HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011339.jpg

10 fd. 12 [3 14 15 16 i) 18 wife) 20 21 22 23 24 25 36 H3VOGIU1 without getting into the details of another separate lawsuit that did not involve Ms. Giuffre as a party, and so we've moved in limine. And let me make clear that I emphasize the narrowness of our motion here. We seek to preclud vidence involving that litigation. Your Honor has already heard from my colleague, Ms. McCawley, who has presented our argument for why Dershowitz should not be in this case at all, and of course, if we prevail on point 1, this point becomes irrelevant. But in addition to point 1, we don't need to be getting into the details of the separate lawsuit. It's not relevant to the case of Giuffre versus Maxwell. Defendants, in their responsive brief, if I understand correctly what they say is, oh, well look. Why didn't Ms. Giuffre join the lawsuit or why hasn't she filed a lawsuit against Dershowitz? What's going on there? Well, of course, your Honor is aware, there are a variety of statutes of limitation around the country, and indeed around the world. Ms. Giuffre has not -—- those statutes have not all run at this point. There are varying considerations that go into whether or not someone like Ms. Giuffre would file a lawsuit, and these issues shouldn't be discussed in front of the jury. That's nothing to do with this particular lawsuit. Moreover, defendant apparently argues that statements SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011339