giuffre-maxwell
Unknown
29 pages
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Virginia L. Giuffre,
Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
v.
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant.
________________________________/
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF NON-PARTY’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S COMBINED MOTION TO COMPEL NON-PARTY
WITNESS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND RESPOND TO DEPOSITION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 1
ARGUMENT................................................................................................................................ 12
I. NON-PARTY RANSOME HAS PRODUCED DOCUMENTS OF AND DOES NOT
HAVE DOCUMENTS FOR A NUMBER OF REQUESTS. ...........................................15
II. DEFENDANT’S SUBPOENA SEEKS DOCUMENTS SOLELY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF INTIMIDATING AND HARASSING THIS NON-PARTY
WITNESS REQUEST 10 (CURRENT PASSPORT/CURRENT VISAS):......................17
III. DEFENDANT SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM ASKING ANY ADDITIONAL
DEPOSITION QUESTIONS THAT ARE SOLELY MEANT TO EMBARRASS,
INTIMIDATE AND HARASS THIS NON-PARTY........................................................18
IV. NON-PARTY MS. RANSOME SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO INCUR THE
BURDEN AND EXPENSE OF PRODUCING A PRIVILEGE LOG..............................20
V. NON-PARTY MS. RANSOME HAS PRODUCED DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO
JANE DOE 43. ...................................................................................................................22
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 23
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................................... 24
i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
Cases
Amini Innovation Corp. v. McFerran Home Furnishings, Inc.,
300 F.R.D. 406 (C.D. Cal. 2014) .............................................................................................. 12
Blodgett v. Siemens Industry, Inc.,
2016 WL 4203490 (E.D.N.Y. 2016)......................................................................................... 12
Buck v. Indian Mountain Sch.,
2017 WL 421648 (D. Conn. Jan. 31, 2017).............................................................................. 22
City of Pontiac Gen. Employee’s Ret. Sys. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,
2012 WL 4202657 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2012).......................................................................... 22
DaCosta v. City of Danbury,
298 F.R.D. 37 (D. Conn. 2014)........................................................................................... 13, 18
Dart Industries Co., Inc. v. Westwood Chemical Co.,
649 F.2d 646 (9th Cir. 1980) .................................................................................................... 12
Gerber v. Down E. Cmty. Hosp.,
266 F.R.D. 29 (D. Me. 2010).................................................................................................... 22
Hickman v. Taylor,
329 U.S. 495, 67 S. Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947).................................................................... 22
Katz v. Batavia Marine & Sporting Supplies, Inc.,
984 F.2d 422 (Fed.Cir.1993)..................................................................................................... 12
Liz Claiborne, Inc., v. Mademoiselle Knitwear, Inc.,
No. 96 CIV 2064 (RWS), 1997 WL 53184 .............................................................................. 22
Medical Components, Inc. v. Classic Medical, Inc.,
210 F.R.D. 175 (M.D.N.C. 2002) ............................................................................................. 21
Night Hawk Limited v. Briarpatch Limited,
No. 03 CIV. 1382 (RWS), 2003 WL 23018833 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2003) ............................. 23
S.E.C. v. NIR Grp., LLC,
283 F.R.D. 127 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) .............................................................................................. 22
Smartix International LLC v. Garrubbo, Romankow & Capese,
No. 06 CIV 1501 (JGK), 2007 WL 41666035 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2007) ............................... 12
ii
Solarex Corp. v. Arco Solar, Inc.,
121 F.R.D. 163 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) .............................................................................................. 21
Tucker v. Am. Int’l Grp., Inc.,
281 F.R.D. 85 (D. Conn. 2012)........................................................................................... 20, 21
United States v. Jacques Dessange, Inc.,
2000 WL 310345 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2000) ............................................................................ 22
Upjohn Co. v. United States,
449 U.S. 383 (1981).................................................................................................................. 22
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Konover,
2009 WL 585434 (D. Conn. Mar. 4, 2009) .............................................................................. 20
William A. Gross Const., Assoc., Inc. v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co.,
262 F.R.D. 354 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) .............................................................................................. 21
Rules
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.......................................................................................................................... 12
iii
Ransome_000218
Non-Party Sarah Ransome in 2006 on Little St. James Island
4
her story. From this dubious premise, Defendant then argues that Ms. Ransome should therefore be
punished by having to make burdensome and invasive disclosures of such things as her boyfriend’s
cell phone number and information from her current bank account. Unwilling to confine her attacks
to Ms. Ransome, Defendant then levels attacks on the professionalism of Ms. Giuffre’s legal counsel,
stating in her brief: “One can hardly imagine a better motive to fabricate testimony that the type of
lottery win. To make it even better, there is no purchase price for the ticket, because the people who
want the testimony are willing to front the cost of the litigation either on a contingency or pro-bono
basis.” Defendant’s Combined Motion at 7. Any suggestion of “fabrication” is directly refuted by
the multiple pictures and e-mails non-party Ms. Ransome produced – documentary evidence that
Defendant fails to discuss in her brief. Moreover, non-party Ms. Ransome is identified as a passenger
on Epstein’s own flight logs: __________________________________
Non-party Ms. Ransome’s fulsome production included items such as multiple e-mails with
. These e-mails are direct
evidence of the trafficking of females for the purpose of sex, and the use of fraud and manipulation to
accomplish that purpose. Ms. Ransome also produced numerous photographs of her travels to
Epstein’s Little Saint James Island, which unequivocally establish Defendant’s presence during the
years that she swore under oath that she was hardly around. Ms. Ransome’s testimony proves that
what little Defendant did say during her deposition was far from the truth.
10
These documents do not lie, and moreover make it abundantly clear that Defendant was far
from truthful during her deposition when she denied being a part of Epstein’s sexual abuse
conspiracy. Rather than engage Ms. Ransome’s allegations on the merits, Defendant responds with
technicalities. For example, Defendant attempts to suggest that Ms. Giuffre’s counsel was not diligent
in disclosing Ms. Ransome. Yet if there was any failure of disclosure here, it was entirely
Defendant’s failure. Clearly, witness Ms. Ransome is someone who has relevant evidence in this
case, as her many photographs, e-mails, and other documents undoubtedly establish. And yet
Defendant failed to disclose Ms. Ransome’s existence not only in her Rule 26 disclosures, but also
through (to put it mildly) her inaccurate testimony during her deposition. As a result, Ms. Giuffre’s
legal counsel did not learn of Ms. Ransome’s existence and whereabouts until November.
Furthermore, as Ms. Giuffre’s counsel informed the Court, it was not until the first week in January
that non-party Ms. Ransome was able to meet with counsel in person in Barcelona. Ms. Giuffre’s
counsel was not going to petition to bring a new witness before this Court without conducting
complete due diligence to assure that her testimony was credible. As soon as that in-person meeting
was accomplished in early January, Ms. Giuffre filed the appropriate papers with this Court and
immediately offered to make Ms. Ransome available to Defendant for a deposition. After first
delaying in taking that deposition, Defendant then made this victim of sex trafficking, who had flown
to the United States from Barcelona, sit for ten hours at a deposition and be subject to harassing
questions.
11
ARGUMENT
In light of non-party Ms. Ransome’s diligent efforts to satisfy Defendant’s needs for
discovery, the Court should enter a protective order against further discovery (DE 640) and deny
Defendant’s Combined Motion to Compel1 (DE 655).
As explained in Non-Party Ransome’s Motion for Protective Order, Defendant should not
be allowed to use the discovery process as a means of intimidating and harassing a non-party.
Counsel is not permitted to intentionally harass or embarrass a non-party witness during a
deposition. See Smartix International LLC v. Garrubbo, Romankow & Capese, No. 06 CIV 1501
(JGK), 2007 WL 41666035 at *2 (S.D.N.Y Nov. 20, 2007) (court protecting deponent from
annoyance, embarrassment and harassment by denying party’s attempt to obtain personnel
records relating to non-party).
Courts are more vigilant with these protections when the discovery is being sought from a
non-party. “[T]he fact of non-party status may be considered by the Court in weighing the
burdens imposed in the circumstances.” Katz v. Batavia Marine & Sporting Supplies, Inc., 984
F.2d 422, 424 (Fed.Cir.1993); accord Amini Innovation Corp. v. McFerran Home Furnishings,
Inc., 300 F.R.D. 406, 409 (C.D. Cal. 2014); see also Dart Industries Co., Inc. v. Westwood
1
In her Motion to Compel, Defendant failed to comply with Local Rule 37.1 and only inserted
selected text from certain objections. Rule 37.1 requires: “upon any motion or application
involving discovery or disclosure requests or responses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, the moving
party shall specify and quote or set forth verbatim in the motion papers each discovery request
and response to which the motion or application is addressed.” For all of the discovery items
upon which Defendant moves, Defendant has wholly failed to do this. Upon a motion to compel,
a court is called upon to evaluate the discovery requests as well as the responses and objections.
Local Rule 37.1 is designed to protect against the exact type of self-serving omission of the
responding party’s objections that Defendant has done in her brief. Accordingly, the Court
should deny Defendant’s motion in its entirety for failure to comply with Local Rule 37.1. See
Blodgett v. Siemens Industry, Inc., 2016 WL 4203490, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) (denying motion
without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 37.1 (which is the same rule in the
Eastern District of New York)); see also Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 2, Non-Party Sarah Ransome’s
Responses and Objections to Defendant’s Subpoena Requests.
12
incorrect. To be clear, Ms. Ransome produced documents, or responded that no documents exist,
to Requests 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 20, 23. Request 24 was withdrawn by Defendant
and non-party Ransome does not have any documents responsive to Request 26. As to the
remaining requests:
Request 12 – Ms. Ransome testified that she does not have any credit card receipts,
cancelled checks, or documents reflecting travel from 2006-2007, other than what she has
already produced. See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1, Ransome Tr. at 367, 402-403.
Request 15 - She testified that she does not have any documents reflecting the money
paid to her by Jeffrey Epstein (she was paid in cash). See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1,
Ransome Tr. at 151-152, 415.
Request 16 - She testified that she was given cash by Epstein during the years 2006-2007
while she was being trafficked by Defendant and Epstein. See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1,
Ransome Tr. at 415-416.
Request 17 - She testified that she lived in Epstein’s apartment and thereafter lived with a
male friend, but she does not have any leases, deeds, or rental agreements for 2006-2007..
See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1, Ransome Tr. at 76-78, 228-229.
Request 19 – Ms. Ransome produced a copy of her FIT essay but testified that she does
not believe she has the application but Jeffrey Epstein or the Defendant likely have a
copy because they claimed to be assisting her with the application and submission
process for FIT). See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1, Ransome Tr. at 171-172, 179-180.
Request 21 – Ms. Ransome testified she did very little modeling because she wasn’t
successful at it and has no documents relating to her modeling) See Pottinger Dec. at
Exhibit 1, Ransome Tr. at 82, 85, 112-113, 216, 415.
Request 25 - She testified she has not had any communication with law enforcement. See
Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1, Ransome Tr. at 183-184, 189.
Request 27 - She testified that she has never written a book or any similar writings about
her time with Defendant. See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1, Ransome Tr. at 9, 12-13, 35-38.
Request 28 - Defendant already has her civil complaint in Jane Doe 43, and Ms.
Ransome already testified that she is involved in that litigation.
Request 30 – Ms. Ransome testified that she does not have a current account on Twitter
or any other social media platform, and does not have the information for any for the
years 2006-2007. See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1, Ransome Tr. at 61.
16
II. DEFENDANT’S SUBPOENA SEEKS DOCUMENTS SOLELY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF INTIMIDATING AND HARASSING THIS NON-PARTY
WITNESS
Request 10 (Current Passport/Current Visas):
As to Request 10, Ms. Ransome produced her passport during the time that she was being
trafficked by Defendant and Epstein. She does not have Visas from that time period, as she
testified. Non-party Ms. Ransome should not have to produce her current passport, and
Defendant has given no good faith reason for why she should have to.
The remainder of Request 10 is overly broad, seeking “all communications regarding any
of Your passports, visas, visa applications or to her permissions to live, work or study in a
foreign country for the years 2005 – present.” What is responsive and relevant to this case - the
passport she held during the years 2006 and 2007 - has been produced. The reminder is simply
being sought in order to learn the patterns of Ms. Ransome’s travel for purposes of harassing and
intimidating her.
Request 18 (Current Driver’s License):
Despite non-party Ransome having produced her passport showing her travel during the
period she was being trafficked by Defendant and Epstein, Defendant seeks a “copy of her
current driver’s license.” Non-party Ransome is already fearful for her life and has been
followed at least once since she disclosed the abuse she endured at the hands of Defendant and
Epstein. Obtaining a copy of this non-party’s current driver’s license is solely for the purpose of
harassing and intimidating her and should not be permitted. The evidence that is relevant to the
claims from 2006-2007 has already been produced, including the copy of her passport.
Request 29 (Current Bank Statement, Paycheck, Credit Card Statements):
Non-party Ransome testified that she is presently unemployed and is living with her
boyfriend. Nevertheless, Defendant insists on moving to compel highly personal financial
17
information from this non-party as set forth in Request 29: “A copy of your most recent
paycheck, paycheck stub, earnings statement and any bank statement, credit card statement and
any document reflecting any money owed by you to anyone.” This type of current financial
information is only being sought for the improper purpose of embarrassing, intimidating, and
harassing this non-party. See DaCosta v. City of Danbury, 298 F.R.D. 37 (D. Conn. 2014)
(protective order granted with respect to personal information of nonparties, including home
addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, children’s names, financial account
numbers, and social security numbers).
Request 22 (All Modeling Contracts Signed or Entered into By You):
Non-party Ransome provided testimony that she did very little modeling while in New
York because she was not successful at it, and she also testified that it was mostly freelance
modeling. See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1, Ransome Tr. at 82, 85, 112-113, 216, 415. Despite
receiving this testimony, Defendant is now insisting that she conduct a search for any modeling
contract that Ms. Ransome has signed and produce them. This search is solely for the improper
purpose of embarrassing, harassing, and intimidating this non-party witness, and should be
precluded.
Accordingly, non-party Ransome objects to these Requests which are only being sought
for the purpose of harassing and intimidating this non-party witness, and requests that the Court
protect her from this clearly, highly personal and harassing discovery.
III. DEFENDANT SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM ASKING ANY ADDITIONAL
DEPOSITION QUESTIONS THAT ARE SOLELY MEANT TO EMBARRASS,
INTIMIDATE AND HARASS THIS NON-PARTY.
Defendant had Ms. Ransome present for a deposition for over ten hours with breaks,
ensuring that Defendant got a full seven (7) hours of tape time as provided by the Rules. Despite
this, Defendant seeks to compel Ms. Ransome to sit for additional questions. The following are
18
the categories of deposition testimony that Defendant seeks for which non-party Ms. Ransome
contends are sought only for the purpose of harassment and intimidation:
Current paycheck records and other banking records. Defendant has now added to
this that she wants her boyfriend’s current income and financial position since non-
party Ms. Ransome testified that she is living with her boyfriend. See Pottinger Dec at
Exhibit 1, Ransome Dep. Tr. at 8-9, 13-14.
Boyfriend’s cell phone number. See Pottinger Dec at Exhibit 1, Ransome Dep. Tr. at
27-28.
Her parent’s current address information. See Pottinger Dec at Exhibit 1, Ransome
Dep. Tr. at 14.
Communications that non-party Ms. Ransome testified she recalls having with a
reporter in the fall of 2016. See Pottinger Dec at Exhibit 1, Ransome Dep. Tr. at 37-
43, 386-388.
Privileged communications with Alan Dershowitz when he was meeting with Ms.
Ransome about a legal matter. See Pottinger Dec at Exhibit 1, Ransome Dep. Tr. at
182-186.
Her partner’s occupation. See Pottinger Dec at Exhibit 1, Ransome Dep. Tr. at 13-14.
What hotel Ms. Ransome was staying at in New York for her deposition. See
Pottinger Dec at Exhibit 1, Ransome Dep. Tr. at 30-34.
Whether Alan Dershowitz contacted anyone on Ms. Ransome’s behalf. See Pottinger
Dec at Exhibit 1, Ransome Dep. Tr. at 199.
Her stepmother’s phone, e-mail address and physical address – despite the fact that
non-party Ms. Ransome already gave testimony at her lengthy deposition that she
does not have her stepmother’s contact information. See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1,
Ransome Dep. Tr. at 239-240.
When Ms. Ransome provided her photos to her lawyer. See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit
1, Ransome Dep. Tr. at 363.
Ms. Ransome testified that she believed that Alan Dershowitz had been retained to be her
lawyer in a legal matter that she was having. Accordingly, counsel objected on privilege grounds
when Defendant’s counsel attempted to obtain specifics about those meetings. In addition,
Defendant attempted to obtain privileged and work product information about Ms. Ransome’s
19
meetings with her counsel in this matter. As the Court can see, the other questions relate to a
number of personal family information that a non-party witness should not be required to
disclose, particularly when she has a justified fear of Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein. Defendant
also requests documents relating to Ms. Ransome’s testimony that she recently had conversations
with a reporter when she was trying to encourage other victims of Defendant and Epstein to
come forward with their stories. After giving fulsome testimony on this topic, Defendant is now
demanding that Ms. Ransome conduct a search for documents relating to this reporter. Again,
non-party Ms. Ransome has produced a significant amount of discovery and has given her
testimony and she should not be forced to undertake an additional burden. Finally, prying into
her current personal financial information or her boyfriend’s personal financial information
should not be condoned. Simply put, all of these categories above for which Defendant seeks
additional testimony have nothing to do with this action and are being sought solely to
embarrass, harass, and intimidate this non-party, which should not be condoned.
IV. NON-PARTY MS. RANSOME SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO INCUR THE
BURDEN AND EXPENSE OF PRODUCING A PRIVILEGE LOG.
Despite being given less than seven days to respond to Defendant’s subpoena and
produce documents, Defendant also wrongly demands that this non-party undertake the burden
and expense of producing a privilege log. New York law protects non-parties from the
significant burden and expense of producing a privilege log. “The burden on the party from
which discovery is sought must, of course, be balanced against the need for the information
sought.” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Konover, 2009 WL 585434, at *5 (D. Conn. Mar. 4, 2009)
(denying Rule 45 motion to compel production of documents from non-party). “In performing
such a balance, courts have considered the fact that discovery is being sought from a third or
non-party, which weighs against permitting discovery.” Tucker v. Am. Int’l Grp., Inc., 281
20
F.R.D. 85, 92 (D. Conn. 2012) (finding request for production on non-party - including creation
of privilege log - too burdensome); see also Medical Components, Inc. v. Classic Medical, Inc.,
210 F.R.D. 175, 180 n.9 (M.D.N.C. 2002) (“the court should give special weight to the unwanted
burden thrust upon non-parties when evaluating the balance of competing needs.”)). “Within this
[Second] Circuit, courts have held nonparty status to be a ‘significant’ factor in determining
whether discovery is unduly burdensome.” Tucker, 281 F.R.D. at 92 (citing Solarex Corp. v.
Arco Solar, Inc., 121 F.R.D. 163, 179 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (status as non-party “significant” factor
in denying defendant’s discovery demand)).
Ms. Ransome is a victim of sex trafficking who bravely came forward to help another
victim of abuse. She is not a large corporation with a team of in-house lawyers. In these
circumstances, imposing the burden of producing a privilege log on this non-party is inherently
unfair. A non-party is not required to undertake the burden of filing a privilege log. Defendant is
only seeking to try to have this Court force non-party Ms. Ransome to produce a privilege log in
this matter to impose additional burden on Ms. Ransome.
In addition, Defendant wrongly argues that she is entitled to any communications and
witness interviews between Ms. Giuffre’s lawyers and non-party Ms. Ransome. It is well settled
that documents relating to witness interviews are protected by the work product privilege. In
addition, Defendant wrongly argues that she is entitled to any communications and witness
interviews between Ms. Giuffre’s lawyers and non-party Ms. Ransome. See William A. Gross
Const., Assoc., Inc. v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 262 F.R.D. 354, 359 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (upholding
work-product privilege, finding doctrine “‘extends to notes, memoranda, witness interviews, and
other material’” created in preparation for litigation and trial (emphasis added) (internal citation
omitted)). Indeed, “protection of witness interviews has been one of the focuses of the attorney
21
relevance of the questions were tenuous at best and appeared to be directed at improperly
gathering information for a different lawsuit); Night Hawk Limited v. Briarpatch Limited, No. 03
CIV. 1382 (RWS), 2003 WL 23018833 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2003). Irrespective of this case law
that says a party should not wrongfully seek a non-party’s documents for use in a different
matter, non-party Ms. Ransome did produce the documents that she has that relate directly to
Defendant and Epstein as she testified.
CONCLUSION
Non-party Ms. Ransome respectfully requests that this Court grant her protection from
having to produce any additional discovery or sit for any additional deposition testimony (DE
650). Non-party Ms. Ransome also respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendant’s
Combined Motion to Compel (DE 655).
Dated: March 7, 2017
Respectfully Submitted,
By: /s/ J. Stanley Pottinger
J. Stanley Pottinger (Pro Hac Vice)
Counsel for Sarah Ransome
23
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 7th of March, 2017, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission
of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
Tel: (303) 831-7364
Fax: (303) 832-2628
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
Sigrid McCawley, Esq.
Meredith Schultz, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard
Suite 1200
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 356-0011
Fax: (954) 956-0022
[email protected]
[email protected]
David Boies
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
[email protected]
Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice)
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
(954) 524-2820
[email protected]
24
Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
S.J. Quinney College of Law
University of Utah
383 University St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
(801) 585-52024
[email protected]
Peter Guirguis, Esq.
MINTZ & GOLD, LLP
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
(212) 696-4848
[email protected]
/s/ J. Stanley Pottinger
J. Stanley Pottinger
4
This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only
and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private
representation.
25
giuffre-maxwell
Unknown
29 pages
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Virginia L. Giuffre,
Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
v.
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant.
________________________________/
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF NON-PARTY’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S COMBINED MOTION TO COMPEL NON-PARTY
WITNESS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND RESPOND TO DEPOSITION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 1
ARGUMENT................................................................................................................................ 12
I. NON-PARTY RANSOME HAS PRODUCED DOCUMENTS OF AND DOES NOT
HAVE DOCUMENTS FOR A NUMBER OF REQUESTS. ...........................................15
II. DEFENDANT’S SUBPOENA SEEKS DOCUMENTS SOLELY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF INTIMIDATING AND HARASSING THIS NON-PARTY
WITNESS REQUEST 10 (CURRENT PASSPORT/CURRENT VISAS):......................17
III. DEFENDANT SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM ASKING ANY ADDITIONAL
DEPOSITION QUESTIONS THAT ARE SOLELY MEANT TO EMBARRASS,
INTIMIDATE AND HARASS THIS NON-PARTY........................................................18
IV. NON-PARTY MS. RANSOME SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO INCUR THE
BURDEN AND EXPENSE OF PRODUCING A PRIVILEGE LOG..............................20
V. NON-PARTY MS. RANSOME HAS PRODUCED DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO
JANE DOE 43. ...................................................................................................................22
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 23
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................................... 24
i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
Cases
Amini Innovation Corp. v. McFerran Home Furnishings, Inc.,
300 F.R.D. 406 (C.D. Cal. 2014) .............................................................................................. 12
Blodgett v. Siemens Industry, Inc.,
2016 WL 4203490 (E.D.N.Y. 2016)......................................................................................... 12
Buck v. Indian Mountain Sch.,
2017 WL 421648 (D. Conn. Jan. 31, 2017).............................................................................. 22
City of Pontiac Gen. Employee’s Ret. Sys. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,
2012 WL 4202657 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2012).......................................................................... 22
DaCosta v. City of Danbury,
298 F.R.D. 37 (D. Conn. 2014)........................................................................................... 13, 18
Dart Industries Co., Inc. v. Westwood Chemical Co.,
649 F.2d 646 (9th Cir. 1980) .................................................................................................... 12
Gerber v. Down E. Cmty. Hosp.,
266 F.R.D. 29 (D. Me. 2010).................................................................................................... 22
Hickman v. Taylor,
329 U.S. 495, 67 S. Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947).................................................................... 22
Katz v. Batavia Marine & Sporting Supplies, Inc.,
984 F.2d 422 (Fed.Cir.1993)..................................................................................................... 12
Liz Claiborne, Inc., v. Mademoiselle Knitwear, Inc.,
No. 96 CIV 2064 (RWS), 1997 WL 53184 .............................................................................. 22
Medical Components, Inc. v. Classic Medical, Inc.,
210 F.R.D. 175 (M.D.N.C. 2002) ............................................................................................. 21
Night Hawk Limited v. Briarpatch Limited,
No. 03 CIV. 1382 (RWS), 2003 WL 23018833 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2003) ............................. 23
S.E.C. v. NIR Grp., LLC,
283 F.R.D. 127 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) .............................................................................................. 22
Smartix International LLC v. Garrubbo, Romankow & Capese,
No. 06 CIV 1501 (JGK), 2007 WL 41666035 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2007) ............................... 12
ii
Solarex Corp. v. Arco Solar, Inc.,
121 F.R.D. 163 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) .............................................................................................. 21
Tucker v. Am. Int’l Grp., Inc.,
281 F.R.D. 85 (D. Conn. 2012)........................................................................................... 20, 21
United States v. Jacques Dessange, Inc.,
2000 WL 310345 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2000) ............................................................................ 22
Upjohn Co. v. United States,
449 U.S. 383 (1981).................................................................................................................. 22
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Konover,
2009 WL 585434 (D. Conn. Mar. 4, 2009) .............................................................................. 20
William A. Gross Const., Assoc., Inc. v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co.,
262 F.R.D. 354 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) .............................................................................................. 21
Rules
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.......................................................................................................................... 12
iii
Ransome_000218
Non-Party Sarah Ransome in 2006 on Little St. James Island
4
her story. From this dubious premise, Defendant then argues that Ms. Ransome should therefore be
punished by having to make burdensome and invasive disclosures of such things as her boyfriend’s
cell phone number and information from her current bank account. Unwilling to confine her attacks
to Ms. Ransome, Defendant then levels attacks on the professionalism of Ms. Giuffre’s legal counsel,
stating in her brief: “One can hardly imagine a better motive to fabricate testimony that the type of
lottery win. To make it even better, there is no purchase price for the ticket, because the people who
want the testimony are willing to front the cost of the litigation either on a contingency or pro-bono
basis.” Defendant’s Combined Motion at 7. Any suggestion of “fabrication” is directly refuted by
the multiple pictures and e-mails non-party Ms. Ransome produced – documentary evidence that
Defendant fails to discuss in her brief. Moreover, non-party Ms. Ransome is identified as a passenger
on Epstein’s own flight logs: __________________________________
Non-party Ms. Ransome’s fulsome production included items such as multiple e-mails with
. These e-mails are direct
evidence of the trafficking of females for the purpose of sex, and the use of fraud and manipulation to
accomplish that purpose. Ms. Ransome also produced numerous photographs of her travels to
Epstein’s Little Saint James Island, which unequivocally establish Defendant’s presence during the
years that she swore under oath that she was hardly around. Ms. Ransome’s testimony proves that
what little Defendant did say during her deposition was far from the truth.
10
These documents do not lie, and moreover make it abundantly clear that Defendant was far
from truthful during her deposition when she denied being a part of Epstein’s sexual abuse
conspiracy. Rather than engage Ms. Ransome’s allegations on the merits, Defendant responds with
technicalities. For example, Defendant attempts to suggest that Ms. Giuffre’s counsel was not diligent
in disclosing Ms. Ransome. Yet if there was any failure of disclosure here, it was entirely
Defendant’s failure. Clearly, witness Ms. Ransome is someone who has relevant evidence in this
case, as her many photographs, e-mails, and other documents undoubtedly establish. And yet
Defendant failed to disclose Ms. Ransome’s existence not only in her Rule 26 disclosures, but also
through (to put it mildly) her inaccurate testimony during her deposition. As a result, Ms. Giuffre’s
legal counsel did not learn of Ms. Ransome’s existence and whereabouts until November.
Furthermore, as Ms. Giuffre’s counsel informed the Court, it was not until the first week in January
that non-party Ms. Ransome was able to meet with counsel in person in Barcelona. Ms. Giuffre’s
counsel was not going to petition to bring a new witness before this Court without conducting
complete due diligence to assure that her testimony was credible. As soon as that in-person meeting
was accomplished in early January, Ms. Giuffre filed the appropriate papers with this Court and
immediately offered to make Ms. Ransome available to Defendant for a deposition. After first
delaying in taking that deposition, Defendant then made this victim of sex trafficking, who had flown
to the United States from Barcelona, sit for ten hours at a deposition and be subject to harassing
questions.
11
ARGUMENT
In light of non-party Ms. Ransome’s diligent efforts to satisfy Defendant’s needs for
discovery, the Court should enter a protective order against further discovery (DE 640) and deny
Defendant’s Combined Motion to Compel1 (DE 655).
As explained in Non-Party Ransome’s Motion for Protective Order, Defendant should not
be allowed to use the discovery process as a means of intimidating and harassing a non-party.
Counsel is not permitted to intentionally harass or embarrass a non-party witness during a
deposition. See Smartix International LLC v. Garrubbo, Romankow & Capese, No. 06 CIV 1501
(JGK), 2007 WL 41666035 at *2 (S.D.N.Y Nov. 20, 2007) (court protecting deponent from
annoyance, embarrassment and harassment by denying party’s attempt to obtain personnel
records relating to non-party).
Courts are more vigilant with these protections when the discovery is being sought from a
non-party. “[T]he fact of non-party status may be considered by the Court in weighing the
burdens imposed in the circumstances.” Katz v. Batavia Marine & Sporting Supplies, Inc., 984
F.2d 422, 424 (Fed.Cir.1993); accord Amini Innovation Corp. v. McFerran Home Furnishings,
Inc., 300 F.R.D. 406, 409 (C.D. Cal. 2014); see also Dart Industries Co., Inc. v. Westwood
1
In her Motion to Compel, Defendant failed to comply with Local Rule 37.1 and only inserted
selected text from certain objections. Rule 37.1 requires: “upon any motion or application
involving discovery or disclosure requests or responses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, the moving
party shall specify and quote or set forth verbatim in the motion papers each discovery request
and response to which the motion or application is addressed.” For all of the discovery items
upon which Defendant moves, Defendant has wholly failed to do this. Upon a motion to compel,
a court is called upon to evaluate the discovery requests as well as the responses and objections.
Local Rule 37.1 is designed to protect against the exact type of self-serving omission of the
responding party’s objections that Defendant has done in her brief. Accordingly, the Court
should deny Defendant’s motion in its entirety for failure to comply with Local Rule 37.1. See
Blodgett v. Siemens Industry, Inc., 2016 WL 4203490, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) (denying motion
without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 37.1 (which is the same rule in the
Eastern District of New York)); see also Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 2, Non-Party Sarah Ransome’s
Responses and Objections to Defendant’s Subpoena Requests.
12
incorrect. To be clear, Ms. Ransome produced documents, or responded that no documents exist,
to Requests 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 20, 23. Request 24 was withdrawn by Defendant
and non-party Ransome does not have any documents responsive to Request 26. As to the
remaining requests:
Request 12 – Ms. Ransome testified that she does not have any credit card receipts,
cancelled checks, or documents reflecting travel from 2006-2007, other than what she has
already produced. See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1, Ransome Tr. at 367, 402-403.
Request 15 - She testified that she does not have any documents reflecting the money
paid to her by Jeffrey Epstein (she was paid in cash). See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1,
Ransome Tr. at 151-152, 415.
Request 16 - She testified that she was given cash by Epstein during the years 2006-2007
while she was being trafficked by Defendant and Epstein. See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1,
Ransome Tr. at 415-416.
Request 17 - She testified that she lived in Epstein’s apartment and thereafter lived with a
male friend, but she does not have any leases, deeds, or rental agreements for 2006-2007..
See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1, Ransome Tr. at 76-78, 228-229.
Request 19 – Ms. Ransome produced a copy of her FIT essay but testified that she does
not believe she has the application but Jeffrey Epstein or the Defendant likely have a
copy because they claimed to be assisting her with the application and submission
process for FIT). See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1, Ransome Tr. at 171-172, 179-180.
Request 21 – Ms. Ransome testified she did very little modeling because she wasn’t
successful at it and has no documents relating to her modeling) See Pottinger Dec. at
Exhibit 1, Ransome Tr. at 82, 85, 112-113, 216, 415.
Request 25 - She testified she has not had any communication with law enforcement. See
Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1, Ransome Tr. at 183-184, 189.
Request 27 - She testified that she has never written a book or any similar writings about
her time with Defendant. See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1, Ransome Tr. at 9, 12-13, 35-38.
Request 28 - Defendant already has her civil complaint in Jane Doe 43, and Ms.
Ransome already testified that she is involved in that litigation.
Request 30 – Ms. Ransome testified that she does not have a current account on Twitter
or any other social media platform, and does not have the information for any for the
years 2006-2007. See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1, Ransome Tr. at 61.
16
II. DEFENDANT’S SUBPOENA SEEKS DOCUMENTS SOLELY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF INTIMIDATING AND HARASSING THIS NON-PARTY
WITNESS
Request 10 (Current Passport/Current Visas):
As to Request 10, Ms. Ransome produced her passport during the time that she was being
trafficked by Defendant and Epstein. She does not have Visas from that time period, as she
testified. Non-party Ms. Ransome should not have to produce her current passport, and
Defendant has given no good faith reason for why she should have to.
The remainder of Request 10 is overly broad, seeking “all communications regarding any
of Your passports, visas, visa applications or to her permissions to live, work or study in a
foreign country for the years 2005 – present.” What is responsive and relevant to this case - the
passport she held during the years 2006 and 2007 - has been produced. The reminder is simply
being sought in order to learn the patterns of Ms. Ransome’s travel for purposes of harassing and
intimidating her.
Request 18 (Current Driver’s License):
Despite non-party Ransome having produced her passport showing her travel during the
period she was being trafficked by Defendant and Epstein, Defendant seeks a “copy of her
current driver’s license.” Non-party Ransome is already fearful for her life and has been
followed at least once since she disclosed the abuse she endured at the hands of Defendant and
Epstein. Obtaining a copy of this non-party’s current driver’s license is solely for the purpose of
harassing and intimidating her and should not be permitted. The evidence that is relevant to the
claims from 2006-2007 has already been produced, including the copy of her passport.
Request 29 (Current Bank Statement, Paycheck, Credit Card Statements):
Non-party Ransome testified that she is presently unemployed and is living with her
boyfriend. Nevertheless, Defendant insists on moving to compel highly personal financial
17
information from this non-party as set forth in Request 29: “A copy of your most recent
paycheck, paycheck stub, earnings statement and any bank statement, credit card statement and
any document reflecting any money owed by you to anyone.” This type of current financial
information is only being sought for the improper purpose of embarrassing, intimidating, and
harassing this non-party. See DaCosta v. City of Danbury, 298 F.R.D. 37 (D. Conn. 2014)
(protective order granted with respect to personal information of nonparties, including home
addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, children’s names, financial account
numbers, and social security numbers).
Request 22 (All Modeling Contracts Signed or Entered into By You):
Non-party Ransome provided testimony that she did very little modeling while in New
York because she was not successful at it, and she also testified that it was mostly freelance
modeling. See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1, Ransome Tr. at 82, 85, 112-113, 216, 415. Despite
receiving this testimony, Defendant is now insisting that she conduct a search for any modeling
contract that Ms. Ransome has signed and produce them. This search is solely for the improper
purpose of embarrassing, harassing, and intimidating this non-party witness, and should be
precluded.
Accordingly, non-party Ransome objects to these Requests which are only being sought
for the purpose of harassing and intimidating this non-party witness, and requests that the Court
protect her from this clearly, highly personal and harassing discovery.
III. DEFENDANT SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM ASKING ANY ADDITIONAL
DEPOSITION QUESTIONS THAT ARE SOLELY MEANT TO EMBARRASS,
INTIMIDATE AND HARASS THIS NON-PARTY.
Defendant had Ms. Ransome present for a deposition for over ten hours with breaks,
ensuring that Defendant got a full seven (7) hours of tape time as provided by the Rules. Despite
this, Defendant seeks to compel Ms. Ransome to sit for additional questions. The following are
18
the categories of deposition testimony that Defendant seeks for which non-party Ms. Ransome
contends are sought only for the purpose of harassment and intimidation:
Current paycheck records and other banking records. Defendant has now added to
this that she wants her boyfriend’s current income and financial position since non-
party Ms. Ransome testified that she is living with her boyfriend. See Pottinger Dec at
Exhibit 1, Ransome Dep. Tr. at 8-9, 13-14.
Boyfriend’s cell phone number. See Pottinger Dec at Exhibit 1, Ransome Dep. Tr. at
27-28.
Her parent’s current address information. See Pottinger Dec at Exhibit 1, Ransome
Dep. Tr. at 14.
Communications that non-party Ms. Ransome testified she recalls having with a
reporter in the fall of 2016. See Pottinger Dec at Exhibit 1, Ransome Dep. Tr. at 37-
43, 386-388.
Privileged communications with Alan Dershowitz when he was meeting with Ms.
Ransome about a legal matter. See Pottinger Dec at Exhibit 1, Ransome Dep. Tr. at
182-186.
Her partner’s occupation. See Pottinger Dec at Exhibit 1, Ransome Dep. Tr. at 13-14.
What hotel Ms. Ransome was staying at in New York for her deposition. See
Pottinger Dec at Exhibit 1, Ransome Dep. Tr. at 30-34.
Whether Alan Dershowitz contacted anyone on Ms. Ransome’s behalf. See Pottinger
Dec at Exhibit 1, Ransome Dep. Tr. at 199.
Her stepmother’s phone, e-mail address and physical address – despite the fact that
non-party Ms. Ransome already gave testimony at her lengthy deposition that she
does not have her stepmother’s contact information. See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1,
Ransome Dep. Tr. at 239-240.
When Ms. Ransome provided her photos to her lawyer. See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit
1, Ransome Dep. Tr. at 363.
Ms. Ransome testified that she believed that Alan Dershowitz had been retained to be her
lawyer in a legal matter that she was having. Accordingly, counsel objected on privilege grounds
when Defendant’s counsel attempted to obtain specifics about those meetings. In addition,
Defendant attempted to obtain privileged and work product information about Ms. Ransome’s
19
meetings with her counsel in this matter. As the Court can see, the other questions relate to a
number of personal family information that a non-party witness should not be required to
disclose, particularly when she has a justified fear of Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein. Defendant
also requests documents relating to Ms. Ransome’s testimony that she recently had conversations
with a reporter when she was trying to encourage other victims of Defendant and Epstein to
come forward with their stories. After giving fulsome testimony on this topic, Defendant is now
demanding that Ms. Ransome conduct a search for documents relating to this reporter. Again,
non-party Ms. Ransome has produced a significant amount of discovery and has given her
testimony and she should not be forced to undertake an additional burden. Finally, prying into
her current personal financial information or her boyfriend’s personal financial information
should not be condoned. Simply put, all of these categories above for which Defendant seeks
additional testimony have nothing to do with this action and are being sought solely to
embarrass, harass, and intimidate this non-party, which should not be condoned.
IV. NON-PARTY MS. RANSOME SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO INCUR THE
BURDEN AND EXPENSE OF PRODUCING A PRIVILEGE LOG.
Despite being given less than seven days to respond to Defendant’s subpoena and
produce documents, Defendant also wrongly demands that this non-party undertake the burden
and expense of producing a privilege log. New York law protects non-parties from the
significant burden and expense of producing a privilege log. “The burden on the party from
which discovery is sought must, of course, be balanced against the need for the information
sought.” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Konover, 2009 WL 585434, at *5 (D. Conn. Mar. 4, 2009)
(denying Rule 45 motion to compel production of documents from non-party). “In performing
such a balance, courts have considered the fact that discovery is being sought from a third or
non-party, which weighs against permitting discovery.” Tucker v. Am. Int’l Grp., Inc., 281
20
F.R.D. 85, 92 (D. Conn. 2012) (finding request for production on non-party - including creation
of privilege log - too burdensome); see also Medical Components, Inc. v. Classic Medical, Inc.,
210 F.R.D. 175, 180 n.9 (M.D.N.C. 2002) (“the court should give special weight to the unwanted
burden thrust upon non-parties when evaluating the balance of competing needs.”)). “Within this
[Second] Circuit, courts have held nonparty status to be a ‘significant’ factor in determining
whether discovery is unduly burdensome.” Tucker, 281 F.R.D. at 92 (citing Solarex Corp. v.
Arco Solar, Inc., 121 F.R.D. 163, 179 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (status as non-party “significant” factor
in denying defendant’s discovery demand)).
Ms. Ransome is a victim of sex trafficking who bravely came forward to help another
victim of abuse. She is not a large corporation with a team of in-house lawyers. In these
circumstances, imposing the burden of producing a privilege log on this non-party is inherently
unfair. A non-party is not required to undertake the burden of filing a privilege log. Defendant is
only seeking to try to have this Court force non-party Ms. Ransome to produce a privilege log in
this matter to impose additional burden on Ms. Ransome.
In addition, Defendant wrongly argues that she is entitled to any communications and
witness interviews between Ms. Giuffre’s lawyers and non-party Ms. Ransome. It is well settled
that documents relating to witness interviews are protected by the work product privilege. In
addition, Defendant wrongly argues that she is entitled to any communications and witness
interviews between Ms. Giuffre’s lawyers and non-party Ms. Ransome. See William A. Gross
Const., Assoc., Inc. v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 262 F.R.D. 354, 359 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (upholding
work-product privilege, finding doctrine “‘extends to notes, memoranda, witness interviews, and
other material’” created in preparation for litigation and trial (emphasis added) (internal citation
omitted)). Indeed, “protection of witness interviews has been one of the focuses of the attorney
21
relevance of the questions were tenuous at best and appeared to be directed at improperly
gathering information for a different lawsuit); Night Hawk Limited v. Briarpatch Limited, No. 03
CIV. 1382 (RWS), 2003 WL 23018833 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2003). Irrespective of this case law
that says a party should not wrongfully seek a non-party’s documents for use in a different
matter, non-party Ms. Ransome did produce the documents that she has that relate directly to
Defendant and Epstein as she testified.
CONCLUSION
Non-party Ms. Ransome respectfully requests that this Court grant her protection from
having to produce any additional discovery or sit for any additional deposition testimony (DE
650). Non-party Ms. Ransome also respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendant’s
Combined Motion to Compel (DE 655).
Dated: March 7, 2017
Respectfully Submitted,
By: /s/ J. Stanley Pottinger
J. Stanley Pottinger (Pro Hac Vice)
Counsel for Sarah Ransome
23
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 7th of March, 2017, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission
of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
Tel: (303) 831-7364
Fax: (303) 832-2628
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
Sigrid McCawley, Esq.
Meredith Schultz, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard
Suite 1200
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 356-0011
Fax: (954) 956-0022
[email protected]
[email protected]
David Boies
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
[email protected]
Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice)
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
(954) 524-2820
[email protected]
24
Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
S.J. Quinney College of Law
University of Utah
383 University St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
(801) 585-52024
[email protected]
Peter Guirguis, Esq.
MINTZ & GOLD, LLP
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
(212) 696-4848
[email protected]
/s/ J. Stanley Pottinger
J. Stanley Pottinger
4
This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only
and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private
representation.
25
giuffre-maxwell
Unknown
179 pages
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 179
EXHIBIT 5
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 179
Page 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CASE NO. 15-CV-07433-RWS
------------------------------------------x
VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,
Plaintiff,
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------x
May 18, 2016
9:04 a.m.
C O N F I D E N T I A L
Deposition of JOHANNA SJOBERG, pursuant
to notice, taken by Plaintiff, at the
offices of Boies Schiller & Flexner, 401
Las Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
before Kelli Ann Willis, a Registered
Professional Reporter, Certified Realtime
Reporter and Notary Public within and
for the State of Florida.
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 179
Page 2
1 A P P E A R A N C E S:
2 BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
3 401 East Las Olas Boulevard
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
4 BY: SIGRID S. McCAWLEY, ESQ. and
MEREDITH SCHULTZ, ESQ.
5
6 HADDON MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendant
7 150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
8 BY: LAURA A. MENNINGER, ESQ.
9
10 SINCLAIR LOUIS & ZAVERTNIK, P.A.
Attorneys for Deponent
11 40 NW Third Street
Suite 200
12 Miami, Florida 33128
BY: MARSHALL DORE LOUIS, ESQ.
13
14
15 ALSO PRESENT: Ryan Kick, Videographer
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 179
Page 3
1
2 I N D E X
3 Examination by Ms. McCawley ................... 5
Examination by Ms. Menninger ................... 50
4 Further Examination by Ms. McCawley ............ 138
Further Examination by Ms. Menninger ........... 147
5
6
7 E X H I B I T S
8 Deposition Exhibit 1 ........................... 7
Deposition Notice
9
Deposition Exhibit 2 ........................... 7
10 Subpoena
11 Deposition Exhibit 3 ........................... 16
Flight log
12
Deposition Exhibit 4 ........................... 49
13 Palm Beach Police Department
Incident Report
14
Deposition Exhibit 5 ........................... 117
15 Red Ice Creations web article
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 179
Page 4
1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the
2 record. This is begins Videotape No. 1 in the
3 deposition of Johanna Sjoberg, in the matter of
4 Virginia Giuffre versus Ghislaine Maxwell.
5 Today is May 18th, 2016. The time is
6 9:04 a.m. This deposition is being taken at
7 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale,
8 Florida.
9 The videographer is Ryan Kick. The court
10 reporter is Kelli Ann Willis. We both
11 represent Magna Legal Services.
12 Will counsel and all parties present state
13 their appearance and whom they represent.
14 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. I'm Sigrid McCawley,
15 with the law firm of Boise Schiller & Flexner,
16 and I represent Virginia Giuffre. And I have
17 here two colleagues of mine, Meredith Schultz
18 and Sandra Perkins, from my firm as well.
19 MS. MENNINGER: Hi. I'm Laura Menninger
20 from Haddon Morgan & Foreman, and I represent
21 Ghislaine Maxwell.
22 MR. LOUIS: I'm Dore Louis from Sinclair
23 Louis & Zavertnik. I'm here on behalf of the
24 deponent.
25 Thereupon:
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 179
Page 5
1 JOHANNA SJOBERG
2 a witness named in the notice heretofore filed,
3 being of lawful age and having been first duly
4 sworn, testified on her oath as follows:
5 E X A M I N A T I O N
6 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
7 Q. Good morning, Johanna. Thank you for
8 coming. I'm going to talk to you a little bit about
9 the deposition process before we get started to make
10 sure you understand what's going to happen here
11 today.
12 You just heard there's a videographer, and
13 he's going to be taking your video during this
14 deposition and generally what's happening in the
15 course of the deposition.
16 And then you have a court reporter here
17 who takes down the words that we say. And it's a
18 little bit tricky because I tend to speak quickly
19 sometimes and speak over people, and she needs to
20 get down all of the words. So I'll try to do my
21 best to go slower and make sure I'm not talking over
22 you.
23 And, similarly, if you've got an answer to
24 a question, make sure that you're verbally
25 responding, not just nodding or making a gesture
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 179
Page 6
1 because she can't get that down. We want to make
2 sure our responses are verbal. I'll try to remind
3 you of that if that happens.
4 Have you ever been deposed before?
5 A. No.
6 Q. No. Okay.
7 So what's going to happen is I'm going to
8 ask questions, and you'll give answers. And like I
9 said, everybody will be recording those.
10 Is there any reason, any medical reason,
11 anything you've taken today that would cause you to
12 not to be able to give truthful testimony today?
13 A. No.
14 Q. No. Okay.
15 All right. So we're going to get started,
16 and if you have any questions during the deposition
17 or you need to stop to take a break, you can just
18 let me know and we'll take that break.
19 So what I -- the only thing I ask is if
20 we're in the midst of a question, you finish the
21 answer before we take a break.
22 A. Sure.
23 Q. But I'll try to make sure that I take
24 regular breaks, as well.
25 You stated your name for the record. Can
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 179
Page 7
1 you tell me your date of birth?
2
3 Q. That makes you how old now?
4
5 Q. Okay. And where are you currently living?
6
7 Q. And I'm going to show you what I'm going
8 to mark as the first two exhibits in the matter.
9 And I'm going to ask the court reporter if I can
10 mark those.
11 (The referred-to document was marked by
12 the court reporter for Identification as
13 Sjoberg Exhibits 1 and 2.)
14 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
15 Q. Okay. I'm going to show you what I'm
16 marking as Exhibit 1. It's going to be the
17 re-notice of your videotaped deposition, which is
18 simply a notice I'm going to show you. And then
19 Exhibit 2 is the subpoena that we served on you.
20 So you're here today pursuant to our
21 Notice of Deposition and the subpoena that we served
22 on you.
23 Are you familiar with the subpoena? Have
24 you seen that document before?
25 A. Yes.
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 179
Page 8
1 Q. Okay. Great.
2 All right. Do you know a female by the
3 name of Ghislaine Maxwell?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And when did you first meet Ms. Maxwell?
6 A. 2001. March probably. End of
7 February/beginning of March.
8 Q. And how did you meet her?
9 A. She approached me while I was on campus at
10 Palm Beach Atlantic College.
11 Q. And what happened when she approached you?
12 A. She asked me if I could tell her how to
13 find someone that would come and work at her house.
14 She wanted to know if there was, like, a bulletin
15 board or something that she could post, that she was
16 looking for someone to hire.
17 Q. And what did you discuss with her?
18 A. I told her where she could go to -- you
19 know, to put up a listing. And then she asked me if
20 I knew anyone that would be interested in working
21 for her.
22 Q. Did she describe what that work was going
23 to be?
24 A. She explained that she lived in Palm Beach
25 and didn't want butlers because they're too stuffy.
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 179
Page 9
1 And so she just liked to hire girls to work at the
2 house, answer phones, get drinks, do the job a
3 butler would do.
4 Q. And did she tell you what she would pay
5 for that kind of a job?
6 A. At that moment, no, but later in the day,
7 yes.
8 Q. And what did she say?
9 A. Twenty dollars an hour.
10 Q. Was there anybody else with Ms. Maxwell
11 when you met her?
12 A. There was another woman with her. I don't
13 recall her or what she looks like or how old she
14 was.
15 Q. And what happened next?
16 A. And then she asked me if I would be
17 interested in working for her. And she told me that
18 she was -- I could trust her and that I could jump
19 in her car and go check out the house at that moment
20 if I wanted.
21 And so I said, Sure, let's do it, and went
22 to her home with her.
23 Q. And where was that home?
24 A. In Palm Beach.
25 Q. And did she describe that home as being
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 179
Page 10
1 her home?
2 A. She described it as being her home and
3 alluded to the fact that it was her and Jeffrey's
4 home and that she had homes all over the world.
5 Yes.
6 Q. And what happened when you arrived at the
7 home?
8 A. I believe she just showed me around.
9 Q. Do you recall meeting anybody at the home?
10 A. I don't recall if I met Jeffrey at that
11 time or the next time that I was there.
12 Q. How did you meet Jeffrey? Did Maxwell
13 introduce you to Jeffrey?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. What do you recall of your first meeting
16 with Jeffrey?
17 A. I remember him being in a bathrobe. I
18 recall talking to him about how I was a major in
19 psychology. And he had studied psychology, and so
20 he spoke with me about different topics.
21 I remember thinking this guy is very
22 smart. That was my first impression.
23 Q. And when you refer to Jeffrey, are you
24 referring to Jeffrey Epstein?
25 A. Yes.
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 179
Page 11
1 Q. How did the meeting -- you said Maxwell
2 took you to the home. Do you remember how that
3 meeting ended?
4 A. Well, she dropped me back off at campus.
5 Q. And did you --
6 A. She got my number and I took her number.
7 And then she called me the next weekend to work.
8 Q. So at that point you started working for
9 Ms. Maxwell?
10 A. At that time, yes.
11 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading.
12 Sorry.
13 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
14 Q. Did you then start working for Ms. Maxwell
15 after that first meeting?
16 A. She called me and I went over to the home
17 the next Sunday to work.
18 Q. And what work -- can you describe for me
19 the first day at work, what work you performed?
20 A. Sure. I remember answering the phones and
21 taking messages. And at one point, she asked me to
22 go pick up printer ink, and I took her car to Office
23 Depot to get ink.
24 She asked me to go buy some magazines, so
25 I went to Palm Beach Daily News and bought a few
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 179
Page 12
1 magazines.
2 She and I went -- she wanted to take me
3 shopping to Worth Avenue, but it was a Sunday and
4 Nieman Marcus was closed, so we went back to, like,
5 a little book store. And I remember she bought, I
6 think, five pairs of reading glasses because she
7 thought Jeffrey would like them. He had them all
8 over the house. On every table there was reading
9 glasses.
10 And that's about it. It was a pretty
11 simple day.
12 Q. Were you paid that day for that work?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And how much were you paid? Do you
15 remember?
16 A. I don't remember how many hours I was
17 there -- I was there. She paid me cash.
18 Q. So Maxwell paid you?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And then was she the one who trained you
21 with what -- with respect to what you were supposed
22 to do during the day, directed you to, like you
23 said, go to --
24 A. I believe she was the one that was kind of
25 showing me around.
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 179
Page 13
1 Q. And how long did you work in that position
2 answering phones and doing --
3 A. Just that one day.
4 Q. Just that one day.
5 And did your duties change?
6 A. Well, the next time she called me, she
7 asked me if I wanted to come over and make $100 an
8 hour rubbing feet.
9 Q. And what did you think of that offer?
10 A. I thought it was fantastic.
11 Q. And did you come over to the house for
12 that purpose?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And when you came over to the house, was
15 Maxwell present?
16 A. I don't recall.
17 Q. And what happened that second time you
18 came to the house?
19 A. At that point, I met Emmy Taylor, and she
20 took me up to Jeffrey's bathroom and he was present.
21 And her and I both massaged Jeffrey. She was
22 showing me how to massage.
23 And then she -- he took -- he got off the
24 table, she got on the table. She took off her
25 clothes, got on the table, and then he was showing
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 179
Page 14
1 me moves that he liked. And then I took my clothes
2 off. They asked me to get on the table so I could
3 feel it. Then they both massaged me.
4 Q. So it was more than a foot massage at that
5 point?
6 A. Yeah, it was mostly, like, legs and back.
7 Q. Was everybody in the room without clothes
8 on?
9 A. When they were on the massage table, yes.
10 Q. Did they -- when they got off the massage
11 table to perform the massage, did they dress or
12 did --
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. They dressed.
15 And do you recall who paid you for that
16 first day that you did the massages?
17 A. I don't recall.
18 Q. Do you recall whether Maxwell was at the
19 house during that first day when you were doing the
20 massage with Emmy and Jeffrey?
21 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, asked and
22 answered.
23 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
24 Q. You can answer.
25 A. I don't recall.
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 179
Page 15
1 Q. Who did Emmy work for?
2 A. Ghislaine.
3 Q. Did Maxwell ever refer to Emmy by any
4 particular term?
5 A. She called her her slave.
6 Q. You said your job duties changed. Did you
7 start to travel as part of your job with Jeffrey and
8 Ghislaine?
9 A. Yes. The next time they called me, they
10 asked me to go to New York.
11 Q. And did you -- do you recall when that was
12 approximately?
13 A. That was Easter of 2001.
14 Q. And do you recall who was on the plane
15 with you for that trip?
16 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form.
17 MS. McCAWLEY: Actually, I'm going to stop
18 really quickly and I'm going to ask for the
19 next exhibit, please.
20 MS. MENNINGER: This is 3?
21 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. I'm going to mark
22 this as Exhibit 3 for purposes of the
23 deposition.
24
25
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 179
Page 16
1 (The referred-to document was marked by
2 the court reporter for Identification as
3 Sjoberg Exhibit 3.)
4 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
5 Q. Johanna, I'm going to direct you -- I
6 flagged some pages, but for the record, I'm going to
7 say what pages they are before I hand you the
8 exhibit.
9 A. Sure.
10 Q. These are Giuffre 000748 and 000758, are
11 the two pages right now I may refer you to. The
12 document itself is 000721 through 789.
13 And these are flight logs from pilot David
14 Rogers that have been produced in this case.
15 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation,
16 asking the witness any questions about this
17 document.
18 THE WITNESS: Can I touch it?
19 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes, you may.
20 MS. MENNINGER: I just have to say things
21 every now and then.
22 THE WITNESS: Okay.
23 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
24 Q. So you mentioned that you traveled to New
25 York. If you turn to page -- flagged page which
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 179
Page 17
1 should be 000748, at the top of that document you're
2 going to see a date of April 2001.
3 I'm just going to ask you to go down to
4 the -- if you look at the line on the left to where
5 it says 9 for the date, and look over where it has
6 the names.
7 Do you see -- can you identify your name
8 on that list?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And can you tell me -- I know there are
11 initials there -- who else to the extent you
12 remember was on the plane with you?
13 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation,
14 leading, form of question.
15 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
16 Q. Johanna, do you recall who was on the
17 plane with you that day?
18 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation,
19 form, leading.
20 The witness is reading the document.
21 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
22 Q. You can answer.
23 A. Okay. JE, Jeffrey Epstein; ET, Emmy
24 Taylor; VR, Virginia Roberts; BK, I do not recall;
25 and myself.
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 179
Page 18
1 MS. MENNINGER: Objection. The witness is
2 reading the document.
3 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
4 Q. And do you recall where you flew when you
5 went to -- when you traveled that first time with
6 Jeffrey Epstein?
7 A. We left from Palm Beach and landed in
8 Atlantic City for a few hours because there was a
9 storm in New York, and then got back on the plane a
10 few hours later and landed in Teterboro.
11 Q. And you said that you recall landing in
12 Atlantic City. Did you go into Atlantic City?
13 A. Yes, went to one of Trump's casinos.
14 Q. Did you actually go into the casino
15 itself?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Do you recall Virginia -- at the time
18 Virginia Roberts being present with you?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do you recall if she went into the casino?
21 A. She was underage. I did not know anything
22 about how old you had to be to gamble legally. I
23 just knew she could not get in because of an ID
24 issue. So she and I did not gamble.
25 Q. In your opinion, did Virginia look young,
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 179
Page 19
1 in your view?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Did you ever -- did you at that time
4 wonder why she was traveling with Jeffrey?
5 A. At that time, I did not.
6 Q. Did you later wonder that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And what was your impression?
9 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, vague,
10 speculative.
11 THE WITNESS: I -- we're jumping ahead; is
12 that okay?
13 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
14 Q. Yes, that's okay.
15 A. A few days later, I remember asking her
16 questions to try to figure out her role, why she was
17 there, and she gave me vague answers and was never
18 specific.
19 And so I thought perhaps she just was an
20 assistant, someone that did massages well. I wanted
21 to believe that she was innocent.
22 Q. Did you ever refer to her as being
23 orphan-like?
24 A. I did.
25 Q. And how did that come about?
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 179
Page 20
1 A. No, I only -- to you, I said that to you.
2 I just saw her as perhaps someone who may not have
3 had a strong family, and they took her under their
4 wing.
5 Q. Now, you mentioned remembering going to
6 Atlantic City.
7 Did you go -- where did you go after
8 Atlantic City?
9 A. Once we landed in New York, Emmy and I
10 went in a car and drove around the city for a half
11 hour or so, just to see some of the city.
12 Q. And then where did you go after doing the
13 sightseeing?
14 A. We went to the townhouse on East 71st.
15 Q. And can you describe that location for me?
16 A. Sure. Between Madison and Park. I think
17 the address might have been 9 East 71st Street.
18 Q. And who owned that home?
19 A. As far as I knew, Epstein.
20 Q. Can you describe for me physically what --
21 A. Palatial. When you walk up, it looks like
22 a normal door to a townhouse, and when you walk
23 in -- I thought there were four floors. I heard
24 there were seven floors. I didn't see them all.
25 Q. And do you recall who, if anybody, was at
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 179
Page 21
1 Jeffrey's home when you arrived?
2 A. Yes. When I first walked in the door, it
3 was just myself, and Ghislaine headed for the
4 staircase and said -- told me to come up to the
5 living room.
6 Q. And what happened at that point, when you
7 came up to the living room?
8 A. I came up and saw Virginia, Jeffrey,
9 Prince Andrew, Ghislaine in the room.
10 Q. And did you meet Prince Andrew at that
11 time?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And what happened next?
14 A. At one point, Ghislaine told me to come
15 upstairs, and we went into a closet and pulled out
16 the puppet, the caricature of Prince Andrew, and
17 brought it down. And there was a little tag on the
18 puppet that said "Prince Andrew" on it, and that's
19 when I knew who he was.
20 Q. And did -- what did the puppet look like?
21 A. It looked like him. And she brought it
22 down and presented it to him; and that was a great
23 joke, because apparently it was a production from a
24 show on BBC. And they decided to take a picture
25 with it, in which Virginia and Andrew sat on a
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 179
Page 22
1 couch. They put the puppet on Virginia's lap, and I
2 sat on Andrew's lap, and they put the puppet's hand
3 on Virginia's breast, and Andrew put his hand on my
4 breast, and they took a photo.
5 Q. Do you remember who took the photo?
6 A. I don't recall.
7 Q. Did you ever see the photo after it was
8 taken?
9 A. I did not.
10 Q. And Ms. Maxwell was present during the --
11 was Ms. Maxwell present during that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. What happened next?
14 A. The next thing I remember is just being
15 shown to which room I was going to be staying in.
16 Q. When you exited the room that you were in
17 where the picture was taken, do you recall who
18 remained in that room?
19 A. I don't.
20 Q. Do you recall seeing Virginia exit that
21 room?
22 A. I don't.
23 Q. During this trip to New York, did you have
24 to perform any work when you were at the New York
25 house?
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 179
Page 23
1 A. I performed at least one massage that I
2 recall.
3 Q. And who instructed you to give that
4 massage?
5 A. Jeffrey.
6 Q. And can you describe for me what happened
7 during that massage?
8 A. Near the end, he asked me to rub his
9 nipples while he masturbated.
10 Q. And did that take place?
11 A. It did not.
12 Q. And why not?
13 A. I was not comfortable with it. And so I
14 left the room.
15 Q. Did you have any -- did you say anything
16 to him before leaving the room?
17 A. I believe I said, "I'm done."
18 Q. Do you recall what his reaction was to
19 that?
20 A. I do not. At the time, at that moment, I
21 do not.
22 Q. Did you recall later what --
23 A. Well, we had a conversation a little
24 later, talking about his expectations, and that was
25 the conversation where he said that the next trip
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 25 of 179
Page 24
1 they were going on was to the island in the Virgin
2 Islands, and I would be invited; however, there
3 would be, quote, sex stuff happening.
4 Q. Can you describe for me -- can you
5 describe for me what that -- in New York, where you
6 massaged and what that looked like?
7 A. He had one room that was the massage room.
8 It was about the size of a spa room in a spa. It
9 had high ceilings. It had dark tapestry on the
10 walls. It was a very dark room. There was a very
11 large picture of a naked woman whom I don't recall.
12 That's all I remember.
13 Q. In the New York home, did you observe
14 photos around the house?
15 A. I don't recall.
16 Q. In the Palm Beach home that we were
17 talking about earlier, did you recall seeing photos
18 in that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And did you recall seeing photos of naked
21 females in that home?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Approximately -- can you tell me where you
24 would see those in the home?
25 A. I definitely saw them in his bathroom.
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 26 of 179
Page 25
1 And I can't recall if they were in the main living
2 areas.
3 Q. Did you see them in the stairwell up to
4 the second story of the house?
5 A. I can't recall.
6 Q. Do you know who -- who the people were in
7 those photos? Were you familiar with any of them?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Were you in any of those photos?
10 A. At one point, yes.
11 Q. And were you naked in that photo?
12 A. Topless.
13 Q. Do you recall seeing any naked photos of
14 Virginia Roberts?
15 A. I do not.
16 Q. Where did you go next, after the New York
17 visit?
18 A. I went to the Virgin Islands.
19 Q. And who told you that you would be going
20 to the Virgin Islands?
21 A. He asked me if I wanted to go, and I said
22 I would still like to go.
23 Q. And do you recall who you -- who went with
24 you to the Virgin Islands?
25 A. I believe -- well, I know Virginia was
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 27 of 179
Page 26
1 with me. Ghislaine was there. Jeffrey. And there
2 were two other women that I don't recall their
3 names.
4 Q. Did you travel on Jeffrey's plane to get
5 to the Virgin Islands?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. I want to show you again the flight log
8 that you have there in front of you. If you can
9 flip to --
10 MS. MENNINGER: I'm going to object to the
11 foundation again.
12 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
13 Q. It's that same page that you were on. The
14 date is the 11th.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Do you see the TEB to TIST there?
17 A. Yes.
18 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading. The
19 questioning is testifying now.
20 MS. McCAWLEY: Can you let me finish my
21 question, please?
22 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
23 Q. Can you tell me who the initials are there
24 that you see that were on the plane?
25 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation,
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 28 of 179
Page 27
1 leading.
2 THE WITNESS: Jeffrey Epstein; Ghislaine
3 Maxwell; AP and PK are the two women I do not
4 recall; Virginia Roberts; and myself.
5 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
6 Q. Do you recall how you flew back from the
7 location in the US Virgin Islands?
8 A. They put me on a commercial flight. I
9 wanted to be home in time for Easter.
10 Q. When you say "they," do you recall who
11 made those arrangements for you?
12 A. It could have been Ghislaine.
13 Q. Did you -- do you recall performing
14 massages while you were in the US Virgin Islands?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Who was involved in -- was there more than
17 one?
18 A. Yes. I massaged Ghislaine at one point.
19 And I massaged Jeffrey, Virginia and I, both, on the
20 beach.
21 Q. Were you dressed during the massage that
22 was on the beach?
23 A. Yes. Bikinis probably, most likely.
24 Q. Do you recall what Virginia was wearing?
25 A. I believe she was wearing a bathing suit,
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 29 of 179
Page 28
1 as well.
2 Q. Were you paid for the massage on the beach
3 with Virginia?
4 A. At the end of -- before I left and flew
5 home, Ghislaine gave me $1,000.
6 Q. You mentioned that you massaged -- you
7 recall massaging Ghislaine on the trip to the USVI.
8 Do you recall when that took place?
9 A. I don't even recall what days we were
10 there, so...
11 Q. Do you recall where it took place?
12 A. I believe it was -- well, either in my
13 guest cottage or one of them. There were three
14 guest houses set up that were all similar and that I
15 was staying in. Virginia and I stayed in one
16 together. And it was either in there or in another
17 one that was identical.
18 Q. And was that massage performed with
19 Virginia as well or by you alone?
20 A. I don't recall.
21 Q. Were there other females in the USVI on
22 that trip with you besides Virginia?
23 A. Two others.
24 Q. And do you recall who they were?
25 A. I do not.
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 30 of 179
Page 29
1 Q. Did you ever see Ghislaine Maxwell during
2 that trip laying out by the pool?
3 A. There was one time where we were all by
4 the pool, yes.
5 Q. Was Ghislaine Maxwell ever nude or topless
6 by the pool?
7 A. I don't recall. She was nude when she
8 went swimming in the ocean.
9 Q. At that moment in the USVI home, did you
10 observe any photos there of nude females?
11 A. I don't recall.
12 Q. Besides Virginia, who you mentioned, you
13 observed to be young, did you observe any other
14 females that in your view appeared to be essentially
15 under the age of 18?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Did you observe any females who you
18 thought looked young, younger than you?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Do you remember an individual by the name
21 of that you met during your time with Jeffrey
22 Epstein?
23 A. In Palm Beach?
24 Q. Yes.
25 A. Yes.
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 31 of 179
Page 30
1 Q. Did you observe her to be young when you
2 met her?
3 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, vague as to
4 time.
5 THE WITNESS: All of the women were
6 generally young. I did not know the ages of
7 really anyone, so...
8 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
9 Q. How many massages did Jeffrey receive on
10 average in a given day?
11 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation.
12 THE WITNESS: Three a day.
13 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
14 Q. Let me back up for a moment.
15 How long did you work for Jeffrey and
16 Ghislaine?
17 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading and
18 foundation.
19 THE WITNESS: I believe it was five years,
20 2001 to 2006.
21 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
22 Q. And how many massages did Epstein receive
23 per day on average?
24 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation.
25 THE WITNESS: Three.
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 32 of 179
Page 31
1 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
2 Q. Were the massages performed by the same
3 girl or different females?
4 A. Different.
5 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation.
6 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
7 Q. What did the females who performed the
8 massages look like?
9 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation.
10 THE WITNESS: They all looked different.
11 Some of them were ethnic, some were blond, some
12 were short, some were tall. Everyone was thin.
13 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
14 Q. Were the girls who performed the massages
15 young or old?
16 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation.
17 THE WITNESS: I don't recall anyone being
18 old.
19 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
20 Q. Do you recall anybody being over the age
21 of, say, 25?
22 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, form.
23 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I believe there was
24 probably a few women that were older than 25.
25 MS. MENNINGER: I'm sorry. I get a chance
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 33 of 179
Page 32
1 to object and then you can still answer. No
2 one is going to stop you from answering. I
3 just need to get the objection on the record,
4 in the same way she needs to be able to talk
5 before you. My apologies. I'm not trying to
6 cut you off, but I am supposed to get it in
7 before you answer.
8 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
9 Q. Did Jeffrey ever tell you why he received
10 so many massages from so many different girls?
11 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, hearsay.
12 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
13 Q. You can answer.
14 A. He explained to me that, in his opinion,
15 he needed to have three orgasms a day. It was
16 biological, like eating.
17 Q. And what was your reaction to that
18 statement?
19 A. I thought it was a little crazy.
20 Q. And what did -- do you recall what -- when
21 you observed the other females giving massages, do
22 you recall what they would dress like? Did they
23 wear scrubs or did they typically wear normal
24 clothes?
25 A. Normal clothes.
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 34 of 179
Page 33
1 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading.
2 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
3 Q. Do you believe that from your
4 observations, Maxwell and Epstein were boyfriend and
5 girlfriend?
6 A. Initially, yes.
7 Q. Did Maxwell ever share with you whether it
8 bothered her that Jeffrey had so many girls around?
9 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading,
10 hearsay.
11 THE WITNESS: No. Actually, the opposite.
12 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
13 Q. What did she say?
14 A. She let me know that she was -- she would
15 not be able to please him as much as he needed and
16 that is why there were other girls around.
17 Q. Did there ever come a time -- did you ever
18 take a photography class in school?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And did there ever come a time when
21 Maxwell offered to buy you a camera?
22 A. Yes.
23 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading.
24 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
25 Q. Did Maxwell ever offer to buy you a
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 35 of 179
Page 34
1 camera?
2 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading.
3 THE WITNESS: Yes.
4 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
5 Q. Was there anything you were supposed to do
6 in order to get the camera?
7 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading.
8 THE WITNESS: I did not know that there
9 were expectations of me to get the camera until
10 after. She had purchased the camera for me,
11 and I was over there giving Jeffrey a massage.
12 I did not know that she was in possession of
13 the camera until later.
14 She told me -- called me after I had left
15 and said, I have the camera for you, but you
16 cannot receive it yet because you came here and
17 didn't finish your job and I had to finish it
18 for you.
19 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
20 Q. And did you -- what did you understand her
21 to mean?
22 A. She was implying that I did not get
23 Jeffrey off, and so she had to do it.
24 Q. And when you say "get Jeffrey off," do you
25 mean bring him to orgasm?
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 36 of 179
Page 35
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Did Ghislaine ever describe to you what
3 types of girls Jeffrey liked?
4 A. Model types.
5 Q. Did Ghislaine ever talk to you about how
6 you should act around Jeffrey?
7 A. She just had a conversation with me that I
8 should always act grateful.
9 Q. Did Jeffrey ever tell you that he took a
10 girl's virginity?
11 A. He did not tell me. He told a friend of
12 mine.
13 Q. And what do you recall about that?
14 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, hearsay,
15 foundation.
16 THE WITNESS: He wanted to have a friend
17 of mine come out who was cardio-kickboxer
18 instructor. She was a physical trainer.
19 And so I brought her over to the house,
20 and he told my friend Rachel that -- he said,
21 You see that girl over there laying by the
22 pool? She was 19. And he said, I just took
23 her virginity. And my friend Rachel was
24 mortified.
25
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 37 of 179
Page 36
1 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
2 Q. Based on what you knew, did Maxwell know
3 that the type of massages Jeffrey was getting
4 typically involved sexual acts?
5 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation,
6 leading.
7 THE WITNESS: Yes.
8 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
9 Q. What was Maxwell's main job with respect
10 to Jeffrey?
11 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation.
12 THE WITNESS: Well, beyond companionship,
13 her job, as it related to me, was to find other
14 girls that would perform massages for him and
15 herself.
16 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
17 Q. Did Maxwell ever refer to the girls in a
18 particular way?
19 A. At one point when we were in the islands,
20 we were all watching a movie and she called us her
21 children.
22 Q. Did anybody respond to that?
23 A. I don't recall.
24 Q. Did she ever refer to herself as a mother?
25 A. Yes, like a mother hen.
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 38 of 179
Page 37
1 Q. Do you recall who was present at the time
2 that she made that comment about children?
3 A. This was the second trip that I took to
4 the Virgin Islands, so, no. I don't want to speak,
5 you know, incorrectly. I can't remember. I can't
6 really remember.
7 Q. Have you ever met David Copperfield?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And do you recall when you initially met
10 him?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Can you tell me what that was?
13 A. Sure. Someone called me from the house
14 and said that he would be there, and if I wanted to
15 come have dinner, then I could meet him.
16 So when I arrived at the house, he wasn't
17 there yet, but I wa
giuffre-maxwell
Unknown
5 pages
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Virginia L. Giuffre,
Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
v.
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant.
________________________________/
DECLARATION OF SIGRID S. McCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF VIRGINIA
GIUFFRE’S REPLY IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE
TO MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SUBJECT TO
IMPROPER OBJECTIONS
I, Sigrid S. McCawley, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge as follows:
1. I am a partner with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly
licensed to practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court’s September 29, 2015
Order granting my Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice.
2. I respectfully submit this Declaration in support of Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre’s
Reply In Response to Defendant’s Supplemental Response to Motion To Compel Production of
Documents Subject To Improper Objections [D.E. 45].
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1, is a true and correct copy of the Palm Beach Police
Department’s Report.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2, is a true and correct copy of the Flight Logs from
Jeffrey Epstein’s private plane.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3, is a true and correct copy of the Message Pads from
Law Enforcement’s trash pulls from Jeffrey Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4, is a true and correct copy of the 2009 Notice of
Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell, Subpoena and Cancellation Payment Notice, and January 13,
2015 Daily Mail Article.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5, is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from the
January 12, 2016 Deposition Transcript of Alan Dershowitz.
8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6, is a true and correct copy of Defendant Ghislaine
Maxwell’s Privilege Log.
9. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7, is a true and correct copy of the Deposition
Transcripts of Juan Alessi.
10. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8, is a true and correct copy of the February 2, 2015
Page Six Article.
11. Attached hereto as Exhibit 9, is a true and correct copy of the September 23, 2007
Red Ice Creations Article.
12. Attached hereto as Exhibit 10, is a true and correct copy of the April 13, 2010
Deposition Transcript of Nadia Marcinkova.
13. Attached hereto as Exhibit 11, is a true and correct copy of the March 24, 2010
Deposition Transcript of Sarah Kellen.
14. Attached hereto as Exhibit 12, is a true and correct copy of a photograph taken by
Ms. Giuffre of Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, Emmy Taylor, and Jeffrey Epstein while they
were all in Europe.
2
15. Attached hereto as Exhibit 13, is a true and correct copy of the Deposition
Transcripts of Alfredo Rodriguez.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley______
Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq.
3
Dated: March 14, 2016
Respectfully Submitted,
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley
Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
(954) 356-0011
David Boies
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Ellen Brockman
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
575 Lexington Ave
New York, New York 10022
(212) 446-2300
4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 14, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing
document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of Notices
of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
Tel: (303) 831-7364
Fax: (303) 832-2628
Email: [email protected]
/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley
Sigrid S. McCawley
5
giuffre-maxwell
Unknown
10 pages
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 10
B O I E S, S CH I LL ER & FL E X N E R L LP
401 EAST L AS O L AS BOULEVARD • SUITE 1200 • FOR T L AUDERDALE , FL 33301 22 • PH 9':>"- ,3.56dQQ IC • FA X 9 54.3560022
~1gn Mc aw1ey, t,sq.
s111ccawlevPbstllp.com
January 30, 2017
Confidential Sealed Filing
VIA EMAIL & FACSIMILE: (212) 805-7925
Honorable Judge Robert W. Sweet
District Court Judge
United States District Court
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
[email protected]
Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell,
Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
Dear Judge Sweet,
This is a reply letter in support of Ms. Giuffre's letter motion to allow for the newly-
discovered wi lness, Sarah Ransome, to be called as a witness at trial because she can testify
about Defendant's involvement in Epstein's sex tratficking ring based on first-hand experiences
and first-hand observations.
Defendant Violated Rule 26 By Failing To Disclose This Critical Witness
Defendant argues that Ms. Giuffre is somehow to blame for the fact that Sarah Ransome
is only now being discussed as a witness in this case. But Ms. Giuffre only recently learned
about this witness because Defendant fai led to properly disclose her months earlier. ln her
response, Defendant does not address the fact that Ms. Ransome and Ms. Maxwell know each
other. Indeed, Defendant does not address the fact that Ms. Ransome and she spent time together
on Mr. Epstein's private island, as reflected in the fl ight logs showing Ms. Ransome flying to
and from the island (where Ms. Maxwell was present):
WWW .BSFLLP .COM
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 10
BO I ES , SCHILLER & F LE XN ER LLP
Honorable Judge Robert Sweet
United Stat s District Court
Page -2- Confidential Sealed Filing
As reflected in the above flight log, on December 10, 2006 (Flight# 1919), Sarah
Ransome flew from EWR (Newark, NJ) to TIST (USVI) with Jeffrey Epstein, Jennifer Kalin,
and Natalya Malyshev. On December 14, 2006 (Flight #1920), Sarah Ransome flew from T IST
(USVI) to EWR (Newark, NJ) with Jeffrey Epstein and Jadia Marcinkova. See Giuffre 07139.
Ms. Ransome was also flown commercially to Jeffrey Epstein's Island several times.
Defendant was obligated under Rule 26 to include Ms. Ransome in her Rule 26
disclosures: Defendant knows that Ms. Ransome is an "individual likely to have discoverable
information." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(A)(i). As Ms. Ransome will testify, Defendant was on the
island with her and interacted with her on a regular basis. Defendant's refusal to disclose her is
not only (yet another) discovery violation, but also a part of the secrecy that Defendant and
Epstein strove to maintain surrounding their sex trafficking ring. Defendant should not be
allowed to participate in a sex trafficking ring, conceal the witnesses (and victims) of that ring,
and then proclaim "surprise" when Ms. Giuffre succeeds in locating one of the victims. Simply
put, she should not be allowed to benefit from her obvious failure to properly disclose Ms.
Ransome.
Ms. Ransome's Testimonv is ot Cumulative And Has Highly Relevant Evidence
Defendant also advances the remarkable argument that it is "unlikely" that Ms. Ransome
will have relevant information. Yet Ms. Ransome witnessed-first hand - Defendant' s
involvement in sex trafficking with Jeffrey Epstein. or will her testimony be cumulative. First,
at the heart of this case is Defendant' s sworn testimony that she was not involved in sex
trafficking with Epstein. Ms. Ransome can directly refute Defendant's sworn testimony under
oath in numerous ways .
. . .the primary purpose of those visits was to have me have sexual relations with Jeffrey,
Nadia Marcinkova, and various other girls and guests brought to the island ... During one
of my first visits to the island l met Ghislaine Maxwell. Watching her interact with the
other girls on the island, it became clear to me that she recruited all or many of them to
the island. Once they were there, she appeared to be in charge of their activities,
including what they did, who they did it with, and how they were supposed to stay in line.
She assumed the same supervisory role with me as soon as I arrived. Some of the girls
appeared to be 18 or older but many appeared to be young teenagers.
Exhibit A Affidavit of Sarah Ransome. ln addition, Defendant has made known her plan to put
forth Alan Dershowitz as a witness at trial to testify that Ms. Giuffre is lying, and that he never
had sex with her or anyone else provided by Jeffrey Epstein. While Ifs. Giuffre contends that
Dershowitz's testimony is not relevant to this case concerning Defendant, in the event that the
Court disagrees, Ms. Ransome directly contradicts this testimony because, as part of her
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 10
BO I ES, SCH I LLER & F L EX N ER L LP
Honorable Judge Robe11 Sweet
United States District Court
Page -3- Confidential Sealed Filing
involvement in the sex trafficking ring, like Ms. Giuffre, Ms. Ransome was also required to
engage in sexual acts with Jeffrey Epstein and Alan Dershowitz.
In addition to spending time with Jeffrey on his island, I spent time with him in New
York City ... Among the people he lent me to was his friend Alan Dershowitz. On one
occasion I was in a bedroom at Jeffrey's New York townhouse with Jeffrey and Nadia
Marcinkova. After a short time, Alan Dershowitz entered the room after which Jeffrey
left the room and Nadia and I had sex with Dershowitz .. .
See Exhibit A. Affidavit of Sarah Ransome. The testimony of Ms. Ransome goes to the heart of
this defamation claim- whether or not Ms. Giuffre was truthful in her claims about Defendant's
involvement in Epstein's sex trafficking ring, and the Com1 should allow the jury to hear her.
Ms. Giuffre Has Diligently Participated In Discovery And Promptly Disclosed Ms.
Ransome A ftcr Conducting Due Diligence
Defendant also insinuates that Ms. Giuffre has delayed in disclosing Ms. Ransome. But
as the Court is well aware, Ms. Giuffre has previously diligently disclosed close lo 100
individuals who may have relevant information in her Rule 26 disclosures. By contrast,
Defendant's Rule 26 disclosures never listed Ms. Ransome as a witness, despite the fact that
Defendant was in her company on several occasions including on Epstein's island, where Ms.
Ransome was one of several girls being sexually trafficked for Epstein upon the direction and
insistence of Defendant. After being contacted by Ms. Ransome, counsel for Ms. Giuffre
properly conducted a due diligence investigation into whether the information she provided had
merit. Specifically, Ms. Giuffrc's counsel undertook the expense to fly to Europe to meet in
person w ith this newly disclosed witness on January 4, 2017, returnfog on January 6, 2017, to
fu lly evaluate her credibility. Upon evaluating the witness and upon the witness confirming that
she was willing to sign an affidavit under oath regarding her testimony, Ms. Giuffre ananged to
have a sworn affidavit executed at the U.S. Embassy in the country where Ms. Ransome resides.
Ms. Giuffre then issued revised Rule 26 disclosures on January 13, 2017 and informed
Defendant that she would produce Ms. Ransome for a deposition as a newly-disclosed witness
immediately so as to avoid any prejudice or delay in the March 13, 2017 trial date. In short, Ms.
Giufii·e acted promptly and reasonably after being contacted by this victim of Epstein's and
Defendant's sex trafficking ring.
Defendant ,vm Not Re Prejudiced Because Ms. Ransome is Readily AvailabJc for
Deposition
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 10
BO I ES , SCH I LLER & F L EXNER L L P
Honorable Judge Robert Sweet
United States District Court
Page -4- Confidential Sealed Filing
Defendant's argument about her alleged burden from allowing this one additional witness
1
also rings hollow. Defendant complains about her alleged lack of resources, but as this Court is
aware, Defendant is a wealthy socialite (wbo recently sold her New York Townhome for $15
million dollars) who has heavily litigated this case in ways that were completely unnecessary. 2
Moreover, deposition discovery is still ongoing in this case. Ms. Kellen sat for her
deposition last week (wherein she invoked the Fifth Amendment when asked about Defendant's
involvement in Epstein's sex trafficking ring) along with Ms. Marcinkova who was recently
deposed on January 17, 2017. Due to Defendant's unwillingness to produce her agent, Ross
Gow for deposition, Ms. Giuffre did not get to depose him until November 18, 2017 at which
time he produced never-before-seen documents that are critical to this case. Defendant has yet to
sit for her follow-up deposition that was directed by the Court but for which Defendant filed a
"Motion for Reconsideration" on November 16, 2016, which is still pending. Needless to say,
while the official discovery deadline has closed, certain depositions have been taken more
recently due to issues with witness cooperation. Of course, if Defendant does not desire to take
Ms. Ransome's deposition, then Ms. Giuffre is content simply calling her at trial. But Defendant
will hardly be prejudiced by allowing a witness to testify who is available for deposition.
1
Defendant argues that because Jane Doe 43 (who for purposes of this sealed filing we
can identify as Ms. Ransome) has recently filed a complaint against multiple defendants for
violations of sex trafficking laws that Defendant should get to reopen discovery and further
investigate everyone named as a Defendant. Notably, these are all individuals that were part of
the sexual trafficking ring that Defendant was a party to and she has known about them and
interacted with them for years. Ms. Ransome's claim had to be filed swiftly because her statute
of limitations was continuing to run and the details of her allegations only recently became
known lo counsel. In any event, the questions that need to be asked of Ms. Ransome are simply
and straightforward: Was Defendant involved in Epstein's sex trafficking ring? That question
has been at the heart of this case for many months and exploring it does not raise any new issues.
2
For example, Defendant litigated over the production of facially non-privileged
documents; Defendant filed no fewer than three frivolous sanctions motions; Defendant filed
Daubert challenges to all six of Ms. Giuffre's expe1t witnesses; and Defendant has filed
discovery motions without even conferring with Ms. Giuffre in advance, including one for which
Ms. Giuffre did not oppose the relief sought (Defendant's motion to reopen Ms. Giuffre's
deposition). Fmther, Defendant apparently had the resources to file approximately 100 pages of
single-spaced objections to Ms. Giuffre deposition designations, an unorthodox volume that
stands out not simply because this is a one-count defamation claim, but because she objects to
the same type of testimony that she has designated for admission.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 10
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER L LP
Honorable Judge Robert Sweet
United States District Court
Page -5- Conf idential Sealed Filing
The Case Law Supports Allowing Ms. Ransome As A Trial Witness
Ms. Giuffre has offered Defendant, subject to this CoUit's approval, the oppo1tunity to
take Ms. Ransome's deposition. And, as this Court has already explained, taking the deposition
or a newly-discovered witness cures any prejudice: " [t]his and other courts have adopted the
taking of depositions as an appropriate mechanism to address late-disclosed witnesses." NJBJA
Ins. Corp. v. Patriarch Partners Viii, LLC, 20 I WL 2568972, at* 14-15 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29,
2003) (concluding that plaintiff should be given the opportunity to depose a late-identified
wit11ess).
The cases that Defendant cites are all vastly different from the case before this Court and
are easily distinguishable. In Gray v. Town of Darien, 927 F.2d 69 (2d Cir.1991), the comt
denied the n10tion to reopen discovery and granted summary judgment because the plaintiff
fai led to seek any discovery during the six-month discovery period set forth by the court. In
stark contrast, Ms. Giuffre has actively engaged in discovery. The fact that this witness had
critical information as a victim of Epstein and Defendant's sex trafficking ring could not have
been known by Ms. Gi uffre until the witness contacted Ms. Giuffre's lawyers. In Trebor
Sportswear Co., Inc. v. The Limited Stores, Inc., 865 F.2d 506 (2d Cir. l 989), a case involving a
statute of frauds issue, the court would not let the parties re-open discovery because there was no
reason to believe that they would find a missing written agreement. Here, Ms. Giuffre has found
a \Vitness who has will provide to the jury critical information about Defendant's involvement in
sex trafficking that directly contradicts Defendant' s sworn testimony. In Smith v. United States,
834 F.2d 166 (10th Cir. 1987), the plaintiff made his request for a new witness on the morning of
trial, having had eight months to conduct depositions. Additionally, the Tenth Circuit found that
the new witness would not even be relevant to the narrow issue being addressed at trial. Id. at
169. In contrast, Ms. Giuffre has provided Defendant ample time to conduct discovery on Ms.
Ransome, a witness who has vital evidence on the central issues in this case. In Vineberg v.
Bissonnette, 548 F.3d 50, 55 (1st Cir. 2008), the First Circuit found that the defendant failed to
point to any "relevant leads" that she might have obtained had the court reopened discovery.
Here, it is patently obvious that Ms. Ransome holds a wealth of valuable information and is, as
Defendant herself adn1its, a significant witness. Finally, in Jeannite v. City of NY. Dept. , of
Buildings, 2010 vVL 2542050, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 21, 2010), plaintiff waited until the very end
of discovery to make the request and had not sent any document requests or sought to depose any
witnesses, which is in contrast to Ms. Giuffre having actively participated in discovery.
Furthermore, there was no way for Ms. Giuffre to know that Ms. Ransome had such cri tical
information until she called us because Defendant never disclosed her. Accordingly, Defendant
fails to accurately support her claims with any relevant case law.
Conclusion
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 10
BO I ES, SCH I LLER & FLEXNER LLP
Honorable Judge Robe1t Sweet
United States District Court
Page -6- Confidential Sealed Filing
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should allow Ms. Giuffre to include Ms. Ransome
as a witness to be called at the trial scheduled to begin on March 13, 2017. Again, Ms. Giuffre
commits to making Ms. Ransome available for deposition at the reasonable convenience of
Defendant's counsel.
Respectfully submitted,
s/Sigrid McCawlev
Sigrid McCawley
SM/
cc: Counsel of Record
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 10
EXHIBIT A
CONFIDENTIAL
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 10
©©IM!rU@~fMirD#J!L
United States District Court
Southern District of Ne,,1 York
Virginia L. Giuffre,
Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
v.
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant.
AFFll)AVIT
I, Sarah Ransome, swear and affirm as follows:
1. I am currently over the age of 18 and presently reside in the country of Spain.
2. [n the summer of 2006, when I was twenty-two years old and living in New York,
I was introduced to Jeffrey Epstein by a girl I had met named Natalya.
Malyshov. Shortly after meeting Jeffrey he invited me to fly to his private island
in the US Virgin Islands, which I did. After that first trip I traveled to the island
several more times, usually on one of Jeffrey's private airplanes, and always at his
direction. I am told that my name appears on the flight logs of one or more of
those trips. On a few occasions, Jeffrey also arranged to have me flown to the
island on commercial flights. As it turned out, the primary purpose of those visits
was to have me have sexual relations with Jeffrey, Nadia Macinkova, and various
other girls and guests he brought to the island.
3. During one of my visits to the island I met Ghislaine Maxwell. Watching her
interact with the other girls on the island, it became clear to me th.at she recruited
all or many ofthem to the island. Once they were there, she appeared to be in
charge of their activities, including what they did, who they did it with, and how
they were supposed to stay in line. She assumed the same supervisory role with
me as soon as I arrived. Some of the girls appeared to be 18 or older, but many
appeared to be young teenagers. I recall seeing a particularly young, thin girl who
looked well llllder 18 and recall asking her her age. I later learned was a ballerina
She refused to tell me or let me see her passport.
4. In addition to spending time with Jeffrey on his island, I spent time with him in
New York City. At his town house I was also lent out by him to his friends and
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 10
©©llllfrD@il)!J11'8J.\IL
associates to bave sex. Among the people he lent me to was his friend, Alan
Dershowitz. On one occasion I was in a bedroom at Jeffrey's New York
townhouse with Jeffrey and Nadia Marcinkova. After a short time, Alan
Dershowitz entered the room, after which Jeffrey left the room and Nadia and I
had sex with Dershowitz. I recall specific, key details of his person and the sex
acts and can describe them in the event it becomes necessary to do so.
I affirm under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: {J.;5 - 0 l - .2.0 ~ :l:
Sarah Ransome
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 10
nz:·n::-r=::-==7 ~ ©©f]i{JfPD@Fg{)!JifU~/L
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF
EXECUTION OF AN INSTRUMENT
The Kingdom of Spain
(Country)
Province of Barcelona
(COunry anrJ/0I Other Political Division)
City of Barcelona
(Count,1 and/or Other Poli!ica/ Division)
Consulate Gral.ofthe United States of America
(Name of Foreign Service Offlr;e)
I, Hsiao-Ching Chang,Vice Consul
of /he United SI-dies of America st Barcelona, Spain
duly commissioned and qualified, do he, eby cartif,; that on this day of 01-05-2017 . before me personally appeared
Date (mm-dd-yyyy)
Sarah Emma Ashley RANSOME--------·---·----·-·-------·---------------------------------··•··-···----------
to me /je,~:ial,;•/111e11'1!, e.11'/ knOwn to me to be the individual-descril>ed in, whose m;me is subscribed to,
and who executed the annexed rnstrument. and being informed by me oi /he contents of said instrument she
duly acknowledged lo me Iha/ she executed the same freely and voluntarily for lh9 vses and pvrposes.
l-/s
therein mentioned.
1'u- - ~V?,/-
(SEAL] ln witness whereof I have hereunto si:t my hand and
official seal the day and year 1ast ebove wri/len.
Hsiao-Ching Chang
Vice C'oosul of//Je United states of Amenca.
This document consists ol 4 pages, including the Acknowledgementc-E:rtificate.
NOTE: '\/1/herever practicable all signatures to a document ;;hould be included in one certificate.
OF-175 (Fo,merly FS-88)
01 -2009
giuffre-maxwell
Unknown
179 pages
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 179
EXHIBIT 5
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 179
Page 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CASE NO. 15-CV-07433-RWS
------------------------------------------x
VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,
Plaintiff,
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------x
May 18, 2016
9:04 a.m.
C O N F I D E N T I A L
Deposition of JOHANNA SJOBERG, pursuant
to notice, taken by Plaintiff, at the
offices of Boies Schiller & Flexner, 401
Las Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
before Kelli Ann Willis, a Registered
Professional Reporter, Certified Realtime
Reporter and Notary Public within and
for the State of Florida.
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 179
Page 2
1 A P P E A R A N C E S:
2 BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
3 401 East Las Olas Boulevard
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
4 BY: SIGRID S. McCAWLEY, ESQ. and
MEREDITH SCHULTZ, ESQ.
5
6 HADDON MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendant
7 150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
8 BY: LAURA A. MENNINGER, ESQ.
9
10 SINCLAIR LOUIS & ZAVERTNIK, P.A.
Attorneys for Deponent
11 40 NW Third Street
Suite 200
12 Miami, Florida 33128
BY: MARSHALL DORE LOUIS, ESQ.
13
14
15 ALSO PRESENT: Ryan Kick, Videographer
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 179
Page 3
1
2 I N D E X
3 Examination by Ms. McCawley ................... 5
Examination by Ms. Menninger ................... 50
4 Further Examination by Ms. McCawley ............ 138
Further Examination by Ms. Menninger ........... 147
5
6
7 E X H I B I T S
8 Deposition Exhibit 1 ........................... 7
Deposition Notice
9
Deposition Exhibit 2 ........................... 7
10 Subpoena
11 Deposition Exhibit 3 ........................... 16
Flight log
12
Deposition Exhibit 4 ........................... 49
13 Palm Beach Police Department
Incident Report
14
Deposition Exhibit 5 ........................... 117
15 Red Ice Creations web article
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 179
Page 4
1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the
2 record. This is begins Videotape No. 1 in the
3 deposition of Johanna Sjoberg, in the matter of
4 Virginia Giuffre versus Ghislaine Maxwell.
5 Today is May 18th, 2016. The time is
6 9:04 a.m. This deposition is being taken at
7 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale,
8 Florida.
9 The videographer is Ryan Kick. The court
10 reporter is Kelli Ann Willis. We both
11 represent Magna Legal Services.
12 Will counsel and all parties present state
13 their appearance and whom they represent.
14 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. I'm Sigrid McCawley,
15 with the law firm of Boise Schiller & Flexner,
16 and I represent Virginia Giuffre. And I have
17 here two colleagues of mine, Meredith Schultz
18 and Sandra Perkins, from my firm as well.
19 MS. MENNINGER: Hi. I'm Laura Menninger
20 from Haddon Morgan & Foreman, and I represent
21 Ghislaine Maxwell.
22 MR. LOUIS: I'm Dore Louis from Sinclair
23 Louis & Zavertnik. I'm here on behalf of the
24 deponent.
25 Thereupon:
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 179
Page 5
1 JOHANNA SJOBERG
2 a witness named in the notice heretofore filed,
3 being of lawful age and having been first duly
4 sworn, testified on her oath as follows:
5 E X A M I N A T I O N
6 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
7 Q. Good morning, Johanna. Thank you for
8 coming. I'm going to talk to you a little bit about
9 the deposition process before we get started to make
10 sure you understand what's going to happen here
11 today.
12 You just heard there's a videographer, and
13 he's going to be taking your video during this
14 deposition and generally what's happening in the
15 course of the deposition.
16 And then you have a court reporter here
17 who takes down the words that we say. And it's a
18 little bit tricky because I tend to speak quickly
19 sometimes and speak over people, and she needs to
20 get down all of the words. So I'll try to do my
21 best to go slower and make sure I'm not talking over
22 you.
23 And, similarly, if you've got an answer to
24 a question, make sure that you're verbally
25 responding, not just nodding or making a gesture
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 179
Page 6
1 because she can't get that down. We want to make
2 sure our responses are verbal. I'll try to remind
3 you of that if that happens.
4 Have you ever been deposed before?
5 A. No.
6 Q. No. Okay.
7 So what's going to happen is I'm going to
8 ask questions, and you'll give answers. And like I
9 said, everybody will be recording those.
10 Is there any reason, any medical reason,
11 anything you've taken today that would cause you to
12 not to be able to give truthful testimony today?
13 A. No.
14 Q. No. Okay.
15 All right. So we're going to get started,
16 and if you have any questions during the deposition
17 or you need to stop to take a break, you can just
18 let me know and we'll take that break.
19 So what I -- the only thing I ask is if
20 we're in the midst of a question, you finish the
21 answer before we take a break.
22 A. Sure.
23 Q. But I'll try to make sure that I take
24 regular breaks, as well.
25 You stated your name for the record. Can
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 179
Page 7
1 you tell me your date of birth?
2
3 Q. That makes you how old now?
4
5 Q. Okay. And where are you currently living?
6
7 Q. And I'm going to show you what I'm going
8 to mark as the first two exhibits in the matter.
9 And I'm going to ask the court reporter if I can
10 mark those.
11 (The referred-to document was marked by
12 the court reporter for Identification as
13 Sjoberg Exhibits 1 and 2.)
14 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
15 Q. Okay. I'm going to show you what I'm
16 marking as Exhibit 1. It's going to be the
17 re-notice of your videotaped deposition, which is
18 simply a notice I'm going to show you. And then
19 Exhibit 2 is the subpoena that we served on you.
20 So you're here today pursuant to our
21 Notice of Deposition and the subpoena that we served
22 on you.
23 Are you familiar with the subpoena? Have
24 you seen that document before?
25 A. Yes.
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 179
Page 8
1 Q. Okay. Great.
2 All right. Do you know a female by the
3 name of Ghislaine Maxwell?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And when did you first meet Ms. Maxwell?
6 A. 2001. March probably. End of
7 February/beginning of March.
8 Q. And how did you meet her?
9 A. She approached me while I was on campus at
10 Palm Beach Atlantic College.
11 Q. And what happened when she approached you?
12 A. She asked me if I could tell her how to
13 find someone that would come and work at her house.
14 She wanted to know if there was, like, a bulletin
15 board or something that she could post, that she was
16 looking for someone to hire.
17 Q. And what did you discuss with her?
18 A. I told her where she could go to -- you
19 know, to put up a listing. And then she asked me if
20 I knew anyone that would be interested in working
21 for her.
22 Q. Did she describe what that work was going
23 to be?
24 A. She explained that she lived in Palm Beach
25 and didn't want butlers because they're too stuffy.
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 179
Page 9
1 And so she just liked to hire girls to work at the
2 house, answer phones, get drinks, do the job a
3 butler would do.
4 Q. And did she tell you what she would pay
5 for that kind of a job?
6 A. At that moment, no, but later in the day,
7 yes.
8 Q. And what did she say?
9 A. Twenty dollars an hour.
10 Q. Was there anybody else with Ms. Maxwell
11 when you met her?
12 A. There was another woman with her. I don't
13 recall her or what she looks like or how old she
14 was.
15 Q. And what happened next?
16 A. And then she asked me if I would be
17 interested in working for her. And she told me that
18 she was -- I could trust her and that I could jump
19 in her car and go check out the house at that moment
20 if I wanted.
21 And so I said, Sure, let's do it, and went
22 to her home with her.
23 Q. And where was that home?
24 A. In Palm Beach.
25 Q. And did she describe that home as being
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 179
Page 10
1 her home?
2 A. She described it as being her home and
3 alluded to the fact that it was her and Jeffrey's
4 home and that she had homes all over the world.
5 Yes.
6 Q. And what happened when you arrived at the
7 home?
8 A. I believe she just showed me around.
9 Q. Do you recall meeting anybody at the home?
10 A. I don't recall if I met Jeffrey at that
11 time or the next time that I was there.
12 Q. How did you meet Jeffrey? Did Maxwell
13 introduce you to Jeffrey?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. What do you recall of your first meeting
16 with Jeffrey?
17 A. I remember him being in a bathrobe. I
18 recall talking to him about how I was a major in
19 psychology. And he had studied psychology, and so
20 he spoke with me about different topics.
21 I remember thinking this guy is very
22 smart. That was my first impression.
23 Q. And when you refer to Jeffrey, are you
24 referring to Jeffrey Epstein?
25 A. Yes.
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 179
Page 11
1 Q. How did the meeting -- you said Maxwell
2 took you to the home. Do you remember how that
3 meeting ended?
4 A. Well, she dropped me back off at campus.
5 Q. And did you --
6 A. She got my number and I took her number.
7 And then she called me the next weekend to work.
8 Q. So at that point you started working for
9 Ms. Maxwell?
10 A. At that time, yes.
11 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading.
12 Sorry.
13 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
14 Q. Did you then start working for Ms. Maxwell
15 after that first meeting?
16 A. She called me and I went over to the home
17 the next Sunday to work.
18 Q. And what work -- can you describe for me
19 the first day at work, what work you performed?
20 A. Sure. I remember answering the phones and
21 taking messages. And at one point, she asked me to
22 go pick up printer ink, and I took her car to Office
23 Depot to get ink.
24 She asked me to go buy some magazines, so
25 I went to Palm Beach Daily News and bought a few
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 179
Page 12
1 magazines.
2 She and I went -- she wanted to take me
3 shopping to Worth Avenue, but it was a Sunday and
4 Nieman Marcus was closed, so we went back to, like,
5 a little book store. And I remember she bought, I
6 think, five pairs of reading glasses because she
7 thought Jeffrey would like them. He had them all
8 over the house. On every table there was reading
9 glasses.
10 And that's about it. It was a pretty
11 simple day.
12 Q. Were you paid that day for that work?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And how much were you paid? Do you
15 remember?
16 A. I don't remember how many hours I was
17 there -- I was there. She paid me cash.
18 Q. So Maxwell paid you?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And then was she the one who trained you
21 with what -- with respect to what you were supposed
22 to do during the day, directed you to, like you
23 said, go to --
24 A. I believe she was the one that was kind of
25 showing me around.
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 179
Page 13
1 Q. And how long did you work in that position
2 answering phones and doing --
3 A. Just that one day.
4 Q. Just that one day.
5 And did your duties change?
6 A. Well, the next time she called me, she
7 asked me if I wanted to come over and make $100 an
8 hour rubbing feet.
9 Q. And what did you think of that offer?
10 A. I thought it was fantastic.
11 Q. And did you come over to the house for
12 that purpose?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And when you came over to the house, was
15 Maxwell present?
16 A. I don't recall.
17 Q. And what happened that second time you
18 came to the house?
19 A. At that point, I met Emmy Taylor, and she
20 took me up to Jeffrey's bathroom and he was present.
21 And her and I both massaged Jeffrey. She was
22 showing me how to massage.
23 And then she -- he took -- he got off the
24 table, she got on the table. She took off her
25 clothes, got on the table, and then he was showing
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 179
Page 14
1 me moves that he liked. And then I took my clothes
2 off. They asked me to get on the table so I could
3 feel it. Then they both massaged me.
4 Q. So it was more than a foot massage at that
5 point?
6 A. Yeah, it was mostly, like, legs and back.
7 Q. Was everybody in the room without clothes
8 on?
9 A. When they were on the massage table, yes.
10 Q. Did they -- when they got off the massage
11 table to perform the massage, did they dress or
12 did --
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. They dressed.
15 And do you recall who paid you for that
16 first day that you did the massages?
17 A. I don't recall.
18 Q. Do you recall whether Maxwell was at the
19 house during that first day when you were doing the
20 massage with Emmy and Jeffrey?
21 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, asked and
22 answered.
23 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
24 Q. You can answer.
25 A. I don't recall.
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 179
Page 15
1 Q. Who did Emmy work for?
2 A. Ghislaine.
3 Q. Did Maxwell ever refer to Emmy by any
4 particular term?
5 A. She called her her slave.
6 Q. You said your job duties changed. Did you
7 start to travel as part of your job with Jeffrey and
8 Ghislaine?
9 A. Yes. The next time they called me, they
10 asked me to go to New York.
11 Q. And did you -- do you recall when that was
12 approximately?
13 A. That was Easter of 2001.
14 Q. And do you recall who was on the plane
15 with you for that trip?
16 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form.
17 MS. McCAWLEY: Actually, I'm going to stop
18 really quickly and I'm going to ask for the
19 next exhibit, please.
20 MS. MENNINGER: This is 3?
21 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. I'm going to mark
22 this as Exhibit 3 for purposes of the
23 deposition.
24
25
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 179
Page 16
1 (The referred-to document was marked by
2 the court reporter for Identification as
3 Sjoberg Exhibit 3.)
4 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
5 Q. Johanna, I'm going to direct you -- I
6 flagged some pages, but for the record, I'm going to
7 say what pages they are before I hand you the
8 exhibit.
9 A. Sure.
10 Q. These are Giuffre 000748 and 000758, are
11 the two pages right now I may refer you to. The
12 document itself is 000721 through 789.
13 And these are flight logs from pilot David
14 Rogers that have been produced in this case.
15 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation,
16 asking the witness any questions about this
17 document.
18 THE WITNESS: Can I touch it?
19 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes, you may.
20 MS. MENNINGER: I just have to say things
21 every now and then.
22 THE WITNESS: Okay.
23 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
24 Q. So you mentioned that you traveled to New
25 York. If you turn to page -- flagged page which
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 179
Page 17
1 should be 000748, at the top of that document you're
2 going to see a date of April 2001.
3 I'm just going to ask you to go down to
4 the -- if you look at the line on the left to where
5 it says 9 for the date, and look over where it has
6 the names.
7 Do you see -- can you identify your name
8 on that list?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And can you tell me -- I know there are
11 initials there -- who else to the extent you
12 remember was on the plane with you?
13 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation,
14 leading, form of question.
15 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
16 Q. Johanna, do you recall who was on the
17 plane with you that day?
18 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation,
19 form, leading.
20 The witness is reading the document.
21 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
22 Q. You can answer.
23 A. Okay. JE, Jeffrey Epstein; ET, Emmy
24 Taylor; VR, Virginia Roberts; BK, I do not recall;
25 and myself.
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 179
Page 18
1 MS. MENNINGER: Objection. The witness is
2 reading the document.
3 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
4 Q. And do you recall where you flew when you
5 went to -- when you traveled that first time with
6 Jeffrey Epstein?
7 A. We left from Palm Beach and landed in
8 Atlantic City for a few hours because there was a
9 storm in New York, and then got back on the plane a
10 few hours later and landed in Teterboro.
11 Q. And you said that you recall landing in
12 Atlantic City. Did you go into Atlantic City?
13 A. Yes, went to one of Trump's casinos.
14 Q. Did you actually go into the casino
15 itself?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Do you recall Virginia -- at the time
18 Virginia Roberts being present with you?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do you recall if she went into the casino?
21 A. She was underage. I did not know anything
22 about how old you had to be to gamble legally. I
23 just knew she could not get in because of an ID
24 issue. So she and I did not gamble.
25 Q. In your opinion, did Virginia look young,
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 179
Page 19
1 in your view?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Did you ever -- did you at that time
4 wonder why she was traveling with Jeffrey?
5 A. At that time, I did not.
6 Q. Did you later wonder that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And what was your impression?
9 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, vague,
10 speculative.
11 THE WITNESS: I -- we're jumping ahead; is
12 that okay?
13 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
14 Q. Yes, that's okay.
15 A. A few days later, I remember asking her
16 questions to try to figure out her role, why she was
17 there, and she gave me vague answers and was never
18 specific.
19 And so I thought perhaps she just was an
20 assistant, someone that did massages well. I wanted
21 to believe that she was innocent.
22 Q. Did you ever refer to her as being
23 orphan-like?
24 A. I did.
25 Q. And how did that come about?
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 179
Page 20
1 A. No, I only -- to you, I said that to you.
2 I just saw her as perhaps someone who may not have
3 had a strong family, and they took her under their
4 wing.
5 Q. Now, you mentioned remembering going to
6 Atlantic City.
7 Did you go -- where did you go after
8 Atlantic City?
9 A. Once we landed in New York, Emmy and I
10 went in a car and drove around the city for a half
11 hour or so, just to see some of the city.
12 Q. And then where did you go after doing the
13 sightseeing?
14 A. We went to the townhouse on East 71st.
15 Q. And can you describe that location for me?
16 A. Sure. Between Madison and Park. I think
17 the address might have been 9 East 71st Street.
18 Q. And who owned that home?
19 A. As far as I knew, Epstein.
20 Q. Can you describe for me physically what --
21 A. Palatial. When you walk up, it looks like
22 a normal door to a townhouse, and when you walk
23 in -- I thought there were four floors. I heard
24 there were seven floors. I didn't see them all.
25 Q. And do you recall who, if anybody, was at
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 179
Page 21
1 Jeffrey's home when you arrived?
2 A. Yes. When I first walked in the door, it
3 was just myself, and Ghislaine headed for the
4 staircase and said -- told me to come up to the
5 living room.
6 Q. And what happened at that point, when you
7 came up to the living room?
8 A. I came up and saw Virginia, Jeffrey,
9 Prince Andrew, Ghislaine in the room.
10 Q. And did you meet Prince Andrew at that
11 time?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And what happened next?
14 A. At one point, Ghislaine told me to come
15 upstairs, and we went into a closet and pulled out
16 the puppet, the caricature of Prince Andrew, and
17 brought it down. And there was a little tag on the
18 puppet that said "Prince Andrew" on it, and that's
19 when I knew who he was.
20 Q. And did -- what did the puppet look like?
21 A. It looked like him. And she brought it
22 down and presented it to him; and that was a great
23 joke, because apparently it was a production from a
24 show on BBC. And they decided to take a picture
25 with it, in which Virginia and Andrew sat on a
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 179
Page 22
1 couch. They put the puppet on Virginia's lap, and I
2 sat on Andrew's lap, and they put the puppet's hand
3 on Virginia's breast, and Andrew put his hand on my
4 breast, and they took a photo.
5 Q. Do you remember who took the photo?
6 A. I don't recall.
7 Q. Did you ever see the photo after it was
8 taken?
9 A. I did not.
10 Q. And Ms. Maxwell was present during the --
11 was Ms. Maxwell present during that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. What happened next?
14 A. The next thing I remember is just being
15 shown to which room I was going to be staying in.
16 Q. When you exited the room that you were in
17 where the picture was taken, do you recall who
18 remained in that room?
19 A. I don't.
20 Q. Do you recall seeing Virginia exit that
21 room?
22 A. I don't.
23 Q. During this trip to New York, did you have
24 to perform any work when you were at the New York
25 house?
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 179
Page 23
1 A. I performed at least one massage that I
2 recall.
3 Q. And who instructed you to give that
4 massage?
5 A. Jeffrey.
6 Q. And can you describe for me what happened
7 during that massage?
8 A. Near the end, he asked me to rub his
9 nipples while he masturbated.
10 Q. And did that take place?
11 A. It did not.
12 Q. And why not?
13 A. I was not comfortable with it. And so I
14 left the room.
15 Q. Did you have any -- did you say anything
16 to him before leaving the room?
17 A. I believe I said, "I'm done."
18 Q. Do you recall what his reaction was to
19 that?
20 A. I do not. At the time, at that moment, I
21 do not.
22 Q. Did you recall later what --
23 A. Well, we had a conversation a little
24 later, talking about his expectations, and that was
25 the conversation where he said that the next trip
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 25 of 179
Page 24
1 they were going on was to the island in the Virgin
2 Islands, and I would be invited; however, there
3 would be, quote, sex stuff happening.
4 Q. Can you describe for me -- can you
5 describe for me what that -- in New York, where you
6 massaged and what that looked like?
7 A. He had one room that was the massage room.
8 It was about the size of a spa room in a spa. It
9 had high ceilings. It had dark tapestry on the
10 walls. It was a very dark room. There was a very
11 large picture of a naked woman whom I don't recall.
12 That's all I remember.
13 Q. In the New York home, did you observe
14 photos around the house?
15 A. I don't recall.
16 Q. In the Palm Beach home that we were
17 talking about earlier, did you recall seeing photos
18 in that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And did you recall seeing photos of naked
21 females in that home?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Approximately -- can you tell me where you
24 would see those in the home?
25 A. I definitely saw them in his bathroom.
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 26 of 179
Page 25
1 And I can't recall if they were in the main living
2 areas.
3 Q. Did you see them in the stairwell up to
4 the second story of the house?
5 A. I can't recall.
6 Q. Do you know who -- who the people were in
7 those photos? Were you familiar with any of them?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Were you in any of those photos?
10 A. At one point, yes.
11 Q. And were you naked in that photo?
12 A. Topless.
13 Q. Do you recall seeing any naked photos of
14 Virginia Roberts?
15 A. I do not.
16 Q. Where did you go next, after the New York
17 visit?
18 A. I went to the Virgin Islands.
19 Q. And who told you that you would be going
20 to the Virgin Islands?
21 A. He asked me if I wanted to go, and I said
22 I would still like to go.
23 Q. And do you recall who you -- who went with
24 you to the Virgin Islands?
25 A. I believe -- well, I know Virginia was
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 27 of 179
Page 26
1 with me. Ghislaine was there. Jeffrey. And there
2 were two other women that I don't recall their
3 names.
4 Q. Did you travel on Jeffrey's plane to get
5 to the Virgin Islands?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. I want to show you again the flight log
8 that you have there in front of you. If you can
9 flip to --
10 MS. MENNINGER: I'm going to object to the
11 foundation again.
12 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
13 Q. It's that same page that you were on. The
14 date is the 11th.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Do you see the TEB to TIST there?
17 A. Yes.
18 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading. The
19 questioning is testifying now.
20 MS. McCAWLEY: Can you let me finish my
21 question, please?
22 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
23 Q. Can you tell me who the initials are there
24 that you see that were on the plane?
25 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation,
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 28 of 179
Page 27
1 leading.
2 THE WITNESS: Jeffrey Epstein; Ghislaine
3 Maxwell; AP and PK are the two women I do not
4 recall; Virginia Roberts; and myself.
5 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
6 Q. Do you recall how you flew back from the
7 location in the US Virgin Islands?
8 A. They put me on a commercial flight. I
9 wanted to be home in time for Easter.
10 Q. When you say "they," do you recall who
11 made those arrangements for you?
12 A. It could have been Ghislaine.
13 Q. Did you -- do you recall performing
14 massages while you were in the US Virgin Islands?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Who was involved in -- was there more than
17 one?
18 A. Yes. I massaged Ghislaine at one point.
19 And I massaged Jeffrey, Virginia and I, both, on the
20 beach.
21 Q. Were you dressed during the massage that
22 was on the beach?
23 A. Yes. Bikinis probably, most likely.
24 Q. Do you recall what Virginia was wearing?
25 A. I believe she was wearing a bathing suit,
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 29 of 179
Page 28
1 as well.
2 Q. Were you paid for the massage on the beach
3 with Virginia?
4 A. At the end of -- before I left and flew
5 home, Ghislaine gave me $1,000.
6 Q. You mentioned that you massaged -- you
7 recall massaging Ghislaine on the trip to the USVI.
8 Do you recall when that took place?
9 A. I don't even recall what days we were
10 there, so...
11 Q. Do you recall where it took place?
12 A. I believe it was -- well, either in my
13 guest cottage or one of them. There were three
14 guest houses set up that were all similar and that I
15 was staying in. Virginia and I stayed in one
16 together. And it was either in there or in another
17 one that was identical.
18 Q. And was that massage performed with
19 Virginia as well or by you alone?
20 A. I don't recall.
21 Q. Were there other females in the USVI on
22 that trip with you besides Virginia?
23 A. Two others.
24 Q. And do you recall who they were?
25 A. I do not.
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 30 of 179
Page 29
1 Q. Did you ever see Ghislaine Maxwell during
2 that trip laying out by the pool?
3 A. There was one time where we were all by
4 the pool, yes.
5 Q. Was Ghislaine Maxwell ever nude or topless
6 by the pool?
7 A. I don't recall. She was nude when she
8 went swimming in the ocean.
9 Q. At that moment in the USVI home, did you
10 observe any photos there of nude females?
11 A. I don't recall.
12 Q. Besides Virginia, who you mentioned, you
13 observed to be young, did you observe any other
14 females that in your view appeared to be essentially
15 under the age of 18?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Did you observe any females who you
18 thought looked young, younger than you?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Do you remember an individual by the name
21 of that you met during your time with Jeffrey
22 Epstein?
23 A. In Palm Beach?
24 Q. Yes.
25 A. Yes.
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 31 of 179
Page 30
1 Q. Did you observe her to be young when you
2 met her?
3 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, vague as to
4 time.
5 THE WITNESS: All of the women were
6 generally young. I did not know the ages of
7 really anyone, so...
8 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
9 Q. How many massages did Jeffrey receive on
10 average in a given day?
11 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation.
12 THE WITNESS: Three a day.
13 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
14 Q. Let me back up for a moment.
15 How long did you work for Jeffrey and
16 Ghislaine?
17 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading and
18 foundation.
19 THE WITNESS: I believe it was five years,
20 2001 to 2006.
21 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
22 Q. And how many massages did Epstein receive
23 per day on average?
24 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation.
25 THE WITNESS: Three.
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 32 of 179
Page 31
1 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
2 Q. Were the massages performed by the same
3 girl or different females?
4 A. Different.
5 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation.
6 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
7 Q. What did the females who performed the
8 massages look like?
9 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation.
10 THE WITNESS: They all looked different.
11 Some of them were ethnic, some were blond, some
12 were short, some were tall. Everyone was thin.
13 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
14 Q. Were the girls who performed the massages
15 young or old?
16 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation.
17 THE WITNESS: I don't recall anyone being
18 old.
19 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
20 Q. Do you recall anybody being over the age
21 of, say, 25?
22 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, form.
23 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I believe there was
24 probably a few women that were older than 25.
25 MS. MENNINGER: I'm sorry. I get a chance
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 33 of 179
Page 32
1 to object and then you can still answer. No
2 one is going to stop you from answering. I
3 just need to get the objection on the record,
4 in the same way she needs to be able to talk
5 before you. My apologies. I'm not trying to
6 cut you off, but I am supposed to get it in
7 before you answer.
8 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
9 Q. Did Jeffrey ever tell you why he received
10 so many massages from so many different girls?
11 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, hearsay.
12 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
13 Q. You can answer.
14 A. He explained to me that, in his opinion,
15 he needed to have three orgasms a day. It was
16 biological, like eating.
17 Q. And what was your reaction to that
18 statement?
19 A. I thought it was a little crazy.
20 Q. And what did -- do you recall what -- when
21 you observed the other females giving massages, do
22 you recall what they would dress like? Did they
23 wear scrubs or did they typically wear normal
24 clothes?
25 A. Normal clothes.
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 34 of 179
Page 33
1 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading.
2 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
3 Q. Do you believe that from your
4 observations, Maxwell and Epstein were boyfriend and
5 girlfriend?
6 A. Initially, yes.
7 Q. Did Maxwell ever share with you whether it
8 bothered her that Jeffrey had so many girls around?
9 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading,
10 hearsay.
11 THE WITNESS: No. Actually, the opposite.
12 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
13 Q. What did she say?
14 A. She let me know that she was -- she would
15 not be able to please him as much as he needed and
16 that is why there were other girls around.
17 Q. Did there ever come a time -- did you ever
18 take a photography class in school?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And did there ever come a time when
21 Maxwell offered to buy you a camera?
22 A. Yes.
23 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading.
24 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
25 Q. Did Maxwell ever offer to buy you a
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 35 of 179
Page 34
1 camera?
2 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading.
3 THE WITNESS: Yes.
4 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
5 Q. Was there anything you were supposed to do
6 in order to get the camera?
7 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading.
8 THE WITNESS: I did not know that there
9 were expectations of me to get the camera until
10 after. She had purchased the camera for me,
11 and I was over there giving Jeffrey a massage.
12 I did not know that she was in possession of
13 the camera until later.
14 She told me -- called me after I had left
15 and said, I have the camera for you, but you
16 cannot receive it yet because you came here and
17 didn't finish your job and I had to finish it
18 for you.
19 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
20 Q. And did you -- what did you understand her
21 to mean?
22 A. She was implying that I did not get
23 Jeffrey off, and so she had to do it.
24 Q. And when you say "get Jeffrey off," do you
25 mean bring him to orgasm?
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 36 of 179
Page 35
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Did Ghislaine ever describe to you what
3 types of girls Jeffrey liked?
4 A. Model types.
5 Q. Did Ghislaine ever talk to you about how
6 you should act around Jeffrey?
7 A. She just had a conversation with me that I
8 should always act grateful.
9 Q. Did Jeffrey ever tell you that he took a
10 girl's virginity?
11 A. He did not tell me. He told a friend of
12 mine.
13 Q. And what do you recall about that?
14 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, hearsay,
15 foundation.
16 THE WITNESS: He wanted to have a friend
17 of mine come out who was cardio-kickboxer
18 instructor. She was a physical trainer.
19 And so I brought her over to the house,
20 and he told my friend Rachel that -- he said,
21 You see that girl over there laying by the
22 pool? She was 19. And he said, I just took
23 her virginity. And my friend Rachel was
24 mortified.
25
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 37 of 179
Page 36
1 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
2 Q. Based on what you knew, did Maxwell know
3 that the type of massages Jeffrey was getting
4 typically involved sexual acts?
5 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation,
6 leading.
7 THE WITNESS: Yes.
8 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
9 Q. What was Maxwell's main job with respect
10 to Jeffrey?
11 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation.
12 THE WITNESS: Well, beyond companionship,
13 her job, as it related to me, was to find other
14 girls that would perform massages for him and
15 herself.
16 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
17 Q. Did Maxwell ever refer to the girls in a
18 particular way?
19 A. At one point when we were in the islands,
20 we were all watching a movie and she called us her
21 children.
22 Q. Did anybody respond to that?
23 A. I don't recall.
24 Q. Did she ever refer to herself as a mother?
25 A. Yes, like a mother hen.
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 38 of 179
Page 37
1 Q. Do you recall who was present at the time
2 that she made that comment about children?
3 A. This was the second trip that I took to
4 the Virgin Islands, so, no. I don't want to speak,
5 you know, incorrectly. I can't remember. I can't
6 really remember.
7 Q. Have you ever met David Copperfield?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And do you recall when you initially met
10 him?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Can you tell me what that was?
13 A. Sure. Someone called me from the house
14 and said that he would be there, and if I wanted to
15 come have dinner, then I could meet him.
16 So when I arrived at the house, he wasn't
17 there yet, but I wa
giuffre-maxwell
Unknown
4 pages
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Virginia L. Giuffre,
Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
v.
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant.
________________________________/
DECLARATION OF SIGRID S. McCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
SUBJECT TO IMPROPER OBJECTIONS
I, Sigrid S. McCawley, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge as follows:
1. I am a partner with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly
licensed to practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court’s September 29, 2015
Order granting my Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice.
2. I respectfully submit this Declaration in support of Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre’s
Motion to Compel Production of Documents Subject to Improper Objections.
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1, is a true and correct copy of an Excerpt from the
March 24, 2010 Deposition Transcript of Sarah Kellen.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2, is a true and correct copy of Defendant Ghislaine
Maxwell’s Responses and Objections to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3, is a true and correct copy of Defendant Ghislaine
Maxwell’s Privilege Log.
1
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4, is a true and correct copy of Jeffrey Epstein’s
private plane Flight Logs.
7. Attached hereto as Composite Exhibit 5, is a true and correct copy of excerpts
from the July 29, 2009 and August 7, 2009 Deposition Transcripts of Alfredo Rodriguez.
8. Attached hereto as Composite Exhibit 6, is a true and correct copy of the message
pads obtained from Jeffrey Epstein’s residence by law enforcement.
9. Attached hereto as Composite Exhibit 7, is a true and correct copy of the
September 9, 2008 Victim Notification Letter.
10. Attached hereto as Composite Exhibit 8, is a true and correct copy of the Notice
of Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell, Subpoena and Cancellation Payment Notice, and January
13, 2015 Daily Mail Article.
11. Attached hereto as Exhibit 9, is a true and correct copy of Bates GM_00001 –
GM_00015.
12. Attached hereto as Exhibit 10, is a true and correct copy of Jeffrey Epstein’s
phone book.
13. Attached hereto as Exhibit 11, is a true and correct copy of a photo of Ghislaine
Maxwell, Prince Andrew, and Virginia Giuffre.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley______
Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq.
2
Dated: February 26, 2016
Respectfully Submitted,
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley
Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
(954) 356-0011
David Boies
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Ellen Brockman
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
575 Lexington Ave
New York, New York 10022
(212) 446-2300
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 26, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing
document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of Notices
of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
Tel: (303) 831-7364
Fax: (303) 832-2628
Email: [email protected]
/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley
Sigrid S. McCawley
4
giuffre-maxwell
Unknown
1 pages
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1004 Filed 11/12/19 Page 1 of 1
Sigrid S. McCawley
Telephone: (954) 356-0011
Email: [email protected]
November 12, 2019
VIA ECF
The Honorable Judge Loretta A Preska
District Court Judge
United States District Court
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell,
Case No. 15-cv-07433-LAP
Dear Judge Preska,
The parties have conferred and write today to seek clarification regarding the Court’s
request for a list of names and contact information that is referenced in paragraph 2 of the Court’s
October 28, 2019 Order (DE 998). It is the parties’ understanding that the purpose of this exercise
is to identify for the Court the names of non-parties that are referenced in the sealed filings for
notice purposes. Paragraph 2 of the Court’s October 28, 2019 Order can be read to include all
motions papers that were decided (both sealed and unsealed) because it references Paragraph 1 of
the Order which would mean that the parties would be providing the Court with names that are
already in the public domain as they were named in unsealed pacer filings. Logging all names
listed in the already public filings would be a substantial undertaking. Accordingly, the parties
wish to confirm with the Court whether the Court wants a list of names of individuals referenced
in the sealed filings or whether the Court wants a list of names of individuals referenced in both
the sealed filings and the unsealed filings.
In addition, to the extent that a sealed filing contains a document that has been made public
in this litigation (Giuffre v. Maxwell), the parties respectfully request that they do not need to
include individuals from that document on the sealed list of names for notice. For example, the
flight logs which contain hundreds of names and/or initials were released by the Second Circuit
Order in Brown v. Maxwell. The parties respectfully request that they not be required to separately
log the names that appear in documents that have already been made public in this litigation in the
submission to the Court.
Respectfully,
/s/ Sigrid McCawley
Sigrid McCawley
giuffre-maxwell
Unknown
15 pages
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Virginia L. Giuffre,
Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
v.
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant.
________________________________/
PLAINTIFF, VIRGINIA GIUFFRE’S REPLY IN RESPONSE
TO DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SUBJECT TO IMPROPER OBJECTIONS
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
David Boies
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
(954) 356-0011
Ellen Brockman
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
575 Lexington Ave
New York, New York 10022
(212) 446-2300
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................................................... ii
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................................1
II. ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................................2
A. Ms. Giuffre’s Relevant Period Is Appropriate...............................................................2
1. Defendant is Taking a Disingenuous Position Regarding Her Objections to
Plaintiff’s Time Period .........................................................................................2
2. Ms. Giuffre’s Post-2002 Discovery Requests Are Narrowly Tailored To
Seek Specific, Relevant Evidence Of Defendant’s Continued Involvement In
Jeffrey Epstein’s Underage Sex Trafficking .......................................................3
B. Defendant’s Objections Are Improper. .........................................................................5
C. Defendant’s Specific Objections Are Inappropriate......................................................6
1. Request No. 1, Request No. 10, and Request No. 11 ...........................................6
2. Request No. 3. ......................................................................................................7
3. Request No. 6. ......................................................................................................8
4. Request No. 37. ....................................................................................................8
5. Request No. 7 and Request No. 15.......................................................................9
6. Request No. 17. ..................................................................................................10
7. Request No. 8, Request No. 33, and Request No. 39. ........................................10
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................10
i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
Cases
Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Ltd.,
982 F. Supp. 2d 260 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) .........................................................................................1
Civil Aeronautics Bd. of Civil Aeronautics Auth. v. Canadian Colonial Airways,
41 F. Supp. 1006 (S.D.N.Y. 1940) ..............................................................................................4
In re A2P SMS Antitrust Litig.,
972 F. Supp. 2d 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) .........................................................................................1
In re 650 Fifth Ave.,
No. 08 CIV. 10934 KBF, 2013 WL 1870090 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2013)....................................6
ii
Plaintiff Virginia L. Giuffre, respectfully submits this Reply in Response to Defendant’s
Supplemental Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Production of Documents Subject to
Improper Objections [D.E. 45]. For the reasons set forth below, this Court should grant Ms.
Giuffre’s Motion to Compel in its entirety.
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT1
After sitting on Ms. Giuffre’s First Request for Production for four months, Defendant
only produced two documents. Defendant acknowledges that she has other responsive
documents, but she is withholding them from production.2
Flight logs demonstrate the incredibly close relationship between Defendant and
convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein during the time they were abusing Ms. Giuffre and, then,
other minors: Defendant flew on Jeffrey Epstein’s private plane no less than 360 times, and over
20 times with Ms. Giuffre when Ms. Giuffre was a minor child.3 Message pads from Law
Enforcement’s trash pull of Jeffrey Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion show Maxwell in regular
contact with him, including Defendant arranging for Epstein to meet with underage girls. This
evidence alone rebuts Defendant’s specious objections that seeking documents relating to
Defendant’s trafficking of other underage girls is merely a “fishing expedition.” Indeed, over
thirty underage girls were recruited for Epstein’s sex abuse, most of which were recruited after
1
Ms. Giuffre views Defendant’s “Supplemental Responses” (D.E. 45 and 46) as impermissible sur-replies.
Defendant already filed a Response, and her “supplemental” responses were filed after Ms. Giuffre filed her Reply
to Defendant’s Response. See In re A2P SMS Antitrust Litig., 972 F. Supp. 2d 465, 500 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (striking
sur-reply because it does not respond to “new issues which are material to the disposition of the question before the
[C]ourt,”); Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Ltd., 982 F. Supp. 2d 260, 263 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (“the Court notes that
Plaintiffs' letter is a sur-reply filed without permission of the Court and does not identify new controlling law, and
therefore will not be considered.”). To the extent that this Court has not yet made a sua sponte ruling to strike them
from the docket to date, Ms. Giuffre hereby files her reply briefs within the time allotted under the Local Rules.
2
She is also adamantly refusing to sit for her deposition. Most recently, Defendant is attempting to hold hostage Ms.
Giuffre’s effort to take Defendant’s deposition by refusing to agree on a basic privilege log production parameters
unless Ms. Giuffre agrees to cancel the most critical deposition in this case – that of the Defendant.
3
These numbers are based only upon the partial and incomplete flight logs available to Ms. Giuffre at this time.
1
Ms. Giuffre escaped.4 Therefore, discovery requests concerning Defendant’s continued
trafficking of minors, and continued contact with her co-conspirators (including payments from
Epstein), are relevant and discoverable.
II. ARGUMENT
A. Ms. Giuffre’s Relevant Period Is Appropriate
1. Defendant is Taking a Disingenuous Position Regarding Her Objections to
Plaintiff’s Time Period
Defendant argues that, “[g]iven the nature of her claim, the time period chosen by the
Plaintiff [17 years] is grossly overbroad.” (See D.E. 45 at 3.)5. However, Defendant’s own
document requests belie this contention. Defendant requested documents from an even greater
period of time, and many requests have no date restrictions (“NDR”) whatsoever:
Defendant’s Requests:
Request Years Request Years Request Years Request Years
No. 1 18 No.11 N/A No. 21 5 No. 31 NDR
No. 2 18 No. 12 18 No. 22 16 No. 32 NDR
No. 3 NDR No. 13 4 No. 23 16 No. 33 NDR
No. 4 NDR No. 14 18 No. 24 14 No. 34 NDR
No. 5 18 No. 15 18 No. 25 NDR No. 35 18
No. 6 NDR No. 16 6 No. 26 NDR No. 36 NDR
No. 7 4 No. 17 18 No. 27 NDR No. 37 NDR
No. 8 4 No. 18 16 No. 28 NDR
No. 18 No. 19 NDR No. 29 NDR
No. 10 N/A No. 20 NDR No. 30 NDR
For example, Defendant’s Request No. 26 seeking “All Documents concerning any
prescription drugs taken by You,” has no date restrictions. Defendant, therefore, must believe
that every prescription drug Ms. Giuffre has taken - from infancy - will likely be helpful to prove
4
See Declaration of Sigrid McCawley (“McCawley Decl.”) at Exhibit 1, Palm Beach Police Report.
5
Defendant disregarded Ms. Giuffre’s requested date range of 1999 to the present and unilaterally limited her
production to the years 1999 – 2002 and for one month from December 31, 2014 to January 31, 2015.
2
or disprove the claim in this case.6 Defendant cannot hold the position that documents relevant
to the claim in this case arise solely from a self-serving fraction of the requested date range if
collected from her, while concomitantly holding the position that documents from an even larger
date rage are relevant when collecting from Ms. Giuffre. With her briefing in one hand, and her
requests for production in the other, Defendant is engaging in double-speak. Accordingly, this
Court cannot take Defendant’s argument regarding the Relevant Period at face value, and should
reject it.
2. Ms. Giuffre’s Post-2002 Discovery Requests Are Narrowly Tailored To
Seek Specific, Relevant Evidence Of Defendant’s Continued Involvement
In Jeffrey Epstein’s Underage Sex Trafficking
As articulated in Ms. Giuffre’s moving brief and her consolidated reply (D.E. 35, and
43), Ms. Giuffre has shown the relevance of her narrowly-tailored requests seeking certain
documents from the period of time after Ms. Giuffre escaped Defendant’s abuse. To recount,
Defendant continued to recruit underage girls for sex with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein
after Ms. Giuffre escaped.7 This fact is established by documentary evidence, sworn testimony,
and other statements by third parties. Indeed, flight logs show Defendant traveling on the
convicted sex offender’s plane up to at least 2005; and police reports in the Palm Beach
investigation reveal the abuse occurred into the mid-2000s.8 In addition, message pads from law
enforcement trash pulls from Jeffrey Epstein’s home show that Defendant arranged to have
underage girls come over for “training.”9
6
Despite issuing multiple requests like the one quoted above, Defendant’s “Supplemental Response” brief
complains of a “fishing expedition” by Ms. Giuffre seven times.
7
Indeed, over thirty underage girls were recruited for Epstein’s sex abuse. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1.
8
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, Flight Logs from Jeffrey Epstein’s private plane and Exhibit 1, Palm Beach
Police Report.
9
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3, Message Pads from Law Enforcement trash pulls of Jeffrey Epstein’s Palm
Beach home.
3
Documents showing Defendant recruiting underage girls from that time period are
relevant because they help establish Ms. Giuffre’s contention that Defendant recruited her while
she was underage. Again, over thirty underage girls were recruited for Epstein’s sex abuse in
Florida alone, most of which were recruited after Ms. Giuffre escaped.10 Such documents would
show a pattern and practice of Defendant’s behavior and also show Defendant’s role within
Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal enterprise. That Ms. Giuffre was in Australia while Defendant
continued her illegal activities does not lessen the weight of that evidence.11 To the contrary, the
fact that Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein recruited other girls for abuse gives more weight to Ms.
Giuffre’s allegations.
Furthermore, for the period after Epstein was indicted for sex crimes against children,
documents showing Defendant’s continued communications with Epstein and his associates,
documents showing receipt of payments from Epstein, and documents showing her attempts to
cover up her wrongful sexual abuse of minors are relevant.
There are already materials implicating Defendant’s post-2008 involvement with Epstein
and the related cover-up. For example, Defendant dodged a deposition in 2009 to avoid
answering questions about the abuse of Ms. Giuffre and others.12 Additionally, since 2005, when
the investigation started, to the present, Defendant has been engaged in a joint defense agreement
with Jeffrey Epstein.13 And, Defendant has continued to communicate with convicted sex
offender Jeffrey Epstein, at least, through 2015, when she made her defamatory statement.14
10
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1.
11
“If it be that defendant has violated the provisions of law, and continues so to do, there is no good reason why the
plaintiff may not produce evidence of defendant's continuing wrongful conduct.” Civil Aeronautics Bd. of Civil
Aeronautics Auth. v. Canadian Colonial Airways, 41 F. Supp. 1006, 1008 (S.D.N.Y. 1940).
12
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, Notice of Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell, Subpoena and Cancellation
Payment Notice, and January 13, 2015 Daily Mail Article.
13
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, January 12, 2016 Deposition Transcript of Alan Dershowitz at 527; see also
March 7, 2016 Affidavit of Ghislaine Maxwell, attached at Exhibit E to D.E.47-5.
14
This is evidenced by Defendant’s privilege log, McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 6.
4
Documents evidencing these acts and occurrences after Epstein’s indictment show her continued
involvement in the conspiracy.
Defendant states that “this lawsuit presents one relatively simple question: is Plaintiff’s
claim that she was sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein between 1999 and 2002 ‘with the
assistance and participation of’ Ms. Maxwell true?” (D.E. 45 at 1). She cannot claim that
evidence of her involvement in Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse of other girls, after 2002, does not tend to
prove the allegations that Defendant was involved in the abuse of Ms. Giuffre.15 In short,
evidence of Defendant trafficking other girls, and evidence of Defendant covering up the abuse
after the fact, is relevant to proving that she was involved in the abuse and trafficking of Ms.
Giuffre. Defendant has admitted she has responsive documents for this period. Therefore, this
Court should direct that she produce them.
B. Defendant’s Objections Are Improper
Defendant’s argument against Ms. Giuffre’s use of the phrase “all documents” or
“relating to” is disingenuous because she uses those phrases in her requests to Ms. Giuffre.
Defendant argues that the terms, “all documents” and “relate,” are too broad to be employed in
Requests for Production, thus making all of Ms. Giuffre’s requests “fatally flawed.” At the same
time she makes this argument, Defendant has propounded 37 requests for production on Ms.
Giuffre. Twenty-five of them seek “all documents” or “any documents.” Twenty of them seek
documents “relat[ing] to” or “reflecting” various topics. Only 8 of her 37 requests are free of
these “obtuse” terms that she claims are “fatal defect[s].” Presumably, Defendant is neither
conceding that the majority of her Requests for Production are “fatally flawed,” nor is she
15
Accordingly, Defendant’s objections to Request Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24, and 27 are improper.
5
withdrawing the 29 of them. Accordingly, Ms. Giuffre respectfully requests the Court reject this
argument.16
C. Defendant’s Specific Objections Are Inappropriate
1. Request No. 1: All documents relating to communications with Jeffrey
Epstein from 1999-Present.
Request No. 10: All documents relating to payments made from Jeffrey
Epstein or any related entity to you from 1999-present, including
payments for work performed, gifts, real estate purchases, living expenses,
and payments to your charitable endeavors including the TerraMar
Project.
Request No. 11: All documents relating to or describing any work you
performed with Jeffrey Epstein, or any affiliated entity from 1999-Present.
Jeffrey Epstein’s message pads, pulled from trash by law enforcement, show that
Defendant arranged for a minor child to come over to Jeffrey Epstein’s house for “training”.17
The Palm Beach Police Department collected these incriminating message pads from Epstein’s
home. A member of Jeffrey Epstein’s household staff, Juan Alessi, testified under oath that
Defendant lived with Epstein, and ran his household.18 These are just some examples of
evidence showing that Defendant was employed by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein to
traffic minor children for him.
Despite this evidence, Defendant claims that discovery requests seeking evidence of work
she performed for Epstein, the payments she received from Epstein,19 and the communications
she had with and about Epstein, constitutes a “fishing expedition.” (D.E. 45 at 6.) These
requests are not merely “reasonably calculated” to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,
16
In discovery disputes, “[w]hat is good for the goose is good for the gander.” In re 650 Fifth Ave., No. 08 CIV.
10934 KBF, 2013 WL 1870090, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2013) (requiring that the government produce a privilege
log in order to persist in its allegations that the defendants’ privilege logs are inadequate).
17
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3, Message Pads from Jeffrey Epstein’s house.
18
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7, Deposition Transcript of Juan Alessi.
19
Indeed, substantial payments received from Epstein at key times during the Government investigation can show if
he paid her in exchange for her silence. Evidence of Epstein (or Epstein’s attorney, see McCawley Decl. at Exhibit
8, February 2, 2015 Page Six Article) paying for her New York home (recently listed at $19M), and evidence of
Epstein’s continued payments throughout the Relevant Period, are also indicative of Maxwell’s ongoing
involvement with Epstein.
6
but they zero-in on exactly the type of admissible evidence that would directly support Ms.
Giuffre’s claim of being sexually abused.
Defendant argues she should not have to produce communications related to Jeffrey
Epstein and “rice pudding.” Ms. Giuffre disagrees. Communications revealing Defendant’s
frequent and constant contact with Epstein, particularly regarding the minutia of his life, shows
the depth of her access to, and involvement with, Epstein. Indeed, frequent communications
showing how Defendant was the intimate caretaker of Epstein’s private life - from rice pudding
recipes to his predilection for underage girls - reveal her role as a participant in the trafficking
and, importantly, thoroughly refute any affirmative defense she might make that she was
unaware of the abuse.
2. Request No. 3: All Documents Relating To Communications With
Andrew Albert Christian Edward, Duke Of York (A.K.A Prince Andrew)
From 1999-Present.
Ms. Giuffre has alleged that Defendant trafficked Ms. Giuffre to Andrew while she was a
minor child. Ms. Giuffre has a photograph of Andrew’s arm around her bare waist in the
presence of Defendant, in Defendant’s London apartment, while Ms. Giuffre was under age.
Defendant has never answered the question: what was this child doing in her London townhouse
with them? Another witness has supplied some of the details on Ms. Giuffre’s trafficking to
Andrew. Johanna Sjoberg reported that “Virginia, another girl there, sat on a chair and had the
puppet on her lap. Andrew sat on another chair, I sat on his lap and he put his hand on my
breast. Ghislaine puppet’s hand on Virginia’s breast, then Andrew put his hand on mine . . .”.20
Accordingly, communications with Andrew are relevant, and they would likely show
Defendant’s arrangements to traffic Ms. Giuffre to him, and possibly the trafficking of other girls
to him.
20
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 9, September 23, 2007 Red Ice Creations Article.
7
3. Request No. 6: All Documents Relating To Communications With Any
Of The Following Individuals From 1999 -The Present: Emmy Taylor,
Sarah Kellen, Eva Dubin, Glen Dubin, Jean Luc Brunel, And Nadia
Marcinkova
Both Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova asserted their Fifth Amendment privilege when
asked under oath about Defendant’s involvement in trafficking underage girls.21 For example,
co-conspirator Nadia Marcinkova testified:
Q. Isn’t it true that yourself, Ghislaine Maxwell and Sarah Kellen had access to a master
of list of underage minor females names and phone numbers so they could be called for
the purpose of coming to Jeffrey Epstein’s house to be sexually molested? . . .
A. Fifth.. . .
Q. And also typical of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein to prostitute or pimp out
underage minors to friends? . . .
A. Fifth.22
Co-conspirator Jean Luc Brunel left a note for Epstein on a message pad saying he had a
sixteen-year-old girl who could “teach Russian” to Epstein for “free.”23 Finally, Emmy Taylor,
is photographed with Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein on a trip to Europe with Ms. Giuffre when she
was a minor, and the Dubins are on flight logs with Defendant and Epstein.24 Therefore, the
communications with these individuals are relevant, and show the sexual trafficking.
4. Request No. 37: All Documents Reflecting Communications You Have
Had With Bill Or Hillary Clinton (Or Persons Acting On Their Behalf),
Including All Communications
Defendant has a history of avoiding deposition in relation to sex abuse claims. In 2009,
Maxwell’s deposition was sought in connection with various sexual abuse allegations. Maxwell
avoided her deposition, claiming her mother was ill, so she would be traveling outside the
country with no plans of returning. Despite this claim to avoid her deposition, she was
21
Contrary to Defendant’s claims, Sarah Kellen did not assert her Fifth Amendment rights in response to every
question in her deposition. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 11, March 24, 2010 Deposition Transcript of Sarah
Kellen.
22
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 10, April 13, 2010 Deposition Transcript of Nadia Marcinkova at 34 and 48.
23
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 10, April 13, 2010 Deposition Transcript of Nadia Marcinkova.
24
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 12, Picture taken by Ms. Giuffre of Defendant Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, and
Emmy Taylor while she is in Europe. See also McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, Flight logs.
8
photographed shortly thereafter in the United States at Chelsea Clinton’s wedding in Rhinebeck,
New York.25 Most recently, when Ms. Giuffre attempted to meet and confer on the procedure
for the production of her privilege log, Defendant refused to reach any agreement relating to the
procedural issue unless Ms. Giuffre would cancel the Defendant’s deposition.
Further, other communications Defendant has had with the Clintons about Ms. Giuffre or
the allegations in this case are also highly relevant, particularly given that former President
Clinton travelled with Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein and others on Jeffrey Epstein’s plane a number
of times, including a trip to Thailand. Maxwell admits that she has documents responsive to this
request, and this Court should require her to produce them.
5. Request No. 7: All Video Tapes, Audio Tapes, Photographs Or Other
Print Or Electronic Media Relating To Females Under The Age Of 18
From The Period Of 1999-Present.
Request No. 15: All video tapes, audio tapes, photographs or any other
print or electronic media taken at a time when you were in Jeffrey
Epstein’s company or inside any of his residences or aircraft.
Regarding Request No. 7, Alfredo Rodriguez, Epstein’s former house manager, testified
that Defendant kept naked pictures of girls on her computer.26 As explained in her moving brief,
Ms. Giuffre is not seeking mainstream, legally available depictions of minors. She is seeking the
photos described by Mr. Rodriguez and any other (non-family) under-age girls, including Ms.
Giuffre, photographed or otherwise recorded by Defendant. Regarding Request No. 15, media
depicting individuals in Epstein’s company or inside his residences or aircraft are relevant to Ms.
Giuffre’s claims that she was trafficked to others.
25
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, Maxwell Deposition Notice; Subpoena and Cancellation Payment Notice, and
January 13, 2015 Daily Mail Article with photograph.
26
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 13, Deposition Transcripts of Alfredo Rodriguez.
9
6. Request No. 17: All Documents Relating To Communications With You
And Ross Gow From 2005 – Present.
Defendant’s defamatory statements to the press were issued by Ross Gow, and it is the
genesis of this action. Accordingly, requests seeking Defendant’s communications with Gow are
reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Additionally, Ms. Giuffre only seeks
documents from Ross Gow from 2005 - present, because Defendant had not been publically
implicated in an underage sex trafficking ring prior to 2005. Therefore, any other
communications with Mr. Gow prior to that time are irrelevant.
7. Request No. 8: All Documents Relating To Your Travel From The Period
Of 1999- Present, Including But Not Limited To, Any Travel On Jeffrey
Epstein’s Planes, Commercial Flights, Helicopters, Passport Records,
Records Indicating Passengers Traveling With You, Hotel Records, And
Credit Card Receipts.
Request No. 33: All Travel Records Between 1999 And The Present
Reflecting Your Presence In: (A) Palm Beach Florida Or Immediately
Surrounding Areas; (B) 9 E. 71st Street, New York , NY 10021; (C) New
Mexico; (D) U.S. Virgin Islands; (E) Any Jet Or Aircraft Owned Or
Controlled By Jeffrey Epstein.
Request No. 39: All documents reflecting training to fly a helicopter or
experience flying a helicopter, including any records concerning your
operation of a helicopter in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
These requests seek information about Defendant’s sexually trafficking of minors,
including documents relating to her flying girls to be with Epstein.27 Related to the trafficking,
Epstein’s Caribbean property is only reachable via helicopter or boat, and Defendant’s records of
transporting underage girls or other individuals to that property are relevant to Ms. Giuffre’s
claims of Defendant’s sexually trafficking her.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant her Motion to Compel.
27
Ms. Giuffre is in possession of some of Epstein’s private aircraft flight logs, but they are incomplete.
10
Dated: March 14, 2016
Respectfully Submitted,
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley
Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
(954) 356-0011
David Boies
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Ellen Brockman
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
575 Lexington Ave
New York, New York 10022
(212) 446-2300
11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 14, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing
document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of Notices
of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
Tel: (303) 831-7364
Fax: (303) 832-2628
Email: [email protected]
/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley
Sigrid S. McCawley
12
DataSet-9
Unknown
2 pages
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jeffrey Epstein
FROM: Darren K. Indyke
DATE: August 12, 2009
RE: Discovery in Jane Doe No. 2 Case
EFTA00725457
Requests to Produce
The excerpt from the Court Order requires the defendant to respond to the following
Requests to Produce:
(Note: The relevant time period is 1/1/2003 to present, unless otherwise stated)
7. All surveillance videos, slides, film, videotape, digital recording or other audio or
video depiction or image of the Palm Beach Residence. Palm Beach residence is defined as
the property located in Palm Beach, Florida having an address of 358 El Brillo Way, PB, FL
33480. I AM UNAWARE OF ANY RESPONSIVE MATERIALS. PLEASE ADVISE.
23. All documents referring or relating to Jeffrey Epstein's purchase or consumption of
prescription medicine. I AM UNAWARE OF ANY RESPONSIVE MATERIALS. PLEASE
ADVISE.
In addition, the Court gave defendant 15 days to either (1) produce, or (2) provide a
supplement to his response brief by making a particularized showing, by in camera
submission or otherwise, demonstrating how the Fifth Amendment may validly be asserted,
in response to each of the following Requests to Produce:
10. All documents referring to or relating to air travel and aircraft used by Defendant,
including, without limitation, flight logs and flight manifests. Defendant is defined as JEE
and any agent, representative, employee or person acting or purporting to act on his behalf,
and any corporation, partnership or limited liability company in which JEE is an officer,
director or has a controlling interest and all subsidiaries and affiliates of such entities.
11. Any and all documents referring to or relating to modeling agencies, including, but
not limited to documents relating to or reflecting communications with female models.
18. Any and all documents and photographs placed by Defendant at any time in the
period of these requests on a social networking website, including without limitation,
Facebook.com and MySpace.com. See definition of Defendant in RTP 10 above.
19. Any and all documents reflecting or consisting of communications between Jeffrey
Epstein and MC2 Models or Jean Luc Brunel, relating or referring to females coming into the
United States from other countries to pursue a career in modeling, including, but not limited
to, letters, notes and emails.
21. Any and all personal calendars or schedules of or for Jeffrey Epstein from January 1,
2003 to the present.
AS TO RTPS 10, 11, 18, 19 AND 21, WE SHOULD DISCUSS WHAT INFORMATION, IF
ANY, IS AVAILABLE, AND WHAT TO PROVIDE TO CRITTON.
2
EFTA00725458
DataSet-9
Unknown
3 pages
UNCLASSIFIED/NOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
FBI INTERNAL USE. ONLY— DO NOT DISSEMINATE EXTERNALLY
FBI Not York. ID-I3
9 March 2022
50D-NY-3027571-INTELFRODS Commented [WWI: Don't forget to add the IIT Type 3
ewe Ilk 0
(U) This document is classified Unclassified/Nor Official Use Only. (NY) (FBI)
(U) This document is only for FBI internal use. Do not externally disseminate this product. 2022.03.14 10:05:013
(U) Tactical Intelligence Report template approved for fiscal year 2022. as of I October 2021.
(U//FOUO) Research and Key Findings for Douglas Schoettle, a Person of
Interest for Alleged Defense Witnesses in the Chislaine Maxwell Trial
(U) Executive Summary
(U//FOUO) FBI New York Intelligence Division conducted research on suspected defense
witnesses for the Ghislaine Maxwell trial in order to identify the individuals and any related
derogatory information. FBI New York Criminal Division squad C-20 is investigating Ghislaine Commented (MK((21: I would change this to 'ay -as of
Maxwell in a child sex trafficking investigation based on information regarding several victims (this date), FBI New York Criminal Donlon opened an
investigation on...- and you can add something like "as of
reportedly sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell in the mid-late 1990s to march 2022. the investigation is ongoing"
the early 2000s. Trial started for Ghislaine Maxwell on 29 November 2021 and C-20 received a (NY) (FBI)
potential list of defense witnesses on II December 2021, listing Douglas Schoetde. This Tactical 2022.03.14 10:06:00
Intelligence Report (TIR) addresses FBI New York Criminal Division Band II Threat— Crimes
Against Children.
(U) Key Findings
• (U) Douglas Schoettle was an associate of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
• (U) Douglas Schoettle was an architect for Jeffrey Epstein's residences.
(U) Opportunities
(U//FOUO) Interviewing Douglas Schoettle may reveal more information regarding his
knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell's involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's life.
(U) Douglas Schoettle was an associate of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
• (U) As of December 2021, according to hups://epsteinsblackbook.com an open source
online-website providing Jefffrey Epstein's eld-flight logs and black book, Douglas
Schoettle was listed as a passenger on page 59. Douglas Schoettle was listed on two
flights on 1/8/1998 and 1/10/1998 both with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
(epsteinsblack.com I "The Digigal Epstein's Little Black Book I Accessed 12 December
2021 1 hups://imsteinsblackbook.conilflightsi59).
Commented [MK((3): I would Int this bullet first. since
defines what the black book is and the other bullet relies on
• (U//FOUO) As ofDecember 2021, according to information from an FBI New York that lown stied
e
investigation, Maxwell and Epstein maintained a black book with the names of (NY) (1-1)1)
2022.03.14 10:09:00
FBI INTERNAL USE ONLY - DO NOT DISSEMINATE EXTERNALLY
UNCLASSIFIED/FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
I
EFTA00174199
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
FBI INTERNAL. USE ONLY -DO NOT DISSEMINATE EXTERNALLY
individuals they knew. Douglas Schoettle's name appeared in the black book. (FBI I
Electronic Communication 172-MM-113327, serial 1 13 November 2009). •
(U) Douglas Schoettle was an architect for Jeffrey Epstein's residences
• (U) As of December 2021, according to httosi/the-war-economv.medium.com an open
source efrline-website providing articles consisting of numerous topics, Douglas Schoettle
is referenced in the article as being at Epstein's New York residence around March 2005
to renovate the property. (The War Economy I "Investigation: Jeffrey Epstein" I 30 July
2019 I https://the-war-economy.medium.comfinvestigation-jeffrey-epstein-
d2ad68e2e845).
• (U) As of December 2021, according to https://steemkr.com an online-open source
website providing news and other various topics. Douglas Schoettle is referenced as an Commented MR(411 I would reword ma
architect who has residences in both New York and the Bahamas. (Steemkr.com I 'The (NY) (FBI)121
202243.14 10:10:00
Jeffery Epstein Mother-load Part 31Case Report" I Accessed 12 December 2021 I
https://steemkr.com/news/@defangarthe-jetTery-epstein-mother-load-part-3-or-case-
renon).
• (U) As of December 2021, according to httosi/nvmag.com an online news website,
Douglas Schoettle is referenced as an architect who was working at Epstein's house for a
renovations at the time police served a search warrant. (NY Mag I "The Fantasist" I 7
December 2007 I hups://nvmag.com/news/features/41826).
(U) Biographical Information
• (UHFOUO) Name: Douglas Schoettle (Accurint I Advanced Search I Accessed 12
December 2021 I"Name Search").
• (U//FOUO) DOB: (Accurint I Advanced Search I Accessed 12 December 2021 1
"Name Search").
• (UI/FOUO) SSN: (Accurint I Advanced Search I Accessed 12 December
2021 I"Name Search).
• (UI/FOUO) Address: (Accurint
Advanced Search I Accessed 12 December 2021 I"Name Search").
• (UI/FOUO) Phones: (Accurint I Advanced Search I
Accessed 12 December 2021I"Comprehensive Search").
• (UI/FOUO) Email: (Accurint I Advanced Search I
Accessed 12 December 2021 I "SSN Email Search").
• (IN/FOUO) (Analyst Note: The black book referenced in 72-MM-I13327 is listed as item IA9).
FBI INTERNAL USE ONLY —DO NOT DISSEMINATE EXTERNALLY
UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
2
EFTA00174200
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
FBI INTERNAL USE ONLY — DO NOT DISSEMINATE EXTERNALLY
(U) Investigative/Intelligence Gaps
• (U) How often did Douglas Schoenle interact with Ghislaine Maxwell?
• (U) When was the last time Douglas Schoenle in contact with Ghislaine
Maxwell?
UNCLASSIFIED/ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
(U) Source Summary Statement
(U) Reporting in this TIR was derived primarily from FBI databases and open source information.
All the secured information was collected between 13 December 2021 and 16 December 2021. The
reporting was current as of 19 January 2022.
U) Consumers: SA
Det.
(U) Approval: A/SIA
(U) FBI New York Field Office prepared this Tactical Intelligence Report. Please direct comments and queries to
the New York Intelligence Program at I
FBI INTERNAL USE ONLY — DO NOT DISSEMINATE EXTERNALLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
3
EFTA00174201
DataSet-9
Unknown
11 pages
#291874/mep IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND
FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 502009CA040800)OOOCMBAO
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SCOTT ROTI [STEIN, individually,
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and
L.M., individually,
Defendant,
AMENDED EXHIBIT LIST OF COUNTERPLAINTIFF, BRADLEY EDWARDS
COMES NOW the Counterplaintiff, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, by and through his
undersigned attorneys and hereby lists his exhibits for trial as follows:
DEF. PLF. DATE
OFFERED MARK ADMIT
NO. NO. TED DESCRIPTION OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBITS EXPECTED TO BE USED
I. All applicable criminal statutes
t
2. All applicable Florida Statutes
3. All applicable Rules of Evidence
4. Video of Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's home and route from Plaintiff tc
Defendant's home
5. Order confirmation from Amazon.com for purchase of books "SM 1
Realistic Introduction," "Slave Craft: Roadmap for Erotic Servitude-
Principles, Skills and Tools" and "Training Miss Abernathy: A Wor:
for Erotic Slaves and Their Owners"
6. Non-Prosecution Agreement
EFTA01085219
Edwards adv. Epstein
Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
EXHIBIT LIST OF COUNTERPLAINTIFF, BRADLEY EDWARDS
Page 2 of I I
DEF. PLF. DATE
MARK ADMIT
NO. NO. OFFERED DESCRIPTION OF EXHIBITS
TED
7. Jane Doe 102 Complaint
8 Messages taken from message pads found at Defendant's home
Documents related to Jeffrey Epstein produced by Alfredo Rodrigue:
9.
Jeffrey Epstein flight logs
10
Jeffrey Epstein phone records
11.
hone records
12
Jail Visitation Logs
13
Jeffrey Epstein's probation file
14.
All probable cause affidavits related to criminal investigation ofleffi
15.
Epstein
All evidence, infonnation and documents taken or possessed by FBI
16. related to criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein
Plaintiffs and other victims' statements to the FBI related to criminal
17. investigation of Jeffrey Epstein
Video of Search Warrant of Jeffrey Epstein's home being executed
IS.
Application for Search Warrant of Jeffrey Epstein's home
19
Complaint Jane Doe v. Epstein and all subsequent Amended Comply
20.
All records of homes, properties, bank accounts and any and all reco
21.
related to Jeffrey Epstein's assets
Jeffrey Epstein's passport (or copy)
22.
Jeffrey Epstein's driver's license (or copy)
23
List of corporations owned by Jeffrey Epstein
24
All documents evidencing relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and .
25.
Luc Brunel
EFTA01085220
Edwards adv. Epstein
Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
EXHIBIT LIST OF COUNTERPLAINTIFF, BRADLEY EDWARDS
Page 3 of II
DEF. PLF. DATE MARK ADMIT
NO. NO. OFFERED TED DESCRIPTION OF EXHIBITS
All documents evidencing relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and I'
26.
or any modeling agencies
Yearbooks of plaintiff, Jane Doe
27
2002 Royal Palm Beach High School Year Book
28
2001 Royal Palm Beach High School Year Book
29
2003 Palm Beach Gardens High School Year Book
30.
Affidavit and Application for Search Warrant on Jeffrey Epstein's hr
31
Tape recording or transcript of recording of conversation between Je
32
Epstein and George Rush
Notepads found in Jeffrey Epstein's home and/or during trash pulls
33.
outside of his home during criminal investigation
The Palm Beach State Attorney's Criminal file against Jeffrey Epstei
34.
All documents related to Jeffrey Epstein's 6/30/08 conviction
35.
Jeffrey Epstein's criminal plea colloquy
36.
37. Public records from the Department of Corrections related to Jeffrey
Epstein
Records from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement related to
38
Jeffrey Epstein
All statements made by Jeffrey Epstein
39
List of properties and vehicles in Larry Visoski's name
40.
All of Jeffrey Epstein's Responses to Requests for Production, Requ.
41
for Admission, Answers to Interrogatories in this matter, and cases l
80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80811, 08-808
09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
All discovery related responses of Jeffrey Epstein in this matter and ,
42
08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80811, 08.
80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
Jeffrey Epstein's Answers and Affirmative Defenses in all civil case
43.
against him
EFTA01085221
Edwards adv. Epstein
Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
EXHIBIT LIST OF COUNTERPLAINTIFF, BRADLEY EDWARDS
Page 4 of I I
DEF. PLF. DATE
MARK ADMIT
NO. NO. OFFERED DESCRIPTION OF EXHIBITS
TED
All Complaints in which Jeffrey Epstein was a plaintiff or defendant
44
Jeffrey Epstein's Deposition testimony and discovery responses in th
45.
and cases 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 084
08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092
Jeffrey Epstein's Deposition testimony and discovery responses in St
46
Court cases LM v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 502008CA0280513OO(
AB and E.W. v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 502008CP003626XXXXI%
Jeffrey Epstein Deposition Testimony and discovery responses in SU-
47.
Court case Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein, et al. Case No.
502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
Any and all newspaper articles, online articles or publications related
48. Jeffrey Epstein
Report and Analysis of Jeffrey Epstein's assets
49
Video footage (DVD) of walk through site inspection of Jeffrey Epst
50. home.
Photos of all of Jeffrey Epstein's properties, cars, boats and planes
51.
Probable Cause Affidavits prepared against Jeffrey Epstein and Saral
52.
Audio tape of
53.
Photographs, videos and books taken in the search warrant of Jeffrey
54.
Epstein's home
Documents related to or evidencing Jeffrey Epstein's donations to la.
55. enforcement
Victim Notification Letter from US Attorney's Office to Plaintiff
56.
57. Expert Dr. L. Dennison Reed's Report of Plaintiff
Palm Beach Police Department Incident Report dated 4/20/06
58
All reports and documentation generated by Palm Beach Police
59.
Department related to Jeffrey Epstein
All Witness Statements generated by Palm Beach Police Department
60. relating to Jeffrey Epstein
Passenger Manifests of Jeffrey Epstein's aircraft and private plane fl
61. logs
EFTA01085222
Edwards adv. Epstein
Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
EXHIBIT LIST OF COUNTERPLAINTIFF, BRADLEY EDWARDS
Page 5 of I I
DEF. PLF. DATE
NO. NO. OFFERED MARK ADMIT
TED DESCRIPTION OF EXHIBITS
62 Passenger lists for flights taken by Jeffrey Epstein
63. Letter from Jeffrey Epstein to Alberto Pinto regarding house island p
64. Jeffrey Epstein's bank statements
Jeffrey Epstein's tax returns
65. MC2 emails involving communications of Jeffrey Epstein, Jeff Fuller,
Pappas Suat, Jean Luc Brunel and Amanda Grant
66. DVD of plea and colloquy taken on 6-30-08
67. Transcript of plea and colloquy taken on 6-30-08
68. Massage Table
69. Lotions taken from Jeffrey Epstein's home during search warrant
70. Computers taken from Jeffrey Epstein's home during search warrant
71. Vibrators, dildos and other sex toys taken from Jeffrey Epstein's hom(
during search warrant
72. No Contact Orders entered against Jeffrey Epstein
73 Criminal Score Sheet regarding Jeffrey Epstein
74. Documents evidencing Jeffrey Epstein's Community Control and
Probation
75. Jeffrey Epstein's Sex Offender Registration
76. Jeffrey Epstein's Booking photograph
77. CAD calls to 358 EL BRILLO WAY, PALM BEACH FL 33480
78 List of Jeffrey Epstein's House contacts
Documents related to Jeffrey Epstein's investments
79.
EFTA01085223
Edwards adv. Epstein
Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
EXHIBIT LIST OF COUNTERPLAINTIFF, BRADLEY EDWARDS
Page 6 of II
DEF. PLF. DATE MARK ADMIT
NO. NO. OFFERED DESCRIPTION OF EXHIBITS
TED
Letter from Chief o Barry Krischler
80
List of planes owned by Jeffrey Epstein
81.
Letter from Guy Fronstin to Assistant State Attorney dated 1-11-06
82
Letter from Guy Fronstin to Assistant State Attorney dated 1-13-06
83.
Letter from Guy Fronstin to Assistant State Attorney dated 2-17-06
84
Letter from Guy Fronstin to Assistant State Attorney dated 4-6-06
85
Letter from Guy Fronstin to Assistant State Attorney dated 4-10-06
86
Letter from Goldberger dated 6-22-06
87
All subpoenas issued to State Grand Jury
88.
Documents related to the rental of a vehicle for
89
Ted's Sheds Documents
90.
Documents related to property searches of Jeffrey Epstein's propertir
91.
Arrest Warrant of
92
Police report regarding icking up money dated 11-2
93.
List of Trilateral Commission Members of 2003
94
Alan Dershowitz Letter dated 4-19-06 and Statute 90.410
95
Guy Fronstin letter dated 4-17-06
96.
Jeffrey Epstein Account Information
97
Jeffrey Epstein Criminal Closeout Sheet
98
Jeffrey Epstein Polygraph Test and Results
99.
EFTA01085224
Edwards adv. Epstein
Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
EXHIBIT LIST OF COUNTERPLAINTIFF, BRADLEY EDWARDS
Page 7 of I I
DEF. PLF. DATE
MARK ADMIT
NO. NO. OFFERED DESCRIPTION OF EXHIBITS
TED
Plaintiff's GED testing information and results
100.
JEGE, Inc. Passenger Manifest
101.
Hyperion Air Passenger Manifest
102.
Flight information for
103.
104. Passenger List Palm Beach flights 2005
Jeffrey Epstein notepad notes
105.
Pleadings of Jane Doe 1 and 2 v. US case
106.
Jeffrey Epstein 5 Amendment Speech
107.
Reiter letter to Krisher dated 5-1-06
108.
Jail receipts of Jeffrey Epstein
109.
Police Report dated 11-28-04
110.
Compulsory Medial Examination of victim, CMA
111.
Plaintiff's school records and transcripts
112
Victim Notification letter dated 7-9-08
113.
Plaintiffs employment records from IHOP
114.
Police report of Juan Alessi theft at Jeffrey Epstein's home
115.
Plaintiff's Medical Records from Milton Girls Juvenile Facility
116.
Plaintiff's Medical Records from Dr. Randee Speciale
117.
Plaintiff's Medical Records from Wellington Regional Hospital
118.
Plaintiff's Medical Records from St. Mary's Medical Center
119.
EFTA01085225
Edwards adv. Epstein
Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
EXHIBIT LIST OF COIJNTERPLAINTIFF, BRADLEY EDWARDS
Page 8 of 11
DEF. PLF. DATE
MARK ADMIT
NO. NO. OFFERED
TED
DESCRIPTION OF EXHIBITS
Plaintiff's Medical Records from United Health
120.
All surveillance conducted by law enforcement on Jeffrey Epstein's I
121
Emails received from Palm Beach Records related to Jeffrey Epstein
122.
All items listed on the Palm Beach Police Property Report Lists
123
All items taken in the execution of the search warrant of Jeffrey Epst
124.
home: 358 EL BRILLO WAY, PALM BEACH FL 33480
All copies of convictions related to Jeffrey Epstein
125
Jeffrey Epstein criminal records
126.
All documents .roduced b Palm Beach Police Department prior to t
127
deposition of
Photographs of all persons listed on Plaintiff's Witness List
128.
Statements, deposition transcripts, videotaped depositions and transc
129
taken in connection with this and all related cases and exhibits theret
Any and all expert witness reports and/or records generated in preps]
130. for this litigation by any party to this cause
Curriculum vitaes of any and all listed experts
131
Curriculum vitae of Dr. Ryan Hall
132
My articles or publications of Dr. Ryan Hall
133.
Any articles or publications of Dr. Richard Hall
134.
Any articles or publications of Dr. L. Dennison Reed
135.
All items and documentation review by Dr. L. Dennison Reed
136.
Transcript and video (DVD) of IME of Plaintiff
137
All exhibits to Dr. L. Dennison Reed's Deposition
138
All exhibits to Dr. Richard Hall's Deposition
139.
EFTA01085226
Edwards adv. Epstein
Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
EXHIBIT LIST OF COIJNTERPLAINTIFF, BRADLEY EDWARDS
Page 9 of II
DEF. PLF. DATE ADMIT
MARX
NO. NO. OFFERED TED DESCRIPTION OF EXHIBITS
All items and documents reviewed by Dr. Richard Hall
140.
All items and documents reviewed by Dr. Ryan Hall
141
All exhibits listed on the Defendant's Exhibit List
142
Demonstrative aids and exhibits including, but not limited to, anatorr
143
charts, diagrams and models, surveys, photographs and similar mater
including blow-ups of the aforesaid items.
Any and all mortality tables
144.
Plaintiffs reserve all objections to Defendant's Exhibits
145.
Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement and/or amend this Exhibit 1
146.
By listing an Exhibit, Plaintiff is not waiving their right to object to s
147.
trial and does not waive their right to amend same.
All exhibits listed by Epstein subject to Edwards' objections.
148.
All pleadings and attachments in the action under the Crime Victims
149
Rights Act prosecuted by Bradley Edwards on behalf of victims of
Epstein's criminal molestations.
All attachments to Edwards' Motion for Summary Judgment.
150.
All time records and hourly billing documentation produced in disco
151
— — -
All deposition testimony and discovery responses by Epstein submit'
152. this action.
All pleadings filed by Epstein in the Rothstein bankruptcy proceedin
153.
7- -- - -
All submissions by Epstein in connection with the Rothstein deposit
154.
All Settlement Agreements between Epstein and victims of his sexut
155.
molestations.
Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this list.
EFTA01085227
Edwards adv. Epstein
Case No.: 502009CA040800)OOCXMBAG
EXHIBIT LIST OF COUNTERPLAINTIFF, BRADLEY EDWARDS
Page loot II
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been finished by E-
Service to all counsel on the attached list, this day of June, 2013.
7-1
Jack Scarola
Florida Bar No.: 169440
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.
war
EFTA01085228
Edwards adv. Epstein
Case No.: 502009CA040800000CMBAG
EXHIBIT LIST OF COUNTERPLAINT1FF, BRADLEY EDWARDS
Page I I of 11
COUNSEL LIST
Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire
Atterbury, Goldber er & Weiss, P.A.
Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein
Marc S. Nurik, Esquire
orneys ore ey ps em Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik
Bradley J. Edwards, Esquire
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos &
Lehrman, FL Attorneys for Scott Rothstein
Tonja I laddad Coleman, Esquire
Fred Haddad, P.A.
Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein
EFTA01085229
DataSet-9
Unknown
14 pages
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1111 Filed 09/01/20 Page 1 of 14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Virginia L. Giuffre,
Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-LAP
v.
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant.
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS'
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE MOTION TO INTERVENE
AND FOR CONFIDENTIAL ACCESS TO JUDICIAL RECORDS AND DISCOVERY
DOCUMENTS
The Government of the United States Virgin Islands (the "USVI") moves to intervene in
this action for the limited purpose of obtaining confidential access to both: (a) all sealed
documents related to the parties' motions for summary judgment [ECF No. 540 to 543, 586 to
586-3, 620 to 621, and 872]; and (b) all unfiled discovery deposition transcripts and exhibits
thereto. The USVI seeks to modify the Protective Order [ECF No. 62] solely to be granted
confidential access to these materials, and, if granted access, agrees to be bound by the Protective
Order.
The USVI seeks confidential access to these sealed documents and unfiled discovery
materials because they are very likely relevant to its pending Virgin Islands Criminally
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO") enforcement action against the Estate of
Jeffrey E. Epstein and several Epstein-controlled entities before the Superior Court of the U.S.
Virgin Islands. See Exhibit A hereto (USVI's operative First Amended Complaint, filed
February 11, 2020). Access to other judicial documents in this action has already been granted
to intervening private parties in interest, see Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019), and
also is the subject of ongoing litigation before this Court. See, e.g., ECF No. 1096-1108. The
1
EFTA00073260
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1111 Filed 09/01/20 Page 2 of 14
Court therefore should grant the USVI's motion and enter an order allowing the USVI to
intervene as of right or by leave and to obtain confidential access to all sealed documents relating
to the parties' motions for summary judgment and all unified deposition transcripts and exhibits
thereto for use in its pending law enforcement action against the Epstein Estate.
BACKGOUND
Under Virgin Islands law, the CICO authorizes the USVI through its Attorney General to
prosecute a civil action against any persons engaged in a pattern of criminal activity through
association with any enterprise. 14 V.I.C. §§ 605, 607. The USVI alleges in its CICO action
that decedent Jeffrey E. Epstein engaged in a criminal sexual trafficking enterprise in the Virgin
Islands, wherein he used his vast wealth and property holdings and a deliberately opaque web of
corporations and companies to transport young women and girls to his privately-owned islands
where they were held captive and subject to severe and extensive sexual abuse. See Ex. A,111
40-114. Epstein and his associates lured these girls and young women to his island with
promises of modeling and other career opportunities. Id., II 49. Once they arrived, though, they
were sexually abused, exploited, and held captive. Id.
By way of background, Epstein's privately-owned islands in the Virgin Islands were
essential to the sex-trafficking enterprise. Little St. James is a secluded, private island, nearly
two miles off-shore from St. Thomas with no other residents while Epstein resided there. Id., 1
66. It is accessible only by private boat or helicopter, with no public or commercial
transportation servicing the island. Id. Flight logs show that between 2001 and 2019, girls and
young women were transported to the Virgin Islands and then helicoptered to Little St. James.
Id., 146. Air traffic controller reports state that some victims appeared to be as young as 11
years old. Id., 151. Evidence also shows that when two of the victims, one age 15, attempted to
2
EFTA00073261
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1111 Filed 09/01/20 Page 3 of 14
escape from Little St. James, Epstein was able to organize search parties, locate them, return
them to his house, and then confiscate the 15-year old girl's passport to hinder her ability to
escape again. Id.,ll 57-58.
Epstein's Virgin Islands-based corporations and companies also played central roles in
the criminal sex-trafficking enterprise. CICO action Defendant Plan D, LLC, for example,
knowingly and intentionally facilitated the trafficking scheme by flying underage girls and young
women into the Virgin Islands to be delivered into sexual servitude. Id., 1
1 97. CICO action
Defendants Great St. Jim, LLC and Nautilus, Inc.—for which CICO action Defendants and
Epstein Estate Executors Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn served, respectively, as Secretary and
Treasurer—knowingly participated in the Epstein Enterprise and facilitated the trafficking and
sexual servitude of underage girls and young women by providing the secluded properties at,
from, or to which Epstein and his associates could transport, transfer, maintain, isolate, harbor,
provide, entice, deceive, coerce, and sexually abuse them. Id., fi 23-29, 98.
The Government alleges that Epstein and the CICO Defendants violated CICO by
committing and conspiring to commit criminal human trafficking offenses based upon the
foregoing conduct. See id., fi 115-170 (Counts I-VIII). The Government further alleges that
they violated CICO by committing and conspiring to commit various child-abuse, neglect, rape,
unlawful-sexual-contact, prostitution, and sex-offender-registry-related offenses based upon the
foregoing sexual-abuse conduct. See id.. 41'11 171-258 (Counts IX-XIX). The Government also
alleges that Defendants engaged in a civil conspiracy to conceal the unlawful sexual abuse
alleged. See id., III 281-287 (Count XXII).
In the present motion, the USVI seeks access to the following sealed documents and
unfiled discovery:
3
EFTA00073262
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1111 Filed 09/01/20 Page 4 of 14
• (a) All currently sealed documents filed in support of Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's
motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 540 to 543, inclusive);
• (b) All currently sealed documents filed in support of Plaintiff Virginia L. Giuffre's
opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 586 to 586-3,
inclusive);
• (c) All currently sealed documents in support of Defendant's Reply in support of motion
for summary judgment (ECF No. 620 to 621, inclusive);
• (d) All currently sealed parts of the Court's Opinion on Defendant's motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 872);
• (e) All currently unfiled discovery deposition transcripts and exhibits thereto in this
action.
The USVI expects that these sealed documents and unfiled discovery contain critical information
related to Epstein's criminal enterprise in the Virgin Islands and beyond, and will be invaluable
for its CICO law enforcement action against the Estate and other named parties.'
LEGAL ARGUMENT
A. The USVI's Motion to Intervene Should be Granted.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 provides for intervention as of right by anyone
claiming "an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is
so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's
ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest." Fed. R.
Civ. P. 24(a). Rule 24(b) permits intervention to anyone "who has a claim or defense that shares
with the main action a common question of law or fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). Rule 24(b) gives
the Court "broad discretion to permit a nonparty to intervene where the that party's claims and
the pending civil action share questions of law and fact and where such intervention would not
I The USVI has attempted to obtain these documents by serving a Virgin Islands Court-issued subpoena,
domesticated by a New York Court, upon counsel for Plaintiff herein, who was unable to produce the documents
because of this Court's Protective Order.
4
EFTA00073263
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1111 Filed 09/01/20 Page 5 of 14
'unduly delay and prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.' Bridgeport
Harbour Place 1, LLC v. Ganim, 269 F. Supp. 2d 6, 8 (D. Conn. 2002) (internal citation omitted).
District courts in this Circuit have permitted government actors to intervene in civil
actions. See Twenty First Century Corp. v. LaBianca, 801 F. Supp. 1007, 1009 (E.D.N.Y. 1992).
Where an intervening party seeks modification of a protective order to allow access to
documents, this Court has found a motion to intervene to be the appropriate mechanism. See
Giuffre v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428, 444 (S.D.N.Y. 2019), rev'd on other grounds, Brown v.
Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019); Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y.
Nov. 2, 2016), ECF No. 496 (Opinion Granting Dershowitz Motion to Intervene); Giuffre v.
Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y. May 3, 2017), ECF No. 892 (Opinion Granting
Cemovich Motion to Intervene). Intervention may be permitted even years after a case has been
administratively closed. Counihan v. Allstate Ins. Co., 907 F. Supp. 54 (E.D.N.Y. 1995); AB v.
Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 224 F.R.D. 144, 155 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (noting the "district court has
discretion with regard to determining the timeliness of a motion to intervene.").
Under Rule 24(a), this Court and others in this Circuit recognize a four-part test for a
non-party to be granted intervention as of right:
Upon 1) timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action
when the applicant claims 2) an interest relating to the property or transaction
which is the subject of the action and 3) the applicant is so situated that the
dispositions of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the
applicant's ability to protect that interest, 4) unless the applicant's interest is
adequately represented by existing parties.
Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 224 F.R.D. at 155 (citing Wash. Elec. Cooperative, Inc. v. Mass.
Municipal Wholesale Elec. Co., 922 F.2d 92, 96 (2d Cir. 1990)). For timeliness, courts consider
"'(1) how long the applicant had notice of the interest ... ; (2) prejudice to existing parties
resulting from any delay; (3) prejudice to the applicant if the motion is denied; and (4) any
5
EFTA00073264
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1111 Filed 09/01/20 Page 6 of 14
unusual circumstances militating for or against a finding of timeliness.' D'Amato v. Deutsche
Bank, 236 F.3d 78, 84 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 25 F.3d 66, 70
(2d Cir. 1994)). The interest asserted must be "'direct, substantial, and legally protectable"' and
not "'speculative or remote." Abondolo v. GGR Holbrook Medford, Inc., 285 B.R. 101, 109
(E.D.N.Y. 2002) (quoting United States v. Peoples Benefit Life Ins. Co., 271 F.3d 411, 415 (2d
Cir. 2001)).
Under Rule 24(b), courts in this Circuit consider the following factors in assessing
whether to grant permissive intervention:
(i) whether permitting the intervention would unduly delay or prejudice the
adjudication of the dispute among the original parties to the litigation; (ii) the
nature of the intervenor's interests; (iii) whether those interests could be
adequately represented by existing parties; and (iv) whether permitting
intervention will assist in developing and resolving the factual and legal disputes in
the litigation.
In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litig., 190 F.R.D. 309, 312 (E.D.N.Y. 2000). When
considering permissive intervention, "courts must examine whether intervention will prejudice
the parties to the action or cause undue delay." Abondolo, 285 B.R. at 110.
Pursuant to Rule 24, the USVI has a right to intervene in this action. Turning first to the
Rule 24(a) four-part test, the USVI satisfies each of the factors. The timeliness of the USVI's
Motion is not at issue because this litigation has closed, and there is no prejudice to the parties.
Moreover, intervention has been permitted years after a litigation has ended. See Giuffre, 325
F.Supp. 3d at 437. Therefore, the USVI satisfies this factor.
The USVI also asserts interests that are "'direct, substantial, and legally protectable."'
Abondolo, 285 B.R. at 109 (internal citation omitted). The USVI has a substantial law
enforcement interest to protect in its CICO enforcement action currently pending in the Virgin
Islands. The Attorney General of the Virgin Islands is responsible for advocating for the public's
6
EFTA00073265
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1111 Filed 09/01/20 Page 7 of 14
interest and enforcing the criminal laws of the Virgin Islands. See 3 V.I.C. § 114(3) (USVI
Attorney General has power and duty to "prosecute in the name of the People of the Virgin
Islands, offenses against the laws of the Virgin Islands"); 14 V.I.C. § 607(a) (USVI "Attorney
General ... may institute civil proceedings against any person ... in order to obtain relief from
conduct constituting a violation or in order to prevent or restrain a violation of any provision or
provisions of [the CICO]."). To protect and uphold that law enforcement responsibility, the
USVI seeks to intervene in this action. The individuals involved with this action, both named
parties and non-parties, are potentially victims, perpetrators and/or witnesses to the conduct at
issue in the USVI's CICO enforcement action. Moreover, the facts of this case substantiate at
least some of the USVI's claims, making it necessary to seek intervention to access information
that will aid in the enforcement of both federal law and the laws of the Virgin Islands.
The USVI also satisfies factors three and four because, absent intervention, its ability to
prove its causes of action in its law enforcement action may be hindered. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch.
Dist., 224 F.R.D. at 156. No party to the present litigation has the responsibility of either
protecting the interests of the people of the Virgin Islands or enforcing its laws, as the USVI
itself does. Moreover, the USVI also may be hindered absent intervention because this action
involves testimony by and/or about Epstein, whereas his direct testimony is unavailable in the
CICO action due to his death while in federal custody. Furthermore, the allegations brought in
the present complaint are demonstrably distinct from those brought by the USVI in its CICO
enforcement action. Therefore, the USVI satisfies this and all factors for intervention as of right.
The USVI also satisfies Rule 24(b)'s requirements for permissive joinder, as a nonparty
whose claims "share questions of law and fact" with the litigation and whose intervention
"would not `unduly delay and prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.'
7
EFTA00073266
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1111 Filed 09/01/20 Page 8 of 14
Bridgeport Harbour, 269 F. Supp. 2d at 8 (internal citation omitted). The USVI's intervention
would not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the dispute among the original parties to
the litigation because this litigation is closed (other than with respect to pending disputes over
unsealing and third-party access to documents) and because the USVI's substantial interests,
discussed inter alia, were not represented by the existing parties. In re Visa Check/MasterMoney
Antitrust Litig., 190 F.R.D. at 312.
For all of the reasons set forth, the USVI's Motion to Intervene should be granted.
B. The USVI's Motion for Access to Sealed Documents Should be Granted.
The First Amendment and federal common law each establish a presumption in favor of
access to certain judicial documents. Guzik v. Albright, No. 16-CV-2257 (JPO), 2018 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 196006, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2018); see Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d
133, 140 (2d Cir. 2004). The initial issue on a non-party's request for access to a document filed
in a court is whether it is a "judicial document." Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, 940 F.3d 146,
150-51 (2d Cir. 2019) (citing Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir.
2006)). Merely filing a document with a court "'is insufficient to render that paper a judicial
document subject to the right of public access."' Trump, 940 F.3d at 150 (quoting United States
v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo I")).
To be designated a judicial document, "the item filed must be relevant to the performance
of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process." Amodeo, 44 F.3d at 145. Judicial
documents are considered on a "continuum," ranging from "matters that directly affect an
adjudication to matters that come within a court's purview solely to insure their irrelevance."
United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo II"); United States v. All
Funds on Deposit at Wells Fargo Bank, 643 F. Supp. 2d 577, 583 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). "Especially
8
EFTA00073267
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1111 Filed 09/01/20 Page 9 of 14
great weight is given to documents that are material to particular judicial decisions and thus
critical to `determining litigants' substantive rights -- conduct at the heart of Article III -- and . . .
public monitoring of that conduct.'" All Funds, 643 F. Supp. 2d at 583 (quoting Amodeo 11, 71
F.3d 1049).
Federal courts "'employ two related but distinct presumptions in favor of public access to
court proceedings and records: a strong form rooted in the First Amendment and a slightly
weaker form based in federal common law."' United States v. Doe, No. 3:19-MC-00027-AWT,
2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36605, at *3 (D. Conn. Mar. 6, 2019) (quoting Newsday LLC v. County
of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156, 163 (2d Cir. 2013)). In the Second Circuit, courts utilize two methods
approaching the First Amendment right. Doe, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36605, at *3. The
"experience-and-logic" approach applies to both judicial proceedings and documents, and asks
"both whether the documents have historically been open to the press and general public and
whether public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process
in question." Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120. The second, applied only when the court considers
documents in proceedings covered by the First Amendment, asks whether the documents "are
derived from or are a necessary corollary of the capacity to attend the relevant proceedings." Id.
For the "experience-and-logic" approach, courts employ a two-pronged inquiry. Doe,
2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36605, at *4; Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 92 (2d
Cir. 2004). First, courts must consider "whether the place and process have historically been
open to the press and general public. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 8, 106
S. Ct. 2735 (1986) ("Press-Enterprise If'). Second, courts must consider "whether public access
plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question." Id.;
Hartford, 380 F.3d at 92 ("The courts that have undertaken this type of inquiry have generally
9
EFTA00073268
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1111 Filed 09/01/20 Page 10 of 14
invoked the common law right of access to judicial documents in support of finding a history of
openness."). For the second approach, access to judicial documents has been "derived from or a
necessary corollary of the capacity to attend the relevant proceedings." Hartford, 380 F.3d at 93.
The federal common law right to access judicial documents attaches with different weight
depending on two factors. Doe, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36605, at *6. Those factors assess "the
role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power and the resultant value of
such information to those monitoring the federal courts." Amodeo 11, 71 F.3d at 1049. The
common law right must be weighed against countervailing interests favoring privacy, namely:
(1) the need for public access to the documents at issue; (2) the extent of previous
public access to the documents; (3) the fact that someone has objected to
disclosure, and the identity of that person; (4) the strength of any property and
privacy interests asserted; (5) the possibility of prejudice to those opposing
disclosure; and (6) the purposes for which the documents were introduced during
the judicial proceedings.
United States v. Harris, 204 F. Supp.3d 10, 16-17 (D.D.C. 2016); Doe, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
36605, at *6-7. Only when competing interests outweigh the presumption may access be denied,
and "[w]here the presumption of access is 'of the highest' weight, as to material sought by the
public or press, the material `should not remain under seal absent the most compelling reasons.'"
Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 123 (quoting Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1982)); Guzik v. Albright,
No. 16-CV-2257 (JPO), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196006, at *6-7 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2018)
(noting neither "the mere `[b]road and general' invocation of a privacy interest," nor "[v]ague
allusion to unelaborated primacy concerns" warrants denial of access.) (quoting In re N.Y. Times
Co., 828 F.2d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 1987)).
The sealed documents to which the USVI seeks access here are judicial documents under
both the common law and First Amendment analysis. See Brown, 929 F.3d at 47; Lugosch, 435
F.3d at 123 (noting documents submitted in support a motion for summary judgement, whether
10
EFTA00073269
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1111 Filed 09/01/20 Page 11 of 14
or not relied upon, "are unquestionably judicial documents under the common law."). And, as at
least one Court has found that "there is no countervailing privacy interest sufficient to justify
their continued sealing." Brown, 929 F.3d at 48. Due to the "strong First Amendment
presumption," denial of access to the summary judgment documents "may be justified only with
specific, on-the-record findings that sealing is necessary to preserve higher values . ." Id. at 47.
Here, as the Court noted in Brown, none exist. Id. at 48.
Moreover, the USVI seeks access to the summary judgment documents for use in its own
law enforcement action. See generally Foltz v. State Fann Mut. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1131
(9th Cir. 2003) ("Allowing the fruits of one litigation to facilitate preparation in other cases
advances the interests of judicial economy by avoiding wasteful duplication of discovery.").
Since the USVI seeks access to the sealed documents for use in its own related law enforcement
action, subject to a protective order that will maintain appropriate confidentiality, and not to
publicize the information contained therein, any concerns related to the privacy of parties
identified therein is absent. The Court thus should grant the USVI access to these sealed
documents.
C. The USVI's Motion for Confidential Access to linfiled Disco% en Documents
Should he Granted.
The Court also should modify the existing Protective Order (ECF No. 62) to permit the
USVI to confidentially access any discovery deposition transcripts and exhibits that have not
been filed with the Court. The Second Circuit has held that "[w]here there has been reasonable
reliance by a party or deponent, a District Court should not modify a protective order granted
under Rule 26(c) 'absent a showing of improvidence in the grant of the order or some
extraordinary circumstance or compelling need.' SEC v. TheStreet.com, 273 F.3d 222, 229 (2d
Cir. 2001) (quoting Martindell v. IT&T Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 296 (2d Cir. 1979)). Here, two
11
EFTA00073270
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1111 Filed 09/01/20 Page 12 of 14
circumstances support the Court's modification of the Protective Order to grant the USVI
confidential access to unfiled discovery deposition documents.
First, the existing Protective Order (ECF No. 62) is a blanket protective order, not a
targeted order making findings with respect to particular documents or testimony. Courts in this
Circuit, including this Court, have held that litigating parties have lesser reliance interests in
blanket protective orders than in more targeted orders. See, e.g., In re EPDM Antitrust Litig.,
255 F.R.D. 308, 319 (D. Conn. 2009) ("When considering a motion to modify, it is relevant
whether the order is a blanket protective order, covering all documents and testimony produced
in a lawsuit, or whether it is specially focused on protective certain documents or certain
deponents for a particular reason. A blanket protective order is more likely to be subject to
modification than a more specific, targeted order because it is more difficult to show a party
reasonably relied on a blanket order in producing documents or submitting to a deposition.");
Nielsen C. (U.S.), LLC v. Success Systems, Inc., 112 F. Supp. 3d 83, 120 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) ("A
broad protective order is less likely to elicit reliance 'because it is more difficult to show a party
reasonably relied on a blanket order in producing documents or submitting to a deposition.')
(quoting In re EPDM, 255 F.R.D. at 319). Since the Protective Order does not address specific
deposition testimony or exhibit documents, the parties do not have demonstrated reliance
interests in applying the Order to this testimony or these documents.
Second, the USVI's interest in obtaining access to testimony and documents in this action
relating to Epstein's sex-trafficking conduct that also is at issue in its CICO law enforcement
action is considerable. The USVI seeks access to this discovery through this action because it
already has been provided and therefore at the very least may be obtained more expeditiously
herein than through duplicative discovery in its separately-filed action. See generally In re
12
EFTA00073271
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1111 Filed 09/01/20 Page 13 of 14
EPDM, 255 F.R.D. at 324 ("Whether the collateral litigant could retrieve the same materials in
question through its own discovery requests or whether it is attempting to subvert a limitation on
discovery, such as the close of the factual record, should be taken into account. Certainly, if the
litigant could access the same materials and deposition testimony by conducting its own
discovery, it is in the interest of judicial efficiency to avoid such duplicative discovery."); Foltz,
supra, 331 F.3d at 1131 ("Allowing the fruits of one litigation to facilitate preparation in other
cases advances the interests of judicial economy by avoiding wasteful duplication of
discovery.").
Moreover, the USVI's interest in accessing this discovery may be far greater than a
matter of procedural efficiency. In light of Epstein's death in federal prison after the discovery
in this action was taken, his direct testimony is unavailable to the USVI. Thus, any testimony by
or about Epstein in this action may be critical to the USVI's law enforcement action.
Either or both of these considerations provide compelling grounds for modifying the
Protective Order to grant the USVI access to unfiled discovery deposition transcripts and
exhibits to those depositions in this action.
CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, the USVI respectfully moves this Court to GRANT the
Ex Parte Motion to Intervene and for Access to Judicial Records and Discovery Documents.
Dated: September 1, 2020
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ William H. Narwold
William H. Narwold, Esq.
Motley Rice LLC
One Corporate Center
20 Church Street, 17th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
13
EFTA00073272
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1111 Filed 09/01/20 Page 14 of 14
Tel: 860-882-1676
Fax: 860-882-1682
Email: [email protected]
Counsel of Recordfor Proposed Intervenor
Government of the United States Virgin Islands
14
EFTA00073273
DataSet-10
Unknown
3 pages
To: jeevacation©gmail.com[jeevacation©gmail.com];
jeevacationegmail.com[jeevaeation©gmail.com]
From: Gmax
Sent Wed 6/8/2011 2:09:24 PM
Subject: Re: Vanity Fair
Title: Re: Vanity Fair
Do you have a problem with anything I said.
— Original Message —
From: jeffrey epstein
To: Gmax
Sent: Wed Jun 08 10:08:11 2011
Subject: Re: Vanity Fair
Ile wont ad details but you can try
Sony for all the typos .Sent from my iPhone
On Am 8, 2011, at 3:52 PM, GMAX wrote:
On 6/8/11 9:49 AM, "JJer [email protected]> wrote:
I would say a paid for story thar was nothing mote than a malicious fabrication —DO YOU MEAN INSTEAD
OF ALL OF THIS JUST SAY 11IA 1 IT WAS A FABRICATION..WHAT ABOUT SAYING THAT I MET HER WHEN
AND AVOID ALL THE OTHER STUFF
Sony for all the typos .Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 8, 2011, at 3:42 PM, GMAXa wrote:
MY PROPOSED ANS IN CAPS..PLSE COMMENT
Forwarded Message
From: Ross Gow >
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 13:49:02 -0400
To:GG
Cc: >
Subject: Vanity Fair
Dear Ghislaine
Klein's questions follow, below. If we are to respond, I would advise
we stick to written responses rather than engage via 'phone. Klein has
form for story-twisting re Hillary Clinton. Written responses at least
give us an audit trail of what was said.
EFTA_R1_00492894
EFTA01997560
A lot of this is Mail on Sunday rehash. Klein has our statement, but
is offering the chance for further clarification...I get the feeling
he's likely to make unflattering assumptions if we don't give him on
the record answers.
Please advise on those questions which you feel you more comfortable
answering. We can head him off at the pass on those and put legal
frighteners on him elsewhere.
Just a caveat - we should be aware that there is a chance that
anything other than fully robust answer might be construed as
inadvertent admissions of wrongdoing. so we will need legal team to
advise on precise wording. Do you want me to pass this on to
Devonshires if you have not already done so...?
best
Ross
Dear Ross,
Here are some fact
-checking questions for Ghislaine Maxwell to comment
on and answer:
I. Do Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell share a home in London or
anywhere else? Do they still see each other? Does Epstein help support
Ghislaine? Her friends tell me that Cihislaine once loved Epstein. Does
she still low him?
MS MAXWELL DOES NO SHARE ANY HOMES WITH MR EPSTEIN. MR EPSTEIN DOES NOT
SUPPORT MS MAXWELL IN ANYWAY. MS MAXWELL HAD INFACT BEEN IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP
WITH SOMEONE ELSE FOR THE PAST 7 YEARS
2. The Mail on Sunday published a photograph
. Standing off to one side in the
p oto was Ghislaine Maxwell. The newspaper said that this photo taken
in . Was it? Did Jeffrey Epstein take the
photo? If not, who did?
MS MAXWELL HAS NO RECOLECTION OF THE PHOTO BEING EVEN TAKEN GIVEN WE ARE
TALKING AN EVENT THAT ALLEDGEDLY TOOK PLACE OVER 10 YEARS AGO IT WOULD BE SURPRISING
3. According to , Ghislaine Maxwell recruited her as
E .tein's
—at Jeffrey Epstein's homes in London and New
York and on his private Caribbean island, Little Saint James—l=
Ghislaine please comment on this
assertion by
MS MAXWELL. MET
THINK GIVEN THIS AND OTHER HIGHLY INDICATIVE EVENTS IN HER LIFE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE
ONE WORD OUT OF HER MOUTH. FURTHER THE INCENTIVE OF A LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY PAID BY
A NEWSPAPER NO DOUBT ADDED TO HER COLOURFUL 'MEMORIES' WHICII IN FACT ARE NOTHING
BUT MADE UP STORIES.
4. The Mail on Sunday and other newspapers ran the story about
EFTA R1_00492895
EFTA01997561
5. The Mail on IMIlisaid it had evidence to support
story—flight logs from Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing and
Gulfstream jet. Was Ghislaine Maxwell on these airplanes and who else
was onboard?
AGAIN TO REMEMBER ANY SPECIFIC FLIGHT AND WHO WAS ON BOARD A PLANE FOR
EVENTS THAT ALEDEGEDLY TOOK PLACE OVER 10 YEARS AGO IS SIMPLY UNREALISITC
6. According to a sworn deposition by Juan Alessi, a former employee
at Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach estate. Prince Andrew attended naked
pool parties and was treated to massages by a harem of adolescent
girls.
MS MAXWELL CANNOT COMMENT ON WHAT MR ALESSI ALLEDEGDLY SAW OR DID NOT
SEE BUT MS MAXWELL NEVER SAW THE DUKE IN ANY STATE OF UNDRESS AND HE WAS INDEED
ALWAYS PROPERLY ATTIRED.
That's it for now.
I hope that you can arrange for me to speak directly to Ghislaine.
All the best,
Ed
Edward Klein
1085 Park Avenue
5A
New York. NY 10128
Ross Gow
Managing Partner
ACUITY Reputation
23 Berkeley Square
London WIJ 61IE
www.acuityreputation.com < http://www.acuityreputation.com> <
Impiliwww.aeuityreoutation.com>
--- End of Forwarded Message
EFTA_R1_00492896
EFTA01997562
DataSet-9
Unknown
2 pages
I'
To: :a. NY) (FBI)" < (NY) (OGA)"
Cc: " . (NY) (OGA)"
Subject: FW: FW: Question about Jeffrey Epstein and
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2019 17:44:47 +0000
Importance: Normal
Do we know this individual, ? Any involvement with the Norwegian government?
From: (NY) (FBI)
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2019 11:57 AM
To: (NY) (FBI) c li>; (NY) (FBI)
Subject: Fwd: FW: Question about Jeffrey Epstein and
EL If you dont know anything about it, hit up the ALAT to see if their office put put anything or is engaged
with LE there.
On Dec 3, 2019 11:45 AM, " (NY) (FBI)" < > wrote:
See below.
Forwarded message
From: NPO
Date: Dec 3, 2019 9:16 AM
Subject: FW: Question about Jeffrey Epstein and
To: "Jagerson, Tina D. (OPA) (FBI)" ," . (NY) (FBI)"
Cc:
National Press Office
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington, DC 20535
202-324-3691 I [email protected] I @FBI
From: Runa Fjellanger [mailto ]
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2019 2:28 AM
To: NPO
Subject: Question about Jeffrey Epstein and
To whom it may concern,
I'm contacting you on behalf of VG, Norway's biggest newspaper, to enquire about a quote which is attributed to
an anonymous FBI agent at the American embassy in Stockholm. According to the Norwegian newspaper
EFTA00147998
Dagbladet/Se og Her, the FBI agent says: "FBI wants to speak with . We're still trying to trace
information about Epstein".
According to flight logs travelled with Jeffiaein's private jet several times, and we're
wondering if it is correct that the FBI wants to speak with in connection to Epstein? If so: Why? What
information are you hoping to discover? Have you already contacted Are there any other Norwegian
citizens or residents you wish to contact? Has there been any contact between the FBI or other American
agencies and the Norwe ian overnment, Norwegian Police Security Service or other agencies concerning
Jeffrey Epstein, or Crown Princess Mette-Marit?
If you could please get back to me at your earliest convenience, I would greatly appreciate it.
Best regards
Runa Fjellanger
Journalist
Tlf.
EFTA00147999
DataSet-9
Unknown
3 pages
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
FBI INTERNAL USE ONLY - DO NOT DISSEMINATE EXTERNALLY
Template Lifectire 10-1-2021
ctical Intel!
FBI New York, ID-13
22 March 2022
50D-NY-302757I-INTELPRODS
(U) This document is classified UNCLASSIFIEDHFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.
(U) This document is only for FBI internal use. Do not externally disseminate this product.
(U) Tactical Intelligence Report template approved for fiscal year 2022, as of I October 2021.
(U//FOUO) Research and Key Findings for Douglas Schoettle, a Person of
Interest for Alleged Defense Witnesses in the Ghislaine Maxwell Trial
(U) Executive Summary
(U/fFOUO) FBI New York Intelligence Division conducted research on suspected defense
witnesses for the Ghislaine Maxwell trial in order to identify the individuals and any related
derogatory information. FBI New York Criminal Division squad C-20 is investigating Ghislaine
Maxwell in a child sex trafficking investigation based on information regarding several victims
reportedly sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell in the mid-late 1990s to
the early 2000s. Trial started for Ghislaine Maxwell on 29 November 2021 and C-20 received a
potential list of defense witnesses on II December 2021, listing Douglas Schoettle. This Tactical
Intelligence Report (TIR) addresses FBI New York Criminal Division Band II Threat — Crimes
Against Children.
(U) Key Findings
• (U//FOUO) Douglas Schoettle was an associate of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine
Maxwell.
• (U//FOUO) Douglas Schoettle was an architect for Jeffrey Epstein's residences.
(U) Opportunities
(U//FOUO) Interviewing Douglas Schoettle may reveal more information regarding his
knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell's involvement with Jeffrey Epstein.
(U//FOUO) Interviewing other witnesses may reveal more information regarding Douglas
Schoettle's relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.
(U) Substantiation
(U//FOUO) Douglas Schoettle was an associate of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
• (U//FOUO) As of December 2021, according to information from an FBI New York
investigation, Maxwell and Epstein maintained a black book with the names of
FBI INTERNAL USE ONLY - DO NOT DISSEMINATE EXTERNALLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
EFTA00174229
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
FBI INTERNAL USE ONLY - DO NOT DISSEMINATE EXTERNALLY
individuals they knew. Douglas Schoettle's name appeared in the black book. (FBI
Electronic Communication 172-MM-113327, serial 1 13 November 2009). a
• (U) As of December 2021, according to https://epsteinsblackbook.com, an online website
providing Jefffrey Epstein's old flight logs and black book, Douglas Schoettle was listed
as a passenger on page 59. Douglas Schoettle was listed on two flights on 1/8/1998 and
1/10/1998 both with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. (epsteinsblack.comI"The
Digital Epstein's Little Black Book I Accessed 12 December 2021 1
https://epsteinsblackbook.corn/flights/59).
(U//FOUO) Douglas Schoettle was an architect for Jeffrey Epstein's residences
• (U) As of December 2021, according to https://the-war-economy.medium.com, an open
source website providing articles consisting of numerous topics, Douglas Schoettle was
referenced in the article as being at Epstein's New York residence around March 2005 to
renovate the property. (The War Economy 1"Investigation: Jeffrey Epstein" 130 July
2019 1 https://the-war-economy.medium.com/investigation-jeffrey-epstein-
d2ad68e2e845).
• (U) As of December 2021, according to https://steeinkr.com, an online website providing
news articles, Douglas Schoettle was referenced as an architect who had residences in
both New York and the Bahamas. (SteemIcr.com1"The Jeffery Epstein Mother-load Part
31Case Report"1 Accessed 12 December 20211 https://steemkr.corn/news/@defango/the-
jeffery-epstein-mother-load-part-3-or-case-report).
• (U) As of December 2021, according to https://nymag.com, an online news website,
Douglas Schoettle was referenced as an architect who was working at Epstein's house for
a renovations at the time police served a search warrant. (NY MagI"The Fantasist" 17
December 2007 1 https://nymag.corn/news/features/41826).
(U) Biographical Information
• (U//FOUO) Name: Douglas Schoettle (Accurint 1Advanced Search I Accessed 12
December 2021 1"Name Search").
• (U//FOUO) DOB: (Accurint I Advanced Search I Accessed 12 December 2021 1
"Name Search").
• (U//FOUO) SSN: (Accurint 1Advanced Search I Accessed 12 December
2021 1"Name Search).
• (U//FOUO) Address: (Accurint1
Advanced Search 1Accessed 12 December 2021 1"Name Search").
• (U//FOUO) Phones: and (Accurint 1 Advanced Search
Accessed 12 December 2021 1"Comprehensive Search").
a (ULIFOUO) (Analyst Note: The black book referenced in 72-MM-I 13327 is listed as item IA9).
FBI INTERNAL USE ONLY - DO NOT DISSEMINATE EXTERNALLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
2
EFTA00174230
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
FBI INTERNAL USE ONLY - DO NOT DISSEMINATE EXTERNALLY
• (W/FOUO) Email: (Accurint I Advanced Search I
Accessed 12 December 20211"SSN Email Search").
(U) Investigative/Intelligence Gaps
• (U) How often did Douglas Schoettle interact with Ghislaine Maxwell?
• (U) When was the last time Douglas Schoettle in contact with Ghislaine
Maxwell?
UNCLASSIFIED// FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
(U) Source Summary Statement
(U) Reporting in this TIR was derived primarily from FBI databases and open source information.
The information collected in this report occurred between December 2007 and December 2021. The
reporting was current as of 19 January 2022.
(U) Consumers: 3A
Det.
IA
(U) Approval: A/SIA
(U) FBI New York Field Office prepared this Tactical Intelligence Report. Please direct comments and queries to
the New York Intelligence Program at I
FBI INTERNAL USE ONLY - DO NOT DISSEMINATE EXTERNALLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
3
EFTA00174231
DataSet-9
Unknown
19 pages
From: FBI News Briefing
To: "FBINewsBriefing" ce.
Subject: [EXTERNAL EMAIL) - FBI Daily News Briefing - February 26, 2025
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 11:20:13 +0000
Importance: Normal
View in Browser
PtFederal Bureau of Investigation
February 26, 2025
Seal
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Daily News Briefing
(In coordination with the Office of Public Affairs)
Email Public Affairs to subscribe to the Daily News Briefing. Mobile version and archive available here.
Table of Contents
IN THE NEWS
• Sen. Blackburn Requests Unredacted Epstein Files, Director Patel Vows Cooperation as AG Bondi Faces
Bipartisan Pressure
EFTA00163321
EFTA00163322
EFTA00163323
Sen. Blackburn Requests Unredacted Epstein Files, Director Patel Vows Cooperation as AG Bondi Faces
Bipartisan Pressure
WTVC (ABC-7) (02/25, Staff Writer) reported that Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn has sent a formal letter to
Director Kash Patel, asking him to release the complete and unredacted files related to the Jeffrey Epstein sex
trafficking case. According to the article, Director Patel has reportedly vowed to work with Senator Blackburn to
release the records, which include flight logs and a 'little black book' with names and addresses of clients. The
article noted that the release of the files aims to shed light on Epstein's trafficking ring and potentially implicate
powerful figures, with President Trump having previously expressed support for making the client list public.
EFTA00163324
Politico (02/25, Friedman) reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi is facing pressure from lawmakers to release
the alleged "client list" of Epstein. The article explained that AG Bondi has files related to the Epstein investigation
and has been directed by President Donald Trump to review them. The article noted that the release of the
documents has bipartisan support, with both Republican and Democratic lawmakers urging Bondi to make the
records public, suggesting that delaying the release may be an attempt to protect individuals on the list. Additional
reporting on the story was provided by Daily Mail (02/25, Ewall-Wice), The Daily Beast (02/25, Akers), Fox News
(02/25, Stancy), The Hill (02/25, Fields), NewsNation (02/25, Staff Writer), Newsweek (02/25, McFall), and Times
Free Press (02/25, Cooper).
Back to Top
EFTA00163325
EFTA00163326
EFTA00163327
EFTA00163328
EFTA00163329
EFTA00163330
EFTA00163331
EFTA00163332
EFTA00163333
EFTA00163334
EFTA00163335
EFTA00163336
EFTA00163337
EFTA00163338
EFTA00163339
DataSet-10
Unknown
14 pages
To: Pagel of 14 2020-01-23 00.02:57 (GMT) From: Julia Greenberg
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Lv'inchester, Virginia
Via Facsimile and Certified Mail
January 22, 2020
Dear Sir/Madame:
I am a Forensic Intelligence Analyst and a congressional consultant. I am also a paralegal
with extensive experience regarding informant practices related to the FBI and their handling of
taxpayer-funded, Top Echelon informants. I've been in documentaries, national and international
newspapers, and many television news appearances discussing informants who commit serious
crimes while working under FBI auspices. Additionally, I was an independent consultant and lead
talent on the Spike documentary, "Gone — The Forgotten Women of Ohio." That series, submitted
for a Peabody award, ran for eight episodes about, in part, murdered and missing women and
informants; corruption; and human and drug trafficking. These matters are all addressed in this
request.
This request pertains to Jeffery Epstein, born January 20, 1953 in Brooklyn, New York,
and deceased August 10.2019 in the federal Metropolitan Correctional Center New York. A copy
of his obituary is attached to this letter. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C.
§ 552), and President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Act of 1992, (44 U.S.C. §2 I 07), I
request that the Federal Bureau of Investigation produce copies of any informant files, records or
materials on or pertaining to Jeffrey Epstein, including but not limited to any informant file or Top
Echelon (TE) informant file, Confidential Human Source (CHS) Reporting documents, and any
Federal Central Inmate Monitoring System (CIMS) records wherever they may be located or filed
and in whatever form or format they may be maintained.
I further request photographic copies of all photographs of Mr. Epstein. I'd like to expand
the photos, images or aerial images or any metadata pertaining thereto. With respect to electronic
surveillance materials, please provide not only the transcripts, logs, and other written materials
pertaining thereto, but also any audio or videotapes in the format in which they were recorded.
Please include copies of any agreements with Epstein, or draft copy, or proffer agreement
with Epstein and the FBI.
Include in this request all correspondence, memoranda, documents, reports, records,
statements, audits, lists of names, applications, diskettes, flash drives, letters, expense logs, and
receipts, calendar or diary logs, facsimile logs, flight logs, telephone records, call sheets, tape
recordings, video/movie recordings, notes, ticklers, numbered and lettered subfiles, I A envelopes,
enclosures behind files.(EBE's), file covers. bulky exhibits ('Bulkier'), control files, and 'JUNE'
or 'JUNE MAIL' files or records, examinations, opinions, folders. files, books, manuals,
magazines, main discs, any mini storage files and records including and relating to mini storage
989-9779, and any records in file number storage unit files and records, archival storage unit files
and records, pamphlets, fonns, closed or transferred subfiles, jottings, telephone messages,
message slips, post it notes or sticky's, drawings, charts, photographs, electronic mail, and other
documents and records or materials that refer or relate to Epstein and/or the 7 categories below in
any way, within twenty (20) business days.
Mb 18 zua
EFTA01730019
To: Page? of 14 2020-01-23 00:02:57 (GMT) avec Julie Greenberg
In conducting the search, please use all nicknames, aliases, pseudonyms, code names or
code numbers used by, or applied to, Mr. Epstein. In addition, when searching under Mr. Epstein's
name, please employ all logical buildups, breakdowns, and variations of his name.
In this request, please search the Central Records System ("CRS") for all main files and all
cross-references. This includes all index references to Epstein, including not only the Central
Records System ("CRS") indices and ELSUR indices, but any informant or confidential source
indices and any indices to any office, bureau, section, division, unit or other component ofthe FBI
which may have records pertaining to him. In providing cross-reference materials, the FBI should
provide not only the initial page of the cross-referenced document and those pages to which Jeffrey
Epstein's name is indexed but also the entire document The search of the CRS is not to be limited
to the Universal Index component oldie CRS, but also must include searches of other components
including those specified in Negley v F R 1 658. F. Supp. 2d 50, n.3 (D.D.C. 2009).
In the search of the Electronic ("ELSUR") Indices include a search for not only those
ELSUR materials that Mr. Epstein is subject of, but also must include any "mentions" or
"overhears."
The search should include files in the FBI Director's Office, the files or folders maintained
by any FBI supervisory official in office safes, drawers or file cabinets, and the files maintained
by Assistant FBI Directors and files in the office of the SAC in Cincinnati from 1993 to January,
2020 particularly including the current and former office ofa both in Washington,
D.C., Cincinnati and Columbus.
The FBI search must include each field office that maintains records on Epstein, for records
that are responsive to my request. The FBI Headquarters is aware of all FBI field offices which
maintain records on Epstein, whereas I am not. Requiring me to submit requests to each of the
approximate 59 field offices would be unduly burdensome and thwart the purpose of the FOIA to
facilitate easy andprompt access to information.
Mr. Epstein's file may contain information beginning from an arrest and guilty plea that
took place in federal court for a charge of conspiring to steal U.S. Treasury Checks in 1993 or
earlier and ending August 10, 2019 the date of his death. I wish to limit the above request to the
first 500 pages which fall within the following 7 categories listed below:
1. All warrants or drafts of warrants based in whole or in part on information
submitted or provided by Mr. Epstein, including all information submitted by Epstein which was
used to support warrants or drafts ofwarrants based on information provided by him. Theserecords
are ofparticular interest because Mr. Epstein was identified as cooperating with the FBI in an FBI
document dated 9/18/08 on a child prostitution and forfeiture case against him. In this document
the case agent advised that no federal prosecution would occur as long as Epstein continued to
uphold his agreement]
2. Any and all information related to Mr. Epstein in which the FBI identified an
associate of Mr. Epstein's criminal activities or his criminal enterprise. Please include in those
records where identification was made of a victim or an associate or recruiter of Mr. Epstein's
that left from, or were taken to, ANY locations in Kentucky, New Jersey, Ohio, or Palm Beach,
Florida. Please also include records identifying what geographical areas the victims, criminal
This is the same type of unwarranted protection that took place with Top Echelon informant Gregory Scarpa Sr.
by his FBI handler R. Lindley DeVecchio which was identified in my case Clemente v. FBI. In addressing that case in
2005, my now deceased partner Dr. Stephen Dresch and I provided the Brooklyn District Attorney's office a
homicide referral that later led to Agent 0/Vecchio's Indictment of four counts of second-degree murder in 2007.
See attached.
EFTA01730020
To: Page 9 of 14 2020.01-2300:0257 (GMT) From: Julia Greenberg
targets, or Epstein's associates were from, such as the counties, cities, towns, suburbs, and any
unincorporated communities' name. Please also identify and release all records in the files that
mention criminal targets or associates of Epstein that held positions in public office or were
identified as attorneys or judges located in the state of Ohio. This material is important because,
during my investigation in Ohio, both on and after the series had ended and through to the present
date, several attorneys and I have communicated with senior agents at the Department of Justice
Office of Inspector General. During these communications 1/we provided information related, in
part, to corruption and a human and drug trafficking ring that involves girls that were being
trafficked from or were recruited from Ohio and Kentucky and were taken to Palm Beach, Florida
and other areas of Ohio, New Jersey and other states. Our reports additionally involved
informant[s] who have admitted participation in at least two homicides. One of these murder
victims is still missing. The woman that is still missing was a client of a defense attorney who was
the subject of an interstate human and drug trafficking investigation in which the DEA provided
to and referred to the FBI that included trafficking females to Palm Beach, Florida, New Jersey
and other states throughout the U.S.
One of the subject traffickers was identified in a DEA document as being part of the
"Eubanks/Mearan organization." A subject in this same case has explained that he would meet
with the defense attorney in Columbus with guys from out of state. Some of the girls were from
Portsmouth, Chillicothe, and Columbus, Ohio and that the defense attorney was always eager to
obtain company- to go with him and his buddies to Palm Beach.:
Aside from the DEA referral, in 2017 the Department of Justice Office ofInspector General
received from the Senate Judiciary's office and me information about this and other concerns with
Ohio that was directed to the FBI's INSD Division for further investigation. My colleagues and I
(which included multiple attorneys) were then referred to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Southern District of Ohio over concerns related to the public corruption aspect, which included
information on an FBI agent, a State of Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation Agent, a lead
detective on a federal task force for murdered and missing women, and an attorney and a judge.
The judge has since been suspended in a separate matter, and is now retired. The defense attorney
is currently under an investigation involving human trafficking and other major crimes. The
detective on the federal task force has been removed from his position with the federal authorities
and thereafter abruptly resigned from his position with the Sheriff's Office of Ross County, Ohio,
which he was employed by while working on the federal task force.
A detective who, on information and belief, possessed a fictitious New Jersey ID, was also
under both state/federal investigation and has been since retirement in 2019. See Attached Letter
to Ohio Auditor's Office. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Ohio is
scheduling an upcoming appointment to further discuss matters related to potential physical
evidence in the above related matter of human trafficking, public corruption and homicide. The
records that I am requesting here will shed light on the government operations that are flawed in
which it appears to have essentially provided a ripe opportunity for more victims to be victimized
and sexually exploited by informant[s], and those who hold a position in public office in which
these victims and their communities were reliant upon for their safety and the proper application
of the law.
2 This was a sealed DEA warrant application that was made public information by Cincinnati Enquirer on 3/21/19
and again by USA today in the same year. https://www.cincinnati.com/in-depth/news/2019/03/21/sex-trafficking-
trapped-and-trafficked-portsmouth-ohio/2839816002/
EFTA01730021
To: Page ti of 14 2020-01-23 00:02:57 (GMT) Front Julia Greenberg
3. All records pertaining to or referencing Portsmouth, Ohio Attorney Michael
Mearan. Also include records pertaining to or referencing William Marshall or Mark Eubanks.
4. All records in any informant file in chronological sequence, commencing with the
present year 2020 through to the earliest date.
5. All records that has name, or codename, or
signature, or initials on them pertaining to any Epstein investigation re ated to Ohio or mentioning
Ohio, New York, New Jersey, or Palm Beach, Florida. Many cases that I, and law enforcement
officials, have requested the FBI to investigate issues related to FBI informants and their handlers'
informant ractices were re ularly dismissed by and the offices in which she was
employ ' former office was located in Cincinnati, where she was a Special
Agent in Charge (SA At the time, she was an SAC over one of the FBI agents and a BCI agent
that the DOJ IG's office submitted to the FBI's 1NSD division (a division in which she had
previously been employed) for further investigation. But not one witness that agreed to cooperate
with the FBI officials, including former and current law enforcement officials, was contacted by
the FBI. Moreover, one local low-level informant was willing to provide the location of the body
of a woman who remains missing, but the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation Agent who was
on the federal task force. The FBI Agent chose to never contact the informant, who was a
participant in the woman's homicide. The lead detective on that case was the detective that was
also on the federal task force with the FBI and BC! Agent mentioned above, and he has since
resigned from his position after the discovery of misconduct related directly to him. The missing
victim was a client of the defense attorney who was under investigation for trafficking women to
Palm Beach, Florida and other states. I suspect these documents' release will shed light on the
FBI's failures to protect murdered and missing women in Ohio, and those trafficked to Palm
Beach, Florida, New Jersey and other states. One of Jeffrey Epstein's victims has been recently
reported to say that she was taken to one of Epstein's associates homes, in Ohio, and assaulted
there. A lawsuit is pending on this issue.
6. All records pertaining to Epstein victims associated in any way with Ohio or
pertaining to Ohio, Kentucky or New Jersey that were taken to Palm Beach, Florida or were
brought from Palm Beach, Florida to other states or countries including which states or countries
the victims were brought to by Epstein or his associates.
7. All records pertaining to any FBI internal investigations related to Epstein, or
Epstein and Ohio, whether located in the FBI Inspection Division (FBI-INSD), National and
Transnational Organized Crime section, Office of Professional Responsibility, Public Corruption
Division, Units, or Offices, Violent Crime Divisions, FBI Cincinnati Field Division (White Slave
Trafficking investigation) FBI Cincinnati Field Division Human trafficking investigations, FBI
Detroit Field Division Extortion Investigation, FBI Cincinnati Field Division Mexican Drug
Trafficking Organization investigation files, FBI Cincinnati Field Division Violent Gang
investigation or DEA Cincinnati Resident Office Investigation referrals to the FBI; and also FBI
civil litigation division files or records of any kind whatsoever, and Counter-Intelligence Sections.
If after the 500-page limit has been reached other informant materials remain, please advise
us of the approximate number of pages they comprise.
Please also advise us that you have placed my request in the "short hit" queue and inform
us of an approximate date when I will begin receiving the requested records.
If any responsive record or portion thereof is claimed to be exempt from production under
FOIA, sufficient identifying information (with respect to each allegedly exempt record or portion
EFTA01730022
To: Page p of 14 2020-01-23 00:02:57 (GMT) From: Julia Greenberg
thereof) must be provided to allow the assessment of the propriety of the claimed exemption.
Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir 1973), cert denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974). Additionally,
any reasonably segregable portion of a responsive record must be provided to me after redactions
of any allegedly exempt material, as the law requires. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). In order to help to
determine my status for purposes of determining the applicability of any fees, you should know
that I am a
lam willing to pay fees up to $50.00.If the fees will exceed this amount, please inform me
before fees are incurred. I can be contacted at Arterlaclemente forpngir.c@gmail cam, if necessary
to discuss any aspect ofthis request. Under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4XAXiii), I hereby request a full fee
waiver for public interest. The materials that I seek will shed significant light on government
operations and activities with informant practices similar to those I have already successfully
helped to correct flaws. See, for example,DOJ-IG Special Report from September 2005, regarding
in part a case I was involved in related to Top Echelon Informant Gregory Scarpa Sr. and his
handler Lindley DeVecchio. This was information that I provided to the U.S. House of
Representatives that was later submitted by them to the Department of Justice Office ofInspector
General (DOJ IG). The DOJ-1G also used my case as an example in their Special Report.
Similarly, the materials requested here will, among other things, shed light on (1) what the FBI
knew about Epstein's criminal activities while he was serving as an FBI informant (2) the extent
to which Epstein's relationship to the FBI corrupted the system of justice; (3) how many victims
were identified after the FBI chose to not prosecute Epstein in 2008; (4) whether Epstein was
working and conspiring with others in public office who facilitated his conduct, by among other
things, contacting victims and scheduling or facilitating sexual encounters with Epstein or his
escalates (some of whom are or may currently be under state and federal investigation in
geographical areas such as Scioto, Ross and Franklin Counties, Ohio), especially as related to
interstate human trafficking and murder. I have already been directly investigating and have been
in direct communication with the U.S. Attorney's Office Southern District of Ohio, Chief of the
Criminal Division Kenneth Parker, regarding many of the human trafficking cases in Ohio. I was
directed to Mr. Parker after the DOS-1G referred some of these cases over to the FBI's INSD for
review.
I am capable of disseminating the information to the public. Indeed, prominent members
of the news media have indicated their interest in covering not only the disclosure of any records
pursuant to my request but the filing of Freedom of information lawsuit to obtain them. I look
forward to receiving the requested documents and a MI fee waiver within twenty business days.
Please address any further correspondence to this request to both me and to my attorneys
Julia Greenberg, Jim Lesar, and Jay Hurst at the following addresses:
Jay Hurst
1890 Star Shoot Parkway
Suite 170, PMB 371
Lexington, Kentucky 40509
Jim Lesar
930 Wayne Avenue
Unit 1111
Silver Springs, MD 20910
EFTA01730023
To: Page .6 of 14 2020-01-2300:02:57 (GMT) From: Julia Greenberg
Julia Greenberg
160 Broadway
4th Floor
New York, New York 10038
EFTA01730024
To- Page 7 of 14 2020-01.23 00:02:57 (GMT) Irony Julia Greenberg
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Prel0M9ags ROUTINE: Date: 09/18/2008
To: Miami Attn: SA'
PE-a, PBCRA
From: Miami
PB-I, FBCRA
Contact: API' b6 -2
b7C -2
Approved By:
Dratted
Case ID
Title: GENERAL FORF`EITQRE MATTERS
JErFREY EPSTEIN-
WSTA - CHILD PROSTITUTION
2.opsis: Request closing of forfeiture subft)e FF.
Detail,' Investigation has revealed that
b3 -2
POJM Beach, Ff. whicn is
1
On 8/11/08, case agent advised writer that Epstein
is currently being prosecuted by the State of:Florida and is
complying with all conditions of his plea with the State of
Florida-. _'Epstein -has also provided information to tho FBI as
agreed upon. Case agent Advised that no federal prosecution
will occur in this matter as long 45 Epstein continues to
uphold his agreement with the State -of Florida. Case agent
also advised.that no farther forfeiture assistance will be
required for Chia case. Case agent is requested to contact
writer in the ovent this matter moves forward on a federal
level.
C.
-:e /hat no further fort...JAW/0 related-action is
deemed necessary in this Matter, it is requested that subfile
FP be closed.
•-•
Jltaf!-Fc
EFTA01730025
To: Pagett of 14 2020-01.2300:02:57 (GMT) From: Jolla Greenberg
ANGELA CLEMENTE & ASSOCIATES
'CONGRESSIONAL CONSULTING/FORENSIC INTELUGENCE OFFICES
P.O. Dos 901 Rio Grande, N703242 •Telephone 60-972-3162 Angclacladeole.forensici4gnutil.com
January 17, 2019
State of Ohio Auditor's Office
Mr. David Yost (Corrected Version dated 1/17/19)
Public Integrity Assurance
88 East Broad Street
P.O. Box 1140
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Sent via Certified Mail # 7018 0360 0001 8355 1082
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Mr. David Yost:
This letter is to notify your office about several very serious unconfirmed allegations and
information that I've been made aware of regarding the Ross County Sheriff's Office and
official[s] within that office and to request an immediate investigation to determine its accuracy
and take action (if confirmed) where it is necessary. These reports also extend into other offices
in Ross County including the Ross County Prosecution office, specifically regarding the risk of a
significant conflict of interest that may arise if it is involved in any capacity in investigating
these specific allegations.
The allegations and information involve a detective's alleged conduct while he was on duty
working both regular and overtime hours. The official is John Winfield who was a detective from
the Ross County Sheriff's Office and the Sheriffs lead detective on a local, State and Federal
Task Force of the murdered and missing women of Ross County, which included victim's
Charlotte Trego, Tameka Lynch, Timberly Claytor, Tiffany Sayre, and Wanda Lemons. It may
also include victims Megan Kellough, Chanelle Watkins, and Angela Dyer.
On the State and Federal Task Force, Detective John Winfield was working with Ohio Attorney
General's Bureau of Criminal Investigation (Agent Larry McCoy and Ryan Scheiderer). It is my
understanding that he was also federally deputized to work with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation under Agent David Knight. BCI Agents Larry McCoy and Ryan Scheiderer were
also deputized to work on the Federal Task Force. It is reported that Ross County Prosecutor
Matthew Schmidt was involved with the Task Force and was reported to have met with them
regularly.
EFTA01730026
To: Page.9 of 14 2020.01-23 00:02:57 (GMT) From: Julia Greenberg
The residents of Ross and Scioto Counties and the families of the murdered and missing women
in both counties signed a petition last year for Ross County Prosecutor Matt Schmidt and Judge
Ater to be removed from their cases for reasons of bias and their legitimate concerns that Judge
Michael Ater and Prosecutor Matt Schmidt provided leniency to and potentially protected an
alleged longtime informant, Earnest "Dollar Bill" Moore and because they felt their cases were
not being properly investigated or addressed. The community and victim's families petitioned
the U.S. Attorney General to assign a special prosecutor to remove Judge Michael Ater and
Prosecutor Matt Schmidt. This petition received over 2000 signatures. Scioto County citizens
also requested that a special prosecutor be assigned on their cases citing similar concerns.
The missing women's task force was comprised of the following entities and individuals:
Ross County Sheriff's Chief Deputy T.J. Hollis- He led the local task force.
Ross County Sheriff's Office Detective John Winfield- Lead detective on the missing women's
task force. (Federally Deputized)
Chillicothe Police Department
Federal Bureau of Investigation- Agent David Knight (SAC- )
Attontey General's Office Bureau of Criminal Investigation- Agent Larry McCoy and Ryan
Scheiderer (Federally Deputized)
The current unconfirmed allegations and information include the contents below:
Detective John Winfield received approximately 513,000 in overtime compensation, portions of
which were federal funds provided to the Ross County Sheriff's office where he was employed.
Because he was the lead detective on the missing women's cases, these allegations and reports
require serious review for both criminal and civil action and demand a very thorough
investigation.
It is reported that while he was compensated, Detective Winfield used company equipment (i.e.
his official vehicle) and falsely reported that he was working when he was not. He was also
engaged in an extramarital affair with another deputy from the same office, Ross County
Sheriff's Deputy Jena Horiack. His conduct allegedly caused harin to that deputy as she was a
victim of physical abuse, pregnant and was reported to have allegedly lost an unborn baby. She
has since left her employment at the Ross County Sheriff's Office and was subsequently offered
employment by the Ross County Prosecution office allegedly as a result of the circumstances
that Detective Winfield placed her in. Detective Winfield's behavior was reported to Mike
Preston from the Ross County Sheriff's Office and it is my understanding that Sergeant Lawhom
filed charges on him. He was then placed on administrative leave but stayed on the roster.
Ohio citizens who are taxpayers help fund these local, federal and state entities who are in place
to protect and preserve life and they have every right to know where and how their tax dollars are
2
EFTA01730027
To: Page4 0 of 14 2020-01-23 00:02:57 (GMT) From: Julie Greenberg
being spent. The reports and allegations additionally include that the Ross County Prosecutor's
office "quietly" worked out a deal that Detective Winfield was to attend a six-month inpatient
rehabilitation program in Kentucky where he was allegedly ordered to be treated for sex, drug,
and alcohol abuse. However, he left approximately two months early, immediately violating the
"leniency" that he was being given and subsequently committed a fourth-degree felony of
criminal trespass on his wife's property.
After receiving this information, I checked for verification purposes which showed the court
docket sheet displaying a criminal trespass charge on 9/26/2018 filed by his wife Michelle
Winfield. The violation dine was 9:10. Ticket number was SI983 and was visible on the court
docket as a 4th degree misdemeanor Section 2911.21. The case number was CRB 1803360.
Detective Winfield's date of birth is 3-5-82. The case was in the Chillicothe Municipal Court.
There is another pending case which is most likely a result of the above related incident. That
case is 18 DR 000417. The case is a Dissolution with Children case that is currently being
handled under Judge Michael Ater. This case is located with the Ross County Court of Common
Pleas. Judge Ater's wife works for the Ross County Prosecutor's Office under former Prosecutor
Matthew Schmidt and now it is alleged that Detective Winfield's victim (his former mistress)
also works with the Ross County Prosecutor's office. Judge Matthew Schmidt is now working
with Judge Michael Ater. Former Prosecutor Matthew Schmidt's wife works for the Ross
County Sheriffs Office.
On a related note I have received numerous reports that Detective Winfield did not properly
handle information from willing witnesses related to the murdered and missing women's cases.
He did not act on information from those reporting parties or others nor did he follow up on
information that was provided by people who contacted him directly or who contacted the
Sheriff's office or others where he was the lead detective and they felt that he did not investigate
the information he received.
The implications of these allegations arc significant because the perpetrator[s] have not been
arrested and because it raises the possibility if these charges are verified that some of these
deaths could have been prevented if he had followed up on the information received or spoke to
the reporting parties who could have provided information and/or physical evidence.
Below is a list of the information and allegations that Detective Winfield was allegedly engaged
in while using his state and federal authorized time on duty that were not work related. These
allegations have not been verified or confirmed and should be investigated:
• Theft in office
• Fraud
• Misappropriation of funds (fraudulent use of local, state, and federal tax dollars)
3
EFTA01730028
To: Page11 of 14 2020-01-23 00:02:57 (GMT) Front Julia Greenberg
• Drug and Alcohol abuse
• Assault
• Insubordination
• Dereliction of Duty
I am sure the community does not care about the allegations of his extramarital affairs with
another deputy, as that is a personal issue that should not be disclosed. However, they do care
about his conduct as the lead detective on a federal task force for the murdered and missing
women; especially if any deaths could have been prevented if he had followed up on witness
reports or if he was actually working while he was supposed to be on duty as an official with the
task force. Equally concerning is that federal funds and tax payer dollars may have been
misappropriated to this detective in spite of his problematic conduct, including the allegations of
theft in office and other misconduct which, if verified, should have led to criminal charges.
The following questions regarding Detective Winfield arise:
I. Were any emergency calls or any calls missed while he was on duty but not actually working
that may have placed any lives in jeopardy?
2. Were any lives lost because he did not act on any leads or information that was provided by
citizens on the murdered and missing women's cases?
3. Who investigated Detective Winfield's actions? Were they a biased party? What were the
consequences of that investigation since it is reported that he terminated the alleged mandatory
rehabilitation early?
4. Why was he reassigned a new position in Waverly after allegedly being demoted by the Ross
County Sheriff's Office in spite of the fact that he allegedly prematurely left his ordered
mandatory rehabilitation in Kentucky and had a trespass complaint against him?
5. Were the funds that he received in overtime and on the clock refunded if he was not working
during the hours that he reported he was working?
6. Were the federal authorities notified that the funds were potentially misappropriated?
7. Has the Internal Revenue Service been contacted about the theft in office?
8. Has the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General been notified since he was on the
federal task force as the lead detective fur the murdered and missing women's cases and criminal
acts have been allegedly committed?
4
EFTA01730029
To: Pages 12 of 14 2020.01.23 00:02:57 (GMT) From: Julie Greenberg
9. Has an official government assessment been made as to how much money was received in a
fraudulent manner that he claimed on his overtime and regular work shift specifically for the
murdered and missing women's cases?
10. Were the BCI Agents that he worked with regularly, Agents Larry McCoy and Ryan
Scheidercr, involved in any capacity with Detective Winfield for the allegations listed herein?
Finally, Detective Winfield is also reportedly a relative of one of the alleged killers of at least
two of the murdered and missing women and should have never been placed in that position. He
had already been reported to federal and congressional offices in Washington for other conduct
that was problematic and questionable.
It is with this information that this request is made to (1) conduct a full independent
investigation on these allegations (2) obtain the records of funding that has been expended to
Detective John Winfield when be reported that he was on duty both as a federal task force officer
and as a Russ County Sheriffs Deputy and (3) determine whether any deaths might have been
prevented if he had followed up on any evidence or with any witnesses that claimed to have
reported or attempt to report information to him.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Respectfully Submitted,
Angela Clemente
cc: Internal Revenue Service
Department of Justice Office of Inspector General
U.S. Attorney General
5
EFTA01730030
To: Page.13 of 14 2020-01-23 00:02:57 (GMT) From: Julia Greenberg
Private pathologist questions whether Jeffrey
Epstein died by suicide; medical examiner
stands by conclusion
Kevin Johnson Kristine Phillips
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — New York City's chief medical examiner said there's no need for a
second investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's death after a pathologist hired by the family argued
that injuries to the disgraced financier point to homicide, not suicide.
Epstein, 66, died while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges. He was found
unresponsive in his Manhattan jail cell early on Aug. 10.
New York City Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Barbara Sampson later ruIrd that Epstein died of
suicide by hanging and refined conspiracy theories that foul play was involved.
Michael Baden, a former New York City medical examiner who was hired by Epstein's brother,
said in a Fox & Friends interview Wednesday morning that broken bones in Epstein's
neck indicate a "huge amount of pressure" was applied.
"There were findings that are unusual for suicide by hanging and more consistent with ligature
homicidal strangulation," Baden said.
Curiosity around one of those broken neck bones — the hyoid — has been at the center of theories
about Epstein's death, which President Donald Trump has promoted.
News outlets reported in August that Fperein suffered broken hones in his neck But The
Washington Post, which first reported on the injuries, cited experts saying curb hrrakc ran occur
in_people_who hang _themselves, particularly if they arc older.
In a statement Wednesday, Sampson said she stands by her conclusion that Epstein died by
suicide.
"Our investigation concluded that the cause of Mr. Epstein's death was hanging and the manner
of death was suicide," she said. "The original medical investigation was thorough and complete.
There is no reason for a second medical investigation by our office."
Sampson said her office continues "to share information around the medical investigation with
Mr. Epstein's family, their representatives, and their pathology consultant."
Baden, a Fox News contributor, said he does not know what work federal investigators have
done on Epstein's death, but he called on officials to investigate further. He said the ligature that
EFTA01730031
To ' Pages 14 of 14 2020-01-23 00:02:57 (GMT) From: Julie Greenberg
was found wrapped around Epstein's neck was fashioned from bed sheets and would have
contained DNA evidence.
Baden served as New York City's medical examiner for one year, beginning in 1978.
Prosecutors had alleged Epstein "sexually exploited and abused dozens of minor girls" at his
homes in Manhattan and Palm Beach, Florida, and at other locations from at least 2002 to 2005.
After Epstein's death, Attorney General William Barr ordered multiple investigations focusing
on the operations at Manhattan's Metropolitan Correctional Center, which has been plagued with
staffing shortages. Those investigations arc ongoing.
Federal authorities have been examining whether guards assigned to Epstcin's unit slept through
mandatory checks on his cell in the hours before he was found dead, and whether the guards
falsified logs accounting for their time on duty.
Epstein had been placed on suicide watch after he was found semiconscious with marks on his
neck just three weeks earlier, but he was removed from monitoring shortly after.
At the time of Epstein's suicide, there were more than 30 staff vacancies at the facility, said
Serene Gregg, local president of the prison workers' union. Prison officials regularly assigned
civilian staffers to work guard duty to plug unfilled officer positions, she said.
Ten of the 18 staffers who reported for duty on the midnight-to-8 a.m. shift — the one during
which Epstein was found dead — were working overtime, according to federal prison records. On
the previous shift, 4 p.m. to midnight, six of the 20 staffers were working overtime.
Contributing: Grace Hauck
EFTA01730032
DataSet-10
Unknown
5 pages
From: (NY) (FBI)" al=IMM >
To: 1.1.1 i (CID) (FBI)" MIIIMMIE >, (NY) (FBI)"
Subject: Re: OCA Tasking - Questions for the Director
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 20:55:28 +0000
Importance: Normal
We
From: (CID) (FBI) •rz >
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2024 4:54:55 PM
To: • (NY) (FBI) c ›; (NY) (FBI) c >
Subject: Re: OCA Tasking - Questions for the Director
Thank you!
Respectfully,
Unit Chief
Crimes Against Children & Human Trafficking Unit
Criminal Investigative Division
Desk:
Mobile:
From: (NY) (FBI)
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2024 4:34:24 PM
To: . (CID) (FBI) (NY) (FBI) < >
Subject: Re: OCA Tasking - Questions for the Director
Metropolitan Correctional Center
From: (CID) (FBI) •rz >
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2024 4:31:42 PM
To: • (NY) (FBI) c (NY) (FBI) •rz >
Subject: Re: OCA Tasking - Questions for the Director
Follow up: what does MCC stand for?
Respectfully,
Unit Chief
Crimes Against Children & Human Trafficking Unit
Criminal Investigative Division
EFTA01657276
Desk:
Mobile:
From: (NY) (FBI)
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2024 10:30:56 AM
To: (NY) (FBI) < ::•; (CID) (FBI) < >
Subject: Re: OCA Tasking - Questions for the Director
There is a reference to MDC, I believe should say MCC. Should we also add in about Epstein changing his will
before the suicide?
From: (NY) (FBI) < >
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2024 10:08:29 AM
To: . (CID) (FBI) (NY) (Fe,i) ).
Subject: Re: OCA Tasking - Questions for the Director
Yes I agree with that, pretty much all is FOUO with the exception of the information related to his cellmate which is LES.
Special Agent -
FBI New York
Child Exploitation/Human Trafficking
From: . (CID) (FBI) < MM>
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2024 8:59:43 AM
To: (NY) (FBI) <->; (NY) (FBI) <
Subject: FW: OCA Tasking - Questions for the Director
I cut some of it down before I sent it over and left out a lot of the victim information. Would you agree this is FOUO or
LES? I would argue the one piece about the cell mate may be considered LES but most of the rest appears to be FOUO?
Let me know your thoughts.
Respectfully,
Unit Chief
Crimes Against Children & Human Trafficking Unit
Criminal Investi ative Division
Desk:
Mobile:
From: (CID) (FBI) < >
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2024 8:56 AM
To: (CID) (FBI) < >
Cc: (CID) (FBI) <->; . (CID) (FBI) < :.;
(CID) (FBI) . (CID) (FBI) c >; (CID) (FBI)
`•. >; . (CID) (FBI) < >; (CID) (FBI)
Subject: RE: OCA Tasking - Questions for the Director
EFTA01657277
Thank you very much,
Could we get classification & markings on this? We'd like to know if its UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO? Or LES?
Management & Program Analyst
Criminal Investigative Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Desk:
From: (CID) (FBI) aM=>
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2024 8:53 AM
To: (CID) (FBI) <
Cc: (CID) (FBI) <=M >: (CID) (FBI) .; . (CID) (FBI) < M>; (CID) (FBI)
. (CID) (FBI) a; (CID) (FBI)
(CID) (FBI) •c- >
Subject: RE: OCA Tasking - Questions for the Director
Hello,
Attached to email is the A/SC Johnson approved timeline and summary of the Epstein investigation.
Thank you,
Program Analyst
Criminal Investigative Division
Violent Crimes Against Children Section — Front Office
Desk:
From: (CID) (FBI) < >
Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 1:19 PM
To: (CID) (FBI) < >; HQ-DIV06-VCACS-FRONT-OFFICE
Cc: (CID) (FBI) (CID) (FBI) : (CID) (FBI) (CID) (FBI)
Subject: RE: OCA Tasking Questions for the Director
Good afternoon VCACS,
Thank you for the information below regarding the Epstein flight logs. The Director's Office asking if they could get a
timeline of the whole investigation as well as a summary of what we investigated (and when). They said it would be just
for the Director's Office as background. It will not be for public dissemination.
Please provide a timeline as well as the summary by COB Thursday, July 11, 2024.
EFTA01657278
Thank you,
Management & Program Analyst
Criminal Investigative Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Desk:
From: (CID) (FBI)
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 5:07 PM
To: (CID) (FBI) :
(CID) (FBI) > Km (FBI)
(CID) (FBI) a: (CID) (FBI) <
Subject: RE: OCA Tasking - Questions for the Director
Hi,
Please see the following response approved by A/SC Johnson:
"The FBI conducted a full and thorough investigation into the allegations that Epstein and others produced, possessed
and/or distributed CSAM. This investigation included a review of the flight logs as well as dozens of pieces of evidence.
The flight logs were used as exhibits during the trial and therefore are public record (with the exception of the names of
minor victims which were redacted).
Should OCA require any other background information, please let us know. There is no additional information which we
feel is appropriate to comment on in a public hearing, though."
Thank you,
Program Anal: st
Criminal Investigative Division
Violent Crimes Against Children Section — Front Office
Desk:
From: HQ_DIV06_OCA <
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 11:10 AM
To: HQ-DIV06-VCACS-FRONT-OFFICE
Cc: (CID) (FBI) : (CID) (FBI) a; HO_DIV06_OCA
(CID) (FBI) (CID)
(FBI) <
Subject: OCA Tasking - Questions for the Director
Good afternoon VCACS,
This is a tasking from OCA - The director has an upcoming engagement with a member of congress where they believe the
member will ask about the Epstein Flight Logs. They want to make sure the Director has a solid response when this
question comes up and have asked us to send the latest information on an answer to the below questions. If your section
could answer the questions below, please let me know. If your section believes that we shouldn't be providing any
specifics or confirming any information, please let me know as well.
EFTA01657279
o What specifically has the FBI done to investigate the claims that Epstein's and others participated in
produced, possessed, and distributed to CSAM?
o Is there any information that can be provided on requests for Epstein's flight logs?
This is a time sensitive request, so please provide a response by COB Today if possible.
*For some reference on recent Epstein conversations w/ Congress - during Director Wray's Senate Appropriations (June
4tH) hearing the question regarding Epstein came up. The interaction can be found attached in the PDF and below:
JOHN KENNEDY:
OK. Here's my second question. We know that Jeffrey Epstein, who is now deceased and Ms. Maxwell, his associate who is
in prison were engaged in a conspiracy of sex trafficking with minors. So were others. It's been widely reported. What's
the FBI doing to investigate the other people that were involved in these sex trafficking rings?
CHRISTOPHER WRAY:
Well, I'm not sure that I can, um, confirm any specific individual being investigated.
JOHN KENNEDY:
Well, let me put it this way. Let me give you some facts. Widely reported. Jeffrey Epstein had video surveillance in all of his
homes and on his private island. And there has been -- there -- there have been articles after articles from witnesses who
have said he videotaped sex acts with prominent people because he was trying to cur -- with young girls that he had
procured to try to incur favor with those prominent people and potentially for what? To be able to blackmail them. Now
that's a fact. And -- and the FBI and other federal agencies have raided his houses. Do you have those tapes?
CHRISTOPHER WRAY:
Again, I can't discuss the specifics of our law enforcement operations related to Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell, but obviously,
we had very active investigation related to both of them. But whether it extends to other people, I'm not sure that's
something that I can comment on.
Management & Program Analyst
Criminal Investigative Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Desk:
EFTA01657280
DataSet-9
Unknown
10 pages
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: DAILY BEAST; How Did !rump and Clinton Pal Jeffrey Epstein Escape #Me loot
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 20:08:44 +0000
Importance: Normal
How Did Trump and Clinton Pal Jeffrey
Epstein Escape #MeToo?
Call him Weinstein 1.o: The billionaire with famous friends (Kevin Spacey, Woody Allen)
was a secret pervert who used his power and influence to groom teens for abuse.
As the Harvey Weinsteins of the world get their comeuppance in the press and in court, another serial predator
walks free.
Last month, after a flood of allegations by Hollywood actresses, Weinstein was indicted on rape and criminal sex
act charges in New York. The disgraced Hollywood executive stands accused of assaulting one woman in 2004 at
Miramax headquarters in TriBeCa and raping another woman at a Midtown hotel nine years later. He has pleaded
not guilty to these crimes.
Since Weinstein's reign of terror was exposed and ignited a #MeToo reckoning other powerful men have found
themselves publicly censured or even toppled over their dark pasts and allegations of sexual misconduct.
But the Weinstein Effect seems to have spared one Jeffrey Epstein—a 65-year-old billionaire and convicted sex
offender who's palled around with former President Bill Clinton Prince Andrew Kevin Spacey Woody Allen and
other high-flying friends whose names were revealed in his "little black book" and flight logs for his private jet.
Many of them enjoyed jaunts to Epstein's private Caribbean island and mansions in Manhattan and Palm Beach,
Florida.
Even President Trump was among the deviant philanthropist's admirers. "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific
guy," Trump told New York in 2002. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as
much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it—Jeffrey enjoys his social life."
EFTA00065479
Jeffery's "social life," according to police and a score of lawsuits, involved a pedophile ring of dozens of underage
girls, whom he groomed and then loaned out to powerful friends. But aside from a minor conviction in Florida —
for which he served a mere 13 months—Epstein has emerged remarkably unscathed. New York authorities have
never charged him with any crime, and he still drops into his Upper East Side mansion where women have been
photographed coming and going according to tabloid reports. His sex offender registration lists his primary
address as St. Thomas.
The mysterious financier's sick world was unmasked in March 2005, when the stepmother of one 14-year-old
victim phoned police and said a wealthy man had molested her child. She'd received a call from a schoolmate's
mom, who overheard her own daughter discussing "how [the victim] had met with a 45-year-old man and had
sex with him and was paid for it," a police report said. Around that time, a teacher found $300 in the girl's purse.
Palm Beach detectives would soon unearth five girls who claimed that Epstein had lured them into a ring of
sexual abuse. By the time Epstein inked his plea agreement, the feds had identified 40 victims. Police said Epstein
was enlisting his employees and other young women to recruit underage girls—many of them underprivileged or
from broken homes—for massages at his home. One recruiter told police that Epstein advised her, "The younger,
the better."
"'I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,' Trump told New York in 2002. 'He's a lot of fun to be with. It is
even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side."
The teens, some as young as 13, were ordered to remove their clothes. During the massages, Epstein would
masturbate himself and molest his victims, according to both lawsuits and police reports. Sometimes, according
to court records, he forced them into intercourse with him or into performing sex acts with an assistant, whom
he allegedly bragged of purchasing as a sex slave from her parents in Yugoslavia. Afterward, the victims said,
Epstein usually paid them $200 or $300 and as much as $1,000.
"He's never denied girls came to the house," Jack Goldberger, Epstein's defense attorney, told the Palm Beach
Post in July 2006. But Epstein didn't know the girls' ages, Goldberger said, and took a polygraph test to prove it.
"He passed on knowledge of age," the lawyer said.
In court filings responding to victims' lawsuits, Epstein said each teenager "consented to and was a willing
participant in the acts alleged" and that he "reasonably believed" they were 18 years old during the "alleged
acts."
Epstein eventually walked free with a slap on the wrist, even after Florida cops took their case from state
prosecutors to the FBI and U.S. attorney's office.
In June 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to two state charges: solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors
for prostitution. In an unusually sweet deal with federal prosecutors he served 13 months of his 18-month
sentence in the private wing of a Palm Beach county jail and was permitted to leave six days a week, for 16 hours
EFTA00065480
each day, for "work release," according to local press reports. Epstein agreed to register as a sex offender for life,
as well as fund attorneys for more than 40 victims who filed lawsuits against him for damages.
"Epstein's high-powered legal team, which included Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, supplied prosecutors
with dossiers on the alleged victims in an effort to discredit them."
Epstein has continued to make headlines in the decade since his conviction, as his alleged victims pursue him in
court. One accuser, ame forward to the Daily Mail in 2011 to claim that Epstein flew her across
the world to "meet" Prince Andrew when she was 17 years old. The litigation from and other Jane Does
has untangled more sinister layers of Epstein's operation—including alleged sex crimes that occurred in New York
but apparently went unprosecuted. (In depositions for the civil cases, Epstein has pleaded the Fifth when asked
about his sexual activity with underage girls.)
His name resurfaced during the 2016 election season, when a woman using the pseudonym 'iled a
lawsuit against Trump, claiming he raped her at one of Epstein's parties when she was just 13 years old. She
dropped the suit months later.
Trump called claims "not only categorically false but disgusting at the highest level and clearly framed
to solicit media attention or, perhaps, are simply politically motivated."
"There is absolutely no merit to these allegations. Period " Trump concluded while lawyers for Epstein didn't
appear to comment on the lawsuit.
Epstein came up again during Trump labor secretary nominee Alexander Acosta's Senate confirmation hearing.
Acosta was the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida who oversaw the pervy money manager's plea
deal.
"Protesters on both sides of the political aisle are now using Epstein's reputation as ammo."
In a 2011 letter Acosta said the negotiations came after a "year-long assault on the prosecution and the
prosecutors" and added that "the defense in this case was more aggressive than any which I, or the prosecutors
in my office, had previously encountered."
Epstein's high-powered legal team, which included Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz (who is now working
for Weinstein and is a legal ally of President Trump), supplied prosecutors with dossiers on the alleged victims in
an effort to discredit them. The counter-investigation included copies of some of the girls' MySpace.com profiles
which showed drug and alcohol use, according to cops. Epstein's strategy included hiring private eyes to follow
witnesses, including one victim's father, police said.
Last month, the FBI released heavily redacted memos on the Epstein probe, and one offered a hint as to the
reason for his lenient treatment: "Epstein has also provided information to the FBI as agreed upon." It's unclear
what dirt he might have given the feds. Epstein was once a limited partner at Bear Stearns and abruptly quit in
EFTA00065481
1981. Around the time of his plea deal, the investment bank's role in the subprime mortgage crisis could have
been of great interest to the feds. Epstein reportedly lost $57 million in the subprime meltdown.
Protesters on both sides of the political aisle are now using Epstein's reputation as ammo. On June 6, a
Philadelphia Trump supporter interrupted Bill Clinton at his book event to shout, "Why did you fly on Jeffrey
Epstein's Lolita Express 26 times? Twenty-six times, Bill. Why, what were you doing on Jeffrey Epstein's plane?"
The activist, Howard Caplan, was referring to the press' nickname for Epstein's private jet. "Look it up. Jeffrey
Epstein!" Caplan yelled before security took him away.
Meanwhile, at a rally in Duluth Minnesota, on Wednesday, President Trump booted a protester who hoisted an
old photo of him with the accused sex fiend. The text on the demonstrator's poster simply asked: Who is Jeffrey
Epstein?
Now two cases could propel Epstein back into the spotlight—including one where who claimed Epstein
kept her as his "sex slave," is expected to testify against him in a Florida trial.
If Epstein appears, it would be the first time he has to face his alleged victims in court.
According to the fine print of his once-confidential plea deal, Epstein could have been charged with federal
offenses involving sex acts with minors. If convicted of such crimes, he could have spent decades or even life
behind bars.
Instead, he's continued to enjoy the fruits of his wealth, flitting between the Virgin Islands and New York City,
where tabloid shutterbugs have captured him strolling the Upper East Side with different women. One New York
Post report said Epstein houses Russian models at his 51,000-square-foot palace on East 71st Street.
At a sex offender registration hearing in 2011, a Manhattan assistant prosecutor asked a judge to go easy on
Epstein by making him a Level 1fiend, or the lowest on the scale. The assistant DA claimed Epstein shouldn't be
forced to register at Level 3, which indicates a high risk of repeat offense, because "there was only an indictment
for one victim" in Florida, the New York Post reported. The judge disagreed and labeled him Level 3, a decision
that was upheld on appeal. "I'm not a sexual predator, I'm an 'offender.' It's the difference between a murderer
and a person who steals a bagel," Epstein told the Post a month later.
Meanwhile, last year, a woman named_ sued Epstein in Manhattan federal court, claiming he
trafficked her for sex from October 2006 through April 2007 —all while his attorneys were waging war against the
federal charges in Florida. originally identified under the pseudonym differs from other
Epstein victims who've filed lawsuits in that she was when he allegedly sexually abused her.
"'I'm not a sexual predator, I'm an 'offender.' It's the difference between a murderer and a person who steals a
bagel,' Epstein told the Post."
When asked abou Ilegations, and whether Epstein would be investigated for sex-trafficking, a
spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York said they do not comment on
EFTA00065482
people who haven't been charged. The office also does not comment on whether someone is under
investigation.
The Manhattan District Attorney's Office declined to comment.
zomplaint was filed in the same district where Harvey Weinstein and his companies face a pair of
class-action lawsuits accusing the ex-mogul and his associates of running a mafia-like operation that perpetuated
and covered up his sexual harassment assault and rape of women seeking work opportunities.
Young, vulnerable girls and women likewise say they sought opportunities with Epstein. I native
dreamed of attending hen she met
whom she alleges was Epstein's recruiter. she'd introduce to "a
wealthy philanthropist who regularly used his wealth, influence and connections to help financially poor females
like achieve their personal and professional goals and aspirations," court papers allege.
Her case is pending U.S. District ludg uling on motions to dismiss filed by Epstein and his fellow
defendants. The complaint is against British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, who was accused by
of helping Epstein procure girls and of molesting the girls herself, and Epstein's assistants nd Lesley
Groff. ( anceere listed as co-conspirators in Epstein's federal plea deal. At the time of the alleged
crimes,Mas in her late twenties; s also believed to have been an adult during alleged
abuse.)
"According to Epstein didn't quit his sex-abuse operation. Instead, he allegedly transported young
women from other U.S. cities and abroad to his residences in New York and the Virgin Islands."
During Epstein's plea negotiations, he departed Palm Beach for New York and the Virgin Islands "in order to
convey an image to prosecutors that he and his co-conspirators had stopped committing sex crimes7 her lawsuit
states.
Still, according tc Epstein didn't quit his sex-abuse operation. Instead, he allegedly transported young
women from other U.S. cities and abroad to his residences in New York and the Virgin Islands, the complaint says.
When met Epstein, he allegedly promised to get her intoMor another school. She claims the other
defendants "confirmed and reiterated this promise" and assured her many times that Epstein would advance her
education. For her part, Maxwell told he would need to give Epstein massages "in order to reap the
benefits of his and Maxwell's connections," court papers allege.
Maxwell and Epstein allegedly warned hat she wouldn't obtain her education or modeling contracts
without performing sex acts with Epstein and others. The sex was required to avoid the group's "threatened
retaliation against her if [she] did not perform as demanded," the lawsuit adds.
said she tried to swim off Epstein's private island after one alleged episode, where Epstein, Maxwell
andeanged up on her with "verbal abuse and threats." But a search party led by Epstein and Maxwell
EFTA00065483
physically carried her back to his estate, she claims.
The trio is accused of keeping so she couldn't escape. They had been providing
with housing, a phone and transportation so long as she continued to "service Epstein sexually," the complaint
says.
In January 2007, Epstein sent home to recruit an aspiring model as his latest personal
assistant. says she refused, realizing the new hire would "be forced into sexual servitude." But while she
was abroad, Epstein and Maxwell warned =he couldn't return to New York unless she lost weight,
dropping from about 125 to 114 pounds, the lawsuit states.
W ould allegedly monitor her weight loss and dangle the prospect of an Megree "attempted
to comply with the order but, given her physical height and body structure and her already existing body weight,
the diet imposed upon her placed her in serious physical jeopardy, including kidney malfunction and extreme
emotional and psychological distress," the complaint says.
"At a sex offender registration hearing in 2011, a Manhattan assistant prosecutor asked a judge to go easy on
Epstein by making him a Level 1fiend."
According to Epstein and Maxwell even phoned parents in o assure they'd
take care of their daughter when she returned to _—and that they'd use their connections to get her into
school.
completed and delivered he application and supporting essay to Epstein, believing they were a
"done deal," court papers allege. When she returned to New York in February 2007, Maxwell allegedly ordered
her to have sex with Epstein immediately. She claims the alleged traffickers kept pressing her to drop excessive
amounts of weight and "offered her no opportunity to decline or resist their instructions."
Three months late says, she left to flee Epstein.
All defendants (excluding ho hasn't responded to the suit) say claim for damages falls
outside the statute of limitations for sex-trafficking victims—and that the relationship with Epstein was
"consensual" in the first place.
In a motion to dismiss filed in November, lawyers for Epstein and accuse of suing for sex-
trafficking violations in "a moment of stunning opportunism... allegedly because Epstein did not hel
to gain admission to the and advance her career."
Maxwell's camp, too, delivered a blistering rebuttal: "Rather than a Dickensian tale of a vulnerable, naive, young
women, forced into a life of slavery and sexual servitude, this case actually presents the end game of a
sophisticated, ambitious woman, accustomed to an expensive lifestyle provided by numerous male benefactors."
In response, awyers argued Maxwell "cannot run away from the fact that [the complaint] properly
alleges that Maxwell was the mastermind behind convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking scheme."
EFTA00065484
They say the socialite incorrectly argues the Trafficking Victims Protection Act doesn't apply to ase
because she wasn't physically chained against her will; rather, traffickers are known to use psychological coercion
to maintain control over their victims.
"This is not and never will be a sex trafficking case," Maxwell's team retorted in court papers last month. "It is the
story of a brief, consensual relationship between two adults occurring more than ten years ago."
Allegations of Jeffrey Epstein exploiting young women in New York were surfacing well before
case.
claimed she was 16 when Epstein sexually abused her in 2000 and vowed to boost her
modeling career in exchange for sexual favors. Seven years later, when filed a lawsuit against him, her
attorney (and boyfriend) said she was unable to consent because she was underage—and because she had a
mental illness. was dismissed after a judge ruled Nas not insane during her encounters
with Epstein and thus she could not circumvent the statute of limitations. According to the court's decision the
only medical testimony came from a psychiatrist hired by the defense who said condition was caused
by substance abuse. Epstein, through both an attorney and a spokesman, denied the allegations.
Then there wa5
The 15-year-old girl was working a summer job at Mar-a-Lago when Ghislaine Maxwell allegedly recruited her for
Epstein in 1998. The alleged madam invite ho now goes by to make good
money by learning massage therapy, according to a now-settled lawsui=filed as.
Maxwell has denied the allegations calling them "entirely false" in a statement released in 2011 afte
spoke to British media.
was glad an older woman was offering
this opportunity and dropped her off at Epstein's mansion, her lawsuit said. Like the other victims, claims
she was sexually abused during the massage session. She claims Maxwell told she had "lots of potential"
and asked her to return the next day.
has claimed she spent four years as Epstein's sex slave and was pimped out to the wealth manager's rich
an powerful friends."
has claimed she spent four years as Epstein's sex slave and was pimped out to the wealth manager's rich
and powerful friends.
Now, 20 years after she met Epstein, nay testify against him. The financier is facing a malicious
prosecution lawsuit in Florida from Bradley Edwards, an attorney who says Epstein sued him in 2009 as
punishment for representing the victims.
Edwards declined to comment on the case. But when asked why cops never busted Epstein in New York, he said,
"New York authorities are familiar with the allegations that have been made eigainst Jeffrey Epstein
EFTA00065485
and have shown no interest in investigating or prosecuting him or anyone else in New York."
Two weeks after meeting Epstein ays she was flown to New York for "training" at his mansion. "It was
basically every day and was like going to school. I also had to have sex with Epstein many times:'Maid in a
2015 affidavit. (The statement was submitted as part of a lawsuit two women filed against the U.S. Department
of Justice saying prosecutors violated their rights as crime victims by failing to warn them of Epstein's plea deal.)
'Ilegedly lived as Epstein's teenage slave from 1999 through 2002, including at his home in New York. "In
fact, my only purpose for Epstein, Maxwell and their friends was to be used for sex," she said.
"New York authorities are familiar with the allegations that have been made... against Jeffrey Epstein and have
shown no interest in investigating or prosecuting him or anyone else in New York."
— Brad Edwards
Those friends allegedly included Alan Dershowitz and Prince Andrew, who was pictured in a photograph—taken
at Maxwell's London townhouse—with his arm aroun partially bare waist. Both the Trump-supporting
academic and the royal have denied having sex wit and in April 2015 a federal judge struck the
allegations from the court record. "At this juncture in e proceedings, these lurid details are unnecessary," Judge
Kenneth Marra ruled. "These unnecessary details shall be stricken."
Mc laimed she was subjected to daily sexual abuse, including by Maxwell, whom she later sued for
defamation in Manhattan federal court in 2015. argued the socialite called her a liar after she detailed her
allegations in court papers. The case settled last year, preventing Epstein from taking the stand in what was
expected to be an explosive trial.
In her affidavit,Mays she "observed Maxwell have sex with dozens of underage girls" and take explicit
photos of them. "Maxwell had large amounts of child pornography that she personally made. Many times she
made me sleep with other girls, some of whom were very young, for purposes of taking sexual pictures,"
added.
Now Said she was forced to sleep with Dershowitz for the first time in
Epstein's New York mansion, when she was 16 years old. She claimed she also had sex with Prince Andrew in
New York when she was 17.
She claimed Jean Luc Brunel, a modeling mogul now suing Epstein for tarnishing his reputation and damaging his
business, had sex with her multiple times when she was 16 to 19 years old. .aid some of those
encounters occurred in New York, and that Brunel supplied Epstein with European minors who aspired to walk
the runway.
"Jeffrey Epstein has told me that he has slept with over 1,000 of Brunel's girls, and everything that I have seen
confirms this claim,"Maid in her affidavit, adding that she witnessed orgies with children in different cities
and that Maxwell and Epstein's New York-based assistant participated in them.
EFTA00065486
was allegedly trafficked to politicians, powerful business executives and other acquaintances of Epstein.
"Epstein required me to describe the sexual events that I had with these men presumably so that he could
potentially blackmail them;' said in her affidavit, adding, "I am still very fearful of these men today."
"In her affidavit says she observed Maxwell have sex with dozens of underage girls' and take explicit
photos of them.
=fled Epstein's clutches when he agreed to fly her to Thailand for massage training, she claims.
"Because of how often Epstein and others were having sex with young girls, and how much it was a centerpiece
of their lives, I doubt they have just stopped," said in the affidavit. "It also seems to me that, when I knew
them, they believed that they were above the law —too powerful to be prosecuted."
Jack Scarola, an attorney for Edwards, expects the trial in Palm Beach to start no later than August and that the
court will likely set a date early next month.
The upcoming trial will be the first time that Jeffrey Epstein—if he chooses to appear in court—will be forced to
"sit there and be confronted with the truth about what he has done," Scarola told The Daily Beast.
"He has thus far been able to avoid that experience and been able to avoid a detailed airing in a public
courtroom about what has gone on, as opposed to filings that are buried in the records of the clerk's office,"
Scarola said.
is ready, willing, able and enthusiastic about the opportunity that she will have to confront Jeffrey
Epstein face to face," Scarola added. "There are other victims who are absolutely ready and willing to testify."
Included on the witness list are Prince Andrew, President Clinton, President Trump, David Copperfield and Leslie
Wexner, the billionaire founder of the company that owns Victoria's Secret and Epstein's only known financial
client. (Scarola said the boldfaced names are listed because they may have knowledge of the case, but that he
doesn't expect most of them will be witnesses.)
"He has thus far, for reasons that remain unexplained, been able to evade criminal responsibility for his
wrongdoing."
— Jack Scarola
The proceeding may be in Florida, but Epstein's lifestyle and activities in all of his locations, including New York,
are likely to come up.
"He has thus far, for reasons that remain unexplained, been able to evade criminal responsibility for his
wrongdoing," Scarola said. "It may very well be that the focus of public attention through this civil lawsuit on
what he has done will create the kind of pressure necessary to see that he is appropriately criminally
prosecuted."
If the recently released FBI memos on Epstein are any indication, the feds have known about claims for
years. Among the press clippings included in the file were a Daily Mail story from March 2011, when
EFTA00065487
revealed her identity.
Soon after went public, according to her 2015 affidavit, two FBI agents met her in
"They seemed to be very professional and hard working. I thought to myself, 'Wow, these
people will do the right thing against the bad guys and protect me,' =aid.
In a second affidavit filed months later, said the agents "seemed like they were being blocked from doing
what they wanted to do—which I thought was to arrest Epstein and his powerful friends for all their illegal sex
crimes."
hoped Epstein would be prosecuted. "But when nothing came of it, I got very upset," aid. "I
wanted to do something to stop Epstein and the other people he associates with from sexually abusing girls." She
added, "Law enforcement had taken my detailed statements, but nothing seemed to be happening."
.aid she contacted the FBI in April 2014, months after she moved 'But, it
seemed like the hands of [assistant U.S. Attorney and the FBI were always tied by someone else
with more authority," she said.
"I have never been able to figure out who was (and still is) stopping a prosecution," =wrote in the affidavit.
United States Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney's Office ISouthern District of New York
EFTA00065488