gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1330.15.pdf

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 43 COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1 (File Under Seal)  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 43 Case 9:16-mc-81608-DMM *SEALED* Document 4 of 6 United States District Court Southern District of Florida Virginia L Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No.: - - -- - Cudcrlying Cas1: No. : 15-cv-07433-RWS (Southern District of New York) (Si.veet, J.) V. Jeffrey Epstein, Defendant. I ---- ---' PLAINTIFF'S Sl-DALED AGHEEI> MOTTO~ TO FILE MOTTON TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND TESTJJ\tONV FROM ,JEFFREY EPSTEIN l JNDER SEAL l'lJHSFANT TO LOCAL RULE 5.4(b) AND MOTION TO PLACE THE E~TIRE DOCKET lfi\;DER SEAL Plctintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this UnopposcJ Motion to file her ~fotion to Compel the Production of Documents and Testimony from Jeffrey Fpstein unJt:r Se:ll Pursuant to Local Rule 5.4(b) and Motion to Place the Entire Dockd Under Seal. and hcrcb y states as follows. I. .FACTUAL HACKGROllNJ> The motion to compel sc..:b to compel production pursuant to a valid Rule 45 subpoena ii,sucd to JdTrcy Epstein in th\.! above-St) led case, pending in the Southern District of New York (the ··New York case''). The case concerns a defamation action brought by a rhiJd victim of convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein .against his live-in girlfriend who assisted him in prncuring undcrag1: girls, including the plaintirt: Ms. Oiuffrc. Bec;ausi.: of Epstein's central role in the New York case. it is important for Ms. Giu1fo:: 10 have the requested documents frnm him in discovery .  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 43 United States District Court FILED SY _ _ _ _.D.C. Southern District of Florida SEP 2 O 2016 Virginia L. Giuffre, STEVEN M. lAA/MORE CLERK U.S. DIST. CT S.D. OF FLA. FT. LAUD. Plaintiff, Case No.: - - - - - Underlying Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS (Southern District of New York) (Sweet, J.) V. Jeffrey Epstein, Defendant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I PLAINTIFF'S SEALED AGREED MOTION TO FILE MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY FROM JEFFREY EPSTEIN UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 5.4(b) AND MOTION TO PLACE THE ENTIRE DOCKET UNDER SEAL Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this Unopposed Motion to file her Motion to Compel the Production of Documents and Testimony from Jeffrey Epstein under Seal Pursuant to Local Rule 5.4(b) and Motion to Place the Entire Docket Under Seal, and hereby states as follows. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The motion to compel seeks to compel production pursuant to a valid Rule 45 subpoena issued to Jeffrey Epstein in the above-styled case, pending in the Southern District of New York (the "New York case"). The case concerns a defamation action brought by a child victim of convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein against his live-in girlfriend who assisted him in procuring underage girls, including the plaintiff, Ms. Giuffre. Because of Epstein's central role in the New York case, it is important for Ms. Giuffre to have the requested documents from him in discovery. 1  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 43 During his deposition, Epstein failed to answer questions or produce documents in response to a Rule 45 subpoena in the New York case. The instant motion seeks to compel production from Epstein in three areas, detailed more fully in the Motion to Compel, based on his improper invocation of the Fifth Amendment in refusing to comply with the subpoena. Epstein's invocation of the Fifth Amendment was invalid for several reasons, as discussed in detail in the Motion to Compel. One of those reasons, however, goes to the instant request to file the motion to compel under seal and to place the docket under seal. In should be noted that the entire deposition of Epstein is confidential, having been placed under the confidentiality order that exists in the case. II. LEGAL ARGUMENT The parties agree this case should be placed under seal because of the need for confidentiality. There is no valid invocation of the Fifth Amendment when there is no threat to self-incrimination, and there can be no threat to self-incrimination if the government is not aware of the information Ms. Giuffre seeks pursuant to her valid Rule 45 subpoena. Because Ms. Giuffre seeks to have all of the relevant proceedings to her motion to compel - including the motion itself - be placed under seal at this time, the Government will not be aware of Epstein's disclosure of materials, much less be in position to even file a motion to attempt alter the protective order. In such circumstances, Epstein faces no "real and substantial hazard" of his act of producing documents to Ms. Giuffre' s counsel incriminating himself. See United States v. Kowalik, 809 F. Supp. 1571, 1577 (S.D . Fla. 1992), afj'd, 12 F.3d 218 (11th Cir. 1993), and ajj'd, 12 F.3d 218 (11 th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, by placing this case under seal, this Court can grant Ms. Giuffre's motion to compel and direct Epstein to produce the relevant documents over his 2  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 43 improper Fifth Amendment objections because there is no risk of incrimination because these proceedings will be under seal. Moreover, under the Protective Order issued by the New York case, Ms. Giuffre's counsel (and counsel for Ms. Maxwell,1 the Defendant in the New York case) are forbidden to disclose the materials for "any purpose except the preparation and trial of this case." Protective Order,~ 4. Under the terms of the protective order, all materials secured in the case will be destroyed at the end of tl1e case. Protective Order,~ 12. And while the Protective Order does not bar the use of confidential materials at trial, Protective Order~ 13, Ms. Giuffre's counsel represent that they will not use at trial any documents that Epstein produces without first notifying Epstein and seeking leave of Court to do so. As a result, Epstein can provide documents to Ms. Giuffre, allowing her to investigate this case without compromising any interest that Epstein may have in avoiding self-incrimination. Additionally, the entire deposition has already been designated as "confidential" by defendant Maxwell, making these proceedings subject to a protective order. See Motion to Compel at Addendum A (copy of protective order). To enforce that previously-entered confidentiality order from the Southern District of New York, these proceedings should be confidential as well. Moreover, in such circumstances, there is no substantial risk of incrimination from the mere production of documents to Ms. Giuffre's counsel, who are subject to the protective order. See generally Marc Youngelson, The Use of 26(c) Protective Orders: "Pleading the Fifth" Without Suffering "Adverse" Consequences, 1994 Ann. Surv. Am. L. 245 (1995); see also Palmieri v. State ofNew York, 779 F.2d 861 (2d Cir. 1985). 1 It may be relevant to note that defendant Maxwell has not sought any documents from Epstein, and thus the only issue presented here is the extent to which Ms. Giuffre can use the documents. 3  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 43 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 authorizes a court, for good cause, to enter a protective order to seal or to limit disclosure. Indeed, courts have the discretion to place entire cases under seal. See e.g. Beaches MLS, Inc. v. Miami Association of Realtors, Inc., 2015 WL 11170925, at *3 (S.D.Fla. 2015) (Marra, J.) (granting motion to file under seal and sealing the case). Local Rule 5.4(b) provides the procedure to follow when a party seeks to file something under seal: the party must file a motion, "setting forth a reasonable basis for departing from the general policy of a public filing," and courts in this district routinely grant parties' motions to file under seal for good cause. See e.g. Shire Development LLC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 932 F.Supp.2d 1349, 1359 (S.D.Fla. 2013) (Middlebrooks, J.); Air Turbine Technology, Inc. v. Atlas Copco AB, 2003 WL 22939256, at* 1 (S.D.Fla. 2003) (Marra, J.). Ms. Giuffre has articulated good cause to grant her motion to file under seal and to seal this case, as it would facilitate the execution of a valid Rule 45 subpoena issued upon Jeffrey Epstein and follow the confidentiality order previously entered in this case by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Counsel for Ms. Giuffre has conferred with counsel for Epstein, and counsel for Epstein has agreed to the filing of the Motion to Compel under seal. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff, Virginia Giuffre, respectfully requests that the Court grant her Agreed Motion to file her Motion to Compel the Production of Documents and Testimony from Jeffrey Epstein under Seal Pursuant to Local Rule 5.4(b) and Motion to Place the Entire Docket Under Seal for the reasons set forth above. Dated: September 20, 2016 Respectfully Submitted, 4 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 43 By: BOIE~ XNERLLP SigtfdMcCawl Meredith Schultz Boies Scbmer & 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 FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 5  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 43 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 20th day of September, 2016, I served the foregoing document this day on the individuals identified below via email: 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] .com [email protected] Counse!.fhr Ghislaine Maxwell Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, #1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561 )-659-8305 (561)-835-8691 (fax) j goldbergerrq],agwpa.com Counsel for Jeffrey .l!,pstein 6  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 43 JS 44 (Rev. 07/16) FLSD Revised 07/01/2016 CIVIL COVER SHEET ll1e JS 44 civil cover sheet and the mformauon contained herem neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of plead ings or other papers as required bv law, except as provided by local rules ofcourt This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, ts reql 1rsd for tht; use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of 1111tiatmg the civil docket sheet (SEE JNST!lli( ·m!NS ON Nl:.XT PAGI, OF THIS FORM) NOTICE: Attorney~ MUST Indicate II e !Jled • s s e low. DC L _l) ' • . . I. (a) PLAINTIFFS Virginia L. Giuffre DEFENDANTS Jeffrey Epstein ------- (b) County of Residence of Ftrst Listed Pla111t1ff County of Residence of First L, sted Defendant Pair SEP Beac O .016 (l:.XC:£/'T!N U.S. PLAIN1JFFCASES) (IN U. •. PLAJN7lFF § 4 f. 'W.£l:tARIMORE NOTE: IN LAND CONDEM NA -,i.@, .ASh'8 l~]E_lJljE LOCATION , F THE TR. CT OF LANI!,!N~ J;Y'fil't FT. lAUD, (C) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (ff Known) Sigrid S. Mccawley, Esq., Boies, Schiller & Flcx.ner, LLP, 401 E. Las Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq., Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, PA, 250 Olas Blvd., #1200, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 954-356-0011 Australian Ave So., #1400, W. Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-659-8305 ( d) Check County Where Action Arose: □ MIAM I- DADE □ MONROE D BROWARD ,ti PALM BEACH D MARTIN D ST. LUCIE D INDIAN RIVER D OKEECHOBEE D HIGHLANDS II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" in One Rox Only) Ill. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an "X" in One Box/or Plaintiff} (Fo r Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) D I U.S. Government Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citi ze n of This State D1 yl I Incorporated or Principal Place D 4 O4 ofBusiness In This State D 2 U.S. Government Diversity Citizen of Another State D 2 Incol1'orated and Principal Place □ 5 0 5 Defendant (Indicate Citizenship <?/Parties in Item Ill) of Business In Another Strite Citizen or Subject of a 03 □ Foreign Nation 06 06 Foreign Country IV. NATURE OF SUIT (!'face an "X" in One Hox Only) CONTRACT TORl S FORFEI fURE/PE'.N -1.LT\' BANKR\IPTC\' OTHER STATUTES D 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY D 625 Drug Related Seizure □ 422 Appeal 28 USC I 58 □ 375 False Claims Act D 120 Maiine D 310 Airplane 0 365 Personal htju,y • of Property 21 USC 88 I 0 423 Withdrawal □ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC D 130 Miller Act 0 315 Airplane Product Product Liability D 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729 (a)) D 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability D 367 Health Care/ □ 400 State Reapportionment D 150 Recovery of Overpayment D 320 Assault, Libel & Phannaceutical PROP ERTY RIGll1S □ 410 Antitrust & Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury D 820 Copyrights □ 430 Banks and Banking 0 151 Medicare Act D 330 Federal Employers' Product Liability D 830 Pa lent □ 450 Commerce D 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability D 368 Asbestos Personal 0 840 Trademark □ 460 Deportation Sn1dent Loans D 340 Maiine lnjury Product □ 470 Racketeer Influenced and (Exel. Veterans) D 345 Ma,ine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECl:RITY Com1pt Organizations D I 53 Recovc,y ofOvcrpaymcnt Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY D 7 IO Fair Labor Standards □ 861 HIA (1395n) □ 480 Consumer Credit ofVeternn's Benefits D 350 Molor Vehicle D 370 Other Fraud Act D 862 Black Lung (923) □ 490 Cable/Sm TV D 160 Stockholdcrn' Suits D 355 Motor Vehicle D 371 Trnth in Lending D 720 Labor/Mgmt. Rela1 ions □ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) □ 850 Securities/Commodities/ 0 190 01her Conlrnct Product Liability D 380 Other Personal D 740 Railway Labor Act □ 864 SSfD Title XV I Exchange D 195 Conlract Product Liability D 360 Other Personal Property Damage D 75 I Family and Medical □ 865 RSI (405(g)) □ 890 Other Statuto1y Actions D 196 Franchise Injury D 385 Property Damage Leave Act □ 89l Agricultural Acts D 362 Persona l Injui,' • Product Liability D 790 Other Labor Litigation □ 893 Environmen1al Matters Med. Malpractice 0 79 I Empl. Ret. Inc. □ 895 Freedom of lnfom1ati on RE.AL PROPCRTY CIVILRIGHn PRISONER PETITIONS Security Act FF.DERAL TAX SUITS Act D 2 IO Land Condemnation □ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: D 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff □ 896 Arbitration D 220 Foreclosure 0441 Voting D 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) □ 899 Administrative Procednre D ~ ~~te~~tions to Vacate □ 871 JRS-Third Party 26 0 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment D 442 Employment use 7609 Act/Review or Appeal of 0 240 Torts to Land D i~~~~,~s~d~{ions Other: Agency Decision 950 Constittrtionality of State D 245 Tort Product Liability D 445 Amer. w/Disabilities • D 530 General JMMIGR-\TIO"i □ Statutes 0 290 All Other Real Property Employment D 535 Death Penalty D 462 Naturalization Application D 446 Amer. w/Disabilities • D 540 Mandamus & Other D 465 Other Immigration Other 0 550 Civil Rights Actions D 448 Education D 555 Prison Condition 560 Civil Delainee - 0 Couditions of Confinement V. ORIGIN (Plm:e an "X" in One Box On lJ ) l'.J 1 Original D D 3 Re-filed D 4 Reinstated □ Trnnsferred from D 6 Multidistrict 0 7 Appeal IU □ Remnnded ti-om Proceeding 2 Removed from State (See VI or 5 another district Litigation D 8 Multidistrict 9 Appellate Comt (rpec1jy) Transfer District J udgc Litigation Court below) Reopened - Direct from Magistra te Jud ~m ent File VI. RELATED/ (See instructions) : a) Re-filed Case □ YE S □ N O b) Related Cases ~ ES □ NO RE-FILED CASE(S) JUDGE: Kenneth A. Marra DOCKET NUMBER: 9:08-CV-80736-KAM Cite the U.S . Civil Statute under which you are filing and Write a Brief Statement of Cause (Do ,wt citejuriwlictional statutes u11less diversity): VII. CAUSE OF ACTION Miscellaneous Action to Enforce Rule 45 Subpoena LENGTH OF TR IAL via days estimated (for both sides to try entire case) VIII. REQUESTED IN □ CHECK lF T~IS IS A CLASS ACTION Cl JECK YES only if demanded in complaint: DEMAND$ COMPLAINT: UNDER F.R.CP 23 JURY DEMAN D: D Yes □ No ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE & CORR ECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTOR~NEY OF RECO September 20, 2016 FOR OFFIC E llSE ONLY !£ s::::::::: RECEIPT II AMOUNT !FP JUDGE MAG JUDGE  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 43 Case 9:16-mc-81608-DMM *SEALED* Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2016 Page 1 of 26 United States District Court Southern District of Florida SEP 2 u 2016 Virginia L. (1iuffrc, S 11:VfN •.A LAr"'!!MGRE. CLEAK U.S l;IST CT S iJ l)F HA Fr. LAUD. Plaintifi: Case No. : lJnderlying Case No .: 15-cv-07433-RWS (Southern District of New York) (Sweet, J.) V. Jeffrey Epstein, Defendant. - - - - - - -I PLAINTIFF'S SEALED MOTION TO COMPEL THE PROl>lJCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY FROM JF.FFUF.Y EPSTF:IN Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel , rcspcctfolly submits this motion to compel Jeffrey Epstein to pro<luce documents and testimony 1n response to his n:pcat1;d imo<.:ati1rn:- or the Ftfth Amendment at his recent deposition . This motion seeks to compel proJuction from Epstein in thn:c ar('as. First, at his deposition, Ep:-tdn asserted that the Fifth Amendment allowed him to dcclme to produce any documt:nts whatsoever. Epstein has the burden 0f demonstrating the applicability of the Fifth Amendment privilege, and he cannot carry that burden. He should be rcquin:d to produce Jocuments or, at the very least, a privikgc log so that the Court (and opposing counsel) can assess the validity of his claims. Second, Epstl.'!in was asked approximatc'.ly 500 hundred substantive questions at his deposition, and he tonk the Fifth rather than answer even a single one of them (other than the question about his name). Sume of the quest ions he rcf'used to answer pose no substantial risk or  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 43 FILED BY ---_iD.C. SEP 2 0 2016 United States District Court Southern District of Florida STEVEN M. lAAfMOAE CLER!( U.S. DIST CT S.D. OF FlA. FT_ I.AUD. Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No. : - - - - - Underlying Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS (Southern District of New York) (Sweet, J.) V. Jeffrey Epstein, Defendant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I PLAINTIFF'S SEALED MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY FROM JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this motion to compel Jeffrey Epstein to produce documents and testimony in response to his repeated invocations of the Fifth Amendment at his recent deposition. This motion seeks to compel production from Epstein in three areas. First, at his deposition, Epstein asserted that the Fifth Amendment allowed him to decline to produce any documents whatsoever. Epstein has the burden of demonstrating the applicability of the Fifth Amendment privilege, and he cannot carry that burden. He should be required to produce documents or, at the very least, a privilege log so that the Court (and opposing counsel) can assess the validity of his claims. Second, Epstein was asked approximately 500 hundred substantive questions at his deposition, and he took the Fifth rather than answer even a single one of them (other than the question about his name). Some of the questions he refused to answer pose no substantial risk of 1  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 43 incrimination. He should be ordered to answer these specific questions, which are enumerated in Section II, below. Third, Epstein also took the Fifth when asked questions about Ghislaine Maxwell's interactions with females overseas. Maxwell was Epstein's live-in girlfriend who assisted him in procuring underage girls. The Supreme Comt has made clear that a Fifth Amendment privilege cannot be asserted with respect to incrimination in a foreign crime. And certainly Epstein has no Fifth Amendment privilege involving sex crimes committed by another person. Epstein should be ordered to answer specific questions identified in Section III, below about Maxwell's actions in foreign countries. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1. Ms. Giuffre has filed a defamation action in the Southern District of New York against Ghislaine Maxwell. In brief, Ms. Giuffre alleges that defendant Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell defamed her by calling her a "liar" for filing documents alleging that Maxwell and her boyfriend, Jeffrey Epstein, had sexually abused her and trafficked her for sexual purposes. See Mccawley Deel., Exhibit 1 (complaint in GiufFe v. Maxwell). 2. As discovery in this case has proceeded, Defendant initially suggested she would take the Fifth and refuse to answer questions. During her deposition, however, Defendant did not take the Fifth. Instead, she testified that she suffered from a series of memory lapses and could not recall many of the key issues in dispute in this case. For example, at her deposition, Defendant indicated that she lacked recollection of or was otherwise unable to specifically answer the following questions: 1 • Whether Defendant observed a female under the age of 18 at Jeffrey Epstein's home in Palm Beach. See McCawley Deel., Ex. 2 (Maxwell Depa.) at 29; 1 Maxwell has designated the entire contents of her deposition as confidential pursuant to the Protective Order entered in that case, and, therefore, the contents must be filed under seal. 2  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 43 • Whether Defendant had meet Ms. Giuffre and introduced her to Epstein. Id. at 33; • Whether massage therapists at Epstein's mansions performed sexual acts. Id. at 52-54. • Whether Defendant was ever present to view Ms. Giuffre massaging Epstein. Id. at 75; • Whether Defendant could recall Ms. Giuffre staying at any of Epstein's six homes. Id. at 81. • Whether Defendant remembered taking a trip with Ms. Giuffre to travel over to Europe, including London. Id. at 108. • Whether Defendant ever flew on one of Epstein's planes with a 17 year old. Id. at 121-22. • Whether the notation "GM" on flight logs for passengers on Epstein's planes represented the Defendant (i.e., Ghislaine Maxwell). Id. at 122-23. • Whether Defendant could recall ever being on a flight on one of Epstein's planes with Ms. Giuffre. Id. at 132-33. • Whether Defendant could explain why a minor would be calling Epstein to say they had a female for him. Id. at 164. • Whether Defendant was aware of any interstate or international transportation of women, aged 18 to 28, for purposes of having sex with Epstein where they would receive compensation. Id. at 278-79. • Whether Defendant could recall interacting with anyone, other than Ms. Giuffre, under the age of 18 on any of Epstein's properties. Id. at 384. See Mccawley Deel. at Exhibit 2. 3. As this Court is aware from another pending case, Epstein is a registered sex offender who entered into a non-prosecution agreement (NP A), barring his prosecution for federal crime for his sexual abuse of Ms. Giuffre and multiple other victims. Several of Epstein's sexual abuse victims have filed a suit alleging that they were not properly notified of 3  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 43 the NP A and the associated guilty plea that Epstein entered. The victims allege that Epstein sexually abused them and that the Government violated their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3771, by not conferring with them about the deal that the Government reached with Epstein on that sex abuse. The case is currently pending. See Jane Does v. United States; No. 9:08-c-v-80736, DE 361 (S .D. Fla.). 4. Because of Epstein's central role in the sexual abuse of Ms. Giuffre, Ms. Giuffre has long been attempting to depose him in the action. Epstein, who is generally regarded as having vast financial resources, evaded those efforts to be served. Accordingly, on May 25, 2016, Ms. Giuffre sought leave to serve Epstein by alternative means. Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 1: 15-cv-07433, DE 160 (S.D.N.Y.). Shortly thereafter, Epstein agreed through counsel to voluntarily appear for a deposition. 5. On August 25, 2016, Ms. Giuffre served a subpoena on Epstein through his counsel. See McCawiey Deel., Exhibit 3 (Epstein subpoena). The document sought production of 22 categories of documents directly linked to the underlying lawsuit. For example, request for production ("RFP") 1 sought all photographs of Epstein in the presence of either Ms. Giuffre or Ms. Maxwell. RFP 6 sought Epstein's documents relating to Ms. Giuffre. RFP 7 sought Epstein's documents relating to Ms. Maxwell. The subpoena requested Epstein make the production of documents within the Southern District of Florida 6. On September 2, 2016, Epstein's legal counsel sent a letter to Ms. Giuffre's legal counsel raising various objections to production of documents, including a Fifth Amendment privilege. See Mccawley Deel., Exhibit 4 (Goldberger letter). (Because the letter was sent via conventional mail, counsel did not receive it until September 8, 2016.) 4  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 43 7. On September 9, 2016, Epstein appeared pursuant to the subpoena and was deposed. See Mccawley Dec., Exhibit 5 (transcript of Epstein's deposition). The deposition took place in West Palm Beach, Florida. 8. After Epstein was sworn in, he invoked his Fifth Amendment right on every single substantive question he was asked, except the question asking his name. He was asked approximately 500 substantive questions by counsel for Ms. Giuffre and approximately 100 substantive questions by counsel for defendant Maxwell. He did not answer a single one. 2 9. Counsel for Ms. Giuffre attempted to confer with Epstein's counsel regarding the basis for the privilege objections, but Epstein's counsel declined to elaborate. Epstein Depo. Tr. at 10. 10. With regard to the subpoena producing documents, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer questions about whether he had substantial financial resources that could minimize any burden in responding to the document production request. Id. at 164:22-25. 11. With regard to producing document, Epstein and his lawyers asserted a Fifth Amendment privilege: Q. Did you bring any documents with you today pursuant to this subpoena? A. Fifth. MR. WEINBERG [counsel for Epstein]: We would assert the Fifth Amendment as well as the act of production for the protections against responding to that question or producing any documents, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Hubble, the second circuit August 1st decision in Greenfield. Q. MR. CASSELL: Understood. I'll assume you have a standing objection based on the grounds that you just described to all my questions with regard to this subpoena? 2 Maxwell has designated the entire contents of Epstein's deposition as confidential pursuant to the Protective Order entered in that case, and, therefore, the contents must be filed under seal. 5  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 43 MR. GOLDBERGER: Just so we're clear, the Fifth Amendment objection as to act of production is going to apply to everything that -- MR. CASSELL: Yeah. We disagree. You have an Fifth Amendment and act of production. BY MR. CASSELL: Q. You have made no effort to collect any of the documents requested here, • h? ng t .... 3 THE WITNESS: Fifth Amendment. BY MR. CASSELL: Q. In of the last three weeks you made no search at all for the 22 categories of documents requested here, right? . . . THE WITNESS : Fifth. BY MR. CASSELL: Q. Where are the documents requested by these 22 requested categories? A. Fifth. Q. You have not produced a privilege log for these items, have you? A. Fifth. Q. It would not be burdensome for you to search for any of these documents, would it? ... THE WITNESS: Fifth. BYMR. CASSELL: Q. It would be quite simple for you[] to run search terms, such as Virginia, through your e-mail accounts, right? .. . THE WITNESS: Fifth. BY MR. CASSELL: Q. And you have plenty of money to fund any of the searches that would be required to produce these documents, right? .. . 3 Defense counsel for Ms. Maxwell raised various "form and foundation" objections to these questions, which are omitted for purposes of this motion, which seeks to compel actions by Epstein, not Maxwell. 6  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 43 THE WITNESS: Fifth. Id. at 226-29 . 12. Epstein was also asked specific questions with regard to his failure to produce certain records, such as telephone records regarding his communications with Maxwell. Epstein also took the Fifth rather than answer any such question. Id. at 229-30. 13 . Epstein was also asked various questions about Maxwell's interactions with females overseas. In particular, he was asked about actions in England (id. at 140-47), France (id. at 152-54), Thailand (id. at 154-57), Brunei (id. at 157-59), the Czech Republic (and former Czechoslovakia) (id. at 159-63), and other foreign countries (id. at 163-64). Epstein refused to answer any of these questions. In latter questioning, Epstein took the Fifth rather than admit that part of his basis for asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege was fear of foreign prosecutions. Id. at 343. 14. Ms. Giuffre now files the motion to compel production of the documents pursuant to her duly-issued subpoena. LEGAL STANDARDS Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, a party may request any person to appear for a deposition to answer questions and to produce documents within his possession. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B), a person who objects to production can lodge an objection. At that point, the party seeking production can move for an order compelling production of the documents, Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i), which is the step that Ms. Giuffre is now taking. The motion for production of documents must be filed in the Court where production is required - i.e., in this Comi. Similarly, with regard to production of testimony, a party seeking discovery can move for 7  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 43 an order requiring disclosure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(l). The motion must also be made in the Court where the discovery is to be taken- i.e., in this Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(l). A party contending that a subpoena should be quashed pursuant to Rule 45(c) (3)(A)(iv) must demonstrate that compliance with the subpoena would be unduly burdensome." Bridgeport Music Inc. v. UMG Recordings, Inc., No. 05CIV.6430(VM)(JCF), 2007 WL 4410405, at *l (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2007). In addition, a party asserting that he is privileged not to produce a document has the burden of establishing that privilege. See Maple Wood Partners, L.P. v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., 295 F.R.D. 550, 583 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (applying Florida law) ("the burden of demonstrating that a privilege applies to a particular communication ... is on the proponent of the privilege"); United States v. Bright, 596 F.3d 683, 691 (9th Cir. 2010) (witness asserting Fifth Amendment privilege "bears the burden of showing testimony or documents are privileged"). While Epstein can assert a Fifth Amendment privilege in this civil case, "it is not for the witness to determine whether the answers are protected; it is a decision left to the sound discretion of the trial court after considering the circumstances of the case. [T]o assert the privilege there must be a "substantial and 'real' "threat of incrimination and not one that is "merely trifling or imaginary." Taubert v. State, Office ofAtty. Gen., 79 So. 3d 77, 81 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011) (citing Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 53 (1968); State v. Mitrani, 19 So.3d 1065, 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (other internal citations omitted)). After Epstein explains the basis for his invocation, and Ms. Giuffre responds, this Court then makes findings on a question-by-question basis. See, e.g., Capitol Prod. Corp. v. Hernon, 457 F.2d 541, 544 (8th Cir. 1972) ("To protect the right of both parties and assure satisfactory review, the comi should 8  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 43 clearly state the basis on which it sustains or rejects the defendant's objection to a particular question."). Because this case is a diversity action state law generally provides the rule of decision for substantive privilege issues. See Giuffre v. Maxwell, DE 135 at 6, 2016 WL 175918 at* 6 (applying New York privilege law) (citing Allied Irish Banks v. Bank ofAm., NA., 240 F.R.D. 96, 102 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) ("Because this Court's subject matter jurisdiction is based upon diversity ... state law provides the rule of decision concerning the claim of attorney-client privilege.")). In this case, Epstein's inability to provide a basis for Fifth Amendment invocations does not turn on peculiarities of the law of any one jurisdiction, and thus authorities from various jurisdictions are cited interchangeably. ARGUMENT I. EPSTEIN SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO PRODUCE THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS. A. It is Not Unduly Burdensome for Epstein to Produce the Requested Documents. If Epstein wishes to establish undue burdensomeness in producing documents, it is his burden to carry. As recounted above, however, Epstein has refused to answer questions regarding undue burdensomeness. See Statement of Fact, at~ 10. Presumably this is because his vast wealth would make it difficult from him to prove that point. In any event, even were Epstein to attempt to show undue burdensomeness, he could not establish that any burden is "undue." Epstein is a central figure in this case - the most central figure, apart from the two parties, the plaintiff and the defendant. And the defendant is feigning memory loss over many of the most significant events in this case - including many events that involved Epstein. Because of his central role in the case, it is important for Ms. Giuffre to have the requested documents from him. No undue burden exists. 9  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 43 B. Epstein Cannot Assert a Fifth Amendment Privilege in the Documents Themselves. As reflected in the transcript quoted above, Epstein asserted both a Fifth Amendment privilege not to produce the documents as well as a Fifth Amendment act-of-production privilege. The act of production issues will be addressed in the next section below. But Epstein's Fifth Amendment objection is frivolous. The contents of pre-existing documents are not protected by the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment only protects a witness against testifying about certain events, not producing documents already in his position. In his deposition, Epstein's legal counsel referenced two cases: United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000); and United States v. Greenfield, --- F.3d ---, 2016 WL 4073250 (2d Cir. Aug. 2, 2016). But as both of those cases make clear, a defendant does not have a Fifth Amendment privilege to refuse to produce documents (as opposed to the privilege that does exist to refuse to give testimony verbally). The Supreme Court in Hubbell specifically noted "the settled proposition that a person may be required to produce specific documents even though they contain incriminating assertions of fact or belief because the creation of those doctiments was not 'compelled' within the meaning of the [Fifth Amendment] privilege." Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 35-36 (citing Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976)). Similarly, the Second Circuit in Greenfield, following the Supreme Court's lead, held that "the contents of the records [do] not implicate the Fifth Amendment." --- F.3d ---, 2016 WL 4073250 at *5 (reviewing Fisher, 425 U.S. at 409-10). See also Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99, 102 ( 1988) ("There is no question but that the contents of subpoenaed business records are not privileged."); United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605, 612 n. 10 (1984) ("If the party asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege has voluntarily compiled the document, no compulsion is present and the contents of the document are not privileged.").  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 43 In light of these controlling authorities, Epstein cannot rely on a Fifth Amendment self- incrimination argument t