DataSet-9
Unknown
1 pages
From: William Riley deposition transcript would you email me a copy of it?
Bill Riley
mailing address
5645 Coral Ridge Drive, #391
Coral Springs, FL 33076
Office
Fax
Cell
Personal Fax
www.rileykiroly.com
This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
confidential. subject to the attorney/client privilege or any other privilege afforded it under applicable state and/or federal law. If you are not the intended recipient
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or fdes associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Information contained in this email may
have been obtained through a third party source. We do not guarantee the accuracy or usefulness of such information. Furthermore, we expressly disclaim any
liability associated with the information provided by any third party sources.
EFTA00770654
DataSet-9
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
303.831.7364
EFTA00605112
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. and 14
II. FIFTH AMENDMENT BY EPSTEIN, OR NOT ADMISSIBLE
IN THIS CASE AGAINST MS. MAXWELL 15
III. PLAINTIFF'S BAD FAITH DISCOVERY TACTICS SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED
WITH EXTRA TIME 18
1. Plaintiff's Rule 26 Revolving Door 18
2. Plaintiff's Recurrent Rule 45 Violations 19
IV. MS. MAXWELL'S GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY 20
V. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO TAKE RE-DEPOSE PLAINTIFF AND TO DEPOSE
SHARON CHURCHER EXISTS 23
VI. ALTERNATIVELY, ALL OTHER DEADLINES NEED TO BE EXTENDED 24
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 26
EFTA00605113
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.
Intern. Terminals, Inc., 286 F.R.D. 282 (E.D. Va. 2012) 6
Fox Industries, Inc. v. Gurovich, No. 03-CV-5166, 2006 WL 2882580, *11 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 6,
2006) 19
Grochowski v. Phoenix Const., 318 F.3d 80, 86 (2d Cir.2003). 5
lantosca 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
ii
EFTA00605114
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 Plaintiffs 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
only seeks to take three de ositions beyond the limit of ten and that she no longer seeks depositions of witnesses
Emmy Taylor, JoJo Fontanilla. and Michael Reiter. (Doc. #224 at 2 n.4) She does not state her
intentions with respect to other witnesses, like Maria Alessi, that she noticed but never deposed. However.
comparing that Reply with her other motions, counsel has deduced the remaining witnesses from whom Plaintiff
apparently seeks to secure deposition testimony in July. Plaintiff has already taken 6 depositions and another
scheduled tomorrow. Thus by the close of discovery she will have taken 7 of her allotted 10 depositions.
1
EFTA00605115
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 Plaintiffs Deposition.
2
EFTA00605116
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
EFTA00605117
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., 1:Id's Opp'n to Mot. to Stay (Doc. #20) at 17 n.8 ("As of the date of this filing, zero (0) disposition [sic]
notices have been propounded on the Defendant").
4
EFTA00605118
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 faith and negligent
litigation tactics and should not be sanctioned by this Court.
The failure to timely secure the depositions of the remaining six witnesses is through no
fault of Ms. Maxwell or her counsel. As to these witnesses, Ms. Maxwell and her counsel have
played no role in hindering Plaintiff's ability to depose the witnesses; in fact, as to four of the six
Plaintiff attempted to serve subpoenas on the witnesses before ever providing notice to the
defense, in clear violation of Rule 45(a)(4).
LEGAL AUTHORITY
Rule 16(b) permits modification of a scheduling order only upon a showing of "good
cause." To satisfy the good cause standard "the party must show that, despite its having
exercised diligence, the applicable deadline could not have been reasonably met." Sokol
Holdings, Inc. v. BMD Munai, Inc., 05 Civ. 3749 (KMW)(DF), 2009 WL 2524611 at *7
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2009) (emphasis added) (citing Rent-A-Center Inc. v. 47 Mamaroneck Ave.
Corp., 215 F.R.D. 100, 104 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (McMahon, J.)); accord Parker v. Columbia
Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d 326, 340 (2d Cir. 2000) (" IGJood 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
EFTA00605119
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. 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);
lantosta 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
EFTA00605120
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 faith 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
EFTA00605121
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
EFTA00605122
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
EFTA00605123
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 faith showing" of efforts to comply with the schedule and "an inability because of Hague
Convention problems," before it would consider changing the Scheduling Order. Ms. Maxwell
submits that waiting until June 17, two weeks before the end of discovery, to even begin the
Hague Convention process falls far short of any such good faith showing and the request for
leave to take Mr. Gow's testimony beyond July 1 should be denied.
C. Jean Luc Brunel
With regard to Jean Luc Brunel, Plaintiff simply asserts that he was "subpoenaed," and
"set for mid-June deposition[]," but "through counsel" has "requested we change the dates of
[his] deposition." Mot. at 4. That is her entire argument. She omits key facts that would,
10
EFTA00605124
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
EFTA00605125
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
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
EFTA00605126
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
EFTA00605127
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.s9 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
tecum. She did not explain, however, why she waited until April to try to serve these two
witnesses, about whom her attorneys have known since 2008. She also has not explained to this
Court any legally relevant or admissible evidence that either possess, nor how she intends to
introduce that evidence in a trial of this defamation claim between Plaintiff and Ms. Maxwell.
Apart from these witnesses stated intent to take the Fifth Amendment which renders their
testimony inadmissible, as discussed more fully below, neither witness has any relevant
testimony to offer because Plaintiff never made a public statement about either one of them.
9 Actually, in Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Serve Three Deposition Subpoenas by Means Other than Personal
Service, Plaintiff details that Ms. 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 herformer counsel.
14
EFTA00605128
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 Plaintiffs 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 Marincova will be admissible in the trial of this defamation
matter (where none of those individuals are parties) based on an "adverse inference" that can be
I5
EFTA00605129
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
EFTA00605130
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/20/16 Page 20 of 29
• Likewise,
Id.
I7
EFTA00605131
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 FAITH DISCOVERY TACTICS SHOULD NOT BE
REWARDED WITH EXTRA TIME
1. Plaintiff's Rule 26 Revolving Door
Plaintiff's army of lawyers (who collectively have been litigating matters related to
Jeffrey Epstein since 2008) served their Rule 26 initial disclosures on November 11, 2015.
Those disclosures listed 94 individual witnesses with knowledge regarding the facts of this case,
yet provided addresses (only of their counsel) as to just two, Jeffrey Epstein and Alan
Dershowitz. Plaintiff then also listed categories of witnesses such as "all other then-minor girls,
whose identities Plaintiff will attempt to determine" and "all pilots, chauffeurs, chefs, and other
employees of Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. Plaintiff claimed as to her Rule 26 disclosures
that "only a fraction of those individuals will actually be witnesses in this case, and as discovery
progresses, the list will be further narrowed." (Doc. #20 at 17) The opposite has happened.
Between November 11 and March 11, Plaintiff trimmed her Rule 26 list of persons with
knowledge from 94 to 69, inexplicably removing 34 names, but adding 12 more. She removed,
18
EFTA00605132
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 11 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
'° 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
EFTA00605133
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, , Plaintiff served the subpoena prior to
providing notice. See Menninger Decl. Ex.'. 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. Hall, 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 FAITH EFFORTS TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY
Counsel for Ms. Maxwell only learned of the Rule 45 violation this past weekend after reviewing certificates of
service provided by Plaintiff's counsel last week, without sufficient time to file a motion to quash the subpoena on
Ms. Hall.
20
EFTA00605134
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 Yr 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."I3 She then proposed a calendar which scheduled 13 additional depositions for
Plaintiff and only 2 days (actually ti 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
EFTA00605135
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 describe
DataSet-10
Unknown
1 pages
To: Lesley Groff[
From: Luciano Fontanilla
Sent Thur 6/9/2016 5:40:49 PM
Subject: Re: CPR/AED Training Monday June 13, 2pm at 71st!
I had a meeting with my lawyer for my deposition same day and time thanks
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 9, 2016, at 1:11 PM, Lesley Groff wrote:
Jeffrey would like you ALL to attend a CPR/AED training this coming Monday
June 13th at 2pm. Jeffrey is paying for this clinic per the person, so if you
absolutely cannot make it, please let me know TODAY as we must send a check
out tomorrow to cover the expenses.
r I know you will still be away, so cannot make it...
ina, I know you are on the island and cannot attend...
Everyone else, please respond back TODAY!
Please arrive 71st at 1:45 if you will not already be on the premise.
Thank you, Lesley
EFTA_R1_00588129
EFTA02050514
DataSet-9
Unknown
1 pages
From: ==. >
To: Jeffrey Epstein
Subject: Chester Brewer
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 20:20:35 +0000
Chester Brewer needs to coordinate a date for your deposition in the Sitrick mess...he says
you can do it at your office on STT or at Erika Kellerhals office if you like...the dates
available are March 17-26...might you be able to give a date that would work for you? He
says it should not take long...
Chester:
EFTA00354437
DataSet-11
Unknown
1 pages
To: Jeffrey Epsteirteevacation©gmail.com]
From: story cowles
Sent Mon 3/22/2010 5:09:19 PM
Subject: Rich K
Rich has NOT been served yet.
Rich is tentatively scheduled for deposition this Friday (26th) at 10am in NYC.
EFTA_R1_01495441
EFTA02426527
DataSet-9
Unknown
40 pages
07433-RWS---Bee. 05/25/-1
COMPOSITE
EXHIBIT 1
EFTA01070810
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 161-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 2 of 40
AD SBA (Rev. 12/13) Subpoena to Testily at a Depositionin a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
Southern District ofNew York
Vingiaia L.
L Giuffre
Naha),
V. Civil Action No. 15-CV-07433-RWS
Ghislaine Maxwell
Defendant
SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: JEFFREY EPSTEIN
(NOW OfIx ',CM Al 111:0/// girl, stnymena it Z:reereth
drestimony: YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the time, date, and place set forth below to testify at a
deposition to be taken in this civil action. If you are an organization, you must designate one or more officers, directors,
or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on
your behalf about the following matters, or
those set forth in an attachment:
Piuce: BORIS, Schiller & Flexner LIP, 575 Lexington 1Date and Time:
Avenue, New York. NY 10022; 954-356-0011
06/142016 at 9:00 a.m.
The deposition will be recorded by this method: Videography and Stenography
11Production: You, or your representatives, must also bring with you to the deposition the following documents,
electronically stored information, or objects, and must permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the
material: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A.
The following provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 are attached — Rule 45(c), relating to the place of compliance;
Rule 45(d), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena; and Rulc 45(e) and (g), relating to your duty
to
respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences ofnot doing so.
Date: 05113/2016
CLERK OF COURT
OR
Signature ofClerk or Depay Clerk
The name, address, e-mail address, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name rty) Virginia Giuffre
, who issues or requests this subpoena. are:
Sigrid S. MeCawley, BSF, LLP, 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., #1200. Ft. Lauderdale, FL, 33301; 954-356-0011;
smonwlevAbsfilp.com
Notice to the person who Issues or requests this subpoena
If this subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible
things, a notice
and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party in this case before it is served
on the person to whom it is
directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(aX4).
EFTA01070811
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 161-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 3 of 40
AO SSA (Pm I 2/13) Subpoena to Inttify at a Deposition in a Civil Action (Page 2)
ss
Civil Action No. 15-CV-07433-RWS
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not befiled with the court unless required by Fed R. Civ. P. 454
I received this subpoena for (name ofindividual and fide, ifany)
on (dale)
O I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named individual as follows:
on (dory ; or
_•__
.•
-
•
O I returned the subpoena unexecuted because:
Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also
tendered to the witless the fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of
$
My fees arc $ for travel and S for services, for a total of S 0.00
I declare under penally of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server's signature
Printedname and title
Server'saddress
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc..
EFTA01070812
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 161-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 4 of 40
AO SSA (Rev. 121];) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Clad Action (Yap 3)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/13)
(r) Place of Compliance. (i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research. development,
or COOIMCICIll information; or
(I) For a Trio; Daring, or Deposition A subpoena may command a (ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does
person to sum' a trial, hearing, or dm:ma:non only as follows: not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results lion the expert's
(A) within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or study that was not requested by a party.
regularly amuck; business in person; or (C) SPec(fring Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances
(B) within the state where die person resides, is employed. or regularly described in Rule 45(d)(3)01), the court may, instead of quashing or
transacts business in person, if the person modifying a subpoena, ceder appearance or production under specified
(I) is a party or a party's officer. or condition if the serving party:
(II) is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial (i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be
expense. otherwise met without undue hardship; mid
ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.
(2) For Other Discovery. A stimoena may command:
(A) production of documents, electronically stored information, or (e) Duties to Responding to a Subpoena.
tangible things al a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is
employed. or regularly transacts business in person: and (I) NoticingDocuments or Electronieully StoredInformation. These
(B) inspection ofpremises al the premises to be inspected. procedures apply to producing documents or eleennicalty stored
information:
(d) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena; Enforcement. (A) Docurneirts A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents
must produce them as they an kept in the ordinary course of business or
(I) A voiding Undue Bunko or h]pense; Sanctions. A party or attorney must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand.
responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps (B) Fennfor Prothreing Electronically Stored infirrmation Nor Specified
to avoid imposing undue Darden or expense on a person subject to the If a subpoena does not specify a fern for producing electronically stored
subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in
enforce this duty and impose au apyroprime sanction—which may include which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.
lost earnings and reasonable attorney's ties—on a party or attorney who (C)Ekctronrcolor Stored information Produced in Only One Farm The
fails to comply. person responding need not produce the same electronically stored
information in more than one form.
(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection (0) loam:sable Electronic* StoredInformation. The person
(A) Appearance War Required. A person wrinnruided to produce responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored infonnarian
documents, electronically stored information. or tangible things, or to from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because
permit the inspeakin of premises, need not appear in person al the place of olundue bunko Or cost On motion to canpci discovery in for a protective
production or inspection unless also commanded to appear tbr a deposition. order, the person responding must show that the information is not
heating, or trial. reasonably accessible because of undue burden of cost. if that showing is
(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the
things or to permit inspection may sent on the party or attorney designated requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule
in the subpoena a mitten objection to inspecting, copying, testing, or 26(b)(2)(C) The none may specify conditions fns the discovery.
sampling any of all of the materials or to inspecting the premises—et to
producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. (2) (Tainting Privilege or Protean&
The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for (A) Information Withheld A person withholding subpoenaed information
compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made. under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as Irialtprepantion
the following rules apply: material must:
(I) AI any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party (I) expressly make the claim; and
may move the court for the district nacre compliance is required for an (Ii) describe the mune of the withheld documents. communication, or
order compelling production or inspection. tangible things in a manna that, without revealing information itself
00 These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the privileged or protected, will enable the panes to assess the claim.
order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from (B) information Produced. If information produced in response to a
significant expense molting from compliancy. subpoena is subject ton claim of privilege or ofprotection as
trid•preparation material, the person making the claim may no* any party
(3) Quashing or Afallyiny a Subpoena. that received the in fomiatron of the claim and the basis for it. A net being
notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified
(A) When Required On timely motion, the court for the district where information and any copies it has. must not use or disclose the information
complitmee is required must quash or modify a subpoena that: until the claim is resolved, must take reasonable steps to retrieve time
infumtalion if the party disclosed it before being notified; arid may promptly
(I) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; present the information under seal to the court for the district what
(II) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits compliance is required for a determination of the claim. The person who
specified in Rule 45(e); produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no resolved.
exception or waiver applies: or
(Iv) subjects a person to undue burden. (g) Contempt.
(B) When Fernand. To protect a person subject to ur affected by a The court for the district where compliance is required—and also, after a
subpoena, the coin for the district where compliance is requited may, on motion is transferred, the issuing coun—may hold in contempt a person
motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires: who. having been served. fails without adequate excuse to obey the
subpoena or an order rehired to it.
For access to subpoena mmerials, sec fed It Civ P. 45(a) Committee Note (2013).
EFTA01070813
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 161-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 5 of 40
Jeffrey Epstein
EXHIBIT A
DEFINITIONS
Wherever they hereafter appear the following words and phrases have the following
meanings:
I. "Agent" shall mean any agent, employee, officer, director, attorney, independent
contractor or any other person acting, or purporting to act, at the discretion of or on behalf of
another.
2. "Correspondence" or "communication" shall mean all written or verbal
communications, by any and all methods, including without limitation, letters, memoranda,
and/or electronic mail, by which information, in whatever form, is stored, transmitted or
received; and, includes every manner or means of disclosure, transfer or exchange, and every
disclosure, transfer or exchange of information whether orally or by Document or otherwise,
face-to-fact, by telephone, telecopies, c-mail, text, modem transmission, computer generated
message, mail, personal delivery or otherwise.
3. "Plaintiff' in the above captioned action shall mean the plaintiff Virginia Giuffre
formerly known as Virginia Roberts.
4. "Defendant" in the above captioned action shall mean the defendant Ghislaine
Maxwell and her employees, representatives or agents.
5. "Document" shall mean all written and graphic matter, however produced or
reproduced, and each and every thing from which information can be processed, transcribed,
transmitted, restored, recorded, or memorialized in any way, by any means, regardless of
technology or form. It includes, without limitation, correspondence, memoranda, notes,
notations, diaries, papers, books, accounts, newspaper and magazine articles, advertisements,
photographs, videos, notebooks, ledgers, letters, telegrams, cables, telex messages, facsimiles,
2
EFTA01070814
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 161-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 6 of 40
Jeffrey Epstein
EXHIBIT A
contracts, offers, agreements, reports, objects, tangible things, work papers, transcripts, minutes,
reports and recordings of telephone or other conversations or communications, or of interviews
or conferences, or of other meetings, occurrences or transactions, affidavits, statements,
summaries, opinions, tests, experiments, analysis, evaluations, journals, balance sheets, income
statements, statistical records, desk calendars, appointment books, lists, tabulations, sound
recordings, data processing input or output, microfilms, checks, statements, receipts, summaries,
computer printouts, computer programs, text messages, e-mails, information kept in computer
hard drives, other computer drives of any kind, computer tape back-up, CD-ROM, other
computer disks ofany kind, teletypes, telecopics, invoices, worksheets, primed matter of every
kind and description, graphic and oral records and representations of any kind, and electronic
"writings" and "recordings" as set forth in the Federal Rules ofEvidence, including but not
limited to, originals or copies where originals are not available. Any Document with any marks
such as initials, comments or notations of any kind ofnot deemed to be identical with one
without such marks and is produced as a separate Document. Where there is any question about
whether a tangible item otherwise described in these requests falls within the definition of
"Document" such tangible item shall be produced.
6. "Employee" includes a past or present officer, director, agent or servant, including
any attorney (associate or partner) or paralegal.
7. "Including" means including without limitation.
8. "Jeffrey Epstein" includes Jeffrey Epstein and any entities owned or controlled by
Jeffrey Epstein, any employee, agent, attorney, consultant, or representative of Jeffrey Epstein.
3
EFTA01070815
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 161-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 7 of 40
Jeffrey Epstein
EXHIBIT A
9. "Ghislaine Maxwell" includes Ghislaine Maxwell and any entities owned or
controlled by Ghislaine Maxwell, any employee, agent, attorney, consultant, or representative of
Ghislaine Maxwell.
10. "Person(s)" includes natural persons, proprietorships, governmental agencies,
corporations, partnerships, trusts, joint ventures, groups, associations, organizations or any other
legal or business entity.
11. "You" or "Your" hereinafter mcans Jeffrey Epstein and any employee, agent,
attorney, consultant, related entities or other representative of Jeffrey Epstein.
NSTRUCT1ONS
1 Production ofDocuments and items requested herein shall be made at the offices of
Boics Schiller & Flexner, LLP, 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200, Fort Lauderdale,
Florida 33301, no later than five (5) days before the date noticed for Your deposition, or, if an
alternate date is agreed upon, no later than five (5) days before the agreed-upon date.
2. Unless indicated otherwise, the Relevant Period for this Request is from 1999 to the
present. A Document should be considered to be within the relevant time frame if it refers or
relates to communications, meetings or other events or Documents that occurred or were created
within that time frame, regardless of the date of creation of the responsive Document.
3. This Request calls for the production of all responsive Documents in Your
possession, custody or control without regard to the physical location of such Documents.
4. If any Document requested was in Your possession or control, but is no longer in its
possession or control, state what disposition was made of said Document, the reason for such
disposition, and the date of such disposition.
4
EFTA01070816
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 161-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 8 of 40
Jeffrey Epstein
EXHIBIT A
5. For the purposes of reading, interpreting, or construing the scope of these requests,
the terms used shall be given their most expansive and inclusive interpretation. This includes,
without limitation the following:
a) wherever appropriate herein, the singular form of a word shall be
interpreted as plural and vice versa.
b) "And" as well as "or" shall be construed either disjunctively or
conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope hereof any
information (as defined herein) which might otherwise be construed to be
outside the scope of this discovery request.
c) "Any" shall be understood to include and encompass "all" and vice versa.
d) wherever appropriate herein, the masculine form of a word shall be
interpreted as feminine and vice versa.
e) "Including" shall mean "including without limitation."
6. If You are unable to answer or respond fully to any Document request, answer or
respond to the extent possible and specify the reasons for Your inability to answer or respond in
full. If the recipient has no Documents responsive to a particular Request, the recipient shall so
state.
7. Unless instructed otherwise, each Request shall be construed independently and not
by reference to any other Request for the purpose of limitation.
8. The words "relate," "relating," "relates," or any other derivative thereof, as used
herein includes concerning, referring to, responding to, relating to, pertaining to, connected with,
comprising, memorializing, evidencing, commenting on, regarding, discussing, showing,
describing, reflecting. analyzing or constituting.
9. "Identify" means, with respect to any "person," or any reference to the "identity" of
any "person," to provide the name, home address, telephone number, business name, business
5
EFTA01070817
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 161-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 9 of 40
Jeffrey Epstein
EXHIBIT A
address, business telephone number, e-mail address, and a description of each such person's
connection with the events in question.
10. "Identify" means, with respect to any "Document," or any reference to stating the
"identification" of any "Document," provide the title and date of each such Document, the name
and address of the party or parties responsible for the preparation of each such Document, the
name and address of the party who requested or required the preparation and on whose behalf it
was prepared, the name and address of the recipient or recipients to each such Document and the
present location of any and all copies of each such Document, and the names and addresses of all
persons who have custody or control of each such Document or copies thereof.
11. In producing Documents, if the original of any Document cannot be located, a copy
shall be produced in lieu thereof, and shall be legible and bound or stapled in the same manner as
the original.
12. Any copy of a Document that is not identical shall be considered a separate
Document.
13. If any requested Document cannot be produced in full, produce the Document to the
extent possible, specifying each reason for Your inability to produce the remainder of the
Document stating whatever information, knowledge or belief which You have concerning the
portion not produced.
14. If any Document requested was at any one time in existence but are no longer in
existence, then so state, specifying for each Document (a) the type of Document; (b) the types of
information contained thereon; (c) the date upon which it ceased to exist; (d) the circumstances
under which it ceased to exist; (e) the identity of all person having knowledge of the
6
EFTA01070818
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 161-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 10 of 40
Jeffrey Epstein
EXHIBIT A
circumstances under which it ceased to exist; and (I) the identity of all persons having
knowledge or who had knowledge of the contents thereof and each individual's address.
15. All Documents shall be produced in the same order as they are kept or maintained by
You in the ordinary course of business.
16. You are requested to produce all drafts and notes, whether typed, handwritten or
otherwise, made or prepared in connection with the requested Documents, whether or not used.
17. Documents attached to each other shall not be separated.
IS. Documents shall be produced in such fashion as to identify the department, branch or
office in whose possession they were located and, where applicable, the natural person in whose
possession they were found, and business address of each Document's custodian(s).
19. If any Document responsive to the request is withheld, in all or part, based upon any
claim ofprivilege or protection, whether based on statute or otherwise, state separately for each
Document, in addition to any other information requested: (a) the specific request which calls for
the production; (b) the nature of the privilege claimed; (c) its date; (d) the name and address of
each author; (e) the name and address of each of the addresses and/or individual to whom the
Document was distributed, if any; (f) the title (or position) of its author; (g) type of tangible
object, e.g., letter, memorandum, telegram, chart, report, recording, disk, etc.; (h) its title and
subject matter (without revealing the information as to which the privilege is claimed); (i) with
sufficient specificity to permit the Court to make full determination as to whether the claim of
privilege is valid, each and every fact or basis on which You claim such privilege; and (j)
whether the Document contained an attachment and to the extent You are claiming a privilege as
to the attachment, a separate log entry addressing that privilege claim.
7
EFTA01070819
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 161-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 11 of 40
Jeffrey Epstein
EXHIBIT A
20. If any Document requested herein is withheld, in all or part, based on a claim that
such Document constitutes attorney work product, provide all of the information described in
Instruction No. 19 and also identify the litigation in connection with which the Document and the
information it contains was obtained and/or prepared.
21. Plaintiff does not seek and does not require the production of multiplecopics of
identical Documents.
22. This Request is deemed to be continuing. if, after producing these Documents, You
obtain or become aware of any further information, Documents, things, or information
responsive to this Request, You arc required to so state by supplementing Your responses and
producing such additional Documents to Plaintiff
8
EFTA01070820
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 161-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 12 of 40
Jeffrey [pstcin
EXHIBIT,
DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED PURSUANT To THIS SUBPOENA
1. All video tapes, audio tapes, photographs, including film negatives or film slides,
CD's, or any other print or electronic media depicting You in the presence of Virginia Roberts
(a/kJa Virginia Giuffre) or Ghislaine Maxwell.
2. All video tapes, audio tapes, photographs, including fi lm negatives or fi lm slides,
CD's, or any other print or electronic media depicting Virginia Roberts.
3. All video tapes, audio tapes, photographs, including film negatives or fi lm slides,
CD's, or any other print or electronic media depicting Ghislaine Maxwell.
4. All video tapes, audio tapes, photographs, including film negatives or film slides.
CD's, or any other print or electronic media depicting females under the age of 18 (or purporting
to be under the age of 18), including pornographic media, whether commercial or amateur.
5. All Documents or other media (including photographs) describing or depicting
nude, or partially nude, females in Your possession, including, but not limited to, all Documents
or other media describing or depicting how such photographs were displayed in Your various
residences.
6. All Documents relating to Virginia Roberts.
7. All Documents relating to Ghislaine Maxwell, including all Documents related to
communications with Ghislaine Maxwell from 1999 - present.
8. All Documents relating to any members of Ghislaine Maxwell's family, including
all Documents related to communications with any members of Ghislaine Maxwell's family
from 1970 present.
9. All Documents related to communications with Alan Dcrshowitz from 1999
present.
9
EFTA01070821
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 161-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 13 of 40
Jeffrey Epstein
EXHIBIT A
10. All Documents relating to, and all media depicting, any of the following
individuals from 1999 — present: Emmy Taylor, Eva Dubin, Glen Dubin, Alan Dershowitz, Jean
Luc Brunel, Sarah Kellen (a/k/a Sara Kensington and Sarah Vickers), Nadia Marcinkova (a/k/a
Nadia Marcinko), Nadia Bjorlin, or any females under the age of 18.
11. All Documents relating to any agreements (including by not limited to
confidentiality agreements, indemnification agreements, employment agreements, or agreements
to pay legal fees) between You Ghislaine Maxwell, whether such agreements are written, verbal,
or merely understood among the parties and not otherwise expressed, whether or not such
agreements were ever executed or carried out.
12. All Documents relating to any credit cards paid for by You that were used by
Ghislaine Maxwell (or any related entity) or Virginia Giuffre from 1999 — present.
13. All telephone records associated with You, including cell phone records, from
1999 present, that show any communications with Ghislaine Maxwell.
14. All Documents relating to calendars, schedules or appointments for You from
1999 - present that relate to visits with, or communications with, Ghislaine Maxwell and females
under the age of 18.
15. All Documents identifying any individuals who provided You a massage.
16. All Documents identifying any individuals who You paid for sexual acts, either
with You or with other individuals.
17. All Documents identifying any females recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell for either
work, sexual acts, or companionship for You.
18. All Documents relating to any females Ghislaine Maxwell introduced to You.
19. All Documents relating to any females You paid to perform any kind of service,
10
EFTA01070822
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 161-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 14 of 40
Jeffrey Epstein
EXHIBIT A
including but not limited to, work as an assistant, a massage therapist, sex worker, or companion.
20. All Documents relating to Your travel from the period of 1999 — present, when
that travel was either with Ghislainc Maxwell or another female, or to meet Ghislaine Maxwell
or other females, including but not limited to commercial flights, helicopters, passport records,
records indicating passengers traveling with You, hotel records, and credit card receipts.
21. All Documents relating to payments You made, whether as cash, stock, real
estate, or in-kind, to Ghislaine Maxwell, or any related entity to Ghislainc Maxwell, including
the TerraMar Project.
22. All Documents identifying any individuals to whom Virginia Roberts provided a
massage.
11
EFTA01070823
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 161-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 15 of 40
AO 88A (Rev. 12/11)Subpoeos to Testify at a Deena:lion in a CAA Aalon
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
Southern District ofNew York
Wginia L Giuffre
Plain
v. Civil Action No. 15-CV-07433-RWS
Greslain° Maxwell
Defendant
SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION
To• SARAH KELLEN (AKA SARA KENSINGTON AND SARAH VICKERS)
If: per:on to %, :•amait Iva; tar
ITestimony: YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the time, date, and place set forth below to re,stify at a
deposition to be taken in this civil action. If you are an organization, you must designate one or more officers, directors,
or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on your behalf about the following matters, or
those sct forth in an attachment:
fhtte :in.: I
" acc- • Boles, Schiller & Planer LLP, 575 Lexington Avenue,
New York, NY 10022; 954-356-0011 06/22/2016 9:00 am
. _
The deposition will be record C by this method: Viddegraphy and Stenography
Production: You, or your representatives, must also bring with you to the deposition the following documents,
electronically stored information, or objects, and must permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the
material: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A
The following provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 are poached — Rule 45(c), relating to the place of compliance;
Rule 45(d), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena; and Rule 45(e) and (g), relating to your duty to
respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so.
05/13/2016
Date:
CLERK OF COURT
OR
Dritattre gfCterk w Deputy Clerk :Wan • gnalure
The name, address, e-mail address, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name ofpony) Virginia Giuffre
, who issues or requests this subpoena, are:
Sigrid S. MeCawley, BSF, LLP, 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., #1200, Ft Lauderdale, FL, 33301; 954-366-0011;
rirr)bsf.lp.corn
Notice to the person who Issues or requests this subpoena
If this subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, a notice
and a copy of the subpoena must he served on each party in this case before it is served on the person to whom it is
directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4).
EFTA01070824
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 161-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 16 of 40
AO ARA (Rev. 12/13) Solvate to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Acue^ (Page 2)
Civil Action No. 15-CV-07433-RWS
('ROOF OF SERVICE
(This section shouldnot bellied with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 41)
I received this subpoena for (name ofindividual and title. irony)
on Ware)
C) I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named individual as follows:
on (dare) ; Or
3 I returned the subpoena unexecuted because:
Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the t tinted States, nr one of itc officers or agents, t have also
tendered to the witness the fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of
My fees are $ for travel and S for services, for a total of S 0.00
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server's signature
Printed name and side
Server's address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc.:
EFTA01070825
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 161-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 17 of 40
AO !ISA (Rev. 11rt 3) Subpoena to Tardy at a Deposition in a Civil Action (Page 3)
Federal Rule of Chit Procedure 45 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/13)
(r) Place of C'umpllanee. (I) disclosing a trade Matt or other confidential research. development.
or commercial infiwmalion. or
(I) For a TWA Hearing. or Deposition. A subpoena may command a (ii) disclosing an unretained omen's opinion or information that does
person to attend a trial, hearing. or deposition only as Colton: not desaibe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's
(A) within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed. or snidy that was not requested by a party.
regularly transacts business in person: or (C)Sincliving Conditions as an Alternative. la the circumstances
(B) within the stale where the person resida, is employed, or regularly described in Rule 45(d)(3)(B). the court may, instead ofquashum or
trammels business in person. if the person modifying a subpoena. order appearance or production under specified
Wiz a party or a party's officer; or conditions if the serving party:
(ii) is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial (I) shows a substantial need (or the testimony or material that cannot be
expense. otherwise easel Without undue hardship; and
(ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated
(2) For Other Discovery. A subpoena may conunand:
(A) production of documents. electronically stored information, or (e) Banes in Responding to a Subpoena.
tangible things at a place within 100 rinks of where the person asides, is
employed. or regularly thansucts business in pawn; and (I) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. hose
(ft) inspection or menses; at the premises to be inspector procedures apply to producing dosuirents or electronically stored
intonation
(d) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena: Enforcement. (A)Documetos. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents
must produce them as they arc kept in the Winery course ofbushiest Or
Ole( voiding Undue Burden or &prose; Sanctions. A pasty or attorney must organize and label them to correspond lo the categories in the demand.
itsponsible for issuing and saving a subpoena must take itasonable steps (B) Form jar Producing RectronicollySioredinfornuolon Not Specified.
to avoid nnnosine undue burden or expense on a person subject to the If a subpoena does not specify a from for producing eleamnically stored
subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must information, the person responding must produce it in a Coon or hems in
enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction -which may include which it Is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable fomt nr forms.
lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees—on a party or attorney "to (C)Electronlcally Stored information Produced in Only One Form. The
Sits In comply. person responding need not produce the sane clectronicatly stored
information in more than one them.
(2) Command to Produce Materials or Fernill M.rpecrlon. (1))/norressible Alectranically Stored infonnafton The person
(A) Appeorance Not Required A person commando! to pm duce responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored inIlimmlion
documents, electronically stored infmmanon, or tangible things. or to from sources that the person identities as not reasonably accessible because
permit the inspection ofpremises. need not appear jar person at the Pisa of ofundue botden or cost. On motion to compel discovery cr for a prothaive
production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition. order', the person responding must show that the information is not
beano/I.or trial. reasonably accessible because ofundue burden or cost. If that showing is
(B) Objections A person commanded to product documents or tangible made. the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources iethe
things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated (equaling party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule
in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying. testing, cr 26(bX2XC). 'the court may specih• conditions for the discovery.
sampling any ur all of the materials or in inspecting the premises—or lo
producing clectronn-utly stored information in the form or forms requested (2) Coloring Privilege or Protection.
The objection must be served before the earlier of the lime specified for (A)Informanon Withheld A person withholding subpoenaed infomiagn
compliance or PI days after the subpoena is served. Ilan objection is made, Under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation
the following, rules apply: material must:
(I) At any lime, on notice to the commanded person. the serving pony (I) expressly make the claim: and
may move the coun for the disuict where compliance is required for an (II) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or
order compelling production or inspection. tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself
(II) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the pnvileged or onneeted, will enable the partite to assess the claim.
order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a patty's officer from (It) Information Produced If information produced in response to a
significant expense resulting from compliance. subrioeria is subject to a claim ofprivilege or of protection as
trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party
Quashing or Mudifying a Subpoena. that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being
notified, a party mist promptly return, sequester. or destroy the specified
(A)ll'hen Required. On tiindy motion. the emu for the district where information and any copies it hut must not use or disclose the information
compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that: until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the
information if the party disclosed it before being notified: and may promptly
Weans to allow a reasonable time to comply; present the inthmitaion under seal to the coon for the district %vitae
(ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits compliance is required for a deternination of the claim. The person who
specified in Rule 45(c): produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is
(111) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no resolved.
exception or wither applies; or
(iv) sublet:is a person to undue burden. (g) Contempt.
(13) When Permitted. To Filled a person subject In or affected by a 'lie court for the district where compliance is required—and also, after a
subpoena, the court for the dinna where compliance is required may, on motion is transferred the issuing coun—may hold in contempt a perso
DataSet-10
Unknown
2 pages
To: jeevacation©gmaitcom[jeeyacation©gmail.com]; Jeffrey Epsteinbeeyacation©gmail.com]
From:
Sent: Sun 3/13/2011 12:50:32 AM
Lawyers drag prince into underage
sex scandal
The deposition of a model who worked for Jeffrey Epstein raises questions about the
prince's judgement
MichaelDillon, Kale Mansey andJohn Harlow
Published 13 March 2011
Recommend (0)
Comment (0)
Print
Follow News
effrey Epstein hired 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 thatnj. was asked if the Duke of
York was linked to the scandal surrounding his billionaire lend Jeffrey Epstein. 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 M: "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= 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?" =refused to
answer.
EFTA_R1_00519463
EFTA02016261
Flight logs show that Andrew was a passenger on Epstein's jet in May 2000. In interview it
was alleged that the ltravelled on the aircraft more than so 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.
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 ramps 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 M 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, =aid she
moved to Florida in 2002 after M 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. same 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 c to have helped to procure girls for
Epstein, are named as and Lesley Groff.
Epstein, 38, 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 le al a rs to have hired underage girls for him,
joining in the sex games, which she denies., one victim, told how she was kept as
Epstein's paid sex slave for four years from the age of is.
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 -nor her lawyer responded to questions put by The Sunday Times.
EFTA_R1_00519464
EFTA02016262
DataSet-9
Unknown
29 pages
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON
Plaintiff,
v.
fi raY EPSTEIN and
Defendants,
NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION
will take the deposition
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorney
duces tecum of:
DEPONENT DATE & TIME LOCATION OF DEPOSITION
Thursday man LLP
Sin August 6, 2009
10:00 a.m.
y Public, or any other officer
upon oral examination, before U.S. Legal Support, a Notar
Florida. The oral examination is
authorized by law to take depositions in the State of
or for such other purposes as are
being taken for the purpose of discovery, for use at trial,
t.
permitted under the applicable Statutes of Rules of Cour
Robert D. Critton, Jr.
Attorney for Defendant Epstein
Certificate of Service
ment is being served
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing docu
ing Service List via email and U.S.
this day on all counsel of record identified on the follow
Mail on this 30th day of July, 2009
:;:.,littioiiOrt:Hiln..
...
....._,:.
EFTA00722059
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 2
Richard Horace Willits, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
Jack Scarola, Esq. Bruce Reinhart, Esq.
Jack P. Hill, Esq.
Searcy Denney Scarola Bamhart
Counse or Defen ant
Co-Counsel for Plaintiff
Respectfully sub e
B
ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ.
4162
MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
& COLEMAN
Phone
Fax
(Counsel Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
EFTA00722060
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON
Plaintiff,
JEFFREY
v.
EPSTEIN and
Defendants,
I
NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorney will take the deposition
duces tecum of:
DEPONENT DATE & TIME LOCATION OF DEPOSITION
Dr. Ser Th s Monday Burman Critton Luther & Coleman LLP
August 31, 2009
3:15 p.m.
upon oral examination, before U.S. Legal Support, 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.
Robert D. Critton, Jr.
Attorney for Defendant Epstein
Certificate of Service
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing document is being served
this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List via email and U.S.
Mall on this $0t° day of July, 2009
EFTA00722061
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 2
Richard Horace Willits, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
Weiss, P.A.
nt Jeffrey Epstein
Jack Scarola, Esq. Bruce Reinhart, Esq.
Jack P. Hill, Esq.
Searcy Denney Scarola Bamhart &
ounse or e en ant
unsel for Plaintiff
Respectfully subm
By.
D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ.
4162
MICHAE I E, ESQ.
Florida Ba # 1 296
BURMAN. CRITTON.LUTTI & COLEMAN
Phone
Fax
unse r efendant Jeffrey Epstein)
EFTA00722062
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 1 of 21
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON
C.M. A.,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN and 1.11
Defendants,
DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION,
AND MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT; MOTION TO STRIKE,
AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ("EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned
counsel, moves to dismiss Count I through XXXI of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint
for failure to state a cause of action, and for more definite statement, or to strike, as
specified herein. Rule 12(b)(6), (e) and (f), Fed.R.Civ.P. (2008); Local Gen. Rule 7.1
(S.D. Fla. 2008). In support of dismissal, Defendant states:
The First Amended Complaint attempts to allege 32 counts. Counts I through
XXX are purportedly brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 — Civil Remedies for
Personal Injuries; Count XXXI is entitled "Sexual Battery," and Count XXXII is entitled
"Conspiracy to Commit Tortious Assault only against Defendant, " Under
the heading "Factual Allegations" of the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff also
references numerous federal and state criminal statutes, but fails to allege whether or
not she is attempting to assert claims based on these statutes. (¶15, 1st Am. Comp.).
EFTA00722063
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 2 of 21
C.M.A v. Epstein, et al.
Page 2
Dismissal is required on the following grounds: (1) A review of the complaint
allegations establishes that Plaintiff has failed to state the 30 causes of action under 18
U.S.C.A. 2255. As discussed more fully below herein, this statute does not allow for the
Plaintiff to allege 30 separate causes of action; rather, the statute allows for the Plaintiff
to attempt to assert one claim. In addition, Plaintiff has failed to allege a violation of the
requisite predicate act as identified in 18 U.S.C. §2255 in order to state a cause of
action. Thus, Counts I through XXX against EPSTEIN are required to be dismissed.
Rule 12(b)(6), Fla.R.Civ.P.
(2) Count XXXI — Sexual Battery is also required to be dismissed for failure to state
a cause of action as Plaintiff has failed to allege the requisite elements of such claim.
The count fails to sufficiently allege whether it is being brought pursuant to common or
statutory law. Further, in Count XXXI, Plaintiff reincorporates in their entirety Counts I
through XXX; such pleading is improper and requires dismissal under the applicable
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Supporting Memorandum of Law
I. Motion To Dismiss Standard
As established by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. V. Twombly 127
S.Ct. 1955 (2007), a motion to dismiss should be granted if the plaintiff does not plead
"enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id, at 1974.
Although the complaint need not provide detailed factual allegations, the basis for relief
in the complaint must state "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id at 1965. Further, "fflactual
allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level ... on the
EFTA00722064
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 3 of 21
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 3
assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Id.
On a motion to dismiss, the well pleaded allegations of plaintiffs complaint are taken as
true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. M.T.V. v. DeKalb County
Sch. Dist., 446 F.3d 1153 1156 (11th Cir.2006).
Significantly, the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. V. Twombly abrogated the
often cited observation that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a
claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in
support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." Id, (abrogating and quoting Conley
v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46. 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). The Supreme
Court rejected the notion that "a wholly conclusory statement of claim [can] survive a
motion to dismiss whenever the pleadings le[avej open the possibility that a plaintiff
might later establish some 'set of [undisclosed) facts' to support recovery." Id. As
explained by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp., supra at 1664-65:
While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not
need detailed factual allegations ibid.. Sanivan v. American Bd. of
Psychiatry and Neurology, Inc., 40 F.3d 247, 251 (C.A.7 1994), a plaintiffs
obligation to provide the "grounds" of his "entitle[ment] to relief' requires
more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements
of a cause of action will not do, see Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286,
106 S.Ct. 2932. 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (19861 (on a motion to dismiss, courts 'are
not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual
allegation"). Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level, see 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 1216, pp. 235-236 (3d ed.2004) (hereinafter Wright & Miller)
c[T]he pleading must contain something more ... than ... a statement of facts
that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action"), on
the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if
doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508,
n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
327. 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (" Rule 12(b)(6) does not
countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's
EFTA00722065
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 4 of 21
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 4
factual allegations")• Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683,
40 L.Ed.2d 90 (19741 (a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it
appears 'that a recovery is very remote and unlikely).
In discussing Twomblv, the Eleventh Circuit in Watts v. Fla. International Univ.
495 F.3d 1289, 1295 (11th Cir. 2007), noted - "The Supreme Court's most recent
formulation of the pleading specificity standard is that 'stating such a claim requires a
complaint with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest' the required element."
In order to sufficiently allege the claim, the complaint is required to identify "facts that
are suggestive enough to render [the element] plausible." Watts, 495 F.3d at 1296
(quoting Twombly 127 S.Ct. at 1965).
II. Standard for More Definite Statement, Pleading, & Motion to Strike
Pursuant to Rule 12(e), a party may move for more definite statement of a
pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed where the pleading "is so vague or
ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably frame a response." The motion is required
to point out the defects and the desired details. Id. As to the general rules and form of
pleading, Rules 8 and 10, a claim for relief must contain "a short plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief;" Rule 8(a)(3); and may contain
alternative claims within a count or as many separate claims. Rule 10(d)(2) and (3).
Pursuant to Rule 12(f) - Motion to Strike, "the court may strike from a pleading an
insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter."
III. Counts I through XXX, 18 U.S.C. §2255, are required to be dismissed.
A. 18 U.S.C. U255 creates a simile civil remedy or cause of action on behalf of a minor
plaintiff against a defendant The civil remedy afforded is not on a "per violation" basis.
EFTA00722066
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 5 of 21
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 5
Contrary to Plaintiff's attempted assertion of 30 separate counts pursuant to 18
U.S.C.A. §2255 - Civil Remedy for Personal Injuries, this statute creates a single federal
cause of action or "civil remedy" for a minor victim of sexual, abuse, molestation and
exploitation. Under the plain meaning of the statutory text, §2255 does not create
separate causes of action on behalf of a minor against a defendant on a "per violation"
basis. No where in the statutory text is there any reference to the civil remedy afforded
by this statute as being on a "per violation" basis. 18 U.S.C. 2255(a) creates a civil
remedy for "a minor who is a victim of a violation of section 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251,
2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title and who suffers personal
injury as a result of such violation ... ." See Smith v. Husband 428 F.Supp.2d 432
(E.D. Va. 2006); Smith v. Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d 603 (E.D. Va. 2006)• Doe v.
Liberatore, 478 F.Supp.2d 742, 754 (M.D. Pa. 2007); and the recent cases in front of
this court on Defendant's Motions to Dismiss and For More Definite Statement — Doe
No. 2 v. Epstein, 2009 WL 383332 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2009); Doe No. 3 v. Epstein,
2009 WL 383330 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2009); Doe No. 4 v. Epstein, 2009 WL 383286
(S.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2009); and Doe No. 5 v. Epstein, 2009 WL 383383 (S.D. Fla. Feb.
12, 2009).
There is no reported case supporting Plaintiff's tortured and nonsensical
interpretation of §2255. In all of these cases (cited above), each of the Plaintiffs brought
a single count or cause of action attempting to allege numerous violations of the
"predicate acts" specifically identified in §2255. "18 U.S.C. §2255 gives victims of
sexual conduct who are minors a private right of action." Martinez v. White, 492
EFTA00722067
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 6 of 21
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 6
F.Supp.2d 1186, 1188 (N.D. Cal. 2007), (emphasis added). 18 U.S.C.A. §2255 "merely
provides a cause of action for damages in 'any appropriate United States District
Court.'" Id, at 1189. See also Tilton v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 554 F.3d
1371 (11th Cir. Jan. 15, 2009)(District Court granted plaintiff "the minimum 'actual
damages' prescribed by §2255(a)," wherein plaintiff alleged that defendants had
violated three of the statutory predicate acts).
In improperly attempting to bring 30 separate counts pursuant to §2255, Plaintiff's
complaint alleges in part that "beginning in approximately late May or early June of
2002, and continuing until approximately August of 2003, the Defendant coerced and
enticed the impressionable, vulnerable, and economically deprived then minor Plaintiff
to commit various acts of sexual misconduct. These acts occurred, on average, one to
three times per week from late may or early June of 2002 until August 2003. At a bare
minimum these acts occurred twice a month from June 2002 until August of 2003." Am.
Complaint, ¶13. Plaintiff then claims the identical damages in each of the 30 §2255
counts. See ¶¶25, 31, 37, 43, 49, 55, 61, 67, 73, 79, 85, 91, 97, 103, 109, 115, 121,
127, 133, 139, 145, 151, 157, 163, 169, 175, 181, 187, 193, and 199. As well, in Count
XXXI, entitled "Sexual Battery," Plaintiff claims the identical "actual damages" in that she
realleges and incorporates each and every of the 199 allegations in the 30 prior counts.
It is well settled that in interpreting a statute, the court's inquiry begins with the
plain and unambiguous language of the statutory text. CBS, Inc. v. Prime Time 24
Venture, 245 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2001); U.S. v. Castroneves, 2009 WL 528251, *3
(S.D. Fla. 2009), citing Reeves v. Astrue, 526 F.3d 732, 734 (11th Cir. 2008); and Smith
EFTA00722068
Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 7 of 21
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 7
statute, [a court's] inquiry
v. Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d at 610 ("When interpreting a
meaning of the words, and
begins with the text?). "The Court must first look to the plain
In addition, in construing
scrutinize the statute's 'language, structure, and purpose.'" Id.
what it means and means what
a statute, a court is to presume that the legislature said
ed interpretation. As stated
it said, and not add language or give some absurd or strain
to give effec t to perceived
in CBS Inc., supra at 1228 — "Those who ask courts
contrary to its plain and
legislative intent by interpreting statutory language
that language, and Iclourts
unambiguous meaning are in effect asking courts to alter
t add to the terms of [the]
have no authority to alter statutory language.... We canno
1187." See also Dodd v. U.S.,
provision what Congress left out.' Merritt, 120 F.3d at
125 S.Ct. 2478 (2005); 73 Am.Jur.2d Statutes §124.
nal Procedure." §2255 is
Title 18 of the U.S.C. is entitled "Crimes and Crimi
Exploitation and Other Abuse of
contained in "Part I. Crimes, Chap. 110. Sexual
remedy for personal injuries, and
Children." 18 U.S.C. §2255 (2003), is entitled Civil
provides:
2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251,
(a) Any minor who is a victim of a violation of section
title and who suffers
2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this
any appropriate United
personal injury as a result of such violation may sue in
ges such minor sustains
States District Court and shall recover the actual dama
ey's fee. Any minor as
and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorn
ed to have sustained
described in the preceding sentence shall be deem
damages of no less than $50,000 in value.
barred unless the complaint
(b) Any action commenced under this section shall be
es or in the case of a
Is filed within six years after the right of action first accru
after the disability.
person under a legal disability, not later than three years
there any language indicating
Reading the entire statute in context, no where is
st a defendant "per violation."
that a minor plaintiff has a private right of action again
EFTA00722069
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 8 of 21
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 8
Under the statutory rules of construction, had the legislature intended to give a plaintiff
multiple causes of action against a defendant on a per violation basis, the statute would
have included such language. Had Congress wanted to create such a remedy as
Plaintiff attempts to bring, it could have easily included language of "per violation" after
the presumptive damages amount in subsection (a). By its own terms, the statute
provides for the recovery of "actual damages the minor sustains and the cost of the suit,
including attorney's fees." There is absolutely no language that allows for a plaintiff to
multiply the specified or presumptive damages recoverable on a "per violation" basis.
The Plaintiff's position on §2255 puts a strained interpretation with an absurd result.
The absurdity of Plaintiffs position is further evidenced by Count XXXI — "Sexual
Battery" where Plaintiff reincorporates each of the 30 counts and seeks the identical
"actual damages?
In Martinez v. White supra, the defendants sought to dismiss plaintiffs' 18 U.S.C.
§2255 action based on forum non conveniens. The Northern District of California Court,
relying on the rules of statutory construction, rejected plaintiffs' argument that Congress
had intended to abrogate the forum non conveniens doctrine in a §2255 action; the
District Court noted that the statute does not contain a mandatory venue provision. Had
Congress wanted to get rid of the forum non-conveniens doctrine, it would have said so
in the statute. Also, in Smith v. Husband 428 F.Supp. 432; and 376 F.Supp.2d 603, the
plaintiff invoked "the accompanying civil remedy for these criminal violations, stating that
she has sustained and continues to sustain physical and mental damages, humiliation,
and embarrassment as a result of Defendant's criminal acts." In other words, she
EFTA00722070
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 9 of 21
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 9
brought a single cause of action, based on allegations of multiple violations of the §2255
predicate acts. Furthermore, the court refused to add a venue interpretation that simply
was not written into the statutory text. See other §2255 cases cited herein.
For an example of a statute wherein the legislature included the language "for
each violation" in assessing a "civil penalty," see 18 U.S.C. §216, entitled "Penalties and
injunctions," of Chapter 11 — "Bribery, Graft, and Conflict of Interests," also contained in
Title 18 — "Crimes and Criminal Procedure." Subsection (b) of §216 gives the United
States Attorney General the power to bring a "civil action ... against any person who
engages in conduct constituting an offense under" specified sections of the bribery,
graft, and conflicts of interest statutes. The statute further provides in relevant part that
"upon proof of such conduct by a preponderance of the evidence, such person shall be
subject to a civil penalty of not more than $50,000 for each violation or the amount of
compensation which the person received or offered for the prohibited conduct, which
ever amount is greater." As noted, 18 U.S.C. §2255 does not include such language.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs multiple counts brought pursuant to §2255 are required to
be dismissed for failure to state multiple causes of action.
B. Also requiring dismissal Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege
the requisite §2255 predicate acts.
Also requiring dismissal of Plaintiffs purported §2255 claim(s) is Plaintiffs failure
to sufficiently allege any violation of a requisite predicate act as specifically identified in
subsection (a) of the statute quoted above. Relevant to Plaintiffs complaint, 18 U.S.C.
2255(a) creates a civil remedy for "a minor who is a victim of a violation of section
2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title
EFTA00722071
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 10 of 21
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 10
and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation ... ." See cases cited above
herein. Plaintiff has failed to plead any factual allegations whatsoever pertaining to
violations of the specified "predicate acts." In paragraph 15, Plaintiff makes reference
by citation only to the following federal statutes - "18 U.S.C. §§2241, 2242, 2243, 2421,
and 2423." See endnote following the Certificate of Service herein for the complete
statutory text.'
First, Plaintiffs reliance on 18 U.S.C. §2241 in its entirety as a predicate act is
improper; it is a violation of subsection §2241(c) that is a designated predicate act. A
reading of the text of the other referenced federal statutes shows that no where in
Plaintiffs Amended Complaint are there any allegations setting forth the requisite
elements of the cited predicate act. Further, any attempted reliance by Plaintiff on other
federal or state statutes not specifically identified in 18 U.S.C. §2255 is improper and
fails to state a cause of action. See ¶15 of Am. Complaint wherein Plaintiff references
by citation additional Florida State statutes and thereafter incorporates such reference
into her §2255 claim(s). See Smith v. Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d, and 428 Supp.2d,
supra, requiring allegations/evidence to establish predicate act under 18 U.S.C. §2255
in order to be afforded civil remedy.
Plaintiff appears to be relying solely on an "agreement with the Federal
Government" as a basis for imposing liability under 18 U.S.C. §2255. See ¶¶17, 18,
and 19 of 1st Am. Complaint. There is nothing in Plaintiffs allegations that would allow
for a §2255 claim to go forward without specifying the statutory predicate act and factual
allegations pertaining to a violation of the requisite predicate act(s). Accordingly, under
EFTA00722072
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 11 of 21
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 11
the standard of pleading as established in Twombly, supra, Plaintiff has failed to
sufficiently allege the requisite elements of a §2255 claim, thus requiring dismissal; for
failure to state a cause of action.
C. 18 U.S.C. §2255 does not allow for the recovery of punitive damages.
Thus, Plaintiff's request for punitive damages under §2255 is required to be
dismissed or stricken.
In each of the improperly asserted Counts I through XXX, Plaintiff also seeks
punitive damages. A plain reading of 18 U.S.C. §2255, quoted above herein,
establishes that the statute does not allow for the recovery of punitive damages. Had
Congress wanted to allow for such a recovery, it could have easily written such
language into the damages provision of the statute. The legislative body chose not to
write a punitive damages component into §2255 as it has done in other statutes
affording civil remedies. In relevant part, §2255 reads - Any minor who is a victim of a
violation of section ... of this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such
violation may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the
actual damages such minor sustains and the cost of the suit, including a
reasonable attorney's fee. Any minor as described in the preceding sentence shall be
deemed to have sustained damages of no less than $50,000 in value." See discussion
of rules of statutory construction in part III.A. herein. See subsection (f)(2) of 18 U.S.C.
§2252A, entitled Certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child
pornography, also contained in Chapter 110, Part I, Crimes, within which specific
reference is made to 'compensatory and punitive damages" in setting forth the relief
which may be afforded to a plaintiff in bringing a civil action under §2252A(f).
EFTA00722073
Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 12 of 21
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 12
Accordingly, Plaintiffs claims for punitive damages are required to be dismissed with
prejudice or stricken.
D. In the alternative, pursuant to constitutional law principles of statutory
interpretation. 18 U.S.C. 82255 is required to be interpreted as creating a
single "civil remedy" or cause of action on behalf of a minor plaintiff
against a defendant. The "civil remedy" afforded is not on a "per violation"
basis.
As set forth above, it is Defendant's position that the text of 18 U.S.C. §2255
does not allow a Plaintiff, such as C.M.A., to pursue the civil remedy and the damages
afforded under the statute on a "per violation" basis. See part III.A. above. In the
alternative, simply for the sake of argument, if one were to assume that the language of
§2255 were vague or ambiguous, under the constitutional based protections of due
process, judicial restraint, and the rule of lenity applied in construing a statute,
Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail over Plaintiffs view.
See United States v. Santos, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the
United States Supreme Court in Santos supra, at 2025:
... The rule of lenity requires ambiguous criminal laws to be interpreted in
favor of the defendants subjected to them. See United States v. Gradwell,
243 U.S. 476, 485, 37 S.Ct. 407, 61 L.Ed. 857 (1917); McBoyle v. United
States, 283 U.S. 25, 27, 51 S.Ct. 340, 75 L.Ed. 816 (1931); United States v.
Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 347-349, 92 S.Ct. 515, 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (1971). This
venerable rule not only vindicates the fundamental principle that no citizen
should be held accountable for a violation of a statute whose commands are
uncertain, or subjected to punishment that is not clearly prescribed. It also
places the weight of inertia upon the party that can best induce Congress to
speak more clearly and keeps courts from making criminal law in Congress's
stead. ...
In Santos the Court was faced with the interpretation of the term "proceeds" in
the federal money laundering statute, 18 U.S.C. §1956. "The federal money-laundering
EFTA00722074
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 13 of 21
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 13
statute prohibits a number of activities involving criminal 'proceeds." Id, at 2023. Noting
that the term "proceeds" was not defined in the statute, the Supreme Court stated the
well settled principle that "when a term is undefined, we give it its ordinary meaning." Id,
at 2024. Under the ordinary meaning principle, the government's position was that
proceeds meant "receipts," while the defendant's position was that proceeds meant
"profits." The Supreme Court recognized that under either of the proffered "ordinary
meanings," the provisions of the federal money-laundering statute were still coherent,
not redundant, and the statute was not rendered "utterly absurd." Under such a
situation, citing to a long line of cases and the established rule of lenity, "the tie must go
to the defendant." Id, at 2025. See portion of Court's opinion quoted above. "Because
the 'profits' definition of 'proceeds' is always more defendant friendly that the 'receipts'
definition, the rule of lenity dictates that it should be adopted." Id.
Plaintiffs position would subject Defendant EPSTEIN to a punishment that is not
clearly prescribed — an unwritten multiplier of the "actual damages" or the presumptive
damages. The rule of lenity requires that Defendant's interpretation of the remedy
afforded under §2255 be adopted.
In addition, under the Due Process Clause's basic principle of fair warning -
... a criminal statute must give fair warning of the conduct that it makes a
crime ... . As was said in United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617, 74
S.Ct. 808, 812, 98 L.Ed. 989,
'The constitutional requirement of definiteness is violated by a criminal
statute that fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that
his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute. The underlying
principle is that no man shall be held criminally responsible for conduct
which he could not reasonably understand to be proscribed.'
EFTA00722075
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 14 of 21
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 14
Thus we have struck down a [state] criminal statute under the Due Process
Clause where it was not 'sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject
to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties.'
Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 127, 70
L.Ed. 322. We have recognized in such cases that 'a statute which either
forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common
intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its
application violates the first essential of due process of law,' ibid., and that
'No one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to
the meaning of penal statutes. All are entitled to be informed as to what the
State commands or forbids.' Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451, 453, 59
S.Ct. 618, 619, 83 L.Ed. 888.
Thus, applying these well-entrenched constitutional principles of statutory interpretation
and application, Plaintiffs 30 separate counts brought under 18 U.S.C. §2255 are
required to be dismissed.
IV. Count XXXI — "Sexual Battery" is required to be dismissed for failure to
state a cause of action. In the alternative, Plaintiff should be required to more
definitely state whether she is attempting to allege a claim under Florida
common or statutory law, or some federal law, and further allege the required
elements and factual allegations.
In Count XXXI, although entitled "Sexual Battery," Plaintiff improperly realleges
and incorporates each and every allegation and each and every count (30) which she
previously attempted to allege, resulting in a count that is 204 paragraphs long and
includes reference to Federal and Florida statutory law, while also including language
sounding in common law. The count is such a hodgepodge of legal allegations that
Plaintiff fails to state a legally recognizable or viable cause of action.
In ¶15, Plaintiff alleges that "the acts referenced in paragraphs 9 through 14,
committed by Defendant against the then minor Plaintiff, C.M.A., were committed in
violation of numerous criminal State and Federal statutes ... , including but not limited
to, those crimes designated in 18 U.S.C. §§2241, 2242, 2243, 2421, and 2423, criminal
EFTA00722076
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 15 of 21
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 15
offenses outlined in Chapter 800 of the Federal Codes, as well as those designated in
Florida Statutes §796.03, §796.07, §796.045, §796.04, §39.01; and §827.04." In ¶203
Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant's "tortious commission of sexual battery upon
C.M.A. were (sic) done willfully and maliciously."
Supporting Defendant's position that Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action
in Count )000, 18 U.S.C. §§2241(c), not §2241 in its entirety, as discussed above, is
one of the predicate acts, along with 2242, 2243, 2421, and 2423, designated in the
federal civil remedy statute — 18 U.S.C. §2255. Plaintiff attempted and failed to allege
such a claim in the previous counts. Defendant can find no criminal offenses in any
"Chapter 800 of the Federal Codes" which give rise to a civil cause of action.
The same is true for Plaintiffs reference to the Florida Statutes. Not one of the
statutes referenced creates a private cause of action or affords a civil remedy on behalf
of the alleged victim of the criminal offense.' (Except for Florida Statute §39.01, all of
the statutes referenced by Plaintiff are contained Title XLVI. Crimes of the Florida
Statutes). The referenced criminal statutes set forth acts subject to criminal prosecution
and the criminal penalties therefor, if proven. See generally Am. Home Assurance Co.
v. Plaza Materials Corp., 908 So.2d 360, 374 (Fla. 2005)("not every statutory violation
carries a civil remedy"); Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Ferre, 636 F.Supp. 970 (S.D. Fla.
1985)(violation of Florida's criminal extortion statute does not give rise to civil cause of
' Florida Statutes §§796.03 — Procuring person under age 18 for prostitution; 796.04 —
Forcing, compelling, or coercing another to become a prostitute; 796.045 (which did not
become effective until Oct. 1, 2004) - Sex trafficking; penalties; 796.07 — Prohibiting
prostitution, etc.; evidence; penalties; definitions; and §39.01, entitled "Definitions," is
contained in Title V — Judicial Branch, Chapter 39 - "Proceedings relating to Children."
EFTA00722077
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 16 of 21
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 16
action for damages); Mantooth v. Richards, 557 So.2d 646 (Fla. 41h DCA 1990), per
curiam, (Dismissal of plaintiff's civil complaint affirmed where parental kidnapping
statutes concerned only criminal violations and did not create a civil remedy).
As well, the Count XXXI allegations make absolutely no reference to any
viable common law cause of action; Defendant should not be required to guess or
speculate as to the nature of Plaintiffs cause of action. Even if Defendant were to
speculate as to the supposed cause of action, these causes of action (common law or
otherwise) have not been sufficiently alleged. On its face, in accordance with the
pleading requirements annunciated in Twomblv, supra, Count XXXI is completely
lacking as to any common law elements or the underlying factual allegations to support
each element, and thus, Count XXXI is required to be dismissed for failure to state a
cause of action.
In the alternative, Plaintiff should be required to more definitely state whether her
claim is being brought pursuant to federal or Florida statutory law, specifically identify
the statute it is being brought under, or whether her claim is being asserted under
common law. Once Plaintiff identifies the nature of her claim, she is required to
sufficiently allege in accordance with Twomblv, the requisite elements of the identified
claim, along with sufficient factual allegations supporting the elements.
Conclusion
Pursuant to applicable law, Counts I through XXXI of Plaintiffs First Amended
Complaint are required to be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. 18 U.S.C.
does not allow for the Plaintiff C.M.A. to allege separate causes of action against
EFTA00722078
Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 17 of 21
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 17
Defendant EPSTEIN, but rather allows Plaintiff to attempt to assert a single civil remedy
if she can prove a violation of any of the statutory enumerated predicate acts. Further,
Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege a requisite predicate act under §2255. In
addition, §2255 does not allow for recovery of punitive damages. Count XXXI is also
subject to dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action, as Plaintiff has
failed to allege a legally viable or recognizable cause of action.
WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court grant his motion to dismiss
Counts I through XXXI, or alternative motion for more definite statement, and motion to
strike.
Certificate of Service
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with
the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being
served this day on all counsel of recomi identified on the following Service List in the
manner specified by CM/ECF on this, day of March , 2009:
Richard Horace Willits, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
Fax:
M.A. Fax:
jaoesoMellsouth.net
Cou endants Jeffrey Epstein
and
Jack Scarola, Esq.
Jack P. Hill, Esq. Bruce Reinhart, Esq.
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart &
Fax: Fax:
EFTA00722079
Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 18 of 21
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 18
Counsel for Defendan
Co-Counsel for Plaintiff
Respectfully su tted,
CRITTON, JR., ESQ.
4162
MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
& COLEMAN
Phone
Fax
(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
'ENDNOTE:
U.S.C.A. - Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure,
Chapter 109A. Sexual Abuse
§2241. Aggravated Sexual Abuse.
t to engage in a sexual act
(c) With children.--Whoever crosses a State line with inten
or the special maritime and
with a person who has not attained the age of 12 years, in
, or in any prison,
territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison
direction of or pursuant to a
institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by
rtment or agency, knowingly
contract or agreement with the head of any Federal depa
attained the age of 12 years,
engages in a sexual act with another person who has not
es described in subse
DataSet-9
Unknown
1 pages
From: J
To: Michael Wolff <
Subject:
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2019 19:15:21 +0000
https://www.palmbeachpost.com/business/deposition-sheds-light-ownership-mansion-russian-billionaire-bought-
from-trump-lawyer-says/CSeVZjgR40ntTIS8FhOhYN/
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
EFTA01028740
DataSet-9
Unknown
1 pages
From:
To: J
Subject: Re:
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 18:42:45 +0000
Did you write deposition against me?
X25 wet 2018 r. B 14:29, J :
Are you receiving things from my address?
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 1:58 PM wrote:
Killers: Prokhorov and Baibakov Konchakovskaya and all
people who work for them. Prokhorov has a lot to hide
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
EFTA01018594
DataSet-9
Unknown
38 pages
O9 - alga
Condensed Transcript
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE F1I-IEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION
L.M.,
Plaintiff,
vs. CASE No.
502008CA02805IXXXXMB AB
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
DEPOSITION OF
LOUELLA RABUYO
VOLUME I
October, 20, 2009
10:10 a.m.
515 N. Flagler Drive
Suite 200-P
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Reported By: Teresa Whalen, RPR, FPR, Notary Public, State of Florida
Toll Free: 866.709.8777
Facsimile: 561.394.2621
Suite 600
4440 PGA Boulevard
ESQUIRE Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
www.esquIresolutions.com
EFTA00181472
•
•
•
EFTA00181473
Louella Rabuyo - Volume I October 20, 2009
1 3
IN Tit CIRCUIT can or TM FIrrudem JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 1 APPEARANCES:
• IN AND FOR PALM BRACH COUN7y, FLORIDA
CIVIL D1VISLON
CUR Ito.9010000.0210,:xxXXXR As
Plaintiff,
2
3
4
On behalf of the Defendant.
ROBERT D. CRITTON. JR.. ESQUIRE
BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER & COLEMAN. UP
303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400
.TRIIIRRY IIPSTRIN, 5 West Palm Beach. Florida 33401
Phone: 561.8422820
Defendant . 6
7 On behalf of Plaintiff L.M.:
B BRADLEY J. EDWARDS. ESQUIRE
DEPOSITIO1 or wuRLLA Ramiro CARA L. HOLMES, ESQUIRE
Viratelt I
9 ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER
Tuesday, October, 20. 2009 40t E. LEIS 0419 Boulevard. Suite 1650
10:10 - 1,10 pre 10 Fort Lauderdale. Florida 33394
Phone: 954.522.3456
11
515 N. Plagler Drive. Suite 200-P 11 On behalf of trosetappess
Wen Palm Beach, Florida 13401
13 BRUCE E. III IE
LAW OFFICE OF BRUCETIIIIIIII
Reported By: 14 250 S. Australian Avenue. Suite 1400
Teresa Whaler., RPR, PPR West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Notary Public, State of Florida Is Phone: 561202.6360
Nest rain Beach Office Job 411001
16
17 On behalf of Dolenclantsclane Does 2 - 8:
le STUART S. MERMELSTEIN, ESQUIRE
MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, PA.
19 18205 Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 2219
Miami. Florida 33160
20 PhOole: 305.9312200
21 On behalf of Plaintiff In related Case No. 08-80811
22 JACK HILL. ESQUIRE IP/weary via speakerphone)
SEARCY. DENNEY, SCAFIOLA BARNHART e• SHIPLEY
23 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
24 Phone: 561.686.6300
25
2 4
1 1 - - -
•
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOU tHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 2 INDEX
2
CASE No.08-CV-80119-CIV-MARRNJOHNSON 3 - - •
3 4
4 JANE DOE NO. 2,
5 5 WITNESS: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
Plaintiff, 6
7 JEFFREY EPSTEIN. LOUELLA RABUTO
6 Defendant 7
9 Related Cases: 8 BY MR. EDWARDS: 5 190
03-80232. 08.80380. 98-60381, 08-80994. s BY MR. MERMELSTEile 135 208
10 08.60993, 08-80811. 08-80893. 09-80469,
09430591. 09.80656. 09-80802. 09-81092 10 BY MR. HILL: I%
il ..__f 11 BY MR. CARTON: 173
12
12
DEPOSITION OF LOUELLA RABUTO
13 VOLUME I 13 - • -
14 14 EXHIBITS
Tuesday, October 20.2009
Is 10:10 • 3:30 p.m. Is -- -
16 26
515 N. Flag's( Deno, Stale 200-P
17 17 NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
West Palm Beach. Florida 33401 le DEFENDANTS EX. 1 COPIES. COMPOSITE PHOTOGRAPHS 103
18
19 19 DEFENDANTS EX. 2 COMPOSITE PHONE MESSAGE BOOK 147
20 20 DEFENDANTS EX. 3 COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH 162
21 Reponed By:
Tenni Whalen, RPR. FPR 21
22 Notary Pubec. State of Fonda 22
Weal Palm Beath Office Job 1118991
23 23
Phase: 800.330.6952
561.659.4155 24
24 25
25
• • Toll Free: 866.709.8777
Facsimile: 561.394.2621
Suite 600
ESQUIRE 4440 PGA Boulevard
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
www.esquiresolutions.com
EFTA00181474
Louella Rabuyo - Volume I October 20, 2009
5 7
1 PROCEEDINGS 1 0 How long have you been employed by
2 • • • 2 Mr. Epstein?
3 Deposition taken before Teresa Whalen. 3 A It will be five years this November 17th.
4 Registered Professional Reporter, Florida 4 0 So you started November 17th, 2004?
5 Professional Reporter, and Notary Public in and for 5 A Yes. sir.
6 the State of Florida at Large, in the above cause. 6 0 And how did you get hired by Mr. Epstein?
7 - - 7 A Through an agency.
Thereupon, 0 What agency?
9 (LOUELLA RABUYO) 9 A It's Regal Domestics.
10 having been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined 10 0 And what was your position that you were hired
11 and testified as follows: 11 by Mr. Epstein tor?
12 THE WITNESS: I do. 12 A Housekeeper.
13 DIRECT EXAMINATION 13 0 We've taken the deposition of another witness
14 MR. EDWARDS: Does anyone want to put on the 14 in this case, Alfredo Rodriguez. Are you familiar with
IS record what case this is being taken in? I noticed 15 that name?
16 it in L.M. versus Epstein. I don't know if anybody 16 A Yes.
17 cares to say who your clients are, what the case 17 0 And that person. I believe he represented that
18 style is or anything else for when she types it up. 18 he was also maybe a house manager. Is that correct?
19 MR. MERMELSTEIN: I don't have a problem with 19 A Correct.
20 that. Are we doing initials? 20 0 Would he have been, at some point in time,
21 MR. EDWARDS: Yeah. Initials. 21 your boss or your superior?
22 MR. MERMELSTEIN: Okay. 22 A Yes.
23 BY MR. EDWARDS: 23 0 That's somebody who you answered to,
24 0 All right. Will you state your name for the 24 Alfredo Rodriguez?
25 record. 25 A (Nodding head). Sometimes •-
6 8
A Louella Rabuyo. 1 You have to say yes or no. you
2 0 And what's your current address? 2 can't nod your head.
3 A 904 Summer Street, Lake Worth. 3 BY MR. EDWARDS:
4 0 All right. How long have you lived at 904 4 O Yes?
s Summer Street? 5 A Yes.
6 A About two years. 6 MR. CRITTON: No, no. She said sometimes.
7 0 Two years. Where did you live prior to 904 7 then you put yes In her mouth.
8 Summer Street? 8 MR. EDWARDS: I didn't put anything in her
9 A In Palm Ridge Apartment, that's in Mango 9 mouth. I don't want the record —
10 Drive. 10 MR. CRITTON: Let me take it back. You said
11 0 How long did you five there? 11 yes, but she started to say something before she
12 A About a year. 12 was interrupted.
13 0 All right. Where did you live prior to that. 13 BY MR. EDWARDS:
14 the Palm Ridge Apartment? 14 0 That's fine. You can answer the question.
15 A In a townhouse in West Palm Beach. 15 then we'll Instruct you on the deposition.
16 Q Okay. How long did you live in the townhouse 16 MR. : Did you want to explain that
17 in West Palm Beach? 17 further?
18 A Less than a year. 18 THE WITNESS: Because we were supposed to work
19 0 Have you ever lived at Jeffrey Epstein's 19 together, but he was bossy, he was bossy.
20 location of 358 El Brillo Way? 20 BY MR. EDWARDS:
21 A No, sir. 21 O Okay. Have you ever had your deposition taken
22 0 Where are you currently employed? 22 beforeliko this?
23 A Mr. Epstein. 23 A No.
24 0 And what address do you report to work? 24 0 All right. Well, there is one court reporter,
25 A 358 El Brillo Way. 25 and it's very easy in casual conversation to nod your
Toll Free: 866.709.8777
Facsimile: 561.394.2621
Suite 600
ESQUIRE 4440 PGA Boulevard
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
www.esquiresolutions.com
EFTA00181475
Louella Rabuyo - Volume I October 20, 2009
9 11
1 head or shake your head. and she can't take that down. 1 that it's clean and appropriately, what's this...
• 2
3
4
5
A All right.
0 It's also very easy to say uh-huh or huh.uh,
but it kind of looks the same on paper, so you can't do
that either. I'm going to wait until you finish your
2
3
4
0 And as I understand this properly, there is a
main house and then there's also a staff house on the
property: is that right?
A Yes, sir.
6 answer, and you have to wad until I finish my question, 6 0 And when the guests would come over, would you
7 because if we talk over one another, then the cowl 7 stay in the main house, or would you go to the staff
8 reporter can't got it down. 8 house?
9 A Okay. Yes, sir. 9 MR. : Can we get a time frame to the
10 0 MI right. So if you don't understand the 10 question?
11 question, tell me you don't understand and ill try to it BY MR. EDWARDS:
12 ask a better question. 12 0 Over the last five years while you worked
13 A Yes. 13 there.
14 0 Okay. So you were Nred In November of 2004 14 A I usually stay in the staff house and do the
15 to be the housekeeper for Mr. Epstein? 15 laundry, then I go to the kitchen and then tidy the
16 A Yes. 16 kitchen.
17 0 And when you were hired, who exactly hired 17 0 You were hired in November of 2004. and what
18 you, who -- let me strike that. 18 were your hours that you worked there back in November
19 When you were hired to be the housekeeper for 19 of 2004 when you were hired?
20 Mr. Epstein, who did you interview with? 20 A Eight to five.
21 A Ms. Maxwell. 21 0 How many days a week?
22 0 Is that Ghislaine Maxwell or just 22 A Depends.
23 Leine Maxwell? 23 0 How would the schedule be relayed to you?
24 A Ghislaine Maxwell. 24 A When Mr. Epstein is there, then I'm supposed
25 0 And where did the Interview take place? 25 to report, but usually it's five days a week.
10 12
0 So am I correct In understanding that there
• 1
2
3
4
A At 358 El Brilb Way.
0 And what did Ms. Maxwell and you speak about
prior to your being hired as the housekeeper?
A My duties.
2
3
4
was one schedule when Mr. Epstein was in town, and the
schedule may be a little bit different if Mr. Epstein
was out of town?
5 0 And what did she tell you your duties would 5 A Yes, sir.
6 be? 6 O All right. Toll me the differences when
7 A To tidy. to make beds. do laundry. 7 Mr. Epstein is in town versus when Mr. Epstein was not
8 0 Did she tell you what would take place in the ri in town.
9 house on a day-to-day basis? 9 A II he stays like three or four days, then I'm
10 A No. to supposed to be there, and then the house is to be
11 0 So going into that position, you had no idea 11 cleaned. And then when they do not come, then I can
12 who the guests would be or who the people coming in the 12 either go there, or I'm given free days off.
13 house would be, or what would generally go on? 13 0 Three days off?
14 A Can you simplify the question? 14 A No. A free day.
15 0 Sure. When you talked about with 15 0 Oh, okay. But typically back in 2004 when you
16 Ghislaine Maxwell at this interview, your duties being 16 were hired, you worked an average of about five days a
17 you would make the bed and tidy up, did she also tel 17 week; is that correct?
18 you that there would be a lot of guests, there would be 18 A Yes.
19 a few guests, did she talk to you about that at all? 19 0 All right. And I guess by the way that you're
20 A She mentioned that it there are guests, we 20 explaining it, if Mr. Epstein was in town for a longer
21 have to. like, you know, prepare the room, and, what's 21 period of time, you may work more than five days, and it
22 this, attend to the guests. 22 Mr. Epstein was not in town, you may work less than five
23 0 And what did you understand that to mean that 23 days?
24 you have to attend to the guests? 24 A Yes.
25 A You have to prepare the room and see to it 25 0 Okay. Did you ever talk to Mr. Epstein prior
Toll Free: 866.709.8777
• 0 Facsimile: 561.394.2621
Suite 600
ESQUIRE 4440 PGA Boulevard
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
www.esquiresolutions.com
EFTA00181476
Louella Rabuyo - Volume I October 20, 2009
13 15
1 to being hired? 1 0 Did she tell what you would be paid at that
2 A No, sir. 2 time?
3 Q Where did this meeting, within the house where 3 A Not yet.
4 did the meeting with Ornstein° Maxwell take place? 4 0 Did you show up that Saturday? I guns that's
5 A In the living room. 5 November 17th of 2004?
6 0 Aside from teeing you that you were going to 6 A No, that's not.
7 be required to make the beds and just generally tidy up, 7 0 No. Was it prior to November 17th of 2004, or
8 did she specify anything else that you would be required atter?
9 to do? 9 A After.
10 A No. to 0 Okay. The interview that you first went to
11 0 Where had you worked prior to working for 11 was November 17th, 2004 with Ms. Maxwell; is that the
12 Mr. Epstein? 12 date that you gave us?
13 A I work as a certified nursing assistant. 13 A I cannot remember.
14 0 Where? 14 0 The only reason I'm using that date Is I
15 A At that time I was doing private duty. is believe the question I asked was when did you start
16 0 How long have you been a certified nursing 16 working for Mr. Epstein, and I thought the date that you
17 assistant? 17 gave me was November 17th, 2004.
18 A Since about ten years. 18 A Yes.
19 0 And what made you change professions from 19 0 Okay. And in the course of this whole thing,
20 being a certified nursing assistant to be a housekeeper 20 it sounds like you interviewed with ChIslaine Maxwell.
21 for Mr. Epstein? 21 there were other interviewees, you received a call and
22 A The agency called me that there is an 22 you were asked to try out on a Saturday?
23 interview; it I like. I go to, so that's how it started. 23 A Yes.
24 0 And when you went to the interview, obviously 24 0 And where does that Saturday fall in related
25 you're going to this very big house and you talked to 25 to November 17th, 2004?
14 16
1 Ornstein° Maxwell, right? i A When I accepted the job otter.
2 A Yes 2 0 Okay. And did they tel you at that time when
3 0 And did you decide right then that you liked 3 you accepted the job otter how much you were going to be
4 this and that you were going to change professions and 4 paid?
s you were going to be his housekeeper? 5 A Yes.
6 A No. 6 0 What was that?
7 0 Okay. Then walk me through that, how did you 7 A II was 32,000 per annum.
8 go about eventually accepting the position? a 0 And has your salary increased over time?
9 A I didn't expect to be hired, because there 9 A Yes, sir.
10 were other interviewers (sic), interview people that to 0 And can you walk us through the increments of
11 were to be Interviewed. 11 increase in your salary?
12 a Okay. 12 A It was promised yearly increase.
13 A And then I receive a call from Ms. Maxwell if 13 0 By whom?
14 I like. I can do a try-out. 14 A Ms. Maxwell.
15 0 Okay. Did she tell you hew long this try-out is 0 Was that at the time when you were
16 period would last? 16 interviewed. or took the job?
17 A No. 17 A Yea. Sir.
18 0 And what did you tell her when she made that 18 O Did she promise you what your yearly increase
19 offer for you to by out? 19 would be?
20 A I told her that I am still taking care of this 20 A No.
21 patient, so she said if you like, you can come Saturday 21 0 And have you received a yearly increase every
22 and try it. 22 year?
23 0 Okay. And what did you tell her, did you 23 A I did.
24 accept that? 24 0 And what has that yearly increase been?
25 A Yes, I did. 25 A Up to 42.
Toll Free: 866.709.8777
Facsimile: 561.394.2621
S
Suite 600
ESQUIRE 4440 PGA Boulevard
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
www.esquiresolutions.com
EFTA00181477
Louella Rabuyo - Volume I October 20, 2009
17 19
1 0 Today? 1 0 Okay. So lets talk about that. Back in
• 2
3
4
5
A Yes.
0 So you're making $42,000 today, and that's the
most that you've made over the five-year period you've
worked for Mr. Epstein?
2
3
4
5
November of 2004, you were to working 8:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. And when did that schedule change from 8:00
5:00?
A When? When the house was renovated.
6 A Yes, sir. 6 0 When was that, do you remember the yew?
7 0 At the time when you — when we took 7 A 2006.
B Alfredo Rodriguez's deposition, he described you as a 8 0 Okay.
9 very religious Catholic woman. Does that accurately 9 MR. CRITTON: I'm sony. '06?
10 describe you? 10 THE WITNESS: '06.
11 MR. CRITTON: Let me Just object to the loran. 11 BY MR. EDWARDS:
12 MR. : You can answer the question if 12 0 So from November 2004 through '06. I'm correct
13 you understood it. 13 in presuming that your schedule was an average of five
14 THE WITNESS: I am a Catholic and I go to 14 days a week from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.?
15 mass. 15 A At that time I go nine o'clock, I go to the
16 BY MR. EDWARD$: 16 house at nine o'clock.
17 0 Is that something you go to regularly? 17 0 Starting in 2006?
18 A II I have time. I go regularly. 18 A Yes.
19 0 When do you normally go to mass? 19 0 So when your schedule changed from 8:00 to
20 A Sunday masses and weekdays. 20 5:00, in 2006 you started going to the house.
21 0 How many weekdays? 21 Jeffrey Epstein's house, at nine o'clock?
22 A If I can, every day. 22 A Yes, sir.
23 0 And in the five-year period that you've worked 23 0 And you would stay until what time?
24 for Mr. Epstein, have you tried to go every day if you 24 A Sometimes 5:00, sometimes later, 5:30.
25 could? 25 0 Would lhat depend on what needed to be done?
18 20
A Yes.
• 1
2
3
4
A No.
0 In a typical week would you normally go on
Sunday to mass?
A Yes, sir.
2
3
4
C1 How have you received your money, has it been
by check, by cash, in terms of payment from Mr. Epstein?
A Its directly deposited to my bank.
5 0 And how many days during the week will you 5 0 Do you know who directly deposits your money?
6 also attend mass? 6 A Who?
7 A If the schedule permits, then I go, but if 7 0 Yeah. Whether it's Ghislaine Maxwell or a
8 not, then I don't go. corporation or Jeffrey Epstein, do you know who the
9 0 So is there a way that you could give me an 9 direct depositor is of your check?
10 average of how many times a week that you go during the 10 MR. CRITTON: Form.
11 week to mass? 11 THE WITNESS: Mr. Epstein.
12 A Mistime? 12 BY MR. EDWARDS:
13 0 Right. Yeah. I guess today, these days. 13 0 Okay. Over the five years that you have been
14 A I attend Sunday masses only. 14 working at Mr. Epstein's house, how many conversations
15 0 And back in 2004, when you first started with 15 have you had directly with Mr. Epstein?
16 Mr. Epstein? 16 A What's this, what year?
17 A I tried to go if I have the time, sir. 17 0 Well, in the last five years, how many
18 0 Was there ever a time that you went every day? 18 conversations have you had directly with Mr. Epstein?
19 A No. 19 MR. CRITTON: Form.
20 0 But your testimony is that if time permitted, 20 THE WITNESS: The past year it's just good
21 you tried to go every day? 21 morning, how are you, you're doing a good job.
22 A Yes. 22 BY MR. EDWARDS:
23 0 Is there a reason why now these days you only 23 0 Okay. How was it prior to that, did you talk
24 attend on Sundays? 24 to him more?
25 A Because my time schedule has changed. 25 A This time more.
Toll Free: 866.709.8777
•
Facsimile: 561.394.2621
Suite 600
ESQUIRE
nn
4440 PGA Boulevard
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
www.esquiresolutions.com
EFTA00181478
Louella Rabuyo - Volume I October 20, 2009
21 23
O Now you talk to him more? 1 A Yes.
2 A Because I serve him breakfast, so... 2 O When did you talk to Lyn Fontanilla about
3 O And is that an additional responsibility that 3 == .7
4 you dickil have before? 4 A It was just through the conversation.
5 A Yes. 5 O What would cause you to be in a conversation
6 O In the five•year period that you've worked 6 with this person in New York?
7 there, can you name for me all of the other employees 7 MR. CRITTON: Form.
8 who have worked at the Jeffrey Epstein house? B THE WITNESS: She calls me, I call her.
9 A After Alfredo Rodriguez left, there was BY MR. EDWARDS:
lo Jerome, the gardener, and now ifs Yanusz. 10 O You're friends?
12 O And those are the house managers? 11 A Yes.
12 A Yes. 12 O Do you still talk to her today?
13 O And then you work there? 13 A Yes.
14 A Right. 14 O And does she work for Mr. Epstein as well, to
is O Aside from yourself, Jerome, and Janusz, was 15 your knowledge?
16 there anybody else that you can remember working at the 16 A She does.
17 house in the past five years in any position? 17 O And does Joie. her husband, also work for
19 A Yes. 18 Mr. Epstein as well?
19 O Who else? 19 A Yes, sir.
20 20 O Where do they work?
21 21 A In New York.
22 A Yes. 22 O At Mr. Epstein's house in New York?
23 O What does she do there? 23 A Yes, sir.
24 A She's the personal assistant. 24 O And have you talked with them about your
25 O Personal assistant to whom? 25 duties and has she talked to you about her duties?
22 24
1 A Mr. Epstein. 1 A Yes, sir.
2 O And as his personal assistant, what have you 2 O And your duties are similar to Lyn's duties in
3 observed her to do for him? 3 New York?
4 A Can you rephrase your question? 4 A No. Because that's a bigger house than...
5 O I can try. You said that she's his personal 5 O Palm Beach?
6 assistant. What does that mean, what does she do? 6 A Yes. sir.
A Order things that I need, or, what s this. 7 O Is it your understanding that -- you know,
8 O So ifs your testimony that has a we're going to get into the past two years where
9 been, for the past five years that you've worked there, 9 Mr. Epstein has either been in jail or he's been on
10 has been somebody that you have observed to order things 10 house arrest in Palm Beach, so I'm going to ask you
11 that you need? 11 first for the first three years that you worked there
12 A If I need something, then I go to ask 12 and Mr. Epstein was traveling, was Mr. Epstein spending
13 O Okay. What other things have you seen 13 the majority of his time in Palm Beach or in New York or
14 do for Mr. Epstein? 14 elsewhere, if you know?
15 A I have not, that's the only thing I know. 15 A He comes -- we don't know the schedule, we
16 O Who told you that 16 receive a call, then we prepare. he's coming.
17 Mr. Epstein's personal assistant? 17 O You say we receive a call. Who receives the
18 A Coworker. 18 call?
19 O Who is that? 19 A Either Alfredo or Janusz.
20 A In New York. 20 O Depending on who the house manager is at the
21 O What's that person's name? 21 time?
22 A Lyn. 22 A Yes.
23 O Lyn who? 23 O And the call comes from whom, from Ghislaine
24 A Fontanilla. 24 or from Jeffrey Epstein?
25 O Is that Joio's wife? 25 A I don't know.
Toll Free: 866.709.8777
Facsimile: 561.394.2621
Suite 600
ESQUIRE 4440 PGA Boulevard
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
www.esquiresolutions.com
EFTA00181479
Louella Rabuyo - Volume I October 20, 2009
25 27
1 0 Okay. What's your understanding of Lyn's role MR. CRITTON: Form.
• 2
3
4
5
in Jeffrey Epstein's life up in New York?
A She's housekeeper, too.
0 And your understanding of Jojo's role?
A A driver.
2
3
4
5
BY MR. EDWARDS:
0 You realize that?
MR.
BY MR. EDWARDS:
Do you understand his question?
6 0 Does he also serve as a house manager, similar 6 0 Do you understand my question?
7 to the way Alfredo Rodriguez was in Palm Beach? 7 MR. Do you know that is what he's
8 A No. 8 asking you?
9 0 When you say a driver, who does he drive, if 9 THE WITNESS: Yes.
10 you know? 10 MR. : I think the question was do you
11 A Mr. Epstein. 11 know whether or not Mr. Epstein pled guilty to
12 0 All right. Mr. Epstein obviously hasn't been 12 crimes.
13 in New York for quite some time: isn't that your 13 Was that the question?
14 understanding? 14 MR. EDWARDS: Sure.
15 A Yes. 15 MR. CRITTON: That was not his question.
16 0 So Jojo's still employed up in New York as a 16 BY MR. EDWARDS:
17 driver for Mr. Epstein, right? 17 0 Okay. Well, do you realize that Mr. Epstein
18 A He also does housework, helps Lyn. 18 pled guilty to crimes?
19 0 Have you discussed with Lyn whether or not 19 A Plead guilty? From the news.
2o young girls visit the house in New York? 20 0 Okay. So when you say you saw the news, which
21 MR. CRITTON: Form. 21 is where this portion of our discussion began, are you
22 MR. la You can answer that. 22 referring to the news related to Mr. Epstein and the
23 BY MR. EDWARDS: 23 charges, the criminal charges or criminal investigation
24 0 He didn't like the form of my question so he's 24 surrounding him: is that the news you're talking about?
25 able to object. but you can still answer. 25 A Yes.
26 28
• 2
3
4
MR. la
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. EDWARDS:
You can still answer if you
understand the question.
1
2
3
4
0 Okay. So when that came out are we talking
about 2005. 2006, something in that area?
MR. CRITTON: Fenn.
BY MR. EDWARDS:
5 0 You've never talked to Lyn about young girls 5 0 Is that the first tine you remember seeing the
6 being in the house in New York? 6 news on that subject?
7 A When the news carne up, so that's how we 7 MR. CRITTON: Form.
8 talked. 8 THE WITNESS: I cannot remember.
9 0 What do you mean, when the news came up? 9 BY MR. EDWARDS:
10 A Whenever there was something on the news on 10 0 All right. Whenever it was, you talked to Lyn
11 TV, then that's how we come to talk about it. 11 about that?
12 0 Okay. When you say something came on the 12 A No. I don't usually talk about it. She calls
13 news. you're talking about in terms of a criminal 13 and how are you doing, then oh, like that.
14 investigation of Mr. Epstein? 14 0 Okay. And what was the discussion as it
15 MR. CRITTON: Form. 15 related to girls in either the New York house or the
16 THE WITNESS: Criminal? 16 Palm Beach house between yourself and Lyn?
17 BY MR. EDWARDS: 17 MR. CRITTON: Form.
18 0 Well, you realize that Mr. Epstein went to 18 THE WITNESS: She talks to me when she read in
19 jail, right? 19 the news or she saw on the computer.
20 A Yes. 20 BY MR. EDWARDS:
21 0 And that was after pleading guilty to some 21 0 Okay. And does she tell you about young girls
22 crimes. You realize that, right? 22 being in the New York house?
23 MR. CRITTON: Form. 23 MR. CRITTON: Form.
24 BY MR. EDWARDS: 24 THE WITNESS: She did not.
25 0 I mean, that's why you go to jail. 25
•
DataSet-9
Unknown
1 pages
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No: 10-80447-cv-Marra/Johnson
C. L.
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEO DEPOSITION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE UNDERSIGNED ATTORNEY WILL TAKE THE DEPOSMON OF:
DATE AND TIME: -
May 18, 2010
10:00 AM
upon an oral examination before Videograpber 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 true and correct copy of this Notice was mailed this
day of April 2010 to Jack A. Goldberger, Esq., 250 Australian Avenue, Suite 1400, West Palm
Beach, FL .33401; Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq., 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400, West Palm
Beach, FL 33401; Robert D. Critton, Jr., Michael J. Pike, 303 Banyon Boulevard, Suite 400, West
Palm Beach, FL 33401.
LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A.
By:
Spencer Kuvin, Esq.
Florida Bar No: 089737
EFTA00724093
DataSet-10
Unknown
3 pages
To:
Cc: Shauna Bet
Fran: Erika Kellerhals
Sent: Wed 2/25/2015 11:05:28 AM
Subject• Re: Jeffrey Epstein
Thanks
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 25, 2015, at 6:22 AM, wrote:
> Good morning...I was just informed this deposition will not happen today...I am
hoping you were told! So sorr _apparently they are working on a reschedule.
Thanks and take care,
» On Feb 4, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Erika Kellerhals wrote:
» Of course. We can also bring Jeffrey in via the back entrance so no one
>> can photograph him coming in.
>>
>>
» Erika A. Kellerhals
» Member
>> Kellerhals Fer•uson Kroblin PLLC
>>
>> 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 2:28 PM, "Lesley Groff" wrote:
>»
>» Can we make sure someone is watching the door per Chet's request?
>»
»» On Feb 4, 2015, at 1:19 PM, Shauna Betz wrote:
EFTA_R1_00871787
EFTA02084377
>>»
>>>> February 25th the conference room is available all day, how much time
»» would
»» you like me to block off?
>>»
>>>> Shauna Betz
»» Legal Assistant
>>»
>>>> 9100 Port of Sale Mall, Ste 15
»» St. Thomas, VI 00802
>>>> Tel: 340 779 2564
»» Fax: 888 316 9269
>>» email: [email protected]
>>»
>>>>
>>»
>>>> 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.
>>»
>>» Original Message
>>>> From: Erika Kellerhals (mailto:[email protected]]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 2:14 PM
»» To: Lesley Groff
>>» Cc: Shauna Betz
>>>> Subject: Re: Jeffrey Epstein
>>»
>>» Shauna - please confirm that the conference room is available on this
»» date
>>>> for Mr. Epstein's deposition. Lesley - 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
>>» Tel: 340 779 2564
»» Fax: 888 316 9269
>>>> email: [email protected]
>>»
EFTA_R1_00671768
EFTA02084378
>>»
>>»
>>>> 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, "Lesley Groff" 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: (561) 655-4777, [email protected]
>>>>>
>»» Thanks! Lesley
>>>>
>>»
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>» This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>» http://www.avast.com
EFTA_R1_00671769
EFTA02084379
DataSet-9
Unknown
1 pages
From: "Martin Weinberg"
To: Jeffrey Epstein
Subject: ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:01:11 +0000
and mark up for an immediate re-deposition subpoening recs of payments to her, contracts signed by her
with Rothstein, etc
Martin G. Weinberg, Esq.
20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000
Boston, MA 02116
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.
Original message from Jeffrey Epstein :
If Coffey were to interview . can she claim attorney client.. since he represents the firm.. i know she
can claim the fifth. How does the crime fraud exemption work?
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
Jeffrey Epstein
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.
EFTA00768198
DataSet-9
Unknown
1 pages
From: Lesley Groff
Subject: Bill Scherer-Transcripts
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:58:13 +0000
Pauline in Scherer's office syas there is a court order in place and the transcripts are not allowed to be distributed.
Scherer is back in his deposition and will not be out till end of day. She will let him know you were asking....but
she says she will not send out without Mr. Scherer's approval.
EFTA00925415
DataSet-9
Unknown
61 pages
648
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 CONTINUED DEPOSITION OF
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
VOLUME 5
Pages 648 through 781
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
9:04 a.m. - 11:59 a.m.
Tripp Scott
110 Southeast 6th Street
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Stenographically Reported By:
Kimberly Fontalvo, RPR, CLR
Realtime Systems Administrator
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
EFTA00602439
649 651
1 APPEARANCES: 1 INDEX
2 2
On behalf of Plaintiffs:
3 3
SEARCY. DENNEY. SCAROLA Examination Page
4 BARNHART & SHIPLEY. P.A. 4
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
s West Palm Beach. Florida 33402-3626 5 VOLUME 5 (Pages 648 - 781)
BY: JACK SCAROLA. ESQ. 6
6 jsx esearcyhw.com 7 Certificate of Oath 778
7
a On behalf of Defendant: Certificate of Reporter 779
9 COLE. SCOTT & KISSANE. P.A. 8 Read and Sign Letter to Witness 780
Dadeland Centre II - Suite 1400 Errata Sheet (forwarded upon execution) 781
10 9150 South Dadeland Boulevard
9
Miami. Herida 33156
11 BY: THOMAS EMERSON SCOTT. JR.. ESQ. 10 PLAINTIFF EXHIBITS
thotnas.scou6ksklegal.com 11
12 BY: STEVEN SAFRA. ESQ. (Via phone)
steven.safranieskkgalcom 12 No. Page
13 -and- 13 25 Transcript from Don Lemon Interview 689
14 SWEDER & ROSS. 112 14
Ill Oliver Street 15
15 Boston. MA 02110
BY: KENNETH k SWEDER. ESQ. 16
16 kswederesweder-ross.com 17
17 -and-
18 18
WILEY. REIN
17769 K Suet, NW 19
19 Washington. DC 20006 20
BY: RICHARD A. SIMPSON. ESQ. 21
20 RSimpson6wilepein.com
21 22
22 23
23
24 24
25 25
650 652
1 APPEARANCES (Continued): 1 Thereupon. the proceedings continued at 9:04 a.m.
2 2 VIDEOGRAPHER: Are now on the video
3 On behalf of Jeffrey Epstein: 3 record. This is the 13th day of January. 2016.
4 DARREN K. INDYKE. PLLC 4 The time is 9:04 am. This is the videotaped
575 Lexington Ave.. 4th Fl.
5 deposition of Alan Dershowitz in the matter of
5 New York, New York
BY: DARREN K. INDYKE, ESQ. (Via phone) 6 Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell versus Alan
6 7 Dershowitz.
7 On behalf of 8 My name is Marcy Martinez_ I am the
8 BOLES. SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 9 videographer representing Above & Beyond
401 E. Las Olas Blvd_ Ste. 1200 10 Reprographics. Will the attorneys please
9 Fat Lauderdale. Florida 33301
11 announce their appearances for the record.
BY: SIGRID STONE MCCAWLEY, ESQ.
10 [email protected] 12 MR. EDWARDS: Sure. On behalf of the
11 13 plaintiff today Brad Edwards. Jack Scarola
12 ALSO PRESENT: 19 Brittany Henderson and Paul Cassell.
13 Edward I. P012U011. Special Master 15 MR. SIMPSON: On behalf of the defendant
14 Sean D. Reyes. Utah Attorney General Office 16 and the witness. Richard Simpson. and Thomas
15 Marcy Martinez. Videographer
16 17 Scott will be joining. He just walked in.
17 18 MS. McCAWLEY: On behalf of nonparty
18 19 Sigrid McCawley and my
19 20 colleague Meredith Schultz from Boles. Schiller
20 21 & Plexner.
21
22 MR. INDYKE: On behalf of Jeffrey Epstein.
22
23 23 Darren Indyke.
24 24 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Ed Ponuoli as
25 25 the special master.
2 (Pages 649 to 652)
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
EFTA00602440
653 655
1 MR. SIMPSON: Is there anyone else on the 1 And I knew, of course, that I had never
2 phone? 2 met -- had no contact with I knew
3 MR. MAISEL: Yeah, this is Nicholas 3 that she was lying. I read her deposition. and as
9 Maisel. 9 an experienced lawyer with 50 years of experience,
5 THE COURT REPORTER: Would you raise your 5 it was absolutely clear to me that no lay person
6 right hand. please? 6 with her lack of education could have written that
7 Do you swear or affirm that the testimony 7 deposition.
8 you are about to give will be the truth, the 8 I sought the advice of friends and others
9 whole truth, and nothing but the truth? 9 with experience who confirmed the view that that
10 THE WITNESS: I do. 10 affidavit clearly had to have been written by
11 MR. SCAROLA: Nick would you announce the 11 lawyers and certainly drafted by lawyers: the level
12 capacity in which you're appearing, please. 12 of detail, the structure of the sentences, all of
13 MR. MAISEL: Special research assistant 13 which led me conclusively to the belief that the
14 for Alan Dershowitz, 14 lawyers had written this affidavit.
15 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. 15 I suspected from the very beginning that
16 MR. EDWARDS: Are we ready? 16 this was part of an extortion plot in order to
17 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Go ahead. 17 obtain money. I later learned many. many. many
18 BY MR. EDWARDS: 18 facts.
19 Q. Mr. Dershowitx, in January of 2015. when 19 MR. EDWARDS: I object and move to strike
20 you made the statements that Paul Cassell unit Brad 20 as nonresponsive and that the question calls
21 Edwards participated in the fabricating of the 21 for information in his possession in January of
22 allegations that were made against you, what 22 2015. I would ask for a ruling on that.
23 information or evidence did you have in your 23 A. I'm providing that. but I'm giving the
24 possession at that time to support those statements? 29 context.
25 MR. SIMPSON: Object to the form as overly 25 SPECIAL MASTER P0ZZUOLI: Denied. Move
654 656
1 general. You may answer. 1 forward.
2 A. As soon as the allegations were made 2 A. Okay. I knew that there was a financial
3 against me. I received a series of phone calls and 3 motivation here. I also knew that Cassell and
4 people approached me at various events and they 4 Edwards had lied when the said they were
5 warned me about the reputation of Bradley Edwards. 5 representing in a pro bono basis.
6 They told me that he had, in their view. 6 I had been informed repeatedly that they
7 participated in a major fraud with a man named 7 were in it for the money and that they expected to
8 Rothstein. that he should be in jail for the 8 earn a lot of money from representing her and others
9 Rothstein events. 9 in this case and that they pretended to be pro bono
10 I received a phone call saying that he had 10 lawyers when they were, in fact. money-grubbing.
11 fabricated evidence when he was a plos,utor and 11 money-hungry lawyers who had earned a very
12 that he had knowingly failed to investigate police 12 substantial amount of money already on these cases
13 fabrication of evidence in a case. Generally was 13 and were expecting to earn mom money.
19 warned about the terrible reputation that 14 Let me think of what other information I
15 Mr. Edwards had. 15 had.
16 I also received phone calls telling me 16 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: At the time of
17 that Mr. Cassell was a zealot, that he had used me 17 the question.
18 in class as a whipping — as a kind of an object of 18 A. At the time of my statements, right.
19 hate and painted me as a liberal supporter of the 19 It's just inconceivable to me that this
20 exclusionary rule and opponent of the death penalty. 20 uneducated woman could have come up with this story
21 and that he had no concern for the truth when it 21 on her own.
22 came to his zealotry on behalf of alleged victims. 22 I understood the motives of the lawyers.
23 The calls were just -- the people who told 23 and I was convinced, therefore, it was my opinion
29 me this were just -- there were so many of them that 24 based on my experience, in fact. that she could not
25 it was amazing to me. 25 have done this by herself and that she had to have
3 (Pages 653 to 656)
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
EFTA00602441
657 659
1 worked in coordination with her lawyers. 1 no. no. no. Na Respond to the question that
2 Her lawyers were also at that point 2 was answered and go ahead because I haven't
3 claiming that the story should be believed because 3 heard any objection yet.
4 of who they were. Mr. Cassell. in my view. 4 MR. EDWARDS: I'm objecting to all of this
5 unethically signed his pleading with the University 5 as being nonresponsive to the question.
6 of Utah imprimatur. suggesting that he was a State 6 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Is there
7 actor. suggesting that he acted an behalf of his 7 anything else that you would like to add to the
8 university, something I would never do and I've 8 answer?
9 stopped clients from doing. When I represent 9 THE WITNESS: Yes.
10 people. I represent them on my own behalf. not on 10 A. When the newspapers called me. they all
11 behalf of any university. 11 asked me the following question --
12 The very fact that the Attorney General of 12 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Was this in
13 Utah was here yesterday indicates that he may very 13 January?
14 well be a State actor and subject to the rules of 14 A. This was in January.
15 State action rather than individual action. 15 BY MR. EDWARDS:
16 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: That portion I 16 Q. The question on the table Is —
17 will strike. That sentence. 17 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Hang on one
18 A. Sony. 18 second.
19 BY MR. EDWARDS: 19 A. I'm going to tell you.
20 Q. Okay. 20 MR. EDWARDS: What information that
21 A. Tm not finished. 21 Mr. Dershowitz had in January 4.2015. when he
22 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Is there any 22 made the statement that Paul Cassell and Brad
23 other information that you haven't touched 23 Edwards fabricated the allegations against him.
24 on — 24 MR. SIMPSON: The question was about in
25 THE WITNESS: I'm (tying to— 25 January of 2015.
658 660
1 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: -- as of. what. 1 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: That's what it
2 January? 2 was. That was the original question. which is
3 MR. EDWARDS: January of 2015. 3 why he was afforded a tremendous amount of
4 THE WITNESS: Oh. yes. 4 latitude.
5 MR. SCAROLA: January 4. 5 MR. EDWARDS: Understood.
6 MR. EDWARDS: January 4.2015. 6 A. And I got continuing information all
7 A. Okay. that's the question. But. of 7 through January and amended my statements as
8 course. I made a sales of statements that continued 8 consistent with the information that I ga.
9 beyond January 4. and they always took into account 9 The newspapers called me. They all said
10 new developments and new information that I had. 10 to me. why would anybody make a false allegation if
11 I was also aware that Mr. Cassell was 11 he's a former Federal judge. if he's a professor. if
12 promoting himself as a former federal judge and 12 he's a distinguished trial lawyer?
13 using his status and imprimatur in a false effort to 13 Clearly the -- on the 4th of December.
14 try to add credibility to the story. 14 talking about that day. that's the day on which
15 And I did not make -- this is very 15 Mr. Cassell wrote to ABC —
16 important to this. I did not make a single call to 16 BY MR. EDWARDS:
17 a single newspaper or single television station. to 17 Q. January.
18 my knowledge. or a single newspaper. I was 18 A. January 4. 2015. that's the date on which
19 constantly responding. 19 Mr. Cassell wrote to ABC News asking them to
20 MR. SCAROLA: That's not responsive. 20 publicize his client's story and to — and again
21 A. Excuse me. In the last deposition -- 21 making it clear to ABC who he was and what he -- and
22 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: No. no. 22 who he had been and what offices he had held.
23 A. -- there was an interruption by 23 And so it was clear to me at that point.
24 Mr. Scarola that I want to put on the record. 24 and through January it became clearer and clearer
25 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: No. no. no. no. 25 that she could not have done this on her own, that
4 (Pages 657 to 660)
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
EFTA00602442
661 663
1 she had to have sat with her lawyers and concocted 1 MR. EDWARDS: Affidavit.
2 this story. added the kind of detail to the story 2 A. — if I hadn't seen it at that point. I
3 that would make a lie seem plausible and credible. 3 don't remember the exact day when her affidavit came
4 And I think that any reasonable lawyer reading that 4 in. I referred obviously to the pleadings. That
5 affidavit would have come to exactly the same 5 was the allegation, the allegation in the pleadings.
6 conclusion that I came to. 6 So if I said that you and Cassell sat and
7 SPECIAL MASTER P0ZZUOL1: Okay. 7 helped her make it up. it was based on -- at that
8 BY MR. EDWARDS: B point in time, based on you and her. primarily you
9 Q. Mr. Dershowitz, when you first made the 9 and Cassell. because she didn't submit -- it wasn't
10 statement on January 4..2015 that Mr. Cassell and 10 an affidavit at that point.
11 Brad Edwards had participated in the fabrication of 11 It was your words. you. that were accusing
12 these allegations. did you have before you any 12 me of these heinous crimes without any basis. So I
13 affidavit or, as you have repeatedly called it, 13 surely had a basis on January 4th of attributing it
14 deposition of 14 to you because it was your signature on the —
15 MR. SIMPSON: Object to the form. It's 15 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Hold on a
16 referring to a specific statement that has not 16 second. So I understand. the question is what
17 been identified for the witness. 17 did you have on January 4th —
18 A. Affidavit of ' What I had 18 MR. EDWARDS: -- 2015 to support that
19 was the lawyers statements that were included in 19 statement.
20 the Complaint, which they then sought to publicize 20 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Just answer that
21 all around the world and got more than a thousand 21 question first and then you can explain. but —
22 newspapers to cover the story. every television 22 A. With due respect. Your Honor. I think the
23 station in the world. every radio station virtually 23 question was, did you have the affidavit in front of
24 in the world. based on what they themselves had 24 you.
25 written. actually gives me even a greater basis. 25
662
1 because it wasn't at that point based on her 1 BY MR. EDWARD$:
2 affidavit, it was based on what the lawyers had 2 Q. Right. Okay. Did you have the affidavit
3 said. 3 or deposition of on that day?
4 MR. EDWARDS: I object. Can I have the 4 A. To my recollection. I did not. 1had only
5 question read back. I'm lost as to what the 5 your characterization of the accusation which you
6 question is anymore. 6 were making against me.
7 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Ask — reread 7 Q. And in your experience as an attorney,
8 the question. 8 isn't it common knowledge that attorneys drafting
9 COURT REPORTER: 'Mr. Dershowitz. when you 9 complaints or pleadings take the word of the client
10 first made the statement on January 4. 2015 10 to form the basis of that Complaint or pleading?
11 that Mr. Cassell and Brad Edwards had 11 A. No. it's not common knowledge. It's
12 participated in the fabrication of these 12 common knowledge that unethical lawyers of the kind
13 allegations. did you have before you any 13 that your reputation told me you were help the
14 affidavit or. as you have repeatedly called it. 14 clients —
15 deposition of r 15 MR. EDWARDS: I object. Move to strike as
16 BY MR. EDWARDS: 16 nonresponsive.
17 Q. Did you? 17 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: That. I am going
18 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: So that's the 18 to strike. Try -- try to answer the question.
19 question. Answer that question only. 19 A. But I think the generic answer is ethical
20 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike everything 20 lawyers — let me put it this way. ethical lawyers
21 else he's said. 21 should not elaborate on what a client tells them in
22 A. On January 4th. to my memory. I did not 22 an affidavit.
23 refer to a deposition or to whatever other word you 23 In my experience. there's a continuum.
24 used -- what was the word? 24 Many. many lawyers. when they see a statement by a
25 MR. SIMPSON: Affidavit. 25 client they'll say. no. no. no. no. could you
5 (Pages 661 to 664)
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
EFTA00602443
665 667
1 please elaborate on that. You say you had sex with 1 MR. INDYKE: Instruct Alan not to answer
2 him. Was it one time? Was it two times? Could it 2 to the extent it would disclose communications
3 have been six times? Could it have been on the 3 of who made those —
4 airplane? Could it have been -- et cetera. 4 SPECIAL MASTER PO'CLUOLI: Objection noted.
5 So I think it's a continuum of the way S You can answer it.
6 lawyers work with clients. The most ethical lawyers 6 A. What framework are you giving me in terms
7 don't change what a client says. They word for word 7 of time?
8 repeat what the client says. 8 SPECIAL MASTER PO'CLUOLI: In January.
9 The most unethical lawyers will put all of 9 BY MR. EDWARDS:
10 their own thoughts. words. ideas if it strengthens 10 Q. You told me that before you made these
11 their position and strengthens their case. 11 statements. one of the things that you had in your
12 From what I had been -- from the 12 possesskm was a series of phone calls. "a bunch of
13 information I knew at that time. I put you on the 13 people called me" —
14 extreme unethical end of the continuum. 14 A. That is right. That's true.
15 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: That wasn't the 15 Q. -- "and told me Brad Edwards participated
16 question. so I will strike the last sentence. 16 in major fraud with Rothstein." That's the first
17 We need to get focused on answering the 17 question I want answered. What are the names of
18 question. so please try to do that. 18 those people?
19 A. Okay. I will do that. 19 A. A number of them who called me were ones
20 BY MR. EDWARDS: 20 who volunteered —
21 Q. When you first made the statements that 21 MR. SCAROLA: That's not a response to the
22 Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards fabricated the 22 question.
23 allegations — 23 BY MR. EDWARDS:
24 A. Would you read me the statement that you 24 Q. What are the names?
25 say I made on January 4th so I can understand what 25 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Stop. stop.
666 668
1 rem saying? 1 please. please. please.
2 Q. Do you deny making the statement that Brad 2 A. I'm invoicing the privilege, if you would
3 Edwards and Paul Cassell fabricated the allegations 3 allow me. please. A number of those who called me
4 against you? 4 called me in tandem to volunteer to be my lawyer.
5 A. I remember making a series of statements 5 I'll give you an example.
6 over time. I do not remember what I said on 6 SPECIAL MASTER PUELUOLI: No. no. hang on.
7 January 4th. In order to ask me what I had at the 7 A. I can't name this person because he called
8 time I made the statement. I need to know with 8 to give me legal advice. and I — he gave me that
9 precision the exact statement you are referring to 9 information as pan of his legal advice.
10 and the exact date. I think that's a fair request. 10 BY MR. EDWARDS:
11 Q. We'll get that for you. It would be 11 Q. I'm not asking if one of the lawyers who
12 easier had you made less statements, but we'll sift 12 represented you and you have an attorney-client
13 through them. 13 privilege with has shared with you some information
14 A. If would be easier if you had called -- 14 that they believe to he the case.
15 MR. SIMPSON: There's no question. Object 15 I'm asking if you are using as support for
16 to the sidebar comments. 16 your statement that certain people told you and you
17 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Yes, let's -- 17 relied upon this -- and the particular "this" at
18 BY MR. EDWARDS: 18 this point is that Brad Edward participated in a
19 Q. What are the names -- please list for me 19 major fraud with Scott Rothstein -- I want to know
20 all of the names of the people who told you that -- 20 the names of those people that you are relying upon
21 in quotes -- Brad Edwards was -- participated in a 21 to test veracity of that statement, please. Names
22 major fraud with Rothstein. Names of people. 22 of people.
23 MR. INDYKE: Objection based upon 23 A. One of the names was of a person who I was
24 attorney-client, work product. common interest. 24 seeking legal representation from. and it was pan
25 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Well, okay. 25 of my conversation with him regarding legal
6 (Pages 665 to 668)
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
EFTA00602444
669
1 representation. 1 MR. INDYKE: Sane objection. same
2 MR. SCAROLA: That's not a name. 2 instruction.
3 MR. EDWARDS: I'm sorry. I object and I 3 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: He's —
4 ask — 4 MR. EDWARDS: Calls for a yes or no.
5 A. If I give you the name — S SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: He's only asked
6 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I do think you 6 if you aware that the case was dismissed at
7 have to give the name. 7 that time.
8 A. Okay. The name of that person would be 8 A. I don't think I was. But a case being
9 David Markus. 9 dismissed does not mean the allegation isn't true.
10 BY MR. EDWARDS: 10 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: 1understand.
11 Q. Okay. 11 but --
12 A. And he told me to check the docket -- 12 BY MR. EDWARDS:
13 MR. SIMPSON: Just the question. 13 Q. Okay. In addition to David Markus, can
14 BY MR. EDWARDS: 14 you please complete this list of people that you
15 Q. When did David Markus call you to tell you 15 testified called you to tell you specifically that
16 that he knew or believed that Brad Edwards 16 Brad Edwards participated in a major fraud with
17 participated in a major fraud with Rothstein? 17 Rothstein?
18 A. Within days. Within probably a day or 18 A. So, I spoke several times during that
19 two. 19 period of time at various events. And people • -
20 Q. Did he tell you what it was that formed 20 lawyers came over to me and told me --
21 the basis for that statement that he made to you 21 Q. I'm not asking where. Who? What are the
22 that you so relied upon? 22 names?
23 A. I don't recall. 23 A. I can tell you one of them --
24 Q. Was it more than the fact that your 24 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: He's trying to
25 client, Jeffrey Epstein. had filed a lawsuit making 25 be -- I would allow him to answer it. He's
670 672
1 those allegations? 1 trying to be responsive to the question.
2 A. I don't think he was aware that Jeffrey 2 Please proceed.
3 Epstein had nude an allegation of that kind. 3 A. One of them was a Conner president or
4 Q. At the time when David Markus called you 4 chairman or at least member of the Florida Bar
5 to tell you that Brad Edwards participated in a 5 committee who warned me about you.
6 major fraud with Rothstein did you already — 6 BY MR. EDWARDS:
7 A. That's not — 7 Q. Does he have a name?
9 Q. -- have or know that Scott Rothstein had 8 A. I dont remember his name. I don't
9 testified under oath about that specific subject 9 remember his name. no. Of course he has a name, but
10 matter? 10 I don't remember his name.
11. A. Well. I cant imagine that mite relying 11 Another was — I mean — just hard to
12 on Scott Rothstein's credibility. 12 pinpoint names. but it was something that was
13 Q. I'm asking, did you know? 13 clearly in my mind that so many people were telling
14 MR. SIMPSON: Just answer the question. 14 me -- telling me to look into the case of Rothstein.
15 BY MR. EDWARDS: 15 telling me that you were his protege.
16 Q. Yes or no? 16 Q. Okay. Is it true, then, that you have the
11 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOU: Did you know? 17 name of one person who you can identify told you
18 A. I did not know. 18 that Brad Edwards participated in a major fraud with
19 BY MR. EDWARDS: 19 Rothstein?
20 Q. Did you know at that point in time that 20 A. I was also aware, of course. of the
21 the Complaint that was tiled by your client. Jeffrey 21 Complaint that had been filed against you. And that
22 Epstein. against Brad Edwards. making those exact 22 was one — I mean, I cant comment on that because
n allegations, had been dismissed at the stage -- at 23 of lawyer-client privilege.
24 the point in time when David Markus was making these 24 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Listen to the
25 statements to you that you so relied upon? 25 question, Professor. Go ahead.
7 (Pages 669 to 672)
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
EFTA00602445
673 675
1 BY MR. EDWARDS: 1 MR. SIMPSON: He did not testify that
2 Q. Is it now your testimony that you can only 2 he — we went through long questions and
3 provide me with one name of one human being that 3 answers in response to Mr. Edwards' questions.
4 called you and told you Brad Edwards participated in 4 He did not say he was relying on what his
5 a major fraud with Rothstein? 5 lawyers told him in this case.
6 A. 1 will try to think of others. 6 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I think that
7 Probably -- I may have some notes of others. I will 7 there is — let me say this: I think the
8 call around and find out whether my memory is 8 question was from Mr. Edwards whether he relied
9 correct or not. 9 on statements from his lawyers. I do think
10 MR. SIMPSON: Professor -- 10 that you have to answer that question.
11 A. But I don't want to mention names without 11 A. I would say that the statements from my
12 being sure. 12 lawyers played a small role. The larger role --
13 MR. SIMPSON: Just do you recall, as you 13 BY MR. EDWARDS:
14 sit here, the names? 14 Q. I want to know about that small role.
15 A. And right now. I don't recall names. other 15 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Hang on one
16 than a general discussion with my lawyers. And in 16 second. So now proceed.
17 the general discussion with my lawyers -- and I 17 BY MR. EDWARDS:
18 don't want to get into it -- 18 Q. Sure. I would like to know whose
19 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Then don't do 19 statements it was that played a small role in your
20 it. 20 belief that Brad Edwards fabricated cases based on
21 BY MR. EDWARDS: 21 the statements that they made to you that
22 Q. Are you relying upon the statements from 22 Brad Edwards participated in a major fraud with
23 your lawyers to support this allegation that the 23 Rothstein. What arc the name of those individuals?
24 basis of your statement that Brad Edwards 24 A. It's a complicated question here. So
25 participated in the fabrication of the allegations 25 there are three issues that I understand. One, what
674 676
1 against you was a list of people told you 1 was the basis for my belief that you had fabricated
2 Brad Edwards participated in a major fraud with 2 along with Mr. Cassell --
3 Rothstein: and, if so. I want to know the names of 3 Q. No, I'm asking for names of human beings.
4 those lawyers that you are using to support that 4 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: No. let me stop
S allegation? 5 you. My understanding of your testimony was
6 SIR. SIMPSON: Well, we have asserted 6 that whatever you received — whatever
7 privilege as to communications with those who 7 information you received from your laws
8 represented you. Please dont disclose that. 8 played a small role. That's what you testified
9 MR. SCAROLA: Respectfully — pardon me — 9 to.
10 the witness is the possessor of that privilege. 10 THE WITNESS: That's right.
11 He cannot make a statement disclosing the 11 SPECIAL MASTER PUELUOLI: Correctly.
12 content of the communications that he is 12 Mr. Edwards then followed up on that question
13 relying on and then he himself assert a 13 and said. let's go into that small role.
14 privilege to refuse to provide further 14 THE WITNESS: Okay.
15 information with regard to the statement that 15 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: So row...
16 he has made. We would request a ruling on the 16 BY MR. EI)WARI)S:
17 record as to whether there has already been a 17 Q. What arc the names of those people that
18 waiver. 18 gave you this information that played a small role
19 A. What I said, of course. was that— 19 in --
20 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Excuse me. Hang 20 A. In what?
21 on a second. 21 Q. -- in your belief that Brad Edwards had
22 MR. SCAROLA: %Vete requesting a oiling on 22 participated in a major fraud with Rothstein which
23 the record as to whether there has been a 23 somehow furthered your belief that Brad Edwards and
24 waiver as a consequence of what has already 24 Paul Cassell fabricated the allegations against you?
25 been stated. 25 So I'm asking for names of the people.
8 (Pages 673 to 676)
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
EFTA00602446
677 679
1 A. So my best recollection, and its now over 1 came over to me and told me -- he may have given me
2 a year. is that that was a subject of conversation 2 a card. which I conceivably may have at home. told
3 with David Markus. It was also the subject of 3 me that he was a former official of the Florida Bar
4 conversation with — 4 and was outraged at what had happened and told rte to
5 MS. McCAWLEY: Fm sorry. I didn't hear 5 please look into your background and then told me
6 that. If he's talking about conversations -- 6 about your background.
7 MR. EDWARDS: lie said Davis Markus. 7 Q. Dade Markus, Is he a former student f
8 MS. McCAWLEY: Fm sorry. I couldn't 8 yours?
9 hear. 9 A. Yes, yes.
10 A. Another lawyer -- other people sent me 10 Q. Did he have anything to do with the
11 newspaper clippings. 11 investigation into the -- Scott Rothstein or any of
12 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: No. no. no. 12 that?
13 A. Lawyer. Okay. The other lawyer who told 13 A. I don't know.
14 me about that was a lawyer named David Efron. 14 Q. David Efron. did he have any inside
15 MR. SCAROLA: First of all. make sure the 15 personal information into who was or who was not
16 list is complete. and then you want to know 16 culpable in any aspect of the fraud with Scott
17 everyone. 17 Rothstein?
18 BY MR. EDWARDS: 18 A. I don't know.
19 Q. Is that It? David Markus, David Efron? 19 MR. SCAROLA: You want to know exactly
20 A. Those are the two I remember offhand. 20 what they said.
21 Plus. as I said. when I spoke -- I spoke 21 BY MR. EDWARDS:
22 at several events in January — 22 Q. Before we go to the next statement that
23 Q. Right now -- 23 apparently formed your basis for believing that
24 A. — and lawyers came -- people -- 24 Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell fabricated the
25 lawyers — 25 allegations against you. can you tell me exactly
678 680
1 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Let me stop you. 1 word for word as you remember it what David Markus
2 BY MR. EDWARDS: 2 and then what David Efron told you —
3 Q. Let me get to the next question. 3 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Let's start with
4 A. Yes. 4 the first one.
5 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: Let me ask the 5 BY MR. EDWARDS:
6 witness, the question is limited to — 6 Q. -- what David Markus told you about the
7 MR. EDWARDS: Yes, the lawyers who played 7 participation of Brad Edwards in a fraud with
8 a small role. 8 Rothstein?
9 SPECIAL MAMMA POZZUOLI: The small role 9 MR. SINIPSON: We assert privilege to the
10 around the lawyers, and I think the followup 10 extent that it's someone who he was getting
11 question was, you've mentioned a second lawyer. 11 legal advice from.
12 is there anybody else on that list? 12 SPECIAL MASTER POZZUOLI: I'm going to
13 BY MR. EDWARDS: 13 allow the question. You can answer over
14 Q. Yes. 14 objection.
15 A. Two lawyers. yes. The lawyers who came is A. Atli can tell you is what the total
16 over to me at the events that I spoke at. 16 information I had at that point. I can't now, as I
17 Q. 14'hat are their names? 17 sit here, separate out what Markus said, what Efron
18 A. 1don't know. 18 said. what the lawyers who I met at the events said.
19 Q. How do you know that they're lawyers? 19 I can give you a totality of what the conclusion was
20 A. Because it was a lawyers' event. And they 20 that was reached. Each of themcontributed
21 were trial lawyers. This was all trial lawyers at 21 something.
22 the event. Florida trial lawyers. 22 BY MR. EDWARDS:
23 Q. You don't have the names of any of them: 23 Q. Where were you when you received this
24 is that right? 24 communication from David Markus about his
25 A. I can describe one of them as somebody who 25 understanding or belief that Brad Edwards
9 (Pages 677 to 680)
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
EFTA00602447
681 683
1 participated in a major fraud with Rothstein? 1 the generalities. but I don't remember the
2 A. In my apanntent. I suspect. 2 particulars of that. I would be happy to try to
3 Q. Do you remember 11th? 3 refresh my recollection.
4 A. 1remember being in my apartment when the 4 MR_ SCAROLA: Were going to take a short
9 story broke and getting call after call after call 5 break.
6 from lawyers. 6 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The
7 Q. Was this a telephone call with David 7 time is 9:38 a.m.
8 Markus — 8 (Recess was held from 9:38 a.m. until 9:45 am.)
9 A. Probably. 9
DataSet-9
Unknown
40 pages
1 (Pages 1 to 4)
Page 1 Page 3
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL? 1 INDEX
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY. FLORIDA
2
Complex Litigation. Fla R.Civ.Pro.1201 3 Deposition of Russell S. Adler: Page No.
4 Direct Examination by Mrs. April 4
CASE NO. 50 2009CA040800XXXXMB AG
5 Cross Examination by Mr. King 151
6 Certificate of Oath 155
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
7 Certificate of Reporter 156
vs.
8 Read and Sign Letter to Witness 157
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN. Individually. 9 Errata Sheet (to be forwarded upon execution) 158
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS. individually. 10
and L M individually, • • •
Defendants. 11
12 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT INDEX
13 Exhibit. Description Page No.
DEPOSITION OF 14 No. 1 Subpoena For Deposition Duces Tecum 6
RUSSELL S. ADLER
15
Taken on Behalf of the Plaintiff 16 DEFENDANTS EXHIBIT INDEX
DATE TAKEN: Wednesday, April 20, 2011
TIME: 9-10 AM - 3 CO PM 17 No. Description Page No.
PLACE: Fowler White Burnett. PA 18 NONE " -a
One Financial Plaza • 21st Floor
19
100 Southeast 3rd Avenue
Fort Lauderdale. FL 33394 20
21
Examination of the witness taken before: 22
Lee Lynott. Certified Merit Reporter 23
Registered Professional Reporter
Certified Shorthand Reporter, Florida 24
Hi-TechAlnited Reporting. Inc. 25
1218 SE 3rd Avenue
Page 2 Page 4
1 THEREUPON.
2 THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm
APPEARANCE FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
FOWLER WHITE BURNETT. P.A. 3 that the testimony you are about to give will be
BY: SUSAN APRIL. ESQUIRE 4 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
One Financial Plaza - 21st Floor
5 truth?
100 Southeast 3rd Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 6 •' •
7 WHEREUPON,
APPEARANCE FOR THE DEFENDANT BRADLEY EDWARDS.
8 RUSSELL S. ADLER
SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BAFINHAFtT 8 SHIPLEY 9 acknowledged having been Sat duty sworn to tell the
BY: WILI-WA KING, ESQUIRE 10 truth. testified upon his oath as follows:
2139 Pam Beath Lakes Boulevwd
0 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 11 THE WITNESS: I do.
11 12 DIRECT EXAMINATION
APPEARANCE FOR THE VOTRESS. RUSSELL S ADLER: 13 BY MRS. APRIL:
1
FRED HADDAD LAW OFFICES 14 Q Sir, my name is Susan April. WO Snit just a
13 BY: FRED HADDAD, ESQUIRE 15 few minutes ago I guess on the other side of the room
One Financial Plan - Suite 2812 16 here. Thank you for corning today.
100 Southeast 3rd Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 17 You know, of course, Mr. Haddad is your
18 lawyer today, right?
19 A Yes.
20 Q And you know Bill King over here?
21 A Just met him.
22 Q Just met him? And you were out In the
23 hallway talking to him for a moment?
24 A Yes.
25 0 Can I ask you what you were talking about?
United Reporting, Inc.
954-525-2221
EFTA00608537
2 (Pages 5 to 8)
Page 5 Page 7
1 A What we were talking about? 1 In the middle of Page 6.
2 CI Yeah. 2 A I'm looking at it
3 A Just the fact that much of what we 3 Q Did you search for any documents that you
4 anticipate that you're going to ask is protected by 4 believe would be responsive to these requests?
5 the work-product privilege and I told him I would 5 A I'm reading it Hold on
6 invoke it as I see necessary. 6 0 Well, let's go through It because it will
7 0 Mighty. Let me get down some basic 7 save time I think.
8 information. Is your full name Russell S. Adler? A Go ahead.
9 A Yes. 9 0 The first one: Did you look to see if you
10 0 Can I get your current address? 10 had documents evidencing any and all written
11 A I'm presently residing at 2200 South Ocean 11 communications between you and Bradley Edwards
12 Lane in Fort Lauderdale. 12 regarding any pending and/or contemplating litigation
13 0 Are you currently employed? 13 against Jeffrey Epstein from September 2008 to the
14 A Self-employed. 14 present?
15 0 What is the name of your business? 15 A Let me save you some time and paint with a
16 A Russell S. Adler, P.A. 16 broad brush. Any communications between myself or
17 0 And where Is your business address? 17 &ad Edwards - or I see you even have Scott Rothstein
18 A 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400. 18 listed in another one of these requests - during the
19 0 How long have you been with that firm as a 19 time that I was employed by the RRA firm is
20 self-employed attorney? 20 work-product privilege and I invoke that privilege
21 A Since November 2009. 21 and I will refuse to answer any questions concerning
22 Q What's your date of birth, sir? 22 any such communications. That privilege extends to
23 A 11/26/61. 23 any of these documents that you're requesting that
24 0 Are you taking any medications or anything 24 fits within those parameters.
25 that would impair your ability to testify truthfully 25 0 Well, let me —
Page 6 Page 8
I today - 1 A As to Number 1. there is absolutely nothing
2 A No. 2 concerning this from, let's say, November or October
3 Q — or Impair your memory? 3 31st, 2009 through the present.
4 Did you see a Notice of Taking Deposition 4 As to anything from 2008 through November
5 with an attached subpoena for this deposition? 5 of 2009, that would be the time that I was employed
6 A I saw the subpoena. I don't know that I 6 by RRA and you are not entitled to those documents
7 ever saw the notice. 7 it in fact, they even exist because it's
8 0 Did you bring any documents with you today? 8 work-product privilege.
9 A No, 9 0 Well, let me ask you this question. You
10 0 DId you understand the subpoena to request 10 just said if, in fact, they even exist What I'm
11 that you bring documents? 11 asking you is, let's go back to my earlier questions:
12 A Please show it to me. 12 Did you look to see if you have any documents,
13 Q 'will. 13 whether or not they would be work-product, for that
14 A I may have read it I don't recall what it 14 period of time?
15 says as I sit here now. 15 A I don't even have access to those documents
16 (WHEREUPON. the document was marked as an 16 any more. They're the property of the bankruptcy
17 Plaintiffs Exhibit No. I for Identification and 17 trustee —
18 attached). 18 (WHEREUPON, an off-the-record discussion
19 A I guess you want me to look at the daces 19 was had).
20 team? 20 A First of all, you interrupted me in the
21 Q Please. Do you recall seeing that, sir? 21 middle of my answer to the question.
22 A Briefly. 22 0 rm sorry. She barged in.
23 0 Can you tell me on page - Well, its 23 A Let me finish,
numbered Page 6 because it was numbered I guess as on 24 MRS. APRIL: How about you read it back?
. attachment to a notice, but where it says "requests" 25 (WHEREUPON, the requested testimony was
United Reporting, inc.
954-525-2221
EFTA00608538
3 (Pages 9 to 12)
Page 9 Page 11
1 read back by the court reporter). 0 Dld you look to see if you have any?
2 THE WITNESS' They're the property of the 2 A No. But I was not even involved in Brad
3 bankruptcy Trustee. I don't even know if I'm 3 Edwards' compensation or benefits when he was hired
4 still a member of any QTASK process concerning 4 by RRA, so I know I don't have anything .. I know
5 these matters. 5 that there's nothing We that out there. And if
6 But in any event, the Trustee has made it 6 there is. I don't have access to it any way.
7 very clear that the files that were being 7 Q Lot me ask you about that for a minute.
8 handled by the firm are the property of the 8 When Brad Edwards -- You know Brad Edwards, I take
9 bankruptcy Trustee unless they have been 9 It, because you mentioned his name several times?
10 transferred out to another attorney, and they 10 A Yes
11 were not transferred to me. So. no. I do not 11 0 When did you first meet Brad Edwards?
12 have the right to see those files or access to 12 A Probably four or five years ago.
13 those files. 13 0 Where Old you meet him?
14 BY MRS. APRIL: 14 A At the gym. I'm sorry. He appeared - He
15 Q So you don't have them you're saying? 15 did some work on a case when he was with the Kubido,
16 A Correct 16 Draper firm. It was a personal injury case when he
17 0 Therefore, you cidn't look because you know 17 worked for Earleen Cote.
18 you don't have them? 18 0 Was that a case that you were involved in?
19 A Correct. 19 A Yes
20 Q I think, just to be clear, that you said 20 Q Were you on the same side?
21 anything from November 1st, 2009 to the present is 21 A No.
22 nothing that exists that's responsive to Number 1? 22 0 Ho was opposing counsel?
23 A Correct 23 A Defense counsel, yes.
24 0 Number 2, did you look to see If you had 24 0 Do you know what year that was?
25 any communications, and that would include e-malls, 25 A Nope.
Page 10 Page 12
1 between you and Mr. Edwards about compensation or 1 0 About five years ago?
2 benefits that he expected or requested from the firm 2 A Approximately.
3 from September 2008 to October 31st 2000 — 3 0 And then you mentioned something about —
4 A There were no such communications — a A Wait a minute. Now, that would be probably
Q Can I finish my question, sir? I know 5 seven or eight years ago now that I think about it.
6 you've been In depositions, right? 6 Sorry.
7 A Well, why don't you just ask me if I have 7 Q And Earleen Coat (pronouncing), is that the
8 anything responsive to Number 2? You don't have t0 B name you said?
9 read it to me on the record. I can read. 9 A C-o-t.e
10 Q Sir, this will go smoother and faster. I 10 Q She was at the time an attorney at Kubicki,
11 think I'm being courteous to you — 11 Draper?
12 A It will go a lot faster 12 A Still is
13 0 If you're not going to let me finish my 13 Q How did that case hum out?
14 questions, we're going to be here really long and I 19 A I don't even remember what case it was, so
5 have things to do also. 15 I can't tell you how it turned out.
16 A if you insist on reading everything to me 16 Q After that did you have any occasion to
17 that is right in front of me it is going to take 17 communicate with him before he joined RRA? And I'm
18 realty long. but I'm not going to tell you how to 18 going to use RRA for your former firm of Rothstein,
19 take your deposition. So, finish the question. 19 Rosenfeldt 8 Adler, If that's okay?
20 0 Thank you. Have you had a chance to look 20 A I would see him at the gym from time to
21 at Number 2? 21 time and we would have smalltalk. but that's about
22 A Yes. 22 it.
23 Q Do you have any documents that are 23 Q What gym was that?
24 responsive? 24 A It was the, I think it was called The
25 A No. 25 Fitness Company and it was ;Mated in the 110 Tower
United Reporting, Inc.
954-525-2221
EFTA00608539
4 (Pages 13 to 16
Page 13 Page 15
1 across the street from the Broward County I told him about my practice group with the law firm
2 courthouse. 2 and we talked about the possibility of him joining
3 O During the time that you would see him at 3 the firm.
4 the gym and have smalltalk occasionally, did you ever 4 O What cases did he tell you he had?
5 have any conversations before or after the gym or did S A The Jeffrey Epstein cases
6 you ever meet with him for social activity? O Do you know how many there were at that
7 A No. Before he joined the firm, no. Or 7 time?
8 right before he — until right before he joined the 8 A I don't recall
9 firm, no. 9 Q Were there more than three?
10 Q From the time that you met him when he 10 A I believe so, but I'm not positive.
11 worked at Kubickl, Draper, other than seeing him at 11 O Do you know how any of them were
12 the gym occasionally, you had no communication with 12 designated, In other words, how they were named in
13 tern until he joined the firm, is that correct? 13 the court files?
19 A Until soon before he joined the firm, 14 A We didn't discuss that level of detail.
15 correct. 15 O What did he tell you the cases — what did
16 O Can you tell me, as best as you can recall, 16 he tell you was the basis of the cases?
17 how he was recruited or it he was recruited to join 17 A He told me that he represented several
18 the firm? 18 young girls who were - I'm not sure if he used the
19 A He was not recruited to join. Well, I'll 19 word "molested," but that's the word that slicks in
20 tell you what happened, because that's subject to 20 my mind - molested by Jeffrey Epstein.
21 interpretation. 21 O Did you know who Jeffrey Epstein was at
22 I received a large verdict in a sexual 22 that time?
23 abuse case in Palm Beach County and it was in the 23 A No
24 newspaper. Brad called me and said that, I read 24 O Did he explain to you who Jeffmy Epstein
25 about your verdict. And he told me that he had some 25 was?
Page 14
1 sexual abuse cases as well. 1 A Briefly.
2 And I told him, I said, Let's have lunch, 2 O How long did you meet, was it just a lunch
3 because I was looking for -- I was always cc the 3 hour?
4 look-Out for lawyers who I would potentially lie to A Correct.
5 work with and bring into the tort practice group at 5 O Did he tell you how far along In discovery
6 the law firm. And so, we had lunch. 6 he was in those cases?
7 O And was anyone else at the lunch? 7 A I don't believe so. I think we just spoke
8 A Nope 8 about them generally.
9 O What was the case that you got the large 9 CI Did he tell you what he thought they were
10 verdict in, if you remember? 10 valued at?
11 A It was called Doe o- Jane Doe. 11 A I don't think he did, no
12 S-i-r-i-w-a-t. 12 O Prior to that lunch, when you would see him
13 O How large was the verdict? 13 at the gym, did you ever know that he worked on those
14 A $24 million. 19 kinds of cases?
15 Q Did Christina Kitterman also work on that 15 A No. I knew that at some point he had left
16 case? 16 Kubicki, Draper and he was in solo practice, but I
17 A She brought the case in. She did very 17 didn't know really anything else about what kind of
18 little on that file, if anything. I did pretty much 18 cases he was handling.
19 all the work. 19 O From your experience with him or observing
20 O So you had lunch with Brad Edwards. Where 20 his work at Kublckl, Draper, did you think he was a
21 did you have lunch? 21 good lamer?
22 A Yolo. 22 A Yes.
23 O Can you tell me what the discussion 23 Q Or, did you have an opinion about his legal
24 consisted of? 24 skills?
25 A He told me a little bit about his cases, l 25 A It was more that I liked the guy and I
United Reporting, Inc.
954-525-2221
EFTA00608540
5 (Pages 17 to 20
Page 17 Page 19
1 thought he was really sharp. I didn't have that many 1 Q Did you tell Scott Rothstein that you had
2 dealings with him during that case that I could. you 2 had a meeting with Brad Edwards?
3 know, in order to measure his skills as a lawyer. 3 A I'm sure I did at some point, yeah.
4 0 Was It your impression during the lunch 4 Q Did you recommend that Scott consider
5 meeting with Brad that he might be Interested in 5 offering him a position?
6 joining with the firm, with your firm? 6 A Yes.
7 A At the time, yes. 7 CI What is the next thing you recall about
8 0 Did he tell you he was interested In doing 8 Brad joining the firm, did Brad tell you he made an
9 that? 9 appointment with Scott?
10 A I think he was interested at that point. 10 A I don't recall that, but I do recall he
11 sure. 11 joined the firrn.
12 Q What did you tell him about the prospects 12 Q What month was it or what year and month
13 of his being offered an opportunity to join your 13 was it that you had the lunch meeting?
14 firm? 14 A I don't remember.
15 A I believe I told him I'd -- 15 0 Do you know if Brad Edwards joined the firm
16 MR. KING: Let me interpose an objection 16 In 2009?
17 here. If there were any discussions at all 17 A I don't remember.
18 relating to compensation then we're going to 18 Q Do you know what day Rothstein, Rosenfeldt
19 invoke the financial and privacy privilege. 19 & Adler stopped doing business?
20 MRS. APRIL That is that privilege since I 20 A Well, we found out that there was a problem
21 cannot find it and I've seen it invoked in Mr. 21 on Halloween, October 31st, 2009. The day that the
22 Edwards' deposition. Do you have some authority 22 entity formally stopped doing business I'm not clear
23 for that? 23 on, because a Trustee was appointed and then a
24 MR. KING: It is well-recognized that 24 bankruptcy Trustee was appointed. And I don't know
25 parties have a right to protect financial 25 the exact definition of operations. so I can't tell
Page 18 Page 20
1 privilege unless -- financial information unless 1 you any more than that
2 it Is otherwise deemed relevant. And we'll take 2 • Let's use Halloween as close enough. But
3 that position — 3 as a practical matter, you stopped working there on
4 THE WITNESS: Wet hold on a second. Let 4 or about Halloween of 2009?
5 me save you some time, okay? I didn't discuss 5 A I stayed, I stayed around for a few more
6 compensation with him, 6 weeks because I had to try and wind things up in
7 BY MRS. APRIL: 7 transition and everything happened very suddenly and
0 I don't think I even asked you that question B it was very shocking to everybody. So, I stayed
9 yet whichIs why I wanted to go back. 9 around for a couple of weeks until I made
10 A It could have been part of an answer in 10 arrangements to go into solo practice.
11 fairness. 11 O Do you recall testifying at another
12 MRS. APRIL: I think the objection is 12 deposition taken by Charles Lichtman in a case called
13 premature and in the nature of coaching, with 13 in Re: Rothstein, Rosenfeldt 8 Adler," the
14 all due respect. So, could you read my question 14 bankruptcy case?
15 back and maybe you could answer it without 15 A Yes. My deposition, yes.
16 disclosing anything that you think is 16 O Do you remember Mr. Lichtman asking you
17 improper. 17 whether you thought that Brad Edwards had joined the
18 (WHEREUPON, the last question was read 18 firm around June of 2009?
19 back by the court reporter). 19 A I don't recall that specific question and
20 A I told him I was interested in bringing him 20 answer, if you want to show it to me. But if it's in
21 in and that he should make an appointment to come in 21 the deposition transcript, I, obviously, was asked
22 and meet with Rothstein. 22 about it.
23 Q Is that how you kith it when you ended your 23 Q But you don't actually know when he joined?
24 lunch? 24 A I don't recall the specific year that he
25 A I believe so. yes. 75 joined, and I'm being very careful because I'm under
United Reporting, Inc.
954-525-2221
EFTA00608541
6 (Pages 21 to 2 4)
Page 21 Page 23
1 oath today. documents or communications then show me the
2 Q Yes, you are. document mark it, and I will answer your questions
3 A I really don't know if it was late-O8. if I know the answer.
4 early-'O9 or what the date was. You probably know O Have you talked to Brad Edwards about the
5 about it. though. 5 fact that he has been sued by Jeffrey Epstein In the
6 O Well, If I told you that I had seen 6 case that we're here on today, which is Jeffrey
7 communications between RRA lawyers, Including Brad 7 Epstein vs. Scott Rothstein and Bradley Edwards, et
8 Edwards, that are starting in April of 2009, does 8 al?
9 that refresh your memory at all? 9 A Yes, briefly.
10 A With all due respect, you represent Mr. 10 Q What did he say to you and what did you say
11 Epstein and I'm not going to take anything that you 11 to him?
12 tell me as the truth, especially if you're not going 12 A After he was sued, he told me about the
13 to be showing me documents. So, don't ask me to 13 lawsuit and that he was being sued. That was about
14 confirm communications that you claim to have without 14 all we talked about at that time. And then I
15 showing them to me. rm not doing that. 15 recently spoke with him about my upcoming deposition
16 O You don't know? Your best recollection is 16 for the same purpose I just mentioned to his lawyer,
17 late-013 or sometime in the early part of '09, Is 17 because after I was subpoenaed for deposition I
18 that What I understood your last — 18 called him and told him that I believe that
19 Sir, can l ask you to not — 19 everything that we did at the law firm during the
20 A Yes. 20 pendency and handling of that case is work-product
21 Q tf you want to take a break or make phone 21 privilege and I intend to invoke that privilege and
22 calls or do whatever you're doing on your phone, I'm 22 refuse to answer any questions encompassed by that
23 fine with that, but I would appreciate your giving us 23 privilege unless ordered to do so by the judge.
24 your attention. 24 CI You say "that case." What case are you
25 A I'm sorry. I just told someone to slop 25 referring to, sir?
Page 22 Page 24
I testing me, to leave me alone. 1 A What do you mean that case?
What was your question? 2 O You just made a statement that Included a
3 O You are under oath and this is testimony. 3 reference, to quote, that case.
4 MRS. APRIL: You want to read back the 4 THE WITNESS: Can you read back my answer,
5 last question? 5 please?
6 (WHEREUPON, the requested testimony was 6 (WHEREUPON, the requested testimony was
7 read back by the court reporter). 7 read back by the court reporter).
8 THE WITNESS: I don't have a specific 8 A To answer your question - and I apologize •
9 recollection as I sit here today. If I gave a 9 I was referring to the lawsuits against Jeffrey
10 more exact answer under oath in my deposition in 10 Epstein that Brad Edwards was handling both before he
11 a Trustee case then that was my sworn testimony 11 joined the RRA firm and after
12 at the time and it is what it is. 12 Q Earlier in your testimony you mentioned
13 BY MRS. APRIL: 13 that you couldn't remember the exact style of those
14 O You made a comment a moment ago that you 14 suits or the exact amount, the number of suits. Were
15 don't trust me because I represent Mc Epstein. Can 15 there additional suits filed against Jeffrey Epstein
16 I ask you what that has to do with whether — Have 16 by your firm after Brad Edwards joined the firm,
17 you ever met me before today? 17 whenever that was?
18 A It has nothing to do with you personally or 18 A I don't recall, because I had very little
19 even Mr. Epstein. You are taking my deposition in 19 involvement in those cases at all. They were Brad's
20 litigation that I am not a party to. 20 cases when he joined the firm and they remained
21 Q That's right. 21 Brad's cases after he joined the firm. I was merely
22 A I'm not going to take any lawyers word 22 the head of the Tort Litigation Division and in an
23 that they've seen something that they haven't even 23 administrative capacity. I don't think I did much of
24 shown me to use that as the basis for asking me 24 anything in any of those Epstein cases, and that's
25 questions. ff you want to ask me about specific 25 why I don't remember or I cannot tell you about the
United Reporting, Inc.
954-525-2221
EFTA00608542
7 (Pages 25 to 28)
Page 25 Page 27
details you're asking 1 A I don't. but I'm happy to look at what
O Your position is: If you did talk to Brad 2 you're refernng to if you would like to show it to
Edwards about cases against Jeffrey Epstein during 3 me.
the time that you both worked at RRA that they're 4 O I'm going to draw your attention to Page
subject, those conversations, to a work-product 5 131 and 132 of the deposition of Russell Adler taken
6 privilege, right? 6 October 28th, 2010 by Charles Lichtman.
7 A Absolutely. 7 Rather than read it to you, because that
8 Q Have you read the complaint or the amended 8 would make the record long, I'm going to ask you to
9 complaint filed by Jeffrey Epstein against Brad 9 start looking at: "Did you have any involvement in
10 Edwards? 10
11 A No 11 MR. KING: Let me look over your shoulder.
12 O Have you read Brad Edwards' deposition 12 You don't have an extra copy, do you?
13 given in that case? 13 MRS. APRIL: Not that's not marked up.
14 A Are you talking about in this case? 14 A I've read the portions that you asked me to
15 O In this case? 15 read and, now, I recall a little more detail.
16 A No 16 0 Do you remember Scott Rothstein calling you
17 0 Did Brad Edwards talk to you at all about 17 and Mr. Edwards and Gary Farmer and perhaps others
Is questions he was asked during his deposition in this 18 into your office -
19 case? 19 A Into his office?
20 A No. 20 Q - into his office to ask you questions?
21 Q You mentioned that you had these couple of 21 A Yes.
22 conversations with Mr. Edwards concerning this case 22 CI And you recall testifying - now that you've
23 once when he told you he had been sued by Jeffrey 23 looked at this - that you wanted to know about
24 Epstein and then more recently when you said you 24 whether or not a particular statute applied to a
25 were — you told him you were going to be deposed? 25 sexual abuse case?
Page 26 Page 2E
1 A Correct. 1 A I remember exactly what I said —
2 0 flat did he say to you in response to your 2 MR. KING: Let me interpose an objection.
3 remarks? 3 I didn't mean to cut you off. I want you to
4 A He just agreed with me that any questions 4 complete your answer.
5 you ask me about any communications, thoughts, 5 A I am not sure if at this point because of
6 discussions or, basically, anything else we did while 6 my testimony in the Trustee case it is still
7 at the RRA firm handling those cases is work-product 7 work-product or not work-product. Suffice it to say,
privilege. That was it. 8 I do remember asking (sic) the questions and
9 0 In your view, was the communication that 9 answering them to the best of my ability in my
10 was held between you and Scott Rothstein, Brad 10 deposition on the pages that you referenced and I
11 Edwards and several other attorneys at a conference 11 stand by that testimony. Although, as to this case,
12 in Mr. Rothstein's office where boxes were in the 12 I am unsure as to whether or not that is work-product
13 room from the Epstein cases, was that conversation 13 privilege.
14 privileged? Do you remember there being such a 14 MR. KING: And we would assert it to the
15 conversation, let me ask you that? 15 extent that you intend to pursue it.
16 A I'm thinking. I remember a conference in 16 MRS. APRIL: I'm sorry. I didn't
17 Rothstein's office soon before -- soon before October 17 understand your —
18 31st sometime I think during that month. I do not 18 MR. KING: We would Intend to assert the
19 recall boxes from the Epstein case being present. If 19 work-product doctrine to the extent that you
20 they were, I didn't — I wasn't aware of that at the 20 intend to pursue it beyond the question you just
21 time. But if it was about that case. then it's 21 asked relating to whether or not his testimony
22 absolutely work-product privilege. 22 was his testimony.
23 0 Do you remember testifying about the 23 A And I will point out that that testimony
24 subject matter of the discussion in your deposition 24 was given in a deposition where I was being sued by
25 taken by Mr. Uchbnan in the bankruptcy case? 25 the Trustee that stands in the shoes of RRA. And
United Reporting, Inc.
954-525-2221
EFTA00608543
8 (Pages 29 to 32
Page 29 Page 31
1 it's my understanding that. by order of Judge Rey, 1 A Frankly, I don't remember how I recalled
2 all privileges, work-product, attorney-client are 2 that they were Epstein files. I mean, do I
3 preserved and that's catty I am not comfortable 3 specifically recall looking at the labels on it or
4 testifying openly in this deposition about those 4 maybe there was writing on the boxes that they were
5 dealings and conversations in light of who the 5 In? I just don't recall those details. I'm sorry
6 parties are in this case. 6 O When you're talking about boxes, are you
7 In other words. I still think there is a 7 referring to standard sort of banker's box that law
8 work-product privilege as to Mr. Epstein. And. if 8 firms keep files in?
9 I'm wrong, then the circuit judge in this case can 9 A Yes.
10 tell me so and order me to tee you more. 10 Q Do you know whether there were a large
11 Q You mentioned that there was an order of 11 number of boxes or a small number?
12 Judge Rey In connection wtth the case where the 12 A I don't remember whether or not I counted
13 bankruptcy Trustee sued you and your wife was sued in 13 the boxes. I probably didn't.
14 that case, too, right? 14 O Do you think there were more than two?
15 A Yes. 15 A Probably.
16 O Do you know specifically when that order 16 Q Do you think there could have been as many
17 was entered whore Judge Roy said that? 17 as 19?
18 A I just have a recollection of knowing that 18 A I really don't know. I am not comfortable
19 in the main bankruptcy case, of which the adversary 19 even giving an approximation under oath concerning
20 case against me was an offshoot. In the main 20 the number, the specific number of boxes.
21 bankruptcy case there was a ruling that the Trustee 21 O So you have no idea whether there were -
22 stood in the shoes of the law km and that all 22 Do you know how they were set up in the roan; were
23 privileges were preserved. because I guess that's 23 they on the table, on the floor, on the credenza?
24 what happens when a Trustee lakes over a law firm. 24 A I just remember seeing boxes on the
75 Cl Who represented you in that case? 25 floor.
Page 30 Page 32
1 A In the bankruptcy adversary case? 1 Q Were they stacked up on the floor or were
2 O Yes. Did Mr. Haddad represent you there as 2 they spread around so that one could —
3 well? 3 A I do not have that level of detail in my
4 A Mr. Haddad represented me in that and I was 4 recollection. I'm sorry.
5 also represented by a few other lawyers. 5 O Were you surprised that the boxes were In
6 O Do you know who they were? 6 Scott's office?
7 A Jason Slatkin, S-I-a-t-k-i-n, represented 7 A I was either surprised or perplexed, or
8 me for most of the case. Before him, Tom Messana, 8 both.
9 M-e-s-s-a-n-a, represented me. 9 O Do you recall if anybody who was in
10 O Well, let me ask you this: Now that you've 10 attendance at that time looked at any papers In the
11 looked at these couple of pages, irrespective of 11 boxes, Including Scott?
12 work-product privilege, do you recall that Scott had 12 A During that meeting?
13 Epstein files in his office at the meeting you 13 O Yes.
19 described? 14 A I don't think anyone — I don't recall
15 A I recalled it at the prior deposition that 15 seeing anyone pull anything out of boxes and start
16 you have shown me and I now recall it a little better 16 looking through files at that meeting. We sat at a
17 from reading it 17 table and there was a discussion.
18 Q So there were Epstein boxes in Scott's 18 CI Now, I'm a little unclear about the
19 room? 19 position you're taking on work-product or whether
20 A Apparently, in his office. Apparently, 20 it's waived or whether it's preserved, so I'm going
21 there were and that's what I testified to in my prior 21 to ask you some questions. And if you think there's
22 deposition. 22 some privilege, I'm sure you'll toll me.
23 O Today rm asking you, do you remember 23 A Okay.
How did you know they wore Epstein files? 24 O Did Scott Rothstein tell you during that
That's a different question. It wasn't asked before. 25 meeting that the questions that he was asking you had
United Reporting, Inc.
954-525-2221
EFTA00608544
9 (Pages 33 to 36)
Page 33 Page 35
1 something to do with the Epstein cases? 1 me. Strike that.
2 MR. KING. We'll assert the work-product 2 Do you recall, did you testify — Since
3 doctrine to any conversations occurring during 3 October 31st, 2009, have you testified In any other
4 the course of that meeting. 4 lawsuits, you, as a witness?
5 A But as to whether they pertain to Epstein 5 A No. Other than the adversary case against
6 at all — 6 me no.
7 MR. KING: Because even the failure to Q Have you settled that case?
a associate a particular statement with a 8 A Yes.
9 conversation could have significance from a 9 Q So let me be clear on this, because I do
10 work-product standpoint, so we'll assert the 10 not know that it would be fruitful to go through a
11 work-product doctrine. 11 dozen or more questions that you are going to claim
12 A And so will I. I'll leave
DataSet-9
Unknown
2 pages
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM
BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
B.B Case No: 502008CA037319XXXXMB AB
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF'S CROSS NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE UNDERSIGNED ATTORNEY WILL TAKE THE DEPOSITION OF:
NAME: DATE AND TIME: LOCATION:
Detective Joseph Recary April 27, 2010 Prose Court Re rti
10:00 AM
33401
upon an oral examination before , or 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 true and correct copy of this Notice was mailed this ,c
day of April, 2010 to: Jack A. Goldberger, Esq., West Palm
Beach, FL 33401; Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq., West Palm
Beach, FL 33401; Robert D. Critton, Jr., Michael J. Pike, West
Palm Beach, FL 33401, Joanne M. O'Conner, Esq., Jones Foster, a, West
Palm Beach, FL 33401.
LEOPOLD—KUVIN,
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
By:
Florida Bar No: 089737
EFTA01076712
TN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY,
FLORIDA
B.B, CASE NO: 502008CA03731ODOOCMB
Plaintiff, AB
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
ORDER SPECIALLY SETTING EVIDENTIARY HEARING
1 HOUR HAS BEEN RESERVED
A hearing will be held in this action on Plaintiff, B.B's Motion for Leave to Add Punitive
Damages on Friday, June 18. 2010, at 3:00 a.m. at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, 205 N.
Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida, before the Honorable Donald Hafele in Courtroom
11B. The time reserved for this hearing is One Hour (1).
This hearing has been specially set by Court Order and cannot be cancelled except by
Court approval. A copy of all memoranda/case law shall be submitted directly to the court
at least 5 business days prior to the hearing along with a cover letter stating the date and
time of the hearing.
DONE AND ORDERED at Chambers, West Palm Beach, Florida, on this day of
SIGNED AND DATED
APR 0 5 2010
The Honorabl li
e ele
Conformed Copies Furnished to: NW W. HAFELE
Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq., Leopold & Kuvin, P.A.,. .Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Jack A. Goldberger, Esq.IPPRIIIIIIIIIIIIIMPIIIIIIPMOMMOR West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq., West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Robert D. Critton, Jr., Michael J. Pike West Palm Beach, FL 33401
OA'
EFTA01076713
DataSet-9
Unknown
1 pages
From: Lesley Groff
To: Jeffrey Epstein
Subject: Re: Paul Morris & DB Team Meeting
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:14:37 +0000
(Looking at calendar: Oct 10th is the day Brad Edwards is to take his video deposition in Ft. Laud...not sure if
you wanted to be in FL then.)
On Sep 27, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Jeffrey Epstein wrote:
lets wait until bext week to decide
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Lesley Groff < wrote:
Since you will be coming back to NY on Oct. 9th from Paris, we need to move the Paul MOrris and DB team
meeting...Paul and team could all meet for an 8am breakfast meeting on Thurs. Oct. 10th...is that ok with
you?
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
Jeffrey Epstein
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
EFTA00382638
DataSet-9
Unknown
76 pages
1 ROUGH DRAFT TITLE
2
3 ***ROUGH DRAFT TRANSCRIPT***
4
5 CASE NAME: BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL vs.
6 ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
7 WITNESS NAME: PAUL G. CASSELL
8 DATE OF DEPOSITION: 10/16/15
9
10
11 This is an unedited, unproofread,
uncertified transcript for attorneys' information only.
12 This transcript may NOT be cited in documents or used
for examination purposes.
13
14 This raw transcript may contain the
following:
15
1. Conflicts - an apparently wrong word
16 that has the same stenotype stroke as a less-used word.
Conflicts are remedied by the reporter in editing.
17
2. Untranslates/Misstrokes - a stenotype
18 stroke appears on the screen as the result of the
computer dictionary not having the same stroke
19 previously identified or a misstroke or partial
translation of the word.
20
3. Reporter's notes - a parenthetical word
21 or phrase from the reporter. Since the reporter must
write each word instantly, a misunderstood word or
22 phrase will not be apparent until some time later.
Reporter's notes provide the opportunity to correct such
23 situations.
24
25
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400
EFTA00607219
2
1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the video
2 record. Today is Friday, the 16th day of
3 October, 2015. The time is 1 :33 p.m.
4 We are here at 110 Southeast 6th Street,
5 Suite 1850, in Fort Lauderdale Florida for the
6 purpose of taking the videotaped deposition of
7 Paul G. Cassell . The case is Bradley J. Edwards
8 and Paul G. Cassell versus Alan M. Dershowitz.
9 The court reporter is Terry Tomaselli and the
10 videographer is Don Savoy, both from Esquire
11 Deposition Solutions. Will counsel please
12 announce their appearances for the record.
13 MR. SCAROLA: Jack Scarola appearing on
14 behalf of Bradley Edwards and Professor Paul
15 Cassell . With me is Joni J. Jones from the Utah
16 Attorney General 's Office.
17 MS. McCAWLEY: Sigrid McCawley on behalf of
18 from Boies Schiller & Flexner.
19 MR. SIMPSON: Richard Simpson on behalf of
20 Defendant and Counter-Claim Plaintiff Alan
21 Dershowitz. And with me is my colleague Nicole
22 Richardson and Thomas Scott from the firm of Cole
23 Scott & Kissane. Ms. Richardson and I are from
24 the firm of Wiley Rein.
25 MR. SWEDER: Kenneth Sweder from the firm of
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607220
3
1 Sweeder & Ross for Professor Dershowitz.
2 Thereupon,
3 PAUL G. CASSELL,
4 having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified
5 as follows:
6 THE WITNESS: I do.
7 DIRECT EXAMINATION
8 BY MR. SIMPSON:
9 Q. Good morning or good afternoon, I guess?
10 A. Afternoon, yes.
11 Q. If I ask any questions today that you can't
12 understand, would you please let me know and I'll
13 attempt to rephrase or clarify it?
14 A. Sure.
15 Q. You're a former United States District Judge;
16 is that correct?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. When were you a judge?
19 A. From about 2002 'til about November 2007.
20 Q. Okay. So you were appointed by the first
21 President Bush?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Uh, second President Bush?
24 A. Second President Bush, yes.
25 Q. And then after resigning as a judge, you
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607221
1 became a professor at the University of Utah; is that
2 correct?
3 A. Yeah I was professor -- excuse me -- before I
4 was a professor in the evening hours while I was a judge
5 from 2002 to 2007. And then I resumed full time
6 teaching at the University of Utah in around November of
7 2007 when I left the bench.
8 Q. Okay. And since you've left the bench, have
9 you also been affiliated with a law firm?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Could you tell me what that affiliation is
12 what --
13 A. Sure. I'm a special counsel with Hatch James
14 and Dodge. It's a law firm, small boutique litigation
15 law firm in Salt Lake City, Utah, and I occasionally do
16 cases with them.
17 Q. Is it fair to say that since 2007, since
18 resigning as a judge, you've been engaged at least on a
19 part-time basis in the practice of law?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And, in particular, in one of the cases
22 that's at issue here, what has been referred to as the
23 underlying CVRA case; you're familiar with that case?
24 A. Yeah. Let me be clear just the juxtaposition
25 of the causes, the CVRA case is not through Hatch James
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607222
5
1 and Dodge. That's through the University of Utah. I'm
2 pro bono work through the University of Utah.
3 Q. You have entered an appearance in that case?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. And in order to enter that appearance, you
6 were admitted pro hac vice; is that correct?
7 A. That's right.
8 Q. And to be admitted pro hac vice, you
9 certified that you were familiar with the applicable
10 rules including the rules of the southern district of
11 Florida; is that right?
12 A. That's right.
13 Q. And you're also familiar with the rules of
14 professional responsibility; is that correct?
15 A. Sure.
16 Q. Okay. As a judge, did you ever strike a
17 party's pleadings because they were impertinent,
18 scandalous, irrelevant?
19 A. I don't recall doing that immediately.
20 Q. Okay. To the best of your knowledge, you
21 don't recall any instance of doing that?
22 A. I mean what I did, I think, there were two
23 cases where I referred people to the Bar which was a way
24 of dealing with the pleadings that were inappropriate in
25 those cases.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607223
0
1 Q. Okay. But other than referring the two
2 parties to the Bar, you never entered, to your
3 recollection, striking a party's pleadings; is that
4 right?
5 A. That's right.
6 Q. Okay. I want to ask you a few questions
7 about the issue of striking pleadings. Would you agree
8 with me that courts generally disfavor a motion to
9 strike?
10 A. No.
11 Q. And that striking allegations from a pleading
12 is a drastic remedy to be resorted to only when required
13 for the purposes of justice and only when the
14 allegations to be stricken have no possible relation to
15 the controversy?
16 A. I think that's what some courts have said,
17 yes.
18 Q. And is it fair to say -- is that what you
19 represented to the court in response to
20 Professor Dershowitz's application to intervene?
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. And you wouldn't have represented that to the
23 court unless you believed it to be accurate; is that
24 right?
25 A. That's right.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607224
7
1 Q. Would you also agree that if there is any
2 doubt as to whether the allegations might be an issue in
3 the action, courts will deny the motion?
4 A. That was our position in our response to
5 Professor Dershowitz's motion to strike, yes.
6 Q. And in considering a motion to strike, the
7 court must consider the pleadings in the light most
8 favorable to the party making the pleading, correct?
9 A. Yeah, that's our position, that was our
10 position, yes.
11 Q. Okay. In your view, is it -- for an attorney
12 to ask a leading question at a deposition, does the
13 attorney have to have a good-faith basis to believe that
14 that question is true or the facts assumed in that
15 question are true?
16 A. I mean, that's a broad question, but as a
17 general rule, yeah.
18 Q. As a general rule -- I'm not being very
19 articulate --
20 A. Yeah.
21 Q. -- you don't ask a leading question about a
22 fact unless you have a good-faith basis to believe that
23 facts is true, correct?
24 A. I think that's right. I mean I don't know if
25 over the last day and a half, you know, narrow questions
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607225
8
1 have been given very long answers. I am assuming you
2 want narrow answers; is that true?
3 Q. Well, that wasn't my question, but why don't
4 we stay on that --
5 A. I mean, I could discuss that at great length.
6 I didn't know if that's what you wanted me to do.
7 Q. I would like you to give a fair answer to my
8 questions and I'll let you answer your questions and if
9 follow up, I would ask that one at a time for the court
10 reporter.
11 I would ask that you answer the question
12 fairly and I'll try not to interrupt you. And then if
13 you would do your best to answer the questions, and as I
14 said, if you don't understand it, let me know.
15 A. Right.
16 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. I'm going to
17 interrupt you for just a moment. Pardon me.
18 There is this page that was placed in front of
19 me, and I don't know whether this was intended as
20 a delivery of something.
21 MR. SCOTT: No. You had asked for a copy of
22 the entry from Professor Dershowitz's book when
23 he made reference to it. I said I'd give you a
24 copy in the last deposition, and that's it. We
25 made a copy of it.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607226
9
1 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Thank you. I had also
2 asked for all of the information regarding
3 communications with Rebecca, which I was told
4 that I would get today. Is that available?
5 MR. SCOTT: No. I told you that we would
6 consider if that -- I apologize. I said we will
7 consider that and you can put it in a request and
8 we will respond.
9 THE WITNESS: I would sure like to see that
10 before I answer any more questions. Is that
11 something you could make available?
12 MR. SIMPSON: I don't think that's necessary
13 to answer the questions I'm going to ask. I'm
14 not going to ask you any questions -- I won't ask
15 you any questions about Professor Dershowitz's
16 communications with this Rebecca that you've
17 heard about. You were in the room while he
18 testified, correct?
19 THE WITNESS: Right, but I mean there are
20 there are broader subjects that extend beyond
21 those communications, so if you're going to ask
22 any questions about those broader subjects, I
23 would like to see the communications. That would
24 be helpful to me.
25 BY MR. SIMPSON:
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607227
10
1 Q. I'm just going to ask you questions about
2 the case and about your knowledge, and all I ask is that
3 you give your best answers based on your knowledge.
4 A. And all I ask is, if you're going to ask any
5 questions touching on those communications and I get a
6 chance to take a look at the subjects addressed in those
7 communications --
8 Q. If I ask you a question that you need to look
9 at something that you've never seen before to answer,
10 why don't you let us know?
11 A. Okay. Will do.
12 Q. What is your understanding of the ethical
13 responsibility of an attorney in signing a pleading to
14 be filed in Federal Court, and let's say in the Southern
15 District of Florida, if that's any different than
16 elsewhere?
17 A. Sure.
18 Q. Just give me your understanding.
19 A. Sure. The obligation is to make sure that it
20 is a good-faith pleading based on the facts and the law
21 as the attorney understands them, and consistently with
22 the obligation of the attorney to zealously represent
23 the position of his client.
24 Q. Okay. Would you agree with me that it would
25 be unethical to use pleadings for an improper purpose,
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607228
11
1 for a purpose other than to advance a cause in
2 litigation?
3 A. Sure.
4 Q. And would you agree with me that it would be
5 unethical to make allegation of misconduct by a person
6 in a pleading if that -- if those allegations were not
7 relevant to the case?
8 A. Sure.
9 Q. And would you agree --
10 A. Actually, not pertinent to the case.
11 Q. Not pertinent to the case?
12 A. Yeah. And when you say not relevant,
13 obviously, reasonable people can have disagreements
14 about what allegations are relevant to the case or not
15 Q. And my question is that an attorney, it would
16 be unethical, do you agree, for an attorney to sign a
17 pleading where the attorney does not have a good-faith
18 basis that the allegations of misconduct are relevant to
19 the case, are pertinent to the case?
20 A. Pertinent to the case, and as I understand
21 for example under rule 11 , the requirement is that the
22 allegations being advanced must not be frivolous.
23 Q. And that there's a good-faith basis for them?
24 A. Well, I mean if you're talking about good
25 faith frivolity, those are I mean, potentially different
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607229
12
1 standards under the law. My understanding is that
2 frivolity is the standard for, for example, rule 11
3 sanctions.
4 Q. Is it unethical to include, in your opinion,
5 to include allegations in a pleading for the purpose of
6 generating publicity?
7 A. If that's the only purpose, sure, that it
8 would be inappropriate.
9 Q. And is it unethical to make allegations
10 without having done a reasonable investigation to
11 satisfy -- for the attorney to satisfy himself or
12 herself that there's a factual basis for the
13 allegations?
14 A. Something along those lines, sure.
15 Q. As a general matter, you agree with that
16 proposition?
17 A. Yes, sure.
18 Q. Would you agree that the scope of the
19 investigation, the reasonable investigation an attorney
20 must do, varies depending upon the nature of the
21 allegations being made?
22 A. Sure, yes.
23 Q. Let me finish -- we are both speaking at the
24 same time
25 A. Sure.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607230
13
1 Q. -- so let me finish --
2 A. Sure. I just want to make sure you get an
3 opportunity to ask as many questions as you want so.
4 Q. Okay. And I appreciate that, but the court
5 reporter can't take down both of us at once. So we just
6 need to speak one at a time, but I appreciate that.
7 A. Good.
8 Q. I believe the last question I was asking you
9 about whether the scope of the investigation, what
10 reasonably required of an attorney varies depending upon
11 the nature of the allegations being made. I think you
12 said, yes; is that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And could you explain how, what in your
15 understanding of how --
16 A. Sure. I mean, obviously, they are going to
17 be some cases that are very complicated factually. More
18 investigation would be appropriate there. There can be
19 some situations that very simple factually, less
20 investigation would be factually necessary there. Same
21 points about legal issues, too, some cases are complex
22 legally, some cases are simple legally.
23 The more legal investigation would be
24 required for the more complex cases.
25 MR. SCAROLA: Professor Cassell , I know it is
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607231
14
1 a little bit unnatural for you to be responding
2 to questions that are being asked immediately to
3 your right and not be looking directly at the
4 examiner the entire time, but because this is
5 being videotaped, it might be helpful if you can,
6 to the extent that you're able, to look into the
7 camera so that the jury for whom this may be
8 played --
9 THE WITNESS: I see.
10 MR. SCAROLA: -- at a later time gets to see
11 your full face.
12 THE WITNESS: All right. I hope you won't
13 consider me rude then --
14 MR. SIMPSON: I will not consider -- it's
15 good advice from your counsel and I will not
16 consider you rude.
17 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
18 BY MR. SIMPSON:
19 Q. I want to ask you some more questions about
20 the scope of investigation. Would you agree that an
21 allegation of serious misconduct by another person
22 generally requires more investigation than a lesser
23 serious type of allegation?
24 A. Sure. That's a fair statement.
25 Q. And so, for example, before accusing a person
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607232
15
1 of engaging in criminal misconduct, the attorney needs
2 to do a thorough investigation; is that right?
3 A. Yeah, under the circumstances, sure. I
4 should say in light of the circumstances, obviously, you
5 know, different kinds of cases can have different
6 circumstances.
7 Q. Okay. Is one of the considerations that goes
8 into that how much -- whether there's time pressure to
9 get the pleading on file?
10 A. Sure. That would be one of the factors.
11 Q. And how much time the attorney has to
12 investigate the facts?
13 A. Yes. That would be one of the factors as
14 well.
15 Q. Okay. And so before making -- where an
16 attorney's client has no pressing need to get a pleading
17 on file immediately, and the pleading is going to
18 include serious allegations of misconduct by another
19 person, an ethical attorney will take the time needed to
20 do a full investigation; is that fair?
21 A. That's fair, and the converse of your
22 proposition is also fair. For example, if a client has
23 a pending discovery dispute in front of a judge that
24 could be ruled on any day, that would be an exigency
25 that would require pleadings to be filed more quickly
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607233
16
1 than -- than otherwise.
2 Q. And if the dispute concerned, for example, a
3 specific discovery issue, would you expect the response
4 to be directed to that issue?
5 A. I would expect that the record would be built
6 so that it would be available for the discovery issue,
7 yes.
8 Q. Okay. I am going to ask the reporter to mark
9 as Cassell -- am I pronouncing your name correctly?
10 A. Yes, it's Cassell, yes.
11 Q. Okay. Could I ask the reporter to mark as
12 Cassell Exhibit 1 -- I will hand that to the reporter.
13 (A Plaintiff's A Defendant's I.D. Exhibit
14 No. 1 - A description was marked for identification.)
15 BY MR. SIMPSON:
16 Q. Let me identify that for the record. I may
17 want to mark two things.
18 A. Okay.
19 Q. Exhibit 1 is documented Plaintiff's Response
20 to Motion for Limited Intervention by Alan M.
21 Dershowitz, and I'm going to ask the reporter to mark
22 another exhibit at the same time. This will be
23 Exhibit 2, and this is a document entitled Jane Doe
24 Number 3 and Jane Doe Number 4's motion pursuant to rule
25 21 for joinder in action. Both cases having been filed
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607234
17
1 in the case Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 versus the United
2 States. This is number 2.
3 (A Plaintiff's A Defendant's I.D. Exhibit
4 No. 2 - A description was marked for identification.)
5 BY MR. SIMPSON:
6 Q. Mr. Cassell , do you have those documents in
7 front of you?
8 A. I do.
9 Q. Okay. I'm going to ask you first about
10 Exhibit 2 before 1, since exhibit 2 is first in
11 chronological order.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Is this the motion for joinder that you filed
14 on behalf of the parties then known as Jane Doe Number 3
15 and Jane Doe Number 4 in what was called the CVRA
16 action?
17 A. This is the joinder motion, yes.
18 Q. Okay. And if you look at the last page
19 before the certificate of service --
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. -- over on page 12, it shows the document
22 being signed by Bradley J. Edwards and then it says and
23 Paul G. Cassell , pro hac vice, S.J. Queeny [sic] College
24 of Law
25 A. Quinney.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607235
18
1 Q. Quinney, got that one wrong, College of Law
2 at the University of Utah. Is that indicating your
3 signature to the document?
4 A. That's -- that's indicating not my signature,
5 but it's indicating that I stand behind the arguments
6 made in the document, yes.
7 Q. Much more articulate statement than I. I
8 simply wanted to confirm that you had authorized your
9 name to be listed as a counsel who was, for purposes of
10 the rules, vouching for this document?
11 A. Yes, I was vouching for this document
12 completely.
13 Q. Okay. And you list here your address as
14 being at the college of law at the University of Utah
15 with no qualification. If you compare that to the next
16 exhibit, Exhibit 1 actually --
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- your signature has a footnote that says,
19 this daytime business address is provided for
20 identification and correspondence purposes only, and is
21 not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the
22 university of Utah; do you see that?
23 A. I do see that.
24 Q. Why was that footnote not included on the
25 first pleading filed which is Exhibit 2?
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607236
19
1 A. The footnote -- one of the problems with the
2 the Word processing program to drop a star footnote is
3 it requires, under the word programing, you have to to
4 have different sections in the document because
5 otherwise it would be footnote -- let's see.
6 Yes, so there was already a footnote 1 on the
7 joinder motion and so, what happens with footnotes is if
8 you identify it as footnote, put in a footnote where the
9 University of Utah signature block is, for example, it
10 becomes footnote 2, so then you have to create a
11 different section and then once you have a different
12 section you can establish a new number and a new
13 nomenclature instead of numbers. You can have the
14 asterisk, and so somehow with the signature block
15 getting reprocessed here, that star footnote dropped off
16 and within I think -- I think it was about three days, I
17 realized that the star footnote had dropped off, so I
18 filed a corrected pleading with the -- with the new star
19 footnote on it.
20 Q. You would agree with me that a fair-minded, a
21 reasonable reader looking at the signature block on the
22 as filed original document, could conclude that the
23 University of Utah was somehow endorsing or standing
24 behind this pleading?
25 A. I don't think that's quite fair. I think the
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607237
20
1 way that works is, people know that when, for example,
2 you know, a Professor speaks from the university, they
3 are giving their own point of view. The -- a school
4 like the University of Utah has, gosh, several hundred
5 faculty members, if not more, and so any time a member
6 of the University of Utah speaks, they are giving their
7 views on the subject. There may be a range of views.
8 Some Professors at the university of Utah may
9 be in favor of crime victim rights. Other Professors
10 may be opposed to crime victim rights. Young people
11 generally jump to the conclusion that just because they
12 are hearing a Professor from a particular school speak,
13 that that necessarily means that they are saying
14 something that the university endorses.
15 Q. If that's true, why do you include the
16 footnote on some pleadings?
17 A. Well, I included the footnote in this
18 particular case, the dean at the law school said, hey,
19 you know, it might be useful just to drop a footnote in
20 just to make sure that there's no misunderstanding and I
21 said, sure, I would be glad to do that. And so I think
22 pleadings, in this case leading up to this, had the star
23 footnote. Apparently on the signature block had got
24 dropped out. And then we were able to fix that in a
25 couple of days on this one.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607238
21
1 Q. So is it accurate that after you filed what's
2 Exhibit 2, that the dean of the law school asked you to
3 file a corrected version with the footnote?
4 A. No. That misunderstands what I said. Early
5 on, just in talking -- I do a lot pro bono litigation
6 for crime victims all over the country, and I do that,
7 that's one of the reasons I'm at the University of Utah.
8 They have been very supportive of my pro bono work in
9 this case as well as in other cases, and so the dean
10 said, well , one of the things just might be helpful is
11 to drop a footnote. I don't think it was required that
12 I drop the footnote, nobody suggested it would be useful
13 to drop the footnote, and so I agreed to do that in this
14 case and in other cases as well, but somehow in this
15 particular pleading, the -- as I say, the signature
16 block possibly was a cut-and-paste from an earlier
17 pleading in the case, possibly it was some issue
18 involving that section feature of the word processing
19 program. The star footnote had dropped off.
20 And so once I realized that without anyone
21 calling that to my attention when I looked at the brief
22 a couple of days after we filed it, and said, oh, I need
23 to fix that and did, indeed, fix that as quickly as I
24 could.
25 Q. What was the context in which the dean asked
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607239
22
1 you as a practice to drop the footnote; was it in
2 connection with this case or some other circumstance?
3 A. It was -- as I recall, it was several years
4 earlier. I don't know. Maybe a year or two earlier
5 than this particular litigation, from what I remember.
6 If I looked at some of my other pro bono cases around
7 the country, we might be able to get a sharper time
8 frame on that. I've done pro bono crime victims in a
9 lot of cases. And the dean just thought it might be
10 useful to have that kind of a footnote to avoid any
11 misunderstanding.
12 Q. Would you agree with me that in order to
13 allow your name to be listed as counsel on this
14 pleading, that you were required to have a sufficient
15 basis for the allegations based on what you knew as of
16 December 30th, 2014?
17 A. Sure. I think that's fair. Obviously, I
18 imagine one of the issues we are going to discuss here
19 today is what is a sufficient basis for filing a
20 pleading like that. So, yeah, in general, of course, we
21 had to have a sufficient basis for filing something like
22 this and I firmly believe that we did.
23 Q. And to put a point on my question, the way in
24 which to measure the knowledge is as of December 30th,
25 2014, so the facts that came to your attention after
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607240
23
1 that date, by definition, could have been part of what
2 you were relying on to allow your name to be listed as
3 counsel on this document, correct?
4 A. That's right. With regard to this document,
5 we would be looking at knowledge on or before December
6 30th, 2014.
7 Q. Would you turn to page 4 of the document,
8 first full paragraph on the page, the second sentence.
9 Actually, third sentence, you say: In addition to being
10 a participant in the abuse of Jane Doe Number 3 and
11 other minors, Dershowitz was an eye witness to the
12 sexual abuse, et cetera. Do you see that?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Who were the other minors?
15 A. Well, one of the ways -- you want some
16 documentation of that?
17 Q. I want to know: You made an allegation here,
18 you first make an allegation that Professor Epstein
19 abused -- Jane Doe Number 3 -- Dershowitz. I'm sorry?
20 A. Right.
21 Q. Jane Doe Number 3 who is no longer anonymous,
22 Miss , correct?
23 A. Right. I'm sorry. Could you repeat the
24 question please.
25 Q. I just want to clarify that your pleading is
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607241
24
1 alleging that Professor Dershowitz engaged in this
2 sexual misconduct with Miss ; she's Jane Doe
3 Number 3, correct?
4 A. That's right. Jane Doe Number 3 is Miss
5 A (ph) .
6 Q. And I will ask you questions about that. But
7 my question now is: You also allege that Professor
8 Dershowitz was a participant in the abuse of other
9 minors besides Miss Do you see that?
10 A. Yes, I see that.
11 Q. Who are the other minors?
12 A. So I don't know the exact name of the other
13 minors who were involved, but I do have an 89 page
14 police report from the Palm Beach Police Department
15 which lists, if I recall correctly, about 23 or 24 names
16 of minors who went to the Jeffrey Epstein mansion in
17 Palm Beach during a period of time that extends from --
18 let's see -- it would have been roughly, I don't know,
19 from probably about a six-month period in 2005 -- there
20 are a series of names. I don't think in this particular
21 case because of confidentiality reasons, we can put into
22 the record the names of those girls, but what I would
23 propose doing is putting into the record the 89 page
24 police report from the Palm Beach Police Department,
25 which has page after page after page after page of young
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607242
25
1 girls going to the Epstein Palm Beach mansion and then
2 being sexually abused in some cases, at least one case,
3 forcibly raped. That is the basis for that particular
4 allegation.
5 Q. Mr. Cassell , does the police report you're
6 referring to at any point say Professor Dershowitz
7 abused any of these particular minors -- not were they
8 abused at the mansion -- but did it say anywhere that
9 Professor Dershowitz did that?
10 A. The police report itself does not refer to
11 Professor Dershowitz abusing these girls. However, when
12 you look at the police report, what it shows is a
13 pattern of egregious sexual abuse of approximately 23 to
14 24 young girls over an extended period of time at a
15 mansion that was owned by Jeffrey Epstein who was one of
16 the closest personal friends, from what I could gather,
17 of Mr. Dershowitz.
18 And so that was -- there's other information.
19 I don't want to filibuster you on that. I would be
20 happy to elaborate on that, but that is the first piece
21 of evidence that I would begin referring to. If you
22 want a more -- if you want -- just so the record is
23 clear, if you want to know all the bases, all the
24 grounds for which that allegation appears, then I would
25 like to make a more extended presentation.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607243
26
1 Q. We will get there. But my -- I want to make
2 sure we are clear about this.
3 Am I correct that the report itself never
4 says, Alan Dershowitz abused anyone?
5 A. That is a correct statement, I believe.
6 Q. And we won't -- and the report does
7 reflect -- the conclusion of -- it reflects abuse of
8 minors by Jeffrey Epstein, correct?
9 A. Oh yes, oh yea. What it shows is forcible
10 rape of underage girls, and not a, shall we say, one off
11 situation, but on something that is happening over,
12 let's say, this is roughly a six-month period, 180
13 days -- I mean, I think you know, they document roughly
14 speaking at least 180 sexual encounters give or take,
15 and in fact, on some days, what they document in that
16 police report is abuse that is taking place not once,
17 not twice, but three times during the day in this
18 mansion.
19 And so I certainly agree with you, if it's
20 possible, maybe my math is off here, 200 percent, that
21 this report documents repeated sexual abuse including
22 forcible rape by one of the closest friends of
23 Mr. Dershowitz, Jeffrey Epstein.
24 Q. So it's your testimony that Mr. Epstein was
25 one of Professor Dershowitz's closest friends?
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607244
27
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. We will come back to your basis for that.
3 I want to go back to the police report.
4 We've clarified it never says Professor Dershowitz
5 abused anyone, correct?
6 A. It doesn't say that directly, but the police
7 report is part of a larger package of information that I
8 had available to me since you asked on December 30th
9 that suggested that Mr. Dershowitz was involved in the
10 abuse of minors.
11 I'm sorry. Let me correct that. In the
12 sexual abuse of minors, in particularly, minor girls.
13 Q. Would it be your position that anyone who was
14 a friend, or a friend of Mr. Epstein who visited his
15 house on more than a few occasions, that that's
16 sufficient to conclude that -- to allege that they
17 engaged in sexual abuse of minors?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Are we talking about guilt by association
20 here?
21 A. No. And that question requires a more
22 extended answer, which I would be happy to provide for
23 you, if you would like an extended answer.
24 Q. Let me ask you this question: You referred
25 to the police report, correct?
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607245
28
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. And focusing now, not -- not on
3 , we are focusing on the other minors, correct?
4 I just have that in mind, right?
5 A. I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question?
6 Q. I want to make sure you're focusing on the
7 allegation in this pleading that Professor Dershowitz
8 abused other minors; do you have that in mind?
9 A. I do.
10 Q. Okay. First of all, I want to know, and for
11 this question you don't have to give the names, do you
12 have specific minors who you, at this point, contend
13 were abused?
14 A. I believe that the pool of people came from,
15 among other young girls, roughly 23 to 24 minors
16 identified in the Palm Beach Police Department report,
17 or other similarly-situated girls in either New York, in
18 the airplanes, or on -- in the Palm Beach mansion. So
19 this -- the problem that I have here frankly, I'm sorry,
20 but I think your question fairly calls for a longer
21 answer, I could give you the names of those girls if
22 Jeffrey Epstein would tell us the names of those girls
23 that he trafficked in Florida, in New York, on his
24 airplanes and elsewhere. But I think everyone in this
25 room is aware Mr. Epstein has repeatedly refused to
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607246
29
1 answer questions about the names of the girls that he
2 was sexually trafficking. And that's one of the things
3 that has made this case so difficult, because if we
4 could get the names of those girls, then we could -- we
5 could try to help them.
6 We could -- we could start to unravel the
7 many crimes that Mr. Epstein has committed along with
8 his associates. So, again, I could go on longer, and I
9 don't want to filibuster your time, I think I've seen
10 illustrations of that recently, but I -- what I want to
11 do is make sure that -- that I could give additional
12 information if people like Mr. Epstein would cooperate
13 and give me the names of the girls that he was sexually
14 trafficking.
15 MR. SIMPSON: Move to strike the
16 nonresponsive portion of the answer.
17 Can I have the same standing objection,
18 Mr. Scarola?
19 MR. SCAROLA: No, I don't think -- I don't
20 think you will need a standing objection.
21 MR. SIMPSON: Well , I'll just make the
22 objection there and --
23 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you.
24 MR. SIMPSON: I will go back to my question.
25 BY MR. SIMPSON:
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607247
30
1 Q. My question had nothing to do with whether
2 you could identify girls that Jeffrey Epstein abused.
3 My question was: As of December 30th, 2014 -- you don't
4 have to give me the name right now -- is there any
5 specific girl that you had evidence Professor Dershowitz
6 abused?
7 A. What I had was the police report moving girls
8 and the girls were named in the police report, although
9 the police report that I think has been made public has
10 the names redacted, those girls were moving through the
11 mansion at the time when, for example, household staff
12 were saying that Mr. Dershowitz was receiving massages.
13 And so, yes, I have 24 names in mind as
14 possible sexual abuse victims that Dershowitz may or may
15 not have abused. And I have not been able to pinpoint
16 exactly what happened, because the people who would be
17 in the best position to help me sort out what the names
18 were, specifically Jeffrey Epstein among others, have
19 refused to cooperate and give me those names.
20 MR. SIMPSON: Move to strike the
21 nonresponsive portion of the answer.
22 THE WITNESS: Can I ask what part of that was
23 nonresponsive in your view?
24 MR. SCAROLA: That's all right.
25 THE WITNESS: Okay.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607248
31
1 MR. SCAROLA: Professor Cassell , you don't
2 need to do that.
3 BY MR. SIMPSON:
4 Q. If I understand you correctly, you said in
5 that answer question -- strike that.
6 If I understood you correctly, you said in
7 that answer that there was a universe of 24 girls I
8 believe you said or approximately, that Professor
9 Dershowitz may or may not have abused; is that your
10 position?
11 A. That's correct. It's been impossible to
12 narrow down exactly what happened because of lack of
13 cooperation from, for example, Jeffrey Epstein.
14 Q. If as of December 30th, 2014, based on your
15 information, Professor Dershowitz may or may not have
16 abused other minors, why did you allege that he did?
17 A. Your question, as I understood it, was did I
18 know the name of the particular girl that he may or may
19 not have alleged -- I'm sorry -- did I know the name of
20 the particular girl that he may have abused. And I
21 couldn't get the exact name, but what I had was
22 Mr. Dershowitz receiving massages in a time when,
23 according to the police report, massage was a code word
24 for sexual abuse of underage girls.
25 Q. And so was it your understanding as of
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607249
32
1 December 30th, 2014, that every massage given to anybody
2 at Mr. Epstein's residence was a code word for sexual
3 abuse?
4 A. It was my understanding that the term
5 "massage" was frequently, if not almost invariably, used
6 as a code word for sexual abuse, or at least sexual
7 activity, if the girl happened to be over the age of 18.
8 But in most cases at least, or in many cases depending
9 on exactly what universe you're looking at, these were
10 underage girls, under the age of consent in the State of
11 Florida, they were under the age of 18.
12 Sometimes as young as -- I think it went all
13 the way down to, gosh, I'm trying to remember now, I
14 think 13 or 14 was was the youngest age in the police
15 report.
16 Q. Is it your position that as of December 30th,
17 2014, you had a sufficient basis under the Federal Rules
18 of Procedure and applicable ethical rules to allege that
19 anyone who got a massage at Mr. Epstein's residence had
20 abused minors?
21 A. No.
22 Q. What -- back up now. With respect again to
23 other minors as of December 30th, 2014, had anyone --
24 had any young woman, other than -- we will put -- I'm
25 going to ask about separately.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607250
33
1 A. Okay.
2 Q. Had any other young woman told you she had
3 been abused by Professor Dershowitz?
4 A. No other young women had told me that, no.
5 Q. Had, as of that date, had anyone told you
6 that Professor Dershowitz had abused other minors?
7 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object for a
8 moment here to the extent that you're going to be
9 answering a question that requires you to divulge
10 any attorney/client communication with
11 , I have a standing objection that I'm
12 putting on the record right now.
13 does not waive her
14 attorney/client privilege with her lawyers, and
15 they are not entitled to testify as to
16 information that she intended to be confidential
17 that she communicated to her lawyers.
18 MR. SCAROLA: And I would instruct you not to
19 answer the question on that basis.
20 MR. SIMPSON: All right.
21 BY MR. SIMPSON:
22 Q. I disagree with the position on the
23 privilege, but I will -- you're going to follow the
24 instruction not to answer those questions?
25 A. I am.
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607251
34
1 Q. Okay. I want to put then aside
2
3 Had anyone else as of December 30th, 2014,
4 told you that Professor Dershowitz had abused any minor,
5 other than
6 A. No one -- no other -- no other person, no
7 other person had spoken to me and told me that directly,
8 no.
9 Q. And when you say no other person, I'm
10 including not just any -- any victims of Mr. Epstein,
11 but anyone else, no one had said to you, I have
12 knowledge that Alan Dershowitz abused a minor, other
13 than Epstein -- ; is that
14 correct?
15 MR. SCAROLA: Let me ask you for
16 clarification if I could. Are you asking whether
17 any person made that statement based upon the
18 direct personal knowledge of that person? And
19 the purpose for my clarification is to the extent
20 information was conveyed to Professor Cassell by
21 co-counsel, or anyone within the joint
22 representation or common interest privilege, I'm
23 not going to permit him to answer that question.
24 If it's anybody outside that, he clearly can. So
25 if you're looking for someone with direct
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
EFTA00607252
1