DataSet-10
Unknown
130 pages
DEPOSITION of, SCOTT ROTHSTEIN - Vol. I
June 14, 2012
Page 1
1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN
2 AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
3 GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
4
5 JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
6 Plaintiff,
7 vs. No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
8 SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually,
and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS,
9 individually,
10 Defendants.
/
11
12
500 East Broward Boulevard,
13 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Thursday, June 14, 2012
14 9:14 a.m. - 12:37 p.m.
15
16
17 DEPOSITION
18 Of
19 SCOTT ROTHSTEIN
(Via Video Conference)
20
21 Taken on behalf of the Trustee
pursuant to a notice of taking deposition
22
_
-
-
23
24
25
EFTA01177962
Page 2
1 APPEARANCES:
2
LAW OFFICES OF TONJA HADDAD, P.A. by
3 Tonja Haddad, Esq.
Attorney for the Plaintiff.
4
5 ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A., by
Jack Goldberger, Esq.
6 Attorney for the Plaintiff.
7
SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA ET AL, by
8 Jack Scarola, Esq.
Attorney for the Defendant, Brad Edwards.
9
10 MARC NURIK, P.A., by
Marc Nurik, Esq.
11 Attorney for Scott Rothstein.
(Appearing via Video Conference.)
12
13 U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, by
Laurence LaVecchio, Esq.
14 Attorney for the Department of Justice.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
EFTA01177963
Page 3
1 INDEX
2
WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
3
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN
4
(By Ms. Haddad) 5
5 (By Mr. Goldberger) 92
(By Mr. Scarola) 121
6
7
EXHIBITS
8
PLAINTIFF'S FOR IDENTIFICATION
9
10 1 64
2 69
11 3 72
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
EFTA01177964
Page 4
1 Thereupon:
2 SCOTT ROTHSTEIN,
3 was called as a witness and, having been duly sworn,
4 was examined and testified as follows:
5 THE WITNESS: I do.
6 MS. HADDAD: Good morning, Scott. How are
7 you?
8 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Tonja. How are
9 you?
10 MS. HADDAD: Fine, thank you. It's nice to
11 see you.
12 THE WITNESS: Good to see you, too.
13 MR. SCAROLA: Mr. Rothstein, I don't know
14 that you and I have met. I'm Jack Scarola, I'm
15 representing Brad Edwards and I know you know Brad
16 who's to my immediate left.
17 THE WITNESS: Hey, Brad, how are you?
18 Jack, good to see you.
19 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you.
20 MR. GOLDBERGER: Also present is another
21 Jack, Jack Goldberger, and I also represent Jeffrey
22 Epstein. To my right is Darryn Indyke --
23 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Jack.
24 MR. GOLDBERGER: How are you today?
25 And to my right is Darryn Indyke, who is
EFTA01177965
Page 5
1 Mr. Epstein's in-house counsel.
2 MR. INDYKE: Good morning.
3 THE WITNESS: Good morning, sir.
4 MR. NURIK: Good morning, everyone.
5 MR. GOLDBERGER: Hi, Marc, how are you?
6 MR. NURIK: Good You'll be seeing my
7 shoulder most of the day.
8 MR. GOLDBERGER: Okay.
9 DIRECT EXAMINATION
10 BY MS. HADDAD:
11 Q. Well, Scott, I know you've talked about this
12 probably more than you even care to, but I'd like to
13 start a little bit asking you about the scheme at your
14 firm and how and when it started and things of that
15 nature just very briefly because I know you've covered
16 it many times.
17 MR. SCAROLA: It has been covered and
18 protocol precludes asking questions that have already
19 been answered and covering areas that have already
20 been covered, so we do object.
21 MR. GOLDBERGER: Your objection is noted.
22 BY MS. HADDAD:
23 Q. When did this first start?
24 A. It started back in '05, '06. The question
25 is a little bit vague for me because it started in a
EFTA01177966
Page 6
1 different form than it ended because it started as
2 bridge loans and things of that nature, and then
3 morphed into the Ponzi scheme. But you are looking
4 back into the 2005 time frame for the very beginning.
5 Q. The 2005 time frame, that's when the bridge
6 loans started?
7 A. I can't be certain exactly what we were
8 doing. I need to see all the documents to tell you
9 what we were doing at what specific point in time.
10 Q. What made you decide to start doing this?
11 A. I started doing it out of greed and the need
12 to support the law firm, which was having significant
13 financial trouble at the time.
14 Q. And in 2005 had you moved over to 401 yet or
15 were you still in the building where Colonial Bank
16 was?
17 A. I don't remember.
18 Q. Do you recall approximately how many
19 attorneys you had working for you when it started?
20 A. I do not. Between five and ten, Tonja.
21 Q. Was it before you started acquiring
22 attorneys like you were acquiring cars and watches?
23 MR. SCAROLA: Object to the form of the
24 question, vague.
25 THE WITNESS: Yes.
EFTA01177967
Page 7
1 BY MS. HADDAD:
2 Q. Well, who were you partners with when it
3 first started?
4 A. Stu Rosenfeldt.
5 Q. Okay. Anyone else?
6 A. Susan Dolin, I believe. It was definitely
7 Stu Rosenfeldt, Michael Pancier, and Susan Dolin may
8 have been partners of ours at that time, I'm not
9 certain.
10 Q Because if memory serves me correctly, you
11 went from being in the One Financial Plaza Building to
12 the building across the street, it was Rothstein,
13 Rosenfeldt, Dolin and Pancier; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And it was some time later that you moved
16 into the 401 Building, correct?
17 A. You are skipping one step. I went from One
18 Financial Plaza to Phillips, Eisinger, Koss, Kusnick,
19 Rothstein and Rosenfeldt. Then Stu Rosenfeldt and I
20 broke off and formed Rothstein Rosenfeldt. And then
21 Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Dolin, Pancier over at the
22 Colonial Bank Building. And then we took the space in
23 the 401 Building and eventually moved over there and
24 that's when the real growth started.
25 Q. And when you say, "that's when the real
EFTA01177968
Page 8
1 growth started," do you mean both the scheme -- do you
2 mean the scheme and the firm or either one or both?
3 A. Both.
4 Q. Do you recall approximately when you took
5 the space in the 401 Building?
6 A. I do not.
7 Q. At the time everything imploded, how many
8 partners did you have at the firm, do you recall?
9 A. Are you saying partners and shareholders?
10 Because remember, we had both, two designations.
11 Q. I want to start with just attorneys that
12 had -- not in your firm name but named as "partner" on
13 the cards, for example.
14 A. I'd have to see a list of all the employees.
15 We had a bunch.
16 Q. Do you recall about how many attorneys you
17 had working there?
18 A. Approximately 70.
19 Q. In the year before, do you recall how many
20 you had?
21 A. I do not.
22 Q. So how many equity partners did you have or
23 shareholders? I'm not sure of the word that we are
24 using.
25 A. Actual shareholders, equity shareholders
EFTA01177969
Page 9
1 were two, me and Stu Rosenfeldt.
2 Q. And everyone else was just a partner for
3 title purposes?
4 A. There were shareholders for title purposes
5 and partners for title purposes.
6 Q. If someone was called a shareholder for
7 title purposes then, did they get to receive any of
8 the funds? Were they shareholders receiving money or
9 they were not considered shareholders in that sense?
10 MR. SCAROLA: Objection to the form of the
11 question.
12 THE WITNESS: What kind of funds are you
13 talking about?
14 BY MS. HADDAD:
15 Q. In general from the firm. When you say
16 equity shareholders, I understand that's you and Stu.
17 What I'm saying is, if you had someone else that was
18 named as a shareholder, why did you call them a
19 shareholder as opposed to a partner?
20 A. It was a title of prestige and achievement.
21 Q. So it was basically an ego thing, it had
22 nothing really to do with the finances or hierarchy of
23 the firm?
24 A. They got paid more generally, but it did not
25 have anything to do with distributions.
EFTA01177970
Page 10
1 Q. When you were hiring and bringing in all
2 these new attorneys, did everyone come in as a
3 partner?
4 A. No.
5 Q. How did you decide who came in as a partner
6 and who came in as an associate?
7 A. Depended upon their level of expertise,
8 practice, book of business. It was a decision Stuart
9 and I made together on a case-by-case basis.
10 Q. So you and Stu where the -- were in charge
11 of hiring?
12 A. Stuart and I tried to consult on every
13 hiring decision, yes.
14 Q. Did you guys also decide salaries?
15 A. I generally decided the salary and then let
16 Stu know what I was going to do. And he would say if
17 he thought it was okay or if he thought it was too
18 much or too little, but I generally had free reign in
19 that regard.
20 Q. Did someone's book of business directly
21 correlate to the salary that you would offer?
22 A. That is a very broad question because it
23 depends upon what other needs we had for that
24 individual.
25 Q. What do you mean by "what other needs"?
EFTA01177971
Page 11
1 A. Well, I'll give you a good example. My
2 lawyer, Mr. Nurik, his salary was directly related to
3 the fact that he was a great lawyer and had a solid
4 book of business.
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. David Boden, on the other hand, was, as I
7 previously testified, I don't know if you've had a
8 chance to read the testimony, but David Boden was not
9 only the general counsel to the law firm but he was
10 also -- acted as my consigliere in a significant
11 number of illegal operations and he was compensated
12 significantly for that, if that helps you understand
13 the difference.
14 Q. It does.
15 So, for example, when you were hiring former
16 judges, let's use that as an example, Pedro and Julio,
17 clearly they don't have a book of business coming in
18 because they haven't had clients, but they may carry
19 some sort of prestige or give some legitimacy, if you
20 will, to the firm. How would you decide the salary
21 for someone like that?
22 A. Stu and I would discuss it. It was more a
23 market issue than anything else, how much are judges
24 coming off the bench getting, how much business do we
25 think they can generate.
EFTA01177972
Page 12
1 Q. Would you need to look at someone's book of
2 business if they were coming in just solely to be a
3 rainmaker for the firm prior to hiring them?
4 A. I discussed it with them. There were not
5 many people that I recall that I actually looked at
6 their numbers. Once David Boden was working for me I
7 had him check people's numbers, but I rarely looked. I
8 took most people's words for what they were
9 generating.
10 Q. My recollection is, you were always looking
11 to bring in more people, to hire more people, some of
12 us were somehow able to resist you while others were
13 not. How would you decide who you were looking at to
14 bring into your firm?
15 A. We were trying to develop, on the legitimate
16 side of the law firm, we were trying to develop real
17 talent, real practice groups. I mean, Brad is a
18 perfect example, great lawyer, got a great reputation.
19 You know, it was our hope that, you know, he was going
20 to be one of the people to actually in some ways
21 rescue the firm because he had a practice group that
22 could generate substantial income. You know, on the
23 legitimate side that's what we were trying to do, we
24 were trying to find the best and the brightest.
25 Q. Okay. With respect to bringing people that
EFTA01177973
Page 13
1 you thought could bring a book of business, you just
2 said Brad, for example, that he had a legitimate
3 practice group with a good book of business. How did
4 you know that?
5 A. Everyone in the tort world that I had spoke
6 to spoke extremely highly of Brad, not only people I
7 already had working for me but other people that knew
8 him. He was very -- came very highly recommended to
9 us.
10 Q. Like who, for example?
11 A. We wanted him in there. We were trying to
12 develop a significant tort group and we thought that
13 he'd be a great part of it.
14 Q. Who besides Russ told you that about Brad?
15 A. It would have been other people in the tort
16 group. I don't want to guess, Tonja, as to which
17 other people told me, but it was -- well more than
18 Russ.
19 Q. Was it people within --
20 A. Might have been people in politics that I
21 talked to that knew him because we had significant
22 input at the gubernatorial level with regard to tort
23 reform and the like, and there were people there who
24 knew who Brad was. It was more than one person that
25 told us that.
EFTA01177974
Page 14
1 Q. Okay. When you were looking at people to
2 bring in to the firm to legitimize, as you said. Your
3 firm had a very unique area of practice and had a very
4 unique environment to which to work. How did you know
5 or how did you come to decide what people may or may
6 not fit into that?
7 A. Okay. Hang on one second. I think you just
8 accidentally misstated my testimony.
9 I was not bringing the people in to
10 legitimize the law firm. I was bringing them in to
11 the legitimate side of the law firm. The bulk of the
12 law firm, despite the lack of financial success, was a
13 large group of very honest, hard working lawyers
14 trying to do their best in difficult economic
15 conditions. There were some that were obviously not
16 legitimate. And the way I decided to bring people in,
17 again, it's really everything I just told you. Are
18 you looking for how I brought people into the Ponzi
19 scheme?
20 Q. No, right now I'm just asking about the firm
21 because, as I said, it's a very unique way in which to
22 practice and a very unique workplace environment with
23 politics and restaurants and parties at your home and
24 things of that nature. I'm asking, personality wise,
25 other than the book of business, how did you decide on
EFTA01177975
Page 15
1 people that would be a good fit?
2 A. I looked for people that were outgoing, that
3 had the type of personality. On the legitimate side
4 of the business, people that had charisma that were --
5 that could go out and hustle and try to develop a book
6 of business if they didn't have it. And as one of the
7 50 percent of the shareholders of the firm I was
8 trying to hire people I wanted to work with.
9 Q. Okay. When you would see people from whom
10 you would offer jobs, for example, as you mentioned
11 earlier with Brad and his practice, if somebody stated
12 that people told you that he was a good lawyer, did
13 you need to see him in action, so to speak, prior to
14 your deciding to hire them or would you just take
15 people at their word for it?
16 A. Some of people I saw in action; he wasn't
17 one of them. Steve Osber is an excellent example of
18 that. I hired Steve after he was beating the living
19 daylights out of me on the other side of a case. And
20 I certainly would ask around about the people. But
21 the people that I trusted -- see, I can't remember. I
22 think Gary Farmer was working for me before Brad, and
23 if I'm not mistaken he would have been one of the
24 people that I went to with regard to Brad because we
25 were really developing that whole tort group around
EFTA01177976
Page 16
1 that time with Farmer and Fistos and Jaffe and
2 Mr. Edwards.
3 Q. Do you know where Mr. Edwards was working
4 when you first learned of him?
5 A. I don't recall whether he was working for
6 someone or had his own practice, I don't recall.
7 Q. When did you first learn about Brad?
8 A. I don't remember the time frame.
9 Q. Do you recall when you first met with him
10 regarding a job?
11 A. No. The easiest way to figure that out is
12 to go look at his personnel file, it will have the
13 notes saying when he met with me the first time.
14 Q. You don't have any recollection of your
15 first meeting with him?
16 A. No. As you know, I was hiring people left
17 and right and I was also unfortunately very busy doing
18 things I shouldn't have been doing, so I don't have a
19 specific recollection of when I hired him. I barely
20 have a specific recollection of when I hired me.
21 Q. But you did, in fact, meet with him?
22 A. I'm certain I met with him before I hired
23 him. I can't imagine -- although I did hire people
24 without meeting them. I did hire people based on
25 other people's word, if they were people within the
EFTA01177977
Page 17
1 firm that I trusted. Because I always said, I had a
2 very simple, you lie or die by what you are telling
3 me. If you are telling me this guy is good and he's
4 not good, that's on you, it's going to hurt your
5 income. So I used to tell my partner, people that
6 were recommending people to me, don't sell me a bill
7 of goods just to get somebody in here because if you
8 do that it's going to come back on you, it's going to
9 affect your income and your ability to grow in the
10 firm. So with that admonishment, I might have very
11 well hired someone sight unseen based upon what
12 someone else told me.
13 Q. But you did meet with Brad you say before he
14 came in to work?
15 A. Now that I'm saying it out loud, I think I
16 did but really I'm guessing. I don't have a specific
17 recollection of meeting him.
18 Q. Do you recall if you knew that he had worked
19 as an assistant state attorney for a few years prior
20 to doing tort litigation?
21 A. I don't recall that one way or the other.
22 Q. So you wouldn't have asked Howard Scheinberg
23 or anybody about him before he came to work there?
24 A. I can't say that I wouldn't have asked
25 because, like I said, I might have asked. But
EFTA01177978
Page 18
1 unfortunately, you are taking a little tiny spot out
2 of a very, very busy time period in my life and in the
3 life of the firm, so I can't tell you one way or the
4 other.
5 Q. I know you had a lot going on, I'm just
6 trying to see if you remember anything specific about
7 this.
8 Do you recall what salary you had offered
9 Brad to come join the firm?
10 A. I do not. You have to just try to
11 differentiate that what I knew then is a lot different
12 than what I know now so ...
13 Q. Meaning?
14 A. Obviously meaning that at the point in time
15 that I was hiring him or maybe a year after, I would
16 be able to tell you what I was paying him, but now
17 it's insignificant. I don't remember how much I was
18 paying him.
19 Q. Did you learn about his book of business or
20 know what kind of cases he was bringing in prior to
21 hiring him?
22 A. I do know that he -- I discussed either with
23 Russ, well, I know with Russ, and perhaps some other
24 people, I knew about the Epstein case.
25 Q. What did you know about it?
EFTA01177979
Page 19
1 A. I knew that it was a significant case of
2 potentially significant value against an extremely
3 collectible pedophile, for lack of a better word.
4 Q. So was that case your primary motive in
5 bringing Brad into the firm?
6 A. I doubt it. I mean, I can't tell you one
7 way or the other, but I doubt that I would bring him
8 in just for one case because what if the case fails,
9 then I'm stuck with a lawyer who can't do anything,
10 you know.
11 I'm not saying, Brad, that you couldn't do
12 anything, I'm just saying that if I only relied on one
13 case, then if I bring a lawyer in for one case and one
14 case only, what do I do with him when the case is
15 over.
16 Q. How did you know that this case would be a
17 collectible case then?
18 MR. SCAROLA: I'm going to object to the
19 form of the question because it misstated the prior
20 testimony. The prior testimony was not that it was a
21 collectible case but that it was a case against a
22 "extremely collectible pedophile."
23 BY MS. HADDAD:
24 Q. What made you think that this case had any
25 financial value?
EFTA01177980
Page 20
1 A. Epstein was a billionaire.
2 Q Okay. Did you know anything about the
3 legitimacy or illegitimacy of the claims prior to
4 knowing he was a billionaire?
5 A. I knew what I was told. I didn't check it
6 out myself, but I trusted the people that told me.
7 Q. And who told you?
8 A. The only person I remember discussing it
9 with, as I sit here today, is Russ Adler. But if
10 Farmer and Jaffe and those guys were with me at the
11 time, I likely would have discussed it with them as
12 well.
13 4. So were you aware of this case before you
14 made an offer to Brad to join the firm?
15 A. Yes.
16 4. You said you didn't -- I don't want to
17 misquote you. You said you heard about it from other
18 people, but you didn't do anything to know that
19 personally. Was that before you made the offer of
20 employment?
21 A. I made the offer of employment based upon
22 what other people had told me about Brad.
23 Q. About Brad and his book of business or just
24 Brad and his legal skills?
25 A. Okay. When I say Brad, I mean Brad and his
EFTA01177981
Page 21
1 book of business and his legal skills.
2 Q. Okay.
3 A. And his ability to generate business in the
4 future.
5 Q. You stated that you believed that you first
6 heard about these cases from Russ and then perhaps
7 from Brad. Once Brad was at the firm, did you keep up
8 with these cases, these Epstein cases?
9 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, I'm going to
10 object to the form of the question. It is an
11 inaccurate reflection of the prior testimony. It has
12 no predicate. There was no reference about having
13 heard about these cases from Brad. The names
14 mentioned were Adler, possibly Farmer, possibly
15 Jaffe.
16 BY MS. HADDAD:
17 Q. Once Brad started working at the firm,
18 you've already testified you already knew about these
19 Epstein cases, correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. How did you keep abreast of these cases?
22 A. I didn't.
23 Q. You didn't know anything about them?
24 A. I didn't say I didn't know anything. I said
25 I didn't keep track of it.
EFTA01177982
Page 22
1 Q. You didn't keep track of it?
2 A. I did not keep track of it. From time to
3 time Russ and the other guys in the tort group would
4 tell me what was going on in certain cases, but until
5 I made a decision to utilize that file for an illegal
6 purpose related to something illegal that I was doing
7 along with my co-conspirators, I just assumed my
8 lawyers were going to work the case and eventually it
9 would hopefully work out well for the law firm.
10 Q. At your firm, when e-mails would go out to
11 attorneys at RRA or all attorneys at RRA, were you
12 part of that e-mail group?
13 A. You are talking about all staff?
14 Q. No, all it says is attorneys at RRA.
15 A. It's the e-mail group "attorneys"?
16 Q. Yes.
17 A. Yes, I'm a part of that e-mail group.
18 Q. And I appreciate that you were very busy and
19 may not have read all of them, but you did receive
20 those e-mails when they would go around?
21 A. Yes, and I tried my best to read them.
22 Q. Okay. At what point did you decide to use
23 this case to further your Ponzi scheme?
24 A. I don't remember the date, but I can give
25 you the circumstances, if you'd like.
EFTA01177983
Page 23
1 Q. Please do.
2 A. The Ponzi scheme was running very low on
3 capital. My co-conspirators and I needed to find a
4 new feeder fund, new investment sources. We had a
5 couple of very large, significantly wealthy potential
6 investors out there. I was looking for something that
7 would have been very attractive. We had had a lot of
8 inquiry during the due diligence period with these
9 people that were doing due diligence on the putative
10 cases that we were selling. And when I thought about
11 the Epstein case, realizing that it was a substantial
12 actual file in the office, I came up with the idea
13 that if I created a fake confidential settlement
14 circling around -- based upon this actual case, they
15 would be able to increase the level of due diligence
16 that I was able to offer to my potential investors.
17 Q. How did you know this was a substantial file
18 in your office at that time?
19 A. Again, through the people I spoke to in the
20 office.
21 Q. Such as who?
22 A. Again, same people, Adler, Farmer, Jaffe,
23 Fistos.
24 Q. You never spoke to Brad about this case?
25 A. I didn't say that, but I had a lot more
EFTA01177984
Page 24
1 interaction --
2 Sorry, Tonja, I didn't mean to speak over
3 you.
4 If you talk to the people in the firm, if
5 they are honest with you, they'll tell you my
6 interaction was far more significant with Russ Adler,
7 probably more so because he was a co-conspirator of
8 mine. My interaction with Russ was far greater by
9 many, many percents over my interaction with Brad, and
10 then you go down the line. I had more interaction
11 with Mr. Farmer than I did with Mr. Fistos, more
12 interaction with Jaffe than I did with Mr. Edwards,
13 and so on.
14 Q. Russ was the head of your tort group, right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So these cases fell under the tort group; is
17 that correct?
18 A. Yes, it fell under the fell under Russ'
19 purview ultimately, yes.
20 Q. And Brad was a partner at your firm during
21 the time these cases were there, correct?
22 A. I believe that was his title. He was either
23 partner or shareholder. I don't think we had made him
24 a shareholder yet.
25 Q. But he wasn't coming in as an associate,
EFTA01177985
Page 25
1 correct?
2 A. To the best of my recollection, no.
3 Q. So you stated that you learned this case
4 was -- I don't want to misquote you and listen to a
5 long speaking objection, but what did you call this
6 case?
7 MR. SCAROLA: Who wants the quote?
8 THE WITNESS: It was a substantial case
9 with a what I perceived to be a highly collectible
10 pedophile as a defendant.
11 BY MS. HADDAD:
12 Q. Right. How did you know at the time when
13 you said these investors wanted to investigate and you
14 said you were going to create a fake settlement, how
15 did you know that this case was the case that you
16 could use?
17 A. From talking to all the people that I just
18 said, Adler, Fistos, Jaffe, Farmer, Mr. Edwards, to
19 the extent that I spoke to him about it.
20 Q. Did you speak with Mr. Edwards about the
21 case?
22 A. I don't have a specific recollection one way
23 or the other. I remember speaking to him at least
24 briefly the day or the day of or the day before the
25 actual investor's due diligence was going on as to
EFTA01177986
Page 26
1 what was going on. And I may have spoke to him, I
2 know I spoke to Russ, but I may have spoke to him as
3 well within a couple of days just prior to this due
4 diligence because I was trying to at least get some
5 information in my head that I could use when I was
6 creating this story for the investors.
7 Q. Scott, what's Q-task?
8 A. Q-task is a web based software system that I
9 had invested $7 million in.
10 Q. And what was the purpose of this internet
11 system?
12 A. To be able to communicate in a secure
13 fashion and in a unique group fashion about specific
14 files.
15 Q. So forgive me, we all know I'm not good with
16 the computer. That was something that would be useful
17 within a law firm, why?
18 A. Because it allowed you to create groups and
19 have both general and private chats, organize data in
20 a very unique fashion. That was, at least to our way
21 of thinking, would have been very, very helpful in the
22 law firm setting with multiple practice groups.
23 Q. Did you belong to any groups on Q-task?
24 A. I'm certain that I did. I don't remember
25 which groups I belonged to. I never got into the full
EFTA01177987
Page 27
1 use of it. I tried to, but again, I was very busy
2 doing other things. But I know that Mr. Adler's group
3 used it extensively.
4 Q. Because it was your firm and, as you said,
5 you invested $7 million in it, did you have the
6 ability to access a group if you wanted to?
7 A. Yes. And if I couldn't, I could get Russ to
8 give me access.
9 Q. So you didn't necessarily have to be invited
10 into the Q-task group for you to be able to utilize or
11 view the communications within it?
12 A. No, that's not true. I actually had to be
13 invited, that's what I was telling Russ to do, is to
14 have me invited.
15 Q. But I'm saying, the lawyers wouldn't have to
16 personally invite you, you can get someone within your
17 firm to give you access maybe without the lawyers
18 knowing?
19 A. No, I think it might have had a, quote,
20 unquote, confidential, super secret viewing
21 capability, but I don't recall it having that, and I'd
22 have no need to utilize that. Just invite me into the
23 group and let me see what's going on.
24 Q. Okay. I know that you are or were a very
25 hands-on person within certain of the practice groups
EFTA01177988
Page 28
1 and with that, with the Q-task and the e-mails, did
2 someone assist you with reviewing everything and
3 letting you know what was going on within the groups?
4 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, I'm going to
5 object to counsel's testimony. Object to the form of
6 the question as leading.
7 THE WITNESS: I really don't even
8 understand the question.
9 Can you try to rephrase it for me, Tonja?
10 BY MS. HADDAD:
11 Q. Of course, I would.
12 Did you keep abreast of everything that was
13 going on in every practice group or was someone
14 through Q-task and e-mails, for example, or was
15 someone giving you information keeping you posted on
16 what was going on within the practice?
17 A. Well, as part of the tort group I had a
18 pretty good idea of what was going on there all the
19 time just because of the significant amount of
20 interaction, both legitimate and otherwise, that I had
21 with Russ Adler, so I was probably more up-to-date on
22 that group than any group other than the labor and
23 employment group, again, because I had such
24 significant interaction with Stu Rosenfeldt, both
25 legitimately and illegitimately, so I knew what was
EFTA01177989
Page 29
1 going on in that group.
2 I tried, as best as I could, given my time
3 constraints, to stay on top of what was going on, you
4 know, throughout the firm. But I relied on other
5 people like Debra Villegas and Irene Stay and David
6 Boden, Les Stracker to the lesser extent, to monitor
7 what was going on in the different practice groups and
8 keep me up to speed.
9 Q. Was there audio and video surveillance
10 throughout the entire firm or only within your office?
11 A. No, through the entire office, not in the
12 individual offices.
13 Hang on. Not in the individual offices but
14 throughout the general office space.
15 Q. So in 2009 how many floors did you have?
16 A. Three, I think.
17 Q. And do you recall approximately how many
18 attorneys you had working there at that time?
19 A. Approximately 70.
20 Q. And when you say "not the individual offices
21 but the other areas," do you mean -- would that
22 include conference rooms?
23 A. I didn't have surveillance in the conference
24 rooms.
25 Q. So can you please tell me exactly where you
EFTA01177990
Page 30
1 had audio and/or video surveillance? We'll start with
2 audio.
3 A. I don't have a specific recollection of
4 every place I had video and audio, but it was in -- I
5 had it set up so that in all of the common areas,
6 including our shareholder's lounge, we had -- I had
7 audio and video capabilities.
8 Q. When you say "capabilities," does that mean
9 you didn't always turn it on or you just turned it on
10 when you felt like it?
11 A. I turned it on when I felt like it, when I
12 felt like seeing what was going on. I sometimes left
13 the screen up because I had four computer screens on
14 my desk, I sometimes left the screen on with the video
15 of the reception area and some other general areas.
16 But unless I wanted to see what was going on or listen
17 to what was going on, I didn't turn it on. It would
18 have been too distracting.
19 Q. Did the attorneys know that this
20 surveillance existed?
21 A. You can see it in the -- it wasn't hidden,
22 you can see it. There were globes up in the ceiling
23 all over the office.
24 Q. Did you have -- you said -- you didn't
25 answer this, you said you didn't recall. Did you have
EFTA01177991
Page 31
1 any surveillance in the conference rooms?
2 A No
3 Q. Other than the common areas you just went
4 over, in the hallways and the reception -- did you
5 have it in the hallways, is that a common -- do you
6 deem that a common area?
7 A. All the hallways pretty much with the
8 exception of a few blind spots, I can see all the
9 hallways.
10 Q. And this was on all three floors?
11 A. Yeah. For some reason I think we might
12 have taken some space on a fourth floor, but I could
13 be mistaken. But yes, on the three floors that we
14 actively had a significant amount of space on, I tried
15 to have surveillance on all the common areas of all
16 that space.
17 Q. And what floor was Mr. Edwards' office on?
18 A. I don't recall.
19 Q. Did you have the tort group all together or
20 was it divided up?
21 A. Except for Adler, Adler was on with -- near
22 me, down the hall from me. The rest of the group was
23 all together. I think they were on -- let's see.
24 There were people up on 22. I was on 16. He must
25 have been on the other floor that we were building
EFTA01177992
Page 32
1 out, because I remember building out space and I
2 remember Jaffe and all those guys moving into that
3 space.
4 Q. If you were building up that space, do you
5 recall when you put the surveillance in there?
6 A. It would have been while they were building
7 it out or shortly thereafter.
8 Q. During 2009 it seems that you hired lots of
9 former law enforcement people to work at the firm.
10 Why were they people you wanted to hire?
11 A. Severalfold. I had a significant amount of
12 illegal activity going on with various law enforcement
13 agencies throughout South Florida and hiring people
14 from former law enforcement assisted me in engendering
15 support and camaraderie with the law enforcement that
16 I was actually utilizing in illegal activities.
17 Q. So you are saying --
18 A. Secondarily, I wanted to have a very strong
19 investigative team, ultimately, to do both legitimate
20 and illegitimate things for the law firm, and hiring
21 former law enforcement was the best way to do that. I
22 was hoping to actually ultimately create a group. Ken
23 Jenne and I had talked about that extensively.
24 Q. Why did you hire Ken Jenne?
25 A. Prior to Ken going to prison, he and I were
EFTA01177993
Page 33
1 very friendly and he was extremely friendly with
2 someone that was very close to me, Grant Smith.
3 During the time that he was down in FDC Miami, I went
4 down to visit him. And after speaking to him and
5 after speaking to Grant, I told him, because he was
6 talking to me about how many people had turned on him
7 and abandoned him. And I told him that when he got
8 out of jail that he had no worries, that I would give
9 him a job.
10 Q. And what --
11 A. And that was the primary reason -- that was
12 my primary reason for hiring him.
13 Q. What was it you were hiring him to do
14 exactly?
15 A. Ultimate the goal was to head up on
16 investigative arm within RRA, within the RRA entities.
17 Q. Well, while he was there, since that didn't
18 happen, what was his obligation to the firm
19 day-to-day?
20 A. He handled firm security issues and he did
21 handle overseeing certain investigative things. We
22 had an alcohol and beverage group that was forming and
23 he was overseeing that. He was helping me find new
24 people to staff it, that kind of thing.
25 Q. Did you have a lot of interaction --
EFTA01177994
Page 34
1 A. He had had significant -- as you know, he
2 also had significant political connections and
3 everyone who is not living under a rock knows I was
4 doing everything I could to garner significant
5 political power.
6 Q. I think many people miss your parties.
7 But, with respect to Mr. Jenne and his
8 political connections, were you hiring him to utilize
9 him with respect to any of the police department
10 investigations? You had stated earlier you had
11 dealings with police departments. I don't want --
12 again, I don't want to put words in your mouth. You
13 said you had dealings going on with various police
14 agencies?
15 A. I had -- I mean, we had a criminal defense
16 section in the law firm, so we had legitimate dealings
17 with law enforcement. But I also had significant
18 illegitimate things with law enforcement that had
19 nothing to do with Ken Jenne.
20 Q. And how about with respect to former FBI
21 agents you were hiring?
22 A. They were all people that were operating in
23 a legitimate fashion within the law firm.
24 Q. In what role was that?
25 A. The investigative roles and the alcohol
EFTA01177995
Page 35
1 beverage roles and anything else Ken or other staff
2 could think of to have them do.
3 Q. Let's talk about the investigative roles for
4 a minute.
5 What kind of investigations were these teams
6 running?
7 A. I do not know. You have to speak to lawyers
8 that were actually utilizing them. I put it out there
9 and Ken put it out there, that they were available to
10 lawyers in the firm for use like in-house
11 investigators. And what people did with them
12 ultimately was up to them.
13 Q. Were they on salary or were their costs and
14 fees associated with utilizing them within a specific
15 practice group?
16 A. They were all on salary with me. The
17 ultimate goal was to have it as a separate entity that
18 could bill the law firm and have the clients at least
19 defray some of the cost. I don't recall whether or
20 not we ever got to that level or not.
21 Q. With all that in-house police action, why
22 did you have police security surrounding you all the
23 time?
24 A. I guess the best answer was I was paranoid,
25 but I mean -- that's the simple answer to it. You
EFTA01177996
Page 36
1 know, having -- there were mixed reasons. For
2 example, I -- are you talking about my Fort Lauderdale
3 police detail?
4 Q. Yes. You had it at the office and at your
5 home, correct?
6 A. Yeah. There's a myriad of facts that
7 motivated me to do that. One was that I really wanted
8 the security for the office. Two was, I was paranoid
9 and this is in no particular order. Three was the
10 Melissa Lewis murder that shook the entire law firm
11 and shook me terribly. I didn't want that to ever
12 have to happen again. And four was, I wanted -- the
13 more law enforcement you have around, the
14 more legitimacy it adds to you and your appearance to
15 the community. So there were a multitude of reasons.
16 I mean, I hired certain law enforcement to
17 work for me that were just friends of mine that
18 were -- that needed additional money, so I wanted to
19 make sure that they had money, both guys that did the
20 illegal stuff for me and guys that didn't do anything
21 illegal for me.
22 Q. Let's go back to the Epstein case and when
23 you decided to utilize it -- to use for the investors
24 for your Ponzi scheme.
25 Do you recall approximately when it was that
EFTA01177997
Page 37
1 these investors were coming that you decided to use
2 the files?
3 A. My best recollection it was in 2009,
4 sometimes after April of 2009, but I don't have a
5 specific recollection beyond that.
6 Q. What makes you think it was after April of
7 2009?
8 A. Because, to the best of my recollection, the
9 Clockwork Group came in towards the middle of 2009.
10 When I say Clockwork, that's an umbrella term that I
11 use to mean the Von Allmen, AJ Discala, and other
12 investors that came in through that feeder fund.
13 Q. So that was around April 2009?
14 A. No, it was after, to the best of my
15 recollection. I mean, you can tell because all you
16 have to do is look and see when the first, very first
17 Clockwork investment is. Actually, you can pinpoint
18 it even closer. Look for the very first settlement
19 deal that we did that was related to the Epstein case,
20 within 60 days prior to that would have been when I
21 was meeting with those due diligence people, 30 to
22 60 days before that.
23 Q. So when you decided to use that case, take
24 me through exactly what you did to familiarize
25 yourself with that case.
EFTA01177998
Page 38
1 A. I talked to Russ Adler. I may have talked
2 to some of the other lawyers. I flipped through
3 certain boxes in the file.
4 Q. How did you get the boxes?
5 A. I asked someone to bring them to me.
6 Q. Do you know where those files were stored?
7 A. I do not.
8 Q. So you flipped -- sorry, please continue.
9 Flipped through some files?
10 A. I flipped through some files. I had the
11 files in my office. The day that the investor group
12 came in, I actually had Ken Jenne and some others
13 actually bring me some more of the boxes actually into
14 my office while the investors were there. I already
15 had some of the boxes with me.
16 Q. You say "Ken Jenne and others," who were the
17 others to whom you are referencing?
18 A. I don't specifically recall who carried them
19 in. I was very focused on my investors at that time.
20 Q. Were any of the lawyers present with you
21 when you were meeting with these investors?
22 A. During the actual meeting with them, no. I
23 recall that some of the lawyers may have met some of
24 the investors, but I don't recall who.
25 Q. Do you recall approximately when that
EFTA01177999
Page 39
1 happened?
2 A. No, it's the same dates that I was giving
3 you before.
4 Q. Okay. So you had, to further your Ponzi
5 scheme, you had to familiarize yourself with this case
6 so that you could speak intelligently with the
7 investors; is that correct?
8 A. Well, sort of because most of what I told
9 the investors was all things that I was creating as I
10 went.
About this particular case, the Epstein
12 case?
13 A. Yes, from an investor -- you have to
14 understand how the inner working of the Ponzi scheme
15 were crafted but --
16 Q. Please tell me then.
17 A. I'm telling you -- hang on. From an
18 investor's standpoint, the investor is simply looking
19 for is the case believable. And once they get past
20 that, is it of such case -- excuse me, is it of such a
21 nature that it is possible to be generating a
22 significant amount of settlement dollars. And then
23 after that, their concern is simply on the due
24 diligence side of making sure we actually have the
25 money, that the documents pass -- the documents
EFTA01178000
Page 40
1 unrelated to this case, documents related to the
2 settlements. Other than proving the existence of the
3 case, there's very little an investor, at least from
4 my end, investigates into the actual case. It was
5 more after having the
DataSet-10
Unknown
1 pages
Subject: Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell - 7/1/10
EFTA_R1_00496448
EFTA02000175
DataSet-10
Unknown
3 pages
Epstein Deposition
Questions related to his lawsuit against L.M.
Page 13; Lines 11-21 — answered he was suing L.M. as part of the conspiracy with Rothstein and
Edwards creating fraudulent cases of a sexually charged nature in order to fleece unsuspecting
investors out of millions of dollars
Questions related to what Edwards did wrong that forms the basis of Epstein's suit against him
Page 23; Lines 4-19 — answered that Edwards had used the media to gin up these allegations and
engaged in discovery proceedings that bear no relationship to any case filed against Epstein by
ant of Edwards' clients. Rothstein firm, that Edwards was a part of, was accused of forging a
Federal Judge's name
Page 25; Lines 9-25 — answered Edwards personally engaged with Scott Rothstein and shared 13
boxes of information about Epstein with other attorneys at the firm. He alleged multi-million
dollars in damages to scam local investors. Accused of running a criminal enterprise]
Questions related to Edwards going to the media
Page 26; Lines 6-15 — answered that Edwards went to the Daily News in NY and other local
media and that Edwards' investigator went to California, representing that he was a FBI agent, to
harass people and gather information about Edwards' claims
Page 28; Lines 14-25 — answered the investigator going to California was part of Edwards' plan
to involve people who have nothing to do with the cases in order to go back to the media and gin
up his stories and make false accusations
Page 30; Lines 6-18 — answered Edwards created false stories to local media and press and made
false statements regarding false claims made by his clients so that he and Rothstein could
defraud local investors
Page 33; Lines 1-3 — answered Edwards alleged to the Daily News that third parties had already
been involved in allegations to do with sexual misconduct
Page 34; Lines 7-22 — answered "gin up" means crafted multi-million dollar numbers put on
cases to fleece investors and the allegations were made about Epstein
Questions related to discovery proceedings Edwards engaged in which form the basis of
Epstein's lawsuit
Page 36; Lines10-25 — answered Edwards participated in discovery proceedings of bringing
Epstein's attorneys to various different people that had nothing to do with any of Edwards'
clients or lawsuits; for example Edwards tried to depose Bill Clinton as a means of getting
EFTA01102277
publicity so that he and his firm could steal money from investors. Other various people include
people in California and New York
Questions related to the sharing of the 13 boxes of information as a basis of Epstein's lawsuit
Page 38; Lines 1-22 — answered Edwards shared the information with the partners in his firm and
investors. The boxes contained multiple cases that were fabricated to fleece investors out of their
money
Questions related to what Edwards did with regard to sending an investigator to California which
justifies a legal claim against Edwards
Page 48; Lines 13-25 — answered the use of illegal activities, wire taps, and methods by
Rothstein firm while Edwards had basically been bringing these cases and the investigator
represented himself as an FBI agent
Questions related to Epstein's knowledge about Edwards being involved in an illegal wire tap
Page 49; Lines 24-25; Page 50; Lines1-4 — answered that it has been widely reported in the
newspaper Edwards and his firm were involved in illegal wire taps, eavesdropping, and hiring
former FBI and law enforcement in order to fabricate cases
Page 50; Lines 8-25 — answered he has no personal knowledge of this, but it has been widely
reported, Mr. Sakowitz went to the FBI about it, and U.S. Attorney has accused the firm of RICO
Questions related to Epstein's personal knowledge that Edwards was involved in egregious civil
litigation abuse
Page 52; Lines10-17 — answered it is widely reported in newspaper that Edwards' firm engaged
in wild discovery processes, illegal activities, and illegal eavesdropping to defraud investors
Questions related to the "hardworking and honest lawyers" Edwards wants to vindicate
referenced in the complaint
Page 59; Lines 11-25 — answered he wants to vindicate his attorneys, himself, and other clients
abused by Edwards and the Rothstein firm
Questions related to Rothstein and Edwards being a part of a criminal enterprise
Page 63; Lines 4-25 — answered what he meant in his complaint was that the Rothstein firm and
Edwards were part of a criminal enterprise, the largest in South Florida and part of the lawsuit
should vindicate, set right. Part of the lawsuit will disclose the various techniques of
attorney/client privilege, abuse of discovery, illegal wire taps, forging signatures engaged in by
Edwards and his firm
EFTA01102278
uestion- Have you ever socialized with Tommy Mottola?
Page 90; Lines 10-15 — answered this type of question shows where people have nothing to do
with the case have been brought in by Edwards in an attempt to simply imperil Epstein's
relationship with social friends and serves as an example of why this case has been brought
against Edwards and his firm
Questions related to damages Epstein claims to have suffered as a consequence of any
wrongdoing on the part of Edwards
Page 116; Lines 8-15 — answered the cost of ridiculous litigation, the cost of having attorneys
prepare responses to wildly irrelevant discovery in various locations at a minimum
Page 120; Lines 16-24 — answered apart from money paid to lawyers, the stress and emotional
damage of imperiling Epstein's friendships and business relationships with no relevance
whatsoever to these cases, brought by the firm to harass Epstein's friends and social contacts to
fleece investors out of millions of dollars
Page 126; Lines 1-5 — answered as proportionate to the amount of damages, Epstein believes
Edwards played a vital role. Epstein believes his partners potentially played a role
EFTA01102279
DataSet-10
Unknown
2 pages
ROTHSTEIN DEPOSITION NOTES
From Roy:
Have Rothstein name as many lawyers as possible as knowing about or actively being
involved in the schemes. Start out that he didn't hide it from the lawyers. They knew
something was going on. They knew where the money was coming from. They all
wanted to be part of the rock style practice of law.
Then move to the Epstein cases. He needed details of the cases to use them to sell the
settlements. He needed help to get that from the lawyers on the case. He gave orders to
them. He read the files. He had investigation done. These lawyers had to know something
was up. Don't mention Edwards to begin with. Lead into it with a whole bunch of
questions around the cases. Need him to say Edwards had to be onboard. Edwards was a
smart guy. He had to realize something was up. What emails to him. What questions to
him. What did he tell him about funding the cases. Did he ask where the money was
coming from? Did he want investigation done on Epstein's friends? Did he want big
names to help sell the cases? Flight manifests??
From Marty:
Privilege log - Rothstein on lots of emails with Edwards and lots of others at RRA. This
can show breadth of involvement in case with Brad in middle; a full firm effort without
any concealment of the over the top investigation and objectives. Ask about the use of
ex-FBI agent as lawyer. Rothstein must have authorized open-ended investigation - used
money that came from other frauds. Rothstein knew of surveillance of JE property -
didn't Rothstein tell a potential investor that he had PIs who could electronically
surveillance JE? Run thru list of what R authorized or approved or knew investigators
did to expand case and pressure JE by going after his friends, clients, public figures.
Does anyone have this list or an analysis of what it is we believe/know that Rothstein
knew/should have known/ordered to be done?
From Jeffrey:
Get spin by the questions that will be read by the press. Spend some time (on what
Rothstein knew?). For instance: did you know that no girls ever traveled (on the
plane?); Did you know that the girls were prostitutes (all of them? and lied about their
ages???); Did you suspect that Edwards was having an affair with the girls (I can't ask
that unless we have some basis in fact for doing so-); Do you know how Edwards came
to have these cases? Were these cases what prompted you to hire Edwards? Did you
know that they engaged in illegal entry and used wiretaps? (Was that RRA or the
FEDS?) Cam Holmes was a former tbi agent working for you at the time- why was she
working for you? How did you come to meet her?
Have Scott layout the number of contacts and social interactions between he and
Edwards. Did Scott follow the Epstein cases on q task? Why?
EFTA00586427
EFTA00586428
DataSet-10
Unknown
2 pages
Subjects for • Deposition:
Made a rape accusation in November 97. She was taken to the hospital in an
ambulance for being drunk while she was truant and the cops found her and S other
kids in a backyard at 10:30 in the morning. She told EMS that she had been raped. I
believe she admitted that she had consensual sexual intercourse with the suspect
multiple times prior to the reported rape. Investigation ensued and the State
attorney declined to prosecute.
Made another rape accusation in February 98
Did not report for almost a month
Would not meet for police interview for almost another month after she reported
the rape to her counselor
Did not want to identify the name of one of the suspects because his brother was
friends with her brother.
The two suspects picked her up at her boyfriend's house, they got drunk and
smoked two joints.
After the alleged rape by the two suspects in the car, she went home with one of the
suspects and claims she was raped again in his bedroom while the suspect's parents
and brother were in the house.
She told police that she told her boyfriend that she had consensual sex with the two
suspects.
Her mother reported to the police that she had problems with drugs, was a
runaway, was involved in a cult and the kids had problems with witchcraft and
animal sacrifices
ASA Teresa Bowman decided to file a case because . lacked credibility and the
would not succeed in the prosecution.
In March 2002 she was charged with theft involving her stealing $313.14 from the
restaurant at which she was working as a server.
She had a prior relationship with a much older man.
Ask if she took money from her friends for making introductions.
Explore number of girls she brought to the house, money she made for doing that,
money she may have taken from the girls she introduced. Did her boyfriend bring
her to the house? Did her parents bring her to the house? Did her friends wait for
her by the pool at JE's house? Did she ever tell anyone that she was a sex slave at
the time? Did she ever tell this to any of her friends that she brought there, her
boyfriend at that time? Did she discuss with her boyfriend at that time what she was
doing? Did she give him any of the money she was making? Did she only bring girls
when asked or did she actively seek out girls and call JE's house to see if he wanted
to meet girls she found? Explore what she did with the money? Drugs? Explore
whether she engaged in prostitution before she met JE. Ask if she had other clients
while working for JE? What about after working for JE? Why did she leave
EFTA01115520
Australia? Explore why she was working at a burger joint while supposedly being a
paid sex slave? What prompted her to steal $313.14. What was she going to use the
money for? How much was she involved in drugs at the time? See what her
recollection was like as to other events at the time. Explore her cult involvement?
How badly was she strung out on drugs and how may have that affected her
recollection of what happened, when and with whom?
Explore the details of her Clinton story
Explore the details of her Gore story
Explore her press articles and payment for the articles.
Explore financial arrangement with Brad and Paul
Do we know whether she approached Brad and Paul or they approached her?
EFTA01115521
DataSet-10
Unknown
6 pages
GHISLAINE MAXWELL - DEPOSITION OUTLINE
Recruitment
1. In the late summer or early fall of 2006, did you tell to recruit a young
woman to perform sexual acts on Jeffrey Epstein's behalf?
2. In the summer or fall of 2006, did tell you that she had recruited a young
woman by the name of to perform sexual acts on Jeffrey Epstein's behalf?
3. Did you ever pay to recruit females for Jeffrey Epstein?
4. Did you ever see Jeffrey Epstein pay to recruit females for him?
5. Did you recruit young, including underage, females for Jeffrey Epstein?
6. Did Jeffrey Epstein tell you to recruit young, including underage, females for him?
7. Did you oversee and train other recruiters on how best to recruit females for sex for Jeffrey
Epstein?
8. Did you ever promise young women money, shelter, transportation, gifts, employment,
admission into educational institutions, education tuition, protection or other things in
exchange for sex or sexual activities?
9. Did you ever hear Jeffrey Epstein promise young women money, shelter, transportation,
gifts, employment, admission into educational institutions, education tuition, protection or
other things in exchange for sex or sexual activities?
10. Did you ever demand that recruit other females to participate in sexual acts
with Jeffrey Epstein?
II. Did you ever hear Jeffrey Epstein demand that recruit other females to
participate in sexual acts with him or others?
12. Did you recruit for the purpose of sex trafficking?
Threaten/Coerce/Fraudulently Promise
13. In February, March or April of 2007, did you threaten that she had to
perform sex acts at your direction?
14. To your knowledge, in Februa , March or April of 2007, did Jeffrey Epstein or anyone
acting on his behalf threaten that she had to perform sex acts at Jeffrey
Epstein's direction?
EFTA00794269
15. In February, March or April of 2007, did you ever threaten with physical
force if she did not provide body massages to Jeffrey Epstein?
16. In February, March or April of 2007, did you ever threaten with physical
force if she did not have sex with Jeffrey Epstein?
17. Did you ever coerce, threaten or intimidate any young women to perform sex or sexual
activities for Jeffrey Epstein?
18. Did Jeffrey Epstein ever tell you to coerce, threaten or intimidate any young women to
perform sex or sexual activities for him or others?
19. Did you ever hear Jeffrey Epstein coerce, threaten or intimidate any young women to
perform sex or sexual activities for him or others?
20. Did you ever hear Jeffrey Epstein threaten with physical harm?
21. Did you ever physically restrain
22. Did you ever see Jeffrey Epstein restrain =I '?
23. Did you promise that in exchange for performing sexual acts for Jeffrey
Epstein or others that you would assist her in gaining admission to the Fashion Institute of
Technology?
24. Did you ever hear Jeffrey Epstein promise that in exchange for performing
sexual acts for him or others that he would assist her in gaining admission to the Fashion
Institute of Technology?
Weight
25. In February, March and April of 2007, did you tell that she had to lose
weight?
26. To our knowledge, in February, March and April of 2007, did Jeffrey Epstein tell
that she had to lose weight?
27. Did need to lose weight to pursue her modeling career?
Passport/Travel
28. At any time in 2006 or 2007, did you seize any passport belonging to
2
EFTA00794270
29. To your knowled e, at an time in 2006 or 2007, did Jeffrey Epstein seize any passport
belonging to
30. To your knowledge, at any time in 2006 or 2007, did Jeffrey Epstein instruct anyone to
seize any passport belonging to
31. Did you take possession or control of passport to induce or coerce her
into performing sexual acts with Jeffrey Epstein and others?
32. Did you ever see Jeffrey Epstein take possession or control of passport to
induce or coerce her into performing sexual acts for him and others?
33. Did you ever stop from leaving New York when she wanted?
34. Did you ever stop from returning to New York when she wanted?
35. Was restricted from leaving New York at any time?
36. Did you ever inhibit from traveling within the USA or outside of it in any
way?
Phone Calls to South Africa
37. While • was in South Africa in February of 2007, did you ever call her
parents?
38. Did you speak to her parents?
39. Did you promise her parents that if she came back to the United States that you would get
her modeling contracts?
40. Did you promise her parents that if she came back to the United States that you would get
her into the Fashion Institute of Technology?
Sex Trafficking/Commercial Sex Acts
41. Did perform sexual acts at your direction or on your behalf?
42. Did perform sexual acts at Jeffrey Epstein's direction or on his behalf?
43. In 2006 and 2007, did you provide with money or other things of value in
exchange for performing sexual acts?
44. To your knowledge, in 2006 and 2007, did Jeffrey Epstein provide with
money or other things of value in exchange for performing sexual acts?
3
EFTA00794271
45. Did you, in February, March and April of 2007, provide with money and
other things of value in exchange for performing sexual acts?
46. To our knowledge, did Jeffrey Epstein, in February, March and April of 2007, provide
with money or other things of value in exchange for performing sexual
acts?
47. In February, March and April of 2007, did you instruct to perform sex acts
with persons other than yourself?
48. To our knowledge, in February, March and April of 2007, did Jeffrey Epstein instruct
to perform sex act with persons other than himself?
49. In February, March and April of 2007, did you have sex with
50. To your knowled e, in February, March and April of 2007, did Jeffrey Epstein have sex
with
51. In February, March and April of 2007, were there other young women, other than
who you were paying or providing things of value in exchange for the
performance of sex acts?
52. To your knowled e, in February, March and April of 2007, were there other young women,
other than who Jeffrey Epstein was paying or providing things of value in
exchange for the performance of sex acts?
53. In February, March and April of 2007, did you employ young women, other than
to perform sex acts?
54. To your knowledge, in Febru , March and April of 2007, did Jeffrey Epstein employ
young women, other than to perform sex acts?
55. To your knowledge, in February, March and April of 2007, were there females under the
age of 18 who performed sex acts at Jeffrey Epstein's residence in Florida?
56. To your knowledge, in February, March and April of 2007, were there females under the
age of 18 who performed sex acts at Jeffrey Epstein's residence in New York City for
people other than Jeffrey Epstein?
57. To your knowledge, in February, March and April of 2007, were there females under the
age of 18 who performed sex acts at Jeffrey Epstein's residence in Florida for people other
than Jeffrey Epstein?
4
EFTA00794272
58. To your knowledge, in February, March and April of 2007, were there females under the
age of 18 who Jeffrey Epstein directed to perform sex acts at his residence in New York
City for people other than himself?
59. In February, March and April of 2007, were there females under the age of 18 who you
directed to perform sex acts at Jeffrey Epstein's residence in Florida for people other than
Jeffrey Epstein?
60. To your knowledge, in February, March and April of 2007, were there females under the
age of 18 who Jeffrey Epstein directed to perform sex acts at his residence in Florida for
people other than himself?
61. To your knowledge, did Jeffrey Epstein participate in a sex trafficking enterprise?
62. To your knowledge, does Jeffrey Epstein provide females under the age of 18 to his friends
for sexual purposes in order to secure social, business and other contacts as well as other
things of value?
63. Has Jeffrey Epstein ever asked you to provide a female under the age of 18 to his friends for
sexual purposes in order to secure social, business and other contacts as well as other things
of value?
64. To your knowledge, does Jeffrey Epstein provide females over the age of 18 to his friends
for sexual purposes in order to secure social, business and other contacts as well as other
things of value?
65. Has Jeffrey Epstein ever asked you to provide a female over the age of 18 to his friends for
sexual purposes in order to secure social, business and other contacts as well as other things
of value?
66. Did you ever conspire with the other named Defendants to force to have
sex with Jeffrey Epstein?
67. Did you ever conspire with the other named Defendants to coerce to have
sex with Jeffrey Epstein?
68. Did you ever conspire with the other named Defendants to fraudulently promise
either an education or a modeling contract, so she would have sex with Jeffrey
Epstein?
69. Did you ever sex traffic ==.?
70. Were you ever involved in a scheme to make engage in commercial sex
acts?
5
EFTA00794273
6
EFTA00794274
DataSet-10
Unknown
53 pages
Epstein Matter
Depositions Currently Scheduled
as of August 31, 2009
.
tl.,.1 ):IZ " 11-ntga, SAL:7. MOM latmir.
CMA Dr. Serge Thys * 8/31/09, 3:15pm Our Office Our Office
B.B. 9/01/09,11:OOam Esquire Court Rep Noticed by Kuvin
By video One Penn Plaza
Suite 4715
New York, NY10019
B.B. Jeffrey Epstein * 9/02/09,10:OOam Atterbury,Goldberger - same —
By video 250 S.Australian Ave.
Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL
B.B. 9/03/09, 9:00a.m. Searcy Denney Noticed by Kuvin
2139 Palm Beach
video Lakes Blvd.
West Palm Beach,
FL
JANE 9/03/09,10:00am Esquire Court Rep. Edwards & JPH,
DOE By Video. One Penn Plaza Kuvin
BB Suite 4715
New York, NY
10019
CMA 9/04/09,11:OOam Searcy Denney JPH
By Video 2139 Palm Beach
Lakes Blvd.
West Palm Beach,
FL
CMA Juan Alessi 9/08/09,10:00am Searcy Denney JPH
By Video 2139 Palm Beach
Lakes Blvd.
West Palm Beach,
FL
LM • 9/9/09,10:00am Our Office Our Office
LM MS • 9/11/09,10:OOam Our Office Our Office
By Video
Doe #4 Jane Doe #4 * 9/16/09,1:00pm Our Office Our Office
lailli=
CMA Igor Zinoview 9/17/09,10:OOam Doerner & Goldberg JPH
Revmont Park,
South Building
1161 Broad Street,
#110
EFTA01075929
Shrewsbury, NJ
07702
CMA Tommy Matola 9/18/09,10:00am Esquire Court Rep. JPH
One Penn Plaza
Suite 4715
New York, NY
10019
B.B. * 9/21/09,1:00 pm McIntosh Sawran Noticed by Kuvin
kyle. 1601 Forum Place
Suite 1110
JANE Mark Epstein 9/21/09,11:00am Esquire Court Rep. Edwards
DOE, By Video One Penn Plaza Kuvin
BB Suite 4715
New York, NY
10019
JANE Jean Luc Bruhel 9/22/09,10:00am Esquire Court Rep. Edwards
DOE, One Penn Plaza Kuvin
BB By Video Suite 4715
New York, NY
JANE Ghislane Maxwell 9/23/09,10:OOam Esquire Court Rep. Edwards
DOE ** One Penn Plaza
By Video Suite 4715
New York, NY
LM, Bill Riley 9/24/09,10:OOam Esquire Edwards
Doe 101, By Video 515 E. Las Olas Ezell
102 Blvd., #1300, Ft.
Lauderdale, FL
JANE Donald Trump 9/24/09,11:OOam Esquire Court Rep. Edwards.
DOE, By video One Penn Plaza Ezell
Doe 101, Suite 4715
102 New York, NY
JANE Jane Doe' 9/30/09,10:00am Our Office Our Office
DOE By Video
L.M. Larry Eugene 10/6/0910:OOam. Esquire Court Rep Edwards
Doe 101, Morrison 515 N. Flagler Dr. Ezell. Kuvin
102 Duces Tecum WPB, FL
BB
LM, Doe 10/6/09 2:00p.m. Esquire Court Rep Edwards
EFTA01075930
101, 102 515 N. Flagler Dr. Ezell, Kuvin
B.B. WPB, FL
LM David Hart 10/7/09 10:00am Esquire Court Rep Edwards, Kuvin,
BB Rogers 515 N. Flagler Dr. Ezell
Doe 101, Duces Tecum WPB, FL
102
LM Janusz Banasiak 10/7/09,2:00 p.m. Esquire Court Rep Edwards, Kuvin
BB 515 N. Flagler Dr. Ezell
Doe101, WPB, FL
102
LM, Lawrence Paul 10/8/09,10:00.am Esquire Court Rep Edwards, Ezell
Doe101, Visoski,Jr. 515 N. Flagler Dr. Kuvin
102, BB Duces Tecum WPB, FL
LM. 10/8/09,4:00 p.m. Esquire Court Rep Edwards, Ezell,
Doe 101, 1021 Ives DairyRd. Kuvin
102,B.B. Suite 214,Bidg.3
North Miami, FL
Agreed Upon / Scheduled
••
Have service
EFTA01075931
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 08-Civ-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON
JANE DOE NO. 2,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
Related cases:
08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994,
08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,
09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
CROSS-NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED D POSITION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at the below listed time and place the Plaintiff JANE
DOE NO. 101 and JANE DOE NO. 102, by and through undersigned counsel, will take the
videotaped deposition of:
NAME OF DENNENT DATE AND TIME PLACE OF DEPOSITION
William "Bill" Riley Thursday Esquire Court Reporters
September 24, 2009 515 E. Las Olas Blvd.
10:00 a.m. Suite 1300
Fort Lauderdale, FL
upon oral examination before Esquire Court Reporters, Court Reporters, Notary Public, or any other
notary public or officer authorized by law to take depositions in the State of Florida. The oral
PodIntrst Orseck, P.A.
25 West Nagler Street, Suite an, mu.* at.saiso,m3=4IMM Fm- • Fat www.peelbseetcesa
EFTA01075932
examination will continue from day to day until completed. This deposition is being taken for the
purpose of discovery, for use at trial, or for such other purposes as are permitted under the rules of
Court.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on thisatay of August, 2009, a copy of the foregoing was
served this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List either via e-mail
and/or U.S. mail.
Respectfully submitted,
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
Attorneysfor Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101
and Jane Doe No. 102
By: F)06.va C, &.e WA/A
Robed C. Josetsberg
Fit Bar No. 040856
Ka erie W. Ezel1
Fla. Bar No. 114771
City National Bank Building
25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone:M
Facsimile:
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
25 went Hagler Street Suite 800, Miami, FL 33130, Sax • Port Lauderdale www.podburaton
EFTA01075933
SERVICE LIST
JANE DOE NO. 2 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Via Regular mail and e-mail to:
Robert Critton, Esq.
Michael .1. Pike, Esq.
Burman, Critton, Luther & Coleman LLP
303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400
West Paim Beach. FL 33401
Phone
Counselfor Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein
Via email to:
Jack Scarola, Esq.
Jack P. Hill, Esq.
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, PA
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach Florida 33409
Counselfor Plainti in r to e o. -
Adam Horowitz, Esq.
Stuart Mermelstein, Esq.
Mertnelstein & Horowitz, P.A.
18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218
'mai FL 33160
Counselfor Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. 08- , 80119,08-80232, 08-80380, 08-
80381, 08-80993, 08-80994
-3-
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
25 West Flash,' Street, Suite KO, /Komi, FL 33130, Miami Fax • Fort Lauderdale www.padhuralcom
EFTA01075934
Spencer Todd Kuvin, Esq.
Theodore Jon Leopold, Esq.
Leopold Kuvin, P.A.
2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
Palm Beach Gard n FL 33410
ounse or ern: in ea e.
Richard Willits, Esq.
Richard 14. Willits, P.A.
2290 10w Ave North, Suite 404
Lake Worth. FL 33461
Counselfor Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80811
Brad Edwards, Esq.
Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650
Fort Lauderdale FL 33301-4252
Counselfor Plaintiff In Related Case No. 08-80
Isidro Manuel Garcia, Esq.
Garcia Elkins & Boehringer
224 Datum Avenue, Suite 900
Im Beac__h, FL 33401
Counselfor Plaintiffin Related Case No. 08-80469
-4-
Poc/hurst Omeck, P.A.
Fax • Fat Lauderdale wanvecidlusrstcosa
25 Wen Flagkr Sheet, Sue 900. ?Aim& FL 33130, Mina
EFTA01075935
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 08-Civ-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON
JANE DOE NO. 2,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
Related cases:
08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994,
08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,
09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 0941092
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FOR VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION
STATE OF FLORIDA:
TO: William "Bill" Riley
5645 Coral Ridge Drive
Coral Springs, FL 33076
YOU ARE COMMANDED TO APPEAR before Esquire Court Reporters, 515 East Las Olas
Blvd., Suite 1300, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Notary Public, or any other Notary Public or officer
authorized by law to take depositions in the State of Florida at their offices on September 24, 2009,
at 10:00 a.m. for the taking of your videotaped deposition in the above-styled cause and have with
you at the time and place the items listed on the attached SCHEDULE A.
If you fail to appear, you may be in contempt of Court.
EFTA01075936
You are subpoenaed to appear by the following attorneys and unless excused from this subpoena
by these attorneys or the Court, you shall respond to this subpoena as directed.
Witness my hand and the seal of said Court on August 2009.
Officer of the Court
BY: W -
Katherine W. B
Fla. Bar No, 114771
PODHURST ORSECIC, P.A.
25 W. Hagler Street, Suite 800
Miami Florida 33130
EFTA01075937
SCHEDULE A
TO THE DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF WILLIAM "BILL" RILEY
1) All computers, computer equipment, photographs, undeveloped film, videos, video
equipment, digital video discs, compact discs, surveillance equipment and recordings, documents,
and any other items taken from the residence located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida at
any time, including, but not limited to, any of the following specific items that existed in the
residence since 1998, which includes items prior to the residence being the subject of the execution
of a search warrant by the Palm Beach Police Department, on or about October 20, 2005, as well as
items that existed in the residence after the search warrant to the present time, any of which have
since come within your possession, custody, or control:
-all surveillance videos, videos, photographs, memory cards, and/or undeveloped film
taken by any hidden and/or nonhidden cameras that captured the images of any young women who
came to the residence to provide massages or other services to Defendant;
-all photographs and/or any information pertaining to young women who came to the
residence to provide ma ervices as maintained on the con rs in the residence that
were used by Defendant Ghislaine Maxwel and/or any other
agent or employee of Defendant, including, but not limited to, those as testified to by Alfredo
Rodriguez;
-all photographs that existed depicting or pertaining to Defendant's travels with Jane
Doe No. 102 and/or others, including, but not limited to, Ghislaine Maxwell, taken in New Mexico,
New York, London, Paris, Little St. James Island, United States Virgin Islands, other pans of the
Caribbean, Los Angeles, San Francisco, St. Louis, Africa, Europe, or elsewhere;
-all copies of photographs of Jane DoeNo. 102, including, but not limited to, those
taken by Ghislaine Maxwell as a birthday present for Defendant;
-all information and/or photographs relating to arrangements made by, or on behalf
of, Defendant for Jane Doe No. 102 to meet and escort back to the United States a young woman
from Thailand in 2002;
-all film, videos, photographs, and/or digital images of any of the young women
identified as victims of Defendant tili o County State
Beach includin but not
limited to, those taken by Defender) hislaine Maxwell and/or
any other agent or employee of Defer) ant;
-all film, videos, photographs, and/or digital images o and any
young women who came to the residence toprovide massages or other services, inc u m , but not
limited to, all depictions of and any of these youngwomen engaged in any sexual
acts;
-all film, videos, photographs, and/or digital images of any of the young women
EFTA01075938
identified as victims on the list provided to Jack Goldberger and Michael Tein by the United States
Attorney's Office after the state plea and sentencing;
-any material on any of Defendant's computers relating to any of the above;
-any evidence of Defendant's accessing interactive sex or pornographic-related
Internet sites
-the "mosaic" or montage of photographs of young women and/or their "body parts" that was located
in Defendant's closet, as testified to by .Alfredo Rodriguez, as well as all single photographs that
were a part of that grouping;
-all photographs of young women that were removed from the residence before the
execution of the search warrant on October 20, 2005, including, but not limited to, those on the walls
of any staircase ;
-anything taken from Defendant's residence during the execution of the search
warrant on October 20, 2005, and that was returned and has been, or is presently, in possession,
custody, or control of Defendant and/or his agents and/or employees;
2) Any evidence of telephone calls between Jane Doe No. 102 and Defendant and/or his
agents and/or employees in or about 2007 through and including 2008;
3) Any items listed on the attached Palm Beach Police Department Property Receipts dated
October 20, 2005;
4) Any items removed from the residence by Defendant and/or his agents and/or employees
before the execution of the search warrant on October 20, 2005.
EFTA01075939
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 08-Civ-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON
JANE DOE NO. 2,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
Related eases:
08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994,
08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,
0940591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 0941092
CROSS-NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITXON
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at the below listed time and place the Plaintiff. JANE
DOE NO. 101 and JANE DOE NO. 102, by and through undersigned counsel, will take the
depositions of:
NAME OF DEPONENT DATE AND TIME PLACE OF DEPOSITION
Donald Trump Thursday Esquire Court Reporters
September 24, 2009 One Penn Plaza
11:00 a.m. Suite 4715
New York, NY 10119
upon oral examination before ESQUIRE COURT REPORTERS, a Notary Public, or any other
notary public or officer authorized by law to take depositions in the State of Florida. The oral
examination will continue from day to day until completed. This deposition is being taken for the
purpose of discovery, for use at trial, or for such other purposes as are permitted under the rules of
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
25 Wat Platter Street, Sidle SOO, MYmI PL 53130, Mani Pat • Port Lauderdale rvve.podhureteora
EFTA01075940
Court.
CERTMCATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 21fi day of August, 2009, a copy of the foregoing was
served this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List either via e-mail
and/or U.S. mail.
Respectfully submitted,
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101
and Jane Doe No. 102
By: • tAI • Er
Ro C. Josefsberg
Fla. Bar No. 040856
Katherine W. Eaelf
Fla. Bar No. 114771
...ion. at Pl umg
25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: .
Facsimile:
-2-
Podlutrst Orsecic,
25 West Hagler Street, State eco, Wag. FL 33130, Nragan==== Fort Laudei dale I www.podhantscan
EFTA01075941
SERVICE LIST
JANE DOE NO. 2 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Case No. 08-CV-80119-MAR.RABOHNSON
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Via Regular mail and e-mail to:
Robert Critton, Esq.
Michael J. Pike, Esq.
Burman, Critton, Luther & Coleman LLP
303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400
L33401
Counselfor Defendant,, Jeffrey Epstein
Via email to:
Jack Scarola, Esq.
Jack P. Hill, Esq.
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
Counselfor Plaintiff in relat
Adam Horowitz, Esq.
Stuart Merrnelstein, Esq.
Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.
18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218
160
Counselfor Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119,08-80232, 0840380, 08-
80381, 08-80993, 08-80994
-3-
Podhurst Orseck,
Port Lauderdale www.potevartmen
25 west mar Street, &detail% Mimi, FL 33130, MiuniMMIMMIIR
EFTA01075942
Spencer Todd Kuvin, Esq.
Theodore Jon Leopold, Esq.
Leopold Kuvin, P.A.
2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
Palm Beach Gardens FL 33410
ounse or ainti in eat ate o. 08-08804
Richard Willits, Esq.
Richard H. Willits, P.A.
2290 10th Ave North, Suite 404
Lake Worth. FL 33461
Phone:
Counselfor Plaint-Win Related Case No. 08-80811
Brad Edwards, Esq.
Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650
Fort Lauderdale FL 33301-4252
ounselfor Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893
Isidro Manuel Garcia, Esq.
Garcia Elkins & Boehringer
224 Dattira Avenue, Suite 900
West Palm Beach FL 33401
Counselfor Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469
-4-
Podhurst Orseck, RA-
25 Went Flatter Street, Suite 800, tvilaini, EL 33130, MI-S • Fort latuderda:e v.vtat.padhunt.ccui
EFTA01075943
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 08-Civ-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON
JANE DOE NO. 2,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
Related cases:
08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994,
08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,
09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
CROSS-NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at the below listed time and place the Plaintiff, JANE
DOE NO. 101 and JANE DOE NO. 102, by and through undersigned counsel, will take the
depositions of:
NAME OF DEPONENT DATE AND TIME PLACE OF DEPOSITION
Larry Eugene Morrison Tuesday Esquire Court Reporters
October 6, 2009 515 N. Flagler Dr.
10:00 a.m. West Palm Beach, FL 33401-
4321
upon oral examination before ESQUIRE COURT REPORTERS, a Notary Public, or any other
notary public or officer authorized by law to take depositions in the State of Florida. The oral
examination will continue from day to day until completed. This deposition is being taken for the
of
purpose of discovery, for use at trial, or for such other purposes as are permitted under the rules
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800. Miami, FL 33130, Miami Fax • Fort Lauderdale www.podtiurst.core
EFTA01075944
Court.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on this jrday of August, 2009, a copy of the foregoing was
served this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List either via e-mail
and/or U.S. mail.
Respectfully submitted,
PODHURST ORSECK,
Attorneysfor Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101
and Jane Doe No. 102
By:
Robert C. Jose berg
Fla. Bar No. 040856
Katherine W. Ezell
Fla. Bar No. 114771
City National Bank Building
25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone:
Facsimile:
-2-
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
25 West Flagler street, Suite 800, Wan* FL 33130, Miami Fax • Fort 'Lauderdale www.podhurat.com
EFTA01075945
SERVICE LIST
JANE DOE NO. 2 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Via Regular mail and e-mail to:
Robert Critton, Esq.
Michael J. Pike, Esq.
Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman LLP
303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: ax:
Counselfor Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein
Via email to:
Jack Scarola, Esq.
Jack P. Hill, Esq.
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach Florida 33409
Phone: Pax:
Counselfor Plaintiff in related Case No. 08-80811
Adam Horowitz, Esq.
Stuart Mermelstein, Esq.
Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.
18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218
Miami, FL 33160
Phone: az:
Counselfor Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119,08-8023Z 08-80380, 08-
80381, 08-80993, 08-80994
-3-
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
75 West Hagler Stxtee, Suite 800, MSS, FL 33130, Miami Fax • Pad tauchedale www.psaltursteas
EFTA01075946
Spencer Todd Kuvin, Esq.
Theodore Jon Leopold, Esq.
Leopold Kuvin, P.A.
2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
Pah:n Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Phone:
Counsellor Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-08804
Richard Willits, Esq.
Richard H. Willits, P.A.
229010° Ave North, Suite 404
Lake Worth. FL 33461
Phone:
Counselfor Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-8081j
Brad Edwards, Esq.
Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650
Fort Lauderdale. FL 33301-4252
Phone:
Counselfor Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893
Isidro Manuel Garcia, Esq.
Garcia Elkins & Boehringer
224 Datura Avenue, Suite 900
West Palm Beach FL 33401
Phone: Fax:
Counselfor Plaintiff in Related Case No. 0840469
-4-
Podhurst Orsecic, P.A.
25 West Fiesta Street. Suite 800, Miami, F1.33130, Nand Faxes • Fart Lauderdale asay.podhunt.com
EFTA01075947
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 08-Civ-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON
JANE DOE NO. 2,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
Related cases:
08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994,
08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,
09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
CROSS-NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at the below listed time and place the Plaintiff JANE
DOE NO. 101 and JANE DOE NO. 102, by and through undersigned counsel, will take the
depositions of:
NAME OF DEPONENT DATE PLACE OF DEPOSITION
Tuesday Esquire Court Reporters
October 6, 2009 515 N. Flagler Dr.
2:00 p.m. West Palm Beach, FL 33401-
4321
upon oral examination before ESQUIRE COURT REPORTERS, a Notary Public, or any other
notary public or officer authorized by law to take depositions in the State of Florida. The oral
examination will continue from day to day until completed. This deposition is being taken for the
purpose of discovery, for use at trial, or for such other purposes as are permitted under the rules of
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
75 W.d Pink.St.e. S,.0, 300. Naami. Ft. 3313a Fax • Fort Lauderdale95't463.4346 yrww.podhuot.com
EFTA01075948
Court.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 2G4"-day of August, 2009, a copy of the foregoing was
served this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List either via e-mail
and/or U.S. mail.
Respectfully submitted,
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
Attorneysfor Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101
and Jane Doe No. 102
By: RA 6-tn--f"
Robert C. Josefsb
Fla. Bar No. 040856
Katherine W. Ezell
Fla. Bar No. 114771
City National
25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800
Miami, FL 33130
:
Telephone:MI
-2-
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
73 West Sheer Street, Suite 800, Waal, FL 33130, Miami Fax_• Fort Lauderdale www.podlutrateorsi
EFTA01075949
SERVICE LIST
JANE DOE NO. 2 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Via Regular mall and e-mail to:
Robert Critton, Esq.
Michael J. Pike, Esq.
Burman, Critton, Luther & Coleman LLP
303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400
West P ch FL 33401
Phone: ax:
Counselfor Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein
Via email to;
Jack Semple, Esq.
Jack P. Hill, Esq.
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Florida 33409
Phone: ax:
Counselfor Plaintiff in related Case No. 08-80811
Adam Horowitz, Esq.
Stuart Mermelstein, Esq.
Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.
18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218
Miami, FL 33160
Phone:
Counselfor Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119,08-80232, 08-80380, 08-
80381, 08-80993, 08-80994
-3-
Podhurst Orseck,
25 west Maglar Street, Suite 800, Mum, Fl. 35130, KAM= Fix • Fort landerdalaMINI wwve,pcdhurstcom
EFTA01075950
Spencer Todd Kuvin, Esq.
Theodore Jon Leopold, Esq.
Leopold Kuvin, P.A.
2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
Palm Beach Gardens FL 33410
Phone: ax: •
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-08804
Richard Willits, Esq.
Richard H. Willits, P.A.
2290 10d' Ave North, Suite 404
Lake Worth FL 461
Phone:
Counselfor Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80811
Brad Edwards, Esq.
Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650
Fort Lauderdale FL 33301-4252
Phone: ax:
Counselfor Plain:jiffy; dated Case No. 08-80893
Isidro Manuel Garcia, Esq.
Garcia Elkins & Boehringer
224 Datura Avenue, Suite 900
West Palm Beach FL 33401
Phone: 'Fax:
Counselfor Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469
-4-
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
25 Wart Flagla Street Suite 800, Miami. FL 33130, Maud Fax • Fort Lauderdale www.podhurstcom
EFTA01075951
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 08-Civ-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON
JANE DOE NO. 2,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
Related cases:
08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994,
08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,
09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
CROSS-NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at the below listed time and place the Plaintiff, JANE
DOE NO. 101 and JANE DOE NO. 102, by and through undersigned counsel, will take the
depositions of:
NAME OF DEPONENT DATE AND TIME PLACE OF DEPOSITION
David Hart Rogers Wednesday Esquire Court Reporters
October 7, 2009 515 N. Flagler Dr.
10:00 am. West Palm Beach, FL 33401-
4321
upon oral examination before ESQUIRE COURT REPORTERS, a Notary Public, or any other
notary public or officer authorized by law to take depositions in the State of Florida. The oral
examination will continue from day to day until completed. This deposition is being taken for the
purpose of discovery, for use at trial, or for such other purposes as are permitted under the rules of
Podhurst Orsecic, PA.
15 West Flagler Street. Suite 800. /Abaci, Fl. 33130, Miami Fax • Fort Lauderdale www.podhurstcom
EFTA01075952
Court.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 2h *clay of August, 2009, a copy of the foregoing was
served this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List either via e-mail
and/or U.S. mail.
Respectfully submitted,
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
Attorneysfor Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101
and Jane Doe No. 102
BY:
Robert C. Josefsberg
Fla. Bar No. 040856
Katherine W. Ezell
Fla. Bar No. 114771
City National Bank Building
25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800
Miami, FL 33130
TelephoneiM
Facsimile:
-2-
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
Fort Lauderdale www.podhurstcom
25 West Flatlet Street, Suite 800, Miami. FL 33130, Miami
EFTA01075953
SERVICE LIST
JANE DOE NO. 2 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Via Regular mail and e-mail to:
Robert Critton, Esq.
Michael J. Pike, Esq.
Burman, Critton, Limier & Coleman LLP
303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400
West P 3401
Phone: ax:
Counselfor Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein
Via email to:
Jack Scarola, Esq.
Jack P. Hill, Esq.
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West P sdaax3:31i imm
Phone:
Counselfor Plaintiff in related Case No. 08-80811
Adam Horowitz, Esq.
Stuart Mermelstein, Esq.
Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.
18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218
Mi a s
mi
Phone: Fax:
Counselfor Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119,08-80232, 08-80380, 08-
80381, 08-80993, 08-80994
-3-
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
25 West Pla&ler Steel, Suite 800, Miami.It 33130, Mimi • Port Laidedde www.podtonstcom
EFTA01075954
Spencer Todd Kuvin, Esq.
Theodore Jon Leopold, Esq.
Leopold Kuvin, P.A.
2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
Palm Beach 3
Phone /Fax
Counselfor Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-08804
Richard Willits, Esq.
Richard H. Willits, PA
229010` Ave No* Suite 404
Lake W
Phone. /Fax
Counselfor Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80811 •
Brad Edwards, Esq.
Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650
Fort 301-iiima
Phone: [Fax:
Counselfor Plaintiff In Re ated Case No. 08-80893
Isidro Manuel Garcia, Esq.
Garcia Elkins & Boehringer
224 Datura Avenue, Suite 900
West Palm Beach FL 33401
Phone: /Fax:
Counsel for Plaint' ated Case No. 0840469
-4-
Podhurst Orserl, P.A.
• Fort Lauderdale wenvpodhurstcom
25 West Flasler Street, Suite 800. Want Fl.33130,141wIMIMx
EFTA01075955
UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 08-Civ-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON
JANE DOE NO. 2,
Plaintiff,
NS.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
Related cases:
08-80232, 08-80380, 0840381, 08-80994,
08-80993, 08-80811, 0840893, 09-80469,
09-80591, 0940656, 09-80802, 09-81092
CROSS-NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at the below listed time and place the Plaintiff, JANE
DOE NO. 101 and JANE DOE NO. 102, by and through undersigned counsel, will take the
depositions of:
NAME OF DEPONENT PATEMgaTIME PLACE OF DEPOSITION
Janusz Bnnasiak Wednesday Esquire Court Reporters
October 7, 2009 515 N. Flagler Dr.
2:00 p.m. West Palm Beach, FL 33401-
4321
upon oral examination before ESQUIRE COURT REPORTERS, a Notary Public, or any other
notary public or officer authorized by law to take depositions in the State of Florida. The oral
examination will continue from day to day until completed. This deposition is being taken for the
purpose of discovery, for use at trial, or for such other purposes as are permitted under the rules of
Podhurst Orseck. P.A.
25 West Flagler Street. Suite 800, Minna,It 33130, Miami Fax • Fort Laudadale www.podhuntecen
EFTA01075956
Court.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on thi0.1) day of August, 2009, a copy of the foregoing was
served this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List either via e-mail
and/or U.S. mail.
Respectfully submitted,
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
Attorneysfor Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101
and Jane Doe No. 102
By: a7444-a.--•--- (At --for i.,
Robert C. Josefsberg
Fla. Bar No. 040856
Katherine W. Ezell
Ha. Bar No. 114771
City National Bank Building
25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone:
Facsimile:
-2-
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
25 West Flagler Street, suite 800. Miami. FL 33130, Miami Floc • Fort 'Lauderdale www.podhuracom
EFTA01075957
SERVICE LIST
JANE DOE NO. 2 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON
United States District Court, Southern D
case-18-2868
Unknown
25 pages
Case 18-2868, Document 213-1, 07/03/2019, 2600261, Page1 of 25
18‐2868; 16‐3945‐cv(L)
Brown v. Maxwell; Dershowitz v. Giuffre
In the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit
AUGUST TERM 2018
No. 18‐2868‐cv
JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD COMPANY,
Intervenors‐Appellants,
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant‐Appellee,
v.
VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,
Plaintiff‐Appellee.
No. 16‐3945‐cv(L)
No. 17‐1625 (CON)
No. 17‐1722(CON)
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, MICHAEL CERNOVICH, DBA CERNOVICH
MEDIA,
Intervenors‐Appellants,
Case 18-2868, Document 213-1, 07/03/2019, 2600261, Page2 of 25
V.
VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,
Plaintiff‐Appellee,
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant‐Appellee.*
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York
ARGUED: MARCH 6, 2019
DECIDED: JULY 2, 2019
Before: CABRANES, POOLER, and DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
Intervenors‐Appellants Alan Dershowitz, Michael Cernovich,
and the Miami Herald Company (with reporter Julie Brown) appeal
from certain orders of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Robert W. Sweet, Judge) denying their respective
motions to unseal filings in a defamation suit. We conclude that the
* The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the captions as set out above.
2
Case 18-2868, Document 213-1, 07/03/2019, 2600261, Page3 of 25
District Court failed to conduct the requisite particularized review
when ordering the sealing of the materials at issue. At the same time,
we recognize the potential damage to privacy and reputation that may
accompany public disclosure of hard‐fought, sensitive litigation. We
therefore clarify the legal tools that district courts should use in
safeguarding the integrity of their dockets. Accordingly, we VACATE
the District Court’s orders entered on November 2, 2016, May 3, 2017,
and August 27, 2018, ORDER the unsealing of the summary judgment
record as described further herein, and REMAND the cause to the
District Court for particularized review of the remaining sealed
materials.
Judge Pooler concurs in this opinion except insofar as it orders
the immediate unsealing of the summary judgment record without a
remand.
SANFORD L. BOHRER (Christine N. Walz,
Madelaine J. Harrington, New York, NY, on
the brief), Holland & Knight LLP, Miami, FL,
for Intervenors‐Appellants Julie Brown and
Miami Herald.
TY GEE (Adam Mueller, on the brief),
Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C.,
Denver, CO, for Defendant‐Appellee Ghislaine
Maxwell.
3
Case 18-2868, Document 213-1, 07/03/2019, 2600261, Page4 of 25
PAUL G. CASSELL (Sigrid S. McCawley, Boies
Schiller Flexner LLP, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, on
the brief), S.J Quinney College of Law,
University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, for
Plaintiff‐Appellee Virginia L. Giuffre.
ANDREW G. CELLI JR. (David A. Lebowitz, on
the brief), Emery, Celli, Brinckerhoff &
Abady LLP, New York, NY, for Intervenor‐
Appellant Alan M. Dershowitz.
MARC RANDAZZA (Jay Marshall Wolman,
Las Vegas, NV, on the brief), Randazza Legal
Group, PLLC, Hartford, CT, for Intervenor‐
Appellant Michael Cernovich.
JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge:
Intervenors‐Appellants Alan M. Dershowitz (“Dershowitz”),
Michael Cernovich (“Cernovich”), and the Miami Herald Company
(with reporter Julie Brown, jointly the “Herald”) appeal from certain
orders of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (Robert W. Sweet, Judge) denying their respective motions
to unseal filings in a defamation suit. We conclude that the District
Court failed to conduct the requisite particularized review when
ordering the sealing of the materials at issue. At the same time, we
4
Case 18-2868, Document 213-1, 07/03/2019, 2600261, Page5 of 25
recognize the potential damage to privacy and reputation that may
accompany public disclosure of hard‐fought, sensitive litigation. We
therefore clarify the legal tools that district courts should use in
safeguarding the integrity of their dockets. Accordingly, we VACATE
the District Court’s orders entered on November 2, 2016, May 3, 2017,
and August 27, 2018, ORDER the unsealing of the summary judgment
record as described further herein, and REMAND the cause to the
District Court for particularized review of the remaining sealed
materials.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Jeffrey Epstein’s Conviction and the CVRA Suit
The origins of this case lie in a decade‐old criminal proceeding
against financier Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein”). On June 30, 2008, Epstein
pleaded guilty to Florida state charges of soliciting, and procuring a
person under the age of eighteen for, prostitution. The charges
stemmed from sexual activity with privately hired “masseuses,” some
of whom were under eighteen, Florida’s age of consent. Pursuant to
an agreement with state and federal prosecutors, Epstein pleaded to
the state charges. He received limited jail‐time, registered as a sex
offender, and agreed to pay compensation to his victims. In return,
prosecutors declined to bring federal charges.
Shortly after Epstein entered his plea, two of his victims,
proceeding as “Jane Doe 1” and “Jane Doe 2,” filed suit against the
Government in the Southern District of Florida under the Crime
Victims’ Rights Act (“CVRA”). The victims sought to nullify the plea
5
Case 18-2868, Document 213-1, 07/03/2019, 2600261, Page6 of 25
agreement, alleging that the Government failed to fulfill its legal
obligations to inform and consult with them in the process leading up
to Epstein’s plea deal.1
On December 30, 2014, two additional unnamed victims—one
of whom has now self‐identified as Plaintiff‐Appellee Virginia Giuffre
(“Giuffre”)—petitioned to join in the CVRA case. These petitioners
included in their filings not only descriptions of sexual abuse by
Epstein, but also new allegations of sexual abuse by several other
prominent individuals, “including numerous prominent American
politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well‐
known Prime Minister, and other world leaders,” as well as
Dershowitz (a long‐time member of the Harvard Law School faculty
who had worked on Epstein’s legal defense) and Defendant‐Appellee
Ghislaine Maxwell (“Maxwell”).2
Dershowitz moved to intervene, seeking to “strike the
outrageous and impertinent allegations made against him and to
request a show cause order to the attorneys that have made them.”3
Exercising its authority to “strike from a pleading an insufficient
1 On February 21, 2019, the Florida District Court ruled that federal
prosecutors had violated the CVRA by failing to adequately notify the two victims‐
plaintiffs of the plea deal. The District Court has not yet determined the appropriate
remedy. See Doe 1 v. United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201, 1204–17 (S.D. Fla. 2019).
2 Doe 1 v. United States, No. 08‐CV‐80736‐KAM, 2015 WL 11254692, at *2 (S.D.
Fla. Apr. 7, 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
3 Id. (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).
6
Case 18-2868, Document 213-1, 07/03/2019, 2600261, Page7 of 25
defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
matter . . . on its own,”4 the Florida District Court (Kenneth A. Marra,
Judge) sua sponte struck all allegations against additional parties from
the pleadings, including those against Dershowitz, and therefore
denied Dershowitz’s motion as moot.5
The stricken allegations, however, quickly found their way into
the press, and several media outlets published articles repeating
Giuffre’s accusations. In response to the allegations, on January 3,
2015, Maxwell’s publicist issued a press statement declaring that
Giuffre’s allegations “against Ghislaine Maxwell are untrue” and that
her “claims are obvious lies.”6
B. Giuffre Sues Maxwell
On September 21, 2015, Giuffre filed the underlying action
against Maxwell in the Southern District of New York. Giuffre alleged
that Maxwell had defamed her through this and other public
statements. Extensive and hard‐fought discovery followed. Due to the
volume of sealing requests filed during discovery, on August 9, 2016,
the District Court entered a Sealing Order that effectively ceded
control of the sealing process to the parties themselves. The Sealing
Order disposed of the requirement that the parties file individual letter
briefs to request sealing and prospectively granted all of the parties’
4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).
5 Doe 1, 2015 WL 11254692, at *2–3.
6 See Giuffre v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428, 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2018).
7
Case 18-2868, Document 213-1, 07/03/2019, 2600261, Page8 of 25
future sealing requests. In total, 167 documents—nearly one‐fifth of
the docket—were filed under seal. These sealed documents include,
inter alia, motions to compel discovery, motions for sanctions and
adverse inferences, motions in limine, and similar material.
On January 6, 2017, Maxwell filed a motion for summary
judgment. The parties submitted their memoranda of law and
supporting exhibits contesting this motion under seal. On March 22,
2017, the District Court denied the motion in a heavily redacted 76‐
page opinion. Once again, the entire summary judgment record,
including the unredacted version of the District Court opinion
denying summary judgment, remained under seal. On May 24, 2017,
Maxwell and Giuffre executed a settlement agreement, and the case
was closed the next day.
C. Motions to Intervene and Unseal
Over the course of the litigation before Judge Sweet, three
outside parties attempted to unseal some or all of the sealed material.
On August 11, 2016, Dershowitz moved to intervene, seeking to unseal
three documents that, he argues, demonstrate that Giuffre invented
the accusations against him. On January 19, 2017, Cernovich, an
independent blogger and self‐described “popular political
journalist,”7 moved to intervene, seeking to unseal the summary
judgment record, and Dershowitz joined his motion. On April 6, 2018,
after the case had settled, the Herald moved to intervene and unseal
7 Br. Appellant (Cernovich) 4.
8
Case 18-2868, Document 213-1, 07/03/2019, 2600261, Page9 of 25
the entire docket. The District Court granted each of these motions to
intervene, but denied the related requests to unseal in orders entered
November 2, 2016, May 3, 2017, and August 27, 2018, respectively.
The Appellants timely appealed from each of the orders
denying their respective motions to unseal. Although each Appellant
seeks the release of a different set of documents, all argue that the
District Court failed to analyze the documents individually or
properly apply the presumption of public access to court documents.
We therefore ordered that the appeals be heard in tandem and held
argument on March 6, 2019.
On March 11, 2019, we issued an order to show cause why we
“should not unseal the summary judgment motion, including any
materials filed in connection with this motion, and the District Court’s
summary judgment decision.”8 The parties timely filed their
responses.
II. DISCUSSION
There are two categories of sealed material at issue in these
appeals: (1) the summary judgment record, which includes the parties’
summary judgment briefs, their statements of undisputed facts, and
incorporated exhibits; and (2) court filings made in the course of the
discovery process and with respect to motions in limine. In this
Opinion, we explain that our law requires the unsealing of the
8 Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 18‐2868‐cv, Docket No. 138.
9
Case 18-2868, Document 213-1, 07/03/2019, 2600261, Page10 of 25
summary judgment materials and individualized review of the
remaining sealed materials.
While the law governing public access to these materials is
largely settled, we have not yet adequately addressed the potential
harms that often accompany such access. These harms are apparent.
Over forty years ago, the Supreme Court observed that, without
vigilance, courts’ files might “become a vehicle for improper
purposes.”9 Our legal process is already susceptible to abuse.
Unscrupulous litigants can weaponize the discovery process to
humiliate and embarrass their adversaries. Shielded by the “litigation
privilege,”10 bad actors can defame opponents in court pleadings or
depositions without fear of lawsuit and liability. Unfortunately, the
presumption of public access to court documents has the potential to
exacerbate these harms to privacy and reputation by ensuring that
damaging material irrevocably enters the public record.
We therefore take the opportunity to describe the tools available
to district courts in protecting the integrity of the judicial process, and
emphasize the courts’ responsibility to exercise these powerful tools.
We also caution the public to critically assess allegations contained in
judicial pleadings.
9 Nixon v. Warner Commcʹns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978).
10 See notes 46–47 and accompanying text, post.
10
Case 18-2868, Document 213-1, 07/03/2019, 2600261, Page11 of 25
A. Standard of Review
When reviewing a district court’s decision to seal a filing or
maintain such a seal, “we examine the court’s factual findings for clear
error, its legal determinations de novo, and its ultimate decision to seal
or unseal for abuse of discretion.”11
B. The Summary Judgment Materials
With respect to the first category of materials, it is well‐settled
that “documents submitted to a court for its consideration in a
summary judgment motion are—as a matter of law—judicial
documents to which a strong presumption of access attaches, under
both the common law and the First Amendment.”12 In light of this
strong First Amendment presumption, “continued sealing of the
documents may be justified only with specific, on‐the‐record findings
that sealing is necessary to preserve higher values and only if the
sealing order is narrowly tailored to achieve that aim.”13
11 Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139
(2d Cir. 2016).
12 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006). We
observe that our holding in Lugosch relies on the general principle that parties may
“be assumed to have supported their papers with admissible evidence and non‐
frivolous arguments.” Id. at 122. Insofar as a district court has, through striking a
filing, specifically found that assumption inapplicable, the categorical rule in
Lugosch may not apply. See notes 42–43 and accompanying text, post.
13Id. at 124. Examples of such countervailing values may include,
depending on the circumstances, preserving “the right of an accused to
fundamental fairness in the jury selection process,” Press‐Enter. Co. v. Superior Court
11
Case 18-2868, Document 213-1, 07/03/2019, 2600261, Page12 of 25
In this case, the District Court erred in several respects.14 First, it
failed to give proper weight to the presumption of access that attaches
to documents filed in connection with summary judgment motions.
The District Court reasoned that the summary judgment materials
were “entitled to a lesser presumption of access” because “summary
judgment was denied by the Court.”15 In assigning a “lesser
presumption” to such materials, the District Court relied on a single
sentence of dicta from our decision in United States v. Amodeo.16 We
have since clarified, however, that this sentence was based on a
“quotation from a partial concurrence and partial dissent in the D.C.
Circuit . . . [and] is thus not the considered decision of either this court
or the D.C. Circuit.”17 In fact, we have expressly rejected the
proposition that “different types of documents might receive different
of California, Riverside Cty., 464 U.S. 501, 510 (1984); the protection of attorney‐client
privilege, Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 125; “the danger of impairing law enforcement or
judicial efficiency,” SEC. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 232 (2d Cir. 2001); and “the
privacy interest of those who resist disclosure,” id.
14Our discussion here focuses specifically on the District Court’s denial of
the Herald’s motion to unseal the entire record. Because this decision grants relief
to all Appellants, we need not discuss any separate, additional error in the District
Court’s denial of the earlier motions to unseal.
15 Giuffre, 325 F. Supp. 3d at 444.
1671 F.3d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir. 1995) (“Amodeo II”) (“One judge [in the District
of Columbia Circuit] has pointed out, for example, that where a district court
denied the summary judgment motion, essentially postponing a final determination
of substantive legal rights, the public interest in access is not as pressing.” (internal
quotation marks omitted; emphasis in original)).
17 Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 121.
12
Case 18-2868, Document 213-1, 07/03/2019, 2600261, Page13 of 25
weights of presumption based on the extent to which they were relied
upon in resolving [a] motion [for summary judgment].”18
Second, in contravention of our precedent, the District Court
failed to review the documents individually and produce “specific, on‐
the‐record findings that sealing is necessary to preserve higher
values.”19 Instead, the District Court made generalized statements
about the record as a whole.20 This too was legal error.
Finally, upon reviewing the summary judgment materials in
connection with this appeal, we find that there is no countervailing
privacy interest sufficient to justify their continued sealing. Remand
with respect to these documents is thus unnecessary. Accordingly, and
to avoid any further delay,21 we order that the summary judgment
documents (with minimal redactions) be unsealed upon issuance of
our mandate.22
18 Id. at 123.
19 Id. at 124.
20 See, e.g., Giuffre, 325 F. Supp. 3d at 445 (summarily concluding that all
“[t]he Summary Judgment Judicial Documents openly refer to and discuss these
allegations [of sexual assault and sexual trafficking] in comprehensive detail, and
that those allegations “establish[] a strong privacy interest here”).
21Cf. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 127 (ordering that “the mandate shall issue
forthwith” to expedite the unsealing process).
22Upon issuance of our mandate, a minimally redacted version of the
summary judgment record will be made accessible on the Court of Appeals docket.
We have implemented minimal redactions to protect personally identifying
information such as personal phone numbers, contact lists, birth dates, and social
13
Case 18-2868, Document 213-1, 07/03/2019, 2600261, Page14 of 25
C. The Remaining Sealed Materials
The law governing disclosure of the remaining sealed material
in this case is only slightly more complex. The Supreme Court has
recognized a qualified right “to inspect and copy judicial records and
documents.”23 In defining “judicial records and documents,” we have
emphasized that “the mere filing of a paper or document with the
court is insufficient to render that paper a judicial document subject to
the right of public access.”24 Instead, “the item filed must be relevant
to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial
process in order for it to be designated a judicial document.”25
As our precedent makes clear, a court “perform[s] the judicial
function” not only when it rules on motions currently before it, but
also when properly exercising its inherent “supervisory powers.”26 A
security numbers. We have also redacted the names of alleged minor victims of
sexual abuse from deposition testimony and police reports, as well as deposition
responses concerning intimate matters where the questions were likely only
permitted—and the responses only compelled—because of a strong expectation of
continued confidentiality. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2. While we appreciate the views
expressed in Judge Pooler’s separate opinion, the panel majority believes that the
efforts invested by three former district judges in reviewing these materials
adequately address those concerns.
23 Nixon, 435 U.S. at 597–98.
24 United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995) (“Amodeo I”).
25 Id.
26Cf. United States v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 863 F.3d 125, 135 (2d Cir. 2017)
(explaining that, in considering whether the report of a monitor charged with
assessing compliance with a deferred prosecution agreement is a judicial
14
Case 18-2868, Document 213-1, 07/03/2019, 2600261, Page15 of 25
document is thus “relevant to the performance of the judicial function”
if it would reasonably have the tendency to influence a district court’s
ruling on a motion or in the exercise of its supervisory powers, without
regard to which way the court ultimately rules or whether the
document ultimately in fact influences the court’s decision.27
Accordingly, if in applying these standards, a court determines that
documents filed by a party are not relevant to the performance of a
judicial function, no presumption of public access attaches.28
Once an item is deemed relevant to the exercise of judicial
power, “the weight to be given the presumption of access must be
governed by the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article
III judicial power and the resultant value of such information to those
document, “[i]f the district court’s conception of its supervisory power in this
context were correct, the Monitor’s Report would quite obviously be relevant to the
performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process” (internal
quotation marks omitted)). Whether a specific judicial decision constitutes a
“performance of the judicial function” is a question of law. Accordingly, we review
such determinations de novo. Id. at 134.
27 Amodeo I, 44 F.3d at 145–46 (concluding that documents were relevant to
the performance of a judicial function because they would have “informed” the
district court’s decision whether to discharge or retain a Receiver); see also FTC. v.
Standard Fin. Mgmt. Corp., 830 F.2d 404, 409 (1st Cir. 1987) (citing Federal Rule of
Evidence 401’s “having any tendency” definition of relevance in determining
whether documents were “judicial documents”).
28 As we explain below, there are several (often preferable) tools beyond
sealing that district courts can use to protect their dockets from becoming a vehicle
for irrelevant—and potentially defamatory—accusations. See Section D, post.
15
Case 18-2868, Document 213-1, 07/03/2019, 2600261, Page16 of 25
monitoring the federal courts.”29 Thus, while evidence introduced at
trial or in connection with summary judgment enjoys a strong
presumption of public access, documents that “play only a negligible
role in the performance of Article III duties” are accorded only a low
presumption that “amounts to little more than a prediction of public
access absent a countervailing reason.”30 Documents that are never
filed with the court, but simply “passed between the parties in
discovery, lie entirely beyond the presumption’s reach.”31
The remaining sealed materials at issue here include filings
related to, inter alia, motions to compel testimony, to quash trial
subpoenae, and to exclude certain deposition testimony. All such
motions, at least on their face, call upon the court to exercise its Article
III powers. Moreover, erroneous judicial decision‐making with respect
to such evidentiary and discovery matters can cause substantial harm.
Such materials are therefore of value “to those monitoring the federal
courts.”32 Thus, all documents submitted in connection with, and
relevant to, such judicial decision‐making are subject to at least some
presumption of public access.33
29 Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1049.
30 Id. at 1050.
31 Id.
32 Id. at 1049.
33In previous decisions, we have identified an important exception to this
general rule: the presumption of public access does not apply to material that is
submitted to the court solely so that the court may decide whether that same
16
Case 18-2868, Document 213-1, 07/03/2019, 2600261, Page17 of 25
Although a court’s authority to oversee discovery and control
the evidence introduced at trial surely constitutes an exercise of
judicial power, we note that this authority is ancillary to the court’s
core role in adjudicating a case. Accordingly, the presumption of
public access in filings submitted in connection with discovery
disputes or motions in limine is generally somewhat lower than the
presumption applied to material introduced at trial, or in connection
with dispositive motions such as motions for dismissal or summary
judgment.34 Thus, while a court must still articulate specific and
substantial reasons for sealing such material, the reasons usually need
not be as compelling as those required to seal summary judgment
filings.
Here, the precise basis for the District Court’s decision to deny
the motion to unseal these remaining materials is unclear. In the three
paragraphs devoted to the issue, the District Court emphasized the
potential for embarrassment “given the highly sensitive nature of the
underlying allegations,” and concluded that “the documents sealed in
the course of discovery were neither relied upon by [the District] Court
in the rendering of an adjudication, nor necessary to or helpful in
resolving a motion.”35 It is therefore unclear whether the District Court
held that these materials were not judicial documents (and thus are
material must be disclosed in the discovery process or shielded by a Protective
Order. See TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d at 233.
34 Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1049–50.
35 Giuffre, 325 F. Supp. 3d. at 442 (internal quotation marks and brackets
omitted).
17
Case 18-2868, Document 213-1, 07/03/2019, 2600261, Page18 of 25
not subject to a presumption of public access), or found that privacy
interests outweighed a limited right of public access.
On either interpretation, however, the District Court’s holding
was error. Insofar as the District Court held that these materials are not
judicial documents because it did not rely on them in adjudicating a
motion, this was legal error. As explained above, the proper inquiry is
whether the documents are relevant to the performance of the judicial
function, not whether they were relied upon.36 Indeed, decision‐
makers often find that a great deal of relevant material does not
ultimately sway their decision. And insofar as the District Court held
that privacy interests outweigh the presumption of public access in
each of the thousands of pages at issue, that decision—which appears
to have been made without particularized review—amounts to an
abuse of discretion.37
In light of the District Court’s failure to conduct an
individualized review of the sealed materials, it is necessary to do so
now. We believe the District Court is best situated to conduct this
review. The District Court can directly communicate with the parties,
and can therefore more swiftly and thoroughly consider particular
objections to unsealing specific materials. Relatedly, the District Court
can obtain the parties’ assistance in effecting any necessary redactions,
and in notifying any outside parties whose privacy interests might be
36 See text accompanying notes 12–18 and 26–28, ante.
37See In re City of New York, 607 F.3d 923, 943 n.21 (2d Cir. 2010) (explaining
that “abuse of discretion” is a nonpejorative, legal “term of art”).
18
Case 18-2868, Document 213-1, 07/03/2019, 2600261, Page19 of 25
implicated by the unsealing. Accordingly, we remand the cause to the
District Court to conduct such a particularized review and unseal all
documents for which the presumption of public access outweighs any
countervailing privacy interests.
D. Protecting the Integrity of Judicial Proceedings
While we disagree with the District Court’s disposition of the
motions to unseal, we share its concern that court files might be used
to “promote scandal arising out of unproven potentially libelous
statements.”38 We therefore describe certain methods courts can
employ to protect the judicial process from being coopted for such
purposes.
The Supreme Court has explained that “[e]very court has
supervisory power over its own records and files” to ensure they “are
not used to gratify private spite or promote public scandal” or “serve
as reservoirs of libelous statements for press consumption.”39 This
supervisory function is not only within a district court’s power, but
also among its responsibilities.
In practice, district courts may employ several methods to fulfill
this function. They may, for instance, issue protective orders
forbidding dissemination of certain material “to protect a party or
person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue
38 Giuffre, 325 F. Supp. 3d at 447.
39 Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598 (internal quotation marks).
19
Case 18-2868, Document 213-1, 07/03/2019, 2600261, Page20 of 25
burden” and require that filings containing such material be submitted
under seal.40 If parties then seek to file such materials, the court may
deny them leave to do so.41 District courts may also seek to counteract
the effect of defamatory statements by explaining on the record that
the statements appear to lack credibility. Moreover, under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), the district court may strike such
material from the filings on the grounds that it is “redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous.”42 Because such rejected or
stricken material is not “relevant to the performance of the judicial
function” it would not be considered a “judicial document” and would
enjoy no presumption of public access.43 Finally, in appropriate
40 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); see also TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d at 229–30.
41 See, e.g., S.D.N.Y. Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions, February 1,
2019 Edition, Rule 6.1,
http://nysd.uscourts.gov/ecf/ECF%20Rules%20020119%20Final.pdf.
42 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Courts may strike material from the pleadings either
“on its own” or “on motion made by a party.” Id. Although motions to strike
material solely “on the ground that the matter is impertinent and immaterial” are
disfavored, when material is also “scandalous,” no such presumption applies. Cf.
Lipsky v. Commonwealth United Corp., 551 F.2d 887, 893 (2d Cir. 1976); see also Talbot
v. Robert Matthews Distrib. Co., 961 F.2d 654, 664 (7th Cir. 1992)
(“Allegations may be stricken as scandalous if the matter bears no possible relation
to the controversy or may cause the objecting party prejudice.”); Wine Markets Intʹl,
Inc. v. Bass, 177 F.R.D. 128, 133 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) (“Motions to strike are not generally
favored, except in relation to scandalous matters.”); Alvarado‐Morales v. Digital
Equip. Corp., 843 F.2d 613, 617–18 (1st Cir. 1988) (categorizing as scandalous “matter
which impugned the character of defendants”).
43 Amodeo I, 44 F.3d at 145.
20
Case 18-2868, Document 213-1, 07/03/2019, 2600261, Page21 of 25
circumstances, district courts may impose sanctions on attorneys and
parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c).44
E. A Cautionary Note
We conclude with a note of caution to the public regarding the
reliability of court filings such as those unsealed today.
Materials submitted by parties to a court should be understood
for what they are. They do not reflect the court’s own findings. Rather,
they are prepared by parties seeking to advance their own interests in
an adversarial process. Although affidavits and depositions are
offered “under penalty of perjury,” it is in fact exceedingly rare for
anyone to be prosecuted for perjury in a civil proceeding.45 Similarly,
44 In relevant part, Rule 11 provides:
By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper . . . an
attorney or unrepresented party certifies that . . . it is not being presented
for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or
needlessly increase the cost of litigation . . . . [T]he court may impose an
appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the
rule or is responsible for the violation . . . . The sanction may include
nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed
on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing
payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney’s fees and
other expenses directly resulting from the violation.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. See also Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1049 (describing sanctions available
to the court).
45 Sonia Sotomayor & Nicole A. Gordon, Returning Majesty to the Law and
Politics: A Modern Approach, 30 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 35, 47 n.52 (1996) (ʺPerjury cases
are not often pursued . . . .”).
21
Case 18-2868, Document 213-1, 07/03/2019, 2600261, Page22 of 25
pleadings, complaints, and briefs—while supposedly based on
underlying evidentiary material—can be misleading. Such documents
sometimes draw dubious inferences from already questionable
material or present ambiguous material as definitive.
Moreover, court filings are, in some respects, particularly
susceptible to fraud. For while the threat of defamation actions may
deter malicious falsehoods in standard publications, this threat is non‐
existent with respect to certain court filings. This is so because, under
New York law (which governs the underlying defamation claim here),
“absolute immunity from liability for defamation exists for oral or
written statements made . . . in connection with a proceeding before a
court.”46 Thus, although the act of filing a document with a court might
be thought to lend that document additional credibility, in fact,
allegations appearing in such documents might be less credible than
those published elsewhere.47
46Front, Inc. v. Khalil, 24 N.Y.3d 713, 718 (2015); see also Kelly v. Albarino, 485
F.3d 664, 666 (2d Cir. 2007) (adopting the reasoning of the District Court explaining
that this privilege is “the broadest of possible privileges”); Restatement (Second) of
Torts § 587 (1977) (“A party to a private litigation or a private prosecutor or
defendant in a criminal prosecution is absolutely privileged to publish defamatory
matter concerning another in communications preliminary to a proposed judicial
proceeding, or in the institution of or during the course and as a part of, a judicial
proceeding in which he participates, if the matter has some relation to the
proceeding.”). But see note 47, post.
47While common law courts have generally interpreted the litigation privilege
broadly, they nevertheless maintain an important (if rarely implemented)
limitation on its scope: to qualify for the privilege, a statement must be “material
and pertinent to the questions involved.” Front, 24 N.Y.3d at 718 (quoting Youmans
22
Case 18-2868, Document 213-1, 07/03/2019, 2600261, Page23 of 25
We have long noted that the press plays a vital role in ensuring
the public right of access and in enhancing “the quality and safeguards
the integrity of the factfinding process.”48 When faithfully observing
its best traditions, the print and electronic media “contributes to public
understanding of the rule of law” and “validates [its] claim of
functioning as surrogates for the public.”49
At the same time, the media does the public a profound
disservice when it reports on parties’ allegations uncritically. We have
previously observed that courts cannot possibly “discredit every
statement or document turned up in the course of litigation,” and we
have criticized “the use by the media of the somewhat misleading term
‘court records’ in referring to such items.”50 Even ordinarily critical
v. Smith, 153 N.Y. 214, 219–20 (1897)). It follows, then, that immaterial and
impertinent statements are (at least nominally) actionable, particularly when they
are “so needlessly defamatory as to warrant the inference of express malice.” Id.
(same). It seems to us that when a district court strikes statements from the record
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) on the ground that the matter is “impertinent” and
“immaterial,” it makes the very same determination that permits a defamation
action under the common law. We think the judicial system would be well served
were our common law courts to revitalize this crucial qualification to the litigation
privilege.
48Westmoreland v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 752 F.2d 16, 23 (2d Cir. 1984)
(quoting Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Norfolk Cty., 457 U.S. 596, 606
(1982)).
49Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 572–73 (1980) (plurality
opinion) (internal quotation marks omitted).
50 Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1049.
23
Case 18-2868, Document 213-1, 07/03/2019, 2600261, Page24 of 25
readers may take the reference to “court papers” as some sort of
marker of reliability. This would be a mistake.
We therefore urge the media to exercise restraint in covering
potentially defamatory allegations, and we caution the public to read
such accounts with discernment.
III. CONCLUSION
To summarize, we hold as follows:
(1) Materials submitted in connection with a motion for
summary judgment are subject to a strong presumption of
public access.
(2) The summary judgment record at issue will be unsealed
upon issuance of our mandate, subject to minimal
redactions.51
(3) Materials submitted in connection with, and relevant to,
discovery motions, motions in limine, and other non‐
dispositive motions are subject to a lesser—but still
substantial— presumption of public access.
(4) The District Court is directed to review the remaining sealed
materials individually and unseal those materials as
appropriate.
51 See note 22, ante.
24
Case 18-2868, Document 213-1, 07/03/2019, 2600261, Page25 of 25
(5) District courts should exercise the full range of their
substantial powers to ensure their files do not become
vehicles for defamation.
For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE the orders of the
District Court entered on November 2, 2016, May 3, 2017, and August
27, 2018, ORDER the unsealing of the summary judgment record as
described herein, and REMAND the cause to the District Court for
particularized review of the remaining materials.
In undertaking this task, the District Court may be well‐served
by ordering the parties to submit to the Court unredacted, electronic
copies of the remaining sealed materials, as well as specific, proposed
redactions. The District Court may also order the parties to identify
and notify additional parties whose privacy interests would likely be
implicated by disclosure of these materials.
In the interests of judicial economy, any future appeal in this
matter shall be referred to this panel.
25
case-18-2868
Unknown
18 pages
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SEALED
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INDICTMENT
V. 20 Cr
GHISLAINE MAXWELL ,
20 Cr. 330
Defendant
COUNT ONE
( Conspiracy to Entice Minors to Travel to Engage in
Illegal Sex Acts )
The Grand Jury charges
OVERVIEW
1 . The charges set forth herein stem from the role
of GHISLAINE MAXWELL , the defendant , in the sexual exploitation
In
and abuse of multiple girls by Jeffrey Epstein.
particular , from at least in or about 1994 , up to and including
at least in or about 1997 , MAXWELL assisted , facilitated , and
contributed to Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minor girls by among
other things , helping Epstein to recruit, groom , and ultimately
abuse victims known to MAXWELL and Epstein to be under the age
of 18 . The victims were as young as 14 years old they were
groomed and abused by MAXWELL and Epstein, both of whom knew
that certain victims were in fact under the age of 18 .
2 . As a part and in furtherance of their scheme to
abuse minor victims, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, and
Jeffrey Epstein enticed and caused minor victims to travel to
Epstein's residences in different states, which MAXWELL knew and
intended would result in their grooming for and subjection to
sexual abuse . Moreover , in an effort to conceal her crimes ,
MAXWELL repeatedly lied when questioned about her conduct ,
including in relation to some of the minor victims described
herein , when providing testimony under oath in 2016 .
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3 . During the time periods charged in this
Indictment , GHISLAINE MAXWELL , the defendant , had a personal and
professional relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and was among his
closest associates. In particular, between in or about 1994 and
in or about 1997, MAXWELL was in an intimate relationship with
Epstein and also was paid by Epstein to manage his various
properties. Over the course of their relationship, MAXWELL and
Epstein were photographed together on multiple occasions,
including in the below image:
2
4 . Beginning in at least 1994 , GHISLAINE MAXWELL ,
the defendant , enticed and groomed multiple minor girls to
en ge in sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein , through a variety of
means and methods , including but not limited to the following :
a . MAXWELL first attempted to befriend some of
Epstein's minor victims prior to their abuse , including by
asking the victims about their lives , their schools , and their
families. MAXWELL and Epstein would spend time building
friendships with minor victims by for example , taking minor
victims to the movies or shopping . Some of these outings would
involve MAXWELL and Epstein spending time together with a minor
victim , while some would involve MAXWELL Epstein spending
time alone with a minor victim .
Having developed a rapport with a victim ,
MAXWELL would try to normalize sexual abuse for a minor victim
by among other things , discussing sexual topics , undressing in
front of the victim , being present when a minor victim was
undressed , and/ or being present for sex acts involving the minor
victim and Epstein .
MAXWELL'S presence during minor victims '
interactions with Epstein , including interactions where the
minor victim was undressed or that involved sex acts with
Epstein, helped put the victims at ease because an adult woman
was present . For example , in some instances , MAXWELL
3
massage Epstein in front of a minor victim . In other instances,
MAXWELL encouraged minor victims to provide massages to Epstein ,
including sexualized massages during which a minor victim would
be fully or partially nude . Many of those massages resulted in
Epstein sexually abusing the minor victims .
d In addition , Epstein offered to help some
minor by paying for travel and / or educational
opportunities, and MAXWELL encouraged certain victims to accept
Epstein's assistance . As a result , victims were made to feel
indebted and believed that MAXWELL and Epstein were trying to
help them
e . Through this process, MAXWELL and Epstein
In
enticed victims to engage in sexual activity with Epstein .
some instances , MAXWELL was present for and participated in the
sexual abuse of minor victims . Some such incidents occurred in
the context of massages , which developed into sexual encounters .
5 GHISLAINE MAXWELL , the defendant , facilitated
Jeffrey Epstein's access to minor victims knowing that he had a
sexual preference for underage girls and that he intended to
engage in sexual activity with those victims. Epstein's
resulting abuse of minor victims included, among other things,
touching a victim's breast, touching a victim's genitals,
placing a sex toy such as a vibrator on a victim's genitals,
4
directing a victim to touch Epstein while he masturbated, and
directing a victim to touch Epstein's genitals .
MAXWELL AND EPSTEIN'S VICTIMS
6 . Between approximately in or about 1994 and in or
about 1997, GHISLAINE MAXWELL the defendant, facilitated
Jeffrey Epstein's access to minor victims by , among other
things, inducing and enticing, and aiding and abetting the
inducement and enticement of multipleminor victims. Victims
were groomed and / or abused at multiple locations, including the
following:
. A a multi- story private residence on the
Upper Side of Manhattan , New York owned by Epstein ( the
" New York Residence" ) , which is depicted in the following
photograph :
5
b An estate in Palm Beach , Florida owned by
Epstein (the " Palm Beach Residence" ) , which is depicted in the
following photograph :
A ranch in Santa Fe, New Mexico owned by
Epstein (the "New Mexico Residence" ) , which is depicted in the
following photograph :
6
d . MAXWELL's personal residence in London ,
England .
7 .
Among the victims induced or enticed by GHISLAINE
MAXWELL the defendant, were minor victims identified herein as
Minor Victim - 1 Minor Victim - 2 , and Minor Victim - 3 . In
particular, and during time periods relevant to this Indictment,
MAXWELL engaged in the following acts , among others, with
respect to minor :
a . MAXWELL met Minor Victim - 1 when Minor
Victim - 1 was approximately 14 years old . MAXWELL subsequently
interacted with Minor 1 on multiple occasions at
Epstein's residences, knowing that Minor Victim - 1 was under the
age of 18 at the time. During these interactions, which took
place between approximately 1994 and 1997, MAXWELL groomed Minor
Victim - to engage in sexual acts with Epstein through multiple
means . First , MAXWELL and Epstein attempted to befriend Minor
Victim - , taking her to the movies and on shopping trips .
MAXWELL also asked Minor 1 about school , her classes , her
family and other aspects of her life . MAXWELL then sought to
normalize inappropriate and abusive conduct by among other
things , undressing in front of Minor Victim - and being present
when Minor Victim - 1 undressed in front of Epstein . Within the
first year after MAXWELL and Epstein met Minor Victim - Epstein
began sexually abusing Minor Victim - . MAXWELL was present for
7
and involved in some of this abuse . In particular, MAXWELL
involved Minor Victim - 1 in group sexualized massages of Epstein .
During those group sexualized massages, MAXWELL and/ or Minor
Victim - 1 would engage in sex acts with Epstein . Epstein and
MAXWELL both encouraged Minor Victim - to travel to Epstein's
residences in both New York and Florida . As a result , Minor
Victim - 1 was sexually abused by Epstein in both New York and
Florida . Minor Victim - 1 was enticed to travel across state
lines for the purpose of sexual encounters with Epstein , and
MAXWELL was aware that Epstein engaged in sexual activity with
Minor Victim - 1 after Minor - Victim - traveled to Epstein's
properties, including in the context of a sexualized massage .
b . MAXWELL interacted with Minor -2 on at
one occasion in or about 1996 at Epstein's residence in
New Mexico when Minor 2 was under the age of 18 . Minor
Victim - 2 had flown into New Mexico from out of state at
Epstein's invitation for the purpose of being groomed for and / or
subjected to acts of sexual abuse . MAXWELL knew that Minor
Victim - 2 was under the age of 18 at the time . While in New
Mexico , MAXWELL and Epstein took Minor Victim - 2 to a movie and
MAXWELL took Minor Victim 2 shopping . MAXWELL also discussed
Minor Victim - 2's school , classes , and family with Minor
2 . In New Mexico , MAXWELL began her efforts to groom Minor
Victim - 2 for abuse by Epstein by , among other things, providing
8
an unsolicited massage to Minor Victim - 2 , during which Minor
Victim - 2 was topless. MAXWELL also encouraged Minor Victim - 2 to
massage Epstein .
MAXWELL groomed and befriended Minor
in London , England between approximately 1994 and 1995 ,
including during a period of time in which MAXWELL knew that
Minor Victim - 3 was under the age of 18 . Among other things ,
MAXWELL discussed Minor Victim - 3's life and family with Minor
Victim - 3 . MAXWELL introduced Minor Victim - 3 to Epstein and
arranged for multiple interactions between Minor Victim - 3 and
Epstein . During those interactions, MAXWELL encouraged Minor
Victim - to massage Epstein , knowing that Epstein would engage
Minor
in sex acts with Minor - 3 during those massages .
Victim - 3 provided Epstein with the requested massages , and
during those massages , Epstein sexually abused Minor Victim - 3 .
MAXWELL was aware that Epstein engaged in sexual activity with
Minor Victim - 3 on multiple occasions , including at times when
Minor Victim - 3 was under the age of 18, including in the context
of a sexualized massage .
MAXWELL'S EFFORTS TO CONCEAL HER CONDUCT
8 . In or around 2016 , in the context of a deposition
as part of civil litigation , GHISLAINE MAXWELL , the defendant ,
repeatedly provided false and perjurious statements , under oath ,
regarding, among other subjects, her role in facilitating the
9
abuse of minor victims by Jeffrey Epstein , including some of the
specific events and acts of abuse detailed above .
STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS
9 From at least in or about 1994, up to and
including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York
and elsewhere , GHISLAINE MAXWELL the defendant , Jeffrey
Epstein, and others known and unknown , willfully and knowingly
did combine, conspire, confederate , and agree together and with
each other to commit an offense against the United States, to
wit , enticement , in violation of Title 18 , United States Code ,
Section 2422 .
10. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that
GHISLAINE MAXWELL the defendant , Jeffrey Epstein , and others
known and unknown , would and did knowingly persuade , induce,
entice , and coerce one and more individuals to travel in
interstate and foreign commerce, to engage in sexual activity
for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422.
Overt Acts
11. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect
the illegal object thereof, the following overt acts, among
others , were committed in the Southern District of New York and
elsewhere:
10
a . Between in or about 1994 and in or about
1997, when Minor Victim - 1 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL
participated in multiple group sexual encounters with Epstein
and Minor Victim - in New York and Florida.
b In or about 1996 , when Minor Victim - 1 was
under the age of 18 , Minor - was enticed to travel from
Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the
New York Residence, in violation of New York Penal Law , Section
130.55
. In or about 1996 , when Minor Victim - 2 was
under the age of 18, MAXWELL provided Minor Victim - 2 with an
unsolicited massage in New Mexico, during which Minor Victim - 2
was topless .
d . Between in or about 1994 and in or about
1995 , when Minor Victim - 3 was under the age of 18 , MAXWELL
encouraged Minor Victim - 3 to provide massages to Epstein in
London, England, knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse
Minor Victim - during those massages.
( Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.)
COUNT TWO
( Enticement of a Minor to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts)
The Grand Jury further charges :
12 . The allegations contained in paragraphs
through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
fully set forth within .
11
13 . From at least in or about 1994 , up to and
including in or about 1997 , in the Southern District of New York
and elsewhere , GHISLAINE MAXWELL , the defendant , knowingly did
persuade, induce, entice, and coerce an individual to travel in
interstate and foreign commerce to engage in sexual activity for
which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, and
attempted to do the same, and aided and abetted the same, to
wit , MAXWELL persuaded , induced , enticed , and coerced Minor
Victim - 1 to travel from Florida to New York , New York on
multiple occasions with the intention that Minor Victim - 1 would
engage in one or more sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein in
violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55.
( Title 18 , United States Code , Sections 2422 and 2.)
COUNT THREE
( Conspiracy to Transport Minors with Intent to
Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity )
The Grand Jury further charges :
14 . The allegations contained in paragraphs
through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
fully set forth within .
15 . From at least in or about 1994 , up to and
including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York
and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey
Epstein, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly
did combine , conspire , confederate , and agree together and with
each other to commit an against the United States , to
12
wit , transportation of minors, in violation of Title 18 , United
States Code , Section 2423 ( a ) .
16 . It was a part and object of the conspiracy that
GHISLAINE MAXWELL , the defendant , Jeffrey Epstein , and others
known and unknown , would and did, knowingly transport an
individual who had not attained the age of 18 in interstate and
foreign commerce , with intent that the individual engage in
sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a
criminal offense , in violation of Title 18 , United States Code ,
Section 2423 ( a ) .
Overt Acts
17 . In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect
the illegal object thereof , the following overt acts, among
others , were committed in the Southern District of New York and
elsewhere
a . Between in or about 1994 and in or about
1997 , when Minor Victim - 1 was under the age of 18 , MAXWELL
participated in multiple group sexual encounters with EPSTEIN
and Minor Victim - 1 in New York and Florida .
b . In or about 1996 , when Minor Victim - 1 was
under the age of 18 , Minor Victim - was enticed to travel from
Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the
13
New York Residence, in violation of New York Penal Law Section
130.55 .
In or about 1996 when Minor Victim - 2 was
under the age of 18 , MAXWELL provided Minor Victim - 2 with an
unsolicited massage in New Mexico, during which Minor Victim - 2
was topless .
d Between in or about 1994 and in or about
MAXWELL
1995 , when Minor Victim - 3 was under the age of 18 ,
encouraged Minor Victim - 3 to provide massages to Epstein in
London , England , knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse
Minor Victim - 3 during those massages .
( Title 18 , United States Code , Section 371. )
COUNT FOUR
( Transportation of a Minor with Intent to
Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity )
The Grand Jury further charges :
18 . The allegations contained in paragraphs i
through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
fully set forth within .
19 From at least in or about 1994, up to and
including in or about 1997 , in the Southern District of New York
and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, knowingly did
transport an individual who had not attained the age of 18 in
interstate and foreign commerce , with the intent that the
individual engage in sexual activity for which a person can be
charged with a criminal offense, and attempted to do so , and
14
aided and abetted the same, to wit , MAXWELL arranged for Minor
Victim - to be transported from Florida to New York , New York on
multiple occasions with the intention that Minor Victim - would
engage in one or more sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein , in
violation of New York Penal Law , Section 130.55.
( Title 18, United States Code , Sections 2423 ( a ) and 2.)
COUNT FIVE
( Perjury )
The Grand Jury further charges :
20 . The allegations contained in paragraphs
through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
fully set forth within .
21. On or about April 22 , 2016 , in the Southern
District of New York , GHISLAINE MAXWELL the defendant, having
taken an oath to testify truthfully in a deposition in
connection with a case then pending before the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York under
docket number 15 Civ 7344 , knowingly made false material
declarations , to wit , MAXWELL gave the following underlined
false testimony :
Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme to recruit
underage girls for sexual massages ? If you know .
. I don't know what you're talking about .
15
Q. List all the people under the age of 18 that you
interacted with at any of Jeffrey's properties ?
A. I'm not aware of anybody that I interacted with ,
other than obviously [ the plaintiff ] who was 17
at this point .
( Title 18 , United States Code , Section 1623.)
COUNT SIX
( Perjury )
The Grand Jury further charges
22 . The allegations contained in paragraphs
through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
fully set forth within .
23 . about July 22, 2016 , in the Southern
District of New York, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant having
taken an oath to testify truthfully in a deposition in
connection with a case then pending before the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York under
docket number 15 . 7344 , knowingly made false material
declarations, to wit , MAXWELL gave the following underlined
false testimony:
Q : Were you aware of the presence of sex toys or
devices used in sexual activities in Mr.
Epstein's Palm Beach house ?
A : No , not that I recall .
Do you know whether Mr. Epstein possessed sex
toys or devices used in sexual activities ?
A. No.
16
Other than yourself and the blond and brunette
that you have identified as having been involved
in three - way sexual activities , with whom did Mr.
Epstein have sexual activities ?
A. I wasn't aware that he was having sexual
activities with anyone when I was with him other
than myself .
Q. I want to be sure that I'm clear .
it your
testimony that in the 1990s and 2000s, you were
not aware that Mr. Epstein was having sexual
activitieswith anyone other than yourself and
the blond and brunette on those few occasions
when they were involvedwith you ?
A. That is my testimony , that is correct .
Is it your testimony that you've never given
anybody a massage?
I have not given anyone a massage.
You never gave Mr. Epstein a massage , is that
your testimony ?
A. That is my testimony .
You never gave [Minor Victim - 2 ] a massage is your
testimony ?
A. I never [Minor Victim - 2 ] a massage.
( Title 18 , United States Code, Section 1623.
)
FOREPERSON
Straws
AUDREY STRAUSS
FOREPE
Acting States Attorney
17
Form . USA - - (Ed . 9-25-58 )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
GHISLAINE MAXWELL ,
Defendant .
INDICTMENT
( 18 U.S.C. 371, 1623, 2422, 2423 ( ,
and 2 )
AUDREY STRAUSS
Acting United States Attorney
Foreperson
18
case-18-2868
Unknown
1796 pages
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 1 of 12
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,
Plaintiff, CASE NO:_____________________
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
________________________________/
COMPLAINT
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
575 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
(212) 446-2300
1
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 2 of 12
Plaintiff, VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, formerly known as Virginia Roberts
(“Giuffre”), for her Complaint against Defendant, GHISLAINE MAXWELL (“Maxwell”), avers
upon personal knowledge as to her own acts and status and otherwise upon information and
belief:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This suit arises out of Defendant Maxwell’s defamatory statements against
Plaintiff Giuffre. As described below, Giuffre was a victim of sexual trafficking and abuse while
she was a minor child. Defendant Maxwell not only facilitated that sexual abuse but, most
recently, wrongfully subjected Giuffre to public ridicule, contempt and disgrace by, among other
things, calling Giuffre a liar in published statements with the malicious intent of discrediting and
further damaging Giuffre worldwide.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This is an action for damages in an amount in excess of the minimum
jurisdictional limits of this Court.
3. This Court has jurisdiction over this dispute pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332
(diversity jurisdiction) as Giuffre and Maxwell are citizens of different states and the amount in
controversy exceeds seventy-five thousand ($75,000), exclusive of interest and costs.
4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Maxwell. Maxwell resides in New York
City, and this action arose, and defamatory statements were made, within the Southern District of
New York.
5. Venue is proper in this Court as the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of
this Court.
2
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 3 of 12
PARTIES
6. Plaintiff Giuffre is an individual who is a citizen of the State of Colorado.
7. Defendant Maxwell, who is domiciled in the Southern District of New York, is
not a citizen of the state of Colorado.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
8. Virginia Giuffre became a victim of sex trafficking and repeated sexual abuse
after being recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein when Giuffre was under the age
of eighteen.
9. Between 1999 and 2002, with the assistance and participation of Maxwell,
Epstein sexually abused Giuffre at numerous locations including his mansions in West Palm
Beach, Florida, and in this District. Between 2001 and 2007, with the assistance of numerous
co-conspirators, Epstein abused more than thirty (30) minor underage girls, a fact confirmed by
state and federal law enforcement.
10. As part of their sex trafficking efforts, Epstein and Maxwell intimidated Giuffre
into remaining silent about what had happened to her.
11. In September 2007, Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”)
that barred his prosecution for numerous federal sex crimes in the Southern District of Florida.
12. In the NPA, the United States additionally agreed that it would not institute any
federal criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein.
13. As a co-conspirator of Epstein, Maxwell was consequently granted immunity in
the Southern District of Florida through the NPA.
14. Epstein ultimately pled guilty to procuring a minor for prostitution, and is now a
registered sex offender.
3
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 4 of 12
15. Rather than confer with the victims about the NPA, the U.S. Attorney’s Office
and Epstein agreed to a “confidentiality” provision in the Agreement barring its disclosure to
anyone—including Epstein’s victims. As a consequence, the victims were not told about the
NPA.
16. On July 7, 2008, a young woman identified as Jane Doe No. 1, one of Jeffrey
Epstein’s victims (other than Giuffre), filed a petition to enforce her rights under the Crime
Victims’ Rights Act (“CVRA”), 18 U.S.C. ¶ 3771, alleging that the Government failed to
provide her the rights promised in the CVRA with regard to the plea arrangement with Epstein.
The litigation remains ongoing.
17. On or about May 4, 2009, Virginia Giuffre—identified then as Jane Doe No.
102—filed a complaint against Jeffrey Epstein in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. The complaint included allegations made by Giuffre that pertained
to Maxwell.
18. In pertinent part, the Jane Doe No. 102 complaint described in detail how
Maxwell recruited Giuffre (who was then a minor girl) to become a victim of sex trafficking by
introducing Giuffre to Jeffrey Epstein. With the assistance of Maxwell, Epstein was able to
sexually abuse Giuffre for years until Giuffre eventually escaped.
19. The Jane Doe No. 102 complaint contained the first public allegations made on
behalf of Giuffre regarding Maxwell.
20. As civil litigation against Epstein moved forward on behalf of Giuffre and many
other similarly-situated victims, Maxwell was served with a subpoena for deposition. Her
testimony was sought concerning her personal knowledge and role in Epstein’s abuse of Giuffre
and others.
4
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 5 of 12
21. To avoid her deposition, Maxwell claimed that her mother fell deathly ill and that
consequently she was leaving the United States for London with no plans of ever returning. In
fact, however, within weeks of using that excuse to avoid testifying, Maxwell had returned to
New York.
22. In 2011, two FBI agents located Giuffre in Australia—where she had been hiding
from Epstein and Maxwell for several years—and arranged to meet with her at the U.S.
Consulate in Sidney. Giuffre provided truthful and accurate information to the FBI about
Epstein and Maxwell’s sexual abuse.
23. Ultimately, as a mother and one of Epstein’s many victims, Giuffre believed that
she should speak out about her sexual abuse experiences in hopes of helping others who had also
suffered from sexual trafficking and abuse.
24. On December 23, 2014, Giuffre incorporated an organization called Victims
Refuse Silence, Inc., a Florida not-for-profit corporation.
25. Giuffre intended Victims Refuse Silence to change and improve the fight against
sexual abuse and human trafficking. The goal of her organization was, and continues to be, to
help survivors surmount the shame, silence, and intimidation typically experienced by victims of
sexual abuse. Giuffre has now dedicated her professional life to helping victims of sex
trafficking.
26. On December 30, 2014, Giuffre moved to join the on-going litigation previously
filed by Jane Doe 1 in the Southern District of Florida challenging Epstein’s non-prosecution
agreement by filing her own joinder motion.
5
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 6 of 12
27. Giuffre’s motion 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.
28. In January, 2015, Maxwell undertook a concerted and malicious campaign to
discredit Giuffre and to so damage her reputation that Giuffre’s factual reporting of what had
happened to her would not be credited.
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.
30. On or about January 3, 2015, speaking through her authorized agent, Maxwell
issued an additional false statement to the media and public designed to maliciously discredit
Giuffre. That statement contained the following deliberate falsehoods:
(a) That Giuffre’s sworn allegations “against Ghislaine Maxwell are untrue.”
(b) That the allegations have been “shown to be untrue.”
(c) That Giuffre’s “claims are obvious lies.”
31. Maxwell’s January 3, 2015, statement incorporated by reference “Ghislaine
Maxwell’s original response to the lies and defamatory claims remains the same,” an earlier
statement that had falsely described Giuffre’s factual assertions as “entirely false” and “entirely
untrue.”
32. Maxwell made the same false and defamatory statements as set forth above, in the
Southern District of New York and elsewhere in a deliberate effort to maliciously discredit
Giuffre and silence her efforts to expose sex crimes committed around the world by Maxwell,
Epstein, and other powerful persons. Maxwell did so with the purpose and effect of having
6
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 7 of 12
others repeat such false and defamatory statements and thereby further damaged Giuffre’s
reputation.
33. Maxwell made her statements to discredit Giuffre in close consultation with
Epstein. Maxwell made her statements knowing full well they were false.
34. Maxwell made her statements maliciously as part of an effort to conceal sex
trafficking crimes committed around the world by Maxwell, Epstein and other powerful persons.
35. Maxwell intended her false and defamatory statements set out above to be
broadcast around the world and to intimidate and silence Giuffre from making further efforts to
expose sex crimes committed by Maxwell, Epstein, and other powerful persons.
36. Maxwell intended her false statements to be specific statements of fact, including
a statement that she had not recruited an underage Giuffre for Epstein’s abuse. Maxwell’s false
statements were broadcast around the world and were reasonably understood by those who heard
them to be specific factual claims by Maxwell that she had not helped Epstein recruit or sexually
abuse Giuffre and that Giuffre was a liar.
37. On or about January 4, 2015, Maxwell continued her campaign to falsely and
maliciously discredit Giuffre. When a reporter on a Manhattan street asked Maxwell about
Giuffre’s allegations against Maxwell, she responded by saying: “I am referring to the statement
that we made.” The New York Daily News published a video of this response by Maxwell
indicating that she made her false statements on East 65th Street in Manhattan, New York, within
the Southern District of New York.
7
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 8 of 12
COUNT I
DEFAMATION
1. Plaintiff Giuffre re-alleges paragraphs 1 - 37 as if the same were fully set forth
herein. Maxwell made her false and defamatory statements deliberately and maliciously with the
intent to intimidate, discredit and defame Giuffre.
2. In January 2015, and thereafter, Maxwell intentionally and maliciously released to
the press her false statements about Giuffre in an attempt to destroy Giuffre’s reputation and
cause her to lose all credibility in her efforts to help victims of sex trafficking.
3. Maxwell additionally released to the press her false statements with knowledge
that her words would dilute, discredit and neutralize Giuffre’s public and private messages to
sexual abuse victims and ultimately prevent Giuffre from effectively providing assistance and
advocacy on behalf of other victims of sex trafficking, or to expose her abusers.
4. Using her role as a powerful figure with powerful friends, Maxwell’s statements
were published internationally for the malicious purpose of further damaging a sexual abuse and
sexual trafficking victim; to destroy Giuffre’s reputation and credibility; to cause the world to
disbelieve Giuffre; and to destroy Giuffre’s efforts to use her experience to help others suffering
as sex trafficking victims.
5. Maxwell, personally and through her authorized agent, Ross Gow, intentionally
and maliciously made false and damaging statements of fact concerning Giuffre, as detailed
above, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere.
6. The false statements made by Gow were all made by him as Maxwell’s
authorized agent and were made with direct and actual authority from Maxwell as the principal.
8
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 9 of 12
7. The false statements that Maxwell made personally, and through her authorized
agent Gow, not only called Giuffre’s truthfulness and integrity into question, but also exposed
Giuffre to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, and disgrace.
8. Maxwell made her false statements knowing full well that they were completely
false. Accordingly, she made her statements with actual and deliberate malice, the highest
degree of awareness of falsity.
9. Maxwell’s false statements constitute libel, as she knew that they were going to
be transmitted in writing, widely disseminated on the internet and in print. Maxwell intended her
false statements to be published by newspaper and other media outlets internationally, and they
were, in fact, published globally, including within the Southern District of New York.
10. Maxwell’s false statements constitute libel per se inasmuch as they exposed
Giuffre to public contempt, ridicule, aversion, and disgrace, and induced an evil opinion of her in
the minds of right-thinking persons.
11. Maxwell’s false statements also constitute libel per se inasmuch as they tended to
injure Giuffre in her professional capacity as the president of a non-profit corporation designed
to help victims of sex trafficking, and inasmuch as they destroyed her credibility and reputation
among members of the community that seeks her help and that she seeks to serve.
12. Maxwell’s false statements directly stated and also implied that in speaking out
against sex trafficking Giuffre acted with fraud, dishonesty, and unfitness for the task.
Maxwell’s false statements directly and indirectly indicate that Giuffre lied about being recruited
by Maxwell and sexually abused by Epstein and Maxwell. Maxwell’s false statements were
reasonably understood by many persons who read her statements as conveying that specific
intention and meaning.
9
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 10 of 12
13. Maxwell’s false statements were reasonably understood by many persons who
read those statements as making specific factual claims that Giuffre was lying about specific
facts.
14. Maxwell specifically directed her false statements at Giuffre’s true public
description of factual events, and many persons who read Maxwell’s statements reasonably
understood that those statements referred directly to Giuffre’s account of her life as a young
teenager with Maxwell and Epstein.
15. Maxwell intended her false statements to be widely published and disseminated
on television, through newspapers, by word of mouth and on the internet. As intended by
Maxwell, her statements were published and disseminated around the world.
16. Maxwell coordinated her false statements with other media efforts made by
Epstein and other powerful persons acting as Epstein’s representatives and surrogates. Maxwell
made and coordinated her statements in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere with
the specific intent to amplify the defamatory effect those statements would have on Giuffre’s
reputation and credibility.
17. Maxwell made her false statements both directly and through agents who, with
her general and specific authorization, adopted, distributed, and published the false statements on
Maxwell’s behalf. In addition, Maxwell and her authorized agents made false statements in
reckless disregard of their truth or falsity and with malicious intent to destroy Giuffre’s
reputation and credibility; to prevent her from further disseminating her life story; and to cause
persons hearing or reading Giuffre’s descriptions of truthful facts to disbelieve her entirely.
Maxwell made her false statements wantonly and with the specific intent to maliciously damage
Giuffre’s good name and reputation in a way that would destroy her efforts to administer her
10
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 11 of 12
non-profit foundation, or share her life story, and thereby help others who have suffered from
sexual abuse.
18. As a result of Maxwell’s campaign to spread false, discrediting and defamatory
statements about Giuffre, Giuffre suffered substantial damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
19. Maxwell’s false statements have caused, and continue to cause, Giuffre economic
damage, psychological pain and suffering, mental anguish and emotional distress, and other
direct and consequential damages and losses.
20. Maxwell’s campaign to spread her false statements internationally was unusual
and particularly egregious conduct. Maxwell sexually abused Giuffre and helped Epstein to
sexually abuse Giuffre, and then, in order to avoid having these crimes discovered, Maxwell
wantonly and maliciously set out to falsely accuse, defame, and discredit Giuffre. In so doing,
Maxwell’s efforts constituted a public wrong by deterring, damaging, and setting back Giuffre’s
efforts to help victims of sex trafficking. Accordingly, this is a case in which exemplary and
punitive damages are appropriate.
21. Punitive and exemplary damages are necessary in this case to deter Maxwell and
others from wantonly and maliciously using a campaign of lies to discredit Giuffre and other
victims of sex trafficking.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Giuffre respectfully requests judgment against Defendant
Maxwell, awarding compensatory, consequential, exemplary, and punitive damages in an
amount to be determined at trial, but in excess of the $75,000 jurisdictional requirement; costs of
suit; attorneys’ fees; and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
11
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 12 of 12
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all causes of action asserted within this
pleading.
Dated September 21, 2015.
/s/ David Boies
David Boies
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
/s/ Sigrid McCawley
Sigrid McCawley
(Pro Hac Vice Pending)
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
(954) 356-0011
/s/ Ellen Brockman
Ellen Brockman
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
575 Lexington Ave
New York, New York 10022
(212) 446-2300
12
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 6 Filed 09/25/15 Page 1 of 2
15 7433
CORRECTED
25
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 6 Filed 09/25/15 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 7 Filed 09/25/15 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 7 Filed 09/25/15 Page 2 of 2
Case
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1:15-cv-07433-LAP
1:15-cv-07433 Document
Document
Document
3 85
Filed
Filed
Filed
09/21/15
09/25/15
09/22/15
Page
Page
Page
1 of
11 2
of
of 22
AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
Southern District
__________ DistrictofofNew York
__________
Virginia L. Giuffre
)
)
Plaintiff
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 15-cv-7433
Ghislaine Maxwell )
)
Defendant
)
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Ghislaine Maxwell
116 East 65th Street
New York, New York 10065
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are: David Boies
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, New York 10504
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date: 9/21/2015 /S/ D. Gonzalez
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 8 Filed 09/25/15 Page 2 of 2
Ca&$d.5itg-0v4reX.m/V9ooonEm$rt Fil#le0/Ag/2Sl1Fa@A@2 Af 2
AO 440 (Rev l2109) Summons in a CivilAction (Page 2)
Civil Action No. 15-cv-7433
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section shoukl not befiled with the court unless retluited bJ) Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (nane of inditiclrol aild titte, if any) C ,5fer,ae Itta*ol*r."-
was received by me on (date) cl '&L ts
(, i*
U/personally served the summons on the individual at (ptace) fl"tt
"b Feet Ar", ! e*,
S..-.tl Fl't.,. WY on (date) ,1 ??: (< 2;6 ;or
O I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place ofabode with (nane)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or
0 I served the summons on frane ofindividual) , who is
designated by law to accept service ofprocess on behalf of (nane oforganizationl
on (date) ;or
D I returned the sunmons unexecuted because ;or
J Olher (specify):
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of$ 0.00
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date: q z? lf {
s.t
lQ,r, til
tL"o.,t &a F;'.*a*or*o ,{?3r'
Senet's addtess
Additional information regarding attempted sewice, etc
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 9 Filed 09/29/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 6-1 Filed 09/25/15 Page 1of1
UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTH_ERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Virginia L. Giuffre,
Plaintiff,
-15.__CV 7433
-against-
ORDER FOR ADMISSION
Ghislaine Maxwell, PRO HAC VICE
Defendant.
The motion of Sigrid S. Mccawley . _, for admission to
practice Pro Hae Vice in the above captioned action is granted.
Applicant has declared that he/she is a member in good standing of the bar(s) of the state(s) of
Florida _ ; and that his/her contact information is as follows
(please print):
Applicant's Name: Sigrid S. Mccawley
Finn Name: Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
Address: 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200
"'~~-~~----- ••••«••-' - - · -
City/ State/ Zip: F~_i:!~auderdal~_,_~Iori?a 3~~~1
Telephone/ Fax: _!el: (954) 356-_~!_l /Fax:~?,54) 356-00_22
Applicant having requested admission Pro Hae Vice to appear for all purposes as counsel for
Plaintiff Virginia L. Giuffre in the above entitled action;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Applicant is admitted to practice Pro Hae Vice in the above
captioned case in the United States District Court for the Southern District ofNe\lv York. All attorneys
appearing before this Court are subject to the Local Rules of this Court, including the Rules governing
discipline of attorneys.
Dated:- - - - - - - -
r:-:- ---·--· -.-- _,,__ -·---
·Tr;,;;r··1r·._,-,.
l \)
I, .
,I'""t ,"'.
. .. '
,._.
~-._......-"'
. . --·
J
.
:
11 ;,;·:;·:'. , ,;,,.,r;\A,Lt.Y FILED,
I! ()(JC#, 4L~;
l!_ ?~rE FlL~~~_;,Jj.~, ~-----~- .... ., -
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 9 Filed 09/29/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:15-cv-07 433-RWS Document 6 Filed U9/Z5/15 Page 1 of 2
. ;, ~t'
.. '',
•,,
: " ....
j I l'
I ,,'
t:\rl ED srxn:s VIS lRICT cot RT
~ t ...
UH~l_{:"J>l:iHUC T.or ~FWYORI( '•·,
\",
CORRECTED '.\10Tl01'\ FOH \D\TISSIO.\:
!'!Hi HA('\ HE
A):..,' J ;.__''f ! ,,,)f;t'
!''-
----------------·-·--- --
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 9 Filed 09/29/15 Page 3 of 3
case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 6 Filed 09/25/15 Page 2 of 2
~upreme
case-18-2868
image
File: 2# Ghislaine Indictment & Deposition - Prince Andrew Email.jpg
Type: image
Collection: case-18-2868
DataSet-10
Unknown
2 pages
Epstein Matter
Depositions Currently Scheduled
as of April 6, 2010
Plaintiff Deponent Date and Time Location Noticed By/Court
Reporter
Doe 4/12/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
( ) (friend of Doe) 9:00 a.m. 3111 W. Martin
Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Suite #100
Tampa, FL 33607
Doe 4/12/10 Scribe Associates Noticed by Jess
( ) (ex-boyfriend of 2:00 p.m. 201 SE 2nd Ave.
Doe) Suite #207
Gainesville, FL
32601
Doe 4/13/10 US Legal Support Noticed by
le 9:30 a.m. 444 W. Railroad Edwards,
(By Video) Ave. Cross by 103
(JAG) Suite 300
WPB
Epstein v. Scott Rothstein 4/15/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by us
Rothstein 10:00 a.m. 250 S. Australian
Ave, Suite 1500,
WPB
Charles Gerald 4/19/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Kuvin
Goldsmith 9:30 a.m. 250 S. Australian
(RDC) Ave, Suite 1500,
WPB
Does 2-8 Records 4/19/10 Veritext Corp. Noticed by
Custodian — 10:00 a.m. 1250 Broadway, Mermelstein
HBRK Suite 2400
Associates NY, NY 10001
Does 2-8 Records 4/19/10 Veritext Corp. Noticed by
Custodian — 10:30 a.m. 1250 Broadway, Mermelstein
New York Suite 2400
Strategy Group NY, NY 10001
Epstein v. Michael Fisten 4/19/10 101 Business Noticed by Jess
RRA 10:00 a.m. Center, 101 NE
Third Ave., #1500
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Epstein v. Richard Fandry 4/19/10 101 Business Noticed by Jess
RRA 2:00 p.m. Center, 101 NE
Third Ave., #1500
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Does 2-8 Richard Kahn 4/20/10 Veritext Corp. Noticed by
10:00 a.m. 1250 Broadway, Mermelstein
EFTA00727734
Suite 2400
NY, NY 10001
Does 2-8 Leslie Wexner 04/23/10 Spectrum Reporting, Noticed by
(Duces Tecum) LLC Mermelstein
333 E. Stewart Cross by •
Avenue
Columbus, OH
All Cases Detective 04/27/10 Prose Court Rep Notice by Jess
Recarey 250 S. Australian
(Duces Tecum) Ave, Suite 1500,
WPB
* Agreed Upon / Scheduled
**
Have service
EFTA00727735
DataSet-10
Unknown
3 pages
Epstein Matter
Depositions Currently Scheduled
as of February 11, 2010
.
Mall OMMISMIN :i Pr
2/12/10 Court Re Noticed by Jess
ar (iideo) 10:00 a.m.
I. 4 2/12/10 Court Re Noticed by Jess
2:00 p.m.
L.M. IME oM 2/15/10 Prose Court Re• Noticed by Jess
9:00 a.m.
L.M. Janusz Banasiak 2/16/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by
Cross (RDC & JAG) 10:00 a.m. Edwards
Does 2- Cross by
8 Mermelstein
L.M. Jeffrey Epstein 2/17/10 US Legal Noticed by
(MJP & JAG) 11:00 a.m. 444 West Railroad Edwards
Ave., #300
WPB
Doe #6 pp. 2/17/10 Prose Court Re. Noticed by Jess
y i eo 10:00 a.m.
(RDC)
2/18/10 Noticed by Jess
IS 10:00 a.m.
Doe 2/18/10 Prose Court Re. Noticed by Jess
1:00 p.m.
(By Video) (RDC)
gib (By Video)
(RDC)
2/19/10
10:00 a.m.
Noticed by Jess
Doe 2/23/10 Court Re Notice by Jess
11:00 a.m.
EFTA00723895
Doe 2/23/10 Noticed by Jess
2:00 p.m.
B.B. Joseph Recarey 2/25/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
(RDC & At 9:30 a.m.
WEINBERG)
B.B. 2/26/10 Prose Court Re. Noticed by Jess
(By Video) 9:00 a.m.
(RDC)
Doe #5 2/26/10 Court Re Noticed by Jess
deo) 10:00 a.m.
L.M. 3/01/10 Prose Court Re• Noticed by
Cross — 10:00 a.m. Edwards
Does 2- Cross by
8 Mermelstein
u .1 3/01/10 Noticed by Jess
9:00 a.m.
:y g seo
Doe #3 3/03/10 Prose Court Re. Noticed by Jess
(By Video) 10:00 a.m.
(RDC)
Doe 3/04/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
(By Video) 10:00 a.m.
(RDC)
B.B. 3/05/10 Our Office Noticed by Jess
2:00 p.m.
MJP
B.B. 3/05/10 Our Office Notice by Jess
4:00 p.m.
(MJP)
Does #2- Jeffrey Epstein 03/08/10 Galieria Int. Noticed by
#8 (By Video) Mermelstein
(RDC & JAG)
Doe #7 3/15/10 ,-.1=I•MIlit t. Noticed by Jess
z.. ,:. 10:00 a.m.
(RDC)
Doe 3/15/10 u e•a 'J..° Noticed by
10:00 a.m. Edwards
EFTA00723896
Epstein Jeffrey Epstein 3/17/10 Our Office I Noticed by Scarola
(RDC & JAG) 10:00 a.m.
Epstein Brad Edwards 3/23/10 Noticed by Jess
(By Video) 10:00 a.m.
(RDC)
B.B. 'FM 4/8/10 Noticed by Kuvin
9:30 a.m.
(RDC &
REINHART)
B.B. Charles Gerald 4/19/10 Noticed by Kuvin
Goldsmith 9:30 a.m.
Agreed Upon I Scheduled
Have service
EFTA00723897
DataSet-10
Unknown
3 pages
Epstein Matter
Depositions Currently Scheduled
as of October 21, 2009
Plaintiff Deponent Date and Time Location Noticed By/Court
Reporter
Doe 4 Preston Vineyard 10/26/209 BCLC, Conference RDC (Jess)
( ) (By Video) 10:00am Room A
Doe 4 10/27/09 Prose Court RDC (Jess)
( ) (By Video) 11:00 am Reporting
250 Australian
Avenue South
West Palm Beach,
FL
Khalid Zahir 10/28/09 Esquire Court Rep Edwards
101,102 Monroe AKA 10:00 a.m. 44 West Flagler St x-Josefsberg
Khalid Salaam Miami, FL 33130 X-Kuvin
(by video)
Doe Alan Dershowitz 10/28/09 Cambridge Court Noticed by
(Fed) (by video) 1:00 p.m. Reporters Edwards, with
675 Massachusetts subpoena
11th Floor
Cambridge, MA
02139
(by 10/29/09 Prose Court Noticed by us
Doe 2) 4 9:30 a.m. Reporting, WPB X by Kuvin
(by video) (We noticed 19
(Prose and Visual
Evidence
Jean Luc Bruhnel 11/03/09, Esquire Court Rep. Noticed by
(Re- 10:00am 515 N. Flagler Dr. Edwards ,Kuvin
noticed) West Palm
Beach,FL Previously noticed
by Edwards& Kuvin
On Jane Doe &
11/05/09 Prose Court RDC (Jess)
(EW) 10:00am Reporting, WPB
B Video
11/06/09 Prose Court RDC (Jess)
(EW) 10:00am Reporting, WPB
By Video
EFTA00727710
11/10/09, McIntosh Sawran Re-Noticed by
By Video 11:00 a.m. 1601 Forum Place Kuvin
Suite 1110, WPB (Pleasanton
Greenhill,Visual Ev
DOE 11/13/09, Prose Court RDC (Jess)
By Video 9:30am Reporting, WPB
Michael Reiter 11/23/09,10 A.M. Leopold-Kuvin,P.A. Noticed by Kuvin,
(by video) 2925 PGA Pleasanton
Blvd.,Suite 200 Greenhills and
PBG, FL 33410 Visual Evidence
11/24/09, Leopold-Kuvin,P.A. Noticed by Kuvin,
(by video) 9:30 A.M. 2925 PGA Pleasanton
Blvd.,Suite 200 Greenhills and
PBG, FL 33410 Visual Evidence
Christina Vereno 11/24/09, Leopold-Kuvin,P.A. Noticed by Kuvin,
(by video) 11:30 A.M. 2925 PGA Pleasanton
Blvd.,Suite 200 Greenhills and
PBG, FL 33410 Visual Evidence
Daliah Weiss 11/24/09, Leopold-Kuvin,P.A. Noticed by Kuvin,
(by video) 2:30 P.M. 2925 PGA Pleasanton
Blvd.,Suite 200 Greenhills and
PBG, FL 33410 Visual Evidence
Det. Joseph 12/01/09 Prose Court Rep. Noticed by Kuvin
Recarey 1:00 p.m. 250 S.Australian (w/ subpoena
(by video) Ave.S, Suite 1500 attached)
WPB, FL
Det. Michael 12/08/09 Prose Court Rep. Noticed by Kuvin
Dawson 9:00 a.m. 250 S.Australian (w/ subpoena
(by video) Ave.S, Suite 1500 attached)
WPB, FL
Det. 12/08/09 Prose Court Rep. Noticed by Kuvin
Pagan 1:00 p.m. 250 S.Australian (w/subpoena
(by video) Ave.S, Suite 1500 attached)
WPB, FL
Meister 12/14/09 Prose Court Rep. Noticed by Kuvin
(by video) 9:00 a.m. 250 S.Australian (w/ subpoena
Ave.S, Suite 1500 attached)
WPB, FL
Todd Meister 12/14/09 Prose Court Rep. Noticed by Kuvin
(by video) 1:00 p.m. 250 S.Australian (w/ subpoena
EFTA00727711
Ave.S, Suite 1500 attached)
WPB, FL
: Agreed Upon / Scheduled
**
Have service
EFTA00727712
DataSet-10
Unknown
2 pages
Epstein Matter
Depositions Currently Scheduled
as of February 25, 2010
Plaintiff Deponent Date and Time Location Noticed By/Court
Reporter
2/26/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
(By Video) 9:00 a.m. 250 S. Australian
(RDC) Ave, Suite 1500,
WPB
Doe #5 2/26/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
( ) (By Video) 10:00 a.m. 250 S. Australian
(MTL) Ave, Suite 1500,
WPB
3/01/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by
Cross — (RDC & JAG) 10:00 a.m. 250 S. Australian Edwards
Does 2- Ave, Suite 1500, Cross by
8 WPB Mermelstein
Doe #7 IME of 3/01/10 Drs. Hall Office in Noticed by Jess
( ) 9:00 a.m. Orlando
(By Video
3/02/10 Our Office Noticed by Jess
-Father 2:00 p.m.
.1
ItC.
-Sister
3/02/10
4:00 p.m.
Our Office Notice by Jess
MJP
Doe #2 3/03/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
(M) (By Video) 10:00 a.m. 250 S. Australian
(RDC) Ave, Suite 1500,
WPB
Doe Russell Prickett 3/05/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Connie
(by video) 10:00 a.m. 250 S. Australian
Ave, Suite 1500,
WPB
Doe 3/05/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Connie
(by video) 11:00 a.m. 250 S. Australian
Ave, Suite 1500,
WPB
Does #2- Jeffrey Epstein 03/08/10 Galleria Int. Noticed by
#8 (By Video) 301 Clematis St., Mermelstein
(RDC & JAG) #3000
WPB
Doe 3/11/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
( ) (By Video) 1:00 p.m. 250 S. Australian
(RDC) Ave, Suite 1500,
EFTA00727730
WPB
Doe #7 3/15/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
( ) (By Video) 10:00 a.m. 250 S. Australian
(RDC) Ave, Suite 1500,
WPB
Doe 3/15/10 US Legal Support Noticed by
( ) (MJP) 10:00 a.m. 515 East Las Olas Edwards
Ft. Lauderdale
Epstein Jeffrey Epstein 3/17/10 Our Office Noticed by Scarola
(by video) 10:00 a.m.
(RDC & JAG)
TO BE Joseph Recarey 3/19/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
Noticed (RDC & At 9:30 a.m. 250 S. Australian
WEINBERG) Ave, Suite 1500,
WPB
Epstein Edwards 3/23/10 Searcy Denney Noticed by Jess
Cross by (By Video) 10:00 a.m. 2139 Palm Beach
(RDC) Lakes Blvd.,
West Palm Beach,
FL 33409
Doe 3/24/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by
Cross (by video) 10:00 a.m. 250 S. Australian Edwards
by Ave, Suite 1500, Cross by Kuvin
WPB
4/8/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Kuvin
(By video) 9:30 a.m. 250 S. Australian
(RDC & Ave, Suite 1500,
REINHART) WPB
Charles Gerald 4/19/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Kuvin
Goldsmith 9:30 a.m. 250 S. Australian
Ave, Suite 1500,
WPB
Agreed Upon / Scheduled
**
Have service
EFTA00727731
DataSet-10
Unknown
2 pages
Epstein Matter
Depositions Currently Scheduled
as of August 18, 2009
Plaintiff Deponent Date and Time Location Remarks
Dr. Serge Thys * 8/31/09, 3:15pm Our Office Our Office
9/01/09,11:OOam Esquire Court Rep Noticed by Kuvin
By video One Penn Plaza
Suite 4715
New York, NY10019
Jeffrey Epstein * 9/02/09,10:OOam Atterbury,Goldberger - same —
By video 250 S.Australian Ave.
Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL
JANE 9/03/09,10:00am Esquire Court Rep. Edwards & JPH,
DOE By Video One Penn Plaza Kuvin
Suite 4715
New York, NY
10019
9/04/09,11:00am Searcy Denney JPH
By Video 2139 Palm Beach
Lakes Blvd.
West Palm Beach,
FL
Juan Alessi 9/08/09,10:OOam Searcy Denney JPH
By Video 2139 Palm Beach
Lakes Blvd.
West Palm Beach,
FL
9/9/09,10:OOam Our Office Our Office
By Video
9/11/09,10:OOam Our Office Our Office
By Video
Doe #4 Jane Doe #4 * 9/16/09,1:00pm Our Office Our Office
B Video
)
Igor Zinoview 9/17/09,10:00am Doerner & Goldberg JPH
Revmont Park,
South Building
1161 Broad Street,
#110
Shrewsbury, NJ
07702
EFTA00727740
Tommy Matola 9/18/09,10:OOam Esquire Court Rep. JPH
One Penn Plaza
Suite 4715
New York, NY
10019
9/21/09,1:00 pm McIntosh Sawran Noticed by Kuvin
By video 1601 Forum Place
Suite 1110
JANE Mark Epstein 9/21/09,11:OOam Esquire Court Rep. Edwards
DOE, By Video One Penn Plaza Kuvin
Suite 4715
New York, NY
10019
JANE Jean Luc Bruhel 9/22/09,10:OOam Esquire Court Rep. Edwards
DOE, ** One Penn Plaza Kuvin
By Video Suite 4715
New York, NY
JANE Ghislane Maxwell 9/23/09,10:OOam Esquire Court Rep. Edwards
DOE ** One Penn Plaza
By Video Suite 4715
New York, NY
Bill Riley 9/24/09,10:OOam Esquire Edwards
By Video 515 E. Las Olas
Blvd., #1300, Ft.
Lauderdale, FL
JANE Jane Doe * 9/30/09,10:OOam Our Office Our Office
DOE By Video
Agreed Upon / Scheduled
**
Have service
EFTA00727741
DataSet-10
Unknown
3 pages
Epstein Matter
Depositions Currently Scheduled
as of February 3, 2010
Plaintiff Deponent Date and Time Location Noticed By/Court
Reporter
IME of 2/5/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
( ) 9:00 a.m. 250 S. Australian
Ave, Suite 1500,
WPB
Charles Gerald 2/08/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Kuvin
Goldsmith 9:30 a.m. 250 S. Australian
(RDC) Ave, Suite 1500,
WPB
•• (By Video)
2/9/10
10:00 a.m.
Prose Court Rep
250 S. Australian
Noticed by Jess
(Tentative Date)
(RDC & MTL) Ave, Suite 1500,
WPB
2/11/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Kuvin
Cross - (By video) 9:30 a.m. 250 S. Australian Cross by Edwards
(RDC & Ave, Suite 1500,
REINHART) WPB
Doe #4 2/12/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
) (By Video) 10:00 a.m. 250 S. Australian
(MTL) Ave, Suite 1500,
WPB
Doe #4 2/12/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
( ) IS Boyfriend) 2:00 p.m. 250 S. Australian
(MTL) Ave, Suite 1500,
WPB
IME of 2/15/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
9:00 a.m. 250 S. Australian
(By Video) Ave, Suite 1500,
WPB
Janusz Banasiak 2/16/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
(Awaiting 250 S. Australian
Notice) Ave, Suite 1500,
(RDC & JAG) WPB
r Jeffrey Epstein 2/17/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by
(Awaiting 10:00 a.m. 250 S. Australian Edwards
Notice) Ave, Suite 1500,
(MJP & JAG) WPB
Doe #6 2/17/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
) (By Video) 10:00 a.m. 250 S. Australian
(RDC) Ave, Suite 1500,
WPB
EFTA00727719
Doe 2/18/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
(M) — Boyfriend 10:00 a.m. 250 S. Australian
(By Video) Ave, Suite 1500,
RDCi )m — WPB
Doe 2/18/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
(M) -Grandmother 1:00 p.m. 250 S. Australian
(By Video) Ave, Suite 1500,
(RDC) WPB
Doe Jeffrey 2/18/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
(ME) -Uncle 4:00 p.m. 250 S. Australian
(By Video) Ave, Suite 1500,
RDC WPB
Doe #3 2/19/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
( (By Video) 10:00 a.m. 250 S. Australian
(RDC) Ave, Suite 1500,
WPB
Doe 2/23/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
( ) -Brother 9:00 a.m. 250 S. Australian
(By Video) Ave, Suite 1500,
a m WPB
Doe 2/23/10 Prose Court Rep Notice by Jess
(M) -Sister 11:00 a.m. 250 S. Australian
(By Video) Ave, Suite 1500,
(RDC) WPB
Doe 2/23/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
( ) -Mother 2:00 p.m. 250 S. Australian
(By Video) Ave, Suite 1500,
(RDC) WPB
Doe 2/23/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
(M) -Sister 4:00 p.m. 250 S. Australian
(By Video) Ave, Suite 1500,
RDC WPB
Joseph Recarey 2/25/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
(RDC & At 9:30 a.m. 250 S. Australian
WEINBERG) Ave, Suite 1500,
WPB
2/26/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
(By Video) 9:00 a.m. 250 S. Australian
(RDC) Ave, Suite 1500,
WPB
Doe #5 2/26/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
(M) (By Video) 10:00 a.m. 250 S. Australian
(MTL) Ave, Suite 1500,
WPB
3/01/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by
(Awaiting 10:00 a.m. 250 S. Australian Edwards
Notice) Ave, Suite 1500,
(RDC & JAG) WPB
EFTA00727720
Doe #7 IME of 3/01/10 Drs. Office in Noticed by Jess
( ) 9:00 a.m. Orlando
(By Video)
Doe #7 3/15/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
(MI) (By Video) 10:00 a.m. 250 S. Australian
Ave, Suite 1500,
WPB
Epstein Jeffrey Epstein 3/17/10 Searcy Denney Noticed by Scarola
(Awaiting 10:00 a.m. 2139 Palm Beach
Notice) Lakes Blvd.,
West Palm Beach,
FL 33409
Epstein Edwards 3/23/10 Our Office Noticed by Jess
(By Video) 10:00 a.m.
(RDC)
Agreed Upon / Scheduled
**
Have service
EFTA00727721
DataSet-10
Unknown
2 pages
Epstein Matter
Depositions Currently Scheduled
as of August 25, 2009
Plaintiff Deponent Date and Time Location Remarks
Dr. Serge Thys * 8/31/09, 3:15pm Our Office Our Office
9/01/09,11:OOam Esquire Court Rep Noticed by Kuvin
By video One Penn Plaza
(NO SERVICE) Suite 4715
New York, NY10019
. Jeffrey Epstein * 9/02/09,10:OOam Atterbury,Goldberger - same -
By video 250 S.Australian Ave.
Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL
JANE 9/03/09,10:OOam Esquire Court Rep. Edwards & JPH,
DOE By Video One Penn Plaza Kuvin
(NO SERVICE) Suite 4715
New York, NY
10019
* 9/03/09, 9:00AM Searcy Denney Our Office
(By Video) 2139 Palm Beach
Lakes Blvd.
West Palm Beach
9/04/09,11:OOam Searcy Denney JPH
By Video 2139 Palm Beach
(NO SERVICE) Lakes Blvd.
West Palm Beach,
FL
IME 9/08/09, 9:00am Our Office Our Office
By Video
Juan Alessi** 9/08/09,10:OOam Searcy Denney JPH
By Video 2139 Palm Beach
Lakes Blvd.
West Palm Beach,
FL
Doe #4 Jane Doe #4 * 9/16/09,1:OOpm Our Office Our Office
By Video
Igor Zinoview 9/17/09,10:OOam Doerner & Goldberg JPH
(SERVICE??) Revmont Park,
South Building
1161 Broad Street,
#110
Shrewsbury, NJ
07702
EFTA00727744
Tommy Matola 9/18/09,10:OOam Esquire Court Rep.
(NO SERVICE) One Penn Plaza
Suite 4715 JPH
New York, NY
10019
9/21/09,1:00 pm McIntosh Sawran Noticed by Kuvin
By video 1601 Forum Place
Suite 1110
JANE Mark Epstein** 9/21/09,11:OOam Esquire Court Rep. Edwards
DOE, By Video One Penn Plaza Kuvin
Suite 4715
New York, NY
10019
JANE Jean Luc Bruhel 9/22/09,10:OOam Esquire Court Rep. Edwards
DOE, ** One Penn Plaza Kuvin
By Video Suite 4715
New York, NY
JANE Ghislane Maxwell 9/23/09,10:OOam Esquire Court Rep. Edwards
DOE By Video One Penn Plaza
(OFF PER ) Suite 4715
New York, NY
9/23/09, 9:00am Our Office Our Office
By Video
Bill Riley 9/24/09,10:OOam I Esquire Edwards
By Video** 515 E. Las Olas
Blvd., #1300, Ft.
Lauderdale, FL
9/29/09, 9:00am Our Office Our Office
By Video
JANE Jane Doe * 9/30/09,10:OOam Our Office Our Office
DOE By Video
Agreed Upon / Scheduled
**
Have service
EFTA00727745
DataSet-10
Unknown
3 pages
Epstein Matter
Depositions Currently Scheduled
as of September 3, 2009
Plaintiff Deponent Date and Time Location Noticed By/Court
Reporter
Dr. Serge Thys * 8/31/09, 3:15pm Dr. Thys' office Noticed by us
(COMPLETED)
. Jeffrey Epstein * 9/02/09,10:OOam Atterbury,Goldberger Kuvin, Pleasanton
By Video 250 S.Australian Ave. Court Rep
(COMPLETED)? Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL
9/3/09, 10:00a.m. Searcy Denney Noticed by us,
By 2139 Palm Beach Prose Court Rep
Doe, , Video Lakes Blvd. Cross by Kuvin,
EW (OFF) West Palm Beach, Edwards
FL
Juan Alessi 9/08/09,10:00am Searcy Denney JPH
By Video 2139 Palm Beach
Lakes Blvd.
West Palm Beach,
FL
Doe #4 Jane Doe #4 * 9/16/09,1:OOpm Our Office Our Office
By Video
a )
Igor Zinoview 9/17/09,10:00am Doerner & Goldberg JPH
Revmont Park,
South Building
1161 Broad Street,
#110
Shrewsbury, NJ
07702
Tommy Matola 9/18/09,10:OOam Esquire Court Rep. JPH
(OFF - NO One Penn Plaza
SERVICE) Suite 4715
New York, NY
10019
9/21/09,1:00 pm McIntosh Sawran Noticed by Kuvin
By video 1601 Forum Place
Suite 1110
JANE Mark Epstein 9/21/09,11:OOam Esquire Court Rep. Edwards
DOE, By Video One Penn Plaza Kuvin
Suite 4715
New York, NY
10019
EFTA00727746
JANE Jean Luc Bruhel 9/22/09,10:OOam Esquire Court Rep. Edwards
DOE, ** One Penn Plaza Kuvin
By Video Suite 4715
New York, NY
JANE Ghislane Maxwell 9/23/09,10:OOam Esquire Court Rep. Edwards
DOE ** One Penn Plaza
By Video Suite 4715
(OFF - PER New York, NY
a
9/23/09,9:00am Our Office Our Office
By Video
S Bill Riley 9/24/09,10:OOam Esquire Edwards
Doe 101, By Video 515 E. Las Olas Ezell
102 Blvd., #1300, Ft.
Lauderdale, FL
JANE Donald Trump 9/24/09,11:00am Esquire Court Rep. Edwards
DOE, By Video One Penn Plaza Josefsberg (cross)
Doe 101, Suite 4715
102 New York, NY
. 9/29/09,9:OOam Our Office Our Office
By Video
JANE Jane Doe * 9/30/09,10:OOam Our Office Our Office
DOE By Video
. Larry Eugene 10/6/0910:OOam Esquire Court Rep Edwards
Doe 101, Morrison 515 N. Flagler Dr. Ezell. Kuvin
102 Duces Tecum WPB, FL
U
■ Doe 10/6/09 2:00p.m. Esquire Court Rep Edwards
101, 102 515 N. Flagler Dr. Ezell, Kuvin
WPB, FL
David Hart 10/7/09 10:00am Esquire Court Rep Edwards, Kuvin,
Rogers 515 N. Flagler Dr. Ezell
Doe 101, Duces Tecum WPB, FL
102
Janusz Banasiak 10/7/09,2:00 p.m. Esquire Court Rep Edwards, Kuvin
515 N. Flagler Dr. Ezell
Doe101, WPB, FL
102
EFTA00727747
IIMI Lawrence Paul 10/8/09,10:00.am Esquire Court Rep Edwards, Ezell
Doe101, Visoski,Jr. 515 N. Flagler Dr. Kuvin
102, Duces Tecum WPB, FL
. Mucinska 10/8/09,4:00 p.m. Esquire Court Rep Edwards, Ezell
Doe 101, 1021 Ives DairyRd. Kuvin
102, . Suite 214,BIdg.3
North Miami, FL
10/13/0910:OOam Caribou Inn JPH
By Video 19 Main Street
Caribou, Maine
04730
JANE 10/19/0910:00am Esquire Court Rep Edwards
DOE By video One Penn Plaza
Suite 4715
New York, NY10019
JANE 10/20/0910:OOam Esquire Court Rep. Edwards
DOE By Video One Penn Plaza
Suite 4715
New York, NY
10019
Agreed Upon I Scheduled
**
Have service
EFTA00727748
DataSet-10
Unknown
2 pages
Epstein Matter
Depositions Currently Scheduled
as of January 20, 2010
Plaintiff Deponent Date and Time Location Noticed By/Court
Reporter
Doe #4 1/21/10 Accurate Reporting Noticed by Jess
( ) (Dad) 1:00 p.m. & Video Services
814 East Silver
Springs Blvd., #A
Ocala, FL 34470
Doe #4 1/21/10 Accurate Reporting Noticed by Jess
(Mom) 3:30 p.m. & Video Services
814 East Silver
Springs Blvd., #A
Ocala, FL 34470
. 1/26/10 Leopold-Kuvin, PA Noticed by Jess
(Mom) 9:00 a.m. 2925 PGA Blvd.,
Suite #200
Palm Beach
Gardens, FL 33410
. 1/26/10 Leopold-Kuvin, PA Noticed by Jess
(Step-Dad) 11:00 a.m. 2925 PGA Blvd.,
Suite #200
Palm Beach
Gardens, FL 33410
1/26/10 Leopold-Kuvin, PA Noticed by Jess
(Dad) 2:30 p.m. 2925 PGA Blvd.,
Suite #200
Palm Beach
Gardens, FL 33410
1/26/10 Leopold-Kuvin, PA Noticed by Jess
(Sister) 4:00 p.m. 2925 PGA Blvd.,
Suite #200
Palm Beach
Gardens, FL 33410
IME of 2/5/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
( 9:00 a.m. 250 S. Australian
Ave, Suite 1500,
WPB
2/5/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
(Tentative Date) 250 S. Australian (Tentative Date)
Ave, Suite 1500,
WPB
Charles Gerald 2/08/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Kuvin
Goldsmith 9:30 a.m. 250 S. Australian
Ave, Suite 1500,
WPB
EFTA00727708
. 2/11/10 Prose Court Rep Notice by Kuvin
(Tentative Date) 250 S. Australian (Tentative Date)
Ave, Suite 1500,
WPB
Doe #4 2/12/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
( ) (By Video) 10:00 a.m. 250 S. Australian
Ave, Suite 1500,
WPB
Doe #4 2/12/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
( ) ( ' Boyfriend) 2:00 p.m. 250 S. Australian
Ave, Suite 1500,
WPB
. IME of 2/15/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
9:00 a.m. 250 S. Australian
Ave, Suite 1500,
WPB
. . 2/26/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
( ) 9:00 a.m. 250 S. Australian
Ave, Suite 1500,
WPB
Agreed Upon / Scheduled
**
Have service
EFTA00727709