Text extracted from PDF file of Epstein's unredacted court documents

unredacted-epstein-documents.txt

January 3, 2024
VIA ECF

The Honorable Loretta A. Preska
District Court Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-7433-LAP
Dear Judge Preska,
 Pursuant to the Court’s December 18, 2023, unsealing order, and following conferral with
Defendant, Plaintiff files this set of documents ordered unsealed. The filing of these documents
ordered unsealed will be done on a rolling basis until completed. This filing also excludes
documents pertaining to Does 105 (see December 28, 2023, Email Correspondence with
Chambers), 107, and 110 (see ECF No. 1319), while the Court’s review of those documents is
ongoing.
Respectfully,
/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley
Sigrid S. McCawley
cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF)
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 4
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-1 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 2
From:
Sent:
To:
[email protected]
Saturday, January 10, 2015 9:00 AM
Philip Barden; Ross Gow
I am out of my depth to understanding defamation and other legal hazards and don't want to end up in a law
suit aimed at me from anyone if I can help it. Apparently even saying Virginia is a lier has hazard! I have never
been in a suit criminal or civil and want it to stay that way.
The US lawyers for the Jane Does are filling additional discovery motions and if I speak I open my self to being
part of discovery apparently. I am trying to stay out of litigation and not have to employ lawyers for years as I
get lost in US legal nightmare. I stand no legal risk currently on these old charges and civil suits against Jeffrey
We need to consult with US lawyers on any statement I make and the complaints too
Perhaps we make a statement of the legal risk of saying anything for potential defamation or something that
prevents a full and frank detailed rebuttal+ the press not being the place for that? Regardless, Philip plse call
jeffrey lawyer and see what you can under.stand from him and pehaps craft something in conjunction with
him? Either way I think you need to speak to him to understand my risk so you can help me understand it - too
may cooks in the kitchen and l can't make good decisions. Plse reach out to him today
+ I have already suffered such a terrible and painful loss over the last few days that I can't even see what life
after press he'll even looks like - statements that don't address all just lead to more questions .. what is my
relationship to clinton ? Andrew on and on.
Let's rest till monday. I need head space
THE TERRAMAR PROJECT
FACEBOOK
TWITTER
G+
PINTEREST
INST AGRAM
PLEDGE
THE DAILY CATCH
PRIVILEGED GM_001044
CONFIDENTIAL
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-1 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 2
Virginia L. Giuffre,
Plaintiff,
V.
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant.
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
I ---------------
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT
TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS FILED UNDER SEAL 1
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this
Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions. During her recent deposition,
Defendant refused to answer numerous questions about allegedly .. adult'' sexual activity related
to Jeffrey Epstein. Because this activity is highly relevant to this case, Defendant should be
ordered to answer questions about it.
As the Court is aware, this defamation case involves Ms. Giuffre's assertions that she and
other females were recruited by Defendant to be sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein under the
guise of being "massage therapists." See Complaint, (DE 1). at 127 (Giuffre '·described
Maxwell's role as one of the main women who Epstein used to procure under-aged girls for
sexual activities and a primary co-conspirator and participant in his sexual abuse and sex
trafficking scheme''). In response to these assertions, Defendant has made the sweeping claim
that Ms. Giuffre·s assertions are "entirely false'' and '·entirely untrue." Complaint, DE 1, at 131.
1 Defendant has labelled her entire deposition transcript as Confidential at this time. Counsel for
the parties conferred at the deposition regarding answering questions.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 10
Yet during her deposition, Defendant refused to answer any questions that she construed
as having something to do with ''consensual adult sex." Defem,e counsel supported that position
that "frankly, [that's] none of your business and I instruct the witness not to answer." See
Declaration of Sigrid S. Mccawley ("Mccawley Deel.'') at Exhibit 1, Tr. of Maxwell Depo.
(Apr. 22, 2016) at 21. The result was that at a number of points throughout her deposition,
Defendant refused to answer questions about subjects integral to this lawsuit, including questions
about what the alleged ''massage therapists" were doing at Jeffrey Epstein's house and the sexual
nature of those massages.
For example, Defendant refused to answer questions about whether she had given Jeffrey
Epstein a massage:
Q. Have you ever given Jeffrey Epstein a massage?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form, foundation. And I'm going to
instruct you not to answer that question. I don't have any problem with you
asking questions about what the subject matter of this lawsuit is, which would
be, as you've termed it, sexual trafficking of Ms. Roberts.
To the extent you are asking for information relating to any consensual
adult interaction between my client and Mr. Epstein, I'm go;ng lo instruct her not
to answer because it's not part of this litigation and it is her private confidential
information, not subject to this deposition.
MS. McCAWLEY: You can instruct her not to answer. That is your
right. But I will bring her back for another deposition because it is part of the
subject matter of this litigation so she should be answering these questions. This
is civil litigation, deposition and she should be responsible for answering these
questions.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I disagree and you anderstand the bounds that I put on
it.
MS. McCA WLEY: No, I don't. I will continue to ask my questions and
you can continue to make your objections.
Q. Did you ever participate from the time period of 1992 to 2009, did
you ever participate in a massage with Jeffrey Epstein and another female?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection. Do not am,wer that question. Again, to the
extent you are asking for some sort of illegal activity as you've construed in
2
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 10
connection with this case I don't have any problem with you asking that question.
To the extent these questions involve consensual acts between adults, frankly,
they're none of your business and I will instruct the 1vztness not to answer.
MS. McCA WLEY: This case involves sexual trafficking, sexual abuse,
questions about her having interactions with other females is relevant to this case.
She needs to answer these questions.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm instructing her not to answer.
MS. McCA WLEY: Then we will be back here again.
See Mccawley Deel. at Exhibit 2, Tr. of Maxwell Depo. (Apr. 22, 2016) at 19-22 ( emphasis
added).
Defendant's participation in massages with Epstein is a central part of this case. Ms.
Giuffre has explained that during her first sexual encounter with Jeffrey Epstein, it was
Defendant who provided instruction on how to do it and how to turn the massage into a sexual
event. Obviously, proof that Defendant had previously massaged Epstein - include massages
with sexual component - would provide important corroboration for Ms. Giuffre's testimony at
trial. And proof that Defendant was involved in massages will further help prove that
statements to the press that Virginia's allegations were ''obvious lies'' was itself an obvious lie.
As another example, Defendant refused to answer questions about her knowledge that
Johanna Sjoberg was hired to work for Epstein and provided massages. fn the police report,
Johanna admitted that Maxwell recruited her to work for Epstein. See Mccawley Deel. at
Exhibit 3, Giuffre000076-77 (police report indicating that Johanna was recruited by Maxwell).
Yet during Defendant's deposition, she refused to answer questions regarding Johanna Sjoberg.
Q. Do you know what tasks Johanna was hired to performance?
A. She was tasked to answer telephones.
Q. Did you ever ask her to rub Jeffrey's feet? .. .
A. I believe that J have read that, but I don't have any memory of it.
3
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 10
Q. Did you ever tell Johanna that she would get extra money if she
provided Jeffrey massages?
A. I was always happy to give career advice to people and I think that
becoming somebody in the healthcare profession. either exercise instructor or
nutritionist or professional massage therapist is an excellent job opportunity.
Hourly wages are around 7, 8, $9 and as a professional healthcare provider you
can earn somewhere between as we have established 100 to $200 and to be able to
travel and have ajob that pays that is a wonderful job opportunity. So in the
context of advising people for opportunities for work, it is possible that I would
have said that she should explore that as an option.
Q. Did you tell her she would get extra money if she massaged Jeffrey?
A. I'm just saying, r cannot recall the exact conversation. I give career
advice and I have done that.
Q. Did you ever have Johanna massage you?
A. 1 did.
Q. How many times?
A. I don't recall how many times.
Q. Was there sex involved?
A.No ....
Q. Did you ever have sexual contact with Johanna?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form and foundation. You need to give
me an opportunity to get in between the questions.
Anything that involves consensual sex on your part, I'm instructing you
not to answer.
Q. Did you ever have sexual contact with Johanna?
A. [MR. PAGLIUCA?] Again, she is an adult --
Q. I'm asking you, did you ever have sexual contact with Johanna?
A. I've just been instructed not to answer.
Q. On \\.hat basis?
A. You have to ask my lawyer.
See Mccawley Deel. at Exhibit 4, Tr. of Maxwell Depo. (Apr. 22, 2016) at 60-62 (emphasis
added).
4
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 10
Here again, this information is critical to the case. Among other things, these questions
are designed to show a modus operani (''M.O") for Epstein and Maxwell - specifically, how they
recruited for a non-sexual massage than converted the massage into sexual activities.
One last illustration comes from Defendant's refusal to answer about her know ledge of
Epstein's sexual interests during massages:
Q. Does Jeffrey like to have his nipples pinched during sexual
encounters?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form and foundation.
A. I'm not referring to any advice on my counsel. l'm not talking about
any adult sexual things when I was with him.
Q. When Jeffrey would have a massage, would he request that the
masseuse pinch his nipples while he was having a massage?
A. l'm not talking about anything with consensual adult situation.
See Mccawley Deel. at Exhibit 5, Tr. of Maxwell Depo. (Apr. 22, 2016) at 82.
While Epstein himself might also provide answers to these questions. it appears likely
that he will assert his Fifth Amendment privilege regarding his sexual activities. Accordingly,
Ms.. Giuffre must pursue questioning of Maxwell to obtain information on this subject. Here
again, information about Epstein's sexual idiosyncrasies will provide important corroboration to
Ms. Giuffre's testimony that she had sexual interactions of an identic:ll nature with Epstein.
These refusals are not an isolated instance. Instead, similar refusals to answer questions
occurred repeatedly throughout the deposition. See, e.g, Mccawley Deel. at Composite Exhibit
6. 52-55; 64-65; 82: 92-93: 137-38: 307-09.
The Court should compel Defendant to answer all these questions. In addition to the
specific points made above, the "big picture" here reveals how vital such discovery is. At the
core of Ms. Giuffre's allegations is the allegation that Defendant lured her into a sexual situation
with the offer of a job making money as a massage therapist; that Epstein always habitually tried
5
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 10
to turn massages into sex (that was his modus operandi and plan all along); and that Maxwell
recruited other females for an ostensibly proper position, such as therapeutic masseuse, with
knowledge that the intent was for that person would be pressured to provide sexual gratification
to Epstein. As a result, Epstein's use of massages for sexual purposes is a central part of this
case.
And Defendant's role in those massages - and knowledge of the purposes of those
massages - is a critical piece of evidence showing her state of mind when she attacked Ms.
Giuffre's assertions as ·'entirely untrue." Ms. Giuffre intends to prove at trial that Defendant
knew full well the sexual purpose for which she was recruiting females - including underage
females like Ms Giuffre. Ms. Giuffre is entitled to explore Defendant's knowledge of the sexual
activities that took place under the guise of "massages.'' Otherwise Defendant will be able to
portray to the jury an inaccurate picture of that what was happening at Epstein's house what
nothing more than run-of-the-mill massage therapy. See, e.g., Mccawley Deel. at Exhibit 7. Tr.
of Maxwell Depo. (Apr. 22, 2016) at 51 ("'Q: Did [the pay for massage therapists] vary on what
sexual acts they performed? ... A: No, it varied depending on how much time. some massage
therapists charge more and some charge less.'').
Defendant's refusal to answer questions about alleged "adult" consensual sex also blocks
Ms. Giuffre from seeking legitimate discovery in this case. By refusing to answer questions
about her and Epstein's sexual activities with alleged "adults," Defendant is essentially given the
ability to refuse to answer any sexual question she does not wish to answer. Defendant simply
has to deem the question as involving "consensual adult sex" and no need be given. The result is
to leave Ms. Giuffre with no way of exploring the identity of these alleged adults, the ages of
these alleged adults, and indeed whether they were adults at all. This allows Defendant to claim
6
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 10
that she is unaware of any sexual activity im,olving underage females, because (she claims) the
only sexual activity she was aware involved adults.
The Court should compel Ms. Maxwell to answer all questions about her knowledge
relating to sexual activities with Epstein and other females while at Epstein's various homes. See
Fed. R. Crim. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(i); see, e.g, Kel(v v. Al Tech , No. 09 CIV. 962 LAK MHD, 2010
WL 1541585, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2010) ("Under the Federal Rules, when a party refuses
to answer a question during a deposition, the questioning party may subsequently move to
compel disclosure of the testimony that it sought. The court must determine the propriety of the
deponent's objection to answering the questions. and can order the deponent to provide
improperly withheld answers during a continued deposition" (internal citations omitted)). Of
course, the party objecting to discovery must carry the burden of proving the validity of its
objections, particularly in light of "the broad and liberal construction afforded the federal
discovery rules .... " John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Book Dog Books, LLC, 298 F.R.D. 184, 186
(S.D.N.Y. 2014). For purposes of a deposition, the information sought ''need not be admissible
at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.'' Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 293 F.R.D. 557, 561 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citing
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(6)(1)).
Defendant cannot carry her burden of showing that the questions asked are not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This is a case in which
sexual activities lie at the heart of the issues in dispute. As a result, it is hardly surprising to find
that discovery pertains to alleged "adult" sexual activities - and questions about such subjects are
entirely proper. See, e.g, Condit v Dunne, 225 r.R.D. 100, 113 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (in defamation
case, '·Plaintiff is hereby ordered to answer questions regarding his sexual relationships in so far
7
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 10
as they are relevant to a defense of substantial truth, mitigation of damages, or impeachment of
plaintiff."); Weber v. lvfultimedia Entm't, Inc., No. 97 CIV. 0682 PKL THK, 1997 WL 729039, at
*3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 1997) ("While discovery is not unlimited and may not unnecessarily
intrude into private matters, in the instant case inquiry into private matters is clearly relevant to
the subject matter of the suit. Accordingly, plaintiff Misty Weber shall respond to defendants'
interrogatories concerning her sexual partners .... '').
Generally speaking, instructions from attorneys to their clients not to answer questions at
a deposition should be "limited to [issues regarding] privilege." Morales v. Zonda, inc., 204
F.R.D. 50, 54 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). In this case, defense counsel ranged far beyond the normal
parameters of objections and sought to decide for himself what issues were relevant. That was
improper and the Court should order a resumption of the Defendant's deposition so that she can
answer questions about her knowledge of sexual activity relating to Jeffrey Epstein.
CONCLUSION
Defendant should be ordered to sit for a follow-up deposition and directed to answer
questions regarding her knowledge of alleged "adult" sexual activity.
Dated: May 5, 2016
Respectfully Submitted,
By: v-J
Sigrid cCawley (P. ac Vice)
Meredith Schultz ( ro Hae 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
8
LP
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 10
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hae Vice)
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
(954) 524-2820
Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hae Vice)
S.J. Quinney College of Law
University of Utah
3 83 University St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
(801 ) 585-52022
2 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only
and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private
representation.
9
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 5th day of May, 2016, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission
of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
Tel: (303) 831-7364
Fax: (303) 832-2628
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 10
EXHIBIT4
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-3 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - X
VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,
Plaintiff,
-againstGHISLAINE MAXWELL ,
Case No.:
15-cv- 07433 - RWS
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
**CONFIDENTIAL**
Videotaped deposition of GHISLAINE
MAXWELL, taken pursuant to subpoena , was
held at the law offices of BOIES
SCHILLER & FLEXNER, 575 Lexington
Avenue, New York, New York , commencing
April 22, 2016, 9:04 a.m., on the above
date, before Leslie Fagin, a Court
Reporter and Notary Public in the State
of New York.
MAGNA LEGAL SERVICES
12 00 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10026
MAGNA9
LEGAL SERVICES
Pagel
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-3 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 6
1
2 APPEARANCES:
3
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER , LLP
4 Attorneys for Plaintiff
5
6
7
8
BY:
401 East Las Olas Boulevard
Fort Lauderdatle, Florida , 33301
SIGRID McCAWLEY, ESQUIRE
MEREDITH SCHULTZ, ESQUIRE
EMMA ROSEN, PARALEGAL
FARMER JAFFE WEISSING EDWARDS FISTOS &
9 LEHRMAN, P . L .
1 0
11
12
BY:
Attorneys for Plaintiff
425 N. Andrews Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 333 01
BRAD EDWARDS, ESQUIRE
13 PAUL G. CASSELL, ESQUIRE
Attorneys for Plaintiff
14 383 South University Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84112
15
16
HADDON MORGAN FOREMAN
17 Attorneys for Defendant
150 East 10th Avenu
18 Denver, Colorado 802 03
BY: JEFFREYS. PAGLIUCA, ESQUIRE
19 LAURA A. MENNINGER , ESQUIRE
2 0
21 Also Present:
22 James Christe , videographer
23
24
25
MAGNA9
LEGAL SERVICES
Page 2
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-3 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 6
1
2 A.
G Maxwell - Confidential
She was tasked to answer
3 telephones.
4 Q. Did y ou ever ask her to rub
5 Jeffrey 1 s feet?
6
7
8
MR . PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
form and foundation.
A. I believe that I have read that ,
9 but I don 1 t have any memory of it.
10 Q. Did you ever tell Johanna that she
11 would get extra money if she provided Jeffrey
12 massages?
13 A. I was always happy to give career
14 advice to people and I think that becoming
15 somebody in the healthcare profession, either
16 exercise instructor or nutritionist or
17 professional massage therapist is an
18 excellent job opportunity. Hourly wages are
19 around 7 , 8, $9 and as a professional
20 healthcare provider you can earn somewhere
21 between as we have established 10 0 to $2 00
22 and to be able to travel and have a job that
23 pays that is a wonderful job opportunity. So
24 in the context of advising people for
25 opportunities for work, it is possible that I
MAGNA9
LEGAL SERVICES
Page 60
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-3 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 6
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 would have said that she should explore that
3 as an option.
4 Q. Did you tell her she would get
5 extra money if she massaged Jeffrey?
6
7
A. I ' m just saying, I cannot recall
the exact conversation. I give career advice
8 and I have done that.
Q. Did you ever have Johanna massage
1 0 you?
11 A. I did
Q. How many times?
A. I don't recall how many times.
14 Q. Was there sex involved?
15 A.
16 Q. Did you ever instruct Johanna to
17 massage Glenn Dubin?
18 A. I don ' t believe -- I have no
19 recollection of it.
2 0 Q. Did you ever have sexual contact
21 with Johanna?
22
23
24
25
MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form
and foundation. You need to give me an
opportunity to get in between the
questions.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Page 61
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-3 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 6
1
2
3
4
5
G Maxwell - Confidential
Anything that involves consensual
sex on your part , I 'm instructing you
not to answer.
Q. Did you ever have sexual contact
6 with Johanna?
7
8
A.
Q.
Again, she is an adult --
I'm asking you, did you ever have
9 sexual contact with Johanna?
1 0 A.
11 answer.
12
13
14
Q.
A.
Q.
I ' ve just been instructed not to
On what basis?
You have to ask my lawyer .
Did you ever have sexual contact
15 with Johanna that was not consensual on
16 Johanna ' s part?
17
18
19
MR. PAGLIUCA: You can answer
nonconsensual.
A. I've never had nonconsensual sex
2 0 with anybody.
21
22
23
Q.
A.
Not Annie Farmer?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection.
I just testified I never had
24 nonconsensual sex with anybody ever, at any
25 time, at anyplace, at any time, with anybody.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Page 62
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-3 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 6
EXHIBIT 6
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - X
VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE ,
Plaintiff,
- against -
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Case No . :
15 - cv- 07433-RWS
Defendants .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
**CONFIDENTIAL**
Videotaped deposition of GHISLAINE
MAXWELL, taken pursuant to subpoena, was
held at the law offices of BOIES
SCHILLER & FLEXNER, 575 Lexington
Avenue, New York, New York, commencing
April 22, 2016, 9:04 a.m., on the above
date , before Leslie Fagin, a Court
Reporter and Notary Public in the State
of New York.
MAGNA LEGAL SERVICES
12 00 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10026
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Pagel
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 17
1
2 APPEARANCES:
3
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER , LLP
4 Attorneys for Plaintiff
5
6
7
8
BY:
401 East Las Olas Boulevard
Fort Lauderdatle , Florida, 333 01
SIGRID MCCAWLEY, ESQUIRE
MEREDITH SCHULTZ , ESQUIRE
EMMA ROSEN, PARALEGAL
FARMER JAFFE WEISSING EDWARDS FISTOS &
9 LEHRMAN, P.L.
10
11
12
BY:
Attorneys for Plaintiff
425 N. Andrews Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 333 01
BRAD EDWARDS, ESQUIRE
13 PAUL G. CASSELL, ESQUIRE
Attorneys for Plaintiff
14 383 South University Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84112
15
16
HADDON MORGAN FOREMAN
17 Attorneys for Defendant
150 East 10th Avenu
18 Denver, Colorado 80203
BY: JEFFREYS. PAGLIUCA, ESQUIRE
19 LAURA A. MENNINGER, ESQUIRE
20
21 Also Present:
22 James Christe , videographer
23
24
25
MAGNA9
LEGAL SERVICES
Page 2
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 17
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 for sexual acts.
3
4 acts?
5
6
7
Q. I 'm asking if they performed sexual
MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form
and foundation.
Q. Did any of the massage therapists
8 who were at the home perform sexual acts for
9 Jeffrey Epstein?
1 0 A. I don ' t know what you mean by
11 sexual acts.
12 Q. Did any of the massage therapists
13 who were working at the home perform sexual
14 acts, including touching the breasts,
15 touching the vaginal area , being touched
16 while Jeffrey is masturbating, having
17 intercourse, any of those things?
18
19
2 0
21
22
23
24
25
MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection.
foundation.
Form and
To the extent any of this is asking
for to your knowledge any consensual sex
act that may or may not have involved
you, I'm instructing you not to answer
the question.
Q. I'm not asking about consensual sex
MAGNA9
LEGAL SERVICES
Page 52
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 17
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 acts. I ' m asking whether any of the massage
3 therapists performed sexual acts for Mr.
4 Epstein, as I have just described?
5 A. I have never seen anybody have
6 sexual intercourse with with Jeffrey, ever.
7
8
Q. I 'm not asking about sexual
intercourse. I 'm asking about any sexual
9 act , touching of the breast -- did you ever
10 see -- can you read back the question?
11 (Record read. )
12 A. I'm not addressing any questions
13 about consensual adult sex. If you want to
14 talk about what the subject matter, which is
15 defamation and lying, Virginia Roberts , that
16 you and Virginia Roberts are participating in
17 perpetrating her lies, I ' m happy to address
18 those. I never saw any inappropriate
19 underage activities with Jeffrey ever .
2 0 Q. I'm not asking about underage. I 'm
21 asking about whether any of the masseuses
22 that were at the home perform sexual acts for
23 Jeffrey Epstein?
24
25
A .
Q.
I have just answered the question.
No, you haven't.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Page 53
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 17
1
2
3
4
5
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
G Maxwell - Confidential
I have.
No, you haven't.
Yes , I have.
You are refusing to answer the
6 question.
7
8
A.
Q.
Let ' s move on.
I 'm in charge of the deposition.
9 say when we move on and when we don't.
10 You are here to respond to my
I
11 questions. If you are refusing to answer the
12 court will bring you back for another
13 deposition to answer these questions.
14 Do you understand that?
15
16
17
18
19
2 0
21
22
23
24
25
MR. PAGLIUCA: You don ' t need to
threaten the witness.
MS. McCAWLEY: I ' m not threatening
her. I' m making sure the record is
clear.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Certainly can you
apply to have someone come back and the
court may or may not have her come back
again.
Again , she is not answering
questions that relate to adult consent
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Page 54
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 17
1
2
3
4
5
G Maxwell - Confidential
sex acts. Period. And that ' s the
instruction and we can take it up with
the court.
Q. Ms. Maxwell , are you aware of any
6 sexual acts with masseuses and Jeffrey
7 Epstein that were nonconsensual?
8
9
1 0
A.
Q.
A.
No .
How do you know that?
All the time that I have been in
11 the house I have never seen , heard, nor
12 witnessed , nor have reported to me that any
13 activities took place, that people were in
14 distress, either reported to me by the staff
15 or anyone else. I base my answer based on
16 that.
17 Q. Are you familiar with a person by
18 the name of Annie Farmer?
19
2 0
A.
Q.
I am.
Has Annie Farmer given a statement
21 to police about you performing sexual acts on
22 her?
23
24
A.
Q.
I have not heard that .
Has Annie Farmer given a statement
25 to police about Jeffrey Epstein performing
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Page 55
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
G Maxwell - Confidential
Q. Did you have sex with her?
MR. PAGLIUCA: This is the same
instruction about consensual or
nonconsensual.
Q. Was Emmy under the age of 18 when
7 you hired her?
8 A. No. I didn ' t hire her, as I said,
9 Jeffrey did.
10 Q. Did Emmy ever have sex with
11 Jeffrey?
12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
13
14
15 did.
16
form and foundation.
A. How would I know what somebody else
Q. You weren 1 t involved in the sex
17 between Jeffrey, Emmy and yourself?
18
19
A.
Q.
We already --
Were you involved with sex between
2 0 Jeffrey, Emmy and yourself?
21
22
23
24
25
MR. PAGLIUCA: Everyone is talking
over each other. You heard the
question.
Again , you you know what the
instruction is. If there is any
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Page 64
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 17
l
2
3
4
5
G Maxwell - Confidential
consensual issue involved, I instruct
you not to answer .
A. Moving on.
Q. So you are refusing to answer that
6 question?
7
8
A.
Q.
I ' ve been instructed by my lawyer.
Did you ever have sex with Jeffrey,
9 Emmy, Virginia and yourself when Virginia was
1 0 underage?
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2 0
21
A. Absolutely not.
MR. PAGLIUCA: We ' ve been going for
about an hour. I would like to take a
five-minute break , please.
MS. MCCAWLEY: I'm almost done.
MR . PAGLIUCA: You are not going to
allow a break.
MS. MCCAWLEY: As soon as I get
through my line of questioning , which is
perfectly appropriate.
Q. Did Emmy Taylor travel with you and
22 Jeffrey to Europe?
23
24
25
A.
Q.
A.
I'm sure she did .
What is she doing today?
I have no idea.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Page 65
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 17
1
2 Q.
G Maxwell - Confidential
Did you train Virginia on how to
3 recruit other girls to perform sexual
4 massages?
5
6
7
MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
form and foundation.
A. No. And it ' s absurd and her entire
8 story is one giant tissue of lies and
9 furthermore, she herself has if she says
10 that , you have to ask her about what she did .
11 Q. Does Jeffrey like to have his
12 nipples pinched during sexual encounters?
13
14
15
MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form
and foundation.
A. I ' m not referring to any advice on
16 my counsel. I'm not talking about any adult
17 sexual things when I was with him.
18 Q. When Jeffrey would have a massage,
19 would he request that the masseuse pinch his
2 0 nipples while he was having a massage?
21 A. I 'm not talking about anything with
22 consensual adult situation.
23
24
25
Q.
A.
Q.
What about with underage
I am not aware of anything.
You are not aware of Jeffrey
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Page 8 2
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 17
1
2 Q.
G Maxwell - Confidential
In your responsibilities in working
3 for Jeffrey, would you book massages for him
4 on any given day so that he would have a
5 massage scheduled? Would you take a call for
6 example and book a massage for him?
7
8
9
1 0
MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
form and foundation .
Q.
A.
You can answer.
Typically, that was not my
11 responsibility. He would either book the
12 massage himself or one of his other
13 assistants would do that.
14
15 that?
16
17
18
Q. From time to time you had to do
MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
form and foundation .
A. Like I said, typically it was
19 somebody else 1 s responsibility.
2 0 Q. If you were unable to book a girl
21 for a massage on a given day , would that mean
22 that you were responsible for giving him a
23 sexual massage?
24
25
MR. PAGLIUCA: Obj ection to the
form and foundation and I instruct you
MAGNA9
LEGAL SERVICES
Page 92
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 17
1
2
3
4
G Maxwell - Confidential
not to answer any questions about any of
your consensual adult sexual activity.
Q. So you are not going to answer that
5 question?
6
7
A.
Q.
You just heard my counsel.
Have you ever said to anybody that
8 recruiting other girls to perform sexual
9 massages for Jeffrey Epstein takes the
1 0 pressure off you?
11
12
13
14 out .
15
MR . PAGLIUCA: Object to the form
and foundation.
A. Repeat the question and break it
Q. Have you ever said to anybody that
16 you recruit girls --
17 A. Stop right there. I never
18 recruited girls, let's stop there. Now
19 breakdown the question.
2 0
21
Q.
A.
Have you ever said to anybody --
By girls, we are talking about
22 underage people -- you said girls, are you
23 talking about underage -- we are not talking
24 about consensual acts - - this is a defamation
25 suit.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Page 93
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 17
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 the flights?
3 A. I can't recollect having a meal
4 with them, but just so we are clear, the
5 allegations that Clinton had a meal on
6 Jeffrey ' s island is 100 percent false.
7 Q. But he may have had a meal on
8 Jeffrey ' s plane?
9 A. I 'm sure he had a meal on Jeffrey ' s
1 0 plane.
11 Q. You do know how many times he flew
12 on Jeffrey's plane?
13
14
15
16
17
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
I don't.
Do you know
I do.
How do you
He used to
18 Bill Clinton.
who Doug Band is?
know him?
work or still works for
19 Q. Did you ever have a relationship
20 with him?
21 A. We are talking about adult
22 consensual relationships, it ' s off the
23 record .
24 Q. I 'm not asking what you did with
25 him , I 'm asking if you ever had a
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Page 137
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 17
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 relationship with him?
3
4
5
6
7
MR. PAGLIUCA: If you understand
the term relationship , certainly you can
answer that.
A.
Q.
Define relationship .
Somebody that you would have spent
8 time together, either seeing them in a
9 romantic relationship or --
10 A. You need to be , what do you mean by
11 romantic . I was friends with Doug but you
12 are suggesting something more so I want to be
13 clear what you are actually asking me.
14
15
Q. You defined it. You said you were
friends wi th him . If that ' s what you were
16 that ' s all I need to know.
17 While you were on the trip with
18 President Clinton, do you recall where you
19 stayed at these locations, in other words,
2 0 would you leave the jet and stay overnight at
21 a hotel , do you have a recollection of this
22 trip?
23 A. I recollect the trip but if y ou' re
24 asking me where we stayed , you can see it ' s a
25 very fast paced trip. It was very tiring and
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Page 138
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
G Maxwell - Confidential
form and foundation.
A.
sorry - -
recognize
Q.
form
A.
Q.
I
I don't know why the name is -- I 'm
can't -- I have no idea. I
the name but that's it.
Was Johanna Sjoberg a masseuse?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
and foundation .
What are you asking me , I 'm sorr y?
When Johanna Sjoberg worked for
11 Jeffrey Epstein, did she perform massages?
12 A. I've testified that when Johanna
13 came originally, she came to answer
14 telephones. I believe at some point she
15 became a masseuse. I don ' t recollect when
16 and I personally had massages from Johanna .
17 Q. What did Johanna do for Jeffrey
18 Epstein, did she perform massages, anything
19 else?
20
21
22
MR . PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
form and foundation.
A. When she came she answered phones
23 and at some point, I believe , I don't have
24 any firm recollection, but I believe she went
25 to school and became a masseuse and I had
MAGNA9
LEGAL SERVICES
Page 307
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 17
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 massages from her.
3 Q. Did you ever have any sexual
4 interaction with her?
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form
and foundation and I 1 m going to instruct
you if we 1 re talking about any
consensual adult contact, you are not
allowed to answer the question.
Q. Did you have any sexual contact
11 with her in the presence of Jeffrey Epstein?
12
13 Q.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Same instruction .
Did you have any sexual contact
14 with her in the presence of anybody other
15 than Jeffrey Epstein?
16
17 Q.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Same instruction.
How many massages did you receive
18 from Johanna?
19 A.
2 0 amount.
Q.
I really don 1 t recall but a fair
Did the massages involve sex?
MR. PAGLIUCA: I 1m going to
21
22
23
24
instruct you not to answer.
Q. Have you ever engaged in sex with
25 any female?
MAGNA9
LEGAL SERVICES
Page 308
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
G Maxwell - Confidential
MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm going to
instruct you not to answer.
MS. MCCAWLEY: I want the record to
reflect that Ms. Maxwell's attorney is
directing her not to answer this series
of questions.
MR. PAGLIUCA: It definitely does.
Q. Were you responsible for
10 introducing Anuska to Jeffrey Epstein?
11
12
13
MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
form and foundation.
A. I already testified that I don ' t
14 really recall Anuska.
15 Q. Were you responsible for
16 introducing Johanna to Jeffrey Epstein?
17
18
19
MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
form and foundation.
A. Again, I don't like the
2 0 characterization of introduction. Johanna
21 came to answer telephones.
22 Q. When did you -- were you the person
23 who brought or introduced or met Johanna for
24 purposes of bringing her to Jeffrey Epstein ' s
25 home?
MAGNA9
LEGAL SERVICES
Page 3 09
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 17
COMPOSITE EXHIBIT A
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 56
Page 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,
 Plaintiff,
 Case No.:
 -against- 15-cv-07433-RWS
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
 Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
 **CONFIDENTIAL**
 Videotaped deposition of GHISLAINE
 MAXWELL, taken pursuant to subpoena, was
 held at the law offices of BOIES
 SCHILLER & FLEXNER, 575 Lexington
 Avenue, New York, New York, commencing
 April 22, 2016, 9:04 a.m., on the above
 date, before Leslie Fagin, a Court
 Reporter and Notary Public in the State
 of New York.
 - - -
 MAGNA LEGAL SERVICES
 1200 Avenue of the Americas
 New York, New York 10026
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 56
Page 2
1
2 APPEARANCES:
3
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
4 Attorneys for Plaintiff
 401 East Las Olas Boulevard
5 Fort Lauderdatle, Florida, 33301
BY: SIGRID McCAWLEY, ESQUIRE
6 MEREDITH SCHULTZ, ESQUIRE
 EMMA ROSEN, PARALEGAL
7
8
FARMER JAFFE WEISSING EDWARDS FISTOS &
9 LEHRMAN, P.L.
 Attorneys for Plaintiff
10 425 N. Andrews Avenue
 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
11 BY: BRAD EDWARDS, ESQUIRE
12
13 PAUL G. CASSELL, ESQUIRE
Attorneys for Plaintiff
14 383 South University Street
 Salt Lake City, Utah 84112
15
16
HADDON MORGAN FOREMAN
17 Attorneys for Defendant
 150 East 10th Avenu
18 Denver, Colorado 80203
BY: JEFFREY S. PAGLIUCA, ESQUIRE
19 LAURA A. MENNINGER, ESQUIRE
20
21 Also Present:
22 James Christe, videographer
23
24
25
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 56
Questions About People Under the Age of 18 at Epstein’s Home
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 56
Page 13
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 Q. You can answer.
3 A. I have not any idea exactly of the
4 youngest adult employee that I hired for
5 Jeffrey.
6 Q. When you say adult employee, did
7 you ever hire someone that was under the age
8 of 18?
9 A. Never.
10 Q. Did you ever bring someone who was
11 under -- invite someone under the age of 18
12 to Jeffrey's home, any of his homes?
13 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form
14 foundation.
15 A. Can you repeat the question?
16 Q. Did you ever invite anybody who was
17 under the age of 18 to Jeffrey's homes?
18 MR. PAGLIUCA: Same objections.
19 A. I have a number of friends that
20 have children and friends of mine that have
21 kids and in the invitation of my friends and
22 their kids, I'm sure I may have invited some
23 of my friend's kids to come.
24 Q. Anybody that is not a friend of
25 yours.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 56
Questions About Meeting the Plaintiff and
Massages with Plaintiff
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 56
Page 16
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 A. Ms. Roberts held herself out --
3 Q. I'm not asking how she held herself
4 out. I'm asking how she arrived at the home.
5 Did you meet her and invite her to come to
6 the home or how did she arrive there?
7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form
8 and foundation.
9 A. Ms. Roberts held her to be a
10 masseuse and her mother drove her to the
11 house.
12 Q. When did you first meet Virginia
13 Roberts?
14 A. I don't have a recollection of the
15 first meeting.
16 Q. Do you recall meeting her at
17 Mar-a-Lago?
18 A. Like I said, I don't have a
19 recollection of meeting Ms. Roberts.
20 Q. So you recall Ms. Roberts being
21 brought to the home by her mother, is that
22 your testimony?
23 A. That is my testimony.
24 Q. And that is the first time you met
25 her?
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 56
Page 17
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 A. Like I said, I don't recall meeting
3 her the first time. I do remember her mother
4 bringing her to the house.
5 Q. Are you a member at Mar-a-Lago?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Have you visited Mar-a-Lago?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Did you visit Mar-a-Lago in the
10 year 2000?
11 A. I'm pretty sure I did.
12 Q. When Ms. Roberts arrived at the
13 home with her mother, what happened?
14 A. I spoke to her mother outside of
15 the house and she -- what I don't recall is
16 exactly what happened because I was talking
17 to her mother the entire she was in the
18 house.
19 Q. Did you introduce Ms. Roberts to
20 Jeffrey Epstein?
21 A. I don't recall how she actually met
22 Mr. Epstein. As I said, I spoke to her
23 mother the entire time outside the house.
24 Q. Did you walk Ms. Roberts up to the
25 upstairs location at the Palm Beach house to
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 56
Page 19
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 absolutely everything that took place in that
3 first meeting. She has lied repeatedly,
4 often and is just an awful fantasist. So
5 very difficult for anything to take place
6 that she repeated because I was with her
7 mother the entire time.
8 Q. So did you have -- did you give a
9 massage with Virginia Roberts and Mr. Epstein
10 during the first time Virginia Roberts was at
11 the West Palm Beach house?
12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form
13 and foundation.
14 Q. Yes or no?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Have you ever given a massage with
17 Virginia Roberts in the room and Jeffrey
18 Epstein?
19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form
20 and foundation.
21 A. No.
22 Q. Have you ever given Jeffrey Epstein
23 a massage?
24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form,
25 foundation. And I'm going to instruct
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 56
Questions About Massages with Minors
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 56
Page 22
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 questions.
3 MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm instructing her
4 not to answer.
5 MS. McCAWLEY: Then we will be back
6 here again.
7 Q. Have you ever given a massage to
8 Mr. Epstein with a female that was under the
9 age of 18?
10 A. Can you repeat the question?
11 Q. Yes. Have you ever given a massage
12 to Mr. Epstein with a female that was under
13 the age of 18?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Have you ever observed Mr. Epstein
16 having a massage given by an individual, a
17 female, who was under the age of 18?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Have you ever observed females
20 under the age of 18 in the presence of
21 Jeffrey Epstein at his home?
22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form
23 and foundation.
24 A. Again, I have friends that have
25 children --
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 56
Questions About Hiring Massage Therapists
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 56
Page 31
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 -- just another one of Virginia's many
3 fictitious lies and stories to make this a
4 salacious event to get interest and press.
5 It's absolute rubbish.
6 Q. Were you in charge of hiring
7 individuals to provide massages for Jeffrey
8 Epstein?
9 A. My job included hiring many people.
10 There were six homes. As I sit here, I hired
11 assistants, I hired architects, I hired
12 decorators, I hired cooks, I hired cleaners,
13 I hired gardeners, I hired pool people, I
14 hired pilots, I hired all sorts of people.
15 In the course and a very small part
16 of my job was from from time to time to find
17 adult professional massage therapists for
18 Jeffrey.
19 Q. When you say adult professional
20 massage therapists, where did you find these
21 massage therapists?
22 A. From time to time I would visit
23 professional spas, I would receive a massage
24 and if the massage was good I would ask that
25 man or woman if they did home visits.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 56
Questions About Jane Doe 2 and Nadia Marcinkova
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 56
Page 37
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 here today I do not.
3 Q. Ms. Maxwell, when did you first
4 meet
5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form
6 and foundation.
7 A. I have no idea when I met her.
8 Q. Do you know how old she was when
9 you met her?
10 A. I have no idea how old she was when
11 I met her.
12 Q. Is it possible she was 13 years old
13 when you first met her?
14 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form
15 and foundation.
16 A.
18 may have been in the house when Jeffrey was
19 in the house. I have no idea how old she
20 was.
21 Q. I understand she was with
22
23 I'm asking if was 13
24 years old when you first met her?
25 A. I have no idea.
■ -
-
-
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 56
Page 38
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 Q. Was she under 18 when you first met
3 her?
4 A. I have no idea how old she was when
5 I first met her.
6 Q. Did she look like a child when you
7 first met her?
8 A. I don't remember what she looked
9 like at the time she was in the house.
10 Q. How many years have you known her?
11 A. I can only recall the last time I
12 saw her.
13 Q. When was the first time you met
14 her?
15 A. Again, I just told you, I don't
16 recall the first time I met her.
17 Q. Did travel with you
18 on Jeffrey's planes?
19 A. I wouldn't remember if was on
20 the plane or not.
21 Q. Did you ever have sex with
22
23 A. No.
24 Q. Did you ever observe Jeffrey having
25 sex with
-
-
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 56
Page 39
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 A. No.
3 Q. Were you aware that Jeffrey was
4 having sexual contact with when
5 she was 13 years old?
6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form
7 and foundation.
8 A. I would be very shocked and
9 surprised if that were true.
10 Q. Were you in the house when
 was in the house in a private area
12 with Jeffrey Epstein?
13 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form
14 and foundation.
15 A. Can you repeat the question.
16 Q. Were you ever in the Palm Beach
17 house when Jeffrey Epstein was in the house
18 with ?
19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form
20 and foundation.
21 A. I've already testified that I have
22 met her and that she was there
23 I don't understand what your
24 question is asking.
25 Q. So you have never seen
■- -
-
-
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 56
Page 40
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2
3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form
4 and foundation.
5 Q. Is that your testimony?
6 A. I already said I don't recall all
7 the times I've seen her and I have no memory
8 of that.
9 Q. Have you ever seen in
10 the house with Jeffrey Epstein
11
12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form
13 and foundation.
14 A. I just told you I don't recall
15 seeing
16 Q. Were you ever involved in an orgy
17 with
18 A. No, absolutely not.
19 Q. Can you tell me, do you know an
20 individual by the name of Nadia Marcinkova?
21 A. I do.
22 Q. How did you meet Nadia Marcinkova?
23 A. At some point she was a friend of
24 Jeffrey's and I recall meeting her at some
25 point.
-
-
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 56
Page 46
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 Q. Did Jeffrey arrange for a visa for
3 Nadia Marcinkova?
4 A. I don't know what Jeffrey did. I
5 cannot testify what Jeffrey did.
6 Q. Was Nadia involved in sex with
7 Jeffrey and other girls?
8 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form
9 and foundation.
10 Q. Girls under the age of 18?
11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Same objection.
12 A. I have no idea.
13 Q. Was Nadia involved with sex with
14 Jeffrey and girls over the age of 18?
15 MR. PAGLIUCA: Same objection.
16 A. I have no idea.
17 Q. Did Nadia recruit other girls for
18 sex with Jeffrey?
19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form
20 and foundation.
21 A. I have no idea.
22 Q. Do you still talk to Nadia?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Is she a pilot?
25 A. I have no idea.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 56
Questions About Mr. Epstein and Sex
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 56
Page 53
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 acts. I'm asking whether any of the massage
3 therapists performed sexual acts for Mr.
4 Epstein, as I have just described?
5 A. I have never seen anybody have
6 sexual intercourse with with Jeffrey, ever.
7 Q. I'm not asking about sexual
8 intercourse. I'm asking about any sexual
9 act, touching of the breast -- did you ever
10 see -- can you read back the question?
11 (Record read.)
12 A. I'm not addressing any questions
13 about consensual adult sex. If you want to
14 talk about what the subject matter, which is
15 defamation and lying, Virginia Roberts, that
16 you and Virginia Roberts are participating in
17 perpetrating her lies, I'm happy to address
18 those. I never saw any inappropriate
19 underage activities with Jeffrey ever.
20 Q. I'm not asking about underage. I'm
21 asking about whether any of the masseuses
22 that were at the home perform sexual acts for
23 Jeffrey Epstein?
24 A. I have just answered the question.
25 Q. No, you haven't.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 56
Questions About Sarah Kellen, Glen Dubin, Plaintiff, Johanna
Sjoberg, Annie Farmer and Sex
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 56
Page 54
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 A. I have.
3 Q. No, you haven't.
4 A. Yes, I have.
5 Q. You are refusing to answer the
6 question.
7 A. Let's move on.
8 Q. I'm in charge of the deposition. I
9 say when we move on and when we don't.
10 You are here to respond to my
11 questions. If you are refusing to answer the
12 court will bring you back for another
13 deposition to answer these questions.
14 Do you understand that?
15 MR. PAGLIUCA: You don't need to
16 threaten the witness.
17 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm not threatening
18 her. I'm making sure the record is
19 clear.
20 MR. PAGLIUCA: Certainly can you
21 apply to have someone come back and the
22 court may or may not have her come back
23 again.
24 Again, she is not answering
25 questions that relate to adult consent
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 56
Page 55
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 sex acts. Period. And that's the
3 instruction and we can take it up with
4 the court.
5 Q. Ms. Maxwell, are you aware of any
6 sexual acts with masseuses and Jeffrey
7 Epstein that were nonconsensual?
8 A. No.
9 Q. How do you know that?
10 A. All the time that I have been in
11 the house I have never seen, heard, nor
12 witnessed, nor have reported to me that any
13 activities took place, that people were in
14 distress, either reported to me by the staff
15 or anyone else. I base my answer based on
16 that.
17 Q. Are you familiar with a person by
18 the name of Annie Farmer?
19 A. I am.
20 Q. Has Annie Farmer given a statement
21 to police about you performing sexual acts on
22 her?
23 A. I have not heard that.
24 Q. Has Annie Farmer given a statement
25 to police about Jeffrey Epstein performing
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 56
Page 57
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 asked and answered already.
3 Q. You can answer the question.
4 A. I have no idea what Sarah Kellen
5 did.
6 Q. You never observed Sarah Kellen
7 with girls under the age of 18 at Jeffrey's
8 home?
9 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form
10 and foundation.
11 A. The answer is no, I have no idea.
12 Q. Do you know Glenn Dubin?
13 A. I do.
14 Q. What is your relationship with
15 Glenn Dubin?
16 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form.
17 A. What do you mean what is my
18 relationship.
19 Q. Are you friendly with him, how do
20 you know him?
21 A. He is the husband of Eva Dubin.
22 Q. Is Eva Dubin one of your friends?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Did you ever send Virginia to
25 Glenn's condo at the Breakers to give him a
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 25 of 56
Page 58
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 massage?
3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
4 form and foundation.
5 A. No.
6 Q. Did you ever instruct Virginia
7 Roberts to have sex with Glenn?
8 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
9 form and foundation.
10 A. I have never instructed Virginia to
11 have sex with anybody ever.
12 Q. How old was Eva Anderson when she
13 met Jeffrey?
14 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
15 form and foundation.
16 A. I have no idea.
17 Q. What's she under the age of 18?
18 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
19 form and foundation.
20 A. I just testified I have idea how
21 old she was.
22 Q. You testified she was your friend.
23 You don't know how old she was when she met
24 Jeffrey?
25 A. That happened sometime in the '70s,
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 26 of 56
Page 59
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 how would I know, or '80s. I have no idea.
3 Can you testify to what your friends did 30
4 years ago?
5 Q. You don't ask the questions here,
6 Ms. Maxwell.
7 What about Johanna Sjoberg, when
8 did you first meet Johanna?
9 A. I don't recall the exact date.
10 Q. Did you hire Johanna?
11 A. I don't hire people, she came to
12 work at the house to answer phones.
13 Q. Where did you meet her?
14 A. I just testified, I don't recall
15 exactly when I met her.
16 Q. Was one of your job
17 responsibilities to interview people that
18 would be then hired by Jeffrey?
19 A. That was one of my
20 responsibilities.
21 Q. Do you recall interviewing Johanna?
22 A. I don't recall the exact interview,
23 no.
24 Q. Do you know what tasks Johanna was
25 hired to performance?
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 27 of 56
Page 60
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 A. She was tasked to answer
3 telephones.
4 Q. Did you ever ask her to rub
5 Jeffrey's feet?
6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
7 form and foundation.
8 A. I believe that I have read that,
9 but I don't have any memory of it.
10 Q. Did you ever tell Johanna that she
11 would get extra money if she provided Jeffrey
12 massages?
13 A. I was always happy to give career
14 advice to people and I think that becoming
15 somebody in the healthcare profession, either
16 exercise instructor or nutritionist or
17 professional massage therapist is an
18 excellent job opportunity. Hourly wages are
19 around 7, 8, $9 and as a professional
20 healthcare provider you can earn somewhere
21 between as we have established 100 to $200
22 and to be able to travel and have a job that
23 pays that is a wonderful job opportunity. So
24 in the context of advising people for
25 opportunities for work, it is possible that I
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 28 of 56
Page 61
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 would have said that she should explore that
3 as an option.
4 Q. Did you tell her she would get
5 extra money if she massaged Jeffrey?
6 A. I'm just saying, I cannot recall
7 the exact conversation. I give career advice
8 and I have done that.
9 Q. Did you ever have Johanna massage
10 you?
11 A. I did.
12 Q. How many times?
13 A. I don't recall how many times.
14 Q. Was there sex involved?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Did you ever instruct Johanna to
17 massage Glenn Dubin?
18 A. I don't believe -- I have no
19 recollection of it.
20 Q. Did you ever have sexual contact
21 with Johanna?
22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form
23 and foundation. You need to give me an
24 opportunity to get in between the
25 questions.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 29 of 56
Page 62
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 Anything that involves consensual
3 sex on your part, I'm instructing you
4 not to answer.
5 Q. Did you ever have sexual contact
6 with Johanna?
7 A. Again, she is an adult --
8 Q. I'm asking you, did you ever have
9 sexual contact with Johanna?
10 A. I've just been instructed not to
11 answer.
12 Q. On what basis?
13 A. You have to ask my lawyer.
14 Q. Did you ever have sexual contact
15 with Johanna that was not consensual on
16 Johanna's part?
17 MR. PAGLIUCA: You can answer
18 nonconsensual.
19 A. I've never had nonconsensual sex
20 with anybody.
21 Q. Not Annie Farmer?
22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection.
23 A. I just testified I never had
24 nonconsensual sex with anybody ever, at any
25 time, at anyplace, at any time, with anybody.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 30 of 56
Page 63
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 Q. So if Johanna were to testify that
3 she did not consent to a sexual act that you
4 participated in --
5 A. I just told you I have never ever
6 under any circumstances with anybody, at any
7 time, in anyplace, in any form had
8 nonconsensual relations with anybody.
9 Q. Did you introduce Johanna to Prince
10 Andrew?
11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
12 form and foundation.
13 A. I've, again, read that Johanna
14 claimed that she met or that she said she met
15 Prince Andrew. I don't know if I was the one
16 who made the introduction or not.
17 Q. Do you know a female by the name of
18 Emmy Taylor?
19 A. I do.
20 Q. How do you know her?
21 A. Emmy was my assistant.
22 Q. So she worked for you?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Did you hire her?
25 A. Again, Jeffrey hired people.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 31 of 56
Questions About Emmy, Virginia, and Ms. Maxwell Regarding
Sex
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 32 of 56
Page 65
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 consensual issue involved, I instruct
3 you not to answer.
4 A. Moving on.
5 Q. So you are refusing to answer that
6 question?
7 A. I've been instructed by my lawyer.
8 Q. Did you ever have sex with Jeffrey,
9 Emmy, Virginia and yourself when Virginia was
10 underage?
11 A. Absolutely not.
12 MR. PAGLIUCA: We've been going for
13 about an hour. I would like to take a
14 five-minute break, please.
15 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm almost done.
16 MR. PAGLIUCA: You are not going to
17 allow a break.
18 MS. McCAWLEY: As soon as I get
19 through my line of questioning, which is
20 perfectly appropriate.
21 Q. Did Emmy Taylor travel with you and
22 Jeffrey to Europe?
23 A. I'm sure she did.
24 Q. What is she doing today?
25 A. I have no idea.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 33 of 56
Questions About Outfits and Sex Toys
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 34 of 56
Page 69
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 about.
3 Q. So you didn't provide her with
4 that?
5 A. As I just testified, I have no idea
6 what you are talking about.
7 Q. I was trying to interpret whether
8 you didn't understand what a school girl
9 outfit was or you are saying that didn't
10 happen?
11 A. I clearly know what a school girl
12 outfit is. I have no recollection of
13 providing anybody with a school girl outfit.
14 Q. Did you have a set of outfits used
15 by the massage therapists that would include
16 things like a school girl outfit or a black
17 patent leather outfit or anything of that
18 nature?
19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form
20 and foundation.
21 A. That would be just another one of
22 Virginia's lies.
23 Q. You didn't have anything like that?
24 A. I did not.
25 Q. Did you have a basket of sex toys
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 35 of 56
Page 70
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 that you kept in the Palm Beach house?
3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
4 form and foundation.
5 A. First of all what do you mean.
6 Q. A laundry basket that contained sex
7 toys in it?
8 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
9 form and foundation.
10 A. Can you ask the question again?
11 Q. Did you have a laundry basket that
12 contained sex toys in it, in the Palm Beach
13 House?
14 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
15 form and foundation.
16 Q. Did you have a laundry basket of
17 sex toys in the Palm Beach house?
18 MR. PAGLIUCA: Same objection.
19 Q. You can answer.
20 A. I don't recollect anything about a
21 laundry basket of sex toys.
22 Q. Do you recollect having sex toys at
23 the Palm Beach house?
24 A. You have to define what are you
25 talking about.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 36 of 56
Questions About Plaintiff and Epstein and Sex
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 37 of 56
Page 75
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 Q. Do you recall having a basket full
3 of sex toys?
4 A. I already told you I did not.
5 Q. We were talking a moment ago about
6 Ms. Roberts and her position as a masseuse,
7 do you know what she was paid for working as
8 a masseuse for Jeffrey Epstein?
9 A. I do not.
10 Q. Did you ever pay her?
11 A. I don't ever recall paying her.
12 Q. Do you know what happened during
13 the massage appointments with Jeffrey Epstein
14 and Virginia Roberts?
15 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
16 form and foundation.
17 A. No.
18 Q. Were you ever present to view a
19 massage between Jeffrey Epstein and Virginia
20 Roberts?
21 A. I don't recollect ever seeing
22 Virginia and Jeffrey in a massage situation.
23 Q. Do you ever recollect seeing them
24 in a sexual situation?
25 A. I never saw them in a sexual
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 38 of 56
Page 76
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 situation.
3 Q. Did you ever participate in sex
4 with Virginia Roberts and Jeffrey Epstein?
5 A. I never ever at any single time at
6 any point ever at all participated in
7 anything with Virginia and Jeffrey. And for
8 the record, she is an absolute total liar and
9 you all know she lied on multiple things and
10 that is just one other disgusting thing she
11 added.
12 Q. Did you help her obtain an
13 apartment in Palm Beach to live in?
14 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
15 form and foundation.
16 Q. Was that part of your
17 responsibilities for Jeffrey?
18 A. First of all, I didn't know she had
19 an apartment in Palm Beach. I only learned
20 that from the many times you guys have gone
21 to the press to sell stories, so no.
22 Q. Did you help her get a cell phone,
23 was that one of your responsibilities for
24 Jeffrey, to get her is a cell phone as part
25 of her masseuse obligations?
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 39 of 56
Questions About Training Plaintiff to Recruit Girls for Massages
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 40 of 56
Page 81
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 form and foundation.
3 A. Like I told you, I don't recall her
4 being at the house at all.
5 Q. How many homes does Jeffrey have?
6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
7 form and foundation.
8 A. When I was working for him, I think
9 he had six maybe.
10 Q. Would Virginia stay with him in
11 those homes?
12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
13 form and foundation.
14 A. I can only testify for when I was
15 present with him and I cannot say what she
16 did when I wasn't present with him.
17 Q. When you were present, would
18 Virginia stay in the homes with him?
19 A. I don't recall her staying in the
20 houses.
21 Q. Did you train Virginia on how to
22 recruit other girls for massages?
23 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
24 form and foundation.
25 A. No.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 41 of 56
Page 82
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 Q. Did you train Virginia on how to
3 recruit other girls to perform sexual
4 massages?
5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
6 form and foundation.
7 A. No. And it's absurd and her entire
8 story is one giant tissue of lies and
9 furthermore, she herself has -- if she says
10 that, you have to ask her about what she did.
11 Q. Does Jeffrey like to have his
12 nipples pinched during sexual encounters?
13 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form
14 and foundation.
15 A. I'm not referring to any advice on
16 my counsel. I'm not talking about any adult
17 sexual things when I was with him.
18 Q. When Jeffrey would have a massage,
19 would he request that the masseuse pinch his
20 nipples while he was having a massage?
21 A. I'm not talking about anything with
22 consensual adult situation.
23 Q. What about with underage --
24 A. I am not aware of anything.
25 Q. You are not aware of Jeffrey
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 42 of 56
Questions About Ms. Maxwell’s Relationship with Mr. Epstein
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 43 of 56
Page 91
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 has perpetrated, cannot tell you what is true
3 or factual or not.
4 Q. You said you were in the home a
5 very limited time, so average in the year for
6 example, 2004, how many times would you have
7 been in his Palm Beach home?
8 A. Very hard for me to state but very
9 little.
10 Q. How about his New York home?
11 A. Same.
12 Q. Were you his girlfriend in that
13 year, in 2004?
14 A. Define what you mean by girlfriend.
15 Q. Were you in a relationship with him
16 where you would consider yourself his
17 girlfriend?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Did you ever consider yourself his
20 girlfriend?
21 A. That's a tricky question. There
22 were times when I would have liked to think
23 of myself as his girlfriend.
24 Q. When would that have been?
25 A. Probably in the early '90s.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 44 of 56
Questions About Recruiting Girls, an Underage Girl in London,
and Foreign Girls
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 45 of 56
Page 97
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 A. First of all I resent and despise
3 the world recruit. Would you like to define
4 what you mean by recruit and by girls, you
5 mean underage people. I never had to do
6 anything with underage people. So why don't
7 you reask the question in a way that I am
8 able to answer it.
9 Q. I'm asking if you ever said that to
10 anybody. So if you don't understand the word
11 recruit and you never used that word then the
12 answer to that question would be no.
13 A. I have no memory as I sit here
14 today having used that word.
15 Q. Did you ever meet an underage girl
16 in London to introduce her to Jeffrey to
17 provide him with a massage?
18 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
19 form and foundation.
20 A. Run that past me one more time.
21 Q. Did you ever meet an underage girl
22 in London to introduce her to Jeffrey to
23 perform a massage?
24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Same objection.
25 A. Are you asking me if I met anybody
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 46 of 56
Page 98
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 that was underage in London specifically to
3 provide a massage to Jeffrey, is that your
4 question?
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. No.
7 Q. Do you know who Alexander Dixon is?
8 A. I don't recall her right now.
9 Q. Do you know if -- strike that.
10 During the time that you were
11 working for Jeffrey, did you ever observe any
12 foreign females, so in other words, not from
13 the United States, that were brought to
14 Jeffrey's home to perform massages?
15 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
16 form and foundation.
17 A. Females, what age are we talking?
18 Q. Any age.
19 A. Can you repeat the question?
20 Q. During the time you were working
21 for Jeffrey, did you ever observe any foreign
22 females of any age that were at Jeffrey's
23 home to perform a massage?
24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
25 form and foundation.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 47 of 56
Page 99
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 A. Are you asking me if any foreigner,
3 not an American person, gave Jeffrey a
4 massage?
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. Well, as I sit here today, I can't
7 think of anyone who is foreign. Certainly --
8 I just can't think of anybody right this
9 second.
10 Q. How about any foreign girls who
11 were under the age of 18?
12 A. I already testified to not knowing
13 anything about underage girls.
14 Q. Were there foreign girls who were
15 brought to Jeffrey's home by Jean Luc Brunel
16 for the purposes of providing massages?
17 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
18 form and foundation.
19 A. I am not aware of Jean Luc bringing
20 girls. I have not no idea what you are
21 talking about.
22 Q. You have never been around foreign
23 girls who are under the age of 18 at
24 Jeffrey's homes?
25 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 48 of 56
Page 100
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 form and foundation.
3 A. I already testified about not
4 knowing about underage girls.
5 Q. Did you provide any assistance with
6 obtaining visas for foreign girls that were
7 under the age of 18?
8 A. I've never participated in helping
9 people of any age to get visas.
10 Q. Did Jeffrey, was it Jeffrey's
11 preference to start a massage with sex?
12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
13 form and foundation.
14 A. I think you should ask that
15 question of Jeffrey.
16 Q. Do you know?
17 A. I don't believe that was his
18 preference. I think -- you have to
19 understand, a massage -- perhaps you are not
20 really familiar with what massage is.
21 Q. I am, I don't need a lecture on
22 massage.
23 A. I think you do.
24 MR. PAGLIUCA: No question pending.
25 She will ask you another question now.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 49 of 56
Questions About Underage Girls, Sex with Jon Luc Brunel, and
Outfits
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 50 of 56
Page 116
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 Q. Were you present on the island when
3 Prince Andrew visited?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. How many times?
6 A. I can only remember once.
7 Q. Were there any girls under the age
8 of 18 on the island during that one visit
9 that you remember that were not family or
10 friends of or daughters of your friends?
11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
12 form and foundation.
13 A. There were no girls on the island
14 at all. No girls, no women, other than the
15 staff who work at the house. Girls meaning,
16 I assume you are asking underage, but there
17 was nobody female outside of the cooks and
18 the cleaners.
19 Q. Did you, as part of your duties in
20 working for Jeffrey, ever arrange for
21 Virginia to have sex with John Luc Brunel?
22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
23 form and foundation.
24 A. Just for the record, I have never
25 at any time, at anyplace, in any moment ever
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 51 of 56
Page 117
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 asked Virginia Roberts or whatever she is
3 called now to have sex with anybody.
4 Q. Did you ever provide Virginia
5 Roberts with an outfit, an outfit of a sexual
6 nature to wear for Les Wexner?
7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
8 form and foundation.
9 A. I think we addressed the outfit
10 issue.
11 Q. I am asking you if you ever
12 provided her with an outfit of a sexual
13 nature to wear for Les Wexner?
14 A. Categorically no. You did get
15 that, I said categorically no
16 Q. Don't worry I'm paying attention.
17 A. You seemed very distracted in that
18 moment.
19 (Maxwell Exhibit 6, flight logs,
20 marked for identification.)
21 A. Do you mind if I take a break for
22 the bathroom.
23 Q. It's 11:08 and we are going to go
24 off the record now.
25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: It's now 11:09.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 52 of 56
Questions About Pictures of Naked Girls
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 53 of 56
Page 188
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 people could use -- just like you would use
3 if you needed to go online to get something,
4 that people could use.
5 Q. Was that on a desk that you would
6 use in your work capacity when you were at
7 the house?
8 A. It was a desk, it was a room I was,
9 I didn't really use that computer.
10 Q. Were there images of naked girls
11 whether they be under the age of 18 or over
12 the age of 18 on that computer?
13 A. I have no recollection of any naked
14 people on that computer when I was there in
15 2003, we are talking.
16 Q. What about from say '99 to 2003?
17 A. No, I can't recollect any naked
18 pictures.
19 Q. Why were the computers removed from
20 the house before the search warrant was
21 executed?
22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
23 form and foundation.
24 A. I have no knowledge of anything
25 like that.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 54 of 56
Questions About Topless Females
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 55 of 56
Page 404
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 form and foundation.
3 A. I mean I've been to his -- in the
4 mid '90s, I would have communicated with
5 people who worked for him.
6 Q. Have you communicated with Leslie
7 Wexner about this case?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Have you ever seen a topless female
10 at any one of Jeffrey Epstein's properties?
11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
12 form and foundation. You've asked this
13 question, by the way, earlier on today.
14 A. Again, I testified that there are
15 people who from time to time in the privacy
16 of a swimming pool have maybe taken a bikini
17 top off or something but it's not common and
18 certainly when I was at the house I don't
19 really recollect seeing that kind of
20 activity.
21 Q. Have you ever smoked cigarettes?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Have you ever smoked cigarettes
24 with Virginia Roberts?
25 A. I don't recall smoking cigarettes
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 56 of 56
1
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Virginia L. Giuffre,
Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
v.
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant.
________________________________/
PLAINTIFF’S UNREDACTED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
DEFENDANT TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this
Reply in Support of her Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions. Instead
of allowing Ms. Giuffre to take a full and complete deposition, Defendant flatly refused to
answer questions critical to the key issues in this case. Contrary to Defendant’s assertions, Ms.
Giuffre is not engaged in a “fishing expedition” but rather seeks to ask highly-focused questions
specifically relevant to this case. In particular, Ms. Giuffre seeks to ask the Defendant questions
regarding her participation in or knowledge of sexual activities connected with Jeffrey Epstein’s
sexual abuse of females. Such questions are entirely appropriate in the discovery phase of this
case, particularly where any answers will be maintained as confidential under the Protective
Order entered in this case.
As the Court is aware from previous pleadings, at the heart of this case lies the issue of
Defendant’s knowledge that Ms. Giuffre was sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein. Indeed, as the
Defendant boldly acknowledges in her response (at p. 2), she intends to argue at trial that (among
other things) she “never arranged for or asked [Ms. Giuffre] to have sex with anyone.” At trial,
-
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-6 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 10
2
Ms. Giuffre intends to strongly disprove Defendant’s false assertions and to demonstrate that
Defendant recruited Ms. Giuffre to be involved in massages of a sexual nature with Epstein.
To develop evidence to support her position, Ms. Giuffre recently deposed Defendant
about the central subjects in her case. Defendant flatly refused to answer a number of questions,
and for the majority of the others, gave varying versions of “I don’t recall.” For example, when
faced with the police report which contains statements from approximately thirty (30) different
victims during a time frame which the Defendant acknowledges she was actively working for
Epstein at his various homes, Defendant challenged the veracity of the victims’ reports:
“Q. Are you saying these 30 girls are lying when they gave these reports to police
officers?
A. I’m not testifying to their lies. I’m testifying to Virginia’s lies.”
See Declaration of Sigrid McCawley (“McCawley Decl.”) at Exhibit 1, April 22, 2016
Deposition of Defendant at p. 89-90; 83-84. While Defendant was working with Epstein during
the time period when these underage girls were visiting Jeffrey’s home, Defendant claimed to be
at the house maybe once in 2005. Id. at p. 84. Yet, according to flight manifests, in that same
general time period, Defendant was listed as a passenger at least eleven times either landing in or
departing from West Palm Beach, Florida on Jeffrey Epstein’s private plane. See McCawley
Decl. at Exhibit 1, April 22, 2016 Depo Tr. at p. 84; see also McCawley Decl. at Composite
Exhibit 2, Flight Logs from Jeffrey Epstein’s private planes.
Moreover, again according to flight logs, Defendant was on Epstein’s planes over 300
times – including 23 times with Ms. Giuffre when Ms. Giuffre was underage. Yet, quite
remarkably, Defendant claimed she “couldn’t recall” even one of those flights. See McCawley
Decl. at Exhibit 1, April 22, 2016 Deposition of Defendant at p. 120-122.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-6 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 10
3
Defendant even testified that she did not recall having Ms. Giuffre at her London
townhome with Prince Andrew. Defendant stuck to this incredible story despite flight logs
establishing her traveling to London with Ms. Giuffre and despite a photograph the three – Ms.
Giuffre, Prince Andrew and Defendant – all standing together in Defendant’s home. See
McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, April 22, 2016 Deposition of Defendant at p. 108-111.
Defendant’s deposition consisted almost entirely of “I don’t recalls” or “I refuse to answer that
question”1 and also included a physical outburst that knocked the court reporter’s computer off
the conference room table. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, April 22, 2016 Deposition of
Defendant at 207-208.
Among the many questions that Defendant refused to answer at her deposition were a
number of questions designed to show that Defendant was well aware that, for Epstein, a
“massage” was actually a code word sexual activity – i.e., not a therapeutic massage but rather
activity that involved sexual gratification for Epstein. Defendant refused to answer all such
questions, asserting that they involved “private adult sexual relationships” which did not “relate
in any way” to Ms. Giuffre’s claims. Id. at p. 4. But Defendant’s involvement in such
“relationships” with Epstein would show that she knew full well the fate that was in store for Ms.
Giuffre when she accepted Defendant’s invitation to come and provide “massages” to Epstein.
Defendant admitted that she worked for Epstein from 1992 to 2009. See McCawley Decl. at

1 For example, when asked:
“Q. Have you ever said to anybody that you recruit girls to take the pressure off you, so you
won’t have to have sex with Jeffrey, have you said that?
A. You don’t ask me questions like that. First of all, you are trying to trap me, I will not be
trapped. You are asking me if I recruit. I told you no. Girls meaning underage, I already said I don’t do
that with underage people and as to ask me about a specific conversation I had with language, we talking
about almost 17 years ago when this took place. I cannot testify to an actual conversation or language
that I used with anybody at any time.”
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, April 22, 2016 Depo Tr. at p. 94-95.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-6 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 10
4
Exhibit 1, April 22, 2016 Deposition of Defendant at p. 10-11, 410. As the Court knows, the
Palm Beach Police Report demonstrates multiple incidents of “massages” being given by
untrained minor children that involved sexual acts. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3, Palm
Beach Police Report. Defendant is also identified in that Palm Beach Police Report. See
McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3, Palm Beach Police Report at p. 75-76. And the details of
Epstein’s sexual activities with Defendant (for example) are highly relevant to this case, because
they will help corroborate Ms. Giuffre’s testimony that, while she was underage, she also
engaged in sexual activity of an identical nature with Epstein.
To allow Defendant to avoid answering these questions would preclude Ms. Giuffre from
getting critical evidence in this case. Consider, for example, Defendant recruiting an eighteen
year-old girl to be an “assistant,” bringing that girl to Epstein’s home, telling her she could make
more money if she would give Epstein a massage, and then instructing her to give a massage that
involved sexual acts. Under Defendant’s theory of discovery, Ms. Giuffre would be precluded
from deposing her on that topic because the actions would culminate in “consensual adult sex.”
Yet, that scenario would fully validate the pattern of events that occurred with Ms. Giuffre when
she was under the age of eighteen. It would obviously show a “modus operandi” by Jeffrey
Epstein and Defendant, which is clearly admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
Moreover, such inquiries are crucial to impeaching the Defendant at trial. During her
deposition, Defendant attempted to characterize her work for Epstein as nothing more than a
normal job handling hiring for the various mansions. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, April
22, 2016 Deposition Tr. of Defendant at p. 9-12. Ms. Giuffre should be able to contest that
assertion by having Defendant fully answer questions about whether that alleged “job” involved
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-6 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 10
5
sexual activities, including orchestrating the hiring of females and converting massages into
sexual encounters.
Defendant attempts to paint the picture that Ms. Giuffre somehow is interested in all
sexual relationships that the Defendant may have been involved with. That is not true. Ms.
Giuffre has no intention of asking unbridled questions. To be clear, Ms. Giuffre intends to ask
Defendant only questions that involve the following very narrow and crucial subject areas: (1)
Defendant’s sexual relationship with Epstein from 1992 to 2009 – the time period in which she
worked for Jeffrey Epstein and which Epstein (with the assistance of Defendant) was engaging in
sexual acts with females under the cover of “massage”; (2) Defendant’s sexual interactions with
any person in Epstein’s presence during that time period; (3) Defendant’s sexual activities at
Epstein’s residences, including his private island “Little St. Jeff’s,” or his aircraft during that
time period; (4) Defendant’s sexual activities with identified participants in Epstein’s sexual
abuse during that time period; and (5) Defendant’s sexual interactions that occurred during or
through what began as a “massage”; and (6) Defendant’s interactions with females to introduce
to Jeffrey Epstein for the purpose of performing work, including sexual massages.
Defendant claims that such questions are a mere “fishing expedition” without
acknowledging the fact that these questions go to critical issues in this case. Other witnesses
have testified regarding Defendant’s involvement in recruiting females for sex under the cover of
a “massage.” During the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, certain household staff was deposed.
Alfredo Rodriguez, who was Jeffrey Epstein’s household manager, testified that the Defendant
frequently stayed in Jeffrey Epstein’s home and assisted with bringing in young girls to act as
“masseuses” for Jeffrey Epstein.
Q. “Okay. Going back to where we started here was, does Ghislaine Maxwell have
knowledge of the girls that would come over to Jeffrey Epstein’s house that are in
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-6 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 10
6
roughly the same age group as C. and T. (minor children) and to have a good time as
you put it?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was her involvement and/or knowledge about that?
A. She knew what was going on.”
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, Alfredo Rodriguez July 29, 2009 Dep. Tr. at 176-177. See
also McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, Alfredo Rodriguez July 29, 2009 Depo Tr. at 96-101 (noting
that high school age girls come to the home where Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Maxwell reside).
Juan Alessi, another household employee, also testified that young girls were regularly present at
Jeffrey Epstein’s home where Ghislaine Maxwell resides. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5,
Juan Alessi November 21, 2005 Sworn Statement at p. 15-16, 21. Specifically, Juan Alessi
informed the Palm Beach Police Detective as follows: “Alessi stated that towards the end of his
employment, the masseuses were younger and younger. When asked how young, Mr. Alessi
stated they appeared to be sixteen or seventeen years of age at most.” (emphasis added.) See
McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3, Palm Beach Police Report at p. 57.
During Juan Alessi’s November 21, 2005 Sworn Statement taken by the Palm Beach
Police Department, Mr. Alessi revealed that girls would come over to give “massages” and he
observed Ms. Maxwell going upstairs in the direction of the bedroom quarters. See McCawley
Decl. at Exhibit 5, Juan Alessi November 21, 2005 Sworn Statement at 10. He also testified that
after the massages, he would clean up sex toys that were kept in “Ms. Maxwell’s closet.” Id. at
11-13. See also McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 6, Juan Alessi September 8, 2009 Depo Tr. at p. 76-
77. He added that he and his wife were concerned with what was going on at the house (Id. at
14) and that he observed girls at the house, including one named “Virginia.” Id. at 21.
Mr. Rodriguez also testified that Defendant also had naked pictures of girls performing
sexual acts on her computer. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7, Alfredo Rodriguez August 7,
2009 Dep. Tr. at 311-312; See also McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 6, Juan Alessi September 8, 2009
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-6 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 10
7
Depo Tr. at p. 40-41 (“I know she [Maxwell] went out and took pictures in the pool because later
on I would see them at the desk or at the house. And nude - 99.9 percent of the time they were
topless. They were European girls.”).
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 Ms. Maxwell’s computer.
A. Yes, ma’am.”
Upon leaving his employment, Rodriguez testified that Defendant threatened him that he should
not tell anyone about what happened at the house:
A. “I have to say something. Mrs. Maxwell called me and told me not to ever discuss or
contact her again in a threaten(ing) way.
Q. When was this?
A. Right after I left because I call one of the friends for a job and she told me this, but,
you know, I feel intimidated and so I want to keep her out…
Q. She made a telephone call to you and what precisely did she say?
A. She said I forbid you that you’re going to be – that I will be sorry if I contact any of
her friends again…She said something like don’t open your mouth or something like
that. I’m a civil humble, I came as an immigrant to service people, and right now you
feel a little –I’m 55 and I’m afraid. First of all, I don’t have a job, but I’m glad this is
on tape because I don’t want nothing to happen to me. This is the way they treat you,
better do this and you shut up and don’t talk to nobody and—
Q. When you say this is the way they treat, who specifically are you talking about when
you say that word they?
A. Maxwell. ”
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, Alfredo Rodriguez July 29, 2009 Dep. Tr. at 169 – 172.
In sum, at the core of this case are statements made by Ms. Giuffre that she was recruited,
by Defendant, to be paid as a masseuse, yet was enticed or coerced into engaging in sexual acts
with Epstein and Defendant for money. She has further explained that the recruitment of females
through the offer of some legitimate position was the typical way in which Defendant and
Epstein lured unsuspecting females to the house before converting the relationship into a sexual
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-6 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 10
8
one. Ms. Giuffre has described the frequency of these “massages”, the sexual tendencies of the
participants, the manner in which the massages became sexual in nature, and Defendant’s role at
each stage.
In response, Defendant has called Ms. Giuffre’s entire account “untrue” and “obvious
lies.” Defendant has instead tried to portray her role as nothing more than an Epstein employee
performing typical household management duties. Any personal knowledge Defendant has of
Epstein’s sexual tendencies, habits, and use of massage for sex is entirely relevant to either
corroborate Ms. Giuffre’s account. Likewise, Defendant’s participation in any sexual acts with
Epstein, in his presence, on his properties, using his mode of converting massages into sex, or
with females will directly corroborate Ms. Giuffre’s account. On the other hand, without access
to the answers to these inquiries, Ms. Giuffre will be unable to expose the bias of Defendant,
unable to thoroughly cross-examine Defendant’s position that she was just a lowly employee,
and most importantly unable to demonstrate through the Defendant’s own admissions that Ms.
Giuffre’s statements about Epstein and Defendant were absolutely true – and not “obvious lies.”
Finally, Defendant fails to recognize that, for the discovery purposes at issue here,
relevance “is an extremely broad concept.” Am. Fed'n of Musicians of the United States &
Canada v. Sony Music Entm't, Inc., No. 15CV05249GBDBCM, 2016 WL 2609307, at *3
(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2016). And once relevance is shown, “the party resisting discovery bears the
burden of demonstrating that, despite the broad and liberal construction afforded the federal
discovery rules, the requests are irrelevant, or are overly broad, burdensome, or oppressive.” Id.
Here, the requests are not “overly broad” as Ms. Giuffre’s specific explanations of the targets of
her questions make clear. Moreover, answering the questions is not “oppressive,” particularly
given the fact that Defendant has placed all substantive aspects of the Deposition under seal. Of
-
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-6 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 10
9
course, once Defendant answers the question – and her answers are placed under seal – the
parties can file any further motions that may be required to determine whether the answers may
be introduced at trial.
CONCLUSION
Defendant should be ordered to answer questions regarding sexual activity connected
with Epstein’s sexual abuse and sexual trafficking organization as specifically identified above
Dated: May 11, 2016
Respectfully Submitted,
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
 By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley
Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
Meredith Schultz (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
Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice)
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
(954) 524-2820
Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
S.J. Quinney College of Law
University of Utah
383 University St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
(801) 585-52022

2 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is
not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-6 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 10
10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 11th day of May, 2016, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission
of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
Tel: (303) 831-7364
Fax: (303) 832-2628
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley
 Sigrid S. McCawley

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-6 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 10
EXHIBIT 4
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-7 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
? n
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JANE DOE NO. 2, Case No: 08-CV-80119
Plaintiff,
Vs
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant .
I
JANE DOE NO. 3 / Case NO: 08-CV-80232
Plaintiff,
Vs
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
I
JANE DOE NO . 4, Case No: 08-CV-80380
Plaintiff,
Vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant .
I
JANE DOE NO. 5, Case No : 08-CV-80381
Pl;:i-intiff
Vs
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
I
Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688
7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141
Page 1
NON PARTY (VR) 000247
GIUFFRE00093 5
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-7 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 9
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
l'age 2
JANE DOE NO. 6, Case No: 08-CV-80994 1 V[DEOTAPED
Plaintiff1 2 DEPOSITION
Vs 3 of
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 4 ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ
Defendant. s
6 taken on behalf of the Plaintiffs pursuant
7 to a Re-Notice of Taking Deposition (Duces Tecum)
JANE DOE NO. 7, Case No. 08-CV-80993 8
9 --- Plaintiff, 10 APPEARANCES:
11 Vs MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A.
JEFFREY EPSTEI N, 12 BY: STUART MERMELSTEI N, ESQ.
18205 Biscayne Boulevard
Defendant. 13 Suite 22 18
Miami, Florida 33160
C M.A., Case No: 08-CV-80811 14 Attorney for Jane Doe 2, 3, 4, 5,
Plaintiff, 6, and 7.
Vs 15
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 16 ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER
Defendant. BY: BRAD J. EDWARDS, ESQ., and
17 CARA HOLMES, ESQ.
Las Olas City Centre
JANE DOE, Case No: 08-CV- 80893 18 Suite 1650
401 East Las Olas Boulevard
Plaintiff, 19 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Attorney for Jane Doe and E.W.
Vs 20 And L.M.
21
JEFFREY EPSTEI N, PODHURST ORSECK
22 BY: KATHERINE W. EZELL
Defendant. 25 West Flagler Street
23 Suite 800
Miami, Florida 33130
24 Attorney for Jane Doe 101 and 102.
25
Page 3
JANE DOE NO. II, Case No: 08-CV-80469 1
Plaintiff, APPEARANCES:
Vs 2
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 3 LEOPOLD-KUVJ N
Defendant. ADAM J. LANGINO, ESQ.
4 2925 PGA Boulevard
Suite 200
5 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410
JANE DOE NO. 101, Case No: 09-CV-80 591 Attorney for 8.B.
6
Plaint iff, 7 RICHARD WI LLITS, ESQ.
2290 10th Avenue North
Vs 8 Suite 404
Lake Worth, Florida 33461
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 9 Attorney for C. M.A.
10
BURMAN, CRJTTON, LUTTIER &
Defendant. 11 COLEMAN, LLP
BY: ROBERT CRJTTON, ESQ.
JANE DOE NO. 102, Case No: 09-CV-80656 12 515 North Flagler Drive
Plaintiff, Suite 400
Vs 13 West Palm Beach, Florida 3340 l
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Attorney for Jeffrey Epstein.
Defendant. 14
15 I 16
ALSO PRESENT:
17
JOE LANGSAM, V!DEOGRAPHER
1031 Ives Dairy Road 18
Suite 228 19
North Miami, Flo rida
July 29, 2009 20
11:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 21
22
23
24
25
' .... .. . , .... ' .. ;:-, .... :;;,;. "' =
Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688
71 15 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141
Page 4
Page 5 ,
"• ' '
2 (Pages 2 to 5)
NON PARTY (VR) 000248
GIUFFRE000936
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-7 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 9
Page 94
1 A. I don't remember, sir.
2
3
Q. The next page is a message in the upper
lelt dated January 13, 2005, from C.W. Correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. That's the same C. that we've been
6 talking about. Correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. That was at 7:30 p.m. Correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And you don't recall what that particular
11 call was about. Right?
12 A. No, sir.
13 Q. The message dated January 20, 2005, from
14 Maria. Do you see that on the bottom right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Do you know who that is?
17 A. I think I have a different page.
18 Q. You're a little ahead of me. January 20,
19 2005.
20 MR. CRITTON: I think that's page 31.
21 THE WITNESS: I don't remember who she
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
was, sir.
BY MR. MERMELSTEIN:
Q. You don't recall what that message was
about?
Page 95
A. No, sir.
Q. What about the next page there is a
message that Eva called?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Dated January 21, 2005?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Do you know who Eva is?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Who is Eva?
10 A. The assistant comptroller from the New
11 York office.
12 Q. Do you remember her last name?
13 A. Polish last name I guess. She was
14 Russian. She is Russian actually.
15 Q. Did you ever travel to any other
16 residences that Mr. Epstein had?
17 A. No.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. Are you aware he had a residence in the
Virgin Islands?
MR. CRITTON: Form.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. MERMELSTEIN:
Q. And would he sometimes travel to that
residence from Palm Beach?
A. Yes.
1
2
3
4
5
Page 96
Q. Okay. Do you recall on any occasion who
would travel with him to the Virgin Islands?
MR. CRITTON: Form.
THE WITNESS: No, sir.
BY MR. MERMELSTEIN:
6 Q. I think we were talking about the money
7 before, the household account, sometimes you gave
8 gilts?
9 A. Yes, I was told to buy some gifts.
10 Q. Forwhom?
11 A. For the guests.
12 Q. Okay. And what kind of gifts?
13 A. Shoes, sweaters, clothes.
14 Q. So were you instructed to buy something
15 in particular at a particular store?
16 A. They would go to the store, if they like
17 something I will go alter and pay them and
18 retrieve it.
19 Q. Okay. So would this be a girl who was
20 staying at the house?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. This was one of the girls who
23 travelled with Mr. Epstein to Palm Beach.
24 Correct?
25 A. Yes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Page 97
Q. And so Mr. Epstein would instruct you to
go shopping with this girl?
A. Yes.
Q. And instructed you to pay for whatever it
is she wanted to buy?
A. Yes.
Q. Was there a price limit or anything of
that nature?
9 A. No, sir.
10 Q. So when the girl decided what she wanted
11 you would --
12 A. I would write them a check.
13 Q. In that instance you would pay by check?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Any other instances where you gave gilts
16 to girls at the instruction of Mr. Epstein?
1/ f'\ , i,u, 1 v vu.:, ,~~- ,~,~, ,~~ " •~ , , .. ~,
18 told me I will buy the item.
19 Q. I'm sorry?
20 A. You know, when I was told to purchase
21 this item for them, you know, I will do that, but
22 not on any other occasions.
23 Q. What do you mean not in any locations?
24 A. Any other occasions.
25 Q. Not any other occasions. Okay. Did you
25 (Pages 94 to 97)
Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688
7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141
NON PARTY (VR) 000271
GIUFFRE000959
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-7 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 9
Page 98
ever buy flowers for a girl?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Tell me about that.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
A. I was told to buy flowers and roses for a
10
11
12
13
14
girl performing in high school.
Q. Which girl was that?
A. I don't remember the name, sir.
Q. What was Mr. Epstein's relationship to
this girl?
MR. CRITTON: Form.
THE WITNESS: I think she was an
acquaintance, friend.
BY MR. MERMELSTEIN:
Q. She was a friend?
15 A. Yes, sir.
16 Q. Now, she was performing at the high
17 school in what capacity?
18 A. There was like a -- like a play in the
19 graduation for high school.
20 Q. A play for graduation?
21 A. Yes, in the high school theatre there was
22 some kind of performance.
23 Q. Was it like a theatre production?
24 A. Yeah, something like that. I didn't go
25 inside so I didn't know what was going on inside.
Page 99
1 Q. Why do you say it was for graduation?
2 A. Because everybody was the graduation
3 outside, there were parents, there were a lot of
4 people at the school.
5 Q. Okay. A lot of high schools have theatre
6 production companies and they put on plays.
7 Correct?
8 MR. CRITTON: Form.
9 THE WITNESS: It was towards the end of
10 the year. Well, I think I overheard that
11 there was a graduation performance of some
12 kind.
13 BY MR. MERMELSTEIN:
14 Q. But you didn't go in so you don't know?
15 A. No, sir.
16 Q. But this was a high school student you
11 were bringing me nowers w . 1s L11aL '-V" t:L.l.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Had you seen this girl before at the El
20 Brillo Way property?
21 A. Yes, sir.
22 Q. You had seen her a number of times?
23 A. Yes, sir.
24 Q. Do you recall her name?
25 A. I don't remember her name, sir.
1
2
Page 100
Q. Now, you said you never went inside the
theatre?
3 A. No, sir.
4 Q. Okay. How did you get to the flower
5 store?
6 A. I called the girl to her cell and she
7 will come to the back door and I give her the
8 flowers.
9 Q. Was anyone else around at the time?
10 A. No, sir.
11 Q. And you mentioned this was a girl you had
12 seen before?
13 A. Yes.
Q. Was this girl who had come to give
massages to Mr. Epstein?
MR. CRITTON: Form.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE WITNESS: I don't know if she was
doing massages but she was at the house.
BY MR. MERMELSTEIN:
Q. What would she have been there for?
A. To visit him.
Q. This was a high school girl who was
coming to visit Mr. Epstein at the house?
A. She came to the house, I open the door
and I left, you know.
Page 101
1 Q. Did you take her to the kitchen like you
2 did --
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. So you brought her to the kitchen just
5 like you did for the girls who gave him massages.
6 Correct?
7 A. Yes, sir.
8 Q. Did you ever pay her?
9 A. I don't remember, sir, but probably I
10 did .
11
12
13
MR. CRITTON: Form, move to strike,
speculation.
BY MR. MERMELSTEIN:
14 Q. Why do you say you probably did?
15 A. Because I was the only one paying --
16 well, not the only one but, you know, but chances - - J./ Ul,C 1 f-'OIU "'-' ~-• • -~• L -• ,_, •~-• -,
18 particular instance that I gave her money.
19 Q. Is it fair to say that the girls who came
20 to the Palm Beach residence, these are not the
21 girls who are staying there, the girls who came --
22 were there to give massages. Correct?
23 MR. CRITTON: Form.
24 THE WITNESS: Yes.
25 BY MR. MERMELSTEIN:
26 (Pages 98 to 101)
Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688
7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141
NON PARTY (VR) 000272
GIUFFRE00096 l
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-7 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 9
Page 166
1 written down anywhere? 1
2 A. No. 2
3 Q. It's my understanding that C. and T. 3
4 either came to his house alone to visit with Mr. 4
5 Epstein or brought other girls in their age group 5
6 to Mr. Epstein. 6
7 Were you familiar with that type of 7
8 recruitment process of girls bringing other girls? 8
9 MR. CRITTON: Form. 9
10 THE WITNESS: Yes. 10
11 BY MR. EDWARDS: 11
12 Q. Can you tell me more about what you know 12
13 about girls bringing other girls that are 13
14 relatively the same age to come to Jeffrey 14
15 Epstein's house and to use your words, have a good 15
16 time? 16
17 MR. CRITTON: Form. 17
18 THE WITNESS: It's hard to know who they 18
19 knew. But I think that was -- they feel 19
20 better themselves when they're in a group 20
21 than going by themselves, but I don't know 21
22 somebody recruiting. 22
23 BY MR. EDWARDS: 23
24 Q. Okay. And you've talked about, at least 24
25 referred to yourself I believe to the police and 25
Page 167
1 as well today as a human ATM machine. Right? 1
2 MR. CRITTON: Form. 2
3 THE WITNESS: Something like that. I was 3
4 supposed to carry cash at all times. 4
5 BY MR. EDWARDS: 5
6 Q. One of the primary reasons why you 6
7 carried cash was to pay the girls in this age 7
8 group of C. and T. for whatever happened at the 8
9 house. Right? 9
10 MR. CRITTON: Form. 10
THE WITNESS: Yes. 11
BY MR. EDWARDS: 12
Q. That's a fair statement. Right? 13
MR. CRITTON: Form.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. EDWARDS:
ay. n w .,
example, would bring somebody else to the house,
did you pay C. as well as whomever she brought to
the house, pay them both1
A. No, I pay only one person.
Q. Okay. My understanding, and tell me if
this is wrong or you can corroborate this, is that
Mr. Epstein would pay the girl that was actually
performing whatever was happening in the room --
Page 168
for now we'll call it a massage -- as well as
anybody who brought that person over to the house,
they would both get paid cash. Are you familiar
with that?
MR. CRITTON: Form.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. EDWARDS:
Q. If C. brought another girl over to the
house and C. stayed downstairs but this other girl
went upstairs with Mr. Epstein, which one would
you pay?
A. I don't know because I was told who to
pay.
Q. And Sarah Kellen always told you?
A. Sarah told me pay so and so.
Q. So if we were going to ask anybody else
about the exact method in terms of who would get
paid and for what, who would the people be? I
mean, other than Mr. Epstein who else could we ask
these questions?
A. Sarah.
Q. Sarah Kellen?
A. Yes.
Q. She would know this?
A. Yes.
Page 169
Q. What about Ghislaine Maxwell?
MR. CRITTON: Form.
THE WITNESS: You're talking about the
boss. I don't know.
BY MR. EDWARDS:
Q. To your knowledge was Ghislaine Maxwell
aware of these girls that are in the age group of
C. and T. coming to Jeffrey Epstein's house to
have a good time?
MR. CRITTON: Form.
THE WITNESS: I have to say something.
Mrs. Maxwell called me and told me not to
ever discuss or contact her again in a
threaten way.
BY MR. EDWARDS:
the friends for a job and she told me this, but,
you know, I feel intimidated and so I want to keep
her out.
Q. What exactly did she say? First of all,
was this a telephone call?
A. Yes, she was in New York.
Q. She called you on your cell phone?
A. Yes.
43 (Pages 166 to 169)
Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688
7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141
NON PARTY (VR) 000289
GIUFFRE000978
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-7 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Page 170
Q. Is this the cell phone that was issued to
you by Mr. Epstein?
A. No, it was my personal phone. I was
already --
Q. Gone?
A. Yeah, this is three, four months down the
road.
Q. So if you le~ in --
A. February, March -- it was May or June.
Q. Of 2005?
A. Yes.
Q. And you got a call from Ghislaine Maxwell
out of the blue?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you know what prompted that
telephone call?
A. Because I contact somebody in New York to
get a job.
Q. Who was that person?
A. I contact Jean-Luc and I contact Eva, the
Swedish girl, she used to be very good friends
with Mr. Epstein because she asked me she need
somebody in New York.
Q. What does Eva do?
A. Eva was a model many years ago and he
Page 171
married -- Eva is the mother of the girl who was
on the wall.
Q. Who is on the wall of Mr. Epstein's
house?
A. Yeah.
Q. All right. There is a younger girl model
that's on the wall of Mr. Epstein's house and this
lady Eva is her mother?
A. Yes.
10 Q. And at some point in time you called her
11 in New York to get a job7
12 A. That's right.
13 Q. And you also called Jean-Luc Bernell?
14 That's his name. Right?
15 A. Jean-Luc, yeah, I don't remember his last
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
name.
l,!. uoes mat sound ram111ar to you, Jean-Luc
Bernell?
A. Yeah.
Q. What did Eva and/ or Jean-Luc say about
employing you7
A. No, they said they're going to find out
and obviously the first thing they did was talk to
Mrs. Maxwell.
Q. She made a telephone call to you and what
1 precisely did she say?
Page 172 i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
A. She said I forbid you that you're going
to be -- that I will be sorry if I contact any of
her friends again.
Q. Okay. Other than you will be sorry if
you contact any of my friends again did she say
anything else about what you know about Mr.
Epstein and/ or what goes on at his house?
A. She said something like don't open your
mouth or something like that. But you have to
understand, I'm a civil humble, I came as an
immigrant to service people, and right now you
feel a little -- I'm 55 and I'm afraid. First of
all, I don't have a job, but I'm glad this is on
tape because I don't want nothing to happen to me.
This is the way they treat you, better do this and
you shut up and don't talk to nobody and --
Q. When you say this is the way they treat,
who specifically are you talking about when you
say the word they?
A. Maxwell.
Q. And usually when you say the word they,
you're not only talking about one person --
A. Wealthy people.
Q. Are you also putting Jeffrey Epstein in
Page 173
that category?
MR. CRITTON: Form.
THE WITNESS: I didn't talk to him
directly most of the time.
BY MR. EDWARDS:
6 Q. What's the reason why if you were his
7 head of security that you wouldn't have more
8 direct contact with him? Why is that?
9 MR. CRITTON: Form.
10 THE WITNESS: He wanted that way, you
11 know, so, yeah, I have to talk to Sarah,
12 Sarah is not available talk to Lesley in New
13 York. He didn't want to be disturbed.
14 BY MR. EDWARDS:
15
16
Q. Even while you were in the same house
with him he still had other people you could talk
1/ i:o Oh <C\..CIY UUL I l<C vvu;;, I IV VI'"' UI ci ''-' -:-
18 A. Yeah .
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. When you were fired you were not fired
directly by him?
A. No.
Q. It was through somebody else?
A. Ms. Maxwell.
Q. Okay. But it was for upsetting him for
taking the wrong car?
"'
,,
i
'
'
I
44 (Pages 170 to 173)
Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688
7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141
NON PARTY (VR) 000290
GIUFFRE000979
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-7 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
l/
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 174 Page 176 !'
A. Yes. 1 this. Because I went through -- the first li Q. Okay. Ever since this communication that 2 time I went to the deposition I was in Palm
Ms. Maxwell made to you where she called you 3 Beach and I did my duty, I mean, I tell what
sometime in May or June of 2005, and have you felt 4 I know, but now I know there is more ii
threatened? 5 digging, all I want is this to be to get on _'
A. Yes. 6 with my normal life and stuff.
MR. CRITTON: Form. 7 BY MR. EDWARDS:
BY MR. EDWARDS: 8 Q. So when you come here today to testify,
Q. Have you felt reluctant to come forward 9 your main objective is to get back to your normal
and give truthful, honest, and full disclosure of 10 life and get out of the spotlight of this case.
all information that you know about this case? 11 Yes?
MR. CRITTON: Form. 12 A. Yes.
THE WITNESS: I said this off the record 13 Q. And in doing so have you held back some
but I will say it on the record, being in 14 of the details that you know about that happened
the Epstein case for me resulted in two 15 in this case to remove yourself from the
years I have -- I won't bring the names but 16 spotlight?
I was in the third interview to get hired as 17 MR. CRITTON: Form.
a household manager in Palm Beach and they 18 THE WITNESS: No, sir.
told me you are the Jeffrey Epstein guy. 19 BY MR. EDWARDS:
Not in the sense I did something wrong 20 Q. Okay. Have you ever talked to Ghislaine
because of the scandal, so they shun the job 21 Maxwell after that telephone call where she cal led
away from me. And so I was afraid that -- 22 you and you felt threatened?
this is very powerful people and one phone 23 A. No.
call and you finish, so I'm the little guy. 24 Q. Okay. So going back to where we started
Even I'm wearing a tie I'm a -- I'm talking 25 here was, does Ghislaine Maxwell have knowledge of ,
Page 175 Page 177
from my heart. This is the way it is. 1 the girls that would come over to Jeffrey
BY MR. EDWARDS: 2 Epstein's house that are in roughly the same age
Q. I feel for you, I'm sorry that you have 3 group as C. and T. and to have a good time as you
to be in this position. 4 put it?
MR. CRITTON: Move to strike this. 5 MR. CRITTON: Form.
BY MR. EDWARDS: 6 THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q. Well, when you applied for these jobs and 7 BY MR. EDWARDS:
they turned you down and gave you the reason that 8 Q. And what was her involvement and/or ,,
you're the person involved in the Jeffrey Epstein 9 knowledge about that?
scandal, was it that they are associated or 10 MR. CRITTON: Form .
friends with Jeffrey Epstein or is it that you 11 THE WITNESS: She knew what was going on.
have information and you have this confidentiality 12 BY MR. EDWARDS:
but you're revealing some certain information that 13 Q. You referred to her at one point in time
Mr. Epstein would not like? 14 as Jeffrey Epstein's companion. But then later on
MR. CRITTON: Form. 15 you said that if she flew she flew on a different
THE WITNESS: Both. 16 airplane and oftentimes or sometimes she slept in
OT 1v1K. ~ 1/ a Ull1c:1c:1IL ueu 1ru1111•11. C:[J:,Lt:111. ...,;u LI•~·~~~·"
Q. Both? 18 unusual to you?
A. Both. 19 MR. CRITTON: Form.
Q. And since then given what you just told 20 THE WITNESS: It was odd but, I mean, and
us about these people being very powerful, are you 21 again, everything is odd in Palm Beach.
afraid for your life given the fact that you're 22 BY MR. EDWARDS:
involved to some extent in this case7 23 Q. Okay, I don't mean to laugh.
MR. CRITTON: Form. 24 A. Mr. Epstein fly to Jet Aviation, she fly
THE WITNESS: I just start thinking about 25 to Galaxy Aviation, but they never flew the same I\
45 (Pages 174 to 177)
Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688
7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141
NON PARTY (VR) 000291
GIUFFRE000980
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-7 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
l l
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 266
BY MR. LANGI NO:
Q. Are you currently in fear of Mr. Epstein?
A. Not at this particular moment but it's
something I have to be worry about, yes.
Q. Are you personally afraid of criminal
prosecution?
A. No.
Q. Do you believe that you did anything
illegal7
A. Illegal, no.
MR. LANGINO: I have no further
questions. Thank you.
MR. CRITTON: We're going to break in
about 15 minutes. Do you want to start and
go for 15 minutes or do you want to -- it's
up to you.
MS. EZELL: I'll start.
MR. WILLITS: When are we going to quit,
folks?
MR. CRITTON: In 15 minutes.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Might as well change
tapes.
MR. EDWARDS: Bob has to get back so
we've agreed we're going to come back some
other time.
Page 267
MR. WILLITS: Why don't we just stop now?
MS. EZELL: Okay.
MR. EDWARDS: Rather than you start.
MS. EZELL: Yeah, I won't get very far.
MR. EDWARDS: Sorry to do this with you,
we didn't finish.
MR. CRITTON: So we're stopped?
MR. EDWARDS: We're stopped.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record.
(Thereupon, the videotaped deposition was
adjourned at 5:30 p.m.)
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, )
COUNTY OF DADE. )
I, the undersigned authority, certify
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
that ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ personally appeared before
me on the 29th day of July, 2009 and was duly
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sworn.
WITNESS my hand and official seal this
31st day of July, 2009.
MICHELLE PAYNE, Court Reporter
Notary Public - State of Florida
1 CERTIFICATE
2
The State Of Florida, )
3 County Of Dade. )
4
5 I, MICHELLE PAYNE, Court Reporter and
Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at
6 large, do hereby certify that I was authorized to
and did stenographically report the videotaped
7 deposition of ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ; that a review of
the transcript was requested; and that the
8 foregoing pages, numbered from 1 to 269,
inclusive, are a true and correct transcription of
9 my stenographic notes of said deposition.
10 I further certify that said videotaped
deposition was taken at the time and place
11 hereinabove set forth and that the taking or said
videotaped deposition was commenced and completed
12 as hereinabove set out.
13 I further certify that r am not an
attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am
14 I a relative or employee of any attorney or
counsel of party connected with the action, nor am
15 I financially interested in the action.
l b I ne 1oregomg cer111 1cat1on o: mis
transcript does not apply to any reproduction of
17 the same by any means unless under the direct
control and/or direction of the certifying
18 reporter.
19 DATED this 31st day of July, 2009.
20
21
22
23
24
25
MlCHELLE PAYNE, Court Reporter
Page 269
68 (Pages 266 to 269)
Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688
7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141
NON PARTY (VR) 000314
GIUFFRE00 1003
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-7 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 9
1
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Virginia L. Giuffre,
Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
v.
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant.
________________________________/
PLAINTIFF’S NON-REDACTED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE THREE
DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS BY MEANS OTHER THAN PERSONAL SERVICE
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this
Motion for Leave to Serve Three Deposition Subpoenas by Means Other Than Personal Service.
The three persons to be subpoenaed – Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova –
were each involved in the sexual abuse and sexual trafficking at issue in this case. It appears that
all three of them have evaded attempts to personally serve them (and two of the persons, Epstein
and Kellen, have attorneys who have not been authorized by their clients to accept service). Ms.
Giuffre seeks leave to provide service by several alternative means that are designed to assure
actual notice is provided to these persons. See Declaration of Sigrid McCawley (“McCawley
Decl.”) at Composite Exhibit 1, Subpoenas for Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen (aka Sarah
Kensington and Sarah Vickers) and Nadia Marcinkova. This Court has repeatedly held that Fed.
R. Civ. P. 45 permits alternative service in appropriate circumstances, and this case presents such
circumstances. Accordingly, the Court should grant Ms. Giuffre leave to serve deposition
subpoenas by alternative means.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 12
2
BACKGROUND
At the heart of this case lies Ms. Giuffre’s allegations that that she was sexually abused
by Jeffrey Epstein and the Defendant. Ms. Giuffre has also alleged that Epstein and the
Defendant were aided by others who played keys roles in the sex trafficking organization,
including Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova. Defendant has called Ms. Giuffre a “liar” and
Ms. Giuffre is now in the process of assembling testimony and evidence to prove the truth of her
allegations.
Apart from the Defendant in this case, Jeffrey Epstein is the most important person for
Ms. Giuffre to depose. It was Epstein who gave the directions to Maxwell to recruit Ms. Giuffre
and bring her to Epstein’s mansions to be sexually abused. At several points during her recent
deposition, Ms. Maxwell refused to answer Ms. Giuffre’s questions about Epstein, but instead
told her she should go ask Epstein about the subject. See, e.g., Tr. of Depo. of Defendant (Apr.
22, 2016) at 100 (“Q: … [W]as it Jeffrey’s preference to start a massage with sex? . . . A: I think
you should ask that question of Jeffrey.”); id. at 146-47 (“Q: So would [Ms. Giuffre] be brought
on trips that were for the purpose of work and decorating the house? A: Like I said, I never
worked with her but you would have to ask Jeffrey what he brought her on the trip for.”); id. at
389-90 (“Q: Does [Epstein] . . . have any knowledge of any illegal activity that you’ve
conducted? . . . A: If you want to ask Jeffrey questions about me, you would have to ask him.”).
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2.
Because of Epstein’s importance to this case, Ms. Giuffre has diligently tried to
personally serve Epstein with a subpoena for his deposition. Epstein, however, appears to have
no interest in answering questions under oath about the scope of his sex trafficking organization
and he has not authorized his lawyer to accept service of the subpoena. On March 7, 2016, Ms.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 12
3
Giuffre’s counsel contacted counsel for Epstein to seek agreement that he would accept service
of the subpoena in this matter. See McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit 3, Electronic
Correspondence to Attorney Marty Weinberg. Ms. Giuffre was unable to obtain that agreement
so she retained an investigative company to attempt to locate Epstein for purposes of personal
service1
. As explained in the attached affidavit, the Alpha Group Investigators commenced
efforts to personally serve Epstein on April 26, 2016. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4
Affidavit of Douglas G. Mercer, Chief Investigator Alpha Group. Those efforts have continued
for weeks, and included over sixteen (16) attempts to personally serve Epstein, including as
recently as May 18, 2016, at which time the investigator affixed the subpoena to the front door of
Epstein’s residence and mailed copies of the subpoena to both of his New York addresses along
with a witness check. Counsel for Ms. Giuffre also provided a copy of the subpoena to Marty
Weinberg, Epstein’s attorney.
Jeffrey Epstein is not the only key witness who has been evading Ms. Giuffre’s efforts to
depose them. The next echelon in the sex trafficking organization below Epstein and the
Defendant includes Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova. Ms. Giuffre alleges that they were
heavily involved in the sex trafficking. Both Kellen and Marcinkova appear repeatedly on the
flight logs of Jeffrey Epstein’s aircraft. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of
Florida specifically identified both Kellen and Marcinkova as among four named “potential coconspirators of Epstein” in the non-prosecution agreement it executed with Epstein as part of his
guilty plea to Florida state sex offense charges. See Non-Prosecution Agreement, In re:
Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein at 7. Additionally, both Kellen and Marcinkova previously

1 As recently as today, Ms. Giuffre’s counsel continues to attempt to negotiate acceptance of service of
the subpoena for Mr. Epstein, which now includes a request that his deposition take place in the U.S.
Virgin Islands but has still not received an agreement to accept service. See McCawley Decl. at
Composite Exhibit 3, Correspondence with Marty Weinberg, counsel for Jeffrey Epstein.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 12
4
invoked their 5th amendment privileges when asked about their involvement in Epstein and
Defendant’s sex trafficking ring. At her recent deposition, Defendant appeared to be well aware
of the fact that Epstein had potential co-conspirators. See,e.g., Tr. of Depo. of Defendant (Apr.
22, 2016) at 49 (“Q: Are you aware that Sarah Kellen was . . . named as a co-conspirator in the
case involving Jeffrey Epstein? . . . A: I am aware.”). See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2.
As with Epstein, however, Kellen and Marcinkova appear to be evading efforts to serve
them. On March 31, 2016, Ms. Giuffre’s counsel reached out to Sarah Kellen’s counsel to seek
agreement that she would accept service of the subpoena in this matter. See McCawley Decl. at
Exhibit 5, Electronic Correspondence with Bruce Reinhart, of McDonald Hopkins, LLP in West
Palm Beach, Florida. Mr. Reinhart represented that Ms. Kellen refused to allow her counsel to
accept service of the subpoena, so Ms. Giuffre was forced to commence the efforts to attempt to
personally serve her with the subpoena. As explained in the attached affidavit, the Alpha Group
Investigators commenced efforts to personally serve Kellen on April 26, 2016. See McCawley
Decl. at 4, Affidavit of Douglas G. Mercer, Chief Investigator Alpha Group. Those efforts have
continued with over nineteen (19) attempts at service and concluded as recently as May 18,
2016, at which time the investigator affixed the subpoena to the front door of Kellen’s residence
and mailed copies of the subpoena to both of her New York addresses. Ms. Giuffre’s counsel
also provided a copy of the subpoena to Kellen’s attorney.
Marcinkova has also been evading service. Ms. Giuffre has had her investigators make
efforts to attempt to personally serve Marcinkova at her New York residence, and also made
efforts to try to personally serve her while on a trip to California, but has been unable to obtain
personal service. Ms. Giuffre’s investigators made over ten (10) attempts to personally serve
Marcinkova. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, Affidavit of Douglas G. Mercer, Chief
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 12
5
Investigator Alpha Group. In addition, counsel for Ms. Giuffre reached out to Ms. Marcinkova’s
former counsel but he indicated that he could not accept service as he no longer represents her.
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 6, Electronic Correspondence with Jack Goldberger, at
Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A., in West Palm Beach, Florida.
In other litigation relating to Jeffrey Epstein, both Marcinkova and Kellen asserted their
fifth amendment rights when asked questions about Defendant’s recruitment of underage girls.
Q Do you know Ghislaine Maxwell?
A Fifth.
Q Is that somebody who helped Jeffrey Epstein to devise the scheme to allow him
access to various and a variety of underage minor females?
A Fifth.
Q Is Sarah Kellen somebody that was also involved in the planning of this scheme
to gain access to underage minor females?
A Fifth.
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7, Nadia Marcinkova April 13, 2010 Dep. Tr. at p. 29-30
(GIUFFRE001171-1172)
Q Isn’t it true that yourself, Ghislaine Maxwell and Sarah Kellen had access to a
master of list of underage minor females names and phone numbers so they could
be called for the purpose of coming to Jeffrey Epstein’s house to be sexually
molested?
A Fifth.
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7, Nadia Marcinkova April 13, 2010 Dep. Tr. at p. 33-34
(GIUFFRE001173)
Q Do you know Jane Doe-102 [Virginia Giuffre]?
A Fifth.
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7, Nadia Marcinkova April 13, 2010 Dep. Tr. at p. 47-48
(GIUFFRE001176)
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 12
6
Q Are you aware of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s sexual interaction
with Jane Doe-102 when she was a minor?
Q This is one of many underage minor females that was trafficked basically
around the globe to be sexually exploited and abused; is that correct?
A Fifth.
Q Was that typical of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to sexually abuse
minors on Jeffrey Epstein’s airplane?
A Fifth.
Q And also typical of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein to prostitute or pimp
out underage minors to friends?
A Fifth.
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7, Nadia Marcinkova April 13, 2010 Dep. Tr. at p. 47-48
(GIUFFRE001176)
Q Ghislaine Maxwell is somebody who you know to be bi-sexual, true?
A Fifth.
Q You know that Ghislaine Maxwell engaged in sexual acts with underage minor
females, true?
A Fifth.
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7, Nadia Marcinkova April 13, 2010 Dep. Tr. at p. 58-59
(GIUFFRE001179)
Q. Did Ghislaine Maxwell introduce you to Jeffrey Epstein for the first time?
THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth
Amendment right.
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 8, Sarah Kellen March 24, 2010 Dep. Tr. p.21
(GIUFFRE001676)
Q. All right. All right. Ms. Kellen, would you agree with me that there was an
agreement between Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Jean-Luc Brunel,
yourself and Nadia Marcinkova to bring in girls from out of state that were
underage?
THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my
lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right.
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 8, Sarah Kellen March 24, 2010 Dep. Tr. p. 38
(GIUFFRE001680)
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 12
7
Q. Would you agree with me that Ghislaine Maxwell provides underage girls to
Mr. Epstein for sex?
THE WITNESS: Upon the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth
Amendment privilege.
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 8, Sarah Kellen March 24, 2010 Dep. Tr. p. 100
(GIUFFRE001695). Both Marcinkova and Kellen are key witnesses in this action because they
were present with Mr. Epstein and Maxwell during the time period when Virginia Giuffre was
with Epstein and Maxwell.
ARGUMENT
A. The Court Should Permit Alternative Service
In the unique circumstances of this case, this Court should grant Ms. Giuffre leave to
serve Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen, and Nadia Marcincova via means other than personal
service, because they are evading service of process and there are other means to assure actual
notice. Under Rule 45(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[s]erving a subpoena
requires delivering a copy to the named person . . . .” The purpose of “requiring delivery to a
named person is to ‘ensure receipt, so that notice will be provided to the recipient, and
enforcement of the subpoena will be consistent with the requirements of due process.’”
Aristocrat Leisure Ltd. v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, 262 F.R.D. 293, 304 (S.D.N.Y.
2009) (quoting Med. Diagnostic Imaging, PLLC v. CareCore Nat., LLC, Nos. 06 Civ. 7764 & 06
Civ. 13516, 2008 WL 3833238, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.15, 2008) (internal quotation marks
omitted)). See also First City, Texas-Houston, N.A. v. Rafidain Bank, 197 F.R.D. 250, 255
(S.D.N.Y.2000) (finding that attaching a subpoena to the door, and mailing another copy to
counsel of record was sufficient). Cases not only from this Court, but also from others in the
Second Circuit, have interpreted that rule “liberally” to allow service so long as the “the type of
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 12
8
service used ‘was calculated to provide timely actual notice.’” Aristocrat Leisure Ltd., 262
F.R.D. at 304 (quoting CareCore, 2008 WL 3833238, at *2 (noting that “nothing in the word
‘delivering’ [in Rule 45(b)(1)] indicates personal service, and a personal service requirement can
be unduly restrictive”); see also Cordius Trust v. Kummerfeld, No. 99 Civ. 3200, 2000 WL
10268, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2000) (holding that because “alternative service by means of
certified mail reasonably insures actual receipt of the subpoena by the witness, the ‘delivery’
requirement of Rule 45 will be met”); JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. IDW Grp., LLC, No. 08
CIV. 9116(PGG), 2009 WL 1313259, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2009) (“this Court joins other
courts in this District in holding that effective service [of a deposition subpoena] under Rule 45
is not limited to personal service” (internal quotation omitted).
A prerequisite for using means other than personal service is typically that the party
“requesting the accommodation diligently attempted to effectuate personal service.” OceanFirst
Bank v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 794 F. Supp. 2d 752, 754 (E.D. Mich. 2011) (citing Franklin v.
State Farm Afire and Casualty Co., 2009 WL 3152993, at *2 (E.D. Mich. 2009). Here, Ms.
Giuffre has diligently attempted to make personal service on each of the three individuals,
having made multiple attempts to personal service them, including going to different locations at
different times on different days, and attempting to reach them through their attorneys. See
McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, Affidavit of Douglas G. Mercer, Chief Investigator Alpha Group.
Indeed, it appears that the only reason that personal service has been unsuccessful thus far is that
the important witnesses Ms. Giuffre is attempting to serve are fully aware of her efforts and are
attempting to evade service. This Court will recall that efforts to evade service are a familiar
practice of Jeffrey Epstein and his colleagues. As described in earlier pleadings in this case, for
example, the Defendant herself refused to comply with a deposition subpoena in an earlier case
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 12
9
brought by one of Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual assault victims. See Decl. of Sigrid McCawley at
Composite Exhibit 9, Maxwell Deposition Notice; Subpoena and Cancellation Payment Notice,
and January 13, 2015 Daily Mail Article.
Ms. Giuffre proposes that she be permitted to serve her deposition notices by means other
than personal service. Ms. Giuffre asks this Court to rule that she be permitted to serve each of
the three individuals in ways that are reasonably calculated to give them actual notice. The
specific means that Ms. Giuffre proposes are the means that her investigators took on May 18th
of posting the subpoenas to the addresses associated with each of the witnesses and mailing the
subpoenas to those addresses with the witness fee check and providing copies of the subpoenas
via e-mail to the witnesses known counsel. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, Affidavit of
Douglas G. Mercer, Chief Investigator Alpha Group.
Means such as those described above have been approved by this Court in other cases.
For example, in Medical Diagnostic Imaging, PLLC v. Carecore National, LLC, 2008 WL
3833238 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (Katz, J.), this Court allowed service of a deposition subpoena to be
made through mailing a copy of the subpoena to the witness’ place of employment along with a
copy of the Court’s order directing the witness to comply with the subpoena or face sanctions.
Id. at *3. Similarly, in JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. IDW Grp., LLC, No. 08 CIV. 9116(PGG),
2009 WL 1313259, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2009), this Court allowed service of a deposition
subpoena to be made by sending a copy of the deposition subpoena to the witness’ place of
business and residence by certified mail; leaving a copy of the deposition subpoena at the
witness’ residence and place of business with a person of suitable age and discretion; and
remitting a copy of the deposition subpoena by electronic mail and certified mail to counsel for a
related corporation. And, in at least two cases, this Court has found that certified mailing of a
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 12
10
subpoena to the witness alone satisfies Rule 45. See Cordius Trust v.. Kummerfeld, 1999 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 19980, *5–*6 (S.D.N.Y.1999); Ultradent Products, Inc. v. Hayman, No. M8-85 RPP,
2002 WL 31119425, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2002). Here, the means of service exceed those
approved in those other cases and should be permitted.
CONCLUSION
Ms. Giuffre should be granted leave to serve Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen, and Nadia
Marcincova with deposition subpoenas by means other than personal service. As Ms. Giuffre
has made multiple attempts at personal service, Ms. Giuffre should be granted leave to serve
deposition subpoenas by the means employed by her investigators of posting the subpoenas to
the known locations and also sending the subpoenas via U.S. mail.
Dated: May 25, 2016
Respectfully Submitted,
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
 By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley
Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
Meredith Schultz (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
Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice)
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
(954) 524-2820
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 12
11
Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
S.J. Quinney College of Law
University of Utah
383 University St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
(801) 585-52022

2 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only
and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private
representation.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 12
12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 25th day of May, 2016, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system.
Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
Tel: (303) 831-7364
Fax: (303) 832-2628
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
Copies of this filing were also provided by e-mail to:
Marty Weinberg, counsel for Jeffrey Epstein
Bruce Reinhart counsel for Sarah Kellen
/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley
 Sigrid S. McCawley
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 12
EXHIBIT C
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 10
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson
JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2
v.
UNITED STATES
__________________________/
JANE DOE #3 AND JANE DOE #4’S MOTION PURSUANT TO RULE 21 FOR
JOINDER IN ACTION
COME NOW Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4 (also referred to as “the new victims”), by and
through undersigned counsel, to file this motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21
to join this action, on the condition that they not re-litigate any issues already litigated by Jane
Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as “the current victims”). The new victims have
suffered the same violations of their rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) as the
current victims. Accordingly, they desire to join in this action to vindicate their rights as well.
Because the new victims will not re-litigate any issues previously litigated by the current victims
(and because they are represented by the same legal counsel as the current victims), the
Government will not be prejudiced if the Court grants the motion. The Court may “at any time”
add new parties to the action, Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Accordingly, the Court should grant the
motion.1
1 As minor victims of sexual offenses, Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4 desire to proceed by
way of pseudonym for the same reasons that Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 proceeded in this
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 1 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 10
2
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
As the Court is aware, more than six years ago, Jane Doe #1 filed the present action
against the Government, alleging a violation of her rights under the CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771.
DE1. She alleged that Jeffrey Epstein had sexually abused her and that the United States had
entered into a secret non-prosecution agreement (NPA) regarding those crimes in violation of her
rights. At the first court hearing on the case, the Court allowed Jane Doe #2 to also join the
action. Both Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 specifically argued that the government had failed to
protect their CVRA rights (inter alia) to confer, to reasonable notice, and to be treated with
fairness. In response, the Government argued that the CVRA rights did not apply to Jane Doe #1
and Jane Doe #2 because no federal charges had ever been filed against Jeffrey Epstein.
The Court has firmly rejected the United States’ position. In a detailed ruling, the Court
concluded that the CVRA extended rights to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 even though federal
charges were never filed. DE 189. The Court explained that because the NPA barred
prosecution of crimes committed against them by Epstein, they had “standing” to assert
violations of the CVRA rights. Id. The Court deferred ruling on whether the two victims would
be entitled to relief, pending development of a fuller evidentiary record. Id.
Two other victims, who are in many respects similarly situated to the current victims,
now wish to join this action. The new victims joining at this stage will not cause any delay and
their joinder in this case is the most expeditious manner in which to pursue their rights. Because
the background regarding their abuse is relevant to the Court’s assessment of whether to allow
them to join, their circumstances are recounted here briefly.
fashion. Counsel for the new victims have made their true identities known to the Government.
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 2 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 10
3
Jane Doe #3’s Circumstances
As with Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, Jane Doe #3 was repeatedly sexually abused by
Epstein. The Government then concealed from Jane Doe #3 the existence of its NPA from Jane
Doe #3, in violation of her rights under the CVRA. If allowed to join this action, Jane Doe #3
would prove the following:
In 1999, Jane Doe #3 was approached by Ghislaine Maxwell, one of the main women
whom Epstein used to procure under-aged girls for sexual activities and a primary co-conspirator
in his sexual abuse and sex trafficking scheme. In fact, it became known to the government that
Maxwell herself regularly participated in Epstein’s sexual exploitation of minors, including Jane
Doe #3. Maxwell persuaded Jane Doe #3 (who was then fifteen years old) to come to Epstein’s
mansion in a fashion very similar to the manner in which Epstein and his other co-conspirators
coerced dozens of other children (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2). When Jane Doe #3
began giving Epstein a “massage,” Epstein and Maxwell turned it into a sexual encounter, as
they had done with many other victims. Epstein then became enamored with Jane Doe #3, and
with the assistance of Maxwell converted her into what is commonly referred to as a “sex slave.”
Epstein kept Jane Doe #3 as his sex slave from about 1999 through 2002, when she managed to
escape to a foreign country and hide out from Epstein and his co-conspirators for years. From
1999 through 2002, Epstein frequently sexually abused Jane Doe #3, not only in West Palm
Beach, but also in New York, New Mexico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, in international airspace on
his Epstein’s private planes, and elsewhere.
Epstein also sexually trafficked the then-minor Jane Doe, making her available for sex to
politically-connected and financially-powerful people. Epstein’s purposes in “lending” Jane Doe
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 3 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 10
4
(along with other young girls) to such powerful people were to ingratiate himself with them for
business, personal, political, and financial gain, as well as to obtain potential blackmail
information.
One such powerful individual that Epstein forced then-minor Jane Doe #3 to have sexual
relations with was former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein’s
and well-known criminal defense attorney. Epstein required Jane Doe #3 to have sexual
relations with Dershowitz on numerous occasions while she was a minor, not only in Florida but
also on private planes, in New York, New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In addition to
being a participant in the abuse of Jane Doe #3 and other minors, Deshowitz was an eye-witness
to the sexual abuse of many other minors by Epstein and several of Epstein’s co-conspirators.
Dershowitz would later play a significant role in negotiating the NPA on Epstein’s behalf.
Indeed, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement that provided immunity from federal
prosecution in the Southern District of Florida not only to Epstein, but also to “any potential coconspirators of Epstein.” NPA at 5. Thus, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement with a
provision that provided protection for himself against criminal prosecution in Florida for
sexually abusing Jane Doe #3. Because this broad immunity would have been controversial if
disclosed, Dershowitz (along with other members of Epstein’s defense team) and the
Government tried to keep the immunity provision secret from all of Epstein’s victims and the
general public, even though such secrecy violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act.
Ghislaine Maxwell was another person in Epstein’s inner circle and a co-conspirator in
Epstein’s sexual abuse. She was someone who consequently also appreciated the immunity
granted by the NPA for the crimes she committed in Florida. In addition to participating in the
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 4 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 10
5
sexual abuse of Jane Doe #3 and others, Maxwell also took numerous sexually explicit pictures
of underage girls involved in sexual activities, including Jane Doe #3. She shared these
photographs (which constituted child pornography under applicable federal laws) with Epstein.
The Government is apparently aware of, and in certain instances possesses some of these
photographs.
Perhaps even more important to her role in Epstein’s sexual abuse ring, Maxwell had
direct connections to other powerful individuals with whom she could connect Epstein. For
instance, one such powerful individual Epstein forced Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with
was a member of the British Royal Family, Prince Andrew (a/k/a Duke of York). Jane Doe #3
was forced to have sexual relations with this Prince when she was a minor in three separate
geographical locations: in London (at Ghislaine Maxwell’s apartment), in New York, and on
Epstein’s private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands (in an orgy with numerous other under-aged
girls). Epstein instructed Jane Doe #3 that she was to give the Prince whatever he demanded and
required Jane Doe #3 to report back to him on the details of the sexual abuse. Maxwell
facilitated Prince Andrew’s acts of sexual abuse by acting as a “madame” for Epstein, thereby
assisting in internationally trafficking Jane Doe #3 (and numerous other young girls) for sexual
purposes.
Another person in Epstein’s inner circle of friends (who becomes apparent with almost
no investigative effort) is Jean Luc Brunel. Epstein sexually trafficked Jane Doe #3 to Jean Luc
Brunel many times. Brunel was another of Epstein’s closest friends and a regular traveling
companion, who had many contacts with young girls throughout the world. Brunel has been a
model scout for various modeling agencies for many years and apparently was able to get U.S.
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 5 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 10
6
passports for young girls to “work” as models. He would bring young girls (ranging to ages as
young as twelve) to the United States for sexual purposes and farm them out to his friends,
especially Epstein. Brunel would offer the girls “modeling” jobs. Many of the girls came from
poor countries or impoverished backgrounds, and he lured them in with a promise of making
good money. Epstein forced Jane Doe #3 to observe him, Brunel and Maxwell engage in illegal
sexual acts with dozens of underage girls. Epstein also forced Jane Doe #3 to have sex with
Brunel on numerous occasions, at places including Epstein’s mansion in West Palm Beach, Little
St. James Island in the U.S. Virgin Islands (many including orgies that were comprised of other
underage girls), New York City, New Mexico, Paris, the south of France, and California.
Epstein also trafficked Jane Doe #3 for sexual purposes to many other powerful men,
including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign
presidents, a well-known Prime Minister, and other world leaders. Epstein required Jane Doe #3
to describe the events that she had with these men so that he could potentially blackmail them.
The Government was well aware of Jane Doe #3 when it was negotiating the NPA, as it
listed her as a victim in the attachment to the NPA. Moreover, even a rudimentary investigation
of Jane Doe #3’s relationship to Epstein would have revealed the fact that she had been
trafficked throughout the United States and internationally for sexual purposes. Nonetheless, the
Government secretly negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein precluding any
Federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida of Epstein and his co-conspirators. As
with Jane Doe #1, and Jane Doe #2, the Government concealed the non-prosecution agreement
from Jane Doe #3 – all in violation of her rights under the CVRA – to avoid Jane Doe #3 from
raising powerful objections to the NPA that would have shed tremendous public light on Epstein
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 6 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 10
7
and other powerful individuals and that would likely have been prevented it from being
concluded in the secretive manner in which it was.
Jane Doe #4’s Circumstances
If permitted to join this action, Jane Doe #4 would allege, and could prove at trial, that
she has CVRA claims similar to those advanced by Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, based on the
following:
As with the other Jane Does, Jane Doe #4 was repeatedly sexually abused by Epstein. In
or around the summer of 2002, Jane Doe #4, an economically poor and vulnerable sixteen-yearold child, was told by another one of Epstein’s underage minor sex abuse victims, that she could
make $300 cash by giving an old man a massage on Palm Beach. An acquaintance of Jane Doe
#4 (also a minor sexual abuse victim of Epstein) telephoned Epstein and scheduled Jane Doe #4
to go to Epstein’s house to give him a massage. During that call, Epstein himself got on the
phone (a means of interstate communication) with Jane Doe #4, asking her personally to come to
his mansion in Palm Beach.
Jane Doe #4 then went to Epstein’s mansion and was escorted upstairs to Epstein’s large
bathroom by one of Epstein’s assistants. Shortly thereafter Jeffrey Epstein emerged and lay face
down on the table and told Jane Doe #4 to start massaging him. Epstein asked Jane Doe #3 her
age and she told him she had recently turned sixteen. Epstein subsequently committed illegal
sexual acts against Jane Doe #4 on many occasions.
Epstein used a means of interstate communication (i.e., a cell phone) to arrange for these
sexual encounters. Epstein also frequently travelled in interstate commerce (i.e., on his personal
jet) for purposes of illegally sexually abusing Jane Doe #4.
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 7 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 10
12
January. In the meantime, however, counsel for the victims believe that it is no longer
appropriate to delay filing this motion and accordingly file it at this time. Because the
Government is apparently opposing this motion, Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4 have described
the circumstances surrounding their claims so that the Court has appropriate information to rule
on the motion.
CONCLUSION
Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4 should be allowed to join this action, pursuant to Rule 21
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Their joinder should be conditioned on the requirement
that they not re-litigate any issues previously litigated by Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. A
proposed order to that effect is attached to this pleading.
DATED: December 30, 2014
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Bradley J. Edwards
Bradley J. Edwards
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone (954) 524-2820
Facsimile (954) 524-2822
E-mail: [email protected]
And
Paul G. Cassell
Pro Hac Vice
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the
University of Utah
332 S. 1400 E.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Telephone: 801-585-5202
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 12 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 10
13
Facsimile: 801-585-6833
E-Mail: [email protected]
Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the foregoing document was served on December 30, 2014, on the following
using the Court’s CM/ECF system:
Dexter Lee
A. Marie Villafaña
500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
(561) 820-8711
Fax: (561) 820-8777
E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
Attorneys for the Government
/s/ Bradley J. Edwards
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 13 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 10
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Virginia L. Giuffre,
Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
v.
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant.
________________________________/
PLAINTIFF’S NON-REDACTED MOTION TO EXCEED PRESUMPTIVE TEN
DEPOSITION LIMIT IN FEDERAL RULE CIVIL PROCEDURE 30(A)(2)(a)(ii)
Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice)
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 356-0011
David Boies
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice)
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Tel: (954) 524-2820
Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
S.J. Quinney College of Law
University of Utah
383 University St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Tel: (801) 585-52021

1 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is
not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 28
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................................................... ii
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND .............................................................................................2
A. Depositions Taken Thus Far By Ms. Giuffre. .........................................................4
1. Ghislaine Maxwell (7 Hours) ......................................................................4
2. Johanna Sjoberg (3 ½ Hours). .....................................................................9
B. Future Depositions Sought By Ms. Giuffre...........................................................11
3. Juan Alessi (3 ½ Hours). ...........................................................................11
4. Maria Alessi (3 ½ Hours) ..........................................................................12
5. David Rodgers (3 ½ Hours).......................................................................12
6. Rinaldo Rizzo (3 ½ Hours)........................................................................12
7. Jean Luc Brunel (3 ½ Hours). ...................................................................13
8. Ross Gow (3 ½ Hours). .............................................................................13
9. Dana Burns (3 ½ Hours)............................................................................13
10. Jo Jo Fontanella (3 ½ Hours).....................................................................13
11. Detective Joe Recarey (3 ½ Hours)...........................................................14
12. Michael Reiter (3 ½ Hours).......................................................................14
13. Emmy Taylor (3 ½ Hours). .......................................................................15
14. Alexandra Hall (3 ½ Hours). .....................................................................15
15. Nadia Marcinkova (3 ½ Hours).................................................................16
16. Sarah Kellen Vickers (3 ½ Hours). ...........................................................16
17. Jeffrey Epstein (3 ½ Hours).......................................................................17
II. DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................17
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 28
ii
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................22
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 28
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
Cases
In re Weatherford International Sec. Litigation,
No. 11 CIV. 1646 (LAK) (JCF), 2013 WL 5762923 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2013).......................19
LiButti v. United States,
107 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 1997) ......................................................................................................21
Raniola v. Bratton,
243 F.3d 610 (2d Cir. 2001) ......................................................................................................19
Scott v. City of Sioux City, Iowa,
298 F.R.D. 400 (N.D. Iowa 2014).............................................................................................19
Other Authorities
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 29 ...............................................................................................17
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 ...............................................................................................19
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 28
1
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this
motion to take approximately seven additional depositions in this case beyond the presumptive
ten deposition limit. Ms. Giuffre’s requests is still within the total number of hours allowed by
the ten deposition limit because the parties have agreed that they will split the time for all third
party witnesses such that Ms. Giuffre will only be expending at most 3 ½ hours at those
additional depositions. In an abundance of caution, even though Ms. Giuffre will not likely be
exceeding the total number of hours allowed for depositions, she seeks leave from this Court to
confirm that she may proceed with the additional depositions for the reasons stated below.
Ms. Giuffre has alleged that Defendant recruited females for Mr. Epstein, including
underage females like herself, under the guise of working in a legitimate position - such as an
assistant or as a massage therapist - only to almost immediately be coerced or enticed into
engaging in sex for money. Defendant has challenged the veracity of Ms. Giuffre, and appears
to intend to argue that Ms. Giuffre cannot support the allegation that Ms. Maxwell recruited
females for Mr. Epstein or that the females were coerced or enticed into sex. The sexual abuse
that lies at the heart of this case took place behind closed doors – doors of Jeffrey Epstein’s
various private mansions. Unsurprisingly, Ms. Giuffre must find supporting circumstantial
evidence to support her claims. Moreover, because Mr. Epstein and Defendant were travelling
between Mr. Epstein's numerous homes and thus many of the events relevant to this case took
place more than 100 miles from the courthouse, Ms. Giuffre cannot compel most of the
witnesses to appear via a trial subpoena. Accordingly, Ms. Giuffre seeks leave to take more than
the standard ten depositions in this case. At this time, she seeks leave to take seven additional
depositions, as articulated below.2

2 Ms. Giuffre’s counsel met and conferred with Defendant’s counsel both in person and by phone in an
effort to obtain agreement to proceed with these depositions but was unable to obtain an agreement. See
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 28
2
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Court is aware of the scope of this case from earlier pleadings and numerous
hearings. Initially, Ms. Giuffre anticipated the scope of discovery on this case would be narrow,
because many of the events (such as flying to London on one of Epstein’s planes with Maxwell)
were supported by seemingly indisputable evidence, such as flight logs, and because the
Defendant’s counsel initially suggested that she may invoke her Fifth Amendment rights.
Instead, during her recent deposition, Defendant simply failed to recall many of the most
significant events in this case or refused to respond directly to many important questions. As a
result, Ms. Giuffre is now in a position where she has to call multiple witnesses to establish
fundamental facts in the case. For example, Defendant would not even admit that the initials
“GM” which are on the private plane flight logs over 300 times, represent her initials for

McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, May 17, 2016 Email Correspondence from Sigrid McCawley to Laura
Menninger and Jeff Pagliuca with proposed deposition calendar. Ms. Giuffre’s ability to determine
exactly which depositions would need to be taken was hamstrung by the Defendant’s refusal to sit for her
deposition. As the Court will recall, Ms. Giuffre made efforts to set Defendant’s deposition starting in
February 2016, yet Defendant did not sit for her deposition until after being ordered by the Court on April
22, 2016. During that deposition, Defendant refused to answer a number of questions and refused to
acknowledge basic facts in this case, thereby causing Ms. Giuffre to have to depose a number of
unanticipated witnesses. Ms. Giuffre’s counsel started conferring with Defendant’s counsel in February
2016 and has actively engaged in discussion about these depositions that Ms. Giuffre knew she needed to
take. On May 9, 2016, the parties conferred regarding deposition scheduling and Ms. Giuffre noticed
depositions in accordance with the dates and locations that Defendant’s counsel said were available, and,
on May 17, 2016, provided her with a calendar outlining those dates. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1,
May 17, 2016 Email Correspondence from Sigrid McCawley. Ms. Maxwell waited until one day before
the first deposition scheduled to take place on May 31, 2016 to inform Ms. Giuffre’s counsel that she
refuses to attend the deposition of this subpoenaed witness unless Ms. Giuffre drops her request to seek
additional depositions by way of this motion. “If you intend to seek more than 10 depositions or to
continue the discovery cut-off post July 1, then we will not be appearing at the depositions next week…”
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, May 27, 2016 e-mail Correspondence from Laura Menninger to
Bradley Edwards. This obstruction of discovery by refusing to attend subpoenaed depositions that were
noticed to her about one month ago on May 4, 2016 should not be condoned. See McCawley Decl. at
Exhibit 3, May 4, 2016 Notice of Service and Subpoena to Juan Alessi. Defendant’s counsel is also
apparently refusing to appear at the other two depositions set for next week, of Maria Alessi set for
Wednesday, June 1, 2016 and originally noticed on May 4, 2016 and Dave Rodgers set for Friday, June 3,
2016 and originally noticed on May 4, 2016. While Ms. Giuffre had originally hoped to be able to
conclude discovery on July 1, 2016, Defendant’s refusal to attend depositions and agree to scheduling is
putting Ms. Giuffre in a position where she will need additional time to complete discovery. See
McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, May 26, 2016 Letter from Sigrid McCawley.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 28
3
Ghislaine Maxwell. Therefore, Ms. Giuffre is now required to take the deposition of pilot Dave
Rodgers to authenticate his pilot logs and the identity of the individuals on various flights.
In addition, as the Court knows, this case involves allegations that Ms. Giuffre was a
victim of sexual abuse when she was under the age of 18 after being recruited by Ghislaine
Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. Ms. Giuffre has alleged that Defendant recruited her and other
young females, unexperienced in massage, for sex with Jeffrey Epstein by lying to them and
telling them that the job was to be her personal assistant or a massage therapist. That was a ruse.
Instead, Defendant recruited these females for sex with Jeffrey Epstein and, often, with herself,
and “massage” was a euphemism for sex in Defendant’s household. Defendant has stated that
these claims are obvious lies.
Aside from the deposition of the Defendant, Ms. Giuffre has taken the deposition of one
other witness, Johanna Sjoberg, on May 18, 2016. Ms. Sjoberg testified that, while a twentyyear-old college student with no massage training, Ms. Maxwell, a stranger to her, approached
her on her college campus, and told her she would hire Ms. Sjoberg as her personal assistant.
After Ms. Sjoberg began to work for Defendant inside the home she shared with Epstein,
Defendant revealed that Ms. Sjoberg’s true “job” was to complete sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein.
Defendant was explicit with her instructions, at one point scolding Ms. Sjoberg for failing to
“finish [her] job” after Ms. Sjoberg massaged Epstein without completing the sex act, and
because of this failure, Defendant, instead, had to “finish [her] job for her” and cause Epstein and
complete the sex act. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, Deposition of Johanna Sjoberg.
Accordingly, in this manner, Ms. Giuffre needs to depose other witnesses to show the veracity of
her claim that Defendant recruited young females, unexperienced in massage, for sex with
Jeffrey Epstein, proving that Defendant was lying when she called Ms. Giuffre a liar, and knew
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 28
4
at the time she made the defamatory statement that it was untrue. Testimony like that from Ms.
Sjoberg’s refutes Defendant’s testimony, and goes to her credibility, and goes to the claim at the
center of this case.
Additionally, to prove Ms. Giuffre’s allegations, that span multiple years, on multiple
continents, and multiple locations, Ms. Giuffre has arranged a series of depositions of persons
with direct knowledge of the relevant issues. To prove her case, Ms. Giuffre believes that a
minimum of seventeen depositions will be required. In reviewing this list of depositions, it is
important to understand that only one of them – the Defendant’s – will consume a full seven
hours of questioning by Ms. Giuffre’s counsel, as permitted under the rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
30(d)(1). Apart from the Defendant’s deposition, all of the other depositions set by Ms. Giuffre
have been pursuant to an agreement with Defendant’s counsel that Ms. Giuffre will be given half
of the seven hours to ask questions. In the descriptions below, the time Ms. Giuffre will have to
ask questions (or thus far has asked questions) is indicated:
A. Depositions Taken Thus Far By Ms. Giuffre
1. Ghislaine Maxwell (7 hours). The defendant, of course, has relevant information
in this case. But when Defendant was deposed, she refused to answer numerous questions about
alleged adult consensual sex. Those refusals are currently before the Court in a pending motion
to compel. DE 155. And, more broadly, Defendant’s deposition makes it clear that she intends
to contest many of the points that earlier had appeared to be potentially uncontested. For
example, in pleadings before her deposition, Defendant had suggested that she might invoke her
Fifth Amendment right to remain silent during questioning. Indeed, just a week before her
deposition, Defendant filed a motion seeking the alternative relief of staying further proceedings
so that she could get more information about whether to take the Fifth. See DE 101 at 2-4.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 28
5
During her deposition, however, Defendant did not take the Fifth. Instead, she testified
that she suffered from a series of memory lapses and could not recall many of the key issues in
dispute in this case. As a result of Defendant’s inability to remember events, a variety of issues
are now in dispute. For example, at her deposition, Defendant indicated that she lacked
recollection of or was otherwise unable to specifically answer the following questions:
! Whether Defendant observed a female under the age of 18 at Jeffrey Epstein’s home in
Palm Beach. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 6, Maxwell Depo. at 29.
! Whether Defendant had meet Ms. Giuffre and introduced her to Epstein. Id. at 33.
! Whether Defendant, in 2011, could recall having met Ms. Giuffre at the Mar-a-Lago in
Palm Beach and then writing that fact in an email. Id. at 35.
! Whether, when Defendant first met
.
! Whether Defendant could recall being on a plane with and Ms. Giuffre.
.
! Whether the Defendant knew what Nadia Marcinkova was doing at Epstein’s mansion.
Id. at 41, 44.
! Whether Defendant knew the nature of the relationship between Epstein and Sarah
Kellen. Id. at 47-48.
! Whether Defendant knew that Sarah Kellen recruited girls under the age of 18 to come to
Epstein’s mansions. Id. at 56-57.
! Whether massage therapists at Epstein’s mansions performed sexual acts. Id. at 52-54.
! Whether Defendant knew the age of Eva Dubin when she (Dubin) met Epstein. Id. at 58-
59.
! Whether Defendant advised Johanna Sjoberg that she (Sjoberg) could obtain extra money
if she massaged Epstein. Id. at 61.
! Whether Defendant introduced Sjoberg to Prince Andrew. Id. at 63.
! Whether Defendant could recall Emmy Taylor brought masseuses to Epstein’s mansion.
Id. at 67.
- r---------- '--------■
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 28
6
! Whether Defendant knew what Ms. Giuffre was required to wear while providing
massages to Epstein. Id. at 68-69.
! Whether Defendant could recall having a laundry basket of sex toys in Epstein’s Palm
Beach mansion, as described by Juan Alessi. Id. at 70-75.
! Whether Defendant could recall paying Ms. Giuffre. Id. at 75.
! Whether Defendant was ever present to view Ms. Giuffre massaging Epstein. Id. at 75.
! Whether Defendant could recall telling Ms. Giuffre that she needed a cell phone so that
she could be on call regularly. Id. at 77.
! Whether Defendant was required to be on call to come to Epstein’s mansion when he
wanted her to come. Id. at 79.
! Whether Defendant could recall Ms. Giuffre being at Epstein’s New York mansion when
Prince Andrew came to visit. Id. at 80-81.
! Whether Defendant could recall Ms. Giuffre staying at any of Epstein’s six homes. Id. at
81.
! Whether Defendant was aware that there were over 30 individuals who were minors who
gave reports to the Palm Beach Police Department who said they were sexually assaulted
by Epstein during the years that Defendant was working with him. Id. at 89-91.
! Whether Defendant introduced Ms. Giuffre to Prince Andrew in London. Id. at 108.
! Whether Ms. Giuffre ever stayed at Defendant’s home in London. Id. at 108.
! Whether Defendant remembered taking a trip with Ms. Giuffre to travel over to Europe,
including London. Id. at 108.
! Whether Defendant could recall Prince Andrew being present in New York for a party
where Johanna Sjoberg was also present. Id. at 112-13.
! Whether a picture depicting Prince Andrew, Ms. Giuffre and Defendant was taken at
Defendant’s London town home. Id. at 113-14.
! Whether Defendant ever flew on one of Epstein’s planes with a 17 year old. Id. at 121-
22.
! Whether the notation “GM” on flight logs for passengers on Epstein’s planes represented
the Defendant (i.e., Ghislaine Maxwell). Id. at 122-23.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 28
7
! Whether Defendant knew that the flight logs produced by Dave Rogers (one of Epstein’s
pilots) were accurate. Id. at 128-29.
! Whether Defendant could recall ever being on a flight on one of Epstein’s planes with
Ms. Giuffre. Id. at 132-33.
! Whether Defendant could recall Epstein and former President Clinton being friendly
towards each other. Id. at 135-36.
! Whether Defendant could recall the purpose of a trip to Thailand with Epstein and former
President Clinton was. Id. at 140.
! Whether Defendant could recall Ms. Giuffre taking pictures on trips. Id. at 144.
! Whether Defendant could recollect writing down messages on memo pads from various
individuals at Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion. Id. at 150-57; 159-60.
! Whether Defendant could recall receiving a message on a memo pad concerning

! Whether Defendant could explain why a minor would be calling Epstein to say they had a
female for him. Id. at 164.
! Whether Defendant could recall a sixteen-year-old Russian girl who came to Epstein’s
mansion? Id. at 167.
! Whether Defendant believed that Epstein sexually abused minors. Id. at 171-80.
! Whether Defendant was present at Epstein’s Florida mansion when police executed a
search warrant. Id. at 186.
! Whether Defendant took a picture at one of Epstein’s properties of a person in either a
naked or semi-naked state. Id. at 193.
! Whether Defendant could recall what Epstein told her about the criminal investigation of
him. Id. at 194-95.
! Whether Epstein told Defendant that he never had sex with Ms. Giuffre. Id. at 197.
! Whether it was an “obvious lie” that Epstein engaged in sexual conduct with Ms. Giuffre
while she was under the age of 18. Id. at 202-06.
! Whether Defendant knew whether Epstein had sex with a minor. Id. at 239.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 28
8
! Whether it was a lie for Ms. Giuffre to say that Defendant approached females to bring
them to Epstein. Id. at 244-46.
! Whether Defendant knew Epstein had a sexual preference for minors. Id. at 251-53.
! Whether Defendant knew that asked girls to come over to see Epstein for
purposes of sexual massage.
! Whether Defendant could recall seeing and Epstein together. .
! Whether Defendant was aware of any interstate or international transportation of women,
aged 18 to 28, for purposes of having sex with Epstein where they would receive
compensation. Id. at 278-79.
! Whether Defendant could recall anything about a puppet or caricature of Prince Andrew
in Epstein’s home when Prince Andrew was there, including whether Ms. Giuffre was
sitting on Prince Andrew’s lap with the puppet or caricature. Id. at 289-93.
! Whether Defendant could remember entering any telephone numbers into a contact book
maintained by Epstein. Id. at 320-22.
! Whether a document with Epstein’s contacts (including “massage” contacts) was located
on Defendant’s computer. Id. at 331-34.
! Whether, if Alfredo Rodriguez said that Defendant had knowledge that underage girls
were coming over to Epstein’s Florida mansion for purposes of sex, that would be a true
statement. Id. at 329-30.
! Whether Defendant could recall any representative of hers informing the press that Ms.
Giuffre committed grand theft. Id. at 344-45.
! Whether Defendant knew what her press agent, Ross Gow, was referring to when he
talked in an email about “helpful leakage.” Id. at 349-50, 406.
! Whether Defendant could recall interacting with anyone, other than Ms. Giuffre, under
the age of 18 on any of Epstein’s properties. Id. at 384.
! Whether Defendant had discussed with Prince Andrew any of the details of Ms. Giuffre’s
allegations against him. Id. at 400.
Because Defendant refused to answer those questions, Ms. Giuffre needs to depose other
witnesses who have the requisite knowledge to testify concerning those issues.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 28
9
2. Johanna Sjorberg (3 ½ hours). Ms. Sjorberg’s deposition was taken on May 18,
2016, in Fort Lauderdale. She testified as follows:
! Johanna confirmed that Maxwell recruited her to work as an assistant but she was almost
immediately converted into a massage therapist and worked for Maxwell and Epstein
from 2001 – 2006. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, (May 18, 2016 Deposition Tr. at p.
8-9)
! Johanna confirms that she knew Virginia was underage when she met her on the trip to
NY with Jeffrey in 2001 because Virginia couldn’t get into the casino and then later
Johanna asked her and Virginia said she was 17. (p. 18). Johanna testified that Virginia
looked young. (p. 18-19). Johanna added: “At the time I had the impression that she did
not have a family or she had walked away from her family. And it seemed to me, you
know, they had just sort of adopted her, not as a child, but they would take care of her.”
(p. 88)
! Johanna testified that Jeffrey had to have three (3) massages a day from different girls.
(p. 30)
! Johanna testified that Jeffrey told her that he had three (3) massages a day because “he
needed to have three orgasms a day. It was biological, like eating.” (p. 32)
! Johanna testified that Maxwell “let me know that she was – she would not be able to
please him as much as he needed and that is why there were other girls around.” (p. 33)
“She (Maxwell) said she doesn’t have the time or the desire to please him as much as he
needs and that’s why there were other girls around.” (p. 150-151)
! Johanna confirmed that she witnessed Virginia when she was seventeen (17) in Jeffrey
Epstein’s New York mansion with Prince Andrew and Ghislaine Maxwell. (p. 87)
Johanna also testified that Prince Andrew sat with Virginia and Johanna and took a
picture with a puppet in his image that had its hand and Prince Andrew’s hand on their
respective breasts. (p. 83)
! Johanna testified that Maxwell bought a camera for her and asked her to take naked
pictures of herself for Jeffrey. (p. 145)
! Johanna testified that Maxwell would not give her the camera because Johanna “didn’t
finish the job” when massaging Jeffrey so Maxwell had to do it and was not happy. (p.
34) “She told me – called me after I had left and said, I have the camera for you but you
cannot receive it yet because you came here and didn’t finish your job and I had to finish
it for you…She was implying that I did not get Jeffrey off and so she had to do it.” Q
When you say ‘get Jeffrey off’ do you mean bring him to orgasm?’ A. Yes.” (p. 34-35)
! Maxwell told Johanna to always act “grateful” to Jeffrey Epstein. (p. 35)
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 28
10
! Maxwell called Johanna and the other girls her “children” when they were on a trip to the
USVI. (p. 36)
! David Copperfield was at a dinner at Epstein’s and there was another girl present who
looked young and Johanna asked what school she went to and Johanna did not recognize
the school name as being a college and she said it was possible it was a high school aged
girl. Johanna said Copperfield “questioned me if I was aware that girls were getting paid
to find other girls” (p. 37-38)
! Johanna testified she heard Jeffrey call someone to try to find girls in Hawaii to send over
the Fredrick Fekkai. (p. 38-39)
! Johanna testified Jeffrey told her “Clinton likes them young, referring to girls.” (p. 41)
! Johanna testified that she was naked for 25 – 50% of all massages. (p. 42)
! Johanna testified that Jeffrey made her perform sexual acts during massages including
sexual toys and she had intercourse with him. (p. 43, 146-147)
! Johanna testified that Nadia Marcinkova and Maxwell were both with her in the USVI in
2005. (p. 44).
! Johanna testified that Maxwell asked her to find other girls to perform massages at the
house. (p. 141) She gave a name of a girl from a restaurant to Maxwell and Maxwell paid
her $200.00 for the girls’ name. “Did Maxwell ever ask you to bring other girls over for
Jeffrey” (p. 46) A. Yes….”And I recall Ghislaine giving me money to bring her over…”
(p. 141)
! Johanna testified that if a massage involved sexual acts that Jeffrey paid Johanna more
than the normal $200.00. (p. 100-101)
! She testified that Defendant called Emmy Taylor her “slave.” (p. 15). Later she testified
that Jeffrey: “He told me one time Emmy was sleeping on the plane and they were getting
ready to land and he went and woke her up and she thought that meant he wanted a [sex
act], so she started to unzip his pants, and he said, No, no, no you just have to wake up
for landing.” (p. 143-144)
! Johanna said Defendant flew her in the helicopter from the main island to the USVI. (p.
55)
! Johanna said she believes what Virginia is saying about being abused by Jeffrey and
Maxwell. “Basically that I believed her, even though she never spoke to me specifically
about what was going on; that once I learned everything that happened based on reading
the police report, I believed her side of the story.” (p. 122-123). “Q. And what
experience in the house helped you form your opinion that what Virginia is saying is
true? A. You know, Jeffrey being open with me about what other girls did for him and
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 28
11
that I was not one of those girls. He was always trying to recruit me almost in a way that
I could be one of them and travel with him and live the life of luxury if I only – if I only
did this. So after five years of learning what was happening, I can look back knowing – I
only knew Virginia a short time. Looking back, I can make assumptions about what was
required of her.” (p. 123-124)
! She said she recalls that Defendant went to dinner with Governor Bill Richardson one
time when Johanna was visiting the ranch in New Mexico (p. 110).
B. Future Depositions Sought by Ms. Giuffre
Ms. Giuffre has also scheduled the following depositions.
3. Juan Alessi (3 ½ hours). Mr. Alessi’s deposition is scheduled for May 31,
2016, in Florida3
. Mr. Alessi was one of the employees in Epstein’s mansion. Mr. Alessi
provided witness statements to police during the criminal investigation in Palm Beach, and was
previously deposed in civil cases previously brought against Mr. Epstein. Specifically, Juan
Alessi informed the Palm Beach Police Detective as follows: “Alessi stated that towards the end
of his employment, the masseuses were younger and younger. When asked how young, Mr.
Alessi stated they appeared to be sixteen or seventeen years of age at most.” (emphasis added.)
See McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit 7, Palm Beach Police Incident Report at p. 57.
On November 21, 2005, the Palm Beach Police Department took a sworn statement from
house employee Juan Alessi in which he revealed that girls would come over to give “massages”
and he observed Ms. Maxwell going upstairs in the direction of the bedroom quarters. See
McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 8, November 21, 2005 Sworn Statement at 10. He also testified that
after the massages, he would clean up sex toys that were kept in “Ms. Maxwell’s closet.” Id. at
12-13. He added that he and his wife were concerned with what was going on at the house (Id. at
14) and that he observed girls at the house, including one named “Virginia.” Id. at 21. It is
anticipated that he will testify consistently with that previous testimony.

3 As explained above, as of today, Defendant’s counsel sent an email refusing to attend this deposition set
for Tuesday, May 31, 2016 (Monday is Memorial Day). See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 28
12
4. Maria Alessi (3 ½ hours). Ms. Alessi’s deposition is scheduled for June 1,
2016, in Florida. She was, with her husband, household staff for Epstein in the Palm Beach
home he shared with Defendant, and, it is anticipated, will corroborate many of the observations
of her husband about minor girls and massages inside of Epstein’s Florida mansion. Mr. Alessi
referenced during his prior deposition the things that Ms. Alessi observed with respect to the
sexual massages and involvement of minor girls. Mrs. Alessi is also anticipated to testify
regarding Ms. Maxwell's close association with Mr. Epstein and knowledge the visitors.
5. Dave Rodgers (3 ½ hours). Mr. Rodgers's deposition is scheduled for June 3,
2016, in Florida. Rodgers was one of the pilots for Epstein’s private jets and will, it is
anticipated, authenticate his flight logs showing Defendant and Ms. Giuffre together on the same
flights. Defendant refused to admit that her name is reflected in the flight logs despite her initials
“GM” appearing over 300 times. Therefore, such authentication is necessary because Defendant
testified at her deposition she could not remember even the most basic things about flights in the
flight logs. For example, when asked if “GM” represented her initials on the flight log,
Defendant responded: “How do you know GM is me,” (See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5,
Maxwell Depo. at 29 at. 122) and “GM can stand for any level, it could be Georgina, George.”
(Id. at 123). Ms. Giuffre is also seeking additional flight logs in Mr. Rodgers possession that will
further corroborate Defendant’s involvement with Jeffrey Epstein.
6. Rinaldo Rizzo (3 ½ hours). Mr. Rizzo is scheduled for June 10, 2016 and will
be able to testify regarding his observations of Defendant and Epstein with underage girls (girls
less than 18 years of age). Mr. Rizzo was originally set for deposition on May 13, 2016 which
was noticed on April 11, 2016, and Defendant requested that Ms. Giuffre reschedule that
deposition just days before the scheduled date.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 28
13
7. Jean Luc Brunel (3 ½ hours). Mr. Brunel’s deposition is set for June 7, 2016,
in New York. He has relevant information because he has known Maxwell and Epstein for many
years and was present with Epstein and Defendant on many occasions at Epstein’s homes in New
York, Palm Beach and the USVI, and he has personal knowledge of the disputed issues in this
case
8. Ross Gow (3 ½ hours). Mr. Gow is Defendant’s press agent who issued the
press statement at issue in this case on Defendant’s behalf. He will be able to testify regarding
the defamatory statement, its distribution, any other defamatory statements that were distributed,
and any information he had regarding the basis for the statement. Ms. Giuffre has requested that
Defendant agree to produce Mr. Gow rather than requiring the time and expense of having to
serve a subpoena on Mr. Gow, located in London, under the Hague convention, but counsel for
Defendant has not agreed to produce Ross Gow for deposition.
9. Dana Burns (3 ½ hours). Ms. Burns’ deposition is set for June 8, 2016, in New
York City.
10. Jo Jo Fontanella (3 ½ hours). Jo Jo Fontanella is a critical witness because he
has been working as Jeffrey Epstein’s butler in his New York mansion for a number of years
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 28
14
including during the time that Ms. Giuffre was staying the night at the mansion when she was a
minor child. Virginia interacted with Mr. Fontanella frequently during the time she was with Mr.
Epstein and the Defendant. Mr. Fontanella will be able to testify to what he observed at the New
York mansion including his observation regarding the age and number of females who visited
the house each day. Mr. Fontanella will be able to testify regarding Defendant’s presence at the
home at various times and what he observed Defendant doing while she was at the New York
mansion.
11. Detective Joe Recarey (3 ½ hours). During Defendant’s deposition,
Defendant questioned the veracity of the Palm Beach Police report containing the accounts of the
numerous minor children who were also sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein. Defendant referred
to at least one of those children as a prostitute, which is false. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5,
Maxwell Deposition at 173:8-12; 359:11-18. The Palm Beach police report also includes
statements about the Defendant. Detective Recarey is expected to testify regarding his
investigation, what he observed, the evidence he collected from Mr. Epstein’s Palm Beach
mansion, the modus operandi of the Epstein organization, and the interviews he conducted with a
number of females who were subject to abuse at the Palm Beach mansion. He will also testify
regarding Jeffrey Epstein’s, who is in a joint defense with Defendant, and his campaign to attack
the credibility of the numerous minor children who reported sex offenses against him. Attacking
the credibility of their victims, including Ms. Giuffre, is a part of Epstein and Defendant’s modus
operandi.
12. Former Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter (3 ½ hours). Chief Reiter
is scheduled for deposition on June 20, 2016. He was the Police Chief who was responsible for
overseeing the Palm Beach Epstein investigation. He has made public statements about the 40
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 28
15
victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse. He has made public statements about the fact that after he
started the investigation into the crimes that took place at the Palm Beach mansion, he was
followed by strange men and “investigated”. He also has made public statements that he sent to
victims regarding the failure of the government to properly handle the matter. Reiter is relevant
to many issues, among others, Defendant’s claimed innocence by the fact that she was never
formally charged.
13. Emmy Taylor (3 ½ hours). Emmy Taylor was Defendant’s “assistant” during
the time Ms. Giuffre was being abused. Ms. Taylor is on flight logs to Europe with Ms. Giuffre
and other locations in the United States. Johanna Sjoberg testified that Emmy Taylor was
referred to by the Defendant as “my slave” and that Ms. Taylor trained Ms. Sjoberg to give
massages while Ms. Sjoberg was naked. Emmy Taylor will be able to testify as to what she
observed and experienced during the years she was with Defendant and Epstein. Ms. Giuffre is
still attempting to locate Ms. Taylor, but she is believed to reside in London.
14.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 28
16
15. Nadia Marcinkova (3 ½ hours). Ms. Marcinkova’s deposition is set for June
16, 2016, in New York.4
 Ms. Marcinkova was specifically identified by the U.S. Attorney’s
Office for the Southern District of Florida as a “potential co-conspirator of Epstein” in the nonprosecution agreement it executed with Mr. Epstein as part of his guilty plea. She has relevant
information because she observed the recruitment of underage girls for sex and, in fact,
participated in sex acts with minors. She was also on numerous flights with Defendant (in
contradiction to Defendant’s testimony), and she can provide valuable testimony about
Maxwell's role in the recruitment of females.
16. Sarah Kellen (a/k/a Sarah Kensignton or Sarah Vickers) (3 ½ hours). Ms.
Kellen’s deposition is set for June 22, 2016, in New York. Ms. Kellen specifically identified by
the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida as a “potential co-conspirator of
Epstein” in the non-prosecution agreement it executed with Mr. Epstein as part of his guilty plea.
She has relevant information because she was present during the time when Virginia was with
Epstein and the Defendant, and she travelled with all of them during this critical time period. It is
believed that she worked at the direction of, and directly under, Ms. Maxwell and was taught by
Ms. Maxwell how to recruit females for sex with Mr. Epstein.

4 Marcinkova, Kellen and Epstein have not been personally served and are all subject to Ms. Giuffre’s
Motion for Alternative Service [D.E. 160].
■
•
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 28
17
17. Jeffrey Epstein (3 ½ hours). Ms. Giuffre’s counsel have been in touch with
Epstein’s counsel and is continuing to work to schedule his deposition. Epstein lies at the center
of this case, and he can testify that Defendant recruited females for sex with him, including Mrs.
Giuffre, under the offer of being a massage therapist, and ultimately paid these females for sex.
He can testify that Defendant lured dozens if not hundreds of young females, including many
underage females, to his residences for sexual purposes.
II. DISCUSSION
Ms. Giuffre has attempted to conduct discrete, focused discovery in this case to limit any
burdens on the Defendant and on the Court. Nonetheless, this case presents numerous challenges
that require that she take more than ten depositions – not the least of which is Defendant’s
extraordinary lack of memory about many events that would appear to have indisputably taken
place. Ms. Giuffre, however, is not seeking to exceed the allotted hours for depositions under
Rule 45 -- only the number of depositions. Ms. Giuffre seeks leave of Court to 7 additional
depositions, for a total of seventeen depositions.
Under the rules, each party is entitled to take ten depositions which total seven hours
each. Fed. R. Civ. P. 29(d)(1). Thus, the presumptive time limit for depositions is a total of
seventy hours (10 depositions x 7 hours per deposition). For the convenience of opposing
counsel, Ms. Giuffre has stipulated that they may have half of the seven hour deposition time for
each third party witness. Thus, if the Court grants Ms. Giuffre’s motion, she will end up taking
less than seventy hours of deposition testimony. Specifically, she will only take one deposition
of seven hours (Defendant’s) and sixteen depositions of three-and-a-half hours – a total of 66 and
½ hours of depositions.
1111
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 28
18
In light of the accommodation she had extended to opposing counsel, Ms. Giuffre
requested that opposing counsel agree that both sides could schedule additional depositions
beyond the presumptive limit of ten. Defendant refused to agree and is also in disagreement
about the proposed schedule for depositions, despite the fact that Ms. Giuffre scheduled
depositions based on the dates Defendant’s counsel represented were available for depositions in
this case. At Defendant's counsel's request Ms. Giuffre scheduled depositions of witnesses who
lived in the same geographical location on consecutive days to limit the travel time and expense.
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1.
Sadly, it appears that Defendant’s counsel may be attempting to delay Ms. Giuffre’s
ability to obtain depositions because certain witnesses are avoiding service and others were
difficult to locate, and the time period for the close of discovery is swiftly approaching. The
Court will recall that the Defendant managed to delay her deposition until April 22, 2016,
through unnecessary motion practice. And now that the need to depose other witnesses has been
established, Defendant’s counsel are employing other delay tactics. The Court currently has
before it, for example, Ms. Giuffre’s motion for leave to serve three deposition subpoenas by
means other than personal service. DE 160. As recounted at greater length in that motion, three
of the critical witnesses in this case – Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellan, and Nadia Marcinkova –
have all thus far managed to evade service of process, despite repeated, diligent, and expensive
efforts at personal service. Of course, all three of these witnesses are persons who have worked
very closely with Defendant in the past. Epstein is also in a joint defense agreement with
Defendant.
In other situations, Ms. Giuffre has been forced to delay taking depositions because of
Defense Counsel. For example, Ms. Giuffre served a subpoena on Mr. Rizzo and opposing
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 28
19
counsel on April 11, 2016 for a deposition a month later on May 13, 2016. Just days before the
deposition, Defendant’s counsel said they didn’t realize the deposition was scheduled and that
they could not proceed forward on that date. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 9, May 5, 2016 Email Correspondence Regarding Scheduled Depositions. This forced Ms. Giuffre’s counsel to
have to reset the witness for June 10, 2016. Of course, with each delay, Ms. Giuffre is
hamstrung in identifying which further witnesses need to be deposed.
Under Rule 30(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party who wishes to
conduct more than ten depositions without stipulation by the opposing party must seek leave of
the court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i). Once such a motion is made, “[t]he court must grant a
request to exceed ten depositions unless the additional depositions would be unreasonably
cumulative or duplicative, the requesting party had a prior opportunity in discovery to obtain the
information sought, or the burden or expense of additional depositions would outweigh any
likely benefit.” In re Weatherford Int'l Sec. Litig., No. 11 CIV. 1646 LAK JCF, 2013 WL
5762923, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2013) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C); Raniola v. Bratton,
243 F.3d 610, 628 (2d Cir.2001)). Given the liberal discovery allowed by the rules, the burden
on the party seeking additional depositions is not great. Rule 30(a)(2)'s ten-deposition limit is “a
useful and appropriate ‘Stop’ sign, not as a ‘Road Closed’ sign. Once any party has taken ten
depositions, it makes perfect sense to require that party to demonstrate the need for more. But
that showing need not be onerous. If the need exists, discovery should not be prevented.” Scott
v. City of Sioux City, Iowa, 298 F.R.D. 400, 402-03 (N.D. Iowa 2014).
As the Court can readily determine from the summary of anticipated testimony above,
none of the anticipated testimony is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative. Rather, all of the
anticipated testimony goes to central and now-disputed issues in the case. The Court should be
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 28
20
aware that, at every turn, Defendant appears ready to brand Ms. Giuffre as a “liar” who cannot be
believed. Thus, obtaining witnesses, like Ms. Sjoberg, who can corroborate that she is telling the
truth is more important in this case than it would be in many others. It is equally important that
Ms. Giuffre be able to depose the witnesses who can refute Defendant's testimony.
The Court can also readily determine that Ms. Giuffre has not had any prior opportunity
to obtain discovery of the witnesses she seeks to depose. The case is only now in the fact
discovery phase, and she has had no opportunity to previously depose these third-party
witnesses.
Finally, there is no substantial burden involved with deposing seven additional witnesses.
Any assessment of burden must take into account the scope of the underlying case. Ms. Giuffre
is seeking both compensatory and punitive damages that would total millions of dollars. Against
that backdrop, a handful of additional depositions cannot be seen as unduly burdensome.
Moreover, this is not a situation where Defendant lacks means to pay for counsel to attend the
depositions. Defendant’s vast wealth does not appear to be in doubt.5
During the meet-and-confer on this issue, the Defendant’s substantive reason for not
stipulating to these additional depositions is that, with regard to three of the witnesses (Epstein,
Kellan, and Marcinkova), it appears likely that they will invoke their Fifth Amendment right to
refuse to answer some questions about Defendant’s involvement in in the sexual abuse of Ms.
Giuffre. But until those witnesses actually take the Fifth, the conclusion that they will actually

5
Defendant has thus far refused produce documents regarding the extent of her assets, arguing that until
the punitive damages phase of this proceeding is reached the discovery is not relevant. Nonetheless,
public information suggests significant assets – and the possibility that she is transferring assets outside
the reach of the Court’s jurisdiction. See, e.g., Alleged Epstein Madam Sells $16M Manhattan
Townhouse, New York Post, Apr. 28, 2016 (available at http://nypost.com/2016/04/28/alleged-epsteinmadam-sells-16m-manhattan-townhouse/).
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 28
21
take the Fifth is, at a minimum, premature.6
 The witness may, for example, answer some
questions and not others. And, in any event, even if they take the Fifth when asked about
Defendant’s sexual abuse of minors, those invocations will quite likely be admissible against the
Defendant at trial.
The Second Circuit has squarely held that a witness’ invocation of Fifth Amendment
rights can in proper circumstances be used against a party. The Second Circuit’s seminal
decision is LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 1997), which upheld the drawing
of adverse inferences based on a non-party’s invocation of a Fifth Amendment right to remain
silent. The Second Circuit instructed that, the circumstances of given case, rather than status of
particular nonparty witness, determines whether nonparty witness' invocation of privilege against
self-incrimination is admissible in course of civil litigation. Id. at122-23. The Circuit also held
that, in determining whether nonparty witness’ invocation of privilege against self-incrimination
in course of civil litigation and drawing of adverse inferences is admissible, court may consider
the following nonexclusive factors:
(1) nature of witness' relationship with and loyalty to party;
(2) degree of control which party has vested in witness in regard to key facts and
subject matter of litigation;
(3) whether witness is pragmatically noncaptioned party in interest and whether
assertion of privilege advances interests of witness and party in outcome of litigation; and
(4) whether witness was key figure in litigation and played controlling role in
respect to its underlying aspects.
Id. at 124-25.
Clearly, many of these factors are going to weigh heavily in favor of drawing an adverse
inference against Defendant. For example, Jeffrey Epstein is a “pragmatically noncaptioned

6 The Court should be aware that these are also the three witnesses who have been attempted to evade
service of process.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 25 of 28
22
party in interest” regarding issues of whether he and Defendant together sexually abused Ms.
Giuffre. And Defendant is in a joint defense agreement with Epstein. Also, some of the most
important events in this case took place in private bedroom where just three people were present
– Ms. Giuffre, Defendant, and Epstein. With Defendant denying these events, the fact that
Epstein may take the Fifth could provide decisive information to the jury.
But the Court need not make any determinations now as to precisely how these factors
will play out. Instead, it is enough to note that very important and unique evidence may be
secured from the deposition of each of these three individuals and therefore Ms. Giuffre should
be permitted to take their deposition.
CONCLUSION
Ms. Giuffre respectfully requests that she be allowed to take a total seventeen depositions
in this case.
Dated: May 27, 2016
Respectfully Submitted,
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
 By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley
Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
Meredith Schultz (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
Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice)
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 26 of 28
23
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
(954) 524-2820
Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
S.J. Quinney College of Law
University of Utah
383 University St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
(801) 585-52027

7 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is
not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 27 of 28
24
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 27th day of May, 2016, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission
of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
Tel: (303) 831-7364
Fax: (303) 832-2628
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley
Sigrid S. McCawley
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 28 of 28
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Virginia L. Giuffre,
Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
v .
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant.
______________________________/
NON-REDACTED DECLARATION OF SIGRID S. McCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXCEED PRESUMPTIVE TEN DEPOSITION LIMIT IN
FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 30(A)(2)(a)(ii), FILED UNDER SEAL
I, Sigrid S. McCawley, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge as follows:
1. I am a partner with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly
licensed to practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court’s September 29,
2015 Order granting my Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice.
2. I respectfully submit this Declaration in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Exceed
Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit In Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(A)(2)(a)(ii), Filed
Under Seal.
3. Attached hereto as Composite Exhibit 1, is a true and correct copy of the May 17,
2016 Email Correspondence from Sigrid McCawley.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2, is a true and correct copy of the May 27, 2016
Email Correspondence from Laura Menninger.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3, is a true and correct copy of the Notice of Service
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-11 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 4
and Subpoena to Juan Alessi.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4, is a true and correct copy of the May 26, 2016
Correspondence from Sigrid McCawley.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5, is a true and correct copy of the May 18, 2016
Deposition Transcript of Johanna Sjoberg.
8. Attached hereto as Composite Exhibit 6, is a true and correct copy of the April
22, 2016 Deposition Transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell.
9. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7, is a true and correct copy of the Palm Beach Police
Report.
10. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8, is a true and correct copy of the November 21, 2005
Sworn Statement of Juan Alessi.
11. Attached hereto as Exhibit 9, is a true and correct copy of the May 4, 2016 Email
Correspondence from Laura Menninger.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley_________
Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-11 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 4
Dated: May 27, 2016.
Respectfully Submitted,
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
 By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley________________
Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice)
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E.
Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft.
Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 356-0011
David Boies
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 333
Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice)
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Tel: (954) 524-2820
Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
S.J. Quinney College of Law
University of Utah
383 University St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Tel: (801) 585-52021

1 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is
not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-11 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 27, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing
document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of
Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
Jeffrey Paliuca, Esq.
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
Tel: (303) 831-7364
Fax: (303) 832-2628
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley
Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-11 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT 5
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 179
Page 1
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
 CASE NO. 15-CV-07433-RWS
------------------------------------------x
VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,
 Plaintiff,
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
 Defendant.
-------------------------------------------x
 May 18, 2016
 9:04 a.m.
 C O N F I D E N T I A L
 Deposition of JOHANNA SJOBERG, pursuant
 to notice, taken by Plaintiff, at the
 offices of Boies Schiller & Flexner, 401
 Las Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
 before Kelli Ann Willis, a Registered
 Professional Reporter, Certified Realtime
 Reporter and Notary Public within and
 for the State of Florida.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 179
Page 2
1 A P P E A R A N C E S:
2 BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
3 401 East Las Olas Boulevard
 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
4 BY: SIGRID S. McCAWLEY, ESQ. and
 MEREDITH SCHULTZ, ESQ.
5
6 HADDON MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendant
7 150 East 10th Avenue
 Denver, Colorado 80203
8 BY: LAURA A. MENNINGER, ESQ.
9
10 SINCLAIR LOUIS & ZAVERTNIK, P.A.
Attorneys for Deponent
11 40 NW Third Street
 Suite 200
12 Miami, Florida 33128
BY: MARSHALL DORE LOUIS, ESQ.
13
14
15 ALSO PRESENT: Ryan Kick, Videographer
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 179
Page 3
1
2 I N D E X
3 Examination by Ms. McCawley ................... 5
Examination by Ms. Menninger ................... 50
4 Further Examination by Ms. McCawley ............ 138
Further Examination by Ms. Menninger ........... 147
5
6
7 E X H I B I T S
8 Deposition Exhibit 1 ........................... 7
 Deposition Notice
9
Deposition Exhibit 2 ........................... 7
10 Subpoena
11 Deposition Exhibit 3 ........................... 16
 Flight log
12
Deposition Exhibit 4 ........................... 49
13 Palm Beach Police Department
 Incident Report
14
Deposition Exhibit 5 ........................... 117
15 Red Ice Creations web article
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 179
Page 4
1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the
2 record. This is begins Videotape No. 1 in the
3 deposition of Johanna Sjoberg, in the matter of
4 Virginia Giuffre versus Ghislaine Maxwell.
5 Today is May 18th, 2016. The time is
6 9:04 a.m. This deposition is being taken at
7 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale,
8 Florida.
9 The videographer is Ryan Kick. The court
10 reporter is Kelli Ann Willis. We both
11 represent Magna Legal Services.
12 Will counsel and all parties present state
13 their appearance and whom they represent.
14 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. I'm Sigrid McCawley,
15 with the law firm of Boise Schiller & Flexner,
16 and I represent Virginia Giuffre. And I have
17 here two colleagues of mine, Meredith Schultz
18 and Sandra Perkins, from my firm as well.
19 MS. MENNINGER: Hi. I'm Laura Menninger
20 from Haddon Morgan & Foreman, and I represent
21 Ghislaine Maxwell.
22 MR. LOUIS: I'm Dore Louis from Sinclair
23 Louis & Zavertnik. I'm here on behalf of the
24 deponent.
25 Thereupon:
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 179
Page 5
1 JOHANNA SJOBERG
2 a witness named in the notice heretofore filed,
3 being of lawful age and having been first duly
4 sworn, testified on her oath as follows:
5 E X A M I N A T I O N
6 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
7 Q. Good morning, Johanna. Thank you for
8 coming. I'm going to talk to you a little bit about
9 the deposition process before we get started to make
10 sure you understand what's going to happen here
11 today.
12 You just heard there's a videographer, and
13 he's going to be taking your video during this
14 deposition and generally what's happening in the
15 course of the deposition.
16 And then you have a court reporter here
17 who takes down the words that we say. And it's a
18 little bit tricky because I tend to speak quickly
19 sometimes and speak over people, and she needs to
20 get down all of the words. So I'll try to do my
21 best to go slower and make sure I'm not talking over
22 you.
23 And, similarly, if you've got an answer to
24 a question, make sure that you're verbally
25 responding, not just nodding or making a gesture
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 179
Page 6
1 because she can't get that down. We want to make
2 sure our responses are verbal. I'll try to remind
3 you of that if that happens.
4 Have you ever been deposed before?
5 A. No.
6 Q. No. Okay.
7 So what's going to happen is I'm going to
8 ask questions, and you'll give answers. And like I
9 said, everybody will be recording those.
10 Is there any reason, any medical reason,
11 anything you've taken today that would cause you to
12 not to be able to give truthful testimony today?
13 A. No.
14 Q. No. Okay.
15 All right. So we're going to get started,
16 and if you have any questions during the deposition
17 or you need to stop to take a break, you can just
18 let me know and we'll take that break.
19 So what I -- the only thing I ask is if
20 we're in the midst of a question, you finish the
21 answer before we take a break.
22 A. Sure.
23 Q. But I'll try to make sure that I take
24 regular breaks, as well.
25 You stated your name for the record. Can
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 179
Page 7
1 you tell me your date of birth?
2
3 Q. That makes you how old now?
4
5 Q. Okay. And where are you currently living?
6
7 Q. And I'm going to show you what I'm going
8 to mark as the first two exhibits in the matter.
9 And I'm going to ask the court reporter if I can
10 mark those.
11 (The referred-to document was marked by
12 the court reporter for Identification as
13 Sjoberg Exhibits 1 and 2.)
14 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
15 Q. Okay. I'm going to show you what I'm
16 marking as Exhibit 1. It's going to be the
17 re-notice of your videotaped deposition, which is
18 simply a notice I'm going to show you. And then
19 Exhibit 2 is the subpoena that we served on you.
20 So you're here today pursuant to our
21 Notice of Deposition and the subpoena that we served
22 on you.
23 Are you familiar with the subpoena? Have
24 you seen that document before?
25 A. Yes.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 179
Page 8
1 Q. Okay. Great.
2 All right. Do you know a female by the
3 name of Ghislaine Maxwell?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And when did you first meet Ms. Maxwell?
6 A. 2001. March probably. End of
7 February/beginning of March.
8 Q. And how did you meet her?
9 A. She approached me while I was on campus at
10 Palm Beach Atlantic College.
11 Q. And what happened when she approached you?
12 A. She asked me if I could tell her how to
13 find someone that would come and work at her house.
14 She wanted to know if there was, like, a bulletin
15 board or something that she could post, that she was
16 looking for someone to hire.
17 Q. And what did you discuss with her?
18 A. I told her where she could go to -- you
19 know, to put up a listing. And then she asked me if
20 I knew anyone that would be interested in working
21 for her.
22 Q. Did she describe what that work was going
23 to be?
24 A. She explained that she lived in Palm Beach
25 and didn't want butlers because they're too stuffy.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 179
Page 9
1 And so she just liked to hire girls to work at the
2 house, answer phones, get drinks, do the job a
3 butler would do.
4 Q. And did she tell you what she would pay
5 for that kind of a job?
6 A. At that moment, no, but later in the day,
7 yes.
8 Q. And what did she say?
9 A. Twenty dollars an hour.
10 Q. Was there anybody else with Ms. Maxwell
11 when you met her?
12 A. There was another woman with her. I don't
13 recall her or what she looks like or how old she
14 was.
15 Q. And what happened next?
16 A. And then she asked me if I would be
17 interested in working for her. And she told me that
18 she was -- I could trust her and that I could jump
19 in her car and go check out the house at that moment
20 if I wanted.
21 And so I said, Sure, let's do it, and went
22 to her home with her.
23 Q. And where was that home?
24 A. In Palm Beach.
25 Q. And did she describe that home as being
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 179
Page 10
1 her home?
2 A. She described it as being her home and
3 alluded to the fact that it was her and Jeffrey's
4 home and that she had homes all over the world.
5 Yes.
6 Q. And what happened when you arrived at the
7 home?
8 A. I believe she just showed me around.
9 Q. Do you recall meeting anybody at the home?
10 A. I don't recall if I met Jeffrey at that
11 time or the next time that I was there.
12 Q. How did you meet Jeffrey? Did Maxwell
13 introduce you to Jeffrey?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. What do you recall of your first meeting
16 with Jeffrey?
17 A. I remember him being in a bathrobe. I
18 recall talking to him about how I was a major in
19 psychology. And he had studied psychology, and so
20 he spoke with me about different topics.
21 I remember thinking this guy is very
22 smart. That was my first impression.
23 Q. And when you refer to Jeffrey, are you
24 referring to Jeffrey Epstein?
25 A. Yes.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 179
Page 11
1 Q. How did the meeting -- you said Maxwell
2 took you to the home. Do you remember how that
3 meeting ended?
4 A. Well, she dropped me back off at campus.
5 Q. And did you --
6 A. She got my number and I took her number.
7 And then she called me the next weekend to work.
8 Q. So at that point you started working for
9 Ms. Maxwell?
10 A. At that time, yes.
11 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading.
12 Sorry.
13 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
14 Q. Did you then start working for Ms. Maxwell
15 after that first meeting?
16 A. She called me and I went over to the home
17 the next Sunday to work.
18 Q. And what work -- can you describe for me
19 the first day at work, what work you performed?
20 A. Sure. I remember answering the phones and
21 taking messages. And at one point, she asked me to
22 go pick up printer ink, and I took her car to Office
23 Depot to get ink.
24 She asked me to go buy some magazines, so
25 I went to Palm Beach Daily News and bought a few
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 179
Page 12
1 magazines.
2 She and I went -- she wanted to take me
3 shopping to Worth Avenue, but it was a Sunday and
4 Nieman Marcus was closed, so we went back to, like,
5 a little book store. And I remember she bought, I
6 think, five pairs of reading glasses because she
7 thought Jeffrey would like them. He had them all
8 over the house. On every table there was reading
9 glasses.
10 And that's about it. It was a pretty
11 simple day.
12 Q. Were you paid that day for that work?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And how much were you paid? Do you
15 remember?
16 A. I don't remember how many hours I was
17 there -- I was there. She paid me cash.
18 Q. So Maxwell paid you?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And then was she the one who trained you
21 with what -- with respect to what you were supposed
22 to do during the day, directed you to, like you
23 said, go to --
24 A. I believe she was the one that was kind of
25 showing me around.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 179
Page 13
1 Q. And how long did you work in that position
2 answering phones and doing --
3 A. Just that one day.
4 Q. Just that one day.
5 And did your duties change?
6 A. Well, the next time she called me, she
7 asked me if I wanted to come over and make $100 an
8 hour rubbing feet.
9 Q. And what did you think of that offer?
10 A. I thought it was fantastic.
11 Q. And did you come over to the house for
12 that purpose?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And when you came over to the house, was
15 Maxwell present?
16 A. I don't recall.
17 Q. And what happened that second time you
18 came to the house?
19 A. At that point, I met Emmy Taylor, and she
20 took me up to Jeffrey's bathroom and he was present.
21 And her and I both massaged Jeffrey. She was
22 showing me how to massage.
23 And then she -- he took -- he got off the
24 table, she got on the table. She took off her
25 clothes, got on the table, and then he was showing
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 179
Page 14
1 me moves that he liked. And then I took my clothes
2 off. They asked me to get on the table so I could
3 feel it. Then they both massaged me.
4 Q. So it was more than a foot massage at that
5 point?
6 A. Yeah, it was mostly, like, legs and back.
7 Q. Was everybody in the room without clothes
8 on?
9 A. When they were on the massage table, yes.
10 Q. Did they -- when they got off the massage
11 table to perform the massage, did they dress or
12 did --
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. They dressed.
15 And do you recall who paid you for that
16 first day that you did the massages?
17 A. I don't recall.
18 Q. Do you recall whether Maxwell was at the
19 house during that first day when you were doing the
20 massage with Emmy and Jeffrey?
21 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, asked and
22 answered.
23 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
24 Q. You can answer.
25 A. I don't recall.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 179
Page 15
1 Q. Who did Emmy work for?
2 A. Ghislaine.
3 Q. Did Maxwell ever refer to Emmy by any
4 particular term?
5 A. She called her her slave.
6 Q. You said your job duties changed. Did you
7 start to travel as part of your job with Jeffrey and
8 Ghislaine?
9 A. Yes. The next time they called me, they
10 asked me to go to New York.
11 Q. And did you -- do you recall when that was
12 approximately?
13 A. That was Easter of 2001.
14 Q. And do you recall who was on the plane
15 with you for that trip?
16 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form.
17 MS. McCAWLEY: Actually, I'm going to stop
18 really quickly and I'm going to ask for the
19 next exhibit, please.
20 MS. MENNINGER: This is 3?
21 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. I'm going to mark
22 this as Exhibit 3 for purposes of the
23 deposition.
24
25
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 179
Page 16
1 (The referred-to document was marked by
2 the court reporter for Identification as
3 Sjoberg Exhibit 3.)
4 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
5 Q. Johanna, I'm going to direct you -- I
6 flagged some pages, but for the record, I'm going to
7 say what pages they are before I hand you the
8 exhibit.
9 A. Sure.
10 Q. These are Giuffre 000748 and 000758, are
11 the two pages right now I may refer you to. The
12 document itself is 000721 through 789.
13 And these are flight logs from pilot David
14 Rogers that have been produced in this case.
15 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation,
16 asking the witness any questions about this
17 document.
18 THE WITNESS: Can I touch it?
19 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes, you may.
20 MS. MENNINGER: I just have to say things
21 every now and then.
22 THE WITNESS: Okay.
23 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
24 Q. So you mentioned that you traveled to New
25 York. If you turn to page -- flagged page which
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 179
Page 17
1 should be 000748, at the top of that document you're
2 going to see a date of April 2001.
3 I'm just going to ask you to go down to
4 the -- if you look at the line on the left to where
5 it says 9 for the date, and look over where it has
6 the names.
7 Do you see -- can you identify your name
8 on that list?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And can you tell me -- I know there are
11 initials there -- who else to the extent you
12 remember was on the plane with you?
13 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation,
14 leading, form of question.
15 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
16 Q. Johanna, do you recall who was on the
17 plane with you that day?
18 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation,
19 form, leading.
20 The witness is reading the document.
21 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
22 Q. You can answer.
23 A. Okay. JE, Jeffrey Epstein; ET, Emmy
24 Taylor; VR, Virginia Roberts; BK, I do not recall;
25 and myself.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 179
Page 18
1 MS. MENNINGER: Objection. The witness is
2 reading the document.
3 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
4 Q. And do you recall where you flew when you
5 went to -- when you traveled that first time with
6 Jeffrey Epstein?
7 A. We left from Palm Beach and landed in
8 Atlantic City for a few hours because there was a
9 storm in New York, and then got back on the plane a
10 few hours later and landed in Teterboro.
11 Q. And you said that you recall landing in
12 Atlantic City. Did you go into Atlantic City?
13 A. Yes, went to one of Trump's casinos.
14 Q. Did you actually go into the casino
15 itself?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Do you recall Virginia -- at the time
18 Virginia Roberts being present with you?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do you recall if she went into the casino?
21 A. She was underage. I did not know anything
22 about how old you had to be to gamble legally. I
23 just knew she could not get in because of an ID
24 issue. So she and I did not gamble.
25 Q. In your opinion, did Virginia look young,
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 179
Page 19
1 in your view?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Did you ever -- did you at that time
4 wonder why she was traveling with Jeffrey?
5 A. At that time, I did not.
6 Q. Did you later wonder that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And what was your impression?
9 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, vague,
10 speculative.
11 THE WITNESS: I -- we're jumping ahead; is
12 that okay?
13 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
14 Q. Yes, that's okay.
15 A. A few days later, I remember asking her
16 questions to try to figure out her role, why she was
17 there, and she gave me vague answers and was never
18 specific.
19 And so I thought perhaps she just was an
20 assistant, someone that did massages well. I wanted
21 to believe that she was innocent.
22 Q. Did you ever refer to her as being
23 orphan-like?
24 A. I did.
25 Q. And how did that come about?
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 179
Page 20
1 A. No, I only -- to you, I said that to you.
2 I just saw her as perhaps someone who may not have
3 had a strong family, and they took her under their
4 wing.
5 Q. Now, you mentioned remembering going to
6 Atlantic City.
7 Did you go -- where did you go after
8 Atlantic City?
9 A. Once we landed in New York, Emmy and I
10 went in a car and drove around the city for a half
11 hour or so, just to see some of the city.
12 Q. And then where did you go after doing the
13 sightseeing?
14 A. We went to the townhouse on East 71st.
15 Q. And can you describe that location for me?
16 A. Sure. Between Madison and Park. I think
17 the address might have been 9 East 71st Street.
18 Q. And who owned that home?
19 A. As far as I knew, Epstein.
20 Q. Can you describe for me physically what --
21 A. Palatial. When you walk up, it looks like
22 a normal door to a townhouse, and when you walk
23 in -- I thought there were four floors. I heard
24 there were seven floors. I didn't see them all.
25 Q. And do you recall who, if anybody, was at
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 179
Page 21
1 Jeffrey's home when you arrived?
2 A. Yes. When I first walked in the door, it
3 was just myself, and Ghislaine headed for the
4 staircase and said -- told me to come up to the
5 living room.
6 Q. And what happened at that point, when you
7 came up to the living room?
8 A. I came up and saw Virginia, Jeffrey,
9 Prince Andrew, Ghislaine in the room.
10 Q. And did you meet Prince Andrew at that
11 time?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And what happened next?
14 A. At one point, Ghislaine told me to come
15 upstairs, and we went into a closet and pulled out
16 the puppet, the caricature of Prince Andrew, and
17 brought it down. And there was a little tag on the
18 puppet that said "Prince Andrew" on it, and that's
19 when I knew who he was.
20 Q. And did -- what did the puppet look like?
21 A. It looked like him. And she brought it
22 down and presented it to him; and that was a great
23 joke, because apparently it was a production from a
24 show on BBC. And they decided to take a picture
25 with it, in which Virginia and Andrew sat on a
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 179
Page 22
1 couch. They put the puppet on Virginia's lap, and I
2 sat on Andrew's lap, and they put the puppet's hand
3 on Virginia's breast, and Andrew put his hand on my
4 breast, and they took a photo.
5 Q. Do you remember who took the photo?
6 A. I don't recall.
7 Q. Did you ever see the photo after it was
8 taken?
9 A. I did not.
10 Q. And Ms. Maxwell was present during the --
11 was Ms. Maxwell present during that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. What happened next?
14 A. The next thing I remember is just being
15 shown to which room I was going to be staying in.
16 Q. When you exited the room that you were in
17 where the picture was taken, do you recall who
18 remained in that room?
19 A. I don't.
20 Q. Do you recall seeing Virginia exit that
21 room?
22 A. I don't.
23 Q. During this trip to New York, did you have
24 to perform any work when you were at the New York
25 house?
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 179
Page 23
1 A. I performed at least one massage that I
2 recall.
3 Q. And who instructed you to give that
4 massage?
5 A. Jeffrey.
6 Q. And can you describe for me what happened
7 during that massage?
8 A. Near the end, he asked me to rub his
9 nipples while he masturbated.
10 Q. And did that take place?
11 A. It did not.
12 Q. And why not?
13 A. I was not comfortable with it. And so I
14 left the room.
15 Q. Did you have any -- did you say anything
16 to him before leaving the room?
17 A. I believe I said, "I'm done."
18 Q. Do you recall what his reaction was to
19 that?
20 A. I do not. At the time, at that moment, I
21 do not.
22 Q. Did you recall later what --
23 A. Well, we had a conversation a little
24 later, talking about his expectations, and that was
25 the conversation where he said that the next trip
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 179
Page 24
1 they were going on was to the island in the Virgin
2 Islands, and I would be invited; however, there
3 would be, quote, sex stuff happening.
4 Q. Can you describe for me -- can you
5 describe for me what that -- in New York, where you
6 massaged and what that looked like?
7 A. He had one room that was the massage room.
8 It was about the size of a spa room in a spa. It
9 had high ceilings. It had dark tapestry on the
10 walls. It was a very dark room. There was a very
11 large picture of a naked woman whom I don't recall.
12 That's all I remember.
13 Q. In the New York home, did you observe
14 photos around the house?
15 A. I don't recall.
16 Q. In the Palm Beach home that we were
17 talking about earlier, did you recall seeing photos
18 in that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And did you recall seeing photos of naked
21 females in that home?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Approximately -- can you tell me where you
24 would see those in the home?
25 A. I definitely saw them in his bathroom.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 25 of 179
Page 25
1 And I can't recall if they were in the main living
2 areas.
3 Q. Did you see them in the stairwell up to
4 the second story of the house?
5 A. I can't recall.
6 Q. Do you know who -- who the people were in
7 those photos? Were you familiar with any of them?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Were you in any of those photos?
10 A. At one point, yes.
11 Q. And were you naked in that photo?
12 A. Topless.
13 Q. Do you recall seeing any naked photos of
14 Virginia Roberts?
15 A. I do not.
16 Q. Where did you go next, after the New York
17 visit?
18 A. I went to the Virgin Islands.
19 Q. And who told you that you would be going
20 to the Virgin Islands?
21 A. He asked me if I wanted to go, and I said
22 I would still like to go.
23 Q. And do you recall who you -- who went with
24 you to the Virgin Islands?
25 A. I believe -- well, I know Virginia was
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 26 of 179
Page 26
1 with me. Ghislaine was there. Jeffrey. And there
2 were two other women that I don't recall their
3 names.
4 Q. Did you travel on Jeffrey's plane to get
5 to the Virgin Islands?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. I want to show you again the flight log
8 that you have there in front of you. If you can
9 flip to --
10 MS. MENNINGER: I'm going to object to the
11 foundation again.
12 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
13 Q. It's that same page that you were on. The
14 date is the 11th.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Do you see the TEB to TIST there?
17 A. Yes.
18 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading. The
19 questioning is testifying now.
20 MS. McCAWLEY: Can you let me finish my
21 question, please?
22 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
23 Q. Can you tell me who the initials are there
24 that you see that were on the plane?
25 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation,
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 27 of 179
Page 27
1 leading.
2 THE WITNESS: Jeffrey Epstein; Ghislaine
3 Maxwell; AP and PK are the two women I do not
4 recall; Virginia Roberts; and myself.
5 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
6 Q. Do you recall how you flew back from the
7 location in the US Virgin Islands?
8 A. They put me on a commercial flight. I
9 wanted to be home in time for Easter.
10 Q. When you say "they," do you recall who
11 made those arrangements for you?
12 A. It could have been Ghislaine.
13 Q. Did you -- do you recall performing
14 massages while you were in the US Virgin Islands?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Who was involved in -- was there more than
17 one?
18 A. Yes. I massaged Ghislaine at one point.
19 And I massaged Jeffrey, Virginia and I, both, on the
20 beach.
21 Q. Were you dressed during the massage that
22 was on the beach?
23 A. Yes. Bikinis probably, most likely.
24 Q. Do you recall what Virginia was wearing?
25 A. I believe she was wearing a bathing suit,
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 28 of 179
Page 28
1 as well.
2 Q. Were you paid for the massage on the beach
3 with Virginia?
4 A. At the end of -- before I left and flew
5 home, Ghislaine gave me $1,000.
6 Q. You mentioned that you massaged -- you
7 recall massaging Ghislaine on the trip to the USVI.
8 Do you recall when that took place?
9 A. I don't even recall what days we were
10 there, so...
11 Q. Do you recall where it took place?
12 A. I believe it was -- well, either in my
13 guest cottage or one of them. There were three
14 guest houses set up that were all similar and that I
15 was staying in. Virginia and I stayed in one
16 together. And it was either in there or in another
17 one that was identical.
18 Q. And was that massage performed with
19 Virginia as well or by you alone?
20 A. I don't recall.
21 Q. Were there other females in the USVI on
22 that trip with you besides Virginia?
23 A. Two others.
24 Q. And do you recall who they were?
25 A. I do not.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 29 of 179
Page 29
1 Q. Did you ever see Ghislaine Maxwell during
2 that trip laying out by the pool?
3 A. There was one time where we were all by
4 the pool, yes.
5 Q. Was Ghislaine Maxwell ever nude or topless
6 by the pool?
7 A. I don't recall. She was nude when she
8 went swimming in the ocean.
9 Q. At that moment in the USVI home, did you
10 observe any photos there of nude females?
11 A. I don't recall.
12 Q. Besides Virginia, who you mentioned, you
13 observed to be young, did you observe any other
14 females that in your view appeared to be essentially
15 under the age of 18?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Did you observe any females who you
18 thought looked young, younger than you?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Do you remember an individual by the name
21 of that you met during your time with Jeffrey
22 Epstein?
23 A. In Palm Beach?
24 Q. Yes.
25 A. Yes.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 30 of 179
Page 30
1 Q. Did you observe her to be young when you
2 met her?
3 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, vague as to
4 time.
5 THE WITNESS: All of the women were
6 generally young. I did not know the ages of
7 really anyone, so...
8 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
9 Q. How many massages did Jeffrey receive on
10 average in a given day?
11 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation.
12 THE WITNESS: Three a day.
13 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
14 Q. Let me back up for a moment.
15 How long did you work for Jeffrey and
16 Ghislaine?
17 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading and
18 foundation.
19 THE WITNESS: I believe it was five years,
20 2001 to 2006.
21 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
22 Q. And how many massages did Epstein receive
23 per day on average?
24 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation.
25 THE WITNESS: Three.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 31 of 179
Page 31
1 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
2 Q. Were the massages performed by the same
3 girl or different females?
4 A. Different.
5 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation.
6 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
7 Q. What did the females who performed the
8 massages look like?
9 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation.
10 THE WITNESS: They all looked different.
11 Some of them were ethnic, some were blond, some
12 were short, some were tall. Everyone was thin.
13 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
14 Q. Were the girls who performed the massages
15 young or old?
16 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation.
17 THE WITNESS: I don't recall anyone being
18 old.
19 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
20 Q. Do you recall anybody being over the age
21 of, say, 25?
22 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, form.
23 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I believe there was
24 probably a few women that were older than 25.
25 MS. MENNINGER: I'm sorry. I get a chance
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 32 of 179
Page 32
1 to object and then you can still answer. No
2 one is going to stop you from answering. I
3 just need to get the objection on the record,
4 in the same way she needs to be able to talk
5 before you. My apologies. I'm not trying to
6 cut you off, but I am supposed to get it in
7 before you answer.
8 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
9 Q. Did Jeffrey ever tell you why he received
10 so many massages from so many different girls?
11 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, hearsay.
12 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
13 Q. You can answer.
14 A. He explained to me that, in his opinion,
15 he needed to have three orgasms a day. It was
16 biological, like eating.
17 Q. And what was your reaction to that
18 statement?
19 A. I thought it was a little crazy.
20 Q. And what did -- do you recall what -- when
21 you observed the other females giving massages, do
22 you recall what they would dress like? Did they
23 wear scrubs or did they typically wear normal
24 clothes?
25 A. Normal clothes.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 33 of 179
Page 33
1 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading.
2 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
3 Q. Do you believe that from your
4 observations, Maxwell and Epstein were boyfriend and
5 girlfriend?
6 A. Initially, yes.
7 Q. Did Maxwell ever share with you whether it
8 bothered her that Jeffrey had so many girls around?
9 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading,
10 hearsay.
11 THE WITNESS: No. Actually, the opposite.
12 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
13 Q. What did she say?
14 A. She let me know that she was -- she would
15 not be able to please him as much as he needed and
16 that is why there were other girls around.
17 Q. Did there ever come a time -- did you ever
18 take a photography class in school?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And did there ever come a time when
21 Maxwell offered to buy you a camera?
22 A. Yes.
23 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading.
24 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
25 Q. Did Maxwell ever offer to buy you a
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 34 of 179
Page 34
1 camera?
2 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading.
3 THE WITNESS: Yes.
4 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
5 Q. Was there anything you were supposed to do
6 in order to get the camera?
7 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading.
8 THE WITNESS: I did not know that there
9 were expectations of me to get the camera until
10 after. She had purchased the camera for me,
11 and I was over there giving Jeffrey a massage.
12 I did not know that she was in possession of
13 the camera until later.
14 She told me -- called me after I had left
15 and said, I have the camera for you, but you
16 cannot receive it yet because you came here and
17 didn't finish your job and I had to finish it
18 for you.
19 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
20 Q. And did you -- what did you understand her
21 to mean?
22 A. She was implying that I did not get
23 Jeffrey off, and so she had to do it.
24 Q. And when you say "get Jeffrey off," do you
25 mean bring him to orgasm?
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 35 of 179
Page 35
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Did Ghislaine ever describe to you what
3 types of girls Jeffrey liked?
4 A. Model types.
5 Q. Did Ghislaine ever talk to you about how
6 you should act around Jeffrey?
7 A. She just had a conversation with me that I
8 should always act grateful.
9 Q. Did Jeffrey ever tell you that he took a
10 girl's virginity?
11 A. He did not tell me. He told a friend of
12 mine.
13 Q. And what do you recall about that?
14 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, hearsay,
15 foundation.
16 THE WITNESS: He wanted to have a friend
17 of mine come out who was cardio-kickboxer
18 instructor. She was a physical trainer.
19 And so I brought her over to the house,
20 and he told my friend Rachel that -- he said,
21 You see that girl over there laying by the
22 pool? She was 19. And he said, I just took
23 her virginity. And my friend Rachel was
24 mortified.
25
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 36 of 179
Page 36
1 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
2 Q. Based on what you knew, did Maxwell know
3 that the type of massages Jeffrey was getting
4 typically involved sexual acts?
5 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation,
6 leading.
7 THE WITNESS: Yes.
8 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
9 Q. What was Maxwell's main job with respect
10 to Jeffrey?
11 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation.
12 THE WITNESS: Well, beyond companionship,
13 her job, as it related to me, was to find other
14 girls that would perform massages for him and
15 herself.
16 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
17 Q. Did Maxwell ever refer to the girls in a
18 particular way?
19 A. At one point when we were in the islands,
20 we were all watching a movie and she called us her
21 children.
22 Q. Did anybody respond to that?
23 A. I don't recall.
24 Q. Did she ever refer to herself as a mother?
25 A. Yes, like a mother hen.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 37 of 179
Page 37
1 Q. Do you recall who was present at the time
2 that she made that comment about children?
3 A. This was the second trip that I took to
4 the Virgin Islands, so, no. I don't want to speak,
5 you know, incorrectly. I can't remember. I can't
6 really remember.
7 Q. Have you ever met David Copperfield?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And do you recall when you initially met
10 him?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Can you tell me what that was?
13 A. Sure. Someone called me from the house
14 and said that he would be there, and if I wanted to
15 come have dinner, then I could meet him.
16 So when I arrived at the house, he wasn't
17 there yet, but I waited with, I believe, Sarah
18 Kellen, and there was another girl there which I had
19 never met and never seen. She seemed young to me.
20 And I asked her what school she went to,
21 kind of prodding to see if she went to one of the
22 area colleges, and I did not recognize the name of
23 the school.
24 And so I thought she could be younger than
25 college age, but I had to assume for my own sanity
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 38 of 179
Page 38
1 that she was a daughter of one of his friends.
2 Q. But it was possible she was the school --
3 is it possible that the school she referred to was a
4 high school?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And what happened at that dinner, if
7 anything?
8 A. He did some magic tricks.
9 Q. Did you observe David Copperfield to be a
10 friend of Jeffrey Epstein's?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Did Copperfield ever discuss Jeffrey's
13 involvement with young girls with you?
14 A. He questioned me if I was aware that girls
15 were getting paid to find other girls.
16 Q. Did he tell you any of the specifics of
17 that?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Did he say whether they were teenagers or
20 anything along those lines?
21 A. He did not.
22 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, calls
23 for hearsay.
24 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
25 Q. Did you ever hear or observe Jeffrey
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 39 of 179
Page 39
1 talking on the phone about Frederic Fekkai?
2 A. Yes.
3 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading.
4 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
5 Q. What did you hear?
6 A. I heard him call someone, and say, Fekkai
7 is in Hawaii. Can we find some girls for him?
8 Q. And what was your reaction to that?
9 A. Well, I was massaging and I didn't have a
10 reaction. I tried to remain reactionless the whole
11 five years.
12 Q. Did Jeffrey ever take you shopping?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Can you describe for me what happened?
15 A. Sure. He took me to Victoria's Secret. I
16 believe he picked out everything and went into the
17 room with me, the fitting room, which was very odd.
18 Q. Did he make any comments about being in
19 the fitting room with you?
20 A. He joked that one time he was in there
21 with another girl, and she said something like
22 "Dad." But that's all I recall.
23 Q. Did Jeffrey ever talk to you -- let me
24 back up a moment.
25 Have you ever been propositioned by anyone
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 40 of 179
Page 40
1 to have a baby for someone?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And who propositioned you?
4 A. Jeffrey asked me.
5 Q. Did he ask you more than once?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And what did he say?
8 A. Basically just said, I want you to be the
9 mother of my baby.
10 Q. And do you recall your response to that?
11 A. Um, I don't believe that I said flat-out
12 no. I didn't agree to it. I would just say, Oh,
13 yeah, really? Okay.
14 Q. Did you ever bring other girls over as
15 Maxwell had requested?
16 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading,
17 hearsay, form.
18 THE WITNESS: One time.
19 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
20 Q. Let me back up a minute, just to make it a
21 clean question.
22 Did you ever bring friends over to massage
23 Jeffrey?
24 A. No.
25 Q. And why did you not bring friends over to
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 41 of 179
Page 41
1 massage Jeffrey?
2 A. I was living in secret about what I was
3 doing during the massages, and I did not want my
4 friends to be -- to know what I was doing. So I did
5 not want anyone else coming into that.
6 Q. Was Bill Clinton a friend of Jeffrey
7 Epstein?
8 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation.
9 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
10 Q. Let me back up.
11 Do you know if Bill Clinton was a friend
12 of Jeffrey Epstein?
13 A. I knew he had dealings with Bill Clinton.
14 I did not know they were friends until I read the
15 Vanity Fair article about them going to Africa
16 together.
17 Q. Did Jeffrey ever talk to you about Bill
18 Clinton?
19 A. He said one time that Clinton likes them
20 young, referring to girls.
21 Q. Did you ever -- do you recall ever taking
22 a trip to Jeffrey Epstein's home in New Mexico?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And do you recall who you went on that
25 trip with?
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 42 of 179
Page 42
1 A. Sarah Kellen was there. Ghislaine was
2 there. That's all I recall.
3 Q. Do you recall why you went on the trip to
4 New Mexico?
5 A. To work.
6 Q. Did you perform massages on that trip?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Did you -- do you recall whether you
9 performed massages with Sarah Kellen on that trip?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Do you recall in the New Mexico home ever
12 observing nude photos of females there?
13 A. I don't recall.
14 Q. When you would provide massages, would you
15 provide those massages naked?
16 A. On occasion.
17 Q. On average, would you be naked, if it was
18 100 percent of the time, more than 50 percent of the
19 time?
20 A. Can you repeat it?
21 Q. Sure. When you're performing the
22 massages, can you tell me -- you said on occasion.
23 Over the five years that you worked for him, how
24 often did you perform massages naked?
25 A. Somewhere between 25 and 50 percent of the
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 43 of 179
Page 43
1 time.
2 Q. Did Epstein try to make the massages
3 sexual?
4 A. On occasion.
5 Q. Would Epstein have you rub his nipples?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Would he masturbate during the massages?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Did he use sex toys or vibrators on you?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Would he leave the sex toys or vibrators
12 out after the massage or would he clean up after
13 himself?
14 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, vague, form.
15 THE WITNESS: He did not ever clean up.
16 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
17 Q. Do you believe that your experience during
18 the years you were with Jeffrey and Maxwell damaged
19 you?
20 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form.
21 THE WITNESS: It affected me. "Damaged"
22 is a strong word.
23 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
24 Q. And in what way did it affect you?
25 A. It affected future relationships with men,
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 44 of 179
Page 44
1 trust issues, expectation issues.
2 Q. Did you observe Nadia Marcinkova and
3 Ghislaine at the house at the same time?
4 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form.
5 THE WITNESS: I don't recall.
6 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
7 Q. On the USVI trip, the second trip that you
8 took, do you recall Nadia Marcinkova being present?
9 A. I believe she was present at that trip.
10 Q. Do you recall Maxwell being present on
11 that trip?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Do you know an individual by the name of
14 ?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And who is ?
17 A. She was one of the girls that was around.
18 Q. Was around both Jeffrey Epstein
19 and Ghislaine Maxwell?
20 A. I don't recall.
21 Q. Do you recall where you first met
22
23 A. In Palm Beach.
24 Q. At Jeffrey Epstein's home?
25 A. Yes.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 45 of 179
Page 45
1 Q. And what -- do you recall any observations
2 about when you met her?
3 A. To speak with, she was a little rough
4 around the edges, and I could see the progression of
5 her being groomed a little. They got her braces.
6 She had terrible posture. And with a lot of
7 massages, she learned to stand up straight. So I
8 just saw her become a much more confident person.
9 Q. Do you recall how old she was when you
10 first met her?
11 A. I assumed she was 18, but I do not know
12 her age.
13 MS. McCAWLEY: We're going to take a break
14 really quickly and then we will be back. So we
15 are going to go off the record.
16 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at 9:48.
17 (Thereupon, a recess was taken, after
18 which the following proceedings were held:)
19 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: On the record at 9:58.
20 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
21 Q. I'm just going to resume. I have a few
22 more questions for you.
23 You mentioned visiting the US Virgin
24 Islands.
25 Do you recall doing any activities with
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 46 of 179
Page 46
1 Maxwell when you were on the visit to the USVI?
2 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, vague as to
3 time.
4 THE WITNESS: I don't recall.
5 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
6 Q. Do you recall ever going hiking with her?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Did Maxwell ever ask you to try to bring
9 other girls over for Jeffrey?
10 A. At that time?
11 Q. Yes.
12 A. No.
13 Q. Any other time?
14 A. Well, she had asked me if I knew anyone
15 that could perform massages that would come to the
16 house.
17 Q. And what was your understanding of that
18 request?
19 MS. MENNINGER: Objection.
20 THE WITNESS: Well --
21 MS. MENNINGER: Form.
22 THE WITNESS: -- I just wondered why they
23 wouldn't just call me.
24 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
25 Q. And did you bring anybody else over to
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 47 of 179
Page 47
1 perform massages?
2 A. I did not.
3 Q. When you were either in the USVI or in
4 Palm Beach, did you ever observe any females either
5 topless or naked out by the pool?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. What did you observe?
8 A. Mostly skinny-dipping.
9 Q. Do you know who the individuals were that
10 you observed?
11 A. Sarah Kellen and Ghislaine.
12 Q. Anybody else?
13 A. Yes, but I don't recall who.
14 Q. Did that happen on more than one occasion?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. How often do you remember making those
17 observations?
18 A. Three times.
19 Q. Do you recall giving a statement to the
20 police regarding Jeffrey Epstein?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Do you recall when you gave that
23 statement?
24 A. I don't recall the date.
25 Q. Do you recall the year?
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 48 of 179
Page 48
1 A. I want to say it was early 2006 or late
2 2005.
3 Q. Do you recall who you met with?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Do you recall what you told the police?
6 A. It was similar to this. They were asking
7 me a lot of questions that I answered. They knew a
8 lot. They knew what the bathroom looked like. They
9 knew that the couch had a hot pink throw on it with
10 green tassels.
11 I assumed that there had been videos and
12 they had seen me. They had seen the videos. That's
13 what I had assumed. I didn't know that maybe people
14 had already come forward and given them statements.
15 Q. Did they talk to you at all about the
16 videos?
17 A. They said, Were you aware that there were
18 video cameras in the house?
19 I said, No, but it would not surprise me.
20 MS. McCAWLEY: And I'm going to mark as
21 Exhibit 4 -- do you have an extra -- sorry.
22 Did you get one? Okay. Giuffre 0002 through
23 89.
24 And I'm going to direct you to page 00076,
25 and I'm going to hand it to you.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 49 of 179
Page 49
1 (The referred-to document was marked by
2 the court reporter for Identification as
3 Sjoberg Exhibit 4.)
4 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
5 Q. I'm just going to ask that you take a look
6 at that. As you can see, under the narrative line
7 there, there is a name. It says, "Reported by
8 Recarey, Joseph." Is that a name you recall meeting
9 with, a Detective Recarey?
10 A. Yes. I mean, I don't recall his name,
11 only except that he had been following me around,
12 and he left me cards, like, on my car and in my
13 door. I tried to avoid him for a long time.
14 Q. And can you just look at the text
15 underneath there?
16 A. Uh-huh.
17 Q. Take a moment to look at that.
18 A. Sure.
19 Q. Does that refresh your recollection as to
20 what you told the police during the investigation?
21 A. There are errors in here. I was not 23
22 when I met him. I was 21.
23 Q. Anything else that doesn't look correct?
24 A. The same error: That I had met him three
25 years ago, and it obviously had been closer to five.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 50 of 179
Page 50
1 There is also the error, he obviously
2 misunderstood me: He did not pay for my tuition at
3 college. I'm still paying those school loans. But
4 he did pay for me to go to massage school and to
5 cosmetology school.
6 Okay. It pretty much ends here.
7 Q. Yes. Right. About halfway through the
8 page.
9 A. Okay.
10 MS. McCAWLEY: So, Johanna, that concludes
11 my initial piece. I'm going to reserve the
12 rest of my time for redirect. I'm going to
13 turn it over to Laura.
14 MS. MENNINGER: Can we take just a little
15 break?
16 MS. McCAWLEY: Sure, no problem.
17 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at
18 10:05.
19 (Thereupon, a recess was taken, after
20 which the following proceedings were held:)
21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: On the record at 10:14.
22 E X A M I N A T I O N
23 BY MS. MENNINGER:
24 Q. Hi.
25 A. Hello.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 51 of 179
Page 51
1 Q. We've never met before today, correct?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. Can you tell me a little bit about your
4 current job?
5 A. Sure. I just purchased a salon. I'm a
6 salon owner. I'm a hairstylist.
7 Q. Congratulations.
8 A. Thank you.
9 Q. How long have you been a hairstylist?
10 A. For 10 years.
11 Q. And what did you do before that?
12 A. I briefly did massage in a spa for about a
13 year and a half. And before that I was a nanny, and
14 before that I was in school.
15 Q. And I believe you said you studied
16 psychology in school?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. Did you graduate?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. With a degree in psychology?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Where did you get training to be a massage
23 therapist?
24 A.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 52 of 179
Page 52
1 Q. And when did do you that?
2 A. That would have been, I believe, in
3 Q. And how long did you study there?
4 A. I think it was a six-month program.
5 Q. And you worked in a spa thereafter?
6 A. I did.
7 Q. What was the name of the spa again?
8 A.
9 Q. And are you married?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Do you have children?
12 A. No.
13 Q. And how old are you now?
14 A.
15 Q. Can you tell me about your first meeting
16 with Ghislaine Maxwell?
17 A. Sure. I was sitting on a bench
18 . She approached me.
19 I was getting ready to go to a class. It was my
20 junior year. Yes, it was the second semester of my
21 junior year. And she and another woman approached
22 me. The other woman didn't speak that I recall.
23 And she asked me about -- she had a house
24 in Palm Beach, and she was looking for someone that
25 she could hire to work at the house, where she could
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 53 of 179
Page 53
1 post that she needed help.
2 She then asked me if I knew anyone, and I
3 didn't know who she was, I didn't want to take the
4 responsibility of finding someone to work for her,
5 and so I said, Sorry, I don't.
6 And then she said, Well, maybe what about
7 you?
8 And I was at a point in life, I was super
9 spontaneous and willing to skip school.
10 So she said, Come to my house, come in my
11 car and check it out.
12 And so I did.
13 Q. Okay. So for those of you -- of us who
14 don't know, is this like a college campus, like a
15 traditional college campus, or is it in a city
16 setting?
17 A. It's in a city setting. I mean, Palm
18 Beach is not a big city. So it's on the
19 Intracoastal, and there was a big grassy area that
20 were surrounded by buildings, so she was inside of
21 the campus.
22 Q. And she was looking for a bulletin board
23 where she could post a job?
24 A. Something like that, yes.
25 Q. Did she have any kind of flyers --
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 54 of 179
Page 54
1 A. Not that I recall.
2 Q. But that's what she asked you, for
3 directions to a bulletin board where she could post
4 a job?
5 A. Yes.
6 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
7 BY MS. MENNINGER
8 Q. And it sounds like you guys got into a
9 conversation; is that fair?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Can you describe Ghislaine Maxwell's
12 personality?
13 A. Well, I instantly picked up on the fact
14 that she was British. She had on, like, workout
15 clothes. I believe she was wearing all black. And
16 she -- I mean, she was a little snarky, but I felt
17 comfortable enough to get in the car with her.
18 Q. And it sounds like you had contact with
19 her over the next several years; is that fair?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And did you get to know more about her
22 personality over those five years, four or five
23 years?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And can you describe her for me, how you
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 55 of 179
Page 55
1 observed her personality to be?
2 A. Sure. She definitely had a great sense of
3 humor, she loved making jokes. I mean, in a very
4 British way. I don't remember her ever laughing,
5 but she was funny.
6 And I remember just thinking, she -- the
7 first weekend that we flew to the Virgin Islands,
8 she flew the helicopter from Saint, wherever we were
9 to little Saint Jeff [sic] or whatever the name of
10 the island was, and I just thought, wow, who is this
11 woman.
12 Q. Would you say that you respected her?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. When you ended up getting in the car with
15 her and this other woman and going back to the
16 house, who was driving the car?
17 A. She was driving.
18 Q. And where did she take you?
19 A. She took me to the house in Palm Beach.
20 Q. And can you describe the house in Palm
21 Beach?
22 A. Sure. It's at the end of El Brillo Way,
23 on the Intracoastal. The house was either white or
24 pink. It was pink at one time it may have been
25 painted. It was nothing fancy, it was large, it was
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 56 of 179
Page 56
1 like a beach house.
2 Q. And when you got there, do you remember
3 meeting other people while you were there that first
4 time?
5 A. I remember other people being in the home.
6 I don't really remember who was there.
7 Q. Do you remember meeting, like, a butler
8 or --
9 A. Potentially, a chef. Someone in the
10 kitchen. Maybe a house manager, yeah.
11 Q. What was your impression of this other
12 woman that was with Ms. Maxwell at this time?
13 A. Zero. She left zero impression on me.
14 Q. Age, height, hair color? Nothing?
15 A. I want to say she was brunette. Age, 20s.
16 Yeah.
17 Q. And you were going for the purposes of
18 checking out potentially working at this job?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. It sounds like you met Jeffrey Epstein
21 that first time that you did go to the house, right?
22 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
23 THE WITNESS: I believe I either met him
24 that time or the next time. I can't recall.
25
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 57 of 179
Page 57
1 BY MS. MENNINGER:
2 Q. Okay. And tell me about your first
3 meeting with him.
4 A. Sure. I met him, I believe it was in the
5 hallway right beside the kitchen. There was a
6 hallway. It was actually more like a room, a pantry
7 type of room. That's where all of the pieces of
8 paper with the phone messages would lay.
9 And I remember sitting on the counter and
10 speaking with him, and he was in a bathrobe, and he
11 spoke with me about me being in college and studying
12 psychology.
13 Q. And did you form an opinion of him in that
14 first meeting?
15 A. I -- yeah. I believed that he was smart.
16 He was personable and could speak to anyone.
17 Q. Did he give off any sexual vibes in the
18 first meeting?
19 A. No.
20 Q. And where was Ghislaine when you were
21 speaking with Mr. Epstein?
22 A. I don't recall.
23 Q. Do you recall going to a second floor of
24 the home during that first meeting?
25 A. I don't recall. Ghislaine said at one
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 58 of 179
Page 58
1 point, You might get a massage today. That was --
2 sorry, that was the second time when I was in the
3 home working. And I just thought it was crazy that
4 I would get a massage while I was working. But it
5 did not end up happening because the masseuse could
6 not stay.
7 Q. Do you know who the masseuse was that
8 could not stay?
9 A. No.
10 Q. But that didn't happen on the first
11 meeting; you believe that was the second meeting?
12 A. Yes, that was when I was there to work.
13 Q. How long -- how did the first trip to the
14 house end?
15 A. She gave me her phone number, and she took
16 my phone number, and she took me back to school.
17 Q. And were you full-time at school at the
18 time?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And how many classes were you taking, if
21 you remember?
22 A. Probably four or five.
23 Q. How did you -- how long was it before you
24 heard from Ms. Maxwell again?
25 A. Within probably three days.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 59 of 179
Page 59
1 Q. And how did she contact you?
2 A. She called me on my -- at that time I had
3 a cell phone. It could have been on my cell phone.
4 It could have been on my house phone. We had house
5 phones back then.
6 Q. I remember.
7 Where were you living at the time?
8 A. I was in an apartment in West Palm Beach.
9 Q. And did you have a roommate or with
10 family?
11 A. I had a roommate.
12 Q. So when Ms. Maxwell called you on whatever
13 phone it was, do you remember what she said?
14 A. Yeah. She said, Do you want to come over
15 and work on Sunday?
16 Q. And what did you say?
17 A. I said, Sure.
18 Q. And did you?
19 A. I did.
20 Q. How did you get there?
21 A. That I don't recall, because I did not
22 have a car.
23 Q. Did you --
24 A. I think my roommate dropped me off,
25 honestly. I can remember what I was wearing.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 60 of 179
Page 60
1 Q. You do?
2 A. I do.
3 Q. What were you wearing?
4 A. I had a -- I still have the shirt. It's
5 an old, weathered, blue, North Carolina Tech Tar
6 Heels T-shirt.
7 Q. Because you -- did Ms. Maxwell explain to
8 you what you would be doing on that Sunday when you
9 came to work or was that part of the prior
10 conversation?
11 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
12 THE WITNESS: About what I was wearing?
13 BY MS. MENNINGER:
14 Q. No. About what you were going to do at
15 work.
16 A. She had explained that she just wanted
17 someone to help out around the house, answering
18 phones, you know, grabbing drinks if someone wanted
19 a drink, running errands.
20 Q. And so you dressed appropriate to what you
21 believed --
22 A. I did not know how to dress properly,
23 apparently. I should not have worn that. But I was
24 in college.
25 Q. Did anyone say anything to you?
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 61 of 179
Page 61
1 A. No.
2 Q. So when you got there, what happened?
3 This is your second time to the house, but your
4 first time working, right?
5 A. Yes.
6 I was probably introduced to a few people
7 that were there. I mean, I was there for several
8 hours. Do I recall every minute? No. I just
9 recall when I would actually have to work, answer
10 the phone, pour some drinks for people. Just water;
11 they didn't drink alcohol. And run errands. There
12 were a few errands that I ran.
13 Q. You described those errands earlier?
14 A. I did. In her car.
15 Q. You used her car?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. What kind of car was it?
18 A. It was a Mercedes convertible.
19 Q. Did anyone go with you?
20 A. No.
21 Q. You described a shopping trip. Was that
22 in the same car?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Was that a separate trip than when you
25 went to run errands?
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 62 of 179
Page 62
1 A. Yes. That's when Ghislaine went with me
2 and she drove.
3 Q. Okay. So you ran errands, came back, more
4 than once?
5 A. Twice.
6 Q. And then you went on a shopping trip?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. During the time you were at the home, was
9 there anything that made you suspicious?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Or leery?
12 A. No.
13 Q. You mentioned there may have been some
14 discussion of a massage. Do you recall that
15 discussion?
16 A. I had never had a massage before. So she
17 just said there was a massage therapist coming and I
18 may get one.
19 Q. Did she say who it was?
20 A. No.
21 Q. So when you went shopping on this trip,
22 you said Ghislaine drove the car and you went with
23 her. Was anyone else there?
24 A. No.
25 Q. And where did you all go?
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 63 of 179
Page 63
1 A. We went to Worth Avenue in Palm Beach, but
2 because it was Sunday, the stores were closed.
3 Bless you.
4 MR. LOUIS: Thank you.
5 THE WITNESS: So from there, we went to --
6 I believe it was Palm Beach Daily News, which
7 was like a little book store. And I remember
8 her purchasing reading glasses for Jeffrey and
9 some magazines.
10 BY MS. MENNINGER:
11 Q. Were those things for the home?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And earlier on your errands, you had been
14 purchasing things for the home or office?
15 A. Yes. Yes.
16 Q. Besides the printer cartridge, ink
17 cartridge, do you remember anything else?
18 A. Well, yes. Like they wanted specific
19 magazines. I don't know if it was, like, Scientific
20 American or something to that effect. It was
21 wasn't, like, Playboy.
22 Q. Okay. Did you ever answer phones?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. When did you answer phones?
25 A. That day.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 64 of 179
Page 64
1 Q. Do you remember anything notable about the
2 phone calls?
3 A. I just remember I always had to say, He's
4 unavailable, can I take a message?
5 Q. And where did you take a message?
6 A. On a little notepad next to the phone.
7 Q. Do you recall any small children calling
8 the house that day?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Were you speaking to anyone about their
11 school experience or anything like that?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Did you take any messages for famous
14 people?
15 A. They could have been famous and I would
16 have been clueless.
17 Q. Did you take messages at any other point
18 during the time that you worked with Jeffrey?
19 A. No.
20 Q. And you said you remember at the end of
21 that day being paid by Ghislaine?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And you were paid for doing the errands
24 and answering phones and whatever else you did?
25 A. Yes.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 65 of 179
Page 65
1 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
2 BY MS. MENNINGER:
3 Q. Did you do anything else that day in terms
4 of errands or things around the house that you
5 remember?
6 A. Not that I recall.
7 Q. Did you come back to answer phones and do
8 errands any other day?
9 A. No.
10 Q. That was the only day you did it?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. All right.
13 Tell me the second time -- how long was it
14 before you got another sort of contact from anybody
15 at the home?
16 A. Okay. Well, after that -- I remember
17 actually that day of working, I sat with Ghislaine
18 outside on this -- outside table on the patio by the
19 pool. I told her that I was getting ready to go to
20 Nicaragua for spring break on a mission trip. I
21 remember her going, Why would you ever go to
22 Nicaragua? So I was going to be gone the next week
23 for spring break.
24 So she called, after I returned, and asked
25 if I wanted to make $100 an hour rubbing feet.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 66 of 179
Page 66
1 Q. Was that the whole conversation?
2 A. That was pretty much it. I said, Okay,
3 sure, tell me when.
4 Q. And were you excited about the prospect of
5 rubbing feet and making $100?
6 A. I was actually with -- while I was on the
7 trip in Nicaragua, I was rubbing feet, I was
8 massaging people, their feet. So it just seemed
9 kind of crazy that it all happened at the same time.
10 Q. How was it rubbing feet?
11 A. I guess I just liked doing it. I didn't
12 know that I did, but I was massaging people's feet.
13 Q. Were these strangers?
14 A. No, no, no. They were -- it was a group
15 of us that went on the trip. So we were all very
16 close.
17 Q. What kind of trip was it?
18 A. It was a -- well, a PBA, you had to do
19 these things called Workship hours, which you had to
20 do community service, 40 hours every year. And so
21 that was the way to do them all, and you would go on
22 these trips and help build a school or feed children
23 or do some sort of -- something nice.
24 Q. Nice.
25 What other trips did you take while you
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 67 of 179
Page 67
1 were there?
2 A. I did a trip and worked with Habitat for
3 Humanity in Baltimore. And then I went back to
4 Nicaragua the next year and did the same thing.
5 Q. Very nice.
6 And you were there for a whole week?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. All right.
9 So you got a call from Ghislaine after you
10 returned?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And that's when she asked you about
13 rubbing feet?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And did she tell you when she would like
16 you to come over?
17 A. It was either that night or the next day.
18 Q. And do you know how you got there?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Do you know what you were wearing?
21 A. No, I don't remember.
22 Q. When you got there, I think you said you
23 don't remember if Ghislaine was actually there the
24 second time?
25 A. I want to believe that she was there
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 68 of 179
Page 68
1 because she was my main contact, and so I would
2 assume that she was probably at the house and
3 greeted me; however, I do not recall if she was
4 there.
5 Q. It sounds like you met Emmy Taylor?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. How did you meet Emmy Taylor?
8 A. She was at the house the first day that I
9 worked running errands. And I realized she was also
10 a personal assistant type of person.
11 Q. Do you know who she worked for?
12 A. She, well, Ghislaine, it appeared to me
13 that she worked for Ghislaine. Ghislaine sort of
14 told her what to do and where to go.
15 Q. And I believe you mentioned she called her
16 her slave?
17 A. She did. It was in a joking way, but she
18 said, Yes, that's my slave.
19 Q. You did not see her in any type of slavery
20 situation?
21 A. Not any chains or anything of the sort,
22 no.
23 Q. So tell me what you remember about the
24 second time you went.
25 A. The third time?
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 69 of 179
Page 69
1 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
2 BY MS. MENNINGER:
3 Q. I'm sorry. You're right. Third time.
4 The second time you went to work, but the third time
5 you were there.
6 A. Correct.
7 So I was escorted up to the bathroom,
8 which is where 99 percent of the massages happened.
9 And Emmy Taylor was with me and Jeffrey. And I
10 don't remember the order, but Emmy was on the table
11 at one point. She took all of her clothes off, got
12 on the table.
13 I remember thinking, Okay, she's just
14 going to strip naked and get on the table. Well,
15 that's cool. We're cool. That's what we do.
16 And Jeffrey was showing me how to massage
17 on her body. And then I took my clothes off and got
18 on the table, and then they showed me what it felt
19 like with the both of them.
20 And then Jeffrey got on the table and Emmy
21 showed me how to massage.
22 Q. So Ghislaine was not in the room?
23 A. No.
24 Q. You said that 99 percent of the massages
25 took place in the bathroom.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 70 of 179
Page 70
1 Did you see massages take place in other
2 places of the house at all?
3 A. Did I see any? No, besides us maybe
4 hanging out on the couch and someone massaging his
5 foot or me massaging his foot. But not, like, on a
6 table.
7 Q. So just casual foot-rubbing might happen
8 elsewhere in the home, but not a full-blown, full
9 body massage?
10 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
11 THE WITNESS: Yes.
12 BY MS. MENNINGER:
13 Q. Did you see any full-blown, full body
14 massages out by the pool?
15 A. Not that I recall.
16 Q. And do you remember ever giving any
17 yourself?
18 A. By the pool?
19 Q. Out by the pool, yes.
20 A. On a table?
21 Q. Yes.
22 A. No.
23 Q. All right.
24 You said that you had subsequently been
25 trained as a massage therapist, correct?
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 71 of 179
Page 71
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. Would you describe it as normal massage
3 protocol for a person to be naked under a towel
4 during a massage, a regular massage?
5 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
6 THE WITNESS: Naked under a towel during a
7 massage, the person getting massaged?
8 BY MS. MENNINGER:
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And as a massage therapist, you're trained
12 how to drape the person so that they're covered in
13 the right places, correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. So when you were being trained by Emmy and
16 Jeffrey on some massage techniques, did anyone say
17 anything sexual during that conversation?
18 A. Not that I recall.
19 Q. What was the mood like? Was it, you know,
20 laughing?
21 A. Yes. Comfortable.
22 Q. And just to clarify, the people who were
23 giving the massages at the various points in time
24 were clothed while they were doing that, correct?
25 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 72 of 179
Page 72
1 BY MS. MENNINGER:
2 Q. In this period you just described with
3 Emmy Taylor and Jeffrey in a bathroom upstairs on
4 your third visit to the house, people giving the
5 massages had their clothes on, correct?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. All right.
8 What was the next time you remember coming
9 to the house there?
10 A. The next time was to do a massage. All by
11 myself.
12 Q. Okay. And how did that one come about?
13 A. Hmm, someone must have called me, but I
14 don't remember who.
15 Q. And to whom did you give the massage on
16 this next visit to the house?
17 A. Jeffrey.
18 Q. Was Ghislaine present during that massage?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Did anything unusual occur during that
21 massage?
22 A. After.
23 Q. What happened? After the massage?
24 A. He asked me how well do I orgasm. And I
25 said, I don't, I'm a virgin. And he was quite
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 73 of 179
Page 73
1 surprised.
2 Q. Where were you when you were having this
3 discussion?
4 A. In the bathroom.
5 Q. Were you clothed?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Was he clothed?
8 A. I don't remember him being naked. He was
9 probably either wrapped with a towel or in a
10 bathrobe.
11 Q. Were you caught off guard by this
12 question?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Was that the first time anyone had said
15 anything sexual to you during this --
16 A. Ever? Yes.
17 Q. Did he say anything else that you recall
18 during that conversation?
19 A. I mean, we had a little bit of a
20 conversation about it, but I don't recall
21 specifically.
22 Q. And how did that massage encounter end?
23 A. Normal. There was nothing I had to do,
24 just normal massage.
25 Q. Did he pay you?
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 74 of 179
Page 74
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. How much did he pay you?
3 A. $200.
4 Q. How did he pay you?
5 A. Cash.
6 Q. And where was the cash?
7 A. I don't recall specifically. It was
8 either -- he brought it upstairs with him or it
9 would have been down on his desk.
10 Q. And I'm assuming that you had other
11 massages that you gave him under similar
12 circumstances in the next years, right?
13 A. Many, right.
14 Q. So recalling this particular one is not
15 sticking out in your mind?
16 A. Yes.
17 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
18 BY MS. MENNINGER:
19 Q. Do you remember the next time after that?
20 A. I don't. I mean, from there, it's just a
21 blur of random invites to come over and do it.
22 Massage was, like, I would see him maybe three days
23 a row, and I wouldn't see him for two months. It
24 would be kind of that irregular schedule.
25 Q. Do you ever recall a time where you came
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 75 of 179
Page 75
1 over every day for three weeks in a row?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Were you paid $200 per massage?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And how long did the massages last?
6 A. Anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour and a
7 half.
8 Q. Did you ever give a four-hour massage to
9 him?
10 A. Good grief, no, not that I recall.
11 Q. Have you ever given a four-hour massage to
12 anyone in your whole life?
13 A. No, I haven't.
14 Q. Tell me how the whole idea of traveling to
15 New York came up.
16 A. I actually was not home. They called
17 my -- my apartment. My roommate answered. When I
18 got home, she said, You need to call Jeffrey Epstein
19 immediately. He wants to take you to New York, but
20 they are leaving at 4:00.
21 And I was excited because I had never been
22 to New York.
23 Q. Are you from
24 A. I am.
25 Q. But you never went to New York?
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 76 of 179
Page 76
1 A. Just flying over it.
2 Q. When you said they called, do you know who
3 called your roommate?
4 A. I don't know who called my roommate.
5 Q. In this sort of pre-trip to New York
6 period, do you recall discussing any of the
7 particulars of your massages with Jeffrey, with
8 Ghislaine?
9 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
10 BY MS. MENNINGER:
11 Q. If that makes sense.
12 A. No.
13 Q. So before you got this call, had anyone
14 mentioned the idea of traveling to you?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Did you call Jeffrey immediately?
17 A. I did.
18 Q. And what conversation did you have with
19 him?
20 A. Basically he said, I want to take you
21 to -- to New York City. Can you be here quickly?
22 And I got to the house, and he said, Do
23 you have your passport?
24 I said, No.
25 He said, Go get it.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 77 of 179
Page 77
1 So I went back and picked up my passport,
2 and went back to the house before we went to the
3 airport.
4 Q. And why did you need your passport?
5 A. I was ready to find out. I had no idea.
6 Q. This was the spontaneous phase?
7 A. Exactly.
8 Q. So you went and got your passport. You
9 came back. And then what happened?
10 A. Then we went to the airport.
11 Q. And who is we?
12 A. So, I don't remember the ride to the
13 airport, but the people that I recall being on the
14 plane was Jeffrey, Ghislaine, Virginia and I.
15 Q. And when was the first time you met
16 Virginia?
17 A. I believe it was that day.
18 Q. In your previous visits to the house, had
19 you seen her there?
20 A. Not that I recall.
21 Q. And what was your impression the first day
22 you met her?
23 A. She seemed young and blond and cute.
24 Q. What was her personality like?
25 A. I honestly don't recall her personality.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 78 of 179
Page 78
1 Bubbly.
2 Q. Did you see her in the plane or on the
3 trip to New York engaged in any kind of affectionate
4 or sexual contact with Jeffrey?
5 A. No.
6 Q. With Ghislaine?
7 A. No.
8 Q. How did it come to be that you were in a
9 casino in Atlantic City?
10 A. We, as we were flying, Jeffrey said, Why
11 don't you go sit in the cockpit to check out the
12 landing?
13 So we were sitting there, and the pilots
14 told me to go back and tell him that we can't land
15 in New York and that we were going to have to land
16 in Atlantic City.
17 Jeffrey said, Great, we'll call up Trump
18 and we'll go to -- I don't recall the name of the
19 casino, but -- we'll go to the casino.
20 Q. And what happened with an ID issue?
21 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection:
22 THE WITNESS: All I knew is that she was
23 not going to be allowed to gamble, and so I
24 spent time with her. We were just walking
25 around. I don't remember what we did. Because
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 79 of 179
Page 79
1 either she didn't have an ID or she was too
2 young. I don't remember specifically why. I
3 just knew that she could not gamble.
4 BY MS. MENNINGER:
5 Q. Okay. So you walked around with her in
6 Atlantic City?
7 A. Uh-huh. In the casino. We never left the
8 casino.
9 Q. Were you disappointed that you couldn't
10 gamble?
11 A. No.
12 Q. When you were walking around and talking
13 to her, did you learn anything about her?
14 A. Not that I recall.
15 Q. Did you have an impression about why she
16 was on the trip?
17 A. At that point, no. I was so new to the
18 whole thing, I was just trying to figure out my
19 position and who everybody was. At that point, I
20 had no idea -- I didn't know anything sexual was
21 happening at all. So I just felt like she was just
22 another visitor.
23 Q. Did she tell you at that time that she had
24 been to New York with Jeffrey before?
25 A. Not that I recall.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 80 of 179
Page 80
1 Q. Did she tell you anything about Ghislaine
2 during that walk-about?
3 A. No.
4 Q. And then you all traveled on to New York
5 that same night?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. How long were you in New York for that
8 visit?
9 A. It was maybe two nights.
10 Q. And where did you sleep at night?
11 A. I slept in one of the guest rooms at his
12 townhouse on 71st Street.
13 Q. And did you stay in the same room as
14 Virginia?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Do you know where she stayed?
17 A. No.
18 Q. All right.
19 And then when you got into Manhattan, how
20 did it come to be that you were doing some
21 sightseeing?
22 A. Well, they knew that I had never been, so
23 I believe Jeffrey asked the driver and Emmy just to
24 drive me around to see the Empire State Building.
25 That's all I remember. It was late. It was dark.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 81 of 179
Page 81
1 It wasn't long, maybe 30 minutes.
2 Q. When you got back to the house, what
3 happened?
4 A. I walked into the front door, and
5 Ghislaine stuck her head over the grand staircase
6 and asked me to come upstairs into the living room.
7 Q. And can you describe the living room?
8 A. Oh, it was very large and very formal.
9 And Jeffrey and her and Virginia and Prince Andrew
10 were there.
11 Q. What were they all doing when you came in?
12 A. Just socializing. I don't remember them
13 doing an activity. It was just being together.
14 Q. Was anyone unclothed?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Was this the same room where Jeffrey had a
17 desk?
18 A. It could have been, but I can't remember.
19 Q. Did you go to New York more than one time?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. How many times did you go to New York?
22 A. Two times.
23 Q. This was the only time that you met Prince
24 Andrew in New York, though?
25 A. Yes.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 82 of 179
Page 82
1 Q. When you came upstairs, where was Virginia
2 sitting?
3 A. I don't remember.
4 Q. Do you remember what she was wearing?
5 A. No.
6 Q. She was already there when you got back
7 from sightseeing?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Tell me what happened with the caricature.
10 A. Ghislaine asked me to come to a closet.
11 She just said, Come with me. We went to a closet
12 and grabbed the puppet, the puppet of Prince Andrew.
13 And I knew it was Prince Andrew because I had
14 recognized him as a person. I didn't know who he
15 was.
16 And so when I saw the tag that said Prince
17 Andrew, then it clicked. I'm like, that's who it
18 is.
19 And we went down -- back down to the
20 living room, and she brought it in. It was just
21 funny because -- he thought it was funny because it
22 was him.
23 Q. Tell me how it came to be that there was a
24 picture taken.
25 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 83 of 179
Page 83
1 THE WITNESS: I just remember someone
2 suggesting a photo, and they told us to go get
3 on the couch. And so Andrew and Virginia sat
4 on the couch, and they put the puppet, the
5 puppet on her lap.
6 And so then I sat on Andrew's lap, and I
7 believe on my own volition, and they took the
8 puppet's hands and put it on Virginia's breast,
9 and so Andrew put his on mine.
10 BY MS. MENNINGER:
11 Q. And this was done in a joking manner?
12 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
13 THE WITNESS: Yes.
14 BY MS. MENNINGER:
15 Q. Do you recall a photo being taken of that
16 event?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You've never seen the photo?
19 A. No.
20 Q. You don't know whose camera it was?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Virginia was sitting on the couch next to
23 Andrew, not in a big leather armchair?
24 A. Maybe. I'm just trying to remember how I
25 remember it.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 84 of 179
Page 84
1 Q. To the best of your recollection, you went
2 and sat on Andrew's lap, correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. On his knee?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And Virginia was not sitting on his knee,
7 correct?
8 A. I don't recall. I just remember I was --
9 she might have been on his other knee, like Santa.
10 I don't remember.
11 Q. After that, do you remember any other
12 pieces of that social engagement?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Do you know where you went?
15 A. From there, I went to bed.
16 Q. Were people drinking?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Did you hear Ghislaine Maxwell tell
19 Virginia to do anything while you were in that room?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Do you recall what happened the next day
22 in New York?
23 A. Bits. I mean, that was the day I went to
24 Victoria's Secret. I went and walked around by
25 myself and went to a souvenir shop, got a mug or
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 85 of 179
Page 85
1 something. That's all I recall.
2 Q. Did you go anywhere with Virginia?
3 A. Oh, my gosh, yes. We went to Phantom of
4 the Opera.
5 Q. Who else went?
6 A. I think it was just she and I. I forgot
7 about that. Thank you for that memory.
8 Q. It's my job.
9 Anything else you remember about that day
10 in New York?
11 A. No.
12 Q. You said you had given a massage to
13 Jeffrey while you were there on that trip or was it
14 a subsequent trip?
15 A. That trip.
16 Q. And how did that come to be?
17 A. Either he or somebody asked me to go and
18 do it. Someone showed me to the room, but I don't
19 remember who it was.
20 Q. Can you describe that room?
21 A. Yes. It was high ceilings, dark. There
22 were, like, dark red walls or dark blue walls or
23 dark blue carpeting or something. It had a massage
24 table set up in the middle, and there was a large --
25 I want to say like a 15-foot photo, either photo or
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 86 of 179
Page 86
1 painting of a naked girl.
2 Q. Pornographic or artistic?
3 A. No. No, I wouldn't say pornographic.
4 Artistic.
5 Q. Artistic.
6 Was Ghislaine present during that massage?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Did something about that particular
9 massage session stand out to you?
10 A. Yes. That was when I was first asked to
11 squeeze and rub his nipples while he pleasured
12 himself.
13 Q. And did he say that's what he was going to
14 do?
15 A. He -- yes, he was just very blunt about
16 it. He said, Rub my nipples, I'm going to jerk off.
17 I was like, No, done.
18 Q. And you walked out?
19 A. I did.
20 Q. Were there any repercussions of you
21 walking out?
22 A. Amazingly, no. Knowing what I know now,
23 I'm surprised I was ever called back. But, no, I
24 just stood my ground and walked out. I'm not
25 comfortable with that.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 87 of 179
Page 87
1 Q. Do you know personally whether anyone else
2 had said no to him?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Did anyone ever tell you that they had
5 been in a massage scenario and told him no?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Do you recall when in your trip the
8 massage occurred?
9 A. Well, it was not the day we landed. It
10 must have been that next day that we were there.
11 Q. Do you remember anything else about
12 Virginia from that trip other than the Prince Andrew
13 thing and Phantom of the Opera?
14 A. Well, we were getting ready to leave to go
15 to the airport, and we were waiting. She and I sat
16 on the steps in the foyer. I do remember just kind
17 of asking a few questions to try to understand her
18 role, because at that point now I knew what he
19 wanted from me in the massage. And -- but she did
20 not make it clear to me that she was participating
21 in that. So I was prodding gently to see if there
22 was anything happening that shouldn't have been,
23 because I was getting the impression that she was --
24 she told me she was 17.
25 Q. She told you she was 17?
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 88 of 179
Page 88
1 A. Uh-huh.
2 Q. How did that come up?
3 A. I asked her.
4 Q. Was anyone else present during this
5 conversation?
6 A. No.
7 Q. You mentioned in your earlier testimony
8 that she seemed orphan-like.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. But you said that was something you had
11 said to Ms. McCawley, correct?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. That was not said at the time?
14 A. Right. No. At the time I was getting an
15 impression that she did not have a family or she had
16 walked away from her family. And it seemed to me,
17 you know, they had just sort of adopted her, not as
18 a child, but they would take care of her.
19 Q. Did you observe anyone speaking to her as
20 a child, like make up your bed?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Did you observe whether she was using
23 drugs during that trip?
24 A. No.
25 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 89 of 179
Page 89
1 BY MS. MENNINGER:
2 Q. Did you ever observe her using drugs?
3 A. Not that I recall.
4 Q. Did she tell you that she was using Xanax?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Cocaine?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Ecstasy?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Heroin?
11 A. No.
12 Q. When was the second trip you took to New
13 York?
14 A. Later. Maybe 2005. I don't know. I
15 could look in the flight record.
16 Q. That's all right.
17 A. I don't remember exactly.
18 Q. That's all right.
19 You just recall it being several years or
20 so after?
21 A. Yes. Several years later.
22 Q. And just so I'm clear, can you just list
23 for me the places you recall traveling with Jeffrey?
24 A. Yes. That first trip was New York and the
25 Virgin Islands. And then not again until around
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 90 of 179
Page 90
1 2005, we went to New Mexico and to New York City and
2 the Virgin Islands.
3 Q. So you were in New York twice and the
4 Virgin Islands twice and New Mexico once?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Anywhere else?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Were those primarily on the private plane?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. You said you flew commercially once to get
11 back?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Did you recall any other commercial
14 flights?
15 A. He bought a couple of flights for me when
16 I wanted to go up to New York for personal reasons.
17 One time I went to New York commercially, and I was
18 there with friends, but I did go over to his house
19 while I was in the city.
20 Q. And that's not the trip to New York?
21 A. No. Separate.
22 Q. Would you characterize your relationship
23 with Jeffrey as friendly?
24 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
25 THE WITNESS: Yes.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 91 of 179
Page 91
1 BY MS. MENNINGER:
2 Q. If you asked him to buy a ticket to New
3 York, that might be something that he would do?
4 A. I never asked him to do anything for me,
5 but I told him I was interested in something, and he
6 always offered.
7 Q. The second trip to New York, anything
8 memorable about that? The one -- I'm sorry, the one
9 that you mentioned that was with Jeffrey.
10 A. I do recall Nadia being there. While I
11 massaged, she gave him a facial, but nothing sexual
12 happened.
13 Q. And do you recall if Ghislaine was part of
14 that trip or not?
15 A. I remember her being in New Mexico.
16 Q. What do you remember about her being in
17 New Mexico?
18 A. I remember she took me to -- when they
19 were building the ranch, they had a little
20 three-bedroom home, just like a prefab house. She
21 took me over there. So we went for a little walk.
22 I remember she had two new puppies named
23 Max and Mini, little Yorkies. And I want to say
24 that it was around Jeffrey's birthday when we were
25 there, but nothing -- there was no, like,
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 92 of 179
Page 92
1 celebration or cake with candles. It was just
2 another day.
3 Q. You said that the Virgin Islands were a
4 part of that second trip, as well?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And do you remember Ghislaine being part
7 of the Virgin Islands the second time?
8 A. Yes. That's when she called -- went to
9 bed and kissed us all on the head and called us her
10 children.
11 Q. Who were the other participants in that
12 session?
13 A. That's who -- I don't recall who was
14 there. I want to say that Nadia was.
15 Q. But Virginia was not there?
16 A. Virginia was not there.
17 Q. Do you recall the point in time in which
18 Virginia went away?
19 A. Sort of. After the trip to New York, I
20 was given her phone number to call. And I remember
21 one time I tried to get ahold of her. Her boyfriend
22 answered. A boyfriend, I would assume, and he
23 sounded like he was high. And I couldn't find out
24 where she was. And then from there on, she was out
25 of the picture.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 93 of 179
Page 93
1 Q. Do you recall how long after the New York
2 trip that occurred?
3 A. I would say it was probably within a month
4 or two.
5 Q. Did she tell you she was working
6 elsewhere?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Did you ask her?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Did she mention that she was a waitress?
11 A. No.
12 Q. And worked at Taco Bell?
13 A. Huh-huh.
14 Q. Did you speak to her boyfriend or a
15 boyfriend at any other time associated with her?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Did you meet her boyfriend?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Her fiancé?
20 A. No.
21 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
22 BY MS. MENNINGER:
23 Q. When you were on the plane with Jeffrey
24 during these two trips, he was present on all of
25 those flights?
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 94 of 179
Page 94
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Did you observe any sexual behavior
3 happening on the plane?
4 A. No. He told me a story of something that
5 had happened one time.
6 Q. Did it involve Ghislaine Maxwell?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Did it involve Virginia Roberts?
9 A. No.
10 Q. And you didn't see anything?
11 A. No.
12 Q. You did give massages to Ghislaine
13 Maxwell, correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. On how many occasions?
16 A. Maybe somewhere between five and 10.
17 Q. Was that over the course of the five
18 years?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Was there some point during that five
21 years where Ghislaine Maxwell was not around as
22 much?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Do you recall when that was?
25 A. In the middle.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 95 of 179
Page 95
1 Q. Did you know why that might be?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Is that about the time that you started
4 seeing Nadia more frequently?
5 A. Yeah, I guess she was probably in the
6 picture more. Her and Sarah both had kind of been
7 around the most.
8 Q. Did you observe Nadia or Sarah appearing
9 to act like Jeffrey's girlfriend?
10 A. Nadia, not Sarah.
11 Q. What did you observe?
12 A. She was just very loving, kissing him.
13 Q. Did you know how old she was?
14 A. I didn't know.
15 Q. So you gave massages to Ghislaine five or
16 10 times. Was there anything unusual about those
17 massages?
18 A. No.
19 Q. You've been quoted in the press perhaps as
20 saying that she wasn't very picky?
21 A. About massage?
22 Q. About her massages.
23 A. Not like Jeffrey, I guess. I mean, saying
24 that meant that, you know, I would do whatever I
25 wanted to do in the massage; whereas, Jeffrey was,
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 96 of 179
Page 96
1 like, Do my foot, do my leg. He would kind of
2 narrate what he wanted. She just wanted a massage.
3 So if that makes sense.
4 Q. She may have been naked under a towel --
5 A. Definitely.
6 Q. -- in a regular massage fashion?
7 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
8 THE WITNESS: Yes. Actually, I do recall
9 an instance where I was massaging her and
10 Jeffrey came into the room and he did something
11 sort of sexual to her, whether it was fondling
12 her or slapping her butt or something, and she
13 brushed him off like she was embarrassed.
14 BY MS. MENNINGER:
15 Q. So she never asked you to touch her in a
16 sexual manner, correct?
17 A. No.
18 Q. And she did not rub her breasts on you,
19 for example?
20 A. No.
21 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
22 BY MS. MENNINGER:
23 Q. She did not demand that you perform oral
24 sex on her?
25 A. No.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 97 of 179
Page 97
1 Q. Did she did not demand that you undress
2 during your massages?
3 A. No.
4 Q. There was nothing from her that was sexual
5 during the massages that you gave to her?
6 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
7 THE WITNESS: Correct.
8 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
9 Q. Do you recall when the last time you gave
10 her a massage was?
11 A. I don't recall.
12 Q. Do you recall meeting with her in about
13 2006 when she was in town for some helicopter
14 training?
15 A. I do recall that.
16 Q. Do you recall giving her some massages
17 during that period?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Do you remember going out to dinner with
20 her and to a movie?
21 A. I remember to a movie, and I don't
22 remember if we went to dinner. I remember her
23 cooking dinner. That was another way she impressed
24 me: She knew how to cook like a chef. She had done
25 some culinary training.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 98 of 179
Page 98
1 Q. And you guys had a normal type
2 conversation?
3 A. Yes. It was very fun.
4 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
5 MS. MENNINGER: I would like to take about
6 a 5-, to 10-minute break, if that's okay.
7 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at
8 11:05.
9 (Thereupon, a recess was taken, after
10 which the following proceedings were held:)
11 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the beginning
12 of Disk 2. On the record at 11:25.
13 BY MS. MENNINGER:
14 Q. Hi. I believe when we left off I was
15 asking you about massages that you gave to
16 Ghislaine.
17 Did Ghislaine pay you when she got a
18 massage from you?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do you know how much she paid you?
21 A. I believe it was 200. It was the going
22 rate.
23 Q. The same as you were getting paid by
24 Jeffrey, correct?
25 A. Yes.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 99 of 179
Page 99
1 Q. Ghislaine was not present when you were
2 giving massages to Jeffrey, correct?
3 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
4 THE WITNESS: Correct.
5 BY MS. MENNINGER:
6 Q. At some point Jeffrey became more
7 aggressive with you, correct?
8 A. Correct.
9 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
10 BY MS. MENNINGER:
11 Q. At what point was that?
12 A. In the last year.
13 Q. And what does that mean to you, "became
14 more aggressive"?
15 A. He was pressuring me to do more than I was
16 comfortable with doing.
17 Q. Is that what ultimately caused you to
18 leave working for Jeffrey?
19 A. What caused me to leave was when it was
20 made public what I was doing.
21 Q. What do you mean by that?
22 A. Well, after I had spoken with the police
23 report -- the police and there was a police report,
24 I did not realize that was public knowledge,
25 journalists would get a hold of. So at one point
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 100 of 179
Page 100
1 the news channel 12 showed up at my door asking me
2 questions.
3 Q. When Jeffrey was pressuring you to do more
4 than you felt comfortable with, did you observe him
5 being more aggressive in general? Outside of the
6 massage context?
7 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
8 THE WITNESS: No.
9 BY MS. MENNINGER:
10 Q. Do you know whether he was taking any type
11 of steroids?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Did you ever see him wearing a patch or
14 something like that?
15 A. I don't recall.
16 Q. Did you tell anyone that Jeffrey was
17 becoming more aggressive with you contemporaneous
18 with when it was happening?
19 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
20 THE WITNESS: No.
21 BY MS. MENNINGER:
22 Q. When Jeffrey asked you to do other things
23 besides a normal massage, did he offer to pay you
24 additionally?
25 A. Yes.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 101 of 179
Page 101
1 Q. How much?
2 A. One hundred dollars extra.
3 Can I clarify?
4 Q. Absolutely.
5 A. He didn't ever say he would pay me more,
6 but when the massage was more than just a massage
7 and it was sexual, then he would pay me more.
8 Q. It wasn't a discussion; it's just what
9 happened?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. Thank you for clarifying.
12 The things that took place with you and
13 Jeffrey behind closed doors were when you were a
14 consenting adult, correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
17 THE WITNESS: Correct.
18 BY MS. MENNINGER:
19 Q. And you did not have knowledge of what
20 took place with other women behind closed doors and
21 Jeffrey, correct?
22 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
23 THE WITNESS: Correct.
24 BY MS. MENNINGER:
25 Q. Do you recall giving an interview to a
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 102 of 179
Page 102
1 reporter from the Mail on Sunday?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You told that reporter, I believe, that
4 the police report painted a picture that it was a
5 big orgy all the time, but it wasn't?
6 A. What I saw, I did not see anything out in
7 the open sexually. Me, personally.
8 Q. Right. You did not see orgies happening
9 in the pool, for example?
10 A. No.
11 Q. You did not see people engaging in sexual
12 conduct out in the open areas of the home, correct?
13 A. Right.
14 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
15 BY MS. MENNINGER:
16 Q. When you became aware of the allegations
17 against Jeffrey, those came as a surprise to you,
18 correct?
19 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
20 THE WITNESS: Correct.
21 BY MS. MENNINGER:
22 Q. And the surprise was that it involved
23 underaged girls making that allegation, correct?
24 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
25 THE WITNESS: Correct.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 103 of 179
Page 103
1 BY MS. MENNINGER:
2 Q. You were asked some questions with
3 Ms. McCawley about nude photographs that were
4 present in the home? Homes?
5 A. Uh-huh.
6 Q. In Palm Beach, I believe you said there
7 were some in the room where the massage table was?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Can you tell me what you recall seeing?
10 A. It wasn't candid photos. They were all,
11 like, staged.
12 Q. Like a model?
13 A. Yes. And my -- I don't recall necessarily
14 knowing any of the people in those photos. I
15 remember at one point there was a photo of myself,
16 but...
17 Q. Were they fully frontally nude or were
18 they staged, like, with, you know, parts of bodies
19 showing?
20 A. I really only remember topless photos. I
21 don't remember full frontal photos.
22 Q. So exposing the breasts, but not exposing
23 the genitalia?
24 A. Not that I recall. And Ghislaine's
25 bathroom, I believe there was a photo of her
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 104 of 179
Page 104
1 topless, or a painting.
2 Q. A painting?
3 A. Uh-huh.
4 Q. Did you see any nude or semi-clad photos
5 of young girls?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Preteens, for example?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Something you would consider child
10 pornography?
11 A. Never.
12 Q. Other than in the bathroom or the massage
13 room at the Palm Beach home, do you recall any other
14 place in the Palm Beach home where you saw any of
15 these topless photos of women?
16 A. I remember there being photos everywhere,
17 and the ones that stick out in my memory are the
18 ones -- there was a photo of Ghislaine with the
19 Pope. It would not surprise me if there were naked
20 photos around. I just didn't retain them in my
21 memory.
22 Q. So when you say there were photos
23 everywhere, you mean just photos in general?
24 A. Yes. They had a lot of photos around the
25 house.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 105 of 179
Page 105
1 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
2 BY MS. MENNINGER:
3 Q. And Ghislaine was not topless in a photo
4 with the Pope, just so I'm clear?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. I just want to make sure we get that
7 record really clear.
8 So you recall there being photos
9 everywhere; you just remember a couple sticking out
10 in your brain as being topless?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And the walls on the staircase to the
13 upstairs were not just covered with nude
14 photographs, to your recollection?
15 A. To my recollection, I just -- I don't
16 remember.
17 Q. Did you observe what you would consider to
18 be child pornography on any computer in the home?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Did you observe anyone taking photographs
21 of young girls in the home?
22 A. No.
23 Q. The photograph of yourself that you saw,
24 was that something that you had posed for?
25 A. Not, like, professionally. But I was just
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 106 of 179
Page 106
1 sitting, and I believe Jeffrey took the photo. I
2 was just sitting on a couch upstairs in the
3 bathroom.
4 Q. It wasn't taken by a hidden camera?
5 A. No. No. I was smiling in the picture.
6 Q. And, likewise, in the New York home, did
7 you see anything -- you described a large painting
8 or a photograph that was in the massage room?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Do you recall any other photos of
11 semi-clad or naked females?
12 A. I don't recall.
13 Q. Anything that you would consider to be
14 child pornography that you saw in the New York home?
15 A. No.
16 Q. And, likewise, in New Mexico?
17 A. I don't recall.
18 Q. Do you recall seeing any semi-clad photos
19 in New Mexico at all?
20 A. I do not recall.
21 Q. And the Virgin Islands?
22 A. Yes, in his bathroom, master bathroom.
23 Q. And what do you recall, if anything, about
24 that photo?
25 A. There was a photo of me in there.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 107 of 179
Page 107
1 Q. And, again, was that something that you
2 were okay with?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Jeffrey Epstein never told you that he
5 knowingly had sexual contact with an underaged girl,
6 correct?
7 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
8 THE WITNESS: When I asked him if the
9 accusations were true, after I spoke with the
10 police, he said yes, but they lied about their
11 age.
12 BY MS. MENNINGER:
13 Q. How did that conversation come about?
14 A. He asked me if the police had ever spoken
15 to me and I asked him, is it true.
16 Q. And you were talking about underaged
17 girls?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. And he said that he had been lied to by
20 those girls?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Did he say anything else to you about it?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Did you ask him anything else about it?
25 A. No.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 108 of 179
Page 108
1 Q. Did you attempt to have any conversation
2 like that with Ghislaine Maxwell?
3 A. No.
4 Q. I saw one press report that said you had
5 met Cate Blanchett or Leonardo DiCaprio?
6 A. I did not meet them, no. When I spoke
7 about them, it was when I was massaging him, and he
8 would get off -- he would be on the phone a lot at
9 that time, and one time he said, Oh, that was
10 Leonardo, or, That was Cate Blanchett, or Bruce
11 Willis. That kind of thing.
12 Q. So name-dropping?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. So you had not met Cate Blanchett or
15 Leonardo DiCaprio?
16 A. I have not.
17 Q. Would you remember if you had?
18 A. I would hope I would remember.
19 Q. Did you meet Cameron Diaz?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Bill Clinton?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Did you see Bill Clinton on the island?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Did you see Bill Clinton in a helicopter
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 109 of 179
Page 109
1 being flown by Ghislaine Maxwell?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Did Ghislaine Maxwell ever tell you that
4 she had flown Bill Clinton in her helicopter?
5 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
6 THE WITNESS: I don't recall her saying
7 that.
8 BY MS. MENNINGER:
9 Q. Did you ever meet Senator ?
10 A. I don't know what he looks like. I might
11 have.
12 Q. If I told you he was from Maine, would
13 that stick out in your mind?
14 A. It should, but I do not recall meeting
15 him.
16 Q. Do you ever remember meeting Prime
17 Minister Ehud Barak from Israel?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Do you recall meeting any prime minister?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Any foreign president?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Nobel Prize winners?
24 A. Not to my knowledge.
25 Q. Naomi Campbell?
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 110 of 179
Page 110
1 A. No.
2 Q. Al Gore?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Alan Dershowitz?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Les Wexner?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Tom Pritzker?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Kevin Spacey? I may have already asked
11 you, but have you met Kevin Spacey?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Did you meet Governor Bill Richardson of
14 New Mexico?
15 A. Hmm, I want to say that he was supposed to
16 come to dinner when we were in New Mexico. I don't
17 know if I met him. I believe that he and Ghislaine
18 had dinner separate from myself.
19 Q. Jean Luc Brunel?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You did meet him?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Tell me about that.
24 A. He was just in the house at one time in
25 Palm Beach.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 111 of 179
Page 111
1 Q. Socializing?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Did you observe him to be with underaged
4 girls?
5 A. I don't recall.
6 Q. Did you give him a massage?
7 A. I don't think I did. I gave a lot of
8 guests massages. I don't remember any of their
9 names. So it could have been any of those people
10 besides the movie stars.
11 Q. You would know?
12 A. Exactly.
13 Q. And did you engage in sexual contact with
14 any of the guests for whom you gave a massage?
15 A. No. That's why he would call me for his
16 guests, because I was not comfortable with the
17 sexual contact. So he still wanted to employ me as
18 a massage therapist, but it was all normal.
19 Q. So this was an actual conversation that
20 you had?
21 A. No, but I -- I noticed. I noticed that I
22 wasn't -- I was massaging him less and less and
23 massaging his guests more.
24 Q. So there was a change in the frequency
25 with which you were giving Jeffrey Epstein massages?
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 112 of 179
Page 112
1 A. Right.
2 Q. And an increase corresponding to massages
3 you were giving to guests, correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Did any of the guests for whom you gave a
6 massage mention that they expected something sexual?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Did they ask you to engage in sexual
9 contact and you refused?
10 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
11 THE WITNESS: No.
12 BY MS. MENNINGER:
13 Q. Marvin Minsky?
14 A. I don't know that.
15 Q. George Lucas?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Donald Trump?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Did you ever massage Donald Trump?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Sorry, I have to ask, but did you ever
22 have sex with Alan Dershowitz in the back of a
23 limousine with Virginia and Jeffrey present?
24 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
25 THE WITNESS: Absolutely not.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 113 of 179
Page 113
1 BY MS. MENNINGER:
2 Q. Do you know who Alan Dershowitz is?
3 A. I do.
4 Q. You would remember --
5 A. I would remember that.
6 Q. Did you ever see Virginia Roberts with any
7 of the people that I just asked you about?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Did Virginia ever talk to you about having
10 been with any of those people?
11 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
12 THE WITNESS: No.
13 BY MS. MENNINGER:
14 Q. Did she tell you that she had met any of
15 those people?
16 A. No.
17 Q. I believe you saw in that police report a
18 reference to a friend of Jeffrey named Glenn and his
19 wife?
20 A. Uh-huh.
21 Q. Do you remember them?
22 A. Vaguely.
23 Q. Tell me what you remember.
24 A. I remember they had an apartment in -- on
25 Breakers Row. I went up there and massaged. It may
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 114 of 179
Page 114
1 have been more than once, but I only really remember
2 one time. But there was nothing sexual.
3 Q. Neither with the wife, nor with Glenn?
4 A. Right.
5 Q. Do you remember the apartment?
6 A. I only remember that I had to carry my
7 massage table up some stairs.
8 Q. So you actually gave the massage on a
9 massage table?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Does that help you place it in time as to
12 when that might have occurred? In other words --
13 A. Well --
14 Q. -- did you get your massage license at
15 some point and a massage table?
16 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
17 THE WITNESS: Yes. He bought me my
18 massage table around the time that I went to
19 massage school. So it could have been any time
20 after. If I thought really hard, I could
21 remember when I went to school. But it -- I
22 want to say it's around 2003.
23 BY MS. MENNINGER:
24 Q. Nothing sexual happened with Glenn?
25 A. No.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 115 of 179
Page 115
1 Q. Did Glenn ask you to give him a massage on
2 the floor of the home?
3 A. I don't recall.
4 Q. Did you ever discuss Glenn with Virginia?
5 A. Not to my recollection.
6 Q. Did you ever go to Virginia's home?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Do you know where she lived?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Did she talk about it?
11 A. Not that I remember.
12 Q. Did you see anything in your interactions
13 with Virginia that led you to believe that she was a
14 sex slave?
15 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
16 THE WITNESS: No.
17 BY MS. MENNINGER:
18 Q. Did you see anyone forcing her to remain
19 in the home?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Did you see her look traumatized at some
22 point?
23 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
24 THE WITNESS: No.
25
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 116 of 179
Page 116
1 BY MS. MENNINGER:
2 Q. Did you see anything that led you to
3 believe Virginia Roberts had been trafficked,
4 sexually trafficked to third parties?
5 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
6 THE WITNESS: No.
7 BY MS. MENNINGER:
8 Q. Did Virginia ever tell you that she had
9 been trafficked?
10 A. No.
11 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
12 BY MS. MENNINGER:
13 Q. Did you hear anyone direct Virginia
14 Roberts to go have sex with someone?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Did Jeffrey ever ask you to go have sex
17 with another person?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Did Ghislaine Maxwell ever ask you to go
20 have sex with another person?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Did Ghislaine Maxwell ever ask you to give
23 a massage to someone else?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Did Ghislaine Maxwell ever ask you to
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 117 of 179
Page 117
1 dress up in any outfit?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Did she ever buy you an outfit for you to
4 wear in terms of a sexual profile?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Did she tell you what kind of clothes you
7 should buy?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Did she direct you to go get Brazilian
10 bikini waxes?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Did she direct you to go get your teeth
13 whitened?
14 A. No.
15 MS. MENNINGER: I would like to mark as an
16 exhibit -- I have no recollection what number
17 we're on. Thank you. Exhibit 5.
18 (The referred-to document was marked by
19 the court reporter for Identification as
20 Sjoberg Exhibit 5.)
21 BY MS. MENNINGER:
22 Q. Have you seen this article before?
23 A. It has followed me everywhere.
24 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm sorry. Can I just ask
25 you to put the Bates numbers on the record?
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 118 of 179
Page 118
1 MS. MENNINGER: Sure. It's Bates marked
2 Giuffre 1131 through 1138.
3 BY MS. MENNINGER:
4 Q. What do you mean it has followed you
5 everywhere?
6 A. Well, if you Google me, it comes up.
7 Q. I wanted to just ask you a couple of
8 questions.
9 On the third page, towards the bottom,
10 there is a photograph that begins "we had a picture
11 taken," and just to orient you, this is in the
12 discussion around the Prince Andrew meeting you had.
13 Did you meet Prince Andrew any other time
14 besides the time you already described in your
15 testimony?
16 A. No.
17 Q. If you want to take a look at that
18 paragraph before I ask you questions.
19 A. Okay.
20 Q. In that paragraph, it describes that
21 Andrew -- Virginia sat on the chair, and then Andrew
22 sat on another chair, and you sat on his lap.
23 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
24 BY MS. MENNINGER:
25 Q. Is that what it says?
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 119 of 179
Page 119
1 A. That's what it says.
2 Q. Do you recall telling that to the
3 reporter?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And this was back in 2007 or so?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. As you sit here today, does that make
8 it -- does that refresh your recollection that
9 Virginia was sitting in one chair and you were
10 sitting on another, with Andrew?
11 A. Yeah. If I said that, then I remember it
12 that way. I'm just trying to remember. Whether we
13 were on a couch or a chair, I just remember the
14 boobs part, the hand on the boobs.
15 Q. I understand that part stands out.
16 And I also completely understand if you
17 don't remember things that happened a long time ago.
18 A. Right.
19 Q. I'm just wondering if, having looked at
20 this news article, it refreshes your memory that
21 Virginia was sitting in a different place?
22 A. In a different chair?
23 Q. Does it?
24 A. It does say that. Does it refresh my
25 memory?
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 120 of 179
Page 120
1 Q. Okay. That's fine.
2 A. Yeah, sure.
3 Q. If it doesn't, it doesn't. I'm just
4 asking.
5 Did Virginia say anything to you about
6 having met Prince Andrew before this time in New
7 York?
8 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
9 THE WITNESS: She did not say.
10 BY MS. MENNINGER:
11 Q. Did Prince Andrew say or do anything that
12 led you to believe that he had met Virginia prior to
13 that time?
14 A. I don't recall.
15 Q. Did you ever see Al Gore on the island?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Did you see his wife, Tipper Gore, on the
18 island?
19 A. No.
20 Q. What is your understanding of what the
21 lawsuit we are here today is about?
22 A. I understand that Ghislaine is calling
23 Virginia a liar, and so Ghislaine is suing Virginia.
24 I'm sorry. Strike that. Reverse it.
25 Right, Virginia is suing Ghislaine for
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 121 of 179
Page 121
1 defamation.
2 Q. And do you know what Virginia said about
3 Ghislaine?
4 A. That Ghislaine recruited her.
5 Q. Do you know anything else that Virginia
6 said about Ghislaine?
7 A. Only what was spoken to me.
8 Q. And I should clarify. Don't tell me
9 anything your lawyer has conveyed to you.
10 A. Exactly. That's all I know. I've met
11 with Virginia once last summer.
12 Q. Okay. Tell me about that.
13 A. She -- there was a moderator between us,
14 like an investigator. And she was in Palm Beach.
15 And it was more about Jeffrey. It was less about
16 Ghislaine. I don't remember specifically about
17 Ghislaine at all.
18 Q. So you met with Virginia and an
19 investigator at the same time?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And they were what, talking to you about
22 Jeffrey in what context?
23 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
24 THE WITNESS: Basically, they were trying
25 to find people that would help her get her
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 122 of 179
Page 122
1 story out, because this is when Dershowitz --
2 Dershowitz was saying nothing was happening and
3 he was calling her a liar. And she was just
4 trying to find people to back up her story.
5 BY MS. MENNINGER:
6 Q. And what did you understand her story to
7 be? Did she tell you?
8 A. That she was recruited to give massages,
9 sexual massages, and have sex with people such as
10 Dershowitz and Andrew. But I knew none of that at
11 the time.
12 Q. Right. Did you tell them anything -- did
13 you tell them during that meeting that you knew of
14 anything about her being recruited to give sex to
15 either Jeffrey or to other people?
16 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
17 THE WITNESS: Can you rephrase?
18 BY MS. MENNINGER:
19 Q. Yes. That wasn't a very good question.
20 What did you say during this meeting with
21 Virginia and her investigator?
22 A. Basically that I believed her, even though
23 I -- she never spoke to me specifically about what
24 was going on; that once I learned everything that
25 happened based on reading the police report, I
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 123 of 179
Page 123
1 believed her side of the story.
2 Q. And did she tell you what her side of the
3 story was?
4 A. You know, just that she wasn't a liar;
5 that, you know, she was there to have sex with men
6 that Jeffrey wanted her to sleep with.
7 Q. Did she tell you in that meeting who she
8 had sex with?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Did she name any of the famous people?
11 A. Only Dershowitz came up.
12 Q. Did you two talk about the incident in New
13 York with the puppet?
14 A. I don't recall.
15 Q. And you formed this opinion about whether
16 she was a liar based on things that you've read in
17 the police report?
18 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
19 THE WITNESS: I formed my opinion based on
20 my experience in the house.
21 BY MS. MENNINGER:
22 Q. Okay. And what experience in the house
23 helped you form your opinion that what Virginia is
24 saying is true?
25 A. You know, Jeffrey being open with me about
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 124 of 179
Page 124
1 what other girls did for him and that I was not one
2 of those girls.
3 He was always trying to recruit me almost
4 in a way that I could be one of them and travel with
5 him and live the life of luxury if I only -- if only
6 I did this.
7 So after five years of learning what was
8 happening, I can look back knowing -- I only knew
9 Virginia for a very short time. Looking back, I can
10 make assumptions about what was required of her.
11 Q. Did she tell you how old she was when she
12 said she started working with Jeffrey?
13 A. She didn't.
14 Q. Did she tell how long she had worked with
15 Jeffrey?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Have you read all the things that have
18 been attributed to her in the press?
19 A. Many of them.
20 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
21 THE WITNESS: I don't know that I've read
22 all of them, but I have read some.
23 BY MS. MENNINGER:
24 Q. In this meeting with Virginia and the
25 investigator, you said Ghislaine Maxwell did not
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 125 of 179
Page 125
1 come up?
2 A. Not that -- not that I recall.
3 Q. Do you know the name of the investigator?
4 A. Valerie Rivera.
5 Q. Have you read the statement that Ghislaine
6 Maxwell issued to the press?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Do you know what it says?
9 A. No.
10 Q. You said you have read some of Virginia's
11 statements to the press but not all of them?
12 A. I don't know how many there are. I know I
13 read something. I don't know if I read all of them.
14 Q. Have you read her book manuscript?
15 A. No.
16 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
17 BY MS. MENNINGER:
18 Q. Did she tell you that she was writing a
19 book?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Did she tell you she was trying to get a
22 book deal?
23 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
24 THE WITNESS: No.
25
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 126 of 179
Page 126
1 BY MS. MENNINGER:
2 Q. Did she tell you that he hired a ghost
3 rider?
4 A. No.
5 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
6 BY MS. MENNINGER:
7 Q. Did she tell you that she hired a literary
8 agent?
9 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
10 THE WITNESS: No.
11 BY MS. MENNINGER:
12 Q. Did you speak with John Connelly?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. When did you speak with John Connelly?
15 A. He was first calling me around the time
16 that everything was coming out in 2006. And I
17 didn't say a lot to him, but I did say a few things.
18 And I asked him not to use my name, and he used my
19 name. And then he quoted me as saying things I
20 never said.
21 Q. Do you know to whom he quoted things that
22 you had never said?
23 A. I don't remember the news outlet, no.
24 Q. So it was published somewhere?
25 A. Somewhere on the Internet.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 127 of 179
Page 127
1 Q. Something that you said to John Connelly
2 got twisted?
3 A. Yes. He put words in my mouth.
4 Q. And it was misreported and published?
5 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
6 THE WITNESS: Correct.
7 BY MS. MENNINGER:
8 Q. Have you spoken to him lately?
9 A. No. He called me again at the beginning
10 of last year, around New Year's last year, but I did
11 not return his call.
12 Q. Do you recall what it is he attributed to
13 you falsely?
14 A. It was mostly about how I felt about
15 certain things. I don't remember specifically what
16 he said, but he was giving an opinion for me that I
17 never spoke to him about.
18 Q. And that you did not hold?
19 A. Well, I can't remember what it was. Yeah.
20 Q. Okay. Do you know whether Virginia has
21 lied about any of her experience?
22 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
23 THE WITNESS: I don't know that she has
24 lied.
25
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 128 of 179
Page 128
1 BY MS. MENNINGER:
2 Q. Do you know that she has told the truth?
3 A. As far as I know, she has.
4 Q. Do you know whether the press has
5 accurately reported everything that Virginia has
6 said?
7 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
8 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
9 BY MS. MENNINGER:
10 Q. Other than John Connelly and the police,
11 who else have you spoken to about your experience?
12 A. Well, the woman from the Daily Mail. Her
13 name is Wendy Leigh.
14 Q. And that's Defendant's Exhibit 5 -- not
15 Defendant's Exhibit, just Exhibit 5, correct?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. Did Wendy Leigh accurately report your
18 statements?
19 A. She did a little bit of embellishment, as
20 well, but the facts are all true.
21 Q. And what parts do you believe are
22 embellished?
23 A. Near the end, when she was doing a
24 summary, when she wrote, "Sure, I had a good time,
25 but I also think it damaged me a bit." I don't
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 129 of 179
Page 129
1 recall saying that.
2 And there's another part in here where she
3 said I said that I made a deal with the devil, which
4 I never would have said that. The words she used.
5 Q. On page 2 of 8, it's about -- it's about
6 even with the hem of your skirt.
7 A. "I made a pack with the devil in exchange
8 for excitement and glamour. I was only a college
9 student. I was hard-up and foolish."
10 That I never said, any of that. I was a
11 college student, that's true. "Hard-up and
12 foolish," I would have never called myself foolish.
13 Q. Were you paid any money for this
14 interview?
15 A. I was paid $1,500.
16 Q. And how long did the interview last?
17 A. A couple of hours.
18 Q. Where did it take place?
19 A. At Cafe Boulud in the Brazilian Court
20 Hotel in Palm Beach.
21 Q. Who else besides Wendy Leigh and John
22 Connelly and the police --
23 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
24 BY MS. MENNINGER:
25 Q. -- and Virginia and the investigator --
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 130 of 179
Page 130
1 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
2 BY MS. MENNINGER:
3 Q. -- did you talk to about your experience?
4 A. Family and friends.
5 Q. Did you speak to any other reporters?
6 A. I had other reporters calling me. I
7 avoided almost all of the calls. I had someone
8 coming at me, stalking me. I do not know who he
9 was. He offered me $25,000 to give a story, and I
10 turned him down.
11 Q. Who?
12 A. He showed up in my work multiple times.
13 Q. There were other stories printed in the
14 Daily Mail, not by Wendy Leigh, later.
15 Did you see any of those stories? I'm
16 sorry. Let me be a little clearer. That attributed
17 comments to you.
18 A. I don't recall specifically, but I feel
19 like I stayed on top of it, and I wasn't surprised
20 when my name was brought up.
21 Q. Do you recall giving another interview?
22 A. No, never.
23 Q. Do you recall anything that was printed
24 other than the John Connelly thing that you believe
25 to be inaccurate?
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 131 of 179
Page 131
1 A. No.
2 Q. Was there anybody else present when you
3 were interviewing with Wendy Leigh?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Was she recording it on a recorder?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Have you ever heard that recording?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Do you know whether the police were
10 recording their interview with you?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Have you ever heard that recording?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Did you ever receive notification that you
15 were named as a victim in any of Jeffrey Epstein's
16 criminal cases?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Other than the $1,500 from Wendy Leigh,
19 did you receive any other money for making any
20 statements?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Did you give an interview to Virginia's
23 attorneys?
24 A. Yes. Right?
25 MS. McCAWLEY: You can say yes.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 132 of 179
Page 132
1 BY MS. MENNINGER:
2 Q. When was that?
3 A. Two weeks ago, roughly.
4 Q. And who was present during that meeting?
5 A. My lawyer and several others.
6 Q. Several other what?
7 A. Lawyers. I don't know. I don't know who
8 they all are.
9 Q. So Ms. McCawley you recall being there?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Ms. Schultz you recall being there?
12 A. No. I didn't learn it, no. You weren't
13 there.
14 Q. Brad Edwards?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Paul Cassell?
17 A. Maybe. I don't remember.
18 Q. And was that interview recorded?
19 A. I don't know. It may have been. I don't
20 remember.
21 Q. Did anyone ask your permission to record
22 it?
23 A. Maybe. I don't recall.
24 Q. Were you shown any documents during that
25 meeting?
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 133 of 179
Page 133
1 A. Flight logs.
2 Q. Any other documents?
3 A. No.
4 Q. What did Ms. McCawley or Mr. Edwards or
5 any of the other lawyers say to you about Ghislaine
6 Maxwell?
7 A. They just asked impressions. They never
8 said anything about her.
9 Q. Were you shown a copy of any report that
10 came out of that interview?
11 A. Which interview?
12 Q. The one with the -- Virginia's attorneys.
13 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
14 THE WITNESS: No.
15 BY MS. MENNINGER:
16 Q. You testified earlier about an incident
17 with a camera that Ghislaine Maxwell had given you.
18 I want to ask you some questions about that.
19 A. Sure.
20 Q. Do you know when that was?
21 A. That was in 2002.
22 Q. And why does that date stick out?
23 A. Because I was living -- where I was living
24 specifically and where I had the phone call.
25 Q. Tell me what you remember about the
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 134 of 179
Page 134
1 conversation.
2 A. I had been over to her house prior
3 massaging Jeffrey. And I got a phone call from her,
4 and she told me she had a camera for me for my
5 photography class, but yet, she couldn't give it to
6 me yet because during the massage I didn't finish my
7 job and she had to finish it for me.
8 Q. Did she say what she meant?
9 A. No, but I knew.
10 Q. Was there any other time that you had
11 discussed with her finishing your job?
12 A. Not that I recall.
13 Q. Any other time you just recall discussing
14 with her anything about your sexual contact with
15 Jeffrey?
16 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
17 THE WITNESS: No.
18 BY MS. MENNINGER:
19 Q. Did she give you the camera?
20 A. I did get the camera.
21 Q. Okay. When did she give you the camera?
22 A. I guess the next time I went to the house.
23 Q. What was said at that time?
24 A. I honestly don't know that she handed it
25 to me. I remember it being there for me.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 135 of 179
Page 135
1 Q. What kind of camera was it?
2 A. A Canon Rebel 35-millimeter.
3 Q. Do you still have it?
4 A. I do not. No one uses 35-millimeter
5 anymore.
6 Q. What's that?
7 A. No one uses 35-millimeter.
8 Q. Back to the cell phone conversation.
9 A. Right.
10 Q. Was it your birthday?
11 A. It was just I was taking a photography
12 class and I needed a camera.
13 Q. Do you know her to be a photographer?
14 A. Not a professional, but I knew she was
15 interested in photography.
16 Q. Did you see her with cameras?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Did you see her taking photographs of nude
19 people?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Did she ever ask you to take a photograph
22 of you semi-clad or naked?
23 A. Did she ever ask to take a photo of me?
24 Q. Semi-clad or naked.
25 A. No.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 136 of 179
Page 136
1 Q. Did she ever ask to take a photograph of
2 you at any point?
3 A. I don't remember.
4 Q. Did you tell anyone else about this
5 conversation: You couldn't give it to me now
6 because I hadn't finished my job?
7 A. No.
8 MS. MENNINGER: I think I'm going to
9 reserve the rest of my time for recross, so you
10 all, I guess, can take a break.
11 MR. LOUIS: Can I have one second?
12 MS. MENNINGER: Sure.
13 MS. McCAWLEY: We can go off the record?
14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at
15 12:09.
16 (Thereupon, a recess was taken, after
17 which the following proceedings were held:)
18 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: On the record at 12:10.
19 BY MS. MENNINGER:
20 Q. Sorry, just a couple of more questions.
21 It sounds like maybe there was an
22 additional telephone conference that one might
23 construe as a meeting with attorneys; is that true?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. All right. Tell me about that.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 137 of 179
Page 137
1 A. They just wanted to -- we had met prior,
2 and they just wanted to clarify a few things and ask
3 a few more questions.
4 Q. Okay. What did they clarify?
5 A. Any other specific times that I had, you
6 know, seen Ghislaine naked, or if I had, you know,
7 had any sexual massages with her, any type of
8 questions like that.
9 Q. Okay. And what did you tell them about
10 having any sexual massages with Ghislaine?
11 A. That I was not asked to do -- to perform
12 anything with her.
13 Q. And you did not?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. And what did you tell them about specific
16 times of seeing Ghislaine Maxwell naked?
17 A. Only when she would swim or get a massage.
18 Q. And that's swimming -- you mentioned
19 earlier skinny-dipping?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. And I think you said perhaps some other
22 time that you saw her jump off a dock and swim --
23 A. Correct, yes.
24 Q. -- in the nude?
25 A. Yes.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 138 of 179
Page 138
1 Q. And then you saw her under a towel during
2 massages?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Is there any other time that you recall
5 seeing Ghislaine Maxwell naked?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Is there anything else about that
8 telephone conference with the attorneys to clarify
9 that you recall, the topics?
10 A. No.
11 MS. MENNINGER: All right. Thank you. I
12 think we can go off the record now.
13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at
14 12:12.
15 (Thereupon, a lunch recess was taken,
16 after which the following proceedings were
17 held:)
18 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: On the record at 12:54.
19 F U R T H E R E X A M I N A T I O N
20 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
21 Q. Johanna, I'm going to ask you a couple of
22 more just follow-up questions.
23 When Laura was talking to you, she
24 mentioned some names of famous people that you --
25 most of which you had not met.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 139 of 179
Page 139
1 Did you ever meet anybody famous when you
2 were with Jeffrey?
3 A. I met Michael Jackson.
4 Q. Oh, really? And where was that?
5 A. At his house in Palm Beach. At Jeffrey's
6 house in Palm Beach.
7 Q. Did you massage him?
8 A. I did not.
9 Q. Anybody else you remember? I know you
10 mentioned David Copperfield earlier. Anybody else?
11 A. No, I'd remember that.
12 Q. I believe you also testified that you had
13 never had a massage before you started working with
14 Jeffrey and Ghislaine; is that correct?
15 A. I don't recall having a massage before
16 then.
17 Q. And I think you said on the first day,
18 when you were doing the clerical work, Maxwell
19 mentioned that you might be able to get a massage;
20 is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Did you tell Maxwell that you had never
23 had a massage at that point?
24 A. I don't remember.
25 Q. Did you remember telling Jeffrey that you
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 140 of 179
Page 140
1 had never had a massage?
2 A. No.
3 Q. And then you were talking about the
4 massage -- the first massage when you were being in
5 the room with Jeffrey and Emmy?
6 A. Uh-huh.
7 Q. And I know you said Emmy was naked or took
8 off her clothes at some point?
9 A. Uh-huh.
10 Q. And then laid on the table.
11 And then you changed positions with her;
12 is that what happened?
13 A. Yes. I don't remember the sequence, but
14 at one point she was, I was, and Jeffrey was.
15 Q. And in the -- in the time when there was
16 changeover, for example, when you're on the table
17 and Emmy is not on the table and Jeffrey is not on
18 the table, did Emmy at that point remain naked or
19 did she actually stop and get dressed and continue
20 massaging?
21 A. I don't recall her getting dressed, but I
22 would probably remember if she massaged naked.
23 Q. Do you know if Jeffrey remained naked
24 during that massage?
25 A. He was never, like, naked standing up. He
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 141 of 179
Page 141
1 always covered himself with a towel.
2 Q. I believe I asked this, but I just want to
3 clarify to make sure that I did: Did Maxwell ever
4 ask you to bring other girls over to -- for Jeffrey?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Yes?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And what did you -- did you do anything in
9 response to that?
10 A. I did bring one girl named --
11 no. -- it was some girl named
12 that I had worked with at a restaurant. And I
13 recall Ghislaine giving me money to bring her over;
14 however, they never called her to come.
15 Q. And then I believe you mentioned that one
16 of your physical fitness instructors, you brought a
17 physical fitness instructor; was that correct?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. And what did she do?
20 A. She gave him a -- like a training session,
21 twice.
22 Q. Twice.
23 Did anything sexual in nature happen
24 during the session?
25 A. At one point he lifted up her shirt and
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 142 of 179
Page 142
1 exposed her bra, and she grabbed it and pulled it
2 down.
3 Q. Anything else?
4 A. That was the conversation that he had told
5 her that he had taken this girl's virginity, the
6 girl by the pool.
7 Q. Okay. Did Maxwell ever say to you that it
8 takes the pressure off of her to have other girls
9 around?
10 A. She implied that, yes.
11 Q. In what way?
12 A. Sexually.
13 Q. And earlier Laura asked you, I believe, if
14 Maxwell ever asked you to perform any sexual acts,
15 and I believe your testimony was no, but then you
16 also previously stated that during the camera
17 incident that Maxwell had talked to you about not
18 finishing the job.
19 Did you understand "not finishing the job"
20 meaning bringing Jeffrey to orgasm?
21 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form.
22 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
23 Q. I'm sorry, Johanna, let me correct that
24 question.
25 What did you understand Maxwell to mean
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 143 of 179
Page 143
1 when she said you hadn't finished the job, with
2 respect to the camera?
3 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form.
4 THE WITNESS: She implied that I had not
5 brought him to orgasm.
6 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
7 Q. So is it fair to say that Maxwell expected
8 you to perform sexual acts when you were massaging
9 Jeffrey?
10 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form,
11 foundation.
12 THE WITNESS: I can answer?
13 Yes, I took that conversation to mean that
14 is what was expected of me.
15 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
16 Q. And then you mentioned, I believe, when
17 you were testifying earlier that Jeffrey told you a
18 story about sex on the plane. What was that about?
19 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, hearsay.
20 THE WITNESS: He told me one time Emmy was
21 sleeping on the plane, and they were getting
22 ready to land. And he went and woke her up,
23 and she thought that meant he wanted a blow
24 job, so she started to unzip his pants, and he
25 said, No, no, no, you just have to be awake for
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 144 of 179
Page 144
1 landing.
2 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
3 Q. Do you recall witnessing any sexual acts
4 on the plane?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Did Emmy ever talk to you about performing
7 sexual acts on the plane?
8 A. No.
9 Q. We looked earlier at the police report,
10 and I just want to clarify, you identified some
11 areas where there were discrepancies in that report.
12 And you can take another look at it if you
13 want, but other than the discrepancies you pointed
14 out, is that a recollection of what you remember
15 telling the detective?
16 A. Yes.
17 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, outside the
18 scope of cross.
19 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
20 Q. You mentioned that there was a time when
21 you noticed that Maxwell was around a little bit
22 less?
23 A. Uh-huh.
24 Q. And I believe you said that was during the
25 middle of the time you were with Jeffrey.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 145 of 179
Page 145
1 Do you remember approximately when that
2 was year-wise?
3 A. I don't. I would say it was probably
4 sometime between 2003 and 2004.
5 Q. And what made you think that?
6 A. I just saw her less and less at the house.
7 Q. Were you there more at the house during
8 that time period?
9 A. No, not necessarily. It's just at the
10 beginning, she was around a lot. And then I would
11 see her occasionally without him. The one time we
12 spent a few days together in 2006, she wasn't there
13 at all.
14 Q. So you saw her in the -- is it fair to say
15 that you saw her in the 2005 and 2006 time frame?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Then we were talking about the photography
18 earlier and about the photographs.
19 Did Maxwell ever ask you to take nude
20 photos of yourself for Jeffrey?
21 A. She asked me to take photos of myself for
22 Jeffrey, yes.
23 Q. And did you do that?
24 A. I did not.
25 Q. And the photos that were around that were
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 146 of 179
Page 146
1 in the bathroom, that you mentioned a couple of
2 times places that there were photos of you, who took
3 those?
4 A. He did.
5 Q. And when we were talking about the Palm
6 Beach house and you were describing an area where
7 there were just a lot of photographs, is it fair to
8 say that there could have been nude photographs
9 amongst those photos that you saw?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And earlier you testified that you don't
12 have knowledge of what happens behind closed doors,
13 but you also said that Jeffrey had told you what
14 other girls did for him and that he wanted you to do
15 those things for him.
16 Is it fair to say that you knew that other
17 girls were performing sexual acts?
18 A. Yes.
19 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation,
20 form.
21 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
22 Q. And I know you mentioned previously that
23 your relationship and the interaction with him
24 progressed over time.
25 Did there come a time when you were
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 147 of 179
Page 147
1 expected to have sexual intercourse with Jeffrey?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And when was that?
4 A. 2005.
5 MS. McCAWLEY: That's it. I just do want
6 to also put on the record that we're
7 designating the testimony as confidential under
8 the protective order.
9 F U R T H E R E X A M I N A T I O N
10 BY MS. MENNINGER:
11 Q. Okay. You just testified that you have
12 knowledge -- you had knowledge that -- of what
13 Jeffrey was doing behind closed doors with other
14 girls. Was that your testimony?
15 A. Based on what he had told me.
16 Q. Okay. So Jeffrey told you things that he
17 had done with other girls?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. You did not observe any of those things?
20 A. No.
21 Q. You did not talk to any of those girls
22 about what they had done with Jeffrey behind closed
23 doors?
24 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
25
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 148 of 179
Page 148
1 BY MS. MENNINGER:
2 Q. Correct?
3 A. No. Correct.
4 Q. The only source of knowledge you have is
5 based on what Jeffrey told you he had done with
6 other girls?
7 A. Correct.
8 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
9 BY MS. MENNINGER:
10 Q. You said that there were possibly nude
11 photos amongst the other photos that you saw on
12 various walls at the Palm Beach house, correct?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. None of them stood out to you?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. None of them appeared pornographic?
17 A. No.
18 Q. You didn't see any fully frontally nude
19 photographs, correct?
20 A. No, not that I recall.
21 Q. And you don't recall seeing any girls that
22 appeared to be underaged, correct?
23 A. No.
24 Q. You said Ghislaine asked you to take
25 photos of yourself for Jeffrey, correct?
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 149 of 179
Page 149
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. Did she ask you to take a nude photograph
3 of yourself or just a photograph of yourself?
4 A. A nude photograph of myself.
5 Q. What exactly did she say to you?
6 A. I don't remember exactly, but I know that
7 I never felt comfortable. I would have felt fine
8 taking photos of myself, my face, but I knew I was
9 never comfortable with it because I had to take
10 photos of my body. And I also didn't know how to
11 take a photo from standing behind. You have to have
12 someone else involved.
13 Q. That's my question. How would you take a
14 nude photograph of yourself?
15 A. Exactly. Someone else would have to do
16 it.
17 Q. Do you recall any of the particulars of
18 what she said to you that led you to believe she
19 wanted you to do that?
20 A. No, just asking for the photos.
21 Q. Do you know when in your time there?
22 A. It was near the beginning, because that's
23 when I was interested in the photography.
24 Q. Was it in the context of your discussion
25 of your photography class?
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 150 of 179
Page 150
1 A. No.
2 Q. Was it in the context of anything?
3 A. About the camera that she had bought for
4 me.
5 Q. What did she say in relationship to the
6 camera that she bought for you and taking
7 photographs of you?
8 A. Just that Jeffrey would like to have some
9 photos of me, and she asked me to take photos of
10 myself.
11 Q. What did you say?
12 A. I don't remember saying no, but I never
13 ended up following through. I think I tried once.
14 Q. This was the pre-selfie era, correct?
15 A. Exactly.
16 Q. I want to go back to this: You testified
17 to two things just now with Sigrid that you said
18 were implied to you.
19 A. Okay.
20 Q. The first one was it would take pressure
21 off of Maxwell to have more girls around?
22 A. Right.
23 Q. What exactly did Maxwell say to you that
24 led you to believe that was her implication?
25 A. She said she doesn't have the time or
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 151 of 179
Page 151
1 desire to please him as much as he needs, and that's
2 why there were other girls around.
3 Q. And did she refer specifically to any
4 other girls?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Did she talk about underaged girls?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Was she talking about massage therapists?
9 A. Not specifically.
10 Q. Okay. There were other girls in the house
11 that were not massage therapists, correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Nadia is another person that was around,
14 correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. There were other people he traveled with?
17 A. Uh-huh.
18 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
19 BY MS. MENNINGER:
20 Q. Correct?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Other girls?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Adults?
25 A. Yes.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 152 of 179
Page 152
1 Q. When I say "girl," I really mean women,
2 correct?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. There were other women around who hung out
5 with Jeffrey, and you don't know what they did
6 behind closed doors, correct?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. So when you heard the implication that she
9 wanted other girls around to take the pressure off
10 of her sexually, in your mind that meant other adult
11 women that he had in his life, correct?
12 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
13 THE WITNESS: Correct, doing what I was
14 expected to do in a massage, you know.
15 BY MS. MENNINGER:
16 Q. Ghislaine didn't have anything to do with
17 you bringing this woman over for a physical workout
18 with Jeffrey, correct?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. She asked you to bring another girl to
21 be -- to perform massages at the home?
22 A. Yes. Well, she was always asking if I
23 knew anyone else. And so I brought this one girl
24 that I didn't even know I worked with her at a
25 restaurant. So I didn't care what she thought of me
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 153 of 179
Page 153
1 if anything happened. And so -- but it never turned
2 into anything.
3 Q. She was an adult?
4 A. She was an adult.
5 Q. Working at a restaurant with you?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. What restaurant was that?
8 A. It's a restaurant that's closed. It's
9 called .
10 Q. You were asked about the famous people.
11 You said you met Michael Jackson?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. But you did not give him a massage?
14 A. No.
15 Q. There were other famous people, perhaps,
16 who were around Jeffrey's home that you didn't meet,
17 correct?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. Do you know whether Virginia Roberts has
20 told the truth about the age she was when she met
21 Ghislaine Maxwell?
22 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. Exceeds the
23 scope of cross.
24 THE WITNESS: I don't have any idea what
25 she told them in terms of her age.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 154 of 179
Page 154
1 BY MS. MENNINGER:
2 Q. Do you know if Virginia Roberts is telling
3 the truth about whether she spent her sweet 16th
4 birthday with Jeffrey and Ghislaine Maxwell?
5 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
6 THE WITNESS: I don't know anything about
7 that.
8 BY MS. MENNINGER:
9 Q. Do you know whether Virginia Roberts is
10 telling the truth about whether Ghislaine Maxwell
11 sexually assaulted her on her first day on the job?
12 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
13 THE WITNESS: I have not knowledge of
14 that.
15 BY MS. MENNINGER:
16 Q. Do you have any knowledge of whether
17 Virginia Roberts is telling the truth about
18 Virginia -- excuse me -- about Ghislaine Maxwell
19 forcing Virginia Roberts to "go down" on her?
20 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
21 THE WITNESS: No knowledge.
22 BY MS. MENNINGER:
23 Q. Do you have any knowledge about whether
24 Virginia Roberts is telling the truth about whether
25 Ghislaine Maxwell forced her to participate in
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 155 of 179
Page 155
1 orgies with other women?
2 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
3 THE WITNESS: No.
4 BY MS. MENNINGER:
5 Q. Do you have any knowledge about whether
6 Virginia Roberts is telling the truth about whether
7 Ghislaine Maxwell directed her to have sex with
8 Prince Andrew?
9 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
10 THE WITNESS: No. Only based on what I've
11 read in the media.
12 BY MS. MENNINGER:
13 Q. And Alan Dershowitz?
14 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
15 THE WITNESS: The same.
16 BY MS. MENNINGER:
17 Q. Prime ministers?
18 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
19 THE WITNESS: No.
20 BY MS. MENNINGER:
21 Q. Do you have any knowledge about whether
22 Virginia Roberts is telling the truth about foreign
23 presidents?
24 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
25 THE WITNESS: No knowledge.
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 156 of 179
Page 156
1 BY MS. MENNINGER:
2 Q. Do you know whether Virginia Roberts is
3 telling the truth about Ghislaine Maxwell forcing
4 her to participate in an orgy with Prince Andrew and
5 other underaged girls on the island?
6 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
7 THE WITNESS: No knowledge.
8 BY MS. MENNINGER:
9 Q. Did Ghislaine Maxwell ever ask you to have
10 her baby?
11 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
12 THE WITNESS: No.
13 MS. MENNINGER: No further questions.
14 MS. McCAWLEY: Thank you for your time.
15 THE WITNESS: We are done.
16 MS. McCAWLEY: We are off the record.
17 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 1:11. This
18 concludes the video deposition. Off the
19 record.
20 (Thereupon, the taking of the deposition
21 was concluded at 1:11 p.m.)
22
23
24
25
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 157 of 179
Page 157
1 AFFIDAVIT
2 STATE OF FLORIDA )
 COUNTY OF )
3
4
 I, , being first
5 duly sworn, do hereby acknowledge that I did
 read a true and certified copy of my deposition
6 which was taken in the case of GIUFFRE V.
 MAXWELL, taken on the 18th day of May, 2016,
7 and the corrections I desire to make are as
 indicated on the attached Errata Sheet.
8
9 CERTIFICATE
10
11 STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF )
12
13
 Before me personally appeared
14 ________________________________________,
 to me well known / known to me to be the
15 person described in and who executed the
 foregoing instrument and acknowledged to and
16 before me that he executed the said instrument
 in the capacity and for the purpose therein
17 expressed.
18
19 Witness my hand and official seal, this
 ______ day of ________________, _____.
20
21
22 __________________________
 (Notary Public)
23
24 My Commission Expires:
25
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 158 of 179
Page 158
1 ERRATA SHEET
2 PAGE LINE REMARKS
3 ____________________________________________________
4 ____________________________________________________
5 ____________________________________________________
6 ____________________________________________________
7 ____________________________________________________
8 ____________________________________________________
9 ____________________________________________________
10 ____________________________________________________
11 ____________________________________________________
12 ____________________________________________________
13 ____________________________________________________
14 ____________________________________________________
15 ____________________________________________________
16 ____________________________________________________
17 ____________________________________________________
18 ____________________________________________________
19 ____________________________________________________
20 ____________________________________________________
21 __________________________
22 Signature of Witness
___________________________
23 (Notary Public)
24 Dated this _________ day of ___________, __________.
MY Commission Expires: _____________
25
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 159 of 179
Page 159
1 CERTIFICATE OF OATH
2 STATE OF FLORIDA )
3 COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE )
4
5 I, the undersigned authority, certify
6 that JOHANNA SJOBERG personally appeared before me
7 and was duly sworn.
8 WITNESS my hand and official seal this
9 18th day of May, 2016.
10
11
 KELLI ANN WILLIS, RPR, CRR
12 Notary Public, State of Florida
 My Commission No. FF911443
13 Expires: 2/16/21
14 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 160 of 179
Page 160
1
2 C E R T I F I C A T E
3 STATE OF FLORIDA )
 : ss
4 COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE )
5 I, KELLI ANN WILLIS, a Registered
6 Professional, Certified Realtime Reporter and
7 Notary Public within and for The State of
8 Florida, do hereby certify:
9 That JOHANNA SJOBERG, the witness whose
10 deposition is hereinbefore set forth was duly
11 sworn by me and that such Deposition is a true
12 record of the testimony given by the witness.
13 I further certify that I am not related
14 to any of the parties to this action by blood
15 or marriage, and that I am in no way interested
16 in the outcome of this matter.
17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set
18 my hand this 18th day of May, 2016.
19
20 __________________________
 KELLI ANN WILLIS, RPR, CRR
21
22
23
24
25
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 161 of 179
Page 1
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 162 of 179
Page 2
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 163 of 179
Page 3
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 164 of 179
Page 4
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 165 of 179
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 166 of 179
Page 6
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 167 of 179
Page 7
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 168 of 179
Page 8
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 169 of 179
Page 9
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 170 of 179
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 171 of 179
Page 11
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 172 of 179
Page 12
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 173 of 179
Page 13
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 174 of 179
Page 14
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 175 of 179
Page 15
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 176 of 179
Page 16
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 177 of 179
Page 17
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 178 of 179
Page 18
MAGNA&
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 179 of 179
EXHIBIT 7
PART 2
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 2 of 45 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- )ate: 7 / 19/06
rime: 15:01:37
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 45
Program: CMS301L
-----------~-------------------------------------------------------------------
~ase No. . . : 1-05 - 000368 (Continued)
photographed by CSI Pavlik and then videotaped by myself. The search
was concluded at approximately 3:05 p.m. whereupon Detective Recarey
and I were the last two officers in the house. Upon securing the
residence we met with the gentleman who identified himself to
Detective Recarey as the lawyer for the defendant and he was informed
that the residence was secured and that copies of the inventory return
had been left on the first floor table of the personal assistant's
office.
Detective Recarey and I returned to Police Headquarters and secured
for the day.
***************************NARRATIVE # 14 **************************
~ Reported By: DAWSON, MICHAEL C. 11/07/05
Entered By.; ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 11/07/05
on October 2 0, 2 005 , I assisted Defective Recarey in the execution of
a search warrant at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida, 33480.
Upon the announcement of the search warrant , immediate contact was
made with three white males who came out of the house or surrounding
structures. Those males were identified as Janusz Banasiak, Daniel
Estes, and Mark Zeff. As other members of the police department
cleared the home, I kept watch over these three males. Once the house
was cleared, those males were turned over to Detective Reca:rey .
Detective Dicks and I were assigned to assist in the search of the
main house, the cabana and the servant's quarters. We started in the
garage . All areas of the garage were searched to include four
vehicles . These vehicles were three black Mercedes Benz cars
registered to Jeffrey Epstein. The fourth vehicle was a Harley
Davidson motorcycle, green in color, registered to Jeffrey Epstein .
Nothing was recovered from the garage.
A towel closet and pantry located off the kitchen were searched and
yielded negative results .
Th~ kitchen was searched and taken into evidence was a phone message
book: that was located near a house phone.
North of the kitchen was an office room which contained a computer.
The room had a closet that contained a locked gun locker . The
combination was entered by Banasiak in the presence of Sgt. Frick and
the safe was opened. Items were taken from the room. See the
completed property receipt for a detailed list.
A green bathroom located on the first floor was searched and nothing
was taken.
A closet located just west of the green bathroom was searched. Two
massage tables were located in the closet along with a photo of a nude
GIUFFRE000046
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 3 of 45
)ate : 7 /1 9 /06
rime: 1 5: 0 1: 3 7
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 46
Program: CMS301L
·------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~a se No. . 1 - 05-000368
female from the waist up . (Continued)
See the property receipt for details.
I searched two bedrooms and their adjoining bathrooms, which were
located on the second floor on the East side of the house. In the
Northeast bedroom closet I found adult sex toys called Twin Torpedoes.
Soap made in the shape of a penis and vagina were also found in these
upstair bedrooms .. See the property receipt for details .
I searched the pool cabana located on the South side of the pool .
Photos were taken from the wall . See the property receipt for
details.
I assisted in the search of Banasiak ' s living quarters. Numerous CDs
along with a message book was seized. See the property receipt for
details .
** *************************NARRATIVE # 15 **************************
!\ Reported By: RECAREY , JOSEPH 11/08 / 05
Entered By . : ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 11/08 / 05
On November 1 , 2005, I was contacted by Atty . Gus Fronstin , who
advised he was willing to assist with the investigation. Atty.
Fronstin advised he would try to have his client , Jeffrey Epstein
available to be interviewed. I explained I would be interested in
conducting an interview with his client as well as other employees
that are employed within the house. Atty. Fronstin advised he would
return my call once he received confirmation on the interviews.
On November 6 , 2005, I attempted contact with at her
residence. I left a business card for her to return my call. Upon
returning to the police department , I had received a t elephone call
from I : ■ I returned her call at~ and spoke
with She made arrangements to respono to the station to
provide an interview. At approximately 3:30 pm, she arrived at the
Palm Beach Police Stati on with her boyfriend . Her boyfriend was
allowed to sit in the lobby area while Ms ... ■■111,was interviewed.
I took Ms•••► to the Detective Bureau Interview room. I closed the
door for privacy and explained to her that I appreciated her coming to
the police station for the interview. During the sworn taped
statement, she advised she was at Jeffrey Epstein s house one time.
Appro~i~~~e;~ t~~t~~~t~:ra~~~~~~e~a~ a~~~~a~~:~ ~rii~kg!~~~~
advised she was in need to make some quick cash to make the rent that
month . She agreed to go to the house. She had been told by ....
that the massage would have to be done in her underwear . Sne
advised•••drove with her and brought her into the house. They
walked into the kitchen area and took the stairs upstairs.
further stated she was b r ought into a master bedroom area. She
advised she recalled seeing portraits of naked women throughout the
room. A massage table was already out near the sauna/shower area in
the master bedroom . Epstein entered the room wearing only a towel and
GIUFFRE00004 7
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 4 of 45 ------ ------- --------------- ----- ----- ---------------------- --------- --- ----- 1ate: 7/19 /06
'ime : 15 : o 1 : 3 7
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 4 7
Program: CMS301L
-------------------------------------------------------- --- --- ----------------
·ase No. . . : 1-05- 000368 (Continued)
introduced himself as Jeff. ■■•advised she recalled she and
removed their clothing down to their panties, Epstein lay on his
stomach area and they provided a massage on his legs and feet area. I
asked if she had any formal massage training and she replied
no. advised she was topless and the panties she wore were the
boy shorts lace panties. She and41••~continued the massage until
the last ten minutes of the massage, Epstein, told•• tto leave the
room so that1111■■■ could finish the massage.
got dressed and Epstein turned over onto his back. Epstein then
removed the towel, which had been around his waist. Epstein laid
there naked and requested that ••••rub his chest area.
stated as she did this, Epstein, began masturbating as she rubbed his
chest: ••••stated he pulled down her boy short panties and he
produced a large white vibrator with a large head. She stated it was
within a drawer in bis master bathroom. He rubbed the vibrator on her
vagina area. ••■•advised he never penetrated her vagina with the
vibrator.
He continued to rub her vagina with the vibrator as he continued to
masturbate. ••••stated she was very uncomfortable during the
incident but knew it was almost over . Epstein climaxed and started to
remove himself from the table. He wiped himself with the towel he had
on previously and went into the shower area. -■■ltgot dressed and
met with====in the kitchen area. Epstein came into the kitchen and
provided $200.00 for bringing•lllil-~and paid $200.00 to
for providing the massage. ■■-was told to leave her telephone
number with Sarah, his assistant for future contact. •••provided
her cellular telephone number for future contact . was asked
if she was recently contacted about this investigation by anyone from
the Epstein organization . She replied she was called but it was for
work. She stated she was called by Sarah for her to return to work
for Epstein. •• •stated work is the term used by Sarah to provide
the massage in underwear. ■■•advised she declined, as she was not
comfortable in providing that type of work. The interview was
concluded and the videotape was placed into evidence.
Investigation Continues . .
~************************* N ARRATI V E # 16 **************************
Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 11/10/05
Entered By.: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 11/10/05
On November 7, 2005, I made telephone contact with who
advised she would be able to meet with me at her home. Det. Sandman
and I traveled to her home in'll •tl■■ and made contact with
During a sworn taped statement, stated she met
Jeffrey Epstein through Haley Robson. Robson would approach females
who wished to work for him. ••■■~ stated she was asked to.work for
him but declined. ■■■9explained that work means give massages.
She was asked about any formal training in providing massages to which
she said no. ■■■i.,said she accompanied Robson and other females
GIUFFRE000048
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 5 of 45
---------- -- ----- --------------- ------------------------- ----------------- - >ate : 7 / 1 9 / 0 6
'ime: 15:01:37
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report Page: 48
Program: CMS301L
----------------- --------- -------------------- ----------- ------------------
'ase No ... . : 1-05- 000 368 (Continued )
who were taken to Epstein s house to provide massages.
further stated she had been to the house appJoxima-el 4 .or 5 times in
the past year. She accompanied Robson withl I
I 3 ••••·••• the 14-year-old victim, and . Eacn time the girls were taken over, they were previously told they
would have to provide a massage, possibly naked. It was also told that
should Epstein require them to do anything extra and they were not
comfortable just -to tell him and he would stop. ••■•• stated
Robson received $200.00 for each girl she brought over to massage
Jeffrey Epstein. When I asked which girl appeared to be the youngest , she replied, the victim, as she stated she was fifteen years old at
the most; she looked really young. 111•■■ further stated each time
she went to the house, she sat in the kitchen and waited with Robson
until the massage was over. She further stated that the cook would
make lunch or a snack for them as they waited. I asked her if there
was anything that caught her attention within the home . stated there were a lot of naked girls in photographs throughout the
house. The interview was concluded and the tape was turned into
evidence.
Investigation Continues . .
**************************NARRATI V E # 17 **************************
Reported By: RECAREY , JOSEPH 11/10/os
Entered By.: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 11/10/05
Det. Dawson and I attempted contact with in
I left my business card at her front door. Ms
returned my call and arranged a meeting with me at the Palm Beach
Police Department for November 8, 2005. At approximately 2:00pm,
arrived at the Palm Beach Police Department. She was brought
into the interview room and the door was closed for privacy. She was
told that I appreciated her coming to the police station for
questioning regarding an on going investigation. She was told that I
was investigating a crime involving Jeffrey Epstein and knew, based on
the investigation, that she had encounters with him in the past . During a sworn taped statement, ..... stated she had met Epstein
approximately two years ago. She was first introduced to Epstein by
Haley Robson. Robson approached her about working for Epstein and
providing a massage to him for $200.00. The arrangements were made
and as Robson could not take her the day the arrangements were made,
■ took ■••• ••• also attended
and was familiar with Epstein.
recalled she was brought there and entered through the back
kitchen door. She had met with an assistant Sarah and another
assistant Adrianna. Sarah brought her upstairs as she observed
several photographs of naked females throughout the house.
stated Epstein came in the room, wearing only a towel, and laid on the
table. ••■■tstated he picked out the oils he wanted her to use and
requested she remove her clothing to provide the massage.
stated that on the first massage she provided she did not remove her
GIUFFRE000049
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 6 of 45 --------------------------------------------------~---------------------- ---- -- Ja t e : 7 / 19 / o 6
rime: 15:01:37
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 49
Program: CMS301L
---------------------------------------· ---------------------------------------
:::ase No. . : 1-05- 000368 (Continued )
clothing. 'W■■■t stated she had returned several times after that.
Each time she returned more things happened. •••• stated that the
same thing would happen . Epstein would walk into the master
bedroom/bathroom area wearing only a towel. He would masturbate as
she provided a massage. •••• stated she was unsure if he climaxed
as he masturbated under the towel . Additionally she never looked blow
his waist. She claimed that Epstein would convince her to remove her
clothes. She eventually removed her clothes and stayed in her thong
panties. On occasion, Epstein would use a massager/vibrator, which
she described as white in color with a large head, on her. Every time
she provided a massage he would masturbate. added she has no
formal training in providing a massage. tated she brought
two females during her visits to provide massages. stated she
brought.a girl named and . from
IS I . ~stated she received $200.00 for each girl she
brought. Additionally, G'td1111 was given $200 . 00 for taking her in the
very beginning . The interview was concluded and the tape was placed
into evidence.
Investigation continues . . .
~**** ************** ********NARRATI V E # 18 **************************
.\ Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 1 1/13 /0 5
Entered By.: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 11 / 14 /0 5
On November 8 , 2005 , I made telephone contact with W/F , at her residence . ■■•responded to the police station
for an interview reference an ongoing investigation . At approximately
2:30 pm, she arrived at the Palm Beach Police Station and was brought
into the interview room for the interview. The door was closed for
privacy and she was told that I appreciated her cooperation in this
case. During a sworn taped statement,•• ~stated she had met
Jeffrey Epstein approximately one year ago . She was approached by a
subject known to her as q ■ ••t had asked her if she wanted
to make money providing massaqes to E2stein. ad heard that
several girls from I ■ were doing this and_ making money . She agreed and was taken to the house by
had introduced her to Sarah and Epstein and brought her upstairs to a
master bedroom and Master bathroom where a massage table was prepared
and the proper oils were taken out . •••~eft the room and waited
downstairs for••·• stated Epstein entered the room wearing a
towel and she provided a massage wearing only her thong panties.
advised Epstein had masturbated every time she provided a
massage. She stated Epstein continued to masturbate until he
climaxed; once that occurred the massage was over. She felt the whole
situation was weird but she advised she was paid $200.00 for providing
the massage. She also stated:il-•received $200.00 for bring4••to
Epstein .
stated she had gone a total of 15 times to his residence to
provide a massage and things had escalated from just providing a
GJUFFRE000050
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 7 of 45
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7/19/06
Time: 15:01:37
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 50
Program: CMS301L
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::a s e No .. . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued )
massage . Epstein began touching her on her buttocks and grabbed her
closer to him as he masturbated . Epstein also grabbed her breasts and
fondled her breast with his hands as she provided the massage.
stated on one occasion, he offered extra monies to have vaginal
intercourse. She stated this all occurred on the massage table.
• stated Epstein penetrated her vagina with his penis and began
having intercourse with her until he reached the point of climax.
Epstein removed his penis from her vagina and climaxed onto the
massage table. -freceived $3S0.00 for her massage. I asked her
if she had any formal training in providing massages,a•lilllstated she
did not .
continued to state on one other occasion, Epstein introduced his
assistant, Nada , into the massage. Nada was brought into room with
to provide a massage. Epstein had them kiss and fondle each
other around the breasts and buttocks as they provided a massage to
Epstein. Epstein, watched and masturbated as this occurred . On other
occasions, Epstein introduced the large white vibrator/massager
during the massage. Epstein stroked the vibrator/massager on
vagina as she provided the massage.
at the house, was
2005. ••• stated
She provided the
name). It should
stated the last time she spoke with anyone
with Sarah during the weekend of October 2 or 3,
she had brought two 5eople to the Epstein house.
names of 6§ and•■• (unknown last
noted,••1111--had been previously identified as
been previously interviewed. The interview was concluded
videotape was placed into evidence via the locker system.
and had
and the
On November 9, 2005, Sgt Frick and I traveled to 6791 Fairway Lakes
Drive in Boynton Beach, Florida in hopes to interview Juan Alessi, the
former houseman of Epstein's home. As no one was home, a business
card was left for him to return my call . We then traveled to 11349 SW
86th Lane in Miami in hopes to interview Alfredo Rodriguez 1 a former
house man of Epstein. We did not locate them at home. I left a
business card for him to return my call .
We , .. then traveled to••• ]t:,and met with Dean of Students, Mr .
, We requested to speak with ••■■M••• C was re
interviewed, as she still was in possession of the rental car that
Epstein had acquired for her. ■ stated that Sarah, Epstein's
assistant, had called her on her cellular telephone and informed her
that rental was extended for her. Sarah stated she had paid an
additional $625 . 00 for her to keep the rental an extra month.
was asked if she had any additional contact with either Epstein or
anyone from his organization. •••~stated she did not, other than
the telephone call informing her that she could keep the car for an
extra month. ••• did not provide any additional information.
On November 10, 2005 , at approximately 9:47 am, Alfredo Rodriguez had
telephoned reference my business card found on his door . Rodriguez
stated he had worked with Epstein for approximately six months after
GIUFFRE0000S l
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 8 of 45
---~------------------ --- ------------------------------------- -- -------------- >ate: 7 / 19/06
'ime: 15 : O 1: 3 7
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 51
Program: CMS301L
-----~-------- .- -------- ---------------------------------------------------- --
'ase No" . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
the previous houseman left . Rodriguez stated that it was his
responsibility to keep the identity of the masseuses private. Mr.
Epstein had a massage in the morning and one in the afternoon. Mr.
Rodriguez stated he would rather speak about this in private. He
advised he would come to the police station to spea~ with me.
Rodriguez stated he would return my call on Monday, November 14, 2005 .
I then made telephone contact with Juan Alessi. He advised he found
my card on his door and wanted to know what I needed to speak with him
about. I explained to Alessi that I was conducting an investigation
on his former employer, Mr. Epstein. Alessi stated he would return my
call shortly as he was in the middle of a project at his home. I
received a telephone call from Attorney Donald Morrell from 686-2700.
Mr. Morrell stated he represented Mr. Alessi and did not want me
speaking with his client. I then made telephone contact with the
State Attorneys Office and confirmed that subpoenas would be issued
to the former employees to assist in the investigation.
I then made telephone contact with Attorney Guy Fronstin, attorney for
Mr - Epstein. I explained to Mr . Fronstin that I would like to speak
with Mr. Epstein" He stated Mr . Epstein is not in residence in
Florida at this time and would check with him to ascertain if he could
be here by Wednesday November 16, 2005 for an interview. Mr. Fronstin
stated he would return my call should Mr . Epstein decide to come in to
the police station for an interview.
Investigation continues .
** ************************NARRATIVE # 19 **************************
Reported By: RBCAREY , JOSEPH 11/15/0 5
Entered By . : ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 11/16 /0 5
On November 14, 2005 , Det. Sandman and I traveled to t ■ in •••••••1•••• and spoke with•••••• She was
told of the ongoing investigation involving Epstein . advised
she had gone to the house on several occasions. During a sworn taped
statement, she advised she start aitng to the house approximately
one year ago and was brought by (Unknown last name).
stated41•■ brought her into the house and she was introduced to a
girl named Sarah. Once she met her, Sarah brought her upstairs into a
master bedroom bathroom. Gll■■■- stated she met Jeffrey in the
bathroom. He lay on the table and picked the massage oils. She
provided the massage, as he lay naked on the massage bed. She stated
she rubbed his calves and back area. Upon the end of the massage,
Epstein removed himself from the massage table and paid her $300. 00
for the massage.
"'I .stated she had only been at the house approximately five or
u six times. --••••said each time she went to the house she was
notified by Sarah, Epstein's assistant, that Epstein was in town and
would like her to work. ■■--stated she returned to the house and
was again led upstairs by Sarah. She provided the massage , clothed .
GJUFFRE000052
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 9 of 45
·------------------------------------------------------------------------------ )ate: 7/19 / 06
~ime: 15:01:37
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report Page: 52
Program: CMS301L
:ase ~
No. . : 1 - 05-000368 (Continued )
advised it wasn't really weird until later on . askedi.f she ever removed her clothing to provide a massage.
was
stated it was not until the third time she went that she removed her
clothing. -.,stated she was notified by Sarah that Epstein
wanted her to come to work. She arrived at the house and was led
upstairs by Sarah. She started providing the massage when Epstein
asked her to remove her clothing . •••••removed her pants, shirt
and bra. She stayed in her thong panties and continued rubbing
Epstein. Epstein turned over onto his back and she rubbed his chest
area . • stated she knew he was masturbating himself as she
providing the massage . •-••• stated she believed he climaxed based
on his breathing. She did not want to view either the climax or the
fact that he was masturbating. ••• •stated once the breathing relaxed he got up and told her to get dressed. She was paid $3 00.00
for her services.
stated on the last time she went to provide a massage , she
was notified by Sarah to come to the house and work. [ stated
she was now dating her current boyfriend and did not feel comfortable
going. She recalled it was approximately January 2005. She said she
went, already thinking that this would be the last time . She went
upstairs and went into the master bathroom. She met with Epstein,
who was wearing only a towel as he entered the room to lie on the
table. •••••stated Epstein caught her looking at the clock on
several occasions. Epstein asked her if she was in a hurry. .._ stated her boyfriend was in the car waiting for her. further
stated that Epstein got upset, as she wasn 1 t enjoying the massage.
She told him that she didn't want to continue and she would not be
back. Epstein told her to leave as she was ruining his massage. I
asked her if she had any contict with Epstein's· organization, she
stated she received $200.00 from Western Union in Royal Palm Beach and
Okeechobee Blvd as a Christmas gift ■■ advised she had no
formal training in provide any massages. •••also stated she was
sixteen years old when she first went to Epstein 1 s house.
At approximately 4:22 pm, I made telephone contact with
at-•■•• She agreed to meet with me at a public place. I
suggested she come to the police station for an interview. Mid did
not want to meet at the police station. I recommended we meet at the
Palm Beach Gardens Mall in the food court area. She agreed and an
appointment was made for November 15 , 2005 at 5:00 pm at the food
court.
Investigations Continue.
~*************************NARRATIVE # 20 **************************
Reported By: SANDMAN, JENNIFER R. 11/16 / 05
Entered By.: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 11/17 / 05
On 10/ 2 0/2 00 5 , I assisted executing a search warrant at 358 El
Brillo Way in the Town of Palm Beach, Palm Beach County Florida under
the direction of affiant Detective Joe Recarey .
GIUFFRE000053
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 10 of 45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Date: 7/19/06
rime: 15:01:37
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 53
Program: CMS301L
------- -------------------------------- -- -------------------------------------
: ase No . . .. : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
Detective Melnichok and I searched the pantry room that is west
next to the kitchen. This room had all white cabinets with a dark
grey and black counter top. We did not find anything in this room .
We searched the yellow and blue room that is west next to the
pantry room. This room had a very large statue of man with a bow.
Taken into evidence from this room were nine photographs in frames of
various women .
We searched the main entrance foyer that is to the north of the
yellow and blue room. This room contained two bamboo chairs and
ottomans with cushions. It also contained a round table with numerous
books.
We searched another blue room that is west of the foyer. This
room had a stereo system and book shelves that were from the floor to
the ceiling , Taken into evidence from this room were eiqht
photographs in frames of various women and/or Epstein , the owner of
the residence .
We searched the room to the west of the blue room that has
sliding glass doors that lead out to the pool. In this room in a
dresser were two DVD's and two VCR tapes. These items were taken into
evidence.
We searched a 2004 black Chevy Suburban bearing Florida tag
X99-EGL, registered to Jeffrey Epstein DOB 01/20/53, which was located
on the east side of the driveway facing south. I found a ~hrifty
rental agreement between the passenger seat and the middle console.
The name on the rental agreement was Johanna Sjoberg from 622 Holly
Drive Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410. The phone number on the
rental agreement was (561) 714-0546. The vehicle rented was a white
2005 Chrysler Sebring bearing Florida tag W99-FUN. The vehicle was
rented on 9/25/05 at 17:58 hours and was returned on 9/26/05 at 16:52
hours. The last four numbers of the credit card used are 9821.
Detective Melnichok found a piece of paper in the middle console that
said I used the cash in here to fill up the tank and was signed by
Johanna.
I searched the 2005 black Cadillac Escalade ESV bearing Florida
tag Q29-9GT, registered to Jeffrey Epstein dob 01/20/53 , which was
located on the west side of the driveway facing south. I did not find
anything in this vehicle.
All of the items that were taken into evidence were photographed
in the place they were located and then turned over to crime scene.
**************************NARRATIVE # 21 **************************
Reported By: RECAREY 1 JOSEPH 11 / 17 / 05
Entered By. : ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 11 / 17 / 05
GIUFFREOOOOS4
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 11 of 45 -----------------~--------------------------------------------------------- ate: 7/ 19 / 06
ime : 15 : O 1 : 3 7
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 54
Program: CMS301L
----------------------------------------------------- -------------------------
ase No . . 1-05-000368 (Continued)
on November 15 1 2005, Det , Sandman and I traveled to
in•■■-•••••• We met with a
seventeen-year old juvenile who was not in school this day due to a
cold from which she was suffering. L J was told that I needed to
speak with her in reference to an ongoing investigation involving a
subject she would know as Jeffrey Epstein . Prior to speaking with
her, I explained that because of the fact that she is a minor, I
needed to speak with her parents prior to speaking with her. She
telephoned her father, Mr. , on his cell phone and
explained to him that Det. Sandman and I were there to speak with her . I spoke with Mr. -on the telephone and informed him I needed
to speak with his daughter in reference to an ongoing investigation.
Mr.••••• advised he had no problem with us speaking wi th his
daughter.
During a sworn taped statement, stated she met Jeffrey
Epstein over a year ago. She was sixteen years of age and was
approached by •••ll'l•••who informed her that she could make monies
providing a massage to Epstein for $200.00. ••• had informed her
that she would have to provide this massage topless. made the
arrangements with Epstein and his assistants and took to the
house. ••••1 stated and she entered through a glass door
that led into a kitchen. took her upstairs, to a master bedroom
and master bathroom. She recalled the bathroom had a large pink
couch, sau.na and matching shower. Epstein entered into the room
wearing only a towel. ■ I ana••aremoved their clothing
remaining only in thong underwear. She further stated that Epstein
lay on his chest on the table. Epstein selected which oils to use for
the massage. Bothtl■■•anda••••provided the massage on his
legs, back and feet. Forty minutes into the massage, Epstein turned
over onto his back and requested••• wait downstairs in the kitchen
area for g £ • Epstein instructed •••••to finish the massage . As •••got dressed,ill•• astarting rubbing his chest.
left the room, and Epstein began masturbating himself as
rubbed Epstein s chest. •••■• stated he continued masturbating until he climaxed on the towel he was wearing. When asked if he had
removed the towel she stated he turned the towel around so that the
opening would allow him to expose himself. After he cleaned himself
off with the towel, he instructea••••~the massage was done and to
get dressed and met with him downstairs. ■■■-got dressed and met
with Epstein in the kitchen area. She was paid $200.00 dollars for
providing the massage. •• •ll~tated she was aware that••• also
received monies for the same thing,
The second time she went to the house she was again approached by
asked if she wanted to return to the house to provide
another massage;fil••••agreed and the arrangements were made by
• £ for her to return to the house . .. •••• stateq I t drove her
to the house and knocked on the same glass door that leads to the
kitchen area. They were allowed entry into the house by one of the
staff members . -•ed her upstairs to the master bedroom and
GIUFFRE000055
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 12 of 45
----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- ate: 7/ 19/06
ime: 15:01:37
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report Page: 55
Program: CMS301L
-------------- ------ ------------------------------------------------------- ---
5se No. : 1-05 - 000368 (Continued)
master bathroom area. ••a1eftllil• -this time to do the massage
alone. Epstein entered the room again wearing only a towel. e:y
began removing her clothing as she did the last time she was at the
house. Epstein instructed her to get naked. He lay on the table on
his stomach as .. •••~ began massaging his legs and back .
As .. ■■■•finished with Epstein•s back and legs, Epstein then turned
over onto his back. started to rub his chest and he began
masturbating himself. As rubbed his chest, Epstein leaned
over and produced a massager/vibrator. He turned it on and began
rubbing•••• •vagina and masturbating himself at the same time.
stated she continued to rub his chest as this was occurring . She described the vibrator/massager as large, grey with a large head . Epstein rubbed her vagina for approximately two to three minutes with
the massager/vibrator. He then removed the vibrator from her vaginal
area and concentrated on masturbating himself. • ■ stated he
climaxed onto the towel again and informed her that the massage was
done. ■••• got dressed and met with•••who was waiting in the
kitchen area. She received $200 . 00 for the massage. ••••a said
she never returned to the house and had no desire to return to the
house. 1111•••• was asked if she received any formal massage
training. She advised she had no formal training. ••• •was asked
if Epstein knew her real age . II ,1± stated he knew as he asked her
questions about herself and high school , He was aware she attended
and is still attending ii
The interview was concluded . I suggeste,bll I inform her parents
of what occurred at the Epstein house. stated she would tell
her father as he was unaware this had occurred. I left my business
card for any questions they may have. We left the area and returned
to the police station. The tape was placed into evidence.
Investigation Continues.
**************************NARRATIVE # 22 **************************
Reported By: RECAREY , JOSEPH 11/17/ 05
Entered By . : ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 11/17/ 05
On November 15, 2005, Officer Munyan and I responded to the Palm Beach
Gardens Mall food court section to meet with llil•a ••• At
approximately 5:10 p.m.,••••arrived and met with us at the food
court. 11■■-tprovided a sworn taped statement in which she stated
she had been at the Epstein house over fifty times. She began going
to Epstein 1 s house when she turned eighteen years old. ll•ilawas
asked if she knew of the on-going investigation. ••••stated she
wa9, aware there was an investigation as she had been told by other
girls that were interviewed. Additionally, she has had several
telephone conversations with Epstein 1 s assistants as to what had been
going on during the investigation.
I asked how she was introduced to Epstein . tated she
did not want to disclose who brought her to the house but she would
GIUFFRE000056
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 13 of 45
·---------------·--------------------------------------------------------------- )ate : 7/19/ 0 6
['ime: 15: O 1: 3 7
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 56
Program: CMS301L
~----------------------------------------·------------- -------------------------
:ase No. . . : 1-05 - 000368 {Continued)
respond to any other questions. When I asked her what happened at the
house, •••■ stated everything happened. It all began with the
massages. Each time she went more things happened. She would massage
Epstein and he would masturbate and climax. She stated things
escalated from there. She provided oral sex on Epstein and he
provided oral sex on her. She stated he would also use a
massager/vibrator on her vagina to stimulate her as she massaged him . He introduced his assistant Nadia or Nada to have vaginal intercourse
with·•·~ She stated Nada or Nadia would utilize a strap-on
(synthetic penis} to have intercourse with her. She was told to
masturbate herself as Epstein and Nada had sexual intercourse. All
this was done at Epstein's direction.
could not Erovide exact dates as she had been to the house so
many times. SI stated Epstein inserted his fingers in her vagina
to stimulate her as she massaged him. When I asked her if there had
been any vaginal intercourse with Epstein, she stated she did not have
sex with him. She did admit having sex with Nada, his assistant.
, JJ stated not every time she went involved sexual favors.
ometimes she would just talk with him and get paid . I asked her how
much she was paid each time she went to Epstein s residence.
stated she got paid $300 . 00 every time she went to the house., She was
declined
introduce
told to bring other girls to him to provide massages.
stating that she does what she does and did not want to
anyone else to do what she does. •••■ stated she had
any formal training in providing massages.
never received
I showed a photo line up in which Nada Marcinkova was placed in
position six. She reviewed the six photographs and immediately
identified Nada Marcinkova as the person with whom she had
intercourse. Additionally, it was the same person she watched have
intercourse with Epstein. She signed the photo line-up under Nada
Marcinkova s photo as the person she identified. We then left the
mall and returned to the police station. The photo line up and tape
were placed in to evidence.
Investigation Continues .. .
**************************NARRATI V E # 23 **************************
Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 11/29/05
Entered By.: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 12/01/05
On November 17, 2 00 5, I received a phone message from Atty. Guy
Fronstin who advised to call his cellular phone reference his client
Jeffrey Epstein. I telephoned his cell phone and left a message for
him to return my call. I did not receive a call back on Thursday,
November 17, 2005. On Friday, November 18 2005, I retrieved another
voice mail from my work phone from Mr. Fronstin advising he would not
produce his client Jeffrey Epstein for any statement. Fronstin stated
he had spoken with ASA Lana Belohlavek and expressed Mr. Epstein has a
passion for massages. I called ASA Lana Belohlavek and confirmed that
GIUFFRE000057
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 14 of 45 ~---- ----- ---- ---------------~---------------------------- --- -- ---------------- )ate : 7 I l 9 Io 6
E'ime : 15 : o 1 : 3 7
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 57
Program: CMS301L
---------------- ---------------- --------------------------- --- ------------- ----
:ase No . ... : 1-05-000368
Fronstin had telephoned
discussed, Mr. Fronstin
about massages .
(Continued)
her reference this case. Although nothing was
did advise her that Epstein is very passionate
I also spoke with ASA Daliah Weiss reference the previous employees,
Juan and Maria Alessi. She advised that they had been served through
a subpoena process server. They were both scheduled to appear on
Monday November 21, 2005 at 12:00 p.m ,
On November 21, 2005, I met with ASA Weiss, Atty. Donnie Murrell and
Juan and Maria Alessi at the State Attorney Office. ASA Weiss had
requested a court reporter to be present to take the statement of the
Alessi s. I spoke with Maria Alessi, in the presence of her attorney,
Donnie Murrell. She advised she had worked for Epstein for eight
years, from the period of 1994 through 2002. She advised she had
never had any direct conversations with him. She stated it was her
husband who spoke directly with Epstein. Her work consisted of doing
house cleaning, shopping and other preparations when Epstein would
arrive ~Jl town. Alessi stated the preparations consisted of preparing
the house and bathrooms for his arrival. She advised she did view
several masseuses that arrived at the house. She advised that two or
three girls would come during a day and provide the massages. The
girls that arrived looked young in age. Mrs. Alessi did not know any
of the girls personally and were always different. She was told that
when Epstein was in residence he did not want to encounter the Alessis
during his stay in Palm Beach.
I then spoke with Mr. Alessi in the presence of his attorney, Donnie
Murrell. Mr. Alessi stated that he was employed for eleven years with
Mr. Epstein. He originally was hired as a part time employee and then
moved up into a full time position. His duties included everything.
Alessi stated he was the house manager, driver and house maintenance
person. It was his responsibility to prepare the house for Epstein s
arrival. When asked about cooks or assistants, Alessi stated they
traveled with Epstein on his private plane. He remembered dealing
with his girlfriend, Ms. Maxwell originally and then dealt with
Epstein directly.
I asked Mr. Alessi about massages that occurred within the home. Mr.
Alessi stated Mr. Epstein had up to three massages a day. Each
masseuse that visited the house was different. Alessi stated that
towards the end of his employment, the masseuses were younger and
younger. When asked how young, Mr. Alessi stated they appeared to be
sixteen or seventeen years of age at the most. The massages would
occur in Epstein's bedroom or bathroom. There were times he recalled
that he would set up the massage tables either in Epstein s bedroom or
in his bathroom. I asked if there were things going on other than a
massage. Alessi stated that there were times towards the end of his
employment that he would have to wash off a massager/vibrator and a
long rubber penis, which were in the sink after the massage.
Additionally, he stated the bed would almost always have to be made
after the massage. Alessi was never privy to what went on during the
GIUFFRE000058
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 15 of 45
---- -----------------------~--------------------------------------------------- Jate: 7/19 / 06
rime: 15:01:37
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 58
Program: CMS301L
p--- --------------------------- ------ -- -- --------------------------------------
~ase No ..
massages .
: 1 - 05 - 000368 (Continued )
He was asked if he remembered any names of the girls that massaged
Epstein. He tried to remember and was unable to provide any exact
names of any girls.- Alessi was asked about any contact with anyone
from the Epstein organization. Alessi said he did speak with Mr.
Epstein shortly after my initial contact with him to find out what was
going on . Alessi also stated that approximately on November 11, 2005 , he was contacted by a private investigator from the Law Office of Roy
Black. The investigator had called him to meet with him to ascertain
what he was going to tell the police. Alessi stated they met at the
Carrabba s Restaurant in Boynton Beach and discussed the same
questions I was asking him. I informed Mr. Alessi and Mr. Morrell
that as this is an ongoing investigation and anything we discuss
should be confidential. They both acknowledged the fact that the
information would be kept confidential. It should be noted that a
court reporter was present during the interviews and would be
providing a copy of the statements to me when they become available .
On November 21, 2005, I received a voice mail from Mr . Fronstin who
advised he would not be making Mr. Epstein available for any
statements. He did have some words that he wanted to relay on behalf
of Mr. Epstein. I telephoned his office and left a message for him to
return my call .
On November 29, 2005, I received a call back from Mr. Fronstin who
left a voice mail after hours on November 28 , 2005, advising he would
return my call during normal business hours to speak with me reference
the case on November 29, 2005 .
****************** ********NARRATI V E # 24 **************************
Reported By: RECAREY 1 JOSEPH 11/29/05
Entered By.: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 12/01/05
On November 29 , 2005 , at approximately 2:30 p.rn. I received a
telephone call on the department issued cell phone. Mr. Fronstin
stated he was calling to relay information that Mr. Epstein wished he
could relay. Mr. Fronstin stated that he would not allow Mr. Epstein
to speak with me at this time. He further stated that Mr. Epstein is
very passionate about massages. He continued that Mr . Epstein had
allegedly donated over $100,000 to the Ballet of Florida for massages .
The massages are therapeutic and spiritually sound for him that is
why he has had many massages. Mr. Fronstin stated he appreciated the
way the investigation has not been leaked out into the media. I
explained to Mr. Fronstin that it is as important to protect the
innocent if the allegations are not substantiated. Mr. Fronstin was
told of the allegations that the private investigators assigned to the
case have been portraying themselves as police officers.
Additionally, I explained that my cell phone had been called by the
private investigators . Mr . Fronstin advised he was not aware of that
and advised they were under the direction of Attorney Roy Black in
GIUFFRE000059
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 16 of 45
--------------------------------------------------~----------------------- ----- Date: 7/19 / 06
Time : 15 : D 1 : 3 7
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 59
Program: CMS301L
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case No . . . . 1-05-000368 (Continued)
Miami. Mr. Fronstin further stated Epstein had originally called Mr . Dershorwitz in Boston, who recommended Roy Black in Miami, who asked
Mr. Fronstin to assist. I informed him that if and when any charges
would be presented I would notify him. The call was then terminated .
Investigation continues .
'***************************NARRATI V E # 25 **************************
JA Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 12/15/05
Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 12/16/05
A review of the telephone message books, which were obtained during
the search warrant, was conducted in which various messages from
different dates were made to Jeffrey Epstein. The telephone message
books have a duplicate copy (Carbon Copy) which, once a phone message
is written into the book , the top copy is then torn on the perforated
edge and the carbon copy is left in the book. First names of girls,
dates and telephone numbers were on the copy of the messages. I
recognized various numbers and names of girls that had already been
interviewed. The body of the messages was time of the day that they
called for confirmation of 11 work. 11 Other names and telephone numbers
were located in which the body of the messages were, "I have girls for
him" or "I have 2 girls for him." These messages were taken by Sarah · for Jeffrey Epstein" Based on the context of the body of the
messages, I requested subpoenas for subscriber information on the
telephone numbers and the time frame involved . Copies of the messages
were made for evidentiary purposes.
I obtain a
1
eaf.£ . d th
2005
b ykearbdoo1
ks tfodr 200St , 2fOOh4 and
2003. irst reviewe e year oo an oca e mos o t e
girls I had spoken with . Additionally, I located
Based on the corrected name spelling, I was able to locate her to her
residence in . On December 8, 2005, Det. CariFto and I
responded to . inti•■■■■ I located ••• •at her home. She advised she is attendingt11••11111•11t•••llllll••and is
participating in the early release program so she can maintain her
part time job. As she is still a minor 1 I left my business card to
have her mother return my call to request an interview with her
daughter. We then left the area.
I also had previously
telephone number
information on 7
I J of
tlat she is the
researched the telephone number for and
A subpoena had been issued for the
The telephone number was registered to
A query of•••lllll• -revealed and is currently residing at
Det. Caristo and I attempted
contact witl LI ,.rith negative results . I left my business card on
her front door requesting she return my call. We then responded to -· - •• •• • -- •• - •• • y • • I also attempted contact with
Mr with negative results . I left my business card for him to
return my call .
GIUFFRE000060
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 17 of 45
Ja t e : 7 / 1 9 / o 6
rime: 15:01:37
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 60
Program: CMS301L
~ase No ... l-05-000368 (Continued)
On December 9, 2005,
mother,
I received
who was
a
made
telephone
aware
call
of the
from
on going
~
investigation in Palm Beach. •••• advised she was told of
everything that occurred at Epstein's house involving Epstein and his
staff. She advised she would allow me to question her daughter about
what occurred and would cooperate with the investigation.
provided me with-•• a. cellular telephone number to schedule an
appointment for an official interview. I telephoned her cellular
telephone and made a tentative appointment for Monday, December 12,
2005.
I then received a telephone call from••• , father of S
who stated he found the business card on his door. I
explained that I was conducting an investigation and needed to speak
with11- as she may have information that could assist in the
investigation. Mr.•• -•stated that his daughter no longer resides
with him and has her own trailer in another trailer park. He advised
he would tell her to call me.
On December 12, 2005, due to a conflict with schedules, arrangements
were made to meet with t1•••~ on Tuesday, December 13, 2005
at 5:00 pm. On December 13, 2005, Det. Dawson and I traveled to
and met with ■ ···••••• During a sworn taped
statement, DA stated that when she was sixteen years old, she was
taken to Epstein's house to provide a massage for moneift
stated it was before Christmas last year when ES J approached
her and asked if she needed to make money for Christmas; stated
she did and agreed to provide a massage for money . .:==~made
arrangements to ,take • to the house and drove to the house
to 11 work. 11 •••a,stated she could not remember the street name but
would be able to drive to the street. They drove to the last house on
the street and pulled in the last house on left side. They walked up
the driveway and entered through a side gate which led to a kitchen
door. They knocked on the door and were encountered by an employee
who••••described as a '1
Spanish looking lady. 11 They informed her
that they were expected. They were then encountered by a white female
with long blond hair. •--~was unable to remember the name of the
white female with blond hair but knew she was Epstein's assistant.
She was led upstairs by the white female who explained that there
would be lotions out already and Epstein would choose the lotion he
wanted her to use. She was led through a spiral staircase which led
to a master bedroom and bathroom. The massage table was already set
up in the bathroom. ••••described the bathroom as a large spacious
bathro~m with a steam room and shower beside it with a sink to the
right. ••••was introduced to Jeff who was on the phone when she
enterea. Jeff was wearing a white towel and lay on his stomach so
that •••-may massage his feet and calves. -•••started the
massage with the massage oil Jeff chose and rubbed his feet and
calves. Jeff got off the phone and requested she massage his back as
well. ••••began rubbing his back and got to the small of his back .
During the rubbing of his back Jeff asked her to get comfortable. He
GIUFFRE00006 l
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 18 of 45
·--- ------------------------------------------------------- -- --------------- --- )ate: 7/19/06
rime: 15:01:37
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 61
Program: CMS301L
----------- -~--------------------~------ ---------------------------------------
~ase No. . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued}
requested she remove her pants and shirt. ■■■-removed her shirt
and pulled her pants off. •• IJstayed in her bra and thong panties.
As she finished the small of the back, Jeff then turned onto his
back. He instructed she rub his chest and pinch his nipples. As she
began to rub his chest, Jeff asked her questions about hgself.
remembered telling him she attended £ - Q
Jeff asked her if she was sexually active. Before - could answer, he also asked what sexual positions does she enjoy.
stated she was shy didn't like talking about those things. She
continued rubbing his chest. Epstein reached up and unsnapped her bra
from the front . ••explained the bra she used had a front
snapping device. Epstein rubbed her breasts and asked her if she like
having her breasts rubbed ........ said "no, I don I t like that. 11
Epstein then removed his towel and lay on the bed naked exposing his
penis t He beg¥ touching his penis and masturbated as he
touched her breasts. •~• explained Jeff then touched her vagina
area by rubbing her vagina with his fingers on the outside of her
thong panties . ■■•tensed up and stated Jeff was aware that she
was uncomfortable.
f[ stated that Jeff told her, "Relax, I'm not going inside." She
further explained Jeff commented to her how beautiful and sexy she
was. Jeff then moved her thong panties to one side and now was
stroking her clitoris. •••• said "Jeff commented how hard my cli t
was," He then inserted two fingers in her vagina and was stroking her
within her vagina. She tried pulling back to pull out his fingers
from within her vagina. Jeff removed his fingers from within her
vagina and apologized for putting his fingers inside her. During this
time he kept his hand on her vagi!').a area rubbing her vagina.
stated he rubbed her real hard as he was masturbating. •••• said he
climaxed onto the towel he had been previously wearing and got up from
the table. Jeff told her there was $200 . 00 dollars for her on the
dresser within the master bathroom. Jeff also told her that there was
an additional $100.00 that was to be given tc,11■■1 for bringing her
there to massage him , Jeff told her to leave her telephone number
with his assistant as he wanted to see her again. Jeff stated his
assistant would contact her to work again soon.
I asked her if she ever received any formal massage training to which
stated she did not. •••a stated it was the only time she
ever went to work for Jeff and knew what happened to her was wrong . She stated she no longer speaks totl■■•because she was upset that
took her there , She further stated that she had never been
contacted for any additional work. The interview was terminated and
we left the area.
Investigation Continues . . .
•*************************NARRATI V E # 26 ** ************************
Reported By: DICKS , ALLEN C. 12/18/05
Entered By.; ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 12/19/05
GJUFFRE000062
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 19 of 45
---------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- )ate: 7/ 19/06
rime: 15:01:37
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 62
Program: CMS301L
-------------------- -------------------- ----- ---- ------------ -------- ----------
:ase No. . : 1 - 05 - 000368 (Continued)
On 102005 at approx 0930hrs I assisted with the execution of a
search warrant at 358 El Brillo Ave, Palm Beach.
Initially I was assigned to enter the residence and conduct a
sweep of the premises for safety purposes . I then accompanied CSEU
tech Pavlik while she photographed the exterior of the house. Once
this was complete I was assigned to search certain areas of the house
with Det. Dawson as part of the search warrant.
We began in the garage, searching three Mercedes Benz vehicles, a
Harley Davidson motorcycle and adjacent closets in the garage .
Nothing of evidentiary value was located.
We then searched two closets off the kitchen area on the east
side. These can best be described as pantry or storage closets.
Nothing of evidentiary value was obtained.
A small office with adjoining bath was then searched. In the bath
area I located a phone message book with recent messages . This item
was seized as evidence . Please note this bath and shower area are not
used as designed but are storage areas containing a variety of items
to include a gun safe in the shower and assorted household items.
We then searched a bath area and closet at the base of the main
stairs in the foyer. Inside the closet two massage tables were
located as well as partial nude female photographs. These items were
later seized as evidence. Nothing of evidentiary value was noted in
the bathroom.
We then searched two bedrooms upstairs on the east side of the
residence . Located in the bath room of the south bedroom was penis
shaped soap . Located in the bedroom of the northern bedroom was penis
and vagina shaped soap as well as an adult sex toy. These items were
seized as evidence.
We then searched the pool cabana located in the south west corner
of the property . Several photographs of nude females were seized as
evidence.
I was then assigned to stand by with a person I believe was
Douglas Schoettle. Mr. Schoettle was in the residence at the
beginning of the search warrant. He was present during the warrant
service and subsequent search. I stood by with him until the search
was completed and I departed the residence. I had no conversation
with him regarding the reason for our presence.
Regarding seized evidence, all items were photographed in place
and then collected by CSEU personnel .
This concludes my involvement in this case .
GJUFFRE000063
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 20 of 45
----- --- ------------------------------------------ ------------------------ )ate: 7/ 19 / 06
rime: 15:01:37
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 63
Program: CMS301L
·--------------------------------------------------------------------~---------
~ase No . ... : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
***************************NARRATIVE # 27 **************************
IA Reported By: KRAUEL, CURTIS D. 12/21/05
Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 12/21/05
On Thursday, October 20, 2005 at approximately 0936 hours, I assisted
in the execution of a search warrant located at 358 El Brillo Way,
Palm Beach, Florida, residence of Jeffrey Epstein . I was instructed
by Case Agent Det . Joseph Recarey, to secure all computer and media
related material from the residence.
Upon my arrival I was directed by Det . Recarey to a room designated as
the Kitchen Staff Office. I observed a, Silver in color, CPU with the
left side cover removed, exposing the CPUs hardware sitting on floor
next to a glass type desk. The CPU had no discernable identifiers or
features indicating a make or model. This CPU was powered off with
the power cord not plugged in . The keyboard and mouse were atop the
CPU. It should be noted that the CPU was not connected to a monitor , p r inter, or other media device . On the back Panel of the CPU, I
observed an A/V card with RCA jacks attached . This type of hardware
would allow audio and video to be downloaded onto the CPUs hard disk.
The ends of the RCA jacks were unattached at the time of the search
and no external camera was located within this room.
The CPU was located on the right side of a desk that held a flat panel
LCD screen. The desk also held another keyboard and mouse, indicative
of a second computer; however, no other computer was found. It
appeared as though a second computer had been recently removed as the
cables ends from the monitor, keyboard and mouse were in the same
area. A further search of the room revealed no media storage devices,
i . e. CDs, Floppy Disks, Zip Disks, etc. This type of media is
commonly stored in an area where computers are placed , yet no media
was found.
After completing a search of this room, I secured the CPU and turned
all items over to the Evidence Custodian for future forensic analysis
via a property receipt.
I was then directed by Det. Recarey to a room designated as the Garden
Room, where I observed a wooden desk facing west. The desk held a
flat screen LCD monitor, keyboard, mouse, media card reader and
printer; however, no CPU was located. All of the cables were removed
from an area where a computer had once been. A search of the desk
area revealed no signs of any media devices.
Det. Recarey directed me to a third location designated as the Cabana
room, which is detached from the residence and located just south of
the pool. In the South East corner of the room, I observed an office
type setting, with an L-shaped desk holding a flat screen LCD monitor,
keyboard, mouse and printer; however, no CPU was located , All of the
cables were removed from an area where a computer had once been . A
search of the desk area revealed no s i gns of any media devices .
GIUFFRE000064
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 21 of 45
--- -- -------------------------------------------------~---------------------- late: 7/19 /0 6
'irne : 15 : 0 1 : 3 7
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 64
Program: CMS3 01L
------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------
'.ase No . .. . : 1-05-000368 (Continued )
Det. Recarey directed me to a second detached structure located on the
South East corner of the property. This area of this structure was
assigned with single letters to identify a particular part of the
room. In the office area, designated as Room B, I observed a powered
on Dell Dimension 2350, attached to an LCD flat panel monitor. The
screen displayed an open Microsoft Internet Explorer browser with URL
address of http://home.bellsouth.net/. I observed no other active
windows in the Start panel window and photographed screen .. The power
cord was removed from the back of the Dell CPU and I disconnected the
cable modem to prevent remote access. At that time, the Dell CPU,
marked with Seri~l Number 6WTVN21, was secured and turned over the
evidence custodian for future forensic analysis via property receipt .. I also located several media related items within Room B, which were
recorded onto a property receipt and turned over the Evidence
Custodians .
I then responded to a Bedroom designated as Room F, where I observed a
white in color CPU marked Premio. The Premio CPU was in a computer
desk which held a white CRT monitor, both of which were powered on.
The CRT monitor displayed a message from Norton Antivirus software,
warning of an expired subscription . I observed no other active
windows in the Start panel window and photographed screen. I removed
the power cable from the back of the Prernio CPU and shutdown all other
media. The Premio CPU, marked with Serial Number 2000091078, was
secured and turned over the evidence custodian for future forensic
analysis via property receipt. I also located several media related
items within Room F, which were recorded onto a property receipt and
turned over the Evidence Custodians.
This concluded my participation in the search of the residence .
'**************************NARRATIVE # 28 **************************
Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 12/21/ 05
Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 12/21/05
On December 20, 2005 , I contacted ASA Daliah Weiss in an attempt to
subpoena the Epstein former houseman, Alfredo Rodriguez. Rodriguez ,
who resides in Miami, had eluded the process servers previously and
was not served the investigative subpoena. A telephone message was
left as she is not available during the week of 12/19/2005. I made
contact with State Attorney Inv Theresa Wyatt and requested the same
via telephone message.
I then researched the victim 's-cellular telephone subpoena data
which had been received from a previous subpoena request. I analyzed
the records which depict several calls frorn Haley Robson. The
telephone calls start on February 6, 2005 at 12:49 pm.; the same day
which the victim and the victim's father stated the incident occurred
at Epstein s house. The first incoming call was from Robson's
residence at 561 333 - 0180. The second incoming call from Robson 1 s
GlUFFRE0D0065
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 22 of 45
-- -- -- ---------------- -------------------------------------------------------- ate: 7/19/06
ime: 15:01:37
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 65
Program: CMS301L
------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------
ase No. : l-05-000368 (Continued )
cellular phone 561-308-0282 occurred at 1:02 pm. The call durations
were one minute or less. The time frame was within thirteen minutes
apart. It should be noted that Robson s residence was in close
proximity to the victim's. The next call occurred at 5:50 pm when the
victim telephoned Robson s residence. Several calls were made after
the above mentioned calls both incoming and outgoing to Robson.
Further analysis showed no telephone calls to either Robson's cellular
telephone or Robson's residence were registered prior to February 6,
2005.
Additionally, I also conducted an analysis on the telephone calls from
305-710-5165. The subscriber information confirmed that the number is
registered to Paul A Lavery from Hialeah, Florida. The address was
crossed referenced to the Office of Kiraly and Riley Private
Investigators. I researched the web page www.rileykiraly.com which
also showed various cases in which they assisted. I also located
another web site under www.coralspringssparklandrotary.org in which
Mr. Riley attended a Miami Rotary meeting and confirmed Atty. Roy
Black is among his clientele.
The telephone calls revealed Lavery had telephone contact with
.... and••■•••~ either just after I attempted to
interview them, or Just prior. A background was conducted on Lavery
which revealed he holds a current Private Investigator License. A
criminal arrest record revealed he had been previously arrested for
possession of cocaine and solicitation of prostitution .
I also researched the girls using www.myspace.com. This web site is a
new social networking service that allows members to create uniq~e
personal profiles online in order to find and communicate with old and
new friends. The site allows one to establish your own myspace.corn
page and decorate the page any way one wishes. I found the following
people have myspace sites: Halef, Rob~on,
1
... and
a
I received a Cingular Wireless packet which contained a CD which
contained the results of the subpoena request for verbatim calls on
An analysis will be conducted in the near future on the
phone numbers called.
Investigation Continues .
**************************NARRATI V E # 29 **************************
Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 12/27/05
Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 12/29/05
Upon doing research on the message books recovered in the search
warrant, I located the identity of The telephone number
as registered to & 2!S!!£Q_ She currently is
seventeen years old and is attending the...... J. I
GnJFFRE000066
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 23 of 45
---------------------------------------·----------~------~--------------------- 3.te: 7/19 / 06
ime: 15:01:37
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 66
Program: CMS301L
-------------------------------------------- .---------------------------------
~se No. : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
M I located the ••• I located responded to••••••IIIII ======== also known as the
alllllltinside the foundation and informed her that I was
investigating a case against Jeffrey Epstein and knew she had been at
the house. ■ started to cry and advised she had put that part
of her life behiiia her. I explained that although she is seventeen
years old I needed to inform her parents that she would be
interviewed. She provided her home telephone number. I attempted
contact and left voice mail messages at the house to speak with her
parents.
Det. Caristo and I then located --at her residence located
at•■■•••••in I attempted to interview her
about Jeffrey Epstein. She advised she is so in love with Jeff
Epstein and would do anything for him. She further explained that she
would not speak with us about him either negative or positive. She
asked us to leave her property. I informed her that although she did
not wish to speak w~th us, I had sufficient information at this point
in the investigation to know she was at Epstein's house and provided
girls to Epstein to work. I also explained that prior to our arrival
at her residence I had telephone contact with her father,
16 who was told she would be interviewed.
currently seventeen years old and as a juvenile, parental
would be required. We then left the area and returned to
station.
is
notification
the police
While at the police station, I left another telephone message for
J • parents. I began an analysis of Sarah Kellen's Cellular
telephone. The telephone number 917-855-3363 is assigned to Sarah
Kellen and the financially responsible party is Jeffrey Epstein of 457
Madison Ave. in New York City, New York. The time frame which was
subpoenaed was September 2005, through October 2005. There were
eighty seven pages of calls made either to the cell phone or from the
cell phone. The local (561) numbers were analyzed. A spread sheet
was prepared and placed into the attachment file of who was called.
The unknown numb.ers were researched using FoneFinder. com and subpoenas
wer·e requested to determine subscriber information. This was done to
identify additional victims or witnesses. The analysis revealed that
Kellen had called the victim/witnesses frequently when Epstein was in
the Town of Palm Beach to 11 work. 11 This confirms what the girls
interviewed had previously stated. Kellen would notify them when
Epstein was in tovm. and their willingness to 11 work, u The CD was placed
into evidence.
Investigation Continues .
*************************NARRATIVE # 3 0 **************************
Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 1 / 03/06
Entered By. : ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 1 / 03/06
On December 29 , 2005 , I received a facsimile from National Compliance
GIUFFRE000067
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 24 of 45
-------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- )ate: 7/19/06
~ime : 15 : 01 : 3 7
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 67
Program: CMS301L
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'.ase No. . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued}
Center from Cingular Wireless for telephone number 561-308-0282. This
was the telelh[ne number for Haley Robson during the time frame when
the victim, was brought to the Epstein house to 11 work. 11 An
analysis of the phone records, of all incoming and outgoing calls,
showed that on February 6, 2005, the day the victim,411111J was brought
to the house, Robson first called Sarah Kellen, Epstein's assistant,
at 917-855-3363at 12:50 pm (EST). The next call was made to Epstein ' s
house in Palm Beach, at 12:52 pm (EST). The following call was made
to the victim, .. lat 1:01 pm (EST} and at 1:02 pm (EST). This
confirms the information provided by the victim and victim 1 s father.
I photo copied the records and enlarged the page B of 10 to show the
calls made by Robson on February 6, 2005.
To this date, I have not heard from parents. I
will attempt to establish contact with them during the evening hours . I received a package from Atty. Guy Fronstin, which was hand
delivered at the police station. Within the package, was a letter
from Alan Dershowitz, and two www.myspace.com profiles. The profiles
were that of·······•~and In MySpace.com is a social
networking service that allows members to create unique personal
profiles online in order to find and communicate with old and new
friends. This package was in response to a previous meeting in which
Mr. Dershowitz called to assist in the investigation in providing any
additional witnesses such as house employees who have been reluctant
to speak with law enforcement.
I reviewed the p~iles Mr. Dershowitz enclosed. who designed
her blog to be ... II I IL a It still attends
sends and receives messages from friends which contain
some profanity. Upon reviewing her friends' comments section from
Myspace, most of her good friends sent messages to establish contact
and invite her to go out.
I then reviewed . web blog which was provided by Mr.
Dershowitz. Ms. M Q designed her blog to be •111■■■ 1 Her blog
states that her interests include music, theater and weed (Marijuana).
I reviewed her packet in which••adeclares her love for her live-in
borfriend. She also describes using marijuana with her boyfriend
a
The letter Mr. Dershowitz sent advised he was looking into the
allegation that one of the private investigators used by the private
attorneys of Epstein, attempted to impersonate or state that they were
police officers from Palm Beach. Mr. Dershowitz advised that the
investigators used to interview•••••••• had "quite a distinct
speech impediment'', did not claim to be nor did they impersonate
themselves as a police officer. This package was sent to both ASA
Lana Belohlavic and ASA Daliah Weiss at the State Attorney's Office .
I made telephone contact with ASA Weiss to confirm she received the
package and request an interview with Sarah Kellen , Nada Marcinkova , and Janusz Banasiak. She advised she would assist in attempting to
GIUFFRE000068
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 25 of 45
----------- ------------------------------------------------------·------------- •ate: 7/19/06
'ime: 15: 01:37
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 68
Program: CMS301L
----- ----------------- ---------------------------------------------- ----------
as e No . . 1-05 - 000368 (Continued)
contact Mr. Dershowitz.
on January 3, 1 2006, I received a telephone call from ASA Weiss who
informed me that she made telephone contact with Mr; Dershowitz. She
had requested the employees be available the week of January 3, 2006.
Mr. Dershowitz informed her that the assistants are out of the
country and would require additional time to locate them and make them
available.
Investigation Continues .
***************************NARR AT l VE # 31 ************************** ~ Reported By : MINOT, LORIS. 1/03/06
Entered By. : ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 1/03/06
On Thursday, 03/31/05, I started conducting surveillance at 358 El
Brillo. At this point I observed at 1155 hours, a Tan Altima bearing
FL tag A303~ in Roadway, Black SL bearing FL tag V55RF'W in drive, Tan
Honda Civic bearing FL tag X98APM in Roadway, Black Chevy Suburban in
driveway and a Black Caddy Escalade in driveway, At 1325 Hours I
observed Tan Honda Civic X98APM in roadway, Black Chevy Suburban in
driveway, Black Caddy Escalade in drive and a White Kia car bearing FL
tag D651BQ. At 1615 hours I observed a Tan Honda Civic, X98APM in
roadway, Black Chevy Suburban in drive, Black Caddy Escalade in
driveway and a White Kia car D651BQ in roadway.
On Friday, 04/01/05, I continued surveillance at 358 El Brillo. At
1130 hours I observed a Tan Honda Civic bearing FL tag X98APM in
roadway, Black Caddy Escalade in driveway and a Tan unknown make/model
bearing FL tag A303AN in roadway. At 1227 hours, I observed a Tan
Honda Civic X98APM in roadway, Black Caddy Escalade in driveway and a
Black Chevy SUV located behind the Escalade. At 1345 hours, I
observed a Tan Honda Civic X98APM in roadway and a Black Chevy SUV in
driveway. At 1558 hours, I observed a Tan Honda Civic X98APM in
roadway, Black Chevy SUV in driveway, Black Caddy Escalade in driveway
and a dark unknown model/make car parked in garage.
On Saturday, 04/02/05, I continued surveillance at 358 El Brillo. At
0713 hours, I observed a Red Explorer bearing FL tag J98JEI in roadway
and a Black Caddy Escalade in driveway. At 0814 hours, I observed a
Red Explorer J98JEI in roadway, Black Caddy Escalade in driveway and a
Tan Honda Civic X98APM. At 0952 hours, I observed a Red Explorer
J98JEI in roadway, Black Caddy Escalade in driveway, Tan Honda Civic
X98APM in roadway and also a Grey unknown make/model with a B.M in
trunk retrieving landscaping tools.
At 1155 hours, I observed a Grey Camara bearing FL tagf ---- ■ parking
in the roadway in front of 358 El Brillo. A W/F, blond hair, teens to
early 20 1 s, thin and tall wearing a white tank top and short blue jean
shorts, exited the vehicle and walked to the rear of the house. I
also observed a Red Explorer J9BJEI in roadway, Tan Honda Civic X98APM
in roadway and a Black Caddy Escalade in driveway . At 1310 hours, I
GIUFFRE000069
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 25 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 26 of 45
--------- ----- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7/19 / 06
Time: 15:01 : 37
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report Page: 69
Program: CMS301L
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::ase No . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
observed a Red Explorer W/F driver leaving the area , Tan subcompact on
roadway and a Red Neon bearing FL tag I [. Then observed 3 W/Fs,
approximately 16 to 18 years of age jogging. All 3 females ran into
the driveway. There were 2 with blond hair and one brown hair.
On Sunday, 04/03/05, I continued surveillance at 358 El Brillo. At
0719 hours I observed a Tan Honda Civic X98APM in roadway and a Black
Caddy Escalade. At 0934 hours, I observed a Tan Honda Civic X98APM in
roadway and a Black Caddy Escalade in driveway. At 1057 hours I
observed only the Tan Honda Civic X98APM.
On Tuesday, 04/05/05, I continued surveillance at 358 El Brillo. At
10?2 . hours, I observed a Red Explorer J98JEI in roadway, a Green
Explorer, bearing FL tag F91KAK in roadway, a Grey Altima bearing FL
tag A303AN in roadway, White Ford Truck H58LRA in roadway, Black
Mercedes in driveway being washed by a B/M and an unknown dark car
parked in the garage. At 1059 hours a Blue Chevy Suburban drove to
the house of 358 El Brillo and parked in the driveway. At 1119 hours,
I observed the White Fort Truck H58LRA leave the area and the drive
was the pool man.
At 1126 hours, I observed a Grey unknown make/model car park in
roadway . W/M got out of the car and walked to a house on the south
side of El Brillo. At 1406 hours, I observed a Red Explorer parked on
roadway and a large white box truck parked behind the surveillance
suburban .
t************************** NARRATIVE # 32 ******* ******************* ~ Reported By: BATES, MICHAEL J. 1/ 03 / 06
Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 1/ 03 / 06
on 03/31/05, at approximately 1500 hours while conducting surveillance
at 358 El Brillo, I observed a Black Cadillac Escalade, unknown tag, a
Black Chevrolet Suburban, unknown tag, a Black Mercedes 8600 FL tag
U90BQL parked in the east driveway next to the 3-car garage. There
was a Tan Honda Civic FL tag X98APM parked on the street in front of
the residence.
At approximately 170 0 hours, I observed the Black Suburban , Black
Escalade, Black Mercedes and Tan Honda Civic parked in the same place.
At 1750 hours, there was no change in vehicles. At 1840 hours, I
observed the Black Escalade, Black Suburban and Black Mercedes along
with a Silver Hyundai Accent FL tag Al36AN all parked in the east
driveway and a Red Ford Explorer FL tag J98JEI parked on the street in
front of the residence.
At 2000 hours, I observed the Black Escalade, Black Suburban parked in
the ease driveway and the Red Explorer and Tan Civic parked on the
street .
On Friday , 04 / 01/05 at approximately 170 0 hours , I observed the Black
GIUFFRE000070
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 26 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 27 of 45
-- ---------------------------------------------------------~------------------ ate: 7 /19/06
ime: 15: 01: 3 7
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 70
Program: CMS301L
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~se No . . .. : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
Escalade and Black Suburban parked in the east driveway and the Tan
Honda Civic parked on the street in front of the residence. At 1820
hours, I observed the Suburban and Civic in the same place and a Gold
Chevrolet Camaro FL tag p,arked on the street in front of the
residence. At 2250 there was no change . At 2330, I observed the
Black Escalade parked in the driveway and the Red Explorer parked on
the street in front of the residence.
On Saturday, 04/02/05 at approximately 1700 hours , I observed a Black
Escalade, unknown tag, parked in the driveway and a Tan Honda Civic FL
tag X98AMP parked in the street in front of the residence. At 1805
hours the Escalade and Civic were in the same position and the Black
Mercedes FL tag U90BQL was also parked in the east driveway. At 192 0
hours the Escalade and Civic were the only vehicles and both were in
the same position. At 2030 hours and 2145 hours there were no
vehicles observed.
At 2115 hours, I observed a Black Mercedes, 4-door parked in the east
driveway FL tag Gl4CT. At 2300 hours, 2350 hours and 0045 hours, the
Black Mercedes was the only vehicle observed.
**************************NARRATIVE # 33 **************************
Reported By: RECAREY , JOSEPH 1/05/06
Entered By . : ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 1/05/06
I made contact with Mr. father of
who was told that I wished to interview his daughter. Mr. J
stated he was aware ~nd had spoken with his daughter about the
incident. He stated that his daughter had previously told him that
she was hired to model lingerie at a Palm Beach mansion. Mr.
stated he knew nothing else about what she did when she went to
"work." Mr. 4al advised be would cooperate with the investigation
and make his daugl'fcer available for interviews. I asked if she was
available f~rfan indthe:vie
1
w, J
1
d k£stated sthe,whashnot at ho
1
met at ~he
moment. I in orrne im wou ma e contac wit er at a a er time .
Mr . ..._.expressed hi.s interest in the resolution in this matter
as he~ this information has affected his daughter emotionally.
On January 4, 2005, I acquired the subpoenas from the State Attorney ' s
Office for Cingular Wireless, Metro PCS, Verizon, Bell South
Telecommunications and Sprint for the unknown telephone numbers from
Sarah Kellen's cellular telephone . The subpoenas were sent to the
respective telephone carriers for subscriber information.
I received a telephone call from State Attorney's Office, who informed
me that the former houseman for Jeffrey Epstein, Alfredo Rodriguez,
was present at the State Attorney's Office for an interview.
Rodriguez was issued an investigative subpoena for an interview on the
on-goings at Epstein's house during his employ. I responded to the
State Attorney's Office and encountered Mr. Rodriguez waiting in the
lobby , I brought Mr. Rodriguez to the interview room .
GIUFFRE00007 l
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 27 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 28 of 45
----------------------------------~--------------------------------------- -· ---- Date: 7/ 19/06
Time: 15:01:37
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report Page: 71
Program: CMS301L
------------ ----------------- ----------------------------------------------- --
:ase No . . . : 1-05 - 0003 68 (Continued)
During a sworn taped statement , Mr. Rodriguez stated he was employed
by Jeffrey Epstein for approximately six months. He was referred by
associates and his employment lasted the months of November 2004
through May 2005. His responsibilities as house manager included
being the butler, chauffer, chef, houseman , run errands for Mr.
Epstein and provide for Epstein 1 s guests. Rodriguez advised he had
very limited contact with Mr. Epstein. If Rodriguez needed to relay a
message to Mr. Epstein, he would have to notify Epstein's secretary
"Leslie" in New York City, who would then notify Epstein's personal
assistant, Sarah, who would relay the message to Epstein. Rodriguez
stated Epstein did not want to see or hear the staff when he was in
residence.
I asked Rodriguez if Epstein received many guests during his stay in
Palm Beach. Rodriguez advised he had many guests. I asked
specifically about masseuses coming to the house. Rodriguez stated he
would have two massages a day. Epstein would have one massage in the
morning and one massage in the afternoon everyday he was in residence.
Rodriguez stated he would be informed to expect someone and make them
comfortable until either Sarah or Epstein would meet with them.
Rodriguez stated once the masseuses would arrive, he would allow them
entry into the kitchen area and offer them something to drink or eat.
They would then be encountered by either Sarah or Epstein. They
would be taken upstairs to provide the massage. I asked Rodriguez if
any of the masseuses appeared young in age, He advised he didn't ask
their ages but felt they were very young. Rodriguez stated they ate
like his own daughter who is in high school. Rodriguez stated they
would eat tons of cereal and drink milk all the time. Rodriguez
stated the girls that would come appeared to be too young to be
masseuses. He stated one time un4er E&stein 1 s direction, he delivered
a dozen roses to J I for one of the girls
that came to provide a massage. He knew the girls were still in high
school and were of high school age. I asked Rodriguez about the
massages. He felt there was a lot more going on than just massages.
He would clean Mr. Epstein 1 s bed.room after the alleged massages and
would discover massager/vibrators and sex toys scattered on the floor . He also said he would wipe down the vibrators and sex toys and put
them away in an arrnoire. He described the armoire as a small wood
armoire which was on the wall close to Epstein's bed.
Epstein ordered Rodriguez to go to the Dollar rent a car and rent a
car for the same girl he brought the roses to , so that she could drive
her self to Epstein's house without incident. Rodriguez said the girl
always needed rides to and from the house. Rodriguez referred himself
as a "human ATM machine" and was ordered by Epstein to maintain a
minimum balance of $2,000 dollars on him at all times. When a girl
would come by the house and Mr. Epstein was either not in residence or
was not at home at the time, Rodriguez was to provide the girl
(masseuse) several hundred dollars for their time and to notify
Epstein the amount they were given . Epstein also ordered Rodriguez to
GIUFFRE000072
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 28 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 29 of 45
--------------------------------~·-----------------------~--------------------- )ate : 7 / 19 / 0 6
'ime: 15:01:37
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 72
Program: CMS301L
----- ------~ ----------~---------------------------------------~---------- --
:ase No. . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
purchase several gifts and provide them as tips to the girls. I asked
what kind of gifts. Rodriguez stated he purchased IPODS, jewelry, anything the girls would want.
Rodriguez stated the amount of girls that came to the house was
approximately fifteen. Each of the girls knew each other and all
seemed to know at -•••••••■•■•••••who Mr. Epstein was . When asked to identify these girls, Rodriguez stated he could not at
the moment but knew he wrote their names down on a journal he kept
during his employ with Mr. Epstein. He kept a journal in the event he
needed to explain either to Mr. Epstein or his assistants what was
done at the house or who visited the house as he stated he was
in-charge of Mr. Epstein's personal security while in Palm Beach. I
informed him I would need to view this journal to which he stated he
would research the book and contact me to provide the book. The
interview was concluded and left the area. I returned back to the
police station where the micro cassette was placed into evidence. At
approximately 7:20 pm, I was notified Rodriguez located the journal
and would call me on January 5 , 2005 to provide the journal .
Investigation Continuesaa
•**************************NARRATI V E # 34 ************************** , Reported By: RECAREY , JOSEPH 1/09/06
Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 1/10/06
On January 5 , 2006 , I attempted to meet with Alfredo Rodriguez to
recover the folder or journal in which he kept the notes that were
given to him during his employ with Mr. Jeffrey Epstein. He kept this
folder to justify what he did during his employ should the need arise
to justify what occurred with the monies he had to keep or any
questions as to the petty cash he withdrew from the household account
from the bank. At approximately 10:00 pm, I attempted contact with
Mr. Rodriguez and discovered he was assisting his wife at her place of
employment and would not be able to meet with me. Mr. Rodriguez
stated he would meet with me on January 6, 2006, in Broward County, in
the morning hours"
On January 6 , 2006, at approximately 9 ; 00 am, I received a telephone
call from Mr. Rodriguez who advised he had the file in hand and would
be traveling northbound to meet with me in Broward County. At 10:50
am, I met with Alfredo Rodriguez at the parking lot of Bank of America
in Boca Raton on Yamato Road and Military Trail (known as the Polo
Center). Rodriguez produced a green folder which contained documents ,
a note with Mr. Epstein's stationary with direction to deliver a
bucket of roses to . after ~ £ J
high school drama performance. Also in that same note was direction
to rent a car for•••···and direction to extend the rental
contract. I returned to the Palm Beach Police Station and placed the
folder into evidence.
I received a fax from Verizon from the subpoena request sent on
GIUFFRE000073
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 29 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 30 of 45
--~--------------------------------------------------------------------------- :i.te: 7/19/06
ime: 15:01 : 37
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page : 73
Program: CMS301L
--------- --- ------------------- ------------------------------------------- -- --
:i.se No. . : 1 - 05-000368 (Continued)
01-04 - 06, for telephone number 561-3 02-1844 . The phone number is
registered to Dr Perry Bard, from West Palm Beach. Dr. Bard is a
chiropractor and has an office.located 4275 Okeechobee Blvd in West
Palm Beach . The cellular number is Dr Bard ' s personal cellular
number .
On January 9 , 2006 , Det. Caristo and I traveled to 622 Holly Drive in
Palm Beach Gardens in an attempt to locate Johanna Sjoberg, who had
been previously seen on the property and identified through her
Florida Drivers License and Florida license Plate. A business card
was left for her to return my call. We then traveled to the ■- ~.
& RY--FT p and located i • T -i] -• t agreed to
speak wib u s and in a private room within the school provided us a
taped statement .
During the statement, advised that when she was fifteen or
sixteen years of age, she was taken to Jeffrey Epstein's house by her
associate,••••••• til■■■~stated this occurred lat e May 2004
or early June 2004. She was told she could model lingerie for money
for a wealthy Palm Beacher. She remembered they traveled by yellow
cab from their residence in West Palm Beach to Epstein ' s house. She
remembered encountering Epstein at the front door during the evening
hours.
He introduced himself and brought them into the kitchen so that the
chef could prepare something for them to eat . After having a meal,
and Epstein broughtlll■■9 upstairs to a master bedroom which
had a large bathroom. She observed a large style shower, sauna and
there was a large massage bed also in the bathroom . Epstein entered a
room within the bathroom and came out wearing only a towel.
said they would provide a massage on his feet. L § j asked why they
are doing this. ~ told her this was part of the routine and told
her to rub hi~and calves . Epstein had told to get
comfortable . ._..... continued rubbing Epstein I s ·calves and feet, At
Epstein's direction, then left the room leaving there
by herself. Epstein told to get comfortable. removed
her blouse and pants a~d stayed in her panties. ■-■istated she
was not wearing a bra. She believed she was wearing thong panties.
Epstein turned over onto his back and began touching her. Epstein
touched her breasts and began touching her in her vagina area.
Epstein instructed her to rub his chest and rub his nipples.
stated the touching consisted over the panties on the first time; he
stroked her vagina but stayed on top of the panties. During the first
massage, she stated Epstein was stroking her and began masturbating
himself at the same time. He put his hands under the towel and
appeared as to masturbate himself however she never saw his penis .
She continued rubbing his chest until he grabbed her and pulled her
closer to him . He appeared to have climaxed because after he pulled
her closer to him the massage was over. Epstein had told her that
there was two hundred dollars for her on the dresser. He told her
that she could not tell anyone what happened at the house or bad
things could happen. ■•■~stated she went to Epstein ' s house three
GIUFFRE000074
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 30 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 31 of 45
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ ate: 7/ 19/06
'ime : 15 : o 1 : 3 7
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 74
Program: CMS301L
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
ase No .. . . : 1-05 - 000368 (Continued)
or t our times • total. ~u-Q was very scared and felt very nervous .
She knew because of Epstein's money he was powerful. After the
massage, Epstein ordered his houseman at the time to drive the girls
home . The employee was to drop off the girls at their house and watch
them go inside their house.
could not remember who the houseman was. She stated Epstein
and his assistant Sarah would call her at her father 1 s house to
arrange for her to come and 11 work. 11 She advised each time she returned
to the house, Epstein would do the same thing. ■■■•stated it was
a routine with Epstein. She would rub his feet and calves. He would
then turn over and begin to touch her on her vagina area. The only
difference was that it was done without panties. Epstein's fingers
would stroke her vagina area as he would masturbate and finally climax
and the massage would be over. She was paid $200.00 each time she
went. Each time she went she was reminded not to speak of what
happened at the house and that she would be contacted again. She
began to purposely miss the calls when either Sarah or Epstein would
call her . She once brought a friend , ~ unknown last name, to
work for Epstein. She was paid $2 00 . 00 for bringi1ig $
stated she no longer retuned to work for Epstein. She also stated
that she wanted to notify the police of what happened at the house.
} stated she was scared of what could have happened to her or
her ~~mily if she notified authorities .
number is assigned to Mr. ···•• I, father in 9 ■ , I also received the results from Western Union which
confirmed the money order sent to•••• .... •••~frorn Jeffrey
Epstein in New York City. The 11 wire 11 was sent by Jeffrey Epstein of
457 Madison Ave in New York City on December 23, 2004 at 12:05 pm.
The amount of $222 . 00 was charged to Epstein's credit card so that
• could receive $200 . 00 in••••••••• The twenty-two
dollars was for processing and local fees to send the money via
Western Union . A copy of the check presented to~ was also
attached to the receipt of the wire . This confirmed what
advised she received as a Christmas bonus from Epstein .
Investigation continues.
********** * ******** *******NARRATIVE .# 35 **************************
Reported By: RECAREY , JOSEPH
Entered By.: ALTOM.ARO , NICKIE A.
1/10/06
1/10/06
I received and reviewed the Cingular Wireless results from the
subpoena requests for subscriber information for telephone numbers
561-818-8361, 561-389-6874 and 561-309-0079 . The first number,
561-818-8361, is assigned to Janusz Banasiak in care of Jeffrey
Epstein of 457 Madison Ave in New York City. Banasiak is the current
houseman/house manager for 358 El Brillo Way in Palm Beach, Fl 33480 .
The second number , 561 - 389-6874 , is assigned to Christina Venero of
G!UFFRE000075
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 31 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 32 of 45
-----------------------------------------------------------------------~------ •ate: 7/ 19 / 06
'ime: 15: 01: 37
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 75
Program: CMS301L
---------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
ase No .... : l-05-000368 (Continued)
1685 61st Drive in West Palm Beach . Research conducted on Venero
revealed she is a licensed Massage therapist with a Florida
conditional/active license number MA39723. Venero had been previously
arrested for battery/ unwanted touching and DUI. Requests for copies
of the reports involving the arrests were requested from the Palm
Beach County Sheriff's Office. The last number 561-309-0079 is
assigned to Thomas Rofrano of 9850 Alt AlA in Palm Beach Gardens.
Research on Mr. Rofrano, revealed that he is a Florida Chiropractic
Physician .
Vehicles that were previously documented on the property while
surveillance was being conducted were researched. I determined a tan
Chevrolet Camaro, bearing Florida license••••• was seen on the
property in which a young white female was seen entering the Epstein
property. Research was conducted which revealed that the vehicle is
registered to of . . Mr. ••ahas two daughters, -------...
~ an • is currently residing in
and ■••-- is residing with her father in? 73 ...... Research on --••-~evealed she was recently involved
~raffic stop in Lake Clarke Shores in May 19, 2005. A request to
discover any information from the stop was requested.
I spoke with ASA Daliah Weiss who informed me that Janusz Banasiak
will be available for an interview tomorrow at the State Attorney's
Office in West Palm Beach at 1:30 pm. I informed her that! would be
at her office for the interview.
**************************NARRATI V E # 36 **************************
Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 1/23 /06
Entered By.: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 1/23 /06
On January 19, 2006, Det. Caristo and I met with Johanna Sjoberg at
622 Holly Drive in Palm Beach Gardens. Sjoberg was identified as a
licensed massage therapist who had previously been seen on Epstein's
property when physical surveillance was done. Sjoberg was told of the
on going investigation and I felt she may have information pertaining
to the case. During a sworn taped statement, Sjoberg stated she met
Epstein three years ago when Ghaline Maxwell approached her while she
was attending Palm Beach Atlantic College to work around Epstein's
house. Maxwell had told her that they needed some girls to work at
the house to answer phones and run errands. Sjoberg accepted the job
and began working at Epsteints house on El Brillo in Palm Beach,
Sjoberg stated it was a part time job during the time she went to Palm
Beach Atlantic College. She continued going to Epstein's house and
would be notified when Epstein would travel to Palm Beach. Sjoberg
advised she would be notified by Maxwell, Epstein or Sarah, his
assistant, when he would travel to Palm Beach. Sjoberg stated she
began providing massages to Epstein before she became a massage
therapist. She continued giving massages not only to Epstein but to
Nadia Marcinkova, and Sarah, his assistant . Sjoberg was asked about
what occurred during the massages. Sjoberg stated as she was twenty
GIUFFRE000076
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 32 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 33 of 45
-----------·--------- ---------------------------------------------------------- 1te: 7/19/06
Lme : 15: 01 : 3 7
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 76
Program: CMS301L
~------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------
i. s e No . 1 - 05-000368 (Continued)
three years old when she met Epstein, anything that happened was
between two consenting adults. I explained to her that she was not in
any trouble however as part of this investigation, I needed to ask
certain questions. Sjoberg stated that there were times that Epstein
would ask her to perform during the massage . He would instruct her to
rub his nipples as he masturbated himself . Sjoberg stated she felt
"grossed" about the behavior but as she was getting paid, she just
continued. Sjoberg also advised she would on occasion perform the
massages naked. Epstein would on occasion, utilize the
vibrator/massager on her vagina area when she performed the massages.
Sjoberg explained that Epstein never exposed himself to her as he
maintained himself covered under the towel he would be wearing. When
Epstein would masturbate he would be covered.
I asked if Sjoberg ever received any gifts, or any gratuities from
Epstein . Sjoberg advised aside from being paid well, she advised
Epstein took care of her tuition from Palm Beach Atlantic College ,
She received a rental car for a week when her scooter broke down.
Additionally she received other gifts from Epstein. Epstein also
recommended her to another client who resides at Breakers Row in Palm
Beach .. The client she was referred to was 11 Glenn 11 unknown last name,
and his wife, who she provided a massages to . The statement was
concluded and placed into evidence upon cur return to the Palm Beach
Police Depart~ent.
While at the police station , I researched Florida tag which
was also previously seen on the property when there was physical
surveillance being done at the property. The vehicle.is ,registered to
1 I •---of 4-----·-·- Researching Mr. - f and the
vehicle revealed that his daughter, •••• 9111 had been driving
the vehicle and was cited for unlawful speed in Lake Clark Shores.
The vehicle is a tan, Chevrolet Camaro, 2-door. I researched
I / date of birth I ,-·. :rm .. , resides at •
- & has a my space page called
in
www.myspace . com'1II••••• In her web page, shows various photos of
i photographed at a beach. An interview is forthcoming.
A review of the video disks which was extracted at the Palm Beach
County Sheriff's Office Computer Crime Unit revealed that only one
hidden camera was functional at the time. Several images of Epstein
working at his office were seen. Additional footage of Sarah Kellen
and Nadia Marcinkova was seen. There was other footage of females
seen. The identity of the females is unknown at this time, until such
time as I meet with certain females to show the video footage to
confirm if, in. fact, it is them on the video. At this time it appears
that ■ and Haley Robson are seen sitting with Epstein beside
his desk in the evening hours. Due to poor lighting , a direct
confirmation cannot be made at this time .
Inv _ Continues .
GIUFFRE000077
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 33 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 34 of 45
--- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >ate : 7 / 19 / 0 6
'i me : 1 5 : 0 1 : 3 7
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 77
Program: CMS301L
-------------------------------------~---------~~------------------------------
'ase No . . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued}
***************************NARRATIVE # 37 **************************
A Reported By: RECAREY , JOSEPH
Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A.
On January 25, 2006, Det Caristo and I, responded to._.
in••--•••and met with••■--••• ••• stated last
year, when she was seventeen years of age, she met Jeffrey Epstein
through her former room mate~ •••was allegedly dating
1/30/ 06
1/30/06
Epstein at the time. arn V & had once cohabitated together
when they modeled. explained I called her on her telephone
and advised her that she was in Palm Beach and requested to see her.
made arrangements to meet with her at Epstein's house.
arrived and met Epstein andlll•• and•••went to the Palm
Beach Mall together and went shopping , advised thata••and
she had received money from Epstein to go to the mall. They visited
Victoria's Secret and purchased undergarments from the store utilizing
monies given by Epstein. ••• advised she purchased one item and
purchase various items , The money used to purchase the items
was the money given by Epstein.
and continued shopping and having a day together.
stated•••-explained how she and Epstein have been dating each other
and he has been paying all of her bills. ••• claimed••• advised
they met in New York and had been dating ever since. They later
returned to Epstein's home and encountered Epstein. He had a brief
conversation with about her modeling career. He knew of her
modeling career from He requested to see her modeling
portfolio and explained that he could help her with modeling jobs. ■ -had her book with her to showd!lll-•and showed the book to
Epstein. He commented negatively about her photographs and portfolio . felt uncomfortable with the comments made as she had been
working with other professional modeling companies who had offered her
work from her photographs, Epstein requested to see what was
purchased at the mall. ••• took out the undergarments which were
purchased. She immediately showed Epstein different sets purchased.
Epstein then requested to view what9 •• purchased. ••• was
reluctant to show"'the• -out~E,i,t however since it was Epstein's money that
purchased the item, she pulled it out of the bag. Epstein asked her
to try it on. ••• looked attl- iwho told her 11 yeah, try it on. 11
Feeling compelled to try the undergarment outfit on; she went to
another room and put on the bra and panty set. She walked out to the
living room where they were sitting, and modeled the suit. She then
went back into the other room and changed back into her clothes.
■ I returned into the room and told ••• she would be going home.
scheduled another day for••• to return for massages with her.
stated within that same week, she returned to meet with
and have a massage . · I had told her that she would be unable to
stay with her as she would be going on a bike ride with Epstein . explained she could stay at the house and take advantage of the
massage .
GIUFFRE000078
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 34 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 35 of 45
------------------------------------------------- ------------- ----- ----------- ,ate: 7/19/06 'ime: 15: O 1: 3 7
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 78
Program: CMS301L
----- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
ase No. . : 1 - 05-000368 (Continued )
stated she met with an unknown massage therapist and had the
table already set up in a guest room . ■■•removed her clothing,
leaving her panties on, and wrapped herself with a towel for the
massage. ••■► remembered that the door to the guest room was closed
but not locked. As the therapist was working her back, the door was
opened by Epstein and entered into the room . 4••twas trying to
conceal herself as Epstein was talking to her about his chiropractic
session. Epstein told••• turn over onto her back . eventually turned over exposing her breasts to Epstein as he applied
pressure on her shoulder and her waist. ••• stated Epstein "popped "
her back. removed her self from the table , got dressed and left
the house. further stated••• had attempted to call her on
several occasions to invite her back to Epstein 1 s house to which
replied "l 'm busy. 11 ••• advised she has not had contact with either
or Jeffrey Epstein. It should be noted that her mother , was present during the interview . The interview was
concluded and we thanked them her for their time
·**************************NARRATIVE # 38 **************************
Reported By: RECAREY , J OSEPH 1/31/06
Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 1/31/06
on January 2 7 , 2006 , I made telephone contact with Christina Venero , at 772 - 878-728 0 . Venero is a licensed massage therapist who had
frequented the home of Jeffrey Epstein. Ms . Venero has been unable to
meet with me in Palm Beach County, and because she lives and works in
Por t St Lucie, a telephone interview was conducted. I explained to
Ms. Venero that there was an on going investigation involving Jeffrey
Epstei n.
Venero stated she knows Epstein and has been employed by him for
approximately three years . Epstein has paid Venero to perform Swedish
Massages (Deep Tissue) on him and other guests. Venero explained that
approximately three year ago she met Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey
Epstein through a mutual friend. Epstein and Maxwell were looking for
a massage therapist. Venero stated since that time, she is notified
when Epstein is corning to Palm Beach. Venero stated she comes to his
house and provides the massage or massages. Venero explained she has
also massaged his guests and assistants. Venero continued that she is
paid $100.00 and hour for the massage.
I asked Venero if anything occurred during the massage that would have
rh acte· her feel uncomfortable . Venero stated she only provided massages
and th,at was it. She never was approached for anything else . I asked
if Epstein ever asked her to rub his chest she stated she would not
rub his chest as that is not part of her massage. Venero explained
that she was not Epstein 1 s type. The girls she would see at Epstein's
house were very thin, beautiful and without tattoos . Venero explained
she has several tattoos that are visible . Maxwell and Epstein have
commented negatively about her tattoos previously when she has
provided massages.
GlUFFRE000079
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 35 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 36 of 45
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ate: 7/19/06
ime: 15:01:37
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 79
Program: CMS301L
------------------------------------------------------------------~-----------
3.se No. . : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
Venero stated she only provided massages for Epstein and his
associates and nothing happened during those massages. Venero stated
as she does Swedish style massages, the patient is usually sore after
the massages. I thanked her for her assistance and the interview was
concluded at this time.
I received a facsimile from T-Mobile Cellular service on telephone
number 561-317-5844, which is assigned to David Rodgers, pilot for Mr.
Epstein, who resides in Lake Worth. Rodgers' telephone number was
dialed on several occasions by Sarah Kellen. A background on Rodgers
indicated he has a valid FAA pilot license First Class for the
Southern FAA Region. Rodgers has another historical FAA license for
Airline Transport Pilot .
Investigation Continues .
**************************NARRATIVE # 39 **************************
Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 2/ 14/06
Entered By.: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 2 / 16/06
on Friday, February 3, 2006, I had made arrangements to meet with
Joanna Harrison at the Palm Beach Police Station . At approximately
1 : 00pm, Harrison and her friend, Victoria Bean arrived at the police
station . During an interview with Harrison, she stated she met
Epstein when she turned eighteen years old and was brought to
Epstein's house to provide a massage . She advised this occurred on
May of 2005. She advised Haley Robson had informed her if she wanted
to provide a massage for $200.00 . Harrison agreed and was brought to
Epstein's house to provide a massage. Harrison stated she had been to
the house on many occasions during the massage sessions. Harrison
also stated she would remove her clothing to provide the massage on
Epstein . Harrison advised Epstein would pay her $300.00 to rub his
back, legs and chest. During the massages, Epstein would masturbate
himself as she rubbed his chest. I asked her if Epstein ever touched
her breasts during the massages. Harrison replied. ''Yes. 11 I asked her
if Epstein ever touched or massaged her vagina. Harrison stated he
had on several occasions. I asked her if he ever penetrated her with
either his penis or any other objects. Harrison stated that during a
massage he inserted his fingers in her vagina as she massaged him.
She stated this occurred one time only. Harrison stated the massage
would be over when Epstein would climax onto a towel. I asked
Harrison if she had any formal massage training to which she replied
that she did not. Harrison was then asked if she ever brought anyone
to the house to "work." Harrison stated she brought two people to the
house. She advised she received money for bringing people to the
house to "work. 11 Harrison stated she brought a girl named M and
her friend Tory Bean. Bean was still waiting for Harrison in the
lobby of the police station. I thanked Harrison for her time and her
cooperation and escorted her to the lobby .
I asked Ms Bean if I could speak with her about this investigation . I
GIUFFRE000080
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 36 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 37 of 45
--------------------------~------------------------------------- ------------- - :i.te: 7 / 19/06
ime: 15: 01: 3 7
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 80
Program: CMS301L
---------------------------- -----------------------------------------------
rne No. : 1 - 05-000368 (Continued)
brought her to the interview room and explained to her that I was
conducting an investigation on Jeffrey Epstein and felt she may have
information pertaining to the investigation. Ms Bean identified
herself as Victoria Bean and resides in Wellington, Florida. She
advised approximately a year ago she was brought to Epstein's house to
provide a massage for money. Bean stated she needed to make money and
felt it was a quick way to make some money. Bean stated she was
brought to the house by ~arrison and was introduced to Epstein and his
assistant. She was brought to his main bathroom and provided a
massage. I asked her if she provided the massage naked. Bean stated
she did. She rubbed Epstein's legs, back and chest. I asked Bean if
Epstein touched her during the massage. She advised he did not,
howeyer he did masturbate himself as she rubbed his chest. Once he
climaxed the massage was over. She was paid her money and left the
area. Bean advised it occurred one time and she never returned to
Epstein 1 s house. The interview was concluded and Bean was escorted to
the lobby.
I located a telephone number for and attempted to
contact her on several occasions, I called .rw:rTT I nd spoke
with Ms. ••• who advised she would speak with me in· i
where she resides. Due to a scheduling conflict, we were unable to
meet. I informed her I would contact her to schedule another
appointment to speak with her about this investigation. I have
attempted to meet with her and make telephone contact with negative
results.
On February 13 , 2006, I met with David Rodgers at 7318 Heathley Drive
in Lake Worth, Rodgers was identified as Epstein ' s pilot. I spoke
with Rodgers who advised he has been employed with Epstein since 1991 .
He flies both planes for Epstein depending where he wants to fly to.
Rodgers was asked about passengers in the plane he flies. Rodgers
stated unless Epstein flew to his island off of St Thomas, there would
be no way of knowing who the passengers were. I mentioned a recent
flight to Ohio, where Rodgers flew to Ohio to pick up
Rodgers stated he recalled flying on several occasions and did
remember•••• Rodgers stated once he is in the cockpit, he does not
knqw who the passengers are. When he prepares the passenger
manifests, he lists Epstein and his assistants he knows by name, Sarah
and Adrianna. Rodgers stated he would list either female or male
passengers on the manifests only to keep a count on the passengers.
Mrs. Rodgers came into the living room and recommended that her
husband consult with an attorney. Mr. Rodgers agreed he would speak
with the family attorney to inform him of this questioning. I
explained to Mr. Rodgers that he was not the suspect in this
investigation and ceased all questions. Based on the fact Rodgers
could not advise who passengers were in the plane, I then left the
area.
I attempted to locate -at in IT ■ . I left my business card for her to return my call . On
February 14, 2006 , at 12:06 pm, I received a call back from Ms,
GIUFFRE00008 l
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 37 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 38 of 45
---- ---------------~-------------------------------------------------------- :1te : 7/19 / 06
ime: 15:01:37
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 81
Program: CMS301L
----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
:i.se No . . . : 1-05 - 000368 {Continued)
on my voice mail Ms • left her telephone number for a return
call 561-662-3098. I left her a message to return call.
Investigation Continues ..
**************************NARRATI V E # 40 **************************
Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 2/21 / 06
Entered By.: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 2/22 /0 6
On February 15, 2006, I made telephone contact with who
provided directions to where I could locate her. Det Caristo· and I
responded to 806 Old Dixie Hwy in Lake Park to meet with
Upon my arrival, I met with••Win the parking lot directly
behind MAACO Auto Painting. She was advised I was there to speak with
her about an ongoing investigation that concerned Jeffrey Epstein in
Palm Beach ..... stated she knows Epstein very well and did not want
to speak with me about Mr . Epstein . She was very fond of Epstein and
did not want to speak with me about anything concerning Jeffrey
Epstein. I explained to her that she was seen at the house and I
would like to speak with her. She stat~d she knew there was an
investigation and that I had spoken with other people and therefore I
should know what happened at Epstein's house . 1111 9 ended the
conversation and walked back into ·her boyfriends business , Blanton
Automotive. Det Caristo and I left the area and returned to the
police station .
Investigation continues.
********************* ****NARRATI V E # 41 **************************
Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 4 / 1 0/ 06
Entered By .: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A.. 4 / 1 0/0 6
A Grand Jury Session was requested during t he month of February 2006 ,
in which all the girls that had been interviewed would have b e en
called to testify before the Grand Jury to seek an indictment against
Jeffrey Epstein. Due to subsequent meetings with the State Attorney ' s
Office and Defense Attorney Alan Dershowitz the Grand Jury was
postponed until a later time . Dershowitz had provided a package of
material on the main victims in this case in which they appear on
myspace . com and speak about alcohol use and some marijuana use. The
State Attorney's Office wanted time to review the material .
I requested additional subpoenas from the State Attorney ' s Office in
which I requested information from Dollar Rent a Car and Jet Aviation.
The information requested from Dollar Rent a Car was for the rented
vehicle by Alfredo Rodriguez while under the employ of Epstein for one
of the victims. The other subpoena requested was for Jet Aviation for
d ates and times when Epstein's planes were in Palm Beach County .
I con tinued to research other names that were acquired either from
interviews or intelligence gathered during the investigation . I
GIUFFRE000082
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 38 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 39 of 45
--- ----~----------------------------------------~----------------------------- :lte: 7 / 19/06
ime: 15:01:37
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report Page: 82
Program: CMS301L
-----------------~~ -----------------~------------- -------------------------
;1.se No. . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued)
located •••■- in ■~ I responded to
in £ .. • During the interview, •rz■ ]
stated she knew I would be speaking with her. ••••• stated she
was first introduced to Epstein when she turned eighteen years old.
SI stated ~_he was sure of her age as it was her senior year in . · m- ■ 11 7 She advised she was brought there to
money and was told she would have to provide a massage to this
Palm Beach guy. She remembered she met Epstein and his assistant
Sarah in the kitchen area. She stated she was taken by one of her
friends, 1 a She stated she went upstairs with Sarah while Epstein
got ready for the massage. He exited his bathroom naked and •
turned around. Epstein asked her if being naked offended her.
stated it made her uncomfortable. Epstein then put on a
towel and lay on the table, ■-■II stated she rubbed his back and
feet. She stated she had no massage training or experience.
4 H W stated during the massage, Epstein attempted to touch her
buttocks. Fl] [ pulled away as he touched her buttocks. She told
him again she was uncomfortable with him touching her. Epstein then
cut the massage short and became upset with her. Epstein paid her
$200.00 for the massage and told her to leave the house.
never returned to the house. She did advise of one time she went with
1111[ I 5 Ts however she waited in the car for as she did not
want to go into the house. At the conclusion of visit with
Eps~~in they left the area .. 5 T stated she had heard from other
girls that have gone to the house that Epstein now required them to do
the massage naked and allow him to touch them in their private areas
for monies. The interview was concluded as 5 • IM did not have any
other information to provide.
I then learned from the original victim,~ the defense attorney had
learned of her identity. I spoke with the father of the victim, who
stated there has been a private investigator on his house
photographing his family and chasing visitors who come to the house.
He provided a Florida License of E79-4EH. This vehicle is registered
to Ivan Robles of West Palm Beach. Robles is a private investigator
intern who is licensed by the state. I informed the State Attorney's
Office of the above information.
I received the Grand Jury subpoenas to be delivered to three victims
for a Grand Jury session to be held on April 18 , through April 20 , 2006.
Investigation continues .
t************************ NARRATIVE # 42 **************************
Reported By: RECAREY , JOSEPH 4 / 14 / 06
Entered By.: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 4 / 18 / 06
The Grand Jury Subpoenas were personally served to the individuals
they were issued to. On April 5, 2006, at approximately 7:30 p.m. , I
personally served the parents of4ilawho had informed me that the
private investigators were still photographing the family. On April
GIUFFRE000083
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 39 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 40 of 45
--- - - ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 'lte: 7/ 19 / 06
ime : 15:01:37
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 83
Program: CMS301L
·---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
lse No . : 1-05 - 000368 (Continued)
10, 2006, at approximately 2: 3 o p ,.m., I servedllllll,at her residence in
The subpoena was given to her mother, ...
I learned through one of the victims ~ that she was personally
contacted through a source that has maintained contact with Epstein.
The source assured .. she would receive monetary compensation for her
assistance in not cooperating with law enforcement. ■· ,J.so stated
she was told, 11 Those who help him will be compensated and those who
hurt him will be dealt with . 11 I told•••that tampering with a
witness/victim is an arrestable offense and very serious. I asked her
who approached her during this encounter. -originally was reluctant
to provide the name of the person who approached her to offer her not
to testify because she felt they were still friends.
on April 11, 2006, Det Dawson and I traveled to Tallahassee, Florida
and met with the victim, ■ ... identified SffJ 2]5 W/F, ft ;;c; as the person who approached her in Royal Palm Beach while
s e was home during Spring Break in March 2006.•••also stated she
did not want to pursue the intimidation charges on--~ --was
concerned that the defense attorney was given a copy of the report as
certain things she had told me in confidence were repeated to her by
Beal . Prior to our departure, the victim was given a copy of her
subpoena for the Grand Jury which was scheduled to commence April 18,
2006 .
Upon our return from Tallahassee, I notified the State Attorney's
Office of what was told to me . I also notified them that the
subpoenas were delivered to the witnesses and they would be calling
for arrangements for the date and time needed for the Grand Jury. I
spoke with AqA Weiss and informed her of the possible intimidation by
the defense.
on April 13, and April 14, 2006 I attempted contact on several
occasions with ASA Weiss and ASA Belohlavic to ascertain when the
victims needed to report for Grand Jury testimony. Messages were left
on their voicemail. On April 17, 2006, during the hours of 9:00 am
and 11:30 am, I again left messages for ASA Weiss and ASA Belohlavic
for either of them to return my call as I had not heard from the State
Attorney's Office as to the time and date of the Grand Jury.
At approximately 12:30 pm, I went to the State Attorney's Office and
located ASA Weiss and ASA Belohlavic in their offices . I entered ASA
Belohlavic's office who informed me that she was going to return my
call. She explained that an offer was made to the defense, Atty Guy
Fronstin and Atty Alan Dershowitz. The offer is 1 count of Agg
Assault with intent to commit a felony, five years probation, with
adjudication withheld. Epstein would have to submit to
psychiatric/sexual evaluation and no unsupervised visits with minors.
When asked about the all the other victims, ASA Belohlavic stated
that was the only offer made as to one victim,•111111' ASA Belohlavic
cell phone rang and went to voice mail. She checked her voice mail
and played the message on speaker. The caller identified himself as
GIUFFRE000084
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 40 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 41 of 45
-------------~-------------------------------------------- --------------------- )ate : 7 / 19 / O 6
rime: 15:01: 37
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 84
Program: CMS301L
·---- -- --------------- -- --------------------- ----------------------------
~ase No . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued )
Atty Guy Fronstin and acknowledged the deal made between them.
u Frons~in stated in the message, he spoke with his client, Jeffrey
Epstein, and agreed to the deal. Fronstin asked to call off the grand
jury as they would accept this deal. Belohlavic stated a probable
cause would be needed to book Epstein in the county jail and would let
me know as to when it would be needed . I explained my disapproval of
the deal and not being consulted prior to the deal being offered.
However I expressed that was only my opinion and the final approval
would come from the Chief of Police. She explained to have Chief
Reiter call Barry Krisher about the deal . I left the area and
returned to the police station where I briefed the Chief about the
deal offered.
I checked my voice mail messages and discovered a message from
stepmother for the victim~ She was calling because the State
Attorney's Office still had not returned any of her calls as to when
they are needed for this case _ I then called ASA Belohlavic's office
and left messages for her to call the v i c tims on this case and
explained to them what the State Attorney's Office had done .
On April 17, 2006, at approximately 4:30 pm, State Attorney
Investigator Tim Valentine called to officially notify me of the
cancellation of the Grand Jury. He requested I contact the victims
that had been served to appear, to notify them of the cancellation. I
advised Valentine that as this Grand Jury session was called based on
the State Attorney's Office decision to have the victims heard by the
Grand Jury that I felt it was the States Attorney's Office
responsibility to contact the victims and advise them of the reason
they were no longer needed.
•*************************NARRATI V E # 43 **************************
Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 5/04/06
Entered By.: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 5/04/06
As I had not received any contact from anyone at the State Attorney's
Office , on May 1, 2006, I piepared three arrest warrant requests and
submitted them to the State Attorney's Office . The packages were
delivered to the Crimes against Children Unit in care of ASA Lana
Belohlavek . Jeffrey Epstein's arrest warrant was requested for 4
counts of Unlawful Sexual activity with certain minors and one count
of Lewd and Lascivious Molestation . Sarah Kellen, Epstein's
assistant's, arrest warrant request was for 4 counts of Principal in
the 1st degree Unlawful Sexual activity with certain minors and one
count of Principal in the 1st degree Lewd and Lascivious Molestation .
Haley Robson's arrest warrant request was for Lewd and Lascivious
Acts on a victim under 16 years of age. The receipt of delivery was
signed and brought back to the records division at the police
department.
on May 3 , 2 0 06, at approximately 2:54 pm, I received a telephone call
from ASA Daliah Weiss on my cellular telephone . ASA Weiss advised she
GIUFFRE000085
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 41 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 42 of 45
- --- - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ate: 7 /19/06
ime: 15:01:37
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 85
Program: CMS301L
------~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ase No. . . : 1 - 05- 000 368 (Continued}
has been taken off the Jeffrey Epstein case because her husband is
employed with Attorney Jack Goldberger. Attorney Goldberger is the
attorney of record for Jeffrey Epstein. His previous attorney, Guy
Fronstin, has been fired from representation. ASA Lana Belohlavek has
been assigned the case. ASA Weiss stated she can no longer speak
about the Epstein case with me . I thanked her for her telephone call . ASA Weiss further stated that ASA Belohlavek would be calling me .
~**************************NARRATIVE # 44 **************************
\ Reported By : RECAREY , JOSEPH 5 / 15/06
Entered By . : ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 5 / 15/06
On May 10, 2006 , information was received that Epstein ' s associate , Leslie Wexner , The Limited Inc, CEO's, plane had arrived in West Palm
Beach, PBIA. The plane, a Gulfstream 4 bearing a N900LS registration , was on the tarmac at Galaxy Aviation. As Epstein had recently
acquired the services of a new attorney, and the fact that Epstein's
house is. currently under remodeling, it was believed that Epstein may
be in Palm Beach. I conducted physical surveillance at the residence , 358 El Brillo Way. I observed a large construction crew conducting
remodeling at the house. The contractor, David Norr, was observed
driving a Ford Explorer, white in color. The vehicle has a Florida
registration of F30QQF . Norr left Epstein's house and traveled north
on County Road. Det Caristo and I conducted surveillance on Norr.
Norr traveled to several construction sites and checked on certain
jobs . Surveillance was discontinued on Norr and Det Caristo and I
traveled to Galaxy Aviation. I observed the white plane with a blue
stripe along the body and tail of the plane; the tail number was
visible on the bottom of the tail, closer to the body of the plane.
We maintained visual surveillance on the plane until 4:57 p.m., when a
caravan of Cadillac Escalades drove onto the tarmac. We observed
several people exit the vehicles and discovered that they were part of
the executive team for Limited Inc . The executives were in Palm Beach
County for an executive meeting for the day. They arrived in Palm
Beach County on May 9, 2006 at 9:30 pm and were scheduled to leave on
the 10th at 5:00 pm.
On May 12, 2006, I met with ASA Lana Belohlavek at the State
Attorney's Office. She explained that her boss, Barry Krischer , was
requesting this case be taken to the Grand Jury again. I explained to
her I had requested arrest warrants for Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen,
and Haley Robson. I asked that she either issue the warrants or
direct file, as so much time has elapsed since the original request to
the Grand Jury . I explained that the Palm Beach Police Department had
concluded the case in December of 2005 and has been waiting for the
case to go forward . Belohlavek stated the original offer was again
offered to the new defense attorney . She was waiting for their answer
by Friday May 19, 2006. She stated she would advise me of the answer .
t**** ********************* NARRATIVE # 45 **************************
Reported By: RECAREY , JOSEPH 6/05 / 06
GIUFFRE000086
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 42 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 43 of 45
--- -------- ---- -------- ------------------------------------------------------ ne : 7/19 / 06
ime : 15 : O 1 : 3 7
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report Page: 86
Program: CMS301L
w- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
:tse No 1 - 05 - 000368
Entered By. : ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. (Continued)
6/06/06
on May 22, 2006, I received several phone calls throughout the day
from Mr .... who stated he had been followed aggressively by a private
investigator. Mr .• stated that as he drove to and from work and
running errands throughout the county, the same vehicle was behind him
running other vehicles off th~ road in an attempt not to lose sight of
Mr. ••~:vehicle .
I explained to him as Mr. Epstein had retained new legal council it
was possible it would be new private investigators following him to
observe his daily activities . I also explained to him that there was
a meeting scheduled with ASA Lana Belohlavek and Attorney Jack
Goldberger at Mr. Krischer's office scheduled on June 1, 2006 at 9:00
am . I attempted to call ASA Lana Belohlavek to inform her of the
private investigators following Mr~owever ; she was on her vacation
during the week of May 22 through May 30 2006.
on May 23, 2006, I received other phone calls from Mr. and Mrs.-who
advised they were able to acquire the private investigators license
plate information. The subject following them was again driving very
aggressively and caused Mrs .9it.o run off the road. Mrs ... stated
the vehicle is a green Chevy Monte Carlo bearing Florida tag I35-XGA .
The vehicle is registered to Zachary Bechard of Jupiter Florida .
Bechard is employed with Candor Investigations from Jupiter, Florida.
Bechard is a licensed Private Investigator in the State of Florida.
Since the discovery of the threat made against one of the victims in
this case ii , I requested subpoenas for all calls made to and
received from. •••during the month of March 2006 for her
cell phone and home phone. I had confirmed with Florida State
University the exact dates of Spring Break for 2006. The Spring Break
was from March 4, 2006 through March 12, 2006. I received a subpoena
from Sprint/Nextel with all calls made during the month of March 2006 .
I reviewed the 989 calls made and received during the month of March
2006. I observed on March 7, 2006, ••• made and received thirty
five calls during that day .
Date Time Seconds In/Out To/From
7-Mar-06 11:03 AM 492 Outbound 561XXXX
7-Mar-06 11: 16 AM 6 Inbound 561XXXX
7- Mar-06 11:22 AM 887.2 Inbound 561XXXX
7-Mar-06 11 : 37 AM 48 Outbound 9178553363
7- Mar - 06 11:39 AM 28.2 Inbound 212535683 1
7 - Mar- 06 12:02 PM 727 . 2 Inbound 2125356831
The table reflects the date of the calls, time of day (EST ) I duration
GIUFFRE000087
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 43 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 44 of 45
------------- ----------------------- --------------- ----------------------- tte : 7/19 / 06
.me: 15:01:37
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Incident Report
Page: 87
Program: CMS301L
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
.se No. : 1- 05- 00036 8 ( Continued )
of call in seconds, inbound or outbound calls and calls made to or
from4'1•••phone. on March 7, 2006, at 11:03 am, ■ .. made a call
to the victim .. which lasted 492 seconds (8 minutes and 2 seconds).
The victim then returned the call at 11:16 am which lasted 6 seconds.
The victim then made contact with'll ... at 11:22 am for 877.2 seconds
(14 minutes and 6 seconds) . These sequences of calls were consistent
with what the victim had described to me on the date of the
intimidation. Immediately after speaking with the victim, L makes
a call to Sarah Kellen, Epstein's assistant, which lasts for
forty-e}~h~ seconds. A call is.then i1;1ffi~diatelr received, a tel7phone number re~istered to a Corporation affiliated with Jeffrey Epstein
located at 457 Madison Ave in New York. An extensive computer check
revealed 457 Madison Ave is a business address in which Epstein has
his corporations assigned to. Epstein had corporation attorney,
Darren Indyke, register the businesses and register himself as an
agent . I also observed Epstein has his El Zorro Ranch Corporation,
New York Strategy Group, Ghislaine Corporation, J Epstein and Company
and the Financial Strategy Group registered to this same address.
Finally, a third call is received by•■• at 1.2:02 pm from the same
corporate number which lasts 12 minutes and 1 second. It should be
noted that there is no further contact with either the victim during
the month of March or April of 2006. I also noted that there was no
further contact with Sarah Kellen or Jeffrey Epstein during the
remainder of the month of March or April 2006.
On June 1, 2006, ASA Lana Belohlavek telephoned me to inform me of the
meeting that occurred with Atty. Jack Goldberger and her reference
this case . She advised she would make her determination ,on whether to
file on this case or not by Monday June 5 , 2006 .
Inv Continues .
~************************NARRATI V E # 46 **************************
Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 7/12/06
Entered By . : ALTOM.ARO, NICKIE A. 7/12/06
On June 29, 2006, I had spoken to ASA Lana Belohlavic who informed me
that the case would be sent to the Grand Jury for charges. She
informed me that the grand jury would convene on July 19, 2006 to hear
the Epstein case . Belohlavic stated State Attorney Barry Krisher made
the determination to go the Grand Jury to hear the case.
On July 12, 2006, I spoke with Mrs .... mother of the victim, - who
inquired about the status of the case. I explained to her that I was
told we would be going to the Grand Jury during the week of July 19 , 2006. She stated she had not been contacted as of yet by the State
Attorney's Office for any information. I provided her wi th the
telephone numbers to the State Attorney 1 s Office.
Investigation continues . . .
* * * * * * * ***** ** END OF REPORT*** * ********** * * *
GIUFFRE000088
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 44 of 45
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 45 of 45
Date/Time: 10/16/06 / 9:24:44
System: HTE
Progrm: CHF004P
Case Number: 1-05-000368
PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Narrative Print
Page: 1
***** ***********************NARRATIVE # 47 **************************
NA Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 8/03/06
Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 8/03/06
On July 18, 2006, I received a Grand .Jury letter to appear before the
Grand Jury on July 19, 2006, reference the Jeffrey Epstein case. On
July 19, 2006, I responded to the Grand Jury Room and testified before
the grand jury. At the conclusion , ASA Belohlavec stated the grand
jury returned with a true bill for Felony Solicitation of
Prostitution.
On July 25, 2006 , Epstein turned himself into the county jail and was
released on a $3 , 000 bond. Epstein is to return for arraignment on
August 25, 2006 at 8:45 am.
ATT POLICE CLERKS: Please show this case cleared by arrest with the
arrest of Jeffrey Epstein W/M 01-20-1953.
** End of Report**
GIUFFRE000089
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 45 of 45
EXHIBIT 1
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-14 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 3
From:
Sent:
To:
jeffrey E. <[email protected]>
Monday, January 12, 2015 10:03 AM
Gmax
you can issue a reward to any of virginias friends acquaionts family that come forward and help prove her
allegations are false the strongest is the clinton dinner, and the new version in the virgin isalnds that stven
hawking partica-ted in an underage orgy
please note
The information contained in this communication is
confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may
constitute inside information, and is intended only for
the use of the addressee. It is the property of
JEE
Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited
and may be unlawful. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by
return e-mail or by e-mail to [email protected], and
destroy this communication and all copies thereof,
including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved
1
' EXHIBIT
; Mu\/~d{? 1'7
I 1-22.-1 b 1,-f
PRIVILEGED GM __ 001065
CONFIDENTIAL
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-14 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 3
CONFIDENTIAL GM_00577
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ghislaine
Some helpful leakage ...
Ross Gow < [email protected] >
Tuesday, February 24, 2015 3:36 AM
G Max; Philip Barden
VR cried rape - prior case dismissed as prosecutors found her 'not credible'
In today's Daily Mail print edition and on web
vvww.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2965360/Prince-Andrew-s-sex-slave-accused-two-tcens-rape-three-yearsjoincd-Jeffrey-Epstein-s-harem.html
and
www.nydailynews.com/ news/worJd/sex-slave-prince-andrew-accused-2-men-rape-1998-article-1.2125569
Mom told a detective "about her daughte r's past dmg abuse and also how many kids in Royal Palm Beach are
involved in drngs, witchcraft and animal sacrifice," according to a confidential repo1t by the Palm Beach
County Sheriff's Office.
best
Ross
Ross Gow
Managing Partner
ACUITY Reputation
23 Berkeley Square
London WI J 6HE
+44 (0) 777 875 5251 mob
+7 903 363 5393 MocKBa Mo6nnbHb1fr
www.acuityreputation.com
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may be privileged or otherwise
protected from disclosure. It is intended solely for tbc attention and use of the named addrcsscc(s). If you arc
not the intended recipient, dissemination, copying or use of this e-mail and any attachments in whole or in part
is prohibited. If you have received the e-ma.il in error. please notify the sender and delete the e-mail and any
attachments from your computer system. Whilst any attachments may have been checked for viruses, you
should rely on your own vims checker and procedures. No responsib ility is accepted by ACUITY Reputation
Limited for loss or damage arising from the receipt or use of this e-mail.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-14 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 2
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 27
Log
ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege
Privilege
Action Page Count
Doc
Type
1 2/12/2015 6:14 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards and Cassell re attorney
impressions and legal advice relating to deposition testimony
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 3 msg
2 2/16/2015 1:05 [email protected]
[email protected],br
[email protected],robie
[email protected] Discussion of evidence among client and attorneys
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 2 msg
3 2/16/2015 15:37 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Pottinger and Edwards re
information provided by client to assist in legal advice
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 2 msg
4 2/16/2015 16:15 Sigrid McCawley [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Pottinger and Edwards re
information provided by client to assist in legal advice
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 2 msg
5 2/16/2015 16:24 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Pottinger and Edwards re
information provided by client to assist in legal advice
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 2 msg
6 2/16/2015 16:24 Sigrid McCawley [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Pottinger and Edwards re
information provided by client to assist in legal advice
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 2 msg
7 2/21/2015 16:45 Sigrid McCawley
[email protected],bra
[email protected],cassell
[email protected],robiejenna
[email protected] [email protected] Discussion of evidence among client and attorneys
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 2 msg
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 27
Log
ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege
Privilege
Action Page Count
Doc
Type
8 2/21/2015 16:58 Virginia Giuffre [email protected] Discussion of evidence among client and attorney
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 2 msg
9 2/21/2015 17:05 Brad Edwards [email protected]
[email protected],cassellp@l
aw.utah.edu,[email protected]
om Discussion of evidence among client and attorneys
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 2 msg
10 2/21/2015 17:10 Sigrid McCawley [email protected] Discussion of evidence among client and attorney
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 3 msg
11 2/21/2015 17:16 Virginia Giuffre [email protected] Discussion of evidence among client and attorneys
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 3 msg
12 2/23/2015 14:21 Sigrid McCawley [email protected]
[email protected],brad@pat
htojustice.com,[email protected].
edu Discussion of thoughts and impressions of attorneys
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 1 msg
13 2/23/2015 14:29 [email protected]
[email protected],ro
[email protected]
[email protected],cassellp@
law.utah.edu Discussion of thoughts and impressions of attorneys
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 1 msg
14 2/23/2015 16:01 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
[email protected],brad@pat
htojustice.com,[email protected].
edu Discussion of thoughts and impressions of attorneys
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 1 msg
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 27
Log
ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege
Privilege
Action Page Count
Doc
Type
15 2/24/2015 17:51 Sigrid McCawley [email protected]
Email chain with McCawley, Giuffre, and Paralegals re seeking
information to assist in legal advice, with attachment
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 4 msg
16 Attached case research
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 14 rtf
17 2/26/2015 12:59 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and legal assistant re legal
document, with attachment
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 1 msg
18 Attached draft legal document
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 1 jfif
19 2/28/2015 17:47 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email with Giuffre, McCawley, Edwards and Henderson re
discussion of draft statement
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 3 msg
20 3/13/2015 17:29 Stan Pottinger [email protected]
[email protected],brad@pa
thtojustice.com
Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley, Henderson and
Pottinger re legal advice on media issues
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 2 msg
21 3/13/2015 17:49 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley and Pottinger re
legal advice on media issues
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 2 msg
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 27
Log
ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege
Privilege
Action Page Count
Doc
Type
22 3/13/2015 17:56 [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected],brad@pa
thtojustice.com
Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley, Henderson and
Pottinger re legal advice on media issues
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 3 msg
23 3/13/2015 18:00 Brad Edwards
[email protected],robi
[email protected] [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley, Henderson and
Pottinger re legal advice on media issues
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 3 msg
24 3/13/2015 18:24 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley, Henderson and
Pottinger re legal advice on media issues
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 4 msg
25 3/13/2015 18:25 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley, Henderson and
Pottinger re legal advice on media issues
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 3 msg
26 3/13/2015 21:53 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
[email protected],StanPotti
[email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley, Henderson and
Pottinger re legal advice on media issues
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 4 msg
27 3/13/2015 23:38 Brad Edwards [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley, Henderson and
Pottinger re legal advice on media issues
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 4 msg
28 3/13/2015 23:40 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley, Henderson and
Pottinger re legal advice on media issues
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 4 msg
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 27
Log
ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege
Privilege
Action Page Count
Doc
Type
29 3/17/2015 15:20 Virginia Giuffre
[email protected],br
[email protected],stan
[email protected]
Providing information to assist in legal advice re potential legal
action, with attachments
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 1 msg
30 3/17/2015 18:40 Stan
[email protected],br
[email protected],robie
[email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Pottinger and McCawley re
legal advice related to VRS
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 1 msg
31 3/17/2015 19:42 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Pottinger and McCawley re
legal advice related to VRS
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 1 msg
32 3/20/2015 15:43 Sigrid McCawley
[email protected],ro
[email protected],stan
[email protected]
[email protected],brittany@path
tojustice.com
Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, Pottinger,
McCawley and BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 1 msg
33 3/20/2015 15:57 Sigrid McCawley [email protected] Providing legal advice re potential deposition
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 1 msg
34 3/24/2015 21:19 Sigrid McCawley [email protected] [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, McCawley and
BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 2 msg
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 27
Log
ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege
Privilege
Action Page Count
Doc
Type
35 3/24/2015 21:21 Virginia Giuffre [email protected] [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, McCawley and
BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 2 msg
36 3/24/2015 21:36 Andres Ortiz
[email protected],ro
[email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, McCawley and
BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 2 msg
37 3/24/2015 22:21 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, McCawley and
BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 3 msg
38 3/26/2015 2:00 Sigrid McCawley [email protected]
[email protected],StanPotti
[email protected],brad@pathtojustice
.com,[email protected],e
[email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, Pottinger,
McCawley and BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 1 msg
39 3/26/2015 2:21 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, McCawley and
BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 2 msg
40 3/26/2015 2:22 Sigrid McCawley [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, McCawley and
BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 2 msg
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 27
Log
ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege
Privilege
Action Page Count
Doc
Type
41 3/26/2015 3:00 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, McCawley and
BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 2 msg
42 4/1/2015 21:32 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Giuffre conveying information sought by attorney to assist in
legal advice with attachments
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 1 msg
43 4/2/2015 7:01 Brittany Henderson [email protected] [email protected]
Providing draft legal document for client review, with
attachment
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 1 msg
44 Attached Draft legal document
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 15 pdf
45 4/3/2015 15:32 Brittany Henderson [email protected]
[email protected],eperez@
BSFLLP.com
Email chain with Giuffre, Henderson, Edwards and legal
assistant re legal document, with attachment
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 2 msg
46 Attached draft legal document
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest 15 pdf
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 27
Log
ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege
Privilege
Action Page Count
Doc
Type
47 4/8/2015 20:34 Virginia Giuffre [email protected] Seeking legal advice related to VRS
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 1 msg
48 4/9/2015 3:23 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re advice re legal filings,
with attachments
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 2 msg
49 4/9/2015 7:16 Sigrid McCawley
[email protected],bra
[email protected],robiej
[email protected]
[email protected],sperki
[email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, McCawley and
BSF staff re legal advice re media issues
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 2 msg
50 4/9/2015 9:26 Brad Edwards [email protected] [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, and McCawley re legal advice
re media issues
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 1 msg
51 4/9/2015 9:33 Sigrid McCawley [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re legal advice re media
issues
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 2 msg
52 4/9/2015 12:46 Sigrid McCawley [email protected]
Conveying legal advice re draft legal documents to client, with
attachments
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 1 msg
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 27
Log
ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege
Privilege
Action Page Count
Doc
Type
53
Conveying legal advice re draft legal documents to client, with
attachments
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 14 docx
54
Conveying legal advice re draft legal documents to client, with
attachments
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 12 docx
55
Conveying legal advice re draft legal documents to client, with
attachments
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 2 docx
56 4/10/2015 14:59 Sigrid McCawley [email protected]
[email protected],brad@pat
htojustice.com Providing legal advice re media issues
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 1 msg
57 4/10/2015 15:37 Virginia Giuffre [email protected] Regarding legal advice re media issues
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 1 msg
58 4/10/2015 17:31 Sigrid McCawley [email protected]
[email protected],brad@pat
htojustice.com,brittany@pathtojus
tice.com,[email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Henderson, Edwards,
Pottinger and legal assistant re legal documents, with
attachments
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 2 msg
59 Attached draft legal document
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 3 pdf
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 27
Log
ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege
Privilege
Action Page Count
Doc
Type
60 Attached draft legal document
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 21 pdf
61 4/10/2015 17:40 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and BSF staff regarding legal
advice related to VRS
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 2 msg
62 4/10/2015 19:10 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and BSF staff regarding legal
advice related to VRS
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 2 msg
63 4/10/2015 19:28 Sigrid McCawley [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and BSF staff regarding legal
advice related to VRS
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 2 msg
64 4/10/2015 19:33 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and BSF staff regarding legal
advice related to VRS
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 2 msg
65 4/10/2015 20:03 Sigrid McCawley [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and BSF staff regarding legal
advice related to VRS
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 2 msg
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 27
Log
ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege
Privilege
Action Page Count
Doc
Type
66 4/10/2015 20:04 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and BSF staff regarding legal
advice related to VRS
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 2 msg
67 4/10/2015 20:04 Sigrid McCawley [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and BSF staff regarding legal
advice related to VRS
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 2 msg
68 4/10/2015 23:46 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley legal assistant re seeking
and providing information sought by attorney to assist in
providing legal advice, with attachments
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 3 msg
69 4/13/2015 13:52 Sigrid McCawley [email protected]
[email protected],brad@pat
htojustice.com
Email chain with Giuffre, Pottinger, Edwards and McCawley re
legal advice regarding potential public statements
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 3 msg
70 4/13/2015 13:56 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, Pottinger, Edwards and McCawley re
legal advice regarding media issues
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 3 msg
71 4/14/2015 23:38 Brad Edwards
[email protected],bri
[email protected],ro
[email protected],stan
[email protected] Providing legal advice related to VRS
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 1 msg
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 27
Log
ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege
Privilege
Action Page Count
Doc
Type
72 4/16/2015 11:14 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re legal advice regarding
media issues
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 2 msg
73 4/16/2015 11:47 Sigrid McCawley [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re legal advice regarding
media issues
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 2 msg
74 4/24/2015 19:22 Sigrid McCawley [email protected] Providing legal advice re records retention, with attachments
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 1 msg
75 Attached letter providing legal advice re document retention
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 2 pdf
76 4/24/2015 19:59 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re legal advice regarding
potential deposition
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 1 msg
77 4/27/2015 21:20 Brad Edwards [email protected] [email protected] Seeking information to assist in providing legal advice
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 1 msg
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 27
Log
ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege
Privilege
Action Page Count
Doc
Type
78 4/30/2015 6:42 Brittany Henderson [email protected]
[email protected],brad@pa
thtojustice.com,robiejennag@y7m
ail.com Legal documents provided to assist in providing legal advice
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 1 msg
79 4/30/2015 7:02 Brittany Henderson [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, Henderson and paralegal re seeking
and providing information to assist in providing legal advice
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 2 msg
80 4/30/2015 7:05 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, Henderson, Edwards, McCawley and
legal assistant re seeking information to assist in providing legal
advice
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 2 msg
81 5/4/2015 20:04 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, Henderson, Edwards, McCawley and
legal assistant re seeking information to assist in providing legal
advice, with attachment
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 2 msg
82 5/11/2015 18:20 Sigrid McCawley [email protected] [email protected]
Email chain with McCawley, Giuffre, Edwards, Pottinger,
Henderson and Paralegal re seeking and providing information
to assist in legal advice, with attachments
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 1 msg
83 5/11/2015 18:34 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Edwards, Pottinger and
Paralegal re seeking information to assist in providing legal
advice re potential litigation
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 2 msg
84 5/11/2015 18:40 Sigrid McCawley [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re case research, with
attachment
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 2 msg
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 27
Log
ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege
Privilege
Action Page Count
Doc
Type
85 5/11/2015 18:45 Sigrid McCawley
[email protected],ro
[email protected]
Providing and seeking information to assist in legal advice re
potential legal action, with attachment
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 1 msg
86 5/11/2015 18:47 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re seeking information
to assist in providing legal advice re potential litigation
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 1 msg
87 5/11/2015 18:56 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Edwards, Pottinger and
Paralegal re seeking information to assist in providing legal
advice re potential litigation
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 2 msg
88 5/17/2015 22:37 Sigrid McCawley [email protected] Providing litigation documents to client, with attachments
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 3 msg
89 Attached draft legal agreement
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 10 pdf
90 5/17/2015 22:40 Sigrid McCawley [email protected] Providing legal advice re legal agreement, with attachment
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 1 msg
91 5/18/2015 18:40 Virginia Giuffre [email protected] Discussion of confidential agreement, with attachments
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 1 msg
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 27
Log
ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege
Privilege
Action Page Count
Doc
Type
92 Attached confidential agreement page
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 1 jfif
93 Attached confidential agreement page
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 1 jfif
94 6/5/2015 19:16 Sigrid McCawley [email protected] Conveying attorney mental impression regarding hearing
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 1 msg
95 6/6/2015 17:20 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re attorney mental
impression regarding hearing
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 1 msg
96 6/25/2015 2:26 Sigrid McCawley [email protected] Providing advice re status and strategy of ongoing legal matters
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 6 msg
97 7/17/2015 14:19 Sigrid McCawley [email protected] [email protected]
Discussion with S. McCawley regarding file related to
representation by B. Josefsberg
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 4 msg
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 27
Log
ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege
Privilege
Action Page Count
Doc
Type
98 7/27/2015 21:53 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Providing information to assist in legal advice re potential
litigation
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 1 msg
99 7/29/2015 19:45 Sigrid McCawley [email protected] [email protected] Conveying legal advice on media issues
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 1 msg
100 8/5/2015 19:51 Sigrid McCawley [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and paralegals re
information sought to assist in providing legal advice
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 1 msg
101 8/6/2015 2:14 Sigrid McCawley [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, legal intern and paralegal
re seeking information to assist in providing legal advice re
potential litigation
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 2 msg
102 8/6/2015 2:45 Sigrid McCawley [email protected] [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, legal intern, Edwards and
paralegal re seeking information to assist in providing legal
advice re potential litigation
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 2 msg
103 8/6/2015 2:55 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, legal intern and paralegal
re seeking information to assist in providing legal advice re
potential litigation
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 2 msg
104 8/6/2015 3:48 Sigrid McCawley [email protected]
[email protected],brad@pa
thtojustice.com
Email chain with McCawley, Giuffre, and Paralegals re seeking
information to assist in legal advice, with attachments
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 2 msg
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 27
Log
ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege
Privilege
Action Page Count
Doc
Type
105 8/6/2015 3:51 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, legal intern and paralegal
re seeking information to assist in providing legal advice re
potential litigation
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 2 msg
106 9/1/2015 18:54 Sigrid McCawley [email protected]
[email protected],brittany@
pathtojustice.com
Providing and seeking information to assist in legal advice re
potential legal action, with attachment
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 2 msg
107 9/7/2015 18:24 Virginia Giuffre
[email protected],sm
[email protected],stanpot
[email protected]
Providing information sought by attorneys to provide legal
advice, with attachment
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 1 msg
108
Attached Information sought by attorneys to provide legal
advice
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 4 docx
109 9/7/2015 18:58 Sigrid McCawley
[email protected],ro
[email protected],stan
[email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Pottinger and McCawley re
collection of information to assist in providing legal advice re
potential litigation
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 1 msg
110 9/15/2015 21:58 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re draft legal document
relating to litigation
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 1 msg
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 27
Log
ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege
Privilege
Action Page Count
Doc
Type
111 9/15/2015 22:04 Sigrid McCawley [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re draft legal document
relating to litigation
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 2 msg
112 9/15/2015 22:07 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re draft legal document
relating to litigation
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 2 msg
113 9/20/2015 12:15 Sigrid McCawley [email protected] [email protected] Conveying information about potential legal action.
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 1 msg
114 9/20/2015 14:47 Virginia Giuffre [email protected] Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re potential legal action.
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 1 msg
115 9/20/2015 19:16 Virginia Giuffre [email protected] Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re potential legal action.
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 1 msg
116 9/20/2015 19:29 Sigrid McCawley [email protected] Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re potential legal action.
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 2 msg
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 27
Log
ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege
Privilege
Action Page Count
Doc
Type
117 9/20/2015 19:30 Virginia Giuffre [email protected] Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re potential legal action.
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 2 msg
118 9/21/2015 14:48 Sigrid McCawley [email protected] Communication re initiation of lawsuit, with attachments
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 1 msg
119 Attached draft legal document relating to litigation
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld 12 pdf
120 Attached draft legal document relating to litigation
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 2 pdf
121 Attached draft legal document relating to litigation
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 2 pdf
122 Attached draft legal document relating to litigation
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 3 pdf
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 27
Log
ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege
Privilege
Action Page Count
Doc
Type
123 9/21/2015 14:51 Virginia Giuffre [email protected] Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re potential legal action.
Attorney
Client/joint
defense/commo
n interest/work
product Withheld 1 msg
125
Emails, letters, and
other communications
from 2011 - Present
Virginia Giuffre, Brad
Edwards, Paul Cassell,
Brittany Henderson (and
other , Sigrid McCawley,
Meredith Schultz, David
Boies, Jack Scarola, Stan
Pottinger, Ellen
Brockman, Legal
Assistants, Professionals
retained by attorneys to
aid in the rendition of
legal advice and
representation
Virginia Giuffre, Brad
Edwards, Paul Cassell,
Brittany Henderson, Sigrid
McCawley, Meredith
Schultz, David Boies, Jack
Scarola, Stan Pottinger, Ellen
Brockman, Legal Assistants,
Professionals retained by
attorneys to aid in the
rendition of legal advice and
representation
Plaintiff has objected that Defendant’s requests are overly
broad and unduly burdensome, as individually logging all
privileged responsive documents would be overly burdensome.
Plaintiff contends that requests targeting such privileged
information are not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence, are not important to resolving
the issues, are not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, are
not proportional to the needs of the case, and creates a heavy
burden on Plaintiff that outweighs its benefit. Therefore,
Plaintiff has employed categorical logging pursuant to Local Civil
Rule 26.2(c). Correspondence re: Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2
v. United States ("CVRA case"), Case no. 08-80736-CIV-Marra,
pending in the Southern District of Florida. Documents withheld
pursuant to the privileges asserted included communications
from Ms. Giuffre to the attorneys listed seeking legal advice
related to the CVRA case, communications from the attorneys
to Ms. Giuffre giving legal advice or giving attorney mental
impressions related to the CVRA case, communications sending
or attaching attorney work product related to the CVRA case,
and/or communications sending or attaching client revisions to
attorney work product related to the CVRA case, and
communications re evidence.
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld
Approx. 1.3K
docs
overlapping
with other
cases
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 27
Log
ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege
Privilege
Action Page Count
Doc
Type
126
Emails, letters, and
other communications
from 9/21/15 - Present
Virginia Giuffre, Brad
Edwards, Paul Cassell,
Brittany Henderson,
Sigrid McCawley,
Meredith Schultz, David
Boies, Stephen Zach,
Stan Pottinger, Ellen
Brockman, Legal
Assistants, Professionals
retained by attorneys to
aid in the rendition of
legal advice and
representation
Virginia Giuffre, Brad
Edwards, Paul Cassell,
Brittany Henderson, Sigrid
McCawley, Meredith
Schultz, David Boies,
Stephen Zach, Stan
Pottinger, Ellen Brockman,
Legal Assistants,
Professionals retained by
attorneys to aid in the
rendition of legal advice and
Plaintiff has objected that Defendant’s requests are overly
broad and unduly burdensome, as individually logging all
privileged responsive documents would be overly burdensome.
Plaintiff contends that requests targeting such privileged
information are not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence, are not important to resolving
the issues, are not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, are
not proportional to the needs of the case, and creates a heavy
burden on Plaintiff that outweighs its benefit. Therefore,
Plaintiff has employed categorical logging pursuant to Local Civil
Rule 26.2(c). Correspondence re: Giuffre v. Maxwell (“Maxwell
case”), 15-cv-07433-RWS, pending in the Southern District of
New York, since the date of filing, September 21, 2015.
Documents withheld pursuant to the privileges asserted
included communications from Ms. Giuffre to the attorneys
listed seeking legal advice related to the Maxwell case,
communications from the attorneys to Ms. Giuffre giving legal
advice or giving attorney mental impressions related to the
Maxwell case, communications sending or attaching attorney
work product related to the Maxwell case, and/or
communications sending or attaching client revisions to
attorney work product related to the Maxwell case, and
communications re evidence.
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld
Approx. 1.3K
docs
overlapping
with other
cases
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 27
Log
ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege
Privilege
Action Page Count
Doc
Type
127
Emails, letters, and
other communications
from January 2015 -
Present
Virginia Giuffre, Brad
Edwards, Paul Cassell,
Brittany Henderson,
Sigrid McCawley,
Meredith Schultz, David
Boies, Stephen Zach,
Stan Pottinger, Ellen
Brockman, Legal
Assistants, Professionals
retained by attorneys to
aid in the rendition of
legal advice and
representation
Virginia Giuffre, Brad
Edwards, Paul Cassell,
Brittany Henderson, Sigrid
McCawley, Meredith
Schultz, David Boies,
Stephen Zach, Stan
Pottinger, Ellen Brockman,
Legal Assistants,
Professionals retained by
attorneys to aid in the
rendition of legal advice and
Plaintiff has objected that Defendant’s requests are overly
broad and unduly burdensome, as individually logging all
privileged responsive documents would be overly burdensome.
Plaintiff contends that requests targeting such privileged
information are not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence, are not important to resolving
the issues, are not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, are
not proportional to the needs of the case, and creates a heavy
burden on Plaintiff that outweighs its benefit. Therefore,
Plaintiff has employed categorical logging pursuant to Local Civil
Rule 26.2(c). Correspondence re: Bradley Edwards and Paul
Cassell v. Alan Dershowitz (“Dershowitz case”), Case no. 15-
000072, pending in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward
County, Florida. Documents withheld pursuant to the privileges
asserted included communications from Ms. Giuffre to the
attorneys listed seeking legal advice related to the Dershowitz
case, communications from the attorneys to Ms. Giuffre giving
legal advice or giving attorney mental impressions related to the
Dershowitz case, communications sending or attaching attorney
work product related to the Dershowitz case, and/or
communications sending or attaching client revisions to
attorney work product related to the Dershowitz case, and
communications re evidence.
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld
Approx. 1.3K
docs
overlapping
with other
cases
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 27
Log
ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege
Privilege
Action Page Count
Doc
Type
128
Emails, letters, and
other communications
from 2009 - Present
Virginia Giuffre, Bob
Josefsberg, Katherine W.
Ezell, Amy Ederi, other
Podhurst attorneys,
Legal Assistants, and
Professionals retained by
attorneys to aid in the
rendition of legal advice
Virginia Giuffre, Bob
Josefsberg, Katherine W.
Ezell, Amy Ederi, other
Podhurst attorneys, Legal
Assistants, and Professionals
retained by attorneys to aid
in the rendition of legal
advice
Plaintiff has objected that Defendant’s requests are overly
broad and unduly burdensome, as individually logging all
privileged responsive documents would be overly burdensome.
Plaintiff contends that requests targeting such privileged
information are not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence, are not important to resolving
the issues, are not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, are
not proportional to the needs of the case, and creates a heavy
burden on Plaintiff that outweighs its benefit. Therefore,
Plaintiff has employed categorical logging pursuant to Local Civil
Rule 26.2(c). Correspondence re: Jane Doe No. 102 v. Jeffrey
Epstein (“Epstein case”), Case No. 09-80656-CIV-Marra/Johnson
(Southern District of Florida). Documents withheld pursuant to
the privileges asserted included communications from Ms.
Giuffre to the attorneys listed seeking legal advice related to the
Epstein case, communications from the attorneys to Ms. Giuffre
giving legal advice or giving attorney mental impressions related
to the Epstein case, communications sending or attaching
attorney work product related to the Epstein case, and/or
communications sending or attaching client revisions to
attorney work product related to the Epstein case, and
communications re evidence.
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld
Approx. 1.3K
docs
overlapping
with other
cases
129 6/10/2015 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley seeking information to
assist with attorney advice. Attorney Client Withheld 2 msg
130
Letter from Virginia Giuffre to David Boies conveying requested
information to assist in providing legal advice.
AC Privilege and
Work Product Withheld 26 pdf
131 4/30/2015 Brittany Henderson [email protected]
[email protected],brad@pa
thtojustice.com,robiejennag@y7m
ail.com Communication re VRS registrations
AC Privilege and
Work Product Withheld 1 msg
132 4/29/2015 Andres Ortiz [email protected]
[email protected],brad@pa
thtojustice.com,[email protected],
[email protected]
Email chain with McCawley, Edwards, Garvin, Henderson,
Giuffre and BSF staff re legal advice re VRS communications.
AC Privilege and
Work Product Withheld 1 msg
133 4/29/2015 brittany henderson [email protected]
[email protected],brad@pa
thtojustice.com,[email protected],
[email protected] Communication re legal advice re VRS communications.
AC Privilege and
Work Product Withheld 1 msg
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 27
Log
ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege
Privilege
Action Page Count
Doc
Type
134 4/17/2015 Paul Cassell [email protected]
[email protected],brittany
@pathtojustice.com,eperez@BSFLL
P.com,[email protected]
Email chain with Cassell, McCawley, Edwards, Garvin, Beloof,
Henderson, Giuffre and BSF staff re legal advice re VRS
registrations.
AC Privilege and
Work Product Withheld 5 msg
135 4/17/2015 Sigrid McCawley
[email protected],cas
[email protected]
[email protected],eperez
@BSFLLP.com,robiejennag@y7mail
.com
Email chain with Cassell, McCawley, Edwards, Garvin, Beloof,
Henderson, Giuffre and BSF staff re legal advice re VRS
registrations.
AC Privilege and
Work Product Withheld 4 msg
136 4/17/2015 Brad Edwards [email protected]
[email protected],brittany
@pathtojustice.com,eperez@BSFLL
P.com,[email protected]
Email chain with Cassell, McCawley, Edwards, Garvin, Beloof,
Henderson, Giuffre and BSF staff re legal advice re VRS
registrations.
AC Privilege and
Work Product Withheld 4 msg
137 2/26/2015 Sigrid McCawley [email protected] Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re non-testifying expert. Attorney Client Withheld 1 msg
138 2/26/2015 Sigrid McCawley [email protected] Communication re non-testifying expert. Attorney Client Withheld 1 msg
139 2/11/2016 Sigrid McCawley [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Edwards, Pottinger and BSF
staff re media communications. Attorney Client Redacted 3 msg
140 2/11/2016 Sigrid McCawley
[email protected],robi
[email protected]
[email protected],brad@patht
ojustice.com
Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Edwards, Pottinger and BSF
staff re media communications. Attorney Client Redacted 3 msg
141 2/11/2016 [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected],Smccawley
@BSFLLP.com,brad@pathtojustice.
com
Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Edwards, Pottinger and BSF
staff re media communications. Attorney Client Redacted 3 msg
142 2/9/2016 [email protected] [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre and Pottinger re media
communications. Attorney Client Redacted 2 msg
143
Letter from Virginia Giuffre to David Boies conveying requested
information to assist in providing legal advice.
AC Privilege and
Work Product Withheld 26 pdf
144
Letter from Virginia Giuffre to David Boies conveying requested
information to assist in providing legal advice.
AC Privilege and
Work Product Withheld 23 docx
145 6/10/2015 Virginia Giuffre [email protected] Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re ongoing litigation. Attorney Client Withheld 2 msg
146 4/29/2015 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
[email protected],bh699@n
ova.edu,[email protected],g
[email protected]
Email chain with Henderson, McCawey, Edwards, Garvin and
BSF staff re VRS communications. Attorney Client Withheld 2 msg
147 4/10/2015 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Boylan, Giuffre, McCawley, and BSF staff re
legal advice re VRS registrations. Attorney Client Withheld 2 msg
148 2/26/2015 Virginia Giuffre [email protected] Email confirming legal advice re non-testifying expert. Attorney Client Withheld 1 msg
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 25 of 27
Log
ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege
Privilege
Action Page Count
Doc
Type
149 2/11/2015 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre and Pottinger re media
communications Attorney Client Redacted 3 msg
150 2/11/2015 Virginia Giuffre [email protected]
Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Pottinger and BSF staff re
media communications. Attorney Client Redacted 3 msg
151 1/13/2015 Virginia Giuffre [email protected] Email chain with Pottinger and Giuffre re anticipated litigation.
AC Privilege and
Work Product Withheld 1 msg
152
Emails, letters, and
other communications
from January 2015 -
Present
Virginia Giuffre, Brad
Edwards, Paul Cassell,
Brittany Henderson,
Sigrid McCawley,
Meredith Schultz, David
Boies, Stephen Zach,
Stan Pottinger, Ellen
Brockman, Legal
Assistants, Professionals
retained by attorneys to
aid in the rendition of
legal advice
Virginia Giuffre, Brad
Edwards, Paul Cassell,
Brittany Henderson, Sigrid
McCawley, Meredith
Schultz, David Boies,
Stephen Zach, Stan
Pottinger, Ellen Brockman,
Legal Assistants,
Professionals retained by
attorneys to aid in the
rendition of legal advice
Plaintiff has objected that Defendant’s requests are overly
broad and unduly burdensome, as individually logging all
privileged responsive documents would be overly
burdensome. Plaintiff contends that requests targeting
such privileged information are not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, are not
important to resolving the issues, are not relevant to any
party’s claim or defense, are not proportional to the
needs of the case, and creates a heavy burden on Plaintiff
that outweighs its benefit. Therefore, Plaintiff has
employed categorical logging pursuant to Local Civil Rule
26.2(c). This categorical entry is regarding correspondence
re potential legal action against entities and individuals.
Documents withheld pursuant to the privileges asserted
included communications from Ms. Giuffre to the
attorneys listed seeking legal advice related to potential
law suits, communications from the attorneys to Ms.
Giuffre giving legal advice or giving attorney mental
impressions related to the law suits, communications
sending or attaching attorney work product related to
potential lawsuits, and/or communications sending or
attaching client revisions to attorney work product related
to potential lawsuits, and communications re evidence.
AC Privilege and
Work
Product/joint
defense/commo
n interest Withheld
Approx. 1.3K
overlapping
with other
cases
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 26 of 27
Log
ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege
Privilege
Action Page Count
Doc
Type
153
Email and letter
communications
The law enforcement
entity, Virginia Giuffre,
David Boies, Stan
Pottinger, Sigrid
McCawley, Paul Cassell,
Brad Edwards
The law enforcement entity,
Virginia Giuffre, David Boies,
Stan Pottinger, Sigrid
McCawley, Paul Cassell, Brad
Edwards
Plaintiff has objected that Defendant’s requests are overly
broad and unduly burdensome, as individually logging all
privileged responsive documents would be overly
burdensome. Plaintiff contends that requests targeting
such privileged information are not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, are not
important to resolving the issues, are not relevant to any
party’s claim or defense, are not proportional to the
needs of the case, and creates a heavy burden on Plaintiff
that outweighs its benefit. Therefore, Plaintiff has
employed categorical logging pursuant to Local Civil Rule
26.2(c). This categorical entry is regarding correspondence
re the currently ongoing criminal investigation of
Defendant and others. Public Interest Withheld
approx. 57
documents
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 27 of 27
EXHIBIT 3
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-16 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 3
1
United States District Court
For The Southern District of New York
Giuffre v. Maxwell
15-cv-07433-RWS
Ghislaine Maxwell’s Privilege Log Amended as of May 16, 2016
***Per Local Rule 26.2, the following privileges are asserted pursuant to British law, Colorado law and NY law.
Log ID DATE DOC.
TYPE
BATES
#
FROM TO CC RELATIONSHIP
OF PARTIES
SUBJECT
MATTER
PRIVILEGE
1. 2011.03.15 E-Mails 1000-
1013
Ghislaine Maxwell Brett Jaffe, Esq. Attorney / Client Communication
re: legal advice
Attorney-Client
2. 2011.03.15 E-Mails 1014-
1019
Brett Jaffe, Esq. Ghislaine Maxwell Attorney / Client Communication
re: legal advice
Attorney-Client
3. 2015.01.02 E-Mails 1020-
1026
Ross Gow Ghislaine Maxwell Attorney Agent /
Client
Communication
re: legal advice
Attorney-Client
4. 2015.01.02 E-Mail 1024-
1026
Ghislaine Maxwell Ross Gow Attorney Agent /
Client
Communication
re: legal advice
Attorney-Client
5. 2015.01.02 E-Mail 1027-
1028
Ross Gow Ghislaine Maxwell Brian
Basham
Attorney Agent /
Client
Communication
re: legal advice
Attorney-Client
6. 2015.01.06 E-Mail 1029 Ghislaine Maxwell Jeffrey Epstein Common Interest Communication
re: legal advice
Common Interest
7. 2015.01.06 E-Mail 1030-
1043
Ghislaine Maxwell Jeffrey Epstein,
Alan Dershowitz, Esq.
Attorney / Client Communication
re: legal advice
Common Interest
8. 2015.01.10 E-Mail 1044 Ghislaine Maxwell Philip Barden, Esq.,
Ross Gow
Attorney / Client Communication
re: legal advice
Attorney-Client
9. 2015.01.10 E-Mail 1045-
1051
Ghislaine Maxwell Philip Barden, Esq. Client / Attorney Communication
re: legal advice
Attorney-Client
10. 2015.01.09
2015.01.10
E-Mails 1052-
1055
Ross Gow Philip Barden, Esq. G.
Maxwell
Agent / Attorney /
Client
Communication
re: legal advice
Attorney-Client
11. 2015.01.11 E-Mail 1055-
1058
Ghislaine Maxwell Jeffrey Epstein Common Interest Communication
re: legal advice
Common Interest
12. 2015.01.11 E-Mail 1055-
1058
Philip Barden, Esq. Ross Gow G.
Maxwell
Attorney / Agent /
Client
Communication
re: legal advice
Attorney-Client
13. 2015.01.11 E-Mail 1056-
1058
Philip Barden, Esq. Ghislaine Maxwell Ross
Gow
Attorney / Agent /
Client
Communication
re: legal advice
Attorney-Client

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-16 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 3
2
14. 2015.01.11 –
2015.01.17
E-Mails 1059-
1083
Jeffrey Epstein Ghislaine Maxwell Common Interest Communication
re: legal advice
Common Interest Privilege
15. 2015.01.13 E-Mail 1067-
1073
Ghislaine Maxwell Jeffrey Epstein Common Interest Communication
re: legal advice
Common Interest Privilege
16. 2015.01.13 E-Mail 1069-
1073,
1076-
1079
Philip Barden, Esq. Martin Weinberg, Esq. Common Interest Communication
re: legal advice
Common Interest Privilege
17. 2015.01.13 E-Mails 1068-
1069,
1074-
1076
Philip Barden, Esq. Ghislaine Maxwell Mark
Cohen
Attorney / Client Communication
re: legal advice
Attorney-Client
18. 2015.01.21 E-Mail 1088-
1090
Ross Gow Philip Barden, Esq., Ghislaine
Maxwell
Agent / Attorney /
Client
Communication
re: legal advice
Attorney-Client
19. 2015.01.21 -
2015.01.27
E-Mails 1084-
1098
Jeffrey Epstein Ghislaine Maxwell Common Interest Communication
re: legal advice
Common Interest Privilege
20. 2015.01.21-
2015.01.27
E-Mails 1099 Ghislaine Maxwell Jeffrey Epstein Common Interest Communication
re: legal advice
Common Interest Privilege
21. 2015.04.22 E-mail 7 pages Jeffrey Epstein Ghislaine Maxwell Common Interest Forwarding
message from
Martin Weinberg,
labeled “AttorneyClient Privilege”
with attachment
Common Interest Privilege
22. Various E-mails Agent of Haddon,
Morgan & Foreman;
Laura Menninger
Agent of Haddon, Morgan &
Foreman; Laura Menninger
Agent of attorney and
Attorney
Attorney work
product
Attorney Work Product
23. Various E-mails Mary Borja; Laura
Menninger
Mary Borja; Laura Menninger Attorney Work
Product
Attorney work
product
Attorney Work Product
24. 2015.10.21 –
2015.10.22
E-mail
chain with
attachmen
t
Darren Indyke; Laura
Menninger
Darren Indyke; Laura Menninger Attorneys for parties
to Common Interest
Agreement
Common Interest
Agreement
Attorney Work Product;
Common Interest Privilege
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-16 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 6
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------X
VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,
Plaintiff,
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
15-cv-07433-RWS
------------------------------------------------------X
DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby responds
to Plaintiff’s Second Request for Production of Documents (the “Requests”).
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1. This response is made to the best of Ms. Maxwell’s present knowledge,
information and belief. Ms. Maxwell, through her attorneys of record, have not completed the
investigation of the facts relating to this case, have not completed discovery in this action, and
have not completed preparation for trial. Ms. Maxwell’s responses to Plaintiff’s requests are
based on information currently known to her and are given without waiving Ms. Maxwell’s right
to use evidence of any subsequently discovered or identified facts, documents or
communications. Ms. Maxwell reserves the right to supplement this Response in accordance
with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).
2. Ms. Maxwell objects to the Requests to the extent they attempt to impose any
requirement or discovery obligation greater than or different from those under the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, the local rules of this Court or any Orders of the Court.
3. Ms. Maxwell objects to the Requests to the extent they seek documents or
information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, Rule 408 of the
Federal Rules of Evidence, any common interest privilege, joint defense agreement or any other
applicable privilege.
4. Ms. Maxwell objects to the Requests to the extent they seek documents or
information outside of Ms. Maxwell’s possession, custody or control. .........................................
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 25
 2
5. Ms. Maxwell objects to the Requests to the extent they seek information which is
not relevant to the subject matter of the litigation and/or is not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence.
6. Ms. Maxwell objects to the Requests to the extent they are overly broad, unduly
burdensome and/or propounded for the improper purpose of annoying, embarrassing, or
harassing Ms. Maxwell.
7. Ms. Maxwell objects to the Requests to the extent they are vague and ambiguous,
or imprecise.
8. Ms. Maxwell objects to the Requests to the extent they seek information that is
confidential and implicates Ms. Maxwell’s privacy interests.
9. Ms. Maxwell incorporates by reference every general objection set forth above
into each specific response set forth below. A specific response may repeat a general objection
for emphasis or for some other reason. The failure to include any general objection in any
specific response does not waive any general objection to that request.
10. The Requests seek information that is confidential and implicates Ms. Maxwell’s
privacy interests. To the extent such information is relevant and discoverable in this action, Ms.
Maxwell will produce such materials subject to an appropriate protective order pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(c) limiting their dissemination to the attorneys and their employees.
OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS
11. Ms. Maxwell objects to Definition No. 1 regarding “Agent” to the extent that it
purports to extend the meaning beyond those permissible by law.
12. Ms. Maxwell objects to Definition No. 3 regarding “Defendant.” The Definition
is overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it attempts to extend the scope of the
Requests to documents in the possession, custody or control of individuals other than Ms.
Maxwell or her counsel.
13. Ms. Maxwell objects to Definition No. 5 regarding “Employee.” Ms. Maxwell is
an individual, sued in an individual capacity, and therefore there is no “past or present officer,
director, agent or servant” of hers. Additionally, “attorneys” and “paralegals” are not
“employees” of Ms. Maxwell given that she herself is not an attorney and therefore cannot
“employ” attorneys.
14. Ms. Maxwell objects to Definition No. 10 regarding “You” or “Your.” The
Definition is overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it attempts to extend the scope of
the Requests to documents in the possession, custody or control of individuals other than Ms.
Maxwell or her counsel.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 25
 3
OBJECTIONS TO INSTRUCTIONS
15. 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, except to
the extent that any the answers “relate to any activity of defendant with respect to the practice
which has been alleged and the duties alleged to be performed by Defendant, ‘activities’ being
defined as sexual abuse or trafficking of any female,” in which case her answers reflect the
period 2000-today. Ms. Maxwell specifically objects to production of any documents outside
that period, except as specifically noted.
16. Ms. Maxwell objects to Instruction No. 3 on the grounds that it is unduly
burdensome and is intended for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell.
Ms. Maxwell cannot possibly recall the specific disposition of documents, particularly electronic
documents, dating back over 16 years. However, Ms. Maxwell, prior to this litigation has long
had a practice of deleting emails after they have been read.
17. Ms. Maxwell objects to Instruction Nos. 5, 8, 9, 12, 17 to the extent they seek to
impose obligations to supply explanations for the presence or absence of such documents, to
specifically identify persons or documents, to provide information concerning who prepared
documents, the location of any copies of such documents, the identities and contact information
for persons who have custody or control of such documents, the reasons for inability to produce
portions of documents, and the “natural person in whose possession they were found,” beyond
the requirements of Rule 34. This Instruction improperly seeks to propound Interrogatories
pursuant to Rule 33.
18. Ms. Maxwell objects to Instructions No. 13 on the grounds that it is unduly
burdensome and is intended for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell.
Ms. Maxwell cannot possibly recall the specific circumstances upon which a document dating
back 16 years has ceased to exist.
19. Ms. Maxwell objects to Instruction No. 15 to the extent that it calls for documents
or information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or any other
applicable privilege.
20. Ms. Maxwell objects to Instruction Nos. 18 & 19 to the extent they require
information on any privilege log above and beyond the requirements of Local Civil Rule 26.2.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 25
 4
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 1
Produce all documents that Your attorneys reviewed and/or relied upon in the March 21,
2016, meet and confer discussion when Mr. Pagliuca stated that (1) Plaintiff made false
allegations concerning her sexual assault; (2) she made them in roughly the same time frame that
Plaintiff was abused by Jeffrey Epstein; (3) that the allegations were made against a number of
individuals in the area; and (4) that the allegations were found to be unfounded by local police.
RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell has no knowledge of any statements made by Mr. Pagliuca
during the March 21, 2016 meet and confer and hence has no documents responsive to this
Request. Further, this Request inaccurately characterizes the statements of Ms. Maxwell’s
counsel during the March 16, 2016 meet and confer.
Ms. 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.
Ms. Maxwell also objects to this Request to the extent it calls for information relating to
Virginia Roberts Giuffre that exists within the public domain, the internet or in public court
records and which are equally available to both parties and can be obtained from some other
source that is more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive. Subject to and without
waiver of the foregoing, Defendant refers to the public documents and news reports regarding
Plaintiff’s allegations of sexual abuse and investigation of the same, which have been previously
produced, are available in the public domain, or referenced in court papers. Defendant also
refers Plaintiff to documents within the possession, custody and control of Plaintiff and her
counsel, including without limitation Mr. Bradley Edwards, which were requested in
Defendant’s First Set of Discovery Requests, but were not produced despite certification of
Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel that such Responses were truthful and complete.
Without waiver of any such objections, Ms. Maxwell has made available documents
related to some of Ms. Giuffre’s false allegations of sexual assaults in her Second Supplemental
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) disclosures.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 2
Produce all documents concerning how any such police report, or how any such
recounting, retelling, summary, or description of any such police report (as referenced in
Interrogatory No. 1), came into Your possession. This request includes, but is not limited to, all
documents concerning how, when, and by whom such reports (or descriptions of reports) were
obtained from a minor child’s sealed juvenile records and files.
RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request in that there is no “Interrogatory No.
1” to which the Request corresponds. She further objects to the Request in that it improperly
seeks to propound an Interrogatory in the form of a Request for Production of Documents and is
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 25
 5
a contention Interrogatory barred according to Plaintiff’s interpretation of the Local Rules. The
Request embeds a number of assumptions that are not true and for which Plaintiff supplies no
basis for assertion of their veracity.
Ms. Maxwell likewise objects to this Request because it seeks documents or information
protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common interest
privilege or any other applicable privilege.
Finally, Ms. Maxwell also objects to this Request to the extent it calls for information
relating to Virginia Roberts Giuffre that exists within the public domain, the internet or in public
court records and which are equally available to both parties and can be obtained from some
other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive. Defendant refers to
the public documents and news reports regarding Plaintiff’s allegations of sexual abuse and
investigation of the same, which have been previously produced, are available in the public
domain, or referenced in court papers. Defendant also refers Plaintiff to documents within the
possession, custody and control of Plaintiff and her counsel, including without limitation Mr.
Bradley Edwards, which were requested in Defendant’s First Set of Discovery Requests, but
were not produced despite certification of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel that such Responses
were truthful and complete.
Without waiver of any such objections, Ms. Maxwell has made available documents
related to some of Ms. Giuffre’s false allegations of sexual assaults in her Second Supplemental
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) disclosures. Ms. Maxwell is withholding documents responsive to
this request on the basis of the attorney-client and work product privileges.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 3
Produce all documents concerning how information or knowledge of the local police’s
findings or opinions concerning Ms. Giuffre’s allegations of sexual assault as a minor child came
into Your possession, including but not limited to documents concerning any statements made by
law enforcement or any state attorney, written or oral, concerning such allegations.
RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell 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.
Ms. Maxwell also objects to this Request to the extent it calls for information relating to
Virginia Roberts Giuffre that exists within the public domain, the internet or in public court
records and which are equally available to both parties and can be obtained from some other
source that is more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive. Subject to and without
waiver of the foregoing, Defendant refers to the public documents and news reports regarding
Plaintiff’s allegations of sexual abuse and investigation of the same, which have been previously
produced, are available in the public domain, or referenced in court papers. Defendant also
refers Plaintiff to documents within the possession, custody and control of Plaintiff and her
counsel, including without limitation Mr. Bradley Edwards, which were requested in
Defendant’s First Set of Discovery Requests, but were not produced despite certification of
Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel that such Responses were truthful and complete.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 25
 6
Without waiver of any such objections, Ms. Maxwell has made available documents
related to some of Ms. Giuffre’s false allegations of sexual assaults in her Second Supplemental
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) disclosures. Ms. Maxwell is withholding documents responsive to
this request on the basis of the attorney-client and work product privileges.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 4
Produce all documents concerning any investigations, internal or otherwise, by any law
enforcement or governmental agency, regarding the illegal disclosure, illegal purchase, and/or
theft of sealed juvenile police records concerning Plaintiff.
RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell 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. Ms. Maxwell also objects to this Request to
the extent it calls information relating to Virginia Roberts Giuffre that exists within the public
domain, the internet or in public court records and which are equally available to both parties and
can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, and less
expensive. Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it characterizes the gathering of
public information as “illegal.”
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing, Defendant has been unable to locate any
documents responsive to this Request.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 5
Produce all documents concerning any rape, sexual assault, sexual intercourse, or other
sexual encounter involving Plaintiff. This Request includes, but is not limited to, (1) any
documents concerning any sexual assault of Plaintiff while a minor; (2) any police reports, or
documents concerning any police reports, that were created concerning such claims of sexual
assault; and (3) documents concerning any communications received by You (or Your agents
or attorneys) by other individuals that reference any sexual assault of Plaintiff while a minor.
RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell 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.
Ms. Maxwell also objects to this Request to the extent it calls for information relating to
Virginia Roberts Giuffre that exists within the public domain, the internet or in public court
records and which are equally available to both parties and can be obtained from some other
source that is more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive. Subject to and without
waiver of the foregoing, Defendant refers to the public documents and news reports regarding
Plaintiff’s false allegations of sexual abuse and investigation of the same, which have been
previously produced, are available in the public domain, or referenced in court papers.
Defendant also refers Plaintiff to documents within the possession, custody and control of
Plaintiff and her counsel, including without limitation Mr. Bradley Edwards, which were
requested in Defendant’s First Set of Discovery Requests, but were not produced despite
certification of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel that such Responses were truthful and complete.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 25
 7
Defendant objects to the characterization of Plaintiff’s documented false claims of sexual contact
as “rape” or “sexual assault.”
Without waiver of any such objections, Ms. Maxwell has made available documents
related to some of Ms. Giuffre’s false allegations of sexual assault in her Second Supplemental
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) disclosures.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 6
Produce any Joint Defense Agreement entered into between You and Jeffrey Epstein
from 1999 to the present.
RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell 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. Defendant is withholding production of any
such agreement on the basis of such privileges.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 7
Produce any documents concerning any Joint Defense Agreement entered into between
You and Jeffrey Epstein from 1999 to the present.
RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell 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. Defendant is withholding documents on the
basis of such privileges.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 8
Produce any documents concerning any of Your, or Your attorneys or agent’s,
communications with Jeffrey Epstein’s attorneys or agents from 1999 to the present relating to
the issue of sexual abuse of females, or any documents concerning any of Your, Your attorneys
or agent’s, communications with Jeffrey Epstein’s attorneys or agents from 1999 to the present
relating to the recruitment of any female under the age of 18 for any purpose, including
socializing or performing any type of work or services.
RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is cumulative
and duplicative. Ms. Maxwell has already produced documents related to her communications
with Jeffrey Epstein in response to Plaintiff’s First Requests for Production of Documents, all of
which document her denial that she did “recruit[] any female under the age of 18 for any
purpose.”
Ms. Maxwell also 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. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing,
Defendant has been unable to locate any additional documents responsive to this Request.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 25
 8
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 9
Produce any Joint Defense Agreement entered into between You and Alan Dershowitz
from 1999 to the present.
RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell 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. Subject to and without waiver of the
foregoing, Defendant has been unable to locate any documents responsive to this Request.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 10
Produce any documents concerning any Joint Defense Agreement entered into between
You and Alan Dershowitz from 1999 to the present.
RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell 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. Subject to and without waiver of the
foregoing, Defendant has been unable to locate any documents responsive to this Request.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 11
Produce any documents concerning any of Your attorneys’ or agents’ communications
with Alan Dershowitz’s attorneys or agents from 1999 to the present
RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell 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. Defendant is withholding communications
between Mr. Dershowitz’s counsel and Defendant’s counsel which contain work product and
concern joint defense or common interest matters.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 12
Produce all documents concerning Virginia Giuffre (a/k/a Virginia Roberts), whether or
not they reference her by name. This request includes, but is not limited to, all communications,
diaries, journals, calendars, blog posts (whether published or not), notes (handwritten or not),
memoranda, mobile phone agreements, wire transfer receipts, or any other document that
concerns Plaintiff in any way, whether or not they reference her by name.
RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request as overly broad, unduly burdensome
and interposed for improper purposes. Response to this Request would literally entail defense
counsel reviewing for privilege every single document in their possession related to this case.
Ms. Maxwell further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is cumulative and
duplicative. Ms. Maxwell further objects to this request as exceeding the scope of this Court’s
March 17, 2016 Order. Ms. Maxwell also objects to this Request to the extent it calls for
information relating to Virginia Roberts Giuffre that exists within the public domain, the internet
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 25
 9
or in public court records and which are equally available to both parties and can be obtained
from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive. Ms.
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. Subject to the foregoing objections, Ms. Maxwell and her counsel are
not going to review every document in their possession for any additional documents responsive
to this Request.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 13
Produce all contracts, including but not limited to indemnification agreements and
employment agreements, between You and Jeffrey Epstein, or any entity associated with Jeffrey
Epstein, from 1999 to the present.
RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is cumulative
and duplicative and is overly broad. Ms. 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. Subject to and without
waiver of the foregoing, Defendant has been unable to locate any such documents.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 14
Produce all documents concerning any contracts, including but not limited to
indemnification agreements and employment agreements, between You and Jeffrey Epstein, or
any entity associated with Jeffrey Epstein, from 1999 to the present.
RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is cumulative
and duplicative and is overly broad. Ms. 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. Subject to and without
waiver of the foregoing, Defendant has been unable to locate any such documents.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 15
Produce all documents concerning the identity or identities of the individual(s) or entities
paying Your legal fees concerning the above-captioned action, and all documents concerning the
identity or identities of the individual(s) or entities paying Ross Gow, or any entities associated
with Ross Gow, for any work he performed on Your behalf.
RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks multiple
categories of documents within a single request for production. Ms. 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. Ms. Maxwell is producing her engagement letter with her counsel in this action.
Defendant has been unable to locate any additional documents responsive to this Request.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 25
 10
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 16
Produce all documents concerning any action or lawsuit brought against You from 1999
to the present, including, but not limited to, actions or lawsuits brought in foreign jurisdictions.
RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is over-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. Ms.
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.
Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Ms. Maxwell has been unable to locate any
documents responsive to this Request.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 17
Produce all documents concerning any statement made by You or on Your behalf to the
press or any other group or individual, including draft statements, concerning Ms. Giuffre, by
You, Ross Gow, or any other individual, from 2005 to the present, including the dates of any
publications, and if published online, the Uniform Resource Identifier (URL) address.
RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is cumulative
and duplicative. Ms. Maxwell also objects to this Request to the extent it calls for information
that exists within the public domain, the internet or in public court records and which are
equally available to both parties and can be obtained from some other source that is more
convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive. Ms. 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. Ms. Maxwell is not producing
documents that are available in the public domain. Ms. Maxwell has been unable to locate any
additional documents responsive to this Request.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 18
Produce all documents concerning which individuals or entities You or Your agents
distributed or sent any statements concerning Ms. Giuffre referenced in Request No. 18 made by
You or on Your behalf.
RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is cumulative
and duplicative. Ms. Maxwell also objects to this Request to the extent it calls for information
that exists within the public domain, the internet or in public court records and which are
equally available to both parties and can be obtained from some other source that is more
convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive. Ms. 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. Ms. Maxwell is not producing
documents that are available in the public domain. Ms. Maxwell has been unable to locate any
additional documents responsive to this Request.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 25
 11
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 19 Produce all documents concerning any alleged illegal
activity involving Plaintiff from the Relevant Period. This request includes, but is not limited to,
any documents concerning the Roadhouse Grill in Florida.
 RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request as vague and confusing. Ms. Maxwell
is unaware of all illegal activities in which Plaintiff may have been engaged in during the stated
time period, and documents concerning those activities are uniquely within Plaintiff’s
possession, custody and control.
Ms. 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.
Ms. Maxwell also objects to this Request to the extent it calls for information relating to
Virginia Roberts Giuffre that exists within the public domain, the internet or in public court
records and which are equally available to both parties and can be obtained from some other
source that is more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive. Subject to and without
waiver of the foregoing, Defendant refers to the public documents and news reports regarding
Plaintiff’s allegations of sexual abuse and investigation of the same, which have been previously
produced, are available in the public domain, or referenced in court papers. Defendant also
refers Plaintiff to documents within the possession, custody and control of Plaintiff and her
counsel, including without limitation Mr. Bradley Edwards, which were requested in
Defendant’s First Set of Discovery Requests, but were not produced despite certification of
Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel that such Responses were truthful and complete.
Without waiver of any such objections, Ms. Maxwell has made available documents
related to some of Ms. Giuffre’s contacts with law enforcement in her Second Supplemental Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) disclosures.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 20
Produce all documents concerning any apartment or other dwelling occupied by Plaintiff
from 1999 to the present, including but not limited to, all documents concerning the acquisition
of, and payment for, such dwellings. This Request includes, but is not limited to, any dwelling
paid for -in whole or in part by Defendant or Jeffrey Epstein.
RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request to the extent it calls for information
that exists within the public domain, the internet or in public court records and which are equally
available to both parties and can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient,
less burdensome, and less expensive. Ms. Maxwell is not producing documents that are available
in the public domain. Ms. Maxwell is not re-producing documents already produced by her and
produced by Plaintiff in this action, for example, in response to Defendant’s First Set of
Discovery Requests to Plaintiff which requested inter alia documents related to Plaintiff’s
residences since 1999.
Without waiver of any such objections, Ms. Maxwell has made available documents
related to some of Ms. Giuffre’s dwellings in her Second Supplemental Fed. R. Civ. P.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 25
 12
26(a)(1)(A) disclosures. Ms. Maxwell has been unable to locate any additional documents
responsive to this Request.
DOCUMENT REQUESTS “CONCERNING PUNITIVE DAMAGES”
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 21
Produce all copies of the complaints in any lawsuits that You have filed in any court in
which You seek damages or any other financial recovery from 2014 to the present.
RESPONSE: Ms. 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. Ms.
Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of
annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at
issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant.
Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial
information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of
“Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved.
Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this
Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions.
Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will
Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 22
Produce all Financial Statements prepared for or submitted to any Lender or Investor for
the past three years by You personally or on Your behalf or on behalf of any entity in which You
hold or held a controlling interest from January 2015 to the Present.
RESPONSE: Ms. 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. Ms.
Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of
annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at
issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant.
Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial
information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of
“Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved.
Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this
Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions.
Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 25
 13
Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 23
Produce all W-2s, K-1s, and any other documents reflecting any income (including
salary, bonuses, dividends, profit distributions, royalties, advances, annuities, and any other form
of income), including all gross and net revenue received by You directly or indirectly from
January 2015 to the present.
RESPONSE: Ms. 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. Ms.
Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of
annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at
issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant.
Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial
information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of
“Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved.
Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this
Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions.
Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will
Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 24
Produce all tax returns filed with any taxing entity (either foreign or domestic) from
January 2015 to the present by You or on Your behalf, or on behalf of any entity in which You
hold or held a controlling interest at the time of filing.
RESPONSE: Ms. 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. Ms.
Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of
annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at
issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant.
Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial
information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of
“Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved.
Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this
Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions.
Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will
Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 25
 14
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 25
Produce all bank statements or other financial statements which were prepared by You,
on Your behalf or by or on behalf of any entity in which You held an ownership interest of 10%
or more at any time from January 2015 to the present.
RESPONSE: Ms. 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. Ms.
Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of
annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at
issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant.
Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial
information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of
“Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved.
Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this
Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions.
Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will
Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 26
Produce all deeds and titles to all real property owned by You or held on Your behalf
either directly or indirectly at any time from January 2015 to the present.
RESPONSE: Ms. 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. Ms.
Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of
annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at
issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant.
Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial
information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of
“Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved.
Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this
Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions.
Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will
Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 27
Produce all passbooks (or other documents showing account balances) with respect to all
savings accounts, checking accounts, and savings and loan association share accounts owned by
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 25
 15
You or on which You hold a right or have held a right to withdraw funds at any time from
January 2015 to the present.
RESPONSE: Ms. 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. Ms.
Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of
annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at
issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant.
Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial
information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of
“Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved.
Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this
Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions.
Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will
Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 28
Produce all passbooks (or other documents showing account balances) with respect to all
savings accounts, checking accounts and savings loan association share accounts, owned by You
in whole or in party jointly as co-owner, partner, or joint venture, in any business enterprise, or
owned by an entity in which You have or have had a controlling interest at any time from
January 2015 to the present.
RESPONSE: Ms. 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. Ms.
Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of
annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at
issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant.
Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial
information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of
“Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved.
Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this
Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions.
Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will
Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 29
Produce all bank ledger sheets (from the internet or otherwise) concerning all bank
accounts in which You have a right to withdraw funds, reflecting the highest balance in said
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 25
 16
accounts from January 2015 to the present. .
RESPONSE: Ms. 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. Ms.
Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of
annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at
issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant.
Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial
information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of
“Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved.
Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this
Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions.
Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will
Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 30
Produce all bank ledger sheets (from the internet or otherwise) concerning all bank
accounts owned by You solely, or jointly as co-owner, partner, or joint venture, in any business
enterprise, or any entity in which You have or have had a controlling interest from January 2015
to the present, reflecting het highest balance in said accounts for each month from January 2015
to the present.
RESPONSE: Ms. 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. Ms.
Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of
annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at
issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant.
Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial
information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of
“Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved.
Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this
Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions.
Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will
Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 31
Produce all checkbooks for all accounts on which You were authorized to withdraw
funds from January 2015 to the present.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 25
 17
RESPONSE: Ms. 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. Ms.
Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of
annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at
issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant.
Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial
information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of
“Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved.
Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this
Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions.
Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will
Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 32
Produce the 2015 and 2016 balance sheets and other financial statements with respect to
any and all business enterprises of whatever nature (including not-for-profit enterprises), either
foreign or domestic, in which You possess any ownership interest of 10% or more, whether a
partner, joint venture, stockholder, or otherwise.
RESPONSE: Ms. 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. Ms.
Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of
annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at
issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant.
Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial
information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of
“Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved.
Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this
Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions.
Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will
Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 33
Produce all corporate securities (stocks or bonds), foreign or domestic, directly or
indirectly held by You, or held on Your behalf or for Your benefit by another individual or
entity, including trusts from January 2015 to the Present.
RESPONSE: Ms. 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
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 25
 18
action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms.
Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of
annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at
issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant.
Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial
information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of
“Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved.
Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this
Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions.
Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will
Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 34
Produce all accounts receivable ledgers or other records which set forth the names and
addresses of all persons or business enterprises that are indebted to You and the amounts and
terms of such indebtedness from August 2016 to the Present.
RESPONSE: Ms. 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. Ms.
Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of
annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at
issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant.
Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial
information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of
“Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved.
Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this
Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions.
Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will
Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 35
Produce all copies of the partnership or corporation Income Tax Returns for any
partnership or corporation, either foreign or domestic, in which You do possess or have
possessed any ownership interest of 4% or more whether as partner, joint venture, stockholder or
otherwise, from 2014 to the present.
RESPONSE: Ms. 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. Ms.
Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 25
 19
annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at
issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant.
Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial
information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of
“Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved.
Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this
Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions.
Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will
Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 36
Produce all title certificates, registration certificates, bills of sale, and other evidences of
ownership possessed by You or held for Your beneficial interest with respect to any of the
following described property owned by You or held directly or indirectly for Your beneficial
interest from January 2015 to the present:
a. Motor vehicles of any type, including trucks, other automobiles, and two or three-wheeled
vehicles (motorcycles, ATV, etc.).
b. Aircraft of any type, including jets, propeller planes, and helicopters
c. Boats, launches, cruisers, sailboats, or other vessels of any type
d. Real estate and real property
RESPONSE: Ms. 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. Ms.
Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of
annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at
issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant.
Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial
information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of
“Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved.
Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this
Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions.
Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will
Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 37
From January 2012 to the present, produce all documents concerning any source of
funding for the TarraMar Project or any other not-for-profit entities with which You are
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 25
 20
associated, including but not limited to, funding received from the Clinton Global Initiative, the
Clinton Foundation (a/k/a William J. Clinton Foundation, a/k/a/ the Bill, Hilary & Chelsea
Clinton Foundation), and the Clinton Foundation Climate Change Initiative.
RESPONSE: Ms. 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. Ms.
Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of
annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at
issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant.
Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial
information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of
“Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved.
Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this
Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions.
Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will
Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 38
Produce all memoranda and/or bills evidencing the amount and terms of all of Your
current debts and obligations that exist presently.
RESPONSE: Ms. 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. Ms.
Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of
annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at
issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant.
Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial
information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of
“Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved.
Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this
Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions.
Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will
Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 39
Produce all records indicating any and all income (whether taxable or not) received
by You from all sources from January 2015 to the present.
RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 25
 21
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. Ms.
Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of
annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at
issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant.
Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial
information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of
“Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved.
Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this
Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions.
Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will
Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 40
Produce all copies of any and all brokerage account statements or securities owned by
You individually, jointly with any person or entity or as trustee, guardian or custodian, from
January 2015 to the present, including in such records date of purchase and amounts paid for
such securities, and certificates of any such securities.
RESPONSE: Ms. 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. Ms.
Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of
annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at
issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant.
Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial
information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of
“Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved.
Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this
Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions.
Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will
Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 41
Produce all records pertaining to the acquisition, transfer and sale of all securities by You
or on Your behalf from January 2015 to the present, such records to include any and all
information relative to gains or losses realized from transactions involving such securities.
RESPONSE: Ms. 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. Ms.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 25
 22
Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of
annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at
issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant.
Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial
information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of
“Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved.
Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this
Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions.
Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will
Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 42
Produce all policies of insurance having any cash value that exist or existed from January
2015 to the present, which policies You or any entity controlled by You is the owner or
beneficiary.
RESPONSE: Ms. 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. Ms.
Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of
annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at
issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant.
Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial
information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of
“Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved.
Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this
Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions.
Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will
Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral.
UN-NUMBERED REQUEST
Produce all copies of any and all trust agreements that exist or existed from January 2015
to the present in which You are the settlor or beneficiary together with such documents necessary
and sufficient to identify the nature and current value of the trust.
RESPONSE: Ms. 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. Ms.
Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of
annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at
issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 25
 23
Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial
information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of
“Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved.
Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this
Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions.
Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will
Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral.
Dated: May 16, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
s/Laura A.Menninger
Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice)
HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: 303.831.7364
Fax: 303.832.2628
[email protected]
Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 25
 24
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on May 16, 2016, I served the attached document DEFENDANT
GHISLAINE MAXWELL’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS via email to the following counsel of
record:
Sigrid S. McCawley
Meridith Schultz
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
[email protected]
[email protected]
Paul G. Cassell
383 S. University Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
[email protected]
Bradley J. Edwards
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS,
FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
[email protected]
s/ Laura A. Menninger
Laura A. Menninger
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 25 of 25
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Virginia L. Giuffre,
Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
v.
Ghislaine Maxwell,
 Defendant.
________________________________/
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS
AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT MATERIALS
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
Meredith Schultz (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
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 40
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................................... i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES....................................................................................................................... iii
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1
FACTUAL BACKGROUND....................................................................................................................... 2
The CVRA Case ........................................................................................................................................... 2
The Dershowitz case........................................................................................................................ 4
The Florida Court Rejects a Waiver of Attorney Clients Privilege Argument................................ 5
Ms. Giuffre’s Deposition in the Defamation Case........................................................................... 7
The Settlement of the Defamation Case .......................................................................................... 7
LEGAL STANDARDS FOR WAIVER....................................................................................................... 8
A. Federal Rule of Evidence 502 Controls on the Issue of Waiver................................................. 8
B. Florida Law................................................................................................................................. 9
C. Federal Law.............................................................................................................................. 11
DISCUSSION............................................................................................................................................. 14
I. MS. GIUFFRE DID NOT WAIVE HER ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
WHEN EDWARDS AND CASSELL FILED AND PURSUED THEIR OWN
DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST ALAN DERSHOWITZ............................................... 14
A. The Florida Court Presiding over the Defamation Action Has Already Rejected the
Same Waiver Claim that Defendant is Advancing Here................................................. 14
B. Actions by Cassell and Edwards Do Not Waive Ms. Giuffre’s Attorney-Client
Privilege. ......................................................................................................................... 18
C. Ms. Giuffre’s Confidential Communications With Her Attorneys Were Never “At
Issue” in the Florida Dershowitz Litigation. ................................................................... 19
D. Defendant Has Not Met the Other Requirements for Showing Waiver of AttorneyClient Privilege................................................................................................................ 21
E. Ms. Giuffre Will Not Seek to Use Confidential Attorney-Client Communications
in her Action Here........................................................................................................... 23
II. MS. GIUFFRE DID NOT WAIVE HER ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE BY
DENYING FABRICATED EVICENCE DURING HER DEPOSITION................................ 25
III.EDWARDS AND CASSELL HAVE NOT WAIVED WORK-PRODUCT
PROTECTION AND MAXWELL HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED NEED TO
PENETRATE THE PROTECTION. ........................................................................................ 27
A. Work Product Protection Has Not Been Waived............................................................ 27
B. Defendant Has Not Proven “Need” to Penetrate Work-Product Protection.................... 29
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 40
ii
IV.COMMUNICATIONS WITH ATTORNEY JACK SCAROLA ARE COVERED BY A
JOINT DEFENSE AGREEMENT AND ARE THUS PROTECTED BY ATTORNEYCLIENT AND WORK-PRODUCTION PROTECTION......................................................... 31
CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................................... 31
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 40
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Allen v. West Point-Pepperell, Inc.,
848 F.Supp. 423 (S.D.N.Y.1994)............................................................................................................ 13
Allied Irish Banks v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
240 F.R.D. 96 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) .............................................................................................................. 12
Am. Re-Ins. Co. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co.,
40 A.D.3d 486, 837 N.Y.S.2d 616 (2007) .............................................................................................. 22
Aristocrat Leisure Ltd. v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas,
No. 04 CIV 10014 PKL,
2009 WL 3111766 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2009)........................................................................................ 14
Bank Brussels Lambert v. Credit Lyonnais (Suisse), S.A.,
210 F.R.D. 506 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) ................................................................................................ 10, 13, 14
Brookings v. State,
495 So.2d 135 (Fla. 1986)....................................................................................................................... 23
Bus. Integration Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Corp.,
No. 06 CIV. 1863 (JGK), 2008 WL 318343 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2008) ................................................... 18
Butler v. Harter,
152 So.3d 705 (Fla. 1st DCA, 2014)....................................................................................................... 30
Charter One Bank, F.S.B. v. Midtown Rochester, L.L.C.,
191 Misc. 2d 154, 738 N.Y.S.2d 179 (Sup. Ct. 2002)............................................................................ 28
Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A.,
940 So.2d 504 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2006).......................................................................................... 11, 12, 20
Columbia Hosp. Corp. of S. Broward v. Fain,
16 So.3d 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)......................................................................................................... 31
Connell v. Bernstein-Macaulay, Inc.,
407 F.Supp. 420 (S.D.N.Y.1976)............................................................................................................ 13
Coyne v. Schwartz, Gold, Cohen, Zakarin & Kotler, P.A.,
715 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) ...................................................................................................... 21
CSX Transp., Inc. v. Carpenter,
725 So.2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) ........................................................................................................ 30
Delap v. State,
440 So.2d 1242 (Fla. 1983)..................................................................................................................... 22
Diaz–Verson v. Walbridge Aldinger Co.,
54 So.3d 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ........................................................................................................ 20
Dillenbeck v. Hess,
73 N.Y.2d 278, 290, 536 N.E.2d 1126 (N.Y. 1989)............................................................................... 14
Does 1 and 2 v. United States,
817 F.Supp.2d 1337 (S.D. Fla. 2011) ....................................................................................................... 2
Does v. United States,
749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014).................................................................................................................... 3
Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Gellert,
431 So.2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) ........................................................................................................ 28
Elliott Associates, L.P. v. Banco de la Nacion,
194 F.3d 363 (2d Cir. 1999).................................................................................................................... 18
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 40
iv
Falco v. N. Shore Labs. Corp.,
866 So.2d 1255 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)...................................................................................................... 31
Ferreira v. Capitol Specialty Ins. Corp.,
31 Misc. 3d 1209(A),
929 N.Y.S.2d 199 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011) ................................................................................................. 14
First Union National Bank v. Turney,
824 So.2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)........................................................................................................ 10
Ford Motor Co. v. Hall-Edwards,
997 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) ...................................................................................................... 10
Genovese v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co.,
74 So.3d 1064 (Fla. 2011)........................................................................................................... 12, 20, 29
Giuffre v. Maxwell, DE 135, 2016 WL 175918 ................................................................................... 12, 32
Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. Blondis,
412 F.Supp. 286 (N.D.Ill.1976).............................................................................................................. 28
Guarantee Ins. Co. v. Heffernan Ins. Brokers, Inc.,
300 F.R.D. 590 (S.D. Fla. 2014)................................................................................................. 10, 11, 21
GUS Consulting GMBH v. Chadbourne & Parke LLP,
20 Misc. 3d 539, 858 N.Y.S.2d 591 (Sup. Ct. 2008).............................................................................. 32
Hagans v. Gatorland Kubota, LLC/Sentry Ins.,
45 So.3d 73 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) ............................................................................................................ 10
Hearn v. Rhay,
68 F.R.D. 574 (E.D. Wash. 1975)............................................................................................... 10, 13, 16
HSH Nordbank AG New York Branch v. Swerdlow,
259 F.R.D. 64 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) .............................................................................................................. 26
In re Bank of New York Mellon Corp. Forex Transactions Litig.,
66 F. Supp. 3d 406 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)....................................................................................................... 14
In re Bank of New York Mellon,
42 Misc. 3d 171, 177, 977 N.Y.S.2d 560 (Sup. Ct. 2013)...................................................................... 14
In re Cnty. of Erie,
546 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2008)........................................................................................................ 12, 13, 25
In re von Bulow,
828 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1987)................................................................................................................ 14, 23
Jane Doe 1 v. United States,
No. 9:08-cv-80736 (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2008).............................................................................................. 2
Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States,
950 F.Supp.2d 1262 (S.D. Fla. 2013) ....................................................................................................... 3
Jenney v. Airdata Wiman, Inc.,
846 So.2d 664 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) ........................................................................................................ 22
Jenney v. Airdata Wiman, Inc.,
846 So.2d 664 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2003)...................................................................................................... 11
Koon v. State,
463 So.2d 201 (Fla. 1985)................................................................................................................. 19, 22
Lynch v. State,
2 So.3d 47 (Fla. 2008)............................................................................................................................. 23
McCullough v. Kubiak,
158 So. 3d 739 (Fla. 4th DCA, 2015) ...................................................................................................... 22
McWatters v. State,
36 So.3d 613 (Fla. 2010)......................................................................................................................... 12
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 40
v
Mitchell v. Superior Court,
37 Cal. 3d 591, 691 P.2d 642 (Cal. 1984)............................................................................................... 26
Montana v. United States,
440 U.S. 147 (1979)................................................................................................................................17
Montanez v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.,
135 So. 3d 510 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014) .............................................................................................. 26
N. Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Button,
592 So.2d 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)....................................................................................................... 31
Niesig v. Team I,
76 N.Y.2d 363, 558 N.E.2d 1030 (1990)................................................................................................ 23
Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP,
62 A.D.3d 581, 880 N.Y.S.2d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)..................................................................... 25
O'Brien v. Fed. Trust Bank, F.S.B.,
727 So. 2d 296 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999) .............................................................................................. 17
Paradise Divers, Inc. v. Upmal,
943 So. 2d 812 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) ........................................................................................ 28, 29
Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. Shore,
439 U.S. 322 (1979)................................................................................................................................17
Pereira v. United Jersey Bank,
Nos. 94 Civ 1565 & 94 Civ 1844, 1997 WL 773716 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.11, 1997)..................................... 13
Perrignon v. Bergen Brunswig Corp.,
77 F.R.D. 455 (N.D. Cal.1978)............................................................................................................... 28
Procacci v. Seitlin,
497 So. 2d 969 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986) .............................................................................................. 28
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Swilley,
462 So.2d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)...................................................................................................... 30
Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc. v. Home Indem. Co.,
32 F.3d 851 (3d Cir.1994)....................................................................................................................... 13
Rhone–Poulenc Rorer, Inc. v. Home Indemnity Co.,
32 F.3d 851 (3d Cir. 1994)...................................................................................................................... 11
Rogers v. State,
742 So.2d 827 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) ........................................................................................................ 12
Rousso v. Hannon,
146 So.3d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).......................................................................................................... 10
Savino v. Luciano,
92 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1957)................................................................................................................... 12, 20
Schetter v. Schetter,
239 So.2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970) .......................................................................................................... 18
Schnell v. Schnall,
550 F. Supp. 650 (S.D.N.Y.1982)........................................................................................................... 19
Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Deason,
632 So.2d 1377 (Fla.1994)...................................................................................................................... 30
State v. T.A.,
528 So.2d 974 (Fla. 2d DCA, 1988) ....................................................................................................... 30
Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette,
236 So.2d 108 (Fla. 1970)....................................................................................................................... 28
Swidler & Berlin v. United States,
524 U.S. 399 (1998)..................................................................................................................................8
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 40
vi
Taylor v. State,
855 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2003)........................................................................................................................... 22
Ulico Cas. Co. v. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker,
1 A.D.3d 223, 767 N.Y.S.2d 228 (2003) ................................................................................................ 26
Universal City Development Partners, Ltd. v. Pupillo,
54 So.3d 612, 614 (Fla. 5th DCA, 2011) ........................................................................................... 28, 31
West Bend Mutual Ins. Co. v. Higgins,
9 So.3d 655 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) ........................................................................................................... 29
Zirkelbach Const. Inc. v. Rajan,
93 So.3d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) ........................................................................................................ 30
Zois v. Cooper,
268 B.R. 890 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)................................................................................................................ 17
Statutes
18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(9)..................................................................................................................................3
Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771............................................................................... 2
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502 .............................................................................................................................. 26
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(1)(c) ....................................................................................................................... 9
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(2).................................................................................................................... 11, 22
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(3).......................................................................................................................... 11
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(4).......................................................................................................................... 26
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.507 .............................................................................................................................. 12
N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 4503(a) ............................................................................................................................. 14
Pub. L. 114-22, Title I, § 113(a), (c)(1), May 29, 2015, 129 Stat. 240......................................................... 3

Rules
Fed. R. Evid. 502(c)................................................................................................................................ 9, 18
Fed. R. Evid. 502(c)(1)............................................................................................................................... 27
Fed. R. Evid. 502(c)(2)............................................................................................................................... 27
Fed. R. Evid. 502 ................................................................................................................................ 1, 8, 27
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(3) .......................................................................................................................... 27
Treatises
Charles W. Ehrhardt, 1 Fla. Prac., Evidence § 502.6 (2015 ed.) ................................................................ 18
Paul G. Cassell, Nathanael J. Mitchell & Bradley J. Edwards,
Crime Victims’ Rights During Criminal Investigations? Applying the Crime
Victims’ Rights Act before Criminal Charges are Filed, 104 J. CRIM. L. &
CRIMINOLOGY 59 (2014).......................................................................................................................... 2

Other Authorities
N.Y. C.P.L.R. 4503 (McKinney)................................................................................................................ 19
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 40
1
 Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this
response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel All Attorney-Client Communications and Attorney
Work Product Placed at Issue by Plaintiff and Her Attorneys (DE 164). The motion should be
denied in its entirety.
INTRODUCTION
 Defendant argues Ms. Giuffre and two of her attorneys (Cassell and Edwards) have
somehow placed “at issue” her confidential attorney-client communications and therefore have
made a “sweeping waiver” of attorney-client privilege in this case. Defendant, however, fails to
cite the controlling law on this issue: Federal Rule of Evidence 502. Enacted in 2008, Rule 502
was designed to block exactly the kind of argument Defendant is making. Rule 502 provides
that litigants are entitled to the most protective law on attorney-client privilege, either state law
where the disclosure was made or federal law. The alleged disclosures in this case were made in
Florida, and under Florida law did not constitute any waiver of attorney-client privilege. Indeed,
Defendant does not reveal to the Court that the Florida judge who handled the case during which
the alleged “waivers” occurred (the Dershowitz case) has already considered – and rejected in
their entirety – the very arguments that Defendant is advancing here.
In addition, none of the alleged disclosures were made by Ms. Giuffre, who as the holder
of the privilege is the only individual with authority to waive it. Moreover, none of the alleged
disclosures concerned the substance of confidential attorney-client communications. And finally,
Ms. Giuffre will not be seeking to introduce or otherwise take advantage of any confidential
attorney-client communications in this case. Accordingly, for these and other reasons, the Court
should deny Defendant’s motion in its entirety.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 40
2
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The CVRA Case
 The facts relevant to this issue begin in 2008, when attorney Bradley J. Edwards (soon
joined by co-counsel Professor Paul Cassell) filed a pro bono action in the Southern District of
Florida under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. Filed on behalf of Jane
Doe 1 (and later Jane Doe 2) the CVRA action alleged that federal government had failed to
protect the rights of Jane Doe 1 and other similarly situated victims of sex offenses committed by
Jeffrey Epstein. See Declaration of Sigrid McCawley (“McCawley Decl.”) at Exhibit 1,
Complaint filed in Jane Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736 (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2008). Jane
Does 1 and 2 achieved many victories in the case, including a ruling that the CVRA rights of
victims could apply before charges were filed, Does 1 and 2 v. United States, 817 F.Supp.2d
1337 (S.D. Fla. 2011);1
 that they had standing to challenge the non-prosecution agreement
reached between the Government and Epstein, Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, 950
F.Supp.2d 1262 (S.D. Fla. 2013); and that plea negotiations were not protected from disclosure
by any federal rule of evidence, Does v. United States, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014). Congress
has also followed the developments in the case closely, recently amending the CVRA to insure
that in the future crime victims receive notice of any non-prosecution agreement entered into by
the Government. See Pub. L. 114-22, Title I, § 113(a), (c)(1), May 29, 2015, 129 Stat. 240, 241
(adding 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(9) to give crime victims “[t]he right to be informed in a timely
manner of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement).

1 See generally Paul G. Cassell, Nathanael J. Mitchell & Bradley J. Edwards, Crime Victims’ Rights During
Criminal Investigations? Applying the Crime Victims’ Rights Act before Criminal Charges are Filed, 104 J. CRIM.
L. & CRIMINOLOGY 59 (2014).
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 40
3
 On December 30, 2014, Cassell and Edwards filed a Motion Pursuant to Rule 21 for
Joinder in the Action on behalf two additional victims: Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4. (Jane Doe 3,
Virginia Giuffre, subsequently decided to reveal her name). The joinder motion argued that Jane
Does 3 and 4 should be allowed to join the two existing plaintiffs in the action because they had
suffered the same violations of their rights under the CVRA. McCawley Decl., Exhibit 2, Jane
Does’ 3 and 4 Joinder Motion.2
 To establish that they were “victims” of Epstein’s sex crimes
with standing to join the suit, Jane Does 3 and 4 alleged that they had suffered sexual abuse from
Epstein. For example, Jane Doe 3 alleged that she had been forced by Epstein to have sexual
relations with various persons, including Alan Dershowitz – who had been one of Epstein’s
defense attorneys negotiating the non-prosecution deal and arranging to keep it secret from the
victims. McCawley Decl., Exhibit 2 at 4. Jane Doe 3 also alleged that Defendant (i.e., Ghislaine
Maxwell) had participated in the sexual abuse of Jane Doe 3. Id. at 4-5.
 After Dershowitz also filed a motion to intervene to contest the allegations (DE 282),
Jane Doe 3 filed a response to Dershowitz’s intervention motion. McCawley Decl., Exhibit 3,
Response to Motion to Intervene.3
 The response explained that the allegations against
Dershowitz were relevant to at least eight separate issues in the CVRA case. Id. at 18-26. The
response also explained some of the evidence supporting the allegations against Dershowitz,
including:
x sworn testimony from one of Epstein’s household employees (Juan Alessi) that
Dershowitz came “pretty often” to Epstein’s Florida mansion and got massages
while he was there;

2
 The Joinder Motion attached as an exhibit is a “corrected” motion, filed on January 2, 2015. As discussed below,
several paragraphs in this motion were later stricken by Judge Marra.
3
 This document is currently restricted/under seal in the CVRA case, although an order sealing it is not found in the
Court record so far as can be determined. In light of the sealing of the document, we have marked aspects of this
pleading dealing with the document as confidential.
-
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 40
4
x sworn testimony from another of Epstein’s household employees (Alfredo
Rodriquez) that Dershowitz was present alone at the home of Epstein, without his
family, in the presence of young girls;
x invocations of Fifth Amendment rights to remain silent by three of Epstein’s
identified co-conspirators (Sarah Kellen, Nadia Marcinkova, and Adrianna
Mucinska) when asked questions about whether Dershowitz had been involved
with massages by young girls;
x refusals by Jeffrey Epstein to discuss Dershowitz’s involvement but instead to
invoke his Fifth Amendment right.
Id. at 26-38.
 Several months later, on April 7, 2015, the Court (Marra, J.) denied Jane Doe 3 and Jane
Doe 4’s motion for joinder. McCawley Decl., Exhibit. 4, Order denying Jane Doe 3’s motion to
join. With regard to the eight separate issues as to which the allegations against Dershowitz
were relevant, the Court addressed only the first (establishing “victim” status) and found that the
“factual details regarding with whom and where the Jane Does engaged in sexual activities are
immaterial and impertinent to this central claim (i.e., that they were known victims of Mr.
Epstein and the Government owed them CVRA duties), especially considering that these details
involve non-parties who are not related to the respondent Government.” Id. at 5.4
 Accordingly,
the Court struck the factual details from the victims’ pleading as unnecessary at that time. The
Court specifically recognized, however, that the details could be reasserted by the parties to the
action – i.e., Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 – if they could “demonstrate a good faith basis for
believing that such details are pertinent to a matter presented for the Court’s consideration.” Id.
at 6. Following the Court’s ruling, additional litigation has proceeded in the CVRA case.
The Dershowitz case

4
 In asserting that the non-parties were “not related to the respondent Government,” the Court did not address Jane
Doe 3’s argument that Dershowitz, as one of Epstein’s defense counsel, had helped negotiate the non-prosecution
agreement and helped to arrange to keep it secret from the victims.
-
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 40
5
 While the CVRA case was moving forward in the Southern District of Florida on behalf
of Jane Does 1 and 2, separate litigation developed between the pro bono attorneys who had filed
the lawsuit (Cassell and Edwards) and Dershowitz. After the filing of the joinder motion in the
CVRA case, Dershowitz took the airwaves to attack not only Jane Doe 3, but also Cassell and
Edwards. Typical of these attacks was one levelled on CNN, in which Dershowitz alleged:
If they [Cassell and Edwards] had just done an hours’ worth of research and work,
they would have seen she is lying through her teeth. . . . They’re prepared to lie,
cheat, and steal. These are unethical lawyers. . . . They can’t be allowed to have
a bar card to victimize more innocent people.
Hala Gorani – CNN Live (Jan. 5, 2015).5
 Cassell and Edwards then filed a state law defamation action against Dershowitz in
Broward County, Florida. See McCawley Decl., Exhibit. 5, Complaint in Edwards and Cassell
v. Dershowitz. The complaint alleged that Dershowitz had engaged in a “massive public media
assault on the reputation and character” of Cassell and Edwards. Id. at 4. Ms. Giuffre was not a
party to this defamation lawsuit.
The Florida Court Rejects a Waiver of Attorney Clients Privilege Argument
 As Cassell and Edwards’ Florida defamation action moved forward, Dershowitz sought
to make an argument that they had somehow waived their client’s (Ms. Giuffre’s) attorney-client
privilege. On September 8, 2015, Dershowitz filed a motion to compel Cassell and Edwards to
produce documents and additional responses to interrogatories. McCawley Decl., Exhibit. 6,
Motion to Compel. In his motion, Dershowitz argued that Cassell and Edwards “have waived
any privilege or protection that would otherwise attach to responsive documents and information

5
 Available at http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/01/05/wrn-uk-sex-abuse-allegations-alan-dershowitzintv.cnn.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 40
6
by bringing this defamation action placing at issue the truthfulness of Jane Doe No. 3’s
allegations against Dershowitz . . . .” Id. at 3-5. In his motion and reply pleading (McCawley
Decl., Exhibit 8, Reply in Support of Motion to Compel), Dershowitz argued that Cassell and
Edwards’ actions throughout the case constituted a waiver of attorney-client privilege.
 Cassell and Edwards responded, arguing that Ms. Giuffre was not a party of the
defamation action and that she was the only person who could waive her privilege. McCawley
Decl., Exhibit 7 at 4-6, Response in Opposition to Motion to Compel. Cassell and Edwards also
argued that there had been no waiver because confidential attorney-client communications with
Ms. Giuffre were not “at issue” in the defamation case. Id. at 6-9. Cassell and Edwards also
later filed a sur-reply, further elaborating on the argument that Ms. Giuffre had not waived any
attorney-client privilege by publicly discussing her sexual abuse by Epstein and his associates.
McCawley Decl., Exhibit 9, Sur-Reply in Support Opposition to Motion to Compel. Cassell and
Edwards also explained that communications with Ms. Giuffre were protected not only
beginning in March 2014, but even earlier than that date when Ms. Giuffre understood that she
was obtaining legal services from Cassell and Edwards. Id. at 1.
 Following this extensive briefing on waiver issues,6
 on December 8, 2015, the Florida
Court (Lynch, J.) ruled, denying Dershowitz’s argument that attorney-client privilege had been
waived. McCawley Decl., Exhibit 10, Order Denying Motion to Compel. Specifically, the Court
denied the motion to compel, explaining “Pre March 2014 communications are protected by the
work product privilege and the witness has not waived the communications that were protected
by the attorney-client privilege. Also, there was no waiver by the [Cassell and Edwards] by
filing suit.” Id. at 1.

6
 And following the filing of Cassell and Edwards’ summary judgment motion, filed on November 26, 2015.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 40
7
Ms. Giuffre’s Deposition in the Defamation Case
 As the defamation action moved forward, Dershowitz subpoenaed Ms. Giuffre to a
deposition. McCawley Decl., Exhibit 11, Composite Exhibit of excerpts from transcript of
deposition of Ms. Giuffre. During the deposition, held in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Ms. Giuffre
was represented by the undersigned legal counsel, who asserted objections to revealing attorneyclient information where the questions called for revealing confidential attorney client
communications. See, e.g., id. at 22-23; 131-32; 173-74; 183; 208. During the deposition, Ms.
Giuffre specifically stated that “I decide not to waive my [attorney-client] privilege at this time.”
Id. at 174. Ms. Giuffre also denied that Cassell and Edwards had ever pressured her into
identifying someone as being involved in her sexual abuse. Id. at 200-12
The Settlement of the Defamation Case
 Ultimately, Cassell, Edwards, and Dershowitz agreed to settle their defamation case.
That settlement included both a public statement and confidential monetary payments. As part
of the settlement, Cassell and Edwards withdrew their allegations against Dershowitz in the
defamation case contained in the then-pending summary judgment motion. McCawley Decl.,
Exhibit 12, Notice of Withdrawal of Summary Judgment Motion. As explained in the notice of
withdrawal of this motion, “the withdrawal of the referenced filings is not intended to be, and
should not be construed as being, an acknowledgement by Edwards and Cassell that the
allegation made by Ms. Giuffre were mistaken. Edwards and Cassell do acknowledge that the
public filing in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act case of their client’s allegation against Defendant
Dershowitz became a major distraction from the merits of the well-founded Crime Victims’
Rights Act by causing delay and, as a consequence, turned out to be a tactical mistake.” Id. All
these actions settling the Florida defamation case took place in Florida.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 40
8
LEGAL STANDARDS FOR WAIVER
A. Federal Rule of Evidence 502 Controls on the Issue of Waiver
 Defendant asks this Court to find that Ms. Giuffre has somehow waived her attorneyclient privilege regarding various communications in this case. This is no small step. The
attorney-client privilege is one of the “oldest recognized privileges for confidential
communications.” Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399, 403 (1998)). The
privilege’s purpose is to “encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their
clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and the
administration of justice.” 524 U.S. at 403 (internal quotation marks omitted).
 In setting out the legal standards pertaining to waiver of attorney-client privilege,
Defendant fails to cite the controlling – and protective – law on the issue. In a federal case,
issues of alleged waiver of attorney-client privilege must be resolved under the new standards in
Federal Rule of Evidence 502. In 2008, Congress enacted Federal Rule of Evidence 502, which
is entitled “Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product; Limitations on Waiver.” New rule 502
places a number of protections in place to reduce litigation over claims that a party has somehow
“waived” attorney client privilege. See generally Adv. Comm. Note, Rule 502. Notably,
Defendant does not discuss, or even cite, Rule 502 in her motion.
 The issue currently before the Court is specifically controlled by Rule 502(c), which
covers situations where a disclosure in a state proceeding is alleged, in a federal proceeding, to
establish waiver. Rule 502(c) provides the greater of protections found in federal or state law:
(c) Disclosure Made in a State Proceeding. When the disclosure is made in a state
proceeding and is not the subject of a state-court order concerning waiver, the
disclosure does not operate as a waiver in a federal proceeding if the disclosure:
(1) would not be a waiver under this rule if it had been made in a federal
proceeding; or
(2) is not a waiver under the law of the state where the disclosure
occurred.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 40
9
As is readily apparent from the text of the rule, there are two separate ways in which a party can
prove that no waiver of attorney-client privilege has occurred: (1) by demonstrating that no
waiver exists under federal law; or (2) by demonstrating that no waiver exists under the state law
where the disclosure occurred. Between these two possibilities, the drafters of the rule decided
to apply the most protective law that governs waiver. See Fed. R. Evid. 502(c), Adv. Comm.
Notes (“The [Advisory] Committee [on the Federal Rules of Evidence] determined that the
proper solution for the federal court is to apply the law that is most protective of privilege and
work product” (emphasis added)).
B. Florida Law
C.
 Florida’s protective law on the attorney-client privilege provides that neither an attorney
nor a client may be compelled to divulge confidential communications between a lawyer and
client which were made during the rendition of legal services. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(1)(c).
Communication denotes more than just giving legal advice; it also includes giving information to
the lawyer to enable him to render sound and informed advice. Hagans v. Gatorland Kubota,
LLC/Sentry Ins., 45 So.3d 73, 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
 Under Florida law, while the burden of establishing the attorney-client privilege usually
rests on the party claiming it, First Union National Bank v. Turney, 824 So.2d 172, 185 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2002), when communications appear on their face to be privileged, the burden is on the
party seeking disclosure to prove facts which would make an exception to the privilege
applicable. Ford Motor Co. v. Hall-Edwards, 997 So.2d 1148, 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Rousso
v. Hannon, 146 So.3d 66, 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). In this case, Defendant does not appear to
dispute that an attorney-client privilege exists with regard to the communications between Ms.
Giuffre and her attorneys. Rather, Defendant’s argument is that the privilege has somehow been
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 40
10
waived. See Motion to Compel at 1-2. Therefore, under Florida law, Defendant must shoulder
the burden of overcoming the privilege. (Of course, because Defendant failed to even cite, much
less discuss, Florida law, she has not carried that burden.)
 Defendant asserts that she can force disclosure of the privileged communications between
Ms. Giuffre and her counsel under the “at issue” doctrine. To establish this alleged waiver,
Defendant’s motion relies on a federal district court case – Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574 (E.D.
Wash. 1975), which was cited in Bank Brussels Lambert v. Credit Lyonnais (Suisse), S.A., 210
F.R.D. 506. 509-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (Ellis, M.J.). See Motion to Compel at 8. As discussed
below, as a matter of controlling federal authority, these cases have been repudiated by the
Second Circuit. And to the same effect, Florida law also rejects the expansive Hearn approach
to waiver. See Guarantee Ins. Co. v. Heffernan Ins. Brokers, Inc., 300 F.R.D. 590, 593-95 (S.D.
Fla. 2014) (discussing Florida authorities). Florida law disfavors waiver of the attorney-client
privilege and will not readily find an “at issue” waiver. See Guarantee Ins. Co. v. Heffernan Ins.
Brokers, Inc., 300 F.R.D. 590, 593 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (citing Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt &
Eidson, P.A., 940 So.2d 504, 508 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2006) (refusing to find waiver based on the atissue doctrine)). In contrast to Hearn, under Florida law, at-issue waiver only occurs “when a
party ‘raises a claim that will necessarily require proof by way of a privileged communication.’”
Coates, 940 So.2d at 508 (quoting Jenney v. Airdata Wiman, Inc., 846 So.2d 664, 668 (Fla. 2nd
DCA 2003)) (emphasis in original). Indeed, in 2014, the Southern District of Florida rejected the
Hearn “at issue” analysis and instead, adopted the analysis of the Third Circuit as outlined in
Rhone–Poulenc Rorer, Inc. v. Home Indemnity Co., 32 F.3d 851 (3d Cir. 1994). Guarantee Ins,
300 F.R.D. at 595. The Third Circuit deemed the Hearn test to be of “dubious validity” because,
although it “dress[es] up [its] analysis with a checklist of factors, [it] appear[s] to rest on a
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 40
11
conclusion that the information sought is relevant and should in fairness be disclosed.” Id. at 864.
The Third Circuit specifically rejected Hearne because relevance is not the standard for
determining whether or not evidence should be protected from disclosure as privileged. Rhone,
32 F.3d at 863. Florida law tracks that of the Third Circuit. See 300 F.R.D. at 593-95 (citing
Florida case law).
 Also, under Florida law, the client – not her attorneys – holds the attorney-client
privilege. See Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(3); see also Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(2) (a client has a
privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent any other person from disclosing, the contents of
confidential communications when such other person learned of the communications because
they were made in the rendition of legal services to the client). Some Florida courts have even
recognized serious due process issues could be created by a procedure through which a client lost
their privilege without an opportunity to be heard in the proceedings. See, e.g., Rogers v. State,
742 So.2d 827, 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Under Florida law, so long as a client has a reasonable
expectation of privacy in the communication, under § 90.507, the privilege is protected.
McWatters v. State, 36 So.3d 613, 636 (Fla. 2010). Also under Florida law, only the client – not
her attorney – can waive attorney-client privilege. See Savino v. Luciano, 92 So.2d 817 (Fla.
1957), Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Edison, P.A., 940 So.2d 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), and
Genovese v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., 74 So.3d 1064 (Fla. 2011).
C. Federal Law
 Rather than discuss Florida privilege law, Defendant exclusively cites federal case law.
See Mot. to Compel at ii-iii (table of authorities citing only federal cases). Yet as this Court has
previously held in ruling on an earlier privilege motion made by the Defendant, state law
generally provides the rule of decision in this diversity case. See Giuffre v. Maxwell, DE 135 at
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 40
12
6, 2016 WL 175918 at * 6 (applying New York privilege law) (citing Allied Irish Banks v. Bank
of Am., N.A., 240 F.R.D. 96, 102 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (“Because this Court’s subject matter
jurisdiction is based upon diversity . . . state law provides the rule of decision concerning the
claim of attorney-client privilege.”)). Accordingly, an argument can be made that New York
state law applies in this case7
 – but Defendant does not explain why she jumps to federal law.
 As explained above, in the particular context of a waiver argument, Federal Rule of
Evidence 502 applies the more protective of state law or federal law in determining whether a
waiver of privilege has occurred. In this case, the controlling federal law is at least as protective
as Florida law. The controlling federal law here comes from the Second Circuit, including In re
Cnty. of Erie, 546 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2008) – a case not even cited, much less discussed, by the
Defendant. In view of the importance of the attorney-client privilege, the Second Circuit in that
case held that any finding of waiver should be made with “caution.” Id. at 228.
 Rather than cite this controlling Second Circuit precedent, Defendant relies on a 2002
case from this Court applying the Hearn “at issue” doctrine. See Mot. to Compel at 8 (citing
Bank Brussels Lambert v. Credit Lyonnais (Suisse), S.A., 210 F.R.D. 506. 509-10 (S.D.N.Y.
2002) (Ellis, Magistrate Judge) (quoting Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574, 581 (E.D. Wash. 1975)).
Defendant goes on to argue that “courts have generally applied the Hearn [at issue] doctrine
liberally, finding a broad waiver of attorney-client privilege where a party asserts a position ‘the
truth of which can only be assessed by examination of the privilege communication.” Mot. to
Compel at 8 (internal quotation omitted).
 Defendant fails to recognize that the Second Circuit has explicitly disavowed the Hearn
doctrine. In In re Cnty. of Erie, 546 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2008), the Second Circuit explained that
“[c]ourts in our Circuit and others have criticized Hearn and have applied its tests unevenly.” Id.

7
 As a protective matter, Ms. Giuffre will also provide citations to New York state authorities in this response.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 40
13
at 227-28.8
 The Second Circuit also noted that the Hearn test “has been subject to academic
criticism. See, e.g., Richard L. Marcus, The Perils of Privilege: Waiver and the Litigator, 84
MICH. L. REV. 1605, 1628-29 (1986); Note, Developments in the Law-Privileged
Communications, 98 HARV. L. REV. 1650, 1641-42 (1985) (identifying “the faults in the Hearn
approach”). In light of these strong criticisms of Hearn, the Second Circuit decided that “[w]e
agree with its critics that the Hearn test cuts too broadly and therefore conclude that the District
Court erred in applying it here. . . . Nowhere in the Hearn test is found the essential element of
reliance on privileged advice in the assertion of the claim or defense in order to effect a waiver.”
546 F.3d at 229 (emphasis added). The Second Circuit held that, for an “at issue” waiver to
occur, “a party must rely on privileged advice from his counsel to make his claim or defense.”
Id. (emphasis added).
 In light of the Second Circuit’s holding, recent cases from this Court have explained that
“reliance on privileged advice in the assertion of the claim or defense is an ‘essential element’ of
a claim of waiver.” Aristocrat Leisure Ltd. v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, No. 04 CIV
10014 PKL, 2009 WL 3111766, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2009).9
 For the sake of
completeness, it may be relevant to note that New York state privilege law applies the same

8
 The Second Circuit cited numerous cases, including cases from this Court – e.g., Pereira v. United Jersey Bank,
Nos. 94 Civ 1565 & 94 Civ 1844, 1997 WL 773716, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.11, 1997) (“Hearn is problematic insofar
as there are very few instances in which the Hearn factors, taken at face value, do not apply and, therefore, a large
majority of claims of privilege would be subject to waiver.”); Allen v. West Point-Pepperell, Inc., 848 F.Supp. 423,
429 (S.D.N.Y.1994) (noting that district courts within this Circuit have reached conflicting decisions in the
application of Hearn, and rejecting reliance “upon a line of cases in which courts have unhesitatingly applied a
variation of the Hearn balancing test”); Connell v. Bernstein-Macaulay, Inc., 407 F.Supp. 420, 422 (S.D.N.Y.1976)
(“The actual holding in [Hearn] is not in point because the party there asserting the privilege had expressly relied
upon the advice of counsel as a defense to the plaintiff's action.”); Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc. v. Home Indem. Co.,
32 F.3d 851, 864 (3d Cir.1994) (deeming Hearn to be of “dubious validity” because, although it “dress[es] up [its]
analysis with a checklist of factors, [it] appear[s] to rest on a conclusion that the information sought is relevant and
should in fairness be disclosed”).
9
 The Aristocrat Leisure case accordingly rejected a party’s reliance on the same authority that Defendant relies
upon here. See Aristocrat, 2009 WL 3111766 at *16 n.6 (discussing Bank Brussels Lambert v. Credit Lyonnais
(Suisse), S.A., 210 F.R.D. 506 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), and then noting in the next sentence that the Hearn test relied upon
by Bank Brussels’ “recently has been criticized by the Second Circuit on this very issue.”).
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 40
14
specific and protective standard. See In re Bank of New York Mellon, 42 Misc. 3d 171, 177, 977
N.Y.S.2d 560, 565 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (“’at issue’ waiver occurs ‘when the party has asserted a
claim or defense that he intends to prove by use of the privileged materials.’ An example of an
affirmative act that does constitute ‘at issue’ waiver of privilege is a party’s ‘assert[ing] as an
affirmative defense [its] reliance upon the advice of counsel.’”).10
DISCUSSION
I. MS. GIUFFRE DID NOT WAIVE HER ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
 WHEN EDWARDS AND CASSELL FILED AND PURSUED THEIR OWN
 DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST ALAN DERSHOWITZ.
Defendant’s lead argument is that Cassell and Edwards waived Ms. Giuffre’s attorneyclient privilege when they filed and pursued a defamation action against Alan Dershowitz. See
Mot. to Compel at 10. This claim is meritless for numerous reasons, including the fact (not
disclosed by Defendant) that this very argument has been fully litigated before the Florida court
handling that defamation action, which specifically rejected any finding of waiver.
A. The Florida Court Presiding over the Defamation Action Has Already
 Rejected the Same Waiver Claim that Defendant is Advancing Here.
The claim that Cassell and Edwards somehow waived Ms. Giuffre’s attorney-client by
pursuing their own, personal defamation action against Dershowitz has already been the subject
of extensive briefing – and, ultimately, a Florida court ruling. Defendant has scoured the docket

10 New York and federal authorities also hold that when attorneys are not acting on the client’s behalf, they cannot
waive their client’s privilege. N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 4503(a); Dillenbeck v. Hess, 73 N.Y.2d 278, 290, 536 N.E.2d 1126,
1134 (N.Y. 1989) (“[T]he sine qua non of any evidentiary privilege is that it is personal to, and can only be waived
by, the privilege holder.”). See also In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 100-01 (2d Cir. 1987) (“Of course, the privilege
belongs solely to the client and may only be waived by him. An attorney may not waive the privilege without his
client's consent.”); In re Bank of New York Mellon Corp. Forex Transactions Litig., 66 F. Supp. 3d 406, 410
(S.D.N.Y. 2014) (same); Ferreira v. Capitol Specialty Ins. Corp., 31 Misc. 3d 1209(A), 929 N.Y.S.2d 199 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct. 2011) (“CPLR 4503 makes clear that an attorney cannot waive the attorney-client privilege rather waiver is
only effective when done by the beneficiary of the privilege or their personal representative.”).
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 40
15
in the Dershowitz defamation case to collect every flyspeck of information that she believes
support her argument that a “waiver” has taken place. See Mot. to Compel at 10-12 and
numerous associated exhibits. But, remarkably, she has not revealed to this Court the most
relevant information from the docket: that the Florida court considered the same waiver issues
and rejecting the same arguments that the Defendant now advances. This Florida court ruling,
applying Florida law, is controlling here.
 As discussed above in the factual section of this response, in the Florida case, Dershowitz
filed a motion to compel advancing legal and factual arguments identical to those the Defendant
is advancing here. See McCawley Decl., Ex. 6 at 3, Dershowitz motion to compel (arguing that
Cassell and Edwards “have waived any privilege or protection that would otherwise attach to
responsive documents and information by bringing this defamation action placing at issue the
truthfulness of Jane Doe No. 3’s allegations against Dershowitz . . . .”). Id. at 3. Citing Hearn
v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574, 581 (E.D. Wash. 1975), Dershowitz claimed that information Ms.
Giuffre had confidentially provided to Cassell and Edwards as her attorneys had become “at
issue” in the defamation action. McCawley Decl., Ex. 6 at 4-5. Dershowitz argued broadly that
a whole host of alleged attorney-client communications were “at issue” in the case, including:
(1) Jane Doe No. 3’s allegations against Dershowitz asserted in the action
captioned Jane Doe #1, et al. v. United States of America, Case No. 08-cv-80736
(S.D. Fla.) (the “Federal Action”); (2) [Cassell and Edwards’] investigation into
Jane Doe No. 3’s allegations against Dershowitz; (3) [Cassell and Edwards’]
assertion in the Complaint that Dershowitz was an alleged participant in the
criminal conduct committed by Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein”); and (4) Jane Doe No.
3’s whereabouts and activities during the time when she claims to have been “sex
slave” for Epstein.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 40
16
Ex. 6 at 3. As the briefing on the issue continued, in an October 26, 2015 response filing,
Dershowitz argued that Ms. Giuffre’s public statements waived the privilege,11 along with
actions by her attorneys Cassell and Edwards. Ex. 8 at 5-8.12
 After all these arguments were fully briefed, the Florida court (Lynch, J.) rejected
Dershowitz’s arguments that any waiver of the attorney-client privilege had taken place.
McCawley Decl., Ex. 10 at 1 (“Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Production of documents and complete responses to interrogatories is hereby denied.”). In a
December 8, 2015, order, Judge Lynch provided a short explanation of his reasoning and entered
an order denying Dershowitz’s waiver motion. Id.
 In her pending motion to compel, Defendant recycles the same arguments that
Dershowitz made, such as the claim that Cassell and Edwards waived privilege by filing suit
(Mot. Compel at 10), that her March 2011 interview with Scarola and Edwards was a waiver (id.
at 10), and other similar claims (id. at 11-13). But Dershowitz already litigated these issues a
few months ago in the Dershowitz case – and his claims were rejected by the Florida court.
Defendant is now collaterally estopped from relitigating these identical issues here, because
Dershowitz had a full and fair opportunity to litigate those issues and Defendant was in a
“common interest” agreement with Dershowitz at the time. The doctrine of collateral estoppel
protects litigants – and the courts – from relitigating identical issues and promotes efficiency by
barring unnecessary litigation. See Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326
(1979). As this Court has explained, for collateral estoppel to apply, there must have been a full

11 Dershowitz specifically listed the following public statements by Ms. Giuffre as illustrations of how she had
waived her privilege: (1) Ms. Giuffre’s March 5, 2011, interview with the Daily Mail; (2) Ms. Giuffre’s April 7,
2011, recorded telephone interview with attorneys Jack Scarola and Brad Edwards; (3) the January 2015 release of
Ms. Giuffre’s diary by Radar Online; (4) Ms. Giuffre’s statements to “numerous other third parties,” including
former boyfriends and the FBI; and (5) Ms. Giuffre’s filing of this suit against Defendant. Ex. 6 at 6-8. 12 Dershowitz specifically argued that (among other illustrations) Cassell’s answers to interrogatories and testimony
at his deposition in the case had waived privilege. Ex. 6 at 11-12.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 40
17
and fair opportunity to litigate the decision that now controls and the issue in the prior action
must be identical to and decisive of the issue in the instant action. Zois v. Cooper, 268 B.R. 890,
893 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), aff'd sub nom. In re Zois, 73 F. App’x 509 (2d Cir. 2003). A non-party
can be bound by a decision, so long as her interests were “effectively represented.” Zois, 268
B.R. at 893.13 As this Court can readily determine from reviewing the pleadings Dershowitz
filed in the Florida case, see McCawley Decl. at Ex. 6 & 8, Dershowitz fully briefed identical
issues to those presented here. And he was effectively representing Maxwell at the time. The
elements of collateral estoppel apply.
 Moreover, entirely apart from collateral estoppel doctrine, Judge Lynch’s decision is
highly persuasive. Judge Lynch was the presiding judge over the Dershowitz matter, so he was
intimately familiar with (for example) what matters were “at issue” in that particular case.
Moreover, Judge Lynch is, of course, a Florida judge skilled in applying Florida legal principles.
His ruling on whether a waiver of attorney client privilege existed under Florida law should be
given heavy weight here. See Elliott Associates, L.P. v. Banco de la Nacion, 194 F.3d 363, 370
(2d Cir. 1999). Finally, Defendant’s briefing entirely ignores even the existence of Judge
Lynch’s ruling. In such circumstances where the Defendant has failed to offer any reason for
questioning Judge Lynch’s holding, this Court should follow Judge Lynch’s lead and hold that
no waiver of the attorney-client privilege exists under Florida law. And, because Florida law
controlled when the disclosures took place, under Fed. R. Evid. 502(c), no waiver exists in this
proceeding.

13 Zois relied on New York law. Florida law is to the same effect, as is federal doctrine. See O'Brien v. Fed. Trust
Bank, F.S.B., 727 So. 2d 296, 298 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999) (“Collateral estoppel prevents relitigation of issues
where the identical issues previously have been litigated between the parties or their privies.”); Montana v. United
States, 440 U.S. 147, 153-54 (1979).
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 40
18
B. Actions by Cassell and Edwards Do Not Waive Ms. Giuffre’s
 Attorney-Client Privilege.
Not only has Judge Lynch already ruled on the attorney-client privilege issue, but his
ruling was entirely correct. Defendant’s argument rests on the proposition that Cassell and
Edwards had authority to waive Ms. Giuffre’s privilege while they pursued their Florida
defamation action. But in filing their own, personal defamation claims against Dershowitz in a
lawsuit where Ms. Giuffre was not a party, Cassell and Edwards were not acting on Ms.
Giuffre’s behalf. Defendant never attempts to even explain, much less prove, how that
defamation action could have benefitted Ms. Giuffre. And Florida law is clear that when
attorneys are not acting on the client’s behalf, they cannot waive their client’s privilege. See
Charles W. Ehrhardt, 1 Fla. Prac., Evidence § 502.6 (2015 ed.); Schetter v. Schetter, 239 So.2d
51, 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970).
 To find that an attorney waived his client’s privilege, a clear record must exist concerning
the attorney’s attorney to waive privilege. See Bus. Integration Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Corp., No.
06 CIV. 1863 (JGK), 2008 WL 318343, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2008). Here, to the contrary,
the record is clear that Ms. Giuffre did not authorize any waiver of her attorney-client privilege.
See McCawley Decl., Ex. 13, affidavit of Ms. Giuffre (Ms. Giuffre did not authorize any
waiver). Accordingly, under Florida law, Cassell and Edwards’ actions did not waive Ms.
Giuffre’s privilege.14
 The main examples Defendant offers in support of her waiver argument come from a
summary judgment motion that Cassell and Edwards filed. See Mot. to Compel at 16. Of

14 For the sake of completeness, it is worth noting that both federal law and New York state law likewise require that
a client waive attorney-client privilege. See, e.g., Schnell v. Schnall, 550 F. Supp. 650, 653 (S.D.N.Y.1982) (no
waiver of attorney-client privilege where attorney testified at hearing without presence or authorization of client);
N.Y. C.P.L.R. 4503 (McKinney) (“Unless the client waives the privilege, an attorney . . . shall not disclose, or be
allowed to disclose such communication, nor shall the client be compelled to disclose such communication, in any
action, disciplinary trial or hearing, or administrative action, proceeding or hearing conducted by or on behalf of any
state, municipal or local governmental agency or by the legislature or any committee or body thereof.”).
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 25 of 40
19
course, that motion was filed on their behalf – not Ms. Giuffre’s. To be sure, that motion
contained (among other supporting information) a sworn affidavit from Ms. Giuffre.15 But the
routine step of submitting an affidavit is not a waiver of attorney-client protections, as discussed
at greater length in Part II.D., infra. And, in any event, Defendant does not include that affidavit
among her supporting materials to her motion, much less explain how the recitation of factual
information in that affidavit constitutes a waiver by Ms. Giuffre with respect to communications
with her attorneys. See Koon v. State, 463 So.2d 201, 203-04 (Fla. 1985) (no waiver when the
client merely discloses facts which were part of the communication with the client’s attorney).
Ms. Giuffre has not waived her privilege.
C. Ms. Giuffre’s Confidential Communications With Her Attorneys Were
Never “At Issue” in the Florida Dershowitz Litigation.
 Defendant’s argument that Ms. Giuffre’s attorney-client privilege has been waived under
the “at issue” doctrine also fails under Florida law because her confidential communications
were never at issue in the Dershowitz litigation.
 Florida law on when confidential attorney-client communications are at issue comes from
the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Savino v. Luciano, 92 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1957). There, the
Florida Supreme Court announced the test for determining whether confidential communications
were “at issue” as whether a claim or defense would “necessarily require that the privileged
matter be offered in evidence.” Id. at 819 (emphasis added); see also Diaz–Verson v. Walbridge
Aldinger Co., 54 So.3d 1007, 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). More recent decisions from Florida

15 The “evidentiary support” for the summary judgment motion rested on 16 additional exhibits, including such
obviously non-privileged materials as a Palm Beach Police Department report; flight logs from Epstein’s jet;
excerpts from deposition testimony of Epstein, Juan Alessi, Alfredo Rodriquez, and Alan Dershowitz; photographs;
and Epstein’s telephone directory. See Menninger Dec., Ex. E at 28.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 26 of 40
20
have emphasized that Savino does not mean that a party waives attorney-client privilege merely
by bringing or defending a lawsuit. Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Edison, P.A., 940 So.2d 504
(Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Instead, waiver occurs only when a party “must necessarily use the
privilege information to establish its claim or defense.” Id. at 510-11 (emphasis added). Most
recently, in Genovese v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., 74 So. 3d 1064, 1069 (Fla. 2011),
as revised on denial of reh’g (Nov. 10, 2011), the Florida Supreme Court cited both Coates and
Savino to hold that the “at issue” doctrine allows discovery of privileged material only when the
holder of the privilege – the client – raises the advice of counsel as a claim or defense in the
action and the communication is essential to the claim or defense. Id.
 Under these restrictive standards, Ms. Giuffre’s communications were never at issue in
her attorneys’ personal, defamation case against Dershowitz. Consider, for example, a typical
allegation Cassell and Edwards’ complaint:
Immediately following the filing of what Defendant, Dershowitz, knew to be an
entirely proper and well-founded pleading, Dershowitz initiated a massive public
media assault on the reputation and character of Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G.
Cassell accusing them of intentionally lying in their filing, of having leveled
knowingly false accusations against the Defendant, Dershowitz, without ever
conducting any investigation of the credibility of the accusations, and of having
acted unethically to the extent that their willful misconduct warranted and
required disbarment.
McCawley Decl., Ex. 5 at 4 (¶ 17). As is immediately apparent, this allegation does not require
an examination of Ms. Giuffre’s confidential communications with her attorneys. Instead, it
requires an assessment of Dershowitz’s state of mind with regard to his knowledge of the
information that Cassell and Edwards had to support the filing of the allegations. And, as
supporting exhibits to the pleadings Cassell and Edwards filed made clear, the adequacy of their
investigation could be readily established from many sources that did not have any connection to
what Ms. Giuffre may or may not have told them in confidence. See, e.g., McCawley Decl., Ex.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 27 of 40
21
3 at 26-38 (recounting information supporting allegations against Dershowitz, such as sworn
testimony from household employees and invocations of the Fifth Amendment by Epstein and
his co-conspirators).
 To be sure, Dershowitz tried to make an argument that Ms. Giuffre’s communications
with her attorneys might have some arguable relevance to the case. But Judge Lynch rejected
that very argument – and quite properly so. Relevance is insufficient to waive privilege under
Florida law. Guarantee Ins, 300 F.R.D. at 594 (citing Coyne v. Schwartz, Gold, Cohen, Zakarin
& Kotler, P.A., 715 So.2d 1021, 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)). A client does not waive the
attorney-client privilege simply because her credibility could be impeached by communications
with her former attorney. See Jenney v. Airdata Wiman, Inc., 846 So.2d 664, 668 (Fla. 2d DCA
2003). Accordingly, under Florida law, Ms. Giuffre’s confidential communications with her
attorneys were never at issue in the Florida litigation.16
D. Defendant Has Not Met the Other Requirements for Showing Waiver of
 Attorney-Client Privilege.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant has failed to make the required showing for an “at
issue” waiver of attorney-client privilege. But even more fundamentally, Defendant has failed to
establish other elements necessary to find a waiver of attorney-client privilege. Defendant
repeatedly refers to routine litigation actions, such as the filing of in-court affidavits, as a basis
for finding some kind of waiver of privilege. See Mot. to Compel at 16. But it is obvious that
such actions do not waive attorney-client protection. Litigation requires some limited
communication to third parties — including the court and opposing counsel — of information
learned in the course of the attorney-client relationship. Therefore, Florida law recognizes an

16 The same result would obtain under New York state law. See, e.g., Am. Re-Ins. Co. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 40
A.D.3d 486, 492, 837 N.Y.S.2d 616, 622 (2007) (the at-issue “doctrine applies where a party, through its affirmative
acts, places privileged material at issue and has selectively disclosed the advice”).
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 28 of 40
22
absolute privilege to protect attorneys’ statements made in communications that are preliminary
to a proposed judicial proceeding, or in the institution of, or during the course and as a part of, a
judicial proceeding. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(2); see also McCullough v. Kubiak, 158 So. 3d
739, 740 (Fla. 4th DCA, 2015). A waiver of the attorney-client privilege occurs only if the client
voluntarily discloses in court the substance of a communication with her attorney. See, e.g.,
Delap v. State, 440 So.2d 1242, 1247 (Fla. 1983) (criminal defendant sought to use in court
favorably testimony from his investigator while blocking inquiry into other testimony). No
waiver occurs when the client merely discloses facts which were part of the communication with
the client’s attorney. See Koon v. State, 463 So.2d 201, 203-04 (Fla. 1985); see also Taylor v.
State, 855 So.2d 1, 26 n.29 (Fla. 2003). Thus, the privilege attaches to the communication with
counsel, not to the underlying facts. Brookings v. State, 495 So.2d 135, 139 (Fla. 1986); see also
Lynch v. State, 2 So.3d 47, 66 (Fla. 2008).17 As a result, allegations that Giuffre disclosed to
third parties the same facts that she may have related to Cassell and Edwards, without any
evidence that she disclosed the substance of her confidential consultation with Edwards and
Cassell, cannot overcome her privilege.18
 To hold otherwise would eviscerate the attorney-client privilege. Such a ruling would
mean that every time an attorney filed a declaration by his client that contained the factual basis
for the client’s claim, the opposing party would have the right to examine all privileged
communications. Defendant has not cited any authority either in Florida (or elsewhere) to

17 New York state privilege law is to the same effect. See, e.g., Niesig v. Team I, 76 N.Y.2d 363, 372, 558 N.E.2d
1030, 1034 (1990) (because “the privilege applies only to confidential communications with counsel (see, CPLR
4503), it does not immunize the underlying factual information . . . from disclosure to an adversary”).  18 As an illustration, Defendant notes that in 2011 Ms. Giuffre gave an interview to the Daily Mail. Mot. to Compel
at 15. But Defendant does not explain how that interview disclosed any attorney-client communications. And
because any such disclosures would have been extrajudicial, they would be narrowly construed. In re von Bulow,
828 F.2d 94, 103 (2d Cir. 1987).
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 29 of 40
23
support his extreme assertion that Ms. Giuffre waived her privilege simply by allowing an
affidavit to be filed in a court proceeding.
Defendant also claims Cassell, at his deposition in the Dershowitz case, waived attorneyclient privilege by discussing factual information related to his investigation of Ms. Giuffre’s
allegations (for example, flight log information). Cassell’s deposition testimony did not
constitute a waiver of Ms. Giuffre’s attorney-client privilege. Indeed, Ms. Giuffre’s own
separate attorney (undersigned counsel, Ms. McCawley, from the law firm of Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP) raised a standing objection to Cassell answering any question that would require
divulging any attorney/client communications. McCawley Decl., Ex. 14, deposition excerpt of
Paul Cassell, Volume I, dated Oct. 16, 2015, at 39:24 – 40:2 (“Virginia Roberts does not waive
her attorney/client privilege with her lawyers, and they are not entitled to testify as to
information that she intended to be confidential that she communicated to her lawyers.”).19
Defendant also argues that because Cassell said at some (unspecified) point in his deposition that
he “knew” some (unidentified) information about Ms. Giuffre, he must have been revealing
attorney-client communications. Mot. to Compel at 17 (“Of course, the information [Cassell and
Edwards] “knew” about [Ms. Giuffre was a direct result of her attorney-client communications
with them . . . .”). But Cassell knew a vast amount of information about Ms. Giuffre from the
factual record in the case, such as the flight logs demonstrating flights that she took with Epstein
and Defendant on Epstein’s jet. Defendant’s logic is simply incorrect.
E. Ms. Giuffre Will Not Seek to Use Confidential Attorney-Client
 Communications in her Action Here.
For all the reasons just explained, Ms. Giuffre has not waived her attorney-client
privilege through events that occurred in the Dershowitz case. But one additional point bears

19 In her “excerpts” from Cassell’s deposition, Defendant has not included this portion. See Menninger Dec., Ex. L.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 30 of 40
24
emphasis: Defendant attempts to argue that the trial in this case will somehow be unfair if she
does not receive access to confidential attorney-client communications that Ms. Giuffre had with
her lawyers earlier. Mot. to Compel at 20-21. But regardless of what may or may not have been
at issue in the Dershowitz case, confidential communications will not be at issue here. For
example, Defendant writes that “[i]t would be prejudicial for [Ms. Giuffre] to be able to support
her claim in this case that she is not a liar using her attorney’s testimony . . . .” Id. at 21. To be
clear, Ms. Giuffre has no intention of calling, for example, Cassell and Edwards to testify at trial
in an attempt to support her claims. Thus, this will not be a case where it will be “misleading to
the court or any jury to hear testimony from [Ms. Giuffre’s] counsel about all the factual basis,
work product and thought process on which they relied in making the allegations in the Joinder
Motion,” Mot. to Compel at 22, for the simple reason that that Ms. Giuffre’s counsel will not be
witnesses in the case. Nor will Ms. Giuffre be presenting a “state of mind” defense that might
require a more extensive inquiry into attorney-client communications. See In re Cty. of Erie, 546
F.3d 222, 229 (2d Cir. 2008) (noting absence of good faith or state of mind issues as a reason for
not finding “at issue” waiver of privilege); Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v. Cadwalader,
Wickersham & Taft LLP, 62 A.D.3d 581, 582, 880 N.Y.S.2d 617, 618-20 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
(finding no waiver where plaintiff disavowed any intention to use confidential attorney-client
communications; relevance alone insufficient to put privileged materials “at issue” because, “if
that were the case, a privilege would have little effect”).
 To be sure, at trial Ms. Giuffre will present factual testimony supporting her version of
events – just as, no doubt, Defendant will try to present testimony supporting her version. But
such testimony (from both sides) does not create any waiver of attorney-client privilege. Instead,
such testimony is simply the presentation of competing facts, from which the jury can decide
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 31 of 40
25
who is telling the truth. None of this creates any need for Defendant to force Ms. Giuffre to
reveal confidential communications.
II. MS. GIUFFRE DID NOT WAIVE HER ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE BY
 DENYING FABRICATED EVICENCE DURING HER DEPOSITION.
Defendant spends significant time arguing that Ms. Giuffre’s answers to several
deposition questions about the absence of any communications from Cassell and Edwards that
she provide false information constituted a waiver of attorney client privilege. Mot. to Compel
at 11 (arguing that “never” answer to the question “Has Brad [Edwards] ever pressured you or
encouraged you in any way or under any circumstances at any time to provide false information
about Jeffrey Epstein” constituted a waiver of attorney-client privilege). While the arguments
above are sufficient to dispose of this claim, it is worth emphasizing several additional points
about this specific testimony.
 First, disclosing the absence of communication is not the same as exposing any
communication. It is a fundamental requirement of a waiver argument that a communication be
exposed, see Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502 (extending privilege to a “communication between lawyer
and client”), not the absence of such a communication. See Montanez v. Publix Super Markets,
Inc., 135 So. 3d 510, 512-13 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014) (rejecting argument that client waived her
attorney-client privilege by stating that an interrogatory answer was not “her” answer because
this did not disclose the substance of her communications with her attorney). Cf. Mitchell v.
Superior Court, 37 Cal. 3d 591, 602, 691 P.2d 642, 647 (Cal. 1984) (“Relevant case law makes it
clear that mere disclosure of the fact that a communication between client and attorney had
occurred does not amount to disclosure of the specific content of that communication, and as
such does not necessarily constitute a waiver of the privilege.”).
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 32 of 40
26
 Second, the questions highlighted by Defendant asked Ms. Giuffre whether she had ever
communicated with her attorneys Cassell and Edwards for purposes of committing a crime or
fraud. See Mot. to Compel at 11 (recounting questions). If such a communication involving
perjury had existed, it would not have been covered by the attorney-client privilege in the first
instance because it would have involved an on-going crime or fraud. See Fla. Stat. Ann. §
90.502(4) (“There is no lawyer-client privilege under this section when . . . [t]he services of the
lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the
client knew was a crime or fraud.”).20 Answering those questions by denying the existence of a
crime or fraud accordingly did not constitute waiver of confidentiality over any otherwiseprotected communication. Indeed, any other conclusion would essentially abolish the attorneyclient privilege. A party could simply accuse the opposing side of fabricating evidence and,
when that accusation was denied, argue that attorney-client privilege had been waived. This is
not the law.
 Finally, it is important to note that throughout her deposition, Ms. Giuffre’s attorney
strenuously objected to any effort by Dershowitz to obtain attorney-client information. See
McCawley Decl., Exhibit 11, Composite Exhibit of Deposition Excerpts from the Deposition of
Virginia Giuffre at 131-32; 173-74; 183; 200-12.21 Clearly, at her deposition, Ms. Giuffre did
not voluntarily waive any attorney-client privilege she held.

20 Again, for sake of completeness, it is worth noting that federal and New York state law also contain a crime-fraud
exception to the attorney client privilege. HSH Nordbank AG New York Branch v. Swerdlow, 259 F.R.D. 64, 73
(S.D.N.Y. 2009); Ulico Cas. Co. v. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 1 A.D.3d 223, 224, 767 N.Y.S.2d
228 (2003) (attorney-client privilege “may not be invoked where it involves client communications that may have
been in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme, an alleged breach of fiduciary duty or an accusation of some other
wrongful conduct”).
21 Once again, these objections are not included in Defendant’s excerpts from the deposition.
-
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 33 of 40
27
III. EDWARDS AND CASSELL HAVE NOT WAIVED WORK-PRODUCT
 PROTECTION AND MAXWELL HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED NEED TO
 PENETRATE THE PROTECTION.
A. Work Product Protection Has Not Been Waived.
 For many of the same reasons that Ms. Giuffre has not waived her attorney-client
privilege, the work-product protection has not been waived. Fed. R. Evid. 502’s protections
against waiver apply not only to the attorney-client privilege but also to the work-product
doctrine. On the facts of this case, Rule 502 thus extends all work-product protections that exist
“under the law of the state where the disclosure occurred,” Fed. R. Evid. 502(c)(2) – i.e., Florida
law – as well as the protection that exists under federal law, Fed. R. Evid. 502(c)(1).
 Florida law provides that work-product protections extend to “documents and tangible
things otherwise discoverable” if a party prepared those items “in anticipation of litigation or for
trial.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(3). The rationale supporting the work-product doctrine is that one
party is not entitled to prepare his case through the investigative work product of his adversary
where the same or similar information is available through ordinary investigative techniques and
discovery procedures. Universal City Development Partners, Ltd. v. Pupillo, 54 So.3d 612, 614
(Fla. 5th DCA, 2011). The work-product of the litigant, his attorney or agent, cannot be
examined, absent rare and exceptional circumstances. Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So.2d
108, 112 (Fla. 1970).
 In Florida (as elsewhere), a party “can make a limited waiver of its . . . work product
privilege.” Paradise Divers, Inc. v. Upmal, 943 So. 2d 812, 814 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006). A
waiver by disclosure only includes “other unrevealed communications only to the extent that
they are relevant to the communication already disclosed.” Id. (citing Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v.
Gellert, 431 So.2d 329, 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)). Waiver by disclosure does “not mean . . . that
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 34 of 40
28
voluntary disclosure of confidential information effectively waives the privilege as to all
conversations, or the whole breadth of discussion which may have taken place.” Procacci v.
Seitlin, 497 So. 2d 969, 969-70 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986) (citing Goldman, Sachs & Co. v.
Blondis, 412 F.Supp. 286, 288 (N.D.Ill.1976)). Instead, waiver by disclosure is confined to “that
specific subject during that particular conversation.” Procacci, 497 So. 2d at 970 (quoting
Perrignon v. Bergen Brunswig Corp., 77 F.R.D. 455, 461 (N.D. Cal.1978)).22
 As with her attorney-client privilege argument, Defendant has not even cited Florida law
on waiver of work-product protection, much less explained how she meets its demanding
requirements. Moreover, the illustrations she provides do not prove any general waiver of workproduct protection. For example, Defendant relies on the claim that Cassell and Edwards have
waived work-product protection by disclosing a transcript of a portion of a 2011 telephone
interview with Ms. Giuffre by attorneys Jack Scarola and Brad Edwards. But that recorded
interview was never a confidential communication between Mr. Giuffre and the lawyers, but
rather (as the transcript of the call itself makes clear) a communication that could be presented
“to any jury that might ultimately have to hear these facts.” McCawley Decl., Ex. 15 at 1,
transcript of Scarola/Edwards interview on April 7, 2011 (emphasis added). In other words, the
recorded call was simply the functional equivalent of an affidavit – and affidavits are routinely
disclosed with waiving work product protections, under the law of Florida and elsewhere.
 Defendant also argues that Cassell and Edwards waived work-product protection by
filing a summary judgment motion in the Dershowitz case which contained supporting exhibits
(e.g., flight logs, sworn testimony by third-party witnesses, and other evidence). Mot. to Compel

22 New York state law is to the same effect. See Charter One Bank, F.S.B. v. Midtown Rochester, L.L.C., 191 Misc.
2d 154, 159, 738 N.Y.S.2d 179, 186 (Sup. Ct. 2002) (“ The disclosure of a document protected by the work-product
rule does not result in a waiver of the privilege as to other documents.”).
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 35 of 40
29
at 16. But providing information in support of a summary judgment motion is a routine step that
attorneys take every day. While the materials produced are obviously not subject to work
product protection, other materials and communications do not somehow become subject to
discovery. Paradise Divers, Inc., 943 So. 2d at 814.
B. Defendant Has Not Proven “Need” to Penetrate Work-Product Protection.
 Defendant’s argument on work product protection also simply assumes that it is the same
as the attorney-client privilege and can be waived under an “at issue theory.” But the “at issue”
legal theory Defendant relies on to argue (incorrectly) that attorney-client privilege has been
waived applies only to that privilege. The work product doctrine is quite distinct from attorneyclient privilege, and application of the privileges and exceptions to them differ. See West Bend
Mutual Ins. Co. v. Higgins, 9 So.3d 655, 656 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Genovese v. Provident Life &
Accident Ins. Co., 74 So. 3d 1064, 1068 (Fla. 2011), as revised on denial of reh’g (2011). The
function of the work product doctrine is to protect counsel’s mental impressions. West Bend
Mutual, 9 So.3d at 656. To pierce the privilege, Defendant must show “that the substantial
equivalent of the material cannot be obtained by other means.” Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v.
Deason, 632 So.2d 1377, 1385 (Fla.1994). Defendant has not even identified any specific workproduct she claims to need, much less shown why she cannot get the underlying information
from other sources.
 Under the law of Florida (and elsewhere23), to establish “need,” a party must present
testimony or evidence demonstrating the material requested is critical to the theory of the

23 Both federal and New York state law extend work product protections similar to those found in Florida law.
See, e.g., Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 511 (1947); N.Y. Civ. Practice Law & Rules § 3101(c) (McKinney).
Indeed, New York state law may go even further than Florida’s and extends “absolute” work-product protection.
See Charter One Bank, F.S.B. v. Midtown Rochester, L.L.C., 191 Misc. 2d 154, 159, 738 N.Y.S.2d 179, 185 (Sup.
Ct. 2002) (section 3101(c) “affords absolute immunity from disclosure of attorney's work product.”).
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 36 of 40
30
requestor’s case, or to some significant aspect of the case. Zirkelbach Const. Inc. v. Rajan, 93
So.3d 1124, 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). “[W]ell established in Florida is the principle that the
unsworn analysis of a party’s attorney and/or a bare assertion of need and undue hardship to
obtain the substantial equivalent [is] insufficient to satisfy this showing.” Butler v. Harter, 152
So.3d 705, 712 (Fla. 1st DCA, 2014); see Procter & Gamble Co. v. Swilley, 462 So.2d 1188,
1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); State v. T.A., 528 So.2d 974, 975 (Fla. 2d DCA, 1988)
(“[R]epresentations by counsel not made under oath and not subject to cross-examination, absent
a stipulation, are not evidence). Further, Florida courts have held that “the showing of need
encompasses a showing of diligence by the party seeking discovery of another party’s work
product.” Butler v. Harter, 152 So.3d 705, 712 (Fla. 1st DCA, 2014); see also CSX Transp., Inc.
v. Carpenter, 725 So.2d 434, 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (quashing order granting motion to
compel discovery because the record did not contain affidavits supporting plaintiff’s argument
that it was unable to obtain the substantially equivalent information by other means without
undue hardship); Falco v. N. Shore Labs. Corp., 866 So.2d 1255, 1257 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
(holding that need and undue hardship “must be demonstrated by affidavit or sworn testimony”);
N. Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Button, 592 So.2d 367, 368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), (“[T]he unsworn
assertions of plaintiff’s counsel were insufficient to constitute a showing of need and undue
hardship.”), called into doubt on other grounds as stated in Columbia Hosp. Corp. of S. Broward
v. Fain, 16 So.3d 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).
 Here, Defendant has ample information from which she can present her case. At the core
of this case is whether Ms. Giuffre “lied” when she said that the Defendant recruited her to be
sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein. Defendant can, of course, testify to her interactions with Ms.
Giuffre, as well as call other witnesses regarding the circumstances of those interactions.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 37 of 40
31
Defendant can also get information from her close friend, Epstein, about the circumstances of the
interactions. Defendant and Epstein are not only good friends but they have a “common interest
agreement” that facilitates transfer of information between the two of them. Finally, to make her
showing that she is unable to obtain “equivalent information” from other sources, Defendant
would have to explain in detail what other steps she has taken to secure information from other
sources, including not only Epstein but other witnesses present at Epstein’s mansion. Having
failed to do any of this, Defendant has not made a sufficient showing to obtain work-product
information. Pupillo, 54 So.3d at 614.
IV. COMMUNICATIONS WITH ATTORNEY JACK SCAROLA ARE COVERED
 BY A JOINT DEFENSE AGREEMENT AND ARE THUS PROTECTED BY
 ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND WORK-PRODUCTION PROTECTION.
 As a tag-along argument at the end of her motion, Defendant argues that Ms. Giuffre has
not established the existence of a common interest or joint defense agreement that embraces Jack
Scarola, the attorney for Cassell and Edwards in the Dershowitz litigation. Mot. to Compel at
23-24. Disclosure of that agreement involved notice to the parties to the agreement. Now that
appropriate notice has been provided, the agreement can be – and has been – disclosed. See
McCawley Decl., Ex. 16, common interest agreement. In view of the existence of the valid
agreement, it is clear that the referenced communications involving Scarola are protected. See,
e.g., Guiffre v. Maxwell, No. 15 CIV. 7433 (RWS), 2016 WL 1756918, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. May 2,
2016) (noting common interest agreement protection) (citing GUS Consulting GMBH v.
Chadbourne & Parke LLP, 20 Misc. 3d 539, 542, 858 N.Y.S.2d 591, 593 (Sup. Ct. 2008)).
CONCLUSION
 Defendant’s motion to compel should be denied in its entirety.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 38 of 40
32
Dated: June 1, 2016
Respectfully Submitted,
 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
 By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley
Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
Meredith Schultz (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
Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice)
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
 (954) 524-2820
Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
S.J. Quinney College of Law
University of Utah
383 University St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
(801) 585-520224
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 1st day of June, 2016, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission
of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
Laura A. Menninger, Esq.

24 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended
to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 39 of 40
33
Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
Tel: (303) 831-7364
Fax: (303) 832-2628
Email: [email protected]
 [email protected]
 /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley
 Sigrid S. McCawley
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 40 of 40
*,8))5(
96
0$;:(//
'HSRVLWLRQ
9,5*,1,$*,8))5(

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
$JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ	9LGHR,QF
WK6WUHHW6XLWH
'HQYHU&RORUDGR

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 22
$JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ	9LGHR,QF
9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 
 1 A I believe this is when I was hoping to
 2 join the CVRA case.
 3 Q All right. And do you know when this
 4 document was filed?
 5 And actually, just to be clear, about
 6 halfway there's actually a second document that was
 7 filed. So this is a composite exhibit. Let me be
 8 very clear.
 9 So after page 14 -- I'm sorry, 13, there's
 10 a second document that is styled Jane Doe #3 and Jane
 11 Doe #4's Corrected Motion Pursuant to Rule 21 for
 12 Joinder In Action.
 13 Do you see that?
 14 A Did you say page 14?
 15 Q It is on the 14th page of this document.
 16 Do you see that?
 17 A I do.
 18 Q And so this composite Exhibit 2 has both a
 19 motion and a corrected motion.
 20 Do you see that?
 21 A Yes.
 22 Q And were both of those pleadings
 23 authorized by you to be filed?
 24 A Yes.
 25 Q In other words, you wanted to join the
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 22
$JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ	9LGHR,QF
9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 
 1 CVRA action in or about December 30th, 2014, correct?
 2 A I -- I'm not aware of the exact dates.
 3 There's no dates on this. But I did try to join the
 4 motion, yes.
 5 Q All right. If you can look at the top
 6 line of the document.
 7 A Yes.
 8 Q Does it say, Entered on FLSD --
 9 A Oh, it does, too, I'm sorry, yes.
 10 Q That's all right. So does that refresh
 11 your memory as to about when you first sought to join
 12 the CVRA action?
 13 A Yes.
 14 Q December 30th, 2014, correct?
 15 A Yes.
 16 Q And the corrected motion was filed a few
 17 days later, correct?
 18 A Yes, correct.
 19 Q If I could turn to Defendant's Exhibit 3,
 20 which was January 21st.
 21 (Exhibit 3 marked.)
 22 MR. EDWARDS: Thank you.
 23 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Do you recognize this
 24 document?
 25 A Yes, I do.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 22
$JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ	9LGHR,QF
9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 
 1 physical features of Ghislaine Maxwell?
 2 A I can tell you that she had very large
 3 natural breasts. I can tell you that her pubic hair
 4 was dark brown, nearly black. I don't remember any
 5 specific birthmarks or moles that I could point out
 6 that would be relevant.
 7 Q Any scar?
 8 A I don't remember any scars.
 9 Q Any tattoos?
 10 A No tattoos.
 11 Q When did you next go to the El Brillo
 12 house?
 13 A I believe it would have been the next day.
 14 Q You believe it would have been or was it?
 15 MR. EDWARDS: Form.
 16 A I know that it was consecutive, that I
 17 continued to go there after my first -- the first
 18 time that the abuse took place there. It was
 19 consecutive that I was there, I believe, over the
 20 next course of weeks.
 21 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) What day of the week
 22 was the first time you went?
 23 A I don't know.
 24 Q Do you know whether you went the very next
 25 day or not?
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 22
$JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ	9LGHR,QF
9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 
 1 A I believe I did.
 2 Q All right. How did you get there the very
 3 next day?
 4 MR. EDWARDS: Form.
 5 A I believe my dad dropped me off again.
 6 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) When you say you
 7 believe, do you recall him doing that or are you
 8 guessing?
 9 A I don't -- well, this is how I figure
 10 this. I don't remember Ghislaine picking me up from
 11 Mar-a-Lago. I didn't have my own car. So the only
 12 way I could have really gotten there would have been
 13 my dad picking me up -- I mean, sorry, dropping me
 14 off.
 15 Q Do you have a distinct recollection of
 16 your father dropping you off there more than one day
 17 in a row?
 18 A Yes.
 19 Q You do not recall the car he was driving?
 20 A Like I said, he always drove trucks.
 21 That's as good as I can get.
 22 Q And so -- and you worked on weekends as
 23 well at Mar-a-Lago or no?
 24 A No.
 25 Q So the second day would have had to be
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 22
$JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ	9LGHR,QF
9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 
 1 A I wouldn't say directly.
 2 Q How --
 3 A I'd say I stayed with my parents for --
 4 like, I think I finished school at Crestwood. So I
 5 would have been in, I don't know, I guess eighth
 6 grade, finished eighth grade. And then -- I don't
 7 know. I really don't know. Around eighth grade.
 8 Q You went to Growing Together?
 9 A I think -- I think it was then.
 10 Q And how many years did you live at Growing
 11 Together?
 12 A Over a year.
 13 Q Were you ever in foster care?
 14 A What Growing Together was, was like a
 15 group home that sent you away to foster parents every
 16 night.
 17 Q So you lived in other people's homes
 18 during the period of time you were assigned to
 19 Growing Together?
 20 A Well, you stayed at Growing Together
 21 during the day and then at night you get sent home
 22 with parents.
 23 Q Did you go to school while you were at
 24 Growing Together?
 25 A Yeah, they offer education there.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 22
$JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ	9LGHR,QF
9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 
 1 Q So the education was at Growing Together?
 2 A Yeah.
 3 Q You did not attend a Palm Beach County --
 4 A I did, but you had to earn your levels up
 5 to be able to go outside. So I don't remember what
 6 level you have to get up to, to go out to another
 7 school. I think there was like seven levels or
 8 something. And you had to make it to, like, level 4
 9 to be able to go to outside school.
 10 Q So for some period of time you were
 11 assigned to Growing Together and you were going to
 12 school at Growing Together. And for some period of
 13 time you were going to other schools and coming back
 14 to Growing Together?
 15 A Correct.
 16 Q And then when you came back to Growing
 17 Together, you were sent to spend the night at a
 18 family's home?
 19 A Yes.
 20 Q So you never slept at Growing Together?
 21 A No.
 22 Q Did you live -- other than living at or
 23 staying at Growing Together during the day and
 24 sleeping at these other homes at night, is there
 25 anywhere else that you recall living in the period
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 22
$JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ	9LGHR,QF
9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 
 1 a 3. I think it's
 . I really can't make out
 3 the telephone number.
 4 Q Okay. Do you see Relationship? Can you
 5 read that?
 6 A Friend.
 7 Q Okay. Do you see just below that there's
 8 a line that says number 21?
 9 A Do not stop -- sorry, Do not sign
 10 application until requested to do so by
 11 administrating an oath.
 12 Q Okay.
 13 A Applicant's signature age 13 or older.
 14 Q Oh, it's by the signature line?
 15 A Yeah.
 16 Q And that's your signature?
 17 A Yes.
 18 Q All right. And this is the document that
 19 you recall filling out for your first passport?
 20 A I don't recall doing it, but yes, it's in
 21 my handwriting and it's got all of my information on
 22 it.
 23 Q Okay. And on line -- box 23 it's got your
 24 driver's license checked off, right?
 25 A July 23. Yeah, I really can't make out
I
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 22
$JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ	9LGHR,QF
9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 
 1 And when they say massage, that means erotic, okay?
 2 That's their term for it. I think there are plenty
 3 of other witnesses that can attest to what massage
 4 actually means.
 5 And I'm telling you that Ghislaine told me
 6 to go to Glenn Dubin and give him a massage, which
 7 means sex.
 8 Q Okay. So Glenn -- Ghislaine Maxwell told
 9 you to go give a massage to Glenn Dubin?
 10 A Correct.
 11 Q That's your testimony?
 12 A That is my testimony.
 13 Q All right. Ghislaine Maxwell told you to
 14 go give a massage to , correct?
 15 A Correct.
 16 Q Ghislaine Maxwell told you to give a
 17 massage to Prince Andrew, correct?
 18 A Correct.
 19 Q Ghislaine Maxwell told you to give a
 20 massage to Bill Richardson, correct?
 21 A Correct.
 22 Q When did Ghislaine Maxwell tell you to
 23 give a massage to Bill Richardson?
 24 A I don't know dates.
 25 Q Where were you?
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 22
$JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ	9LGHR,QF
9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 
 1 A When it happened?
 2 Q When Ghislaine Maxwell used the words, Go
 3 give a massage to Bill Richardson, where were you?
 4 MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form.
 5 Mischaracterizes her testimony.
 6 A I can't tell you where we were. I know
 7 where I was sent to. I don't know where we were when
 8 she told me to do that.
 9 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Where were you sent
 10 to --
 11 A New Mexico.
 12 Q -- by Ghislaine Maxwell?
 13 MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form.
 14 Mischaracterizes her testimony again.
 15 A Are you smiling at me because --
 16 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) No, I'm asking you to
 17 answer the question.
 18 A I have answered the question. I was sent
 19 to New Mexico.
 20 Q Okay. Where were you sent from?
 21 A I already answered that. I don't know
 22 where I was sent from.
 23 Q Okay.
 24 A I was flying everywhere with these people.
 25 Q Where were you sent by Ghislaine Maxwell
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 22
$JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ	9LGHR,QF
9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 
 1 to have sex with Jean Luc Brunel?
 2 MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form.
 3 Mischaracterized her testimony.
 4 A Many places.
 5 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Ghislaine Maxwell sent
 6 you to many places to have sex with Jean Luc Brunel?
 7 MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form.
 8 A It happened at many places, yes.
 9 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) You had sex with Jean
 10 Luc Brunel at many places is what you're saying,
 11 correct?
 12 A I was sent to Jean Luc Brunel at many
 13 places to have sex with him.
 14 Q When did Ghislaine Maxwell send you to a
 15 place to have sex with Jean Luc Brunel?
 16 A You are asking --
 17 MR. EDWARDS: Form.
 18 A -- me to answer the impossible.
 19 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) All right. When did
 20 Ghislaine Maxwell send you to have sex with the owner
 21 of a large hotel chain?
 22 MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form.
 23 Mischaracterization.
 24 A I'm going to keep answering the questions
 25 the same way that I keep answering them. I don't
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 22
$JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ	9LGHR,QF
9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 
 1 know where it was when she said to go do this.
 2 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Okay. Where were you
 3 sent to have sex with the owner of a large hotel
 4 chain by Ghislaine Maxwell?
 5 MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form.
 6 A I believe that was one time in France.
 7 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Which time in France?
 8 A I believe it was around the same time that
 9 Naomi Campbell had a birthday party.
 10 Q Where did you have sex with the owner of a
 11 large hotel chain in France around the time of Naomi
 12 Campbell's birthday party?
 13 A In his own cabana townhouse thing. It was
 14 part of a hotel, but I wouldn't call it a hotel.
 15 Jeffrey was staying there. Ghislaine was
 16 staying there. Emmy was staying there. I was
 17 staying there. This other guy was staying there. I
 18 don't know his name.
 19 I was instructed by Ghislaine to go and
 20 give him an erotic massage.
 21 Q She used the words erotic massage?
 22 A No, that's my word. The word massage is
 23 what they would use. That's their code word.
 24 Q Was she in the room when you gave this
 25 erotic massage to the owner of a large hotel chain?
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 22
$JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ	9LGHR,QF
9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 
 1 A No, she was not in the room. She was in
 2 another cabana.
 3 Q And other than telling you to go give the
 4 owner of this large hotel chain a massage, do you
 5 remember any other words she used to you to direct
 6 you in what you should do?
 7 A Not at the time, no.
 8 Q Where did -- where were you and where was
 9 Ms. Maxwell when she directed you to go have sex with
 10 Marvin Minsky?
 11 MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form.
 12 A I don't know.
 13 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Where did you go to
 14 have sex with Marvin Minsky?
 15 A I believe it was the U.S. Virgin Islands,
 16 Jeff's -- sorry, Jeffrey Epstein's island in the U.S.
 17 Virgin Islands.
 18 Q And when was that?
 19 A I don't know.
 20 Q Do you have any time of year?
 21 A No.
 22 Q Do you know how old you were?
 23 A No.
 24 Q Other than Glenn Dubin, ,
 25 Prince Andrew, Jean Luc Brunel, Bill Richardson,
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 22
$JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ	9LGHR,QF
9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 
 1 another prince, the large hotel chain owner and
 2 Marvin Minsky, is there anyone else that Ghislaine
 3 Maxwell directed you to go have sex with?
 4 A I am definitely sure there is. But can I
 5 remember everybody's name? No.
 6 Q Okay. Can you remember anything else
 7 about them?
 8 A Look, I've given you what I know right
 9 now. I'm sorry. This is very hard for me and very
 10 frustrating to have to go over this. I don't -- I
 11 don't recall all of the people. There was a large
 12 amount of people that I was sent to.
 13 Q Do you have any notes of all these people
 14 that you were sent to?
 15 A No, I don't.
 16 Q Where are your notes?
 17 A I burned them.
 18 Q When did you burn them?
 19 A In a bonfire when I lived at Titusville
 20 because I was sick of going through this shit.
 21 Q Did you have lawyers who were representing
 22 you at the time you built a bonfire and burned these
 23 notes?
 24 A I've been represented for a long time, but
 25 it was not under the instruction of my lawyers to do
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 22
$JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ	9LGHR,QF
9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 
 1 this. My husband and I were pretty spiritual people
 2 and we believed that these memories were worth
 3 burning.
 4 Q So you burned notes of the men with whom
 5 you had sex while you were represented by counsel in
 6 litigation, correct?
 7 MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form.
 8 A This wasn't anything that was a public
 9 document. This was my own private journal, and I
 10 didn't want it anymore. So we burned it.
 11 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) When did you write
 12 that journal?
 13 A Just over time. I started writing it
 14 probably in, I don't know, I can't speculate, 2012,
 15 2011.
 16 Q So you did not write this journal at the
 17 time it happened?
 18 A No.
 19 Q You started writing this journal
 20 approximately a decade after you claim you finished
 21 being sexually trafficked, correct?
 22 A Yes.
 23 Q And you started writing a journal after
 24 you had a lawyer, correct?
 25 A Correct.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 22
$JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ	9LGHR,QF
9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 
 1 Q Including Mr. Edwards, who is sitting
 2 right here, correct?
 3 A Correct.
 4 Q What did that journal look like?
 5 A It was green.
 6 Q And what else?
 7 A It was just a spiral notebook.
 8 Q Okay. And what did you put into that
 9 green spiral notebook?
 10 A Bad memories. Things that I've gone
 11 through, lots of things, you know. I can't tell you.
 12 There was a lot of pages. It was over 300 pages in
 13 that book.
 14 Q Did you ever show that book to your
 15 lawyers?
 16 A No.
 17 Q Did you show that book to anyone?
 18 A My husband.
 19 Q Did you show it to anyone else besides
 20 your husband?
 21 A No.
 22 Q Did you tear out pages and give them to
 23 Sharon Churcher?
 24 A No, I wrote -- those pages that you're
 25 talking about, I wrote for her specifically. She
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 22
$JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ	9LGHR,QF
9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 
 1 wanted to know about the Prince Andrew incident.
 2 Q So that's a different piece of paper?
 3 A Yeah, that's just random paper.
 4 Q So you had a green spiral notebook that
 5 you began sometime in 2011 or 2012 in which you wrote
 6 down your recollections about what had happened to
 7 you, and you burned that in a bonfire in 2013.
 8 Did I get that right?
 9 A You got that right.
 10 Q And do you have no other names of people
 11 to whom you claim Ghislaine Maxwell directed you to
 12 have sex, correct?
 13 A At this time, no.
 14 Q Is there any document that would refresh
 15 your recollection that you could look at?
 16 A If you have a document you'd like to show
 17 me, I would be glad to look at it and tell you the
 18 names I recognize off of that.
 19 Q I'm just asking you if there's a document
 20 you know of that has this list of names in it?
 21 A Not in front of me, no.
 22 Q Where is the original of the photograph
 23 that has been widely circulated in the press of you
 24 with Prince Andrew?
 25 A I probably still have it. It's not in my
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 22
$JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ	9LGHR,QF
9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 
 1 possession right now.
 2 Q Where is it?
 3 A Probably in some storage boxes.
 4 Q Where?
 5 A In Sydney.
 6 Q Where in Sydney?
 7 A At some family's house. We got the boxes
 8 shipped to Australia, and they were picked up off the
 9 porch by my nephews and brought to their house.
 10 Q Which is where?
 11 A In Sydney.
 12 Q Where in Sydney?
 13 A
 14 Q And who lives in that house?
 15 A Well, it's owned by my mother-in-law and
 16 father-in-law, but my nephews live in the house.
 17 Q What are their names?
 18 A I'm not giving you the names of my
 19 nephews.
 20 Q What's the address of the house?
 21 A Why would you want that?
 22 Q I want to know where the photograph is.
 23 I'm asking you where the photograph is. And you've
 24 just told me it's somewhere in ?
 25 A Yes.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 22
$JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ	9LGHR,QF
9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 
 1 Q So where in is the photograph
 2 located?
 3 A If I can't 100 percent say that the
 4 photograph is there, it could be at my house that I
 5 presently live in. I'm not going to give you the
 6 address of my nephews' residence.
 7 Q When is the last time you saw the
 8 photograph in person?
 9 A When I packed and left America.
 10 Q Colorado?
 11 A Yes.
 12 Q All right. So you had that photograph
 13 here with you in Colorado?
 14 A Yes.
 15 Q What's on the back of the photograph?
 16 A I'm sorry?
 17 Q Is there anything on the back of the
 18 photograph?
 19 A There's like the date it was printed, but
 20 no writing or anything.
 21 Q Okay. Does it say where it was printed?
 22 A I don't believe so. I think it just -- I
 23 don't remember. I just remember there's a date on
 24 it.
 25 Q Whose camera was it taken with?
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 22
$JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ	9LGHR,QF
9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 
 1 A My little yellow Kodak camera.
 2 Q Who took the picture?
 3 A Jeffrey Epstein.
 4 Q And where did you have it developed?
 5 A I believe when I got back to America.
 6 Q So where?
 7 A I don't know.
 8 Q Palm Beach?
 9 A I don't know.
 10 Q What is the date the photograph was
 11 printed?
 12 A I believe it's in March 2001.
 13 Q Okay.
 14 A But that's just off of my photographic
 15 memory. I don't -- it could be different, but I
 16 think it's March 2001.
 17 Q You have a photographic memory?
 18 A I'm not saying I have a photographic
 19 memory. But if I'd look at the back of the photo and
 20 I remember what it says, I believe it was March 2001.
 21 Q Did the photograph ever leave your
 22 possession for a while?
 23 A I gave it to the FBI.
 24 Q Okay. And when did you get it back?
 25 A When they took copies of it.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 22
$JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ	9LGHR,QF
9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 
 1 Q When was that?
 2 A 2011.
 3 Q When they came to interview you?
 4 A Yes.
 5 Q So from 2011 until you left Colorado it
 6 was in your personal possession?
 7 A Yes.
 8 Q What other documents related to this case
 9 are in that, storage boxes in Australia?
 10 MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form.
 11 A Documents related to this case -- there --
 12 I don't know. I really can't tell you. I mean,
 13 there's seven boxes full of Nerf guns, my kids' toys,
 14 photos. I don't know what other documents would be
 15 in there.
 16 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Did anyone search
 17 those documents after you received discovery requests
 18 from us in this case?
 19 A I haven't been able to obtain those boxes.
 20 I can't get them sent back up to me. It's going to
 21 cost me a large amount of money. And right now I'm
 22 trying to look after my family, so I'm not able to
 23 afford to get them up.
 24 Q You live in Australia, correct?
 25 A I do.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 22
$JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ	9LGHR,QF
9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 
 1 read it.
 2 MS. MENNINGER: We're going off the
 3 record.
 4 MR. EDWARDS: Yeah, that's fine. She'll
 5 read.
 6 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: That concludes today's
 7 proceedings. We're off the record at 5:28.
 8 (Proceedings concluded at 5:28 p.m.)
 9
 10 * * * * * * *
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 25
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 22
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------X
VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,
Plaintiff,
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
15-cv-07433-RWS
--------------------------------------------------X
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO EXCEED PRESUMPTIVE TEN DEPOSITION LIMIT .........................................
Laura A. Menninger
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
HADDON, MORGAN, AND FOREMAN, P.C.
East 10th Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
303.831.7364
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 11
1
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell (“Ms. Maxwell”) files this Response in Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit, and states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
Despite having taken only three depositions to date, Plaintiff prematurely requests
permission to exceed the presumptive ten deposition limit imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P.
30(a)(2)(A)(i) and to conduct 17 separate depositions, almost twice the limit. Without legal
support, Plaintiff attempts to conflate the presumptive time limitation for each deposition of
seven hours with a right to take a total of 70 hours of depositions. This is an absurd reading of
the Federal Rules. The presumptive ten deposition limitation is an independent limitation, and
speaks to the number of separate deponents, not deposition time. Indeed, the two independent
limitations do not even appear in the same section of the rules.
The heart of Plaintiff’s argument is that Ms. Maxwell inconveniently testified and denied
Plaintiff’s claims, rather than invoking the Fifth Amendment. This dashed Plaintiff’s apparent
hope to obtain an adverse inference, rather than actually having to prove her case against Ms.
Maxwell. Instead, Ms. Maxwell fully testified for the entire 7 hours, responded to all questions
posed to her,1 and testified based on her actual knowledge. Ms. Maxwell’s testimony simply
bears no relevance to Plaintiff’s request to take more than 10 depositions of non-party witnesses.
Conspicuously absent from Plaintiff’s motion are (a) any actual information she believes
these witnesses may provide which is neither cumulative nor duplicative of other information
already disclosed in this case, (b) the fact the information can be obtained from other sources,
1 Plaintiff flatly mis-represents to the Court that Ms. Maxwell “refused” to answer the questions posed to
her, as the actual transcript amply demonstrates. Ms. Maxwell did not avoid any questions and answered
all questions to the best of her recollection relating to alleged events 15 years ago. The majority of the
bullet point “summary” of the matters about which Ms. Maxwell could not testify were based either on a
lack of any personal knowledge or the fact that the events claimed by Plaintiff did not actually happen.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 11
2
and (c) facts demonstrating that the burden and expense of the discovery is justified by the needs
of this case. Indeed, she has not established that the testimony is even relevant to the actual
issues in this matter. Plaintiff’s inability to establish these factors requires denial of the motion.
I. PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST IS PREMATURE
First, the request to exceed the presumptive ten-deposition limit is premature. “[C]ourts
generally will not grant leave to expand the number of depositions until the moving party has
exhausted the ten depositions permitted as of right under Rule 30(a)(2)(A) or the number
stipulated to by the opposing party.” Gen. Elec. Co. v. Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am., No. 3:06-CV232 (CFD), 2006 WL 1525970, at *2 (D. Conn. May 25, 2006).
This guideline makes sense because a “moving party must not only justify those
depositions it wishes to take, but also the depositions it has already taken.” Id. (citing Barrow v.
Greenville Indep. Sch. Dist., 202 F.R.D. 480, 482 (N.D.Tex. 2001)). This rule is in place because
“a party could indirectly circumvent the cap on depositions by exhausting the maximum allotted
number to those that she could not justify under the Rule 26(b)(2) standards, and then seek[ ]
leave to exceed the limit in order to take depositions that she could substantiate.” Id. at 483.
Here, Plaintiff seeks a pre-emptive determination that she should be permitted 17
depositions, almost twice the presumptive limit, yet her proposed depositions are not calculated
to lead to admissible evidence in this case. By way of example, Plaintiff identifies Nadia
Marcinkova, Sarah Kellen (a/k/a Sarah Kensignton or Sarah Vickers), and Jeffrey Epstein as
alleged “co-conspirators” with each other. She requests the depositions of each. Plaintiff
anticipates each will invoke the Fifth Amendment – in other words, she will not obtain any
discoverable information from them.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 11
3
Plaintiff makes a bizarre argument that somehow this testimony can be used to create an
adverse inference against Ms. Maxwell,2 despite the fact that Ms. Maxwell did not invoke the
Fifth Amendment and she testified fully and answered every question posed to her with the only
exception the irrelevant and harassing questions Plaintiff posed to her concerning her adult,
consensual sexual activities. In other words, depositions of Marcincova, Kellen and Epstein
would serve Plaintiff’s goal to make a convoluted legal argument, not to actually seek
discoverable information. In light of this, the “burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the parties' resources, the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving
the issues.” Atkinson v. Goord, No. 01 CIV. 0761 LAKHBP, 2009 WL 890682, at *1 (S.D.N.Y.
Apr. 2, 2009); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). If Plaintiff chooses to use her depositions in this manner,
she risks utilizing three of her available 10 depositions for an illegitimate purpose. She should
not be rewarded with a pre-emptive carte blanche in advance to take additional depositions.
II. THE PROPOSED DEPOSITIONS ARE CUMULATIVE, DUPLICATIVE, AND
NOT RELEVANT TO THE CENTRAL ISSUES OF THE DISPUTE
Plaintiff has not met the requisite showing to permit in excess of 10 depositions. In
Sigala v. Spikouris, 00 CV 0983(ILG), 2002 WL 721078 at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2002), the
Court set forth the general principles relevant to a party's application to conduct more than ten
depositions:
2 Invocation of the Fifth Amendment by a third party witness cannot be used to create an adverse
inference against a party in a civil action. See United States v. Dist. Council of New York City & Vicinity
of United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., No. 90 CIV. 5722 (CSH), 1993 WL 159959, at *5
(S.D.N.Y. May 12, 1993) (“the general rule [is] that an individual's claim of Fifth Amendment protection
is personal, and does not give rise to adverse inferences against others.”); Brenner v. World Boxing
Council, 675 F.2d 445, 454 n. 7 (2d Cir.), cert denied, 459 U.S. 835 (1982) (“Furthermore, since King
was a non-party witness, no adverse inference against appellees could have been drawn from his refusal
to testify.”).
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 11
4
The Federal Rules presumptively limit the number of depositions that each side
may conduct to ten. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2) (A) (“A party must obtain leave of
court, which shall be granted to the extent consistent with the principles stated in
Rule 26(b)(2), if ... a proposed deposition would result in more than ten
depositions being taken ....”); accord Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes,104
F.Supp.2d 334, 342 (S.D.N.Y.2000); Landry v. St. James Parish Sch. Bd., No.
Civ. A 99-1438, 2000 WL 1741886, at *2 (E.D.La. Nov. 22, 2000). The purpose
of Rule 30(a)(2)(A) is to “enable courts to maintain a ‘tighter rein’ on the extent
of discovery and to minimize the potential cost of ‘[w]ide-ranging discovery’ . . .
.” Whittingham v. Amherst Coll., 163 F.R.D. 170, 171-72 (D.Mass.1995) (citation
omitted). Accordingly, “[t]he mere fact that many individuals may have
discoverable information does not necessarily entitle a party to depose each such
individual.” Dixon v. Certainteed Corp., 164 F.R.D. 685, 692 (D.Kan.1996).
“The factors relevant to determining whether a party should be entitled to more than ten
depositions are now set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C)3 and include whether (1) the discovery
sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or can be obtained from some other source that
is more convenient, less burdensome, or less extensive, (2) the party seeking discovery has had
ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action, and (3) the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case,
the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of
the discovery in resolving the issues.” Atkinson, 2009 WL 890682, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2009)
(internal quotations omitted).
3 Rule 26(b)(1) has since been modified to read “(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative,
or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party
seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the
proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” The scope of discovery permitted by 26(b)(1)
is “non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case,
considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access
to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether
the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Thus, the factors to be considered
have simply been moved to a new number with cross reference.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 11
5
Weighing these factors, there is no basis for permitting more than the presumptive ten
deposition limit. First, as highlighted by the motion, the information purportedly sought is
cumulative and duplicative. By way of example, Plaintiff has already deposed Johanna Sjoberg
(a former Epstein employee), Juan Alessi (a former Epstein employee), and David Rodgers4
(former Epstein Pilot). She further seeks to depose Maria Alessi and Jo Fontanella (former
Epstein household employees), as well as and Emmy Taylor (identified as assistants
to Ms. Maxwell or Mr. Epstein). The information Plaintiff claims each of the witnesses may
have is identical to that of each other – what they observed while working for Epstein. Plaintiff
goes so far as to state that Maria Alessi’s deposition is expected to “corroborate” the
observations of her husband’s.
Plaintiff admits that the purpose in seeking the additional depositions is “obtaining
witnesses, like Ms. Sjoberg, who can corroborate that [Plaintiff] is telling the truth.” Yet, Ms.
Sjoberg did not “corroborate that [Plaintiff] is telling the truth.” Instead, she testified that she
was hired as an adult by Jeffrey Epstein to provide professional massages, that Ms. Maxwell
never asked her for any type of sexual massage, that she never saw Plaintiff giving a massage to
Ms. Maxwell nor did she see Ms. Maxwell receive a massage from any underage girl, indeed, in
her 5 plus years working for Mr. Epstein, she never saw any person underage at his home.
Regardless, Plaintiff is looking in vain for more testimony of exactly the same character,
precisely the type of testimony the presumptive limit is intended to prevent.
Similarly, the expected deposition testimony of former Palm Beach Detective Joe
Recarey and former Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter are duplicative of each other.
4 Mr. Rodgers deposition, held last Friday and requiring a separate trip to Florida for Colorado counsel after the
scheduled court hearing on Thursday, served simply to authenticate flight logs. There are far more convenient, less
burdensome, and less expensive methods by which such information could have been obtained, such as a verifying
affidavit, yet Plaintiff chose to unnecessarily burden counsel, the witness and counsel for the witness with a 3 hour
deposition to accomplish the same end.
Jane Doe 2
-
■
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 11
6
Putting aside the admissibility of this testimony, it appears that both men were involved in the
investigation of Mr. Epstein and are expected to testify about their investigation. Plaintiff’s
allegations were not a part of their investigation, which took place years after Plaintiff left the
country. Moreover, their investigation did not involve Ms. Maxwell. Again, such duplicative
and irrelevant deposition testimony speaks to the intended purpose of the ten-deposition limit,
not a reason to exceed that limit.
The same holds true for Nadia Marcinkova, Sarah Kellen (a/k/a Sarah Kensignton or
Sarah Vickers) and Jeffrey Epstein, each of whom Plaintiff anticipates will not respond to
questions and invoke their Fifth Amendment right. As discussed above, such invocation has no
bearing on the issues in this matter. Moreover, it is obviously cumulative and duplicative.
Plaintiff also identifies Rinaldo Rizzo and Jean Luc Brunel but fails to provide any
information from which Ms. Maxwell or the Court could identify the subject matter of their
expected testimony. Thus, it is unclear how these individuals have information that differs from
or would add to the other proposed deponents. It is the Plaintiff’s burden to explain to the Court
why these depositions should be permitted if they exceed the presumptive limit, why the
information would not be cumulative, and its relevance to the important issues in the action, or
the importance of the discovery in resolving those issues. She simply fails to provide any
information by which the Court can assess these factors, and thus should not be permitted to
exceed the deposition limit based on her proffer.
III. THE TESTIMONY SOUGHT IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS SINGLE COUNT
DEFAMATION CASE
This case is a simple defamation case. Plaintiff, through her counsel, filed a pleading
making certain claims regarding “Jane Doe No. #3” – the Plaintiff – and her alleged
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 11
7
“circumstances.” See Complaint. Ms. Maxwell denied the allegations made stating they were
“untrue” and “obvious lies.” Plaintiff claims these statements are defamatory because she has
been called a “liar.”
“A public figure claiming defamation under New York law must establish that ‘the
statements ... complain[ed] of were (1) of and concerning [the plaintiff], (2) likely to be
understood as defamatory by the ordinary person, (3) false, and (4) published with actual
malice.’” Biro v. Conde Nast, 963 F. Supp. 2d 255, 276 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), aff'd, 807 F.3d 541
(2d Cir. 2015), and aff'd, 622 F. App'x 67 (2d Cir. 2015).
If Ms. Maxwell’s statements are essentially true – Plaintiff lied – Plaintiff cannot
establish her claim, and it is an absolute defense.5 Further, if Plaintiff cannot prove actual malice
by Ms. Maxwell, her claim fails. See Contemporary Mission, Inc. v. New York Times Co., 842
F.2d 612, 621 (2d Cir. 1988) (limited purpose public figure must establish by clear and
convincing evidence that the defendant published the alleged defamatory statement with actual
malice, “that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was
false or not”) (quoting New York Times, 376 U.S. 241, 280 (1964)). That is, Plaintiff must prove
that Ms. Maxwell permitted the publication of the statement knowing it to be untrue.
None of the witnesses identified are listed as having discoverable information regarding
any of the elements of this claim. None is claimed to have direct knowledge to confirm the truth
of Plaintiff’s claims about what happened to her, that the acts she claims she participated in
5 There is only one public statement that existed on January 2, 2015 to which Ms. Maxwell was responding in the
statement by her press agent. The document is the Joinder Motion filed in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act case on
behalf of Plaintiff by her attorneys, Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell. Menninger Decl., Ex. A, p. 4. The very first
line describing Jane Doe #3 Circumstances is false, as Plaintiff now concedes. It read: “In 1999, Jane Doe #3 was
approached by Ghislaine Maxwell,” and continuing that “Maxwell persuaded Jane Doe # 3 (who was only fifteen
years old) to come to Epstein's mansion . . .” Plaintiff now concedes that she did not meet Ms. Maxwell or Mr.
Epstein in 1999, and she was not 15 years old. Menninger Decl., Ex. A at 26-29. No amount of “circumstantial
evidence” can overcome the fact that Ms. Maxwell’s statement was correct and that statements in the Joinder
Motion were untrue.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 11
8
occurred or that they occurred with the people she claims to have been involved. Rather, each
witness identified as being able to provide their observations regarding “other” allegedly
underage girls, their own personal experience,6 or beliefs about Plaintiff’s credibility. None of
this is relevant. This is not a case about Jeffery Epstein or the alleged “modus operandi of the
Epstein organization.” This is a simple case of if Ms. Maxwell’s denial of the allegations made
by Plaintiff about Plaintiff’s own interactions with Maxwell was defamatory, and if Ms. Maxwell
acted with actual malice in issuing the denial. Plaintiff’s attempt to amplify this proceeding into
something broader should not be condoned.
Because the evidence sought is nothing more than extraneous inadmissible
“circumstantial evidence”7 irrelevant to proving the essential elements of the claim, “the burden
or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the
case, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance
of the discovery in resolving the issues.” Atkinson, 2009 WL 890682, at *1. As such, the
request for the additional depositions should be denied.
WHEREFORE, Ms. Maxwell requests that the Motion to permit in excess of the
presumptive ten deposition limit be denied; alternatively, if in excess of ten depositions are
permitted, Ms. Maxwell requests that Plaintiff be required to pay all costs and attorney’s fees
6 The information sought is also inadmissible. Plaintiff seeks testimony from witness who she claims will testify to
experience similar to her stories and this will “corroborate Ms. Giuffre's account description of the motive, way in
which Epstein and his co-conspirators created opportunity, intent, plan, knowledge, and to the specifics that make up
the criminal signature of Epstein and his co-conspirators.” Motion at 15-16. Such evidence is prohibited by
FRE 404(b), which states “Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s
character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.”
Furthermore, no other witness has claimed as Plaintiff does that Ghislaine Maxwell sexually abused them, sexually
trafficked them, or that she partook in daily sex with any underage girls. Plaintiff’s claim stands in isolation because
it is fictional.
7 This “circumstantial evidence” has no bearing on the truthfulness of the stories published by Plaintiff. It is equally
likely to show that Plaintiff became aware of the allegations of others and decided to hop on the band wagon. She
then made up similar claims for the purpose of getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the media for
publicizing her allegations and identifying well know public figures whose names she has seen documents that she
reviewed or other stories she had read.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 11
9
associated with attending any deposition occurring outside 100 miles of the Courthouse for the
Southern District of New York pursuant to S.D.N.Y L.Civ.R. 30.1.
Dated: June 6, 2016.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Laura A. Menninger
Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice)
HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: 303.831.7364
Fax: 303.832.2628
[email protected]
Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 11
10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on June 6, 2016, I electronically served this Defendant’s Response in Opposition to
Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit via ECF on the following:
Sigrid S. McCawley
Meridith Schultz
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
[email protected]
[email protected]
Paul G. Cassell
383 S. University Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
[email protected]
Bradley J. Edwards
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS,
FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
[email protected]
J. Stanley Pottinger
49 Twin Lakes Rd.
South Salem, NY 10590
[email protected]
/s/ Nicole Simmons
Nicole Simmons
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 11
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Virginia L. Giuffre,
Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
v.
Ghislaine Maxwell,
 Defendant.
________________________________/
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
EXCEED PRESUMPTIVE TEN DEPOSITION LIMIT
Sigrid McCawley
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
(954) 356-0011
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 15
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. THE PROPOSED DEPOSITIONS ARE IMPORTANT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL
CLAIMS AND DEFENSES IN THIS CASE, AND NONE ARE DUPLICATIVE. ........ 1
II. MS. GIUFFRE IS SEEKING HIGHLY RELEVANT TRIAL TESTIMONY. .................. 6
III. MS. GIUFFRE’S REQUEST IS TIMELY. ........................................................................ 9
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 15
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
Cases
Atkinson v. Goord,
No. 01 CIV. 0761 LAKHBP, 2009 WL 890682 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2009) ................................3
Gen. Elec. Co. v. Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am.,
No. 3:06-CV-232 (CFD), 2006 WL 1525970 (D. Conn. May 25, 2006) ..................................9
LiButti v. United States,
107 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 1997).......................................................................................................8
Rules
Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) .........................................................................................................................7
Fed. R. Evid. 415(a) .........................................................................................................................7
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 15
1
 Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this reply
in support of her Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit. The motion should be
granted because Ms. Giuffre has shown good cause for needing to exceed the ten deposition limit
and in light of recent developments, Ms. Giuffre has streamlined her request, and now seeks only
a total of three additional depositions. Notably, while Defendant contests Ms. Giuffre’s motion,
Defendant has herself unilaterally – and without seeking any Court approval – set twelve
witnesses for deposition in this matter. In contrast to Defendant’s unilateral action, Ms. Giuffre
has properly sought this Court’s permission. The Court should grant her motion and allow her to
take the three additional depositions.
I. THE PROPOSED DEPOSITIONS ARE IMPORTANT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL
CLAIMS AND DEFENSES IN THIS CASE, AND NONE ARE DUPLICATIVE.
Defendant argues that the depositions Ms. Giuffre seeks to take are somehow
“duplicative” of each other. Even a quick reading of the Defendant’s pleading makes clear this
is untrue. Defendant repeatedly gives her own narrow view of what existing witnesses have said.
For example, Defendant argues that Ms. Sjoberg “did not corroborate that [Ms. Giuffre] is telling
the truth.” Defendant’s Response at 5. Defendant’s characterization is untrue.1
 But, as the mere
1
 Defendant wholly mischaracterized Ms. Sjoberg’s testimony as involving “professional
massages.” Defendant’s Resp. at 5. In fact, Ms. Sjoberg testified that, when she was a twentyone-year-old college student, Defendant (not Jeffrey Epstein) recruited and hired her under the
pretext of being a personal assistant to provide sexual massages. As one example of this
testimony, Sjoberg testified that Defendant became angry with her for not “finishing your job”
when Defendant was the one who ended up having to bring Epstein to orgasm when Ms. Sjoberg
did not. See McCawley Dec at Exhibit 1, Sjoberg Dep. Tr. at 142:25-143:14(Q. What did you
understand Maxwell to mean when you said that you hadn’t finished the job, with respect to the
camera? A. She implied that I had not brought him to orgasm. Q. So is it fair to say that Maxwell
expected you to perform sexual acts when you were massaging Jeffrey? A. I can answer? Yes, I
took that conversation to mean that it what was expected of me.) Ms. Sjoberg’s testimony also
shows that Defendant was a predator of young women and girls, and that her business was to
provide girls for Jeffrey Epstein to have sex with. Id. at 141:3-5; 150:16-151:2 (Q. Did Maxwell
ever ask you to bring other girls over to – for Jeffrey? A. Yes. Q. I want to go back to this: You
testified to two things just now with Sigrid that you said were implied to you. A. Okay. Q. The
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 15
2
fact of this dispute confirms, this case is going to be hotly contested and the weight of the
evidence on each side is going to be vitally important. The Court is well aware of many other
civil cases where the parties have taken far more than ten depositions by mutual agreement.
Defendant’s refusal to agree to a few more depositions here is simply an effort to keep all the
relevant facts from being developed.
Since Ms. Giuffre filed her initial motion seeking seven additional deposition, she has
worked diligently to try to streamline the necessary depositions and has discovered new
information concerning witnesses and their knowledge of the claims in this case. Accordingly,
Ms. Giuffre currently brings before this Court a significantly shorter list2
 of witnesses she needs
to depose to prove her claim, with some alterations. To be clear, Ms. Giuffre has narrowed her
request and is now only seeking an additional three depositions from the Court as follows:
For descriptions concerning the depositions already taken (Defendant; Ms. Sjoberg; Mr.
Alessi; Mr. Rodgers; and Mr. Rizzo), and those yet to be taken (Mr. Epstein; Mr. Gow;
Ms. Kellen; Ms. Marcinkova; Mr. Recarey; and Mr. Brunel), Ms. Giuffre references and
incorporates her descriptions in the moving brief. The only remaining witness is William
Jefferson Clinton. His deposition is necessary for the following reason:
first one was it would take pressure off of Maxwell to have more girls around? A. Right. Q.
What exactly did Maxwell say to you that led you to believe that was her implication? A. She
said she doesn’t have the time or desire to please him as much as he needs, and that’s why there
were other girls around.).
That Ms. Sjoberg never saw Ms. Giuffre give a massage to Ms. Maxwell is immaterial. Ms.
Sjoberg was with Defendant and Epstein when Ms. Giuffre was a minor child, and corroborates
Ms. Giuffre’s accounts concerning her being trafficked to Prince Andrew. Id. at 21-22. Ms.
Giuffre refers the Court to Ms. Sjoberg’s deposition testimony in its entirety (DE 173-5). It is
depositions like this - verifying Ms. Giuffre’s account of being recruited by Defendant for sex
with Epstein – that Defendant is trying avoid. However, multiple other witnesses have testimony
that supports Ms. Giuffre’s claims, in different and various ways, and Ms. Giuffre needs that
testimony to prove her defamation claim against Defendant.
2
 Ms. Giuffre is no longer seeking the deposition testimony of Emmy Taylor, , Jo Jo
Fontanella, and Michael Reiter.
Jane Doe 2
Jane Doe 2
--------------
-------- -
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 15
3
x In a 2011 interview, Ms. Giuffre mentioned former President Bill Clinton’s close
personal relationship with Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein. While Ms. Giuffre made no
allegations of illegal actions by Bill Clinton, Ms. Maxwell in her deposition raised Ms.
Giuffre’s comments about President Clinton as one of the “obvious lies” to which she
was referring in her public statement that formed the basis of this suit. Apart from the
Defendant and Mr. Epstein, former President Clinton is a key person who can provide
information about his close relationship with Defendant and Mr. Epstein and disapprove
Ms. Maxwell’s claims.
Ms. Giuffre is still working diligently with opposing counsel, these witnesses, and their attorneys
on scheduling, as well as identifying other witnesses who may have factual information about the
case. But, at this time, she seeks this Court’s approval for an additional three depositions –
depositions that will not consume the full seven hours presumptively allotted.
All three prongs of the three-factor test to evaluate a motion for additional depositions
strongly support granting the motion. Atkinson v. Goord, No. 01 CIV. 0761 LAKHBP, 2009 WL
890682, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2009). First, as reviewed in detail on a witness-by-witness basis
above, the discovery sought is not duplicative. The proposed deponents include the individual
who assisted in making the defamatory statement, women Defendant Maxwell hired to recruit
girls for Jeffrey Epstein, an individual with intimate knowledge of Defendant and Epstein’s
sexual trafficking ring, other victims of Jeffrey Epstein (including a then underage victim), Mr.
Epstein himself, and other witnesses who can corroborate important pieces of Ms. Giuffre’s
statements or refute Ms. Maxwell’s statements and positions. These witnesses’ testimony will
corroborate Ms. Giuffre’s account of Defendant being a recruiter of females for Epstein and
corroborate the type of abuse she and others suffered. Sadly, Ms. Giuffre is far from the only
one of Defendant’s victims, and there are other witnesses whose testimony is necessary in order
to demonstrate the truth of Ms. Giuffre’s claims and the falsity of the statements made by
Defendant. -
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 15
4
Second, if Ms. Giuffre is denied these depositions, she will not have had the opportunity
to obtain the information by other discovery in this case. The Court will recall from Ms.
Giuffre’s opening motion that Defendant’s surprising lack of memory has, in no small part,
caused the need for additional depositions. See Motion at 5-8 (listing 59 examples of memory
lapses during Ms. Maxwell deposition, including inability to remember events recorded on
aircraft flight logs or a photograph). Defendant offers no explanation for her convenient
forgetfulness. Moreover, evidence of being recruited by Defendant and being sexually assaulted
is not something Ms. Giuffre can obtain through requests for production or through
interrogatories. The only way of obtaining such evidence is from witness testimony by those
who were victimized, those who assisted Defendant in recruiting and abuse, and those who
observed the recruiting or the abuse. For example, Rinaldo Rizzo, an estate manager for a friend
of Defendant and Epstein’s, testified about an episode where Defendant had threatened a terrified
15 year old girl and confiscated her passport to try to make her have sex with Epstein on his
private island: See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, Rizzo Deposition 3
 Mr. Rizzo testified about
another episode where Defendant gave instructions to, and presided over, a group of eleven girls
3
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 15
5
as young as 14 years old playing a “kissing game” with and for Jeffrey Epstein.4
 Finally, the
Defendant appears to be concealing critical evidence 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 3, Alessi Deposition at 36-41. Document discovery
and interrogatories are not helpful in obtaining this type of evidence: depositions are needed.
Third, the burden and expense of this proposed discovery is limited to three additional
depositions. Defendant in this case is a multi-millionaire with able counsel. Three depositions
will not cause her undue burden, expense, or inconvenience. These depositions are important to
resolving issues in this case. Given that very few witnesses reside within 100 miles of the
courthouse and therefore cannot be compelled to trial, this request for only three additional
depositions is a reasonable request.
While Defendant opposes Ms. Giuffre’s request for Court approval of more than ten
depositions, she has unilaterally noticed more than ten depositions without bothering to seek
approval. As of the date of this filing, Defendant’s counsel has issued twelve subpoenas for
4
-
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 15
6
deposition testimony – the almost the exact same number Ms. Giuffre is seeking.5
 Defendant
cannot credibly oppose Ms. Giuffre’s additional depositions while she, herself, is trying to take
more than ten without leave of court.6
It is plain why Defendant does not want these depositions to go forward. Ms. Sjoberg,
Mr. Alessi, and Mr. Rizzo’s testimony was harmful to Defendant’s case, and the additional
depositions will provide further evidence that Defendant acted as Jeffrey Epstein’s madam,
proving the truth of Ms. Giuffre’s statements that Defendant proclaimed publically as “obvious
lies.”
II. MS. GIUFFRE IS SEEKING HIGHLY RELEVANT TRIAL TESTIMONY.
All of the people Ms. Giuffre seeks to depose have discoverable and important
information regarding the elements of Ms. Giuffre’s claims. Ms. Giuffre stated that Defendant
recruited her and other young females for sex with Jeffrey Epstein. The people she now seeks to
depose are all witnesses who can testify to Defendant working essentially as a madam for Jeffrey
Epstein, recruiting young females for Epstein, or corroborate other important aspects of her
statements. The fact that Defendant recruited girls, some of which were underage, for Epstein
makes Ms. Giuffre’s claim that she was also recruited by Defendant to ultimately have sex with
Epstein and others more credible – and that Defendant’s denials of any involvement in such
recruiting is a bald-faced lie. Witnesses will testify that Defendant’s recruitment and
management of the girls for Jeffrey Epstein was a major aspect of Defendant’s job, and that Ms.
5
 Defendant’s counsel has taken the deposition testimony of (1) Ms. Giuffre; (2) Ms. Giuffre’s
mother (Lynn Miller); (3) Ms. Giuffre’s father (Sky Roberts); and (4) Ms. Giuffre’s physician
(Dr. Olson). Defendant’s counsel has noticed the following witnesses for deposition: (5) Mr.
Austrich; (6) Mr. Figueroa; (7) Ms. Degorgieou; (8) a known victim of Jeffrey Epstein; (9) Mr.
Weisfield; (10) Ms. Churcher; (11) Ms. Boylan; and (12) the 30(b)(6) witness for Victims
Refuse Silence.
6 Defendant has unilaterally scheduled - without consulting counsel for Ms. Giuffre - at least two of these depositions for days when depositions of Ms. Giuffre’s witnesses have been set.
1111
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 15
7
Giuffre’s account of her sexual abuse and Defendant’s involvement accords perfectly with other
witnesses’ accounts of what Defendant’s job was for Epstein.7
That other young females were similarly recruited by the Defendant is evidence that Ms.
Giuffre is telling the truth about her experiences – and thus direct evidence that Defendant
defamed her when calling her a liar. Clearly, if Ms. Giuffre can establish that Defendant’s
modus operandi was to recruit young females for Epstein, that helps corroborate Ms. Giuffre’s
own testimony that Defendant recruited her for the same purposes and in the same manner.
Although the Court need not make a final ruling on this evidentiary issue now, Rule 404(b) itself
makes such testimony admissible. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) (other act “evidence may be
admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.”). Indeed, even more specifically
than the general provisions of Rule 404(b), Rule 415 makes these other acts admissible, due to
the fact that those involved in sexual abuse of minors have a strong propensity for repeating
those crimes. See Fed. R. Evid. 415(a)( (“In a civil case involving a claim for relief based on a
party’s alleged sexual assault or child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the party
committed any other sexual assault or child molestation.”).
 Entirely apart from corroborating Ms. Giuffre’s own individual abuse, however,
Defendant fails to recognize that in calling Ms. Giuffre a “liar”, she was attacking all aspects of
Ms. Giuffre’s account – including Ms. Giuffre’s statements that Defendant served generally as a
recruiter of girls for Epstein and that Epstein sexually abused the underage girls that were
7
 Defendant’s specious suggestion that Ms. Giuffre heard about the other girls whom she
recruited for sexual purposes and then decided to “hop on the band wagon” (Defendant’s Resp.
at 8 n.7) tacitly admits that Defendant procured a “band wagon” of girls for Jeffrey Epstein to
abuse. Moreover, Defendant cannot refute the documentary evidence that she was on Epstein
private jet with Ms. Giuffre over 20 times while Ms. Giuffre was a minor – flights that
Defendant is, quite conveniently, now unable to recall. Motion at 5-8.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 15
8
brought to him. Thus, in this defamation case, the testimony of these witnesses are admissible
not only to bolster Ms. Giuffre’s testimony about her individual abuse, but because they are
simply part of the body of statements whose truth or falsity is at issue in this case.
 In addition, one of the witnesses that Ms. Giuffre seeks to depose is registered sex
offender Jeffrey Epstein, who stands at the center of the case. Indeed, some of the most critical
events took place in the presence of just three people: Ms. Giuffre, defendant Maxwell, and
Epstein. If Epstein were to tell the truth, his testimony would fully confirm Ms. Giuffre’s
account of her sexual abuse. Epstein, however, may well attempt to support Defendant by
invoking the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions about his sexual abuse of Ms.
Giuffre. Apparently privy to her former boyfriend Epstein’s anticipated plans in this regard,8
Defendant makes the claim that it would be a “convoluted argument” to allow Ms. Giuffre to use
those invocations against her. Defendant’s Resp. at 3. Tellingly, Defendant’s response brief
cites no authority to refute that proposition that adverse inference can be drawn against coconspirators. Presumably this is because, as recounted in Ms. Giuffre’s opening brief (at pp. 20-
22), the Second Circuit’s seminal decision of LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir.
1997), squarely upheld the drawing of adverse inferences based on a non-party’s invocation of a
Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The Second Circuit instructed that, the circumstances of
given case, rather than status of particular nonparty witness, determines whether nonparty
witness' invocation of privilege against self-incrimination is admissible in course of civil
litigation. Id. at122-23. The Second Circuit also held that, in determining whether nonparty
witness’ invocation of privilege against self-incrimination in course of civil litigation and
8
 In discovery, Defendant Maxwell has produced several emails between Epstein and herself
discussing Ms. Giuffre.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 15
9
drawing of adverse inferences is admissible, court may consider the following nonexclusive
factors:
(1) nature of witness’ relationship with and loyalty to party;
(2) degree of control which party has vested in witness in regard to key facts and subject
matter of litigation;
(3) whether witness is pragmatically noncaptioned party in interest and whether
assertion of privilege advances interests of witness and party in outcome of litigation; and
(4) whether witness was key figure in litigation and played controlling role in respect to
its underlying aspects.
Id. at 124-25. Ms. Giuffre will be able to establish that all these factors tip decisively in favor of
allowing an adverse inference. Accordingly, her efforts to depose Epstein, Marcinkova, and
Kellen seek important information that will be admissible at trial.
III. MS. GIUFFRE’S REQUEST IS TIMELY.
Defendant also argues that this motion is somehow “premature.” Defendant’s Resp. at
2-3. Clearly, if Ms. Giuffre had waited to file her motion until later, Defendant would have
argued until the matter came too late. The motion is proper at this time because, as of the date of
this filing, fact discovery closes in 17 days (although Ms. Giuffre has recently filed a motion for
a 30-day extension of the deadline). In order to give the Court the opportunity to rule as far in
advance as possible – thereby permitting counsel for both side to schedule the remaining
depositions – Ms. Giuffre brings the motion now. She also requires a ruling in advance so that
she can make final plans about how many depositions she has available and thus which
depositions she should prioritize. 9
9
 Defendant tries to find support for her prematurity argument in Gen. Elec. Co. v. Indem. Ins.
Co. of N. Am., No. 3:06-CV-232 (CFD), 2006 WL 1525970, at *2 (D. Conn. May 25, 2006).
However, in that case, the Court found a motion for additional depositions to be premature, in
part, because “[d]iscovery has not even commenced” . . . and the moving party “ha[d] not listed
with specificity those individuals it wishes to depose.” Of course, neither of these points applies
in this case at hand: the parties are approaching the close of fact discovery, and Ms. Giuffre has
provided detailed information about each individual she has deposed already and still seeks to
depose.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 15
10
An additional reason this motion is appropriate now is that, despite Ms. Giuffre’s diligent
pursuit of depositions, many witnesses have cancelled their dates, failed to appear, or wrongfully
evaded service. These maneuvers have frustrated Ms. Giuffre’s ability to take their depositions
in a logical and sequential fashion, complicating the planning of a deposition schedule. For
example, on April 11, 2016, Ms. Giuffre served notice on Defendant’s counsel for the deposition
of Rinaldo Rizzo, setting it for May 13, 2016. Nearly a month later, just a few days before that
properly noticed deposition, Defendant’s counsel requested that it be rescheduled, and, therefore,
that deposition did not take place until June 10, 2016. Additionally, three other important
witnesses evaded Ms. Giuffre’s repeated efforts to serve them. It took Ms. Giuffre’s motion for
alternative service (DE 160) to convince Jeffrey Epstein to allow his attorney to accept service of
process. The Court also has before it Ms. Giuffre’s motion to serve Sarah Kellen and Nadia
Marcinkova by alternative service. These witnesses’ evasion of service delayed the taking of
their depositions, and, as of the date of this filing, none have been deposed yet.
CONCLUSION
For all these reasons, Ms. Giuffre should be allowed to take three more depositions than
the presumptive ten deposition limit – a total of thirteen depositions.
Dated: June 13, 2016.
Respectfully Submitted,
 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
 By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley
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
1111
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 15
11
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice)
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
(954) 524-2820
Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
S.J. Quinney College of Law
University of Utah
383 University St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
(801) 585-520210
10 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is
not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 15
12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 13th day of June, 2016, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission
of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
Tel: (303) 831-7364
Fax: (303) 832-2628
Email: [email protected]
 [email protected]
 /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley
 Sigrid S. McCawley
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 15
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Virginia L. Giuffre,
Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
v .
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant.
____________________________/
DECLARATION OF SIGRID S. McCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S
REPLY TO MOTION TO EXCEED PRESUMPTIVE TEN DEPOSITION LIMIT
I, Sigrid S. McCawley, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge as follows:
1. I am a partner with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly
licensed to practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court’s September 29, 2015
Order granting my Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice.
2. I respectfully submit this Declaration in Support of Plaintiff’s Reply to Motion to
Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit.
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Johanna Sjoberg’s
Deposition Transcript excerpts dated May 18, 2016.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of Rinaldo Rizzo’s Rough
Deposition Transcript excerpts dated June 10, 2016.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of Juan Alessi’s
Deposition Transcript excerpts dated June 1, 2016.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley
Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-22 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 3
2
Dated: June 13, 2016.
Respectfully Submitted,
 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
 By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley
Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
Meredith Schultz (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
Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice)
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
 (954) 524-2820
Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
S.J. Quinney College of Law
University of Utah
383 University St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
(801) 585-52021

1
 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is
not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-22 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 3
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 13th day of June, 2016, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission
of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
Tel: (303) 831-7364
Fax: (303) 832-2628
Email: [email protected]
 [email protected]
 /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley
 Sigrid S. McCawley
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-22 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 1
(Filed Under Seal)
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-23 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 10
Page 1
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
 CASE NO. 15-CV-07433-RWS
------------------------------------------x
VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,
 Plaintiff,
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
 Defendant.
-------------------------------------------x
 May 18, 2016
 9:04 a.m.
 C O N F I D E N T I A L
 Deposition of JOHANNA SJOBERG, pursuant
 to notice, taken by Plaintiff, at the
 offices of Boies Schiller & Flexner, 401
 Las Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
 before Kelli Ann Willis, a Registered
 Professional Reporter, Certified Realtime
 Reporter and Notary Public within and
 for the State of Florida.
MAGNA9
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-23 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 10
Page 21
1 Jeffrey's home when you arrived?
2 A. Yes. When I first walked in the door, it
3 was just myself, and Ghislaine headed for the
4 staircase and said -- told me to come up to the
5 living room.
6 Q. And what happened at that point, when you
7 came up to the living room?
8 A. I came up and saw Virginia, Jeffrey,
9 Prince Andrew, Ghislaine in the room.
10 Q. And did you meet Prince Andrew at that
11 time?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And what happened next?
14 A. At one point, Ghislaine told me to come
15 upstairs, and we went into a closet and pulled out
16 the puppet, the caricature of Prince Andrew, and
17 brought it down. And there was a little tag on the
18 puppet that said "Prince Andrew" on it, and that's
19 when I knew who he was.
20 Q. And did -- what did the puppet look like?
21 A. It looked like him. And she brought it
22 down and presented it to him; and that was a great
23 joke, because apparently it was a production from a
24 show on BBC. And they decided to take a picture
25 with it, in which Virginia and Andrew sat on a
MAGNA9
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-23 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 10
Page 22
1 couch. They put the puppet on Virginia's lap, and I
2 sat on Andrew's lap, and they put the puppet's hand
3 on Virginia's breast, and Andrew put his hand on my
4 breast, and they took a photo.
5 Q. Do you remember who took the photo?
6 A. I don't recall.
7 Q. Did you ever see the photo after it was
8 taken?
9 A. I did not.
10 Q. And Ms. Maxwell was present during the --
11 was Ms. Maxwell present during that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. What happened next?
14 A. The next thing I remember is just being
15 shown to which room I was going to be staying in.
16 Q. When you exited the room that you were in
17 where the picture was taken, do you recall who
18 remained in that room?
19 A. I don't.
20 Q. Do you recall seeing Virginia exit that
21 room?
22 A. I don't.
23 Q. During this trip to New York, did you have
24 to perform any work when you were at the New York
25 house?
MAGNA9
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-23 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 10
Page 141
1 always covered himself with a towel.
2 Q. I believe I asked this, but I just want to
3 clarify to make sure that I did: Did Maxwell ever
4 ask you to bring other girls over to -- for Jeffrey?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Yes?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And what did you -- did you do anything in
9 response to that?
10 A. I did bring one girl named --
11 no. -- it was some girl named
12 that I had worked with at a restaurant. And I
13 recall Ghislaine giving me money to bring her over;
14 however, they never called her to come.
15 Q. And then I believe you mentioned that one
16 of your physical fitness instructors, you brought a
17 physical fitness instructor; was that correct?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. And what did she do?
20 A. She gave him a -- like a training session,
21 twice.
22 Q. Twice.
23 Did anything sexual in nature happen
24 during the session?
25 A. At one point he lifted up her shirt and
Jane Doe 2
Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2
MAGNA9
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-23 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 10
Page 142
1 exposed her bra, and she grabbed it and pulled it
2 down.
3 Q. Anything else?
4 A. That was the conversation that he had told
5 her that he had taken this girl's virginity, the
6 girl by the pool.
7 Q. Okay. Did Maxwell ever say to you that it
8 takes the pressure off of her to have other girls
9 around?
10 A. She implied that, yes.
11 Q. In what way?
12 A. Sexually.
13 Q. And earlier Laura asked you, I believe, if
14 Maxwell ever asked you to perform any sexual acts,
15 and I believe your testimony was no, but then you
16 also previously stated that during the camera
17 incident that Maxwell had talked to you about not
18 finishing the job.
19 Did you understand "not finishing the job"
20 meaning bringing Jeffrey to orgasm?
21 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form.
22 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
23 Q. I'm sorry, Johanna, let me correct that
24 question.
25 What did you understand Maxwell to mean
MAGNA9
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-23 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 10
Page 143
1 when she said you hadn't finished the job, with
2 respect to the camera?
3 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form.
4 THE WITNESS: She implied that I had not
5 brought him to orgasm.
6 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
7 Q. So is it fair to say that Maxwell expected
8 you to perform sexual acts when you were massaging
9 Jeffrey?
10 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form,
11 foundation.
12 THE WITNESS: I can answer?
13 Yes, I took that conversation to mean that
14 is what was expected of me.
15 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
16 Q. And then you mentioned, I believe, when
17 you were testifying earlier that Jeffrey told you a
18 story about sex on the plane. What was that about?
19 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, hearsay.
20 THE WITNESS: He told me one time Emmy was
21 sleeping on the plane, and they were getting
22 ready to land. And he went and woke her up,
23 and she thought that meant he wanted a blow
24 job, so she started to unzip his pants, and he
25 said, No, no, no, you just have to be awake for
MAGNA9
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-23 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 10
Page 150
1 A. No.
2 Q. Was it in the context of anything?
3 A. About the camera that she had bought for
4 me.
5 Q. What did she say in relationship to the
6 camera that she bought for you and taking
7 photographs of you?
8 A. Just that Jeffrey would like to have some
9 photos of me, and she asked me to take photos of
10 myself.
11 Q. What did you say?
12 A. I don't remember saying no, but I never
13 ended up following through. I think I tried once.
14 Q. This was the pre-selfie era, correct?
15 A. Exactly.
16 Q. I want to go back to this: You testified
17 to two things just now with Sigrid that you said
18 were implied to you.
19 A. Okay.
20 Q. The first one was it would take pressure
21 off of Maxwell to have more girls around?
22 A. Right.
23 Q. What exactly did Maxwell say to you that
24 led you to believe that was her implication?
25 A. She said she doesn't have the time or
MAGNA9
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-23 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 10
Page 151
1 desire to please him as much as he needs, and that's
2 why there were other girls around.
3 Q. And did she refer specifically to any
4 other girls?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Did she talk about underaged girls?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Was she talking about massage therapists?
9 A. Not specifically.
10 Q. Okay. There were other girls in the house
11 that were not massage therapists, correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. is another person that was around,
14 correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. There were other people he traveled with?
17 A. Uh-huh.
18 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
19 BY MS. MENNINGER:
20 Q. Correct?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Other girls?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Adults?
25 A. Yes.
-
MAGNA9
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-23 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 10
Page 159
1 CERTIFICATE OF OATH
2 STATE OF FLORIDA )
3 COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE )
4
5 I, the undersigned authority, certify
6 that JOHANNA SJOBERG personally appeared before me
7 and was duly sworn.
8 WITNESS my hand and official seal this
9 18th day of May, 2016.
10
11
 KELLI ANN WILLIS, RPR, CRR
12 Notary Public, State of Florida
 My Commission No. FF911443
13 Expires: 2/16/21
14 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAGNA9
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-23 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 10
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Virginia L. Giuffre,
Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
v.
Ghislaine Maxwell,
 Defendant.
________________________________/
PLAINTIFF’S CORRECTED1
 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
EXCEED PRESUMPTIVE TEN DEPOSITION LIMIT
Sigrid McCawley
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
(954) 356-0011

1
 On June 13, 2016, Ms. Giuffre filed her Reply in Support of her Motion to Exceed the Presumptive Ten Deposition
Limit (DE 203). This brief contained excerpt from Rinaldo Rizzo’s “rough” deposition transcript, as the final
transcript had not yet been completed by the stenographer. On June 14, 2016, the stenographer issued the “final”
deposition transcript, and Ms. Giuffre hereby files the final transcript citations and excerpts to replace the “rough”
transcript that accompanied her supporting Declaration (DE 204-2). There are no other changes to this document.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 16
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 16
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. THE PROPOSED DEPOSITIONS ARE IMPORTANT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL
CLAIMS AND DEFENSES IN THIS CASE, AND NONE ARE DUPLICATIVE. ........ 1
II. MS. GIUFFRE IS SEEKING HIGHLY RELEVANT TRIAL TESTIMONY. .................. 6
III. MS. GIUFFRE’S REQUEST IS TIMELY. ........................................................................ 9

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 16
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
Cases
Atkinson v. Goord,
No. 01 CIV. 0761 LAKHBP, 2009 WL 890682 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2009) ................................3
Gen. Elec. Co. v. Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am.,
No. 3:06-CV-232 (CFD), 2006 WL 1525970 (D. Conn. May 25, 2006) ..................................9
LiButti v. United States,
107 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 1997).......................................................................................................8
Rules
Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) .........................................................................................................................7
Fed. R. Evid. 415(a) .........................................................................................................................7
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 16
1
 Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this reply
in support of her Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit. The motion should be
granted because Ms. Giuffre has shown good cause for needing to exceed the ten deposition limit
and in light of recent developments, Ms. Giuffre has streamlined her request, and now seeks only
a total of three additional depositions. Notably, while Defendant contests Ms. Giuffre’s motion,
Defendant has herself unilaterally – and without seeking any Court approval – set twelve
witnesses for deposition in this matter. In contrast to Defendant’s unilateral action, Ms. Giuffre
has properly sought this Court’s permission. The Court should grant her motion and allow her to
take the three additional depositions.
I. THE PROPOSED DEPOSITIONS ARE IMPORTANT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL
CLAIMS AND DEFENSES IN THIS CASE, AND NONE ARE DUPLICATIVE.
Defendant argues that the depositions Ms. Giuffre seeks to take are somehow
“duplicative” of each other. Even a quick reading of the Defendant’s pleading makes clear this
is untrue. Defendant repeatedly gives her own narrow view of what existing witnesses have said.
For example, Defendant argues that Ms. Sjoberg “did not corroborate that [Ms. Giuffre] is telling
the truth.” Defendant’s Response at 5. Defendant’s characterization is untrue.2
 But, as the mere

2 Defendant wholly mischaracterized Ms. Sjoberg’s testimony as involving “professional
massages.” Defendant’s Resp. at 5. In fact, Ms. Sjoberg testified that, when she was a twentyone-year-old college student, Defendant (not Jeffrey Epstein) recruited and hired her under the
pretext of being a personal assistant to provide sexual massages. As one example of this
testimony, Sjoberg testified that Defendant became angry with her for not “finishing your job”
when Defendant was the one who ended up having to bring Epstein to orgasm when Ms. Sjoberg
did not. See McCawley Dec at Exhibit 1, Sjoberg Dep. Tr. at 142:25-143:14(Q. What did you
understand Maxwell to mean when you said that you hadn’t finished the job, with respect to the
camera? A. She implied that I had not brought him to orgasm. Q. So is it fair to say that Maxwell
expected you to perform sexual acts when you were massaging Jeffrey? A. I can answer? Yes, I
took that conversation to mean that it what was expected of me.) Ms. Sjoberg’s testimony also
shows that Defendant was a predator of young women and girls, and that her business was to
provide girls for Jeffrey Epstein to have sex with. Id. at 141:3-5; 150:16-151:2 (Q. Did Maxwell
ever ask you to bring other girls over to – for Jeffrey? A. Yes. Q. I want to go back to this: You
testified to two things just now with Sigrid that you said were implied to you. A. Okay. Q. The
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 16
2
fact of this dispute confirms, this case is going to be hotly contested and the weight of the
evidence on each side is going to be vitally important. The Court is well aware of many other
civil cases where the parties have taken far more than ten depositions by mutual agreement.
Defendant’s refusal to agree to a few more depositions here is simply an effort to keep all the
relevant facts from being developed.
Since Ms. Giuffre filed her initial motion seeking seven additional deposition, she has
worked diligently to try to streamline the necessary depositions and has discovered new
information concerning witnesses and their knowledge of the claims in this case. Accordingly,
Ms. Giuffre currently brings before this Court a significantly shorter list3 of witnesses she needs
to depose to prove her claim, with some alterations. To be clear, Ms. Giuffre has narrowed her
request and is now only seeking an additional three depositions from the Court as follows:
For descriptions concerning the depositions already taken (Defendant; Ms. Sjoberg; Mr.
Alessi; Mr. Rodgers; and Mr. Rizzo), and those yet to be taken (Mr. Epstein; Mr. Gow;
Ms. Kellen; Ms. Marcinkova; Mr. Recarey; and Mr. Brunel), Ms. Giuffre references and
incorporates her descriptions in the moving brief. The only remaining witness is William
Jefferson Clinton. His deposition is necessary for the following reason:

first one was it would take pressure off of Maxwell to have more girls around? A. Right. Q.
What exactly did Maxwell say to you that led you to believe that was her implication? A. She
said she doesn’t have the time or desire to please him as much as he needs, and that’s why there
were other girls around.).
That Ms. Sjoberg never saw Ms. Giuffre give a massage to Ms. Maxwell is immaterial. Ms.
Sjoberg was with Defendant and Epstein when Ms. Giuffre was a minor child, and corroborates
Ms. Giuffre’s accounts concerning her being trafficked to Prince Andrew. Id. at 21-22. Ms.
Giuffre refers the Court to Ms. Sjoberg’s deposition testimony in its entirety (DE 173-5). It is
depositions like this - verifying Ms. Giuffre’s account of being recruited by Defendant for sex
with Epstein – that Defendant is trying avoid. However, multiple other witnesses have testimony
that supports Ms. Giuffre’s claims, in different and various ways, and Ms. Giuffre needs that
testimony to prove her defamation claim against Defendant.
3 Ms. Giuffre is no longer seeking the deposition testimony of Emmy Taylor, Jo Jo
Fontanella, Jane Doe 2
Jane Doe 2
Jane Doe 2
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 16
3
x In a 2011 interview, Ms. Giuffre mentioned former President Bill Clinton’s close
personal relationship with Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein. While Ms. Giuffre made no
allegations of illegal actions by Bill Clinton, Ms. Maxwell in her deposition raised Ms.
Giuffre’s comments about President Clinton as one of the “obvious lies” to which she
was referring in her public statement that formed the basis of this suit. Apart from the
Defendant and Mr. Epstein, former President Clinton is a key person who can provide
information about his close relationship with Defendant and Mr. Epstein and disapprove
Ms. Maxwell’s claims.
Ms. Giuffre is still working diligently with opposing counsel, these witnesses, and their attorneys
on scheduling, as well as identifying other witnesses who may have factual information about the
case. But, at this time, she seeks this Court’s approval for an additional three depositions –
depositions that will not consume the full seven hours presumptively allotted.
All three prongs of the three-factor test to evaluate a motion for additional depositions
strongly support granting the motion. Atkinson v. Goord, No. 01 CIV. 0761 LAKHBP, 2009 WL
890682, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2009). First, as reviewed in detail on a witness-by-witness basis
above, the discovery sought is not duplicative. The proposed deponents include the individual
who assisted in making the defamatory statement, women Defendant Maxwell hired to recruit
girls for Jeffrey Epstein, an individual with intimate knowledge of Defendant and Epstein’s
sexual trafficking ring, other victims of Jeffrey Epstein (including a then underage victim), Mr.
Epstein himself, and other witnesses who can corroborate important pieces of Ms. Giuffre’s
statements or refute Ms. Maxwell’s statements and positions. These witnesses’ testimony will
corroborate Ms. Giuffre’s account of Defendant being a recruiter of females for Epstein and
corroborate the type of abuse she and others suffered. Sadly, Ms. Giuffre is far from the only
one of Defendant’s victims, and there are other witnesses whose testimony is necessary in order
to demonstrate the truth of Ms. Giuffre’s claims and the falsity of the statements made by
Defendant. -
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 16
4
Second, if Ms. Giuffre is denied these depositions, she will not have had the opportunity
to obtain the information by other discovery in this case. The Court will recall from Ms.
Giuffre’s opening motion that Defendant’s surprising lack of memory has, in no small part,
caused the need for additional depositions. See Motion at 5-8 (listing 59 examples of memory
lapses during Ms. Maxwell deposition, including inability to remember events recorded on
aircraft flight logs or a photograph). Defendant offers no explanation for her convenient
forgetfulness. Moreover, evidence of being recruited by Defendant and being sexually assaulted
is not something Ms. Giuffre can obtain through requests for production or through
interrogatories. The only way of obtaining such evidence is from witness testimony by those
who were victimized, those who assisted Defendant in recruiting and abuse, and those who
observed the recruiting or the abuse. For example, Rinaldo Rizzo, an estate manager for a friend
of Defendant and Epstein’s, testified about an episode where Defendant had threatened a terrified
15 year old girl and confiscated her passport to try to make her have sex with Epstein on his
private island: See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, Rizzo Deposition 4
 Mr. Rizzo testified about
another episode where Defendant gave instructions to, and presided over, a group of eleven girls

4 See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, Rizzo *Final Dep. Tr. *52:6-7; *55:23-57:23. “Q. How old
was this girl? A. 15 years old.” “What did she say? A. She proceeds to tell my wife and I that,
and this is not – this is blurting out, not a conversation like I’m having a casual conversation, that
quickly I was on an island, I was on the island and there was Ghislaine, there was Sarah, she said
they asked me for sex, I said no. . . . And she says no, and she says Ghislaine took my passport.
And I said what, and she says Sarah took her passport and phone and gave it to Ghislaine
Maxwell, and at that point she said that she was threatened. And I said threatened? She says yes,
I was threatened by Ghislaine not to discuss this. . . And she said that before she got there, she
was threatened again by Jeffrey and Ghislaine not to talk about what I had mentioned earlier,
about – again, the word she used was sex. Q. And during this time that you’re saying she is
rambling, is her demeanor continues to be what you described it? A. Yes. Q. Was she in fear? A.
Yes”.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 16
5
as young as 14 years old playing a “kissing game” with and for Jeffrey Epstein.5
 Finally, the
Defendant appears to be concealing critical evidence of the sexual abuse that other witnesses
have testified she possesses. For example, Mr. Alessi testified that Defendant kept a large book
of naked photos that she took of young girls. Yet Defendant has failed to produce a single photo
in this case. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3, Alessi Deposition at 36-41. Document discovery
and interrogatories are not helpful in obtaining this type of evidence: depositions are needed.
Third, the burden and expense of this proposed discovery is limited to three additional
depositions. Defendant in this case is a multi-millionaire with able counsel. Three depositions
will not cause her undue burden, expense, or inconvenience. These depositions are important to
resolving issues in this case. Given that very few witnesses reside within 100 miles of the
courthouse and therefore cannot be compelled to trial, this request for only three additional
depositions is a reasonable request.
While Defendant opposes Ms. Giuffre’s request for Court approval of more than ten
depositions, she has unilaterally noticed more than ten depositions without bothering to seek
approval. As of the date of this filing, Defendant’s counsel has issued twelve subpoenas for

5 See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, Rizzo *Final Dep. Tr. “Q. So in the house, tell me if I am
wrong, you have Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and approximately 11 girls? A. Yes,
somewhere between 11 and 12. Q. Can you describe the 11 to 12 girls to your memory? A. In my
recollection, various of ages. They could have been from as young as 14, 15 to 18 maybe, 19 . . .
very girlish.” *32:8-24; “Q. Once inside the house, what happens next? A. I showed Ghislaine
and Jeffrey into the living room, and Ghislaine was the one that instructed the girls, pointing that
they needed to come to the living room.” *34:5-10. “Q. What happens next? A. . . . it was getting
very perogative [sic], nothing I would want my children to see. The girls were grinding on each
other, lifting up their tops, it was very inappropriate.” *37:11-38:6. “Q. What did you see next?
A.. . . From what I knew, Jeffrey was with Ghislaine and now I have all these girls acting very
inappropriate ….” *38:22-39:7. “Q. When the girls are kissing either Jeff or other girls where
was Ghislaine Maxwell? A. Sitting right next to Jeffrey.” *40:24-41:3. “Q. Is there something
you remember vividly? A. . . . I did pull the nanny aside and I was really, my wife and I were
dumbfounded, profound of the situation, and she mentioned this was an occurrence that had
happened before, and they called it the kissing game.” *41:8-17.”
-
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 16
6
deposition testimony – the almost the exact same number Ms. Giuffre is seeking.6
 Defendant
cannot credibly oppose Ms. Giuffre’s additional depositions while she, herself, is trying to take
more than ten without leave of court.7

It is plain why Defendant does not want these depositions to go forward. Ms. Sjoberg,
Mr. Alessi, and Mr. Rizzo’s testimony was harmful to Defendant’s case, and the additional
depositions will provide further evidence that Defendant acted as Jeffrey Epstein’s madam,
proving the truth of Ms. Giuffre’s statements that Defendant proclaimed publically as “obvious
lies.”
II. MS. GIUFFRE IS SEEKING HIGHLY RELEVANT TRIAL TESTIMONY.
All of the people Ms. Giuffre seeks to depose have discoverable and important
information regarding the elements of Ms. Giuffre’s claims. Ms. Giuffre stated that Defendant
recruited her and other young females for sex with Jeffrey Epstein. The people she now seeks to
depose are all witnesses who can testify to Defendant working essentially as a madam for Jeffrey
Epstein, recruiting young females for Epstein, or corroborate other important aspects of her
statements. The fact that Defendant recruited girls, some of which were underage, for Epstein
makes Ms. Giuffre’s claim that she was also recruited by Defendant to ultimately have sex with
Epstein and others more credible – and that Defendant’s denials of any involvement in such
recruiting is a bald-faced lie. Witnesses will testify that Defendant’s recruitment and
management of the girls for Jeffrey Epstein was a major aspect of Defendant’s job, and that Ms.

6 Defendant’s counsel has taken the deposition testimony of (1) Ms. Giuffre; (2) Ms. Giuffre’s
mother (Lynn Miller); (3) Ms. Giuffre’s father (Sky Roberts); and (4) Ms. Giuffre’s physician
(Dr. Olson). Defendant’s counsel has noticed the following witnesses for deposition: (5) Mr.
Austrich; (6) Mr. Figueroa; (7) Ms. Degorgieou; (8) a known victim of Jeffrey Epstein; (9) Mr.
Weisfield; (10) Ms. Churcher; (11) Ms. Boylan; and (12) the 30(b)(6) witness for Victims Refuse
Silence.
7
 Defendant has unilaterally scheduled - without consulting counsel for Ms. Giuffre - at least two
of these depositions for days when depositions of Ms. Giuffre’s witnesses have been set.
1111
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 16
7
Giuffre’s account of her sexual abuse and Defendant’s involvement accords perfectly with other
witnesses’ accounts of what Defendant’s job was for Epstein.8

That other young females were similarly recruited by the Defendant is evidence that Ms.
Giuffre is telling the truth about her experiences – and thus direct evidence that Defendant
defamed her when calling her a liar. Clearly, if Ms. Giuffre can establish that Defendant’s
modus operandi was to recruit young females for Epstein, that helps corroborate Ms. Giuffre’s
own testimony that Defendant recruited her for the same purposes and in the same manner.
Although the Court need not make a final ruling on this evidentiary issue now, Rule 404(b) itself
makes such testimony admissible. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) (other act “evidence may be
admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.”). Indeed, even more specifically
than the general provisions of Rule 404(b), Rule 415 makes these other acts admissible, due to
the fact that those involved in sexual abuse of minors have a strong propensity for repeating
those crimes. See Fed. R. Evid. 415(a)( (“In a civil case involving a claim for relief based on a
party’s alleged sexual assault or child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the party
committed any other sexual assault or child molestation.”).
Entirely apart from corroborating Ms. Giuffre’s own individual abuse, however,
Defendant fails to recognize that in calling Ms. Giuffre a “liar”, she was attacking all aspects of
Ms. Giuffre’s account – including Ms. Giuffre’s statements that Defendant served generally as a
recruiter of girls for Epstein and that Epstein sexually abused the underage girls that were

8 Defendant’s specious suggestion that Ms. Giuffre heard about the other girls whom she
recruited for sexual purposes and then decided to “hop on the band wagon” (Defendant’s Resp.
at 8 n.7) tacitly admits that Defendant procured a “band wagon” of girls for Jeffrey Epstein to
abuse. Moreover, Defendant cannot refute the documentary evidence that she was on Epstein
private jet with Ms. Giuffre over 20 times while Ms. Giuffre was a minor – flights that
Defendant is, quite conveniently, now unable to recall. Motion at 5-8.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 16
8
brought to him. Thus, in this defamation case, the testimony of these witnesses are admissible
not only to bolster Ms. Giuffre’s testimony about her individual abuse, but because they are
simply part of the body of statements whose truth or falsity is at issue in this case.
 In addition, one of the witnesses that Ms. Giuffre seeks to depose is registered sex
offender Jeffrey Epstein, who stands at the center of the case. Indeed, some of the most critical
events took place in the presence of just three people: Ms. Giuffre, defendant Maxwell, and
Epstein. If Epstein were to tell the truth, his testimony would fully confirm Ms. Giuffre’s
account of her sexual abuse. Epstein, however, may well attempt to support Defendant by
invoking the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions about his sexual abuse of Ms.
Giuffre. Apparently privy to her former boyfriend Epstein’s anticipated plans in this regard,9
Defendant makes the claim that it would be a “convoluted argument” to allow Ms. Giuffre to use
those invocations against her. Defendant’s Resp. at 3. Tellingly, Defendant’s response brief
cites no authority to refute that proposition that adverse inference can be drawn against coconspirators. Presumably this is because, as recounted in Ms. Giuffre’s opening brief (at pp. 20-
22), the Second Circuit’s seminal decision of LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir.
1997), squarely upheld the drawing of adverse inferences based on a non-party’s invocation of a
Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The Second Circuit instructed that, the circumstances of
given case, rather than status of particular nonparty witness, determines whether nonparty
witness' invocation of privilege against self-incrimination is admissible in course of civil
litigation. Id. at122-23. The Second Circuit also held that, in determining whether nonparty
witness’ invocation of privilege against self-incrimination in course of civil litigation and

9
 In discovery, Defendant Maxwell has produced several emails between Epstein and herself
discussing Ms. Giuffre.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 16
9
drawing of adverse inferences is admissible, court may consider the following nonexclusive
factors:
(1) nature of witness’ relationship with and loyalty to party;
(2) degree of control which party has vested in witness in regard to key facts and subject
matter of litigation;
(3) whether witness is pragmatically noncaptioned party in interest and whether
assertion of privilege advances interests of witness and party in outcome of litigation; and
(4) whether witness was key figure in litigation and played controlling role in respect to
its underlying aspects.
Id. at 124-25. Ms. Giuffre will be able to establish that all these factors tip decisively in favor of
allowing an adverse inference. Accordingly, her efforts to depose Epstein, Marcinkova, and
Kellen seek important information that will be admissible at trial.
III. MS. GIUFFRE’S REQUEST IS TIMELY.
Defendant also argues that this motion is somehow “premature.” Defendant’s Resp. at
2-3. Clearly, if Ms. Giuffre had waited to file her motion until later, Defendant would have
argued until the matter came too late. The motion is proper at this time because, as of the date of
this filing, fact discovery closes in 17 days (although Ms. Giuffre has recently filed a motion for
a 30-day extension of the deadline). In order to give the Court the opportunity to rule as far in
advance as possible – thereby permitting counsel for both side to schedule the remaining
depositions – Ms. Giuffre brings the motion now. She also requires a ruling in advance so that
she can make final plans about how many depositions she has available and thus which
depositions she should prioritize. 10

10 Defendant tries to find support for her prematurity argument in Gen. Elec. Co. v. Indem. Ins.
Co. of N. Am., No. 3:06-CV-232 (CFD), 2006 WL 1525970, at *2 (D. Conn. May 25, 2006).
However, in that case, the Court found a motion for additional depositions to be premature, in
part, because “[d]iscovery has not even commenced” . . . and the moving party “ha[d] not listed
with specificity those individuals it wishes to depose.” Of course, neither of these points applies
in this case at hand: the parties are approaching the close of fact discovery, and Ms. Giuffre has
provided detailed information about each individual she has deposed already and still seeks to
depose.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 16
10
An additional reason this motion is appropriate now is that, despite Ms. Giuffre’s diligent
pursuit of depositions, many witnesses have cancelled their dates, failed to appear, or wrongfully
evaded service. These maneuvers have frustrated Ms. Giuffre’s ability to take their depositions
in a logical and sequential fashion, complicating the planning of a deposition schedule. For
example, on April 11, 2016, Ms. Giuffre served notice on Defendant’s counsel for the deposition
of Rinaldo Rizzo, setting it for May 13, 2016. Nearly a month later, just a few days before that
properly noticed deposition, Defendant’s counsel requested that it be rescheduled, and, therefore,
that deposition did not take place until June 10, 2016. Additionally, three other important
witnesses evaded Ms. Giuffre’s repeated efforts to serve them. It took Ms. Giuffre’s motion for
alternative service (DE 160) to convince Jeffrey Epstein to allow his attorney to accept service of
process. The Court also has before it Ms. Giuffre’s motion to serve Sarah Kellen and Nadia
Marcinkova by alternative service. These witnesses’ evasion of service delayed the taking of
their depositions, and, as of the date of this filing, none have been deposed yet.
CONCLUSION
For all these reasons, Ms. Giuffre should be allowed to take three more depositions than
the presumptive ten deposition limit – a total of thirteen depositions.
Dated: June 14, 2016.
Respectfully Submitted,
 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
 By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley
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
1111
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 16
11
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice)
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
(954) 524-2820
Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
S.J. Quinney College of Law
University of Utah
383 University St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
(801) 585-520211

11 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is
not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 16
12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 14th day of June, 2016, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission
of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
Tel: (303) 831-7364
Fax: (303) 832-2628
Email: [email protected]
 [email protected]
 /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley
 Sigrid S. McCawley
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 16
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Virginia L. Giuffre,
Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
v.
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant.
____________________________/
CORRECTED1
 DECLARATION OF SIGRID S. McCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO MOTION TO EXCEED PRESUMPTIVE TEN DEPOSITION
LIMIT
I, Sigrid S. McCawley, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge as follows:
1. I am a partner with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly
licensed to practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court’s September 29, 2015
Order granting my Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice.
2. I respectfully submit this Declaration in Support of Plaintiff’s Reply to Motion to
Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit.
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Johanna Sjoberg’s
Deposition Transcript excerpts dated May 18, 2016.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of Rinaldo Rizzo’s Final
Deposition Transcript excerpts dated June 10, 2016.

1
 On June 13, 2016, Ms. Giuffre filed her Reply in Support of her Motion to Exceed the
Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit (DE 203). This brief contained excerpts from Rinaldo Rizzo’s
“rough” deposition transcript, as the final transcript had not yet been completed by the
stenographer. On June 14, 2016, the stenographer issued the “final” deposition transcript, and
Ms. Giuffre hereby files the final transcript citations and excerpts to replace the “rough”
transcript that accompanied her supporting Declaration (DE 204-2). There are no other changes
to this document.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-25 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 4
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of Juan Alessi’s
Deposition Transcript excerpts dated June 1, 2016.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley
Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq.

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-25 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 4
3
Dated: June 14, 2016.
Respectfully Submitted,
 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
 By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley
Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
Meredith Schultz (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
Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice)
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
 (954) 524-2820
Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
S.J. Quinney College of Law
University of Utah
383 University St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
(801) 585-52022

2
 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is
not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-25 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 4
4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 14th day of June, 2016, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission
of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
Tel: (303) 831-7364
Fax: (303) 832-2628
Email: [email protected]
 [email protected]
 /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley
 Sigrid S. McCawley

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-25 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT 1
(Filed Under Seal)
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-26 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 10
Page 1
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
 CASE NO. 15-CV-07433-RWS
------------------------------------------x
VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,
 Plaintiff,
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
 Defendant.
-------------------------------------------x
 May 18, 2016
 9:04 a.m.
 C O N F I D E N T I A L
 Deposition of JOHANNA SJOBERG, pursuant
 to notice, taken by Plaintiff, at the
 offices of Boies Schiller & Flexner, 401
 Las Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
 before Kelli Ann Willis, a Registered
 Professional Reporter, Certified Realtime
 Reporter and Notary Public within and
 for the State of Florida.
MAGNA9
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-26 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 10
Page 21
1 Jeffrey's home when you arrived?
2 A. Yes. When I first walked in the door, it
3 was just myself, and Ghislaine headed for the
4 staircase and said -- told me to come up to the
5 living room.
6 Q. And what happened at that point, when you
7 came up to the living room?
8 A. I came up and saw Virginia, Jeffrey,
9 Prince Andrew, Ghislaine in the room.
10 Q. And did you meet Prince Andrew at that
11 time?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And what happened next?
14 A. At one point, Ghislaine told me to come
15 upstairs, and we went into a closet and pulled out
16 the puppet, the caricature of Prince Andrew, and
17 brought it down. And there was a little tag on the
18 puppet that said "Prince Andrew" on it, and that's
19 when I knew who he was.
20 Q. And did -- what did the puppet look like?
21 A. It looked like him. And she brought it
22 down and presented it to him; and that was a great
23 joke, because apparently it was a production from a
24 show on BBC. And they decided to take a picture
25 with it, in which Virginia and Andrew sat on a
MAGNA9
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-26 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 10
Page 22
1 couch. They put the puppet on Virginia's lap, and I
2 sat on Andrew's lap, and they put the puppet's hand
3 on Virginia's breast, and Andrew put his hand on my
4 breast, and they took a photo.
5 Q. Do you remember who took the photo?
6 A. I don't recall.
7 Q. Did you ever see the photo after it was
8 taken?
9 A. I did not.
10 Q. And Ms. Maxwell was present during the --
11 was Ms. Maxwell present during that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. What happened next?
14 A. The next thing I remember is just being
15 shown to which room I was going to be staying in.
16 Q. When you exited the room that you were in
17 where the picture was taken, do you recall who
18 remained in that room?
19 A. I don't.
20 Q. Do you recall seeing Virginia exit that
21 room?
22 A. I don't.
23 Q. During this trip to New York, did you have
24 to perform any work when you were at the New York
25 house?
MAGNA9
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-26 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 10
Page 141
1 always covered himself with a towel.
2 Q. I believe I asked this, but I just want to
3 clarify to make sure that I did: Did Maxwell ever
4 ask you to bring other girls over to -- for Jeffrey?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Yes?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And what did you -- did you do anything in
9 response to that?
10 A. I did bring one girl named Francesca --
11 no. Florence -- it was some girl named Florencia
12 that I had worked with at a restaurant. And I
13 recall Ghislaine giving me money to bring her over;
14 however, they never called her to come.
15 Q. And then I believe you mentioned that one
16 of your physical fitness instructors, you brought a
17 physical fitness instructor; was that correct?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. And what did she do?
20 A. She gave him a -- like a training session,
21 twice.
22 Q. Twice.
23 Did anything sexual in nature happen
24 during the session?
25 A. At one point he lifted up her shirt and
MAGNA9
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-26 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 10
Page 142
1 exposed her bra, and she grabbed it and pulled it
2 down.
3 Q. Anything else?
4 A. That was the conversation that he had told
5 her that he had taken this girl's virginity, the
6 girl by the pool.
7 Q. Okay. Did Maxwell ever say to you that it
8 takes the pressure off of her to have other girls
9 around?
10 A. She implied that, yes.
11 Q. In what way?
12 A. Sexually.
13 Q. And earlier Laura asked you, I believe, if
14 Maxwell ever asked you to perform any sexual acts,
15 and I believe your testimony was no, but then you
16 also previously stated that during the camera
17 incident that Maxwell had talked to you about not
18 finishing the job.
19 Did you understand "not finishing the job"
20 meaning bringing Jeffrey to orgasm?
21 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form.
22 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
23 Q. I'm sorry, Johanna, let me correct that
24 question.
25 What did you understand Maxwell to mean
MAGNA9
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-26 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 10
Page 143
1 when she said you hadn't finished the job, with
2 respect to the camera?
3 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form.
4 THE WITNESS: She implied that I had not
5 brought him to orgasm.
6 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
7 Q. So is it fair to say that Maxwell expected
8 you to perform sexual acts when you were massaging
9 Jeffrey?
10 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form,
11 foundation.
12 THE WITNESS: I can answer?
13 Yes, I took that conversation to mean that
14 is what was expected of me.
15 BY MS. McCAWLEY:
16 Q. And then you mentioned, I believe, when
17 you were testifying earlier that Jeffrey told you a
18 story about sex on the plane. What was that about?
19 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, hearsay.
20 THE WITNESS: He told me one time Emmy was
21 sleeping on the plane, and they were getting
22 ready to land. And he went and woke her up,
23 and she thought that meant he wanted a blow
24 job, so she started to unzip his pants, and he
25 said, No, no, no, you just have to be awake for
MAGNA9
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-26 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 10
Page 150
1 A. No.
2 Q. Was it in the context of anything?
3 A. About the camera that she had bought for
4 me.
5 Q. What did she say in relationship to the
6 camera that she bought for you and taking
7 photographs of you?
8 A. Just that Jeffrey would like to have some
9 photos of me, and she asked me to take photos of
10 myself.
11 Q. What did you say?
12 A. I don't remember saying no, but I never
13 ended up following through. I think I tried once.
14 Q. This was the pre-selfie era, correct?
15 A. Exactly.
16 Q. I want to go back to this: You testified
17 to two things just now with Sigrid that you said
18 were implied to you.
19 A. Okay.
20 Q. The first one was it would take pressure
21 off of Maxwell to have more girls around?
22 A. Right.
23 Q. What exactly did Maxwell say to you that
24 led you to believe that was her implication?
25 A. She said she doesn't have the time or
MAGNA9
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-26 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 10
Page 151
1 desire to please him as much as he needs, and that's
2 why there were other girls around.
3 Q. And did she refer specifically to any
4 other girls?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Did she talk about underaged girls?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Was she talking about massage therapists?
9 A. Not specifically.
10 Q. Okay. There were other girls in the house
11 that were not massage therapists, correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Nadia is another person that was around,
14 correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. There were other people he traveled with?
17 A. Uh-huh.
18 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
19 BY MS. MENNINGER:
20 Q. Correct?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Other girls?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Adults?
25 A. Yes.
MAGNA9
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-26 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 10
Page 159
1 CERTIFICATE OF OATH
2 STATE OF FLORIDA )
3 COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE )
4
5 I, the undersigned authority, certify
6 that JOHANNA SJOBERG personally appeared before me
7 and was duly sworn.
8 WITNESS my hand and official seal this
9 18th day of May, 2016.
10
11
 KELLI ANN WILLIS, RPR, CRR
12 Notary Public, State of Florida
 My Commission No. FF911443
13 Expires: 2/16/21
14 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAGNA9
LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-26 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 10
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Virginia L. Giuffre,
Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
v.
Ghislaine Maxwell,
 Defendant.
________________________________/
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED1
 CORRECTED2
 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
EXCEED PRESUMPTIVE TEN DEPOSITION LIMIT
Sigrid McCawley
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200

1
 Pursuant to conferral with opposing counsel, Plaintiff has revised the first paragraph of this brief, as well as the
second-to-last paragraph of Section I of this brief out of a concern Defendant raised with the use of the term “set”
when referring to depositions. In an abundance of caution, to avoid unnecessary disputes and waste of this Court’s
time, the undersigned agreed to revise the brief to remove the language in question. The remainder of this brief is
unchanged.
2
 On June 13, 2016, Ms. Giuffre filed her Reply in Support of her Motion to Exceed the Presumptive Ten Deposition
Limit (DE 203). This brief contained excerpt from Rinaldo Rizzo’s “rough” deposition transcript, as the final
transcript had not yet been completed by the stenographer. On June 14, 2016, the stenographer issued the “final”
deposition transcript, and Ms. Giuffre hereby files the final transcript citations and excerpts to replace the “rough”
transcript that accompanied her supporting Declaration (DE 204-2). There are no other changes to this document.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 15
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
(954) 356-0011
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 15
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. THE PROPOSED DEPOSITIONS ARE IMPORTANT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL
CLAIMS AND DEFENSES IN THIS CASE, AND NONE ARE DUPLICATIVE. ........ 1
II. MS. GIUFFRE IS SEEKING HIGHLY RELEVANT TRIAL TESTIMONY. .................. 6
III. MS. GIUFFRE’S REQUEST IS TIMELY. ........................................................................ 9

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 15
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
Cases
Atkinson v. Goord,
No. 01 CIV. 0761 LAKHBP, 2009 WL 890682 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2009) ................................3
Gen. Elec. Co. v. Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am.,
No. 3:06-CV-232 (CFD), 2006 WL 1525970 (D. Conn. May 25, 2006) ..................................9
LiButti v. United States,
107 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 1997).......................................................................................................8
Rules
Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) .........................................................................................................................7
Fed. R. Evid. 415(a) .........................................................................................................................7
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 15
1
 Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this reply
in support of her Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit. The motion should be
granted because Ms. Giuffre has shown good cause for needing to exceed the ten deposition limit
and in light of recent developments, Ms. Giuffre has streamlined her request, and now seeks only
a total of three additional depositions. The Court should grant her motion and allow her to take
the three additional depositions.
I. THE PROPOSED DEPOSITIONS ARE IMPORTANT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL
CLAIMS AND DEFENSES IN THIS CASE, AND NONE ARE DUPLICATIVE.
Defendant argues that the depositions Ms. Giuffre seeks to take are somehow
“duplicative” of each other. Even a quick reading of the Defendant’s pleading makes clear this
is untrue. Defendant repeatedly gives her own narrow view of what existing witnesses have said.
For example, Defendant argues that Ms. Sjoberg “did not corroborate that [Ms. Giuffre] is telling
the truth.” Defendant’s Response at 5. Defendant’s characterization is untrue.3
 But, as the mere

3 Defendant wholly mischaracterized Ms. Sjoberg’s testimony as involving “professional
massages.” Defendant’s Resp. at 5. In fact, Ms. Sjoberg testified that, when she was a twentyone-year-old college student, Defendant (not Jeffrey Epstein) recruited and hired her under the
pretext of being a personal assistant to provide sexual massages. As one example of this
testimony, Sjoberg testified that Defendant became angry with her for not “finishing your job”
when Defendant was the one who ended up having to bring Epstein to orgasm when Ms. Sjoberg
did not. See McCawley Dec at Exhibit 1, Sjoberg Dep. Tr. at 142:25-143:14(Q. What did you
understand Maxwell to mean when you said that you hadn’t finished the job, with respect to the
camera? A. She implied that I had not brought him to orgasm. Q. So is it fair to say that Maxwell
expected you to perform sexual acts when you were massaging Jeffrey? A. I can answer? Yes, I
took that conversation to mean that it what was expected of me.) Ms. Sjoberg’s testimony also
shows that Defendant was a predator of young women and girls, and that her business was to
provide girls for Jeffrey Epstein to have sex with. Id. at 141:3-5; 150:16-151:2 (Q. Did Maxwell
ever ask you to bring other girls over to – for Jeffrey? A. Yes. Q. I want to go back to this: You
testified to two things just now with Sigrid that you said were implied to you. A. Okay. Q. The
first one was it would take pressure off of Maxwell to have more girls around? A. Right. Q.
What exactly did Maxwell say to you that led you to believe that was her implication? A. She
said she doesn’t have the time or desire to please him as much as he needs, and that’s why there
were other girls around.).
That Ms. Sjoberg never saw Ms. Giuffre give a massage to Ms. Maxwell is immaterial. Ms.
Sjoberg was with Defendant and Epstein when Ms. Giuffre was a minor child, and corroborates
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 15
2
fact of this dispute confirms, this case is going to be hotly contested and the weight of the
evidence on each side is going to be vitally important. The Court is well aware of many other
civil cases where the parties have taken far more than ten depositions by mutual agreement.
Defendant’s refusal to agree to a few more depositions here is simply an effort to keep all the
relevant facts from being developed.
Since Ms. Giuffre filed her initial motion seeking seven additional deposition, she has
worked diligently to try to streamline the necessary depositions and has discovered new
information concerning witnesses and their knowledge of the claims in this case. Accordingly,
Ms. Giuffre currently brings before this Court a significantly shorter list4 of witnesses she needs
to depose to prove her claim, with some alterations. To be clear, Ms. Giuffre has narrowed her
request and is now only seeking an additional three depositions from the Court as follows:
For descriptions concerning the depositions already taken (Defendant; Ms. Sjoberg; Mr.
Alessi; Mr. Rodgers; and Mr. Rizzo), and those yet to be taken (Mr. Epstein; Mr. Gow;
Ms. Kellen; Ms. Marcinkova; Mr. Recarey; and Mr. Brunel), Ms. Giuffre references and
incorporates her descriptions in the moving brief. The only remaining witness is William
Jefferson Clinton. His deposition is necessary for the following reason:
x In a 2011 interview, Ms. Giuffre mentioned former President Bill Clinton’s close
personal relationship with Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein. While Ms. Giuffre made no
allegations of illegal actions by Bill Clinton, Ms. Maxwell in her deposition raised Ms.
Giuffre’s comments about President Clinton as one of the “obvious lies” to which she
was referring in her public statement that formed the basis of this suit. Apart from the

Ms. Giuffre’s accounts concerning her being trafficked to Prince Andrew. Id. at 21-22. Ms.
Giuffre refers the Court to Ms. Sjoberg’s deposition testimony in its entirety (DE 173-5). It is
depositions like this - verifying Ms. Giuffre’s account of being recruited by Defendant for sex
with Epstein – that Defendant is trying avoid. However, multiple other witnesses have testimony
that supports Ms. Giuffre’s claims, in different and various ways, and Ms. Giuffre needs that
testimony to prove her defamation claim against Defendant.
4 Ms. Giuffre is no longer seeking the deposition testimony of Emmy Taylor, Jo Jo
Fontanella, and Michael Reiter.
Jane Doe 2
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 15
3
Defendant and Mr. Epstein, former President Clinton is a key person who can provide
information about his close relationship with Defendant and Mr. Epstein and disapprove
Ms. Maxwell’s claims.
Ms. Giuffre is still working diligently with opposing counsel, these witnesses, and their attorneys
on scheduling, as well as identifying other witnesses who may have factual information about the
case. But, at this time, she seeks this Court’s approval for an additional three depositions –
depositions that will not consume the full seven hours presumptively allotted.
All three prongs of the three-factor test to evaluate a motion for additional depositions
strongly support granting the motion. Atkinson v. Goord, No. 01 CIV. 0761 LAKHBP, 2009 WL
890682, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2009). First, as reviewed in detail on a witness-by-witness basis
above, the discovery sought is not duplicative. The proposed deponents include the individual
who assisted in making the defamatory statement, women Defendant Maxwell hired to recruit
girls for Jeffrey Epstein, an individual with intimate knowledge of Defendant and Epstein’s
sexual trafficking ring, other victims of Jeffrey Epstein (including a then underage victim), Mr.
Epstein himself, and other witnesses who can corroborate important pieces of Ms. Giuffre’s
statements or refute Ms. Maxwell’s statements and positions. These witnesses’ testimony will
corroborate Ms. Giuffre’s account of Defendant being a recruiter of females for Epstein and
corroborate the type of abuse she and others suffered. Sadly, Ms. Giuffre is far from the only
one of Defendant’s victims, and there are other witnesses whose testimony is necessary in order
to demonstrate the truth of Ms. Giuffre’s claims and the falsity of the statements made by
Defendant.
Second, if Ms. Giuffre is denied these depositions, she will not have had the opportunity
to obtain the information by other discovery in this case. The Court will recall from Ms.
Giuffre’s opening motion that Defendant’s surprising lack of memory has, in no small part,
-
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 15
4
caused the need for additional depositions. See Motion at 5-8 (listing 59 examples of memory
lapses during Ms. Maxwell deposition, including inability to remember events recorded on
aircraft flight logs or a photograph). Defendant offers no explanation for her convenient
forgetfulness. Moreover, evidence of being recruited by Defendant and being sexually assaulted
is not something Ms. Giuffre can obtain through requests for production or through
interrogatories. The only way of obtaining such evidence is from witness testimony by those
who were victimized, those who assisted Defendant in recruiting and abuse, and those who
observed the recruiting or the abuse. For example, Rinaldo Rizzo, an estate manager for a friend
of Defendant and Epstein’s, testified about an episode where Defendant had threatened a terrified
15 year old girl and confiscated her passport to try to make her have sex with Epstein on his
private island: See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, Rizzo Deposition 5
 Mr. Rizzo testified about
another episode where Defendant gave instructions to, and presided over, a group of eleven girls
as young as 14 years old playing a “kissing game” with and for Jeffrey Epstein.6
 Finally, the

5 See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, Rizzo *Final Dep. Tr. *52:6-7; *55:23-57:23. “Q. How old
was this girl? A. 15 years old.” “What did she say? A. She proceeds to tell my wife and I that,
and this is not – this is blurting out, not a conversation like I’m having a casual conversation, that
quickly I was on an island, I was on the island and there was Ghislaine, there was Sarah, she said
they asked me for sex, I said no. . . . And she says no, and she says Ghislaine took my passport.
And I said what, and she says Sarah took her passport and phone and gave it to Ghislaine
Maxwell, and at that point she said that she was threatened. And I said threatened? She says yes,
I was threatened by Ghislaine not to discuss this. . . And she said that before she got there, she
was threatened again by Jeffrey and Ghislaine not to talk about what I had mentioned earlier,
about – again, the word she used was sex. Q. And during this time that you’re saying she is
rambling, is her demeanor continues to be what you described it? A. Yes. Q. Was she in fear? A.
Yes”. 6 See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, Rizzo *Final Dep. Tr. “Q. So in the house, tell me if I am
wrong, you have Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and approximately 11 girls? A. Yes,
somewhere between 11 and 12. Q. Can you describe the 11 to 12 girls to your memory? A. In my
recollection, various of ages. They could have been from as young as 14, 15 to 18 maybe, 19 . . .
very girlish.” *32:8-24; “Q. Once inside the house, what happens next? A. I showed Ghislaine
and Jeffrey into the living room, and Ghislaine was the one that instructed the girls, pointing that
they needed to come to the living room.” *34:5-10. “Q. What happens next? A. . . . it was getting
-
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 15
5
Defendant appears to be concealing critical evidence 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 3, Alessi Deposition at 36-41. Document discovery
and interrogatories are not helpful in obtaining this type of evidence: depositions are needed.
Third, the burden and expense of this proposed discovery is limited to three additional
depositions. Defendant in this case is a multi-millionaire with able counsel. Three depositions
will not cause her undue burden, expense, or inconvenience. These depositions are important to
resolving issues in this case. Given that very few witnesses reside within 100 miles of the
courthouse and therefore cannot be compelled to trial, this request for only three additional
depositions is a reasonable request.
It is plain why Defendant does not want these depositions to go forward. Ms. Sjoberg,
Mr. Alessi, and Mr. Rizzo’s testimony was harmful to Defendant’s case, and the additional
depositions will provide further evidence that Defendant acted as Jeffrey Epstein’s madam,
proving the truth of Ms. Giuffre’s statements that Defendant proclaimed publically as “obvious
lies.”
II. MS. GIUFFRE IS SEEKING HIGHLY RELEVANT TRIAL TESTIMONY.
All of the people Ms. Giuffre seeks to depose have discoverable and important
information regarding the elements of Ms. Giuffre’s claims. Ms. Giuffre stated that Defendant

very perogative [sic], nothing I would want my children to see. The girls were grinding on each
other, lifting up their tops, it was very inappropriate.” *37:11-38:6. “Q. What did you see next?
A.. . . From what I knew, Jeffrey was with Ghislaine and now I have all these girls acting very
inappropriate ….” *38:22-39:7. “Q. When the girls are kissing either Jeff or other girls where
was Ghislaine Maxwell? A. Sitting right next to Jeffrey.” *40:24-41:3. “Q. Is there something
you remember vividly? A. . . . I did pull the nanny aside and I was really, my wife and I were
dumbfounded, profound of the situation, and she mentioned this was an occurrence that had
happened before, and they called it the kissing game.” *41:8-17.”
1111
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 15
6
recruited her and other young females for sex with Jeffrey Epstein. The people she now seeks to
depose are all witnesses who can testify to Defendant working essentially as a madam for Jeffrey
Epstein, recruiting young females for Epstein, or corroborate other important aspects of her
statements. The fact that Defendant recruited girls, some of which were underage, for Epstein
makes Ms. Giuffre’s claim that she was also recruited by Defendant to ultimately have sex with
Epstein and others more credible – and that Defendant’s denials of any involvement in such
recruiting is a bald-faced lie. Witnesses will testify that Defendant’s recruitment and
management of the girls for Jeffrey Epstein was a major aspect of Defendant’s job, and that Ms.
Giuffre’s account of her sexual abuse and Defendant’s involvement accords perfectly with other
witnesses’ accounts of what Defendant’s job was for Epstein.7

That other young females were similarly recruited by the Defendant is evidence that Ms.
Giuffre is telling the truth about her experiences – and thus direct evidence that Defendant
defamed her when calling her a liar. Clearly, if Ms. Giuffre can establish that Defendant’s
modus operandi was to recruit young females for Epstein, that helps corroborate Ms. Giuffre’s
own testimony that Defendant recruited her for the same purposes and in the same manner.
Although the Court need not make a final ruling on this evidentiary issue now, Rule 404(b) itself
makes such testimony admissible. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) (other act “evidence may be
admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.”). Indeed, even more specifically
than the general provisions of Rule 404(b), Rule 415 makes these other acts admissible, due to

7 Defendant’s specious suggestion that Ms. Giuffre heard about the other girls whom she
recruited for sexual purposes and then decided to “hop on the band wagon” (Defendant’s Resp.
at 8 n.7) tacitly admits that Defendant procured a “band wagon” of girls for Jeffrey Epstein to
abuse. Moreover, Defendant cannot refute the documentary evidence that she was on Epstein
private jet with Ms. Giuffre over 20 times while Ms. Giuffre was a minor – flights that
Defendant is, quite conveniently, now unable to recall. Motion at 5-8.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 15
7
the fact that those involved in sexual abuse of minors have a strong propensity for repeating
those crimes. See Fed. R. Evid. 415(a)( (“In a civil case involving a claim for relief based on a
party’s alleged sexual assault or child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the party
committed any other sexual assault or child molestation.”).
 Entirely apart from corroborating Ms. Giuffre’s own individual abuse, however,
Defendant fails to recognize that in calling Ms. Giuffre a “liar”, she was attacking all aspects of
Ms. Giuffre’s account – including Ms. Giuffre’s statements that Defendant served generally as a
recruiter of girls for Epstein and that Epstein sexually abused the underage girls that were
brought to him. Thus, in this defamation case, the testimony of these witnesses are admissible
not only to bolster Ms. Giuffre’s testimony about her individual abuse, but because they are
simply part of the body of statements whose truth or falsity is at issue in this case.
 In addition, one of the witnesses that Ms. Giuffre seeks to depose is registered sex
offender Jeffrey Epstein, who stands at the center of the case. Indeed, some of the most critical
events took place in the presence of just three people: Ms. Giuffre, defendant Maxwell, and
Epstein. If Epstein were to tell the truth, his testimony would fully confirm Ms. Giuffre’s
account of her sexual abuse. Epstein, however, may well attempt to support Defendant by
invoking the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions about his sexual abuse of Ms.
Giuffre. Apparently privy to her former boyfriend Epstein’s anticipated plans in this regard,8
Defendant makes the claim that it would be a “convoluted argument” to allow Ms. Giuffre to use
those invocations against her. Defendant’s Resp. at 3. Tellingly, Defendant’s response brief
cites no authority to refute that proposition that adverse inference can be drawn against coconspirators. Presumably this is because, as recounted in Ms. Giuffre’s opening brief (at pp. 20-

8
 In discovery, Defendant Maxwell has produced several emails between Epstein and herself
discussing Ms. Giuffre.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 15
8
22), the Second Circuit’s seminal decision of LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir.
1997), squarely upheld the drawing of adverse inferences based on a non-party’s invocation of a
Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The Second Circuit instructed that, the circumstances of
given case, rather than status of particular nonparty witness, determines whether nonparty
witness' invocation of privilege against self-incrimination is admissible in course of civil
litigation. Id. at122-23. The Second Circuit also held that, in determining whether nonparty
witness’ invocation of privilege against self-incrimination in course of civil litigation and
drawing of adverse inferences is admissible, court may consider the following nonexclusive
factors:
(1) nature of witness’ relationship with and loyalty to party;
(2) degree of control which party has vested in witness in regard to key facts and subject
matter of litigation;
(3) whether witness is pragmatically noncaptioned party in interest and whether
assertion of privilege advances interests of witness and party in outcome of litigation; and
(4) whether witness was key figure in litigation and played controlling role in respect to
its underlying aspects.
Id. at 124-25. Ms. Giuffre will be able to establish that all these factors tip decisively in favor of
allowing an adverse inference. Accordingly, her efforts to depose Epstein, Marcinkova, and
Kellen seek important information that will be admissible at trial.
III. MS. GIUFFRE’S REQUEST IS TIMELY.
Defendant also argues that this motion is somehow “premature.” Defendant’s Resp. at
2-3. Clearly, if Ms. Giuffre had waited to file her motion until later, Defendant would have
argued until the matter came too late. The motion is proper at this time because, as of the date of
this filing, fact discovery closes in 17 days (although Ms. Giuffre has recently filed a motion for
a 30-day extension of the deadline). In order to give the Court the opportunity to rule as far in
advance as possible – thereby permitting counsel for both side to schedule the remaining
depositions – Ms. Giuffre brings the motion now. She also requires a ruling in advance so that
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 15
9
she can make final plans about how many depositions she has available and thus which
depositions she should prioritize. 9

An additional reason this motion is appropriate now is that, despite Ms. Giuffre’s diligent
pursuit of depositions, many witnesses have cancelled their dates, failed to appear, or wrongfully
evaded service. These maneuvers have frustrated Ms. Giuffre’s ability to take their depositions
in a logical and sequential fashion, complicating the planning of a deposition schedule. For
example, on April 11, 2016, Ms. Giuffre served notice on Defendant’s counsel for the deposition
of Rinaldo Rizzo, setting it for May 13, 2016. Nearly a month later, just a few days before that
properly noticed deposition, Defendant’s counsel requested that it be rescheduled, and, therefore,
that deposition did not take place until June 10, 2016. Additionally, three other important
witnesses evaded Ms. Giuffre’s repeated efforts to serve them. It took Ms. Giuffre’s motion for
alternative service (DE 160) to convince Jeffrey Epstein to allow his attorney to accept service of
process. The Court also has before it Ms. Giuffre’s motion to serve Sarah Kellen and Nadia
Marcinkova by alternative service. These witnesses’ evasion of service delayed the taking of
their depositions, and, as of the date of this filing, none have been deposed yet.
CONCLUSION
For all these reasons, Ms. Giuffre should be allowed to take three more depositions than
the presumptive ten deposition limit – a total of thirteen depositions.
Dated: June 14, 2016.

9
 Defendant tries to find support for her prematurity argument in Gen. Elec. Co. v. Indem. Ins.
Co. of N. Am., No. 3:06-CV-232 (CFD), 2006 WL 1525970, at *2 (D. Conn. May 25, 2006).
However, in that case, the Court found a motion for additional depositions to be premature, in
part, because “[d]iscovery has not even commenced” . . . and the moving party “ha[d] not listed
with specificity those individuals it wishes to depose.” Of course, neither of these points applies
in this case at hand: the parties are approaching the close of fact discovery, and Ms. Giuffre has
provided detailed information about each individual she has deposed already and still seeks to
depose.
1111
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 15
10
Respectfully Submitted,
 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
 By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley
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
Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice)
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
(954) 524-2820
Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
S.J. Quinney College of Law
University of Utah
383 University St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
(801) 585-520210

10 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is
not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 15
11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 14th day of June, 2016, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission
of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
Tel: (303) 831-7364
Fax: (303) 832-2628
Email: [email protected]
 [email protected]
 /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley
 Sigrid S. McCawley
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------X
VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,
Plaintiff,
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
15-cv-07433-RWS
--------------------------------------------------X
DEFENDANT’S COMBINED MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN OPPOSITION TO EXTENDING DEADLINE TO COMPLETE DEPOSITIONS AND
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATION OF RULE 45 .........................................
Laura A. Menninger
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
HADDON, MORGAN, AND FOREMAN, P.C.
East 10th Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
303.831.7364
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 32
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 3
LEGAL AUTHORITY ................................................................................................................... 5
I. PLAINTIFF’S LACK OF DILIGENCE ................................................................................. 6
A. President Bill Clinton ........................................................................................................... 6
B. Ross Gow ............................................................................................................................. 9
C. Jean Luc Brunel ................................................................................................................. 10
D. Jeffrey Epstein ................................................................................................................... 12
E. Nadia Marcincova and Sarah Kellen ................................................................................. 14
II. FIFTH AMENDMENT BY EPSTEIN, KELLEN OR MARCINCOVA NOT ADMISSIBLE
IN THIS CASE AGAINST MS. MAXWELL ...................................................................... 15
III. PLAINTIFF’S BAD FAITH DISCOVERY TACTICS SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED
WITH EXTRA TIME ........................................................................................................ 18
1. Plaintiff’s Rule 26 Revolving Door ............................................................................... 18
2. Plaintiff’s Recurrent Rule 45 Violations ........................................................................ 19
IV. MS. MAXWELL’S GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY ................ 20
V. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO TAKE RE-DEPOSE PLAINTIFF AND TO DEPOSE
SHARON CHURCHER EXISTS ........................................................................................ 23
VI. ALTERNATIVELY, ALL OTHER DEADLINES NEED TO BE EXTENDED ............... 24
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................................... 26
■
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 32
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Carlson v. Geneva City School Dist., 277 F.R.D. 90 (W.D.N.Y. 2011); compare Reese v.
Virginia Intern. Terminals, Inc., 286 F.R.D. 282 (E.D. Va. 2012) ............................................ 6
Fox Industries, Inc. v. Gurovich, No. 03–CV–5166, 2006 WL 2882580, *11 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 6,
2006) ......................................................................................................................................... 19
Grochowski v. Phoenix Const., 318 F.3d 80, 86 (2d Cir.2003). ..................................................... 5
Iantosca v. Benistar Admin. Svcs., Inc., 765 F.Supp.2d 79 (D. Mass. 2011) ................................. 6
LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 1997) .......................................................... 16
Murphy v. Board of Educ., 196 F.R.D. 220, 222 (W.D.N.Y.2000) .............................................. 19
Perfect Pearl Co., Inc. v. Majestic Pearl & Stone, Inc., 889 F. Supp. 2d 453, 457 (S.D.N.Y.
2012) ........................................................................................................................................... 5
Sokol Holdings, Inc. v. BMD Munai, Inc., 05 Civ. 3749 (KMW)(DF), 2009 WL 2524611 at *7
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2009) ........................................................................................................... 5
Usov v. Lazar, 13-cv-818 (RWS), 2014 WL 4354691, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014) ............. 20
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 32
1
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell (“Ms. Maxwell”) files this Combined Response
(“Response”) in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Deadline to Complete Depositions
(“Motion”) and Motion for Sanctions For Violation of Rule 45, and states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
Apparently, Plaintiff seeks to take six (6) depositions beyond the scheduling order
deadline of July 1, yet has failed to demonstrate good cause or diligence as to any.1
 The
witnesses include (1) President Bill Clinton, a witness that Plaintiff initiated informal attempts to
depose on June 9, and (2) Ross Gow, who Plaintiff began steps to depose under the Hague
Convention in London last Friday, June 17. Plaintiff also seeks to untimely depose (3) Jean Luc
Brunel, a witness she had noticed for a mid-June deposition, who apparently did not appear on
that date with agreement and consent of Plaintiff’s counsel.
The remaining three witnesses Plaintiff seeks to untimely depose are ones who repeatedly
have expressed their intention to take the Fifth Amendment as to all questions posed. Counsel
for (4) Jeffrey Epstein, offered to accept service on or about April 11 but Plaintiff ignored that
offer for more than six weeks. Plaintiff only began on June 12 any attempt to schedule that
deposition in the Virgin Islands. Last week, Mr. Epstein’s counsel filed a Motion to Quash his
deposition subpoena. The final untimely depositions sought by Plaintiff are for witnesses
(5) Sarah Kellen and (6) Nadia Marcincova, about whom Plaintiff has made no public claims and
thus, have no testimony relevant to this defamation action concerning whether Plaintiff’s public

1 In her Amended Corrected Reply In Support of Motion to Exceed Ten Depositions, Plaintiff represents that she
only seeks to take three depositions beyond the limit of ten and that she no longer seeks depositions of witnesses
Emmy Taylor, Dana Burns, JoJo Fontanilla, and Michael Reiter. (Doc. #224 at 2 n.4) She does not state her
intentions with respect to other witnesses, like Maria Alessi, that she noticed but never deposed. However,
comparing that Reply with her other motions, counsel has deduced the remaining witnesses from whom Plaintiff
apparently seeks to secure deposition testimony in July. Plaintiff has already taken 6 depositions and another
scheduled tomorrow. Thus by the close of discovery she will have taken 7 of her allotted 10 depositions.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 32
2
allegations about Ghislaine Maxwell are – or rather are not – true. The attempted service of
subpoenas on Epstein, Kellen and Marcincova all violated Rule 45(a)(4) and should be
sanctioned by this Court.
As to all of these witnesses, Plaintiff has fallen far short of the “good cause” required by
Rule 16(b)(4) to modify the Scheduling Order. In fact, for the most part, her failures to actively
pursue depositions with these witnesses qualifies as in-excusable neglect: She frittered away
seven of the eight months of the discovery period and now has placed Ms. Maxwell, this Court,
and the witnesses in the untenable position of trying to accommodate her last-minute scramble.
In the absence of any acceptable excuses, and for the limited evidentiary value that most of the
requested witnesses can provide, this Court should deny the request for the extra time to take
these six depositions.
The only witnesses for whom depositions should be permitted following the discovery
cut-off are: (1) Ms. Sharon Churcher, Plaintiff’s friend, advocate and former journalist with the
Daily Mail, who filed a Motion to Quash her subpoena on the day before her scheduled
deposition,2
 and (2) Plaintiff, who refused to answer questions at her deposition concerning
highly relevant, non-privileged information.3

Alternatively, if the Court is to grant additional time for Plaintiff to take depositions, Ms.
Maxwell will be unduly prejudiced without sufficient additional time to (a) secure any witnesses
to rebut testimony gleaned from these witnesses, (b) conduct discovery of Plaintiff’s retained
experts, (c) submit a summary judgment motion which includes facts learned from these late
depositions, and (d) prepare for trial. Thus, if the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion, the remaining
deadlines in the Scheduling Order ought to be extended accordingly.

2 Ms. Churcher’s motion to quash will be heard this Thursday by the Court.
3 Ms. Maxwell is filing simultaneously with this Response a Motion to Re-Open Plaintiff’s Deposition.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 32
3
BACKGROUND
To divert attention away from her own lack of diligence, Plaintiff characteristically
devotes much of her Motion blaming Ms. Maxwell and her counsel for her own problems with
depositions. Not only is Plaintiff’s account factually inaccurate, none of it matters to whether
she could timely complete the six depositions at issue.
For example, the scheduling of Ms. Maxwell’s deposition (which depended, among other
things, on an historic snowstorm, a disputed protective order, Plaintiff’s failure to timely produce
documents, and counsel’s conflicting calendars, all of which have been amply documented with
this Court)4
 does not inform any analysis regarding Plaintiff’s lack of diligence in pursuing
depositions of these six witnesses. See Rule 26d)(3) (“Unless the parties stipulate or the court
orders otherwise for the parties’ and witnesses’ convenience and in the interests of justice: (A)
methods of discovery may be used in any sequence, and (B) discovery by one party does not
require any other party to delay its discovery.”). Likewise, receipt of Ms. Maxwell’s Rule 26
disclosures in February also had nothing to do with these witnesses. Id. Notably, each of the
witnesses who Plaintiff now seeks to depose were known to her from the outset; all but President
Clinton were included in her initial Rule 26 disclosures served on November 11, 2015 and two of
the six were specifically mentioned in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
Finally, the fact that witness Rinaldo Rizzo had a deposition re-scheduled from April
until June does not have any bearing on the issue presented by this motion. Mr. Rizzo was
deposed on June 14 and he has nothing to do with the remaining depositions. Mr. Rizzo, in fact,
was practically gleeful to be a witness: he was the one who initiated contact with Brad Edwards
after reading about the lawsuit, asked to be a witness in this case, hopes to make money from this

4 Doc. #62 & Tr. of Hearing of Mar. 24 at 4.
-
-
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 32
4
case, already has sued Glenn Dubin, Epstein’s friend, had counsel who was totally cooperative in
the rescheduling and reported fanciful and never-before heard claims about Ms. Maxwell, the
Dubins and others that he has never reported to any law enforcement even though he claims that
he witnessed potential kidnappings and sexual assaults on children.5
 Plaintiff’s claim that Mr.
Rizzo is an “example of delay that has harmed [her] ability to obtain all depositions in a timely
manner” (Mot. at 3) is specious.
Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, discovery began in this case on October 23, 2015,
following the parties’ Rule 26(f) conferral. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d)(1). At the Rule 16(b)
scheduling conference on October 28, 2015, this Court directed the parties to complete all fact
discovery by July 1, 2016. (Doc. #13) On November 30, 2015, contemporaneous with the filing
of her Rule 12(b) Motion to Dismiss, Ms. Maxwell also requested of this Court a stay of
discovery pursuant to Rule 26(c). (Doc. #17) That motion was denied on January 20, 2016, with
an additional two-week period granted to respond to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of
Documents.6
 The discovery was thus never stayed.
Plaintiff erroneously asserts that that discovery “did not commence in this matter until”
February 8. What she means is that she neglected to seek any non-witness depositions until then;
nothing in the Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court’s Orders, or the law prevented Plaintiff from
doing so at any point after October 23, 2015.7
 Plaintiff has had over eight months to subpoena

5 See, Menninger Declaration, Ex. A (Rizzo deposition transcript excerpts). Of course, Plaintiff’s counsel has
engaged in their own last-minute “unavailability” for a deposition scheduled by Ms. Maxwell, as to Plaintiff’s
former fiancé, a witness who is hostile, required numerous service attempts at great cost and inconvenience, and
who then (because of Plaintiff’s last minute unavailability) had to be re-served by a process server who swam
through a swamp to get to his home, at additional cost and inconvenience.
6 By agreement of the parties, the time to respond was extended an additional six days because defense counsel was
in a jury trial at the time the Court’s Order was handed down.
7 See, e.g., Pltf’s Opp’n to Mot. to Stay (Doc. #20) at 17 n.8 (“As of the date of this filing, zero (0) disposition [sic]
notices have been propounded on the Defendant.”).
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 32
5
witnesses, schedule depositions and conduct them. Instead, she waited until the last minute and
now complains of lack of time. Any lack of time is a product of her own bad faith and negligent
litigation tactics and should not be sanctioned by this Court.
The failure to timely secure the depositions of the remaining six witnesses is through no
fault of Ms. Maxwell or her counsel. As to these witnesses, Ms. Maxwell and her counsel have
played no role in hindering Plaintiff’s ability to depose the witnesses; in fact, as to four of the six
Plaintiff attempted to serve subpoenas on the witnesses before ever providing notice to the
defense, in clear violation of Rule 45(a)(4).
LEGAL AUTHORITY
Rule 16(b) permits modification of a scheduling order only upon a showing of “good
cause.” To satisfy the good cause standard “the party must show that, despite its having
exercised diligence, the applicable deadline could not have been reasonably met.” Sokol
Holdings, Inc. v. BMD Munai, Inc., 05 Civ. 3749 (KMW)(DF), 2009 WL 2524611 at *7
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2009) (emphasis added) (citing Rent-A-Center Inc. v. 47 Mamaroneck Ave.
Corp., 215 F.R.D. 100, 104 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (McMahon, J.)); accord Parker v. Columbia
Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d 326, 340 (2d Cir. 2000) (“ ‘[G]ood cause’ depends on the diligence of
the moving party.”); Perfect Pearl Co., Inc. v. Majestic Pearl & Stone, Inc., 889 F. Supp. 2d 453,
457 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (Engelmeyer, J.) (“To show good cause, a movant must demonstrate that it
has been diligent, meaning that, despite its having exercised diligence, the applicable deadline
could not have been reasonably met.”).
Good cause depends on the diligence of the moving party in seeking to meet the
scheduling order. Grochowski v. Phoenix Const., 318 F.3d 80, 86 (2d Cir.2003). The Oxford
Dictionary defines “diligence” as “careful and persistent work or effort.” See “diligence” at
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/diligence (last accessed on
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 32
6
June 18, 2016). “Good cause” and diligence were not shown when a party raised the prospect of
a deposition nine days prior to the discovery deadline. Carlson v. Geneva City School Dist., 277
F.R.D. 90 (W.D.N.Y. 2011); compare Reese v. Virginia Intern. Terminals, Inc., 286 F.R.D. 282
(E.D. Va. 2012) (depositions noticed very early in discovery period and movant engaged in
continuing meet-and-confer dialogue with defendants throughout five month discovery period);
Iantosca v. Benistar Admin. Svcs., Inc., 765 F.Supp.2d 79 (D. Mass. 2011) (correspondence
indicated that the plaintiffs had tried on numerous occasions to schedule the depositions and to
extend the discovery schedule but that the defendants had either refused or failed to respond,
good cause found).
ARGUMENT
I. PLAINTIFF’S LACK OF DILIGENCE
Plaintiff has demonstrated an extreme lack of diligence in securing the remaining six
depositions that she seeks.
A. President Bill Clinton
Plaintiff’s Motion failed to mention any desire to take the deposition of former President
Clinton. No Notice of Deposition has been served and no scheduling of his deposition has
commenced. Indeed, President Clinton first appeared on Plaintiff’s Third Revised Rule 26
Disclosures two weeks ago on June 1. Then, last week, in her Reply In Support of Motion to
Exceed Ten Depositions filed on June 13 (“Reply”), Plaintiff averred that President Clinton’s
deposition is “necessary” because Ms. Maxwell “in her deposition [on April 25] raised Ms.
Giuffre’s comments about President Clinton as one of the ‘obvious lies’ to which she was
referring in her public statement that formed the basis of this suit.” Reply at 3. This is utter
nonsense and nothing more than a transparent ploy by Plaintiff to increase media exposure for
her sensational stories through deposition side-show. This witness has nothing relevant to add
-
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 32
7
to this case and Plaintiff has made no effort, much less one in good faith to timely secure his
testimony.
Plaintiff admits she has “made not allegations of illegal actions by Bill Clinton.” Id. But
Plaintiff has asserted that she spent time with President Clinton on the island of Little St. James,
US Virgin Islands and that she flew there with the President in a helicopter piloted by Ms.
Maxwell. In one article, authored by Sharon Churcher, Plaintiff related:
“On one occasion, she adds, Epstein did invite two young brunettes to dinner
which he gave on his Caribbean island for Mr. Clinton shortly after he left office.
But as far as she knows, the ex-President did not take the bait. ‘I’d have been
about 17 at the time,’ she says. ‘I flew to the Caribbean with Jeffrey and then
Ghislaine Maxwell went to pick up Bill in a huge black helicopter that Jeffrey
bought her. She’d always wanted to fly and Jeffrey paid for her to take lessons,
and I remember she was very excited because she got her license around the first
year we met. I used to get frightened flying with her but Bill had the Secret
Service with him and I remember him talking about what a good job she did. I
only met Bill twice but Jeffrey told me they were good friends.’
‘We all dined together that night. Jeffrey was at the head of the table. Bill was at
his left. I sat across from him. Emmy Taylor, Ghislaine’s blonde British assistant,
sat at my right. Ghislaine was at Bill’s left and at the left of Ghislaine there were
two olive-skinned brunettes who’d flown in with us from New York. I’d never
met them before. I’d say they were no older than 17, very innocent-looking. They
weren’t there for me. They weren’t there for Jeffrey or Ghislaine because I was
there to have sex with Jeffrey on the trip. Maybe Jeffrey thought they would
entertain Bill, but I saw no evidence that he was interested in them. He and
Jeffrey and Ghislaine seemed to have a very good relationship. Bill was very
funny. He made me laugh a few times. And he and Jeffrey and Ghislaine told
blokey jokes and the brunettes listened politely and giggled. After dinner I gave
Jeffrey an erotic massage. I don’t remember seeing Bill again on the trip but I
assume Ghislaine flew him back.”
See Sharon Churcher, “Teenage girl recruited by peadophile Jeffrey Epstein reveals how she
twice met Bill Clinton,” DAILY MAIL (Mar. 5, 2011) (attached to Declaration of Sharon
Churcher, Ex. 3 (Doc. #216-3). Similarly, in Plaintiff’s unpublished and un-dated book
manuscript, The Billionaire Playboys’ Club, she writes:
“The next big dinner party on the island had another significant guest appearance
being the one and only, Bill Clinton. He is the only president in the world to be
-
-
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 32
8
dismissed from his role as a world leader because he was caught with his trousers
around his ankles and had the stain to prove it. Publicly humiliating his wife and
himself he retired from his title but not from his lifestyle. This wasn't a big party
as such, only a few of us eating at the diner table. There was Jeffrey at the head of
it all, as always. On the left side was Emmy, Ghislaine and I sitting across the
table from us was Bill with two lovely girls who were visiting from New York.
Bill's wife, Hillary's absence from the night made it easy for his apparent
provocative cheeky side to come out. Teasing the girls on either side of him with
playful pokes and brassy comments, there was no modesty between any of them.
We all finished our meals and scattered in our own different directions.”
Menninger Decl. Ex. B at 110.
Each and every part of Plaintiff’s claims regarding President Clinton has conclusively
been proven false. Former FBI Director Louis Freeh submitted a report wherein he concluded
that President Clinton “did not, in fact travel to, nor was he present on, Little St. James Island
between January 1, 2001 and January 1, 2003.” Menninger Decl., Ex. C. Further, if any Secret
Service agents had accompanied Clinton to that location, “they would have been required to
make and file shift logs, travel vouchers, and related documentation relating to the visit,” and
there was a “total absence” of any such documentation. Id. Remarkably, Plaintiff now even
denies telling Churcher that she ever witnessed Ms. Maxwell flying President Clinton or his
Secret Service anywhere, or joking with Clinton about “what a good job she did.” Menninger
Decl., Ex. D. Plaintiff’s counsel remarkably instructed Plaintiff not to answer any additional
questions about the other things Sharon Churcher inaccurately reported. Id. Lending even more
incredulity to Plaintiff’s story, Ms. Maxwell only received her pilot’s license in mid-1999 casting
insurmountable doubt that a recently retired president and his staff would be permitted to fly
with her at the helm.
With the record thus, Plaintiff’s claims about Clinton’s presence on the Island and the
fully concocted story about the dinner party that occurred thereon totally debunked by the former
head of the FBI and with Plaintiff now disclaiming she ever witnessed the Secret Service or
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 32
9
President Clinton being flown in a helicopter by Ghislaine Maxwell, the relevance of any
testimony he might add (i.e., confirm that he was, as Louis Freeh determined, never on the
Island) is non-existent. The only purpose for seeking this deposition is for the calculated media
strategy that Plaintiff and her publicity-seeking attorneys have devised.
Plaintiff failed to disclose President Clinton as a witness until June 1, failed to notice his
deposition, failed to diligently pursue a subpoena on him and he has no relevant testimony to
offer. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s leave to modify the scheduling order to permit his deposition
should be denied.
B. Ross Gow
As the Court likely recalls, Ross Gow actually issued the statement pertinent to this
defamation suit. Plaintiff has known about Ross Gow and his role in this lawsuit since the
outset: She referenced him repeatedly by name in the Complaint filed on September 21, 2015.
See, e.g., Complaint paragraph 29 (“As part of Maxwell’s campaign, she directed her agent, Ross
Gow, to attack Giuffre’s honesty and truthfulness and to accuse Giuffre of lying.”). Plaintiff also
has been well aware throughout that Mr. Gow resides in London. See, e.g., Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel Improper Privileges, at 8 (Doc. #33).
After filing that Complaint in September and litigating the Motion to Compel based on
privileges related to Mr. Gow in March, Plaintiff took exactly zero steps to depose Mr. Gow until
she filed this Motion. Now, nine months after filing her Complaint, Plaintiff contends there is
“not sufficient time” for her to “go through the Hague Convention for service on Mr. Gow” so as
to “complete this process before the June 30, 2016 deadline.” Mot. at 4. Indeed, Plaintiff only
initiated that process three days ago, on Friday, June 17, two weeks shy of the discovery cut-off.
Plaintiff, once again, tries to blame Ms. Maxwell for her own lack of diligence by
misrepresenting to this Court that “Ms. Giuffre asked that Defendant produce her agent, Mr.
1111
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 32
10
Gow, for a deposition but Defendant has refused…despite acknowledging that Defendant plans
to call Mr. Gow for testimony at trial.” Id. In truth, Plaintiff sent a letter on May 23 which read
in its entirety, “This letter is to seek your agreement to produce Ross Gow for deposition, as the
agent for your client, Ms. Maxwell. We can work with Mr. Gow’s schedule to minimize
inconvenience. Please advise by Wednesday, May 25, 2016, whether you will produce Mr. Gow
or whether we will need to seek relief from the Court with respect to his deposition.” Menninger
Decl. Ex. E. That was the first communication regarding any deposition of Mr. Gow. Two days
later, defense counsel requested any “legal authority that would allow Ms. Maxwell to ‘produce’
Ross Gow for a deposition” or “any rule or case that would either enable or require her to do so.”
Id. Plaintiff never responded. She also has not explained when or how Ms. Maxwell
“acknowledged” her “plans to call Mr. Gow for testimony at trial,” nor why that is relevant to
whether Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for her own failure to take steps to depose a
foreign witness deposition until June 17, for a witness she was aware before even filing the
Complaint.
During the hearing on March 24, this Court stated that it would consider expect to see
“good faith showing” of efforts to comply with the schedule and “an inability because of Hague
Convention problems,” before it would consider changing the Scheduling Order. Ms. Maxwell
submits that waiting until June 17, two weeks before the end of discovery, to even begin the
Hague Convention process falls far short of any such good faith showing and the request for
leave to take Mr. Gow’s testimony beyond July 1 should be denied.
C. Jean Luc Brunel
With regard to Jean Luc Brunel, Plaintiff simply asserts that he was “subpoenaed,” and
“set for mid-June deposition[],” but “through counsel” has “requested we change the dates of
[his] deposition.” Mot. at 4. That is her entire argument. She omits key facts that would,
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 32
11
instead, demonstrate her lack of diligence in securing Mr. Brunel’s testimony and also show that
she has waived any right to seek an out-of-time deposition.
Plaintiff first issued a Notice of a Rule 45 subpoena for documents from Mr. Brunel on
February 16, at an address “c/o” attorney, Joe Titone. No documents were ever produced
pursuant to that subpoena. Menninger Decl., Ex. F. Then, on May 23, 2016, Plaintiff issued a
new “Notice of Subpoena Duces Tecum,” attached to which was actually a subpoena for
deposition testimony to occur on June 8, at 9:00 a.m. in New York. Id. Again, the subpoena was
addressed “c/o” attorney Robert Hantman. Then, on June 2, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email that
they had received “an email yesterday from Mr. Brunel's attorney saying he needs to reschedule.
I believe he is trying to get us new dates today or tomorrow.” Id. The “scheduled date” of June
8 came and went without any indication of any new dates provided by Mr. Brunel’s counsel.
The following week, Plaintiff’s counsel stated in a phone conversation that Mr. Brunel’s counsel
said his client had gone to France and it was unclear when he would be returning to the United
States.
Following the filing of the instant motion, counsel for Ms. Maxwell requested copies of
the certificates of service for all of Plaintiff’s Rule 45 subpoenas in this case. Plaintiff’s counsel
provided certificates on June 14. Notably absent was any certificate of service for Mr. Brunel.
Thus, either Mr. Brunel was never served, or he was served and Plaintiff unilaterally extended
his compliance date to an unscheduled time in the future. Either way, the time to complain about
a witness’s non-compliance is at or near the time it occurs. Failure to timely complain regarding
non-compliance with a subpoena constitutes a waiver. In any event, whether served or not, Mr.
Brunel apparently promised to provide new dates before his deposition date came and went, did
not do so, has left the country and not indicated a present intention to return. Given Plaintiff’s
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 32
12
role in failing to compel him to attend a deposition, no “good cause” has been demonstrated to
take the deposition of Mr. Brunel after July 1.
D. Jeffrey Epstein
As with the other witnesses, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate “good cause” for seeking
to depose Jeffrey Epstein out of time. Plaintiff claims that she was unable to secure service on
Mr. Epstein until May 27, 2016, because his counsel “refused to accept service” until she filed
her motion for alternative service. The documents reflect the opposite: Mr. Epstein’s attorney
agreed to accept service on April 11, 2016, and it was only on May 27, 2016, that Plaintiff
agreed. See Poe Declaration in Support of Motion to Quash Epstein Deposition, Ex. 3 (Doc. #
223-3). Plaintiff fails to explain her strategic decision, or negligence, in failing to respond for
over six weeks to Mr. Weinberg’s email offering to accept service. Indeed, in another failure of
candor, Plaintiff’s counsel also neglected to tell this Court about the email offer from Mr.
Weinberg either in the instant motion or in her motion to serve Mr. Epstein by alternate means.
Mot. at 2; Doc. # 160.8
Plaintiff apparently now claims that she never received that email from Martin Weinberg.
All of the preceding communications, however, indicate that Mr. Weinberg promptly responded
to Ms. McCawley’s inquiries. See, e.g., Poe Declaration, Ex. 2 (email of April 6 from Weinberg
to McCawley (offering to let her know regarding acceptance of service on April 7)); email of
McCawley in response (“That works fine – thank you.”)). Thus, if Ms. McCawley received no
follow up response from Mr. Weinberg, as she now claims, when he had been corresponding

8
 In another glaring omission from Plaintiff’s submissions to the Court on the topic of the service of Mr. Epstein,
Plaintiff’s own counsel have strenuously litigated in other cases that Mr. Epstein is a resident of Florida, over his
objection that he is a resident of the U.S. Virgin Islands. See, e.g., Menninger Decl., Ex. G (Motion to Quash
Subpoena on Jeffrey Epstein, Broward County, Florida, 15-000072). Yet, all of Plaintiff’s purported attempts at
service on Mr. Epstein were in New York.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 32
13
with her previously theretofore, she had a duty to follow up on that inquiry. A failure to do so is
plain vanilla neglect.
Even after agreeing to the terms proposed by Epstein’s counsel on May 27, that is,
location of the deposition in the U.S. Virgin Islands and subject to right to oppose the subpoena,
Plaintiff then waited an additional three weeks until June 12, to even attempt to schedule
Epstein’s deposition. Epstein Memorandum in Support of Mot. to Quash at 2 (Doc. # 222).
Agreeing to take a deposition in the Virgin Islands on May 27, then waiting until June 12, to try
to schedule a date for that deposition, when numerous other depositions had already been
scheduled in New York, Florida, and California for the balance of June, is either neglect or
strategic posturing by Plaintiff. Either way, it does not amount to “good cause” for such a
deposition to take place beyond July 1.
Finally, Plaintiff suggests, without factual foundation, that Ms. Maxwell played some
role in Mr. Epstein’s counsel’s refusal to accept service. See Mot. at 2 (“forced to personally
serve the Defendant’s former boyfriend, employer, and co-conspirator”). As the timeline and
documents now reveal, however, Plaintiff failed to provide notice to Ms. Maxwell that she was
attempting to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Mr. Epstein for more than 7 weeks! Id. Plaintiff
states that she began her service attempts on March 7, 2016. The very first Notice of Subpoena
and Deposition served on Ms. Maxwell, however, is dated April 27. Menninger Decl. Ex. H.
Thus, between March 7 and April 27, Ms. McCawley engaged in repeated attempts to serve Mr.
Epstein a Rule 45 subpoena (including a request for documents) without providing the proper
notice to the parties pursuant to Rule 45(a)(4) (“If the subpoena commands the production of
documents… , then before it is served on the person to whom it is directed, a notice and a copy
of the subpoena must be served on each party.”) (emphasis added). As detailed below, this was
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 32
14
not an isolated incident and merits sanction. In any event, it is difficult to imagine how it is Ms.
Maxwell’s fault that Plaintiff could not serve Mr. Epstein when she was never put on notice of
any attempt to do so.
Given that Plaintiff knew as of April 11 the conditions pursuant to which Mr. Epstein
would accept service through counsel, yet waited until May 27 to agree to those terms, and then
waited another nearly three weeks to attempt to schedule Mr. Epstein’s deposition on a date
available for his counsel and Ms. Maxwell’s counsel, Plaintiff has fallen far short of
demonstrating “good cause” for taking Mr. Epstein’s deposition beyond the end of the fact
discovery cut-off.
E. Nadia Marcincova and Sarah Kellen
Finally, Plaintiff seeks the depositions of two other witnesses – Sarah Kellen and Nadia
Marcincova -- who, she complains, “despite being represented by counsel, have refused to accept
service.”9
 Mot. at 3. Plaintiff claims that her process servers tried for three weeks (from April
25 until May 18) to personally serve Ms. Kellen and Ms. Marcincova with subpoenas duces
tecum. She did not explain, however, why she waited until April to try to serve these two
witnesses, about whom her attorneys have known since 2008. She also has not explained to this
Court any legally relevant or admissible evidence that either possess, nor how she intends to
introduce that evidence in a trial of this defamation claim between Plaintiff and Ms. Maxwell.
Apart from these witnesses stated intent to take the Fifth Amendment which renders their
testimony inadmissible, as discussed more fully below, neither witness has any relevant
testimony to offer because Plaintiff never made a public statement about either one of them.

9
 Actually, in Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Three Deposition Subpoenas by Means Other than Personal
Service, Plaintiff details that Ms. Marcincova’s counsel stated he no longer represents her. (Doc. #161 at 5)
(“counsel for Ms. Giuffre reached out to Ms. Marcinkova’s former counsel but he indicated that he could not accept
service as he no longer represents her”). It is unclear then, why Plaintiff persists in representing to this Court that
Ms. Marcincova instructed her counsel not to accept service, or why Plaintiff seeks to serve Ms. Marcincova
through her former counsel.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 32
15
Plaintiff did not include either woman in her Sharon Churcher-paid interviews, nor were they
mentioned in Plaintiff’s Joinder Motion of December 30, 2014. Thus, neither Plaintiff’s
allegations about Ms. Maxwell, nor Ms. Maxwell’s denial of the same based on her personal
knowledge, are implicated by anything that Ms. Kellen or Ms. Marcincova may have done with
anyone else. Their testimony cannot corroborate Plaintiff’s account, nor can it shed light on
whether Ms. Maxwell’s denial of that account is accurate, because Plaintiff’s account did not
mention either of them.
Finally as to these witnesses, Plaintiff once again documented her own failure to comply
with Rule 45 in regard to attempts to serve these two witnesses. Six of the service attempts
occurred on April 25 and April 26. Yet Plaintiff only provided Notice to Ms. Maxwell of her
intent to serve the subpoenas on April 27. Menninger Decl. Ex. I.
II. FIFTH AMENDMENT BY EPSTEIN, KELLEN OR MARCINCOVA NOT
ADMISSIBLE IN THIS CASE AGAINST MS. MAXWELL
The depositions of Epstein, Kellen and Marcincova do not constitute “good cause” to
modify the scheduling order in this case for the additional reason that they all have represented to
Plaintiff their intention to assert the Fifth Amendment protection as to all questions and such
assertion will not be admissible evidence in this trial. Indeed, counsel for Mr. Epstein recently
filed a Motion to Quash his subpoena based on the same legal principle that his deposition is
unduly burdensome in light of the fact that it will not lead to admissible evidence. (Doc. # 221,
222, 223) The Court should consider this additional factor to decline a finding of “good cause”
for extending the discovery deadline.
Plaintiff wrongfully contends that any assertion of the Fifth Amendment during the
depositions of Epstein, Kellen and Marincova will be admissible in the trial of this defamation
matter (where none of those individuals are parties) based on an “adverse inference” that can be
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 32
16
drawn against Ms. Maxwell. See LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 1997). In
fact, none of the LiButti factors support her argument. While noting that Ms. Maxwell
anticipates more extensive briefing on this issue in support of Mr. Epstein’s Motion to Quash, a
few facts bear mentioning here:
x Ms. Maxwell was the employee of Mr. Epstein --in the 1990s -- not the other way
around. Mr. Epstein has never worked for or been in control of Ms. Maxwell.
x Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein have had no financial, professional or employment
relationship in more than a decade, many years before 2015 when the purportedly
defamatory statement was published. Ms. Maxwell testified that she has not spoken to
Mr. Epstein in 2 years.
x Maxwell has not vested any control in Mr. Epstein “in regard to key facts and subject
matter of litigation.” As the Court is well aware from review of emails submitted in
camera (and later produced to Plaintiff):
o Mr. Epstein and his counsel gave advice to Maxwell regarding whether she
should issue a statement after January 2, 2015. In one, Mr. Epstein even
suggested what such a statement might say. Maxwell never issued any additional
statement.
o Maxwell had her own counsel who operated independently of Mr. Epstein and his
counsel.
x Epstein is not “pragmatically a non-captioned party in interest” in this litigation nor has
he “played controlling role in respect to its underlying aspects.” Epstein is not, despie
Plaintiff’s suggestion, paying Ms. Maxwell’s legal fees. Plaintiff sought by way of
discovery any “contracts,” “indemnification agreements,” “employment agreements”
between Ms. Maxwell and Epstein or any entity associated with Epstein, from 1999 to the
present. Ms. Maxwell responded under oath that there are no such documents. Epstein
played no role in the issuance of the January 2 statement, nor has he issued any public
statement regarding Plaintiff. Indeed, Plaintiff and Epstein fully resolved any claims
against one another by way of a confidential settlement in 2009, another action in which
Ms. Maxwell had no role.
x Assertion of the privilege by Epstein does not advance any interest of Ms. Maxwell’s.
Quite to the contrary, Epstein would be a key witness in her support, exonerating her
from Plaintiff’s allegations regarding sex abuse, sexual trafficking and acting as his
“madam” to the stars. As proof, one need look no further than emails already reviewed
by this Court. In an email sent by Epstein to Ms. Maxwell on January 25, 2015, while the
media maelstrom generated by Plaintiff’s false claims continued to foment, he wrote:
“You have done nothing wrong and I would urge you to start acting like it. Go outside,
head high, not as an escaping convict. Go to parties. Deal with it.” Menninger Decl. Ex. J
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 32
17
x Likewise, Epstein drafted a statement for Ms. Maxwell to issue (though she never did).
In that statement, Epstein wrote (presumably what his testimony would reflect, should he
not take the Fifth):
“Since JE was charged in 2007 for solicitation of a prostitute I have been the
target of outright lies, innuendo, slander, defamation and salacious gossip and
harassment; headlines made up of quotes I have never given, statements I have
never made, trips with people to places I have never been, holidays with people I
have never met, false allegations of impropriety and offensive behavior that I
abhor and have never ever been party to, witness to events that I have never seen,
living off trust funds that I have never ever had, party to stories that have changed
materially both in time place and event, depending on what paper you read, and
the list goes on.
I have never been a party in any criminal action pertaining to JE.
For the record:
At the time of Jeffrey’s plea, I was in a very long-term committed relationship
with another man and no longer working with Jeffrey. Whilst I remained on
friendly terms with him up until his plea, I have had limited contact since.
Every story in the press innuendo and comment has been taken from civil
depositions against JE, which were settled many years ago. None of the
depositions were ever subject to cross examination, not one. Any standard of
truth and were used for those who claimed they were victims to receive financial
payment to be shared between them and their lawyers. One firm created and sold
fake cases against Mr. Epstein – the firm subsequently imploded and the (sic)
Rothstein, the owner of the firm was sent to jail for 50 years for his crime. The
lawyer who is currently representing Virginia (Brad Edwards) was his partner.
Need I say more.
These so called ‘new revelations’ stem from an alleged diary from VR that reads
like the memoirs she is purporting to be selling. Also perhaps pertinent – in a
previous complaint against others, her claims were rejected by the police ‘due to
..VR..lack of credibility.”
The new interest in this old settled case results from lawyers representing some of
JE victims filed a suit against the US government, not JE. They contend that the
US govt violated their rights. The documents and deal that JE negotiated with the
government was given to the lawyers 6 years ago and is a public document.
I am not a part of, nor did you have anything to do with, JE plea bargain. I have
never even seen the proceedings nor any of the depositions. I reserve my right to
file complaint and sue for defamation and slander.”; Id.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 32
18
These correspondences demonstrate that Ms. Maxwell has no control over Mr. Epstein in
regards to the alleged defamation statement, he had no role in issuance of the statement, he has
no benefit in the outcome of this litigation and he played no controlling role in its respect.
Similarly, there is not any evidence at all to support an adverse inference to be drawn
from either Sarah Kellen nor Nadia Marcincova’s assertion of the Fifth. Ms. Maxwell hardly
knows either woman, never worked with them, they have had nothing to do with this litigation
and do not stand to benefit from it, especially as Plaintiff has never made any allegations about
her involvement with either of the two of them, they are simply irrelevant to this defamation
action.
III. PLAINTIFF’S BAD FAITH DISCOVERY TACTICS SHOULD NOT BE
REWARDED WITH EXTRA TIME
1. Plaintiff’s Rule 26 Revolving Door
Plaintiff’s army of lawyers (who collectively have been litigating matters related to
Jeffrey Epstein since 2008) served their Rule 26 initial disclosures on November 11, 2015.
Those disclosures listed 94 individual witnesses with knowledge regarding the facts of this case,
yet provided addresses (only of their counsel) as to just two, Jeffrey Epstein and Alan
Dershowitz. Plaintiff then also listed categories of witnesses such as “all other then-minor girls,
whose identities Plaintiff will attempt to determine” and “all pilots, chauffeurs, chefs, and other
employees of” Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. Plaintiff claimed as to her Rule 26 disclosures
that “only a fraction of those individuals will actually be witnesses in this case, and as discovery
progresses, the list will be further narrowed.” (Doc. #20 at 17) The opposite has happened.
Between November 11 and March 11, Plaintiff trimmed her Rule 26 list of persons with
knowledge from 94 to 69, inexplicably removing 34 names, but adding 12 more. She removed,
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 32
19
for example, witnesses Andrea Mitrovich and Dara Preece, but added Senators George Mitchell,
Bill Richardson and Les Wexner.
Then between March 11 and June 1, a few weeks before the discovery cut-off, Plaintiff
added 20 more witnesses, including President Clinton, Palm Beach officers Recarey and Reiter,
and purported “victims of sexual abuse” including a client of Mr. Edwards, who he has clearly
known about for years.10 As to several of these newly added witnesses, in particular
Recarey and Reiter, Plaintiff promptly scheduled their depositions in June, despite having just
disclosed their names on June 1. And last Friday, on the business day just before the depositions
of and Recarey, Plaintiff disclosed 623 new documents, including for the first time the
“unredacted” police reports from Palm Beach, that Plaintiff clearly has had in her possession, or
her counsel’s possession, for years. Menninger Decl. Ex. K.
This is precisely the type of hide-and-seek that Rule 26 is designed to prevent. While
Ms. Ma