Guest User


a guest
Jul 30th, 2020
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
  1. 1
  2. United States District Court
  3. Southern District of New York
  4. Virginia L. Giuffre,
  5. Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
  6. v.
  7. Ghislaine Maxwell,
  8. Defendant.
  9. ________________________________/
  12. Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this
  13. Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions. During her recent deposition,
  14. Defendant refused to answer numerous questions about allegedly “adult” sexual activity related
  15. to Jeffrey Epstein. Because this activity is highly relevant to this case, Defendant should be
  16. ordered to answer questions about it.
  17. As the Court is aware, this defamation case involves Ms. Giuffre’s assertions that she and
  18. other females were recruited by Defendant to be sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein under the
  19. guise of being “massage therapists.” See Complaint, (DE 1), at ¶ 27 (Giuffre “described
  20. Maxwell’s role as one of the main women who Epstein used to procure under-aged girls for
  21. sexual activities and a primary co-conspirator and participant in his sexual abuse and sex
  22. trafficking scheme”). In response to these assertions, Defendant has made the sweeping claim
  23. that Ms. Giuffre’s assertions are “entirely false” and “entirely untrue.” Complaint, DE 1, at ¶ 31.
  25. 1 Defendant has labelled her entire deposition transcript as Confidential at this time. Counsel for
  26. the parties conferred at the deposition regarding answering questions.
  27. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 143 Filed 05/05/16 Page 1 of 10
  28. 2
  29. Yet during her deposition, Defendant refused to answer any questions that she construed
  30. as having something to do with “consensual adult sex.” Defense counsel supported that position
  31. that “frankly, [that’s] none of your business and I instruct the witness not to answer.” See
  32. Declaration of Sigrid S. McCawley (“McCawley Decl.”) at Exhibit 1, Tr. of Maxwell Depo.
  33. (Apr. 22, 2016) at 21. The result was that at a number of points throughout her deposition,
  34. Defendant refused to answer questions about subjects integral to this lawsuit, including questions
  35. about what the alleged “massage therapists” were doing at Jeffrey Epstein’s house and the sexual
  36. nature of those massages.
  37. For example, Defendant refused to answer questions about whether she had given Jeffrey
  38. Epstein a massage:
  39. Q. Have you ever given Jeffrey Epstein a massage?
  40. MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form, foundation. And I'm going to
  41. instruct you not to answer that question. I don't have any problem with you
  42. asking questions about what the subject matter of this lawsuit is, which would
  43. be, as you've termed it, sexual trafficking of Ms. Roberts.
  44. To the extent you are asking for information relating to any consensual
  45. adult interaction between my client and Mr. Epstein, I'm going to instruct her not
  46. to answer because it's not part of this litigation and it is her private confidential
  47. information, not subject to this deposition.
  48. MS. McCAWLEY: You can instruct her not to answer. That is your
  49. right. But I will bring her back for another deposition because it is part of the
  50. subject matter of this litigation so she should be answering these questions. This
  51. is civil litigation, deposition and she should be responsible for answering these
  52. questions.
  53. MR. PAGLIUCA: I disagree and you understand the bounds that I put on
  54. it.
  55. MS. McCAWLEY: No, I don't. I will continue to ask my questions and
  56. you can continue to make your objections.
  57. Q. Did you ever participate from the time period of 1992 to 2009, did
  58. you ever participate in a massage with Jeffrey Epstein and another female?
  59. MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection. Do not answer that question. Again, to the
  60. extent you are asking for some sort of illegal activity as you've construed in
  61. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 143 Filed 05/05/16 Page 2 of 10
  62. 3
  63. connection with this case I don't have any problem with you asking that question.
  64. To the extent these questions involve consensual acts between adults, frankly,
  65. they're none of your business and I will instruct the witness not to answer.
  66. MS. McCAWLEY: This case involves sexual trafficking, sexual abuse,
  67. questions about her having interactions with other females is relevant to this case.
  68. She needs to answer these questions.
  69. MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm instructing her not to answer.
  70. MS. McCAWLEY: Then we will be back here again.
  71. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, Tr. of Maxwell Depo. (Apr. 22, 2016) at 19-22 (emphasis
  72. added).
  73. Defendant’s participation in massages with Epstein is a central part of this case. Ms.
  74. Giuffre has explained that during her first sexual encounter with Jeffrey Epstein, it was
  75. Defendant who provided instruction on how to do it and how to turn the massage into a sexual
  76. event. Obviously, proof that Defendant had previously massaged Epstein – include massages
  77. with sexual component – would provide important corroboration for Ms. Giuffre’s testimony at
  78. trial. And proof that Defendant was involved in massages will further help prove that
  79. statements to the press that Virginia’s allegations were “obvious lies” was itself an obvious lie.
  80. As another example, Defendant refused to answer questions about her knowledge that
  81. Johanna Sjoberg was hired to work for Epstein and provided massages. In the police report,
  82. Johanna admitted that Maxwell recruited her to work for Epstein. See McCawley Decl. at
  83. Exhibit 3, Giuffre000076-77 (police report indicating that Johanna was recruited by Maxwell).
  84. Yet during Defendant’s deposition, she refused to answer questions regarding Johanna Sjoberg.
  85. Q. Do you know what tasks Johanna was hired to performance?
  86. A. She was tasked to answer telephones.
  87. Q. Did you ever ask her to rub Jeffrey's feet? . . .
  88. A. I believe that I have read that, but I don't have any memory of it.
  89. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 143 Filed 05/05/16 Page 3 of 10
  90. 4
  91. Q. Did you ever tell Johanna that she would get extra money if she
  92. provided Jeffrey massages?
  93. A. I was always happy to give career advice to people and I think that
  94. becoming somebody in the healthcare profession, either exercise instructor or
  95. nutritionist or professional massage therapist is an excellent job opportunity.
  96. Hourly wages are around 7, 8, $9 and as a professional healthcare provider you
  97. can earn somewhere between as we have established 100 to $200 and to be able to
  98. travel and have a job that pays that is a wonderful job opportunity. So in the
  99. context of advising people for opportunities for work, it is possible that I would
  100. have said that she should explore that as an option.
  101. Q. Did you tell her she would get extra money if she massaged Jeffrey?
  102. A. I'm just saying, I cannot recall the exact conversation. I give career
  103. advice and I have done that.
  104. Q. Did you ever have Johanna massage you?
  105. A. I did.
  106. Q. How many times?
  107. A. I don't recall how many times.
  108. Q. Was there sex involved?
  109. A. No. . . .
  110. Q. Did you ever have sexual contact with Johanna?
  111. MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form and foundation. You need to give
  112. me an opportunity to get in between the questions.
  113. Anything that involves consensual sex on your part, I'm instructing you
  114. not to answer.
  115. Q. Did you ever have sexual contact with Johanna?
  116. A. [MR. PAGLIUCA?] Again, she is an adult --
  117. Q. I’m asking you, did you ever have sexual contact with Johanna?
  118. A. I’ve just been instructed not to answer.
  119. Q. On what basis?
  120. A. You have to ask my lawyer.
  121. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, Tr. of Maxwell Depo. (Apr. 22, 2016) at 60-62 (emphasis
  122. added).
  123. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 143 Filed 05/05/16 Page 4 of 10
  124. 5
  125. Here again, this information is critical to the case. Among other things, these questions
  126. are designed to show a modus operani (“M.O”) for Epstein and Maxwell – specifically, how they
  127. recruited for a non-sexual massage than converted the massage into sexual activities.
  128. One last illustration comes from Defendant’s refusal to answer about her knowledge of
  129. Epstein’s sexual interests during massages:
  130. Q. Does Jeffrey like to have his nipples pinched during sexual
  131. encounters?
  132. MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form and foundation.
  133. A. I'm not referring to any advice on my counsel. I'm not talking about
  134. any adult sexual things when I was with him.
  135. Q. When Jeffrey would have a massage, would he request that the
  136. masseuse pinch his nipples while he was having a massage?
  137. A. I'm not talking about anything with consensual adult situation.
  138. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, Tr. of Maxwell Depo. (Apr. 22, 2016) at 82.
  139. While Epstein himself might also provide answers to these questions, it appears likely
  140. that he will assert his Fifth Amendment privilege regarding his sexual activities. Accordingly,
  141. Ms. Giuffre must pursue questioning of Maxwell to obtain information on this subject. Here
  142. again, information about Epstein’s sexual idiosyncrasies will provide important corroboration to
  143. Ms. Giuffre’s testimony that she had sexual interactions of an identical nature with Epstein.
  144. These refusals are not an isolated instance. Instead, similar refusals to answer questions
  145. occurred repeatedly throughout the deposition. See, e.g., McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit
  146. 6. 52-55; 64-65; 82; 92-93; 137-38; 307-09.
  147. The Court should compel Defendant to answer all these questions. In addition to the
  148. specific points made above, the “big picture” here reveals how vital such discovery is. At the
  149. core of Ms. Giuffre’s allegations is the allegation that Defendant lured her into a sexual situation
  150. with the offer of a job making money as a massage therapist; that Epstein always habitually tried
  151. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 143 Filed 05/05/16 Page 5 of 10
  152. 6
  153. to turn massages into sex (that was his modus operandi and plan all along); and that Maxwell
  154. recruited other females for an ostensibly proper position, such as therapeutic masseuse, with
  155. knowledge that the intent was for that person would be pressured to provide sexual gratification
  156. to Epstein. As a result, Epstein’s use of massages for sexual purposes is a central part of this
  157. case.
  158. And Defendant’s role in those massages – and knowledge of the purposes of those
  159. massages – is a critical piece of evidence showing her state of mind when she attacked Ms.
  160. Giuffre’s assertions as “entirely untrue.” Ms. Giuffre intends to prove at trial that Defendant
  161. knew full well the sexual purpose for which she was recruiting females – including underage
  162. females like Ms. Giuffre. Ms. Giuffre is entitled to explore Defendant’s knowledge of the sexual
  163. activities that took place under the guise of “massages.” Otherwise Defendant will be able to
  164. portray to the jury an inaccurate picture of that what was happening at Epstein’s house what
  165. nothing more than run-of-the-mill massage therapy. See, e.g., McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7, Tr.
  166. of Maxwell Depo. (Apr. 22, 2016) at 51 (“Q: Did [the pay for massage therapists] vary on what
  167. sexual acts they performed? . . . A: No, it varied depending on how much time, some massage
  168. therapists charge more and some charge less.”).
  169. Defendant’s refusal to answer questions about alleged “adult” consensual sex also blocks
  170. Ms. Giuffre from seeking legitimate discovery in this case. By refusing to answer questions
  171. about her and Epstein’s sexual activities with alleged “adults,” Defendant is essentially given the
  172. ability to refuse to answer any sexual question she does not wish to answer. Defendant simply
  173. has to deem the question as involving “consensual adult sex” and no need be given. The result is
  174. to leave Ms. Giuffre with no way of exploring the identity of these alleged adults, the ages of
  175. these alleged adults, and indeed whether they were adults at all. This allows Defendant to claim
  176. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 143 Filed 05/05/16 Page 6 of 10
  177. 7
  178. that she is unaware of any sexual activity involving underage females, because (she claims) the
  179. only sexual activity she was aware involved adults.
  180. The Court should compel Ms. Maxwell to answer all questions about her knowledge
  181. relating to sexual activities with Epstein and other females while at Epstein’s various homes. See
  182. Fed. R. Crim. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(i); see, e.g., Kelly v. A1 Tech., No. 09 CIV. 962 LAK MHD, 2010
  183. WL 1541585, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2010) (“Under the Federal Rules, when a party refuses
  184. to answer a question during a deposition, the questioning party may subsequently move to
  185. compel disclosure of the testimony that it sought. The court must determine the propriety of the
  186. deponent's objection to answering the questions, and can order the deponent to provide
  187. improperly withheld answers during a continued deposition” (internal citations omitted)). Of
  188. course, the party objecting to discovery must carry the burden of proving the validity of its
  189. objections, particularly in light of “the broad and liberal construction afforded the federal
  190. discovery rules . . . .” John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Book Dog Books, LLC, 298 F.R.D. 184, 186
  191. (S.D.N.Y. 2014). For purposes of a deposition, the information sought “need not be admissible
  192. at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
  193. evidence.” Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 293 F.R.D. 557, 561 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citing
  194. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1)).
  195. Defendant cannot carry her burden of showing that the questions asked are not
  196. reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This is a case in which
  197. sexual activities lie at the heart of the issues in dispute. As a result, it is hardly surprising to find
  198. that discovery pertains to alleged “adult” sexual activities – and questions about such subjects are
  199. entirely proper. See, e.g., Condit v. Dunne, 225 F.R.D. 100, 113 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (in defamation
  200. case, “Plaintiff is hereby ordered to answer questions regarding his sexual relationships in so far
  201. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 143 Filed 05/05/16 Page 7 of 10
  202. 8
  203. as they are relevant to a defense of substantial truth, mitigation of damages, or impeachment of
  204. plaintiff.”); Weber v. Multimedia Entm't, Inc., No. 97 CIV. 0682 PKL THK, 1997 WL 729039, at
  205. *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 1997) (“While discovery is not unlimited and may not unnecessarily
  206. intrude into private matters, in the instant case inquiry into private matters is clearly relevant to
  207. the subject matter of the suit. Accordingly, plaintiff Misty Weber shall respond to defendants'
  208. interrogatories concerning her sexual partners . . . .”).
  209. Generally speaking, instructions from attorneys to their clients not to answer questions at
  210. a deposition should be “limited to [issues regarding] privilege.” Morales v. Zondo, Inc., 204
  211. F.R.D. 50, 54 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). In this case, defense counsel ranged far beyond the normal
  212. parameters of objections and sought to decide for himself what issues were relevant. That was
  213. improper and the Court should order a resumption of the Defendant’s deposition so that she can
  214. answer questions about her knowledge of sexual activity relating to Jeffrey Epstein.
  216. Defendant should be ordered to sit for a follow-up deposition and directed to answer
  217. questions regarding her knowledge of alleged “adult” sexual activity.
  218. Dated: May 5, 2016.
  219. Respectfully Submitted,
  221. By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley
  222. Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
  223. Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice)
  224. Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
  225. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
  226. Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
  227. (954) 356-0011
  228. David Boies
  229. Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
  230. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 143 Filed 05/05/16 Page 8 of 10
  231. 9
  232. 333 Main Street
  233. Armonk, NY 10504
  234. Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice)
  237. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
  238. Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
  239. (954) 524-2820
  240. Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
  241. S.J. Quinney College of Law
  242. University of Utah
  243. 383 University St.
  244. Salt Lake City, UT 84112
  245. (801) 585-52022
  247. 2
  248. This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only
  249. and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private
  250. representation.
  251. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 143 Filed 05/05/16 Page 9 of 10
  252. 10
  254. I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 5th day of May, 2016, I electronically filed the
  255. foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
  256. foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission
  257. of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
  258. Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
  259. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
  261. 150 East 10th Avenue
  262. Denver, Colorado 80203
  263. Tel: (303) 831-7364
  264. Fax: (303) 832-2628
  265. Email:
  267. /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley
  268. Sigrid S. McCawley
  270. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 143 Filed 05/05/16 Page 10 of 10
RAW Paste Data