Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch6_p00174.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 22 Defendant obviously cannot dispute that the requirements of item (A) are met, since Mr. Rodriguez’s former testimony was given in a deposition. The only remaining issue for admissibility concerns item (B), which allows use, in a civil case, of a deposition so long as the party (in this case, the Defendant) had a “predecessor in interest” who had “‘an opportunity and similar motive” to develop the testimony through cross- examination. The earlier deposition was taken in the case of Jane Doe No. 6 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80994, on August 7, 2009, as well as other civil cases brought by other victims of Epstein. See McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 3, Rodriguez Dep. Tr. at 271. As the case caption itself makes clear, Defendant had a “predecessor in interest” in the case — namely, her co-conspirator, Jeffrey Epstein. To determine whether there is a predecessor in interest, the courts look to whether there was a “community of interest” between the two persons. See Lloyd v. American Export Lines, Inc., 580 F.2d 1179, 1185-87 (3d Cir. 1978). In making such determinations, courts should give a “realistically generous” interpretation that presents a “complete picture” of the situation. /d. at 1187. For example, both the Coast Guard and a seaman were found to have the same interest in asking questions about an incident at sea. Id. Similarly here, Epstein and Defendant had the same interest in asking questions about the sex abuse taking place in the Palm Beach mansion they cohabitated for years. At the deposition in question, Epstein was represented by legal counsel, Robert Critton, Esq. Jd. at 275. Following questioning from counsel for Epstein’s victims that suggested Mr. Rodriguez had seen evidence of sexual abuse going on in Epstein’s mansion, Critton cross-examined Mr. Rodriguez. See id. at 338-419. Critton specifically asked an entire series of questions about Defendant. See id. at 364- 12