Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch1_p00515.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 11 Weighing these factors, there is no basis for permitting more than the presumptive ten deposition limit. First, as highlighted by the motion, the information purportedly sought is cumulative and duplicative. By way of example, Plaintiff has already deposed Johanna Sjoberg (a former Epstein employee), Juan Alessi (a former Epstein employee), and David Rodgers* (former Epstein Pilot). She further seeks to depose Maria Alessi and Jo Fontanella (former Epstein household employees), as well as and Emmy Taylor (identified as assistants to Ms. Maxwell or Mr. Epstein). The information Plaintiff claims each of the witnesses may have is identical to that of each other — what they observed while working for Epstein. Plaintiff goes so far as to state that Maria Alessi’s deposition is expected to “corroborate” the observations of her husband’s. Plaintiff admits that the purpose in seeking the additional depositions is “obtaining witnesses, like Ms. Sjoberg, who can corroborate that [Plaintiff] is telling the truth.” Yet, Ms. Sjoberg did not “corroborate that [Plaintiff] is telling the truth.” Instead, she testified that she was hired as an adult by Jeffrey Epstein to provide professional massages, that Ms. Maxwell never asked her for any type of sexual massage, that she never saw Plaintiff giving a massage to Ms. Maxwell nor did she see Ms. Maxwell receive a massage from any underage girl, indeed, in her 5 plus years working for Mr. Epstein, she never saw any person underage at his home. Regardless, Plaintiff is looking in vain for more testimony of exactly the same character, precisely the type of testimony the presumptive limit is intended to prevent. Similarly, the expected deposition testimony of former Palm Beach Detective Joe Recarey and former Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter are duplicative of each other. 4 Mr. Rodgers deposition, held last Friday and requiring a separate trip to Florida for Colorado counsel after the scheduled court hearing on Thursday, served simply to authenticate flight logs. There are far more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive methods by which such information could have been obtained, such as a verifying affidavit, yet Plaintiff chose to unnecessarily burden counsel, the witness and counsel for the witness with a 3 hour deposition to accomplish the same end.