Skip to main content
Skip to content

Duplicate Document

This document appears to be a copy. The original version is:

Deposition excerpt showing attorney-client privilege instructions to a witness
Case File
kaggle-ho-021867House Oversight

Deposition excerpt showing attorney-client privilege instructions to a witness

Deposition excerpt showing attorney-client privilege instructions to a witness The passage merely records a procedural exchange about invoking attorney‑client privilege for an unnamed individual ([REDACTED - Survivor]). It contains no concrete names of influential actors, financial details, dates, or allegations of misconduct, limiting its investigative value. While it hints at a possible effort to shield testimony, the lack of specifics makes it a low‑value lead. Key insights: Witness is instructed not to answer questions based on attorney‑client privilege.; The privilege is claimed for a person named [REDACTED - Survivor].; Lawyers Mr. Scarola and Ms. McCawley are involved in the instruction.

Date
Unknown
Source
House Oversight
Reference
kaggle-ho-021867
Pages
1
Persons
2
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

Deposition excerpt showing attorney-client privilege instructions to a witness The passage merely records a procedural exchange about invoking attorney‑client privilege for an unnamed individual ([REDACTED - Survivor]). It contains no concrete names of influential actors, financial details, dates, or allegations of misconduct, limiting its investigative value. While it hints at a possible effort to shield testimony, the lack of specifics makes it a low‑value lead. Key insights: Witness is instructed not to answer questions based on attorney‑client privilege.; The privilege is claimed for a person named [REDACTED - Survivor].; Lawyers Mr. Scarola and Ms. McCawley are involved in the instruction.

Persons Referenced (2)

Tags

kagglehouse-oversightlegalattorney-client-privilegedepositioncourt-procedure

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit
Review This Document

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 44 MR. SCAROLA: I instruct you not to answer. MS. McCAWLEY: And I object to that. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. So will you not answer that question? MR. SCAROLA: On the basis of attorney/client privilege, I instruct him not to answer. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. And you will follow the instruction? A. I'm being instructed not to waive attorney/client privileges of Virginia Roberts and I'm going to follow that instruction, yes. Q. To shorten the deposition -- MR. SCAROLA: I might be able to help you a little bit. You can assume that Professor Cassell will follow my instructions. You don't need to ask for -- MR. SIMPSON: We are at the same place. I was just going to say, we have an agreement that if -- THE WITNESS: Yeah, yeah. MR. SIMPSON: Let me just finish. If Mr. Scarola on Ms. McCawley instructs you not to answer, you're going to follow it? A. That's fine. I don't want to try to run out ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

Related Documents (6)

House OversightUnknown

Attorney Discusses Confidentiality Agreements and Fees in Jeffrey Epstein Victim Cases

Attorney Discusses Confidentiality Agreements and Fees in Jeffrey Epstein Victim Cases The deposition reveals that a lawyer received undisclosed fees for representing multiple Epstein victims and is bound by confidentiality agreements imposed by Epstein. This suggests potential financial flows and privileged information that could be investigated, but the lead lacks specific amounts, dates, or direct links to high‑level officials, limiting its immediate impact. Key insights: Attorney claims to have represented three victims as counsel of record and assisted in at least one additional case.; All four cases are reported as settled, and the attorney confirms receiving a fee in each.; The attorney cites confidentiality obligations imposed by Jeffrey Epstein that prevent disclosure of fee amounts.

1p
House OversightUnknown

Deposition transcript metadata for Jeffrey Epstein-related civil case (Oct 2015)

Deposition transcript metadata for Jeffrey Epstein-related civil case (Oct 2015) The document is a standard deposition record showing counsel appearances, contact information, and exhibit references. It contains no substantive allegations, financial details, or new connections to high‑profile actors beyond the already public involvement of Jeffrey Epstein. Consequently, it offers minimal investigative value and low controversy. Key insights: Deposition taken on Oct 17, 2015, telephonically on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein.; Counsel listed includes Darren K. Indyke, Bradley J. Edwards, Paul G. Cassell, and others.; Exhibit numbers (e.g., 4, 5, 6) and Bates numbers (BE-510‑514) are noted.

1p
House OversightApr 9, 2019

Empty Exhibit Provides No Investigative Leads

Empty Exhibit Provides No Investigative Leads The document contains only a title and no substantive content, offering no names, dates, transactions, or allegations to pursue. It lacks any actionable information, controversy, novelty, or linkage to powerful actors. Key insights: Document consists solely of a header and exhibit label.; No factual statements, allegations, or references to individuals or entities are present.

1p
Court UnsealedDepositionJul 31, 2020

[REDACTED - Survivor] Deposition May 2016

Case Document 1090-32 Filed 07/30/20 Page 1 of 89 EXHIBIT Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1090-32 Filed 07/30/20 Page 2 of 89 GIUFFRE VS. MAXWELL Deposition [REDACTED - Survivor] 05/03/2016 _______________________________________________________________________ Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. 216 16th Street, Suite 600 Denver Colorado, 80202 303-296-0017 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. Page 3 of 89 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1090-32 Filed 07/30/20 Page 1 IN THE UNI

89p
House OversightNov 23, 2015

Plaintiffs seek to unseal court filings alleging sexual abuse by Alan Dershowitz in [REDACTED - Survivor] defamation case

Plaintiffs seek to unseal court filings alleging sexual abuse by Alan Dershowitz in [REDACTED - Survivor] defamation case The passage reveals a motion to keep certain filings confidential that contain allegations of sexual abuse by a high‑profile attorney, Alan Dershowitz, on behalf of [REDACTED - Survivor]. While it identifies a potential lead—unsealing these records could provide evidence of misconduct—it lacks concrete details such as dates of alleged abuse, financial transactions, or direct links to powerful political figures. The controversy is moderate, and the novelty is limited given the public nature of the Dershowitz‑Giuffre allegations. Key insights: Defendants Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell filed a response to Dershowitz’s motion to keep records confidential.; The contested records are three filings that recount [REDACTED - Survivor]’s allegations of sexual abuse by Alan Dershowitz.; Plaintiffs argue the filings are not confidential and should be part of the public record in the defamation case.

1p
House OversightUnknown

Sealed Declaration in Giuffre v. Epstein Motion to Compel Production of Epstein’s Phone Records, Contact List, and Message Pads

Sealed Declaration in Giuffre v. Epstein Motion to Compel Production of Epstein’s Phone Records, Contact List, and Message Pads The filing reveals a court‑ordered request for Epstein’s sealed phone records, contact list, and message pad excerpts, which could contain undisclosed connections to powerful individuals. While the case is already public, the specific documents sought are not, offering a concrete investigative avenue. The lead is moderately controversial and potentially high‑impact if the records expose further elite networks, but it does not yet name top‑level officials directly. Key insights: Plaintiff [REDACTED - Survivor] seeks a court order compelling Jeffrey Epstein to produce phone records, a contact list, and message pad excerpts.; The documents are filed as sealed exhibits, indicating they may contain undisclosed information.; Exhibit 4 references Ghislaine (likely Ghislaine Maxwell), suggesting her involvement in the communications.

1p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,500+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Support This ProjectSupported by 1,550+ people worldwide
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.