Back to Results

Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch1_p00608.png

Source: GIUFFRE_MAXWELL  •  Size: 307.4 KB  •  OCR Confidence: 94.6%
View Original Image

Extracted Text (OCR)

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 32 role in failing to compel him to attend a deposition, no “good cause” has been demonstrated to take the deposition of Mr. Brunel after July 1. D. Jeffrey Epstein As with the other witnesses, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate “good cause” for seeking to depose Jeffrey Epstein out of time. Plaintiff claims that she was unable to secure service on Mr. Epstein until May 27, 2016, because his counsel “refused to accept service” until she filed her motion for alternative service. The documents reflect the opposite: Mr. Epstein’s attorney agreed to accept service on April 11, 2016, and it was only on May 27, 2016, that Plaintiff agreed. See Poe Declaration in Support of Motion to Quash Epstein Deposition, Ex. 3 (Doc. # 223-3). Plaintiff fails to explain her strategic decision, or negligence, in failing to respond for over six weeks to Mr. Weinberg’s email offering to accept service. Indeed, in another failure of candor, Plaintiff's counsel also neglected to tell this Court about the email offer from Mr. Weinberg either in the instant motion or in her motion to serve Mr. Epstein by alternate means. Mot. at 2; Doc. # 160.° Plaintiff apparently now claims that she never received that email from Martin Weinberg. All of the preceding communications, however, indicate that Mr. Weinberg promptly responded to Ms. McCawley’s inquiries. See, e.g., Poe Declaration, Ex. 2 (email of April 6 from Weinberg to McCawley (offering to let her know regarding acceptance of service on April 7)); email of McCawley in response (“That works fine — thank you.”)). Thus, if Ms. McCawley received no follow up response from Mr. Weinberg, as she now claims, when he had been corresponding * In another glaring omission from Plaintiffs submissions to the Court on the topic of the service of Mr. Epstein, Plaintiff's own counsel have strenuously litigated in other cases that Mr. Epstein is a resident of Florida, over his objection that he is a resident of the U.S. Virgin Islands. See, e.g., Menninger Decl., Ex. G (Motion to Quash Subpoena on Jeffrey Epstein, Broward County, Florida, 15-000072). Yet, all of Plaintiff's purported attempts at service on Mr. Epstein were in New York. 12

Document Preview

Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch1_p00608.png

Click to view full size

Document Details

Filename Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch1_p00608.png
File Size 307.4 KB
OCR Confidence 94.6%
Has Readable Text Yes
Text Length 2,256 characters
Indexed 2026-02-04 12:34:46.254876