EFTA00608692.pdf
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 3%6 Filed 03/29/16 Page 1 of 17
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
v.
Ghislthne Maxwell,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENFORCE THE COURT'S ORDER AND DIRECT
DEFENDANT TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS FILED UNDER SEAL'
Plaintiff by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this
Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
As the Court is aware, this defamation case involves Ms. assertions that she and
other females were recruited by Defendant to be sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein under the
guise of being "massage therapists." See Complaint, DEI, at I 27 (= "described Maxwell's
role as one of the main women who Epstein used to procure under-aged girls for sexual activities
Defendant has labelled her entire deposition transcript as Confidential at this time.
1
EFTA00608692
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 3%6 Filed 03/29/16 Page 2 of 17
and a primary co-conspirator and participant in his sexual abuse and sex trafficking scheme").
I
I
IN
I
2
EFTA00608693
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 3%6 Filed 03/29/16 Page 3 of 17
In response to Ms. assertions about Defendant recruiting of females for sexual
purposes, Defendant has made the sweeping claim that Ms. assertions are "entirely
false" and "entirely untrue." Complaint, DE 1, at 131.
See Schultz Decl. at Exhibit 6, (Emphasis added).
3
EFTA00608694
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 356 Filed 08/29/16 Page 4 of 17
4
EFTA00608695
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 3I6 Filed 08/291/16 Page 5 of 17
5
EFTA00608696
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 3%6 Filed OS/29/16 Page 6 of 17
"What do you have on the girls?" [Epstein) would ask the question over and over again.
What I had "on the girls" were some remarkably brave first-person accounts. Three on-
the-record stories from a family: a mother and her daughters
who came from Phoenix. The oldest daughter, an artist whose
character was vouchsafed to me by several sources, including the artist Eric Fischl, had
told me, weeping as she sat in my living room, of how Epstein had attempted to seduce
both her and, separately, her younger sister, then only 16. He'd gotten to them because of
his money. He promised the older sister patronage of her art work; he'd promised the
younger funding for a trip abroad that would give her the work experience she needed on
her resume for a place at an Ivy League university, which she desperately wanted - and
would win. The girls' mother told me by phone that she had thought her daughters would
6
EFTA00608697
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 3%6 Filed 03/29/16 Page 7 of 17
be safe under Epstein's roof, not least because he phoned her to reassure her, and she
also knew he had Ghislaine Maxwell with him at all times. When the girls' mother
learned that Epstein had, regardless, allegedly molested her 16-year-old daughter, she'd
wanted to fight back.
"1 Tried to Warn You about Sleazy Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein in 2003," Vicky Ward, January 6,
2015, Daily Beast Article (Emphasis added).
7
EFTA00608698
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 356 Filed 08/291/16 Page 8 of 17
I
8
EFTA00608699
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 355 Filed 08/29/16 Page 9 of 17
9
EFTA00608700
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 355 Filed 08/210/16 Page 10 of 17
i
10
EFTA00608701
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 355 Filed 08/29/16 Page 11of 17
I
II
EFTA00608702
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 3$6 Filed OE/29/16 Page 12 of 17
I
I
I
I
12
EFTA00608703
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 316 Filed OS/21/16 Page 13 of 17
See Fed. R. Crim. P.
37(a)(3)(B)(i); see, e.g., Kelly v. Al Tech., No. 09 CIV. 962 LAK MHD, 2010 WL 1541585, at
*20 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2010) ("Under the Federal Rules, when a party refuses to answer a
question during a deposition, the questioning party may subsequently move to compel disclosure
of the testimony that it sought. The court must determine the propriety of the deponent's
objection to answering the questions, and can order the deponent to provide improperly withheld
answers during a continued deposition" (internal citations omitted)). Of course, the party
objecting to discovery must carry the burden of proving the validity of its objections, particularly
in light of "the broad and liberal construction afforded the federal discovery rules .. . ." John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Book Dog Books, LLC, 298 F.R.D. 184, 186 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). For
purposes of a deposition, the information sought "need not be admissible at the trial if the
discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Chen-
Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 293 F.R.D. 557, 561 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P.
26(b)(l))•
13
EFTA00608704
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 316 Filed 03/259/16 Page 14 of 17
See also, Condit v. Dunne, 225 F.R.D. 100, 113 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (in defamation case,
"Plaintiff is hereby ordered to answer questions regarding his sexual relationships in so far as
they are relevant to a defense of substantial truth, mitigation of damages, or impeachment of
plaintiff."); Weber v. Multimedia Entm't, Inc., No. 97 CIV. 0682 PKL THK, 1997 WL 729039, at
*3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 1997) ("While discovery is not unlimited and may not unnecessarily
intrude into private matters, in the instant case inquiry into private matters is clearly relevant to
the subject matter of the suit. Accordingly, plaintiff Misty Weber shall respond to defendants'
interrogatories concerning her sexual partners . . . ."). Moreover, generally speaking, instructions
from attorneys to their clients not to answer questions at a deposition should be "limited to
[issues regarding) privilege." Morales v. Zondo, Inc., 204 F.R.D. 50, 54 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
14
EFTA00608705
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 3%6 Filed 03//1/16 Page 15 of 17
CONCLUSION
Defendant should be ordered to sit for a follow-up deposition and directed to answer
questions regarding the topics enumerated above.
Dated: July 29, 2016
Respectfully Submitted,
BOLES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley
Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice)
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
(954) 356-0011
David Boies
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice)
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, ■.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
(954) 524-2820
Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
S.J. Quinney College of Law
University of Utah
383 University St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
(801) 585-52025
This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only
and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private
representation.
15
EFTA00608706
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 356 Filed 08/29/16 Page 16 of 17
16
EFTA00608707
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 3%6 Filed 03/29/16 Page 17 of 17
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 29th day of July, 2016, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission
of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
Tel: (303) 831-7364
Fax: (303) 832-2628
Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com
joagliuca@hmflaw.com
/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley
Sigrid S. McCawley
17
EFTA00608708
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
v.
Ghislthne Maxwell,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENFORCE THE COURT'S ORDER AND DIRECT
DEFENDANT TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS FILED UNDER SEAL'
Plaintiff by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this
Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
As the Court is aware, this defamation case involves Ms. assertions that she and
other females were recruited by Defendant to be sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein under the
guise of being "massage therapists." See Complaint, DEI, at I 27 (= "described Maxwell's
role as one of the main women who Epstein used to procure under-aged girls for sexual activities
Defendant has labelled her entire deposition transcript as Confidential at this time.
1
EFTA00608692
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 3%6 Filed 03/29/16 Page 2 of 17
and a primary co-conspirator and participant in his sexual abuse and sex trafficking scheme").
I
I
IN
I
2
EFTA00608693
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 3%6 Filed 03/29/16 Page 3 of 17
In response to Ms. assertions about Defendant recruiting of females for sexual
purposes, Defendant has made the sweeping claim that Ms. assertions are "entirely
false" and "entirely untrue." Complaint, DE 1, at 131.
See Schultz Decl. at Exhibit 6, (Emphasis added).
3
EFTA00608694
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 356 Filed 08/29/16 Page 4 of 17
4
EFTA00608695
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 3I6 Filed 08/291/16 Page 5 of 17
5
EFTA00608696
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 3%6 Filed OS/29/16 Page 6 of 17
"What do you have on the girls?" [Epstein) would ask the question over and over again.
What I had "on the girls" were some remarkably brave first-person accounts. Three on-
the-record stories from a family: a mother and her daughters
who came from Phoenix. The oldest daughter, an artist whose
character was vouchsafed to me by several sources, including the artist Eric Fischl, had
told me, weeping as she sat in my living room, of how Epstein had attempted to seduce
both her and, separately, her younger sister, then only 16. He'd gotten to them because of
his money. He promised the older sister patronage of her art work; he'd promised the
younger funding for a trip abroad that would give her the work experience she needed on
her resume for a place at an Ivy League university, which she desperately wanted - and
would win. The girls' mother told me by phone that she had thought her daughters would
6
EFTA00608697
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 3%6 Filed 03/29/16 Page 7 of 17
be safe under Epstein's roof, not least because he phoned her to reassure her, and she
also knew he had Ghislaine Maxwell with him at all times. When the girls' mother
learned that Epstein had, regardless, allegedly molested her 16-year-old daughter, she'd
wanted to fight back.
"1 Tried to Warn You about Sleazy Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein in 2003," Vicky Ward, January 6,
2015, Daily Beast Article (Emphasis added).
7
EFTA00608698
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 356 Filed 08/291/16 Page 8 of 17
I
8
EFTA00608699
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 355 Filed 08/29/16 Page 9 of 17
9
EFTA00608700
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 355 Filed 08/210/16 Page 10 of 17
i
10
EFTA00608701
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 355 Filed 08/29/16 Page 11of 17
I
II
EFTA00608702
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 3$6 Filed OE/29/16 Page 12 of 17
I
I
I
I
12
EFTA00608703
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 316 Filed OS/21/16 Page 13 of 17
See Fed. R. Crim. P.
37(a)(3)(B)(i); see, e.g., Kelly v. Al Tech., No. 09 CIV. 962 LAK MHD, 2010 WL 1541585, at
*20 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2010) ("Under the Federal Rules, when a party refuses to answer a
question during a deposition, the questioning party may subsequently move to compel disclosure
of the testimony that it sought. The court must determine the propriety of the deponent's
objection to answering the questions, and can order the deponent to provide improperly withheld
answers during a continued deposition" (internal citations omitted)). Of course, the party
objecting to discovery must carry the burden of proving the validity of its objections, particularly
in light of "the broad and liberal construction afforded the federal discovery rules .. . ." John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Book Dog Books, LLC, 298 F.R.D. 184, 186 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). For
purposes of a deposition, the information sought "need not be admissible at the trial if the
discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Chen-
Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 293 F.R.D. 557, 561 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P.
26(b)(l))•
13
EFTA00608704
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 316 Filed 03/259/16 Page 14 of 17
See also, Condit v. Dunne, 225 F.R.D. 100, 113 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (in defamation case,
"Plaintiff is hereby ordered to answer questions regarding his sexual relationships in so far as
they are relevant to a defense of substantial truth, mitigation of damages, or impeachment of
plaintiff."); Weber v. Multimedia Entm't, Inc., No. 97 CIV. 0682 PKL THK, 1997 WL 729039, at
*3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 1997) ("While discovery is not unlimited and may not unnecessarily
intrude into private matters, in the instant case inquiry into private matters is clearly relevant to
the subject matter of the suit. Accordingly, plaintiff Misty Weber shall respond to defendants'
interrogatories concerning her sexual partners . . . ."). Moreover, generally speaking, instructions
from attorneys to their clients not to answer questions at a deposition should be "limited to
[issues regarding) privilege." Morales v. Zondo, Inc., 204 F.R.D. 50, 54 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
14
EFTA00608705
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 3%6 Filed 03//1/16 Page 15 of 17
CONCLUSION
Defendant should be ordered to sit for a follow-up deposition and directed to answer
questions regarding the topics enumerated above.
Dated: July 29, 2016
Respectfully Submitted,
BOLES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley
Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice)
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
(954) 356-0011
David Boies
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice)
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, ■.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
(954) 524-2820
Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
S.J. Quinney College of Law
University of Utah
383 University St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
(801) 585-52025
This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only
and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private
representation.
15
EFTA00608706
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 356 Filed 08/29/16 Page 16 of 17
16
EFTA00608707
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 3%6 Filed 03/29/16 Page 17 of 17
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 29th day of July, 2016, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission
of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
Tel: (303) 831-7364
Fax: (303) 832-2628
Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com
joagliuca@hmflaw.com
/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley
Sigrid S. McCawley
17
EFTA00608708