Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch8_p00888.png

a SCOMINANRWNe Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1335-6 Filed 01/09/24 Page 8 of 134 J. Epstein - Confidential foundation. THE WITNESS: Fifth. BY MR. CASSELL: Q. Without going into the substance of any communications you have had, you've communicated with Maxwell since December 30th, 2014, true? MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and foundation. THE WITNESS: Fifth. MR. CASSELL: Can I understand what the objection is to form on that particular question? MR. PAGLIUCA: Do you want to have the reporter read it back? MR. CASSELL: I can just give it to you. MR. PAGLIUCA: Sure. MR. CASSELL: "Without going into any substance of any communications that you have had, you have communicated with Maxwell since December 30th, 2014, true?" MR. PAGLIUCA: It's a leading question. That's a form objection. MR. CASSELL: All right. So can we OMNDWNWKRWNE Page 24 J. Epstein - Confidential What was the nature of your objection regarding common interest and joint defense agreement, Mr. Weinberg? MR. WEINBERG: It was direct status asserting the attorney-client privilege as well as the Fifth Amendment. I'm making no representations regarding the existence of any agreement. MR. CASSELL: All right. You also objected to my last question based on foundation. What was the foundation objection? MR. PAGLIUCA: There's multiple foundational issues. We don't know the source of any information that would be responsive to the question. It could contain hearsay and speculation. You know, all of these questions, frankly, lack foundation under the circumstances here. Frankly, I don't believe that there -- it will be a good faith basis for most of the questions. I don't believe that most of these questions will be supported by any independent evidence. Page 23 J. Epstein - Confidential just -- MR. WEINBERG: And I would adda further objection, which is to the extent that any conversations which were pursuant to a common interest agreement, you would assert the attorney-client privilege as well as the Fifth Amendment. MR. GOLDBERGER: Right. So that objection we're making as to attorney-client privilege in no way waives the Fifth Amendment privilege that has been raised to the question. MR. CASSELL: Mr. Weinberg, since you're participating over my objection, can you confirm that there is a joint defense agreement between your client and Ms. Maxwell? MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm going to object to any interrogation of Mr. Weinberg. He's not been noticed for a deposition, he's not under oath, and he's not present here. MR. CASSELL: I'm just trying to understand the objection so that I can avoid it in any future questions. MAGNA® Page 25 J. Epstein - Confidential This is simply an exercise for you, Mr. Cassell, to use leading questions to try to obtain some adverse inference and advantage in this litigation, when you know that this witness is going to blanketly assert a Fifth Amendment privilege. Frankly, I see no point in actually having this deposition since all of these issues are going to need to be litigated before the court before we can actually have a determination of what Mr. Epstein may or may not testify about, so... MR. CASSELL: My specific question, though, is -- the question I asked Epstein was, "Without going into the substance of any communications that you have had, you have communicated with Maxwell since December 30th, 2014?" Since your client has testified under oath that she did indeed have communications with Epstein since December 30th, 2014, I can't understand why that question would lack a foundation. MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, I -- I've made m 7 (Pages 22 to 25) LEGAL SERVICES