gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.35.0.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, VIRGINIA GIUFFRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS SUBJECT TO IMPROPER OBJECTIONS



BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

Sigrid McCawley (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

Ellen Brockman
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
575 Lexington Ave
New York, New York 10022
(212) 446-2300




1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................................................... ii

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................................1

II. LEGAL ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................3

A. Legal Standard...............................................................................................................3

B. Maxwell’s General Objections Fail...............................................................................4

C. Maxwell’s Specific Objections Fail. .............................................................................8

1. Request No. 1 .......................................................................................................8

a. Maxwell’s Response....................................................................................8

b. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, As The Request Seeks Relevant
Discovery ....................................................................................................9

2. Request No. 3. ......................................................................................................9

a. Maxwell’s Response....................................................................................9

b. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, As The Request Seeks Relevant
Discovery ..................................................................................................10

3. Request No. 6. ....................................................................................................10

a. Maxwell’s Response..................................................................................10

b. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, As The Request Seeks Relevant
Discovery ..................................................................................................11

4. Request No. 7. ....................................................................................................12

a. Maxwell’s Response..................................................................................12

b. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, As The Request Seeks Relevant
Discovery ..................................................................................................12

5. Requests Nos. 8 and 33. .....................................................................................13

a. Maxwell’s Response..................................................................................13

b. Request No. 33. .........................................................................................13


i
 c. Maxwell’s Response to Request No. 33....................................................14

d. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, As The Request Seeks Relevant
Discovery...................................................................................................14

6. Request Nos. 10 and 11. .....................................................................................15

a. Request No. 10. .........................................................................................15

b. Maxwell’s Response to Request No. 10....................................................15

c. Request No. 11. .........................................................................................15

d. Maxwell’s Response to Request No. 11....................................................15

e. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, As The Request Seeks Relevant
Discovery...................................................................................................16

7. Request No. 15. ..................................................................................................16

a. Maxwell’s Response..................................................................................16

b. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, As The Request Seeks Relevant
Discovery ..................................................................................................17

8. Request No. 17. ..................................................................................................17

a. Maxwell’s Response..................................................................................17

b. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, As The Request Seeks Relevant
Discovery ..................................................................................................18

9. Request Nos. 21 – 24 .........................................................................................19

a. Maxwell’s Response..................................................................................19

b. Request No. 22. .........................................................................................19

c. Maxwell’s Response to Request No. 22....................................................19

d. Request No. 23. .........................................................................................19

e. Maxwell’s Response to Request No. 23....................................................19

f. Request No. 24. .........................................................................................20

g. Maxwell’s Response to Request No. 24....................................................20




ii
 h. Maxwell’s Objections To Requests 21-24 Fail, As The Requests Seek
Relevant Discovery....................................................................................20

10. Request No. 32. ..................................................................................................21

a. Maxwell’s Response..................................................................................21

b. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, As The Request Seeks Relevant
Discovery ..................................................................................................21

11. Request No. 34. ..................................................................................................22

a. Maxwell’s Response..................................................................................22

b. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, As The Request Seeks Relevant
Discovery ..................................................................................................22

12. Request No. 37. ..................................................................................................23

a. Maxwell’s Response..................................................................................23

b. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, As The Request Seeks Relevant
Discovery ..................................................................................................23

13. Request No. 39. ..................................................................................................24

a. Maxwell’s Response..................................................................................24

b. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, As The Request Seeks Relevant
Discovery ..................................................................................................24

CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................24




iii
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page
Cases

Am. Rock Salt Co., LLC v. Norfolk S. Corp.,
228 F.R.D. 426 (W.D.N.Y. 2004) ...............................................................................................6

Edwards v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
No. 95 CIV. 5356 (SAS), 1996 WL 432472 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 1996).......................................1

Gateway Logistics, Inc. v. Smay,
302 P. 3d 235 (Colo. 2013).................................................................................................passim

International Mining Co., Inc. v. Allen and Co.,
567 F. Supp.777 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) ...............................................................................................2

Ottoson v. SMBC Leasing and Finance, Inc.,
2015 WL 4597542 (S.D.N.Y. July 30, 2015)..............................................................................1

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Fayda.
No. 14CIV9792WHPJCF, 2015 WL 7871037 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2015)..............................3, 23

Stinson v. City of New York,
2015 WL 4610422 (S.D.N.Y.) July 23, 2015) ............................................................................1

Zorn v. Howe,
276 A.D.2d 51, 716 N.Y.S. 2d 128 (2000)..................................................................................7

Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC,
220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).................................................................................................7


Statutes

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 ......................................................................................................................3, 22

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 ........................................................................................................................4, 8

Fed. R. Evid. 501 ....................................................................................................................passim




iv
 Plaintiff Virginia L. Giuffre, by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully submit

this Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Response to Request Nos. 1-39 and to

Compel Documents Subject to Improper Objections Including Refusals to Produce Documents

from Highly Relevant Time Periods. For the reasons set forth below, this Court should grant

Plaintiff’s Motion in its entirety.

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Plaintiff first served her request for production of documents on defendant on October 27,

2015. Now, almost four (4) months later, and even after this Court denied defendant’s attempts

to stay discovery and directed a response, defendant is still refusing to produce highly relevant

documents. Defendant is attempting to grant herself a de facto stay of discovery, without Court

approval, by refusing to produce documents or generally comply with a party’s clear and

unequivocal discovery obligations1. Indeed, in response to thirty-eight (38) requests for

production, the defendant has chosen to produce two emails.2 This represents a willful disregard

of her discovery obligations, something this Court should not condone.

“Although not unlimited, relevance, for purposes of discovery, is an extremely broad

concept.” Ottoson v. SMBC Leasing and Finance, Inc., (Sweet, J.) 2015 WL 4597542 at * 2

(S.D.N.Y. July 30, 2015) (granting motion to compel) (internal quotations omitted); Stinson v.

City of New York, (Sweet, J.), 2015 WL 4610422 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2015) (granting in part

motion to compel production).

In the Second Circuit, courts have dismissed actions where a party has demonstrated

willful disregard for its discovery obligations. Edwards v. Am. Airlines, Inc., No. 95 CIV. 5356

1
Maxwell also waited four (4) months to produce her initial Rule 26 Disclosures which she just served on February
24, 2016.
2
Notably, Maxwell even refuses to produce the defamatory press releases from her communications with her press
agent Ross Gow, which are at the heart of this case.



1
(SAS), 1996 WL 432472, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 1996). See also International Mining Co.,

Inc. v. Allen and Co., (Sweet, J.), 567 F.Supp 777 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (failure to produce

documents and supply adequate answers to interrogatories without justifiable excuse warranted

the dismissal of the complaint). The blatant nature of the defendant’s failure to participate in

discovery is akin to the conduct for which the Second Circuit has awarded sanctions.

This case turns on whether or not Maxwell defamed Ms. Giuffre when she called Ms.

Giuffre’s account of her sexual abuse “obvious lies.” Ms. Giuffre intends to establish that

Maxwell’s defamatory statement was untrue, and that Ms. Giuffre was telling the truth. To

prove the truth of her sexual abuse, Ms. Giuffre seeks discovery of documents evidencing her

sexual abuse and sexual trafficking by Maxwell and her associates, including convicted sex

offender Jeffrey Epstein. Therefore, documents evidencing Ms. Giuffre’s encounters with

Maxwell, and documents evidencing Maxwell’s communications with her co-conspirators, are

plainly relevant and discoverable. For example, Request 6 seeks documents relating to

Maxwell’s communications with Sarah Kellen. At a prior deposition, Sarah Kellen invoked her

Fifth Amendment privilege when asked:

Q. Would you agree with me that Ghislaine Maxwell provides underage girls to Mr.
Epstein for sex?
***
A. Upon the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege.
Q. Take a look at what we marked as Exhibit 10. Do you recognize the two people in
that photograph?
A. On the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege.
Q. Would you agree with me that’s Ghislaine Maxwell on the right and Jeffrey Epstein
on the left?
A. On the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege.
***
Q. Do you recognize the young lady shown in Exhibit 11?
A. On the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege.
Q. Do you agree with me that the young girl shown in Exhibit 11 was recruited by
Ghislaine Mawell for sexual activity with Jeffrey Esptein?
A. On the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege.



2
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, March 24, 2010 Deposition Transcript of Sarah Kellen at 100-

103.

Clearly, communications Maxwell had with Sarah Kellen are highly relevant to

establishing Maxwell’s involvement in trafficking underage girls. Yet, Maxwell is refusing to

produce any communications with Sarah Kellen.

Moreover, defendant Maxwell has admitted that non-privileged,3 relevant documents

exist. She is simply refusing to produce them. See Declaration of Sigrid McCawley

(“McCawley Decl.”) at Exhibit 2, Defendant Maxwell’s Response to Plaintiff’s First Request for

Production Requests Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 32, 33, 34, and 37.

Indeed, it is undisputed that Maxwell spent many years traveling with Ms. Giuffre. And, for

years thereafter, Maxwell continued her association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Ms. Giuffre is entitled to those documents in discovery because they go directly to the claim at

issue in this litigation. Therefore, this Court should compel her to produce them.

II. LEGAL ARGUMENT

A. Legal Standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a), a party may request that another party

produce documents in its possession as long as the documents are within the scope of Fed. R.

Civ. P. 26(b), which allows for broad discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is

relevant to any party’s claim or defense. Information within this scope of discovery need not be

admissible in evidence to be discoverable. Relevance is still to be “construed broadly to

encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear

on” any party's claim or defense. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Fayda, No.


3
Ms. Maxwell’s privilege claims all fail as addressed in Ms. Giuffre’s Motion to Compel Production
Based on Improper Claim of Privilege.


3
14CIV9792WHPJCF, 2015 WL 7871037, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2015) (granting motion to

compel). If the opposing party objects to producing the documents, the party seeking production

can file a motion to compel with the court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Against this backdrop

of broad discovery rights, Maxwell has refused to produce responsive documents.

B. Maxwell’s General Objections Fail

The centerpiece of Maxwell’s general objections is her disingenuous limitation of her

discovery responses to a short window of time that she has unilaterally selected. Maxwell

wrongfully attempts to limit discovery to the month of December 30, 2014 – January 31, 2015

when her defamatory statement was issued and 1999 – 20024. Maxwell’s time period limitation

clearly violates both the letter and spirit of Rule 26. For example, a communication by

Maxwell’s press agent regarding the plaintiff is just as relevant if it was made on February 1,

2015 as the one that was made on January 3, 2015 and it is clearly discoverable. These

communications with her press agent are key documents in this case, as the sole claim concerns

Ms. Maxwell defaming Ms. Giuffre in the press, yet Maxwell has arbitrarily refused to produce

highly relevant discovery.

The abuse at issue in this case is alleged to have started in or around 1999 and there are

relevant documents and communications from that point to the present in that Maxwell

continued to associate with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein up until at least 2015 as

evidenced by her privilege log. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3, Maxwell’s Privilege Log.

Accordingly, plaintiff defined the relevant period for purposes of her requests for production as

1999 – present. While that may seem like a substantial period of time, all of the publically


4
Maxwell refers to her shortened time period as “the Relevant Time Period as defined in Paragraph 15”
of her objections. To be clear, Ms. Giuffre’s references herein to production for the “Relevant Time
Period” refer to the Relevant Time Period of 1999 to the present as defined in her original requests for
production.


4
available documents demonstrate that the whole period is highly relevant to the sexual abuse

allegations. For example, the flight logs demonstrate that Maxwell was flying on Jeffrey

Epstein’s planes over 360 times from 1999 – 2005. In addition, Maxwell flew with plaintiff

when she was a minor child in 2000 on Jeffrey Epstein’s planes. The flight logs reveal that

Maxwell continued to actively travel with Jeffrey Epstein and other unidentified “female”

passengers through at least as late as September 5, 2005.5 See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4.

Moreover, there is critical activity relevant to the abuse allegations happening in the mid-

2000s as evidenced by the Palm Beach Police report that identified over 30 underage girls who

were being victimized during that time period. In addition, house staff identifies Maxwell as the

person in charge during this time period. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, Alfredo Rodriguez

Deposition Transcript at 24-25.

The years of the mid to late 2000s are also highly relevant because that is during the time

when convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein entered his plea deal with the government. Law

enforcement conducted a trash pull from Jeffrey Epstein’s residence in Florida and uncovered his

house message pads. The message pads reveal that in 2004, Maxwell was coordinating

“training” with underage girls as indicated by the redactions in the message pads. See

McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 6, SAO 2830. Maxwell was also organizing “massages” for Epstein

in 2004 with underage girls and indicating which girls she had lined-up on given days. See

McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 6, SAO 02841.

Plaintiff here received a Victim Notification Letter on September 9, 2008. See

McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7. In 2009, an attorney sought Maxwell’s deposition in connection


5
Only a fraction of the flight logs were made publically available. Therefore there are likely other records
in Maxwell’s possession, custody and control that would demonstrate Maxwell traveling with underage
females but to date she has refused to produce this information and indeed is limiting her responses to a
very narrow window of time.


5
with various sexual abuse allegations and Maxwell dodged the deposition claiming that her

mother was ill and she would be traveling outside the country with no plans of returning.

Despite this claim to avoid her deposition, she then was photographed thereafter at Chelsea

Clinton’s wedding in Rhinebeck, New York. See McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit 8

Maxwell Deposition Notice; Subpoena and Cancellation Payment Notice, and January 13, 2015

Daily Mail Article with photograph. In 2011, Maxwell started issuing press statements through

her agent Ross Gow. The offending defamatory statement was issued on January 3, 2015. As

demonstrated by the timeline, discussed above, any documents that Maxwell has from the period

from 1999 to the present are highly relevant. Ms. Giuffre respectfully requests that this Court

direct Maxwell to produce all responsive documents for the time period from 1999 to the

present.6

Defendant Maxwell has also asserted fundamentally improper general objections which

should be overruled. Am. Rock Salt Co., LLC v. Norfolk S. Corp., 228 F.R.D. 426, 432

(W.D.N.Y. 2004) (“generalized objections that discovery requests are vague, overly broad, or

unduly burdensome are not acceptable, and will be overruled.”).

Maxwell’s general objection to producing material that implicates “privacy interests” is

equally misplaced. Maxwell does not have a “privacy interest” in the illegal sexual abuse and

trafficking of Ms. Giuffre and other minors, nor does she have a “privacy interest” in the

communications with her co-conspirators, including convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein and




6
Maxwell has asserted that she cannot find documents for Requests Nos.1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 14, 35 and 38.
The Requests are set forth in Appendix A. To the extent that these requests incorporate her General
Objection to the Relevant Period articulated in paragraph 15 of her Objections, Plaintiff requests that this
Court require Ms. Maxwell to search for and produce any responsive documents from the 1999 to the
present that may have been excluded from Maxwell’s original search for the reasons stated above.


6
others.7 See Zorn v. Howe, 276 A.D.2d 51, 57, 716 N.Y.S.2d 128, 133 (2000) (finding no

legitimate privacy interest in illegal activity). Unsurprisingly, Maxwell cites no authority that

would shield the production of those documents.8 These documents are responsive and relevant.

The only proper objection Maxwell can make is an assertion of her Fifth Amendment privilege.

Failing that assertion, she must produce them.

Furthermore, Maxwell claims that “prior to this litigation” she has “long had a practice of

deleting emails after they have been read.” First, Ms. Giuffre is entitled to a forensic examination

of Maxwell’s personal computers and devices to recover deleted emails and to discovery when

and if Maxwell has performed a “swipe” of her computers/devices to permanently destroy

deleted emails.

Second, in her Motion to Dismiss, Maxwell claims that in both 2011 and 2015 she

anticipated litigation against tabloids. Specifically, she stated that in 2011, “litigation . . . was

forthcoming,” and in 2015, she made her press release “’pertinent to’ anticipated good-faith

litigation.” When litigation is anticipated, it is incumbent on the party to preserve documents.

See Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 218 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (“Once a party

reasonably anticipates litigation, it must ... ensure the preservation of relevant documents.”)

Additionally, if Maxwell purposefully destroyed documents in 2015, this Court can instruct the

jury to made an adverse inference against Maxwell or enter a default judgment in favor of Ms.

7
Non-attorney Maxwell claims that her communications with co-conspirator, convicted pedophile, and
non-attorney Jeffrey Epstein are privileged, a specious claim that is challenged in Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel for Improper Assertion of Privilege.
8
Maxwell cites a non-controlling and inapposite Colorado case. In Gateway, the moving party sought to
inspect personal computers, smartphones, and other devices belonging to the defendant and his wife, who
was a non-party to the case. The court remanded the decision on the motion to compel that discovery to
the trial court, requiring that the trial court make findings of fact balancing the defendants’ privacy
interest with the plaintiffs’ need for the information sought as required by another case. It did not hold
that such materials were not discoverable. Notably, Maxwell does not cite to any New York case in
opposing this request, nor does she cite to a case from any other jurisdiction that is at all on point.


7
Giuffre. See Rule 37(e)(2)(b),(c), Fed. R. Civ. P. (“If electronically stored information that

should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party

failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or replaced through

additional discovery, the court . . . upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive

another party of the information’s use in the litigation may . . . instruct the jury that it may or

must presume the information was unfavorable to the party; or dismiss the action or enter a

default judgment.”) Similarly, Maxwell was served with a subpoena decus tecum on September

21, 2009 seeking her testimony in relations to Epstein’s underage sex ring. See McCawley Decl.

at Composite Exhibit 8, 2009 Subpoena issued to Maxwell. Maxwell avoided that deposition by

falsely claiming to be out of the country (she was, instead, photographed at Chelsey Clinton’s

New York wedding). See Composite Exhibit 8. Pursuant to that subpoena, Maxwell was placed

on notice that her documents were relevant to pending litigation. All of these events triggering

her duty to preserve documents center on Maxwell’s role in Epstein’s sex crimes; therefore, all

of the documents she had a duty to preserve are relevant to this litigation. Defendant Maxwell

must produce these documents or explain to the Court when and why they were destroyed.

C. Maxwell’s Specific Objections Fail

1. Request No. 1: All documents relating to communications with Jeffery
Epstein from 1999 – Present.

a. Maxwell’s Response:

Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly
burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Maxwell further objects
to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or information protected by the attorney/client
privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common interest privilege or any other applicable
privilege.




8
 Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Maxwell is withholding documents
outside of the Relevant Periods described in paragraph15, supra9, and is withholding production
of documents that are privileged pursuant to a common interest agreement.

b. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, as the Request Seeks Relevant Discovery

Maxwell must produce documents for the entire Relevant Period as discussed above.

Communications with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein for whom Defendant Maxwell is

alleged to have assisted him with his sexual trafficking activities are of the highest relevance in

this case, and must be produced. Additionally, Maxwell has asserted an improper privilege with

regard to these documents, which is addressed fully in Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel for Improper

Claims of Privilege.

2. Request No. 3: All documents relating to communications with Andrew
Albert Christian Edward, Duke of York (a.k.a. Prince Andrew) from 1999 – present.

a. Maxwell’s Response:

Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and calls for the
production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. 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. Maxwell also objects to this Request to the extent it
implicates her right to privacy. Gateway Logistics, Inc. v. Smay, 302 P .3d 235 (Colo.2013);
Fed.R.Evid .501.

Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Maxwell will produce non-
privileged documents responsive to this Request limited to the Relevant Periods described in



9
Maxwell’s reference to her “redefined” Relevant Period comes from paragraph 15 of her Responses and
Objections which provides: “Ms. Maxwell objects to Instruction No. 1, in particular the definition of the
“Relevant Period” to include July 1999 to the present, on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly
burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Complaint at paragraph 9 purports to
describe events pertaining to Plaintiff and Defendant occurring in the years 1999 – 2002. The Complaint
also references statements attributed to Ms. Maxwell occurring in January 2015. Defining the “Relevant
Period” as July 1999 to the present” is vastly overbroad, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence, and as to certain of the Requests, is intended for the improper
purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell and it implicates her privacy rights. Thus, Ms. Maxwell
interprets the Relevant Period to be limited to 1999 – 2002 and December 30, 2014 – January 31, 2015
and objects to production of any documents outside that period, except as specifically noted.”


9
paragraph15, supra, and with private phone numbers and related information redacted. Maxwell
is withholding production of documents outside of such Relevant Periods.

b. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, as the Request Seeks Relevant Discovery

Defendant Maxwell’s communications with Prince Andrew, for the entire Relevant

Period, are relevant to this litigation. Maxwell is alleged to have trafficked Ms. Giuffre to Prince

Andrew when Ms. Giuffre was a minor. Indeed, there is photographic evidence of Prince

Andrew with his arm around Virginia’s waist, standing next to Maxwell, in Maxwell’s London

residence, when Virginia was a minor child. In the one email defendant did produce in Response

to the Requests for Production, Maxwell instructs Prince Andrew to “call me” after Prince

Andrew says he needs to speak about Virginia. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 9. Ms. Giuffre is

entitled to all of the communications between Maxwell and Prince Andrew not only to show the

communications between them regarding her trafficking, but also possible communications

between them, that would establish Maxwell furnishing him with other females or discussing

other individuals who may have been involved with this activity.

3. Request No. 6: All documents relating to communications with any of the
following individuals from 1999 – present: Emmy Taylor, Sarah Kellen, Eva Dubin, Glen Dubin,
Jean Luc Brunel, and Nadia Marcinkova.

a. Maxwell’s Response:

Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and/or propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Maxwell.
Maxwell further objects to this Request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence.

Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Maxwell is withholding production
of documents relating to communications with Nadia Marcinkova, Sarah Kellen and Eva Dubin
that are outside of the Relevant Periods described in paragraph15, supra. Maxwell has been
unable to locate any such documents relating to Ms. Marcinkova, Ms. Kellen or Ms. Dubin
within the Relevant Periods. Maxwell also has been unable to locate any such documents
responsive to this Request relating to Glen Dubin, Jean Luc Brunel or Emmy Taylor for any time
period.



10
 b. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, as the Request Seeks Relevant Discovery

Ms. Kellen was previously deposed regarding Jeffrey Epstein’s underage sex ring. When

asked about Maxwell’s involvement in the sex trafficking, Ms. Kellen asserted her Fifth

Amendment privileges and refused to answer. Ms. Kellen’s assertion implicates Maxwell in the

sex trafficking activity.

Q. Would you agree with me that Ghislaine Maxwell provides underage girls to Mr.
Epstein for sex?
***
A. Upon the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege.

See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, March 24, 2010 Deposition Transcript of Sarah Kellen at 100-

103.

Maxwell’s communications with Ms. Kellen, at any time during the original Relevant

Period, are relevant to the sexual abuse suffered by Ms. Giuffre and others at the hands of

Maxwell, and should not be withheld. Moreover, flight logs demonstrate that Sarah Kellen and

Maxwell flew together multiple times, including with Ms. Giuffre. See McCawley Decl. at

Exhibit 4.

Similarly, Nadia Marcinkova was a co-conspirator of Maxwell and Epstein, and

communicated with them frequently as evidenced by the message pads law enforcement

retrieved from Epstein’s residence. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 6. Nadia Marcinkova also

travelled on Jeffrey Epstein’s planes with Maxwell. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, flight

logs. Similarly, Emmy Taylor was Maxwell’s assistant during this time frame and also travelled

on Jeffrey Epstein’s planes with Ms. Giuffre. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4. These

communications are relevant for the entire original Relevant Period and Maxwell must produce

them.




11
 Regarding Glen and Eva Dubin, flight logs demonstrate that they also travelled on Jeffrey

Epstein’s planes with Maxwell. Maxwell has acknowledged having communications with Eva

Dubin, but she is refusing to turn them over. Eva and Glen regularly placed calls to Jeffrey

Epstein and to Maxwell as evidenced by the police report trash pull of message pads. See

McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 6, SAO2843, SAO2984, SAO2994, SAO3004, SAO3006, and

SAO3009. Maxwell’s communications with Glen and Eva Dubin are relevant for the entire

original Relevant Period and should be produced.

4. Request No. 7: All video tapes, audio tapes, photographs or any other print or
electronic media relating to females under the age of 18 from the period of 1999 – present.

a. Maxwell’s Response:

Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and/or propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Maxwell.
Maxwell further objects to this Request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence.

Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Maxwell has been unable to locate
any documents responsive to this Request which relate or pertain to Plaintiff or any of the
witnesses identified by Plaintiff in her Rule 26 disclosures. Maxwell is withholding production
of other documents responsive to this Request, including things like mainstream newspapers,
magazines, videos, DVDs or other media or family photographs which contain depictions of
female children, including Maxwell herself as a child.

b. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, as the Request Seeks Relevant Discovery

To clarify, Ms. Giuffre is not seeking the depictions of children under the age of 18 that

that include Maxwell as a child or Maxwell’s relatives as children. Nor is Ms. Giuffre seeking

mainstream images that are legally available, such as in mainstream newspapers, magazines,

videos, or DVDs. Instead, Ms. Giuffre is seeking the depictions of underage girls possessed by

Maxwell. For example, Alfredo Rodriguez, a former household manager for Epstein, testified

that Maxwell kept images of naked girls on her personal computer whose identities are unknown

to Ms. Giuffre:


12
 Q. “Did they appear to be doing any sexual?
A. Yes, ma’am
Q. And in these instances were there girls doing sexual things with other girls?
A. Yes, ma’am.
Q. And I’m still talking about the pictures on Maxwell’s computer.
A. Yes, ma’am.”

See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, Alfredo Rodriguez August 7, 2009, Dep. Tr. at 311-312.

Accordingly, Maxwell’s depictions of females under the age of 18, goes to Ms. Giuffre’s claims

of sexual abuse and should be produced for the entire original Relevant Period. These pictures

would reveal which underage girls Maxwell was interacting with and photographing or

videotaping which is highly relevant to this case. Importantly, this request is not limited to

depictions of Ms. Giuffre or the individuals in Ms. Giuffre’s Rule 26 disclosures, as Maxwell

tries to assert in her Objection.

5. Request Nos. 8 and 33: All documents relating to your travel from the period
of 1999 – present, including but not limited to, any travel on Jeffrey Epstein’s planes,
commercial flights, helicopters, passport records, records indicating passengers traveling with
you, hotel records, and credit card receipts.

a. Maxwell’s Response:

Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and/or propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Maxwell.
Maxwell further objects to this Request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Maxwell also objects to this Request to the extent it implicates her right
to privacy. Gateway Logistics, Inc. v. Smay, 302 P .3d 235 (Colo.2013); Fed.R.Evid. 501.

Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Maxwell is withholding production
of documents outside of the Relevant Periods described in paragraph15, supra, and is
withholding documents within the Relevant Period that are private and are not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The documents reflecting flight plans
in Maxwell’s possession do not identify passengers or manifests.

b. Request No. 33

All travel records between 1999 and the present reflecting your presence in: (a) Palm Beach
Florida or immediately surrounding areas; (b) 9 E. 71st Street, New York, NY 10021; (c) New
Mexico; (d) U.S. Virgin Islands; (e) any jet or aircraft owned or controlled by Jeffrey Epstein.



13
 c. Maxwell’s Response to Request No. 33

Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome an/or proponed for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Maxwell. This
request is also duplicative and cumulative of Requests Nos. 8 and 14 above. Maxwell further
objects to this Request to the extent that it calls for the production of documents that are
irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.

Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Maxwell has been unable to locate
any documents responsive to this Request for the Relevant Periods as defined in paragraph 15,
supra. Maxwell is withholding production of documents outside of such Relevant Period.

d. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, as the Request Seeks Relevant Discovery

Popularly known in mainstream media as the “Lolita Express,”10 Epstein is alleged to

have used his private plane to traffic females across state lines for sexual purposes. The

flightlogs available at this time to Ms. Giuffre only show a fraction of the flights made by the

Lolita Express, but even those logs show Maxwell and Ms. Giuffre on these flights multiple

times. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4. This request concerning Maxwell’s travel will show

Maxwell’s involvement in the trafficking, including Ms. Giuffre, across state lines with and for

Epstein.

Jeffrey Epstein’s private island is only reachable by helicopter or boat. Maxwell was

known to fly the helicopter to the private island transporting guests. Therefore, her helicopter

flight records will show which girls and other individuals that Maxwell flew to Epstein’s private

island. The records will also demonstrate when and how many times Maxwell was operating the

helicopter.

Maxwell’s commercial flight, passport, hotel, and credit card records are highly relevant

because they will show, for example, that she flew to Paris, France with Ms. Giuffre while Ms.


10
See, e.g., “All aboard the ‘Lolita Express’: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2922773/Newly-released-
flight-logs-reveal-time-trips-Bill-Clinton-Harvard-law-professor-Alan-Dershowitz-took-pedophile-Jeffrey-Epstein-
s-Lolita-Express-private-jet-anonymous-women.html.


14
Giuffre was a minor child. Additionally, these records will place Maxwell at other locations

around the United States and internationally at the same times Ms. Giuffre was in those

locations, which goes to the defamation claim in this case. The records will also link her to other

females who may have been trafficked for sex. Finally, Maxwell’s travel to Epstein’s residences

in Florida, New York, New Mexico, and USVI will support the allegations that Maxwell assisted

Jeffrey Epstein with his sexual trafficking operation. Accordingly, this is an improper objection.

Defendant Maxwell has admitted that she is withholding responsive documents from production,

and this Court should require her to produce them.

6. Request Nos. 10 and 11:

a. Request No. 10: All documents relating to payments made from
Jeffrey Epstein or any related entity to you from 1999 – present, including payments for work
performed, gifts, real estate purchases, living expenses, and payments to your charitable
endeavors including the TerraMar project.

b. Maxwell’s Response to Request No. 10:

Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and/or propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Maxwell.
Maxwell further objects to this Request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence.

Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Maxwell has been unable to
locate any documents responsive to this Request during the Relevant Periods as defined in
paragraph15, supra. Maxwell is withholding production of documents outside of such
Relevant Periods.
c. Request No. 11: All documents relating to or describing any work
you performed with Jeffrey Epstein, or any affiliated entity from 1999 –present.

d. Maxwell’s Response to Request No. 11:

Maxwell objects to this Request in that the terms “work,” “with” and “affiliated entity”
are vague, undefined and susceptible of multiple meanings and definitions. M. Maxwell objects
to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and/or propounded for
the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Maxwell. Maxwell further objects to this Request
on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.


15
 Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Maxwell has been unable to
locate any documents responsive to this Request during the Relevant Periods as defined in
paragraph15, supra. Maxwell is withholding production of documents outside of such
Relevant Periods.
e. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, as the Request Seeks Relevant Discovery

Maxwell recruited Ms. Giuffre and groomed her to perform sexual acts for Jeffrey

Epstein. She also performed other services for Jeffrey Epstein, including recruiting and

scheduling girls to perform “massages” for Epstein. The household staff testified that they took

instructions from Maxwell. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, Rodriguez at 24-25. Therefore,

her work for Epstein and related entities is relevant. Discovery concerning Maxwell’s

compensation, formal or informal, for the work she performed for convicted sex offender Jeffrey

Epstein is highly relevant for the entire Relevant Period, from 1999 to the present, because

Maxwell performed these services, and received compensation and gifts during this entire time

period. For example, a 2003 Vanity Fair article, written before the Jeffrey Epstein scandal

broke, describes Maxwell as someone who “seems to organize much of [Epstein’s] life --

recently she was making telephone inquiries to find a California-based yoga instructor for

him.”11 The police records also reveal that Maxwell recruited a female to work for Jeffrey

Epstein. The message pads also reveal Maxwell regularly working for Jeffrey Epstein, including

organizing his schedule for training underage girls. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 6, SAO2830.

The work she performed for Epstein, and the compensation she received, is relevant to the claim

in this case for the entire Relevant Period. Therefore, Maxwell must produce the documents she

is withholding.

7. Request No. 15: All video tapes, audio tapes, photographs or any other print
or electronic media taken at a time when you were in Jeffr