Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325 Filed 01/04/24 Page 1 of 1 BOIES SCHILLER — FLEXNER January 4, 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) BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 | (t) 954 356 0011 | (f) 954 356 0022 | www.bsfllp.com Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-1 Filed 01/04/24 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, Vv. 15-cv-07433-RWS GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. RESPONSE TO NON-PARTY SHARON CHURCHER’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca HADDON, MORGAN, AND FOREMAN, P.C. East 10" Avenue Denver, CO 80203 303.831.7364Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-1 Filed 01/04/24 Page 2 of 21 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 0.0... eeeecceseesseseesseeeceaeceaecaeeeseveeesecaeceaecseeeseeeeeeaeesaecaaecaeeeseseeeesecaecaeceeeeeeenees 1 ARGUMENT ......ceccceecceseessesseesseeecseceaecaeeesevcessecsaecsaecaeessevsaessecaecetecsaeeaeeeaeseesaeceaecaeeaeeeneseeeeaeenaes 2 I. CHURCHER IS A MATERIAL FACT WITNESS AND WAS NOT ACTING AS A JOURNALIST ooo ee ceecesessecssecneesseeseeseceseceaecaeesseeeeessecaeceecaeceaecaeeeseeeeesseceaecaeceeeaeeeneeereeea 2 A. Churcher was acting as a friend and advisor to help Plaintiff publish her book, not as JOUTNALISE oo. ee eee cee cctecseceeceeeeeeeceeseeceaeceseeeeaeecseecsaeceeeeeseecsaeceaecseeeeseeeeeseecaeceaeeeeeeeaeee 3 B. Churcher prompted Plaintiff to fabricate stories regarding Prince Andrew ..................00 4 C. Churcher prompted Plaintiff to invent stories regarding Alan Dershowitz ...............eeee 6 D. Churcher’s communications with Plaintiff's Counsel and Law Enforcement are not news- Gatherimg ACtivithes oo... ee ee cceccceecceceseceeeceeseecseecaeceeeeseeecsaeesaeceeeseeeeceeeaeseeeeeeeesteeenaeeeas 7 Il. THE ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE OF THE SHIELD LAW IS NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EXPECTATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY .............00 9 Il. THERE IS A COMPELLING NEED FOR CHURCHER’S DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY 00... eeceeceesccesecesecseeeseesceesecseceaecaeeesevcessecsaeceaecaaeeaeeeceeseceaecaecaeeaeeeeeseeeeaeenaes 10 A. The Information Sought from Churcher is Highly Material and Directly Relevant.......... 11 B. Churcher’s documents and testimony are critical to Ms. Maxwell’s truth defense and Plaintiff? s Claims ....... ec eeeeseceseeseeeseesecesecseceeecseeeseeeecsaecaecaeecaeeesesseeeseceaeceecaeeeneeeeeeaeenaes 15 C. Churcher’s information cannot be obtained from an alternative SOULCE. ........ cc eeeeeeeeeeeee 16 IV. MS.MAXWELL’S COUNSEL AGREED TO EXTEND THE RETURN DATE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBPOENA 1.0... ceceecceeeceecneeeseeeeeeeeeeaecaeceeeaeesneeeeeeaeenaes 17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .0....cceccceccessesseeseeseeceseccecseeeseeeeeseceaecaaecaeeeseseeeeeeaecaeeeaeeeneeeeseaeenaes 19Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-1 Filed 01/04/24 Page 3 of 21 Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell files this Response to Non-Party Sharon Churcher’s Motion to Quash Subpoena, and states as follows: INTRODUCTION Ms. Maxwell seeks documents and testimony from Sharon Churcher (“Churcher’’) that are critical to the defense of this single count defamation case. Churcher is the only person with much of the information that will prove the truth defense. The alleged defamatory press release at issue in this case states: “Each time the story is re told it changes with new salacious details about public figures and world leaders and now it is alleged by Ms. Roberts that Alan Dershowitz is involved in having sexual relations with her, which he denies. Ms. Roberts claims are obvious lies and should be treated as such and not publicized as news, as they are defamatory.” Churcher is the sole source of information regarding the original story told by Plaintiff, and was the author of the first articles publishing Plaintiff's claims. She was actively and personally involved in changing those stories over time and in the creation and addition of new salacious details about public figures, including the fabrication of Alan Dershowitz’s alleged sexual relations with Plaintiff. Sharon Churcher’s attempt to avoid the subpoena for deposition and production of documents based on the journalist Shield Law must fail for three reasons. First, much of the discovery sought is unrelated to any news gathering activities. Rather, Churcher was acting as a friend and advisor to Plaintiff in Plaintiff efforts to write and publish a book, sensationalizing her story in a manner that would best boost the publicity, publication and sales of that work of fiction. In that role, she helped manufacture some of the stories that have been denied and that are the central issues in this case.Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-1 Filed 01/04/24 Page 4 of 21 Second, in certain instances, Churcher was also acting as a source for information to Plaintiff's counsel and law enforcement agencies, specifically stating that she was not acting in her capacity as a journalist. In these instances, she was not gathering news for publication, she was providing information she had already gathered. Providing this information to third parties waived any qualified privilege that ever arguably existed. Finally, to the extent that any information sought is covered by the qualified protection of Civil Rights Law § 79-h(c)', Ms. Maxwell provides a clear and specific showing that the information is highly material or relevant, critical or necessary to the Ms. Maxwell’s truth defense, and not obtainable from any alternative source. As such, the Shield Law requires compliance with the subpoena. For these reason, the Motion to Quash should be denied, and Churcher should be compelled to comply with the Subpoena, as modified herein. ARGUMENT I. CHURCHER IS A MATERIAL FACT WITNESS AND WAS NOT ACTING AS A JOURNALIST The New York Shield law relied on by Churcher is only applicable where a professional journalist is asked to disclose information they have received “in the course of gathering or obtaining news for publication.” 79-h(b) &(c). Much of the information sought from Churcher has nothing to do with information she gathered or collected in the course of gathering news for publication. Rather, it relates to advice, information and communications that she had with Plaintiff in her capacity as a friend and advisor. “Section 79-h is not applicable where the journalist is called upon, as other citizens, to testify with respect to personal observations” 1 As discussed in detail below, the undersigned has informed Churcher’s counsel that the Subpoena is not intended to cover any information from confidential sources. Thus, the absolute privilege found in Civil Rights Law § 79- h(c) is inapplicableCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-1 Filed 01/04/24 Page 5 of 21 Solargen Elec. Motor Car Corp. v. Am. Motors Corp., 506 F. Supp. 546, 551 (N.D.N.Y. 1981); People v. Dupree, 88 Misc. 2d 791, 796, 388 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1003 (Sup. Ct. 1976) (“the privilege does not exist if the newsman is called on to testify what he personally observed.”’). In this single count defamation action, Churcher is being called as a witness to testify regarding events that she personally observed and in which she participated. This case is about whether the information included in the December 2014 Joinder Motion that Ms. Maxwell called obvious lies were, in fact, lies. These included allegations about Plaintiffs alleged sexual interactions with Alan Dershowitz and Prince Andrew, specifically referenced in Ms. Maxwell’s denial statement. Not only is Churcher aware that the allegations were false, she helped Plaintiff concoct the stories. A. Churcher was acting as a friend and advisor to help Plaintiff publish her book, not as journalist As set out in Churcher’s Declaration, she first met with Plaintiff in early 2011 and conducted a weeks-long series of extensive interviews in person with Plaintiff, leading to a string of publications in March of 2011. As Churcher stated, her focus in these articles was Prince Andrew. After the interviews and the publication of the March 2011 stories, Churcher continued regular contact with Plaintiff as her friend and business advisor. See Menninger Decl. Ex. A, p. 5-7, 10, 12, 19, 24-25, 30, 32, 35, 37-38, 48, 51, 61 & 68. Churcher encouraged Plaintiff to write a book and to begin pursing publishing contracts as soon as her exclusivity with the Mail on Sunday was over in May 2011. Menninger Decl. Ex. A, p. 2, 5. Churcher recommended a variety of ghost writers and agents to Plaintiff for this purpose, all as Plaintiff's friend, advisor and advocate. See Menninger Decl. Ex. A, p. 5, 9, 10, 12, 15, 25, 30, 32, 35, 37, 38, 42, 48, 50 &60. Churcher also initiated contact with the US Attorney’s office and FBI on behalf ofCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-1 Filed 01/04/24 Page 6 of 21 Plaintiff, setting up their initial meeting where Churcher planned to be present at that meeting “for support,” not in her capacity as a journalist. Menninger Decl. Ex. A, p. 3. Plaintiff did begin writing her book and sent versions of her manuscript to Churcher for her review and comment — again, in her capacity as a friend, not as a journalist. Menninger Decl. Ex. A, p. 59. Churcher also had extensive discussion with Plaintiff on the best strategies for getting interest in her book, including determining when to “name names” Menninger Decl. Ex. A, p. 63. She strategized with Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel, Brad Edwards, on how to use a potential Vanity Fair article as book publicity by dropping names of famous politicians, claiming she was sex trafficked, but refusing to provide additional information because she was writing a book. Menninger Decl. Ex. A, p. 51-58. Through some of these communications between Plaintiff and Churcher, it is obvious that stories in the book — later to become allegation in the Joinder Motion — were created and supported based on the suggestions of Churcher. They were not reported by Plaintiff in her initial interview, or in Churcher’s initial publications, because they did not occur. B. Churcher prompted Plaintiff to fabricate stories regarding Prince Andrew In 2011, when Churcher first reported on Plaintiff’s story after having just spent weeks interviewing Plaintiff in Australia, and with a particular focus on reporting Plaintiff's meeting Prince Andrew, Churcher specifically reported: “[t]here is no suggestion that there was any sexual contact between Virginia and Andrew, or that Andrew knew that Epstein paid her to have sex with his friends.” Churcher Decl., Ex. 2, p, 6/34. Shortly thereafter, on March 20, 2011, Churcher emailed Plaintiff explaining to her how she can corroborate a story to tell the FBI — that she was “given to” Prince Andrew. Menninger Decl., Ex. A, p. 8. Churcher provided an explanation for how Plaintiff can substantiate the claim — a claim not previously made by Plaintiff.Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-1 Filed 01/04/24 Page 7 of 21 The December 2014 Joinder Motion is the first publication of alleged sexual interaction between Plaintiff and Prince Andrew. At some point between March 2011 and January 2015, Churcher requested that Plaintiff handwrite a diary describing her alleged sexual encounters with Prince Andrew. Attached to the Churcher Declaration at Exhibit 7 is an Article subtitled “Diary Entries Of ‘Teen Sex Slave’ Detail Sorted Hook-Up With Prince Andrew — In Her Own Handwriting.” The article claims to print excerpts of a contemporaneous journal kept by Plaintiff when she was 17, stating “In a bombshell world exclusive, RadarOnline.com has exclusively obtained the secret journal of the then 17-year-old employed to have sex with billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his rich and powerful pals — and it’s packed with scandalous claims about her illicit trysts, including with Andrew, the fifth in line to the British throne.” Churcher Decl. Ex. 7. This alleged 24 page “diary” or “journal” was a completely fabricated document handwritten by Plaintiff at the request and direction of Churcher. See Menninger Decl. Ex. B, p. 207-208; 226-23 1? Plaintiff maintains she did not keep a copy of this handwritten “diary,” leaving the only source of the complete document and information about its creation with the person who asked for the document’s fabrication — Churcher.’ If there was no suggestion of sexual contact with Prince Andrew as of March 2, 2011, how and when was this story first created? From the email correspondence, it appears that Churcher was directly involved in inventing this story during the course of creating stories for a book — stories that would generate the interest of publishers. Churcher’s testimony on how the Prince Andrew allegation was first created is direct evidence in this case. * In actuality, the only journal Plaintiff ever maintained that might contain relevant information was purposefully destroyed by Plaintiff in a bonfire in 2013, at a time when she was represented by counsel and actively trying to insert herself as a Plaintiff in the CVRA case. Menninger Decl., Ex. B, p. 205-209. > To the extent Churcher argues that the creation of this “diary” was somehow part of the news “gathering” process, it was clearly not confidential, and the test requiring production of the non-published potions, discussed below, is met — the information is highly relevant, critical to the defense, and available form no other source. 5Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-1 Filed 01/04/24 Page 8 of 21 C. Churcher prompted Plaintiff to invent stories regarding Alan Dershowitz Churcher’s direct involvement in creating the allegations in the Joinder Motion regarding Plaintiff's alleged sexual interactions with Alan Dershowitz — or even the knowledge of Alan Dershowitz’ name — is even more apparent. Prior to the December 2014 joinder Motion, there is not a single mention of Mr. Dershowitz in any pleading related to Plaintiff. In Churcher’s March 2011 publications, directly after she interviewed Plaintiff, there was not a single mention of Mr. Dershowitz. It is quite apparent that Plaintiff had never met Mr. Dershowitz or reported that he was a person with whom she had had sexual relations. In the May/June 2011 timeframe, Plaintiff and Churcher’s communications relate primarily to Plaintiff's draft of her novel, hiring a ghostwriter, and requests for advice on how to manage agent and book publication deals. Menninger Decl. Ex. A. As a part of those communications, on May 10, 2011, Plaintiff writes Churcher: “Hello gorgeous, I hope this message comes to you on a bright, sunny day!!! I took your advice about what to offer Sandra [a ghostwriter] and she accepted. We’re drawing up a contract through her agent right now and getting busy to meet my deadline. Just wondering if you have any information on you from when you and I were doing interviews about the J.E. story. I wanted to put the names of these assholes, oops I meant to say, pedo’s, that J.E. sent me to. With everything going on my brain feels like mush and it would be a great deal of help!...”* In an e-mail dated May 11, 2011, Churcher replies to Plaintiff: “Don't forget Alan Dershowitz... JE's buddy and lawyer -good name for your pitch as he repped Claus von Bulow and a movie was made about that case ... title was Reversal of Fortune. We all suspect Alan is a pedo and tho no proof of that, you probably met him when he was hanging put w JE” Menninger Decl. Ex. A, p. 26-28. 4 This email raises its own issues. If Plaintiff was providing her own personal information regarding what allegedly happened to her, why would she require information from Churcher from their interviews about whom she had been “trafficked” to. What information did Churcher provide to Plaintiff that was the basis for Plaintiffs various allegations, as opposed to being factual information based on events that happened to Plaintiff? 6Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-1 Filed 01/04/24 Page 9 of 21 Sometime thereafter, Plaintiff did insert Mr. Dershowitz’s name in her book manuscript but she did not allege therein that she had any sexual relations with him, rather she simply referred to him as a business acquaintance of Mr. Epstein’s. It was not until the Joinder Motion in December 2014 that she claimed she engaged in sexual relations with Mr. Dershowitz, something he adamantly and publicly denied. At the heart of this case is the question of whether Ms. Maxwell defamed Plaintiff by calling her a liar. Of course, if Plaintiff is a liar, then there is no defamation. Churcher had direct and actual knowledge that Plaintiff is a liar and helped orchestrate specific and incredible public lies in concert with Plaintiff relating to Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz. In both of these instances, Churcher is not acting as a journalist — she is acting as a friend and advisor to Plaintiff on how to drop names — truth be damned — to try to sell Plaintiff's book. As Churcher puts it, the only incentives are “deadlines and/or cash”. Menninger Decl., Ex. A, p. 12. Churcher is not a journalist; she is a co-conspirator in Plaintiff's publication of false statements regarding numerous people including Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz and Ms. Maxwell. It is the denial of the defamatory claims Churcher helped create that is the basis of this defamation suit. There is no reporter shield over these factual matters that are not related to new gathering. D. Churcher’s communications with Plaintiff's Counsel and Law Enforcement are not news-gathering activities Churcher also admits to communicating regularly with Bradley Edwards, now Plaintiff's counsel, and other agents for Plaintiff, which communications continue through the present day. See Churcher Decl., {| 9-10. Churcher is the person who initially put Plaintiff in contact with Edwards. See Menninger Decl., Ex A, p. 7. Churcher coached Plaintiff on how to use Edwards to provide information to reporters in a manner that would best help her book sales. See Menninger Decl., Ex A, p. 51-58. According to Plaintiff, she regularly shared information fromCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-1 Filed 01/04/24 Page 10 of 21 Edwards with Churcher, although she could not specify the attorney-client privileged information she shared. Menninger Decl. Ex. B, p. 297-300. None of the communications or correspondence with Edwards, or any of Plaintiffs other attorneys, are in a news gathering capacity, and are not covered by the Shield Law. Likewise, Churcher apparently corresponded with the FBI and US Attorney’s office regarding Plaintiff, and specifically states she is not acting in her journalistic capacity. Menninger Decl. Ex A, 3. Communications that occurred that were not forwarded or copies to Plaintiff have not been produced. Churcher specifically states that she would like to be treated as a confidential source of information. /d., p. 8. She is not gathering news, she is attempting to assist law enforcement and providing them with information she has gathered. First, this is not news gathering activity, and clearly not related to confidential source. Even if there was some claim of qualified privilege, having shared information with the FBI or other law enforcement, there is a waiver of any protection of the Shield Law. See Guice-Mills v. Forbes, 12 Misc. 3d 852, 857, 819 N.Y.S.2d 432, 436 (Sup. Ct. 2006) (professional journalist waived the exemption of the Shield Law if they voluntarily disclose or consent to disclosure of otherwise covered information to third parties). None of the documents or information described above is covered by the New York Shield Law because Churcher was not engaged in the news-gathering process. Regardless, there is no proof that any of the information sought by Ms. Maxwell in the subpoena is confidential information from a confidential source, nor was it intended kept confidential. The requested information must be produced and Churcher deposed as her testimony is critical to the truth defense in this case.Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-1 Filed 01/04/24 Page 11 of 21 I. THE ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE OF THE SHIELD LAW IS NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EXPECTATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY As with all attempts to block the discovery of relevant information “[t]he burden rests upon the [party invoking privilege] to demonstrate that the material is privileged.” People v. Wolf, 39 A.D.2d 864, 864, 333 N.Y.S.2d 299, 301 (1972). “To successfully raise a claim of privilege under this statute, the information must be imparted to the reporter under a ‘cloak of confidentiality’. There had to be an understanding, express or implied, that the information will not be disclosed” People v. Bova, 118 Misc. 2d 14, 19, 460 N.Y.S.2d 230, 233 (Sup. Ct. 1983); Hennigan v. Buffalo Courier Express Co., Inc., 85 A.D.2d 924, 446 N.Y.S.2d 767 (“The confidential relationship with the source must first be established in order to determine the interest to be balanced against that of a civil litigant. Full disclosure is the general rule and the burden of showing immunity from disclosure is on the party asserting it”); People v. LeGrand, 67 A.D.2d 446, 415 N.Y.S.2d 252; Matter of WBAI-FM v. Proskin, 42 A.D.2d 5, 344 N.Y.S.2d 393; Matter of Wolf, 39 A.D.2d 864, 333 N.Y.S.2d 299; Davis v. Davis, 88 Misc.2d 1, 386 N.Y.S.2d 992). Churcher admits that her conversations and communications with Plaintiff were not made with any expectation of confidentiality. Indeed, quite the opposite. The express reason for the communication was to obtain press coverage and to cause the publications of the series of articles written and published by Churcher. Plaintiff was paid over $140,000 to go “on record.” With respect to any other “source” of information over which Churcher claims an “absolute” privilege, there is no issue. Ms. Maxwell is not seeking this information. Ms. Maxwell recognizes that there are occasions in which Churcher attributes information to a confidential source. Ms. Maxwell does not seek to compel documents relating to these limited individuals, to the extent the information and source was not later revealed, and will not questionCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-1 Filed 01/04/24 Page 12 of 21 Churcher on these sources except to determine if they have later been identified with their permission. The undersigned informed Ms. Churcher’s counsel in their conferral that she would not seek information relating to confidential sources. Respecting identified sources, Churcher fails to carry the burden of showing that there was an expectation of confidentiality, which is her burden to carry. Indeed, in her declaration she admits that she had conversations with Plaintiff's attorney, Bradly Edwards, and law enforcement agencies that were not intended to be kept confidential. See Churcher Decl. 499 & 11. In her articles, she specifically identifies the sources of her information, demonstrating the lack of confidentiality. Plaintiff simply cannot carry the burden of claiming any absolute privilege under 79-h(b). Il. THERE IS A COMPELLING NEED FOR CHURCHER’S DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY Having failed to establish the essential element of confidentiality, Churcher attempts to claim a qualified protection. Matter of Sullivan, 167 Misc. 2d 534, 538, 635 N.Y.S.2d 437, 440 (Sup. Ct. 1995) (source “had no understanding or expectation of confidentiality with either Mr. Hurley or the police detectives regarding the viewing of the interrogation. Consequently, there is no absolute privilege which protects the movant's materials, see Civil Rights Law § 79—h(b), and therefore any protection that might be afforded to the journalistic material can only be of a qualified nature.”). Churcher relies on qualified protection relating to non-published news gathering information, which requires Ms. Maxwell make a clear and specific showing that the information is: (1) highly material and relevant; and (2) critical or necessary to the litigant's claim or defense; and (3) not obtainable from any alternative source. Matter of Sullivan, 167 Misc. 2d 534, 537-38, 635 N.Y.S.2d 437, 440 (Sup. Ct. 1995); Civil Rights Law 79-h (c). As discussed above, this provision is only applicable where a journalist is acting in a news gathering 10Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-1 Filed 01/04/24 Page 13 of 21 capacity. Ms. Maxwell proffers the following clear and specific showing establishing each of these elements, requiring production of the information sought and deposition of Churcher. A. The Information Sought from Churcher is Highly Material and Directly Relevant This is a case about whether or not allegations in the Joinder Motion were lies, in particular the claims about Ms. Maxwell, Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz, which are the specific items that were denied in Ms. Maxwell’s press release. The information sought from Churcher is highly material in proving that that each time the story is told, new salacious details are added — the alleged defamatory statement. Indeed, it could be the most probative evidence in this case. “In determining whether the defendant has made a clear and specific showing that the information sought is critical or necessary to [her] defense, this court should not ‘substitute its judgment for a defendant's on the question whether such evidence is ‘necessary and critical’ to a defense.” Matter of Sullivan, 167 Misc. 2d 534, 540, 635 N.Y.S.2d 437, 441 (Sup. Ct. 1995) (quoting United States v. Sanusi, 813 F.Supp. 149, 160 (U.S.Dist.Ct.E.D.1992)). Starting with Ms. Maxwell, Churcher’s articles directly conflict with the allegations in the Joinder Motion and Plaintiff's testimony in this case. First, Churcher’s original article reports the following regarding Plaintiff's first visit to Mr. Epstein’s mansion: “T’d get training and be paid well. Virginia’s father gave his blessing, believing his daughter was being handed the opportunity to learn a skill and to work for a wealthy and respectable employer. He drove her to Epstein’s pink mansion on the Palm Beach waterfront . . . Virginia says: ‘Ghislaine said I was to start immediately and that someone would drive me home. My father left and I was told to go upstairs.’ She was led by another woman through Epstein’s bedroom into a massage room where he lay face down naked on a table. 11Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-1 Filed 01/04/24 Page 14 of 21 He started to interview Virginia. This was unconventional, but Virginia had no suspicions. Presumably, she thought, this was how the wealthy conducted their business. Epstein elicited the information that Virginia had been a runaway, and was no longer a virgin. Virginia was then told to start massaging Epstein, under the instructions of the woman who had shown her in. The massage quickly developed into a sexual encounter. Churcher Decl., Ex. 2, p. 4/34; See also Churcher Decl., Ex. 5, p. 3/13. Churcher later reports that Ms. Maxwell hired girls for Epstein. In this story, she alleges Ms. Maxwell escorted Plaintiff to meet Mr. Epstein, but nowhere claims that Ms. Maxwell engaged in any sexual interaction with Plaintiff at any time. See Churcher Decl., Ex. 4, p.1-6. The Joinder Motion alleges that it was Ms. Maxwell that took Plaintiff to Mr. Epstein’s room on her first visit to the mansion, and allegedly participated in a sexual interaction — a claim never before made. Ex. C. Obviously, Churcher’s notes, interviews and recordings are directly relevant to Plaintiffs original story about Ms. Maxwell, and how it has changed and morphed over time, as well as the motivation for those changes. The next allegation that has mutated with time in Churcher’s stories and in the Joinder Motion relates to Plaintiff's age when she first met Epstein and the amount of time she spent working for him. In Churcher’s first story, she published that Plaintiff first met Epstein in 1998, soon after her 15" birthday, and worked for him for four years. Churcher Decl., Ex. 1, p. 3/34; Ex. 5, p. 2/31. The Joinder Motion alleges that Plaintiff met Epstein in 1999, when she was 15. Both the year and the time of year are material to this case. Plaintiff now admits that she did not meet Epstein in 1999, but rather met him in 2000 which was the year she worked at the Mar-A-Lago. Plaintiff's claims about meeting Epstein in 1998 or 1999, and her claim of being 15, are lies. Plaintiff still claims, however, that she was 16 years old at the time she met Epstein. Menninger Decl., Ex. B, p. 104. Despite efforts to obtain 12Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-1 Filed 01/04/24 Page 15 of 21 records from the Mar-A-Lago, they have no records of Plaintiff's dates of employment to establish the timeframe. Churcher is a witness with information fixing the month when Plaintiff claims to have met Epstein, i.e. soon after her birthday in August. In light of the now admitting year — 2000 — Plaintiff would have been 17 at the time. Other highly relevant information in Churcher’s sole possession is the identification of what documents and information Plaintiff was shown by Churcher, including flight logs, pictures, or other witness statements. For instance, based on email correspondence, it appears that Churcher was in possession of Epstein’s flight logs. There is no indication that Plaintiff had seen those flight logs prior to meeting Churcher. Plaintiff never mentions certain names that appear in the flight logs prior to Churcher’s meeting with her in February 2011. By way of example, Bill Clinton is referenced in the flight logs. Before 2011, Plaintiff never mentioned or references President Clinton. Yet, suddenly and out of thin air, Plaintiff allegedly reports to Churcher in 2011 that she met Bill Clinton twice, and that Ms. Maxwell flew President Clinton on a helicopter to Mr. Epstein’s Island — a story which has since been fully discredited as a lie. This is simply one example of names and stories that were mysteriously added to Plaintiffs story, likely through Churcher’s suggestive questioning and presentation of documents to Plaintiff. The only person who can testify on this highly relevant matter, including what documents were shown to Plaintiff, is Churcher. Churcher also reported that Plaintiff was sent by Epstein (and Epstein alone) to meet with men including “a well-known businessman (whose pregnant wife was asleep in the next room), a world-renowned scientist, a respected liberal politician and a foreign head of state.” Churcher Decl., Ex. 2, p. 5/34. By contrast, the Joinder Motion alleges “Epstein also trafficked Jane Doe #3 [Plaintiff] for sexual purposes to many other powerful men, including numerous prominent 13Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-1 Filed 01/04/24 Page 16 of 21 American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known Prime Minister, and other world leaders.” Menninger Decl., Ex. C. Notably, Plaintiff has not identified any foreign presidents, a prime minister, a foreign head of state, a world-renowned scientist or numerous “prominent American Politicians” in her Rule 26 disclosures in this case. So the question is, who did Plaintiff identify to Churcher in 2011, and how has that list changed and expanded over time. Only Churcher can provide this information. Churcher’s publications in March of 2011 were the first publication containing the now widely publicized picture of Plaintiff with Prince Andrew. Plaintiff was well paid for this picture, and continued to get royalties on the reprints. Despite multiple requests, Plaintiff has not been able to produce or provide the actual native version of the picture, or identify the specific date it was taken. Given that Churcher was the first news source to print the picture, and later worked with the FBI to provide information, she is likely the person who has the photo, or knows the chain of custody of the picture. Either way, information including the date and location where the picture was taken are relevant. Churcher is the only person who may be able to provide the information to track down the picture, or may have it herself. The interview notes, recordings, memos and other documentation in Churcher’s possession regarding Plaintiff are highly probative, material and directly relevant to Plaintiffs fabrication and expansion of claims. For instance, if Plaintiff specifically told Churcher that she only met, but did not have sexual relations with, Prince Andrew in early 2001, the statement in the Joinder Motion is a lie. Given that Churcher reported that there is “no indication of sexual interaction with Prince Andrew,” in 2011 only Churcher can provide testimony or notes reflecting the basis for that published statement. 14Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-1 Filed 01/04/24 Page 17 of 21 B. Churcher’s documents and testimony are critical to Ms. Maxwell’s truth defense and Plaintiff’s claims As stated in the Motion to Quash, the “highly relevant” and “critical or necessary to the litigant's claim or defense” prongs of the test for overcoming a qualified privilege largely overlap. In this single count defamation action, this is particularly true. As can be seen by the clear and specific showing above, all of the information sought from Churcher is critical to the defense of substantial truth. It is well settled that truth is an absolute defense to a claim of defamation. “Under New York law, it is well-settled that truth is an absolute, unqualified defense to a civil defamation action. It is an equally fundamental concept that substantial truth suffices to defeat a charge of libel.” Jewell v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 23 F. Supp. 2d 348, 366 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (internal quotations and citations omitted). In examining the role of Churcher’s testimony and documents to this defense, it is important to look at the actual text of that press statement:: Each time the story is re told it changes with new salacious details about public figures and world leaders and now it is alleged by Ms. Roberts that Alan Dershowitz is involved in having sexual relations with her, which he denies. Ms. Roberts claims are obvious lies and should be treated as such and not publicized as news, as they are defamatory. Ex. D As demonstrated above, Ms. Churcher’s documents and testimony are critical to establishing the fact that each time Plaintiff has told her story it changes and new salacious details are added. Likewise, Churcher admits that her testimony is relevant to Plaintiffs credibility. While a journalist testimony relating to impeachment or credibility of a party may not normally be critical, it is here. Plaintiff's credibility, or lack thereof, is the central issue in the case. This is not merely impeachment evidence, it is the crux of the case. If Plaintiff is a “liar” defense of 15Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-1 Filed 01/04/24 Page 18 of 21 truth is established. Likewise, it establishes that there can be no damages caused by the alleged defamatory statement. Again, Churcher’s documents and testimony are central to this issue. C. Churcher’s information cannot be obtained from an alternative source. Churcher claims that there are other sources for the information sought, citing almost exclusively the Plaintiff as the potential source of information. This argument is flawed for two reasons. First, Plaintiff claims that she does not have much of the information sought, or simply can’t remember. In her deposition, she said she cannot remember where the photograph is, where the contract is, what she told Churcher, and she refused upon advice of counsel, to state what stories Churcher “got wrong.” See Motion to Re-Open Deposition of Plaintiff. Second, as the direct adversary in this case, Plaintiff is not a reliable source for information, and thus cannot be deemed an alternative source. Matter of Sullivan, 167 Misc. 2d 534, 541, 635 N.Y.S.2d 437, 442 (Sup. Ct. 1995) (compelling journalist notes, records, and videotapes of interrogation where claimed alternative source of information — detectives conducting the interrogation — were adversaries and thus could not be deemed the reliable source for information) For most information, Churcher is the only source of the information sought. She is the only person who can provide the following information and documents: e The 24 page fabricated diary, and testimony on when and why it was created” e Notes, transcriptions, tape recordings, and memorandum from her interviews with Plaintiff, including her week long interviews in Australia;° e Churcher’s communications with law enforcement or the FBI concerning Plaintiff,’ 5 Plaintiff contends that she gave the original to Churcher, and did not maintain a copy. Ex B, p. 229. 6 Plaintiff has produced some email communications with Churcher, although in light of Plaintiff's statements concerning the regular deletion of emails, there are likely email communications that were not captured by Plaintiff in Ms. Churcher’s possession or control. Nevertheless, to minimize the burden, Ms. Maxwell will voluntarily limit documents containing communication with Plaintiff by eliminating email communications between Plaintiff and Churcher using Plaintiff's my address. Because Plaintiff did not produce documents from her hotmail account and only recently produced documents from her iCloud account, Ms. Maxwell requests that Churcher search for documents to or from Plaintiff at these two email address. 7 Ms. Maxwell has filed a FOIA request and had not received a response. 16Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-1 Filed 01/04/24 Page 19 of 21 e Plaintiff's contract with the Mail on Sunday, which Plaintiff claims she no longer has;® e The original Prince Andrew picture, or information on its chain of custody; ¢ Communications with Brad Edwards and other attorneys for Plaintiff? From a testimonial standpoint, only Churcher can testify about the deviations in the stories she has heard from Plaintiff because only Churcher was there. Plaintiff herself claims she cannot remember what she told Churcher at various points in time, and herself asked Churcher for the notes from her interview so Plaintiff could remember what she said. Menninger Decl., Ex. A, p. 26. Plaintiff further refused to testify about what information Churcher printed that was untrue or varied from what Plaintiff told Churcher. Menninger Decl., Ex. B, p. 215-226. Thus, the only person who can testify or provide documentary evidence about Plaintiff's stories to Churcher is Churcher. In light of the critical nature of the documents and testimony in establishing the truth defense and the fact that the information simply is not available from other sources, Churcher is not entitled to claim qualified privilege over her news-gathering materials or non-published non- confidential information. IV. MS. MAXWELL’S COUNSEL AGREED TO EXTEND THE RETURN DATE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBPOENA Churcher’s final argument for a Protective Order — that there was not a reasonable time to respond — is defeated by the admission in her own pleading. It is true that the original response date was twelve days after service — two days less than is considered presumptively “reasonable.” Ms. Maxwell’s counsel readily agreed that if Churcher intended to respond and comply with the subpoena rather than moving to quash, that the response date would be extended 8 Ex. 247-248 9 This information had been requested in discovery to Plaintiff, but no documents have been produced. Ms. Maxwell has also subpoenaed the information from Plaintiffs attorneys, each of whom has moved to quash. There can be no question that Ms. Maxwell has exhausted every possible source for obtaining this information. 17Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-1 Filed 01/04/24 Page 20 of 21 and the deposition would be scheduled at a mutually agreeable time. As such, there is no basis for quashing the subpoena based on the “unreasonable time” argument, as Churcher was on notice that she would be given the time needed to obtain the documents requested. In light of the discovery cut-off in this case, however, if a motion to quash was forthcoming, the matter needed to be resolved to permit completion of discovery. WHEREFORE, for the forgoing reasons, Ms. Maxwell requests that the Court deny the Motion to Quash, and compel deposition and the Production of Documents by Sharron Churcher pursuant to the subpoena, as modified by footnote 6 herein. Dated: June 22, 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 10 Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303.831.7364 Fax: 303.832.2628 Imenninger@hmflaw.com Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell 18Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-1 Filed 01/04/24 Page 21 of 21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on June 22, 2016, I electronically served this RESPONSE TO NON-PARTY SHARON CHURCHER MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA via ECF on the following: Sigrid S. McCawley Meredith Schultz BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 smccawley@bsfllp.com mschultz@bsfllp.com Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 brad@pathtojustice.com Paul G. Cassell 383 S. University Street Salt Lake City, UT 84112 cassellp@law.utah.edu J. Stanley Pottinger 49 Twin Lakes Rd. South Salem, NY 10590 StanPottinger@aol.com /s/ Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons 19Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 1 of 70 EXHIBIT ACase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 2 of 70 To: Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk[Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk] From: Jenna "Sent: Mon 3/7/2011 10:55:59 AM Importance: Normal Subject: RE: Re: Received: Mon 3/7/2011 10:55:59 AM Hi again, Thanks alot for understanding, | appreciate all that you are helping me with. It's going to be splendid weather tomorrow! :-) We should meet at the kids water gym next to where you went to watch the pelicans feed. See you then... Take care, Jenna —---Original Message----- From: Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk Sent: Monday, 7 March 2011 8:46 PM To: Virginia Giuffre Subject: Re: All understood. A lot of people are rooting for you. You must do what is best for you and your family. Where shall we meet? (Glorious weather...) |-—-—> |From: | | -> Ss | > 1 | Ds | > |To: | |-—-———> i j |Sharon Churcher | >. ' | > |Date: | |- | \07/03/2011 09:28 GMT | ? ' | —-> |Subject: | |-_ |RE: | Hi shazza, That will be great if we can arrange the wire tomorrow, much appreciated buddy! If you don't mind my husband and | would like to be alone with the phone conversation taking place tomorrow, we just have some serious things to think about and our families well being comes first. I'll fill you in over lunch tomorrow. We were thinking of meeting you at The entrance instead. There's really nice alfresco dining and great for the kids to play. What do you think? See you then... Take care, Jenna = Original Message---— From: Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk Sent: Monday, 7 March 2011 6:22 PM To: Virginia Giuffre CONFIDENTIAL Page 1 of 69 GIUFFRE003720Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 3 of 70 * We'll get your money going asap. You earned it babel! The book next... See you tomorrow, Hugs, Ss X0x0 This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in eror please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use of this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry oul to prevent abuse of these facilities. Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 5TT. Registered No 84121 England. This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delet it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer vin which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use of this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 STT. Registered No 84121 England. CONFIDENTIAL Page 2 of 69 GIUPFRE03721Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 4 of 70 To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS){Ann.Marie.C Villafana@usdoj.gov] From: Jenna *Sent: Mon 3/7/2011 9:14:33 PM Importance: Normal Subject: RE: Confidential contact information Received: Mon 3/7/2011 9:14:33 PM Hi Mrs, Villafana, | am unable to be contacted by Skype for the next few days as my laptop had a fight with my 3 year old and lost, its in the repair shop now, but | am still contactable by phone. When you are ready, feel free to give me a call anytime. Sincerely, Mrs. = Roberts -—Original Message-— From: Villaftana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, 8 March 2011 4:06 AM To: Virginia Giuffre Cc: Bardfeld, Wende E. (FBI) Subject; FW: Confidential contact information Dear Virginia: Please treat this as a confidential communication. Thank you for contacting me. Special Agent Wende Bardfeld and | would like to speak with you at 9:00 a.m. your time, Tuesday, Mar 8, 2011. According to my calculations, that is 5-00 p.m., Monday, March 7, 2011 here in West Palm Beach. We would prefer to speak with you via Skype, if possible. We feel that a video-conference would put you a bit more at ease, and wou be a better way for us to introduce ourselves to you. Wende has set up a Skype account with user name Wende.Bardfeld@ic.fbi.gov. if you are unable to sign in to Skype, or if you cannot locate Special Agent Bardfeld's log-in, please send me an email. In the altemative, if we do not hear from you on Skype by 5:10, we will call you on the telephone number that you provided. Thank you again, A. Marie Villafana Assistant U.S. Attomey 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-209-1047 Fax 561-802-1787 ——Original Message--—— From: Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk [mailto:Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk] Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2011 10:06 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Ce: Virginia Giuffre Subject: Confidential contact information Dear Ms. Villafana: ne will not disclose it nor any future communications between us without your explicit permission. Virginia Roberts has asked me to give you her cell phone number. She is in Australia, | am copying her in by email but she will be grateful any initial contact with her is by phone. She is 16 hours ahead of EST. A good time for her to speak is nine am her time tomorrow (M i F CONFIDENTIAL Page 3 of 69 GIUFPREOO3700Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 5 of 70 | am sure you understand that it has been a big step for her coming * forward. She has 3 young children and a husband and has concerns about whether she is compromising their well-being. ! am a former investigative reporter for New York Magazine where my colleaques included Nick Pileggi. | understand the sensitivity of this situation. Frankly, if | still worked there, | would publish everything that | believe happened to Virginia and that now may be happening to a new generation of minors. But | now run the NY bureau for a UK paper and | am restrained because of the UK's libel laws. So Virginia and | are putting our trust in you. Best regards, Sharon Churcher This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delet it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer vir which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use of this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilit! ies. Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 5TT- Registered No 84121 England. CONFIDENTIAL Page 4 of 69 GIUPFREO0370 |: Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 6 of 70 To: Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk{Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk] From: Jenna *Sent Tue 3/15/2011 10:55:12 PM Importance: Normal Subject: RE: Received: Tue 3/15/2011 10:55:12 PM Thanks so much shazza! This sounds so amazing! What a good team we make, see you in Sydney! Xoxo Jenna -----Original Message-—- From: Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk Sent: Tuesday, 15 March 2011 8:00 PM To: Virginia Giuffre; Sandra White Subject: Here is contact info for NY literary agency u might like They are called Objective Entertainment, Top guy is Jarred. | think he will be intriqued because you could spin off a TV miniseries Jenna Will be happy to introduce u. | also am attaching info on a more traditional agent | know, Irene Goodman. She has had several successes with new authors. Maybe talk to both of them as well as Sandra's agency- This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delet it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer viri which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use of this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities, Associated Newspapers Lid. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 5TT. Registered No 84121 England. CONFIDENTIAL Page 5 of 69 GIUFPREOORT IA. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 7 of 70 To: Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk[Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk] From: Jenna * Sent: Wed 3/16/2011 8:16:47 PM Importance: Normal Subject: RE: Your money Received: Wed 3/16/2011 8:16:47 PM Hi buddy, You must be looking forward to getting back home orry went to bed early last night, we should meet at the newsstand on martin pl and George st. Call me when you get there Alsa | don't need Sandra to come this a.m, I've spoken to Jason who sounds nice and she's only a phone call away if | need some support, I'll call her a little later anyways. See ya soon Jenna ~-—-Original Message----- From: Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk Sent: Wednesday, 16 March 2011 7:51 PM To: Virginia Giuffre Subject: Your money Hotel found a 19-29 Martin Place -- US consulate there. If | get a cab to there, will I find the newstand? Shazza x0 This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delet it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any ofits subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer viri which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use of this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 5TT. Registered No 84121 England. P. CONFIDENTIAL age 6 of 69 GIMUFFREOO375 |Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 8 of 70 To: Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk[Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co, uk} From: Jenna ” Sent: Thur 3/17/2011 8:11:42 PM Importance: Normal Subject: RE: Received: Thur 3/17/2011 8:11:42 PM Hi shazza, You'd still be in the air but hopefully near home by xt time bring your hubby and rob can show him a real Aussie BBQ. Yeste and helped in every way | could, needless to say it took a lon rday went well, | set some guideline: You have been so amazingly informative, thank you for everything! Lets speak when your back and relaxed. Take care buddy! Xoxo Jenna —-Original Message---—— From: Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk Sent: Thursday, 17 March 2011 12:23 PM To: Virginia Giuffre Darling Jenna and Rob, Thank you so much for breakfast...and for finally getting me into downtown Sydney. It makes NY look a bit shabby! | loved the old buildings. And did you see the little black dresses in the Chanel window display near Martin Place?? | do hope today is going well and that Jeffrey gets the vibes of what's coming to him and his evil empire. | jeave at 3.25pm and get in around 11pm NY time on Thursday. Sandra is around if you need her. And | will look forward to catching up Friday. With a very, very big hug, Shazza X0x0 This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delet it from your system, Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virt which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use of this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 STT. Registered No 84121 England. CONFIDENTIAL Page 7 of 69 GIUTEREO03600Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 9 of 70 To: Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk[Sharon,Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk] From: Jenna * Sent: Sat 3/19/2011 11:45:51 PM Importance: Normal Subject: RE: Received: Sat 3/19/2011 11:45:51 PM Hi shazza, investigation, but he cannot use you a 2 original Message-—— From: Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk Sent: Sunday, 20 March 2011 9:22 AM To: Virginia Giuffre Hi there Detective Jenna... Re his question: | am told the FBI have the flight logs. They also have the journal. It's the document they confiscated from a houseman called Love, Sharon XO This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delet it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer vin which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use of this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 STT. Registered No 84121 England, CONFIDENTIAL Page 8 of 69 GIUFFREO03663Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 10 of 70 To: lrene Goodman From: Virginia Giuffre » Sent: Fri 3/25/2011 8:32:51 PM Importance: Normal Subject: Re: Virginia Roberts-Jane Doe 102- Jeffrey Epstein & Prince Andrew Story Received: Fri 3/25/2011 8:32:51 PM Hi Irene, Regards, V. Roberts --- On Thu, 24/3/11, lrene Goodman wrote; From: Irene Goodman Subject: Re: Virginia Roberts-Jane Doe 102- Jeffrey Epstein & Prince Andrew Story To: “Virginia Giuffre" Received: Thursday, 24 March, 2011, 2:51 PM Virginia, I don't publish books--I represent them and sell them to publishers. If you have a proposal, I'd be happy to take a look at it. Irene On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Virginia Giuffre eS wrote: *Please keep this email strictly confidential* Sincerely, Virginia Roberts Irene Goodman Literary Agency 27 West 24th St. Suite 700B New York, NY 10010 (212) 604-0330 Page 9 of 69 CONFIDENTIAL GIUFFRE004032Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 11 of 70 To: Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co,uk{Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk] From: Jenna * Sent: Sat 3/26/2011 12:52:38 AM Importance: Normal Subject: RE: Solo query from Virginia Giuffre Received: Sat 3/26/2011 12:52:38 AM Hi shazza, How's it going in snowy n. Crazy, hun? Anyways | would love to catch up over the phone when you get a sec. Take care buddy! Jenna —-Original Message-—-— From: Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk Sent: Thursday, 24 March 2011 12:23 AM To: Virginia Giuffre Subject: Fw: Solo query from Virginia Giuffre Hi Jenna Let me know if you hear from this guy Ss x0 —— Original Message -—— From: John Wellington Sent: 23/03/2011 13:11 GMT To: Sharon Churcher Subject: Re: Solo query from Virginia Guutire | have asked Paolo Silva in Solo to contact Virginia, John (Embedded image moved to file: pic06618.jpg) From John Wellington Managing Editor The Mail on Sunday 2 Derry Street London W8 5TS Telephone: (+44) 20 7938 7012 Fax: (+44) 20 7795 6696. eee cc Sharon "Virginia Giuffre" Churcher/Feat/TMO S/ANL Subject Solo query from Virginia Giuffre 22/03/11 22:49 CONFIDENTIAL Page 10 of 69 CALPE REOOAT NYCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 12 of 70 Hi John Virginia has not received an accounting. Can you ask Solo please? (Virginia's email is above) Sharon This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. |f you received it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delet it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virt which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use of this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 5TT. Registered No 84121 England. CONFIDENTIAL Page 11 of 69 GIUFEREO03734? Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 13 of 70 To: Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk[Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk] From: Virginia Giuffre * Sent: Sun 3/27/2011 5:15:33 AM importance: Normal Subject: RE: Solo query from Virginia Giuffre Received: Sun 3/27/2011 5:15:33 AM Hi Shazza,, Just got the house sprayed so were saying "bye-bye" to all the redbacks and other vermon..lol!! | haven't heard anything back yet from the people regarding syndicates, maybe there's just too many :)!! well let me kno when you have an idea when you hear something, thank-you buddy. Take Cares, Jenna -. On Sat, 26/3/11, Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk wrote: From: Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk Subject: RE: Solo query from Virginia Giuffre ro. ko" Received: Saturday, 26 March, 2011, 1:15 AM Hey that's great. You are a real writer.....I think I told you the only incentives that get me going are deadlines and/or cash! Just remember to put me in the acknowledgments!!!! Jarred is moving offices. His number is or was Did you hear from Solo, the syndication agency? And how are the redbacks and roos treating y'all? S xo This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. it contains mformaiion, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copynght. Unless you are the named addressce (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use of this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 STT. |) Copynebt Protected Material CONFIDENTIAL Page 12 of 69 GIUFFRE004033Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 14 of 70 Registered No 84121 England. || Copyright Protected Maternal Page 13 of 69 GIUFFRE004034 CONFIDENTIAL: Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 15 of 70 os From: Jenna Sent: Tue 4/5/2011 11:08:09 PM Importance: Normal Subject: RE: Virginia Roberts- Jane Doe 102- Jeffrey Epstein and Prince Andrew Story Received: Tue 4/5/2011 11:08:09 PM Hi jarred, | have no idea how you could've been.on hold, | didn’t get any messages or missed calls are you sure you dialled the right number, if so | an really sorry. | will call you today, my apologies again. Regards, Jenna From: Jarred Weisfeld Sent: Wednesday, 6 April 2011 2:21 AM To: ‘Virginia Giuffre’ Subject: RE: Virginia Roberts- Jane Doe 102- Jeffrey Epstein and Prince Andrew Story | called and was on hold for like 30 mins and had to go Thanks, Jarred Weisfeld bee Entertainment Please note our new address as of April 15th, 2010 609 Greenwich St. 6th floor New York, New York 10014 Plesse Note: The information In this E-mail message, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and may be legally privileged. Il is intended only for the use of the individual(s) named abov and if forwarded should remain in it's entire state unless permission is granted by sender., If you are the intended recipient, be aware that your use of any confidential or persona information may be restricted by state and federal privacy laws. If you, the reader of this message, are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you should not further disseminate, distribute, or forward this E-mail message. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete the materia! from any computer. Thank you for your cooperation, Objective Entertainment. From: Vigra Gc i Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 8:24 PM To: Jarred Weisfeld Subject: RE: Virginia Roberts- Jane Doe 102- Jeffrey Epstein and Prince Andrew Story HI Jarred, I tried to give you a call today and left a message for you. Is there a good time J should try to call you or alternatively you can call me on my mobile. MOB: Warmest Regards, Jenna -— On Tue, 29/3/11, Jarred Weisfeld Si wrote: From: Jarred Weisfeld Subject: RE: Virginia Roberts- Jane Doe 102- Jeffrey Epstein and Prince Andrew Story To: "Virginia Giutfre™ Received: Tuesday, 29 March, 2011, 3:15 PM Thanks, || Copynght Protected Matenal CONTIDENTIAL Page 14 of 69 GIUFFRE003743Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 16 of 70 Jarred Weisteld Objective Entertainment Please nole our new address as of April 15th, 2010 609 Greenwich St. 6th floor New York, New York 10014 Please Note The information in this E-mail message, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the individual(s) named abc and if forwarded should remain in it's entire state Unlass permission is granted by sender.. !f you are the intended recipient, be aware that your use of any confidential or persona information may be restricted by state and federal privacy laws. if you, the reader of this message, are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you should not furtt disseminate, distribute, or forward this E-mail message. If you have received this E-mail in error, please natify the sender and delete the malerial from any computer, Thank you your cooperation, Objective Entertainment From: Virginia Giuffre [ Sent: Wednesday, Mar To: Subject: Virginia Roberts- Jane Doe 102- Jeffrey Epstein and Prince Andrew Story G'day Jarred, *Please keep this email strictly confidential*.. Thanks Mate!! Sincercly, Virginia Roberts |) Copynght Protected Maternal CONFIDENTIAL Page 15 of 69 GIUFFRE003744. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 17 of 70 - To: Jarred Weisfeld iy From: Virginia Giuffre + Sent: Wed 4/6/2011 11:02:49 PM Importance: Normal Subject: RE: Virginia Roberts- Jane Doe 102- Jeffrey Epstein and Prince Andrew Story Received: Wed 4/6/2011 11:02:50 PM JE Article. webarchive J.E Jaillime webarchive Local News West Palm Beach. Palm Beach County, Martin & St. Lucie Counties _ The Palm Beach Post.webarchive Prince Andrew may be quizzed as FBI reopen Jeffrey Epstein sex case Mail Online. webarchive Hi Jarred, Really sorry again about the other day, | questioned my husband and father-in-law and nobody knew anything, and it's really weird becausi nobody calls me Virginia at home, so anyways it's a mystery unsolved. lol Here are some of the articles pertaining to the J.E case and i.e "The Story” as requested. | look forward to speaking with you again shortly!!! Take Care, Jenna — On Tue, 5/4/11, Jarred Weisfeld i wrote: From: Jarred Weisfeld a Subject; RE: Virginia Roberts- Jane Doe 102- Jeffrey Epstein and Prince Andrew Story To: "Virginia Giuffre™ Received: Tuesday, 5 - - 1, 4:21 PM I called and was on hold for like 30 mins and had to go Thanks, Jarred Weisfeld Objective Entertainment Please note our new address as of April 15th, 2010 609 Greenwich St. 6th floor New York, New York 10014 Please Note: The information in this E-mail message, aud any files transmitted With il, ts Confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the individual(s) named above and if forwarded should remain in it’s entire state unless permission is granted by sender.. #f you are the intended recipient, be aware that your use of any confidential or personal information may he restricted by state and federal privacy laws. Ifyou, the reader of this message, are not the intended recipient, you are herehy notified that you should not further disseminate, distribute, or forward this E-mail message. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete the matenal from any compoter Thank you for your cooperation, Objective Entertainment. From: Virginia Giuffr Sent: Monday, April 04, 201] 8:24 PM To: Jarred Weisfeld Subject: RE: Virginia Roberts- Jane Doe 102- Jeffrey Epstein and Prince Andrew Story HI Jarred, I tried to give you a call today and left a message for you. Is there a good time | should try to call you or alternatively yo can call me on my mobile. MOB: as Warmest Regards, Jenna —- On Tue, 29/3/11, Jarred Weisfeld I rote: From: Subject: RE: Virginia Roberts- Jane Doe 102-Jeffrey Epstein and Prince Andrew Story To: "Virginia Giuffre™ Received: Tuesday, 29 March, 2011, 3:15 PM || Copyright Protected Material Page 16 of 69 CONTIDENTIAL GIUTFREO04054Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 18 of 70 2|2-431-5454 Thanks, Jarred Weisteld Objective Entertatament Please note our new address as of April 15th, 2014 609 Greenwich St. 6th floor New York, New York 10014 Please Note: . The information in this E-mail message, and any files transtnitted with it, is confidential and may be légally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the individual(s) named above and if forwarded should remain in it's entire state unless permission is granted by sender. Ifyou are the intended recipient. be aware that your ase of any confidential oy personal information may be restricted by state and federal privacy laws. If you, the reader of this message, are nol the imtended reeipient, you are hereby notified that you should not further disseminate, distribute, or forwz this E-mail message. If you have réceived this E-mail in error. please notify the sender and delete the material from any computer. Thank you for your cooperation, Objective Entertamment. From: Virginia Giuffre as Sent: Wednesday, March 23, Z To Subject: Virginia Roberts- Jane Doe 102- Jeffrey Epstein and Prince Andrew Story G'day Jarred, You came highly recommended from my good pal Sharon Churcher, a journalist who works for Sunday Mail. She mentioned to me that you produce miniseries back in N.Y and thought it would be a great idea to contact you to talk abo "The Billionaires Playboy Club" a book that I am currently writing, including names of the rich, famous and always in trouble. If you are interested in speaking further about this | would love to chat with you sometime. | am still under a contract until May 20th, so It could only be off the record for now. *Please keep this email strictly confidential*.. Thanks Mate!! Sincerely, || Copynght Protected Matenal CONTIDENTIAL Page 17 of 69 GIUFFREO0I035‘ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 19 of 70 -' Virginia Roberts » || Copynght Protected Matenal CONFIDENTIAL Page 18 of 69 GIUFFRE004056Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 20 of 70 To: Sharan.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk[Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk] From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Mon 5/2/2011 11:28:30 PM Importance: Normal Subject: Re: Received: Mon 5/2/2011 11:28:30 PM HI Buddy, So much has been happening lately, 1 haven't cven had the chance to catch up with you, Iam considering it as long as my needs and conditions are met. Do you have any major concerns that could see this potentially hindering anything? If so please let me know as Sandra is still in England covering the wedding, hopefully she'll be back soon to start some serious work with me. | have received her version of the raw synopsis and so far so good. I look forward to sccing the finalc!! Much Love xoxoxo Jenna -— On Mon, 2/5/11, Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk wrote: From: Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co-uk Subject: To: "Virginia Giuffre" Reeciyed: Monday, 2 May, 2011, 3:34 PM Hi sweetheart How is the book going? My strong instinct is not to help him — not to even take his calls -- as (This crazy wedding hoopla should be great timing in terms of getting publishers interested..). See you in June! Love, Shaza X0x0 This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or m7 “fh t@ re Rage 19otfda0 sore BLANDO REPORTING Jf Ike GIUFFRE004868 CONFIDENTIALCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 21 of 70 authorised to reecive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone clsc. If you reccived it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use of this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 STT. Registered No 84121 England. GIUFFRE004869 CONFIDENTIAL Frege 20 ateCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 22 of 70 To: Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk[Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk) From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Tue 5/3/2011 1:01:39 AM Importance: Normal Subject: Re: Re: Do you recognize this girl? Received: Tue 5/3/2011 1:01:39 AM My God that sounds just like your cup of tea...NOT!! You poor thing, at least it can't be as bad as the customer service at the Crown Plaza..he. he..he!! Have fun buddy Take Care, Jenna --- On Tue, 3/5/11, Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk wrotc: From: Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk Subject: Re: Re: Do you recognize this girl? To: "Virginia Gut?” Received: Tuesday, 3 May, 2011, 12:54 AM Excellently said, Jonna. Now Ict's just hopc he docs a GREAT pr job. Lam off to the UK tonight -- to see my mom and for a company "war zone" training course. Idea of the latter is that ex Special Forces guys teach us what to do if we are shot at or kidnapped....dumbest thing I ever heard of unless they plan to arm us with machine guns. I will be on my usual cmail and cell phone. Get back to NY on May 17th. Hugs to you all, Shazza Xexc oaete \|From: | |------------> > | > | ba ssiaaminieresnie> \To: | Ja : > ' |Sharon Churcher | >. ee 2 es = | |---~--------> |Date: | } sadnecanases > > | \03/05/2011 01:42 GDT RE Sar re ae erie rae oar e aan See enerr arte an an eet On ON Se eT | |------------> |Subject: | |------------> |Fw: Re: Do you recognize this girl? | > | GIUFFREO004870 CONFIDENTIAL Frage 231 ofaCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 23 of 70 Shazza, I LOVE YOUR WORK!!!! Read below this is what I also just scnt him, I can't Warmest Regards,Jenna --- On Tue, 3/5/11, Virginia Giuffrc i wrote: From: Virginia Giuftre Subject: Re: Do you recognize this girl? To: "Brad Edwards" Reccived: Tuesday, 3 May, 2011, 12:36 AM Hi Brad, lam so sorry to hear the news of Ruslana, and my condolences are with her family and friends. I can say that I have never had any meetings with her, sorry not to be of any help there. With the Vanity Fair piece, | spoke to Sharon Churcher who had some great Secondly If JE finds out that I am doing a book he may try to stop me from publishing it, Im sure he has bis ways through his many various contacts, and thirdly D publicity for our case and probably a good idea for you to speak with him about the case instead Of mé) If written the right way and brought out as you having a key witness now speaking with authorities or what not, they could even use a simple picture of me to spice it up. I just don't want my last name "Giuffre"” mentioned or the fact that there is a book in the makings. What do you think about all of this? It will be very helpful to hear your opinion tomorrow when we speak. L hope you have been doing well and staying busy fighting one scandal ata time!! Best Regards,Jenna --- On Mon, 2/5/11, Brad Edwards wrote: From: Brad Edwards Subject: Do you recognize this girl? To: "Virginia Ginter Received: Monday, 2 May, 20] 1, 2:09 PM I think it is a long shot that you would recognize her, but read the article I attached and then look at the pictures and see if you recognize her. I will call you tomorrow. hetp:/www.newsweek.com/201 1/05/01 /the-lost-girl.hun! Ruslana Korshunova http://www: bittenandbound,com/2008/06/29/model-ruslana-korshinova-dies-after-nine-story-fall/ Brad EdwardsCivil Justice AttorneyFarmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2Fort GIUFFRE004871 CONFIDENTIAL Frage 22 ofaCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 24 of 70 Lauderdale, Florida 33301Tclcphone: 954-524-2820Facsimile: 954-524-2822Toll-free: 1-800-400-] 098brad@pathtojustice.comwww.pathtojustice.com Become our fan on Facebook P Please consider the environment before printing this c-mail. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: Please note that the views expressed herein or in any attachments hereto are not intended to constitute a "reliance opinion" under applicable Treasury Regulations, and accordingly arc not intended or written to be uscd, and may not be used or relied upon, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein, NOTICE: THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION IS ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT {S INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE TOLL FREE (800) 400-1098 AND DELETE THE MATERIAL FROM ANY COMPUTER. THANK YOU. This cmail has becn scanned by the MessageLabs Email Sccurity System. For more information please visit http:/Awww.messagelabs.com/cmail This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. |t contains information, which may be confidential and Icgally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you arc the named addressce (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use of this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 5TT. Registered No 84121 England. GIUFFREOO4872 CONFIDENTIAL Frege 23 ctfTo: shar havchEq Neon charter tmaloreanearetakpe> - Filed 01/04/24 Page 25 of 70 From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Wed 5/4/2011 4:46:50 AM importance: Normal Subject: Fw: RE: Virginia Roberts- How's the wedding? Received: Wed 5/4/2011 4:46:50 AM Hi Shazza, | just got this message in from Sandra and was wondering what you think about her increase in percentages. |'m not sure what to respond, when you get this message do you mind giving me a holler, As Always Appreciative, Jenna — On Tue, 3/5/11, Sandra White ote: From: Sandra White Subject: RE: Virginia Roberts- How's the wedding? To: Received: Tuesday, 3 May, 2011, 4:18 PM Hi Jenna Good to hear from you - so nice to get an email that wasn't connected to work! | have been doing seven days a week on this wedding and | even wrote five pages yesterday! However, that will probably be the last of the heavy workload | should think. As far as the mid June deadline goes, nothing is impossible but you don't want to sell yourself short. All you need for any meetings with agents is a strong proposal (which ours is, though not complete) and a sample chapter or two. Bul, as you mentioned before, we need to gel things on a more formal footing between us before we progress much further. | have been in touch with agents here to confirm what | thought and ghost writers’ percentages vary from 50-50. Seeing as though you are doing a lot of the initial work yourself, | thought it would be fairer if we worlked on a 7-30 split, in your favour. Let me know what you think, then we can get an agreement written up between us and move on. bring it on! Hope you are feeling well and that Robbie and the kids are well. Yours Sandra Fo as: From: Subject: Virginia Roberts- How's the wedding? 1; Hi Sandra, | am glad for you the big wedding is now over, and we can start looking at getting this book up and running. | have had some big named mag's trying to contact me for some pieces on "the story" and some one else from an editing agency wanting to do a story themselves, so need to get busy. | have done a lot of work and when you are ready, I'd love for us to coincide our writing. Mid- June is when | am going tc in the States, and would be my deadline to have this book nearly finished, if not completed. Do you see this as a possibility?1 am looking FF forward to speaking with you soon, and only 17 more days until my contract is up with Mail On Sunday... Yeah!! Take Care Buddy. Warmest regards, Jenna 1 Copynght Protected Matenal CONFIDENTIAL Fase 231 00f650 GIUFFREO04071Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 26 of 70 - To: Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co,uk[Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk] From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Fri 5/6/2011 1:20:10 AM importance: Normal Subject: Re: Received: Fri 5/6/2011 1:20:10 AM Hi again buddy, I thank you for looking into the percentages of Ghostwriters. I honestly don't know what to do regarding her offer. What do you think about her status compared to another Ghostwriter that charges the same rate? I just want to know she's wort in the end. She said she conferred with her agents in London and they supposedly said it's normally 50% cut between boll writers but because I'm doing most of the work she will generously give me 70% and she'll take 30%. ] guess the advanta of hiring her is that she is local and can help get INT'L coverage, but should I be waiting to sign with an agent before her and I agree to anything? I haven't responded back to her yet hoping you could advise me on the best route to take her. t How is it on the front line? I hope your having a good vacation/training and enjoying time with your Mother. Take care o yourself and I look forward to hearing from you soon. Warmest Regards, Jenna --- On Wed, 4/5/11, Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk wrote: From: Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk one LJ To: "Virginia Giuffre” 7 ss Received: Wednesday, 4 May, 2011, 9:18 PM Hi Jenna Thirty percent is the going rate, at least for top ghost writers. I checked with my friend. Having said which, my advice would be to negotiate since you are doing so. much of the work. I would offer 30 percent of your "net"advance | (the advance is an upfront fee from the publisher... The net advance is the money you receive after the agent takes his or her percentage which is usually I0 to 1Spce. ) This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressce only, It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressce (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you reccived it in crror please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that the vicws and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail, Use of this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of thesc facilities. Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 S5TT. || Copyneht Protected Matenal = ‘ CONFIDENTIAL Page 26 0tf629 GIUFFREO04072Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 27 of 70 To: sharon churcher[sharon.churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk] From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Tue 5/10/2011 10:00:56 PM Importance: Normal Subject: Good News!! Received: Tue 5/10/2011 10:00:56 PM Hi Sharon, Hello gorgeous, [ hope this message comes to you on a bright, sunny day!!! [ took your advice about what to of fer Sandré and she accepted. Were drawing up a contract through her agent right now and getting busy to meet my deadline. Just) Having fun sweetie? Thanks, Jenna || Copynght Protected Material a CONFIDENTIAL Page 26 of 69 GIUFFRE004075Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 28 of 70 - To: Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk{[Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk] From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Thur 5/12/2011 2:21:43 AM Importance: Normal Subject: Re: Good News!! Received: Thur 5/12/2011 2:21:43 AM --- On Wed, 11/5/11, Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk wrote: From: Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk Subject: Re: Good News!! To: "Virginia Giuffre" Received: Wednesday, 11 May, 2011, 4:17 PM [oscesctcnent> |From: | |--—-------- > > | [Virginia Giuttre : > | fvereresene > |To: | |------------> > | |Sharon Churcher ; > \ ——— > |Date: | |------------ > > | {10/05/2011 23:00 GDT | : > | |------------> |Subject: | | emmev reves > > | |Good News!! > | | | |Hi Sharon, | | | |Hello gorgeous, [ hope this message comes to you on a bright, sunny day!!!| |l took your advice about what to offer Sandra and she accepted. Were | |\drawing up a contract through her agent right now and getting busy to meet! (| Copynght Protected Material “1 CONFIDENTIAL Page 26 of 69 GIUFFREO04096Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 29 of 70 |my deadline. Just wondering if you have any information on you from when | lyou and I were doing interviews about the J_E story. | wanted to put the | |names of some of these assholes, oops, I meant to say, pedo's, that J.E | |sent me to. With everything going on my brain feels like mush and it would| |be a great deal of help! | |Having fun sweetie? | | | |Thanks, | |Jenna | | ' This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only- It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use of this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 STT. Registered No 84121 England. |) Copynght Protected Matenal CONFIDENTIAL Page 23 of 69 GIUFFRE004097- Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 30 of 70 To: sharon churcher[sharon.churcher@mailonsunday.co. uk] From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Fri 5/13/2011 10:03:54 PM Importance: Normal Subject: Fw: Re: Solo Syndication Received: Fri 5/13/2011 10:03:54 PM HI Shazza, We are starting to freeze out here in Australia as winter closes in fast...burr!! How are things for you? Are you still out in the U.K or back in N.Y.C? aulo sent me the below messages regarding the syndicates and from the last time him and | emailed and | have actually lost $300- If you [ook at the long list of big named companies that would mean my story/picture was only sold for $600 each. ! am only looking out for my best interests and know you would do the same. | haven't told anyone that | am asking you this, not wanting to rock the boat, | just know your experience in the field far exceeds mine and would love your input! | hope all is well for you and your own and taking care, as always!! xoxo Jenna — On Fri, 13/5/11, Paulo Silva wrote: From: Paulo Silva is Subject: Re: Solo Syndication To: "Virginia Giuffre” Received: Friday, 13 May, 2011, 12:49 PM Hi Virginia, | have now spoken to our accounts. This is how it stands: Total amount owed to you - £4,175 Amount ready to be paid to you - £1,825 Amount still to be received - £ 2,350 Obviously we are still chasing the outstanding amount, | know you requested that the whole payment be made to you when ready, but if you wish | am happy to arrange for the initial amount to be paid, and the remaining amount to be paid once received from our clients? Let me know your thoughts. Regards, Paulo Silva Senior Sales Executive, Photos Solo Syndication Tel: +44 (0)207 566 0364 From: Virginia Giuffre Po Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 22:52:13 -0700 (PDT) To: Paulo Silva Subject: Re: Solo Syndication Hi Paulo, Were only a week off from my contract finishing with the Mail On Sunday and | was wondering if you have received the full amount owed f the syndicates. | thought it'd be a good idea to check in and see how it was all tying up. | hope you and yours are well, and taking care. Sincerely, Virginia Roberts |) Copynght Protected Matenal eee CONFIDENTIAL Page 28 of 69 GIUFFRE004 LORCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 31 of 70 To: sharon churcher[sharon.churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk] From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Fri 5/20/2011 2:20:09 AM Importance: Normal Subject: How ya doing?? Received: Fri 5/20/2011 2:20:09 AM Hi Buddy, I hope you are stopping to smell the daffodils once in a while and having a good day!! I am so excited today because I ca go sign with an agent as my contract is finished with "Mail On Sunday"... YEAH!! a copy hen | am in New York we have to meet up for some city shopping and take the kids to Central Park to see the Zoo, given there will be no masturbating kangaroo's for you to make friends with, but who know's? I am looking forward to showing Robbie around and he's got some family out there < well we have to catch up with. Such busy times, but I'm loving it!! Anyways I hope your taking care and catch me up on : your fun times!! Take care, Jenna CONFIDENTIAL Page 36 of 69 GIUFFRE003959Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 32 of 70 To: sharon churcher[sharon.churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk] From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Sat 5/21/2011 8:42:10 PM Importance: Normal Subject: What do you think of this? Received: Sat 5/21/2011 8:42:10 PM Hi Sharon, Sandra and I are just about to start sending prologues out when she finally got back to me with a contract. After our last discussion to take 30% off the net advance for her being the ghostwriter, and no electronic rights, she has now sent me th any advance, royalties, serialisation rights, book club rights, film rights and TV rights will be split between them 70 — 30, Virginia Giuffre’s favour, after any agent’s commission. She has got all of the info to write a story by herself if she wanted too, can she legally? Please give me a call or let me know a good time to reach you, I don't know how to respond back to this when we are so close to the end. Mucb Thanks, Jenna CONFIDENTIAL Page 39 of 69 GIUFFREOO3960Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 33 of 70 To: Sharon Churcher[Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk| From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Mon 5/23/2011 10:20:27 PM Importance: Normal Subject: Re: What do you think of this? Received: Mon 5/23/2011 10:20:27 PM Hi Shazza, | replied back to Sandra, in a very nice but business like way, and have not heard from her since, insinuating that she mig be offended that I am not paying her what she wants. Thanks Matey!! KOXOX Jenna --- On Sat, 21/5/11, Sharon Churcher wrote: From: Sharon Churcher Subject: Re: What do you think of this? To: Received: Saturday, 21 May, 2011, 8:47 PM I was delayed getting back to the US so apologize for not replying sooner. My advice is you : From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 09:42 PM To: Sharon Churcher Subject: What do you think of this? Hi Sharon, Sandra and I are just about to start sending prologues out when she finally got back to me with a contract. After our last discussion to take 30% off the net advance for her being the ghostwriter, and no electronic rights, she has now sent me th any advance, royalties, serialisation rights, book club rights, film rights and TV rights will be split between them 70 — 3C Virginia Giuffre’s favour, after any agent’s commission. She bas got all of the info to write a story by herself if she wanted too, can she legally? Please give me a call or Ict me know a good time to reach you, I don't know how to respond back to this when we are so close to the end. Much Thanks, Jenna This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www .messagelabs.com/email This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email CONFIDENTIAL Page 22 of 69 GIUFFRE003964Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 34 of 70 This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressce only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authonsed ta receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in tl c-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companics. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail, Use this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of thes¢ facilities. Associated Newspapers Lid. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 STT. Registered No 84121 England. CONFIDENTIAL Page 33 of 69 GIUFFRE003965Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 35 of 70 From: Virginia Giuifre Sent: Monday, May 23, 2014 11:20 PM To: Sharon Churcher Subject: Re: What do you think of this? Hi Shazza, | replled back to Sandra, in a very nice but business like way, and have not heard from her since, insinuating that she might be offended that am not paying her what she wants. | need to start looking at alternative ghostwriters and was hoping you could point me in the right direction and what their financial interests are. Once again you always come through, Thanks Matey!! XOXOX Jenna -~ On Sat, 21/5/11, Sharon Churcher wrote: From: Sharon Churcher Su ee i this? To:| : __ Received: Saturday, 21 May, 2011, 8:47 PM | was delayed getting back to the US so apologize for not replying sooner. My advice Is you 4 stick to original deal and retain all electronic rights 2 sign nothing. Keep the agreement verbal until you have an agent to do a collaboration agreement , 3 send Sandra a note confirming the copyright in all dealings with her is reserved by you pending a collaboration agreement From: Virginia Giuffre| Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 09:42 PM To: Sharon Churcher Subject: What do you think of this? Hi Sharon, Sandra and | are just about to start sending prologues out when she finally got back to me with a contract. After our last discussion to take 30% off the net advance for her being the ghostwriter, and no electronic rights, she has now sent me this: eny advance, royalties, serialisation rights, book club rights, film rights and TV rights will be split between them 70 — 30, i Virginia Giuffre’s favour, after any agent’s commission. She has got all of the info to write a story by herself if she wanted too, can she legally? Please give mea call or Jet me know a good time to reach you, I don't know how to respond back to this when we are so close to the end. Much Thanks, Jenna This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit hitp:/Avww.messagelabs.convemail This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http/www.messagelabs.com/email This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else, If you received it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your systen Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers — Limited or any of its subsidiery companies. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this: mail and any attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus Which may be transferred by way of this e- mail. Use of this or any other e-mall facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 51TT. Registered No 84121 England. an Es ‘ 7, 20 YRIGH? RO EC =Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 36 of 70 To: Sharon Churcher[Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk] From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Tue 5/24/2011 11:07:04 PM Importance: Normal Subject: Re: Received: Tue 5/24/2011 11:07:04 PM I thank my mucky stars to have a good friend like you!!!_Jenna --- On Tue, 24/5/11, Sharon Churcher wrote: From: Sharon Churcher Subject: Book! To: "Sandra White Ce: "Virginia Giuffre Received: Tuesday, 24 May, ZUI1, 1U'48 PM Hi Sandra Love, Sharon PS Vanity Fair are trying to find her? We aren't helping them and have refused to tell them her married name... am not This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressce only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that the views and CONFIDENTIAL Page 36 of 69 GIUPFRE003975Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed.01/04/24 Page 37 of 70 ; opinions expressed in this e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies, We make every effort to kecp our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use of this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. Associated Newspapers Ltd, Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 STT. Registered No 84121 England. CONFIDENTIAL Page 26 of 69 GIUFFRE003976ro: ShPARAATGVAOTAR NAB mAOUMENE ARZE-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 38 of 70 From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Tue 5/24/2011 10:15:28 PM Importance: Normal Subject: Re: What do you think of this? Received: Tue 5/24/2011 10:15:28 PM Hi Shazza, This is her final reply, | am not very hopeful about using her anymore. pe below email from her this a.m... Thanks Buddy! Hi Jenna | am not offended by your comments and | agree with you that this is business but | must say | don't know where you are getting your information from. All the research | have done here tells me that ghost writer’s are usually working on a 50-50 basis. That is the figure quot in the 2014 edition of the Writers and Artists Year Book. | have never worked on less than 40% but because you were doing a lot of the init writing | thought it would be much fairer if my percentage reflected that, that's why | went down to 30% | do not know of any ghost writer who relinquished screen rights and serialisation rights. The main reason for that is, obviously, it is the gho wnter's writing and input that has been sold on for screen or serialisation. If you want to find someone esle, that is entirely up to you, but those are my terms. As for Grant, there is no need to get him to sign a confidentiality agreement because there is no need for him to see the manuscript. He on needs to know who you are and that has been in the paper! As for sending out to agents, | was going to advise you nearer the time, but I'll do it now. In my opinion your first step should be to make appointments to see the people in New York when you go there, taking with you the proposal and first chapter. They know what the story is and they have expressed an interest. You have got your foot in the door to sell yourself and your book. If you send it to them beforehand yc are giving them the opportunity to say no without having met you. And you have a lot going for you personality and intelligence wise so we want them to see that! If those meetings don't produce anything, then we send it to other agents. I'll get Grant to call you but | have left your phone number at home, so email it to me and I'll pass it on. Hope all is well. Sandra — On Tue, 24/5/11, Sharon Churcher wrote: From: Sharon Churcher Til Re: What do you think of this? To: Received: Tuesday, 24 May, 2011, 11:57 AM There are 2 top agents who rep writers | know. Let me see what | can do. Did y check on "Grant"? From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 03:12 AM To: Sharon Churcher Subject: Re: What do you think of this? HI Shazza, She did send back a message after | asked If we were still on, but very blunt and to the point. She said she has been very busy and that it. | don't know what that means but i am meeting with an entertainment lawyer on Friday who is going to write me up an official collaborati agreement in hopes to get the ball rolling.| do think | should have a backup plan and appreciate all of your assistance! 1 am compiling list reputable agents, is there anyone else you can think of besides Jared and Irene? Hope you are all well and your Mother is improving. Tak care my friend.. XOXOX Jenna ~—- On Tue, 24/5/11, Sharon Churcher wrote: From: Sharon Churcher Subject: Re: What do you think of this? To; Received: Tuesday, 24 May, 2011, 12:42 AM | would phone Sandra and suggest meeting to talk about agents (including Grant, about whom you have every reason to ask questions). At this stage you have enough to sell the book...and she needs you so | think will be reasonable. X0x0 Page 33 of 69 GIUFFRE003972To: shar AhitcherGNadh Gharcheramalosuroay et? — Filed 01/04/24 Page 39 of 70 From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Tue 5/24/2011 2:12:09 AM Importance: Normal Subject: Re: What do you think of this? Received: Tue 5/24/2011 2:12:09 AM HI Shazza, She did send back a message after I asked If we were still on, but very blunt and to the point, She said she has been very busy and that was it. I don't know what that means but i am meeting with an entertainment lawyer on Friday who is going write me up an official collaboration agreement in hopes to get the ball rolling. do think I should have a backup plan and appreciate all of your assistance!! I am compiling list of reputable agents, is there anyone else you can think of besides Jared and Irene? Hope you are all well and your Mother is improving. Take care my friend.. XOXOX Jenna --- On Tue, 24/5/11, Sharon Churcher wrote: From: Sharon Churcher Subject: Re: What do you think of this? To! Received: Tuesday, 24 May, 2011, 12:42 AM I would phone Sandra and suggest meeting to talk about agents (including Grant, about whom you have every reason to ask questions). S X0x0 From: Virginia Giulire Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 11:20 PM To: Sharon Churcher Subject: Re: What do you think of this? Hi Shazza, I replied back to Sandra, in a very nice but business like way, and have not heard from her since, insinuating that she mis be offended that I am not paying her what she wants. I need to start looking at alternative ghostwriters and was hoping y could point me in the right direction and what their financial interests are. Once again you always come through, Thanks Matcy!! XOXOX Jenna --- On Sat, 21/5/11, Sharon Churcher wrote: From; Sharon Churcher Subject: Re: What do you think of this? To: _ nnn Received: Saturday, 21 May, 2011, 8:47 PM I was delayed getting back to the US so apologize for not replying sooner. My advice is you : 1 stick to onginal deal and retain all electronic rights 2 sign nothing. Keep the agreement verbal until you have an agent to do a collaboration agreement 3 send Sandra a note confirming the copyright in all dealings with her is reserved by you pending a collaboration agreement From: Virginia Giuffre Po Sent: Saturday. May 21, 2011 09:42 PM To: Sharon Churcher CONFIDENTIAL Page 26 of 69 GIUFFRE003966Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 40 of 70 Subject: What do you think of this? Hi Sharon, Sandra and I are just about to start sending prologues out when she finally got back to me with a contract. After our last discussion to take 30% off the net advance for her being the ghostwriter, and no electronic rights, she has now sent me t any advance, royaltics, scrialisation rights, book club rights, film rights and TV rights will be split betwecn them 70-3 Virginia Giuffre’s favour, after any agent’s commission. She has got all of the info to write a story by herself if she wanted too, can she legally? Please give me a call or let me know a good time to reach you, I don't know how to respond back to this when we are sc close to the end. Much Thanks, Jenna This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressec only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised t receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notif the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in t e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachment it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Us this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of thes facilities. Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 5TT. Registere: No 8412! England. This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www .messagclabs.com/cmail This c-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addresscc only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authonsed to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify CONFIDENTIAL Page 80 of 69 GIUPFRE003967Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 41 of 70 the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in tk e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companics. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of thes« facilities. Associated Newspapers Ltd, Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 5TT. Registered No 84121 England. WUFFREO03968 CONFIDENTIAL Page 40 of 69 GIUFTRECase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document Ta25-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 42 of 70 To: Sharon Churcher[Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.u From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Tue 5/24/2011 9:49:22 PM Importance: Normal Subject: Re: What do you think of this? Received: Tue 5/24/2011 9:49:22 PM Hi Shazza, haven't heard back from her yet with any details re Grant. I will send you a message when I know more too!! Much Love... Jenna --- On Tue, 24/5/11, Sharon Churcher wrote. From: Sharon Churcher Subject: Re: What do you think of this? To: [oo Received: Tuesday, 24 May, 2011, 11:57 AM There are 2 top agents who rep writers I know. Let me see what I can do. Did y check on "Grant"? From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 03:12 AM To: Sharon Churcher Subject: Re: What do you think of this? HI Shazza, She did send back a message after I asked If we were still on, but very blunt and to the point. She said she has been ver, busy and that was it. I don't know what that means but i am meeting with an entertainment lawyer on Friday who is goin write me up an official collaboration agreement in hopes to get the ball rolling.I do think I should have a backup plan an: appreciate all of your assistance!! I am compiling list of reputable agents, is there anyone else you can think of besides Jared and Irene? Hope you are all well and your Mother is improving. Take care my friend. XOXOX Jenna —- On Tue, 24/5/11, Sharon Churcher wrote: From: Sharon Churcher Subject: Be: ; + To: Received: Tuesday, 24 May, 2011, 12:42 AM | would phone Sandra and suggest meeting to talk about agents (including Grant, about whom you have every reason to ask questions) At this stage you have enough to sell the book...and she needs you so 1 think will be reasonable. S XOx0 From: Virginia Giuffre Sent; Monday, May 23, 2011 11:20PM To: Sharon Churcher Subject: Re: What do you think of this? Hi Shazza, | replied back to Sandra, in a very nice but business like way, and have not heard from her since, insinuating that she mi be offended that I am not paying her what she wants. I need to start looking at alternative ghostwriters and was hoping \ CONFIDENTIAL Page 52 of 69 GIUFFRE003969Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 43 of 70 could point me in the right direction and what their financial interests are. Once again you always come through, Thank Matey!! XOXOX Jenna --- On Sat, 21/5/11, Sharon Churcher wrote: From: Sharon Churcher Subject: Re: What do you think of this? To: Reccived: Saturday, 21 May, 2011, 8:47 PM | was delayed getting back to the US so apologize for not replying sooner, My advice is you - | stick to original deal and retain all electronic nghts 2 sign nothing. Keep the agreement verbal until you have an agent to do a.collaboration agreement 3 send Sandra a note confirming the copyright in all dealings with her is reserved by you pending a collaboration agreement From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 09:42 PM To: Sharon Churcher Subject: What do you think of this? Hi Sharon, Sandra and | are just about to start sending prologues out when she finally got back to me with a contract. Afier our las discussion to take 30% off the net advance for her being the ghostwriter, and no electronic rights, she has now sent me any advance, royalties, serialisation rights, book club rights, film rights and TV rights will be split between them 70 —- Virginia Giuffre’s favour, after any agent’s commission. She has got all of the info to write a story by berself if she wanted too, can she legally? Please give me a call or let me know a good time to reach you, I don't know how to respond back to this when we are s close to the end, Much Thanks, Jenna This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For morc information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email This email has becn scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit bttp://www.messagelabs.com/email This c-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressce only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised | receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please noti the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. W make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachmen it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. U this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of the CONFIDENTIAL Page 42 of 69 GIUTTERE003970er Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 44 of 70 acilities. Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 STT. Registere No 8412] England. This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised t¢ receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notif the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in t e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachment it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Us this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of thes facilities. Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 STT. Registere: No 84121 England. This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in tl e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies, We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 STT. Registered No 84121 England. CONFIDENTIAL Page 43 of 69 GIUFFREN0397 |Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 45 of 70 To: Sharon Churcher[Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk] From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Tue 5/24/2011 10:15:28 PM Importance: Normal Subject Re: What do you think of this? Received: Tue 5/24/2011 10:15:28 PM Hi Shazza, This is her final reply, | am not very hopeful about using her anymore. Do you know of any other reputable Ghostwriters in N.Y.C, | just don’t think she \s going to in be in my best interests. See below email from her this a.m... Thanks Buddy!! Hi Jenna | am not offended by your comments and | agree with you that this is busIness put! must say | don't know where you are getting your Information from. All the research | have done here tells me that ghost writer's are usually working on a 50-50 basis. Thatis the figure quoted in the 2011 editlon of the Writers and Artists Year Book. | have never worked on less than 40% but because you were doing a lot of the Initial writing | thought it would be much fairer If my percentage reflected that, that's why | went down ta 30% : | do not know of any ghost writer who relinquished screen rights and serialisation rights. The main reason for that is, obviously, it is the ghost writer's writing and input that has been sold on for screen or serialisation. If you want to find someone esle, that is entirely up to you, but those are my terms. As for Grant, there is no need to get him to sign a confidentiality agreement because there is no need for him ta see the manuscript. He only needs to know who you are and that has been in the paper! As for sending out to agents, | was going to advise you nearer the time, but I'll do it now. In my opinion your first step should be to make . appointments to see tha people in Naw York when you go thare, taking with you the proposal and first chapter. They know what the story is and they have expressed an interest. You have got your foot in the door to sell yourself and your book. If you send it ta them beforehand you are giving them the opportunity to say no without having met you. And you have a lot going for you personality and intelligence wise so we want them to see that! If those meetings don't produce anything, then we send it to other agents. I'l get Grant to call you but | have left your phone number at home, so email it to me and I'll pass if on. Hope ail is well. Sandra — On Tue, 24/5/11, Sharon Churcher wrote: From: Sharon Churcher Subi ; ; To:| : Received: Tuesday, 24 May, 2011, 11:57 AM There are 2 top agents who rep writers | know, Let me see what | can do. Did y check on "Grant"? From: Virginia Giutire [ii Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 03:12 AM To: Sharon Churcher Subject: Re: What do you think of this? Hi Shazza, She did send back a message after | asked If we were silll on, but very blunt and to the point. She sald she has been very busy and that was it. | don't know what that means but i am meeting with an entertainment lawyer on Friday who Is going to write me up an official collaboration agreement in hopes to get the ball rolling.! do think | should have a backup plan and appreciate all of your assistance! | am compiling list of reputable agents, is there anyone else you can think of besides Jared and |rene? Hope you are all well and your Mother is improving. Take care my friend... XOXOX Jenna — On Tue, 24/5/11, Sharon Churcher wrote: From: Sharon Churcher Subj . 7 To: | Received: Tuesday, 24 May, 2011, 12:42 AM | would phone Sandra and suggest meeting to talk about agents (including Grant, about whom you have every reason to ask questions). At this stage you have enough to sell the book...and she needs you so | think will be reasonable. Ss X0x0 GSUFFRE003972 ; TOPYRIGHT PROTECTED CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL Page 44 of 69da 15-6 OAS A tees aument 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 46 of 70 To: sha Shurcherena aronchure @ From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Sun 5/24/2015 1:40:53 AM Importance: Normal Subject: Re: RE: Received: Sun 5/24/2015 1:40:53 AM Hi there, xoxo Jenna Sent from my iPhone On May 23, 2015, at 3:07 PM, sharon churcher wrote: Just was reading about David Boies taking your case. Howifanitastic JehinialHave you asked him how he'd feel’about you Jarred still is very keen torepresent you. ! am afraid | screwed up by steering you to Mimi. | just had a great week in LA on a celebrity story. Got to go to Rodeo Drive!!!! Much love, Shazza xoxo Sharon Churcher New York Correspondent Telephone: +1 (914)-319-1838 Email: sharonchurcher@hotmail.com From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: 5/9/2015 1:46 PM To: sharon churcher Subject: Re: Hi Shazza!! Who is this writer? Don't know anything about it. Hope all has been well lately!! Jenna Sent from my iPhone On May 9, 2015, at 2:10 PM, sharon churcher wrote: Hi there ANY writer is doing a book on Jeffrey. The writer claims you are on side and if thatis so, that is fantastic. But if for any reason you are not on that contract, this would be the time to sell your own book. | believe it will be a bestseller. You write very well. CONFIDENTIAL Page 46 of 69 GIUFFREN03762Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 47 of 70 Love to all, Shazz SIDE GIUFFRE003763 CONFIDENTIAL Page 46 of 69ro: sO PGdAP MATAR IRE raPBOCNEIEDEAR25-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 48 of 70 From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Wed 5/25/2011 11:29:40 PM Importance: Normal Subject: Hello... Received: Wed 5/25/2011 11:29:40 PM Hi again buddy, Just wondering if Sandra got back to you with a reply to your message. I don't think she's gonna budge on the final cuts, t I'll give it a few days to see what comes of this. I will keep writing, but should I still see the lawyer on Friday to draft a collaboration agreement if no reply from her. How are you settling back in N.Y-C? 1 hope you are doing well and [ look forward to chatting again soon!! Take Care, Jenna CONFIDENTIAL Page 43 of 69 GIUFFRE003977sGBSGmidRa ened sess ck Document 1345-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 49 of 70 To: er@mailonsunday,co.u From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Thur 5/26/2011 12:15:04 AM Importance: Normal Subject: Re: Hello... Received: Thur 5/26/2011 12:15:04 AM Mi, Okay, so my next step is to look for an agent, don't I need to send them a synopsis and sample chapters, or how do | approach one and ask them to represent me? I'm sorry to bombard you with thesé questions but I take your word upon otk a, ha. As always xoxoxo Jenna -~ On Wed, 25/5/11, Sharon Churcher wrote: From: Sharon Churcher Subjpeete To Received: Wednesday, 25 May, 2011, 11:37 PM I think u should call her and say you eannot agree to give her more than 30pc of the book advance at this v early stage of things. If she balks | would say to her that you are going to look for an agent and wil] have him/her talk to Sandra or her agent about hammering out an agreement with her. I don't think paying a lawyer is worth it unless she goes for the 30pc. If she docs he can do up an agreement. From: Virginia Giufire Sent: Thursday, May 26, 201) 12:29 AM To; Sharon Churcher Subject: Hello... Hi again buddy, Just wondering if Sandra got back to you with a reply to your message. I don't think she's gonna budge on the final cuts, I'll give it a few days to see what comes of this. I will keep writing, but should I still see the lawyer on Friday to draft a collaboration agreement if no reply from her. How are you settling back in N.Y-C? I hope you are doing well and I look forward to chatting again soon!! Take Care, Jenna This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and Icgally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressec (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in th CONFIDENTIAL Page 48 of 69 GIUPFFRE003978Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 50 of 70 e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of ifs subsidiary companies. We make every effort to kecp our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 STT. Registered No 84121 England. CONFIDENTIAL Page 60 of 69 GIUFFRE003979GAR erhidra ens tesat AP. Document 1349-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 51 of 70 To; r@mailonsunday,.co.u From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Thur 5/26/2011 9:38:46 PM Importance: Normal Subject: Re: Received: Thur 5/26/2011 9:38:46 PM Hi Shazza, Sounds like a good plan but I haven't heard back from Sandra yet re the money I will pay her for synopsis and sample chapters, If I don't hear back from her soon, I will send you what Iv'e got and maybe you can judge wether or not it is rea to go to an agent. I hope your enjoying Boston and try to not work so hard all the time!! XOXOX Jenna --- On Thu, 26/5/11, Sharon Churcher wrote: From: Sharon Churcher Subject: To: Received: Thursday, 26 May, 2011, 5:28 PM My ghostwriter pal says 30pce of all rights is norm. But also says Sandra doesn't sound right for u...u need someone more reliable. This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use of this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 S5TT. Registered No 84121 England. CONFIDENTIAL Page 60 of 69 GIUFFRED03982- Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 52 of 70 To: Sharon Churcher[Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk] From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Mon 5/30/2011 2:01:32 AM Importance: Normal Subject: Re: Received: Mon 5/30/2011 2:01:32 AM Hi Shazza, No news from Sandra yet, not even a reply back. So now my next plan of action is to get an agent and get my book sold by a publisher. Sandra's professional approach towards this matter isn't suffice, I need someone who will take this very serious. myself) hope you are enjoying the festivity of the weekend and look forward to your next email. Take Care, Jenna —- On Sat, 28/5/11, Sharon Churcher wrote: From: Sharon Churcher Subject: To: Received: Saturday, 28 May, 2011, 8:00 PM Before you make a final decision on Sandra, [ would ask her for titles and publishers of other books she has ghosted and titles of any films. That's is a legit request since she wants 30pc of everything. Let's see what experience she has. S X0x0 This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressce (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in crror pleasc notify the sender immediatcly and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use of this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 STT- Registered No 84121 England. GIUFFREU04882 CONFIDENTIAL Page 62 of 69Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 53 of 70 To: Sharon Churcher{Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk] From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Mon 5/30/2011 10:43:19 PM Importance: Normal Subject: Re: VF Received: Mon 5/30/2011 10:43:19 PM Hi Shazza, friend J.B. Should I'be asking What is this story their writing pertaining f0? wouldn't want to give the public a bad image or anything like that. I don't know, i's all such a gamble. (just thiank goodness for liaving’a friend like You om the\inside who knows how to deal with the viciousness of todays world!! I will let Brad know what you have recommended. Thanks. Again!!! xoxoxoxo Jenna —- On Mon, 30/5/11, Sharon Churcher wrotc: From: Sharon Churcher Subject. VE Ce: "brad@pathtojustice.com™ Received: Monday, 30 May, 2011, 1:48 PM 1 would let VF buy your picture via Brad. e reason this is a gamble is Jeffrey knows some of the most powerful people in publishing and, once alerted, will inevitably try to scare off potential buyers. But the upside is it should help you get a good agent. I would have Brad usc the phrase "scx trafficked” as that is a heads up about the book revealing morc than we printed. This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. Ilowever, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use of this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities, Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 STT. Registered No 84121 England. GIUFFREO0048683 CONFIDENTIAL Page 62 of 69Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 54 of 70 and or any new info. When i was doing some rescarch into VF yesterday, it docs concern me what they could want to write about me considering that B.Clinton walked into VF and threatened them not to write sex-trafficing articles about his good friend J.E, Should I be asking what is this story their writing pertaining to? | wouldn't want to give the public a bad image c anything like that, I don't know, it’s all such a gamble. I just thank goodness for having a friend like you on the inside who knows how to deal with the viciousness of todays world!! I will let Brad know what you have recommended. Thanks Again!!! xoxoxoxo Jenna --- On Mon, 30/5/11, Sharon Churcher wrote: From: Sharon Churcher Subject: VF a Ce: "brad@pathtojustice.com™ Received: Monday, 30 May, 2011, 1:48 PM 1 would let VF buy your picture via Brad. The big gamble would be to let him also give them a statement saying your interviews with us were accurately reported and you have no more to say at this time about how you were "sex trafficked to PA and other men including two of the world's most respected politcians (nd as well as women (the scenes with Ghislaine etc) because you are writing a book. The reason this is a gamblc is Jeffircy knows some of the most powerful people in publishing and, once alerted, will inevitably try to scare off potential buyers. But the upside is it should help you get a good agent. 1 would have Brad use the phrase "sex trafficked" as that is a heads up about the book revealing more than we printed. This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to reccive for the addresscc) you may not copy or usc it, or disclose it to anyone clsc. If you reccived it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail, Use of this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe Housc, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 S5TT, Registered No 84121 England. This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit bitp://www.messagelabs.com/email This email has been scanned by the Messagel abs Email Security System For more information please visit http://www messagclabs com/email This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive tor the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received 11 1n error please notify the sender immediately and then delcte it from your system, Please be advised that the views and opimons expressed in this GIUFFRE004887 CONFIDENTIAL Page 63 of 69Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 55 of 70 To: Sharon Churcher{Sharon,Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk] From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Wed 6/1/2011 12:05:04 AM Importance: Normal Subject: Re: VF Received: Wed 6/1/2011 12:05:04 AM HI Shazza, I am going to ask Brad to inquire what the piece is about firstly and see what itis they want to write about before I sell VF any pic, not sure if it will even be financially viable or good publicity. What do you think a good price to sell this to VF should be? Also 1 am concluding my Synopsis today and was wondering If I could send it to you to read over before I 1 start sending them out to agents. | know you know what they would be looking for and would be good to have you approve of my writing, I just cant believe that Sandra hasn't gotten back to me at all. It is a shame but it goes to show that her professional approach and seriousness towards the book were not the enthusiasm | was looking for anyways. How was your Memorial Day? I hope you had the day off to relax for once!! Let me know what you are thinking about all this... Take Good Care, Jenna -- On Tue, 31/5/11, Sharon Churcher wrote: From: Sharon Churcher Subject Re Vv To: | Reccived: Tuesday, 31 May, 2011, 1:00 PM PS their piece is about PA — but u are right to be concerned whose side they are taking. I think it is anti PA. Either way I'd go fora Brad statement. From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Monday, May 30, 2011 11:43 PM To; Sharon Churcher Subject: Re: VF Hi Shazza, Good points, all of them. 1 am looking at both sides to the picture. On the upside it will give exposure to build up publicity for the case and the story but like you said, [t must be carefully written and not give any notions about the upcoming book and or any new info. When i was doing some research into VF yesterday, it does concern me what they could want to write about me considering that B.Clinton walked into VF and threatened them not to write sex-trafficing articles about his good friend J.E. Should | be asking what is this story their writing pertaining to? | wouldn't want to give the public a bad image or anything like that. 1 don't know, it's all such a gamble. | just thank goodness for having a frend like you on the inside who knows how to deal with the viciousness of todays world!! I will let Brad know what you have recommended. Thanks Again!!!! xoxoxoxo Jenna --- On Mon, 30/5/11, Sharon Churcher wrote: From: Sharon Churcher Subject V. a To Gb; Ce: “brad@pathtojustice.con"" a y “—< AGREN BLANDO REPORTING Received: Monday, 30 May, 2011, 1:48 PM 5)z| le KA { would let VF buy your picture via Brad, The big gamble would be to let him also give them a statement saying your GIUFFRE004884 Page 54 of 69 CONFIDENTIALCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 56 of 70 interviews with us were accurately reported and you have no morc to say at this time about how you werc "scx trafficked to PA and other men including two of the world's most respected politcians (es HEE: well as women (the scenes with Ghislaine etc) because you are writing a book. The reason this 1s a gamble is Jeffrey knows some of the most powerful people in publishing and, once alerted, will inevitably try to scare off potcutial buyers. But the upside is it should help you get.a good agent, I would have Brad use the phrase "sex trafficked" as that is a heads up about the book revealing more than we printed. This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and Icgally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you arc the named addressee (or autborised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this c-mail and any attachments to it for viruscs as we can take no responsibility for any computcr virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use of this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 5TT. Registered No 84121 England. This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http:/Awww-messagelabs.com/email This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or usc it, or disclose it to anyone else, If you received it in error please nolify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses, However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use of this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. Associated Newspapers Lid. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 STT. Registered No 84121 England. GIUFFRE004885 Page 55 of 69 CONFIDENTIALCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 57 of 70 To: Sharon Churcher[Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk] From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Wed 6/1/2011 12:34:25 AM Importance: Normal Subject; Re: VF Received: Wed 6/1/2011 12:34:25 AM Thanks Buddy, | will send it to you shortly!!! --- On Wed, 1/6/11, Sharon Churcher wrote: From: Sharon Churcher Subject: Re: VF To: | Received: Wednesday, | June, 2011, 12:11 AM Darling sell them "one time usage” to the photo. It has been everywhere so no downside. They will offer you a price tied to their circulation. [ would hold out for US2k minimum. I will be honored to read the synopsis! Shazza X0 From: Virginia Giuftre Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 01:05 AM To: Sharon Churcher Subject: Re: VF HI Shazza, T am going to ask Brad to inquire what the piece is about firstly and see what it is they want to write about before I sell VF any pic, not sure if it will even be financially viable or good publicity. What do you think a good pricc to scll this to VF should be? Also lam concluding my Synopsis today and was wondering If I could send it to you to read over before II start sending them out to agents. I know you know what they would be looking for and would be good to have you approve of my writing. I just cant believe that Sandra hasn't gotten back to me at all. It is a shame but it goes to show that her professional approach and seriousness towards the book were not the enthusiasm [ was looking for anyways. How was your Memorial Day? I hope you had the day off to relax for once!! Let me know what you are thinking about all this... Take Good Care, Jenna --- On Tue, 31/5/11, Sharon Churcher wrote: From: Sharon Churcher Subj To Received: Tuesday, 31 May, 2011, 1:00 PM PS their piece is about PA -- but u are right to be concerned whose side they are taking. 1 think it is anti PA. Either way I'd go fora Brad slatement. Sent: Monday, May 3), 201 11:45 PM To: Shuron Churcher Subject: Re: VF Hi Shazza, Good points, all of them. Tam looking at both sides to the picture. On the upside it will give exposure to build up publicit for the case and the story but like you said, It must be carefully written and not give any notions about the upcoming book Page 56 of 69Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 58 of 70 hen i was doing some research into VF yesterday, it docs concern me what they could want to writc about me considering that B.Clinton walked into VF and threatened them not to write sex-trafficing articles about his good friend J.E. Should | be asking whatis this story their writing pertaining to? T wouldn't want to give the public a bad image c anything like that. I don't know, it's all such a gamble. I just thank goodness for having a friend like you on the inside who knows how to deal with the viciousness of todays world!! I will Ict Brad know what you have recommended, Thanks Again!!!! xoxoxoxo Jenna --- On Mon, 30/5/11, Sharon Churcher wrote: From: Sharon Churcher Subjeet VE To: Ce: “brad@pathtojustice.com™ Received: Monday, 30 May, 2011, 1:48 PM I would let VF buy your picture via Brad, The big gamble would be to let him also give them a statement saying your interviews with us were accurately reported and you have no more to say at this time about how you were “sex trafficked to PA and other men including two of the world's most respected politcians (End | las well as women (the scenes with Ghislaine etc) because you are writing a book. The reason this is a gamble is Jeffrey knows some of the most powerful pcoplc in publishing and, once alerted, will incvitably try to scare off potential buyers. But the upside is it should help you get a good agent. I would have Brad use the phrase “sex trafficked" as that is a heads up about the book revealing more than we printed. This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to reccive for the addressee) you may not copy or usc it, or disclose it to anyone clsc. If you rcecived it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this c-mail and any attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use of this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. Associated Newspapcrs Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe Housc, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 STT. Registered No 84121 England. This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit littp://www.messagelabs.com/emiail This email has been scanned hy the MessageLabs Email Security System, For morc information plcasc visit http:/Avww.mcssagclabs.com/cmail This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive tor the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system, Pleasc be advised that the views and opinions cxpresscd in this GIUFFREO04887 Page 57 of 69 CONFIDENTIALCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 59 of 70 c-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companics. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use ol this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilitics, Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 STT. Registered No 84121 England. This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www .messagelabs.com/email This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email This e-mail and any altached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our nctwork free from viruscs. However, you do need to check this c-mail and any attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use of this or any other e-mnail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 STT. Registered No 84121 England. GIUFFRE004888 Page 58 of 69 CONFIDENTIALCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 60 of 70 To: Sharon Churcher{Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk] From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Thur 6/2/2011 4:26:51 AM Importance: Normal Subject: Re: VR- Synopsis Received: Thur 6/2/2011 4:26:51 AM Thanks buddy!! Glad to hear it... xoxox Jenna --- On Wed, 1/6/11, Sharon Churcher wrote: From: Sharon Cburcher Subject Re VR- i To: Received: Wednesday, | June, 2011, 11:48 PM From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 11:41 PM To: Sharon Churcher Subject: VR- Synopsis Hi Shazza, Hope all is well for you today!! Here is my synopsis, I need your honest opinion and look forward to your feedback!!! Thanks for this... Jenna This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http:/;www.messagelabs.com/email This cmail has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised tbat the views and opinions expressed in tt e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use this or any other c-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of thes« facilities. Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 STT. Registered No 84121 England. |) Copyright Protected Material Page 59 of 69 a CONFIDENTIAL 9 GIUFFREOO3986Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 61 of 70 To: Sharon Churcher[Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk] From: Virginia Giufire Sent: Thur 6/2/2011 9:48:27 PM importance: Normal Subject: RE: VR- Synopsis Received: Thur 6/2/2011 9:48:27 PM Hi Shazza, I cant believe 1 didn't pick up that error... Thank-You!!! Glad to hear that you think this is ready, | will compile a list of articles and let you know when | can send it all out. xoxox Jenna --- On Thu, 2/6/11, Sharon Churcher wrote: From: Sharon Churcher Subject: RE: VR- Synopsis To: "Virginia Git Received: Thursday, 2 June, 2011, 4:18 PM Playboy club....spelling error! Anyway | think u have enough here to pitch agents. | would download and attach every article you can find about you and Jeffrey . Shall! mention to Jarred Weisfeld that the synopsis is ready? Frome Vigina Cite Sa Sent: 01 June 2011 18:41 To: Sharon Churcher Subject: VR- Synopsis Hi Shazza, Hope all is well for you today!! Here is my synopsis, I need your honest opinion and look forward to your feedback!!! Thanks for this... Jenna This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http.//www.messagelabs.com/email |! Copyright Protected Matenal Page 60 of 69 CONFIDENTIAL GIUFFRE003987Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 62 of 70 Wipurtalivce. volt Subject: Re: Received: Sat 6/4/2011 2:51:41 AM VR-Cover Letter & Resume.docx Hi Shazza, Back from the E.R and [iii got a torn ligament, could be much worse...phew!!! Anyways, I wasn't to sure exactly what to put in my profile so I included what I thought would be informative, Sincerely, Jenna --- On Sat, 4/6/11, Sharon Churcher wrote: From: Sharon Churcher ls To: 7 —_— _ — Received: Saturday, 4 June, 2011, 12:37 AM Poor poor fia Hope it isn't a break Shazza Xoxox From: Virginia Ginftre Ii Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 01:14 AM To: Sharon Churcher Subject: Re: Great stuff! I will send you it as soon as I get back home, just at hospital withfZzamvho may have broken his arm. Neve dull moment around here! Lol! Anyways, thanks so much... Your incredible! Xoxoxo and many thanks, Jenna From: i k>; To Sent: Fri, Jun 3, 2011 11:05:07 PM Jarred would like to see the package when u have it ready. | can send him our stories. U should write up a pit about yourself...a pen portrait like the author bios u see on book jackets. This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which r be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (¢ authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you recei it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that th: views and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspaper: Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibi for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use of this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. Associated Newspapers Ltd, Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 STT. Registered No 84121 England. |) Copynght Protected Matenal Page 61 of 69 is CONFIDENTIAL GIUFFRE003992Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 63 of 70 This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify, the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in th e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Usc this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry Si, Kensington, London, W8 STT. Registered No 84121 England. || Copynght Protected Matenal Page 62 of 69 CONFIDENTIAL GIUFFRE003993Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 64 of 70 - THNpurtarive, IWUIiTial Subject: Re: Received: Sat 6/4/2011 3:27:53 AM Shazza, Big compliments coming from such a great writer like you!!! Thank you so much, you have lit up my day!!! I look forwa to hearing back from you this weekend...have a good one!! XOXOXXO Jenna --- On Sat, 4/6/11, Sharon Churcher wrote: From: Sharon Churcher Subject: Re: To: Received: Saturday, 4 June, 2011, 3:08 AM This is grabbing, Spot on. The one aspect ofthis you need to addréss is how many names to name (ofmen) and when. 1 will go instead of names. And thank goodness iil is OK! S X0 fio i Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 03:51 AM To: Sharon Churcher Subject: Re: Hi Shazza, Back from the E.R and ebas got a torn ligament, could be much worse...phew!!! Anyways, I wasn't to sure exactly what to put in my profile so I included what I thought would be informative, but if this is not what you had in mind, Iet n know and I will fix it up. Thanks again for doing so much for me and my family!! Sincerely, Jenna --- On Sat, 4/6/11, Sharon Churcher wrote: From: Sharon Churcher Subject: Re: To! Received; Saturday, 4 June, 2011, 12:37 AM Poor poor faamaa Hope it isn't a break Shazza Xoxox From: Virginia Giulfre Sent: Saturday, June 04, 201! 01:14 AM To: Sharon Churcher Subject: Re: Great stuff! 1 will send you it as soon as | get back home, just at hospital with ga who may have broken his arm. Nev dull moment around here! Lol! Anyways, thanks so much... Your incredible! \) Copynght Protected Matenal Page 63 of 69 CONFIDENTIAL GIUFFREO04014Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 65 of 70 Xoxoxo and many thanks, Jenna From; ; To: Sent: Fri, Jun 3, 2011 11:05:07 PM Jarred would like to see the package when u have it ready. | can send him our stories. U should write up a pi about yourself...a pen portrait like the author bios u see on book jackets. This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee ( authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you recei it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that tr views and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspaper Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsit for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use of this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 STT. Registered No 84121 England. This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email This email bas been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised tc receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notif the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in t e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachment it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Us this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of thes facilities. Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 STT. Registere: No 84121 England. This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email | Copynght Protected Material oo rt nent Page 64 of 69 GIUFFREO04015Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 66 of 70 This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to reccive for the addressce) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you reccived it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in th e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies, We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Usc this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 STT. Registered No 84121 England. || Copynght Protected Matenal CONFIDENTIAL Page 65 of 69 GAUFFREO04016Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 67 of 70 To: Sharon Churcher[Sharon.Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk] From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Tue 6/7/2011 11:35:48 PM Importance: Normal Subject: Re: Received: Tue 6/7/2011 11:35:48 PM HI Shazza, Hope you had a great weekend!! We are ready to send it all away...fingers crossed Jarred loves it! Thanks again for all o your help and 1 will keep you informed of anything new. I hope you and hubby are doing well and I look forward to speaking with you soon. XOXOXOXO Jenna --- On Tue, 7/6/11, Sharon Churcher wrote: From: Sharon Churcher Subject: So Received: Tuesday, 7 June, 2011, 12:56 PM Why don't u send Jarred your synopsis, bio and some of the Australian and US pickup? J can send him our stuff. This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies, We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use of this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 STT. Registered No 84121 England. |) Copyright Protected Matenal Page 66 of 69 a CONFIDENTIAL: ATTORNEY EYES ONLY GIUFFRE004017Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 68 of 70 To: jarred tit agent/ produce; iis From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Wed 6/8/2011 12:06:45 AM Importance: Normal Subject: Virginia Raberts- Synopsis & Profile Received: Wed 6/8/2011 12:06:47 AM FINAL DRAFT-SYNOPSIS docx VR-Cover Letter & Resume.docx Convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein is facing a new criminal investigation and is involved in a civil suit with a Jawyer ~ Tel.dat daily telegraph June 02 2011.dacx Local News West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County. Martin & St. Lucie Counties _ The Palm Beach Post.webarchive Prince Andrew's link to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein taints royalty in US UK news The Observer.webarchive Prince Andrew He's just trying to massage export fiqures - Home News, UK - The Independent.webarchive Secret Sex Lives.docx The Total Collapse.docx A unique resemblance. ...docx Dear Jarred Weisfeld, We spoke on the phone going back a couple months ago regarding thc story I am writing called, The Billionaires Playbc Club. I am no longer under any contract and would like to ask you to review my synopsis and if you are interested I woul love for you to represent me as my literary agent. I have included some of the press that has covered the ongoing case of Jeffrey Epstein, the worlds richest I am very serious about getting my book published and believe this story will cover many genres of interest, not only by those following the lengthy 1 hope you enjoy.... Sincerely, Virginia Roberts || Copyright Protected Maternal Page 67 of 69 3 CONFIDENTIAL GIUFFREO0I018Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 69 of 70 To: Sharon Churcher{Sharon Churcher@mailonsunday.co.uk} From: Virginia Giuffre Sent: Wed 6/8/2011 6:27:15 AM Importance: Normal Subject: Re: Virginia Roberts Received: Wed 6/8/2011 6:27:15 AM Dearest Shazza, I took the kids to the Australian Walkabout Park today and enjoyed the scenic walks and many kangaroos. Rob and | had good chuckle about our adventures at the Reptile Park with you and Mike ..good times!!! Have you heard from Mike? | hope he is well and if you ever speak, tell him I sent a BIG hello. I hope we hear back from Jarred soon!! xoxoxo Jenna --- On Wed, 8/6/11, Sharon Churcher wrote: From: Sharon Churcher Subject: Virginia Roberts To: "jarred halperin agent : fr Ce: "Virginia Giuffre" Received: Wednesday, 8 June, 2011, 2:31 AM Hi Jarred Hopefully you have Virginia’s book pitch by now. She has some amazing names which she can share with you in confidence and I think she also has a human interest story that could appeal to the Oprah/female set as well as the Wall Streeters who follow Epstein — a hedge fund king. Here are a few of our stories about Virginia, plus some examples of the massive US and other international media pickup, Vanity Fair are doing a piece | believe in their August issue. The FBI have reopened the Epstein case due to Virginia’s revelations. | also am attaching a link toa NY Magazine profile of Epstein.....written before his world combusted. The FBI believe he was essentially running a private — and mobile -- brothel for some of the world’s richest and most influential men. He got off the first time round after retaining Kenneth Starr (who witchhunted Bill Clinton) and Alan Dershowitz (von Bulow’s appeal lawyer, who inspired the movie Reversal! of Fortune). The US Justice Dept is investigating corruption allegations against at least one prosecutor involved in the case. Best regards, |\ Copyneht Protected Matenal Page 68 of 69 CONFIDENTIAL CIUPFREOO4026Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-2 Filed 01/04/24 Page 70 of 70 Sharon htip://www_dailymail.co.uk/news/article- 136 1039/Prince-Andrew-girl-] 7-scx-offender-fnend-flew-Britain-mect- him.honl http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363452/Bill-Clinton- 1 5-ycar-old-masseuse-I-met-twice-claims-Epsteins- girl.html http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/pervy_mogul_Ient_me_out_BalvLircQqg9ADFIOXewyo) http://blogs. villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/02/virginia_robert.php http://billionaires.forbes.com/article/03rxg]121P9nv (This one, in Forbes Magazine, seems to require subscribing but you get the gist) http://www. telegrapb.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/8362690/Prince-Andrew .html http://www.dailytelegraph.com. au/news/the-prince-a-paedophile-and-the-sex-slave-teen/story-c6freuy9- 1226013783994 http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/n_7912/ This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or usc it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use of this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 STT. Registered No 8412! England. || Copyneght Protected Matenal Page 69 of 69 CONFIDENTIAL GIUFFRE004027Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-3 Filed 01/04/24 Page 1 of 10 EXHIBIT CCase 9:08GAa5807:26-RAN/ 4Bedenbacumentdeehos Heit BbO4242/Bage 240f Age 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 Vv. 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. ! ' 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 1Case 9:08GAa5807:26-RAN/ 4Bedrenbacumentdeebos Heit BbO4242/Baage B40 bAge 2 of 13 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. Jd. 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. 2Case 9:08GAa580728-RAN/ 4Bedenbacumentdeebos Heit BbO4242/Bage t0f Age 3 of 13 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 3Case 9:08Ga580726-RAN/ 4Bedenbacumentdeebos Hritsd BbO4242/Baage f40f Age 4 of 13 (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 co- conspirators 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 4Case 9:08Ga580726-RAN/ 4Bedurenbacumentdeebos Hrited BbO4242/Baage f0f hAge 5 of 13 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. 5Case 9:08Ga580728-RAN/ 4Bedenbacumentdeehos Heit BbO4242/Bage 740 Age 6 of 13 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 6Case 9:08@Aa5807:26-RAN/ 4Bedenbacumentdeebos Heit BbO4242/Bage B40 Age 7 of 13 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-year- old 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 (1.e., on his personal jet) for purposes of illegally sexually abusing Jane Doe #4. 7Case 9:08-aso 731A 743 s8cLAn Documanteted ine FIFKEA DERE (24 /stawe1F Oe 12 of 13 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 12 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: brad@pathtojustice.com 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: 801-585-5202Case 9:08@a580726-RUNW 4BedAenbarumeEentdeebos Hritd BbO4242/BEG@19 O649e 13 of 13 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu 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 Villafafia 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 820-8711 Fax: (561) 820-8777 E-mail: Dexter. Lee@usdoj.gov E-mail: ann.marie.c.villafana@usdoj.gov Attorneys for the Government /s/ Bradley J. Edwards 13Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-4 Filed 01/04/24 Page 1 of 6 EXHIBIT 4 (Filed Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-4 Filed 01/04/24 Page 2 of 6 Sigrid McCawley From: Sigrid McCawley Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 3:53 PM To: Laura Menninger; Meredith Schultz; Jeff Pagliuca Ce: ‘brad@pathtojustice.com’ (brad@pathtojustice.com); Paul Cassell (cassellp@law.utah.edu) Subject: RE: Notice of Subpoena Attachments: May-June 2016 Deposition Calendar.pdf Hello Laura — We are working on the calendar and | have it almost complete but | was awaiting confirmation on a date from Mr. Rizzo’s counsel so | didn’t want to send it out prematurely and that was delaying me. We were serving subpoenas on dates that we thought are grouped within the locations/date ranges we discussed during the meet and confer and since we have been having an extraordinarily difficult time serving witnesses who appear to be attempting to evade service we need to keep that process moving. We do intend to work with you on dates as we discussed. Attached is the proposed calendar with the caveat that dates may shift if witnesses make change requests but we are doing our best to group locations together where possible. Again ~ this is not final as | noted | believe you had some dates you were gone but were checking with Jeff to determine his availability. Finally, we are writing to confer whether you will stipulate that we may exceed the 10 deposition limit to complete discovery in this case or whether we need to file a motion with the Court on that issue. Thank you, Sigrid Sigrid 8. McCawley Partner BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-356-0011 ext. 4223 Fax: 954-356-0022 http://www.bsfllp.com From: Laura Menninger [mailto:Imenninger@hmflaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 3:19 PM To: Meredith Schultz; Jeff Pagliuca Ce: Sigrid McCawley; 'brad@pathtojustice.com' (brad@pathtojustice.com); Paul Cassell (cassellp@law.utah.edu) Subject: Re: Notice of Subpoena Sigrid and Brad - We had a conferral last week in which you promised to provide for conferral purposes a proposed schedule for depositions we both had requested in various locations. Rather than provide any such schedule, you have instead sent us notices for approximately 7 depositions in NY and Florida, one for an individual who you did not mention deposing and who does not appear among the extensive list of witnesses in your Rule 26 disclosures. 1Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-4 Filed 01/04/24 Page 3 of 6 If you do not intend to abide by the representations you made in our conferral, then please advise and we will once again be forced to seek intervention of the Court. See Local Rule 26.4. -Laura From: Meredith Schultz Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at 1:08 PM To: Laura Menninger , Jeff Pagliuca Ce: Sigrid McCawley , Brad Edwards , Paul Cassell Subject: Notice of Subpoena Laura, Please see the attached documents. Thanks, Meredith Meredith L. Schultz BOLES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-356-0011 ext. 4204 Fax: 954-356-0022 http://www. bsfllp.com ied orily for the use of the named recipients} and may centain information etiginey work product or exempt irom disclosure under af s If the reader of this asibie to deliver it to bie nemed recipient. ed that any y grombied and no privilege is waived. ceived tis communication in 1 then deleting this electronic message fi recmouter. fv.11 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-4 Filed 01/04/24 Page 4 of 6 Virginia Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell Case no. 15-cv-07433-RWS MAY 2016 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Deposition of Deposition of Sky Johanna Sjoberg Roberts Ft. Lauderdale, FL Oxford, FL (confirmed) (confirmed) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Deposition of Deposition of Dr. Lynn Miller Steven Olson Denver, CO Denver, CO (confirmed (confirmed) although location may change per Menninger) 29 30 31 Deposition of Juan Alessi Ft. Lauderdale, FL (subpoena served) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-4 Filed 01/04/24 Page 5of6 Virginia Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell Case no. 15-cv-07433-RWS June 2016 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday ] 2, 3 4 Deposition of Deposition of James | Deposition of David Deposition of Maria Alessi Michael Austrich Rodgers Ft. Lauderdale, FL Ocala, FL Ft. Lauderdale, FL Ft. Lauderdale, (subpoena served) | (subpoena served but | (subpoena served) FL and/or Maxwell’s counsel (served) Jean Luc Brunel needs to confirm date change with witness) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Deposition of Jean Deposition of Deposition of Luc Brunel log Deposition of JoJo Rinaldo Rizzo New York, NY New York/New Fontanella Armonk, NY (possible date) Jersey New York, NY (confirmed) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Deposition of Deposition of Deposition of Nadia Jeffrey Epstein Jared Weisfeld/ Marcinkova New York, NY Sharon Churcher Armonk, NY (or find additional date if they will be too long) 19 20 ZL 22 23 24 25 Deposition of Deposition of Deposition of Detective Joe Sarah Kellen Recarey Ft. Lauderdale, FL New York, NY Ft. Lauderdale, FL Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-4 Filed 01/04/24 Page 6 of 6 Virginia Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell Case no. 15-cv-07433-RWS 26 27 28 Deposition of Emmy Taylor California or London (possible date not served with subpoena yet) 29 (Other California witnesses if needed) 30 Deposition of Ross Gow (possible date) ***Week of June 20 — 24 may be bad for Maxwell’s counsel (please confirm) ****Week of June 27 — July Ist may be bad for Maxwell’s counsel (please confirm) ****#Need to confirm Maxwell will accept service for her agent Ross Gow. There may be a few other witnesses that we may need to add if they can’t confirm attendance at trial. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-5 Filed 01/04/24 Page 1 of 24 EXHIBIT 13 (Filed Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-5 Filed 01/04/24 Page 2 of 24 United States District Court Southern District of New York Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cy-07433-RWS Vv, Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. / PLAINTIFF, VIRGINIA GIUFFRE’S THIRD REVISED DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 26 COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Virginia L. Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, and serves this revised disclosure pursuant to Fed, R, Civ. P. 26 and states as follows: A. Witnesses: 1. Virginia L. Giuffre c/o Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200 Miami, Florida 33301 Tel: (954) 356-0011 Email; smecawley(@bsfllp.com Plaintiff - Information regarding Defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell’s conduct that is the subject of this action. 2. Ghislaine Maxwell c/o Laura A. Menninger, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10™ Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Email: lmenninger(@hmflaw.com Defendant in this action. CONFIDENTIALCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-5 Filed 01/04/24 Page 3 of 24 3. Juan Alessi = = os -_ Telephone number unknown at this time May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. Maria Alessi — = _= ; a = May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 5. Kathy Alexander Address unknown at this time. Telephone number unknown at this time. Believed to be in South Africa. May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 6. Miles Alexander Address unknown at this time, Telephone number unknown at this time. Believed to be in South Africa. May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. qh Doug Band President of Teneo Holdings, 601 Lexington Avenue, 45" Floor, New York, NY 10022, Tel: (212) 886-1600 Was present on flights with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and President Clinton and may have knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s sexual trafficking conduct and interactions with minors. 8. Gwendolyn Beck May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 9 Sophie Biddle ? CONFIDENTIALCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-5 Filed 01/04/24 Page 4 of 24 May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 10. Was present on flights with Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and Virginia Guiffre and may have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. ef Fary Bjorlin Address Unknown Telephone Number Uknown May have information relating to Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 12. May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors, 13. Jean Luc Brunel c/o Joe Titone, Esq. 621 South East 5th Street, Pompano Beach, FL 33060 Tel: (954) 729-6490 Was present on flights with Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and Virginia Guiffre and has information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. \4 Ron Burkle Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct. —_ Ww . CONFIDENTIALCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-5 Filed 01/04/24 Page 5 of 24 Worked for Ghislaine Maxwell and has information about Ghislaine Maxwell's recruiting of girls for Jeffrey Epstein. 16. Carolyn Casey Address unknown at this time. Telephone number unknown at this time. May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 17, Alyson Chambers c/o Marshall Dore Louis, Esq. Sinclair, Louis & Zavertnik, P.A. 40 N.W. 3" Street, Suite 200, Miami, FL 33128 Tel: (305) 374-0544 Worked for Jeffrey Epstein as a masseuse during the time that Virginia Giuffre was living and trayeling with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, and has information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct. 18. William Jefferson Clinton 55 West 125 Street New York, NY 10027 Travelled with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and may have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct. 19. Maximilia Cordero Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct. 20. Valdson Cotrin Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct. 21, Chauntae Davies Telephone number unknown at this time CONFIDENTIALCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-5 Filed 01/04/24 Page 6 of 24 tw wn Was present on flights with Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and may have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. Teala Davies Telephone number unknown at this time Was present on flights with Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and may have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. Anouska DeGeorgieou Telephone number unknown at this time May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. Alan Dershowitz c/o Richard A. Simpson, Esq. WILEY REIN, LLP 1776 K Street NW Washington, D.C, 20006 Tel: (202) 719-7000 Has knowledge of Defendant’s conduct that is the subject of this action. Ryan Dionne Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct. Eva Anderson Dubin Telephone number unknown at this time Was present on flights with Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and has information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. Glen Dubin Slo Telephone number unknown at this time Ss CONFIDENTIALCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-5 Filed 01/04/24 Page 7 of 24 Was present on flights with Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and has information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 28. May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 29 Prince Andrew Albert Christian Edward, Duke of York Buckingham Palace Rd, London SWIA LAA Tel: 020 7766 7300 Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors, including Virginia Giuffre. 30. Records Custodian for Travel for Prince Andrew Albert Christian Edward, Duke of York Buckingham Palace Rd, London SWI1A 1AA Tel: 020 7766 7300 Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors, including Virginia Giuffre. tod —_ Jeffrey Epstein c/o Marty Weinberg, Esq. 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000, Boston, MA 02116 Tel: (617) 227-3700 Has knowledge of Defendant’s conduct that is the subject of this action and knowledge of his sexual trafficking operation and other co-conspirators, 32. Tatiana Espinoza Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors, 33 Annie Farmer Address unknown at this time. Telephone number unknown at this time. Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors, including Virginia Giuffre. 6 CONFIDENTIALCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-5 Filed 01/04/24 Page 8 of 24 34. Marie Farmer Address unknown at this time. Telephone number unknown at this time. Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors, including Virginia Giuffre. ly wn Vicky Ward Address unknown at this time Telephone unknown at this time Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors, including Virginia Giuffre. 36. Frederic Fekkai Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Has knowledge of Defendant’s conduct that is the subject of this action. 37. Tony Figueroa Telephone number unknown at this time Has knowledge of Defendant’s conduct that is the subject of this action. 38. Luciano “Jojo” Fontanilla Jeffrey Epstein's staff member in his various homes and may have knowledge of Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein’s inappropriate conduct with underage girls. 39. — Lynn Fontanilla Telephone number unknown at this time May have knowledge of Defendant’s conduct that is the subject of this action. 40. Michael Friedman Telephone number unknown at this time Former house staff and may have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with minors. 41. Rosalie Friedman | CONFIDENTIALCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-5 Filed 01/04/24 Page 9 of 24 Telephone number unknown at this time Former house staff and may have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with minors. 42. Ross Gow Acuity Representation 23 Berkeley Square London W1J 6HE Defendant’s press agent who has knowledge of the defamatory statements in this case. & to Tiffany Kathryn Gramza Telephone number unknown at this time May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors 44 May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct. Amanda Grant Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time = Ww May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct. 46. Lesley Groff Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct. 47 CONFIDENTIALCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-5 Filed 01/04/24 Page 10 of 24 48. 49 SI. wn i) in ts Has information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and abuse and interaction with underage minors. Claire Hazel Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors, Shelly Harrison Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. Gina Ignatieva Address Unknown Telephone number unknown at this time May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. Brett Jaffe Address noted on Defendant’s Rule 26 disclosures Defendant's attorney. Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. Sarah Kensington Vickers formerly Sarah Kellen c/o Bruce Reinhart, Esq. McDonald Hopkins LLC 505 S Flagler Dr Ste 300 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5942 Tel: 561- 472-2121 9 CONFIDENTIALCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-5 Filed 01/04/24 Page 11 of 24 tay WwW ery a 60 Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interactions with minors. Tatiana Kovylina Telephone number unknown at this time May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. Adam Perry Lang Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Traveling chef for Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and may have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. Michael Liffman Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct, Peter Listerman Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. Cindy Lopez Address unknown at this time 1Q CONFIDENTIALCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-5 Filed 01/04/24 Page 12 of 24 Telephone number unknown at this time May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 6l. Melinda Lutz Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 62, Cheri Lynch Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 63. | Nadia Marcinko formerly Nadia Marcinkova c/o Jack Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger, & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Ave South, Ste 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 Tel: (561) 659-8300 Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors, 64. Bob Meister May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 65, Todd Meister May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 66. Brahakmana Mellawa Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time 1] CONFIDENTIALCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-5 Filed 01/04/24 Page 13 of 24 67. 69, 70. 71 —~ tr House staff who may have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein 's sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. Jayarukshi Mellawa Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time House staff who may have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. Andrea Mitrovich Address Unknown ‘Telephone number unknown at this time. Knowledge of Defendant’s conduct that is the subject of this action. Bill Peadon House staff that may have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. Francis Peadon Telephone number unknown at this time House staff that may have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. Dara Preece Address Unknown Telephone Unknown at this time CONFIDENTIALCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-5 Filed 01/04/24 Page 14 of 24 74, 74. 75, 76. May have knowledge of Defendant’s conduct in this action, Louella Rabuyo Address unknown at this time Telephone unknown at this time House staff that may have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. Joseph Recarey Detective Recarey was the chief investigator of the crimes committed at Jeffrey Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion and has information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. Chief Michael Reiter Police Chief Reiter oversaw the investigation of the crimes committed at Jeffrey Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion and has information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and abuse of underage minors. Bill Richardson Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors, Rinaldo Rizzo c/o Robert Lewis, Esq. Freeman Lewis LLP 228 E. 45" Street, 17" Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: 212-980-4084 Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. Haley Robson Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time CONFIDENTIALCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-5 Filed 01/04/24 Page 15 of 24 Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 77. David Rodgers Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 78, Adriana Ross formerly Adriana Mucinska Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstcin’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 79 Johanna Sjoberg Worked for Jeffrey Epstein during the time when Virginia Giuffre was living and traveling with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Johanna Sjobjerg was also present at an occasion with Prince Andrew, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Virginia Giuffre when Ms. Giuffre was a minor. 80. Kelly Spamm Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. $1 Cecilia Stein Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 82. Emmy Taylor Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time 14 CONFIDENTIALCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-5 Filed 01/04/24 Page 16 of 24 Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 83. Evelyn Valenzuela Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct. 84. Larry Visosky Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. Leslie Wexner oo nN Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 86. Courtney Wild Has information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 87. Igor Zinoview Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors. 88. All females identified in the police reports or identified through the United State’s Attorney’s office during or through the criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirators. wy CONFIDENTIALCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-5 Filed 01/04/24 Page 17 of 24 89. 90. 91, 92. All other then-minor girls, recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, whose identities Ms. Giuffre will attempt to determine, with whom Defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, have engaged in sexual activity. All pilots, chauffeurs, chefs, and other employees of either Defendant Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein with knowledge of Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein’s inappropriate conduct with underage girls. All staff and employees at the Mar-a-Lago Club during 1999-2002. All other witnesses learned through discovery process. Relevant Documents: L. 10. 11. 12, 13. All files held by the Palm Beach Police Department or the Palm Beach State Attorney's office which are publically available. All press releases of Ghislaine Maxwell or on her behalf. The video(s) of Ghislaine Maxwell adopting the January, 2015 press statement. All newspaper or other media where Ghislaine Maxwell’s press release appears. All evidence obtained by the Federal Bureau of Investigations which relate in any way to Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell. All 302 statements that relate in any way to Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell. All evidence obtained by the FBI or United States Attorney’s office by or through the criminal investigation of Alfredo Rodriguez. All documents relating to the previous subpoenas served on Defendant for her deposition and all documents related in any way to that deposition. All documents evidencing visitors or passengers at any of Jeffrey Epstein owned or controlled property or aircraft, All documents demonstrating the relationship between Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell. All photos of Ghislaine Maxwell at Chelsea Clinton’s wedding. All documents or information refuting statements made by Ghislaine Maxwell. All documents and information relating to Prince Andrews travel, including travel to New York City and the Caribbean, in 1999 to 2002. 16 CONFIDENTIALC. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-5 Filed 01/04/24 Page 18 of 24 Exhibits: 1, 10. 44, Le, 13. 14. 15. 16. Palm Beach Police Department report and documents contained within Jeffrey Epstein's criminal files, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. March 10, 2011 Statement on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell by Media agent Ross Gow, attached hereto as Exhibit 2. September 3, 2008 Victim Notification Letter, attached hereto as Exhibit 3. May 1, 2009 Complaint in Jane Doe No. 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein, CIV-09-80656, in the Southern District of Florida, attached hereto as Exhibit 4. FBI 302 Statement, attached hereto as Exhibit 5. Flight Logs, attached hereto as Composite Exhibit 6, Message Pads from Law Enforcement from trash pull of Jeffrey Epstein’s Palm Beach home, attached hereto as Exhibit 7. Jeffrey Epstein’s Phone Book, also referred to as his “Black Book,” attached hereto as Exhibit 8. Deposition of Sarah Kellen, attached hereto as Composite Exhibit 9. Deposition Transcripts of Juan Alessi, attached hereto as Exhibit 10. Deposition Transcripts of Alfredo Rodriguez, attached hereto as Exhibit 11. January 2, 2015 Corrected Joinder Motion [DE 280] filed in the CVRA action pending in the Southern District of Florida, attached hereto as Exhibit 12. [All paragraphs between “The Government then concealed from Jane Doe No. 3 the existence of the NPA (pg. 3) and “The Government was well aware of Jane Doe No. 3 when it was negotiating the NPA” (pg. 6) were stricken by Judge Marra.] January 21, 2015 Declaration of Jane Doe No. 3 filed in the CVRA action pending in the Southern District of Florida, attached hereto as Exhibit 13. [Paragraphs 4, 5, 7, 11, 13, 15, 19-53, and 59 were stricken by Judge Marra] February 6, 2015 Declaration of Jane Doe No. 3 filed in the CVRA action pending in the Southern District of Florida, attached hereto as Exhibit 14. [Paragraphs 7- 12, 16, 39 and 49 were stricken by Judge Marra,] November 25, 2015 Affidavit of Virginia Giuffre, filed in the Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell v. Alan Dershowitz matter, pending in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, attached hereto as Exhibit 15. Virginia Roberts’ passport, attached hereto as Exhibit 16. 17 CONFIDENTIALCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-5 Filed 01/04/24 Page 19 of 24 ie 18. 1g, 20. 21, 28. Judge Thomas Lynch’s January 12, 2016 Confidentiality Order regarding Virginia Giuffre’s deposition, attached hereto as Exhibit 17. Documents produced and bates labelled Non-Party VR 000001 — Non-Party VR 000644, in the Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell v. Alan Dershowitz matter, pending in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, attached hereto as Exhibit 18. Victims Refuse Silence Articles of Incorporation and Amendment, attached hereto as Composite Exhibit 19, Victims Refuse Silence By-laws, attached hereto as Exhibit 20. Victims Refuse Silence 2016 Annual Report, attached hereto as Exhibit 21. January 3, 2015 Daily Mail article: “Harvard Law Professor Named Alongside Prince Andrew in ‘Sex Slave’ Case Accuses Alleged Victim of ‘Making Up Stories,”” attached hereto as Exhibit 22. January 3, 2015 Press Statement issued by Ross Gow to Express set forth in “Ghislaine Maxwell: | was not a madam for paedophile,” attached as Exhibit 23. January 4, 2015 Statement by Ghislaine Maxwell to New York Daily News Reporter “Alleged Madam Accused of Supplying Prince Andrew With Underage Teen for Sex Spotted in NYC — As He’s Seen Cutting Swiss Vacation Short to Face Queen,” attached hereto as Exhibit 24. February 1, 2015 Mirror article: “Prince Andrew’s Pal Ghislaine Maxwell May Sue Over Madam Allegations,” attached hereto as Exhibit 25. September 23, 2007 Red Ice Creations Article “Prince Andrew’s Friend, Ghislaine Maxwell, Some Underage Girls, and A Very Disturbing Story,” attached hereto as Exhibit 26. Photographs, attached hereto as Exhibit 27. April 13, 2010 Deposition Transcript of Nadia Marcinkova, attached hereto as Exhibit 28, Computation of Damages: l, Physical, psychological and psychiatric injuries and resulting medical expenses — in an amount of approximately $ 102,200 present value. a. Computation Analysis: i, Giuffre has had to receive treatment for the psychological harm as a result of Maxwell’s conduct towards Giuffre. 18 CONFIDENTIALCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-5 Filed 01/04/24 Page 20 of 24 il, iii. iv. The average annual expenditures for mental health services for adults 18-64 in the United States is $1,751. Giuffre needs continuing care as a result of the harm she has suffered. Ms. Giuffre was born August 9, 1983 and was 31.4 years old at the beginning of 2015 when the alleged harm occurred. The average remaining life expectancy for a31 year old female is 51.1 years. Based on a remaining life expectancy of 51.1 years, annual! healthcare cost growth of 3.3% and a discount rate of 2.7%, the present value of expected treatment costs is $102,200 as of 1/1/2015. b. Supporting Evidence: i, ii, iii. Ms. Giuffre is in the process of collecting records from her physicians Ms. Giuffre’s testimony Ms. Giuffre is in the process of retaining an expert to calculate damages, and will! provide further information through expert disclosure, e Past, present and future pain and suffering, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of standing in the community, loss of dignity and invasion of privacy in her public and private life not less than $30,000,000.00. a. Computation Analysis i. Under New York law, defamation per se as alleged in this case presumes damages and special damages do not need to be plead and proven. See Celle v. Filipino Reporter Enterprises Inc., 209 F.3d 163, 179 (2™ Cir, 2000) (Second Circuit holding that ‘[i]f a statement is defamatory per se, injury is assumed. In such a case ‘even where the plaintiff can show no actual damages at all, a plaintiff who has otherwise shown defamation may recover at least nominal damages” and the Second Circuit also confirmed an award of punitive damages). Ms. Giuffre has been severely damaged by the defamation of the defendant, by calling her claims of sexual abuse “obvious lies”. The defamation caused Ms. Giuffre to re-live the sexual abuse she previously endured. Ms. Giuffre has suffered and continues to suffer from the pain, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of standing in the community, loss of dignity and invasion of privacy in her public and private life. The computation of this amount is in the province of the jury but Ms. Giuffre contends, 19 CONFIDENTIALCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-5 Filed 01/04/24 Page 21 of 24 including but not limited to, awards in other similar matters, that the amount is not less than $30,000,000.00. Ms. Giuffre is in the process of retaining an expert, and will provide further information through expert disclosure. b. Supporting Evidence i. Ms. Giuffre’s testimony ii, Witness testimony iii. Awards in similar matters iv. Ms. Giuffre is in the process of retaining an expert, and will provide further information through expert disclosure. 3, Estimated lost income of $180,000 annually. Present value of $3,461,000 to $5,407,000. 2: Computation Analysis i, Ms. Giuffre’s estimated compensation capacity is $180,000 annually. Ms, Giuffre was born August 9, 1983 and was 31.4 years old at the beginning of 2015 when the alleged injury occurred. Her expected remaining work life based on mortality and probability of continued work was 20,2 years. Based on these factors, a 2% annual growth rate and a 2.4% discount rate, the present value of lost compensation is $3,461,000 as of 1/1/2015. ii, Alternatively, if Ms. Giuffre is assumed to work until a normal retirement age of 65, or 33.6 years from her age at the beginning of 2015, and based on an annual growth rate of 2.0% and a discount rate of 2.7%, the present value of lost compensation is $5,407,000 as of 1/1/2015. b. Supporting Evidence i, Materials regarding compensation and work life expectancy 1) 2010 Life Table for Females, National Vital Statistics Report, November 6, 2014, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, 20 CONFIDENTIALCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-5 Filed 01/04/24 Page 22 of 24 2) “Calculation of Work life Expectancy Using the Life, Participation, Employment Method,” Vocational Econometrics, Inc. 3) Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 4) Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.15, 1/5/2015. ii. Ms. Giuffre’s testimony iii. Ms, Giuffre is in the process of retaining a damages expert and will provide further information through expert disclosures. 4. Punitive Damages - to be based upon all relevant factors, including the egregious nature of Defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell’s conduct and the need for a large award to punish and deter conduct in view of the vast wealth of Defendant Maxwell, in an amount not less than $50,000,000.00. a. This calculation is in the province of the jury. 21 CONFIDENTIALCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-5 Filed 01/04/24 Page 23 of 24 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) 585-5202! ' 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. 22 CONFIDENTIALCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-5 Filed 01/04/24 Page 24 of 24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Disclosure Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 has been provided by United States mail and electronic mail to all counsel of record identified below, on this Ist day of June, 2016. Laura A, Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, , Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10" Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com Email: jpagliuca@hmflaw.com By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley Sigrid McCawley CONFIDENTIALCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Documen t 1325-6 Filed 01/04/24 Page 1 of 4 COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 14 (Filed Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-6 Filed 01/04/24 Page 2 of 4 Sandra Perkins SSeS Ss ———— From: Meredith Schultz Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 4:56 PM To: Laura Menninger (Imenninger@hmflaw.com) Cc: Sigrid McCawley; Paul Cassell (cassellp@law.utah.edu); 'brad@pathtojustice.com' (brad@pathtojustice.com) Subject: Proof of Service - Second Email Attachments: Proof of Services Laura, lam writing to follow up on my June 13, 2016, letter and my June 14, 2016 email (attached), where | requested that you provide me with your proofs of service for the subpoenas you issued in this case. | requested that you provide them to me yesterday, but you have not done so. You made the same request of us and we provided our proofs of service to you earlier this week. We are in the process of making travel arrangements for the depositions you noticed next week and scheduling around other matters and want to confirm that those witnesses have all been served with subpoenas and are attending the depositions set forth below: Rebecca Boylan —- Wednesday, June 22"? 9:00 a.m. — Fort Lauderdale 401 E. Las Olas at Gray Robinson’s office — suite 1000. Michael Austrich — Thursday June 23" 9:00 a.m. - Ocala Florida — Owens & Associates — 108 N. Magnolia Ave Tony Figueroa — Friday June 24" — 9:00 a.m. - 1 Florida Park Drive, U.S. , Suite 214, Palm Coast Florida Accordingly, kindly provide me — today — your proofs of service for all of the subpoenas you have issued in this case. Thank you, Meredith Meredith L. Schultz BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 401 East Las Olas Blvd.. Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-356-0011 ext. 4204 Fax: 954-356-0022 http://www.bsfllp.com Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-6 Filed 01/04/24 Page 3 of 4 Sandra Perkins TT EE ES ee From: Meredith Schultz Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 3:15 PM To: Laura Menninger (Imenninger@hmflaw.com) Ce: Sigrid McCawley; Sandra Perkins; Deborah Knowlton Subject: Proof of Services Attachments: PROOF OF SERVICES.PDF Laura, I'm following up on my June 14, 2016, letter, wherein, | agreed, as a courtesy, to provide you with proofs of service. They are attached. In the same letter, | requested that you do the same, and provide me with your proofs of service associated with the subpoenas you have issued in this case. Having made the request of me and having received a response, | am sure you will agree to do so. Please send them to me by tomorrow. Thanks, Meredith Meredith L. Schultz BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-356-0011 ext. 4204 Fax: 954-356-0022 http://Awww.bsfllp.comCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-6 Filed 01/04/24 Page 4 of 4 401 EAST LAS GLAS BOULEVARD * SUITE 1200+ FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301-221/1* PH. 954 356.00'l « FAX 954.356.0022 Meredith L. Schultz, Esq. Email: mschultz@bsfllp.com June 13, 2016 Via CM/ECK Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. 150 East 10" Ave. Denver, CO 80203 Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell Case no. 15-cv-07433-RWS — Regarding Certificates of Service Dear Laura, T have lawfully served the witnesses in this case, and have undertaken great effort to serve Ms. Marcinkova and Ms. Kellen. An affidavit from the process server engaged in that effort documenting such efforts was served upon you and filed with this Court. I’m familiar with Rule 45, and there is no requirement that certificates of service be served upon opposing counsel. Notice is all that is required under the Rules. You, yourself, have not served such certificates of service in this case. I completely reject your arbitrary statement that “[f]ailure to provide them . . . will be understood as an acknowledgement that you have not, in fact, undertaken the good faith efforts.” We have said we did. I acknowledge no such thing, and such a statement is nonsense. In recognition of your request, I am in the process of gathering the certificates of service. I will serve them on you, merely as a courtesy, as I collect them. Please likewise provide all certificates of services for the witnesses you have noticed. While we are on the topic of absences of responses, you did not responds to my June 8, 2016, letter requesting a meet and confer call. Therefore, I write again to schedule a meet-and- confer call regarding your grossly deficient production and improper objections in response to Plaintiff's Second Request for Production. I am available for a meet and confer call on this matter any time tomorrow and Wednesday, June 15, 2016, from 10:00 AM EST to 4:00 PM EST. Please advise, by tomorrow, what time such a call works for your schedule. Thanks, | Meredith Schultz WwW, BSFLLP.COM WWW.BSFLLP.COMCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-7 Filed 01/04/24 Page 1 of 30 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 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DEFENDANT’S RULE 37(b) &(c) SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE 26(a) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-7 Filed 01/04/24 Page 2 of 30 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORTIES .0...ccceccccceceseesceseeseeseeseesecaeeseceaeseesecnaeeeesaeesesaeeaeesecaeesecaaeeeeeaeeaeeaeeaeeats ii INTRODUCTION 0... cceccccceesceseesceseeseeseeseesecaeesecnseesesaeeseeaecaeesecaecseceaeesesaeesesaecseesecaaeeeeaeeeeeaeeneeatens 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND ......cceccccescssseseeseesecseesecsseescsseeseaecaessecseesecsaeeeeeaeaaeeeeeaeeseeaecaeeaeeneeaeenee 2 1. MEDICAL PROVIDER IDENTITIES... ecccceeesecesneeceeeeeceeeeeceeeeeceeeecneeceeeeeenteeeesaes 2 Il. MEDICAL RECORDS 1.0... .ecccceecceseesceseeseeseeseesecaeesecaeesecsaeaeesecsaeeaeeaecaeeaecaeesecaaeeeeeaeeseeaeeaeeae® 7 A. Dr. Donahue... ee ee eeceeeeeseenecneeenceeeeeceeeeeeesecnseccesteeereseseeaecnsecnresieeeeesntestrenestaeeas 9 B. Dr. Hayek 20... ceeeceecccccc cece ceeeceeececeeecececeaeceseeecaeecsaeceaeeeseeseaeessaeseaeeeeeeecseesaeeneeeeseeeaees 9 C. Dr. Kutikoff, Wellington Imaging Associates (“Wellington Imaging”) , and Growing Together ..........ccceccceecceccccesceceneceeeeeceeessceceaeeeseeecaeeesaeceaeeeeeeeeseessaeeeeensees 10 D. MS. Lightfoot 2.0. ..0.cccccecceccceeceeeeeececeaeceeeeeseecacessaeeeseeeeseecaeesaeeeeeesseeeeeeneeeseeses 10 E, Dr. OISOM 002. e eee eeceeeceeeeeeeseeeecesecneeececeeeeseeecsaecnsecaesteseeesereesecneesnaesteesatentesntentes 11 Il. MS. GIUFFRE HAS PROVIDED DISCOVERY IN ACCORDANCE WITH HER DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS 2.0... ceceeccescesseseeseesecseeecaeecsaeeeeeaecaeesecaeesecaaeeeceaeeseeaeeneeaeens 12 ITV. DEFENDANT CAN SHOW NO PREJUDICE ......eccceececceeccsseeeeeseeseeseeseesecaeeeeeeaeeeeeneens 13 V. MS. GIUFFRE HAS BEEN FULLY COMPLIANT IN DISCOVERY .........ceeeeeeeeeeee 15 LEGAL ARGUMENT 10... ccccceccesceseeseesecseesecseeseceseeseaeeseeaecaeesecaeseeceaeeceeaecaesaecaeesecaaeeeceaeeaeeaeeaeeaes 17 I. DEFENDANT CANNOT SHOW NON-COMPLIANCE, AND HAS PUT FORTH NO COLORABLE LEGAL ARGUMENT FOR SANCTIONS. 1... ececcecceseeeeereeeeeneeeees 17 Il. THERE WAS NO INFORMATION “WITHHELD”, AND THEREFORE, NO PREJUDICE .o.eeeecccecccccssecssesecceeecseesesecseesecnecsecaaeeceseeseeaecsessecaeesecaaesecsaeeseeaeeaeeaeeaeeeeeneens 19 Il. MS. GIUFFRE HAS FULFILLED HER REQUIREMENTS REGARDING HER RULE 26 DISCLOSURES oe .ecccececceseesseseeseesecneeeceseeseeaecseesecaecsecaeeeeceaeeaeeaeeaesaecaeeeeeneens 19 IV. THIS COURT SHOULD NOT STRIKE MS. GIUFFRE’S CLAIMS FOR MEDICAL AND EMOTIONAL DISTRESS DAMAGEG.......0.eeccceeccceceeeeeeeteceenteeeeneeees 22 CONCLUSION 1... eececeecceseecceseeseeseeseesecaeesecneesecsaeecesaecsensecaessecaeesecaaeeeseceaeeseaeeaeeaecaecaeeneeeeseaeeaeenees 23Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-7 Filed 01/04/24 Page 3 of 30 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases Candelaria v. Erickson, 2006 WL 1636817 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)... cecseeeseesecesecesecneeeseeseeeecaecaeceeeseseeeeeceaeenaeeaeeeneeeeees 12 Celle v. Filipino Reporter Enters. Inc., 209 F.3d 163 (2d Cir.2000)...... ceceecceeecssecseeeseeeseseecesecaecaaeeseeseesaeceaeceaecaeeeseseeeeeceaeenaesaeeeaeeerees 20 Design Strategy, Inc. v. Davis, 469 F.3d 284 (2d Cir. 2006)... ce eeccesccesecseeseeeseeeeceseceaecneeeseeeeeesecaeceaecaeeeaeseeessecaeseaeeaeeeneeerees 14 Gurvey v. Cowan, Liebowitz & Lathman, P.C., 2014 WL 715612 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ..occceeccecceceseeseeeceeeceeeceeeeceaeeseesecaeeaecaeeeeeeaeeeeeaeeseeaeeaeed 18 In re Consol. RNC Cases, 2009 WL 130178 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2009) oo. cecccceeceeeeceseeseeseeseeeeseeseceeeeeeeseereeaeeseeaeenees 22, 23 In re Dana Corp., 574 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2009)... ec ceccecesscesceeseceeeceseceeesevseeseecsaecaecseesaeeeeeseeeaeceaecaeeaeeeeeeeeeeaeenaes 6 In re Weiss, 703 F.2d 653 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) ....cceecesesseesseeseceeceseceeeseeseeeseeseessecesecaecaeeeseeseeeeeesecaeceeeaeeeneees 18 Murray v. Miron, 2015 WL 4041340 (D. Conn, July 1, 2015) eee eecceeccsseeeceseeseeseeseesecaeeeceeeceeeeeeeaeeseeaeenee 21 Naylor v. Rotech Healthcare, Inc., 679 F. Supp. 2d 505 (D. Vt. 2009)... ee eecceeccesecsseeseeeseeeeceseceaecaeeeseeeeeseecaecaaeeaeeeneeeeeeaeenaes 20, 21 Nittolo v. Brand, 96 F.R.D. 672 (S.D.N.Y.1983) occ ceecceccceseesseeeeeeceeceseceseceeeaeeeseeseeeaecnseceeeseeeseeeeeaeenteeneeeneenten 22 Robertson v. Dowbenko, 443 F. App'x 659 (2d Cir. 2011) eee eeecccccsseeseesecneeeeceseesceseeseesecaeesecsecsecsaeeeceaeeseeaeeaeeaeeneeeeeneens 20 Scheel v. Harris, No. CIV.A. 3:11-17-DCR, 2012 WL 3879279 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 6, 2012)... ccceccceseeseeteeees 21 Skywark v. Isaacson, 1999 WL 1489038 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 1999) oc ceccccceecceseeeceseeseeseeseeseeaeeeceeeeseeeeeeeaeeseeaeenees 22 ilCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-7 Filed 01/04/24 Page 4 of 30 Rules Fed. R. Civ. Fed. R. Civ. Fed. R. Civ. Fed. R. Civ. Fed. R. Civ. Fed. R. Civ. Fed. R. Civ. Fed. R. Civ. 37 (D) & (C)eereevesscsssssessesssssesssesssseesssssssvessssssusessssssssssssssssesssssueesessasueesesssseesssesneeeee 1 3T(C)(L) sevcccsssscesscssssecssessssvessessssvesecsssssesssssssessesssssesesssusessssnsssssesssueeessssuuessesnseeeee 21 illCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-7 Filed 01/04/24 Page 5 of 30 INTRODUCTION As more and more witnesses come forward testifying about Defendant’s involvement in the sexual abuse of young girls, Defendant’s discovery arguments have become more removed from the merits of this case and increasingly strident in their tone. The latest example of this genre is the instant motion in which the Defendant boldly proclaims that Ms. Giuffre is “playing a game of catch and release” by deliberately “withholding information” regarding her medical care. Yet the basis for these strong charges turns out to be nothing more than the fact that, when asked to produce a listing of medical care providers that Ms. Giuffre has seen in the last seventeen years — during a period of time when she lived in Australia, then Florida, then Colorado, finally returning to Australia — she was unable to recall all of the providers. Ms. Giuffre and her attorneys have worked diligently to provide this listing to Defendant and, as new information has become available, or as Ms. Giuffre has been able to recall another provider, the information has been disclosed. Indeed, Ms. Giuffre signed every medical records release that Defendant requested. There has been no deliberate “withholding” of information, much less withholding of information that would warrant the extreme sanction of precluding Ms. Giuffre from presenting her claims to a jury. Moreover, this baseless motion for sanctions comes on the heels of disturbing testimony corroborating what lies at the core of this case -Defendant was involved in facilitating the sexual abuse of young girls with Jeffrey Epstein. One witness, Rinaldo Rizzo, was in tears as he recounted Defendant bringing a 15-year-old girl to his employer’s home who, in utmost distress, told him that Defendant stole the young girl’s passport and tried to make her have sex withCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-7 Filed 01/04/24 Page 6 of 30 Epstein, and then threatened her. EEN Another witness, Joanna Sjoberg, testified that Defendant recruited her from her school campus to have sex with Epstein with lies about being her personal assistant.° Two other witnesses, one an underage victim tt) and the other, the police detective who ultimately ended up investigating Epstein (Detective Joseph Recarey, Retired), gave testimony about how Epstein used other women to recruit minors to have sex with him.* Most recently, a witness testified that Defendant would call him and ask him to bring over young girls that she would provide to Epstein. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 9, ROUGH Deposition Transcript of Tony Figueroa at 162:8-19. It is against this backdrop that Defendant has filed a motion seeking sanctions. The motion is a transparent effort to deflect attention from the merits of Ms. Giuffre’s claim by inventing “willful” discovery violations and should be rejected in its entirety. FACTUAL BACKGROUND I. MEDICAL PROVIDER IDENTITIES As the Court is aware, Defendant has requested that Ms. Giuffre provide the names and medical records of every medical provider she has ever had, for any type of treatment, since 1999. This would be no easy task for anyone, and Ms. Giuffre has had many medical providers ' See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, Excerpts from the June 10, 2016 Deposition of Rinaldo Rizzo. ° Td. > See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, Excerpts from the May 18, 2016 Deposition of Joanna Sjoberg. * See McCawley Decl. at Exhibits 3 and 4, Excerpts from the June 20, 2016 Deposition of and Excerpts from the June 21, 2016 Deposition of Joseph Recarey. 2Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-7 Filed 01/04/24 Page 7 of 30 in multiple locations. So she and her legal counsel have worked diligently to track them down through a search that has spanned nearly two decades and two continents. Ms. Giuffre made her initial disclosures on this subject in an answer to an interrogatory that she served on April 29, 2016. Ms. Giuffre listed 15 health care providers that she could recall at the time. Four days later, on May 3, 2016, Defendant deposed Ms. Giuffre. During the deposition, Ms. Giuffre’s memory was jogged and she was able to recall two additional providers: Judith Lightfoot and Dr. Christopher Donahue.° Defendant, however, seeks to magnify the innocent recollection of two additional providers at Ms. Giuffre’ deposition by misleadingly claiming that “[i]t is only through deposition testimony that Ms. Maxwell became aware of at least five - if not more - treating health care physicians.” (Mtn. at 1). This claim, too, is inaccurate. Beyond Ms. Lightfoot and Dr. Donahue, Defendant apparently adds to the list of “withheld” doctors by referring to treating physicians who cared for Ms. Giuffre on a one-off basis in the Emergency Room. It is unsurprising that a patient would have trouble remembering an emergency room physician’s name. But the real point here is that, in any event, the information was disclosed through documents produced, so there is absolutely no “failure to disclose” as Defendant wrongfully alleges. See Centura Health Records (GIUFFRE005498-005569). Defendant then states that, in her deposition, “Ms. Giuffre claims she was not treated by any other physicians,” and then states that other records revealed “three additional health care ° Defendant’s argument that Ms. Giuffre was trying to “hide” these providers is illogical and wholly contradicted by the fact that Ms. Giuffre disclosed these providers. Defendant never explains how Ms. Giuffre can be “hiding” providers while testifying about them and producing their records.Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-7 Filed 01/04/24 Page 8 of 30 professionals who treated Plaintiff, including Dr. Scott Robert Geiger, Dr. Joseph Heaney,° and Donna Oliver P.A.” (Mtn. at 4, emphasis original). ee Defendant is trying to make it seem as if Ms. Giuffre deliberately hid the names of treating physicians in the Emergency Room. As stated above, Ms. Giuffre produced these records so she is clearly not hiding anything. Not learning, not knowing, or not remembering off the top of one’s head the names of Emergency Room staff encountered during a medical emergency is not only unsurprising and understandable, but is also not a discovery violation. Here, Defendant attempts to make something out of nothing. This is particularly true as Ms. Giuffre made these records available to Defendant. As evidenced by the details recounted in Defendant’s brief, Ms. Giuffre produced these Emergency Room records to Defendant, and therefore, she is wholly compliant in her discovery obligations.’ ’ Indeed, Ms. Giuffre did not merely sign releases for the release of these records, but Ms. Giuffre’s counsel spent considerable time and effort in attempts to procure these records for Defendant, as detailed in Ms. Giuffre’s counsel’s correspondence. See McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit 5, May 2016 Emails from Meredith Schultz to Laura Menninger. 4Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-7 Filed 01/04/24 Page 9 of 30 Additionally, Defendant’s motion lists 15 providers® Ms. Giuffre gave to Defendants in her interrogatories (Mtn. at 3), but then states that “Plaintiff failed therein to identify any treatment providers prior to the alleged defamation, despite the Court’s order concerning 1999- 2015.” (Mtn. at 4). This statement, too, is wildly incorrect. Of the list of 15 providers, the overwhelming majority of them are providers “prior to the alleged defamation.”” For example, Ms. Giuffre produced records from N.Y. Presbyterian Hospital. (GHUFFRE003258-3290). Not only do the dates on the records (e.g., July 9, 2001) demonstrate they are prior to the defamation, but Defendant has independent knowledge that this provider pre-dates Defendant’s defamation. Indeed, Defendant is the one who brought her to that hospital, while she was a minor. Therefore, Defendant’s statement in her brief that “Plaintiff failed therein to identify any treatment providers prior to the alleged defamation, despite the Court’s order concerning 1999- 2015” (Mtn. at 4) is inaccurate. Defendant continues with another misleading statement: “As of today’s date .. . and 10 days before the end of fact discovery in this case, Ms. Maxwell has learned of at least five additional doctors” (Mtn. at 5), and then, again, names Ms. Lightfoot, Dr. Geiger, Dr. Heaney, Donna Oliver P.A., and Dr. Streeter. Defendant did not learn of these providers 10 days prior to the close of discovery, but much earlier, as the previous page of Defendant’s brief recounts. * (1) Dr. Steven Olson; (2) Dr. Chris Donahue; (3) Dr. John Harris; (4) Dr. Majaliyana; (5) Dr. Wah Wah; (6) Dr. Sellathuri; (7) Royal Oaks Medical Center; (8) Dr. Carol Hayek; (9) NY Presbyterian Hospital; (10) Campbelltown Hospital; (11) SydneyWest Hospital; (12) Westmead Hospital; (13) Dr. Karen Kutikoff; (14) Wellington Imaging Associates; (15) Growing Together. ” Providers from that list that treated Ms. Giuffre prior to Defendant’s defamation include: (1) Dr. John Harris; (2) Dr. Majaliyana; (3) Dr. Majaliyana; (4) Dr. Wah Wah; (5) Dr. Sellathrui; (6) Royal Oaks Medical Center; (7) Dr. Carol Hayek; (8) NY Presbyterian Hospital; (9) Sydney West Hospital; (10) Westmead Hospital; (12) Wellington Imaging Associates; (13) Growing Together.Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-7 Filed 01/04/24 Page 10 of 30 Defendant’s next statement is equally misleading “documents relating to these doctors were not provided until after their identities became known through deposition or other independent investigation by Ms. Maxwell.” (Mtn. at 5). Their identities became known to Defendant because Ms. Giuffre disclosed the name of Ms. Lightfoot in her deposition, and because Ms. Giuffre herself produced emergency room records to Defendant — documents bearing the names of the other providers. Accordingly, these five additional names were provided to Defendant by Ms. Giuffre herself, through (1) her deposition testimony; and (2) her document production. Defendant is now asking this Court to enter extraordinary sanctions because those names were not provided in response to an interrogatory, but, instead, were provided through Ms. Giuffre’s testimony and Ms. Giuffre’s document production. This is an improper request. It is unsurprising that Defendant cannot cite to a single case in which any type of sanctions were awarded under even remotely similar circumstances. Indeed, the purpose of the various aspects of discovery provided by Rule 26(a)(5), Fed. R. Civ. P., is to provide more fulsome information. Cf. In re Dana Corp., 574 F.3d 129, 150 (2d Cir. 2009) (‘the various discovery methods are more complementary than fungible”’). Here, Ms. Giuffre provided her medical information through interrogatory response, through testimony, and through document production. Ms. Giuffre has met her obligation under both this Court’s Order and Rule 26. There has been no failure to disclose: Ms. Giuffre provided the names and testified about her treatment. Accordingly, this motion should be denied in its entirety. Il. MEDICAL RECORDS Defendant states that Plaintiff has failed to produce any records from (a) Dr. Donahue, (b) Dr. Hayek, (c) Dr. Kutikoff, (d) Wellington Imaging Assocs., (e) Growing Together, (f) postCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-7 Filed 01/04/24 Page 11 of 30 2011 records from Ms. Lightfoot, and (g) the remaining documents for treatment by Dr. Olson. (Mtn. at 5). This is also incorrect. There has been no “failure,” as discussed, in turn, below. Moreover, if records from any providers have not been produced, it is not Ms. Giuffre’s “failure,” but rather, the failure of the providers, particularly as Ms. Giuffre has executed releases for her records from all these providers. Ms. Giuffre and her counsel have been diligent in compiling nearly two decades of medical records from various states and countries. The chart below provides an overview the efforts undertaken by Ms. Giuffre and the production to Defendant as a result. MEDICAL HEALTHCARE ACTION PROVIDER PROVIDED TAKEN RELATED GIUFFRE PRODUCTION Giuffre 005342-005346 St. Thomas More Bee Hospital Records (Dr. Olsen) Dr Olsen Primary Care Physician Rens _ | Giuffre 005492-005496 St. Thomas More ‘dl Hospital Records (Dr. Olsen) 5/23/16 Giuffre 005498 Centura Health Release Centura | Form (All Medical Records) Health Request Giuffre 005501-005569 Responsive q Records (Centura Health) 3/8/16 Ltr Dr. Carol ops sequest Giuffre and counsel contacted physician’s Psychiatrist 4/28/16 ; . Hayek | office via telephone and email to follow up. Request —— | w/9/16 Lit | Giuffire 006631 -006635 (Dr. Donahue) Donahue Request Dr. Joh Giuffre 005315 005322 The Entrance aaa ae 4/5/16 Ltr | Medical Centre Maili ~~ Request (Dr. John Harris and Dr. Darshanee sey Mahaliyana) 4/5/16 Ltr | Giuffre 005339 005341 Central Coast Draven [Ld Request Family Medicine (Dr. Wah Wah) Dr. Sellathuri ee 5/16 Tott Giuffre 005089 005091 (“Dr. M. Sella”) Request Royal Oaks Has no treatment records 4/5/16 Ltr | Giuffre 005347 005349 Royal Oaks Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-7 Filed 01/04/24 Page 12 of 30 MEDICAL HEALTHCARE ACTION PROVIDER PROVIDED TAKEN RELATED GIUFFRE PRODUCTION Medical Request Medical Center’s Response (No Records) Center NY : : Giuffre 003258 003290 New York Presbyterian Produced . . : Presbyterian Hospital Hospital Campbelltown Giuffre 003193 003241 Camselltown Hospital/ Produced Hospital/Camden Hospital (Dr. Elbeaini) Sydney West Giuffre 003242 003257 Macarthur Health Hospital Service (Dr. Elbeaini) Sydney West Hospital / Giuffre 003291-003298 Sydney Westmead Eroduced West/Westmead Hospital Hospital Release Dr. Karen 04/29/16 Sent via e-mail signed release to Kutikoff Defendant Menninger (obtain records directly). >s Counsel Release Bieperon joxaied 04/29/16 Sent via e-mail signed release to Imaging a Menninger (obtain records directly) Associates Defendant 8 y): >s Counsel Release Growing 04/29/16 Sent via e-mail signed release to Together Defendant Menninger (obtain records directly). >s Counsel Giuffre 00543 1-005438 Medical Release Ms. Judith Psychologist 5/4/16 Ltr | Form with documents (Ms. Lightfoot) Lightfoot SYCHONOBISIS Request Giuffre 006636 Correspondence stating no further records available. ER Giuffre 005498-005569 Centura Health Dr. Scott : dical Rel FE Fen eninen Treating Medical Release Form Physician | (Requested Entire Medical Record) ER Giuffre 005498-005569 Centura Health Dr. Joseph : Medical Rel F fee Treating edical Release Form Physician | (Requested Entire Medical Record) ER : Treating Giuffre 005498-005569 Centura Health Donna Oliver, . . PA Physician | Medical Release Form Referral (Requested Entire Medical Record) ENT : ER Giuffre 005498-005569 Centura Health Dr. Michele : ical Rel Ceeeree Treating Medical Release Form Physician | (Requested Entire Medical Record) 8 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-7 Filed 01/04/24 Page 13 of 30 Accordingly, as the Court can see with reference to the Bates labels in the above chart, Ms. Giuffre has be compliant in producing her medical records. Indeed, she has signed releases for all records requested by Defendant, and has produced all records released by the providers. In addition to signing all releases for medical providers requested by Defendant, the work associated with compiling the records and following up with providers (as shown by the above chart) clearly demonstrates Ms. Giuffre’s good faith and persistence in her deliberate and thorough pursuit of providing Defendant with her medical records. That is reason alone to deny Defendant’s unsupported request for sanctions. A. Dr. Donahue Plaintiff dutifully signed a release for medical records and provided it to Dr. Donahue on April 5, 2016, and sent a copy to the Defendant so counsel was on notice of the efforts being taken to secure medical records. See McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit 6, Dr. Donahue letter and Release Form. Ms. Giuffre’s counsel has received records from Dr. Donahue since the Defendant filed the instant motion, and immediately provided those records to Defendant. See chart above, GIUFFRE0000663 1-006635. B. Dr. Hayek Dr. Hayek treated Ms. Giuffre over seven years ago. Ms. Giuffre signed a release form for Dr. Hayek’s records, sent the release form on March 8, 2016, and provided a copy of the form to Defendant. Having not received any records, the undersigned sent a follow-up letter to Dr. Hayek on April 28, 2016, to request the records. Upon information and belief, Dr. Hayek does not keep patient’s medical records for longer than seven years, and, therefore, no longer has any records pertaining to Ms. Giuffre. Ms. Giuffre and her counsel have made inquiries to Dr.Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-7 Filed 01/04/24 Page 14 of 30 Hayek’s office via telephone and email, but, to date, have not received any response. Again, Ms. Giuffre has no input on Dr. Hayek’s document retention policies, and therefore, the lack of production of records from Dr. Hayek cannot be attributed to Ms. Giuffre. C. Dr. Kutikoff, Wellington Imaging Associates (“Wellington Imaging’’) , and Growing Together Plaintiff provided Defendant’s counsel executed medical release forms for Dr. Kutikoff, Wellington Imaging, and Growing Together on April 29, 2016. See McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit 7. Accordingly, Ms. Giuffre has no direct knowledge as to what, if anything, these three providers produced to Defendant’s counsel. Ms. Giuffre has done everything in her power to make them available to Defendant, a fact that Defendant cannot dispute. Again, there has been no “failure” by Ms. Giuffre here, as Ms. Giuffre has signed and sent the necessary release forms for the records to be sent directly to Defendant.'° D. Ms. Lightfoot Defendant admits that Ms. Giuffre produced Ms. Lightfoot’s records in footnote 4 of her brief on page 11, yet on page 16, Defendant wrongfully states Plaintiff has not produced Dr. Lightfoot’s records. Despite the self-contradictory briefing, Ms. Lightfoot has produced records. See chart above, Giuffre00543 1-005438, Medical Release Form with documents. As with the other providers, Ms. Giuffre has executed and sent medical records release forms to Ms. Lightfoot, and has thus met her discovery obligations. To follow up on Defendant’s wrongful claims that Ms. Giuffre has somehow “withheld” more current records (despite executing a release for all records); Ms. Giuffre followed up with Ms. Lightfoot, who provided to Ms. '° Upon information and belief, Ms. Lightfoot is not a medical doctor, but an Australian “Consulting Psychologist.” 10Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-7 Filed 01/04/24 Page 15 of 30 Giuffre’s counsel correspondence stating that she has produced all of Ms. Giuffre’s records (see chart above, Giuffre006636), thereby indicating that she does not keep more current records. E, Dr. Olson Defendant claims that Ms. Giuffre failed to produce “the remaining documents for treatment by Dr. Olson,” but this is a wild inaccuracy. (And, Ms. Giuffre would refer the Court to a short excerpt from Dr. Olson’s deposition in which Dr. Olson explains in his own words his production. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 10, Dr. Olson Deposition Excerpt.) First, Ms. Giuffre signed a release for a// records that Dr. Olson had. See McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit 6, March 8, 2016, Release for Dr. Olson records. Dr. Olson produced records Bates labeled GIUFFRE005342-005346 and GIUFFRE005492-005496. Dr. Olson then testified in his deposition that he kept a record on his laptop that was not a part of the medical records produced by his hospital. 7d. During the deposition, he printed that record and gave it to Defendant’s counsel. Jd. Now, Defendant’s counsel is claiming that this set of facts constitutes a discovery violation that warrants sanctions. There is no failure to produce here. Ms. Giuffre executed a medical release that provided for all of Ms. Giuffre’s medical records with regard to Dr. Olson, and records were produced. It was Dr. Olson who failed to include his “laptop records” among the records that were produced. Ms. Giuffre knew nothing of the “laptop records” until Dr. Olson’s deposition, and Dr. Olson provided them at that time, a fact Defendant admits in a footnote in her Motion to Reopen Ms. Giuffre’s Deposition. In that brief, Defendant complains that they were not “produced” until after Ms. Giuffre was deposed. That is a distortion. Defendant already had such documents from Dr. Olson himself. Ms. Giuffre included those documents that both sides received in the deposition as part of her next production, so that they would bear a Bates label for tracking 11Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-7 Filed 01/04/24 Page 16 of 30 purposes. It was a formality since both sides already had the record. Defendant states: “Despite requests, legible copies have not been provided.” Defendant uses the passive voice here, presumably to avoid making clear the fact that the requests for legible copies would need to be made to Dr. Olson, who controls the records, not to Ms. Giuffre, who long ago authorized the release of all records. The existence of a record that a witness failed to produce prior to a deposition is not a discovery violation from Ms. Giuffre. I. MS. GIUFFRE HAS PROVIDED DISCOVERY IN ACCORDANCE WITH HER DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS The fact is that Ms. Giuffre has executed a release form for each and every medical care provides that Defendant asked for. Defendant cannot contradict this statement. Ms. Giuffre produced medical records she had in her possession (such as New York Presbyterian records), early in discovery. From that point, other medical records were sought and obtained, with Ms. Giuffre facilitating their production from the providers by executing and sending release forms and paying all applicable fees for their release. Moreover, counsel for Ms. Giuffre has kept Defendant fully apprised of such efforts, even giving Defendant copies of all releases that have been issued, and providing updates on Ms. Giuffre’s continued efforts to obtain medical records beyond signing releases. See McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibits 5 and 6. Executing and sending medical release forms to all of the medical providers satisfies Ms. Giuffre’s discovery obligations with regard to her medical records, and Defendant cannot cite to a case that states otherwise. See, e.g., Candelaria v. Erickson, 2006 WL 1636817, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (requiring the execution of updated medical release forms to satisfy discovery obligations). The fact that Defendant has presented this weak tea to the Court - concerning the actions of third-parties Ms. Giuffre does not control - shows just how baseless the motion is. IV. DEFENDANT CAN SHOW NO PREJUDICE 12Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-7 Filed 01/04/24 Page 17 of 30 Defendant claims to be prejudiced because a small fraction of the medical providers were revealed at Ms. Giuffre’s deposition, four days after her interrogatory response. This argument is moot. Ms. Giuffre has agreed to reopen her deposition for Defendant’s questions regarding those medical providers. Second, Defendant intimates, but does not actually claim, that she wants to depose Ms. Lightfoot, and states that there is not sufficient time: “arranging for and taking the deposition of Ms. Lightfoot . . . is nearly impossible,” suggesting to the Court that there is some prejudice to Defendant there. (Mtn. at 11). However, Defendant’s behavior (and a close reading of Defendant’s brief) suggests that Defendant doesn’t actually want to depose Ms. Lightfoot; instead, she just wants to appear to the Court as prejudiced by not taking her deposition. First, Defendant never noticed her deposition despite knowing her identity for nearly two months - since May 3, 2016. Second, Defendant is careful not to claim in her brief that she actually wants to depose Ms. Lightfoot, all the while suggesting that she has suffered some prejudice with respect to not taking Ms. Lightfoot’s deposition. Defendant’s lack of actual desire to take her deposition stems from the 2011 records Ms. Lightfoot produced - records predating Defendants defamation by yeas. Is a [his is the reason Defendant is careful not to claim in her brief that she actually wanted to depose Ms. Lightfoot, and this is the reason why Defendant never noticed her for deposition. 13Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-7 Filed 01/04/24 Page 18 of 30 | [Po Defendant’s claims concerning deposing Dr. Donahue are similarly specious. First, despite knowing about Dr. Donahue since at least April 29, 2016 (a fact she admits in her brief “Dr. Donahue may have been named” (Mtn. at 16)): Defendant has never issued a Notice of Deposition for Dr. Donahue. Defendant cannot claim any prejudice with respect to Dr. Donahue. Additionally, Defendant acts in bad faith when she claims that medical records from Dr. Donahue were “purposefully hidden by Plaintiff’ (Mtn. at 11) when Defendant knows that Ms. Giuffre executed and sent a medical release for Dr. Donahue on April 5, 2016, for all of his records. See McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit 6, Dr. Donahue Medical Release. As stated above, this argument is moot because the records concerning Dr. Donahue (and other providers at his practice) have been produced to Defendant. Finally, though Ms. Giuffre does not control how quickly providers respond to her releases (though her counsel has spent considerable time following-up with providers, urging their speedy release, and paying all applicable fees), Ms. Giuffre has agreed to reopen her deposition for questions concerning provider records that were produced subsequent to her deposition. Therefore, Ms. Giuffre has eliminated any prejudice Defendant could claim to suffer with respect to taking Ms. Giuffre’s deposition. See Giuffre00663 1-006635. A factor relevant to the appropriateness of sanctions under Rule 37 for discovery violations is the “prejudice suffered by the opposing party.” Design Strategy, Inc. v. Davis, 469 F.3d 284, 296 (2d Cir. 2006). Here, Defendant cannot claim any prejudice resulting from her empty claims of “discovery violations.” Accordingly, sanctions are inappropriate. V. MS. GIUFFRE HAS BEEN FULLY COMPLIANT IN DISCOVERY 14Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-7 Filed 01/04/24 Page 19 of 30 It is the Defendant in this case that has failed to comply with discovery at every turn. Defendant has refused to produce any documents whatsoever without this Court entering an Order directing her to do so. The only reason Plaintiff has documents from Defendant at all is because of this Court’s denial of Defendant’s stay requests and the Court’s rulings on Ms. Giuffre’s Motion to Compel for Improper Claim of Privilege (wherein Defendant was ordered to turn over documents that did not even involve communications with counsel) and her Motion to Compel for Improper Objections. Even then, Defendant’s counsel refused to even take the routine step of looking at Defendant’s email and other electronic documents to find responsive documents, but produced, instead, only what Defendant wanted to produce. Ms. Giuffre had to bring a Motion for Forensic Examination and the Court had to order that Defendant’s counsel actually produce documents from Defendant’s electronic documents, something that has not yet been done to date. Indeed, Defendant did not make her initial disclosure until February 24, 2016 several months after the deadline for these disclosures. Additionally, while Ms. Giuffre started her efforts to take the Defendant’s deposition in February, 2016, Defendant did not actually sit for her deposition until after being directed to do so by the Court, on April 22, 2016. Furthermore, during the deposition, Defendant refused to answer a myriad of questions, and therefore, this Court recently ordered Defendant to sit for her deposition again. See June 20, 2016, Order resolving eight discovery motions entered under seal and granting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions (D.E. 143). Ms. Giuffre has had to litigate, multiple times, for Defendant to make any document production, and Ms. Giuffre has had to litigate, also multiple times, for Defendant to be deposed. See Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery (DE 20); Plaintiff's February 26, 2016, Letter Motion to Compel Defendant to Sit for Her Deposition; 15Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-7 Filed 01/04/24 Page 20 of 30 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Documents Subject to Improper Claim of Privilege (DE 33); Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Documents Subject to Improper Objections (DE 35); Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order Regarding Defendant’s Deposition (DE 70); Plaintiff's Motion for Forensic Examination (DE 96); Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions (DE 143). Ms. Giuffre has had to expend considerable time and resources simply to have Defendant meet her basic discovery obligations in this case. Now, having completely stonewalled on discovery, making every produced document and even her own deposition the result of extensive and unnecessary litigation, taking positions that are contrary to the Federal Rules and wholly contrary to prevailing case law, Defendant claims that Ms. Giuffre has been “non-compliant since the outset of discovery.” (Mtn. at 11). This statement is completely inaccurate. Defendant makes a number of unsubstantiated claims regarding law enforcement materials, photographs, and email accounts. Most of these issues have been resolved pursuant to this Court’s orders. See June 20, 2016, Order entered under seal denying Defendant’s motion to compel law enforcement materials; June 23, 2016, Minute Entry. Ms. Giuffre merely points out that Defendant not only failed to review, search, or produce Defendant’s email, from any of her multiple accounts, but also wholly failed to disclose her terramarproject.org email account or her ellmax.com email account. Regarding photographs, counsel for Ms. Giuffre has gone to considerable expense to recover boxes that Ms. Giuffre thought may contain photographs, including paying approximately $600.00 for shipping of the boxes to ensure production of any recent information. Accordingly, Defendant articulates no legitimate complaint in this section of her brief. 16Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-7 Filed 01/04/24 Page 21 of 30 LEGAL ARGUMENT I. DEFENDANT CANNOT SHOW NON-COMPLIANCE, AND HAS PUT FORTH NO COLORABLE LEGAL ARGUMENT FOR SANCTIONS Sanctions are not appropriate in this case because Defendant cannot show non- compliance. Through the normal course of discovery, Ms. Giuffre produced her medical providers to Defendant, as Defendant admits in her moving brief. Defendant’s complaint boils down to the fact that Ms. Giuffre remembered at deposition two providers (Ms. Lightfoot and Dr. Donahue) that she did not recall when compiling her long list of providers in response to Defendant’s interrogatory four days prior. That does not constitute non-compliance. That is not sanctionable behavior. And, Defendant cannot cite any case in which a court found differently. Additionally, though Defendant attempts to ascribe blame to Ms. Giuffre for any medical records that have not been sent by providers (or medical records that may not exist), the uncontested fact is that Ms. Giuffre has executed releases for all of the providers Defendant requested. Again, Defendant can point to no case in which sanctions were awarded over medical records where the party signed all applicable releases. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion should be denied. '! Even Defendant’s own cases cited in her brief are inapposite and do not suggest that sanctions are appropriate in this case. For example, in Davidson v. Dean, the plaintiff “refused to consent to the release of mental health records” for periods for which he was seeking damages '! What does constitute sanctionable behavior is testimonial obduracy that includes “denying memory of the events under inquiry,” a tactic Defendant took in response to a multitude of questions at her deposition, as more fully briefed in Ms. Giuffre’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions (DE 143), granted by this Court on June 20, 2016. See In re Weiss, 703 F.2d 653, 663 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (holding that “the witness's . . . disclaimers of knowledge or memory, has also been dealt with as contemptuous conduct, warranting sanctions that were coercive, punitive, or both. It has long been the practice of courts viewing such testimony as false and intentionally evasive, and as a sham or subterfuge that purposely avoids giving responsive answers, to ignore the form of the response and treat the witness as having refused to answer.”). 17Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-7 Filed 01/04/24 Page 22 of 30 and for which the Court ordered him to provide releases. 204 F.R.D. 251, 254 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). By contrast, Ms. Giuffre has executed each and every release for medical records requested by Defendant. In In re Payne, Rule 37 sanctions were not even at issue: an attorney was reprimanded for “default[ing] on scheduling orders in fourteen cases, resulting in their dismissal ... fili[ing] stipulations to withdraw a number of appeals only after his briefing deadlines had passed,” etc. 707 F.3d 195, 198-99 (2d Cir. 2013). Similarly, in Gurvey v. Cowan, Liebowitz & Lathman, P.C., 2014 WL 715612, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), sanctions were awarded because, inter alia, “my ... Order explicitly limited discovery to plaintiff's malpractice and breach-of-fiduciary duty claims ... However .. . plaintiff has sought discovery of extraordinary breadth that is far beyond the scope of the two claims . . . [and] disregarded my Order... by failing to explain in writing how each of her discovery requests to CLL is relevant to the remaining claims.” Accordingly, as stated above, Defendant has not put forth any colorable legal argument for sanctions under Rule 37. Il. THERE WAS NO INFORMATION “WITHHELD,” AND THEREFORE, NO PREJUDICE Defendant cannot be taken seriously when she claims that “Plaintiff is obviously trying to hide” her treatment related to domestic violence, PO NS iv 2 Defendant’s incendiary claim defies logic. All these things that Defendant claims were deliberately “withheld” or “hidden” are things that Ms. Giuffre provided to Defendant in the normal course of discovery, as described at length above. Defendant cannot claim any prejudice 18Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-7 Filed 01/04/24 Page 23 of 30 regarding the manner in which she received this information, and, indeed, does not. 12 Accordingly, sanctions are wholly inappropriate. II. MS. GIUFFRE HAS FULFILLED HER REQUIREMENTS REGARDING HER RULE 26 DISCLOSURES '*!4 Regarding Ms. Giuffre’s computation of damages, Ms. Giuffre has pled defamation per se under New York law, where damages are presumed. Robertson v. Dowbenko, 443 F. App'x 659, 661 (2d Cir. 2011). Plaintiff provided amounts, damage calculations and supporting evidence required under Rule 26. Plaintiff is retaining experts to support her Rule 26 Disclosures, and expert reports and disclosures are not due at this time. Defendant takes issues with Ms. Giuffre’s computation of damages in her Rule 26 disclosures but fails to cite to a single case that requires more from her, let alone more from a Plaintiff claiming defamation per se. Indeed, the case law supports that Plaintiff has fully complied with her Rule 26 obligations. See Naylor v. Rotech Healthcare, Inc., 679 F. Supp. 2d 505, 510 (D. Vt. 2009). In good faith, Ms. Giuffre has produced a multitude of documents and information regarding her damages. Defendant does not cite to a single case that even suggests she is required to do more. What Defendant purports to lack is expert discovery and an expert report on computation of damages. Rule 26(a)(1), governs “initial disclosures,” disclosures to be made at "? This is particularly true regarding the timing of Ms. Giuffre’s deposition, as Ms. Giuffre has agreed to reopen her deposition concerning any medical information that Defendant did not receive in advance of her deposition. 'S Defendant references her Motion to Compel Rule 26(a) disclosures (DE 64) that she filed on March 22, 2016, but failed to mention that, after a hearing, this Court denied that motion with leave to refile (DE 106). '4 Defendant repeatedly attempts to conflate the required disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) and the disclosures ordered by this Court on April 21, 2016, in an apparent effort to ‘backdate’ those required disclosures. 19Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-7 Filed 01/04/24 Page 24 of 30 the beginning of litigation, prior to the completion of expert work. It does not entitle a party to expert discovery at this stage in the case. Ms. Giuffre has pleaded and will prove defamation per se, where damages are presumed. Robertson v. Dowbenko, 443 F. App'x at 661 (“As the district court correctly determined, Robertson was presumptively entitled to damages because he alleged defamation per se.”’). Under New York law, defamation per se, as alleged in this case, presumes damages, and special damages do not need to be pled and proven. See Celle v. Filipino Reporter Enters. Inc., 209 F.3d 163, 179 (2d Cir.2000) (Second Circuit holding that “[i]f a statement is defamatory per se, injury is assumed. In such a case ‘even where the plaintiff can show no actual damages at all, a plaintiff who has otherwise shown defamation may recover at least nominal damages,’” and confirming an award of punitive damages) (Emphasis added). Additionally, Ms. Giuffre has claimed punitive damages for the defamation per se. “[C]ourts have generally recognized that ... punitive damages are typically not amenable to the type of disclosures contemplated by Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii), and have held that the failure to disclosure a number or calculation for such damages was substantially justified.” See Murray v. Miron, 2015 WL 4041340 (D. Conn., July 1, 2015). See also Scheel v. Harris, No. CIV.A. 3:11- 17-DCR, 2012 WL 3879279, at *7 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 6, 2012) (finding that a failure to provide a precise number or calculation for their punitive damages claim is substantially justified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1)). Accordingly, Ms. Giuffre’s disclosures comply with Rule 26 for the computation of damages. See Naylor v. Rotech Healthcare, Inc., 679 F. Supp. 2dat 510 (“The Court is skeptical of the need for so much additional discovery, since the only open issue on the defamation claim seems to be damages. Miles’s email itself provides evidence of the statement and publication to 20Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-7 Filed 01/04/24 Page 25 of 30 a third party. Damages will depend on [plaintiff] Naylor's testimony and perhaps evidence from a few other sources, such as Naylor's family and friends, or Streeter [one of defendant’s clients].”) Ms. Giuffre has provided the calculations evidencing how she arrived at her damage figures and has provided a myriad of documents upon which she also will rely in proving damages. This includes supporting documents showing average medical expenses computed by 666 her average life expectancy. “‘[N]on-economic damages based on pain and suffering ... are generally not amenable to the type of disclosures contemplated by Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ili).”” Scheel v. Harris, No. CIV.A. 3:11-17-DCR, 2012 WL 3879279, at *7 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 6, 2012) (holding that plaintiff's failure to disclose a number or calculation for such damages was substantially justified). IV. THIS COURT SHOULD NOT STRIKE MS. GIUFFRE’S CLAIMS FOR MEDICAL AND EMOTIONAL DISTRESS DAMAGES Defendant cites four cases in support of her request for this Court to strike her claims for medical and emotional distress damages, and each one of them militates against any such relief being awarded in this case. In the first, Nittolo v. Brand, sanctions were awarded in a personal injury action because, inter alia, the plaintiff went to his physician and took away his medical records before defendant had a chance to use the court-ordered release to access them, and the Court found the plaintiff lied under oath about taking away the records. 96 F.R.D. 672, 673 (S.D.N.Y.1983). By contrast, Ms. Giuffre has signed every medical release form requested by Defendant and provided all medical records that they yielded. Defendant’s second case is equally inapposite. In Skywark v. Isaacson, Court found that the plaintiff “began his pattern of lying about at least three matters of extreme significance to his claim for damages;” lied to his experts and lied under oath; and “never provided defendants with the promised [medical release] authorizations.” 1999 WL 1489038 at *3, *5, *11 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-7 Filed 01/04/24 Page 26 of 30 14, 1999). The facts could not be more dissimilar to the case at hand, where Ms. Giuffre has provided truthful testimony regarding her medical history and has executed all medical releases. Defendant’s third case continues in the same pattern. In Jn re Consol. RNC Cases, “all Plaintiffs either expressly refused to provide mental health treatment records or simply failed to provide such records during the course of discovery.” 2009 WL 130178, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2009). Defendant’s fourth case is similarly inapposite by Defendant’s own description, turning on failure to provide medical releases. (Mtn. at 19). Importantly, Defendant represents to the Court that she seeks the “sanction of striking the claim or precluding evidence only on the damages that relate to the withheld documents and information.” (Mtn. at 19). This is confusing for two reasons. First, Ms. Giuffre has provided information about the providers that she has knowledge of and has provided releases for their medical records, so the sanction she seeks could not apply to any of the providers in Defendant’s brief. Second, there are no “withheld documents.” Ms. Giuffre has not withheld any medical records, and, indeed, has authorized the release of all records sought by Defendant. Accordingly, there are no “withheld records” upon which sanctions could be applied. And, again, there has been no violation of this Court’s Order. CONCLUSION Since filing the instant motion for sanctions, two other witnesses - witnesses subpoenaed by Defendant herself in order to mount her defense - have given testimony to support Ms. Giuffre. Most recently, Defendant’s witness, Tony Figueroa, testified he witnessed Defendant 22Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-7 Filed 01/04/24 Page 27 of 30 escort young girls he brought over to Epstein’s home to Epstein for sex acts, and testified that Defendant called him on the phone, asking him to bring girls over to Epstein’s house. ’° Q And how long would you and one of these other girls sit there and have this small talk with Ms. Maxwell? A No more than 10 or 15 minutes. Q What were you waiting for? A Pretty much her to take them up stairs then I would leave. I would wait for them to be like we're ready. And I would be all right. See you later and I would leave. Q You were waiting for who to take who up stairs? A Thad seen Ms. Maxwell take a girl up there well not up there visibly but I watched her leave had room with one. Q Up stairs? 12 A Well, I didn't see the stairs. Like in the kitchen there's not like you have to go all around and all that shit. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 9, ROUGH Figueroa Tr. at 156:22-157:14. Q Let me fix this. Gill when Gillian Maxwell would call you during the time that you were living with Virginia she would ask you what specifically? A Just if I had found any ear girls just to bring the Jeffrey. Q Okay. A Pretty much everytime a conversation with any of them it was either asking Virginia where she was ask the asking her to get girls or asking me get girls. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 9, ROUGH Figueroa Tr. at 162:8-19. Accordingly, at this stage in discovery, it is not just the flight logs showing Defendant flying with Epstein and Ms. Giuffre over twenty times when she was a minor; it is not just the message pads from law enforcement’s trash pulls that show Defendant arranging to have an underage girl come over to Epstein’s house for “training;” it is not just the police report; it is not just the photographs of Defendant and other men with Ms. Giuffre when she was a minor. Now, there is actual, live testimonial evidence that Defendant was a procurer of young girls for sex with Jeffrey Epstein, with whom she shared a home and a life, thus validating Ms. Giuffre’s claims. Therefore, this baseless motion for sanctions is more a reflection of the 'S See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 9, Excerpts from the June 24, 2016 ROUGH Deposition Transcript for the Deposition of Tony Figueroa. 23Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-7 Filed 01/04/24 Page 28 of 30 abundant testimonial evidence condemning Defendant than any type of imagined discovery violation on behalf of Ms. Giuffre. Ms. Giuffre respectfully requests that it be denied in its entirety. Dated: June 28, 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) 585-5202'° '© 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. 24Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-7 Filed 01/04/24 Page 29 of 30 25Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-7 Filed 01/04/24 Page 30 of 30 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 28th day of June, 2016, I served the attached document via Email to the following counsel of record. Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10" Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com jpagliuca@hmflaw.com /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley 26Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-8 Filed 01/04/24 Page 1 of 4 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 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DEFENDANT’S RULE 37(b) &(c) SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RUILE 26(a) I, Sigrid S. McCawley, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my knowledge as follows: 1. Tama 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 Order granting my Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice. 2. I respectfully submit this Declaration in response to Defendant’s Motion for Defendant’s Rule 37(b) &(c) Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Court Order and Failure to Comply with Rule 26(a). 3. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit | is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from the May 18, 2016 Deposition of Rinaldo Rizzo. 4. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from theCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-8 Filed 01/04/24 Page 2 of 4 June 10, 2016 Deposition of Johanna Sjoberg. 5. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from the June 20, 2016 Deposition of 6. | Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from the June 21, 2016 Deposition of Joseph Recarey. 7. Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of E-mail Correspondences to Laura Menninger. 8. Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of Medical Release Letter to Providers. 9. Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of April 29, 2016 Signed Medical Releases to Opposing Counsel. 10. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of Judith Lightfoot’s Redacted Medical Release (Giuffre00543 1-005438). 11. | Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 9, is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from the June 24, 2016 Deposition of Tony Figueroa. 12. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of Excerpt from the May 26, 2016 Confidential Deposition of Dr. Steven Olson. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. /s/ Sigrid McCawley Sigrid McCawleyCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-8 Filed 01/04/24 Page 3 of 4 Dated: June 28, 2016 By: Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP /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 Email: smccawley@bsfllp.com David Boies Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 383 S. University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 (801) 585-5202 (phone) (801) 585-2750 (fax) Email: cassellp@law.utah.edu Bradley 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 Fax: (954) 524-2822 Email: brad@pathtojustice.comCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-8 Filed 01/04/24 Page 4 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 28, 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 to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic Court Filing System generated by CM/ECF. Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Paliuca, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10 Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-9 Filed 01/04/24 Page 1 of 10 EXHIBIT 2 (File Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-9 Filed 01/04/24 Page 2 of 10 Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CASE NO. 15-CV-07433-RWS poe x VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, Vv. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. poe x May 18, 2016 9:04 a.m. CONFIDENTIAL 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 1325-9 Filed 01/04/24 Page 3 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 ona MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-9 Filed 01/04/24 Page 4 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? MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-9 Filed 01/04/24 Page 5 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 x -- 11 no. [RRR -- it was some girl named 3 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 1325-9 Filed 01/04/24 Page 6 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 MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-9 Filed 01/04/24 Page 7 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 MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-9 Filed 01/04/24 Page 8 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 MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-9 Filed 01/04/24 Page 9 of 10 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 151 desire to please him as much as he needs, and that's why there Q. were other girls around. And did she refer specifically to any other girls? > O© PF OO P Q. that were A. Q. correct? A. Q. A. No. Did she talk about underaged girls? No. Was she talking about massage therapists? Not specifically. Okay. There were other girls in the house not massage therapists, correct? Yes. Nadia is another person that was around, Yes. There were other people he traveled with? Uh-huh. MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. BY MS. MENNINGER: Q A Q. A Q A Correct? Correct. Other girls? Yes. Adults? Yes. MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-9 Filed 01/04/24 Page 10 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 t+ +++ 44+ 4+ 4+ 4+ 4+ 4+ 4+ 4+ 4+ 4+ 4+ 4+ 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-10 Filed 01/04/24 Page 1of13 EXHIBIT 3 (File Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-10 Filed 01/04/24 Page 2 of 13 Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CASE NO. 15-CV-07433-RWS poe x VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, Vv. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. poe x June 20, 2016 9:12 a.m. CONFIDENTIAL Deposition of I, pursuant to notice, taken by Plaintiff, at the offices of Podhurst Orseck, 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, 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 1325-10 Filed 01/04/24 Page 3 of 13 Page 16 | [oT 2 know the extent of their relationship. But she 3 would schedule his appointments and handle clerical 4 things for him as far as I can see. 5 Q. All right. 6 And when you first went to his house, 7 where did -- where were you taken within the house? 8 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 9 foundation. 10 THE WITNESS: Kitchen, up to the room, up 11 to his master suite. 12 BY MR. EDWARDS: 13 Q. And which stairwell did you go up to his 14 suite? 15 A I do not remember. 16 Q. Was it the stairs off by the kitchen? 17 A I do not recall. 18 Q. And when you went into his bedroom, were 19 you under the belief that it was going to be you 20 providing some sort of a massage? 21 A. It certainly didn't involve any sexual 22 activity. That's what I was under the assumption. 23 I don't recall exactly how I was propositioned to 24 get there. I just was there, and all of a sudden 25 something horrible happened to me. MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-10 Filed 01/04/24 Page 4 of 13 Page 17 1 _ EEE 2 Q. Did you, at 16 years old or 17 years old, 3 have any massage training or experience? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Did stave any massage 6 experience? 7 A. I do not -- I can't speak to her 8 experience. I do not know. She was not really a 9 friend of mine. Barely an acquaintance. We maybe 10 spoke three times in our entire going to school 11 together and everything. 12 Q. Did you ever learn what her incentive was 13 to bring you to Jeffrey Epstein's house? 14 A. Later I found out that they would get 15 kickbacks for bringing people over. 16 Q. Do you remember seeing Jeffrey Epstein 17 give her money that day? 18 A. I don't recall, no. 19 Q. If you said that in your statement, that 20 you remember 9M getting money for bringing you 21 here that day, would that be a true statement? 22 A. Yes, absolutely. Everything in there is 23 the truth. I do not remember from years ago at this 24 point. 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-10 Filed 01/04/24 Page 5 of 13 Page 23 1 _ 2 into? 3 A. I worked very, very hard to not recall 4 anything specific about my sexual encounters with 5 this person as one of his victims. I cannot answer 6 your question. Things -- it wasn't supposed to be 7 sexual, but it was. That's as specific as I can 8 get. 9 Q. Fair to say that when Jeffrey Epstein or 10 his assistants used the term "massage," someone is 11 going to come give a massage, that that's always a 12 sexual encounter? 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 14 foundation. 15 THE WITNESS: "Always" is a strong word to 16 use. I'm not making that assumption, but 17 oftentimes that's exactly what it meant. 18 BY MR. EDWARDS: 19 Q. When Jeffrey Epstein was paying high 20 school girls for these alleged massages, he was 21 paying to turn it into a sexual encounter, fair? 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 23 foundation. 24 THE WITNESS: I would say yes, that is the 25 motivation. I'm not a mind-reader. I don't MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-10 Filed 01/04/24 Page 6 of 13 Page 24 1 _ 2 know what he was thinking. It's fair to 3 assume. 4 BY MR. EDWARDS: 5 Q. All right. 6 Did you know how qq met 7 Jeffrey Epstein? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Do you know someone named Hayley Robson? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Did you know Tony Figueroa? 12 A. No. It sounds like a familiar name, but I 13 do not know him. 14 Q. Did you know Ashley Davis? 15 A. I may have gone to high school with an 16 Ashley Davis, but that seems like a very common 17 name. 18 Q. Were you asked by Jeffrey Epstein to bring 19 other girls to him? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And for what purpose? 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 23 foundation. 24 BY MR. EDWARDS: 25 Q. What is his stated purpose? MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-10 Filed 01/04/24 Page 7 of 13 DY OO FB WW N 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 25 A. I was never present when he interacted with those women. I don't know exactly what happened. Q. Did you bring other girls to him? A. Yes. I brought friends over. Q. And were they also of similar age to you? A. Yes. They were my peers. Q. High school girls? A. Correct. Q. Did any of them have massage experience? A. I do not know. MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form. BY MR. EDWARDS: Q. therapist, to him? A. Q. Were you going out to look for a massage a professional massage therapist to bring No. What he wanted at his house was young high school girls under the pretense of some massage? MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and foundation. BY MR. EDWARDS Q. Is that fair? MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-10 Filed 01/04/24 Page 8 of 13 DY OO FB WW N 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 26 foundation. THE WITNESS: Yes, that's fair. I mean, I have to think. Sometimes I would go over and I would just swim and I would get paid, or I would take a nap and I'd get paid, or I would just hang out and I'd get paid. So that should be in my statement as well. It wasn't my assumption that they were coming over to do anything. I did not know, once the door was closed or once they went to another area of the home. I often just went over and did my own thing while they were doing whatever they were doing. It was none of my business. BY MR. EDWARDS: Q. When you would say you would just hang out at the pool, who would you be with? A. I don't remember anyone. None of those girls were any friends. We were all there just through that mutual connection. Q. I just have a list of girls, and I want you to tell me whether you know who they are or you don't. Do you know Felicia Esposito? MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-10 Filed 01/04/24 Page 9 of 13 Page 54 1 _ 2 BY MR. EDWARDS: 3 Q. When you got to his house, you were 4 requested to give a massage? 5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to foundation and 6 form. 7 THE WITNESS: I don't exactly remember. I 8 don't remember if I was asked in the kitchen. 9 I don't remember if -- I don't remember. 10 BY MR. EDWARDS: 11 Q. Massage was part of the game, though? 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 13 foundation. 14 THE WITNESS: I don't remember. I'm 15 sorry. 16 BY MR. EDWARDS: 17 Q. But even during this deposition today, we 18 have described at times you giving him a massage? 19 A. Yes. You're asking about my first 20 encounter, though. 21 Q. Sorry, I'm just trying to sum up the whole 22 thing. 23 A. Okay. 24 Q. Was massage part of the lure to get you 25 specifically to his house? MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-10 Filed 01/04/24 Page 10 of 13 Page 55 1 _ EEE 2 A. Yes. 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 4 foundation. 5 BY MR. EDWARDS: 6 Q. And at the time, you are 15, 16 or 17 7 years old? 8 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 9 foundation. 10 THE WITNESS: Yes. 11 BY MR. EDWARDS: 12 Q. No massage experience? 13 A. No. 14 Q. You were told to bring other girls to his 15 house? 16 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 17 foundation. 18 THE WITNESS: After a while, yes. 19 BY MR. EDWARDS: 20 Q. These massages were turned sexual by 21 Jeffrey, as opposed to by anyone else? 22 A. Jeffrey took my clothes off without my 23 consent the first time I met him. 24 Q. The massages were scheduled by people 25 working for Jeffrey? MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-10 Filed 01/04/24 Page 11 of 13 Page 56 1 _ 2 A. I don't recall. 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 4 foundation. 5 BY MR. EDWARDS: 6 Q. Jeffrey Epstein, during these massages, 7 would use sex toys or have sex toys used? 8 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 9 foundation. 10 THE WITNESS: Well, at that point, it's no 11 longer a massage. Something else is going on. 12 But, yes, he would take out adult toys and 13 different things. 14 BY MR. EDWARDS: 15 Q. While you were a teenager, Jeffrey Epstein 16 asked you to live with him? 17 A. Yes. He wanted me to be emancipated. 18 Q. Jeffrey Epstein encouraged girl-on-girl 19 Sex? 20 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 21 foundation. 22 THE WITNESS: Yes. 23 BY MR. EDWARDS: 24 Q. And after you cooperated with the police, 25 you were intimidated by people working for Jeffrey MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-10 Filed 01/04/24 Page 12 of 13 Page 57 | [oT 2 Epstein? 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 4 foundation. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes. 6 MR. EDWARDS: All right. I don't have 7 anything further for you. I apologize that we 8 even had to go through this, all right? 9 THE WITNESS: OkKay. 10 EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. PAGLIUCA: 12 Q. Es sysname is Jeff Pagluica. I 13 live in Denver, Colorado. And, like you, I don't 14 want to be here today either, okay? I would rather 15 be in Denver. 16 I just want to -- as I understand it, and 17 I'm not trying to get into any of your treatment 18 over the last, let's say, 10 years, because I don't 19 know how long it's been, but as I understand what 20 you and your lawyer have said here today, you have 21 been involved in some number of years of therapy, in 22 which the purpose -- part of the purpose of the 23 therapy has been to forget all of these events that 24 Mr. Edwards was asking you questions about; is that 25 correct? MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-10 Filed 01/04/24 Page 13 of 13 Page 71 CERTIFICATE OF OATH STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE ) OwW WN FP I, the undersigned authority, certify that 6 en ©crsonally appeared before me and was duly sworn. 7 WITNESS my hand and official seal this 23rd day of June, 2016. 8 9 Kelli Ann Willis, RPR, CRR 10 Notary Public, State of Florida Commission FF928291, Expires 2-16-20 11 t+++t 444+ 4+ 4+ 4+ 4+ 4+ 4+ 4+ 4+ 4+ 4+ 4 12 CERTIFICATE 13 STATE OF FLORIDA ) 14 COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE ) 15 I, Kelli Ann Willis, Registered Professional Reporter and Certified Realtime 16 Reporter do hereby certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the 17 foregoing deposition of MM that a review of the transcript was not requested; and 18 that the transcript is a true record of my stenographic notes. 19 I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not a relative, employee, attorney, or counsel of any 20 of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' attorney or counsel connected 21 with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action. 22 Dated this 23rd day of June, 2016. 23 24 KELLI ANN WILLIS, RPR, CRR 25 MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-11 Filed 01/04/24 Page 1of18 EXHIBIT 4 (File Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-11 Filed 01/04/24 Page 2 of 18 Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CASE NO. 15-CV-07433-RWS poe x VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, Vv. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. poe x June 21, 2016 9:17 a.m. CONFIDENTIAL Deposition of JOSEPH RECAREY, 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 1325-11 Filed 01/04/24 Page 3 of 18 Page 29 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 Ghislane Maxwell? 3 A. I wanted to speak with everyone related to 4 this home, including Ms. Maxwell. My contact was 5 through Gus, Attorney Gus Fronstin, at the time, who 6 initially had told me that he would make everyone 7 available for an interview. And subsequent 8 conversations later, no one was available for 9 interview and everybody had an attorney, and I was 10 not going to be able to speak with them. 11 Q. Okay. During your investigation, what did 12 you learn in terms of Ghislane Maxwell's 13 involvement, if any? 14 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 15 foundation. 16 THE WITNESS: Ms. Maxwell, during her 17 research, was found to be Epstein's long-time 18 friend. During the interviews, Ms. Maxwell was 19 involved in seeking girls to perform massages 20 and work at Epstein's home. 21 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 22 foundation. 23 BY MR. EDWARDS: 24 Q. Did you interview -- how many girls did 25 you interview that were sought to give or that MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-11 Filed 01/04/24 Page 4 of 18 Page 30 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 actually gave massages at Epstein's home? 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 4 foundation. 5 BY MR. EDWARDS: 6 Q. Approximately. 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Same objection. 8 THE WITNESS: I would say approximately 9 30; 30, 33. 10 BY MR. EDWARDS: 11 Q. And of the 30, 33 or so girls, how many 12 had massage experience? 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 14 foundation. 15 THE WITNESS: I believe two of them may 16 have been -- two of them. 17 BY MR. EDWARDS: 18 Q. Okay. And as we go through this report, 19 you may remember the names? 20 A. Correct. Let me correct myself. I 21 believe only one had. 22 Q. And was that -- was that one of similar 23 age to the other girls? 24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 25 foundation. MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-11 Filed 01/04/24 Page 5 of 18 Page 31 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 THE WITNESS: No. 3 BY MR. EDWARDS: 4 Q. Okay. The one with massage experience was 5 older? 6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 7 foundation. 8 THE WITNESS: Correct. 9 BY MR. EDWARDS: 10 Q. The remainder of the 30 girls that went to 11 this house for the purposes of massage or recruited 12 for massage, is it my understanding that they had no 13 massage experience? 14 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 15 foundation. 16 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 17 BY MR. EDWARDS: 18 Q. And were the majority of those girls that 19 you interviewed over or under the age of 18? 20 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 21 foundation. 22 THE WITNESS: The majority were under. 23 BY MR. EDWARDS: 24 Q. And how was it that Mr. Epstein gained 25 access to that number of underaged girls? MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-11 Filed 01/04/24 Page 6 of 18 Page 32 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 3 foundation. 4 THE WITNESS: Each of the victims that 5 went to the home were asked to bring their 6 friends to the home. Some complied and some 7 didn't. 8 BY MR. EDWARDS: 9 Q. Okay. So the victim would come to the 10 home and could give a massage and get paid for it; 11 is that right? 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 13 foundation. 14 THE WITNESS: Correct. 15 BY MR. EDWARDS: 16 Q. And at the end of that massage, if that 17 victim brought other friends, she would get paid for 18 the recruitment of those friends? 19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 20 foundation. 21 THE WITNESS: Correct. 22 BY MR. EDWARDS: 23 Q. Additionally, did your investigation 24 reveal that the assistants of Jeffrey Epstein would 25 call and set up for these girls to come over to the MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-11 Filed 01/04/24 Page 7 of 18 Page 33 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 house for the massages? 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 4 foundation. 5 THE WITNESS: Correct. 6 BY MR. EDWARDS: 7 Q. And, as well, certain people that were 8 friends or girlfriends or assistants of Jeffrey 9 Epstein would recruit girls under the pretense of 10 giving a massage? 11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 12 foundation. 13 THE WITNESS: Correct. 14 BY MR. EDWARDS: 15 Q. Is that what your investigation revealed 16 in terms of the system of getting these girls over 17 to the house? 18 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 19 foundation. 20 THE WITNESS: Yes. 21 BY MR. EDWARDS: 22 Q. Okay. Talking about the massages, when -- 23 when these -- the various girls that you interviewed 24 described the massages, was there a pattern of what 25 occurred during these massages? MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-11 Filed 01/04/24 Page 8 of 18 Page 34 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 3 foundation. 4 THE WITNESS: Yes, there was. 5 BY MR. EDWARDS: 6 Q. Okay. Describe for us what the pattern 7 was that was told to you by the 30 or so girls that 8 you interviewed? 9 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 10 foundation. 11 THE WITNESS: Initially, when the -- when 12 the victims would come into the home and were 13 brought upstairs to provide the massage, 14 Epstein would lay on his massage table, where 15 they would start to rub his back and the back 16 of his legs. 17 Epstein would either attempt to fondle the 18 girls or touch the girls inappropriately, and 19 at which point he would masturbate. And when 20 he was done, he would get up and go wash off 21 while the girls would get dressed and go back 22 downstairs and get paid. 23 BY MR. EDWARDS: 24 Q. Okay. So did you determine that "massage" 25 was actually a code word for something else? MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-11 Filed 01/04/24 Page 9 of 18 DY OO FB WW N 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 35 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and foundation. THE WITNESS: When they went to perform a massage, it was for sexual gratification. BY MR. EDWARDS: Q. And when the assistants would call and ask these girls to work, did you learn what the term "work" meant with respect to these girls coming to the house? MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and foundation. THE WITNESS: "Work" meant to come and provide Epstein a massage. BY MR. EDWARDS: Q. And massage -- how often would these massages, based upon your investigation, turn into something sexual? MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and foundation. THE WITNESS: During the investigation, it was determined that he would have multiple massages during the day. He would have some in the morning and some in the afternoon, sometimes into the evening. So he would MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-11 Filed 01/04/24 Page 10 of 18 Page 50 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 BY MR. EDWARDS: 3 Q. All right. 4 And so when you went to speak with the 5 victims, what did these victims say about their 6 experience with Jeffrey Epstein? 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 8 foundation. 9 THE WITNESS: Once they were recruited, 10 they were brought to the home. They were to 11 provide a massage. 12 Some of the victims did not want to be 13 touched; some of the victims did not want to 14 partake in that. So it was -- I believe for -- 15 for a couple of them it was only a one-shot 16 deal, but others continued to come. 17 BY MR. EDWARDS: 18 Q. Okay. And as you interviewed some of 19 those victims, did you learn that some of those 20 victims also brought additional girls? 21 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 22 foundation. 23 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 24 BY MR. EDWARDS: 25 Q. So as you were investigating this case, as MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-11 Filed 01/04/24 Page 11 of 18 Page 51 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 part of your investigation, you're learning 3 information from these victims and then going to 4 talk to the next person down the line, if you will? 5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 6 foundation. 7 THE WITNESS: Correct. 8 BY MR. EDWARDS: 9 Q. And what is the purpose of that? 10 A. To identify further victims and acquire 11 additional information. 12 Q. And in doing that, were you able to 13 corroborate the accuracy of what the first victim 14 told you? 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 16 foundation. 17 THE WITNESS: Correct. 18 BY MR. EDWARDS: 19 Q. Okay. And did you learn of Sarah Kellen's 20 involvement with respect to the various girls? 21 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 22 foundation. 23 THE WITNESS: Yes. 24 BY MR. EDWARDS: 25 Q. What was her role? MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-11 Filed 01/04/24 Page 12 of 18 Page 90 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 3 foundation. 4 THE WITNESS: That is correct. 5 BY MR. EDWARDS: 6 Q. And did you turn all of your files over to 7 either the State Attorney's Office or the FBI? 8 A. That 1S correct. 9 Q. And through the State Attorney's Office, 10 was the information contained within the probable 11 cause affidavit and the incident reports a publicly 12 available document? 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 14 foundation. 15 THE WITNESS: Yes. 16 BY MR. EDWARDS: 17 Q. And around the time of your 18 investigation -- around the time you ended your 19 investigation and thereafter, were various newspaper 20 articles written about the substance of some of your 21 investigation? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Did it become well known to the public 24 that Jeffrey Epstein had recruited high school girls 25 to his house for the purpose of some sexually MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-11 Filed 01/04/24 Page 13 of 18 Page 91 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 involved massage? 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 4 foundation. 5 THE WITNESS: That is correct. 6 BY MR. EDWARDS: 7 Q. And, in fact, haven't you read many of 8 these newspaper articles? 9 A. That 1S correct. 10 Q. That was not a hidden secret from the 11 public beginning in 2006, right? 12 A. No. 13 Q. And from your overall investigation, kind 14 of just a big picture, what was the criminal 15 activity, as specific as you can, that you learned 16 that Jeffrey Epstein and others were involved in? 17 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 18 foundation. 19 THE WITNESS: It was sexual battery and 20 lewd and lascivious conduct for under the age 21 of 16. 22 BY MR. EDWARDS: 23 Q. And what was the specific system of 24 engaging in this type of activity? 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-11 Filed 01/04/24 Page 14 of 18 DY OO FB WW N 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 92 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL foundation. THE WITNESS: As to -- BY MR. EDWARDS: Q. From the recruitment to the: How did you get them, what did you do, how did you keep it going? A. Once the -- MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and foundation. Sorry. THE WITNESS: No, no. As it became known to us that the victim was recruited, brought to the home, provided the massage, was paid, whether there was inappropriate touching, whether there was sexual activity, whether there was actually intercourse, all of that was documented and was asked whether they brought anyone to the home, whether they had any formal training in massage therapy, and once -- once additional victims were identified, we continued the same -- the same method of investigation. BY MR. EDWARDS: Q. Okay. And one of the earliest victims, in terms of the chronology of this pyramid of girls, MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-11 Filed 01/04/24 Page 15 of 18 Page 93 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 for lack a better word -- you understand what I mean 3 by that, right? 4 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 5 foundation. 6 THE WITNESS: Yes. 7 BY MR. EDWARDS: 8 Q. That there's -- there's -- one of the 9 earliest victims that you interviewed was Haley 10 Robson; is that right? 11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 12 foundation. 13 THE WITNESS: It was actually SG, I think 14 was the first one that was interviewed, and 15 then HR was the one I interviewed. 16 BY MR. EDWARDS: 17 Q. Okay. My question was bad. 18 I know that the first person interviewed 19 that kind of kicked off the investigation was SG, 20 but -- and just to create a picture of what we have 21 here, this is, and tell me if I characterized it 22 wrong, a scheme that Jeffrey Epstein engaged in by 23 using assistants to recruit girls, right? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. Under the -- MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-11 Filed 01/04/24 Page 16 of 18 Page 94 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 3 foundation. 4 BY MR. EDWARDS: 5 Q. Under the pretense of giving a massage? 6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 7 foundation. 8 THE WITNESS: Correct. Either a message 9 and/or become a model for Victoria's Secrets 10 and/or connections. 11 BY MR. EDWARDS: 12 Q. And when he was able to get these girls to 13 his home, he would then offer them money to also 14 become recruiters for him? 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 16 foundation. 17 THE WITNESS: Correct. 18 BY MR. EDWARDS: 19 Q. And that created this -- if you've mapped 20 it out, kind of a spider web or a pyramid of girls 21 bringing girls to Jeffrey Epstein's house? 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 23 foundation. 24 BY MR. EDWARDS: 25 Q. Right? MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-11 Filed 01/04/24 Page 17 of 18 Page 95 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. All right. 4 So when I say one of the first, I mean on 5 the top of the pyramid one of the earliest people 6 that you interviewed that brought girls to Jeffrey 7 Epstein's house was HR? 8 A. Correct. 9 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 10 foundation. 11 BY MR. EDWARDS: 12 Q. And I think that you testified that Molly 13 and Tony drove HR to Jeffrey Epstein's house the 14 first time, right? 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 16 foundation. 17 THE WITNESS: Correct. 18 BY MR. EDWARDS: 19 Q. Did you ever trace all the way up to the 20 highest level to determine who was it that started 21 this particular chain of Palm Beach girls coming 22 over to Jeffrey Epstein's home? 23 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and 24 foundation. 25 THE WITNESS: I did not. Basically, when MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-11 Filed 01/04/24 Page 18 of 18 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 363 AFFIDAVIT STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF ) I, , being first duly sworn, do hereby acknowledge that I did read a true and certified copy of my deposition which was taken in the case of GIUFFRE V. MAXWELL, taken on the 24th day of September, 2016, and the corrections I desire to make are as indicated on the attached Errata Sheet. CERTIFICATE STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF ) Before me personally appeared 7 to me well known / known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to and before me that he executed the said instrument in the capacity and for the purpose therein expressed. Witness my hand and official seal, this day of r (Notary Public) My Commission Expires: MAGNA® LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-12 Filed 01/04/24 Page 1 of 15 EXHIBIT 10 (File Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-12 Filed 01/04/24 Page 2 of 15 GIUFFRE VS. MAXWELL Deposition STEVEN W OLSON 05/26/2016 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. 216 16th Street, Suite 600 Denver Colorado, 80202 303-296-0017Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-12 Filed 01/04/24 Page 3 of 15 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Civil Action No. 15-cv-07433-RWS CONFIDENTIAL DEPOSITION OF DR. STEVEN W. OLSON May 26, 2016 VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, Vv. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. APPEARANCES : S.d. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH By Paul G. Cassell, Esq. 383 S. University Street Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Phone: 801.585.5202 Cassellp@law.utah.edu Appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff HADDON, MORGAN AND FORMAN, P.C. By Laura A. Menninger, Esq. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303.831.7364 lmenninger@hmflaw.com Appearing on behalf of the Defendant STEVEN W OLSON 5/26/201610 LA, AL? 13 14 L5 16 Lt 18 Lg 20 aL 22 a3 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-12 Filed 01/04/24 Page 4 of 15 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. Pursuant to Subpoena, Notice and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the DEPOSITION OF DR. STEVEN W. OLSON, called by Defendant, was taken on Thursday, May 26, 2016, commencing at 8:54 a.m., at 150 East 10th Avenue, Denver, Colorado, before Kelly A. Mackereth, Certified Shorthand Reporter, Registered Professional Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter and Notary Public within Colorado. INDEX EXAMINATION PAGE MS. MENNINGER 4 MR. CASSELL 1.09 MS. MENNINGER 127 MR. CASSELL 136 PRODUCTION REQUEST (S) : 44 STEVEN W OLSON 5/26/201610 clas 12 LB 14 aS 16 17 18 19 20 Ci, 22 Zo 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-12 Filed 01/04/24 Page5of15 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. DESCRIPTION Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 INDEX OF EXHIBITS INITIAL REFRBRENCE Authorization for the Release 7 and Disclosure of Protected Health Information and Medical Records Subpoena to Produce Documents, 7 Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action Subpoena to Testify ata 8 Deposition in a Civil Action Document titled Centura Health 40 Physician Group Patient Information Visit note for Dr. Olson 43 Document titled Patient Health 100 Summary, The Entrance Medical Centre Document titled Patient Health 105 Summary from Central Coast Family Medicine STEVEN W OLSON 5/26/201610 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-12 Filed 01/04/24 Page 6 of 15 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. Q All right. Do you know how you came to be the doctor for Virginia Giuffre? A No. I -- she would have filled out a new patient packet and showed up for a new patient appointment for a particular reason. I reviewed it. Q Do you know where that new patient packet is now? A It's going to be scanned in the computer. If you don't have it, I brought my computer. I can probably scan it and print it out or just print it out. Q Is that among the documents that you have next to you? A The new patient packet isn't here, but I have it -- I should have it on my computer. I could probably log in and print it, to be honest. It wouldn't be that hard. I assumed that the hospital is taking care of all the documentation that was requested. So I didn't actually bring it. Q I understand. A I actually have it, happen to have it with me. Q All right. Why don't we -- we can STEVEN W OLSON 5/26/2016 3610 11 ‘L2 13 14 15 16 LA 18 1.9 20 Zid, ae 25 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-12 Filed 01/04/24 Page 7 of 15 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. probably do that when we take a break in just a few minutes, and I can tell you how to get on the Internet and we'll see if that works. A Um-hum. Q Do you know how many times that you saw Virginia Giuffre? A Once . Q Do you know whether she was referred to you by another doctor? A No. Q Do you mean no, you don't know or -- A I have no idea. I have no idea. I don't know why she would have been referred. Most the time people are referring out. Q Right. A They don't refer back to a general practitioner. Q No one ever refers anyone to you? A It generally goes the other direction. Well, other patients might refer people to me, and that happens, but -- Q Okay. Do you know if you treat Ms. Giuffre's children in your practice? A Not that I'm aware of. Q Do you know a woman by the name of Lynn STEVEN W OLSON 5/26/2016 B710 aL 12 13 14 LS 16 7 18 19 20 ak 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-12 Filed 01/04/24 Page 8 of 15 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. Miller? A I know several Millers. Q Who works at Saint Thomas More Hospital? A I think so, yeah. That sounds familiar, yeah. Q Do you know her professionally? A Not really. Q Okay. A I mean, her name sounds familiar. Q Do you know of any connection between Lynn Miller and Virginia Giuffre? A None. I have met Virginia once. I only saw her once, a year ago. That's the extent of my -- Q Have you ever read any media reports about Ms. Giuffre? A No. No, I haven't. I don't know anything about it. Q Okay. Do you know how long -- A She -- I believe she mentioned that it was some kind of -- mentioned something about being a famous sexual abuse something. Q You haven't read any of the reports? A I have no idea. Q Okay. I'm just trying to establish your sources information. STEVEN W OLSON 5/26/201610 La. 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 LQ 20 21. an 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-12 Filed 01/04/24 Page 9 of 15 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. A Yeah. Q So if you had information about Ms. Giuffre, other than your visit -- A Yeah. Q -- do you know another source? A No. Q From family members? A No. Q From community members, anything? A Nothing. Q Do you know how long your visit with her lasted? A It -- sometimes I document time spent, but not always. I mean, it's not important. They're half-hour visits typically. It would have been a half hour or less, I would expect. Q All right. Before looking at your records, is there anything about Ms. Giuffre that you recall just from the top of your head? I understand you see many, many patients and this was a year ago. So you tell me. A Nothing. I saw her once. And when I went back and read the note, I went, Oh, yeah, I remember someone mentioning about being in a sexual abuse trial or something, some kind of sexual abuse thing. STEVEN W OLSON 5/26/2016 39LO dd 12 LS 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 al 22 23 24 AS Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-12 Filed 01/04/24 Page 10 of 15 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. Q That's the only unusual part that stuck out? A Yeah, and I don't really remember anything about her at all, actually, I don't. Q Do you know what she looks like? A No, I don't remember. It was one time a year ago. I don't remember. Q I understand. Okay. If it's okay with you, I would like to take a break and see if we can pull up the other records because I don't want to go through my questions and then go back and look at those records. I'd rather do it one time. A Okay. QO Is that all right? A Yeah, I'm fine with that. MS. MENNINGER: All right. Let's go off the record. (Recess taken from 9:41 a.m. to 10:07 a.m.) (Exhibit 4 marked.) Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) So we're back on the record. All right. I'm going to give you a document marked as Exhibit 4. And I'm going to make a small record about what just took place off the record, which is STEVEN W OLSON 5/26/2016 4010 Ld 12 L3 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 Zi. 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-12 Filed 01/04/24 Page 11 of 15 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. that you, as I understand it, and tell me if I'm wrong, have access to medical records from your office on your laptop, correct? A Yes. Q Okay. And you were able to get on your laptop and print out records related to Ms. Giuffre that you had on that laptop, correct? A vee. Q And we printed that out and made copies for everyone here, and that's what you see in front of you as Exhibit 4, correct? A Yes. Q We made those printouts on a portable printer. So they're not the best quality, correct? A Correct. Q And some portions are not printing out as well? A Yes. Q And you, I think, would be okay with sending us a more complete set later? A Yes. Q All right. I'm going to take just a minute to review it. Can you tell us what the records that you just printed out in Exhibit 4 represent? STEVEN W OLSON 5/26/2016 4110 11 AZ LS 14 Li 16 17 18 Lg 20 a. Dee 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-12 Filed 01/04/24 Page 12 of 15 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. A Generally it's demographics information and then a list of medications, a list of surgeries, a list of family medical history, and then a list of physical complaints that there's some -- it's called review of systems, things someone has been feeling and self-reported in the last two weeks. Q Okay. So is this typically -- is this patient information document typically in the patient's handwriting? A Yes. Q And I presume you don't know Ms. Giuffre's handwriting? A No. @) But it's a practice to ask the patient to fill these forms out? A Yes, and then have it there before their appointment. Q All right. So if I see the date reflected on the top of the first page as May 21st, 2015 -- A Um-hum. Q -- do you believe that to be the date that you actually saw Ms. Giuffre? A Probably, yes. Q Okay. A Sometimes people will bring it in early, STEVEN W OLSON 5/26/2016 4210 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1.9 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-12 Filed 01/04/24 Page 13 of 15 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. but yeah. Q Okay. Why don't we go ahead and mark Exhibit 5, which will be helpful as we're going through this. (Exhibit 5 marked.) Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) And I'm going to ask you to keep 4 and 5 kind of close by, and we'll talk about them. Do you recognize Exhibit 5? A Yes. That's the visit note. Q And the visit note of Ms. Giuffre's visit with you? A Yes. Q In your office? A Yes. Q And after looking at Exhibit 5, can you tell what date it is that you actually saw Ms. Giuffre? A 5/21/2015. Q Okay. Is that also the same date as the patient intake form -- A Yes. Q -- in Exhibit 4? A res. Q All right. Do you recall whether you STEVEN W OLSON 5/26/2016 4310 a 12 13 14 15 16 HE 18 19 20 AL 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-12 Filed 01/04/24 Page 14 of 15 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. STATE OF COLORADO) ) ss. REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE COUNTY OF DENVER ) I, Kelly A. Mackereth, do hereby certify that I am a Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public within the State of Colorado; that previous to the commencement of the examination, the deponent was duly sworn to testify to the truth. I further certify that this deposition was taken in shorthand by me at the time and place herein set forth, that it was thereafter reduced to typewritten form, and that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct transcript. I further certify that I am not related to, employed by, nor of counsel for any of the parties or attorneys herein, nor otherwise interested in the result of the within action. In witness whereof, I have affixed my Signature this 31st day of May, 2016. My commission expires April 21, 2019. Kelly A. Mackereth, CRR, RPR, CSR 216 - 16th Street, Suite 600 Denver, Colorado 80202 STEVEN W OLSON 5/26/2016 14010 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Lg 20 al 22 23 24 20 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-12 Filed 01/04/24 Page 15 of 15 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. AGREN BLANDO COURT REPORTING & VIDEO, INC. 216 - 16th Street, Suite 600 Denver, Colorado 80202 4450 Arapahoe Avenue, Suite 100 Boulder, Colorado 80303 DR. STEVEN W. OLSON May 26, 2016 Giuffre v. Maxwell Case No. 15-cv-07433-RWS The original deposition was filed with Laura Menninger, Esq., on approximately the 31st day of May, 2016. XXX Signature waived. Unsigned; signed signature page and amendment sheets, if any, to be filed at trial. Reading and signing not requested pursuant to C.R.C.P. Rule 30(e). Unsigned; amendment sheets and/or signature pages should be forwarded to Agren Blando to be filed in the envelope attached to the sealed original. Thank you. AGREN BLANDO COURT REPORTING & VIDEO, INC. ec: All Counsel STEVEN W OLSON 5/26/2016 141Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-13 Filed 01/04/24 Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT 2 (File Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-13 Filed 01/04/24 Page 2 of 2 Meredith Schultz From: Bernadette Martin Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 10:33 PM To: Meredith Schultz Subject: Virginia Giuffre Dear Sir/Madam Ms Judith A Lightfoot has requested | forward this to you: This will serve to advise all records of a psychological nature have been presented. Judith A Lightfoot Consulting Psychologist 28 June 2016 Kind Regards Bernadette Martin Ph: 02 43533630 Fax: 02 43533629 Bernadette @mbe-accounting.com.au Suite 1g 154-156 Pacific Highway TUGGERAH 2259 PO Box 3435, TUGGERAH 2259 This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain information this is confidential and is subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message together with any attachments. GIUFFRE006636 CONFIDENTIALCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-14 Filed 01/04/24 Page 1 of 30 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 CORRECTED! RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DEFENDANT?’S RULE 37(b) &(c) SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE 26(a) ' Due to inadvertence, one of the medical providers Ms. Giuffre disclosed to Defendant, and from whom she diligently sought medical records as far back as March of this year, Dr. Mona Devanesan, was left off of Ms. Giuffre’s medical provider chart. It has been added in this version of the brief for increased accuracy. There are no other changes.Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-14 Filed 01/04/24 Page 2 of 30 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORTIES .00.. ec cccccccceeecsseesceseeseeseeseesecseesecaecseceaeeeesaeeseeaecaeesecaeeeeeaaeeeeeaeeseeaeeneeaes il INTRODUCTION 0... ccecceceecceseesceseeseesecseesecaeesecasesesaeeseeaecaeesecaeesecsaeeeeaeeseesecaeesecaaeeesaeeseeaeeaeeatens 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1.0... ceccccescessesecsseeecseeseaeeseesecaeesecaeesecsaeeecsaeeaeesecaessecaaeecaeeseeaeeneeaeens 2 1. MEDICAL PROVIDER IDENTITIES.....0... ccc ceccceccccceeesneceeneeceeaeceeaeeceeaeeceeaeeeneeeeceeeeeeneaes 2 I. MEDICAL RECORDS W000. cccceceesceseeseeseeseesecseesecneesecsaeeceeaecseeaecaeesecaececeaeeeeeaeeseeaeeaeeaeeneeeees 7 A. Dr. Donahue 00... eeceeceeeeeseeeseeceeeeeesecnsecceceeseesesesseesaectesneeseeseesneeseentesteesnteeseens 9 B. Dr. Hayek... cece cceccceecceccceeeceeeaeceeeeeseecacessaeceseeeeseecaeecaeeeseeeeseecaeesnaeeeeeeeseeeeeenaeees 9 C. Dr. Kutikoff, Wellington Imaging Associates (“Wellington Imaging’) , and Growing Together ..........ccccccccccecceesceeeceeeneceeeeeeseecaceeaeeeeeesseecsaeeeaeeeeseeeeeeseeeteeses 10 D. Ms. Lightf00t .......0.ccceccececccececeeeceeecececeeeaeceseeeeseecaaecsaeeeeeeeseecsaeesaeeeeeeseneeeseeeeeeses 10 E, Dr. OISOD.... eee eeceeceeeseenecnsecncecseeeseceeeesecsesceseeeseseesaeensecieeseseeesateeeeniesteeeeeentee 11 Il. MS. GIUFFRE HAS PROVIDED DISCOVERY IN ACCORDANCE WITH HER DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS W000... ccceccesssscssseseceseesceseeseesecseesecaeesecaeeeceaeeeeeaeeaeeaeeneeeeeneens 12 IV. DEFENDANT CAN SHOW NO PREJUDICE ..0.... ce ececceeesseseceseeeceeeeeceaeeseesecseeseeaeeeeneens 13 V. MS. GIUFFRE HAS BEEN FULLY COMPLIANT IN DISCOVERY ........ ce eeeeretees 15 LEGAL ARGUMENT ........ccecceseescesseseesecseesecseeseceseescaeesenaecaeesecaeesecsaeeseaecaeeaecaecsecaaeeeeeaeeaeeaeeneeaes 17 1. DEFENDANT CANNOT SHOW NON-COMPLIANCE, AND HAS PUT FORTH NO COLORABLE LEGAL ARGUMENT FOR SANCTIONS 1.0... ccceceseseeeeereeeeeneeees 17 Il. THERE WAS NO INFORMATION “WITHHELD”, AND THEREFORE, NO PREJUDICE .0..cceeeceecceceeseeseeseesecseesecececcsaeeseeaecseesecaecsceeseeaecseesecaeesecsaeeeeaeeseeaeeaeeaeeaeeeeeneens 19 Il. MS. GIUFFRE HAS FULFILLED HER REQUIREMENTS REGARDING HER RULE 26 DISCLOSURES .0..cecececcccesecseeseceeeeceseeseeaeeseesecaeesecneeeeeaeeaeeaecaeeaeceeeaeeneeaeenees 19 IV. THIS COURT SHOULD NOT STRIKE MS. GIUFFRE’S CLAIMS FOR MEDICAL AND EMOTIONAL DISTRESS DAMAGES. ....0... ccc ceecceeeeeeeesteceenteeeenaeeee 22 CONCLUSION ......eeccceeccecesceseeseeseeseesecaeesecneeseceaeesesaeeseeaecaensecaeesecsaeesesaeeaeeaecaeesecaeeseceaeeeeeaeeaeeaeentes 23Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-14 Filed 01/04/24 Page 3 of 30 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases Candelaria v. Erickson, 2006 WL 1636817 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).......:ceceseeseesecesecssecneeeseeeeeeseceaecaecaeeeseeeeeeecaeenaesaeeeeeeerees 12 Celle v. Filipino Reporter Enters. Inc., 209 F.3d 163 (2d Cir.2000).......ceceeccesecesecseeeseeeeeeeecesecaecaeeeseeeeeseceaaeeseseeeesecaeceaeceeeaeeereeeeaees 20 Design Strategy, Inc. v. Davis, 469 F.3d 284 (2d Cir. 2006)... ce eecceeccssecsseeseeeseeeeceseceaeceeeseseeeeecaeceseeeeeesecaecaecneeeaeeeeeeereaees 14 Gurvey v. Cowan, Liebowitz & Lathman, P.C., 2014 WL 715612 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). cecccccceceesceseeseesecseeecseeeceeeeeaeeeeesecaeeaecneeeeaeeeeeaeeaeeaeeaeed 18 In re Consol. RNC Cases, 2009 WL 130178 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2009) oo. cecccceeceeeeceseeseeseeseeseeseeeceeeenseerenaeeaeeaeenees 22, 23 In re Dana Corp., 574 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2009)... ec ceccecessceseeeeeceeecesecneeesevseeseeeeaecaecaeeeseesseceaecaaecaeeeaeeeeeeeeeaeeaeeaee 6 In re Weiss, 703 F.2d 653 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) ....ccecceesecsesseeeeceeeceseceseceeeseeeeesseceaeceaecaesseeeeeeeeeeaeceaeeaeeaeeeneerees 18 Murray v. Miron, 2015 WL 4041340 (D. Conn., July 1, 2015) eee cceeccsseeeceseeeeeeeseesecaeeeceeeeeeeeeeeeaeeaeeaeenee 21 Naylor v. Rotech Healthcare, Inc., 679 F. Supp. 2d 505 (D. Vt. 2009)... ee eeceeccesecsseeseeeseeeecesecaecaeeeaeeeeesseceaecaeeaeeseeseeeeeenaes 20, 21 Nittolo v. Brand, 96 F.R.D. 672 (S.D.N.Y.1983) occ ceecceccceseesseeeeeeeeeeceseceseceeeseeeeesseeeaecnseceeeaeeeeeeeseaeeneeeneeeaeetens 22 Robertson v. Dowbenko, 443 F. App'x 659 (2d Cir. 2011)... cieeeceecceseesceeeseeecseeseceeeeceeeeceaeesessecaeeaecaeeeeeeeeeeeaeeaeeaeeneed 20 Scheel v. Harris, No. CIV.A. 3:11-17-DCR, 2012 WL 3879279 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 6, 2012)... .cccecccceseeeseeteeees 21 Skywark v. Isaacson, 1999 WL 1489038 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 1999) occ cceccecceseeeceseeeeeseeseeseeseeseceeeeeeeeeenaeeseeaeenees 22 ilCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-14 Filed 01/04/24 Page 4 of 30 Rules Fed. R. Civ. Fed. R. Civ. Fed. R. Civ. Fed. R. Civ. Fed. R. Civ. Fed. R. Civ. Fed. R. Civ. Fed. R. Civ. 37 (D) & (C)esrecvesscssssssessssssvesssssssseesesssusvessssussessssssssessesssusesssssiuvessessunsesesssusvsseessseeeee 1 3T(C)(L) seeeccssseseesscsssssecsssssssesssrssevecssssssecsesssssesssssssivessesssisessssssessssisusssesssuesesssneeee 21 illCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-14 Filed 01/04/24 Page 5 of 30 INTRODUCTION As more and more witnesses come forward testifying about Defendant’s involvement in the sexual abuse of young girls, Defendant’s discovery arguments have become more removed from the merits of this case and increasingly strident in their tone. The latest example of this genre is the instant motion in which the Defendant boldly proclaims that Ms. Giuffre is “playing a game of catch and release” by deliberately “withholding information” regarding her medical care. Yet the basis for these strong charges turns out to be nothing more than the fact that, when asked to produce a listing of medical care providers that Ms. Giuffre has seen in the last seventeen years — during a period of time when she lived in Australia, then Florida, then Colorado, finally returning to Australia — she was unable to recall all of the providers. Ms. Giuffre and her attorneys have worked diligently to provide this listing to Defendant and, as new information has become available, or as Ms. Giuffre has been able to recall another provider, the information has been disclosed. Indeed, Ms. Giuffre signed every medical records release that Defendant requested. There has been no deliberate “withholding” of information, much less withholding of information that would warrant the extreme sanction of precluding Ms. Giuffre from presenting her claims to a jury. Moreover, this baseless motion for sanctions comes on the heels of disturbing testimony corroborating what lies at the core of this case —-Defendant was involved in facilitating the sexual abuse of young girls with Jeffrey Epstein. One witness, Rinaldo Rizzo, was in tears as he recounted Defendant bringing a 15-year-old girl to his employer’s home who, in utmost distress, told him that Defendant stole the young girl’s passport and tried to make her have sex withCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-14 Filed 01/04/24 Page 6 of 30 Epstein, and then threatened her.” Mr. Rizzo also testified that he watched Maxwell direct a room full of underage girls to kiss, dance, and touch one another in a sexual way for Defendant and Epstein to watch.* Another witness, Joanna Sjoberg, testified that Defendant recruited her from her school campus to have sex with Epstein with lies about being her personal assistant.* Two other witnesses, one an underage victim (and the other, the police detective who ultimately ended up investigating Epstein (Detective Joseph Recarey, Retired), gave testimony about how Epstein used other women to recruit minors to have sex with him.” Most recently, a witness testified that Defendant would call him and ask him to bring over young girls that she would provide to Epstein. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 9, ROUGH Deposition Transcript of Tony Figueroa at 162:8-19. It is against this backdrop that Defendant has filed a motion seeking sanctions. The motion is a transparent effort to deflect attention from the merits of Ms. Giuffre’s claim by inventing “willful” discovery violations and should be rejected in its entirety. FACTUAL BACKGROUND I. MEDICAL PROVIDER IDENTITIES As the Court is aware, Defendant has requested that Ms. Giuffre provide the names and medical records of every medical provider she has ever had, for any type of treatment, since 1999. This would be no easy task for anyone, and Ms. Giuffre has had many medical providers * See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, Excerpts from the June 10, 2016 Deposition of Rinaldo Rizzo. * Td. * See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, Excerpts from the May 18, 2016 Deposition of Joanna Sjoberg. > See McCawley Decl. at Exhibits 3 and 4, Excerpts from the June 20, 2016 Deposition of 20d Excerpts from the June 21, 2016 Deposition of Joseph Recarey. 2Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-14 Filed 01/04/24 Page 7 of 30 in multiple locations. So she and her legal counsel have worked diligently to track them down through a search that has spanned nearly two decades and two continents. Ms. Giuffre made her initial disclosures on this subject in an answer to an interrogatory that she served on April 29, 2016. Ms. Giuffre listed 15 health care providers that she could recall at the time. Four days later, on May 3, 2016, Defendant deposed Ms. Giuffre. During the deposition, Ms. Giuffre’s memory was jogged and she was able to recall two additional providers: Judith Lightfoot and Dr. Christopher Donahue.° Defendant, however, seeks to magnify the innocent recollection of two additional providers at Ms. Giuffre’ deposition by misleadingly claiming that “[i]t is only through deposition testimony that Ms. Maxwell became aware of at least five - if not more - treating health care physicians.” (Mtn. at 1). This claim, too, is inaccurate. Beyond Ms. Lightfoot and Dr. Donahue, Defendant apparently adds to the list of “withheld” doctors by referring to treating physicians who cared for Ms. Giuffre on a one-off basis in the Emergency Room. It is unsurprising that a patient would have trouble remembering an emergency room physician’s name. But the real point here is that, in any event, the information was disclosed through documents produced, so there is absolutely no “failure to disclose” as Defendant wrongfully alleges. See Centura Health Records (GIUFFRE005498-005569). Defendant then states that, in her deposition, “Ms. Giuffre claims she was not treated by any other physicians,” and then states that other records revealed “three additional health care ° Defendant’s argument that Ms. Giuffre was trying to “hide” these providers is illogical and wholly contradicted by the fact that Ms. Giuffre disclosed these providers. Defendant never explains how Ms. Giuffre can be “hiding” providers while testifying about them and producing their records.Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-14 Filed 01/04/24 Page 8 of 30 professionals who treated Plaintiff, including Dr. Scott Robert Geiger, Dr. Joseph Heaney,’ and Donna Oliver P.A.” (Mtn. at 4, emphasis original). Defendant is trying to make it seem as if Ms. Giuffre deliberately hid the names of treating physicians in the Emergency Room. As stated above, Ms. Giuffre produced these records so she is clearly not hiding anything. Not learning, not knowing, or not remembering off the top of one’s head the names of Emergency Room staff encountered during a medical emergency is not only unsurprising and understandable, but is also not a discovery violation. Here, Defendant attempts to make something out of nothing. This is particularly true as Ms. Giuffre made these records available to Defendant. As evidenced by the details recounted in Defendant’s brief, Ms. Giuffre produced these Emergency Room records to Defendant, and therefore, she is wholly compliant in her discovery obligations.* * Indeed, Ms. Giuffre did not merely sign releases for the release of these records, but Ms. Giuffre’s counsel spent considerable time and effort in attempts to procure these records for Defendant, as detailed in Ms. Giuffre’s counsel’s correspondence. See McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit 5, May 2016 Emails from Meredith Schultz to Laura Menninger. 4Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-14 Filed 01/04/24 Page 9 of 30 Additionally, Defendant’s motion lists 15 providers’ Ms. Giuffre gave to Defendants in her interrogatories (Mtn. at 3), but then states that “Plaintiff failed therein to identify any treatment providers prior to the alleged defamation, despite the Court’s order concerning 1999- 2015.” (Mtn. at 4). This statement, too, is wildly incorrect. Of the list of 15 providers, the overwhelming majority of them are providers “prior to the alleged defamation.””” For example, Ms. Giuffre produced records from N.Y. Presbyterian Hospital. (GIUFFRE003258-3290). Not only do the dates on the records (e.g., July 9, 2001) demonstrate they are prior to the defamation, but Defendant has independent knowledge that this provider pre-dates Defendant’s defamation. Indeed, Defendant is the one who brought her to that hospital, while she was a minor. Therefore, Defendant’s statement in her brief that “Plaintiff failed therein to identify any treatment providers prior to the alleged defamation, despite the Court’s order concerning 1999- 2015” (Mtn. at 4) is inaccurate. Defendant continues with another misleading statement: “As of today’s date... and 10 days before the end of fact discovery in this case, Ms. Maxwell has learned of at least five additional doctors” (Mtn. at 5), and then, again, names Ms. Lightfoot, Dr. Geiger, Dr. Heaney, Donna Oliver P.A., and Dr. Streeter. Defendant did not learn of these providers 10 days prior to the close of discovery, but much earlier, as the previous page of Defendant’s brief recounts. * (1) Dr. Steven Olson; (2) Dr. Chris Donahue; (3) Dr. John Harris; (4) Dr. Majaliyana; (5) Dr. Wah Wah; (6) Dr. Sellathuri; (7) Royal Oaks Medical Center; (8) Dr. Carol Hayek; (9) NY Presbyterian Hospital; (10) Campbelltown Hospital; (11) SydneyWest Hospital; (12) Westmead Hospital; (13) Dr. Karen Kutikoff; (14) Wellington Imaging Associates; (15) Growing Together. '° Providers from that list that treated Ms. Giuffre prior to Defendant’s defamation include: (1) Dr. John Harris; (2) Dr. Majaliyana; (3) Dr. Majaliyana; (4) Dr. Wah Wah; (5) Dr. Sellathrui; (6) Royal Oaks Medical Center; (7) Dr. Carol Hayek; (8) NY Presbyterian Hospital; (9) Sydney West Hospital; (10) Westmead Hospital; (12) Wellington Imaging Associates; (13) Growing Together.Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-14 Filed 01/04/24 Page 10 of 30 Defendant’s next statement is equally misleading “documents relating to these doctors were not provided until after their identities became known through deposition or other independent investigation by Ms. Maxwell.” (Mtn. at 5). Their identities became known to Defendant because Ms. Giuffre disclosed the name of Ms. Lightfoot in her deposition, and because Ms. Giuffre herself produced emergency room records to Defendant — documents bearing the names of the other providers. Accordingly, these five additional names were provided to Defendant by Ms. Giuffre herself, through (1) her deposition testimony; and (2) her document production. Defendant is now asking this Court to enter extraordinary sanctions because those names were not provided in response to an interrogatory, but, instead, were provided through Ms. Giuffre’s testimony and Ms. Giuffre’s document production. This is an improper request. It is unsurprising that Defendant cannot cite to a single case in which any type of sanctions were awarded under even remotely similar circumstances. Indeed, the purpose of the various aspects of discovery provided by Rule 26(a)(5), Fed. R. Civ. P., is to provide more fulsome information. Cf. In re Dana Corp., 574 F.3d 129, 150 (2d Cir. 2009) (“the various discovery methods are more complementary than fungible’’). Here, Ms. Giuffre provided her medical information through interrogatory response, through testimony, and through document production. Ms. Giuffre has met her obligation under both this Court’s Order and Rule 26. There has been no failure to disclose: Ms. Giuffre provided the names and testified about her treatment. Accordingly, this motion should be denied in its entirety. Il. MEDICAL RECORDS Defendant states that Plaintiff has failed to produce any records from (a) Dr. Donahue, (b) Dr. Hayek, (c) Dr. Kutikoff, (d) Wellington Imaging Assocs., (e) Growing Together, (f) post Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-14 Filed 01/04/24 Page 11 of 30 2011 records from Ms. Lightfoot, and (g) the remaining documents for treatment by Dr. Olson. (Mtn. at 5). This is also incorrect. There has been no “failure,” as discussed, in turn, below. Moreover, if records from any providers have not been produced, it is not Ms. Giuffre’s “failure,” but rather, the failure of the providers, particularly as Ms. Giuffre has executed releases for her records from all these providers. Ms. Giuffre and her counsel have been diligent in compiling nearly two decades of medical records from various states and countries. The chart below provides an overview the efforts undertaken by Ms. Giuffre and the production to Defendant as a result. MEDICAL PROVIDER Dr. Olsen Centura Health Dr. Carol Hayek Dr. Chris Donahue Dr. John Harris/Dr. Majliyana Dr. Wah Wah Dr. Sellathuri Royal Oaks HEALTHCARE PROVIDED Primary Care Physician : y Z oO a S Ss A. n + Has no treatment records ACTION TAKEN 3/8/16 Letter Request 5/23/16 Letter Request 3/8/16 Ltr Request 4/28/16 Ltr Request 4/5/16 Ltr Request 4/5/16 Ltr Request 4/5/16 Ltr Request 4/5/16 Ltr Request 4/5/16 Ltr RELATED GIUFFRE PRODUCTION Giuffre 005342-005346 St. Thomas More Hospital Records (Dr. Olsen) Giuffre 005492-005496 St. Thomas More Hospital Records (Dr. Olsen) Giuffre 005498 Centura Health Release Form (All Medical Records) Giuffre 005501-005569 Responsive Records (Centura Health) Giuffre and counsel contacted physician’s office via telephone and email to follow up. Giuffre 00663 1-006635 (Dr. Donahue) Giuffre 005315 005322 The Entrance Medical Centre (Dr. John Harris and Dr. Darshanee Mahaliyana) Giuffre 005339 005341 Central Coast Family Medicine (Dr. Wah Wah) Giuffre 005089 005091 (“Dr. M. Sella”) Giuffre 005347 005349 Royal Oaks Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-14 Filed 01/04/24 Page 12 of 30 MEDICAL PROVIDER Medical Center NY Presbyterian Hospital Campbelltown Hospital/ Sydney West Hospital Sydney West Hospital / Westmead Hospital Dr. Karen Kutikoff Wellington Imaging Associates Growing Together Ms. Judith Lightfoot Dr. Mona Devanesan Dr. Scott Robert Geiger Dr. Joseph Heaney Donna Oliver, PA ACTION TAKEN Request Produced Produced Produced Release Provided to Defendant >s Counsel Release Provided to Defendant >s Counsel Release Provided to Defendant >s Counsel 5/4/16 Ltr Request 3/28/16 Ltr Request ER Treating Physician ER Treating Physician ER Treating Physician Referral ENT RELATED GIUFFRE PRODUCTION Medical Center’s Response (No Records) Giuffre 003258 003290 New York Presbyterian Hospital Giuffre 003193 003241 Camselltown Hospital/Camden Hospital (Dr. Elbeaini) Giuffre 003242 003257 Macarthur Health Service (Dr. Elbeaini) Giuffre 003291-003298 Sydney West/Westmead Hospital 04/29/16 Sent via e-mail signed release to Menninger (obtain records directly). 04/29/16 Sent via e-mail signed release to Menninger (obtain records directly). 04/29/16 Sent via e-mail signed release to Menninger (obtain records directly). Giuffre 00543 1-005438 Medical Release Form with documents (Ms. Lightfoot) Giuffre 006636 Correspondence stating no further records available. Evidence of efforts to obtain records and of Dr. Devanesan’s retirement were produced as GIUFFRE005335-5338. Giuffre 005498-005569 Centura Health Medical Release Form (Requested Entire Medical Record) Giuffre 005498-005569 Centura Health Medical Release Form (Requested Entire Medical Record) Giuffre 005498-005569 Centura Health Medical Release Form (Requested Entire Medical Record) 8 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-14 Filed 01/04/24 Page 13 of 30 MEDICAL HEALTHCARE ACTION PROVIDER —— PROVIDED | TAKEN | RELATED GIUFFRE PRODUCTION . ER Giuffre 005498-005569 Centura Health Dr. Michele . ‘cal Rel Streeter Treating Medical Release Form Physician | (Requested Entire Medical Record) Accordingly, as the Court can see with reference to the Bates labels in the above chart, Ms. Giuffre has be compliant in producing her medical records. Indeed, she has signed releases for all records requested by Defendant, and has produced all records released by the providers. In addition to signing all releases for medical providers requested by Defendant, the work associated with compiling the records and following up with providers (as shown by the above chart) clearly demonstrates Ms. Giuffre’s good faith and persistence in her deliberate and thorough pursuit of providing Defendant with her medical records. That is reason alone to deny Defendant’s unsupported request for sanctions. A. Dr. Donahue Plaintiff dutifully signed a release for medical records and provided it to Dr. Donahue on April 5, 2016, and sent a copy to the Defendant so counsel was on notice of the efforts being taken to secure medical records. See McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit 6, Dr. Donahue letter and Release Form. Ms. Giuffre’s counsel has received records from Dr. Donahue since the Defendant filed the instant motion, and immediately provided those records to Defendant. See chart above, GIUFFRE0000663 1-006635. B. Dr. Hayek Dr. Hayek treated Ms. Giuffre over seven years ago. Ms. Giuffre signed a release form for Dr. Hayek’s records, sent the release form on March 8, 2016, and provided a copy of the form to Defendant. Having not received any records, the undersigned sent a follow-up letter toCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-14 Filed 01/04/24 Page 14 of 30 Dr. Hayek on April 28, 2016, to request the records. Upon information and belief, Dr. Hayek does not keep patient’s medical records for longer than seven years, and, therefore, no longer has any records pertaining to Ms. Giuffre. Ms. Giuffre and her counsel have made inquiries to Dr. Hayek’s office via telephone and email, but, to date, have not received any response. Again, Ms. Giuffre has no input on Dr. Hayek’s document retention policies, and therefore, the lack of production of records from Dr. Hayek cannot be attributed to Ms. Giuffre. C. Dr. Kutikoff, Wellington Imaging Associates (“Wellington Imaging’’) , and Growing Together Plaintiff provided Defendant’s counsel executed medical release forms for Dr. Kutikoff, Wellington Imaging, and Growing Together on April 29, 2016. See McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit 7. Accordingly, Ms. Giuffre has no direct knowledge as to what, if anything, these three providers produced to Defendant’s counsel. Ms. Giuffre has done everything in her power to make them available to Defendant, a fact that Defendant cannot dispute. Again, there has been no “failure” by Ms. Giuffre here, as Ms. Giuffre has signed and sent the necessary release forms for the records to be sent directly to Defendant." D. Ms. Lightfoot Defendant admits that Ms. Giuffre produced Ms. Lightfoot’s records in footnote 4 of her brief on page 11, yet on page 16, Defendant wrongfully states Plaintiff has not produced Dr. Lightfoot’s records. Despite the self-contradictory briefing, Ms. Lightfoot has produced records. See chart above, Giuffre00543 1-005438, Medical Release Form with documents. As with the other providers, Ms. Giuffre has executed and sent medical records release forms to Ms. Lightfoot, and has thus met her discovery obligations. To follow up on Defendant’s wrongful '' Upon information and belief, Ms. Lightfoot is not a medical doctor, but an Australian “Consulting Psychologist.” 10Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-14 Filed 01/04/24 Page 15 of 30 claims that Ms. Giuffre has somehow “withheld” more current records (despite executing a release for all records); Ms. Giuffre followed up with Ms. Lightfoot, who provided to Ms. Giuffre’s counsel correspondence stating that she has produced all of Ms. Giuffre’s records (see chart above, Giuffre006636), thereby indicating that she does not keep more current records. E, Dr. Olson Defendant claims that Ms. Giuffre failed to produce “the remaining documents for treatment by Dr. Olson,” but this is a wild inaccuracy. (And, Ms. Giuffre would refer the Court to a short excerpt from Dr. Olson’s deposition in which Dr. Olson explains in his own words his production. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 10, Dr. Olson Deposition Excerpt.) First, Ms. Giuffre signed a release for a// records that Dr. Olson had. See McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit 6, March 8, 2016, Release for Dr. Olson records. Dr. Olson produced records Bates labeled GIUFFRE005342-005346 and GIUFFRE005492-005496. Dr. Olson then testified in his deposition that he kept a record on his laptop that was not a part of the medical records produced by his hospital. Jd. During the deposition, he printed that record and gave it to Defendant’s counsel. Jd. Now, Defendant’s counsel is claiming that this set of facts constitutes a discovery violation that warrants sanctions. There is no failure to produce here. Ms. Giuffre executed a medical release that provided for all of Ms. Giuffre’s medical records with regard to Dr. Olson, and records were produced. It was Dr. Olson who failed to include his “laptop records” among the records that were produced. Ms. Giuffre knew nothing of the “laptop records” until Dr. Olson’s deposition, and Dr. Olson provided them at that time, a fact Defendant admits in a footnote in her Motion to Reopen Ms. Giuffre’s Deposition. In that brief, Defendant complains that they were not “produced” until after Ms. Giuffre was deposed. That is a distortion. Defendant already had such documents from 11Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-14 Filed 01/04/24 Page 16 of 30 Dr. Olson himself. Ms. Giuffre included those documents that both sides received in the deposition as part of her next production, so that they would bear a Bates label for tracking purposes. It was a formality since both sides already had the record. Defendant states: “Despite requests, legible copies have not been provided.” Defendant uses the passive voice here, presumably to avoid making clear the fact that the requests for legible copies would need to be made to Dr. Olson, who controls the records, not to Ms. Giuffre, who long ago authorized the release of all records. The existence of a record that a witness failed to produce prior to a deposition is not a discovery violation from Ms. Giuffre. lit. MS. GIUFFRE HAS PROVIDED DISCOVERY IN ACCORDANCE WITH HER DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS The fact is that Ms. Giuffre has executed a release form for each and every medical care provides that Defendant asked for. Defendant cannot contradict this statement. Ms. Giuffre produced medical records she had in her possession (such as New York Presbyterian records), early in discovery. From that point, other medical records were sought and obtained, with Ms. Giuffre facilitating their production from the providers by executing and sending release forms and paying all applicable fees for their release. Moreover, counsel for Ms. Giuffre has kept Defendant fully apprised of such efforts, even giving Defendant copies of all releases that have been issued, and providing updates on Ms. Giuffre’s continued efforts to obtain medical records beyond signing releases. See McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibits 5 and 6. Executing and sending medical release forms to all of the medical providers satisfies Ms. Giuffre’s discovery obligations with regard to her medical records, and Defendant cannot cite to a case that states otherwise. See, e.g., Candelaria v. Erickson, 2006 WL 1636817, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (requiring the execution of updated medical release forms to satisfy discovery 12Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-14 Filed 01/04/24 Page 17 of 30 obligations). The fact that Defendant has presented this weak tea to the Court - concerning the actions of third-parties Ms. Giuffre does not control - shows just how baseless the motion is. IV. DEFENDANT CAN SHOW NO PREJUDICE Defendant claims to be prejudiced because a small fraction of the medical providers were revealed at Ms. Giuffre’s deposition, four days after her interrogatory response. This argument is moot. Ms. Giuffre has agreed to reopen her deposition for Defendant’s questions regarding those medical providers. Second, Defendant intimates, but does not actually claim, that she wants to depose Ms. Lightfoot, and states that there is not sufficient time: “arranging for and taking the deposition of Ms. Lightfoot . . . is nearly impossible,” suggesting to the Court that there is some prejudice to Defendant there. (Mtn. at 11). However, Defendant’s behavior (and a close reading of Defendant’s brief) suggests that Defendant doesn’t actually want to depose Ms. Lightfoot; instead, she just wants to appear to the Court as prejudiced by not taking her deposition. First, Defendant never noticed her deposition despite knowing her identity for nearly two months - since May 3, 2016. Second, Defendant is careful not to claim in her brief that she actually wants to depose Ms. Lightfoot, all the while suggesting that she has suffered some prejudice with respect to not taking Ms. Lightfoot’s deposition. Defendant’s lack of actual desire to take her deposition stems from the 2011 records Ms. Lightfoot produced - records predating Defendant’s defamation by ycars. |e [ HE | his is the reason Defendant is careful not to claim in her brief that sheCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-14 Filed 01/04/24 Page 18 of 30 actually wanted to dcp0s (i ee eC ee Defendant’s claims concerning deposing Dr. Donahue are similarly specious. First, despite knowing about Dr. Donahue since at least April 29, 2016 (a fact she admits in her brief “Dr. Donahue may have been named” (Mtn. at 16)): Defendant has never issued a Notice of Deposition for Dr. Donahue. Defendant cannot claim any prejudice with respect to Dr. Donahue. Additionally, Defendant acts in bad faith when she claims that medical records from Dr. Donahue were “purposefully hidden by Plaintiff’ (Mtn. at 11) when Defendant knows that Ms. Giuffre executed and sent a medical release for Dr. Donahue on April 5, 2016, for all of his records. See McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit 6, Dr. Donahue Medical Release. As stated above, this argument is moot because the records concerning Dr. Donahue (and other providers at his practice) have been produced to Defendant. Finally, though Ms. Giuffre does not control how quickly providers respond to her releases (though her counsel has spent considerable time following-up with providers, urging their speedy release, and paying all applicable fees), Ms. Giuffre has agreed to reopen her deposition for questions concerning provider records that were produced subsequent to her deposition. Therefore, Ms. Giuffre has eliminated any prejudice Defendant could claim to suffer with respect to taking Ms. Giuffre’s deposition. See Giuffre006631-006635. A factor relevant to the appropriateness of sanctions under Rule 37 for discovery violations is the “prejudice suffered by the opposing party.” Design Strategy, Inc. v. Davis, 469 14Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-14 Filed 01/04/24 Page 19 of 30 F.3d 284, 296 (2d Cir. 2006). Here, Defendant cannot claim any prejudice resulting from her empty claims of “discovery violations.” Accordingly, sanctions are inappropriate. V. MS. GIUFFRE HAS BEEN FULLY COMPLIANT IN DISCOVERY It is the Defendant in this case that has failed to comply with discovery at every turn. Defendant has refused to produce any documents whatsoever without this Court entering an Order directing her to do so. The only reason Plaintiff has documents from Defendant at all is because of this Court’s denial of Defendant’s stay requests and the Court’s rulings on Ms. Giuffre’s Motion to Compel for Improper Claim of Privilege (wherein Defendant was ordered to turn over documents that did not even involve communications with counsel) and her Motion to Compel for Improper Objections. Even then, Defendant’s counsel refused to even take the routine step of looking at Defendant’s email and other electronic documents to find responsive documents, but produced, instead, only what Defendant wanted to produce. Ms. Giuffre had to bring a Motion for Forensic Examination and the Court had to order that Defendant’s counsel actually produce documents from Defendant’s electronic documents, something that has not yet been done to date. Indeed, Defendant did not make her initial disclosure until February 24, 2016 several months after the deadline for these disclosures. Additionally, while Ms. Giuffre started her efforts to take the Defendant’s deposition in February, 2016, Defendant did not actually sit for her deposition until after being directed to do so by the Court, on April 22, 2016. Furthermore, during the deposition, Defendant refused to answer a myriad of questions, and therefore, this Court recently ordered Defendant to sit for her deposition again. See June 20, 2016, Order resolving eight discovery motions entered under seal and granting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions (D.E. 143). 15Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-14 Filed 01/04/24 Page 20 of 30 Ms. Giuffre has had to litigate, multiple times, for Defendant to make any document production, and Ms. Giuffre has had to litigate, also multiple times, for Defendant to be deposed. See Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery (DE 20); Plaintiff's February 26, 2016, Letter Motion to Compel Defendant to Sit for Her Deposition; Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Documents Subject to Improper Claim of Privilege (DE 33); Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Documents Subject to Improper Objections (DE 35); Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order Regarding Defendant’s Deposition (DE 70); Plaintiff's Motion for Forensic Examination (DE 96); Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions (DE 143). Ms. Giuffre has had to expend considerable time and resources simply to have Defendant meet her basic discovery obligations in this case. Now, having completely stonewalled on discovery, making every produced document and even her own deposition the result of extensive and unnecessary litigation, taking positions that are contrary to the Federal Rules and wholly contrary to prevailing case law, Defendant claims that Ms. Giuffre has been “non-compliant since the outset of discovery.” (Mtn. at 11). This statement is completely inaccurate. Defendant makes a number of unsubstantiated claims regarding law enforcement materials, photographs, and email accounts. Most of these issues have been resolved pursuant to this Court’s orders. See June 20, 2016, Order entered under seal denying Defendant’s motion to compel law enforcement materials; June 23, 2016, Minute Entry. Ms. Giuffre merely points out that Defendant not only failed to review, search, or produce Defendant’s email, from any of her multiple accounts, but also wholly failed to disclose her terramarproject.org email account or her ellmax.com email account. 16Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-14 Filed 01/04/24 Page 21 of 30 Regarding photographs, counsel for Ms. Giuffre has gone to considerable expense to recover boxes that Ms. Giuffre thought may contain photographs, including paying approximately $600.00 for shipping of the boxes to ensure production of any recent information. Accordingly, Defendant articulates no legitimate complaint in this section of her brief. LEGAL ARGUMENT I. DEFENDANT CANNOT SHOW NON-COMPLIANCE, AND HAS PUT FORTH NO COLORABLE LEGAL ARGUMENT FOR SANCTIONS Sanctions are not appropriate in this case because Defendant cannot show non- compliance. Through the normal course of discovery, Ms. Giuffre produced her medical providers to Defendant, as Defendant admits in her moving brief. Defendant’s complaint boils down to the fact that Ms. Giuffre remembered at deposition two providers (Ms. Lightfoot and Dr. Donahue) that she did not recall when compiling her long list of providers in response to Defendant’s interrogatory four days prior. That does not constitute non-compliance. That is not sanctionable behavior. And, Defendant cannot cite any case in which a court found differently. Additionally, though Defendant attempts to ascribe blame to Ms. Giuffre for any medical records that have not been sent by providers (or medical records that may not exist), the uncontested fact is that Ms. Giuffre has executed releases for all of the providers Defendant requested. Again, Defendant can point to no case in which sanctions were awarded over medical records where the party signed all applicable releases. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion should be denied.’ '? What does constitute sanctionable behavior is testimonial obduracy that includes “denying memory of the events under inquiry,” a tactic Defendant took in response to a multitude of questions at her deposition, as more fully briefed in Ms. Giuffre’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions (DE 143), granted by this Court on June 20, 2016. See In re Weiss, 703 F.2d 653, 663 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (holding that “the witness's . . . disclaimers of knowledge or memory, has also been dealt with as contemptuous conduct, warranting sanctions that were coercive, punitive, or both. It has long been the practice of courts viewing such testimony as false and intentionally evasive, and as a sham or subterfuge that purposely avoids 17Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-14 Filed 01/04/24 Page 22 of 30 Even Defendant’s own cases cited in her brief are inapposite and do not suggest that sanctions are appropriate in this case. For example, in Davidson v. Dean, the plaintiff “refused to consent to the release of mental health records” for periods for which he was seeking damages and for which the Court ordered him to provide releases. 204 F.R.D. 251, 254 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). By contrast, Ms. Giuffre has executed each and every release for medical records requested by Defendant. In In re Payne, Rule 37 sanctions were not even at issue: an attorney was reprimanded for “default[ing] on scheduling orders in fourteen cases, resulting in their dismissal ... fili[ing] stipulations to withdraw a number of appeals only after his briefing deadlines had passed,” etc. 707 F.3d 195, 198-99 (2d Cir. 2013). Similarly, in Gurvey v. Cowan, Liebowitz & Lathman, P.C., 2014 WL 715612, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), sanctions were awarded because, inter alia, “my... Order explicitly limited discovery to plaintiff's malpractice and breach-of-fiduciary duty claims ... However . . . plaintiff has sought discovery of extraordinary breadth that is far beyond the scope of the two claims . . . [and] disregarded my Order... by failing to explain in writing how each of her discovery requests to CLL is relevant to the remaining claims.” Accordingly, as stated above, Defendant has not put forth any colorable legal argument for sanctions under Rule 37. Il. THERE WAS NO INFORMATION “WITHHELD,” AND THEREFORE, NO PREJUDICE Defendant cannot be taken seriously when she claims that “Plaintiff is obviously trying to hide” her treatment related to domestic violence, x aay ES Given that fact, Defendant’s incendiary claim defies logic. All these things that Defendant claims were giving responsive answers, to ignore the form of the response and treat the witness as having refused to answer.”). 18Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-14 Filed 01/04/24 Page 23 of 30 deliberately “withheld” or “hidden” are things that Ms. Giuffre provided to Defendant in the normal course of discovery, as described at length above. Defendant cannot claim any prejudice regarding the manner in which she received this information, and, indeed, does not.) Accordingly, sanctions are wholly inappropriate. II. MS. GIUFFRE HAS FULFILLED HER REQUIREMENTS REGARDING HER RULE 26 DISCLOSURES'*"° Regarding Ms. Giuffre’s computation of damages, Ms. Giuffre has pled defamation per se under New York law, where damages are presumed. Robertson v. Dowbenko, 443 F. App'x 659, 661 (2d Cir. 2011). Plaintiff provided amounts, damage calculations and supporting evidence required under Rule 26. Plaintiff is retaining experts to support her Rule 26 Disclosures, and expert reports and disclosures are not due at this time. Defendant takes issues with Ms. Giuffre’s computation of damages in her Rule 26 disclosures but fails to cite to a single case that requires more from her, let alone more from a Plaintiff claiming defamation per se. Indeed, the case law supports that Plaintiff has fully complied with her Rule 26 obligations. See Naylor v. Rotech Healthcare, Inc., 679 F. Supp. 2d 505, 510 (D. Vt. 2009). In good faith, Ms. Giuffre has produced a multitude of documents and information regarding her damages. Defendant does not cite to a single case that even suggests she is required to do more. What Defendant purports to lack is expert discovery and an expert report on '8 This is particularly true regarding the timing of Ms. Giuffre’s deposition, as Ms. Giuffre has agreed to reopen her deposition concerning any medical information that Defendant did not receive in advance of her deposition. '4 Defendant references her Motion to Compel Rule 26(a) disclosures (DE 64) that she filed on March 22, 2016, but failed to mention that, after a hearing, this Court denied that motion with leave to refile (DE 106). 'S Defendant repeatedly attempts to conflate the required disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) and the disclosures ordered by this Court on April 21, 2016, in an apparent effort to ‘backdate’ those required disclosures. 19Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-14 Filed 01/04/24 Page 24 of 30 computation of damages. Rule 26(a)(1), governs “initial disclosures,” disclosures to be made at the beginning of litigation, prior to the completion of expert work. It does not entitle a party to expert discovery at this stage in the case. Ms. Giuffre has pleaded and will prove defamation per se, where damages are presumed. Robertson v. Dowbenko, 443 F. App'x at 661 (“As the district court correctly determined, Robertson was presumptively entitled to damages because he alleged defamation per se.’’). Under New York law, defamation per se, as alleged in this case, presumes damages, and special damages do not need to be pled and proven. See Celle v. Filipino Reporter Enters. Inc., 209 F.3d 163, 179 (2d Cir.2000) (Second Circuit holding that “[i]f a statement is defamatory per se, injury is assumed. In such a case ‘even where the plaintiff can show no actual damages at all, a plaintiff who has otherwise shown defamation may recover at least nominal damages,”” and confirming an award of punitive damages) (Emphasis added). Additionally, Ms. Giuffre has claimed punitive damages for the defamation per se. “[C]ourts have generally recognized that ... punitive damages are typically not amenable to the type of disclosures contemplated by Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii), and have held that the failure to disclosure a number or calculation for such damages was substantially justified.” See Murray v. Miron, 2015 WL 4041340 (D. Conn., July 1, 2015). See also Scheel v. Harris, No. CIV.A. 3:11- 17-DCR, 2012 WL 3879279, at *7 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 6, 2012) (finding that a failure to provide a precise number or calculation for their punitive damages claim is substantially justified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1)). Accordingly, Ms. Giuffre’s disclosures comply with Rule 26 for the computation of damages. See Naylor v. Rotech Healthcare, Inc., 679 F. Supp. 2dat 510 (“The Court is skeptical of the need for so much additional discovery, since the only open issue on the defamation claim 20Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-14 Filed 01/04/24 Page 25 of 30 seems to be damages. Miles’s email itself provides evidence of the statement and publication to a third party. Damages will depend on [plaintiff] Naylor's testimony and perhaps evidence from a few other sources, such as Naylor's family and friends, or Streeter [one of defendant’s clients].”) Ms. Giuffre has provided the calculations evidencing how she arrived at her damage figures and has provided a myriad of documents upon which she also will rely in proving damages. This includes supporting documents showing average medical expenses computed by 666 her average life expectancy. “‘[N]on-economic damages based on pain and suffering ... are generally not amenable to the type of disclosures contemplated by Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii).’” Scheel v. Harris, No. CIV.A. 3:11-17-DCR, 2012 WL 3879279, at *7 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 6, 2012) (holding that plaintiff’s failure to disclose a number or calculation for such damages was substantially justified). IV. THIS COURT SHOULD NOT STRIKE MS. GIUFFRE’S CLAIMS FOR MEDICAL AND EMOTIONAL DISTRESS DAMAGES Defendant cites four cases in support of her request for this Court to strike her claims for medical and emotional distress damages, and each one of them militates against any such relief being awarded in this case. In the first, Nittolo v. Brand, sanctions were awarded in a personal injury action because, inter alia, the plaintiff went to his physician and took away his medical records before defendant had a chance to use the court-ordered release to access them, and the Court found the plaintiff lied under oath about taking away the records. 96 F.R.D. 672, 673 (S.D.N.Y.1983). By contrast, Ms. Giuffre has signed every medical release form requested by Defendant and provided all medical records that they yielded. Defendant’s second case is equally inapposite. In Skywark v. Isaacson, Court found that the plaintiff “began his pattern of lying about at least three matters of extreme significance to his claim for damages;” lied to his experts and lied under oath; and “never provided defendants with 21Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-14 Filed 01/04/24 Page 26 of 30 the promised [medical release] authorizations.” 1999 WL 1489038 at *3, *5, *11 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 1999). The facts could not be more dissimilar to the case at hand, where Ms. Giuffre has provided truthful testimony regarding her medical history and has executed all medical releases. Defendant’s third case continues in the same pattern. In In re Consol. RNC Cases, “all Plaintiffs either expressly refused to provide mental health treatment records or simply failed to provide such records during the course of discovery.” 2009 WL 130178, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2009). Defendant’s fourth case is similarly inapposite by Defendant’s own description, turning on failure to provide medical releases. (Mtn. at 19). Importantly, Defendant represents to the Court that she seeks the “sanction of striking the claim or precluding evidence only on the damages that relate to the withheld documents and information.” (Mtn. at 19). This is confusing for two reasons. First, Ms. Giuffre has provided information about the providers that she has knowledge of and has provided releases for their medical records, so the sanction she seeks could not apply to any of the providers in Defendant’s brief. Second, there are no “withheld documents.” Ms. Giuffre has not withheld any medical records, and, indeed, has authorized the release of all records sought by Defendant. Accordingly, there are no “withheld records” upon which sanctions could be applied. And, again, there has been no violation of this Court’s Order. CONCLUSION Since filing the instant motion for sanctions, two other witnesses - witnesses subpoenaed by Defendant herself in order to mount her defense - have given testimony to support Ms. Giuffre. Most recently, Defendant’s witness, Tony Figueroa, testified he witnessed Defendant 22Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-14 Filed 01/04/24 Page 27 of 30 escort young girls he brought over to Epstein’s home to Epstein for sex acts, and testified that Defendant called him on the phone, asking him to bring girls over to Epstein’s house. rf Q And how long would you and one of these other girls sit there and have this small talk with Ms. Maxwell? A No more than 10 or 15 minutes. Q What were you waiting for? A Pretty much her to take them up stairs then I would leave. I would wait for them to be like we're ready. And I would be all right. See you later and I would leave. Q You were waiting for who to take who up stairs? A Thad seen Ms. Maxwell take a girl up there well not up there visibly but I watched her leave had room with one. Q Up stairs? 12 A Well, I didn't see the stairs. Like in the kitchen there's not like you have to go all around and all that shit. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 9, ROUGH Figueroa Tr. at 156:22-157:14. Q Let me fix this. Gill when Gillian Maxwell would call you during the time that you were living with Virginia she would ask you what specifically? A Just if I had found any ear girls just to bring the Jeffrey. Q Okay. A Pretty much everytime a conversation with any of them it was either asking Virginia where she was ask the asking her to get girls or asking me get girls. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 9, ROUGH Figueroa Tr. at 162:8-19. Accordingly, at this stage in discovery, it is not just the flight logs showing Defendant flying with Epstein and Ms. Giuffre over twenty times when she was a minor; it is not just the message pads from law enforcement’s trash pulls that show Defendant arranging to have an underage girl come over to Epstein’s house for “training;” it is not just the police report; it is not just the photographs of Defendant and other men with Ms. Giuffre when she was a minor. Now, there is actual, live testimonial evidence that Defendant was a procurer of young girls for sex with Jeffrey Epstein, with whom she shared a home and a life, thus validating Ms. Giuffre’s claims. Therefore, this baseless motion for sanctions is more a reflection of the '© See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 9, Excerpts from the June 24, 2016 ROUGH Deposition Transcript for the Deposition of Tony Figueroa. 23Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-14 Filed 01/04/24 Page 28 of 30 abundant testimonial evidence condemning Defendant than any type of imagined discovery violation on behalf of Ms. Giuffre. Ms. Giuffre respectfully requests that it be denied in its entirety. Dated: June 28, 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) 585-5202'7 '’ 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. 24Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-14 Filed 01/04/24 Page 29 of 30 25Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-14 Filed 01/04/24 Page 30 of 30 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 28th day of June, 2016, I served the attached document via Email to the following counsel of record. Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10" Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com jpagliuca@hmflaw.com /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley 26Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-15 Filed 01/04/24 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, Vv. 15-cv-07433-RWS GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REOPEN DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF VIRGINIA GIUFFRE Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca HADDON, MORGAN, AND FOREMAN, P.C. East 10" Avenue Denver, CO 80203 303.831.7364Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-15 Filed 01/04/24 Page 2 of 14 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION oie cee ceeceeecsecssecssecsessecesecsaecsuecseeceesesessecsaecsuecseseseeesesecasenuesseseeeeegen 1 ARGUMENT 00. eccececcscesccsecnsecssecseecseesssssecssecaecseecseesssssecsascaecsuecsesesessecascsaecauecseseseseesaeenaes 2 I. PLAINTIFF’S PRODUCTION OF KEY DOCUMENTS AFTER HER DEPOSITION NECESSITATES ADDITIONAL EXAMINATION 0.0... ceecceceecceceseceeseeeeesaeeeeaeeeenaeeeeaaeees 2 A. Plaintiff failed to identify her health care providers and produce their records prior to her deposition, despite this Court’s Order ........ccceccccceseceseceeeeeeseeceeceeeeeeeeeseecaeeneeeeeeensees 2 B. _ Plaintiff failed to produce emails from her iCloud and Hotmail accounts.................0++ 4 C. Plaintiff failed to address issue of her employment records ............ccceeeceesseesseeeeeeeeeeeeees 5 D. Newly obtained education records and other witness testimony contradict Plaintiff's CePOSItION 0... eeecceesceescccseeceeeeeeceesseecsaecesecsceeeseecsaecsaeceeeeeeseecsueceseeseseeeseecaeceaeceseeeeeeenseen 5 E. Plaintiff identified new witnesses in her Rule 26 disclosures after her deposition.......... 6 Il. PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL INSTRUCTED PLAINTIFF NOT TO ANSWER RELEVANT, NON-PRIVILEGED QUESTIONS IN HER FIRST DEPOSITION ....... 0. ee eeeeeteeeeeteees 7 IH. PLAINTIFF CONCEDES THAT HER ERRATA SHEET IS PROPERLY THE SUBJECT FOR RE-OPENED DEPOSITION .........ccecceseesseseeseesecseeeceeeeeceaeeseeaeeaeesecaeeeecaaeeeceaeeeeeaeeaeeaeens 9 IV. RESTRICTIONS TO TWO HOURS AND VIA VIDEOTAPE UNJUSTIFIED........... 0 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 0... ceccccccescsseeseeseeseeseeseeseeseesecaeeseceaeeseeaeeaeeaecaeesecaeeeceaeeeeeaeeaeeaeenees 12Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-15 Filed 01/04/24 Page 3 of 14 Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell submits this Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition (“Response’”’) to Motion to Reopen Deposition of Plaintiff (“Motion”), and as grounds therefore states as follows: INTRODUCTION! Plaintiff concedes the reopening of her deposition based on (a) the late production of records concerning Plaintiff's medical and mental health treatment, (b) her unjustifiable refusal to answer questions related to statements the media “got wrong,” (c) material edits to her deposition testimony through her errata sheet. Plaintiff did not address her newly disclosed employment records and thus it should be deemed admitted. Apparently, she still contests questions regarding other items not disclosed until after her deposition, including (a) iCloud and Hotmail emails, (b) school records from Forest Hills High School, Wellington High School and Survivors Charter school, and (c) witnesses newly identified in her Third and Fourth Revised Rule 26 disclosures. There is no legally principled reason to exclude these topics during Plaintiff's reopened deposition and Ms. Maxwell should be permitted to examine Plaintiff based on this information produced after her deposition although requested before. The other limitations proposed by Plaintiff are not appropriate. Due to the quantity of documents and the number of topics, two hours will be insufficient to appropriately inquire. Moreover, Plaintiffs deposition should be in person; she chose to move to Australia from Colorado during the pendency of this case and has been in the US for weeks attending witness depositions and other litigation matters by her own choosing. Deposition by videoconference will be extremely cumbersome to accomplish given the hundreds of pages of documents to be ' Defendant conferred with counsel for Plaintiff regarding this Motion prior to its filing. By email of May 8, 2016, Mr. Pagliuca requested conferral regarding Plaintiff's refusal to answer questions at her deposition. That conferral was held on May 9 and May 10. Mr. Edwards offered, for example, to consider whether a verified representation by Plaintiff all of the statements that the media “got wrong” would suffice instead of a re-opened deposition. 1Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-15 Filed 01/04/24 Page 4 of 14 covered and which were necessitated by Plaintiff's late disclosures and refusal to answer questions at her first deposition. ARGUMENT I. PLAINTIFF’S PRODUCTION OF KEY DOCUMENTS AFTER HER DEPOSITION NECESSITATES ADDITIONAL EXAMINATION A. Plaintiff failed to identify her health care providers and produce their records prior to her deposition, despite this Court’s order Plaintiff concedes that numerous medical records were not produced until after her May 3" deposition, to wit: r * * * a * * * r r e™ r r rCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-15 Filed 01/04/24 Page 5 of 14 Furthermore, there remain numerous doctors from the relevant time frame for whom no records have been provided. In addition to all of the treatment providers from 1999-2002, no records have been provided by Plaintiff for: i Menninger Decl., Ex. O. Plaintiff, while not opposing the reopening of the deposition for documents produced after that date, writes to refute supposed “baseless suggestions of impropriety.” Yet, her Response contains additional impropriety. Plaintiff repeatedly asserts that she has produced and disclosed documents but her chart and her arguments neglect to mention that those documents were only sought and produced after the deposition, indeed up to and including the very same day she filed her Response on June 28. Her claim that she could not “remember” Dr. Donohue or Judith Lightfoot until her deposition is hard to believe given she had consulted with them in the days and weeks just before her Interrogatory Responses. Jd.; Ex. D at 334-35. Further, all of the 2015-2016 medical records from Colorado were only produced because the defense, not ° Defendant’s Interrogatories sought the identities and locations of Plaintiff’s health care providers, the dates of treatment, the nature of the treatment, medical expenses to date, and releases for each. Inexplicably, despite this Court’s Order to answer the interrogatory, Plaintiff still has not provided the dates of treatment, the nature of treatment or any information concerning expenses for any of her providers. 3Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-15 Filed 01/04/24 Page 6 of 14 Plaintiff, sent a subpoena to Dr. Olson and his hospital for records and then learned that Plaintiff had been seen by other doctors there and secured a release which the defense sent to Plaintiff. As detailed more fulsomely in the Reply in Support of Sanctions filed contemporaneously, the late disclosures were not due to Ms. Giuffre and her attorneys going to “great lengths” to track down records; they have only responded to requests for doctor’s records when the defense has brought to their attention missing doctors and records. yy ee ee ee ee Given Plaintiff's agreement to submit to questioning based on the late-disclosed records, it is hardly worth the Court or counsel’s time to again correct the record as to each of Plaintiff's misstatements. In lieu, Ms. Maxwell hereby incorporates by reference her Reply in Support of Motion for Sanctions which addresses many of Plaintiff’s misstatements concerning production of her health care providers’ identities and their records. B. Plaintiff failed to produce emails from her iCloud and Hotmail accounts Plaintiff objects to further questioning regarding emails from her iCloud and Hotmail accounts and submits that Ms. Maxwell’s claims regarding these missing emails “are simply false” because she “produced every relevant document from her iCloud account.” Resp. at 8. Plaintiff ignores the most important fact: she produced them after the deposition and only after Ms. Maxwell issued a subpoena to the email providers. The emails were produced on June 10, more than one month after Plaintiff's deposition. See Menninger Decl., Ex. K. Similarly, following Ms. Maxwell’s subpoena to Hotmail, that company has now confirmed that Plaintiff has an active account with them and that the account has been used by 4Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-15 Filed 01/04/24 Page 7 of 14 Plaintiff since the beginning of this case. Plaintiff concededly did not search that account for responsive documents but has represented to this Court that she will sign the release provided by Microsoft, obtain the records and search the account. Thus, any responsive emails from that account likewise will not have been available at the time of Plaintiff's deposition. Plaintiff does not argue the responsive emails are not relevant, nor can she. Thus, Ms. Maxwell should be entitled to reopen Plaintiff's deposition to inquire regarding those emails as well as any that are produced from the Hotmail account. C. Plaintiff failed to address issue of her employment records In her Response, Plaintiff did not address Ms. Maxwell’s request to reopen Plaintiff's deposition regarding late-disclosed employment records. Accordingly, the issue should be deemed admitted and inquiry into Plaintiff's employment based on the new records permitted. D. Newly obtained education records and other witness testimony contradict Plaintiff's deposition Plaintiff testified at her deposition that she began working at Mar-a-Lago during a break from her GED classes, that she believed it was a summer job, and that while she cannot pinpoint the exact date, it was to the best of her recollection in or about June 2000 when she was still 16 years old. Menninger Decl., Ex. D at 57. This Court ordered Plaintiff to produce her education records and, mere days before her deposition, Plaintiff signed releases for some of the institutions she attended in Florida. Defendant obtained records pursuant to those releases after the deposition (despite having sought them by discovery request in February). The transcripts from Royal Palm Beach and Forest Hills High School directly contradict Plaintiff's story. In fact, they are highly relevant because they show that Plaintiff was in school during the summer of 2000, finishing on August 15, 2000, when she was 17 years old. Appropriate areas of inquiry at a reopened deposition of Plaintiff would be matching her story up to the records andCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-15 Filed 01/04/24 Page 8 of 14 demonstrating that she did not start working at Mar-a-Lago until she was 17 years old --- despite her well-publicized claims that she was a “‘sex slave” for Jeffrey Epstein from the age of 15 years old beginning in 1998. Furthermore, testimony from other witnesses in this case, including Plaintiff's former boyfriend Tony Figueroa, materially contradict Plaintiff's claims. Mr. Figueroa testified on June 24 that he and Plaintiff were enrolled in an all-day high school and that they attended school together every day and that Plaintiff was not working for Epstein. Menninger Decl., Ex. P. Based on these newly discovered records, Mr. Figueroa confirmed that time period as October 2001 — March 2002, directly contradicting Plaintiffs deposition testimony that she was a “sex slave” for 4 years from 1998-2002 and that she was with Epstein constantly during that four year period. Based on the newly discovered education records and other witness testimony concerning those records, Ms. Maxwell should be entitled to question Plaintiff at her continued deposition about those records. Ms. Maxwell lacked those records at the time of Plaintiff's deposition because Plaintiff refused to produce her education records, Ms. Maxwell had to file a Motion to Compel and obtain a Court Order before Plaintiff would sign a release for the records. Therefore, there is no basis for Plaintiff to object to a continued deposition regarding the newly obtained records and witness testimony. E. Plaintiff identified new witnesses in her Rule 26 disclosures after her deposition Plaintiff does not address the fact that she added 28 new witnesses to her Rule 26 disclosures after her deposition. The new witnesses added by Ms. Maxwell to her Rule 26 list > The only mention Plaintiff makes is asking the Court to deny Ms. Maxwell’s motion to strike the new witnesses. Ms. Maxwell stated that her motion to strike would be by separate motion (Mot. at 10), thus there is no motion to strike.Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-15 Filed 01/04/24 Page 9 of 14 are almost entirely ones that were taken off Plaintiff’s list. Presumably, they have information relevant to this case and Ms. Maxwell is entitled to question Plaintiff on these disclosures to determine what, if any, relevant information these newly disclosed witnesses might have. I. PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL INSTRUCTED PLAINTIFF NOT TO ANSWER RELEVANT, NON-PRIVILEGED QUESTIONS IN HER FIRST DEPOSITION Plaintiff's counsel glosses over their instruction to Plaintiff not to answer questions at her deposition regarding non-privileged issues. During her deposition, the following exchange occurred: Q: You did not read the articles published by Sharon Churcher about your stories to Sharon Churcher? A: [have read some articles about what Sharon Churcher wrote. And a lot of the stuff that she writes she takes things from my own mouth and changes them into her own words as journalists do. And I never came back to her and told her to correct anything. What was done was done. There was nothing else I can do. Q: So even if she printed something that were untrue you didn't ask her to correct it, correct? A: There was things that she printed that really pissed me off, but there was nothing I could do about it. It's already out there. Q: She printed things that were untrue, correct? A: I wouldn't say that they were untrue. I would just say that she printed them as journalists take your words and turn them into something else. Q: She got it wrong? A: In some ways, yes. Q: Did she print things in her articles that you did not say to her? MR. EDWARDS: I object and ask that the witness be given the opportunity to see the document so that she can review it and answer that question accurately. Otherwise she's unable to answer the question. I'm not going to allow her to answer. Q: Did Sharon Churcher print things that you did not say? MR. EDWARDS: I'm going to instruct my client not to answer unless you give her what it is that you're talking about that was printed. And she will tell you the answer, the accurate answer to your question. Just without the document to refresh her recollection and see it, she's not going to answer the question. Q: Did Sharon Churcher print things that you did not say? MR. EDWARDS: Same objection. Same instruction not to answer. 7Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-15 Filed 01/04/24 Page 10 of 14 Q: Did Sharon Churcher print things that you felt were inaccurate? MR. EDWARDS: Same objection. Same instruction. If she sees the document, she's going to answer every one of these questions. Q: Did any other reporter print statements that you believe are inaccurate? MR. EDWARDS: Same objection. Same instruction. Q: Did any reporter print statements about Ghislaine Maxwell that were inaccurate? MR. EDWARDS: Same objection. Same instruction. Menninger Decl., Ex. D at 220-23. At no time did Plaintiff say she “could not remember” what Churcher “got wrong.” Mr. Edwards refused to allow her to answer the question unless her recollection was “refreshed,” even though she never said she lacked a recollection. This is a patently improper instruction not to answer, as well as improper suggestion to his client that she needed to have a “refreshed” memory by looking at articles from Ms. Churcher. The instruction not to answer was improper and Plaintiff should be required to answer all questions regarding inaccuracies in the media reports of this case. Indeed, it is hard to conceive of an area more directly relevant to this single- count defamation case in which Ms. Maxwell has said that Plaintiff's statements to the press were lies, and now even Plaintiff is saying that the press “got it wrong”. Plaintiff's counsel similarly would not allow Plaintiff to answer questions regarding her communications with law enforcement, specifically regarding Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell respectfully disagrees that this area should be off limits. Efforts by a Plaintiff to have another party charged with a crime, including any statement made during the course of those efforts, are clearly relevant, reflect bias and motive, and may be used for impeachment. There is no privilege which attaches to a civil litigant’s prior statements to law enforcement and to the extentCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-15 Filed 01/04/24 Page 11 of 14 any such statements exist, Ms. Maxwell should be permitted to inquire regarding the statements and the circumstances of surrounding their issuance, during Plaintiff's reopened deposition. Ms. Maxwell disagrees with Plaintiff's contention regarding the identity of her expert but agrees not to inquire into that topic during the reopened deposition in light of the upcoming expert disclosure deadlines. In light of the clearly improper instructions not to answer non-privileged relevant questions, Plaintiff's deposition must be reopened. It. PLAINTIFF CONCEDES THAT HER ERRATA SHEET IS PROPERLY THE SUBJECT FOR RE-OPENED DEPOSITION Because Plaintiff concedes, as she must, that changes to her deposition testimony as reflected on her errata sheet are proper areas of inquiry, Ms. Maxwell perceives no need for additional argument regarding the materiality of Plaintiff's changes although they were not based on “misspellings and the like” as Plaintiff avers. IV. RESTRICTIONS TO TWO HOURS AND VIA VIDEOTAPE UNJUSTIFIED Ms. Maxwell has identified a significant number of areas of inquiry for reopened deposition and two hours is insufficient to accomplish that goal. Ms. Maxwell seeks leave to reopen Plaintiff's deposition regarding belatedly disclosed records from: Qr Doe e Email records from iCloud and Hotmail regarding interactions with the FBI e School records regarding the time period of 1999-2002 e 18 newly listed witnesses e Any published news stories that Plaintiff concedes were inaccurate e Plaintiffs interactions with law enforcement regarding Ms. Maxwell.Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-15 Filed 01/04/24 Page 12 of 14 All of these are properly the subject of additional inquiry at a deposition and to address them will require more than two hours. While Ms. Maxwell does not believe that seven hours will be necessary, she did not use all of the first seven hours based on Plaintiffs refusal to answer relevant non-privileged questions and believes that she will be able to finish her examination on these topics within a reasonable period of time, most likely between 4-5 hours. Further, such deposition should be done live and in person, not via videotape from Australia. Video conference depositions are exceedingly difficult and cumbersome when handling the number of records at issue here — medical records, school records, employment records and emails, as well as press statements, errata sheets and the like. Counsel will not have the ability to hand over documents to the witness as needed. Plaintiff argues that her childcare needs require her to be in Australia. Notably, Plaintiff has spent several weeks in the U.S. attending in person the depositions of her former fiancé and boyfriend in Florida (and calling them in advance of their testimony) and, upon information and belief, attending to other litigation and personal matters. Plaintiff lived in Colorado at the time she filed this litigation and made a decision to return to Australia after doing so. She and her counsel failed to disclose relevant doctors and medical records, emails, employment and school records in advance of her deposition, and she was instructed not to answer relevant, non- privileged questions. She chose to change her deposition testimony after the fact. WHEREFORE, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests a reopened deposition of Plaintiff to include the topics of: 1. Any documents disclosed after May 3 regarding: a. Plaintiff's medical and mental care b. Plaintiff's employment c. Plaintiff’'s education d. Plaintiff's emails from her iCloud and Hotmail accounts 10Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-15 Filed 01/04/24 Page 13 of 14 2. Any question she was instructed not to answer regarding: a. Inaccurate statements attributed to her in the press; b. Her communications with law enforcement about Ms. Maxwell; 3. Any changes to her deposition testimony as reflected on her errata sheet. Ms. Maxwell asks the Court to deny Plaintiff's request that the reopened deposition be limited to two hours or occur via remote means. Finally, Ms. Maxwell requests costs incurred in bringing this Motion based on counsel’s improper instructions not to answer relevant and non- privileged questions. Dated: July 8, 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 10 Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303.831.7364 Fax: 303.832.2628 Imenninger@hmflaw.com Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell 11Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-15 Filed 01/04/24 Page 14 of 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on July 8, 2016, I electronically served this REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO REOPEN DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF VIRGINIA GIUFFRE via ECF on the following: Sigrid S. McCawley Meredith Schultz BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 smccawley@bsfllp.com mschultz@bsfllp.com Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 brad@pathtojustice.com Paul G. Cassell 383 S. University Street Salt Lake City, UT 84112 cassellp@law.utah.edu J. Stanley Pottinger 49 Twin Lakes Rd. South Salem, NY 10590 StanPottinger@aol.com /s/ Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons 12Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-16 Filed 01/04/24 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK xX VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, V. 15-cv-07433-RWS GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x Declaration Of Laura A. Menninger In Support Of Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant’s Motion To Reopen Plaintiff's Deposition I, Laura A. Menninger, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed in the State of New York and admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Iam a member of the law firm Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C., counsel of record for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell (“Maxwell’’) in this action. I respectfully submit this declaration in support of Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant’s Motion To Reopen Plaintiff's Deposition. 2. Attached as Exhibit O (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of select pages of Plaintiff's medical records bates labeled GIUFFRE 5089, 5316-18, 6631, designated as Confidential under the Protective Order. 3. Attached as Exhibit P (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of excerpts from the deposition of Anthony Figuera, designated as Confidential under the Protective Order.Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-16 Filed 01/04/24 Page 2 of 2 Dated: July 8, 2016 By: /s/Laura A. Menninger Laura A. Menninger CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on July 8, 2016, I electronically served this Declaration Of Laura A. Menninger In Support Of Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant’s Motion To Reopen Plaintiff's Deposition via ECF on the following: Sigrid S. McCawley Meredith Schultz BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 smccawley@bsfllp.com mschultz@bsfllp.com Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 brad@pathtojustice.com Paul G. Cassell 383 S. University Street Salt Lake City, UT 84112 cassellp@law.utah.edu J. Stanley Pottinger 49 Twin Lakes Rd. South Salem, NY 10590 StanPottinger@aol.com /s/ Nicole Simmons Nicole SimmonsCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-17 Filed 01/04/24 Page 1 of 11 EXHIBIT PCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-17 Filed 01/04/24 Page 2 of 11 Video Deposition of Tony Figueroa (Volume 1) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CASE: 15-cv-07433-RWS VIRGINIA GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, Vv. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF TONY FIGUEROA Volume 1 of 2 Pages 1 - 157 Taken at the Instance of the Defendant DATE: Friday, June 24, 2016 TIME: Commenced: 8:59 a.m. Concluded: 1:22 p.m. PLACE : Southern Reporting Company B. Paul Katz Professional Center (SunTrust Building) One Florida Park Drive South Suite 214 Palm Coast, Florida 32137 REPORTED BY: MLEANNE W. FITZGERALD, FPR Florida Professional Reporter Court Reporter and Notary Public Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-17 Filed 01/04/24 Page 3 of 11 Video Deposition of Tony Figueroa (Volume 1) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF: BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Esquire Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P. 425 North Andrews Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 954-524-2820 Brad@pathtojustice.com ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT: LAURA A. MENNINGER, Esquire Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 303-831-7364 Lmenninger@hmflaw.com; Nsimmons@hmflaw.com Also appearing: Jenny Martin, Videographer from Abel Virginia Giuffre, Plaintiff Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-17 Filed 01/04/24 Page 4 of 11 Video Deposition of Tony Figueroa (Volume 1) 23 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MS. MENNINGER: Q And where did you go after Royal Palm Beach? A I believe it was South Area. I'm pretty Sure it was South Area. Q Did you go to another school after that? A Yeah. I went to Gold Coast after that. Q Is that also in Royal Palm Beach? A No. That's -- South Area was in Lake Worth. Gold Coast is in West Palm. They were both alternative schools. Q Did you ever go to a Survivors Charter School? A Yes. I went there, too. Q When did you go there? A I'm not exactly sure of the date. But it was somewhere after either -- I'm pretty sure it was -- maybe -- I can't remember if it was Gold Coast first or Survivor. But one of the -- I'm trying to remember. I honestly don't remember which one came first. Q That's all right. Can you describe for me Survivors Charter School? What is it like, or was it like? A I mean, like I said, it was an alternative Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-17 Filed 01/04/24 Page 5 of 11 Video Deposition of Tony Figueroa (Volume 1) 24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 school. It was just pretty much a bunch of bad kids, you know, who have gotten kicked out. And it was pretty much like a last chance kind of school, you know what I mean? Q Does it look like a school? A Kind of. I mean, it had, like, a cafeteria, and then it had a whole bunch of, like, portables and stuff around there. And it was under -- it was, like, right near the Lake Worth. I remember there was, like, a bridge that went over the interstate right by it. But, I mean, it was just a little, you know, little crappy school. Q Was it during the day or at night? A It was during the day. Q So regular school hours? A Yeah. Well, it was actually a little bit shorter hours. I can't remember exactly. But I know it was not like the full days. Because, I mean, at the alternative schools, it's obviously not up to regular high school standards. I mean, they just do pretty much stuff to get people to get out of school, you know, so... Q Get the credits that you need? A Yeah. So that way they can finish high school and not drop out and whatnot, so... Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-17 Filed 01/04/24 Page 6 of 11 Video Deposition of Tony Figueroa (Volume 1) 25 1 Q You actually go there in the morning, 2 though, and take classes? 3 A Yeah. 4 Q And get checked in at attendance? 5 A Yeah. 6 Q And then you may leave a little earlier 7 than a regular school day? 8 A Uh-huh (affirmative) . 9 Q All right. It's not a online program? 10 A No, it was not online. 11 Q When you were at Survivors Charter School, 12 did you ever see Ms. Roberts there? 13 A Was it Survivors? I don't remember if it 14 was Survivors. Or was it -- because I'm pretty sure 15 we were both -- was it -- I know we both went to one 16 of the schools. I'm pretty sure it was Survivors, 17 maybe. 18 Q Did you see her there? 19 A Now, when we went to the school, like, we 20 were together afterwards. But I don't remember 21 exactly which one it was. I know it was one of 22 those alternative schools that we went to, though. 23 Q Okay. Did you -- was Wellington an 24 alternative school? 25 A No. Wellington is a -- is a real high Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-17 Filed 01/04/24 Page 7 of 11 Video Deposition of Tony Figueroa (Volume 1) 26 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 school, like a regular high school. Q Do you know if Wellington has an adult program? A They might. I mean, I really don't know. I'm not sure. Q Did you ever take night classes there? A No. Q So you believe when you reunited with Ms. Roberts in or around 2001, she had also gone to one of those alternative schools? A When I reunited with her, no. We ended up, like, trying to go finish school. Q Tell me about that. A I mean, we just ended up going to one of those alternative schools and didn't even finish that. Q So you two had both left school, but went back together -- A Yeah. Q -- to one of the alternative schools? A Yeah. Q And that may have been Survivors Charter School? A Yeah. I'm pretty sure it probably was. I'm pretty sure. Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-17 Filed 01/04/24 Page 8 of 11 Video Deposition of Tony Figueroa (Volume 1) 27 1 Q You both wanted to get your GEDs? 2 A Yeah. 3 Q Get better jobs? 4 A Uh-huh (affirmative) . 5 QO Things like -- that was the plan? 6 A Yeah. 7 Q But it did not work out? 8 A Yeah. 9 Q Do you know how long the two of you went 10 to Survivors Charter School? 11 A I honestly don't remember. 12 Q Okay. You do have a recollection of going 13 with her, though? 14 A Yeah. 15 Q Seeing her there? 16 A Uh-huh (affirmative) . 17 Q I'm trying to get a little bit of a time 18 frame on the time that you reunited with 19 Ms. Roberts. I know you said you lived -- you 20 remember being in an apartment with her in September 21 of 2000 -- 9/11/2001; right? 22 A Yeah. 23 Q Do you think you had been together with 24 her for a while at that point? 25 A It was probably, I'd say, like a month or Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-17 Filed 01/04/24 Page 9 of 11 Video Deposition of Tony Figueroa (Volume 1) 144 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MS. MENNINGER: Q Mr. Figueroa, you mentioned that you and Ms. Roberts attempted to go to back to school while you were together -- A Yes. Q -- to get your GED? A Yeah. Yes. Q And you believe that you went to the Survivors Charter School? A Yes. MS. MENNINGER: Okay. I'm going to mark Defendant's Exhibit 6. (Defendant's Exhibit 6 was marked for identification. ) BY MS. MENNINGER: Q This is a school record for Ms. Roberts that lists the names of various schools. And -- A So it was Survivors, obviously. That's the only one on that list that isn't -- or that's there that's on mine, as well. Q Okay. A Other than the other ones, but... Q All right. So you recognize Survivors Charter School on Ms. Roberts' school records? A Yeah. That's what I'm saying. Since that Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-17 Filed 01/04/24 Page 10 of 11 Video Deposition of Tony Figueroa (Volume 1) 145 1 is the one on here, that's -- that's completely 2 clear. I could not remember if it was that one or 3 Gold Coast. 4 Q Okay. There is an entry date for 5 Ms. Roberts at Survivors Charter School of 6 10/12/2001, and a withdrawal on 3/7 of '02. Do you 7 see that? 8 A I mean, it's this; right? I mean, that's 9 the top. 10 Q The entry date of 10/12/01, withdrawal 11 3/7/02 at Survivors? 12 A Okay. I did not know what those 13 numbers -- I did not realize that that was a date. 14 Q I understand. And I know you did not make 15 this record. 16 So I'm just wanting to know if that's 17 consistent with your recollection, that you guys 18 went to school in the fall of 2001 until the -- 19 A Yeah, that sounds about right. 20 Q -- March of 2002. It sounds right? 21 A Yeah. 22 Q And you both went to school together? 23 A Uh-huh (affirmative) . 24 Q In the mornings? 25 A Yeah. Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-17 Filed 01/04/24 Page 11 of 11 Video Deposition of Tony Figueroa (Volume 1) 146 1 Q And got out of school at some earlier time 2 than a regular school day? 3 A Yeah. 4 Q Do you recall Ms. Roberts going to Royal 5 Palm Beach High? Again, this is in the 2001 time 6 frame. 7 A I -- I don't recall. I really don't. 8 Q Do you recall her, during the time you 9 were with her, taking any night classes at 10 Wellington High School? 11 A I don't recall. 12 Q Is it possible? 13 A It's a possibility. 14 MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form. 15 BY MS. MENNINGER: 16 Q Do you know whether Wellington has a night 17 school program? 18 A Like I said before, I don't know. They 19 could. 20 Q You went there in ninth grade? 21 A Yeah. It was during the day, though. I 22 have no clue about night school. 23 Q Got it. 24 But you do have a memory about Survivors 25 Charter School? Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-18 Filed 01/04/24 Page 1 of 23 Exhibit 4 (File Under Seal) 10 Li 12 13 14 L5 16 Lid 18 Lg 20 Zul 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-18 G1ETGIUA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK oo ee ee ee eee eee x VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. Ee X Before: HON. ROBERT W. Filed 01/04/24 Page 2 of 23 15 CV 7433 (RWS) New York, N.Y. January 14, 2016 12:00 p.m. SWEET, District Judge APPEARANCES BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: SIGRID McCAWLEY HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN Attorneys for Defendant BY: LAURA MENNINGER SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 10 Ld. 12 LS 14 LS 16 Le 18 Le 20 2. 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-18 Filed 01/04/24 Page 3 of 23 GLETGIUA (In open court) THE COURT: I will hear from the movant. MS. MENNINGER: Thank you, your Honor, Laura Menninger on behalf of the defendant Maxwell. We are the movant for the purposes of today's hearing. I filed both a motion to dismiss the complaint, which is based on one claim of defamation, as well as a motion to stay discovery during the pendency of our motion to dismiss the complaint. At the heart of this case, your Honor, defamation is about words, specifically false and defamatory words, about the plaintiff published to another by the defendant with a certain level of culpability and resulting injury. Depending on the context of the words, the content of the statement, the relationship of the speaker and the listener, depending on the time, place and manner of the statement, the Court may find the words to be actionable or not, privileged or not, defamatory in meaning or not. The central problem with this particular complaint, your Honor, is that all of the key elements of defamation are conspicuously absent. Cutting through the hyperbole and the rhetoric contained in the complaint, one is still left wondering what words are actually at issue. Is it the three sentence fragments contained in paragraph 30 against Ghislaine Maxwell are untrue, shown to be untrue, claimed or obvious lies, or does it include some additional or extra false SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 10 Ld: 12 13 14 L5 16 LY 18 Lg 20 2. 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-18 Filed 01/04/24 Page 4 of 23 GLETGIUA statements that are referenced but never explained in paragraphs 31 and 34? In what context were any of these sentence fragments published? What, if anything, were they in response to? Your Honor has found in previous cases, such as Hawkins v. City of New York, that the failure to identify the individuals to whom the statement allegedly was made and the content of that statement is fatally defective to an attempt to state a libel or slander cause of action. In this case, in this complaint, plaintiff has barely even attributed a few sentence fragments to my client, Ms. Maxwell. She stripped them of any context. She hasn't provided the entire statement in which those sentence fragments were contained, nor the articles in which any of those sentences might have appeared. She has not pled facts, which, as this Court knows, post-Twombly, must be included, not just legal conclusions. She has not pled facts demonstrating actual malice, nor any special damages or facts that would support defamation per se. Because of the many pleading failures, your Honor, I do not believe this complaint should stand. The Second Circuit made quite clear that your Honor has an important gatekeeping function in a defamation case. The Court must ascertain whether the statement, when judged in context, has a defamatory meaning, and also whether it is privileged. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 10 Lt L2 13 14 15 16 47 18 LO 20 21. 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-18 Filed 01/04/24 Page 5 of 23 G1ETGIUA As your Honor also found in Cruz v. Marchetto, you cannot rely, as the plaintiff tries to do here, on the less stringent pleading requirements that predated Twombly and Igbal, and furthermore, that the plaintiff must plead facts which support either defamation per se or special damages. Here, your Honor, while there are statement fragments contained in the complaint at paragraph 31, there's not even a complete sentence attributed to my client, Ms. Maxwell. That, your Honor, has been found on numerous occasions to be insufficient to state a cause of action for defamation. Furthermore, the complaint does not state to whom any such statements were made. There is a general allegation that the statements were made, quote, to the media and public, but no media is identified, no publications are identified. While the complaint states at one point that it was published and disseminated around the world, not a single publication is mentioned or attached to the complaint. And furthermore, the complaint fails to state where in fact the statements were made. Although it does state the statements were made in the Southern ‘ehebartiet of New York, it attributes those sentence fragments to a press agent who is admittedly located in London. Finally, your Honor, there is a lot of confusion contained in the paperwork with regard to the standard of malice that must be pled. Again your Honor has found, and SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 10 11 12 13 14 LS 16 Lt 18 LY 20 au 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-18 Filed 01/04/24 Page 6 of 23 G1ETGIUA numerous other Southern District Courts have found likewise, that malice in this context is malice in the sense of spite or ill will. Looking to the complaint, your Honor, there's not a single conclusory or factually-supported allegation that would give rise to a finding of malice. And that, your Honor, likewise is fatal to the complaint. Finally, in terms of pleading deficiencies, plaintiff in this case has tried to allege defamation per se by claiming her profession is as a professional victim. In other words, ten days before she claims my client made statements about her, plaintiff founded a nonprofit through her organization, through her attorneys in Florida, called Victims Refuse Silence, and thereby states that any attempt to impugn anything she says is defamation per se. There is no support in the case law for a profession of being a victim, your Honor. And likewise, there's no factual support to suggest, and the cases require, that the statements attributed to my client, Ms. Maxwell, have anything to do with her nonprofit organization, nor that my client was even aware of an organization founded a mere ten days earlier and which doesn't appear to have any actual business conduct related to it. So your Honor, I think for all those reasons, the complaint is insufficiently pled and should be dismissed. Our papers go on a little bit further, your Honor, to SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 10 iL Le 13 14 5 16 L? 18 LY 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-18 Filed 01/04/24 Page 7 of 23 G1ETGIUA also argue that to the extent any of these sentence fragments can be pieced together, the statements, at most, are a general denial. In other words, plaintiff admits in the complaint that she started a media campaign against my client, she issued some very salacious allegations against my client in the British press and in some pleadings that she filed in Florida. And after having done that, my client, she says, issued a statement that the allegations are quote, unquote, untrue. Repeatedly, cases both in New York State and federal courts have found general denials are not actionable, that individuals have a right, when they have been accused of misdeeds in the press, to respond, so long as they don't abuse that privilege. And by abuse of privilege, that means including numerous defamatory extraneous statements about the person to whom they are responding and/or excessively publicizing their response. In this case, your Honor, the statement the allegations are untrue is about as plain vanilla as one can find. There's no better way to issue a general denial than to just say that the allegations are untrue, without more. There's not a single reference to plaintiff herself. Although, in opposition, plaintiff claims to have been called a liar, complains that she was called dishonest, she doesn't actually point to any statement which contains those words, nor any statement which actually refers to her as a SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 10 Lt 12 LS 14 13 16 Ld 18 Lg 20 al 22 25 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-18 Filed 01/04/24 Page 8 of 23 G1ETGIUA person, simply to the allegations which her client had issued, and frankly, allegations which had been circulated in the press. So saying the allegations are untrue is tantamount to a general denial, and that is one additional reason, your Honor, that I think the complaint should be dismissed. approach copy? Thank you. MS. McCAWLEY: Good morning, your Honor. May I with a bench book? THE COURT: Sure. MS. McCAWLEY: Thank you. THE COURT: I think in duplicate. MS. McCAWLEY: Sure, of course. Good morning, your Honor, my name Do you have another is Sigrid McCawley, I'm with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner representing the plaintiff in the case, Virginia Giuffre. With all due respect to my colleague, I think she read a different complaint than the one submitted in this case. She left out significant factual details from the complaint that plead actual defamation. This is an old story. A woman comes forth and finally gets the courage to tell about the sexual abuse she endured, and her abusers come public and call her a liar and say her claims are, quote, obvious lies. That quote is in our SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, (212) 805-0300 PaCs 10 aL, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Lg 20 ad. 22 ao 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-18 Filed 01/04/24 Page 9 of 23 G1ETGIUA complaint. Your Honor, this is an actionable defamation case. Fortunately for women who have been abused in this manner, the law of defamation stands by their side. It does not allow someone to publically proclaim they're a liar and issue character assaults on them without vanitications. After those statements were made, we filed this defamation lawsuit. Virginia Giuffre was only 15 years old when she was recruited by Maxwell to be sexually abused by both Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, who is a convicted pedophile and billionaire. She was harmed for many years before she finally found her way to Thailand and escaped clear to Australia where she hid out for ten years before the FBI interviewed her and she made her statement public. Your Honor, this is a very serious case of abuse. My client never sued Ms. Maxwell until she came out and called her a liar publically for claiming her allegations of sexual abuse were false. That's actionable defamation. We have seen that in cases recently, and I will walk you through those. Now while this story may sound hard to believe, it happened, and there were over 30 female childhood victims in Florida alone that came forward and gave statements to law enforcement about this same type of abuse. Unfortunately, due to Epstein's vast wealth and power, he was able to get off with a very light sentence. And his SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 10 cl LZ L3 14 15 16 17 18 Lg 20 ZA 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-18 Filed 01/04/24 Page 10 of 23 G1ETGIUA co-conspirators were also part of that plea agreement, that non-prosecution agreement, and were not prosecuted. That agreement is being challenged by two other victims in Florida in a case in front of Judge Marra case called the Crime Victims' Rights Act case. I want to mention that while my colleague didn't mention it in her opening, she does mention it in her papers, I contend that the order she referenced in her papers by Judge Marra, which we included a copy of for you, has been misrepresented. That order did allow my client -- on page 6 it says, quote, rans Doe 3 is free to assert factual allegations through proper evidentiary proof should she identify a basis for believing such details are pertinent to the matter. So while the paper suggested she was deemed to have impossible allegations or that those allegations were untrue, that's absolutely not what the court said in Florida, so I want to correct that for the record before we begin. What we have here is a defamation case. As the Court well knows, defamation -- this is a libel per se case where the words were published in writing. And as you know, libel per se is when a word tends to expose another to public hatred, shame, contempt or ridicule. I see no other allegation that could be worse than calling a sex abuse victim a liar. To lie about sexual abuse has to be one of the most scornful things available, and that is subject to defamation. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 10 Ai Le 13 14 15 16 17 18 Lo 20 aL ae 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-18 Filed 01/04/24 Page 11 of 23 G1ETGIUA Now in the papers -- and I will just touch on this briefly because my colleague did not touch on it significantly here and I don't want to waste the Court's time, but she alleged a number of privileges that she believes Ms. Maxwell should be able to hide behind in order to preserve these defamatory statements. I impart on your Honor that a determination as to whether any of those privileges apply would be premature at this stage. That's your case, which is Block v. First Blood, 691 F.Supp. 685. In that case you dealt with one of the privileges she is asserting here, the prelitigation privilege, and you found that it would be premature, even at the summary judgment stage, to be analyzing whether or not that was applicable. So what we have here is qualified privileges being asserted as to defamatory statements. The two qualified privileges she asserts are the self-defense privilege and the prelitigation privilege. So in other words, if the defamatory statements survive, she says, nevertheless the privileges preclude the case from going forward. The self-defense privilege has been addressed by the highest court of New York just as recent as this year, and that's in the case of Davis v. Boeheim. And that was case where the Syracuse basketball coach was accused by two victims that were childhood victims who later as adults came forward SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 10 ah LZ L3 14 L5 16 17 18 L9 20 Zed 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-18 Filed 01/04/24 Page 12 of 23 1 GLETGIUA and set forth their allegations against him. One of his colleagues came forth and called those victims liars publicly, same thing that happened in this case. And the court there said that the case cannot be dismissed, it has to proceed forward, and they are entitled to prove those allegations were false, that the victims were not liars, and indeed they were subject to the abuse they were subject to. Another case that is recent which I supplemented with your Honor is the Cosby case. It's recent out of Massachusetts, and very similarly there -- in fact, the statements weren't even as strong as Ms. Maxwell's statements here. In our complaint, Ms. Maxwell calls our client's allegations of sexual abuse, quote, obvious lies, issued by press release nationally and internationally to the media. And we do cite to the media that it is sent to. That's in paragraph 30, 36 and 37, international media, national media and the New York Daily Post, who interviewed Ms. Maxwell on a New York street. So that is alleged in detail in our complaint. But in Cosby the court said, quote, suggestions that a plaintiff intentionally lied about being sexually assaulted could expose that plaintiff to scorn and ridicule, and therefore, Bill Cosby's statements could be found to have a defamatory meaning, and the court allowed the case to proceed past the motion to dismiss stage. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 10 Li 12 Ls 14 15 16 Ls 18 19 20 21 22 Zo 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-18 Filed 01/04/24 Page 13 of 23 fa G1ETGIUA We also have the McNamee v. Clemens case which you may be familiar with. It's another New York case involving Roger Clemens where he had been alleged to have engaged in steroid use. His trainer stated that publicly. He came forward and called his trainer a liar publicly, and the court found that that statement that he is a liar was actionable defamation that survived the motion to dismiss, because publicly proclaiming someone a liar is actionable defamation. It is not mere denial, it is actionable defamation. So those are the cases I would like to direct the Court's attention to. Again, on page 10 of our opposition we have a litany of cases that deal with the issue of calling someone a liar and that being actionable defamation. She also asserts the prelitigation privilege, and that is a privilege addressed in your Block v. First Blood case. That privilege is intended to protect communications between parties, typically attorneys, in advance of litigation in order for them to narrow the scope of the litigation or to negotiate a resolution in advance of litigation. That prelitigation privilege does not cover public statements by Ms. Maxwell's hired press agent that are given to the national and international media for the purposes of defaming my client, calling her allegations of sexual abuse untruths and calling them, quote, obvious lies. So that prelitigation privilege does not apply. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 10 iL LZ 1.3 14 15 16 L7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-18 Filed 01/04/24 Page 14 of 23 18 GIETGIUA The Khalil case, which is cited in the defendant's brief, actually has a great passage in there that describes if the allegation is made for an improper purpose, in other words, if it is made for a wrongful purpose or to harass or seek to press or intimidate the victim, then it is not something that the defendant can avail themselves to as a privilege. Now, just briefly, the opposition also stated that our complaint is deficient in other manners; for example, that we haven't properly alleged the to whom, as I referenced. You can look at paragraphs 30, 36 and 37 to see that. That isa technical pleading deficiency that she is raising there. We do meet the standards of Twombly. We have pled detailed facts that our client was sexually abused as a minor child. We pled other facts about that abuse. And Ms. Maxwell intentionally and maliciously came out and called her a liar in order to protect her own self. So that is what we have put in our complaint. The Hawkins case that she references and the Cruz case that she references are vastly different. In Cruz there wasn't even an -allegation of defamation, and the court was reading into the complaint whether or not there could have been defamation. Here we stated specifically who made the statement, when she made the statement, where she made the statement, why she made the statement. That is all we need to do. It's more than sufficient to plead a case of defamation in this instance. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 10 Led, 12 13 14 15 16 Ly 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-18 Filed 01/04/24 Page 15 of 23 $a G1LETGIUA With respect to the allegations that we haven't pled properly libel per se, I want to be clear we pled that in two ways. And the case law is a case cited in the defendant's brief, and it's Jewell, and it does a very good job of parsing out the difference between slander and libel, and there is a difference in the case law, as your Honor knows. In the instance of libel, the written words, Cardozo has said, it stings, it stings longer, so therefore, in pleading libel per se, you don't have to plead special damages in the way that you do for slander. The Matherson case, which is out of New York, also articulates that. The difference, it says, quote, on the other hand, a plaintiff suing on libel need not plead or prove special damages if the defamatory statement tends to expose the plaintiff to public contempt, ridicule, aversion, or disgrace. And that is exactly what we have pled in this case, that the statements that our client lied about the sexual abuse she endured as a minor were statements that exposed her to that public contempt and ridicule. She has also pled libel per se with respect to her profession. While my colleague may make light of the fact that she is involved in helping victims that -- people who are victims of sexual trafficking, that is what she has dedicated her life to doing. And to come out and publicly proclaim her a liar about sexual abuse harms the nonprofit and harms the work SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 10 ae 12 13 14 LS 16 Lf 18 LS 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-18 Filed 01/04/24 Page 16 of 23 18 G1ETGIUA she has been doing. She has been harmed personally by saying her claims are, quote, obvious lies, and she has been hurt professionally in that manner, and we allege both things in our complaint. Your Honor, Virginia has been beaten down many times in her life, but the law of defamation stands at her side. I pray upon you that you will consider the complaint and not dismiss it, because her claims should be able to be proven in this Court. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you very much. Anything further? MS. MENNINGER: If I may, your Honor. Again, plaintiff comes before you claiming she has been called a liar. There is no statement attributed to my client, in the complaint or elsewhere, in which my client has called plaintiff a liar. There are three sentence fragments contained in the complaint, the allegations against Ms. Maxwell are untrue, and that her claims are obvious lies. Your Honor, it is a meaningful distinction. I can explain a little bit of the background here. Plaintiff came forward and gave an interview in the press in 2011 claiming that my client was somehow involved with Mr. Epstein's sexual abuse of her. She gave an exclusive interview to a British newspaper in which she made that allegation, plaintiff did, and was paid for it. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 10 LL Se T3 14 15 16 aw 18 Lg 20 Zk 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-18 Filed 01/04/24 Page 17 of 23 G1ETGIUA My client issued a general denial in 2011 saying that the allegations were untrue. At that time, plaintiff said that, although she had been in contact with the likes of Prince Andrew in London and Bill Clinton and other famous people, there was no suggestion that those people had engaged in any kind of improper sexual contact with her. Fast forward a few years. Some other women who claimed they were victims of Mr. Epstein's abuse filed a lawsuit in Florida and they asked the court to undo a plea agreement that had been entered into by the U.S. attorney's office down in Florida or that the U.S. attorney's office somehow worked with the state authorities in crafting, and those two other women, not plaintiff, litigated for I think seven years now whether or not they should have been informed earlier about whatever plea agreement was going to go on with Mr. Epstein. Well, December 30 of 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to join that Victims' Rights Act litigation, and in her motion to join the Victims' Rights Act litigation she filed a declaration, in which, as I understand it thirdhand based on the judge down there's order, she claimed to have been involved in sexual relations with Prince Andrew, with world leaders, a former prime minister of some country or other, Mr. Alan Dershowitz. She made a number of spurious allegations, and one of them involved my client, Ms. Maxwell. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 10 Li LZ Ls 14 15 16 Li 18 Lo 20 2d 22 23 24 Z25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-18 Filed 01/04/24 Page 18 of 23 a GLETGIUA Well, within minutes of filing that motion to join that action, lo and behold, her story hits the British press. Whether or not that was at her lawyer's instigation, I don't know, but they have been courting the press in a number of ways, so I wouldn't be surprised. The press comes calling and asked my client and Mr. Dershowitz and Prince Andrew and everyone else whether any of the allegations contained in this legal pleading are true. Buckingham Palace issued a statement flatly denying the claims made by plaintiff here. Mr. Dershowitz came out even stronger and not only flatly denied it but did in fact call her a liar and said, among other things, if she lied about me, she probably lied about all these other world leaders that she claims she was involved with at the age of 17 and 18, and that the story dates back to '99 when she claims these activities occurred. And so he came out and actually called her a liar. Buckingham Palace said her claims were absolutely untrue. At the end of one article, in which the two comments about plaintiff were contained, is a statement attributed to my client, Ms. Maxwell, and her statement reads, the claims against Ghislaine Maxwell are untrue. She has now made additional statements about world leaders, and those claims are obvious lies. So that part about obvious lies come after the part about claims against world leaders and famous politicians and the like. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 10 La Le 13 14 15 16 Ay 18 1g 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-18 Filed 01/04/24 Page 19 of 23 G1ETGIUA Well, I tried to go to the Florida action to find where these allegations were that apparently plaintiff believes my client's statement was in relation to. And guess what? Judge Marra down in the Southern District of Florida has stricken the declaration from public access. He has stricken the actual paragraphs making all of these allegations, and has restricted from public access the documents that contained the allegations. And he issued an order, and I attached that order, because I believe the Court can consider it taking judicial notice, to my declaration here on the motion to dismiss. In the order, just so we're all clear, I'm not misrepresenting what happened, as I was just accused doing, Judge Marra held, after describing what he called lurid allegations, he found they were impertinent and immaterial to the motion to join the Victims' Rights Act filed by plaintiff. He said that they concerned non-parties, including my client, who was not there and able to defend herself within the litigation, and he denied her request to join that action finding that she waited a long time. While she may be a witness to things that are concerned down there, she does not need to join the action in order to assert rights that the other plaintiffs down there are already asserting. Then he goes on in the order to remind her counsel of their Rule 11 obligations to enity include pertinent materials. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 10 La 12 13 14 LS 16 Li 18 19 20 eal, 22 23 24 Z5 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-18 Filed 01/04/24 Page 20 of 23 19 GLETGIUA And he was not denying they would ever be able to, but seems to seriously question whether or not admissible non-cumulative evidence of the things that were claimed would ever be heard in his court. So I don't actually have a copy of whatever it is that was claimed down there because it's not publicly available, and it certainly was not mentioned in the complaint, wasn't attached to the complaint, it's just somewhere out there that the press has picked up on and published. In the meantime, Mr. Dershowitz is now involved in ongoing battles with plaintiff's lawyers down in Florida. They cross claimed one another for defamation. And she's been participating in that litigation as a non-party as well, although it concerns her attorneys and the same exact allegations. So while others have called her a liar, notably Mr. Dershowitz, and others have denied claims that plaintiff has made, including Buckingham Palace, and while Judge Marra down there has found her claims impertinent and immaterial to the allegations going on in Florida, Ms. Maxwell has not actually ever called her a liar. And your Honor, all of these cases that plaintiff cites to, Davis v. Boeheim, McNamee v. Clemens, all of those cases had complaints which had attached to them the actual statements at issue. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 10 gl, LZ 13 14 15 16 LT 18 Lg 20 ZL 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-18 Filed 01/04/24 Page 21 of 23 un GLETGIUA I think in the McNamee v. Clemens case there were some 27 exhibits attached to the amended complaint where Mr. Clemens had been on 60 Minutes and given statements to reporters and gone on at length calling the plaintiff in that case, Mr. McNamee, a liar, calling him a liar 25 ways to Sunday, talking about his financial motives, his potential financial gain, et cetera. Likewise, in the Davis v. Boeheim case, Mr. Boeheim gave a press conference in which he called the accusers liars. He questioned their financial incentives following the Sandusky case to be coming forward then, and he went on at length about all of the reasons why they might be coming forward now with their, quote, unquote lies. In each of those cases, McNamee v. Clemens and Davis v. Boeheim, the New York Court of Appeals, as well as the Federal Court in the Eastern District of New York, made clear that the one thing that is not actionable is a general denial. And then they talk about why Mr. Boeheim's comments and Mr. Clemens' comments went well beyond what anyone might consider a general denial. And fortunately, those cases actually had records which included the statements, included the articles in which the statements were made, so the Court could engage in the sort of analysis that it must, that is, to decide whether, in context, the statement has a defamatory meaning. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 10 A 12 13 14 LS 16 nT 18 19 20 aul 22 29 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-18 Filed 01/04/24 Page 22 of 23 G1IETGIUA So I think even now, saying that my client called her client a liar is just not supported by a single fact in the complaint. While the complaint makes conclusory statements like it was a campaign questioning her dishonesty and all of that, when you get right down to the actual statements, which this Court has held on numerous occasions must actually be spelled out in a defamation case, the only statements are, quote, sentence fragments like allegations against Ghislaine Maxwell are untrue. And by the way, looking at those news articles, one might see that they actually are talking about allegations that have lodged in the British press. They don't refer to Ms. Roberts, as she was then known, they don't refer to anything about her, they don't call her a liar, they don't question her financial motives, aLeuoaests I'm sure she has some. So if you look at the cases Davis v. Boeheim, McNamee v. Clemens, you will see Ms. Maxwell's statements, even to the extent they're alleged, fall well within the general denial privilege. I think it's inaccurate to quote, with regard to the prelitigation privilege, the statements attributed to Ms. Maxwell that reserved her right to seek redress from the British press for the repetition of what she said were untrue allegations. And that is something that, under British law, one must assert or waive. So if you don't, under British law, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 10 Ld LZ 13 14 LS 16 17 18 LS 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-18 Filed 01/04/24 Page 23 of 23 22 GLETGIUA put the press on notice that you are challenging the veracity of statements that the British press is publishing, then you will have been deemed to have waived your right to do so in the future. We cited Khalil v. Front, which is a New York Court of Appeals case from last year. It was actually affirming the dismissal of a case on a motion to dismiss. So while plaintiff claims that privileges like this can't be decided at the motion to dismiss stage, the New York Court of Appeals directly found otherwise. And there they said that if a statement is made in anticipation of litigation, whether or not -- I think they used the word "contemplated" litigation, whether or not the litigation actually occurred is not material, but if they are made in anticipation of potential litigation then they are entitled to the prelitigation privilege. So not only do I believe that the statements themselves are non-defamatory general denials, but insofar as they were issued to put the British press on notice, that repetition of them may give rise to litigation. They also should be afford the prelitigation privilege that the New York Court of Appeals has recognized. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you very much. I will reserve decision. 000 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-19 Filed 01/04/24 Page 1 of 20 Exhibit 5 (File Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-19 Filed 01/04/24 Page 2 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, Vv. 15-cv-07433-RWS GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca HADDON, MORGAN, AND FOREMAN, P.C. East 10" Avenue Denver, CO 80203 303.831.7364Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-19 Filed 01/04/24 Page 3 of 20 Defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby responds to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories (the “Interrogatories”’). 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 Plaintiffs Interrogatories 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 these Interrogatories in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). 2. Ms. Maxwell objects to the Interrogatories 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 Interrogatories to the extent they seek 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 Interrogatories to the extent they seek information outside of Ms. Maxwell’s possession, custody or control. 5. Ms. Maxwell objects to the Interrogatories 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 Interrogatories 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 Interrogatories to the extent they are vague and ambiguous, or imprecise. 8. Ms. Maxwell objects to the Interrogatories 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.Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-19 Filed 01/04/24 Page 4 of 20 10. The Interrogatories seek information that is confidential and implicates Ms. Maxwell’s privacy interests. To the extent such information is relevant and discoverable in this action, M s. 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 1. Ms. Maxwell objects to Definition No. 1 regarding “Agent” because it is an incorrect statement of the law. 2. Ms. Maxwell objects to the Definition of “communication” to the extent it expands upon the meaning ascribed to that term by Local Rule 26.3(c). 3. 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 Interrogatories to information in the possession, custody or control of individuals other than Ms. Maxwell or her counsel. 4. Ms. Maxwell objects to the Definition No. 4 regarding “Document” to the extent it expands upon the meaning ascribed to that term by Local Rule 26.3(c). 5. 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. 6. Ms. Maxwell objects to Definition No. 7 of “Jeffrey Epstein” to include not only entities but also any employee, agent, attorney, consultant or representative of him, to include any entities owned or controlled by him. Questions related to an individual named Jeffrey Epstein have been construed to mean only that individual and not any other individual who is affiliated in some capacity with entities owned or controlled by him. 7. Ms. Maxwell objects to Definition No. 8 regarding “Massage” to include “any person touching another person,” as the touching of another person may or may not include what is commonly understood to mean massage, it may be for a harmful, offensive or accidental reasons, or for any other purposes, or may be a touching incidental to being in close proximity with another. Similarly, a definition of “massage” to include “using any object...to touch another person” can mean a wide variety of activities and for various purposes that exceed the relevancy of this defamation action. 8. Ms. Maxwell objects to Definition No. 9 regarding “Person” to the extent it expands upon the meaning ascribed to that term by Local Rule 26.3(c). 9. Ms. Maxwell objects to Definition No. 11 regarding “You” or “Your.” The Definition is overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it attempts to extend the scope ofCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-19 Filed 01/04/24 Page 5 of 20 the Interrogatories to information in the possession, custody or control of individuals other than Ms. Maxwell or her counsel. OBJECTIONS TO INSTRUCTIONS 1. 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 Interrogatories, 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 and objects to the Interrogatories, except as specifically noted. Without waiver of this Objection, Ms. Maxwell notes the Court Order in this case which permits discovery regarding events between 2002 and the present which relate to the topics of the sexual trafficking of females and will respond to the Interrogatories for the period 2002 to the present on that topic. 2. Ms. Maxwell objects to Instruction Nos. 2-21 to the extent they impose obligations beyond those imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b) and Local Rule 33.3. In particular, the majority of the Instructions pertain to Requests for Production of Documents and are therefore inapplicable to Interrogatories. 3. Ms. Maxwell objects to these Interrogatories to the extent they exceed those types of interrogatories permitted by Local Rule 33.3. In particular, the majority of these Interrogatories do not seek the names of witnesses with knowledge of information relevant to the subject matter of this action nor the existence, custodian and location or general description of relevant documents. Moreover, these Interrogatories are not a more practical method of obtaining the information sought than a deposition or a request for production of documents. 4. Finally, the contention interrogatories are premature, as other discovery in this case has not concluded. Local Rule 33.3(c). 5. Ms. Maxwell objects to the Definition of “Identify” to the extent it expands upon the meaning ascribed to that term by Local Rule 26.3(c).Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-19 Filed 01/04/24 Page 6 of 20 RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 1. Identify all persons and entities authorized by you or authorized your agent(s) to make statements on your behalf in January of 2015. ANSWER: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous, specifically by not defining what types or topics of “statements” are referred to. As drafted, this Interrogatory calls for information clearly outside the relevancy of this lawsuit because it implicates her assistant making work calls for her, scheduling appointments for her and her representatives making “statements” in all manner of business capacities. Further, Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for information protected by the attorney/client, attorney work product and joint defense privileges. Without waiver of the foregoing objections, she responds as follows: Ms. Maxwell has no recollection of any non-privileged communication by which she specifically authorized any agent or entity to “make statements on her behalf in January of 2015” nor does she possess any documents beyond those already produced by which any such authorization may be ascertained. 2. Identify any action that you took after Ross Gow issued the January 2015 statement regarding Ms. Giuffre to the public to retract or remediate the statement, clarify the statement, or otherwise cause a different message to enter the public domain. ANSWER: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous, specifically by not defining what types or topics of “statements” are referred to. Further, Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for information protected by the attorney/client, attorney work product and joint defense privileges. Without waiver of the foregoing objections, she responds as follows: Ms. Maxwell does not recall any actions that she took to retract, remediate or clarify a communication Mr. Gow made to the British press in January 2015 regarding Plaintiff's allegations nor upon the exercise of a reasonable inquiry has she located any actions that she took in that regard. 3. Name every blog, television station, newspaper, or other media or public outlet that you are aware covered the January 2015 statement issued, either by quoting from the statement or by referring to or referencing the statement. ANSWER Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory as improper pursuant to Local Rule 33.3(a) and (b). The Interrogatory does not seek the names of any witnesses nor the custodian or location of anyCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-19 Filed 01/04/24 Page 7 of 20 documents. Moreover, Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for attorney work product and attorney client communications. The information sought is equally available to both parties within the public domain. Without waiver of the foregoing, Ms. Maxwell responds as follows: Ms. Maxwell is personally unaware of any particular coverage by any media regarding Mr. Gow’s communication to the British press. Any such articles or coverage of which she is aware have previously been produced in this action and are equally available to both parties in the public domain. 4. Identify all legal actions you, or someone acting on your behalf, have initiated, since January 1, 2015, identifying the jurisdiction, the date of initiation of the action, and the subject matter of the action. ANSWER: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous, specifically by failing to define “legal action.” Further, Ms. Maxwell objects to the extent the Interrogatory calls for attorney-client communications or attorney work product. Without waiver of the foregoing, Ms. Maxwell responds as follows: Ms. Maxwell has not filed any complaint in a court since January 1, 2015. 5. Identify all payments made or things of value transferred to you by Jeffrey Epstein, directly or indirectly or through any entity or person affiliated with or controlled by Epstein, from 1992 through the present, and if loans, detailing the amount of the loans, the terms of the loans, the interest rate of the loans, and any payments made by you or on your behalf to repay such loans. ANSWER: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information that is irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory 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. This Interrogatory also violates Local Rule 33.3(a) —(c) in that it does not seek the name of witnesses or the custodian and location of documents. Finally, Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information from a time period not relevant to this action. Without waiver of the foregoing, Ms. Maxwell responds as follows: From the time period of January 1, 2015 through the present, Ms. Maxwell has had no payments made or things of value transferred to her, including loans, by Jeffrey Epstein or any entity or person affiliated with or controlled by him.Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-19 Filed 01/04/24 Page 8 of 20 6. Identify all loans issued to you by Jeffrey Epstein, directly or indirectly or through any entity or person affiliated with or controlled by Epstein, from 1992 through the present, detailing the amount of the loans, the terms of the loans, the interest rate of the loans, and any payments made by you or on your behalf to repay such loans. ANSWER: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information that is irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory 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. This Interrogatory also violates Local Rule 33.3(a) — (c) in that it does not seek the name of witnesses or the custodian and location of documents. Finally, Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information from a time period not relevant to this action. Without waiver of the foregoing, Ms. Maxwell responds as follows: From the time period of January 1, 2015 through the present, Ms. Maxwell has had no loans issued to her by Jeffrey Epstein, either directly, indirectly or by any entity or person affiliated with or controlled by him. 7. Identify any other employment you have held since 1999, how you were compensated, and how much you were compensated, broken down by job title, employer, and year. ANSWER: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information that is irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory 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. This Interrogatory also violates Local Rule 33.3(a) —(c) in that it does not seek the name of witnesses or the custodian and location of documents. Finally, Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information from a time period not relevant to this action. Without waiver of the foregoing, Ms. Maxwell responds as follows: From January 1, 2015 to the present, Ms. Maxwell has not been employed as that term is commonly understood to mean a salaried position.Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-19 Filed 01/04/24 Page 9 of 20 8. Identify all persons who gave a massage to Jeffrey Epstein with whom you had any involvement, either in meeting the person who gave a massage, finding the person who gave the massage, making a referral to the person who gave the massage, conversing with the person who gave the massage, staffing the person who gave the massage, or otherwise facilitating that person giving a massage to Jeffrey Epstein. ANSWER: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information that is irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to the Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous given the definition of “massage” to include any person touching another person. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Finally, Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information from a time period not relevant to this action. Without waiver of the foregoing, Ms. Maxwell responds as follows: As she testified at her deposition, Ms. Maxwell on occasion met with adult, professional women and men who were employed at high-end spas or resorts and asked whether they made home visits for the purposes of massages. She does not recall the names of those persons who ended up making professional, adult home visit massages that occurred between the years 2000 and 2002. Other deposition testimony in this case has included that of Johanna Sjoberg who stated that she had met with Ms. Maxwell and later had trained for and become a masseuse and provided professional massages to Mr. Epstein. 9. Identify all efforts undertaken by you to ascertain the age and professional qualifications of any individual in your answer to Interrogatory number 9. ANSWER: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information that is irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to the Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous given the definition of “massage” to include any person touching another person. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Further, Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory as a violation of Local Rule 33.3(a) — (b) as it seeks neither the names of witnesses nor the locations of documents and is more appropriately discovered through the deposition of Ms. Maxwell, during which time she already answered questions on this topic. Finally, Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information from a time period not relevant to this action. Without waiver of the foregoing, Ms. Maxwell responds as follows:Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-19 Filed 01/04/24 Page 10 of 20 As she testified at her deposition, Ms. Maxwell has contacted a number of professional masseuses from spas in various locations, including New York, Palm Beach, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, to provide professional, adult massages to be given to Jeffrey Epstein. Ms. Maxwell relied on and expected those various high-end registered and licensed spas to hire professional accredited massage therapists and to check the credentials, including the age and professional qualifications, of their employees. 10. Have you ever recruited, found, hired, approached, introduced, procured, or otherwise obtained, for the purposes of Jeffrey Epstein employing, any female who was not at the time a certified or licensed massage therapist for the purpose of having that female perform a massage on Jeffrey Epstein. If yes, please identify the name of each such female, the last known address and phone number, and a description of the circumstances surrounding that female meeting with your (sic) or Jeffrey Epstein. ANSWER: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information that is irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to the Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous given the definition of “massage” to include any person touching another person. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Further, Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory as a violation of Local Rule 33.3(a) — (b) as it seeks neither the names of witnesses nor the locations of documents and is more appropriately discovered through the deposition of Ms. Maxwell, during which time she already answered questions on this topic. Finally, Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information from a time period not relevant to this action. Without waiver of the foregoing, Ms. Maxwell responds as follows: Not to her knowledge. 11. Have you ever recruited, found, hired, introduced, approached, or encouraged any female, and told that female to meet with, or show themselves to, Jeffrey Epstein because he was associated in some way with Victoria’s Secret. For each such female, please list her name, address, telephone number, as well as a description of the circumstances surrounding that female’s encounter with your or Jeffrey Epstein. ANSWER: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information that is irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Further, Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory as a violation of Local Rule 33.3(a) — (b) as it seeks neither the names of witnesses nor the locations ofCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-19 Filed 01/04/24 Page 11 of 20 documents and is more appropriately discovered through the deposition of Ms. Maxwell, during which time she already answered questions on this topic. Finally, Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information from a time period not relevant to this action. Without waiver of the foregoing, Ms. Maxwell responds as follows: Not to her knowledge. 12. Identify your basis for your contention that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the United Kingdom’s Defamation Act of 2013. ANSWER: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information that is irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for attorney-client communications and attorney work product. This Interrogatory is premature and violates Local Rule 33.3(c) because discovery is ongoing in this case, not complete, and it is more than thirty days from the conclusion of discovery. See, e.g., Shannon v. New York City Transit Auth., No. 00 CIV. 5079 (RWS), 2001 WL 286727, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2001) (Sweet, J). Without waiver of the foregoing, Ms. Maxwell responds as follows: The January 2, 2015, communication by Ross Gow to members of the British media did not, nor was it likely to, cause serious harm to the reputation of Plaintiff. The imputation conveyed by the communication is substantially true. Substantial portions of the communication conveyed honest opinion. The communication was privileged as a matter of public interest. The communication is barred by the single publication rule because Mr. Gow previously issued a communication that was substantially the same as the January 2, 2015 communication, issued by materially the same manner of publication, and Plaintiff and her counsel did not deny or timely take action with respect to the previous communication. 13. Identify the basis, including all underlying facts, for your contention that Plaintiff's claims are barred because the statements made by Ms. Maxwell or her agent were protected by the self-defense privilege. ANSWER: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information that is irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for attorney-client communications and attorney work product. This Interrogatory is premature and violates Local Rule 33.3(c) because discovery is ongoing in this case, not complete, and it is more than thirty days from the conclusion of discovery. See,Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-19 Filed 01/04/24 Page 12 of 20 e.g., Shannon v. New York City Transit Auth., No. 00 CIV. 5079 (RWS), 2001 WL 286727, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2001) (Sweet, J). Without waiver of the foregoing, Ms. Maxwell responds as follows: The self-defense privilege as it applies to Mr. Gow’s January 2, 2015 communication to members of the British press are spelled out in detail in the Memorandum of Law In Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at page 8-13. 14. Identify the basis, including all underlying facts, for your contention that Plaintiff is a public figure and unable to prove Ms. Maxwell exhibited actual malice. ANSWER: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information that is irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for attorney-client communications and attorney work product. This Interrogatory is premature and violates Local Rule 33.3(c) because discovery is ongoing in this case, not complete, and it is more than thirty days from the conclusion of discovery. See, e.g., Shannon v. New York City Transit Auth., No. 00 CIV. 5079 (RWS), 2001 WL 286727, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2001) (Sweet, J). Without waiver of the foregoing, Ms. Maxwell responds as follows: Plaintiff sought public attention to her fabricated story concerning Ms. Maxwell and others. To wit, Plaintiff was paid more than $100,000 for her false story to the Daily Mail as well as the sale of a photograph purporting to be of herself and Prince Andrew. Plaintiff then further sought public attention to her story through (a) an interview with Bradley Edwards and Jack Scarola, (b) through contact with various literary agents, ghost-writers and news outlets, and (c) through a carefully orchestrated scheme to publish her false claims in a public pleading in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, as well as media interviews and other contacts including ABC News, Sharon Churcher, and her purported work on behalf of Victims Refuse Silence. With regard to Maxwell’s absence of actual malice, any statements attributed to her regarding Ms. Roberts were limited in scope, directly targeted to Plaintiff's mis-statements of fact without any further comment regarding the many character and truthfulness shortcomings of Plaintiff, and were directed to the media outlets who continued to publish Plaintiffs lies. Ms. Maxwell decided against making any further statements regarding Plaintiff and her many lies in order to minimize public attention to Plaintiff's false claims, despite the many opportunities to provide additional truthful comment and color, as demonstrated by her email communications provided in discovery. 10Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-19 Filed 01/04/24 Page 13 of 20 15. Identify the basis, including all underlying facts, for your contention that Plaintiff's claims are barred because the statements made by Ms. Maxwell or her agent constituted “fair comment.” ANSWER: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information that is irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for attorney-client communications and attorney work product. This Interrogatory is premature and violates Local Rule 33.3(c) because discovery is ongoing in this case, not complete, and it is more than thirty days from the conclusion of discovery. See, e.g., Shannon v. New York City Transit Auth., No. 00 CIV. 5079 (RWS), 2001 WL 286727, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2001) (Sweet, J). Without waiver of the foregoing, Ms. Maxwell responds as follows: Ms. Maxwell retains her First Amendment privilege to express her opinion, to criticize others including Plaintiff, and to comment on matters of public interest, including Plaintiff's allegations of being a sex slave or being sexually trafficked. Mr. Gow’s communication to members of the British media constituted expressions of opinion regarding Plaintiff and her public claims. 16. Identify the basis, including all underlying facts, for your contention that Ms. Maxwell or her agent did not cause or contribute to any damages suffered by Plaintiff? ANSWER: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information that is irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for attorney-client communications and attorney work product. This Interrogatory is premature and violates Local Rule 33.3(c) because discovery is ongoing in this case, not complete, and it is more than thirty days from the conclusion of discovery. See, e.g., Shannon v. New York City Transit Auth., No. 00 CIV. 5079 (RWS), 2001 WL 286727, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2001) (Sweet, J). Without waiver of the foregoing, Ms. Maxwell responds as follows: Mr. Gow’s communication to the British media in January 2015 did not cause or contribute to any damages Plaintiff suffered because, inter alia, Plaintiff was widely reputed prior to any such communication to be a liar, a person who falsifies claims of sexual assault, and a sexually permissive woman, because Plaintiff already had substantial mental and medical conditions that pre-existed any statement issued, and because Plaintiff's damages, if any, were occasioned by her own wide-spread dissemination of her own false and defamatory statements. Without the steps that Plaintiff took to publish her fabricated and falsified history, she would not have suffered any reputational harm. 11Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-19 Filed 01/04/24 Page 14 of 20 17. Identify the basis, including all underlying facts, for your contention that Plaintiff failed to take reasonable, necessary, appropriate and feasible steps to mitigate her alleged damages. ANSWER: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information that is irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for attorney-client communications and attorney work product. This Interrogatory is premature and violates Local Rule 33.3(c) because discovery is ongoing in this case, not complete, and it is more than thirty days from the conclusion of discovery. See, e.g., Shannon v. New York City Transit Auth., No. 00 CIV. 5079 (RWS), 2001 WL 286727, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2001) (Sweet, J). Without waiver of the foregoing, Ms. Maxwell responds as follows: Plaintiff was advised by her own physician in Australia to engage in psychotherapy but has refused to do so. Plaintiff was advised to cease taking valium but has refused to do so. Plaintiff was advised by a court to stay away from her abusive husband but has refused to do so. Further, Plaintiff had the opportunity to truthfully tell her actual history on a number of occasions, including during her interviews with ABC, with other media outlets, with book authors and journalists, but chose not to tell her true story, instead telling falsehoods and fabricated and mistaken events, dates and participants. 18. Identify the basis, including all underlying facts, for your contention that Plaintiff's damages are the proximate result of intervening causes, pre-existing medical and mental conditions of Plaintiff, and/or causes that occurred without knowledge or participation of Ms. Maxwell and for which Ms. Maxwell is not responsible. ANSWER: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information that is irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for attorney-client communications and attorney work product. This Interrogatory is premature and violates Local Rule 33.3(c) because discovery is ongoing in this case, not complete, and it is more than thirty days from the conclusion of discovery. See, e.g., Shannon v. New York City Transit Auth., No. 00 CIV. 5079 (RWS), 2001 WL 286727, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2001) (Sweet, J). Without waiver of the foregoing, Ms. Maxwell responds as follows: Plaintiffs records disclose that she (allegedly) had been sexually assaulted as a child by a family friend, that she had been held as a sexual slave in captivity as a young teenager, that she had been sexually assaulted by teens when she was 14 in the back of a house, that she had been 12Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-19 Filed 01/04/24 Page 15 of 20 sexually assaulted as a 14 year old by two young men in the “Woodsies,” that she had suffered at a since-closed drug rehabilitation facility at the hands of “guards,” that she suffered from “anxiety,” depression and suicidal ideation from at least 1998 before meeting Ms. Maxwell, that she has experienced marital discord, that she suffered from parental and familial alienation, that she has been beaten, choked and strangled by her husband on more than one occasion, that she has suffered from pre-existing and post-existing drug addictions, alcohol abuse and prescription medication addiction and abuse, that she has suffered many of the ill-effects of an impoverished childhood, and that she suffers from certain limitations of mental faculty. 19. Identify the basis, including all underlying facts, for your contention that Plaintiff's damages were the result of her own conduct or the conduct of others and were not proximately caused by any action of Ms. Maxwell. ANSWER: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information that is irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for attorney-client communications and attorney work product. This Interrogatory is premature and violates Local Rule 33.3(c) because discovery is ongoing in this case, not complete, and it is more than thirty days from the conclusion of discovery. See, e.g., Shannon v. New York City Transit Auth., No. 00 CIV. 5079 (RWS), 2001 WL 286727, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2001) (Sweet, J). Without waiver of the foregoing, Ms. Maxwell responds as follows: Plaintiffs records disclose that she (allegedly) had been sexually assaulted as a child by a family friend, that she had been held as a sexual slave in captivity as a young teenager, that she had been sexually assaulted by teens when she was 14 in the back of a house, that she had been sexually assaulted as a 14 year old by two young men in the “Woodsies,” that she had suffered at a since-closed drug rehabilitation facility at the hands of “guards,” that she suffered from “anxiety,” depression and suicidal ideation from at least 1998 before meeting Ms. Maxwell, that she has experienced marital discord, that she suffered from parental and familial alienation, that she has been beaten, choked and strangled by her husband on more than one occasion, that she has suffered from pre-existing and post-existing drug addictions, alcohol abuse and prescription medication addiction and abuse, that she has suffered many of the ill-effects of an impoverished childhood, and that she suffers from certain limitations of mental faculty. Plaintiff was advised by her own physician in Australia to engage in psychotherapy but has refused to do so. Plaintiff was advised to cease taking valium but has refused to do so. Plaintiff was advised by a court to stay away from her abusive husband but has refused to do so. Further, Plaintiff had the opportunity to truthfully tell her actual history on a number of occasions, including during her interviews with ABC, with other media outlets, with book authors and journalists, but chose not to tell her true story, instead telling falsehoods and fabricated and mistaken events, dates and participants. 13Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-19 Filed 01/04/24 Page 16 of 20 20. Identify all reasons why you failed to appear for a deposition scheduled in about 2009 to 2010 in a sexual assault civil suit filed against Jeffrey Epstein. ANSWER: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information that is irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Further, Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory as a violation of Local Rule 33.3(a) — (b) as it seeks neither the names of witnesses nor the locations of documents and is more appropriately discovered through the deposition of Ms. Maxwell, during which time she already answered questions on this topic. Finally, Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information from a time period not relevant to this action. Without waiver of the foregoing, Ms. Maxwell responds as follows: Ms. Maxwell did not fail to appear for a scheduled deposition in 2009 or 2010. At the only scheduled deposition date, December 9, 2009, Mr. Edwards failed to appear and failed to communicate with Ms. Maxwell’s counsel following the November 9, 2009 involuntary bankruptcy of his law firm occasioned by the arrest (and subsequent imprisonment) of his law partner. Thereafter, including during 2010, the parties never agreed to a particular deposition date. 21. Identify all communications you have had with Jeffrey Epstein since January 1, 2015, and the substance of those communications. ANSWER: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information that is irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Further, Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory as a violation of Local Rule 33.3(a) — (b) as it seeks neither the names of witnesses nor the locations of documents and is more appropriately discovered through the deposition of Ms. Maxwell, during which time she already answered questions on this topic. The Court has limited discovery of communications between 2002 to the present with Mr. Epstein to those related to the sexual trafficking of women. Finally, Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information from a time period not relevant to this action. Without waiver of the foregoing, Ms. Maxwell responds as follows: Ms. Maxwell already produced any written communications with Mr. Epstein that were responsive to the Interrogatory for the same, as limited by the Court to (a) all communications from January 2015 and (b) all documents related to sex trafficking. 14Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-19 Filed 01/04/24 Page 17 of 20 22. Identify all flights you have taken on aircraft on which Ms. Giuffre was also a passenger. ANSWER: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information that is irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Further, Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory as a violation of Local Rule 33.3(a) — (b) as it seeks neither the names of witnesses nor the locations of documents and is more appropriately discovered through the deposition of Ms. Maxwell, during which time she already answered questions on this topic. Finally, Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information from a time period not relevant to this action. Without waiver of the foregoing, Ms. Maxwell responds as follows: As she testified during her deposition, Ms. Maxwell has no recollection of ever having been on a flight on which Ms. Giuffre was a passenger. Ms. Maxwell does not possess any other records which might refresh her recollection with respect to any such flights. 23. Identify all occasions on which you either observed Ms. Giuffre massaging Jeffrey Epstein or understood that she was massaging Jeffrey Epstein. ANSWER: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information that is irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to the Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous given the definition of “massage” to include any person touching another person. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Further, Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory as a violation of Local Rule 33.3(a) — (b) as it seeks neither the names of witnesses nor the locations of documents and is more appropriately discovered through the deposition of Ms. Maxwell, during which time she already answered questions on this topic. Finally, Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information from a time period not relevant to this action. Without waiver of the foregoing, Ms. Maxwell responds as follows: Ms. Maxwell, as she has already testified, has no specific recollection of ever seeing Plaintiff massage Mr. Epstein or having any understanding that Plaintiff was massaging Mr. Epstein on any specific occasion, nor does she possess any records which would permit her to identify any such occasion. 15Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-19 Filed 01/04/24 Page 18 of 20 24. Identify all persons or other sources of information who have told you or that suggested that Epstein had sexual interactions with persons under the age of 18. ANSWER: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information that is irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to the Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous given the absence of definition of “sexual interactions.” Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Further, Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory as a violation of Local Rule 33.3(a) — (b) as it seeks neither the names of witnesses nor the locations of documents and is more appropriately discovered through the deposition of Ms. Maxwell, during which time she already answered questions on this topic. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for information protected by the attorney/client, attorney work product and joint defense privileges. Finally, Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information from a time period not relevant to this action. Without waiver of the foregoing, Ms. Maxwell responds as follows: Ms. Maxwell knows of no person who has communicated to her directly any information concerning sexual interactions between Mr. Epstein and a person under the age of 18. 25. Identify all girls under the age of 18 with whom you have interacted at one of Epstein’s properties, including his Palm Beach mansion or his New York City mansion. ANSWER: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information that is irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Further, Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory as a violation of Local Rule 33.3(a) — (b) as it seeks neither the names of witnesses nor the locations of documents and is more appropriately discovered through the deposition of Ms. Maxwell, during which time she already answered questions on this topic. Finally, Ms. Maxwell objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information from a time period not relevant to this action. Without waiver of the foregoing, Ms. Maxwell responds as follows: As described during her deposition, the only females with whom Ms. Maxwell interacted at any of Epstein’s properties knowing that they were under the age of 18 were either members of her own extended family or the minor children of her or Mr. Epstein’s friends, and any such interactions did not involve anything sexual or inappropriate by herself or anyone else to Ms. Maxwell’s knowledge. Based on their own privacy rights, Ms. Maxwell is not identifying these family members or children of her or Mr. Epstein’s friends. 16Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-19 Filed 01/04/24 Page 19 of 20 Dated: June 29, 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 10" Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303.831.7364 Fax: 303.832.2628 Imenninger@hmflaw.com Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell 17Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-19 Filed 01/04/24 Page 20 of 20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on June 29, 2016, I electronically served this Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories via Electronic Mail on the following: Sigrid S. McCawley Meredith Schultz BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 smccawley@bsfllp.com mschultz@bsfllp.com Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 brad@pathtojustice.com Paul G. Cassell 383 S. University Street Salt Lake City, UT 84112 cassellp@law.utah.edu J. Stanley Pottinger 49 Twin Lakes Rd. South Salem, NY 10590 StanPottinger@aol.com /s/ Nicole Simmons 18 Nicole Simmons