Case Document Filed Page of BO I ES SC HI LLER FLE XN ER LLP Hono able Judge Robert Sweet an uar Page a to pro testimon a out cnmma sex tra 1c act i i ties and roles of th various participants including the Defendant are the victims young females who were recruited and se xu ally ex oited Due to fea and embarrassment many of these vic tims have been unw illin to estify about the abuse they dured Sarah Ransome wev has recently ga in ed the courage to testify and co ntacted us to share he experiences which are relevant to the issues in th i case It would be i nequitable for Defendant to profit from the exclus i on of a newly-discover ed it ness Accordingly this Court should allow this newly discovered witness to testify at ial a nd allow efendant to take her deposition prior to ri al if she would li do so De fendant would suffer prejudice i Ms Ransomes i ncl i on at tr ial or i takin Ms Ransomes depos i tion at is ju ncture for several reasons First deposition discove is still ongoing I dee the Co urt ordered that Defen dan i for another deposit i on that has yet to be sched ul ed eca se efendants Motion for econsideration is sti ll ndi DE A lditionall the deposition another key witness Accordingly with the depositions of bo he efendant and another key witness already pe nd ing at this stage efendant cannot claim prejudice in taking part in one other deposition as deposi tion iscovery i cu ently ongoing ot by is Court Order and by he ag re eme nt of the parties Second upon learning that Ms Ra nsome as highly relevant evidence an ascertaining her cre i bil it reached out to the Defenda a offe ed to prese nt her for a depo sition at a time onvenient for the Defendant in the next three week to ensure Defendant ha the benefit of tal ing Ms Ransome testimony in advan of he trial date Defendant has not yet taken a position and since this is a highly time sensit i ve issue we felt compelled to irnmediately inform this Court and request tha we be allowed to ake Ms Ransomes deposition and present her testimony at trial Acc;:ordingly Defe nd an wi ll not be prejudiced the tim in of this disclosure and deposition and there will be no cause for a continuance of the trial a Third Ms Giuffre wi ll ot us evidence relating to a some i her opposition to Defendant mot ion for summary dgment which De fendant already fil ed so efendant cannot claim prejudice regarding her summary udgment otion i i a significant co cession ha lf Ms Giuffre Ms ansome as i nformation pertinent to Defendants cla ims and arguments in her mot i on for sum ary judgment Moreover an Eastern Di st ict of New York court specifica ll hel that taking the depositions of four ne iscover witnesses by the party opposing summary udgment after the summary judgment motion was filed would not cause prejudice ecause the expec ed testi would be subjection of he compla int See Jacobs Ne,v York City Department of Education at E.D.N.Y Case Document Filed Page of BO I ES SCH I LLER FLE XN ER LLP Honorable Judge Robert Sweet January Page affirming courts grant of motion to reopen discovery to depose witnesses after summary judgment was fi ed by the opposing party The Jacobs Co rt explained A to prejudice Defendant argues that laintiff wiU benefit from conducting epositions with knowledge Defendants arguments in its summary judgment motion or Rule statement and that it will be burdened by the costs of altering its summary judgment motion in response to the depositions It is not apparent from the record that Defendant has made arguments at ummary judgment that are outside predictable issues that Plaintiff would have raised had these depositions been conducted dur ing i scovery aintiff states that these four i tnesses will be quest i oned regarding knowledge of various events connected her ter mi nation which is the subject her complaint Id at As in Jacobs Defendants arguments in her mmary judgment motion are predictable issues that Plaintiff wo ld ave raised and did ra i se i th other i tnesses had these depositions been conducted during i scovery Therefore though there is relevant precedent holding that inclusion of new y-discovered witnesses whose testimony re ates the complaint does not prejudice the moving party of a already fi ed motion for summary ju gment Ms Giuffre is not even asking for that elief So De fenda nt can claim no prejud i ce regarding her mot i on for summary judgment or Rule statement Fourth as this Court has previously articulated Defendan abi ity to take Ms Ransomes deposition cures any prejud i ce at may be suffered by a ate discovered witness In recent years this Court explained that this and other courts have adop ed the taking of depos i tions as an appropriate mechanism to address la te disclosed witnesses 1B IA Ins Corp Patriarch Partners Vil LLC VL at Sweet ciling Lesser Wildwood No i WL at S.D.N Sept Defendants are however under an obligation to cure any prejudice suffered by the plai i ffs as a esult of defendants i ola ion of their discovery ob igations anddiscovery will eopened in order to provide plaintiffs an oppo1tunity to depose the undisclosed witnesses McEnery City of No Civ WL at S.D.N.Y May concluding that pl a intiff shou be given opportunity to depose late-iden ified witnesses i fth and significantly Defendant will not be prejudiced by th i new witness because she is not new to Defendant To the contrary Defendant is acquainted with Ms Ransome she spent time with Ms Ransome on Jeffrey Epsteins private island and she has full knowledge of wha Ms Ransomes tes timony will like include Ms Ransome is no stranger Defendan and Defendant has direc knowledge of what Ms Ransome observed while she was with Defendant Indeed for those reasons it was incw11bent upon Defendant to include Ms Ransome in her Rule disclos ures yet that was not done Case Document Filed Page of BOIES SCH I LLER FLE XN ER LL Honorable Ju dge obert Sweet Jan ary Page By contrast Ms Giuffre would be ma teria lly prejudiced shou she not be allowed to call Ms Ransome as a trial witness As this Court is aware Ms Giuffre has not engaged in foot dragging or neglect regard i ng witnesses or epositions in he case To the contrary Ms Giuffr li sted individuals in her Ru le disclosures this Comt gave her eave to take additiona epositio than the pr esumed limi of th i Cou rt issued a etter ogato to take the deposition of efendants agent in Lo don and Ms Giuffre counsel as dil i gently sought in i vidua with in formation elating to the claim In this efama ion ase efen ant called Ms i uffre a liar i response to Ms Giuffre cl a ims that Defe nd ant part ici pated in trafficking her with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Eps tein Ms Ransome can testify to Defendants irect involvemen in Epsteins trafficking ring based on he persona obse vations made urin the considerab time she spen with efendant and Eps tein Her testimony is xpec ted di rectly efu efe ndan ts sworn test i ony Because Ran some can test i fy to the cla ims at issue in this case na ly Defendants invo lve ment in sex traffi ckin wit effrey Epstein Ms Gi uffre would be mat er i ally prejudiced without her tes timony For the foregoing reasons th i Court ould allow th reopening of discovery to include Ms Ransome as a witness Ms Giuffre commits to making Ms Ransome avai able for deposition at the reasonable convenience of Defendants counsel SMC ak cc All Co nsel of Reco rd Respectfully su bmit ed Sigrid Mccawley Sigr id Mc Caw le Esq
7,448 characters
