Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch6_p00096.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 21 requirements have been met, mandating that the designated portions of Dr. Esplin’s testimony should be ruled inadmissible at trial. Jd.; see also Aubrey Rogers Agency, Inc. v. AIG Life Ins. Co., 2000 WL 135129 (D. Del. 2000) (finding expert deposition testimony inadmissible where there was nothing in the record to indicate that the proponent had made any effort to secure the expert's attendance at trial or had even contacted the expert to “offer him his usual expert witness fee, and request his attendance at trial”). IL. TESTIMONY IN WHICH WITNESS REFUSED TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS POSED IS IRRELEVANT, MORE PREJUDICIAL THAN PROBITIVE, AND MUST BE EXCLUDED FROM TRIAL Plaintiff designates the deposition testimony of three witnesses who refused to or could not respond to the questions posed to them. The first, Mr. Epstein, invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The second, J was reluctant to be deposed and failed to answer questions based on lack of memory, repeatedly stating that she was unable to respond to the questions posed. The third, Dr. Phillip Esplin, explained repeatedly that he could not respond to the questions posed because they were outside the scope of his opinion and there was insufficient information in the record to permit response. All of this testimony is irrelevant, more prejudicial than probative and must be excluded. A. Jeffrey Epstein As the Court is aware, Jeffrey Epstein was compelled to sit for a deposition during which he invoked his Fifth Amendment rights as to each and every question posed to him by counsel for both Plaintiff and the Defendant. Both Plaintiff and Defendant have motions pending to require Mr. Epstein to respond fully to questions. If these motions are granted, the current deposition in which no questions were answered is irrelevant. Only actual questions that eventually are answered should be presented to the jury, subject to other rules of admissibility, including whether Plaintiff can establish that Mr. Epstein is unavailable to testify live at trial. 5