United States District Court Southern District New7.2 York Virginia Giuffre,-5 Plaintiff 2750Case No Ghislain6e Defendant PLAINTIF-5F?S REPL-3.8Y IN SUP-5P-5O-3RT OF HER MOTION TO EXTEND TH-8E FOR VIOLATION OF RUL-3.8E 2750Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre by and through her undersigned counsel here by files this reply in support her m8.3o.5tion for a brief extension of to com7.9p-4.9lete pending depositions BACKGROUND 2750While Defendant uses an abundance of hi ghly inflammatory langua ge in her opposition Ms will disregard and sim8.6p.8ly focus Court the tim8.6e-.4line and the support th6e need for add6ition6a-.2l to com8.8p1lete the rem8.5a-.5ining deposition5.7s-.1 Pursuant to the Court?s Order dated June the depositions th at rem8a-1in to be taken by Ms Giuffre are as f4.1o1.1llows Jeffrey Epstein5.3 Nadia Marcinkova Sarah Kellen Jean Luc Brunel Ross Gow Defendant?s nd Deposition pursuant to Judge June Order Ms Giuffre is requesting5.6 an extens4.8io5.6n of tim8.4e of four weeks to be able to accomm8.3odat-6.7e-.7 these third party witnesses schedules and com8.1p.3lete these depositions Ms Giuffre believes she has Case Document Filed Page of been diligent in her efforts to secure these witnesses testim8ony and contests Defendant?s representation of wh at has tran5.8spired5.8 As the Court will recall Defenda nt moved twice to stay dis4.7c-.7overy in this case and not produce a single document until ordered by the ourt on February and did not produce even her initial Rule disclosu5.8res until Fe months after th5.3ey were originally due on November Defendant did not serve her answer and affirm8.1ative defenses in this case until March DE Ms Giuffre attem8.3p.5ted to start scheduling d5.3e-.9positions February she wa unable to s4.7ecure the Defendant?s deposition until after th5.9e Court ordered the d5.6e-.6po5.6sition to go forward at w7.8h.6ich it was taken April Ms Giuffre despite reach5.5in5.5g out to Epst ein?s coun5.5sel in early March was un5.5able to secure acceptance of service as explained in detail below Ms Giuffre was also unable to obtain cooperation on service as to Kell en Nadia Marcinkova and Defendant?s own agent who issued the in this cas Ross Gow Ms Giuffre?s efforts to scheduled depositions were also hampered by third party witnesses counsel having conflicts and requesting date changes It is disingenuous for Defendant to argue that Ms Giuffre frittered aw7.6ay the discovery period when Defendant had active motions to stay discovery pending before the Court refused to produce any5.7 docum8.5ents until that d5.7e4.5cision was red ref3.7u.7sed to prod5.7uce Rule disclosu5.7res and refused to produce the Defendant for de position On May the parties and conferred about the rem8.3a-5.7ining depositions that needed to be taken and on May Ms Giuffre sent Defendant a detailed calendar with a proposal regarding th dates the parties had discussed during the and confer There were a num8.2ber of conferences thereafter ab5.7out the pending sch5.4e-.8dule for deposition5.4s-.4 As explained be low Ms Giuffre has engaged in g5.3ood faith efforts to secure these depositions and has good cause for needing additional See Carlson Case Document Filed Page of Geneva City Sch Dist F.R.D holding that defendants established good cause to extend discovery in or der to conduct plaintiff5.6s deposition where defense cou5.6n.6sel sufficient efforts to sc hedule her deposition prior to the close of discovery Depositions of Epstein Marcin6k-4ova and Kellen Ms Giuffre has diligent efforts to subpoena each of thes4.8e witnesse Ms Giuffre first reached ou5.5t the Mr Epstein?s coun5.5sel of record March See M4.6c-.8Cawley Decl at Exhibit Mr Epstein?s counsel wa not authorized to accept serv ice Therefore Ms Giuffre had to re4.6tain5.8 investigativ5.8e pr ofessionals to attem8.1p-4.7t personal service on Epstein at expense Defendant m8.1i-6.9srepresents the Apr il correspondence in her Opposition brief and Ms Giu5.3ffre did not receive that corresponden5.4c-.8e Indeed as of May counsel for Epstein was still he was autho5.7r-1.3ized to accep5.7t s4.9e-.5rvice I w8.1ill not any answ8.1er on the threshold q6.9u1.9estion of w7.9h1.9ether or I am authoriz9.6ed to accept se rvice until after4.5 the holiday i.e Tu6.2esday May st See McCawley Decl at Exhibit May m8a-1il correspondence from Marty W9e-6inberg Defenda nt is also flat wrong when she says Ms Giuffre waited an add5.6itional th5.6ree w7.8eeks to atte mpt to set a date Ms G7.7i-1.7uffre?s subpoena to Mr Epstein had a date in the subpoena of June th and that date was also reflected on the deposition calendar provided to oppo sing counsel a m8.2onth earlier on May th See Decl at Exhibit and Setting asid6.1e all this and Ms Giuffre has pressed Epstein?s counsel for dates and coun5.6sel has ackn5.6ow ledge that if he is unsuccessful in his Motion to Quash his deposition then he can be available on July th or th for a deposition in the U.S Virgin See McCawley Decl at Exhibit Correspo ndence from George Poe to Bradley Edwards course Def3.5e-.7ndant will not coo5.5p.5er ate with the date requ5.7ested by he4.5r joint counsel then that will result in even more delay Case Document Filed Page of As to Kellen5.8 and M5s0 Mar3.8c-.4inko5.8va Ms likewise4.6 dilige4.6n.8t their depositions See for Leav to Serve Three Depositio5.4n5.4 Subpoenas By Means Other Than Personal Servi ce On March Ms Giuffre?s counsel reached ou5.7t to Sarah coun5.7sel to s4.9eek agreem8.5ent that she accep5.7t service of the subpoena in this m8.2a-.8tter See McCawley Decl at Exhibit Electronic Correspondence with Bruce Reinh5.3a-.9rt Ms Kellen refused to allow her counsel to accept service of the subpoena so we were forced to the ef forts to attempt to personally serve her with the subpoena Thereaf4ter,6 Ms Giuf4f4r-1e had to reta4.8in6 Alpha Inve4.8stiga4.8tive4.8 Ser4v1ices to a4.8tte4.8mpt persona4.8l serv6ice4.8 on6 Ms Kellen Those efforts have continued with over n6.1i-1.1neteen attem8.9p1.1ts to lo6.1cate an6.1d concluded as recently as May at which tim8.6e the inv5.8e-.4stig5.8at or affixed the subpoena to the front door of Kellen?s residence and m8.2a-.8iled copies of the subpoe na to both of her New York addresses See DE Ms Giuffre also diligently pursued efforts to serve Ms Marcinkova Ms Giuffre has had her inve5stig6.2ators m9a0ke to attem9p1.2t to personally serve Marcink ova at her New York residen5.9ce an5.9d also to tr3.9y to pe4.7rsona4.7lly while4.7 on tr3.9ip Calif3.9o.9rnia bu5.9t have been unable to obtain personal service Ms Giuffre?s investigators over ten attem8.2p.4ts to locate Marcinkova See McCawley Decl at Exhibit Affidavit of Douglas Mercer Chief Investigator Alpha Group In5 addi tion counsel for Giuffre reached out to Marcinkov5.3a?s counsel but he indicated th at he could5.9 not accept service as he no longer repres5.3ents See McCawley Decl at Exhibi Electronic C7.6o.6rrespondence with Jack Goldberg In Ms Giuffre started her pursuit of these witnesses several m7.8onths ago and now7.2 that the has gran5.8ted her Motion Alterna tive Serv6.2ice she will need additio6.2n1.2al tim9e to coordinate a deposition date fo Epstein Kellen and Marcinkova and that will also depend on whether Def8.6e-.6ndant?s4.8 co5.6unsel cooperates4.8 the fforts to set th5.5ese witn5.5esses for deposition.5.5 Case Document Filed Page of Giuffre contacted Ms Kellen?s counsel yesterday about scheduling her deposition and Mr Reinhart represented that he has a pr e-paid fam8.3ily vacation from June rd through July th so is r3.8e-.4questin5.8g that we ag5.8ree to a date McCawley Decl at E5.4xhibit corres4.8pondence with Bruce Reinhart Ms Giuffre will need additi onal this5.6 Court in order to accommoda te counsel?s request Jean Luc Brunel Mr Brunel is represented by counsel Ms Giuffre issued a Notic of Subpoena Duces Tecum8.2 on May for a deposition5.4 of Mr Brunel June See Exhibit Notice-6.5 of Subpoena Duces Tecum Mr Brunel?s counsel Robert Hantm7.7a-1.3n agreed to accept service of the subpoena so there was no need to obtain a pro cess server to serve the subpoena and incur that expense T6h.2ereafter Mr Brunel counsel notified Ms Guif7.9fre th at Mr Brunel had to leave the country un5.3expected5.3ly for France and5.3 would not able attend the dep5.3o.3sition5.3 on J4.5une Ms Giuffre is requesting additional tim8e-1 to coor dinate a new7.9 date with Mr Brunel?s counsel for a deposition5.8 in this m8.6a-.4tter There is nothing dila to5.6ry about any of Ms Giuffre?s efforts with respect to Mr Brunel Ross Ross Gow is Maxwell?s agent re4.6tain5.8ed and em8.2pl-6.8oyed by Maxwell yet she has refused to produce him for deposition in this Ross Go is the agent w7.8ho issued th5.6e statem8.5ent at issue in th5.7is case Giuffre has not been d6i3.8lato6ry in ef4f4o1rts to o6b1tain Ross5.2 Gow?s testimony First Defendant?s st atem8ent in her brief that May rd was the communication regardin5.3g any depo5.3sition5.3 of Mr Gow plain5.3l-1.9y wrong DE at Indeed Ross Gow was discussed at th parties m8.5eet and confer on May th and was specifically5.5 listed with5.8 deposition date and5.8 a r3.8e-.4quest to6 agree to p6r-1o6duce Gow f4o1r depos5.2itio6n in the deposition calendar provided by Ms Giuffre on May requesting that his Case Document Filed Page of deposition be set for June 30th McCawley Decl at Exhi bit Correspondence Attaching D8.1e-.3position Calendar is com8.7p.9letely Def3.9e-.3ndant?s Oppo5.9sition is any good faith basis why she should not be required to produce her em8.2ployee/agent who she directed to issu6.1e th6.1e defam8.9a-.1to ry statem9.3ent at issue in th6.5is cas f4o1r dep6o1sition.6 Af4ter th6e May6 correspondence Ms Giuffre followe up with correspondence on May and then also efforts to reach Gow pers onally to s4.8ee if he would agree to attend a deposition See McCawley Decl at Com8.4p Exhibit all those efforts failed Ms Giuffre resorted to initiating the Hague process to attem8.4p.6t to get s4.8e-.6rvice on Ross Gow Ms Giuffre-6 respectfully requests additiona to depose Mr Gow and would respectfully request that the Court direct De fendant to produce her agent for deposition or waive his ab5.9ility to be ca4.7lled a witness at tr3.9ial Ms Giuffre Has Not Engaged In Bad Faith Discovery rem8.2a-.8inder of Defendant?s m8.2o.4tion contains a variety6 of m8.8i-1.2sstatem8.8ents in6 an6 effort to6 support a disingenuous motion for sa nctions D7.1e-1.3fendant faults Ms Giuffre for disclosing too witnesses on d5.3i-1.9sclosures bu5.3t as the Court has seen Defendant sim7.8u0ltaneously has filed another Motion for Sanction where sh argues that Ms Giuffre has not disclo5.8sed5.8 enough inform8.2ation on her Rule Disclosures Ms Giuffre sim8.1p.3ly can?t be right according to Defendant regardless of what she does Nota bly while Defendant argues that Ms Giuffre-5.9 recen5.8tly new witn5.8esses to her disclosu5.8re Defendant just days ago on June Defend-5.2an-5.2t clip-5.2s a p-5.2a4.5rtial Co-5.2urt th-5.2at Ro-5.2ss Gow th-5.2at a fu-5.2ll of tran-5.2sc ript clear that was th-4.8at t4h-1.4ere 6were8.3 get10t4i4ng c8.3oul10d back a faith-4.6 6Well let?s th-4.6is Let?s set a tri7a-.7l it?s 6ston-4.4e it certain-4.5ly well let?s 6It 6we i3t3 al3l3 ag3.6ree say3.6 and4.6 i4t4 wo4.6ul4d 6be 6defe8.3nse 6I i4t4 coul10d 6be com13e2.3s forwa6.5r3.5d a 6good 6faith showing as to e7f-2fort with sc7he7dule and because7 of Ha7gue7 or 6ot4he8.3r 6pr5.3obl4em13s or 6we i4t4 ju4.6st4 term9.9s you-4.5r abou-4.5t a trial ho-4.5ld th-4.5at Se9.7e Decl4 at4 t10r-.7ansc8.3ri4pt4 at4 Case Document Filed Page of added witnesses to her Rule disclosures Moreover Defenda nt noticed the deposition of victim8.2 whose did not appear on Defendant?s Rule disclosures a nd also noticed another victim8.5 for deposition who she has yet to on her Rule disclosures See McCawley Decl at Exhibit Therefore Defendant com8p.2laints should ring hollow Sim8.5ilarly there is no basis for her allegations relating to Rule Ms Giuffre has sent Notices of S6.2e-1.2rvice to Defendant for the subpoenas she served on witnesses In instances Ms Giuffre had to hire investigators to attem8.1p.3t to identify the location of various individuals in order to serve them7.9 with subpoenas This was no sm7.9all task as witnesses were difficult to locate and witnesses were flight risks Once our investigators had gathered sufficient-7.4 inf3.9o.9rm8.7ation on where best attem8.7p-4.1t witnesses Ms Giuffre?s coun5.2sel then issued5.2 Notices of S6.2e-1.2rving Subpoena As the Court and Defendant is aware personal service was never achieved Ms Kellen Ms M4.9a-.5rcinkov5.7a and Mr E6.5p.7stein m8.5u.7ltiple attem8.5p.7ts to effectuate service.5.4 Ms G7.6i-1.8uffre in full dis4.6c-.8lo sure provided Defendant with inform7.9ation from7.9 her process se4.8rv6er regar4d1ing6 notice despite m8.8u1ltiple reques5.2t3.8s Def4e-.2ndant will not disclose her proofs of se-5.9rvice See McCawley Decl at Comp Exhibit Correspondence from8.4 Meredith Schultz to Laura Menninger requ esting proof of service Now De-5.9fendant com8.1p.3lains that Ms Giuffre should not have served subpoenas on the day that she receiv5.5e-.7d her Notices Subpoena-5.7 on opposing counsel Discovery is a two-way stre et and Defendant shoul not be heard to com8.1p.3lain when she is w7.5ithholding her own servi ce inform8.1ation Indeed there have clearly been service issu5.5es on Defendant?s side because sh5.5e cancelled Jared W9.1e-.9isfeld?s deposition for which5.3 Ms Giuffre had already travel arrangem7.9e-1.1nts because she had4.9 failed serve the witness4.1 properly with the subpoena but did not inform7.7 Ms Giuffre of this defect until just prior to his deposition Case Document Filed Page of Moreover there sim8.5 ly has been no prejudice to Defendant as Defendant received notice well in advance of any deposition taking plac es Indeed on May Ms Giuffre provided Defendant with a com8.3 rehensive ca lendar of the depositions she wanted to take which had been discussed previously on May See McCawley Decl at Exhibit Defendant spends several page applauding herself for what she says is her 223good faith efforts to conduct discovery These multiple4.6 pag5.8 es invo5.8 lve num8.6 ber of inaccura4.6 cies,5.8 but s5 they bear relev5.7 ance to the issu5.7 whether Ms Giuffre made approp5.5 riate efforts secure the4.4 above referenced witnes4.6 ses Ms Giu5.4 ffre will not waste the ourt 2s tim8.7 addressing ose issues More to the point the sanctions request is specious and pres ented lely6.1 the purp6.1 of distractio5.4 as there is no prejudice that has een curred5.3 by Defenda nt whatsoever nor does-5.9 she claim8.5 any prejudice in her brief As articu5.7 ated in Allison Clos-Ette L.L.C 223the ajority6.3 approach to Rule prior not ice requirem7.8 ent is to quash an properly-noticed non-party subpoena the m8 oving party has suffered ejudice from8 the late notice WL S.D.N.Y Here Defendant had ple notice and opportunity to file motion to quash regarding the witn3.5 esses she complains about in her brief Indeed Defendant had well over a onth of notice prior to the deposition about which she com8.3 plains and the Epstein rcinkova Kellen dep5.8 sitio still have yet to go forward exam13.3 nda8.6 bad4.9 fai4.3 ery4.9 fen4.9 uce8.6 her5.6 il at Ms 2s positio-5.5 ts waited-4.5 til after Ms ffre sitio-4.5 lly May fend-4.9 also argu-4.9 a issu-4.9 es at re is Cour-4.2 June seal3.5 ed der4.8 M4 s7 fre7.8 has7 esse7.8 ose rs her4.8 Defend-4.8 cites ov L7 it is clear-4.2 a t1 at at issue were issu-4.4 ed le a oen6.1 for7.5 the prod6.1 ucti9.2 on of docum7.5 nts6.7 upon third rties as opp5.8 to ubp5.8 oen5.8 for7.2 dep5.8 siti8.9 on testim7.2 for a te in ture nda9.3 nt5 lain-4.5 her Resp-4.5 se subp-4.5 for ition-4.8 under le a A sitio-4.8 a ecessarily Defend-5.1 portun-5.1 ity ect if ses ecau-5.4 ition-5.4 are set tes in re is case depo-4.5 sitio-4.5 was set for a to ture Acco-4.5 Us ov 2s is licab-4.7 le issu-4.7 es at a5 Telling-4.7 Defend-4.8 cites cases ere ns were ered-4.8 rega8.2 rdi9.9 ncer5.2 ena8.2 on ony4.5 Case Document Filed Page of itness Date Service Date Deposition5.7 May June Additionally regarding Plaintiff did not serve the subpoena prior to providing notice as claim8.8 ed in fendant 2s brief This is incorrect Defendant attaches the Proof of Service to her brief but does not attach the a il comm8.1 unication sending the Notice of Serving Subpoena The tim8.3 stamp of the ail clearly show that Notice was given prior to the tim8.5 of servic4.9 rded on th Proof of vice See McCawley Decl at Exhibit Courts reco5.9 gnize the rpose of the notice re irem8.5 ent is to allow posing parties object before discovery occurs Here Defendant has m8 de no objec tion5.9 to is Cou5.9 egard5.9 ing the dep5.7 sition5.7 the Epstein Marcinkov5.7 or Kellen positions Defendant has had over a onth 2s prior notice before the deposition occurred nd the Epstein Marcinkova or Kellen depo5.9 sition are et to be Def3.8 endant ailed to ile4.6 any objections with the4.6 Court nor3.8 raise any objections with Plaintiff 2s counsel with regard to these depositions Moreover Defendant has never been deprived of an opportun ity to raise any objections This failure to act waives her right to seek any relief at this junc tion Defendant cannot sit by silently when she has notice of a deposition over a onth away particip ate in the deposition and then complains after-6.6 the act abo5.8 depos5 ition5.8 having5.8 been s5 et in th st Such con5.5 duct was4.7 es the Cour3.5 and the parties resources Defendant cannot claim8.2 that she did not ha ve adequate notice of these depositions because she had weeks to seek of in terven5.5 tion that she saw fit Now that one4.4 deposition that has occurred she is moving ex post facto to seek sanctions Defenda-6 nt identifies no case from any jurisdiction where sanctions were even considered ere a party5.9 indisputab5.9 ly had over days of notice prio to a deposition occu rring took no action to lodge any objections Case Document Filed Page of or seek relief from8.6 the court and then after the depos ition o5.9ccurr3.9ed re4.7tr3.9oactiv5.9ely tried to sanctions Any such is frivolous Finally Defendant failed to m7.7eet and confer on this issue4.8 an6d the re lief requested should be denied for that reason Had ounsel raised this issu in a m7.7eet and confer as required by this Court?s and the Local Rules5 of this Court Ms Giuffre?s counsel could have agreed to reschedule any discovery dates to give Defendant to lodge objections with this Court However it is clear that Defendant had no in tention of raising objec tion to any of these depositions CONCL-4.1US-4.9ION the reasons set forth above Ms Giuffre respectfully requests additional of weeks up to July to take the depositions of Jeffrey Epstein Nadia Marcinkova Sarah Kellen Jean Luc Brunel Ross Gown and Defendant?s nd deposition pursuant to this Court?s June Order has7.3 Ms couns el 6a and detailed-4.8 letter-4.1 conce7r4nin3.3g-2.7 the7 de7ficiencies in to 6Plain3.4tiff?s See McCaw-4l.8ey at letter-3.9 coun-4.6se have6.6 a m11.3eet and confer call8.3 at counsel?s Th-5.2ur-4.5sday EST is tim9.2e 6MST wh-5.2ere is locate7.4d-2.3 It 6of4.4fere7.4d tim 12after AM MST fo-4.4llowing-4.4 6Friday 6The undersigned recei7.9ved 6no respon se On 6June the 6following busine ss day Gi8.4uffre?s counsel 6wrote 6again re6.4questing a eet and 6confer call Se6.5e McCawley Decl at Exhibit tim11e the Wednes5.9day both days EST thro ugh PM EST Again the7.8 undersi9.5gne7.8d 6receive7.8d a call at 6her 6As coun-4.7sel failed-4.6 to respon-4.6d 6way 6rep-4.6eated to schedule m11eet confer call th-5.3ese let alon-5.6e state any un-4.8av-4.8ailab-4.8ility This abj)-5.4ect refu-4.8sal p-4.6a-.9rticip-4.6ate in m9.8eet cess is 6a Ms ab-4.7ility seek adva7.9nce cl3.6ose 6fact3.6 6as Ms Giuffre?s ab-4.9ility file a Case Document Filed Page of Dated June Respectf4.3u1.3lly6.3 Subm9.1itted,6.3 BOIES 2750SCHILLER 2750FLEXNER By S6.4i-2grid McCawley Sigrid McC7.4a-.8wley 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 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 Th-4.7is add-4.7r-4ess is 6for id-4.7en-4.7tificatio and-6 co-6rr-5.3espo-6nd-6en-6ce 6p-6u0rp-6oses on-6ly and-6 is no-6t in-6tend-6ed-6 endo-5.4rsemen-5.4t ity 6for th-4.3is private represen-4.3tatio-4.3n Case Document Filed Page of CERTIFICATE OF I HEREBY CERTIFY on the 22th 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 docum8.2ent is being served to all parties of record via transm8ission of the Electronic Court Filing System8 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 2750Sigrid 2755McCawley Case Document Filed Page of
