Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch6_p00153.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 10 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP Honorable Judge Robert Sweet United States District Court Page -5- Confidential Sealed Filing ‘The Case Law Supports Allowing Ms. Ransome As A Trial Witness Ms. Giuffre has offered Defendant, subject to this Court’s approval, the opportunity to take Ms. Ransome’s deposition. And, as this Court has already explained, taking the deposition of a newly-discovered witness cures any prejudice: “[t]his and other courts have adopted the taking of depositions as an appropriate mechanism to address late-disclosed witnesses.” MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Patriarch Partners VII, LLC, 201 WL 2568972, at *14-15 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2003) (concluding that plaintiff should be given the opportunity to depose a late-identified witness). The cases that Defendant cites are all vastly different from the case before this Court and are easily distinguishable. In Gray v. Town of Darien, 927 F.2d 69 (2d Cir.1991), the court denied the motion to reopen discovery and granted summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to seek any discovery during the six-month discovery period set forth by the court. In stark contrast, Ms. Giuffre has actively engaged in discovery. The fact that this witness had critical information as a victim of Epstein and Defendant's sex trafficking ring could not have been known by Ms. Giuffre until the witness contacted Ms. Giuffre’s lawyers. In Trebor Sportswear Co., Inc. v. The Limited Stores, Inc., 865 F.2d 506 (2d Cir. 1989), a case involving a statute of frauds issue, the court would not let the parties re-open discovery because there was no reason to believe that they would find a missing written agreement. Here, Ms. Giuffre has found a witness who has will provide to the jury critical information about Defendant’s involvement in sex trafficking that directly contradicts Defendant’s sworn testimony. In Smith v. United States, 834 F.2d 166 (10th Cir. 1987), the plaintiff made his request for a new witness on (he morning of trial, having had eight months to conduct depositions. Additionally, the Tenth Circuit found that the new witness would not even be relevant to the narrow issue being addressed at trial. /d. at 169, In contrast, Ms. Giuffre has provided Defendant ample time to conduct discovery on Ms. Ransome, a witness who has vital evidence on the central issues in this case. In Vineberg v. Bissonnette, 548 F.3d 50, 55 (1st Cir. 2008), the First Circuit found that the defendant failed to point to any “relevant leads” that she might have obtained had the court reopened discovery. Here, it is patently obvious that Ms. Ransome holds a wealth of valuable information and is, as Defendant herself admits, a significant witness. Finally, in Jeannile v. City of N.Y. Dept., of Buildings, 2010 WL 2542050, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 21, 2010), plaintiff waited until the very end of discovery to make the request and had not sent any document requests or sought to depose any witnesses, which is in contrast to Ms. Giuffre having actively participated in discovery. Furthermore, there was no way for Ms. Giuffre to know that Ms. Ransome had such critical information until she called us because Defendant never disclosed her. Accordingly, Defendant fails to accurately support her claims with any relevant case law. Conclusion