DataSet-10
Unknown
2 pages
IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH
COUNTY, FLORIDA
L.M.,
CASE NO. 502008CA02.80517OCOCMB AD
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEO DEPOSITION
To: See Service List below
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorney will take the deposition via video of:
DEPONENT DATE & TIME LOCATION OF DEPOSITION
EW Friday Burman Critton Luther & Coleman,
c/o Brad Edwards, Esq. September 11, 2009 LLC
Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 10:00 a.m. 303 Banyan Boulevard
401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 400
Suite 1650 West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
upon oral examination, before Prose Court Reporting Agency, Inc., a Notary Public, or any other officer
authorized by law to take depositions in the State of Florida. The oral examination is being taken for the
purpose of discovery, for use at trial, or for such other purposes as are permitted under the applicable
Statutes of Rules of Court.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been furnished by electronic mail
(e-mail) and U.S. Mail to the addresses listed on the below Service List this le day of Aggyfit, 2009.
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN
303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400
ailliach, FL 3340
BY:
ROBER . CRITTON, JR., ESQ.
Florida ar No. 224162
MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
Florida Bar. No. 6172%
(Counselfor Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
Courtesy copy: Prose Court Reporting Agency, Inc.
EFTA00728276
L.M. v. Epstein
Page 2
L.M. v. Epstein
Service List
Brad Edwards, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
401 East Las Olas Boulevard 250 Australian Avenue South
Suite 1650 Suite 1400
Fort Lauderdale. FL 33301 West Palm Beach FL 33401-5012
Co-Counselfor Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
Counsel for Plaintiff
Jay Howell, Esq.
Jay Howell & Associates, P.A.
644 Cesery Boulevard
Suite 250
Jacksonville FL 32211
Co-counselfor Plaintiff
EFTA00728277
DataSet-10
Unknown
3 pages
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Plaintiff,
v. No. 17 Civ. 00616 (JGK)
XWELL,
and
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION
F
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, pursuant to Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, counsel for Plaintiff, will take a videotaped deposition of the
Defendant as set forth below:
NAME:
DATE AND TIME: August 24, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.
LOCATION: Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP
The videotaped deposition will be taken upon oral examination before Magna Legal
Services, or any other notary public authorized by law to take depositions. The oral examination
will continue from day to day until completed.
Plaintiff originally filed this action under the pseudonym but is now proceeding
under her real name.
I
EFTA00285623
The video operator shall be provided by Magna Legal Services. This deposition is being
taken for the purpose of discovery, for use at trial, or for such other purposes as are permitted
under the rules of this Court.
Dated: August 10, 2018.
BOTES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley
Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice)
Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice)
Stanley Pottinger, Esq.
EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
S.J. Quinney College of Law
2 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only
and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private
representation.
2
EFTA00285624
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 10th day of August, 2018, I served the attached
PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITON OF WITNESS ■
via Email to the following counsel of record.
Michael Miller
Justin Y.K Chu
Michael A. Keough
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
Counselfor Jeffrey Epstein, and
Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
.e ob... us: N, P.C.
Counselfor Ghislaine Maxwell
By: /s/ SigridMcCawley
Sigrid McCawley
3
EFTA00285625
DataSet-10
Unknown
1 pages
From: Lesley Groff <
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 1:04 PM
To: Jeffrey Epstein
Subject: Chet Brewer
Reminder Chet brewer is asking if April 27,28 or 29 would work for you in th= VI for the deposition. Please advise
Sent from my iPhone=?xml version=.0" encoding=TF-8"?>
conversation-idgkey>
123433
date-last-viewed
0
date-received
1425387862
flags
8590195717
gmail-label-ids
6
2
remote-id
486744
1
EFTA_R1_01639898
EFTA02508787
DataSet-10
Unknown
1 pages
From: Jean Luc Brunel
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 12:37 AM
To: jeevacation@gmail.com
Subject: Yo
If you have any news about Opium group.please let me know I have a question about. deposition An advice...I want to
ask how to focus on the right point etc...=?xml version=.0" encoding=TF-8"?>
conversation-idgkey>
232839
date-last-viewed
0
date-received
1348706244
flags
8623750145
gmail-label-ids
6
2
remote-id
248301
1
EFTA_R1_01722588
EFTA02561218
DataSet-10
Unknown
1 pages
To:
Cc: Shauna Betz
From: Erika Kellerhals
Sent: Wed 2/4/2015 6:14:09 PM
Subject: Re: Jeffrey Epstein
Shauna - please confirm that the conference room is available on this date for
Mr. Epstein's deposition. - I'll give Chet a call today.
Erika A. Kellerhals
Member
Kellerhals Ferguson Kroblin PLLC
9100 Port of Sale Mall, Ste 15
St. Thomas, VI 00802
Notice: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you have
received this communication in error, please do not print, copy, re-transmit,
disseminate, or otherwise use this information. Also, please indicate to the
sender that you have received this e-mail in error, and delete the copy you
received. Thank you.
Circular 230: To ensure compliance with the requirements imposed by the IRS, we
inform you that any tax advice contained in our communication
(including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding any tax penalty or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
addressed herein.
On 2/4/15 2:11 PM, wrote:
>Hi Erika...Jeffrey needs to take a deposition for the Sitrick case he is
>involved in on Feb. 25th at 2pm STT time...I'm thinking you are probably
>aware of this? Chet Brewer is representing him...Jeffrey and Chet want
>him to take the depo at your office. Chet says you do not need to be
>there, but he would like to make sure that someone is watching your door
>(he is concerned about press) If you wanted to speak to Chet he is happy
>to talk with you.
>We wanted to make sure that Feb. 25th at 2pm would work on your end.
>Please let me know.
>Chet Brewer:
>Thanks!
EFTA_R1_00674998
EFTA02085700
DataSet-10
Unknown
2 pages
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
FILE NO. 502008CP003626XXXXMB
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-NOTICE OF VIDEO DEPOSITION OF
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiff,.., will take the video deposition by oral
examination, of the persons named below, at the time, on the date, at the hour of the place
indicated:
NAME DATE AND PLACE OF TAKING DEPOSITON
TIME
June 15, 2010 @ Intern. ent Office
10:00AM
upon oral examination before Videographer and 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. The depositions are being taken
for the purpose of discovery, for use at trial, or for such other purposes as are permitted
under the Rules of Court.
1
EFTA00759886
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served via
U.S. Mail and email on May nI 2010 to: Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esq., Burman, Critton, et
al., Jay Howell, Esq., Jay
Howell & Assoc., ■ and Jack Alan
Goldberger, Esq., Atterbury Goldberger et al.,
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,
Edwards Fistos = L h i, P.L.
fax
By:
BRADLEY J. aillaiS
Florida Bar No.:
2
EFTA00759887
DataSet-10
Unknown
1 pages
To:
From:
Sent Wed 2/18/2015 6:34:05 PM
Subject: FYI...
FYI-Jeffrey is to be on the island WEd. feb. 25th for a deposition...I reminded
JE of this on Monday I think...but this could possibly make Paris not as
attractive...(like he needs more ammo for that!)
EFTA_R1_00671729
EFTA02084367
DataSet-10
Unknown
17 pages
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 3%6 Filed 03/29/16 Page 1 of 17
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
v.
Ghislthne Maxwell,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENFORCE THE COURT'S ORDER AND DIRECT
DEFENDANT TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS FILED UNDER SEAL'
Plaintiff by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this
Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
As the Court is aware, this defamation case involves Ms. assertions that she and
other females were recruited by Defendant to be sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein under the
guise of being "massage therapists." See Complaint, DEI, at I 27 (= "described Maxwell's
role as one of the main women who Epstein used to procure under-aged girls for sexual activities
Defendant has labelled her entire deposition transcript as Confidential at this time.
1
EFTA00608692
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 3%6 Filed 03/29/16 Page 2 of 17
and a primary co-conspirator and participant in his sexual abuse and sex trafficking scheme").
I
I
IN
I
2
EFTA00608693
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 3%6 Filed 03/29/16 Page 3 of 17
In response to Ms. assertions about Defendant recruiting of females for sexual
purposes, Defendant has made the sweeping claim that Ms. assertions are "entirely
false" and "entirely untrue." Complaint, DE 1, at 131.
See Schultz Decl. at Exhibit 6, (Emphasis added).
3
EFTA00608694
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 356 Filed 08/29/16 Page 4 of 17
4
EFTA00608695
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 3I6 Filed 08/291/16 Page 5 of 17
5
EFTA00608696
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 3%6 Filed OS/29/16 Page 6 of 17
"What do you have on the girls?" [Epstein) would ask the question over and over again.
What I had "on the girls" were some remarkably brave first-person accounts. Three on-
the-record stories from a family: a mother and her daughters
who came from Phoenix. The oldest daughter, an artist whose
character was vouchsafed to me by several sources, including the artist Eric Fischl, had
told me, weeping as she sat in my living room, of how Epstein had attempted to seduce
both her and, separately, her younger sister, then only 16. He'd gotten to them because of
his money. He promised the older sister patronage of her art work; he'd promised the
younger funding for a trip abroad that would give her the work experience she needed on
her resume for a place at an Ivy League university, which she desperately wanted - and
would win. The girls' mother told me by phone that she had thought her daughters would
6
EFTA00608697
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 3%6 Filed 03/29/16 Page 7 of 17
be safe under Epstein's roof, not least because he phoned her to reassure her, and she
also knew he had Ghislaine Maxwell with him at all times. When the girls' mother
learned that Epstein had, regardless, allegedly molested her 16-year-old daughter, she'd
wanted to fight back.
"1 Tried to Warn You about Sleazy Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein in 2003," Vicky Ward, January 6,
2015, Daily Beast Article (Emphasis added).
7
EFTA00608698
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 356 Filed 08/291/16 Page 8 of 17
I
8
EFTA00608699
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 355 Filed 08/29/16 Page 9 of 17
9
EFTA00608700
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 355 Filed 08/210/16 Page 10 of 17
i
10
EFTA00608701
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 355 Filed 08/29/16 Page 11of 17
I
II
EFTA00608702
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 3$6 Filed OE/29/16 Page 12 of 17
I
I
I
I
12
EFTA00608703
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 316 Filed OS/21/16 Page 13 of 17
See Fed. R. Crim. P.
37(a)(3)(B)(i); see, e.g., Kelly v. Al Tech., No. 09 CIV. 962 LAK MHD, 2010 WL 1541585, at
*20 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2010) ("Under the Federal Rules, when a party refuses to answer a
question during a deposition, the questioning party may subsequently move to compel disclosure
of the testimony that it sought. The court must determine the propriety of the deponent's
objection to answering the questions, and can order the deponent to provide improperly withheld
answers during a continued deposition" (internal citations omitted)). Of course, the party
objecting to discovery must carry the burden of proving the validity of its objections, particularly
in light of "the broad and liberal construction afforded the federal discovery rules .. . ." John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Book Dog Books, LLC, 298 F.R.D. 184, 186 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). For
purposes of a deposition, the information sought "need not be admissible at the trial if the
discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Chen-
Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 293 F.R.D. 557, 561 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P.
26(b)(l))•
13
EFTA00608704
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 316 Filed 03/259/16 Page 14 of 17
See also, Condit v. Dunne, 225 F.R.D. 100, 113 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (in defamation case,
"Plaintiff is hereby ordered to answer questions regarding his sexual relationships in so far as
they are relevant to a defense of substantial truth, mitigation of damages, or impeachment of
plaintiff."); Weber v. Multimedia Entm't, Inc., No. 97 CIV. 0682 PKL THK, 1997 WL 729039, at
*3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 1997) ("While discovery is not unlimited and may not unnecessarily
intrude into private matters, in the instant case inquiry into private matters is clearly relevant to
the subject matter of the suit. Accordingly, plaintiff Misty Weber shall respond to defendants'
interrogatories concerning her sexual partners . . . ."). Moreover, generally speaking, instructions
from attorneys to their clients not to answer questions at a deposition should be "limited to
[issues regarding) privilege." Morales v. Zondo, Inc., 204 F.R.D. 50, 54 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
14
EFTA00608705
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 3%6 Filed 03//1/16 Page 15 of 17
CONCLUSION
Defendant should be ordered to sit for a follow-up deposition and directed to answer
questions regarding the topics enumerated above.
Dated: July 29, 2016
Respectfully Submitted,
BOLES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley
Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice)
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
(954) 356-0011
David Boies
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice)
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, ■.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
(954) 524-2820
Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
S.J. Quinney College of Law
University of Utah
383 University St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
(801) 585-52025
This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only
and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private
representation.
15
EFTA00608706
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 356 Filed 08/29/16 Page 16 of 17
16
EFTA00608707
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 3%6 Filed 03/29/16 Page 17 of 17
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 29th day of July, 2016, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission
of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
Tel: (303) 831-7364
Fax: (303) 832-2628
Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com
joagliuca@hmflaw.com
/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley
Sigrid S. McCawley
17
EFTA00608708
DataSet-10
Unknown
1 pages
From: ==. >
To: Jefffrey Epstein
Subject: David Mitchell
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 17:08:34 +0000
Please call David Mitchell on his cell. He is at a deposition right now but says he will pick up.
Sent from my iPhone
EFTA01020190
DataSet-10
Unknown
1 pages
From: "Earl Nemse
To:
Subject: RE: (no subject)
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:26:21 PM
Hi Jonathan,
Ordinarily there are no depositions in Finra arbitrations, but there will be live testimony at the
hearing. I know David Hoffner. He used to work at my law firm. He is a pretty good lawyer. Very
tenacious.
Best.
Earl
From
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 6:56 AM
To: enemser@interactivebrokers.com
Subject: (no subject)
Earl if i bring a finra case against Elkman will i spend days in deposition thanks Jonathan
EFTA_R1_01353034
EFTA02361234
DataSet-10
Unknown
12 pages
EXHIBIT Q
EFTA00097394
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 189 Filed 06/06/16 Page 1 of 11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X
INNIErt INIMINME,
Plaintiff,
v.
15-cv-07433-RWS
GHISLATNE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
X
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO EXCEED PRESUMPTIVE TEN DEPOSITION LIMIT
Laura A. Menninger
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
HADDON, MORGAN, AND FOREMAN, P.C.
EFTA00097395
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 189 Filed 06/06/16 Page 2 of 11
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Ms. Maxwell") files this Response in Opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit, and states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
Despite having taken only three depositions to date, Plaintiff prematurely requests
permission to exceed the presumptive ten deposition limit imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P.
30(aX2)(A)(i) and to conduct 17 separate depositions, almost twice the limit. Without legal
support, Plaintiff attempts to conflate the presumptive time limitation for each deposition of
seven hours with a right to take a total of 70 hours of depositions. This is an absurd reading of
the Federal Rules. The presumptive ten deposition limitation is an independent limitation, and
speaks to the number of separate deponents, not deposition time. Indeed, the two independent
limitations do not even appear in the same section of the rules.
The heart of Plaintiff's argument is that Ms. Maxwell inconveniently testified and denied
Plaintiff's claims, rather than invoking the Fifth Amendment. This dashed Plaintiff's apparent
hope to obtain an adverse inference, rather than actually having to prove her case against Ms.
Maxwell. Instead, Ms. Maxwell fully testified for the entire 7 hours, responded to all questions
posed to her; and testified based on her actual knowledge. Ms. Maxwell's testimony simply
bears no relevance to Plaintiff's request to take more than 10 depositions of non-party witnesses.
Conspicuously absent from Plaintiff's motion are (a) any actual information she believes
these witnesses may provide which is neither cumulative nor duplicative of other information
already disclosed in this case, (b) the fact the information can be obtained from other sources,
Plaintiff flatly This-represents to the Court that Ms. Maxwell "refused" to answer the questions posed to
her, as the actual transcript amply demonstrates. Ms. Maxwell did not avoid any questions and answered
all questions to the best of her recollection relating to alleged events 15 years ago. The majority of the
bullet point "summary" of the matters about which Ms. Maxwell could not testify were based either on a
lack of any personal knowledge or the fact that the events claimed by Plaintiff did not actually happen.
1
EFTA00097396
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 189 Filed 06/06/16 Page 3 of 11
and (c) facts demonstrating that the burden and expense of the discovery is justified by the needs
of this case. Indeed, she has not established that the testimony is even relevant to the actual
issues in this matter. Plaintiff's inability to establish these factors requires denial of the motion.
I. PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST IS PREMATURE
First, the request to exceed the presumptive ten-deposition limit is premature. "[C]ourts
generally will not grant leave to expand the number of depositions until the moving party has
exhausted the ten depositions permitted as of right under Rule 30(a)(2)(A) or the number
stipulated to by the opposing party." Gen. Elec. Co. v. Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am., No. 3:06-CV-
232 (CFD), 2006 WL 1525970, at *2 (D. Conn. May 25, 2006).
This guideline makes sense because a "moving party must not only justify those
depositions it wishes to take, but also the depositions it has already taken." Id. (citing Barrow v.
Greenville Indep. Sch. Dist., 202 F.R.D. 480, 482 (N.D.Tex. 2001)). This rule is in place because
"a party could indirectly circumvent the cap on depositions by exhausting the maximum allotted
number to those that she could not justify under the Rule 26(b)(2) standards, and then seek[ ]
leave to exceed the limit in order to take depositions that she could substantiate." Id. at 483.
Here, Plaintiff seeks a pre-emptive determination that she should be permitted 17
depositions, almost twice the presumptive limit, yet her proposed depositions are not calculated
to lead to admissible evidence in this case. By way of example, Plaintiff identifies
), and Jeffrey Epstein as
alleged "co-conspirators" with each other. She requests the depositions of each. Plaintiff
anticipates each will invoke the Fifth Amendment — in other words, she will not obtain any
discoverable information from them.
2
EFTA00097397
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 189 Filed 06/06/16 Page 4 of 11
Plaintiff makes a bizarre argument that somehow this testimony can be used to create an
adverse inference against Ms. Maxwell,2 despite the fact that Ms. Maxwell did not invoke the
Fifth Amendment and she testified fully and answered every question posed to her with the only
exception the irrelevant and harassing questions Plaintiff posed to her concerning her adult,
consensual sexual activities. In other words, depositions of Marcincova, Kellen and Epstein
would serve Plaintiff's goal to make a convoluted legal argument, not to actually seek
discoverable information. In light of this, the "burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the parties' resources, the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving
the issues." Atkinson v. Goord, No. 01 CIV. 0761 LAKHBP, 2009 WL 890682, at *1 (S.D.N.Y.
Apr. 2, 2009); Fed. It Civ. P. 26(b)(1). If Plaintiff chooses to use her depositions in this manner,
she risks utilizing three of her available 10 depositions for an illegitimate purpose. She should
not be rewarded with a pre-emptive carte blanche in advance to take additional depositions.
H. THE PROPOSED DEPOSITIONS ARE CUMULATIVE, DUPLICATIVE, AND
NOT RELEVANT TO THE CENTRAL ISSUES OF THE DISPUTE
Plaintiff has not met the requisite showing to permit in excess of 10 depositions. In
Sigala v. Spikouris, 00 CV 0983(ILG), 2002 WL 721078 at '3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2002), the
Court set forth the general principles relevant to a party's application to conduct more than ten
depositions:
2
Invocation of the Fifth Amendment by a third party witness cannot be used to create an adverse
inference against a party in a civil action. See United States v. Dist. Council of New York City & Vicinity
of United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., No. 90 CIV. 5722 (CSH), 1993 WL 159959, at *5
(S.D.N.Y. May 12, 1993) ("the general rule [is] that an individual's claim of Fifth Amendment protection
is personal, and does not give rise to adverse inferences against others."); Brenner v. World Boxing
Council, 675 F.2d 445, 454 n. 7 (2d Cir.), cert denied, 459 U.S. 835 (1982) ("Furthermore, since King
was a non-party witness, no adverse inference against appellees could have been drawn from his refusal
to testify.").
3
EFTA00097398
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 189 Filed 06/06/16 Page 5 of 11
The Federal Rules presumptively limit the number of depositions that each side
may conduct to ten. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2) (A) ("A party must obtain leave of
court, which shall be granted to the extent consistent with the principles stated in
Rule 26(bX2), if... a proposed deposition would result in more than ten
depositions being taken ...."); accord Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes,104
F.Supp.2d 334, 342 (S.D.N.Y.2000); Landry v. St. James Parish Sch. Rd., No.
Civ. A 99-1438, 2000 WL 1741886, at •2 (E.D.La. Nov. 22, 2000). The purpose
of Rule 30(a)(2)(A) is to "enable courts to maintain a 'tighter rein' on the extent
of discovery and to minimize the potential cost of tArlide-ranging discovery' ...
." Whittingham v. Amherst Coll., 163 F.R.D. 170, 171-72 (D.Mass.1995) (citation
omitted). Accordingly, "[t]he mere fact that many individuals may have
discoverable information does not necessarily entitle a party to depose each such
individual." Dixon v. Certainteed Corp., 164 F.R.D. 685, 692 (D.Kan.1996).
"The factors relevant to determining whether a party should be entitled to more than ten
depositions are now set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C)3 and include whether (I) the discovery
sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or can be obtained from some other source that
is more convenient, less burdensome, or less extensive, (2) the party seeking discovery has had
ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action, and (3) the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case,
the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of
the discovery in resolving the issues." Atkinson, 2009 WL 890682, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2009)
(internal quotations omitted).
Rule 26(bXI) has since been modified to read "(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative,
or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party
seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the
proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(bXI )." The scope of discovery permitted by 26(bXI)
is "non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case,
considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access
to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether
the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit." Thus, the factors to be considered
have simply been moved to a new number with cross reference.
4
EFTA00097399
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 189 Filed 06/06/16 Page 6 of 11
Weighing these factors, there is no basis for permitting more than the presumptive ten
deposition limit. First, as highlighted by the motion, the information purportedly sought is
cumulative and duplicative. By way of example, Plaintiff has already deposed
(a former Epstein employee), Juan Alessi (a former Epstein employee), and David Rodgers4
(former Epstein Pilot). She further seeks to depose and Jo Fontanella (former
Epstein household employees), as well as and (identified as assistants
to Ms. Maxwell or Mr. Epstein). The information Plaintiff claims each of the witnesses may
have is identical to that of each other — what they observed while working for Epstein. Plaintiff
goes so far as to state that 's deposition is expected to "corroborate" the
observations of her husband's.
Plaintiff admits that the purpose in seeking the additional depositions is "obtaining
witnesses, like Ms. , who can corroborate that [Plaintiff] is telling the truth." Yet, Ms.
did not "corroborate that [Plaintiff] is telling the truth." Instead, she testified that NI
Regardless, Plaintiff is looking in vain for more testimony of exactly the same character,
precisely the type of testimony the presumptive limit is intended to prevent.
Similarly, the expected deposition testimony of former Palm Beach Detective Joe
Recarey and former Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter are duplicative of each other.
4 Mr. Rodgers deposition, held last Friday and requiring a separate trip to Florida for Colorado counsel after the
scheduled court hearing on Thursday, served simply to authenticate flight logs. There are far more convenient, less
burdensome, and less expensive methods by which such information could have been obtained, such as a verifying
affidavit, yet Plaintiff chose to unnecessarily burden counsel, the witness and counsel for the witness with a 3 hour
deposition to accomplish the same end.
5
EFTA00097400
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 189 Filed 06/06/16 Page 7 of 11
Putting aside the admissibility of this testimony, it appears that both men were involved in the
investigation ofMr. Epstein and are expected to testify about their investigation. Plaintiff's
allegations were not a part of their investigation, which took place years after Plaintiff left the
country. Moreover, their investigation did not involve Ms. Maxwell. Again, such duplicative
and irrelevant deposition testimony speaks to the intended purpose of the ten-deposition limit,
not a reason to exceed that limit.
The same holds true for
and Jeffrey Epstein, each of whom Plaintiff anticipates will not respond to
questions and invoke their Fifth Amendment right. As discussed above, such invocation has no
bearing on the issues in this matter. Moreover, it is obviously cumulative and duplicative.
Plaintiff also identifies Rinaldo Rizzo and Jean Luc Brunel but fails to provide any
information from which Ms. Maxwell or the Court could identify the subject matter of their
expected testimony. Thus, it is unclear how these individuals have information that differs from
or would add to the other proposed deponents. It is the Plaintiffs burden to explain to the Court
why these depositions should be permitted if they exceed the presumptive limit, why the
information would not be cumulative, and its relevance to the important issues in the action, or
the importance of the discovery in resolving those issues. She simply fails to provide any
information by which the Court can assess these factors, and thus should not be permitted to
exceed the deposition limit based on her proffer.
III. THE TESTIMONY SOUGHT IS IRRELEVANT TO TEAS SINGLE COUNT
DEFAMATION CASE
This case is a simple defamation case. Plaintiff, through her counsel, filed a pleading
making certain claims regarding "Jane Doe No. #3" - the Plaintiff- and her alleged
6
EFTA00097401
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 189 Filed 06/06/16 Page 8 of 11
"circumstances." See Complaint. Ms. Maxwell denied the allegations made stating they were
"untrue" and "obvious lies." Plaintiff claims these statements are defamatory because she has
been called a "liar."
"A public figure claiming defamation under New York law must establish that `the
statements ... complain[ed] of were (I) of and concerning [the plaintiff], (2) likely to be
understood as defamatory by the ordinary person, (3) false, and (4) published with actual
malice.'" Biro v. Conde Nast, 963 F. Stipp. 2d 255, 276 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), affd, 807 F.3d 541
(2d Cir. 2015), and aff'd, 622 F. App'x 67 (2d Cir. 2015).
If Ms. Maxwell's statements are essentially true - Plaintiff lied - Plaintiff cannot
establish her claim, and it is an absolute defense? Further, if Plaintiff cannot prove actual malice
by Ms. Maxwell, her claim fails. See Contemporary Mission, Inc. v. New York Times Co., 842
F.2d 612, 621 (2d Cir. 1988) (limited purpose public figure must establish by clear and
convincing evidence that the defendant published the alleged defamatory statement with actual
malice, "that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was
false or not") (quoting New York Times, 376 U.S. 241, 280 (1964)). That is, Plaintiff must prove
that Ms. Maxwell permitted the publication of the statement knowing it to be untrue.
None of the witnesses identified are listed as having discoverable information regarding
any of the elements of this claim. None is claimed to have direct knowledge to confirm the truth
of Plaintiff's claims about what happened to her, that the acts she claims she participated in
5
There is only one public statement that existed on January 2, 2015 to which Ms. Maxwell was responding in the
statement by her press agent. The document is the Joinder Motion filed in the Crime Victims' Rights Act case on
behalf ofPlaintiff by her attorneys, Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell. Menningcr DecL, Ex. A, p. 4. The very first
line describing Jane Doe #3 Circumstances is false, ft read: "In 1999, Jane Doe #3 was
approached by Ghislaine Maxwell," and continuing that "Maxwell persuaded Jane Doe 143 (who was only fifteen
years old) to come to Epstein's mansion . . ."
Menninger Decl., N. A at 26-29. No amount of "circumstantial
evidence" can overcome the fact that Ms. Maxwell's statement was correct and that statements in the Joinder
Motion were untrue.
7
EFTA00097402
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 189 Filed 06/06/16 Page 9 of 11
occurred or that they occurred with the people she claims to have been involved. Rather, each
witness identified as being able to provide their observations regarding "other" allegedly
underage girls, their own personal experience,6 or beliefs about Plaintiff's credibility. None of
this is relevant. This is not a case about Jeffery Epstein or the alleged "modus operandi of the
Epstein organization." This is a simple case of if Ms. Maxwell's denial of the allegations made
by Plainti about Plaintiff's own interactions with Maxwell was defamatory, and if Ms. Maxwell
acted with actual malice in issuing the denial. Plaintiff's attempt to amplify this proceeding into
something broader should not be condoned.
Because the evidence sought is nothing more than extraneous inadmissible
"circumstantial evidence"7 irrelevant to proving the essential elements of the claim, "the burden
or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the
case, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance
of the discovery in resolving the issues." Atkinson, 2009 WL 890682, at *I. As such, the
request for the additional depositions should be denied.
WHEREFORE, Ms. Maxwell requests that the Motion to permit in excess of the
presumptive ten deposition limit be denied; alternatively, if in excess of ten depositions are
permitted, Ms. Maxwell requests that Plaintiff be required to pay all costs and attorney's fees
6 The information sought is also inadmissible. Plaintiff seeks testimony from witness who she claims will testify to
experience similar to her stories and this will
Motion at 15-16. Such evidence is prohibited by
FRE 404(b), which states "Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person's
character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character."
Furthermore, no other witness has claimed as Plaintiff does that Ghislaine Maxwell sexually abused them, sexually
trafficked them, or that she partook in daily sex with any underage girls. Plaintiff's claim stands in isolation because
it is fictional.
7 This "circumstantial evidence" has no bearing on the truthfulness of the stories published by Plaintiff. It is equally
likely to show that Plaintiff became aware of the allegations of others and decided to hop on the band wagon. She
then made up similar claims for the purpose of getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the media for
publicizing her allegations and identifying well know public figures whose names she has seen documents that she
reviewed or other stories she had read.
8
EFTA00097403
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 189 Filed 06/06/16 Page 10 of 11
associated with attending any deposition occurring outside 100 miles of the Courthouse for the
Southern District of New York pursuant to S.D.N.Y L.Civ.R. 30.1.
Dated: June 6, 2016.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Laura A. Menninger
Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice)
HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C.
Attorneysfor Ghislaine Maxwell
9
EFTA00097404
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 189 Filed 06/06/16 Page 11of 11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on June 6, 2016, I electronically served this Defendant's Response in Opposition to
Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit via ECF on the following:
Sigrid S. McCawley Paul G. Cassell
Meridith Schultz 383 S. University Street
Boors, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
J. Stanley Pottinger
Bradley J. Edwards
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS,
FiSTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. SIM
Is/ Nicole Simmons
Nicole Simmons
10
EFTA00097405
DataSet-10
Unknown
2 pages
From:
To: Jeffrey Epstein
Subject: Re: Brad Okun
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2016 20:40:06 +0000
Could you do a call tomorrow with Brad 4-4:30? Will you be finished with deposition?
On Sep 8, 2016, at 3:54 PM, jeffrey E. wrote:
2o miuntes , cash trapped overseas by apple and microsoft
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 3:54 PM, wrote:
Brad Okun is not available today for a call...he is asking for some other dates/times you would be available
as well as what the call is in reference to and how long you will need...please advise...
On Sep 8, 2016, at 3:35 PM, jeffrey E. leevacation@gmail.com> wrote:
schedule a call with brad okun paul weiss today if you can
please note
The information contained in this communication is
confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may
constitute inside information, and is intended only for
the use of the addressee. It is the property of
JEE
Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited
and may be unlawful. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by
return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation®gmail.com, and
destroy this communication and all copies thereof,
including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved
please note
The information contained in this communication is
confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may
constitute inside information, and is intended only for
the use of the addressee. It is the property of
JEE
Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited
and may be unlawful. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by
EFTA00818975
return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and
destroy this communication and all copies thereof,
including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved
EFTA00818976
DataSet-10
Unknown
8 pages
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 10-80309
JANE DOE NO. 103
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
RE-NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM
(As to Location ONLY)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at the below listed time and place the Plaintiff, JANE DOE
NO. 103, by and through undersigned counsel, will take the depositions of:
NAME OF DEPONENT DATE AND TIME PLACE OF DEPOSITION
Detective Joseph Recary Tuesday Joanne M. O'Connor Esq.
do Joanne M. O'Conner, Esq. April 27, 2010 Jones, Foster, &
Jones, Foster, 10:00 a.m. Stubbs, P.A.
Stubbs, P.A. 505 South Flagler Drive
505 South Flagler Drive, # 1100 Suite 1100
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 West Palm Beach, FL 33401
upon oral examination before PROSE COURT REPORTING, 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
Podhurst Orsecls, P.A.
25 West Flagler Street. Suite 800, Miami, FL 33130, MIMI 305358.2900 Fax 305.3582382 • Fort Lauderdale 954.4634346 1 www.podluustorn
EFTA00726182
CASE NO.: 10-80309
discovery, for use at trial, or for such other purposes as are permitted under the rules of Court. The
deponent is further directed to bring with him or her to the deposition documents described in
Exhibit "A" attached.
DATED this 19th day of April, 2010.
Respectfully submitted,
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
Attorneysfor PlaintiffJane Doe No. 103
By:
C.Jo66fsberg
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 Orsedc, P.A.
25 West Flagler Street. Suite 800, ?Aunt FL 33130, Muni X6358.2800 Fax 305.35&2382 • Fort Lauderdale 951.463A316 I www.podhurst.caus
EFTA00726183
CASE NO.: 10-80309
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 19th day of April, 2010, a copy of the foregoing was
served this day on all counsel of record on the attached Service List via e-mail transmission.
Respectfully submitted,
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
Attorneysfor Plaintifflane Doe No. 103
By:
C. J6§efsberg
Fla. Bar No. 040856
Fla. Bar No. 114771
City National Bank Building
25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 358-2800
Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
-3-
Podhurst Orseck,
25 West Meer Street. Suite 800, Miami. FL 33130, Miami 386358.2800 Fax 305.3562382 • Fat Lauderdale 954463.4346 www.podIstust.com
EFTA00726184
CASE NO.: 10-80309
SERVICE LIST
JANE DOE NO. 103 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Case No.: 10-80309
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Critton, Esq.
Michael 3. Pike, Esq.
Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman LLP
303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561) 842-2820/Fax: (561) 515-3148
ounse e ant, Jerey Epstein
Jack Goldberger, Esq.
Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561) 659-8300/Fax: (561) 835-8691
Co-Counselfor Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein
Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq.
Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A.
250 South Australian Avenue, Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: 561 202-6360/Fax: (561) 828-0983
ounse or o- e en ant,
Adam Horowitz, Esq.
Stuart Mermelstein, Esq.
Mennelstein & Horowitz, P,A.
18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218
Miami, FL 33160
Phone: (305) 931-2200/Fax: (305) 931-0877
- 4-
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
25 West Hagler Street Suite 800, Miami, Ft 33130, Miami 3053582800 Fax 3053582382 • Fort Lauderdale 95{463.4346 www.podhurst.com
EFTA00726185
CASE NO.: 10-80309
Counselfor Plain:lb in Related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119,08-80232, 08-80380 08-80381,
08-80993,08-80994
Spencer Todd Kuvin, Esq.
Theodore Jon Leopold, Esq.
Leopold Kuvin, P.A.
2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
61) 515-1401
Counselfor Plaintiff in Related Case No. 0848804
Edwards, Esq.
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards,
Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 524-2820/Fax: (954) 524-2822
Counselfor Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893
Isidro Manuel M, Esq.
Elkins & Boehringer
224 Datura Avenue, Suite 900
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561) 832-8033/Fax: (561) 832-7137
Counselfor Plaintiff in Related Case No. 0840469
-5-
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
25 West Hagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL 33150, Miami 305.358.1300 Fax 305-3582382 • Fort Lauderdale 954463.4346 www.podlutrd.cOm
EFTA00726186
WONT "A"
any
da or other papers authored by ygn or
1. Any and all written reports, notes, memoran elec tron ic form ,
artment, whether in hard-copy or
other member of the Palm Beach Police Dep limi ted to
of Jeffrey Epstein including but not
that relate to any law enforcement investigation . This
e criminal charges against Mr. Epstein
the investigation that resulted in the filing of Stat een mend any members of the Palm Beach
betw
request includes any written communications Enforcement Agency, any member of
the
ent, any mem ber of any Fede ral Law
Police Departm
ber of the Office of the State Attorney, any
Unites States Attorney's Office, any mem lawyers or
ies, any civilian witnesses and/or any
representatives of the media, any civil part
lian witnesses.
representatives of any parents of any civi
following
and all elec tron ic com mun icati ons (EMAIL) between inn any of the
2. Any ted to the
to any law enfo rcem ent inve stiga tion of Jeffrey Epstein including but not limi
relating member of
e criminal charges against him: (A) any
investigation that resulted in the filing of Stat Enfo rcem ent Agency,
member of any Federal Law
the Palm Beach Police Department, (B) any the Offi ce of the
's Office, (D) any member of
(C) any member of the Untied States Attorney ision, or radio media outlet, (F) any attorney
print, telev
State Attorney (B) any member of any file a civil
representing any civilian witn ess or civil party who has filed or may potentially
complaint against Mr. Epstein.
een you
and all note s, mem oran da or repo rts reflecting any communications betw
3. Any exculpatory
g but not limited fo any request for.
and counsel on behalf of Mr. Epstein, includin
evidence.
cting any attempts by you to initiate or
4. Any and all notes, memoranda or reports refle ecution
ect of the Epstein investigation or State pros
encourage a federal review of any facet/asp
of Epstein.
reflecting any complaints made to the Palm
5. Any and all notes, memoranda or reports claiming to
parent, or lawyer for any person or parent
Beach Police Department from any person, citiz en of Palm
ein or from any other private
have been a victim of any conduct of Mr. Epst 2009., •
Epstein from January 1, 2000 — October 22,
Beach County retailing to any conduct of
cting any communication between You or
6. Any and all notes, memoranda, or reports refle her
ce Department with "AB:* in relation to
and any other member of the Palm Beach Poli re a Stat e Gra nd Jury ,
requested attendance befo
being subpoenaed to testify before or her
g what she would testify to and/or any
including but not limited to any discussions regardin her with prior to any testimony.
provided
preparation that any law enforcement officer
cting any communication between you or
7. Any and all notes, memoranda, or reports refle with "Ali." or referencing "AIL" in
artment
any other member of the Palm Beach Police Dep hex requested attendance before a State
ed to testi fy befo re or
relation to her being subpoena er or official sought to discourage her or
Jury whe re y_ or any Palm Bea ch poli ce offic
Gran d ng
certain manner at any Grand Jury proceedi
influence her not to testify or to testify in a
involving Mr. Epstein.
EFTA00726187
ctronic or otherwise,
ent s, me mo ran da, and/or notes of any kind, ele
Any and all agr eem member of the Office
8.
nd any me mb er of the Pal m B each Police Department, any relating to any
between mo
ey, and /or any me mb er of the United States Attorney's Office
of the State Attorn time.
erwise, regarding "A.H." at any
criminal charges, formal or oth
ween nu
me mo ran da, or rep ort s of ine etbas or communications bet
9., y and all notes,
o represent 'ire
and mg-I% her parents, or any lawyers wh
all requests for
and all rec ord s of exp end itur es made or incurred by xi.% and
10. Any .
inal investigation of Mr. Epstein
expenditures relating to the crim
notes, and
s, pic tur es, vid eos , dig ital info rmation, reports, memoranda or
Any and all log video
11.
wh ich rela te to the ins titu tion of and/or maintenance of any
any record of expenditure, nce, or his visitors during the
following time periods:
llan ce of Mr . Ep ste in, his res ide
survei 2004
a. January 1, 2004-December 31,
mb er 31, 2005
b. January I, 2005-Dece
January 1, 2006-Decemb er 31, 2006
c.
January 1, 2007-December 31, 2007
d. 8
e. January 1, 2008-December 31, 200
f. January 1, 2009-today's date.
itures or any other
, log s, pic ture s, videos, notes, records of expend
Any and all rep orts his visitors, or
12.
to any phy sic al sur vei llan ce of Mr. Epstein, his residence,
memoranda rela ting r other than the
wh o wa s bel iev ed to be a pot ential witnesses or co-conspirato
any individual t number 11.
veillance that is requested in reques
information relating to video sur
of any
orts (in clu din g for ens ic rep orts ), memoranda, notes, and reports
13. Any and all rep nce in October 2005 or on any
min atio n of any com put er seiz ed from Mr. Epstein's reside
exa
other occasion.
or burglary
and all rep orts ; me mo ran da, or notes reflecting a criminal theft
An y 2005.
14.
. Eps tein or his res ide nce on any occasion prior to October
investigation of Mr
you
ord s, bot h off icia l cel l pho ne and personal cell phone, used by
15. All cell phone rec
periods:
between during the folloWing time
a January 1, 200 4De cem ber 31, 2004
5
b. January 1, 2005-December 31, 200
ece mb er 31, 200 6
c. Jemmy 1, 2006-D
enb esr 31, 200 7
d. January 1, 2007-Deoe
31, 200 8
e. January 1, 2008-December
January 1, 2009-today's dat e.
f.
er 1,
ries , ele ctro nic or har d-c opy , kept for the periods between Octob
16. All calendars dia or ivities, meeting, etc,
4 up thr oug h and inc lud ing tod ay, reflecting your schedules, act
200
EFTA00726188
unication between att and any
17. Any and all reports, memoranda, and notes of any comm
al investigation and subsequent
member of the Office of the State Attorney relating to the crimin
and including today.
prosecution of Mr. Epstein from October 1, 2004 up through
setting forth the
18. AU policies and procedures of the Palm Beach Police Department
ive and office rs when commenting
procedures for police officers, including the Chief, any detect al media, print outlets,
to the local news, the nation
to any media outlets, including but not
and any web-based media format.
ter, work computer, and those
19. All personal notes contained either on your personal compu
member of the Palm Beach
that are handy/nth:a containing any witnesses that ym or any other
regard to the Epstein investigation
Police Department interviewed or attempted to interview with
from January I, 2004, up thorough and including today.
er of the Palm Beach
20. Any and all audio tapes of any witnesses that ygg or any memb
man. or informal, with regard
Police Department obtained statements or interviews from, either
to the Epstein investigation.
, reports, messages,.
21. Any and all audio tapes, notes (hand-written or typed), memoranda
or any memb er of the Palm Beach
and/or any communications obtained or generated by vs who is the Plaintiff in
Doe #4**,
Police Department, either sworn or informal, that relate to Jane
a Federal Civil Case No. 08.80380 filed against Jeffrey Epstein.
fied in the Palm Beach County
* The initials A.11. and S.R. refer to the individuals identi
igation. Should you
Probable Cause Affidavit as it relates to the Jeffrey Epstein invest
conta ct Jessic a Cadwell at
require the complete name of the individuals, please
ct Jessica Cadwell MIN
** Should you need the full identity of Jane Doe #4, please conta
IMMES
EFTA00726189
DataSet-10
Unknown
2 pages
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO: 502008CA028058XXXXMB AB
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
CROSS-NOTICE OF TAKING
VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the attorney for Plaintiff in the above-styled cause
will take the deposition of MIMI on September 3, 2009 at 9:00
a.m. for the purposes of discovery at the following location:
Searcy Denney Scarola
Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
Said deposition will be taken before U.S. Legal Support, a Notary Public or any
officer authorized to administer oaths by the laws of the State of Florida, and a person
who is neither a relative, nor employee, nor attorney, nor counsel of any of the parties
and who is neither a relative nor employee of such attorney or counsel, and who is not
financially interested in the action.
Said deposition will be taken pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure in such
cases provided. Said oral examination will continue from hour to hour and from day to
day until completed.
1
EFTA00725911
CERTICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the above and a copy of the foregoing
has been provided thisg7 day of July, 2009 via U.S. Mail and facsimile transmittal to
D. Critton, Jr., Esq., Burman, Critton, et al., 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400,
West Palm Beach, FL 33401; Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq., Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss,
P.A., 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; and Jay
Howell, Esq., Jay Howell & Associates, P.A., 644 Cesery Boulevard, Suite 250,
Jacksonville, FL 32211.
ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER
Attorneys for Plaintiff
401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone (954) 522-3456
Facsimile (954) 527-8663
By:
Bradley J. Edwards
Florida Bar Number 542075
EFTA00725912
DataSet-10
Unknown
2 pages
From:
To: Jeffrey Epstein
Subject:
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 00:50:32 +0000
Inline-Images: epstein_135193kjpeg
Lawyers drag prince into underage sex
scandal
The deposition of a model who worked for Jeffrey Epstein raises questions
about the prince's judgement
Michael Litton, Kate Mansey and John Harlow Published: 13 March 2011
Recommend (0) Comment (0) Print Follow News
Jeffrey Epstein hired Adrianna Ross to work at his mansion (Neil Rasmuss)
A former top model who worked for a paedophile friend of Prince Andrew has been questioned under oath
about whether the royal was involved with underage girls.
Legal documents obtained by The Sunday Times show that Adrian Ross was asked if the Duke of York was
linked to the scandal surrounding his billionaire friend Jeffrey Epstein. Ross is one of four women who
worked for the US financier who were named as "potential co-conspirators" when Epstein was convicted of
sex offences involving a minor. In a videotaped interview during subsequent civil proceedings, lawyers asked
Ross: "Has Prince Andrew ever been involved with underage minor females to your knowledge?"
Invoking the US constitution's fifth amendment, which protects against self-incrimination, Polish-born Ross,
27, replied: "I refuse to answer." She was also asked "Have you ever met Prince Andrew?" and "Have you ever
flown on [Epstein's] plane with Prince Andrew?" Ross refused to answer.
EFTA00561183
Flight logs show that Andrew was a passenger on Epstein's jet in May woo. In Ross's interview it was alleged
that the former Elite agency model travelled on the aircraft more than 5o times. It has been claimed that
Epstein abused young girls on the jet.
There is no suggestion that Andrew had sexual contact with any of the girls or that he knew Epstein abused
them.
Ross's deposition will raise more questions about the prince's judgment after he met the billionaire in New
York in December following Epstein's release from prison.
Allegations have been made against Epstein by up to 4o girls, with at least 17 cases settled out of court.
Epstein is said to have abused girls as young as 12. He secured protection for his associates through a non-
prosecution agreement. The federal document names Ross as a possible co-conspirator.
Lawyers acting for Epstein's victims in the civil courts are challenging the agreement and claim it may lead to
Andrew being asked to give evidence.
In an interview with Bradley Edwards, a lawyer who represents some of the victims, Ross said she moved to
Florida in 2002 after Elite obtained a visa for her to work in America. The model was then hired to work in
Epstein's Palm Beach mansion and organised his diary. She was at his side in 2005 at a New York launch
party for one of Epstein's magazines. Ross's name was found on messages and notes seized by detectives from
the Florida property.
During the interview, she refused to answer any questions about her involvement with Epstein.
The other "potential co-conspirators", who are thought to have helped to procure girls for Epstein, are named
as , Nadia Marcinkova and
Epstein, 58, served 13 months in prison for soliciting a minor for prostitution and soliciting prostitution. He
will remain on the sex offenders' register for life.
His friend Ghislaine Maxwell, 49, the daughter of Robert Maxwell, the late media tycoon, was one of Epstein's
closest aides and is alleged in legal papers to have hired underage girls for him, joining in the sex games,
which she denies. Virginia Roberts, one victim, told how she was kept as Epstein's paid sex slave for four
years from the age of 15.
She said Epstein introduced her to Andrew, who she says she met three times.
It emerged last week that Epstein paid £15,000 to settle a debt for the Duchess of York. Royal sources said
Andrew was "unwise" to have remained in contact with Epstein but state he has now severed ties.
Neither Ross nor her lawyer responded to questions put by The Sunday Times.
EFTA00561184
DataSet-10
Unknown
1 pages
From:
To: Spencer Kuvin
Subject= v. Jeffrey Epstein
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:55:26 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: 20100122_Kuvin_Ltr re_Reiter_Deposition.pdf
Dear Mr. Kuvin — A response to your letter is attached.
<<20100122 Kuvin Ltr re Reiter Deposition.pdf>>
Assistant U.S. Attorney
EFTA00207022
DataSet-10
Unknown
29 pages
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 29
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X
Plaintiff,
v.
15-cv-07433-RWS
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Defendant.
X
DEFENDANT'S COMBINED MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN OPPOSITION TO EXTENDING DEADLINE TO COMPLETE DEPOSITIONS AND
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATION OF RULE 45
Laura A. Menninger
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
HADDON, MORGAN, AND FOREMAN. P.C.
East 10th Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
EFTA00619558
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/20/16 Page 2 of 29
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
BACKGROUND 3
LEGAL AUTHORITY 5
I. PLAINTIFF'S LACK OF DILIGENCE 6
6
B. Ross Gow 9
C. Jean Luc Brunel 10
D. Jeffrey Epstein 12
E. MI and 14
II. FIFTH AMENDMENT BY EPSTEIN, OR NOT ADMISSIBLE
IN THIS CASE AGAINST MS. MAXWELL 15
III. PLAINTIFF'S BAD DISCOVERY TACTICS SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED
WITH EXTRA TIME 18
1. Plaintiff's Rule 26 Revolving Door 18
2. Plaintiff's Recurrent Rule 45 Violations 19
IV. MS. MAXWELL'S GOOD EFFORTS TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY 20
V. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO TAKE RE-DEPOSE PLAINTIFF AND TO DEPOSE
SHARON CHURCHER EXISTS 23
VI. ALTERNATIVELY, ALL OTHER DEADLINES NEED TO BE EXTENDED 24
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 26
EFTA00619559
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/20/16 Page 3 of 29
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Carlson v. Geneva City School Dist., 277 F.R.D. 90 (W.D.N.Y. 2011); compare Reese v.
Virginia Intern. Terminals, Inc., 286 F.R.D. 282 (ED. Va. 2012) 6
Fox Industries, Inc. v. Gurovich, No. 03-CV-5166, 2006 WL 2882580, *11 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 6,
2006) 19
Grochowski v. Phoenix Const., 318 F.3d 80, 86 (2d Cir.2003). 5
Iantosca v. Benistar Admin. Svcs., Inc., 765 F.Supp.2d 79 (D. Mass. 2011) 6
LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 1997) 16
Murphy v. Board ofEduc., 196 F.R.D. 220, 222 (W.D.N.Y.2000) 19
Perfect Pearl Co., Inc. v. Majestic Pearl & Stone, Inc., 889 F. Supp. 2d 453, 457 (S.D.N.Y.
2012) 5
Sokol Holdings, Inc. v. BMD Munai, Inc., 05 Civ. 3749 (KMW)(DF), 2009 WL 2524611 at *7
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2009) 5
Usov v. Lazar, 13-cv-818 (RWS), 2014 WL 4354691, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014) 20
li
EFTA00619560
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/20/16 Page 4 of 29
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Ms. Maxwell") files this Combined Response
("Response") in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Deadline to Complete Depositions
("Motion") and Motion for Sanctions For Violation of Rule 45, and states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
Apparently, Plaintiff seeks to take six (6) depositions beyond the scheduling order
deadline of July I, yet has failed to demonstrate good cause or diligence as to any.' The
witnesses include (1) , a witness that Plaintiff initiated informal attempts to
depose on June 9, and (2) Ross Gow, who Plaintiff began steps to depose under the Hague
Convention in London last Friday, June 17. Plaintiff also seeks to untimely depose (3) Jean Luc
Brunel, a witness she had noticed for a mid-June deposition, who apparently did not appear on
that date with agreement and consent of Plaintiff's counsel.
The remaining three witnesses Plaintiff seeks to untimely depose are ones who repeatedly
have expressed their intention to take the Fifth Amendment as to all questions posed. Counsel
for (4) Jeffrey Epstein, offered to accept service on or about April 11 but Plaintiff ignored that
offer for more than six weeks. Plaintiff only began on June 12 any attempt to schedule that
deposition in the Virgin Islands. Last week, Mr. Epstein's counsel filed a Motion to Quash his
deposition subpoena. The final untimely depositions sought by Plaintiff are for witnesses
(5) and (6) about whom Plaintiff has made no public claims and
thus, have no testimony relevant to this defamation action concerning whether Plaintiff's public
In her Amended Corrected Reply In Support of Motion to Exceed Ten Depositions, Plaintiff represents that she
onl seeks to take three de ositions beyond the limit of ten and that she no longer seeks depositions of witnesses
JoJo Fontanilla, and . (Doc. #224 at 2 n.4) She does not state her
intentions with respect to other witnesses, like Alessi, that she noticed but never deposed. However,
comparing that Reply with her other motions, counsel has deduced the remaining witnesses from whom Plaintiff
apparently seeks to secure deposition testimony in July. Plaintiff has already taken 6 depositions and another
scheduled tomorrow. Thus by the close of discovery she will have taken 7 of her allotted 10 depositions.
1
EFTA00619561
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/20/16 Page 5 of 29
allegations about Ghislaine Maxwell are — or rather are not — true. The attempted service of
subpoenas on Epstein, and all violated Rule 45(a)(4) and should be
sanctioned by this Court.
As to all of these witnesses, Plaintiff has fallen far short of the "good cause" required by
Rule 16(b)(4) to modify the Scheduling Order. In fact, for the most part, her failures to actively
pursue depositions with these witnesses qualifies as in-excusable neglect: She frittered away
seven of the eight months of the discovery period and now has placed Ms. Maxwell, this Court,
and the witnesses in the untenable position of trying to accommodate her last-minute scramble.
In the absence of any acceptable excuses, and for the limited evidentiary value that most of the
requested witnesses can provide, this Court should deny the request for the extra time to take
these six depositions.
The only witnesses for whom depositions should be permitted following the discovery
cut-off are: (1) Ms. Sharon Churcher, Plaintiff's friend, advocate and former journalist with the
Daily Mail, who filed a Motion to Quash her subpoena on the day before her scheduled
deposition? and (2) Plaintiff, who refused to answer questions at her deposition concerning
highly relevant, non-privileged information.;
Alternatively, if the Court is to grant additional time for Plaintiff to take depositions, Ms.
Maxwell will be unduly prejudiced without sufficient additional time to (a) secure any witnesses
to rebut testimony gleaned from these witnesses, (b) conduct discovery of Plaintiff's retained
experts, (c) submit a summary judgment motion which includes facts learned from these late
depositions, and (d) prepare for trial. Thus, if the Court grants Plaintiff's motion, the remaining
deadlines in the Scheduling Order ought to be extended accordingly.
2
Ms. Churcher's motion to quash will be heard this Thursday by the Court.
Ms. Maxwell is filing simultaneously with this Response a Motion to Re Open Plaintiff's Deposition.
2
EFTA00619562
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/20/16 Page 6 of 29
BACKGROUND
To divert attention away from her own lack of diligence, Plaintiff characteristically
devotes much of her Motion blaming Ms. Maxwell and her counsel for her own problems with
depositions. Not only is Plaintiff's account factually inaccurate, none of it matters to whether
she could timely complete the six depositions at issue.
For example, the scheduling of Ms. Maxwell's deposition (which depended, among other
things, on an historic snowstorm, a disputed protective order, Plaintiff's failure to timely produce
documents, and counsel's conflicting calendars, all of which have been amply documented with
this Court)' does not inform any analysis regarding Plaintiff's lack of diligence in pursuing
depositions of these six witnesses. See Rule 26d)(3) ("Unless the parties stipulate or the court
orders otherwise for the parties' and witnesses' convenience and in the interests of justice: (A)
methods of discovery may be used in any sequence, and (B) discovery by one party does not
require any other party to delay its discovery."). Likewise, receipt of Ms. Maxwell's Rule 26
disclosures in February also had nothing to do with these witnesses. Id. Notably, each of the
witnesses who Plaintiff now seeks to depose were known to her from the outset; all but
were included in her initial Rule 26 disclosures served on November 11, 2015 and two of
the six were specifically mentioned in Plaintiff's Complaint.
Finally, the fact that witness Rinaldo Rizzo had a deposition re-scheduled from April
until June does not have any bearing on the issue presented by this motion. Mr. Rizzo was
deposed on June 14 and he has nothing to do with the remaining depositions. Mr. Rizzo, in fact,
was practically gleeful to be a witness:
Doc. #62 & Tr. of Hearing of Mar. 24 at 4.
3
EFTA00619563
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/20/16 Page 7 of 29
. Plaintiff's claim that Mr.
Rizzo is an "example of delay that has harmed [her] ability to obtain all depositions in a timely
manner" (Mot. at 3) is specious.
Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, discovery began in this case on October 23, 2015,
following the parties' Rule 26(0 conferral. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d)(1). At the Rule 16(b)
scheduling conference on October 28, 2015, this Court directed the parties to complete all fact
discovery by July 1, 2016. (Doc. #13) On November 30, 2015, contemporaneous with the filing
of her Rule 12(b) Motion to Dismiss, Ms. Maxwell also requested of this Court a stay of
discovery pursuant to Rule 26(c). (Doc. #17) That motion was denied on January 20, 2016, with
an additional two-week period granted to respond to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of
Documents.6 The discovery was thus never stayed.
Plaintiff erroneously asserts that that discovery "did not commence in this matter until"
February 8. What she means is that she neglected to seek any non-witness depositions until then;
nothing in the Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court's Orders, or the law prevented Plaintiff from
doing so at any point after October 23, 2015.7 Plaintiff has had over eight months to subpoena
5
See, Menninger Declaration, Ex. A (Rizzo deposition transcript excerpts). Of course, Plaintiff's counsel has
engaged in their own last-minute "unavailability" for a deposition scheduled by Ms. Maxwell, as to Plaintiff's
former fiancé, a witness who is hostile, required numerous service attempts at great cost and inconvenience, and
who then (because of Plaintiff's last minute unavailability) had to be re-served by a process server who swam
through a swamp to get to his home, at additional cost and inconvenience.
6
By agreement of the parties, the time to respond was extended an additional six days because defense counsel was
in a jury trial at the time the Court's Order was handed down.
7
See, e.g., MN Opp'n to Mot. to Stay (Doc. #20) at 17 n.8 ("As of the date of this filing, zero (0) disposition [sic]
notices have been propounded on the Defendant").
4
EFTA00619564
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/20/16 Page 8 of 29
witnesses, schedule depositions and conduct them. Instead, she waited until the last minute and
now complains of lack of time. Any lack of time is a product of her own bad ■ and negligent
litigation tactics and should not be sanctioned by this Court.
The failure to timely secure the depositions of the remaining six witnesses is through no
fault of Ms. Maxwell or her counsel. As to these witnesses, Ms. Maxwell and her counsel have
played no role in hindering Plaintiff's ability to depose the witnesses; in fact, as to four of the six
Plaintiff attempted to serve subpoenas on the witnesses before ever providing notice to the
defense, in clear violation of Rule 45(a)(4).
LEGAL AUTHORITY
Rule 16(b) permits modification of a scheduling order only upon a showing of "good
cause." To satisfy the good cause standard "the party must show that, despite its having
exercised diligence, the applicable deadline could not have been reasonably met." Sokol
Holdings, Inc. v. BMD Munai, Inc., 05 Civ. 3749 (KMW)(DF), 2009 WL 2524611 at *7
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2009) (emphasis added) (citing Rent-A-Center Inc. v. 47 Mamaroneck Ave.
Corp., 215 F.R.D. 100, 104 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (McMahon, J.)); accord Parker v. Columbia
Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d 326, 340 (2d Cir. 2000) (" `[G]ood cause' depends on the diligence of
the moving party."); Perfect Pearl Co., Inc. v. Majestic Pearl & Stone, Inc., 889 F. Supp. 2d 453,
457 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (Engelmeyer, J.) ("To show good cause, a movant must demonstrate that it
has been diligent, meaning that, despite its having exercised diligence, the applicable deadline
could not have been reasonably met.").
Good cause depends on the diligence of the moving party in seeking to meet the
scheduling order. Grochowski v. Phoenix Const., 318 F.3d 80, 86 (2d Cir.2003). The Oxford
Dictionary defines "diligence" as "careful and persistent work or effort." See "diligence" at
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american english/diligence (last accessed on
5
EFTA00619565
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/20/16 Page 9 of 29
June 18, 2016). "Good cause" and diligence were not shown when a party raised the prospect of
a deposition nine days prior to the discovery deadline. Carlson v. Geneva City School Dist, 277
F.R.D. 90 (W.D.N.Y. 2011); compare Reese v. Virginia Intern. Terminals, Inc., 286 F.R.D. 282
(E.D. Va. 2012) (depositions noticed very early in discovery period and movant engaged in
continuing meet-and-confer dialogue with defendants throughout five month discovery period);
lantosca v. Benistar Admin. Svcs., Inc., 765 F.Supp.2d 79 (D. Mass. 2011) (correspondence
indicated that the plaintiffs had tried on numerous occasions to schedule the depositions and to
extend the discovery schedule but that the defendants had either refused or failed to respond,
good cause found).
ARGUMENT
I. PLAINTIFF'S LACK OF DILIGENCE
Plaintiff has demonstrated an extreme lack of diligence in securing the remaining six
depositions that she seeks.
Plaintiff's Motion failed to mention any desire to take the deposition of
No Notice of Deposition has been served and no scheduling of his deposition has
commenced. Indeed, first appeared on Plaintiff's Third Revised Rule 26
Disclosures two weeks ago on June 1. Then, last week, in her Reply In Support of Motion to
Exceed Ten Depositions filed on June 13 ("Reply"), Plaintiff averred that
deposition is "necessary" because Ms. Maxwell "
" Reply at 3. This is utter
nonsense and nothing more than a transparent ploy by Plaintiff to increase media exposure for
her sensational stories through deposition side-show. This witness has nothing relevant to add
6
EFTA00619566
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/20/16 Page 10 of 29
to this case and Plaintiff has made no effort, much less one in good to timely secure his
testimony.
Plaintiff admits she has "made not allegations of illegal actions by " Id. But
Plaintiff has asserted that she
In one article. authored by Sharon Churcher. Plaintiff related:
See Sharon Churcher,
Similarly, in Plaintiff's
she writes:
7
EFTA00619567
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/20/16 Page 11 of 29
Menninger Decl. Ex. B at 110.
Each and every part of Plaintiff's claims regarding has conclusively
been proven false.
8
EFTA00619568
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/20/16 Page 12 of 29
The only purpose for seeking this deposition is for the calculated media
strategy that Plaintiff and her publicity-seeking attorneys have devised.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's leave to modify the scheduling order to permit his deposition
should be denied.
B. Ross Gow
As the Court likely recalls, Ross Gow actually issued the statement pertinent to this
defamation suit. Plaintiff has known about Ross Gow and his role in this lawsuit since the
outset: She referenced him repeatedly by name in the Complaint filed on September 21, 2015.
See, e.g., Complaint paragraph 29 ("As part of Maxwell's campaign, she directed her agent, Ross
Gow, to attack honesty and truthfulness and to accuse of lying."). Plaintiff also
has been well aware throughout that Mr. Gow resides in London. See, e.g., Plaintiff's Motion to
Compel Improper Privileges, at 8 (Doc. #33).
After filing that Complaint in September and litigating the Motion to Compel based on
privileges related to Mr. Gow in March, Plaintiff took exactly zero steps to depose Mr. Gow until
she filed this Motion. Now, nine months after filing her Complaint, Plaintiff contends there is
"not sufficient time" for her to "go through the Hague Convention for service on Mr. Gow" so as
to "complete this process before the June 30, 2016 deadline." Mot. at 4. Indeed, Plaintiff only
initiated that process three days ago, on Friday, June 17, two weeks shy of the discovery cut-off.
Plaintiff, once again, tries to blame Ms. Maxwell for her own lack of diligence by
misrepresenting to this Court that "Ms. asked that Defendant produce her agent, Mr.
9
EFTA00619569
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/20/16 Page 13 of 29
Gow, for a deposition but Defendant has refused...despite acknowledging that Defendant plans
to call Mr. Gow for testimony at trial." Id. In truth, Plaintiff sent a letter on May 23 which read
in its entirety, "This letter is to seek your agreement to produce Ross Gow for deposition, as the
agent for your client, Ms. Maxwell. We can work with Mr. Gow's schedule to minimize
inconvenience. Please advise by Wednesday, May 25, 2016, whether you will produce Mr. Gow
or whether we will need to seek relief from the Court with respect to his deposition." Menninger
Decl. Ex. E. That was the first communication regarding any deposition of Mr. Gow. Two days
later, defense counsel requested any "legal authority that would allow Ms. Maxwell to `produce'
Ross Gow for a deposition" or "any rule or case that would either enable or require her to do so."
Id. Plaintiff never responded. She also has not explained when or how Ms. Maxwell
"acknowledged" her "plans to call Mr. Gow for testimony at trial," nor why that is relevant to
whether Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for her own failure to take steps to depose a
foreign witness deposition until June 17, for a witness she was aware before even filing the
Complaint.
During the hearing on March 24, this Court stated that it would consider expect to see
"good showing" of efforts to comply with the schedule and "an inability because of Hague
Convention problems," before it would consider changing the Scheduling Order. Ms. Maxwell
submits that waiting until June 17, two weeks before the end of discovery, to even begin the
Hague Convention process falls far short of any such good showing and the request for
leave to take Mr. Gow's testimony beyond July 1 should be denied.
C. Jean Luc Brunel
With regard to Jean Luc Brunel, Plaintiff simply asserts that he was "subpoenaed," and
"set for mid-June deposition[]," but "through counsel" has "requested we change the dates of
[his] deposition." Mot. at 4. That is her entire argument. She omits key facts that would,
10
EFTA00619570
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/20/16 Page 14 of 29
instead, demonstrate her lack of diligence in securing Mr. Brunel's testimony and also show that
she has waived any right to seek an out-of-time deposition.
Plaintiff first issued a Notice of a Rule 45 subpoena for documents from Mr. Brunel on
February 16, at an address "c/o" attorney, Joe Titone. No documents were ever produced
pursuant to that subpoena. Menninger Decl., Ex. F. Then, on May 23, 2016, Plaintiff issued a
new "Notice of Subpoena Duces Tecum," attached to which was actually a subpoena for
deposition testimony to occur on June 8, at 9:00 a.m. in New York. Id. Again, the subpoena was
addressed "c/o" attorney Robert Hantman. Then, on June 2, Plaintiff's counsel sent an email that
they had received "an email yesterday from Mr. Brunel's attorney saying he needs to reschedule.
I believe he is trying to get us new dates today or tomorrow." Id. The "scheduled date" of June
8 came and went without any indication of any new dates provided by Mr. Brunel's counsel.
The following week, Plaintiff's counsel stated in a phone conversation that Mr. Brunel's counsel
said his client had gone to France and it was unclear when he would be returning to the United
States.
Following the filing of the instant motion, counsel for Ms. Maxwell requested copies of
the certificates of service for all of Plaintiff's Rule 45 subpoenas in this case. Plaintiff's counsel
provided certificates on June 14. Notably absent was any certificate of service for Mr. Brunel.
Thus, either Mr. Brunel was never served, or he was served and Plaintiff unilaterally extended
his compliance date to an unscheduled time in the future. Either way, the time to complain about
a witness's non-compliance is at or near the time it occurs. Failure to timely complain regarding
non-compliance with a subpoena constitutes a waiver. In any event, whether served or not, Mr.
Brunel apparently promised to provide new dates before his deposition date came and went, did
not do so, has left the country and not indicated a present intention to return. Given Plaintiff's
11
EFTA00619571
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/20/16 Page 15 of 29
role in failing to compel him to attend a deposition, no "good cause" has been demonstrated to
take the deposition of Mr. Brunel after July I.
D. Jeffrey Epstein
As with the other witnesses, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate "good cause" for seeking
to depose Jeffrey Epstein out of time. Plaintiff claims that she was unable to secure service on
Mr. Epstein until May 27, 2016, because his counsel "refused to accept service" until she filed
her motion for alternative service. The documents reflect the opposite: Mr. Epstein's attorney
agreed to accept service on April 11, 2016, and it was only on May 27, 2016, that Plaintiff
agreed. See Poe Declaration in Support of Motion to Quash Epstein Deposition, Ex. 3 (Doc. #
223-3). Plaintiff fails to explain her strategic decision, or negligence, in failing to respond for
over six weeks to Mr. Weinberg's email offering to accept service. Indeed, in another failure of
candor, Plaintiff's counsel also neglected to tell this Court about the email offer from Mr.
Weinberg either in the instant motion or in her motion to serve Mr. Epstein by alternate means.
Mot. at 2; Doc. # 160.8
Plaintiff apparently now claims that she never received that email from Martin Weinberg.
All of the preceding communications, however, indicate that Mr. Weinberg promptly responded
to Ms. McCawley's inquiries. See, e.g., Poe Declaration, Ex. 2 (email of April 6 from Weinberg
to McCawley (offering to let her know regarding acceptance of service on April 7)); email of
McCawley in response ("That works fine — thank you.")). Thus, if Ms. McCawley received no
follow up response from Mr. Weinberg, as she now claims, when he had been corresponding
8 In another glaring omission from Plaintiff's submissions to the Court on the topic of the service of Mr. Epstein,
Plaintiff's own counsel have strenuously litigated in other cases that Mr. Epstein is a resident of Florida, over his
objection that he is a resident of the U.S. Virgin Islands. See. e.g.. Menninger Decl., Ex. G (Motion to Quash
Subpoena on Jeffrey Epstein, Broward County, Florida, 15.000072). Yet, all ofPlaintiff's purported attempts at
service on Mr. Epstein were in New York.
12
EFTA00619572
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/20/16 Page 16 of 29
with her previously theretofore, she had a duty to follow up on that inquiry. A failure to do so is
plain vanilla neglect.
Even after agreeing to the terms proposed by Epstein's counsel on May 27, that is,
location of the deposition in the U.S. Virgin Islands and subject to right to oppose the subpoena,
Plaintiff then waited an additional three weeks until June 12, to even attempt to schedule
Epstein's deposition. Epstein Memorandum in Support of Mot. to Quash at 2 (Doc. # 222).
Agreeing to take a deposition in the Virgin Islands on May 27, then waiting until June 12, to try
to schedule a date for that deposition, when numerous other depositions had already been
scheduled in New York, Florida, and California for the balance of June, is either neglect or
strategic posturing by Plaintiff. Either way, it does not amount to "good cause" for such a
deposition to take place beyond July 1.
Finally, Plaintiff suggests, without factual foundation, that Ms. Maxwell played some
role in Mr. Epstein's counsel's refusal to accept service. See Mot. at 2 ("forced to personally
serve the Defendant's former boyfriend, employer, and co-conspirator"). As the timeline and
documents now reveal, however, Plaintiff failed to provide notice to Ms. Maxwell that she was
attempting to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Mr. Epstein for more than 7 weeks! Id. Plaintiff
states that she began her service attempts on March 7, 2016. The very first Notice of Subpoena
and Deposition served on Ms. Maxwell, however, is dated April 27. Menninger Decl. Ex. H.
Thus, between March 7 and April 27, Ms. McCawley engaged in repeated attempts to serve Mr.
Epstein a Rule 45 subpoena (including a request for documents) without providing the proper
notice to the parties pursuant to Rule 45(a)(4) ("If the subpoena commands the production of
documents... , then before it is served on the person to whom it is directed, a notice and a copy
of the subpoena must be served on each party.") (emphasis added). As detailed below, this was
13
EFTA00619573
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/20/16 Page 17 of 29
not an isolated incident and merits sanction. In any event, it is difficult to imagine how it is Ms.
Maxwell's fault that Plaintiff could not serve Mr. Epstein when she was never put on notice of
any attempt to do so.
Given that Plaintiff knew as of April 11 the conditions pursuant to which Mr. Epstein
would accept service through counsel, yet waited until May 27 to agree to those terms, and then
waited another nearly three weeks to attempt to schedule Mr. Epstein's deposition on a date
available for his counsel and Ms. Maxwell's counsel, Plaintiff has fallen far short of
demonstrating "good cause" for taking Mr. Epstein's deposition beyond the end of the fact
discovery cut-off.
E. and
Finally, Plaintiff seeks the depositions of two other witnesses — and
-- who, she complains, "despite being represented by counsel, have refused to accept
service."9 Mot. at 3. Plaintiff claims that her process servers tried for three weeks (from April
25 until May 18) to personally serve Ms. and Ms. with subpoenas duces
teem. She did not explain, however, why she waited until April to try to serve these two
witnesses, about whom her attorneys have known since 2008. She also has not explained to this
Court any legally relevant or admissible evidence that either possess, nor how she intends to
introduce that evidence in a trial of this defamation claim between Plaintiff and Ms. Maxwell.
Apart from these witnesses stated intent to take the Fifth Amendment which renders their
testimony inadmissible, as discussed more fully below, neither witness has any relevant
testimony to offer because Plaintiff never made a public statement about either one of them.
9 Actually, in Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Serve Three Deposition Subpoenas by Means Other than Personal
Service, Plaintiff details that Ms. counsel stated he no longer represents her. (Doc. #161 at 5)
("counsel for Ms. reached out to Ms. former counsel but he indicated that he could not accept
service as he no longer represents her"). It is unclear then, why Plaintiff persists in representing to this Court that
Ms. instructed her counsel not to accept service, or why Plaintiff seeks to serve Ms.
through her former counsel.
14
EFTA00619574
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/20/16 Page 18 of 29
Plaintiff did not include either woman in her Sharon Churcher-paid interviews, nor were they
mentioned in Plaintiff's Joinder Motion of December 30, 2014. Thus, neither Plaintiff's
allegations about Ms. Maxwell, nor Ms. Maxwell's denial of the same based on her personal
knowledge, are implicated by anything that Ms. or Ms. may have done with
anyone else. Their testimony cannot corroborate Plaintiff's account, nor can it shed light on
whether Ms. Maxwell's denial of that account is accurate, because Plaintiff's account did not
mention either of them.
Finally as to these witnesses, Plaintiff once again documented her own failure to comply
with Rule 45 in regard to attempts to serve these two witnesses. Six of the service attempts
occurred on April 25 and April 26. Yet Plaintiff only provided Notice to Ms. Maxwell of her
intent to serve the subpoenas on April 27. Menninger Decl. Ex. I.
II. FIFTH AMENDMENT BY EPSTEIN, OR NOT
ADMISSIBLE IN THIS CASE AGAINST MS. MAXWELL
The depositions of Epstein, and do not constitute "good cause" to
modify the scheduling order in this case for the additional reason that they all have represented to
Plaintiff their intention to assert the Fifth Amendment protection as to all questions and such
assertion will not be admissible evidence in this trial. Indeed, counsel for Mr. Epstein recently
filed a Motion to Quash his subpoena based on the same legal principle that his deposition is
unduly burdensome in light of the fact that it will not lead to admissible evidence. (Doc. # 221,
222, 223) The Court should consider this additional factor to decline a finding of "good cause"
for extending the discovery deadline.
Plaintiff wrongfully contends that any assertion of the Fifth Amendment during the
depositions of Epstein, and will be admissible in the trial of this defamation
matter (where none of those individuals are parties) based on an "adverse inference" that can be
15
EFTA00619575
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/20/16 Page 19 of 29
drawn against Ms. Maxwell. See LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 1997). In
fact, none of the LiButti factors support her argument. While noting that Ms. Maxwell
anticipates more extensive briefing on this issue in support of Mr. Epstein's Motion to Quash, a
few facts bear mentioning here:
• Ms. Maxwell was the employee of Mr. Epstein --in the 1990s -- not the other way
around. Mr. Epstein has never worked for or been in control of Ms. Maxwell.
• Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein have had no financial, professional or employment
relationship in more than a decade, many years before 2015 when the purportedly
defamatory statement was published.
• Maxwell has not vested any control in Mr. Epstein "in regard to key facts and subject
matter of litigation." As the Court is well aware from review of emails submitted in
camera (and later produced to Plaintiff):
• Epstein is not "pragmatically a non-captioned party in interest" in this litigation nor has
he "played controlling role in respect to its underlying aspects." Epstein is not, despie
Plaintiff's suggestion, paying Ms. Maxwell's legal fees. Plaintiff sought by way of
discovery any "contracts," "indemnification agreements," "employment agreements"
between Ms. Maxwell and Epstein or any entity associated with Epstein, from 1999 to the
present. Ms. Maxwell responded under oath that there are no such documents. Epstein
played no role in the issuance of the January 2 statement, nor has he issued any public
statement regarding Plaintiff. Indeed, Plaintiff and Epstein fully resolved any claims
against one another by way of a confidential settlement in 2009, another action in which
Ms. Maxwell had no role.
• Assertion of the privilege by Epstein does not advance any interest of Ms. Maxwell's.
Quite to the contrary, Epstein would be a key witness in her support, exonerating her
from Plaintiff's allegations regarding sex abuse, sexual trafficking and acting as his
"madam" to the stars. As proof, one need look no further than
16
EFTA00619576
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/20/16 Page 20 of 29
• Likewise,
Id.
I7
EFTA00619577
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/20/16 Page 21 of 29
These correspondences demonstrate that Ms. Maxwell has no control over Mr. Epstein in
regards to the alleged defamation statement, he had no role in issuance of the statement, he has
no benefit in the outcome of this litigation and he played no controlling role in its respect.
Similarly, there is not any evidence at all to support an adverse inference to be drawn
from either nor assertion of the Fifth. Ms. Maxwell hardly
knows either woman, never worked with them, they have had nothing to do with this litigation
and do not stand to benefit from it, especially as Plaintiff has never made any allegations about
her involvement with either of the two of them, they are simply irrelevant to this defamation
action.
III. PLAINTIFF'S BAD DISCOVERY TACTICS SHOULD NOT BE
REWARDED WITH EXTRA TIME
1. Plaintiff's Rule 26 Revolving Door
Plaintiff's army of lawyers (who collectively have been litigating matters related to
Jeffrey Epstein since 2008) served their Rule 26 initial disclosures on November 11, 2015.
Those disclosures listed 94 individual witnesses with knowledge regarding the facts of this case,
yet provided addresses (only of their counsel) as to just two, Jeffrey Epstein and Alan
Dershowitz. Plaintiff then also listed categories of witnesses such as "all other then-minor girls,
whose identities Plaintiff will attempt to determine" and "all pilots, chauffeurs, chefs, and other
employees of Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. Plaintiff claimed as to her Rule 26 disclosures
that "only a fraction of those individuals will actually be witnesses in this case, and as discovery
progresses, the list will be further narrowed." (Doc. #20 at 17) The opposite has happened.
Between November 11 and March 11, Plaintiff trimmed her Rule 26 list of persons with
knowledge from 94 to 69, inexplicably removing 34 names, but adding 12 more. She removed,
18
EFTA00619578
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/20/16 Page 22 of 29
for example, witnesses and but added Senators George Mitchell,
Bill Richardson and Les Wexner.
Then between March I I and June 1, a few weeks before the discovery cut-off, Plaintiff
added 20 more witnesses, including
As to several of these newly added witnesses,
, Plaintiff promptly scheduled their depositions in June, despite having just
disclosed their names on June 1.
Menninger Decl. Ex. K.
This is precisely the type of hide-and-seek that Rule 26 is designed to prevent. While
Ms. Maxwell anticipates filing in the near future a separate motion concerning Plaintiff's latest
Rule 26 violations and seeking sanctions for the same, this Court can and should consider this
behavior in determining whether Plaintiff has "good cause" to extend the discovery cut-off so
that she can continue her gamesmanship.
2. Plaintiff's Recurrent Rule 45 Violations
As this Court has previously held:
Rule 45(b)(1) requires a party issuing a subpoena for the production of documents
to a nonparty to "provide prior notice to all parties to the litigation," which has
been interpreted to "require that notice be given prior to the issuance of the
subpoena, not prior to its return date." Murphy v. Board of Educ., 196 F.R.D. 220,
222 (W.D.N.Y.2000). At least one court in this circuit has held that notice
provided on the same day that the subpoenas have been served constitutes
inadequate notice under Rule 45. See, e.g., Fox Industries, Inc. v. Gurovich, No.
03-CV-5166, 2006 WL 2882580, *11 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2006). ... The
1° Rather than list his client's address in the custody of the U.S. Marshal's Office, Mr. Edwards said her address is
"do" himself.
19
EFTA00619579
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/20/16 Page 23 of 29
requirement that prior notice "must be given has important underpinnings of
fairness and efficiency." Cootes Drive LLC v. Internet Law Library, Inc., No. 01-
CV-9877, 2002 WL 424647, *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2002). Plaintiff fails to
provide an adequate explanation or argument for how a same-day notification
satisfies Rule 45's requirements. See, e.g., id. ("[C]ounsel for the [offending party]
offered no explanation or excuse for their failure to comply with the rule's
strictures. They did not attempt to defend the timeliness of their notice. The
[offending party's] admitted violation ... cannot be countenanced.").
Usov v. Lazar, 13-cv-818 (RWS), 2014 WL 4354691, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014) (granting
motion to quash the subpoenas where notice given on the same day and served beyond 100 mile
limitation of Rule 45). In that case, Plaintiff had provided same day notice of the issuance of a
subpoena. Here, we have repeated attempts to serve a subpoena over the course of days before
any notice was given to Ms. Maxwell. As described previously, Plaintiff has amply documented
her own violations of the Rule by detailing her attempts to serve subpoenas duces tecum before
ever providing notice to Ms. Maxwell with regards to witnesses Epstein, and
Likewise, with respect to witness, aintiff served the subpoena prior to
providing notice. See Menninger Decl. Ex. L. Served subpoenas before providing Notice under
Rule 45. Accordingly, Plaintiff moves to quash the subpoenas on Epstein, and
as violations of Rule 45's notice provision. Ms. Maxwell further requests sanctions
pursuant to Rule 37 for these documented violations.
With respect to Ms. ■, who was deposed already earlier today, Ms. Maxwell believes
that she did not offer any admissible testimony at her deposition. If Plaintiff's seek to introduce
her testimony, the defense reserves the right to exclude such testimony both on evidentiary
grounds as well as in violation of Rule 45's notice provision."
IV. MS. MAXWELL'S GOOD EFFORTS TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY
Counsel for Ms. Maxwell only learned of the Rule 45 violation this past weekend after reviewing certificates of
service rovided by Plaintiff's counsel last week, without sufficient time to file a motion to quash the subpoena on
Ms.
20
EFTA00619580
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/20/16 Page 24 of 29
As already documented in previous pleadings, Ms. Maxwell's counsel has engaged in
significant and repeated efforts to conduct discovery in this case in a professional, civil manner,
especially as it relates to the depositions of non-parties. On February 25, 2016, counsel for Ms.
Maxwell requested that the lawyers confer by telephone to arrange a schedule for the non-party
depositions to occur in various states and countries.!'- Plaintiff ignored that request, and requests
of the same ilk made on at least 6 different occasions in March and April. It was only on two
and 'A months later, on May 5, 2016, when Plaintiff's counsel finally responded with "as is
becoming clear, both sides are going to be needing to be coordinating a number of
depositions.s13 She then proposed a calendar which scheduled 13 additional depositions for
Plaintiff and only 2 days (actually 12/ days) for defendant to depose her remaining witnesses. 14
Defendant provided a calendar which allowed for both sides to take remaining depositions, but
Plaintiff ignored it and continued to schedule depositions on dates for witnesses without
consulting defense counsel for their availability first. Menninger Decl., Ex. M.
Because of the breakdown in communications, defense counsel was left with little choice
but to (a) show up at each of Plaintiffs noticed depositions, in Florida and New York, and (b)
issue subpoenas for witness depositions on other dates in June. For example, Plaintiff issued a
12
McCawley Decl. in Support of Request to Exceed Ten Deposition Limit, Exhibit I (Doc. # 173.1) at 28 (Letter of
Menninger to McCawley (Feb. 25, 2015) ("I would suggest that rather than repeated entails on the topic of
scheduling the various depositions in this case, or the unilateral issuance of deposition notices and subpoenas, you
and I have a phone conference wherein we discuss which depositions are going to be taken, where, and a plan for
doing them in an orderly fashion that minimizes travel and inconvenience for counsel and the witnesses. As you are
well aware from your own practice of law, attorneys have other clients, other court dates and other commitments to
work around. The FRCP and Local Rules contemplate courtesy and cooperation among counsel in the scheduling
and timing of discovery processes. This rule makes even more sense in a case such as this spanning various parts of
the country where counsel must engage in lengthy travel and the attendant scheduling of flights, hotels and rental
cars.")).
13 Id. at 19.
10
Id. at 1.3.
21
EFTA00619581
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/20/16 Page 25 of 29
Notice of Deposition for Juan Alessi on May 31, 2016, without any conferral with counsel, in
Florida, fully aware that defense counsel would be traveling from Colorado. Defense counsel, in
fact, did have to travel on Memorial Day to Florida for the 9:00 a.m. May 31 deposition. Mr.
Alessi, however, did not appear on that date, believing that his deposition was for June 1, the
same day that his wife had been subpoenaed to appear and because he and his wife live an hour
away from Ft. Lauderdale. Thus, despite defense counsel's herculean efforts, no deposition
occurred on May 31. On June 1, Mr. Alessi appeared, but there was insufficient time to take his
wife's deposition, who presumably made the one hour drive for naught. Also, defense counsel
then had to travel to New York for the June 2 hearing and back to Florida for a deposition of
another witness, Mr. Rogers, that had been scheduled without input from defense counsel.
Counsel for Plaintiff makes much of her efforts to serve witnesses Epstein,
and =. She fails to advise the Court that Ms. Maxwell has been "forced" to expend great
time, money and resources to serve Plaintiff's own mother, father, formerfiancé andformer
boyfriend. As described before, the defense even re-scheduled the deposition of Pla
DataSet-10
Unknown
6 pages
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 10-80309
JANE DOE NO. 103
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
CROSS-NOTICE OF TAKLNG CONTINUED VIDEO DEPOSITION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at the below listed time and place the Plaintiff, JANE DOE
NO. 103, by and. through undersigned counsel, will take the depositions of:
NAME OF DEPONENT DATE AND TIME PLACE OF DEPOSITION
Jeffrey Epstein Wednesday US Legal Support
April 14, 2010 444 West Railroad Ave.
10:00 a.m. Suite 300
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
(561) 835-0220
upon oral examination before US Legal Support 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
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
25 West Meer Street, Suite 800. Wand, FL 33130, Miami 3053582800 Fax 305.3582382 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463.4346 I www.podhurst.com
EFTA00726161
CASE NO.: 10-80309
discovery, for use at trial, or for such other purposes as are permitted under the rules of Court.
DATED this, Stay of March, 2010.
Respectfully submitted,
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
Attorneysfor Plain:Vane Doe No. 103
By:
C.C.Josefsberg
Fla. Bar No. 040856
Fla. Bar No. 114771
3miBut mg
City blatiot..1
25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone:
Facsimile:
-2-
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
25 West Flagler 54roci, Suite 800, Miami, FI.33130, Miami 305.3582300 Fax 305 VA /182 • Fen Lauderdale 954.463A346 www pixillwr‘t.com
EFTA00726162
CASE NO.: 10-80309
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on this95—Itlay of March, 2010, a copy of the foregoing was
sewed this day on all counsel of record on the attached Service List via e-mail transmission.
Respectfully submitted,
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
Attorneysfor Plaintiff-1one Doe No. 103
By:
C. Josefsberg
Fla. Bar No. 040856
riosefsberd&oodhurst.com
Katherine W. Ezell
Fla. Bar No. 114771
kezellOoodhurst.com
City National Bank Building
25 W. Flagler Street, Suite 800
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 358-2800
Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
-3-
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
25 West Hagler Street. Suite 800, Miami, FL.33130, Miami 305358. Fax 305.3581182 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463.4346 I www.podhurst.cren
EFTA00726163
CASE NO.: 10-80309
SERVICE LIST
JANE DOE NO. 103 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Case No.: 10-80309
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Critton, Esq.
Michael J. Pike, Esq.
Burman, Critton, Luther & Coleman LLP
303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561) 842-2820/Fax: (561) 515-3148
rcriabelclaw.corn
mnikeQbciclaw.com
Counselfor Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein
Jack Goldberger, Esq.
Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561) 659-8300/Fax: (561) 835-8691
iairesoiabellsouth.net
Co-Counselfor Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein
Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq.
Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A.
250 South Australian Avenue, Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561) 202-6360/Fax: (561) 828-0983
ccf@bruccreinhartlaw.coni
Counselfor Co-Defendant,
Jack Scarola, Esq.
Jack P. •, Esq.
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
Phone: (561) 686-6300/Fax: (561) 383-9456
jsx@scarcvlaw.com
-4-
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
25 West Flagkr Street. Suite 800. Mamie FL 33130. Miami 305355.2800 Fax 305 VW t1R9 • Fort Lauderdale 954.463.4316 www.podhwst.com
EFTA00726164
CASE NO.: 10-80309
iph@se.sscvlaw.com
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: (305) 931-2200/Fax: (305) 931-0877
ahorowitdasexabuseattomes.com
smermelstein@sexabuseattomev.cont
Counselfor Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119,08-80232, 08-80380, 0840381,
08-80993, 0840994
Spencer Todd Kuvin, Esq.
Theodore Jon Leopold, Esq.
Leopold Kuvin, P.A.
2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Phone: (561) 515-1400/Fax: (561) 515-1401
skuvin@leopoldkuvin.com
tleopold@Jeopoldkuvin.com
Counselfor Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-08804
Richard Willits, Esq.
Richard H. Willits, P.A.
2290 10th Ave North, Suite 404
Lake Worth, FL 33461
Phone: (561) 582-7600/Fax: (561) 588-8819
lawyerwillits@aoLcom
reelrhwahotmail.com
Counselfor Plaintiff in Related Case No. 0840811
Edwards, Esq.
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards,
Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 524-2820/Fax: (954) 524-2822
Counselfor Plaintiff in Related Case No. 0840893
- 5-
Podhurst Orsec1c, P.A.
25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL 33130, Miami 3051582800 Fax 305.35&2382 • Fat Lauderdale 951.4634346 www.podhurst.com
EFTA00726165
CASE NO.: 10-80309
Isidro Manuel =, Esq.
Elkins & Boehringer
224 Datum Avenue, Suite 900
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561) 832-8033iFax: (561) 832-7137
isidrogarciaabellsouth.net
Counselfor Plaintiffin Related Case No. 08-80469
-6-
Podkurst Orseck, P.A.
25 Wat Hagler Street Suite 800. Miami, FL 33130. Miami 3M 11;82300 Fa 3053582382 • Fort Lauderdale 9514634346 www.podlusralcom
EFTA00726166
DataSet-10
Unknown
2 pages
From:
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2016 8:40 PM
To: Jeffrey Epstein
Subject: Re: Brad Okun
Could you do a call tomorrow with Brad 4-4:30? Will you =e finished with deposition?
On =ep 8, 2016, at 3:54 PM, jeffrey E. wrote:
2o miuntes , cash trapped overseas by =pple and microsoft
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 3:54 PM wrote:
Brad Okun is =ot available today for a call...he is asking for some other =ates/times you would be
available as well as what the call is in =eference to and how long you will need...please =dvise...
On Sep 8, 2016, at 3:35 PM, jeffrey E. wrote:
schedule a call with brad =kun paul weiss today if you can
please note
The information contained in this =ommunication is
confidential, may be attorney-client =rivileged, may
constitute inside information, and is =ntended only for
the use of the addressee. It is the =roperty of
JEE
Unauthorized use, disclosure =r copying of this
communication or any part thereof is =trictly prohibited
and may be unlawful. If you have =eceived this
communication in error, please notify us =mmediately by
return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and
destroy this =ommunication and all copies thereof,
including all =ttachments. copyright -all rights reserved
EFTA_R1_00100008
EFTA01781045
please note
The information contained in this =ommunication is
confidential, may be attorney-client =rivileged, may
constitute inside information, and is =ntended only for
the use of the addressee. It is the =roperty of
JEE
Unauthorized use, disclosure =r copying of this
communication or any part thereof is =trictly prohibited
and may be unlawful. If you have =eceived this
communication in error, please notify us =mmediately by
return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and
destroy this =ommunication and all copies thereof,
including all =ttachments. copyright -all rights reserved
2
EFTA_R1_00100009
EFTA01781046
DataSet-10
Unknown
179 pages
1
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: CACE 15-000072
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G.
CASSELL„
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ,
Defendant.
/
VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
VOLUME 1
Pages 1 through 179
Thursday, October 15, 2015
9:31 a.m. - 4:13 p.m.
Cole Scott & Kissane
110 Southeast 6th Street
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Stenographically Reported By:
Kimberly Fontalvo, RPR, CLR
Realtime Systems Administrator
EFTA00601154
2
1 APPEARANCES:
2
On behalf of Plaintiffs:
3
SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA
4 BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
5 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3626
BY: JACK SCAROLA, ESQ.
6 jsx@searcylaw.com
7
8 On behalf of Defendant:
9 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
Dadeland Centre II - Suite 1400
10 9150 South Dadeland Boulevard
Miami, Florida 33156
11 BY: THOMAS EMERSON SCOTT, JR., ESQ.
thomas.scott@csklegal.com
12 BY: STEVEN SAFRA, ESQ. (Via phone)
steven.safra@csklegal.com
13 --and--
14 SWEDER & ROSS, LLP
131 Oliver Street
15 Boston, MA 02110
BY: KENNETH A. SWEDER, ESQ.
16 ksweder@sweder-ross.com
17 --and--
18 WILEY, REIN
17769 K Street NW
19 Washington, DC 20006
BY: RICHARD A. SIMPSON, ESQ.
20 RSimpson@wileyrein.com
BY: NICOLE A. RICHARDSON, ESQ.
21 nrichardson@wileyrein.com
22
23
24
25
EFTA00601155
3
1 APPEARANCES (Continued):
2
3 On behalf of Jeffrey Epstein:
4 MARTIN G. WEINBERG, PC
20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000
5 Boston, MA 02116
BY: MARTIN G. WEINBERG. ESQ. (Via phone)
6 marty@martinweinberglaw.com
7 --and--
8 DARREN K. INDYKE, PLLC
575 Lexington Ave., 4th Fl.
9 New York, New York
BY: DARREN K. INDYKE, ESQ. (Via phone)
10
11 On behalf of
12 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1200
13 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
BY: SIGRID STONE MCCAWLEY, ESQ.
14 smccawley@bsfllp.com
15
16 ALSO PRESENT:
17 Joni Jones, Utah Attorney General Office
18 Travis Gallagher, Videographer
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
EFTA00601156
4
1 INDEX
2
3
4 Examination Page
5
6 VOLUME 1 (Pages 1 - 179)
7 Direct By Mr. Scarola 6
8 Certificate of Oath 176
Certificate of Reporter 177
9 Read and Sign Letter to Witness 178
Errata Sheet (forwarded upon execution) 179
10
11 No exhibits marked to Volume 1.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
EFTA00601157
5
1 Thereupon,
2 the following proceedings began at 9:31 a.m.:
3 VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the 15th day of 09:31:40
4 October, 2015. The time is approximately 9:31
5 a.m. This is the videotaped deposition of Alan
6 M. Dershowitz in the matter of Bradley J.
7 Edwards and Paul Cassell versus Alan M.
8 Dershowitz. This deposition is being held at
9 110 Southeast 6th Street, Suite 1850, Fort
10 Lauderdale, Florida, 33301.
11 My name is Travis Gallagher. I'm the 09:31:40
12 videographer representing Above & Beyond
13 Reprographics.
14 Will the attorneys please announce their 09:31:46
15 appearances for the record.
16 MR. SCAROLA: My name is Jack Scarola. 09:31:48
17 I'm counsel on behalf of Bradley Edwards and
18 Professor Paul Cassell. Mr. Edwards and
19 Mr. Cassell are also present.
20 Also with us from the Utah Attorney 09:31:58
21 General's office is Joni Jones.
22 MS. McCAWLEY: Sigrid McCawley. I'm with 09:32:06
23 the law firm of Boies Schiller & Flexner on
24 behalf of
25 MR. SCOTT: Good morning. Tom Scott on 09:32:12
EFTA00601158
6
1 behalf of the Defendant Professor Dershowitz.
2 MR. SIMPSON: Richard Simpson on behalf of 09:32:18
3 Professor Dershowitz.
4 MR. SWEDER: Ken Sweder on behalf of 09:32:22
5 Defendant and Counterclaimant Alan M.
6 Dershowitz.
7 MR. WEINBERG: This is Martin Weinberg 09:32:29
8 appearing by telephone. Thank you for allowing
9 that on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein.
10 MR. SAFRA: This is Steven Safra also on 09:32:37
11 behalf of Professor Dershowitz.
12 MR. INDYKE: This is Darren Indyke on 09:32:43
13 behalf of Jeffrey Epstein.
14 MS. RICHARDSON: Nicole Richardson on 09:32:46
15 behalf of Professor Dershowitz.
16 Thereupon: 09:32:47
17 ALAN DERSHOWITZ 09:32:47
18 having been first duly sworn, was examined and 09:32:47
19 testified as follows:
20 DIRECT EXAMINATION 09:32:47
21 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:32:54
22 Q. Would you please state your full name, 09:32:55
23 sir?
24 A. Alan Morton Dershowitz. 09:32:57
25 Q. And where did you live? 09:32:59
EFTA00601159
7
1 A. Well, I live in three places. We have a 09:33:00
2 home in Miami Beach, a small condo apartment where
3 we spend the winters. We live in the fall and part
4 of the spring in an apartment in New York, and then
5 we have a summer place on Martha's Vineyard.
6 Q. Within the last ten years, have you had 09:33:21
7 other residence besides those that you've described?
8 A. Yes. 09:33:27
9 Q. And where are they? 09:33:27
10 A. We owned a home in Cambridge, 09:33:30
11 Massachusetts about a mile away from the Harvard Law
12 School.
13 Q. And at what point in time did you no 09:33:39
14 longer have the Cambridge home?
15 A. Well, we moved out of it a couple of years 09:33:45
16 ago and then it was on the market for a while. And
17 then it was sold. I don't have exact dates in my
18 mind.
19 Q. Sometime within the last three years 09:33:57
20 approximately?
21 A. Certainly was sold within the last three 09:34:02
22 years, yes.
23 Q. And you moved out when? 09:34:04
24 A. Moved out earlier than that. Moved out 09:34:06
25 when we put it on the market. And when I came back
EFTA00601160
8
1 to teach at Harvard for my last semester, we stayed
2 in the Charles Hotel.
3 Q. How long have you had the apartment in 09:34:20
4 New York?
5 A. This apartment, it's been a couple of 09:34:23
6 years.
7 Q. And prior to that, was there a period of 09:34:26
8 time when you maintained another residence in
9 New York?
10 A. Yes. 09:34:31
11 Q. And what period of time was that? 09:34:32
12 A. Probably 30 years, around 30 years. 09:34:37
13 Q. Beginning approximately 30 years ago? 09:34:42
14 A. Yes, beginning approximately 30 years ago, 09:34:46
15 yes.
16 Q. So, have you maintained a residence in 09:34:49
17 New York continuously for approximately the last
18 30 years?
19 A. We have not maintained a residence as that 09:34:56
20 term's legally applied. We have had a pied-a-terre
21 in New York that we occasionally visited over the
22 past 30 years, yes.
23 Q. You had property where you could stay 09:35:07
24 overnight, you had access to that property in
25 New York continuously for the past 30 years?
EFTA00601161
9
1 A. That's correct. 09:35:20
2 Q. Is that accurate? 09:35:21
3 A. That's correct, yes. 09:35:22
4 Q. All right. Can you tell me, please, 09:35:23
5 whether you agree or disagree with the following
6 statement: "According to our philosophical and
7 ethical traditions, reputation is sacrosanct"?
8 MR. SCOTT: Can I ask what you're 09:35:39
9 publishing from?
10 MR. SCAROLA: I'm just asking a question. 09:35:41
11 A. I believe reputation is sacrosanct and I 09:35:43
12 believe that an effort has been made to destroy mine
13 by false and malicious charges, yes.
14 MR. SCAROLA: I would move to strike the 09:35:53
15 unresponsive portion of the answer.
16 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:35:56
17 Q. Do you agree or disagree with the 09:35:56
18 following: "A good name is more desirable than
19 great riches"?
20 A. I certainly agree with that. And there's 09:36:02
21 been an effort to destroy my good name by false and
22 mendacious charges.
23 MR. SCAROLA: I move to strike the 09:36:09
24 unresponsive portion of the answer.
25
EFTA00601162
10
1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:36:12
2 Q. Do you agree or disagree with the 09:36:13
3 following statement: "While throughout history
4 reputation has been recognized as a priceless
5 treasure, it is fragile"?
6 A. I think that the longer one maintains a 09:36:28
7 good reputation, as I have for over 50 years, the
8 less fragile it is; but, yes, it is fragile and one
9 false allegation maliciously made by a serial liar
10 with the help of her unethical lawyers could destroy
11 a fragile or hurt a fragile reputation.
12 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 09:36:59
13 unresponsive portion of the answer.
14 MR. SCOTT: Obviously we take a different 09:37:01
15 position. But go ahead, Jack.
16 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:37:04
17 Q. Do you agree or disagree with the 09:37:05
18 following statement: "Sensational accusations, even
19 when baseless, often cause damage that is
20 irreversible"?
21 A. That is a perfect description of exactly 09:37:15
22 what happened to me, yes, at the hands of your
23 clients.
24 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 09:37:24
25 unresponsive portion of the answer.
EFTA00601163
11
1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:37:26
2 Q. Do you degree or disagree with the 09:37:27
3 following statement: "There is no presumption of
4 innocence in the court of public opinion"?
5 A. I think there's some truth to that. But 09:37:35
6 when you have a good reputation, there are some who
7 do presume innocence, particularly when the charges
8 made against you are so clearly filled with the lies
9 and financial motivation as were in the instance
10 when your clients directed false accusations against
11 me.
12 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 09:38:06
13 unresponsive portion of the answer.
14 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:38:08
15 Q. Do you agree or disagree with the 09:38:09
16 following statement: "The usual reaction to ugly
17 accusations assumes that fire lies beneath the
18 smoke, rather than that the smoke lies"?
19 MR. SCOTT: You want that read back? You 09:38:25
20 got it all?
21 A. Can you -- can you show me where that 09:38:31
22 comes from?
23 09:38:34
24 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:38:34
25 Q. I'm only asking ultimately whether you 09:38:35
EFTA00601164
12
1 agree or disagree with the statement.
2 MR. SCOTT: It's our position that you're 09:38:38
3 reading from something that -- especially if
4 you're reading something that he's published,
5 he has the option to see it in order to -- if
6 you're quoting from it, we would like to ask
7 you to produce it so he can read it.
8 A. It's -- it's a metaphorical statement 09:38:53
9 whose general thrust I agree with, yes.
10 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:38:58
11 Q. Thank you. 09:38:59
12 A. Thank you very much for reading from my -- 09:39:01
13 from my book. Appreciate it.
14 Q. In light of your agreement with the 09:39:10
15 principles that I have just read, can we also agree
16 that a serious injury to a reputation requires
17 serious monetary compensation if the injury is
18 unjustified?
19 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form, conclusion, 09:39:28
20 speculation.
21 A. I don't think that there is any possible 09:39:32
22 monetary compensation for the attempt to damage my
23 reputation which your clients have maliciously and
24 deliberately set out to do for their own financial
25 reasons.
EFTA00601165
13
1 09:39:47
2 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:39:47
3 Q. That, however, is not a response to the 09:39:47
4 question that I asked. So let me try again.
5 MR. SCAROLA: And I move to strike that. 09:39:50
6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:39:52
7 Q. Can we agree that in light of the 09:39:53
8 statements that you have recognized to be accurate
9 regarding the priceless value of reputation, that an
10 unjustified injury to reputation is a serious injury
11 that requires serious compensation?
12 MR. SCOTT: Same objection. 09:40:17
13 A. I don't think that question can be 09:40:18
14 answered in a yes or no way. I will just reiterate
15 that I think the damage to my reputation exceeds any
16 possible amount of money. If I had been offered
17 $10 million in exchange for somebody making the
18 kinds of baseless accusations that your clients made
19 against me, I would have turned down that
20 $10 million. I think that there is no compensation
21 possible other than a complete apology and
22 withdrawal of the false accusations, especially
23 since your clients know that the accusations made
24 against me are baseless and false.
25
EFTA00601166
14
1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:41:02
2 Q. Do you agree that if an injury to 09:41:03
3 reputation is done purposefully and with malice, it
4 is deserving of punishment?
5 MR. SCOTT: Objection, legal conclusion, 09:41:13
6 form, speculation.
7 A. I believe that the accusations leveled 09:41:18
8 against me were made with malice and with deliberate
9 intention, which is why I am going to be seeking
10 disciplinary action, including disbarment, against
11 your unethical and mendacious clients.
12 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike as 09:41:36
13 unresponsive to my question.
14 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:41:38
15 Q. The question I'm posing to you, sir, is: 09:41:39
16 Do you agree that if an injury to reputation is done
17 without factual basis and intentionally, it is
18 deserving of punishment?
19 A. What you have done is to describe with 09:41:58
20 great precision what your clients did to me. And so
21 the answer to my question is -- the answer to your
22 question is yes, I think your -- I think your
23 clients are deserving of punishment, yes.
24 Q. Do you believe that you are a special 09:42:09
25 case; that is, that intentional injury to your
EFTA00601167
15
1 reputation is deserving of punishment but
2 intentional injury to the reputation of others is
3 not deserving of punishment?
4 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form, 09:42:24
5 argumentative, compound.
6 A. I certainly don't think I'm a special 09:42:26
7 case. I think that I have been defamed and
8 deliberately by your clients and I don't think
9 lawyers who engage in such deliberate conduct should
10 be allowed to practice law, which is why I am going
11 to seek their their their disbarment and
12 other -- other sanctions.
13 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:42:49
14 Q. In fact, you have been making public 09:42:50
15 statements of your intention to seek the disbarment
16 of Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell for
17 approximately ten months, correct?
18 A. That's right. That's correct. 09:43:03
19 Q. You are aware of the ethical obligation 09:43:05
20 that a lawyer has when that lawyer has direct
21 knowledge of unethical conduct on the part of
22 another member of the Bar --
23 A. That's right. 09:43:16
24 Q. -- to report that unethical conduct, 09:43:16
25 correct?
EFTA00601168
16
1 A. Yes. 09:43:19
2 Q. Have you done that? 09:43:20
3 A. I have conferred with three leading ethics 09:43:21
4 experts and I have been advised that to file a
5 report while there is ongoing litigation is not the
6 proper approach. But rather to gather the evidence
7 and the information and to make sure that all of the
8 allegations I make are well founded, unlike what
9 your clients did, and then at the appropriate time,
10 when the litigation is concluded, seek the
11 disbarment of Bar associations. I am advised by my
12 ethics experts do not look kindly on attempts to
13 disbar lawyers that can be perceived as part of an
14 ongoing litigation strategy.
15 I fully intend to seek disbarment, as I 09:44:10
16 said, of your clients because I believe they engaged
17 in unprofessional, unethical and disbarrable
18 conduct. And I've continued to do so until as
19 recently as last week.
20 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 09:44:28
21 unresponsive portion of that answer.
22 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:44:32
23 Q. Who are the three leading experts with 09:44:33
24 whom you've conferred?
25 A. The expert I conferred with initially was 09:44:37
EFTA00601169
17
1 Dean Monroe Freedman of the Hofstra law school who
2 had been my kind of ethical guru for my entire
3 career. I spent an extensive amount of time with
4 him conferring about all aspects of this case.
5 I then conferred with Professor Stephen 09:44:59
6 Gillers, who is wildly regarded as the leading
7 current ethics expert in the United States who is a
8 professor at NYU law school.
9 I also conferred with Professor Ronald 09:45:12
10 Rotunda, and in the process of also received advice,
11 some unsolicited some solicited from a variety of
12 lawyers and other experts. I'll give you an
13 example.
14 For example, when I was speaking at an 09:45:33
15 event in Florida, a man came over to me who I -- I
16 don't recall his name, but he worked for a big firm
17 and was on the -- on some ethics committee of a
18 Florida Bar Association. And he advised me to bring
19 ethics charges saying that from what he had seen,
20 the conduct of the lawyers were unethical and
21 unprofessional and deserved disbarment. But also
22 advised me not to do it until litigation was
23 concluded.
24 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 09:46:07
25 unresponsive portions of that answer.
EFTA00601170
18
1 And I would ask, Mr. Scott, that you 09:46:10
2 counsel your client to be responsive to the
3 questions in order that we have some reasonable
4 expectation of being able to finish this
5 deposition within my lifetime.
6 MR. SCOTT: I'm not here to exchange 09:46:26
7 sarcastic comments, Jack, with you. I believe
8 my client is trying to answer your questions.
9 MR. SCAROLA: The question asked for names 09:46:32
10 of three individuals. What I got was a speech.
11 What I have gotten repeatedly in response to
12 direct questions are speeches. I would ask
13 that you counsel your client to please respond
14 to the questions.
15 MR. SCOTT: When we take a break, I'll 09:46:45
16 speak to my client in general based upon what I
17 think is appropriate. Let's proceed.
18 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. 09:46:54
19 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:46:54
20 Q. In an interview with Hala Gorani on 09:46:55
21 January 5 of this year, broadcast on CNN Live, you
22 said, "I have a superb memory."
23 Do you acknowledge having made that 09:47:08
24 statement?
25 A. I have a superb memory, so I must have 09:47:10
EFTA00601171
19
1 made that statement. My mother had an extraordinary
2 memory and when I was in college and I was on the
3 debate team, my mother allowed me to debate on the
4 Sabbath, which was Jewish rest day, only on the
5 condition that I not take notes or write. And at
6 that point I discovered that I have a very good
7 memory and don't have to -- generally didn't have to
8 take notes.
9 My memory, obviously, at the age of 77 has 09:47:41
10 slipped a bit; but do I have a very good memory,
11 yes.
12 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 09:47:48
13 unresponsive portions of the answer.
14 Would you like to take a break now, 09:47:51
15 Mr. Scott, so that --
16 MR. SCOTT: No, I'd like to proceed. 09:47:55
17 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. 09:47:56
18 A. Me too. 09:47:57
19 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:47:58
20 Q. So it is your contention that you still 09:47:58
21 have a superb memory?
22 A. No. My contention is that I have a very 09:48:00
23 good memory and that at the age of 77, occasionally
24 my memory slips. I particularly have difficult time
25 now remembering names of people I've just met, but I
EFTA00601172
20
1 remember events very well. And when I argue cases
2 in front of courts, I generally don't need to have
3 notes in front of me because I remember the cases
4 very well. And I remember the transcript very well,
5 and so I have always relied on my good memory in my
6 professional life.
7 Q. So, on January 5, when you were 09:48:29
8 interviewed on CNN Live, your memory at that time
9 was superb but in the ensuing ten months, it has
10 become less than superb?
11 A. No -- 09:48:41
12 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. 09:48:41
13 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:48:42
14 Q. Is that correct? 09:48:42
15 A. No, that's not correct. 09:48:42
16 MR. SCOTT: Let me -- objection, form, 09:48:44
17 conclusion, not what he said.
18 A. Memory is a matter of degree and memories 09:48:48
19 don't -- unless there's an illness or trauma,
20 don't -- don't suddenly change. I've had no --
21 nothing in my life to dramatically change. But as I
22 said, as a 77-year-old, my memory is not what it was
23 when I was a 25-year-old.
24 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:49:11
25 Q. Are you under the influence today of any 09:49:11
EFTA00601173
21
1 drugs or alcohol that might have an affect on your
2 memory?
3 A. No. 09:49:18
4 Q. Are you having any physical problems that 09:49:19
5 might make it difficult for you to understand or
6 properly respond to my questions?
7 A. No. 09:49:24
8 Q. Did you get a good night's sleep last 09:49:25
9 night?
10 A. Yes. 09:49:28
11 Q. What is the general condition of your 09:49:28
12 health?
13 A. As a result of some of the tensions caused 09:49:31
14 by these false accusations, I've had a recurrence of
15 my atrial fibrillation and a recurrence of some
16 experiences of high blood pressure. But beyond
17 that, my general health is satisfactory.
18 Q. Has any healthcare provider attributed the 09:49:58
19 recurrence of your atrial fibrillation to
20 involvement in the circumstances that gave rise to
21 this litigation?
22 A. My cardiologist asked me whether or not 09:50:15
23 there were any tense or tension-causing episodes
24 recently that might explain my recurrence of the
25 atrial fibrillation. And in response I did describe
EFTA00601174
22
1 the current false accusations against me in an
2 attempt to destroy my reputation by false and
3 malicious charges, yes.
4 Q. What is the name of your cardiologist? 09:50:39
5 A. Jeremy Ruskin, R-U-S-K-I-N. He's the 09:50:41
6 chief of electro cardio physiology at Massachusetts
7 General Hospital.
8 Q. Has any healthcare provider attributed 09:50:53
9 your high blood pressure to events that are the
10 subject of this litigation?
11 A. Again, when I complained about high blood 09:51:01
12 pressure, one of the first questions that I'm asked
13 is whether or not there's any tension or any tense
14 experiences occurring in my life and the doctor
15 who's treated me for high blood pressure is
16 Dr. Harold Solomon, S-O-'-O-M-O-N, in Brookline,
17 Massachusetts.
18 Q. Has Dr. Solomon -- 09:51:24
19 A. Right. 09:51:27
20 Q. -- attributed your high blood pressure to 09:51:27
21 events related to this litigation?
22 A. I think all of my doctors have 09:51:34
23 concluded -- you'll have to ask them -- that this
24 lawsuit has been a contributing factor to some of
25 the health issues -- let me withdraw that. That the
EFTA00601175
23
1 false accusations against me from your client have
2 contributed to some of my health problems, yes.
3 Q. When did your atrial fibrillation recur? 09:52:00
4 A. About a month ago. About a month ago. 09:52:07
5 I -- I could get you the exact date because I keep a
6 record with a small cardiogram of my afib pretty
7 much every day.
8 Q. When did your blood pressure increase as a 09:52:23
9 result of events related to this litigation?
10 A. Well, it's been up and down. I've had 09:52:31
11 recurring episodes of high blood pressure. And I
12 think particularly since the beginning of the false
13 charges, not the litigation, but it's the false
14 charges, the outrageous allegations, baseless
15 outrageous allegations against me have certainly
16 contributed in my view to my variation in blood
17 pressure, yes.
18 Q. When were you initially diagnosed with 09:53:07
19 atrial fibrillation?
20 A. About two and a half years ago I had -- 09:53:17
21 let's see, December -- two and a half years ago
22 December I was admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital with
23 an episode. It then basically went away. And then
24 it returned as atrial flutter.
25 And then I had an ablation, which cured or 09:53:48
EFTA00601176
24
1 relieved any symptoms of atrial fibrillation or
2 atrial flutter, until they recurred -- until it
3 recurred about a month or maybe it's a month and a
4 half now. I can give you the exact dates. Because,
5 as I say, I have it on my -- on my machine.
6 Q. When did the atrial flutter occur? 09:54:16
7 A. I told you that I don't have the exact 09:54:20
8 date, but it occurred about a month, month and a
9 half ago, I think sometime in August of this year.
10 But I can give you the exact date. As I said, I
11 have it on my machine.
12 Q. So, what you have described as a 09:54:33
13 recurrence of atrial fibrillation you are now
14 describing as an atrial flutter?
15 A. You're confused, sir. Please listen to my 09:54:42
16 answers. What I've said was that I had atrial
17 flutter. Atrial flutter occurred after my initial
18 atrial fib. I then had an ablation. The flutter
19 and the fib both disappeared after the ablation.
20 And my atrial fib has returned.
21 Q. Given your superb memory, would you please 09:55:13
22 name for us each of the lawyers who has represented
23 you in this case?
24 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. 09:55:22
25 Argumentative.
EFTA00601177
25
1 If you need a document or anything to 09:55:29
2 refresh your memory, please let us know.
3 A. Well, I'll start with the names of my 09:55:34
4 lawyers. I've been represented by Judge Scott and
5 his law firm, including several associates and
6 paralegals. I don't know their status, whether
7 they're partners, associates or paralegals, but I've
8 had contact with them.
9 I have been represented by Mr. Simpson's 09:55:54
10 law firm, including several partners, associates,
11 and paralegals. I've been represented by Kenneth
12 Sweder and presumably some of his partners and
13 associates.
14 I've been represented by Kendall Coffey 09:56:15
15 and several of his associates and partners. I would
16 say those are my main lawyers. But I've also had
17 others.
18 I have sought the legal advice of Mark 09:56:34
19 Fabiani, who was my former research assistant at
20 Harvard. I've sought the advice of Mitchell Webber,
21 who was my former research assistant at Harvard.
22 I was offered legal advice by Carlos 09:56:52
23 Sires, who was -- who is a partner in the Boise firm
24 who -- who volunteered to represent me along with
25 one of his partners, but then withdraw from the
EFTA00601178
26
1 representation when he discovered that I had a
2 conflict of interest.
3 I've had consultations with a variety of 09:57:18
4 other lawyers over particular issues in the case,
5 Floyd Abrams, who is probably the leading lawyer in
6 the world on First Amendment, has advised me on my
7 First Amendment rights to have said what I said
8 truthfully and expressed my opinion about your
9 clients.
10 I mean, that's the very beginning. But 09:57:51
11 when the events first occurred, I got calls from
12 dozens of lawyers outraged by the unethical conduct
13 of your clients and offering to represent me
14 pro bono, offering to do anything they could to see
15 that these lawyers were appropriately punished and
16 disciplined.
17 David Markus, for example, of the Miami 09:58:17
18 Bar called and keeps calling asking if there's
19 anything he can do to help me.
20 There's a lawyer in Broward named Diner, 09:58:28
21 who has offered to represent me. It goes on and on
22 and on. The offers are still coming in. People are
23 just absolutely outraged by the unprofessional and
24 unethical conduct of your clients and are offering
25 to help me right a wrong and undo an injustice.
EFTA00601179
27
1 MR. SCOTT: Just hold it. Somebody's 09:59:00
2 making noise on the phone and it's causing a
3 little disruption here. So, you know, I'm not
4 sure who it is, one of you-all on the phone.
5 Thanks.
6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:59:16
7 Q. Mr. Scott is obviously still representing 09:59:21
8 you now; is that correct?
9 A. That's correct. 09:59:24
10 Q. Richard Simpson is still representing you 09:59:25
11 now; is that correct?
12 A. That's correct. 09:59:27
13 Q. Ken Sweder is representing you now; is 09:59:28
14 that correct?
15 A. That's correct, yes. 09:59:30
16 Q. Is Kendall Coffey representing you now? 09:59:30
17 A. Yes. 09:59:33
18 Q. Is Mark Fabiani representing you now? 09:59:35
19 A. Yes. 09:59:37
20 Q. And when I ask "are they representing you 09:59:38
21 now," they're representing you now in this
22 litigation; is that correct?
23 MR. SCOTT: I don't think that -- 09:59:45
24 objection, form. I don't think that was
25 specified.
EFTA00601180
28
1 MR. SCAROLA: Well, that's why I'm asking. 09:59:48
2 MR. SCOTT: As opposed to general advice. 09:59:50
3 A. Yes. Yes. 09:59:52
4 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:59:53
5 Q. And Mark Fabiani is representing you with 09:59:53
6 regard to this litigation; is that correct?
7 A. Yes, yes. 09:59:57
8 Q. Floyd Abrams is representing you now with 09:59:58
9 regard to this litigation; is that correct?
10 A. Yes. 10:00:01
11 Q. Mitch Webber is representing you now with 10:00:02
12 regard to this litigation; is that correct?
13 A. That's correct, yes. 10:00:06
14 Q. Is Steven Safra representing you with 10:00:11
15 regard to this litigation?
16 A. Yes. 10:00:15
17 Q. Is Mary Borja representing you now with 10:00:15
18 regard to this litigation?
19 A. Yes. 10:00:19
20 Q. Is Ashley Eiler representing you now with 10:00:20
21 regard to this litigation?
22 A. That's not a name that immediately comes 10:00:24
23 to my head, but I believe it's an associate in one
24 of the law firms. I don't know the names of all the
25 lawyers who are doing the background work on the
EFTA00601181
29
1 case for the law firms.
2 Q. Is Nicole Richardson representing you now 10:00:37
3 with regard to this litigation?
4 A. Again, yes, yes. 10:00:41
5 Q. Is Gabe Groisman representing you now with 10:00:46
6 regard to this litigation?
7 A. Yes. 10:00:49
8 Q. Is Ben Brodsky representing you now with 10:00:51
9 regard to this litigation?
10 A. Ben Brodsky? I would have to check on 10:00:59
11 that.
12 Q. Is Neely representing you now with 10:01:06
13 regard to this litigation?
14 A. Neely has been my assistant and 10:01:09
15 paralegal for the last some years and I have used
16 her to perform paralegal work for me in this
17 litigation.
18 Q. Is Nicholas Maisel representing you now 10:01:27
19 with regard to this litigation?
20 A. Nicholas Maisel is my research assistant 10:01:31
21 and paralegal on this litigation, yes.
22 Q. Is your wife representing you with regard 10:01:39
23 to this litigation?
24 A. My wife has been instrumental in helping 10:01:42
25 me gather all the records and information. She
EFTA00601182
30
1 knows more about records and where my records are
2 kept and I've asked her to perform paralegal service
3 in addition to her loving service as my wife.
4 Q. Is Harvey Silverglate representing you now 10:02:04
5 with regard to this litigation?
6 A. Yes. 10:02:08
7 Q. Is Mark Fabiani representing you now with 10:02:09
8 regard to this litigation?
9 A. You've asked me that question and the 10:02:12
10 answer is --
11 Q. No, I asked you, sir, if he was your 10:02:14
12 lawyer; but I haven't asked you whether he's
13 representing you now with regard to this litigation.
14 A. The answer is yes. 10:02:20
15 Q. Is Floyd Abrams representing you now with 10:02:22
16 regard to this litigation?
17 A. Yes. 10:02:25
18 Q. Is Jamin Dershowitz representing you now 10:02:26
19 with regard to this litigation?
20 A. Yes. 10:02:30
21 Q. Is Nancy Gertner representing you now with 10:02:32
22 regard to this litigation?
23 A. That requires a lengthier answer, if you 10:02:36
24 will permit me.
25 Q. I haven't stopped you yet. 10:02:41
EFTA00601183
31
1 A. You've tried. 10:02:43
2 Q. Much as I may have liked to. 10:02:44
3 A. You've tried. 10:02:45
4 MR. SCOTT: Mr. Scarola, that's probably 10:02:47
5 one of the few times you and I agree on
6 something.
7 MR. SCAROLA: No, we've agreed on a lot, 10:02:52
8 Tom.
9 MR. SCOTT: Yeah, we -- I'm kidding you. 10:02:55
10 I'm kidding you.
11 MR. SCAROLA: I know you are. 10:02:57
12 A. Nancy Gertner is one of the attorneys who 10:02:58
13 called me immediately and expressed outrage at what
14 was happening to me and offered to help me.
15 Initially she wanted to help me by calling your
16 client, Professor Cassell, and explaining to him
17 that what I've been accused of could not possibly
18 have happened and there must have been a mistake or
19 something. And clearly she had confused me with
20 someone else.
21 And as I understand it, Nancy Gertner made 10:03:29
22 that phone call to your client, Professor Cassell,
23 and Professor Cassell reiterated his false
24 accusation against me.
25 Thereafter, Nancy Gertner volunteered to 10:03:42
EFTA00601184
32
1 become part of my legal team and to examine some of
2 the witnesses in this case.
3 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:03:55
4 Q. Did you ever accept that offer from Nancy 10:03:56
5 Gertner --
6 A. Yes. 10:03:59
7 Q. -- so as to establish an attorney-client 10:03:59
8 relationship with --
9 A. Yes. 10:04:04
10 Q. So she is one of your lawyers -- 10:04:04
11 A. She is currently -- I regard her currently 10:04:05
12 as one of my lawyers, yes.
13 Q. And is Mitch Webber one of your lawyers in 10:04:08
14 this case?
15 A. Yes. 10:04:11
16 Q. But if I just give you a name without 10:04:12
17 repeating the second part, "is that one of the
18 lawyers in your case," will you understand
19 A. I understand. 10:04:21
20 Q. -- that I'm asking you with regard to 10:04:22
21 these -- each of these individuals whether they are
22 a lawyer representing you in this case?
23 A. Yes. 10:04:30
24 Q. Okay. Anthony Julius? 10:04:30
25 A. Anthony Julius is a British barrister and 10:04:35
EFTA00601185
33
1 solicitor who I conferred with regarding the
2 possibility of filing lawsuits against your clients
3 in Great Britain. I continue to confer with him on
4 matters relating to defamation.
5 Q. So you consider him to be one of your 10:04:54
6 lawyers representing you with regard to matters
7 relating to this lawsuit?
8 A. I'll stand by -- 10:05:00
9 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. 10:05:01
10 A. -- my answer. I'll stand by my answer. 10:05:02
11 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:05:04
12 Q. Charles Ogletree? 10:05:05
13 A. Charles Ogletree is a close personal 10:05:06
14 friend and colleague at the Harvard Law School with
15 whom I have conferred about this case. I always
16 have regarded him as a personal attorney and
17 continue to confer with him about this case and the
18 general picture. So, I do regard him as one of my
19 lawyers in this litigation, yes. I certainly regard
20 him as having been given privileged information as
21 part of a lawyer-client privilege, yes.
22 Q. There -- there may be a time when I need 10:05:47
23 more than just an answer to the question that I'm
24 asking as to whether these individuals are or are
25 not your lawyers in this case. That's not now.
EFTA00601186
34
1 So if you would, please, I would 10:06:01
2 appreciate it if you would tell me only whether
3 these individuals are or are not your lawyers in
4 this case.
5 A. I'm sorry, but I cannot comply with that. 10:06:09
6 I'm --
7 Q. Well, you can but you refuse to. 10:06:12
8 MR. SCOTT: Let's not interrupt him. 10:06:14
9 A. Let me complete my answer, please. 10:06:16
10 MR. SCOTT: It doesn't help the court 10:06:17
11 reporter or the record.
12 A. I've been teaching legal ethics for close 10:06:19
13 to 40 years. I understand the complexity of the
14 lawyer-client relationship. And it's impossible as
15 to some of the names you've mentioned to simply give