United States District Court Southern District of York Virginia Giuffre,-5 Plaintiff 2750Case No Ghislain6e Defendant PLAINTIF-4.7F?S REPL-3.5Y IN OF MOTION TO EXCEED TE DEPOSITION LIMIT Sigrid McC7.6a-.6wley BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP Las Olas Blvd Suite Ft Lauderdale FL Case Document Filed Page of i TABLE CONTENTS-4.1 Page I PR-4.1OP-4.9OSED DEP-4.9O1.1SITIONS AR IMPORTANT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES IN CASE AND NONE ARE DU PLICATIVE II GIUFFRE IS SEE-4.7K1.7ING HIGHLY RELE-4.7VANT TESTI-7.5MONY.-5.5 GIUFFRE?S REQUEST IS TI-7MELY Case Document Filed Page of ii TABLE AUTHORI-6.3T1.5IES-4.3 Page Cases Atkinson Goord No CIV LAKHBP WL S.D.N.Y Apr Gen Elec Co Indem Ins Co of Am No CFD WL Conn May LiButti United F.3d 2d Cir Rules Fed Evid Fed Evid a Case Document Filed Page of Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre by and through her undersigned counsel here by files this reply in support her Motion to Exceed Presum8.4 ptive Ten Depositio5.6 Lim8.4 it The tion should be granted ecause Ms Giu5.3 ffre has shown good cause for needing to exceed5.9 the ten sition lim8.7 it and in light of recent developm8.1 ents Ms Giuffre has stream8.4 lined her requ5.6 est and now7.8 seeks only a total of three additional depos itions Notably while Defendant contests Ms Giuffre 2s m8 otion Defendant has herself unilaterally and thout seeking any Court approval set twelve witnesses for deposition in this tter In contrast to Defenda5 nt 2s unilateral action Ms Giuffre has properly sought this Court 2s perm7.8 ission The Court should gr ant her motion and allow her to take the three additional depositions I THE PROP-5 OSED SITIONS ARE IMPO-8 RTANT THE FUNDAME-3.8 TAL CLAIMS AND DEFE-3.6 NSES IN IS CASE AND NONE ARE CATIVE.-6.2 Defendant argues that the depositions Ms Giuffre seeks to take are som8.1 how 223duplicativ5.2 of each other Ev en a quick readin5.5 of the Defendant 2s eading kes clear this is untrue Defendant repeatedly gives her own narrow view of what existing witnesses have said For exam8.2 ple Defendant argues that 223did not corroborate that Ms Giuffr-7.2 is telling the truth Defendant 2s Response at Defendant 2s characterization is untrue But as the re Case Document Filed Page of fact of this dispute confirm8 this case is goi ng to be hotly contested and the weight of the evidence on each sid5.7 is going to be vitally por tan5.5 The Court is well aware of ny other civil case4.8 where th6 par4 ies have tak6 en f4 ar o1 re than ten sition5.9 by mutual agre4.7 ent Def4 endant ref4 u1 sal to g1 ree to a f4 ew o1 re depositio her3.9 is sim8.7 ly an rt to ep all the relevant facts from8.2 being developed Since Ms uffre filed her initial tion seeking seven additiona deposition she has worked dilig5.7 ently to try to stream8.5 line4.5 the necessary depositions and has discovered new7.4 inform8.4 ation concerning witnesses and their knowledge of the claim8.2 in this case Accordingly Ms Giuffre currently brings before this Court a significantly shorter list of witnesses she needs to depose to prove her claim8.3 with som8.3 alterati ons To be clear Ms Giuffre has narrowed her request and is now only seeking an dition5.8 al deposition5.8 the Court as llo5.8 w3 For descriptions concerning the depositions already taken Def8.2 endant and Mr Rizzo and those yet to be taken Mr Epstein Ms Giuffre references and incorpor3.8 ate4.6 s5 her desc4.6 rip5.8 ions in moving brie4.7 The only rem8.7 aining witness is His position is necessary for the following reason It is depositions like this verify ing Ms Giuffre 2s account of bei ng recruited by Defendant for sex with Epstein that Defendant is trying avoid However tiple other witnesses have testim7.9 ony that supports Ms Giuffre 2s claim8 in different and various ways and Ms Giuffre needs that testim8.2 ony to prove her defa-5.8 tion claim8.2 against Defendant Ms Giuffre is no longer seeking the deposition testim8.1 ony of Emm8.1 Tayl-6.9 or Case Document Filed Page of Maxwell in her deposition raised Giuffre 2s comments about as one of the 223obvious lies to which she was referring in her public statem8.2 ent that form8.2 ed the basis of this suit Apart from8.2 the Defendant and Mr Epstein is a key person who can provide inform8.3 ation about his close relationship with Defendant and Mr Epstein and disapprove Ms Maxwell 2s claim8.2 Ms Giuffre is still working dilig5.4 ently5.4 with opposi ng counsel these witnes4.8 and their atto5.6 rneys on scheduling as well as identifying other witnes ses who have factual inform8.1 ation about the case But this tim8.6 she seeks is5 Cour 2s approval for an additi onal three depositions depositions that will not consum8.1 the full seven hours presum8 ptively allotted All three prongs of ree-factor test to aluate a otion for additional depositions strongly support gr anting the otion Atkinson Goord No CIV LAKHBP W9 L1 at S.D.N.Y Apr First as re viewed in detail on a witness-by-witness basis above the discovery sought is not duplicative he proposed deponents include the individual who assisted in king the defam8.4 tory statem8.4 en wom8 De-6 fendant Maxwell hired to recruit girls for Jeffrey Epstein an individual with intim7.8 ate knowledge of De fendant and Epstein 2s sexual trafficking ring other vict of Jeffrey Epstein includi ng a then underage victim8.1 Mr Epstein himself and other witnesses who can corroborate im8 portant pieces of Ms Giuffre 2s statem8.5 ents or refute Ms Maxwell 2s atem8.5 ents position5.5 These itnesses testimony will corroborate Ms Giuffre 2s account of Defendant being a recru5.4 ter of fem8.2 for Epstein5.4 and corroborate the type of abuse she and others su ffered Sadly Ms Giuffre is far from8 he only one of Defe-6.1 ndant 2s victim7.9 and there are other witnesses hose testim8.3 ony is necessary in order to dem8 onstrate the truth of Ms Giuffre 2s clai nd the falsity of the statem8.3 ents de by Defendant Case Document Filed Page of Second if Ms Giuffre is denied these depos itio5.7 ns she will not have had5.7 the opportu5.7 nity to obta4.7 the4.7 inf3.9 ation by other covery in this case The Court will call Ms Giuffre 2s opening otion that Defendant 2s surpri sing lack of mory has in no all part caused the need for additional depositions See Motion at listing exam8.2 ples of mory lapses rin5.7 Ms Maxwell depo5.7 sitio5.7 includ5.7 i ng inability to mber events corde4.4 on aircraft flight logs or a hotograph Defendant offers no explanation for her convenient forgetfulness Moreover evidence of being ecruited by Defendant and being sexually assaulted is not som8.1 thing Ms Giuffre can obtai through requests for production or through interrogatories The only way of obtaining such evidence is fr witness testim8.7 ony by those who were victim8 ized those who assisted Defe ndant in recruiting and abuse and those who observed the recruiting or the abuse For exam7.8 pl Rinaldo Rizzo an estate nager for a friend of Defendant and Epstein 2s testified about an ep isode where Defendant had threatened a terrified year old girl and confiscated her passport to try to ake he have sex with Epstein on his priva5.4 lan6.6 See McCawley Decl at Exhibit Rizzo Deposition Case Document Filed Page of Finally the Defendant appears to concealing critical ev ence of the sexual abuse that other witnesses have testified she possesses Yet Defendant has failed to produce a single photo in this case See McCawley Decl at Exhibit essi De position at Docum8 nt discovery and inte4.8 rrog6 ator4 es n6 o1 helpf4 u1 in6 obtain6 ng th6 is type of4 ev6 idence4.8 depo6 sition6 ar4 n6 eeded.6 Third the urden and expense of this propos ed discovery is lim9.1 ited to ree add6.3 ition6.3 al depositions Defendant in this case a ulti illionaire with able couns4.9 el Three dep5.7 sition5.7 will not caus5 her undue burden exp5.8 ense or co nvenience These depos5 itions are importan5.8 to resolving issues in this case Given that ve ry few7.7 witnesses reside within iles of the courthouse and therefore cannot be mpelled to trial this requ6 est for only three add6 itio6 nal depositions is a reas onable request While Defendant opposes Ms Gi uffre 2s request for Court a pproval of more than ten depositions she has unilaterally noticed ore than ten depositions without bothering to seek approval of the date of this iling5.4 Defendant 2s counsel has issued twelve subpoenas for Case Document Filed Page of deposition testim8.5 ony the alm8.5 st the exact sam8.2 num8.2 ber Ms Giuffre is seeking Defendant cannot credibly oppose Ms Giuffre 2s additional depositions while she herself is trying to take more than ten without leave of court It is plain why Defendant doe not want these depositions to go forward and Mr Rizzo 2s te stim8.2 ony was harmful to Defenda nt 2s case and the additional depositions will prov5.8 ide rther ence tha4.6 endant acte4.6 as Jef3.8 ey Epstein5.8 madam8.6 proving the truth of Ms Giuffre 2s statem8.2 ents that Defendant proc-3.3 laim8.2 ed publically as 223obvious lies.6.4 II MS GIU2.8 FFR2.8 IS SEEKIN2.8 ELEV2.8 TESTIMON2.8 All of the people Ms Giuffre seeks to depose have discoverable and portant inform8 ation regarding the elem8 ents of Ms Giuffr-6.7 2s claim8 Ms Giuffre stated that Defendant recruited her and other young les for sex with Jeffrey Epstein The people she now seeks to depose are all witn5.6 esses who can te stify to Defendant working essentially as a for Jeffrey Epstein recruiting young les for Epstein or corroborate other portant aspects of her statem8.1 ents The fact that Defendant recruited gi rls som8.2 of which were underage for Epstein kes Ms Giuffre 2s claim8.2 that she was also recr uited by Defendant to ultim8.1 ately have sex with Epstein and others ore credible and that De fendant 2s denials of any involvem7.9 nt in such recru5.8 ting is a bald-faced5.8 lie itnes5 ses ill tes5 ify that Defendant 2s rec4.6 uitm8.6 ent and nage-5.8 of the girls for Jeffrey Epstein was a jor aspect of Defenda nt 2s job and that Ms Defendant 2s counsel has taken the deposition stim8.2 ony of Ms Giuffre and Ms Giuffre 2s physician Dr Olson Defendant 2s counsel has noticed the following witn esses for deposition a known victim of Jeffrey Epstein Mr Weisfield Ms Churcher and the witness for Victim)8.4 Refuse Silence.6 Defendant has unilaterally sch5.2 dul ed without consulting unsel for Giuffre at leas4.6 two these dep5.6 sition5.6 days when depositions Ms Giuf3.6 2s witne4.4 sse4.4 have been Case Document Filed Page of Giuffre?s account of her sexual a buse and Defendant?s accords perfectly with other witnesses accounts of what De fendant?s job was for Epstein That other young fe-6m8a-1les were sim8i-2larly recr uited by the Defendant is evidence that Ms Giuffre is telling the truth about her experien ces and thus direct evidence that Defendant defa-6m8e-1d her when calling her a liar Clearly if Ms Giuffre can establis4.4h that Defen5.2d.2ant?s modus operandi was to recruit young for Epstein that helps co rroborate Ms Giuffre?s own testim8.1ony that Defendant recruited her for the purposes and in the Although the Court need not m8a-1ke a final ruling on this evidentiary issue now Rule itself such testim8.6ony S6.2ee Fed Evid other act evidence m8a-1y be adm8.2i-1.8ssible for another purpose such as proving motive opportunity inte nt preparation plan knowledge identity absence of m8.1i-1.9stake or lack of accident Indeed even specifically than the general provisions of Rule Rule m8a-1kes these other acts adm8i-2ssible due to the fact that those invo lved in sexual abuse of have a strong propensity for repeating those crim8.5es See Fed Evid a In a civil case involving a claim for relief based on a party?s alleged sexual assault or child m8.5o.7lestatio5.7n the cour3.7t adm9.1it evidence that the party comm8.6itted any other sex5.8u.8al assau5.8lt child m8.6o.8lestation 1250Entirely apart from8.1 corroborating Ms Giu ffre?s own individual abuse however Def4.1e-.1ndant to re4.9cog6.1n1.1ize th6.1at in calling Ms Giuffre a liar she was attacking all aspects of Ms Giuffre?s account including Ms Giuffre?s statem8ents that De fendant served generally as a recruiter of girls for Epstein a nd that Epstein sexually abused the underage girls that were Defendant?s specious suggesti on that Ms Giuffre heard abou the other girls whom8.7 she recruited for sexual purposes and then decided to hop on the band wagon Defendant?s Resp at tacitly adm)8.2its that Defendant procured a band wagon of girls for Jeffrey Epstein to abuse Moreover Defendant cannot refute the d5.6o.6cum8.4e-.6ntary evidence that she was Epstein private jet with Ms Giuf8.3fre over wh ile Ms Giuffre was a flights that Defendant is quite conveniently now unable to recall Motion at Case Document Filed Page of brought to Thus in this defam8.2a-.8tion case the testim8.3ony of these witnesses are adm8.3i-1.7ssible not only to b5.3o.3lster Ms G7.5i-1.9uffre?s testimony about her ind5.5i-1.7vidu5.5al abuse bu5.5t because they are sim8.3p.5ly part of the body of statem8.3ents whose trut or falsity is at issu in this case addition one of the witnes ses that Ms Giuffre seeks to depose is registered sex offender Jeffrey Epstein who stands at the center of the case Ind eed of the most critical events took place in the presence of just thr ee peo5.4p.4le Ms Giu5.4ffre defendant Maxwell and Epstein If Epstein were to tell the truth his testim8.2ony woul fully confirm8.2 Ms Giuffre?s account of her sexual abuse Epstein howev er well attem8.4p.6t to support Defendant by invoking the Fifth Am8.3endm8.3ent to avoid answeri ng questions about his sexual abuse of Ms Giuffre Apparently privy to her form7.8er boyfr ie4.8nd Epstein6?-1s5.2 antic4.8ipated plans in this regard Defendant the claim8.6 that it w8ould be a onvoluted argum8.1e-.9nt to allow Ms G7.5i-1.9uffre to use those invocations against her Defendant?s Resp at Tellingly Defe ndant?s response brief cite4.8s no auth6ority to ref4u1te that p6r-1opo6sition th at adverse inference can be drawn again5.3s-.5t co conspirators Presum8.1ably this is because as recounted in Ms Giuffre?s opening brief at pp the Second Circuit?s decision of LiButti United State3.9s F.3d 2d Cir squarely upheld the drawing of adverse inferences based on a non-party?s invocation of a Fifth Am8.6endm8.6ent right to rem8.6a-.4in silent The Sec ond Circuit instructed that the circum8.3stances of given case rather than status of particular nonparty witness determ8.1ines whether nonparty witness5.4 invocation of privilege against self-i ncrim8.1i-1.9nation is adm8.1i-1.9ssible in course of civil litigation Id The Second Circuit also held that in determ8ining whether nonparty witness inv5.8o.8cation pr3.8ivilege aga4.6i3.6nst rim7.9i-2.1nation in course of civil litigation and In discovery Defendant Maxwell has produced several em8.3ails between E6.3p.5stein and herself discussing Ms Giuffre Case Document Filed Page of drawing of adverse inferences is admissible court consider the following nonexclusive factors nature witness relations hip with and loyalty to party degree of control which party has vested in witness in regard to key facts and subject m8.9a-.1tter litigation6.1;3.9 whethe)4.5r witness is pr3.7agm8.5a-.5tically non captioned party in interest and w7.4h.2ether asser3.8tion privilege ad5.8vances in5.8ter3.8e-.4sts witne4.6ss and in outcom8.6e-.4 litiga4.6tion5.8;3.6 and whether witness was key figur litigation an5.7d played con5.7t rolling role in respe4.8c-.2t to6 its underlying aspects Id at Ms Giuffre will be able to estab5.3l-1.9ish that all th5.8ese factors tip decis4.6i-1.8vely in favor of allowing an adverse inference Accordingly he efforts to depose Epstein Marcinkova and Kellen se5.2ek im9.2portant th6.4at will be adm7.9i-2.1ssible at trial I MS GIUFFRE?S REQ-8.1U1.3EST IS Defendant also argues that this m8.2o.4tion is so prem8.3a-.7ture Defendant?s Resp at Clearly if Ms Giuffre had waited to file her m7.9o.1tion until later Defendant would have argued until the m8.6a-.4tter too late The m8.6o.8tion is proper at this tim8.1e because as of the date of this filing fact discovery closes in days a lthough Ms Giuffre has recently filed a motion for a 30-day extension of the deadline In order to give the Court th opportunity to rule as far in advance as possible thereby perm8.1itting counsel for both side to sc hedule the rem7.9a-1ining depositions Ms Giuffre brings the motion now She also require a ruling in advance so that she can final about how depositions she available an5.6d thus which5.6 depositions she should prioritize Defendant tries to find support for her prem8.5aturity argum8.5ent in Gen Elec Co Indem Ins Co of Am No CFD WL at Conn May However in that case the Court found a m8.2o.4tion fo additional depositions to be prem8.1ature in part because discovery has not even ced and the m8oving party had not listed with spec4.6if3.8icity those in5.8dividua4.6ls it wishes to de pose Of course neither these po5.9ints app5.9lie4.7s in this case at hand the partie are approaching the close of act discovery and Ms Giuffre has provided detailed information abou5.5t each she has deposed already and still seeks to depose Case Document Filed Page of An addition5.7 al ason is tion is appropria4.5 te is that espite Ms Giuf3.7 2s dilig5.7 ent pursuit of deposition5.5 many witness4.7 have can5.5 celled their tes failed to appear wrongfully evaded rvice These maneuvers ve ustra4.3 Ms Giuf3.5 2s ability to take the4.3 position5.5 in a logical and sequential fash ion com8.1 plicating the planning of a deposition schedule For exam7.9 ple on April Ms Giuffre served no tice on Def8.4 ndant 2s counsel for the deposition of Rinaldo Rizzo setting it for May Nearly a m8 ont-7 later just a few days before that properly noticed deposition Defendant 2s counsel requested that it be rescheduled and therefore that depo5.3 sition did not take place til June Addition5.7 ally three her portant witnesses evaded Ms Giuffre 2s repeated efforts to serve them8.2 It took Ms Giuffre 2s motion for alternative service DE to convince Jeffrey Epst ein to allow his attorney to accept service of process The Court also has before it Ms Gi uffre 2s tion to serve Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova by alternat ive service hese witnesses evas ion of service delayed the taking of their depositions and of the date of th is filing5.4 none have been deposed yet CONCL-4.1 ION For all these reasons Giuffre should be allowed to tak5.5 ree re deposition5.5 than the presum8.9 ptive ten dep6.1 sition lim8.9 it a tota4.5 thirteen depo5.7 sition5.7 Dated June Respectf4.3 lly6.3 Subm9.1 itted,6.3 BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP By grid McCawley Sigrid McC7.4 wley Pro Hac Vice Boies Schiller Flexner LLP Las Olas Blvd Suite Ft Lauderdale FL David Boies Boies Schiller Flexner LLP Case Document Filed Page of Main Street NY Bradley E6.1d.3wards Pro Hac Vice FARMER EDWARDS FISTOS LEHRMAN P.L North Andrews Avenue Suite Fort Lauderdale Florida Paul Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J Quinney College of Law University Utah University St Salt Lake City UT This da7.4y-7.5time business address is provided for id ent5.5i5.5f.6ication and 5.4correspondence purposes and not intended instit5.5utional endor6s2.1ement the7.6 University-7.5 Utah for th is private 5.5repres-4.2entation Case Document Filed Page of CERTIFICATE OF I HEREBY CERTIFY on the 13th day of June I electronically filed the foregoing docum8.3ent with the Clerk of Court by using the system8.4 I also certify that th5.6e foregoing docum8ent is being served this day on th indiv6.1i-1.1dua4.9ls iden6.1tif4.1ied below via transm8.1ission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF Laura A Menninger Esq Jeffrey Pagliuca Esq HADDON MORGAN FOREM-6.6AN East th Avenue Denver Colorado Tel Fax Em10.8ail lm8.5enninger hm8.5flaw.com jpagliuca h5.3m3.1flaw.com Case Document Filed Page of
