Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch1_p00611.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 32 Plaintiff did not include either woman in her Sharon Churcher-paid interviews, nor were they mentioned in Plaintiffs Joinder Motion of December 30, 2014. Thus, neither Plaintiff's allegations about Ms. Maxwell, nor Ms. Maxwell’s denial of the same based on her personal knowledge, are implicated by anything that Ms. Kellen or Ms. Marcincova may have done with anyone else. Their testimony cannot corroborate Plaintiffs account, nor can it shed light on whether Ms. Maxwell’s denial of that account is accurate, because Plaintiffs account did not mention either of them. Finally as to these witnesses, Plaintiff once again documented her own failure to comply with Rule 45 in regard to attempts to serve these two witnesses. Six of the service attempts occurred on April 25 and April 26. Yet Plaintiff only provided Notice to Ms. Maxwell of her intent to serve the subpoenas on April 27. Menninger Decl. Ex. I. Il. FIFTH AMENDMENT BY EPSTEIN, KELLEN OR MARCINCOVA NOT ADMISSIBLE IN THIS CASE AGAINST MS. MAXWELL The depositions of Epstein, Kellen and Marcincova do not constitute “good cause” to modify the scheduling order in this case for the additional reason that they all have represented to Plaintiff their intention to assert the Fifth Amendment protection as to a// questions and such assertion will not be admissible evidence in this trial. Indeed, counsel for Mr. Epstein recently filed a Motion to Quash his subpoena based on the same legal principle that his deposition is unduly burdensome in light of the fact that it will not lead to admissible evidence. (Doc. # 221, 222, 223) The Court should consider this additional factor to decline a finding of “good cause” for extending the discovery deadline. Plaintiff wrongfully contends that any assertion of the Fifth Amendment during the depositions of Epstein, Kellen and Marincova will be admissible in the trial of this defamation matter (where none of those individuals are parties) based on an “adverse inference” that can be 15