Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch6_p00105.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 21 Cc. Phillip Esplin As previously explained, Dr. Esplin is a retained rebuttal expert, responding to the improper credibility opinions of Dr. Kliman and Professor Coonan. His opinions are quite limited in scope, and merely point to the deficiencies in information, studies and the evaluations of Plaintiff's two experts. Plaintiff has improperly designated testimony that relates to questions, matters and fact outside the scope of Mr. Esplin’s opinion, or about which he had no factual predicate to provide testimony. For instance, he was asked questions regarding the definitions of pedophilia and if it could be cured, a matter nowhere addressed in his rebuttal opinion. If Mr. Esplin is proffered as a witness at all, Plaintiff may only cross-examine him on matters within the scope of his opinion and his direct examination. Fed. R. Evid. 611(b); Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Rhone—Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 2000 WL 356412, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.2, 2000) (holding that “direct testimony by any expert witness at trial shall be limited to the contents of the Expert Report”). The designated deposition testimony, all outside the scope of Dr. Esplin’s expert opinion in this matter, must be precluded. I. TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS MADE IN OTHER MATTERS TO WHICH MS. MAXWELL WAS NOT A PARTY, WAS NOT PRESENT, HAD NO NOTICE, AND DID NOT PARTICIPATE CANNOT BE DESIGNATED IN THIS CASE Plaintiff has attempted to designate the testimony of Alfredo Rodriguez from a deposition conducted of him on July 29, 2009 in connection with a series of cases brought by various “Jane Does” (none this Plaintiff) against Jeffrey Epstein. Mr. Rodriguez is now deceased, and thus not deposed in conjunction with the present litigation. These designations are prohibited by the Federal Rules of Evidence and Procedure. Again, Fed. R. Civ. P. 32 and Fed. R. Evid. 804 are controlling. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 32, a prerequisite to use of a deposition at trial is “(A) the party was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or had reasonable notice of it; (B) it is 14