Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 143 Filed 05/05/16 Page 1 of 10

Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff,

v.
Ghislaine Maxwell,

Defendant. ________________________________/

Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS

United States District Court Southern District of New York

PLAINTIFF’S REDACTED MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS FILED

UNDER SEAL1

Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this Motion to Compel
Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions. During her recent deposition, Defendant refused to answer
numerous questions about allegedly “adult” sexual activity related to Jeffrey Epstein. Because this
activity is highly relevant to this case, Defendant should be ordered to answer questions about it.

As the Court is aware, this defamation case involves Ms. Giuffre’s assertions that she and other females
were recruited by Defendant to be sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein under the guise of being “massage
therapists.” See Complaint, (DE 1), at ¶ 27 (Giuffre “described Maxwell’s role as one of the main women
who Epstein used to procure under-aged girls for sexual activities and a primary co-conspirator and
participant in his sexual abuse and sex trafficking scheme”). In response to these assertions, Defendant
has made the sweeping claim that Ms. Giuffre’s assertions are “entirely false” and “entirely untrue.”
Complaint, DE 1, at ¶ 31.

1 Defendant has labelled her entire deposition transcript as Confidential at this time. Counsel for the
parties conferred at the deposition regarding answering questions.

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 143 Filed 05/05/16 Page 2 of 10

Yet during her deposition, Defendant refused to answer any questions that she construed as having
something to do with “consensual adult sex.” Defense counsel supported that position that “frankly,
[that’s] none of your business and I instruct the witness not to answer.” See Declaration of Sigrid S.
McCawley (“McCawley Decl.”) at Exhibit 1, Tr. of Maxwell Depo. (Apr. 22, 2016) at 21. The result was
that at a number of points throughout her deposition, Defendant refused to answer questions about
subjects integral to this lawsuit, including questions about what the alleged “massage therapists” were
doing at Jeffrey Epstein’s house and the sexual nature of those massages.

Epstein a massage:

For example, Defendant refused to answer questions about whether she had given Jeffrey

Q. Have you ever given Jeffrey Epstein a massage?

MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form, foundation. And I'm going to

instruct you not to answer that question. I don't have any problem with you

asking questions about what the subject matter of this lawsuit is, which would

be, as you've termed it, sexual trafficking of Ms. Roberts.

MS. McCAWLEY: You can instruct her not to answer. That is your

right. But I will bring her back for another deposition because it is part of the

subject matter of this litigation so she should be answering these questions. This

is civil litigation, deposition and she should be responsible for answering these

questions.

it.

To the extent you are asking for information relating to any consensual

adult interaction between my client and Mr. Epstein, I'm going to instruct her not

to answer because it's not part of this litigation and it is her private confidential

information, not subject to this deposition.

MR. PAGLIUCA: I disagree and you understand the bounds that I put on

MS. McCAWLEY: No, I don't. I will continue to ask my questions and

you can continue to make your objections.

Q. Did you ever participate from the time period of 1992 to 2009, did

you ever participate in a massage with Jeffrey Epstein and another female?

MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection. Do not answer that question. Again, to the

extent you are asking for some sort of illegal activity as you've construed in

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 143 Filed 05/05/16 Page 3 of 10

connection with this case I don't have any problem with you asking that question.

To the extent these questions involve consensual acts between adults, frankly,

they're none of your business and I will instruct the witness not to answer.

MS. McCAWLEY: This case involves sexual trafficking, sexual abuse,

questions about her having interactions with other females is relevant to this case.

She needs to answer these questions.

MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm instructing her not to answer.

MS. McCAWLEY: Then we will be back here again.

See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, Tr. of Maxwell Depo. (Apr. 22, 2016) at 19-22 (emphasis added).

Defendant’s participation in massages with Epstein is a central part of this case. Ms. Giuffre has
explained that during her first sexual encounter with Jeffrey Epstein, it was Defendant who provided
instruction on how to do it and how to turn the massage into a sexual event. Obviously, proof that
Defendant had previously massaged Epstein – include massages with sexual component – would provide
important corroboration for Ms. Giuffre’s testimony at trial. And proof that Defendant was involved in
massages will further help prove that statements to the press that Virginia’s allegations were “obvious
lies” was itself an obvious lie.

Johanna Sjoberg was hired to work for Epstein and provided massages. In the police report, Johanna
admitted that Maxwell recruited her to work for Epstein. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3,
Giuffre000076-77 (police report indicating that Johanna was recruited by Maxwell). Yet during
Defendant’s deposition, she refused to answer questions regarding Johanna Sjoberg.

As another example, Defendant refused to answer questions about her knowledge that

Q. Do you know what tasks Johanna was

hired to performance?

A. She was tasked to answer telephones.

Q. Did you ever ask her to rub Jeffrey's feet? . . .

A. I believe that I have read that, but I don't have any memory of it.

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 143 Filed 05/05/16 Page 4 of 10

Q. Did you ever tell Johanna that she would get extra money if she

provided Jeffrey massages?

A. I was always happy to give career advice to people and I think that
becoming somebody in the healthcare profession, either exercise instructor or

nutritionist or professional massage therapist is an excellent job opportunity.

Hourly wages are around 7, 8, $9 and as a professional healthcare provider you

can earn somewhere between as we have established 100 to $200 and to be able to

travel and have a job that pays that is a wonderful job opportunity. So in the

context of advising people for opportunities for work, it is possible that I would

have said that she should explore that as an option.

Q. Did you tell her she would get extra money if she massaged Jeffrey?

A. I'm just saying, I cannot recall the exact conversation. I give career

advice and I have done that.

Q. Did you ever have Johanna massage you?

A. I did.

Q. How many times?

A. I don't recall how many times.

Q. Was there sex involved?

A. No. . . .

Q. Did you ever have sexual contact with Johanna?

MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form and foundation. You need to give

me an opportunity to get in between the questions.

Anything that involves consensual sex on your part, I'm instructing you

not to answer.
Q. Did you ever have sexual contact with Johanna?

A. [MR. PAGLIUCA?] Again, she is an adult --

Q. I’m asking you, did you ever have sexual contact with Johanna?

A. I’ve just been instructed not to answer.

Q. On what basis?

A. You have to ask my lawyer.

See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, Tr. of Maxwell Depo. (Apr. 22, 2016) at 60-62 (emphasis added).

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 143 Filed 05/05/16 Page 5 of 10

Here again, this information is critical to the case. Among other things, these questions

are designed to show a modus operani (“M.O”) for Epstein and Maxwell – specifically, how they
recruited for a non-sexual massage than converted the massage into sexual activities.

Epstein’s sexual interests during massages:

One last illustration comes from Defendant’s refusal to answer about her knowledge of

encounters?

Q. Does Jeffrey like to have his nipples pinched during sexual

MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form and foundation.

A. I'm not referring to any advice on my counsel. I'm not talking about

any adult sexual things when I was with him.

Q. When Jeffrey would have a massage, would he request that the

masseuse pinch his nipples while he was having a massage?

A. I'm not talking about anything with consensual adult situation.

See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, Tr. of Maxwell Depo. (Apr. 22, 2016) at 82.

that he will assert his Fifth Amendment privilege regarding his sexual activities. Accordingly, Ms. Giuffre
must pursue questioning of Maxwell to obtain information on this subject. Here again, information
about Epstein’s sexual idiosyncrasies will provide important corroboration to Ms. Giuffre’s testimony
that she had sexual interactions of an identical nature with Epstein.

occurred repeatedly throughout the deposition. See, e.g., McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit 6. 52-55;
64-65; 82; 92-93; 137-38; 307-09.

The Court should compel Defendant to answer all these questions. In addition to the

specific points made above, the “big picture” here reveals how vital such discovery is. At the

core of Ms. Giuffre’s allegations is the allegation that Defendant lured her into a sexual situation

While Epstein himself might also provide answers to these questions, it appears likely

These refusals are not an isolated instance. Instead, similar refusals to answer questions

with the offer of a job making money as a massage therapist; that Epstein always habitually t

ried

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 143 Filed 05/05/16 Page 6 of 10

to turn massages into sex (that was his modus operandi and plan all along); and that Maxwell recruited
other females for an ostensibly proper position, such as therapeutic masseuse, with knowledge that the
intent was for that person would be pressured to provide sexual gratification to Epstein. As a result,
Epstein’s use of massages for sexual purposes is a central part of this case.

And Defendant’s role in those massages – and knowledge of the purposes of those massages – is a
critical piece of evidence showing her state of mind when she attacked Ms. Giuffre’s assertions as
“entirely untrue.” Ms. Giuffre intends to prove at trial that Defendant knew full well the sexual purpose
for which she was recruiting females – including underage females like Ms. Giuffre. Ms. Giuffre is
entitled to explore Defendant’s knowledge of the sexual activities that took place under the guise of
“massages.” Otherwise Defendant will be able to portray to the jury an inaccurate picture of that what
was happening at Epstein’s house what nothing more than run-of-the-mill massage therapy. See, e.g.,
McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7, Tr. of Maxwell Depo. (Apr. 22, 2016) at 51 (“Q: Did [the pay for massage
therapists] vary on what sexual acts they performed? . . . A: No, it varied depending on how much time,
some massage therapists charge more and some charge less.”).

Defendant’s refusal to answer questions about alleged “adult” consensual sex also blocks Ms. Giuffre
from seeking legitimate discovery in this case. By refusing to answer questions about her and Epstein’s
sexual activities with alleged “adults,” Defendant is essentially given the ability to refuse to answer any
sexual question she does not wish to answer. Defendant simply has to deem the question as involving
“consensual adult sex” and no need be given. The result is to leave Ms. Giuffre with no way of exploring
the identity of these alleged adults, the ages of these alleged adults, and indeed whether they were
adults at all. This allows Defendant to claim

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 143 Filed 05/05/16 Page 7 of 10

that she is unaware of any sexual activity involving underage females, because (she claims) the only
sexual activity she was aware involved adults.

The Court should compel Ms. Maxwell to answer all questions about her knowledge

relating to sexual activities with Epstein and other females while at Epstein’s various homes. See Fed. R.
Crim. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(i); see, e.g., Kelly v. A1 Tech., No. 09 CIV. 962 LAK MHD, 2010 WL 1541585, at *20
(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2010) (“Under the Federal Rules, when a party refuses to answer a question during a
deposition, the questioning party may subsequently move to compel disclosure of the testimony that it
sought. The court must determine the propriety of the deponent's objection to answering the questions,
and can order the deponent to provide improperly withheld answers during a continued deposition”
(internal citations omitted)). Of course, the party objecting to discovery must carry the burden of
proving the validity of its objections, particularly in light of “the broad and liberal construction afforded
the federal discovery rules . . . .” John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Book Dog Books, LLC, 298 F.R.D. 184, 186
(S.D.N.Y. 2014). For purposes of a deposition, the information sought “need not be admissible at the
trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 293 F.R.D. 557, 561 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1)).

Defendant cannot carry her burden of showing that the questions asked are not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This is a case in which

sexual activities lie at the heart of the issues in dispute. As a result, it is hardly surprising to find that
discovery pertains to alleged “adult” sexual activities – and questions about such subjects are entirely
proper. See, e.g., Condit v. Dunne, 225 F.R.D. 100, 113 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (in defamation case, “Plaintiff is
hereby ordered to answer questions regarding his sexual relationships in so far

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 143 Filed 05/05/16 Page 8 of 10

as they are relevant to a defense of substantial truth, mitigation of damages, or impeachment of

plaintiff.”); Weber v. Multimedia Entm't, Inc., No. 97 CIV. 0682 PKL THK, 1997 WL 729039, at *3 (S.D.N.Y.
Nov. 24, 1997) (“While discovery is not unlimited and may not unnecessarily intrude into private
matters, in the instant case inquiry into private matters is clearly relevant to the subject matter of the
suit. Accordingly, plaintiff Misty Weber shall respond to defendants' interrogatories concerning her
sexual partners . . . .”).

Generally speaking, instructions from attorneys to their clients not to answer questions at a deposition
should be “limited to [issues regarding] privilege.” Morales v. Zondo, Inc., 204 F.R.D. 50, 54 (S.D.N.Y.
2001). In this case, defense counsel ranged far beyond the normal parameters of objections and sought
to decide for himself what issues were relevant. That was improper and the Court should order a
resumption of the Defendant’s deposition so that she can answer questions about her knowledge of
sexual activity relating to Jeffrey Epstein.

CONCLUSION

Defendant should be ordered to sit for a follow-up deposition and directed to answer questions
regarding her knowledge of alleged “adult” sexual activity.
Dated: May 5, 2016.

Respectfully Submitted,

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

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP

Document 143 Filed 05/05/16 Page 9 of 10

333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504

Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425
North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820

Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah
383 University St.

Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801) 585-52022

2 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is
not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private
representation.

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 143 Filed 05/05/16 Page 10 of 10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 5th day of May, 2016, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of
Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.

Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th
Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
Tel: (303) 831-7364
Fax: (303) 832-2628
Email:
lmenninger@hmflaw.com

jpagliuca@hmflaw.com

/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley

10