2# Ghislaine Indictment & Deposition - 2015 09 21 - ghislaine dep.pdf
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 1 of 12
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,
Plaintiff, CASE NO:_____________________
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
________________________________/
COMPLAINT
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
575 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
(212) 446-2300
1
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 2 of 12
Plaintiff, VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, formerly known as Virginia Roberts
(“Giuffre”), for her Complaint against Defendant, GHISLAINE MAXWELL (“Maxwell”), avers
upon personal knowledge as to her own acts and status and otherwise upon information and
belief:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This suit arises out of Defendant Maxwell’s defamatory statements against
Plaintiff Giuffre. As described below, Giuffre was a victim of sexual trafficking and abuse while
she was a minor child. Defendant Maxwell not only facilitated that sexual abuse but, most
recently, wrongfully subjected Giuffre to public ridicule, contempt and disgrace by, among other
things, calling Giuffre a liar in published statements with the malicious intent of discrediting and
further damaging Giuffre worldwide.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This is an action for damages in an amount in excess of the minimum
jurisdictional limits of this Court.
3. This Court has jurisdiction over this dispute pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332
(diversity jurisdiction) as Giuffre and Maxwell are citizens of different states and the amount in
controversy exceeds seventy-five thousand ($75,000), exclusive of interest and costs.
4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Maxwell. Maxwell resides in New York
City, and this action arose, and defamatory statements were made, within the Southern District of
New York.
5. Venue is proper in this Court as the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of
this Court.
2
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 3 of 12
PARTIES
6. Plaintiff Giuffre is an individual who is a citizen of the State of Colorado.
7. Defendant Maxwell, who is domiciled in the Southern District of New York, is
not a citizen of the state of Colorado.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
8. Virginia Giuffre became a victim of sex trafficking and repeated sexual abuse
after being recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein when Giuffre was under the age
of eighteen.
9. Between 1999 and 2002, with the assistance and participation of Maxwell,
Epstein sexually abused Giuffre at numerous locations including his mansions in West Palm
Beach, Florida, and in this District. Between 2001 and 2007, with the assistance of numerous
co-conspirators, Epstein abused more than thirty (30) minor underage girls, a fact confirmed by
state and federal law enforcement.
10. As part of their sex trafficking efforts, Epstein and Maxwell intimidated Giuffre
into remaining silent about what had happened to her.
11. In September 2007, Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”)
that barred his prosecution for numerous federal sex crimes in the Southern District of Florida.
12. In the NPA, the United States additionally agreed that it would not institute any
federal criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein.
13. As a co-conspirator of Epstein, Maxwell was consequently granted immunity in
the Southern District of Florida through the NPA.
14. Epstein ultimately pled guilty to procuring a minor for prostitution, and is now a
registered sex offender.
3
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 4 of 12
15. Rather than confer with the victims about the NPA, the U.S. Attorney’s Office
and Epstein agreed to a “confidentiality” provision in the Agreement barring its disclosure to
anyone—including Epstein’s victims. As a consequence, the victims were not told about the
NPA.
16. On July 7, 2008, a young woman identified as Jane Doe No. 1, one of Jeffrey
Epstein’s victims (other than Giuffre), filed a petition to enforce her rights under the Crime
Victims’ Rights Act (“CVRA”), 18 U.S.C. ¶ 3771, alleging that the Government failed to
provide her the rights promised in the CVRA with regard to the plea arrangement with Epstein.
The litigation remains ongoing.
17. On or about May 4, 2009, Virginia Giuffre—identified then as Jane Doe No.
102—filed a complaint against Jeffrey Epstein in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. The complaint included allegations made by Giuffre that pertained
to Maxwell.
18. In pertinent part, the Jane Doe No. 102 complaint described in detail how
Maxwell recruited Giuffre (who was then a minor girl) to become a victim of sex trafficking by
introducing Giuffre to Jeffrey Epstein. With the assistance of Maxwell, Epstein was able to
sexually abuse Giuffre for years until Giuffre eventually escaped.
19. The Jane Doe No. 102 complaint contained the first public allegations made on
behalf of Giuffre regarding Maxwell.
20. As civil litigation against Epstein moved forward on behalf of Giuffre and many
other similarly-situated victims, Maxwell was served with a subpoena for deposition. Her
testimony was sought concerning her personal knowledge and role in Epstein’s abuse of Giuffre
and others.
4
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 5 of 12
21. To avoid her deposition, Maxwell claimed that her mother fell deathly ill and that
consequently she was leaving the United States for London with no plans of ever returning. In
fact, however, within weeks of using that excuse to avoid testifying, Maxwell had returned to
New York.
22. In 2011, two FBI agents located Giuffre in Australia—where she had been hiding
from Epstein and Maxwell for several years—and arranged to meet with her at the U.S.
Consulate in Sidney. Giuffre provided truthful and accurate information to the FBI about
Epstein and Maxwell’s sexual abuse.
23. Ultimately, as a mother and one of Epstein’s many victims, Giuffre believed that
she should speak out about her sexual abuse experiences in hopes of helping others who had also
suffered from sexual trafficking and abuse.
24. On December 23, 2014, Giuffre incorporated an organization called Victims
Refuse Silence, Inc., a Florida not-for-profit corporation.
25. Giuffre intended Victims Refuse Silence to change and improve the fight against
sexual abuse and human trafficking. The goal of her organization was, and continues to be, to
help survivors surmount the shame, silence, and intimidation typically experienced by victims of
sexual abuse. Giuffre has now dedicated her professional life to helping victims of sex
trafficking.
26. On December 30, 2014, Giuffre moved to join the on-going litigation previously
filed by Jane Doe 1 in the Southern District of Florida challenging Epstein’s non-prosecution
agreement by filing her own joinder motion.
5
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 6 of 12
27. Giuffre’s motion described Maxwell’s role as one of the main women who
Epstein used to procure under-aged girls for sexual activities and a primary co-conspirator and
participant in his sexual abuse and sex trafficking scheme.
28. In January, 2015, Maxwell undertook a concerted and malicious campaign to
discredit Giuffre and to so damage her reputation that Giuffre’s factual reporting of what had
happened to her would not be credited.
29. As part of Maxwell’s campaign she directed her agent, Ross Gow, to attack
Giuffre’s honesty and truthfulness and to accuse Giuffre of lying.
30. On or about January 3, 2015, speaking through her authorized agent, Maxwell
issued an additional false statement to the media and public designed to maliciously discredit
Giuffre. That statement contained the following deliberate falsehoods:
(a) That Giuffre’s sworn allegations “against Ghislaine Maxwell are untrue.”
(b) That the allegations have been “shown to be untrue.”
(c) That Giuffre’s “claims are obvious lies.”
31. Maxwell’s January 3, 2015, statement incorporated by reference “Ghislaine
Maxwell’s original response to the lies and defamatory claims remains the same,” an earlier
statement that had falsely described Giuffre’s factual assertions as “entirely false” and “entirely
untrue.”
32. Maxwell made the same false and defamatory statements as set forth above, in the
Southern District of New York and elsewhere in a deliberate effort to maliciously discredit
Giuffre and silence her efforts to expose sex crimes committed around the world by Maxwell,
Epstein, and other powerful persons. Maxwell did so with the purpose and effect of having
6
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 7 of 12
others repeat such false and defamatory statements and thereby further damaged Giuffre’s
reputation.
33. Maxwell made her statements to discredit Giuffre in close consultation with
Epstein. Maxwell made her statements knowing full well they were false.
34. Maxwell made her statements maliciously as part of an effort to conceal sex
trafficking crimes committed around the world by Maxwell, Epstein and other powerful persons.
35. Maxwell intended her false and defamatory statements set out above to be
broadcast around the world and to intimidate and silence Giuffre from making further efforts to
expose sex crimes committed by Maxwell, Epstein, and other powerful persons.
36. Maxwell intended her false statements to be specific statements of fact, including
a statement that she had not recruited an underage Giuffre for Epstein’s abuse. Maxwell’s false
statements were broadcast around the world and were reasonably understood by those who heard
them to be specific factual claims by Maxwell that she had not helped Epstein recruit or sexually
abuse Giuffre and that Giuffre was a liar.
37. On or about January 4, 2015, Maxwell continued her campaign to falsely and
maliciously discredit Giuffre. When a reporter on a Manhattan street asked Maxwell about
Giuffre’s allegations against Maxwell, she responded by saying: “I am referring to the statement
that we made.” The New York Daily News published a video of this response by Maxwell
indicating that she made her false statements on East 65th Street in Manhattan, New York, within
the Southern District of New York.
7
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 8 of 12
COUNT I
DEFAMATION
1. Plaintiff Giuffre re-alleges paragraphs 1 - 37 as if the same were fully set forth
herein. Maxwell made her false and defamatory statements deliberately and maliciously with the
intent to intimidate, discredit and defame Giuffre.
2. In January 2015, and thereafter, Maxwell intentionally and maliciously released to
the press her false statements about Giuffre in an attempt to destroy Giuffre’s reputation and
cause her to lose all credibility in her efforts to help victims of sex trafficking.
3. Maxwell additionally released to the press her false statements with knowledge
that her words would dilute, discredit and neutralize Giuffre’s public and private messages to
sexual abuse victims and ultimately prevent Giuffre from effectively providing assistance and
advocacy on behalf of other victims of sex trafficking, or to expose her abusers.
4. Using her role as a powerful figure with powerful friends, Maxwell’s statements
were published internationally for the malicious purpose of further damaging a sexual abuse and
sexual trafficking victim; to destroy Giuffre’s reputation and credibility; to cause the world to
disbelieve Giuffre; and to destroy Giuffre’s efforts to use her experience to help others suffering
as sex trafficking victims.
5. Maxwell, personally and through her authorized agent, Ross Gow, intentionally
and maliciously made false and damaging statements of fact concerning Giuffre, as detailed
above, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere.
6. The false statements made by Gow were all made by him as Maxwell’s
authorized agent and were made with direct and actual authority from Maxwell as the principal.
8
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 9 of 12
7. The false statements that Maxwell made personally, and through her authorized
agent Gow, not only called Giuffre’s truthfulness and integrity into question, but also exposed
Giuffre to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, and disgrace.
8. Maxwell made her false statements knowing full well that they were completely
false. Accordingly, she made her statements with actual and deliberate malice, the highest
degree of awareness of falsity.
9. Maxwell’s false statements constitute libel, as she knew that they were going to
be transmitted in writing, widely disseminated on the internet and in print. Maxwell intended her
false statements to be published by newspaper and other media outlets internationally, and they
were, in fact, published globally, including within the Southern District of New York.
10. Maxwell’s false statements constitute libel per se inasmuch as they exposed
Giuffre to public contempt, ridicule, aversion, and disgrace, and induced an evil opinion of her in
the minds of right-thinking persons.
11. Maxwell’s false statements also constitute libel per se inasmuch as they tended to
injure Giuffre in her professional capacity as the president of a non-profit corporation designed
to help victims of sex trafficking, and inasmuch as they destroyed her credibility and reputation
among members of the community that seeks her help and that she seeks to serve.
12. Maxwell’s false statements directly stated and also implied that in speaking out
against sex trafficking Giuffre acted with fraud, dishonesty, and unfitness for the task.
Maxwell’s false statements directly and indirectly indicate that Giuffre lied about being recruited
by Maxwell and sexually abused by Epstein and Maxwell. Maxwell’s false statements were
reasonably understood by many persons who read her statements as conveying that specific
intention and meaning.
9
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 10 of 12
13. Maxwell’s false statements were reasonably understood by many persons who
read those statements as making specific factual claims that Giuffre was lying about specific
facts.
14. Maxwell specifically directed her false statements at Giuffre’s true public
description of factual events, and many persons who read Maxwell’s statements reasonably
understood that those statements referred directly to Giuffre’s account of her life as a young
teenager with Maxwell and Epstein.
15. Maxwell intended her false statements to be widely published and disseminated
on television, through newspapers, by word of mouth and on the internet. As intended by
Maxwell, her statements were published and disseminated around the world.
16. Maxwell coordinated her false statements with other media efforts made by
Epstein and other powerful persons acting as Epstein’s representatives and surrogates. Maxwell
made and coordinated her statements in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere with
the specific intent to amplify the defamatory effect those statements would have on Giuffre’s
reputation and credibility.
17. Maxwell made her false statements both directly and through agents who, with
her general and specific authorization, adopted, distributed, and published the false statements on
Maxwell’s behalf. In addition, Maxwell and her authorized agents made false statements in
reckless disregard of their truth or falsity and with malicious intent to destroy Giuffre’s
reputation and credibility; to prevent her from further disseminating her life story; and to cause
persons hearing or reading Giuffre’s descriptions of truthful facts to disbelieve her entirely.
Maxwell made her false statements wantonly and with the specific intent to maliciously damage
Giuffre’s good name and reputation in a way that would destroy her efforts to administer her
10
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 11 of 12
non-profit foundation, or share her life story, and thereby help others who have suffered from
sexual abuse.
18. As a result of Maxwell’s campaign to spread false, discrediting and defamatory
statements about Giuffre, Giuffre suffered substantial damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
19. Maxwell’s false statements have caused, and continue to cause, Giuffre economic
damage, psychological pain and suffering, mental anguish and emotional distress, and other
direct and consequential damages and losses.
20. Maxwell’s campaign to spread her false statements internationally was unusual
and particularly egregious conduct. Maxwell sexually abused Giuffre and helped Epstein to
sexually abuse Giuffre, and then, in order to avoid having these crimes discovered, Maxwell
wantonly and maliciously set out to falsely accuse, defame, and discredit Giuffre. In so doing,
Maxwell’s efforts constituted a public wrong by deterring, damaging, and setting back Giuffre’s
efforts to help victims of sex trafficking. Accordingly, this is a case in which exemplary and
punitive damages are appropriate.
21. Punitive and exemplary damages are necessary in this case to deter Maxwell and
others from wantonly and maliciously using a campaign of lies to discredit Giuffre and other
victims of sex trafficking.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Giuffre respectfully requests judgment against Defendant
Maxwell, awarding compensatory, consequential, exemplary, and punitive damages in an
amount to be determined at trial, but in excess of the $75,000 jurisdictional requirement; costs of
suit; attorneys’ fees; and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
11
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 12 of 12
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all causes of action asserted within this
pleading.
Dated September 21, 2015.
/s/ David Boies
David Boies
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
/s/ Sigrid McCawley
Sigrid McCawley
(Pro Hac Vice Pending)
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
(954) 356-0011
/s/ Ellen Brockman
Ellen Brockman
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
575 Lexington Ave
New York, New York 10022
(212) 446-2300
12
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 6 Filed 09/25/15 Page 1 of 2
15 7433
CORRECTED
25
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 6 Filed 09/25/15 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 7 Filed 09/25/15 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 7 Filed 09/25/15 Page 2 of 2
Case
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1:15-cv-07433-LAP
1:15-cv-07433 Document
Document
Document
3 85
Filed
Filed
Filed
09/21/15
09/25/15
09/22/15
Page
Page
Page
1 of
11 2
of
of 22
AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
Southern District
__________ DistrictofofNew York
__________
Virginia L. Giuffre
)
)
Plaintiff
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 15-cv-7433
Ghislaine Maxwell )
)
Defendant
)
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Ghislaine Maxwell
116 East 65th Street
New York, New York 10065
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are: David Boies
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, New York 10504
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date: 9/21/2015 /S/ D. Gonzalez
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 8 Filed 09/25/15 Page 2 of 2
Ca&$d.5itg-0v4reX.m/V9ooonEm$rt Fil#le0/Ag/2Sl1Fa@A@2 Af 2
AO 440 (Rev l2109) Summons in a CivilAction (Page 2)
Civil Action No. 15-cv-7433
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section shoukl not befiled with the court unless retluited bJ) Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (nane of inditiclrol aild titte, if any) C ,5fer,ae Itta*ol*r."-
was received by me on (date) cl '&L ts
(, i*
U/personally served the summons on the individual at (ptace) fl"tt
"b Feet Ar", ! e*,
S..-.tl Fl't.,. WY on (date) ,1 ??: (< 2;6 ;or
O I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place ofabode with (nane)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or
0 I served the summons on frane ofindividual) , who is
designated by law to accept service ofprocess on behalf of (nane oforganizationl
on (date) ;or
D I returned the sunmons unexecuted because ;or
J Olher (specify):
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of$ 0.00
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date: q z? lf {
s.t
lQ,r, til
tL"o.,t &a F;'.*a*or*o ,{?3r'
Senet's addtess
Additional information regarding attempted sewice, etc
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 9 Filed 09/29/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 6-1 Filed 09/25/15 Page 1of1
UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTH_ERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Virginia L. Giuffre,
Plaintiff,
-15.__CV 7433
-against-
ORDER FOR ADMISSION
Ghislaine Maxwell, PRO HAC VICE
Defendant.
The motion of Sigrid S. Mccawley . _, for admission to
practice Pro Hae Vice in the above captioned action is granted.
Applicant has declared that he/she is a member in good standing of the bar(s) of the state(s) of
Florida _ ; and that his/her contact information is as follows
(please print):
Applicant's Name: Sigrid S. Mccawley
Finn Name: Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
Address: 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200
"'~~-~~----- ••••«••-' - - · -
City/ State/ Zip: F~_i:!~auderdal~_,_~Iori?a 3~~~1
Telephone/ Fax: _!el: (954) 356-_~!_l /Fax:~?,54) 356-00_22
Applicant having requested admission Pro Hae Vice to appear for all purposes as counsel for
Plaintiff Virginia L. Giuffre in the above entitled action;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Applicant is admitted to practice Pro Hae Vice in the above
captioned case in the United States District Court for the Southern District ofNe\lv York. All attorneys
appearing before this Court are subject to the Local Rules of this Court, including the Rules governing
discipline of attorneys.
Dated:- - - - - - - -
r:-:- ---·--· -.-- _,,__ -·---
·Tr;,;;r··1r·._,-,.
l \)
I, .
,I'""t ,"'.
. .. '
,._.
~-._......-"'
. . --·
J
.
:
11 ;,;·:;·:'. , ,;,,.,r;\A,Lt.Y FILED,
I! ()(JC#, 4L~;
l!_ ?~rE FlL~~~_;,Jj.~, ~-----~- .... ., -
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 9 Filed 09/29/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:15-cv-07 433-RWS Document 6 Filed U9/Z5/15 Page 1 of 2
. ;, ~t'
.. '',
•,,
: " ....
j I l'
I ,,'
t:\rl ED srxn:s VIS lRICT cot RT
~ t ...
UH~l_{:"J>l:iHUC T.or ~FWYORI( '•·,
\",
CORRECTED '.\10Tl01'\ FOH \D\TISSIO.\:
!'!Hi HA('\ HE
A):..,' J ;.__''f ! ,,,)f;t'
!''-
----------------·-·--- --
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 9 Filed 09/29/15 Page 3 of 3
case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 6 Filed 09/25/15 Page 2 of 2
~upreme <!Court of jfloriba
<!Ccrttf tcate of ~oob ~tanbtng
I JOHN A. TOMASINO, Clerk of tlte Supreme Court of the State of Florida, do
hereby certijji that
SIGRID STONE MCCAWLEY
was admitted as an attorney and counselor entitled to practice law in all the
Courts of the State of Florida on November 6, 1997, is presently in good
standing, and that the private and professional character of the attorney
appear to be good.
WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the
Supreme Court of Florida at Tallahassee,
FAK 10/13/15
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 11 Filed NO. 30383?1015
Page 1 of 1 t'. UC:
~~~f\M\'.~i~~
.t
October 9, 2015
Honorable Robert W. Sweet
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York; NY 10007-13122
Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell, Case No. J5-cv-07433-RWS
Dear Honorable Judge Sweet:
1 represent defendant Ghislaine Maxwell in connection with the above-referenced
action. I write pursuant to Section 1.E. of Your Honor's Individual Practice Rules to
request an extension of Defendant's time to answer, move or otherwise respond to
Plaintiff's Complaint from October 13, 2015 up to and including November 30. 2015.
We have not previously requested any adjournments or extensions of time in this
action. Counsel for Plaintiff has oonsented to this request.
We thank Your Honor for your attention to this matter.
a.
A. Menninger
LAM/BCR
cc: Sigrid S. Mccawley, Esq.
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP
Counsel for Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre
viafacsimile: (954) 356·0022
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 12 Filed 10/13/15 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,
Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
Defendant.
To the Clerk of Court and all parties of record:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the undersigned hereby appears in the above-captioned
action as counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. I certify that I am admitted to practice in
this Court.
Dated: October 9, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Laura A. Menninger
Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: 303.831.7364
Fax: 303.832.2628
lmenninger@hmflaw.com
Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 12 Filed 10/13/15 Page 2 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on October 13, 2015, I served this Notice Of Appearance via CM/ECF to the
following:
Sigrid S. McCawley
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
smccawley@bsfllp.com
Fax: (954) 356-0022
s/ Brenda Rodriguez
Brenda Rodriguez
2
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 13 Filed 10/30/15 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
x
Glu++ce} Plaintiff,
- against -
0 R D E
R 7Lf 33
IS Civ. (RWSl
MCMWe.f I Defendant.
x
Sweet, D.J.,
The par~ies to this action, 1vr{_~~tQJ:Ileys, having appeared before this Court at
a pretrial conference on ~ ~ , pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, pursuant to ~~~~·~~~~~~~~~~~
I'l' IS HEREBY O.RDER.ED that:
1. All motions are to be made returnable at 12 :QO noon on Wednesday and in compliance
with the rules of this Court.
2. The parties shall
expert discovery by
te all fact discovery by 1-- {- t (!.and all
The expert report(s) of the party with the burden
of proof shall be due ho of the opposing party's expert(s). The parties
shall file all motions, oth r than motions in limine, by this date (or whichever is
later), after which no discovery will be conducted and no motion will be entertained
without a showing of special circumstances. Plaintiff{s) shall submit a draft of the
pretrial order to the defendant(s) on or before the completion of discovery. The
parties are advised that this Court is participating in a Pilot Program for initial
discovery protocols for employment cases alleging adverse action. See www.fjc.gov.
3. The parties shall, in order to prevent delay or interruption of the trial, have
sufficient witnesses.at all times during the trial and shall perpetuate before trial
the direct and cross-examination testimony of any essential witness.
4. The parties shall submit to the court trial briefs, a joint proposed pretrial
order, and, i applicable, motions in limine and proposed jury charges, voir dire
requests d peci 1 v~dict form in accordance with the annexed form and instructions
by A final pretrial conference will be held at 4:30 pm on that
date and a t'on sn l be added to the trial calendar published in the New York Law
Journal. rior to submission of the final pretrial order, the parties are directed to
exchange offers of settlement. The parties are directed to be ready for trial the day
after the pretrial order is due and, upon receipt of twenty-four hour telephone notice,
on any day thereafter.
5. Adjournments of the dates set forth above will not be granted except for good
cause and upon written application made as soon as the grounds for such application
are known.
6. Failure to comply with any of the provisions of this order will result in
dismissal of the action, entry of a default judgment, or other appropriate sanction.
g~
It is so ordered.
201Pf=::=::=:=:::=:=======:=::=:;::j!!§~~W. SWEET
lusnc SDNY - .s.n.J.
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC#:
I1 DATE FILED:
;_L:::::.-::.-------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------X
...............................................
VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,
PLAINTIFF,
V.
15-cv-07433-RWS
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Oral Argument Requested for January
DEFENDANT. 7, 2016 at 12:00 pm
--------------------------------------------------X
DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL’S NOTICE OF
MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, upon the accompanying Declaration of Laura
A. Menninger, dated November 30, 2015, and the exhibits thereto and the accompanying
Memorandum of Law, dated November 30, 2015, any other matters of which the Court
may take judicial notice, and upon all prior pleadings and proceedings in this action,
other documents on file in this action, and any oral argument of counsel, Defendant
Ghislaine Maxwell (“Maxwell”) will move this Court, before the Honorable Robert W.
Sweet, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New
York, New York, Courtroom 18C, for an Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissing the Complaint of Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre in its entirety
and granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: November 30, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Laura A. Menninger
Laura A. Menninger
HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: 303.831.7364
Fax: 303.832.2628
lmenninger@hmflaw.com
Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on November 30, 2015, I electronically filed this DEFENDANT
GHISLAINE MAXWELL’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification to the
following:
Sigrid S. McCawley
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
smccawley@bsfllp.com
s/ Brenda Rodriguez
Brenda Rodriguez
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------X
...............................................
VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,
PLAINTIFF,
V.
15-cv-07433-RWS
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
DEFENDANT.
----------------------------------------------X
GHISLAINE MAXWELL’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
Tel: 303.831.7364
Dated: November 30, 2015
i
Table of Contents
I. MS. MAXWELL’S STATEMENTS ARE PRIVILEGED .......................................... 9
A. The Self-Defense Privilege Protects Ms. Maxwell’s Statements .............................. 9
B. The Pre-Litigation Privilege Protects Ms. Maxwell’s Statements .......................... 14
II. PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PLAUSIBLY PLEAD DEFAMATION .......................... 17
A. Viewed In Context, the Statements are Non-Actionable ........................................ 18
B. The Complaint Does Not Allege to Whom, Where or in What Manner the January
3 Statement Was Made ............................................................................................ 22
C. Plaintiff Has Not Properly Pled Special Damages .................................................. 23
a. The Alleged Defamatory Statement is Not Defamatory Per Se .......................... 23
b. Failure to Allege Special Damages Warrants Dismissal ..................................... 24
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 25
ii
Cases
Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) .......................................................... 17
Adelson v. Harris, 973 F. Supp.2d 467, 477 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ............................................ 7
Armstrong v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 625 N.Y.S.2d 477 (1995) ....................................... 7
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) .................................................................. 6
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) ................................................ 7
Biro v. Conde Nast, 883 F.Supp.2d 441, 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) .................................... 7, 12
Caplan v. Winslet, 218 A.D.2d 148, 153 (1st Dep’t 1996) ............................................... 13
Celle v. Fillipino Reporter Enters, Inc., 209 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2000) .............................. 17
Club Valencia Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Valencia Associates, 712 P.2d 1024 (Colo.
App. 1985) ..................................................................................................................... 13
Cohen v. Stevanovich, 772 F.Supp.2d 416, 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ...................................... 7
Collier v. Possum Cereal Co., Ltd., 134 N.Y.S. 847, 853 (1st Dep’t 1912) ....................... 9
Couloute, Jr. v. Rynarz, No. 11 CV 5986 (HB), 2012 WL 541089, (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ..... 17
Cruz v. Marchetto, No. 11 Civ. 8378, 2012 WL 4513484 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) .......... 7, 20, 21
Culver v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 1995 US Dist. LEXIS 10017 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) .............. 13
Deutsche Asset Mgmt, Inc. v. Callaghan, No. 01 Civ 4426 CBM, 2004 WL 758303 ...... 16
Dillon v. City of New York, 704 N.Y.S.2d 1, 5 (1st Dep’t 1999) ................................... 8,18
Edwards v. Great Northern Ins. Co., No. 03 CV 2947 (NG) (RML), 2006 WL 2053717,
(E.D.N.Y. July 21, 2006) ............................................................................................... 18
Foretich v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 37 F.3d 1541 (4th Cir. 1994) ............................. 8, 11
Fowler v. New York Herald, 172 N.Y.S. 423 (1st Dep’t 1918) ........................................... 8
iii
Frechtman v. Gutterman, 979 N.Y.S.2d 58 (1st Dep’t 2014) ........................................... 14
Front, Inc. v. Khalil, 24 N.Y.3d 713, 720 (2015) .............................................................. 13
Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc. v. McNulty, 669 F.Supp.2d 405 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ................. 8
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 325 (1974) ..................................................... 17
Hawkins v. City of New York, No. 99 Civ. 11704 (RWS), 2005 WL 1861855 (S.D.N.Y.
Aug. 4, 2005) ..................................................................................................... 20, 21, 23
Hoesten v. Best, 821 N.Y.S.2d 40 (1st Dep't 2006) .......................................................... 12
Independent Living Aids, Inc. v. Maxi-Aids, Inc., 981 F.Supp. 124 (E.D.N.Y. 1997) ...... 19
International Publishing Concepts, LLC v. Locatelli, 9 N.Y.S.3d 593, 2015 N.Y. Slip Op.
50049 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 15, 2015) ............................................................................. 14
J.P.R. Cafeteria, Inc. v. Kingsborough Community College of City University of New
York, 847 N.Y.S.2d 902 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 21, 2007) ............................................... 21
Kane v. Orange Cnty. Publ’n, 232 A.D.2d 526, 527 (2d Dept. 1996) ................................ 8
Keohane v. Stewart, 882 P.2d 1293 (Colo. 1994) ............................................................. 17
Kforce, Inc. v. Alden Personnel, Inc., 288 F.Supp.2d 513, 516 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) ...... 16, 21
Kirk v. Heppt, 532 F.Supp.2d 586 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ......................................................... 14
Krepps v. Reiner, 588 F.Supp.2d 471, 483 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) .............................................. 7
Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429, 590 (N.Y. 1992) ................................................... 22
McNamee v. Clemens, 762 F.Supp.2d 584, 601 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) .................................... 19
Mencher v. Chesley, 85 N.Y.S.2d 431 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1948) .......................................
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,
Plaintiff, CASE NO:_____________________
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
________________________________/
COMPLAINT
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
575 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
(212) 446-2300
1
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 2 of 12
Plaintiff, VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, formerly known as Virginia Roberts
(“Giuffre”), for her Complaint against Defendant, GHISLAINE MAXWELL (“Maxwell”), avers
upon personal knowledge as to her own acts and status and otherwise upon information and
belief:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This suit arises out of Defendant Maxwell’s defamatory statements against
Plaintiff Giuffre. As described below, Giuffre was a victim of sexual trafficking and abuse while
she was a minor child. Defendant Maxwell not only facilitated that sexual abuse but, most
recently, wrongfully subjected Giuffre to public ridicule, contempt and disgrace by, among other
things, calling Giuffre a liar in published statements with the malicious intent of discrediting and
further damaging Giuffre worldwide.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This is an action for damages in an amount in excess of the minimum
jurisdictional limits of this Court.
3. This Court has jurisdiction over this dispute pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332
(diversity jurisdiction) as Giuffre and Maxwell are citizens of different states and the amount in
controversy exceeds seventy-five thousand ($75,000), exclusive of interest and costs.
4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Maxwell. Maxwell resides in New York
City, and this action arose, and defamatory statements were made, within the Southern District of
New York.
5. Venue is proper in this Court as the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of
this Court.
2
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 3 of 12
PARTIES
6. Plaintiff Giuffre is an individual who is a citizen of the State of Colorado.
7. Defendant Maxwell, who is domiciled in the Southern District of New York, is
not a citizen of the state of Colorado.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
8. Virginia Giuffre became a victim of sex trafficking and repeated sexual abuse
after being recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein when Giuffre was under the age
of eighteen.
9. Between 1999 and 2002, with the assistance and participation of Maxwell,
Epstein sexually abused Giuffre at numerous locations including his mansions in West Palm
Beach, Florida, and in this District. Between 2001 and 2007, with the assistance of numerous
co-conspirators, Epstein abused more than thirty (30) minor underage girls, a fact confirmed by
state and federal law enforcement.
10. As part of their sex trafficking efforts, Epstein and Maxwell intimidated Giuffre
into remaining silent about what had happened to her.
11. In September 2007, Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”)
that barred his prosecution for numerous federal sex crimes in the Southern District of Florida.
12. In the NPA, the United States additionally agreed that it would not institute any
federal criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein.
13. As a co-conspirator of Epstein, Maxwell was consequently granted immunity in
the Southern District of Florida through the NPA.
14. Epstein ultimately pled guilty to procuring a minor for prostitution, and is now a
registered sex offender.
3
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 4 of 12
15. Rather than confer with the victims about the NPA, the U.S. Attorney’s Office
and Epstein agreed to a “confidentiality” provision in the Agreement barring its disclosure to
anyone—including Epstein’s victims. As a consequence, the victims were not told about the
NPA.
16. On July 7, 2008, a young woman identified as Jane Doe No. 1, one of Jeffrey
Epstein’s victims (other than Giuffre), filed a petition to enforce her rights under the Crime
Victims’ Rights Act (“CVRA”), 18 U.S.C. ¶ 3771, alleging that the Government failed to
provide her the rights promised in the CVRA with regard to the plea arrangement with Epstein.
The litigation remains ongoing.
17. On or about May 4, 2009, Virginia Giuffre—identified then as Jane Doe No.
102—filed a complaint against Jeffrey Epstein in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. The complaint included allegations made by Giuffre that pertained
to Maxwell.
18. In pertinent part, the Jane Doe No. 102 complaint described in detail how
Maxwell recruited Giuffre (who was then a minor girl) to become a victim of sex trafficking by
introducing Giuffre to Jeffrey Epstein. With the assistance of Maxwell, Epstein was able to
sexually abuse Giuffre for years until Giuffre eventually escaped.
19. The Jane Doe No. 102 complaint contained the first public allegations made on
behalf of Giuffre regarding Maxwell.
20. As civil litigation against Epstein moved forward on behalf of Giuffre and many
other similarly-situated victims, Maxwell was served with a subpoena for deposition. Her
testimony was sought concerning her personal knowledge and role in Epstein’s abuse of Giuffre
and others.
4
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 5 of 12
21. To avoid her deposition, Maxwell claimed that her mother fell deathly ill and that
consequently she was leaving the United States for London with no plans of ever returning. In
fact, however, within weeks of using that excuse to avoid testifying, Maxwell had returned to
New York.
22. In 2011, two FBI agents located Giuffre in Australia—where she had been hiding
from Epstein and Maxwell for several years—and arranged to meet with her at the U.S.
Consulate in Sidney. Giuffre provided truthful and accurate information to the FBI about
Epstein and Maxwell’s sexual abuse.
23. Ultimately, as a mother and one of Epstein’s many victims, Giuffre believed that
she should speak out about her sexual abuse experiences in hopes of helping others who had also
suffered from sexual trafficking and abuse.
24. On December 23, 2014, Giuffre incorporated an organization called Victims
Refuse Silence, Inc., a Florida not-for-profit corporation.
25. Giuffre intended Victims Refuse Silence to change and improve the fight against
sexual abuse and human trafficking. The goal of her organization was, and continues to be, to
help survivors surmount the shame, silence, and intimidation typically experienced by victims of
sexual abuse. Giuffre has now dedicated her professional life to helping victims of sex
trafficking.
26. On December 30, 2014, Giuffre moved to join the on-going litigation previously
filed by Jane Doe 1 in the Southern District of Florida challenging Epstein’s non-prosecution
agreement by filing her own joinder motion.
5
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 6 of 12
27. Giuffre’s motion described Maxwell’s role as one of the main women who
Epstein used to procure under-aged girls for sexual activities and a primary co-conspirator and
participant in his sexual abuse and sex trafficking scheme.
28. In January, 2015, Maxwell undertook a concerted and malicious campaign to
discredit Giuffre and to so damage her reputation that Giuffre’s factual reporting of what had
happened to her would not be credited.
29. As part of Maxwell’s campaign she directed her agent, Ross Gow, to attack
Giuffre’s honesty and truthfulness and to accuse Giuffre of lying.
30. On or about January 3, 2015, speaking through her authorized agent, Maxwell
issued an additional false statement to the media and public designed to maliciously discredit
Giuffre. That statement contained the following deliberate falsehoods:
(a) That Giuffre’s sworn allegations “against Ghislaine Maxwell are untrue.”
(b) That the allegations have been “shown to be untrue.”
(c) That Giuffre’s “claims are obvious lies.”
31. Maxwell’s January 3, 2015, statement incorporated by reference “Ghislaine
Maxwell’s original response to the lies and defamatory claims remains the same,” an earlier
statement that had falsely described Giuffre’s factual assertions as “entirely false” and “entirely
untrue.”
32. Maxwell made the same false and defamatory statements as set forth above, in the
Southern District of New York and elsewhere in a deliberate effort to maliciously discredit
Giuffre and silence her efforts to expose sex crimes committed around the world by Maxwell,
Epstein, and other powerful persons. Maxwell did so with the purpose and effect of having
6
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 7 of 12
others repeat such false and defamatory statements and thereby further damaged Giuffre’s
reputation.
33. Maxwell made her statements to discredit Giuffre in close consultation with
Epstein. Maxwell made her statements knowing full well they were false.
34. Maxwell made her statements maliciously as part of an effort to conceal sex
trafficking crimes committed around the world by Maxwell, Epstein and other powerful persons.
35. Maxwell intended her false and defamatory statements set out above to be
broadcast around the world and to intimidate and silence Giuffre from making further efforts to
expose sex crimes committed by Maxwell, Epstein, and other powerful persons.
36. Maxwell intended her false statements to be specific statements of fact, including
a statement that she had not recruited an underage Giuffre for Epstein’s abuse. Maxwell’s false
statements were broadcast around the world and were reasonably understood by those who heard
them to be specific factual claims by Maxwell that she had not helped Epstein recruit or sexually
abuse Giuffre and that Giuffre was a liar.
37. On or about January 4, 2015, Maxwell continued her campaign to falsely and
maliciously discredit Giuffre. When a reporter on a Manhattan street asked Maxwell about
Giuffre’s allegations against Maxwell, she responded by saying: “I am referring to the statement
that we made.” The New York Daily News published a video of this response by Maxwell
indicating that she made her false statements on East 65th Street in Manhattan, New York, within
the Southern District of New York.
7
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 8 of 12
COUNT I
DEFAMATION
1. Plaintiff Giuffre re-alleges paragraphs 1 - 37 as if the same were fully set forth
herein. Maxwell made her false and defamatory statements deliberately and maliciously with the
intent to intimidate, discredit and defame Giuffre.
2. In January 2015, and thereafter, Maxwell intentionally and maliciously released to
the press her false statements about Giuffre in an attempt to destroy Giuffre’s reputation and
cause her to lose all credibility in her efforts to help victims of sex trafficking.
3. Maxwell additionally released to the press her false statements with knowledge
that her words would dilute, discredit and neutralize Giuffre’s public and private messages to
sexual abuse victims and ultimately prevent Giuffre from effectively providing assistance and
advocacy on behalf of other victims of sex trafficking, or to expose her abusers.
4. Using her role as a powerful figure with powerful friends, Maxwell’s statements
were published internationally for the malicious purpose of further damaging a sexual abuse and
sexual trafficking victim; to destroy Giuffre’s reputation and credibility; to cause the world to
disbelieve Giuffre; and to destroy Giuffre’s efforts to use her experience to help others suffering
as sex trafficking victims.
5. Maxwell, personally and through her authorized agent, Ross Gow, intentionally
and maliciously made false and damaging statements of fact concerning Giuffre, as detailed
above, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere.
6. The false statements made by Gow were all made by him as Maxwell’s
authorized agent and were made with direct and actual authority from Maxwell as the principal.
8
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 9 of 12
7. The false statements that Maxwell made personally, and through her authorized
agent Gow, not only called Giuffre’s truthfulness and integrity into question, but also exposed
Giuffre to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, and disgrace.
8. Maxwell made her false statements knowing full well that they were completely
false. Accordingly, she made her statements with actual and deliberate malice, the highest
degree of awareness of falsity.
9. Maxwell’s false statements constitute libel, as she knew that they were going to
be transmitted in writing, widely disseminated on the internet and in print. Maxwell intended her
false statements to be published by newspaper and other media outlets internationally, and they
were, in fact, published globally, including within the Southern District of New York.
10. Maxwell’s false statements constitute libel per se inasmuch as they exposed
Giuffre to public contempt, ridicule, aversion, and disgrace, and induced an evil opinion of her in
the minds of right-thinking persons.
11. Maxwell’s false statements also constitute libel per se inasmuch as they tended to
injure Giuffre in her professional capacity as the president of a non-profit corporation designed
to help victims of sex trafficking, and inasmuch as they destroyed her credibility and reputation
among members of the community that seeks her help and that she seeks to serve.
12. Maxwell’s false statements directly stated and also implied that in speaking out
against sex trafficking Giuffre acted with fraud, dishonesty, and unfitness for the task.
Maxwell’s false statements directly and indirectly indicate that Giuffre lied about being recruited
by Maxwell and sexually abused by Epstein and Maxwell. Maxwell’s false statements were
reasonably understood by many persons who read her statements as conveying that specific
intention and meaning.
9
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 10 of 12
13. Maxwell’s false statements were reasonably understood by many persons who
read those statements as making specific factual claims that Giuffre was lying about specific
facts.
14. Maxwell specifically directed her false statements at Giuffre’s true public
description of factual events, and many persons who read Maxwell’s statements reasonably
understood that those statements referred directly to Giuffre’s account of her life as a young
teenager with Maxwell and Epstein.
15. Maxwell intended her false statements to be widely published and disseminated
on television, through newspapers, by word of mouth and on the internet. As intended by
Maxwell, her statements were published and disseminated around the world.
16. Maxwell coordinated her false statements with other media efforts made by
Epstein and other powerful persons acting as Epstein’s representatives and surrogates. Maxwell
made and coordinated her statements in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere with
the specific intent to amplify the defamatory effect those statements would have on Giuffre’s
reputation and credibility.
17. Maxwell made her false statements both directly and through agents who, with
her general and specific authorization, adopted, distributed, and published the false statements on
Maxwell’s behalf. In addition, Maxwell and her authorized agents made false statements in
reckless disregard of their truth or falsity and with malicious intent to destroy Giuffre’s
reputation and credibility; to prevent her from further disseminating her life story; and to cause
persons hearing or reading Giuffre’s descriptions of truthful facts to disbelieve her entirely.
Maxwell made her false statements wantonly and with the specific intent to maliciously damage
Giuffre’s good name and reputation in a way that would destroy her efforts to administer her
10
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 11 of 12
non-profit foundation, or share her life story, and thereby help others who have suffered from
sexual abuse.
18. As a result of Maxwell’s campaign to spread false, discrediting and defamatory
statements about Giuffre, Giuffre suffered substantial damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
19. Maxwell’s false statements have caused, and continue to cause, Giuffre economic
damage, psychological pain and suffering, mental anguish and emotional distress, and other
direct and consequential damages and losses.
20. Maxwell’s campaign to spread her false statements internationally was unusual
and particularly egregious conduct. Maxwell sexually abused Giuffre and helped Epstein to
sexually abuse Giuffre, and then, in order to avoid having these crimes discovered, Maxwell
wantonly and maliciously set out to falsely accuse, defame, and discredit Giuffre. In so doing,
Maxwell’s efforts constituted a public wrong by deterring, damaging, and setting back Giuffre’s
efforts to help victims of sex trafficking. Accordingly, this is a case in which exemplary and
punitive damages are appropriate.
21. Punitive and exemplary damages are necessary in this case to deter Maxwell and
others from wantonly and maliciously using a campaign of lies to discredit Giuffre and other
victims of sex trafficking.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Giuffre respectfully requests judgment against Defendant
Maxwell, awarding compensatory, consequential, exemplary, and punitive damages in an
amount to be determined at trial, but in excess of the $75,000 jurisdictional requirement; costs of
suit; attorneys’ fees; and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
11
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 12 of 12
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all causes of action asserted within this
pleading.
Dated September 21, 2015.
/s/ David Boies
David Boies
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
/s/ Sigrid McCawley
Sigrid McCawley
(Pro Hac Vice Pending)
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
(954) 356-0011
/s/ Ellen Brockman
Ellen Brockman
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
575 Lexington Ave
New York, New York 10022
(212) 446-2300
12
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 6 Filed 09/25/15 Page 1 of 2
15 7433
CORRECTED
25
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 6 Filed 09/25/15 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 7 Filed 09/25/15 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 7 Filed 09/25/15 Page 2 of 2
Case
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1:15-cv-07433-LAP
1:15-cv-07433 Document
Document
Document
3 85
Filed
Filed
Filed
09/21/15
09/25/15
09/22/15
Page
Page
Page
1 of
11 2
of
of 22
AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
Southern District
__________ DistrictofofNew York
__________
Virginia L. Giuffre
)
)
Plaintiff
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 15-cv-7433
Ghislaine Maxwell )
)
Defendant
)
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Ghislaine Maxwell
116 East 65th Street
New York, New York 10065
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are: David Boies
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, New York 10504
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date: 9/21/2015 /S/ D. Gonzalez
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 8 Filed 09/25/15 Page 2 of 2
Ca&$d.5itg-0v4reX.m/V9ooonEm$rt Fil#le0/Ag/2Sl1Fa@A@2 Af 2
AO 440 (Rev l2109) Summons in a CivilAction (Page 2)
Civil Action No. 15-cv-7433
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section shoukl not befiled with the court unless retluited bJ) Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (nane of inditiclrol aild titte, if any) C ,5fer,ae Itta*ol*r."-
was received by me on (date) cl '&L ts
(, i*
U/personally served the summons on the individual at (ptace) fl"tt
"b Feet Ar", ! e*,
S..-.tl Fl't.,. WY on (date) ,1 ??: (< 2;6 ;or
O I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place ofabode with (nane)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or
0 I served the summons on frane ofindividual) , who is
designated by law to accept service ofprocess on behalf of (nane oforganizationl
on (date) ;or
D I returned the sunmons unexecuted because ;or
J Olher (specify):
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of$ 0.00
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date: q z? lf {
s.t
lQ,r, til
tL"o.,t &a F;'.*a*or*o ,{?3r'
Senet's addtess
Additional information regarding attempted sewice, etc
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 9 Filed 09/29/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 6-1 Filed 09/25/15 Page 1of1
UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTH_ERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Virginia L. Giuffre,
Plaintiff,
-15.__CV 7433
-against-
ORDER FOR ADMISSION
Ghislaine Maxwell, PRO HAC VICE
Defendant.
The motion of Sigrid S. Mccawley . _, for admission to
practice Pro Hae Vice in the above captioned action is granted.
Applicant has declared that he/she is a member in good standing of the bar(s) of the state(s) of
Florida _ ; and that his/her contact information is as follows
(please print):
Applicant's Name: Sigrid S. Mccawley
Finn Name: Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
Address: 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200
"'~~-~~----- ••••«••-' - - · -
City/ State/ Zip: F~_i:!~auderdal~_,_~Iori?a 3~~~1
Telephone/ Fax: _!el: (954) 356-_~!_l /Fax:~?,54) 356-00_22
Applicant having requested admission Pro Hae Vice to appear for all purposes as counsel for
Plaintiff Virginia L. Giuffre in the above entitled action;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Applicant is admitted to practice Pro Hae Vice in the above
captioned case in the United States District Court for the Southern District ofNe\lv York. All attorneys
appearing before this Court are subject to the Local Rules of this Court, including the Rules governing
discipline of attorneys.
Dated:- - - - - - - -
r:-:- ---·--· -.-- _,,__ -·---
·Tr;,;;r··1r·._,-,.
l \)
I, .
,I'""t ,"'.
. .. '
,._.
~-._......-"'
. . --·
J
.
:
11 ;,;·:;·:'. , ,;,,.,r;\A,Lt.Y FILED,
I! ()(JC#, 4L~;
l!_ ?~rE FlL~~~_;,Jj.~, ~-----~- .... ., -
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 9 Filed 09/29/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:15-cv-07 433-RWS Document 6 Filed U9/Z5/15 Page 1 of 2
. ;, ~t'
.. '',
•,,
: " ....
j I l'
I ,,'
t:\rl ED srxn:s VIS lRICT cot RT
~ t ...
UH~l_{:"J>l:iHUC T.or ~FWYORI( '•·,
\",
CORRECTED '.\10Tl01'\ FOH \D\TISSIO.\:
!'!Hi HA('\ HE
A):..,' J ;.__''f ! ,,,)f;t'
!''-
----------------·-·--- --
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 9 Filed 09/29/15 Page 3 of 3
case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 6 Filed 09/25/15 Page 2 of 2
~upreme <!Court of jfloriba
<!Ccrttf tcate of ~oob ~tanbtng
I JOHN A. TOMASINO, Clerk of tlte Supreme Court of the State of Florida, do
hereby certijji that
SIGRID STONE MCCAWLEY
was admitted as an attorney and counselor entitled to practice law in all the
Courts of the State of Florida on November 6, 1997, is presently in good
standing, and that the private and professional character of the attorney
appear to be good.
WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the
Supreme Court of Florida at Tallahassee,
FAK 10/13/15
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 11 Filed NO. 30383?1015
Page 1 of 1 t'. UC:
~~~f\M\'.~i~~
.t
October 9, 2015
Honorable Robert W. Sweet
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York; NY 10007-13122
Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell, Case No. J5-cv-07433-RWS
Dear Honorable Judge Sweet:
1 represent defendant Ghislaine Maxwell in connection with the above-referenced
action. I write pursuant to Section 1.E. of Your Honor's Individual Practice Rules to
request an extension of Defendant's time to answer, move or otherwise respond to
Plaintiff's Complaint from October 13, 2015 up to and including November 30. 2015.
We have not previously requested any adjournments or extensions of time in this
action. Counsel for Plaintiff has oonsented to this request.
We thank Your Honor for your attention to this matter.
a.
A. Menninger
LAM/BCR
cc: Sigrid S. Mccawley, Esq.
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP
Counsel for Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre
viafacsimile: (954) 356·0022
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 12 Filed 10/13/15 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,
Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
Defendant.
To the Clerk of Court and all parties of record:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the undersigned hereby appears in the above-captioned
action as counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. I certify that I am admitted to practice in
this Court.
Dated: October 9, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Laura A. Menninger
Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: 303.831.7364
Fax: 303.832.2628
lmenninger@hmflaw.com
Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 12 Filed 10/13/15 Page 2 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on October 13, 2015, I served this Notice Of Appearance via CM/ECF to the
following:
Sigrid S. McCawley
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
smccawley@bsfllp.com
Fax: (954) 356-0022
s/ Brenda Rodriguez
Brenda Rodriguez
2
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 13 Filed 10/30/15 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
x
Glu++ce} Plaintiff,
- against -
0 R D E
R 7Lf 33
IS Civ. (RWSl
MCMWe.f I Defendant.
x
Sweet, D.J.,
The par~ies to this action, 1vr{_~~tQJ:Ileys, having appeared before this Court at
a pretrial conference on ~ ~ , pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, pursuant to ~~~~·~~~~~~~~~~~
I'l' IS HEREBY O.RDER.ED that:
1. All motions are to be made returnable at 12 :QO noon on Wednesday and in compliance
with the rules of this Court.
2. The parties shall
expert discovery by
te all fact discovery by 1-- {- t (!.and all
The expert report(s) of the party with the burden
of proof shall be due ho of the opposing party's expert(s). The parties
shall file all motions, oth r than motions in limine, by this date (or whichever is
later), after which no discovery will be conducted and no motion will be entertained
without a showing of special circumstances. Plaintiff{s) shall submit a draft of the
pretrial order to the defendant(s) on or before the completion of discovery. The
parties are advised that this Court is participating in a Pilot Program for initial
discovery protocols for employment cases alleging adverse action. See www.fjc.gov.
3. The parties shall, in order to prevent delay or interruption of the trial, have
sufficient witnesses.at all times during the trial and shall perpetuate before trial
the direct and cross-examination testimony of any essential witness.
4. The parties shall submit to the court trial briefs, a joint proposed pretrial
order, and, i applicable, motions in limine and proposed jury charges, voir dire
requests d peci 1 v~dict form in accordance with the annexed form and instructions
by A final pretrial conference will be held at 4:30 pm on that
date and a t'on sn l be added to the trial calendar published in the New York Law
Journal. rior to submission of the final pretrial order, the parties are directed to
exchange offers of settlement. The parties are directed to be ready for trial the day
after the pretrial order is due and, upon receipt of twenty-four hour telephone notice,
on any day thereafter.
5. Adjournments of the dates set forth above will not be granted except for good
cause and upon written application made as soon as the grounds for such application
are known.
6. Failure to comply with any of the provisions of this order will result in
dismissal of the action, entry of a default judgment, or other appropriate sanction.
g~
It is so ordered.
201Pf=::=::=:=:::=:=======:=::=:;::j!!§~~W. SWEET
lusnc SDNY - .s.n.J.
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC#:
I1 DATE FILED:
;_L:::::.-::.-------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------X
...............................................
VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,
PLAINTIFF,
V.
15-cv-07433-RWS
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Oral Argument Requested for January
DEFENDANT. 7, 2016 at 12:00 pm
--------------------------------------------------X
DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL’S NOTICE OF
MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, upon the accompanying Declaration of Laura
A. Menninger, dated November 30, 2015, and the exhibits thereto and the accompanying
Memorandum of Law, dated November 30, 2015, any other matters of which the Court
may take judicial notice, and upon all prior pleadings and proceedings in this action,
other documents on file in this action, and any oral argument of counsel, Defendant
Ghislaine Maxwell (“Maxwell”) will move this Court, before the Honorable Robert W.
Sweet, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New
York, New York, Courtroom 18C, for an Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissing the Complaint of Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre in its entirety
and granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: November 30, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Laura A. Menninger
Laura A. Menninger
HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: 303.831.7364
Fax: 303.832.2628
lmenninger@hmflaw.com
Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on November 30, 2015, I electronically filed this DEFENDANT
GHISLAINE MAXWELL’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification to the
following:
Sigrid S. McCawley
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
smccawley@bsfllp.com
s/ Brenda Rodriguez
Brenda Rodriguez
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------X
...............................................
VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,
PLAINTIFF,
V.
15-cv-07433-RWS
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
DEFENDANT.
----------------------------------------------X
GHISLAINE MAXWELL’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
Tel: 303.831.7364
Dated: November 30, 2015
i
Table of Contents
I. MS. MAXWELL’S STATEMENTS ARE PRIVILEGED .......................................... 9
A. The Self-Defense Privilege Protects Ms. Maxwell’s Statements .............................. 9
B. The Pre-Litigation Privilege Protects Ms. Maxwell’s Statements .......................... 14
II. PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PLAUSIBLY PLEAD DEFAMATION .......................... 17
A. Viewed In Context, the Statements are Non-Actionable ........................................ 18
B. The Complaint Does Not Allege to Whom, Where or in What Manner the January
3 Statement Was Made ............................................................................................ 22
C. Plaintiff Has Not Properly Pled Special Damages .................................................. 23
a. The Alleged Defamatory Statement is Not Defamatory Per Se .......................... 23
b. Failure to Allege Special Damages Warrants Dismissal ..................................... 24
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 25
ii
Cases
Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) .......................................................... 17
Adelson v. Harris, 973 F. Supp.2d 467, 477 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ............................................ 7
Armstrong v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 625 N.Y.S.2d 477 (1995) ....................................... 7
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) .................................................................. 6
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) ................................................ 7
Biro v. Conde Nast, 883 F.Supp.2d 441, 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) .................................... 7, 12
Caplan v. Winslet, 218 A.D.2d 148, 153 (1st Dep’t 1996) ............................................... 13
Celle v. Fillipino Reporter Enters, Inc., 209 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2000) .............................. 17
Club Valencia Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Valencia Associates, 712 P.2d 1024 (Colo.
App. 1985) ..................................................................................................................... 13
Cohen v. Stevanovich, 772 F.Supp.2d 416, 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ...................................... 7
Collier v. Possum Cereal Co., Ltd., 134 N.Y.S. 847, 853 (1st Dep’t 1912) ....................... 9
Couloute, Jr. v. Rynarz, No. 11 CV 5986 (HB), 2012 WL 541089, (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ..... 17
Cruz v. Marchetto, No. 11 Civ. 8378, 2012 WL 4513484 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) .......... 7, 20, 21
Culver v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 1995 US Dist. LEXIS 10017 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) .............. 13
Deutsche Asset Mgmt, Inc. v. Callaghan, No. 01 Civ 4426 CBM, 2004 WL 758303 ...... 16
Dillon v. City of New York, 704 N.Y.S.2d 1, 5 (1st Dep’t 1999) ................................... 8,18
Edwards v. Great Northern Ins. Co., No. 03 CV 2947 (NG) (RML), 2006 WL 2053717,
(E.D.N.Y. July 21, 2006) ............................................................................................... 18
Foretich v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 37 F.3d 1541 (4th Cir. 1994) ............................. 8, 11
Fowler v. New York Herald, 172 N.Y.S. 423 (1st Dep’t 1918) ........................................... 8
iii
Frechtman v. Gutterman, 979 N.Y.S.2d 58 (1st Dep’t 2014) ........................................... 14
Front, Inc. v. Khalil, 24 N.Y.3d 713, 720 (2015) .............................................................. 13
Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc. v. McNulty, 669 F.Supp.2d 405 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ................. 8
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 325 (1974) ..................................................... 17
Hawkins v. City of New York, No. 99 Civ. 11704 (RWS), 2005 WL 1861855 (S.D.N.Y.
Aug. 4, 2005) ..................................................................................................... 20, 21, 23
Hoesten v. Best, 821 N.Y.S.2d 40 (1st Dep't 2006) .......................................................... 12
Independent Living Aids, Inc. v. Maxi-Aids, Inc., 981 F.Supp. 124 (E.D.N.Y. 1997) ...... 19
International Publishing Concepts, LLC v. Locatelli, 9 N.Y.S.3d 593, 2015 N.Y. Slip Op.
50049 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 15, 2015) ............................................................................. 14
J.P.R. Cafeteria, Inc. v. Kingsborough Community College of City University of New
York, 847 N.Y.S.2d 902 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 21, 2007) ............................................... 21
Kane v. Orange Cnty. Publ’n, 232 A.D.2d 526, 527 (2d Dept. 1996) ................................ 8
Keohane v. Stewart, 882 P.2d 1293 (Colo. 1994) ............................................................. 17
Kforce, Inc. v. Alden Personnel, Inc., 288 F.Supp.2d 513, 516 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) ...... 16, 21
Kirk v. Heppt, 532 F.Supp.2d 586 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ......................................................... 14
Krepps v. Reiner, 588 F.Supp.2d 471, 483 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) .............................................. 7
Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429, 590 (N.Y. 1992) ................................................... 22
McNamee v. Clemens, 762 F.Supp.2d 584, 601 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) .................................... 19
Mencher v. Chesley, 85 N.Y.S.2d 431 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1948) .......................................