Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch6_p00166.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 22 circumstances make it desirable — in the interest of justice and with due regard to the importance of live testimony in open court — to permit the deposition to be used.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(4)(E). Given the importance of Epstein to this case, if for any reason he fails to appear, the Court should also exercise its discretion to allow his deposition to be used. Defendant also argues that Rinaldo Rizzo is a witness who should appear live at the trial, rather than through deposition testimony. Ms. Giuffre agrees that it would be optimal if Rizzo were to appear in person at trial. Ms. Giuffre has contacted Mr. Rizzo’s counsel to attempt to secure his appearance at trial. She anticipates that he will indeed appear at trial. But should it appear that those efforts to secure his attendance at trial be unsuccessful, Ms. Giuffre reserves the right to ask the Court to present his testimony via the deposition designations she has made, as he would be, at that point, “unavailable.” B. Esplin May Be an Unavailable Witness. Ms. Giuffre has also designated certain excerpts from the deposition of one of Defendant’s own experts, Dr. Phillip Esplin. This designation was a defensive measure. Some of Esplin’s testimony was so favorable to Ms. Giuffre that she wanted to ensure it would be available to present to the jury. Counsel for Ms. Giuffre has contacted defense counsel to confirm that Defendant will still be calling Esplin to trial. Defense counsel has, thus far, refused to respond to this inquiry in any way. If Defendant calls Esplin as a witness at trial, Ms. Giuffre would then have no need to rely upon his deposition testimony, as she would simply cover the same terrain via live questions before the jury. Should, however, Defendant decide to withhold Esplin as a witness, Ms. Giuffre would like to use limited parts of his testimony at trial. Of course, Defendant can hardly claim any sort of unfair prejudice from having testimony from her own expert witness presented at trial. Defendant also argues that the designated 4