Created
January 5, 2024 08:15
-
-
Save baskeboler/39477cec9e097eea771d3e6ae32989e7 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Text extracted from PDF file of Epstein's unredacted court documents
This file has been truncated, but you can view the full file.
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| January 3, 2024 | |
| VIA ECF | |
| The Honorable Loretta A. Preska | |
| District Court Judge | |
| United States District Court | |
| Southern District of New York | |
| 500 Pearl Street | |
| New York, NY 10007 | |
| Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-7433-LAP | |
| Dear Judge Preska, | |
| Pursuant to the Court’s December 18, 2023, unsealing order, and following conferral with | |
| Defendant, Plaintiff files this set of documents ordered unsealed. The filing of these documents | |
| ordered unsealed will be done on a rolling basis until completed. This filing also excludes | |
| documents pertaining to Does 105 (see December 28, 2023, Email Correspondence with | |
| Chambers), 107, and 110 (see ECF No. 1319), while the Court’s review of those documents is | |
| ongoing. | |
| Respectfully, | |
| /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley | |
| Sigrid S. McCawley | |
| cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 1 | |
| EXHIBIT 4 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-1 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 2 | |
| From: | |
| Sent: | |
| To: | |
| gmaxl@ellmax.com | |
| Saturday, January 10, 2015 9:00 AM | |
| Philip Barden; Ross Gow | |
| I am out of my depth to understanding defamation and other legal hazards and don't want to end up in a law | |
| suit aimed at me from anyone if I can help it. Apparently even saying Virginia is a lier has hazard! I have never | |
| been in a suit criminal or civil and want it to stay that way. | |
| The US lawyers for the Jane Does are filling additional discovery motions and if I speak I open my self to being | |
| part of discovery apparently. I am trying to stay out of litigation and not have to employ lawyers for years as I | |
| get lost in US legal nightmare. I stand no legal risk currently on these old charges and civil suits against Jeffrey | |
| We need to consult with US lawyers on any statement I make and the complaints too | |
| Perhaps we make a statement of the legal risk of saying anything for potential defamation or something that | |
| prevents a full and frank detailed rebuttal+ the press not being the place for that? Regardless, Philip plse call | |
| jeffrey lawyer and see what you can under.stand from him and pehaps craft something in conjunction with | |
| him? Either way I think you need to speak to him to understand my risk so you can help me understand it - too | |
| may cooks in the kitchen and l can't make good decisions. Plse reach out to him today | |
| + I have already suffered such a terrible and painful loss over the last few days that I can't even see what life | |
| after press he'll even looks like - statements that don't address all just lead to more questions .. what is my | |
| relationship to clinton ? Andrew on and on. | |
| Let's rest till monday. I need head space | |
| THE TERRAMAR PROJECT | |
| G+ | |
| INST AGRAM | |
| PLEDGE | |
| THE DAILY CATCH | |
| PRIVILEGED GM_001044 | |
| CONFIDENTIAL | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-1 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 2 | |
| Virginia L. Giuffre, | |
| Plaintiff, | |
| V. | |
| Ghislaine Maxwell, | |
| Defendant. | |
| United States District Court | |
| Southern District of New York | |
| Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS | |
| I --------------- | |
| PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT | |
| TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS FILED UNDER SEAL 1 | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this | |
| Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions. During her recent deposition, | |
| Defendant refused to answer numerous questions about allegedly .. adult'' sexual activity related | |
| to Jeffrey Epstein. Because this activity is highly relevant to this case, Defendant should be | |
| ordered to answer questions about it. | |
| As the Court is aware, this defamation case involves Ms. Giuffre's assertions that she and | |
| other females were recruited by Defendant to be sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein under the | |
| guise of being "massage therapists." See Complaint, (DE 1). at 127 (Giuffre '·described | |
| Maxwell's role as one of the main women who Epstein used to procure under-aged girls for | |
| sexual activities and a primary co-conspirator and participant in his sexual abuse and sex | |
| trafficking scheme''). In response to these assertions, Defendant has made the sweeping claim | |
| that Ms. Giuffre·s assertions are "entirely false'' and '·entirely untrue." Complaint, DE 1, at 131. | |
| 1 Defendant has labelled her entire deposition transcript as Confidential at this time. Counsel for | |
| the parties conferred at the deposition regarding answering questions. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 10 | |
| Yet during her deposition, Defendant refused to answer any questions that she construed | |
| as having something to do with ''consensual adult sex." Defem,e counsel supported that position | |
| that "frankly, [that's] none of your business and I instruct the witness not to answer." See | |
| Declaration of Sigrid S. Mccawley ("Mccawley Deel.'') at Exhibit 1, Tr. of Maxwell Depo. | |
| (Apr. 22, 2016) at 21. The result was that at a number of points throughout her deposition, | |
| Defendant refused to answer questions about subjects integral to this lawsuit, including questions | |
| about what the alleged ''massage therapists" were doing at Jeffrey Epstein's house and the sexual | |
| nature of those massages. | |
| For example, Defendant refused to answer questions about whether she had given Jeffrey | |
| Epstein a massage: | |
| Q. Have you ever given Jeffrey Epstein a massage? | |
| MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form, foundation. And I'm going to | |
| instruct you not to answer that question. I don't have any problem with you | |
| asking questions about what the subject matter of this lawsuit is, which would | |
| be, as you've termed it, sexual trafficking of Ms. Roberts. | |
| To the extent you are asking for information relating to any consensual | |
| adult interaction between my client and Mr. Epstein, I'm go;ng lo instruct her not | |
| to answer because it's not part of this litigation and it is her private confidential | |
| information, not subject to this deposition. | |
| MS. McCAWLEY: You can instruct her not to answer. That is your | |
| right. But I will bring her back for another deposition because it is part of the | |
| subject matter of this litigation so she should be answering these questions. This | |
| is civil litigation, deposition and she should be responsible for answering these | |
| questions. | |
| MR. PAGLIUCA: I disagree and you anderstand the bounds that I put on | |
| it. | |
| MS. McCA WLEY: No, I don't. I will continue to ask my questions and | |
| you can continue to make your objections. | |
| Q. Did you ever participate from the time period of 1992 to 2009, did | |
| you ever participate in a massage with Jeffrey Epstein and another female? | |
| MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection. Do not am,wer that question. Again, to the | |
| extent you are asking for some sort of illegal activity as you've construed in | |
| 2 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 10 | |
| connection with this case I don't have any problem with you asking that question. | |
| To the extent these questions involve consensual acts between adults, frankly, | |
| they're none of your business and I will instruct the 1vztness not to answer. | |
| MS. McCA WLEY: This case involves sexual trafficking, sexual abuse, | |
| questions about her having interactions with other females is relevant to this case. | |
| She needs to answer these questions. | |
| MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm instructing her not to answer. | |
| MS. McCA WLEY: Then we will be back here again. | |
| See Mccawley Deel. at Exhibit 2, Tr. of Maxwell Depo. (Apr. 22, 2016) at 19-22 ( emphasis | |
| added). | |
| Defendant's participation in massages with Epstein is a central part of this case. Ms. | |
| Giuffre has explained that during her first sexual encounter with Jeffrey Epstein, it was | |
| Defendant who provided instruction on how to do it and how to turn the massage into a sexual | |
| event. Obviously, proof that Defendant had previously massaged Epstein - include massages | |
| with sexual component - would provide important corroboration for Ms. Giuffre's testimony at | |
| trial. And proof that Defendant was involved in massages will further help prove that | |
| statements to the press that Virginia's allegations were ''obvious lies'' was itself an obvious lie. | |
| As another example, Defendant refused to answer questions about her knowledge that | |
| Johanna Sjoberg was hired to work for Epstein and provided massages. fn the police report, | |
| Johanna admitted that Maxwell recruited her to work for Epstein. See Mccawley Deel. at | |
| Exhibit 3, Giuffre000076-77 (police report indicating that Johanna was recruited by Maxwell). | |
| Yet during Defendant's deposition, she refused to answer questions regarding Johanna Sjoberg. | |
| Q. Do you know what tasks Johanna was hired to performance? | |
| A. She was tasked to answer telephones. | |
| Q. Did you ever ask her to rub Jeffrey's feet? .. . | |
| A. I believe that J have read that, but I don't have any memory of it. | |
| 3 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 10 | |
| Q. Did you ever tell Johanna that she would get extra money if she | |
| provided Jeffrey massages? | |
| A. I was always happy to give career advice to people and I think that | |
| becoming somebody in the healthcare profession. either exercise instructor or | |
| nutritionist or professional massage therapist is an excellent job opportunity. | |
| Hourly wages are around 7, 8, $9 and as a professional healthcare provider you | |
| can earn somewhere between as we have established 100 to $200 and to be able to | |
| travel and have ajob that pays that is a wonderful job opportunity. So in the | |
| context of advising people for opportunities for work, it is possible that I would | |
| have said that she should explore that as an option. | |
| Q. Did you tell her she would get extra money if she massaged Jeffrey? | |
| A. I'm just saying, r cannot recall the exact conversation. I give career | |
| advice and I have done that. | |
| Q. Did you ever have Johanna massage you? | |
| A. 1 did. | |
| Q. How many times? | |
| A. I don't recall how many times. | |
| Q. Was there sex involved? | |
| A.No .... | |
| Q. Did you ever have sexual contact with Johanna? | |
| MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form and foundation. You need to give | |
| me an opportunity to get in between the questions. | |
| Anything that involves consensual sex on your part, I'm instructing you | |
| not to answer. | |
| Q. Did you ever have sexual contact with Johanna? | |
| A. [MR. PAGLIUCA?] Again, she is an adult -- | |
| Q. I'm asking you, did you ever have sexual contact with Johanna? | |
| A. I've just been instructed not to answer. | |
| Q. On \\.hat basis? | |
| A. You have to ask my lawyer. | |
| See Mccawley Deel. at Exhibit 4, Tr. of Maxwell Depo. (Apr. 22, 2016) at 60-62 (emphasis | |
| added). | |
| 4 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 10 | |
| Here again, this information is critical to the case. Among other things, these questions | |
| are designed to show a modus operani (''M.O") for Epstein and Maxwell - specifically, how they | |
| recruited for a non-sexual massage than converted the massage into sexual activities. | |
| One last illustration comes from Defendant's refusal to answer about her know ledge of | |
| Epstein's sexual interests during massages: | |
| Q. Does Jeffrey like to have his nipples pinched during sexual | |
| encounters? | |
| MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form and foundation. | |
| A. I'm not referring to any advice on my counsel. l'm not talking about | |
| any adult sexual things when I was with him. | |
| Q. When Jeffrey would have a massage, would he request that the | |
| masseuse pinch his nipples while he was having a massage? | |
| A. l'm not talking about anything with consensual adult situation. | |
| See Mccawley Deel. at Exhibit 5, Tr. of Maxwell Depo. (Apr. 22, 2016) at 82. | |
| While Epstein himself might also provide answers to these questions. it appears likely | |
| that he will assert his Fifth Amendment privilege regarding his sexual activities. Accordingly, | |
| Ms.. Giuffre must pursue questioning of Maxwell to obtain information on this subject. Here | |
| again, information about Epstein's sexual idiosyncrasies will provide important corroboration to | |
| Ms. Giuffre's testimony that she had sexual interactions of an identic:ll nature with Epstein. | |
| These refusals are not an isolated instance. Instead, similar refusals to answer questions | |
| occurred repeatedly throughout the deposition. See, e.g, Mccawley Deel. at Composite Exhibit | |
| 6. 52-55; 64-65; 82: 92-93: 137-38: 307-09. | |
| The Court should compel Defendant to answer all these questions. In addition to the | |
| specific points made above, the "big picture" here reveals how vital such discovery is. At the | |
| core of Ms. Giuffre's allegations is the allegation that Defendant lured her into a sexual situation | |
| with the offer of a job making money as a massage therapist; that Epstein always habitually tried | |
| 5 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 10 | |
| to turn massages into sex (that was his modus operandi and plan all along); and that Maxwell | |
| recruited other females for an ostensibly proper position, such as therapeutic masseuse, with | |
| knowledge that the intent was for that person would be pressured to provide sexual gratification | |
| to Epstein. As a result, Epstein's use of massages for sexual purposes is a central part of this | |
| case. | |
| And Defendant's role in those massages - and knowledge of the purposes of those | |
| massages - is a critical piece of evidence showing her state of mind when she attacked Ms. | |
| Giuffre's assertions as ·'entirely untrue." Ms. Giuffre intends to prove at trial that Defendant | |
| knew full well the sexual purpose for which she was recruiting females - including underage | |
| females like Ms Giuffre. Ms. Giuffre is entitled to explore Defendant's knowledge of the sexual | |
| activities that took place under the guise of "massages.'' Otherwise Defendant will be able to | |
| portray to the jury an inaccurate picture of that what was happening at Epstein's house what | |
| nothing more than run-of-the-mill massage therapy. See, e.g., Mccawley Deel. at Exhibit 7. Tr. | |
| of Maxwell Depo. (Apr. 22, 2016) at 51 ("'Q: Did [the pay for massage therapists] vary on what | |
| sexual acts they performed? ... A: No, it varied depending on how much time. some massage | |
| therapists charge more and some charge less.''). | |
| Defendant's refusal to answer questions about alleged "adult" consensual sex also blocks | |
| Ms. Giuffre from seeking legitimate discovery in this case. By refusing to answer questions | |
| about her and Epstein's sexual activities with alleged "adults," Defendant is essentially given the | |
| ability to refuse to answer any sexual question she does not wish to answer. Defendant simply | |
| has to deem the question as involving "consensual adult sex" and no need be given. The result is | |
| to leave Ms. Giuffre with no way of exploring the identity of these alleged adults, the ages of | |
| these alleged adults, and indeed whether they were adults at all. This allows Defendant to claim | |
| 6 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 10 | |
| that she is unaware of any sexual activity im,olving underage females, because (she claims) the | |
| only sexual activity she was aware involved adults. | |
| The Court should compel Ms. Maxwell to answer all questions about her knowledge | |
| relating to sexual activities with Epstein and other females while at Epstein's various homes. See | |
| Fed. R. Crim. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(i); see, e.g, Kel(v v. Al Tech , No. 09 CIV. 962 LAK MHD, 2010 | |
| WL 1541585, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2010) ("Under the Federal Rules, when a party refuses | |
| to answer a question during a deposition, the questioning party may subsequently move to | |
| compel disclosure of the testimony that it sought. The court must determine the propriety of the | |
| deponent's objection to answering the questions. and can order the deponent to provide | |
| improperly withheld answers during a continued deposition" (internal citations omitted)). Of | |
| course, the party objecting to discovery must carry the burden of proving the validity of its | |
| objections, particularly in light of "the broad and liberal construction afforded the federal | |
| discovery rules .... " John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Book Dog Books, LLC, 298 F.R.D. 184, 186 | |
| (S.D.N.Y. 2014). For purposes of a deposition, the information sought ''need not be admissible | |
| at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible | |
| evidence.'' Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 293 F.R.D. 557, 561 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citing | |
| Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(6)(1)). | |
| Defendant cannot carry her burden of showing that the questions asked are not | |
| reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This is a case in which | |
| sexual activities lie at the heart of the issues in dispute. As a result, it is hardly surprising to find | |
| that discovery pertains to alleged "adult" sexual activities - and questions about such subjects are | |
| entirely proper. See, e.g, Condit v Dunne, 225 r.R.D. 100, 113 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (in defamation | |
| case, '·Plaintiff is hereby ordered to answer questions regarding his sexual relationships in so far | |
| 7 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 10 | |
| as they are relevant to a defense of substantial truth, mitigation of damages, or impeachment of | |
| plaintiff."); Weber v. lvfultimedia Entm't, Inc., No. 97 CIV. 0682 PKL THK, 1997 WL 729039, at | |
| *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 1997) ("While discovery is not unlimited and may not unnecessarily | |
| intrude into private matters, in the instant case inquiry into private matters is clearly relevant to | |
| the subject matter of the suit. Accordingly, plaintiff Misty Weber shall respond to defendants' | |
| interrogatories concerning her sexual partners .... ''). | |
| Generally speaking, instructions from attorneys to their clients not to answer questions at | |
| a deposition should be "limited to [issues regarding] privilege." Morales v. Zonda, inc., 204 | |
| F.R.D. 50, 54 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). In this case, defense counsel ranged far beyond the normal | |
| parameters of objections and sought to decide for himself what issues were relevant. That was | |
| improper and the Court should order a resumption of the Defendant's deposition so that she can | |
| answer questions about her knowledge of sexual activity relating to Jeffrey Epstein. | |
| CONCLUSION | |
| Defendant should be ordered to sit for a follow-up deposition and directed to answer | |
| questions regarding her knowledge of alleged "adult" sexual activity. | |
| Dated: May 5, 2016 | |
| Respectfully Submitted, | |
| By: v-J | |
| Sigrid cCawley (P. ac Vice) | |
| Meredith Schultz ( ro Hae Vice) | |
| Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP | |
| 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 | |
| Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 | |
| (954) 356-0011 | |
| David Boies | |
| Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP | |
| 8 | |
| LP | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 10 | |
| 333 Main Street | |
| Armonk, NY 10504 | |
| Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hae Vice) | |
| FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, | |
| EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. | |
| 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 | |
| Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | |
| (954) 524-2820 | |
| Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hae Vice) | |
| S.J. Quinney College of Law | |
| University of Utah | |
| 3 83 University St. | |
| Salt Lake City, UT 84112 | |
| (801 ) 585-52022 | |
| 2 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only | |
| and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private | |
| representation. | |
| 9 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 10 | |
| CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | |
| I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 5th day of May, 2016, I electronically filed the | |
| foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the | |
| foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission | |
| of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. | |
| Laura A. Menninger, Esq. | |
| Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. | |
| HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. | |
| 150 East 10th Avenue | |
| Denver, Colorado 80203 | |
| Tel: (303) 831-7364 | |
| Fax: (303) 832-2628 | |
| Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com | |
| jpagliuca@hmflaw.com | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 10 | |
| EXHIBIT4 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-3 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 6 | |
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | |
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | |
| - - - - - - - - - X | |
| VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, | |
| Plaintiff, | |
| -againstGHISLAINE MAXWELL , | |
| Case No.: | |
| 15-cv- 07433 - RWS | |
| Defendants. | |
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X | |
| **CONFIDENTIAL** | |
| Videotaped deposition of GHISLAINE | |
| MAXWELL, taken pursuant to subpoena , was | |
| held at the law offices of BOIES | |
| SCHILLER & FLEXNER, 575 Lexington | |
| Avenue, New York, New York , commencing | |
| April 22, 2016, 9:04 a.m., on the above | |
| date, before Leslie Fagin, a Court | |
| Reporter and Notary Public in the State | |
| of New York. | |
| MAGNA LEGAL SERVICES | |
| 12 00 Avenue of the Americas | |
| New York, New York 10026 | |
| MAGNA9 | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Pagel | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-3 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 6 | |
| 1 | |
| 2 APPEARANCES: | |
| 3 | |
| BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER , LLP | |
| 4 Attorneys for Plaintiff | |
| 5 | |
| 6 | |
| 7 | |
| 8 | |
| BY: | |
| 401 East Las Olas Boulevard | |
| Fort Lauderdatle, Florida , 33301 | |
| SIGRID McCAWLEY, ESQUIRE | |
| MEREDITH SCHULTZ, ESQUIRE | |
| EMMA ROSEN, PARALEGAL | |
| FARMER JAFFE WEISSING EDWARDS FISTOS & | |
| 9 LEHRMAN, P . L . | |
| 1 0 | |
| 11 | |
| 12 | |
| BY: | |
| Attorneys for Plaintiff | |
| 425 N. Andrews Avenue | |
| Fort Lauderdale, Florida 333 01 | |
| BRAD EDWARDS, ESQUIRE | |
| 13 PAUL G. CASSELL, ESQUIRE | |
| Attorneys for Plaintiff | |
| 14 383 South University Street | |
| Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 | |
| 15 | |
| 16 | |
| HADDON MORGAN FOREMAN | |
| 17 Attorneys for Defendant | |
| 150 East 10th Avenu | |
| 18 Denver, Colorado 802 03 | |
| BY: JEFFREYS. PAGLIUCA, ESQUIRE | |
| 19 LAURA A. MENNINGER , ESQUIRE | |
| 2 0 | |
| 21 Also Present: | |
| 22 James Christe , videographer | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| MAGNA9 | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Page 2 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-3 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 6 | |
| 1 | |
| 2 A. | |
| G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| She was tasked to answer | |
| 3 telephones. | |
| 4 Q. Did y ou ever ask her to rub | |
| 5 Jeffrey 1 s feet? | |
| 6 | |
| 7 | |
| 8 | |
| MR . PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| form and foundation. | |
| A. I believe that I have read that , | |
| 9 but I don 1 t have any memory of it. | |
| 10 Q. Did you ever tell Johanna that she | |
| 11 would get extra money if she provided Jeffrey | |
| 12 massages? | |
| 13 A. I was always happy to give career | |
| 14 advice to people and I think that becoming | |
| 15 somebody in the healthcare profession, either | |
| 16 exercise instructor or nutritionist or | |
| 17 professional massage therapist is an | |
| 18 excellent job opportunity. Hourly wages are | |
| 19 around 7 , 8, $9 and as a professional | |
| 20 healthcare provider you can earn somewhere | |
| 21 between as we have established 10 0 to $2 00 | |
| 22 and to be able to travel and have a job that | |
| 23 pays that is a wonderful job opportunity. So | |
| 24 in the context of advising people for | |
| 25 opportunities for work, it is possible that I | |
| MAGNA9 | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Page 60 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-3 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 6 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 would have said that she should explore that | |
| 3 as an option. | |
| 4 Q. Did you tell her she would get | |
| 5 extra money if she massaged Jeffrey? | |
| 6 | |
| 7 | |
| A. I ' m just saying, I cannot recall | |
| the exact conversation. I give career advice | |
| 8 and I have done that. | |
| Q. Did you ever have Johanna massage | |
| 1 0 you? | |
| 11 A. I did | |
| Q. How many times? | |
| A. I don't recall how many times. | |
| 14 Q. Was there sex involved? | |
| 15 A. | |
| 16 Q. Did you ever instruct Johanna to | |
| 17 massage Glenn Dubin? | |
| 18 A. I don ' t believe -- I have no | |
| 19 recollection of it. | |
| 2 0 Q. Did you ever have sexual contact | |
| 21 with Johanna? | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form | |
| and foundation. You need to give me an | |
| opportunity to get in between the | |
| questions. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Page 61 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-3 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 6 | |
| 1 | |
| 2 | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | |
| 5 | |
| G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| Anything that involves consensual | |
| sex on your part , I 'm instructing you | |
| not to answer. | |
| Q. Did you ever have sexual contact | |
| 6 with Johanna? | |
| 7 | |
| 8 | |
| A. | |
| Q. | |
| Again, she is an adult -- | |
| I'm asking you, did you ever have | |
| 9 sexual contact with Johanna? | |
| 1 0 A. | |
| 11 answer. | |
| 12 | |
| 13 | |
| 14 | |
| Q. | |
| A. | |
| Q. | |
| I ' ve just been instructed not to | |
| On what basis? | |
| You have to ask my lawyer . | |
| Did you ever have sexual contact | |
| 15 with Johanna that was not consensual on | |
| 16 Johanna ' s part? | |
| 17 | |
| 18 | |
| 19 | |
| MR. PAGLIUCA: You can answer | |
| nonconsensual. | |
| A. I've never had nonconsensual sex | |
| 2 0 with anybody. | |
| 21 | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| Q. | |
| A. | |
| Not Annie Farmer? | |
| MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection. | |
| I just testified I never had | |
| 24 nonconsensual sex with anybody ever, at any | |
| 25 time, at anyplace, at any time, with anybody. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Page 62 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-3 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 6 | |
| EXHIBIT 6 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 17 | |
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | |
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | |
| - - - - - - - - - X | |
| VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE , | |
| Plaintiff, | |
| - against - | |
| GHISLAINE MAXWELL, | |
| Case No . : | |
| 15 - cv- 07433-RWS | |
| Defendants . | |
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X | |
| **CONFIDENTIAL** | |
| Videotaped deposition of GHISLAINE | |
| MAXWELL, taken pursuant to subpoena, was | |
| held at the law offices of BOIES | |
| SCHILLER & FLEXNER, 575 Lexington | |
| Avenue, New York, New York, commencing | |
| April 22, 2016, 9:04 a.m., on the above | |
| date , before Leslie Fagin, a Court | |
| Reporter and Notary Public in the State | |
| of New York. | |
| MAGNA LEGAL SERVICES | |
| 12 00 Avenue of the Americas | |
| New York, New York 10026 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Pagel | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 17 | |
| 1 | |
| 2 APPEARANCES: | |
| 3 | |
| BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER , LLP | |
| 4 Attorneys for Plaintiff | |
| 5 | |
| 6 | |
| 7 | |
| 8 | |
| BY: | |
| 401 East Las Olas Boulevard | |
| Fort Lauderdatle , Florida, 333 01 | |
| SIGRID MCCAWLEY, ESQUIRE | |
| MEREDITH SCHULTZ , ESQUIRE | |
| EMMA ROSEN, PARALEGAL | |
| FARMER JAFFE WEISSING EDWARDS FISTOS & | |
| 9 LEHRMAN, P.L. | |
| 10 | |
| 11 | |
| 12 | |
| BY: | |
| Attorneys for Plaintiff | |
| 425 N. Andrews Avenue | |
| Fort Lauderdale, Florida 333 01 | |
| BRAD EDWARDS, ESQUIRE | |
| 13 PAUL G. CASSELL, ESQUIRE | |
| Attorneys for Plaintiff | |
| 14 383 South University Street | |
| Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 | |
| 15 | |
| 16 | |
| HADDON MORGAN FOREMAN | |
| 17 Attorneys for Defendant | |
| 150 East 10th Avenu | |
| 18 Denver, Colorado 80203 | |
| BY: JEFFREYS. PAGLIUCA, ESQUIRE | |
| 19 LAURA A. MENNINGER, ESQUIRE | |
| 20 | |
| 21 Also Present: | |
| 22 James Christe , videographer | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| MAGNA9 | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Page 2 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 17 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 for sexual acts. | |
| 3 | |
| 4 acts? | |
| 5 | |
| 6 | |
| 7 | |
| Q. I 'm asking if they performed sexual | |
| MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form | |
| and foundation. | |
| Q. Did any of the massage therapists | |
| 8 who were at the home perform sexual acts for | |
| 9 Jeffrey Epstein? | |
| 1 0 A. I don ' t know what you mean by | |
| 11 sexual acts. | |
| 12 Q. Did any of the massage therapists | |
| 13 who were working at the home perform sexual | |
| 14 acts, including touching the breasts, | |
| 15 touching the vaginal area , being touched | |
| 16 while Jeffrey is masturbating, having | |
| 17 intercourse, any of those things? | |
| 18 | |
| 19 | |
| 2 0 | |
| 21 | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection. | |
| foundation. | |
| Form and | |
| To the extent any of this is asking | |
| for to your knowledge any consensual sex | |
| act that may or may not have involved | |
| you, I'm instructing you not to answer | |
| the question. | |
| Q. I'm not asking about consensual sex | |
| MAGNA9 | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Page 52 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 17 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 acts. I ' m asking whether any of the massage | |
| 3 therapists performed sexual acts for Mr. | |
| 4 Epstein, as I have just described? | |
| 5 A. I have never seen anybody have | |
| 6 sexual intercourse with with Jeffrey, ever. | |
| 7 | |
| 8 | |
| Q. I 'm not asking about sexual | |
| intercourse. I 'm asking about any sexual | |
| 9 act , touching of the breast -- did you ever | |
| 10 see -- can you read back the question? | |
| 11 (Record read. ) | |
| 12 A. I'm not addressing any questions | |
| 13 about consensual adult sex. If you want to | |
| 14 talk about what the subject matter, which is | |
| 15 defamation and lying, Virginia Roberts , that | |
| 16 you and Virginia Roberts are participating in | |
| 17 perpetrating her lies, I ' m happy to address | |
| 18 those. I never saw any inappropriate | |
| 19 underage activities with Jeffrey ever . | |
| 2 0 Q. I'm not asking about underage. I 'm | |
| 21 asking about whether any of the masseuses | |
| 22 that were at the home perform sexual acts for | |
| 23 Jeffrey Epstein? | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| A . | |
| Q. | |
| I have just answered the question. | |
| No, you haven't. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Page 53 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 17 | |
| 1 | |
| 2 | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | |
| 5 | |
| A. | |
| Q. | |
| A. | |
| Q. | |
| G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| I have. | |
| No, you haven't. | |
| Yes , I have. | |
| You are refusing to answer the | |
| 6 question. | |
| 7 | |
| 8 | |
| A. | |
| Q. | |
| Let ' s move on. | |
| I 'm in charge of the deposition. | |
| 9 say when we move on and when we don't. | |
| 10 You are here to respond to my | |
| I | |
| 11 questions. If you are refusing to answer the | |
| 12 court will bring you back for another | |
| 13 deposition to answer these questions. | |
| 14 Do you understand that? | |
| 15 | |
| 16 | |
| 17 | |
| 18 | |
| 19 | |
| 2 0 | |
| 21 | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| MR. PAGLIUCA: You don ' t need to | |
| threaten the witness. | |
| MS. McCAWLEY: I ' m not threatening | |
| her. I' m making sure the record is | |
| clear. | |
| MR. PAGLIUCA: Certainly can you | |
| apply to have someone come back and the | |
| court may or may not have her come back | |
| again. | |
| Again , she is not answering | |
| questions that relate to adult consent | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Page 54 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 17 | |
| 1 | |
| 2 | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | |
| 5 | |
| G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| sex acts. Period. And that ' s the | |
| instruction and we can take it up with | |
| the court. | |
| Q. Ms. Maxwell , are you aware of any | |
| 6 sexual acts with masseuses and Jeffrey | |
| 7 Epstein that were nonconsensual? | |
| 8 | |
| 9 | |
| 1 0 | |
| A. | |
| Q. | |
| A. | |
| No . | |
| How do you know that? | |
| All the time that I have been in | |
| 11 the house I have never seen , heard, nor | |
| 12 witnessed , nor have reported to me that any | |
| 13 activities took place, that people were in | |
| 14 distress, either reported to me by the staff | |
| 15 or anyone else. I base my answer based on | |
| 16 that. | |
| 17 Q. Are you familiar with a person by | |
| 18 the name of Annie Farmer? | |
| 19 | |
| 2 0 | |
| A. | |
| Q. | |
| I am. | |
| Has Annie Farmer given a statement | |
| 21 to police about you performing sexual acts on | |
| 22 her? | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| A. | |
| Q. | |
| I have not heard that . | |
| Has Annie Farmer given a statement | |
| 25 to police about Jeffrey Epstein performing | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Page 55 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 17 | |
| 1 | |
| 2 | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | |
| 5 | |
| 6 | |
| G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| Q. Did you have sex with her? | |
| MR. PAGLIUCA: This is the same | |
| instruction about consensual or | |
| nonconsensual. | |
| Q. Was Emmy under the age of 18 when | |
| 7 you hired her? | |
| 8 A. No. I didn ' t hire her, as I said, | |
| 9 Jeffrey did. | |
| 10 Q. Did Emmy ever have sex with | |
| 11 Jeffrey? | |
| 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| 13 | |
| 14 | |
| 15 did. | |
| 16 | |
| form and foundation. | |
| A. How would I know what somebody else | |
| Q. You weren 1 t involved in the sex | |
| 17 between Jeffrey, Emmy and yourself? | |
| 18 | |
| 19 | |
| A. | |
| Q. | |
| We already -- | |
| Were you involved with sex between | |
| 2 0 Jeffrey, Emmy and yourself? | |
| 21 | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| MR. PAGLIUCA: Everyone is talking | |
| over each other. You heard the | |
| question. | |
| Again , you you know what the | |
| instruction is. If there is any | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Page 64 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 17 | |
| l | |
| 2 | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | |
| 5 | |
| G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| consensual issue involved, I instruct | |
| you not to answer . | |
| A. Moving on. | |
| Q. So you are refusing to answer that | |
| 6 question? | |
| 7 | |
| 8 | |
| A. | |
| Q. | |
| I ' ve been instructed by my lawyer. | |
| Did you ever have sex with Jeffrey, | |
| 9 Emmy, Virginia and yourself when Virginia was | |
| 1 0 underage? | |
| 11 | |
| 12 | |
| 13 | |
| 14 | |
| 15 | |
| 16 | |
| 17 | |
| 18 | |
| 19 | |
| 2 0 | |
| 21 | |
| A. Absolutely not. | |
| MR. PAGLIUCA: We ' ve been going for | |
| about an hour. I would like to take a | |
| five-minute break , please. | |
| MS. MCCAWLEY: I'm almost done. | |
| MR . PAGLIUCA: You are not going to | |
| allow a break. | |
| MS. MCCAWLEY: As soon as I get | |
| through my line of questioning , which is | |
| perfectly appropriate. | |
| Q. Did Emmy Taylor travel with you and | |
| 22 Jeffrey to Europe? | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| A. | |
| Q. | |
| A. | |
| I'm sure she did . | |
| What is she doing today? | |
| I have no idea. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Page 65 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 17 | |
| 1 | |
| 2 Q. | |
| G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| Did you train Virginia on how to | |
| 3 recruit other girls to perform sexual | |
| 4 massages? | |
| 5 | |
| 6 | |
| 7 | |
| MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| form and foundation. | |
| A. No. And it ' s absurd and her entire | |
| 8 story is one giant tissue of lies and | |
| 9 furthermore, she herself has if she says | |
| 10 that , you have to ask her about what she did . | |
| 11 Q. Does Jeffrey like to have his | |
| 12 nipples pinched during sexual encounters? | |
| 13 | |
| 14 | |
| 15 | |
| MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form | |
| and foundation. | |
| A. I ' m not referring to any advice on | |
| 16 my counsel. I'm not talking about any adult | |
| 17 sexual things when I was with him. | |
| 18 Q. When Jeffrey would have a massage, | |
| 19 would he request that the masseuse pinch his | |
| 2 0 nipples while he was having a massage? | |
| 21 A. I 'm not talking about anything with | |
| 22 consensual adult situation. | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| Q. | |
| A. | |
| Q. | |
| What about with underage | |
| I am not aware of anything. | |
| You are not aware of Jeffrey | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Page 8 2 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 17 | |
| 1 | |
| 2 Q. | |
| G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| In your responsibilities in working | |
| 3 for Jeffrey, would you book massages for him | |
| 4 on any given day so that he would have a | |
| 5 massage scheduled? Would you take a call for | |
| 6 example and book a massage for him? | |
| 7 | |
| 8 | |
| 9 | |
| 1 0 | |
| MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| form and foundation . | |
| Q. | |
| A. | |
| You can answer. | |
| Typically, that was not my | |
| 11 responsibility. He would either book the | |
| 12 massage himself or one of his other | |
| 13 assistants would do that. | |
| 14 | |
| 15 that? | |
| 16 | |
| 17 | |
| 18 | |
| Q. From time to time you had to do | |
| MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| form and foundation . | |
| A. Like I said, typically it was | |
| 19 somebody else 1 s responsibility. | |
| 2 0 Q. If you were unable to book a girl | |
| 21 for a massage on a given day , would that mean | |
| 22 that you were responsible for giving him a | |
| 23 sexual massage? | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| MR. PAGLIUCA: Obj ection to the | |
| form and foundation and I instruct you | |
| MAGNA9 | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Page 92 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 17 | |
| 1 | |
| 2 | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | |
| G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| not to answer any questions about any of | |
| your consensual adult sexual activity. | |
| Q. So you are not going to answer that | |
| 5 question? | |
| 6 | |
| 7 | |
| A. | |
| Q. | |
| You just heard my counsel. | |
| Have you ever said to anybody that | |
| 8 recruiting other girls to perform sexual | |
| 9 massages for Jeffrey Epstein takes the | |
| 1 0 pressure off you? | |
| 11 | |
| 12 | |
| 13 | |
| 14 out . | |
| 15 | |
| MR . PAGLIUCA: Object to the form | |
| and foundation. | |
| A. Repeat the question and break it | |
| Q. Have you ever said to anybody that | |
| 16 you recruit girls -- | |
| 17 A. Stop right there. I never | |
| 18 recruited girls, let's stop there. Now | |
| 19 breakdown the question. | |
| 2 0 | |
| 21 | |
| Q. | |
| A. | |
| Have you ever said to anybody -- | |
| By girls, we are talking about | |
| 22 underage people -- you said girls, are you | |
| 23 talking about underage -- we are not talking | |
| 24 about consensual acts - - this is a defamation | |
| 25 suit. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Page 93 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 17 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 the flights? | |
| 3 A. I can't recollect having a meal | |
| 4 with them, but just so we are clear, the | |
| 5 allegations that Clinton had a meal on | |
| 6 Jeffrey ' s island is 100 percent false. | |
| 7 Q. But he may have had a meal on | |
| 8 Jeffrey ' s plane? | |
| 9 A. I 'm sure he had a meal on Jeffrey ' s | |
| 1 0 plane. | |
| 11 Q. You do know how many times he flew | |
| 12 on Jeffrey's plane? | |
| 13 | |
| 14 | |
| 15 | |
| 16 | |
| 17 | |
| A. | |
| Q. | |
| A. | |
| Q. | |
| A. | |
| I don't. | |
| Do you know | |
| I do. | |
| How do you | |
| He used to | |
| 18 Bill Clinton. | |
| who Doug Band is? | |
| know him? | |
| work or still works for | |
| 19 Q. Did you ever have a relationship | |
| 20 with him? | |
| 21 A. We are talking about adult | |
| 22 consensual relationships, it ' s off the | |
| 23 record . | |
| 24 Q. I 'm not asking what you did with | |
| 25 him , I 'm asking if you ever had a | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Page 137 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 17 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 relationship with him? | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | |
| 5 | |
| 6 | |
| 7 | |
| MR. PAGLIUCA: If you understand | |
| the term relationship , certainly you can | |
| answer that. | |
| A. | |
| Q. | |
| Define relationship . | |
| Somebody that you would have spent | |
| 8 time together, either seeing them in a | |
| 9 romantic relationship or -- | |
| 10 A. You need to be , what do you mean by | |
| 11 romantic . I was friends with Doug but you | |
| 12 are suggesting something more so I want to be | |
| 13 clear what you are actually asking me. | |
| 14 | |
| 15 | |
| Q. You defined it. You said you were | |
| friends wi th him . If that ' s what you were | |
| 16 that ' s all I need to know. | |
| 17 While you were on the trip with | |
| 18 President Clinton, do you recall where you | |
| 19 stayed at these locations, in other words, | |
| 2 0 would you leave the jet and stay overnight at | |
| 21 a hotel , do you have a recollection of this | |
| 22 trip? | |
| 23 A. I recollect the trip but if y ou' re | |
| 24 asking me where we stayed , you can see it ' s a | |
| 25 very fast paced trip. It was very tiring and | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Page 138 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 17 | |
| 1 | |
| 2 | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | |
| 5 | |
| 6 | |
| 7 | |
| 8 | |
| 9 | |
| 10 | |
| G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| form and foundation. | |
| A. | |
| sorry - - | |
| recognize | |
| Q. | |
| form | |
| A. | |
| Q. | |
| I | |
| I don't know why the name is -- I 'm | |
| can't -- I have no idea. I | |
| the name but that's it. | |
| Was Johanna Sjoberg a masseuse? | |
| MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| and foundation . | |
| What are you asking me , I 'm sorr y? | |
| When Johanna Sjoberg worked for | |
| 11 Jeffrey Epstein, did she perform massages? | |
| 12 A. I've testified that when Johanna | |
| 13 came originally, she came to answer | |
| 14 telephones. I believe at some point she | |
| 15 became a masseuse. I don ' t recollect when | |
| 16 and I personally had massages from Johanna . | |
| 17 Q. What did Johanna do for Jeffrey | |
| 18 Epstein, did she perform massages, anything | |
| 19 else? | |
| 20 | |
| 21 | |
| 22 | |
| MR . PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| form and foundation. | |
| A. When she came she answered phones | |
| 23 and at some point, I believe , I don't have | |
| 24 any firm recollection, but I believe she went | |
| 25 to school and became a masseuse and I had | |
| MAGNA9 | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Page 307 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 17 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 massages from her. | |
| 3 Q. Did you ever have any sexual | |
| 4 interaction with her? | |
| 5 | |
| 6 | |
| 7 | |
| 8 | |
| 9 | |
| 1 0 | |
| MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form | |
| and foundation and I 1 m going to instruct | |
| you if we 1 re talking about any | |
| consensual adult contact, you are not | |
| allowed to answer the question. | |
| Q. Did you have any sexual contact | |
| 11 with her in the presence of Jeffrey Epstein? | |
| 12 | |
| 13 Q. | |
| MR. PAGLIUCA: Same instruction . | |
| Did you have any sexual contact | |
| 14 with her in the presence of anybody other | |
| 15 than Jeffrey Epstein? | |
| 16 | |
| 17 Q. | |
| MR. PAGLIUCA: Same instruction. | |
| How many massages did you receive | |
| 18 from Johanna? | |
| 19 A. | |
| 2 0 amount. | |
| Q. | |
| I really don 1 t recall but a fair | |
| Did the massages involve sex? | |
| MR. PAGLIUCA: I 1m going to | |
| 21 | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| instruct you not to answer. | |
| Q. Have you ever engaged in sex with | |
| 25 any female? | |
| MAGNA9 | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Page 308 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 17 | |
| 1 | |
| 2 | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | |
| 5 | |
| 6 | |
| 7 | |
| 8 | |
| 9 | |
| G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm going to | |
| instruct you not to answer. | |
| MS. MCCAWLEY: I want the record to | |
| reflect that Ms. Maxwell's attorney is | |
| directing her not to answer this series | |
| of questions. | |
| MR. PAGLIUCA: It definitely does. | |
| Q. Were you responsible for | |
| 10 introducing Anuska to Jeffrey Epstein? | |
| 11 | |
| 12 | |
| 13 | |
| MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| form and foundation. | |
| A. I already testified that I don ' t | |
| 14 really recall Anuska. | |
| 15 Q. Were you responsible for | |
| 16 introducing Johanna to Jeffrey Epstein? | |
| 17 | |
| 18 | |
| 19 | |
| MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| form and foundation. | |
| A. Again, I don't like the | |
| 2 0 characterization of introduction. Johanna | |
| 21 came to answer telephones. | |
| 22 Q. When did you -- were you the person | |
| 23 who brought or introduced or met Johanna for | |
| 24 purposes of bringing her to Jeffrey Epstein ' s | |
| 25 home? | |
| MAGNA9 | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Page 3 09 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 17 | |
| COMPOSITE EXHIBIT A | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 56 | |
| Page 1 | |
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | |
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | |
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x | |
| VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, | |
| Plaintiff, | |
| Case No.: | |
| -against- 15-cv-07433-RWS | |
| GHISLAINE MAXWELL, | |
| Defendants. | |
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x | |
| **CONFIDENTIAL** | |
| Videotaped deposition of GHISLAINE | |
| MAXWELL, taken pursuant to subpoena, was | |
| held at the law offices of BOIES | |
| SCHILLER & FLEXNER, 575 Lexington | |
| Avenue, New York, New York, commencing | |
| April 22, 2016, 9:04 a.m., on the above | |
| date, before Leslie Fagin, a Court | |
| Reporter and Notary Public in the State | |
| of New York. | |
| - - - | |
| MAGNA LEGAL SERVICES | |
| 1200 Avenue of the Americas | |
| New York, New York 10026 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 56 | |
| Page 2 | |
| 1 | |
| 2 APPEARANCES: | |
| 3 | |
| BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP | |
| 4 Attorneys for Plaintiff | |
| 401 East Las Olas Boulevard | |
| 5 Fort Lauderdatle, Florida, 33301 | |
| BY: SIGRID McCAWLEY, ESQUIRE | |
| 6 MEREDITH SCHULTZ, ESQUIRE | |
| EMMA ROSEN, PARALEGAL | |
| 7 | |
| 8 | |
| FARMER JAFFE WEISSING EDWARDS FISTOS & | |
| 9 LEHRMAN, P.L. | |
| Attorneys for Plaintiff | |
| 10 425 N. Andrews Avenue | |
| Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | |
| 11 BY: BRAD EDWARDS, ESQUIRE | |
| 12 | |
| 13 PAUL G. CASSELL, ESQUIRE | |
| Attorneys for Plaintiff | |
| 14 383 South University Street | |
| Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 | |
| 15 | |
| 16 | |
| HADDON MORGAN FOREMAN | |
| 17 Attorneys for Defendant | |
| 150 East 10th Avenu | |
| 18 Denver, Colorado 80203 | |
| BY: JEFFREY S. PAGLIUCA, ESQUIRE | |
| 19 LAURA A. MENNINGER, ESQUIRE | |
| 20 | |
| 21 Also Present: | |
| 22 James Christe, videographer | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 56 | |
| Questions About People Under the Age of 18 at Epstein’s Home | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 56 | |
| Page 13 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 Q. You can answer. | |
| 3 A. I have not any idea exactly of the | |
| 4 youngest adult employee that I hired for | |
| 5 Jeffrey. | |
| 6 Q. When you say adult employee, did | |
| 7 you ever hire someone that was under the age | |
| 8 of 18? | |
| 9 A. Never. | |
| 10 Q. Did you ever bring someone who was | |
| 11 under -- invite someone under the age of 18 | |
| 12 to Jeffrey's home, any of his homes? | |
| 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form | |
| 14 foundation. | |
| 15 A. Can you repeat the question? | |
| 16 Q. Did you ever invite anybody who was | |
| 17 under the age of 18 to Jeffrey's homes? | |
| 18 MR. PAGLIUCA: Same objections. | |
| 19 A. I have a number of friends that | |
| 20 have children and friends of mine that have | |
| 21 kids and in the invitation of my friends and | |
| 22 their kids, I'm sure I may have invited some | |
| 23 of my friend's kids to come. | |
| 24 Q. Anybody that is not a friend of | |
| 25 yours. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 56 | |
| Questions About Meeting the Plaintiff and | |
| Massages with Plaintiff | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 56 | |
| Page 16 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 A. Ms. Roberts held herself out -- | |
| 3 Q. I'm not asking how she held herself | |
| 4 out. I'm asking how she arrived at the home. | |
| 5 Did you meet her and invite her to come to | |
| 6 the home or how did she arrive there? | |
| 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form | |
| 8 and foundation. | |
| 9 A. Ms. Roberts held her to be a | |
| 10 masseuse and her mother drove her to the | |
| 11 house. | |
| 12 Q. When did you first meet Virginia | |
| 13 Roberts? | |
| 14 A. I don't have a recollection of the | |
| 15 first meeting. | |
| 16 Q. Do you recall meeting her at | |
| 17 Mar-a-Lago? | |
| 18 A. Like I said, I don't have a | |
| 19 recollection of meeting Ms. Roberts. | |
| 20 Q. So you recall Ms. Roberts being | |
| 21 brought to the home by her mother, is that | |
| 22 your testimony? | |
| 23 A. That is my testimony. | |
| 24 Q. And that is the first time you met | |
| 25 her? | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 56 | |
| Page 17 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 A. Like I said, I don't recall meeting | |
| 3 her the first time. I do remember her mother | |
| 4 bringing her to the house. | |
| 5 Q. Are you a member at Mar-a-Lago? | |
| 6 A. No. | |
| 7 Q. Have you visited Mar-a-Lago? | |
| 8 A. Yes. | |
| 9 Q. Did you visit Mar-a-Lago in the | |
| 10 year 2000? | |
| 11 A. I'm pretty sure I did. | |
| 12 Q. When Ms. Roberts arrived at the | |
| 13 home with her mother, what happened? | |
| 14 A. I spoke to her mother outside of | |
| 15 the house and she -- what I don't recall is | |
| 16 exactly what happened because I was talking | |
| 17 to her mother the entire she was in the | |
| 18 house. | |
| 19 Q. Did you introduce Ms. Roberts to | |
| 20 Jeffrey Epstein? | |
| 21 A. I don't recall how she actually met | |
| 22 Mr. Epstein. As I said, I spoke to her | |
| 23 mother the entire time outside the house. | |
| 24 Q. Did you walk Ms. Roberts up to the | |
| 25 upstairs location at the Palm Beach house to | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 56 | |
| Page 19 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 absolutely everything that took place in that | |
| 3 first meeting. She has lied repeatedly, | |
| 4 often and is just an awful fantasist. So | |
| 5 very difficult for anything to take place | |
| 6 that she repeated because I was with her | |
| 7 mother the entire time. | |
| 8 Q. So did you have -- did you give a | |
| 9 massage with Virginia Roberts and Mr. Epstein | |
| 10 during the first time Virginia Roberts was at | |
| 11 the West Palm Beach house? | |
| 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form | |
| 13 and foundation. | |
| 14 Q. Yes or no? | |
| 15 A. No. | |
| 16 Q. Have you ever given a massage with | |
| 17 Virginia Roberts in the room and Jeffrey | |
| 18 Epstein? | |
| 19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form | |
| 20 and foundation. | |
| 21 A. No. | |
| 22 Q. Have you ever given Jeffrey Epstein | |
| 23 a massage? | |
| 24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form, | |
| 25 foundation. And I'm going to instruct | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 56 | |
| Questions About Massages with Minors | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 56 | |
| Page 22 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 questions. | |
| 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm instructing her | |
| 4 not to answer. | |
| 5 MS. McCAWLEY: Then we will be back | |
| 6 here again. | |
| 7 Q. Have you ever given a massage to | |
| 8 Mr. Epstein with a female that was under the | |
| 9 age of 18? | |
| 10 A. Can you repeat the question? | |
| 11 Q. Yes. Have you ever given a massage | |
| 12 to Mr. Epstein with a female that was under | |
| 13 the age of 18? | |
| 14 A. No. | |
| 15 Q. Have you ever observed Mr. Epstein | |
| 16 having a massage given by an individual, a | |
| 17 female, who was under the age of 18? | |
| 18 A. No. | |
| 19 Q. Have you ever observed females | |
| 20 under the age of 18 in the presence of | |
| 21 Jeffrey Epstein at his home? | |
| 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form | |
| 23 and foundation. | |
| 24 A. Again, I have friends that have | |
| 25 children -- | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 56 | |
| Questions About Hiring Massage Therapists | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 56 | |
| Page 31 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 -- just another one of Virginia's many | |
| 3 fictitious lies and stories to make this a | |
| 4 salacious event to get interest and press. | |
| 5 It's absolute rubbish. | |
| 6 Q. Were you in charge of hiring | |
| 7 individuals to provide massages for Jeffrey | |
| 8 Epstein? | |
| 9 A. My job included hiring many people. | |
| 10 There were six homes. As I sit here, I hired | |
| 11 assistants, I hired architects, I hired | |
| 12 decorators, I hired cooks, I hired cleaners, | |
| 13 I hired gardeners, I hired pool people, I | |
| 14 hired pilots, I hired all sorts of people. | |
| 15 In the course and a very small part | |
| 16 of my job was from from time to time to find | |
| 17 adult professional massage therapists for | |
| 18 Jeffrey. | |
| 19 Q. When you say adult professional | |
| 20 massage therapists, where did you find these | |
| 21 massage therapists? | |
| 22 A. From time to time I would visit | |
| 23 professional spas, I would receive a massage | |
| 24 and if the massage was good I would ask that | |
| 25 man or woman if they did home visits. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 56 | |
| Questions About Jane Doe 2 and Nadia Marcinkova | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 56 | |
| Page 37 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 here today I do not. | |
| 3 Q. Ms. Maxwell, when did you first | |
| 4 meet | |
| 5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form | |
| 6 and foundation. | |
| 7 A. I have no idea when I met her. | |
| 8 Q. Do you know how old she was when | |
| 9 you met her? | |
| 10 A. I have no idea how old she was when | |
| 11 I met her. | |
| 12 Q. Is it possible she was 13 years old | |
| 13 when you first met her? | |
| 14 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form | |
| 15 and foundation. | |
| 16 A. | |
| 18 may have been in the house when Jeffrey was | |
| 19 in the house. I have no idea how old she | |
| 20 was. | |
| 21 Q. I understand she was with | |
| 22 | |
| 23 I'm asking if was 13 | |
| 24 years old when you first met her? | |
| 25 A. I have no idea. | |
| ■ - | |
| - | |
| - | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 56 | |
| Page 38 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 Q. Was she under 18 when you first met | |
| 3 her? | |
| 4 A. I have no idea how old she was when | |
| 5 I first met her. | |
| 6 Q. Did she look like a child when you | |
| 7 first met her? | |
| 8 A. I don't remember what she looked | |
| 9 like at the time she was in the house. | |
| 10 Q. How many years have you known her? | |
| 11 A. I can only recall the last time I | |
| 12 saw her. | |
| 13 Q. When was the first time you met | |
| 14 her? | |
| 15 A. Again, I just told you, I don't | |
| 16 recall the first time I met her. | |
| 17 Q. Did travel with you | |
| 18 on Jeffrey's planes? | |
| 19 A. I wouldn't remember if was on | |
| 20 the plane or not. | |
| 21 Q. Did you ever have sex with | |
| 22 | |
| 23 A. No. | |
| 24 Q. Did you ever observe Jeffrey having | |
| 25 sex with | |
| - | |
| - | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 56 | |
| Page 39 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 A. No. | |
| 3 Q. Were you aware that Jeffrey was | |
| 4 having sexual contact with when | |
| 5 she was 13 years old? | |
| 6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form | |
| 7 and foundation. | |
| 8 A. I would be very shocked and | |
| 9 surprised if that were true. | |
| 10 Q. Were you in the house when | |
| was in the house in a private area | |
| 12 with Jeffrey Epstein? | |
| 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form | |
| 14 and foundation. | |
| 15 A. Can you repeat the question. | |
| 16 Q. Were you ever in the Palm Beach | |
| 17 house when Jeffrey Epstein was in the house | |
| 18 with ? | |
| 19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form | |
| 20 and foundation. | |
| 21 A. I've already testified that I have | |
| 22 met her and that she was there | |
| 23 I don't understand what your | |
| 24 question is asking. | |
| 25 Q. So you have never seen | |
| ■- - | |
| - | |
| - | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 56 | |
| Page 40 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 | |
| 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form | |
| 4 and foundation. | |
| 5 Q. Is that your testimony? | |
| 6 A. I already said I don't recall all | |
| 7 the times I've seen her and I have no memory | |
| 8 of that. | |
| 9 Q. Have you ever seen in | |
| 10 the house with Jeffrey Epstein | |
| 11 | |
| 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form | |
| 13 and foundation. | |
| 14 A. I just told you I don't recall | |
| 15 seeing | |
| 16 Q. Were you ever involved in an orgy | |
| 17 with | |
| 18 A. No, absolutely not. | |
| 19 Q. Can you tell me, do you know an | |
| 20 individual by the name of Nadia Marcinkova? | |
| 21 A. I do. | |
| 22 Q. How did you meet Nadia Marcinkova? | |
| 23 A. At some point she was a friend of | |
| 24 Jeffrey's and I recall meeting her at some | |
| 25 point. | |
| - | |
| - | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 56 | |
| Page 46 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 Q. Did Jeffrey arrange for a visa for | |
| 3 Nadia Marcinkova? | |
| 4 A. I don't know what Jeffrey did. I | |
| 5 cannot testify what Jeffrey did. | |
| 6 Q. Was Nadia involved in sex with | |
| 7 Jeffrey and other girls? | |
| 8 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form | |
| 9 and foundation. | |
| 10 Q. Girls under the age of 18? | |
| 11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Same objection. | |
| 12 A. I have no idea. | |
| 13 Q. Was Nadia involved with sex with | |
| 14 Jeffrey and girls over the age of 18? | |
| 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: Same objection. | |
| 16 A. I have no idea. | |
| 17 Q. Did Nadia recruit other girls for | |
| 18 sex with Jeffrey? | |
| 19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form | |
| 20 and foundation. | |
| 21 A. I have no idea. | |
| 22 Q. Do you still talk to Nadia? | |
| 23 A. No. | |
| 24 Q. Is she a pilot? | |
| 25 A. I have no idea. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 56 | |
| Questions About Mr. Epstein and Sex | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 56 | |
| Page 53 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 acts. I'm asking whether any of the massage | |
| 3 therapists performed sexual acts for Mr. | |
| 4 Epstein, as I have just described? | |
| 5 A. I have never seen anybody have | |
| 6 sexual intercourse with with Jeffrey, ever. | |
| 7 Q. I'm not asking about sexual | |
| 8 intercourse. I'm asking about any sexual | |
| 9 act, touching of the breast -- did you ever | |
| 10 see -- can you read back the question? | |
| 11 (Record read.) | |
| 12 A. I'm not addressing any questions | |
| 13 about consensual adult sex. If you want to | |
| 14 talk about what the subject matter, which is | |
| 15 defamation and lying, Virginia Roberts, that | |
| 16 you and Virginia Roberts are participating in | |
| 17 perpetrating her lies, I'm happy to address | |
| 18 those. I never saw any inappropriate | |
| 19 underage activities with Jeffrey ever. | |
| 20 Q. I'm not asking about underage. I'm | |
| 21 asking about whether any of the masseuses | |
| 22 that were at the home perform sexual acts for | |
| 23 Jeffrey Epstein? | |
| 24 A. I have just answered the question. | |
| 25 Q. No, you haven't. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 56 | |
| Questions About Sarah Kellen, Glen Dubin, Plaintiff, Johanna | |
| Sjoberg, Annie Farmer and Sex | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 56 | |
| Page 54 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 A. I have. | |
| 3 Q. No, you haven't. | |
| 4 A. Yes, I have. | |
| 5 Q. You are refusing to answer the | |
| 6 question. | |
| 7 A. Let's move on. | |
| 8 Q. I'm in charge of the deposition. I | |
| 9 say when we move on and when we don't. | |
| 10 You are here to respond to my | |
| 11 questions. If you are refusing to answer the | |
| 12 court will bring you back for another | |
| 13 deposition to answer these questions. | |
| 14 Do you understand that? | |
| 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: You don't need to | |
| 16 threaten the witness. | |
| 17 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm not threatening | |
| 18 her. I'm making sure the record is | |
| 19 clear. | |
| 20 MR. PAGLIUCA: Certainly can you | |
| 21 apply to have someone come back and the | |
| 22 court may or may not have her come back | |
| 23 again. | |
| 24 Again, she is not answering | |
| 25 questions that relate to adult consent | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 56 | |
| Page 55 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 sex acts. Period. And that's the | |
| 3 instruction and we can take it up with | |
| 4 the court. | |
| 5 Q. Ms. Maxwell, are you aware of any | |
| 6 sexual acts with masseuses and Jeffrey | |
| 7 Epstein that were nonconsensual? | |
| 8 A. No. | |
| 9 Q. How do you know that? | |
| 10 A. All the time that I have been in | |
| 11 the house I have never seen, heard, nor | |
| 12 witnessed, nor have reported to me that any | |
| 13 activities took place, that people were in | |
| 14 distress, either reported to me by the staff | |
| 15 or anyone else. I base my answer based on | |
| 16 that. | |
| 17 Q. Are you familiar with a person by | |
| 18 the name of Annie Farmer? | |
| 19 A. I am. | |
| 20 Q. Has Annie Farmer given a statement | |
| 21 to police about you performing sexual acts on | |
| 22 her? | |
| 23 A. I have not heard that. | |
| 24 Q. Has Annie Farmer given a statement | |
| 25 to police about Jeffrey Epstein performing | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 56 | |
| Page 57 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 asked and answered already. | |
| 3 Q. You can answer the question. | |
| 4 A. I have no idea what Sarah Kellen | |
| 5 did. | |
| 6 Q. You never observed Sarah Kellen | |
| 7 with girls under the age of 18 at Jeffrey's | |
| 8 home? | |
| 9 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form | |
| 10 and foundation. | |
| 11 A. The answer is no, I have no idea. | |
| 12 Q. Do you know Glenn Dubin? | |
| 13 A. I do. | |
| 14 Q. What is your relationship with | |
| 15 Glenn Dubin? | |
| 16 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form. | |
| 17 A. What do you mean what is my | |
| 18 relationship. | |
| 19 Q. Are you friendly with him, how do | |
| 20 you know him? | |
| 21 A. He is the husband of Eva Dubin. | |
| 22 Q. Is Eva Dubin one of your friends? | |
| 23 A. Yes. | |
| 24 Q. Did you ever send Virginia to | |
| 25 Glenn's condo at the Breakers to give him a | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 25 of 56 | |
| Page 58 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 massage? | |
| 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| 4 form and foundation. | |
| 5 A. No. | |
| 6 Q. Did you ever instruct Virginia | |
| 7 Roberts to have sex with Glenn? | |
| 8 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| 9 form and foundation. | |
| 10 A. I have never instructed Virginia to | |
| 11 have sex with anybody ever. | |
| 12 Q. How old was Eva Anderson when she | |
| 13 met Jeffrey? | |
| 14 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| 15 form and foundation. | |
| 16 A. I have no idea. | |
| 17 Q. What's she under the age of 18? | |
| 18 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| 19 form and foundation. | |
| 20 A. I just testified I have idea how | |
| 21 old she was. | |
| 22 Q. You testified she was your friend. | |
| 23 You don't know how old she was when she met | |
| 24 Jeffrey? | |
| 25 A. That happened sometime in the '70s, | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 26 of 56 | |
| Page 59 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 how would I know, or '80s. I have no idea. | |
| 3 Can you testify to what your friends did 30 | |
| 4 years ago? | |
| 5 Q. You don't ask the questions here, | |
| 6 Ms. Maxwell. | |
| 7 What about Johanna Sjoberg, when | |
| 8 did you first meet Johanna? | |
| 9 A. I don't recall the exact date. | |
| 10 Q. Did you hire Johanna? | |
| 11 A. I don't hire people, she came to | |
| 12 work at the house to answer phones. | |
| 13 Q. Where did you meet her? | |
| 14 A. I just testified, I don't recall | |
| 15 exactly when I met her. | |
| 16 Q. Was one of your job | |
| 17 responsibilities to interview people that | |
| 18 would be then hired by Jeffrey? | |
| 19 A. That was one of my | |
| 20 responsibilities. | |
| 21 Q. Do you recall interviewing Johanna? | |
| 22 A. I don't recall the exact interview, | |
| 23 no. | |
| 24 Q. Do you know what tasks Johanna was | |
| 25 hired to performance? | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 27 of 56 | |
| Page 60 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 A. She was tasked to answer | |
| 3 telephones. | |
| 4 Q. Did you ever ask her to rub | |
| 5 Jeffrey's feet? | |
| 6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| 7 form and foundation. | |
| 8 A. I believe that I have read that, | |
| 9 but I don't have any memory of it. | |
| 10 Q. Did you ever tell Johanna that she | |
| 11 would get extra money if she provided Jeffrey | |
| 12 massages? | |
| 13 A. I was always happy to give career | |
| 14 advice to people and I think that becoming | |
| 15 somebody in the healthcare profession, either | |
| 16 exercise instructor or nutritionist or | |
| 17 professional massage therapist is an | |
| 18 excellent job opportunity. Hourly wages are | |
| 19 around 7, 8, $9 and as a professional | |
| 20 healthcare provider you can earn somewhere | |
| 21 between as we have established 100 to $200 | |
| 22 and to be able to travel and have a job that | |
| 23 pays that is a wonderful job opportunity. So | |
| 24 in the context of advising people for | |
| 25 opportunities for work, it is possible that I | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 28 of 56 | |
| Page 61 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 would have said that she should explore that | |
| 3 as an option. | |
| 4 Q. Did you tell her she would get | |
| 5 extra money if she massaged Jeffrey? | |
| 6 A. I'm just saying, I cannot recall | |
| 7 the exact conversation. I give career advice | |
| 8 and I have done that. | |
| 9 Q. Did you ever have Johanna massage | |
| 10 you? | |
| 11 A. I did. | |
| 12 Q. How many times? | |
| 13 A. I don't recall how many times. | |
| 14 Q. Was there sex involved? | |
| 15 A. No. | |
| 16 Q. Did you ever instruct Johanna to | |
| 17 massage Glenn Dubin? | |
| 18 A. I don't believe -- I have no | |
| 19 recollection of it. | |
| 20 Q. Did you ever have sexual contact | |
| 21 with Johanna? | |
| 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form | |
| 23 and foundation. You need to give me an | |
| 24 opportunity to get in between the | |
| 25 questions. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 29 of 56 | |
| Page 62 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 Anything that involves consensual | |
| 3 sex on your part, I'm instructing you | |
| 4 not to answer. | |
| 5 Q. Did you ever have sexual contact | |
| 6 with Johanna? | |
| 7 A. Again, she is an adult -- | |
| 8 Q. I'm asking you, did you ever have | |
| 9 sexual contact with Johanna? | |
| 10 A. I've just been instructed not to | |
| 11 answer. | |
| 12 Q. On what basis? | |
| 13 A. You have to ask my lawyer. | |
| 14 Q. Did you ever have sexual contact | |
| 15 with Johanna that was not consensual on | |
| 16 Johanna's part? | |
| 17 MR. PAGLIUCA: You can answer | |
| 18 nonconsensual. | |
| 19 A. I've never had nonconsensual sex | |
| 20 with anybody. | |
| 21 Q. Not Annie Farmer? | |
| 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection. | |
| 23 A. I just testified I never had | |
| 24 nonconsensual sex with anybody ever, at any | |
| 25 time, at anyplace, at any time, with anybody. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 30 of 56 | |
| Page 63 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 Q. So if Johanna were to testify that | |
| 3 she did not consent to a sexual act that you | |
| 4 participated in -- | |
| 5 A. I just told you I have never ever | |
| 6 under any circumstances with anybody, at any | |
| 7 time, in anyplace, in any form had | |
| 8 nonconsensual relations with anybody. | |
| 9 Q. Did you introduce Johanna to Prince | |
| 10 Andrew? | |
| 11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| 12 form and foundation. | |
| 13 A. I've, again, read that Johanna | |
| 14 claimed that she met or that she said she met | |
| 15 Prince Andrew. I don't know if I was the one | |
| 16 who made the introduction or not. | |
| 17 Q. Do you know a female by the name of | |
| 18 Emmy Taylor? | |
| 19 A. I do. | |
| 20 Q. How do you know her? | |
| 21 A. Emmy was my assistant. | |
| 22 Q. So she worked for you? | |
| 23 A. Yes. | |
| 24 Q. Did you hire her? | |
| 25 A. Again, Jeffrey hired people. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 31 of 56 | |
| Questions About Emmy, Virginia, and Ms. Maxwell Regarding | |
| Sex | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 32 of 56 | |
| Page 65 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 consensual issue involved, I instruct | |
| 3 you not to answer. | |
| 4 A. Moving on. | |
| 5 Q. So you are refusing to answer that | |
| 6 question? | |
| 7 A. I've been instructed by my lawyer. | |
| 8 Q. Did you ever have sex with Jeffrey, | |
| 9 Emmy, Virginia and yourself when Virginia was | |
| 10 underage? | |
| 11 A. Absolutely not. | |
| 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: We've been going for | |
| 13 about an hour. I would like to take a | |
| 14 five-minute break, please. | |
| 15 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm almost done. | |
| 16 MR. PAGLIUCA: You are not going to | |
| 17 allow a break. | |
| 18 MS. McCAWLEY: As soon as I get | |
| 19 through my line of questioning, which is | |
| 20 perfectly appropriate. | |
| 21 Q. Did Emmy Taylor travel with you and | |
| 22 Jeffrey to Europe? | |
| 23 A. I'm sure she did. | |
| 24 Q. What is she doing today? | |
| 25 A. I have no idea. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 33 of 56 | |
| Questions About Outfits and Sex Toys | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 34 of 56 | |
| Page 69 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 about. | |
| 3 Q. So you didn't provide her with | |
| 4 that? | |
| 5 A. As I just testified, I have no idea | |
| 6 what you are talking about. | |
| 7 Q. I was trying to interpret whether | |
| 8 you didn't understand what a school girl | |
| 9 outfit was or you are saying that didn't | |
| 10 happen? | |
| 11 A. I clearly know what a school girl | |
| 12 outfit is. I have no recollection of | |
| 13 providing anybody with a school girl outfit. | |
| 14 Q. Did you have a set of outfits used | |
| 15 by the massage therapists that would include | |
| 16 things like a school girl outfit or a black | |
| 17 patent leather outfit or anything of that | |
| 18 nature? | |
| 19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form | |
| 20 and foundation. | |
| 21 A. That would be just another one of | |
| 22 Virginia's lies. | |
| 23 Q. You didn't have anything like that? | |
| 24 A. I did not. | |
| 25 Q. Did you have a basket of sex toys | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 35 of 56 | |
| Page 70 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 that you kept in the Palm Beach house? | |
| 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| 4 form and foundation. | |
| 5 A. First of all what do you mean. | |
| 6 Q. A laundry basket that contained sex | |
| 7 toys in it? | |
| 8 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| 9 form and foundation. | |
| 10 A. Can you ask the question again? | |
| 11 Q. Did you have a laundry basket that | |
| 12 contained sex toys in it, in the Palm Beach | |
| 13 House? | |
| 14 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| 15 form and foundation. | |
| 16 Q. Did you have a laundry basket of | |
| 17 sex toys in the Palm Beach house? | |
| 18 MR. PAGLIUCA: Same objection. | |
| 19 Q. You can answer. | |
| 20 A. I don't recollect anything about a | |
| 21 laundry basket of sex toys. | |
| 22 Q. Do you recollect having sex toys at | |
| 23 the Palm Beach house? | |
| 24 A. You have to define what are you | |
| 25 talking about. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 36 of 56 | |
| Questions About Plaintiff and Epstein and Sex | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 37 of 56 | |
| Page 75 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 Q. Do you recall having a basket full | |
| 3 of sex toys? | |
| 4 A. I already told you I did not. | |
| 5 Q. We were talking a moment ago about | |
| 6 Ms. Roberts and her position as a masseuse, | |
| 7 do you know what she was paid for working as | |
| 8 a masseuse for Jeffrey Epstein? | |
| 9 A. I do not. | |
| 10 Q. Did you ever pay her? | |
| 11 A. I don't ever recall paying her. | |
| 12 Q. Do you know what happened during | |
| 13 the massage appointments with Jeffrey Epstein | |
| 14 and Virginia Roberts? | |
| 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| 16 form and foundation. | |
| 17 A. No. | |
| 18 Q. Were you ever present to view a | |
| 19 massage between Jeffrey Epstein and Virginia | |
| 20 Roberts? | |
| 21 A. I don't recollect ever seeing | |
| 22 Virginia and Jeffrey in a massage situation. | |
| 23 Q. Do you ever recollect seeing them | |
| 24 in a sexual situation? | |
| 25 A. I never saw them in a sexual | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 38 of 56 | |
| Page 76 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 situation. | |
| 3 Q. Did you ever participate in sex | |
| 4 with Virginia Roberts and Jeffrey Epstein? | |
| 5 A. I never ever at any single time at | |
| 6 any point ever at all participated in | |
| 7 anything with Virginia and Jeffrey. And for | |
| 8 the record, she is an absolute total liar and | |
| 9 you all know she lied on multiple things and | |
| 10 that is just one other disgusting thing she | |
| 11 added. | |
| 12 Q. Did you help her obtain an | |
| 13 apartment in Palm Beach to live in? | |
| 14 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| 15 form and foundation. | |
| 16 Q. Was that part of your | |
| 17 responsibilities for Jeffrey? | |
| 18 A. First of all, I didn't know she had | |
| 19 an apartment in Palm Beach. I only learned | |
| 20 that from the many times you guys have gone | |
| 21 to the press to sell stories, so no. | |
| 22 Q. Did you help her get a cell phone, | |
| 23 was that one of your responsibilities for | |
| 24 Jeffrey, to get her is a cell phone as part | |
| 25 of her masseuse obligations? | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 39 of 56 | |
| Questions About Training Plaintiff to Recruit Girls for Massages | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 40 of 56 | |
| Page 81 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 form and foundation. | |
| 3 A. Like I told you, I don't recall her | |
| 4 being at the house at all. | |
| 5 Q. How many homes does Jeffrey have? | |
| 6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| 7 form and foundation. | |
| 8 A. When I was working for him, I think | |
| 9 he had six maybe. | |
| 10 Q. Would Virginia stay with him in | |
| 11 those homes? | |
| 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| 13 form and foundation. | |
| 14 A. I can only testify for when I was | |
| 15 present with him and I cannot say what she | |
| 16 did when I wasn't present with him. | |
| 17 Q. When you were present, would | |
| 18 Virginia stay in the homes with him? | |
| 19 A. I don't recall her staying in the | |
| 20 houses. | |
| 21 Q. Did you train Virginia on how to | |
| 22 recruit other girls for massages? | |
| 23 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| 24 form and foundation. | |
| 25 A. No. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 41 of 56 | |
| Page 82 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 Q. Did you train Virginia on how to | |
| 3 recruit other girls to perform sexual | |
| 4 massages? | |
| 5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| 6 form and foundation. | |
| 7 A. No. And it's absurd and her entire | |
| 8 story is one giant tissue of lies and | |
| 9 furthermore, she herself has -- if she says | |
| 10 that, you have to ask her about what she did. | |
| 11 Q. Does Jeffrey like to have his | |
| 12 nipples pinched during sexual encounters? | |
| 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form | |
| 14 and foundation. | |
| 15 A. I'm not referring to any advice on | |
| 16 my counsel. I'm not talking about any adult | |
| 17 sexual things when I was with him. | |
| 18 Q. When Jeffrey would have a massage, | |
| 19 would he request that the masseuse pinch his | |
| 20 nipples while he was having a massage? | |
| 21 A. I'm not talking about anything with | |
| 22 consensual adult situation. | |
| 23 Q. What about with underage -- | |
| 24 A. I am not aware of anything. | |
| 25 Q. You are not aware of Jeffrey | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 42 of 56 | |
| Questions About Ms. Maxwell’s Relationship with Mr. Epstein | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 43 of 56 | |
| Page 91 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 has perpetrated, cannot tell you what is true | |
| 3 or factual or not. | |
| 4 Q. You said you were in the home a | |
| 5 very limited time, so average in the year for | |
| 6 example, 2004, how many times would you have | |
| 7 been in his Palm Beach home? | |
| 8 A. Very hard for me to state but very | |
| 9 little. | |
| 10 Q. How about his New York home? | |
| 11 A. Same. | |
| 12 Q. Were you his girlfriend in that | |
| 13 year, in 2004? | |
| 14 A. Define what you mean by girlfriend. | |
| 15 Q. Were you in a relationship with him | |
| 16 where you would consider yourself his | |
| 17 girlfriend? | |
| 18 A. No. | |
| 19 Q. Did you ever consider yourself his | |
| 20 girlfriend? | |
| 21 A. That's a tricky question. There | |
| 22 were times when I would have liked to think | |
| 23 of myself as his girlfriend. | |
| 24 Q. When would that have been? | |
| 25 A. Probably in the early '90s. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 44 of 56 | |
| Questions About Recruiting Girls, an Underage Girl in London, | |
| and Foreign Girls | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 45 of 56 | |
| Page 97 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 A. First of all I resent and despise | |
| 3 the world recruit. Would you like to define | |
| 4 what you mean by recruit and by girls, you | |
| 5 mean underage people. I never had to do | |
| 6 anything with underage people. So why don't | |
| 7 you reask the question in a way that I am | |
| 8 able to answer it. | |
| 9 Q. I'm asking if you ever said that to | |
| 10 anybody. So if you don't understand the word | |
| 11 recruit and you never used that word then the | |
| 12 answer to that question would be no. | |
| 13 A. I have no memory as I sit here | |
| 14 today having used that word. | |
| 15 Q. Did you ever meet an underage girl | |
| 16 in London to introduce her to Jeffrey to | |
| 17 provide him with a massage? | |
| 18 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| 19 form and foundation. | |
| 20 A. Run that past me one more time. | |
| 21 Q. Did you ever meet an underage girl | |
| 22 in London to introduce her to Jeffrey to | |
| 23 perform a massage? | |
| 24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Same objection. | |
| 25 A. Are you asking me if I met anybody | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 46 of 56 | |
| Page 98 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 that was underage in London specifically to | |
| 3 provide a massage to Jeffrey, is that your | |
| 4 question? | |
| 5 Q. Yes. | |
| 6 A. No. | |
| 7 Q. Do you know who Alexander Dixon is? | |
| 8 A. I don't recall her right now. | |
| 9 Q. Do you know if -- strike that. | |
| 10 During the time that you were | |
| 11 working for Jeffrey, did you ever observe any | |
| 12 foreign females, so in other words, not from | |
| 13 the United States, that were brought to | |
| 14 Jeffrey's home to perform massages? | |
| 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| 16 form and foundation. | |
| 17 A. Females, what age are we talking? | |
| 18 Q. Any age. | |
| 19 A. Can you repeat the question? | |
| 20 Q. During the time you were working | |
| 21 for Jeffrey, did you ever observe any foreign | |
| 22 females of any age that were at Jeffrey's | |
| 23 home to perform a massage? | |
| 24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| 25 form and foundation. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 47 of 56 | |
| Page 99 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 A. Are you asking me if any foreigner, | |
| 3 not an American person, gave Jeffrey a | |
| 4 massage? | |
| 5 Q. Yes. | |
| 6 A. Well, as I sit here today, I can't | |
| 7 think of anyone who is foreign. Certainly -- | |
| 8 I just can't think of anybody right this | |
| 9 second. | |
| 10 Q. How about any foreign girls who | |
| 11 were under the age of 18? | |
| 12 A. I already testified to not knowing | |
| 13 anything about underage girls. | |
| 14 Q. Were there foreign girls who were | |
| 15 brought to Jeffrey's home by Jean Luc Brunel | |
| 16 for the purposes of providing massages? | |
| 17 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| 18 form and foundation. | |
| 19 A. I am not aware of Jean Luc bringing | |
| 20 girls. I have not no idea what you are | |
| 21 talking about. | |
| 22 Q. You have never been around foreign | |
| 23 girls who are under the age of 18 at | |
| 24 Jeffrey's homes? | |
| 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 48 of 56 | |
| Page 100 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 form and foundation. | |
| 3 A. I already testified about not | |
| 4 knowing about underage girls. | |
| 5 Q. Did you provide any assistance with | |
| 6 obtaining visas for foreign girls that were | |
| 7 under the age of 18? | |
| 8 A. I've never participated in helping | |
| 9 people of any age to get visas. | |
| 10 Q. Did Jeffrey, was it Jeffrey's | |
| 11 preference to start a massage with sex? | |
| 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| 13 form and foundation. | |
| 14 A. I think you should ask that | |
| 15 question of Jeffrey. | |
| 16 Q. Do you know? | |
| 17 A. I don't believe that was his | |
| 18 preference. I think -- you have to | |
| 19 understand, a massage -- perhaps you are not | |
| 20 really familiar with what massage is. | |
| 21 Q. I am, I don't need a lecture on | |
| 22 massage. | |
| 23 A. I think you do. | |
| 24 MR. PAGLIUCA: No question pending. | |
| 25 She will ask you another question now. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 49 of 56 | |
| Questions About Underage Girls, Sex with Jon Luc Brunel, and | |
| Outfits | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 50 of 56 | |
| Page 116 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 Q. Were you present on the island when | |
| 3 Prince Andrew visited? | |
| 4 A. Yes. | |
| 5 Q. How many times? | |
| 6 A. I can only remember once. | |
| 7 Q. Were there any girls under the age | |
| 8 of 18 on the island during that one visit | |
| 9 that you remember that were not family or | |
| 10 friends of or daughters of your friends? | |
| 11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| 12 form and foundation. | |
| 13 A. There were no girls on the island | |
| 14 at all. No girls, no women, other than the | |
| 15 staff who work at the house. Girls meaning, | |
| 16 I assume you are asking underage, but there | |
| 17 was nobody female outside of the cooks and | |
| 18 the cleaners. | |
| 19 Q. Did you, as part of your duties in | |
| 20 working for Jeffrey, ever arrange for | |
| 21 Virginia to have sex with John Luc Brunel? | |
| 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| 23 form and foundation. | |
| 24 A. Just for the record, I have never | |
| 25 at any time, at anyplace, in any moment ever | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 51 of 56 | |
| Page 117 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 asked Virginia Roberts or whatever she is | |
| 3 called now to have sex with anybody. | |
| 4 Q. Did you ever provide Virginia | |
| 5 Roberts with an outfit, an outfit of a sexual | |
| 6 nature to wear for Les Wexner? | |
| 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| 8 form and foundation. | |
| 9 A. I think we addressed the outfit | |
| 10 issue. | |
| 11 Q. I am asking you if you ever | |
| 12 provided her with an outfit of a sexual | |
| 13 nature to wear for Les Wexner? | |
| 14 A. Categorically no. You did get | |
| 15 that, I said categorically no | |
| 16 Q. Don't worry I'm paying attention. | |
| 17 A. You seemed very distracted in that | |
| 18 moment. | |
| 19 (Maxwell Exhibit 6, flight logs, | |
| 20 marked for identification.) | |
| 21 A. Do you mind if I take a break for | |
| 22 the bathroom. | |
| 23 Q. It's 11:08 and we are going to go | |
| 24 off the record now. | |
| 25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: It's now 11:09. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 52 of 56 | |
| Questions About Pictures of Naked Girls | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 53 of 56 | |
| Page 188 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 people could use -- just like you would use | |
| 3 if you needed to go online to get something, | |
| 4 that people could use. | |
| 5 Q. Was that on a desk that you would | |
| 6 use in your work capacity when you were at | |
| 7 the house? | |
| 8 A. It was a desk, it was a room I was, | |
| 9 I didn't really use that computer. | |
| 10 Q. Were there images of naked girls | |
| 11 whether they be under the age of 18 or over | |
| 12 the age of 18 on that computer? | |
| 13 A. I have no recollection of any naked | |
| 14 people on that computer when I was there in | |
| 15 2003, we are talking. | |
| 16 Q. What about from say '99 to 2003? | |
| 17 A. No, I can't recollect any naked | |
| 18 pictures. | |
| 19 Q. Why were the computers removed from | |
| 20 the house before the search warrant was | |
| 21 executed? | |
| 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| 23 form and foundation. | |
| 24 A. I have no knowledge of anything | |
| 25 like that. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 54 of 56 | |
| Questions About Topless Females | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 55 of 56 | |
| Page 404 | |
| 1 G Maxwell - Confidential | |
| 2 form and foundation. | |
| 3 A. I mean I've been to his -- in the | |
| 4 mid '90s, I would have communicated with | |
| 5 people who worked for him. | |
| 6 Q. Have you communicated with Leslie | |
| 7 Wexner about this case? | |
| 8 A. No. | |
| 9 Q. Have you ever seen a topless female | |
| 10 at any one of Jeffrey Epstein's properties? | |
| 11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the | |
| 12 form and foundation. You've asked this | |
| 13 question, by the way, earlier on today. | |
| 14 A. Again, I testified that there are | |
| 15 people who from time to time in the privacy | |
| 16 of a swimming pool have maybe taken a bikini | |
| 17 top off or something but it's not common and | |
| 18 certainly when I was at the house I don't | |
| 19 really recollect seeing that kind of | |
| 20 activity. | |
| 21 Q. Have you ever smoked cigarettes? | |
| 22 A. Yes. | |
| 23 Q. Have you ever smoked cigarettes | |
| 24 with Virginia Roberts? | |
| 25 A. I don't recall smoking cigarettes | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 56 of 56 | |
| 1 | |
| United States District Court | |
| Southern District of New York | |
| Virginia L. Giuffre, | |
| Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS | |
| v. | |
| Ghislaine Maxwell, | |
| Defendant. | |
| ________________________________/ | |
| PLAINTIFF’S UNREDACTED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL | |
| DEFENDANT TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this | |
| Reply in Support of her Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions. Instead | |
| of allowing Ms. Giuffre to take a full and complete deposition, Defendant flatly refused to | |
| answer questions critical to the key issues in this case. Contrary to Defendant’s assertions, Ms. | |
| Giuffre is not engaged in a “fishing expedition” but rather seeks to ask highly-focused questions | |
| specifically relevant to this case. In particular, Ms. Giuffre seeks to ask the Defendant questions | |
| regarding her participation in or knowledge of sexual activities connected with Jeffrey Epstein’s | |
| sexual abuse of females. Such questions are entirely appropriate in the discovery phase of this | |
| case, particularly where any answers will be maintained as confidential under the Protective | |
| Order entered in this case. | |
| As the Court is aware from previous pleadings, at the heart of this case lies the issue of | |
| Defendant’s knowledge that Ms. Giuffre was sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein. Indeed, as the | |
| Defendant boldly acknowledges in her response (at p. 2), she intends to argue at trial that (among | |
| other things) she “never arranged for or asked [Ms. Giuffre] to have sex with anyone.” At trial, | |
| - | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-6 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 10 | |
| 2 | |
| Ms. Giuffre intends to strongly disprove Defendant’s false assertions and to demonstrate that | |
| Defendant recruited Ms. Giuffre to be involved in massages of a sexual nature with Epstein. | |
| To develop evidence to support her position, Ms. Giuffre recently deposed Defendant | |
| about the central subjects in her case. Defendant flatly refused to answer a number of questions, | |
| and for the majority of the others, gave varying versions of “I don’t recall.” For example, when | |
| faced with the police report which contains statements from approximately thirty (30) different | |
| victims during a time frame which the Defendant acknowledges she was actively working for | |
| Epstein at his various homes, Defendant challenged the veracity of the victims’ reports: | |
| “Q. Are you saying these 30 girls are lying when they gave these reports to police | |
| officers? | |
| A. I’m not testifying to their lies. I’m testifying to Virginia’s lies.” | |
| See Declaration of Sigrid McCawley (“McCawley Decl.”) at Exhibit 1, April 22, 2016 | |
| Deposition of Defendant at p. 89-90; 83-84. While Defendant was working with Epstein during | |
| the time period when these underage girls were visiting Jeffrey’s home, Defendant claimed to be | |
| at the house maybe once in 2005. Id. at p. 84. Yet, according to flight manifests, in that same | |
| general time period, Defendant was listed as a passenger at least eleven times either landing in or | |
| departing from West Palm Beach, Florida on Jeffrey Epstein’s private plane. See McCawley | |
| Decl. at Exhibit 1, April 22, 2016 Depo Tr. at p. 84; see also McCawley Decl. at Composite | |
| Exhibit 2, Flight Logs from Jeffrey Epstein’s private planes. | |
| Moreover, again according to flight logs, Defendant was on Epstein’s planes over 300 | |
| times – including 23 times with Ms. Giuffre when Ms. Giuffre was underage. Yet, quite | |
| remarkably, Defendant claimed she “couldn’t recall” even one of those flights. See McCawley | |
| Decl. at Exhibit 1, April 22, 2016 Deposition of Defendant at p. 120-122. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-6 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 10 | |
| 3 | |
| Defendant even testified that she did not recall having Ms. Giuffre at her London | |
| townhome with Prince Andrew. Defendant stuck to this incredible story despite flight logs | |
| establishing her traveling to London with Ms. Giuffre and despite a photograph the three – Ms. | |
| Giuffre, Prince Andrew and Defendant – all standing together in Defendant’s home. See | |
| McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, April 22, 2016 Deposition of Defendant at p. 108-111. | |
| Defendant’s deposition consisted almost entirely of “I don’t recalls” or “I refuse to answer that | |
| question”1 and also included a physical outburst that knocked the court reporter’s computer off | |
| the conference room table. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, April 22, 2016 Deposition of | |
| Defendant at 207-208. | |
| Among the many questions that Defendant refused to answer at her deposition were a | |
| number of questions designed to show that Defendant was well aware that, for Epstein, a | |
| “massage” was actually a code word sexual activity – i.e., not a therapeutic massage but rather | |
| activity that involved sexual gratification for Epstein. Defendant refused to answer all such | |
| questions, asserting that they involved “private adult sexual relationships” which did not “relate | |
| in any way” to Ms. Giuffre’s claims. Id. at p. 4. But Defendant’s involvement in such | |
| “relationships” with Epstein would show that she knew full well the fate that was in store for Ms. | |
| Giuffre when she accepted Defendant’s invitation to come and provide “massages” to Epstein. | |
| Defendant admitted that she worked for Epstein from 1992 to 2009. See McCawley Decl. at | |
| 1 For example, when asked: | |
| “Q. Have you ever said to anybody that you recruit girls to take the pressure off you, so you | |
| won’t have to have sex with Jeffrey, have you said that? | |
| A. You don’t ask me questions like that. First of all, you are trying to trap me, I will not be | |
| trapped. You are asking me if I recruit. I told you no. Girls meaning underage, I already said I don’t do | |
| that with underage people and as to ask me about a specific conversation I had with language, we talking | |
| about almost 17 years ago when this took place. I cannot testify to an actual conversation or language | |
| that I used with anybody at any time.” | |
| See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, April 22, 2016 Depo Tr. at p. 94-95. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-6 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 10 | |
| 4 | |
| Exhibit 1, April 22, 2016 Deposition of Defendant at p. 10-11, 410. As the Court knows, the | |
| Palm Beach Police Report demonstrates multiple incidents of “massages” being given by | |
| untrained minor children that involved sexual acts. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3, Palm | |
| Beach Police Report. Defendant is also identified in that Palm Beach Police Report. See | |
| McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3, Palm Beach Police Report at p. 75-76. And the details of | |
| Epstein’s sexual activities with Defendant (for example) are highly relevant to this case, because | |
| they will help corroborate Ms. Giuffre’s testimony that, while she was underage, she also | |
| engaged in sexual activity of an identical nature with Epstein. | |
| To allow Defendant to avoid answering these questions would preclude Ms. Giuffre from | |
| getting critical evidence in this case. Consider, for example, Defendant recruiting an eighteen | |
| year-old girl to be an “assistant,” bringing that girl to Epstein’s home, telling her she could make | |
| more money if she would give Epstein a massage, and then instructing her to give a massage that | |
| involved sexual acts. Under Defendant’s theory of discovery, Ms. Giuffre would be precluded | |
| from deposing her on that topic because the actions would culminate in “consensual adult sex.” | |
| Yet, that scenario would fully validate the pattern of events that occurred with Ms. Giuffre when | |
| she was under the age of eighteen. It would obviously show a “modus operandi” by Jeffrey | |
| Epstein and Defendant, which is clearly admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). | |
| Moreover, such inquiries are crucial to impeaching the Defendant at trial. During her | |
| deposition, Defendant attempted to characterize her work for Epstein as nothing more than a | |
| normal job handling hiring for the various mansions. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, April | |
| 22, 2016 Deposition Tr. of Defendant at p. 9-12. Ms. Giuffre should be able to contest that | |
| assertion by having Defendant fully answer questions about whether that alleged “job” involved | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-6 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 10 | |
| 5 | |
| sexual activities, including orchestrating the hiring of females and converting massages into | |
| sexual encounters. | |
| Defendant attempts to paint the picture that Ms. Giuffre somehow is interested in all | |
| sexual relationships that the Defendant may have been involved with. That is not true. Ms. | |
| Giuffre has no intention of asking unbridled questions. To be clear, Ms. Giuffre intends to ask | |
| Defendant only questions that involve the following very narrow and crucial subject areas: (1) | |
| Defendant’s sexual relationship with Epstein from 1992 to 2009 – the time period in which she | |
| worked for Jeffrey Epstein and which Epstein (with the assistance of Defendant) was engaging in | |
| sexual acts with females under the cover of “massage”; (2) Defendant’s sexual interactions with | |
| any person in Epstein’s presence during that time period; (3) Defendant’s sexual activities at | |
| Epstein’s residences, including his private island “Little St. Jeff’s,” or his aircraft during that | |
| time period; (4) Defendant’s sexual activities with identified participants in Epstein’s sexual | |
| abuse during that time period; and (5) Defendant’s sexual interactions that occurred during or | |
| through what began as a “massage”; and (6) Defendant’s interactions with females to introduce | |
| to Jeffrey Epstein for the purpose of performing work, including sexual massages. | |
| Defendant claims that such questions are a mere “fishing expedition” without | |
| acknowledging the fact that these questions go to critical issues in this case. Other witnesses | |
| have testified regarding Defendant’s involvement in recruiting females for sex under the cover of | |
| a “massage.” During the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, certain household staff was deposed. | |
| Alfredo Rodriguez, who was Jeffrey Epstein’s household manager, testified that the Defendant | |
| frequently stayed in Jeffrey Epstein’s home and assisted with bringing in young girls to act as | |
| “masseuses” for Jeffrey Epstein. | |
| Q. “Okay. Going back to where we started here was, does Ghislaine Maxwell have | |
| knowledge of the girls that would come over to Jeffrey Epstein’s house that are in | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-6 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 10 | |
| 6 | |
| roughly the same age group as C. and T. (minor children) and to have a good time as | |
| you put it? | |
| A. Yes. | |
| Q. And what was her involvement and/or knowledge about that? | |
| A. She knew what was going on.” | |
| See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, Alfredo Rodriguez July 29, 2009 Dep. Tr. at 176-177. See | |
| also McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, Alfredo Rodriguez July 29, 2009 Depo Tr. at 96-101 (noting | |
| that high school age girls come to the home where Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Maxwell reside). | |
| Juan Alessi, another household employee, also testified that young girls were regularly present at | |
| Jeffrey Epstein’s home where Ghislaine Maxwell resides. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, | |
| Juan Alessi November 21, 2005 Sworn Statement at p. 15-16, 21. Specifically, Juan Alessi | |
| informed the Palm Beach Police Detective as follows: “Alessi stated that towards the end of his | |
| employment, the masseuses were younger and younger. When asked how young, Mr. Alessi | |
| stated they appeared to be sixteen or seventeen years of age at most.” (emphasis added.) See | |
| McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3, Palm Beach Police Report at p. 57. | |
| During Juan Alessi’s November 21, 2005 Sworn Statement taken by the Palm Beach | |
| Police Department, Mr. Alessi revealed that girls would come over to give “massages” and he | |
| observed Ms. Maxwell going upstairs in the direction of the bedroom quarters. See McCawley | |
| Decl. at Exhibit 5, Juan Alessi November 21, 2005 Sworn Statement at 10. He also testified that | |
| after the massages, he would clean up sex toys that were kept in “Ms. Maxwell’s closet.” Id. at | |
| 11-13. See also McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 6, Juan Alessi September 8, 2009 Depo Tr. at p. 76- | |
| 77. He added that he and his wife were concerned with what was going on at the house (Id. at | |
| 14) and that he observed girls at the house, including one named “Virginia.” Id. at 21. | |
| Mr. Rodriguez also testified that Defendant also had naked pictures of girls performing | |
| sexual acts on her computer. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7, Alfredo Rodriguez August 7, | |
| 2009 Dep. Tr. at 311-312; See also McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 6, Juan Alessi September 8, 2009 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-6 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 10 | |
| 7 | |
| Depo Tr. at p. 40-41 (“I know she [Maxwell] went out and took pictures in the pool because later | |
| on I would see them at the desk or at the house. And nude - 99.9 percent of the time they were | |
| topless. They were European girls.”). | |
| Q. “Did they appear to be doing any sexual? | |
| A. Yes, ma’am. | |
| Q. And in these instances were there girls doing sexual things with other girls? | |
| A. Yes, ma’am. | |
| Q. And I’m still talking about the pictures on Ms. Maxwell’s computer. | |
| A. Yes, ma’am.” | |
| Upon leaving his employment, Rodriguez testified that Defendant threatened him that he should | |
| not tell anyone about what happened at the house: | |
| A. “I have to say something. Mrs. Maxwell called me and told me not to ever discuss or | |
| contact her again in a threaten(ing) way. | |
| Q. When was this? | |
| A. Right after I left because I call one of the friends for a job and she told me this, but, | |
| you know, I feel intimidated and so I want to keep her out… | |
| Q. She made a telephone call to you and what precisely did she say? | |
| A. She said I forbid you that you’re going to be – that I will be sorry if I contact any of | |
| her friends again…She said something like don’t open your mouth or something like | |
| that. I’m a civil humble, I came as an immigrant to service people, and right now you | |
| feel a little –I’m 55 and I’m afraid. First of all, I don’t have a job, but I’m glad this is | |
| on tape because I don’t want nothing to happen to me. This is the way they treat you, | |
| better do this and you shut up and don’t talk to nobody and— | |
| Q. When you say this is the way they treat, who specifically are you talking about when | |
| you say that word they? | |
| A. Maxwell. ” | |
| See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, Alfredo Rodriguez July 29, 2009 Dep. Tr. at 169 – 172. | |
| In sum, at the core of this case are statements made by Ms. Giuffre that she was recruited, | |
| by Defendant, to be paid as a masseuse, yet was enticed or coerced into engaging in sexual acts | |
| with Epstein and Defendant for money. She has further explained that the recruitment of females | |
| through the offer of some legitimate position was the typical way in which Defendant and | |
| Epstein lured unsuspecting females to the house before converting the relationship into a sexual | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-6 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 10 | |
| 8 | |
| one. Ms. Giuffre has described the frequency of these “massages”, the sexual tendencies of the | |
| participants, the manner in which the massages became sexual in nature, and Defendant’s role at | |
| each stage. | |
| In response, Defendant has called Ms. Giuffre’s entire account “untrue” and “obvious | |
| lies.” Defendant has instead tried to portray her role as nothing more than an Epstein employee | |
| performing typical household management duties. Any personal knowledge Defendant has of | |
| Epstein’s sexual tendencies, habits, and use of massage for sex is entirely relevant to either | |
| corroborate Ms. Giuffre’s account. Likewise, Defendant’s participation in any sexual acts with | |
| Epstein, in his presence, on his properties, using his mode of converting massages into sex, or | |
| with females will directly corroborate Ms. Giuffre’s account. On the other hand, without access | |
| to the answers to these inquiries, Ms. Giuffre will be unable to expose the bias of Defendant, | |
| unable to thoroughly cross-examine Defendant’s position that she was just a lowly employee, | |
| and most importantly unable to demonstrate through the Defendant’s own admissions that Ms. | |
| Giuffre’s statements about Epstein and Defendant were absolutely true – and not “obvious lies.” | |
| Finally, Defendant fails to recognize that, for the discovery purposes at issue here, | |
| relevance “is an extremely broad concept.” Am. Fed'n of Musicians of the United States & | |
| Canada v. Sony Music Entm't, Inc., No. 15CV05249GBDBCM, 2016 WL 2609307, at *3 | |
| (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2016). And once relevance is shown, “the party resisting discovery bears the | |
| burden of demonstrating that, despite the broad and liberal construction afforded the federal | |
| discovery rules, the requests are irrelevant, or are overly broad, burdensome, or oppressive.” Id. | |
| Here, the requests are not “overly broad” as Ms. Giuffre’s specific explanations of the targets of | |
| her questions make clear. Moreover, answering the questions is not “oppressive,” particularly | |
| given the fact that Defendant has placed all substantive aspects of the Deposition under seal. Of | |
| - | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-6 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 10 | |
| 9 | |
| course, once Defendant answers the question – and her answers are placed under seal – the | |
| parties can file any further motions that may be required to determine whether the answers may | |
| be introduced at trial. | |
| CONCLUSION | |
| Defendant should be ordered to answer questions regarding sexual activity connected | |
| with Epstein’s sexual abuse and sexual trafficking organization as specifically identified above | |
| Dated: May 11, 2016 | |
| Respectfully Submitted, | |
| BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP | |
| By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley | |
| Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP | |
| 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 | |
| Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 | |
| (954) 356-0011 | |
| David Boies | |
| Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP | |
| 333 Main Street | |
| Armonk, NY 10504 | |
| Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, | |
| EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. | |
| 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 | |
| Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | |
| (954) 524-2820 | |
| Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| S.J. Quinney College of Law | |
| University of Utah | |
| 383 University St. | |
| Salt Lake City, UT 84112 | |
| (801) 585-52022 | |
| 2 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is | |
| not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-6 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 10 | |
| 10 | |
| CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | |
| I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 11th day of May, 2016, I electronically filed the | |
| foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the | |
| foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission | |
| of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. | |
| Laura A. Menninger, Esq. | |
| Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. | |
| HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. | |
| 150 East 10th Avenue | |
| Denver, Colorado 80203 | |
| Tel: (303) 831-7364 | |
| Fax: (303) 832-2628 | |
| Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com | |
| jpagliuca@hmflaw.com | |
| /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley | |
| Sigrid S. McCawley | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-6 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 10 | |
| EXHIBIT 4 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-7 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 9 | |
| 1 | |
| 2 | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | |
| 5 | |
| 6 | |
| 7 | |
| 8 | |
| 9 | |
| 1 0 | |
| 11 | |
| 12 | |
| 13 | |
| 14 | |
| 15 | |
| 16 | |
| 17 | |
| 18 | |
| 19 | |
| ? n | |
| 21 | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | |
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA | |
| JANE DOE NO. 2, Case No: 08-CV-80119 | |
| Plaintiff, | |
| Vs | |
| JEFFREY EPSTEIN, | |
| Defendant . | |
| I | |
| JANE DOE NO. 3 / Case NO: 08-CV-80232 | |
| Plaintiff, | |
| Vs | |
| JEFFREY EPSTEIN, | |
| Defendant. | |
| I | |
| JANE DOE NO . 4, Case No: 08-CV-80380 | |
| Plaintiff, | |
| Vs. | |
| JEFFREY EPSTEIN, | |
| Defendant . | |
| I | |
| JANE DOE NO. 5, Case No : 08-CV-80381 | |
| Pl;:i-intiff | |
| Vs | |
| JEFFREY EPSTEIN, | |
| Defendant. | |
| I | |
| Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688 | |
| 7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141 | |
| Page 1 | |
| NON PARTY (VR) 000247 | |
| GIUFFRE00093 5 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-7 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 9 | |
| I | |
| 2 | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | |
| 5 | |
| 6 | |
| 7 | |
| 8 | |
| 9 | |
| 10 | |
| 11 | |
| 12 | |
| 13 | |
| 14 | |
| 15 | |
| 16 | |
| 17 | |
| 18 | |
| 19 | |
| 20 | |
| 21 | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| 1 | |
| 2 | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | |
| 5 | |
| 6 | |
| 7 | |
| 8 | |
| 9 | |
| 10 | |
| 11 | |
| 12 | |
| 13 | |
| 14 | |
| 15 | |
| 16 | |
| 17 | |
| 18 | |
| 19 | |
| 20 | |
| 21 | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| . | |
| l'age 2 | |
| JANE DOE NO. 6, Case No: 08-CV-80994 1 V[DEOTAPED | |
| Plaintiff1 2 DEPOSITION | |
| Vs 3 of | |
| JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 4 ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ | |
| Defendant. s | |
| 6 taken on behalf of the Plaintiffs pursuant | |
| 7 to a Re-Notice of Taking Deposition (Duces Tecum) | |
| JANE DOE NO. 7, Case No. 08-CV-80993 8 | |
| 9 --- Plaintiff, 10 APPEARANCES: | |
| 11 Vs MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. | |
| JEFFREY EPSTEI N, 12 BY: STUART MERMELSTEI N, ESQ. | |
| 18205 Biscayne Boulevard | |
| Defendant. 13 Suite 22 18 | |
| Miami, Florida 33160 | |
| C M.A., Case No: 08-CV-80811 14 Attorney for Jane Doe 2, 3, 4, 5, | |
| Plaintiff, 6, and 7. | |
| Vs 15 | |
| JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 16 ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER | |
| Defendant. BY: BRAD J. EDWARDS, ESQ., and | |
| 17 CARA HOLMES, ESQ. | |
| Las Olas City Centre | |
| JANE DOE, Case No: 08-CV- 80893 18 Suite 1650 | |
| 401 East Las Olas Boulevard | |
| Plaintiff, 19 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | |
| Attorney for Jane Doe and E.W. | |
| Vs 20 And L.M. | |
| 21 | |
| JEFFREY EPSTEI N, PODHURST ORSECK | |
| 22 BY: KATHERINE W. EZELL | |
| Defendant. 25 West Flagler Street | |
| 23 Suite 800 | |
| Miami, Florida 33130 | |
| 24 Attorney for Jane Doe 101 and 102. | |
| 25 | |
| Page 3 | |
| JANE DOE NO. II, Case No: 08-CV-80469 1 | |
| Plaintiff, APPEARANCES: | |
| Vs 2 | |
| JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 3 LEOPOLD-KUVJ N | |
| Defendant. ADAM J. LANGINO, ESQ. | |
| 4 2925 PGA Boulevard | |
| Suite 200 | |
| 5 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 | |
| JANE DOE NO. 101, Case No: 09-CV-80 591 Attorney for 8.B. | |
| 6 | |
| Plaint iff, 7 RICHARD WI LLITS, ESQ. | |
| 2290 10th Avenue North | |
| Vs 8 Suite 404 | |
| Lake Worth, Florida 33461 | |
| JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 9 Attorney for C. M.A. | |
| 10 | |
| BURMAN, CRJTTON, LUTTIER & | |
| Defendant. 11 COLEMAN, LLP | |
| BY: ROBERT CRJTTON, ESQ. | |
| JANE DOE NO. 102, Case No: 09-CV-80656 12 515 North Flagler Drive | |
| Plaintiff, Suite 400 | |
| Vs 13 West Palm Beach, Florida 3340 l | |
| JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Attorney for Jeffrey Epstein. | |
| Defendant. 14 | |
| 15 I 16 | |
| ALSO PRESENT: | |
| 17 | |
| JOE LANGSAM, V!DEOGRAPHER | |
| 1031 Ives Dairy Road 18 | |
| Suite 228 19 | |
| North Miami, Flo rida | |
| July 29, 2009 20 | |
| 11:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 21 | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| ' .... .. . , .... ' .. ;:-, .... :;;,;. "' = | |
| Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688 | |
| 71 15 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141 | |
| Page 4 | |
| Page 5 , | |
| "• ' ' | |
| 2 (Pages 2 to 5) | |
| NON PARTY (VR) 000248 | |
| GIUFFRE000936 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-7 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 9 | |
| Page 94 | |
| 1 A. I don't remember, sir. | |
| 2 | |
| 3 | |
| Q. The next page is a message in the upper | |
| lelt dated January 13, 2005, from C.W. Correct? | |
| 4 A. Yes. | |
| 5 Q. That's the same C. that we've been | |
| 6 talking about. Correct? | |
| 7 A. Yes. | |
| 8 Q. That was at 7:30 p.m. Correct? | |
| 9 A. Yes. | |
| 10 Q. And you don't recall what that particular | |
| 11 call was about. Right? | |
| 12 A. No, sir. | |
| 13 Q. The message dated January 20, 2005, from | |
| 14 Maria. Do you see that on the bottom right? | |
| 15 A. Yes. | |
| 16 Q. Do you know who that is? | |
| 17 A. I think I have a different page. | |
| 18 Q. You're a little ahead of me. January 20, | |
| 19 2005. | |
| 20 MR. CRITTON: I think that's page 31. | |
| 21 THE WITNESS: I don't remember who she | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| 1 | |
| 2 | |
| 3 | |
| was, sir. | |
| BY MR. MERMELSTEIN: | |
| Q. You don't recall what that message was | |
| about? | |
| Page 95 | |
| A. No, sir. | |
| Q. What about the next page there is a | |
| message that Eva called? | |
| 4 A. Yes. | |
| 5 Q. Dated January 21, 2005? | |
| 6 A. Yes. | |
| 7 Q. Do you know who Eva is? | |
| 8 A. Yes. | |
| 9 Q. Who is Eva? | |
| 10 A. The assistant comptroller from the New | |
| 11 York office. | |
| 12 Q. Do you remember her last name? | |
| 13 A. Polish last name I guess. She was | |
| 14 Russian. She is Russian actually. | |
| 15 Q. Did you ever travel to any other | |
| 16 residences that Mr. Epstein had? | |
| 17 A. No. | |
| 18 | |
| 19 | |
| 20 | |
| 21 | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| Q. Are you aware he had a residence in the | |
| Virgin Islands? | |
| MR. CRITTON: Form. | |
| THE WITNESS: Yes. | |
| BY MR. MERMELSTEIN: | |
| Q. And would he sometimes travel to that | |
| residence from Palm Beach? | |
| A. Yes. | |
| 1 | |
| 2 | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | |
| 5 | |
| Page 96 | |
| Q. Okay. Do you recall on any occasion who | |
| would travel with him to the Virgin Islands? | |
| MR. CRITTON: Form. | |
| THE WITNESS: No, sir. | |
| BY MR. MERMELSTEIN: | |
| 6 Q. I think we were talking about the money | |
| 7 before, the household account, sometimes you gave | |
| 8 gilts? | |
| 9 A. Yes, I was told to buy some gifts. | |
| 10 Q. Forwhom? | |
| 11 A. For the guests. | |
| 12 Q. Okay. And what kind of gifts? | |
| 13 A. Shoes, sweaters, clothes. | |
| 14 Q. So were you instructed to buy something | |
| 15 in particular at a particular store? | |
| 16 A. They would go to the store, if they like | |
| 17 something I will go alter and pay them and | |
| 18 retrieve it. | |
| 19 Q. Okay. So would this be a girl who was | |
| 20 staying at the house? | |
| 21 A. Yes. | |
| 22 Q. Okay. This was one of the girls who | |
| 23 travelled with Mr. Epstein to Palm Beach. | |
| 24 Correct? | |
| 25 A. Yes. | |
| 1 | |
| 2 | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | |
| 5 | |
| 6 | |
| 7 | |
| 8 | |
| Page 97 | |
| Q. And so Mr. Epstein would instruct you to | |
| go shopping with this girl? | |
| A. Yes. | |
| Q. And instructed you to pay for whatever it | |
| is she wanted to buy? | |
| A. Yes. | |
| Q. Was there a price limit or anything of | |
| that nature? | |
| 9 A. No, sir. | |
| 10 Q. So when the girl decided what she wanted | |
| 11 you would -- | |
| 12 A. I would write them a check. | |
| 13 Q. In that instance you would pay by check? | |
| 14 A. Yes. | |
| 15 Q. Any other instances where you gave gilts | |
| 16 to girls at the instruction of Mr. Epstein? | |
| 1/ f'\ , i,u, 1 v vu.:, ,~~- ,~,~, ,~~ " •~ , , .. ~, | |
| 18 told me I will buy the item. | |
| 19 Q. I'm sorry? | |
| 20 A. You know, when I was told to purchase | |
| 21 this item for them, you know, I will do that, but | |
| 22 not on any other occasions. | |
| 23 Q. What do you mean not in any locations? | |
| 24 A. Any other occasions. | |
| 25 Q. Not any other occasions. Okay. Did you | |
| 25 (Pages 94 to 97) | |
| Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688 | |
| 7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141 | |
| NON PARTY (VR) 000271 | |
| GIUFFRE000959 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-7 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 9 | |
| Page 98 | |
| ever buy flowers for a girl? | |
| A. Yes, sir. | |
| Q. Tell me about that. | |
| 1 | |
| 2 | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | |
| 5 | |
| 6 | |
| 7 | |
| 8 | |
| 9 | |
| A. I was told to buy flowers and roses for a | |
| 10 | |
| 11 | |
| 12 | |
| 13 | |
| 14 | |
| girl performing in high school. | |
| Q. Which girl was that? | |
| A. I don't remember the name, sir. | |
| Q. What was Mr. Epstein's relationship to | |
| this girl? | |
| MR. CRITTON: Form. | |
| THE WITNESS: I think she was an | |
| acquaintance, friend. | |
| BY MR. MERMELSTEIN: | |
| Q. She was a friend? | |
| 15 A. Yes, sir. | |
| 16 Q. Now, she was performing at the high | |
| 17 school in what capacity? | |
| 18 A. There was like a -- like a play in the | |
| 19 graduation for high school. | |
| 20 Q. A play for graduation? | |
| 21 A. Yes, in the high school theatre there was | |
| 22 some kind of performance. | |
| 23 Q. Was it like a theatre production? | |
| 24 A. Yeah, something like that. I didn't go | |
| 25 inside so I didn't know what was going on inside. | |
| Page 99 | |
| 1 Q. Why do you say it was for graduation? | |
| 2 A. Because everybody was the graduation | |
| 3 outside, there were parents, there were a lot of | |
| 4 people at the school. | |
| 5 Q. Okay. A lot of high schools have theatre | |
| 6 production companies and they put on plays. | |
| 7 Correct? | |
| 8 MR. CRITTON: Form. | |
| 9 THE WITNESS: It was towards the end of | |
| 10 the year. Well, I think I overheard that | |
| 11 there was a graduation performance of some | |
| 12 kind. | |
| 13 BY MR. MERMELSTEIN: | |
| 14 Q. But you didn't go in so you don't know? | |
| 15 A. No, sir. | |
| 16 Q. But this was a high school student you | |
| 11 were bringing me nowers w . 1s L11aL '-V" t:L.l. | |
| 18 A. Yes. | |
| 19 Q. Had you seen this girl before at the El | |
| 20 Brillo Way property? | |
| 21 A. Yes, sir. | |
| 22 Q. You had seen her a number of times? | |
| 23 A. Yes, sir. | |
| 24 Q. Do you recall her name? | |
| 25 A. I don't remember her name, sir. | |
| 1 | |
| 2 | |
| Page 100 | |
| Q. Now, you said you never went inside the | |
| theatre? | |
| 3 A. No, sir. | |
| 4 Q. Okay. How did you get to the flower | |
| 5 store? | |
| 6 A. I called the girl to her cell and she | |
| 7 will come to the back door and I give her the | |
| 8 flowers. | |
| 9 Q. Was anyone else around at the time? | |
| 10 A. No, sir. | |
| 11 Q. And you mentioned this was a girl you had | |
| 12 seen before? | |
| 13 A. Yes. | |
| Q. Was this girl who had come to give | |
| massages to Mr. Epstein? | |
| MR. CRITTON: Form. | |
| 14 | |
| 15 | |
| 16 | |
| 17 | |
| 18 | |
| 19 | |
| 20 | |
| 21 | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| THE WITNESS: I don't know if she was | |
| doing massages but she was at the house. | |
| BY MR. MERMELSTEIN: | |
| Q. What would she have been there for? | |
| A. To visit him. | |
| Q. This was a high school girl who was | |
| coming to visit Mr. Epstein at the house? | |
| A. She came to the house, I open the door | |
| and I left, you know. | |
| Page 101 | |
| 1 Q. Did you take her to the kitchen like you | |
| 2 did -- | |
| 3 A. Yes. | |
| 4 Q. So you brought her to the kitchen just | |
| 5 like you did for the girls who gave him massages. | |
| 6 Correct? | |
| 7 A. Yes, sir. | |
| 8 Q. Did you ever pay her? | |
| 9 A. I don't remember, sir, but probably I | |
| 10 did . | |
| 11 | |
| 12 | |
| 13 | |
| MR. CRITTON: Form, move to strike, | |
| speculation. | |
| BY MR. MERMELSTEIN: | |
| 14 Q. Why do you say you probably did? | |
| 15 A. Because I was the only one paying -- | |
| 16 well, not the only one but, you know, but chances - - J./ Ul,C 1 f-'OIU "'-' ~-• • -~• L -• ,_, •~-• -, | |
| 18 particular instance that I gave her money. | |
| 19 Q. Is it fair to say that the girls who came | |
| 20 to the Palm Beach residence, these are not the | |
| 21 girls who are staying there, the girls who came -- | |
| 22 were there to give massages. Correct? | |
| 23 MR. CRITTON: Form. | |
| 24 THE WITNESS: Yes. | |
| 25 BY MR. MERMELSTEIN: | |
| 26 (Pages 98 to 101) | |
| Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688 | |
| 7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141 | |
| NON PARTY (VR) 000272 | |
| GIUFFRE00096 l | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-7 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 9 | |
| Page 166 | |
| 1 written down anywhere? 1 | |
| 2 A. No. 2 | |
| 3 Q. It's my understanding that C. and T. 3 | |
| 4 either came to his house alone to visit with Mr. 4 | |
| 5 Epstein or brought other girls in their age group 5 | |
| 6 to Mr. Epstein. 6 | |
| 7 Were you familiar with that type of 7 | |
| 8 recruitment process of girls bringing other girls? 8 | |
| 9 MR. CRITTON: Form. 9 | |
| 10 THE WITNESS: Yes. 10 | |
| 11 BY MR. EDWARDS: 11 | |
| 12 Q. Can you tell me more about what you know 12 | |
| 13 about girls bringing other girls that are 13 | |
| 14 relatively the same age to come to Jeffrey 14 | |
| 15 Epstein's house and to use your words, have a good 15 | |
| 16 time? 16 | |
| 17 MR. CRITTON: Form. 17 | |
| 18 THE WITNESS: It's hard to know who they 18 | |
| 19 knew. But I think that was -- they feel 19 | |
| 20 better themselves when they're in a group 20 | |
| 21 than going by themselves, but I don't know 21 | |
| 22 somebody recruiting. 22 | |
| 23 BY MR. EDWARDS: 23 | |
| 24 Q. Okay. And you've talked about, at least 24 | |
| 25 referred to yourself I believe to the police and 25 | |
| Page 167 | |
| 1 as well today as a human ATM machine. Right? 1 | |
| 2 MR. CRITTON: Form. 2 | |
| 3 THE WITNESS: Something like that. I was 3 | |
| 4 supposed to carry cash at all times. 4 | |
| 5 BY MR. EDWARDS: 5 | |
| 6 Q. One of the primary reasons why you 6 | |
| 7 carried cash was to pay the girls in this age 7 | |
| 8 group of C. and T. for whatever happened at the 8 | |
| 9 house. Right? 9 | |
| 10 MR. CRITTON: Form. 10 | |
| THE WITNESS: Yes. 11 | |
| BY MR. EDWARDS: 12 | |
| Q. That's a fair statement. Right? 13 | |
| MR. CRITTON: Form. | |
| THE WITNESS: Yes. | |
| BY MR. EDWARDS: | |
| ay. n w ., | |
| example, would bring somebody else to the house, | |
| did you pay C. as well as whomever she brought to | |
| the house, pay them both1 | |
| A. No, I pay only one person. | |
| Q. Okay. My understanding, and tell me if | |
| this is wrong or you can corroborate this, is that | |
| Mr. Epstein would pay the girl that was actually | |
| performing whatever was happening in the room -- | |
| Page 168 | |
| for now we'll call it a massage -- as well as | |
| anybody who brought that person over to the house, | |
| they would both get paid cash. Are you familiar | |
| with that? | |
| MR. CRITTON: Form. | |
| THE WITNESS: No. | |
| BY MR. EDWARDS: | |
| Q. If C. brought another girl over to the | |
| house and C. stayed downstairs but this other girl | |
| went upstairs with Mr. Epstein, which one would | |
| you pay? | |
| A. I don't know because I was told who to | |
| pay. | |
| Q. And Sarah Kellen always told you? | |
| A. Sarah told me pay so and so. | |
| Q. So if we were going to ask anybody else | |
| about the exact method in terms of who would get | |
| paid and for what, who would the people be? I | |
| mean, other than Mr. Epstein who else could we ask | |
| these questions? | |
| A. Sarah. | |
| Q. Sarah Kellen? | |
| A. Yes. | |
| Q. She would know this? | |
| A. Yes. | |
| Page 169 | |
| Q. What about Ghislaine Maxwell? | |
| MR. CRITTON: Form. | |
| THE WITNESS: You're talking about the | |
| boss. I don't know. | |
| BY MR. EDWARDS: | |
| Q. To your knowledge was Ghislaine Maxwell | |
| aware of these girls that are in the age group of | |
| C. and T. coming to Jeffrey Epstein's house to | |
| have a good time? | |
| MR. CRITTON: Form. | |
| THE WITNESS: I have to say something. | |
| Mrs. Maxwell called me and told me not to | |
| ever discuss or contact her again in a | |
| threaten way. | |
| BY MR. EDWARDS: | |
| the friends for a job and she told me this, but, | |
| you know, I feel intimidated and so I want to keep | |
| her out. | |
| Q. What exactly did she say? First of all, | |
| was this a telephone call? | |
| A. Yes, she was in New York. | |
| Q. She called you on your cell phone? | |
| A. Yes. | |
| 43 (Pages 166 to 169) | |
| Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688 | |
| 7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141 | |
| NON PARTY (VR) 000289 | |
| GIUFFRE000978 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-7 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 9 | |
| 1 | |
| 2 | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | |
| 5 | |
| 6 | |
| 7 | |
| 8 | |
| 9 | |
| 10 | |
| 11 | |
| 12 | |
| 13 | |
| 14 | |
| 15 | |
| 16 | |
| 17 | |
| 18 | |
| 19 | |
| 20 | |
| 21 | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| 1 | |
| 2 | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | |
| 5 | |
| 6 | |
| 7 | |
| 8 | |
| 9 | |
| Page 170 | |
| Q. Is this the cell phone that was issued to | |
| you by Mr. Epstein? | |
| A. No, it was my personal phone. I was | |
| already -- | |
| Q. Gone? | |
| A. Yeah, this is three, four months down the | |
| road. | |
| Q. So if you le~ in -- | |
| A. February, March -- it was May or June. | |
| Q. Of 2005? | |
| A. Yes. | |
| Q. And you got a call from Ghislaine Maxwell | |
| out of the blue? | |
| A. Yes. | |
| Q. And do you know what prompted that | |
| telephone call? | |
| A. Because I contact somebody in New York to | |
| get a job. | |
| Q. Who was that person? | |
| A. I contact Jean-Luc and I contact Eva, the | |
| Swedish girl, she used to be very good friends | |
| with Mr. Epstein because she asked me she need | |
| somebody in New York. | |
| Q. What does Eva do? | |
| A. Eva was a model many years ago and he | |
| Page 171 | |
| married -- Eva is the mother of the girl who was | |
| on the wall. | |
| Q. Who is on the wall of Mr. Epstein's | |
| house? | |
| A. Yeah. | |
| Q. All right. There is a younger girl model | |
| that's on the wall of Mr. Epstein's house and this | |
| lady Eva is her mother? | |
| A. Yes. | |
| 10 Q. And at some point in time you called her | |
| 11 in New York to get a job7 | |
| 12 A. That's right. | |
| 13 Q. And you also called Jean-Luc Bernell? | |
| 14 That's his name. Right? | |
| 15 A. Jean-Luc, yeah, I don't remember his last | |
| 16 | |
| 17 | |
| 18 | |
| 19 | |
| 20 | |
| 21 | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| name. | |
| l,!. uoes mat sound ram111ar to you, Jean-Luc | |
| Bernell? | |
| A. Yeah. | |
| Q. What did Eva and/ or Jean-Luc say about | |
| employing you7 | |
| A. No, they said they're going to find out | |
| and obviously the first thing they did was talk to | |
| Mrs. Maxwell. | |
| Q. She made a telephone call to you and what | |
| 1 precisely did she say? | |
| Page 172 i | |
| 2 | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | |
| 5 | |
| 6 | |
| 7 | |
| 8 | |
| 9 | |
| 10 | |
| 11 | |
| 12 | |
| 13 | |
| 14 | |
| 15 | |
| 16 | |
| 17 | |
| 18 | |
| 19 | |
| 20 | |
| 21 | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| 1 | |
| 2 | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | |
| 5 | |
| A. She said I forbid you that you're going | |
| to be -- that I will be sorry if I contact any of | |
| her friends again. | |
| Q. Okay. Other than you will be sorry if | |
| you contact any of my friends again did she say | |
| anything else about what you know about Mr. | |
| Epstein and/ or what goes on at his house? | |
| A. She said something like don't open your | |
| mouth or something like that. But you have to | |
| understand, I'm a civil humble, I came as an | |
| immigrant to service people, and right now you | |
| feel a little -- I'm 55 and I'm afraid. First of | |
| all, I don't have a job, but I'm glad this is on | |
| tape because I don't want nothing to happen to me. | |
| This is the way they treat you, better do this and | |
| you shut up and don't talk to nobody and -- | |
| Q. When you say this is the way they treat, | |
| who specifically are you talking about when you | |
| say the word they? | |
| A. Maxwell. | |
| Q. And usually when you say the word they, | |
| you're not only talking about one person -- | |
| A. Wealthy people. | |
| Q. Are you also putting Jeffrey Epstein in | |
| Page 173 | |
| that category? | |
| MR. CRITTON: Form. | |
| THE WITNESS: I didn't talk to him | |
| directly most of the time. | |
| BY MR. EDWARDS: | |
| 6 Q. What's the reason why if you were his | |
| 7 head of security that you wouldn't have more | |
| 8 direct contact with him? Why is that? | |
| 9 MR. CRITTON: Form. | |
| 10 THE WITNESS: He wanted that way, you | |
| 11 know, so, yeah, I have to talk to Sarah, | |
| 12 Sarah is not available talk to Lesley in New | |
| 13 York. He didn't want to be disturbed. | |
| 14 BY MR. EDWARDS: | |
| 15 | |
| 16 | |
| Q. Even while you were in the same house | |
| with him he still had other people you could talk | |
| 1/ i:o Oh <C\..CIY UUL I l<C vvu;;, I IV VI'"' UI ci ''-' -:- | |
| 18 A. Yeah . | |
| 19 | |
| 20 | |
| 21 | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| Q. When you were fired you were not fired | |
| directly by him? | |
| A. No. | |
| Q. It was through somebody else? | |
| A. Ms. Maxwell. | |
| Q. Okay. But it was for upsetting him for | |
| taking the wrong car? | |
| "' | |
| ,, | |
| i | |
| ' | |
| ' | |
| I | |
| 44 (Pages 170 to 173) | |
| Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688 | |
| 7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141 | |
| NON PARTY (VR) 000290 | |
| GIUFFRE000979 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-7 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 9 | |
| 1 | |
| 2 | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | |
| 5 | |
| 6 | |
| 7 | |
| 8 | |
| 9 | |
| 10 | |
| 11 | |
| 12 | |
| 13 | |
| 14 | |
| 15 | |
| 16 | |
| 17 | |
| 18 | |
| 19 | |
| 20 | |
| 21 | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| 1 | |
| 2 | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | |
| 5 | |
| 6 | |
| 7 | |
| 8 | |
| 9 | |
| 10 | |
| 11 | |
| 12 | |
| 13 | |
| 14 | |
| 15 | |
| 16 | |
| l/ | |
| 18 | |
| 19 | |
| 20 | |
| 21 | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| Page 174 Page 176 !' | |
| A. Yes. 1 this. Because I went through -- the first li Q. Okay. Ever since this communication that 2 time I went to the deposition I was in Palm | |
| Ms. Maxwell made to you where she called you 3 Beach and I did my duty, I mean, I tell what | |
| sometime in May or June of 2005, and have you felt 4 I know, but now I know there is more ii | |
| threatened? 5 digging, all I want is this to be to get on _' | |
| A. Yes. 6 with my normal life and stuff. | |
| MR. CRITTON: Form. 7 BY MR. EDWARDS: | |
| BY MR. EDWARDS: 8 Q. So when you come here today to testify, | |
| Q. Have you felt reluctant to come forward 9 your main objective is to get back to your normal | |
| and give truthful, honest, and full disclosure of 10 life and get out of the spotlight of this case. | |
| all information that you know about this case? 11 Yes? | |
| MR. CRITTON: Form. 12 A. Yes. | |
| THE WITNESS: I said this off the record 13 Q. And in doing so have you held back some | |
| but I will say it on the record, being in 14 of the details that you know about that happened | |
| the Epstein case for me resulted in two 15 in this case to remove yourself from the | |
| years I have -- I won't bring the names but 16 spotlight? | |
| I was in the third interview to get hired as 17 MR. CRITTON: Form. | |
| a household manager in Palm Beach and they 18 THE WITNESS: No, sir. | |
| told me you are the Jeffrey Epstein guy. 19 BY MR. EDWARDS: | |
| Not in the sense I did something wrong 20 Q. Okay. Have you ever talked to Ghislaine | |
| because of the scandal, so they shun the job 21 Maxwell after that telephone call where she cal led | |
| away from me. And so I was afraid that -- 22 you and you felt threatened? | |
| this is very powerful people and one phone 23 A. No. | |
| call and you finish, so I'm the little guy. 24 Q. Okay. So going back to where we started | |
| Even I'm wearing a tie I'm a -- I'm talking 25 here was, does Ghislaine Maxwell have knowledge of , | |
| Page 175 Page 177 | |
| from my heart. This is the way it is. 1 the girls that would come over to Jeffrey | |
| BY MR. EDWARDS: 2 Epstein's house that are in roughly the same age | |
| Q. I feel for you, I'm sorry that you have 3 group as C. and T. and to have a good time as you | |
| to be in this position. 4 put it? | |
| MR. CRITTON: Move to strike this. 5 MR. CRITTON: Form. | |
| BY MR. EDWARDS: 6 THE WITNESS: Yes. | |
| Q. Well, when you applied for these jobs and 7 BY MR. EDWARDS: | |
| they turned you down and gave you the reason that 8 Q. And what was her involvement and/or ,, | |
| you're the person involved in the Jeffrey Epstein 9 knowledge about that? | |
| scandal, was it that they are associated or 10 MR. CRITTON: Form . | |
| friends with Jeffrey Epstein or is it that you 11 THE WITNESS: She knew what was going on. | |
| have information and you have this confidentiality 12 BY MR. EDWARDS: | |
| but you're revealing some certain information that 13 Q. You referred to her at one point in time | |
| Mr. Epstein would not like? 14 as Jeffrey Epstein's companion. But then later on | |
| MR. CRITTON: Form. 15 you said that if she flew she flew on a different | |
| THE WITNESS: Both. 16 airplane and oftentimes or sometimes she slept in | |
| OT 1v1K. ~ 1/ a Ull1c:1c:1IL ueu 1ru1111•11. C:[J:,Lt:111. ...,;u LI•~·~~~·" | |
| Q. Both? 18 unusual to you? | |
| A. Both. 19 MR. CRITTON: Form. | |
| Q. And since then given what you just told 20 THE WITNESS: It was odd but, I mean, and | |
| us about these people being very powerful, are you 21 again, everything is odd in Palm Beach. | |
| afraid for your life given the fact that you're 22 BY MR. EDWARDS: | |
| involved to some extent in this case7 23 Q. Okay, I don't mean to laugh. | |
| MR. CRITTON: Form. 24 A. Mr. Epstein fly to Jet Aviation, she fly | |
| THE WITNESS: I just start thinking about 25 to Galaxy Aviation, but they never flew the same I\ | |
| 45 (Pages 174 to 177) | |
| Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688 | |
| 7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141 | |
| NON PARTY (VR) 000291 | |
| GIUFFRE000980 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-7 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 9 | |
| 1 | |
| 2 | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | |
| 5 | |
| 6 | |
| 7 | |
| 8 | |
| 9 | |
| 10 | |
| 11 | |
| 12 | |
| 13 | |
| 14 | |
| 15 | |
| 16 | |
| 17 | |
| 18 | |
| 19 | |
| 20 | |
| 21 | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| 1 | |
| 2 | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | |
| 5 | |
| 6 | |
| 7 | |
| 8 | |
| 9 | |
| 10 | |
| 11 | |
| 12 | |
| 13 | |
| 14 | |
| 15 | |
| 16 | |
| l l | |
| 18 | |
| 19 | |
| 20 | |
| 21 | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| Page 266 | |
| BY MR. LANGI NO: | |
| Q. Are you currently in fear of Mr. Epstein? | |
| A. Not at this particular moment but it's | |
| something I have to be worry about, yes. | |
| Q. Are you personally afraid of criminal | |
| prosecution? | |
| A. No. | |
| Q. Do you believe that you did anything | |
| illegal7 | |
| A. Illegal, no. | |
| MR. LANGINO: I have no further | |
| questions. Thank you. | |
| MR. CRITTON: We're going to break in | |
| about 15 minutes. Do you want to start and | |
| go for 15 minutes or do you want to -- it's | |
| up to you. | |
| MS. EZELL: I'll start. | |
| MR. WILLITS: When are we going to quit, | |
| folks? | |
| MR. CRITTON: In 15 minutes. | |
| THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Might as well change | |
| tapes. | |
| MR. EDWARDS: Bob has to get back so | |
| we've agreed we're going to come back some | |
| other time. | |
| Page 267 | |
| MR. WILLITS: Why don't we just stop now? | |
| MS. EZELL: Okay. | |
| MR. EDWARDS: Rather than you start. | |
| MS. EZELL: Yeah, I won't get very far. | |
| MR. EDWARDS: Sorry to do this with you, | |
| we didn't finish. | |
| MR. CRITTON: So we're stopped? | |
| MR. EDWARDS: We're stopped. | |
| THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record. | |
| (Thereupon, the videotaped deposition was | |
| adjourned at 5:30 p.m.) | |
| THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ) | |
| COUNTY OF DADE. ) | |
| I, the undersigned authority, certify | |
| 1 | |
| 2 | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | |
| 5 | |
| 6 | |
| 7 | |
| 8 | |
| 9 | |
| that ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ personally appeared before | |
| me on the 29th day of July, 2009 and was duly | |
| 10 | |
| 11 | |
| 12 | |
| 13 | |
| 14 | |
| 15 | |
| 16 | |
| 17 | |
| 18 | |
| 19 | |
| 20 | |
| 21 | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| sworn. | |
| WITNESS my hand and official seal this | |
| 31st day of July, 2009. | |
| MICHELLE PAYNE, Court Reporter | |
| Notary Public - State of Florida | |
| 1 CERTIFICATE | |
| 2 | |
| The State Of Florida, ) | |
| 3 County Of Dade. ) | |
| 4 | |
| 5 I, MICHELLE PAYNE, Court Reporter and | |
| Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at | |
| 6 large, do hereby certify that I was authorized to | |
| and did stenographically report the videotaped | |
| 7 deposition of ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ; that a review of | |
| the transcript was requested; and that the | |
| 8 foregoing pages, numbered from 1 to 269, | |
| inclusive, are a true and correct transcription of | |
| 9 my stenographic notes of said deposition. | |
| 10 I further certify that said videotaped | |
| deposition was taken at the time and place | |
| 11 hereinabove set forth and that the taking or said | |
| videotaped deposition was commenced and completed | |
| 12 as hereinabove set out. | |
| 13 I further certify that r am not an | |
| attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am | |
| 14 I a relative or employee of any attorney or | |
| counsel of party connected with the action, nor am | |
| 15 I financially interested in the action. | |
| l b I ne 1oregomg cer111 1cat1on o: mis | |
| transcript does not apply to any reproduction of | |
| 17 the same by any means unless under the direct | |
| control and/or direction of the certifying | |
| 18 reporter. | |
| 19 DATED this 31st day of July, 2009. | |
| 20 | |
| 21 | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| MlCHELLE PAYNE, Court Reporter | |
| Page 269 | |
| 68 (Pages 266 to 269) | |
| Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688 | |
| 7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141 | |
| NON PARTY (VR) 000314 | |
| GIUFFRE00 1003 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-7 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 9 | |
| 1 | |
| United States District Court | |
| Southern District of New York | |
| Virginia L. Giuffre, | |
| Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS | |
| v. | |
| Ghislaine Maxwell, | |
| Defendant. | |
| ________________________________/ | |
| PLAINTIFF’S NON-REDACTED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE THREE | |
| DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS BY MEANS OTHER THAN PERSONAL SERVICE | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this | |
| Motion for Leave to Serve Three Deposition Subpoenas by Means Other Than Personal Service. | |
| The three persons to be subpoenaed – Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova – | |
| were each involved in the sexual abuse and sexual trafficking at issue in this case. It appears that | |
| all three of them have evaded attempts to personally serve them (and two of the persons, Epstein | |
| and Kellen, have attorneys who have not been authorized by their clients to accept service). Ms. | |
| Giuffre seeks leave to provide service by several alternative means that are designed to assure | |
| actual notice is provided to these persons. See Declaration of Sigrid McCawley (“McCawley | |
| Decl.”) at Composite Exhibit 1, Subpoenas for Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen (aka Sarah | |
| Kensington and Sarah Vickers) and Nadia Marcinkova. This Court has repeatedly held that Fed. | |
| R. Civ. P. 45 permits alternative service in appropriate circumstances, and this case presents such | |
| circumstances. Accordingly, the Court should grant Ms. Giuffre leave to serve deposition | |
| subpoenas by alternative means. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 12 | |
| 2 | |
| BACKGROUND | |
| At the heart of this case lies Ms. Giuffre’s allegations that that she was sexually abused | |
| by Jeffrey Epstein and the Defendant. Ms. Giuffre has also alleged that Epstein and the | |
| Defendant were aided by others who played keys roles in the sex trafficking organization, | |
| including Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova. Defendant has called Ms. Giuffre a “liar” and | |
| Ms. Giuffre is now in the process of assembling testimony and evidence to prove the truth of her | |
| allegations. | |
| Apart from the Defendant in this case, Jeffrey Epstein is the most important person for | |
| Ms. Giuffre to depose. It was Epstein who gave the directions to Maxwell to recruit Ms. Giuffre | |
| and bring her to Epstein’s mansions to be sexually abused. At several points during her recent | |
| deposition, Ms. Maxwell refused to answer Ms. Giuffre’s questions about Epstein, but instead | |
| told her she should go ask Epstein about the subject. See, e.g., Tr. of Depo. of Defendant (Apr. | |
| 22, 2016) at 100 (“Q: … [W]as it Jeffrey’s preference to start a massage with sex? . . . A: I think | |
| you should ask that question of Jeffrey.”); id. at 146-47 (“Q: So would [Ms. Giuffre] be brought | |
| on trips that were for the purpose of work and decorating the house? A: Like I said, I never | |
| worked with her but you would have to ask Jeffrey what he brought her on the trip for.”); id. at | |
| 389-90 (“Q: Does [Epstein] . . . have any knowledge of any illegal activity that you’ve | |
| conducted? . . . A: If you want to ask Jeffrey questions about me, you would have to ask him.”). | |
| See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2. | |
| Because of Epstein’s importance to this case, Ms. Giuffre has diligently tried to | |
| personally serve Epstein with a subpoena for his deposition. Epstein, however, appears to have | |
| no interest in answering questions under oath about the scope of his sex trafficking organization | |
| and he has not authorized his lawyer to accept service of the subpoena. On March 7, 2016, Ms. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 12 | |
| 3 | |
| Giuffre’s counsel contacted counsel for Epstein to seek agreement that he would accept service | |
| of the subpoena in this matter. See McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit 3, Electronic | |
| Correspondence to Attorney Marty Weinberg. Ms. Giuffre was unable to obtain that agreement | |
| so she retained an investigative company to attempt to locate Epstein for purposes of personal | |
| service1 | |
| . As explained in the attached affidavit, the Alpha Group Investigators commenced | |
| efforts to personally serve Epstein on April 26, 2016. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4 | |
| Affidavit of Douglas G. Mercer, Chief Investigator Alpha Group. Those efforts have continued | |
| for weeks, and included over sixteen (16) attempts to personally serve Epstein, including as | |
| recently as May 18, 2016, at which time the investigator affixed the subpoena to the front door of | |
| Epstein’s residence and mailed copies of the subpoena to both of his New York addresses along | |
| with a witness check. Counsel for Ms. Giuffre also provided a copy of the subpoena to Marty | |
| Weinberg, Epstein’s attorney. | |
| Jeffrey Epstein is not the only key witness who has been evading Ms. Giuffre’s efforts to | |
| depose them. The next echelon in the sex trafficking organization below Epstein and the | |
| Defendant includes Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova. Ms. Giuffre alleges that they were | |
| heavily involved in the sex trafficking. Both Kellen and Marcinkova appear repeatedly on the | |
| flight logs of Jeffrey Epstein’s aircraft. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of | |
| Florida specifically identified both Kellen and Marcinkova as among four named “potential coconspirators of Epstein” in the non-prosecution agreement it executed with Epstein as part of his | |
| guilty plea to Florida state sex offense charges. See Non-Prosecution Agreement, In re: | |
| Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein at 7. Additionally, both Kellen and Marcinkova previously | |
| 1 As recently as today, Ms. Giuffre’s counsel continues to attempt to negotiate acceptance of service of | |
| the subpoena for Mr. Epstein, which now includes a request that his deposition take place in the U.S. | |
| Virgin Islands but has still not received an agreement to accept service. See McCawley Decl. at | |
| Composite Exhibit 3, Correspondence with Marty Weinberg, counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 12 | |
| 4 | |
| invoked their 5th amendment privileges when asked about their involvement in Epstein and | |
| Defendant’s sex trafficking ring. At her recent deposition, Defendant appeared to be well aware | |
| of the fact that Epstein had potential co-conspirators. See,e.g., Tr. of Depo. of Defendant (Apr. | |
| 22, 2016) at 49 (“Q: Are you aware that Sarah Kellen was . . . named as a co-conspirator in the | |
| case involving Jeffrey Epstein? . . . A: I am aware.”). See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2. | |
| As with Epstein, however, Kellen and Marcinkova appear to be evading efforts to serve | |
| them. On March 31, 2016, Ms. Giuffre’s counsel reached out to Sarah Kellen’s counsel to seek | |
| agreement that she would accept service of the subpoena in this matter. See McCawley Decl. at | |
| Exhibit 5, Electronic Correspondence with Bruce Reinhart, of McDonald Hopkins, LLP in West | |
| Palm Beach, Florida. Mr. Reinhart represented that Ms. Kellen refused to allow her counsel to | |
| accept service of the subpoena, so Ms. Giuffre was forced to commence the efforts to attempt to | |
| personally serve her with the subpoena. As explained in the attached affidavit, the Alpha Group | |
| Investigators commenced efforts to personally serve Kellen on April 26, 2016. See McCawley | |
| Decl. at 4, Affidavit of Douglas G. Mercer, Chief Investigator Alpha Group. Those efforts have | |
| continued with over nineteen (19) attempts at service and concluded as recently as May 18, | |
| 2016, at which time the investigator affixed the subpoena to the front door of Kellen’s residence | |
| and mailed copies of the subpoena to both of her New York addresses. Ms. Giuffre’s counsel | |
| also provided a copy of the subpoena to Kellen’s attorney. | |
| Marcinkova has also been evading service. Ms. Giuffre has had her investigators make | |
| efforts to attempt to personally serve Marcinkova at her New York residence, and also made | |
| efforts to try to personally serve her while on a trip to California, but has been unable to obtain | |
| personal service. Ms. Giuffre’s investigators made over ten (10) attempts to personally serve | |
| Marcinkova. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, Affidavit of Douglas G. Mercer, Chief | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 12 | |
| 5 | |
| Investigator Alpha Group. In addition, counsel for Ms. Giuffre reached out to Ms. Marcinkova’s | |
| former counsel but he indicated that he could not accept service as he no longer represents her. | |
| See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 6, Electronic Correspondence with Jack Goldberger, at | |
| Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A., in West Palm Beach, Florida. | |
| In other litigation relating to Jeffrey Epstein, both Marcinkova and Kellen asserted their | |
| fifth amendment rights when asked questions about Defendant’s recruitment of underage girls. | |
| Q Do you know Ghislaine Maxwell? | |
| A Fifth. | |
| Q Is that somebody who helped Jeffrey Epstein to devise the scheme to allow him | |
| access to various and a variety of underage minor females? | |
| A Fifth. | |
| Q Is Sarah Kellen somebody that was also involved in the planning of this scheme | |
| to gain access to underage minor females? | |
| A Fifth. | |
| See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7, Nadia Marcinkova April 13, 2010 Dep. Tr. at p. 29-30 | |
| (GIUFFRE001171-1172) | |
| Q Isn’t it true that yourself, Ghislaine Maxwell and Sarah Kellen had access to a | |
| master of list of underage minor females names and phone numbers so they could | |
| be called for the purpose of coming to Jeffrey Epstein’s house to be sexually | |
| molested? | |
| A Fifth. | |
| See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7, Nadia Marcinkova April 13, 2010 Dep. Tr. at p. 33-34 | |
| (GIUFFRE001173) | |
| Q Do you know Jane Doe-102 [Virginia Giuffre]? | |
| A Fifth. | |
| See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7, Nadia Marcinkova April 13, 2010 Dep. Tr. at p. 47-48 | |
| (GIUFFRE001176) | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 12 | |
| 6 | |
| Q Are you aware of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s sexual interaction | |
| with Jane Doe-102 when she was a minor? | |
| Q This is one of many underage minor females that was trafficked basically | |
| around the globe to be sexually exploited and abused; is that correct? | |
| A Fifth. | |
| Q Was that typical of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to sexually abuse | |
| minors on Jeffrey Epstein’s airplane? | |
| A Fifth. | |
| Q And also typical of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein to prostitute or pimp | |
| out underage minors to friends? | |
| A Fifth. | |
| See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7, Nadia Marcinkova April 13, 2010 Dep. Tr. at p. 47-48 | |
| (GIUFFRE001176) | |
| Q Ghislaine Maxwell is somebody who you know to be bi-sexual, true? | |
| A Fifth. | |
| Q You know that Ghislaine Maxwell engaged in sexual acts with underage minor | |
| females, true? | |
| A Fifth. | |
| See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7, Nadia Marcinkova April 13, 2010 Dep. Tr. at p. 58-59 | |
| (GIUFFRE001179) | |
| Q. Did Ghislaine Maxwell introduce you to Jeffrey Epstein for the first time? | |
| THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth | |
| Amendment right. | |
| See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 8, Sarah Kellen March 24, 2010 Dep. Tr. p.21 | |
| (GIUFFRE001676) | |
| Q. All right. All right. Ms. Kellen, would you agree with me that there was an | |
| agreement between Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Jean-Luc Brunel, | |
| yourself and Nadia Marcinkova to bring in girls from out of state that were | |
| underage? | |
| THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my | |
| lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. | |
| See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 8, Sarah Kellen March 24, 2010 Dep. Tr. p. 38 | |
| (GIUFFRE001680) | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 12 | |
| 7 | |
| Q. Would you agree with me that Ghislaine Maxwell provides underage girls to | |
| Mr. Epstein for sex? | |
| THE WITNESS: Upon the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth | |
| Amendment privilege. | |
| See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 8, Sarah Kellen March 24, 2010 Dep. Tr. p. 100 | |
| (GIUFFRE001695). Both Marcinkova and Kellen are key witnesses in this action because they | |
| were present with Mr. Epstein and Maxwell during the time period when Virginia Giuffre was | |
| with Epstein and Maxwell. | |
| ARGUMENT | |
| A. The Court Should Permit Alternative Service | |
| In the unique circumstances of this case, this Court should grant Ms. Giuffre leave to | |
| serve Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen, and Nadia Marcincova via means other than personal | |
| service, because they are evading service of process and there are other means to assure actual | |
| notice. Under Rule 45(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[s]erving a subpoena | |
| requires delivering a copy to the named person . . . .” The purpose of “requiring delivery to a | |
| named person is to ‘ensure receipt, so that notice will be provided to the recipient, and | |
| enforcement of the subpoena will be consistent with the requirements of due process.’” | |
| Aristocrat Leisure Ltd. v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, 262 F.R.D. 293, 304 (S.D.N.Y. | |
| 2009) (quoting Med. Diagnostic Imaging, PLLC v. CareCore Nat., LLC, Nos. 06 Civ. 7764 & 06 | |
| Civ. 13516, 2008 WL 3833238, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.15, 2008) (internal quotation marks | |
| omitted)). See also First City, Texas-Houston, N.A. v. Rafidain Bank, 197 F.R.D. 250, 255 | |
| (S.D.N.Y.2000) (finding that attaching a subpoena to the door, and mailing another copy to | |
| counsel of record was sufficient). Cases not only from this Court, but also from others in the | |
| Second Circuit, have interpreted that rule “liberally” to allow service so long as the “the type of | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 12 | |
| 8 | |
| service used ‘was calculated to provide timely actual notice.’” Aristocrat Leisure Ltd., 262 | |
| F.R.D. at 304 (quoting CareCore, 2008 WL 3833238, at *2 (noting that “nothing in the word | |
| ‘delivering’ [in Rule 45(b)(1)] indicates personal service, and a personal service requirement can | |
| be unduly restrictive”); see also Cordius Trust v. Kummerfeld, No. 99 Civ. 3200, 2000 WL | |
| 10268, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2000) (holding that because “alternative service by means of | |
| certified mail reasonably insures actual receipt of the subpoena by the witness, the ‘delivery’ | |
| requirement of Rule 45 will be met”); JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. IDW Grp., LLC, No. 08 | |
| CIV. 9116(PGG), 2009 WL 1313259, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2009) (“this Court joins other | |
| courts in this District in holding that effective service [of a deposition subpoena] under Rule 45 | |
| is not limited to personal service” (internal quotation omitted). | |
| A prerequisite for using means other than personal service is typically that the party | |
| “requesting the accommodation diligently attempted to effectuate personal service.” OceanFirst | |
| Bank v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 794 F. Supp. 2d 752, 754 (E.D. Mich. 2011) (citing Franklin v. | |
| State Farm Afire and Casualty Co., 2009 WL 3152993, at *2 (E.D. Mich. 2009). Here, Ms. | |
| Giuffre has diligently attempted to make personal service on each of the three individuals, | |
| having made multiple attempts to personal service them, including going to different locations at | |
| different times on different days, and attempting to reach them through their attorneys. See | |
| McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, Affidavit of Douglas G. Mercer, Chief Investigator Alpha Group. | |
| Indeed, it appears that the only reason that personal service has been unsuccessful thus far is that | |
| the important witnesses Ms. Giuffre is attempting to serve are fully aware of her efforts and are | |
| attempting to evade service. This Court will recall that efforts to evade service are a familiar | |
| practice of Jeffrey Epstein and his colleagues. As described in earlier pleadings in this case, for | |
| example, the Defendant herself refused to comply with a deposition subpoena in an earlier case | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 12 | |
| 9 | |
| brought by one of Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual assault victims. See Decl. of Sigrid McCawley at | |
| Composite Exhibit 9, Maxwell Deposition Notice; Subpoena and Cancellation Payment Notice, | |
| and January 13, 2015 Daily Mail Article. | |
| Ms. Giuffre proposes that she be permitted to serve her deposition notices by means other | |
| than personal service. Ms. Giuffre asks this Court to rule that she be permitted to serve each of | |
| the three individuals in ways that are reasonably calculated to give them actual notice. The | |
| specific means that Ms. Giuffre proposes are the means that her investigators took on May 18th | |
| of posting the subpoenas to the addresses associated with each of the witnesses and mailing the | |
| subpoenas to those addresses with the witness fee check and providing copies of the subpoenas | |
| via e-mail to the witnesses known counsel. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, Affidavit of | |
| Douglas G. Mercer, Chief Investigator Alpha Group. | |
| Means such as those described above have been approved by this Court in other cases. | |
| For example, in Medical Diagnostic Imaging, PLLC v. Carecore National, LLC, 2008 WL | |
| 3833238 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (Katz, J.), this Court allowed service of a deposition subpoena to be | |
| made through mailing a copy of the subpoena to the witness’ place of employment along with a | |
| copy of the Court’s order directing the witness to comply with the subpoena or face sanctions. | |
| Id. at *3. Similarly, in JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. IDW Grp., LLC, No. 08 CIV. 9116(PGG), | |
| 2009 WL 1313259, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2009), this Court allowed service of a deposition | |
| subpoena to be made by sending a copy of the deposition subpoena to the witness’ place of | |
| business and residence by certified mail; leaving a copy of the deposition subpoena at the | |
| witness’ residence and place of business with a person of suitable age and discretion; and | |
| remitting a copy of the deposition subpoena by electronic mail and certified mail to counsel for a | |
| related corporation. And, in at least two cases, this Court has found that certified mailing of a | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 12 | |
| 10 | |
| subpoena to the witness alone satisfies Rule 45. See Cordius Trust v.. Kummerfeld, 1999 U.S. | |
| Dist. Lexis 19980, *5–*6 (S.D.N.Y.1999); Ultradent Products, Inc. v. Hayman, No. M8-85 RPP, | |
| 2002 WL 31119425, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2002). Here, the means of service exceed those | |
| approved in those other cases and should be permitted. | |
| CONCLUSION | |
| Ms. Giuffre should be granted leave to serve Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen, and Nadia | |
| Marcincova with deposition subpoenas by means other than personal service. As Ms. Giuffre | |
| has made multiple attempts at personal service, Ms. Giuffre should be granted leave to serve | |
| deposition subpoenas by the means employed by her investigators of posting the subpoenas to | |
| the known locations and also sending the subpoenas via U.S. mail. | |
| Dated: May 25, 2016 | |
| Respectfully Submitted, | |
| BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP | |
| By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley | |
| Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP | |
| 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 | |
| Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 | |
| (954) 356-0011 | |
| David Boies | |
| Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP | |
| 333 Main Street | |
| Armonk, NY 10504 | |
| Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, | |
| EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. | |
| 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 | |
| Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | |
| (954) 524-2820 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 12 | |
| 11 | |
| Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| S.J. Quinney College of Law | |
| University of Utah | |
| 383 University St. | |
| Salt Lake City, UT 84112 | |
| (801) 585-52022 | |
| 2 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only | |
| and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private | |
| representation. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 12 | |
| 12 | |
| CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | |
| I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 25th day of May, 2016, I electronically filed the | |
| foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. | |
| Laura A. Menninger, Esq. | |
| Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. | |
| HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. | |
| 150 East 10th Avenue | |
| Denver, Colorado 80203 | |
| Tel: (303) 831-7364 | |
| Fax: (303) 832-2628 | |
| Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com | |
| jpagliuca@hmflaw.com | |
| Copies of this filing were also provided by e-mail to: | |
| Marty Weinberg, counsel for Jeffrey Epstein | |
| Bruce Reinhart counsel for Sarah Kellen | |
| /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley | |
| Sigrid S. McCawley | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 12 | |
| EXHIBIT C | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 10 | |
| 1 | |
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | |
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA | |
| Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson | |
| JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 | |
| v. | |
| UNITED STATES | |
| __________________________/ | |
| JANE DOE #3 AND JANE DOE #4’S MOTION PURSUANT TO RULE 21 FOR | |
| JOINDER IN ACTION | |
| COME NOW Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4 (also referred to as “the new victims”), by and | |
| through undersigned counsel, to file this motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 | |
| to join this action, on the condition that they not re-litigate any issues already litigated by Jane | |
| Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as “the current victims”). The new victims have | |
| suffered the same violations of their rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) as the | |
| current victims. Accordingly, they desire to join in this action to vindicate their rights as well. | |
| Because the new victims will not re-litigate any issues previously litigated by the current victims | |
| (and because they are represented by the same legal counsel as the current victims), the | |
| Government will not be prejudiced if the Court grants the motion. The Court may “at any time” | |
| add new parties to the action, Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Accordingly, the Court should grant the | |
| motion.1 | |
| 1 As minor victims of sexual offenses, Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4 desire to proceed by | |
| way of pseudonym for the same reasons that Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 proceeded in this | |
| Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 1 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 10 | |
| 2 | |
| FACTUAL BACKGROUND | |
| As the Court is aware, more than six years ago, Jane Doe #1 filed the present action | |
| against the Government, alleging a violation of her rights under the CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. | |
| DE1. She alleged that Jeffrey Epstein had sexually abused her and that the United States had | |
| entered into a secret non-prosecution agreement (NPA) regarding those crimes in violation of her | |
| rights. At the first court hearing on the case, the Court allowed Jane Doe #2 to also join the | |
| action. Both Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 specifically argued that the government had failed to | |
| protect their CVRA rights (inter alia) to confer, to reasonable notice, and to be treated with | |
| fairness. In response, the Government argued that the CVRA rights did not apply to Jane Doe #1 | |
| and Jane Doe #2 because no federal charges had ever been filed against Jeffrey Epstein. | |
| The Court has firmly rejected the United States’ position. In a detailed ruling, the Court | |
| concluded that the CVRA extended rights to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 even though federal | |
| charges were never filed. DE 189. The Court explained that because the NPA barred | |
| prosecution of crimes committed against them by Epstein, they had “standing” to assert | |
| violations of the CVRA rights. Id. The Court deferred ruling on whether the two victims would | |
| be entitled to relief, pending development of a fuller evidentiary record. Id. | |
| Two other victims, who are in many respects similarly situated to the current victims, | |
| now wish to join this action. The new victims joining at this stage will not cause any delay and | |
| their joinder in this case is the most expeditious manner in which to pursue their rights. Because | |
| the background regarding their abuse is relevant to the Court’s assessment of whether to allow | |
| them to join, their circumstances are recounted here briefly. | |
| fashion. Counsel for the new victims have made their true identities known to the Government. | |
| Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 2 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 10 | |
| 3 | |
| Jane Doe #3’s Circumstances | |
| As with Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, Jane Doe #3 was repeatedly sexually abused by | |
| Epstein. The Government then concealed from Jane Doe #3 the existence of its NPA from Jane | |
| Doe #3, in violation of her rights under the CVRA. If allowed to join this action, Jane Doe #3 | |
| would prove the following: | |
| In 1999, Jane Doe #3 was approached by Ghislaine Maxwell, one of the main women | |
| whom Epstein used to procure under-aged girls for sexual activities and a primary co-conspirator | |
| in his sexual abuse and sex trafficking scheme. In fact, it became known to the government that | |
| Maxwell herself regularly participated in Epstein’s sexual exploitation of minors, including Jane | |
| Doe #3. Maxwell persuaded Jane Doe #3 (who was then fifteen years old) to come to Epstein’s | |
| mansion in a fashion very similar to the manner in which Epstein and his other co-conspirators | |
| coerced dozens of other children (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2). When Jane Doe #3 | |
| began giving Epstein a “massage,” Epstein and Maxwell turned it into a sexual encounter, as | |
| they had done with many other victims. Epstein then became enamored with Jane Doe #3, and | |
| with the assistance of Maxwell converted her into what is commonly referred to as a “sex slave.” | |
| Epstein kept Jane Doe #3 as his sex slave from about 1999 through 2002, when she managed to | |
| escape to a foreign country and hide out from Epstein and his co-conspirators for years. From | |
| 1999 through 2002, Epstein frequently sexually abused Jane Doe #3, not only in West Palm | |
| Beach, but also in New York, New Mexico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, in international airspace on | |
| his Epstein’s private planes, and elsewhere. | |
| Epstein also sexually trafficked the then-minor Jane Doe, making her available for sex to | |
| politically-connected and financially-powerful people. Epstein’s purposes in “lending” Jane Doe | |
| Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 3 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 10 | |
| 4 | |
| (along with other young girls) to such powerful people were to ingratiate himself with them for | |
| business, personal, political, and financial gain, as well as to obtain potential blackmail | |
| information. | |
| One such powerful individual that Epstein forced then-minor Jane Doe #3 to have sexual | |
| relations with was former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein’s | |
| and well-known criminal defense attorney. Epstein required Jane Doe #3 to have sexual | |
| relations with Dershowitz on numerous occasions while she was a minor, not only in Florida but | |
| also on private planes, in New York, New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In addition to | |
| being a participant in the abuse of Jane Doe #3 and other minors, Deshowitz was an eye-witness | |
| to the sexual abuse of many other minors by Epstein and several of Epstein’s co-conspirators. | |
| Dershowitz would later play a significant role in negotiating the NPA on Epstein’s behalf. | |
| Indeed, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement that provided immunity from federal | |
| prosecution in the Southern District of Florida not only to Epstein, but also to “any potential coconspirators of Epstein.” NPA at 5. Thus, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement with a | |
| provision that provided protection for himself against criminal prosecution in Florida for | |
| sexually abusing Jane Doe #3. Because this broad immunity would have been controversial if | |
| disclosed, Dershowitz (along with other members of Epstein’s defense team) and the | |
| Government tried to keep the immunity provision secret from all of Epstein’s victims and the | |
| general public, even though such secrecy violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. | |
| Ghislaine Maxwell was another person in Epstein’s inner circle and a co-conspirator in | |
| Epstein’s sexual abuse. She was someone who consequently also appreciated the immunity | |
| granted by the NPA for the crimes she committed in Florida. In addition to participating in the | |
| Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 4 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 10 | |
| 5 | |
| sexual abuse of Jane Doe #3 and others, Maxwell also took numerous sexually explicit pictures | |
| of underage girls involved in sexual activities, including Jane Doe #3. She shared these | |
| photographs (which constituted child pornography under applicable federal laws) with Epstein. | |
| The Government is apparently aware of, and in certain instances possesses some of these | |
| photographs. | |
| Perhaps even more important to her role in Epstein’s sexual abuse ring, Maxwell had | |
| direct connections to other powerful individuals with whom she could connect Epstein. For | |
| instance, one such powerful individual Epstein forced Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with | |
| was a member of the British Royal Family, Prince Andrew (a/k/a Duke of York). Jane Doe #3 | |
| was forced to have sexual relations with this Prince when she was a minor in three separate | |
| geographical locations: in London (at Ghislaine Maxwell’s apartment), in New York, and on | |
| Epstein’s private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands (in an orgy with numerous other under-aged | |
| girls). Epstein instructed Jane Doe #3 that she was to give the Prince whatever he demanded and | |
| required Jane Doe #3 to report back to him on the details of the sexual abuse. Maxwell | |
| facilitated Prince Andrew’s acts of sexual abuse by acting as a “madame” for Epstein, thereby | |
| assisting in internationally trafficking Jane Doe #3 (and numerous other young girls) for sexual | |
| purposes. | |
| Another person in Epstein’s inner circle of friends (who becomes apparent with almost | |
| no investigative effort) is Jean Luc Brunel. Epstein sexually trafficked Jane Doe #3 to Jean Luc | |
| Brunel many times. Brunel was another of Epstein’s closest friends and a regular traveling | |
| companion, who had many contacts with young girls throughout the world. Brunel has been a | |
| model scout for various modeling agencies for many years and apparently was able to get U.S. | |
| Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 5 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 10 | |
| 6 | |
| passports for young girls to “work” as models. He would bring young girls (ranging to ages as | |
| young as twelve) to the United States for sexual purposes and farm them out to his friends, | |
| especially Epstein. Brunel would offer the girls “modeling” jobs. Many of the girls came from | |
| poor countries or impoverished backgrounds, and he lured them in with a promise of making | |
| good money. Epstein forced Jane Doe #3 to observe him, Brunel and Maxwell engage in illegal | |
| sexual acts with dozens of underage girls. Epstein also forced Jane Doe #3 to have sex with | |
| Brunel on numerous occasions, at places including Epstein’s mansion in West Palm Beach, Little | |
| St. James Island in the U.S. Virgin Islands (many including orgies that were comprised of other | |
| underage girls), New York City, New Mexico, Paris, the south of France, and California. | |
| Epstein also trafficked Jane Doe #3 for sexual purposes to many other powerful men, | |
| including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign | |
| presidents, a well-known Prime Minister, and other world leaders. Epstein required Jane Doe #3 | |
| to describe the events that she had with these men so that he could potentially blackmail them. | |
| The Government was well aware of Jane Doe #3 when it was negotiating the NPA, as it | |
| listed her as a victim in the attachment to the NPA. Moreover, even a rudimentary investigation | |
| of Jane Doe #3’s relationship to Epstein would have revealed the fact that she had been | |
| trafficked throughout the United States and internationally for sexual purposes. Nonetheless, the | |
| Government secretly negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein precluding any | |
| Federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida of Epstein and his co-conspirators. As | |
| with Jane Doe #1, and Jane Doe #2, the Government concealed the non-prosecution agreement | |
| from Jane Doe #3 – all in violation of her rights under the CVRA – to avoid Jane Doe #3 from | |
| raising powerful objections to the NPA that would have shed tremendous public light on Epstein | |
| Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 6 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 10 | |
| 7 | |
| and other powerful individuals and that would likely have been prevented it from being | |
| concluded in the secretive manner in which it was. | |
| Jane Doe #4’s Circumstances | |
| If permitted to join this action, Jane Doe #4 would allege, and could prove at trial, that | |
| she has CVRA claims similar to those advanced by Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, based on the | |
| following: | |
| As with the other Jane Does, Jane Doe #4 was repeatedly sexually abused by Epstein. In | |
| or around the summer of 2002, Jane Doe #4, an economically poor and vulnerable sixteen-yearold child, was told by another one of Epstein’s underage minor sex abuse victims, that she could | |
| make $300 cash by giving an old man a massage on Palm Beach. An acquaintance of Jane Doe | |
| #4 (also a minor sexual abuse victim of Epstein) telephoned Epstein and scheduled Jane Doe #4 | |
| to go to Epstein’s house to give him a massage. During that call, Epstein himself got on the | |
| phone (a means of interstate communication) with Jane Doe #4, asking her personally to come to | |
| his mansion in Palm Beach. | |
| Jane Doe #4 then went to Epstein’s mansion and was escorted upstairs to Epstein’s large | |
| bathroom by one of Epstein’s assistants. Shortly thereafter Jeffrey Epstein emerged and lay face | |
| down on the table and told Jane Doe #4 to start massaging him. Epstein asked Jane Doe #3 her | |
| age and she told him she had recently turned sixteen. Epstein subsequently committed illegal | |
| sexual acts against Jane Doe #4 on many occasions. | |
| Epstein used a means of interstate communication (i.e., a cell phone) to arrange for these | |
| sexual encounters. Epstein also frequently travelled in interstate commerce (i.e., on his personal | |
| jet) for purposes of illegally sexually abusing Jane Doe #4. | |
| Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 7 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 10 | |
| 12 | |
| January. In the meantime, however, counsel for the victims believe that it is no longer | |
| appropriate to delay filing this motion and accordingly file it at this time. Because the | |
| Government is apparently opposing this motion, Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4 have described | |
| the circumstances surrounding their claims so that the Court has appropriate information to rule | |
| on the motion. | |
| CONCLUSION | |
| Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4 should be allowed to join this action, pursuant to Rule 21 | |
| of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Their joinder should be conditioned on the requirement | |
| that they not re-litigate any issues previously litigated by Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. A | |
| proposed order to that effect is attached to this pleading. | |
| DATED: December 30, 2014 | |
| Respectfully Submitted, | |
| /s/ Bradley J. Edwards | |
| Bradley J. Edwards | |
| FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, | |
| EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. | |
| 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 | |
| Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | |
| Telephone (954) 524-2820 | |
| Facsimile (954) 524-2822 | |
| E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com | |
| And | |
| Paul G. Cassell | |
| Pro Hac Vice | |
| S.J. Quinney College of Law at the | |
| University of Utah | |
| 332 S. 1400 E. | |
| Salt Lake City, UT 84112 | |
| Telephone: 801-585-5202 | |
| Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 12 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 10 | |
| 13 | |
| Facsimile: 801-585-6833 | |
| E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu | |
| Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 | |
| CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | |
| I certify that the foregoing document was served on December 30, 2014, on the following | |
| using the Court’s CM/ECF system: | |
| Dexter Lee | |
| A. Marie Villafaña | |
| 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 | |
| West Palm Beach, FL 33401 | |
| (561) 820-8711 | |
| Fax: (561) 820-8777 | |
| E-mail: Dexter.Lee@usdoj.gov | |
| E-mail: ann.marie.c.villafana@usdoj.gov | |
| Attorneys for the Government | |
| /s/ Bradley J. Edwards | |
| Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 13 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 10 | |
| United States District Court | |
| Southern District of New York | |
| Virginia L. Giuffre, | |
| Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS | |
| v. | |
| Ghislaine Maxwell, | |
| Defendant. | |
| ________________________________/ | |
| PLAINTIFF’S NON-REDACTED MOTION TO EXCEED PRESUMPTIVE TEN | |
| DEPOSITION LIMIT IN FEDERAL RULE CIVIL PROCEDURE 30(A)(2)(a)(ii) | |
| Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP | |
| 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 | |
| Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 | |
| Tel: (954) 356-0011 | |
| David Boies | |
| Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP | |
| 333 Main Street | |
| Armonk, NY 10504 | |
| Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, | |
| EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. | |
| 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 | |
| Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | |
| Tel: (954) 524-2820 | |
| Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| S.J. Quinney College of Law | |
| University of Utah | |
| 383 University St. | |
| Salt Lake City, UT 84112 | |
| Tel: (801) 585-52021 | |
| 1 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is | |
| not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 28 | |
| i | |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS | |
| Page | |
| TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................................................... ii | |
| I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND .............................................................................................2 | |
| A. Depositions Taken Thus Far By Ms. Giuffre. .........................................................4 | |
| 1. Ghislaine Maxwell (7 Hours) ......................................................................4 | |
| 2. Johanna Sjoberg (3 ½ Hours). .....................................................................9 | |
| B. Future Depositions Sought By Ms. Giuffre...........................................................11 | |
| 3. Juan Alessi (3 ½ Hours). ...........................................................................11 | |
| 4. Maria Alessi (3 ½ Hours) ..........................................................................12 | |
| 5. David Rodgers (3 ½ Hours).......................................................................12 | |
| 6. Rinaldo Rizzo (3 ½ Hours)........................................................................12 | |
| 7. Jean Luc Brunel (3 ½ Hours). ...................................................................13 | |
| 8. Ross Gow (3 ½ Hours). .............................................................................13 | |
| 9. Dana Burns (3 ½ Hours)............................................................................13 | |
| 10. Jo Jo Fontanella (3 ½ Hours).....................................................................13 | |
| 11. Detective Joe Recarey (3 ½ Hours)...........................................................14 | |
| 12. Michael Reiter (3 ½ Hours).......................................................................14 | |
| 13. Emmy Taylor (3 ½ Hours). .......................................................................15 | |
| 14. Alexandra Hall (3 ½ Hours). .....................................................................15 | |
| 15. Nadia Marcinkova (3 ½ Hours).................................................................16 | |
| 16. Sarah Kellen Vickers (3 ½ Hours). ...........................................................16 | |
| 17. Jeffrey Epstein (3 ½ Hours).......................................................................17 | |
| II. DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................17 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 28 | |
| ii | |
| CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................22 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 28 | |
| iii | |
| TABLE OF AUTHORITIES | |
| Page | |
| Cases | |
| In re Weatherford International Sec. Litigation, | |
| No. 11 CIV. 1646 (LAK) (JCF), 2013 WL 5762923 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2013).......................19 | |
| LiButti v. United States, | |
| 107 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 1997) ......................................................................................................21 | |
| Raniola v. Bratton, | |
| 243 F.3d 610 (2d Cir. 2001) ......................................................................................................19 | |
| Scott v. City of Sioux City, Iowa, | |
| 298 F.R.D. 400 (N.D. Iowa 2014).............................................................................................19 | |
| Other Authorities | |
| Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 29 ...............................................................................................17 | |
| Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 ...............................................................................................19 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 28 | |
| 1 | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this | |
| motion to take approximately seven additional depositions in this case beyond the presumptive | |
| ten deposition limit. Ms. Giuffre’s requests is still within the total number of hours allowed by | |
| the ten deposition limit because the parties have agreed that they will split the time for all third | |
| party witnesses such that Ms. Giuffre will only be expending at most 3 ½ hours at those | |
| additional depositions. In an abundance of caution, even though Ms. Giuffre will not likely be | |
| exceeding the total number of hours allowed for depositions, she seeks leave from this Court to | |
| confirm that she may proceed with the additional depositions for the reasons stated below. | |
| Ms. Giuffre has alleged that Defendant recruited females for Mr. Epstein, including | |
| underage females like herself, under the guise of working in a legitimate position - such as an | |
| assistant or as a massage therapist - only to almost immediately be coerced or enticed into | |
| engaging in sex for money. Defendant has challenged the veracity of Ms. Giuffre, and appears | |
| to intend to argue that Ms. Giuffre cannot support the allegation that Ms. Maxwell recruited | |
| females for Mr. Epstein or that the females were coerced or enticed into sex. The sexual abuse | |
| that lies at the heart of this case took place behind closed doors – doors of Jeffrey Epstein’s | |
| various private mansions. Unsurprisingly, Ms. Giuffre must find supporting circumstantial | |
| evidence to support her claims. Moreover, because Mr. Epstein and Defendant were travelling | |
| between Mr. Epstein's numerous homes and thus many of the events relevant to this case took | |
| place more than 100 miles from the courthouse, Ms. Giuffre cannot compel most of the | |
| witnesses to appear via a trial subpoena. Accordingly, Ms. Giuffre seeks leave to take more than | |
| the standard ten depositions in this case. At this time, she seeks leave to take seven additional | |
| depositions, as articulated below.2 | |
| 2 Ms. Giuffre’s counsel met and conferred with Defendant’s counsel both in person and by phone in an | |
| effort to obtain agreement to proceed with these depositions but was unable to obtain an agreement. See | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 28 | |
| 2 | |
| I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND | |
| The Court is aware of the scope of this case from earlier pleadings and numerous | |
| hearings. Initially, Ms. Giuffre anticipated the scope of discovery on this case would be narrow, | |
| because many of the events (such as flying to London on one of Epstein’s planes with Maxwell) | |
| were supported by seemingly indisputable evidence, such as flight logs, and because the | |
| Defendant’s counsel initially suggested that she may invoke her Fifth Amendment rights. | |
| Instead, during her recent deposition, Defendant simply failed to recall many of the most | |
| significant events in this case or refused to respond directly to many important questions. As a | |
| result, Ms. Giuffre is now in a position where she has to call multiple witnesses to establish | |
| fundamental facts in the case. For example, Defendant would not even admit that the initials | |
| “GM” which are on the private plane flight logs over 300 times, represent her initials for | |
| McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, May 17, 2016 Email Correspondence from Sigrid McCawley to Laura | |
| Menninger and Jeff Pagliuca with proposed deposition calendar. Ms. Giuffre’s ability to determine | |
| exactly which depositions would need to be taken was hamstrung by the Defendant’s refusal to sit for her | |
| deposition. As the Court will recall, Ms. Giuffre made efforts to set Defendant’s deposition starting in | |
| February 2016, yet Defendant did not sit for her deposition until after being ordered by the Court on April | |
| 22, 2016. During that deposition, Defendant refused to answer a number of questions and refused to | |
| acknowledge basic facts in this case, thereby causing Ms. Giuffre to have to depose a number of | |
| unanticipated witnesses. Ms. Giuffre’s counsel started conferring with Defendant’s counsel in February | |
| 2016 and has actively engaged in discussion about these depositions that Ms. Giuffre knew she needed to | |
| take. On May 9, 2016, the parties conferred regarding deposition scheduling and Ms. Giuffre noticed | |
| depositions in accordance with the dates and locations that Defendant’s counsel said were available, and, | |
| on May 17, 2016, provided her with a calendar outlining those dates. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, | |
| May 17, 2016 Email Correspondence from Sigrid McCawley. Ms. Maxwell waited until one day before | |
| the first deposition scheduled to take place on May 31, 2016 to inform Ms. Giuffre’s counsel that she | |
| refuses to attend the deposition of this subpoenaed witness unless Ms. Giuffre drops her request to seek | |
| additional depositions by way of this motion. “If you intend to seek more than 10 depositions or to | |
| continue the discovery cut-off post July 1, then we will not be appearing at the depositions next week…” | |
| See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, May 27, 2016 e-mail Correspondence from Laura Menninger to | |
| Bradley Edwards. This obstruction of discovery by refusing to attend subpoenaed depositions that were | |
| noticed to her about one month ago on May 4, 2016 should not be condoned. See McCawley Decl. at | |
| Exhibit 3, May 4, 2016 Notice of Service and Subpoena to Juan Alessi. Defendant’s counsel is also | |
| apparently refusing to appear at the other two depositions set for next week, of Maria Alessi set for | |
| Wednesday, June 1, 2016 and originally noticed on May 4, 2016 and Dave Rodgers set for Friday, June 3, | |
| 2016 and originally noticed on May 4, 2016. While Ms. Giuffre had originally hoped to be able to | |
| conclude discovery on July 1, 2016, Defendant’s refusal to attend depositions and agree to scheduling is | |
| putting Ms. Giuffre in a position where she will need additional time to complete discovery. See | |
| McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, May 26, 2016 Letter from Sigrid McCawley. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 28 | |
| 3 | |
| Ghislaine Maxwell. Therefore, Ms. Giuffre is now required to take the deposition of pilot Dave | |
| Rodgers to authenticate his pilot logs and the identity of the individuals on various flights. | |
| In addition, as the Court knows, this case involves allegations that Ms. Giuffre was a | |
| victim of sexual abuse when she was under the age of 18 after being recruited by Ghislaine | |
| Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. Ms. Giuffre has alleged that Defendant recruited her and other | |
| young females, unexperienced in massage, for sex with Jeffrey Epstein by lying to them and | |
| telling them that the job was to be her personal assistant or a massage therapist. That was a ruse. | |
| Instead, Defendant recruited these females for sex with Jeffrey Epstein and, often, with herself, | |
| and “massage” was a euphemism for sex in Defendant’s household. Defendant has stated that | |
| these claims are obvious lies. | |
| Aside from the deposition of the Defendant, Ms. Giuffre has taken the deposition of one | |
| other witness, Johanna Sjoberg, on May 18, 2016. Ms. Sjoberg testified that, while a twentyyear-old college student with no massage training, Ms. Maxwell, a stranger to her, approached | |
| her on her college campus, and told her she would hire Ms. Sjoberg as her personal assistant. | |
| After Ms. Sjoberg began to work for Defendant inside the home she shared with Epstein, | |
| Defendant revealed that Ms. Sjoberg’s true “job” was to complete sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein. | |
| Defendant was explicit with her instructions, at one point scolding Ms. Sjoberg for failing to | |
| “finish [her] job” after Ms. Sjoberg massaged Epstein without completing the sex act, and | |
| because of this failure, Defendant, instead, had to “finish [her] job for her” and cause Epstein and | |
| complete the sex act. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, Deposition of Johanna Sjoberg. | |
| Accordingly, in this manner, Ms. Giuffre needs to depose other witnesses to show the veracity of | |
| her claim that Defendant recruited young females, unexperienced in massage, for sex with | |
| Jeffrey Epstein, proving that Defendant was lying when she called Ms. Giuffre a liar, and knew | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 28 | |
| 4 | |
| at the time she made the defamatory statement that it was untrue. Testimony like that from Ms. | |
| Sjoberg’s refutes Defendant’s testimony, and goes to her credibility, and goes to the claim at the | |
| center of this case. | |
| Additionally, to prove Ms. Giuffre’s allegations, that span multiple years, on multiple | |
| continents, and multiple locations, Ms. Giuffre has arranged a series of depositions of persons | |
| with direct knowledge of the relevant issues. To prove her case, Ms. Giuffre believes that a | |
| minimum of seventeen depositions will be required. In reviewing this list of depositions, it is | |
| important to understand that only one of them – the Defendant’s – will consume a full seven | |
| hours of questioning by Ms. Giuffre’s counsel, as permitted under the rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. | |
| 30(d)(1). Apart from the Defendant’s deposition, all of the other depositions set by Ms. Giuffre | |
| have been pursuant to an agreement with Defendant’s counsel that Ms. Giuffre will be given half | |
| of the seven hours to ask questions. In the descriptions below, the time Ms. Giuffre will have to | |
| ask questions (or thus far has asked questions) is indicated: | |
| A. Depositions Taken Thus Far By Ms. Giuffre | |
| 1. Ghislaine Maxwell (7 hours). The defendant, of course, has relevant information | |
| in this case. But when Defendant was deposed, she refused to answer numerous questions about | |
| alleged adult consensual sex. Those refusals are currently before the Court in a pending motion | |
| to compel. DE 155. And, more broadly, Defendant’s deposition makes it clear that she intends | |
| to contest many of the points that earlier had appeared to be potentially uncontested. For | |
| example, in pleadings before her deposition, Defendant had suggested that she might invoke her | |
| Fifth Amendment right to remain silent during questioning. Indeed, just a week before her | |
| deposition, Defendant filed a motion seeking the alternative relief of staying further proceedings | |
| so that she could get more information about whether to take the Fifth. See DE 101 at 2-4. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 28 | |
| 5 | |
| During her deposition, however, Defendant did not take the Fifth. Instead, she testified | |
| that she suffered from a series of memory lapses and could not recall many of the key issues in | |
| dispute in this case. As a result of Defendant’s inability to remember events, a variety of issues | |
| are now in dispute. For example, at her deposition, Defendant indicated that she lacked | |
| recollection of or was otherwise unable to specifically answer the following questions: | |
| ! Whether Defendant observed a female under the age of 18 at Jeffrey Epstein’s home in | |
| Palm Beach. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 6, Maxwell Depo. at 29. | |
| ! Whether Defendant had meet Ms. Giuffre and introduced her to Epstein. Id. at 33. | |
| ! Whether Defendant, in 2011, could recall having met Ms. Giuffre at the Mar-a-Lago in | |
| Palm Beach and then writing that fact in an email. Id. at 35. | |
| ! Whether, when Defendant first met | |
| . | |
| ! Whether Defendant could recall being on a plane with and Ms. Giuffre. | |
| . | |
| ! Whether the Defendant knew what Nadia Marcinkova was doing at Epstein’s mansion. | |
| Id. at 41, 44. | |
| ! Whether Defendant knew the nature of the relationship between Epstein and Sarah | |
| Kellen. Id. at 47-48. | |
| ! Whether Defendant knew that Sarah Kellen recruited girls under the age of 18 to come to | |
| Epstein’s mansions. Id. at 56-57. | |
| ! Whether massage therapists at Epstein’s mansions performed sexual acts. Id. at 52-54. | |
| ! Whether Defendant knew the age of Eva Dubin when she (Dubin) met Epstein. Id. at 58- | |
| 59. | |
| ! Whether Defendant advised Johanna Sjoberg that she (Sjoberg) could obtain extra money | |
| if she massaged Epstein. Id. at 61. | |
| ! Whether Defendant introduced Sjoberg to Prince Andrew. Id. at 63. | |
| ! Whether Defendant could recall Emmy Taylor brought masseuses to Epstein’s mansion. | |
| Id. at 67. | |
| - r---------- '--------■ | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 28 | |
| 6 | |
| ! Whether Defendant knew what Ms. Giuffre was required to wear while providing | |
| massages to Epstein. Id. at 68-69. | |
| ! Whether Defendant could recall having a laundry basket of sex toys in Epstein’s Palm | |
| Beach mansion, as described by Juan Alessi. Id. at 70-75. | |
| ! Whether Defendant could recall paying Ms. Giuffre. Id. at 75. | |
| ! Whether Defendant was ever present to view Ms. Giuffre massaging Epstein. Id. at 75. | |
| ! Whether Defendant could recall telling Ms. Giuffre that she needed a cell phone so that | |
| she could be on call regularly. Id. at 77. | |
| ! Whether Defendant was required to be on call to come to Epstein’s mansion when he | |
| wanted her to come. Id. at 79. | |
| ! Whether Defendant could recall Ms. Giuffre being at Epstein’s New York mansion when | |
| Prince Andrew came to visit. Id. at 80-81. | |
| ! Whether Defendant could recall Ms. Giuffre staying at any of Epstein’s six homes. Id. at | |
| 81. | |
| ! Whether Defendant was aware that there were over 30 individuals who were minors who | |
| gave reports to the Palm Beach Police Department who said they were sexually assaulted | |
| by Epstein during the years that Defendant was working with him. Id. at 89-91. | |
| ! Whether Defendant introduced Ms. Giuffre to Prince Andrew in London. Id. at 108. | |
| ! Whether Ms. Giuffre ever stayed at Defendant’s home in London. Id. at 108. | |
| ! Whether Defendant remembered taking a trip with Ms. Giuffre to travel over to Europe, | |
| including London. Id. at 108. | |
| ! Whether Defendant could recall Prince Andrew being present in New York for a party | |
| where Johanna Sjoberg was also present. Id. at 112-13. | |
| ! Whether a picture depicting Prince Andrew, Ms. Giuffre and Defendant was taken at | |
| Defendant’s London town home. Id. at 113-14. | |
| ! Whether Defendant ever flew on one of Epstein’s planes with a 17 year old. Id. at 121- | |
| 22. | |
| ! Whether the notation “GM” on flight logs for passengers on Epstein’s planes represented | |
| the Defendant (i.e., Ghislaine Maxwell). Id. at 122-23. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 28 | |
| 7 | |
| ! Whether Defendant knew that the flight logs produced by Dave Rogers (one of Epstein’s | |
| pilots) were accurate. Id. at 128-29. | |
| ! Whether Defendant could recall ever being on a flight on one of Epstein’s planes with | |
| Ms. Giuffre. Id. at 132-33. | |
| ! Whether Defendant could recall Epstein and former President Clinton being friendly | |
| towards each other. Id. at 135-36. | |
| ! Whether Defendant could recall the purpose of a trip to Thailand with Epstein and former | |
| President Clinton was. Id. at 140. | |
| ! Whether Defendant could recall Ms. Giuffre taking pictures on trips. Id. at 144. | |
| ! Whether Defendant could recollect writing down messages on memo pads from various | |
| individuals at Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion. Id. at 150-57; 159-60. | |
| ! Whether Defendant could recall receiving a message on a memo pad concerning | |
| ! Whether Defendant could explain why a minor would be calling Epstein to say they had a | |
| female for him. Id. at 164. | |
| ! Whether Defendant could recall a sixteen-year-old Russian girl who came to Epstein’s | |
| mansion? Id. at 167. | |
| ! Whether Defendant believed that Epstein sexually abused minors. Id. at 171-80. | |
| ! Whether Defendant was present at Epstein’s Florida mansion when police executed a | |
| search warrant. Id. at 186. | |
| ! Whether Defendant took a picture at one of Epstein’s properties of a person in either a | |
| naked or semi-naked state. Id. at 193. | |
| ! Whether Defendant could recall what Epstein told her about the criminal investigation of | |
| him. Id. at 194-95. | |
| ! Whether Epstein told Defendant that he never had sex with Ms. Giuffre. Id. at 197. | |
| ! Whether it was an “obvious lie” that Epstein engaged in sexual conduct with Ms. Giuffre | |
| while she was under the age of 18. Id. at 202-06. | |
| ! Whether Defendant knew whether Epstein had sex with a minor. Id. at 239. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 28 | |
| 8 | |
| ! Whether it was a lie for Ms. Giuffre to say that Defendant approached females to bring | |
| them to Epstein. Id. at 244-46. | |
| ! Whether Defendant knew Epstein had a sexual preference for minors. Id. at 251-53. | |
| ! Whether Defendant knew that asked girls to come over to see Epstein for | |
| purposes of sexual massage. | |
| ! Whether Defendant could recall seeing and Epstein together. . | |
| ! Whether Defendant was aware of any interstate or international transportation of women, | |
| aged 18 to 28, for purposes of having sex with Epstein where they would receive | |
| compensation. Id. at 278-79. | |
| ! Whether Defendant could recall anything about a puppet or caricature of Prince Andrew | |
| in Epstein’s home when Prince Andrew was there, including whether Ms. Giuffre was | |
| sitting on Prince Andrew’s lap with the puppet or caricature. Id. at 289-93. | |
| ! Whether Defendant could remember entering any telephone numbers into a contact book | |
| maintained by Epstein. Id. at 320-22. | |
| ! Whether a document with Epstein’s contacts (including “massage” contacts) was located | |
| on Defendant’s computer. Id. at 331-34. | |
| ! Whether, if Alfredo Rodriguez said that Defendant had knowledge that underage girls | |
| were coming over to Epstein’s Florida mansion for purposes of sex, that would be a true | |
| statement. Id. at 329-30. | |
| ! Whether Defendant could recall any representative of hers informing the press that Ms. | |
| Giuffre committed grand theft. Id. at 344-45. | |
| ! Whether Defendant knew what her press agent, Ross Gow, was referring to when he | |
| talked in an email about “helpful leakage.” Id. at 349-50, 406. | |
| ! Whether Defendant could recall interacting with anyone, other than Ms. Giuffre, under | |
| the age of 18 on any of Epstein’s properties. Id. at 384. | |
| ! Whether Defendant had discussed with Prince Andrew any of the details of Ms. Giuffre’s | |
| allegations against him. Id. at 400. | |
| Because Defendant refused to answer those questions, Ms. Giuffre needs to depose other | |
| witnesses who have the requisite knowledge to testify concerning those issues. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 28 | |
| 9 | |
| 2. Johanna Sjorberg (3 ½ hours). Ms. Sjorberg’s deposition was taken on May 18, | |
| 2016, in Fort Lauderdale. She testified as follows: | |
| ! Johanna confirmed that Maxwell recruited her to work as an assistant but she was almost | |
| immediately converted into a massage therapist and worked for Maxwell and Epstein | |
| from 2001 – 2006. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, (May 18, 2016 Deposition Tr. at p. | |
| 8-9) | |
| ! Johanna confirms that she knew Virginia was underage when she met her on the trip to | |
| NY with Jeffrey in 2001 because Virginia couldn’t get into the casino and then later | |
| Johanna asked her and Virginia said she was 17. (p. 18). Johanna testified that Virginia | |
| looked young. (p. 18-19). Johanna added: “At the time I had the impression that she did | |
| not have a family or she had walked away from her family. And it seemed to me, you | |
| know, they had just sort of adopted her, not as a child, but they would take care of her.” | |
| (p. 88) | |
| ! Johanna testified that Jeffrey had to have three (3) massages a day from different girls. | |
| (p. 30) | |
| ! Johanna testified that Jeffrey told her that he had three (3) massages a day because “he | |
| needed to have three orgasms a day. It was biological, like eating.” (p. 32) | |
| ! Johanna testified that Maxwell “let me know that she was – she would not be able to | |
| please him as much as he needed and that is why there were other girls around.” (p. 33) | |
| “She (Maxwell) said she doesn’t have the time or the desire to please him as much as he | |
| needs and that’s why there were other girls around.” (p. 150-151) | |
| ! Johanna confirmed that she witnessed Virginia when she was seventeen (17) in Jeffrey | |
| Epstein’s New York mansion with Prince Andrew and Ghislaine Maxwell. (p. 87) | |
| Johanna also testified that Prince Andrew sat with Virginia and Johanna and took a | |
| picture with a puppet in his image that had its hand and Prince Andrew’s hand on their | |
| respective breasts. (p. 83) | |
| ! Johanna testified that Maxwell bought a camera for her and asked her to take naked | |
| pictures of herself for Jeffrey. (p. 145) | |
| ! Johanna testified that Maxwell would not give her the camera because Johanna “didn’t | |
| finish the job” when massaging Jeffrey so Maxwell had to do it and was not happy. (p. | |
| 34) “She told me – called me after I had left and said, I have the camera for you but you | |
| cannot receive it yet because you came here and didn’t finish your job and I had to finish | |
| it for you…She was implying that I did not get Jeffrey off and so she had to do it.” Q | |
| When you say ‘get Jeffrey off’ do you mean bring him to orgasm?’ A. Yes.” (p. 34-35) | |
| ! Maxwell told Johanna to always act “grateful” to Jeffrey Epstein. (p. 35) | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 28 | |
| 10 | |
| ! Maxwell called Johanna and the other girls her “children” when they were on a trip to the | |
| USVI. (p. 36) | |
| ! David Copperfield was at a dinner at Epstein’s and there was another girl present who | |
| looked young and Johanna asked what school she went to and Johanna did not recognize | |
| the school name as being a college and she said it was possible it was a high school aged | |
| girl. Johanna said Copperfield “questioned me if I was aware that girls were getting paid | |
| to find other girls” (p. 37-38) | |
| ! Johanna testified she heard Jeffrey call someone to try to find girls in Hawaii to send over | |
| the Fredrick Fekkai. (p. 38-39) | |
| ! Johanna testified Jeffrey told her “Clinton likes them young, referring to girls.” (p. 41) | |
| ! Johanna testified that she was naked for 25 – 50% of all massages. (p. 42) | |
| ! Johanna testified that Jeffrey made her perform sexual acts during massages including | |
| sexual toys and she had intercourse with him. (p. 43, 146-147) | |
| ! Johanna testified that Nadia Marcinkova and Maxwell were both with her in the USVI in | |
| 2005. (p. 44). | |
| ! Johanna testified that Maxwell asked her to find other girls to perform massages at the | |
| house. (p. 141) She gave a name of a girl from a restaurant to Maxwell and Maxwell paid | |
| her $200.00 for the girls’ name. “Did Maxwell ever ask you to bring other girls over for | |
| Jeffrey” (p. 46) A. Yes….”And I recall Ghislaine giving me money to bring her over…” | |
| (p. 141) | |
| ! Johanna testified that if a massage involved sexual acts that Jeffrey paid Johanna more | |
| than the normal $200.00. (p. 100-101) | |
| ! She testified that Defendant called Emmy Taylor her “slave.” (p. 15). Later she testified | |
| that Jeffrey: “He told me one time Emmy was sleeping on the plane and they were getting | |
| ready to land and he went and woke her up and she thought that meant he wanted a [sex | |
| act], so she started to unzip his pants, and he said, No, no, no you just have to wake up | |
| for landing.” (p. 143-144) | |
| ! Johanna said Defendant flew her in the helicopter from the main island to the USVI. (p. | |
| 55) | |
| ! Johanna said she believes what Virginia is saying about being abused by Jeffrey and | |
| Maxwell. “Basically that I believed her, even though she never spoke to me specifically | |
| about what was going on; that once I learned everything that happened based on reading | |
| the police report, I believed her side of the story.” (p. 122-123). “Q. And what | |
| experience in the house helped you form your opinion that what Virginia is saying is | |
| true? A. You know, Jeffrey being open with me about what other girls did for him and | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 28 | |
| 11 | |
| that I was not one of those girls. He was always trying to recruit me almost in a way that | |
| I could be one of them and travel with him and live the life of luxury if I only – if I only | |
| did this. So after five years of learning what was happening, I can look back knowing – I | |
| only knew Virginia a short time. Looking back, I can make assumptions about what was | |
| required of her.” (p. 123-124) | |
| ! She said she recalls that Defendant went to dinner with Governor Bill Richardson one | |
| time when Johanna was visiting the ranch in New Mexico (p. 110). | |
| B. Future Depositions Sought by Ms. Giuffre | |
| Ms. Giuffre has also scheduled the following depositions. | |
| 3. Juan Alessi (3 ½ hours). Mr. Alessi’s deposition is scheduled for May 31, | |
| 2016, in Florida3 | |
| . Mr. Alessi was one of the employees in Epstein’s mansion. Mr. Alessi | |
| provided witness statements to police during the criminal investigation in Palm Beach, and was | |
| previously deposed in civil cases previously brought against Mr. Epstein. Specifically, Juan | |
| Alessi informed the Palm Beach Police Detective as follows: “Alessi stated that towards the end | |
| of his employment, the masseuses were younger and younger. When asked how young, Mr. | |
| Alessi stated they appeared to be sixteen or seventeen years of age at most.” (emphasis added.) | |
| See McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit 7, Palm Beach Police Incident Report at p. 57. | |
| On November 21, 2005, the Palm Beach Police Department took a sworn statement from | |
| house employee Juan Alessi in which he revealed that girls would come over to give “massages” | |
| and he observed Ms. Maxwell going upstairs in the direction of the bedroom quarters. See | |
| McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 8, November 21, 2005 Sworn Statement at 10. He also testified that | |
| after the massages, he would clean up sex toys that were kept in “Ms. Maxwell’s closet.” Id. at | |
| 12-13. He added that he and his wife were concerned with what was going on at the house (Id. at | |
| 14) and that he observed girls at the house, including one named “Virginia.” Id. at 21. It is | |
| anticipated that he will testify consistently with that previous testimony. | |
| 3 As explained above, as of today, Defendant’s counsel sent an email refusing to attend this deposition set | |
| for Tuesday, May 31, 2016 (Monday is Memorial Day). See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 28 | |
| 12 | |
| 4. Maria Alessi (3 ½ hours). Ms. Alessi’s deposition is scheduled for June 1, | |
| 2016, in Florida. She was, with her husband, household staff for Epstein in the Palm Beach | |
| home he shared with Defendant, and, it is anticipated, will corroborate many of the observations | |
| of her husband about minor girls and massages inside of Epstein’s Florida mansion. Mr. Alessi | |
| referenced during his prior deposition the things that Ms. Alessi observed with respect to the | |
| sexual massages and involvement of minor girls. Mrs. Alessi is also anticipated to testify | |
| regarding Ms. Maxwell's close association with Mr. Epstein and knowledge the visitors. | |
| 5. Dave Rodgers (3 ½ hours). Mr. Rodgers's deposition is scheduled for June 3, | |
| 2016, in Florida. Rodgers was one of the pilots for Epstein’s private jets and will, it is | |
| anticipated, authenticate his flight logs showing Defendant and Ms. Giuffre together on the same | |
| flights. Defendant refused to admit that her name is reflected in the flight logs despite her initials | |
| “GM” appearing over 300 times. Therefore, such authentication is necessary because Defendant | |
| testified at her deposition she could not remember even the most basic things about flights in the | |
| flight logs. For example, when asked if “GM” represented her initials on the flight log, | |
| Defendant responded: “How do you know GM is me,” (See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, | |
| Maxwell Depo. at 29 at. 122) and “GM can stand for any level, it could be Georgina, George.” | |
| (Id. at 123). Ms. Giuffre is also seeking additional flight logs in Mr. Rodgers possession that will | |
| further corroborate Defendant’s involvement with Jeffrey Epstein. | |
| 6. Rinaldo Rizzo (3 ½ hours). Mr. Rizzo is scheduled for June 10, 2016 and will | |
| be able to testify regarding his observations of Defendant and Epstein with underage girls (girls | |
| less than 18 years of age). Mr. Rizzo was originally set for deposition on May 13, 2016 which | |
| was noticed on April 11, 2016, and Defendant requested that Ms. Giuffre reschedule that | |
| deposition just days before the scheduled date. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 28 | |
| 13 | |
| 7. Jean Luc Brunel (3 ½ hours). Mr. Brunel’s deposition is set for June 7, 2016, | |
| in New York. He has relevant information because he has known Maxwell and Epstein for many | |
| years and was present with Epstein and Defendant on many occasions at Epstein’s homes in New | |
| York, Palm Beach and the USVI, and he has personal knowledge of the disputed issues in this | |
| case | |
| 8. Ross Gow (3 ½ hours). Mr. Gow is Defendant’s press agent who issued the | |
| press statement at issue in this case on Defendant’s behalf. He will be able to testify regarding | |
| the defamatory statement, its distribution, any other defamatory statements that were distributed, | |
| and any information he had regarding the basis for the statement. Ms. Giuffre has requested that | |
| Defendant agree to produce Mr. Gow rather than requiring the time and expense of having to | |
| serve a subpoena on Mr. Gow, located in London, under the Hague convention, but counsel for | |
| Defendant has not agreed to produce Ross Gow for deposition. | |
| 9. Dana Burns (3 ½ hours). Ms. Burns’ deposition is set for June 8, 2016, in New | |
| York City. | |
| 10. Jo Jo Fontanella (3 ½ hours). Jo Jo Fontanella is a critical witness because he | |
| has been working as Jeffrey Epstein’s butler in his New York mansion for a number of years | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 28 | |
| 14 | |
| including during the time that Ms. Giuffre was staying the night at the mansion when she was a | |
| minor child. Virginia interacted with Mr. Fontanella frequently during the time she was with Mr. | |
| Epstein and the Defendant. Mr. Fontanella will be able to testify to what he observed at the New | |
| York mansion including his observation regarding the age and number of females who visited | |
| the house each day. Mr. Fontanella will be able to testify regarding Defendant’s presence at the | |
| home at various times and what he observed Defendant doing while she was at the New York | |
| mansion. | |
| 11. Detective Joe Recarey (3 ½ hours). During Defendant’s deposition, | |
| Defendant questioned the veracity of the Palm Beach Police report containing the accounts of the | |
| numerous minor children who were also sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein. Defendant referred | |
| to at least one of those children as a prostitute, which is false. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, | |
| Maxwell Deposition at 173:8-12; 359:11-18. The Palm Beach police report also includes | |
| statements about the Defendant. Detective Recarey is expected to testify regarding his | |
| investigation, what he observed, the evidence he collected from Mr. Epstein’s Palm Beach | |
| mansion, the modus operandi of the Epstein organization, and the interviews he conducted with a | |
| number of females who were subject to abuse at the Palm Beach mansion. He will also testify | |
| regarding Jeffrey Epstein’s, who is in a joint defense with Defendant, and his campaign to attack | |
| the credibility of the numerous minor children who reported sex offenses against him. Attacking | |
| the credibility of their victims, including Ms. Giuffre, is a part of Epstein and Defendant’s modus | |
| operandi. | |
| 12. Former Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter (3 ½ hours). Chief Reiter | |
| is scheduled for deposition on June 20, 2016. He was the Police Chief who was responsible for | |
| overseeing the Palm Beach Epstein investigation. He has made public statements about the 40 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 28 | |
| 15 | |
| victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse. He has made public statements about the fact that after he | |
| started the investigation into the crimes that took place at the Palm Beach mansion, he was | |
| followed by strange men and “investigated”. He also has made public statements that he sent to | |
| victims regarding the failure of the government to properly handle the matter. Reiter is relevant | |
| to many issues, among others, Defendant’s claimed innocence by the fact that she was never | |
| formally charged. | |
| 13. Emmy Taylor (3 ½ hours). Emmy Taylor was Defendant’s “assistant” during | |
| the time Ms. Giuffre was being abused. Ms. Taylor is on flight logs to Europe with Ms. Giuffre | |
| and other locations in the United States. Johanna Sjoberg testified that Emmy Taylor was | |
| referred to by the Defendant as “my slave” and that Ms. Taylor trained Ms. Sjoberg to give | |
| massages while Ms. Sjoberg was naked. Emmy Taylor will be able to testify as to what she | |
| observed and experienced during the years she was with Defendant and Epstein. Ms. Giuffre is | |
| still attempting to locate Ms. Taylor, but she is believed to reside in London. | |
| 14. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 28 | |
| 16 | |
| 15. Nadia Marcinkova (3 ½ hours). Ms. Marcinkova’s deposition is set for June | |
| 16, 2016, in New York.4 | |
| Ms. Marcinkova was specifically identified by the U.S. Attorney’s | |
| Office for the Southern District of Florida as a “potential co-conspirator of Epstein” in the nonprosecution agreement it executed with Mr. Epstein as part of his guilty plea. She has relevant | |
| information because she observed the recruitment of underage girls for sex and, in fact, | |
| participated in sex acts with minors. She was also on numerous flights with Defendant (in | |
| contradiction to Defendant’s testimony), and she can provide valuable testimony about | |
| Maxwell's role in the recruitment of females. | |
| 16. Sarah Kellen (a/k/a Sarah Kensignton or Sarah Vickers) (3 ½ hours). Ms. | |
| Kellen’s deposition is set for June 22, 2016, in New York. Ms. Kellen specifically identified by | |
| the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida as a “potential co-conspirator of | |
| Epstein” in the non-prosecution agreement it executed with Mr. Epstein as part of his guilty plea. | |
| She has relevant information because she was present during the time when Virginia was with | |
| Epstein and the Defendant, and she travelled with all of them during this critical time period. It is | |
| believed that she worked at the direction of, and directly under, Ms. Maxwell and was taught by | |
| Ms. Maxwell how to recruit females for sex with Mr. Epstein. | |
| 4 Marcinkova, Kellen and Epstein have not been personally served and are all subject to Ms. Giuffre’s | |
| Motion for Alternative Service [D.E. 160]. | |
| ■ | |
| • | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 28 | |
| 17 | |
| 17. Jeffrey Epstein (3 ½ hours). Ms. Giuffre’s counsel have been in touch with | |
| Epstein’s counsel and is continuing to work to schedule his deposition. Epstein lies at the center | |
| of this case, and he can testify that Defendant recruited females for sex with him, including Mrs. | |
| Giuffre, under the offer of being a massage therapist, and ultimately paid these females for sex. | |
| He can testify that Defendant lured dozens if not hundreds of young females, including many | |
| underage females, to his residences for sexual purposes. | |
| II. DISCUSSION | |
| Ms. Giuffre has attempted to conduct discrete, focused discovery in this case to limit any | |
| burdens on the Defendant and on the Court. Nonetheless, this case presents numerous challenges | |
| that require that she take more than ten depositions – not the least of which is Defendant’s | |
| extraordinary lack of memory about many events that would appear to have indisputably taken | |
| place. Ms. Giuffre, however, is not seeking to exceed the allotted hours for depositions under | |
| Rule 45 -- only the number of depositions. Ms. Giuffre seeks leave of Court to 7 additional | |
| depositions, for a total of seventeen depositions. | |
| Under the rules, each party is entitled to take ten depositions which total seven hours | |
| each. Fed. R. Civ. P. 29(d)(1). Thus, the presumptive time limit for depositions is a total of | |
| seventy hours (10 depositions x 7 hours per deposition). For the convenience of opposing | |
| counsel, Ms. Giuffre has stipulated that they may have half of the seven hour deposition time for | |
| each third party witness. Thus, if the Court grants Ms. Giuffre’s motion, she will end up taking | |
| less than seventy hours of deposition testimony. Specifically, she will only take one deposition | |
| of seven hours (Defendant’s) and sixteen depositions of three-and-a-half hours – a total of 66 and | |
| ½ hours of depositions. | |
| 1111 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 28 | |
| 18 | |
| In light of the accommodation she had extended to opposing counsel, Ms. Giuffre | |
| requested that opposing counsel agree that both sides could schedule additional depositions | |
| beyond the presumptive limit of ten. Defendant refused to agree and is also in disagreement | |
| about the proposed schedule for depositions, despite the fact that Ms. Giuffre scheduled | |
| depositions based on the dates Defendant’s counsel represented were available for depositions in | |
| this case. At Defendant's counsel's request Ms. Giuffre scheduled depositions of witnesses who | |
| lived in the same geographical location on consecutive days to limit the travel time and expense. | |
| See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1. | |
| Sadly, it appears that Defendant’s counsel may be attempting to delay Ms. Giuffre’s | |
| ability to obtain depositions because certain witnesses are avoiding service and others were | |
| difficult to locate, and the time period for the close of discovery is swiftly approaching. The | |
| Court will recall that the Defendant managed to delay her deposition until April 22, 2016, | |
| through unnecessary motion practice. And now that the need to depose other witnesses has been | |
| established, Defendant’s counsel are employing other delay tactics. The Court currently has | |
| before it, for example, Ms. Giuffre’s motion for leave to serve three deposition subpoenas by | |
| means other than personal service. DE 160. As recounted at greater length in that motion, three | |
| of the critical witnesses in this case – Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellan, and Nadia Marcinkova – | |
| have all thus far managed to evade service of process, despite repeated, diligent, and expensive | |
| efforts at personal service. Of course, all three of these witnesses are persons who have worked | |
| very closely with Defendant in the past. Epstein is also in a joint defense agreement with | |
| Defendant. | |
| In other situations, Ms. Giuffre has been forced to delay taking depositions because of | |
| Defense Counsel. For example, Ms. Giuffre served a subpoena on Mr. Rizzo and opposing | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 28 | |
| 19 | |
| counsel on April 11, 2016 for a deposition a month later on May 13, 2016. Just days before the | |
| deposition, Defendant’s counsel said they didn’t realize the deposition was scheduled and that | |
| they could not proceed forward on that date. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 9, May 5, 2016 Email Correspondence Regarding Scheduled Depositions. This forced Ms. Giuffre’s counsel to | |
| have to reset the witness for June 10, 2016. Of course, with each delay, Ms. Giuffre is | |
| hamstrung in identifying which further witnesses need to be deposed. | |
| Under Rule 30(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party who wishes to | |
| conduct more than ten depositions without stipulation by the opposing party must seek leave of | |
| the court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i). Once such a motion is made, “[t]he court must grant a | |
| request to exceed ten depositions unless the additional depositions would be unreasonably | |
| cumulative or duplicative, the requesting party had a prior opportunity in discovery to obtain the | |
| information sought, or the burden or expense of additional depositions would outweigh any | |
| likely benefit.” In re Weatherford Int'l Sec. Litig., No. 11 CIV. 1646 LAK JCF, 2013 WL | |
| 5762923, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2013) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C); Raniola v. Bratton, | |
| 243 F.3d 610, 628 (2d Cir.2001)). Given the liberal discovery allowed by the rules, the burden | |
| on the party seeking additional depositions is not great. Rule 30(a)(2)'s ten-deposition limit is “a | |
| useful and appropriate ‘Stop’ sign, not as a ‘Road Closed’ sign. Once any party has taken ten | |
| depositions, it makes perfect sense to require that party to demonstrate the need for more. But | |
| that showing need not be onerous. If the need exists, discovery should not be prevented.” Scott | |
| v. City of Sioux City, Iowa, 298 F.R.D. 400, 402-03 (N.D. Iowa 2014). | |
| As the Court can readily determine from the summary of anticipated testimony above, | |
| none of the anticipated testimony is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative. Rather, all of the | |
| anticipated testimony goes to central and now-disputed issues in the case. The Court should be | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 28 | |
| 20 | |
| aware that, at every turn, Defendant appears ready to brand Ms. Giuffre as a “liar” who cannot be | |
| believed. Thus, obtaining witnesses, like Ms. Sjoberg, who can corroborate that she is telling the | |
| truth is more important in this case than it would be in many others. It is equally important that | |
| Ms. Giuffre be able to depose the witnesses who can refute Defendant's testimony. | |
| The Court can also readily determine that Ms. Giuffre has not had any prior opportunity | |
| to obtain discovery of the witnesses she seeks to depose. The case is only now in the fact | |
| discovery phase, and she has had no opportunity to previously depose these third-party | |
| witnesses. | |
| Finally, there is no substantial burden involved with deposing seven additional witnesses. | |
| Any assessment of burden must take into account the scope of the underlying case. Ms. Giuffre | |
| is seeking both compensatory and punitive damages that would total millions of dollars. Against | |
| that backdrop, a handful of additional depositions cannot be seen as unduly burdensome. | |
| Moreover, this is not a situation where Defendant lacks means to pay for counsel to attend the | |
| depositions. Defendant’s vast wealth does not appear to be in doubt.5 | |
| During the meet-and-confer on this issue, the Defendant’s substantive reason for not | |
| stipulating to these additional depositions is that, with regard to three of the witnesses (Epstein, | |
| Kellan, and Marcinkova), it appears likely that they will invoke their Fifth Amendment right to | |
| refuse to answer some questions about Defendant’s involvement in in the sexual abuse of Ms. | |
| Giuffre. But until those witnesses actually take the Fifth, the conclusion that they will actually | |
| 5 | |
| Defendant has thus far refused produce documents regarding the extent of her assets, arguing that until | |
| the punitive damages phase of this proceeding is reached the discovery is not relevant. Nonetheless, | |
| public information suggests significant assets – and the possibility that she is transferring assets outside | |
| the reach of the Court’s jurisdiction. See, e.g., Alleged Epstein Madam Sells $16M Manhattan | |
| Townhouse, New York Post, Apr. 28, 2016 (available at http://nypost.com/2016/04/28/alleged-epsteinmadam-sells-16m-manhattan-townhouse/). | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 28 | |
| 21 | |
| take the Fifth is, at a minimum, premature.6 | |
| The witness may, for example, answer some | |
| questions and not others. And, in any event, even if they take the Fifth when asked about | |
| Defendant’s sexual abuse of minors, those invocations will quite likely be admissible against the | |
| Defendant at trial. | |
| The Second Circuit has squarely held that a witness’ invocation of Fifth Amendment | |
| rights can in proper circumstances be used against a party. The Second Circuit’s seminal | |
| decision is LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 1997), which upheld the drawing | |
| of adverse inferences based on a non-party’s invocation of a Fifth Amendment right to remain | |
| silent. The Second Circuit instructed that, the circumstances of given case, rather than status of | |
| particular nonparty witness, determines whether nonparty witness' invocation of privilege against | |
| self-incrimination is admissible in course of civil litigation. Id. at122-23. The Circuit also held | |
| that, in determining whether nonparty witness’ invocation of privilege against self-incrimination | |
| in course of civil litigation and drawing of adverse inferences is admissible, court may consider | |
| the following nonexclusive factors: | |
| (1) nature of witness' relationship with and loyalty to party; | |
| (2) degree of control which party has vested in witness in regard to key facts and | |
| subject matter of litigation; | |
| (3) whether witness is pragmatically noncaptioned party in interest and whether | |
| assertion of privilege advances interests of witness and party in outcome of litigation; and | |
| (4) whether witness was key figure in litigation and played controlling role in | |
| respect to its underlying aspects. | |
| Id. at 124-25. | |
| Clearly, many of these factors are going to weigh heavily in favor of drawing an adverse | |
| inference against Defendant. For example, Jeffrey Epstein is a “pragmatically noncaptioned | |
| 6 The Court should be aware that these are also the three witnesses who have been attempted to evade | |
| service of process. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 25 of 28 | |
| 22 | |
| party in interest” regarding issues of whether he and Defendant together sexually abused Ms. | |
| Giuffre. And Defendant is in a joint defense agreement with Epstein. Also, some of the most | |
| important events in this case took place in private bedroom where just three people were present | |
| – Ms. Giuffre, Defendant, and Epstein. With Defendant denying these events, the fact that | |
| Epstein may take the Fifth could provide decisive information to the jury. | |
| But the Court need not make any determinations now as to precisely how these factors | |
| will play out. Instead, it is enough to note that very important and unique evidence may be | |
| secured from the deposition of each of these three individuals and therefore Ms. Giuffre should | |
| be permitted to take their deposition. | |
| CONCLUSION | |
| Ms. Giuffre respectfully requests that she be allowed to take a total seventeen depositions | |
| in this case. | |
| Dated: May 27, 2016 | |
| Respectfully Submitted, | |
| BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP | |
| By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley | |
| Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP | |
| 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 | |
| Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 | |
| (954) 356-0011 | |
| David Boies | |
| Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP | |
| 333 Main Street | |
| Armonk, NY 10504 | |
| Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, | |
| EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 26 of 28 | |
| 23 | |
| 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 | |
| Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | |
| (954) 524-2820 | |
| Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| S.J. Quinney College of Law | |
| University of Utah | |
| 383 University St. | |
| Salt Lake City, UT 84112 | |
| (801) 585-52027 | |
| 7 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is | |
| not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 27 of 28 | |
| 24 | |
| CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | |
| I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 27th day of May, 2016, I electronically filed the | |
| foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the | |
| foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission | |
| of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. | |
| Laura A. Menninger, Esq. | |
| Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. | |
| HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. | |
| 150 East 10th Avenue | |
| Denver, Colorado 80203 | |
| Tel: (303) 831-7364 | |
| Fax: (303) 832-2628 | |
| Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com | |
| jpagliuca@hmflaw.com | |
| /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley | |
| Sigrid S. McCawley | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 28 of 28 | |
| United States District Court | |
| Southern District of New York | |
| Virginia L. Giuffre, | |
| Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS | |
| v . | |
| Ghislaine Maxwell, | |
| Defendant. | |
| ______________________________/ | |
| NON-REDACTED DECLARATION OF SIGRID S. McCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF | |
| PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXCEED PRESUMPTIVE TEN DEPOSITION LIMIT IN | |
| FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 30(A)(2)(a)(ii), FILED UNDER SEAL | |
| I, Sigrid S. McCawley, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my | |
| knowledge as follows: | |
| 1. I am a partner with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly | |
| licensed to practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court’s September 29, | |
| 2015 Order granting my Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice. | |
| 2. I respectfully submit this Declaration in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Exceed | |
| Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit In Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(A)(2)(a)(ii), Filed | |
| Under Seal. | |
| 3. Attached hereto as Composite Exhibit 1, is a true and correct copy of the May 17, | |
| 2016 Email Correspondence from Sigrid McCawley. | |
| 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2, is a true and correct copy of the May 27, 2016 | |
| Email Correspondence from Laura Menninger. | |
| 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3, is a true and correct copy of the Notice of Service | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-11 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 4 | |
| and Subpoena to Juan Alessi. | |
| 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4, is a true and correct copy of the May 26, 2016 | |
| Correspondence from Sigrid McCawley. | |
| 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5, is a true and correct copy of the May 18, 2016 | |
| Deposition Transcript of Johanna Sjoberg. | |
| 8. Attached hereto as Composite Exhibit 6, is a true and correct copy of the April | |
| 22, 2016 Deposition Transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell. | |
| 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7, is a true and correct copy of the Palm Beach Police | |
| Report. | |
| 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8, is a true and correct copy of the November 21, 2005 | |
| Sworn Statement of Juan Alessi. | |
| 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit 9, is a true and correct copy of the May 4, 2016 Email | |
| Correspondence from Laura Menninger. | |
| I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. | |
| /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley_________ | |
| Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-11 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 4 | |
| Dated: May 27, 2016. | |
| Respectfully Submitted, | |
| BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP | |
| By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley________________ | |
| Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. | |
| Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. | |
| Lauderdale, FL 33301 | |
| Tel: (954) 356-0011 | |
| David Boies | |
| Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 | |
| Main Street | |
| Armonk, NY 10504 | |
| Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, | |
| EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. | |
| 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 | |
| Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | |
| Tel: (954) 524-2820 | |
| Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| S.J. Quinney College of Law | |
| University of Utah | |
| 383 University St. | |
| Salt Lake City, UT 84112 | |
| Tel: (801) 585-52021 | |
| 1 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is | |
| not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-11 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 4 | |
| CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | |
| I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 27, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing | |
| document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing | |
| document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of | |
| Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. | |
| Laura A. Menninger, Esq. | |
| Jeffrey Paliuca, Esq. | |
| HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. | |
| 150 East 10th Avenue | |
| Denver, Colorado 80203 | |
| Tel: (303) 831-7364 | |
| Fax: (303) 832-2628 | |
| Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com | |
| jpagliuca@hmflaw.com | |
| /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley | |
| Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-11 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 4 | |
| EXHIBIT 5 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 179 | |
| Page 1 | |
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | |
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | |
| CASE NO. 15-CV-07433-RWS | |
| ------------------------------------------x | |
| VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, | |
| Plaintiff, | |
| v. | |
| GHISLAINE MAXWELL, | |
| Defendant. | |
| -------------------------------------------x | |
| May 18, 2016 | |
| 9:04 a.m. | |
| C O N F I D E N T I A L | |
| Deposition of JOHANNA SJOBERG, pursuant | |
| to notice, taken by Plaintiff, at the | |
| offices of Boies Schiller & Flexner, 401 | |
| Las Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, | |
| before Kelli Ann Willis, a Registered | |
| Professional Reporter, Certified Realtime | |
| Reporter and Notary Public within and | |
| for the State of Florida. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 179 | |
| Page 2 | |
| 1 A P P E A R A N C E S: | |
| 2 BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP | |
| Attorneys for Plaintiff | |
| 3 401 East Las Olas Boulevard | |
| Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | |
| 4 BY: SIGRID S. McCAWLEY, ESQ. and | |
| MEREDITH SCHULTZ, ESQ. | |
| 5 | |
| 6 HADDON MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. | |
| Attorneys for Defendant | |
| 7 150 East 10th Avenue | |
| Denver, Colorado 80203 | |
| 8 BY: LAURA A. MENNINGER, ESQ. | |
| 9 | |
| 10 SINCLAIR LOUIS & ZAVERTNIK, P.A. | |
| Attorneys for Deponent | |
| 11 40 NW Third Street | |
| Suite 200 | |
| 12 Miami, Florida 33128 | |
| BY: MARSHALL DORE LOUIS, ESQ. | |
| 13 | |
| 14 | |
| 15 ALSO PRESENT: Ryan Kick, Videographer | |
| 16 | |
| 17 | |
| 18 | |
| 19 | |
| 20 | |
| 21 | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 179 | |
| Page 3 | |
| 1 | |
| 2 I N D E X | |
| 3 Examination by Ms. McCawley ................... 5 | |
| Examination by Ms. Menninger ................... 50 | |
| 4 Further Examination by Ms. McCawley ............ 138 | |
| Further Examination by Ms. Menninger ........... 147 | |
| 5 | |
| 6 | |
| 7 E X H I B I T S | |
| 8 Deposition Exhibit 1 ........................... 7 | |
| Deposition Notice | |
| 9 | |
| Deposition Exhibit 2 ........................... 7 | |
| 10 Subpoena | |
| 11 Deposition Exhibit 3 ........................... 16 | |
| Flight log | |
| 12 | |
| Deposition Exhibit 4 ........................... 49 | |
| 13 Palm Beach Police Department | |
| Incident Report | |
| 14 | |
| Deposition Exhibit 5 ........................... 117 | |
| 15 Red Ice Creations web article | |
| 16 | |
| 17 | |
| 18 | |
| 19 | |
| 20 | |
| 21 | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 179 | |
| Page 4 | |
| 1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the | |
| 2 record. This is begins Videotape No. 1 in the | |
| 3 deposition of Johanna Sjoberg, in the matter of | |
| 4 Virginia Giuffre versus Ghislaine Maxwell. | |
| 5 Today is May 18th, 2016. The time is | |
| 6 9:04 a.m. This deposition is being taken at | |
| 7 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, | |
| 8 Florida. | |
| 9 The videographer is Ryan Kick. The court | |
| 10 reporter is Kelli Ann Willis. We both | |
| 11 represent Magna Legal Services. | |
| 12 Will counsel and all parties present state | |
| 13 their appearance and whom they represent. | |
| 14 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. I'm Sigrid McCawley, | |
| 15 with the law firm of Boise Schiller & Flexner, | |
| 16 and I represent Virginia Giuffre. And I have | |
| 17 here two colleagues of mine, Meredith Schultz | |
| 18 and Sandra Perkins, from my firm as well. | |
| 19 MS. MENNINGER: Hi. I'm Laura Menninger | |
| 20 from Haddon Morgan & Foreman, and I represent | |
| 21 Ghislaine Maxwell. | |
| 22 MR. LOUIS: I'm Dore Louis from Sinclair | |
| 23 Louis & Zavertnik. I'm here on behalf of the | |
| 24 deponent. | |
| 25 Thereupon: | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 179 | |
| Page 5 | |
| 1 JOHANNA SJOBERG | |
| 2 a witness named in the notice heretofore filed, | |
| 3 being of lawful age and having been first duly | |
| 4 sworn, testified on her oath as follows: | |
| 5 E X A M I N A T I O N | |
| 6 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 7 Q. Good morning, Johanna. Thank you for | |
| 8 coming. I'm going to talk to you a little bit about | |
| 9 the deposition process before we get started to make | |
| 10 sure you understand what's going to happen here | |
| 11 today. | |
| 12 You just heard there's a videographer, and | |
| 13 he's going to be taking your video during this | |
| 14 deposition and generally what's happening in the | |
| 15 course of the deposition. | |
| 16 And then you have a court reporter here | |
| 17 who takes down the words that we say. And it's a | |
| 18 little bit tricky because I tend to speak quickly | |
| 19 sometimes and speak over people, and she needs to | |
| 20 get down all of the words. So I'll try to do my | |
| 21 best to go slower and make sure I'm not talking over | |
| 22 you. | |
| 23 And, similarly, if you've got an answer to | |
| 24 a question, make sure that you're verbally | |
| 25 responding, not just nodding or making a gesture | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 179 | |
| Page 6 | |
| 1 because she can't get that down. We want to make | |
| 2 sure our responses are verbal. I'll try to remind | |
| 3 you of that if that happens. | |
| 4 Have you ever been deposed before? | |
| 5 A. No. | |
| 6 Q. No. Okay. | |
| 7 So what's going to happen is I'm going to | |
| 8 ask questions, and you'll give answers. And like I | |
| 9 said, everybody will be recording those. | |
| 10 Is there any reason, any medical reason, | |
| 11 anything you've taken today that would cause you to | |
| 12 not to be able to give truthful testimony today? | |
| 13 A. No. | |
| 14 Q. No. Okay. | |
| 15 All right. So we're going to get started, | |
| 16 and if you have any questions during the deposition | |
| 17 or you need to stop to take a break, you can just | |
| 18 let me know and we'll take that break. | |
| 19 So what I -- the only thing I ask is if | |
| 20 we're in the midst of a question, you finish the | |
| 21 answer before we take a break. | |
| 22 A. Sure. | |
| 23 Q. But I'll try to make sure that I take | |
| 24 regular breaks, as well. | |
| 25 You stated your name for the record. Can | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 179 | |
| Page 7 | |
| 1 you tell me your date of birth? | |
| 2 | |
| 3 Q. That makes you how old now? | |
| 4 | |
| 5 Q. Okay. And where are you currently living? | |
| 6 | |
| 7 Q. And I'm going to show you what I'm going | |
| 8 to mark as the first two exhibits in the matter. | |
| 9 And I'm going to ask the court reporter if I can | |
| 10 mark those. | |
| 11 (The referred-to document was marked by | |
| 12 the court reporter for Identification as | |
| 13 Sjoberg Exhibits 1 and 2.) | |
| 14 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 15 Q. Okay. I'm going to show you what I'm | |
| 16 marking as Exhibit 1. It's going to be the | |
| 17 re-notice of your videotaped deposition, which is | |
| 18 simply a notice I'm going to show you. And then | |
| 19 Exhibit 2 is the subpoena that we served on you. | |
| 20 So you're here today pursuant to our | |
| 21 Notice of Deposition and the subpoena that we served | |
| 22 on you. | |
| 23 Are you familiar with the subpoena? Have | |
| 24 you seen that document before? | |
| 25 A. Yes. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 179 | |
| Page 8 | |
| 1 Q. Okay. Great. | |
| 2 All right. Do you know a female by the | |
| 3 name of Ghislaine Maxwell? | |
| 4 A. Yes. | |
| 5 Q. And when did you first meet Ms. Maxwell? | |
| 6 A. 2001. March probably. End of | |
| 7 February/beginning of March. | |
| 8 Q. And how did you meet her? | |
| 9 A. She approached me while I was on campus at | |
| 10 Palm Beach Atlantic College. | |
| 11 Q. And what happened when she approached you? | |
| 12 A. She asked me if I could tell her how to | |
| 13 find someone that would come and work at her house. | |
| 14 She wanted to know if there was, like, a bulletin | |
| 15 board or something that she could post, that she was | |
| 16 looking for someone to hire. | |
| 17 Q. And what did you discuss with her? | |
| 18 A. I told her where she could go to -- you | |
| 19 know, to put up a listing. And then she asked me if | |
| 20 I knew anyone that would be interested in working | |
| 21 for her. | |
| 22 Q. Did she describe what that work was going | |
| 23 to be? | |
| 24 A. She explained that she lived in Palm Beach | |
| 25 and didn't want butlers because they're too stuffy. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 179 | |
| Page 9 | |
| 1 And so she just liked to hire girls to work at the | |
| 2 house, answer phones, get drinks, do the job a | |
| 3 butler would do. | |
| 4 Q. And did she tell you what she would pay | |
| 5 for that kind of a job? | |
| 6 A. At that moment, no, but later in the day, | |
| 7 yes. | |
| 8 Q. And what did she say? | |
| 9 A. Twenty dollars an hour. | |
| 10 Q. Was there anybody else with Ms. Maxwell | |
| 11 when you met her? | |
| 12 A. There was another woman with her. I don't | |
| 13 recall her or what she looks like or how old she | |
| 14 was. | |
| 15 Q. And what happened next? | |
| 16 A. And then she asked me if I would be | |
| 17 interested in working for her. And she told me that | |
| 18 she was -- I could trust her and that I could jump | |
| 19 in her car and go check out the house at that moment | |
| 20 if I wanted. | |
| 21 And so I said, Sure, let's do it, and went | |
| 22 to her home with her. | |
| 23 Q. And where was that home? | |
| 24 A. In Palm Beach. | |
| 25 Q. And did she describe that home as being | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 179 | |
| Page 10 | |
| 1 her home? | |
| 2 A. She described it as being her home and | |
| 3 alluded to the fact that it was her and Jeffrey's | |
| 4 home and that she had homes all over the world. | |
| 5 Yes. | |
| 6 Q. And what happened when you arrived at the | |
| 7 home? | |
| 8 A. I believe she just showed me around. | |
| 9 Q. Do you recall meeting anybody at the home? | |
| 10 A. I don't recall if I met Jeffrey at that | |
| 11 time or the next time that I was there. | |
| 12 Q. How did you meet Jeffrey? Did Maxwell | |
| 13 introduce you to Jeffrey? | |
| 14 A. Yes. | |
| 15 Q. What do you recall of your first meeting | |
| 16 with Jeffrey? | |
| 17 A. I remember him being in a bathrobe. I | |
| 18 recall talking to him about how I was a major in | |
| 19 psychology. And he had studied psychology, and so | |
| 20 he spoke with me about different topics. | |
| 21 I remember thinking this guy is very | |
| 22 smart. That was my first impression. | |
| 23 Q. And when you refer to Jeffrey, are you | |
| 24 referring to Jeffrey Epstein? | |
| 25 A. Yes. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 179 | |
| Page 11 | |
| 1 Q. How did the meeting -- you said Maxwell | |
| 2 took you to the home. Do you remember how that | |
| 3 meeting ended? | |
| 4 A. Well, she dropped me back off at campus. | |
| 5 Q. And did you -- | |
| 6 A. She got my number and I took her number. | |
| 7 And then she called me the next weekend to work. | |
| 8 Q. So at that point you started working for | |
| 9 Ms. Maxwell? | |
| 10 A. At that time, yes. | |
| 11 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading. | |
| 12 Sorry. | |
| 13 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 14 Q. Did you then start working for Ms. Maxwell | |
| 15 after that first meeting? | |
| 16 A. She called me and I went over to the home | |
| 17 the next Sunday to work. | |
| 18 Q. And what work -- can you describe for me | |
| 19 the first day at work, what work you performed? | |
| 20 A. Sure. I remember answering the phones and | |
| 21 taking messages. And at one point, she asked me to | |
| 22 go pick up printer ink, and I took her car to Office | |
| 23 Depot to get ink. | |
| 24 She asked me to go buy some magazines, so | |
| 25 I went to Palm Beach Daily News and bought a few | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 179 | |
| Page 12 | |
| 1 magazines. | |
| 2 She and I went -- she wanted to take me | |
| 3 shopping to Worth Avenue, but it was a Sunday and | |
| 4 Nieman Marcus was closed, so we went back to, like, | |
| 5 a little book store. And I remember she bought, I | |
| 6 think, five pairs of reading glasses because she | |
| 7 thought Jeffrey would like them. He had them all | |
| 8 over the house. On every table there was reading | |
| 9 glasses. | |
| 10 And that's about it. It was a pretty | |
| 11 simple day. | |
| 12 Q. Were you paid that day for that work? | |
| 13 A. Yes. | |
| 14 Q. And how much were you paid? Do you | |
| 15 remember? | |
| 16 A. I don't remember how many hours I was | |
| 17 there -- I was there. She paid me cash. | |
| 18 Q. So Maxwell paid you? | |
| 19 A. Yes. | |
| 20 Q. And then was she the one who trained you | |
| 21 with what -- with respect to what you were supposed | |
| 22 to do during the day, directed you to, like you | |
| 23 said, go to -- | |
| 24 A. I believe she was the one that was kind of | |
| 25 showing me around. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 179 | |
| Page 13 | |
| 1 Q. And how long did you work in that position | |
| 2 answering phones and doing -- | |
| 3 A. Just that one day. | |
| 4 Q. Just that one day. | |
| 5 And did your duties change? | |
| 6 A. Well, the next time she called me, she | |
| 7 asked me if I wanted to come over and make $100 an | |
| 8 hour rubbing feet. | |
| 9 Q. And what did you think of that offer? | |
| 10 A. I thought it was fantastic. | |
| 11 Q. And did you come over to the house for | |
| 12 that purpose? | |
| 13 A. Yes. | |
| 14 Q. And when you came over to the house, was | |
| 15 Maxwell present? | |
| 16 A. I don't recall. | |
| 17 Q. And what happened that second time you | |
| 18 came to the house? | |
| 19 A. At that point, I met Emmy Taylor, and she | |
| 20 took me up to Jeffrey's bathroom and he was present. | |
| 21 And her and I both massaged Jeffrey. She was | |
| 22 showing me how to massage. | |
| 23 And then she -- he took -- he got off the | |
| 24 table, she got on the table. She took off her | |
| 25 clothes, got on the table, and then he was showing | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 179 | |
| Page 14 | |
| 1 me moves that he liked. And then I took my clothes | |
| 2 off. They asked me to get on the table so I could | |
| 3 feel it. Then they both massaged me. | |
| 4 Q. So it was more than a foot massage at that | |
| 5 point? | |
| 6 A. Yeah, it was mostly, like, legs and back. | |
| 7 Q. Was everybody in the room without clothes | |
| 8 on? | |
| 9 A. When they were on the massage table, yes. | |
| 10 Q. Did they -- when they got off the massage | |
| 11 table to perform the massage, did they dress or | |
| 12 did -- | |
| 13 A. Yes. | |
| 14 Q. They dressed. | |
| 15 And do you recall who paid you for that | |
| 16 first day that you did the massages? | |
| 17 A. I don't recall. | |
| 18 Q. Do you recall whether Maxwell was at the | |
| 19 house during that first day when you were doing the | |
| 20 massage with Emmy and Jeffrey? | |
| 21 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, asked and | |
| 22 answered. | |
| 23 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 24 Q. You can answer. | |
| 25 A. I don't recall. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 179 | |
| Page 15 | |
| 1 Q. Who did Emmy work for? | |
| 2 A. Ghislaine. | |
| 3 Q. Did Maxwell ever refer to Emmy by any | |
| 4 particular term? | |
| 5 A. She called her her slave. | |
| 6 Q. You said your job duties changed. Did you | |
| 7 start to travel as part of your job with Jeffrey and | |
| 8 Ghislaine? | |
| 9 A. Yes. The next time they called me, they | |
| 10 asked me to go to New York. | |
| 11 Q. And did you -- do you recall when that was | |
| 12 approximately? | |
| 13 A. That was Easter of 2001. | |
| 14 Q. And do you recall who was on the plane | |
| 15 with you for that trip? | |
| 16 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form. | |
| 17 MS. McCAWLEY: Actually, I'm going to stop | |
| 18 really quickly and I'm going to ask for the | |
| 19 next exhibit, please. | |
| 20 MS. MENNINGER: This is 3? | |
| 21 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. I'm going to mark | |
| 22 this as Exhibit 3 for purposes of the | |
| 23 deposition. | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 179 | |
| Page 16 | |
| 1 (The referred-to document was marked by | |
| 2 the court reporter for Identification as | |
| 3 Sjoberg Exhibit 3.) | |
| 4 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 5 Q. Johanna, I'm going to direct you -- I | |
| 6 flagged some pages, but for the record, I'm going to | |
| 7 say what pages they are before I hand you the | |
| 8 exhibit. | |
| 9 A. Sure. | |
| 10 Q. These are Giuffre 000748 and 000758, are | |
| 11 the two pages right now I may refer you to. The | |
| 12 document itself is 000721 through 789. | |
| 13 And these are flight logs from pilot David | |
| 14 Rogers that have been produced in this case. | |
| 15 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation, | |
| 16 asking the witness any questions about this | |
| 17 document. | |
| 18 THE WITNESS: Can I touch it? | |
| 19 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes, you may. | |
| 20 MS. MENNINGER: I just have to say things | |
| 21 every now and then. | |
| 22 THE WITNESS: Okay. | |
| 23 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 24 Q. So you mentioned that you traveled to New | |
| 25 York. If you turn to page -- flagged page which | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 179 | |
| Page 17 | |
| 1 should be 000748, at the top of that document you're | |
| 2 going to see a date of April 2001. | |
| 3 I'm just going to ask you to go down to | |
| 4 the -- if you look at the line on the left to where | |
| 5 it says 9 for the date, and look over where it has | |
| 6 the names. | |
| 7 Do you see -- can you identify your name | |
| 8 on that list? | |
| 9 A. Yes. | |
| 10 Q. And can you tell me -- I know there are | |
| 11 initials there -- who else to the extent you | |
| 12 remember was on the plane with you? | |
| 13 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation, | |
| 14 leading, form of question. | |
| 15 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 16 Q. Johanna, do you recall who was on the | |
| 17 plane with you that day? | |
| 18 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation, | |
| 19 form, leading. | |
| 20 The witness is reading the document. | |
| 21 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 22 Q. You can answer. | |
| 23 A. Okay. JE, Jeffrey Epstein; ET, Emmy | |
| 24 Taylor; VR, Virginia Roberts; BK, I do not recall; | |
| 25 and myself. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 179 | |
| Page 18 | |
| 1 MS. MENNINGER: Objection. The witness is | |
| 2 reading the document. | |
| 3 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 4 Q. And do you recall where you flew when you | |
| 5 went to -- when you traveled that first time with | |
| 6 Jeffrey Epstein? | |
| 7 A. We left from Palm Beach and landed in | |
| 8 Atlantic City for a few hours because there was a | |
| 9 storm in New York, and then got back on the plane a | |
| 10 few hours later and landed in Teterboro. | |
| 11 Q. And you said that you recall landing in | |
| 12 Atlantic City. Did you go into Atlantic City? | |
| 13 A. Yes, went to one of Trump's casinos. | |
| 14 Q. Did you actually go into the casino | |
| 15 itself? | |
| 16 A. Yes. | |
| 17 Q. Do you recall Virginia -- at the time | |
| 18 Virginia Roberts being present with you? | |
| 19 A. Yes. | |
| 20 Q. Do you recall if she went into the casino? | |
| 21 A. She was underage. I did not know anything | |
| 22 about how old you had to be to gamble legally. I | |
| 23 just knew she could not get in because of an ID | |
| 24 issue. So she and I did not gamble. | |
| 25 Q. In your opinion, did Virginia look young, | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 179 | |
| Page 19 | |
| 1 in your view? | |
| 2 A. Yes. | |
| 3 Q. Did you ever -- did you at that time | |
| 4 wonder why she was traveling with Jeffrey? | |
| 5 A. At that time, I did not. | |
| 6 Q. Did you later wonder that? | |
| 7 A. Yes. | |
| 8 Q. And what was your impression? | |
| 9 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, vague, | |
| 10 speculative. | |
| 11 THE WITNESS: I -- we're jumping ahead; is | |
| 12 that okay? | |
| 13 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 14 Q. Yes, that's okay. | |
| 15 A. A few days later, I remember asking her | |
| 16 questions to try to figure out her role, why she was | |
| 17 there, and she gave me vague answers and was never | |
| 18 specific. | |
| 19 And so I thought perhaps she just was an | |
| 20 assistant, someone that did massages well. I wanted | |
| 21 to believe that she was innocent. | |
| 22 Q. Did you ever refer to her as being | |
| 23 orphan-like? | |
| 24 A. I did. | |
| 25 Q. And how did that come about? | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 179 | |
| Page 20 | |
| 1 A. No, I only -- to you, I said that to you. | |
| 2 I just saw her as perhaps someone who may not have | |
| 3 had a strong family, and they took her under their | |
| 4 wing. | |
| 5 Q. Now, you mentioned remembering going to | |
| 6 Atlantic City. | |
| 7 Did you go -- where did you go after | |
| 8 Atlantic City? | |
| 9 A. Once we landed in New York, Emmy and I | |
| 10 went in a car and drove around the city for a half | |
| 11 hour or so, just to see some of the city. | |
| 12 Q. And then where did you go after doing the | |
| 13 sightseeing? | |
| 14 A. We went to the townhouse on East 71st. | |
| 15 Q. And can you describe that location for me? | |
| 16 A. Sure. Between Madison and Park. I think | |
| 17 the address might have been 9 East 71st Street. | |
| 18 Q. And who owned that home? | |
| 19 A. As far as I knew, Epstein. | |
| 20 Q. Can you describe for me physically what -- | |
| 21 A. Palatial. When you walk up, it looks like | |
| 22 a normal door to a townhouse, and when you walk | |
| 23 in -- I thought there were four floors. I heard | |
| 24 there were seven floors. I didn't see them all. | |
| 25 Q. And do you recall who, if anybody, was at | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 179 | |
| Page 21 | |
| 1 Jeffrey's home when you arrived? | |
| 2 A. Yes. When I first walked in the door, it | |
| 3 was just myself, and Ghislaine headed for the | |
| 4 staircase and said -- told me to come up to the | |
| 5 living room. | |
| 6 Q. And what happened at that point, when you | |
| 7 came up to the living room? | |
| 8 A. I came up and saw Virginia, Jeffrey, | |
| 9 Prince Andrew, Ghislaine in the room. | |
| 10 Q. And did you meet Prince Andrew at that | |
| 11 time? | |
| 12 A. Yes. | |
| 13 Q. And what happened next? | |
| 14 A. At one point, Ghislaine told me to come | |
| 15 upstairs, and we went into a closet and pulled out | |
| 16 the puppet, the caricature of Prince Andrew, and | |
| 17 brought it down. And there was a little tag on the | |
| 18 puppet that said "Prince Andrew" on it, and that's | |
| 19 when I knew who he was. | |
| 20 Q. And did -- what did the puppet look like? | |
| 21 A. It looked like him. And she brought it | |
| 22 down and presented it to him; and that was a great | |
| 23 joke, because apparently it was a production from a | |
| 24 show on BBC. And they decided to take a picture | |
| 25 with it, in which Virginia and Andrew sat on a | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 179 | |
| Page 22 | |
| 1 couch. They put the puppet on Virginia's lap, and I | |
| 2 sat on Andrew's lap, and they put the puppet's hand | |
| 3 on Virginia's breast, and Andrew put his hand on my | |
| 4 breast, and they took a photo. | |
| 5 Q. Do you remember who took the photo? | |
| 6 A. I don't recall. | |
| 7 Q. Did you ever see the photo after it was | |
| 8 taken? | |
| 9 A. I did not. | |
| 10 Q. And Ms. Maxwell was present during the -- | |
| 11 was Ms. Maxwell present during that? | |
| 12 A. Yes. | |
| 13 Q. What happened next? | |
| 14 A. The next thing I remember is just being | |
| 15 shown to which room I was going to be staying in. | |
| 16 Q. When you exited the room that you were in | |
| 17 where the picture was taken, do you recall who | |
| 18 remained in that room? | |
| 19 A. I don't. | |
| 20 Q. Do you recall seeing Virginia exit that | |
| 21 room? | |
| 22 A. I don't. | |
| 23 Q. During this trip to New York, did you have | |
| 24 to perform any work when you were at the New York | |
| 25 house? | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 179 | |
| Page 23 | |
| 1 A. I performed at least one massage that I | |
| 2 recall. | |
| 3 Q. And who instructed you to give that | |
| 4 massage? | |
| 5 A. Jeffrey. | |
| 6 Q. And can you describe for me what happened | |
| 7 during that massage? | |
| 8 A. Near the end, he asked me to rub his | |
| 9 nipples while he masturbated. | |
| 10 Q. And did that take place? | |
| 11 A. It did not. | |
| 12 Q. And why not? | |
| 13 A. I was not comfortable with it. And so I | |
| 14 left the room. | |
| 15 Q. Did you have any -- did you say anything | |
| 16 to him before leaving the room? | |
| 17 A. I believe I said, "I'm done." | |
| 18 Q. Do you recall what his reaction was to | |
| 19 that? | |
| 20 A. I do not. At the time, at that moment, I | |
| 21 do not. | |
| 22 Q. Did you recall later what -- | |
| 23 A. Well, we had a conversation a little | |
| 24 later, talking about his expectations, and that was | |
| 25 the conversation where he said that the next trip | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 179 | |
| Page 24 | |
| 1 they were going on was to the island in the Virgin | |
| 2 Islands, and I would be invited; however, there | |
| 3 would be, quote, sex stuff happening. | |
| 4 Q. Can you describe for me -- can you | |
| 5 describe for me what that -- in New York, where you | |
| 6 massaged and what that looked like? | |
| 7 A. He had one room that was the massage room. | |
| 8 It was about the size of a spa room in a spa. It | |
| 9 had high ceilings. It had dark tapestry on the | |
| 10 walls. It was a very dark room. There was a very | |
| 11 large picture of a naked woman whom I don't recall. | |
| 12 That's all I remember. | |
| 13 Q. In the New York home, did you observe | |
| 14 photos around the house? | |
| 15 A. I don't recall. | |
| 16 Q. In the Palm Beach home that we were | |
| 17 talking about earlier, did you recall seeing photos | |
| 18 in that? | |
| 19 A. Yes. | |
| 20 Q. And did you recall seeing photos of naked | |
| 21 females in that home? | |
| 22 A. Yes. | |
| 23 Q. Approximately -- can you tell me where you | |
| 24 would see those in the home? | |
| 25 A. I definitely saw them in his bathroom. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 25 of 179 | |
| Page 25 | |
| 1 And I can't recall if they were in the main living | |
| 2 areas. | |
| 3 Q. Did you see them in the stairwell up to | |
| 4 the second story of the house? | |
| 5 A. I can't recall. | |
| 6 Q. Do you know who -- who the people were in | |
| 7 those photos? Were you familiar with any of them? | |
| 8 A. No. | |
| 9 Q. Were you in any of those photos? | |
| 10 A. At one point, yes. | |
| 11 Q. And were you naked in that photo? | |
| 12 A. Topless. | |
| 13 Q. Do you recall seeing any naked photos of | |
| 14 Virginia Roberts? | |
| 15 A. I do not. | |
| 16 Q. Where did you go next, after the New York | |
| 17 visit? | |
| 18 A. I went to the Virgin Islands. | |
| 19 Q. And who told you that you would be going | |
| 20 to the Virgin Islands? | |
| 21 A. He asked me if I wanted to go, and I said | |
| 22 I would still like to go. | |
| 23 Q. And do you recall who you -- who went with | |
| 24 you to the Virgin Islands? | |
| 25 A. I believe -- well, I know Virginia was | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 26 of 179 | |
| Page 26 | |
| 1 with me. Ghislaine was there. Jeffrey. And there | |
| 2 were two other women that I don't recall their | |
| 3 names. | |
| 4 Q. Did you travel on Jeffrey's plane to get | |
| 5 to the Virgin Islands? | |
| 6 A. Yes. | |
| 7 Q. I want to show you again the flight log | |
| 8 that you have there in front of you. If you can | |
| 9 flip to -- | |
| 10 MS. MENNINGER: I'm going to object to the | |
| 11 foundation again. | |
| 12 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 13 Q. It's that same page that you were on. The | |
| 14 date is the 11th. | |
| 15 A. Yes. | |
| 16 Q. Do you see the TEB to TIST there? | |
| 17 A. Yes. | |
| 18 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading. The | |
| 19 questioning is testifying now. | |
| 20 MS. McCAWLEY: Can you let me finish my | |
| 21 question, please? | |
| 22 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 23 Q. Can you tell me who the initials are there | |
| 24 that you see that were on the plane? | |
| 25 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation, | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 27 of 179 | |
| Page 27 | |
| 1 leading. | |
| 2 THE WITNESS: Jeffrey Epstein; Ghislaine | |
| 3 Maxwell; AP and PK are the two women I do not | |
| 4 recall; Virginia Roberts; and myself. | |
| 5 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 6 Q. Do you recall how you flew back from the | |
| 7 location in the US Virgin Islands? | |
| 8 A. They put me on a commercial flight. I | |
| 9 wanted to be home in time for Easter. | |
| 10 Q. When you say "they," do you recall who | |
| 11 made those arrangements for you? | |
| 12 A. It could have been Ghislaine. | |
| 13 Q. Did you -- do you recall performing | |
| 14 massages while you were in the US Virgin Islands? | |
| 15 A. Yes. | |
| 16 Q. Who was involved in -- was there more than | |
| 17 one? | |
| 18 A. Yes. I massaged Ghislaine at one point. | |
| 19 And I massaged Jeffrey, Virginia and I, both, on the | |
| 20 beach. | |
| 21 Q. Were you dressed during the massage that | |
| 22 was on the beach? | |
| 23 A. Yes. Bikinis probably, most likely. | |
| 24 Q. Do you recall what Virginia was wearing? | |
| 25 A. I believe she was wearing a bathing suit, | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 28 of 179 | |
| Page 28 | |
| 1 as well. | |
| 2 Q. Were you paid for the massage on the beach | |
| 3 with Virginia? | |
| 4 A. At the end of -- before I left and flew | |
| 5 home, Ghislaine gave me $1,000. | |
| 6 Q. You mentioned that you massaged -- you | |
| 7 recall massaging Ghislaine on the trip to the USVI. | |
| 8 Do you recall when that took place? | |
| 9 A. I don't even recall what days we were | |
| 10 there, so... | |
| 11 Q. Do you recall where it took place? | |
| 12 A. I believe it was -- well, either in my | |
| 13 guest cottage or one of them. There were three | |
| 14 guest houses set up that were all similar and that I | |
| 15 was staying in. Virginia and I stayed in one | |
| 16 together. And it was either in there or in another | |
| 17 one that was identical. | |
| 18 Q. And was that massage performed with | |
| 19 Virginia as well or by you alone? | |
| 20 A. I don't recall. | |
| 21 Q. Were there other females in the USVI on | |
| 22 that trip with you besides Virginia? | |
| 23 A. Two others. | |
| 24 Q. And do you recall who they were? | |
| 25 A. I do not. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 29 of 179 | |
| Page 29 | |
| 1 Q. Did you ever see Ghislaine Maxwell during | |
| 2 that trip laying out by the pool? | |
| 3 A. There was one time where we were all by | |
| 4 the pool, yes. | |
| 5 Q. Was Ghislaine Maxwell ever nude or topless | |
| 6 by the pool? | |
| 7 A. I don't recall. She was nude when she | |
| 8 went swimming in the ocean. | |
| 9 Q. At that moment in the USVI home, did you | |
| 10 observe any photos there of nude females? | |
| 11 A. I don't recall. | |
| 12 Q. Besides Virginia, who you mentioned, you | |
| 13 observed to be young, did you observe any other | |
| 14 females that in your view appeared to be essentially | |
| 15 under the age of 18? | |
| 16 A. No. | |
| 17 Q. Did you observe any females who you | |
| 18 thought looked young, younger than you? | |
| 19 A. No. | |
| 20 Q. Do you remember an individual by the name | |
| 21 of that you met during your time with Jeffrey | |
| 22 Epstein? | |
| 23 A. In Palm Beach? | |
| 24 Q. Yes. | |
| 25 A. Yes. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 30 of 179 | |
| Page 30 | |
| 1 Q. Did you observe her to be young when you | |
| 2 met her? | |
| 3 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, vague as to | |
| 4 time. | |
| 5 THE WITNESS: All of the women were | |
| 6 generally young. I did not know the ages of | |
| 7 really anyone, so... | |
| 8 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 9 Q. How many massages did Jeffrey receive on | |
| 10 average in a given day? | |
| 11 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation. | |
| 12 THE WITNESS: Three a day. | |
| 13 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 14 Q. Let me back up for a moment. | |
| 15 How long did you work for Jeffrey and | |
| 16 Ghislaine? | |
| 17 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading and | |
| 18 foundation. | |
| 19 THE WITNESS: I believe it was five years, | |
| 20 2001 to 2006. | |
| 21 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 22 Q. And how many massages did Epstein receive | |
| 23 per day on average? | |
| 24 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation. | |
| 25 THE WITNESS: Three. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 31 of 179 | |
| Page 31 | |
| 1 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 2 Q. Were the massages performed by the same | |
| 3 girl or different females? | |
| 4 A. Different. | |
| 5 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation. | |
| 6 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 7 Q. What did the females who performed the | |
| 8 massages look like? | |
| 9 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation. | |
| 10 THE WITNESS: They all looked different. | |
| 11 Some of them were ethnic, some were blond, some | |
| 12 were short, some were tall. Everyone was thin. | |
| 13 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 14 Q. Were the girls who performed the massages | |
| 15 young or old? | |
| 16 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation. | |
| 17 THE WITNESS: I don't recall anyone being | |
| 18 old. | |
| 19 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 20 Q. Do you recall anybody being over the age | |
| 21 of, say, 25? | |
| 22 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, form. | |
| 23 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I believe there was | |
| 24 probably a few women that were older than 25. | |
| 25 MS. MENNINGER: I'm sorry. I get a chance | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 32 of 179 | |
| Page 32 | |
| 1 to object and then you can still answer. No | |
| 2 one is going to stop you from answering. I | |
| 3 just need to get the objection on the record, | |
| 4 in the same way she needs to be able to talk | |
| 5 before you. My apologies. I'm not trying to | |
| 6 cut you off, but I am supposed to get it in | |
| 7 before you answer. | |
| 8 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 9 Q. Did Jeffrey ever tell you why he received | |
| 10 so many massages from so many different girls? | |
| 11 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, hearsay. | |
| 12 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 13 Q. You can answer. | |
| 14 A. He explained to me that, in his opinion, | |
| 15 he needed to have three orgasms a day. It was | |
| 16 biological, like eating. | |
| 17 Q. And what was your reaction to that | |
| 18 statement? | |
| 19 A. I thought it was a little crazy. | |
| 20 Q. And what did -- do you recall what -- when | |
| 21 you observed the other females giving massages, do | |
| 22 you recall what they would dress like? Did they | |
| 23 wear scrubs or did they typically wear normal | |
| 24 clothes? | |
| 25 A. Normal clothes. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 33 of 179 | |
| Page 33 | |
| 1 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading. | |
| 2 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 3 Q. Do you believe that from your | |
| 4 observations, Maxwell and Epstein were boyfriend and | |
| 5 girlfriend? | |
| 6 A. Initially, yes. | |
| 7 Q. Did Maxwell ever share with you whether it | |
| 8 bothered her that Jeffrey had so many girls around? | |
| 9 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, | |
| 10 hearsay. | |
| 11 THE WITNESS: No. Actually, the opposite. | |
| 12 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 13 Q. What did she say? | |
| 14 A. She let me know that she was -- she would | |
| 15 not be able to please him as much as he needed and | |
| 16 that is why there were other girls around. | |
| 17 Q. Did there ever come a time -- did you ever | |
| 18 take a photography class in school? | |
| 19 A. Yes. | |
| 20 Q. And did there ever come a time when | |
| 21 Maxwell offered to buy you a camera? | |
| 22 A. Yes. | |
| 23 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading. | |
| 24 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 25 Q. Did Maxwell ever offer to buy you a | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 34 of 179 | |
| Page 34 | |
| 1 camera? | |
| 2 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading. | |
| 3 THE WITNESS: Yes. | |
| 4 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 5 Q. Was there anything you were supposed to do | |
| 6 in order to get the camera? | |
| 7 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading. | |
| 8 THE WITNESS: I did not know that there | |
| 9 were expectations of me to get the camera until | |
| 10 after. She had purchased the camera for me, | |
| 11 and I was over there giving Jeffrey a massage. | |
| 12 I did not know that she was in possession of | |
| 13 the camera until later. | |
| 14 She told me -- called me after I had left | |
| 15 and said, I have the camera for you, but you | |
| 16 cannot receive it yet because you came here and | |
| 17 didn't finish your job and I had to finish it | |
| 18 for you. | |
| 19 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 20 Q. And did you -- what did you understand her | |
| 21 to mean? | |
| 22 A. She was implying that I did not get | |
| 23 Jeffrey off, and so she had to do it. | |
| 24 Q. And when you say "get Jeffrey off," do you | |
| 25 mean bring him to orgasm? | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 35 of 179 | |
| Page 35 | |
| 1 A. Yes. | |
| 2 Q. Did Ghislaine ever describe to you what | |
| 3 types of girls Jeffrey liked? | |
| 4 A. Model types. | |
| 5 Q. Did Ghislaine ever talk to you about how | |
| 6 you should act around Jeffrey? | |
| 7 A. She just had a conversation with me that I | |
| 8 should always act grateful. | |
| 9 Q. Did Jeffrey ever tell you that he took a | |
| 10 girl's virginity? | |
| 11 A. He did not tell me. He told a friend of | |
| 12 mine. | |
| 13 Q. And what do you recall about that? | |
| 14 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, hearsay, | |
| 15 foundation. | |
| 16 THE WITNESS: He wanted to have a friend | |
| 17 of mine come out who was cardio-kickboxer | |
| 18 instructor. She was a physical trainer. | |
| 19 And so I brought her over to the house, | |
| 20 and he told my friend Rachel that -- he said, | |
| 21 You see that girl over there laying by the | |
| 22 pool? She was 19. And he said, I just took | |
| 23 her virginity. And my friend Rachel was | |
| 24 mortified. | |
| 25 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 36 of 179 | |
| Page 36 | |
| 1 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 2 Q. Based on what you knew, did Maxwell know | |
| 3 that the type of massages Jeffrey was getting | |
| 4 typically involved sexual acts? | |
| 5 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation, | |
| 6 leading. | |
| 7 THE WITNESS: Yes. | |
| 8 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 9 Q. What was Maxwell's main job with respect | |
| 10 to Jeffrey? | |
| 11 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation. | |
| 12 THE WITNESS: Well, beyond companionship, | |
| 13 her job, as it related to me, was to find other | |
| 14 girls that would perform massages for him and | |
| 15 herself. | |
| 16 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 17 Q. Did Maxwell ever refer to the girls in a | |
| 18 particular way? | |
| 19 A. At one point when we were in the islands, | |
| 20 we were all watching a movie and she called us her | |
| 21 children. | |
| 22 Q. Did anybody respond to that? | |
| 23 A. I don't recall. | |
| 24 Q. Did she ever refer to herself as a mother? | |
| 25 A. Yes, like a mother hen. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 37 of 179 | |
| Page 37 | |
| 1 Q. Do you recall who was present at the time | |
| 2 that she made that comment about children? | |
| 3 A. This was the second trip that I took to | |
| 4 the Virgin Islands, so, no. I don't want to speak, | |
| 5 you know, incorrectly. I can't remember. I can't | |
| 6 really remember. | |
| 7 Q. Have you ever met David Copperfield? | |
| 8 A. Yes. | |
| 9 Q. And do you recall when you initially met | |
| 10 him? | |
| 11 A. Yes. | |
| 12 Q. Can you tell me what that was? | |
| 13 A. Sure. Someone called me from the house | |
| 14 and said that he would be there, and if I wanted to | |
| 15 come have dinner, then I could meet him. | |
| 16 So when I arrived at the house, he wasn't | |
| 17 there yet, but I waited with, I believe, Sarah | |
| 18 Kellen, and there was another girl there which I had | |
| 19 never met and never seen. She seemed young to me. | |
| 20 And I asked her what school she went to, | |
| 21 kind of prodding to see if she went to one of the | |
| 22 area colleges, and I did not recognize the name of | |
| 23 the school. | |
| 24 And so I thought she could be younger than | |
| 25 college age, but I had to assume for my own sanity | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 38 of 179 | |
| Page 38 | |
| 1 that she was a daughter of one of his friends. | |
| 2 Q. But it was possible she was the school -- | |
| 3 is it possible that the school she referred to was a | |
| 4 high school? | |
| 5 A. Yes. | |
| 6 Q. And what happened at that dinner, if | |
| 7 anything? | |
| 8 A. He did some magic tricks. | |
| 9 Q. Did you observe David Copperfield to be a | |
| 10 friend of Jeffrey Epstein's? | |
| 11 A. Yes. | |
| 12 Q. Did Copperfield ever discuss Jeffrey's | |
| 13 involvement with young girls with you? | |
| 14 A. He questioned me if I was aware that girls | |
| 15 were getting paid to find other girls. | |
| 16 Q. Did he tell you any of the specifics of | |
| 17 that? | |
| 18 A. No. | |
| 19 Q. Did he say whether they were teenagers or | |
| 20 anything along those lines? | |
| 21 A. He did not. | |
| 22 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, calls | |
| 23 for hearsay. | |
| 24 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 25 Q. Did you ever hear or observe Jeffrey | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 39 of 179 | |
| Page 39 | |
| 1 talking on the phone about Frederic Fekkai? | |
| 2 A. Yes. | |
| 3 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading. | |
| 4 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 5 Q. What did you hear? | |
| 6 A. I heard him call someone, and say, Fekkai | |
| 7 is in Hawaii. Can we find some girls for him? | |
| 8 Q. And what was your reaction to that? | |
| 9 A. Well, I was massaging and I didn't have a | |
| 10 reaction. I tried to remain reactionless the whole | |
| 11 five years. | |
| 12 Q. Did Jeffrey ever take you shopping? | |
| 13 A. Yes. | |
| 14 Q. Can you describe for me what happened? | |
| 15 A. Sure. He took me to Victoria's Secret. I | |
| 16 believe he picked out everything and went into the | |
| 17 room with me, the fitting room, which was very odd. | |
| 18 Q. Did he make any comments about being in | |
| 19 the fitting room with you? | |
| 20 A. He joked that one time he was in there | |
| 21 with another girl, and she said something like | |
| 22 "Dad." But that's all I recall. | |
| 23 Q. Did Jeffrey ever talk to you -- let me | |
| 24 back up a moment. | |
| 25 Have you ever been propositioned by anyone | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 40 of 179 | |
| Page 40 | |
| 1 to have a baby for someone? | |
| 2 A. Yes. | |
| 3 Q. And who propositioned you? | |
| 4 A. Jeffrey asked me. | |
| 5 Q. Did he ask you more than once? | |
| 6 A. Yes. | |
| 7 Q. And what did he say? | |
| 8 A. Basically just said, I want you to be the | |
| 9 mother of my baby. | |
| 10 Q. And do you recall your response to that? | |
| 11 A. Um, I don't believe that I said flat-out | |
| 12 no. I didn't agree to it. I would just say, Oh, | |
| 13 yeah, really? Okay. | |
| 14 Q. Did you ever bring other girls over as | |
| 15 Maxwell had requested? | |
| 16 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, | |
| 17 hearsay, form. | |
| 18 THE WITNESS: One time. | |
| 19 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 20 Q. Let me back up a minute, just to make it a | |
| 21 clean question. | |
| 22 Did you ever bring friends over to massage | |
| 23 Jeffrey? | |
| 24 A. No. | |
| 25 Q. And why did you not bring friends over to | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 41 of 179 | |
| Page 41 | |
| 1 massage Jeffrey? | |
| 2 A. I was living in secret about what I was | |
| 3 doing during the massages, and I did not want my | |
| 4 friends to be -- to know what I was doing. So I did | |
| 5 not want anyone else coming into that. | |
| 6 Q. Was Bill Clinton a friend of Jeffrey | |
| 7 Epstein? | |
| 8 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation. | |
| 9 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 10 Q. Let me back up. | |
| 11 Do you know if Bill Clinton was a friend | |
| 12 of Jeffrey Epstein? | |
| 13 A. I knew he had dealings with Bill Clinton. | |
| 14 I did not know they were friends until I read the | |
| 15 Vanity Fair article about them going to Africa | |
| 16 together. | |
| 17 Q. Did Jeffrey ever talk to you about Bill | |
| 18 Clinton? | |
| 19 A. He said one time that Clinton likes them | |
| 20 young, referring to girls. | |
| 21 Q. Did you ever -- do you recall ever taking | |
| 22 a trip to Jeffrey Epstein's home in New Mexico? | |
| 23 A. Yes. | |
| 24 Q. And do you recall who you went on that | |
| 25 trip with? | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 42 of 179 | |
| Page 42 | |
| 1 A. Sarah Kellen was there. Ghislaine was | |
| 2 there. That's all I recall. | |
| 3 Q. Do you recall why you went on the trip to | |
| 4 New Mexico? | |
| 5 A. To work. | |
| 6 Q. Did you perform massages on that trip? | |
| 7 A. Yes. | |
| 8 Q. Did you -- do you recall whether you | |
| 9 performed massages with Sarah Kellen on that trip? | |
| 10 A. No. | |
| 11 Q. Do you recall in the New Mexico home ever | |
| 12 observing nude photos of females there? | |
| 13 A. I don't recall. | |
| 14 Q. When you would provide massages, would you | |
| 15 provide those massages naked? | |
| 16 A. On occasion. | |
| 17 Q. On average, would you be naked, if it was | |
| 18 100 percent of the time, more than 50 percent of the | |
| 19 time? | |
| 20 A. Can you repeat it? | |
| 21 Q. Sure. When you're performing the | |
| 22 massages, can you tell me -- you said on occasion. | |
| 23 Over the five years that you worked for him, how | |
| 24 often did you perform massages naked? | |
| 25 A. Somewhere between 25 and 50 percent of the | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 43 of 179 | |
| Page 43 | |
| 1 time. | |
| 2 Q. Did Epstein try to make the massages | |
| 3 sexual? | |
| 4 A. On occasion. | |
| 5 Q. Would Epstein have you rub his nipples? | |
| 6 A. Yes. | |
| 7 Q. Would he masturbate during the massages? | |
| 8 A. Yes. | |
| 9 Q. Did he use sex toys or vibrators on you? | |
| 10 A. Yes. | |
| 11 Q. Would he leave the sex toys or vibrators | |
| 12 out after the massage or would he clean up after | |
| 13 himself? | |
| 14 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, vague, form. | |
| 15 THE WITNESS: He did not ever clean up. | |
| 16 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 17 Q. Do you believe that your experience during | |
| 18 the years you were with Jeffrey and Maxwell damaged | |
| 19 you? | |
| 20 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form. | |
| 21 THE WITNESS: It affected me. "Damaged" | |
| 22 is a strong word. | |
| 23 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 24 Q. And in what way did it affect you? | |
| 25 A. It affected future relationships with men, | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 44 of 179 | |
| Page 44 | |
| 1 trust issues, expectation issues. | |
| 2 Q. Did you observe Nadia Marcinkova and | |
| 3 Ghislaine at the house at the same time? | |
| 4 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form. | |
| 5 THE WITNESS: I don't recall. | |
| 6 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 7 Q. On the USVI trip, the second trip that you | |
| 8 took, do you recall Nadia Marcinkova being present? | |
| 9 A. I believe she was present at that trip. | |
| 10 Q. Do you recall Maxwell being present on | |
| 11 that trip? | |
| 12 A. Yes. | |
| 13 Q. Do you know an individual by the name of | |
| 14 ? | |
| 15 A. Yes. | |
| 16 Q. And who is ? | |
| 17 A. She was one of the girls that was around. | |
| 18 Q. Was around both Jeffrey Epstein | |
| 19 and Ghislaine Maxwell? | |
| 20 A. I don't recall. | |
| 21 Q. Do you recall where you first met | |
| 22 | |
| 23 A. In Palm Beach. | |
| 24 Q. At Jeffrey Epstein's home? | |
| 25 A. Yes. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 45 of 179 | |
| Page 45 | |
| 1 Q. And what -- do you recall any observations | |
| 2 about when you met her? | |
| 3 A. To speak with, she was a little rough | |
| 4 around the edges, and I could see the progression of | |
| 5 her being groomed a little. They got her braces. | |
| 6 She had terrible posture. And with a lot of | |
| 7 massages, she learned to stand up straight. So I | |
| 8 just saw her become a much more confident person. | |
| 9 Q. Do you recall how old she was when you | |
| 10 first met her? | |
| 11 A. I assumed she was 18, but I do not know | |
| 12 her age. | |
| 13 MS. McCAWLEY: We're going to take a break | |
| 14 really quickly and then we will be back. So we | |
| 15 are going to go off the record. | |
| 16 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at 9:48. | |
| 17 (Thereupon, a recess was taken, after | |
| 18 which the following proceedings were held:) | |
| 19 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: On the record at 9:58. | |
| 20 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 21 Q. I'm just going to resume. I have a few | |
| 22 more questions for you. | |
| 23 You mentioned visiting the US Virgin | |
| 24 Islands. | |
| 25 Do you recall doing any activities with | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 46 of 179 | |
| Page 46 | |
| 1 Maxwell when you were on the visit to the USVI? | |
| 2 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, vague as to | |
| 3 time. | |
| 4 THE WITNESS: I don't recall. | |
| 5 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 6 Q. Do you recall ever going hiking with her? | |
| 7 A. Yes. | |
| 8 Q. Did Maxwell ever ask you to try to bring | |
| 9 other girls over for Jeffrey? | |
| 10 A. At that time? | |
| 11 Q. Yes. | |
| 12 A. No. | |
| 13 Q. Any other time? | |
| 14 A. Well, she had asked me if I knew anyone | |
| 15 that could perform massages that would come to the | |
| 16 house. | |
| 17 Q. And what was your understanding of that | |
| 18 request? | |
| 19 MS. MENNINGER: Objection. | |
| 20 THE WITNESS: Well -- | |
| 21 MS. MENNINGER: Form. | |
| 22 THE WITNESS: -- I just wondered why they | |
| 23 wouldn't just call me. | |
| 24 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 25 Q. And did you bring anybody else over to | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 47 of 179 | |
| Page 47 | |
| 1 perform massages? | |
| 2 A. I did not. | |
| 3 Q. When you were either in the USVI or in | |
| 4 Palm Beach, did you ever observe any females either | |
| 5 topless or naked out by the pool? | |
| 6 A. Yes. | |
| 7 Q. What did you observe? | |
| 8 A. Mostly skinny-dipping. | |
| 9 Q. Do you know who the individuals were that | |
| 10 you observed? | |
| 11 A. Sarah Kellen and Ghislaine. | |
| 12 Q. Anybody else? | |
| 13 A. Yes, but I don't recall who. | |
| 14 Q. Did that happen on more than one occasion? | |
| 15 A. Yes. | |
| 16 Q. How often do you remember making those | |
| 17 observations? | |
| 18 A. Three times. | |
| 19 Q. Do you recall giving a statement to the | |
| 20 police regarding Jeffrey Epstein? | |
| 21 A. Yes. | |
| 22 Q. Do you recall when you gave that | |
| 23 statement? | |
| 24 A. I don't recall the date. | |
| 25 Q. Do you recall the year? | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 48 of 179 | |
| Page 48 | |
| 1 A. I want to say it was early 2006 or late | |
| 2 2005. | |
| 3 Q. Do you recall who you met with? | |
| 4 A. No. | |
| 5 Q. Do you recall what you told the police? | |
| 6 A. It was similar to this. They were asking | |
| 7 me a lot of questions that I answered. They knew a | |
| 8 lot. They knew what the bathroom looked like. They | |
| 9 knew that the couch had a hot pink throw on it with | |
| 10 green tassels. | |
| 11 I assumed that there had been videos and | |
| 12 they had seen me. They had seen the videos. That's | |
| 13 what I had assumed. I didn't know that maybe people | |
| 14 had already come forward and given them statements. | |
| 15 Q. Did they talk to you at all about the | |
| 16 videos? | |
| 17 A. They said, Were you aware that there were | |
| 18 video cameras in the house? | |
| 19 I said, No, but it would not surprise me. | |
| 20 MS. McCAWLEY: And I'm going to mark as | |
| 21 Exhibit 4 -- do you have an extra -- sorry. | |
| 22 Did you get one? Okay. Giuffre 0002 through | |
| 23 89. | |
| 24 And I'm going to direct you to page 00076, | |
| 25 and I'm going to hand it to you. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 49 of 179 | |
| Page 49 | |
| 1 (The referred-to document was marked by | |
| 2 the court reporter for Identification as | |
| 3 Sjoberg Exhibit 4.) | |
| 4 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 5 Q. I'm just going to ask that you take a look | |
| 6 at that. As you can see, under the narrative line | |
| 7 there, there is a name. It says, "Reported by | |
| 8 Recarey, Joseph." Is that a name you recall meeting | |
| 9 with, a Detective Recarey? | |
| 10 A. Yes. I mean, I don't recall his name, | |
| 11 only except that he had been following me around, | |
| 12 and he left me cards, like, on my car and in my | |
| 13 door. I tried to avoid him for a long time. | |
| 14 Q. And can you just look at the text | |
| 15 underneath there? | |
| 16 A. Uh-huh. | |
| 17 Q. Take a moment to look at that. | |
| 18 A. Sure. | |
| 19 Q. Does that refresh your recollection as to | |
| 20 what you told the police during the investigation? | |
| 21 A. There are errors in here. I was not 23 | |
| 22 when I met him. I was 21. | |
| 23 Q. Anything else that doesn't look correct? | |
| 24 A. The same error: That I had met him three | |
| 25 years ago, and it obviously had been closer to five. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 50 of 179 | |
| Page 50 | |
| 1 There is also the error, he obviously | |
| 2 misunderstood me: He did not pay for my tuition at | |
| 3 college. I'm still paying those school loans. But | |
| 4 he did pay for me to go to massage school and to | |
| 5 cosmetology school. | |
| 6 Okay. It pretty much ends here. | |
| 7 Q. Yes. Right. About halfway through the | |
| 8 page. | |
| 9 A. Okay. | |
| 10 MS. McCAWLEY: So, Johanna, that concludes | |
| 11 my initial piece. I'm going to reserve the | |
| 12 rest of my time for redirect. I'm going to | |
| 13 turn it over to Laura. | |
| 14 MS. MENNINGER: Can we take just a little | |
| 15 break? | |
| 16 MS. McCAWLEY: Sure, no problem. | |
| 17 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at | |
| 18 10:05. | |
| 19 (Thereupon, a recess was taken, after | |
| 20 which the following proceedings were held:) | |
| 21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: On the record at 10:14. | |
| 22 E X A M I N A T I O N | |
| 23 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 24 Q. Hi. | |
| 25 A. Hello. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 51 of 179 | |
| Page 51 | |
| 1 Q. We've never met before today, correct? | |
| 2 A. Correct. | |
| 3 Q. Can you tell me a little bit about your | |
| 4 current job? | |
| 5 A. Sure. I just purchased a salon. I'm a | |
| 6 salon owner. I'm a hairstylist. | |
| 7 Q. Congratulations. | |
| 8 A. Thank you. | |
| 9 Q. How long have you been a hairstylist? | |
| 10 A. For 10 years. | |
| 11 Q. And what did you do before that? | |
| 12 A. I briefly did massage in a spa for about a | |
| 13 year and a half. And before that I was a nanny, and | |
| 14 before that I was in school. | |
| 15 Q. And I believe you said you studied | |
| 16 psychology in school? | |
| 17 A. Correct. | |
| 18 Q. Did you graduate? | |
| 19 A. Yes. | |
| 20 Q. With a degree in psychology? | |
| 21 A. Yes. | |
| 22 Q. Where did you get training to be a massage | |
| 23 therapist? | |
| 24 A. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 52 of 179 | |
| Page 52 | |
| 1 Q. And when did do you that? | |
| 2 A. That would have been, I believe, in | |
| 3 Q. And how long did you study there? | |
| 4 A. I think it was a six-month program. | |
| 5 Q. And you worked in a spa thereafter? | |
| 6 A. I did. | |
| 7 Q. What was the name of the spa again? | |
| 8 A. | |
| 9 Q. And are you married? | |
| 10 A. No. | |
| 11 Q. Do you have children? | |
| 12 A. No. | |
| 13 Q. And how old are you now? | |
| 14 A. | |
| 15 Q. Can you tell me about your first meeting | |
| 16 with Ghislaine Maxwell? | |
| 17 A. Sure. I was sitting on a bench | |
| 18 . She approached me. | |
| 19 I was getting ready to go to a class. It was my | |
| 20 junior year. Yes, it was the second semester of my | |
| 21 junior year. And she and another woman approached | |
| 22 me. The other woman didn't speak that I recall. | |
| 23 And she asked me about -- she had a house | |
| 24 in Palm Beach, and she was looking for someone that | |
| 25 she could hire to work at the house, where she could | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 53 of 179 | |
| Page 53 | |
| 1 post that she needed help. | |
| 2 She then asked me if I knew anyone, and I | |
| 3 didn't know who she was, I didn't want to take the | |
| 4 responsibility of finding someone to work for her, | |
| 5 and so I said, Sorry, I don't. | |
| 6 And then she said, Well, maybe what about | |
| 7 you? | |
| 8 And I was at a point in life, I was super | |
| 9 spontaneous and willing to skip school. | |
| 10 So she said, Come to my house, come in my | |
| 11 car and check it out. | |
| 12 And so I did. | |
| 13 Q. Okay. So for those of you -- of us who | |
| 14 don't know, is this like a college campus, like a | |
| 15 traditional college campus, or is it in a city | |
| 16 setting? | |
| 17 A. It's in a city setting. I mean, Palm | |
| 18 Beach is not a big city. So it's on the | |
| 19 Intracoastal, and there was a big grassy area that | |
| 20 were surrounded by buildings, so she was inside of | |
| 21 the campus. | |
| 22 Q. And she was looking for a bulletin board | |
| 23 where she could post a job? | |
| 24 A. Something like that, yes. | |
| 25 Q. Did she have any kind of flyers -- | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 54 of 179 | |
| Page 54 | |
| 1 A. Not that I recall. | |
| 2 Q. But that's what she asked you, for | |
| 3 directions to a bulletin board where she could post | |
| 4 a job? | |
| 5 A. Yes. | |
| 6 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 7 BY MS. MENNINGER | |
| 8 Q. And it sounds like you guys got into a | |
| 9 conversation; is that fair? | |
| 10 A. Yes. | |
| 11 Q. Can you describe Ghislaine Maxwell's | |
| 12 personality? | |
| 13 A. Well, I instantly picked up on the fact | |
| 14 that she was British. She had on, like, workout | |
| 15 clothes. I believe she was wearing all black. And | |
| 16 she -- I mean, she was a little snarky, but I felt | |
| 17 comfortable enough to get in the car with her. | |
| 18 Q. And it sounds like you had contact with | |
| 19 her over the next several years; is that fair? | |
| 20 A. Yes. | |
| 21 Q. And did you get to know more about her | |
| 22 personality over those five years, four or five | |
| 23 years? | |
| 24 A. Yes. | |
| 25 Q. And can you describe her for me, how you | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 55 of 179 | |
| Page 55 | |
| 1 observed her personality to be? | |
| 2 A. Sure. She definitely had a great sense of | |
| 3 humor, she loved making jokes. I mean, in a very | |
| 4 British way. I don't remember her ever laughing, | |
| 5 but she was funny. | |
| 6 And I remember just thinking, she -- the | |
| 7 first weekend that we flew to the Virgin Islands, | |
| 8 she flew the helicopter from Saint, wherever we were | |
| 9 to little Saint Jeff [sic] or whatever the name of | |
| 10 the island was, and I just thought, wow, who is this | |
| 11 woman. | |
| 12 Q. Would you say that you respected her? | |
| 13 A. Yes. | |
| 14 Q. When you ended up getting in the car with | |
| 15 her and this other woman and going back to the | |
| 16 house, who was driving the car? | |
| 17 A. She was driving. | |
| 18 Q. And where did she take you? | |
| 19 A. She took me to the house in Palm Beach. | |
| 20 Q. And can you describe the house in Palm | |
| 21 Beach? | |
| 22 A. Sure. It's at the end of El Brillo Way, | |
| 23 on the Intracoastal. The house was either white or | |
| 24 pink. It was pink at one time it may have been | |
| 25 painted. It was nothing fancy, it was large, it was | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 56 of 179 | |
| Page 56 | |
| 1 like a beach house. | |
| 2 Q. And when you got there, do you remember | |
| 3 meeting other people while you were there that first | |
| 4 time? | |
| 5 A. I remember other people being in the home. | |
| 6 I don't really remember who was there. | |
| 7 Q. Do you remember meeting, like, a butler | |
| 8 or -- | |
| 9 A. Potentially, a chef. Someone in the | |
| 10 kitchen. Maybe a house manager, yeah. | |
| 11 Q. What was your impression of this other | |
| 12 woman that was with Ms. Maxwell at this time? | |
| 13 A. Zero. She left zero impression on me. | |
| 14 Q. Age, height, hair color? Nothing? | |
| 15 A. I want to say she was brunette. Age, 20s. | |
| 16 Yeah. | |
| 17 Q. And you were going for the purposes of | |
| 18 checking out potentially working at this job? | |
| 19 A. Yes. | |
| 20 Q. It sounds like you met Jeffrey Epstein | |
| 21 that first time that you did go to the house, right? | |
| 22 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 23 THE WITNESS: I believe I either met him | |
| 24 that time or the next time. I can't recall. | |
| 25 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 57 of 179 | |
| Page 57 | |
| 1 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 2 Q. Okay. And tell me about your first | |
| 3 meeting with him. | |
| 4 A. Sure. I met him, I believe it was in the | |
| 5 hallway right beside the kitchen. There was a | |
| 6 hallway. It was actually more like a room, a pantry | |
| 7 type of room. That's where all of the pieces of | |
| 8 paper with the phone messages would lay. | |
| 9 And I remember sitting on the counter and | |
| 10 speaking with him, and he was in a bathrobe, and he | |
| 11 spoke with me about me being in college and studying | |
| 12 psychology. | |
| 13 Q. And did you form an opinion of him in that | |
| 14 first meeting? | |
| 15 A. I -- yeah. I believed that he was smart. | |
| 16 He was personable and could speak to anyone. | |
| 17 Q. Did he give off any sexual vibes in the | |
| 18 first meeting? | |
| 19 A. No. | |
| 20 Q. And where was Ghislaine when you were | |
| 21 speaking with Mr. Epstein? | |
| 22 A. I don't recall. | |
| 23 Q. Do you recall going to a second floor of | |
| 24 the home during that first meeting? | |
| 25 A. I don't recall. Ghislaine said at one | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 58 of 179 | |
| Page 58 | |
| 1 point, You might get a massage today. That was -- | |
| 2 sorry, that was the second time when I was in the | |
| 3 home working. And I just thought it was crazy that | |
| 4 I would get a massage while I was working. But it | |
| 5 did not end up happening because the masseuse could | |
| 6 not stay. | |
| 7 Q. Do you know who the masseuse was that | |
| 8 could not stay? | |
| 9 A. No. | |
| 10 Q. But that didn't happen on the first | |
| 11 meeting; you believe that was the second meeting? | |
| 12 A. Yes, that was when I was there to work. | |
| 13 Q. How long -- how did the first trip to the | |
| 14 house end? | |
| 15 A. She gave me her phone number, and she took | |
| 16 my phone number, and she took me back to school. | |
| 17 Q. And were you full-time at school at the | |
| 18 time? | |
| 19 A. Yes. | |
| 20 Q. And how many classes were you taking, if | |
| 21 you remember? | |
| 22 A. Probably four or five. | |
| 23 Q. How did you -- how long was it before you | |
| 24 heard from Ms. Maxwell again? | |
| 25 A. Within probably three days. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 59 of 179 | |
| Page 59 | |
| 1 Q. And how did she contact you? | |
| 2 A. She called me on my -- at that time I had | |
| 3 a cell phone. It could have been on my cell phone. | |
| 4 It could have been on my house phone. We had house | |
| 5 phones back then. | |
| 6 Q. I remember. | |
| 7 Where were you living at the time? | |
| 8 A. I was in an apartment in West Palm Beach. | |
| 9 Q. And did you have a roommate or with | |
| 10 family? | |
| 11 A. I had a roommate. | |
| 12 Q. So when Ms. Maxwell called you on whatever | |
| 13 phone it was, do you remember what she said? | |
| 14 A. Yeah. She said, Do you want to come over | |
| 15 and work on Sunday? | |
| 16 Q. And what did you say? | |
| 17 A. I said, Sure. | |
| 18 Q. And did you? | |
| 19 A. I did. | |
| 20 Q. How did you get there? | |
| 21 A. That I don't recall, because I did not | |
| 22 have a car. | |
| 23 Q. Did you -- | |
| 24 A. I think my roommate dropped me off, | |
| 25 honestly. I can remember what I was wearing. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 60 of 179 | |
| Page 60 | |
| 1 Q. You do? | |
| 2 A. I do. | |
| 3 Q. What were you wearing? | |
| 4 A. I had a -- I still have the shirt. It's | |
| 5 an old, weathered, blue, North Carolina Tech Tar | |
| 6 Heels T-shirt. | |
| 7 Q. Because you -- did Ms. Maxwell explain to | |
| 8 you what you would be doing on that Sunday when you | |
| 9 came to work or was that part of the prior | |
| 10 conversation? | |
| 11 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 12 THE WITNESS: About what I was wearing? | |
| 13 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 14 Q. No. About what you were going to do at | |
| 15 work. | |
| 16 A. She had explained that she just wanted | |
| 17 someone to help out around the house, answering | |
| 18 phones, you know, grabbing drinks if someone wanted | |
| 19 a drink, running errands. | |
| 20 Q. And so you dressed appropriate to what you | |
| 21 believed -- | |
| 22 A. I did not know how to dress properly, | |
| 23 apparently. I should not have worn that. But I was | |
| 24 in college. | |
| 25 Q. Did anyone say anything to you? | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 61 of 179 | |
| Page 61 | |
| 1 A. No. | |
| 2 Q. So when you got there, what happened? | |
| 3 This is your second time to the house, but your | |
| 4 first time working, right? | |
| 5 A. Yes. | |
| 6 I was probably introduced to a few people | |
| 7 that were there. I mean, I was there for several | |
| 8 hours. Do I recall every minute? No. I just | |
| 9 recall when I would actually have to work, answer | |
| 10 the phone, pour some drinks for people. Just water; | |
| 11 they didn't drink alcohol. And run errands. There | |
| 12 were a few errands that I ran. | |
| 13 Q. You described those errands earlier? | |
| 14 A. I did. In her car. | |
| 15 Q. You used her car? | |
| 16 A. Yes. | |
| 17 Q. What kind of car was it? | |
| 18 A. It was a Mercedes convertible. | |
| 19 Q. Did anyone go with you? | |
| 20 A. No. | |
| 21 Q. You described a shopping trip. Was that | |
| 22 in the same car? | |
| 23 A. Yes. | |
| 24 Q. Was that a separate trip than when you | |
| 25 went to run errands? | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 62 of 179 | |
| Page 62 | |
| 1 A. Yes. That's when Ghislaine went with me | |
| 2 and she drove. | |
| 3 Q. Okay. So you ran errands, came back, more | |
| 4 than once? | |
| 5 A. Twice. | |
| 6 Q. And then you went on a shopping trip? | |
| 7 A. Yes. | |
| 8 Q. During the time you were at the home, was | |
| 9 there anything that made you suspicious? | |
| 10 A. No. | |
| 11 Q. Or leery? | |
| 12 A. No. | |
| 13 Q. You mentioned there may have been some | |
| 14 discussion of a massage. Do you recall that | |
| 15 discussion? | |
| 16 A. I had never had a massage before. So she | |
| 17 just said there was a massage therapist coming and I | |
| 18 may get one. | |
| 19 Q. Did she say who it was? | |
| 20 A. No. | |
| 21 Q. So when you went shopping on this trip, | |
| 22 you said Ghislaine drove the car and you went with | |
| 23 her. Was anyone else there? | |
| 24 A. No. | |
| 25 Q. And where did you all go? | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 63 of 179 | |
| Page 63 | |
| 1 A. We went to Worth Avenue in Palm Beach, but | |
| 2 because it was Sunday, the stores were closed. | |
| 3 Bless you. | |
| 4 MR. LOUIS: Thank you. | |
| 5 THE WITNESS: So from there, we went to -- | |
| 6 I believe it was Palm Beach Daily News, which | |
| 7 was like a little book store. And I remember | |
| 8 her purchasing reading glasses for Jeffrey and | |
| 9 some magazines. | |
| 10 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 11 Q. Were those things for the home? | |
| 12 A. Yes. | |
| 13 Q. And earlier on your errands, you had been | |
| 14 purchasing things for the home or office? | |
| 15 A. Yes. Yes. | |
| 16 Q. Besides the printer cartridge, ink | |
| 17 cartridge, do you remember anything else? | |
| 18 A. Well, yes. Like they wanted specific | |
| 19 magazines. I don't know if it was, like, Scientific | |
| 20 American or something to that effect. It was | |
| 21 wasn't, like, Playboy. | |
| 22 Q. Okay. Did you ever answer phones? | |
| 23 A. Yes. | |
| 24 Q. When did you answer phones? | |
| 25 A. That day. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 64 of 179 | |
| Page 64 | |
| 1 Q. Do you remember anything notable about the | |
| 2 phone calls? | |
| 3 A. I just remember I always had to say, He's | |
| 4 unavailable, can I take a message? | |
| 5 Q. And where did you take a message? | |
| 6 A. On a little notepad next to the phone. | |
| 7 Q. Do you recall any small children calling | |
| 8 the house that day? | |
| 9 A. No. | |
| 10 Q. Were you speaking to anyone about their | |
| 11 school experience or anything like that? | |
| 12 A. No. | |
| 13 Q. Did you take any messages for famous | |
| 14 people? | |
| 15 A. They could have been famous and I would | |
| 16 have been clueless. | |
| 17 Q. Did you take messages at any other point | |
| 18 during the time that you worked with Jeffrey? | |
| 19 A. No. | |
| 20 Q. And you said you remember at the end of | |
| 21 that day being paid by Ghislaine? | |
| 22 A. Yes. | |
| 23 Q. And you were paid for doing the errands | |
| 24 and answering phones and whatever else you did? | |
| 25 A. Yes. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 65 of 179 | |
| Page 65 | |
| 1 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 2 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 3 Q. Did you do anything else that day in terms | |
| 4 of errands or things around the house that you | |
| 5 remember? | |
| 6 A. Not that I recall. | |
| 7 Q. Did you come back to answer phones and do | |
| 8 errands any other day? | |
| 9 A. No. | |
| 10 Q. That was the only day you did it? | |
| 11 A. Yes. | |
| 12 Q. All right. | |
| 13 Tell me the second time -- how long was it | |
| 14 before you got another sort of contact from anybody | |
| 15 at the home? | |
| 16 A. Okay. Well, after that -- I remember | |
| 17 actually that day of working, I sat with Ghislaine | |
| 18 outside on this -- outside table on the patio by the | |
| 19 pool. I told her that I was getting ready to go to | |
| 20 Nicaragua for spring break on a mission trip. I | |
| 21 remember her going, Why would you ever go to | |
| 22 Nicaragua? So I was going to be gone the next week | |
| 23 for spring break. | |
| 24 So she called, after I returned, and asked | |
| 25 if I wanted to make $100 an hour rubbing feet. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 66 of 179 | |
| Page 66 | |
| 1 Q. Was that the whole conversation? | |
| 2 A. That was pretty much it. I said, Okay, | |
| 3 sure, tell me when. | |
| 4 Q. And were you excited about the prospect of | |
| 5 rubbing feet and making $100? | |
| 6 A. I was actually with -- while I was on the | |
| 7 trip in Nicaragua, I was rubbing feet, I was | |
| 8 massaging people, their feet. So it just seemed | |
| 9 kind of crazy that it all happened at the same time. | |
| 10 Q. How was it rubbing feet? | |
| 11 A. I guess I just liked doing it. I didn't | |
| 12 know that I did, but I was massaging people's feet. | |
| 13 Q. Were these strangers? | |
| 14 A. No, no, no. They were -- it was a group | |
| 15 of us that went on the trip. So we were all very | |
| 16 close. | |
| 17 Q. What kind of trip was it? | |
| 18 A. It was a -- well, a PBA, you had to do | |
| 19 these things called Workship hours, which you had to | |
| 20 do community service, 40 hours every year. And so | |
| 21 that was the way to do them all, and you would go on | |
| 22 these trips and help build a school or feed children | |
| 23 or do some sort of -- something nice. | |
| 24 Q. Nice. | |
| 25 What other trips did you take while you | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 67 of 179 | |
| Page 67 | |
| 1 were there? | |
| 2 A. I did a trip and worked with Habitat for | |
| 3 Humanity in Baltimore. And then I went back to | |
| 4 Nicaragua the next year and did the same thing. | |
| 5 Q. Very nice. | |
| 6 And you were there for a whole week? | |
| 7 A. Yes. | |
| 8 Q. All right. | |
| 9 So you got a call from Ghislaine after you | |
| 10 returned? | |
| 11 A. Yes. | |
| 12 Q. And that's when she asked you about | |
| 13 rubbing feet? | |
| 14 A. Yes. | |
| 15 Q. And did she tell you when she would like | |
| 16 you to come over? | |
| 17 A. It was either that night or the next day. | |
| 18 Q. And do you know how you got there? | |
| 19 A. No. | |
| 20 Q. Do you know what you were wearing? | |
| 21 A. No, I don't remember. | |
| 22 Q. When you got there, I think you said you | |
| 23 don't remember if Ghislaine was actually there the | |
| 24 second time? | |
| 25 A. I want to believe that she was there | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 68 of 179 | |
| Page 68 | |
| 1 because she was my main contact, and so I would | |
| 2 assume that she was probably at the house and | |
| 3 greeted me; however, I do not recall if she was | |
| 4 there. | |
| 5 Q. It sounds like you met Emmy Taylor? | |
| 6 A. Yes. | |
| 7 Q. How did you meet Emmy Taylor? | |
| 8 A. She was at the house the first day that I | |
| 9 worked running errands. And I realized she was also | |
| 10 a personal assistant type of person. | |
| 11 Q. Do you know who she worked for? | |
| 12 A. She, well, Ghislaine, it appeared to me | |
| 13 that she worked for Ghislaine. Ghislaine sort of | |
| 14 told her what to do and where to go. | |
| 15 Q. And I believe you mentioned she called her | |
| 16 her slave? | |
| 17 A. She did. It was in a joking way, but she | |
| 18 said, Yes, that's my slave. | |
| 19 Q. You did not see her in any type of slavery | |
| 20 situation? | |
| 21 A. Not any chains or anything of the sort, | |
| 22 no. | |
| 23 Q. So tell me what you remember about the | |
| 24 second time you went. | |
| 25 A. The third time? | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 69 of 179 | |
| Page 69 | |
| 1 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 2 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 3 Q. I'm sorry. You're right. Third time. | |
| 4 The second time you went to work, but the third time | |
| 5 you were there. | |
| 6 A. Correct. | |
| 7 So I was escorted up to the bathroom, | |
| 8 which is where 99 percent of the massages happened. | |
| 9 And Emmy Taylor was with me and Jeffrey. And I | |
| 10 don't remember the order, but Emmy was on the table | |
| 11 at one point. She took all of her clothes off, got | |
| 12 on the table. | |
| 13 I remember thinking, Okay, she's just | |
| 14 going to strip naked and get on the table. Well, | |
| 15 that's cool. We're cool. That's what we do. | |
| 16 And Jeffrey was showing me how to massage | |
| 17 on her body. And then I took my clothes off and got | |
| 18 on the table, and then they showed me what it felt | |
| 19 like with the both of them. | |
| 20 And then Jeffrey got on the table and Emmy | |
| 21 showed me how to massage. | |
| 22 Q. So Ghislaine was not in the room? | |
| 23 A. No. | |
| 24 Q. You said that 99 percent of the massages | |
| 25 took place in the bathroom. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 70 of 179 | |
| Page 70 | |
| 1 Did you see massages take place in other | |
| 2 places of the house at all? | |
| 3 A. Did I see any? No, besides us maybe | |
| 4 hanging out on the couch and someone massaging his | |
| 5 foot or me massaging his foot. But not, like, on a | |
| 6 table. | |
| 7 Q. So just casual foot-rubbing might happen | |
| 8 elsewhere in the home, but not a full-blown, full | |
| 9 body massage? | |
| 10 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 11 THE WITNESS: Yes. | |
| 12 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 13 Q. Did you see any full-blown, full body | |
| 14 massages out by the pool? | |
| 15 A. Not that I recall. | |
| 16 Q. And do you remember ever giving any | |
| 17 yourself? | |
| 18 A. By the pool? | |
| 19 Q. Out by the pool, yes. | |
| 20 A. On a table? | |
| 21 Q. Yes. | |
| 22 A. No. | |
| 23 Q. All right. | |
| 24 You said that you had subsequently been | |
| 25 trained as a massage therapist, correct? | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 71 of 179 | |
| Page 71 | |
| 1 A. Correct. | |
| 2 Q. Would you describe it as normal massage | |
| 3 protocol for a person to be naked under a towel | |
| 4 during a massage, a regular massage? | |
| 5 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 6 THE WITNESS: Naked under a towel during a | |
| 7 massage, the person getting massaged? | |
| 8 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 9 Q. Yes. | |
| 10 A. Yes. | |
| 11 Q. And as a massage therapist, you're trained | |
| 12 how to drape the person so that they're covered in | |
| 13 the right places, correct? | |
| 14 A. Yes. | |
| 15 Q. So when you were being trained by Emmy and | |
| 16 Jeffrey on some massage techniques, did anyone say | |
| 17 anything sexual during that conversation? | |
| 18 A. Not that I recall. | |
| 19 Q. What was the mood like? Was it, you know, | |
| 20 laughing? | |
| 21 A. Yes. Comfortable. | |
| 22 Q. And just to clarify, the people who were | |
| 23 giving the massages at the various points in time | |
| 24 were clothed while they were doing that, correct? | |
| 25 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 72 of 179 | |
| Page 72 | |
| 1 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 2 Q. In this period you just described with | |
| 3 Emmy Taylor and Jeffrey in a bathroom upstairs on | |
| 4 your third visit to the house, people giving the | |
| 5 massages had their clothes on, correct? | |
| 6 A. Correct. | |
| 7 Q. All right. | |
| 8 What was the next time you remember coming | |
| 9 to the house there? | |
| 10 A. The next time was to do a massage. All by | |
| 11 myself. | |
| 12 Q. Okay. And how did that one come about? | |
| 13 A. Hmm, someone must have called me, but I | |
| 14 don't remember who. | |
| 15 Q. And to whom did you give the massage on | |
| 16 this next visit to the house? | |
| 17 A. Jeffrey. | |
| 18 Q. Was Ghislaine present during that massage? | |
| 19 A. No. | |
| 20 Q. Did anything unusual occur during that | |
| 21 massage? | |
| 22 A. After. | |
| 23 Q. What happened? After the massage? | |
| 24 A. He asked me how well do I orgasm. And I | |
| 25 said, I don't, I'm a virgin. And he was quite | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 73 of 179 | |
| Page 73 | |
| 1 surprised. | |
| 2 Q. Where were you when you were having this | |
| 3 discussion? | |
| 4 A. In the bathroom. | |
| 5 Q. Were you clothed? | |
| 6 A. Yes. | |
| 7 Q. Was he clothed? | |
| 8 A. I don't remember him being naked. He was | |
| 9 probably either wrapped with a towel or in a | |
| 10 bathrobe. | |
| 11 Q. Were you caught off guard by this | |
| 12 question? | |
| 13 A. Yes. | |
| 14 Q. Was that the first time anyone had said | |
| 15 anything sexual to you during this -- | |
| 16 A. Ever? Yes. | |
| 17 Q. Did he say anything else that you recall | |
| 18 during that conversation? | |
| 19 A. I mean, we had a little bit of a | |
| 20 conversation about it, but I don't recall | |
| 21 specifically. | |
| 22 Q. And how did that massage encounter end? | |
| 23 A. Normal. There was nothing I had to do, | |
| 24 just normal massage. | |
| 25 Q. Did he pay you? | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 74 of 179 | |
| Page 74 | |
| 1 A. Yes. | |
| 2 Q. How much did he pay you? | |
| 3 A. $200. | |
| 4 Q. How did he pay you? | |
| 5 A. Cash. | |
| 6 Q. And where was the cash? | |
| 7 A. I don't recall specifically. It was | |
| 8 either -- he brought it upstairs with him or it | |
| 9 would have been down on his desk. | |
| 10 Q. And I'm assuming that you had other | |
| 11 massages that you gave him under similar | |
| 12 circumstances in the next years, right? | |
| 13 A. Many, right. | |
| 14 Q. So recalling this particular one is not | |
| 15 sticking out in your mind? | |
| 16 A. Yes. | |
| 17 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 18 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 19 Q. Do you remember the next time after that? | |
| 20 A. I don't. I mean, from there, it's just a | |
| 21 blur of random invites to come over and do it. | |
| 22 Massage was, like, I would see him maybe three days | |
| 23 a row, and I wouldn't see him for two months. It | |
| 24 would be kind of that irregular schedule. | |
| 25 Q. Do you ever recall a time where you came | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 75 of 179 | |
| Page 75 | |
| 1 over every day for three weeks in a row? | |
| 2 A. No. | |
| 3 Q. Were you paid $200 per massage? | |
| 4 A. Yes. | |
| 5 Q. And how long did the massages last? | |
| 6 A. Anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour and a | |
| 7 half. | |
| 8 Q. Did you ever give a four-hour massage to | |
| 9 him? | |
| 10 A. Good grief, no, not that I recall. | |
| 11 Q. Have you ever given a four-hour massage to | |
| 12 anyone in your whole life? | |
| 13 A. No, I haven't. | |
| 14 Q. Tell me how the whole idea of traveling to | |
| 15 New York came up. | |
| 16 A. I actually was not home. They called | |
| 17 my -- my apartment. My roommate answered. When I | |
| 18 got home, she said, You need to call Jeffrey Epstein | |
| 19 immediately. He wants to take you to New York, but | |
| 20 they are leaving at 4:00. | |
| 21 And I was excited because I had never been | |
| 22 to New York. | |
| 23 Q. Are you from | |
| 24 A. I am. | |
| 25 Q. But you never went to New York? | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 76 of 179 | |
| Page 76 | |
| 1 A. Just flying over it. | |
| 2 Q. When you said they called, do you know who | |
| 3 called your roommate? | |
| 4 A. I don't know who called my roommate. | |
| 5 Q. In this sort of pre-trip to New York | |
| 6 period, do you recall discussing any of the | |
| 7 particulars of your massages with Jeffrey, with | |
| 8 Ghislaine? | |
| 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 10 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 11 Q. If that makes sense. | |
| 12 A. No. | |
| 13 Q. So before you got this call, had anyone | |
| 14 mentioned the idea of traveling to you? | |
| 15 A. No. | |
| 16 Q. Did you call Jeffrey immediately? | |
| 17 A. I did. | |
| 18 Q. And what conversation did you have with | |
| 19 him? | |
| 20 A. Basically he said, I want to take you | |
| 21 to -- to New York City. Can you be here quickly? | |
| 22 And I got to the house, and he said, Do | |
| 23 you have your passport? | |
| 24 I said, No. | |
| 25 He said, Go get it. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 77 of 179 | |
| Page 77 | |
| 1 So I went back and picked up my passport, | |
| 2 and went back to the house before we went to the | |
| 3 airport. | |
| 4 Q. And why did you need your passport? | |
| 5 A. I was ready to find out. I had no idea. | |
| 6 Q. This was the spontaneous phase? | |
| 7 A. Exactly. | |
| 8 Q. So you went and got your passport. You | |
| 9 came back. And then what happened? | |
| 10 A. Then we went to the airport. | |
| 11 Q. And who is we? | |
| 12 A. So, I don't remember the ride to the | |
| 13 airport, but the people that I recall being on the | |
| 14 plane was Jeffrey, Ghislaine, Virginia and I. | |
| 15 Q. And when was the first time you met | |
| 16 Virginia? | |
| 17 A. I believe it was that day. | |
| 18 Q. In your previous visits to the house, had | |
| 19 you seen her there? | |
| 20 A. Not that I recall. | |
| 21 Q. And what was your impression the first day | |
| 22 you met her? | |
| 23 A. She seemed young and blond and cute. | |
| 24 Q. What was her personality like? | |
| 25 A. I honestly don't recall her personality. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 78 of 179 | |
| Page 78 | |
| 1 Bubbly. | |
| 2 Q. Did you see her in the plane or on the | |
| 3 trip to New York engaged in any kind of affectionate | |
| 4 or sexual contact with Jeffrey? | |
| 5 A. No. | |
| 6 Q. With Ghislaine? | |
| 7 A. No. | |
| 8 Q. How did it come to be that you were in a | |
| 9 casino in Atlantic City? | |
| 10 A. We, as we were flying, Jeffrey said, Why | |
| 11 don't you go sit in the cockpit to check out the | |
| 12 landing? | |
| 13 So we were sitting there, and the pilots | |
| 14 told me to go back and tell him that we can't land | |
| 15 in New York and that we were going to have to land | |
| 16 in Atlantic City. | |
| 17 Jeffrey said, Great, we'll call up Trump | |
| 18 and we'll go to -- I don't recall the name of the | |
| 19 casino, but -- we'll go to the casino. | |
| 20 Q. And what happened with an ID issue? | |
| 21 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection: | |
| 22 THE WITNESS: All I knew is that she was | |
| 23 not going to be allowed to gamble, and so I | |
| 24 spent time with her. We were just walking | |
| 25 around. I don't remember what we did. Because | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 79 of 179 | |
| Page 79 | |
| 1 either she didn't have an ID or she was too | |
| 2 young. I don't remember specifically why. I | |
| 3 just knew that she could not gamble. | |
| 4 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 5 Q. Okay. So you walked around with her in | |
| 6 Atlantic City? | |
| 7 A. Uh-huh. In the casino. We never left the | |
| 8 casino. | |
| 9 Q. Were you disappointed that you couldn't | |
| 10 gamble? | |
| 11 A. No. | |
| 12 Q. When you were walking around and talking | |
| 13 to her, did you learn anything about her? | |
| 14 A. Not that I recall. | |
| 15 Q. Did you have an impression about why she | |
| 16 was on the trip? | |
| 17 A. At that point, no. I was so new to the | |
| 18 whole thing, I was just trying to figure out my | |
| 19 position and who everybody was. At that point, I | |
| 20 had no idea -- I didn't know anything sexual was | |
| 21 happening at all. So I just felt like she was just | |
| 22 another visitor. | |
| 23 Q. Did she tell you at that time that she had | |
| 24 been to New York with Jeffrey before? | |
| 25 A. Not that I recall. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 80 of 179 | |
| Page 80 | |
| 1 Q. Did she tell you anything about Ghislaine | |
| 2 during that walk-about? | |
| 3 A. No. | |
| 4 Q. And then you all traveled on to New York | |
| 5 that same night? | |
| 6 A. Yes. | |
| 7 Q. How long were you in New York for that | |
| 8 visit? | |
| 9 A. It was maybe two nights. | |
| 10 Q. And where did you sleep at night? | |
| 11 A. I slept in one of the guest rooms at his | |
| 12 townhouse on 71st Street. | |
| 13 Q. And did you stay in the same room as | |
| 14 Virginia? | |
| 15 A. No. | |
| 16 Q. Do you know where she stayed? | |
| 17 A. No. | |
| 18 Q. All right. | |
| 19 And then when you got into Manhattan, how | |
| 20 did it come to be that you were doing some | |
| 21 sightseeing? | |
| 22 A. Well, they knew that I had never been, so | |
| 23 I believe Jeffrey asked the driver and Emmy just to | |
| 24 drive me around to see the Empire State Building. | |
| 25 That's all I remember. It was late. It was dark. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 81 of 179 | |
| Page 81 | |
| 1 It wasn't long, maybe 30 minutes. | |
| 2 Q. When you got back to the house, what | |
| 3 happened? | |
| 4 A. I walked into the front door, and | |
| 5 Ghislaine stuck her head over the grand staircase | |
| 6 and asked me to come upstairs into the living room. | |
| 7 Q. And can you describe the living room? | |
| 8 A. Oh, it was very large and very formal. | |
| 9 And Jeffrey and her and Virginia and Prince Andrew | |
| 10 were there. | |
| 11 Q. What were they all doing when you came in? | |
| 12 A. Just socializing. I don't remember them | |
| 13 doing an activity. It was just being together. | |
| 14 Q. Was anyone unclothed? | |
| 15 A. No. | |
| 16 Q. Was this the same room where Jeffrey had a | |
| 17 desk? | |
| 18 A. It could have been, but I can't remember. | |
| 19 Q. Did you go to New York more than one time? | |
| 20 A. Yes. | |
| 21 Q. How many times did you go to New York? | |
| 22 A. Two times. | |
| 23 Q. This was the only time that you met Prince | |
| 24 Andrew in New York, though? | |
| 25 A. Yes. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 82 of 179 | |
| Page 82 | |
| 1 Q. When you came upstairs, where was Virginia | |
| 2 sitting? | |
| 3 A. I don't remember. | |
| 4 Q. Do you remember what she was wearing? | |
| 5 A. No. | |
| 6 Q. She was already there when you got back | |
| 7 from sightseeing? | |
| 8 A. Yes. | |
| 9 Q. Tell me what happened with the caricature. | |
| 10 A. Ghislaine asked me to come to a closet. | |
| 11 She just said, Come with me. We went to a closet | |
| 12 and grabbed the puppet, the puppet of Prince Andrew. | |
| 13 And I knew it was Prince Andrew because I had | |
| 14 recognized him as a person. I didn't know who he | |
| 15 was. | |
| 16 And so when I saw the tag that said Prince | |
| 17 Andrew, then it clicked. I'm like, that's who it | |
| 18 is. | |
| 19 And we went down -- back down to the | |
| 20 living room, and she brought it in. It was just | |
| 21 funny because -- he thought it was funny because it | |
| 22 was him. | |
| 23 Q. Tell me how it came to be that there was a | |
| 24 picture taken. | |
| 25 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 83 of 179 | |
| Page 83 | |
| 1 THE WITNESS: I just remember someone | |
| 2 suggesting a photo, and they told us to go get | |
| 3 on the couch. And so Andrew and Virginia sat | |
| 4 on the couch, and they put the puppet, the | |
| 5 puppet on her lap. | |
| 6 And so then I sat on Andrew's lap, and I | |
| 7 believe on my own volition, and they took the | |
| 8 puppet's hands and put it on Virginia's breast, | |
| 9 and so Andrew put his on mine. | |
| 10 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 11 Q. And this was done in a joking manner? | |
| 12 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 13 THE WITNESS: Yes. | |
| 14 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 15 Q. Do you recall a photo being taken of that | |
| 16 event? | |
| 17 A. Yes. | |
| 18 Q. You've never seen the photo? | |
| 19 A. No. | |
| 20 Q. You don't know whose camera it was? | |
| 21 A. No. | |
| 22 Q. Virginia was sitting on the couch next to | |
| 23 Andrew, not in a big leather armchair? | |
| 24 A. Maybe. I'm just trying to remember how I | |
| 25 remember it. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 84 of 179 | |
| Page 84 | |
| 1 Q. To the best of your recollection, you went | |
| 2 and sat on Andrew's lap, correct? | |
| 3 A. Yes. | |
| 4 Q. On his knee? | |
| 5 A. Yes. | |
| 6 Q. And Virginia was not sitting on his knee, | |
| 7 correct? | |
| 8 A. I don't recall. I just remember I was -- | |
| 9 she might have been on his other knee, like Santa. | |
| 10 I don't remember. | |
| 11 Q. After that, do you remember any other | |
| 12 pieces of that social engagement? | |
| 13 A. No. | |
| 14 Q. Do you know where you went? | |
| 15 A. From there, I went to bed. | |
| 16 Q. Were people drinking? | |
| 17 A. No. | |
| 18 Q. Did you hear Ghislaine Maxwell tell | |
| 19 Virginia to do anything while you were in that room? | |
| 20 A. No. | |
| 21 Q. Do you recall what happened the next day | |
| 22 in New York? | |
| 23 A. Bits. I mean, that was the day I went to | |
| 24 Victoria's Secret. I went and walked around by | |
| 25 myself and went to a souvenir shop, got a mug or | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 85 of 179 | |
| Page 85 | |
| 1 something. That's all I recall. | |
| 2 Q. Did you go anywhere with Virginia? | |
| 3 A. Oh, my gosh, yes. We went to Phantom of | |
| 4 the Opera. | |
| 5 Q. Who else went? | |
| 6 A. I think it was just she and I. I forgot | |
| 7 about that. Thank you for that memory. | |
| 8 Q. It's my job. | |
| 9 Anything else you remember about that day | |
| 10 in New York? | |
| 11 A. No. | |
| 12 Q. You said you had given a massage to | |
| 13 Jeffrey while you were there on that trip or was it | |
| 14 a subsequent trip? | |
| 15 A. That trip. | |
| 16 Q. And how did that come to be? | |
| 17 A. Either he or somebody asked me to go and | |
| 18 do it. Someone showed me to the room, but I don't | |
| 19 remember who it was. | |
| 20 Q. Can you describe that room? | |
| 21 A. Yes. It was high ceilings, dark. There | |
| 22 were, like, dark red walls or dark blue walls or | |
| 23 dark blue carpeting or something. It had a massage | |
| 24 table set up in the middle, and there was a large -- | |
| 25 I want to say like a 15-foot photo, either photo or | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 86 of 179 | |
| Page 86 | |
| 1 painting of a naked girl. | |
| 2 Q. Pornographic or artistic? | |
| 3 A. No. No, I wouldn't say pornographic. | |
| 4 Artistic. | |
| 5 Q. Artistic. | |
| 6 Was Ghislaine present during that massage? | |
| 7 A. No. | |
| 8 Q. Did something about that particular | |
| 9 massage session stand out to you? | |
| 10 A. Yes. That was when I was first asked to | |
| 11 squeeze and rub his nipples while he pleasured | |
| 12 himself. | |
| 13 Q. And did he say that's what he was going to | |
| 14 do? | |
| 15 A. He -- yes, he was just very blunt about | |
| 16 it. He said, Rub my nipples, I'm going to jerk off. | |
| 17 I was like, No, done. | |
| 18 Q. And you walked out? | |
| 19 A. I did. | |
| 20 Q. Were there any repercussions of you | |
| 21 walking out? | |
| 22 A. Amazingly, no. Knowing what I know now, | |
| 23 I'm surprised I was ever called back. But, no, I | |
| 24 just stood my ground and walked out. I'm not | |
| 25 comfortable with that. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 87 of 179 | |
| Page 87 | |
| 1 Q. Do you know personally whether anyone else | |
| 2 had said no to him? | |
| 3 A. No. | |
| 4 Q. Did anyone ever tell you that they had | |
| 5 been in a massage scenario and told him no? | |
| 6 A. No. | |
| 7 Q. Do you recall when in your trip the | |
| 8 massage occurred? | |
| 9 A. Well, it was not the day we landed. It | |
| 10 must have been that next day that we were there. | |
| 11 Q. Do you remember anything else about | |
| 12 Virginia from that trip other than the Prince Andrew | |
| 13 thing and Phantom of the Opera? | |
| 14 A. Well, we were getting ready to leave to go | |
| 15 to the airport, and we were waiting. She and I sat | |
| 16 on the steps in the foyer. I do remember just kind | |
| 17 of asking a few questions to try to understand her | |
| 18 role, because at that point now I knew what he | |
| 19 wanted from me in the massage. And -- but she did | |
| 20 not make it clear to me that she was participating | |
| 21 in that. So I was prodding gently to see if there | |
| 22 was anything happening that shouldn't have been, | |
| 23 because I was getting the impression that she was -- | |
| 24 she told me she was 17. | |
| 25 Q. She told you she was 17? | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 88 of 179 | |
| Page 88 | |
| 1 A. Uh-huh. | |
| 2 Q. How did that come up? | |
| 3 A. I asked her. | |
| 4 Q. Was anyone else present during this | |
| 5 conversation? | |
| 6 A. No. | |
| 7 Q. You mentioned in your earlier testimony | |
| 8 that she seemed orphan-like. | |
| 9 A. Yes. | |
| 10 Q. But you said that was something you had | |
| 11 said to Ms. McCawley, correct? | |
| 12 A. Correct. | |
| 13 Q. That was not said at the time? | |
| 14 A. Right. No. At the time I was getting an | |
| 15 impression that she did not have a family or she had | |
| 16 walked away from her family. And it seemed to me, | |
| 17 you know, they had just sort of adopted her, not as | |
| 18 a child, but they would take care of her. | |
| 19 Q. Did you observe anyone speaking to her as | |
| 20 a child, like make up your bed? | |
| 21 A. No. | |
| 22 Q. Did you observe whether she was using | |
| 23 drugs during that trip? | |
| 24 A. No. | |
| 25 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 89 of 179 | |
| Page 89 | |
| 1 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 2 Q. Did you ever observe her using drugs? | |
| 3 A. Not that I recall. | |
| 4 Q. Did she tell you that she was using Xanax? | |
| 5 A. No. | |
| 6 Q. Cocaine? | |
| 7 A. No. | |
| 8 Q. Ecstasy? | |
| 9 A. No. | |
| 10 Q. Heroin? | |
| 11 A. No. | |
| 12 Q. When was the second trip you took to New | |
| 13 York? | |
| 14 A. Later. Maybe 2005. I don't know. I | |
| 15 could look in the flight record. | |
| 16 Q. That's all right. | |
| 17 A. I don't remember exactly. | |
| 18 Q. That's all right. | |
| 19 You just recall it being several years or | |
| 20 so after? | |
| 21 A. Yes. Several years later. | |
| 22 Q. And just so I'm clear, can you just list | |
| 23 for me the places you recall traveling with Jeffrey? | |
| 24 A. Yes. That first trip was New York and the | |
| 25 Virgin Islands. And then not again until around | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 90 of 179 | |
| Page 90 | |
| 1 2005, we went to New Mexico and to New York City and | |
| 2 the Virgin Islands. | |
| 3 Q. So you were in New York twice and the | |
| 4 Virgin Islands twice and New Mexico once? | |
| 5 A. Yes. | |
| 6 Q. Anywhere else? | |
| 7 A. No. | |
| 8 Q. Were those primarily on the private plane? | |
| 9 A. Yes. | |
| 10 Q. You said you flew commercially once to get | |
| 11 back? | |
| 12 A. Yes. | |
| 13 Q. Did you recall any other commercial | |
| 14 flights? | |
| 15 A. He bought a couple of flights for me when | |
| 16 I wanted to go up to New York for personal reasons. | |
| 17 One time I went to New York commercially, and I was | |
| 18 there with friends, but I did go over to his house | |
| 19 while I was in the city. | |
| 20 Q. And that's not the trip to New York? | |
| 21 A. No. Separate. | |
| 22 Q. Would you characterize your relationship | |
| 23 with Jeffrey as friendly? | |
| 24 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 25 THE WITNESS: Yes. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 91 of 179 | |
| Page 91 | |
| 1 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 2 Q. If you asked him to buy a ticket to New | |
| 3 York, that might be something that he would do? | |
| 4 A. I never asked him to do anything for me, | |
| 5 but I told him I was interested in something, and he | |
| 6 always offered. | |
| 7 Q. The second trip to New York, anything | |
| 8 memorable about that? The one -- I'm sorry, the one | |
| 9 that you mentioned that was with Jeffrey. | |
| 10 A. I do recall Nadia being there. While I | |
| 11 massaged, she gave him a facial, but nothing sexual | |
| 12 happened. | |
| 13 Q. And do you recall if Ghislaine was part of | |
| 14 that trip or not? | |
| 15 A. I remember her being in New Mexico. | |
| 16 Q. What do you remember about her being in | |
| 17 New Mexico? | |
| 18 A. I remember she took me to -- when they | |
| 19 were building the ranch, they had a little | |
| 20 three-bedroom home, just like a prefab house. She | |
| 21 took me over there. So we went for a little walk. | |
| 22 I remember she had two new puppies named | |
| 23 Max and Mini, little Yorkies. And I want to say | |
| 24 that it was around Jeffrey's birthday when we were | |
| 25 there, but nothing -- there was no, like, | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 92 of 179 | |
| Page 92 | |
| 1 celebration or cake with candles. It was just | |
| 2 another day. | |
| 3 Q. You said that the Virgin Islands were a | |
| 4 part of that second trip, as well? | |
| 5 A. Yes. | |
| 6 Q. And do you remember Ghislaine being part | |
| 7 of the Virgin Islands the second time? | |
| 8 A. Yes. That's when she called -- went to | |
| 9 bed and kissed us all on the head and called us her | |
| 10 children. | |
| 11 Q. Who were the other participants in that | |
| 12 session? | |
| 13 A. That's who -- I don't recall who was | |
| 14 there. I want to say that Nadia was. | |
| 15 Q. But Virginia was not there? | |
| 16 A. Virginia was not there. | |
| 17 Q. Do you recall the point in time in which | |
| 18 Virginia went away? | |
| 19 A. Sort of. After the trip to New York, I | |
| 20 was given her phone number to call. And I remember | |
| 21 one time I tried to get ahold of her. Her boyfriend | |
| 22 answered. A boyfriend, I would assume, and he | |
| 23 sounded like he was high. And I couldn't find out | |
| 24 where she was. And then from there on, she was out | |
| 25 of the picture. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 93 of 179 | |
| Page 93 | |
| 1 Q. Do you recall how long after the New York | |
| 2 trip that occurred? | |
| 3 A. I would say it was probably within a month | |
| 4 or two. | |
| 5 Q. Did she tell you she was working | |
| 6 elsewhere? | |
| 7 A. No. | |
| 8 Q. Did you ask her? | |
| 9 A. No. | |
| 10 Q. Did she mention that she was a waitress? | |
| 11 A. No. | |
| 12 Q. And worked at Taco Bell? | |
| 13 A. Huh-huh. | |
| 14 Q. Did you speak to her boyfriend or a | |
| 15 boyfriend at any other time associated with her? | |
| 16 A. No. | |
| 17 Q. Did you meet her boyfriend? | |
| 18 A. No. | |
| 19 Q. Her fiancé? | |
| 20 A. No. | |
| 21 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 22 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 23 Q. When you were on the plane with Jeffrey | |
| 24 during these two trips, he was present on all of | |
| 25 those flights? | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 94 of 179 | |
| Page 94 | |
| 1 A. Yes. | |
| 2 Q. Did you observe any sexual behavior | |
| 3 happening on the plane? | |
| 4 A. No. He told me a story of something that | |
| 5 had happened one time. | |
| 6 Q. Did it involve Ghislaine Maxwell? | |
| 7 A. No. | |
| 8 Q. Did it involve Virginia Roberts? | |
| 9 A. No. | |
| 10 Q. And you didn't see anything? | |
| 11 A. No. | |
| 12 Q. You did give massages to Ghislaine | |
| 13 Maxwell, correct? | |
| 14 A. Yes. | |
| 15 Q. On how many occasions? | |
| 16 A. Maybe somewhere between five and 10. | |
| 17 Q. Was that over the course of the five | |
| 18 years? | |
| 19 A. Yes. | |
| 20 Q. Was there some point during that five | |
| 21 years where Ghislaine Maxwell was not around as | |
| 22 much? | |
| 23 A. Yes. | |
| 24 Q. Do you recall when that was? | |
| 25 A. In the middle. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 95 of 179 | |
| Page 95 | |
| 1 Q. Did you know why that might be? | |
| 2 A. No. | |
| 3 Q. Is that about the time that you started | |
| 4 seeing Nadia more frequently? | |
| 5 A. Yeah, I guess she was probably in the | |
| 6 picture more. Her and Sarah both had kind of been | |
| 7 around the most. | |
| 8 Q. Did you observe Nadia or Sarah appearing | |
| 9 to act like Jeffrey's girlfriend? | |
| 10 A. Nadia, not Sarah. | |
| 11 Q. What did you observe? | |
| 12 A. She was just very loving, kissing him. | |
| 13 Q. Did you know how old she was? | |
| 14 A. I didn't know. | |
| 15 Q. So you gave massages to Ghislaine five or | |
| 16 10 times. Was there anything unusual about those | |
| 17 massages? | |
| 18 A. No. | |
| 19 Q. You've been quoted in the press perhaps as | |
| 20 saying that she wasn't very picky? | |
| 21 A. About massage? | |
| 22 Q. About her massages. | |
| 23 A. Not like Jeffrey, I guess. I mean, saying | |
| 24 that meant that, you know, I would do whatever I | |
| 25 wanted to do in the massage; whereas, Jeffrey was, | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 96 of 179 | |
| Page 96 | |
| 1 like, Do my foot, do my leg. He would kind of | |
| 2 narrate what he wanted. She just wanted a massage. | |
| 3 So if that makes sense. | |
| 4 Q. She may have been naked under a towel -- | |
| 5 A. Definitely. | |
| 6 Q. -- in a regular massage fashion? | |
| 7 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 8 THE WITNESS: Yes. Actually, I do recall | |
| 9 an instance where I was massaging her and | |
| 10 Jeffrey came into the room and he did something | |
| 11 sort of sexual to her, whether it was fondling | |
| 12 her or slapping her butt or something, and she | |
| 13 brushed him off like she was embarrassed. | |
| 14 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 15 Q. So she never asked you to touch her in a | |
| 16 sexual manner, correct? | |
| 17 A. No. | |
| 18 Q. And she did not rub her breasts on you, | |
| 19 for example? | |
| 20 A. No. | |
| 21 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 22 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 23 Q. She did not demand that you perform oral | |
| 24 sex on her? | |
| 25 A. No. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 97 of 179 | |
| Page 97 | |
| 1 Q. Did she did not demand that you undress | |
| 2 during your massages? | |
| 3 A. No. | |
| 4 Q. There was nothing from her that was sexual | |
| 5 during the massages that you gave to her? | |
| 6 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 7 THE WITNESS: Correct. | |
| 8 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 9 Q. Do you recall when the last time you gave | |
| 10 her a massage was? | |
| 11 A. I don't recall. | |
| 12 Q. Do you recall meeting with her in about | |
| 13 2006 when she was in town for some helicopter | |
| 14 training? | |
| 15 A. I do recall that. | |
| 16 Q. Do you recall giving her some massages | |
| 17 during that period? | |
| 18 A. Yes. | |
| 19 Q. Do you remember going out to dinner with | |
| 20 her and to a movie? | |
| 21 A. I remember to a movie, and I don't | |
| 22 remember if we went to dinner. I remember her | |
| 23 cooking dinner. That was another way she impressed | |
| 24 me: She knew how to cook like a chef. She had done | |
| 25 some culinary training. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 98 of 179 | |
| Page 98 | |
| 1 Q. And you guys had a normal type | |
| 2 conversation? | |
| 3 A. Yes. It was very fun. | |
| 4 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 5 MS. MENNINGER: I would like to take about | |
| 6 a 5-, to 10-minute break, if that's okay. | |
| 7 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at | |
| 8 11:05. | |
| 9 (Thereupon, a recess was taken, after | |
| 10 which the following proceedings were held:) | |
| 11 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the beginning | |
| 12 of Disk 2. On the record at 11:25. | |
| 13 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 14 Q. Hi. I believe when we left off I was | |
| 15 asking you about massages that you gave to | |
| 16 Ghislaine. | |
| 17 Did Ghislaine pay you when she got a | |
| 18 massage from you? | |
| 19 A. Yes. | |
| 20 Q. Do you know how much she paid you? | |
| 21 A. I believe it was 200. It was the going | |
| 22 rate. | |
| 23 Q. The same as you were getting paid by | |
| 24 Jeffrey, correct? | |
| 25 A. Yes. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 99 of 179 | |
| Page 99 | |
| 1 Q. Ghislaine was not present when you were | |
| 2 giving massages to Jeffrey, correct? | |
| 3 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 4 THE WITNESS: Correct. | |
| 5 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 6 Q. At some point Jeffrey became more | |
| 7 aggressive with you, correct? | |
| 8 A. Correct. | |
| 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 10 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 11 Q. At what point was that? | |
| 12 A. In the last year. | |
| 13 Q. And what does that mean to you, "became | |
| 14 more aggressive"? | |
| 15 A. He was pressuring me to do more than I was | |
| 16 comfortable with doing. | |
| 17 Q. Is that what ultimately caused you to | |
| 18 leave working for Jeffrey? | |
| 19 A. What caused me to leave was when it was | |
| 20 made public what I was doing. | |
| 21 Q. What do you mean by that? | |
| 22 A. Well, after I had spoken with the police | |
| 23 report -- the police and there was a police report, | |
| 24 I did not realize that was public knowledge, | |
| 25 journalists would get a hold of. So at one point | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 100 of 179 | |
| Page 100 | |
| 1 the news channel 12 showed up at my door asking me | |
| 2 questions. | |
| 3 Q. When Jeffrey was pressuring you to do more | |
| 4 than you felt comfortable with, did you observe him | |
| 5 being more aggressive in general? Outside of the | |
| 6 massage context? | |
| 7 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 8 THE WITNESS: No. | |
| 9 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 10 Q. Do you know whether he was taking any type | |
| 11 of steroids? | |
| 12 A. No. | |
| 13 Q. Did you ever see him wearing a patch or | |
| 14 something like that? | |
| 15 A. I don't recall. | |
| 16 Q. Did you tell anyone that Jeffrey was | |
| 17 becoming more aggressive with you contemporaneous | |
| 18 with when it was happening? | |
| 19 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 20 THE WITNESS: No. | |
| 21 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 22 Q. When Jeffrey asked you to do other things | |
| 23 besides a normal massage, did he offer to pay you | |
| 24 additionally? | |
| 25 A. Yes. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 101 of 179 | |
| Page 101 | |
| 1 Q. How much? | |
| 2 A. One hundred dollars extra. | |
| 3 Can I clarify? | |
| 4 Q. Absolutely. | |
| 5 A. He didn't ever say he would pay me more, | |
| 6 but when the massage was more than just a massage | |
| 7 and it was sexual, then he would pay me more. | |
| 8 Q. It wasn't a discussion; it's just what | |
| 9 happened? | |
| 10 A. Correct. | |
| 11 Q. Thank you for clarifying. | |
| 12 The things that took place with you and | |
| 13 Jeffrey behind closed doors were when you were a | |
| 14 consenting adult, correct? | |
| 15 A. Yes. | |
| 16 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 17 THE WITNESS: Correct. | |
| 18 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 19 Q. And you did not have knowledge of what | |
| 20 took place with other women behind closed doors and | |
| 21 Jeffrey, correct? | |
| 22 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 23 THE WITNESS: Correct. | |
| 24 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 25 Q. Do you recall giving an interview to a | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 102 of 179 | |
| Page 102 | |
| 1 reporter from the Mail on Sunday? | |
| 2 A. Yes. | |
| 3 Q. You told that reporter, I believe, that | |
| 4 the police report painted a picture that it was a | |
| 5 big orgy all the time, but it wasn't? | |
| 6 A. What I saw, I did not see anything out in | |
| 7 the open sexually. Me, personally. | |
| 8 Q. Right. You did not see orgies happening | |
| 9 in the pool, for example? | |
| 10 A. No. | |
| 11 Q. You did not see people engaging in sexual | |
| 12 conduct out in the open areas of the home, correct? | |
| 13 A. Right. | |
| 14 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 15 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 16 Q. When you became aware of the allegations | |
| 17 against Jeffrey, those came as a surprise to you, | |
| 18 correct? | |
| 19 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 20 THE WITNESS: Correct. | |
| 21 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 22 Q. And the surprise was that it involved | |
| 23 underaged girls making that allegation, correct? | |
| 24 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 25 THE WITNESS: Correct. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 103 of 179 | |
| Page 103 | |
| 1 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 2 Q. You were asked some questions with | |
| 3 Ms. McCawley about nude photographs that were | |
| 4 present in the home? Homes? | |
| 5 A. Uh-huh. | |
| 6 Q. In Palm Beach, I believe you said there | |
| 7 were some in the room where the massage table was? | |
| 8 A. Yes. | |
| 9 Q. Can you tell me what you recall seeing? | |
| 10 A. It wasn't candid photos. They were all, | |
| 11 like, staged. | |
| 12 Q. Like a model? | |
| 13 A. Yes. And my -- I don't recall necessarily | |
| 14 knowing any of the people in those photos. I | |
| 15 remember at one point there was a photo of myself, | |
| 16 but... | |
| 17 Q. Were they fully frontally nude or were | |
| 18 they staged, like, with, you know, parts of bodies | |
| 19 showing? | |
| 20 A. I really only remember topless photos. I | |
| 21 don't remember full frontal photos. | |
| 22 Q. So exposing the breasts, but not exposing | |
| 23 the genitalia? | |
| 24 A. Not that I recall. And Ghislaine's | |
| 25 bathroom, I believe there was a photo of her | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 104 of 179 | |
| Page 104 | |
| 1 topless, or a painting. | |
| 2 Q. A painting? | |
| 3 A. Uh-huh. | |
| 4 Q. Did you see any nude or semi-clad photos | |
| 5 of young girls? | |
| 6 A. No. | |
| 7 Q. Preteens, for example? | |
| 8 A. No. | |
| 9 Q. Something you would consider child | |
| 10 pornography? | |
| 11 A. Never. | |
| 12 Q. Other than in the bathroom or the massage | |
| 13 room at the Palm Beach home, do you recall any other | |
| 14 place in the Palm Beach home where you saw any of | |
| 15 these topless photos of women? | |
| 16 A. I remember there being photos everywhere, | |
| 17 and the ones that stick out in my memory are the | |
| 18 ones -- there was a photo of Ghislaine with the | |
| 19 Pope. It would not surprise me if there were naked | |
| 20 photos around. I just didn't retain them in my | |
| 21 memory. | |
| 22 Q. So when you say there were photos | |
| 23 everywhere, you mean just photos in general? | |
| 24 A. Yes. They had a lot of photos around the | |
| 25 house. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 105 of 179 | |
| Page 105 | |
| 1 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 2 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 3 Q. And Ghislaine was not topless in a photo | |
| 4 with the Pope, just so I'm clear? | |
| 5 A. Correct. | |
| 6 Q. I just want to make sure we get that | |
| 7 record really clear. | |
| 8 So you recall there being photos | |
| 9 everywhere; you just remember a couple sticking out | |
| 10 in your brain as being topless? | |
| 11 A. Yes. | |
| 12 Q. And the walls on the staircase to the | |
| 13 upstairs were not just covered with nude | |
| 14 photographs, to your recollection? | |
| 15 A. To my recollection, I just -- I don't | |
| 16 remember. | |
| 17 Q. Did you observe what you would consider to | |
| 18 be child pornography on any computer in the home? | |
| 19 A. No. | |
| 20 Q. Did you observe anyone taking photographs | |
| 21 of young girls in the home? | |
| 22 A. No. | |
| 23 Q. The photograph of yourself that you saw, | |
| 24 was that something that you had posed for? | |
| 25 A. Not, like, professionally. But I was just | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 106 of 179 | |
| Page 106 | |
| 1 sitting, and I believe Jeffrey took the photo. I | |
| 2 was just sitting on a couch upstairs in the | |
| 3 bathroom. | |
| 4 Q. It wasn't taken by a hidden camera? | |
| 5 A. No. No. I was smiling in the picture. | |
| 6 Q. And, likewise, in the New York home, did | |
| 7 you see anything -- you described a large painting | |
| 8 or a photograph that was in the massage room? | |
| 9 A. Yes. | |
| 10 Q. Do you recall any other photos of | |
| 11 semi-clad or naked females? | |
| 12 A. I don't recall. | |
| 13 Q. Anything that you would consider to be | |
| 14 child pornography that you saw in the New York home? | |
| 15 A. No. | |
| 16 Q. And, likewise, in New Mexico? | |
| 17 A. I don't recall. | |
| 18 Q. Do you recall seeing any semi-clad photos | |
| 19 in New Mexico at all? | |
| 20 A. I do not recall. | |
| 21 Q. And the Virgin Islands? | |
| 22 A. Yes, in his bathroom, master bathroom. | |
| 23 Q. And what do you recall, if anything, about | |
| 24 that photo? | |
| 25 A. There was a photo of me in there. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 107 of 179 | |
| Page 107 | |
| 1 Q. And, again, was that something that you | |
| 2 were okay with? | |
| 3 A. Yes. | |
| 4 Q. Jeffrey Epstein never told you that he | |
| 5 knowingly had sexual contact with an underaged girl, | |
| 6 correct? | |
| 7 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 8 THE WITNESS: When I asked him if the | |
| 9 accusations were true, after I spoke with the | |
| 10 police, he said yes, but they lied about their | |
| 11 age. | |
| 12 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 13 Q. How did that conversation come about? | |
| 14 A. He asked me if the police had ever spoken | |
| 15 to me and I asked him, is it true. | |
| 16 Q. And you were talking about underaged | |
| 17 girls? | |
| 18 A. Correct. | |
| 19 Q. And he said that he had been lied to by | |
| 20 those girls? | |
| 21 A. Yes. | |
| 22 Q. Did he say anything else to you about it? | |
| 23 A. No. | |
| 24 Q. Did you ask him anything else about it? | |
| 25 A. No. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 108 of 179 | |
| Page 108 | |
| 1 Q. Did you attempt to have any conversation | |
| 2 like that with Ghislaine Maxwell? | |
| 3 A. No. | |
| 4 Q. I saw one press report that said you had | |
| 5 met Cate Blanchett or Leonardo DiCaprio? | |
| 6 A. I did not meet them, no. When I spoke | |
| 7 about them, it was when I was massaging him, and he | |
| 8 would get off -- he would be on the phone a lot at | |
| 9 that time, and one time he said, Oh, that was | |
| 10 Leonardo, or, That was Cate Blanchett, or Bruce | |
| 11 Willis. That kind of thing. | |
| 12 Q. So name-dropping? | |
| 13 A. Yes. | |
| 14 Q. So you had not met Cate Blanchett or | |
| 15 Leonardo DiCaprio? | |
| 16 A. I have not. | |
| 17 Q. Would you remember if you had? | |
| 18 A. I would hope I would remember. | |
| 19 Q. Did you meet Cameron Diaz? | |
| 20 A. No. | |
| 21 Q. Bill Clinton? | |
| 22 A. No. | |
| 23 Q. Did you see Bill Clinton on the island? | |
| 24 A. No. | |
| 25 Q. Did you see Bill Clinton in a helicopter | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 109 of 179 | |
| Page 109 | |
| 1 being flown by Ghislaine Maxwell? | |
| 2 A. No. | |
| 3 Q. Did Ghislaine Maxwell ever tell you that | |
| 4 she had flown Bill Clinton in her helicopter? | |
| 5 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 6 THE WITNESS: I don't recall her saying | |
| 7 that. | |
| 8 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 9 Q. Did you ever meet Senator ? | |
| 10 A. I don't know what he looks like. I might | |
| 11 have. | |
| 12 Q. If I told you he was from Maine, would | |
| 13 that stick out in your mind? | |
| 14 A. It should, but I do not recall meeting | |
| 15 him. | |
| 16 Q. Do you ever remember meeting Prime | |
| 17 Minister Ehud Barak from Israel? | |
| 18 A. No. | |
| 19 Q. Do you recall meeting any prime minister? | |
| 20 A. No. | |
| 21 Q. Any foreign president? | |
| 22 A. No. | |
| 23 Q. Nobel Prize winners? | |
| 24 A. Not to my knowledge. | |
| 25 Q. Naomi Campbell? | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 110 of 179 | |
| Page 110 | |
| 1 A. No. | |
| 2 Q. Al Gore? | |
| 3 A. No. | |
| 4 Q. Alan Dershowitz? | |
| 5 A. No. | |
| 6 Q. Les Wexner? | |
| 7 A. No. | |
| 8 Q. Tom Pritzker? | |
| 9 A. No. | |
| 10 Q. Kevin Spacey? I may have already asked | |
| 11 you, but have you met Kevin Spacey? | |
| 12 A. No. | |
| 13 Q. Did you meet Governor Bill Richardson of | |
| 14 New Mexico? | |
| 15 A. Hmm, I want to say that he was supposed to | |
| 16 come to dinner when we were in New Mexico. I don't | |
| 17 know if I met him. I believe that he and Ghislaine | |
| 18 had dinner separate from myself. | |
| 19 Q. Jean Luc Brunel? | |
| 20 A. Yes. | |
| 21 Q. You did meet him? | |
| 22 A. Yes. | |
| 23 Q. Tell me about that. | |
| 24 A. He was just in the house at one time in | |
| 25 Palm Beach. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 111 of 179 | |
| Page 111 | |
| 1 Q. Socializing? | |
| 2 A. Yes. | |
| 3 Q. Did you observe him to be with underaged | |
| 4 girls? | |
| 5 A. I don't recall. | |
| 6 Q. Did you give him a massage? | |
| 7 A. I don't think I did. I gave a lot of | |
| 8 guests massages. I don't remember any of their | |
| 9 names. So it could have been any of those people | |
| 10 besides the movie stars. | |
| 11 Q. You would know? | |
| 12 A. Exactly. | |
| 13 Q. And did you engage in sexual contact with | |
| 14 any of the guests for whom you gave a massage? | |
| 15 A. No. That's why he would call me for his | |
| 16 guests, because I was not comfortable with the | |
| 17 sexual contact. So he still wanted to employ me as | |
| 18 a massage therapist, but it was all normal. | |
| 19 Q. So this was an actual conversation that | |
| 20 you had? | |
| 21 A. No, but I -- I noticed. I noticed that I | |
| 22 wasn't -- I was massaging him less and less and | |
| 23 massaging his guests more. | |
| 24 Q. So there was a change in the frequency | |
| 25 with which you were giving Jeffrey Epstein massages? | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 112 of 179 | |
| Page 112 | |
| 1 A. Right. | |
| 2 Q. And an increase corresponding to massages | |
| 3 you were giving to guests, correct? | |
| 4 A. Yes. | |
| 5 Q. Did any of the guests for whom you gave a | |
| 6 massage mention that they expected something sexual? | |
| 7 A. No. | |
| 8 Q. Did they ask you to engage in sexual | |
| 9 contact and you refused? | |
| 10 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 11 THE WITNESS: No. | |
| 12 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 13 Q. Marvin Minsky? | |
| 14 A. I don't know that. | |
| 15 Q. George Lucas? | |
| 16 A. No. | |
| 17 Q. Donald Trump? | |
| 18 A. No. | |
| 19 Q. Did you ever massage Donald Trump? | |
| 20 A. No. | |
| 21 Q. Sorry, I have to ask, but did you ever | |
| 22 have sex with Alan Dershowitz in the back of a | |
| 23 limousine with Virginia and Jeffrey present? | |
| 24 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 25 THE WITNESS: Absolutely not. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 113 of 179 | |
| Page 113 | |
| 1 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 2 Q. Do you know who Alan Dershowitz is? | |
| 3 A. I do. | |
| 4 Q. You would remember -- | |
| 5 A. I would remember that. | |
| 6 Q. Did you ever see Virginia Roberts with any | |
| 7 of the people that I just asked you about? | |
| 8 A. No. | |
| 9 Q. Did Virginia ever talk to you about having | |
| 10 been with any of those people? | |
| 11 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 12 THE WITNESS: No. | |
| 13 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 14 Q. Did she tell you that she had met any of | |
| 15 those people? | |
| 16 A. No. | |
| 17 Q. I believe you saw in that police report a | |
| 18 reference to a friend of Jeffrey named Glenn and his | |
| 19 wife? | |
| 20 A. Uh-huh. | |
| 21 Q. Do you remember them? | |
| 22 A. Vaguely. | |
| 23 Q. Tell me what you remember. | |
| 24 A. I remember they had an apartment in -- on | |
| 25 Breakers Row. I went up there and massaged. It may | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 114 of 179 | |
| Page 114 | |
| 1 have been more than once, but I only really remember | |
| 2 one time. But there was nothing sexual. | |
| 3 Q. Neither with the wife, nor with Glenn? | |
| 4 A. Right. | |
| 5 Q. Do you remember the apartment? | |
| 6 A. I only remember that I had to carry my | |
| 7 massage table up some stairs. | |
| 8 Q. So you actually gave the massage on a | |
| 9 massage table? | |
| 10 A. Yes. | |
| 11 Q. Does that help you place it in time as to | |
| 12 when that might have occurred? In other words -- | |
| 13 A. Well -- | |
| 14 Q. -- did you get your massage license at | |
| 15 some point and a massage table? | |
| 16 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 17 THE WITNESS: Yes. He bought me my | |
| 18 massage table around the time that I went to | |
| 19 massage school. So it could have been any time | |
| 20 after. If I thought really hard, I could | |
| 21 remember when I went to school. But it -- I | |
| 22 want to say it's around 2003. | |
| 23 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 24 Q. Nothing sexual happened with Glenn? | |
| 25 A. No. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 115 of 179 | |
| Page 115 | |
| 1 Q. Did Glenn ask you to give him a massage on | |
| 2 the floor of the home? | |
| 3 A. I don't recall. | |
| 4 Q. Did you ever discuss Glenn with Virginia? | |
| 5 A. Not to my recollection. | |
| 6 Q. Did you ever go to Virginia's home? | |
| 7 A. No. | |
| 8 Q. Do you know where she lived? | |
| 9 A. No. | |
| 10 Q. Did she talk about it? | |
| 11 A. Not that I remember. | |
| 12 Q. Did you see anything in your interactions | |
| 13 with Virginia that led you to believe that she was a | |
| 14 sex slave? | |
| 15 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 16 THE WITNESS: No. | |
| 17 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 18 Q. Did you see anyone forcing her to remain | |
| 19 in the home? | |
| 20 A. No. | |
| 21 Q. Did you see her look traumatized at some | |
| 22 point? | |
| 23 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 24 THE WITNESS: No. | |
| 25 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 116 of 179 | |
| Page 116 | |
| 1 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 2 Q. Did you see anything that led you to | |
| 3 believe Virginia Roberts had been trafficked, | |
| 4 sexually trafficked to third parties? | |
| 5 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 6 THE WITNESS: No. | |
| 7 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 8 Q. Did Virginia ever tell you that she had | |
| 9 been trafficked? | |
| 10 A. No. | |
| 11 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 12 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 13 Q. Did you hear anyone direct Virginia | |
| 14 Roberts to go have sex with someone? | |
| 15 A. No. | |
| 16 Q. Did Jeffrey ever ask you to go have sex | |
| 17 with another person? | |
| 18 A. No. | |
| 19 Q. Did Ghislaine Maxwell ever ask you to go | |
| 20 have sex with another person? | |
| 21 A. No. | |
| 22 Q. Did Ghislaine Maxwell ever ask you to give | |
| 23 a massage to someone else? | |
| 24 A. No. | |
| 25 Q. Did Ghislaine Maxwell ever ask you to | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 117 of 179 | |
| Page 117 | |
| 1 dress up in any outfit? | |
| 2 A. No. | |
| 3 Q. Did she ever buy you an outfit for you to | |
| 4 wear in terms of a sexual profile? | |
| 5 A. No. | |
| 6 Q. Did she tell you what kind of clothes you | |
| 7 should buy? | |
| 8 A. No. | |
| 9 Q. Did she direct you to go get Brazilian | |
| 10 bikini waxes? | |
| 11 A. No. | |
| 12 Q. Did she direct you to go get your teeth | |
| 13 whitened? | |
| 14 A. No. | |
| 15 MS. MENNINGER: I would like to mark as an | |
| 16 exhibit -- I have no recollection what number | |
| 17 we're on. Thank you. Exhibit 5. | |
| 18 (The referred-to document was marked by | |
| 19 the court reporter for Identification as | |
| 20 Sjoberg Exhibit 5.) | |
| 21 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 22 Q. Have you seen this article before? | |
| 23 A. It has followed me everywhere. | |
| 24 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm sorry. Can I just ask | |
| 25 you to put the Bates numbers on the record? | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 118 of 179 | |
| Page 118 | |
| 1 MS. MENNINGER: Sure. It's Bates marked | |
| 2 Giuffre 1131 through 1138. | |
| 3 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 4 Q. What do you mean it has followed you | |
| 5 everywhere? | |
| 6 A. Well, if you Google me, it comes up. | |
| 7 Q. I wanted to just ask you a couple of | |
| 8 questions. | |
| 9 On the third page, towards the bottom, | |
| 10 there is a photograph that begins "we had a picture | |
| 11 taken," and just to orient you, this is in the | |
| 12 discussion around the Prince Andrew meeting you had. | |
| 13 Did you meet Prince Andrew any other time | |
| 14 besides the time you already described in your | |
| 15 testimony? | |
| 16 A. No. | |
| 17 Q. If you want to take a look at that | |
| 18 paragraph before I ask you questions. | |
| 19 A. Okay. | |
| 20 Q. In that paragraph, it describes that | |
| 21 Andrew -- Virginia sat on the chair, and then Andrew | |
| 22 sat on another chair, and you sat on his lap. | |
| 23 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 24 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 25 Q. Is that what it says? | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 119 of 179 | |
| Page 119 | |
| 1 A. That's what it says. | |
| 2 Q. Do you recall telling that to the | |
| 3 reporter? | |
| 4 A. Yes. | |
| 5 Q. And this was back in 2007 or so? | |
| 6 A. Yes. | |
| 7 Q. As you sit here today, does that make | |
| 8 it -- does that refresh your recollection that | |
| 9 Virginia was sitting in one chair and you were | |
| 10 sitting on another, with Andrew? | |
| 11 A. Yeah. If I said that, then I remember it | |
| 12 that way. I'm just trying to remember. Whether we | |
| 13 were on a couch or a chair, I just remember the | |
| 14 boobs part, the hand on the boobs. | |
| 15 Q. I understand that part stands out. | |
| 16 And I also completely understand if you | |
| 17 don't remember things that happened a long time ago. | |
| 18 A. Right. | |
| 19 Q. I'm just wondering if, having looked at | |
| 20 this news article, it refreshes your memory that | |
| 21 Virginia was sitting in a different place? | |
| 22 A. In a different chair? | |
| 23 Q. Does it? | |
| 24 A. It does say that. Does it refresh my | |
| 25 memory? | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 120 of 179 | |
| Page 120 | |
| 1 Q. Okay. That's fine. | |
| 2 A. Yeah, sure. | |
| 3 Q. If it doesn't, it doesn't. I'm just | |
| 4 asking. | |
| 5 Did Virginia say anything to you about | |
| 6 having met Prince Andrew before this time in New | |
| 7 York? | |
| 8 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 9 THE WITNESS: She did not say. | |
| 10 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 11 Q. Did Prince Andrew say or do anything that | |
| 12 led you to believe that he had met Virginia prior to | |
| 13 that time? | |
| 14 A. I don't recall. | |
| 15 Q. Did you ever see Al Gore on the island? | |
| 16 A. No. | |
| 17 Q. Did you see his wife, Tipper Gore, on the | |
| 18 island? | |
| 19 A. No. | |
| 20 Q. What is your understanding of what the | |
| 21 lawsuit we are here today is about? | |
| 22 A. I understand that Ghislaine is calling | |
| 23 Virginia a liar, and so Ghislaine is suing Virginia. | |
| 24 I'm sorry. Strike that. Reverse it. | |
| 25 Right, Virginia is suing Ghislaine for | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 121 of 179 | |
| Page 121 | |
| 1 defamation. | |
| 2 Q. And do you know what Virginia said about | |
| 3 Ghislaine? | |
| 4 A. That Ghislaine recruited her. | |
| 5 Q. Do you know anything else that Virginia | |
| 6 said about Ghislaine? | |
| 7 A. Only what was spoken to me. | |
| 8 Q. And I should clarify. Don't tell me | |
| 9 anything your lawyer has conveyed to you. | |
| 10 A. Exactly. That's all I know. I've met | |
| 11 with Virginia once last summer. | |
| 12 Q. Okay. Tell me about that. | |
| 13 A. She -- there was a moderator between us, | |
| 14 like an investigator. And she was in Palm Beach. | |
| 15 And it was more about Jeffrey. It was less about | |
| 16 Ghislaine. I don't remember specifically about | |
| 17 Ghislaine at all. | |
| 18 Q. So you met with Virginia and an | |
| 19 investigator at the same time? | |
| 20 A. Yes. | |
| 21 Q. And they were what, talking to you about | |
| 22 Jeffrey in what context? | |
| 23 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 24 THE WITNESS: Basically, they were trying | |
| 25 to find people that would help her get her | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 122 of 179 | |
| Page 122 | |
| 1 story out, because this is when Dershowitz -- | |
| 2 Dershowitz was saying nothing was happening and | |
| 3 he was calling her a liar. And she was just | |
| 4 trying to find people to back up her story. | |
| 5 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 6 Q. And what did you understand her story to | |
| 7 be? Did she tell you? | |
| 8 A. That she was recruited to give massages, | |
| 9 sexual massages, and have sex with people such as | |
| 10 Dershowitz and Andrew. But I knew none of that at | |
| 11 the time. | |
| 12 Q. Right. Did you tell them anything -- did | |
| 13 you tell them during that meeting that you knew of | |
| 14 anything about her being recruited to give sex to | |
| 15 either Jeffrey or to other people? | |
| 16 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 17 THE WITNESS: Can you rephrase? | |
| 18 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 19 Q. Yes. That wasn't a very good question. | |
| 20 What did you say during this meeting with | |
| 21 Virginia and her investigator? | |
| 22 A. Basically that I believed her, even though | |
| 23 I -- she never spoke to me specifically about what | |
| 24 was going on; that once I learned everything that | |
| 25 happened based on reading the police report, I | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 123 of 179 | |
| Page 123 | |
| 1 believed her side of the story. | |
| 2 Q. And did she tell you what her side of the | |
| 3 story was? | |
| 4 A. You know, just that she wasn't a liar; | |
| 5 that, you know, she was there to have sex with men | |
| 6 that Jeffrey wanted her to sleep with. | |
| 7 Q. Did she tell you in that meeting who she | |
| 8 had sex with? | |
| 9 A. No. | |
| 10 Q. Did she name any of the famous people? | |
| 11 A. Only Dershowitz came up. | |
| 12 Q. Did you two talk about the incident in New | |
| 13 York with the puppet? | |
| 14 A. I don't recall. | |
| 15 Q. And you formed this opinion about whether | |
| 16 she was a liar based on things that you've read in | |
| 17 the police report? | |
| 18 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 19 THE WITNESS: I formed my opinion based on | |
| 20 my experience in the house. | |
| 21 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 22 Q. Okay. And what experience in the house | |
| 23 helped you form your opinion that what Virginia is | |
| 24 saying is true? | |
| 25 A. You know, Jeffrey being open with me about | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 124 of 179 | |
| Page 124 | |
| 1 what other girls did for him and that I was not one | |
| 2 of those girls. | |
| 3 He was always trying to recruit me almost | |
| 4 in a way that I could be one of them and travel with | |
| 5 him and live the life of luxury if I only -- if only | |
| 6 I did this. | |
| 7 So after five years of learning what was | |
| 8 happening, I can look back knowing -- I only knew | |
| 9 Virginia for a very short time. Looking back, I can | |
| 10 make assumptions about what was required of her. | |
| 11 Q. Did she tell you how old she was when she | |
| 12 said she started working with Jeffrey? | |
| 13 A. She didn't. | |
| 14 Q. Did she tell how long she had worked with | |
| 15 Jeffrey? | |
| 16 A. No. | |
| 17 Q. Have you read all the things that have | |
| 18 been attributed to her in the press? | |
| 19 A. Many of them. | |
| 20 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 21 THE WITNESS: I don't know that I've read | |
| 22 all of them, but I have read some. | |
| 23 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 24 Q. In this meeting with Virginia and the | |
| 25 investigator, you said Ghislaine Maxwell did not | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 125 of 179 | |
| Page 125 | |
| 1 come up? | |
| 2 A. Not that -- not that I recall. | |
| 3 Q. Do you know the name of the investigator? | |
| 4 A. Valerie Rivera. | |
| 5 Q. Have you read the statement that Ghislaine | |
| 6 Maxwell issued to the press? | |
| 7 A. No. | |
| 8 Q. Do you know what it says? | |
| 9 A. No. | |
| 10 Q. You said you have read some of Virginia's | |
| 11 statements to the press but not all of them? | |
| 12 A. I don't know how many there are. I know I | |
| 13 read something. I don't know if I read all of them. | |
| 14 Q. Have you read her book manuscript? | |
| 15 A. No. | |
| 16 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 17 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 18 Q. Did she tell you that she was writing a | |
| 19 book? | |
| 20 A. No. | |
| 21 Q. Did she tell you she was trying to get a | |
| 22 book deal? | |
| 23 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 24 THE WITNESS: No. | |
| 25 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 126 of 179 | |
| Page 126 | |
| 1 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 2 Q. Did she tell you that he hired a ghost | |
| 3 rider? | |
| 4 A. No. | |
| 5 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 6 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 7 Q. Did she tell you that she hired a literary | |
| 8 agent? | |
| 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 10 THE WITNESS: No. | |
| 11 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 12 Q. Did you speak with John Connelly? | |
| 13 A. Yes. | |
| 14 Q. When did you speak with John Connelly? | |
| 15 A. He was first calling me around the time | |
| 16 that everything was coming out in 2006. And I | |
| 17 didn't say a lot to him, but I did say a few things. | |
| 18 And I asked him not to use my name, and he used my | |
| 19 name. And then he quoted me as saying things I | |
| 20 never said. | |
| 21 Q. Do you know to whom he quoted things that | |
| 22 you had never said? | |
| 23 A. I don't remember the news outlet, no. | |
| 24 Q. So it was published somewhere? | |
| 25 A. Somewhere on the Internet. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 127 of 179 | |
| Page 127 | |
| 1 Q. Something that you said to John Connelly | |
| 2 got twisted? | |
| 3 A. Yes. He put words in my mouth. | |
| 4 Q. And it was misreported and published? | |
| 5 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 6 THE WITNESS: Correct. | |
| 7 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 8 Q. Have you spoken to him lately? | |
| 9 A. No. He called me again at the beginning | |
| 10 of last year, around New Year's last year, but I did | |
| 11 not return his call. | |
| 12 Q. Do you recall what it is he attributed to | |
| 13 you falsely? | |
| 14 A. It was mostly about how I felt about | |
| 15 certain things. I don't remember specifically what | |
| 16 he said, but he was giving an opinion for me that I | |
| 17 never spoke to him about. | |
| 18 Q. And that you did not hold? | |
| 19 A. Well, I can't remember what it was. Yeah. | |
| 20 Q. Okay. Do you know whether Virginia has | |
| 21 lied about any of her experience? | |
| 22 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 23 THE WITNESS: I don't know that she has | |
| 24 lied. | |
| 25 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 128 of 179 | |
| Page 128 | |
| 1 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 2 Q. Do you know that she has told the truth? | |
| 3 A. As far as I know, she has. | |
| 4 Q. Do you know whether the press has | |
| 5 accurately reported everything that Virginia has | |
| 6 said? | |
| 7 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 8 THE WITNESS: I don't know. | |
| 9 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 10 Q. Other than John Connelly and the police, | |
| 11 who else have you spoken to about your experience? | |
| 12 A. Well, the woman from the Daily Mail. Her | |
| 13 name is Wendy Leigh. | |
| 14 Q. And that's Defendant's Exhibit 5 -- not | |
| 15 Defendant's Exhibit, just Exhibit 5, correct? | |
| 16 A. Correct. | |
| 17 Q. Did Wendy Leigh accurately report your | |
| 18 statements? | |
| 19 A. She did a little bit of embellishment, as | |
| 20 well, but the facts are all true. | |
| 21 Q. And what parts do you believe are | |
| 22 embellished? | |
| 23 A. Near the end, when she was doing a | |
| 24 summary, when she wrote, "Sure, I had a good time, | |
| 25 but I also think it damaged me a bit." I don't | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 129 of 179 | |
| Page 129 | |
| 1 recall saying that. | |
| 2 And there's another part in here where she | |
| 3 said I said that I made a deal with the devil, which | |
| 4 I never would have said that. The words she used. | |
| 5 Q. On page 2 of 8, it's about -- it's about | |
| 6 even with the hem of your skirt. | |
| 7 A. "I made a pack with the devil in exchange | |
| 8 for excitement and glamour. I was only a college | |
| 9 student. I was hard-up and foolish." | |
| 10 That I never said, any of that. I was a | |
| 11 college student, that's true. "Hard-up and | |
| 12 foolish," I would have never called myself foolish. | |
| 13 Q. Were you paid any money for this | |
| 14 interview? | |
| 15 A. I was paid $1,500. | |
| 16 Q. And how long did the interview last? | |
| 17 A. A couple of hours. | |
| 18 Q. Where did it take place? | |
| 19 A. At Cafe Boulud in the Brazilian Court | |
| 20 Hotel in Palm Beach. | |
| 21 Q. Who else besides Wendy Leigh and John | |
| 22 Connelly and the police -- | |
| 23 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 24 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 25 Q. -- and Virginia and the investigator -- | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 130 of 179 | |
| Page 130 | |
| 1 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 2 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 3 Q. -- did you talk to about your experience? | |
| 4 A. Family and friends. | |
| 5 Q. Did you speak to any other reporters? | |
| 6 A. I had other reporters calling me. I | |
| 7 avoided almost all of the calls. I had someone | |
| 8 coming at me, stalking me. I do not know who he | |
| 9 was. He offered me $25,000 to give a story, and I | |
| 10 turned him down. | |
| 11 Q. Who? | |
| 12 A. He showed up in my work multiple times. | |
| 13 Q. There were other stories printed in the | |
| 14 Daily Mail, not by Wendy Leigh, later. | |
| 15 Did you see any of those stories? I'm | |
| 16 sorry. Let me be a little clearer. That attributed | |
| 17 comments to you. | |
| 18 A. I don't recall specifically, but I feel | |
| 19 like I stayed on top of it, and I wasn't surprised | |
| 20 when my name was brought up. | |
| 21 Q. Do you recall giving another interview? | |
| 22 A. No, never. | |
| 23 Q. Do you recall anything that was printed | |
| 24 other than the John Connelly thing that you believe | |
| 25 to be inaccurate? | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 131 of 179 | |
| Page 131 | |
| 1 A. No. | |
| 2 Q. Was there anybody else present when you | |
| 3 were interviewing with Wendy Leigh? | |
| 4 A. No. | |
| 5 Q. Was she recording it on a recorder? | |
| 6 A. Yes. | |
| 7 Q. Have you ever heard that recording? | |
| 8 A. No. | |
| 9 Q. Do you know whether the police were | |
| 10 recording their interview with you? | |
| 11 A. Yes. | |
| 12 Q. Have you ever heard that recording? | |
| 13 A. No. | |
| 14 Q. Did you ever receive notification that you | |
| 15 were named as a victim in any of Jeffrey Epstein's | |
| 16 criminal cases? | |
| 17 A. No. | |
| 18 Q. Other than the $1,500 from Wendy Leigh, | |
| 19 did you receive any other money for making any | |
| 20 statements? | |
| 21 A. No. | |
| 22 Q. Did you give an interview to Virginia's | |
| 23 attorneys? | |
| 24 A. Yes. Right? | |
| 25 MS. McCAWLEY: You can say yes. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 132 of 179 | |
| Page 132 | |
| 1 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 2 Q. When was that? | |
| 3 A. Two weeks ago, roughly. | |
| 4 Q. And who was present during that meeting? | |
| 5 A. My lawyer and several others. | |
| 6 Q. Several other what? | |
| 7 A. Lawyers. I don't know. I don't know who | |
| 8 they all are. | |
| 9 Q. So Ms. McCawley you recall being there? | |
| 10 A. Yes. | |
| 11 Q. Ms. Schultz you recall being there? | |
| 12 A. No. I didn't learn it, no. You weren't | |
| 13 there. | |
| 14 Q. Brad Edwards? | |
| 15 A. Yes. | |
| 16 Q. Paul Cassell? | |
| 17 A. Maybe. I don't remember. | |
| 18 Q. And was that interview recorded? | |
| 19 A. I don't know. It may have been. I don't | |
| 20 remember. | |
| 21 Q. Did anyone ask your permission to record | |
| 22 it? | |
| 23 A. Maybe. I don't recall. | |
| 24 Q. Were you shown any documents during that | |
| 25 meeting? | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 133 of 179 | |
| Page 133 | |
| 1 A. Flight logs. | |
| 2 Q. Any other documents? | |
| 3 A. No. | |
| 4 Q. What did Ms. McCawley or Mr. Edwards or | |
| 5 any of the other lawyers say to you about Ghislaine | |
| 6 Maxwell? | |
| 7 A. They just asked impressions. They never | |
| 8 said anything about her. | |
| 9 Q. Were you shown a copy of any report that | |
| 10 came out of that interview? | |
| 11 A. Which interview? | |
| 12 Q. The one with the -- Virginia's attorneys. | |
| 13 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 14 THE WITNESS: No. | |
| 15 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 16 Q. You testified earlier about an incident | |
| 17 with a camera that Ghislaine Maxwell had given you. | |
| 18 I want to ask you some questions about that. | |
| 19 A. Sure. | |
| 20 Q. Do you know when that was? | |
| 21 A. That was in 2002. | |
| 22 Q. And why does that date stick out? | |
| 23 A. Because I was living -- where I was living | |
| 24 specifically and where I had the phone call. | |
| 25 Q. Tell me what you remember about the | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 134 of 179 | |
| Page 134 | |
| 1 conversation. | |
| 2 A. I had been over to her house prior | |
| 3 massaging Jeffrey. And I got a phone call from her, | |
| 4 and she told me she had a camera for me for my | |
| 5 photography class, but yet, she couldn't give it to | |
| 6 me yet because during the massage I didn't finish my | |
| 7 job and she had to finish it for me. | |
| 8 Q. Did she say what she meant? | |
| 9 A. No, but I knew. | |
| 10 Q. Was there any other time that you had | |
| 11 discussed with her finishing your job? | |
| 12 A. Not that I recall. | |
| 13 Q. Any other time you just recall discussing | |
| 14 with her anything about your sexual contact with | |
| 15 Jeffrey? | |
| 16 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 17 THE WITNESS: No. | |
| 18 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 19 Q. Did she give you the camera? | |
| 20 A. I did get the camera. | |
| 21 Q. Okay. When did she give you the camera? | |
| 22 A. I guess the next time I went to the house. | |
| 23 Q. What was said at that time? | |
| 24 A. I honestly don't know that she handed it | |
| 25 to me. I remember it being there for me. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 135 of 179 | |
| Page 135 | |
| 1 Q. What kind of camera was it? | |
| 2 A. A Canon Rebel 35-millimeter. | |
| 3 Q. Do you still have it? | |
| 4 A. I do not. No one uses 35-millimeter | |
| 5 anymore. | |
| 6 Q. What's that? | |
| 7 A. No one uses 35-millimeter. | |
| 8 Q. Back to the cell phone conversation. | |
| 9 A. Right. | |
| 10 Q. Was it your birthday? | |
| 11 A. It was just I was taking a photography | |
| 12 class and I needed a camera. | |
| 13 Q. Do you know her to be a photographer? | |
| 14 A. Not a professional, but I knew she was | |
| 15 interested in photography. | |
| 16 Q. Did you see her with cameras? | |
| 17 A. Yes. | |
| 18 Q. Did you see her taking photographs of nude | |
| 19 people? | |
| 20 A. No. | |
| 21 Q. Did she ever ask you to take a photograph | |
| 22 of you semi-clad or naked? | |
| 23 A. Did she ever ask to take a photo of me? | |
| 24 Q. Semi-clad or naked. | |
| 25 A. No. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 136 of 179 | |
| Page 136 | |
| 1 Q. Did she ever ask to take a photograph of | |
| 2 you at any point? | |
| 3 A. I don't remember. | |
| 4 Q. Did you tell anyone else about this | |
| 5 conversation: You couldn't give it to me now | |
| 6 because I hadn't finished my job? | |
| 7 A. No. | |
| 8 MS. MENNINGER: I think I'm going to | |
| 9 reserve the rest of my time for recross, so you | |
| 10 all, I guess, can take a break. | |
| 11 MR. LOUIS: Can I have one second? | |
| 12 MS. MENNINGER: Sure. | |
| 13 MS. McCAWLEY: We can go off the record? | |
| 14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at | |
| 15 12:09. | |
| 16 (Thereupon, a recess was taken, after | |
| 17 which the following proceedings were held:) | |
| 18 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: On the record at 12:10. | |
| 19 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 20 Q. Sorry, just a couple of more questions. | |
| 21 It sounds like maybe there was an | |
| 22 additional telephone conference that one might | |
| 23 construe as a meeting with attorneys; is that true? | |
| 24 A. Correct. | |
| 25 Q. All right. Tell me about that. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 137 of 179 | |
| Page 137 | |
| 1 A. They just wanted to -- we had met prior, | |
| 2 and they just wanted to clarify a few things and ask | |
| 3 a few more questions. | |
| 4 Q. Okay. What did they clarify? | |
| 5 A. Any other specific times that I had, you | |
| 6 know, seen Ghislaine naked, or if I had, you know, | |
| 7 had any sexual massages with her, any type of | |
| 8 questions like that. | |
| 9 Q. Okay. And what did you tell them about | |
| 10 having any sexual massages with Ghislaine? | |
| 11 A. That I was not asked to do -- to perform | |
| 12 anything with her. | |
| 13 Q. And you did not? | |
| 14 A. Correct. | |
| 15 Q. And what did you tell them about specific | |
| 16 times of seeing Ghislaine Maxwell naked? | |
| 17 A. Only when she would swim or get a massage. | |
| 18 Q. And that's swimming -- you mentioned | |
| 19 earlier skinny-dipping? | |
| 20 A. Correct. | |
| 21 Q. And I think you said perhaps some other | |
| 22 time that you saw her jump off a dock and swim -- | |
| 23 A. Correct, yes. | |
| 24 Q. -- in the nude? | |
| 25 A. Yes. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 138 of 179 | |
| Page 138 | |
| 1 Q. And then you saw her under a towel during | |
| 2 massages? | |
| 3 A. Yes. | |
| 4 Q. Is there any other time that you recall | |
| 5 seeing Ghislaine Maxwell naked? | |
| 6 A. No. | |
| 7 Q. Is there anything else about that | |
| 8 telephone conference with the attorneys to clarify | |
| 9 that you recall, the topics? | |
| 10 A. No. | |
| 11 MS. MENNINGER: All right. Thank you. I | |
| 12 think we can go off the record now. | |
| 13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at | |
| 14 12:12. | |
| 15 (Thereupon, a lunch recess was taken, | |
| 16 after which the following proceedings were | |
| 17 held:) | |
| 18 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: On the record at 12:54. | |
| 19 F U R T H E R E X A M I N A T I O N | |
| 20 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 21 Q. Johanna, I'm going to ask you a couple of | |
| 22 more just follow-up questions. | |
| 23 When Laura was talking to you, she | |
| 24 mentioned some names of famous people that you -- | |
| 25 most of which you had not met. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 139 of 179 | |
| Page 139 | |
| 1 Did you ever meet anybody famous when you | |
| 2 were with Jeffrey? | |
| 3 A. I met Michael Jackson. | |
| 4 Q. Oh, really? And where was that? | |
| 5 A. At his house in Palm Beach. At Jeffrey's | |
| 6 house in Palm Beach. | |
| 7 Q. Did you massage him? | |
| 8 A. I did not. | |
| 9 Q. Anybody else you remember? I know you | |
| 10 mentioned David Copperfield earlier. Anybody else? | |
| 11 A. No, I'd remember that. | |
| 12 Q. I believe you also testified that you had | |
| 13 never had a massage before you started working with | |
| 14 Jeffrey and Ghislaine; is that correct? | |
| 15 A. I don't recall having a massage before | |
| 16 then. | |
| 17 Q. And I think you said on the first day, | |
| 18 when you were doing the clerical work, Maxwell | |
| 19 mentioned that you might be able to get a massage; | |
| 20 is that correct? | |
| 21 A. Yes. | |
| 22 Q. Did you tell Maxwell that you had never | |
| 23 had a massage at that point? | |
| 24 A. I don't remember. | |
| 25 Q. Did you remember telling Jeffrey that you | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 140 of 179 | |
| Page 140 | |
| 1 had never had a massage? | |
| 2 A. No. | |
| 3 Q. And then you were talking about the | |
| 4 massage -- the first massage when you were being in | |
| 5 the room with Jeffrey and Emmy? | |
| 6 A. Uh-huh. | |
| 7 Q. And I know you said Emmy was naked or took | |
| 8 off her clothes at some point? | |
| 9 A. Uh-huh. | |
| 10 Q. And then laid on the table. | |
| 11 And then you changed positions with her; | |
| 12 is that what happened? | |
| 13 A. Yes. I don't remember the sequence, but | |
| 14 at one point she was, I was, and Jeffrey was. | |
| 15 Q. And in the -- in the time when there was | |
| 16 changeover, for example, when you're on the table | |
| 17 and Emmy is not on the table and Jeffrey is not on | |
| 18 the table, did Emmy at that point remain naked or | |
| 19 did she actually stop and get dressed and continue | |
| 20 massaging? | |
| 21 A. I don't recall her getting dressed, but I | |
| 22 would probably remember if she massaged naked. | |
| 23 Q. Do you know if Jeffrey remained naked | |
| 24 during that massage? | |
| 25 A. He was never, like, naked standing up. He | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 141 of 179 | |
| Page 141 | |
| 1 always covered himself with a towel. | |
| 2 Q. I believe I asked this, but I just want to | |
| 3 clarify to make sure that I did: Did Maxwell ever | |
| 4 ask you to bring other girls over to -- for Jeffrey? | |
| 5 A. Yes. | |
| 6 Q. Yes? | |
| 7 A. Yes. | |
| 8 Q. And what did you -- did you do anything in | |
| 9 response to that? | |
| 10 A. I did bring one girl named -- | |
| 11 no. -- it was some girl named | |
| 12 that I had worked with at a restaurant. And I | |
| 13 recall Ghislaine giving me money to bring her over; | |
| 14 however, they never called her to come. | |
| 15 Q. And then I believe you mentioned that one | |
| 16 of your physical fitness instructors, you brought a | |
| 17 physical fitness instructor; was that correct? | |
| 18 A. Correct. | |
| 19 Q. And what did she do? | |
| 20 A. She gave him a -- like a training session, | |
| 21 twice. | |
| 22 Q. Twice. | |
| 23 Did anything sexual in nature happen | |
| 24 during the session? | |
| 25 A. At one point he lifted up her shirt and | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 142 of 179 | |
| Page 142 | |
| 1 exposed her bra, and she grabbed it and pulled it | |
| 2 down. | |
| 3 Q. Anything else? | |
| 4 A. That was the conversation that he had told | |
| 5 her that he had taken this girl's virginity, the | |
| 6 girl by the pool. | |
| 7 Q. Okay. Did Maxwell ever say to you that it | |
| 8 takes the pressure off of her to have other girls | |
| 9 around? | |
| 10 A. She implied that, yes. | |
| 11 Q. In what way? | |
| 12 A. Sexually. | |
| 13 Q. And earlier Laura asked you, I believe, if | |
| 14 Maxwell ever asked you to perform any sexual acts, | |
| 15 and I believe your testimony was no, but then you | |
| 16 also previously stated that during the camera | |
| 17 incident that Maxwell had talked to you about not | |
| 18 finishing the job. | |
| 19 Did you understand "not finishing the job" | |
| 20 meaning bringing Jeffrey to orgasm? | |
| 21 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form. | |
| 22 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 23 Q. I'm sorry, Johanna, let me correct that | |
| 24 question. | |
| 25 What did you understand Maxwell to mean | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 143 of 179 | |
| Page 143 | |
| 1 when she said you hadn't finished the job, with | |
| 2 respect to the camera? | |
| 3 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form. | |
| 4 THE WITNESS: She implied that I had not | |
| 5 brought him to orgasm. | |
| 6 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 7 Q. So is it fair to say that Maxwell expected | |
| 8 you to perform sexual acts when you were massaging | |
| 9 Jeffrey? | |
| 10 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form, | |
| 11 foundation. | |
| 12 THE WITNESS: I can answer? | |
| 13 Yes, I took that conversation to mean that | |
| 14 is what was expected of me. | |
| 15 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 16 Q. And then you mentioned, I believe, when | |
| 17 you were testifying earlier that Jeffrey told you a | |
| 18 story about sex on the plane. What was that about? | |
| 19 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, hearsay. | |
| 20 THE WITNESS: He told me one time Emmy was | |
| 21 sleeping on the plane, and they were getting | |
| 22 ready to land. And he went and woke her up, | |
| 23 and she thought that meant he wanted a blow | |
| 24 job, so she started to unzip his pants, and he | |
| 25 said, No, no, no, you just have to be awake for | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 144 of 179 | |
| Page 144 | |
| 1 landing. | |
| 2 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 3 Q. Do you recall witnessing any sexual acts | |
| 4 on the plane? | |
| 5 A. No. | |
| 6 Q. Did Emmy ever talk to you about performing | |
| 7 sexual acts on the plane? | |
| 8 A. No. | |
| 9 Q. We looked earlier at the police report, | |
| 10 and I just want to clarify, you identified some | |
| 11 areas where there were discrepancies in that report. | |
| 12 And you can take another look at it if you | |
| 13 want, but other than the discrepancies you pointed | |
| 14 out, is that a recollection of what you remember | |
| 15 telling the detective? | |
| 16 A. Yes. | |
| 17 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, outside the | |
| 18 scope of cross. | |
| 19 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 20 Q. You mentioned that there was a time when | |
| 21 you noticed that Maxwell was around a little bit | |
| 22 less? | |
| 23 A. Uh-huh. | |
| 24 Q. And I believe you said that was during the | |
| 25 middle of the time you were with Jeffrey. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 145 of 179 | |
| Page 145 | |
| 1 Do you remember approximately when that | |
| 2 was year-wise? | |
| 3 A. I don't. I would say it was probably | |
| 4 sometime between 2003 and 2004. | |
| 5 Q. And what made you think that? | |
| 6 A. I just saw her less and less at the house. | |
| 7 Q. Were you there more at the house during | |
| 8 that time period? | |
| 9 A. No, not necessarily. It's just at the | |
| 10 beginning, she was around a lot. And then I would | |
| 11 see her occasionally without him. The one time we | |
| 12 spent a few days together in 2006, she wasn't there | |
| 13 at all. | |
| 14 Q. So you saw her in the -- is it fair to say | |
| 15 that you saw her in the 2005 and 2006 time frame? | |
| 16 A. Yes. | |
| 17 Q. Then we were talking about the photography | |
| 18 earlier and about the photographs. | |
| 19 Did Maxwell ever ask you to take nude | |
| 20 photos of yourself for Jeffrey? | |
| 21 A. She asked me to take photos of myself for | |
| 22 Jeffrey, yes. | |
| 23 Q. And did you do that? | |
| 24 A. I did not. | |
| 25 Q. And the photos that were around that were | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 146 of 179 | |
| Page 146 | |
| 1 in the bathroom, that you mentioned a couple of | |
| 2 times places that there were photos of you, who took | |
| 3 those? | |
| 4 A. He did. | |
| 5 Q. And when we were talking about the Palm | |
| 6 Beach house and you were describing an area where | |
| 7 there were just a lot of photographs, is it fair to | |
| 8 say that there could have been nude photographs | |
| 9 amongst those photos that you saw? | |
| 10 A. Yes. | |
| 11 Q. And earlier you testified that you don't | |
| 12 have knowledge of what happens behind closed doors, | |
| 13 but you also said that Jeffrey had told you what | |
| 14 other girls did for him and that he wanted you to do | |
| 15 those things for him. | |
| 16 Is it fair to say that you knew that other | |
| 17 girls were performing sexual acts? | |
| 18 A. Yes. | |
| 19 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation, | |
| 20 form. | |
| 21 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 22 Q. And I know you mentioned previously that | |
| 23 your relationship and the interaction with him | |
| 24 progressed over time. | |
| 25 Did there come a time when you were | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 147 of 179 | |
| Page 147 | |
| 1 expected to have sexual intercourse with Jeffrey? | |
| 2 A. Yes. | |
| 3 Q. And when was that? | |
| 4 A. 2005. | |
| 5 MS. McCAWLEY: That's it. I just do want | |
| 6 to also put on the record that we're | |
| 7 designating the testimony as confidential under | |
| 8 the protective order. | |
| 9 F U R T H E R E X A M I N A T I O N | |
| 10 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 11 Q. Okay. You just testified that you have | |
| 12 knowledge -- you had knowledge that -- of what | |
| 13 Jeffrey was doing behind closed doors with other | |
| 14 girls. Was that your testimony? | |
| 15 A. Based on what he had told me. | |
| 16 Q. Okay. So Jeffrey told you things that he | |
| 17 had done with other girls? | |
| 18 A. Yes. | |
| 19 Q. You did not observe any of those things? | |
| 20 A. No. | |
| 21 Q. You did not talk to any of those girls | |
| 22 about what they had done with Jeffrey behind closed | |
| 23 doors? | |
| 24 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 25 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 148 of 179 | |
| Page 148 | |
| 1 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 2 Q. Correct? | |
| 3 A. No. Correct. | |
| 4 Q. The only source of knowledge you have is | |
| 5 based on what Jeffrey told you he had done with | |
| 6 other girls? | |
| 7 A. Correct. | |
| 8 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 9 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 10 Q. You said that there were possibly nude | |
| 11 photos amongst the other photos that you saw on | |
| 12 various walls at the Palm Beach house, correct? | |
| 13 A. Correct. | |
| 14 Q. None of them stood out to you? | |
| 15 A. Correct. | |
| 16 Q. None of them appeared pornographic? | |
| 17 A. No. | |
| 18 Q. You didn't see any fully frontally nude | |
| 19 photographs, correct? | |
| 20 A. No, not that I recall. | |
| 21 Q. And you don't recall seeing any girls that | |
| 22 appeared to be underaged, correct? | |
| 23 A. No. | |
| 24 Q. You said Ghislaine asked you to take | |
| 25 photos of yourself for Jeffrey, correct? | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 149 of 179 | |
| Page 149 | |
| 1 A. Correct. | |
| 2 Q. Did she ask you to take a nude photograph | |
| 3 of yourself or just a photograph of yourself? | |
| 4 A. A nude photograph of myself. | |
| 5 Q. What exactly did she say to you? | |
| 6 A. I don't remember exactly, but I know that | |
| 7 I never felt comfortable. I would have felt fine | |
| 8 taking photos of myself, my face, but I knew I was | |
| 9 never comfortable with it because I had to take | |
| 10 photos of my body. And I also didn't know how to | |
| 11 take a photo from standing behind. You have to have | |
| 12 someone else involved. | |
| 13 Q. That's my question. How would you take a | |
| 14 nude photograph of yourself? | |
| 15 A. Exactly. Someone else would have to do | |
| 16 it. | |
| 17 Q. Do you recall any of the particulars of | |
| 18 what she said to you that led you to believe she | |
| 19 wanted you to do that? | |
| 20 A. No, just asking for the photos. | |
| 21 Q. Do you know when in your time there? | |
| 22 A. It was near the beginning, because that's | |
| 23 when I was interested in the photography. | |
| 24 Q. Was it in the context of your discussion | |
| 25 of your photography class? | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 150 of 179 | |
| Page 150 | |
| 1 A. No. | |
| 2 Q. Was it in the context of anything? | |
| 3 A. About the camera that she had bought for | |
| 4 me. | |
| 5 Q. What did she say in relationship to the | |
| 6 camera that she bought for you and taking | |
| 7 photographs of you? | |
| 8 A. Just that Jeffrey would like to have some | |
| 9 photos of me, and she asked me to take photos of | |
| 10 myself. | |
| 11 Q. What did you say? | |
| 12 A. I don't remember saying no, but I never | |
| 13 ended up following through. I think I tried once. | |
| 14 Q. This was the pre-selfie era, correct? | |
| 15 A. Exactly. | |
| 16 Q. I want to go back to this: You testified | |
| 17 to two things just now with Sigrid that you said | |
| 18 were implied to you. | |
| 19 A. Okay. | |
| 20 Q. The first one was it would take pressure | |
| 21 off of Maxwell to have more girls around? | |
| 22 A. Right. | |
| 23 Q. What exactly did Maxwell say to you that | |
| 24 led you to believe that was her implication? | |
| 25 A. She said she doesn't have the time or | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 151 of 179 | |
| Page 151 | |
| 1 desire to please him as much as he needs, and that's | |
| 2 why there were other girls around. | |
| 3 Q. And did she refer specifically to any | |
| 4 other girls? | |
| 5 A. No. | |
| 6 Q. Did she talk about underaged girls? | |
| 7 A. No. | |
| 8 Q. Was she talking about massage therapists? | |
| 9 A. Not specifically. | |
| 10 Q. Okay. There were other girls in the house | |
| 11 that were not massage therapists, correct? | |
| 12 A. Yes. | |
| 13 Q. Nadia is another person that was around, | |
| 14 correct? | |
| 15 A. Yes. | |
| 16 Q. There were other people he traveled with? | |
| 17 A. Uh-huh. | |
| 18 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 19 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 20 Q. Correct? | |
| 21 A. Correct. | |
| 22 Q. Other girls? | |
| 23 A. Yes. | |
| 24 Q. Adults? | |
| 25 A. Yes. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 152 of 179 | |
| Page 152 | |
| 1 Q. When I say "girl," I really mean women, | |
| 2 correct? | |
| 3 A. Correct. | |
| 4 Q. There were other women around who hung out | |
| 5 with Jeffrey, and you don't know what they did | |
| 6 behind closed doors, correct? | |
| 7 A. Correct. | |
| 8 Q. So when you heard the implication that she | |
| 9 wanted other girls around to take the pressure off | |
| 10 of her sexually, in your mind that meant other adult | |
| 11 women that he had in his life, correct? | |
| 12 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 13 THE WITNESS: Correct, doing what I was | |
| 14 expected to do in a massage, you know. | |
| 15 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 16 Q. Ghislaine didn't have anything to do with | |
| 17 you bringing this woman over for a physical workout | |
| 18 with Jeffrey, correct? | |
| 19 A. Correct. | |
| 20 Q. She asked you to bring another girl to | |
| 21 be -- to perform massages at the home? | |
| 22 A. Yes. Well, she was always asking if I | |
| 23 knew anyone else. And so I brought this one girl | |
| 24 that I didn't even know I worked with her at a | |
| 25 restaurant. So I didn't care what she thought of me | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 153 of 179 | |
| Page 153 | |
| 1 if anything happened. And so -- but it never turned | |
| 2 into anything. | |
| 3 Q. She was an adult? | |
| 4 A. She was an adult. | |
| 5 Q. Working at a restaurant with you? | |
| 6 A. Yes. | |
| 7 Q. What restaurant was that? | |
| 8 A. It's a restaurant that's closed. It's | |
| 9 called . | |
| 10 Q. You were asked about the famous people. | |
| 11 You said you met Michael Jackson? | |
| 12 A. Yes. | |
| 13 Q. But you did not give him a massage? | |
| 14 A. No. | |
| 15 Q. There were other famous people, perhaps, | |
| 16 who were around Jeffrey's home that you didn't meet, | |
| 17 correct? | |
| 18 A. Correct. | |
| 19 Q. Do you know whether Virginia Roberts has | |
| 20 told the truth about the age she was when she met | |
| 21 Ghislaine Maxwell? | |
| 22 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. Exceeds the | |
| 23 scope of cross. | |
| 24 THE WITNESS: I don't have any idea what | |
| 25 she told them in terms of her age. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 154 of 179 | |
| Page 154 | |
| 1 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 2 Q. Do you know if Virginia Roberts is telling | |
| 3 the truth about whether she spent her sweet 16th | |
| 4 birthday with Jeffrey and Ghislaine Maxwell? | |
| 5 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 6 THE WITNESS: I don't know anything about | |
| 7 that. | |
| 8 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 9 Q. Do you know whether Virginia Roberts is | |
| 10 telling the truth about whether Ghislaine Maxwell | |
| 11 sexually assaulted her on her first day on the job? | |
| 12 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 13 THE WITNESS: I have not knowledge of | |
| 14 that. | |
| 15 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 16 Q. Do you have any knowledge of whether | |
| 17 Virginia Roberts is telling the truth about | |
| 18 Virginia -- excuse me -- about Ghislaine Maxwell | |
| 19 forcing Virginia Roberts to "go down" on her? | |
| 20 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 21 THE WITNESS: No knowledge. | |
| 22 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 23 Q. Do you have any knowledge about whether | |
| 24 Virginia Roberts is telling the truth about whether | |
| 25 Ghislaine Maxwell forced her to participate in | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 155 of 179 | |
| Page 155 | |
| 1 orgies with other women? | |
| 2 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 3 THE WITNESS: No. | |
| 4 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 5 Q. Do you have any knowledge about whether | |
| 6 Virginia Roberts is telling the truth about whether | |
| 7 Ghislaine Maxwell directed her to have sex with | |
| 8 Prince Andrew? | |
| 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 10 THE WITNESS: No. Only based on what I've | |
| 11 read in the media. | |
| 12 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 13 Q. And Alan Dershowitz? | |
| 14 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 15 THE WITNESS: The same. | |
| 16 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 17 Q. Prime ministers? | |
| 18 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 19 THE WITNESS: No. | |
| 20 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 21 Q. Do you have any knowledge about whether | |
| 22 Virginia Roberts is telling the truth about foreign | |
| 23 presidents? | |
| 24 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 25 THE WITNESS: No knowledge. | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 156 of 179 | |
| Page 156 | |
| 1 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 2 Q. Do you know whether Virginia Roberts is | |
| 3 telling the truth about Ghislaine Maxwell forcing | |
| 4 her to participate in an orgy with Prince Andrew and | |
| 5 other underaged girls on the island? | |
| 6 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 7 THE WITNESS: No knowledge. | |
| 8 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 9 Q. Did Ghislaine Maxwell ever ask you to have | |
| 10 her baby? | |
| 11 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 12 THE WITNESS: No. | |
| 13 MS. MENNINGER: No further questions. | |
| 14 MS. McCAWLEY: Thank you for your time. | |
| 15 THE WITNESS: We are done. | |
| 16 MS. McCAWLEY: We are off the record. | |
| 17 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 1:11. This | |
| 18 concludes the video deposition. Off the | |
| 19 record. | |
| 20 (Thereupon, the taking of the deposition | |
| 21 was concluded at 1:11 p.m.) | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 157 of 179 | |
| Page 157 | |
| 1 AFFIDAVIT | |
| 2 STATE OF FLORIDA ) | |
| COUNTY OF ) | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | |
| I, , being first | |
| 5 duly sworn, do hereby acknowledge that I did | |
| read a true and certified copy of my deposition | |
| 6 which was taken in the case of GIUFFRE V. | |
| MAXWELL, taken on the 18th day of May, 2016, | |
| 7 and the corrections I desire to make are as | |
| indicated on the attached Errata Sheet. | |
| 8 | |
| 9 CERTIFICATE | |
| 10 | |
| 11 STATE OF FLORIDA ) | |
| COUNTY OF ) | |
| 12 | |
| 13 | |
| Before me personally appeared | |
| 14 ________________________________________, | |
| to me well known / known to me to be the | |
| 15 person described in and who executed the | |
| foregoing instrument and acknowledged to and | |
| 16 before me that he executed the said instrument | |
| in the capacity and for the purpose therein | |
| 17 expressed. | |
| 18 | |
| 19 Witness my hand and official seal, this | |
| ______ day of ________________, _____. | |
| 20 | |
| 21 | |
| 22 __________________________ | |
| (Notary Public) | |
| 23 | |
| 24 My Commission Expires: | |
| 25 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 158 of 179 | |
| Page 158 | |
| 1 ERRATA SHEET | |
| 2 PAGE LINE REMARKS | |
| 3 ____________________________________________________ | |
| 4 ____________________________________________________ | |
| 5 ____________________________________________________ | |
| 6 ____________________________________________________ | |
| 7 ____________________________________________________ | |
| 8 ____________________________________________________ | |
| 9 ____________________________________________________ | |
| 10 ____________________________________________________ | |
| 11 ____________________________________________________ | |
| 12 ____________________________________________________ | |
| 13 ____________________________________________________ | |
| 14 ____________________________________________________ | |
| 15 ____________________________________________________ | |
| 16 ____________________________________________________ | |
| 17 ____________________________________________________ | |
| 18 ____________________________________________________ | |
| 19 ____________________________________________________ | |
| 20 ____________________________________________________ | |
| 21 __________________________ | |
| 22 Signature of Witness | |
| ___________________________ | |
| 23 (Notary Public) | |
| 24 Dated this _________ day of ___________, __________. | |
| MY Commission Expires: _____________ | |
| 25 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 159 of 179 | |
| Page 159 | |
| 1 CERTIFICATE OF OATH | |
| 2 STATE OF FLORIDA ) | |
| 3 COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE ) | |
| 4 | |
| 5 I, the undersigned authority, certify | |
| 6 that JOHANNA SJOBERG personally appeared before me | |
| 7 and was duly sworn. | |
| 8 WITNESS my hand and official seal this | |
| 9 18th day of May, 2016. | |
| 10 | |
| 11 | |
| KELLI ANN WILLIS, RPR, CRR | |
| 12 Notary Public, State of Florida | |
| My Commission No. FF911443 | |
| 13 Expires: 2/16/21 | |
| 14 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + | |
| 15 | |
| 16 | |
| 17 | |
| 18 | |
| 19 | |
| 20 | |
| 21 | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 160 of 179 | |
| Page 160 | |
| 1 | |
| 2 C E R T I F I C A T E | |
| 3 STATE OF FLORIDA ) | |
| : ss | |
| 4 COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE ) | |
| 5 I, KELLI ANN WILLIS, a Registered | |
| 6 Professional, Certified Realtime Reporter and | |
| 7 Notary Public within and for The State of | |
| 8 Florida, do hereby certify: | |
| 9 That JOHANNA SJOBERG, the witness whose | |
| 10 deposition is hereinbefore set forth was duly | |
| 11 sworn by me and that such Deposition is a true | |
| 12 record of the testimony given by the witness. | |
| 13 I further certify that I am not related | |
| 14 to any of the parties to this action by blood | |
| 15 or marriage, and that I am in no way interested | |
| 16 in the outcome of this matter. | |
| 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set | |
| 18 my hand this 18th day of May, 2016. | |
| 19 | |
| 20 __________________________ | |
| KELLI ANN WILLIS, RPR, CRR | |
| 21 | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 161 of 179 | |
| Page 1 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 162 of 179 | |
| Page 2 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 163 of 179 | |
| Page 3 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 164 of 179 | |
| Page 4 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 165 of 179 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 166 of 179 | |
| Page 6 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 167 of 179 | |
| Page 7 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 168 of 179 | |
| Page 8 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 169 of 179 | |
| Page 9 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 170 of 179 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 171 of 179 | |
| Page 11 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 172 of 179 | |
| Page 12 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 173 of 179 | |
| Page 13 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 174 of 179 | |
| Page 14 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 175 of 179 | |
| Page 15 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 176 of 179 | |
| Page 16 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 177 of 179 | |
| Page 17 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 178 of 179 | |
| Page 18 | |
| MAGNA& | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 179 of 179 | |
| EXHIBIT 7 | |
| PART 2 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 2 of 45 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- )ate: 7 / 19/06 | |
| rime: 15:01:37 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 45 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| -----------~------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| ~ase No. . . : 1-05 - 000368 (Continued) | |
| photographed by CSI Pavlik and then videotaped by myself. The search | |
| was concluded at approximately 3:05 p.m. whereupon Detective Recarey | |
| and I were the last two officers in the house. Upon securing the | |
| residence we met with the gentleman who identified himself to | |
| Detective Recarey as the lawyer for the defendant and he was informed | |
| that the residence was secured and that copies of the inventory return | |
| had been left on the first floor table of the personal assistant's | |
| office. | |
| Detective Recarey and I returned to Police Headquarters and secured | |
| for the day. | |
| ***************************NARRATIVE # 14 ************************** | |
| ~ Reported By: DAWSON, MICHAEL C. 11/07/05 | |
| Entered By.; ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 11/07/05 | |
| on October 2 0, 2 005 , I assisted Defective Recarey in the execution of | |
| a search warrant at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida, 33480. | |
| Upon the announcement of the search warrant , immediate contact was | |
| made with three white males who came out of the house or surrounding | |
| structures. Those males were identified as Janusz Banasiak, Daniel | |
| Estes, and Mark Zeff. As other members of the police department | |
| cleared the home, I kept watch over these three males. Once the house | |
| was cleared, those males were turned over to Detective Reca:rey . | |
| Detective Dicks and I were assigned to assist in the search of the | |
| main house, the cabana and the servant's quarters. We started in the | |
| garage . All areas of the garage were searched to include four | |
| vehicles . These vehicles were three black Mercedes Benz cars | |
| registered to Jeffrey Epstein. The fourth vehicle was a Harley | |
| Davidson motorcycle, green in color, registered to Jeffrey Epstein . | |
| Nothing was recovered from the garage. | |
| A towel closet and pantry located off the kitchen were searched and | |
| yielded negative results . | |
| Th~ kitchen was searched and taken into evidence was a phone message | |
| book: that was located near a house phone. | |
| North of the kitchen was an office room which contained a computer. | |
| The room had a closet that contained a locked gun locker . The | |
| combination was entered by Banasiak in the presence of Sgt. Frick and | |
| the safe was opened. Items were taken from the room. See the | |
| completed property receipt for a detailed list. | |
| A green bathroom located on the first floor was searched and nothing | |
| was taken. | |
| A closet located just west of the green bathroom was searched. Two | |
| massage tables were located in the closet along with a photo of a nude | |
| GIUFFRE000046 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 3 of 45 | |
| )ate : 7 /1 9 /06 | |
| rime: 1 5: 0 1: 3 7 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 46 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| ·------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | |
| ~a se No. . 1 - 05-000368 | |
| female from the waist up . (Continued) | |
| See the property receipt for details. | |
| I searched two bedrooms and their adjoining bathrooms, which were | |
| located on the second floor on the East side of the house. In the | |
| Northeast bedroom closet I found adult sex toys called Twin Torpedoes. | |
| Soap made in the shape of a penis and vagina were also found in these | |
| upstair bedrooms .. See the property receipt for details . | |
| I searched the pool cabana located on the South side of the pool . | |
| Photos were taken from the wall . See the property receipt for | |
| details. | |
| I assisted in the search of Banasiak ' s living quarters. Numerous CDs | |
| along with a message book was seized. See the property receipt for | |
| details . | |
| ** *************************NARRATIVE # 15 ************************** | |
| !\ Reported By: RECAREY , JOSEPH 11/08 / 05 | |
| Entered By . : ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 11/08 / 05 | |
| On November 1 , 2005, I was contacted by Atty . Gus Fronstin , who | |
| advised he was willing to assist with the investigation. Atty. | |
| Fronstin advised he would try to have his client , Jeffrey Epstein | |
| available to be interviewed. I explained I would be interested in | |
| conducting an interview with his client as well as other employees | |
| that are employed within the house. Atty. Fronstin advised he would | |
| return my call once he received confirmation on the interviews. | |
| On November 6 , 2005, I attempted contact with at her | |
| residence. I left a business card for her to return my call. Upon | |
| returning to the police department , I had received a t elephone call | |
| from I : ■ I returned her call at~ and spoke | |
| with She made arrangements to respono to the station to | |
| provide an interview. At approximately 3:30 pm, she arrived at the | |
| Palm Beach Police Stati on with her boyfriend . Her boyfriend was | |
| allowed to sit in the lobby area while Ms ... ■■111,was interviewed. | |
| I took Ms•••► to the Detective Bureau Interview room. I closed the | |
| door for privacy and explained to her that I appreciated her coming to | |
| the police station for the interview. During the sworn taped | |
| statement, she advised she was at Jeffrey Epstein s house one time. | |
| Appro~i~~~e;~ t~~t~~~t~:ra~~~~~~e~a~ a~~~~a~~:~ ~rii~kg!~~~~ | |
| advised she was in need to make some quick cash to make the rent that | |
| month . She agreed to go to the house. She had been told by .... | |
| that the massage would have to be done in her underwear . Sne | |
| advised•••drove with her and brought her into the house. They | |
| walked into the kitchen area and took the stairs upstairs. | |
| further stated she was b r ought into a master bedroom area. She | |
| advised she recalled seeing portraits of naked women throughout the | |
| room. A massage table was already out near the sauna/shower area in | |
| the master bedroom . Epstein entered the room wearing only a towel and | |
| GIUFFRE00004 7 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 4 of 45 ------ ------- --------------- ----- ----- ---------------------- --------- --- ----- 1ate: 7/19 /06 | |
| 'ime : 15 : o 1 : 3 7 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 4 7 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| -------------------------------------------------------- --- --- ---------------- | |
| ·ase No. . . : 1-05- 000368 (Continued) | |
| introduced himself as Jeff. ■■•advised she recalled she and | |
| removed their clothing down to their panties, Epstein lay on his | |
| stomach area and they provided a massage on his legs and feet area. I | |
| asked if she had any formal massage training and she replied | |
| no. advised she was topless and the panties she wore were the | |
| boy shorts lace panties. She and41••~continued the massage until | |
| the last ten minutes of the massage, Epstein, told•• tto leave the | |
| room so that1111■■■ could finish the massage. | |
| got dressed and Epstein turned over onto his back. Epstein then | |
| removed the towel, which had been around his waist. Epstein laid | |
| there naked and requested that ••••rub his chest area. | |
| stated as she did this, Epstein, began masturbating as she rubbed his | |
| chest: ••••stated he pulled down her boy short panties and he | |
| produced a large white vibrator with a large head. She stated it was | |
| within a drawer in bis master bathroom. He rubbed the vibrator on her | |
| vagina area. ••■•advised he never penetrated her vagina with the | |
| vibrator. | |
| He continued to rub her vagina with the vibrator as he continued to | |
| masturbate. ••••stated she was very uncomfortable during the | |
| incident but knew it was almost over . Epstein climaxed and started to | |
| remove himself from the table. He wiped himself with the towel he had | |
| on previously and went into the shower area. -■■ltgot dressed and | |
| met with====in the kitchen area. Epstein came into the kitchen and | |
| provided $200.00 for bringing•lllil-~and paid $200.00 to | |
| for providing the massage. ■■-was told to leave her telephone | |
| number with Sarah, his assistant for future contact. •••provided | |
| her cellular telephone number for future contact . was asked | |
| if she was recently contacted about this investigation by anyone from | |
| the Epstein organization . She replied she was called but it was for | |
| work. She stated she was called by Sarah for her to return to work | |
| for Epstein. •• •stated work is the term used by Sarah to provide | |
| the massage in underwear. ■■•advised she declined, as she was not | |
| comfortable in providing that type of work. The interview was | |
| concluded and the videotape was placed into evidence. | |
| Investigation Continues . . | |
| ~************************* N ARRATI V E # 16 ************************** | |
| Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 11/10/05 | |
| Entered By.: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 11/10/05 | |
| On November 7, 2005, I made telephone contact with who | |
| advised she would be able to meet with me at her home. Det. Sandman | |
| and I traveled to her home in'll •tl■■ and made contact with | |
| During a sworn taped statement, stated she met | |
| Jeffrey Epstein through Haley Robson. Robson would approach females | |
| who wished to work for him. ••■■~ stated she was asked to.work for | |
| him but declined. ■■■9explained that work means give massages. | |
| She was asked about any formal training in providing massages to which | |
| she said no. ■■■i.,said she accompanied Robson and other females | |
| GIUFFRE000048 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 5 of 45 | |
| ---------- -- ----- --------------- ------------------------- ----------------- - >ate : 7 / 1 9 / 0 6 | |
| 'ime: 15:01:37 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report Page: 48 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| ----------------- --------- -------------------- ----------- ------------------ | |
| 'ase No ... . : 1-05- 000 368 (Continued ) | |
| who were taken to Epstein s house to provide massages. | |
| further stated she had been to the house appJoxima-el 4 .or 5 times in | |
| the past year. She accompanied Robson withl I | |
| I 3 ••••·••• the 14-year-old victim, and . Eacn time the girls were taken over, they were previously told they | |
| would have to provide a massage, possibly naked. It was also told that | |
| should Epstein require them to do anything extra and they were not | |
| comfortable just -to tell him and he would stop. ••■•• stated | |
| Robson received $200.00 for each girl she brought over to massage | |
| Jeffrey Epstein. When I asked which girl appeared to be the youngest , she replied, the victim, as she stated she was fifteen years old at | |
| the most; she looked really young. 111•■■ further stated each time | |
| she went to the house, she sat in the kitchen and waited with Robson | |
| until the massage was over. She further stated that the cook would | |
| make lunch or a snack for them as they waited. I asked her if there | |
| was anything that caught her attention within the home . stated there were a lot of naked girls in photographs throughout the | |
| house. The interview was concluded and the tape was turned into | |
| evidence. | |
| Investigation Continues . . | |
| **************************NARRATI V E # 17 ************************** | |
| Reported By: RECAREY , JOSEPH 11/10/os | |
| Entered By.: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 11/10/05 | |
| Det. Dawson and I attempted contact with in | |
| I left my business card at her front door. Ms | |
| returned my call and arranged a meeting with me at the Palm Beach | |
| Police Department for November 8, 2005. At approximately 2:00pm, | |
| arrived at the Palm Beach Police Department. She was brought | |
| into the interview room and the door was closed for privacy. She was | |
| told that I appreciated her coming to the police station for | |
| questioning regarding an on going investigation. She was told that I | |
| was investigating a crime involving Jeffrey Epstein and knew, based on | |
| the investigation, that she had encounters with him in the past . During a sworn taped statement, ..... stated she had met Epstein | |
| approximately two years ago. She was first introduced to Epstein by | |
| Haley Robson. Robson approached her about working for Epstein and | |
| providing a massage to him for $200.00. The arrangements were made | |
| and as Robson could not take her the day the arrangements were made, | |
| ■ took ■••• ••• also attended | |
| and was familiar with Epstein. | |
| recalled she was brought there and entered through the back | |
| kitchen door. She had met with an assistant Sarah and another | |
| assistant Adrianna. Sarah brought her upstairs as she observed | |
| several photographs of naked females throughout the house. | |
| stated Epstein came in the room, wearing only a towel, and laid on the | |
| table. ••■■tstated he picked out the oils he wanted her to use and | |
| requested she remove her clothing to provide the massage. | |
| stated that on the first massage she provided she did not remove her | |
| GIUFFRE000049 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 6 of 45 --------------------------------------------------~---------------------- ---- -- Ja t e : 7 / 19 / o 6 | |
| rime: 15:01:37 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 49 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| ---------------------------------------· --------------------------------------- | |
| :::ase No. . : 1-05- 000368 (Continued ) | |
| clothing. 'W■■■t stated she had returned several times after that. | |
| Each time she returned more things happened. •••• stated that the | |
| same thing would happen . Epstein would walk into the master | |
| bedroom/bathroom area wearing only a towel. He would masturbate as | |
| she provided a massage. •••• stated she was unsure if he climaxed | |
| as he masturbated under the towel . Additionally she never looked blow | |
| his waist. She claimed that Epstein would convince her to remove her | |
| clothes. She eventually removed her clothes and stayed in her thong | |
| panties. On occasion, Epstein would use a massager/vibrator, which | |
| she described as white in color with a large head, on her. Every time | |
| she provided a massage he would masturbate. added she has no | |
| formal training in providing a massage. tated she brought | |
| two females during her visits to provide massages. stated she | |
| brought.a girl named and . from | |
| IS I . ~stated she received $200.00 for each girl she | |
| brought. Additionally, G'td1111 was given $200 . 00 for taking her in the | |
| very beginning . The interview was concluded and the tape was placed | |
| into evidence. | |
| Investigation continues . . . | |
| ~**** ************** ********NARRATI V E # 18 ************************** | |
| .\ Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 1 1/13 /0 5 | |
| Entered By.: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 11 / 14 /0 5 | |
| On November 8 , 2005 , I made telephone contact with W/F , at her residence . ■■•responded to the police station | |
| for an interview reference an ongoing investigation . At approximately | |
| 2:30 pm, she arrived at the Palm Beach Police Station and was brought | |
| into the interview room for the interview. The door was closed for | |
| privacy and she was told that I appreciated her cooperation in this | |
| case. During a sworn taped statement,•• ~stated she had met | |
| Jeffrey Epstein approximately one year ago . She was approached by a | |
| subject known to her as q ■ ••t had asked her if she wanted | |
| to make money providing massaqes to E2stein. ad heard that | |
| several girls from I ■ were doing this and_ making money . She agreed and was taken to the house by | |
| had introduced her to Sarah and Epstein and brought her upstairs to a | |
| master bedroom and Master bathroom where a massage table was prepared | |
| and the proper oils were taken out . •••~eft the room and waited | |
| downstairs for••·• stated Epstein entered the room wearing a | |
| towel and she provided a massage wearing only her thong panties. | |
| advised Epstein had masturbated every time she provided a | |
| massage. She stated Epstein continued to masturbate until he | |
| climaxed; once that occurred the massage was over. She felt the whole | |
| situation was weird but she advised she was paid $200.00 for providing | |
| the massage. She also stated:il-•received $200.00 for bring4••to | |
| Epstein . | |
| stated she had gone a total of 15 times to his residence to | |
| provide a massage and things had escalated from just providing a | |
| GJUFFRE000050 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 7 of 45 | |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7/19/06 | |
| Time: 15:01:37 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 50 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| ::a s e No .. . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued ) | |
| massage . Epstein began touching her on her buttocks and grabbed her | |
| closer to him as he masturbated . Epstein also grabbed her breasts and | |
| fondled her breast with his hands as she provided the massage. | |
| stated on one occasion, he offered extra monies to have vaginal | |
| intercourse. She stated this all occurred on the massage table. | |
| • stated Epstein penetrated her vagina with his penis and began | |
| having intercourse with her until he reached the point of climax. | |
| Epstein removed his penis from her vagina and climaxed onto the | |
| massage table. -freceived $3S0.00 for her massage. I asked her | |
| if she had any formal training in providing massages,a•lilllstated she | |
| did not . | |
| continued to state on one other occasion, Epstein introduced his | |
| assistant, Nada , into the massage. Nada was brought into room with | |
| to provide a massage. Epstein had them kiss and fondle each | |
| other around the breasts and buttocks as they provided a massage to | |
| Epstein. Epstein, watched and masturbated as this occurred . On other | |
| occasions, Epstein introduced the large white vibrator/massager | |
| during the massage. Epstein stroked the vibrator/massager on | |
| vagina as she provided the massage. | |
| at the house, was | |
| 2005. ••• stated | |
| She provided the | |
| name). It should | |
| stated the last time she spoke with anyone | |
| with Sarah during the weekend of October 2 or 3, | |
| she had brought two 5eople to the Epstein house. | |
| names of 6§ and•■• (unknown last | |
| noted,••1111--had been previously identified as | |
| been previously interviewed. The interview was concluded | |
| videotape was placed into evidence via the locker system. | |
| and had | |
| and the | |
| On November 9, 2005, Sgt Frick and I traveled to 6791 Fairway Lakes | |
| Drive in Boynton Beach, Florida in hopes to interview Juan Alessi, the | |
| former houseman of Epstein's home. As no one was home, a business | |
| card was left for him to return my call . We then traveled to 11349 SW | |
| 86th Lane in Miami in hopes to interview Alfredo Rodriguez 1 a former | |
| house man of Epstein. We did not locate them at home. I left a | |
| business card for him to return my call . | |
| We , .. then traveled to••• ]t:,and met with Dean of Students, Mr . | |
| , We requested to speak with ••■■M••• C was re | |
| interviewed, as she still was in possession of the rental car that | |
| Epstein had acquired for her. ■ stated that Sarah, Epstein's | |
| assistant, had called her on her cellular telephone and informed her | |
| that rental was extended for her. Sarah stated she had paid an | |
| additional $625 . 00 for her to keep the rental an extra month. | |
| was asked if she had any additional contact with either Epstein or | |
| anyone from his organization. •••~stated she did not, other than | |
| the telephone call informing her that she could keep the car for an | |
| extra month. ••• did not provide any additional information. | |
| On November 10, 2005 , at approximately 9:47 am, Alfredo Rodriguez had | |
| telephoned reference my business card found on his door . Rodriguez | |
| stated he had worked with Epstein for approximately six months after | |
| GIUFFRE0000S l | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 8 of 45 | |
| ---~------------------ --- ------------------------------------- -- -------------- >ate: 7 / 19/06 | |
| 'ime: 15 : O 1: 3 7 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 51 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| -----~-------- .- -------- ---------------------------------------------------- -- | |
| 'ase No" . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued) | |
| the previous houseman left . Rodriguez stated that it was his | |
| responsibility to keep the identity of the masseuses private. Mr. | |
| Epstein had a massage in the morning and one in the afternoon. Mr. | |
| Rodriguez stated he would rather speak about this in private. He | |
| advised he would come to the police station to spea~ with me. | |
| Rodriguez stated he would return my call on Monday, November 14, 2005 . | |
| I then made telephone contact with Juan Alessi. He advised he found | |
| my card on his door and wanted to know what I needed to speak with him | |
| about. I explained to Alessi that I was conducting an investigation | |
| on his former employer, Mr. Epstein. Alessi stated he would return my | |
| call shortly as he was in the middle of a project at his home. I | |
| received a telephone call from Attorney Donald Morrell from 686-2700. | |
| Mr. Morrell stated he represented Mr. Alessi and did not want me | |
| speaking with his client. I then made telephone contact with the | |
| State Attorneys Office and confirmed that subpoenas would be issued | |
| to the former employees to assist in the investigation. | |
| I then made telephone contact with Attorney Guy Fronstin, attorney for | |
| Mr - Epstein. I explained to Mr . Fronstin that I would like to speak | |
| with Mr. Epstein" He stated Mr . Epstein is not in residence in | |
| Florida at this time and would check with him to ascertain if he could | |
| be here by Wednesday November 16, 2005 for an interview. Mr. Fronstin | |
| stated he would return my call should Mr . Epstein decide to come in to | |
| the police station for an interview. | |
| Investigation continues . | |
| ** ************************NARRATIVE # 19 ************************** | |
| Reported By: RBCAREY , JOSEPH 11/15/0 5 | |
| Entered By . : ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 11/16 /0 5 | |
| On November 14, 2005 , Det. Sandman and I traveled to t ■ in •••••••1•••• and spoke with•••••• She was | |
| told of the ongoing investigation involving Epstein . advised | |
| she had gone to the house on several occasions. During a sworn taped | |
| statement, she advised she start aitng to the house approximately | |
| one year ago and was brought by (Unknown last name). | |
| stated41•■ brought her into the house and she was introduced to a | |
| girl named Sarah. Once she met her, Sarah brought her upstairs into a | |
| master bedroom bathroom. Gll■■■- stated she met Jeffrey in the | |
| bathroom. He lay on the table and picked the massage oils. She | |
| provided the massage, as he lay naked on the massage bed. She stated | |
| she rubbed his calves and back area. Upon the end of the massage, | |
| Epstein removed himself from the massage table and paid her $300. 00 | |
| for the massage. | |
| "'I .stated she had only been at the house approximately five or | |
| u six times. --••••said each time she went to the house she was | |
| notified by Sarah, Epstein's assistant, that Epstein was in town and | |
| would like her to work. ■■--stated she returned to the house and | |
| was again led upstairs by Sarah. She provided the massage , clothed . | |
| GJUFFRE000052 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 9 of 45 | |
| ·------------------------------------------------------------------------------ )ate: 7/19 / 06 | |
| ~ime: 15:01:37 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report Page: 52 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| :ase ~ | |
| No. . : 1 - 05-000368 (Continued ) | |
| advised it wasn't really weird until later on . askedi.f she ever removed her clothing to provide a massage. | |
| was | |
| stated it was not until the third time she went that she removed her | |
| clothing. -.,stated she was notified by Sarah that Epstein | |
| wanted her to come to work. She arrived at the house and was led | |
| upstairs by Sarah. She started providing the massage when Epstein | |
| asked her to remove her clothing . •••••removed her pants, shirt | |
| and bra. She stayed in her thong panties and continued rubbing | |
| Epstein. Epstein turned over onto his back and she rubbed his chest | |
| area . • stated she knew he was masturbating himself as she | |
| providing the massage . •-••• stated she believed he climaxed based | |
| on his breathing. She did not want to view either the climax or the | |
| fact that he was masturbating. ••• •stated once the breathing relaxed he got up and told her to get dressed. She was paid $3 00.00 | |
| for her services. | |
| stated on the last time she went to provide a massage , she | |
| was notified by Sarah to come to the house and work. [ stated | |
| she was now dating her current boyfriend and did not feel comfortable | |
| going. She recalled it was approximately January 2005. She said she | |
| went, already thinking that this would be the last time . She went | |
| upstairs and went into the master bathroom. She met with Epstein, | |
| who was wearing only a towel as he entered the room to lie on the | |
| table. •••••stated Epstein caught her looking at the clock on | |
| several occasions. Epstein asked her if she was in a hurry. .._ stated her boyfriend was in the car waiting for her. further | |
| stated that Epstein got upset, as she wasn 1 t enjoying the massage. | |
| She told him that she didn't want to continue and she would not be | |
| back. Epstein told her to leave as she was ruining his massage. I | |
| asked her if she had any contict with Epstein's· organization, she | |
| stated she received $200.00 from Western Union in Royal Palm Beach and | |
| Okeechobee Blvd as a Christmas gift ■■ advised she had no | |
| formal training in provide any massages. •••also stated she was | |
| sixteen years old when she first went to Epstein 1 s house. | |
| At approximately 4:22 pm, I made telephone contact with | |
| at-•■•• She agreed to meet with me at a public place. I | |
| suggested she come to the police station for an interview. Mid did | |
| not want to meet at the police station. I recommended we meet at the | |
| Palm Beach Gardens Mall in the food court area. She agreed and an | |
| appointment was made for November 15 , 2005 at 5:00 pm at the food | |
| court. | |
| Investigations Continue. | |
| ~*************************NARRATIVE # 20 ************************** | |
| Reported By: SANDMAN, JENNIFER R. 11/16 / 05 | |
| Entered By.: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 11/17 / 05 | |
| On 10/ 2 0/2 00 5 , I assisted executing a search warrant at 358 El | |
| Brillo Way in the Town of Palm Beach, Palm Beach County Florida under | |
| the direction of affiant Detective Joe Recarey . | |
| GIUFFRE000053 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 10 of 45 | |
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Date: 7/19/06 | |
| rime: 15:01:37 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 53 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| ------- -------------------------------- -- ------------------------------------- | |
| : ase No . . .. : 1-05-000368 (Continued) | |
| Detective Melnichok and I searched the pantry room that is west | |
| next to the kitchen. This room had all white cabinets with a dark | |
| grey and black counter top. We did not find anything in this room . | |
| We searched the yellow and blue room that is west next to the | |
| pantry room. This room had a very large statue of man with a bow. | |
| Taken into evidence from this room were nine photographs in frames of | |
| various women . | |
| We searched the main entrance foyer that is to the north of the | |
| yellow and blue room. This room contained two bamboo chairs and | |
| ottomans with cushions. It also contained a round table with numerous | |
| books. | |
| We searched another blue room that is west of the foyer. This | |
| room had a stereo system and book shelves that were from the floor to | |
| the ceiling , Taken into evidence from this room were eiqht | |
| photographs in frames of various women and/or Epstein , the owner of | |
| the residence . | |
| We searched the room to the west of the blue room that has | |
| sliding glass doors that lead out to the pool. In this room in a | |
| dresser were two DVD's and two VCR tapes. These items were taken into | |
| evidence. | |
| We searched a 2004 black Chevy Suburban bearing Florida tag | |
| X99-EGL, registered to Jeffrey Epstein DOB 01/20/53, which was located | |
| on the east side of the driveway facing south. I found a ~hrifty | |
| rental agreement between the passenger seat and the middle console. | |
| The name on the rental agreement was Johanna Sjoberg from 622 Holly | |
| Drive Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410. The phone number on the | |
| rental agreement was (561) 714-0546. The vehicle rented was a white | |
| 2005 Chrysler Sebring bearing Florida tag W99-FUN. The vehicle was | |
| rented on 9/25/05 at 17:58 hours and was returned on 9/26/05 at 16:52 | |
| hours. The last four numbers of the credit card used are 9821. | |
| Detective Melnichok found a piece of paper in the middle console that | |
| said I used the cash in here to fill up the tank and was signed by | |
| Johanna. | |
| I searched the 2005 black Cadillac Escalade ESV bearing Florida | |
| tag Q29-9GT, registered to Jeffrey Epstein dob 01/20/53 , which was | |
| located on the west side of the driveway facing south. I did not find | |
| anything in this vehicle. | |
| All of the items that were taken into evidence were photographed | |
| in the place they were located and then turned over to crime scene. | |
| **************************NARRATIVE # 21 ************************** | |
| Reported By: RECAREY 1 JOSEPH 11 / 17 / 05 | |
| Entered By. : ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 11 / 17 / 05 | |
| GIUFFREOOOOS4 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 11 of 45 -----------------~--------------------------------------------------------- ate: 7/ 19 / 06 | |
| ime : 15 : O 1 : 3 7 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 54 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- | |
| ase No . . 1-05-000368 (Continued) | |
| on November 15 1 2005, Det , Sandman and I traveled to | |
| in•■■-•••••• We met with a | |
| seventeen-year old juvenile who was not in school this day due to a | |
| cold from which she was suffering. L J was told that I needed to | |
| speak with her in reference to an ongoing investigation involving a | |
| subject she would know as Jeffrey Epstein . Prior to speaking with | |
| her, I explained that because of the fact that she is a minor, I | |
| needed to speak with her parents prior to speaking with her. She | |
| telephoned her father, Mr. , on his cell phone and | |
| explained to him that Det. Sandman and I were there to speak with her . I spoke with Mr. -on the telephone and informed him I needed | |
| to speak with his daughter in reference to an ongoing investigation. | |
| Mr.••••• advised he had no problem with us speaking wi th his | |
| daughter. | |
| During a sworn taped statement, stated she met Jeffrey | |
| Epstein over a year ago. She was sixteen years of age and was | |
| approached by •••ll'l•••who informed her that she could make monies | |
| providing a massage to Epstein for $200.00. ••• had informed her | |
| that she would have to provide this massage topless. made the | |
| arrangements with Epstein and his assistants and took to the | |
| house. ••••1 stated and she entered through a glass door | |
| that led into a kitchen. took her upstairs, to a master bedroom | |
| and master bathroom. She recalled the bathroom had a large pink | |
| couch, sau.na and matching shower. Epstein entered into the room | |
| wearing only a towel. ■ I ana••aremoved their clothing | |
| remaining only in thong underwear. She further stated that Epstein | |
| lay on his chest on the table. Epstein selected which oils to use for | |
| the massage. Bothtl■■•anda••••provided the massage on his | |
| legs, back and feet. Forty minutes into the massage, Epstein turned | |
| over onto his back and requested••• wait downstairs in the kitchen | |
| area for g £ • Epstein instructed •••••to finish the massage . As •••got dressed,ill•• astarting rubbing his chest. | |
| left the room, and Epstein began masturbating himself as | |
| rubbed Epstein s chest. •••■• stated he continued masturbating until he climaxed on the towel he was wearing. When asked if he had | |
| removed the towel she stated he turned the towel around so that the | |
| opening would allow him to expose himself. After he cleaned himself | |
| off with the towel, he instructea••••~the massage was done and to | |
| get dressed and met with him downstairs. ■■■-got dressed and met | |
| with Epstein in the kitchen area. She was paid $200.00 dollars for | |
| providing the massage. •• •ll~tated she was aware that••• also | |
| received monies for the same thing, | |
| The second time she went to the house she was again approached by | |
| asked if she wanted to return to the house to provide | |
| another massage;fil••••agreed and the arrangements were made by | |
| • £ for her to return to the house . .. •••• stateq I t drove her | |
| to the house and knocked on the same glass door that leads to the | |
| kitchen area. They were allowed entry into the house by one of the | |
| staff members . -•ed her upstairs to the master bedroom and | |
| GIUFFRE000055 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 12 of 45 | |
| ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- ate: 7/ 19/06 | |
| ime: 15:01:37 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report Page: 55 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| -------------- ------ ------------------------------------------------------- --- | |
| 5se No. : 1-05 - 000368 (Continued) | |
| master bathroom area. ••a1eftllil• -this time to do the massage | |
| alone. Epstein entered the room again wearing only a towel. e:y | |
| began removing her clothing as she did the last time she was at the | |
| house. Epstein instructed her to get naked. He lay on the table on | |
| his stomach as .. •••~ began massaging his legs and back . | |
| As .. ■■■•finished with Epstein•s back and legs, Epstein then turned | |
| over onto his back. started to rub his chest and he began | |
| masturbating himself. As rubbed his chest, Epstein leaned | |
| over and produced a massager/vibrator. He turned it on and began | |
| rubbing•••• •vagina and masturbating himself at the same time. | |
| stated she continued to rub his chest as this was occurring . She described the vibrator/massager as large, grey with a large head . Epstein rubbed her vagina for approximately two to three minutes with | |
| the massager/vibrator. He then removed the vibrator from her vaginal | |
| area and concentrated on masturbating himself. • ■ stated he | |
| climaxed onto the towel again and informed her that the massage was | |
| done. ■••• got dressed and met with•••who was waiting in the | |
| kitchen area. She received $200 . 00 for the massage. ••••a said | |
| she never returned to the house and had no desire to return to the | |
| house. 1111•••• was asked if she received any formal massage | |
| training. She advised she had no formal training. ••• •was asked | |
| if Epstein knew her real age . II ,1± stated he knew as he asked her | |
| questions about herself and high school , He was aware she attended | |
| and is still attending ii | |
| The interview was concluded . I suggeste,bll I inform her parents | |
| of what occurred at the Epstein house. stated she would tell | |
| her father as he was unaware this had occurred. I left my business | |
| card for any questions they may have. We left the area and returned | |
| to the police station. The tape was placed into evidence. | |
| Investigation Continues. | |
| **************************NARRATIVE # 22 ************************** | |
| Reported By: RECAREY , JOSEPH 11/17/ 05 | |
| Entered By . : ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 11/17/ 05 | |
| On November 15, 2005, Officer Munyan and I responded to the Palm Beach | |
| Gardens Mall food court section to meet with llil•a ••• At | |
| approximately 5:10 p.m.,••••arrived and met with us at the food | |
| court. 11■■-tprovided a sworn taped statement in which she stated | |
| she had been at the Epstein house over fifty times. She began going | |
| to Epstein 1 s house when she turned eighteen years old. ll•ilawas | |
| asked if she knew of the on-going investigation. ••••stated she | |
| wa9, aware there was an investigation as she had been told by other | |
| girls that were interviewed. Additionally, she has had several | |
| telephone conversations with Epstein 1 s assistants as to what had been | |
| going on during the investigation. | |
| I asked how she was introduced to Epstein . tated she | |
| did not want to disclose who brought her to the house but she would | |
| GIUFFRE000056 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 13 of 45 | |
| ·---------------·--------------------------------------------------------------- )ate : 7/19/ 0 6 | |
| ['ime: 15: O 1: 3 7 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 56 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| ~----------------------------------------·------------- ------------------------- | |
| :ase No. . . : 1-05 - 000368 {Continued) | |
| respond to any other questions. When I asked her what happened at the | |
| house, •••■ stated everything happened. It all began with the | |
| massages. Each time she went more things happened. She would massage | |
| Epstein and he would masturbate and climax. She stated things | |
| escalated from there. She provided oral sex on Epstein and he | |
| provided oral sex on her. She stated he would also use a | |
| massager/vibrator on her vagina to stimulate her as she massaged him . He introduced his assistant Nadia or Nada to have vaginal intercourse | |
| with·•·~ She stated Nada or Nadia would utilize a strap-on | |
| (synthetic penis} to have intercourse with her. She was told to | |
| masturbate herself as Epstein and Nada had sexual intercourse. All | |
| this was done at Epstein's direction. | |
| could not Erovide exact dates as she had been to the house so | |
| many times. SI stated Epstein inserted his fingers in her vagina | |
| to stimulate her as she massaged him. When I asked her if there had | |
| been any vaginal intercourse with Epstein, she stated she did not have | |
| sex with him. She did admit having sex with Nada, his assistant. | |
| , JJ stated not every time she went involved sexual favors. | |
| ometimes she would just talk with him and get paid . I asked her how | |
| much she was paid each time she went to Epstein s residence. | |
| stated she got paid $300 . 00 every time she went to the house., She was | |
| declined | |
| introduce | |
| told to bring other girls to him to provide massages. | |
| stating that she does what she does and did not want to | |
| anyone else to do what she does. •••■ stated she had | |
| any formal training in providing massages. | |
| never received | |
| I showed a photo line up in which Nada Marcinkova was placed in | |
| position six. She reviewed the six photographs and immediately | |
| identified Nada Marcinkova as the person with whom she had | |
| intercourse. Additionally, it was the same person she watched have | |
| intercourse with Epstein. She signed the photo line-up under Nada | |
| Marcinkova s photo as the person she identified. We then left the | |
| mall and returned to the police station. The photo line up and tape | |
| were placed in to evidence. | |
| Investigation Continues .. . | |
| **************************NARRATI V E # 23 ************************** | |
| Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 11/29/05 | |
| Entered By.: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 12/01/05 | |
| On November 17, 2 00 5, I received a phone message from Atty. Guy | |
| Fronstin who advised to call his cellular phone reference his client | |
| Jeffrey Epstein. I telephoned his cell phone and left a message for | |
| him to return my call. I did not receive a call back on Thursday, | |
| November 17, 2005. On Friday, November 18 2005, I retrieved another | |
| voice mail from my work phone from Mr. Fronstin advising he would not | |
| produce his client Jeffrey Epstein for any statement. Fronstin stated | |
| he had spoken with ASA Lana Belohlavek and expressed Mr. Epstein has a | |
| passion for massages. I called ASA Lana Belohlavek and confirmed that | |
| GIUFFRE000057 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 14 of 45 ~---- ----- ---- ---------------~---------------------------- --- -- ---------------- )ate : 7 I l 9 Io 6 | |
| E'ime : 15 : o 1 : 3 7 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 57 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| ---------------- ---------------- --------------------------- --- ------------- ---- | |
| :ase No . ... : 1-05-000368 | |
| Fronstin had telephoned | |
| discussed, Mr. Fronstin | |
| about massages . | |
| (Continued) | |
| her reference this case. Although nothing was | |
| did advise her that Epstein is very passionate | |
| I also spoke with ASA Daliah Weiss reference the previous employees, | |
| Juan and Maria Alessi. She advised that they had been served through | |
| a subpoena process server. They were both scheduled to appear on | |
| Monday November 21, 2005 at 12:00 p.m , | |
| On November 21, 2005, I met with ASA Weiss, Atty. Donnie Murrell and | |
| Juan and Maria Alessi at the State Attorney Office. ASA Weiss had | |
| requested a court reporter to be present to take the statement of the | |
| Alessi s. I spoke with Maria Alessi, in the presence of her attorney, | |
| Donnie Murrell. She advised she had worked for Epstein for eight | |
| years, from the period of 1994 through 2002. She advised she had | |
| never had any direct conversations with him. She stated it was her | |
| husband who spoke directly with Epstein. Her work consisted of doing | |
| house cleaning, shopping and other preparations when Epstein would | |
| arrive ~Jl town. Alessi stated the preparations consisted of preparing | |
| the house and bathrooms for his arrival. She advised she did view | |
| several masseuses that arrived at the house. She advised that two or | |
| three girls would come during a day and provide the massages. The | |
| girls that arrived looked young in age. Mrs. Alessi did not know any | |
| of the girls personally and were always different. She was told that | |
| when Epstein was in residence he did not want to encounter the Alessis | |
| during his stay in Palm Beach. | |
| I then spoke with Mr. Alessi in the presence of his attorney, Donnie | |
| Murrell. Mr. Alessi stated that he was employed for eleven years with | |
| Mr. Epstein. He originally was hired as a part time employee and then | |
| moved up into a full time position. His duties included everything. | |
| Alessi stated he was the house manager, driver and house maintenance | |
| person. It was his responsibility to prepare the house for Epstein s | |
| arrival. When asked about cooks or assistants, Alessi stated they | |
| traveled with Epstein on his private plane. He remembered dealing | |
| with his girlfriend, Ms. Maxwell originally and then dealt with | |
| Epstein directly. | |
| I asked Mr. Alessi about massages that occurred within the home. Mr. | |
| Alessi stated Mr. Epstein had up to three massages a day. Each | |
| masseuse that visited the house was different. Alessi stated that | |
| towards the end of his employment, the masseuses were younger and | |
| younger. When asked how young, Mr. Alessi stated they appeared to be | |
| sixteen or seventeen years of age at the most. The massages would | |
| occur in Epstein's bedroom or bathroom. There were times he recalled | |
| that he would set up the massage tables either in Epstein s bedroom or | |
| in his bathroom. I asked if there were things going on other than a | |
| massage. Alessi stated that there were times towards the end of his | |
| employment that he would have to wash off a massager/vibrator and a | |
| long rubber penis, which were in the sink after the massage. | |
| Additionally, he stated the bed would almost always have to be made | |
| after the massage. Alessi was never privy to what went on during the | |
| GIUFFRE000058 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 15 of 45 | |
| ---- -----------------------~--------------------------------------------------- Jate: 7/19 / 06 | |
| rime: 15:01:37 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 58 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| p--- --------------------------- ------ -- -- -------------------------------------- | |
| ~ase No .. | |
| massages . | |
| : 1 - 05 - 000368 (Continued ) | |
| He was asked if he remembered any names of the girls that massaged | |
| Epstein. He tried to remember and was unable to provide any exact | |
| names of any girls.- Alessi was asked about any contact with anyone | |
| from the Epstein organization. Alessi said he did speak with Mr. | |
| Epstein shortly after my initial contact with him to find out what was | |
| going on . Alessi also stated that approximately on November 11, 2005 , he was contacted by a private investigator from the Law Office of Roy | |
| Black. The investigator had called him to meet with him to ascertain | |
| what he was going to tell the police. Alessi stated they met at the | |
| Carrabba s Restaurant in Boynton Beach and discussed the same | |
| questions I was asking him. I informed Mr. Alessi and Mr. Morrell | |
| that as this is an ongoing investigation and anything we discuss | |
| should be confidential. They both acknowledged the fact that the | |
| information would be kept confidential. It should be noted that a | |
| court reporter was present during the interviews and would be | |
| providing a copy of the statements to me when they become available . | |
| On November 21, 2005, I received a voice mail from Mr . Fronstin who | |
| advised he would not be making Mr. Epstein available for any | |
| statements. He did have some words that he wanted to relay on behalf | |
| of Mr. Epstein. I telephoned his office and left a message for him to | |
| return my call . | |
| On November 29, 2005, I received a call back from Mr. Fronstin who | |
| left a voice mail after hours on November 28 , 2005, advising he would | |
| return my call during normal business hours to speak with me reference | |
| the case on November 29, 2005 . | |
| ****************** ********NARRATI V E # 24 ************************** | |
| Reported By: RECAREY 1 JOSEPH 11/29/05 | |
| Entered By.: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 12/01/05 | |
| On November 29 , 2005 , at approximately 2:30 p.rn. I received a | |
| telephone call on the department issued cell phone. Mr. Fronstin | |
| stated he was calling to relay information that Mr. Epstein wished he | |
| could relay. Mr. Fronstin stated that he would not allow Mr. Epstein | |
| to speak with me at this time. He further stated that Mr. Epstein is | |
| very passionate about massages. He continued that Mr . Epstein had | |
| allegedly donated over $100,000 to the Ballet of Florida for massages . | |
| The massages are therapeutic and spiritually sound for him that is | |
| why he has had many massages. Mr. Fronstin stated he appreciated the | |
| way the investigation has not been leaked out into the media. I | |
| explained to Mr. Fronstin that it is as important to protect the | |
| innocent if the allegations are not substantiated. Mr. Fronstin was | |
| told of the allegations that the private investigators assigned to the | |
| case have been portraying themselves as police officers. | |
| Additionally, I explained that my cell phone had been called by the | |
| private investigators . Mr . Fronstin advised he was not aware of that | |
| and advised they were under the direction of Attorney Roy Black in | |
| GIUFFRE000059 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 16 of 45 | |
| --------------------------------------------------~----------------------- ----- Date: 7/19 / 06 | |
| Time : 15 : D 1 : 3 7 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 59 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| Case No . . . . 1-05-000368 (Continued) | |
| Miami. Mr. Fronstin further stated Epstein had originally called Mr . Dershorwitz in Boston, who recommended Roy Black in Miami, who asked | |
| Mr. Fronstin to assist. I informed him that if and when any charges | |
| would be presented I would notify him. The call was then terminated . | |
| Investigation continues . | |
| '***************************NARRATI V E # 25 ************************** | |
| JA Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 12/15/05 | |
| Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 12/16/05 | |
| A review of the telephone message books, which were obtained during | |
| the search warrant, was conducted in which various messages from | |
| different dates were made to Jeffrey Epstein. The telephone message | |
| books have a duplicate copy (Carbon Copy) which, once a phone message | |
| is written into the book , the top copy is then torn on the perforated | |
| edge and the carbon copy is left in the book. First names of girls, | |
| dates and telephone numbers were on the copy of the messages. I | |
| recognized various numbers and names of girls that had already been | |
| interviewed. The body of the messages was time of the day that they | |
| called for confirmation of 11 work. 11 Other names and telephone numbers | |
| were located in which the body of the messages were, "I have girls for | |
| him" or "I have 2 girls for him." These messages were taken by Sarah · for Jeffrey Epstein" Based on the context of the body of the | |
| messages, I requested subpoenas for subscriber information on the | |
| telephone numbers and the time frame involved . Copies of the messages | |
| were made for evidentiary purposes. | |
| I obtain a | |
| 1 | |
| eaf.£ . d th | |
| 2005 | |
| b ykearbdoo1 | |
| ks tfodr 200St , 2fOOh4 and | |
| 2003. irst reviewe e year oo an oca e mos o t e | |
| girls I had spoken with . Additionally, I located | |
| Based on the corrected name spelling, I was able to locate her to her | |
| residence in . On December 8, 2005, Det. CariFto and I | |
| responded to . inti•■■■■ I located ••• •at her home. She advised she is attendingt11••11111•11t•••llllll••and is | |
| participating in the early release program so she can maintain her | |
| part time job. As she is still a minor 1 I left my business card to | |
| have her mother return my call to request an interview with her | |
| daughter. We then left the area. | |
| I also had previously | |
| telephone number | |
| information on 7 | |
| I J of | |
| tlat she is the | |
| researched the telephone number for and | |
| A subpoena had been issued for the | |
| The telephone number was registered to | |
| A query of•••lllll• -revealed and is currently residing at | |
| Det. Caristo and I attempted | |
| contact witl LI ,.rith negative results . I left my business card on | |
| her front door requesting she return my call. We then responded to -· - •• •• • -- •• - •• • y • • I also attempted contact with | |
| Mr with negative results . I left my business card for him to | |
| return my call . | |
| GIUFFRE000060 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 17 of 45 | |
| Ja t e : 7 / 1 9 / o 6 | |
| rime: 15:01:37 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 60 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| ~ase No ... l-05-000368 (Continued) | |
| On December 9, 2005, | |
| mother, | |
| I received | |
| who was | |
| a | |
| made | |
| telephone | |
| aware | |
| call | |
| of the | |
| from | |
| on going | |
| ~ | |
| investigation in Palm Beach. •••• advised she was told of | |
| everything that occurred at Epstein's house involving Epstein and his | |
| staff. She advised she would allow me to question her daughter about | |
| what occurred and would cooperate with the investigation. | |
| provided me with-•• a. cellular telephone number to schedule an | |
| appointment for an official interview. I telephoned her cellular | |
| telephone and made a tentative appointment for Monday, December 12, | |
| 2005. | |
| I then received a telephone call from••• , father of S | |
| who stated he found the business card on his door. I | |
| explained that I was conducting an investigation and needed to speak | |
| with11- as she may have information that could assist in the | |
| investigation. Mr.•• -•stated that his daughter no longer resides | |
| with him and has her own trailer in another trailer park. He advised | |
| he would tell her to call me. | |
| On December 12, 2005, due to a conflict with schedules, arrangements | |
| were made to meet with t1•••~ on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 | |
| at 5:00 pm. On December 13, 2005, Det. Dawson and I traveled to | |
| and met with ■ ···••••• During a sworn taped | |
| statement, DA stated that when she was sixteen years old, she was | |
| taken to Epstein's house to provide a massage for moneift | |
| stated it was before Christmas last year when ES J approached | |
| her and asked if she needed to make money for Christmas; stated | |
| she did and agreed to provide a massage for money . .:==~made | |
| arrangements to ,take • to the house and drove to the house | |
| to 11 work. 11 •••a,stated she could not remember the street name but | |
| would be able to drive to the street. They drove to the last house on | |
| the street and pulled in the last house on left side. They walked up | |
| the driveway and entered through a side gate which led to a kitchen | |
| door. They knocked on the door and were encountered by an employee | |
| who••••described as a '1 | |
| Spanish looking lady. 11 They informed her | |
| that they were expected. They were then encountered by a white female | |
| with long blond hair. •--~was unable to remember the name of the | |
| white female with blond hair but knew she was Epstein's assistant. | |
| She was led upstairs by the white female who explained that there | |
| would be lotions out already and Epstein would choose the lotion he | |
| wanted her to use. She was led through a spiral staircase which led | |
| to a master bedroom and bathroom. The massage table was already set | |
| up in the bathroom. ••••described the bathroom as a large spacious | |
| bathro~m with a steam room and shower beside it with a sink to the | |
| right. ••••was introduced to Jeff who was on the phone when she | |
| enterea. Jeff was wearing a white towel and lay on his stomach so | |
| that •••-may massage his feet and calves. -•••started the | |
| massage with the massage oil Jeff chose and rubbed his feet and | |
| calves. Jeff got off the phone and requested she massage his back as | |
| well. ••••began rubbing his back and got to the small of his back . | |
| During the rubbing of his back Jeff asked her to get comfortable. He | |
| GIUFFRE00006 l | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 18 of 45 | |
| ·--- ------------------------------------------------------- -- --------------- --- )ate: 7/19/06 | |
| rime: 15:01:37 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 61 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| ----------- -~--------------------~------ --------------------------------------- | |
| ~ase No. . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued} | |
| requested she remove her pants and shirt. ■■■-removed her shirt | |
| and pulled her pants off. •• IJstayed in her bra and thong panties. | |
| As she finished the small of the back, Jeff then turned onto his | |
| back. He instructed she rub his chest and pinch his nipples. As she | |
| began to rub his chest, Jeff asked her questions about hgself. | |
| remembered telling him she attended £ - Q | |
| Jeff asked her if she was sexually active. Before - could answer, he also asked what sexual positions does she enjoy. | |
| stated she was shy didn't like talking about those things. She | |
| continued rubbing his chest. Epstein reached up and unsnapped her bra | |
| from the front . ••explained the bra she used had a front | |
| snapping device. Epstein rubbed her breasts and asked her if she like | |
| having her breasts rubbed ........ said "no, I don I t like that. 11 | |
| Epstein then removed his towel and lay on the bed naked exposing his | |
| penis t He beg¥ touching his penis and masturbated as he | |
| touched her breasts. •~• explained Jeff then touched her vagina | |
| area by rubbing her vagina with his fingers on the outside of her | |
| thong panties . ■■•tensed up and stated Jeff was aware that she | |
| was uncomfortable. | |
| f[ stated that Jeff told her, "Relax, I'm not going inside." She | |
| further explained Jeff commented to her how beautiful and sexy she | |
| was. Jeff then moved her thong panties to one side and now was | |
| stroking her clitoris. •••• said "Jeff commented how hard my cli t | |
| was," He then inserted two fingers in her vagina and was stroking her | |
| within her vagina. She tried pulling back to pull out his fingers | |
| from within her vagina. Jeff removed his fingers from within her | |
| vagina and apologized for putting his fingers inside her. During this | |
| time he kept his hand on her vagi!').a area rubbing her vagina. | |
| stated he rubbed her real hard as he was masturbating. •••• said he | |
| climaxed onto the towel he had been previously wearing and got up from | |
| the table. Jeff told her there was $200 . 00 dollars for her on the | |
| dresser within the master bathroom. Jeff also told her that there was | |
| an additional $100.00 that was to be given tc,11■■1 for bringing her | |
| there to massage him , Jeff told her to leave her telephone number | |
| with his assistant as he wanted to see her again. Jeff stated his | |
| assistant would contact her to work again soon. | |
| I asked her if she ever received any formal massage training to which | |
| stated she did not. •••a stated it was the only time she | |
| ever went to work for Jeff and knew what happened to her was wrong . She stated she no longer speaks totl■■•because she was upset that | |
| took her there , She further stated that she had never been | |
| contacted for any additional work. The interview was terminated and | |
| we left the area. | |
| Investigation Continues . . . | |
| •*************************NARRATI V E # 26 ** ************************ | |
| Reported By: DICKS , ALLEN C. 12/18/05 | |
| Entered By.; ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 12/19/05 | |
| GJUFFRE000062 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 19 of 45 | |
| ---------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- )ate: 7/ 19/06 | |
| rime: 15:01:37 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 62 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| -------------------- -------------------- ----- ---- ------------ -------- ---------- | |
| :ase No. . : 1 - 05 - 000368 (Continued) | |
| On 102005 at approx 0930hrs I assisted with the execution of a | |
| search warrant at 358 El Brillo Ave, Palm Beach. | |
| Initially I was assigned to enter the residence and conduct a | |
| sweep of the premises for safety purposes . I then accompanied CSEU | |
| tech Pavlik while she photographed the exterior of the house. Once | |
| this was complete I was assigned to search certain areas of the house | |
| with Det. Dawson as part of the search warrant. | |
| We began in the garage, searching three Mercedes Benz vehicles, a | |
| Harley Davidson motorcycle and adjacent closets in the garage . | |
| Nothing of evidentiary value was located. | |
| We then searched two closets off the kitchen area on the east | |
| side. These can best be described as pantry or storage closets. | |
| Nothing of evidentiary value was obtained. | |
| A small office with adjoining bath was then searched. In the bath | |
| area I located a phone message book with recent messages . This item | |
| was seized as evidence . Please note this bath and shower area are not | |
| used as designed but are storage areas containing a variety of items | |
| to include a gun safe in the shower and assorted household items. | |
| We then searched a bath area and closet at the base of the main | |
| stairs in the foyer. Inside the closet two massage tables were | |
| located as well as partial nude female photographs. These items were | |
| later seized as evidence. Nothing of evidentiary value was noted in | |
| the bathroom. | |
| We then searched two bedrooms upstairs on the east side of the | |
| residence . Located in the bath room of the south bedroom was penis | |
| shaped soap . Located in the bedroom of the northern bedroom was penis | |
| and vagina shaped soap as well as an adult sex toy. These items were | |
| seized as evidence. | |
| We then searched the pool cabana located in the south west corner | |
| of the property . Several photographs of nude females were seized as | |
| evidence. | |
| I was then assigned to stand by with a person I believe was | |
| Douglas Schoettle. Mr. Schoettle was in the residence at the | |
| beginning of the search warrant. He was present during the warrant | |
| service and subsequent search. I stood by with him until the search | |
| was completed and I departed the residence. I had no conversation | |
| with him regarding the reason for our presence. | |
| Regarding seized evidence, all items were photographed in place | |
| and then collected by CSEU personnel . | |
| This concludes my involvement in this case . | |
| GJUFFRE000063 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 20 of 45 | |
| ----- --- ------------------------------------------ ------------------------ )ate: 7/ 19 / 06 | |
| rime: 15:01:37 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 63 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| ·--------------------------------------------------------------------~--------- | |
| ~ase No . ... : 1-05-000368 (Continued) | |
| ***************************NARRATIVE # 27 ************************** | |
| IA Reported By: KRAUEL, CURTIS D. 12/21/05 | |
| Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 12/21/05 | |
| On Thursday, October 20, 2005 at approximately 0936 hours, I assisted | |
| in the execution of a search warrant located at 358 El Brillo Way, | |
| Palm Beach, Florida, residence of Jeffrey Epstein . I was instructed | |
| by Case Agent Det . Joseph Recarey, to secure all computer and media | |
| related material from the residence. | |
| Upon my arrival I was directed by Det . Recarey to a room designated as | |
| the Kitchen Staff Office. I observed a, Silver in color, CPU with the | |
| left side cover removed, exposing the CPUs hardware sitting on floor | |
| next to a glass type desk. The CPU had no discernable identifiers or | |
| features indicating a make or model. This CPU was powered off with | |
| the power cord not plugged in . The keyboard and mouse were atop the | |
| CPU. It should be noted that the CPU was not connected to a monitor , p r inter, or other media device . On the back Panel of the CPU, I | |
| observed an A/V card with RCA jacks attached . This type of hardware | |
| would allow audio and video to be downloaded onto the CPUs hard disk. | |
| The ends of the RCA jacks were unattached at the time of the search | |
| and no external camera was located within this room. | |
| The CPU was located on the right side of a desk that held a flat panel | |
| LCD screen. The desk also held another keyboard and mouse, indicative | |
| of a second computer; however, no other computer was found. It | |
| appeared as though a second computer had been recently removed as the | |
| cables ends from the monitor, keyboard and mouse were in the same | |
| area. A further search of the room revealed no media storage devices, | |
| i . e. CDs, Floppy Disks, Zip Disks, etc. This type of media is | |
| commonly stored in an area where computers are placed , yet no media | |
| was found. | |
| After completing a search of this room, I secured the CPU and turned | |
| all items over to the Evidence Custodian for future forensic analysis | |
| via a property receipt. | |
| I was then directed by Det. Recarey to a room designated as the Garden | |
| Room, where I observed a wooden desk facing west. The desk held a | |
| flat screen LCD monitor, keyboard, mouse, media card reader and | |
| printer; however, no CPU was located. All of the cables were removed | |
| from an area where a computer had once been. A search of the desk | |
| area revealed no signs of any media devices. | |
| Det. Recarey directed me to a third location designated as the Cabana | |
| room, which is detached from the residence and located just south of | |
| the pool. In the South East corner of the room, I observed an office | |
| type setting, with an L-shaped desk holding a flat screen LCD monitor, | |
| keyboard, mouse and printer; however, no CPU was located , All of the | |
| cables were removed from an area where a computer had once been . A | |
| search of the desk area revealed no s i gns of any media devices . | |
| GIUFFRE000064 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 21 of 45 | |
| --- -- -------------------------------------------------~---------------------- late: 7/19 /0 6 | |
| 'irne : 15 : 0 1 : 3 7 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 64 | |
| Program: CMS3 01L | |
| ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------ | |
| '.ase No . .. . : 1-05-000368 (Continued ) | |
| Det. Recarey directed me to a second detached structure located on the | |
| South East corner of the property. This area of this structure was | |
| assigned with single letters to identify a particular part of the | |
| room. In the office area, designated as Room B, I observed a powered | |
| on Dell Dimension 2350, attached to an LCD flat panel monitor. The | |
| screen displayed an open Microsoft Internet Explorer browser with URL | |
| address of http://home.bellsouth.net/. I observed no other active | |
| windows in the Start panel window and photographed screen .. The power | |
| cord was removed from the back of the Dell CPU and I disconnected the | |
| cable modem to prevent remote access. At that time, the Dell CPU, | |
| marked with Seri~l Number 6WTVN21, was secured and turned over the | |
| evidence custodian for future forensic analysis via property receipt .. I also located several media related items within Room B, which were | |
| recorded onto a property receipt and turned over the Evidence | |
| Custodians . | |
| I then responded to a Bedroom designated as Room F, where I observed a | |
| white in color CPU marked Premio. The Premio CPU was in a computer | |
| desk which held a white CRT monitor, both of which were powered on. | |
| The CRT monitor displayed a message from Norton Antivirus software, | |
| warning of an expired subscription . I observed no other active | |
| windows in the Start panel window and photographed screen. I removed | |
| the power cable from the back of the Prernio CPU and shutdown all other | |
| media. The Premio CPU, marked with Serial Number 2000091078, was | |
| secured and turned over the evidence custodian for future forensic | |
| analysis via property receipt. I also located several media related | |
| items within Room F, which were recorded onto a property receipt and | |
| turned over the Evidence Custodians. | |
| This concluded my participation in the search of the residence . | |
| '**************************NARRATIVE # 28 ************************** | |
| Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 12/21/ 05 | |
| Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 12/21/05 | |
| On December 20, 2005 , I contacted ASA Daliah Weiss in an attempt to | |
| subpoena the Epstein former houseman, Alfredo Rodriguez. Rodriguez , | |
| who resides in Miami, had eluded the process servers previously and | |
| was not served the investigative subpoena. A telephone message was | |
| left as she is not available during the week of 12/19/2005. I made | |
| contact with State Attorney Inv Theresa Wyatt and requested the same | |
| via telephone message. | |
| I then researched the victim 's-cellular telephone subpoena data | |
| which had been received from a previous subpoena request. I analyzed | |
| the records which depict several calls frorn Haley Robson. The | |
| telephone calls start on February 6, 2005 at 12:49 pm.; the same day | |
| which the victim and the victim's father stated the incident occurred | |
| at Epstein s house. The first incoming call was from Robson's | |
| residence at 561 333 - 0180. The second incoming call from Robson 1 s | |
| GlUFFRE0D0065 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 22 of 45 | |
| -- -- -- ---------------- -------------------------------------------------------- ate: 7/19/06 | |
| ime: 15:01:37 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 65 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| ------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- | |
| ase No. : l-05-000368 (Continued ) | |
| cellular phone 561-308-0282 occurred at 1:02 pm. The call durations | |
| were one minute or less. The time frame was within thirteen minutes | |
| apart. It should be noted that Robson s residence was in close | |
| proximity to the victim's. The next call occurred at 5:50 pm when the | |
| victim telephoned Robson s residence. Several calls were made after | |
| the above mentioned calls both incoming and outgoing to Robson. | |
| Further analysis showed no telephone calls to either Robson's cellular | |
| telephone or Robson's residence were registered prior to February 6, | |
| 2005. | |
| Additionally, I also conducted an analysis on the telephone calls from | |
| 305-710-5165. The subscriber information confirmed that the number is | |
| registered to Paul A Lavery from Hialeah, Florida. The address was | |
| crossed referenced to the Office of Kiraly and Riley Private | |
| Investigators. I researched the web page www.rileykiraly.com which | |
| also showed various cases in which they assisted. I also located | |
| another web site under www.coralspringssparklandrotary.org in which | |
| Mr. Riley attended a Miami Rotary meeting and confirmed Atty. Roy | |
| Black is among his clientele. | |
| The telephone calls revealed Lavery had telephone contact with | |
| .... and••■•••~ either just after I attempted to | |
| interview them, or Just prior. A background was conducted on Lavery | |
| which revealed he holds a current Private Investigator License. A | |
| criminal arrest record revealed he had been previously arrested for | |
| possession of cocaine and solicitation of prostitution . | |
| I also researched the girls using www.myspace.com. This web site is a | |
| new social networking service that allows members to create uniq~e | |
| personal profiles online in order to find and communicate with old and | |
| new friends. The site allows one to establish your own myspace.corn | |
| page and decorate the page any way one wishes. I found the following | |
| people have myspace sites: Halef, Rob~on, | |
| 1 | |
| ... and | |
| a | |
| I received a Cingular Wireless packet which contained a CD which | |
| contained the results of the subpoena request for verbatim calls on | |
| An analysis will be conducted in the near future on the | |
| phone numbers called. | |
| Investigation Continues . | |
| **************************NARRATI V E # 29 ************************** | |
| Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 12/27/05 | |
| Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 12/29/05 | |
| Upon doing research on the message books recovered in the search | |
| warrant, I located the identity of The telephone number | |
| as registered to & 2!S!!£Q_ She currently is | |
| seventeen years old and is attending the...... J. I | |
| GnJFFRE000066 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 23 of 45 | |
| ---------------------------------------·----------~------~--------------------- 3.te: 7/19 / 06 | |
| ime: 15:01:37 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 66 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| -------------------------------------------- .--------------------------------- | |
| ~se No. : 1-05-000368 (Continued) | |
| M I located the ••• I located responded to••••••IIIII ======== also known as the | |
| alllllltinside the foundation and informed her that I was | |
| investigating a case against Jeffrey Epstein and knew she had been at | |
| the house. ■ started to cry and advised she had put that part | |
| of her life behiiia her. I explained that although she is seventeen | |
| years old I needed to inform her parents that she would be | |
| interviewed. She provided her home telephone number. I attempted | |
| contact and left voice mail messages at the house to speak with her | |
| parents. | |
| Det. Caristo and I then located --at her residence located | |
| at•■■•••••in I attempted to interview her | |
| about Jeffrey Epstein. She advised she is so in love with Jeff | |
| Epstein and would do anything for him. She further explained that she | |
| would not speak with us about him either negative or positive. She | |
| asked us to leave her property. I informed her that although she did | |
| not wish to speak w~th us, I had sufficient information at this point | |
| in the investigation to know she was at Epstein's house and provided | |
| girls to Epstein to work. I also explained that prior to our arrival | |
| at her residence I had telephone contact with her father, | |
| 16 who was told she would be interviewed. | |
| currently seventeen years old and as a juvenile, parental | |
| would be required. We then left the area and returned to | |
| station. | |
| is | |
| notification | |
| the police | |
| While at the police station, I left another telephone message for | |
| J • parents. I began an analysis of Sarah Kellen's Cellular | |
| telephone. The telephone number 917-855-3363 is assigned to Sarah | |
| Kellen and the financially responsible party is Jeffrey Epstein of 457 | |
| Madison Ave. in New York City, New York. The time frame which was | |
| subpoenaed was September 2005, through October 2005. There were | |
| eighty seven pages of calls made either to the cell phone or from the | |
| cell phone. The local (561) numbers were analyzed. A spread sheet | |
| was prepared and placed into the attachment file of who was called. | |
| The unknown numb.ers were researched using FoneFinder. com and subpoenas | |
| wer·e requested to determine subscriber information. This was done to | |
| identify additional victims or witnesses. The analysis revealed that | |
| Kellen had called the victim/witnesses frequently when Epstein was in | |
| the Town of Palm Beach to 11 work. 11 This confirms what the girls | |
| interviewed had previously stated. Kellen would notify them when | |
| Epstein was in tovm. and their willingness to 11 work, u The CD was placed | |
| into evidence. | |
| Investigation Continues . | |
| *************************NARRATIVE # 3 0 ************************** | |
| Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 1 / 03/06 | |
| Entered By. : ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 1 / 03/06 | |
| On December 29 , 2005 , I received a facsimile from National Compliance | |
| GIUFFRE000067 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 24 of 45 | |
| -------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- )ate: 7/19/06 | |
| ~ime : 15 : 01 : 3 7 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 67 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | |
| '.ase No. . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued} | |
| Center from Cingular Wireless for telephone number 561-308-0282. This | |
| was the telelh[ne number for Haley Robson during the time frame when | |
| the victim, was brought to the Epstein house to 11 work. 11 An | |
| analysis of the phone records, of all incoming and outgoing calls, | |
| showed that on February 6, 2005, the day the victim,411111J was brought | |
| to the house, Robson first called Sarah Kellen, Epstein's assistant, | |
| at 917-855-3363at 12:50 pm (EST). The next call was made to Epstein ' s | |
| house in Palm Beach, at 12:52 pm (EST). The following call was made | |
| to the victim, .. lat 1:01 pm (EST} and at 1:02 pm (EST). This | |
| confirms the information provided by the victim and victim 1 s father. | |
| I photo copied the records and enlarged the page B of 10 to show the | |
| calls made by Robson on February 6, 2005. | |
| To this date, I have not heard from parents. I | |
| will attempt to establish contact with them during the evening hours . I received a package from Atty. Guy Fronstin, which was hand | |
| delivered at the police station. Within the package, was a letter | |
| from Alan Dershowitz, and two www.myspace.com profiles. The profiles | |
| were that of·······•~and In MySpace.com is a social | |
| networking service that allows members to create unique personal | |
| profiles online in order to find and communicate with old and new | |
| friends. This package was in response to a previous meeting in which | |
| Mr. Dershowitz called to assist in the investigation in providing any | |
| additional witnesses such as house employees who have been reluctant | |
| to speak with law enforcement. | |
| I reviewed the p~iles Mr. Dershowitz enclosed. who designed | |
| her blog to be ... II I IL a It still attends | |
| sends and receives messages from friends which contain | |
| some profanity. Upon reviewing her friends' comments section from | |
| Myspace, most of her good friends sent messages to establish contact | |
| and invite her to go out. | |
| I then reviewed . web blog which was provided by Mr. | |
| Dershowitz. Ms. M Q designed her blog to be •111■■■ 1 Her blog | |
| states that her interests include music, theater and weed (Marijuana). | |
| I reviewed her packet in which••adeclares her love for her live-in | |
| borfriend. She also describes using marijuana with her boyfriend | |
| a | |
| The letter Mr. Dershowitz sent advised he was looking into the | |
| allegation that one of the private investigators used by the private | |
| attorneys of Epstein, attempted to impersonate or state that they were | |
| police officers from Palm Beach. Mr. Dershowitz advised that the | |
| investigators used to interview•••••••• had "quite a distinct | |
| speech impediment'', did not claim to be nor did they impersonate | |
| themselves as a police officer. This package was sent to both ASA | |
| Lana Belohlavic and ASA Daliah Weiss at the State Attorney's Office . | |
| I made telephone contact with ASA Weiss to confirm she received the | |
| package and request an interview with Sarah Kellen , Nada Marcinkova , and Janusz Banasiak. She advised she would assist in attempting to | |
| GIUFFRE000068 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 25 of 45 | |
| ----------- ------------------------------------------------------·------------- •ate: 7/19/06 | |
| 'ime: 15: 01:37 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 68 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| ----- ----------------- ---------------------------------------------- ---------- | |
| as e No . . 1-05 - 000368 (Continued) | |
| contact Mr. Dershowitz. | |
| on January 3, 1 2006, I received a telephone call from ASA Weiss who | |
| informed me that she made telephone contact with Mr; Dershowitz. She | |
| had requested the employees be available the week of January 3, 2006. | |
| Mr. Dershowitz informed her that the assistants are out of the | |
| country and would require additional time to locate them and make them | |
| available. | |
| Investigation Continues . | |
| ***************************NARR AT l VE # 31 ************************** ~ Reported By : MINOT, LORIS. 1/03/06 | |
| Entered By. : ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 1/03/06 | |
| On Thursday, 03/31/05, I started conducting surveillance at 358 El | |
| Brillo. At this point I observed at 1155 hours, a Tan Altima bearing | |
| FL tag A303~ in Roadway, Black SL bearing FL tag V55RF'W in drive, Tan | |
| Honda Civic bearing FL tag X98APM in Roadway, Black Chevy Suburban in | |
| driveway and a Black Caddy Escalade in driveway, At 1325 Hours I | |
| observed Tan Honda Civic X98APM in roadway, Black Chevy Suburban in | |
| driveway, Black Caddy Escalade in drive and a White Kia car bearing FL | |
| tag D651BQ. At 1615 hours I observed a Tan Honda Civic, X98APM in | |
| roadway, Black Chevy Suburban in drive, Black Caddy Escalade in | |
| driveway and a White Kia car D651BQ in roadway. | |
| On Friday, 04/01/05, I continued surveillance at 358 El Brillo. At | |
| 1130 hours I observed a Tan Honda Civic bearing FL tag X98APM in | |
| roadway, Black Caddy Escalade in driveway and a Tan unknown make/model | |
| bearing FL tag A303AN in roadway. At 1227 hours, I observed a Tan | |
| Honda Civic X98APM in roadway, Black Caddy Escalade in driveway and a | |
| Black Chevy SUV located behind the Escalade. At 1345 hours, I | |
| observed a Tan Honda Civic X98APM in roadway and a Black Chevy SUV in | |
| driveway. At 1558 hours, I observed a Tan Honda Civic X98APM in | |
| roadway, Black Chevy SUV in driveway, Black Caddy Escalade in driveway | |
| and a dark unknown model/make car parked in garage. | |
| On Saturday, 04/02/05, I continued surveillance at 358 El Brillo. At | |
| 0713 hours, I observed a Red Explorer bearing FL tag J98JEI in roadway | |
| and a Black Caddy Escalade in driveway. At 0814 hours, I observed a | |
| Red Explorer J98JEI in roadway, Black Caddy Escalade in driveway and a | |
| Tan Honda Civic X98APM. At 0952 hours, I observed a Red Explorer | |
| J98JEI in roadway, Black Caddy Escalade in driveway, Tan Honda Civic | |
| X98APM in roadway and also a Grey unknown make/model with a B.M in | |
| trunk retrieving landscaping tools. | |
| At 1155 hours, I observed a Grey Camara bearing FL tagf ---- ■ parking | |
| in the roadway in front of 358 El Brillo. A W/F, blond hair, teens to | |
| early 20 1 s, thin and tall wearing a white tank top and short blue jean | |
| shorts, exited the vehicle and walked to the rear of the house. I | |
| also observed a Red Explorer J9BJEI in roadway, Tan Honda Civic X98APM | |
| in roadway and a Black Caddy Escalade in driveway . At 1310 hours, I | |
| GIUFFRE000069 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 25 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 26 of 45 | |
| --------- ----- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7/19 / 06 | |
| Time: 15:01 : 37 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report Page: 69 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| ::ase No . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued) | |
| observed a Red Explorer W/F driver leaving the area , Tan subcompact on | |
| roadway and a Red Neon bearing FL tag I [. Then observed 3 W/Fs, | |
| approximately 16 to 18 years of age jogging. All 3 females ran into | |
| the driveway. There were 2 with blond hair and one brown hair. | |
| On Sunday, 04/03/05, I continued surveillance at 358 El Brillo. At | |
| 0719 hours I observed a Tan Honda Civic X98APM in roadway and a Black | |
| Caddy Escalade. At 0934 hours, I observed a Tan Honda Civic X98APM in | |
| roadway and a Black Caddy Escalade in driveway. At 1057 hours I | |
| observed only the Tan Honda Civic X98APM. | |
| On Tuesday, 04/05/05, I continued surveillance at 358 El Brillo. At | |
| 10?2 . hours, I observed a Red Explorer J98JEI in roadway, a Green | |
| Explorer, bearing FL tag F91KAK in roadway, a Grey Altima bearing FL | |
| tag A303AN in roadway, White Ford Truck H58LRA in roadway, Black | |
| Mercedes in driveway being washed by a B/M and an unknown dark car | |
| parked in the garage. At 1059 hours a Blue Chevy Suburban drove to | |
| the house of 358 El Brillo and parked in the driveway. At 1119 hours, | |
| I observed the White Fort Truck H58LRA leave the area and the drive | |
| was the pool man. | |
| At 1126 hours, I observed a Grey unknown make/model car park in | |
| roadway . W/M got out of the car and walked to a house on the south | |
| side of El Brillo. At 1406 hours, I observed a Red Explorer parked on | |
| roadway and a large white box truck parked behind the surveillance | |
| suburban . | |
| t************************** NARRATIVE # 32 ******* ******************* ~ Reported By: BATES, MICHAEL J. 1/ 03 / 06 | |
| Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 1/ 03 / 06 | |
| on 03/31/05, at approximately 1500 hours while conducting surveillance | |
| at 358 El Brillo, I observed a Black Cadillac Escalade, unknown tag, a | |
| Black Chevrolet Suburban, unknown tag, a Black Mercedes 8600 FL tag | |
| U90BQL parked in the east driveway next to the 3-car garage. There | |
| was a Tan Honda Civic FL tag X98APM parked on the street in front of | |
| the residence. | |
| At approximately 170 0 hours, I observed the Black Suburban , Black | |
| Escalade, Black Mercedes and Tan Honda Civic parked in the same place. | |
| At 1750 hours, there was no change in vehicles. At 1840 hours, I | |
| observed the Black Escalade, Black Suburban and Black Mercedes along | |
| with a Silver Hyundai Accent FL tag Al36AN all parked in the east | |
| driveway and a Red Ford Explorer FL tag J98JEI parked on the street in | |
| front of the residence. | |
| At 2000 hours, I observed the Black Escalade, Black Suburban parked in | |
| the ease driveway and the Red Explorer and Tan Civic parked on the | |
| street . | |
| On Friday , 04 / 01/05 at approximately 170 0 hours , I observed the Black | |
| GIUFFRE000070 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 26 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 27 of 45 | |
| -- ---------------------------------------------------------~------------------ ate: 7 /19/06 | |
| ime: 15: 01: 3 7 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 70 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | |
| ~se No . . .. : 1-05-000368 (Continued) | |
| Escalade and Black Suburban parked in the east driveway and the Tan | |
| Honda Civic parked on the street in front of the residence. At 1820 | |
| hours, I observed the Suburban and Civic in the same place and a Gold | |
| Chevrolet Camaro FL tag p,arked on the street in front of the | |
| residence. At 2250 there was no change . At 2330, I observed the | |
| Black Escalade parked in the driveway and the Red Explorer parked on | |
| the street in front of the residence. | |
| On Saturday, 04/02/05 at approximately 1700 hours , I observed a Black | |
| Escalade, unknown tag, parked in the driveway and a Tan Honda Civic FL | |
| tag X98AMP parked in the street in front of the residence. At 1805 | |
| hours the Escalade and Civic were in the same position and the Black | |
| Mercedes FL tag U90BQL was also parked in the east driveway. At 192 0 | |
| hours the Escalade and Civic were the only vehicles and both were in | |
| the same position. At 2030 hours and 2145 hours there were no | |
| vehicles observed. | |
| At 2115 hours, I observed a Black Mercedes, 4-door parked in the east | |
| driveway FL tag Gl4CT. At 2300 hours, 2350 hours and 0045 hours, the | |
| Black Mercedes was the only vehicle observed. | |
| **************************NARRATIVE # 33 ************************** | |
| Reported By: RECAREY , JOSEPH 1/05/06 | |
| Entered By . : ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 1/05/06 | |
| I made contact with Mr. father of | |
| who was told that I wished to interview his daughter. Mr. J | |
| stated he was aware ~nd had spoken with his daughter about the | |
| incident. He stated that his daughter had previously told him that | |
| she was hired to model lingerie at a Palm Beach mansion. Mr. | |
| stated he knew nothing else about what she did when she went to | |
| "work." Mr. 4al advised be would cooperate with the investigation | |
| and make his daugl'fcer available for interviews. I asked if she was | |
| available f~rfan indthe:vie | |
| 1 | |
| w, J | |
| 1 | |
| d k£stated sthe,whashnot at ho | |
| 1 | |
| met at ~he | |
| moment. I in orrne im wou ma e contac wit er at a a er time . | |
| Mr . ..._.expressed hi.s interest in the resolution in this matter | |
| as he~ this information has affected his daughter emotionally. | |
| On January 4, 2005, I acquired the subpoenas from the State Attorney ' s | |
| Office for Cingular Wireless, Metro PCS, Verizon, Bell South | |
| Telecommunications and Sprint for the unknown telephone numbers from | |
| Sarah Kellen's cellular telephone . The subpoenas were sent to the | |
| respective telephone carriers for subscriber information. | |
| I received a telephone call from State Attorney's Office, who informed | |
| me that the former houseman for Jeffrey Epstein, Alfredo Rodriguez, | |
| was present at the State Attorney's Office for an interview. | |
| Rodriguez was issued an investigative subpoena for an interview on the | |
| on-goings at Epstein's house during his employ. I responded to the | |
| State Attorney's Office and encountered Mr. Rodriguez waiting in the | |
| lobby , I brought Mr. Rodriguez to the interview room . | |
| GIUFFRE00007 l | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 27 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 28 of 45 | |
| ----------------------------------~--------------------------------------- -· ---- Date: 7/ 19/06 | |
| Time: 15:01:37 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report Page: 71 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| ------------ ----------------- ----------------------------------------------- -- | |
| :ase No . . . : 1-05 - 0003 68 (Continued) | |
| During a sworn taped statement , Mr. Rodriguez stated he was employed | |
| by Jeffrey Epstein for approximately six months. He was referred by | |
| associates and his employment lasted the months of November 2004 | |
| through May 2005. His responsibilities as house manager included | |
| being the butler, chauffer, chef, houseman , run errands for Mr. | |
| Epstein and provide for Epstein 1 s guests. Rodriguez advised he had | |
| very limited contact with Mr. Epstein. If Rodriguez needed to relay a | |
| message to Mr. Epstein, he would have to notify Epstein's secretary | |
| "Leslie" in New York City, who would then notify Epstein's personal | |
| assistant, Sarah, who would relay the message to Epstein. Rodriguez | |
| stated Epstein did not want to see or hear the staff when he was in | |
| residence. | |
| I asked Rodriguez if Epstein received many guests during his stay in | |
| Palm Beach. Rodriguez advised he had many guests. I asked | |
| specifically about masseuses coming to the house. Rodriguez stated he | |
| would have two massages a day. Epstein would have one massage in the | |
| morning and one massage in the afternoon everyday he was in residence. | |
| Rodriguez stated he would be informed to expect someone and make them | |
| comfortable until either Sarah or Epstein would meet with them. | |
| Rodriguez stated once the masseuses would arrive, he would allow them | |
| entry into the kitchen area and offer them something to drink or eat. | |
| They would then be encountered by either Sarah or Epstein. They | |
| would be taken upstairs to provide the massage. I asked Rodriguez if | |
| any of the masseuses appeared young in age, He advised he didn't ask | |
| their ages but felt they were very young. Rodriguez stated they ate | |
| like his own daughter who is in high school. Rodriguez stated they | |
| would eat tons of cereal and drink milk all the time. Rodriguez | |
| stated the girls that would come appeared to be too young to be | |
| masseuses. He stated one time un4er E&stein 1 s direction, he delivered | |
| a dozen roses to J I for one of the girls | |
| that came to provide a massage. He knew the girls were still in high | |
| school and were of high school age. I asked Rodriguez about the | |
| massages. He felt there was a lot more going on than just massages. | |
| He would clean Mr. Epstein 1 s bed.room after the alleged massages and | |
| would discover massager/vibrators and sex toys scattered on the floor . He also said he would wipe down the vibrators and sex toys and put | |
| them away in an arrnoire. He described the armoire as a small wood | |
| armoire which was on the wall close to Epstein's bed. | |
| Epstein ordered Rodriguez to go to the Dollar rent a car and rent a | |
| car for the same girl he brought the roses to , so that she could drive | |
| her self to Epstein's house without incident. Rodriguez said the girl | |
| always needed rides to and from the house. Rodriguez referred himself | |
| as a "human ATM machine" and was ordered by Epstein to maintain a | |
| minimum balance of $2,000 dollars on him at all times. When a girl | |
| would come by the house and Mr. Epstein was either not in residence or | |
| was not at home at the time, Rodriguez was to provide the girl | |
| (masseuse) several hundred dollars for their time and to notify | |
| Epstein the amount they were given . Epstein also ordered Rodriguez to | |
| GIUFFRE000072 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 28 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 29 of 45 | |
| --------------------------------~·-----------------------~--------------------- )ate : 7 / 19 / 0 6 | |
| 'ime: 15:01:37 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 72 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| ----- ------~ ----------~---------------------------------------~---------- -- | |
| :ase No. . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued) | |
| purchase several gifts and provide them as tips to the girls. I asked | |
| what kind of gifts. Rodriguez stated he purchased IPODS, jewelry, anything the girls would want. | |
| Rodriguez stated the amount of girls that came to the house was | |
| approximately fifteen. Each of the girls knew each other and all | |
| seemed to know at -•••••••■•■•••••who Mr. Epstein was . When asked to identify these girls, Rodriguez stated he could not at | |
| the moment but knew he wrote their names down on a journal he kept | |
| during his employ with Mr. Epstein. He kept a journal in the event he | |
| needed to explain either to Mr. Epstein or his assistants what was | |
| done at the house or who visited the house as he stated he was | |
| in-charge of Mr. Epstein's personal security while in Palm Beach. I | |
| informed him I would need to view this journal to which he stated he | |
| would research the book and contact me to provide the book. The | |
| interview was concluded and left the area. I returned back to the | |
| police station where the micro cassette was placed into evidence. At | |
| approximately 7:20 pm, I was notified Rodriguez located the journal | |
| and would call me on January 5 , 2005 to provide the journal . | |
| Investigation Continuesaa | |
| •**************************NARRATI V E # 34 ************************** , Reported By: RECAREY , JOSEPH 1/09/06 | |
| Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 1/10/06 | |
| On January 5 , 2006 , I attempted to meet with Alfredo Rodriguez to | |
| recover the folder or journal in which he kept the notes that were | |
| given to him during his employ with Mr. Jeffrey Epstein. He kept this | |
| folder to justify what he did during his employ should the need arise | |
| to justify what occurred with the monies he had to keep or any | |
| questions as to the petty cash he withdrew from the household account | |
| from the bank. At approximately 10:00 pm, I attempted contact with | |
| Mr. Rodriguez and discovered he was assisting his wife at her place of | |
| employment and would not be able to meet with me. Mr. Rodriguez | |
| stated he would meet with me on January 6, 2006, in Broward County, in | |
| the morning hours" | |
| On January 6 , 2006, at approximately 9 ; 00 am, I received a telephone | |
| call from Mr. Rodriguez who advised he had the file in hand and would | |
| be traveling northbound to meet with me in Broward County. At 10:50 | |
| am, I met with Alfredo Rodriguez at the parking lot of Bank of America | |
| in Boca Raton on Yamato Road and Military Trail (known as the Polo | |
| Center). Rodriguez produced a green folder which contained documents , | |
| a note with Mr. Epstein's stationary with direction to deliver a | |
| bucket of roses to . after ~ £ J | |
| high school drama performance. Also in that same note was direction | |
| to rent a car for•••···and direction to extend the rental | |
| contract. I returned to the Palm Beach Police Station and placed the | |
| folder into evidence. | |
| I received a fax from Verizon from the subpoena request sent on | |
| GIUFFRE000073 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 29 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 30 of 45 | |
| --~--------------------------------------------------------------------------- :i.te: 7/19/06 | |
| ime: 15:01 : 37 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page : 73 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| --------- --- ------------------- ------------------------------------------- -- -- | |
| :i.se No. . : 1 - 05-000368 (Continued) | |
| 01-04 - 06, for telephone number 561-3 02-1844 . The phone number is | |
| registered to Dr Perry Bard, from West Palm Beach. Dr. Bard is a | |
| chiropractor and has an office.located 4275 Okeechobee Blvd in West | |
| Palm Beach . The cellular number is Dr Bard ' s personal cellular | |
| number . | |
| On January 9 , 2006 , Det. Caristo and I traveled to 622 Holly Drive in | |
| Palm Beach Gardens in an attempt to locate Johanna Sjoberg, who had | |
| been previously seen on the property and identified through her | |
| Florida Drivers License and Florida license Plate. A business card | |
| was left for her to return my call. We then traveled to the ■- ~. | |
| & RY--FT p and located i • T -i] -• t agreed to | |
| speak wib u s and in a private room within the school provided us a | |
| taped statement . | |
| During the statement, advised that when she was fifteen or | |
| sixteen years of age, she was taken to Jeffrey Epstein's house by her | |
| associate,••••••• til■■■~stated this occurred lat e May 2004 | |
| or early June 2004. She was told she could model lingerie for money | |
| for a wealthy Palm Beacher. She remembered they traveled by yellow | |
| cab from their residence in West Palm Beach to Epstein ' s house. She | |
| remembered encountering Epstein at the front door during the evening | |
| hours. | |
| He introduced himself and brought them into the kitchen so that the | |
| chef could prepare something for them to eat . After having a meal, | |
| and Epstein broughtlll■■9 upstairs to a master bedroom which | |
| had a large bathroom. She observed a large style shower, sauna and | |
| there was a large massage bed also in the bathroom . Epstein entered a | |
| room within the bathroom and came out wearing only a towel. | |
| said they would provide a massage on his feet. L § j asked why they | |
| are doing this. ~ told her this was part of the routine and told | |
| her to rub hi~and calves . Epstein had told to get | |
| comfortable . ._..... continued rubbing Epstein I s ·calves and feet, At | |
| Epstein's direction, then left the room leaving there | |
| by herself. Epstein told to get comfortable. removed | |
| her blouse and pants a~d stayed in her panties. ■-■istated she | |
| was not wearing a bra. She believed she was wearing thong panties. | |
| Epstein turned over onto his back and began touching her. Epstein | |
| touched her breasts and began touching her in her vagina area. | |
| Epstein instructed her to rub his chest and rub his nipples. | |
| stated the touching consisted over the panties on the first time; he | |
| stroked her vagina but stayed on top of the panties. During the first | |
| massage, she stated Epstein was stroking her and began masturbating | |
| himself at the same time. He put his hands under the towel and | |
| appeared as to masturbate himself however she never saw his penis . | |
| She continued rubbing his chest until he grabbed her and pulled her | |
| closer to him . He appeared to have climaxed because after he pulled | |
| her closer to him the massage was over. Epstein had told her that | |
| there was two hundred dollars for her on the dresser. He told her | |
| that she could not tell anyone what happened at the house or bad | |
| things could happen. ■•■~stated she went to Epstein ' s house three | |
| GIUFFRE000074 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 30 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 31 of 45 | |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ ate: 7/ 19/06 | |
| 'ime : 15 : o 1 : 3 7 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 74 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- | |
| ase No .. . . : 1-05 - 000368 (Continued) | |
| or t our times • total. ~u-Q was very scared and felt very nervous . | |
| She knew because of Epstein's money he was powerful. After the | |
| massage, Epstein ordered his houseman at the time to drive the girls | |
| home . The employee was to drop off the girls at their house and watch | |
| them go inside their house. | |
| could not remember who the houseman was. She stated Epstein | |
| and his assistant Sarah would call her at her father 1 s house to | |
| arrange for her to come and 11 work. 11 She advised each time she returned | |
| to the house, Epstein would do the same thing. ■■■•stated it was | |
| a routine with Epstein. She would rub his feet and calves. He would | |
| then turn over and begin to touch her on her vagina area. The only | |
| difference was that it was done without panties. Epstein's fingers | |
| would stroke her vagina area as he would masturbate and finally climax | |
| and the massage would be over. She was paid $200.00 each time she | |
| went. Each time she went she was reminded not to speak of what | |
| happened at the house and that she would be contacted again. She | |
| began to purposely miss the calls when either Sarah or Epstein would | |
| call her . She once brought a friend , ~ unknown last name, to | |
| work for Epstein. She was paid $2 00 . 00 for bringi1ig $ | |
| stated she no longer retuned to work for Epstein. She also stated | |
| that she wanted to notify the police of what happened at the house. | |
| } stated she was scared of what could have happened to her or | |
| her ~~mily if she notified authorities . | |
| number is assigned to Mr. ···•• I, father in 9 ■ , I also received the results from Western Union which | |
| confirmed the money order sent to•••• .... •••~frorn Jeffrey | |
| Epstein in New York City. The 11 wire 11 was sent by Jeffrey Epstein of | |
| 457 Madison Ave in New York City on December 23, 2004 at 12:05 pm. | |
| The amount of $222 . 00 was charged to Epstein's credit card so that | |
| • could receive $200 . 00 in••••••••• The twenty-two | |
| dollars was for processing and local fees to send the money via | |
| Western Union . A copy of the check presented to~ was also | |
| attached to the receipt of the wire . This confirmed what | |
| advised she received as a Christmas bonus from Epstein . | |
| Investigation continues. | |
| ********** * ******** *******NARRATIVE .# 35 ************************** | |
| Reported By: RECAREY , JOSEPH | |
| Entered By.: ALTOM.ARO , NICKIE A. | |
| 1/10/06 | |
| 1/10/06 | |
| I received and reviewed the Cingular Wireless results from the | |
| subpoena requests for subscriber information for telephone numbers | |
| 561-818-8361, 561-389-6874 and 561-309-0079 . The first number, | |
| 561-818-8361, is assigned to Janusz Banasiak in care of Jeffrey | |
| Epstein of 457 Madison Ave in New York City. Banasiak is the current | |
| houseman/house manager for 358 El Brillo Way in Palm Beach, Fl 33480 . | |
| The second number , 561 - 389-6874 , is assigned to Christina Venero of | |
| G!UFFRE000075 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 31 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 32 of 45 | |
| -----------------------------------------------------------------------~------ •ate: 7/ 19 / 06 | |
| 'ime: 15: 01: 37 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 75 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- | |
| ase No .... : l-05-000368 (Continued) | |
| 1685 61st Drive in West Palm Beach . Research conducted on Venero | |
| revealed she is a licensed Massage therapist with a Florida | |
| conditional/active license number MA39723. Venero had been previously | |
| arrested for battery/ unwanted touching and DUI. Requests for copies | |
| of the reports involving the arrests were requested from the Palm | |
| Beach County Sheriff's Office. The last number 561-309-0079 is | |
| assigned to Thomas Rofrano of 9850 Alt AlA in Palm Beach Gardens. | |
| Research on Mr. Rofrano, revealed that he is a Florida Chiropractic | |
| Physician . | |
| Vehicles that were previously documented on the property while | |
| surveillance was being conducted were researched. I determined a tan | |
| Chevrolet Camaro, bearing Florida license••••• was seen on the | |
| property in which a young white female was seen entering the Epstein | |
| property. Research was conducted which revealed that the vehicle is | |
| registered to of . . Mr. ••ahas two daughters, -------... | |
| ~ an • is currently residing in | |
| and ■••-- is residing with her father in? 73 ...... Research on --••-~evealed she was recently involved | |
| ~raffic stop in Lake Clarke Shores in May 19, 2005. A request to | |
| discover any information from the stop was requested. | |
| I spoke with ASA Daliah Weiss who informed me that Janusz Banasiak | |
| will be available for an interview tomorrow at the State Attorney's | |
| Office in West Palm Beach at 1:30 pm. I informed her that! would be | |
| at her office for the interview. | |
| **************************NARRATI V E # 36 ************************** | |
| Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 1/23 /06 | |
| Entered By.: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 1/23 /06 | |
| On January 19, 2006, Det. Caristo and I met with Johanna Sjoberg at | |
| 622 Holly Drive in Palm Beach Gardens. Sjoberg was identified as a | |
| licensed massage therapist who had previously been seen on Epstein's | |
| property when physical surveillance was done. Sjoberg was told of the | |
| on going investigation and I felt she may have information pertaining | |
| to the case. During a sworn taped statement, Sjoberg stated she met | |
| Epstein three years ago when Ghaline Maxwell approached her while she | |
| was attending Palm Beach Atlantic College to work around Epstein's | |
| house. Maxwell had told her that they needed some girls to work at | |
| the house to answer phones and run errands. Sjoberg accepted the job | |
| and began working at Epsteints house on El Brillo in Palm Beach, | |
| Sjoberg stated it was a part time job during the time she went to Palm | |
| Beach Atlantic College. She continued going to Epstein's house and | |
| would be notified when Epstein would travel to Palm Beach. Sjoberg | |
| advised she would be notified by Maxwell, Epstein or Sarah, his | |
| assistant, when he would travel to Palm Beach. Sjoberg stated she | |
| began providing massages to Epstein before she became a massage | |
| therapist. She continued giving massages not only to Epstein but to | |
| Nadia Marcinkova, and Sarah, his assistant . Sjoberg was asked about | |
| what occurred during the massages. Sjoberg stated as she was twenty | |
| GIUFFRE000076 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 32 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 33 of 45 | |
| -----------·--------- ---------------------------------------------------------- 1te: 7/19/06 | |
| Lme : 15: 01 : 3 7 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 76 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| ~------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- | |
| i. s e No . 1 - 05-000368 (Continued) | |
| three years old when she met Epstein, anything that happened was | |
| between two consenting adults. I explained to her that she was not in | |
| any trouble however as part of this investigation, I needed to ask | |
| certain questions. Sjoberg stated that there were times that Epstein | |
| would ask her to perform during the massage . He would instruct her to | |
| rub his nipples as he masturbated himself . Sjoberg stated she felt | |
| "grossed" about the behavior but as she was getting paid, she just | |
| continued. Sjoberg also advised she would on occasion perform the | |
| massages naked. Epstein would on occasion, utilize the | |
| vibrator/massager on her vagina area when she performed the massages. | |
| Sjoberg explained that Epstein never exposed himself to her as he | |
| maintained himself covered under the towel he would be wearing. When | |
| Epstein would masturbate he would be covered. | |
| I asked if Sjoberg ever received any gifts, or any gratuities from | |
| Epstein . Sjoberg advised aside from being paid well, she advised | |
| Epstein took care of her tuition from Palm Beach Atlantic College , | |
| She received a rental car for a week when her scooter broke down. | |
| Additionally she received other gifts from Epstein. Epstein also | |
| recommended her to another client who resides at Breakers Row in Palm | |
| Beach .. The client she was referred to was 11 Glenn 11 unknown last name, | |
| and his wife, who she provided a massages to . The statement was | |
| concluded and placed into evidence upon cur return to the Palm Beach | |
| Police Depart~ent. | |
| While at the police station , I researched Florida tag which | |
| was also previously seen on the property when there was physical | |
| surveillance being done at the property. The vehicle.is ,registered to | |
| 1 I •---of 4-----·-·- Researching Mr. - f and the | |
| vehicle revealed that his daughter, •••• 9111 had been driving | |
| the vehicle and was cited for unlawful speed in Lake Clark Shores. | |
| The vehicle is a tan, Chevrolet Camaro, 2-door. I researched | |
| I / date of birth I ,-·. :rm .. , resides at • | |
| - & has a my space page called | |
| in | |
| www.myspace . com'1II••••• In her web page, shows various photos of | |
| i photographed at a beach. An interview is forthcoming. | |
| A review of the video disks which was extracted at the Palm Beach | |
| County Sheriff's Office Computer Crime Unit revealed that only one | |
| hidden camera was functional at the time. Several images of Epstein | |
| working at his office were seen. Additional footage of Sarah Kellen | |
| and Nadia Marcinkova was seen. There was other footage of females | |
| seen. The identity of the females is unknown at this time, until such | |
| time as I meet with certain females to show the video footage to | |
| confirm if, in. fact, it is them on the video. At this time it appears | |
| that ■ and Haley Robson are seen sitting with Epstein beside | |
| his desk in the evening hours. Due to poor lighting , a direct | |
| confirmation cannot be made at this time . | |
| Inv _ Continues . | |
| GIUFFRE000077 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 33 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 34 of 45 | |
| --- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >ate : 7 / 19 / 0 6 | |
| 'i me : 1 5 : 0 1 : 3 7 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 77 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| -------------------------------------~---------~~------------------------------ | |
| 'ase No . . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued} | |
| ***************************NARRATIVE # 37 ************************** | |
| A Reported By: RECAREY , JOSEPH | |
| Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. | |
| On January 25, 2006, Det Caristo and I, responded to._. | |
| in••--•••and met with••■--••• ••• stated last | |
| year, when she was seventeen years of age, she met Jeffrey Epstein | |
| through her former room mate~ •••was allegedly dating | |
| 1/30/ 06 | |
| 1/30/06 | |
| Epstein at the time. arn V & had once cohabitated together | |
| when they modeled. explained I called her on her telephone | |
| and advised her that she was in Palm Beach and requested to see her. | |
| made arrangements to meet with her at Epstein's house. | |
| arrived and met Epstein andlll•• and•••went to the Palm | |
| Beach Mall together and went shopping , advised thata••and | |
| she had received money from Epstein to go to the mall. They visited | |
| Victoria's Secret and purchased undergarments from the store utilizing | |
| monies given by Epstein. ••• advised she purchased one item and | |
| purchase various items , The money used to purchase the items | |
| was the money given by Epstein. | |
| and continued shopping and having a day together. | |
| stated•••-explained how she and Epstein have been dating each other | |
| and he has been paying all of her bills. ••• claimed••• advised | |
| they met in New York and had been dating ever since. They later | |
| returned to Epstein's home and encountered Epstein. He had a brief | |
| conversation with about her modeling career. He knew of her | |
| modeling career from He requested to see her modeling | |
| portfolio and explained that he could help her with modeling jobs. ■ -had her book with her to showd!lll-•and showed the book to | |
| Epstein. He commented negatively about her photographs and portfolio . felt uncomfortable with the comments made as she had been | |
| working with other professional modeling companies who had offered her | |
| work from her photographs, Epstein requested to see what was | |
| purchased at the mall. ••• took out the undergarments which were | |
| purchased. She immediately showed Epstein different sets purchased. | |
| Epstein then requested to view what9 •• purchased. ••• was | |
| reluctant to show"'the• -out~E,i,t however since it was Epstein's money that | |
| purchased the item, she pulled it out of the bag. Epstein asked her | |
| to try it on. ••• looked attl- iwho told her 11 yeah, try it on. 11 | |
| Feeling compelled to try the undergarment outfit on; she went to | |
| another room and put on the bra and panty set. She walked out to the | |
| living room where they were sitting, and modeled the suit. She then | |
| went back into the other room and changed back into her clothes. | |
| ■ I returned into the room and told ••• she would be going home. | |
| scheduled another day for••• to return for massages with her. | |
| stated within that same week, she returned to meet with | |
| and have a massage . · I had told her that she would be unable to | |
| stay with her as she would be going on a bike ride with Epstein . explained she could stay at the house and take advantage of the | |
| massage . | |
| GIUFFRE000078 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 34 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 35 of 45 | |
| ------------------------------------------------- ------------- ----- ----------- ,ate: 7/19/06 'ime: 15: O 1: 3 7 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 78 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| ----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| ase No. . : 1 - 05-000368 (Continued ) | |
| stated she met with an unknown massage therapist and had the | |
| table already set up in a guest room . ■■•removed her clothing, | |
| leaving her panties on, and wrapped herself with a towel for the | |
| massage. ••■► remembered that the door to the guest room was closed | |
| but not locked. As the therapist was working her back, the door was | |
| opened by Epstein and entered into the room . 4••twas trying to | |
| conceal herself as Epstein was talking to her about his chiropractic | |
| session. Epstein told••• turn over onto her back . eventually turned over exposing her breasts to Epstein as he applied | |
| pressure on her shoulder and her waist. ••• stated Epstein "popped " | |
| her back. removed her self from the table , got dressed and left | |
| the house. further stated••• had attempted to call her on | |
| several occasions to invite her back to Epstein 1 s house to which | |
| replied "l 'm busy. 11 ••• advised she has not had contact with either | |
| or Jeffrey Epstein. It should be noted that her mother , was present during the interview . The interview was | |
| concluded and we thanked them her for their time | |
| ·**************************NARRATIVE # 38 ************************** | |
| Reported By: RECAREY , J OSEPH 1/31/06 | |
| Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 1/31/06 | |
| on January 2 7 , 2006 , I made telephone contact with Christina Venero , at 772 - 878-728 0 . Venero is a licensed massage therapist who had | |
| frequented the home of Jeffrey Epstein. Ms . Venero has been unable to | |
| meet with me in Palm Beach County, and because she lives and works in | |
| Por t St Lucie, a telephone interview was conducted. I explained to | |
| Ms. Venero that there was an on going investigation involving Jeffrey | |
| Epstei n. | |
| Venero stated she knows Epstein and has been employed by him for | |
| approximately three years . Epstein has paid Venero to perform Swedish | |
| Massages (Deep Tissue) on him and other guests. Venero explained that | |
| approximately three year ago she met Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey | |
| Epstein through a mutual friend. Epstein and Maxwell were looking for | |
| a massage therapist. Venero stated since that time, she is notified | |
| when Epstein is corning to Palm Beach. Venero stated she comes to his | |
| house and provides the massage or massages. Venero explained she has | |
| also massaged his guests and assistants. Venero continued that she is | |
| paid $100.00 and hour for the massage. | |
| I asked Venero if anything occurred during the massage that would have | |
| rh acte· her feel uncomfortable . Venero stated she only provided massages | |
| and th,at was it. She never was approached for anything else . I asked | |
| if Epstein ever asked her to rub his chest she stated she would not | |
| rub his chest as that is not part of her massage. Venero explained | |
| that she was not Epstein 1 s type. The girls she would see at Epstein's | |
| house were very thin, beautiful and without tattoos . Venero explained | |
| she has several tattoos that are visible . Maxwell and Epstein have | |
| commented negatively about her tattoos previously when she has | |
| provided massages. | |
| GlUFFRE000079 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 35 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 36 of 45 | |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ate: 7/19/06 | |
| ime: 15:01:37 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 79 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------~----------- | |
| 3.se No. . : 1-05-000368 (Continued) | |
| Venero stated she only provided massages for Epstein and his | |
| associates and nothing happened during those massages. Venero stated | |
| as she does Swedish style massages, the patient is usually sore after | |
| the massages. I thanked her for her assistance and the interview was | |
| concluded at this time. | |
| I received a facsimile from T-Mobile Cellular service on telephone | |
| number 561-317-5844, which is assigned to David Rodgers, pilot for Mr. | |
| Epstein, who resides in Lake Worth. Rodgers' telephone number was | |
| dialed on several occasions by Sarah Kellen. A background on Rodgers | |
| indicated he has a valid FAA pilot license First Class for the | |
| Southern FAA Region. Rodgers has another historical FAA license for | |
| Airline Transport Pilot . | |
| Investigation Continues . | |
| **************************NARRATIVE # 39 ************************** | |
| Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 2/ 14/06 | |
| Entered By.: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 2 / 16/06 | |
| on Friday, February 3, 2006, I had made arrangements to meet with | |
| Joanna Harrison at the Palm Beach Police Station . At approximately | |
| 1 : 00pm, Harrison and her friend, Victoria Bean arrived at the police | |
| station . During an interview with Harrison, she stated she met | |
| Epstein when she turned eighteen years old and was brought to | |
| Epstein's house to provide a massage . She advised this occurred on | |
| May of 2005. She advised Haley Robson had informed her if she wanted | |
| to provide a massage for $200.00 . Harrison agreed and was brought to | |
| Epstein's house to provide a massage. Harrison stated she had been to | |
| the house on many occasions during the massage sessions. Harrison | |
| also stated she would remove her clothing to provide the massage on | |
| Epstein . Harrison advised Epstein would pay her $300.00 to rub his | |
| back, legs and chest. During the massages, Epstein would masturbate | |
| himself as she rubbed his chest. I asked her if Epstein ever touched | |
| her breasts during the massages. Harrison replied. ''Yes. 11 I asked her | |
| if Epstein ever touched or massaged her vagina. Harrison stated he | |
| had on several occasions. I asked her if he ever penetrated her with | |
| either his penis or any other objects. Harrison stated that during a | |
| massage he inserted his fingers in her vagina as she massaged him. | |
| She stated this occurred one time only. Harrison stated the massage | |
| would be over when Epstein would climax onto a towel. I asked | |
| Harrison if she had any formal massage training to which she replied | |
| that she did not. Harrison was then asked if she ever brought anyone | |
| to the house to "work." Harrison stated she brought two people to the | |
| house. She advised she received money for bringing people to the | |
| house to "work. 11 Harrison stated she brought a girl named M and | |
| her friend Tory Bean. Bean was still waiting for Harrison in the | |
| lobby of the police station. I thanked Harrison for her time and her | |
| cooperation and escorted her to the lobby . | |
| I asked Ms Bean if I could speak with her about this investigation . I | |
| GIUFFRE000080 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 36 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 37 of 45 | |
| --------------------------~------------------------------------- ------------- - :i.te: 7 / 19/06 | |
| ime: 15: 01: 3 7 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 80 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| ---------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- | |
| rne No. : 1 - 05-000368 (Continued) | |
| brought her to the interview room and explained to her that I was | |
| conducting an investigation on Jeffrey Epstein and felt she may have | |
| information pertaining to the investigation. Ms Bean identified | |
| herself as Victoria Bean and resides in Wellington, Florida. She | |
| advised approximately a year ago she was brought to Epstein's house to | |
| provide a massage for money. Bean stated she needed to make money and | |
| felt it was a quick way to make some money. Bean stated she was | |
| brought to the house by ~arrison and was introduced to Epstein and his | |
| assistant. She was brought to his main bathroom and provided a | |
| massage. I asked her if she provided the massage naked. Bean stated | |
| she did. She rubbed Epstein's legs, back and chest. I asked Bean if | |
| Epstein touched her during the massage. She advised he did not, | |
| howeyer he did masturbate himself as she rubbed his chest. Once he | |
| climaxed the massage was over. She was paid her money and left the | |
| area. Bean advised it occurred one time and she never returned to | |
| Epstein 1 s house. The interview was concluded and Bean was escorted to | |
| the lobby. | |
| I located a telephone number for and attempted to | |
| contact her on several occasions, I called .rw:rTT I nd spoke | |
| with Ms. ••• who advised she would speak with me in· i | |
| where she resides. Due to a scheduling conflict, we were unable to | |
| meet. I informed her I would contact her to schedule another | |
| appointment to speak with her about this investigation. I have | |
| attempted to meet with her and make telephone contact with negative | |
| results. | |
| On February 13 , 2006, I met with David Rodgers at 7318 Heathley Drive | |
| in Lake Worth, Rodgers was identified as Epstein ' s pilot. I spoke | |
| with Rodgers who advised he has been employed with Epstein since 1991 . | |
| He flies both planes for Epstein depending where he wants to fly to. | |
| Rodgers was asked about passengers in the plane he flies. Rodgers | |
| stated unless Epstein flew to his island off of St Thomas, there would | |
| be no way of knowing who the passengers were. I mentioned a recent | |
| flight to Ohio, where Rodgers flew to Ohio to pick up | |
| Rodgers stated he recalled flying on several occasions and did | |
| remember•••• Rodgers stated once he is in the cockpit, he does not | |
| knqw who the passengers are. When he prepares the passenger | |
| manifests, he lists Epstein and his assistants he knows by name, Sarah | |
| and Adrianna. Rodgers stated he would list either female or male | |
| passengers on the manifests only to keep a count on the passengers. | |
| Mrs. Rodgers came into the living room and recommended that her | |
| husband consult with an attorney. Mr. Rodgers agreed he would speak | |
| with the family attorney to inform him of this questioning. I | |
| explained to Mr. Rodgers that he was not the suspect in this | |
| investigation and ceased all questions. Based on the fact Rodgers | |
| could not advise who passengers were in the plane, I then left the | |
| area. | |
| I attempted to locate -at in IT ■ . I left my business card for her to return my call . On | |
| February 14, 2006 , at 12:06 pm, I received a call back from Ms, | |
| GIUFFRE00008 l | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 37 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 38 of 45 | |
| ---- ---------------~-------------------------------------------------------- :1te : 7/19 / 06 | |
| ime: 15:01:37 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 81 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| ----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | |
| :i.se No . . . : 1-05 - 000368 {Continued) | |
| on my voice mail Ms • left her telephone number for a return | |
| call 561-662-3098. I left her a message to return call. | |
| Investigation Continues .. | |
| **************************NARRATI V E # 40 ************************** | |
| Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 2/21 / 06 | |
| Entered By.: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 2/22 /0 6 | |
| On February 15, 2006, I made telephone contact with who | |
| provided directions to where I could locate her. Det Caristo· and I | |
| responded to 806 Old Dixie Hwy in Lake Park to meet with | |
| Upon my arrival, I met with••Win the parking lot directly | |
| behind MAACO Auto Painting. She was advised I was there to speak with | |
| her about an ongoing investigation that concerned Jeffrey Epstein in | |
| Palm Beach ..... stated she knows Epstein very well and did not want | |
| to speak with me about Mr . Epstein . She was very fond of Epstein and | |
| did not want to speak with me about anything concerning Jeffrey | |
| Epstein. I explained to her that she was seen at the house and I | |
| would like to speak with her. She stat~d she knew there was an | |
| investigation and that I had spoken with other people and therefore I | |
| should know what happened at Epstein's house . 1111 9 ended the | |
| conversation and walked back into ·her boyfriends business , Blanton | |
| Automotive. Det Caristo and I left the area and returned to the | |
| police station . | |
| Investigation continues. | |
| ********************* ****NARRATI V E # 41 ************************** | |
| Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 4 / 1 0/ 06 | |
| Entered By .: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A.. 4 / 1 0/0 6 | |
| A Grand Jury Session was requested during t he month of February 2006 , | |
| in which all the girls that had been interviewed would have b e en | |
| called to testify before the Grand Jury to seek an indictment against | |
| Jeffrey Epstein. Due to subsequent meetings with the State Attorney ' s | |
| Office and Defense Attorney Alan Dershowitz the Grand Jury was | |
| postponed until a later time . Dershowitz had provided a package of | |
| material on the main victims in this case in which they appear on | |
| myspace . com and speak about alcohol use and some marijuana use. The | |
| State Attorney's Office wanted time to review the material . | |
| I requested additional subpoenas from the State Attorney ' s Office in | |
| which I requested information from Dollar Rent a Car and Jet Aviation. | |
| The information requested from Dollar Rent a Car was for the rented | |
| vehicle by Alfredo Rodriguez while under the employ of Epstein for one | |
| of the victims. The other subpoena requested was for Jet Aviation for | |
| d ates and times when Epstein's planes were in Palm Beach County . | |
| I con tinued to research other names that were acquired either from | |
| interviews or intelligence gathered during the investigation . I | |
| GIUFFRE000082 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 38 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 39 of 45 | |
| --- ----~----------------------------------------~----------------------------- :lte: 7 / 19/06 | |
| ime: 15:01:37 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report Page: 82 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| -----------------~~ -----------------~------------- ------------------------- | |
| ;1.se No. . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued) | |
| located •••■- in ■~ I responded to | |
| in £ .. • During the interview, •rz■ ] | |
| stated she knew I would be speaking with her. ••••• stated she | |
| was first introduced to Epstein when she turned eighteen years old. | |
| SI stated ~_he was sure of her age as it was her senior year in . · m- ■ 11 7 She advised she was brought there to | |
| money and was told she would have to provide a massage to this | |
| Palm Beach guy. She remembered she met Epstein and his assistant | |
| Sarah in the kitchen area. She stated she was taken by one of her | |
| friends, 1 a She stated she went upstairs with Sarah while Epstein | |
| got ready for the massage. He exited his bathroom naked and • | |
| turned around. Epstein asked her if being naked offended her. | |
| stated it made her uncomfortable. Epstein then put on a | |
| towel and lay on the table, ■-■II stated she rubbed his back and | |
| feet. She stated she had no massage training or experience. | |
| 4 H W stated during the massage, Epstein attempted to touch her | |
| buttocks. Fl] [ pulled away as he touched her buttocks. She told | |
| him again she was uncomfortable with him touching her. Epstein then | |
| cut the massage short and became upset with her. Epstein paid her | |
| $200.00 for the massage and told her to leave the house. | |
| never returned to the house. She did advise of one time she went with | |
| 1111[ I 5 Ts however she waited in the car for as she did not | |
| want to go into the house. At the conclusion of visit with | |
| Eps~~in they left the area .. 5 T stated she had heard from other | |
| girls that have gone to the house that Epstein now required them to do | |
| the massage naked and allow him to touch them in their private areas | |
| for monies. The interview was concluded as 5 • IM did not have any | |
| other information to provide. | |
| I then learned from the original victim,~ the defense attorney had | |
| learned of her identity. I spoke with the father of the victim, who | |
| stated there has been a private investigator on his house | |
| photographing his family and chasing visitors who come to the house. | |
| He provided a Florida License of E79-4EH. This vehicle is registered | |
| to Ivan Robles of West Palm Beach. Robles is a private investigator | |
| intern who is licensed by the state. I informed the State Attorney's | |
| Office of the above information. | |
| I received the Grand Jury subpoenas to be delivered to three victims | |
| for a Grand Jury session to be held on April 18 , through April 20 , 2006. | |
| Investigation continues . | |
| t************************ NARRATIVE # 42 ************************** | |
| Reported By: RECAREY , JOSEPH 4 / 14 / 06 | |
| Entered By.: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 4 / 18 / 06 | |
| The Grand Jury Subpoenas were personally served to the individuals | |
| they were issued to. On April 5, 2006, at approximately 7:30 p.m. , I | |
| personally served the parents of4ilawho had informed me that the | |
| private investigators were still photographing the family. On April | |
| GIUFFRE000083 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 39 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 40 of 45 | |
| --- - - ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 'lte: 7/ 19 / 06 | |
| ime : 15:01:37 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 83 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| ·---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | |
| lse No . : 1-05 - 000368 (Continued) | |
| 10, 2006, at approximately 2: 3 o p ,.m., I servedllllll,at her residence in | |
| The subpoena was given to her mother, ... | |
| I learned through one of the victims ~ that she was personally | |
| contacted through a source that has maintained contact with Epstein. | |
| The source assured .. she would receive monetary compensation for her | |
| assistance in not cooperating with law enforcement. ■· ,J.so stated | |
| she was told, 11 Those who help him will be compensated and those who | |
| hurt him will be dealt with . 11 I told•••that tampering with a | |
| witness/victim is an arrestable offense and very serious. I asked her | |
| who approached her during this encounter. -originally was reluctant | |
| to provide the name of the person who approached her to offer her not | |
| to testify because she felt they were still friends. | |
| on April 11, 2006, Det Dawson and I traveled to Tallahassee, Florida | |
| and met with the victim, ■ ... identified SffJ 2]5 W/F, ft ;;c; as the person who approached her in Royal Palm Beach while | |
| s e was home during Spring Break in March 2006.•••also stated she | |
| did not want to pursue the intimidation charges on--~ --was | |
| concerned that the defense attorney was given a copy of the report as | |
| certain things she had told me in confidence were repeated to her by | |
| Beal . Prior to our departure, the victim was given a copy of her | |
| subpoena for the Grand Jury which was scheduled to commence April 18, | |
| 2006 . | |
| Upon our return from Tallahassee, I notified the State Attorney's | |
| Office of what was told to me . I also notified them that the | |
| subpoenas were delivered to the witnesses and they would be calling | |
| for arrangements for the date and time needed for the Grand Jury. I | |
| spoke with AqA Weiss and informed her of the possible intimidation by | |
| the defense. | |
| on April 13, and April 14, 2006 I attempted contact on several | |
| occasions with ASA Weiss and ASA Belohlavic to ascertain when the | |
| victims needed to report for Grand Jury testimony. Messages were left | |
| on their voicemail. On April 17, 2006, during the hours of 9:00 am | |
| and 11:30 am, I again left messages for ASA Weiss and ASA Belohlavic | |
| for either of them to return my call as I had not heard from the State | |
| Attorney's Office as to the time and date of the Grand Jury. | |
| At approximately 12:30 pm, I went to the State Attorney's Office and | |
| located ASA Weiss and ASA Belohlavic in their offices . I entered ASA | |
| Belohlavic's office who informed me that she was going to return my | |
| call. She explained that an offer was made to the defense, Atty Guy | |
| Fronstin and Atty Alan Dershowitz. The offer is 1 count of Agg | |
| Assault with intent to commit a felony, five years probation, with | |
| adjudication withheld. Epstein would have to submit to | |
| psychiatric/sexual evaluation and no unsupervised visits with minors. | |
| When asked about the all the other victims, ASA Belohlavic stated | |
| that was the only offer made as to one victim,•111111' ASA Belohlavic | |
| cell phone rang and went to voice mail. She checked her voice mail | |
| and played the message on speaker. The caller identified himself as | |
| GIUFFRE000084 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 40 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 41 of 45 | |
| -------------~-------------------------------------------- --------------------- )ate : 7 / 19 / O 6 | |
| rime: 15:01: 37 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 84 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| ·---- -- --------------- -- --------------------- ---------------------------- | |
| ~ase No . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued ) | |
| Atty Guy Fronstin and acknowledged the deal made between them. | |
| u Frons~in stated in the message, he spoke with his client, Jeffrey | |
| Epstein, and agreed to the deal. Fronstin asked to call off the grand | |
| jury as they would accept this deal. Belohlavic stated a probable | |
| cause would be needed to book Epstein in the county jail and would let | |
| me know as to when it would be needed . I explained my disapproval of | |
| the deal and not being consulted prior to the deal being offered. | |
| However I expressed that was only my opinion and the final approval | |
| would come from the Chief of Police. She explained to have Chief | |
| Reiter call Barry Krisher about the deal . I left the area and | |
| returned to the police station where I briefed the Chief about the | |
| deal offered. | |
| I checked my voice mail messages and discovered a message from | |
| stepmother for the victim~ She was calling because the State | |
| Attorney's Office still had not returned any of her calls as to when | |
| they are needed for this case _ I then called ASA Belohlavic's office | |
| and left messages for her to call the v i c tims on this case and | |
| explained to them what the State Attorney's Office had done . | |
| On April 17, 2006, at approximately 4:30 pm, State Attorney | |
| Investigator Tim Valentine called to officially notify me of the | |
| cancellation of the Grand Jury. He requested I contact the victims | |
| that had been served to appear, to notify them of the cancellation. I | |
| advised Valentine that as this Grand Jury session was called based on | |
| the State Attorney's Office decision to have the victims heard by the | |
| Grand Jury that I felt it was the States Attorney's Office | |
| responsibility to contact the victims and advise them of the reason | |
| they were no longer needed. | |
| •*************************NARRATI V E # 43 ************************** | |
| Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 5/04/06 | |
| Entered By.: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 5/04/06 | |
| As I had not received any contact from anyone at the State Attorney's | |
| Office , on May 1, 2006, I piepared three arrest warrant requests and | |
| submitted them to the State Attorney's Office . The packages were | |
| delivered to the Crimes against Children Unit in care of ASA Lana | |
| Belohlavek . Jeffrey Epstein's arrest warrant was requested for 4 | |
| counts of Unlawful Sexual activity with certain minors and one count | |
| of Lewd and Lascivious Molestation . Sarah Kellen, Epstein's | |
| assistant's, arrest warrant request was for 4 counts of Principal in | |
| the 1st degree Unlawful Sexual activity with certain minors and one | |
| count of Principal in the 1st degree Lewd and Lascivious Molestation . | |
| Haley Robson's arrest warrant request was for Lewd and Lascivious | |
| Acts on a victim under 16 years of age. The receipt of delivery was | |
| signed and brought back to the records division at the police | |
| department. | |
| on May 3 , 2 0 06, at approximately 2:54 pm, I received a telephone call | |
| from ASA Daliah Weiss on my cellular telephone . ASA Weiss advised she | |
| GIUFFRE000085 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 41 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 42 of 45 | |
| - --- - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ate: 7 /19/06 | |
| ime: 15:01:37 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 85 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| ------~----------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| ase No. . . : 1 - 05- 000 368 (Continued} | |
| has been taken off the Jeffrey Epstein case because her husband is | |
| employed with Attorney Jack Goldberger. Attorney Goldberger is the | |
| attorney of record for Jeffrey Epstein. His previous attorney, Guy | |
| Fronstin, has been fired from representation. ASA Lana Belohlavek has | |
| been assigned the case. ASA Weiss stated she can no longer speak | |
| about the Epstein case with me . I thanked her for her telephone call . ASA Weiss further stated that ASA Belohlavek would be calling me . | |
| ~**************************NARRATIVE # 44 ************************** | |
| \ Reported By : RECAREY , JOSEPH 5 / 15/06 | |
| Entered By . : ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 5 / 15/06 | |
| On May 10, 2006 , information was received that Epstein ' s associate , Leslie Wexner , The Limited Inc, CEO's, plane had arrived in West Palm | |
| Beach, PBIA. The plane, a Gulfstream 4 bearing a N900LS registration , was on the tarmac at Galaxy Aviation. As Epstein had recently | |
| acquired the services of a new attorney, and the fact that Epstein's | |
| house is. currently under remodeling, it was believed that Epstein may | |
| be in Palm Beach. I conducted physical surveillance at the residence , 358 El Brillo Way. I observed a large construction crew conducting | |
| remodeling at the house. The contractor, David Norr, was observed | |
| driving a Ford Explorer, white in color. The vehicle has a Florida | |
| registration of F30QQF . Norr left Epstein's house and traveled north | |
| on County Road. Det Caristo and I conducted surveillance on Norr. | |
| Norr traveled to several construction sites and checked on certain | |
| jobs . Surveillance was discontinued on Norr and Det Caristo and I | |
| traveled to Galaxy Aviation. I observed the white plane with a blue | |
| stripe along the body and tail of the plane; the tail number was | |
| visible on the bottom of the tail, closer to the body of the plane. | |
| We maintained visual surveillance on the plane until 4:57 p.m., when a | |
| caravan of Cadillac Escalades drove onto the tarmac. We observed | |
| several people exit the vehicles and discovered that they were part of | |
| the executive team for Limited Inc . The executives were in Palm Beach | |
| County for an executive meeting for the day. They arrived in Palm | |
| Beach County on May 9, 2006 at 9:30 pm and were scheduled to leave on | |
| the 10th at 5:00 pm. | |
| On May 12, 2006, I met with ASA Lana Belohlavek at the State | |
| Attorney's Office. She explained that her boss, Barry Krischer , was | |
| requesting this case be taken to the Grand Jury again. I explained to | |
| her I had requested arrest warrants for Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen, | |
| and Haley Robson. I asked that she either issue the warrants or | |
| direct file, as so much time has elapsed since the original request to | |
| the Grand Jury . I explained that the Palm Beach Police Department had | |
| concluded the case in December of 2005 and has been waiting for the | |
| case to go forward . Belohlavek stated the original offer was again | |
| offered to the new defense attorney . She was waiting for their answer | |
| by Friday May 19, 2006. She stated she would advise me of the answer . | |
| t**** ********************* NARRATIVE # 45 ************************** | |
| Reported By: RECAREY , JOSEPH 6/05 / 06 | |
| GIUFFRE000086 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 42 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 43 of 45 | |
| --- -------- ---- -------- ------------------------------------------------------ ne : 7/19 / 06 | |
| ime : 15 : O 1 : 3 7 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report Page: 86 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| w- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| :tse No 1 - 05 - 000368 | |
| Entered By. : ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. (Continued) | |
| 6/06/06 | |
| on May 22, 2006, I received several phone calls throughout the day | |
| from Mr .... who stated he had been followed aggressively by a private | |
| investigator. Mr .• stated that as he drove to and from work and | |
| running errands throughout the county, the same vehicle was behind him | |
| running other vehicles off th~ road in an attempt not to lose sight of | |
| Mr. ••~:vehicle . | |
| I explained to him as Mr. Epstein had retained new legal council it | |
| was possible it would be new private investigators following him to | |
| observe his daily activities . I also explained to him that there was | |
| a meeting scheduled with ASA Lana Belohlavek and Attorney Jack | |
| Goldberger at Mr. Krischer's office scheduled on June 1, 2006 at 9:00 | |
| am . I attempted to call ASA Lana Belohlavek to inform her of the | |
| private investigators following Mr~owever ; she was on her vacation | |
| during the week of May 22 through May 30 2006. | |
| on May 23, 2006, I received other phone calls from Mr. and Mrs.-who | |
| advised they were able to acquire the private investigators license | |
| plate information. The subject following them was again driving very | |
| aggressively and caused Mrs .9it.o run off the road. Mrs ... stated | |
| the vehicle is a green Chevy Monte Carlo bearing Florida tag I35-XGA . | |
| The vehicle is registered to Zachary Bechard of Jupiter Florida . | |
| Bechard is employed with Candor Investigations from Jupiter, Florida. | |
| Bechard is a licensed Private Investigator in the State of Florida. | |
| Since the discovery of the threat made against one of the victims in | |
| this case ii , I requested subpoenas for all calls made to and | |
| received from. •••during the month of March 2006 for her | |
| cell phone and home phone. I had confirmed with Florida State | |
| University the exact dates of Spring Break for 2006. The Spring Break | |
| was from March 4, 2006 through March 12, 2006. I received a subpoena | |
| from Sprint/Nextel with all calls made during the month of March 2006 . | |
| I reviewed the 989 calls made and received during the month of March | |
| 2006. I observed on March 7, 2006, ••• made and received thirty | |
| five calls during that day . | |
| Date Time Seconds In/Out To/From | |
| 7-Mar-06 11:03 AM 492 Outbound 561XXXX | |
| 7-Mar-06 11: 16 AM 6 Inbound 561XXXX | |
| 7- Mar-06 11:22 AM 887.2 Inbound 561XXXX | |
| 7-Mar-06 11 : 37 AM 48 Outbound 9178553363 | |
| 7- Mar - 06 11:39 AM 28.2 Inbound 212535683 1 | |
| 7 - Mar- 06 12:02 PM 727 . 2 Inbound 2125356831 | |
| The table reflects the date of the calls, time of day (EST ) I duration | |
| GIUFFRE000087 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 43 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 44 of 45 | |
| ------------- ----------------------- --------------- ----------------------- tte : 7/19 / 06 | |
| .me: 15:01:37 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Incident Report | |
| Page: 87 | |
| Program: CMS301L | |
| -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- | |
| .se No. : 1- 05- 00036 8 ( Continued ) | |
| of call in seconds, inbound or outbound calls and calls made to or | |
| from4'1•••phone. on March 7, 2006, at 11:03 am, ■ .. made a call | |
| to the victim .. which lasted 492 seconds (8 minutes and 2 seconds). | |
| The victim then returned the call at 11:16 am which lasted 6 seconds. | |
| The victim then made contact with'll ... at 11:22 am for 877.2 seconds | |
| (14 minutes and 6 seconds) . These sequences of calls were consistent | |
| with what the victim had described to me on the date of the | |
| intimidation. Immediately after speaking with the victim, L makes | |
| a call to Sarah Kellen, Epstein's assistant, which lasts for | |
| forty-e}~h~ seconds. A call is.then i1;1ffi~diatelr received, a tel7phone number re~istered to a Corporation affiliated with Jeffrey Epstein | |
| located at 457 Madison Ave in New York. An extensive computer check | |
| revealed 457 Madison Ave is a business address in which Epstein has | |
| his corporations assigned to. Epstein had corporation attorney, | |
| Darren Indyke, register the businesses and register himself as an | |
| agent . I also observed Epstein has his El Zorro Ranch Corporation, | |
| New York Strategy Group, Ghislaine Corporation, J Epstein and Company | |
| and the Financial Strategy Group registered to this same address. | |
| Finally, a third call is received by•■• at 1.2:02 pm from the same | |
| corporate number which lasts 12 minutes and 1 second. It should be | |
| noted that there is no further contact with either the victim during | |
| the month of March or April of 2006. I also noted that there was no | |
| further contact with Sarah Kellen or Jeffrey Epstein during the | |
| remainder of the month of March or April 2006. | |
| On June 1, 2006, ASA Lana Belohlavek telephoned me to inform me of the | |
| meeting that occurred with Atty. Jack Goldberger and her reference | |
| this case . She advised she would make her determination ,on whether to | |
| file on this case or not by Monday June 5 , 2006 . | |
| Inv Continues . | |
| ~************************NARRATI V E # 46 ************************** | |
| Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 7/12/06 | |
| Entered By . : ALTOM.ARO, NICKIE A. 7/12/06 | |
| On June 29, 2006, I had spoken to ASA Lana Belohlavic who informed me | |
| that the case would be sent to the Grand Jury for charges. She | |
| informed me that the grand jury would convene on July 19, 2006 to hear | |
| the Epstein case . Belohlavic stated State Attorney Barry Krisher made | |
| the determination to go the Grand Jury to hear the case. | |
| On July 12, 2006, I spoke with Mrs .... mother of the victim, - who | |
| inquired about the status of the case. I explained to her that I was | |
| told we would be going to the Grand Jury during the week of July 19 , 2006. She stated she had not been contacted as of yet by the State | |
| Attorney's Office for any information. I provided her wi th the | |
| telephone numbers to the State Attorney 1 s Office. | |
| Investigation continues . . . | |
| * * * * * * * ***** ** END OF REPORT*** * ********** * * * | |
| GIUFFRE000088 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 44 of 45 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 45 of 45 | |
| Date/Time: 10/16/06 / 9:24:44 | |
| System: HTE | |
| Progrm: CHF004P | |
| Case Number: 1-05-000368 | |
| PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT | |
| Narrative Print | |
| Page: 1 | |
| ***** ***********************NARRATIVE # 47 ************************** | |
| NA Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 8/03/06 | |
| Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 8/03/06 | |
| On July 18, 2006, I received a Grand .Jury letter to appear before the | |
| Grand Jury on July 19, 2006, reference the Jeffrey Epstein case. On | |
| July 19, 2006, I responded to the Grand Jury Room and testified before | |
| the grand jury. At the conclusion , ASA Belohlavec stated the grand | |
| jury returned with a true bill for Felony Solicitation of | |
| Prostitution. | |
| On July 25, 2006 , Epstein turned himself into the county jail and was | |
| released on a $3 , 000 bond. Epstein is to return for arraignment on | |
| August 25, 2006 at 8:45 am. | |
| ATT POLICE CLERKS: Please show this case cleared by arrest with the | |
| arrest of Jeffrey Epstein W/M 01-20-1953. | |
| ** End of Report** | |
| GIUFFRE000089 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 45 of 45 | |
| EXHIBIT 1 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-14 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 3 | |
| From: | |
| Sent: | |
| To: | |
| jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com> | |
| Monday, January 12, 2015 10:03 AM | |
| Gmax | |
| you can issue a reward to any of virginias friends acquaionts family that come forward and help prove her | |
| allegations are false the strongest is the clinton dinner, and the new version in the virgin isalnds that stven | |
| hawking partica-ted in an underage orgy | |
| please note | |
| The information contained in this communication is | |
| confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may | |
| constitute inside information, and is intended only for | |
| the use of the addressee. It is the property of | |
| JEE | |
| Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this | |
| communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited | |
| and may be unlawful. If you have received this | |
| communication in error, please notify us immediately by | |
| return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and | |
| destroy this communication and all copies thereof, | |
| including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved | |
| 1 | |
| ' EXHIBIT | |
| ; Mu\/~d{? 1'7 | |
| I 1-22.-1 b 1,-f | |
| PRIVILEGED GM __ 001065 | |
| CONFIDENTIAL | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-14 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 3 | |
| CONFIDENTIAL GM_00577 | |
| From: | |
| Sent: | |
| To: | |
| Subject: | |
| Ghislaine | |
| Some helpful leakage ... | |
| Ross Gow < ross@acuityreputation.com > | |
| Tuesday, February 24, 2015 3:36 AM | |
| G Max; Philip Barden | |
| VR cried rape - prior case dismissed as prosecutors found her 'not credible' | |
| In today's Daily Mail print edition and on web | |
| vvww.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2965360/Prince-Andrew-s-sex-slave-accused-two-tcens-rape-three-yearsjoincd-Jeffrey-Epstein-s-harem.html | |
| and | |
| www.nydailynews.com/ news/worJd/sex-slave-prince-andrew-accused-2-men-rape-1998-article-1.2125569 | |
| Mom told a detective "about her daughte r's past dmg abuse and also how many kids in Royal Palm Beach are | |
| involved in drngs, witchcraft and animal sacrifice," according to a confidential repo1t by the Palm Beach | |
| County Sheriff's Office. | |
| best | |
| Ross | |
| Ross Gow | |
| Managing Partner | |
| ACUITY Reputation | |
| 23 Berkeley Square | |
| London WI J 6HE | |
| +44 (0) 777 875 5251 mob | |
| +7 903 363 5393 MocKBa Mo6nnbHb1fr | |
| www.acuityreputation.com | |
| The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may be privileged or otherwise | |
| protected from disclosure. It is intended solely for tbc attention and use of the named addrcsscc(s). If you arc | |
| not the intended recipient, dissemination, copying or use of this e-mail and any attachments in whole or in part | |
| is prohibited. If you have received the e-ma.il in error. please notify the sender and delete the e-mail and any | |
| attachments from your computer system. Whilst any attachments may have been checked for viruses, you | |
| should rely on your own vims checker and procedures. No responsib ility is accepted by ACUITY Reputation | |
| Limited for loss or damage arising from the receipt or use of this e-mail. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-14 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 3 | |
| EXHIBIT 2 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 27 | |
| Log | |
| ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege | |
| Privilege | |
| Action Page Count | |
| Doc | |
| Type | |
| 1 2/12/2015 6:14 Virginia Giuffre smccawley@bsfllp.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards and Cassell re attorney | |
| impressions and legal advice relating to deposition testimony | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 3 msg | |
| 2 2/16/2015 1:05 StanPottinger@aol.com | |
| Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,br | |
| ad@pathtojustice.com,robie | |
| jennag@y7mail.com Discussion of evidence among client and attorneys | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 2 msg | |
| 3 2/16/2015 15:37 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Pottinger and Edwards re | |
| information provided by client to assist in legal advice | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 2 msg | |
| 4 2/16/2015 16:15 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Pottinger and Edwards re | |
| information provided by client to assist in legal advice | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 2 msg | |
| 5 2/16/2015 16:24 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Pottinger and Edwards re | |
| information provided by client to assist in legal advice | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 2 msg | |
| 6 2/16/2015 16:24 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Pottinger and Edwards re | |
| information provided by client to assist in legal advice | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 2 msg | |
| 7 2/21/2015 16:45 Sigrid McCawley | |
| StanPottinger@aol.com,bra | |
| d@pathtojustice.com,cassell | |
| p@law.utah.edu,robiejenna | |
| g@y7mail.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Discussion of evidence among client and attorneys | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 2 msg | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 27 | |
| Log | |
| ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege | |
| Privilege | |
| Action Page Count | |
| Doc | |
| Type | |
| 8 2/21/2015 16:58 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Discussion of evidence among client and attorney | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 2 msg | |
| 9 2/21/2015 17:05 Brad Edwards Smccawley@BSFLLP.com | |
| StanPottinger@aol.com,cassellp@l | |
| aw.utah.edu,robiejennag@y7mail.c | |
| om Discussion of evidence among client and attorneys | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 2 msg | |
| 10 2/21/2015 17:10 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Discussion of evidence among client and attorney | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 3 msg | |
| 11 2/21/2015 17:16 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Discussion of evidence among client and attorneys | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 3 msg | |
| 12 2/23/2015 14:21 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| StanPottinger@aol.com,brad@pat | |
| htojustice.com,cassellp@law.utah. | |
| edu Discussion of thoughts and impressions of attorneys | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 1 msg | |
| 13 2/23/2015 14:29 StanPottinger@aol.com | |
| Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,ro | |
| biejennag@y7mail.com | |
| brad@pathtojustice.com,cassellp@ | |
| law.utah.edu Discussion of thoughts and impressions of attorneys | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 1 msg | |
| 14 2/23/2015 16:01 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com | |
| StanPottinger@aol.com,brad@pat | |
| htojustice.com,cassellp@law.utah. | |
| edu Discussion of thoughts and impressions of attorneys | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 1 msg | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 27 | |
| Log | |
| ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege | |
| Privilege | |
| Action Page Count | |
| Doc | |
| Type | |
| 15 2/24/2015 17:51 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| Email chain with McCawley, Giuffre, and Paralegals re seeking | |
| information to assist in legal advice, with attachment | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 4 msg | |
| 16 Attached case research | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 14 rtf | |
| 17 2/26/2015 12:59 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and legal assistant re legal | |
| document, with attachment | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 1 msg | |
| 18 Attached draft legal document | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 1 jfif | |
| 19 2/28/2015 17:47 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com | |
| Email with Giuffre, McCawley, Edwards and Henderson re | |
| discussion of draft statement | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 3 msg | |
| 20 3/13/2015 17:29 Stan Pottinger robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,brad@pa | |
| thtojustice.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley, Henderson and | |
| Pottinger re legal advice on media issues | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 2 msg | |
| 21 3/13/2015 17:49 Virginia Giuffre stanpottinger@aol.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley and Pottinger re | |
| legal advice on media issues | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 2 msg | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 27 | |
| Log | |
| ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege | |
| Privilege | |
| Action Page Count | |
| Doc | |
| Type | |
| 22 3/13/2015 17:56 StanPottinger@aol.com robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,brad@pa | |
| thtojustice.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley, Henderson and | |
| Pottinger re legal advice on media issues | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 3 msg | |
| 23 3/13/2015 18:00 Brad Edwards | |
| StanPottinger@aol.com,robi | |
| ejennag@y7mail.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley, Henderson and | |
| Pottinger re legal advice on media issues | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 3 msg | |
| 24 3/13/2015 18:24 Virginia Giuffre brad@pathtojustice.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley, Henderson and | |
| Pottinger re legal advice on media issues | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 4 msg | |
| 25 3/13/2015 18:25 Virginia Giuffre StanPottinger@aol.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley, Henderson and | |
| Pottinger re legal advice on media issues | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 3 msg | |
| 26 3/13/2015 21:53 Virginia Giuffre brad@pathtojustice.com | |
| Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,StanPotti | |
| nger@aol.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley, Henderson and | |
| Pottinger re legal advice on media issues | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 4 msg | |
| 27 3/13/2015 23:38 Brad Edwards robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley, Henderson and | |
| Pottinger re legal advice on media issues | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 4 msg | |
| 28 3/13/2015 23:40 Virginia Giuffre brad@pathtojustice.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley, Henderson and | |
| Pottinger re legal advice on media issues | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 4 msg | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 27 | |
| Log | |
| ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege | |
| Privilege | |
| Action Page Count | |
| Doc | |
| Type | |
| 29 3/17/2015 15:20 Virginia Giuffre | |
| Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,br | |
| ad@pathtojustice.com,stan | |
| pottinger@aol.com | |
| Providing information to assist in legal advice re potential legal | |
| action, with attachments | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 1 msg | |
| 30 3/17/2015 18:40 Stan | |
| Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,br | |
| ad@pathtojustice.com,robie | |
| jennag@y7mail.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Pottinger and McCawley re | |
| legal advice related to VRS | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 1 msg | |
| 31 3/17/2015 19:42 Virginia Giuffre stanpottinger@aol.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Pottinger and McCawley re | |
| legal advice related to VRS | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 1 msg | |
| 32 3/20/2015 15:43 Sigrid McCawley | |
| brad@pathtojustice.com,ro | |
| biejennag@y7mail.com,stan | |
| pottinger@aol.com | |
| aortiz@BSFLLP.com,brittany@path | |
| tojustice.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, Pottinger, | |
| McCawley and BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 1 msg | |
| 33 3/20/2015 15:57 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Providing legal advice re potential deposition | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 1 msg | |
| 34 3/24/2015 21:19 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com aortiz@BSFLLP.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, McCawley and | |
| BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 2 msg | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 27 | |
| Log | |
| ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege | |
| Privilege | |
| Action Page Count | |
| Doc | |
| Type | |
| 35 3/24/2015 21:21 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com aortiz@BSFLLP.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, McCawley and | |
| BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 2 msg | |
| 36 3/24/2015 21:36 Andres Ortiz | |
| Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,ro | |
| biejennag@y7mail.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, McCawley and | |
| BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 2 msg | |
| 37 3/24/2015 22:21 Virginia Giuffre aortiz@BSFLLP.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, McCawley and | |
| BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 3 msg | |
| 38 3/26/2015 2:00 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,StanPotti | |
| nger@aol.com,brad@pathtojustice | |
| .com,brittany@pathtojustice.com,e | |
| perez@BSFLLP.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, Pottinger, | |
| McCawley and BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 1 msg | |
| 39 3/26/2015 2:21 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, McCawley and | |
| BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 2 msg | |
| 40 3/26/2015 2:22 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, McCawley and | |
| BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 2 msg | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 27 | |
| Log | |
| ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege | |
| Privilege | |
| Action Page Count | |
| Doc | |
| Type | |
| 41 3/26/2015 3:00 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, McCawley and | |
| BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 2 msg | |
| 42 4/1/2015 21:32 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com | |
| Giuffre conveying information sought by attorney to assist in | |
| legal advice with attachments | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 1 msg | |
| 43 4/2/2015 7:01 Brittany Henderson robiejennag@y7mail.com eperez@BSFLLP.com | |
| Providing draft legal document for client review, with | |
| attachment | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 1 msg | |
| 44 Attached Draft legal document | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 15 pdf | |
| 45 4/3/2015 15:32 Brittany Henderson robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| brad@pathtojustice.com,eperez@ | |
| BSFLLP.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, Henderson, Edwards and legal | |
| assistant re legal document, with attachment | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 2 msg | |
| 46 Attached draft legal document | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest 15 pdf | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 27 | |
| Log | |
| ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege | |
| Privilege | |
| Action Page Count | |
| Doc | |
| Type | |
| 47 4/8/2015 20:34 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Seeking legal advice related to VRS | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 1 msg | |
| 48 4/9/2015 3:23 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re advice re legal filings, | |
| with attachments | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 2 msg | |
| 49 4/9/2015 7:16 Sigrid McCawley | |
| StanPottinger@aol.com,bra | |
| d@pathtojustice.com,robiej | |
| ennag@y7mail.com | |
| brittany@pathtojustice.com,sperki | |
| ns@BSFLLP.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, McCawley and | |
| BSF staff re legal advice re media issues | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 2 msg | |
| 50 4/9/2015 9:26 Brad Edwards Smccawley@BSFLLP.com robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, and McCawley re legal advice | |
| re media issues | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 1 msg | |
| 51 4/9/2015 9:33 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re legal advice re media | |
| issues | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 2 msg | |
| 52 4/9/2015 12:46 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| Conveying legal advice re draft legal documents to client, with | |
| attachments | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 1 msg | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 27 | |
| Log | |
| ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege | |
| Privilege | |
| Action Page Count | |
| Doc | |
| Type | |
| 53 | |
| Conveying legal advice re draft legal documents to client, with | |
| attachments | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 14 docx | |
| 54 | |
| Conveying legal advice re draft legal documents to client, with | |
| attachments | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 12 docx | |
| 55 | |
| Conveying legal advice re draft legal documents to client, with | |
| attachments | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 2 docx | |
| 56 4/10/2015 14:59 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| StanPottinger@aol.com,brad@pat | |
| htojustice.com Providing legal advice re media issues | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 1 msg | |
| 57 4/10/2015 15:37 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Regarding legal advice re media issues | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 1 msg | |
| 58 4/10/2015 17:31 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| StanPottinger@aol.com,brad@pat | |
| htojustice.com,brittany@pathtojus | |
| tice.com,eperez@BSFLLP.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Henderson, Edwards, | |
| Pottinger and legal assistant re legal documents, with | |
| attachments | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 2 msg | |
| 59 Attached draft legal document | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 3 pdf | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 27 | |
| Log | |
| ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege | |
| Privilege | |
| Action Page Count | |
| Doc | |
| Type | |
| 60 Attached draft legal document | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 21 pdf | |
| 61 4/10/2015 17:40 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and BSF staff regarding legal | |
| advice related to VRS | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 2 msg | |
| 62 4/10/2015 19:10 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and BSF staff regarding legal | |
| advice related to VRS | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 2 msg | |
| 63 4/10/2015 19:28 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and BSF staff regarding legal | |
| advice related to VRS | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 2 msg | |
| 64 4/10/2015 19:33 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and BSF staff regarding legal | |
| advice related to VRS | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 2 msg | |
| 65 4/10/2015 20:03 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and BSF staff regarding legal | |
| advice related to VRS | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 2 msg | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 27 | |
| Log | |
| ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege | |
| Privilege | |
| Action Page Count | |
| Doc | |
| Type | |
| 66 4/10/2015 20:04 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and BSF staff regarding legal | |
| advice related to VRS | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 2 msg | |
| 67 4/10/2015 20:04 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and BSF staff regarding legal | |
| advice related to VRS | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 2 msg | |
| 68 4/10/2015 23:46 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley legal assistant re seeking | |
| and providing information sought by attorney to assist in | |
| providing legal advice, with attachments | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 3 msg | |
| 69 4/13/2015 13:52 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| StanPottinger@aol.com,brad@pat | |
| htojustice.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, Pottinger, Edwards and McCawley re | |
| legal advice regarding potential public statements | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 3 msg | |
| 70 4/13/2015 13:56 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, Pottinger, Edwards and McCawley re | |
| legal advice regarding media issues | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 3 msg | |
| 71 4/14/2015 23:38 Brad Edwards | |
| Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,bri | |
| ttany@pathtojustice.com,ro | |
| biejennag@y7mail.com,stan | |
| pottinger@aol.com Providing legal advice related to VRS | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 1 msg | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 27 | |
| Log | |
| ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege | |
| Privilege | |
| Action Page Count | |
| Doc | |
| Type | |
| 72 4/16/2015 11:14 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re legal advice regarding | |
| media issues | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 2 msg | |
| 73 4/16/2015 11:47 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re legal advice regarding | |
| media issues | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 2 msg | |
| 74 4/24/2015 19:22 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Providing legal advice re records retention, with attachments | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 1 msg | |
| 75 Attached letter providing legal advice re document retention | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 2 pdf | |
| 76 4/24/2015 19:59 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re legal advice regarding | |
| potential deposition | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 1 msg | |
| 77 4/27/2015 21:20 Brad Edwards robiejennag@y7mail.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Seeking information to assist in providing legal advice | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 1 msg | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 27 | |
| Log | |
| ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege | |
| Privilege | |
| Action Page Count | |
| Doc | |
| Type | |
| 78 4/30/2015 6:42 Brittany Henderson eperez@BSFLLP.com | |
| Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,brad@pa | |
| thtojustice.com,robiejennag@y7m | |
| ail.com Legal documents provided to assist in providing legal advice | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 1 msg | |
| 79 4/30/2015 7:02 Brittany Henderson robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, Henderson and paralegal re seeking | |
| and providing information to assist in providing legal advice | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 2 msg | |
| 80 4/30/2015 7:05 Virginia Giuffre brittany@pathtojustice.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, Henderson, Edwards, McCawley and | |
| legal assistant re seeking information to assist in providing legal | |
| advice | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 2 msg | |
| 81 5/4/2015 20:04 Virginia Giuffre brittany@pathtojustice.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, Henderson, Edwards, McCawley and | |
| legal assistant re seeking information to assist in providing legal | |
| advice, with attachment | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 2 msg | |
| 82 5/11/2015 18:20 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com | |
| Email chain with McCawley, Giuffre, Edwards, Pottinger, | |
| Henderson and Paralegal re seeking and providing information | |
| to assist in legal advice, with attachments | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 1 msg | |
| 83 5/11/2015 18:34 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Edwards, Pottinger and | |
| Paralegal re seeking information to assist in providing legal | |
| advice re potential litigation | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 2 msg | |
| 84 5/11/2015 18:40 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re case research, with | |
| attachment | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 2 msg | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 27 | |
| Log | |
| ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege | |
| Privilege | |
| Action Page Count | |
| Doc | |
| Type | |
| 85 5/11/2015 18:45 Sigrid McCawley | |
| brad@pathtojustice.com,ro | |
| biejennag@y7mail.com | |
| Providing and seeking information to assist in legal advice re | |
| potential legal action, with attachment | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 1 msg | |
| 86 5/11/2015 18:47 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re seeking information | |
| to assist in providing legal advice re potential litigation | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 1 msg | |
| 87 5/11/2015 18:56 Virginia Giuffre brad@pathtojustice.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Edwards, Pottinger and | |
| Paralegal re seeking information to assist in providing legal | |
| advice re potential litigation | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 2 msg | |
| 88 5/17/2015 22:37 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Providing litigation documents to client, with attachments | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 3 msg | |
| 89 Attached draft legal agreement | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 10 pdf | |
| 90 5/17/2015 22:40 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Providing legal advice re legal agreement, with attachment | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 1 msg | |
| 91 5/18/2015 18:40 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Discussion of confidential agreement, with attachments | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 1 msg | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 27 | |
| Log | |
| ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege | |
| Privilege | |
| Action Page Count | |
| Doc | |
| Type | |
| 92 Attached confidential agreement page | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 1 jfif | |
| 93 Attached confidential agreement page | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 1 jfif | |
| 94 6/5/2015 19:16 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Conveying attorney mental impression regarding hearing | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 1 msg | |
| 95 6/6/2015 17:20 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re attorney mental | |
| impression regarding hearing | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 1 msg | |
| 96 6/25/2015 2:26 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Providing advice re status and strategy of ongoing legal matters | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 6 msg | |
| 97 7/17/2015 14:19 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com eperez@BSFLLP.com | |
| Discussion with S. McCawley regarding file related to | |
| representation by B. Josefsberg | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 4 msg | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 27 | |
| Log | |
| ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege | |
| Privilege | |
| Action Page Count | |
| Doc | |
| Type | |
| 98 7/27/2015 21:53 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com | |
| Providing information to assist in legal advice re potential | |
| litigation | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 1 msg | |
| 99 7/29/2015 19:45 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com StanPottinger@aol.com Conveying legal advice on media issues | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 1 msg | |
| 100 8/5/2015 19:51 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and paralegals re | |
| information sought to assist in providing legal advice | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 1 msg | |
| 101 8/6/2015 2:14 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, legal intern and paralegal | |
| re seeking information to assist in providing legal advice re | |
| potential litigation | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 2 msg | |
| 102 8/6/2015 2:45 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com brad@pathtojustice.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, legal intern, Edwards and | |
| paralegal re seeking information to assist in providing legal | |
| advice re potential litigation | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 2 msg | |
| 103 8/6/2015 2:55 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, legal intern and paralegal | |
| re seeking information to assist in providing legal advice re | |
| potential litigation | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 2 msg | |
| 104 8/6/2015 3:48 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,brad@pa | |
| thtojustice.com | |
| Email chain with McCawley, Giuffre, and Paralegals re seeking | |
| information to assist in legal advice, with attachments | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 2 msg | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 27 | |
| Log | |
| ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege | |
| Privilege | |
| Action Page Count | |
| Doc | |
| Type | |
| 105 8/6/2015 3:51 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, legal intern and paralegal | |
| re seeking information to assist in providing legal advice re | |
| potential litigation | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 2 msg | |
| 106 9/1/2015 18:54 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| brad@pathtojustice.com,brittany@ | |
| pathtojustice.com | |
| Providing and seeking information to assist in legal advice re | |
| potential legal action, with attachment | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 2 msg | |
| 107 9/7/2015 18:24 Virginia Giuffre | |
| brad@pathtojustice.com,sm | |
| ccawley@bsfllp.com,stanpot | |
| tinger@aol.com | |
| Providing information sought by attorneys to provide legal | |
| advice, with attachment | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 1 msg | |
| 108 | |
| Attached Information sought by attorneys to provide legal | |
| advice | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 4 docx | |
| 109 9/7/2015 18:58 Sigrid McCawley | |
| brad@pathtojustice.com,ro | |
| biejennag@y7mail.com,stan | |
| pottinger@aol.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Pottinger and McCawley re | |
| collection of information to assist in providing legal advice re | |
| potential litigation | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 1 msg | |
| 110 9/15/2015 21:58 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re draft legal document | |
| relating to litigation | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 1 msg | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 27 | |
| Log | |
| ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege | |
| Privilege | |
| Action Page Count | |
| Doc | |
| Type | |
| 111 9/15/2015 22:04 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re draft legal document | |
| relating to litigation | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 2 msg | |
| 112 9/15/2015 22:07 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re draft legal document | |
| relating to litigation | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 2 msg | |
| 113 9/20/2015 12:15 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com brad@pathtojustice.com Conveying information about potential legal action. | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 1 msg | |
| 114 9/20/2015 14:47 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re potential legal action. | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 1 msg | |
| 115 9/20/2015 19:16 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re potential legal action. | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 1 msg | |
| 116 9/20/2015 19:29 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re potential legal action. | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 2 msg | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 27 | |
| Log | |
| ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege | |
| Privilege | |
| Action Page Count | |
| Doc | |
| Type | |
| 117 9/20/2015 19:30 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re potential legal action. | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 2 msg | |
| 118 9/21/2015 14:48 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Communication re initiation of lawsuit, with attachments | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 1 msg | |
| 119 Attached draft legal document relating to litigation | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld 12 pdf | |
| 120 Attached draft legal document relating to litigation | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 2 pdf | |
| 121 Attached draft legal document relating to litigation | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 2 pdf | |
| 122 Attached draft legal document relating to litigation | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 3 pdf | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 27 | |
| Log | |
| ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege | |
| Privilege | |
| Action Page Count | |
| Doc | |
| Type | |
| 123 9/21/2015 14:51 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re potential legal action. | |
| Attorney | |
| Client/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest/work | |
| product Withheld 1 msg | |
| 125 | |
| Emails, letters, and | |
| other communications | |
| from 2011 - Present | |
| Virginia Giuffre, Brad | |
| Edwards, Paul Cassell, | |
| Brittany Henderson (and | |
| other , Sigrid McCawley, | |
| Meredith Schultz, David | |
| Boies, Jack Scarola, Stan | |
| Pottinger, Ellen | |
| Brockman, Legal | |
| Assistants, Professionals | |
| retained by attorneys to | |
| aid in the rendition of | |
| legal advice and | |
| representation | |
| Virginia Giuffre, Brad | |
| Edwards, Paul Cassell, | |
| Brittany Henderson, Sigrid | |
| McCawley, Meredith | |
| Schultz, David Boies, Jack | |
| Scarola, Stan Pottinger, Ellen | |
| Brockman, Legal Assistants, | |
| Professionals retained by | |
| attorneys to aid in the | |
| rendition of legal advice and | |
| representation | |
| Plaintiff has objected that Defendant’s requests are overly | |
| broad and unduly burdensome, as individually logging all | |
| privileged responsive documents would be overly burdensome. | |
| Plaintiff contends that requests targeting such privileged | |
| information are not reasonably calculated to lead to the | |
| discovery of admissible evidence, are not important to resolving | |
| the issues, are not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, are | |
| not proportional to the needs of the case, and creates a heavy | |
| burden on Plaintiff that outweighs its benefit. Therefore, | |
| Plaintiff has employed categorical logging pursuant to Local Civil | |
| Rule 26.2(c). Correspondence re: Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 | |
| v. United States ("CVRA case"), Case no. 08-80736-CIV-Marra, | |
| pending in the Southern District of Florida. Documents withheld | |
| pursuant to the privileges asserted included communications | |
| from Ms. Giuffre to the attorneys listed seeking legal advice | |
| related to the CVRA case, communications from the attorneys | |
| to Ms. Giuffre giving legal advice or giving attorney mental | |
| impressions related to the CVRA case, communications sending | |
| or attaching attorney work product related to the CVRA case, | |
| and/or communications sending or attaching client revisions to | |
| attorney work product related to the CVRA case, and | |
| communications re evidence. | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld | |
| Approx. 1.3K | |
| docs | |
| overlapping | |
| with other | |
| cases | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 27 | |
| Log | |
| ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege | |
| Privilege | |
| Action Page Count | |
| Doc | |
| Type | |
| 126 | |
| Emails, letters, and | |
| other communications | |
| from 9/21/15 - Present | |
| Virginia Giuffre, Brad | |
| Edwards, Paul Cassell, | |
| Brittany Henderson, | |
| Sigrid McCawley, | |
| Meredith Schultz, David | |
| Boies, Stephen Zach, | |
| Stan Pottinger, Ellen | |
| Brockman, Legal | |
| Assistants, Professionals | |
| retained by attorneys to | |
| aid in the rendition of | |
| legal advice and | |
| representation | |
| Virginia Giuffre, Brad | |
| Edwards, Paul Cassell, | |
| Brittany Henderson, Sigrid | |
| McCawley, Meredith | |
| Schultz, David Boies, | |
| Stephen Zach, Stan | |
| Pottinger, Ellen Brockman, | |
| Legal Assistants, | |
| Professionals retained by | |
| attorneys to aid in the | |
| rendition of legal advice and | |
| Plaintiff has objected that Defendant’s requests are overly | |
| broad and unduly burdensome, as individually logging all | |
| privileged responsive documents would be overly burdensome. | |
| Plaintiff contends that requests targeting such privileged | |
| information are not reasonably calculated to lead to the | |
| discovery of admissible evidence, are not important to resolving | |
| the issues, are not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, are | |
| not proportional to the needs of the case, and creates a heavy | |
| burden on Plaintiff that outweighs its benefit. Therefore, | |
| Plaintiff has employed categorical logging pursuant to Local Civil | |
| Rule 26.2(c). Correspondence re: Giuffre v. Maxwell (“Maxwell | |
| case”), 15-cv-07433-RWS, pending in the Southern District of | |
| New York, since the date of filing, September 21, 2015. | |
| Documents withheld pursuant to the privileges asserted | |
| included communications from Ms. Giuffre to the attorneys | |
| listed seeking legal advice related to the Maxwell case, | |
| communications from the attorneys to Ms. Giuffre giving legal | |
| advice or giving attorney mental impressions related to the | |
| Maxwell case, communications sending or attaching attorney | |
| work product related to the Maxwell case, and/or | |
| communications sending or attaching client revisions to | |
| attorney work product related to the Maxwell case, and | |
| communications re evidence. | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld | |
| Approx. 1.3K | |
| docs | |
| overlapping | |
| with other | |
| cases | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 27 | |
| Log | |
| ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege | |
| Privilege | |
| Action Page Count | |
| Doc | |
| Type | |
| 127 | |
| Emails, letters, and | |
| other communications | |
| from January 2015 - | |
| Present | |
| Virginia Giuffre, Brad | |
| Edwards, Paul Cassell, | |
| Brittany Henderson, | |
| Sigrid McCawley, | |
| Meredith Schultz, David | |
| Boies, Stephen Zach, | |
| Stan Pottinger, Ellen | |
| Brockman, Legal | |
| Assistants, Professionals | |
| retained by attorneys to | |
| aid in the rendition of | |
| legal advice and | |
| representation | |
| Virginia Giuffre, Brad | |
| Edwards, Paul Cassell, | |
| Brittany Henderson, Sigrid | |
| McCawley, Meredith | |
| Schultz, David Boies, | |
| Stephen Zach, Stan | |
| Pottinger, Ellen Brockman, | |
| Legal Assistants, | |
| Professionals retained by | |
| attorneys to aid in the | |
| rendition of legal advice and | |
| Plaintiff has objected that Defendant’s requests are overly | |
| broad and unduly burdensome, as individually logging all | |
| privileged responsive documents would be overly burdensome. | |
| Plaintiff contends that requests targeting such privileged | |
| information are not reasonably calculated to lead to the | |
| discovery of admissible evidence, are not important to resolving | |
| the issues, are not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, are | |
| not proportional to the needs of the case, and creates a heavy | |
| burden on Plaintiff that outweighs its benefit. Therefore, | |
| Plaintiff has employed categorical logging pursuant to Local Civil | |
| Rule 26.2(c). Correspondence re: Bradley Edwards and Paul | |
| Cassell v. Alan Dershowitz (“Dershowitz case”), Case no. 15- | |
| 000072, pending in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward | |
| County, Florida. Documents withheld pursuant to the privileges | |
| asserted included communications from Ms. Giuffre to the | |
| attorneys listed seeking legal advice related to the Dershowitz | |
| case, communications from the attorneys to Ms. Giuffre giving | |
| legal advice or giving attorney mental impressions related to the | |
| Dershowitz case, communications sending or attaching attorney | |
| work product related to the Dershowitz case, and/or | |
| communications sending or attaching client revisions to | |
| attorney work product related to the Dershowitz case, and | |
| communications re evidence. | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld | |
| Approx. 1.3K | |
| docs | |
| overlapping | |
| with other | |
| cases | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 27 | |
| Log | |
| ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege | |
| Privilege | |
| Action Page Count | |
| Doc | |
| Type | |
| 128 | |
| Emails, letters, and | |
| other communications | |
| from 2009 - Present | |
| Virginia Giuffre, Bob | |
| Josefsberg, Katherine W. | |
| Ezell, Amy Ederi, other | |
| Podhurst attorneys, | |
| Legal Assistants, and | |
| Professionals retained by | |
| attorneys to aid in the | |
| rendition of legal advice | |
| Virginia Giuffre, Bob | |
| Josefsberg, Katherine W. | |
| Ezell, Amy Ederi, other | |
| Podhurst attorneys, Legal | |
| Assistants, and Professionals | |
| retained by attorneys to aid | |
| in the rendition of legal | |
| advice | |
| Plaintiff has objected that Defendant’s requests are overly | |
| broad and unduly burdensome, as individually logging all | |
| privileged responsive documents would be overly burdensome. | |
| Plaintiff contends that requests targeting such privileged | |
| information are not reasonably calculated to lead to the | |
| discovery of admissible evidence, are not important to resolving | |
| the issues, are not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, are | |
| not proportional to the needs of the case, and creates a heavy | |
| burden on Plaintiff that outweighs its benefit. Therefore, | |
| Plaintiff has employed categorical logging pursuant to Local Civil | |
| Rule 26.2(c). Correspondence re: Jane Doe No. 102 v. Jeffrey | |
| Epstein (“Epstein case”), Case No. 09-80656-CIV-Marra/Johnson | |
| (Southern District of Florida). Documents withheld pursuant to | |
| the privileges asserted included communications from Ms. | |
| Giuffre to the attorneys listed seeking legal advice related to the | |
| Epstein case, communications from the attorneys to Ms. Giuffre | |
| giving legal advice or giving attorney mental impressions related | |
| to the Epstein case, communications sending or attaching | |
| attorney work product related to the Epstein case, and/or | |
| communications sending or attaching client revisions to | |
| attorney work product related to the Epstein case, and | |
| communications re evidence. | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld | |
| Approx. 1.3K | |
| docs | |
| overlapping | |
| with other | |
| cases | |
| 129 6/10/2015 Virginia Giuffre robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley seeking information to | |
| assist with attorney advice. Attorney Client Withheld 2 msg | |
| 130 | |
| Letter from Virginia Giuffre to David Boies conveying requested | |
| information to assist in providing legal advice. | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work Product Withheld 26 pdf | |
| 131 4/30/2015 Brittany Henderson eperez@BSFLLP.com | |
| Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,brad@pa | |
| thtojustice.com,robiejennag@y7m | |
| ail.com Communication re VRS registrations | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work Product Withheld 1 msg | |
| 132 4/29/2015 Andres Ortiz bh699@nova.edu | |
| Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,brad@pa | |
| thtojustice.com,garvin@lclark.edu, | |
| robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| Email chain with McCawley, Edwards, Garvin, Henderson, | |
| Giuffre and BSF staff re legal advice re VRS communications. | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work Product Withheld 1 msg | |
| 133 4/29/2015 brittany henderson aortiz@BSFLLP.com | |
| Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,brad@pa | |
| thtojustice.com,garvin@lclark.edu, | |
| robiejennag@y7mail.com Communication re legal advice re VRS communications. | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work Product Withheld 1 msg | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 27 | |
| Log | |
| ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege | |
| Privilege | |
| Action Page Count | |
| Doc | |
| Type | |
| 134 4/17/2015 Paul Cassell brad@pathtojustice.com | |
| Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,brittany | |
| @pathtojustice.com,eperez@BSFLL | |
| P.com,robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| Email chain with Cassell, McCawley, Edwards, Garvin, Beloof, | |
| Henderson, Giuffre and BSF staff re legal advice re VRS | |
| registrations. | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work Product Withheld 5 msg | |
| 135 4/17/2015 Sigrid McCawley | |
| brad@pathtojustice.com,cas | |
| sellp@law.utah.edu | |
| brittany@pathtojustice.com,eperez | |
| @BSFLLP.com,robiejennag@y7mail | |
| .com | |
| Email chain with Cassell, McCawley, Edwards, Garvin, Beloof, | |
| Henderson, Giuffre and BSF staff re legal advice re VRS | |
| registrations. | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work Product Withheld 4 msg | |
| 136 4/17/2015 Brad Edwards cassellp@law.utah.edu | |
| Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,brittany | |
| @pathtojustice.com,eperez@BSFLL | |
| P.com,robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| Email chain with Cassell, McCawley, Edwards, Garvin, Beloof, | |
| Henderson, Giuffre and BSF staff re legal advice re VRS | |
| registrations. | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work Product Withheld 4 msg | |
| 137 2/26/2015 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re non-testifying expert. Attorney Client Withheld 1 msg | |
| 138 2/26/2015 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Communication re non-testifying expert. Attorney Client Withheld 1 msg | |
| 139 2/11/2016 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Edwards, Pottinger and BSF | |
| staff re media communications. Attorney Client Redacted 3 msg | |
| 140 2/11/2016 Sigrid McCawley | |
| StanPottinger@aol.com,robi | |
| ejennag@y7mail.com | |
| Lcarlsen@BSFLLP.com,brad@patht | |
| ojustice.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Edwards, Pottinger and BSF | |
| staff re media communications. Attorney Client Redacted 3 msg | |
| 141 2/11/2016 StanPottinger@aol.com robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| Lcarlsen@BSFLLP.com,Smccawley | |
| @BSFLLP.com,brad@pathtojustice. | |
| com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Edwards, Pottinger and BSF | |
| staff re media communications. Attorney Client Redacted 3 msg | |
| 142 2/9/2016 StanPottinger@aol.com robiejennag@y7mail.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre and Pottinger re media | |
| communications. Attorney Client Redacted 2 msg | |
| 143 | |
| Letter from Virginia Giuffre to David Boies conveying requested | |
| information to assist in providing legal advice. | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work Product Withheld 26 pdf | |
| 144 | |
| Letter from Virginia Giuffre to David Boies conveying requested | |
| information to assist in providing legal advice. | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work Product Withheld 23 docx | |
| 145 6/10/2015 Virginia Giuffre robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re ongoing litigation. Attorney Client Withheld 2 msg | |
| 146 4/29/2015 Virginia Giuffre aortiz@BSFLLP.com | |
| Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,bh699@n | |
| ova.edu,brad@pathtojustice.com,g | |
| arvin@lclark.edu | |
| Email chain with Henderson, McCawey, Edwards, Garvin and | |
| BSF staff re VRS communications. Attorney Client Withheld 2 msg | |
| 147 4/10/2015 Virginia Giuffre rebecca.boylan@yahoo.com | |
| Email chain with Boylan, Giuffre, McCawley, and BSF staff re | |
| legal advice re VRS registrations. Attorney Client Withheld 2 msg | |
| 148 2/26/2015 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email confirming legal advice re non-testifying expert. Attorney Client Withheld 1 msg | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 25 of 27 | |
| Log | |
| ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege | |
| Privilege | |
| Action Page Count | |
| Doc | |
| Type | |
| 149 2/11/2015 Virginia Giuffre StanPottinger@aol.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre and Pottinger re media | |
| communications Attorney Client Redacted 3 msg | |
| 150 2/11/2015 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com | |
| Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Pottinger and BSF staff re | |
| media communications. Attorney Client Redacted 3 msg | |
| 151 1/13/2015 Virginia Giuffre StanPottinger@aol.com Email chain with Pottinger and Giuffre re anticipated litigation. | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work Product Withheld 1 msg | |
| 152 | |
| Emails, letters, and | |
| other communications | |
| from January 2015 - | |
| Present | |
| Virginia Giuffre, Brad | |
| Edwards, Paul Cassell, | |
| Brittany Henderson, | |
| Sigrid McCawley, | |
| Meredith Schultz, David | |
| Boies, Stephen Zach, | |
| Stan Pottinger, Ellen | |
| Brockman, Legal | |
| Assistants, Professionals | |
| retained by attorneys to | |
| aid in the rendition of | |
| legal advice | |
| Virginia Giuffre, Brad | |
| Edwards, Paul Cassell, | |
| Brittany Henderson, Sigrid | |
| McCawley, Meredith | |
| Schultz, David Boies, | |
| Stephen Zach, Stan | |
| Pottinger, Ellen Brockman, | |
| Legal Assistants, | |
| Professionals retained by | |
| attorneys to aid in the | |
| rendition of legal advice | |
| Plaintiff has objected that Defendant’s requests are overly | |
| broad and unduly burdensome, as individually logging all | |
| privileged responsive documents would be overly | |
| burdensome. Plaintiff contends that requests targeting | |
| such privileged information are not reasonably calculated | |
| to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, are not | |
| important to resolving the issues, are not relevant to any | |
| party’s claim or defense, are not proportional to the | |
| needs of the case, and creates a heavy burden on Plaintiff | |
| that outweighs its benefit. Therefore, Plaintiff has | |
| employed categorical logging pursuant to Local Civil Rule | |
| 26.2(c). This categorical entry is regarding correspondence | |
| re potential legal action against entities and individuals. | |
| Documents withheld pursuant to the privileges asserted | |
| included communications from Ms. Giuffre to the | |
| attorneys listed seeking legal advice related to potential | |
| law suits, communications from the attorneys to Ms. | |
| Giuffre giving legal advice or giving attorney mental | |
| impressions related to the law suits, communications | |
| sending or attaching attorney work product related to | |
| potential lawsuits, and/or communications sending or | |
| attaching client revisions to attorney work product related | |
| to potential lawsuits, and communications re evidence. | |
| AC Privilege and | |
| Work | |
| Product/joint | |
| defense/commo | |
| n interest Withheld | |
| Approx. 1.3K | |
| overlapping | |
| with other | |
| cases | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 26 of 27 | |
| Log | |
| ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege | |
| Privilege | |
| Action Page Count | |
| Doc | |
| Type | |
| 153 | |
| Email and letter | |
| communications | |
| The law enforcement | |
| entity, Virginia Giuffre, | |
| David Boies, Stan | |
| Pottinger, Sigrid | |
| McCawley, Paul Cassell, | |
| Brad Edwards | |
| The law enforcement entity, | |
| Virginia Giuffre, David Boies, | |
| Stan Pottinger, Sigrid | |
| McCawley, Paul Cassell, Brad | |
| Edwards | |
| Plaintiff has objected that Defendant’s requests are overly | |
| broad and unduly burdensome, as individually logging all | |
| privileged responsive documents would be overly | |
| burdensome. Plaintiff contends that requests targeting | |
| such privileged information are not reasonably calculated | |
| to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, are not | |
| important to resolving the issues, are not relevant to any | |
| party’s claim or defense, are not proportional to the | |
| needs of the case, and creates a heavy burden on Plaintiff | |
| that outweighs its benefit. Therefore, Plaintiff has | |
| employed categorical logging pursuant to Local Civil Rule | |
| 26.2(c). This categorical entry is regarding correspondence | |
| re the currently ongoing criminal investigation of | |
| Defendant and others. Public Interest Withheld | |
| approx. 57 | |
| documents | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 27 of 27 | |
| EXHIBIT 3 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-16 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 3 | |
| 1 | |
| United States District Court | |
| For The Southern District of New York | |
| Giuffre v. Maxwell | |
| 15-cv-07433-RWS | |
| Ghislaine Maxwell’s Privilege Log Amended as of May 16, 2016 | |
| ***Per Local Rule 26.2, the following privileges are asserted pursuant to British law, Colorado law and NY law. | |
| Log ID DATE DOC. | |
| TYPE | |
| BATES | |
| # | |
| FROM TO CC RELATIONSHIP | |
| OF PARTIES | |
| SUBJECT | |
| MATTER | |
| PRIVILEGE | |
| 1. 2011.03.15 E-Mails 1000- | |
| 1013 | |
| Ghislaine Maxwell Brett Jaffe, Esq. Attorney / Client Communication | |
| re: legal advice | |
| Attorney-Client | |
| 2. 2011.03.15 E-Mails 1014- | |
| 1019 | |
| Brett Jaffe, Esq. Ghislaine Maxwell Attorney / Client Communication | |
| re: legal advice | |
| Attorney-Client | |
| 3. 2015.01.02 E-Mails 1020- | |
| 1026 | |
| Ross Gow Ghislaine Maxwell Attorney Agent / | |
| Client | |
| Communication | |
| re: legal advice | |
| Attorney-Client | |
| 4. 2015.01.02 E-Mail 1024- | |
| 1026 | |
| Ghislaine Maxwell Ross Gow Attorney Agent / | |
| Client | |
| Communication | |
| re: legal advice | |
| Attorney-Client | |
| 5. 2015.01.02 E-Mail 1027- | |
| 1028 | |
| Ross Gow Ghislaine Maxwell Brian | |
| Basham | |
| Attorney Agent / | |
| Client | |
| Communication | |
| re: legal advice | |
| Attorney-Client | |
| 6. 2015.01.06 E-Mail 1029 Ghislaine Maxwell Jeffrey Epstein Common Interest Communication | |
| re: legal advice | |
| Common Interest | |
| 7. 2015.01.06 E-Mail 1030- | |
| 1043 | |
| Ghislaine Maxwell Jeffrey Epstein, | |
| Alan Dershowitz, Esq. | |
| Attorney / Client Communication | |
| re: legal advice | |
| Common Interest | |
| 8. 2015.01.10 E-Mail 1044 Ghislaine Maxwell Philip Barden, Esq., | |
| Ross Gow | |
| Attorney / Client Communication | |
| re: legal advice | |
| Attorney-Client | |
| 9. 2015.01.10 E-Mail 1045- | |
| 1051 | |
| Ghislaine Maxwell Philip Barden, Esq. Client / Attorney Communication | |
| re: legal advice | |
| Attorney-Client | |
| 10. 2015.01.09 | |
| 2015.01.10 | |
| E-Mails 1052- | |
| 1055 | |
| Ross Gow Philip Barden, Esq. G. | |
| Maxwell | |
| Agent / Attorney / | |
| Client | |
| Communication | |
| re: legal advice | |
| Attorney-Client | |
| 11. 2015.01.11 E-Mail 1055- | |
| 1058 | |
| Ghislaine Maxwell Jeffrey Epstein Common Interest Communication | |
| re: legal advice | |
| Common Interest | |
| 12. 2015.01.11 E-Mail 1055- | |
| 1058 | |
| Philip Barden, Esq. Ross Gow G. | |
| Maxwell | |
| Attorney / Agent / | |
| Client | |
| Communication | |
| re: legal advice | |
| Attorney-Client | |
| 13. 2015.01.11 E-Mail 1056- | |
| 1058 | |
| Philip Barden, Esq. Ghislaine Maxwell Ross | |
| Gow | |
| Attorney / Agent / | |
| Client | |
| Communication | |
| re: legal advice | |
| Attorney-Client | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-16 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 3 | |
| 2 | |
| 14. 2015.01.11 – | |
| 2015.01.17 | |
| E-Mails 1059- | |
| 1083 | |
| Jeffrey Epstein Ghislaine Maxwell Common Interest Communication | |
| re: legal advice | |
| Common Interest Privilege | |
| 15. 2015.01.13 E-Mail 1067- | |
| 1073 | |
| Ghislaine Maxwell Jeffrey Epstein Common Interest Communication | |
| re: legal advice | |
| Common Interest Privilege | |
| 16. 2015.01.13 E-Mail 1069- | |
| 1073, | |
| 1076- | |
| 1079 | |
| Philip Barden, Esq. Martin Weinberg, Esq. Common Interest Communication | |
| re: legal advice | |
| Common Interest Privilege | |
| 17. 2015.01.13 E-Mails 1068- | |
| 1069, | |
| 1074- | |
| 1076 | |
| Philip Barden, Esq. Ghislaine Maxwell Mark | |
| Cohen | |
| Attorney / Client Communication | |
| re: legal advice | |
| Attorney-Client | |
| 18. 2015.01.21 E-Mail 1088- | |
| 1090 | |
| Ross Gow Philip Barden, Esq., Ghislaine | |
| Maxwell | |
| Agent / Attorney / | |
| Client | |
| Communication | |
| re: legal advice | |
| Attorney-Client | |
| 19. 2015.01.21 - | |
| 2015.01.27 | |
| E-Mails 1084- | |
| 1098 | |
| Jeffrey Epstein Ghislaine Maxwell Common Interest Communication | |
| re: legal advice | |
| Common Interest Privilege | |
| 20. 2015.01.21- | |
| 2015.01.27 | |
| E-Mails 1099 Ghislaine Maxwell Jeffrey Epstein Common Interest Communication | |
| re: legal advice | |
| Common Interest Privilege | |
| 21. 2015.04.22 E-mail 7 pages Jeffrey Epstein Ghislaine Maxwell Common Interest Forwarding | |
| message from | |
| Martin Weinberg, | |
| labeled “AttorneyClient Privilege” | |
| with attachment | |
| Common Interest Privilege | |
| 22. Various E-mails Agent of Haddon, | |
| Morgan & Foreman; | |
| Laura Menninger | |
| Agent of Haddon, Morgan & | |
| Foreman; Laura Menninger | |
| Agent of attorney and | |
| Attorney | |
| Attorney work | |
| product | |
| Attorney Work Product | |
| 23. Various E-mails Mary Borja; Laura | |
| Menninger | |
| Mary Borja; Laura Menninger Attorney Work | |
| Product | |
| Attorney work | |
| product | |
| Attorney Work Product | |
| 24. 2015.10.21 – | |
| 2015.10.22 | |
| chain with | |
| attachmen | |
| t | |
| Darren Indyke; Laura | |
| Menninger | |
| Darren Indyke; Laura Menninger Attorneys for parties | |
| to Common Interest | |
| Agreement | |
| Common Interest | |
| Agreement | |
| Attorney Work Product; | |
| Common Interest Privilege | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-16 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 3 | |
| Exhibit 6 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 25 | |
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | |
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | |
| ------------------------------------------------------X | |
| VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, | |
| Plaintiff, | |
| v. | |
| GHISLAINE MAXWELL, | |
| Defendant. | |
| 15-cv-07433-RWS | |
| ------------------------------------------------------X | |
| DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO | |
| PLAINTIFF’S SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS | |
| Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby responds | |
| to Plaintiff’s Second Request for Production of Documents (the “Requests”). | |
| PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS | |
| 1. This response is made to the best of Ms. Maxwell’s present knowledge, | |
| information and belief. Ms. Maxwell, through her attorneys of record, have not completed the | |
| investigation of the facts relating to this case, have not completed discovery in this action, and | |
| have not completed preparation for trial. Ms. Maxwell’s responses to Plaintiff’s requests are | |
| based on information currently known to her and are given without waiving Ms. Maxwell’s right | |
| to use evidence of any subsequently discovered or identified facts, documents or | |
| communications. Ms. Maxwell reserves the right to supplement this Response in accordance | |
| with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). | |
| 2. Ms. Maxwell objects to the Requests to the extent they attempt to impose any | |
| requirement or discovery obligation greater than or different from those under the Federal Rules | |
| of Civil Procedure, the local rules of this Court or any Orders of the Court. | |
| 3. Ms. Maxwell objects to the Requests to the extent they seek documents or | |
| information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, Rule 408 of the | |
| Federal Rules of Evidence, any common interest privilege, joint defense agreement or any other | |
| applicable privilege. | |
| 4. Ms. Maxwell objects to the Requests to the extent they seek documents or | |
| information outside of Ms. Maxwell’s possession, custody or control. ......................................... | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 25 | |
| 2 | |
| 5. Ms. Maxwell objects to the Requests to the extent they seek information which is | |
| not relevant to the subject matter of the litigation and/or is not reasonably calculated to lead to | |
| the discovery of admissible evidence. | |
| 6. Ms. Maxwell objects to the Requests to the extent they are overly broad, unduly | |
| burdensome and/or propounded for the improper purpose of annoying, embarrassing, or | |
| harassing Ms. Maxwell. | |
| 7. Ms. Maxwell objects to the Requests to the extent they are vague and ambiguous, | |
| or imprecise. | |
| 8. Ms. Maxwell objects to the Requests to the extent they seek information that is | |
| confidential and implicates Ms. Maxwell’s privacy interests. | |
| 9. Ms. Maxwell incorporates by reference every general objection set forth above | |
| into each specific response set forth below. A specific response may repeat a general objection | |
| for emphasis or for some other reason. The failure to include any general objection in any | |
| specific response does not waive any general objection to that request. | |
| 10. The Requests seek information that is confidential and implicates Ms. Maxwell’s | |
| privacy interests. To the extent such information is relevant and discoverable in this action, Ms. | |
| Maxwell will produce such materials subject to an appropriate protective order pursuant to Fed. | |
| R. Civ. P. 26(c) limiting their dissemination to the attorneys and their employees. | |
| OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS | |
| 11. Ms. Maxwell objects to Definition No. 1 regarding “Agent” to the extent that it | |
| purports to extend the meaning beyond those permissible by law. | |
| 12. Ms. Maxwell objects to Definition No. 3 regarding “Defendant.” The Definition | |
| is overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it attempts to extend the scope of the | |
| Requests to documents in the possession, custody or control of individuals other than Ms. | |
| Maxwell or her counsel. | |
| 13. Ms. Maxwell objects to Definition No. 5 regarding “Employee.” Ms. Maxwell is | |
| an individual, sued in an individual capacity, and therefore there is no “past or present officer, | |
| director, agent or servant” of hers. Additionally, “attorneys” and “paralegals” are not | |
| “employees” of Ms. Maxwell given that she herself is not an attorney and therefore cannot | |
| “employ” attorneys. | |
| 14. Ms. Maxwell objects to Definition No. 10 regarding “You” or “Your.” The | |
| Definition is overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it attempts to extend the scope of | |
| the Requests to documents in the possession, custody or control of individuals other than Ms. | |
| Maxwell or her counsel. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 25 | |
| 3 | |
| OBJECTIONS TO INSTRUCTIONS | |
| 15. Ms. Maxwell objects to Instruction No. 1, in particular the definition of the | |
| “Relevant Period” to include July 1999 to the present, on the grounds that it is overly broad and | |
| unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action | |
| and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Complaint at | |
| paragraph 9 purports to describe events pertaining to Plaintiff and Defendant occurring in the | |
| years 1999 – 2002. The Complaint also references statements attributed to Ms. Maxwell | |
| occurring in January 2015. Defining the “Relevant Period” as “July 1999 to the present” is | |
| vastly overbroad, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible | |
| evidence, and as to certain of the Requests, is intended for the improper purpose of annoying or | |
| harassing Ms. Maxwell and it implicates her privacy rights. Thus, Ms. Maxwell interprets the | |
| Relevant Period to be limited to 1999-2002 and December 30, 2014 - January 31, 2015, except to | |
| the extent that any the answers “relate to any activity of defendant with respect to the practice | |
| which has been alleged and the duties alleged to be performed by Defendant, ‘activities’ being | |
| defined as sexual abuse or trafficking of any female,” in which case her answers reflect the | |
| period 2000-today. Ms. Maxwell specifically objects to production of any documents outside | |
| that period, except as specifically noted. | |
| 16. Ms. Maxwell objects to Instruction No. 3 on the grounds that it is unduly | |
| burdensome and is intended for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. | |
| Ms. Maxwell cannot possibly recall the specific disposition of documents, particularly electronic | |
| documents, dating back over 16 years. However, Ms. Maxwell, prior to this litigation has long | |
| had a practice of deleting emails after they have been read. | |
| 17. Ms. Maxwell objects to Instruction Nos. 5, 8, 9, 12, 17 to the extent they seek to | |
| impose obligations to supply explanations for the presence or absence of such documents, to | |
| specifically identify persons or documents, to provide information concerning who prepared | |
| documents, the location of any copies of such documents, the identities and contact information | |
| for persons who have custody or control of such documents, the reasons for inability to produce | |
| portions of documents, and the “natural person in whose possession they were found,” beyond | |
| the requirements of Rule 34. This Instruction improperly seeks to propound Interrogatories | |
| pursuant to Rule 33. | |
| 18. Ms. Maxwell objects to Instructions No. 13 on the grounds that it is unduly | |
| burdensome and is intended for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. | |
| Ms. Maxwell cannot possibly recall the specific circumstances upon which a document dating | |
| back 16 years has ceased to exist. | |
| 19. Ms. Maxwell objects to Instruction No. 15 to the extent that it calls for documents | |
| or information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or any other | |
| applicable privilege. | |
| 20. Ms. Maxwell objects to Instruction Nos. 18 & 19 to the extent they require | |
| information on any privilege log above and beyond the requirements of Local Civil Rule 26.2. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 25 | |
| 4 | |
| SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND REQUESTS | |
| FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 1 | |
| Produce all documents that Your attorneys reviewed and/or relied upon in the March 21, | |
| 2016, meet and confer discussion when Mr. Pagliuca stated that (1) Plaintiff made false | |
| allegations concerning her sexual assault; (2) she made them in roughly the same time frame that | |
| Plaintiff was abused by Jeffrey Epstein; (3) that the allegations were made against a number of | |
| individuals in the area; and (4) that the allegations were found to be unfounded by local police. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell has no knowledge of any statements made by Mr. Pagliuca | |
| during the March 21, 2016 meet and confer and hence has no documents responsive to this | |
| Request. Further, this Request inaccurately characterizes the statements of Ms. Maxwell’s | |
| counsel during the March 16, 2016 meet and confer. | |
| Ms. Maxwell further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or | |
| information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common | |
| interest privilege or any other applicable privilege. | |
| Ms. Maxwell also objects to this Request to the extent it calls for information relating to | |
| Virginia Roberts Giuffre that exists within the public domain, the internet or in public court | |
| records and which are equally available to both parties and can be obtained from some other | |
| source that is more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive. Subject to and without | |
| waiver of the foregoing, Defendant refers to the public documents and news reports regarding | |
| Plaintiff’s allegations of sexual abuse and investigation of the same, which have been previously | |
| produced, are available in the public domain, or referenced in court papers. Defendant also | |
| refers Plaintiff to documents within the possession, custody and control of Plaintiff and her | |
| counsel, including without limitation Mr. Bradley Edwards, which were requested in | |
| Defendant’s First Set of Discovery Requests, but were not produced despite certification of | |
| Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel that such Responses were truthful and complete. | |
| Without waiver of any such objections, Ms. Maxwell has made available documents | |
| related to some of Ms. Giuffre’s false allegations of sexual assaults in her Second Supplemental | |
| Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) disclosures. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 2 | |
| Produce all documents concerning how any such police report, or how any such | |
| recounting, retelling, summary, or description of any such police report (as referenced in | |
| Interrogatory No. 1), came into Your possession. This request includes, but is not limited to, all | |
| documents concerning how, when, and by whom such reports (or descriptions of reports) were | |
| obtained from a minor child’s sealed juvenile records and files. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request in that there is no “Interrogatory No. | |
| 1” to which the Request corresponds. She further objects to the Request in that it improperly | |
| seeks to propound an Interrogatory in the form of a Request for Production of Documents and is | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 25 | |
| 5 | |
| a contention Interrogatory barred according to Plaintiff’s interpretation of the Local Rules. The | |
| Request embeds a number of assumptions that are not true and for which Plaintiff supplies no | |
| basis for assertion of their veracity. | |
| Ms. Maxwell likewise objects to this Request because it seeks documents or information | |
| protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common interest | |
| privilege or any other applicable privilege. | |
| Finally, Ms. Maxwell also objects to this Request to the extent it calls for information | |
| relating to Virginia Roberts Giuffre that exists within the public domain, the internet or in public | |
| court records and which are equally available to both parties and can be obtained from some | |
| other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive. Defendant refers to | |
| the public documents and news reports regarding Plaintiff’s allegations of sexual abuse and | |
| investigation of the same, which have been previously produced, are available in the public | |
| domain, or referenced in court papers. Defendant also refers Plaintiff to documents within the | |
| possession, custody and control of Plaintiff and her counsel, including without limitation Mr. | |
| Bradley Edwards, which were requested in Defendant’s First Set of Discovery Requests, but | |
| were not produced despite certification of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel that such Responses | |
| were truthful and complete. | |
| Without waiver of any such objections, Ms. Maxwell has made available documents | |
| related to some of Ms. Giuffre’s false allegations of sexual assaults in her Second Supplemental | |
| Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) disclosures. Ms. Maxwell is withholding documents responsive to | |
| this request on the basis of the attorney-client and work product privileges. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 3 | |
| Produce all documents concerning how information or knowledge of the local police’s | |
| findings or opinions concerning Ms. Giuffre’s allegations of sexual assault as a minor child came | |
| into Your possession, including but not limited to documents concerning any statements made by | |
| law enforcement or any state attorney, written or oral, concerning such allegations. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or | |
| information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common | |
| interest privilege or any other applicable privilege. | |
| Ms. Maxwell also objects to this Request to the extent it calls for information relating to | |
| Virginia Roberts Giuffre that exists within the public domain, the internet or in public court | |
| records and which are equally available to both parties and can be obtained from some other | |
| source that is more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive. Subject to and without | |
| waiver of the foregoing, Defendant refers to the public documents and news reports regarding | |
| Plaintiff’s allegations of sexual abuse and investigation of the same, which have been previously | |
| produced, are available in the public domain, or referenced in court papers. Defendant also | |
| refers Plaintiff to documents within the possession, custody and control of Plaintiff and her | |
| counsel, including without limitation Mr. Bradley Edwards, which were requested in | |
| Defendant’s First Set of Discovery Requests, but were not produced despite certification of | |
| Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel that such Responses were truthful and complete. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 25 | |
| 6 | |
| Without waiver of any such objections, Ms. Maxwell has made available documents | |
| related to some of Ms. Giuffre’s false allegations of sexual assaults in her Second Supplemental | |
| Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) disclosures. Ms. Maxwell is withholding documents responsive to | |
| this request on the basis of the attorney-client and work product privileges. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 4 | |
| Produce all documents concerning any investigations, internal or otherwise, by any law | |
| enforcement or governmental agency, regarding the illegal disclosure, illegal purchase, and/or | |
| theft of sealed juvenile police records concerning Plaintiff. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or | |
| information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common | |
| interest privilege or any other applicable privilege. Ms. Maxwell also objects to this Request to | |
| the extent it calls information relating to Virginia Roberts Giuffre that exists within the public | |
| domain, the internet or in public court records and which are equally available to both parties and | |
| can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, and less | |
| expensive. Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it characterizes the gathering of | |
| public information as “illegal.” | |
| Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing, Defendant has been unable to locate any | |
| documents responsive to this Request. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 5 | |
| Produce all documents concerning any rape, sexual assault, sexual intercourse, or other | |
| sexual encounter involving Plaintiff. This Request includes, but is not limited to, (1) any | |
| documents concerning any sexual assault of Plaintiff while a minor; (2) any police reports, or | |
| documents concerning any police reports, that were created concerning such claims of sexual | |
| assault; and (3) documents concerning any communications received by You (or Your agents | |
| or attorneys) by other individuals that reference any sexual assault of Plaintiff while a minor. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or | |
| information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common | |
| interest privilege or any other applicable privilege. | |
| Ms. Maxwell also objects to this Request to the extent it calls for information relating to | |
| Virginia Roberts Giuffre that exists within the public domain, the internet or in public court | |
| records and which are equally available to both parties and can be obtained from some other | |
| source that is more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive. Subject to and without | |
| waiver of the foregoing, Defendant refers to the public documents and news reports regarding | |
| Plaintiff’s false allegations of sexual abuse and investigation of the same, which have been | |
| previously produced, are available in the public domain, or referenced in court papers. | |
| Defendant also refers Plaintiff to documents within the possession, custody and control of | |
| Plaintiff and her counsel, including without limitation Mr. Bradley Edwards, which were | |
| requested in Defendant’s First Set of Discovery Requests, but were not produced despite | |
| certification of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel that such Responses were truthful and complete. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 25 | |
| 7 | |
| Defendant objects to the characterization of Plaintiff’s documented false claims of sexual contact | |
| as “rape” or “sexual assault.” | |
| Without waiver of any such objections, Ms. Maxwell has made available documents | |
| related to some of Ms. Giuffre’s false allegations of sexual assault in her Second Supplemental | |
| Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) disclosures. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 6 | |
| Produce any Joint Defense Agreement entered into between You and Jeffrey Epstein | |
| from 1999 to the present. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or | |
| information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common | |
| interest privilege or any other applicable privilege. Defendant is withholding production of any | |
| such agreement on the basis of such privileges. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 7 | |
| Produce any documents concerning any Joint Defense Agreement entered into between | |
| You and Jeffrey Epstein from 1999 to the present. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or | |
| information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common | |
| interest privilege or any other applicable privilege. Defendant is withholding documents on the | |
| basis of such privileges. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 8 | |
| Produce any documents concerning any of Your, or Your attorneys or agent’s, | |
| communications with Jeffrey Epstein’s attorneys or agents from 1999 to the present relating to | |
| the issue of sexual abuse of females, or any documents concerning any of Your, Your attorneys | |
| or agent’s, communications with Jeffrey Epstein’s attorneys or agents from 1999 to the present | |
| relating to the recruitment of any female under the age of 18 for any purpose, including | |
| socializing or performing any type of work or services. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is cumulative | |
| and duplicative. Ms. Maxwell has already produced documents related to her communications | |
| with Jeffrey Epstein in response to Plaintiff’s First Requests for Production of Documents, all of | |
| which document her denial that she did “recruit[] any female under the age of 18 for any | |
| purpose.” | |
| Ms. Maxwell also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or information | |
| protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common interest | |
| privilege or any other applicable privilege. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing, | |
| Defendant has been unable to locate any additional documents responsive to this Request. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 25 | |
| 8 | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 9 | |
| Produce any Joint Defense Agreement entered into between You and Alan Dershowitz | |
| from 1999 to the present. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or | |
| information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common | |
| interest privilege or any other applicable privilege. Subject to and without waiver of the | |
| foregoing, Defendant has been unable to locate any documents responsive to this Request. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 10 | |
| Produce any documents concerning any Joint Defense Agreement entered into between | |
| You and Alan Dershowitz from 1999 to the present. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or | |
| information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common | |
| interest privilege or any other applicable privilege. Subject to and without waiver of the | |
| foregoing, Defendant has been unable to locate any documents responsive to this Request. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 11 | |
| Produce any documents concerning any of Your attorneys’ or agents’ communications | |
| with Alan Dershowitz’s attorneys or agents from 1999 to the present | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or | |
| information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common | |
| interest privilege or any other applicable privilege. Defendant is withholding communications | |
| between Mr. Dershowitz’s counsel and Defendant’s counsel which contain work product and | |
| concern joint defense or common interest matters. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 12 | |
| Produce all documents concerning Virginia Giuffre (a/k/a Virginia Roberts), whether or | |
| not they reference her by name. This request includes, but is not limited to, all communications, | |
| diaries, journals, calendars, blog posts (whether published or not), notes (handwritten or not), | |
| memoranda, mobile phone agreements, wire transfer receipts, or any other document that | |
| concerns Plaintiff in any way, whether or not they reference her by name. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request as overly broad, unduly burdensome | |
| and interposed for improper purposes. Response to this Request would literally entail defense | |
| counsel reviewing for privilege every single document in their possession related to this case. | |
| Ms. Maxwell further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is cumulative and | |
| duplicative. Ms. Maxwell further objects to this request as exceeding the scope of this Court’s | |
| March 17, 2016 Order. Ms. Maxwell also objects to this Request to the extent it calls for | |
| information relating to Virginia Roberts Giuffre that exists within the public domain, the internet | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 25 | |
| 9 | |
| or in public court records and which are equally available to both parties and can be obtained | |
| from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive. Ms. | |
| Maxwell further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or information protected | |
| by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common interest privilege or any | |
| other applicable privilege. Subject to the foregoing objections, Ms. Maxwell and her counsel are | |
| not going to review every document in their possession for any additional documents responsive | |
| to this Request. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 13 | |
| Produce all contracts, including but not limited to indemnification agreements and | |
| employment agreements, between You and Jeffrey Epstein, or any entity associated with Jeffrey | |
| Epstein, from 1999 to the present. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is cumulative | |
| and duplicative and is overly broad. Ms. Maxwell further objects to this Request to the extent it | |
| seeks documents or information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product | |
| doctrine, the common interest privilege or any other applicable privilege. Subject to and without | |
| waiver of the foregoing, Defendant has been unable to locate any such documents. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 14 | |
| Produce all documents concerning any contracts, including but not limited to | |
| indemnification agreements and employment agreements, between You and Jeffrey Epstein, or | |
| any entity associated with Jeffrey Epstein, from 1999 to the present. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is cumulative | |
| and duplicative and is overly broad. Ms. Maxwell further objects to this Request to the extent it | |
| seeks documents or information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product | |
| doctrine, the common interest privilege or any other applicable privilege. Subject to and without | |
| waiver of the foregoing, Defendant has been unable to locate any such documents. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 15 | |
| Produce all documents concerning the identity or identities of the individual(s) or entities | |
| paying Your legal fees concerning the above-captioned action, and all documents concerning the | |
| identity or identities of the individual(s) or entities paying Ross Gow, or any entities associated | |
| with Ross Gow, for any work he performed on Your behalf. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks multiple | |
| categories of documents within a single request for production. Ms. Maxwell further objects to | |
| this Request to the extent it seeks documents or information protected by the attorney/client | |
| privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common interest privilege or any other applicable | |
| privilege. Ms. Maxwell is producing her engagement letter with her counsel in this action. | |
| Defendant has been unable to locate any additional documents responsive to this Request. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 25 | |
| 10 | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 16 | |
| Produce all documents concerning any action or lawsuit brought against You from 1999 | |
| to the present, including, but not limited to, actions or lawsuits brought in foreign jurisdictions. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is over-broad | |
| and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this | |
| action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. | |
| Maxwell further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or information protected | |
| by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. | |
| Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Ms. Maxwell has been unable to locate any | |
| documents responsive to this Request. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 17 | |
| Produce all documents concerning any statement made by You or on Your behalf to the | |
| press or any other group or individual, including draft statements, concerning Ms. Giuffre, by | |
| You, Ross Gow, or any other individual, from 2005 to the present, including the dates of any | |
| publications, and if published online, the Uniform Resource Identifier (URL) address. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is cumulative | |
| and duplicative. Ms. Maxwell also objects to this Request to the extent it calls for information | |
| that exists within the public domain, the internet or in public court records and which are | |
| equally available to both parties and can be obtained from some other source that is more | |
| convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive. Ms. Maxwell further objects to this Request | |
| to the extent it seeks documents or information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the | |
| work-product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Ms. Maxwell is not producing | |
| documents that are available in the public domain. Ms. Maxwell has been unable to locate any | |
| additional documents responsive to this Request. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 18 | |
| Produce all documents concerning which individuals or entities You or Your agents | |
| distributed or sent any statements concerning Ms. Giuffre referenced in Request No. 18 made by | |
| You or on Your behalf. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is cumulative | |
| and duplicative. Ms. Maxwell also objects to this Request to the extent it calls for information | |
| that exists within the public domain, the internet or in public court records and which are | |
| equally available to both parties and can be obtained from some other source that is more | |
| convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive. Ms. Maxwell further objects to this Request | |
| to the extent it seeks documents or information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the | |
| work-product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Ms. Maxwell is not producing | |
| documents that are available in the public domain. Ms. Maxwell has been unable to locate any | |
| additional documents responsive to this Request. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 25 | |
| 11 | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 19 Produce all documents concerning any alleged illegal | |
| activity involving Plaintiff from the Relevant Period. This request includes, but is not limited to, | |
| any documents concerning the Roadhouse Grill in Florida. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request as vague and confusing. Ms. Maxwell | |
| is unaware of all illegal activities in which Plaintiff may have been engaged in during the stated | |
| time period, and documents concerning those activities are uniquely within Plaintiff’s | |
| possession, custody and control. | |
| Ms. Maxwell further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or | |
| information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common | |
| interest privilege or any other applicable privilege. | |
| Ms. Maxwell also objects to this Request to the extent it calls for information relating to | |
| Virginia Roberts Giuffre that exists within the public domain, the internet or in public court | |
| records and which are equally available to both parties and can be obtained from some other | |
| source that is more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive. Subject to and without | |
| waiver of the foregoing, Defendant refers to the public documents and news reports regarding | |
| Plaintiff’s allegations of sexual abuse and investigation of the same, which have been previously | |
| produced, are available in the public domain, or referenced in court papers. Defendant also | |
| refers Plaintiff to documents within the possession, custody and control of Plaintiff and her | |
| counsel, including without limitation Mr. Bradley Edwards, which were requested in | |
| Defendant’s First Set of Discovery Requests, but were not produced despite certification of | |
| Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel that such Responses were truthful and complete. | |
| Without waiver of any such objections, Ms. Maxwell has made available documents | |
| related to some of Ms. Giuffre’s contacts with law enforcement in her Second Supplemental Fed. | |
| R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) disclosures. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 20 | |
| Produce all documents concerning any apartment or other dwelling occupied by Plaintiff | |
| from 1999 to the present, including but not limited to, all documents concerning the acquisition | |
| of, and payment for, such dwellings. This Request includes, but is not limited to, any dwelling | |
| paid for -in whole or in part by Defendant or Jeffrey Epstein. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request to the extent it calls for information | |
| that exists within the public domain, the internet or in public court records and which are equally | |
| available to both parties and can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, | |
| less burdensome, and less expensive. Ms. Maxwell is not producing documents that are available | |
| in the public domain. Ms. Maxwell is not re-producing documents already produced by her and | |
| produced by Plaintiff in this action, for example, in response to Defendant’s First Set of | |
| Discovery Requests to Plaintiff which requested inter alia documents related to Plaintiff’s | |
| residences since 1999. | |
| Without waiver of any such objections, Ms. Maxwell has made available documents | |
| related to some of Ms. Giuffre’s dwellings in her Second Supplemental Fed. R. Civ. P. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 25 | |
| 12 | |
| 26(a)(1)(A) disclosures. Ms. Maxwell has been unable to locate any additional documents | |
| responsive to this Request. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUESTS “CONCERNING PUNITIVE DAMAGES” | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 21 | |
| Produce all copies of the complaints in any lawsuits that You have filed in any court in | |
| which You seek damages or any other financial recovery from 2014 to the present. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad | |
| and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this | |
| action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. | |
| Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of | |
| annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at | |
| issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. | |
| Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial | |
| information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of | |
| “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. | |
| Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this | |
| Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. | |
| Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will | |
| Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 22 | |
| Produce all Financial Statements prepared for or submitted to any Lender or Investor for | |
| the past three years by You personally or on Your behalf or on behalf of any entity in which You | |
| hold or held a controlling interest from January 2015 to the Present. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad | |
| and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this | |
| action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. | |
| Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of | |
| annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at | |
| issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. | |
| Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial | |
| information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of | |
| “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. | |
| Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this | |
| Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. | |
| Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 25 | |
| 13 | |
| Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 23 | |
| Produce all W-2s, K-1s, and any other documents reflecting any income (including | |
| salary, bonuses, dividends, profit distributions, royalties, advances, annuities, and any other form | |
| of income), including all gross and net revenue received by You directly or indirectly from | |
| January 2015 to the present. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad | |
| and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this | |
| action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. | |
| Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of | |
| annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at | |
| issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. | |
| Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial | |
| information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of | |
| “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. | |
| Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this | |
| Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. | |
| Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will | |
| Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 24 | |
| Produce all tax returns filed with any taxing entity (either foreign or domestic) from | |
| January 2015 to the present by You or on Your behalf, or on behalf of any entity in which You | |
| hold or held a controlling interest at the time of filing. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad | |
| and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this | |
| action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. | |
| Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of | |
| annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at | |
| issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. | |
| Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial | |
| information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of | |
| “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. | |
| Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this | |
| Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. | |
| Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will | |
| Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 25 | |
| 14 | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 25 | |
| Produce all bank statements or other financial statements which were prepared by You, | |
| on Your behalf or by or on behalf of any entity in which You held an ownership interest of 10% | |
| or more at any time from January 2015 to the present. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad | |
| and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this | |
| action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. | |
| Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of | |
| annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at | |
| issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. | |
| Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial | |
| information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of | |
| “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. | |
| Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this | |
| Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. | |
| Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will | |
| Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 26 | |
| Produce all deeds and titles to all real property owned by You or held on Your behalf | |
| either directly or indirectly at any time from January 2015 to the present. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad | |
| and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this | |
| action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. | |
| Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of | |
| annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at | |
| issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. | |
| Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial | |
| information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of | |
| “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. | |
| Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this | |
| Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. | |
| Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will | |
| Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 27 | |
| Produce all passbooks (or other documents showing account balances) with respect to all | |
| savings accounts, checking accounts, and savings and loan association share accounts owned by | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 25 | |
| 15 | |
| You or on which You hold a right or have held a right to withdraw funds at any time from | |
| January 2015 to the present. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad | |
| and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this | |
| action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. | |
| Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of | |
| annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at | |
| issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. | |
| Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial | |
| information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of | |
| “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. | |
| Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this | |
| Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. | |
| Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will | |
| Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 28 | |
| Produce all passbooks (or other documents showing account balances) with respect to all | |
| savings accounts, checking accounts and savings loan association share accounts, owned by You | |
| in whole or in party jointly as co-owner, partner, or joint venture, in any business enterprise, or | |
| owned by an entity in which You have or have had a controlling interest at any time from | |
| January 2015 to the present. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad | |
| and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this | |
| action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. | |
| Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of | |
| annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at | |
| issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. | |
| Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial | |
| information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of | |
| “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. | |
| Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this | |
| Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. | |
| Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will | |
| Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 29 | |
| Produce all bank ledger sheets (from the internet or otherwise) concerning all bank | |
| accounts in which You have a right to withdraw funds, reflecting the highest balance in said | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 25 | |
| 16 | |
| accounts from January 2015 to the present. . | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad | |
| and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this | |
| action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. | |
| Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of | |
| annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at | |
| issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. | |
| Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial | |
| information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of | |
| “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. | |
| Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this | |
| Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. | |
| Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will | |
| Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 30 | |
| Produce all bank ledger sheets (from the internet or otherwise) concerning all bank | |
| accounts owned by You solely, or jointly as co-owner, partner, or joint venture, in any business | |
| enterprise, or any entity in which You have or have had a controlling interest from January 2015 | |
| to the present, reflecting het highest balance in said accounts for each month from January 2015 | |
| to the present. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad | |
| and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this | |
| action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. | |
| Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of | |
| annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at | |
| issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. | |
| Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial | |
| information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of | |
| “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. | |
| Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this | |
| Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. | |
| Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will | |
| Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 31 | |
| Produce all checkbooks for all accounts on which You were authorized to withdraw | |
| funds from January 2015 to the present. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 25 | |
| 17 | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad | |
| and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this | |
| action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. | |
| Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of | |
| annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at | |
| issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. | |
| Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial | |
| information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of | |
| “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. | |
| Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this | |
| Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. | |
| Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will | |
| Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 32 | |
| Produce the 2015 and 2016 balance sheets and other financial statements with respect to | |
| any and all business enterprises of whatever nature (including not-for-profit enterprises), either | |
| foreign or domestic, in which You possess any ownership interest of 10% or more, whether a | |
| partner, joint venture, stockholder, or otherwise. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad | |
| and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this | |
| action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. | |
| Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of | |
| annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at | |
| issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. | |
| Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial | |
| information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of | |
| “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. | |
| Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this | |
| Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. | |
| Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will | |
| Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 33 | |
| Produce all corporate securities (stocks or bonds), foreign or domestic, directly or | |
| indirectly held by You, or held on Your behalf or for Your benefit by another individual or | |
| entity, including trusts from January 2015 to the Present. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad | |
| and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 25 | |
| 18 | |
| action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. | |
| Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of | |
| annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at | |
| issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. | |
| Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial | |
| information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of | |
| “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. | |
| Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this | |
| Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. | |
| Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will | |
| Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 34 | |
| Produce all accounts receivable ledgers or other records which set forth the names and | |
| addresses of all persons or business enterprises that are indebted to You and the amounts and | |
| terms of such indebtedness from August 2016 to the Present. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad | |
| and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this | |
| action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. | |
| Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of | |
| annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at | |
| issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. | |
| Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial | |
| information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of | |
| “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. | |
| Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this | |
| Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. | |
| Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will | |
| Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 35 | |
| Produce all copies of the partnership or corporation Income Tax Returns for any | |
| partnership or corporation, either foreign or domestic, in which You do possess or have | |
| possessed any ownership interest of 4% or more whether as partner, joint venture, stockholder or | |
| otherwise, from 2014 to the present. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad | |
| and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this | |
| action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. | |
| Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 25 | |
| 19 | |
| annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at | |
| issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. | |
| Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial | |
| information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of | |
| “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. | |
| Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this | |
| Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. | |
| Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will | |
| Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 36 | |
| Produce all title certificates, registration certificates, bills of sale, and other evidences of | |
| ownership possessed by You or held for Your beneficial interest with respect to any of the | |
| following described property owned by You or held directly or indirectly for Your beneficial | |
| interest from January 2015 to the present: | |
| a. Motor vehicles of any type, including trucks, other automobiles, and two or three-wheeled | |
| vehicles (motorcycles, ATV, etc.). | |
| b. Aircraft of any type, including jets, propeller planes, and helicopters | |
| c. Boats, launches, cruisers, sailboats, or other vessels of any type | |
| d. Real estate and real property | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad | |
| and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this | |
| action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. | |
| Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of | |
| annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at | |
| issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. | |
| Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial | |
| information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of | |
| “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. | |
| Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this | |
| Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. | |
| Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will | |
| Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 37 | |
| From January 2012 to the present, produce all documents concerning any source of | |
| funding for the TarraMar Project or any other not-for-profit entities with which You are | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 25 | |
| 20 | |
| associated, including but not limited to, funding received from the Clinton Global Initiative, the | |
| Clinton Foundation (a/k/a William J. Clinton Foundation, a/k/a/ the Bill, Hilary & Chelsea | |
| Clinton Foundation), and the Clinton Foundation Climate Change Initiative. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad | |
| and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this | |
| action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. | |
| Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of | |
| annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at | |
| issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. | |
| Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial | |
| information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of | |
| “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. | |
| Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this | |
| Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. | |
| Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will | |
| Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 38 | |
| Produce all memoranda and/or bills evidencing the amount and terms of all of Your | |
| current debts and obligations that exist presently. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad | |
| and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this | |
| action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. | |
| Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of | |
| annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at | |
| issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. | |
| Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial | |
| information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of | |
| “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. | |
| Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this | |
| Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. | |
| Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will | |
| Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 39 | |
| Produce all records indicating any and all income (whether taxable or not) received | |
| by You from all sources from January 2015 to the present. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 25 | |
| 21 | |
| and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this | |
| action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. | |
| Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of | |
| annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at | |
| issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. | |
| Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial | |
| information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of | |
| “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. | |
| Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this | |
| Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. | |
| Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will | |
| Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 40 | |
| Produce all copies of any and all brokerage account statements or securities owned by | |
| You individually, jointly with any person or entity or as trustee, guardian or custodian, from | |
| January 2015 to the present, including in such records date of purchase and amounts paid for | |
| such securities, and certificates of any such securities. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad | |
| and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this | |
| action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. | |
| Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of | |
| annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at | |
| issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. | |
| Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial | |
| information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of | |
| “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. | |
| Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this | |
| Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. | |
| Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will | |
| Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 41 | |
| Produce all records pertaining to the acquisition, transfer and sale of all securities by You | |
| or on Your behalf from January 2015 to the present, such records to include any and all | |
| information relative to gains or losses realized from transactions involving such securities. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad | |
| and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this | |
| action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 25 | |
| 22 | |
| Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of | |
| annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at | |
| issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. | |
| Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial | |
| information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of | |
| “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. | |
| Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this | |
| Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. | |
| Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will | |
| Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. | |
| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 42 | |
| Produce all policies of insurance having any cash value that exist or existed from January | |
| 2015 to the present, which policies You or any entity controlled by You is the owner or | |
| beneficiary. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad | |
| and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this | |
| action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. | |
| Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of | |
| annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at | |
| issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. | |
| Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial | |
| information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of | |
| “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. | |
| Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this | |
| Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. | |
| Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will | |
| Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. | |
| UN-NUMBERED REQUEST | |
| Produce all copies of any and all trust agreements that exist or existed from January 2015 | |
| to the present in which You are the settlor or beneficiary together with such documents necessary | |
| and sufficient to identify the nature and current value of the trust. | |
| RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad | |
| and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this | |
| action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. | |
| Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of | |
| annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at | |
| issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 25 | |
| 23 | |
| Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial | |
| information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of | |
| “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. | |
| Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this | |
| Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. | |
| Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will | |
| Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. | |
| Dated: May 16, 2016 | |
| Respectfully submitted, | |
| s/Laura A.Menninger | |
| Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374) | |
| Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice) | |
| HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. | |
| 150 East 10th Avenue | |
| Denver, CO 80203 | |
| Phone: 303.831.7364 | |
| Fax: 303.832.2628 | |
| lmenninger@hmflaw.com | |
| Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 25 | |
| 24 | |
| CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | |
| I certify that on May 16, 2016, I served the attached document DEFENDANT | |
| GHISLAINE MAXWELL’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND | |
| REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS via email to the following counsel of | |
| record: | |
| Sigrid S. McCawley | |
| Meridith Schultz | |
| BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP | |
| 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 | |
| Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 | |
| smccawley@bsfllp.com | |
| mschultz@bsfllp.com | |
| Paul G. Cassell | |
| 383 S. University Street | |
| Salt Lake City, UT 84112 | |
| cassellp@law.utah.edu | |
| Bradley J. Edwards | |
| FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, | |
| FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. | |
| 425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2 | |
| Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 | |
| brad@pathtojustice.com | |
| s/ Laura A. Menninger | |
| Laura A. Menninger | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 25 of 25 | |
| United States District Court | |
| Southern District of New York | |
| Virginia L. Giuffre, | |
| Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS | |
| v. | |
| Ghislaine Maxwell, | |
| Defendant. | |
| ________________________________/ | |
| RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS | |
| AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT MATERIALS | |
| BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP | |
| Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP | |
| 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 | |
| Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 | |
| (954) 356-0011 | |
| David Boies | |
| Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP | |
| 333 Main Street | |
| Armonk, NY 10504 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 40 | |
| i | |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS | |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................................... i | |
| TABLE OF AUTHORITIES....................................................................................................................... iii | |
| INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1 | |
| FACTUAL BACKGROUND....................................................................................................................... 2 | |
| The CVRA Case ........................................................................................................................................... 2 | |
| The Dershowitz case........................................................................................................................ 4 | |
| The Florida Court Rejects a Waiver of Attorney Clients Privilege Argument................................ 5 | |
| Ms. Giuffre’s Deposition in the Defamation Case........................................................................... 7 | |
| The Settlement of the Defamation Case .......................................................................................... 7 | |
| LEGAL STANDARDS FOR WAIVER....................................................................................................... 8 | |
| A. Federal Rule of Evidence 502 Controls on the Issue of Waiver................................................. 8 | |
| B. Florida Law................................................................................................................................. 9 | |
| C. Federal Law.............................................................................................................................. 11 | |
| DISCUSSION............................................................................................................................................. 14 | |
| I. MS. GIUFFRE DID NOT WAIVE HER ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE | |
| WHEN EDWARDS AND CASSELL FILED AND PURSUED THEIR OWN | |
| DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST ALAN DERSHOWITZ............................................... 14 | |
| A. The Florida Court Presiding over the Defamation Action Has Already Rejected the | |
| Same Waiver Claim that Defendant is Advancing Here................................................. 14 | |
| B. Actions by Cassell and Edwards Do Not Waive Ms. Giuffre’s Attorney-Client | |
| Privilege. ......................................................................................................................... 18 | |
| C. Ms. Giuffre’s Confidential Communications With Her Attorneys Were Never “At | |
| Issue” in the Florida Dershowitz Litigation. ................................................................... 19 | |
| D. Defendant Has Not Met the Other Requirements for Showing Waiver of AttorneyClient Privilege................................................................................................................ 21 | |
| E. Ms. Giuffre Will Not Seek to Use Confidential Attorney-Client Communications | |
| in her Action Here........................................................................................................... 23 | |
| II. MS. GIUFFRE DID NOT WAIVE HER ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE BY | |
| DENYING FABRICATED EVICENCE DURING HER DEPOSITION................................ 25 | |
| III.EDWARDS AND CASSELL HAVE NOT WAIVED WORK-PRODUCT | |
| PROTECTION AND MAXWELL HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED NEED TO | |
| PENETRATE THE PROTECTION. ........................................................................................ 27 | |
| A. Work Product Protection Has Not Been Waived............................................................ 27 | |
| B. Defendant Has Not Proven “Need” to Penetrate Work-Product Protection.................... 29 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 40 | |
| ii | |
| IV.COMMUNICATIONS WITH ATTORNEY JACK SCAROLA ARE COVERED BY A | |
| JOINT DEFENSE AGREEMENT AND ARE THUS PROTECTED BY ATTORNEYCLIENT AND WORK-PRODUCTION PROTECTION......................................................... 31 | |
| CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................................... 31 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 40 | |
| iii | |
| TABLE OF AUTHORITIES | |
| Cases | |
| Allen v. West Point-Pepperell, Inc., | |
| 848 F.Supp. 423 (S.D.N.Y.1994)............................................................................................................ 13 | |
| Allied Irish Banks v. Bank of Am., N.A., | |
| 240 F.R.D. 96 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) .............................................................................................................. 12 | |
| Am. Re-Ins. Co. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., | |
| 40 A.D.3d 486, 837 N.Y.S.2d 616 (2007) .............................................................................................. 22 | |
| Aristocrat Leisure Ltd. v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, | |
| No. 04 CIV 10014 PKL, | |
| 2009 WL 3111766 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2009)........................................................................................ 14 | |
| Bank Brussels Lambert v. Credit Lyonnais (Suisse), S.A., | |
| 210 F.R.D. 506 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) ................................................................................................ 10, 13, 14 | |
| Brookings v. State, | |
| 495 So.2d 135 (Fla. 1986)....................................................................................................................... 23 | |
| Bus. Integration Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Corp., | |
| No. 06 CIV. 1863 (JGK), 2008 WL 318343 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2008) ................................................... 18 | |
| Butler v. Harter, | |
| 152 So.3d 705 (Fla. 1st DCA, 2014)....................................................................................................... 30 | |
| Charter One Bank, F.S.B. v. Midtown Rochester, L.L.C., | |
| 191 Misc. 2d 154, 738 N.Y.S.2d 179 (Sup. Ct. 2002)............................................................................ 28 | |
| Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., | |
| 940 So.2d 504 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2006).......................................................................................... 11, 12, 20 | |
| Columbia Hosp. Corp. of S. Broward v. Fain, | |
| 16 So.3d 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)......................................................................................................... 31 | |
| Connell v. Bernstein-Macaulay, Inc., | |
| 407 F.Supp. 420 (S.D.N.Y.1976)............................................................................................................ 13 | |
| Coyne v. Schwartz, Gold, Cohen, Zakarin & Kotler, P.A., | |
| 715 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) ...................................................................................................... 21 | |
| CSX Transp., Inc. v. Carpenter, | |
| 725 So.2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) ........................................................................................................ 30 | |
| Delap v. State, | |
| 440 So.2d 1242 (Fla. 1983)..................................................................................................................... 22 | |
| Diaz–Verson v. Walbridge Aldinger Co., | |
| 54 So.3d 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ........................................................................................................ 20 | |
| Dillenbeck v. Hess, | |
| 73 N.Y.2d 278, 290, 536 N.E.2d 1126 (N.Y. 1989)............................................................................... 14 | |
| Does 1 and 2 v. United States, | |
| 817 F.Supp.2d 1337 (S.D. Fla. 2011) ....................................................................................................... 2 | |
| Does v. United States, | |
| 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014).................................................................................................................... 3 | |
| Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Gellert, | |
| 431 So.2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) ........................................................................................................ 28 | |
| Elliott Associates, L.P. v. Banco de la Nacion, | |
| 194 F.3d 363 (2d Cir. 1999).................................................................................................................... 18 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 40 | |
| iv | |
| Falco v. N. Shore Labs. Corp., | |
| 866 So.2d 1255 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)...................................................................................................... 31 | |
| Ferreira v. Capitol Specialty Ins. Corp., | |
| 31 Misc. 3d 1209(A), | |
| 929 N.Y.S.2d 199 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011) ................................................................................................. 14 | |
| First Union National Bank v. Turney, | |
| 824 So.2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)........................................................................................................ 10 | |
| Ford Motor Co. v. Hall-Edwards, | |
| 997 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) ...................................................................................................... 10 | |
| Genovese v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., | |
| 74 So.3d 1064 (Fla. 2011)........................................................................................................... 12, 20, 29 | |
| Giuffre v. Maxwell, DE 135, 2016 WL 175918 ................................................................................... 12, 32 | |
| Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. Blondis, | |
| 412 F.Supp. 286 (N.D.Ill.1976).............................................................................................................. 28 | |
| Guarantee Ins. Co. v. Heffernan Ins. Brokers, Inc., | |
| 300 F.R.D. 590 (S.D. Fla. 2014)................................................................................................. 10, 11, 21 | |
| GUS Consulting GMBH v. Chadbourne & Parke LLP, | |
| 20 Misc. 3d 539, 858 N.Y.S.2d 591 (Sup. Ct. 2008).............................................................................. 32 | |
| Hagans v. Gatorland Kubota, LLC/Sentry Ins., | |
| 45 So.3d 73 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) ............................................................................................................ 10 | |
| Hearn v. Rhay, | |
| 68 F.R.D. 574 (E.D. Wash. 1975)............................................................................................... 10, 13, 16 | |
| HSH Nordbank AG New York Branch v. Swerdlow, | |
| 259 F.R.D. 64 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) .............................................................................................................. 26 | |
| In re Bank of New York Mellon Corp. Forex Transactions Litig., | |
| 66 F. Supp. 3d 406 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)....................................................................................................... 14 | |
| In re Bank of New York Mellon, | |
| 42 Misc. 3d 171, 177, 977 N.Y.S.2d 560 (Sup. Ct. 2013)...................................................................... 14 | |
| In re Cnty. of Erie, | |
| 546 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2008)........................................................................................................ 12, 13, 25 | |
| In re von Bulow, | |
| 828 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1987)................................................................................................................ 14, 23 | |
| Jane Doe 1 v. United States, | |
| No. 9:08-cv-80736 (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2008).............................................................................................. 2 | |
| Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, | |
| 950 F.Supp.2d 1262 (S.D. Fla. 2013) ....................................................................................................... 3 | |
| Jenney v. Airdata Wiman, Inc., | |
| 846 So.2d 664 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) ........................................................................................................ 22 | |
| Jenney v. Airdata Wiman, Inc., | |
| 846 So.2d 664 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2003)...................................................................................................... 11 | |
| Koon v. State, | |
| 463 So.2d 201 (Fla. 1985)................................................................................................................. 19, 22 | |
| Lynch v. State, | |
| 2 So.3d 47 (Fla. 2008)............................................................................................................................. 23 | |
| McCullough v. Kubiak, | |
| 158 So. 3d 739 (Fla. 4th DCA, 2015) ...................................................................................................... 22 | |
| McWatters v. State, | |
| 36 So.3d 613 (Fla. 2010)......................................................................................................................... 12 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 40 | |
| v | |
| Mitchell v. Superior Court, | |
| 37 Cal. 3d 591, 691 P.2d 642 (Cal. 1984)............................................................................................... 26 | |
| Montana v. United States, | |
| 440 U.S. 147 (1979)................................................................................................................................17 | |
| Montanez v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., | |
| 135 So. 3d 510 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014) .............................................................................................. 26 | |
| N. Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Button, | |
| 592 So.2d 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)....................................................................................................... 31 | |
| Niesig v. Team I, | |
| 76 N.Y.2d 363, 558 N.E.2d 1030 (1990)................................................................................................ 23 | |
| Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, | |
| 62 A.D.3d 581, 880 N.Y.S.2d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)..................................................................... 25 | |
| O'Brien v. Fed. Trust Bank, F.S.B., | |
| 727 So. 2d 296 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999) .............................................................................................. 17 | |
| Paradise Divers, Inc. v. Upmal, | |
| 943 So. 2d 812 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) ........................................................................................ 28, 29 | |
| Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. Shore, | |
| 439 U.S. 322 (1979)................................................................................................................................17 | |
| Pereira v. United Jersey Bank, | |
| Nos. 94 Civ 1565 & 94 Civ 1844, 1997 WL 773716 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.11, 1997)..................................... 13 | |
| Perrignon v. Bergen Brunswig Corp., | |
| 77 F.R.D. 455 (N.D. Cal.1978)............................................................................................................... 28 | |
| Procacci v. Seitlin, | |
| 497 So. 2d 969 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986) .............................................................................................. 28 | |
| Procter & Gamble Co. v. Swilley, | |
| 462 So.2d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)...................................................................................................... 30 | |
| Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc. v. Home Indem. Co., | |
| 32 F.3d 851 (3d Cir.1994)....................................................................................................................... 13 | |
| Rhone–Poulenc Rorer, Inc. v. Home Indemnity Co., | |
| 32 F.3d 851 (3d Cir. 1994)...................................................................................................................... 11 | |
| Rogers v. State, | |
| 742 So.2d 827 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) ........................................................................................................ 12 | |
| Rousso v. Hannon, | |
| 146 So.3d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).......................................................................................................... 10 | |
| Savino v. Luciano, | |
| 92 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1957)................................................................................................................... 12, 20 | |
| Schetter v. Schetter, | |
| 239 So.2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970) .......................................................................................................... 18 | |
| Schnell v. Schnall, | |
| 550 F. Supp. 650 (S.D.N.Y.1982)........................................................................................................... 19 | |
| Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Deason, | |
| 632 So.2d 1377 (Fla.1994)...................................................................................................................... 30 | |
| State v. T.A., | |
| 528 So.2d 974 (Fla. 2d DCA, 1988) ....................................................................................................... 30 | |
| Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, | |
| 236 So.2d 108 (Fla. 1970)....................................................................................................................... 28 | |
| Swidler & Berlin v. United States, | |
| 524 U.S. 399 (1998)..................................................................................................................................8 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 40 | |
| vi | |
| Taylor v. State, | |
| 855 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2003)........................................................................................................................... 22 | |
| Ulico Cas. Co. v. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, | |
| 1 A.D.3d 223, 767 N.Y.S.2d 228 (2003) ................................................................................................ 26 | |
| Universal City Development Partners, Ltd. v. Pupillo, | |
| 54 So.3d 612, 614 (Fla. 5th DCA, 2011) ........................................................................................... 28, 31 | |
| West Bend Mutual Ins. Co. v. Higgins, | |
| 9 So.3d 655 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) ........................................................................................................... 29 | |
| Zirkelbach Const. Inc. v. Rajan, | |
| 93 So.3d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) ........................................................................................................ 30 | |
| Zois v. Cooper, | |
| 268 B.R. 890 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)................................................................................................................ 17 | |
| Statutes | |
| 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(9)..................................................................................................................................3 | |
| Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771............................................................................... 2 | |
| Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502 .............................................................................................................................. 26 | |
| Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(1)(c) ....................................................................................................................... 9 | |
| Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(2).................................................................................................................... 11, 22 | |
| Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(3).......................................................................................................................... 11 | |
| Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(4).......................................................................................................................... 26 | |
| Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.507 .............................................................................................................................. 12 | |
| N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 4503(a) ............................................................................................................................. 14 | |
| Pub. L. 114-22, Title I, § 113(a), (c)(1), May 29, 2015, 129 Stat. 240......................................................... 3 | |
| Rules | |
| Fed. R. Evid. 502(c)................................................................................................................................ 9, 18 | |
| Fed. R. Evid. 502(c)(1)............................................................................................................................... 27 | |
| Fed. R. Evid. 502(c)(2)............................................................................................................................... 27 | |
| Fed. R. Evid. 502 ................................................................................................................................ 1, 8, 27 | |
| Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(3) .......................................................................................................................... 27 | |
| Treatises | |
| Charles W. Ehrhardt, 1 Fla. Prac., Evidence § 502.6 (2015 ed.) ................................................................ 18 | |
| Paul G. Cassell, Nathanael J. Mitchell & Bradley J. Edwards, | |
| Crime Victims’ Rights During Criminal Investigations? Applying the Crime | |
| Victims’ Rights Act before Criminal Charges are Filed, 104 J. CRIM. L. & | |
| CRIMINOLOGY 59 (2014).......................................................................................................................... 2 | |
| Other Authorities | |
| N.Y. C.P.L.R. 4503 (McKinney)................................................................................................................ 19 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 40 | |
| 1 | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this | |
| response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel All Attorney-Client Communications and Attorney | |
| Work Product Placed at Issue by Plaintiff and Her Attorneys (DE 164). The motion should be | |
| denied in its entirety. | |
| INTRODUCTION | |
| Defendant argues Ms. Giuffre and two of her attorneys (Cassell and Edwards) have | |
| somehow placed “at issue” her confidential attorney-client communications and therefore have | |
| made a “sweeping waiver” of attorney-client privilege in this case. Defendant, however, fails to | |
| cite the controlling law on this issue: Federal Rule of Evidence 502. Enacted in 2008, Rule 502 | |
| was designed to block exactly the kind of argument Defendant is making. Rule 502 provides | |
| that litigants are entitled to the most protective law on attorney-client privilege, either state law | |
| where the disclosure was made or federal law. The alleged disclosures in this case were made in | |
| Florida, and under Florida law did not constitute any waiver of attorney-client privilege. Indeed, | |
| Defendant does not reveal to the Court that the Florida judge who handled the case during which | |
| the alleged “waivers” occurred (the Dershowitz case) has already considered – and rejected in | |
| their entirety – the very arguments that Defendant is advancing here. | |
| In addition, none of the alleged disclosures were made by Ms. Giuffre, who as the holder | |
| of the privilege is the only individual with authority to waive it. Moreover, none of the alleged | |
| disclosures concerned the substance of confidential attorney-client communications. And finally, | |
| Ms. Giuffre will not be seeking to introduce or otherwise take advantage of any confidential | |
| attorney-client communications in this case. Accordingly, for these and other reasons, the Court | |
| should deny Defendant’s motion in its entirety. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 40 | |
| 2 | |
| FACTUAL BACKGROUND | |
| The CVRA Case | |
| The facts relevant to this issue begin in 2008, when attorney Bradley J. Edwards (soon | |
| joined by co-counsel Professor Paul Cassell) filed a pro bono action in the Southern District of | |
| Florida under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. Filed on behalf of Jane | |
| Doe 1 (and later Jane Doe 2) the CVRA action alleged that federal government had failed to | |
| protect the rights of Jane Doe 1 and other similarly situated victims of sex offenses committed by | |
| Jeffrey Epstein. See Declaration of Sigrid McCawley (“McCawley Decl.”) at Exhibit 1, | |
| Complaint filed in Jane Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736 (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2008). Jane | |
| Does 1 and 2 achieved many victories in the case, including a ruling that the CVRA rights of | |
| victims could apply before charges were filed, Does 1 and 2 v. United States, 817 F.Supp.2d | |
| 1337 (S.D. Fla. 2011);1 | |
| that they had standing to challenge the non-prosecution agreement | |
| reached between the Government and Epstein, Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, 950 | |
| F.Supp.2d 1262 (S.D. Fla. 2013); and that plea negotiations were not protected from disclosure | |
| by any federal rule of evidence, Does v. United States, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014). Congress | |
| has also followed the developments in the case closely, recently amending the CVRA to insure | |
| that in the future crime victims receive notice of any non-prosecution agreement entered into by | |
| the Government. See Pub. L. 114-22, Title I, § 113(a), (c)(1), May 29, 2015, 129 Stat. 240, 241 | |
| (adding 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(9) to give crime victims “[t]he right to be informed in a timely | |
| manner of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement). | |
| 1 See generally Paul G. Cassell, Nathanael J. Mitchell & Bradley J. Edwards, Crime Victims’ Rights During | |
| Criminal Investigations? Applying the Crime Victims’ Rights Act before Criminal Charges are Filed, 104 J. CRIM. | |
| L. & CRIMINOLOGY 59 (2014). | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 40 | |
| 3 | |
| On December 30, 2014, Cassell and Edwards filed a Motion Pursuant to Rule 21 for | |
| Joinder in the Action on behalf two additional victims: Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4. (Jane Doe 3, | |
| Virginia Giuffre, subsequently decided to reveal her name). The joinder motion argued that Jane | |
| Does 3 and 4 should be allowed to join the two existing plaintiffs in the action because they had | |
| suffered the same violations of their rights under the CVRA. McCawley Decl., Exhibit 2, Jane | |
| Does’ 3 and 4 Joinder Motion.2 | |
| To establish that they were “victims” of Epstein’s sex crimes | |
| with standing to join the suit, Jane Does 3 and 4 alleged that they had suffered sexual abuse from | |
| Epstein. For example, Jane Doe 3 alleged that she had been forced by Epstein to have sexual | |
| relations with various persons, including Alan Dershowitz – who had been one of Epstein’s | |
| defense attorneys negotiating the non-prosecution deal and arranging to keep it secret from the | |
| victims. McCawley Decl., Exhibit 2 at 4. Jane Doe 3 also alleged that Defendant (i.e., Ghislaine | |
| Maxwell) had participated in the sexual abuse of Jane Doe 3. Id. at 4-5. | |
| After Dershowitz also filed a motion to intervene to contest the allegations (DE 282), | |
| Jane Doe 3 filed a response to Dershowitz’s intervention motion. McCawley Decl., Exhibit 3, | |
| Response to Motion to Intervene.3 | |
| The response explained that the allegations against | |
| Dershowitz were relevant to at least eight separate issues in the CVRA case. Id. at 18-26. The | |
| response also explained some of the evidence supporting the allegations against Dershowitz, | |
| including: | |
| x sworn testimony from one of Epstein’s household employees (Juan Alessi) that | |
| Dershowitz came “pretty often” to Epstein’s Florida mansion and got massages | |
| while he was there; | |
| 2 | |
| The Joinder Motion attached as an exhibit is a “corrected” motion, filed on January 2, 2015. As discussed below, | |
| several paragraphs in this motion were later stricken by Judge Marra. | |
| 3 | |
| This document is currently restricted/under seal in the CVRA case, although an order sealing it is not found in the | |
| Court record so far as can be determined. In light of the sealing of the document, we have marked aspects of this | |
| pleading dealing with the document as confidential. | |
| - | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 40 | |
| 4 | |
| x sworn testimony from another of Epstein’s household employees (Alfredo | |
| Rodriquez) that Dershowitz was present alone at the home of Epstein, without his | |
| family, in the presence of young girls; | |
| x invocations of Fifth Amendment rights to remain silent by three of Epstein’s | |
| identified co-conspirators (Sarah Kellen, Nadia Marcinkova, and Adrianna | |
| Mucinska) when asked questions about whether Dershowitz had been involved | |
| with massages by young girls; | |
| x refusals by Jeffrey Epstein to discuss Dershowitz’s involvement but instead to | |
| invoke his Fifth Amendment right. | |
| Id. at 26-38. | |
| Several months later, on April 7, 2015, the Court (Marra, J.) denied Jane Doe 3 and Jane | |
| Doe 4’s motion for joinder. McCawley Decl., Exhibit. 4, Order denying Jane Doe 3’s motion to | |
| join. With regard to the eight separate issues as to which the allegations against Dershowitz | |
| were relevant, the Court addressed only the first (establishing “victim” status) and found that the | |
| “factual details regarding with whom and where the Jane Does engaged in sexual activities are | |
| immaterial and impertinent to this central claim (i.e., that they were known victims of Mr. | |
| Epstein and the Government owed them CVRA duties), especially considering that these details | |
| involve non-parties who are not related to the respondent Government.” Id. at 5.4 | |
| Accordingly, | |
| the Court struck the factual details from the victims’ pleading as unnecessary at that time. The | |
| Court specifically recognized, however, that the details could be reasserted by the parties to the | |
| action – i.e., Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 – if they could “demonstrate a good faith basis for | |
| believing that such details are pertinent to a matter presented for the Court’s consideration.” Id. | |
| at 6. Following the Court’s ruling, additional litigation has proceeded in the CVRA case. | |
| The Dershowitz case | |
| 4 | |
| In asserting that the non-parties were “not related to the respondent Government,” the Court did not address Jane | |
| Doe 3’s argument that Dershowitz, as one of Epstein’s defense counsel, had helped negotiate the non-prosecution | |
| agreement and helped to arrange to keep it secret from the victims. | |
| - | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 40 | |
| 5 | |
| While the CVRA case was moving forward in the Southern District of Florida on behalf | |
| of Jane Does 1 and 2, separate litigation developed between the pro bono attorneys who had filed | |
| the lawsuit (Cassell and Edwards) and Dershowitz. After the filing of the joinder motion in the | |
| CVRA case, Dershowitz took the airwaves to attack not only Jane Doe 3, but also Cassell and | |
| Edwards. Typical of these attacks was one levelled on CNN, in which Dershowitz alleged: | |
| If they [Cassell and Edwards] had just done an hours’ worth of research and work, | |
| they would have seen she is lying through her teeth. . . . They’re prepared to lie, | |
| cheat, and steal. These are unethical lawyers. . . . They can’t be allowed to have | |
| a bar card to victimize more innocent people. | |
| Hala Gorani – CNN Live (Jan. 5, 2015).5 | |
| Cassell and Edwards then filed a state law defamation action against Dershowitz in | |
| Broward County, Florida. See McCawley Decl., Exhibit. 5, Complaint in Edwards and Cassell | |
| v. Dershowitz. The complaint alleged that Dershowitz had engaged in a “massive public media | |
| assault on the reputation and character” of Cassell and Edwards. Id. at 4. Ms. Giuffre was not a | |
| party to this defamation lawsuit. | |
| The Florida Court Rejects a Waiver of Attorney Clients Privilege Argument | |
| As Cassell and Edwards’ Florida defamation action moved forward, Dershowitz sought | |
| to make an argument that they had somehow waived their client’s (Ms. Giuffre’s) attorney-client | |
| privilege. On September 8, 2015, Dershowitz filed a motion to compel Cassell and Edwards to | |
| produce documents and additional responses to interrogatories. McCawley Decl., Exhibit. 6, | |
| Motion to Compel. In his motion, Dershowitz argued that Cassell and Edwards “have waived | |
| any privilege or protection that would otherwise attach to responsive documents and information | |
| 5 | |
| Available at http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/01/05/wrn-uk-sex-abuse-allegations-alan-dershowitzintv.cnn. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 40 | |
| 6 | |
| by bringing this defamation action placing at issue the truthfulness of Jane Doe No. 3’s | |
| allegations against Dershowitz . . . .” Id. at 3-5. In his motion and reply pleading (McCawley | |
| Decl., Exhibit 8, Reply in Support of Motion to Compel), Dershowitz argued that Cassell and | |
| Edwards’ actions throughout the case constituted a waiver of attorney-client privilege. | |
| Cassell and Edwards responded, arguing that Ms. Giuffre was not a party of the | |
| defamation action and that she was the only person who could waive her privilege. McCawley | |
| Decl., Exhibit 7 at 4-6, Response in Opposition to Motion to Compel. Cassell and Edwards also | |
| argued that there had been no waiver because confidential attorney-client communications with | |
| Ms. Giuffre were not “at issue” in the defamation case. Id. at 6-9. Cassell and Edwards also | |
| later filed a sur-reply, further elaborating on the argument that Ms. Giuffre had not waived any | |
| attorney-client privilege by publicly discussing her sexual abuse by Epstein and his associates. | |
| McCawley Decl., Exhibit 9, Sur-Reply in Support Opposition to Motion to Compel. Cassell and | |
| Edwards also explained that communications with Ms. Giuffre were protected not only | |
| beginning in March 2014, but even earlier than that date when Ms. Giuffre understood that she | |
| was obtaining legal services from Cassell and Edwards. Id. at 1. | |
| Following this extensive briefing on waiver issues,6 | |
| on December 8, 2015, the Florida | |
| Court (Lynch, J.) ruled, denying Dershowitz’s argument that attorney-client privilege had been | |
| waived. McCawley Decl., Exhibit 10, Order Denying Motion to Compel. Specifically, the Court | |
| denied the motion to compel, explaining “Pre March 2014 communications are protected by the | |
| work product privilege and the witness has not waived the communications that were protected | |
| by the attorney-client privilege. Also, there was no waiver by the [Cassell and Edwards] by | |
| filing suit.” Id. at 1. | |
| 6 | |
| And following the filing of Cassell and Edwards’ summary judgment motion, filed on November 26, 2015. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 40 | |
| 7 | |
| Ms. Giuffre’s Deposition in the Defamation Case | |
| As the defamation action moved forward, Dershowitz subpoenaed Ms. Giuffre to a | |
| deposition. McCawley Decl., Exhibit 11, Composite Exhibit of excerpts from transcript of | |
| deposition of Ms. Giuffre. During the deposition, held in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Ms. Giuffre | |
| was represented by the undersigned legal counsel, who asserted objections to revealing attorneyclient information where the questions called for revealing confidential attorney client | |
| communications. See, e.g., id. at 22-23; 131-32; 173-74; 183; 208. During the deposition, Ms. | |
| Giuffre specifically stated that “I decide not to waive my [attorney-client] privilege at this time.” | |
| Id. at 174. Ms. Giuffre also denied that Cassell and Edwards had ever pressured her into | |
| identifying someone as being involved in her sexual abuse. Id. at 200-12 | |
| The Settlement of the Defamation Case | |
| Ultimately, Cassell, Edwards, and Dershowitz agreed to settle their defamation case. | |
| That settlement included both a public statement and confidential monetary payments. As part | |
| of the settlement, Cassell and Edwards withdrew their allegations against Dershowitz in the | |
| defamation case contained in the then-pending summary judgment motion. McCawley Decl., | |
| Exhibit 12, Notice of Withdrawal of Summary Judgment Motion. As explained in the notice of | |
| withdrawal of this motion, “the withdrawal of the referenced filings is not intended to be, and | |
| should not be construed as being, an acknowledgement by Edwards and Cassell that the | |
| allegation made by Ms. Giuffre were mistaken. Edwards and Cassell do acknowledge that the | |
| public filing in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act case of their client’s allegation against Defendant | |
| Dershowitz became a major distraction from the merits of the well-founded Crime Victims’ | |
| Rights Act by causing delay and, as a consequence, turned out to be a tactical mistake.” Id. All | |
| these actions settling the Florida defamation case took place in Florida. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 40 | |
| 8 | |
| LEGAL STANDARDS FOR WAIVER | |
| A. Federal Rule of Evidence 502 Controls on the Issue of Waiver | |
| Defendant asks this Court to find that Ms. Giuffre has somehow waived her attorneyclient privilege regarding various communications in this case. This is no small step. The | |
| attorney-client privilege is one of the “oldest recognized privileges for confidential | |
| communications.” Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399, 403 (1998)). The | |
| privilege’s purpose is to “encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their | |
| clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and the | |
| administration of justice.” 524 U.S. at 403 (internal quotation marks omitted). | |
| In setting out the legal standards pertaining to waiver of attorney-client privilege, | |
| Defendant fails to cite the controlling – and protective – law on the issue. In a federal case, | |
| issues of alleged waiver of attorney-client privilege must be resolved under the new standards in | |
| Federal Rule of Evidence 502. In 2008, Congress enacted Federal Rule of Evidence 502, which | |
| is entitled “Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product; Limitations on Waiver.” New rule 502 | |
| places a number of protections in place to reduce litigation over claims that a party has somehow | |
| “waived” attorney client privilege. See generally Adv. Comm. Note, Rule 502. Notably, | |
| Defendant does not discuss, or even cite, Rule 502 in her motion. | |
| The issue currently before the Court is specifically controlled by Rule 502(c), which | |
| covers situations where a disclosure in a state proceeding is alleged, in a federal proceeding, to | |
| establish waiver. Rule 502(c) provides the greater of protections found in federal or state law: | |
| (c) Disclosure Made in a State Proceeding. When the disclosure is made in a state | |
| proceeding and is not the subject of a state-court order concerning waiver, the | |
| disclosure does not operate as a waiver in a federal proceeding if the disclosure: | |
| (1) would not be a waiver under this rule if it had been made in a federal | |
| proceeding; or | |
| (2) is not a waiver under the law of the state where the disclosure | |
| occurred. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 40 | |
| 9 | |
| As is readily apparent from the text of the rule, there are two separate ways in which a party can | |
| prove that no waiver of attorney-client privilege has occurred: (1) by demonstrating that no | |
| waiver exists under federal law; or (2) by demonstrating that no waiver exists under the state law | |
| where the disclosure occurred. Between these two possibilities, the drafters of the rule decided | |
| to apply the most protective law that governs waiver. See Fed. R. Evid. 502(c), Adv. Comm. | |
| Notes (“The [Advisory] Committee [on the Federal Rules of Evidence] determined that the | |
| proper solution for the federal court is to apply the law that is most protective of privilege and | |
| work product” (emphasis added)). | |
| B. Florida Law | |
| C. | |
| Florida’s protective law on the attorney-client privilege provides that neither an attorney | |
| nor a client may be compelled to divulge confidential communications between a lawyer and | |
| client which were made during the rendition of legal services. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(1)(c). | |
| Communication denotes more than just giving legal advice; it also includes giving information to | |
| the lawyer to enable him to render sound and informed advice. Hagans v. Gatorland Kubota, | |
| LLC/Sentry Ins., 45 So.3d 73, 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). | |
| Under Florida law, while the burden of establishing the attorney-client privilege usually | |
| rests on the party claiming it, First Union National Bank v. Turney, 824 So.2d 172, 185 (Fla. 1st | |
| DCA 2002), when communications appear on their face to be privileged, the burden is on the | |
| party seeking disclosure to prove facts which would make an exception to the privilege | |
| applicable. Ford Motor Co. v. Hall-Edwards, 997 So.2d 1148, 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Rousso | |
| v. Hannon, 146 So.3d 66, 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). In this case, Defendant does not appear to | |
| dispute that an attorney-client privilege exists with regard to the communications between Ms. | |
| Giuffre and her attorneys. Rather, Defendant’s argument is that the privilege has somehow been | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 40 | |
| 10 | |
| waived. See Motion to Compel at 1-2. Therefore, under Florida law, Defendant must shoulder | |
| the burden of overcoming the privilege. (Of course, because Defendant failed to even cite, much | |
| less discuss, Florida law, she has not carried that burden.) | |
| Defendant asserts that she can force disclosure of the privileged communications between | |
| Ms. Giuffre and her counsel under the “at issue” doctrine. To establish this alleged waiver, | |
| Defendant’s motion relies on a federal district court case – Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574 (E.D. | |
| Wash. 1975), which was cited in Bank Brussels Lambert v. Credit Lyonnais (Suisse), S.A., 210 | |
| F.R.D. 506. 509-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (Ellis, M.J.). See Motion to Compel at 8. As discussed | |
| below, as a matter of controlling federal authority, these cases have been repudiated by the | |
| Second Circuit. And to the same effect, Florida law also rejects the expansive Hearn approach | |
| to waiver. See Guarantee Ins. Co. v. Heffernan Ins. Brokers, Inc., 300 F.R.D. 590, 593-95 (S.D. | |
| Fla. 2014) (discussing Florida authorities). Florida law disfavors waiver of the attorney-client | |
| privilege and will not readily find an “at issue” waiver. See Guarantee Ins. Co. v. Heffernan Ins. | |
| Brokers, Inc., 300 F.R.D. 590, 593 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (citing Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & | |
| Eidson, P.A., 940 So.2d 504, 508 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2006) (refusing to find waiver based on the atissue doctrine)). In contrast to Hearn, under Florida law, at-issue waiver only occurs “when a | |
| party ‘raises a claim that will necessarily require proof by way of a privileged communication.’” | |
| Coates, 940 So.2d at 508 (quoting Jenney v. Airdata Wiman, Inc., 846 So.2d 664, 668 (Fla. 2nd | |
| DCA 2003)) (emphasis in original). Indeed, in 2014, the Southern District of Florida rejected the | |
| Hearn “at issue” analysis and instead, adopted the analysis of the Third Circuit as outlined in | |
| Rhone–Poulenc Rorer, Inc. v. Home Indemnity Co., 32 F.3d 851 (3d Cir. 1994). Guarantee Ins, | |
| 300 F.R.D. at 595. The Third Circuit deemed the Hearn test to be of “dubious validity” because, | |
| although it “dress[es] up [its] analysis with a checklist of factors, [it] appear[s] to rest on a | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 40 | |
| 11 | |
| conclusion that the information sought is relevant and should in fairness be disclosed.” Id. at 864. | |
| The Third Circuit specifically rejected Hearne because relevance is not the standard for | |
| determining whether or not evidence should be protected from disclosure as privileged. Rhone, | |
| 32 F.3d at 863. Florida law tracks that of the Third Circuit. See 300 F.R.D. at 593-95 (citing | |
| Florida case law). | |
| Also, under Florida law, the client – not her attorneys – holds the attorney-client | |
| privilege. See Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(3); see also Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(2) (a client has a | |
| privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent any other person from disclosing, the contents of | |
| confidential communications when such other person learned of the communications because | |
| they were made in the rendition of legal services to the client). Some Florida courts have even | |
| recognized serious due process issues could be created by a procedure through which a client lost | |
| their privilege without an opportunity to be heard in the proceedings. See, e.g., Rogers v. State, | |
| 742 So.2d 827, 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Under Florida law, so long as a client has a reasonable | |
| expectation of privacy in the communication, under § 90.507, the privilege is protected. | |
| McWatters v. State, 36 So.3d 613, 636 (Fla. 2010). Also under Florida law, only the client – not | |
| her attorney – can waive attorney-client privilege. See Savino v. Luciano, 92 So.2d 817 (Fla. | |
| 1957), Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Edison, P.A., 940 So.2d 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), and | |
| Genovese v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., 74 So.3d 1064 (Fla. 2011). | |
| C. Federal Law | |
| Rather than discuss Florida privilege law, Defendant exclusively cites federal case law. | |
| See Mot. to Compel at ii-iii (table of authorities citing only federal cases). Yet as this Court has | |
| previously held in ruling on an earlier privilege motion made by the Defendant, state law | |
| generally provides the rule of decision in this diversity case. See Giuffre v. Maxwell, DE 135 at | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 40 | |
| 12 | |
| 6, 2016 WL 175918 at * 6 (applying New York privilege law) (citing Allied Irish Banks v. Bank | |
| of Am., N.A., 240 F.R.D. 96, 102 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (“Because this Court’s subject matter | |
| jurisdiction is based upon diversity . . . state law provides the rule of decision concerning the | |
| claim of attorney-client privilege.”)). Accordingly, an argument can be made that New York | |
| state law applies in this case7 | |
| – but Defendant does not explain why she jumps to federal law. | |
| As explained above, in the particular context of a waiver argument, Federal Rule of | |
| Evidence 502 applies the more protective of state law or federal law in determining whether a | |
| waiver of privilege has occurred. In this case, the controlling federal law is at least as protective | |
| as Florida law. The controlling federal law here comes from the Second Circuit, including In re | |
| Cnty. of Erie, 546 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2008) – a case not even cited, much less discussed, by the | |
| Defendant. In view of the importance of the attorney-client privilege, the Second Circuit in that | |
| case held that any finding of waiver should be made with “caution.” Id. at 228. | |
| Rather than cite this controlling Second Circuit precedent, Defendant relies on a 2002 | |
| case from this Court applying the Hearn “at issue” doctrine. See Mot. to Compel at 8 (citing | |
| Bank Brussels Lambert v. Credit Lyonnais (Suisse), S.A., 210 F.R.D. 506. 509-10 (S.D.N.Y. | |
| 2002) (Ellis, Magistrate Judge) (quoting Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574, 581 (E.D. Wash. 1975)). | |
| Defendant goes on to argue that “courts have generally applied the Hearn [at issue] doctrine | |
| liberally, finding a broad waiver of attorney-client privilege where a party asserts a position ‘the | |
| truth of which can only be assessed by examination of the privilege communication.” Mot. to | |
| Compel at 8 (internal quotation omitted). | |
| Defendant fails to recognize that the Second Circuit has explicitly disavowed the Hearn | |
| doctrine. In In re Cnty. of Erie, 546 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2008), the Second Circuit explained that | |
| “[c]ourts in our Circuit and others have criticized Hearn and have applied its tests unevenly.” Id. | |
| 7 | |
| As a protective matter, Ms. Giuffre will also provide citations to New York state authorities in this response. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 40 | |
| 13 | |
| at 227-28.8 | |
| The Second Circuit also noted that the Hearn test “has been subject to academic | |
| criticism. See, e.g., Richard L. Marcus, The Perils of Privilege: Waiver and the Litigator, 84 | |
| MICH. L. REV. 1605, 1628-29 (1986); Note, Developments in the Law-Privileged | |
| Communications, 98 HARV. L. REV. 1650, 1641-42 (1985) (identifying “the faults in the Hearn | |
| approach”). In light of these strong criticisms of Hearn, the Second Circuit decided that “[w]e | |
| agree with its critics that the Hearn test cuts too broadly and therefore conclude that the District | |
| Court erred in applying it here. . . . Nowhere in the Hearn test is found the essential element of | |
| reliance on privileged advice in the assertion of the claim or defense in order to effect a waiver.” | |
| 546 F.3d at 229 (emphasis added). The Second Circuit held that, for an “at issue” waiver to | |
| occur, “a party must rely on privileged advice from his counsel to make his claim or defense.” | |
| Id. (emphasis added). | |
| In light of the Second Circuit’s holding, recent cases from this Court have explained that | |
| “reliance on privileged advice in the assertion of the claim or defense is an ‘essential element’ of | |
| a claim of waiver.” Aristocrat Leisure Ltd. v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, No. 04 CIV | |
| 10014 PKL, 2009 WL 3111766, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2009).9 | |
| For the sake of | |
| completeness, it may be relevant to note that New York state privilege law applies the same | |
| 8 | |
| The Second Circuit cited numerous cases, including cases from this Court – e.g., Pereira v. United Jersey Bank, | |
| Nos. 94 Civ 1565 & 94 Civ 1844, 1997 WL 773716, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.11, 1997) (“Hearn is problematic insofar | |
| as there are very few instances in which the Hearn factors, taken at face value, do not apply and, therefore, a large | |
| majority of claims of privilege would be subject to waiver.”); Allen v. West Point-Pepperell, Inc., 848 F.Supp. 423, | |
| 429 (S.D.N.Y.1994) (noting that district courts within this Circuit have reached conflicting decisions in the | |
| application of Hearn, and rejecting reliance “upon a line of cases in which courts have unhesitatingly applied a | |
| variation of the Hearn balancing test”); Connell v. Bernstein-Macaulay, Inc., 407 F.Supp. 420, 422 (S.D.N.Y.1976) | |
| (“The actual holding in [Hearn] is not in point because the party there asserting the privilege had expressly relied | |
| upon the advice of counsel as a defense to the plaintiff's action.”); Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc. v. Home Indem. Co., | |
| 32 F.3d 851, 864 (3d Cir.1994) (deeming Hearn to be of “dubious validity” because, although it “dress[es] up [its] | |
| analysis with a checklist of factors, [it] appear[s] to rest on a conclusion that the information sought is relevant and | |
| should in fairness be disclosed”). | |
| 9 | |
| The Aristocrat Leisure case accordingly rejected a party’s reliance on the same authority that Defendant relies | |
| upon here. See Aristocrat, 2009 WL 3111766 at *16 n.6 (discussing Bank Brussels Lambert v. Credit Lyonnais | |
| (Suisse), S.A., 210 F.R.D. 506 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), and then noting in the next sentence that the Hearn test relied upon | |
| by Bank Brussels’ “recently has been criticized by the Second Circuit on this very issue.”). | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 40 | |
| 14 | |
| specific and protective standard. See In re Bank of New York Mellon, 42 Misc. 3d 171, 177, 977 | |
| N.Y.S.2d 560, 565 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (“’at issue’ waiver occurs ‘when the party has asserted a | |
| claim or defense that he intends to prove by use of the privileged materials.’ An example of an | |
| affirmative act that does constitute ‘at issue’ waiver of privilege is a party’s ‘assert[ing] as an | |
| affirmative defense [its] reliance upon the advice of counsel.’”).10 | |
| DISCUSSION | |
| I. MS. GIUFFRE DID NOT WAIVE HER ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE | |
| WHEN EDWARDS AND CASSELL FILED AND PURSUED THEIR OWN | |
| DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST ALAN DERSHOWITZ. | |
| Defendant’s lead argument is that Cassell and Edwards waived Ms. Giuffre’s attorneyclient privilege when they filed and pursued a defamation action against Alan Dershowitz. See | |
| Mot. to Compel at 10. This claim is meritless for numerous reasons, including the fact (not | |
| disclosed by Defendant) that this very argument has been fully litigated before the Florida court | |
| handling that defamation action, which specifically rejected any finding of waiver. | |
| A. The Florida Court Presiding over the Defamation Action Has Already | |
| Rejected the Same Waiver Claim that Defendant is Advancing Here. | |
| The claim that Cassell and Edwards somehow waived Ms. Giuffre’s attorney-client by | |
| pursuing their own, personal defamation action against Dershowitz has already been the subject | |
| of extensive briefing – and, ultimately, a Florida court ruling. Defendant has scoured the docket | |
| 10 New York and federal authorities also hold that when attorneys are not acting on the client’s behalf, they cannot | |
| waive their client’s privilege. N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 4503(a); Dillenbeck v. Hess, 73 N.Y.2d 278, 290, 536 N.E.2d 1126, | |
| 1134 (N.Y. 1989) (“[T]he sine qua non of any evidentiary privilege is that it is personal to, and can only be waived | |
| by, the privilege holder.”). See also In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 100-01 (2d Cir. 1987) (“Of course, the privilege | |
| belongs solely to the client and may only be waived by him. An attorney may not waive the privilege without his | |
| client's consent.”); In re Bank of New York Mellon Corp. Forex Transactions Litig., 66 F. Supp. 3d 406, 410 | |
| (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (same); Ferreira v. Capitol Specialty Ins. Corp., 31 Misc. 3d 1209(A), 929 N.Y.S.2d 199 (N.Y. | |
| Sup. Ct. 2011) (“CPLR 4503 makes clear that an attorney cannot waive the attorney-client privilege rather waiver is | |
| only effective when done by the beneficiary of the privilege or their personal representative.”). | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 40 | |
| 15 | |
| in the Dershowitz defamation case to collect every flyspeck of information that she believes | |
| support her argument that a “waiver” has taken place. See Mot. to Compel at 10-12 and | |
| numerous associated exhibits. But, remarkably, she has not revealed to this Court the most | |
| relevant information from the docket: that the Florida court considered the same waiver issues | |
| and rejecting the same arguments that the Defendant now advances. This Florida court ruling, | |
| applying Florida law, is controlling here. | |
| As discussed above in the factual section of this response, in the Florida case, Dershowitz | |
| filed a motion to compel advancing legal and factual arguments identical to those the Defendant | |
| is advancing here. See McCawley Decl., Ex. 6 at 3, Dershowitz motion to compel (arguing that | |
| Cassell and Edwards “have waived any privilege or protection that would otherwise attach to | |
| responsive documents and information by bringing this defamation action placing at issue the | |
| truthfulness of Jane Doe No. 3’s allegations against Dershowitz . . . .”). Id. at 3. Citing Hearn | |
| v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574, 581 (E.D. Wash. 1975), Dershowitz claimed that information Ms. | |
| Giuffre had confidentially provided to Cassell and Edwards as her attorneys had become “at | |
| issue” in the defamation action. McCawley Decl., Ex. 6 at 4-5. Dershowitz argued broadly that | |
| a whole host of alleged attorney-client communications were “at issue” in the case, including: | |
| (1) Jane Doe No. 3’s allegations against Dershowitz asserted in the action | |
| captioned Jane Doe #1, et al. v. United States of America, Case No. 08-cv-80736 | |
| (S.D. Fla.) (the “Federal Action”); (2) [Cassell and Edwards’] investigation into | |
| Jane Doe No. 3’s allegations against Dershowitz; (3) [Cassell and Edwards’] | |
| assertion in the Complaint that Dershowitz was an alleged participant in the | |
| criminal conduct committed by Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein”); and (4) Jane Doe No. | |
| 3’s whereabouts and activities during the time when she claims to have been “sex | |
| slave” for Epstein. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 40 | |
| 16 | |
| Ex. 6 at 3. As the briefing on the issue continued, in an October 26, 2015 response filing, | |
| Dershowitz argued that Ms. Giuffre’s public statements waived the privilege,11 along with | |
| actions by her attorneys Cassell and Edwards. Ex. 8 at 5-8.12 | |
| After all these arguments were fully briefed, the Florida court (Lynch, J.) rejected | |
| Dershowitz’s arguments that any waiver of the attorney-client privilege had taken place. | |
| McCawley Decl., Ex. 10 at 1 (“Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel | |
| Production of documents and complete responses to interrogatories is hereby denied.”). In a | |
| December 8, 2015, order, Judge Lynch provided a short explanation of his reasoning and entered | |
| an order denying Dershowitz’s waiver motion. Id. | |
| In her pending motion to compel, Defendant recycles the same arguments that | |
| Dershowitz made, such as the claim that Cassell and Edwards waived privilege by filing suit | |
| (Mot. Compel at 10), that her March 2011 interview with Scarola and Edwards was a waiver (id. | |
| at 10), and other similar claims (id. at 11-13). But Dershowitz already litigated these issues a | |
| few months ago in the Dershowitz case – and his claims were rejected by the Florida court. | |
| Defendant is now collaterally estopped from relitigating these identical issues here, because | |
| Dershowitz had a full and fair opportunity to litigate those issues and Defendant was in a | |
| “common interest” agreement with Dershowitz at the time. The doctrine of collateral estoppel | |
| protects litigants – and the courts – from relitigating identical issues and promotes efficiency by | |
| barring unnecessary litigation. See Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 | |
| (1979). As this Court has explained, for collateral estoppel to apply, there must have been a full | |
| 11 Dershowitz specifically listed the following public statements by Ms. Giuffre as illustrations of how she had | |
| waived her privilege: (1) Ms. Giuffre’s March 5, 2011, interview with the Daily Mail; (2) Ms. Giuffre’s April 7, | |
| 2011, recorded telephone interview with attorneys Jack Scarola and Brad Edwards; (3) the January 2015 release of | |
| Ms. Giuffre’s diary by Radar Online; (4) Ms. Giuffre’s statements to “numerous other third parties,” including | |
| former boyfriends and the FBI; and (5) Ms. Giuffre’s filing of this suit against Defendant. Ex. 6 at 6-8. 12 Dershowitz specifically argued that (among other illustrations) Cassell’s answers to interrogatories and testimony | |
| at his deposition in the case had waived privilege. Ex. 6 at 11-12. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 40 | |
| 17 | |
| and fair opportunity to litigate the decision that now controls and the issue in the prior action | |
| must be identical to and decisive of the issue in the instant action. Zois v. Cooper, 268 B.R. 890, | |
| 893 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), aff'd sub nom. In re Zois, 73 F. App’x 509 (2d Cir. 2003). A non-party | |
| can be bound by a decision, so long as her interests were “effectively represented.” Zois, 268 | |
| B.R. at 893.13 As this Court can readily determine from reviewing the pleadings Dershowitz | |
| filed in the Florida case, see McCawley Decl. at Ex. 6 & 8, Dershowitz fully briefed identical | |
| issues to those presented here. And he was effectively representing Maxwell at the time. The | |
| elements of collateral estoppel apply. | |
| Moreover, entirely apart from collateral estoppel doctrine, Judge Lynch’s decision is | |
| highly persuasive. Judge Lynch was the presiding judge over the Dershowitz matter, so he was | |
| intimately familiar with (for example) what matters were “at issue” in that particular case. | |
| Moreover, Judge Lynch is, of course, a Florida judge skilled in applying Florida legal principles. | |
| His ruling on whether a waiver of attorney client privilege existed under Florida law should be | |
| given heavy weight here. See Elliott Associates, L.P. v. Banco de la Nacion, 194 F.3d 363, 370 | |
| (2d Cir. 1999). Finally, Defendant’s briefing entirely ignores even the existence of Judge | |
| Lynch’s ruling. In such circumstances where the Defendant has failed to offer any reason for | |
| questioning Judge Lynch’s holding, this Court should follow Judge Lynch’s lead and hold that | |
| no waiver of the attorney-client privilege exists under Florida law. And, because Florida law | |
| controlled when the disclosures took place, under Fed. R. Evid. 502(c), no waiver exists in this | |
| proceeding. | |
| 13 Zois relied on New York law. Florida law is to the same effect, as is federal doctrine. See O'Brien v. Fed. Trust | |
| Bank, F.S.B., 727 So. 2d 296, 298 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999) (“Collateral estoppel prevents relitigation of issues | |
| where the identical issues previously have been litigated between the parties or their privies.”); Montana v. United | |
| States, 440 U.S. 147, 153-54 (1979). | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 40 | |
| 18 | |
| B. Actions by Cassell and Edwards Do Not Waive Ms. Giuffre’s | |
| Attorney-Client Privilege. | |
| Not only has Judge Lynch already ruled on the attorney-client privilege issue, but his | |
| ruling was entirely correct. Defendant’s argument rests on the proposition that Cassell and | |
| Edwards had authority to waive Ms. Giuffre’s privilege while they pursued their Florida | |
| defamation action. But in filing their own, personal defamation claims against Dershowitz in a | |
| lawsuit where Ms. Giuffre was not a party, Cassell and Edwards were not acting on Ms. | |
| Giuffre’s behalf. Defendant never attempts to even explain, much less prove, how that | |
| defamation action could have benefitted Ms. Giuffre. And Florida law is clear that when | |
| attorneys are not acting on the client’s behalf, they cannot waive their client’s privilege. See | |
| Charles W. Ehrhardt, 1 Fla. Prac., Evidence § 502.6 (2015 ed.); Schetter v. Schetter, 239 So.2d | |
| 51, 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). | |
| To find that an attorney waived his client’s privilege, a clear record must exist concerning | |
| the attorney’s attorney to waive privilege. See Bus. Integration Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Corp., No. | |
| 06 CIV. 1863 (JGK), 2008 WL 318343, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2008). Here, to the contrary, | |
| the record is clear that Ms. Giuffre did not authorize any waiver of her attorney-client privilege. | |
| See McCawley Decl., Ex. 13, affidavit of Ms. Giuffre (Ms. Giuffre did not authorize any | |
| waiver). Accordingly, under Florida law, Cassell and Edwards’ actions did not waive Ms. | |
| Giuffre’s privilege.14 | |
| The main examples Defendant offers in support of her waiver argument come from a | |
| summary judgment motion that Cassell and Edwards filed. See Mot. to Compel at 16. Of | |
| 14 For the sake of completeness, it is worth noting that both federal law and New York state law likewise require that | |
| a client waive attorney-client privilege. See, e.g., Schnell v. Schnall, 550 F. Supp. 650, 653 (S.D.N.Y.1982) (no | |
| waiver of attorney-client privilege where attorney testified at hearing without presence or authorization of client); | |
| N.Y. C.P.L.R. 4503 (McKinney) (“Unless the client waives the privilege, an attorney . . . shall not disclose, or be | |
| allowed to disclose such communication, nor shall the client be compelled to disclose such communication, in any | |
| action, disciplinary trial or hearing, or administrative action, proceeding or hearing conducted by or on behalf of any | |
| state, municipal or local governmental agency or by the legislature or any committee or body thereof.”). | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 25 of 40 | |
| 19 | |
| course, that motion was filed on their behalf – not Ms. Giuffre’s. To be sure, that motion | |
| contained (among other supporting information) a sworn affidavit from Ms. Giuffre.15 But the | |
| routine step of submitting an affidavit is not a waiver of attorney-client protections, as discussed | |
| at greater length in Part II.D., infra. And, in any event, Defendant does not include that affidavit | |
| among her supporting materials to her motion, much less explain how the recitation of factual | |
| information in that affidavit constitutes a waiver by Ms. Giuffre with respect to communications | |
| with her attorneys. See Koon v. State, 463 So.2d 201, 203-04 (Fla. 1985) (no waiver when the | |
| client merely discloses facts which were part of the communication with the client’s attorney). | |
| Ms. Giuffre has not waived her privilege. | |
| C. Ms. Giuffre’s Confidential Communications With Her Attorneys Were | |
| Never “At Issue” in the Florida Dershowitz Litigation. | |
| Defendant’s argument that Ms. Giuffre’s attorney-client privilege has been waived under | |
| the “at issue” doctrine also fails under Florida law because her confidential communications | |
| were never at issue in the Dershowitz litigation. | |
| Florida law on when confidential attorney-client communications are at issue comes from | |
| the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Savino v. Luciano, 92 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1957). There, the | |
| Florida Supreme Court announced the test for determining whether confidential communications | |
| were “at issue” as whether a claim or defense would “necessarily require that the privileged | |
| matter be offered in evidence.” Id. at 819 (emphasis added); see also Diaz–Verson v. Walbridge | |
| Aldinger Co., 54 So.3d 1007, 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). More recent decisions from Florida | |
| 15 The “evidentiary support” for the summary judgment motion rested on 16 additional exhibits, including such | |
| obviously non-privileged materials as a Palm Beach Police Department report; flight logs from Epstein’s jet; | |
| excerpts from deposition testimony of Epstein, Juan Alessi, Alfredo Rodriquez, and Alan Dershowitz; photographs; | |
| and Epstein’s telephone directory. See Menninger Dec., Ex. E at 28. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 26 of 40 | |
| 20 | |
| have emphasized that Savino does not mean that a party waives attorney-client privilege merely | |
| by bringing or defending a lawsuit. Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Edison, P.A., 940 So.2d 504 | |
| (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Instead, waiver occurs only when a party “must necessarily use the | |
| privilege information to establish its claim or defense.” Id. at 510-11 (emphasis added). Most | |
| recently, in Genovese v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., 74 So. 3d 1064, 1069 (Fla. 2011), | |
| as revised on denial of reh’g (Nov. 10, 2011), the Florida Supreme Court cited both Coates and | |
| Savino to hold that the “at issue” doctrine allows discovery of privileged material only when the | |
| holder of the privilege – the client – raises the advice of counsel as a claim or defense in the | |
| action and the communication is essential to the claim or defense. Id. | |
| Under these restrictive standards, Ms. Giuffre’s communications were never at issue in | |
| her attorneys’ personal, defamation case against Dershowitz. Consider, for example, a typical | |
| allegation Cassell and Edwards’ complaint: | |
| Immediately following the filing of what Defendant, Dershowitz, knew to be an | |
| entirely proper and well-founded pleading, Dershowitz initiated a massive public | |
| media assault on the reputation and character of Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. | |
| Cassell accusing them of intentionally lying in their filing, of having leveled | |
| knowingly false accusations against the Defendant, Dershowitz, without ever | |
| conducting any investigation of the credibility of the accusations, and of having | |
| acted unethically to the extent that their willful misconduct warranted and | |
| required disbarment. | |
| McCawley Decl., Ex. 5 at 4 (¶ 17). As is immediately apparent, this allegation does not require | |
| an examination of Ms. Giuffre’s confidential communications with her attorneys. Instead, it | |
| requires an assessment of Dershowitz’s state of mind with regard to his knowledge of the | |
| information that Cassell and Edwards had to support the filing of the allegations. And, as | |
| supporting exhibits to the pleadings Cassell and Edwards filed made clear, the adequacy of their | |
| investigation could be readily established from many sources that did not have any connection to | |
| what Ms. Giuffre may or may not have told them in confidence. See, e.g., McCawley Decl., Ex. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 27 of 40 | |
| 21 | |
| 3 at 26-38 (recounting information supporting allegations against Dershowitz, such as sworn | |
| testimony from household employees and invocations of the Fifth Amendment by Epstein and | |
| his co-conspirators). | |
| To be sure, Dershowitz tried to make an argument that Ms. Giuffre’s communications | |
| with her attorneys might have some arguable relevance to the case. But Judge Lynch rejected | |
| that very argument – and quite properly so. Relevance is insufficient to waive privilege under | |
| Florida law. Guarantee Ins, 300 F.R.D. at 594 (citing Coyne v. Schwartz, Gold, Cohen, Zakarin | |
| & Kotler, P.A., 715 So.2d 1021, 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)). A client does not waive the | |
| attorney-client privilege simply because her credibility could be impeached by communications | |
| with her former attorney. See Jenney v. Airdata Wiman, Inc., 846 So.2d 664, 668 (Fla. 2d DCA | |
| 2003). Accordingly, under Florida law, Ms. Giuffre’s confidential communications with her | |
| attorneys were never at issue in the Florida litigation.16 | |
| D. Defendant Has Not Met the Other Requirements for Showing Waiver of | |
| Attorney-Client Privilege. | |
| For the foregoing reasons, Defendant has failed to make the required showing for an “at | |
| issue” waiver of attorney-client privilege. But even more fundamentally, Defendant has failed to | |
| establish other elements necessary to find a waiver of attorney-client privilege. Defendant | |
| repeatedly refers to routine litigation actions, such as the filing of in-court affidavits, as a basis | |
| for finding some kind of waiver of privilege. See Mot. to Compel at 16. But it is obvious that | |
| such actions do not waive attorney-client protection. Litigation requires some limited | |
| communication to third parties — including the court and opposing counsel — of information | |
| learned in the course of the attorney-client relationship. Therefore, Florida law recognizes an | |
| 16 The same result would obtain under New York state law. See, e.g., Am. Re-Ins. Co. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 40 | |
| A.D.3d 486, 492, 837 N.Y.S.2d 616, 622 (2007) (the at-issue “doctrine applies where a party, through its affirmative | |
| acts, places privileged material at issue and has selectively disclosed the advice”). | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 28 of 40 | |
| 22 | |
| absolute privilege to protect attorneys’ statements made in communications that are preliminary | |
| to a proposed judicial proceeding, or in the institution of, or during the course and as a part of, a | |
| judicial proceeding. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(2); see also McCullough v. Kubiak, 158 So. 3d | |
| 739, 740 (Fla. 4th DCA, 2015). A waiver of the attorney-client privilege occurs only if the client | |
| voluntarily discloses in court the substance of a communication with her attorney. See, e.g., | |
| Delap v. State, 440 So.2d 1242, 1247 (Fla. 1983) (criminal defendant sought to use in court | |
| favorably testimony from his investigator while blocking inquiry into other testimony). No | |
| waiver occurs when the client merely discloses facts which were part of the communication with | |
| the client’s attorney. See Koon v. State, 463 So.2d 201, 203-04 (Fla. 1985); see also Taylor v. | |
| State, 855 So.2d 1, 26 n.29 (Fla. 2003). Thus, the privilege attaches to the communication with | |
| counsel, not to the underlying facts. Brookings v. State, 495 So.2d 135, 139 (Fla. 1986); see also | |
| Lynch v. State, 2 So.3d 47, 66 (Fla. 2008).17 As a result, allegations that Giuffre disclosed to | |
| third parties the same facts that she may have related to Cassell and Edwards, without any | |
| evidence that she disclosed the substance of her confidential consultation with Edwards and | |
| Cassell, cannot overcome her privilege.18 | |
| To hold otherwise would eviscerate the attorney-client privilege. Such a ruling would | |
| mean that every time an attorney filed a declaration by his client that contained the factual basis | |
| for the client’s claim, the opposing party would have the right to examine all privileged | |
| communications. Defendant has not cited any authority either in Florida (or elsewhere) to | |
| 17 New York state privilege law is to the same effect. See, e.g., Niesig v. Team I, 76 N.Y.2d 363, 372, 558 N.E.2d | |
| 1030, 1034 (1990) (because “the privilege applies only to confidential communications with counsel (see, CPLR | |
| 4503), it does not immunize the underlying factual information . . . from disclosure to an adversary”). 18 As an illustration, Defendant notes that in 2011 Ms. Giuffre gave an interview to the Daily Mail. Mot. to Compel | |
| at 15. But Defendant does not explain how that interview disclosed any attorney-client communications. And | |
| because any such disclosures would have been extrajudicial, they would be narrowly construed. In re von Bulow, | |
| 828 F.2d 94, 103 (2d Cir. 1987). | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 29 of 40 | |
| 23 | |
| support his extreme assertion that Ms. Giuffre waived her privilege simply by allowing an | |
| affidavit to be filed in a court proceeding. | |
| Defendant also claims Cassell, at his deposition in the Dershowitz case, waived attorneyclient privilege by discussing factual information related to his investigation of Ms. Giuffre’s | |
| allegations (for example, flight log information). Cassell’s deposition testimony did not | |
| constitute a waiver of Ms. Giuffre’s attorney-client privilege. Indeed, Ms. Giuffre’s own | |
| separate attorney (undersigned counsel, Ms. McCawley, from the law firm of Boies, Schiller & | |
| Flexner, LLP) raised a standing objection to Cassell answering any question that would require | |
| divulging any attorney/client communications. McCawley Decl., Ex. 14, deposition excerpt of | |
| Paul Cassell, Volume I, dated Oct. 16, 2015, at 39:24 – 40:2 (“Virginia Roberts does not waive | |
| her attorney/client privilege with her lawyers, and they are not entitled to testify as to | |
| information that she intended to be confidential that she communicated to her lawyers.”).19 | |
| Defendant also argues that because Cassell said at some (unspecified) point in his deposition that | |
| he “knew” some (unidentified) information about Ms. Giuffre, he must have been revealing | |
| attorney-client communications. Mot. to Compel at 17 (“Of course, the information [Cassell and | |
| Edwards] “knew” about [Ms. Giuffre was a direct result of her attorney-client communications | |
| with them . . . .”). But Cassell knew a vast amount of information about Ms. Giuffre from the | |
| factual record in the case, such as the flight logs demonstrating flights that she took with Epstein | |
| and Defendant on Epstein’s jet. Defendant’s logic is simply incorrect. | |
| E. Ms. Giuffre Will Not Seek to Use Confidential Attorney-Client | |
| Communications in her Action Here. | |
| For all the reasons just explained, Ms. Giuffre has not waived her attorney-client | |
| privilege through events that occurred in the Dershowitz case. But one additional point bears | |
| 19 In her “excerpts” from Cassell’s deposition, Defendant has not included this portion. See Menninger Dec., Ex. L. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 30 of 40 | |
| 24 | |
| emphasis: Defendant attempts to argue that the trial in this case will somehow be unfair if she | |
| does not receive access to confidential attorney-client communications that Ms. Giuffre had with | |
| her lawyers earlier. Mot. to Compel at 20-21. But regardless of what may or may not have been | |
| at issue in the Dershowitz case, confidential communications will not be at issue here. For | |
| example, Defendant writes that “[i]t would be prejudicial for [Ms. Giuffre] to be able to support | |
| her claim in this case that she is not a liar using her attorney’s testimony . . . .” Id. at 21. To be | |
| clear, Ms. Giuffre has no intention of calling, for example, Cassell and Edwards to testify at trial | |
| in an attempt to support her claims. Thus, this will not be a case where it will be “misleading to | |
| the court or any jury to hear testimony from [Ms. Giuffre’s] counsel about all the factual basis, | |
| work product and thought process on which they relied in making the allegations in the Joinder | |
| Motion,” Mot. to Compel at 22, for the simple reason that that Ms. Giuffre’s counsel will not be | |
| witnesses in the case. Nor will Ms. Giuffre be presenting a “state of mind” defense that might | |
| require a more extensive inquiry into attorney-client communications. See In re Cty. of Erie, 546 | |
| F.3d 222, 229 (2d Cir. 2008) (noting absence of good faith or state of mind issues as a reason for | |
| not finding “at issue” waiver of privilege); Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v. Cadwalader, | |
| Wickersham & Taft LLP, 62 A.D.3d 581, 582, 880 N.Y.S.2d 617, 618-20 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) | |
| (finding no waiver where plaintiff disavowed any intention to use confidential attorney-client | |
| communications; relevance alone insufficient to put privileged materials “at issue” because, “if | |
| that were the case, a privilege would have little effect”). | |
| To be sure, at trial Ms. Giuffre will present factual testimony supporting her version of | |
| events – just as, no doubt, Defendant will try to present testimony supporting her version. But | |
| such testimony (from both sides) does not create any waiver of attorney-client privilege. Instead, | |
| such testimony is simply the presentation of competing facts, from which the jury can decide | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 31 of 40 | |
| 25 | |
| who is telling the truth. None of this creates any need for Defendant to force Ms. Giuffre to | |
| reveal confidential communications. | |
| II. MS. GIUFFRE DID NOT WAIVE HER ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE BY | |
| DENYING FABRICATED EVICENCE DURING HER DEPOSITION. | |
| Defendant spends significant time arguing that Ms. Giuffre’s answers to several | |
| deposition questions about the absence of any communications from Cassell and Edwards that | |
| she provide false information constituted a waiver of attorney client privilege. Mot. to Compel | |
| at 11 (arguing that “never” answer to the question “Has Brad [Edwards] ever pressured you or | |
| encouraged you in any way or under any circumstances at any time to provide false information | |
| about Jeffrey Epstein” constituted a waiver of attorney-client privilege). While the arguments | |
| above are sufficient to dispose of this claim, it is worth emphasizing several additional points | |
| about this specific testimony. | |
| First, disclosing the absence of communication is not the same as exposing any | |
| communication. It is a fundamental requirement of a waiver argument that a communication be | |
| exposed, see Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502 (extending privilege to a “communication between lawyer | |
| and client”), not the absence of such a communication. See Montanez v. Publix Super Markets, | |
| Inc., 135 So. 3d 510, 512-13 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014) (rejecting argument that client waived her | |
| attorney-client privilege by stating that an interrogatory answer was not “her” answer because | |
| this did not disclose the substance of her communications with her attorney). Cf. Mitchell v. | |
| Superior Court, 37 Cal. 3d 591, 602, 691 P.2d 642, 647 (Cal. 1984) (“Relevant case law makes it | |
| clear that mere disclosure of the fact that a communication between client and attorney had | |
| occurred does not amount to disclosure of the specific content of that communication, and as | |
| such does not necessarily constitute a waiver of the privilege.”). | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 32 of 40 | |
| 26 | |
| Second, the questions highlighted by Defendant asked Ms. Giuffre whether she had ever | |
| communicated with her attorneys Cassell and Edwards for purposes of committing a crime or | |
| fraud. See Mot. to Compel at 11 (recounting questions). If such a communication involving | |
| perjury had existed, it would not have been covered by the attorney-client privilege in the first | |
| instance because it would have involved an on-going crime or fraud. See Fla. Stat. Ann. § | |
| 90.502(4) (“There is no lawyer-client privilege under this section when . . . [t]he services of the | |
| lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the | |
| client knew was a crime or fraud.”).20 Answering those questions by denying the existence of a | |
| crime or fraud accordingly did not constitute waiver of confidentiality over any otherwiseprotected communication. Indeed, any other conclusion would essentially abolish the attorneyclient privilege. A party could simply accuse the opposing side of fabricating evidence and, | |
| when that accusation was denied, argue that attorney-client privilege had been waived. This is | |
| not the law. | |
| Finally, it is important to note that throughout her deposition, Ms. Giuffre’s attorney | |
| strenuously objected to any effort by Dershowitz to obtain attorney-client information. See | |
| McCawley Decl., Exhibit 11, Composite Exhibit of Deposition Excerpts from the Deposition of | |
| Virginia Giuffre at 131-32; 173-74; 183; 200-12.21 Clearly, at her deposition, Ms. Giuffre did | |
| not voluntarily waive any attorney-client privilege she held. | |
| 20 Again, for sake of completeness, it is worth noting that federal and New York state law also contain a crime-fraud | |
| exception to the attorney client privilege. HSH Nordbank AG New York Branch v. Swerdlow, 259 F.R.D. 64, 73 | |
| (S.D.N.Y. 2009); Ulico Cas. Co. v. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 1 A.D.3d 223, 224, 767 N.Y.S.2d | |
| 228 (2003) (attorney-client privilege “may not be invoked where it involves client communications that may have | |
| been in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme, an alleged breach of fiduciary duty or an accusation of some other | |
| wrongful conduct”). | |
| 21 Once again, these objections are not included in Defendant’s excerpts from the deposition. | |
| - | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 33 of 40 | |
| 27 | |
| III. EDWARDS AND CASSELL HAVE NOT WAIVED WORK-PRODUCT | |
| PROTECTION AND MAXWELL HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED NEED TO | |
| PENETRATE THE PROTECTION. | |
| A. Work Product Protection Has Not Been Waived. | |
| For many of the same reasons that Ms. Giuffre has not waived her attorney-client | |
| privilege, the work-product protection has not been waived. Fed. R. Evid. 502’s protections | |
| against waiver apply not only to the attorney-client privilege but also to the work-product | |
| doctrine. On the facts of this case, Rule 502 thus extends all work-product protections that exist | |
| “under the law of the state where the disclosure occurred,” Fed. R. Evid. 502(c)(2) – i.e., Florida | |
| law – as well as the protection that exists under federal law, Fed. R. Evid. 502(c)(1). | |
| Florida law provides that work-product protections extend to “documents and tangible | |
| things otherwise discoverable” if a party prepared those items “in anticipation of litigation or for | |
| trial.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(3). The rationale supporting the work-product doctrine is that one | |
| party is not entitled to prepare his case through the investigative work product of his adversary | |
| where the same or similar information is available through ordinary investigative techniques and | |
| discovery procedures. Universal City Development Partners, Ltd. v. Pupillo, 54 So.3d 612, 614 | |
| (Fla. 5th DCA, 2011). The work-product of the litigant, his attorney or agent, cannot be | |
| examined, absent rare and exceptional circumstances. Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So.2d | |
| 108, 112 (Fla. 1970). | |
| In Florida (as elsewhere), a party “can make a limited waiver of its . . . work product | |
| privilege.” Paradise Divers, Inc. v. Upmal, 943 So. 2d 812, 814 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006). A | |
| waiver by disclosure only includes “other unrevealed communications only to the extent that | |
| they are relevant to the communication already disclosed.” Id. (citing Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. | |
| Gellert, 431 So.2d 329, 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)). Waiver by disclosure does “not mean . . . that | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 34 of 40 | |
| 28 | |
| voluntary disclosure of confidential information effectively waives the privilege as to all | |
| conversations, or the whole breadth of discussion which may have taken place.” Procacci v. | |
| Seitlin, 497 So. 2d 969, 969-70 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986) (citing Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. | |
| Blondis, 412 F.Supp. 286, 288 (N.D.Ill.1976)). Instead, waiver by disclosure is confined to “that | |
| specific subject during that particular conversation.” Procacci, 497 So. 2d at 970 (quoting | |
| Perrignon v. Bergen Brunswig Corp., 77 F.R.D. 455, 461 (N.D. Cal.1978)).22 | |
| As with her attorney-client privilege argument, Defendant has not even cited Florida law | |
| on waiver of work-product protection, much less explained how she meets its demanding | |
| requirements. Moreover, the illustrations she provides do not prove any general waiver of workproduct protection. For example, Defendant relies on the claim that Cassell and Edwards have | |
| waived work-product protection by disclosing a transcript of a portion of a 2011 telephone | |
| interview with Ms. Giuffre by attorneys Jack Scarola and Brad Edwards. But that recorded | |
| interview was never a confidential communication between Mr. Giuffre and the lawyers, but | |
| rather (as the transcript of the call itself makes clear) a communication that could be presented | |
| “to any jury that might ultimately have to hear these facts.” McCawley Decl., Ex. 15 at 1, | |
| transcript of Scarola/Edwards interview on April 7, 2011 (emphasis added). In other words, the | |
| recorded call was simply the functional equivalent of an affidavit – and affidavits are routinely | |
| disclosed with waiving work product protections, under the law of Florida and elsewhere. | |
| Defendant also argues that Cassell and Edwards waived work-product protection by | |
| filing a summary judgment motion in the Dershowitz case which contained supporting exhibits | |
| (e.g., flight logs, sworn testimony by third-party witnesses, and other evidence). Mot. to Compel | |
| 22 New York state law is to the same effect. See Charter One Bank, F.S.B. v. Midtown Rochester, L.L.C., 191 Misc. | |
| 2d 154, 159, 738 N.Y.S.2d 179, 186 (Sup. Ct. 2002) (“ The disclosure of a document protected by the work-product | |
| rule does not result in a waiver of the privilege as to other documents.”). | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 35 of 40 | |
| 29 | |
| at 16. But providing information in support of a summary judgment motion is a routine step that | |
| attorneys take every day. While the materials produced are obviously not subject to work | |
| product protection, other materials and communications do not somehow become subject to | |
| discovery. Paradise Divers, Inc., 943 So. 2d at 814. | |
| B. Defendant Has Not Proven “Need” to Penetrate Work-Product Protection. | |
| Defendant’s argument on work product protection also simply assumes that it is the same | |
| as the attorney-client privilege and can be waived under an “at issue theory.” But the “at issue” | |
| legal theory Defendant relies on to argue (incorrectly) that attorney-client privilege has been | |
| waived applies only to that privilege. The work product doctrine is quite distinct from attorneyclient privilege, and application of the privileges and exceptions to them differ. See West Bend | |
| Mutual Ins. Co. v. Higgins, 9 So.3d 655, 656 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Genovese v. Provident Life & | |
| Accident Ins. Co., 74 So. 3d 1064, 1068 (Fla. 2011), as revised on denial of reh’g (2011). The | |
| function of the work product doctrine is to protect counsel’s mental impressions. West Bend | |
| Mutual, 9 So.3d at 656. To pierce the privilege, Defendant must show “that the substantial | |
| equivalent of the material cannot be obtained by other means.” Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. | |
| Deason, 632 So.2d 1377, 1385 (Fla.1994). Defendant has not even identified any specific workproduct she claims to need, much less shown why she cannot get the underlying information | |
| from other sources. | |
| Under the law of Florida (and elsewhere23), to establish “need,” a party must present | |
| testimony or evidence demonstrating the material requested is critical to the theory of the | |
| 23 Both federal and New York state law extend work product protections similar to those found in Florida law. | |
| See, e.g., Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 511 (1947); N.Y. Civ. Practice Law & Rules § 3101(c) (McKinney). | |
| Indeed, New York state law may go even further than Florida’s and extends “absolute” work-product protection. | |
| See Charter One Bank, F.S.B. v. Midtown Rochester, L.L.C., 191 Misc. 2d 154, 159, 738 N.Y.S.2d 179, 185 (Sup. | |
| Ct. 2002) (section 3101(c) “affords absolute immunity from disclosure of attorney's work product.”). | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 36 of 40 | |
| 30 | |
| requestor’s case, or to some significant aspect of the case. Zirkelbach Const. Inc. v. Rajan, 93 | |
| So.3d 1124, 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). “[W]ell established in Florida is the principle that the | |
| unsworn analysis of a party’s attorney and/or a bare assertion of need and undue hardship to | |
| obtain the substantial equivalent [is] insufficient to satisfy this showing.” Butler v. Harter, 152 | |
| So.3d 705, 712 (Fla. 1st DCA, 2014); see Procter & Gamble Co. v. Swilley, 462 So.2d 1188, | |
| 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); State v. T.A., 528 So.2d 974, 975 (Fla. 2d DCA, 1988) | |
| (“[R]epresentations by counsel not made under oath and not subject to cross-examination, absent | |
| a stipulation, are not evidence). Further, Florida courts have held that “the showing of need | |
| encompasses a showing of diligence by the party seeking discovery of another party’s work | |
| product.” Butler v. Harter, 152 So.3d 705, 712 (Fla. 1st DCA, 2014); see also CSX Transp., Inc. | |
| v. Carpenter, 725 So.2d 434, 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (quashing order granting motion to | |
| compel discovery because the record did not contain affidavits supporting plaintiff’s argument | |
| that it was unable to obtain the substantially equivalent information by other means without | |
| undue hardship); Falco v. N. Shore Labs. Corp., 866 So.2d 1255, 1257 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) | |
| (holding that need and undue hardship “must be demonstrated by affidavit or sworn testimony”); | |
| N. Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Button, 592 So.2d 367, 368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), (“[T]he unsworn | |
| assertions of plaintiff’s counsel were insufficient to constitute a showing of need and undue | |
| hardship.”), called into doubt on other grounds as stated in Columbia Hosp. Corp. of S. Broward | |
| v. Fain, 16 So.3d 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). | |
| Here, Defendant has ample information from which she can present her case. At the core | |
| of this case is whether Ms. Giuffre “lied” when she said that the Defendant recruited her to be | |
| sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein. Defendant can, of course, testify to her interactions with Ms. | |
| Giuffre, as well as call other witnesses regarding the circumstances of those interactions. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 37 of 40 | |
| 31 | |
| Defendant can also get information from her close friend, Epstein, about the circumstances of the | |
| interactions. Defendant and Epstein are not only good friends but they have a “common interest | |
| agreement” that facilitates transfer of information between the two of them. Finally, to make her | |
| showing that she is unable to obtain “equivalent information” from other sources, Defendant | |
| would have to explain in detail what other steps she has taken to secure information from other | |
| sources, including not only Epstein but other witnesses present at Epstein’s mansion. Having | |
| failed to do any of this, Defendant has not made a sufficient showing to obtain work-product | |
| information. Pupillo, 54 So.3d at 614. | |
| IV. COMMUNICATIONS WITH ATTORNEY JACK SCAROLA ARE COVERED | |
| BY A JOINT DEFENSE AGREEMENT AND ARE THUS PROTECTED BY | |
| ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND WORK-PRODUCTION PROTECTION. | |
| As a tag-along argument at the end of her motion, Defendant argues that Ms. Giuffre has | |
| not established the existence of a common interest or joint defense agreement that embraces Jack | |
| Scarola, the attorney for Cassell and Edwards in the Dershowitz litigation. Mot. to Compel at | |
| 23-24. Disclosure of that agreement involved notice to the parties to the agreement. Now that | |
| appropriate notice has been provided, the agreement can be – and has been – disclosed. See | |
| McCawley Decl., Ex. 16, common interest agreement. In view of the existence of the valid | |
| agreement, it is clear that the referenced communications involving Scarola are protected. See, | |
| e.g., Guiffre v. Maxwell, No. 15 CIV. 7433 (RWS), 2016 WL 1756918, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, | |
| 2016) (noting common interest agreement protection) (citing GUS Consulting GMBH v. | |
| Chadbourne & Parke LLP, 20 Misc. 3d 539, 542, 858 N.Y.S.2d 591, 593 (Sup. Ct. 2008)). | |
| CONCLUSION | |
| Defendant’s motion to compel should be denied in its entirety. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 38 of 40 | |
| 32 | |
| Dated: June 1, 2016 | |
| Respectfully Submitted, | |
| BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP | |
| By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley | |
| Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP | |
| 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 | |
| Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 | |
| (954) 356-0011 | |
| David Boies | |
| Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP | |
| 333 Main Street | |
| Armonk, NY 10504 | |
| Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, | |
| EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. | |
| 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 | |
| Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | |
| (954) 524-2820 | |
| Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| S.J. Quinney College of Law | |
| University of Utah | |
| 383 University St. | |
| Salt Lake City, UT 84112 | |
| (801) 585-520224 | |
| CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | |
| I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 1st day of June, 2016, I electronically filed the | |
| foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the | |
| foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission | |
| of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. | |
| Laura A. Menninger, Esq. | |
| 24 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended | |
| to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 39 of 40 | |
| 33 | |
| Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. | |
| HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. | |
| 150 East 10th Avenue | |
| Denver, Colorado 80203 | |
| Tel: (303) 831-7364 | |
| Fax: (303) 832-2628 | |
| Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com | |
| jpagliuca@hmflaw.com | |
| /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley | |
| Sigrid S. McCawley | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 40 of 40 | |
| *,8))5( | |
| 96 | |
| 0$;:(// | |
| 'HSRVLWLRQ | |
| 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( | |
| BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB | |
| $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF | |
| WK6WUHHW6XLWH | |
| 'HQYHU&RORUDGR | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 22 | |
| $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF | |
| 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( | |
| 1 A I believe this is when I was hoping to | |
| 2 join the CVRA case. | |
| 3 Q All right. And do you know when this | |
| 4 document was filed? | |
| 5 And actually, just to be clear, about | |
| 6 halfway there's actually a second document that was | |
| 7 filed. So this is a composite exhibit. Let me be | |
| 8 very clear. | |
| 9 So after page 14 -- I'm sorry, 13, there's | |
| 10 a second document that is styled Jane Doe #3 and Jane | |
| 11 Doe #4's Corrected Motion Pursuant to Rule 21 for | |
| 12 Joinder In Action. | |
| 13 Do you see that? | |
| 14 A Did you say page 14? | |
| 15 Q It is on the 14th page of this document. | |
| 16 Do you see that? | |
| 17 A I do. | |
| 18 Q And so this composite Exhibit 2 has both a | |
| 19 motion and a corrected motion. | |
| 20 Do you see that? | |
| 21 A Yes. | |
| 22 Q And were both of those pleadings | |
| 23 authorized by you to be filed? | |
| 24 A Yes. | |
| 25 Q In other words, you wanted to join the | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 22 | |
| $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF | |
| 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( | |
| 1 CVRA action in or about December 30th, 2014, correct? | |
| 2 A I -- I'm not aware of the exact dates. | |
| 3 There's no dates on this. But I did try to join the | |
| 4 motion, yes. | |
| 5 Q All right. If you can look at the top | |
| 6 line of the document. | |
| 7 A Yes. | |
| 8 Q Does it say, Entered on FLSD -- | |
| 9 A Oh, it does, too, I'm sorry, yes. | |
| 10 Q That's all right. So does that refresh | |
| 11 your memory as to about when you first sought to join | |
| 12 the CVRA action? | |
| 13 A Yes. | |
| 14 Q December 30th, 2014, correct? | |
| 15 A Yes. | |
| 16 Q And the corrected motion was filed a few | |
| 17 days later, correct? | |
| 18 A Yes, correct. | |
| 19 Q If I could turn to Defendant's Exhibit 3, | |
| 20 which was January 21st. | |
| 21 (Exhibit 3 marked.) | |
| 22 MR. EDWARDS: Thank you. | |
| 23 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Do you recognize this | |
| 24 document? | |
| 25 A Yes, I do. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 22 | |
| $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF | |
| 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( | |
| 1 physical features of Ghislaine Maxwell? | |
| 2 A I can tell you that she had very large | |
| 3 natural breasts. I can tell you that her pubic hair | |
| 4 was dark brown, nearly black. I don't remember any | |
| 5 specific birthmarks or moles that I could point out | |
| 6 that would be relevant. | |
| 7 Q Any scar? | |
| 8 A I don't remember any scars. | |
| 9 Q Any tattoos? | |
| 10 A No tattoos. | |
| 11 Q When did you next go to the El Brillo | |
| 12 house? | |
| 13 A I believe it would have been the next day. | |
| 14 Q You believe it would have been or was it? | |
| 15 MR. EDWARDS: Form. | |
| 16 A I know that it was consecutive, that I | |
| 17 continued to go there after my first -- the first | |
| 18 time that the abuse took place there. It was | |
| 19 consecutive that I was there, I believe, over the | |
| 20 next course of weeks. | |
| 21 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) What day of the week | |
| 22 was the first time you went? | |
| 23 A I don't know. | |
| 24 Q Do you know whether you went the very next | |
| 25 day or not? | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 22 | |
| $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF | |
| 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( | |
| 1 A I believe I did. | |
| 2 Q All right. How did you get there the very | |
| 3 next day? | |
| 4 MR. EDWARDS: Form. | |
| 5 A I believe my dad dropped me off again. | |
| 6 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) When you say you | |
| 7 believe, do you recall him doing that or are you | |
| 8 guessing? | |
| 9 A I don't -- well, this is how I figure | |
| 10 this. I don't remember Ghislaine picking me up from | |
| 11 Mar-a-Lago. I didn't have my own car. So the only | |
| 12 way I could have really gotten there would have been | |
| 13 my dad picking me up -- I mean, sorry, dropping me | |
| 14 off. | |
| 15 Q Do you have a distinct recollection of | |
| 16 your father dropping you off there more than one day | |
| 17 in a row? | |
| 18 A Yes. | |
| 19 Q You do not recall the car he was driving? | |
| 20 A Like I said, he always drove trucks. | |
| 21 That's as good as I can get. | |
| 22 Q And so -- and you worked on weekends as | |
| 23 well at Mar-a-Lago or no? | |
| 24 A No. | |
| 25 Q So the second day would have had to be | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 22 | |
| $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF | |
| 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( | |
| 1 A I wouldn't say directly. | |
| 2 Q How -- | |
| 3 A I'd say I stayed with my parents for -- | |
| 4 like, I think I finished school at Crestwood. So I | |
| 5 would have been in, I don't know, I guess eighth | |
| 6 grade, finished eighth grade. And then -- I don't | |
| 7 know. I really don't know. Around eighth grade. | |
| 8 Q You went to Growing Together? | |
| 9 A I think -- I think it was then. | |
| 10 Q And how many years did you live at Growing | |
| 11 Together? | |
| 12 A Over a year. | |
| 13 Q Were you ever in foster care? | |
| 14 A What Growing Together was, was like a | |
| 15 group home that sent you away to foster parents every | |
| 16 night. | |
| 17 Q So you lived in other people's homes | |
| 18 during the period of time you were assigned to | |
| 19 Growing Together? | |
| 20 A Well, you stayed at Growing Together | |
| 21 during the day and then at night you get sent home | |
| 22 with parents. | |
| 23 Q Did you go to school while you were at | |
| 24 Growing Together? | |
| 25 A Yeah, they offer education there. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 22 | |
| $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF | |
| 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( | |
| 1 Q So the education was at Growing Together? | |
| 2 A Yeah. | |
| 3 Q You did not attend a Palm Beach County -- | |
| 4 A I did, but you had to earn your levels up | |
| 5 to be able to go outside. So I don't remember what | |
| 6 level you have to get up to, to go out to another | |
| 7 school. I think there was like seven levels or | |
| 8 something. And you had to make it to, like, level 4 | |
| 9 to be able to go to outside school. | |
| 10 Q So for some period of time you were | |
| 11 assigned to Growing Together and you were going to | |
| 12 school at Growing Together. And for some period of | |
| 13 time you were going to other schools and coming back | |
| 14 to Growing Together? | |
| 15 A Correct. | |
| 16 Q And then when you came back to Growing | |
| 17 Together, you were sent to spend the night at a | |
| 18 family's home? | |
| 19 A Yes. | |
| 20 Q So you never slept at Growing Together? | |
| 21 A No. | |
| 22 Q Did you live -- other than living at or | |
| 23 staying at Growing Together during the day and | |
| 24 sleeping at these other homes at night, is there | |
| 25 anywhere else that you recall living in the period | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 22 | |
| $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF | |
| 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( | |
| 1 a 3. I think it's | |
| . I really can't make out | |
| 3 the telephone number. | |
| 4 Q Okay. Do you see Relationship? Can you | |
| 5 read that? | |
| 6 A Friend. | |
| 7 Q Okay. Do you see just below that there's | |
| 8 a line that says number 21? | |
| 9 A Do not stop -- sorry, Do not sign | |
| 10 application until requested to do so by | |
| 11 administrating an oath. | |
| 12 Q Okay. | |
| 13 A Applicant's signature age 13 or older. | |
| 14 Q Oh, it's by the signature line? | |
| 15 A Yeah. | |
| 16 Q And that's your signature? | |
| 17 A Yes. | |
| 18 Q All right. And this is the document that | |
| 19 you recall filling out for your first passport? | |
| 20 A I don't recall doing it, but yes, it's in | |
| 21 my handwriting and it's got all of my information on | |
| 22 it. | |
| 23 Q Okay. And on line -- box 23 it's got your | |
| 24 driver's license checked off, right? | |
| 25 A July 23. Yeah, I really can't make out | |
| I | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 22 | |
| $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF | |
| 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( | |
| 1 And when they say massage, that means erotic, okay? | |
| 2 That's their term for it. I think there are plenty | |
| 3 of other witnesses that can attest to what massage | |
| 4 actually means. | |
| 5 And I'm telling you that Ghislaine told me | |
| 6 to go to Glenn Dubin and give him a massage, which | |
| 7 means sex. | |
| 8 Q Okay. So Glenn -- Ghislaine Maxwell told | |
| 9 you to go give a massage to Glenn Dubin? | |
| 10 A Correct. | |
| 11 Q That's your testimony? | |
| 12 A That is my testimony. | |
| 13 Q All right. Ghislaine Maxwell told you to | |
| 14 go give a massage to , correct? | |
| 15 A Correct. | |
| 16 Q Ghislaine Maxwell told you to give a | |
| 17 massage to Prince Andrew, correct? | |
| 18 A Correct. | |
| 19 Q Ghislaine Maxwell told you to give a | |
| 20 massage to Bill Richardson, correct? | |
| 21 A Correct. | |
| 22 Q When did Ghislaine Maxwell tell you to | |
| 23 give a massage to Bill Richardson? | |
| 24 A I don't know dates. | |
| 25 Q Where were you? | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 22 | |
| $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF | |
| 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( | |
| 1 A When it happened? | |
| 2 Q When Ghislaine Maxwell used the words, Go | |
| 3 give a massage to Bill Richardson, where were you? | |
| 4 MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form. | |
| 5 Mischaracterizes her testimony. | |
| 6 A I can't tell you where we were. I know | |
| 7 where I was sent to. I don't know where we were when | |
| 8 she told me to do that. | |
| 9 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Where were you sent | |
| 10 to -- | |
| 11 A New Mexico. | |
| 12 Q -- by Ghislaine Maxwell? | |
| 13 MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form. | |
| 14 Mischaracterizes her testimony again. | |
| 15 A Are you smiling at me because -- | |
| 16 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) No, I'm asking you to | |
| 17 answer the question. | |
| 18 A I have answered the question. I was sent | |
| 19 to New Mexico. | |
| 20 Q Okay. Where were you sent from? | |
| 21 A I already answered that. I don't know | |
| 22 where I was sent from. | |
| 23 Q Okay. | |
| 24 A I was flying everywhere with these people. | |
| 25 Q Where were you sent by Ghislaine Maxwell | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 22 | |
| $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF | |
| 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( | |
| 1 to have sex with Jean Luc Brunel? | |
| 2 MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form. | |
| 3 Mischaracterized her testimony. | |
| 4 A Many places. | |
| 5 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Ghislaine Maxwell sent | |
| 6 you to many places to have sex with Jean Luc Brunel? | |
| 7 MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form. | |
| 8 A It happened at many places, yes. | |
| 9 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) You had sex with Jean | |
| 10 Luc Brunel at many places is what you're saying, | |
| 11 correct? | |
| 12 A I was sent to Jean Luc Brunel at many | |
| 13 places to have sex with him. | |
| 14 Q When did Ghislaine Maxwell send you to a | |
| 15 place to have sex with Jean Luc Brunel? | |
| 16 A You are asking -- | |
| 17 MR. EDWARDS: Form. | |
| 18 A -- me to answer the impossible. | |
| 19 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) All right. When did | |
| 20 Ghislaine Maxwell send you to have sex with the owner | |
| 21 of a large hotel chain? | |
| 22 MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form. | |
| 23 Mischaracterization. | |
| 24 A I'm going to keep answering the questions | |
| 25 the same way that I keep answering them. I don't | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 22 | |
| $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF | |
| 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( | |
| 1 know where it was when she said to go do this. | |
| 2 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Okay. Where were you | |
| 3 sent to have sex with the owner of a large hotel | |
| 4 chain by Ghislaine Maxwell? | |
| 5 MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form. | |
| 6 A I believe that was one time in France. | |
| 7 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Which time in France? | |
| 8 A I believe it was around the same time that | |
| 9 Naomi Campbell had a birthday party. | |
| 10 Q Where did you have sex with the owner of a | |
| 11 large hotel chain in France around the time of Naomi | |
| 12 Campbell's birthday party? | |
| 13 A In his own cabana townhouse thing. It was | |
| 14 part of a hotel, but I wouldn't call it a hotel. | |
| 15 Jeffrey was staying there. Ghislaine was | |
| 16 staying there. Emmy was staying there. I was | |
| 17 staying there. This other guy was staying there. I | |
| 18 don't know his name. | |
| 19 I was instructed by Ghislaine to go and | |
| 20 give him an erotic massage. | |
| 21 Q She used the words erotic massage? | |
| 22 A No, that's my word. The word massage is | |
| 23 what they would use. That's their code word. | |
| 24 Q Was she in the room when you gave this | |
| 25 erotic massage to the owner of a large hotel chain? | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 22 | |
| $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF | |
| 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( | |
| 1 A No, she was not in the room. She was in | |
| 2 another cabana. | |
| 3 Q And other than telling you to go give the | |
| 4 owner of this large hotel chain a massage, do you | |
| 5 remember any other words she used to you to direct | |
| 6 you in what you should do? | |
| 7 A Not at the time, no. | |
| 8 Q Where did -- where were you and where was | |
| 9 Ms. Maxwell when she directed you to go have sex with | |
| 10 Marvin Minsky? | |
| 11 MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form. | |
| 12 A I don't know. | |
| 13 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Where did you go to | |
| 14 have sex with Marvin Minsky? | |
| 15 A I believe it was the U.S. Virgin Islands, | |
| 16 Jeff's -- sorry, Jeffrey Epstein's island in the U.S. | |
| 17 Virgin Islands. | |
| 18 Q And when was that? | |
| 19 A I don't know. | |
| 20 Q Do you have any time of year? | |
| 21 A No. | |
| 22 Q Do you know how old you were? | |
| 23 A No. | |
| 24 Q Other than Glenn Dubin, , | |
| 25 Prince Andrew, Jean Luc Brunel, Bill Richardson, | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 22 | |
| $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF | |
| 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( | |
| 1 another prince, the large hotel chain owner and | |
| 2 Marvin Minsky, is there anyone else that Ghislaine | |
| 3 Maxwell directed you to go have sex with? | |
| 4 A I am definitely sure there is. But can I | |
| 5 remember everybody's name? No. | |
| 6 Q Okay. Can you remember anything else | |
| 7 about them? | |
| 8 A Look, I've given you what I know right | |
| 9 now. I'm sorry. This is very hard for me and very | |
| 10 frustrating to have to go over this. I don't -- I | |
| 11 don't recall all of the people. There was a large | |
| 12 amount of people that I was sent to. | |
| 13 Q Do you have any notes of all these people | |
| 14 that you were sent to? | |
| 15 A No, I don't. | |
| 16 Q Where are your notes? | |
| 17 A I burned them. | |
| 18 Q When did you burn them? | |
| 19 A In a bonfire when I lived at Titusville | |
| 20 because I was sick of going through this shit. | |
| 21 Q Did you have lawyers who were representing | |
| 22 you at the time you built a bonfire and burned these | |
| 23 notes? | |
| 24 A I've been represented for a long time, but | |
| 25 it was not under the instruction of my lawyers to do | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 22 | |
| $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF | |
| 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( | |
| 1 this. My husband and I were pretty spiritual people | |
| 2 and we believed that these memories were worth | |
| 3 burning. | |
| 4 Q So you burned notes of the men with whom | |
| 5 you had sex while you were represented by counsel in | |
| 6 litigation, correct? | |
| 7 MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form. | |
| 8 A This wasn't anything that was a public | |
| 9 document. This was my own private journal, and I | |
| 10 didn't want it anymore. So we burned it. | |
| 11 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) When did you write | |
| 12 that journal? | |
| 13 A Just over time. I started writing it | |
| 14 probably in, I don't know, I can't speculate, 2012, | |
| 15 2011. | |
| 16 Q So you did not write this journal at the | |
| 17 time it happened? | |
| 18 A No. | |
| 19 Q You started writing this journal | |
| 20 approximately a decade after you claim you finished | |
| 21 being sexually trafficked, correct? | |
| 22 A Yes. | |
| 23 Q And you started writing a journal after | |
| 24 you had a lawyer, correct? | |
| 25 A Correct. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 22 | |
| $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF | |
| 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( | |
| 1 Q Including Mr. Edwards, who is sitting | |
| 2 right here, correct? | |
| 3 A Correct. | |
| 4 Q What did that journal look like? | |
| 5 A It was green. | |
| 6 Q And what else? | |
| 7 A It was just a spiral notebook. | |
| 8 Q Okay. And what did you put into that | |
| 9 green spiral notebook? | |
| 10 A Bad memories. Things that I've gone | |
| 11 through, lots of things, you know. I can't tell you. | |
| 12 There was a lot of pages. It was over 300 pages in | |
| 13 that book. | |
| 14 Q Did you ever show that book to your | |
| 15 lawyers? | |
| 16 A No. | |
| 17 Q Did you show that book to anyone? | |
| 18 A My husband. | |
| 19 Q Did you show it to anyone else besides | |
| 20 your husband? | |
| 21 A No. | |
| 22 Q Did you tear out pages and give them to | |
| 23 Sharon Churcher? | |
| 24 A No, I wrote -- those pages that you're | |
| 25 talking about, I wrote for her specifically. She | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 22 | |
| $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF | |
| 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( | |
| 1 wanted to know about the Prince Andrew incident. | |
| 2 Q So that's a different piece of paper? | |
| 3 A Yeah, that's just random paper. | |
| 4 Q So you had a green spiral notebook that | |
| 5 you began sometime in 2011 or 2012 in which you wrote | |
| 6 down your recollections about what had happened to | |
| 7 you, and you burned that in a bonfire in 2013. | |
| 8 Did I get that right? | |
| 9 A You got that right. | |
| 10 Q And do you have no other names of people | |
| 11 to whom you claim Ghislaine Maxwell directed you to | |
| 12 have sex, correct? | |
| 13 A At this time, no. | |
| 14 Q Is there any document that would refresh | |
| 15 your recollection that you could look at? | |
| 16 A If you have a document you'd like to show | |
| 17 me, I would be glad to look at it and tell you the | |
| 18 names I recognize off of that. | |
| 19 Q I'm just asking you if there's a document | |
| 20 you know of that has this list of names in it? | |
| 21 A Not in front of me, no. | |
| 22 Q Where is the original of the photograph | |
| 23 that has been widely circulated in the press of you | |
| 24 with Prince Andrew? | |
| 25 A I probably still have it. It's not in my | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 22 | |
| $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF | |
| 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( | |
| 1 possession right now. | |
| 2 Q Where is it? | |
| 3 A Probably in some storage boxes. | |
| 4 Q Where? | |
| 5 A In Sydney. | |
| 6 Q Where in Sydney? | |
| 7 A At some family's house. We got the boxes | |
| 8 shipped to Australia, and they were picked up off the | |
| 9 porch by my nephews and brought to their house. | |
| 10 Q Which is where? | |
| 11 A In Sydney. | |
| 12 Q Where in Sydney? | |
| 13 A | |
| 14 Q And who lives in that house? | |
| 15 A Well, it's owned by my mother-in-law and | |
| 16 father-in-law, but my nephews live in the house. | |
| 17 Q What are their names? | |
| 18 A I'm not giving you the names of my | |
| 19 nephews. | |
| 20 Q What's the address of the house? | |
| 21 A Why would you want that? | |
| 22 Q I want to know where the photograph is. | |
| 23 I'm asking you where the photograph is. And you've | |
| 24 just told me it's somewhere in ? | |
| 25 A Yes. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 22 | |
| $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF | |
| 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( | |
| 1 Q So where in is the photograph | |
| 2 located? | |
| 3 A If I can't 100 percent say that the | |
| 4 photograph is there, it could be at my house that I | |
| 5 presently live in. I'm not going to give you the | |
| 6 address of my nephews' residence. | |
| 7 Q When is the last time you saw the | |
| 8 photograph in person? | |
| 9 A When I packed and left America. | |
| 10 Q Colorado? | |
| 11 A Yes. | |
| 12 Q All right. So you had that photograph | |
| 13 here with you in Colorado? | |
| 14 A Yes. | |
| 15 Q What's on the back of the photograph? | |
| 16 A I'm sorry? | |
| 17 Q Is there anything on the back of the | |
| 18 photograph? | |
| 19 A There's like the date it was printed, but | |
| 20 no writing or anything. | |
| 21 Q Okay. Does it say where it was printed? | |
| 22 A I don't believe so. I think it just -- I | |
| 23 don't remember. I just remember there's a date on | |
| 24 it. | |
| 25 Q Whose camera was it taken with? | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 22 | |
| $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF | |
| 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( | |
| 1 A My little yellow Kodak camera. | |
| 2 Q Who took the picture? | |
| 3 A Jeffrey Epstein. | |
| 4 Q And where did you have it developed? | |
| 5 A I believe when I got back to America. | |
| 6 Q So where? | |
| 7 A I don't know. | |
| 8 Q Palm Beach? | |
| 9 A I don't know. | |
| 10 Q What is the date the photograph was | |
| 11 printed? | |
| 12 A I believe it's in March 2001. | |
| 13 Q Okay. | |
| 14 A But that's just off of my photographic | |
| 15 memory. I don't -- it could be different, but I | |
| 16 think it's March 2001. | |
| 17 Q You have a photographic memory? | |
| 18 A I'm not saying I have a photographic | |
| 19 memory. But if I'd look at the back of the photo and | |
| 20 I remember what it says, I believe it was March 2001. | |
| 21 Q Did the photograph ever leave your | |
| 22 possession for a while? | |
| 23 A I gave it to the FBI. | |
| 24 Q Okay. And when did you get it back? | |
| 25 A When they took copies of it. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 22 | |
| $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF | |
| 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( | |
| 1 Q When was that? | |
| 2 A 2011. | |
| 3 Q When they came to interview you? | |
| 4 A Yes. | |
| 5 Q So from 2011 until you left Colorado it | |
| 6 was in your personal possession? | |
| 7 A Yes. | |
| 8 Q What other documents related to this case | |
| 9 are in that, storage boxes in Australia? | |
| 10 MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form. | |
| 11 A Documents related to this case -- there -- | |
| 12 I don't know. I really can't tell you. I mean, | |
| 13 there's seven boxes full of Nerf guns, my kids' toys, | |
| 14 photos. I don't know what other documents would be | |
| 15 in there. | |
| 16 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Did anyone search | |
| 17 those documents after you received discovery requests | |
| 18 from us in this case? | |
| 19 A I haven't been able to obtain those boxes. | |
| 20 I can't get them sent back up to me. It's going to | |
| 21 cost me a large amount of money. And right now I'm | |
| 22 trying to look after my family, so I'm not able to | |
| 23 afford to get them up. | |
| 24 Q You live in Australia, correct? | |
| 25 A I do. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 22 | |
| $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF | |
| 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( | |
| 1 read it. | |
| 2 MS. MENNINGER: We're going off the | |
| 3 record. | |
| 4 MR. EDWARDS: Yeah, that's fine. She'll | |
| 5 read. | |
| 6 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: That concludes today's | |
| 7 proceedings. We're off the record at 5:28. | |
| 8 (Proceedings concluded at 5:28 p.m.) | |
| 9 | |
| 10 * * * * * * * | |
| 11 | |
| 12 | |
| 13 | |
| 14 | |
| 15 | |
| 16 | |
| 17 | |
| 18 | |
| 19 | |
| 20 | |
| 21 | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 22 | |
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | |
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | |
| --------------------------------------------------X | |
| VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, | |
| Plaintiff, | |
| v. | |
| GHISLAINE MAXWELL, | |
| Defendant. | |
| 15-cv-07433-RWS | |
| --------------------------------------------------X | |
| DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO | |
| MOTION TO EXCEED PRESUMPTIVE TEN DEPOSITION LIMIT ......................................... | |
| Laura A. Menninger | |
| Jeffrey S. Pagliuca | |
| HADDON, MORGAN, AND FOREMAN, P.C. | |
| East 10th Avenue | |
| Denver, CO 80203 | |
| 303.831.7364 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 11 | |
| 1 | |
| Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell (“Ms. Maxwell”) files this Response in Opposition to | |
| Plaintiff’s Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit, and states as follows: | |
| INTRODUCTION | |
| Despite having taken only three depositions to date, Plaintiff prematurely requests | |
| permission to exceed the presumptive ten deposition limit imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. | |
| 30(a)(2)(A)(i) and to conduct 17 separate depositions, almost twice the limit. Without legal | |
| support, Plaintiff attempts to conflate the presumptive time limitation for each deposition of | |
| seven hours with a right to take a total of 70 hours of depositions. This is an absurd reading of | |
| the Federal Rules. The presumptive ten deposition limitation is an independent limitation, and | |
| speaks to the number of separate deponents, not deposition time. Indeed, the two independent | |
| limitations do not even appear in the same section of the rules. | |
| The heart of Plaintiff’s argument is that Ms. Maxwell inconveniently testified and denied | |
| Plaintiff’s claims, rather than invoking the Fifth Amendment. This dashed Plaintiff’s apparent | |
| hope to obtain an adverse inference, rather than actually having to prove her case against Ms. | |
| Maxwell. Instead, Ms. Maxwell fully testified for the entire 7 hours, responded to all questions | |
| posed to her,1 and testified based on her actual knowledge. Ms. Maxwell’s testimony simply | |
| bears no relevance to Plaintiff’s request to take more than 10 depositions of non-party witnesses. | |
| Conspicuously absent from Plaintiff’s motion are (a) any actual information she believes | |
| these witnesses may provide which is neither cumulative nor duplicative of other information | |
| already disclosed in this case, (b) the fact the information can be obtained from other sources, | |
| 1 Plaintiff flatly mis-represents to the Court that Ms. Maxwell “refused” to answer the questions posed to | |
| her, as the actual transcript amply demonstrates. Ms. Maxwell did not avoid any questions and answered | |
| all questions to the best of her recollection relating to alleged events 15 years ago. The majority of the | |
| bullet point “summary” of the matters about which Ms. Maxwell could not testify were based either on a | |
| lack of any personal knowledge or the fact that the events claimed by Plaintiff did not actually happen. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 11 | |
| 2 | |
| and (c) facts demonstrating that the burden and expense of the discovery is justified by the needs | |
| of this case. Indeed, she has not established that the testimony is even relevant to the actual | |
| issues in this matter. Plaintiff’s inability to establish these factors requires denial of the motion. | |
| I. PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST IS PREMATURE | |
| First, the request to exceed the presumptive ten-deposition limit is premature. “[C]ourts | |
| generally will not grant leave to expand the number of depositions until the moving party has | |
| exhausted the ten depositions permitted as of right under Rule 30(a)(2)(A) or the number | |
| stipulated to by the opposing party.” Gen. Elec. Co. v. Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am., No. 3:06-CV232 (CFD), 2006 WL 1525970, at *2 (D. Conn. May 25, 2006). | |
| This guideline makes sense because a “moving party must not only justify those | |
| depositions it wishes to take, but also the depositions it has already taken.” Id. (citing Barrow v. | |
| Greenville Indep. Sch. Dist., 202 F.R.D. 480, 482 (N.D.Tex. 2001)). This rule is in place because | |
| “a party could indirectly circumvent the cap on depositions by exhausting the maximum allotted | |
| number to those that she could not justify under the Rule 26(b)(2) standards, and then seek[ ] | |
| leave to exceed the limit in order to take depositions that she could substantiate.” Id. at 483. | |
| Here, Plaintiff seeks a pre-emptive determination that she should be permitted 17 | |
| depositions, almost twice the presumptive limit, yet her proposed depositions are not calculated | |
| to lead to admissible evidence in this case. By way of example, Plaintiff identifies Nadia | |
| Marcinkova, Sarah Kellen (a/k/a Sarah Kensignton or Sarah Vickers), and Jeffrey Epstein as | |
| alleged “co-conspirators” with each other. She requests the depositions of each. Plaintiff | |
| anticipates each will invoke the Fifth Amendment – in other words, she will not obtain any | |
| discoverable information from them. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 11 | |
| 3 | |
| Plaintiff makes a bizarre argument that somehow this testimony can be used to create an | |
| adverse inference against Ms. Maxwell,2 despite the fact that Ms. Maxwell did not invoke the | |
| Fifth Amendment and she testified fully and answered every question posed to her with the only | |
| exception the irrelevant and harassing questions Plaintiff posed to her concerning her adult, | |
| consensual sexual activities. In other words, depositions of Marcincova, Kellen and Epstein | |
| would serve Plaintiff’s goal to make a convoluted legal argument, not to actually seek | |
| discoverable information. In light of this, the “burden or expense of the proposed discovery | |
| outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the parties' resources, the | |
| importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving | |
| the issues.” Atkinson v. Goord, No. 01 CIV. 0761 LAKHBP, 2009 WL 890682, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. | |
| Apr. 2, 2009); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). If Plaintiff chooses to use her depositions in this manner, | |
| she risks utilizing three of her available 10 depositions for an illegitimate purpose. She should | |
| not be rewarded with a pre-emptive carte blanche in advance to take additional depositions. | |
| II. THE PROPOSED DEPOSITIONS ARE CUMULATIVE, DUPLICATIVE, AND | |
| NOT RELEVANT TO THE CENTRAL ISSUES OF THE DISPUTE | |
| Plaintiff has not met the requisite showing to permit in excess of 10 depositions. In | |
| Sigala v. Spikouris, 00 CV 0983(ILG), 2002 WL 721078 at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2002), the | |
| Court set forth the general principles relevant to a party's application to conduct more than ten | |
| depositions: | |
| 2 Invocation of the Fifth Amendment by a third party witness cannot be used to create an adverse | |
| inference against a party in a civil action. See United States v. Dist. Council of New York City & Vicinity | |
| of United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., No. 90 CIV. 5722 (CSH), 1993 WL 159959, at *5 | |
| (S.D.N.Y. May 12, 1993) (“the general rule [is] that an individual's claim of Fifth Amendment protection | |
| is personal, and does not give rise to adverse inferences against others.”); Brenner v. World Boxing | |
| Council, 675 F.2d 445, 454 n. 7 (2d Cir.), cert denied, 459 U.S. 835 (1982) (“Furthermore, since King | |
| was a non-party witness, no adverse inference against appellees could have been drawn from his refusal | |
| to testify.”). | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 11 | |
| 4 | |
| The Federal Rules presumptively limit the number of depositions that each side | |
| may conduct to ten. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2) (A) (“A party must obtain leave of | |
| court, which shall be granted to the extent consistent with the principles stated in | |
| Rule 26(b)(2), if ... a proposed deposition would result in more than ten | |
| depositions being taken ....”); accord Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes,104 | |
| F.Supp.2d 334, 342 (S.D.N.Y.2000); Landry v. St. James Parish Sch. Bd., No. | |
| Civ. A 99-1438, 2000 WL 1741886, at *2 (E.D.La. Nov. 22, 2000). The purpose | |
| of Rule 30(a)(2)(A) is to “enable courts to maintain a ‘tighter rein’ on the extent | |
| of discovery and to minimize the potential cost of ‘[w]ide-ranging discovery’ . . . | |
| .” Whittingham v. Amherst Coll., 163 F.R.D. 170, 171-72 (D.Mass.1995) (citation | |
| omitted). Accordingly, “[t]he mere fact that many individuals may have | |
| discoverable information does not necessarily entitle a party to depose each such | |
| individual.” Dixon v. Certainteed Corp., 164 F.R.D. 685, 692 (D.Kan.1996). | |
| “The factors relevant to determining whether a party should be entitled to more than ten | |
| depositions are now set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C)3 and include whether (1) the discovery | |
| sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or can be obtained from some other source that | |
| is more convenient, less burdensome, or less extensive, (2) the party seeking discovery has had | |
| ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action, and (3) the burden or | |
| expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, | |
| the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of | |
| the discovery in resolving the issues.” Atkinson, 2009 WL 890682, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2009) | |
| (internal quotations omitted). | |
| 3 Rule 26(b)(1) has since been modified to read “(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, | |
| or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party | |
| seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the | |
| proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” The scope of discovery permitted by 26(b)(1) | |
| is “non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, | |
| considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access | |
| to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether | |
| the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Thus, the factors to be considered | |
| have simply been moved to a new number with cross reference. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 11 | |
| 5 | |
| Weighing these factors, there is no basis for permitting more than the presumptive ten | |
| deposition limit. First, as highlighted by the motion, the information purportedly sought is | |
| cumulative and duplicative. By way of example, Plaintiff has already deposed Johanna Sjoberg | |
| (a former Epstein employee), Juan Alessi (a former Epstein employee), and David Rodgers4 | |
| (former Epstein Pilot). She further seeks to depose Maria Alessi and Jo Fontanella (former | |
| Epstein household employees), as well as and Emmy Taylor (identified as assistants | |
| to Ms. Maxwell or Mr. Epstein). The information Plaintiff claims each of the witnesses may | |
| have is identical to that of each other – what they observed while working for Epstein. Plaintiff | |
| goes so far as to state that Maria Alessi’s deposition is expected to “corroborate” the | |
| observations of her husband’s. | |
| Plaintiff admits that the purpose in seeking the additional depositions is “obtaining | |
| witnesses, like Ms. Sjoberg, who can corroborate that [Plaintiff] is telling the truth.” Yet, Ms. | |
| Sjoberg did not “corroborate that [Plaintiff] is telling the truth.” Instead, she testified that she | |
| was hired as an adult by Jeffrey Epstein to provide professional massages, that Ms. Maxwell | |
| never asked her for any type of sexual massage, that she never saw Plaintiff giving a massage to | |
| Ms. Maxwell nor did she see Ms. Maxwell receive a massage from any underage girl, indeed, in | |
| her 5 plus years working for Mr. Epstein, she never saw any person underage at his home. | |
| Regardless, Plaintiff is looking in vain for more testimony of exactly the same character, | |
| precisely the type of testimony the presumptive limit is intended to prevent. | |
| Similarly, the expected deposition testimony of former Palm Beach Detective Joe | |
| Recarey and former Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter are duplicative of each other. | |
| 4 Mr. Rodgers deposition, held last Friday and requiring a separate trip to Florida for Colorado counsel after the | |
| scheduled court hearing on Thursday, served simply to authenticate flight logs. There are far more convenient, less | |
| burdensome, and less expensive methods by which such information could have been obtained, such as a verifying | |
| affidavit, yet Plaintiff chose to unnecessarily burden counsel, the witness and counsel for the witness with a 3 hour | |
| deposition to accomplish the same end. | |
| Jane Doe 2 | |
| - | |
| ■ | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 11 | |
| 6 | |
| Putting aside the admissibility of this testimony, it appears that both men were involved in the | |
| investigation of Mr. Epstein and are expected to testify about their investigation. Plaintiff’s | |
| allegations were not a part of their investigation, which took place years after Plaintiff left the | |
| country. Moreover, their investigation did not involve Ms. Maxwell. Again, such duplicative | |
| and irrelevant deposition testimony speaks to the intended purpose of the ten-deposition limit, | |
| not a reason to exceed that limit. | |
| The same holds true for Nadia Marcinkova, Sarah Kellen (a/k/a Sarah Kensignton or | |
| Sarah Vickers) and Jeffrey Epstein, each of whom Plaintiff anticipates will not respond to | |
| questions and invoke their Fifth Amendment right. As discussed above, such invocation has no | |
| bearing on the issues in this matter. Moreover, it is obviously cumulative and duplicative. | |
| Plaintiff also identifies Rinaldo Rizzo and Jean Luc Brunel but fails to provide any | |
| information from which Ms. Maxwell or the Court could identify the subject matter of their | |
| expected testimony. Thus, it is unclear how these individuals have information that differs from | |
| or would add to the other proposed deponents. It is the Plaintiff’s burden to explain to the Court | |
| why these depositions should be permitted if they exceed the presumptive limit, why the | |
| information would not be cumulative, and its relevance to the important issues in the action, or | |
| the importance of the discovery in resolving those issues. She simply fails to provide any | |
| information by which the Court can assess these factors, and thus should not be permitted to | |
| exceed the deposition limit based on her proffer. | |
| III. THE TESTIMONY SOUGHT IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS SINGLE COUNT | |
| DEFAMATION CASE | |
| This case is a simple defamation case. Plaintiff, through her counsel, filed a pleading | |
| making certain claims regarding “Jane Doe No. #3” – the Plaintiff – and her alleged | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 11 | |
| 7 | |
| “circumstances.” See Complaint. Ms. Maxwell denied the allegations made stating they were | |
| “untrue” and “obvious lies.” Plaintiff claims these statements are defamatory because she has | |
| been called a “liar.” | |
| “A public figure claiming defamation under New York law must establish that ‘the | |
| statements ... complain[ed] of were (1) of and concerning [the plaintiff], (2) likely to be | |
| understood as defamatory by the ordinary person, (3) false, and (4) published with actual | |
| malice.’” Biro v. Conde Nast, 963 F. Supp. 2d 255, 276 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), aff'd, 807 F.3d 541 | |
| (2d Cir. 2015), and aff'd, 622 F. App'x 67 (2d Cir. 2015). | |
| If Ms. Maxwell’s statements are essentially true – Plaintiff lied – Plaintiff cannot | |
| establish her claim, and it is an absolute defense.5 Further, if Plaintiff cannot prove actual malice | |
| by Ms. Maxwell, her claim fails. See Contemporary Mission, Inc. v. New York Times Co., 842 | |
| F.2d 612, 621 (2d Cir. 1988) (limited purpose public figure must establish by clear and | |
| convincing evidence that the defendant published the alleged defamatory statement with actual | |
| malice, “that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was | |
| false or not”) (quoting New York Times, 376 U.S. 241, 280 (1964)). That is, Plaintiff must prove | |
| that Ms. Maxwell permitted the publication of the statement knowing it to be untrue. | |
| None of the witnesses identified are listed as having discoverable information regarding | |
| any of the elements of this claim. None is claimed to have direct knowledge to confirm the truth | |
| of Plaintiff’s claims about what happened to her, that the acts she claims she participated in | |
| 5 There is only one public statement that existed on January 2, 2015 to which Ms. Maxwell was responding in the | |
| statement by her press agent. The document is the Joinder Motion filed in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act case on | |
| behalf of Plaintiff by her attorneys, Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell. Menninger Decl., Ex. A, p. 4. The very first | |
| line describing Jane Doe #3 Circumstances is false, as Plaintiff now concedes. It read: “In 1999, Jane Doe #3 was | |
| approached by Ghislaine Maxwell,” and continuing that “Maxwell persuaded Jane Doe # 3 (who was only fifteen | |
| years old) to come to Epstein's mansion . . .” Plaintiff now concedes that she did not meet Ms. Maxwell or Mr. | |
| Epstein in 1999, and she was not 15 years old. Menninger Decl., Ex. A at 26-29. No amount of “circumstantial | |
| evidence” can overcome the fact that Ms. Maxwell’s statement was correct and that statements in the Joinder | |
| Motion were untrue. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 11 | |
| 8 | |
| occurred or that they occurred with the people she claims to have been involved. Rather, each | |
| witness identified as being able to provide their observations regarding “other” allegedly | |
| underage girls, their own personal experience,6 or beliefs about Plaintiff’s credibility. None of | |
| this is relevant. This is not a case about Jeffery Epstein or the alleged “modus operandi of the | |
| Epstein organization.” This is a simple case of if Ms. Maxwell’s denial of the allegations made | |
| by Plaintiff about Plaintiff’s own interactions with Maxwell was defamatory, and if Ms. Maxwell | |
| acted with actual malice in issuing the denial. Plaintiff’s attempt to amplify this proceeding into | |
| something broader should not be condoned. | |
| Because the evidence sought is nothing more than extraneous inadmissible | |
| “circumstantial evidence”7 irrelevant to proving the essential elements of the claim, “the burden | |
| or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the | |
| case, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance | |
| of the discovery in resolving the issues.” Atkinson, 2009 WL 890682, at *1. As such, the | |
| request for the additional depositions should be denied. | |
| WHEREFORE, Ms. Maxwell requests that the Motion to permit in excess of the | |
| presumptive ten deposition limit be denied; alternatively, if in excess of ten depositions are | |
| permitted, Ms. Maxwell requests that Plaintiff be required to pay all costs and attorney’s fees | |
| 6 The information sought is also inadmissible. Plaintiff seeks testimony from witness who she claims will testify to | |
| experience similar to her stories and this will “corroborate Ms. Giuffre's account description of the motive, way in | |
| which Epstein and his co-conspirators created opportunity, intent, plan, knowledge, and to the specifics that make up | |
| the criminal signature of Epstein and his co-conspirators.” Motion at 15-16. Such evidence is prohibited by | |
| FRE 404(b), which states “Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s | |
| character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.” | |
| Furthermore, no other witness has claimed as Plaintiff does that Ghislaine Maxwell sexually abused them, sexually | |
| trafficked them, or that she partook in daily sex with any underage girls. Plaintiff’s claim stands in isolation because | |
| it is fictional. | |
| 7 This “circumstantial evidence” has no bearing on the truthfulness of the stories published by Plaintiff. It is equally | |
| likely to show that Plaintiff became aware of the allegations of others and decided to hop on the band wagon. She | |
| then made up similar claims for the purpose of getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the media for | |
| publicizing her allegations and identifying well know public figures whose names she has seen documents that she | |
| reviewed or other stories she had read. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 11 | |
| 9 | |
| associated with attending any deposition occurring outside 100 miles of the Courthouse for the | |
| Southern District of New York pursuant to S.D.N.Y L.Civ.R. 30.1. | |
| Dated: June 6, 2016. | |
| Respectfully submitted, | |
| /s/ Laura A. Menninger | |
| Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374) | |
| Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice) | |
| HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. | |
| 150 East 10th Avenue | |
| Denver, CO 80203 | |
| Phone: 303.831.7364 | |
| Fax: 303.832.2628 | |
| lmenninger@hmflaw.com | |
| Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 11 | |
| 10 | |
| CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | |
| I certify that on June 6, 2016, I electronically served this Defendant’s Response in Opposition to | |
| Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit via ECF on the following: | |
| Sigrid S. McCawley | |
| Meridith Schultz | |
| BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP | |
| 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 | |
| Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 | |
| smccawley@bsfllp.com | |
| mschultz@bsfllp.com | |
| Paul G. Cassell | |
| 383 S. University Street | |
| Salt Lake City, UT 84112 | |
| cassellp@law.utah.edu | |
| Bradley J. Edwards | |
| FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, | |
| FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. | |
| 425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2 | |
| Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 | |
| brad@pathtojustice.com | |
| J. Stanley Pottinger | |
| 49 Twin Lakes Rd. | |
| South Salem, NY 10590 | |
| StanPottinger@aol.com | |
| /s/ Nicole Simmons | |
| Nicole Simmons | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 11 | |
| United States District Court | |
| Southern District of New York | |
| Virginia L. Giuffre, | |
| Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS | |
| v. | |
| Ghislaine Maxwell, | |
| Defendant. | |
| ________________________________/ | |
| PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO | |
| EXCEED PRESUMPTIVE TEN DEPOSITION LIMIT | |
| Sigrid McCawley | |
| BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP | |
| 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 | |
| Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 | |
| (954) 356-0011 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 15 | |
| i | |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS | |
| Page | |
| I. THE PROPOSED DEPOSITIONS ARE IMPORTANT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL | |
| CLAIMS AND DEFENSES IN THIS CASE, AND NONE ARE DUPLICATIVE. ........ 1 | |
| II. MS. GIUFFRE IS SEEKING HIGHLY RELEVANT TRIAL TESTIMONY. .................. 6 | |
| III. MS. GIUFFRE’S REQUEST IS TIMELY. ........................................................................ 9 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 15 | |
| ii | |
| TABLE OF AUTHORITIES | |
| Page | |
| Cases | |
| Atkinson v. Goord, | |
| No. 01 CIV. 0761 LAKHBP, 2009 WL 890682 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2009) ................................3 | |
| Gen. Elec. Co. v. Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am., | |
| No. 3:06-CV-232 (CFD), 2006 WL 1525970 (D. Conn. May 25, 2006) ..................................9 | |
| LiButti v. United States, | |
| 107 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 1997).......................................................................................................8 | |
| Rules | |
| Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) .........................................................................................................................7 | |
| Fed. R. Evid. 415(a) .........................................................................................................................7 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 15 | |
| 1 | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this reply | |
| in support of her Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit. The motion should be | |
| granted because Ms. Giuffre has shown good cause for needing to exceed the ten deposition limit | |
| and in light of recent developments, Ms. Giuffre has streamlined her request, and now seeks only | |
| a total of three additional depositions. Notably, while Defendant contests Ms. Giuffre’s motion, | |
| Defendant has herself unilaterally – and without seeking any Court approval – set twelve | |
| witnesses for deposition in this matter. In contrast to Defendant’s unilateral action, Ms. Giuffre | |
| has properly sought this Court’s permission. The Court should grant her motion and allow her to | |
| take the three additional depositions. | |
| I. THE PROPOSED DEPOSITIONS ARE IMPORTANT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL | |
| CLAIMS AND DEFENSES IN THIS CASE, AND NONE ARE DUPLICATIVE. | |
| Defendant argues that the depositions Ms. Giuffre seeks to take are somehow | |
| “duplicative” of each other. Even a quick reading of the Defendant’s pleading makes clear this | |
| is untrue. Defendant repeatedly gives her own narrow view of what existing witnesses have said. | |
| For example, Defendant argues that Ms. Sjoberg “did not corroborate that [Ms. Giuffre] is telling | |
| the truth.” Defendant’s Response at 5. Defendant’s characterization is untrue.1 | |
| But, as the mere | |
| 1 | |
| Defendant wholly mischaracterized Ms. Sjoberg’s testimony as involving “professional | |
| massages.” Defendant’s Resp. at 5. In fact, Ms. Sjoberg testified that, when she was a twentyone-year-old college student, Defendant (not Jeffrey Epstein) recruited and hired her under the | |
| pretext of being a personal assistant to provide sexual massages. As one example of this | |
| testimony, Sjoberg testified that Defendant became angry with her for not “finishing your job” | |
| when Defendant was the one who ended up having to bring Epstein to orgasm when Ms. Sjoberg | |
| did not. See McCawley Dec at Exhibit 1, Sjoberg Dep. Tr. at 142:25-143:14(Q. What did you | |
| understand Maxwell to mean when you said that you hadn’t finished the job, with respect to the | |
| camera? A. She implied that I had not brought him to orgasm. Q. So is it fair to say that Maxwell | |
| expected you to perform sexual acts when you were massaging Jeffrey? A. I can answer? Yes, I | |
| took that conversation to mean that it what was expected of me.) Ms. Sjoberg’s testimony also | |
| shows that Defendant was a predator of young women and girls, and that her business was to | |
| provide girls for Jeffrey Epstein to have sex with. Id. at 141:3-5; 150:16-151:2 (Q. Did Maxwell | |
| ever ask you to bring other girls over to – for Jeffrey? A. Yes. Q. I want to go back to this: You | |
| testified to two things just now with Sigrid that you said were implied to you. A. Okay. Q. The | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 15 | |
| 2 | |
| fact of this dispute confirms, this case is going to be hotly contested and the weight of the | |
| evidence on each side is going to be vitally important. The Court is well aware of many other | |
| civil cases where the parties have taken far more than ten depositions by mutual agreement. | |
| Defendant’s refusal to agree to a few more depositions here is simply an effort to keep all the | |
| relevant facts from being developed. | |
| Since Ms. Giuffre filed her initial motion seeking seven additional deposition, she has | |
| worked diligently to try to streamline the necessary depositions and has discovered new | |
| information concerning witnesses and their knowledge of the claims in this case. Accordingly, | |
| Ms. Giuffre currently brings before this Court a significantly shorter list2 | |
| of witnesses she needs | |
| to depose to prove her claim, with some alterations. To be clear, Ms. Giuffre has narrowed her | |
| request and is now only seeking an additional three depositions from the Court as follows: | |
| For descriptions concerning the depositions already taken (Defendant; Ms. Sjoberg; Mr. | |
| Alessi; Mr. Rodgers; and Mr. Rizzo), and those yet to be taken (Mr. Epstein; Mr. Gow; | |
| Ms. Kellen; Ms. Marcinkova; Mr. Recarey; and Mr. Brunel), Ms. Giuffre references and | |
| incorporates her descriptions in the moving brief. The only remaining witness is William | |
| Jefferson Clinton. His deposition is necessary for the following reason: | |
| first one was it would take pressure off of Maxwell to have more girls around? A. Right. Q. | |
| What exactly did Maxwell say to you that led you to believe that was her implication? A. She | |
| said she doesn’t have the time or desire to please him as much as he needs, and that’s why there | |
| were other girls around.). | |
| That Ms. Sjoberg never saw Ms. Giuffre give a massage to Ms. Maxwell is immaterial. Ms. | |
| Sjoberg was with Defendant and Epstein when Ms. Giuffre was a minor child, and corroborates | |
| Ms. Giuffre’s accounts concerning her being trafficked to Prince Andrew. Id. at 21-22. Ms. | |
| Giuffre refers the Court to Ms. Sjoberg’s deposition testimony in its entirety (DE 173-5). It is | |
| depositions like this - verifying Ms. Giuffre’s account of being recruited by Defendant for sex | |
| with Epstein – that Defendant is trying avoid. However, multiple other witnesses have testimony | |
| that supports Ms. Giuffre’s claims, in different and various ways, and Ms. Giuffre needs that | |
| testimony to prove her defamation claim against Defendant. | |
| 2 | |
| Ms. Giuffre is no longer seeking the deposition testimony of Emmy Taylor, , Jo Jo | |
| Fontanella, and Michael Reiter. | |
| Jane Doe 2 | |
| Jane Doe 2 | |
| -------------- | |
| -------- - | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 15 | |
| 3 | |
| x In a 2011 interview, Ms. Giuffre mentioned former President Bill Clinton’s close | |
| personal relationship with Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein. While Ms. Giuffre made no | |
| allegations of illegal actions by Bill Clinton, Ms. Maxwell in her deposition raised Ms. | |
| Giuffre’s comments about President Clinton as one of the “obvious lies” to which she | |
| was referring in her public statement that formed the basis of this suit. Apart from the | |
| Defendant and Mr. Epstein, former President Clinton is a key person who can provide | |
| information about his close relationship with Defendant and Mr. Epstein and disapprove | |
| Ms. Maxwell’s claims. | |
| Ms. Giuffre is still working diligently with opposing counsel, these witnesses, and their attorneys | |
| on scheduling, as well as identifying other witnesses who may have factual information about the | |
| case. But, at this time, she seeks this Court’s approval for an additional three depositions – | |
| depositions that will not consume the full seven hours presumptively allotted. | |
| All three prongs of the three-factor test to evaluate a motion for additional depositions | |
| strongly support granting the motion. Atkinson v. Goord, No. 01 CIV. 0761 LAKHBP, 2009 WL | |
| 890682, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2009). First, as reviewed in detail on a witness-by-witness basis | |
| above, the discovery sought is not duplicative. The proposed deponents include the individual | |
| who assisted in making the defamatory statement, women Defendant Maxwell hired to recruit | |
| girls for Jeffrey Epstein, an individual with intimate knowledge of Defendant and Epstein’s | |
| sexual trafficking ring, other victims of Jeffrey Epstein (including a then underage victim), Mr. | |
| Epstein himself, and other witnesses who can corroborate important pieces of Ms. Giuffre’s | |
| statements or refute Ms. Maxwell’s statements and positions. These witnesses’ testimony will | |
| corroborate Ms. Giuffre’s account of Defendant being a recruiter of females for Epstein and | |
| corroborate the type of abuse she and others suffered. Sadly, Ms. Giuffre is far from the only | |
| one of Defendant’s victims, and there are other witnesses whose testimony is necessary in order | |
| to demonstrate the truth of Ms. Giuffre’s claims and the falsity of the statements made by | |
| Defendant. - | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 15 | |
| 4 | |
| Second, if Ms. Giuffre is denied these depositions, she will not have had the opportunity | |
| to obtain the information by other discovery in this case. The Court will recall from Ms. | |
| Giuffre’s opening motion that Defendant’s surprising lack of memory has, in no small part, | |
| caused the need for additional depositions. See Motion at 5-8 (listing 59 examples of memory | |
| lapses during Ms. Maxwell deposition, including inability to remember events recorded on | |
| aircraft flight logs or a photograph). Defendant offers no explanation for her convenient | |
| forgetfulness. Moreover, evidence of being recruited by Defendant and being sexually assaulted | |
| is not something Ms. Giuffre can obtain through requests for production or through | |
| interrogatories. The only way of obtaining such evidence is from witness testimony by those | |
| who were victimized, those who assisted Defendant in recruiting and abuse, and those who | |
| observed the recruiting or the abuse. For example, Rinaldo Rizzo, an estate manager for a friend | |
| of Defendant and Epstein’s, testified about an episode where Defendant had threatened a terrified | |
| 15 year old girl and confiscated her passport to try to make her have sex with Epstein on his | |
| private island: See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, Rizzo Deposition 3 | |
| Mr. Rizzo testified about | |
| another episode where Defendant gave instructions to, and presided over, a group of eleven girls | |
| 3 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 15 | |
| 5 | |
| as young as 14 years old playing a “kissing game” with and for Jeffrey Epstein.4 | |
| Finally, the | |
| Defendant appears to be concealing critical evidence of the sexual abuse that other witnesses | |
| have testified she possesses. | |
| . Yet Defendant has failed to produce a single photo | |
| in this case. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3, Alessi Deposition at 36-41. Document discovery | |
| and interrogatories are not helpful in obtaining this type of evidence: depositions are needed. | |
| Third, the burden and expense of this proposed discovery is limited to three additional | |
| depositions. Defendant in this case is a multi-millionaire with able counsel. Three depositions | |
| will not cause her undue burden, expense, or inconvenience. These depositions are important to | |
| resolving issues in this case. Given that very few witnesses reside within 100 miles of the | |
| courthouse and therefore cannot be compelled to trial, this request for only three additional | |
| depositions is a reasonable request. | |
| While Defendant opposes Ms. Giuffre’s request for Court approval of more than ten | |
| depositions, she has unilaterally noticed more than ten depositions without bothering to seek | |
| approval. As of the date of this filing, Defendant’s counsel has issued twelve subpoenas for | |
| 4 | |
| - | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 15 | |
| 6 | |
| deposition testimony – the almost the exact same number Ms. Giuffre is seeking.5 | |
| Defendant | |
| cannot credibly oppose Ms. Giuffre’s additional depositions while she, herself, is trying to take | |
| more than ten without leave of court.6 | |
| It is plain why Defendant does not want these depositions to go forward. Ms. Sjoberg, | |
| Mr. Alessi, and Mr. Rizzo’s testimony was harmful to Defendant’s case, and the additional | |
| depositions will provide further evidence that Defendant acted as Jeffrey Epstein’s madam, | |
| proving the truth of Ms. Giuffre’s statements that Defendant proclaimed publically as “obvious | |
| lies.” | |
| II. MS. GIUFFRE IS SEEKING HIGHLY RELEVANT TRIAL TESTIMONY. | |
| All of the people Ms. Giuffre seeks to depose have discoverable and important | |
| information regarding the elements of Ms. Giuffre’s claims. Ms. Giuffre stated that Defendant | |
| recruited her and other young females for sex with Jeffrey Epstein. The people she now seeks to | |
| depose are all witnesses who can testify to Defendant working essentially as a madam for Jeffrey | |
| Epstein, recruiting young females for Epstein, or corroborate other important aspects of her | |
| statements. The fact that Defendant recruited girls, some of which were underage, for Epstein | |
| makes Ms. Giuffre’s claim that she was also recruited by Defendant to ultimately have sex with | |
| Epstein and others more credible – and that Defendant’s denials of any involvement in such | |
| recruiting is a bald-faced lie. Witnesses will testify that Defendant’s recruitment and | |
| management of the girls for Jeffrey Epstein was a major aspect of Defendant’s job, and that Ms. | |
| 5 | |
| Defendant’s counsel has taken the deposition testimony of (1) Ms. Giuffre; (2) Ms. Giuffre’s | |
| mother (Lynn Miller); (3) Ms. Giuffre’s father (Sky Roberts); and (4) Ms. Giuffre’s physician | |
| (Dr. Olson). Defendant’s counsel has noticed the following witnesses for deposition: (5) Mr. | |
| Austrich; (6) Mr. Figueroa; (7) Ms. Degorgieou; (8) a known victim of Jeffrey Epstein; (9) Mr. | |
| Weisfield; (10) Ms. Churcher; (11) Ms. Boylan; and (12) the 30(b)(6) witness for Victims | |
| Refuse Silence. | |
| 6 Defendant has unilaterally scheduled - without consulting counsel for Ms. Giuffre - at least two of these depositions for days when depositions of Ms. Giuffre’s witnesses have been set. | |
| 1111 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 15 | |
| 7 | |
| Giuffre’s account of her sexual abuse and Defendant’s involvement accords perfectly with other | |
| witnesses’ accounts of what Defendant’s job was for Epstein.7 | |
| That other young females were similarly recruited by the Defendant is evidence that Ms. | |
| Giuffre is telling the truth about her experiences – and thus direct evidence that Defendant | |
| defamed her when calling her a liar. Clearly, if Ms. Giuffre can establish that Defendant’s | |
| modus operandi was to recruit young females for Epstein, that helps corroborate Ms. Giuffre’s | |
| own testimony that Defendant recruited her for the same purposes and in the same manner. | |
| Although the Court need not make a final ruling on this evidentiary issue now, Rule 404(b) itself | |
| makes such testimony admissible. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) (other act “evidence may be | |
| admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, | |
| knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.”). Indeed, even more specifically | |
| than the general provisions of Rule 404(b), Rule 415 makes these other acts admissible, due to | |
| the fact that those involved in sexual abuse of minors have a strong propensity for repeating | |
| those crimes. See Fed. R. Evid. 415(a)( (“In a civil case involving a claim for relief based on a | |
| party’s alleged sexual assault or child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the party | |
| committed any other sexual assault or child molestation.”). | |
| Entirely apart from corroborating Ms. Giuffre’s own individual abuse, however, | |
| Defendant fails to recognize that in calling Ms. Giuffre a “liar”, she was attacking all aspects of | |
| Ms. Giuffre’s account – including Ms. Giuffre’s statements that Defendant served generally as a | |
| recruiter of girls for Epstein and that Epstein sexually abused the underage girls that were | |
| 7 | |
| Defendant’s specious suggestion that Ms. Giuffre heard about the other girls whom she | |
| recruited for sexual purposes and then decided to “hop on the band wagon” (Defendant’s Resp. | |
| at 8 n.7) tacitly admits that Defendant procured a “band wagon” of girls for Jeffrey Epstein to | |
| abuse. Moreover, Defendant cannot refute the documentary evidence that she was on Epstein | |
| private jet with Ms. Giuffre over 20 times while Ms. Giuffre was a minor – flights that | |
| Defendant is, quite conveniently, now unable to recall. Motion at 5-8. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 15 | |
| 8 | |
| brought to him. Thus, in this defamation case, the testimony of these witnesses are admissible | |
| not only to bolster Ms. Giuffre’s testimony about her individual abuse, but because they are | |
| simply part of the body of statements whose truth or falsity is at issue in this case. | |
| In addition, one of the witnesses that Ms. Giuffre seeks to depose is registered sex | |
| offender Jeffrey Epstein, who stands at the center of the case. Indeed, some of the most critical | |
| events took place in the presence of just three people: Ms. Giuffre, defendant Maxwell, and | |
| Epstein. If Epstein were to tell the truth, his testimony would fully confirm Ms. Giuffre’s | |
| account of her sexual abuse. Epstein, however, may well attempt to support Defendant by | |
| invoking the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions about his sexual abuse of Ms. | |
| Giuffre. Apparently privy to her former boyfriend Epstein’s anticipated plans in this regard,8 | |
| Defendant makes the claim that it would be a “convoluted argument” to allow Ms. Giuffre to use | |
| those invocations against her. Defendant’s Resp. at 3. Tellingly, Defendant’s response brief | |
| cites no authority to refute that proposition that adverse inference can be drawn against coconspirators. Presumably this is because, as recounted in Ms. Giuffre’s opening brief (at pp. 20- | |
| 22), the Second Circuit’s seminal decision of LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. | |
| 1997), squarely upheld the drawing of adverse inferences based on a non-party’s invocation of a | |
| Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The Second Circuit instructed that, the circumstances of | |
| given case, rather than status of particular nonparty witness, determines whether nonparty | |
| witness' invocation of privilege against self-incrimination is admissible in course of civil | |
| litigation. Id. at122-23. The Second Circuit also held that, in determining whether nonparty | |
| witness’ invocation of privilege against self-incrimination in course of civil litigation and | |
| 8 | |
| In discovery, Defendant Maxwell has produced several emails between Epstein and herself | |
| discussing Ms. Giuffre. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 15 | |
| 9 | |
| drawing of adverse inferences is admissible, court may consider the following nonexclusive | |
| factors: | |
| (1) nature of witness’ relationship with and loyalty to party; | |
| (2) degree of control which party has vested in witness in regard to key facts and subject | |
| matter of litigation; | |
| (3) whether witness is pragmatically noncaptioned party in interest and whether | |
| assertion of privilege advances interests of witness and party in outcome of litigation; and | |
| (4) whether witness was key figure in litigation and played controlling role in respect to | |
| its underlying aspects. | |
| Id. at 124-25. Ms. Giuffre will be able to establish that all these factors tip decisively in favor of | |
| allowing an adverse inference. Accordingly, her efforts to depose Epstein, Marcinkova, and | |
| Kellen seek important information that will be admissible at trial. | |
| III. MS. GIUFFRE’S REQUEST IS TIMELY. | |
| Defendant also argues that this motion is somehow “premature.” Defendant’s Resp. at | |
| 2-3. Clearly, if Ms. Giuffre had waited to file her motion until later, Defendant would have | |
| argued until the matter came too late. The motion is proper at this time because, as of the date of | |
| this filing, fact discovery closes in 17 days (although Ms. Giuffre has recently filed a motion for | |
| a 30-day extension of the deadline). In order to give the Court the opportunity to rule as far in | |
| advance as possible – thereby permitting counsel for both side to schedule the remaining | |
| depositions – Ms. Giuffre brings the motion now. She also requires a ruling in advance so that | |
| she can make final plans about how many depositions she has available and thus which | |
| depositions she should prioritize. 9 | |
| 9 | |
| Defendant tries to find support for her prematurity argument in Gen. Elec. Co. v. Indem. Ins. | |
| Co. of N. Am., No. 3:06-CV-232 (CFD), 2006 WL 1525970, at *2 (D. Conn. May 25, 2006). | |
| However, in that case, the Court found a motion for additional depositions to be premature, in | |
| part, because “[d]iscovery has not even commenced” . . . and the moving party “ha[d] not listed | |
| with specificity those individuals it wishes to depose.” Of course, neither of these points applies | |
| in this case at hand: the parties are approaching the close of fact discovery, and Ms. Giuffre has | |
| provided detailed information about each individual she has deposed already and still seeks to | |
| depose. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 15 | |
| 10 | |
| An additional reason this motion is appropriate now is that, despite Ms. Giuffre’s diligent | |
| pursuit of depositions, many witnesses have cancelled their dates, failed to appear, or wrongfully | |
| evaded service. These maneuvers have frustrated Ms. Giuffre’s ability to take their depositions | |
| in a logical and sequential fashion, complicating the planning of a deposition schedule. For | |
| example, on April 11, 2016, Ms. Giuffre served notice on Defendant’s counsel for the deposition | |
| of Rinaldo Rizzo, setting it for May 13, 2016. Nearly a month later, just a few days before that | |
| properly noticed deposition, Defendant’s counsel requested that it be rescheduled, and, therefore, | |
| that deposition did not take place until June 10, 2016. Additionally, three other important | |
| witnesses evaded Ms. Giuffre’s repeated efforts to serve them. It took Ms. Giuffre’s motion for | |
| alternative service (DE 160) to convince Jeffrey Epstein to allow his attorney to accept service of | |
| process. The Court also has before it Ms. Giuffre’s motion to serve Sarah Kellen and Nadia | |
| Marcinkova by alternative service. These witnesses’ evasion of service delayed the taking of | |
| their depositions, and, as of the date of this filing, none have been deposed yet. | |
| CONCLUSION | |
| For all these reasons, Ms. Giuffre should be allowed to take three more depositions than | |
| the presumptive ten deposition limit – a total of thirteen depositions. | |
| Dated: June 13, 2016. | |
| Respectfully Submitted, | |
| BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP | |
| By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley | |
| Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP | |
| 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 | |
| Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 | |
| (954) 356-0011 | |
| David Boies | |
| Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP | |
| 1111 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 15 | |
| 11 | |
| 333 Main Street | |
| Armonk, NY 10504 | |
| Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, | |
| EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. | |
| 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 | |
| Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | |
| (954) 524-2820 | |
| Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| S.J. Quinney College of Law | |
| University of Utah | |
| 383 University St. | |
| Salt Lake City, UT 84112 | |
| (801) 585-520210 | |
| 10 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is | |
| not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 15 | |
| 12 | |
| CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | |
| I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 13th day of June, 2016, I electronically filed the | |
| foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the | |
| foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission | |
| of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. | |
| Laura A. Menninger, Esq. | |
| Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. | |
| HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. | |
| 150 East 10th Avenue | |
| Denver, Colorado 80203 | |
| Tel: (303) 831-7364 | |
| Fax: (303) 832-2628 | |
| Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com | |
| jpagliuca@hmflaw.com | |
| /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley | |
| Sigrid S. McCawley | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 15 | |
| United States District Court | |
| Southern District of New York | |
| Virginia L. Giuffre, | |
| Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS | |
| v . | |
| Ghislaine Maxwell, | |
| Defendant. | |
| ____________________________/ | |
| DECLARATION OF SIGRID S. McCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S | |
| REPLY TO MOTION TO EXCEED PRESUMPTIVE TEN DEPOSITION LIMIT | |
| I, Sigrid S. McCawley, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my | |
| knowledge as follows: | |
| 1. I am a partner with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly | |
| licensed to practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court’s September 29, 2015 | |
| Order granting my Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice. | |
| 2. I respectfully submit this Declaration in Support of Plaintiff’s Reply to Motion to | |
| Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit. | |
| 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Johanna Sjoberg’s | |
| Deposition Transcript excerpts dated May 18, 2016. | |
| 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of Rinaldo Rizzo’s Rough | |
| Deposition Transcript excerpts dated June 10, 2016. | |
| 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of Juan Alessi’s | |
| Deposition Transcript excerpts dated June 1, 2016. | |
| I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. | |
| /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley | |
| Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-22 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 3 | |
| 2 | |
| Dated: June 13, 2016. | |
| Respectfully Submitted, | |
| BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP | |
| By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley | |
| Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP | |
| 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 | |
| Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 | |
| (954) 356-0011 | |
| David Boies | |
| Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP | |
| 333 Main Street | |
| Armonk, NY 10504 | |
| Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, | |
| EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. | |
| 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 | |
| Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | |
| (954) 524-2820 | |
| Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| S.J. Quinney College of Law | |
| University of Utah | |
| 383 University St. | |
| Salt Lake City, UT 84112 | |
| (801) 585-52021 | |
| 1 | |
| This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is | |
| not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-22 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 3 | |
| 3 | |
| CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | |
| I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 13th day of June, 2016, I electronically filed the | |
| foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the | |
| foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission | |
| of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. | |
| Laura A. Menninger, Esq. | |
| Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. | |
| HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. | |
| 150 East 10th Avenue | |
| Denver, Colorado 80203 | |
| Tel: (303) 831-7364 | |
| Fax: (303) 832-2628 | |
| Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com | |
| jpagliuca@hmflaw.com | |
| /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley | |
| Sigrid S. McCawley | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-22 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 3 | |
| EXHIBIT 1 | |
| (Filed Under Seal) | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-23 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 10 | |
| Page 1 | |
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | |
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | |
| CASE NO. 15-CV-07433-RWS | |
| ------------------------------------------x | |
| VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, | |
| Plaintiff, | |
| v. | |
| GHISLAINE MAXWELL, | |
| Defendant. | |
| -------------------------------------------x | |
| May 18, 2016 | |
| 9:04 a.m. | |
| C O N F I D E N T I A L | |
| Deposition of JOHANNA SJOBERG, pursuant | |
| to notice, taken by Plaintiff, at the | |
| offices of Boies Schiller & Flexner, 401 | |
| Las Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, | |
| before Kelli Ann Willis, a Registered | |
| Professional Reporter, Certified Realtime | |
| Reporter and Notary Public within and | |
| for the State of Florida. | |
| MAGNA9 | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-23 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 10 | |
| Page 21 | |
| 1 Jeffrey's home when you arrived? | |
| 2 A. Yes. When I first walked in the door, it | |
| 3 was just myself, and Ghislaine headed for the | |
| 4 staircase and said -- told me to come up to the | |
| 5 living room. | |
| 6 Q. And what happened at that point, when you | |
| 7 came up to the living room? | |
| 8 A. I came up and saw Virginia, Jeffrey, | |
| 9 Prince Andrew, Ghislaine in the room. | |
| 10 Q. And did you meet Prince Andrew at that | |
| 11 time? | |
| 12 A. Yes. | |
| 13 Q. And what happened next? | |
| 14 A. At one point, Ghislaine told me to come | |
| 15 upstairs, and we went into a closet and pulled out | |
| 16 the puppet, the caricature of Prince Andrew, and | |
| 17 brought it down. And there was a little tag on the | |
| 18 puppet that said "Prince Andrew" on it, and that's | |
| 19 when I knew who he was. | |
| 20 Q. And did -- what did the puppet look like? | |
| 21 A. It looked like him. And she brought it | |
| 22 down and presented it to him; and that was a great | |
| 23 joke, because apparently it was a production from a | |
| 24 show on BBC. And they decided to take a picture | |
| 25 with it, in which Virginia and Andrew sat on a | |
| MAGNA9 | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-23 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 10 | |
| Page 22 | |
| 1 couch. They put the puppet on Virginia's lap, and I | |
| 2 sat on Andrew's lap, and they put the puppet's hand | |
| 3 on Virginia's breast, and Andrew put his hand on my | |
| 4 breast, and they took a photo. | |
| 5 Q. Do you remember who took the photo? | |
| 6 A. I don't recall. | |
| 7 Q. Did you ever see the photo after it was | |
| 8 taken? | |
| 9 A. I did not. | |
| 10 Q. And Ms. Maxwell was present during the -- | |
| 11 was Ms. Maxwell present during that? | |
| 12 A. Yes. | |
| 13 Q. What happened next? | |
| 14 A. The next thing I remember is just being | |
| 15 shown to which room I was going to be staying in. | |
| 16 Q. When you exited the room that you were in | |
| 17 where the picture was taken, do you recall who | |
| 18 remained in that room? | |
| 19 A. I don't. | |
| 20 Q. Do you recall seeing Virginia exit that | |
| 21 room? | |
| 22 A. I don't. | |
| 23 Q. During this trip to New York, did you have | |
| 24 to perform any work when you were at the New York | |
| 25 house? | |
| MAGNA9 | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-23 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 10 | |
| Page 141 | |
| 1 always covered himself with a towel. | |
| 2 Q. I believe I asked this, but I just want to | |
| 3 clarify to make sure that I did: Did Maxwell ever | |
| 4 ask you to bring other girls over to -- for Jeffrey? | |
| 5 A. Yes. | |
| 6 Q. Yes? | |
| 7 A. Yes. | |
| 8 Q. And what did you -- did you do anything in | |
| 9 response to that? | |
| 10 A. I did bring one girl named -- | |
| 11 no. -- it was some girl named | |
| 12 that I had worked with at a restaurant. And I | |
| 13 recall Ghislaine giving me money to bring her over; | |
| 14 however, they never called her to come. | |
| 15 Q. And then I believe you mentioned that one | |
| 16 of your physical fitness instructors, you brought a | |
| 17 physical fitness instructor; was that correct? | |
| 18 A. Correct. | |
| 19 Q. And what did she do? | |
| 20 A. She gave him a -- like a training session, | |
| 21 twice. | |
| 22 Q. Twice. | |
| 23 Did anything sexual in nature happen | |
| 24 during the session? | |
| 25 A. At one point he lifted up her shirt and | |
| Jane Doe 2 | |
| Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 | |
| MAGNA9 | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-23 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 10 | |
| Page 142 | |
| 1 exposed her bra, and she grabbed it and pulled it | |
| 2 down. | |
| 3 Q. Anything else? | |
| 4 A. That was the conversation that he had told | |
| 5 her that he had taken this girl's virginity, the | |
| 6 girl by the pool. | |
| 7 Q. Okay. Did Maxwell ever say to you that it | |
| 8 takes the pressure off of her to have other girls | |
| 9 around? | |
| 10 A. She implied that, yes. | |
| 11 Q. In what way? | |
| 12 A. Sexually. | |
| 13 Q. And earlier Laura asked you, I believe, if | |
| 14 Maxwell ever asked you to perform any sexual acts, | |
| 15 and I believe your testimony was no, but then you | |
| 16 also previously stated that during the camera | |
| 17 incident that Maxwell had talked to you about not | |
| 18 finishing the job. | |
| 19 Did you understand "not finishing the job" | |
| 20 meaning bringing Jeffrey to orgasm? | |
| 21 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form. | |
| 22 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 23 Q. I'm sorry, Johanna, let me correct that | |
| 24 question. | |
| 25 What did you understand Maxwell to mean | |
| MAGNA9 | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-23 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 10 | |
| Page 143 | |
| 1 when she said you hadn't finished the job, with | |
| 2 respect to the camera? | |
| 3 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form. | |
| 4 THE WITNESS: She implied that I had not | |
| 5 brought him to orgasm. | |
| 6 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 7 Q. So is it fair to say that Maxwell expected | |
| 8 you to perform sexual acts when you were massaging | |
| 9 Jeffrey? | |
| 10 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form, | |
| 11 foundation. | |
| 12 THE WITNESS: I can answer? | |
| 13 Yes, I took that conversation to mean that | |
| 14 is what was expected of me. | |
| 15 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 16 Q. And then you mentioned, I believe, when | |
| 17 you were testifying earlier that Jeffrey told you a | |
| 18 story about sex on the plane. What was that about? | |
| 19 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, hearsay. | |
| 20 THE WITNESS: He told me one time Emmy was | |
| 21 sleeping on the plane, and they were getting | |
| 22 ready to land. And he went and woke her up, | |
| 23 and she thought that meant he wanted a blow | |
| 24 job, so she started to unzip his pants, and he | |
| 25 said, No, no, no, you just have to be awake for | |
| MAGNA9 | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-23 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 10 | |
| Page 150 | |
| 1 A. No. | |
| 2 Q. Was it in the context of anything? | |
| 3 A. About the camera that she had bought for | |
| 4 me. | |
| 5 Q. What did she say in relationship to the | |
| 6 camera that she bought for you and taking | |
| 7 photographs of you? | |
| 8 A. Just that Jeffrey would like to have some | |
| 9 photos of me, and she asked me to take photos of | |
| 10 myself. | |
| 11 Q. What did you say? | |
| 12 A. I don't remember saying no, but I never | |
| 13 ended up following through. I think I tried once. | |
| 14 Q. This was the pre-selfie era, correct? | |
| 15 A. Exactly. | |
| 16 Q. I want to go back to this: You testified | |
| 17 to two things just now with Sigrid that you said | |
| 18 were implied to you. | |
| 19 A. Okay. | |
| 20 Q. The first one was it would take pressure | |
| 21 off of Maxwell to have more girls around? | |
| 22 A. Right. | |
| 23 Q. What exactly did Maxwell say to you that | |
| 24 led you to believe that was her implication? | |
| 25 A. She said she doesn't have the time or | |
| MAGNA9 | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-23 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 10 | |
| Page 151 | |
| 1 desire to please him as much as he needs, and that's | |
| 2 why there were other girls around. | |
| 3 Q. And did she refer specifically to any | |
| 4 other girls? | |
| 5 A. No. | |
| 6 Q. Did she talk about underaged girls? | |
| 7 A. No. | |
| 8 Q. Was she talking about massage therapists? | |
| 9 A. Not specifically. | |
| 10 Q. Okay. There were other girls in the house | |
| 11 that were not massage therapists, correct? | |
| 12 A. Yes. | |
| 13 Q. is another person that was around, | |
| 14 correct? | |
| 15 A. Yes. | |
| 16 Q. There were other people he traveled with? | |
| 17 A. Uh-huh. | |
| 18 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 19 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 20 Q. Correct? | |
| 21 A. Correct. | |
| 22 Q. Other girls? | |
| 23 A. Yes. | |
| 24 Q. Adults? | |
| 25 A. Yes. | |
| - | |
| MAGNA9 | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-23 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 10 | |
| Page 159 | |
| 1 CERTIFICATE OF OATH | |
| 2 STATE OF FLORIDA ) | |
| 3 COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE ) | |
| 4 | |
| 5 I, the undersigned authority, certify | |
| 6 that JOHANNA SJOBERG personally appeared before me | |
| 7 and was duly sworn. | |
| 8 WITNESS my hand and official seal this | |
| 9 18th day of May, 2016. | |
| 10 | |
| 11 | |
| KELLI ANN WILLIS, RPR, CRR | |
| 12 Notary Public, State of Florida | |
| My Commission No. FF911443 | |
| 13 Expires: 2/16/21 | |
| 14 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + | |
| 15 | |
| 16 | |
| 17 | |
| 18 | |
| 19 | |
| 20 | |
| 21 | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| MAGNA9 | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-23 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 10 | |
| United States District Court | |
| Southern District of New York | |
| Virginia L. Giuffre, | |
| Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS | |
| v. | |
| Ghislaine Maxwell, | |
| Defendant. | |
| ________________________________/ | |
| PLAINTIFF’S CORRECTED1 | |
| REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO | |
| EXCEED PRESUMPTIVE TEN DEPOSITION LIMIT | |
| Sigrid McCawley | |
| BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP | |
| 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 | |
| Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 | |
| (954) 356-0011 | |
| 1 | |
| On June 13, 2016, Ms. Giuffre filed her Reply in Support of her Motion to Exceed the Presumptive Ten Deposition | |
| Limit (DE 203). This brief contained excerpt from Rinaldo Rizzo’s “rough” deposition transcript, as the final | |
| transcript had not yet been completed by the stenographer. On June 14, 2016, the stenographer issued the “final” | |
| deposition transcript, and Ms. Giuffre hereby files the final transcript citations and excerpts to replace the “rough” | |
| transcript that accompanied her supporting Declaration (DE 204-2). There are no other changes to this document. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 16 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 16 | |
| i | |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS | |
| Page | |
| I. THE PROPOSED DEPOSITIONS ARE IMPORTANT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL | |
| CLAIMS AND DEFENSES IN THIS CASE, AND NONE ARE DUPLICATIVE. ........ 1 | |
| II. MS. GIUFFRE IS SEEKING HIGHLY RELEVANT TRIAL TESTIMONY. .................. 6 | |
| III. MS. GIUFFRE’S REQUEST IS TIMELY. ........................................................................ 9 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 16 | |
| ii | |
| TABLE OF AUTHORITIES | |
| Page | |
| Cases | |
| Atkinson v. Goord, | |
| No. 01 CIV. 0761 LAKHBP, 2009 WL 890682 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2009) ................................3 | |
| Gen. Elec. Co. v. Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am., | |
| No. 3:06-CV-232 (CFD), 2006 WL 1525970 (D. Conn. May 25, 2006) ..................................9 | |
| LiButti v. United States, | |
| 107 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 1997).......................................................................................................8 | |
| Rules | |
| Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) .........................................................................................................................7 | |
| Fed. R. Evid. 415(a) .........................................................................................................................7 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 16 | |
| 1 | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this reply | |
| in support of her Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit. The motion should be | |
| granted because Ms. Giuffre has shown good cause for needing to exceed the ten deposition limit | |
| and in light of recent developments, Ms. Giuffre has streamlined her request, and now seeks only | |
| a total of three additional depositions. Notably, while Defendant contests Ms. Giuffre’s motion, | |
| Defendant has herself unilaterally – and without seeking any Court approval – set twelve | |
| witnesses for deposition in this matter. In contrast to Defendant’s unilateral action, Ms. Giuffre | |
| has properly sought this Court’s permission. The Court should grant her motion and allow her to | |
| take the three additional depositions. | |
| I. THE PROPOSED DEPOSITIONS ARE IMPORTANT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL | |
| CLAIMS AND DEFENSES IN THIS CASE, AND NONE ARE DUPLICATIVE. | |
| Defendant argues that the depositions Ms. Giuffre seeks to take are somehow | |
| “duplicative” of each other. Even a quick reading of the Defendant’s pleading makes clear this | |
| is untrue. Defendant repeatedly gives her own narrow view of what existing witnesses have said. | |
| For example, Defendant argues that Ms. Sjoberg “did not corroborate that [Ms. Giuffre] is telling | |
| the truth.” Defendant’s Response at 5. Defendant’s characterization is untrue.2 | |
| But, as the mere | |
| 2 Defendant wholly mischaracterized Ms. Sjoberg’s testimony as involving “professional | |
| massages.” Defendant’s Resp. at 5. In fact, Ms. Sjoberg testified that, when she was a twentyone-year-old college student, Defendant (not Jeffrey Epstein) recruited and hired her under the | |
| pretext of being a personal assistant to provide sexual massages. As one example of this | |
| testimony, Sjoberg testified that Defendant became angry with her for not “finishing your job” | |
| when Defendant was the one who ended up having to bring Epstein to orgasm when Ms. Sjoberg | |
| did not. See McCawley Dec at Exhibit 1, Sjoberg Dep. Tr. at 142:25-143:14(Q. What did you | |
| understand Maxwell to mean when you said that you hadn’t finished the job, with respect to the | |
| camera? A. She implied that I had not brought him to orgasm. Q. So is it fair to say that Maxwell | |
| expected you to perform sexual acts when you were massaging Jeffrey? A. I can answer? Yes, I | |
| took that conversation to mean that it what was expected of me.) Ms. Sjoberg’s testimony also | |
| shows that Defendant was a predator of young women and girls, and that her business was to | |
| provide girls for Jeffrey Epstein to have sex with. Id. at 141:3-5; 150:16-151:2 (Q. Did Maxwell | |
| ever ask you to bring other girls over to – for Jeffrey? A. Yes. Q. I want to go back to this: You | |
| testified to two things just now with Sigrid that you said were implied to you. A. Okay. Q. The | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 16 | |
| 2 | |
| fact of this dispute confirms, this case is going to be hotly contested and the weight of the | |
| evidence on each side is going to be vitally important. The Court is well aware of many other | |
| civil cases where the parties have taken far more than ten depositions by mutual agreement. | |
| Defendant’s refusal to agree to a few more depositions here is simply an effort to keep all the | |
| relevant facts from being developed. | |
| Since Ms. Giuffre filed her initial motion seeking seven additional deposition, she has | |
| worked diligently to try to streamline the necessary depositions and has discovered new | |
| information concerning witnesses and their knowledge of the claims in this case. Accordingly, | |
| Ms. Giuffre currently brings before this Court a significantly shorter list3 of witnesses she needs | |
| to depose to prove her claim, with some alterations. To be clear, Ms. Giuffre has narrowed her | |
| request and is now only seeking an additional three depositions from the Court as follows: | |
| For descriptions concerning the depositions already taken (Defendant; Ms. Sjoberg; Mr. | |
| Alessi; Mr. Rodgers; and Mr. Rizzo), and those yet to be taken (Mr. Epstein; Mr. Gow; | |
| Ms. Kellen; Ms. Marcinkova; Mr. Recarey; and Mr. Brunel), Ms. Giuffre references and | |
| incorporates her descriptions in the moving brief. The only remaining witness is William | |
| Jefferson Clinton. His deposition is necessary for the following reason: | |
| first one was it would take pressure off of Maxwell to have more girls around? A. Right. Q. | |
| What exactly did Maxwell say to you that led you to believe that was her implication? A. She | |
| said she doesn’t have the time or desire to please him as much as he needs, and that’s why there | |
| were other girls around.). | |
| That Ms. Sjoberg never saw Ms. Giuffre give a massage to Ms. Maxwell is immaterial. Ms. | |
| Sjoberg was with Defendant and Epstein when Ms. Giuffre was a minor child, and corroborates | |
| Ms. Giuffre’s accounts concerning her being trafficked to Prince Andrew. Id. at 21-22. Ms. | |
| Giuffre refers the Court to Ms. Sjoberg’s deposition testimony in its entirety (DE 173-5). It is | |
| depositions like this - verifying Ms. Giuffre’s account of being recruited by Defendant for sex | |
| with Epstein – that Defendant is trying avoid. However, multiple other witnesses have testimony | |
| that supports Ms. Giuffre’s claims, in different and various ways, and Ms. Giuffre needs that | |
| testimony to prove her defamation claim against Defendant. | |
| 3 Ms. Giuffre is no longer seeking the deposition testimony of Emmy Taylor, Jo Jo | |
| Fontanella, Jane Doe 2 | |
| Jane Doe 2 | |
| Jane Doe 2 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 16 | |
| 3 | |
| x In a 2011 interview, Ms. Giuffre mentioned former President Bill Clinton’s close | |
| personal relationship with Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein. While Ms. Giuffre made no | |
| allegations of illegal actions by Bill Clinton, Ms. Maxwell in her deposition raised Ms. | |
| Giuffre’s comments about President Clinton as one of the “obvious lies” to which she | |
| was referring in her public statement that formed the basis of this suit. Apart from the | |
| Defendant and Mr. Epstein, former President Clinton is a key person who can provide | |
| information about his close relationship with Defendant and Mr. Epstein and disapprove | |
| Ms. Maxwell’s claims. | |
| Ms. Giuffre is still working diligently with opposing counsel, these witnesses, and their attorneys | |
| on scheduling, as well as identifying other witnesses who may have factual information about the | |
| case. But, at this time, she seeks this Court’s approval for an additional three depositions – | |
| depositions that will not consume the full seven hours presumptively allotted. | |
| All three prongs of the three-factor test to evaluate a motion for additional depositions | |
| strongly support granting the motion. Atkinson v. Goord, No. 01 CIV. 0761 LAKHBP, 2009 WL | |
| 890682, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2009). First, as reviewed in detail on a witness-by-witness basis | |
| above, the discovery sought is not duplicative. The proposed deponents include the individual | |
| who assisted in making the defamatory statement, women Defendant Maxwell hired to recruit | |
| girls for Jeffrey Epstein, an individual with intimate knowledge of Defendant and Epstein’s | |
| sexual trafficking ring, other victims of Jeffrey Epstein (including a then underage victim), Mr. | |
| Epstein himself, and other witnesses who can corroborate important pieces of Ms. Giuffre’s | |
| statements or refute Ms. Maxwell’s statements and positions. These witnesses’ testimony will | |
| corroborate Ms. Giuffre’s account of Defendant being a recruiter of females for Epstein and | |
| corroborate the type of abuse she and others suffered. Sadly, Ms. Giuffre is far from the only | |
| one of Defendant’s victims, and there are other witnesses whose testimony is necessary in order | |
| to demonstrate the truth of Ms. Giuffre’s claims and the falsity of the statements made by | |
| Defendant. - | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 16 | |
| 4 | |
| Second, if Ms. Giuffre is denied these depositions, she will not have had the opportunity | |
| to obtain the information by other discovery in this case. The Court will recall from Ms. | |
| Giuffre’s opening motion that Defendant’s surprising lack of memory has, in no small part, | |
| caused the need for additional depositions. See Motion at 5-8 (listing 59 examples of memory | |
| lapses during Ms. Maxwell deposition, including inability to remember events recorded on | |
| aircraft flight logs or a photograph). Defendant offers no explanation for her convenient | |
| forgetfulness. Moreover, evidence of being recruited by Defendant and being sexually assaulted | |
| is not something Ms. Giuffre can obtain through requests for production or through | |
| interrogatories. The only way of obtaining such evidence is from witness testimony by those | |
| who were victimized, those who assisted Defendant in recruiting and abuse, and those who | |
| observed the recruiting or the abuse. For example, Rinaldo Rizzo, an estate manager for a friend | |
| of Defendant and Epstein’s, testified about an episode where Defendant had threatened a terrified | |
| 15 year old girl and confiscated her passport to try to make her have sex with Epstein on his | |
| private island: See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, Rizzo Deposition 4 | |
| Mr. Rizzo testified about | |
| another episode where Defendant gave instructions to, and presided over, a group of eleven girls | |
| 4 See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, Rizzo *Final Dep. Tr. *52:6-7; *55:23-57:23. “Q. How old | |
| was this girl? A. 15 years old.” “What did she say? A. She proceeds to tell my wife and I that, | |
| and this is not – this is blurting out, not a conversation like I’m having a casual conversation, that | |
| quickly I was on an island, I was on the island and there was Ghislaine, there was Sarah, she said | |
| they asked me for sex, I said no. . . . And she says no, and she says Ghislaine took my passport. | |
| And I said what, and she says Sarah took her passport and phone and gave it to Ghislaine | |
| Maxwell, and at that point she said that she was threatened. And I said threatened? She says yes, | |
| I was threatened by Ghislaine not to discuss this. . . And she said that before she got there, she | |
| was threatened again by Jeffrey and Ghislaine not to talk about what I had mentioned earlier, | |
| about – again, the word she used was sex. Q. And during this time that you’re saying she is | |
| rambling, is her demeanor continues to be what you described it? A. Yes. Q. Was she in fear? A. | |
| Yes”. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 16 | |
| 5 | |
| as young as 14 years old playing a “kissing game” with and for Jeffrey Epstein.5 | |
| Finally, the | |
| Defendant appears to be concealing critical evidence of the sexual abuse that other witnesses | |
| have testified she possesses. For example, Mr. Alessi testified that Defendant kept a large book | |
| of naked photos that she took of young girls. Yet Defendant has failed to produce a single photo | |
| in this case. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3, Alessi Deposition at 36-41. Document discovery | |
| and interrogatories are not helpful in obtaining this type of evidence: depositions are needed. | |
| Third, the burden and expense of this proposed discovery is limited to three additional | |
| depositions. Defendant in this case is a multi-millionaire with able counsel. Three depositions | |
| will not cause her undue burden, expense, or inconvenience. These depositions are important to | |
| resolving issues in this case. Given that very few witnesses reside within 100 miles of the | |
| courthouse and therefore cannot be compelled to trial, this request for only three additional | |
| depositions is a reasonable request. | |
| While Defendant opposes Ms. Giuffre’s request for Court approval of more than ten | |
| depositions, she has unilaterally noticed more than ten depositions without bothering to seek | |
| approval. As of the date of this filing, Defendant’s counsel has issued twelve subpoenas for | |
| 5 See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, Rizzo *Final Dep. Tr. “Q. So in the house, tell me if I am | |
| wrong, you have Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and approximately 11 girls? A. Yes, | |
| somewhere between 11 and 12. Q. Can you describe the 11 to 12 girls to your memory? A. In my | |
| recollection, various of ages. They could have been from as young as 14, 15 to 18 maybe, 19 . . . | |
| very girlish.” *32:8-24; “Q. Once inside the house, what happens next? A. I showed Ghislaine | |
| and Jeffrey into the living room, and Ghislaine was the one that instructed the girls, pointing that | |
| they needed to come to the living room.” *34:5-10. “Q. What happens next? A. . . . it was getting | |
| very perogative [sic], nothing I would want my children to see. The girls were grinding on each | |
| other, lifting up their tops, it was very inappropriate.” *37:11-38:6. “Q. What did you see next? | |
| A.. . . From what I knew, Jeffrey was with Ghislaine and now I have all these girls acting very | |
| inappropriate ….” *38:22-39:7. “Q. When the girls are kissing either Jeff or other girls where | |
| was Ghislaine Maxwell? A. Sitting right next to Jeffrey.” *40:24-41:3. “Q. Is there something | |
| you remember vividly? A. . . . I did pull the nanny aside and I was really, my wife and I were | |
| dumbfounded, profound of the situation, and she mentioned this was an occurrence that had | |
| happened before, and they called it the kissing game.” *41:8-17.” | |
| - | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 16 | |
| 6 | |
| deposition testimony – the almost the exact same number Ms. Giuffre is seeking.6 | |
| Defendant | |
| cannot credibly oppose Ms. Giuffre’s additional depositions while she, herself, is trying to take | |
| more than ten without leave of court.7 | |
| It is plain why Defendant does not want these depositions to go forward. Ms. Sjoberg, | |
| Mr. Alessi, and Mr. Rizzo’s testimony was harmful to Defendant’s case, and the additional | |
| depositions will provide further evidence that Defendant acted as Jeffrey Epstein’s madam, | |
| proving the truth of Ms. Giuffre’s statements that Defendant proclaimed publically as “obvious | |
| lies.” | |
| II. MS. GIUFFRE IS SEEKING HIGHLY RELEVANT TRIAL TESTIMONY. | |
| All of the people Ms. Giuffre seeks to depose have discoverable and important | |
| information regarding the elements of Ms. Giuffre’s claims. Ms. Giuffre stated that Defendant | |
| recruited her and other young females for sex with Jeffrey Epstein. The people she now seeks to | |
| depose are all witnesses who can testify to Defendant working essentially as a madam for Jeffrey | |
| Epstein, recruiting young females for Epstein, or corroborate other important aspects of her | |
| statements. The fact that Defendant recruited girls, some of which were underage, for Epstein | |
| makes Ms. Giuffre’s claim that she was also recruited by Defendant to ultimately have sex with | |
| Epstein and others more credible – and that Defendant’s denials of any involvement in such | |
| recruiting is a bald-faced lie. Witnesses will testify that Defendant’s recruitment and | |
| management of the girls for Jeffrey Epstein was a major aspect of Defendant’s job, and that Ms. | |
| 6 Defendant’s counsel has taken the deposition testimony of (1) Ms. Giuffre; (2) Ms. Giuffre’s | |
| mother (Lynn Miller); (3) Ms. Giuffre’s father (Sky Roberts); and (4) Ms. Giuffre’s physician | |
| (Dr. Olson). Defendant’s counsel has noticed the following witnesses for deposition: (5) Mr. | |
| Austrich; (6) Mr. Figueroa; (7) Ms. Degorgieou; (8) a known victim of Jeffrey Epstein; (9) Mr. | |
| Weisfield; (10) Ms. Churcher; (11) Ms. Boylan; and (12) the 30(b)(6) witness for Victims Refuse | |
| Silence. | |
| 7 | |
| Defendant has unilaterally scheduled - without consulting counsel for Ms. Giuffre - at least two | |
| of these depositions for days when depositions of Ms. Giuffre’s witnesses have been set. | |
| 1111 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 16 | |
| 7 | |
| Giuffre’s account of her sexual abuse and Defendant’s involvement accords perfectly with other | |
| witnesses’ accounts of what Defendant’s job was for Epstein.8 | |
| That other young females were similarly recruited by the Defendant is evidence that Ms. | |
| Giuffre is telling the truth about her experiences – and thus direct evidence that Defendant | |
| defamed her when calling her a liar. Clearly, if Ms. Giuffre can establish that Defendant’s | |
| modus operandi was to recruit young females for Epstein, that helps corroborate Ms. Giuffre’s | |
| own testimony that Defendant recruited her for the same purposes and in the same manner. | |
| Although the Court need not make a final ruling on this evidentiary issue now, Rule 404(b) itself | |
| makes such testimony admissible. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) (other act “evidence may be | |
| admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, | |
| knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.”). Indeed, even more specifically | |
| than the general provisions of Rule 404(b), Rule 415 makes these other acts admissible, due to | |
| the fact that those involved in sexual abuse of minors have a strong propensity for repeating | |
| those crimes. See Fed. R. Evid. 415(a)( (“In a civil case involving a claim for relief based on a | |
| party’s alleged sexual assault or child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the party | |
| committed any other sexual assault or child molestation.”). | |
| Entirely apart from corroborating Ms. Giuffre’s own individual abuse, however, | |
| Defendant fails to recognize that in calling Ms. Giuffre a “liar”, she was attacking all aspects of | |
| Ms. Giuffre’s account – including Ms. Giuffre’s statements that Defendant served generally as a | |
| recruiter of girls for Epstein and that Epstein sexually abused the underage girls that were | |
| 8 Defendant’s specious suggestion that Ms. Giuffre heard about the other girls whom she | |
| recruited for sexual purposes and then decided to “hop on the band wagon” (Defendant’s Resp. | |
| at 8 n.7) tacitly admits that Defendant procured a “band wagon” of girls for Jeffrey Epstein to | |
| abuse. Moreover, Defendant cannot refute the documentary evidence that she was on Epstein | |
| private jet with Ms. Giuffre over 20 times while Ms. Giuffre was a minor – flights that | |
| Defendant is, quite conveniently, now unable to recall. Motion at 5-8. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 16 | |
| 8 | |
| brought to him. Thus, in this defamation case, the testimony of these witnesses are admissible | |
| not only to bolster Ms. Giuffre’s testimony about her individual abuse, but because they are | |
| simply part of the body of statements whose truth or falsity is at issue in this case. | |
| In addition, one of the witnesses that Ms. Giuffre seeks to depose is registered sex | |
| offender Jeffrey Epstein, who stands at the center of the case. Indeed, some of the most critical | |
| events took place in the presence of just three people: Ms. Giuffre, defendant Maxwell, and | |
| Epstein. If Epstein were to tell the truth, his testimony would fully confirm Ms. Giuffre’s | |
| account of her sexual abuse. Epstein, however, may well attempt to support Defendant by | |
| invoking the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions about his sexual abuse of Ms. | |
| Giuffre. Apparently privy to her former boyfriend Epstein’s anticipated plans in this regard,9 | |
| Defendant makes the claim that it would be a “convoluted argument” to allow Ms. Giuffre to use | |
| those invocations against her. Defendant’s Resp. at 3. Tellingly, Defendant’s response brief | |
| cites no authority to refute that proposition that adverse inference can be drawn against coconspirators. Presumably this is because, as recounted in Ms. Giuffre’s opening brief (at pp. 20- | |
| 22), the Second Circuit’s seminal decision of LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. | |
| 1997), squarely upheld the drawing of adverse inferences based on a non-party’s invocation of a | |
| Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The Second Circuit instructed that, the circumstances of | |
| given case, rather than status of particular nonparty witness, determines whether nonparty | |
| witness' invocation of privilege against self-incrimination is admissible in course of civil | |
| litigation. Id. at122-23. The Second Circuit also held that, in determining whether nonparty | |
| witness’ invocation of privilege against self-incrimination in course of civil litigation and | |
| 9 | |
| In discovery, Defendant Maxwell has produced several emails between Epstein and herself | |
| discussing Ms. Giuffre. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 16 | |
| 9 | |
| drawing of adverse inferences is admissible, court may consider the following nonexclusive | |
| factors: | |
| (1) nature of witness’ relationship with and loyalty to party; | |
| (2) degree of control which party has vested in witness in regard to key facts and subject | |
| matter of litigation; | |
| (3) whether witness is pragmatically noncaptioned party in interest and whether | |
| assertion of privilege advances interests of witness and party in outcome of litigation; and | |
| (4) whether witness was key figure in litigation and played controlling role in respect to | |
| its underlying aspects. | |
| Id. at 124-25. Ms. Giuffre will be able to establish that all these factors tip decisively in favor of | |
| allowing an adverse inference. Accordingly, her efforts to depose Epstein, Marcinkova, and | |
| Kellen seek important information that will be admissible at trial. | |
| III. MS. GIUFFRE’S REQUEST IS TIMELY. | |
| Defendant also argues that this motion is somehow “premature.” Defendant’s Resp. at | |
| 2-3. Clearly, if Ms. Giuffre had waited to file her motion until later, Defendant would have | |
| argued until the matter came too late. The motion is proper at this time because, as of the date of | |
| this filing, fact discovery closes in 17 days (although Ms. Giuffre has recently filed a motion for | |
| a 30-day extension of the deadline). In order to give the Court the opportunity to rule as far in | |
| advance as possible – thereby permitting counsel for both side to schedule the remaining | |
| depositions – Ms. Giuffre brings the motion now. She also requires a ruling in advance so that | |
| she can make final plans about how many depositions she has available and thus which | |
| depositions she should prioritize. 10 | |
| 10 Defendant tries to find support for her prematurity argument in Gen. Elec. Co. v. Indem. Ins. | |
| Co. of N. Am., No. 3:06-CV-232 (CFD), 2006 WL 1525970, at *2 (D. Conn. May 25, 2006). | |
| However, in that case, the Court found a motion for additional depositions to be premature, in | |
| part, because “[d]iscovery has not even commenced” . . . and the moving party “ha[d] not listed | |
| with specificity those individuals it wishes to depose.” Of course, neither of these points applies | |
| in this case at hand: the parties are approaching the close of fact discovery, and Ms. Giuffre has | |
| provided detailed information about each individual she has deposed already and still seeks to | |
| depose. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 16 | |
| 10 | |
| An additional reason this motion is appropriate now is that, despite Ms. Giuffre’s diligent | |
| pursuit of depositions, many witnesses have cancelled their dates, failed to appear, or wrongfully | |
| evaded service. These maneuvers have frustrated Ms. Giuffre’s ability to take their depositions | |
| in a logical and sequential fashion, complicating the planning of a deposition schedule. For | |
| example, on April 11, 2016, Ms. Giuffre served notice on Defendant’s counsel for the deposition | |
| of Rinaldo Rizzo, setting it for May 13, 2016. Nearly a month later, just a few days before that | |
| properly noticed deposition, Defendant’s counsel requested that it be rescheduled, and, therefore, | |
| that deposition did not take place until June 10, 2016. Additionally, three other important | |
| witnesses evaded Ms. Giuffre’s repeated efforts to serve them. It took Ms. Giuffre’s motion for | |
| alternative service (DE 160) to convince Jeffrey Epstein to allow his attorney to accept service of | |
| process. The Court also has before it Ms. Giuffre’s motion to serve Sarah Kellen and Nadia | |
| Marcinkova by alternative service. These witnesses’ evasion of service delayed the taking of | |
| their depositions, and, as of the date of this filing, none have been deposed yet. | |
| CONCLUSION | |
| For all these reasons, Ms. Giuffre should be allowed to take three more depositions than | |
| the presumptive ten deposition limit – a total of thirteen depositions. | |
| Dated: June 14, 2016. | |
| Respectfully Submitted, | |
| BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP | |
| By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley | |
| Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP | |
| 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 | |
| Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 | |
| (954) 356-0011 | |
| David Boies | |
| Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP | |
| 1111 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 16 | |
| 11 | |
| 333 Main Street | |
| Armonk, NY 10504 | |
| Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, | |
| EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. | |
| 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 | |
| Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | |
| (954) 524-2820 | |
| Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| S.J. Quinney College of Law | |
| University of Utah | |
| 383 University St. | |
| Salt Lake City, UT 84112 | |
| (801) 585-520211 | |
| 11 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is | |
| not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 16 | |
| 12 | |
| CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | |
| I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 14th day of June, 2016, I electronically filed the | |
| foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the | |
| foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission | |
| of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. | |
| Laura A. Menninger, Esq. | |
| Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. | |
| HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. | |
| 150 East 10th Avenue | |
| Denver, Colorado 80203 | |
| Tel: (303) 831-7364 | |
| Fax: (303) 832-2628 | |
| Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com | |
| jpagliuca@hmflaw.com | |
| /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley | |
| Sigrid S. McCawley | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 16 | |
| United States District Court | |
| Southern District of New York | |
| Virginia L. Giuffre, | |
| Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS | |
| v. | |
| Ghislaine Maxwell, | |
| Defendant. | |
| ____________________________/ | |
| CORRECTED1 | |
| DECLARATION OF SIGRID S. McCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF | |
| PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO MOTION TO EXCEED PRESUMPTIVE TEN DEPOSITION | |
| LIMIT | |
| I, Sigrid S. McCawley, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my | |
| knowledge as follows: | |
| 1. I am a partner with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly | |
| licensed to practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court’s September 29, 2015 | |
| Order granting my Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice. | |
| 2. I respectfully submit this Declaration in Support of Plaintiff’s Reply to Motion to | |
| Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit. | |
| 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Johanna Sjoberg’s | |
| Deposition Transcript excerpts dated May 18, 2016. | |
| 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of Rinaldo Rizzo’s Final | |
| Deposition Transcript excerpts dated June 10, 2016. | |
| 1 | |
| On June 13, 2016, Ms. Giuffre filed her Reply in Support of her Motion to Exceed the | |
| Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit (DE 203). This brief contained excerpts from Rinaldo Rizzo’s | |
| “rough” deposition transcript, as the final transcript had not yet been completed by the | |
| stenographer. On June 14, 2016, the stenographer issued the “final” deposition transcript, and | |
| Ms. Giuffre hereby files the final transcript citations and excerpts to replace the “rough” | |
| transcript that accompanied her supporting Declaration (DE 204-2). There are no other changes | |
| to this document. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-25 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 4 | |
| 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of Juan Alessi’s | |
| Deposition Transcript excerpts dated June 1, 2016. | |
| I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. | |
| /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley | |
| Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-25 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 4 | |
| 3 | |
| Dated: June 14, 2016. | |
| Respectfully Submitted, | |
| BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP | |
| By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley | |
| Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP | |
| 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 | |
| Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 | |
| (954) 356-0011 | |
| David Boies | |
| Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP | |
| 333 Main Street | |
| Armonk, NY 10504 | |
| Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, | |
| EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. | |
| 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 | |
| Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | |
| (954) 524-2820 | |
| Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| S.J. Quinney College of Law | |
| University of Utah | |
| 383 University St. | |
| Salt Lake City, UT 84112 | |
| (801) 585-52022 | |
| 2 | |
| This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is | |
| not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-25 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 4 | |
| 4 | |
| CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | |
| I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 14th day of June, 2016, I electronically filed the | |
| foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the | |
| foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission | |
| of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. | |
| Laura A. Menninger, Esq. | |
| Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. | |
| HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. | |
| 150 East 10th Avenue | |
| Denver, Colorado 80203 | |
| Tel: (303) 831-7364 | |
| Fax: (303) 832-2628 | |
| Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com | |
| jpagliuca@hmflaw.com | |
| /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley | |
| Sigrid S. McCawley | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-25 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 4 | |
| EXHIBIT 1 | |
| (Filed Under Seal) | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-26 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 10 | |
| Page 1 | |
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | |
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | |
| CASE NO. 15-CV-07433-RWS | |
| ------------------------------------------x | |
| VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, | |
| Plaintiff, | |
| v. | |
| GHISLAINE MAXWELL, | |
| Defendant. | |
| -------------------------------------------x | |
| May 18, 2016 | |
| 9:04 a.m. | |
| C O N F I D E N T I A L | |
| Deposition of JOHANNA SJOBERG, pursuant | |
| to notice, taken by Plaintiff, at the | |
| offices of Boies Schiller & Flexner, 401 | |
| Las Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, | |
| before Kelli Ann Willis, a Registered | |
| Professional Reporter, Certified Realtime | |
| Reporter and Notary Public within and | |
| for the State of Florida. | |
| MAGNA9 | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-26 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 10 | |
| Page 21 | |
| 1 Jeffrey's home when you arrived? | |
| 2 A. Yes. When I first walked in the door, it | |
| 3 was just myself, and Ghislaine headed for the | |
| 4 staircase and said -- told me to come up to the | |
| 5 living room. | |
| 6 Q. And what happened at that point, when you | |
| 7 came up to the living room? | |
| 8 A. I came up and saw Virginia, Jeffrey, | |
| 9 Prince Andrew, Ghislaine in the room. | |
| 10 Q. And did you meet Prince Andrew at that | |
| 11 time? | |
| 12 A. Yes. | |
| 13 Q. And what happened next? | |
| 14 A. At one point, Ghislaine told me to come | |
| 15 upstairs, and we went into a closet and pulled out | |
| 16 the puppet, the caricature of Prince Andrew, and | |
| 17 brought it down. And there was a little tag on the | |
| 18 puppet that said "Prince Andrew" on it, and that's | |
| 19 when I knew who he was. | |
| 20 Q. And did -- what did the puppet look like? | |
| 21 A. It looked like him. And she brought it | |
| 22 down and presented it to him; and that was a great | |
| 23 joke, because apparently it was a production from a | |
| 24 show on BBC. And they decided to take a picture | |
| 25 with it, in which Virginia and Andrew sat on a | |
| MAGNA9 | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-26 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 10 | |
| Page 22 | |
| 1 couch. They put the puppet on Virginia's lap, and I | |
| 2 sat on Andrew's lap, and they put the puppet's hand | |
| 3 on Virginia's breast, and Andrew put his hand on my | |
| 4 breast, and they took a photo. | |
| 5 Q. Do you remember who took the photo? | |
| 6 A. I don't recall. | |
| 7 Q. Did you ever see the photo after it was | |
| 8 taken? | |
| 9 A. I did not. | |
| 10 Q. And Ms. Maxwell was present during the -- | |
| 11 was Ms. Maxwell present during that? | |
| 12 A. Yes. | |
| 13 Q. What happened next? | |
| 14 A. The next thing I remember is just being | |
| 15 shown to which room I was going to be staying in. | |
| 16 Q. When you exited the room that you were in | |
| 17 where the picture was taken, do you recall who | |
| 18 remained in that room? | |
| 19 A. I don't. | |
| 20 Q. Do you recall seeing Virginia exit that | |
| 21 room? | |
| 22 A. I don't. | |
| 23 Q. During this trip to New York, did you have | |
| 24 to perform any work when you were at the New York | |
| 25 house? | |
| MAGNA9 | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-26 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 10 | |
| Page 141 | |
| 1 always covered himself with a towel. | |
| 2 Q. I believe I asked this, but I just want to | |
| 3 clarify to make sure that I did: Did Maxwell ever | |
| 4 ask you to bring other girls over to -- for Jeffrey? | |
| 5 A. Yes. | |
| 6 Q. Yes? | |
| 7 A. Yes. | |
| 8 Q. And what did you -- did you do anything in | |
| 9 response to that? | |
| 10 A. I did bring one girl named Francesca -- | |
| 11 no. Florence -- it was some girl named Florencia | |
| 12 that I had worked with at a restaurant. And I | |
| 13 recall Ghislaine giving me money to bring her over; | |
| 14 however, they never called her to come. | |
| 15 Q. And then I believe you mentioned that one | |
| 16 of your physical fitness instructors, you brought a | |
| 17 physical fitness instructor; was that correct? | |
| 18 A. Correct. | |
| 19 Q. And what did she do? | |
| 20 A. She gave him a -- like a training session, | |
| 21 twice. | |
| 22 Q. Twice. | |
| 23 Did anything sexual in nature happen | |
| 24 during the session? | |
| 25 A. At one point he lifted up her shirt and | |
| MAGNA9 | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-26 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 10 | |
| Page 142 | |
| 1 exposed her bra, and she grabbed it and pulled it | |
| 2 down. | |
| 3 Q. Anything else? | |
| 4 A. That was the conversation that he had told | |
| 5 her that he had taken this girl's virginity, the | |
| 6 girl by the pool. | |
| 7 Q. Okay. Did Maxwell ever say to you that it | |
| 8 takes the pressure off of her to have other girls | |
| 9 around? | |
| 10 A. She implied that, yes. | |
| 11 Q. In what way? | |
| 12 A. Sexually. | |
| 13 Q. And earlier Laura asked you, I believe, if | |
| 14 Maxwell ever asked you to perform any sexual acts, | |
| 15 and I believe your testimony was no, but then you | |
| 16 also previously stated that during the camera | |
| 17 incident that Maxwell had talked to you about not | |
| 18 finishing the job. | |
| 19 Did you understand "not finishing the job" | |
| 20 meaning bringing Jeffrey to orgasm? | |
| 21 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form. | |
| 22 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 23 Q. I'm sorry, Johanna, let me correct that | |
| 24 question. | |
| 25 What did you understand Maxwell to mean | |
| MAGNA9 | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-26 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 10 | |
| Page 143 | |
| 1 when she said you hadn't finished the job, with | |
| 2 respect to the camera? | |
| 3 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form. | |
| 4 THE WITNESS: She implied that I had not | |
| 5 brought him to orgasm. | |
| 6 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 7 Q. So is it fair to say that Maxwell expected | |
| 8 you to perform sexual acts when you were massaging | |
| 9 Jeffrey? | |
| 10 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form, | |
| 11 foundation. | |
| 12 THE WITNESS: I can answer? | |
| 13 Yes, I took that conversation to mean that | |
| 14 is what was expected of me. | |
| 15 BY MS. McCAWLEY: | |
| 16 Q. And then you mentioned, I believe, when | |
| 17 you were testifying earlier that Jeffrey told you a | |
| 18 story about sex on the plane. What was that about? | |
| 19 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, hearsay. | |
| 20 THE WITNESS: He told me one time Emmy was | |
| 21 sleeping on the plane, and they were getting | |
| 22 ready to land. And he went and woke her up, | |
| 23 and she thought that meant he wanted a blow | |
| 24 job, so she started to unzip his pants, and he | |
| 25 said, No, no, no, you just have to be awake for | |
| MAGNA9 | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-26 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 10 | |
| Page 150 | |
| 1 A. No. | |
| 2 Q. Was it in the context of anything? | |
| 3 A. About the camera that she had bought for | |
| 4 me. | |
| 5 Q. What did she say in relationship to the | |
| 6 camera that she bought for you and taking | |
| 7 photographs of you? | |
| 8 A. Just that Jeffrey would like to have some | |
| 9 photos of me, and she asked me to take photos of | |
| 10 myself. | |
| 11 Q. What did you say? | |
| 12 A. I don't remember saying no, but I never | |
| 13 ended up following through. I think I tried once. | |
| 14 Q. This was the pre-selfie era, correct? | |
| 15 A. Exactly. | |
| 16 Q. I want to go back to this: You testified | |
| 17 to two things just now with Sigrid that you said | |
| 18 were implied to you. | |
| 19 A. Okay. | |
| 20 Q. The first one was it would take pressure | |
| 21 off of Maxwell to have more girls around? | |
| 22 A. Right. | |
| 23 Q. What exactly did Maxwell say to you that | |
| 24 led you to believe that was her implication? | |
| 25 A. She said she doesn't have the time or | |
| MAGNA9 | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-26 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 10 | |
| Page 151 | |
| 1 desire to please him as much as he needs, and that's | |
| 2 why there were other girls around. | |
| 3 Q. And did she refer specifically to any | |
| 4 other girls? | |
| 5 A. No. | |
| 6 Q. Did she talk about underaged girls? | |
| 7 A. No. | |
| 8 Q. Was she talking about massage therapists? | |
| 9 A. Not specifically. | |
| 10 Q. Okay. There were other girls in the house | |
| 11 that were not massage therapists, correct? | |
| 12 A. Yes. | |
| 13 Q. Nadia is another person that was around, | |
| 14 correct? | |
| 15 A. Yes. | |
| 16 Q. There were other people he traveled with? | |
| 17 A. Uh-huh. | |
| 18 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. | |
| 19 BY MS. MENNINGER: | |
| 20 Q. Correct? | |
| 21 A. Correct. | |
| 22 Q. Other girls? | |
| 23 A. Yes. | |
| 24 Q. Adults? | |
| 25 A. Yes. | |
| MAGNA9 | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-26 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 10 | |
| Page 159 | |
| 1 CERTIFICATE OF OATH | |
| 2 STATE OF FLORIDA ) | |
| 3 COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE ) | |
| 4 | |
| 5 I, the undersigned authority, certify | |
| 6 that JOHANNA SJOBERG personally appeared before me | |
| 7 and was duly sworn. | |
| 8 WITNESS my hand and official seal this | |
| 9 18th day of May, 2016. | |
| 10 | |
| 11 | |
| KELLI ANN WILLIS, RPR, CRR | |
| 12 Notary Public, State of Florida | |
| My Commission No. FF911443 | |
| 13 Expires: 2/16/21 | |
| 14 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + | |
| 15 | |
| 16 | |
| 17 | |
| 18 | |
| 19 | |
| 20 | |
| 21 | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| MAGNA9 | |
| LEGAL SERVICES | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-26 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 10 | |
| United States District Court | |
| Southern District of New York | |
| Virginia L. Giuffre, | |
| Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS | |
| v. | |
| Ghislaine Maxwell, | |
| Defendant. | |
| ________________________________/ | |
| PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED1 | |
| CORRECTED2 | |
| REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO | |
| EXCEED PRESUMPTIVE TEN DEPOSITION LIMIT | |
| Sigrid McCawley | |
| BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP | |
| 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 | |
| 1 | |
| Pursuant to conferral with opposing counsel, Plaintiff has revised the first paragraph of this brief, as well as the | |
| second-to-last paragraph of Section I of this brief out of a concern Defendant raised with the use of the term “set” | |
| when referring to depositions. In an abundance of caution, to avoid unnecessary disputes and waste of this Court’s | |
| time, the undersigned agreed to revise the brief to remove the language in question. The remainder of this brief is | |
| unchanged. | |
| 2 | |
| On June 13, 2016, Ms. Giuffre filed her Reply in Support of her Motion to Exceed the Presumptive Ten Deposition | |
| Limit (DE 203). This brief contained excerpt from Rinaldo Rizzo’s “rough” deposition transcript, as the final | |
| transcript had not yet been completed by the stenographer. On June 14, 2016, the stenographer issued the “final” | |
| deposition transcript, and Ms. Giuffre hereby files the final transcript citations and excerpts to replace the “rough” | |
| transcript that accompanied her supporting Declaration (DE 204-2). There are no other changes to this document. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 15 | |
| Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 | |
| (954) 356-0011 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 15 | |
| i | |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS | |
| Page | |
| I. THE PROPOSED DEPOSITIONS ARE IMPORTANT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL | |
| CLAIMS AND DEFENSES IN THIS CASE, AND NONE ARE DUPLICATIVE. ........ 1 | |
| II. MS. GIUFFRE IS SEEKING HIGHLY RELEVANT TRIAL TESTIMONY. .................. 6 | |
| III. MS. GIUFFRE’S REQUEST IS TIMELY. ........................................................................ 9 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 15 | |
| ii | |
| TABLE OF AUTHORITIES | |
| Page | |
| Cases | |
| Atkinson v. Goord, | |
| No. 01 CIV. 0761 LAKHBP, 2009 WL 890682 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2009) ................................3 | |
| Gen. Elec. Co. v. Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am., | |
| No. 3:06-CV-232 (CFD), 2006 WL 1525970 (D. Conn. May 25, 2006) ..................................9 | |
| LiButti v. United States, | |
| 107 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 1997).......................................................................................................8 | |
| Rules | |
| Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) .........................................................................................................................7 | |
| Fed. R. Evid. 415(a) .........................................................................................................................7 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 15 | |
| 1 | |
| Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this reply | |
| in support of her Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit. The motion should be | |
| granted because Ms. Giuffre has shown good cause for needing to exceed the ten deposition limit | |
| and in light of recent developments, Ms. Giuffre has streamlined her request, and now seeks only | |
| a total of three additional depositions. The Court should grant her motion and allow her to take | |
| the three additional depositions. | |
| I. THE PROPOSED DEPOSITIONS ARE IMPORTANT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL | |
| CLAIMS AND DEFENSES IN THIS CASE, AND NONE ARE DUPLICATIVE. | |
| Defendant argues that the depositions Ms. Giuffre seeks to take are somehow | |
| “duplicative” of each other. Even a quick reading of the Defendant’s pleading makes clear this | |
| is untrue. Defendant repeatedly gives her own narrow view of what existing witnesses have said. | |
| For example, Defendant argues that Ms. Sjoberg “did not corroborate that [Ms. Giuffre] is telling | |
| the truth.” Defendant’s Response at 5. Defendant’s characterization is untrue.3 | |
| But, as the mere | |
| 3 Defendant wholly mischaracterized Ms. Sjoberg’s testimony as involving “professional | |
| massages.” Defendant’s Resp. at 5. In fact, Ms. Sjoberg testified that, when she was a twentyone-year-old college student, Defendant (not Jeffrey Epstein) recruited and hired her under the | |
| pretext of being a personal assistant to provide sexual massages. As one example of this | |
| testimony, Sjoberg testified that Defendant became angry with her for not “finishing your job” | |
| when Defendant was the one who ended up having to bring Epstein to orgasm when Ms. Sjoberg | |
| did not. See McCawley Dec at Exhibit 1, Sjoberg Dep. Tr. at 142:25-143:14(Q. What did you | |
| understand Maxwell to mean when you said that you hadn’t finished the job, with respect to the | |
| camera? A. She implied that I had not brought him to orgasm. Q. So is it fair to say that Maxwell | |
| expected you to perform sexual acts when you were massaging Jeffrey? A. I can answer? Yes, I | |
| took that conversation to mean that it what was expected of me.) Ms. Sjoberg’s testimony also | |
| shows that Defendant was a predator of young women and girls, and that her business was to | |
| provide girls for Jeffrey Epstein to have sex with. Id. at 141:3-5; 150:16-151:2 (Q. Did Maxwell | |
| ever ask you to bring other girls over to – for Jeffrey? A. Yes. Q. I want to go back to this: You | |
| testified to two things just now with Sigrid that you said were implied to you. A. Okay. Q. The | |
| first one was it would take pressure off of Maxwell to have more girls around? A. Right. Q. | |
| What exactly did Maxwell say to you that led you to believe that was her implication? A. She | |
| said she doesn’t have the time or desire to please him as much as he needs, and that’s why there | |
| were other girls around.). | |
| That Ms. Sjoberg never saw Ms. Giuffre give a massage to Ms. Maxwell is immaterial. Ms. | |
| Sjoberg was with Defendant and Epstein when Ms. Giuffre was a minor child, and corroborates | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 15 | |
| 2 | |
| fact of this dispute confirms, this case is going to be hotly contested and the weight of the | |
| evidence on each side is going to be vitally important. The Court is well aware of many other | |
| civil cases where the parties have taken far more than ten depositions by mutual agreement. | |
| Defendant’s refusal to agree to a few more depositions here is simply an effort to keep all the | |
| relevant facts from being developed. | |
| Since Ms. Giuffre filed her initial motion seeking seven additional deposition, she has | |
| worked diligently to try to streamline the necessary depositions and has discovered new | |
| information concerning witnesses and their knowledge of the claims in this case. Accordingly, | |
| Ms. Giuffre currently brings before this Court a significantly shorter list4 of witnesses she needs | |
| to depose to prove her claim, with some alterations. To be clear, Ms. Giuffre has narrowed her | |
| request and is now only seeking an additional three depositions from the Court as follows: | |
| For descriptions concerning the depositions already taken (Defendant; Ms. Sjoberg; Mr. | |
| Alessi; Mr. Rodgers; and Mr. Rizzo), and those yet to be taken (Mr. Epstein; Mr. Gow; | |
| Ms. Kellen; Ms. Marcinkova; Mr. Recarey; and Mr. Brunel), Ms. Giuffre references and | |
| incorporates her descriptions in the moving brief. The only remaining witness is William | |
| Jefferson Clinton. His deposition is necessary for the following reason: | |
| x In a 2011 interview, Ms. Giuffre mentioned former President Bill Clinton’s close | |
| personal relationship with Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein. While Ms. Giuffre made no | |
| allegations of illegal actions by Bill Clinton, Ms. Maxwell in her deposition raised Ms. | |
| Giuffre’s comments about President Clinton as one of the “obvious lies” to which she | |
| was referring in her public statement that formed the basis of this suit. Apart from the | |
| Ms. Giuffre’s accounts concerning her being trafficked to Prince Andrew. Id. at 21-22. Ms. | |
| Giuffre refers the Court to Ms. Sjoberg’s deposition testimony in its entirety (DE 173-5). It is | |
| depositions like this - verifying Ms. Giuffre’s account of being recruited by Defendant for sex | |
| with Epstein – that Defendant is trying avoid. However, multiple other witnesses have testimony | |
| that supports Ms. Giuffre’s claims, in different and various ways, and Ms. Giuffre needs that | |
| testimony to prove her defamation claim against Defendant. | |
| 4 Ms. Giuffre is no longer seeking the deposition testimony of Emmy Taylor, Jo Jo | |
| Fontanella, and Michael Reiter. | |
| Jane Doe 2 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 15 | |
| 3 | |
| Defendant and Mr. Epstein, former President Clinton is a key person who can provide | |
| information about his close relationship with Defendant and Mr. Epstein and disapprove | |
| Ms. Maxwell’s claims. | |
| Ms. Giuffre is still working diligently with opposing counsel, these witnesses, and their attorneys | |
| on scheduling, as well as identifying other witnesses who may have factual information about the | |
| case. But, at this time, she seeks this Court’s approval for an additional three depositions – | |
| depositions that will not consume the full seven hours presumptively allotted. | |
| All three prongs of the three-factor test to evaluate a motion for additional depositions | |
| strongly support granting the motion. Atkinson v. Goord, No. 01 CIV. 0761 LAKHBP, 2009 WL | |
| 890682, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2009). First, as reviewed in detail on a witness-by-witness basis | |
| above, the discovery sought is not duplicative. The proposed deponents include the individual | |
| who assisted in making the defamatory statement, women Defendant Maxwell hired to recruit | |
| girls for Jeffrey Epstein, an individual with intimate knowledge of Defendant and Epstein’s | |
| sexual trafficking ring, other victims of Jeffrey Epstein (including a then underage victim), Mr. | |
| Epstein himself, and other witnesses who can corroborate important pieces of Ms. Giuffre’s | |
| statements or refute Ms. Maxwell’s statements and positions. These witnesses’ testimony will | |
| corroborate Ms. Giuffre’s account of Defendant being a recruiter of females for Epstein and | |
| corroborate the type of abuse she and others suffered. Sadly, Ms. Giuffre is far from the only | |
| one of Defendant’s victims, and there are other witnesses whose testimony is necessary in order | |
| to demonstrate the truth of Ms. Giuffre’s claims and the falsity of the statements made by | |
| Defendant. | |
| Second, if Ms. Giuffre is denied these depositions, she will not have had the opportunity | |
| to obtain the information by other discovery in this case. The Court will recall from Ms. | |
| Giuffre’s opening motion that Defendant’s surprising lack of memory has, in no small part, | |
| - | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 15 | |
| 4 | |
| caused the need for additional depositions. See Motion at 5-8 (listing 59 examples of memory | |
| lapses during Ms. Maxwell deposition, including inability to remember events recorded on | |
| aircraft flight logs or a photograph). Defendant offers no explanation for her convenient | |
| forgetfulness. Moreover, evidence of being recruited by Defendant and being sexually assaulted | |
| is not something Ms. Giuffre can obtain through requests for production or through | |
| interrogatories. The only way of obtaining such evidence is from witness testimony by those | |
| who were victimized, those who assisted Defendant in recruiting and abuse, and those who | |
| observed the recruiting or the abuse. For example, Rinaldo Rizzo, an estate manager for a friend | |
| of Defendant and Epstein’s, testified about an episode where Defendant had threatened a terrified | |
| 15 year old girl and confiscated her passport to try to make her have sex with Epstein on his | |
| private island: See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, Rizzo Deposition 5 | |
| Mr. Rizzo testified about | |
| another episode where Defendant gave instructions to, and presided over, a group of eleven girls | |
| as young as 14 years old playing a “kissing game” with and for Jeffrey Epstein.6 | |
| Finally, the | |
| 5 See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, Rizzo *Final Dep. Tr. *52:6-7; *55:23-57:23. “Q. How old | |
| was this girl? A. 15 years old.” “What did she say? A. She proceeds to tell my wife and I that, | |
| and this is not – this is blurting out, not a conversation like I’m having a casual conversation, that | |
| quickly I was on an island, I was on the island and there was Ghislaine, there was Sarah, she said | |
| they asked me for sex, I said no. . . . And she says no, and she says Ghislaine took my passport. | |
| And I said what, and she says Sarah took her passport and phone and gave it to Ghislaine | |
| Maxwell, and at that point she said that she was threatened. And I said threatened? She says yes, | |
| I was threatened by Ghislaine not to discuss this. . . And she said that before she got there, she | |
| was threatened again by Jeffrey and Ghislaine not to talk about what I had mentioned earlier, | |
| about – again, the word she used was sex. Q. And during this time that you’re saying she is | |
| rambling, is her demeanor continues to be what you described it? A. Yes. Q. Was she in fear? A. | |
| Yes”. 6 See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, Rizzo *Final Dep. Tr. “Q. So in the house, tell me if I am | |
| wrong, you have Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and approximately 11 girls? A. Yes, | |
| somewhere between 11 and 12. Q. Can you describe the 11 to 12 girls to your memory? A. In my | |
| recollection, various of ages. They could have been from as young as 14, 15 to 18 maybe, 19 . . . | |
| very girlish.” *32:8-24; “Q. Once inside the house, what happens next? A. I showed Ghislaine | |
| and Jeffrey into the living room, and Ghislaine was the one that instructed the girls, pointing that | |
| they needed to come to the living room.” *34:5-10. “Q. What happens next? A. . . . it was getting | |
| - | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 15 | |
| 5 | |
| Defendant appears to be concealing critical evidence of the sexual abuse that other witnesses | |
| have testified she possesses. | |
| Yet Defendant has failed to produce a single photo | |
| in this case. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3, Alessi Deposition at 36-41. Document discovery | |
| and interrogatories are not helpful in obtaining this type of evidence: depositions are needed. | |
| Third, the burden and expense of this proposed discovery is limited to three additional | |
| depositions. Defendant in this case is a multi-millionaire with able counsel. Three depositions | |
| will not cause her undue burden, expense, or inconvenience. These depositions are important to | |
| resolving issues in this case. Given that very few witnesses reside within 100 miles of the | |
| courthouse and therefore cannot be compelled to trial, this request for only three additional | |
| depositions is a reasonable request. | |
| It is plain why Defendant does not want these depositions to go forward. Ms. Sjoberg, | |
| Mr. Alessi, and Mr. Rizzo’s testimony was harmful to Defendant’s case, and the additional | |
| depositions will provide further evidence that Defendant acted as Jeffrey Epstein’s madam, | |
| proving the truth of Ms. Giuffre’s statements that Defendant proclaimed publically as “obvious | |
| lies.” | |
| II. MS. GIUFFRE IS SEEKING HIGHLY RELEVANT TRIAL TESTIMONY. | |
| All of the people Ms. Giuffre seeks to depose have discoverable and important | |
| information regarding the elements of Ms. Giuffre’s claims. Ms. Giuffre stated that Defendant | |
| very perogative [sic], nothing I would want my children to see. The girls were grinding on each | |
| other, lifting up their tops, it was very inappropriate.” *37:11-38:6. “Q. What did you see next? | |
| A.. . . From what I knew, Jeffrey was with Ghislaine and now I have all these girls acting very | |
| inappropriate ….” *38:22-39:7. “Q. When the girls are kissing either Jeff or other girls where | |
| was Ghislaine Maxwell? A. Sitting right next to Jeffrey.” *40:24-41:3. “Q. Is there something | |
| you remember vividly? A. . . . I did pull the nanny aside and I was really, my wife and I were | |
| dumbfounded, profound of the situation, and she mentioned this was an occurrence that had | |
| happened before, and they called it the kissing game.” *41:8-17.” | |
| 1111 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 15 | |
| 6 | |
| recruited her and other young females for sex with Jeffrey Epstein. The people she now seeks to | |
| depose are all witnesses who can testify to Defendant working essentially as a madam for Jeffrey | |
| Epstein, recruiting young females for Epstein, or corroborate other important aspects of her | |
| statements. The fact that Defendant recruited girls, some of which were underage, for Epstein | |
| makes Ms. Giuffre’s claim that she was also recruited by Defendant to ultimately have sex with | |
| Epstein and others more credible – and that Defendant’s denials of any involvement in such | |
| recruiting is a bald-faced lie. Witnesses will testify that Defendant’s recruitment and | |
| management of the girls for Jeffrey Epstein was a major aspect of Defendant’s job, and that Ms. | |
| Giuffre’s account of her sexual abuse and Defendant’s involvement accords perfectly with other | |
| witnesses’ accounts of what Defendant’s job was for Epstein.7 | |
| That other young females were similarly recruited by the Defendant is evidence that Ms. | |
| Giuffre is telling the truth about her experiences – and thus direct evidence that Defendant | |
| defamed her when calling her a liar. Clearly, if Ms. Giuffre can establish that Defendant’s | |
| modus operandi was to recruit young females for Epstein, that helps corroborate Ms. Giuffre’s | |
| own testimony that Defendant recruited her for the same purposes and in the same manner. | |
| Although the Court need not make a final ruling on this evidentiary issue now, Rule 404(b) itself | |
| makes such testimony admissible. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) (other act “evidence may be | |
| admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, | |
| knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.”). Indeed, even more specifically | |
| than the general provisions of Rule 404(b), Rule 415 makes these other acts admissible, due to | |
| 7 Defendant’s specious suggestion that Ms. Giuffre heard about the other girls whom she | |
| recruited for sexual purposes and then decided to “hop on the band wagon” (Defendant’s Resp. | |
| at 8 n.7) tacitly admits that Defendant procured a “band wagon” of girls for Jeffrey Epstein to | |
| abuse. Moreover, Defendant cannot refute the documentary evidence that she was on Epstein | |
| private jet with Ms. Giuffre over 20 times while Ms. Giuffre was a minor – flights that | |
| Defendant is, quite conveniently, now unable to recall. Motion at 5-8. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 15 | |
| 7 | |
| the fact that those involved in sexual abuse of minors have a strong propensity for repeating | |
| those crimes. See Fed. R. Evid. 415(a)( (“In a civil case involving a claim for relief based on a | |
| party’s alleged sexual assault or child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the party | |
| committed any other sexual assault or child molestation.”). | |
| Entirely apart from corroborating Ms. Giuffre’s own individual abuse, however, | |
| Defendant fails to recognize that in calling Ms. Giuffre a “liar”, she was attacking all aspects of | |
| Ms. Giuffre’s account – including Ms. Giuffre’s statements that Defendant served generally as a | |
| recruiter of girls for Epstein and that Epstein sexually abused the underage girls that were | |
| brought to him. Thus, in this defamation case, the testimony of these witnesses are admissible | |
| not only to bolster Ms. Giuffre’s testimony about her individual abuse, but because they are | |
| simply part of the body of statements whose truth or falsity is at issue in this case. | |
| In addition, one of the witnesses that Ms. Giuffre seeks to depose is registered sex | |
| offender Jeffrey Epstein, who stands at the center of the case. Indeed, some of the most critical | |
| events took place in the presence of just three people: Ms. Giuffre, defendant Maxwell, and | |
| Epstein. If Epstein were to tell the truth, his testimony would fully confirm Ms. Giuffre’s | |
| account of her sexual abuse. Epstein, however, may well attempt to support Defendant by | |
| invoking the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions about his sexual abuse of Ms. | |
| Giuffre. Apparently privy to her former boyfriend Epstein’s anticipated plans in this regard,8 | |
| Defendant makes the claim that it would be a “convoluted argument” to allow Ms. Giuffre to use | |
| those invocations against her. Defendant’s Resp. at 3. Tellingly, Defendant’s response brief | |
| cites no authority to refute that proposition that adverse inference can be drawn against coconspirators. Presumably this is because, as recounted in Ms. Giuffre’s opening brief (at pp. 20- | |
| 8 | |
| In discovery, Defendant Maxwell has produced several emails between Epstein and herself | |
| discussing Ms. Giuffre. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 15 | |
| 8 | |
| 22), the Second Circuit’s seminal decision of LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. | |
| 1997), squarely upheld the drawing of adverse inferences based on a non-party’s invocation of a | |
| Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The Second Circuit instructed that, the circumstances of | |
| given case, rather than status of particular nonparty witness, determines whether nonparty | |
| witness' invocation of privilege against self-incrimination is admissible in course of civil | |
| litigation. Id. at122-23. The Second Circuit also held that, in determining whether nonparty | |
| witness’ invocation of privilege against self-incrimination in course of civil litigation and | |
| drawing of adverse inferences is admissible, court may consider the following nonexclusive | |
| factors: | |
| (1) nature of witness’ relationship with and loyalty to party; | |
| (2) degree of control which party has vested in witness in regard to key facts and subject | |
| matter of litigation; | |
| (3) whether witness is pragmatically noncaptioned party in interest and whether | |
| assertion of privilege advances interests of witness and party in outcome of litigation; and | |
| (4) whether witness was key figure in litigation and played controlling role in respect to | |
| its underlying aspects. | |
| Id. at 124-25. Ms. Giuffre will be able to establish that all these factors tip decisively in favor of | |
| allowing an adverse inference. Accordingly, her efforts to depose Epstein, Marcinkova, and | |
| Kellen seek important information that will be admissible at trial. | |
| III. MS. GIUFFRE’S REQUEST IS TIMELY. | |
| Defendant also argues that this motion is somehow “premature.” Defendant’s Resp. at | |
| 2-3. Clearly, if Ms. Giuffre had waited to file her motion until later, Defendant would have | |
| argued until the matter came too late. The motion is proper at this time because, as of the date of | |
| this filing, fact discovery closes in 17 days (although Ms. Giuffre has recently filed a motion for | |
| a 30-day extension of the deadline). In order to give the Court the opportunity to rule as far in | |
| advance as possible – thereby permitting counsel for both side to schedule the remaining | |
| depositions – Ms. Giuffre brings the motion now. She also requires a ruling in advance so that | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 15 | |
| 9 | |
| she can make final plans about how many depositions she has available and thus which | |
| depositions she should prioritize. 9 | |
| An additional reason this motion is appropriate now is that, despite Ms. Giuffre’s diligent | |
| pursuit of depositions, many witnesses have cancelled their dates, failed to appear, or wrongfully | |
| evaded service. These maneuvers have frustrated Ms. Giuffre’s ability to take their depositions | |
| in a logical and sequential fashion, complicating the planning of a deposition schedule. For | |
| example, on April 11, 2016, Ms. Giuffre served notice on Defendant’s counsel for the deposition | |
| of Rinaldo Rizzo, setting it for May 13, 2016. Nearly a month later, just a few days before that | |
| properly noticed deposition, Defendant’s counsel requested that it be rescheduled, and, therefore, | |
| that deposition did not take place until June 10, 2016. Additionally, three other important | |
| witnesses evaded Ms. Giuffre’s repeated efforts to serve them. It took Ms. Giuffre’s motion for | |
| alternative service (DE 160) to convince Jeffrey Epstein to allow his attorney to accept service of | |
| process. The Court also has before it Ms. Giuffre’s motion to serve Sarah Kellen and Nadia | |
| Marcinkova by alternative service. These witnesses’ evasion of service delayed the taking of | |
| their depositions, and, as of the date of this filing, none have been deposed yet. | |
| CONCLUSION | |
| For all these reasons, Ms. Giuffre should be allowed to take three more depositions than | |
| the presumptive ten deposition limit – a total of thirteen depositions. | |
| Dated: June 14, 2016. | |
| 9 | |
| Defendant tries to find support for her prematurity argument in Gen. Elec. Co. v. Indem. Ins. | |
| Co. of N. Am., No. 3:06-CV-232 (CFD), 2006 WL 1525970, at *2 (D. Conn. May 25, 2006). | |
| However, in that case, the Court found a motion for additional depositions to be premature, in | |
| part, because “[d]iscovery has not even commenced” . . . and the moving party “ha[d] not listed | |
| with specificity those individuals it wishes to depose.” Of course, neither of these points applies | |
| in this case at hand: the parties are approaching the close of fact discovery, and Ms. Giuffre has | |
| provided detailed information about each individual she has deposed already and still seeks to | |
| depose. | |
| 1111 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 15 | |
| 10 | |
| Respectfully Submitted, | |
| BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP | |
| By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley | |
| Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP | |
| 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 | |
| Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 | |
| (954) 356-0011 | |
| David Boies | |
| Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP | |
| 333 Main Street | |
| Armonk, NY 10504 | |
| Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, | |
| EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. | |
| 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 | |
| Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | |
| (954) 524-2820 | |
| Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) | |
| S.J. Quinney College of Law | |
| University of Utah | |
| 383 University St. | |
| Salt Lake City, UT 84112 | |
| (801) 585-520210 | |
| 10 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is | |
| not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 15 | |
| 11 | |
| CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | |
| I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 14th day of June, 2016, I electronically filed the | |
| foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the | |
| foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission | |
| of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. | |
| Laura A. Menninger, Esq. | |
| Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. | |
| HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. | |
| 150 East 10th Avenue | |
| Denver, Colorado 80203 | |
| Tel: (303) 831-7364 | |
| Fax: (303) 832-2628 | |
| Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com | |
| jpagliuca@hmflaw.com | |
| /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley | |
| Sigrid S. McCawley | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 15 | |
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | |
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | |
| --------------------------------------------------X | |
| VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, | |
| Plaintiff, | |
| v. | |
| GHISLAINE MAXWELL, | |
| Defendant. | |
| 15-cv-07433-RWS | |
| --------------------------------------------------X | |
| DEFENDANT’S COMBINED MEMORANDUM OF LAW | |
| IN OPPOSITION TO EXTENDING DEADLINE TO COMPLETE DEPOSITIONS AND | |
| MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATION OF RULE 45 ......................................... | |
| Laura A. Menninger | |
| Jeffrey S. Pagliuca | |
| HADDON, MORGAN, AND FOREMAN, P.C. | |
| East 10th Avenue | |
| Denver, CO 80203 | |
| 303.831.7364 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 32 | |
| i | |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS | |
| INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 | |
| BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 3 | |
| LEGAL AUTHORITY ................................................................................................................... 5 | |
| I. PLAINTIFF’S LACK OF DILIGENCE ................................................................................. 6 | |
| A. President Bill Clinton ........................................................................................................... 6 | |
| B. Ross Gow ............................................................................................................................. 9 | |
| C. Jean Luc Brunel ................................................................................................................. 10 | |
| D. Jeffrey Epstein ................................................................................................................... 12 | |
| E. Nadia Marcincova and Sarah Kellen ................................................................................. 14 | |
| II. FIFTH AMENDMENT BY EPSTEIN, KELLEN OR MARCINCOVA NOT ADMISSIBLE | |
| IN THIS CASE AGAINST MS. MAXWELL ...................................................................... 15 | |
| III. PLAINTIFF’S BAD FAITH DISCOVERY TACTICS SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED | |
| WITH EXTRA TIME ........................................................................................................ 18 | |
| 1. Plaintiff’s Rule 26 Revolving Door ............................................................................... 18 | |
| 2. Plaintiff’s Recurrent Rule 45 Violations ........................................................................ 19 | |
| IV. MS. MAXWELL’S GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY ................ 20 | |
| V. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO TAKE RE-DEPOSE PLAINTIFF AND TO DEPOSE | |
| SHARON CHURCHER EXISTS ........................................................................................ 23 | |
| VI. ALTERNATIVELY, ALL OTHER DEADLINES NEED TO BE EXTENDED ............... 24 | |
| CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................................... 26 | |
| ■ | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 32 | |
| ii | |
| TABLE OF AUTHORITIES | |
| Carlson v. Geneva City School Dist., 277 F.R.D. 90 (W.D.N.Y. 2011); compare Reese v. | |
| Virginia Intern. Terminals, Inc., 286 F.R.D. 282 (E.D. Va. 2012) ............................................ 6 | |
| Fox Industries, Inc. v. Gurovich, No. 03–CV–5166, 2006 WL 2882580, *11 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, | |
| 2006) ......................................................................................................................................... 19 | |
| Grochowski v. Phoenix Const., 318 F.3d 80, 86 (2d Cir.2003). ..................................................... 5 | |
| Iantosca v. Benistar Admin. Svcs., Inc., 765 F.Supp.2d 79 (D. Mass. 2011) ................................. 6 | |
| LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 1997) .......................................................... 16 | |
| Murphy v. Board of Educ., 196 F.R.D. 220, 222 (W.D.N.Y.2000) .............................................. 19 | |
| Perfect Pearl Co., Inc. v. Majestic Pearl & Stone, Inc., 889 F. Supp. 2d 453, 457 (S.D.N.Y. | |
| 2012) ........................................................................................................................................... 5 | |
| Sokol Holdings, Inc. v. BMD Munai, Inc., 05 Civ. 3749 (KMW)(DF), 2009 WL 2524611 at *7 | |
| (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2009) ........................................................................................................... 5 | |
| Usov v. Lazar, 13-cv-818 (RWS), 2014 WL 4354691, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014) ............. 20 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 32 | |
| 1 | |
| Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell (“Ms. Maxwell”) files this Combined Response | |
| (“Response”) in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Deadline to Complete Depositions | |
| (“Motion”) and Motion for Sanctions For Violation of Rule 45, and states as follows: | |
| INTRODUCTION | |
| Apparently, Plaintiff seeks to take six (6) depositions beyond the scheduling order | |
| deadline of July 1, yet has failed to demonstrate good cause or diligence as to any.1 | |
| The | |
| witnesses include (1) President Bill Clinton, a witness that Plaintiff initiated informal attempts to | |
| depose on June 9, and (2) Ross Gow, who Plaintiff began steps to depose under the Hague | |
| Convention in London last Friday, June 17. Plaintiff also seeks to untimely depose (3) Jean Luc | |
| Brunel, a witness she had noticed for a mid-June deposition, who apparently did not appear on | |
| that date with agreement and consent of Plaintiff’s counsel. | |
| The remaining three witnesses Plaintiff seeks to untimely depose are ones who repeatedly | |
| have expressed their intention to take the Fifth Amendment as to all questions posed. Counsel | |
| for (4) Jeffrey Epstein, offered to accept service on or about April 11 but Plaintiff ignored that | |
| offer for more than six weeks. Plaintiff only began on June 12 any attempt to schedule that | |
| deposition in the Virgin Islands. Last week, Mr. Epstein’s counsel filed a Motion to Quash his | |
| deposition subpoena. The final untimely depositions sought by Plaintiff are for witnesses | |
| (5) Sarah Kellen and (6) Nadia Marcincova, about whom Plaintiff has made no public claims and | |
| thus, have no testimony relevant to this defamation action concerning whether Plaintiff’s public | |
| 1 In her Amended Corrected Reply In Support of Motion to Exceed Ten Depositions, Plaintiff represents that she | |
| only seeks to take three depositions beyond the limit of ten and that she no longer seeks depositions of witnesses | |
| Emmy Taylor, Dana Burns, JoJo Fontanilla, and Michael Reiter. (Doc. #224 at 2 n.4) She does not state her | |
| intentions with respect to other witnesses, like Maria Alessi, that she noticed but never deposed. However, | |
| comparing that Reply with her other motions, counsel has deduced the remaining witnesses from whom Plaintiff | |
| apparently seeks to secure deposition testimony in July. Plaintiff has already taken 6 depositions and another | |
| scheduled tomorrow. Thus by the close of discovery she will have taken 7 of her allotted 10 depositions. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 32 | |
| 2 | |
| allegations about Ghislaine Maxwell are – or rather are not – true. The attempted service of | |
| subpoenas on Epstein, Kellen and Marcincova all violated Rule 45(a)(4) and should be | |
| sanctioned by this Court. | |
| As to all of these witnesses, Plaintiff has fallen far short of the “good cause” required by | |
| Rule 16(b)(4) to modify the Scheduling Order. In fact, for the most part, her failures to actively | |
| pursue depositions with these witnesses qualifies as in-excusable neglect: She frittered away | |
| seven of the eight months of the discovery period and now has placed Ms. Maxwell, this Court, | |
| and the witnesses in the untenable position of trying to accommodate her last-minute scramble. | |
| In the absence of any acceptable excuses, and for the limited evidentiary value that most of the | |
| requested witnesses can provide, this Court should deny the request for the extra time to take | |
| these six depositions. | |
| The only witnesses for whom depositions should be permitted following the discovery | |
| cut-off are: (1) Ms. Sharon Churcher, Plaintiff’s friend, advocate and former journalist with the | |
| Daily Mail, who filed a Motion to Quash her subpoena on the day before her scheduled | |
| deposition,2 | |
| and (2) Plaintiff, who refused to answer questions at her deposition concerning | |
| highly relevant, non-privileged information.3 | |
| Alternatively, if the Court is to grant additional time for Plaintiff to take depositions, Ms. | |
| Maxwell will be unduly prejudiced without sufficient additional time to (a) secure any witnesses | |
| to rebut testimony gleaned from these witnesses, (b) conduct discovery of Plaintiff’s retained | |
| experts, (c) submit a summary judgment motion which includes facts learned from these late | |
| depositions, and (d) prepare for trial. Thus, if the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion, the remaining | |
| deadlines in the Scheduling Order ought to be extended accordingly. | |
| 2 Ms. Churcher’s motion to quash will be heard this Thursday by the Court. | |
| 3 Ms. Maxwell is filing simultaneously with this Response a Motion to Re-Open Plaintiff’s Deposition. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 32 | |
| 3 | |
| BACKGROUND | |
| To divert attention away from her own lack of diligence, Plaintiff characteristically | |
| devotes much of her Motion blaming Ms. Maxwell and her counsel for her own problems with | |
| depositions. Not only is Plaintiff’s account factually inaccurate, none of it matters to whether | |
| she could timely complete the six depositions at issue. | |
| For example, the scheduling of Ms. Maxwell’s deposition (which depended, among other | |
| things, on an historic snowstorm, a disputed protective order, Plaintiff’s failure to timely produce | |
| documents, and counsel’s conflicting calendars, all of which have been amply documented with | |
| this Court)4 | |
| does not inform any analysis regarding Plaintiff’s lack of diligence in pursuing | |
| depositions of these six witnesses. See Rule 26d)(3) (“Unless the parties stipulate or the court | |
| orders otherwise for the parties’ and witnesses’ convenience and in the interests of justice: (A) | |
| methods of discovery may be used in any sequence, and (B) discovery by one party does not | |
| require any other party to delay its discovery.”). Likewise, receipt of Ms. Maxwell’s Rule 26 | |
| disclosures in February also had nothing to do with these witnesses. Id. Notably, each of the | |
| witnesses who Plaintiff now seeks to depose were known to her from the outset; all but President | |
| Clinton were included in her initial Rule 26 disclosures served on November 11, 2015 and two of | |
| the six were specifically mentioned in Plaintiff’s Complaint. | |
| Finally, the fact that witness Rinaldo Rizzo had a deposition re-scheduled from April | |
| until June does not have any bearing on the issue presented by this motion. Mr. Rizzo was | |
| deposed on June 14 and he has nothing to do with the remaining depositions. Mr. Rizzo, in fact, | |
| was practically gleeful to be a witness: he was the one who initiated contact with Brad Edwards | |
| after reading about the lawsuit, asked to be a witness in this case, hopes to make money from this | |
| 4 Doc. #62 & Tr. of Hearing of Mar. 24 at 4. | |
| - | |
| - | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 32 | |
| 4 | |
| case, already has sued Glenn Dubin, Epstein’s friend, had counsel who was totally cooperative in | |
| the rescheduling and reported fanciful and never-before heard claims about Ms. Maxwell, the | |
| Dubins and others that he has never reported to any law enforcement even though he claims that | |
| he witnessed potential kidnappings and sexual assaults on children.5 | |
| Plaintiff’s claim that Mr. | |
| Rizzo is an “example of delay that has harmed [her] ability to obtain all depositions in a timely | |
| manner” (Mot. at 3) is specious. | |
| Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, discovery began in this case on October 23, 2015, | |
| following the parties’ Rule 26(f) conferral. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d)(1). At the Rule 16(b) | |
| scheduling conference on October 28, 2015, this Court directed the parties to complete all fact | |
| discovery by July 1, 2016. (Doc. #13) On November 30, 2015, contemporaneous with the filing | |
| of her Rule 12(b) Motion to Dismiss, Ms. Maxwell also requested of this Court a stay of | |
| discovery pursuant to Rule 26(c). (Doc. #17) That motion was denied on January 20, 2016, with | |
| an additional two-week period granted to respond to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of | |
| Documents.6 | |
| The discovery was thus never stayed. | |
| Plaintiff erroneously asserts that that discovery “did not commence in this matter until” | |
| February 8. What she means is that she neglected to seek any non-witness depositions until then; | |
| nothing in the Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court’s Orders, or the law prevented Plaintiff from | |
| doing so at any point after October 23, 2015.7 | |
| Plaintiff has had over eight months to subpoena | |
| 5 See, Menninger Declaration, Ex. A (Rizzo deposition transcript excerpts). Of course, Plaintiff’s counsel has | |
| engaged in their own last-minute “unavailability” for a deposition scheduled by Ms. Maxwell, as to Plaintiff’s | |
| former fiancé, a witness who is hostile, required numerous service attempts at great cost and inconvenience, and | |
| who then (because of Plaintiff’s last minute unavailability) had to be re-served by a process server who swam | |
| through a swamp to get to his home, at additional cost and inconvenience. | |
| 6 By agreement of the parties, the time to respond was extended an additional six days because defense counsel was | |
| in a jury trial at the time the Court’s Order was handed down. | |
| 7 See, e.g., Pltf’s Opp’n to Mot. to Stay (Doc. #20) at 17 n.8 (“As of the date of this filing, zero (0) disposition [sic] | |
| notices have been propounded on the Defendant.”). | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 32 | |
| 5 | |
| witnesses, schedule depositions and conduct them. Instead, she waited until the last minute and | |
| now complains of lack of time. Any lack of time is a product of her own bad faith and negligent | |
| litigation tactics and should not be sanctioned by this Court. | |
| The failure to timely secure the depositions of the remaining six witnesses is through no | |
| fault of Ms. Maxwell or her counsel. As to these witnesses, Ms. Maxwell and her counsel have | |
| played no role in hindering Plaintiff’s ability to depose the witnesses; in fact, as to four of the six | |
| Plaintiff attempted to serve subpoenas on the witnesses before ever providing notice to the | |
| defense, in clear violation of Rule 45(a)(4). | |
| LEGAL AUTHORITY | |
| Rule 16(b) permits modification of a scheduling order only upon a showing of “good | |
| cause.” To satisfy the good cause standard “the party must show that, despite its having | |
| exercised diligence, the applicable deadline could not have been reasonably met.” Sokol | |
| Holdings, Inc. v. BMD Munai, Inc., 05 Civ. 3749 (KMW)(DF), 2009 WL 2524611 at *7 | |
| (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2009) (emphasis added) (citing Rent-A-Center Inc. v. 47 Mamaroneck Ave. | |
| Corp., 215 F.R.D. 100, 104 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (McMahon, J.)); accord Parker v. Columbia | |
| Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d 326, 340 (2d Cir. 2000) (“ ‘[G]ood cause’ depends on the diligence of | |
| the moving party.”); Perfect Pearl Co., Inc. v. Majestic Pearl & Stone, Inc., 889 F. Supp. 2d 453, | |
| 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (Engelmeyer, J.) (“To show good cause, a movant must demonstrate that it | |
| has been diligent, meaning that, despite its having exercised diligence, the applicable deadline | |
| could not have been reasonably met.”). | |
| Good cause depends on the diligence of the moving party in seeking to meet the | |
| scheduling order. Grochowski v. Phoenix Const., 318 F.3d 80, 86 (2d Cir.2003). The Oxford | |
| Dictionary defines “diligence” as “careful and persistent work or effort.” See “diligence” at | |
| http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/diligence (last accessed on | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 32 | |
| 6 | |
| June 18, 2016). “Good cause” and diligence were not shown when a party raised the prospect of | |
| a deposition nine days prior to the discovery deadline. Carlson v. Geneva City School Dist., 277 | |
| F.R.D. 90 (W.D.N.Y. 2011); compare Reese v. Virginia Intern. Terminals, Inc., 286 F.R.D. 282 | |
| (E.D. Va. 2012) (depositions noticed very early in discovery period and movant engaged in | |
| continuing meet-and-confer dialogue with defendants throughout five month discovery period); | |
| Iantosca v. Benistar Admin. Svcs., Inc., 765 F.Supp.2d 79 (D. Mass. 2011) (correspondence | |
| indicated that the plaintiffs had tried on numerous occasions to schedule the depositions and to | |
| extend the discovery schedule but that the defendants had either refused or failed to respond, | |
| good cause found). | |
| ARGUMENT | |
| I. PLAINTIFF’S LACK OF DILIGENCE | |
| Plaintiff has demonstrated an extreme lack of diligence in securing the remaining six | |
| depositions that she seeks. | |
| A. President Bill Clinton | |
| Plaintiff’s Motion failed to mention any desire to take the deposition of former President | |
| Clinton. No Notice of Deposition has been served and no scheduling of his deposition has | |
| commenced. Indeed, President Clinton first appeared on Plaintiff’s Third Revised Rule 26 | |
| Disclosures two weeks ago on June 1. Then, last week, in her Reply In Support of Motion to | |
| Exceed Ten Depositions filed on June 13 (“Reply”), Plaintiff averred that President Clinton’s | |
| deposition is “necessary” because Ms. Maxwell “in her deposition [on April 25] raised Ms. | |
| Giuffre’s comments about President Clinton as one of the ‘obvious lies’ to which she was | |
| referring in her public statement that formed the basis of this suit.” Reply at 3. This is utter | |
| nonsense and nothing more than a transparent ploy by Plaintiff to increase media exposure for | |
| her sensational stories through deposition side-show. This witness has nothing relevant to add | |
| - | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 32 | |
| 7 | |
| to this case and Plaintiff has made no effort, much less one in good faith to timely secure his | |
| testimony. | |
| Plaintiff admits she has “made not allegations of illegal actions by Bill Clinton.” Id. But | |
| Plaintiff has asserted that she spent time with President Clinton on the island of Little St. James, | |
| US Virgin Islands and that she flew there with the President in a helicopter piloted by Ms. | |
| Maxwell. In one article, authored by Sharon Churcher, Plaintiff related: | |
| “On one occasion, she adds, Epstein did invite two young brunettes to dinner | |
| which he gave on his Caribbean island for Mr. Clinton shortly after he left office. | |
| But as far as she knows, the ex-President did not take the bait. ‘I’d have been | |
| about 17 at the time,’ she says. ‘I flew to the Caribbean with Jeffrey and then | |
| Ghislaine Maxwell went to pick up Bill in a huge black helicopter that Jeffrey | |
| bought her. She’d always wanted to fly and Jeffrey paid for her to take lessons, | |
| and I remember she was very excited because she got her license around the first | |
| year we met. I used to get frightened flying with her but Bill had the Secret | |
| Service with him and I remember him talking about what a good job she did. I | |
| only met Bill twice but Jeffrey told me they were good friends.’ | |
| ‘We all dined together that night. Jeffrey was at the head of the table. Bill was at | |
| his left. I sat across from him. Emmy Taylor, Ghislaine’s blonde British assistant, | |
| sat at my right. Ghislaine was at Bill’s left and at the left of Ghislaine there were | |
| two olive-skinned brunettes who’d flown in with us from New York. I’d never | |
| met them before. I’d say they were no older than 17, very innocent-looking. They | |
| weren’t there for me. They weren’t there for Jeffrey or Ghislaine because I was | |
| there to have sex with Jeffrey on the trip. Maybe Jeffrey thought they would | |
| entertain Bill, but I saw no evidence that he was interested in them. He and | |
| Jeffrey and Ghislaine seemed to have a very good relationship. Bill was very | |
| funny. He made me laugh a few times. And he and Jeffrey and Ghislaine told | |
| blokey jokes and the brunettes listened politely and giggled. After dinner I gave | |
| Jeffrey an erotic massage. I don’t remember seeing Bill again on the trip but I | |
| assume Ghislaine flew him back.” | |
| See Sharon Churcher, “Teenage girl recruited by peadophile Jeffrey Epstein reveals how she | |
| twice met Bill Clinton,” DAILY MAIL (Mar. 5, 2011) (attached to Declaration of Sharon | |
| Churcher, Ex. 3 (Doc. #216-3). Similarly, in Plaintiff’s unpublished and un-dated book | |
| manuscript, The Billionaire Playboys’ Club, she writes: | |
| “The next big dinner party on the island had another significant guest appearance | |
| being the one and only, Bill Clinton. He is the only president in the world to be | |
| - | |
| - | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 32 | |
| 8 | |
| dismissed from his role as a world leader because he was caught with his trousers | |
| around his ankles and had the stain to prove it. Publicly humiliating his wife and | |
| himself he retired from his title but not from his lifestyle. This wasn't a big party | |
| as such, only a few of us eating at the diner table. There was Jeffrey at the head of | |
| it all, as always. On the left side was Emmy, Ghislaine and I sitting across the | |
| table from us was Bill with two lovely girls who were visiting from New York. | |
| Bill's wife, Hillary's absence from the night made it easy for his apparent | |
| provocative cheeky side to come out. Teasing the girls on either side of him with | |
| playful pokes and brassy comments, there was no modesty between any of them. | |
| We all finished our meals and scattered in our own different directions.” | |
| Menninger Decl. Ex. B at 110. | |
| Each and every part of Plaintiff’s claims regarding President Clinton has conclusively | |
| been proven false. Former FBI Director Louis Freeh submitted a report wherein he concluded | |
| that President Clinton “did not, in fact travel to, nor was he present on, Little St. James Island | |
| between January 1, 2001 and January 1, 2003.” Menninger Decl., Ex. C. Further, if any Secret | |
| Service agents had accompanied Clinton to that location, “they would have been required to | |
| make and file shift logs, travel vouchers, and related documentation relating to the visit,” and | |
| there was a “total absence” of any such documentation. Id. Remarkably, Plaintiff now even | |
| denies telling Churcher that she ever witnessed Ms. Maxwell flying President Clinton or his | |
| Secret Service anywhere, or joking with Clinton about “what a good job she did.” Menninger | |
| Decl., Ex. D. Plaintiff’s counsel remarkably instructed Plaintiff not to answer any additional | |
| questions about the other things Sharon Churcher inaccurately reported. Id. Lending even more | |
| incredulity to Plaintiff’s story, Ms. Maxwell only received her pilot’s license in mid-1999 casting | |
| insurmountable doubt that a recently retired president and his staff would be permitted to fly | |
| with her at the helm. | |
| With the record thus, Plaintiff’s claims about Clinton’s presence on the Island and the | |
| fully concocted story about the dinner party that occurred thereon totally debunked by the former | |
| head of the FBI and with Plaintiff now disclaiming she ever witnessed the Secret Service or | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 32 | |
| 9 | |
| President Clinton being flown in a helicopter by Ghislaine Maxwell, the relevance of any | |
| testimony he might add (i.e., confirm that he was, as Louis Freeh determined, never on the | |
| Island) is non-existent. The only purpose for seeking this deposition is for the calculated media | |
| strategy that Plaintiff and her publicity-seeking attorneys have devised. | |
| Plaintiff failed to disclose President Clinton as a witness until June 1, failed to notice his | |
| deposition, failed to diligently pursue a subpoena on him and he has no relevant testimony to | |
| offer. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s leave to modify the scheduling order to permit his deposition | |
| should be denied. | |
| B. Ross Gow | |
| As the Court likely recalls, Ross Gow actually issued the statement pertinent to this | |
| defamation suit. Plaintiff has known about Ross Gow and his role in this lawsuit since the | |
| outset: She referenced him repeatedly by name in the Complaint filed on September 21, 2015. | |
| See, e.g., Complaint paragraph 29 (“As part of Maxwell’s campaign, she directed her agent, Ross | |
| Gow, to attack Giuffre’s honesty and truthfulness and to accuse Giuffre of lying.”). Plaintiff also | |
| has been well aware throughout that Mr. Gow resides in London. See, e.g., Plaintiff’s Motion to | |
| Compel Improper Privileges, at 8 (Doc. #33). | |
| After filing that Complaint in September and litigating the Motion to Compel based on | |
| privileges related to Mr. Gow in March, Plaintiff took exactly zero steps to depose Mr. Gow until | |
| she filed this Motion. Now, nine months after filing her Complaint, Plaintiff contends there is | |
| “not sufficient time” for her to “go through the Hague Convention for service on Mr. Gow” so as | |
| to “complete this process before the June 30, 2016 deadline.” Mot. at 4. Indeed, Plaintiff only | |
| initiated that process three days ago, on Friday, June 17, two weeks shy of the discovery cut-off. | |
| Plaintiff, once again, tries to blame Ms. Maxwell for her own lack of diligence by | |
| misrepresenting to this Court that “Ms. Giuffre asked that Defendant produce her agent, Mr. | |
| 1111 | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 32 | |
| 10 | |
| Gow, for a deposition but Defendant has refused…despite acknowledging that Defendant plans | |
| to call Mr. Gow for testimony at trial.” Id. In truth, Plaintiff sent a letter on May 23 which read | |
| in its entirety, “This letter is to seek your agreement to produce Ross Gow for deposition, as the | |
| agent for your client, Ms. Maxwell. We can work with Mr. Gow’s schedule to minimize | |
| inconvenience. Please advise by Wednesday, May 25, 2016, whether you will produce Mr. Gow | |
| or whether we will need to seek relief from the Court with respect to his deposition.” Menninger | |
| Decl. Ex. E. That was the first communication regarding any deposition of Mr. Gow. Two days | |
| later, defense counsel requested any “legal authority that would allow Ms. Maxwell to ‘produce’ | |
| Ross Gow for a deposition” or “any rule or case that would either enable or require her to do so.” | |
| Id. Plaintiff never responded. She also has not explained when or how Ms. Maxwell | |
| “acknowledged” her “plans to call Mr. Gow for testimony at trial,” nor why that is relevant to | |
| whether Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for her own failure to take steps to depose a | |
| foreign witness deposition until June 17, for a witness she was aware before even filing the | |
| Complaint. | |
| During the hearing on March 24, this Court stated that it would consider expect to see | |
| “good faith showing” of efforts to comply with the schedule and “an inability because of Hague | |
| Convention problems,” before it would consider changing the Scheduling Order. Ms. Maxwell | |
| submits that waiting until June 17, two weeks before the end of discovery, to even begin the | |
| Hague Convention process falls far short of any such good faith showing and the request for | |
| leave to take Mr. Gow’s testimony beyond July 1 should be denied. | |
| C. Jean Luc Brunel | |
| With regard to Jean Luc Brunel, Plaintiff simply asserts that he was “subpoenaed,” and | |
| “set for mid-June deposition[],” but “through counsel” has “requested we change the dates of | |
| [his] deposition.” Mot. at 4. That is her entire argument. She omits key facts that would, | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 32 | |
| 11 | |
| instead, demonstrate her lack of diligence in securing Mr. Brunel’s testimony and also show that | |
| she has waived any right to seek an out-of-time deposition. | |
| Plaintiff first issued a Notice of a Rule 45 subpoena for documents from Mr. Brunel on | |
| February 16, at an address “c/o” attorney, Joe Titone. No documents were ever produced | |
| pursuant to that subpoena. Menninger Decl., Ex. F. Then, on May 23, 2016, Plaintiff issued a | |
| new “Notice of Subpoena Duces Tecum,” attached to which was actually a subpoena for | |
| deposition testimony to occur on June 8, at 9:00 a.m. in New York. Id. Again, the subpoena was | |
| addressed “c/o” attorney Robert Hantman. Then, on June 2, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email that | |
| they had received “an email yesterday from Mr. Brunel's attorney saying he needs to reschedule. | |
| I believe he is trying to get us new dates today or tomorrow.” Id. The “scheduled date” of June | |
| 8 came and went without any indication of any new dates provided by Mr. Brunel’s counsel. | |
| The following week, Plaintiff’s counsel stated in a phone conversation that Mr. Brunel’s counsel | |
| said his client had gone to France and it was unclear when he would be returning to the United | |
| States. | |
| Following the filing of the instant motion, counsel for Ms. Maxwell requested copies of | |
| the certificates of service for all of Plaintiff’s Rule 45 subpoenas in this case. Plaintiff’s counsel | |
| provided certificates on June 14. Notably absent was any certificate of service for Mr. Brunel. | |
| Thus, either Mr. Brunel was never served, or he was served and Plaintiff unilaterally extended | |
| his compliance date to an unscheduled time in the future. Either way, the time to complain about | |
| a witness’s non-compliance is at or near the time it occurs. Failure to timely complain regarding | |
| non-compliance with a subpoena constitutes a waiver. In any event, whether served or not, Mr. | |
| Brunel apparently promised to provide new dates before his deposition date came and went, did | |
| not do so, has left the country and not indicated a present intention to return. Given Plaintiff’s | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 32 | |
| 12 | |
| role in failing to compel him to attend a deposition, no “good cause” has been demonstrated to | |
| take the deposition of Mr. Brunel after July 1. | |
| D. Jeffrey Epstein | |
| As with the other witnesses, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate “good cause” for seeking | |
| to depose Jeffrey Epstein out of time. Plaintiff claims that she was unable to secure service on | |
| Mr. Epstein until May 27, 2016, because his counsel “refused to accept service” until she filed | |
| her motion for alternative service. The documents reflect the opposite: Mr. Epstein’s attorney | |
| agreed to accept service on April 11, 2016, and it was only on May 27, 2016, that Plaintiff | |
| agreed. See Poe Declaration in Support of Motion to Quash Epstein Deposition, Ex. 3 (Doc. # | |
| 223-3). Plaintiff fails to explain her strategic decision, or negligence, in failing to respond for | |
| over six weeks to Mr. Weinberg’s email offering to accept service. Indeed, in another failure of | |
| candor, Plaintiff’s counsel also neglected to tell this Court about the email offer from Mr. | |
| Weinberg either in the instant motion or in her motion to serve Mr. Epstein by alternate means. | |
| Mot. at 2; Doc. # 160.8 | |
| Plaintiff apparently now claims that she never received that email from Martin Weinberg. | |
| All of the preceding communications, however, indicate that Mr. Weinberg promptly responded | |
| to Ms. McCawley’s inquiries. See, e.g., Poe Declaration, Ex. 2 (email of April 6 from Weinberg | |
| to McCawley (offering to let her know regarding acceptance of service on April 7)); email of | |
| McCawley in response (“That works fine – thank you.”)). Thus, if Ms. McCawley received no | |
| follow up response from Mr. Weinberg, as she now claims, when he had been corresponding | |
| 8 | |
| In another glaring omission from Plaintiff’s submissions to the Court on the topic of the service of Mr. Epstein, | |
| Plaintiff’s own counsel have strenuously litigated in other cases that Mr. Epstein is a resident of Florida, over his | |
| objection that he is a resident of the U.S. Virgin Islands. See, e.g., Menninger Decl., Ex. G (Motion to Quash | |
| Subpoena on Jeffrey Epstein, Broward County, Florida, 15-000072). Yet, all of Plaintiff’s purported attempts at | |
| service on Mr. Epstein were in New York. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 32 | |
| 13 | |
| with her previously theretofore, she had a duty to follow up on that inquiry. A failure to do so is | |
| plain vanilla neglect. | |
| Even after agreeing to the terms proposed by Epstein’s counsel on May 27, that is, | |
| location of the deposition in the U.S. Virgin Islands and subject to right to oppose the subpoena, | |
| Plaintiff then waited an additional three weeks until June 12, to even attempt to schedule | |
| Epstein’s deposition. Epstein Memorandum in Support of Mot. to Quash at 2 (Doc. # 222). | |
| Agreeing to take a deposition in the Virgin Islands on May 27, then waiting until June 12, to try | |
| to schedule a date for that deposition, when numerous other depositions had already been | |
| scheduled in New York, Florida, and California for the balance of June, is either neglect or | |
| strategic posturing by Plaintiff. Either way, it does not amount to “good cause” for such a | |
| deposition to take place beyond July 1. | |
| Finally, Plaintiff suggests, without factual foundation, that Ms. Maxwell played some | |
| role in Mr. Epstein’s counsel’s refusal to accept service. See Mot. at 2 (“forced to personally | |
| serve the Defendant’s former boyfriend, employer, and co-conspirator”). As the timeline and | |
| documents now reveal, however, Plaintiff failed to provide notice to Ms. Maxwell that she was | |
| attempting to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Mr. Epstein for more than 7 weeks! Id. Plaintiff | |
| states that she began her service attempts on March 7, 2016. The very first Notice of Subpoena | |
| and Deposition served on Ms. Maxwell, however, is dated April 27. Menninger Decl. Ex. H. | |
| Thus, between March 7 and April 27, Ms. McCawley engaged in repeated attempts to serve Mr. | |
| Epstein a Rule 45 subpoena (including a request for documents) without providing the proper | |
| notice to the parties pursuant to Rule 45(a)(4) (“If the subpoena commands the production of | |
| documents… , then before it is served on the person to whom it is directed, a notice and a copy | |
| of the subpoena must be served on each party.”) (emphasis added). As detailed below, this was | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 32 | |
| 14 | |
| not an isolated incident and merits sanction. In any event, it is difficult to imagine how it is Ms. | |
| Maxwell’s fault that Plaintiff could not serve Mr. Epstein when she was never put on notice of | |
| any attempt to do so. | |
| Given that Plaintiff knew as of April 11 the conditions pursuant to which Mr. Epstein | |
| would accept service through counsel, yet waited until May 27 to agree to those terms, and then | |
| waited another nearly three weeks to attempt to schedule Mr. Epstein’s deposition on a date | |
| available for his counsel and Ms. Maxwell’s counsel, Plaintiff has fallen far short of | |
| demonstrating “good cause” for taking Mr. Epstein’s deposition beyond the end of the fact | |
| discovery cut-off. | |
| E. Nadia Marcincova and Sarah Kellen | |
| Finally, Plaintiff seeks the depositions of two other witnesses – Sarah Kellen and Nadia | |
| Marcincova -- who, she complains, “despite being represented by counsel, have refused to accept | |
| service.”9 | |
| Mot. at 3. Plaintiff claims that her process servers tried for three weeks (from April | |
| 25 until May 18) to personally serve Ms. Kellen and Ms. Marcincova with subpoenas duces | |
| tecum. She did not explain, however, why she waited until April to try to serve these two | |
| witnesses, about whom her attorneys have known since 2008. She also has not explained to this | |
| Court any legally relevant or admissible evidence that either possess, nor how she intends to | |
| introduce that evidence in a trial of this defamation claim between Plaintiff and Ms. Maxwell. | |
| Apart from these witnesses stated intent to take the Fifth Amendment which renders their | |
| testimony inadmissible, as discussed more fully below, neither witness has any relevant | |
| testimony to offer because Plaintiff never made a public statement about either one of them. | |
| 9 | |
| Actually, in Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Three Deposition Subpoenas by Means Other than Personal | |
| Service, Plaintiff details that Ms. Marcincova’s counsel stated he no longer represents her. (Doc. #161 at 5) | |
| (“counsel for Ms. Giuffre reached out to Ms. Marcinkova’s former counsel but he indicated that he could not accept | |
| service as he no longer represents her”). It is unclear then, why Plaintiff persists in representing to this Court that | |
| Ms. Marcincova instructed her counsel not to accept service, or why Plaintiff seeks to serve Ms. Marcincova | |
| through her former counsel. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 32 | |
| 15 | |
| Plaintiff did not include either woman in her Sharon Churcher-paid interviews, nor were they | |
| mentioned in Plaintiff’s Joinder Motion of December 30, 2014. Thus, neither Plaintiff’s | |
| allegations about Ms. Maxwell, nor Ms. Maxwell’s denial of the same based on her personal | |
| knowledge, are implicated by anything that Ms. Kellen or Ms. Marcincova may have done with | |
| anyone else. Their testimony cannot corroborate Plaintiff’s account, nor can it shed light on | |
| whether Ms. Maxwell’s denial of that account is accurate, because Plaintiff’s account did not | |
| mention either of them. | |
| Finally as to these witnesses, Plaintiff once again documented her own failure to comply | |
| with Rule 45 in regard to attempts to serve these two witnesses. Six of the service attempts | |
| occurred on April 25 and April 26. Yet Plaintiff only provided Notice to Ms. Maxwell of her | |
| intent to serve the subpoenas on April 27. Menninger Decl. Ex. I. | |
| II. FIFTH AMENDMENT BY EPSTEIN, KELLEN OR MARCINCOVA NOT | |
| ADMISSIBLE IN THIS CASE AGAINST MS. MAXWELL | |
| The depositions of Epstein, Kellen and Marcincova do not constitute “good cause” to | |
| modify the scheduling order in this case for the additional reason that they all have represented to | |
| Plaintiff their intention to assert the Fifth Amendment protection as to all questions and such | |
| assertion will not be admissible evidence in this trial. Indeed, counsel for Mr. Epstein recently | |
| filed a Motion to Quash his subpoena based on the same legal principle that his deposition is | |
| unduly burdensome in light of the fact that it will not lead to admissible evidence. (Doc. # 221, | |
| 222, 223) The Court should consider this additional factor to decline a finding of “good cause” | |
| for extending the discovery deadline. | |
| Plaintiff wrongfully contends that any assertion of the Fifth Amendment during the | |
| depositions of Epstein, Kellen and Marincova will be admissible in the trial of this defamation | |
| matter (where none of those individuals are parties) based on an “adverse inference” that can be | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 32 | |
| 16 | |
| drawn against Ms. Maxwell. See LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 1997). In | |
| fact, none of the LiButti factors support her argument. While noting that Ms. Maxwell | |
| anticipates more extensive briefing on this issue in support of Mr. Epstein’s Motion to Quash, a | |
| few facts bear mentioning here: | |
| x Ms. Maxwell was the employee of Mr. Epstein --in the 1990s -- not the other way | |
| around. Mr. Epstein has never worked for or been in control of Ms. Maxwell. | |
| x Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein have had no financial, professional or employment | |
| relationship in more than a decade, many years before 2015 when the purportedly | |
| defamatory statement was published. Ms. Maxwell testified that she has not spoken to | |
| Mr. Epstein in 2 years. | |
| x Maxwell has not vested any control in Mr. Epstein “in regard to key facts and subject | |
| matter of litigation.” As the Court is well aware from review of emails submitted in | |
| camera (and later produced to Plaintiff): | |
| o Mr. Epstein and his counsel gave advice to Maxwell regarding whether she | |
| should issue a statement after January 2, 2015. In one, Mr. Epstein even | |
| suggested what such a statement might say. Maxwell never issued any additional | |
| statement. | |
| o Maxwell had her own counsel who operated independently of Mr. Epstein and his | |
| counsel. | |
| x Epstein is not “pragmatically a non-captioned party in interest” in this litigation nor has | |
| he “played controlling role in respect to its underlying aspects.” Epstein is not, despie | |
| Plaintiff’s suggestion, paying Ms. Maxwell’s legal fees. Plaintiff sought by way of | |
| discovery any “contracts,” “indemnification agreements,” “employment agreements” | |
| between Ms. Maxwell and Epstein or any entity associated with Epstein, from 1999 to the | |
| present. Ms. Maxwell responded under oath that there are no such documents. Epstein | |
| played no role in the issuance of the January 2 statement, nor has he issued any public | |
| statement regarding Plaintiff. Indeed, Plaintiff and Epstein fully resolved any claims | |
| against one another by way of a confidential settlement in 2009, another action in which | |
| Ms. Maxwell had no role. | |
| x Assertion of the privilege by Epstein does not advance any interest of Ms. Maxwell’s. | |
| Quite to the contrary, Epstein would be a key witness in her support, exonerating her | |
| from Plaintiff’s allegations regarding sex abuse, sexual trafficking and acting as his | |
| “madam” to the stars. As proof, one need look no further than emails already reviewed | |
| by this Court. In an email sent by Epstein to Ms. Maxwell on January 25, 2015, while the | |
| media maelstrom generated by Plaintiff’s false claims continued to foment, he wrote: | |
| “You have done nothing wrong and I would urge you to start acting like it. Go outside, | |
| head high, not as an escaping convict. Go to parties. Deal with it.” Menninger Decl. Ex. J | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 32 | |
| 17 | |
| x Likewise, Epstein drafted a statement for Ms. Maxwell to issue (though she never did). | |
| In that statement, Epstein wrote (presumably what his testimony would reflect, should he | |
| not take the Fifth): | |
| “Since JE was charged in 2007 for solicitation of a prostitute I have been the | |
| target of outright lies, innuendo, slander, defamation and salacious gossip and | |
| harassment; headlines made up of quotes I have never given, statements I have | |
| never made, trips with people to places I have never been, holidays with people I | |
| have never met, false allegations of impropriety and offensive behavior that I | |
| abhor and have never ever been party to, witness to events that I have never seen, | |
| living off trust funds that I have never ever had, party to stories that have changed | |
| materially both in time place and event, depending on what paper you read, and | |
| the list goes on. | |
| I have never been a party in any criminal action pertaining to JE. | |
| For the record: | |
| At the time of Jeffrey’s plea, I was in a very long-term committed relationship | |
| with another man and no longer working with Jeffrey. Whilst I remained on | |
| friendly terms with him up until his plea, I have had limited contact since. | |
| Every story in the press innuendo and comment has been taken from civil | |
| depositions against JE, which were settled many years ago. None of the | |
| depositions were ever subject to cross examination, not one. Any standard of | |
| truth and were used for those who claimed they were victims to receive financial | |
| payment to be shared between them and their lawyers. One firm created and sold | |
| fake cases against Mr. Epstein – the firm subsequently imploded and the (sic) | |
| Rothstein, the owner of the firm was sent to jail for 50 years for his crime. The | |
| lawyer who is currently representing Virginia (Brad Edwards) was his partner. | |
| Need I say more. | |
| These so called ‘new revelations’ stem from an alleged diary from VR that reads | |
| like the memoirs she is purporting to be selling. Also perhaps pertinent – in a | |
| previous complaint against others, her claims were rejected by the police ‘due to | |
| ..VR..lack of credibility.” | |
| The new interest in this old settled case results from lawyers representing some of | |
| JE victims filed a suit against the US government, not JE. They contend that the | |
| US govt violated their rights. The documents and deal that JE negotiated with the | |
| government was given to the lawyers 6 years ago and is a public document. | |
| I am not a part of, nor did you have anything to do with, JE plea bargain. I have | |
| never even seen the proceedings nor any of the depositions. I reserve my right to | |
| file complaint and sue for defamation and slander.”; Id. | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 32 | |
| 18 | |
| These correspondences demonstrate that Ms. Maxwell has no control over Mr. Epstein in | |
| regards to the alleged defamation statement, he had no role in issuance of the statement, he has | |
| no benefit in the outcome of this litigation and he played no controlling role in its respect. | |
| Similarly, there is not any evidence at all to support an adverse inference to be drawn | |
| from either Sarah Kellen nor Nadia Marcincova’s assertion of the Fifth. Ms. Maxwell hardly | |
| knows either woman, never worked with them, they have had nothing to do with this litigation | |
| and do not stand to benefit from it, especially as Plaintiff has never made any allegations about | |
| her involvement with either of the two of them, they are simply irrelevant to this defamation | |
| action. | |
| III. PLAINTIFF’S BAD FAITH DISCOVERY TACTICS SHOULD NOT BE | |
| REWARDED WITH EXTRA TIME | |
| 1. Plaintiff’s Rule 26 Revolving Door | |
| Plaintiff’s army of lawyers (who collectively have been litigating matters related to | |
| Jeffrey Epstein since 2008) served their Rule 26 initial disclosures on November 11, 2015. | |
| Those disclosures listed 94 individual witnesses with knowledge regarding the facts of this case, | |
| yet provided addresses (only of their counsel) as to just two, Jeffrey Epstein and Alan | |
| Dershowitz. Plaintiff then also listed categories of witnesses such as “all other then-minor girls, | |
| whose identities Plaintiff will attempt to determine” and “all pilots, chauffeurs, chefs, and other | |
| employees of” Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. Plaintiff claimed as to her Rule 26 disclosures | |
| that “only a fraction of those individuals will actually be witnesses in this case, and as discovery | |
| progresses, the list will be further narrowed.” (Doc. #20 at 17) The opposite has happened. | |
| Between November 11 and March 11, Plaintiff trimmed her Rule 26 list of persons with | |
| knowledge from 94 to 69, inexplicably removing 34 names, but adding 12 more. She removed, | |
| Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 32 | |
| 19 | |
| for example, witnesses Andrea Mitrovich and Dara Preece, but added Senators George Mitchell, | |
| Bill Richardson and Les Wexner. | |
| Then between March 11 and June 1, a few weeks before the discovery cut-off, Plaintiff | |
| added 20 more witnesses, including President Clinton, Palm Beach officers Recarey and Reiter, | |
| and purported “victims of sexual abuse” including a client of Mr. Edwards, who he has clearly | |
| known about for years.10 As to several of these newly added witnesses, in particular | |
| Recarey and Reiter, Plaintiff promptly scheduled their depositions in June, despite having just | |
| disclosed their names on June 1. And last Friday, on the business day just before the depositions | |
| of and Recarey, Plaintiff disclosed 623 new documents, including for the first time the | |
| “unredacted” police reports from Palm Beach, that Plaintiff clearly has had in her possession, or | |
| her counsel’s possession, for years. Menninger Decl. Ex. K. | |
| This is precisely the type of hide-and-seek that Rule 26 is designed to prevent. While | |
| Ms. Ma |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment