Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch1_p00600.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 32 case, already has sued Glenn Dubin, Epstein’s friend, had counsel who was totally cooperative in the rescheduling and reported fanciful and never-before heard claims about Ms. Maxwell, the Dubins and others that he has never reported to any law enforcement even though he claims that he witnessed potential kidnappings and sexual assaults on children.’ Plaintiff's claim that Mr. Rizzo is an “example of delay that has harmed [her] ability to obtain all depositions in a timely manner” (Mot. at 3) is specious. Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, discovery began in this case on October 23, 2015, following the parties’ Rule 26(f) conferral. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d)(1). At the Rule 16(b) scheduling conference on October 28, 2015, this Court directed the parties to complete all fact discovery by July 1, 2016. (Doc. #13) On November 30, 2015, contemporaneous with the filing of her Rule 12(b) Motion to Dismiss, Ms. Maxwell also requested of this Court a stay of discovery pursuant to Rule 26(c). (Doc. #17) That motion was denied on January 20, 2016, with an additional two-week period granted to respond to Plaintiffs First Request for Production of Documents.® The discovery was thus never stayed. Plaintiff erroneously asserts that that discovery “did not commence in this matter until” February 8. What she means is that she neglected to seek any non-witness depositions until then; nothing in the Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court’s Orders, or the law prevented Plaintiff from doing so at any point after October 23, 2015.’ Plaintiff has had over eight months to subpoena 5 See, Menninger Declaration, Ex. A (Rizzo deposition transcript excerpts). Of course, Plaintiff's counsel has engaged in their own last-minute “unavailability” for a deposition scheduled by Ms. Maxwell, as to Plaintiff's former fiancé, a witness who is hostile, required numerous service attempts at great cost and inconvenience, and who then (because of Plaintiff's last minute unavailability) had to be re-served by a process server who swam through a swamp to get to his home, at additional cost and inconvenience. 6 By agreement of the parties, the time to respond was extended an additional six days because defense counsel was in a jury trial at the time the Court’s Order was handed down. 7 See, e.g., Pltfs Opp’n to Mot. to Stay (Doc. #20) at 17 n.8 (“As of the date of this filing, zero (0) disposition [sic] notices have been propounded on the Defendant.”). 4