Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch3_p00315.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 27 be required to answer questions about adult consensual sexual activity — the only questions on which instructions were given in the first deposition. Yet, broad latitude was given by counsel in the deposition, permitting pages of duplicative, redundant examination on countless topics which had already been asked and fully answer in the first disposition. By way of example: as . se First Deposition Second Deposition Duplicative Topic of Questioning (Exhibit C) (Exhibit D) Circumstances surrounding her first meeting of | 14:9-19:18 Plaintiff and if she held herself out as a 35:11-36:20 65:4-70:5 professional masseur 213:5-220:3 If she saw women under the age of 18 (first Saves deposition) or 21 (second deposition) at 99-2-1 00: 4. 71:20-73:18 Epstein’s houses 122:19-122:14 Her knowledge of Ms. Sjoberg, her job, how she | 59:7-63:16; was hired, and if Ms. Maxwell ever received 286:23-293:13; 74:2-78:19! massages from Ms. Sjoberg 307:6-312:12 Knowledge of or meetings with Maria or Annie | 55:20-56:20; 95:14-98:10; Farmer 62:21-25 103:19-113:22 Her knowledge of Nadia Marcinkova and 40:19-47:14 120:22-122:5; interactions with Mr. Epstein a 126:22-129:12 ' Consistent with Ms. Maxwell’s testimony, Ms. Sjoberg testified that 1) all massages she gave to Ms. Maxwell were ordinary professional massages, and never of a sexual nature; 2) Ms. Maxwell and she never engaged in any sexual activity, nor was it ever requested; and 3) all interactions she had at Mr. Epstein’s property of a sexual nature were consensual activities while she was an adult. Pagliuca Decl., Ex. E, at 94-96; 101; see generally Response at 20-21, infra. 7