. Epstein owned.9 9 Further demonstrating her ability to weave a vivid, yet utterly false tale, Ms. Giuffre also recounts that: “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 Tayler, 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…. 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.” Ex. T at 3-4. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 22 of 27 23 54. Ms. Giuffre’ entire account is fabricated out of whole cloth: President Clinton was never on the island during the relevant period. A FOIA request submitted by former FBI Director Louis Freeh for “all shift logs, travel records, itineraries, reports, and other records for USSS personnel travelling with former President Bill Clinton to Little St. James Island and the US Virgin Islands” revealed that “Bill Clinton did not in fact travel to, nor was he present on, Little St. James Island between January 1, 2001, and January 1, 2003.” See Dershowitz Decl., Ex. I. Moreover, the notion that the Secret Service would allow a former president to be flown by an amateur pilot is ridiculous on its face. 55. In that same Daily Mail article, Ms. Giuffre claimed “that Mr. Clinton’s vice-president Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, were also guests of Epstein on his island” on a different occasion. Ex. T at 4. Ms. Giuffre purported to provide specific details of this encounter: “I had no clue that anything was up. The Gores seemed like a beautiful couple when I met them. All I knew was that Mr. Gore was a friend of Jeffrey’s and Ghislaine’s. Jeffrey didn’t ask me to give him a massage. There might have been a couple of other girls there on that trip but I could never have imagined this guy would do anything wrong. I was planning to vote for him when I turned 18. I thought he was awesome.” Id. at p. 5. 56. This story too was made up – a fiction peddled for money. By all available accounts, Mr. Gore and his wife never set foot on Mr. Epstein’s private island, nor even met Mr. Epstein. Ms. Giuffre’ lawyers, who included David Boies, could easily have ascertained as much. Vice President Gore had been Mr. Boies’s client and Mr. Boies could have simply asked him whether he had ever visited Mr. Epstein’s island in the Caribbean. Had he done so, Mr. Boies would have learned that Ms. Giuffre’s account was false. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 23 of 27 24 57. Critically, Ms. Giuffre also lied about her age—specifically, the age she was during the time period in which she was associated with Jeffrey Epstein. Contrary to previous statements that she was fifteen when she was trafficked by Mr. Epstein, Ms. Giuffre could not have even have met him until 2000, the year she turned seventeen. There is documentary evidence, recently discovered and undisputed, that Ms. Giuffre’ father—who arranged her employment at The Mar-A-Lago Club in Palm Beach—did not begin working there until April 11, 2000. Ms. Giuffre has repeatedly stated that she first met Ghislaine Maxwell at the Mar-A-Lago where she had a summer job as a changing room assistant—indeed it is one of the few aspects of her story that has remained consistent from the outset.10 Ms. Giuffre turned seventeen in the summer of 2000. By the time Mr. Epstein is alleged to have begun trafficking her to his acquaintances—six to nine months after their first encounter,11 or in at least one telling two years later,12 Ms. Giuffre may have been over eighteen. 58. The issue of Ms. Giuffre’s age at the time of certain events is important as a legal matter—and her lack of credibility about it is telling. The age of consent in New York is seventeen. As to the other locations with varying ages of consent—in Florida it is eighteen— it is impossible to know whether Ms. Giuffre is claiming to have been a minor because she has never specified—presumably even to her own lawyers—when the alleged acts were supposed to have occurred. She has not even provided the year in which she claims specific events occurred. So it cannot be presumed—by her lawyers or by anyone else—that she was a minor when she 10 See for example, Zachary Davies Boren, Virginia Roberts: Who is the woman at the centre of the Prince Andrew sex allegations?, The Independent (Jan. 5, 2015), available at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home￾news/virginia-roberts-what-do-we-know-about-the-woman-at-the-centre-of-the-prince-andrew-sex-allegations￾9958539.html. 11 See for example, Ex. V at 10 (Telephone Interview with Virginia Roberts, April 7, 2011). ͳʹ See Sharon Churcher, Prince Andrew and the 17-year-old Girl His Sex Offender Friend Flew to Britain to Meet Him, DailyMail.com (Mar. 2, 2011) (“‘After about two years, he started to ask me to ‘entertain’ his friends.’”). Available at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361039/Prince-Andrew-girl-17-sex-offender-friend-flew￾Britain-meet-him.html?ito=feeds-newsxml. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 24 of 27 25 claims that Mr. Epstein trafficked her. It is much more likely, in light of when she actually met Jeffrey Epstein and when she says she began to have sex with his acquaintances, that she was not a minor when she claimed to have had sex with any such people. 59. Moreover, Ms. Giuffre has perjured herself by claiming that she was 15 when she met Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein, most notably by submitting an untruthful declaration in the Edwards defamation lawsuit. On November 20, 2015 Ms. Giuffre executed an affidavit in which she alleged that: “In approximately 1999, when I was 15 years old, I met Ghislaine Maxwell . . . Soon after that I went to Epstein’s home in Palm Beach on El Brillo Way. From the first time I was taken to Epstein’s mansion that day, his motivations and actions were sexual, as were Maxwell’s…. Epstein and Maxwell forced me into sexual activity with Epstein. I was 15 years old at the time.” Ex. W at ¶ 4-5 (Declaration of Virginia Roberts, January 21, 2015). 60. She also asserted that when she “was approximately 15 or 16 years old” when Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell began trafficking her to Epstein’s acquaintances. These statements are disproven by documentary evidence, and Ms. Giuffre has herself admitted that they are not true. Conclusion 61. In his Declaration before this Court, Paul Cassell has provided an accounting of the “evidence” that he claims supports the truth of Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s accusations against me. It is a woefully inadequate presentation, as the preceding paragraphs demonstrate. The irony, of course, is that Mr. Cassell’s accounting is in service to his and his client’s goal of keeping sealed far more compelling evidence—namely, the Requested Documents—that undercuts the accusations against me and shows them to be a recent Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 25 of 27 26 fabrication. This is part of an overarching plan by Ms. Giuffre’s lawyers to cherry-pick the evidence they want to publically reveal while using this Court’s powers to suppress evidence damaging to them. There is a further irony as well, which is that the entire basis of Ms. Giuffre’s participation in the CVRA Action was a complaint that the Government unlawfully kept secret the details of her alleged victimization at Mr. Epstein’s hands. Yet it is now Ms. Giuffre and her lawyers who are seeking to keep secret the whole truth about Ms. Giuffre’s story.13 62. I believe that the law and basic notion of fairness should permit me to prove the whole truth, namely, that Ms. Giuffre never accused me of misconduct until 2014, and that her belated complaint against me is, as I have always said, a fabrication from start to finish. The Requested Documents help prove those critical points. This Court ought not allow itself to be a tool of secrecy used by Ms. Giuffre and her lawyers to keep the whole truth from coming out. 13 As described in my opening Declaration, Ms. Giuffre’s legal assault on me, conducted through her lawyers at Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP (“BSF”), continues in the form of a motion for sanctions in Florida state court. There, she claims that I violated a court order in the Edwards defamation lawsuit by testifying truthfully in a deposition about discussions that I had had with David Boies. Prior to my testimony, my lawyers submitted an affidavit from me to the Florida court describing these discussions, and the Florida judge sealed the affidavit. He did not direct that I refrain from testifying about the matter, nor did he sanction me for disclosing the discussion in an affidavit, as Ms. Giuffre’s lawyers requested. When asked whether he was making a ruling on the BSF motion for sanctions regarding the content of the affidavit, Judge Lynch replied “No. I’m just sealing these [the affidavit] because I think they should be sealed.” Ex. X at 24 (Transcript of Emergency Motion to Seal, December 18, 2015). Thus, contrary to the later motion for sanctions, there was no “gag order” placed in me when the affidavit was submitted, nor did I violate any court order by truthfully answering a question put to me by the opposing lawyer and offering to seal my answer. The BSF motion for sanctions was subsequently dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and standing, and is now being appealed by Ms. Giuffre. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 26 of 27 Dated: September 14, 2016 New York, New York Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 27 of 27 EXHIBIT C Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 2 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01098 From: Sent: To: Subject: jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com> Sunday, January 25, 2015 4:41 AM G Maxwell Re: ok, with me, You have done nothing wrong and i woudl urge you to start acting like it. go outside, head high, not as an esacping convict. go to parties. deal with it. . i had Iisa svenson the swedish ocean ambassador yesteady she said no one on her ocean panel takes this stuff seriously and you would be welcoe to the ocean conferenec water conference etc. On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 1:22 PM, G Maxwell <GMaxl@ellmax.com> wrote: I would appreciate it if-would come out and say she was your g'friend - I think she was from end 99 to 2002 THE TERRAMAR PROJECT FACEBOOK TWITTER G+ PINTEREST INST AGRAM PLEDGE THE DAILY CATCH 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 PRIVILEGED GM 001098 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT E Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 10 GIUFFRE007597 CONFIDENTIAL INRE: INVESTIGATION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN -----------'' NQN-PRQSECtmQN AQBEIMIW: IT APPEARING that the City of Palm Beach Police Department and the State Attomoy's Offlce for the lSth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach Cowity (hereinafter, the "State Attorney's Office") have conducted an investigation into the conduct of Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"); IT APPEARING that the State Attornoy's Office has charged Epstein by indictment with solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.07; IT APPEARING that the Unitl,d States Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have concluded their own investigation into Epstein's background and any offtme1 that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or around 200 J through in or around September 2007, including: ( J) knowingly and willfully conspirina with othen known and unknown to commit an offimsc against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or onticc . minor femalea to engage in proatitution, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422(b ); ,u in violation ofTitle 18, United States Code, Section 371; (2) knowingly and willfWly conspiring with others known and unknown to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of cngaaing in illicit 1eXual condua, as defined in 18 U.S.C. §·2423(f), with minor females, in violation ofTitlo 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation ofTitlo 11, United States Code, Section 2423(e); (3) using II facility or moan1 of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induc:e, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title J8, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2; ( 4) traveling in interstate commerce for the pmposc of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in I 8 U.S.C. § 2423(!). with minor females; in violation Page I of 7 \ \ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 10 GIUFFRE007598 CONFIDENTIAL of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); and (5) knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce. recruiting. enticing. and obtaining by any means a person, knowing that tho person had not attained lhc age of 18 years and would be caused to cngaee in a commercial sex cict as defined in J 8 U.S.C. § IS9l(cX1); in violation ofTitJe 18, United Sta&cs Codo, Sections 1591(aX1) and 2; and IT APPEARING that Epstein seeks to resolve globally his state and federal criminal liability and Epstein undentands and acknowledges that, in exchan&e for the benefits provided by this agreement, he agrees to comply with its terms, including undertaking certain actions with the State Attorney•• Office; IT APPEARING. aftor an investigation of the oft'emes and Epstein's background by both State and Federal law enforcement agencies, and after due comultation with the State Attorney's Office; that the interests of the United States. the State of Florida, and tho Defendant will be served by the following proccdurc; THEREFORF., on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution ln this District for these offenses shaJI be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State ofFlorida, provided that Epstoin abides by the foJlowing conditions and the rcquiremems of this Agreement set forth below, If the United States Attorney should determine. based on reliable evidence, that, during the period of the Agreement, Epcstoin willfully violated any of the condition., of this A11ecment. then the United States Attorney may. within ninety (90) days following the •• oxpiratlon of the tenn of home confinement disamed below, provide Epstein with timely notice specifying the condition(s) of the Agreement that be bu violated, and shall initiate its prosecution on any offense within sixty (60) days' of giving notice of the violation. Any notice provided to Epstein pursuant to this paragraph shall be provided within 60 days of the United States )earning of facts which may provide a basis for a determination of a breach of the· Agrc,erneril After timely fultiJJing aU the terms and conditions of the Agn::cmcnt, no prosecution for the offcnscs set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have beali the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Invostiption and the United States Attomcy•s Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any. will be dismissed. Page2 of 7 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 10 GIUFFRE007599 CONFIDENTIAL Terms of the Agreement 1. Epstein shall plead guilty (not nolo contendcre) to the Indictment u currently pending against him in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case No. 2006-cf-009495AXXXMB) charging one (I) count of solicitation of prostitution. in violation of Fl. Stat § 796.07. In addition, Epstein shall plead auilty to an Information flied by the State Attorney•• Office charging Epatcin with an offense that requires him to register as a sex otfonder, that is, the solicitation of minon to engage in proatitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.03; 2. Epstein shall make a binding recommendation that the Court impose a thirty (30) month sentence to be dividc,d u foUows: (a) Epstein :1ball be sentcnccd to consecutive term, of twelve (12) months and six (6) months in COWlty jail for all cla-gcr, without any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencin&, and without pobation or community control in lieu of impriaonment; and (b) Epstein shall be sentenced to a term of twelve (12) month., of community control consecutive to his two terms in county jail u described in Term 2(a), supra. 3. This agreement is contingent upon a Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit acceptin& and executing the senleliee agreed upon between the State Attorney's Office and Epstein, the details of which arc set forth in this agreement 4. Tho terms contained in paragraphs l and 2, IU/N'tl, do not foreclose Epstein and the State Attorney's Office from agreeing to recommend any additional cbarge(s) or any additional tenn(s) of probation and/or incarceration. 5. Epstein shall waive alJ challenges to the lnfonnation filed by the State Attorney's Office and shall waive the right to appeal his conviction and sentence, except a acntencc that exceeds what is set forth in paragraph (2),supra. 6. Epstein shaJJ provide to the U.S. Attorney's Office copies ofall Page 3 of 7 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 10 GIUFFRE007600 CONFIDENTIAL proposed agreements with the State Attomc,y's Office prior to entering into those agreements. 7. The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and beoo sentenced. Upon tho execution of this aareement. the United States. in consultation with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, shall select an attorney representative for those persons, who shall be paid for by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals through that representative. 8. If any of the individuals referred to in.paragraph (7), supra, cl.equ te> tile suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Epstein will not contest 'ihe jwi•~onof the United. State, Diaaict Court for the Soutbeml)iitrict ofFl<>ri~ov«-hia person and/or the subject matter, and Epateinwalv• his right to contest liability and al10 waives hii right to contestdamagea up to an amount as agreed to between the ldentifled individual and Epstoin, so Jong as the identified individual elects to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 22SS, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Notwithslanding this waiver, u to those individuals ·whose names appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on this agreement, his waivers and failum to contest liability and such ~cs in. any '1,dt are not to be construed as an adrn~iou of 1111)' ciiiiji,nal or civil liability. 9. Epstein's signature on this agreement also Is not to be construed as an admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense II to any person who,e name does not appear on the list provided by the United States. JO. Ex.ccptas to those individuals who eJcct to proceed exclusively under l SU.S.C. § 2255, as set forth in paragrapl:t (3), .rupra, neither Epstein's signatllR on this agreement, nor its terms, nor any rcsultin& waivers or settlements by Epstein are to be construed as admissions or evidence of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to 811)' person, whether or not her name appears on the list provided by the United States. 11. Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be Page4 of 7 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 10 GIUFFRE007601 CONFIDENTIAL sentenced not later than October 26, 2007. The United States has no objection to Epstein self-reporting to begin serving his sentence not later than January 4, 2008. l 2. Epstein agrees that he will not be afforded any benefits with respect to gain time, other than the rights. opportunities, and benefits as any other inmate, includina but not limited to, eli&ibility for aain time credit based on standard rules and regulations that apply in the State of Florida. At the United States' request, Epstein apees to provide an accounting of the gain time he earned during his period of incarceration. 13. The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States recotves a Preedom of Information Act n,quest or any compulsory process commanding the discJosin of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure. Epstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the State Attorney's Office to abide by any terms of this agreement Epstein undcrsiandl tbal it ia hia obligation to undertake discussions with the State Attorney's Office and to use hi, best efforts to ensure compliance with these procedures, which compliance will be necessary to satisfy the United States' interest P.pstein also understands that it is his obligation to uso his best efforts to convince the Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit to accept Epstein's binding recommendation regarding the scrntencc to be imposed, and understands that the failure to do so will be a breach of the agreement. In consideration ofEpstciD's agrcemont to plead guilty and to provide compensation in the manner described above, ifEpstein successfuJly fulfills all oftbc terms and corxfitions of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charge, against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein. inclucting but not limited to Sarah Kellen. Adriana Ross, Lesley Oro~ or Nadia MarcinkoviL Further, upon execution of this agreement and a plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office, the federal Grand Jury investigation will be suspended, and all pending federal Grand Jury subpoenas will be held in abeyance unless and \Ultil the defendant violates any term of this agreement. The defendant likewise agrees to withdraw his pending motion to intervene and to quuh certain grand jury subpoenas. Both parties agree to maintain their evidence, spe<:iflcally evidence requested by or directly related to the grand jwy subpoenas that have been issued, and including certain computer equipment, inviolate until all of the terms of this agreement have been satisfied. Upon the successful completion of the terms of this agreement, all outstanding grand jury subpoena., shall be deemed withdrawn. Pa~Sof 7 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 10 GIUFFRE007602 CONFIDENTIAL By signing this agRC111ent, Epstein asserts and certifies that each of these terms is material to this agreement and is supported by independent comideration and that a breach of any one of these conditions allows the United States to elect to terminate the agreement and to investigate and prosecute Epstein and any other individual or entity for any and all federal offenses. By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that he is aware of the fact that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Epstein further is aware that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Proecdure provides that the Court may dismiss an indictment, infonnation, or complaint for unnecessary delay in presenting a charge to the Grand Jury, tiling an infonnatio11t or in bringing a defendant to trial. Epstein hereby requests that the United State& Attorney for the Southern District ofFloridadofer such prosecution. Epstein agrees and consents that any delay from tho date of thil Agreement to the daM of initiation of pro,ecution, as provided for in the terms expressed heniD, shall be deemed to be a necessary delay at his own request, and be hereby waives any defense to such prosecution on the ground that such delay operated to deny him rights under Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to a speedy trial or to bar the prosecution by reason of the running of the statute of limitations for a period of months equal to the period between the signing of this agreement and the breach of this agreement u to those offenses that were the subject of the grand jury' 1 investigation. Epstein further userts and certifies that ho understands that the Fifth Amendment and Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that all felonies must be charged in an indictment presented to a grand jury. Epstein hereby agrees and consents that, if a prosecution against him is instituted for any offense that wu the subjcci of the, grand jwy 's investigation, it may be by way of an Information signed and filed by the United States Attorney, and hereby waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury u to any such offense. I II Ill Ill Page 6 of 7 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 10 GIUFFRE007603 CONFIDENTIAL By signing this agreement, Bpstein asser1s and certifies that the above has been read BDd explained 1o mm. Bpsteinhmeby states that he 1mderstands tho conditions of this Non￾Prosecutioa Apcment and agree, to comply with them. Dated: ___ _ Dated: ___ _ Dated: ___ _ By: R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA tJNITBD STATES AITORNBY A. MARIB VILLAPAAA ASSISTANT U.S. A'ITORNEY OERAID LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, BSQ. A'ITORNBY POR JBFFRBY EPSTEIN Pagc,7of 7 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 10 GIUFFRE007604 CONFIDENTIAL By signing this aarecment, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explaiMd to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the condition1 of this Non￾Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. Datod: ___ _ Daeod: ___ _ Dated: ___ _ By: R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES AITORNEY A. MARIE VILLAFARA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY Llt,L YANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. A 'ITORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Pago 7 of 7 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 10 GIUFFRE007605 CONFIDENTIAL By aignmg this agreemm1, F.patein usa11 and certifies that the above bas beon rad lild explained to him. Epstein bcn,by ,tatea thai ho undasamdl the conditions ofthil Non￾ProMcution Agreemmt and agna to comply with lhcrrn. Dated: ___ _ By: R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA tJNrrBI> STATBS AlTORNB'/ A. MARlB VILLAF AAA ASSISTANT U.S. A1TORNBY .JBPFlU3Y BPSTBIN GBRALD LEFCOUllT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JBFJ1RBY BPSTBIN ~-----:> Q. A TI'ORNBY POR JEFPRBY EPST13:n.l Pap7of 7 \ \ \ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 10 EXHIBIT F Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 18 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 June 21, 2016 9:17 a.m. C O N F I D E N T I A L Deposition of JOSEPH RECAREY, 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 1330-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 18 Page 178 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 3 Q. Then there's a category, victim 4 information, and then we have listed, I believe, a 5 total of 17 individuals that the Palm Beach Police 6 Department incident report lists as alleged victims 7 in this case, correct? 8 A. Correct. 9 Q. And are you aware as to whether or not 10 that list was supplemented after July 25th, 2006, in 11 the investigative incident report? 12 A. I'm not sure if it was updated or not. 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: I don't know if we want to 14 mark this or not. I can hand you what I 15 believe to be a more recent, or I think you 16 actually brought one with you -- 17 THE WITNESS: I did. 18 MS. SCHULTZ: If you're talking about the 19 document that he brought with him, I had it 20 Bates labeled. 21 MR. PAGLIUCA: We can show him that. I 22 think I have the same document here. And we 23 can -- I guess we'll mark that as 11. 24 25 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 18 Page 179 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 (The referred-to document was marked by 3 the court reporter for Identification as 4 Deposition Exhibit 11.) 5 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 6 Q. If you look at the -- is that what you're 7 looking at? 8 MS. SCHULTZ: That's mine. I just wanted 9 to make sure it's the same. 10 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 11 Q. If you go into the third -- I think it's 12 the third page of that document, we then end with VI 13 17 Juno. 14 Do you see that? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. So that would tell me that there were no 17 individuals listed as additional victims as of the 18 conclusion of your investigation in this case; is 19 that correct? 20 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 21 foundation. 22 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 23 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 24 Q. Okay. So let's stick with Exhibit 1, and 25 let's go to Narrative No. 1, which is on page 11 of MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 18 Page 180 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 Exhibit 1. Are you with me? 3 A. Uh-huh. 4 Q. Okay. Again, this was information that 5 was obtained by Detective Pagan, correct? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. And it's true, is it not, that this 8 alleged victim never claimed to have been recruited 9 by Ghislaine Maxwell; true? 10 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 11 foundation. 12 THE WITNESS: Correct. 13 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 14 Q. And this individual, alleged victim No. 1, 15 never identified Ghislaine Maxwell as being at 16 Mr. Epstein's house when she was there, correct? 17 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 18 foundation. 19 THE WITNESS: I don't believe so. 20 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 21 Q. You don't believe so -- 22 A. I don't believe so. 23 Q. That she ever identified Ghislaine Maxwell 24 as being in the house? 25 A. Right. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 18 Page 181 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 Q. Okay. She never -- this individual, 3 victim No. 1, never claimed that Ghislaine Maxwell 4 paid her any money, correct? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. And this individual No. 1 never claimed 7 that Ms. Maxwell instructed her what to wear, 8 correct? 9 A. Right. 10 Q. This individual never claimed that 11 Ghislaine Maxwell told her how to act, correct? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. This individual never claimed to have met 14 Ghislaine Maxwell ever, correct? 15 A. I don't believe so, no. 16 Q. This individual never claimed to even have 17 spoken to Ghislaine Maxwell ever, correct? 18 A. I don't believe so, no. 19 Q. And when you say "I don't believe so, no," 20 that means my statement to you is correct; is that 21 right? 22 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form, foundation. 23 THE WITNESS: Well, you're saying "ever." 24 I don't know if she's ever, ever spoken to -- 25 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 18 Page 182 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 3 Q. To Detective Pagan. 4 A. Right. To my knowledge, I don't know, 5 because Detective Pagan is the one who actually 6 interviewed her. So I don't know to the answer of 7 "ever." So not to my knowledge. 8 Q. Certainly, nothing in Exhibit 1, Narrative 9 1 reflects that this individual ever met or talked 10 to or spoke to Ghislaine Maxwell, right? 11 A. Right. Not to my knowledge. 12 Q. And, indeed, you would agree with me that 13 if this individual claimed that Ms. Maxwell had 14 something to do with the events listed in Narrative 15 1, you would have folded up on it, as the 16 investigating detective, right? 17 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to the form. 18 THE WITNESS: Either myself or Detective 19 Pagan would have. 20 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 21 Q. Sure. And when you got the case six 22 months later, if there hadn't been follow-up, you 23 would have followed up on it, right? 24 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form. 25 THE WITNESS: Correct. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 18 Page 191 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And then you asked various individuals who 4 was there when you went to Mr. Epstein's house, 5 right? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. And you then, to the best of your ability, 8 recorded those answers, I take it, as to who was 9 there, right? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And with regard to she never said 12 anything about Ghislaine Maxwell being at 13 Mr. Epstein's house, did she? 14 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 15 foundation. 16 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 17 Q. To you? 18 A. I don't believe she did. 19 Q. Okay. And if she did, it's likely that 20 you would have recorded it, correct? 21 A. Correct, and it would be on the -- it 22 would be on the tape. 23 Q. Right. 24 She never claimed, that Ms. Maxwell 25 paid her, right? - - MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 18 Page 192 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 3 foundation. 4 THE WITNESS: Correct. 5 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 6 Q. She never claimed that -- never claimed 7 that Ms. Maxwell instructed her about what to wear, 8 correct? 9 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to the form. 10 THE WITNESS: Correct. 11 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 12 Q. never claimed that Ms. Maxwell told her 13 how to act at Mr. Epstein's house, correct? 14 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form. 15 THE WITNESS: Correct. 16 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 17 Q. never claimed to have met Ghislaine 18 Maxwell anywhere, correct? 19 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form. 20 THE WITNESS: I don't believe so, no. 21 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 22 Q. Okay. If we go on to individual alleged 23 victim No. 3, AY, the same question: AY never 24 identified Ms. Maxwell as someone she knew or 25 interacted with in any fashion, correct? ■ ■ ■ MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 18 Page 193 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form. 3 THE WITNESS: No. 4 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 5 Q. No, she did not? 6 A. No, she did not. 7 Q. Okay. The same with individual No. 4, 8 alleged victim FP: Again, FP never claimed to have 9 met with Ms. Maxwell, correct? 10 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 11 foundation. 12 THE WITNESS: I don't believe so, no. 13 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 14 Q. Okay. And FP never identified Ms. Maxwell 15 as someone being at Mr. Epstein's house, correct? 16 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 17 foundation. 18 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 19 Q. And if you need to look at your report -- 20 A. No, I don't -- I don't believe so. The 21 only people that recalled Ghislaine at the house 22 was -- 23 Q. Sjoberg? 24 A. Johanna Sjoberg. 25 Q. Who was over the age of 18, correct? MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 18 Page 194 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 3 foundation. 4 THE WITNESS: And Venero, Christina 5 Venero. 6 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 7 Q. Who is an adult as well? 8 MS. O'CONNOR: Object to form. 9 THE WITNESS: Yes. 10 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 11 Q. So out of your entire report, the only two 12 people who ever said anything about Ms. Maxwell were 13 Ms. Sjoberg, who I believe was 23 when you 14 interviewed her? 15 A. Right, but she was -- 16 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 17 foundation. 18 THE WITNESS: She was -- she had worked 19 there for quite some time, so you would have to 20 back up, I think, a year or two. 21 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 22 Q. She was an adult when she worked there? 23 A. Right. She was over the age of 18, right, 24 let's put it that way. 25 Q. And she was not listed by you as a victim MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 18 Page 195 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 as part of this case, right? 3 A. Correct, because it was between two 4 consenting adults. 5 Q. Exactly. 6 And so that's Ms. Sjoberg, and then the 7 other individual, I think you said Bolero; is that 8 right? 9 A. Venero, Christina Venero. She's a -- 10 Q. Adult masseuse, correct? 11 A. Yes. I remember she had lots of tattoos. 12 Q. Tatts, right. 13 But the 17 individuals that you listed in 14 Exhibit 1, none of those individuals ever said the 15 word -- the words "Ghislaine Maxwell" during the 16 course of this investigation to you, correct? 17 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 18 foundation. 19 THE WITNESS: I don't believe so. It 20 would be on the tapes if they did. 21 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 22 Q. Well, or it would be in your report, 23 right? 24 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 25 foundation. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 18 Page 211 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. And then Mr. Epstein is arrested and ends 4 up pleading guilty and all of that, right? 5 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form. 6 THE WITNESS: I think there was a 7 non-prosecution agreement prepared between the 8 Feds and some kind of agreement was made. But, 9 yes, he did end up pleading guilty. 10 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 11 Q. All right. 12 Now, based on the questions that were 13 asked of you in the grand jury, it's fair to say 14 that Ms. Maxwell was not a target of the grand 15 jury's investigation, correct? 16 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 17 foundation. 18 THE WITNESS: Not based on the questions 19 that the state was asking me, no, the state 20 wasn't... 21 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 22 Q. In fact, it's fair to say that you never 23 said Ms. Maxwell's name in the grand jury, right? 24 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 25 foundation. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 18 Page 212 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 THE WITNESS: No. Based on the questions 3 that the state was asking, no. 4 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 5 Q. Were you aware of who was being issued 6 subpoenas by the grand jury? 7 A. No. But it wasn't the actual subpoena 8 from the grand jury; it came from the State 9 Attorney's Office. 10 Q. At the direction of the grand jury, 11 though, right? 12 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 13 foundation. 14 THE WITNESS: I don't know. Again, I 15 don't know. 16 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 17 Q. I would like to talk a little bit about 18 the surveillance that you initiated at Mr. Epstein's 19 house, okay? 20 Can you tell me when the surveillance 21 began? 22 A. It would have started under Detective 23 Pagan and gone through -- 24 Q. The entire investigation? 25 A. Pretty much trash pulls. We stopped the MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 18 Page 214 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 Q. And so these were video cameras? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. And so whoever was coming and going, 5 whenever -- an officer saw somebody coming or going, 6 they would videotape that person; is that correct? 7 A. Or they would just leave the video 8 rolling, time lapse. 9 Q. And did you have the opportunity to 10 observe any of that video? 11 A. I did observe a couple, but the person who 12 actually set it up would review it and then submit a 13 supplement to the report. 14 Q. Okay. It's true that none of the video of 15 the surveillance led to the identification of 16 Ghislaine Maxwell as coming or leaving the house 17 during the time of surveillance, correct? 18 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 19 foundation. 20 THE WITNESS: I don't know. I didn't see 21 all of the video, so I can't -- I can't attest 22 to that. 23 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 24 Q. Okay. Did anybody report to you that 25 Ms. Maxwell was seen coming or going? MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 18 Page 215 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form, foundation. 3 THE WITNESS: I don't recall. 4 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 5 Q. If someone had reported to you that 6 Ms. Maxwell was seen coming or going, you would have 7 recorded it in your Palm Beach Police Department 8 incident report, Exhibit No. 1, correct? 9 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 10 foundation. 11 THE WITNESS: I would have told the 12 officer who was conducting the surveillance or 13 reviewing the video to document it in the 14 supplements. 15 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 16 Q. And there is no documentation in the 17 supplement of Ms. Maxwell either coming or going 18 from Mr. Epstein's house during this time frame, 19 correct? 20 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to the form. 21 THE WITNESS: I don't believe so. I 22 don't -- I don't -- I don't believe so. 23 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 24 Q. And, again, so we're on the same page, 25 when you say "I don't believe so," I interpret that MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 18 Page 216 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 as her name is not in here as someone who was 3 incoming or going; am I correct in my 4 interpretation? 5 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 6 foundation. 7 THE WITNESS: Again, I don't know. I 8 don't believe so. 9 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 10 Q. I'm just trying to understand what "I 11 don't believe so" means, okay? 12 A. I don't -- I don't believe it's in the 13 report, no. 14 Q. Okay. "I don't believe it's in the 15 report" that she was ever seen coming or going, 16 right? 17 A. Right, that's what I'm saying. 18 Q. All right. We're on the same page. 19 The trash pulls, do you recall how many 20 trash pulls were done? 21 A. There were numerous trash pulls done. 22 There was trash pulls down under Detective Pagan and 23 under my request. 24 Q. As I understand the trash pull protocol, 25 you or someone at your direction or Detective MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 18 Page 257 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 A. I don't believe clothing was seized. 3 Q. To your knowledge, did you seize any 4 property belonging to Ghislaine Maxwell from the 5 home? 6 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form and 7 foundation. 8 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure. Not to my 9 knowledge. 10 BY MS. SCHULTZ: 11 Q. Okay. No one ever came to you and said, 12 Could you please return these items to Ms. Maxwell, 13 correct? 14 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form. 15 THE WITNESS: No. 16 BY MS. SCHULTZ: 17 Q. All right. 18 You did that with Janush? 19 A. Yes, he had photos and -- 20 Q. But nothing like that ever happened with 21 Ms. Maxwell, correct? 22 MS. SCHULTZ: Object to form. 23 THE WITNESS: No. 24 BY MS. SCHULTZ: 25 Q. Ms. Maxwell was not present when you MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 18 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 MOTION TO REOPEN DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION BASED ON DEFENDANT’S LATE PRODUCTION OF NEW, KEY DOCUMENTS Plaintiff, Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, files this Motion to Reopen Defendant’s Deposition Based on Defendant’s Production of New, Key Documents because Defendant produced documents subsequent to her deposition about which she should answer questions. The Court has already ruled that reopening a party deposition is appropriate where important documents are produced after the deposition is completed. Accordingly, the Court should grant Ms. Giuffre’s request to reopen Defendant’s deposition to answer questions relating to her lately produced documents. I. BACKGROUND The Court will recall Defendant’s case-long, unjustified recalcitrance regarding her testimony. She first attempted to avoid her deposition (causing unnecessary motion practice), and, then, she failed to answer questions at her deposition, upon which the Court ordered her to sit for her deposition again. Specifically, Ms. Giuffre started her quest to obtain Defendant’s deposition back on February 2, 2016, by serving a Notice of Deposition. Defendant filed a Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-8 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 10 2 Motion for Protective Order trying to avoid her deposition. After a hearing on the issue, the Court directed Maxwell to sit for her deposition on April 22, 2016. During her deposition Defendant refused to answer the majority of the questions asked or stated that she had no memory of any of the events. As a result, Ms. Giuffre was forced to file a Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions Filed under Seal (DE 143). On June 20, 2016, this Court granted Ms. Giuffre’s Motion and directed Defendant to sit for a second deposition to answer the questions she originally failed to answer. (June 20, 2016 Sealed Order, filed in redacted version DE 264-1). Yet again at her second deposition, she continued to refuse to answer key questions. As a result, on July 29, 2016, Ms. Giuffre was forced to file a Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions Filed under Seal. (DE 314/356). That motion is still pending before this Court. Discovery closed in this case on July 31, 2016. On August 16, 2016, after the close of discovery, and after Defendant’s second deposition was taken, Defendant produced two critical documents which were e-mail communications: one between her and her press agent, Ross Gow, and another between her and her former boyfriend, convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. See McCawley Decl. at Sealed Composite Exhibit 1, August 16, 2016, email from Laura Menninger; November 10, 2015, Email from Ross Gow to Defendant, GM_01141-01142; Email between Defendant and Epstein, GM_01143-1144. It is important for Ms. Giuffre to ask questions about these newly-produced communications with Gow and Epstein. In the former, Gow asks Defendant, “Please advise how you wish to respond [to a press inquiry regarding Ms. Giuffre].” As the Court will recall, Ross Gow is Defendant’s English press agent who shares an attorney with Defendant. The history of Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-8 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 10 3 Ms. Giuffre’s multiple and expensive attempts to serve Mr. Gow with a Rule 45 subpoena through the Hague Convention and various other means (Defendant’s attorney refused to accept service) recently culminated in an English Court commanding Gow to sit for his deposition by November 1, 2016. Accordingly, a follow up deposition of Defendant is critical. It is necessary both to ensure that she answers the questions she refused to answer, (as set forth in Plaintiff’s Motion to Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions (DE 314/356)), and to ensure that Ms. Giuffre can ask Defendant questions about the critical and late produced e-mail communications with her press agent, Ross Gow, and with her former boyfriend, convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Indeed, Defendant cannot credibly oppose Ms. Giuffre’s request because Defendant herself previously sought and received a deposition based on newly produced documents. Defendant previously argued before this Court that Ms. Giuffre’s deposition should be reopened, in part, because Ms. Giuffre obtained and produced certain documents that Defendant wanted to ask her about after Ms. Giuffre’s deposition was taken. Specifically, Defendant’s motion stated “Plaintiff’s production of key documents after her deposition necessitates additional examination.” See (DE 230) at 3. Defendant’s brief continued: “All of the new information that has come to light . . . justifies the reopening of Plaintiff’s deposition.” Id. at 5-6. The Court granted Defendant’s motion in a sealed Order that stated: “The deposition of the Plaintiff was held on May 3, 2016, and thereafter the Plaintiff produced additional documents and made supplemental responses . . . The Plaintiff may be questioned about any documents produced subsequent to the May 3 deposition relating to employment and education.” See Sealed August 30, 2016 Order. As the Court has already ruled that reopening a deposition is appropriate Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-8 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 10 4 when where important documents are produced after the deposition is completed, the same relief is appropriate for Ms. Giuffre upon this motion. II. ARGUMENT The same standard set forth in the Court’s August 30, 2016, Order applies to Defendant’s post-deposition production of key documents. Defendant’s late production of two key documents similarly “necessitates” and “justifies” the reopening of Defendant’s deposition for questioning upon them. Therefore, Ms. Giuffre should receive the same relief from the Court that Defendant obtained: the reopening of Defendant’s deposition to answer questions about these key documents. See Wesley v. Muhammad, 2009 WL 1490607, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“while defendants' delay in producing documents may have interfered with the completeness of depositions, plaintiff will be free to reopen any depositions for which he deems the newly produced documents to be a relevant source of questions”); Ganci v. U.S. Limousine Serv., Ltd., 2011 WL 4407461 at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2011) (“Courts will typically reopen a deposition where there is new information on which a witness should be questioned”). Moreover, it was after Defendant’s deposition was complete, and after the briefing to reopen her deposition (on other grounds) was complete, and after discovery closed, that Defendant produced these key documents. Ms. Giuffre should be allowed to ask Defendant questions concerning them. A. The Gow Email These documents are of particular importance because one is an email communication from her agent, Ross Gow to Defendant that took place after the commencement of this litigation. It states: “Hi Ghislaine and Philip [sic] Please advise how you wish to respond… Best Ross.” GM_01141. Ms. Giuffre did not have the opportunity to question Defendant about the ■ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-8 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 10 5 content of that email, a communication with a key witness, nor did she have the opportunity to use it to cross some of Defendant’s evasive answers. Additionally, due to the late production, Ms. Giuffre did not have the opportunity to include these facts in her briefing related to her Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions Filed under Seal (DE 315). a. Gow Deposition Testimony Defendant refused to give a straight answer regarding Mr. Gow at her first deposition, making a line of questions related to the lately-produced email communication important and non-redundant. For example, when asked about Mr. Gow, Defendant gave evasive, and non￾responsive answers: Q. Did you issue a statement to your press agent, Ross Gow in 2015, stating that Virginia Roberts' claims were, quote, obvious lies? Q. You can answer. A. You need to reask me the question. Q. Sure. Did you issue a press statement through your press agent, Ross Gow, in January of 2015, stating that Virginia Roberts' claims were, quote, obvious lies? A. Can you ask it a different way, please? Q. I will ask it again and you can listen carefully. Did you issue a press statement through your press agent, Ross Gow, in January of 2015, where you stated that Virginia Roberts' claims were, quote, obvious lies? A. So my lawyer, Philip Barden instructed Ross Gow to issue a statement. See McCawley Decl. at Sealed Composite Exhibit 2, Maxwell Depo. Tr. at 201:17-202:11. Q. Are you saying that it's an obvious lie that Jeffrey Epstein engaged in sexual conduct with Virginia while Virginia was underage? A. Again, I'm telling you, first of all, it was a statement that was issued by my lawyer and -- through my lawyer to Ross Gow. Q. I understand that. I'm asking you, are you saying that it's an obvious lie that Jeffrey Epstein engaged in sexual conduct with Virginia while Virginia was underage. Is that a lie? Q. You can answer. A. So I cannot testify to what Ross Gow and Philip Barden decided to put -- I can testify to what Virginia's obvious lies are as regards to me. I cannot make representations about all the many lies she may or may not have told about Jeffrey. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-8 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 10 6 See McCawley Decl. at Sealed Composite Exhibit 2, Maxwell Depo. Tr. at 202:24-204:6. Ms. Giuffre should not be prejudiced or penalized by Defendant’s late production, just as Defendant was not prejudiced nor penalized by Ms. Giuffre late production. b. Gow Requests for Admission Responses Importantly, Defendant’s evasive responses regarding Ross Gow in her Answers to Ms. Giuffre’s Requests for Admission1 necessitate reopening of questioning regarding the newly￾produced, post-lawsuit communication with Mr. Gow. For example, Defendant stated as follows: 1. Admit that Ross Gow was authorized by You or your agents to make statements to the public on your behalf. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request based on the vagueness of the terms “authorized”, “statements to the public,” and “agents”. Without waiver of the foregoing, Ms. Maxwell responds as follows: Denied in part. Ms. Maxwell admits that she has worked with Mr. Gow on occasion for several years and that she has corresponded with Mr. Gow regarding communications to members of the British press to reserve her right to seek redress for their repetition of defamatory statements about Ms. Maxwell. See McCawley Decl. at Sealed Exhibit 3, Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission at 3. Defendant’s evasive response claims the word “authorize” is too “vague,” but, at the same time, she appears to deny “inpart” that she authorized Gow to make the defamatory statement. However, the newly-produced communication with Gow shows an ongoing and continuing working relationship, where Gow is seeking Defendant’s approval and input on issuing a statement to the press. Ms. Giuffre should be entitled to ask Defendant questions about that communication, wherein Gow asks her: “Please advise how you wish to respond.” Notably, 1 Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer with Defendant in order to obtain a follow up deposition regarding these newly produced documents without Court intervention. Defendant refused stating that she would consider responding to written questions. However, as the Court can see from Defendant’s pattern of evasive written responses, an oral deposition is necessary in order to attempt to obtain a complete response. - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-8 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 10 7 Defendant did not produce her response to Gow’s email. Additionally, since the communication appears to directly contradict her deposition testimony as well as her responses to Requests for Admission, Ms. Giuffre should be entitled to use this post-litigation communication, where Gow asks Defendant, “Please advise how you wish to respond,” to cross Defendant on her prior deposition answers. An email in which Gow is actively soliciting instructions for how to make a public response to the media is evidence that Defendant is, in fact, involved in, and consulted about, what her press agent says on her behalf. B. Communication with Jeffrey Epstein Similarly, the email with Epstein regarding a reply to “one further allegation,” shows that Defendant is active in shaping her public statements regarding Ms. Giuffre, and giving drafts to Epstein for his approval. Accordingly, Defendant was never deposed on (1) why she was seeking Epstein’s permission for having Barden make a “reply;” (2) what Epstein’s relationship was with Barden; (3) or who drafted the original communication at the bottom of the email, as it does not appear to have been created by either Defendant or Epstein. C. Ms. Giuffre Did Not Oppose the Relief Sought When Defendant Brought The Same Motion and the Court Ruled that this Relief was Appropriate As the Court will recall, Ms. Giuffre did not oppose the relief sought in Defendant’s motion to reopen her deposition. (“Ms. Giuffre agrees to reopen the deposition for a limited amount of time, and for discrete lines of questioning.” DE 259 at 1). And, Ms. Giuffre specifically agreed to the relief of answering questions about, inter alia, documents produced after her deposition: “Ms. Giuffre agrees to reopening the deposition for certain questions related to the following: 1) Any medical care records that were produced subsequent to her deposition.” (DE 259 at 12). Accordingly, as Defendant sought and received the same relief upon her motion, which was unopposed by Ms. Giuffre, Defendant can put forth no valid argument against re￾Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-8 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 10 8 opening Defendant’s deposition to ask questions about these newly-produced documents, particularly given the case law that also requires the re-opening of a deposition in these circumstances. III. CONCLUSION Therefore, based on the foregoing, Ms. Giuffre respectfully requests that the Court Reopen Defendant’s deposition to (1) answer lines of questions discussed in Ms. Giuffre’s Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions Filed under Seal (DE 315) which is pending before the Court; and (2) answer questions related to the two key documents produced by Defendant after her deposition. Dated: October 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 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-8 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 10 9 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 1330-8 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 10 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 13, 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 to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic Court Filing System 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/ Meredith Schultz Meredith Schultz Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-8 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 10 COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1 (File Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 6 Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C Laura A. Menninger 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 lmenninger@hmflaw.com August 16, 2016 VIA EMAIL Sigrid S. McCawley Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 smccawley@bsfllp.com Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-07433-RWS Dear Sigrid: Attached please find documents produced pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum issued to Mar-a-Lago Club, Inc., on July 14, 2016 which have been Bates numbered Mar-A-Lago 0075-0595. Also attached are two documents Bates numbered GM_01141-01144. These emails were collected as responsive to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents in February 2016 but through clerical error were not produced at that time or following the Court’s in camera review in April. A recent review of documents revealed the error. Sincerely, HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. /s/ Laura A. Menninger Laura A. Menninger HADDON MORGAN FOREMAN Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 6 1 ________________________________ From: Ross Gow Sent: 10 November 2015 18:16 To: Gmax; Philip Barden Subject: Fwd: Inquiry from The New York Times Hi Ghislaine and Philip Please advise how you wish to respond... Best Ross ---------- Forwarded message ----------From: Meier, Barry Date: Tuesday, 10 November 2015 Subject: Inquiry from The New York Times To: Mr. Gow, Good day. I am a reporter for the Times and it is my understanding that you represent Ghislaine Maxwell. I am working on an article about the legal fallout from the Jeffrey Epstein case. I anticipate mentioning the lawsuit filed earlier this year by Virginia Roberts Guiffee against Ms. Maxwell. How does she respond? Kindly advise by close of business Thursday, November 12, 2015. And call me if you have any questions. Regards, Barry Meier -- The New York Times 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01141 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 6 2 -- Ross Gow Managing Partner ACUITY Reputation 23 Berkeley Square London W1J 6HE www.acuityreputation.com<http://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 the attention and use of the named addressee(s). If you are 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-mail 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 virus checker and procedures. No responsibility is accepted by ACUITY Reputation Limited for loss or damage arising from the receipt or use of this e-mail. This email is intended for the addressee named within only. It may contain legally privileged or confidential information. If you are not the named individual you should not read this email and if you do so, you must not under any circumstances make use of the information therein. If you have read this email and it is not addressed to you, please notify IT@devonshires.co.uk and confirm that it has been deleted from your system and no copies made. Devonshires Solicitors is the trading name of Devonshires Solicitors LLP, registered in England and Wales with company number OC397401 at the address below. This Firm is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under the name of Devonshires Solicitors LLP and registration number 619881. This Firm does not accept service by electronic mail or facsimile. A list of members is open to inspection at the address below. Devonshires Solicitors, 30 Finsbury Circus, London EC2M 7DT tel +44 (0)20 7628 7576 fax +44 (0)20 7256 7318 Where instructions have been given by Devonshires Solicitors to a barrister to work on a client’s matter, we notify you, on behalf of that barrister, that you have the right to make a complaint about the service provided by that barrister or about the conduct of their Chambers. A copy of the barrister and / or their Chambers’ complaints procedure may be obtained by contacting the Senior Clerk of that Chambers, whose contact details can be found online, or from us. Complaints may be made direct to the barrister / their Chambers. Please note that there may be a time limit for bringing your complaint. You may also have the right to ask the Legal Ombudsman to consider your complaint at the end of the complaints process. Information on complaints to the Legal Ombudsman, including the details of strict time limits to bring a complaint, may be found at http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk. The Devonshires Foundation is proud to support Action for Kids (reg. charity 1068841), Wide horizons (reg. charity 1105847), and Theatre Royal Stratford East (reg. charity 233801) during 2014/2015. Please consider the environment before printing this email. CONFIDENTIAL GM_01142 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 6 1 From: jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 3:58 PM To: 'Ghislaine' Subject: Re: ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE ok On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ghislaine <Ghislaine@theterramarproject.org> wrote: I would like Barden to reply to one further allegation in this bullshit She says Epstein and Maxwell asked her > to have a child for them and to sign a document signing away > the rights to the child in the event that she and Epstein > had a falling out. She says she refused this > request.· Regarding further detail of the interview which I have reviewed I would like to add one further point to underscore the lack of probity in Ms Roberts claims At no point in Ms Maxwell’s life has she ever contemplated thought or wanted to bring up someone’s child as her own and or ask the mother to sign her rights away to the child. In fact the mere idea of such a suggestion is abhorrent. Further, the idea that Ms Maxwell would contemplate an arrangement with someone who abused drugs and alcohol contemporaneously and who was living with her fiancé beggars belief. No document has ever been contemplated, created nor lawyer nor other approached to write such a document at anytime THE TERRAMAR PROJECT FACEBOOK TWITTER G+ PINTEREST INSTAGRAM PLEDGE THE DAILY CATCHthe From: J Jep Date: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 15:08 PM To: Gmax Subject: Fwd: ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE CONFIDENTIAL GM_01143 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 6 2 She says Epstein and Maxwell asked her > to have a child for them and to sign a document signing away > the rights to the child in the event that she and Epstein > had a falling out. She says she refused this > request.· -- 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 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01144 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 6 COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 2 (File Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-10 Filed 01/05/24 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, 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 1330-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 6 Page 201 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 underage? 3 A. I can only testify to what I saw 4 and what I was present for, so if you are 5 asking me what I saw then I am happy to 6 testify. I cannot testify to what somebody 7 else did or didn't do. 8 Q. Did you issue a statement to your 9 press agent, Ross Gow in 2015, stating that 10 Virginia Roberts' claims were, quote, obvious 11 lies? 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 13 form and foundation. 14 Q. You can answer. 15 A. You need to reask me the question. 16 Q. Sure. 17 Did you issue a press statement 18 through your press agent, Ross Gow, in 19 January of 2015, stating that Virginia 20 Roberts' claims were, quote, obvious lies? 21 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 22 form and foundation. 23 A. Can you ask it a different way, 24 please? 25 Q. I will ask it again and you can MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 6 Page 202 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 listen carefully. 3 Did you issue a press statement 4 through your press agent, Ross Gow, in 5 January of 2015, where you stated that 6 Virginia Roberts' claims were, quote, obvious 7 lies? 8 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 9 form and foundation. 10 A. So my lawyer, Philip Barden 11 instructed Ross Gow to issue a statement. 12 Q. Today, did you say that Virginia 13 lied about, quote, absolutely everything? 14 A. I said that there are some things 15 she may not have lied about. 16 Q. So are you saying it's an obvious 17 lie that Jeffrey Epstein engaged in sexual 18 contact with Virginia while Virginia was 19 underage? 20 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 21 form and foundation. 22 A. Can you ask the question again, 23 please? 24 Q. Are you saying it's an obvious lie 25 that Jeffrey Epstein engaged in sexual MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 6 Page 203 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 conduct with Virginia while Virginia was 3 underage? 4 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 5 form and foundation. 6 Q. You can answer. 7 A. Try again, please. 8 Q. Are you saying that it's an obvious 9 lie that Jeffrey Epstein engaged in sexual 10 conduct with Virginia while Virginia was 11 underage? 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 13 form and foundation. 14 A. Again, I'm telling you, first of 15 all, it was a statement that was issued by my 16 lawyer and -- through my lawyer to Ross Gow. 17 Q. I understand that. I'm asking you, 18 are you saying that it's an obvious lie that 19 Jeffrey Epstein engaged in sexual conduct 20 with Virginia while Virginia was underage. 21 Is that a lie? 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 23 form and foundation. 24 Q. You can answer. 25 A. So I cannot testify to what Ross MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 6 Page 204 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Gow and Philip Barden decided to put -- I can 3 testify to what Virginia's obvious lies are 4 as regards to me. I cannot make 5 representations about all the many lies she 6 may or may not have told about Jeffrey. 7 Q. So is Virginia lying when she says, 8 is it an obvious lie when she says that she 9 had sex with Jeffrey Epstein while she was 10 underage? 11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 12 form and foundation. 13 A. Again, I'm testifying to what I 14 know to be true. I can only testify to all 15 the many lies she told about me. I cannot 16 testify to what lies she told about somebody 17 else. Given she told so many about me, one 18 can probably infer she is lying about 19 everything. 20 Q. So you think she is lying when she 21 said she had sex with Jeffrey Epstein when 22 she was underage? 23 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 24 form and foundation. 25 A. Again, I can only talk about what I MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 6 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 MOTION TO COMPEL DATA FROM DEFENDANT’S UNDISCLOSED EMAIL ACCOUNT AND FOR AN ADVERSE INFERENCE INSTRUCTION Plaintiff, Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, files this Motion to Compel Data from Defendant’s Undisclosed Email Account and for An Adverse Inference Instruction regarding the data from that account, and states as follows. Defendant has not disclosed, nor produced data from, the email account she used while abusing Ms. Giuffre from 2000-2002 in violation of this Court’s Order [DE 352]. Ms. Giuffre hereby moves to compel Defendant to produce this data, and requests that this Court enter an adverse inference jury instruction for this willful violation of this Court’s orders. I. BACKGROUND The earliest-dated email Defendant has produced in this litigation is from July 18, 2009. (GM_00069). Ms. Giuffre is aware of two email addresses that appear to be the email addresses Defendant used while Ms. Giuffre was with Defendant and Epstein, namely, from 2000 - 2002. Defendant has denied that she used those accounts to communicate, but she has not disclosed the account she did use to communicate during that time, nor produce documents from it. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 12 2 Importantly, Defendant has never denied using an email account for communication from 1999-2009, and the facts and circumstances show that it is exceedingly unlikely that Defendant did not use an email account to communicate those years.1 For example, according to United States Department of Commerce, “eighty-eight percent of adult Internet users sent or received e-mail” in 2000. See Eric C. Newburger, “Home Computers and Internet Use in the United States: August 2000,” U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, September 2001. Additionally, the Pew Research Center published findings that certain demographics have higher internet usage, including many demographics to which Defendant belongs. For example, higher rates of internet usage are found among younger adults (Defendant was 38 in 1999); those with college educations (Defendant has a master’s degree); those in households earning more than $75,000 (Defendant was in a household headed by a billionaire during that time, and that household had its own private email server and account); whites or English-speaking Asian￾Americans (Defendant is white); and those who live in urban areas (Defendant lived in Palm Beach and Manhattan). See Andres Perrin and Maeve Duggan, ‘Americans’ Internet Access: 2000-2015,” PEW RESEARCH CENTER, June 26, 2015. Additionally, her boyfriend, Jeffrey Epstein, with whom she shared a household from 1999-2002 (and other years), implemented an entire, private email system to communicate with his household and employees, including Defendant. Accordingly, given Defendant’s extraordinary economic resources, her high-level social connections, and her elaborate residential email/internet configuration she had during that time, it is extraordinarily unlikely that she would not employ an almost ubiquitous communication tool, nor has she denied it. 1 On Friday, September 23, 2016, counsel for Ms. Giuffre sent a letter to Defendant inquiring about the undisclosed account. As of the date of this motion, Defendant has made no response. - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 12 3 A. The Account Ms. Giuffre has knowledge of the account because it was listed as part of Defendant’s contact information (including phone number) on documents gathered by the police from Epstein’s home, and turned over to the Palm Beach County State Attorney as part of the investigation and prosecution of Epstein. See (DE 280-2), Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office, Public Records Request No.: 16- 268, Disc 7 at p. 2305 (GIUFFRE007843). Despite the fact that this account was listed as her contact information in the home she shared with Epstein, and despite the fact that the username bears her initials, Defendant claims she does not recognize the account, and has no access to it. B. The Account The mindspring account is also listed as part of Defendant’s contact information gathered by the police. In her filing with this Court, Defendant represented that this was merely a “spam” account “to use when registering for retail sales notifications and the like,” and that it contains no relevant documents. (DE 345 at pg. 8). However, it appears that Jeffrey Epstein created the mindspring.org accounts to communicate with his household and with his employees, and did, in fact, communicate with them this way. As previously recounted, Jeffrey Epstein’s house manager, Juan Alessi testified that MindSpring account was in daily use by the Epstein household to send and receive messages, a household to which Defendant belonged: Q. So when there would be a message from one of them while they were out of town, they would call you, call you on the telephone? A. I haven't spoken to Ghislaine in 12 years. - M Ghislaine Maxwell Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 12 4 Q. Sorry. I'm talking about when you worked there and you would receive a message that they were coming into town, would that be by way of telephone? A. Telephone, and also, there was a system at the house, that it was MindSpring, MindSpring I think it's called, that it was like a message system that would come from the office. Q. What is MindSpring? A. It was a server. I think it was -- the office would have, like, a message system between him, the houses, the employees, his friends. They would write a message on the computer. There was no email at that time. Q. Okay. So what computer would you use? A. My computer in my office. Q. And so was part of your daily routine to go to your computer and check to see if you had MindSpring messages? A. No. That was at the end of my stay. That was the very end of my stay. I didn't get involved with that too much. But it was a message system that Jeffrey received every two, three hours, with all the messages that would have to go to the office in New York, and they will print it and send it faxed to the house, and I would hand it to him. Q. Did it look like the message pads that we've been looking at? A. No, no, nothing like that. Q. Was it typed-out messages? A. Yes, typed-out messages. Q. Just explain one example of how it would work. Let's say that Ghislaine wanted to send him a message on MindSpring. How would that work? A. An example? Q. Sure. A. It got so ridiculous at the end of my stay, okay? That Mr. Epstein, instead of talking to me that he wants a cup of coffee, he will call the office; the office would type it; they would send it to me, Jeffrey wants a cup of coffee, or Jeffrey wants an orange juice out by the pool. Q. He would call the office in New York. They would then type it in MindSpring? - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 12 5 A. Send it to me. Q. How would you know to check for it? How would you know to look for this MindSpring? A. Because I was in the office. I was there. I was there. And we have a signal when it come on and says, Hey, you've got mail. Q. Okay. A. Every day. Every day it was new things put in. That's why I left, too. Q. Do you know who set up the mind spring system? A. It was a computer guy. It was a computer guy who worked only for Jeffrey. Mark. Mark Lumber. Q. Was he local to Palm Beach? A. No. He was in New York. Everything was set up from New York. And Mark Lumber, I remember he came to Palm Beach to set up the system at the house. Alessi Dep. Tr. at 223:5-225:17. (June 1, 2016) (McCawley Decl. at Sealed Exhibit 1). Accordingly, mindspring was a domain name set up for Jeffrey Epstein and his household to communicate with one another, and was, in fact, used in this manner. The sworn testimony of Janusz Banasiak, another of Epstein’s house managers, from the case L.M. v. Jeffery Epstein and Sarah Kellen, 2 gives a fuller representation of how Defendant, and others in Epstein’s sex-trafficking ring, used their accounts on Epstein’s mindspring server: Q. Okay. Were you aware that Mr. Epstein used a Citrix program to link various computers? Did you know that? A. Yeah. I use Citrix too in my computer for exchanging e-mails and get through Internet. *** 2 Case No.: 502008CA028051XXXXMB AB, In the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. - • Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 12 6 Q. That's not something that you were, you were privy to? You weren't, you weren't in the loop of the sharing of information in the house in terms of the computers being connected through any server? A. I don't really know what, how, how to answer your question because Citrix is for the whole organization to exchange e-mail between employees. Q. All right. You used the term? A. So, even my computer is connected to Citrix. I can receive mail and I can e-mail information to employee within organization. But I don't know if you can see to each computer what is going on on another computer. *** Q. You have used the term organization; you can share within the organization. What do you -- just so I can understand what you're calling the organization, what do you mean by that word? A. People employed by Jeffrey Epstein. There are a few groups of people, his office in New York and I guess -- *** Q. Okay. The other people mentioned as co-conspirators are Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, and Nadia Marcinkova. So we'll get to them in a minute but first just so we stay on the track of who was in the organization, is Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross and Nadia Marcinkova all people that you would also consider within the organization? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So, we just added three more names to it. Who else would you consider, Ghislaine Maxwell? A. Yes. Banasiak Deposition at 56:13-17; 57:2-14; 58:1-7; 60:21-61:7 (February 16, 2010) (Emphasis added) (McCawley Decl. at Sealed Composite Exhibit 2). As Defendant was a member of Epstein’s household, and claims to have been his employee (See McCawley Decl. at Sealed Exhibit 3, Maxwell’s April 22, 2016 Dep. Tr. at 10:7- 11:3), it is unlikely that her mindspring account was merely a “spam account” from 1999-2002. It is much more likely that this account has - or had - Defendant’s communications with co- - - 1111 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 12 7 conspirators Sarah Kellen, Nadia Marcinkova, and Epstein. However, it is Defendant’s representation that this account does not presently have responsive documents and was merely used for “spam.” C. Defendant’s Non-Disclosed Email Account If the Court accepts Defendant’s claim that she used neither the earthlink.net account nor the mindspring.org “spam” account to communicate, logic dictates that Defendant must have had another email account - one that she actually used - from 2000 - 2002. Despite the Court’s orders that Defendant produce responsive documents from all her email accounts from 1999 to the present, Defendant has neither disclosed nor produced from the email account that she actually used to communicate from 2000-2002. This refusal violates this Court’s orders. Ms. Giuffre issued requests to Defendant on October 27, 2015. Nearly a year later, after this Court has specifically ordered Defendant to produce her responsive email from all her accounts, Defendant has produced none from this account. Not only has Defendant failed to produce emails from the account she actually used from 1999-2002, and she has not even disclosed what account it is. II. ARGUMENT A. An Adverse Inference Instruction is Appropriate An adverse inference instruction is appropriate regarding documents from the email account Defendant actually used from 1999-2002. In light of this clear and persistent pattern of recalcitrance, the Court should instruct the jury that it can draw an adverse inference that the Defendant has concealed relevant evidence. Even if Defendant were, at this late date, to run Ms. Giuffre’s proposed search terms over the data from the email account she used from 1999 - 2002 (which she refuses to disclose), such a production would be both untimely and prejudicial. Fact discovery has closed. Numerous depositions have already been taken by Ms. Giuffre without the benefit of these documents. The window for authenticating the documents through depositions Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 12 8 has shut. Expert reports have been exchanged, so Ms. Giuffre’s experts did not have the benefit of reviewing these documents. Late production of this information robs Ms. Giuffre of any practical ability to use the discovery, and, importantly, it was incumbent on Defendant to identify this account. The Second Circuit has stated, “[w]here documents, witnesses, or information of any kind relevant issues in litigation is or was within the exclusive or primary control of a party and is not provided, an adverse inference can be drawn against the withholding party. Such adverse inferences are appropriate as a consequence for failure to make discovery.” Bouzo v. Citibank, N.A., 1993 WL 525114, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (internal citations omitted). The Defendant’s continued systemic foot-dragging and obstructionism – even following the Court’s June 20 Sealed Order and August 10, 2016 Order [DE 352] – makes an adverse inference instruction with regard to Defendant’s documents appropriate. An adverse inference instruction is appropriate when a party refuses to turn over documents in defiance of a Court Order. See Lyondell-Citgo Refining, LP v. Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A., 2005 WL 1026461, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2005) (denying application to set aside Magistrate Judge Peck’s order entering an adverse inference instruction against defendant for failure to produce documents that the Judge Peck had ordered Defendant to produce). Accordingly, because a “party’s failure to produce evidence within its control creates a presumption that evidence would be unfavorable to that party” an adverse inference should be applied with respect to Defendant’s failure to produce data from the email account she used from 1999 -2002 “in order to ensure fair hearing for [the] other party seeking evidence.” Doe v. U.S. Civil Service Commission, 483 F. Supp. 539, 580 (S.D. N.Y., 1980) (citing International Union v. NLRB, 148 U.S. App. D.C. 305, 312-317, 459 F.2d 1329, 1336-41 (D.C.Cir.1972)). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 12 9 “An adverse inference serves the remedial purpose of restoring the prejudiced party to the same position he would have been in absent the wrongful destruction of [or willful refusal to produce] evidence by the opposing party.” Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 296 F.R.D. 168, 222 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (granting an adverse inference when defendants refused to produce documents pursuant to the District Court’s order). Where “an adverse inference ... is sought on the basis that the evidence was not produced in time for use at trial, the party seeking the instruction must show (1) that the party having control over the evidence had an obligation to timely produce it; (2) that the party that failed to timely produce the evidence had ‘a culpable state of mind’; and (3) that the missing evidence is ‘relevant’ to the party's claim or defense such that a reasonable trier of fact could find that it would support that claim or defense.” Id. (citing Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306 F.3d 99, 108 (2d Cir. 2002)). Furthermore, as discussed in detail in Ms. Giuffre’s Motion for an Adverse Inference Instruction (DE 315) and Supplement Motion for Adverse Inference Instruction (DE 338), an adverse inference is appropriate regarding the documents that Defendant is withholding under the Second Circuit’s test set forth in Residential Funding. Defendant has admitted to deleting emails as this Court noted in its Order. An adverse inference is equally appropriate if the non￾compliance was due to Defendant’s destruction of evidence. See Brown v. Coleman, 2009 WL 2877602, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2009) (“Where a party violates a court order—either by destroying evidence when directed to preserve it or by failing to produce information because relevant data has been destroyed—Rule 37(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the court may impose a range of sanctions, including dismissal or judgment by default, preclusion of evidence, imposition of an adverse inference, or assessment of attorneys' fees and costs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b); see Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 12 10 F.3d 99, 106–07 (2d Cir.2002)”). See also Essenter v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 2011 WL 124505, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2011); and Rule 37(e), Fed. R. Civ. P. (“If electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it . . . the court: (2) only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation may: (A) presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party; (b) instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable to the party; or (C) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment.”). Failure to disclose the email account Defendant actually used from 1992-2002 warrants an adverse inference instruction. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Ms. Giuffre respectfully requests that this Court compel Defendant to disclose what email account she actually used from 2009-1999, and that the court give the jury an adverse inference jury instruction concerning the documents from the undisclosed email account. October 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 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 12 11 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) 585-52023 3 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 1330-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 12 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 14, 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 to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic Court Filing System 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/ Meredith Schultz Meredith Schultz Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 12 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 MCCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DATA FROM DEFENDANT’S UNDISCLOSED EMAIL ACCOUNT AND FOR AN ADVERSE INFERENCE INSTRUCTION I, Sigrid 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 Order granting my Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice. 2. I respectfully submit this Declaration in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Data from Defendant’s Undisclosed Email Account and for Adverse Inference Instruction. 3. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from June 1, 2016, Deposition of Juan Alessi. 4. Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 2 are true and correct copies of Excerpts from February 16, 2010 Deposition of Janusz Banasiak. 5. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from April 22, 2016 Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 4 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. /s/ Sigrid McCawley ______________ Sigrid McCawley, Esq. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 4 3 Dated: October 14, 2016. Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. 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 1330-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 4 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 14th day of October, 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 to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic Court Filing System 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 1330-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT 1 (File Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 5 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 June 1, 2016 9:12 a.m. C O N F I D E N T I A L Deposition of JOHN ALESSI, 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 1330-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 5 Page 223 1 JOHN ALESSI 2 Q. You never received emails from either of 3 them? 4 A. No, sir. 5 Q. So when there would be a message from one 6 of them while they were out of town, they would call 7 you, call you on the telephone? 8 A. I haven't spoken to Ghislaine in 12 years. 9 Q. Sorry. I'm talking about when you worked 10 there and you would receive a message that they were 11 coming into town, would that be by way of telephone? 12 A. Telephone, and also, there was a system at 13 the house, that it was MindSpring, MindSpring I 14 think it's called, that it was like a message system 15 that would come from the office. 16 Q. What is MindSpring? 17 A. It was a server. I think it was -- the 18 office would have, like, a message system between 19 him, the houses, the employees, his friends. They 20 would write a message on the computer. There was no 21 email at that time. 22 Q. Okay. So what computer would you use? 23 A. My computer in my office. 24 Q. And so was part of your daily routine to 25 go to your computer and check to see if you had MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 5 Page 224 1 JOHN ALESSI 2 MindSpring messages? 3 A. No. That was at the end of my stay. That 4 was the very end of my stay. I didn't get involved 5 with that too much. But it was a message system 6 that Jeffrey received every two, three hours, with 7 all the messages that would have to go to the office 8 in New York, and they will print it and send it 9 faxed to the house, and I would hand it to him. 10 Q. Did it look like the message pads that 11 we've been looking at? 12 A. No, no, nothing like that. 13 Q. Was it typed-out messages? 14 A. Yes, typed-out messages. 15 Q. Just explain one example of how it would 16 work. Let's say that Ghislaine wanted to send him a 17 message on MindSpring. How would that work? 18 A. An example? 19 Q. Sure. 20 A. It got so ridiculous at the end of my 21 stay, okay? That Mr. Epstein, instead of talking to 22 me that he wants a cup of coffee, he will call the 23 office; the office would type it; they would send it 24 to me, Jeffrey wants a cup of coffee, or Jeffrey 25 wants an orange juice out by the pool. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 5 Page 225 1 JOHN ALESSI 2 Q. He would call the office in New York. 3 They would then type it in MindSpring? 4 A. Send it to me. 5 Q. How would you know to check for it? How 6 would you know to look for this MindSpring? 7 A. Because I was in the office. I was there. 8 I was there. And we have a signal when it come on 9 and says, Hey, you've got mail. 10 Q. Okay. 11 A. Every day. Every day it was new things 12 put in. That's why I left, too. 13 Q. Do you know who set up the mind spring 14 system? 15 A. It was a computer guy. It was a computer 16 guy who worked only for Jeffrey. Mark. Mark 17 Lumber. 18 Q. Was he local to Palm Beach? 19 A. No. He was in New York. Everything was 20 set up from New York. And Mark Lumber, I remember 21 he came to Palm Beach to set up the system at the 22 house. 23 Q. Did you become aware at some point in time 24 that there was a bag or a briefcase of cash that was 25 in the house? MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 5 COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 2 (FILE UNDER SEAL) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-14 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 7 Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) 2d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 Page 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO:502008CA028051XXXXMB AB L.M. Plaintiff, -vs- JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND SARAH KELLEN, Defendants. ______________________________/ DEPOSITION OF JANUSZ BANASIAK Tuesday, February 16, 2010 10:09 - 2:30 p.m. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1500 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Reported By: Cynthia Hopkins, RPR, FPR Notary Public, State of Florida Prose Court Reporting Job No.: 1317 GIUFFRE004424 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-14 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 7 Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) 2d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 Page 56 1 Q. Is your computer in your office -- 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Let me finish. Is the computer in your 4 office linked up with the three computers that were 5 removed from the house? Meaning, can you look at 6 the system and see what is on those three computers? 7 A. No, no. 8 Q. Is it your understanding that those three 9 computers are linked with one another or do you 10 know? 11 A. I don't know, but I, I doubt it. They are 12 separate I guess. 13 Q. Okay. Were you aware that Mr. Epstein 14 used a Citrix program to link various computers? 15 Did you know that? 16 A. Yeah. I use Citrix too in my computer for 17 exchanging e-mails and get through Internet. 18 Q. Okay. So, is it your understanding that 19 the only connection then through Citrix with these 20 computers, these various computers that were in 21 Mr. Epstein's home, was for e-mail purposes? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Okay. To your knowledge, you're not 24 familiar with those computers sharing other files or 25 information? GIUFFRE004479 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-14 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 7 Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) 2d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 Page 57 1 A. No. 2 Q. That's not something that you were, you 3 were privy to? You weren't, you weren't in the loop 4 of the sharing of information in the house in terms 5 of the computers being connected through any server? 6 A. I don't really know what, how, how to answer 7 your question because Citrix is for the whole 8 organization to exchange e-mail between employees. 9 Q. All right. You used the term? 10 A. So, even my computer is connected to Citrix. 11 I can receive mail and I can e-mail information to 12 employee within organization. But I don't know if you 13 can see to each computer what is going on on another 14 computer. 15 Q. You don't know about -- 16 A. Is that your question? 17 Q. You don't know about shared files? 18 A. No. 19 Q. You only know that the one computer can 20 e-mail the other? 21 A. Right. 22 Q. But that can happen with any two computers 23 in the world pretty much. You can send e-mails to 24 each other, right. 25 A. Yes. GIUFFRE004480 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-14 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 7 Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) 2d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 Page 58 1 Q. You have used the term organization, you 2 can share within the organization. What do you -- 3 just so I can understand what you're calling the 4 organization, what do you mean by that word? 5 A. People employed by Jeffrey Epstein. There are 6 a few groups of people, his office in New York and I 7 guess -- 8 Q. Who are those people by name that you 9 would consider within the Jeffrey Epstein 10 organization? 11 A. His accountant, his -- 12 Q. Who is that? 13 A. Bella Klen. 14 Q. What is it? 15 A. Bella Klen. K-l-i-n. E-n, I'm sorry. 16 Q. Bella, B-e-l-l-a? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Is that somebody in New York? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Is that a male or female? 21 A. Female. 22 Q. And you understand that's his accountant? 23 A. Right. 24 MR. GOLDBERGER: Just to get the spelling 25 correct is it K-l-e-i-n? GIUFFRE004481 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-14 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 7 Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) 2d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 Page 60 1 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 2 BY MR. EDWARDS: 3 Q. We'll go back to that but I tell you why I 4 ask. If you don't know then you don't know, but in 5 the course of Mr. Epstein's -- you're aware that he 6 did plead guilty to a couple felonies in state 7 court, right? 8 A. Right. 9 Q. Well, in the course of the negotiation 10 with the federal government and the U.S. Attorney's 11 Office, they, the agreement between Mr. Epstein and 12 the U.S. Attorney's office mentions people that are 13 called co-conspirators of Epstein. And Leslie Groff 14 is named as one of those co-conspirators. 15 Do you know what involvement, if any, that 16 she had with the crimes that were being 17 investigated? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. I am not aware of this. 21 Q. Okay. The other people mentioned as 22 co-conspirators are Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, and 23 Nadia Marcinkova. So we'll get to them in a minute 24 but first just so we stay on the track of who was in 25 the organization, is Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross and GIUFFRE004483 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-14 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 7 Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) 2d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934) (561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 Page 61 1 Nadia Marcinkova all people that you would also 2 consider within the organization? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. So, we just added three more names 5 to it. Who else would you consider, Ghislaine 6 Maxwell? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And who else? 9 A. Who was working there? 10 Q. Bella, Richard Kahn, Leslie Groff, 11 Ghislaine Maxwell, Nadia, Sarah, Adriana. 12 A. I think Harry was involved with the 13 accounting. 14 Q. Okay. 15 A. I don't recall his last name. 16 Q. Somebody else involved with the 17 accounting? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Okay. Any of those people that you just 20 named, were any of those people that you just named 21 the person that you described as the gentleman that 22 assisted Adriana in removing the computers from the 23 house prior to the search warrant being executed? 24 A. No. You mean the one who show up to do those 25 computers? GIUFFRE004484 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-14 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 7 COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1 (File Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 43 Case 9:16-mc-81608-DMM *SEALED* Document 4 of 6 Virginia L Giuffre, Plaintiff, V. Jeffrey Epstein, Defendant. United States District Court Southern District of Florida Case No.: ----- Cudcrlying Cas1: No. : 15-cv-07433-RWS (Southern District of New York) (Si.veet, J.) I ---- ---' PLAINTIFF'S Sl-DALED AGHEEI> MOTTO~ TO FILE MOTTON TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND TESTJJ\tONV FROM ,JEFFREY EPSTEIN l JNDER SEAL l'lJHSFANT TO LOCAL RULE 5.4(b) AND MOTION TO PLACE THE E~TIRE DOCKET lfi\;DER SEAL Plctintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this UnopposcJ Motion to file her ~fotion to Compel the Production of Documents and Testimony from Jeffrey Fpstein unJt:r Se:ll Pursuant to Local Rule 5.4(b) and Motion to Place the Entire Dockd Under Seal. and hcrcby states as follows. I. .FACTUAL HACKGROllNJ> The motion to compel sc..:b to compel production pursuant to a valid Rule 45 subpoena ii,sucd to JdTrcy Epstein in th\.! above-St) led case, pending in the Southern District of New York (the ··New York case''). The case concerns a defamation action brought by a rhiJd victim of convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein .against his live-in girlfriend who assisted him in prncuring undcrag1: girls, including the plaintirt: Ms. Oiuffrc. Bec;ausi.: of Epstein's central role in the New York case. it is important for Ms. Giu1fo:: 10 have the requested documents frnm him in discovery . Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 43 Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, United States District Court Southern District of Florida Case No.: ----- FILED SY ____ .D.C. SEP 2 O 2016 STEVEN M. lAA/MORE CLERK U.S. DIST. CT S.D. OF FLA. FT. LAUD. Underlying Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS V. Jeffrey Epstein, Defendant. I -------------- (Southern District of New York) (Sweet, J.) PLAINTIFF'S SEALED AGREED MOTION TO FILE MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY FROM JEFFREY EPSTEIN UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 5.4(b) AND MOTION TO PLACE THE ENTIRE DOCKET UNDER SEAL Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this Unopposed Motion to file her Motion to Compel the Production of Documents and Testimony from Jeffrey Epstein under Seal Pursuant to Local Rule 5.4(b) and Motion to Place the Entire Docket Under Seal, and hereby states as follows. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The motion to compel seeks to compel production pursuant to a valid Rule 45 subpoena issued to Jeffrey Epstein in the above-styled case, pending in the Southern District of New York (the "New York case"). The case concerns a defamation action brought by a child victim of convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein against his live-in girlfriend who assisted him in procuring underage girls, including the plaintiff, Ms. Giuffre. Because of Epstein's central role in the New York case, it is important for Ms. Giuffre to have the requested documents from him in discovery. 1 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 43 During his deposition, Epstein failed to answer questions or produce documents in response to a Rule 45 subpoena in the New York case. The instant motion seeks to compel production from Epstein in three areas, detailed more fully in the Motion to Compel, based on his improper invocation of the Fifth Amendment in refusing to comply with the subpoena. Epstein's invocation of the Fifth Amendment was invalid for several reasons, as discussed in detail in the Motion to Compel. One of those reasons, however, goes to the instant request to file the motion to compel under seal and to place the docket under seal. In should be noted that the entire deposition of Epstein is confidential, having been placed under the confidentiality order that exists in the case. II. LEGAL ARGUMENT The parties agree this case should be placed under seal because of the need for confidentiality. There is no valid invocation of the Fifth Amendment when there is no threat to self-incrimination, and there can be no threat to self-incrimination if the government is not aware of the information Ms. Giuffre seeks pursuant to her valid Rule 45 subpoena. Because Ms. Giuffre seeks to have all of the relevant proceedings to her motion to compel - including the motion itself - be placed under seal at this time, the Government will not be aware of Epstein's disclosure of materials, much less be in position to even file a motion to attempt alter the protective order. In such circumstances, Epstein faces no "real and substantial hazard" of his act of producing documents to Ms. Giuffre' s counsel incriminating himself. See United States v. Kowalik, 809 F. Supp. 1571, 1577 (S.D. Fla. 1992), afj'd, 12 F.3d 218 (11th Cir. 1993), and ajj'd, 12 F.3d 218 (11th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, by placing this case under seal, this Court can grant Ms. Giuffre's motion to compel and direct Epstein to produce the relevant documents over his 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 43 improper Fifth Amendment objections because there is no risk of incrimination because these proceedings will be under seal. Moreover, under the Protective Order issued by the New York case, Ms. Giuffre's counsel (and counsel for Ms. Maxwell,1 the Defendant in the New York case) are forbidden to disclose the materials for "any purpose except the preparation and trial of this case." Protective Order,~ 4. Under the terms of the protective order, all materials secured in the case will be destroyed at the end of tl1e case. Protective Order,~ 12. And while the Protective Order does not bar the use of confidential materials at trial, Protective Order~ 13, Ms. Giuffre's counsel represent that they will not use at trial any documents that Epstein produces without first notifying Epstein and seeking leave of Court to do so. As a result, Epstein can provide documents to Ms. Giuffre, allowing her to investigate this case without compromising any interest that Epstein may have in avoiding self-incrimination. Additionally, the entire deposition has already been designated as "confidential" by defendant Maxwell, making these proceedings subject to a protective order. See Motion to Compel at Addendum A (copy of protective order). To enforce that previously-entered confidentiality order from the Southern District of New York, these proceedings should be confidential as well. Moreover, in such circumstances, there is no substantial risk of incrimination from the mere production of documents to Ms. Giuffre's counsel, who are subject to the protective order. See generally Marc Youngelson, The Use of 26(c) Protective Orders: "Pleading the Fifth" Without Suffering "Adverse" Consequences, 1994 Ann. Surv. Am. L. 245 (1995); see also Palmieri v. State ofNew York, 779 F.2d 861 (2d Cir. 1985). 1 It may be relevant to note that defendant Maxwell has not sought any documents from Epstein, and thus the only issue presented here is the extent to which Ms. Giuffre can use the documents. 3 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 43 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 authorizes a court, for good cause, to enter a protective order to seal or to limit disclosure. Indeed, courts have the discretion to place entire cases under seal. See e.g. Beaches MLS, Inc. v. Miami Association of Realtors, Inc., 2015 WL 11170925, at *3 (S.D.Fla. 2015) (Marra, J.) (granting motion to file under seal and sealing the case). Local Rule 5 .4(b) provides the procedure to follow when a party seeks to file something under seal: the party must file a motion, "setting forth a reasonable basis for departing from the general policy of a public filing," and courts in this district routinely grant parties' motions to file under seal for good cause. See e.g. Shire Development LLC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 932 F.Supp.2d 1349, 1359 (S.D.Fla. 2013) (Middlebrooks, J.); Air Turbine Technology, Inc. v. Atlas Copco AB, 2003 WL 22939256, at* 1 (S.D.Fla. 2003) (Marra, J.). Ms. Giuffre has articulated good cause to grant her motion to file under seal and to seal this case, as it would facilitate the execution of a valid Rule 45 subpoena issued upon Jeffrey Epstein and follow the confidentiality order previously entered in this case by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Counsel for Ms. Giuffre has conferred with counsel for Epstein, and counsel for Epstein has agreed to the filing of the Motion to Compel under seal. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff, Virginia Giuffre, respectfully requests that the Court grant her Agreed Motion to file her Motion to Compel the Production of Documents and Testimony from Jeffrey Epstein under Seal Pursuant to Local Rule 5.4(b) and Motion to Place the Entire Docket Under Seal for the reasons set forth above. Dated: September 20, 2016 Respectfully Submitted, 4 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 43 By: BOIE~ XNERLLP Sigtf dMcCawl Meredith Schultz Boies Scbmer & 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 FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 5 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 43 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 20th day of September, 2016, I served the foregoing document this day on the individuals identified below via email: Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th A venue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: lmenninger@hmfl.aw .com jpagliuca@hmflaw.com Counse!.fhr Ghislaine Maxwell Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, #1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561 )-659-8305 (561)-835-8691 (fax) jgoldbergerrq],agwpa.com Counsel for Jeffrey .l!,pstein 6 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 43 JS 44 (Rev. 07/16) FLSD Revised 07/01/2016 CIVIL COVER SHEET ll1e JS 44 civil cover sheet and the mformauon contained herem neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required bv law, except as provided by local rules ofcourt This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, ts reql 1rsd for tht; use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of 1111tiatmg the civil docket sheet (SEE JNST!lli( ·m!NS ON Nl:.XT PAGI, OF THIS FORM) NOTICE: Attorney~ MUST Indicate II e !Jled • s s e low. D C L _l) ' • . . I. (a) PLAINTIFFS Virginia L. Giuffre DEFENDANTS Jeffrey Epstein ------- SEP O .016 (b) County of Residence of Ftrst Listed Pla111t1ff County of Residence of First L, sted Defendant Pair Beac (l:.XC:£/'T!N U.S. PLAIN1JFFCASES) (IN U. •. PLAJN7lFF § 4 f. 'W.£l:tARIMORE NOTE: IN LAND CONDEM NA -,i.@, .ASh'8 l~]E_lJljE LOCATION , F THE TR. CT OF LANI!,!N~ J;Y'fil't FT. lAUD, ( C) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (ff Known) Sigrid S. Mccawley, Esq., Boies, Schiller & Flcx.ner, LLP, 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., #1200, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 954-356-0011 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq., Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, PA, 250 Australian Ave So., #1400, W. Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-659-8305 ( d) Check County Where Action Arose: □ MIAMI- DADE □ MONROE D BROWARD ,ti PALM BEACH D MARTIN D ST. LUCIE D INDIAN RIVER D OKEECHOBEE D HIGHLANDS II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" in One Rox Only) Ill. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an "X" in One Box/or Plaintiff} D I U.S. Government Plaintiff Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party) (Fo r Diversity Cases Only) PTF DEF yl I and One Box for Defendant) PTF DEF Citi zen of This State D 1 Incorporated or Principal Place D 4 O 4 D 2 U.S. Government Defendant Diversity (Indicate Citizenship <?/Parties in Item Ill) Citizen of Another State ofBusiness In This State D 2 Incol1'orated and Principal Place of Business In Another Strite □ 5 0 5 Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country 03 □ Foreign Nation 06 06 IV. NATURE OF SUIT (!'face an "X" in One Hox Only) CONTRACT TORl S D 110 Insurance D 120 Maiine D 130 Miller Act D 140 Negotiable Instrument D 150 Recovery of Overpayment & Enforcement of Judgment 0 151 Medicare Act D 152 Recovery of Defaulted Sn1dent Loans (Exel. Veterans) D I 53 Recovc,y ofOvcrpaymcnt ofVeternn's Benefits D 160 Stockholdcrn' Suits 0 190 01her Conlrnct D 195 Conlract Product Liability D 196 Franchise RE.AL PROPCRTY D 2 IO Land Condemnation D 220 Foreclosure 0 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 0 240 Torts to Land D 245 Tort Product Liability 0 290 All Other Real Property PERSONAL INJURY D 310 Airplane 0 315 Airplane Product Liability D 320 Assault, Libel & Slander D 330 Federal Employers' Liability D 340 Maiine D 345 Ma,ine Product Liability D 350 Molor Vehicle D 355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability D 360 Other Personal Injury D 362 Personal Injui,' • Med. Malpractice CIVILRIGHn □ 440 Other Civil Rights 0441 Voting D 442 Employment D i~~~~,~s~d~{ions D 445 Amer. w/Disabilities • Employment D 446 Amer. w/Disabilities • Other D 448 Education PERSONAL INJURY 0 365 Personal htju,y • Product Liability D 367 Health Care/ Phannaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability D 368 Asbestos Personal lnjury Product Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY D 370 Other Fraud D 371 Trnth in Lending D 380 Other Personal Property Damage D 385 Property Damage Product Liability PRISONER PETITIONS Habeas Corpus: D 463 Alien Detainee D ~ ~~te~~tions to Vacate Other: D 530 General D 535 Death Penalty D 540 Mandamus & Other 0 550 Civil Rights D 555 Prison Condition 560 Civil Delainee - 0 Couditions of Confinement FORFEI fURE/PE'.N -1.L T\' D 625 Drug Related Seizure of Property 21 USC 88 I D 690 Other LABOR D 7 IO Fair Labor Standards Act D 720 Labor/Mgmt. Rela1ions D 740 Railway Labor Act D 75 I Family and Medical Leave Act D 790 Other Labor Litigation 0 79 I Empl. Ret. Inc. Security Act JMMIGR-\TIO"i D 462 Naturalization Application D 465 Other Immigration Actions V. ORIGIN l'.J 1 Original Proceeding (Plm:e an "X" in One Box OnlJ ) D 2 Removed D 3 Re-filed D from State (See VI Court below) 4 Reinstated or Reopened □ 5 Trnnsferred from another district (rpec1jy) D 6 Multidistrict Litigation Transfer BANKR\IPTC\' OTHER STATUTES □ 422 Appeal 28 USC I 58 □ 375 False Claims Act 0 423 Withdrawal □ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC 28 USC 157 3729 (a)) □ 400 State Reapportionment PROPERTY RIGll1S □ 410 Antitrust D 820 Copyrights □ 430 Banks and Banking D 830 Pa lent □ 450 Commerce 0 840 Trademark □ 460 Deportation □ 470 Racketeer Influenced and SOCIAL SECl:RITY Com1pt Organizations □ 861 HIA (1395n) □ 480 Consumer Credit D 862 Black Lung (923) □ 490 Cable/Sm TV □ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) □ 850 Securities/Commodities/ □ 864 SSfD Title XVI Exchange □ 865 RSI (405(g)) □ 890 Other Statuto1y Actions □ 89l Agricultural Acts □ 893 Environmen1al Matters □ 895 Freedom of lnfom1ation FF.DERAL TAX SUITS Act D 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff □ 896 Arbitration or Defendant) □ 899 Administrative Procednre 871 JRS-Third Party 26 Act/Review or Appeal of use 7609 0 7 Appeal IU District J udgc from Magistra te Jud ~ment Agency Decision □ 950 Constittrtionality of State Statutes □ 9 Remnnded ti-om D 8 Multidistrict Appellate Comt Litigation - Direct File VI. RELATED/ RE-FILED CASE(S) (See instructions): a) Re-filed Case S □ NO JUDGE: Kenneth A. Marra b) Related Cases ~ ES □ NO DOCKET NUMBER: 9:08-CV-80736-KAM Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and Write a Brief Statement of Cause (Do ,wt citejuriwlictional statutes u11less diversity): VII. CAUSE OF ACTION Miscellaneous Action to Enforce Rule 45 Subpoena LENGTH OF TRIAL via days estimated (for both sides to try entire case) VIII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT: □ CHECK lF T~IS IS A CLASS ACTION UNDER F.R.CP 23 DEMAND$ Cl JECK YES only if demanded in complaint: JURY DEMAND: D Yes No ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE & CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTOR~NEY OF RECO September 20, 2016 !£ s::::::::: FOR OFFICE llSE ONLY RECEIPT II AMOUNT !FP JUDGE MAG JUDGE Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 43 Case 9:16-mc-81608-DMM *SEALED* Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2016 Page 1 of 26 Virginia L. (1iuffrc, Plaintifi: V. Jeffrey Epstein, Defendant. United States District Court Southern District of Florida Case No. : SEP 2 u 2016 S 11:VfN •.A LAr"'!!MGRE. CLEAK U.S l;IST CT S iJ l)F HA Fr. LAUD. lJnderlying Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS (Southern District of New York) (Sweet, J.) I ------- PLAINTIFF'S SEALED MOTION TO COMPEL THE PROl>lJCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY FROM JF.FFUF.Y EPSTF:IN Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, rcspcctfolly submits this motion to compel Jeffrey Epstein to pro<luce documents and testimony 1n response to his n:pcat1;d imo<.:ati1rn:- or the Ftfth Amendment at his recent deposition. This motion seeks to compel proJuction from Epstein in thn:c ar('as. First, at his deposition, Ep:-tdn asserted that the Fifth Amendment allowed him to dcclme to produce any documt:nts whatsoever. Epstein has the burden 0f demonstrating the applicability of the Fifth Amendment privilege, and he cannot carry that burden. He should be rcquin:d to produce Jocuments or, at the very least, a privikgc log so that the Court (and opposing counsel) can assess the validity of his claims. Second, Epstl.'!in was asked approximatc'.ly 500 hundred substantive questions at his deposition, and he tonk the Fifth rather than answer even a single one of them (other than the question about his name). Sume of the questions he rcf'used to answer pose no substantial risk or Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 43 Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, V. Jeffrey Epstein, Defendant. United States District Court Southern District of Florida Case No.: ----- FILED BY ---_iD.C. SEP 2 0 2016 STEVEN M. lAAfMOAE CLER!( U.S. DIST CT S.D. OF FlA. FT_ I.AUD. Underlying Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS (Southern District of New York) (Sweet, J.) I -------------- PLAINTIFF'S SEALED MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY FROM JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this motion to compel Jeffrey Epstein to produce documents and testimony in response to his repeated invocations of the Fifth Amendment at his recent deposition. This motion seeks to compel production from Epstein in three areas. First, at his deposition, Epstein asserted that the Fifth Amendment allowed him to decline to produce any documents whatsoever. Epstein has the burden of demonstrating the applicability of the Fifth Amendment privilege, and he cannot carry that burden. He should be required to produce documents or, at the very least, a privilege log so that the Court (and opposing counsel) can assess the validity of his claims. Second, Epstein was asked approximately 500 hundred substantive questions at his deposition, and he took the Fifth rather than answer even a single one of them (other than the question about his name). Some of the questions he refused to answer pose no substantial risk of 1 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 43 incrimination. He should be ordered to answer these specific questions, which are enumerated in Section II, below. Third, Epstein also took the Fifth when asked questions about Ghislaine Maxwell's interactions with females overseas. Maxwell was Epstein's live-in girlfriend who assisted him in procuring underage girls. The Supreme Comt has made clear that a Fifth Amendment privilege cannot be asserted with respect to incrimination in a foreign crime. And certainly Epstein has no Fifth Amendment privilege involving sex crimes committed by another person. Epstein should be ordered to answer specific questions identified in Section III, below about Maxwell's actions in foreign countries. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1. Ms. Giuffre has filed a defamation action in the Southern District of New York against Ghislaine Maxwell. In brief, Ms. Giuffre alleges that defendant Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell defamed her by calling her a "liar" for filing documents alleging that Maxwell and her boyfriend, Jeffrey Epstein, had sexually abused her and trafficked her for sexual purposes. See Mccawley Deel., Exhibit 1 ( complaint in GiufFe v. Maxwell). 2. As discovery in this case has proceeded, Defendant initially suggested she would take the Fifth and refuse to answer questions. 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. For example, at her deposition, Defendant indicated that she lacked recollection of or was otherwise unable to specifically answer the following questions: 1 • Whether Defendant observed a female under the age of 18 at Jeffrey Epstein's home in Palm Beach. See McCawley Deel., Ex. 2 (Maxwell Depa.) at 29; 1 Maxwell has designated the entire contents of her deposition as confidential pursuant to the Protective Order entered in that case, and, therefore, the contents must be filed under seal. 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 43 • Whether Defendant had meet Ms. Giuffre and introduced her to Epstein. Id. at 33; • Whether massage therapists at Epstein's mansions performed sexual acts. Id. at 52-54. • Whether Defendant was ever present to view Ms. Giuffre massaging Epstein. Id. at 75; • Whether Defendant could recall Ms. Giuffre staying at any of Epstein's six homes. Id. at 81. • Whether Defendant remembered taking a trip with Ms. Giuffre to travel over to Europe, including London. Id. at 108. • 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. • 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 explain why a minor would be calling Epstein to say they had a female for him. Id. at 164. • 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 interacting with anyone, other than Ms. Giuffre, under the age of 18 on any of Epstein's properties. Id. at 384. See Mccawley Deel. at Exhibit 2. 3. As this Court is aware from another pending case, Epstein is a registered sex offender who entered into a non-prosecution agreement (NP A), barring his prosecution for federal crime for his sexual abuse of Ms. Giuffre and multiple other victims. Several of Epstein's sexual abuse victims have filed a suit alleging that they were not properly notified of 3 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 43 the NP A and the associated guilty plea that Epstein entered. The victims allege that Epstein sexually abused them and that the Government violated their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3771, by not conferring with them about the deal that the Government reached with Epstein on that sex abuse. The case is currently pending. See Jane Does v. United States; No. 9:08-c-v-80736, DE 361 (S .D. Fla.). 4. Because of Epstein's central role in the sexual abuse of Ms. Giuffre, Ms. Giuffre has long been attempting to depose him in the action. Epstein, who is generally regarded as having vast financial resources, evaded those efforts to be served. Accordingly, on May 25, 2016, Ms. Giuffre sought leave to serve Epstein by alternative means. Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 1: 15-cv-07433, DE 160 (S.D.N.Y.). Shortly thereafter, Epstein agreed through counsel to voluntarily appear for a deposition. 5. On August 25, 2016, Ms. Giuffre served a subpoena on Epstein through his counsel. See McCawiey Deel., Exhibit 3 (Epstein subpoena). The document sought production of 22 categories of documents directly linked to the underlying lawsuit. For example, request for production ("RFP") 1 sought all photographs of Epstein in the presence of either Ms. Giuffre or Ms. Maxwell. RFP 6 sought Epstein's documents relating to Ms. Giuffre. RFP 7 sought Epstein's documents relating to Ms. Maxwell. The subpoena requested Epstein make the production of documents within the Southern District of Florida 6. On September 2, 2016, Epstein's legal counsel sent a letter to Ms. Giuffre's legal counsel raising various objections to production of documents, including a Fifth Amendment privilege. See Mccawley Deel., Exhibit 4 (Goldberger letter). (Because the letter was sent via conventional mail, counsel did not receive it until September 8, 2016.) 4 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 43 7. On September 9, 2016, Epstein appeared pursuant to the subpoena and was deposed. See Mccawley Dec., Exhibit 5 (transcript of Epstein's deposition). The deposition took place in West Palm Beach, Florida. 8. After Epstein was sworn in, he invoked his Fifth Amendment right on every single substantive question he was asked, except the question asking his name. He was asked approximately 500 substantive questions by counsel for Ms. Giuffre and approximately 100 substantive questions by counsel for defendant Maxwell. He did not answer a single one. 2 9. Counsel for Ms. Giuffre attempted to confer with Epstein's counsel regarding the basis for the privilege objections, but Epstein's counsel declined to elaborate. Epstein Depo. Tr. at 10. 10. With regard to the subpoena producing documents, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer questions about whether he had substantial financial resources that could minimize any burden in responding to the document production request. Id. at 164:22-25. 11. With regard to producing document, Epstein and his lawyers asserted a Fifth Amendment privilege: Q. Did you bring any documents with you today pursuant to this subpoena? A. Fifth. MR. WEINBERG [ counsel for Epstein]: We would assert the Fifth Amendment as well as the act of production for the protections against responding to that question or producing any documents, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Hubble, the second circuit August 1st decision in Greenfield. Q. MR. CASSELL: Understood. I'll assume you have a standing objection based on the grounds that you just described to all my questions with regard to this subpoena? 2 Maxwell has designated the entire contents of Epstein's deposition as confidential pursuant to the Protective Order entered in that case, and, therefore, the contents must be filed under seal. 5 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 43 MR. GOLDBERGER: Just so we're clear, the Fifth Amendment objection as to act of production is going to apply to everything that -- MR. CASSELL: Yeah. We disagree. You have an Fifth Amendment and act of production. BY MR. CASSELL: Q. You have made no effort to collect any of the documents requested here, • h? 3 ng t .... THE WITNESS: Fifth Amendment. BY MR. CASSELL: Q. In of the last three weeks you made no search at all for the 22 categories of documents requested here, right? . . . THE WITNESS: Fifth. BY MR. CASSELL: Q. Where are the documents requested by these 22 requested categories? A. Fifth. Q. You have not produced a privilege log for these items, have you? A. Fifth. Q. It would not be burdensome for you to search for any of these documents, would it? ... THE WITNESS: Fifth. BYMR. CASSELL: Q. It would be quite simple for you[] to run search terms, such as Virginia, through your e-mail accounts, right? .. . THE WITNESS: Fifth. BY MR. CASSELL: Q. And you have plenty of money to fund any of the searches that would be required to produce these documents, right? .. . 3 Defense counsel for Ms. Maxwell raised various "form and foundation" objections to these questions, which are omitted for purposes of this motion, which seeks to compel actions by Epstein, not Maxwell. 6 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 43 THE WITNESS: Fifth. Id. at 226-29. 12. Epstein was also asked specific questions with regard to his failure to produce certain records, such as telephone records regarding his communications with Maxwell. Epstein also took the Fifth rather than answer any such question. Id. at 229-30. 13. Epstein was also asked various questions about Maxwell's interactions with females overseas. In particular, he was asked about actions in England (id. at 140-47), France (id. at 152-54), Thailand (id. at 154-57), Brunei (id. at 157-59), the Czech Republic (and former Czechoslovakia) (id. at 159-63), and other foreign countries (id. at 163-64 ). Epstein refused to answer any of these questions. In latter questioning, Epstein took the Fifth rather than admit that part of his basis for asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege was fear of foreign prosecutions. Id. at 343. 14. Ms. Giuffre now files the motion to compel production of the documents pursuant to her duly-issued subpoena. LEGAL STANDARDS Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, a party may request any person to appear for a deposition to answer questions and to produce documents within his possession. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B), a person who objects to production can lodge an objection. At that point, the party seeking production can move for an order compelling production of the documents, Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i), which is the step that Ms. Giuffre is now taking. The motion for production of documents must be filed in the Court where production is required - i.e., in this Comi. Similarly, with regard to production of testimony, a party seeking discovery can move for 7 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 43 an order requiring disclosure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(l). The motion must also be made in the Court where the discovery is to be taken- i.e., in this Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(l). A party contending that a subpoena should be quashed pursuant to Rule 45(c) (3)(A)(iv) must demonstrate that compliance with the subpoena would be unduly burdensome." Bridgeport Music Inc. v. UMG Recordings, Inc., No. 05CIV.6430(VM)(JCF), 2007 WL 4410405, at *l (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2007). In addition, a party asserting that he is privileged not to produce a document has the burden of establishing that privilege. See Maple Wood Partners, L.P. v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., 295 F.R.D. 550, 583 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (applying Florida law) ("the burden of demonstrating that a privilege applies to a particular communication ... is on the proponent of the privilege"); United States v. Bright, 596 F.3d 683, 691 (9th Cir. 2010) (witness asserting Fifth Amendment privilege "bears the burden of showing testimony or documents are privileged"). While Epstein can assert a Fifth Amendment privilege in this civil case, "it is not for the witness to determine whether the answers are protected; it is a decision left to the sound discretion of the trial court after considering the circumstances of the case. [T]o assert the privilege there must be a "substantial and 'real' "threat of incrimination and not one that is "merely trifling or imaginary." Taubert v. State, Office ofAtty. Gen., 79 So. 3d 77, 81 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011) (citing Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 53 (1968); State v. Mitrani, 19 So.3d 1065, 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) ( other internal citations omitted)). After Epstein explains the basis for his invocation, and Ms. Giuffre responds, this Court then makes findings on a question-by-question basis. See, e.g., Capitol Prod. Corp. v. Hernon, 457 F.2d 541, 544 (8th Cir. 1972) ("To protect the right of both parties and assure satisfactory review, the comi should 8 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 43 clearly state the basis on which it sustains or rejects the defendant's objection to a particular question."). Because this case is a diversity action state law generally provides the rule of decision for substantive privilege issues. See Giuffre v. Maxwell, DE 135 at 6, 2016 WL 175918 at* 6 (applying New York privilege law) (citing Allied Irish Banks v. Bank of Am., NA., 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.")). In this case, Epstein's inability to provide a basis for Fifth Amendment invocations does not turn on peculiarities of the law of any one jurisdiction, and thus authorities from various jurisdictions are cited interchangeably. ARGUMENT I. EPSTEIN SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO PRODUCE THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS. A. It is Not Unduly Burdensome for Epstein to Produce the Requested Documents. If Epstein wishes to establish undue burdensomeness in producing documents, it is his burden to carry. As recounted above, however, Epstein has refused to answer questions regarding undue burdensomeness. See Statement of Fact, at~ 10. Presumably this is because his vast wealth would make it difficult from him to prove that point. In any event, even were Epstein to attempt to show undue burdensomeness, he could not establish that any burden is "undue." Epstein is a central figure in this case - the most central figure, apart from the two parties, the plaintiff and the defendant. And the defendant is feigning memory loss over many of the most significant events in this case - including many events that involved Epstein. Because of his central role in the case, it is important for Ms. Giuffre to have the requested documents from him. No undue burden exists. 9 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 43 B. Epstein Cannot Assert a Fifth Amendment Privilege in the Documents Themselves. As reflected in the transcript quoted above, Epstein asserted both a Fifth Amendment privilege not to produce the documents as well as a Fifth Amendment act-of-production privilege. The act of production issues will be addressed in the next section below. But Epstein's Fifth Amendment objection is frivolous. The contents of pre-existing documents are not protected by the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment only protects a witness against testifying about certain events, not producing documents already in his position. In his deposition, Epstein's legal counsel referenced two cases: United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000); and United States v. Greenfield, --- F.3d ---, 2016 WL 4073250 (2d Cir. Aug. 2, 2016). But as both of those cases make clear, a defendant does not have a Fifth Amendment privilege to refuse to produce documents (as opposed to the privilege that does exist to refuse to give testimony verbally). The Supreme Court in Hubbell specifically noted "the settled proposition that a person may be required to produce specific documents even though they contain incriminating assertions of fact or belief because the creation of those doctiments was not 'compelled' within the meaning of the [Fifth Amendment] privilege." Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 35-36 (citing Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976)). Similarly, the Second Circuit in Greenfield, following the Supreme Court's lead, held that "the contents of the records [do] not implicate the Fifth Amendment." --- F.3d ---, 2016 WL 4073250 at *5 (reviewing Fisher, 425 U.S. at 409-10). See also Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99, 102 ( 1988) ("There is no question but that the contents of subpoenaed business records are not privileged."); United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605, 612 n. 10 (1984) ("If the party asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege has voluntarily compiled the document, no compulsion is present and the contents of the document are not privileged."). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 43 In light of these controlling authorities, Epstein cannot rely on a Fifth Amendment self￾incrimination argument to withhold the documents. C. Epstein Cannot Assert an Act of Production Privilege to Refuse to Produce the Documents to Ms. Giuffre. Epstein cannot demonstrate that the act of producing documents in incriminating for two separate and independent reasons. First, he will not be producing anything publicly or to the Government, but only confidentially to Ms. Giuffre - a private party. Because any such production will be confidential and pursuant to a protective order, Epstein faces no substantial threat of prosecution from making the disclosure. Second, Epstein's act of production (as opposed to the documents themselves) is not incriminating. 1. Pr9_ducing Documents Confidentially to a Private Party Under a Protective Order Does Not Create a Substantial Risk of Incrimination. During his deposition, Epstein cited two cases as supporting his Fifth Amendment invocations: United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000); and United States v. Greenfield, --- F.3d ---, 2016 WL 4073250 (2d Cir. Aug. 2, 2016). But as even a cursory review of the case captions in those cases makes clear, both of those cases involved litigation in which the Government was attempting to force a witness to disclose information to it. In Hubbell, the issue was whether the Government could issue a subpoena to force a witness to turn over documents to a grandjury investigating criminal charges. 530 U.S. at 30-31. In Greenfield, the issue was similarly whether the Government (specifically the Internal Revenue Service or IRS) could force a taxpayer to turn over records demonstrating possible tax evasion to it. Here, no such ·disclosure to the Government will occur if Epstein is compelled to provide answers to Ms. Giuffre's questions. Moreover, the entire deposition has already been designated as "confidential" by defendant Maxwell, making the proceedings subject to a protective order. See Addendum A ( copy of protective order). In such circumstances, there is no substantial risk 11 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 43 of incrimination from the mere production of documents to Ms. Giuffre's counsel. See generally Marc Youngelson, The Use of 26(c) Protective Orders: "Pleading the Fifth" Without Suffering "Adverse" Consequences, 1994 Ann. Surv. Am. L. 245 (1995); see also Palmieri v. State of New York, 779 F.2d 861 (2d Cir. 1985). Pursuant to the protective order, Ms. Giuffre's counsel (and Ms. Maxwell's counsel4 ) are forbidden to disclose the materials for "any purpose except the preparation and trial of this case." Protective Order, i 4. Under the terms of the protective order, all materials secured in the case will be destroyed at the end of the case. Protective Order, i 12. And while the Protective Order does not bar the use of confidential materials at trial, Protective Order i 13, Ms. Giuffre's counsel represent that they will not use at trial any documents that Epstein produces without first notifying Epstein and seeking leave of Court to do so. As a result, Epstein can provide documents to Ms. Giuffre, allowing her to investigate this case without compromising any interest that Epstein may have in avoiding self-incrimination. And most important, because all of the relevant proceedings to this motion - including this motion itself- are under seal at this time, the Government will not even be aware of Epstein's disclosure of materials, much less be in position to even file a motion to attempt alter the protective order. In such circumstances, Epstein faces no "real and substantial hazard" of his act of producing documents to Ms. Giuffre' s counsel incriminating himself. United States v. Kowalik, 809 F. Supp. 1571 , 1577 (S.D. Fla. 1992), affd, 12 F.3d 218 (11th Cir. 1993), and ajj'd, 12 F.3d 218 (11th Cir. 1993). 2. Epstein's Mere Act of Producing Documents Does Not Incriminate Himself. Epstein's act of producing documents to Ms. Giuffre's counsel will not only be unknown to the Government, but it is, in any event, not incriminating. It bears emphasizing - again - that 4 It may be relevant to note that defendant Maxwell has not sought any documents from Epstein, and thus the only issue presented here is the extent to which Ms. Giuffre can use the documents. 12 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 22 of 43 the only possible claim Epstein can raise is not that the document he possesses are in some sense incriminating, but only that the act of producing those documents is incriminating. See United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605, _ (1984) (O'Connor, J., concurring) ("the Fifth Amendment provides absolutely no protection for the contents of private papers of any kind."); United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000) (noting that it is a "settled proposition that a person may be required to produce specific documents even though they contain incriminating assertions of fact or belief because the creation of those documents was not 'compelled' within the meaning of the privilege"); Sallah v. Worldwide Clearing LLC, 855 F. Supp. 2d 1364, 1371 (S.D. Fla. 2012) ("Where documents are voluntarily prepared before they are requested, for example, the Supreme Court has held that such documents do not contain 'compelled testimonial evidence' within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment, even if the contents are incriminating."). The so￾called "act of production doctrine" extends protection only to "communicative elements" of production, specifically where compliance with a subpoena could disclose to the Government incriminating information about "(1) the existence of the documents; (2) the [witness's] possession or control of the documents; and (3) the authenticity of the documents." United States v. Greenfield, 2016 WL 4073250 at *5 (citing Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391,411 (1976)). Once again, Epstein will not be making any act of production to the Government. And, in any event, for many documents of the subpoenaed documents, no plausible claim of act-of￾production testimony and incrimination5 are possible. While Ms. Giuffre will respond to any effort that Epstein makes to carry his burden of establishing his privilege, a few simple 5 Under the act of production doctrine, Epstein bears the burden of showing both that the production is incriminating and the testimony is incriminating. 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 23 of 43 illustrations will demonstrate that Epstein's claim that he need not produce even a single document is vastly overbroad. a. Records Re.fleeting Communications with Maxwell One simple example is the request for records reflecting communications between Epstein and defendant Maxwell, including cellular telephone records. See Subpoena, 117, 13. Cell phone records, which would obviously have been sent to Epstein by his carrier, can be easily authenticated by people other than Epstein - including representatives of the carrier or others knowledgeable in cell phone records. See Sallah, 855 F. Supp. 2d at 1374 (requiring production of contracts because "any contracts could be authenticated by someone other than [the person invoking the Fifth Amendment]"). As a result, such records are the kind of regularly-sent business records for which act of production claims are regularly rejected. See Greenfield, 2016 WL4073250 at *11 (noting that "large commercial financial institutions ... naturally would have sent regular account statements and other disclosures to account holders . .. . ") (citing United States v. Norwood, 420 F.3d 888, 895-96 (8th Cir. 2005) (allowing production of documents "possessed by the owners of financial accounts as a matter of course" associated with specific identified accounts)); see Matter of Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated Oct. 22, 1991, & Nov. 1, 1991, 959 F.2d 1158, 1165 (2d Cir. 1992) ("the act of producing copies of the telephone company statements and bills would not cause Doe to incriminate himself'). b. Bank Records Reflecting Payments Another similar example is the request for financial records involving payments made to defendant Maxwell. See Subpoena, 121. Here again, the simple act of producing the bank records involved in such payments cannot be recorded as either testimonial or incriminating. This is a case where it can be shown "with reasonable particularity that, at the time that the act of production was sought to be compelled, . .. the materials were already known of, thereby 14 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 24 of 43 making any testimonial aspect [ of the production] a 'foregone conclusion."' Sallah v. Worldwide Clearing LLC, 855 F. Supp. 2d 1364, 1372 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (quoting In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated March 25, 2011, 670 F.3d 1335, 1346 (11th Cir.2012) (some internal citations omitted). Indeed, this Court has recently required the production of bank records over a Fifth Amendment objections. See Sallah, 855 F.Supp.2d at 1375 ("The Fifth Amendment does not shield [ the witness's] act of production in response to this request [ seeking monthly bank account records]."). Moreover, because the documents involve payments to one specifically identified person - i.e., Maxwell - the request calls for Epstein to produce "an objectively determinable universe[] of documents and do[es] not require [him] to employ the contents of his mind to choose what documents might be responsive to the requests. Sallah, 855 F.Supp.2d at 1373 (internal quotations omitted). c. Photographs Depicted Nude Females Epstein also lacks any self-incrimination claim for failing to produce photographs of nude or partially nude females. See Subpoena,~ 5. 6 A photograph obviously does not involve testimony. And the authenticity of photographs can be established in different ways not involving Epstein. For example, if a photograph fairly and accurately depicts Ms. Giuffre, she herself could authenticate the photograph. 3. Epstein Must, at a Minimum, Produce a Privilege Log. These examples of documents that could be produced without risk of incrimination could be easily multiplied - and Ms. Giuffre, by filing this motion, seeks to compel Epstein to respond to all 22 of her document requests. But in considering Fifth Amendment issues, a broader point 6 If Epstein possesses particular photographs that are "child pornography," then production of those particular photographs could itself be incriminating. However, child pornography is narrowly defined as images of a minor "engaging in sexually explicit conduct." See 18 U.S.C. 2256(8)(A). Ms. Giuffre is not seeking the production of any such contraband materials from Epstein. 15 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 25 of 43 becomes relevant. Epstein does not appear to have even bothered to first collect responsive documents before asserting a Fifth Amendment claim. For example, during his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer a question about whether he had produced a privilege log. Epstein Depo. Tr. at 228. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Epstein is required to produce a privilege log for the communications he is withholding. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(e)(2)(A) provides that "[a] person withholding subpoenaed information under a claim that it is privileged . .. must 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." Epstein should have provided this log at the time of his deposition so that he could be questioned about it. He certainly should produce a log immediately, if he hopes to sustain his claim. The "general rule" in this Court is that a "blanket refusal to produce records or to testify is simply insufficient to support a Fifth Amendment claim." United States v. Kowalik, 809 F. Supp. 1571, 1577 (S.D. Fla. 1992), aff'd,. 12 F.3d 218 (11th Cir. 1993), and ajf'd,. 12 F.3d 218 (11th Cir. 1993). Instead, a witness who has been subpoenaed to produce documents "must present himself with his records for questioning, and as to each question and each record elect to raise or not to raise the defense." Id ( discussing taxpayer's refusal to respond to IRS summons). In addition, the Court's local rules require the production of a privilege log whenever materials are withheld on the basis of privilege. See Local 26.l(e)(2)(C) ("This rule requires preparation of a privilege log with respect to all documents, electronically stored information, things and oral communications withheld on the basis of a claim of privilege . ... except [ attorney-client communications or work product materials created after the lawsuit]."). 16 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 26 of 43 Epstein was served with a subpoena from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. That Court also requires production of a privilege log at the time of any objection to a subpoena. As that Court has explained: Both Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5) and 45(c) and S.D.N.Y. Civ. R. 26.2 require the submission of a privilege log where a person served with a document request or subpoena objects to the production of requested documents on the ground of privilege. Rule 26(b)(5) does not explicitly state exactly when the privilege log must be provided. Rule 45 is more precise, requiring that a person objecting to a subpoena must serve either written objections or move to quash within the earlier of the time fixed for compliance or fourteen days after service and, if withholding subpoenaed material on the ground of privilege, must provide a privilege log. 46 It thus suggests strongly that the privilege log, absent judicial relief, must accompany any objections or motion to quash. But Local Rule 26.2 is even more explicit. Paragraph (c) states: "Where a claim of privilege is asserted in response to discovery or disclosure other than a deposition, and information is not provided on the basis of such assertion, the information set forth in paragraph (a) above shall be furnished in writing at the time of the response to such discovery or disclosure, unless otherwise ordered by the court." This reflects a 1997 modification to the local rules "to specifically require that the privilege list ... be furnished at the time of the response unless otherwise ordered by the court. " 48 In re Chevron Corp., 749 F. Supp. 2d 170, 180-81 (S.D.N.Y.), affd sub nom. Lago Agrio Plaintiffs v. Chevron Corp., 409 F. App'x 393 (2d Cir. 2010). Epstein should, at a minimum, be required to produce a privilege log for each of the 22 questions in the subpoena and explain the basis for his Fifth Amendment invocations. At that point, Ms. Giuffre will be in a position to further respond and show why his invocations are not well-founded. II. EPSTEIN SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT FACIALLY POSE NO REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF SELF￾INCRIMINATION. 17 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 27 of 43 Epstein also took the Fifth with regard to many questions for which there was no realistic risk of self-incrimination. As the Eleventh Circuit has explained, "[t]he central standard for the ... application [of the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination is] whether the claimant is confronted by substantial and 'real', and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination." United States v. Argomani~, 925 F.2d 1349, 1353 (11th Cir. 1991) (citing Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 53 (1968). Thus, the privilege applies only in "instances where the witness has reasonable cause to apprehend danger" of criminal liability. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d at 1353 (citing Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479,486 (1951)). Not only does Epstein bear the burden of establishing the validity of his privilege claim, but a "court must make a particularized inquiry, deciding, in com1ection with each specific area that the questioning party wishes to explore, whether or not the privilege is well-founded." Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (1 1th Cir. 1991). Here, there are a number of questions that does not appear to pose any "substantial and real" risk of incrimination. These questions include the following: 1. Q. Is there anything, including any physical conditions or ailments, that would prevent you from giving truthful testimony today? (Id. at 15). 2. Q. What state do you consider yourself to be a citizen of? (Id. at 15-16). 3. Q. You know the Defendant in this case, Ghislaine Maxwell, true? (Id. at 16). 4. Other questions of a similar nature about interactions with Maxwell. (Id. at 16- 20). 5. Epstein has a joint defense agreement and common interest agreement with Maxwell. (Id. at 20-21). 6. Without going into the substance of any communications that you have had, you have communicated with Maxwell since September 21st, 2015, true? (Id. at 26.) 7. Q. What e-mail accounts has Maxwell used in her communications with you? (Id. at 27). 18 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 28 of 43 8. Q. In June 2008, in open court, you pled guilty to two Florida State felonies, correct? (Id. at 28.) 9. Other similar questions relating to the state crime to which Epstein has already plead guilty. (Id. at 28-42). 10. Q. In fact, at that time [around 2005], Maxwell was regularly at your Palm Beach mansion, true? (Id. at 43.) 11 . Q. Sir, isn't it true that Mas. Maxwell was running your Palm Beach mansion in 2000 [and other years]? (Id. at 44-47.) 12. [Following a break in the deposition] Q. Without going into the substance of any communication, who[m] did you speak to during the break? (Id. at 48.) 13. Q. You have millions and millions of dollars available to your disposal to satisfy any need for assistance in responding to discovery in this case, true? (Id. at 165.) 14. Q. How much money have you given Maxwell since 1996? (Id. at 166.) 15. Other similar questions regarding financial payments to or transactions with Maxwell. (Id. at 166-69). 16. Q. In the period 1999 to 2005, what kind of donations did you make to the Palm Beach Police Department or to any organization associated with the Palm Beach Police Department? (Id. at 172.) 17. Q. Please describe all dinners you've ever had with Bill Clinton. (Id. at 176.) 18. Q. Ifwe wanted to serve you with legal process in the future, what would be the simplest way to do that? (Id. at 179.) 19. Q. Please describe all your overseas travel in the last two years. (Id. at 179-80.) 20. Q. It's a matter of public record that you later settled that lawsuit [filed against you by Ms. Giuffre], right? (Id. at 196.) 21. Q. Sir, you are [un]willing to sign an unconditional waiver allowin9 Virginia to turn over the settlement agreement to Maxwell, right? (Id. at 198). 22. Q. Sir, you know Harvard Law Professor, now former law professor, Alan Dershowitz? (Id. at 199.) 7 The transcript errantly uses the term "willing," but in context the term should have been recorded by the stenographer as "unwilling." In either event, the point remains that Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer this question. 19 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 29 of 43 23. Q. Alan Dershowitz has sent drafts of books he was writing for you to review, right? (Id. at 200.) 24. Q. Without discussing any particular attorney-client communications, what was the general type of legal work [Dershowitz] did for you? (Id. at 200.) 25. Q. When did Dershowitz first become your lawyer? (Id. at 201.) 26. Q. Has Dershowitz ever provided you business advice of a nonlegal nature? (Id. at 201-02.) 27. Q. [Shortly after December 30, 2014] Did you authorize Dershowitz to make any public statements on your behalf? (Id. at 204.) 28. Q. Was that [statement to the media that "He's as outraged as I am," referring to Epstein] an authorized statement on your behalf by Alan Dershowitz? (Id. at 206). 29. Related questions about Dershowitz's statement to the media describing a statement made by Epstein. (Id. at 205-06.) 30. Q. In 2000 and 2001, Dershowitz came to visit you in your New York mansion, true? (Id. at 206.) 31. Q. If we focus in on the years 2000 and 2001, how many times did Dershowitz visit you in your various homes? (Id. at 207.) 32. Q. While you were negotiating with the U.S. Attorney's Office, you were also workirig with [Assistant U.S. Attorneys] Menchel and Lurie to help them secure lucrative employment when they left the office, right? (Id. at 213.) 33. Q. Bill Clinton flew on your jet a number of times in 2002, right? (Id. at 219.) 34. Q. Maxwell frequently flew a helicopter in the U.S. Virgin Islands, right? (Id. at 221.) 35. Q. Please list every place you and Bill Clinton have ever been together. (Id. at 222-23.) 36. Q. Please describe all of your interactions with the Clinton Foundation. (Id. at 225.) 37. Q. Sir, you've made no effort to collect any of the documents requested here [in the subpoena for the deposition], right? (Id. at 227.) 20 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 30 of 43 38. Q. It would not be burdensome for you to search for any of these documents [requested in the deposition subpoena], would it? (Id. at 228.) 39. Q. I want to direct your attention to the item 13, which requests all -- . . . telephone records associated with you, including cell phone records, from 1999 to present that show[] communications with Maxwell, Ghislaine Maxwell. You've taken no steps to secure those documents, right? (Id. at 229.) 40. Q. You have seen Ms. Maxwell commit crimes, right? (Id. at 231.) 41. Q. When Rodriguez was describing Maxwell's involvement with underage girls, your attorneys had an interest in attacking that testimony, right? (Id. at 254.) 42. Q. In fact, Maxwell has been a partner with you in several of your business enterprises, right? (Id. at 264.) 43. Q. You hope that Maxwell prevails in this litigation, right? (Id. at 265.) 44. Q. In fact, you and your attorney actually got together on the phone with Virginia in about 2007, right? (Id at 269-70.) 45. Q. Which of your attorneys was on the phone with Virginia in about 2007? (Id at 270.) 46. Q. This litigation will affect the reputation of associates of yours, won't it? (Id. at 333.) 47. Q. In fact, as a pragmatic matter, you are essentially a Defendant in this action, right? (Id. at 335.) 48. Q. Please describe the way yours and Maxwell's business affairs are intertwined currently. (Id at 338.) 49. Q. What is your arrangement with Ms. Maxwell with regard to paying any ... judgment that might be reached against her in this case? (Id. at 370.) It is up to Epstein to show that each of these questions that he refused to answer posed a substantial risk of self-incrimination. Moreover, if Epstein can provide even some information in answer to the question without incriminating himself, he must provide that partial answer. See, e.g., Nat'! Day Laborer Org. Network v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enft Agency, 811 F. Supp. 2d 713, 740 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), amended on reconsideration (Aug. 8, 2011) (discussing 21 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 31 of 43 documents "redacted to different degrees" to provide information without violating privilege); Jones v. B. C. Christopher & Co., 466 F. Supp. 213, 223 (D. Kan. 1979) (noting that witness "may make partial answers and stop when he believes further comment would incriminate him"). A "witness is not exonerated from answering merely because he declares that in so doing he would incriminate himself; his say-so does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination." Martin-Trigona v. Gouletas, 634 F.2d 354, 360 (7th Cir. 1980). Because Epstein cannot establish the hazard of incrimination with respect to each of the questions above, the Court should compel him to answer each of these questions (and permit counsel to ask reasonable follow-up questions in the same vein). III. EPSTEIN SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT MAXWELL'S INVOLVEMENT WITH FEMALES IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES. Epstein should also be compelled to answer questions about Maxwell's involvement with females in foreign countries. The Supreme Court has made very clear that a witness may not invoke a Fifth Amendment privilege to refuse to answer questions that pose a risk of prosecution in foreign countries. United States v. Balsys, 524 U.S. 666 (1998). The Court reasoned that the Fifth Amendment creates rights only against the federal government (and, via incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment, against state governments). Id. at 672-74. As a result, any argument that the Fifth Amendment has extra-territorial application has been foreclosed. Valenzuela v. United States, 286 F.3d 1223, 1229 (11th Cir. 2002). In light of this controlling legal authority, Ms. Giuffre asked Epstein a series of very narrow and specific questions about purely foreign activities. The questions began with the limitation that Epstein was "to understand that the next series of questions we'll be dealing just with your actions in England, not with any of your actions in the United States." Epstein Depo. Tr. at 140. Epstein was then asked a series of questions - including a number of questions 22 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 32 of 43 involving "English females." This limitation is important because Epstein may seek to invoke a Fifth Amendment privilege with regard to his trafficking of American girls into England. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 2421(a). But no such trafficking concerns exist with regard to females already located in England. For these reasons, Ms. Giuffre is entitled to force Epstein to disclose even his activities with foreign females in foreign countries. But in this motion, Ms. Giuffre does not go so far. Instead, she moves the Court to compel answers to a much narrower set of questions - specifically, Maxwell's interactions with females overseas in specific countries. The specific questions Ms. Giuffre moves to compel Epstein to answer are: England 1. Q. While in England, in Miss Maxwell's private residence, you observed Maxwell in the presence of English females under the age of 18, true? (Id.) 2. Q. While in England, Ms. Maxwell brought you English females to satisfy your sexual purposes, true? (Id.) 3. Q. Please describe how many times you have seen Maxwell in private locations with girls under the age of 18 in England? (Id. at 142) 4. Q. Based on your understanding of English criminal law, you have observed Maxwell commit English criminal offenses of a sexual nature in England, true? (Id.) 5. Q. Have you ever observed Maxwell commit a crime in England? (Id. at 143.) 6. Q. Please describe for me all the crimes you have seen Maxwell commit in England. (Id. at 144.) 7. Q. Please describe Maxwell's interactions in England with females under the age of 18. (Id. at 144.) France 23 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 33 of 43 8. Q. Maxwell has frequently been to your apartment in Paris, France, true? (Id. at 153.) Thailand 9. Q. You saw Maxwell in the presence of Thai females under the age of 18 in Thailand, true? (Id. at 155.) Brunei 10. Q. In 2002, you flew to Brunei with Maxwell on your private jet, true? (Id. at 157.) 11. Q. Are you aware of .. . interaction by Maxwell with women in Brunei? (Id. at 159.)Q. Are you aware of any interaction by Maxwell with girls under the age of 18 in Brunei? (Id.) 12. Q. Please describe all the interactions you saw between Maxwell and girls from Brunei in Brunei. (Id.) Czech Republic/Czechoslavakia 13. Q. Was Maxwell ever with you when you were in the presence of girls under the age of 18 in the Czech Republic? (Id. at 161.) 14. Q. Has Maxwell ever interacted with minor girls from the former country known as Czechoslovakia? (Id. at 163.) Other Countries 15. Q. Please name all of the countries, not including the United States, where you have seen Maxwell in the presence of females who lived in those countries under the age of 18. (Id. at 162.) 16. Q. Please describe for me Maxwell's sexual interactions with females under the age of 18 in foreign countries with citizens of those countries. (Id. at 162.) 17. Q. Has Maxwell ever interacted with females under the age of 18 in foreign countries? (Id. at 162-63.) 18. Q. Based on your understanding of the criminal laws of other countries, has Maxwell ever committed a crime of a sexual nature in another country? (Id. at 164.) 24 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 34 of 43 19. Q. Please describe all the crimes of a sexual nature that you understand Maxwell has committed foreign countries. (Id. at 164.) 20. Q. Epstein cannot claim a realistic risk of incriminating himself by discussing these specific events regarding Maxwell. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff, Virginia Giuffre, respectfully requests that the Court grant her Motion to Compel and direct Jeffrey Epstein to: (1) produce the documents that he has been subpoenaed to produce (or, at the very least, produce a privilege log for each of the categories for which documents are sought); (2) answer the specific, identified questions identified in Section II above (and reasonable follow up questions) that pose no substantial and real risk of incrimination; and (3) answer specific questions about Maxwell's interactions with females in other countries (and reasonable follow up questions), as identified in Section III above. Dated: September 20, 2016 Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By Sigrid~/ Meredith Schultz Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011 David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 3 3 3 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 35 of 43 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 20th day of September, 2016, I served the foregoing document this day on the individuals identified below via email: Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN. P.C. 150 East 10th A venue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com jpagliuca@hmflaw.com Counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, #1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561 )-659-8305 (561)-835-8691 (fax) j goldberger@agwpa.com Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein 26 Sfgrid S. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 36 of 43 ADDENDUM A Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 37 of 43 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 62 Filed 03/18/16 Page 1 of 6 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 39-1 Filed 03/02/16 Page 2 of 7 United States District Court Southern District Of New York,-r-:-·_- ' ' --------------------------------------------------X I Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, V, 15-cv-07433-RWS Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. -----------------------------------------------X PROTECTIVE ORDER Upon a showing of good cause in support of the entry of a protective order to protect the discovery and dissemination of confidential information or information which will improperly annoy, embarrass, or oppress any party, witness, or person providing discovery in this .case, IT IS ORDERED: 1. This Protective Order shall apply to all documents, materials, and information, including without limitation, documents produced, answers to interrogatories, responses to requests for admission, deposition testimony, and other information disclosed pursuant to the disclosure or discovery duties created by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. As used in this Protective Order, "document" is defined as provided in FEo.R.Crv.P. 34(a). A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning of this term. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 38 of 43 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 62 Filed 03/18/16 Page 2 of 6 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 39-1 Filed 03/02/16 Page 3 of 7 3. Infonnation designated "CONFIDENTIAL" shall be information that is confidential and implicates common law and statutory privacy interests of (a) plaintiff Virginia Roberts Giuffre and (b) defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. 4. CONFIDENTIAL information shall not be disclosed or used for any purpose except the preparation and trial of this case. 5. CONFIDENTIAL documents, materials, and/or information (collectively "CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION") shall not, without the consent of the party producing it or further Order of the Court, be disclosed except that such infonnation may be disclosed to: a. attorneys actively working on this case; b. persons regularly employed or associated with the attorneys actively working on this case whose assistance is required by said attorneys in the preparation for trial, at trial, or at other proceedings in this case; c. the parties; d. expert witnesses and consultants retained in connection with this proceeding, to the extent such disclosure is necessary for preparation, trial or other proceedings in this case; e. the Court and its employees ("Court Personnel") in this case; f. stenographic reporters who are engaged in proceedings necessarily incident to the conduct of this action; g. deponents, witnesses, or potential witnesses; and 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 39 of 43 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 62 Filed 03/18/16 Page 3 of 6 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 39-1 Filed 03/02/16 Page 4 of 7 h. other persons by written agreement of the parties. 6. Prior to disclosing any CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION to any person listed above ( other than counsel, persons employed by counsel, Court Personnel and stenographic reporters), counsel shall provide such person with a copy of this Protective Order and obtain from such person a written acknowledgment stating that he or she has read this Protective Order and agrees to be hound by its provisions. All such acknowledgments shall be retained by counsel and shall be subject to in camera review by the Court if good cause for review is demonstrated by opposing counsel. 7. Documents are designated as CONFIDENTIAL by placing or affixing on them (in a manner that will not interfere with their legibility) the following or other appropriate notice: "CONFIDENTIAL." Discovery material designated CONFIDENTIAL shall be identified by Bates number. To the extent practical, the respective legend shall be placed near the Bates number. 8. Designation of a document as CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION shall constitute a representation that such document has been reviewed by an attorney for the designating party, that there is a valid and good faith basis for such designation, made at the time of disclosure or production to the receiving party, and that disclosure of such information to persons other than those permitted access to such material would cause a privacy harm to the designating party. 3 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 40 of 43 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 62 Filed 03/18/16 Page 4 of 6 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 39-1 Filed 03/02/16 Page 5 of 7 9. Whenever a deposition involves the disclosure of CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, the deposition or portions thereof shall be designated as CONFIDENTIAL and shall be subject to the provisions of this Protective Order. Such designation shall be made on the record during the deposition whenever possible, but a party may designate portions of depositions as CONFIDENTIAL after transcription, provided written notice of the designation is promptly given to all counsel of record within thirty (30) days after notice by the court reporter of the completion of the transcript, and until the expiration of such thirty (30) days after notice by the court reporter of the completion of the transcript, no party or counsel for any such party may share the contents of the deposition outside the limitations of this Protective Order. 10. Whenever a party seeks to file any document or material containing CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION with the Court in this matter, it shall be accompanied by a Motion to Seal pursuant to Section 6.2 of the Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions for the Southern District of New York. 11 . A party may object to the designation of particular CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION by giving written notice to the party designating the disputed information. The written notice shall identify the information to which the objection is made. If the parties cannot resolve the objection within ten ( 10) business days after the time the notice is received, it shall be the obligation of the party designating the information as CONFIDENTIAL to file an 4 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 41 of 43 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 62 Filed 03/18/16 Page 5 of 6 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 39-1 Filed 03/02/16 Page 6 of 7 appropriate motion requesting that the Court determine whether the disputed information should be subject to the terms of this Protective Order. If such a motion is timely filed, the disputed information shall be treated as CONFIDENTIAL under the terms of this Protective Order until the Court rules on the motion. If the designating party fails to file such a motion within the prescribed time, the disputed information shall lose its designation as CONFIDENTIAL and shall not thereafter be treated as CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with this Protective Order. In connection with a motion filed under this provision, the party designating the information as CONFIDENTIAL shall bear the burden of establishing that good cause exists for the disputed information to be treated as CONFIDENTIAL. 12. At the conclusion of this case, unless other arrangements are agreed upon, each document and all copies thereof which have been designated as CONFIDENTIAL shall be returned to the party that designated it CONFIDENTIAL, or the parties may elect to destroy CONFIDENTIAL documents. Where the parties agree to destroy CONFIDENTIAL documents, the destroying party shall provide all parties with an affidavit confirming the destruction. 13. This Protective Order shall have no force and effect on the use of any CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION at trial in this matter. 5 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 42 of 43 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 62 Filed 03/18/16 Page 6 of 6 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 39-1 Filed 03/02/16 Page 7 of 7 14. This Protective Order may be modified by the Court at any time for good cause shown following notice to all parties and an opportunity for them to be heard. 6 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 43 of 43 i 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 TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DATA FROM DEFENDANT’S (NON-EXISTENT) UNDISCLOSED EMAIL ACCOUNT AND FOR AN ADVERSE INFERENCE INSTRUCTION ............................................. Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca HADDON, MORGAN, AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 303.831.7364 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 17 i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 1 I. PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO CONFER UNDER RULE 37(A)(1) OR THIS COURT’S ORDER.................................................................................................................................... 1 II. MS. MAXWELL HAS DISCLOSED AND SEARCHED ALL EMAIL ACCOUNTS ........ 3 III. SANCTIONS AGAINST MS. MAXWELL NOT WARRANTED, RATHER COSTS OUGHT TO BE AWARDED TO HER .............................................................................. 7 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................................... 15 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 17 1 Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell (“Ms. Maxwell”) files this Response to Plaintiff’s Motion To Compel Data From Defendant’s (Non-Existent) Undisclosed Email Account and For an Adverse Inference Instruction and states as follow: INTRODUCTION Plaintiff continues in her course of re-litigating issues, multiplying these proceedings and misstating the record. In what amounts to the fourth Motion on forensic examination of Ms. Maxwell’s computers and email accounts, Plaintiff now trumps up a claim that some unidentified and “undisclosed” email account should have been searched and was not. To the contrary, Ms. Maxwell has spent thousands of dollars to forensically image all of her devices, searching every account to which she has access, conducting extremely broad and over-reaching searches for the search terms Plaintiff requested and in complying with this Court’s Orders. The result of these exercises proved, as Ms. Maxwell has always maintained, that all non-privileged relevant and responsive documents in her possession, custody and control had already been searched for and produced prior to the excessive and redundant briefing on these issues, resulting in no additional production. Plaintiff’s Motion must be denied because no “undisclosed” email account exists and Ms. Maxwell has fully complied with this Court’s Orders. ARGUMENT I. PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO CONFER UNDER RULE 37(A)(1) OR THIS COURT’S ORDER Despite the clear requirements of Rule 37(a)(1) requiring a certificate of conferral prior to filing any motion to compel, and this Court’s standing order regarding conferral on all discovery issues prior to Motions practice, the sum total of Plaintiff’s stated conferral attempt is a footnote stating that a letter was sent on September 23, 2016 “inquiring about the undisclosed account” – a letter not included in the exhibits to the Motion. Ms. Maxwell has been clear that she has Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 17 2 searched all accounts that she can access. Had Plaintiff bothered to follow up on this alleged communication, Ms. Maxwell would have reaffirmed that there is no “undisclosed” email account. Instead, Plaintiff filed this frivolous and vexatious motion to waste both the Court and Ms. Maxwell’s time and needlessly multiply these proceedings. Courts in this district routinely deny motions based on failure to confer prior to the motion when such conferral is required by the Rules or Court Order. Prescient Partners, L.P. v. Fieldcrest Cannon, Inc., No. 96 Civ. 7590 (DAB) JCF, 1998 WL 67672, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (“Under ordinary circumstances,..., the failure to meet and confer mandates denial of a motion to compel.”); Excess Ins. Co. v. Rochdale Ins. Co., No. 05 CIV. 10174, 2007 WL 2900217, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2007) (Sweet, J.) (denying motion and cross motion based on failure to confer, noting “[m]ere correspondence, absent exigent circumstances not present here, does not satisfy the requirement”); Myers v. Andzel, No. 06 CIV. 14420 (RWS), 2007 WL 3256865, at *1 (Sweet, J.) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2007) (denying motion based on failure to confer). The Court has been abundantly clear on the necessity for conferral prior to motions practice. In the March 17, 2016 hearing, the Court ordered that prior to motions practice, the parties were to set an agenda on the disputed issue in writing and have a meeting of substance prior to filing a motion. “So I would say exchange writing as to what it's going to be and have a meeting. It doesn't have to be in person, but it certainly has to be a significant meeting; it can't be just one ten-minute telephone call. So that's how I feel about the meet and confer.” Tr. p. 3. As shown in the Plaintiff’s motion, no such call has occurred. Based on Plaintiff’s failure to confer as required by both the Federal Rules and this Court’s standing order, Ms. Maxwell requests that the Motion be denied and attorneys’ fees and costs of responding be awarded to Ms. Maxwell. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 17 3 II. MS. MAXWELL HAS DISCLOSED AND SEARCHED ALL EMAIL ACCOUNTS a. All Devices Have Been Forensically Searched for Responsive Emails As requested by Plaintiff and Ordered by the Court, Ms. Maxwell’s computer and all of her electronic devices have been forensically imaged, searched for the search terms requested by Plaintiff, and all responsive documents produced. This expensive, costly and time consuming exercise in futility simply confirmed that all responsive documents, including all responsive emails, were produced in March and April 2016. Most significantly, the devices were searched for all emails—whether saved or deleted – and irrespective of which account they came from; not a single responsive email was located from any Mindspring account and no emails were located from Earthlink or any other secret, hidden, “undisclosed” email account, as Plaintiff speculates must exist. b. The MindSpring account The first two accounts discussed in the Motion have already been fully discussed in prior briefings and at length in conferral conferences.1 See DE 320. In addition to the search of Ms. Maxwell’s computer and devices, the first account, was forensically searched on its server using the search terms proposed by Defendants and as required by the Court. The search uncovered no responsive documents from any time period. See DE 320. This included both emails in the account, deleted emails, and any other information relating to the account retained on the MindSpring server. There can simply be no claim for an adverse inference where Plaintiff has already received exactly what she requested – a forensic search of the account for her own defined terms. It resulted in nothing. 1 Plaintiff conveniently omits the fact that the EarthLink and MindSpring accounts were in an address book purportedly recovered from Mr. Epstein’s home by the Palm Beach Police in 2005. Thus, there is no indication or inference that either of these accounts were created or used in the 2000 to 2002 time frame as Plaintiff claims. - - - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 17 4 c. The EarthLink account The second account, , is, as Ms. Maxwell has repeatedly explained to Plaintiff’s counsel, an account that she does not recognize, that she does not recall having ever logged onto, and for which she has no password. See DE 320. Ms. Maxwell tried every avenue available online through EarthLink to reset the password or otherwise access the account. In fact, when one attempts to recover a password for that account, the system states “The email address you entered is not an EarthLink email address or ID.” According to Plaintiff, such a message means the account has been permanently deleted by the host company. Plaintiff’s counsel, Meredith Shultz, wrote on May 17, 2016, regarding an account of Plaintiff’s (that she claims she cannot access but for which relevant and responsive emails were located on her computer): “Regarding her live.com address, it appears that the account has been permanently deleted by the host Company. One method of telling if an account still exists for live.com (and for most web mail systems) is to perform an account password recovery. When you enter the e-mail address and enter the captca code and hit Next, the website states that it does not recognize the email address. This means that the account has been permanently deleted from live.com’s system.” Menninger Decl., Ex. A. Plaintiff does not, and cannot, explain why she thinks that her own live.com email address has been permanently deleted by the host company, yet based on the exact same set of data, she thinks that an email account that Ms. Maxwell does not recall ever using (and from which no documents exist on her devices) from Earthlink still remains on its system. If there is some way to access the account, Plaintiff hasn’t said what it is. Ms. Maxwell simply has no way to access this account and has no information, save Plaintiff’s rank speculation. 2 2 Plaintiff has an account from which actual documents have been produced – proving she did use the account (unlike Ms. Maxwell’s EarthLink account) and it contains relevant information. Yet Plaintiff claims she - - - - - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 17 5 Because Plaintiff claimed she cannot access her Microsoft account, Ms. Maxwell subpoenaed Microsoft for the documents. Plaintiff moved to quash the subpoena to obtain the information contained in the account and has refused to sign the release provided to her that would allow the production of that information under the terms of a subpoena issued to Microsoft. Menninger Decl,. Ex. B. Tellingly, Plaintiff did not issue a subpoena to EarthLink regarding this account to see if it existed, has content or could be accessed. Instead, she seeks the drastic and improper sanction of an adverse inference knowing that it is far more beneficial to her than actually receiving information from EarthLink which would reveal nothing exists. d. There is no “Undisclosed” Account Plaintiff next argues that she is entitled to an adverse inference based on the failure to search a phantom e-mail account that she presumes (without support and based on pure speculation) must have existed, which she has never asked about in discovery, claiming that such an account was improperly “undisclosed” and not searched. Plaintiff bases her absurd argument on statistics suggesting that someone like Ms. Maxwell “likely” had an email account in the 2000 to 2002 timeframe and a specious claim that Ms. Maxwell has never denied having an email account from 2000 to 2002. Motion at 2. Notably absent from the Motion is a single interrogatory, request for admission, or deposition question in which Ms. Maxwell was asked to provide all email addresses she has used or asked if she ever had an email account in 2000 to 2002. No such question was ever posed to Ms. Maxwell on this issue.3 How could she possibly deny the existence of an account when she was never asked the question? cannot access her Microsoft account because she does not remember the password and does not have sufficient personal information to provide to gain access to the account. DE 207; DE 441. This is not dissimilar to Ms. Maxwell who does not even remember the account let alone the password. 3 By contrast, Ms. Maxwell requested that Plaintiff identify all email and social media accounts which she had used since 1998. Plaintiff provided false information, and purposefully omitted accounts that have since been discovered, one of which Plaintiff still has failed to forensically search and disclose its responsive documents. - - - - - - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 17 6 Plaintiff asks this Court to infer the existence of an undisclosed “email” account for Ms. Maxwell in the 2000-2002 timeframe based on witness accounts that Jeffrey Epstein had a “messaging system” on a private server. Of course, there is a big difference between having a private email account (gmail, aol, yahoo, etc.) and communicating through a private messaging system on an employer’s sever, as described by Mr. Alessi (“It was a server. I think it was --the office would have, like, a message system between him, the houses, the employees, his friends. They would write a message on the computer. There was no email at that time.”). 4 To the extent there was a private messaging system used by Mr. Epstein’s household employees maintained on a private server by Mr. Epstein, information from that system is not available to Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell has not been employed by Mr. Epstein for over 10 years and has not had any access to Mr. Epstein’s server through Citrix or otherwise since at least the end of her employment with him. “Whether a party subject to a document request can be compelled to comply depends on two preliminary questions: (1) assuming the requested documents exist, does the party have possession, custody or control over them, and (2) if the party has such possession, custody or control, can the party be compelled to conduct a reasonable search for and, if found, to produce the documents.” Gross v. Lunduski, 304 F.R.D. 136, 142 (W.D.N.Y. 2014). Ms. Maxwell is not in the possession, custody or control of the server or any information it may contain. “Where 4 It appears this is what was also being described by Mr. Banasiak in the deposition from another case, a full copy of which has never been produced in this litigation. Indeed, Mr. Banasiak has not been identified as a person with relevant or discoverable information in any of the last three of Plaintiff’s Rule 26 Disclosures. In the cited testimony, Mr. Banasiak appears to have discussed accessing a private messaging system maintained on Mr. Epstein’s private server using Citrix, a program that allows such access to authorized users. Because Plaintiff has failed to disclose the transcript being quoted, Ms. Maxwell cannot fully decipher the obviously edited testimony quoted in the Motion, does not know what timeframe Mr. Banasiak was referring to regarding the computers or using Citrix, and cannot respond to the claims made regarding the nature of any inference that could be drawn from Mr. Banasiak’s selected testimony. The entire argument and reference to the transcript must be ignored and stricken based on Plaintiff’s failure to produce in discovery the transcript she relies on. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 17 7 control is contested, the party seeking production of documents bears the burden of establishing the opposing party's control over those documents.” Alexander Interactive, Inc. v. Adorama, Inc., No. 12 CIV. 6608 (PKC) (JCF), 2014 WL 61472, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2014). Plaintiff has made no showing that Ms. Maxwell has any control over the hypothetical documents she suspects may be on Mr. Epstein’s private server. As has been made clear by Mr. Epstein’s refusal to produce any documents in this matter or provide any testimony, instead invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege, there is no manner in which Ms. Maxwell could require Mr. Epstein to provide any information on Mr. Epstein’s private server. Notably, no such “messages” were located on any of Ms. Maxwell’s devices or within her email accounts. Simply put, there are no emails from any accounts, systems or electronic storage devices over which Ms. Maxwell has possession, custody or control that have not been searched and from which responsive non-privileged documents produced. III. SANCTIONS AGAINST MS. MAXWELL NOT WARRANTED, RATHER COSTS OUGHT TO BE AWARDED TO HER Plaintiff completely fails to identify which, if any, of the Rules of Civil Procedure she relies on to claim any right to request sanctions, let alone to receive an adverse inference instruction. The argument appears premised on a claim that Ms. Maxwell has not complied with the Court’s Order – a completely inaccurate claim: On June 20, 2016, this Court ordered: Defendant is ordered to collect all ESI by imaging her computers and collecting all email and text messages on any devices in Defendant's possession or to which she has access that Defendant used between the period of 2002 to present. Defendant is further directed to run mutually- agreed upon search terms related to Plaintiff's requests for production over the aforementioned ESI and produce responsive documents within 21 days of distribution of this opinion. This was done. Plaintiff then expanded her request, imposed additional search terms, and added conditions concerning the manner in which she wanted devices searched. On August 9, Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 17 8 2016, the Court entered an Order adopting Plaintiff’s expanded request and methodology. All accessible email accounts and devices, including deleted files and emails, were searched – again – at significant expense. Again, no additional non-privileged responsive documents were located. There is no non-compliance and no basis for any sanctions, let alone the draconian sanction of an adverse inference. a. Plaintiff Fails to Identify or Prove the Factors Required for Sanctions Based on Alleged Violation of a Court Order Absent from Plaintiff’s motion is the actual legal standard required for imposition of sanctions, and certainly no argument or citation exist in this case to carry the burden of establishing the factors. In light of the fact that Ms. Maxwell has complied, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the minimum hurdle for any sanction. Thus, the factors are not addressed here, nor can they be addressed on Reply. What is clear is that the sanction of an adverse inference is not identified as a sanction that should or could be considered under the rules concerning the failure to comply with a Court Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). b. Controlling Law Prohibits an Adverse Inference Instruction An adverse inference instruction is considered an “extreme sanction” that “should not be given lightly.” Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 220 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). More importantly Plaintiff completely ignores the 2015 changes to Fed. R. Civ. P 37(e)(2), which now permits an adverse inference instruction only when the court finds that a spoliating party purposefully and willfully destroys evidence and that party “acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information's use in the litigation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2). The new Rule 37 “rejects cases such as Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306 F.3d 99 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 17 9 (2d Cir. 2002)5 , that authorize the giving of adverse-inference instructions on a finding of negligence or gross negligence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2) Advisory Committee's Note to 2015 Amendment; see also Thomas v. Butkiewicus, No. 3:13-CV-747 (JCH), 2016 WL 1718368, at *7 (D. Conn. Apr. 29, 2016) (recognizing abrogation of Residential Funding). There is no claim of spoliation – no information has been lost or destroyed since the threat or initiation of litigation when there would have been a duty to preserve. There is no bad faith. Ms. Maxwell has completely complied with all Court Orders and there are no accessible accounts or electronic devices that have not been searched. i. The cases cited by Plaintiff are not the controlling standards, and Plaintiff fails to establish the elements required for an adverse inference Plaintiff relies heavily on her previously briefed motion requesting an adverse inference relying on factors in a single case, Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306 F.3d 99, 108 (2nd Cir. 2002). This case sets forth the standard for an adverse inference based on the inherent powers of the Court (not under Rule 37(b)) where the party failed to produce relevant documents prior to the commencement of trial. Id. (“where, as here, an adverse inference instruction is sought on the basis that the evidence was not produced in time for use at trial, the party seeking the instruction must show (1) that the party having control over the evidence had an obligation to timely produce it; (2) that the party that failed to timely produce the evidence had “a culpable state of mind”; and (3) that the missing evidence is “relevant” to the party’s claim or defense such that a reasonable trier of fact could find that it would support that claim or defense”). By contrast, however, courts have repeatedly noted that an adverse inference, and application of the Residential Funding test, are not appropriate for a mere delay in production, especially when all documents are produced prior to depositions and trial. See 5 This is the primary case relied on by Plaintiff in support of both of her Motions for an adverse inference. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 17 10 Psihoyos v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., No. 11CV01416, 2012 WL 3601087 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2012) (refusing to grant adverse inference instruction where Plaintiff did not confer to obtain requested discovery, and noting “Plaintiff does not cite to a single case where an adverse inference instruction was ordered based on the late production of a document”). 6 Here, there was no delay in production – there was and is nothing additional to produce. All documents were produced well in advance of trial, prohibiting an adverse inference. Even if the Residential Funding factors were applicable, Plaintiff fails to carry her burden of proving those factors are present in this case. Defendant does not contest that she is obligated to comply with this Court’s Orders. She has done so. She has collected all of her electronically stored information, and run all agreed upon search terms – and then re-run the searches when Plaintiff further expanded her demands. The result of the application of these search terms is proof that she has been compliant with her discovery obligations all along. No new non￾privileged documents were captured through utilization of the process demanded by Plaintiff. As Ms. Maxwell previously stated in response to the Motion for forensic examination, she had run comprehensive search terms, thoroughly reviewed her records and previously produced all responsive documents in her possession.7 The second factor, that “the party that failed to timely produce the evidence had ‘a culpable state of mind’” is likewise lacking. There is no claim of Defendant acting with a 6 See also Phoenix Four, Inc., No. 05 CIV. 4837(HB), 2006 WL 1409413, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2006) (holding that a sanction as severe as an adverse inference was not warranted where defendants came forward with the evidence, even though it was after the close of discovery); Williams v. Saint–Gobain Corp., No. 00 Civ. 502, 2002 WL 1477618, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. June 28, 2002) (holding that no basis for adverse inference instruction existed where defendant failed to produce emails until the eve of trial and there was no evidence of bad faith); In re A & M Florida Properties II, LLC, No. 09-15173 (AJG), 2010 WL 1418861, at *6 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2010) (declining to impose adverse inference instruction where documents were belatedly produced, but there was no bad faith). 7 Plaintiff’s argument that she has been or will be prejudiced is illogical given that there are no documents that have not been produced, and there never have been any responsive documents missing from production. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 17 11 culpable state of mind, nor is any argued. How can one have a culpable state of mind where there are no additional accounts to search or documents to be produced? Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Plaintiff fails to provide a shred of evidence that “the missing evidence is ‘relevant’ to the party’s claim or defense such that a reasonable trier of fact could find that it would support that claim or defense.” Residential Funding Corp., 306 F.3d at 108. As discussed, completion of the multiple levels of forensic searches resulted in no responsive non-privileged documents. The hypothetical “undisclosed” email account does not exist. There can simply be no claim that there are any “missing” documents, let alone that they are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims or defenses. Giarrizzo v. Holder, No. 07-CV-0801 MAD/GHL, 2012 WL 716189, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2012) (refusing request for adverse inference where Plaintiff failed to demonstrate relevance prong stating “Plaintiff only identifies the alleged missing documents and speculates, without proof, that the documents support his claim. Indeed, plaintiff has not proven that the aforementioned documents exist”); Sovulj v. United States, No. 98 CV 5550FBRML, 2005 WL 2290495, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2005) (plaintiff could not meet the requirements for obtaining an adverse inference because assertion that missing evidence was relevant was pure speculation); see also Orbit One Commc'ns, Inc. v. Numerex Corp., 271 F.R.D. 429, 439 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (collecting spoliation cases holding that an adverse inference is inappropriate without proof beyond mere speculation allegedly lost information was relevant). “Without proof that defendant's actions, ‘created an unfair evidentiary imbalance, an adverse inference charge is not warranted.’” Giarrizzo, 2012 WL 716189, at *2 (citing Richard Green (Fine Paintings) v. McClendon, 262 F.R.D. 284, 291 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)). Here, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that there is any missing or non-produced information. She hypothecates a non￾existent email account and speculates that it must have discoverable relevant evidence. She has Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 17 12 made no attempt to provide any proof or even proffer of relevance beyond mere speculation. Thus, an adverse inference is impermissible. ii. Ms. Maxwell has never deleted any relevant emails Ms. Maxwell has never “admitted” to deleting any emails that 1) might have any relevance to this case, or 2) after she was under a preservation obligation.8 Rather, she has a regular practice of deleting spam emails, as do most people. Specifically, she testified: A. I have not deleted anything that you have asked me for in discovery. I have given you everything that I have. 8 By contrast, Plaintiff admits that in 2013 while she was in the process of trying to implead herself into the CVRA case and under a preservation obligation, she and her husband had a bonfire and purposefully burned her journal that she had kept for years containing relevant information. Specifically, she testified; Q. The booklet that you gave pages from to Ms. Churcher where is that booklet? A. Burned. Q. When did you burn it? A. In, I think it was 2013. Me and my husband had a bonfire. Q. What did you put in the bonfire? A. Any kind of memories that I had written down about all the stuff going on. Q. Had you written anything about Professor Dershowitz? A. He could have been there, yes. Q. And you burned that? A. I wanted to burn my memories. I wanted to get rid of it. It was very painful stuff. Q. Other than what you had written down did you burn anything else? I don't mean the wood, when you talk about burning your memories, what were you burning? A. I was burning like memories, thoughts, dreams that I had, just everything that was kind of 1 affiliated with the abuse I endured, and there was a lot of it in there. My husband is pretty spiritual so he said the best thing to do would be burn them. Q. Is there anything you decided to keep and not burn? A. Just the photographs. Q. Anything else that you can think of? A. Photographs, that's it. . . . Q. Did you ever look to see if you had any personal notes in your writing that pertain to Professor Dershowitz? A. Like from my old journal, the one that I burned? Q. From anywhere. Did you ever make an effort to look? A. Dershowitz could have been in my journal, he could have been. We're talking about an 85 page, if not more, you know, things that I had written to get my story out of my head and into pages; and yes, Dershowitz could have been in there, but that's up in the clouds now, bonfire. Q. That's what you call your journals, what you burned, right? A. Yes. Q. And you wrote that journal in order to collect your thoughts? A. To get everything out of here and on to paper. Menninger Decl., Ex. D at 64-65; 194-21. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 17 13 Q. That is not my question, my question is, did you ever delete emails in January of 2015? A. In the normal course of my work, there are emails from spam that I delete. That is the type of email I've deleted. Anything that is material to what you want, I have not deleted. Q. How do you know that? A. Well, anybody that's to do with Jeffrey or Alan or women or anything of which I know you were interested in, of which I have anything I would not have done because I don't want to subject myself to... [cut off by Plaintiff’s counsel] Menninger Decl., Ex. C at 370. This Court permitted the forensic examination of all on Ms. Maxwell’s electronic devices to ensure that there were no deleted emails or files that might contain relevant information. In that forensic examination, the entire devices and accounts were searched, including all deleted emails and files. Again, as stated, no relevant non-privileged documents resulted from this extensive and exhaustive examination. Plaintiff received the relief that she requested – a forensic examination – to ensure that no information had been lost or destroyed. It has not. Plaintiff cannot now claim that the non-existent hypothetical emails she suspected existed can form the basis for the severe and improper sanction of an adverse inference. CONCLUSION Plaintiff has now litigated this issue on four separate occasions, received a complete and exhaustive forensic examination, and the result is exactly what Ms. Maxwell has always contended – there is no relevant non-privileged information that was not originally produced. Having failed to find the smoking gun – because there is none – Plaintiff now weaves a convoluted argument attempting to get an adverse inference instruction because she cannot prove her case based on the actual law and facts. Such an inference is contrary to law, the rules of evidence, and the very notion of a fair trial. It is impermissible and must be denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell request that this Court 1) DENY Plaintiff’s Motion To Compel Data From Defendant’s Undisclosed Email Account and For an Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 17 14 Adverse Inference Instruction, and 2) for attorneys’ fees and costs associated with responding to this Motion pursuant to 37(a)(5)(B), and such other and further relief as this Court deems just. Dated: October 24, 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 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 17 15 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 24, 2016, I electronically served this Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Data from Defendant’s (Non-Existent) Undisclosed Email Account and for an Adverse Inference Instruction via ECF 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/ Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 17 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 TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REOPEN DEFENDANT’S DEPOSTION ............................................. Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca HADDON, MORGAN, AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 303.831.7364 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-17 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 12 1 Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell (“Ms. Maxwell”) files this Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Defendant’s Deposition, and states as follows: INTRODUCTION Plaintiff comes to this Court – for the third time – seeking to reopen the deposition of Ms. Maxwell based on the production of two innocuous documents which she received more than two months ago on August 16, 2016. Ms. Maxwell has twice sat for deposition, approaching 13 hours on the record, far more than the presumptive 7 hour limit under the Federal Rules. During that time, Plaintiff has had a full and fair opportunity to depose Ms. Maxwell on the subject matters she claims are raised by these two emails, and Plaintiff did in fact question Ms. Maxwell on the subjects covered by the emails. Moreover, despite having access to other email communications that are similar in nature and substance to the two email communications Plaintiff now claims are “key” documents, Plaintiff elected to not examine Ms. Maxwell on those similar documents for the purposes she now claims necessitate reopening the deposition. The deposition questions Plaintiff proposes are cumulative, duplicative and Plaintiff had the opportunity to and did obtain the information from other sources making a third deposition of Ms. Maxwell improper. LEGAL STANDARD “A person who has previously been deposed in a matter may be deposed again, but only with leave of the court.” Sentry Ins. v. Brand Mgmt. Inc., No. 10 Civ. 347, 2012 WL 3288178, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2012) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2)(A)(ii)). “Leave should be granted to the extent that doing so is consistent with the factors set forth in Rule 26(b)(2), such as ‘whether the second deposition of the witness would be unnecessarily cumulative, whether the party requesting the deposition has had other opportunities to obtain the same information, and whether the burden of a second deposition outweighs its potential benefit.’” Id. (quoting Ganci, Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-17 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 12 2 2011 WL 4407461, at *2) (collecting cases); Exp.-Imp. Bank of the U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., 232 F.R.D. 103, 112 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (same); see also Dash v. Seagate Tech. (US) Holdings, Inc., No. CV 13-6329 LDW AKT, 2015 WL 4257329, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. July 14, 2015) (refusing to reopen deposition where party neglected to or affirmatively opted not to inquire about information available at prior deposition and had or could obtain the information through other discovery devices). Here, Plaintiff’s sole justification for an extraordinary third deposition are two irrelevant documents that are cumulative of information previously produced, covering topics on which Ms. Maxwell already has been deposed at length, relating to lines of inquiry covered in other written discovery that have been fully responded to, making reopening the deposition cumulative and duplicative. Moreover, Ms. Maxwell has offered to provide responses to specific questions in writing (despite the fact that discovery has closed) which is the least burdensome and less expensive means of obtaining responses to the limited inquiry proposed regarding the two documents. ARGUMENT A. The Motion is Untimely Pursuant to the Initial Scheduling Order entered in this matter, motions on discovery issues would not be considered after the date scheduled for disclosure of expert witnesses absent “showing of special circumstances.” See DE 13, ¶ 2. By agreement of the parties and with approval of the court, that deadline was modified and occurred on September 8, 2016. No special circumstances exist to permit this additional discovery, well after the close of discovery on July 31, 2016. Plaintiff had the documents at issue in advance of September 8, 2016 and could have moved at any time between August 16, 2016 and September 8, but chose not to do so. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-17 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 12 3 The Motion is untimely and no special circumstance exists, nor have any been claimed, requiring denial of the motion. B. November 2015 Communication from Mr. Gow Concerning a Press Inquiry is Cumulative and Duplicative of Prior Discovery and Irrelevant to the Claimed Questions Plaintiff’s claim regarding the relevance of the Gow email is perplexing. It is a single line email from Gow to Ms. Maxwell to which Ms. Maxwell never responded. Plaintiff correctly points out that Ms. Maxwell’s response is not included precisely because she did not respond. The email does not, as Plaintiff suggests, demonstrate that Ms. Maxwell was “in fact, involved in, and consulted about, what her press agent says on her behalf.” Rather, it shows she did not respond to an inquiry for comment. Plaintiff’s Motion itself proves that Ms. Maxwell has already fully submitted to numerous discovery requests concerning whether she was “involved in, and consulted about” press communications issued by Mr. Gow, including Mr. Gow’s January 2, 2015 email to the press that forms the basis of this lawsuit. Indeed, the question has been asked and answered in every conceivable form of discovery under the Federal Rules. She has answered a specific Request for Admissions on the issue, stating: Maxwell admits that she has worked with Mr. Gow on occasion for several years and that she has corresponded with Mr. Gow regarding communications to members of the British press to reserve her right to seek redress for their repetition of defamatory statements about Ms. Maxwell. See McCawley Decl., Ex. 3, Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission at 3. Likewise, Plaintiff extensively questioned Ms. Maxwell in her depositions about her involvement and communications with Mr. Gow regarding press inquiries, all of which makes clear that the alleged “defamatory” statement at issue was composed by Mr. Gow and Ms. Maxwell’s counsel Philip Barden and issued at the advice of counsel based on the requirements Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-17 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 12 4 of British law. This is evidenced by the deposition testimony cited by Plaintiff (McCawley Decl., Ex. 2), as well as multiple additional pages of testimony that Plaintiff conveniently ignores. Ms. Maxwell clearly testified on this issue during her deposition (Menninger Decl., Ex. A at 272-274): Q. I provided you with and I'm sorry, I don't know all the numbers, but the statement that was issued by Ross Gow that should be a single page still in your stack 4 of exhibits there. MR. PAGLIUCA: Exhibit 10. Q. Did you authorize Ross Gow to issue that statement on your behalf in January of 2015? A. I already testified that that was done by my lawyers. Q. So did you authorize your lawyers to issue a statement on your behalf through Ross Gow in January of 2015? A. It was determined that I had to make a statement in the United Kingdom because of the appalling lies and I just thought of some new ones. Virginia's statement that I celebrated her 16 birthday with her. We can all agree that that's entirely impossible. I didn't meet her until she was 17 and other lies she perpetrated that she had a diary and we all know is a complete fake. That's not a diary. It was just a book she was writing that you helped sell to the press, as if it was a diary, when it was just a story that she is writing of fiction, fictional story for money. Q. How did you arrive at the words that were put in that statement? MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm going to object and instruct you to the extent this calls for any privileged communications between yourself and Mr. Barden or another lawyer representing you, we're asserting privilege. If you can answer that without that, feel free to answer. Q. So what your counsel is saying, and I will exclude any privileged communications you had with your lawyers. The question is, how did you arrive at the words that were put in that statement, if you can tell me without disclosing privileged communications? A. I'm not sure that I can. She was questioned for a third time on the same subject, again answering fully to all non￾privileged information (Menninger Decl., Ex. A at 360-363). I will mark this as Maxwell 17. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-17 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 12 5 Q. This is an email from you on January 10, 2015 to Philip Barden and Ross Gow. The statement you had before you earlier, that, if you can pull that in front of you, the one page press release that you gave. You might know from memory. Was the press release that you issued with the statement about Virginia issued in or around January 2, 2015? A. As best as I can recollect. Q. I want to turn your attention to the document I just handed you which is Bates No. 001044, from you to Philip Barden and Ross Gow. It says in the first sentence, I'm out of my depth to understand defamation, other legal hazards and I don't want to end up in a lawsuit aimed at me from anyone, if I can help it. Apparently, even saying Virginia is a liar has hazards. You knew at the time you called Virginia a liar in early January of 2015 that that was something that would result in a lawsuit, is that correct? A. I have legal advice that I took. Q. But you knew in early January by making a statement calling Virginia a liar that you were subjecting yourself to a legal dispute with her? Q. I took legal advice as to what should be said and not be said and the legal advice that came from the United Kingdom was – A. Sorry. Q. So is it correct without telling me what you talked to your lawyers about that you knew because this is dated January 10 that when you made this statement in early January, January 2 of 2015 you knew that calling Virginia a liar would subject you to a legal action, isn't that correct? A. All I can say is I asked a question and received legal advice. Likewise, all the communications between Mr. Gow and Ms. Maxwell pre-dating the statement issued by Mr. Gow on January 2, 2015 that form the basis of this suit were produced in advance of both of Ms. Maxwell’s depositions. See Menninger Decl., Ex. B, [GM_01036- 01044]. Any questioning concerning Ms. Maxwell’s involvement or input into the content of the single statement was available for exploration. Yet, Plaintiff either neglected to or decided not to question Ms. Maxwell about the majority of these documents at their own option, which cannot form the basis for reopening a deposition. Dash, 2015 WL 4257329, at *6 (refusing to reopen deposition where party neglected to or affirmatively opted not to inquire about information available at prior deposition). - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-17 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 12 6 Finally, Mr. Gow himself is scheduled to sit for a deposition himself during November on topics to include his correspondence with Ms. Maxwell and with the press concerning Ms. Maxwell, presumably to include the very email that forms the subject of this motion. Plaintiff will have a full and fair opportunity to question him under oath regarding the email that he wrote to Ms. Maxwell. Finally, Plaintiff claims relevance and prejudice based on a one-line email, received by Ms. Maxwell and to which she never responded, on November 15, 2015 – almost a year after the alleged defamatory statement was issued by Mr. Gow. This document has no bearing on the issue Plaintiff claims requires reopening of her deposition – Ms. Maxwell’s input into the content of the January 2, 2015. And, again, nearly identical emails requesting input from Ms. Maxwell based on media and media inquiries post-dating January 2, 2015, including press inquiries after the filing of this lawsuit, were produced prior to the deposition and Plaintiff chose not to question Ms. Maxwell about these emails for the purposes she now claims are relevant. Menninger Decl., Ex. C [GM_01060-01068, 00594]. Ms. Maxwell has fully testified regarding the consultation she had on the January 2, 2015 email, produced all non-privileged documents prior to her depositions, and this later dated email is irrelevant to Ms. Maxwell’s clear sworn responses on the subject matter. C. Plaintiff Misrepresents Previous Discovery Concerning Ms. Maxwell’s Communications with Jeffery Epstein Plaintiff’s half-hearted attempt to claim that a communication between Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein related to a possible response to Plaintiff’s published false claims concerning Ms. Maxwell is somehow “new,” not previously explored, or relevant is provably inaccurate. The entirety of Plaintiff’s argument concerning the “key” nature of this email is: [T]he email with Epstein regarding a reply to “one further allegation,” shows that Defendant is active in shaping her public statements regarding Ms. Giuffre, and - 1111 - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-17 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 12 7 giving drafts to Epstein for his approval. Accordingly, Defendant was never deposed on (1) why she was seeking Epstein’s permission for having Barden make a “reply;” (2) what Epstein’s relationship was with Barden; (3) or who drafted the original communication at the bottom of the email, as it does not appear to have been created by either Defendant or Epstein. As Plaintiff is fully aware, Ms. Maxwell already fully deposed on “(1) why she was seeking Epstein’s permission for having Barden make a ‘reply’”; any claim to the contrary is simply false. Ms. Maxwell produced (prior to her depositions) several similar communications between herself and Mr. Epstein in which she sought input from Mr. Epstein on having her attorney, Mr. Barden, respond to allegations made by Plaintiff concerning Ms. Maxwell. Indeed in one email, Mr. Epstein advised Ms. Maxwell to go out and hold her head high because she had done nothing wrong. See Menninger Decl., Ex. D [GM_01069-01072; 01075; 01084-01099]. Further, Ms. Maxwell was specifically deposed on this issue:1 (Maxwell Exhibit 23, email, marked for identification.) Q. This is an email from, if you look at the chain at the top, you will see it's from you to Jeffrey on January 27 and the email at the bottom of the chain is from Jeffrey to you on January 27. He states, What happened to you and your statement, question mark, question mark. And you put at the top, I have not decided what to do. A. Uh-huh. Q. Why was Jeffrey interested in you making a statement to the press? A. I don't know that he was interested. We made a statement and then I was being advised to make an additional statement and I never did. Q. Was Jeffrey communicating with you regularly on what additional statement you might make? A. No, I've communicated with him very little, as little as possible. Q. Why did you feel you had to keep him informed of statements you were making to the press? A. I didn't feel I had to. 1 As to the substance of the email – Plaintiff’s fabricated claim that Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell requested Plaintiff to bear a child for them – Ms. Maxwell was extensively questioned in her first deposition. Menninger Decl. Ex. A, at 337-39. - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-17 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 12 8 Q. Then why you were communicating with him about statements you were making to the press? A. Insofar as this is the case, it's really all about Jeffrey, it's not a case about me. Menninger Decl., Ex. A at 392-94. As to the second point, there is simply no basis for claiming any “relationship” exists between Mr. Barden and Mr. Epstein – there is none. Again, numerous communications were produced in advance of Ms. Maxwell’s depositions relating to Ms. Maxwell’s request for input on Mr. Barden’s draft statements to the press (Menninger Decl., Ex. D), thus making any line of inquiry available to Plaintiff had she believed it were actually relevant or “key.” Regardless, Plaintiff provides no reason to claim that there is any relevance to a line of inquiry regarding an alleged relationship between Mr. Epstein and Mr. Barden. As for the final point, it is obvious from the subject line and content of the email that Ms. Maxwell was forwarding a non-privileged excerpt of a privileged communication from her attorney, Mr. Barden, to Mr. Epstein. This is certainly no basis to reopen a deposition as the document speaks for itself. D. The Reopening of Plaintiff’s Deposition is Irrelevant Plaintiff attempts to distract the Court form the legal standards required to reopen a deposition, instead arguing that she did not oppose reopening her own deposition. Of course, Plaintiff did not simply inadvertently miss two irrelevant documents in a 1,200 page production. Rather, prior to her deposition she failed to identify over thirteen (13) healthcare providers and failed to produce hundreds of pages of medical records, work records and educational records, all of which were requested prior to her deposition. She even omitted records from her current therapist and from the doctor who was (and is, apparently) prescribing substantial quantities of drugs at the time of her deposition. Indeed, Plaintiff’s second deposition still cannot be - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-17 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 12 9 scheduled because Plaintiff persists in her failures to provide complete medical records. Despite Plaintiff’s September 21, 2016 Motion for Court Approval of Plaintiff's Certification of Production claiming that she has completed production of medical records and emails, Plaintiff sent a release for health care information from her insurance companies on October 10, 2015 (Menninger Decl., Ex. E [GIUFFRE009094-009102])– a release and records that were requested in April. To date, those (and many other) records have not been produced. Moreover, Plaintiff made substantive and completely contradictory changes to her deposition testimony in errata sheets after the conclusion of her deposition. As well, she was instructed by counsel not to answer questions about false statements published in the media attributed to her that were critically relevant and she refused to answer the questions. She later conceded no privilege precluded her answers, and that is among the reasons she agreed to sit for a second deposition. Unlike Plaintiff, Ms. Maxwell had no opportunity to depose Plaintiff on multiple and critical issues including unproduced medical records, and undisclosed treatment providers, undisclosed educational history, undisclosed employment, undisclosed intervening causes of her alleged emotional distress, her material contradictory changes to testimony, and any statements published and attributed to her by the media she admits are false. Ms. Maxwell did not request to reopen the deposition to seek cumulative, duplicative and/or irrelevant information. The two situations are vastly different and cannot be compared. WHEREFORE, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell requests that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen her Deposition and permit a third deposition be denied. - - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-17 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 12 10 Dated: October 24, 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 1330-17 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 12 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 24, 2016, I electronically served this Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Defendant’s Deposition via ECF 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/ Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-17 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 12 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 Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Defendant’s Deposition 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 in this action. I respectfully submit this Declaration in support of Ms. Maxwell’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Defendant’s Deposition. 2. Attached as Exhibit A (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of excerpts from the April 22, 2016 deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell, designated Confidential under the Protective Order. 3. Attached as Exhibit B (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of communication between Mr. Gow and Ms. Maxwell Bates stamped GM_01036-01044. ........................................... 1111 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 3 2 4. Attached as Exhibit C (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of media email inquiries requesting Ms. Maxwell’s input Bates stamped GM_01060-01068,00594. 5. Attached as Exhibit D (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of communications between Ms. Maxwell, Mr. Epstein and Mr. Barden Bates stamped GM_01069- 01072;01084-01099. 6. Attached as Exhibit E (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of Plaintiff’s medical releases requesting healthcare information sent October 10, 2016 Bates stamped GIUFFRE009094-009102. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 24, 2016. s/ Laura A. Menninger Laura A. Menninger - - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 3 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 24, 2016, I electronically served this Declaration of Laura A. Menninger in Support of Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Data from Defendant’s (Non-Existent) Undisclosed Email Account and For an Adverse Inference Instruction via ECF 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/ Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 15 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 1330-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 15 Page 272 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. Is it your testimony that 3 knows Jeffrey Epstein through the work 4 that she does for you? 5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 6 form and foundation. 7 A. I don't recollect, and I don't 8 recollect how I met and I can't testify 9 to what relationship is or is not with 10 Jeffrey. 11 Q. Have you ever talked to Jeffrey 12 about 13 A. I don't know what you mean. 14 Q. In any way, have you ever had a 15 conversation with Jeffrey about 16 A. In what context. 17 Q. In any context. Have you ever 18 talked to Jeffrey Epstein about 19 A. works for me so it's entirely 20 possible that in the course of conversations 21 since 2002, 2003 that a conversation in which 22 name would have come up is entirely 23 possible. 24 Q. I provided you with and I'm sorry, 25 I don't know all the numbers, but the - - - - - - - MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 15 Page 273 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 statement that was issued by Ross Gow that 3 should be a single page still in your stack 4 of exhibits there. 5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Exhibit 10. 6 Q. Did you authorize Ross Gow to issue 7 that statement on your behalf in January of 8 2015? 9 A. I already testified that that was 10 done by my lawyers. 11 Q. So did you authorize your lawyers 12 to issue a statement on your behalf through 13 Ross Gow in January of 2015? 14 A. It was determined that I had to 15 make a statement in the United Kingdom 16 because of the appalling lies and I just 17 thought of some new ones. 18 Virginia's statement that I 19 celebrated her 16 birthday with her. We can 20 all agree that that's entirely impossible. I 21 didn't meet her until she was 17 and other 22 lies she perpetrated that she had a diary and 23 we all know is a complete fake. That's not a 24 diary. It was just a book she was writing 25 that you helped sell to the press, as if it MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 15 Page 274 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 was a diary, when it was just a story that 3 she is writing of fiction, fictional story 4 for money. 5 Q. How did you arrive at the words 6 that were put in that statement? 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm going to object 8 and instruct you to the extent this 9 calls for any privileged communications 10 between yourself and Mr. Barden or 11 another lawyer representing you, we're 12 asserting privilege. If you can answer 13 that without that, feel free to answer. 14 Q. So what your counsel is saying, and 15 I will exclude any privileged communications 16 you had with your lawyers. 17 The question is, how did you arrive 18 at the words that were put in that statement, 19 if you can tell me without disclosing 20 privileged communications? 21 A. I'm not sure that I can. 22 Q. Is the statement that you issued 23 true? 24 A. What do you mean by that? 25 Q. Is the statement that you issued, MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 15 Page 337 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. To become pregnant, did you or 3 Jeffrey Epstein ever ask any female to become 4 pregnant and carry Jeffrey Epstein's baby for 5 you or for Jeffrey? 6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form 7 and foundation. 8 A. You need to be very specific. I 9 have no idea what you are talking about. 10 That's completely rubbish. 11 Q. Did you or Jeffrey Epstein ask any 12 female to become pregnant and carry his baby 13 for either him or you? 14 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 15 form and foundation. Go ahead. 16 A. I can't testify to anything Jeffrey 17 did or didn't do when I am not present, but I 18 have never asked anybody to carry a baby for 19 me. 20 Q. Or anything along those lines? 21 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 22 and foundation. 23 Q. I want to make sure we are talking 24 about the same thing, not physically carry a 25 baby, I mean become pregnant with a baby? MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 15 Page 338 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 3 form and foundation. 4 Q. I want to make sure we are clear. 5 A. I don't know what you are asking. 6 Q. That's why I want to make sure we 7 are clear. 8 A. We are clear. I never asked 9 anybody to carry a baby for me. 10 Q. Do you know if Jeffrey ever asked 11 anybody to carry a baby for him? 12 A. I'm not going to characterize any 13 conversation Jeffrey had with somebody else. 14 Q. You are not aware of that, is that 15 your testimony? 16 A. I am testifying I never have and I 17 will not testify for anything for Jeffrey. 18 Q. Did you ever hear Jeffrey ask 19 anybody to carry a baby for him? 20 A. I don't recollect conversation 21 about Jeffrey and babies in any form. 22 Q. Did Jeffrey ever tell he wanted to 23 have a baby? 24 A. I don't recollect baby 25 conversations with Jeffrey. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 15 Page 339 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. So he never told you he wanted to 3 have a baby? 4 A. I don't recollect any baby 5 conversations with him saying he wanted to 6 have a baby. 7 Q. Did you ever bring any females to 8 the Dubin's house that were not your friends' 9 children that were under the age of 18? 10 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form 11 and foundation. 12 A. I have never, to my knowledge, 13 brought anybody under the age of 18 that's 14 not a friend of my family or my nieces or 15 nephews to the Dubin household. 16 Q. Earlier today you testified, I 17 believe, that with respect to your town home 18 Jeffrey paid for some of that and then gave 19 you a loan, is that correct? 20 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 21 form and foundation. 22 A. I said, actually I think it was a 23 loan, I believe it was a loan. 24 Q. The whole thing? 25 A. As best as I can recollect. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 15 Page 360 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 3 form and foundation. 4 A. I was not coordinating with 5 Jeffrey. He had details that I did not have. 6 I was not party to his case. I needed to 7 have information in order to be able to 8 respond so I was not coordinating with him. 9 I was merely asking for details that I could 10 have. 11 Q. Did Jeffrey write any of your press 12 statements for you? 13 A. No. 14 Q. He didn't draft any of them? 15 A. I have a lawyer who was working on 16 this and that was -- I asked, I believe as I 17 recollect asked him for information to make 18 sure I was being accurate in the 19 representations for whatever I was 20 discussing. 21 Q. Did Jeffrey provide you with any 22 drafts of statements to provide to the press? 23 A. I only recall drafts from my 24 lawyer. 25 Q. I will mark this as Maxwell 17. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 15 Page 361 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 (Maxwell Exhibit 17, email, marked 3 for identification.) 4 Q. This is an email from you on 5 January 10, 2015 to Philip Barden and Ross 6 Gow. The statement you had before you 7 earlier, that, if you can pull that in front 8 of you, the one page press release that you 9 gave. You might know from memory. 10 Was the press release that you 11 issued with the statement about Virginia 12 issued in or around January 2, 2015? 13 A. As best as I can recollect. 14 Q. I want to turn your attention to 15 the document I just handed you which is Bates 16 No. 001044, from you to Philip Barden and 17 Ross Gow. It says in the first sentence, I'm 18 out of my depth to understand defamation, 19 other legal hazards and I don't want to end 20 up in a lawsuit aimed at me from anyone, if I 21 can help it. Apparently, even saying 22 Virginia is a liar has hazards. 23 You knew at the time you called 24 Virginia a liar in early January of 2015 that 25 that was something that would result in a MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 15 Page 362 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 lawsuit, is that correct? 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 4 form and foundation. 5 A. I have legal advice that I took. 6 Q. But you knew in early January by 7 making a statement calling Virginia a liar 8 that you were subjecting yourself to a legal 9 dispute with her? 10 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 11 form and foundation. 12 A. I took legal advice as to what 13 should be said and not be said and the legal 14 advice that came from the United Kingdom 15 was -- 16 MR. PAGLIUCA: You are not allowed 17 to talk about any legal advice that you 18 got from anybody that's a lawyer. 19 A. Sorry. 20 Q. So is it correct without telling me 21 what you talked to your lawyers about that 22 you knew because this is dated January 10 23 that when you made this statement in early 24 January, January 2 of 2015 you knew that 25 calling Virginia a liar would subject you to MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 15 Page 363 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 a legal action, isn't that correct? 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 4 form and foundation. As to what you 5 knew -- whatever she knows would be 6 privileged. 7 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm asking if she 8 knows. I'm not asking her to tell me 9 about her privileged communications. 10 A. All I can say is I asked a question 11 and received legal advice. 12 (Maxwell Exhibit 18, email, marked 13 for identification.) 14 Q. This is an email dated January 15, 15 2015 from Jeffrey Epstein to you? 16 A. Uh-huh. 17 Q. It states in the first line, do you 18 want to come out and say she was the 19 girlfriend during the time? 20 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 21 form and foundation of the question and 22 actually the word is , there 23 is no vowel in there. 24 MS. McCAWLEY: I was just trying to 25 pronounce it. - MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 15 Page 392 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 This will now end? 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 4 form and foundation. 5 A. I have no idea. 6 Q. Did you discuss with him what he 7 meant by the statement, This will now end? 8 A. I don't recall. 9 Q. Was he taking any action to ensure 10 that, quote, this will now end? 11 A. I have no idea. 12 (Maxwell Exhibit 23, email, marked 13 for identification.) 14 Q. This is an email from, if you look 15 at the chain at the top, you will see it's 16 from you to Jeffrey on January 27 and the 17 email at the bottom of the chain is from 18 Jeffrey to you on January 27. 19 He states, What happened to you and 20 your statement, question mark, question mark. 21 And you put at the top, I have not decided 22 what to do. 23 A. Uh-huh. 24 Q. Why was Jeffrey interested in you 25 making a statement to the press? MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 15 Page 393 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 3 form and foundation. 4 A. I don't know that he was 5 interested. We made a statement and then I 6 was being advised to make an additional 7 statement and I never did. 8 Q. Was Jeffrey communicating with you 9 regularly on what additional statement you 10 might make? 11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 12 form and foundation. 13 A. No, I've communicated with him very 14 little, as little as possible. 15 Q. Why did you feel you had to keep 16 him informed of statements you were making to 17 the press? 18 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 19 form and foundation. 20 A. I didn't feel I had to. 21 Q. Then why you were communicating 22 with him about statements you were making to 23 the press? 24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 25 form and foundation. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 15 Page 394 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 A. Insofar as this is the case, it's 3 really all about Jeffrey, it's not a case 4 about me. 5 Q. In 2009, did you direct your 6 lawyer, either directly or indirectly, to 7 tell Brad Edwards that you were unavailable 8 to attend a deposition? 9 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 10 form and foundation. And this is a 11 privileged communication as I understand 12 the question, what someone said or 13 didn't say to their lawyer. So don't 14 answer the question. 15 Q. Can you answer that question 16 without revealing a privileged communication? 17 A. Can you ask the question again? 18 Q. In 2009, did you direct your lawyer 19 to tell Brad Edwards that you were 20 unavailable to attend a deposition? 21 MR. PAGLIUCA: Same instruction. 22 Q. Did you make any statement in 2009 23 to anybody that you were unavailable to 24 attend a deposition? 25 A. My mother was sick and I don't MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 15 EXHIBIT B Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 10 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01036 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 10 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01037 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 10 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01038 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 10 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01039 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 10 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01040 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 10 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01041 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 10 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01042 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 10 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01043 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 10 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01044 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 10 EXHIBIT C Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 11 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01060 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 I 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 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 11 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01061 G+<https:[[plus.google.com/104195649525707945586/posts> Pl NTEREST <http ://pinterest.com/terra ma rpro ject/> INSTAGRAM<http://instagram.com/theterramarproject> PLEDGE<http://www.theterramarproject.org/pledge> THE DAILY CATCH<http://theterramarproject.org/thedailycatch/> From: Philip Barden Date: Friday, January 9, 2015 at 17:05 PM To: Ross Gow Cc: gmax Subject: Re: The Times - Ghislaine Maxwell Agreed We agreed to release a statement We should support our friends and deny the allegations as Dershowitz urges and Prince Andrew has. We run the real risk of guilt by silence and that is likely to feed false claims and false suits as we saw with the BBC I advised the soldiers in Bloody Sunday not to give interviews so I am cautious and this is the time to speak. I can say no more. I hope our advice is followed. Philip Sent from my iPhone On 9 Jan 2015, at 21:53, "Ross Gow" wrote: Ghislaine I believe the next 18hrs is the best chance we have to leverage some transparency advantage on this. MoS first then Sunday Times. Otherwise we lose any chance of ownership of the narrative. Please give it some serious thought... Dershowitz is out on Monday with a big push in The Times and we run the risk of looking less than gripped. best R On 9 January 2015 at 20:02, Philip Barden I am heading home now and will call when get there Let's not waste this moment please 3 PRIVILEGED GM_001047 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 11 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01062 Sent from my iPhone On 9 Jan 2015, at 18:11, "Ross Gow" Ghislainr further reason for us to put our side of the story out ... best Ross ---------- Forwarded message----------Date: 9 January 2015 at 18:09 Subject: The Times - Ghislaine Maxwell To: Ross Gow Hi Ross Do keep in touch. I think were running a piece written by Professor Dershowitz on Monday. If Miss Maxwell wants to make a comment do let me know ... All the best David Brown Reporter The Times "Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail" Newsworks - bringing advertisers and newsbrands together www.newsworks.org.uk<http://www.newsworks.org.uk/><http://www.newsworks.org.uk<http://www.news works.org. u k/» This e-mail and any attachments are confidential, may be 4 PRIVILEGED GM_001048 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 11 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01063 legally privileged and are the property of News Corp UK & Ireland Limited on whose systems they were generated. News Corp UK & Ireland Limited is the holding company for the News UK group, is registered in England & Wales under number 81701, has its registered office at 1 London Bridge Street, London, SEl 9GF and is registered with VAT number GB 243 8054 69. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and do not use, distribute, store or copy it in any way. Statements or opinions in this e-mail or any attachment are those of the author and are not necessarily agreed or authorised by News Corp UK & Ireland Limited or any member of its group. News Corp UK & Ireland Limited may monitor outgoing or incoming emails as permitted by law. It accepts no liability for viruses introduced by this e-mail or attachments. News Corp UK & Ireland Limited and its titles are committed to abiding by IPSO's regulations and the Editors' Code of Practice that IPSO enforces. Ross Gow Managing Partner ACUITY Reputation 23 Berkeley Square London WlJ 6HE www.acuityreputation.com<http://www.acuityreputation.com/><http://www.acuityreputation.com<http://w ww.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 the attention and use of the named addressee(s). If you are 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-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete the 5 PRIVILEGED GM_001049 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 11 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01064 e-mail and any attachments from your computer system. Whilst any attachments may have been checked for viruses, you should rely on your own virus checker and procedures. No responsibility is accepted by ACUITY Reputation Limited for loss or damage arising from the receipt or use of this e-mail. This email is intended for the addressee named within only. It may contain legally privileged or confidential information. If you are not the named individual you should not read this email and if you do so, you must not under any circumstances make use of the information therein. If you have read this email and it is not addressed to ou, lease notif and confirm that it has been deleted from your system and no copies made. This Firm is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under the name of Devonshires Solicitors and registration number 0049857. This Firm does not accept service by electronic mail or facsimile. A list of partners, together with further legal statements, is available upon request or at www.devonshires.co.uk/terms-and-conditions/legal-notices.html<http://www.devonshires.co.uk/terms-and￾conditions/legal-notices.html><http://www.devonshires.co.uk/terms-and-conditions/legal￾notices.html<http://www.devonshires.co.uk/terms-and-conditions/legal-notices.html>> Devonshires Solicitors, 30 Finsbury Circus, London EC2M 7DT tel +44 (0)20 7628 7576<tel:%2B44%20%280%2920%207628%207576> fax +44 (0)20 7256 7318<tel :%2B44%20%280%2920%207256%207318> Where instructions have been given by Devonshires Solicitors to a barrister to work on a client?s matter, we notify you, on behalf of that barrister, that you have the right to make a complaint about the service provided by that barrister or about the conduct of their Chambers. A copy of the barrister and/ or their Chambers? complaints procedure may be obtained by contacting the Senior Clerk of that Chambers, whose contact details can be found online, or from us. Complaints may be made direct to the barrister/ their Chambers. Please note that there may be a time limit for bringing your complaint. You may also have the right to ask the Legal Ombudsman to consider your complaint at the end of the complaints process. Information on complaints to the Legal Ombudsman, including the details of strict time limits to bring a complaint, may be found at http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk. The Devonshires Foundation is proud to support Action for Kids (reg. charity 1068841), Wide horizons (reg. charity 1105847), and Theatre Royal Stratford East (reg. charity 233801) during 2013/2014. Please consider the environment before printing this email. Please consider the environment before printing this email. Ross Gow Managing Partner ACUITY Reputation 23 Berkeley Square London WlJ 6HE 6 PRIVILEGED GM_001050 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 11 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01065 www.acuityreputation.com<http://www.acuityreputation.com/><http://www.acuityreputation.com<http://w ww.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 the attention and use of the named addressee(s). If you are 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-mail 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 virus checker and procedures. No responsibility is accepted by ACUITY Reputation Limited for loss or damage arising from the receipt or use of this e-mail. 7 PRIVILEGED GM_001051 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 11 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01066 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Ghislaine Ross Gow Friday, January 09, 2015 2:54 PM Philip Barden G Max Re: The Times - Ghislaine Maxwell I believe the next l 8hrs is the best chance we have to leverage some transparency advantage on this. MoS first then Sunday Times. Otherwise we lose any chance of ownership of the narrative. Please give it some serious thought... Dershowitz is out on Monday with a big push in The Times and we run the risk of looking less than gripped. best R On 9 January 20 I 5 at 20:02, Philip Barden I am heading home now and will call when get there Let's not waste this moment please Sent from my iPhone On 9 Jan 2015, at 18:11, "Ross Gow" wrote: Ghislainr further reason for us to put our side of the story out... best Ross ---------- Forwarded messa e ---------- From: Brown, David Date: 9 January 2015 at 1 :0 Subject: The Times - Ghislaine Maxwell To: Ross Gow Hi Ross rote: Do keep in touch. I think were running a piece written by Professor Dershowitz on Monday. If Miss Maxwell wants to make a comment do let me know ... All the best David Brown PRIVILEGED GM_001052 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 11 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01067 "Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail" Newsworks - bringing advertisers and newsbrands together www .newsworks.org.uk<http://www.newsworks.org. uk/> This e-mail and any attachments are confidential, may be legally privileged and are the property of News Corp UK & Ireland Limited on whose systems they were generated. News Corp UK & Ireland Limited is the holding company for the News UK group, is registered in England & Wales under number 81701, has its registered office at 1 London Bridge Street, London, SE 1 9GF and is registered with VAT number GB 243 8054 69. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and do not use, distribute, store or copy it in any way. Statements or opinions in this e-mail or any attachment are those of the author and are not necessarily agreed or authorised by News Corp UK & Ireland Limited or any member of its group. News Corp UK & Ireland Limited may monitor outgoing or incoming emails as permitted by law. It accepts no liability for viruses introduced by this e-mail or attachments. News Corp UK & Ireland Limited and its titles are committed to abiding by IPSO's regulations and the Editors' Code of Practice that IPSO enforces. Ross Gow Managing Partner ACUITY Reputation 23 Berkeley Square London W IJ 6HE 2 PRIVILEGED GM_001053 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 11 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01068 www.acuityreputation.com<http://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 the attention and use of the named addressee(s). If you are 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-mail 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 virus checker and procedures. No responsibility is accepted by ACUITY Reputation Limited for loss or damage arising from the receipt or use of this e-mail. fhi~) ernaii is intended for the addre~;see narned wit(1!n on!y. It may contai n iegally privileged or confidential lnformaHon. if you are not the named individual you should not read this ernail and if you do ;w, you rnust not under any circurn:;tances rnnke use of the inforrnatlon therein. if you have read this emaii and it is not addressed to you, p(ea:3e notify IT@devonshires.co.uk and confirm t~1at it has been deleted from your system and no capies made. This Firm is auttlorised and regulated by the Soiicitors R~~gulation Authority undc~r the name of Devonshirns Soiicitors and registration nurnber 0049851. This Firm does not accept service by electronic mail or fr)csirniie_ ;\ iist of partners, toqeH1er with further ieQai st;:1tr::)ments, is available upon request or at www.devonshires.co.ul<Jterms-and￾conditions/legal-notices.html Devoruhires Solicitors, 30 F'insbury Circus. London E'C2M lDT \el +44 (0)20 7628 7576 fax +44 (0)20 7256 7318 \JVhere instructions r1 ave been given by Devonshires Soiicitors to a barrister to work on a ciieni?s matter, we notify you, on behalf of ~hat barrister, th at you have the right to make a complaint about the service provided by that barrister or about the conduct of their Chambers. A copy of the barrister and I or their Chambers? complaints procedure rnay be obtained by contacting the Senior C!erl<: of that Chambers, 'Nhose conlact detaiis c:an be found on!ine, or from us. Complaints may be made direct to the barriste( / their Chambers. P!ease note that tr1ere rnay be a tirne iirnit for bringing your cornplaint You may also f1ave ti'le right lo ask the Legal Ornbudsrnan to consider your complaint at the end of thG complaints process, lnforrnaUon or1 cornpls1ints to the L.egal Ornbudnrrian, includi ng tt·ie details of strict tirn(?. limits to bring a cornplaint. may be found at http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk rho Devonshires F:ou ndation is proud to mJppor-t Action for Kids (reg. charity 106f384 ·1), \JVidG horizons {reg. charity i 105847), and Theatre Royal Stratford East (req. charity 233B0'!) during 2013/2014. Please consider the environment before printin~1 this email. Please consider the environment before printing this email. Ross Gow Managing Partner ACUITY Reputation 23 Berkeley Square London WI J 6HE 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 the attention and use of the named addressee(s). If you are 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-mail 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 virus checker and procedures. No responsibility is accepted by ACUITY Reputation Limited for loss or damage arising from the receipt or use of this e-mail. 3 PRIVILEGED GM_001054 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 11 CONFIDENTIAL GM_00594 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: G Ross Gow Monday, September 21, 2015 2:22 PM Gmax; Philip Barden Fwd: Question from NY Daily News Maxwell.pdf Here we go again. YR on our case again. Joyous to hear I'm not a co-defendant ... Best R ---------- Forwarded messa From: "Brown, Stephen" Date: 21 Sep 2015 20:28 Subject: Question from NY Daily News To: Cc: Hi Ross, I'm working on a story about a defamation suit filed by Virginia Roberts against Ghislaine Maxwell. Virginia alleges that Ghislaine defamed her by calling her claims "obvious lies," among other denials. Those denials were released through you. (To be clear, you're not named as a defendant.) I'm wondering if Ghislaine has a response to the suit, which is attached. Thank you, Stephen Brown Manhattan Federal Court Reporter NY Dail News This transmission is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of the information contained herein is strictly unauthorized and prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Thank you. ************(NJ) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 11 EXHIBIT D Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 22 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01069 From: Sent: To: Subject: THE TERRAMAR PROJECT FACEBOOK TWITTER G+ PINTEREST INST AGRAM PLEDGE THE DAILY CATCH From: Philip Barden G Maxwell <GMaxl@ellmax.com> Sunday, January 11, 2015 6:26 AM JJep Fw: Sent: Sunday, 11 January 2015 05:27 To: Cc: G Maxwell Subject: Re: Saying nothing is reputational suicide. Even if AR is discredited by AD people will know JE paid her off and believe G was complicate absent a credible denial. Now it is reported that G engaged in direct abuse - as I feared would happen. Next reports to the authorities will be made. It is necessary from a litigation, investigatory and reputational reason to issue a cogent denial. I can see why JE doesn't want this as it may not suit him but he is already toast. Philip Sent from my iPhone Had Geordie on the phone half a dozen times today. He would have give us a better hearing than most I figure. Strongly believe saying nothing is the wrong thing - especially as Dershowitz has a big piece coming in The Times on Monday. PRIVILEGED GM_00"1055 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 22 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01070 Rest up and speak Monday Best Ross Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device From: Philip Barden Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 18:27:12 +0000 To: G Maxwell<GMax l@ellmax.com<mailto:GMax l@ellmax.com>> Cc: Ross Go Subject: Re: All I am back on line now. I see the statement didn't go. Monday? Maybe tomorrow? I will speak to Jeffery Epstein's lawyer but JE has a conflict with you and will want your silence as whilst you are being attacked there is less heat on him. Either Virginia Roberts is lying or not. If we let her lie without challenge then the lies become the reality and that may lead to you facing investigation. These are serious allegations and In the UK prosecuting people who face allegations of sex abuse is now common place and a lot of resources are focused on this. We can't sit back and let you be a conspirator by silence. Your are not guilty and must follow Dershowtiz line. He is a leading lawyer and he hasn't followed the don't say anything for fear of litigation. He has rightly called YR bluff and shouted his innocence. You have to stand up and deny the allegations or be branded guilty by association and that may lead to other investigations and worse. I feel I am going around in circles. I know what is right to do and that is to shout your innocence. Try and get some rest. Call me tomorrow if you want anytime. Speak to Deshowitz. Don't allay yourself to JE as that is not the way to go. Best Philip Sent from my iPhone 2 PRIVILEGED GM 001056 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 22 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01071 On 10 Jan 2015, at 16:02, "G Maxwell" <GMax l@ellmax.com<mailto:GMax l@ellmax.com><mailto:GMax l@ellmax.com>> wrote: 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 understand 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 I 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 INSTAGRAM PLEDGE THE DAILY CATCH This email is intended for the addressee named within only. It may contain legally privileged or confidential information. If you are not the named individual you should not read this email and if you do so, you must not under any circumstances make use of the information therein. If you have read this email and it is not addressed to you, please notify and confirm that it has been deleted from your system and no copies made. This Firm is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under the name of Devonshires Solicitors and registration number 0049857. This Firm does not accept service by electronic mail or facsimile. A list of partners, together with further legal statements, is available upon request or at www.devonshires.co.uk/terms-and-conditions/legal-notices.html<http://www.devonshires.co.uk/terms-and￾conditions/legal-notices.html> Devonshires Solicitors, 30 Finsbury Circus, London EC2M 7DT tel +44 (0)20 7628 7576 fax +44 (0)20 7256 7318 3 PRIVILEGED GM_001057 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 22 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01072 Where instructions have been given by Devonshires Solicitors to a barrister to work on a client's matter, we notify you, on behalf of that barrister, that you have the right to make a complaint about the service provided by that barrister or about the conduct of their Chamb~rs. A copy of the barrister and/ or their Chambers' complaints procedure may be obtained by contacting the Senior Clerk of that Chambers, whose contact details can be found online, or from us. Complaints may be made direct to the barrister/ their Chambers. Please note that there may be a time limit for bringing your complaint. You may also have the right to ask the Legal Ombudsman to consider your complaint at the end of the complaints process. Information on complaints to the Legal Ombudsman, including the details of strict time limits to bring a complaint, may be found at http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk. The Devonshires Foundation is proud to support Action for Kids (reg. charity 1068841 ), Wide horizons (reg. charity 1105847), and Theatre Royal Stratford East (reg. charity 233801) during 2013/2014. Please consider the environment before printing this email. Please consider the environment before printing this email. 4 PRIVILEGED GM 001058 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 22 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01075 From: Sent: To: what did you decide to do? please note jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com > Sunday, January 11, 2015 3:27 PM Gmax 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 PRIVILEGED GM_001062 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 22 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01084 From: Sent: To: jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com> Wednesday, January 21, 2015 4:16 PM Gmax Ask press to investigate whether Clinton was ever there . Challenge the press 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 PRIVILEGED GM 001084 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 22 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01085 From: Sent: To: jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com> Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:01 PM Gmax 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 harrasment; 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 PRIVILEGED GM 001085 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 22 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01086 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 Rothstein, the owner of the firm was sent to jail for 50 years for his crime. The lawyer who is currently representing Virgina was his partner. need I say morel 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 document and deal that JE negotiated with the government was given to the lawyers 6 years ago and is a public document. I am not 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 2 PRIVILEGED GM_001086 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 22 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01087 I reserve my right to file complaint and sue for defamation and slander 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 3 PRIVILEGED GM 00'1087 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 22 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01088 From: Sent: To: Subject: jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com > Wednesday, January 21, 2015 4:47 PM G Maxwell Re: FW: Guardian This will now end but I think a dismissive statement is ok On Wednesday, January 21, 2015, G Maxwell <GMaxl@ellmax.com> wrote: See bellow THE TERRAMAR PROJECT FACEBOOK TWITTER G+ PINTEREST INST AGRAM PLEDGE THE DAILY CATCH From: Ross Gow Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 17:45 PM To: Phi lip Barden, gmax Subject: Fwd: Guardian So this isn't getting better ... latest from our chums at The Guardian. ---------- Forwarded message----------From: Jon Swaine Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 Subject: Guardian To: Ross As discussed - here is the new affidavit from Virginia Roberts. She claims to have had sex with Ms Maxwell when Roberts was 15 years old. She alleges that Ms Maxwell was "heavily involved in the illegal sex" and "she had sex with underage girls virtually every day when I was around her". Roberts also says that Ms Maxwell "had large amounts of child pornography that she personally made". Please do pass on any comment or response Ms Maxwell would like to make. PRIVILEGED GM 001088 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 22 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01089 Thanks and all best Jon Visit theguardian.com. On your mobile and tablet, download the Guardian iPhone and Android apps theguardian.com/guardianapp and our tablet editions theguardian.com/editions. Save up to 57% by subscribing to the Guardian and Observer - choose the papers you want and get full digital access. Visit subscribe.theguardian.com This e-mail and all attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, please notify the sender and delete the e-mail and all attachments immediately. Do not disclose the contents to another person. You may not use the information for any purpose, or store, or copy, it in any way. Guardian News & Media Limited is not liable for any computer viruses or other material transmitted with or as part of this e-mail. You should employ virus checking software. Guardian News & Media Limited is a member of Guardian Media Group pie. Registered Office: PO Box 68164, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London, N1 P 2AP. Registered in England Number 908396 Ross Gow Managing Partner ACUITY Reputation 23 Berkeley Square London WlJ 6HE 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 the attention and use of the named addressee(s). If you are 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-mail 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 virus checker and procedures. No responsibil ity is accepted by ACUITY Reputation Limited for loss or damage arising from the receipt or use of this e-mail. 2 PRIVILEGED GM_001089 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 22 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01090 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 3 PRIVILEGED GM 001090 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 22 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01091 From: Sent: To: jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com> Thursday, January 22, 2015 12:44 PM Gmax ive tried to call. what have you decided? 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 PRIVILEGED GM 001091 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 22 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01092 From: Sent: To: Subject: should not be legal. jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com > Friday, January 23, 2015 4:46 PM G Maxwell Re: FW: Hi On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 6:03 PM, G Maxwell <GMaxl@ellmax.com> wrote: gawker have printed the entire address book, albeit redacted x Sent from my iPad 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 PRIVILEGED GM_001092 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 22 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01093 From: Sent: To: Subject: jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com> Friday, January 23, 2015 6:40 PM G Maxwell Re: Hi I am convinced your statement should be be about the clinton story being easily dsiporived. On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 8:07 PM, G Maxwell <GMax l@ellmax.com> wrote: My friends are apoplectic .. Do you know what edwards et al want from all this shit? What are they looking for? What is the end game? THE TERRAMAR PROJECT FACEBOOK TWITTER G+ PINTEREST INST AGRAM PLEDGE THE DAILY CATCH From: jeffrey E. Sent: Friday, 23 January 2015 18:46 To: G Maxwell Subject: Re: FW: Hi should not be legal. On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 6:03 PM, G Maxwell <GMax l@ellmax.com> wrote: gawker have printed the entire address book, albeit redacted x Sent from my iPad 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 1 PRIVILEGED GM_001093 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 22 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01094 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 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 2 PRIVILEGED GM __ 001094 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 22 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01095 From: Sent: To: Subject: publiclity jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com> Friday, January 23, 2015 6:14 PM G Maxwell Re: Hi On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 8:07 PM, G Maxwell <GMaxl@ellmax.com> wrote: My friends are apoplectic .. Do you know what edwards et al want from all this shit? What are they looking for? What is the end game? THE TERRAMAR PROJECT FACEBOOK TWITTER G+ PINTEREST INST AGRAM PLEDGE THE DAILY CATCH From: jeffrey E. Sent: Friday, 23 January 2015 18:46 To: G Maxwell Subject: Re: FW: Hi should not be legal. On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 6:03 PM, G Maxwell <GMaxI@ellmax.com> wrote: gawker have printed the entire address book, albeit redacted x Sent from my iPad 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 1 PRIVILEGED GM 001095 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 22 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01096 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 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 2 r.)RIVILEGED GM __ 001096 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 22 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01097 From: Sent: To: Subject: thnaks jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com > Sunday, January 25, 2015 4:30 PM G Maxwell Re: Update - FYI On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 7:27 PM, G Maxwell <GMaxI @ellmax.com> wrote: All had quietened down over here in last 24 hours but just googled you all again and under JE the daily mail printed a story 6 hours ago that they picked up from the daily beast which is jane doe l's testimony (and video interview) about how Haley robson recruited her to give je one massage when she was 14 and goes into detail about what happened - Sent from my iPad 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 PRIVILEGED GM __ 001097 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 22 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01098 From: Sent: To: Subject: jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com> Sunday, January 25, 2015 4:41 AM G Maxwell Re: ok, with me, You have done nothing wrong and i woudl urge you to start acting like it. go outside, head high, not as an esacping convict. go to parties. deal with it. . i had Iisa svenson the swedish ocean ambassador yesteady she said no one on her ocean panel takes this stuff seriously and you would be welcoe to the ocean conferenec water conference etc. On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 1:22 PM, G Maxwell <GMaxl@ellmax.com> wrote: I would appreciate it if-would come out and say she was your g'friend - I think she was from end 99 to 2002 THE TERRAMAR PROJECT FACEBOOK TWITTER G+ PINTEREST INST AGRAM PLEDGE THE DAILY CATCH 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 PRIVILEGED GM 001098 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 22 CONFIDENTIAL GM_01099 From: Sent: To: Subject: I have not decided what to do THE TERRAMAR PROJECT FACEBOOK TWITTER G+ PINTEREST INST AGRAM PLEDGE THE DAILY CATCH From: jeffrey E. G Maxwell <GMaxl@ellmax.com> Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:36 AM jeffrey E. Re: Sent: Tuesday, 27 January 2015 11:50 To: G Maxwell Subject: what has happned to you and your statmenet?? 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 PRIVILEGED GM 001099 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 22 of 22 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 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REOPEN DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION BASED ON LATE PRODUCTION OF NEW, KEY DOCUMENTS Plaintiff, Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files her Reply in Support of her Motion to Reopen Defendant’s Deposition Based on Late Production of New, Key Documents. Because Ms. Giuffre has shown the importance of reopening Defendant’s deposition on these several important documents, because Defendant has not offered any substantial countervailing consideration, the Court should allow Ms. Giuffre to question Defendant in a deposition about these late produced communications. I. INTRODUCTION As the Court is well aware, Ms. Giuffre has alleged that Defendant defamed her when she called her a liar after Ms. Giuffre spoke out about being a child victim of sex abuse at the hands of Defendant and Defendant’s long-time boyfriend, convicted pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein. The two documents at issue in the instant motion are Defendant’s communications with her press agent and with Epstein concerning potential statements to the media regarding Ms. Giuffre. Therefore, not only do they involve two key individuals, but also a key topic in this litigation: Defendant’s defamation of Ms. Giuffre through the media. Multiple documents show Epstein’s involvement in crafting Defendant’s various draft statements to the media concerning Ms. Giuffre, and one of the late Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 9 2 produced documents at issue in this pending motion is an email chain showing Epstein’s involvement in crafting yet another draft statement. The other late produced document is a communication between Defendant and her press agent, Ross Gow. It also concerns a potential statement to the media about Ms. Giuffre. This email shows Gow’s continued involvement in handling press inquiries concerning Ms. Giuffre on Defendant’s behalf. That is relevant to Ms. Giuffre’s claims for multiple reasons, not least of which is Defendant’s nonsensical attempts to distance herself from Gow’s statement, as recounted in the moving brief. Her continuance of working with him after he issued the defamatory statement, and after the commencement of this litigation (as shown by the document at issue) is evidence to the contrary. Ms. Giuffre should be able to cross her with that email and ask related questions. Therefore, both of these documents are highly relevant. Whatever Defendant argues about her prior deposition, she cannot claim that she was questioned about these two emails. Ms. Giuffre deserves the opportunity to ask Defendant about them. II. ARGUMENT A. Discovery Concerning These Emails is Not Duplicative, and it is Highly Relevant As the Court will recall, a Defendant’s initial deposition, she answered the questions put to her with evasive, non-responsive answers, unqualified refusals to answer, feigned memory loss, and feigned ignorance over the meaning of basic sentences and basic words (“I don’t know what you mean by puppet”1 ). As a result, Ms. Giuffre was forced to file a Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions (DE 143). On June 20, 2016, this Court granted Ms. Giuffre’s Motion and directed Defendant to sit again for her deposition (June 20, 2016 Sealed Order, filed in redacted form at DE 264-1). As recounted in Ms. Giuffre’s Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions (DE 314/356), Defendant was again evasive and refused to answer questions during her second deposition, despite the court’s specific direction that she sit for her deposition and answer topic areas that she avoided during her first deposition. See id. Ms. Giuffre 1 Maxwell Depo. Tr. at 287:24-25. - - - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 9 3 attempted to solicit Defendant’s testimony pursuant to the Court’s Order, but Defendant defied that Order and again refused to answer many questions, thus requiring Ms. Giuffre to file the Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order, to attempt to obtain another deposition with a stern direction from the Court to the Defendant that she must answer questions during her deposition as originally directed by this Court. That motion is currently pending before this Court (DE314/356). Thereafter, in this case where Defendant’s production of email communications has been miniscule, Defendant stated that she “inadvertently” failed to produce two critical emails, and produced them after Defendant’s second deposition was complete. While Ms. Giuffre attempted to confer with Defendant to secure her agreement to be deposed on this new information, Defendant refused to sit for a follow up deposition (despite the fact that Ms. Giuffre agreed to sit for her deposition under these same circumstance), thereby forcing Ms. Giuffre to file this motion with the Court to secure the Defendant’s deposition on these two e-mails. Defendant’s paltry justification for opposing Ms. Giuffre’s motion is that she previously answered questions concerning certain other communications with Epstein and Gow. That argument is unavailing. First, Ms. Giuffre is entitled to question the Defendant on these specific communications. One is an email chain with her joint defense partner Jeffrey Epstein, who was also a co-abuser with her. The other is a communication with Ross Gow, Defendant’s press agent who she refused to produce for a deposition, despite him being her agent and despite their sharing the same attorney, forcing Ms. Giuffre to litigate the issue in the London courts, against Defendant’s counsel, and at significant expense. An English Court has since ordered Gow to sit for his deposition, despite Defendant and her counsel’s obstructionist refusal to produce him prior to that litigation. Second, these documents are relevant precisely for the reason Defendant attempts to say they are not: their date. Notably, the questioning that Defendant cites in her brief surrounds - - • Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 9 4 communications in January of 2015, whereas this newly- produced communication shows discussions with Gow from November of 2015 - after this litigation had commenced. Therefore, Ms. Giuffre is entitled to ask the Defendant about her relationship with her agent in dealing with press and other inquires after the commencement of litigation. This is particularly relevant, because, again, Defendant has been less than forthright in answering questions relating to her authorization of the issuance of the January statement. Ms. Giuffre will refer the Court to her discussion on pages 4-7 of her moving brief, describing the evasive answers Defendant gave regarding Gow, including that she “denies in part” simple statements concerning Gow, offering a non-responsive answer instead. The fact that she continued to engage with her agent Gow, after this litigation was filed, refutes any suggestion that she did not authorize her agent to act on her behalf in January 2015. Indeed, Defendant’s continued use of her press agent and her continued reliance upon Epstein’s input informs a pattern and practice that is echoed by the per￾defamatory communications. In sum, contrary to Defendant’s argument, the fact that Ms. Giuffre questioned Defendant regarding her older communications with Epstein and Gow does not render redundant questions concerning her more recent communication with Epstein and Gow, nor could it. Seeming to acknowledge the relevance of Ms. Giuffre asking questions about the Gow email, Defendant suggests that Ms. Giuffre could simply ask Defendant’s press agent, Ross Gow, about the email he sent, instead of asking her. This is a flippant suggestion, as Defendant and her counsel have played an expensive game of cat-and-mouse with Mr. Gow’s deposition, refusing to accept service of his Rule 45 subpoena. Mr. Gow, however, likely will be unable to answer questions about what Defendant thought about his inquiry, or what she did next, and similar questions. Similarly, only Defendant can testify to her understanding of why she was explaining herself to Epstein on April 22, 2015, seemingly seeking his approval on a draft statement, and only she can - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 9 5 testify what she did after receiving Epstein’s “ok.” The fact that Defendant was seeking Epstein’s permission with respect to her media communications regarding Ms. Giuffre shows a high level of coordination among these co-conspirators,2 and Ms. Giuffre should not be precluded from asking about critical communications because Defendant failed to produce the communications until after so many key witnesses, including the Defendant, had testified. B. This Court has Already Held that Reopening a Deposition is Appropriate for Question concerning Documents Produced After the Deposition This Court has already ruled that reopening a party deposition is appropriate where important3 documents are produced after the deposition is completed. This ruling is in accord with relevant precedent. See Wesley v. Muhammad, 2009 WL 1490607, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“while 2 Incorrectly, in Footnote 1, Defendant claims that Ms. Giuffre fabricated her claim that Maxwell and Epstein asked Ms. Giuffre to bear a child for them. Ms. Giuffre’s statement is directly corroborated by another young woman Defendant’ recruited to provide sexual massages to Epstein. Indeed, Johanna Sjorberg testified that Epstein asked her to bear a child for him: Q. Have you ever been propositioned by anyone to have a baby for someone? A. Yes. Q. Who propositioned you? A. Jeffrey asked me. Q. Did he ask you more than once? A. Yes. Q. And what did he say? A. Basically just said, I want you to be the mother of my baby. See Schultz Dec. at Exhibit 1, May 18, 2016, Sjoberg Dep. Tr. at 39:25-40:9. There is no “fabrication” here. 3 Defendant attempts to distinguish her two emails with key players in this case from the documents that Ms. Giuffre produced after her deposition, namely, medical and employment records. There is a distinction, but not what Defendant suggests. Not only are Ms. Giuffre’s documents ancillary to the matter, but unlike the Defendant, Ms. Giuffre is cooperating with a follow up deposition on these documents – whereas Defendant is refusing to be deposed. This is not a personal injury action or a medical malpractice action wherein medical records are highly relevant. This is also not a wage-and￾hour case, or a non-compete case, or an employment discrimination case wherein employment records are highly relevant. This is a defamation case. And the communications among the individuals who formed and then disseminated the defamatory statement (particularly when those communications address potential future statements about Ms. Giuffre) are more relevant - by orders of magnitude - than any of the medical or employment records about which Defendant will ask Ms. Giuffre at her second deposition, particularly when those medical records cover such topics so far afield, such as Ms. Giuffre’s treatment for an animal bite. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 9 6 defendants' delay in producing documents may have interfered with the completeness of depositions, plaintiff will be free to reopen any depositions for which he deems the newly produced documents to be a relevant source of questions”); Ganci v. U.S. Limousine Serv., Ltd., 2011 WL 4407461 at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2011) (“Courts will typically reopen a deposition where there is new information on which a witness should be questioned”). Here, Defendant produced important documents - communications with Jeffrey Epstein and her press agent who disseminated her defamatory statement - well after her deposition, and well after she was served with the discovery request seeking those documents. These are not auxiliary documents. They are communications with two of the most important witnesses in this case: Jeffrey Epstein and Ross Gow. As key witnesses, Ms. Giuffre has spent considerable resources seeking their depositions and answers to the deposition questions. For Gow, Ms. Giuffre’s efforts included service through The Hague Convention (twice), hiring an English firm to attempt personal service (Gow left the country); and initiating a separate action in England pursuant to this Court’s Letter Rogatory. For Epstein, Ms. Giuffre deposed Epstein, but he improperly invoked the Fifth Amendment and improperly refused to produce documents. Accordingly, pending before this Court is Ms. Giuffre’s Sealed Motion to Compel Epstein to answer questions and produce documents. Defendant’s lately￾produced communications with these two witnesses are critical evidence. Defendant’s error should not prejudice Ms. Giuffre, particularly since, pursuant to this Court’s Order, Defendant will have the opportunity to depose Ms. Giuffre on her lately produced documents. The same standard that this Court applied to Defendant’s motion to open Ms. Giuffre’s deposition should apply to Ms. Giuffre’s motion for the same relief, made on the same grounds. See e.g., Robinson v. T.J. Maxx, Inc., 148 F.R.D. 490, 492 (N.D.N.Y. 1993) (holding that discovery ruling regarding extension of discovery deadline applied to both parties equally); In re 650 Fifth Ave., No. 08 CIV. 10934 KBF, 2013 WL 1870090, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2013) (applying equal Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 9 7 standards to the parties’ privilege logs, explaining “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”). Well-reasoned precedent, as well as the facts in this case, requires the re-opening of Defendant’s deposition. Accordingly, the Court should grant Ms. Giuffre’s request to reopen Defendant’s deposition to answer questions relating to her lately produced documents. C. Ms. Giuffre’s Motion is Not Untimely Without any supporting case law or authority, Defendant has the gumption to argue that Ms. Giuffre’s motion is somehow “untimely” when it was the Defendant who withheld these critical e￾mails during the entire discovery period, denying Ms. Giuffre the benefit of being able to use these e￾mails at multiple witness depositions. The only “untimeliness” claim that can be made here is against the Defendant. The two emails in question are responsive to a Request for Production served on Defendant on February 2, 2016. Defendant produced these two emails on August 16, 2016, after her deposition and after the fact discovery period closed on July 29, 2016 (D.E. 317). Defendant wrongly suggests to this Court that the fact discovery closure date was September 8, 2016 but that is incorrect. The only deadline modified to September 8, 2016, was the expert disclosure deadline. (D.E. 413). Defendant’s documents were clearly produced after the close of fact discovery. The only party that is untimely here is the Defendant. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, and the reasons set forth in the moving brief, Ms. Giuffre respectfully requests that this Court Reopen Defendant’s deposition to (1) answer lines of questions discussed in Ms. Giuffre’s Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions Filed under Seal (DE 315) which is pending before the Court; and (2) answer questions related to the two key late produced documents. 1111 1111 - - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 9 8 October 28, 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) 585-52024 4 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 1330-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 9 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 28, 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 to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic Court Filing System 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/ Meredith Schultz Meredith Schultz Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 9