Back to Results

Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch1_p00157.png

Source: GIUFFRE_MAXWELL  •  Size: 302.1 KB  •  OCR Confidence: 95.2%
View Original Image

Extracted Text (OCR)

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 28 aware that, at every turn, Defendant appears ready to brand Ms. Giuffre as a “liar” who cannot be believed. Thus, obtaining witnesses, like Ms. Sjoberg, who can corroborate that she is telling the truth is more important in this case than it would be in many others. It is equally important that Ms. Giuffre be able to depose the witnesses who can refute Defendant's testimony. The Court can also readily determine that Ms. Giuffre has not had any prior opportunity to obtain discovery of the witnesses she seeks to depose. The case is only now in the fact discovery phase, and she has had no opportunity to previously depose these third-party witnesses. Finally, there is no substantial burden involved with deposing seven additional witnesses. Any assessment of burden must take into account the scope of the underlying case. Ms. Giuffre is seeking both compensatory and punitive damages that would total millions of dollars. Against that backdrop, a handful of additional depositions cannot be seen as unduly burdensome. Moreover, this is not a situation where Defendant lacks means to pay for counsel to attend the depositions. Defendant’s vast wealth does not appear to be in doubt.> During the meet-and-confer on this issue, the Defendant’s substantive reason for not stipulating to these additional depositions is that, with regard to three of the witnesses (Epstein, Kellan, and Marcinkova), it appears likely that they will invoke their Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer some questions about Defendant’s involvement in in the sexual abuse of Ms. Giuffre. But until those witnesses actually take the Fifth, the conclusion that they will actually *Defendant has thus far refused produce documents regarding the extent of her assets, arguing that until the punitive damages phase of this proceeding is reached the discovery is not relevant. Nonetheless, public information suggests significant assets — and the possibility that she is transferring assets outside the reach of the Court’s jurisdiction. See, e.g., Alleged Epstein Madam Sells $16M Manhattan Townhouse, New York Post, Apr. 28, 2016 (available at http://nypost.com/2016/04/28/alleged-epstein- madam-sells-16m-manhattan-townhouse/). 20

Document Preview

Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch1_p00157.png

Click to view full size

Extracted Information

Dates

Document Details

Filename Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch1_p00157.png
File Size 302.1 KB
OCR Confidence 95.2%
Has Readable Text Yes
Text Length 2,287 characters
Indexed 2026-02-04 12:32:32.891956