EFTA00590749.pdf

BOI ES SCHI LLER t FLEXNER LLP

401 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD • SUITE 1200 • FORT LAUDERDALE. FL 33301 22 • PH 954 • 254 356 0022
6 MCC
$1 5 rid C•FA X, t sci.
snictawIevAThstlin.com



January 30, 2017
Confidential Sealed Filing

VIA EMAIL & FACSIMILE:

Honorable Judge Robert W. Sweet
District Court Judge
United States District Court
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
SweetNYSDChambersQnysd.uscourts.gov


Re: v. Maxwell,
Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS

Dear Judge Sweet,
This is a reply letter in support of Ms. letter motion to allow for the newly-
discovered witness, I to be called as a witness at trial because she can testify
about Defendant's involvement in Epstein's sex trafficking 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. is somehow to blame for the fact tha
is only now being discussed as a witness in this case. But Ms. only recently learned
about this witness because Defendant failed to properly disclose her months earlier. In her
response, Defendant does not address the fact that Ms. and Ms. Maxwell know each
other. Indeed, Defendant does not address the fact that and she s nt time together
on Mr. Epstein's private island, as reflected in the flight logs showing flying to
and from the island (where Ms. Maxwell was present):


_-i—g_
_-]21_1•z' lisstx91`4"ri V.) De _AU)/
i t le12.;?-apz" 4---i--'
.rav\ tit
lb I GAISMO NMOcl•Tal 1 6 -WC 11-ST I Mn
UM t' 1‘ aiti_a_j_..111
all I' " 1-its—Ad
Cr e. MT f ilea) G<japeto Loccutez _4+ 4/ I
€2.1 i I'' " (3Bi L Sf G4StiALO 14“conT
..”22.; ca •
giNTh -1ri-IiII Ow% : Tr-s-r e--valt Ito)?
Iretry tnn fl skoriale Ma by kiemtlft brim cmo law.




wwW.EiSFLLP Com



EFTA00590749
 BOIES. $CHILLER & FLEXNER LLP




Honorable Judge Robert Sweet
United States District Court
Page -2- Confidential Sealed Filing

As reflected in the above flight log, on December 10, 2006 (Flight #19
Lew from EWR (Newark, NJ) to TIST (USVI) with Jeffrey E stcin,
On December 14, 2006 (Flight #1920), flew from TIST
(USVI to (Newark, NJ) with Jeffrey Epstein and . See 07139.
Ms. was also flown commercially to Jeffrey Epstein's Island several times.
Defendant was obligated under Rule 26 to includ in her Rule 26
disclosures: Defendant knows that is an "individual likely to have discoverable
information." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(A)(i). As 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 rin conceal the witnesses (and victims) of that ring,
and then proclaim "surprise" when Ms. succeeds in locating one of the victims. Simply
put, she should not be allowed to benefit from her obvious failure to properly disclose=


Testimony is Not Cumulative And Has Highly Relevant Evidence
Defendant also advances the remarkable argument that it is "unlikely" that Ms.
will have relevant information. Yet witnessed — first hand — Defendant's
involvement in sex trafficking with Jeffrey Epstein. Nor 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. an directly refute Defendant's sworn testimony under
oath in numerous ways.
...theprimary pu se of those visits was to have me have sexual relations with Jeffrey,
and various other girls and guests brought to the island...During one
of my first visits to the island I 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 . In addition, Defendant has made known her plan to put
forth Alan Dershowitz as a witness at trial to testify that Ms. is lykgisnd that he never
had sex with her or anyone else provided by Jeffrey Epstein. While Ms. contends that
Dershowitz's testimortot relevant to this case concerning Defendant, in the event that the
Court disagrees, Ms. directly contradicts this testimony because, as part of her




EFTA00590750
 SOIES. SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP



Honorable Judge Robert Sweet
United States District Court
Page -3- Confidential Sealed Filing

involvement in the sex trafficking ring, like Ms. =, Ms. 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
After a short time, Alan Dershowitz entered the room after which Jeffrey
left the room and and I had sex with Dershowitz...
See Exhibit A. Affidavit of The testimony of Ms. goes to the heart of
this defamation claim— whether or not Ms. was truthful in her claims about Defendant's
involvement in Epstein's sex trafficking ring, and the Court should allow the jury to hear her.


aMs. Has Diligently Participated In Discovery And Promptly Disclosed Ms.
After Conducting Due Diligence
Defendant also insinuates that Ms. has delayed in disclosing Ms. But
as the Court is well aware, Ms. has previously diligently disclosed close to 100
individuals who may have relevant information in her Rule 26 disclosures. By contrast,
Defendant's Rule 26 disclosures never listed Ms. as a witness, despite the fact that
Defendant was in her company on several occasions including on Epstein's island, where Ms.
was one of several girls being sexually trafficked for Epstein upon the direction and
insistence of Defendant. After being contacted by Ms. , counsel for Ms.
properly conducted a dueSesce investigation into whether the information she provided had
merit. Specifically, Ms. counsel undertook the expense to fly to Europe to meet in
person with this newly disclosed witness on January 4, 2017, returning on January 6, 2017, to
fully 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. arranged to
have a sworn affidavit executed at the U.S. Embassy in the country where Ms. resides.
Ms. then issued revised Rule 26 disclosures on January 13, 2017 and informed
Defendant that she would produce Ms. 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.
acted promptly and reasonably after being contacted by this victim of Epstein's and
Defendant's sex trafficking ring.
Defendant Will Not Be Prejudiced Because Ms. is Readily Available for
Deposition




EFTA00590751
 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP




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
also rings hollow.' Defendant complains about her alleged lack of resources, but as this Court is
aware, Defendant is a wealthy socialite (who recently sold her New York Townhome for S15
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. 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. who was recently
deposed on January 17, 2017. Due to Defendant's unwillingness to produce her agent, Ross
Gow for deposition, Ms. 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
recent) due to issues with witness cosation. Of course, if Defendant does not desire to take
Ms. deposition, then Ms. is content simply calling her at trial. But Defendant
will hardly be prejudiced by allowing a witness to testify who is available for deposition.

'Defendant ar ues that because Jane Doe 43 (who for purposes of this sealed filing we
can identify as Ms. 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. claim had to be filed swiftly because her statute
of limitations was continuing to run and the details of her allegations only recent' ccame
known to counsel. In any event, the questions that need to be asked of Ms. 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
Dauber! challenges to all six of Ms. expert witnesses; and Defendant has filed
discomotions without even conferring with Ms. in advance, includin one for which
Ms. did not oppose the relief sought (Defendant's motion to reopen Ms.
deposition). Further, Defendant aently had the resources to file approximately 100 pages of
single-spaced objections to Ms. 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.




EFTA00590752
 BOIES. SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP




Honorable Judge Robert Sweet
United States District Court
Page -5- Confidential SealedFiling

The Case Law Supports Allowing Ms. As A Trial Witness
Ms. has offered Defendant, subject to this Court's approval, the opportunity to
take Ms. deposition. And, as this Court has already explained, taking the deposition
of 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." MB/A
Ins. Corp. v. Patriarch Partners VIII, LLC, 201 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
witness).
The cases that Defendant cites are all vastly different from the case before this Court and
are easily distinguishable. In Gray v. Town ofDarien, 927 F.2d 69 (2d Cir.1991), the court
denied the motion to reopen discovery and granted summary judgment because the plaintiff
failed to seek any discovery during the six-month discovery period set forth by the court. In
stark contrast, Ms. 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. until the witness contacted Ms. lawyers. In Trebor
Sportswear Co., Inc. v. The Limited Stores, Inc., 865 F.2d 506 (2d Cir. 1989), 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. has found
a witness 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. UnitedStates,
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. has provided Defendant ample time to conduct discovery on Ms.
I , 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 mi t have obtained had the court reopened discovery.
Here, it is patently obvious that Ms. holds a wealth of valuable information and is, as
Defendant herself admits, a significant witness. Finally, in .leannite v. City ofN.Y. Dept, of
Buildings, 2010 WL 2542050, at 4'2 (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
which is in contrast to Ms. having
aving actively partici ated in .
Furthermore, there was no way for Ms.h to know that Ms. had such critical
information until she called us because Defendant never disclosedher. Accordingly, Defendant
fails to accurately support her claims with any relevant case law.
Conclusion




EFTA00590753
 SOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP




Honorable Judge Robert Sweet
United States District Court
Page -6- Confidential SealedFiling

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should allow Ms. to include Ms.
as a witness to be called at the trial scheduled to begin on March 13, 2017. Again, Ms.
commits to making Ms. available for deposition at the reasonable convenience of
Defendant's counsel.


Respectfully submitted,


McCawlev
Sigrid McCawley


SM/
cc: Counsel of Record




EFTA00590754
 EXHIBIT A
CONFIDENTIAL




EFTA00590755
 CONMEMAL
United States District Court
Southern District of New York




Plaintiff Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS

v.

Ghislaine Maxwell,

Defendant.



AFFIDAVIT

swear and affirm as follows:

1. I am currently over the age of 18 and presently reside in the country of Spain.

2. In the summer of 2006, when I was twenty-two years old and livin in New York,
I was introduced to Jeffrey Epstein by a girl I had met named
Malyshov. Shortly after meeting Jeffrey he invited me to fly to s 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 Mary purpose of those visits
was to have me have sexual relations with Jeffrey, 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 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. I recall seeing a particularly young, thin girl who
looked well under 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




EFTA00590756
 COIF ENT'OAL

associates to have 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 After a short time, Alan
Dershowitz entered the room, er e y left the room and and I
had sex with Dershowitz. I recall specific, key details of his person na 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:



1 -07A9as




EFTA00590757
cesar—Laa.v.--r •
CONFIDENTIAL

CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF
EXECUTION OF AN INSTRUMENT


The Kingdom of Spain
(Count')

Province of Barcelona
rcountrone/or Other Peatical Division)
SS:

City of Barcelona
(County end& Other Political Division)


Consulate Gral.of the United States of America
(Name of Foreign Service Offne)

Ilsiao-Ching Chang,Vice Consul

of Me United stares of America at Barcelona, Spain

duly commissioned and qualified, do tienty certify that on this day of 01-05-2017 . before me personalty appeared
Dale grim-dd-yyyy)

Emma Ashley




te ..h. .... • . I known to me to be the individual-describedin, whose name iS subscribed to,

and amo executed the annexedInstrument and being informed by me of the contents of said instrument she

duly acknowfedged to me Mal she executed the same freely end voluntarily for the uses andpurposes

therein mentioned.




(SEAL; vobvSS whereof l have hereunto set my hand and
official seal the day and yearns! above written.
I lsiao-Ching Chang
Vice Consul of the owed stales °mamma


This document consists of 4 pages. including the Acknowledgement certificate.
NOTE: Wherever practicable all signatures to a document should be included in one certificate.


OF-17S rFormeily FS-88)
01.2009




EFTA00590758