gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1201.1_1
gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1201.1_1
gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1201.1_1
Virginia L. Giuffre,
v.
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant.
________________________________/
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this
Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions. On June 20, 2016, this Court
Ordered Defendant to sit for a second deposition because her refusal to answer questions posed
in her first Deposition (June 20, 2016 Sealed Order, filed in redacted version at D.E. 264-1). Yet,
during her second deposition, Defendant again refused to answer numerous questions regarding
sexual activity related to Jeffrey Epstein in contravention of this Court’s Order. Accordingly, the
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
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, DE1, at ¶ 27 (Giuffre “described Maxwell’s
role as one of the main women who Epstein used to procure under-aged girls for sexual activities
1
Defendant has labelled her entire deposition transcript as Confidential at this time.
1
and a primary co-conspirator and participant in his sexual abuse and sex trafficking scheme”).
Numerous other witnesses, with knowledge of Defendant’s activities, have testified to the same:
See Schultz Decl. at Composite Exhibit 3, Excerpts of June 21, 2016, Deposition of
Detective Recarey at pg. 29:11-20. “Q. “Okay. During your investigation, what did you
learn in terms of Ghislaine Maxwell's involvement, if any? THE WITNESS: Ms.
Maxwell, during her research, was found to be Epstein's long-time friend. During the
interviews, Ms. Maxwell was involved in seeking girls to perform massages and work at
Epstein's home.”
2
See Schultz Decl. at Composite Exhibit 5, Excerpts from June 1, 2016, Deposition of
John Alessi at pg. 28:6-15. “Q. And over the course of that 10-year period of time while
Ms. Maxwell was at the house, do you have an approximation as to the number of
different females -- females that you were told were massage therapists that came to the
house? THE WITNESS: I cannot give you a number, but I would say probably over 100
in my stay there." Id. at pg. 30:15-25 “Q: Did you go out looking for the girls -- A. No.
Q. -- to bring -- A. Never. Q. -- as the massage therapists? A. Never. Q. Who did?
A. Ms. Maxwell, Mr. Epstein and their friends, because their friends relayed to other
friends they knew a massage therapist and they would send to the house. So it was
referrals.”
In response to Ms. Giuffre’s assertions about Defendant recruiting of females for sexual
purposes, Defendant has made the sweeping claim that Ms. Giuffre’s assertions are “entirely
false” and “entirely untrue.” Complaint, DE 1, at ¶ 31. Accordingly, this Court directed as
follows:
Despite this instruction from the Court, during her deposition, Defendant refused to
answer many questions related to “sexual activity with or involving Jeffrey Epstein, with or
or believed were known to might become known to Epstein.” The result was that at a number of
3
points throughout her deposition, Defendant refused to answer questions about subjects integral
from her school to give massages to, and have sex with, Jeffrey Epstein under the guise of hiring
For example, Defendant refused to answer questions about recruiting for sex
with Epstein:
MR. PAGLIUCA: This has already been testified to Mr. Boies. We are repeating
testimony now.
MR. BOIES: I think in the context of the witness’ answers, these are fair
questions. Now, I’ve asked you before, if you want to instruct her not to answer,
if you want to go to the judge, we are happy to do that, but I would suggest in the
interest of moving it along, that you stop these speeches.
MR. PAGLIUCA: You are not moving it along is the problem, so maybe we
should call the court and get some direction here, because I am not going to sit
here and rehash the testimony we already gave.
MR. BOIES: That’s fin[e]. [At this point a telephone call was placed to Judge
Sweet’s chambers].
See Schultz Decl. at Composite Exhibit 7, Excerpts from July 22, 2016, Deposition of Ghislaine
Maxwell at pg.78:17-79:14.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I’m going to instruct you not to answer the question. This has been
previously , the subject of your former deposition, it doesn’t fall into any of the
categories ordered by the court, and so you don’t need to answer that.
Id. at pg.81:15-25.
Defendant’s counsel’s instruction not to answer was improper. This Court’s Order stated:
4
:
5
In the wake of this specific deposition testimony from , during her own
Q. Did Mr. Epstein pay for the massages that she gave Mr. Epstein?
Mr. Pagliuca: You just asked this question, and I told her not to answer. I will tell her not
to answer again for the same reasons.
Mr. Pagliuca: Same instruction to the witness. Why do you believe this is within the
scope of the court’s order?
Mr. Boies: Because of the court’s reference to massages, and because I think how much a
girl was paid to give a “massage” goes to whether
there actually was or was not sexual activity involved.
Mr. Boies: Perhaps it will surprise you, I think it should not, that I do not believe in my
deposition I need to simply accept her characterization without cross-examination. Now
that’s something the judge can decide, but a question as to how much this young girl was
being paid for a “massage,” I think goes directly to the issue of sexual activity.
See Schultz Decl. at Composite Exhibit 7, Excerpts from July 22, 2016 Deposition of Ghislaine
“What do you have on the girls?” [Epstein] would ask the question over and over again.
What I had “on the girls” were some remarkably brave first-person accounts. Three on-
the-record stories from a family: a mother and her daughters [Maria Farmer, Annie
Farmer, and their mother] who came from Phoenix. The oldest daughter, an artist whose
character was vouchsafed to me by several sources, including the artist Eric Fischl, had
told me, weeping as she sat in my living room, of how Epstein had attempted to seduce
both her and, separately, her younger sister, then only 16. He’d gotten to them because of
his money. He promised the older sister patronage of her art work; he’d promised the
younger funding for a trip abroad that would give her the work experience she needed on
her resume for a place at an Ivy League university, which she desperately wanted - and
would win. The girls’ mother told me by phone that she had thought her daughters would
6
be safe under Epstein’s roof, not least because he phoned her to reassure her, and she
also knew he had Ghislaine Maxwell with him at all times. When the girls’ mother
learned that Epstein had, regardless, allegedly molested her 16-year-old daughter, she’d
wanted to fight back.
“I Tried to Warn You about Sleazy Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein in 2003,” Vicky Ward, January 6,
2015, Daily Beast Article (Emphasis added). Defendant would not answer many questions
concerning her role with in the molestation of these girls while she was sharing a house with
Mr. PAGLIUCA: Can you tell me how that relates to this order, counselor?
MR. BOIES: Yes, I think it goes directly to the sexual activity related to
and what Mr. Epstein was doing with . Again, you can instruct not to
answer.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I’m trying to understand why you are asking these questions before I -
MR. BOIES: I’m asking these questions because these are people who not only have
been publicly written about in terms of the sexual activity that they were put into in
connection with Mr. Epstein, but the person who wrote about them is someone who
talked to the witness about it, and I think that this is more than easily understood cross-
examination.
MR. BOIES: Yes. And if you let her answer, you will see where it leads. If you won’t let
her answer, the judge is going to determine it. And I just suggest to you that you stop
these speeches and stop debating, because you are not going to convince me not to
follow-up on these questions. If you can convince the court to truncate the deposition,
that’s your right, but all you’re doing is dragging this deposition out.
MR. PAGLIUCA: You have the opportunity to give me a good faith basis why you are
asking these questions.
7
MR. BOIES: Then instruct not to answer.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I am giving you the opportunity to say why you are asking the
questions, and why I’m telling her not to answer and I am entitled to know that.
MR. BOIES: You are not entitled to know why I’m asking the question. You are only
entitled to know that it relates to the subject matter that I am entitled to inquire about, and
I don’t think the judge is going to think that, you know, where Mr. Epstein shipped
off to is outside the scope of what I’m entitled to inquire about.
See Schultz Decl. at Composite Exhibit 7, Excerpts from July 22, 2016 Deposition of Ghislaine
Defendant’s counsel also stopped a line of questioning in which Defendant was asked if
she recalled several girls brought over to give a “massage” to Epstein. The Court
this subject:
8
MR. PAGLIUCA: Mr. Boies, those names are on Exhibit 26, which we have already
gone over and she said she didn't recognize those people, so now we are just repeating
things that we went over.
MR. BOIES: I am in the context of seeing if I can refresh her recollection, because these
are women that , who she also does not recall, brought over to Mr. Epstein's
residences, and I also want to make a very clear record of what her testimony is and is not
right now.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm trying to get to nonrepetitive questions here. You basically asked
the same question three times. Then we get a pile of notes that get pushed up to you, you
read those. Then you ask those three times, and then we go to another question. So it's
taking an inordinately long amount of time and it shouldn't.
MR. BOIES: I think that is a demonstrably inaccurate statement of what has been going
on, and I attribute -- maybe I shouldn't attribute it at all. But if you want to instruct not to
answer, instruct not to answer. If you don't, again, all I will do is request that you cease
your comments. I can't do that. All I can do is seek sanctions afterwards.
See Schultz Decl. at Composite Exhibit 7, Excerpts from July 22, 2016, Deposition of Ghislaine
Based on Defendant’s refusal to answer questions related to specific girls, Mr. Boies was
Defendant also refused to answer questions concerning the “sexual activities of others . . .
become known to Epstein,” when she refused to answer a question about the records she kept of
the young girls who would perform massage and sexual activities with Epstein:
Q. Was there a list that was kept of women or girls who provided massages?
MR. PAGLIUCA: This has been previously deposed on. This is not part of the court's
order, I will tell her not to answer.
MR. BOIES: You are going to tell her not to answer a question that says was there a list
of women or girls who provided massages?
9
MR. BOIES: I think this is squarely in the court's order, but if you instruct her not to
answer, you instruct her not to answer.
Q. “In 2005, were you aware of any effort to destroy records of messages you had taken
of women who had called Mr. Epstein in the prior period?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Don’t answer that question. It’s outside the court’s order.
Ample evidence in this case establishes that not only did Defendant recruit underage girls
for massage and sexual activities with Epstein, but that she participated in calling the girls;
getting other people to bring girls; talking to the girls; taking massages from and leaving
messages about the girls; and scheduling the girls to come over. Accordingly, questions
concerning written records documenting Defendant’s involvement in, and knowledge of, the
girls who “massaged” Epstein is clearly within the ambit of this Court’s Order. For example, a
message from July of 2004 records Defendant, “Ms. Maxwell,” giving a message to Mr. Epstein
as message from ” (an underage girl who was 14 years old on the date of the message)
10
See Schultz Decl. at Composite Exhibit 8, Messages Involving Defendant3. In the investigation
of Mr. Epstein’s sex crimes against minors, law enforcement was able to confirm identities of
underage victims through the use of the names recorded these messages, which were recovered
from Epstein’s trash.4 Accordingly, the messages, and the girls described therein, are fully within
3
GIUFFRE001523; GIUFFRE001427; GIUFFRE001451; GIUFFRE001454; GIUFFRE001460;
GIUFFRE001461; GIUFFRE001464; GIUFFRE001465; GIUFFRE001436; GIUFFRE001435;
GIUFFRE001472; GIUFFRE001474; GIUFFRE001492; GIUFFRE001553; GIUFFRE001388;
GIUFFRE001555; GIUFFRE001556; GIUFFRE001557; GIUFFRE001392; GIUFFRE001526;
GIUFFRE001530; GIUFFRE001568; GIUFFRE001536; GIUFFRE001538; GIUFFRE001541;
GIUFFRE001546; GIUFFRE001399; GIUFFRE001402; GIUFFRE001405; GIUFFRE001406;
GIUFFRE001449; GIUFFRE001409; GIUFFRE001410; GIUFFRE001411; GIUFFRE00; etc.
4
Palm Beach Police Officer Recarey was deposed about information pulled by police officers
from trash discarded by Epstein from his home:
Q. The next line down is what I wanted to focus on, April 5th, 2005. This trash
pull, what evidence is yielded from this particular trash pull?
THE WITNESS: The trash pull indicated that there were several messages with
written items on it. There was a message from HR indicating that there would be
11
Finally, Defendant also refused to answer foundational questions that are necessary to
“In terms of preparing for this deposition, what documents did you review?” See Schultz
Decl. at Composite Exhibit 7, Excerpts from July 22, 2016, Deposition of Ghislaine
Maxwell at 174:2-4.
an 11:00 appointment. There were other individuals that had called during that
day.
Q. And when you would -- when you would see females' names and telephone
numbers, would you take those telephone numbers and match it to -- to a person?
THE WITNESS: We would do our best to identify who that person was.
Q. And is that one way in which you discovered the identities of some of the other
what soon came to be known as victims?
See Schultz Decl. at Composite Exhibit 3, Excerpts of June 21, 2016 Deposition of Detective
Recarey at pg. 42:14-43:17. Recarey went on to describe the importance of the information:
Q. Did you find names of other witnesses and people that you knew to have been
associated with the house in those message pads?
Q. And so what was the evidentiary value to you of the message pads collected
from Jeffrey Epstein's home in the search warrant?
THE WITNESS: It was very important to corroborate what the victims had
already told me as to calling in and for work.
were authorized by this Court’s Order: (1) Defendant’s information relating to and knowledge of
the circumstances of g performing massages and sex acts upon Epstein; (2)
Defendant’s information relating to and knowledge of the circumstances relating to the abuse of
and knowledge of any lists or records of girls who gave “massages” to Epstein; (4) Defendant’s
involvement with messages (or related documents) showing Defendant’s knowledge of, and
involvement in, the scheduling of underage girls for massage and sex with Epstein, and any
destruction of evidence related to these messages (or related records); (5) foundational questions
that were necessary precedent to asking questions authorized by this Court’s Order; and (6) all
related questions that arise out of any response Defendant provides within the parameters of the
DISCUSSION
The Court should compel Ms. Maxwell to answer questions in the topic areas where she
refused to answer during her recent deposition. Topics 1 - 4 above are central parts of this case,
and Topics 5 and 6 link directly to central parts of this case. Ms. Giuffre, and now other
knowledgeable witnesses, have explained and testified that Defendant not only had knowledge of
Epstein’s massages and sexual activity with others, but she actively facilitated the sexual
massages through recruiting young females and underage girls for the purpose of “massage” and
sexual activity. And proof that Defendant both had knowledge of, and was involved in, these
schemes and encounters, will further help prove that Defendant’s statements to the press that
13
The questions Defendant refused to answer fall squarely within this Court’s earlier order.
Defendant can have no legitimate basis for obstructing the search for truth by refusing to answer.
The Court should, again, compel Defendant to answer all these questions. 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 claim that such questions were outside the scope of this Court’s order,
as they directly relate to (1) her knowledge of individuals who provided “massage” to Epstein
and (2) her knowledge of sexual activities of others with or involving Epstein. Defendant’s
knowledge of the individuals involved in the sex/”massages” relating to Epstein, and her
knowledge about the sex/”massage” related to Epstein is precisely what this Court directed her to
answer. See also, 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 as
14
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 . . . .”). Moreover, 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 once again ranged far beyond the normal parameters of objections and
gave instructions directly in contravention of this Court’s Order directing Defendant to answer
In light of Defendant’s willful refusal to comply with this Court’s Order directing
Defendant to answer questions related to the Court’s June 20, 2016, Order, including topics
enumerated above, Ms. Giuffre also seeks attorneys’ fees and costs associated with bringing this
motion, as well as fees and costs associated with re-taking Defendant’s deposition.
CONCLUSION
Defendant should be ordered to sit for a follow-up deposition and directed to answer
Respectfully Submitted,
15
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
5
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.
16
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 29th day of July, 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
17
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: