Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch1_p00612.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 32 drawn against Ms. Maxwell. See LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 1997). In fact, none of the LiButti factors support her argument. While noting that Ms. Maxwell anticipates more extensive briefing on this issue in support of Mr. Epstein’s Motion to Quash, a few facts bear mentioning here: e Ms. Maxwell was the employee of Mr. Epstein --in the 1990s -- not the other way around. Mr. Epstein has never worked for or been in control of Ms. Maxwell. e Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein have had no financial, professional or employment relationship in more than a decade, many years before 2015 when the purportedly defamatory statement was published. Ms. Maxwell testified that she has not spoken to Mr. Epstein in 2 years. e Maxwell has not vested any control in Mr. Epstein “in regard to key facts and subject matter of litigation.” As the Court is well aware from review of emails submitted in camera (and later produced to Plaintiff): o Mr. Epstein and his counsel gave advice to Maxwell regarding whether she should issue a statement after January 2, 2015. In one, Mr. Epstein even suggested what such a statement might say. Maxwell never issued any additional statement. o Maxwell had her own counsel who operated independently of Mr. Epstein and his counsel. e Epstein is not “pragmatically a non-captioned party in interest” in this litigation nor has he “played controlling role in respect to its underlying aspects.” Epstein is not, despie Plaintiff's suggestion, paying Ms. Maxwell’s legal fees. Plaintiff sought by way of discovery any “contracts,” “indemnification agreements,” “employment agreements” between Ms. Maxwell and Epstein or any entity associated with Epstein, from 1999 to the present. Ms. Maxwell responded under oath that there are no such documents. Epstein played no role in the issuance of the January 2 statement, nor has he issued any public statement regarding Plaintiff. Indeed, Plaintiff and Epstein fully resolved any claims against one another by way of a confidential settlement in 2009, another action in which Ms. Maxwell had no role. 09 66 e Assertion of the privilege by Epstein does not advance any interest of Ms. Maxwell’s. Quite to the contrary, Epstein would be a key witness in her support, exonerating her from Plaintiffs allegations regarding sex abuse, sexual trafficking and acting as his “madam” to the stars. As proof, one need look no further than emails already reviewed by this Court. In an email sent by Epstein to Ms. Maxwell on January 25, 2015, while the media maelstrom generated by Plaintiff's false claims continued to foment, he wrote: “You have done nothing wrong and I would urge you to start acting like it. Go outside, head high, not as an escaping convict. Go to parties. Deal with it.” Menninger Decl. Ex. J 16