DataSet-10
Unknown
2 pages
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 08-80893CIV -MARRA/JOHNSON
JANE DOE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
NOTICE OF TAKING
VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Plaintiff, JANE DOE, will take the deposition of
Alan Dershowitz on, October 28, 2009, at 1:00 p.m., at:
Cambridge Court Reporters
675 Massachusetts Avenue
11th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02139
The deposition shall be conducted pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure
and shall continue day to day, weekends and holidays excepted, until completed.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served
a Al-
by U.S. Mail and email transmission this I day of September, 2009 to all those on the
attached Service List.
EFTA01154711
ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER
Attorneys for Plaintiff
401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Tel: (954) 522-3456
Fax: (954) 527-8663
Email: bedwards rra-law.com
Ka BRAD EDWARDS, ESQ.
Florida Bar No.: 542075
cc: Cambridge Court Reporters
EFTA01154712
DataSet-10
Unknown
21 pages
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X
Plaintiff,
v.
15-cv-07433-RWS
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Defendant.
X
DEFENDANT'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE IN
TOTO CERTAIN DEPOSITIONS DESIGNATED BY PLAINTIFF FOR USE AT TRIAL
Laura A. Menninger
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
Ty Gee
HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
EFTA00595612
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Ms. Maxwell") files her Reply in Support of the Motion
in Limine to Exclude In Toto certain depositions designated by Plaintiff for use at trial and states
as follows:
I. PLAINTIFF CANNOT SATSIFY THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR USE OF
CERTAIN DEPOSITIONS AT TRIAL
A. Jeffrey Epstein and Ronald Rizzo Are Not Unavailable
Plaintiff cannot claim that Jeffery Epstein and Ronald Rizzo are "unavailable witnesses"
whose testimony can be presented by deposition at trial under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. She admits she simply had not, prior to designating testimony, even attempted
to serve these witnesses or obtain their attendance at trial. She has now obtained an agreement to
accept service by Mr. Epstein's counsel, mooting any claim that he is unavailable.' With respect
to Mr. Rizzo, she concedes he resides within 100 miles of the courthouse, and provides no basis
to claim that he cannot be served. Based on these confessions, the Motion in Limine to exclude
the use of the designated portions of these depositions in toto must be granted.
B. As a Retained Expert, Phillip Esplin Cannot Be Deemed Unavailable
Plaintiff's argument concerning Phillip Esplin fails to acknowledge or even address the
cases cited that require that prior to being permitted to use prior sworn testimony of an expert
witness she must carry the affirmative burden on proving: 1) Plaintiff "attempt[ed] to secure the
voluntary [trial] attendance of a witness who lives beyond the subpoena power of the court" and
2) that no similar expert is available. Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Otte, 474 F.2d 529, 536 (2d Cir.
1972). Plaintiff cannot carry this burden, requiring that the Motion in Limine be granted.
I Issues concerning if Mr. Epstein should be required to appear to invoke this fifth amendment rights will
be addressed in Response to Plaintiffs Motion to Present Testimony from Jeffrey Epstein for Purposes of Obtaining
an Adverse Inference.
EFTA00595613
Plaintiff's misplaced argument that Ms. Maxwell is somehow required to make Dr.
Esplin available at trial violates the fundamental rules of trial and the requirements for rebuttal
witnesses. Of course, at this point, Ms. Maxwell does not know information Plaintiff may
present in her case-in-chief. Ms. Maxwell has filed well-founded motions in limine to exclude
the testimony of both Dr. Kliman and Professor Coonan prohibiting from providing their
credibility and vouching opinions. This is the subject matter of Dr. Esplin's rebuttal report
which explains that there is no reliable or scientific methodology by which an expert could
reliably come to such opinions. Of course, if the improper testimony by Dr. Kliman and
Professor Coonan is excluded, as it should be, there will be nothing for Dr. Esplin to "rebut" and
he will not be called as a witness in the defense case-in-chief. In light of the well settled rules
that a rebuttal expert is "intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject
matter identified" in the expert report of another party, there would be no basis to for Dr. Esplin
to testify if Kliman and Coonan are excluded. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C)(ii). Moreover, because
Dr. Esplin is a designated rebuttal expert, it is entirely improper to have any portion of his
opinions or testimony presented in the Plaintiff's case in chief. See Lindner v. Meadow Gold
Dairies, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 625, 636 (D. Hawaii 2008) (holding that individuals designated only as
rebuttal experts could present limited testimony, could not testify as part of a party's case-in-
chief, and would not be allowed to testify "unless and until" the experts they were designated to
rebut testified at trial); Johnson v. Grays Harbor Only. Hosp., No. C06-5502BHS, 2007 WL
4510313, at *2 (W.D.Wash. Dec. 18, 2007) (finding that experts designated as rebuttal witnesses
would "be permitted only to offer rebuttal testimony at trial"). Plaintiff also fails to explain how
the designated testimony could be deemed permissible given that the questions posed were all
2
EFTA00595614
outside of the scope of Dr. Esplin's opinion. While Plaintiff may wish to waive this requirement
of the rules of procedure and evidence, Ms. Maxwell does not.
Regardless, any decisions Ms. Maxwell and the undersigned counsel decide to make
concerning their presentation of the defense and which witness to call is ours alone to make.
There is no requirement that a party call a designated expert to testify if they choose not to do so
at the time of trial. Such strategic decisions are solely in the province of the parties and their
counsel. If Dr. Esplin is presented as a rebuttal witness by the defense, he will appear live. If he
is not, then there is no rebuttal witness, and none to cross examine.
II. MS. WAS NOT PROPERLY "REFRESHED" AND THE READING OF
THE HEARSAY POLICE REPORT IS INADMISSABLE
The use of the deposition testimony o and the reading or summary of
hearsay statement in the Police Report sought to be admitted through counsel's questions is
simply improper. As a small sampling of the designated testimony makes clear, there was no
proper "refreshing" of recollection:
Q. Do you remember how old you were when you met Jeffrey Epstein?
A. Sixteen or 17.
Q. Okay. And have you reviewed —
A. I may have been 15. I don't recall. I apologize.
Q. If you told the police officer 16, you were telling the truth?
A. At the time, they were fresh.
Q. Okay. After speaking to the police or while speaking to the police, do you remember
telling them that you're not safe because you're talking about this?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and foundation.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. EDWARDS:
Q. And that you had heard Jeffrey Epstein making threats to people on the telephone?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and foundation.
3
EFTA00595615
THE WITNESS: Yes. He wasn't always friendly
See Menninger Decl., Ex. F, 10:6-14; 43:15-44:4
As explained in in Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedures, the use of a
document during testimony to refresh recollections is limited:
The law also places limits on how counsel and the witness may use a writing to refresh
memory. In the usual case counsel will hand the witness the writing, show counsel for the
adverse parties a copy, and ask the witness to silently read the writing. Counsel then will
ask the witness if the writing has refreshed the witness' memory. If the witness responds
in the affirmative, counsel will retrieve the writing and ask the witness to testify as to the
matters on which the witness' memory was refreshed. Even where the witness claims a
refreshed recollection, the court again has discretion to preclude further testimony if the
circumstances suggest that the writing engendered a false memory. If the witness states
that his recollection has not been refreshed, he cannot then testify as to the contents of the
writing unless it is shown that the writing itself is admissible.
§ 6184Refreshing Memory—Requirements and Procedures, 28 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 6184
(2d ed.)(intemal citations omitted); see also Goings v. U.S., 377 F.2d 753, 759-762 (8th Cir.
1967) (trial court improperly permitted prosecutor to ask leading questions concerning contents
of witness' written statement under the pretext of refreshing recollection but without laying the
proper foundation; "[I]fa party can offer a previously given statement to substitute for a
witness's testimony under the guise of `refreshing recollection,' the whole adversary system of
trial must be revised. The evil of this practice hardly merits discussion. The evil is no less when
an attorney can read the statement in the presence of the jury and thereby substitute his spoken
wordfor the written document.") (italics in original). Gaines v. United States, 349 F.2d 190, 192
(D.C. Cir. I965)(error to allow prior written statement to be read to the witness in front of the
jury for the purpose of refreshing recollection because "it was not necessary for counsel to read
the statements aloud in the jury's presence. This is liable to cause the jury to consider their
contents as evidence notwithstanding instructions to the contrary.")
4
EFTA00595616
All testimony from =deposition based on leading questions summarizing her
hearsay statements in the police report must be excluded.
With respect to the police report itself, this will obviously be a subject of a Motion in
Limine. At this time, two points will suffice. Plaintiff's claim that she is not attempting to offer
the police report for the truth of the matters asserted therein is farcical, which is evident in every
briefing touching on the subject matter. Second, while the full 803(8) issue will be briefed, for
present purposes we will simply point out that (or any other witnesses statement
contained in the report) will never be admissible unless there is a separate and independent
hearsay exemptions for such statement. As the Second Circuit has clearly held:
"It is well established that entries in a police report which result from the officer's
own observations and knowledge may be admitted but that statements made by
third persons under no business duty to report may not." United States v. Pazsint,
703 F.2d 420, 424 (9 Cir.I983) (emphasis in original).
Parsons v. Honeywell, Inc., 929 F.2d 901, 907 (2d Cir. 1991)(quoting United States v. Pazsint,
703 F.2d 420, 424 (9[th] Cir.I983)).
Plaintiff does not address the objections to leposition under Fed. R. Evid. 401,
402 and 602 based on lack of personal knowledge, or the issues concerning the improper leading
of this witness. They should thus be deemed confessed and are not re-argued here.
III. TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS MADE IN OTHER MATTERS TO WHICH
MS. MAXWELL WAS NOT A PARTY, WAS NOT PRESENT, HAD NO NOTICE,
AND DID NOT PARTICIPATE CANNOT BE DESIGNATED IN THIS CASE
Plaintiff does not seriously contest that the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 32 and Fed. R.
Evid. 804 cannot be met with respect to Mr. Rodriguez's deposition testimony. Indeed, the
Plaintiff's Motions to Exclude Designation of Depositions Excerpts of Alan Dershowitz and
Plaintiff argued this precise point. Ms. Maxwell was not a party to any of the litigations in which
Mr. Rodriguez was deposed; Ms. Maxwell was neither present or given notice of the deposition.
5
EFTA00595617
Likewise, under Rule 32(a)(8), the subject matters of those litigations were completely different.
The cases were personal claims against Mr. Epstein by various individuals. There could be no
identity of issues between those matters and this case. Those cases were about personal claims
against Mr. Epstein and had nothing to do with Ms. Maxwell. This case is about a statement by
Ms. Maxwell's press agent made over 6 years later. There could be no motivations to develop
similar testimony because the claims in this action by definition did not exist when the
depositions was taken.
Mr. Epstein's counsel had no motive to discuss anything concerning Ms. Maxwell. He
certainly had no motive to cross-examine Mr. Rodriguez regarding any interactions between Ms.
Maxwell and Plaintiff given that Mr. Rodriguez had never met Plaintiff. The sheer lack of
discussion of Ms. Maxwell, or follow up on any of the statements made concerning Ms. Maxwell
makes clear there was simply no similar motive for Mr. Epstein's counsel to cross examine Mr.
Rodriguez as Ms. Maxwell would have in this case.
Knowing that any argument for admission under Fed. R. Civ. P. 32 and Fed. R. Evid. 804
must fail, Plaintiff throws a Hail Mary and seeks admission of the testimony under the "Residual
Hearsay" clause, 807. It is apparent that this is the new go-to for Plaintiff because of the serious
evidentiary issues with the evidence she seeks to admit. Congress was very clear that it
" intended that the residual hearsay exceptions will be used very rarely, and only in exceptional
circumstances." Committee on the Judiciary, S.Rep.No.93-1277, Note to Paragraph (24), 28
U.S.C.A. Fed. R. Evid. p. 583 (1975). For this reason, it set very specific parameters that, none
of which are satisfactorily met in the circumstances here.
(1) the statement has equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness;
(2) it is offered as evidence of a material fact;
6
EFTA00595618
(3) it is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that
the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts; and
(4) admitting it will best serve the purposes of these rules and the interests of justice.
There is nothing trustworthy about Mr. Rodriguez or his statements. Mr. Rodriguez is a
convicted criminal. and was convicted for obstruction of justice based on the very testimony
Plaintiff seeks to admit. He either created evidence to use in those proceedings, or he hid
evidence in them. Either way, his entire testimony is inherently untrustworthy.
Mr. Rodriguez has no knowledge of any fact material to this case. He flatly testifies that
he had never heard or, met or seen the Plaintiff. He worked for Mr. Epstein over 2 years after
Plaintiff left the country. Nothing Mr. Rodriguez could have possibly testified to, even if he was
alive, has any bearing on any material fact.
Plaintiff's attempt to claim that Mr. Rodriguez's testimony "is more probative on the
point for which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain through
reasonable efforts" is at best disingenuous. Plaintiff has designated the testimony of Juan Alessi,
Mr. Rodriguez's predecessor who held that position during the timeframe in which Plaintiff
claims to have been held as a "sex slave" by Mr. Epstein. It simply defies logic to claim that Mr.
Rodriguez' testimony would somehow be more probative than that of the person in his same
position at the time Plaintiff alleges she was being held captive as a sex slave.
Finally, nothing about the testimony will best serve the purposes of the rules or evidence
or justice. Mr. Rodriguez's testimony is nothing more than hearsay and speculation, as pointed
out in the specific objections. The purpose of the rules is thwarted, not served, by the admission
of any portion of this wholly irrelevant and improper testimony.
7
EFTA00595619
CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, and those set forth in the Defendant's Motion In Limine To
Exclude In Toto Certain Depositions Designated By Plaintiff For Use At Trial, Ms. Maxwell
requests that the relief requested therein be granted.
Dated: February 17, 2017
Respectfully submitted,
Is/ Laura A. Menninger
Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice)
Ty Gee (pro hac vice)
HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
Phone:
Fax:
Attorneysfor Ghislaine Maxwell
8
EFTA00595620
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on February 17, 2017, I electronically served this Defendant's Reply In
Support Of Motion In Limine To Exclude In Toto Certain Depositions Designated By Plaintiff
For Use At Trial via ECF on the following:
Sigrid S. McCawley Paul G. Cassell
Meredith Schultz 383 S. University Street
BOLES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP Salt Lake it UT 4112
401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
Ft. 33301
Lauderdale FL
J. Stanley Pottinger
Bradley J. Edwards 49 Twin Lakes Rd.
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, South Salem NY 105 0
FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
Ft. Lauderdale. FL 33301
Is/ Nicole Simmons
Nicole Simmons
9
EFTA00595621
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X
L.
Plaintiff,
v. 15-cv-07433-RWS
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
X
Declaration of Laura A. Menninger in Support of
Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion In Limine To Exclude In Toto
Certain Depositions Designated By Plaintiff For Use At Trial
I, Laura A. Menninger, declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed in the State of New York and admitted to
practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. I am a
member of the law firm Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C., counsel of record for Defendant
Ghislaine Maxwell in this action. I respectfully submit this Declaration in support of
Ms. Maxwell's Reply to her Motion in Limine to Exclude In Toto Certain Depositions
Designated by Plaintiff for Use at Trial.
2. Attached as Exhibit F (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of excerpts from
the deposition of June 20, 2016, designated Confidential under the Protective
Order.
EFTA00595622
Executed on February 17, 2017.
s/ Laura A. Menninger
Laura A. Menninger
EFTA00595623
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on February 17, 2017, I electronically served this Declaration ofLaura A.
Menninger in Support ofDefendant's Reply in Support ofMotion in Limine to Exclude In Toto
Certain Depositions Designated by Plaintifffor Use at Trial via ECF on the following:
Sigrid S. McCawley Paul G. Cassell
Meredith Schultz 383 S. University Street
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP Salt Lake CitiSUUT 12
401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
Ft. Lauderdale. FL 33301
J. Stanley Pottinger
Bradley J. Edwards 49 Twin Lakes Rd.
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, South Salem NY 105 0
FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
Ft. Lauderdale. FL 33301
Is/ Nicole Simmons
Nicole Simmons
3
EFTA00595624
EXHIBIT F
EFTA00595625
Page 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CASE NO. 15-CV-07433-RWS
x
f
Plaintiff,
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
x
June 20, 2016
9:12 a.m.
CONFIDENTIAL
Deposition of , pursuant
to notice, taken by Plaintiff, at the
offices of Podhurst Orseck, 25 West
Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, Florida,
before Kelli Ann Willis, a Registered
Professional Reporter, Certified Realtime
Reporter and Notary Public within and
for the State of Florida.
MAGNA 0 LEGAL SERVICES
EFTA00595626
Page 2
2
3
4 APPEARANCE S:
5 BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
6 401 East Las Olas Boulevard
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
7 BY: BRADLEY EDWARDS, ESQ.
8
9 HADDON MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendant
10 150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
11 BY: JEFFREY PAGLIUCA, ESQ.
12
13 PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
Attorneys for Deponent
14 25 West Flagler Street
Suite 800
15 Miami, Florida 33130
BY: ROBERT JOSEFSBURG, ESQ.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAGNA 0 LEGAL SERVICES
EFTA00595627
Page 3
2
3 INDEX
4 Examination by Mr. Edwards 4
Examination by Mr. Pagliuca 57
5 Further Examination by Mr. Edwards 68
6
7
8 EXHIBITS
9 Deposition Exhibit 1 6
Police Interview
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAGNA 0 LEGAL SERVICES
EFTA00595628
Page 10
1 - CONFIDENTIAL
2 A. No, sir, I do not.
3 Q. Do you remember that the police officers
4 tape-recorded the statement with you?
5 A. Vaguely, yes.
6 Q. Do you remember how old you were when you
7 met Jeffrey Epstein?
8 A. Sixteen or 17.
9 Q. Okay. And have you reviewed
10 A. I may have been 15. I don't recall. I
11 apologize.
12 Q. If you told the police officer 16, you
13 were telling the truth?
14 A. At the time, they were fresh.
15 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and
16 foundation.
17 THE WITNESS: The facts were fresh at the
18 time. But 12 years later, I don't recall.
19 MR. PAGLIUCA: If you can just do a little
20 pause in between his question and your answer.
21 I need an opportunity to object to any form or
22 foundation problem with his question.
23 THE WITNESS: Sure.
24 MR. PAGLIUCA: It helps the court reporter
25 if the three of us are not talking at the same
MAGNAO LEGAL SERVICES
EFTA00595629
Page 43
1 - CONFIDENTIAL
2 THE WITNESS: I do remember having several
3 conversations about Bill Clinton and others.
4 BY MR. EDWARDS:
5 Q. What do you remember saying about Bill
6 Clinton?
7 A. They went on a trip to Africa with Kevin
8 Spacey and that it really -- there was nothing
9 specific about Bill Clinton other than I think it
10 was a trip where they -- it was very vague. It was
11 implied that they enjoyed themselves, however that
12 was.
13 There were specific things said about
14 Spacey, but I cannot recall anything about Clinton.
15 Q. Okay. After speaking to the police or
16 while speaking to the police, do you remember
17 telling them that you're not safe because you're
18 talking about this?
19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and
20 foundation.
21 THE WITNESS: Yes.
22 BY MR. EDWARDS:
23 Q. And that you had heard Jeffrey Epstein
24 making threats to people on the telephone?
25 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and
MAGNAO LEGAL SERVICES
EFTA00595630
Page 44
1 - CONFIDENTIAL
2 foundation.
3 THE WITNESS: Yes. He wasn't always
4 friendly.
5 BY MR. EDWARDS:
6 Q. What type of threats do you remember
7 hearing Jeffrey Epstein make to anyone?
8 A. Nothing specific. I do remember hostile
9 conversations where he was upset with people, and I
10 assumed that it was business and none of my
11 business.
12 Q. Okay. You were asked by the detectives,
13 "Things like, You're going to die; you're going to
14 break your legs." And your response was: "All of
15 the above."
16 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection.
17 BY MR. EDWARDS:
18 Q. Do you remember those type of things?
19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and
20 foundation.
21 THE WITNESS: Not specifically, no.
22 BY MR. EDWARDS:
23 Q. Do you remember where you were when you
24 heard these conversations?
25 A. Most of the time he was on the phone when
MAGNAO LEGAL SERVICES
EFTA00595631
Page 71
1 - CONFIDENTIAL
2 CERTIFICATE OF OATH
3 STATE OF FLORIDA )
4 COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE )
5
I, the undersigned authority, certify that
6 personally appeared before me and
was duly sworn.
7 WITNESS my hand and official seal this
23rd day of June, 2016.
8
9
Kelli Ann Willis, RPR, CRR
10 Notary Public, State of Florida
Commission FF928291, Expires 2-16-20
11 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
12 CERTIFICATE
13 STATE OF FLORIDA )
14 COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE )
15 I, Kelli Ann Willis, Registered
Professional Reporter and Certified Realtime
16 Reporter do hereby certify that I was
authorized to and did stenographically report the
17 foregoing deposition of ; that a
review of the transcript was not requested; and
18 that the transcript is a true record of my
stenographic notes.
19 I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not a
relative, employee, attorney, or counsel of any
20 of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of
any of the parties' attorney or counsel connected
21 with the action, nor am I financially interested
in the action.
22 Dated this 23rd day of June, 2016.
23
24 KELLI ANN WILLIS, RPR, CRR
25
MAGNAO LEGAL SERVICES
EFTA00595632
DataSet-10
Unknown
2 pages
From: Martin Weinberg
To: J
Cc: Martin Weinberg
Subject: ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 14:23:18 +0000
As to Jay, he can refuse to further represent you as counsel but cannot avoid deposition or subpoena if J Marra
says depositions or testimony is required. I cannot imagine him testifying other than that he aggressively pursued
legal positions he believed to be principled and that there was no wrongdoing in the negotiation.
Kens PR suggestion is Mark Carallo
Kens NDGa suggestion is former US Atty William Duffey
Martin G. Weinberg, Esq.
20 Park Plaza
Suite 1000
Boston, MA 02116
617 227-3700 - Office
Cell
This Electronic Message contains information from the Law
Office of Martin G. Weinberg, P.C., and may be privileged. The information is intended for the use of the
addressee only. If you are not the addressee, please note that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the
contents of this message is prohibited.
----------------
-------
On Wed, 3/6/19, J wrote:
Subject:
To: "Martin Weinberg" -MINIM>
Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 9:09 AM
i forgot to
ask, what is jays postion , obligattions
kirlands. they clearly cant walk from the agreement.
? or their representation as it is relevant , can
they?
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,
EFTA01031331
including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved
EFTA01031332
DataSet-10
Unknown
1 pages
From: Lesley Groff <1
To: Cathy deposition at Erika's office.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 4, 2015, at 2:07 PM, Cathy < > wrote:
Wednesday — 3/4/15
As a follow-up to our phone conversation this afternoon — update on status of events —
The only thing on your end---right now---is regarding the deposition.
At this time — the deposition date you are trying for is Wednesday — 4/29/15
It will be in St. Thomas
You have calls in to St. Thomas attorney— Erika — at this time have not received word back yet.
WE WILL WAIT FOR YOUR UPDATE ON THIS
My Cell Phone # is below----as we spoke---in case you cannot reach Chet or me at office---just in case...
I am copying Darren on this e-mail---for his info, as well.
Have a safe drive today!
Cathy L. Hoffmann
Le al Assistant to W. Chester Brewer, Jr., Esq.
— Cathy's Cellular
EFTA00352162
DataSet-10
Unknown
1 pages
From: Lesley Groff
To: Larry Visoski Lany
Subject: FYI...
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 18:34:05 +0000
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!)
EFTA00352894
DataSet-10
Unknown
5 pages
LEOPOLD-KUVINL,
CONSUMER JUSTICE ATTORNEYS
May 6, 2010
CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN
RECEIPT REQUESTED
Re: Jeffrey Epstein
Dear
Enclosed please find a copy of Re-notice of Taking your Deposition which is now scheduled for
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 beginning at 10:00 a.m.
Please be advised that you are still under subpoena and your appearance at this deposition
is mandatory.
Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at your convenience.
• 11 ar jV 1
STt&m
Enc.
CRASHWORTHINESS • MANAGED CARE ABUSE CONSUMER CLASS ACTIONS • PERSONAL INJURY • WRONGFUL DEATH
EFTA00612082
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No:
10-80447-cv-t
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF'S RE-NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEO DEPOSITION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE UNDERSIGNED ATTORNEY WILL TAKE THE DEPOSITION OF:
NAME: DATE AND TIME: LOCATION:
June 15, 2010 Intelligerd Office,
10:00 AM
upon an oral examination before Videographer and a 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 purposes of discovery, for use at trial or are being
taken for such other purposes as are permitted under the Rules of the Court.
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a title and correct copy of this Notice was mailed this 7
day of MY 2010 to Jack A. Goldberger, Esq.,
Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq.,
D. Critton, Jr., Michael J. Pike,
n, Esq.
Cc: Prose Court Reporting Florida Bar No: 089737
Visual Evidence
EFTA00612083
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,
au:
Class ,t,
Edwards, Fistos a Lehrman, P.L.
Cornrneroa t - -• 0
P.IP5TIC E.CONI
May 7, 2010
Honorable Donald W. Hafele
Main Judicial Complex
Re: v. Jeffrey Epstein / Case No. 502008CA028051XXXXMB AB -and-
v. Jeffrey Epstein / Case No. 502008CP003626XXXXMB
Dear Judge Hafele:
Enclosed please find copies of Plaintiffs' proposed Agreed Orders concerning the hearing
on Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Count I of Plaintiff's
Second Amended Complaint that took place on April 9, 2010, in the above-captioned matters.
Should both of these Agreed Orders meet with Your Honor's approval, please execute
same in tters and provide conformed copies to all counsel in the enclosed prepaid self-
ad opes provided.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call.
hank you for your time and attention to this matter.
End es as stated
GMF/nas
cc: Robert D. Critton, Esq. /
Jay Howell, Esq.
Jack Goldberger, Esq.
EFTA00612084
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15Th JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY,
FLORIDA
CASE NO: 502008CA028051XXXXMB AB
Plaintiff.
v.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
AGREED ORDER ON DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNT I OF PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on April 9, 2010 upon Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Count I of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint; the
Court having reviewed and considered the motion and the record and otherwise being fully
advised in the premises, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
During the hearing, Plaintiffs counsel indicated a desire to amend the Complaint. As
such, the Court will deny as moot Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment on Count I of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint at this time so as to allow the
Plaintiff, ■to file an Amended Complaint within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.
Thereafter, Defendant. Jeffrey Epstein shall have twenty (20) days to file a responsive pleading.
DONE AND ORDERED at Palm Beach County Courthouse, Palm Beach County, Florida,
this day of 2010.
HONORABLE DONALD W. HAFELE
Circuit Court Judge
COoleS furnished to•
Gary M. Farmer, Jr., Esq.
Bradley J. Edwards. Esq.
Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esq.
Jay Howell, Esq.
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
EFTA00612085
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 15TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH
COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. 502008CP003626XXXXMB
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
AGREED ORDER ON DEFENDANT. JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNT I OF PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on April 9, 2010 upon Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Count I of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint; the
Court having reviewed and considered the motion and the record and otherwise being fully
advised in the premises, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
During the hearing, Plaintiffs counsel indicated a desire to amend the Complaint. As
such, the Court will deny as moot Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment on Count I of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint at this time so as to allow the
Plaintiff,Mto file an Amended Complaint within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.
Thereafter, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein shall have twenty (20) days to file a responsive pleading.
DONE AND ORDERED at Palm Beach County Courthouse, Palm Beach County, Florida,
this day of , 2010.
Copies furnished to: HONORABLE DONALD W. HAFELE
Gary M. Farmer, Jr., Esq. Circuit Court Judge
Bradley J. Edwards. Esq.
Robert D. Craton, Jr., Esq.
Jay Howell, Esq.
Jack Man Goldberger, Esq.
EFTA00612086
DataSet-10
Unknown
1 pages
From: Lesley Groff
To: Darren Indyke
Subject: address question...
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:38:16 +0000
Quick question (sorry to bother you) Do you have an exact address of where JE's deposition is today? All i know
is 43rd and 6th Ave....
He wants me to have someone meet him there and I do not have an exact address.
EFTA00434943
DataSet-10
Unknown
1 pages
From:
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2018 3:56 AM
To: Jeffrey E.
Subject: Not cool
And I didn't write, even more I was a good friend= And you wrote deposition??? I am negative, stopped drugs. Not cool
Jeffre=. I never wrote deposition on you and you did in me. I do forgive you sine=at least 5 heads of states wrote
"deposition", but I am hu=t that you did it when I did not when you dude was in Truble
1
EFTA_R1_01820421
EFTA02617838
DataSet-10
Unknown
1 pages
From: Lesley Groff
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
EFTA00483060
DataSet-10
Unknown
2 pages
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 08-80893CIV -MARRA/JOHNSON
JANE DOE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
/
Re-NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Plaintiff, JANE DOE, will take the deposition of
Donald Trump on, September 24, 2009, at 11:00 a.m., at:
Esquire Court Reporters
One Penn Plaza
Suite 4715
New York, NY 10119
The deposition shall be conducted pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure
and shall continue day to day, weekends and holidays excepted, until completed.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served
by U.S. Mail and email transmission this 2 51- day of August, 2009 to all those on the
attached Service List.
EFTA00774003
ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER
Attorneys for Plaintiff
401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650
Fort Lauderdale. Florida 33301
By:
cc: Esquire Court Reports
EFTA00774004
DataSet-10
Unknown
1 pages
From: Darren Indyke
To: "Jeffrey E."
Subject: Privileged and Confidential
Date: Thu, 05 May 2016 21:06:29 +0000
Attachments: Deposition_of Plaintiff -_3.docx
DARREN K. INDYKE
DARREN K. INDYKE, PLLC
575 Lexington Avenue, 4th Floor
New York. New York 10022
Telephone:
Telecopiei .
Mobile:
email:
The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client
privileged, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of
Darren K. Indyke, PLLC. 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, and destroy this
communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments.
Copyright of Darren K. Indyke, PLLC - © 2016 Darren K.
Indyke, PLLC — All rights reserved.
EFTA01182339
DataSet-10
Unknown
1 pages
From: ==. >
To: Jeffrey Epstein
Subject: Reminder: Chester Brewer needs to know address for Sitrick Depo
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 13:25:37 +0000
Reminder: Chester Brewer is asking for the address of where you would like to take the
deposition for the Sitrick case. Would you like me to provide him with the STC address?
EFTA00354444
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.
CROSS-NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED 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
Monday
March 1, 2010
10:00 a.m.
Wednesday Same as above.
March 24, 2010
10:00 a.m.
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 Orseck, P.A.
15 West Hagler Street, Sub, 800, Miami, PL 33130, Miami Fax • Port Lauderdale www.podlturettom
EFTA00723962
CASE NO.: 10-80309
discovery, for use at trial, or for such other purposes as are permitted under the rules of Court.
DATED this 26s day of February, 2010.
Respectfully submitted,
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
Attorneysfor PlaintiffJane Doe No. 103
By: ( 3 .c96,-11
Robert C. Josefsberg
Fla. Bar No. 040856
Katherine W. Ezell
Fla. Bar No. 114771
Telephone:
Facsimile:
-2-
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
25 West Hagler Street Suite WO. MlarL Ft 33130, Miami Fax • Fort Lauderdale wwv.i.podlurratcom
EFTA00723963
CASE NO.: 10-80309
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on this, i t-lay of February, 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,
P0DHURST ORSECK, P.A.
Attorneysfor Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and
Jane Doe No. 102
By: E.,Al;
Robert C. losefsberg
Fla. Bar No. 040856
K.
SAIR M
Fla. Bar No. 114771
MINTelephone:M
Facsimile:
- 3-
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
25 West Flegter Stmt. Suite 800. Want FL 33130, Miami Pax • Port Lauderdale www.podhurstsom
EFTA00723964
SERVICE LIST
JANE DOE NO. 2 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Robert Critton, Esq.
Michael J. Pike, Esq.
Burm Critton Luttier & Coleman LLP
Phone:
Counselfor Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein
Jack Goldberger, Esq.
Co-Counselfor Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein
Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq.
Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A.
Phone: az:
Counselfor Co-Defendant,
Jack Scarola, Esq.
Jack P. Hill, Esq.
Sears Denn Scarola Barnhart & hiplcy, PA.
• •
ed Case No. 08-80811
-4-
Podhurst Orseck, P.
25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Want FL 33130, Miami Pax • Fort LaudeMale www.podhaustcom
EFTA00723965
Adam Horowitz, Esq.
Stuart MemicIstein, Esq.
14 'nolo - H r :4 rp • to d r.
Phone:
Counsellor Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119,0840232, 08-80380, 08-
80381, 08-80993.08-80994
Spencer Todd Kuvin, Esq.
Theodore Jon Leopold, Esq.
Leopold Kuvin• P.A.
Counselfor Plaintiffin Related Case No. 08-08804
Richard Willits, Esq.
Richard H. Willits, P.A.
Phone:
Counselfor Plaintiffin Related Case No. 08-80811
Brad Edwards, Esq.
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards,
. 'Ill I
Course or P ainti f in Related Case No. 08-80893
-5-
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
23 West Hagler Street. Su0e 800, Miami Pt. 33130, Mimed Fax • Fort Lauderdale VISYVI podhurstcom
EFTA00723966
Isidro Manuel Garcia, Esq.
Garcia Elkins & Boehringer
Phone: iFax:
Counselfor Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469
-6-
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
25 Weld aisle Street, Suite BW, M lem±, FL 3313D, Miami Fax • Fort Lauderdale www.podhurstxom
EFTA00723967
Epstein Matter
Depositions Currently Scheduled
as of February 26, 2010
t .5.1 .3:56,-i-
litaN0 WNW 141401 ..„.
7i c lai,
B.B. 2/26/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
(By Video) 9:00 a.m.
(RDC)
2/26/10 Prose Court Rep Noticed by Jess
(By Video) 10:00 a.m.
(MTL)
L.M. 3/01/10 Prose Court Re. Noticed by
Cross — (RDC & JAG) 10:00 a.m. Edwards
Does 2- Cross by
8, BB, Mermelstein,
103 Kuvin and Ezell
Doe #7 3/01/10 Drs. Hall Office in Noticed by Jess
9:00 a.m. Orlando
B.B. 3/02/10 Our Office Noticed by Jess
2:00 p.m.
B.B. 3/02/10 Our Office Notice by Jess
4:00 p.m.
Doe #2 1,14. 3/03/10 Noticed by Jess
y i eo 10:00 a.m.
(RDC)
Doe Russell Prickett 3/05/10 Prose Court Re I Noticed by Connie
(SR) (by video) 10:00 a.m.
Doe 3/05/10 Prose Court Re. Noticed by Connie
(SR) (by video) 11:00 a.m.
Does #2- Jeffrey Epstein 03/08/10 Galleria Int. Noticed by
#8 (By Video) 10:00 a.m. Mermelstein
(RDC & JAG)
3/11/10 Prose Court Re Noticed by Jess
(By Video) 1:00 p.m.
EFTA00723968
(RDC)
Doe #7 3/15/10 Prose Court Re I Noticed by Jess
(By Video) 10:00 a.m.
(RDC)
Doe 3/15/10 U e a u o Noticed by
(MJP) 10:00 a.m. Edwards
Epstein Jeffrey Epstein 3/17/10 ur ice Noticed by Scarola
(by video) 10:00 a.m.
(RDC & JAG)
TO BE Joseph Recarey 3/19/10 Noticed by Jess
Noticed (RDC & At 9:30 a.m.
B.B. WEINBERG)
Epstein Brad Edwards 3/23/10 Searc Denne Noticed by Jess
Cross by (By Video) 10:00 a.m.
LM (RDC)
Doe 3/24/10 Prose Court Re. Noticed by
Cross (by video) 10:00 a.m. Edwards
by BB Cross by Kuvin,
103 Ezell
B.B. 4/8/10 Prose Court Re• Noticed by Kuvin
(By video) 9:30 a.m.
(RDC &
REINHART)
B.B. Charles Gerald 4/19/10 Prose Court Re• Noticed by Kuvin
Goldsmith 9:30 a.m.
Agreed Upon / Scheduled
**
Have service
EFTA00723969
DataSet-10
Unknown
1 pages
From:
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2011 8:04 PM
To: Jefffrey Epstein;
Subject: Depo transcript
I left your transcript of your deposition withM. You need to read and mark any errors, notorize and send back to
susman no later than May 18th Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
conversation-idgkey>
186521
date-last-viewed
0
date-received
1304280218
flags
8590195713
gmail-label-ids
6
2
remote-id
152728
EFTA_R1_01686298
EFTA02538533
DataSet-10
Unknown
1 pages
From: "Matthew I. Menchel"
To: 'jeffrey epstein'
Subject: RE:
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 02:14:29 +0000
We are on. My apologies for the late reply. I was in an all day deposition and then had to rush to have dinner
with my bride. As it happens, I have to be in the Fort Lauderdale area tomorrow afternoon so we can meet up
there or I'm happy to meet further north if you prefer that.
Matthew I. Menchel
KOBRE & KIM LLP
www.kobrekim.com
New York I London I Hong Kong I Washington DC I Miami
Original Message
From: jeffrey epstein [mailto:jeevacation@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 7:10 PM
To: Matthew I. Menchel
Subject:
Are we still on ?
Sony for all the typos .Sent from my iPhone
This e-mail message is from Kobre & Kim LLP, a law firm, and may contain legally privileged and/or
confidential information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail message and any attachments from
your computer without retaining a copy.
IRS Circular 230 disclosure: Any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments or
enclosures) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties
under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction
or matter addressed in this communication. (The foregoing disclaimer has been affixed pursuant to U.S. Treasury
regulations governing tax practitioners.)
EFTA00904935
DataSet-10
Unknown
2 pages
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15th
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM
BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO: 502008CA028051)OMMB AB
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-NOTICE OF VIDEO DEPOSITION OF
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiff, M., 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 @ nt Ili nt ffi
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.
EFTA00759888
CERTICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the above and a copy of the
foregoing has been provided this I) , day of May 2010 via U.S. Mail and email
transmittal to all those on the attached service list.
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,
Edwards Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.
fax
By:
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS
Florida Bar No.:
SERVICE LIST
Robert D. Critton, Jr.
ITT N et I.
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
r t I
Jay Howell, Esq.
111=
EFTA00759889
DataSet-10
Unknown
2 pages
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15th JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY,
FLORIDA
CASE NO: 502008CA028051XXXXMB AB
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF'S CROSS NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DETECTIVE JOSEPH RECARY
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiff, L.M., will take the 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
Det. Joseph Recarey February 25, Prose Court Reporting
c/o Joanne M. O'Connor, Esq. 2010 @ 9:30 AM One Clearlake Centre
Jones, Foster, Johnson & 250 Australian Avenue South
Stubbs, P.A. West Palm Beach, FL 33401
505 S. Flagler Drive, #1100
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
upon oral examination before Prose Court Reporting, 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.
EFTA00725402
CERTICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the above and a copy of the foregoing
has been on February ( , 2010 via U.S. Mail and email transmittal to all those on the
attached service list.
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,
Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.
425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
(954) 524-2820
(954) 524-2822 fax
brad@pathtojustice.com
By:
RADLEY J. E ARDS
Florida Bar o.: 542075
cc: Prose (via email)
SERVICE LIST
Robert D. Critton, Jr.
BURMAN, CRITTON. et al.
303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Jay Howell, Esq.
Jay Howell & Assoc.
644 Cesery Boulevard
Suite 250
Jacksonville, FL 32211
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
Atterbury Goldberger et al.
250 Australian Avenue South
Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
EFTA00725403
DataSet-10
Unknown
154 pages
180
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.
CONTINUED VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
VOLUME 2
Pages 180 through 333
Friday, October 16, 2015
9:18 a.m. - 12:26 p.m.
Cole Scott & Kissane
110 Southeast 6th Street
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Stenographically Reported By:
Kimberly Fontalvo, RPR, CLR
Realtime Systems Administrator
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726484
181
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
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.
12 BY: ST ISAFRAG. (Via phone)
13 --and--
14 SWEDER & ROSS, LLP
131 Oliver Street
15 Boston, MA 02110
BY: KENNETH A. SWEDER, ESQ.
16 •
17 --and--
18 WILEY, REIN
17769 K Street NW
19 Washington, DC 20006
BY: RICHARD A. SIMPSON, ESQ.
20
BY: NICOLE A. RICHARDSON, ESQ.
21
22
23
24
25
www.piiiiiiiiiiiiir.com
EFTA02726485
182
1 APPEARANCES (Continued):
2 On behalf of Jeffrey Epstein:
3 DARREN K. INDYKE, PLLC
575 Lexington Ave., 4th Fl.
4 New York, New York
BY: DARREN K. INDYKE, ESQ. (Via phone)
5
6 On behalf of
7 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1200
8 Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301
BY:
9
10
11 ALSO PRESENT:
12 Joni Jones, Utah Attorney General Office
13 Travis Gallagher, Videographer
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726486
183
1 INDEX
2
Examination Page
3
4 VOLUME 2 (Pages 180 - 333)
5 Direct By Mr. Scarola 184
6 Certificate of Oath 330
Certificate of Reporter 331
7 Read and Sign Letter to Witness 332
Errata Sheet (forwarded upon execution) 333
8 PLAINTIFF EXHIBITS
9
No. Page
10
1 Television Interview Transcript 193
11
2 Except from Deposition of Alan M. 193
12 Dershowitz
13 3 Photograph - 8x10 - Color 194
14 4 Photograph - 8x10 - Color 197
15 5 Flight Log Information Sheet 198
16 6 Composite - Flight logs 240
17 7 Composite - Flight manuals 240
18 8 Photograph - 8x10 - Color 305
19 9 Composite - Calendar entries 306
20 10 Composite - Calendar entries 307
21 11 Composite - Calendar entries 307
22 12 Composite - Calendar entries 307
23
24
25
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726487
184
1 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going on the record. This
2 is day two of Alan Dershowitz's deposition.
3 The date is October 16, 2015, and the time is
4 approximately 9:18 a.m.
5 MR. SCAROLA: Would you please reswear the
6 witness.
7 THE COURT REPORTER: Would you raise your
8 right hand, please?
9 Do you swear or affirm that the testimony
10 you are about to give will be the truth, the
11 whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
12 THE WITNESS: Yes.
13 Thereupon:
14 ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
15 having been first duly sworn, was examined and
16 testified as follows:
17 DIRECT EXAMINATION
18 BY MR. SCAROLA:
19 Q. Mr. Dershowitz, what is rhetorical
20 hyperbole?
21 A. Rhetorical means verbal and hyperbole
22 means exaggeration.
23 Q. Something other than the truth, correct?
24 A. Truth --
25 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form, relevancy.
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726488
185
1 A. Truth has many, many meanings and is a
2 continuum. The Supreme Court has held that
3 rhetorical hyperbole cannot be the basis, for
4 example, of perjury prosecutions or generally of a
5 defamation prosecution.
6 So it depends on the context. You might
7 just look at the dictionary and probably get a
8 variety of definitions for it.
9 BY MR. SCAROLA:
10 Q. Well, what I'm concerned about,
11 Mr. Dershowitz, is not a dictionary definition. I
12 want to know what your understanding of rhetorical
13 hyperbole is.
14 And do you agree that pursuant to your
15 understanding of rhetorical hyperbole, it is an
16 exaggeration beyond the facts?
17 MR. SCOTT: Objection, argumentative and
18 compound, three questions.
19 A. No --
20 MR. SCOTT: You can answer.
21 A. -- I would not agree with that definition.
22 BY MR. SCAROLA:
23 Q. Okay. Then define it for us, if you
24 would, please.
25 A. I think I have already.
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726489
186
1 Q. I'm sorry, I missed the definition. Could
2 you tell us what rhetorical hyperbole is?
3 MR. SCOTT: Objection, repetitious. He's
4 done it.
5 A. Why don't we just read back my answer.
6 BY MR. SCAROLA:
7 Q. Because I didn't understand it, so I would
8 like you to try to give us a direct response to that
9 question if you're able to.
10 A. I will repeat exactly what I said. A
11 rhetorical means verbal and hyperbole means some
12 exaggeration of the facts for political or other
13 reasons, but generally it is truthful in a literal
14 sense but perhaps -- it all depends on context.
15 And if you tell me the context in which I
16 used it, I will be happy to describe what I meant in
17 that context. But I don't think you can really
18 answer a question about what two words put together
19 mean without understanding the context.
20 Q. Okay. Well, we're going to talk about
21 some context.
22 Do you recall having been interviewed on
23 on
24 A. I have no current recollection of --
25 MR. SCOTT: Do you have a copy of the
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726490
187
1 transcript of the interview? We'd like to see
2 it.
3 MR. SCAROLA: That's exactly what I gave
4 you, the photocopy.
5 MR. SCOTT: We're doing it right now.
6 Maybe we can move on and come back then.
7 MR. SCAROLA: No, I would like to proceed.
8 MR. SCOTT: Then let's stop until I get a
9 copy of it. Because he -- I want --
10 MR. SCAROLA: I don't think that's
11 necessary because your client has told us that
12 he has a superb memory and one of the things I
13 would like to know is what he's able to recall.
14 If he needs to refresh his memory, the
15 transcripts will be here in just a moment, but
16 I don't want to delay going forward.
17 MR. SCOTT: Do you need the transcript to
18 refresh your memory?
19 THE WITNESS: Well, I have no memory of
20 what specifically I said on a particular day in
21 a particular interview.
22 MR. SCOTT: Since you have a copy in front
23 of him, why don't you just show him your copy
24 then? Read the -- ask your question and let
25 him read it.
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726491
188
1 BY MR. SCAROLA:
2 Q. Do you recall having been interviewed on
3 by
4 A. Yes, I do.
5 Q. Do you recall having been interviewed on
6 by in early
7 where you spoke about matters that have become the
8 subject of this litigation?
9 A. Yes, I do.
10 Q. Did you make the following statement
11 during the course of that interview: "As to the
12 airplanes, there are manifests that will prove
13 beyond any doubt that I was never on a private
14 airplane with this woman or any other underage
15 girl"?
16 MR. SCOTT: You need to see the
17 transcript?
18 THE WITNESS: No. No.
19 A. That is a truthful statement. I would
20 repeat it right now. I've reviewed the manifests.
21 First, I know I was never on the airplane
22 with any underage woman. I know that for a fact. I
23 have absolutely no doubt in my mind about that. And
24 the records that I have reviewed confirm that.
25 They have on a number of
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726492
189
1 airplane flights with Jeffrey Epstein. They have me
2 on a number of flights, none -- let me emphasize,
3 none within the relevant time period, none within
4 the relevant time period. That is, there are no
5 manifests that have me on Jeffrey Epstein's airplane
6 during the time that claims to
7 have -- falsely claims to have had sex with me.
8 So, yes, not only recall making that
9 statement, but I repeat it here today. And it is
10 absolutely true. And it just confirms what I know,
11 and that is that made up the entire
12 story.
13 BY MR. SCAROLA:
14 Q. Your statement --
15 MR. SCOTT: What page are you reading
16 from?
17 MR. SCAROLA: Page 5.
18 Q. Your statement was that you were never on
19 a private airplane with this woman, which I assume
20 was a reference to , correct?
21 A. It is, yes.
22 Q. Or any other underage girl?
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. All right. How many times --
25 A. Well, let me be very clear. I have no
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726493
190
1 idea who was in the front cabin of the airplane with
2 the pilots. Obviously what I intended to say and
3 what I say here now is I never saw an underaged
4 person on an airplane.
5 Now, when I -- when I flew with Jeffrey
6 Epstein to the launch, my recollection is that there
7 may have been a couple on the plane with their child
8 who was going to see the launch. But that was
9 certainly not the context in which I made the
10 statement.
11 I never saw any underage, young person who
12 would be the subject or object of any improper
13 sexual activities. Had I seen Jeffrey Epstein ever
14 in the presence of an underage woman in a context
15 that suggested sexuality, I would have, A, left the
16 scene; B, reported it; and, C, never had any further
17 contact with Jeffrey Epstein.
18 Q. You have also made the statement that you
19 were never on a private airplane with any underage
20 women or any young women, correct?
21 A. The context was underage women in a sexual
22 context. If it was a -- you know, a four-year-old
23 child being carried by her mother, that would not be
24 included in what I intended to say.
25 Q. Your sworn testimony yesterday, according
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726494
191
1 to the transcription, the official transcription of
2 that testimony, was that, quote:
3 "Let me emphasize that the manifests that
4 do exculpate me do not show me flying with
, they do not show me flying with any young
6 women."
7 That was the testimony you gave under
8 oath. Do you stand by that testimony today?
9 A. The manifests that I saw corroborate my
10 own memory -- my own memory is as clear as could
11 be -- that I never saw any inappropriately aged,
12 underaged women on any airplane to my knowledge that
13 were visible to me at any time that I flew. That is
14 my testimony, yes.
15 Q. Well, that's not a response to the
16 question that I asked. Is it your testimony today
17 that you never flew on a private airplane with,
18 quote, "any young women"?
19 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form.
20 A. By young women, I obviously meant in that
21 context underage women. And underage women in the
22 context of sexuality. And, yes, I I stand by
23 that statement.
24 BY MR. SCAROLA:
25 Q. All right. So your your clarification
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726495
192
1 of your earlier testimony is that you never saw any
2 young women in a sexual context?
3 A. That's not clarification. I think that's
4 what I initially said. That's what I initially
5 intended. And that's the way any reasonable -- any
6 reasonable person would interpret what my original
7 testimony was. So I don't believe my original
8 testimony required any clarification.
9 Q. So what you meant to convey by the
10 statement that you made when you said you never flew
11 with any underage girl or any young women was you
12 never flew with any underage girl or young women in
13 a sexual context?
14 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form.
15 BY MR. SCAROLA:
16 Q. Is that correct?
17 A. Let me simply repeat the fact and that is,
18 to my knowledge, I never flew on an airplane or was
19 ever in the presence on an airplane with any
20 underage woman who would be somebody who might be in
21 a sexual context. I say that only to eliminate the
22 possibility that some four-year-old was on the lap
23 of a mother or somebody was on the airplane with
24 family members.
25 But, no, I do not recall -- and I'm very
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726496
193
1 firm about this -- being on an airplane with anybody
2 who I believed could be the subject of Jeffrey
3 Epstein or anyone else's improper sexual activities.
4 MR. SCAROLA: All right. Let's mark the
5 transcript that we've been referring to as
6 Exhibit Number 1, please. That's the
7 transcript of the television interviews that
8 we'll be discussing.
9 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff Exhibit
10 1.)
11 MR. SCOTT: This is actually 2, right? We
12 had one yesterday, an article from the British
13 newspaper?
14 MR. SCAROLA: No. It was not marked as an
15 exhibit. This is the first exhibit that's been
16 marked.
17 MR. SCOTT: No, I know that, but I thought
18 we were going to mark that one. Maybe I was --
19 I asked for that. Okay.
20 It was an answer and counterclaim about
21 the allegation shown to the witness.
22 MR. SCAROLA: And Exhibit Number 2 will be
23 the transcript from yesterday's proceedings
24 that I have just referenced.
25 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726497
194
1 Exhibit 2.)
2 MR. SCOTT: You don't have a copy of that,
3 do you, of the transcript?
4 MR. SCAROLA: No. Got sent to you. I
5 assume you have it.
6 BY MR. SCAROLA:
7 Q. I'm going to hand you what we'll now mark
8 as Exhibit Number 3.
9 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff
10 Exhibit 3.)
11 MR. SCOTT: There's no question.
12 MR. SWEDER: Yes.
13 BY MR. SCAROLA:
14 Q. Do you recognize that young woman,
15 Mr. Dershowitz?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Never saw her?
18 A. Not that I know of.
19 Q. Never flew on an private airplane with
20 her?
21 A. Not that I know of.
22 Q. Do you recognize the name
23 A. I do recall that Jeffrey Epstein had a
24 friend named
25 Q. That you flew with?
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726498
195
1 A. I don't remember that I flew with her or
2 not. I may have. But I don't recall necessarily.
3 But I did meet I remember meeting a woman named
4 . This does not look like , like the
5 woman I met.
6 Q. Okay. So that's a -- that's a different
7
8 A. No, I don't know.
9 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form,
10 argumentative.
11 A. I have no idea. I do not recognize this
12 woman. She's not familiar to me at all.
13 I can tell you this: Without any doubt, I
14 never met anybody dressed like this on any airplane
15 or in the presence of Jeffrey Epstein or in any
16 context --
17 BY MR. SCAROLA:
18 Q. Did she have
19 A. -- related to this case.
20 Q. -- more clothes on or less clothes on when
21 you met her?
22 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. He said he
23 never met her. Misrepresent --
24 BY MR. SCAROLA:
25 Q. When you met the woman that you're
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726499
196
1 referencing, did she have more clothes on or less
2 clothes on than that woman?
3 A. Every woman that I met in the presence of
4 Jeffrey Epstein was properly dressed, usually in
5 suits and dresses and -- and appropriately covered
6 up. I never met any women in the context of Jeffrey
7 Epstein who were dressed anything like this.
8 Q. Would you agree that that is a young woman
9 in that photograph?
10 A. I have no idea what her age is.
11 Q. So you don't know whether she was underage
12 or overage or a young woman or not a young woman?
13 A. I don't --
14 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form.
15 A. -- know this woman, so I have no idea how
16 old a woman in a picture is. She could be -- she
17 could be 30. She could be 25. I have no idea.
18 BY MR. SCAROLA:
19 Q. Or she could be 15 or 16?
20 A. I don't think so.
21 Q. But you don't know?
22 A. This doesn't -- well, I don't know how old
23 you are. This does not strike me
24 Q. Old enough to know that
25 MR. SCOTT: You're cutting --
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726500
197
1 BY MR. SCAROLA:
2 Q. -- that's a young woman.
3 MR. SCOTT: Objection. You're cutting the
4 witness off. You're not letting him finish.
5 A. This looks like a picture out of a Playboy
6 or Penthouse magazine. It does not look to me like
7 a person who is under the age of 16 or 17 or 18.
8 But I don't think you can tell anything from the
9 picture. I think you can tell much more from
10 meeting somebody and being with them and having a
11 conversation with them.
12 MR. SCAROLA: Let's mark this photograph,
13 if we could, as Exhibit Number 4.
14 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff
15 Exhibit 4.)
16 BY MR. SCAROLA:
17 Q. Does Exhibit Number 4 help you at all to
18 recognize this young woman?
19 A. I've never -- I have no -- no recollection
20 of this young woman at all.
21 Q. All right. Would you describe for us,
22 please, the that you flew with Jeffrey
23 Epstein on November 17, 2005?
24 A. First, I want to emphasize that that's
25 three years later than any of the issues involved in
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726501
198
1 this case. I have no recollection of flying with
2 this woman. I saw the name on a manifest.
3 And my recollection of -- I have
4 no recollection of flying with her, but my
5 recollection of is that she was a serious,
6 mid 20s woman friend of Jeffrey Epstein, who I may
7 have met on one or two or three occasions when he
8 was with her in -- perhaps at Harvard University
9 where he was meeting with academics and scholars, or
10 perhaps -- I think that's probably the context
11 where -- where she might have been.
12 Q. But you never flew with her?
13 A. I have no recollection of flying with her.
14 Q. Okay. Well, let me see if this helps to
15 refresh your recollection, Mr. Dershowitz.
16 MR. SCAROLA: Let's mark this as Exhibit
17 Number 5, please.
18 THE WITNESS: Uh-huh, yes.
19 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff
20 Exhibit 5.)
21 BY MR. SCAROLA:
22 Q. Do you see that the name of the woman in
23 the photographs I have handed you is
24 a model?
25 The photographs, sir, look at the
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726502
199
1 photographs. The photographs identify the woman as
2 , correct?
3 A. Yes, but --
4 MR. SCOTT: Mr. Dershowitz, take your
5 time --
6 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
7 MR. SCOTT: -- review the exhibits. Don't
8 be rushed by Mr. Scarola.
9 A. Yes, it's a different different
10 spelling of the name. The on the manifest
11 is spelled
12 The in the photograph is
13 . I have no idea whether --
14 BY MR. SCAROLA:
15 Q. The last name --
16 A. they are the same person.
17 Q. is the same, , right?
18 A. There's no last name.
19 Q. Well, read down a little bit further, if
20 you would, Mr. Dershowitz.
21 A. You mean as to a different flight?
22 Q. Yes, sir. Identifying the return flight
23 for the same
24 A. I have no idea that it's a return flight.
25 I have nothing on the record that suggests that it's
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726503
200
1 a return flight. And it has different people on it.
2 So I have no reason to believe it's a return flight.
3 Q. Is the last -- the question that I asked
4 you, Mr. Dershowitz, is: Is the last name spelled
5 exactly the same as the last name is spelled in the
6 two photographs I have shown you?
7 A. Let me look. So, on the 20th of
8 November
9 Q. Is the last name --
10 MR. SCOTT: Whoa, whoa
11 BY MR. SCAROLA:
12 Q. -- spelled the same way on both the flight
13 log and the two photographs I have shown you?
14 A. On -- you mean on a flight log that I was
15 not on the flight? Is that right? You're talking
16 about a flight log that I was not on the flight,
17 right?
18 Q. That flight log shows you on multiple
19 flights, does it not?
20 A. It shows me not on that flight. It shows
21 me on a number of flights, but not on that flight.
22 MR. SCOTT: What's the date of the
23 flights?
24 THE WITNESS: The date of that flight
25 is -- looks like November 20th, 2005, more
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726504
201
1 than three years after left
2 for --
3 BY MR. SCAROLA:
4 Q. Mr. Dershowitz --
5 MR. SCOTT: You're cutting the witness
6 off.
7 MR. SCAROLA: He's not answering my
8 question, Tom.
9 MR. SCOTT: Well --
10 MR. SCAROLA: I want to know whether the
11 last name is spelled the same or it isn't
12 spelled the same on the flight log marked as an
13 exhibit and on the photographs. That's a very
14 direct question. It calls for a very direct
15 yes or no response.
16 And this witness has demonstrated a clear
17 refusal to respond directly to direct
18 questions, which will result, when we resume
19 this deposition, in our requesting that the
20 Court appoint a special master so that this
21 deposition doesn't take two weeks to complete.
22 MR. SCOTT: You know, Mr. Scarola, that's
23 a nice speech and I appreciate it.
24 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you.
25 MR. SCOTT: I don't agree with your
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726505
202
1 characterization. And if you recall, months
2 ago I suggested a special master for this
3 deposition, for your clients' depositions and
4 for ' and your response to me
5 was: I'll consider it, I won't pay for it. If
6 your client wants to pay for it -- so basically
7 you blew me off.
8 So, I appreciate you finally come around.
9 And your clients.
10 MR. SCAROLA: Your client's misconduct has
11 clearly convinced me, having now considered it,
12 that it is absolutely necessary.
13 MR. SCOTT: Okay. Now --
14 BY MR. SCAROLA:
15 Q. So now could I get an answer to my
16 question --
17 MR. SCOTT: Now that we have --
18 BY MR. SCAROLA:
19 Q. -- whether the last name on the flight log
20 is spelled exactly the same way as the last name in
21 the photographs?
22 MR. SCOTT: Now that all the lawyers'
23 speeches are done, read the question back and
24 the witness will answer it.
25 MR. SCAROLA: I will repeat the question.
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726506
203
1 BY MR. SCAROLA:
2 Q. Is the last name on the photograph spelled
3 exactly the same way as the last name on the flight
4 log?
5 A. If you're talking about a flight log that
6 I was not on that flight, the answer is yes.
7 Q. All right. Thank you very much, sir.
8 Now, that flight log also shows you flying
9 repeatedly in the company of a woman named
10 correct?
11 A. I've only seen one reference to on
12 November 17. If you want to show me any other
13 references, I'd be happy to look at them.
14 Q. All right, sir. Thank you.
15 Let's go back to the --
16 MR. SCOTT: Are we done with this exhibit?
17 MR. SCAROLA: We are done with the
18 exhibit.
19 MR. SCOTT: Okay. Then let's collect the
20 exhibits so that we don't have a big -- then
21 we'll turn them over to the court reporter to
22 keep safekeeping.
23 There you go, young lady, don't lose
24 those, don't get them wet. And we'll proceed.
25
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726507
204
1 BY MR. SCAROLA:
2 Q. Did you state during the same interview,
3 the ■ interview: "She has said that
4 Bill Clinton was with her at an orgy on Jeffrey's
5 island"?
6 A. I did state that, yes.
7 Q. Was that statement intended as fact,
8 opinion, or was it intended as rhetorical hyperbole?
9 MR. SCOTT: Do you understand the
10 question?
11 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
12 A. It was a statement based on what I
13 believed were the facts at the time I said them.
14 Various newspapers and blogs had placed
15 Bill Clinton on, quote, "orgy island" on -- in the
16 presence of Jeffrey Epstein when there were orgies.
17 And at the time I made that statement, I had a
18 belief that she had accused Bill Clinton of
19 participating or being -- as being a part of or an
20 observer or -- or a witness or a participant in
21 orgies on what was called Jeffrey Epstein's orgy
22 island. That was my state of belief, honest belief
23 at the time I made that statement.
24 BY MR. SCAROLA:
25 Q. Yes, sir. And what I want to know is what
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726508
205
1 the source of that honest belief was? Identify any
2 source that attributed to the
3 statement that Bill Clinton was with her at an orgy
4 on Jeffrey's island.
5 A. We can provide you about, I think, 20
6 newspaper articles and blogs which certainly raise
7 the implication that Bill Clinton had improperly
8 participated in sexual activities on the island
9 either as an observer or as a participant. The
10 issue was raised on Sean Hannity's program. The
11 headlines in various British media had suggested
12 that.
13 It's my belief that
14 intended to convey that impression when she was
15 trying to sell her story to various media, which she
16 successfully sold her story to in Britain, that she
17 wanted to keep that open as a possibility.
18 And then when I firmly declared, based on
19 my research, that Bill Clinton had almost certainly
20 never been on that island, she then made a firm
21 statement that she -- which was a -- which was a
22 perjurious statement, a firm perjurious statement
23 saying that although Bill Clinton had been with her
24 on the island and had had dinner with her, the
25 perjurious statement was that Bill Clinton had been
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726509
206
1 on the island with her.
2 The lie was that she described in great
3 detail a dinner with Bill Clinton and two underaged
4 Russian women who were offered to Bill Clinton for
5 sex but that Bill Clinton turned down.
6 So she then put in her affidavit that
7 although -- perjuriously, although she had seen Bill
8 Clinton on that island, she then stated that she had
9 not had sex with Bill Clinton. To my knowledge,
10 that was -- to my knowledge at least, that was the
11 first time she stated that -- that she not had sex
12 with Bill Clinton. She had certainly implied, or at
13 least some of the media had inferred from her
14 statements that she may very well have observed Bill
15 Clinton in a sexually compromising position.
16 So, when I made that statement to Don
17 Lemon, I had a firm belief, based on reading
18 newspaper accounts and blogs, that it was true.
19 Q. Can you identify a single newspaper that
20 attributed to the statement that
21 Bill Clinton was with her at an orgy on Jeffrey's
22 island?
23 A. I think there -- I don't have them in my
24 head right now. But I do recall reading headlines
25 that talked about things like, sex slave places
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726510
207
1 Clinton on orgy island, things of that kind. I
2 would be happy to provide them for you. I don't
3 have them on the top of my head.
4 Q. There's a big difference between saying
5 that Bill Clinton was on Jeffrey's island and saying
6 that Bill Clinton was at an orgy on Jeffrey's
7 island, isn't there?
8 MR. SCOTT: Objection --
9 BY MR. SCAROLA:
10 Q. Do you recognize a distinction between
11 those statements?
12 MR. SCOTT: Form.
13 A. I don't think that distinction was clearly
14 drawn by the media.
15 BY MR. SCAROLA:
16 Q. I'm asking whether you recognize the
17 distinction?
18 A. Oh, I -- I certainly recognize a
19 distinction.
20 Q. Oh, so
21 A. Let me finish. I certainly recognize a
22 distinction between Bill Clinton being on the
23 island, which I believe she perjuriously put in her
24 affidavit, and Bill Clinton participating actively
25 in an orgy. I also think it's a continuum.
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726511
208
1 And there is the possibility, which I
2 don't personally believe to be true, that he was on
3 the island. There was the possibility, which I
4 don't believe to be true, that he was on the island
5 when orgies were taking place. There was the
6 possibility that he was on the island and observed
7 an orgy, and there was the possibility that he was
8 on the island and participated in an orgy.
9 Newspapers picked up those stories. I'll
10 give you an example of a newspaper that actually
11 said that that she had placed or that I was on the
12 island and -- that I participated in an orgy along
13 with Stephen Hawkings [sic.), the famous physicist
14 from Cambridge University, that was a newspaper
15 published in the Virgin Islands, which falsely
16 claimed that I was at an orgy with Stephen Hawkings.
17 So, many newspapers were suggesting,
18 implying, and I inferred from reading those
19 newspapers that that's what she had said to the
20 media.
21 If I was wrong about that based on
22 subsequent information, I apologize. But I
23 certainly, at the time I said it, believed it and
24 made the statement in good faith in the belief that
25 it was an honest statement.
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726512
209
1 Q. Okay. So you now are withdrawing the
2 statement that you made that said
3 that Bill Clinton was with her at an orgy on
4 Jeffrey's island; that was wrong?
5 A. I don't know whether she ever said that.
6 I would not repeat that statement and have not
7 repeated that statement based on her denial. As
8 soon as she denied it, I never again made that
9 statement and would not again make that statement.
10 Q. You --
11 A. But I did reiterate the fact that she
12 committed perjury when she said she was on the
13 island with Bill Clinton.
14 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the
15 nonresponsive --
16 A. That was the perjurious statement.
17 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the
18 nonresponsive portions of the answer.
19 BY MR. SCAROLA:
20 Q. You have made a reference during that same
21 ■ interview to this woman, referring to
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. Okay. What -- what is a criminal record?
25 A. Well, the way I used the term is that
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726513
210
1
2
3
4
5 . And it was my
6 information that there was a
7
8 Q. How old was she at the time this alleged
9 offense occurred?
10 A. I don't know.
11
12 . To my knowledge, I -- I recall a case
13 where a 14-year-old boy was sentenced as an adult
14 for --
15 MR. SCAROLA: Mr. Scott --
16 A. -- a serious --
17 MR. SCAROLA: -- did my question ask
18 anything about a 14-year-old boy?
19 A. You asked if
20 MR. SCAROLA: Do we really need to listen
21 to this?
22 MR. SCOTT: You're asking questions, my
23 client is providing his response.
24 MR. SCAROLA: No, your client is not
25 responding. Your client is filibustering.
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726514
211
1 Your client is doing everything he can to avoid
2 giving direct answers to these questions.
3 I would appreciate it if you would take a
4 break, counsel your client that the speeches
5 are not helpful to anyone, and especially not
6 helpful to him.
7 MR. SCOTT: If you want to take a break,
8 I'll take a break and I will advise my client
9 whatever I feel is appropriate, not what you
10 instruct me to do.
11 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Well, if you think it
12 might help at all in the progress of this
13 deposition, then I do want to take a break. If
14 you don't think taking a break would be
15 helpful, I don't want to take a break.
16 MR. SCOTT: Do you want to take a break or
17 not?
18 THE WITNESS: I'm going to leave it to
19 your judgment. I'm happy to proceed --
20 MR. SCOTT: Okay. I'll be glad to take a
21 break.
22 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you.
23 MR. SCOTT: I can't say --
24 MR. SCAROLA: Five minutes.
25 MR. SCOTT: -- it will help you or
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726515
212
1 anything but --
2 MR. SCAROLA: I can understand that you
3 don't -- you don't have that control, but if
4 there's any reasonable --
5 MR. SCOTT: You know, Counsel
6 MR. SCAROLA: -- prospect that it might
7 help, let's give it a try.
8 MR. SCOTT: You know, I really don't
9 appreciate the comments about my abilities as
10 an attorney, like I don't have that control and
11 things of nature. It really is --
12 MR. SCAROLA: I don't have the control
13 either.
14 MR. SCOTT: It's not --
15 MR. SCAROLA: I'm not trying to disparage
16 you at all in any respect. I'm just suggesting
17 that --
18 MR. SCOTT: Okay.
19 MR. SCAROLA: -- there is reason to doubt
20 that it will do any good. But I want to give
21 it a try.
22 MR. SCOTT: Okay. Fine. Thank you.
23 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you.
24 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The
25 time is approximately 9:49 a.m.
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726516
213
1 (Recess was held from 9:49 a.m. until 10:01 a.m.)
2 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the record.
3 The time is approximately 10:01 a.m.
4 MR. SCOTT: If you've finished your bagel,
5 we're ready to proceed, I think.
6 MR. SCAROLA: I think we are. I was
7 actually ready to proceed a little bit earlier,
8 but we'll proceed now.
9 BY MR. SCAROLA:
10 Q. Mr. Dershowitz, do you agree with the
11 basic concept that one is presumed to be innocent
12 until proven guilty?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Has
15 t any time, anywhere, at any
16 age?
17 A. I don't know the answer to that question,
18 but I do know that she was
19 and
20
21
22 Q. To the extent that anyone might interpret
23 your comment that was ever
24 , they would be drawing a false
25 conclusion as far as you know, correct?
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726517
214
1 A. As far as I know, I don't know of her
2 having convicted of any crime. But I do know that
3
4 And I don't think she contested that. I don't think
5 there's any dispute about the fact that
6
7 Q. When did you find out about this alleged
8
9 A. As soon as the false allegation against me
10 was made public, I got call after call after call
11 from people telling me about , about
12 your 22 clients. The calls just kept coming in
13 because there was such outrage at this false
14 allegation being directed against me.
15 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the
16 unresponsive portion of the answer.
17 BY MR. SCAROLA:
18 Q. You found out as soon as the CVRA
19 complaint was -- the CVRA allegations referencing
20 you were filed; is that correct?
21 A. I didn't say that. I said as soon as they
22 were made public and as soon as the newspapers
23 carried these false stories, I received phone calls
24 and I learned about -- I learned about her encounter
25 with the criminal justice system.
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726518
215
1 Q. That would certainly have been prior to
2 February 23rd of 2015, correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 MR. SCOTT: Are you going back to the
5 exhibit now with the newspapers and
6 MR. SCAROLA: Not yet.
7 MR. SCOTT: Okay.
8 BY MR. SCAROLA:
9 Q. Having reviewed the available airplane
10 flight logs, you are aware that Bill Clinton flew on
11 at least 15 occasions with Jeffrey Epstein on his
12 private plane, correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Have you ever attempted to get flight log
15 information with regard to Former President
16 Clinton's other private airplane travel?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Never made a public records request --
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. under the Freedom of Information Act
21 with regard to those records?
22 A. Well, we have made a Freedom of
23 Information request. My -- my attorney in New York,
24 Louis Freeh, the former head of the FBI, has made a
25 FOIA request for all information that would
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726519
216
1 conclusively prove that Bill Clinton was never on
2 Jeffrey Epstein's island, yes.
3 Q. And you were denied those records,
4 correct?
5 A. No, no, no.
6 Q. Oh, you got them?
7 MR. SCOTT: Well, wait a minute. Let's
8 take it slow. Ask a question.
9 A. As any lawyer knows, FOIA requests take a
10 long, long period of time. So they were neither
11 denied nor were they given to us. They are very
12 much in process.
13 BY MR. SCAROLA:
14 Q. When was
15 A. While we're talking about may I
16 complete -- I want to amend one answer I gave
17 previously.
18 While we're talking about the plane logs,
19 I must say that during the recess, my wife Googled
20 and found out that she was, in fact, •
21 years old in_, at the time she flew on that
22 airplane. So that my characterization of her as
23 about ■ years old is absolutely correct.
24 And the implication that you sought to
25 draw by showing me those pictures was not only
www.phi sre orting.com
EFTA02726520
217
1 demonstrably false, but you could have easily
2 discovered that the implication you were drawing was
3 demonstrably false by simply taking one second and
4 Googling her name as my wife did.
5 BY MR. SCAROLA:
6 Q. And so at 25 years old, she wasn't a young
7 woman?
8 A. She was not the kind of woman that I was
9 describing as underage. She was a mature, serious,
10 I think I said in my public statements a model. I
11 wasn't aware at the time that see was working for
12 , but Google demonstrates that.
13 And I described her exactly, in exactly the right
14 terms, a serious person.
15 I always saw her dressed when I saw her --
16 I saw her maybe on two or three occasions, dressed
17 appropriately. She was a serious adult worker and I
18 think you insult and demean her when you suggest
19 that anything other
DataSet-10
Unknown
4 pages
From: "Weinstein, Marc A
To:
Cc: Andrew Tomback
Subject: RE: SDNY investigation
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 15:51:04 +0000
we have the transcript of deposition.
Regards,
Marc
Marc A. Weinstein I Partner
Chair. Vole Collar IiefenSe
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-
mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this
message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
From:
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 1:40 PM
To: Weinstein, Marc A.
Cc: Andrew Tomback
Subject: RE: SDNY investigation
CAUTION: This email was sent by someone outside of the Firm.
Thanks, Marc. We'll look forward to hearing from you, and thanks for your assistance with this.
From: Weinstein, Marc A
Sent: Friday, September 11, 20201:35 PM
To
Cc: Andrew Tombac
Subject: RE: SDNY investigation
Thanks It wasn't clear to me from the call that it was the plaintiff's deposition that you were after, as opposed to
another witness in the case. Now that it's clear, we will see if we can track it down.
Regards,
Marc
EFTA00078964
Marc A. Weinstein I Partner
Chair, Valle Collar Defense
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-
mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this
• ration is required please request a hard-copy version.
From
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 1:30 PM
To: Weinstein, Marc A.
Subject: RE: SDNY investigation
CAUTION: This email was sent by someone outside of the Firm.
Marc,
Thanks for speaking earlier. The plaintiff's name is-who is represented by Jack Scarola. The deposition
took place in 2009, and Jeffrey Epstein was represented by Mark Luttier and Bob Critton of Critton, Luttier, and Coleman
LLP in West Palm Beach.
Thanks very much,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
From: Weinstein, Marc A.
Sent: Friday, September 11, 202011:11 AM
To
Cc: Andrew Tombac
u jec : : Imes iga ion
just realized that you didn't share with us the deponent's name for the transcript you are looking for. Let us
know so that we can make the appropriate inquiries.
Best regards,
Marc
Marc A. Weinstein I Partner
Chair, While Collar Defense
EFTA00078965
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
This message contains confidential information arid is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-
mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain v'reses. The sender therefore does riot accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this
verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
From:
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 11:14 AM
To: Weinstein, Marc
Cc: Andrew Tomback
u jec : : inves igation
CAUTION: This email was sent by someone outside of the Firm.
That works well, thanks very much. Talk to you then.
From: Weinstein, Marc A.
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 11:13 AM
To
Cc: Andrew Tomback
Subject: Re: SDNY inves igation
if 11:00 works, I can send a dial-in.
Marc A. Weinstein I Partner
Chair. White Collar Defense
Hushes Hubbard & Reed LLP
„ontains confident,o rif,- ,lation arid is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-
mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,
• • • • • • "P-efore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this
required please request a hard-copy version.
On Sep 10, 2020, at 10:46 AM, wrote:
CAUTION: This email was sent by someone outside of the Firm.
Andy and Marc,
Are you available for a brief call tomorrow? I'm available before 1 p.m., if there's a time that works for you in that window.
Thanks very much,
EFTA00078966
iiir
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
EFTA00078967
DataSet-10
Unknown
1 pages
From: "Tina L. Campbell" <
To: "lesleyjee®gmail.com"
Cc: "Scott J. Link"
Subject: Deposition Date
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 16:33:19 +0000
Hi Lesley,
Are you open on November 16 for your deposition in the i ane! '
Thank you.
RIAR Tina L. Campbell, CP/FRP
Certified and Florida Registered Paralegal
LINK & ROCKENBACH, PA
1555 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 930
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
I Email:
This e-mail may contain privileged or confidential information. If it is not meant for you, please delete it and notify us immediately. Please confirm
receipt of time sensitive communications because email deliveries may be delayed or unsuccessful. We do not provide tax advice. Our
communications may not be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.
EFTA00483837