Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch5_p00325.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 9 testify what she did after receiving Epstein’s “ok.” The fact that Defendant was seeking Epstein’s permission with respect to her media communications regarding Ms. Giuffre shows a high level of coordination among these co-conspirators,” and Ms. Giuffre should not be precluded from asking about critical communications because Defendant failed to produce the communications until after so many key witnesses, including the Defendant, had testified. B. This Court has Already Held that Reopening a Deposition is Appropriate for Question concerning Documents Produced After the Deposition This Court has already ruled that reopening a party deposition is appropriate where important’ documents are produced after the deposition is completed. This ruling is in accord with relevant precedent. See Wesley v. Muhammad, 2009 WL 1490607, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“while 2 Incorrectly, in Footnote 1, Defendant claims that Ms. Giuffre fabricated her claim that Maxwell and Epstein asked Ms. Giuffre to bear a child for them. Ms. Giuffre’s statement is directly corroborated by another young woman Defendant’ recruited to provide sexual massages to Epstein. Indeed, Johanna Sjorberg testified that Epstein asked her to bear a child for him: Q. Have you ever been propositioned by anyone to have a baby for someone? A. Yes. Q. Who propositioned you? A. Jeffrey asked me. Q. Did he ask you more than once? A. Yes. Q. And what did he say? A. Basically just said, I want you to be the mother of my baby. See Schultz Dec. at Exhibit 1, May 18, 2016, Sjoberg Dep. Tr. at 39:25-40:9. There is no “fabrication” here. > Defendant attempts to distinguish her two emails with key players in this case from the documents that Ms. Giuffre produced after her deposition, namely, medical and employment records. There is a distinction, but not what Defendant suggests. Not only are Ms. Giuffre’s documents ancillary to the matter, but unlike the Defendant, Ms. Giuffre is cooperating with a follow up deposition on these documents — whereas Defendant is refusing to be deposed. This is not a personal injury action or a medical malpractice action wherein medical records are highly relevant. This is also not a wage-and- hour case, or a non-compete case, or an employment discrimination case wherein employment records are highly relevant. This is a defamation case. And the communications among the individuals who formed and then disseminated the defamatory statement (particularly when those communications address potential future statements about Ms. Giuffre) are more relevant - by orders of magnitude - than any of the medical or employment records about which Defendant will ask Ms. Giuffre at her second deposition, particularly when those medical records cover such topics so far afield, such as Ms. Giuffre’s treatment for an animal bite. 5