Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch6_p00217.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 10 All testimony from J deposition based on leading questions summarizing her hearsay statements in the police report must be excluded. With respect to the police report itself, this will obviously be a subject of a Motion in Limine. At this time, two points will suffice. Plaintiffs claim that she is not attempting to offer the police report for the truth of the matters asserted therein is farcical, which is evident in every briefing touching on the subject matter. Second, while the full 803(8) issue will be briefed, for present purposes we will simply point out that gy (or any other witnesses statement contained in the report) will never be admissible unless there is a separate and independent hearsay exemptions for such statement. As the Second Circuit has clearly held: “Tt is well established that entries in a police report which result from the officer's own observations and knowledge may be admitted but that statements made by third persons under no business duty to report may not.” United States v. Pazsint, 703 F.2d 420, 424 (9 Cir.1983) (emphasis in original). Parsons v. Honeywell, Inc., 929 F.2d 901, 907 (2d Cir. 1991)(quoting United States v. Pazsint, 703 F.2d 420, 424 (9[th] Cir.1983)). Plaintiff does not address the objections to J deposition under Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402 and 602 based on lack of personal knowledge, or the issues concerning the improper leading of this witness. They should thus be deemed confessed and are not re-argued here. I. TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS MADE IN OTHER MATTERS TO WHICH MS. MAXWELL WAS NOT A PARTY, WAS NOT PRESENT, HAD NO NOTICE, AND DID NOT PARTICIPATE CANNOT BE DESIGNATED IN THIS CASE Plaintiff does not seriously contest that the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 32 and Fed. R. Evid. 804 cannot be met with respect to Mr. Rodriguez’s deposition testimony. Indeed, the Plaintiff's Motions to Exclude Designation of Depositions Excerpts of Alan Dershowitz and Plaintiff argued this precise point. Ms. Maxwell was not a party to any of the litigations in which Mr. Rodriguez was deposed; Ms. Maxwell was neither present or given notice of the deposition.