Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch6_p00108.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 21 Like J Mr. Rodriguez was expansively questioned based on counsel’s recitation of the alleged content of a recorded statement from Mr. Rodriguez to Detective Recarey and then he was asked questions regarding such statement. He was not shown the recorded statement, nor was he asked any question of his present memory prior to the reading of these statement which resulted in a need to have his recollection refreshed. Plaintiff is attempting to introduce as evidence the content of the prior consistent statement through counsel’s questions, which is improper under Fed. R. Evid. Fed. R. Evid. 612 and 801(d)(1). Further, the questions posed to Mr. Rodriguez that have been designated are almost exclusively leading questions of a non-party witness who Plaintiff intends to use as a direct witness in her case in chief. All of these questions violate Fed. R. Evid. 611(c), making these portions of the deposition inadmissible under 32(a)(1)(b). The testimony of Mr. Rodriguez is also impermissible under 401, 401, 403 and 602 because Mr. Rodriguez has absolutely no personal knowledge of any matter at issue in this case. He testified that he worked for Mr. Epstein from September 2004 to March 2005, a full two years after Plaintiff in this matter had left the country. He stated that he had never heard of or met “V.R.” (presumably Virginia Roberts) /d. Menninger Decl. Ex. E at 441:19-21. Based on his dates of employment, he has no personal knowledge of any events concerning Plaintiff, as pointed out to counsel in the deposition. Jd. 277:15-278:5. Indeed, Mr. Rodriguez was very clear in testifying that he had absolutely no personal knowledge about anything that happened between Mr. Epstein and any of the women who came to give him massages and that his testimony is pure speculation. Jd, 466:7-467:2. With no personal knowledge of the veracity of the allegations that were called untrue (or any other matter to which he testified) his testimony is completely irrelevant to this litigation. 17