United States District Court Southern District of New York Virginia Giuffre Plaintiff No Ghislaine Maxwell Defendant PLAINTIFF?S-253.6R0EPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REOPEN DEFENDANT?S DEPOSITION BASED ON LATE PRODUCTION OF NEW KEY DOCUMENTS Plaintiff 9Virginia Giuffre and through 10her undersigned 9.3counsel her Suppo-7.7rt 9.6her 9.9Motion 9.8Reopen Defendant?s 10.5Deposition Based Late 10.2Production of New D5.8o-.2cuments Because 9.4Giuffre 10has 9.6shown 9.4the 10.1importance reopening Defendant?s 10.5deposition on these several 10.1important 10.6documents because Defendant 9.9has 9.4not 9.7offered 10.6substantial 10.4countervailing consideration the Court 10.1should 10.5allow Ms 10.8Giuffre to question Defendant in deposition about these late produced communications I.-1977.7INTRODUCTION As the Court is 10.4well 10.1aware Ms Giuffre 9.9has 10.4alleged that Defendant defamed-376her-383.8w2.2hen she called liar 9.7after Ms Giuffre spoke out about 10being child victim of the hands of Defendant Defendant?s long-6.3time 10.2convicted pedophile Jeffrey23.8 two documents at issue in the instant motion are 9.9Defendant?s 10.2c7.5o4mmunications 9.3with her press agent 9.9and with Epstein 10.4concerning-265potential statements to the 10.3media 10.1regarding Ms not involve-262.9two i-9.4ndividuals 9.8but also 10.6topic in this litigation Defendant?s defamation of Ms G5.2i-.4uffre 9.9through the media Multiple documents show Epstein?s-596.8involvement 10.2crafting Defendant?s various draft statements to the media concerning Ms Giuffre one the late Case Document Filed Page of produced documents at issue in this pending motion is an email chain showing Epstein involvement in crafting another draft statement The other late produced document is a communication between Defendant and her press agent Ross Gow I8 also concerns potential statement to the media about Ms Giuffre.-296.8 This email ow continued involvement in handling press inquiries concerning Ms Giuffre on Defendant 2s hat relevant to Ms Giuffre 2s claims-287.2 for multiple reasons not least of which is Defendant 2s nonsensical attempts to distance herself from Gow 2s statement,-6.7 as recounted in the moving brief Her continuance of working with him after he issued the defamatory statement-8.6 and after the commencement of this litigation as shown the document at issue is evidence to the contrary23.9 Ms Giuffre should be able to ross her with and ask related questions Therefore both these documents ighly23.7 relevant-8.1 Whatever-282.9 Defendant argues about her prior deposition she cannot claim that she was question-6.6 bout these two emails-7.2 Ms Giuffre deserves the opportunity25.8 to ask Defendant about m2 ARGUMENT Discovery Concerning These Emails-236.7 is Not Duplicative and it is Highly Relevant As the Court will recall a Defendant initial deposition she answered the questions put to her evasive8.1 non3.7 responsive answers unqualified-455.4 efus-6.8 to answer7 feigned memory24.2 loss,3.7 and feigned ignorance over the meaning of basic sentences and basic words don 2t know what mean puppet As a result Ms ffre was forced to file a Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions DE June this Court granted Ms Giuffre 2s Motion directed Defendant to sit again for her depos June Sealed Order filed in redacted orm at DE As recounted in Ms Giuffre 2s Motion to Enforce the Court 2s Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions DE Defendant again evasive and refused to answer questions during her second deposition-5.9 despite the urt 2s specific direction that she sit for her deposition and answer topic areas that she avoided during her first deposition Ms Giuffre Maxwell Depo Tr at Case Document Filed Page of attempted-336 to solicit Defendant 2s testimony24.5 ursuant to the Court 2s Order but Defendant-328.4 defied that Order and again refused to answer questions thus requiring Ms Giuffre to file the Motion to Enforce the Court 2s Order to attempt to obtain another deposition wi th stern direction from the Court to the Defendant that she must answer questions during her deposition originally24.4 directed this That motion is currently24.3 pending before this Thereafter in this case where Defendant 2s production-466.2 of email communications has been miniscule7.6 Defendant stated that she 223inadvertently24.4 failed to produce two critical emails and produced them after-353 Defendant 2s second deposition was complete8.4 hile Ms Giuffre attempted to confer with Defendant to secure her agreement to be deposed on this new information Defendant refused to for follow-434.4 up deposition despite the fact that Ms Giuffre agreed to sit for deposition under these same circumstance hereby23.7 forcing Ms Giuffre to file this motion with the Court to secure the Defendant 2s deposition on these two mails Defendant paltr-13.5 ustification for opposing Ms Giuffre 2s motion-496.5 that she previousl-28.7 answere6.7 questions concerning certain other communications with Epstein and That argument is unavailing First Ms Giuffre is entitled to question the Defendant on these specific communications One is email chain with her joint defense partner Je ffrey23.9 pstein who was also co-abuser with her6.6 The other is a communication with Ross Gow5.3 Defendant 2s press agent who efused to produce for a deposition despite him being her agent and despite-241.5 sharing the attorney forcing Ms Giuffre to litigate the issue in the London courts-8.3 against Defendant 2s counsel-9.5 and at significant expense An English-256.6 Court has since ordered Gow to sit for his deposition despite Defendant and her counsel 2s obstructionist refusal to produce him prior to that litigat ion Second these documents are relevant precisely23.7 or the reason Defendant attempts to h1 ey are not their date Notably23.5 the questioning that Defendant cites in her brief surrounds Case Document Filed Page of communications in January28.2 of whereas this newly25.7 produced communication shows discussions with from November after this litigation had commenced Ther6.9 efore ffre is entitled to ask the Defendant about her relationship with her agent in ealing with press and other inquires after the commencement of litigation This is particularly24.7 elevant because7.7 again,-546 efendant has been less than forthright in answering questions relating to her authorization of the issuance of the January24.2 statement.-6.3 Ms Giuffre will refer the Court to her discussion on pages of her moving brief describing the evasive answers Defendant gave regarding Gow including that she 223denies in part simple sta tements concerning Gow offering esponsive answer instead The fact that she continued to engage with her agent Gow after this litigation was filed refutes any30 suggestion tha9.7 she did not authorize her agent to act on her behalf in January23.5 Indeed Defendant 2s continued use of her press agent and her continued reliance upon Epstein 2s input informs pattern and practice that is echoed the per6.4 defamatory24.9 communications.-235 Defendant 2s argument the fact that Ms Giuffre questioned Defendant regarding her older communications with Epstein and Gow does not render redundant questions concerning her more recent communication with Epstein and Gow nor it Seeming to acknowledge the relevance of Ms Giuffre asking questions about the Gow email Defendant suggests that Ms Giuffre could simpl-18.7 ask Defendant 2s press agent Ross Gow about the email he sent instead of asking her5.9 This is flippant-279 suggestion as Defendant-279.2 and counsel have play23.5 ed an expensive game of and-6 ouse with Mr Gow 2s deposition-6 refusing to accept service his Rule subpoena7.1 Gow4.9 however,-416.6 likely will be unable to answer5.9 questions about what Defendant-238.4 thought-238.3 bout his inquiry24.1 or what she did next and similar questions5 Similarly27.1 Defendant can testify28.5 to her understanding of she was explaining herself to Epstein on April seemingly23.9 eeking his approval on draft statement and she can Case Document Filed Page of testify24.1 what she did after receiving Epstein?s 155.7Defendant 156.4seeking 155.7Epstein?s permission 9.7with respect to her media 9.6communications 8.5regarding 10.5Giuffre shows a high level coordination among these 9.7co--4.3c-1onspirators and Ms 10should not be 9.9precluded 9.2from 9.8asking about critical communications-268.3because 9.9Defendant 10failed to produce the communications-268.3until after so witnesses including the Defendant had testified Court has 10.3Already Held 9.8that Reopening a Deposition is 10.1Appropriate for Question concerning Documents Produced After the Deposition This 9.9Court 10has already24 ruled 9.8that 10.2reopening 10.5deposition 9.5appropriate where 9.6important documents 9.5are produced 10.1after the deposition is completed This ruling is in accord with relevant precedent See Wesley Muhammad WL at S.D.N.Y while in Footnote Defendant claims that Ms Giuffre fabricated her claim that Maxwell and Epstein asked Ms Giuffre to bear a child for them Ms Giuffre?s statement is directly20.2 corroborated another y20.6oung woman Defendant recruited to provide-247.1sexual massages to Epstein I23.2ndeed Johanna Sjorberg testified that Epstein asked her to bear a child for him Have ever been propositioned an-20.4yone to have a for someone A Yes Who propositioned A Jeffrey19.9 asked me Did he ask more than once A Yes And what did he A Basically21.3 just said I want to be the mother of See Schultz Dec at Exhibit Sjoberg Dep Tr at is no fabrication here Defendant attempts to distinguish her two emails with in this case from the documents that Ms Giuffre produced after her deposition medical and records There is a distinction but not what Defendant suggests Not only24.4 are Ms Giuffre?s documents ancillary26.3 to the matter but unlike the Defendant Ms Giuffre is cooperating with a follow up deposition on these documents 236.4w.5hereas Defendant is refusing to be deposed This is not a personal injury24.4 action or a medical malpracti-5.5ce action wherein medical records are highly26.6 relevant.-145.6This is also not a hour case or a non-5.7-compete case or an employ25.7ment discrimination case wherein employ26.2m-.5ent records are highly24.7 relevant.-155.5This is a defamation case And the communications among the individuals who formed and then disseminated the defamatory26.2 6.4statement-237.4 particularly24.8 when those communications address potential future statements about Ms Giuffre are more relevant orders of magnitude than of the medical or employ25.7m-1ent records about which Defendant will ask Ms Giuffre at her second deposition particularly25.1 when those medical records cover such topics so far afield such as Ms Giuffre?s treatment for an animal bite Case Document Filed Page of defendants delay24.6 in producing documents have interfered with the completeness of depositions plaintiff will be free to reopen any-211.1d0epositions for which he deems the newly produced documents to be a relevant source of questions Ganci U.S Limousine Serv Ltd WL at E.D.N.Y Sept Courts will ty25.6pically25 reopen a deposition where there is new informa9.7tion on which a witness should be questioned Here Defendant produced important documents 383.9c0ommunications with Jeffrey23.6 10.7Epstein her press 10.5agent who 10.5disseminated her defamatory24.7 10.5statement after her deposition,-275.4and well after was 9.7served 10.2discovery24.7 request 10.2seeking 10.5those 9.9documents are auxiliary25 documents They24.5 communications with of the 10.1most important witnesses in 10.4this case Jeffrey Epstein 9.4and Ross Gow Ms 10.1Giuffre has spent considerable resources seeking their depositions-298.7and answers deposition-287.1questions For Gow Ms 10.5Giuffre?s 10.3efforts included service through The 10Hague Convention twice hiring 10an 10.3English firm to attempt personal service Gow left the initiating separate action in 10.4England pursuant to this Court?s 10.2Letter Rogatory23.2 Epstein Ms 10.7Giuffre deposed he improperly24.7 the 10Fifth Amendment 9.5and improperl-18.8y22.8 10.3refused to produce pending 9.6before this-7.9 Court is Ms Giuffre?s Sealed Motion to Compel Epstein to answer que stions produce 10.5documen ts.-346.9D.4efenda nt?s lately26.3 produced 6.4communications with these two witnesses are critical evidence Defendant?s 9.5error 9.8should prejudice Ms Giuffre,-7 particularly24.3 since 9.7pursuant to this Court?s Order Defendant 9.8will have the opportunity24.8 depose Ms 10.5Giuffre 9.3produced documents The same standard that this Court 10.1applied to 10.4Defendant?s open 10.8Giuffre?s 10.1deposition should to-448Ms 10.6Giuffre?s motion 9.9for the same relief made on the 9.9same 10grounds See e.g Robinson T.J Maxx Inc F.R.D N.D.N.Y holding that discovery20.6 10ruling regarding extension of discovery20 deadline 9.2applied to both parties equally In Fifth Ave No KBF at S.D.N.Y Apr 9.9equal Case Document Filed Page of standards to the parties privilege logs explaining 223what 2s good for the goose is good for the gander Well-reasoned precedent as well as the facts-7.5 in this case require7.5 the opening of Defendant deposition.-6.8 Accordingly23.8 the Court should grant Ms Giuffre 2s request to reopen Defendant 2s deposition to answer questions relating to her lately26.8 produced documents Ms Giuffre 2s Motion is Not Untimely Without supporting case law or authority23.7 Defendant has the gumption to argue that Ms Giuffre 2s motion is somehow 223untimely24.2 when it was the Defendant who withheld these critical during the entire discovery24.1 ng Ms Giuffre the benefit of being able to use these at multiple witness depositions The 223untimeliness claim that can be made here is against the Defendant The two emails-256.7 in question are responsive to Request for Production served-266.2 on Defendant on February23.8 Defendant produced these two emails-266.6 on August after her deposition-265.7 nd after the fact discovery27.2 period closed on July36.6 D.E Defendant wrongl-18 suggests to this Court that the fact discovery23.7 date was September but that is incorrect The deadline modified to September as the pert disclosure deadline D.E Defendant 2s documents were clearl-18.1 produced-366 after the close of fact discovery24.6 he part-18 that is untime7.6 here is the Defendant CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons and the reasons set forth in the moving brief Ms Giuffre respectfully24.7 requests that this Court Reopen Defendant 2s deposition to answer lines of questions discussed in Ms Giuffre Motion to Enforce the Court 2s Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions-318.1 Filed under Seal DE which is pending before the Court and answer questions related the two late produced documents Case Document Filed Page of October Respectfully21.2 Submitted BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LL19P Sigrid McCawley-6519.4 Sigrid McCawley20.7 Pro Hac Vice Meredith Schultz Pro Hac Vice Boies Schiller Flexner LLP Las Olas Blvd Suite Ft Lauderdale FL David Boies Boies Schiller Flexner LLP Main Street Armonk NY Bradley20.5 Edwards Pro Hac Vice FARMER JAFFE WEISSI21.3NG EDWARDS FI22.7STOS LEHRMAN P.L North Andrews Avenue Suite Fort Lauderdale Florida Paul Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J Quinney30 College of Law University20.3 of Utah University20.3 St Salt L21a.3ke UT This day20time business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply30.5 institutional endorsement the University of Utah for this private representation Case Document Filed Page of CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on I electronically20.5 filed the foregoing document with of Court by21 using the CM/ECF sy20.5stem I also certify21.1 that the foregoing document is being served to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic Court Filing generated CM/ECF Laura A Menninger Esq Jeffrey20.6 Pagliuca Esq HADDON MORGAN FOREMAN P.C East th Avenue Denver Colorado Tel Fax Email lmenninger hmflaw.com jpagliuca hmflaw.com Meredith Schultz Meredith Schultz Case Document Filed Page of
