Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch6_p00172.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 22 Nevertheless, the Court need not resolve these evidentiary issues here, in a motion to exclude testimony by Instead, the Court should assess these issues either at trial or pre-trial if a motion in limine is filed. Cc. Esplin’s Deposition Should Be Allowed if Defendant Decides Not to Make Him Available at Trial. Defendant also argues that Ms. Giuffre should not be permitted to designate extremely helpful testimony provided by Defendant’s own expert, Dr. Esplin. While Defendant is apparently fine with Esplin’s opinions that are helpful to her case, she claims that portions of his testimony that happen to be favorable to Ms. Giuffre are “outside the scope of his opinion.” This pick-and-choose approach is not permitted, and Defendant is required to take the bitter with the sweet. Ms. Giuffre has properly designated portions of Esplin’s deposition which are helpful to her and within the scope of his expertise. For example, Defendant offered Esplin as an expert on memory issues, and Ms. Giuffre is entitled to ask for his opinions concerning various memory issues in this case. Ms. Giuffre will respond specifically to Defendant’s argument at greater length in response to his objections to her designation. I. ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ’S TESTIMONY IN AN EARLIER DEPOSITION SHOULD BE ALLOWED SINCE HE HAS SINCE DIED. Ms. Giuffre has designated excerpts from a deposition of Alfredo Rodriguez, conducted in July 2009. Mr. Rodriguez worked inside Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion, and therefore had intimate details about how girls were being sexually trafficked by Epstein and Defendant. Ms. Giuffre would call Mr. Rodriguez as a witness at trial, but he has since died. Accordingly, the only way that his testimony can be presented to the jury is through the deposition transcript. Mr. Rodriguez’s previously-taken deposition testimony is admissible for two reasons. First, the testimony is admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1), as Mr. Rodriguez is unavailable and he is Defendant’s predecessor in interest — her co-conspirator, Jeffrey Epstein — had an 10