Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch1_p00610.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 32 not an isolated incident and merits sanction. In any event, it is difficult to imagine how it is Ms. Maxwell’s fault that Plaintiff could not serve Mr. Epstein when she was never put on notice of any attempt to do so. Given that Plaintiff knew as of April 11 the conditions pursuant to which Mr. Epstein would accept service through counsel, yet waited until May 27 to agree to those terms, and then waited another nearly three weeks to attempt to schedule Mr. Epstein’s deposition on a date available for his counsel and Ms. Maxwell’s counsel, Plaintiff has fallen far short of demonstrating “good cause” for taking Mr. Epstein’s deposition beyond the end of the fact discovery cut-off. E. Nadia Marcincova and Sarah Kellen Finally, Plaintiff seeks the depositions of two other witnesses — Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcincova -- who, she complains, “despite being represented by counsel, have refused to accept service.” Mot. at 3. Plaintiff claims that her process servers tried for three weeks (from April 25 until May 18) to personally serve Ms. Kellen and Ms. Marcincova with subpoenas duces tecum. She did not explain, however, why she waited until April to try to serve these two witnesses, about whom her attorneys have known since 2008. She also has not explained to this Court any legally relevant or admissible evidence that either possess, nor how she intends to introduce that evidence in a trial of this defamation claim between Plaintiff and Ms. Maxwell. Apart from these witnesses stated intent to take the Fifth Amendment which renders their testimony inadmissible, as discussed more fully below, neither witness has any relevant testimony to offer because Plaintiff never made a public statement about either one of them. ° Actually, in Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Serve Three Deposition Subpoenas by Means Other than Personal Service, Plaintiff details that Ms. Marcincova’s counsel stated he no longer represents her. (Doc. #161 at 5) (“counsel for Ms. Giuffre reached out to Ms. Marcinkova’s former counsel but he indicated that he could not accept service as he no longer represents her’). It is unclear then, why Plaintiff persists in representing to this Court that Ms. Marcincova instructed her counsel not to accept service, or why Plaintiff seeks to serve Ms. Marcincova through her former counsel. 14