gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1256.22.pdf

United States District Court Southern District of New York Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. ________________________________/ PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENFORCE THE COURT’S ORDER AND DIRECT DEFENDANT TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS FILED UNDER SEAL1 Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions. On June 20, 2016, this Court Ordered Defendant to sit for a second deposition because her refusal to answer questions posed in her first Deposition (June 20, 2016 Sealed Order, filed in redacted version at D.E. 264-1). Yet, during her second deposition, Defendant again refused to answer numerous questions regarding sexual activity related to Jeffrey Epstein in contravention of this Court’s Order. Accordingly, the Court should direct her to fully answer the relevant questions. FACTUAL BACKGROUND As the Court is aware, this defamation case involves Ms. Giuffre’s 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, DE1, at ¶ 27 (Giuffre “described Maxwell’s role as one of the main women who Epstein used to procure under-aged girls for sexual activities 1 Defendant has labelled her entire deposition transcript as Confidential at this time. 1  The questions Defendant refused to answer fall squarely within this Court’s earlier order. Defendant can have no legitimate basis for obstructing the search for truth by refusing to answer. The Court should, again, compel Defendant to answer all these questions. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(i); see, e.g., Kelly v. A1 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)(1)). Defendant cannot claim that such questions were outside the scope of this Court’s order, as they directly relate to (1) her knowledge of individuals who provided “massage” to Epstein and (2) her knowledge of sexual activities of others with or involving Epstein. Defendant’s knowledge of the individuals involved in the sex/”massages” relating to Epstein, and her knowledge about the sex/”massage” related to Epstein is precisely what this Court directed her to answer. 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 14 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). In this case, defense counsel once again ranged far beyond the normal parameters of objections and gave instructions directly in contravention of this Court’s Order directing Defendant to answer exactly the type of questions posed to her. In light of Defendant’s willful refusal to comply with this Court’s Order directing Defendant to answer questions related to the Court’s June 20, 2016, Order, including topics enumerated above, Ms. Giuffre also seeks attorneys’ fees and costs associated with bringing this motion, as well as fees and costs associated with re-taking Defendant’s deposition. 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, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) 15  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, P.L. 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 5 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. 16  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: [email protected] [email protected] /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley 17