Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch1_p00139.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 28 L FACTUAL BACKGROUND The Court is aware of the scope of this case from earlier pleadings and numerous hearings. Initially, Ms. Giuffre anticipated the scope of discovery on this case would be narrow, because many of the events (such as flying to London on one of Epstein’s planes with Maxwell) were supported by seemingly indisputable evidence, such as flight logs, and because the Defendant’s counsel initially suggested that she may invoke her Fifth Amendment rights. Instead, during her recent deposition, Defendant simply failed to recall many of the most significant events in this case or refused to respond directly to many important questions. As a result, Ms. Giuffre is now in a position where she has to call multiple witnesses to establish fundamental facts in the case. For example, Defendant would not even admit that the initials “GM” which are on the private plane flight logs over 300 times, represent her initials for McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, May 17, 2016 Email Correspondence from Sigrid McCawley to Laura Menninger and Jeff Pagliuca with proposed deposition calendar. Ms. Giuffre’s ability to determine exactly which depositions would need to be taken was hamstrung by the Defendant’s refusal to sit for her deposition. As the Court will recall, Ms. Giuffre made efforts to set Defendant’s deposition starting in February 2016, yet Defendant did not sit for her deposition until after being ordered by the Court on April 22, 2016. During that deposition, Defendant refused to answer a number of questions and refused to acknowledge basic facts in this case, thereby causing Ms. Giuffre to have to depose a number of unanticipated witnesses. Ms. Giuffre’s counsel started conferring with Defendant’s counsel in February 2016 and has actively engaged in discussion about these depositions that Ms. Giuffre knew she needed to take. On May 9, 2016, the parties conferred regarding deposition scheduling and Ms. Giuffre noticed depositions in accordance with the dates and locations that Defendant’s counsel said were available, and, on May 17, 2016, provided her with a calendar outlining those dates. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, May 17, 2016 Email Correspondence from Sigrid McCawley. Ms. Maxwell waited until one day before the first deposition scheduled to take place on May 31, 2016 to inform Ms. Giuffre’s counsel that she refuses to attend the deposition of this subpoenaed witness unless Ms. Giuffre drops her request to seek additional depositions by way of this motion. “If you intend to seek more than 10 depositions or to continue the discovery cut-off post July 1, then we will not be appearing at the depositions next week...” See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, May 27, 2016 e-mail Correspondence from Laura Menninger to Bradley Edwards. This obstruction of discovery by refusing to attend subpoenaed depositions that were noticed to her about one month ago on May 4, 2016 should not be condoned. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3, May 4, 2016 Notice of Service and Subpoena to Juan Alessi. Defendant’s counsel is also apparently refusing to appear at the other two depositions set for next week, of Maria Alessi set for Wednesday, June 1, 2016 and originally noticed on May 4, 2016 and Dave Rodgers set for Friday, June 3, 2016 and originally noticed on May 4, 2016. While Ms. Giuffre had originally hoped to be able to conclude discovery on July 1, 2016, Defendant’s refusal to attend depositions and agree to scheduling is putting Ms. Giuffre in a position where she will need additional time to complete discovery. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, May 26, 2016 Letter from Sigrid McCawley.