Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch6_p00075.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 21 called Ms. Giuffre a liar. Ms. Giuffre then filed this defamation suit, alleging that her allegations of sexual abuse were true. Ms. Giuffre gave her sworn testimony that the allegations were true and deposed multiple witnesses who supported her position. On the other hand, Defendant gave her sworn testimony that she, quite conveniently, could not remember the important events of the time (such as flying on 23 flights with Ms. Giuffre as a minor child and Epstein). Having failed to remember the critical events — and having failed to produce important documents about these events’ — Defendant propounded extensive discovery to Ms. Giuffre, to which Ms. Giuffre has diligently attempted to respond. Now, as the trial for this case is approaching, Defendant has filed a last ditch motion to dismiss, claiming that Ms. Giuffre’ missing notes of her dreams are somehow such critical information that the defamation case should be dismissed. To simply describe the argument is to show how far-fetched Defendant’s position has become. The Court should deny this frivolous motion and prepare to try this case on March 13, 2017. I. CONCLUSION The Defendant’s motion for sanctions due to Ms. Giuffre’s destruction of materials for entirely benign reasons, long before this litigation ever arose, should be denied in its entirely. oA conveniently failing memory is not the only way in which Defendant has kept evidence of involvement in sexual abuse from being discovered. The day that the Palm Beach Police executed the warrant on Defendant and Epstein’s home, Defendant called the housekeeper and told her not to come in that morning. See Schultz Decl.at Exhibit 5, Louella Rabuyo’s October 20, 2009 Dep. Tr. at 9; 11; 81-82Once the police arrived, they found that the computers had been ripped out of their places, leaving the monitors, mice, keyboards, and wires behind. See Schultz Dec. at Composite Exhibit 6, Police Report at p. 63, GIUFFRE000064; Recarey Dep. Tr. 72:25- 73:18. This Court is also aware of multiple events triggering Defendant’s duty to preserve documents. For example, Defendant avoided her 2009 deposition in a case concerning Epstein by falsely claiming to be out of the country (she was, instead, photographed at Chelsey Clinton’s New York wedding). Additionally, in her Motion to Dismiss, Defendant claimed that in both 2011 and 2015, she anticipated bringing litigation against tabloids. Defendant has not produced documents that she should have preserved pursuant to the police investigation, the 2009 litigation, and her purported anticipated suits against the press as recently as 2015. And, on top of all this, the Court is aware of the Defendant’s failure to produce discovery, which lead to sanctions as ordered in November. 16