gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1328.5.pdf

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 45 EXHIBIT B  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 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 RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND DEFENDANT’S INTERROGATORIES, PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26, 33, 34, Plaintiff hereby serves her responses and objections to Defendant’s Second Set of Discovery Requests and serves her Answers to Defendant’s Requests for Admission. GENERAL OBJECTIONS Defendant’s Discovery Requests violate Rule 33, Fed. R. Civ. P., which provides “a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 interrogatories, including all discrete subparts” – in that Defendant has served a total of 59 interrogatories in this case, including subparts, in violation of Rule 33. Ms. Giuffre objects to Defendant’s Second Set of Discovery Requests to the extent they seek information that is protected by any applicable privilege, including but not limited to, attorney client privilege, work product privilege, joint defense privilege, public interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege. 1  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) Ms. Giuffre objects to the requests to the extent Defendant’s Second Set of Discovery Requests call for the production of documents or information that is already in the possession, custody, or control of the Defendant. Ms. Giuffre further objects to the requests to the extent that Defendant’s Second Set of Discovery Requests are duplicative of documents and information that can equally or more readily be obtained by the Defendant. Ms. Giuffre objects to the requests to the extent that they seek documents that are not relevant, material, or necessary to this action and, thus, are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Giuffre further objects because Defendant’s Second Set of Requests for Production seeks documents that are in no way limited to their relation to this case. Indeed, they seek documents that are not important to resolving the issues; documents that are not relevant to any party’s claim or defense; and documents that are not proportional to the needs of the case. Such requests would create a heavy burden on Ms. Giuffre that outweighs any benefit. Such discovery is prohibited by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly under the 2015 amendments to Rule 26(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., and is wholly inappropriate. Ms. Giuffre objects to the requests to the extent that they are overly broad and unduly burdensome, as individually logging all privileged responsive documents would be overly burdensome. Plaintiff contends that requests targeting such privileged information are overly broad under Rule 26(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. Specifically, Ms. Giuffre objects to the requests as overly burdensome to the extent that they would require logging voluminous and ever-increasing privileged communications between Ms. Giuffre and her counsel after the date litigation commenced on September 21, 2015. Ms. Giuffre additionally objects to the requests as overly burdensome to the extent that they would require logging voluminous privileged documents between Ms. Giuffre and her counsel related to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, 2  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) Case no. 08-80736 CIV-Marra, pending in the Southern District of Florida; Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell v. Alan Dershowitz, Case no. CACE 15-000072, from the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida; and Jane Doe No. 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 09-80656- CIV-Marra/Johnson (Southern District of Florida). Accordingly, due to the undue burden of individually logging responsive privileged documents related to Defendant’s overly broad requests, Plaintiff has employed categorical logging of such privileged responsive documents pursuant to Local Civil Rule 26.2(c). Ms. Giuffre objects to the requests in that they seek to invade her privacy for the sole purpose of harassing and intimidating Ms. Giuffre who was a minor victim of sexual trafficking. Ms. Giuffre objects to the requests to the extent they are overly broad and unduly burdensome. Ms. Giuffre’s responses to Defendant’s Second Set of Discovery Requests as being made after reasonable inquiry into the relevant facts, and are based only upon the information and documentation that is presently known to her. Ms. Giuffre reserves the right to modify and/or supplement her responses. Ms. Giuffre has produced documents and information in response to these Requests. Ms. Giuffre incorporates her above-listed general objections in the responses herein. INTERROGATORIES 5. Identify each Communication that You or Your Attorneys have had with any author, reporter, correspondent, columnist, writer, commentator, investigative journalist, photojournalist, newspaper person, freelance reporter, stringer, or any other employee of any media organization or independent consultant to the same, including: a. the date of any such Communication; 3  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) b. the form of any such Communication, whether oral or written and if written, the format of any such Communication; c. the identities of all persons involved in such Communication, including, the identity of the media organization with whom the agent is or was affiliated; d. the article title, date of publication, and means of publication of any article, report, or re-printing of any such Communication made by You or Your Attorneys; e. the amount of Income that You and/or Your Attorneys received in exchange for any such Communication; f. the dates on which You and/or Your Attorneys received any such Income for any such Communication. Response to Interrogatory No. 5: Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Rule 33 as its subparts, in combination with the other interrogatories, exceed the allowable twenty-five interrogatories. Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product protections, and any other applicable privilege or protection as stated in the General Objections. Ms. Giuffre further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome as it is not limited in time, manner, or subject matter. The request is grossly over broad in that it does not require the communication to have any connection with Ms. Giuffre or this case whatsoever. Indeed, a response to this interrogatory would require each of Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys to research and find any communication they have ever had with a journalist, for every year of their practice, regardless of what case was involved, and regardless of what year the communication was made. Ms. Giuffre’s attorney’s, collectively, have worked 4  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) on hundreds (if not thousands) of matters, and collectively have well over 100 years of combined practice experience. Accordingly, a request that each of these attorneys list all communications with the media is facially overbroad. Additionally, Ms. Giuffre objects to this Interrogatory because a response would cause Ms. Giuffre the incredible and undue burden of having to catalogue literally hundreds of communications that she has already produced in this case. Moreover, Ms. Giuffre objects because this interrogatory calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Communications with the media regarding cases that bear no relation to the subject matter of this case, from decades in the past, are facially invalid and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Giuffre additionally objects to the extent that this interrogatory seeks the communications of her attorneys, any author, reporter, correspondent, columnist, writer, commentator, investigative journalist, photojournalist, newspaper person, freelance reporter, stringer, or any other employee of any media organization or independent consultant as such interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Furthermore, Ms. Giuffre is not obligated to produce anything currently in the possession of Defendant Maxwell or her attorneys. Notwithstanding such objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced her responsive communications, which are found in documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE007566. 6. Identify any “false statements” attributed to Ghislaine Maxwell which were “published globally, including within the Southern District of New York” as You contend in paragraph 9 of Count I of Your Complaint, including: 5  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) a. the exact false statement; b. the date of its publication; c. the publishing entity and title of any publication containing the purportedly false statement; d. the URL or internet address for any internet version of such publication; and the nature of the publication, whether in print, internet, broadcast or some other form of media. Response to Interrogatory No. 6: Ms. Giuffre objects because the information interrogatory above is in the possession of Defendant who has failed to comply with her production obligations in this matter, and has failed to comply with her production obligations with this very subject matter. See Document Request No. 17 from Ms. Giuffre’s Second Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell.1 Maxwell has not produced all “URL or Internet addresses for any internet version of such publication” that she directed her agent, Ross Gow, to send. 1 Request No. 17 stated: Produce all documents concerning any statement made by You or on Your behalf to the press or any other group or individual, including draft statements, concerning Ms. Giuffre, by You, Ross Gow, or any other individual, from 2005 to the present, including the dates of any publications, and if published online, the Uniform Resource Identifier (URL) address. In response, Defendant stated: “Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is cumulative and duplicative. Ms. Maxwell also objects to this Request to the extent it calls for information that exists within the public domain, the internet or in public court records and which are equally available to both parties and can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive. Ms. Maxwell further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Ms. Maxwell is not producing documents that are available in the public domain. Ms. Maxwell has been unable to locate any additional documents responsive to this Request.” 6  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) Ms. Giuffre further objects because the information requested above is in the possession of Defendant’s agent, who caused the false statements to be issued to various media outlets. Ms. Giuffre has not had the opportunity to depose Maxwell’s agent Ross Gow; therefore, this answer remains incomplete. Consequently, Ms. Giuffre reserves the right to modify and/or supplement her responses, as information is largely in the possession of the Defendant and her agent. Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Rule 33 as its subparts, in combination with the other interrogatories, exceed the allowable twenty-five interrogatories. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request because it is in the public domain. Ms. Giuffre also objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client/work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege stated in the General Objections. Notwithstanding such objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced documents responsive to this request; Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE007566, and supplements such responsive documents with the following list of publications. While the identification of an exhaustive responsive list would be unduly burdensome, in an effort to make a good faith effort towards compliance, Ms. Giuffre provides the following examples, which are incomplete based on the aforementioned reasons: Date Nature Publishi Statement/URL ng Entity Januar Internet Ross Jane Doe 3 is Virginia Roberts - so not a new individual. The allegations made by Gow Victoria Roberts against Ghislaine Maxwell are untrue. The original allegations are y 2, not new and have been fully responded to and shown to be untrue. 2015 Each time the story is re told it changes with new salacious details about public figures and world leaders and now it is alleged by Ms. Roberts that Alan Dershowitz is involved in having sexual relations with her, which he denies. Ms. Roberts’s claims are obvious lies and should be treated as such and not publicized as news, as they are defamatory. Ghislaine Maxwell's original response to the lies and defamatory claims remains the same. Maxwell strongly denies allegations of an unsavoury nature, which have appeared in the British press and elsewhere and reserves her right to seek redress at 7  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) the repetition of such old defamatory claims. Januar Internet Telegrap http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/11323872/Prince- h Andrew-denies-having-relations-with-sex-slave-girl.html y 3, 2015 Januar Internet Express http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/550085/Ghislaine-Maxwell-Jeffrey-Epstein- not-madam-paedophile-Florida-court-case-Prince-Andrew y 4, 2015 Januar Internet Daily http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2895366/Prince-Andrew-lobbied- Mail government-easy-Jeffrey-Epstein-Palace-denies-claims-royal-tried-use-influence- y 3, help-billionaire-paedophile-2008-police-probe.html 2015 Januar Internet Huffingt http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/03/duke-of-york-sex-abuse- on Post claims_n_6409508.html y 3, 2015 Januar Internet Jewish http://www.jewishnews.co.uk/dershowitz-nothing-prince-andrews-sex-scandal/ News y 4, Online 2015 Januar Internet Bolton http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/national/11700192.Palace_denies_Andrew_s News ex_case_claim/ y 2, 2015 Januar Internet NY http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/alleged-madame-accused-supplying- Daily prince-andrew-article-1.2065505 y 5, / News 2015 Broadca st Januar Internet AOL UK http://www.aol.co.uk/video/ghislaine-maxwell-declines-to-comment-on-prince- andrew-allegations-518587500/ y 5, / 2015 Broadca st 8  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 7. State whether You believe that You have ever been defamed by anyone other than Ghislaine Maxwell. If so, as to each alleged act of Defamation, state a. the exact false statement; b. the date of its publication; c. the publishing entity and title of any publication containing the purportedly false statement; d. the URL or internet address for any internet version of such publication; and e. the nature of the publication, whether in print, internet, broadcast or some other form of media. Response to Interrogatory No. 7: Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Rule 33 as its subparts, in combination with the other interrogatories, exceed the allowable twenty-five interrogatories. Ms. Giuffre also objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client/work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege stated in the General Objections. Without waiving the aforementioned objections, Alan Dershowitz published statements about Ms. Giuffre in January 2015 and thereafter that remain in the public realm. Ms. Giuffre does not have knowledge as to every time and place that she was defamed by Dershowitz, and she is not required to provide such an exhaustive list as all relevant instances of defamation are available through public sources, and identification of the numerous publically made statements would be unduly burdensome. Furthermore, upon information and belief, all defamatory statements made towards Ms. Giuffre by Dershowitz are within the knowledge and possession of Maxwell and her attorneys or can be easily obtained by contacting Dershowitz. 9  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) 8. Identify the individuals referenced in Your pleadings filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 v. United States of America, 08-cv-80736-KAM, as the “high-profile non-party individuals” to whom Mr. Jeffrey Epstein sexually trafficked You, “including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known Prime Minister, and other world leaders,” including as to each episode of alleged sexual trafficking: a. the date of any such sexual trafficking; b. the location of any such sexual trafficking; c. any witnesses to any such sexual trafficking; d. any Income You received in exchange for such sexual trafficking; and e. any Documents You have to support or corroborate Your claim of such sexual trafficking. Response to Interrogatory No. 8: Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Rule 33 as its subparts, in combination with the other interrogatories, exceed the allowable twenty-five interrogatories. Ms. Giuffre also objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client/work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege stated in the General Objections. Ms. Giuffre refers to the list of witnesses identified in her Revised Rule 26 Disclosures. Also, notwithstanding previously-noted objections, Ms. Giuffre testified in Edwards v. Cassell, Broward County Case Number CACE 15-000072 on January 16, 2016, regarding the subject matter requested. See GIUFFRE005094- GIUFFRE007566. Ms. Giuffre additionally testified regarding the subject matter requested in this interrogatory on in the above-captioned case in her deposition on May 3, 2016. Additionally, Ms. Giuffre was trafficked to other individuals whose name she never learned or whose names she does not remember. Identification of any other 10  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) individuals would be irrelevant and unduly burdensome. Moreover, as specifically provided in Rule 33.3(b), “[d]uring discovery, interrogatories other than those seeking information described in paragraph (a) [] may only be served (1) if they are a more practical method of obtaining the information sought than a request for production or a deposition or (2) if ordered by the Court.” Because Ms. Giuffre has provided an answer to this interrogatory in her deposition, which was a more practical method of obtaining the information sought, this interrogatory is improper under the Local Rules as well as wholly duplicative. 11. Identify any facts upon which You base Your contention that You have suffered as a result of the Alleged Defamation by Ghislaine Maxwell “past and future lost wages and past and future loss of earning capacity and actual earnings – precise amounts yet to be computed, but not less than $5,000,000.” Response to Interrogatory No. 11: Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Rule 33 as it, in combination with the other interrogatories, exceed the allowable twenty-five interrogatories. Ms. Giuffre also objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client/work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege stated in the General Objections. Ms. Giuffre incorporates by reference herein her Revised Rule 26 disclosures. Notably, Ms. Giuffre’s Rule 26 disclosures have been revised to reflect that she is not seeking a specific monetary damage in the form of a specific lost wage claim. 13. Identify any Health Care Provider from whom You received any treatment for any physical, mental or emotional condition, including addiction to alcohol, prescription or illegal drugs, that You suffered from prior to the Alleged Defamation by Ghislaine Maxwell, including: a. the Health Care Provider’s name, address, and telephone number; 11  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) b. the type of consultation, examination, or treatment provided; c. the dates You received consultation, examination, or treatment; d. whether such treatment was on an in-patient or out-patient basis; e. the medical expenses to date; g. whether health insurance or some other person or organization or entity has paid for the medical expenses; and h. For each such Health Care Provider, please execute the medical and mental health records release attached hereto as Exhibit A. Response to Interrogatory No. 13: Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory because it violates this Court’s Order. The Court has excluded the production of medical records from prior to 1999, stating, “the damage issue relates, in my view, solely to the defamation.” (April 21, 2016, Hearing Transcript at 20:23-24). This holding applies to pre-1999 medical records. As this interrogatory is not limited to the time period ordered by this Court, Ms. Giuffre objects. Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory in that it is overbroad and not limited in scope to the medical information relating to the abuse she suffered from Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein. Ms. Giuffre objects because Rule 26 does not allow discovery that is so burdensome as to require a Herculean effort by an adult to track down every possible prescription ever written for Ms. Giuffre, or every physician who ever treated Ms. Giuffre, even as a small child. Such a request is not only impractical and unduly burdensome, but likely impossible. Accordingly, such an interrogatory is merely for the purpose of imposing a burden on Ms. Giuffre and her attorneys, not to mention the purposes of harassment. 12  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) Pursuant to the Rules, if requested documents are not yielded in a “reasonable inquiry,” Ms. Giuffre is not obligated to expend all of her time and resources on a quest to gather medical files from her birth to the present to find any prescriptions ever written for her for anything at all. See, e.g., Manessis v. New York City Dep't of Transp., No. 02 CIV. 359SASDF, 2002 WL 31115032, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2002) (concluding that “ability to pursue discovery regarding [plaintiff’s] medical records should be limited in some manner”); Evanko v. Electronic Systems Assoc., Inc., No. 91 Civ. 2851, 1993 WL 14458 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 1993) (applying the New York state physician-patient privilege, and holding that where plaintiff claimed that she suffered emotional distress, defendants did not have “a license to rummage through all aspects of the plaintiff's life in search of a possible source of stress or distress,” including plaintiff’s medical records); Wachtman v. Trocaire College, 532 N.Y.S.2d 943, 944 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988) (holding that the scope of a waiver of the physician-patient privilege in personal injury cases is “limited and does not permit discovery of information involving unrelated illnesses and treatment”); Sgambellone v. Wheatley, 165 Misc.2d 954, 958, 630 N.Y.S.2d 835, 838 (N.Y. Sup.Ct. 1995) (holding that in a personal injury action, plaintiff's waiver of the physician-patient privilege “is not a wholesale waiver of all information about the plaintiff’s entire physical and mental conditions but a waiver only of the physical and/or mental condition that is affirmatively placed in controversy”) (emphasis in original). Finally, Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the doctor-patient privilege, and any other applicable privilege stated in the General Objections. Ms. Giuffre further objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Rule 33 as its subparts, in combination with the other interrogatories, exceed the allowable twenty-five interrogatories. Ms. Giuffre further 13  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) objects to this request in that it is overbroad and seeks confidential medical information of a sex abuse victim and is not limited in scope to the issues in this case. Without waiving such objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced her responsive documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE007566, and supplements such documents as follows: MEDICAL HEALTHCARE ACTION RELATED GIUFFRE PRODUCTION PROVIDER PROVIDED TAKEN Giuffre005342-005346 St. - Thomas More Hospital Records (Dr. 3/8/16 Olsen) Dr. Olsen Jane Doe 2 Letter Giuffre005492-005496 St. Request Thomas More Hospital Records (Dr. Olsen) Giuffre005498 Centura Health 5/23/16 Centura Jane Doe 2 Release Form (All Medical Records) Letter Health Giuffre005501-005569 Responsive Request Records (Centura Health) 3/8/16 Ltr Giuffre and counsel contacted Dr. Carol Request Jane Doe 2 physician’s office via telephone and Hayek 4/28/16 email to follow up. Ltr Request 4/5/16 Dr. Chris Jane Doe 2 Ltr Giuffre 006631-006635 (Dr. Donahue) Donahue Request Jane Doe 2 Giuffre005315 005322 Dr. John 4/5/16 The Entrance Medical Centre Harris/Dr. Ltr (Dr. John Harris and Dr. Darshanee Majliyana Request Mahaliyana) . 4/5/16 Giuffre005339 005341 Dr. Wah Jane Doe 2 Ltr Central Coast Family Medicine Wah Request (Dr. Wah Wah) Jane Doe 2 4/5/16 Giuffre005089 005091 Dr. Sellathuri Ltr (“Dr. M. Sella”) 14  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) MEDICAL HEALTHCARE ACTION RELATED GIUFFRE PRODUCTION PROVIDER PROVIDED TAKEN Request Royal Oaks 4/5/16 Giuffre005347 005349 Medical Jane Doe 2 Ltr Royal Oaks Medical Center’s Center Request Response (No Records) NY Jane Doe 2 Giuffre003258 003290 New Presbyterian Produced York Presbyterian Hospital Hospital Giuffre003193 003241 Campbelltow Jane Doe 2 Camselltown Hospital/Camden n Hospital/ Hospital (Dr. Elbeaini) Produced Sydney West Giuffre003242 003257 Hospital Macarthur Health Service (Dr. Elbeaini) - Sydney West Hospital / Jane Doe 2 Giuffre 003291-003298 Sydney Produced Westmead West/Westmead Hospital Hospital Release Provided Dr. Karen to 04/29/16 Sent via e-mail signed release Kutikoff Defendan to Menninger (obtain records directly). t’s Counsel Release Provided Wellington to 04/29/16 Sent via e-mail signed release Imaging Defendan to Menninger (obtain records directly). Associates t’s Counsel Release Provided Growing to 04/29/16 Sent via e-mail signed release Together Defendan to Menninger (obtain records directly). t’s Counsel Giuffre 005431-005438 Medical 5/4/16 Release Form with documents (Ms. Ms. Judith Jane Doe 2 Ltr Lightfoot) Lightfoot Request Giuffre006636 Correspondence stating no further records available. Dr. Mona Jane Doe 2 3/28/16 Evidence of efforts to obtain records Devanesan Ltr and of Dr. Devanesan’s retirement were 15  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) MEDICAL HEALTHCARE ACTION RELATED GIUFFRE PRODUCTION PROVIDER PROVIDED TAKEN Request produced as GIUFFRE005335-5338. Dr. Scott ER Giuffre 005498-005569 Centura Health Jane Doe 2 Robert Treating Medical Release Form Geiger Physician (Requested Entire Medical Record) ER Giuffre 005498-005569 Centura Health Dr. Joseph Jane Doe 2 Treating Medical Release Form Heaney Physician (Requested Entire Medical Record) ER Treating Giuffre 005498-005569 Centura Health Donna Jane Doe 2 Physician Medical Release Form Oliver, PA Referral (Requested Entire Medical Record) ENT ER Giuffre 005498-005569 Centura Health Dr. Michele Jane Doe 2 Treating Medical Release Form Streeter Physician (Requested Entire Medical Record) The records in the chart above bear the date of treatment, the type of treatment, and indicate whether the treatment was inpatient or outpatient. Ms. Giuffre is not certain as to her the sum of her medical expenses from 1999 to the present, and therefore is unable to answer that subpart. Ms. Giuffre is not aware of what health insurance carrier or other organization paid for her historical medical expenses unless it is identified on the records produced to the Defendant. Subpart (h) is an inappropriate interrogatory; however, for each provider listed above, Ms. Giuffre already submitted medical releases for all records related to Ms. Giuffre. 14. Identify any Person who You believe subjected You to, or with whom You engaged in, any illegal or inappropriate sexual contact, conduct or assault prior to June 1999, including the names of the individuals involved, the dates of any such illegal or inappropriate sexual contact, conduct or assault, whether Income was received by You or anyone else concerning such event, whether a police report was ever filed concerning such event and the outcome of any such case, as well as the address and location of any such event. 16  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) Response to Interrogatory No. 14: Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it is overbroad and invades Ms. Giuffre right to privacy (including her constitutionally-protected right of privacy) by seeking confidential information relating to the sexual abuse of a minor sex abuse victim. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it seeks sexual assault information for a period prior to the sexual abuse at issue in this matter, and for a period when she was a minor child. The Court has excluded the production of medical records from prior to 1999, stating, “the damage issue relates, in my view, solely to the defamation.” (April 21, 2016, Hearing Transcript at 20:23-24). This holding applies equally to pre-1999 sexual assault for two reasons. First, sexual assault is not only a crime, but a physical injury, and an injury for which medical treatment is needed and for which a forensic medical exam is often performed. Accordingly, any documentation of sexual assault is necessarily akin to a medical record, and therefore precluded under the Court’s April 21, 2016 Order. Furthermore, this Court’s holding likely expands specifically to sexual abuse and assault prior to 1999, because the holding was in response to the following argument from Ms. Menninger: “She has also alleged, for example, that many, several, three, I think, at last count, or four individuals had sexually abused her prior to ever meeting Mr. Epstein.” (April 21, 2016, Hearing Transcript at 11:24-12:2). Additionally, it has become increasingly clear that Defendant’s counsel is seeking these documents for the improper purpose of harassment as part of Defendant’s counsel’s campaign to blame the victim and make Ms. Giuffre (who was 15 years old or younger at the time of the requested documents). Maxwell’s counsel has used offensive language in this proceeding at every turn. First, Ms. Menninger called Ms. Giuffre a “professional victim” in open court. (January 14, 2016 Hearing Transcript at 5:9). Then, Mr. Pagliuca stated that Ms. Giuffre “cried 17  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) rape” in reference to police reports describing incidents that took place when Ms. Giuffre was fourteen years old. (March 21, 2016, meet and confer call). Then, Defendant’s responses to Ms. Giuffre’s interrogatories shockingly called this victim of sexual abuse a “sexually permissive woman.” (Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories). This last blame-the- victim contention is strange and ironic for two reasons. First, Ms. Giuffre was a minor child, not a “woman,” when Defendant sexually abused her. Second, it was Defendant and Mr. Epstein who trafficked her to other individuals - therefore, it was Defendant and Mr. Epstein’s “permission” given to others to use Ms. Giuffre’s sexually. Such language from Defendant and her counsel is wholly inappropriate. Ms. Giuffre also objects to this request because such events would have taken place in Florida, and information relating to those events is protected from disclosure by law. Florida statutes protect “[a]ny information in a videotaped statement of a minor who is alleged to be or who is a victim of sexual battery . . . which reveals that minor’s identity.” Fla. Stat. § 119.071. Additionally, Fla. Stat. 985.036 protects records where a juvenile is a victim of a crime. Further, Section 794.026, Fla. Stat., creates a civil right of action against an individual who communicates to others, identifying information concerning the victim of a sexual offense. Additionally, Second, Fla. Stat. § 985.04 and Fla. Stat. § 985.054 make juvenile law enforcement records confidential from members of the public, and states that information obtained by a law enforcement agent participating in the assessment of a juvenile is confidential. Finally, certain of the police reports implicate Ms. Giuffre’s involvement with the Florida Department of Children and Families, see e.g., GM_00750, and if such reports are part of the State’s Department of Children and Families’ records, they are confidential pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 39.202(6). Accordingly, Ms. Giuffre objects to this request for the reasons stated in this paragraph. 18  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) Ms. Giuffre additionally objects to this request in that it is sought solely to harass, and intimidate Ms. Giuffre who is a victim of sexual abuse by the Defendant. Ms. Giuffre objects on the basis that Defendant is not entitled to a full-scale production of everything that has happened throughout the entire course of her life time, particularly the time sought in this request which predates Defendant’s meeting and abuse of Ms. Giuffre. A victim of sexual abuse should not be re-abused by having to disclose events that occurred prior to the time that she was sexually abused by Maxwell and her co-conspirators. Furthermore, discovery concerning Ms. Giuffre’s prior sexual assault is not relevant to the claim at issue in this case, the defenses at issue, or the damages claimed, and therefore well outside the scope of discovery permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Specifically, Ms. Giuffre’s sexual abuse as minor child neither proves nor disproves Defendant and Epstein’s sexual abuse; therefore, it is not within the scope of discovery permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, particularly since the December 1, 2015, amendments to the Rule. “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Giving testimony on such irrelevant, but painful, topics would be extraordinarily embarrassing, oppressive, and traumatic for Ms. Giuffre, and it is wholly irrelevant to any party’s claim or defense. Accordingly, such discovery is not sought in good faith. This request is particularly improper as it cannot conceivably lead to admissible evidence. While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 controls the limits of discovery, FRE 412 19  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) informs discovery over the boundaries of the proper inquiry into an alleged sexual assault victim's sexual conduct and history. Silva v. Pioneer Janitorial Servs., Inc., No. CIV.A. 10- 11264-JGD, 2011 WL 4729783, at *1 (D. Mass. Oct. 4, 2011). See also Gibbons v. Food Lion, Inc., No. 98–1197–CIV–T–23F, 1999 WL 33226474, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb.19, 1999) (stating that a majority of courts that have considered whether Fed. R. Evid. 412 is applicable to discovery “have found that Rule 412 has significance in the resolution of a discovery dispute”). “As explained in the Advisory Committee Notes regarding the 1994 amendments to Rule 412, ‘[t]he rule aims to safeguard the alleged victim against the invasion of privacy, potential embarrassment and sexual stereotyping that is associated with public disclosure of intimate sexual details and the infusion of sexual innuendo into the factfinding process.’ Moreover, although the Advisory Committee Notes acknowledge that the procedures set forth in the Rule for determining the admissibility of evidence relating to an alleged victim's past sexual conduct or predisposition do not apply to discovery, they nevertheless provide as follows: In order not to undermine the rationale of Rule 412 ... courts should enter appropriate orders pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) to protect the victim against unwarranted inquiries and to ensure confidentiality. Courts should presumptively issue protective orders barring discovery unless the party seeking discovery makes a showing that the evidence sought to be discovered would be relevant under the facts and theories of the particular case, and cannot be obtained except through discovery. In an action for sexual harassment, for instance, while some evidence of the alleged victim's sexual behavior and/or predisposition in the workplace may perhaps be relevant, non-workplace conduct will usually be irrelevant. Silva, 2011 WL 4729783, at *1. (emphasis added). Accordingly, Ms. Giuffre objects to this request based on the Federal Rules of Evidence and prevailing case law applying such Rules. Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Rule 33 as it, in combination with the other interrogatories, exceed the allowable twenty-five interrogatories. Ms. Giuffre 20  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 22 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client/work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege stated in the General Objections. Additionally, to the extent that it is available to Ms. Giuffre, all of this information is already in the possession of Maxwell as she obtained and produced police reports regarding Ms. Giuffre, which Ms. Giuffre did not have in her possession. Ms. Giuffre was also questioned for seven hours in her May 3, 2016, deposition by Defendant’s attorney. Finally, where a party possesses records and documents obtained or generated illegally, the court has the equitable power to vindicate and protect the rights of the parties affected. Socialist Workers Party v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 666 F. Supp. 621, 623 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). For all of the foregoing reasons, Ms. Giuffre objects to this request. 21  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 23 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 1. Admit that you were not 15 years old when you first met Ghislaine Maxwell. Response to Request For Admission No. 1: Denied in part. At the time Ms. Giuffre made the statement, many years after the events occurred, she firmly believed she was 15 years old when she was recruited away from her job at Mar-a-Lago by Ghislaine Maxwell. She later obtained some records from Mar-a-Lago which indicated that she was employed there during the year 2000. From January, 2000 through August 9, 2000, she was 16 years old; from August 9, 2000 through December 2000 she was 17 years old. While she now knows, based on this discovery, that she was not 15 years old, she now has conclusive proof that she was an underage minor when Ghislaine Maxwell approached her, recruited her, introduced her to Jeffrey Epstein, and sexually trafficked her as an underage minor. 2. Admit that you were not 15 years old when you first