Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
Speaker 1: this episode, we're going to start taking a look at
Speaker 1: more documents from the Virginia Roberts and Golaan Maxwell defamation battle.
Speaker 1: And to do that, we're taking a look at the
Speaker 1: motion for sanctions for violation of Rule number forty five,
Speaker 1: Case number fifteen DASH CV DASH zero seven four thirty
Speaker 1: three Dash RWs Virginia Roberts versus Glen Maxwell defendant Glen Maxwell,
Speaker 1: miss Maxwell files. This combined a response in opposition to
Speaker 1: plaintiff's motion to extend deadline to complete depositions and motion
Speaker 1: for sanctions for violation of Rule forty five and states
Speaker 1: as follows introduction. Apparently, plaintiff seeks to take six depositions
Speaker 1: beyond the scheduling order deadline of July first, yet has
Speaker 1: failed to demonstrate good cause or diligence as to any
Speaker 1: The witnesses include one redacted, a witness that plaintiff initiated
Speaker 1: informal attempts to depose on June ninth, and two Roscu,
Speaker 1: who plaintiff began steps to depose under the Hay Convention
Speaker 1: in London last Friday, June seventeenth. Plaintiff also seeks to
Speaker 1: untimely deposed three Jean Luke Brunel, a witness she had
Speaker 1: noticed for a mid June deposition, who apparently did not
Speaker 1: appear on that date with agreement and consent of Plaintiff's council.
Speaker 1: The remaining three witnesses plaintiff seeks to untimely depose are
Speaker 1: ones who reportedly have expressed their intention to take the
Speaker 1: fifth as to all questions posed council for four Jeffrey
Speaker 1: Epstein offered to accept service honor about April eleventh, but
Speaker 1: plaintiff ignored that offer for more than six weeks. Plaintiff
Speaker 1: only began on June twelfth any attempt to schedule that
Speaker 1: deposition in the Virgin Islands. Last week, mister Epstein's council
Speaker 1: filed a motion to quash his deposition subpoena. The final
Speaker 1: untimely depositions sought by plaintiff are for witnesses Sarah Kellen
Speaker 1: and Nadia Maarsenkova, about whom Plaintiff has made no public
Speaker 1: claims and thus have no testimony relevant to this defamation
Speaker 1: action concerning whether Plaintiff's public allegations about Maxwell are or
Speaker 1: rather are not true. The attempted service of subpoenas on Epstein,
Speaker 1: Kellen and Marsenkova all violated Rule forty five A four
Speaker 1: and should be sanctioned by this Court. As to these witnesses,
Speaker 1: Plaintiff has fallen far short of the good cause required
Speaker 1: by Rule sixteen B four to modify the scheduling order.
Speaker 1: In fact, for the most part, her failures to actively
Speaker 1: pursue depositions with these witnesses qualifies as inexcusable neglect. She
Speaker 1: frittered away seven of the eight months of the discovery
Speaker 1: period and now has placed Miss Maxwell, this Court and
Speaker 1: the witnesses in the untenable position of trying to accommodate
Speaker 1: her last minute scramble in the absence of any acceptable excuses,
Speaker 1: and for the limited evidentiary value that most of the
Speaker 1: requested witnesses can provide, this Court should deny the request
Speaker 1: for extra time to take these six depositions. The only
Speaker 1: witnesses for whom depositions should be permitted following the discovery
Speaker 1: cutoff are one Miss Sharon Churcher, Plaintiff's friend, advocate and
Speaker 1: form a journalist with The Daily Mail, who filed a
Speaker 1: motion to quash her subpoena on the day before her
Speaker 1: scheduled deposition, and two plaintiff who refused to answer questions
Speaker 1: at her deposition concerning highly relevant, non privileged information. Alternatively,
Speaker 1: if the court is to grant additional time for plaintiff
Speaker 1: to take depositions, Miss Maxwell will be unduly prejudiced without
Speaker 1: sufficient additional time to a secure any witnesses to rebut
Speaker 1: testimony glean from these witnesses, b conduct discovery of plaintiff
Speaker 1: retained experts c submit a summary judgment motion which includes
Speaker 1: fact learned from these late depositions, and d prepare for trial. Thus,
Speaker 1: if the court grants Plaintiff's motion, the remaining deadlines in
Speaker 1: the scheduling order ought to be extended accordingly. Background to
Speaker 1: divert attention away from her own lack of diligence, Plaintiff
Speaker 1: characteristically devotes much of her motion blaming Miss Maxwell and
Speaker 1: her counsel for her own problems with depositions. Not only
Speaker 1: is Plaintiff's acount factually inaccurate, none of it matters to
Speaker 1: whether she could timely complete the six depositions at issue.
Speaker 1: For example, the scheduling of Miss Maxwell's deposition, which depended,
Speaker 1: among other things on an historic snowstorm, a disputed protective order,
Speaker 1: Plaintiff's failure to timely produced documents, and Council's conflicting calendars,
Speaker 1: all of which have been amply documented with this court,
Speaker 1: does not inform any analysis regarding Plaintiff's lack of diligence
Speaker 1: in pursuing depositions of these six witnesses see Rule twenty
Speaker 1: six dy three, unless the party stipulate the court orders Otherwise,
Speaker 1: for the parties and witnesses convenience and in the interests
Speaker 1: of justice, A methods of discovery may be used in
Speaker 1: any sequence, and B discovery by one party does not
Speaker 1: require any other party to delay its discovery. Likewise, receipt
Speaker 1: of Miss Maxwell's Rule twenty six disclosures in February also
Speaker 1: had nothing to do with these witnesses. Notably, each of
Speaker 1: the witnesses who Plaintiff now seeks to depose were known
Speaker 1: to her from the outset all but redacted and redacted
Speaker 1: were included in her initial Rule twenty six disclosures on
Speaker 1: November eleventh, twenty fifteen, and two of the six were
Speaker 1: specifically mentioned in Plaintiff's complaint. Finally, the fact that witness Rinaldo.
Speaker 1: Rizzo had a deposition rescheduled from April until June, does
Speaker 1: not have any bearing on the issue presented by this motion.
Speaker 1: Mister Rizzo was deposed on June fourteenth, and he has
Speaker 1: nothing to do with the remaining depositions. Mister Rizzo is,
Speaker 1: in fact, practically gleeful to be a witness redacted redacted,
Speaker 1: redacted redacted. Plaintiff's claims that mister Rizzo is an example
Speaker 1: of delay that has harmed her ability to obtain all
Speaker 1: depositions in a timely manner is fecious. Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion.
Speaker 1: Discovery began in this case on October twenty three, twenty fifteen,
Speaker 1: following the party's Rule twenty six F conferral cfed dot
Speaker 1: or dot siev dot p Dot twenty six D one
Speaker 1: at the Rule sixteen B scheduling Conference. On October twenty eighth,
Speaker 1: twenty fifteen, This Court directed the parties to complete all
Speaker 1: fact discovery by July one, twenty sixteen. On November thirtieth,
Speaker 1: twenty fifteen, contemporaneous with the filing of a Rule twelve
Speaker 1: B motion to dismiss, Miss Maxwell also requested of this
Speaker 1: Court a stay of discovery pursue it to Rule twenty
Speaker 1: six C Document number seventeen. That motion was denied on
Speaker 1: January twentieth, twenty sixteen, with an additional two week period
Speaker 1: granted to respond the plaintiff's first request for production of documents.
Speaker 1: The discovery thus was never stayed. Plaintiff erroneously asserts that
Speaker 1: the discovery did not commence in this matter until February eighth.
Speaker 1: What she means is that she neglected to seek any
Speaker 1: non witness depositions until then. Nothing in the rules of
Speaker 1: civil procedure, this Court's orders, or the law prevented plaintiff
Speaker 1: from doing so at any point after October twenty three,
Speaker 1: twenty fifteen. Plaintiff is at over eight months to schedule witnesses,
Speaker 1: schedule depositions, and conduct them. Instead, she waited until the
Speaker 1: last minute and now complains of a lack of time.
Speaker 1: Any lack of time is a product of her own
Speaker 1: bad faith and negligent litigation tactics, and should not be
Speaker 1: sanctioned by this Court. The failure to timely secure the
Speaker 1: depositions of the remaining six witnesses is through no fault
Speaker 1: of Miss Maxwell or her council. As to these witnesses.
Speaker 1: Miss maxwell Well and their council have played no role
Speaker 1: in hindering Plaintiff's ability to depose the witnesses. In fact,
Speaker 1: as the four of the six plaintiffs attempted to serve
Speaker 1: subpoenas on the witnesses before ever providing notice to the defense,
Speaker 1: in clear violation of Rule forty five an four. The
Speaker 1: Legal Authority Rule sixteen B permits modification of a scheduling
Speaker 1: order only upon a showing of good cause. To satisfy
Speaker 1: the good cause standard, the party must show that, despite
Speaker 1: its having exercise diligence, the applicable deadline could not have
Speaker 1: been reasonably met. So Call Holdings Incorporated First BMD Moonai
Speaker 1: Incorporated five CIV Dot three seven four nine KMWDF two
Speaker 1: thousand and nine, w L two five two four six
Speaker 1: one one at seven SDN Y August fourteenth, two thousand
Speaker 1: and nine, citing Rent to Center Incorporated, Verse forty seven Corp.
Speaker 1: Two fifteen, f dot R dot D D one hundred
Speaker 1: one oh four SDNY two thousand three. J. McMahon Accord
Speaker 1: Parker versus Columbia Pictures Industrial, two thousand and four, f
Speaker 1: DOT three D three twenty six three forty Second Circuit
Speaker 1: two thousand. Good cause depends on the diligence of the
Speaker 1: moving party. Perfect Pearl Company Incorporated. Versus Majestic Pearl and
Speaker 1: Stone Incorporated. Eight eighty nine f Dot supp Dot two
Speaker 1: D four fifty three four fifty seven SDNY twenty twelve.
Speaker 1: Angelmeyer j. To show good cause, a movement must demonstrate
Speaker 1: that it has been diligent, meaning that despite its having
Speaker 1: exercise diligence, the applicable deadline could not have been reasonably met.
Speaker 1: Good cause depends on the diligence of the moving party
Speaker 1: in seeking to meet the scheduling order. Gratchkowski versus Phoenix
Speaker 1: Construction three eighteen f Dot three d eighty eighty six,
Speaker 1: Second Circuit, two thousand and three. The Oxford Dictionary defines
Speaker 1: diligence as careful and persistent work or effort. See diligence
Speaker 1: at Oxford Dictionaries dot com. Good cause and diligence were
Speaker 1: not shown when a party raised the prospect of a
Speaker 1: deposition nine days prior to the discovery deadline. Carlson versus
Speaker 1: Geneva City School District two seventy seven F Dot r
Speaker 1: D ninety WDNY, twenty eleven. Compare Rees versus Virginia International
Speaker 1: Terminals Incorporated. Two eighty six f dot r D two
Speaker 1: eighty two e dot D Virginia, twenty twelve. Depositions noticed
Speaker 1: very early in discovery period, and movement engaged in continuing
Speaker 1: meet and confer dialogue with the defendants throughout the five
Speaker 1: month discovery period. Ayanakoska versus. Benistar Administration Services Incorporated. Seven
Speaker 1: sixty five f dot supp Dot two D seventy nine, Massachusetts,
Speaker 1: twenty eleven. Correspondence indicated that the plaintiffs had tried on
Speaker 1: numerous occasions to schedule the depositions and to extend the
Speaker 1: discovery schedule, but that the defendants had either refused or
Speaker 1: felt to respond, and good cause was found. All right,
Speaker 1: we're going to wrap up episode one there, and in
Speaker 1: the next episode we're going to get to the meat
Speaker 1: and the potatoes of it and look at the argument.
Speaker 1: All of the information that goes with this episode can
Speaker 1: be found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and
Speaker 1: welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. We're going to pick
Speaker 1: up where we left off with Golen Maxwell and her
Speaker 1: motion for sanctions for the violation of Rule forty five.
Speaker 1: Argument one plaintiff's lack of diligence. Plaintiff is demonstrated in
Speaker 1: extreme lack of diligence in securing the six remaining depositions
Speaker 1: that she seeks a redacted. Plaintiff's motion failed to mension
Speaker 1: any desire to take the deposition of redacted and redacted.
Speaker 1: No notice of deposition has been so and no scheduling
Speaker 1: of his deposition has commenced. Indeed, redacted first appeared on
Speaker 1: Plaintiff's third revised Rule twenty six disclosures two weeks ago
Speaker 1: on June first, then last week. In her reply in
Speaker 1: support of motion to exceed ten depositions filed on June thirteenth,
Speaker 1: Plaintiff averred that redacted deposition is necessary because Miss Maxwell,
Speaker 1: in her deposition on April twenty fifth, raised Miss Roberts's
Speaker 1: comments about redacted as one of the obvious lies to
Speaker 1: which she was referring in her public statement that formed
Speaker 1: the basis of this suit. Reply at three, this is
Speaker 1: utter nonsense and nothing more than a transparent ploy by
Speaker 1: plaintiff to increase media exposure for her sensational stories through deposition.
Speaker 1: Side show. This witness has nothing relevant to add to
Speaker 1: this case and plaintiff has made no effort, much less
Speaker 1: won in good faith to timely secure his testimony. Plaintiff
Speaker 1: admits she has made not allegations of illegal actions by redacted,
Speaker 1: but plaintiff has asserted that she spent time with redacted
Speaker 1: on the island of Little Saint James Us Virgin Islands,
Speaker 1: and that she flew there with the redacted in a
Speaker 1: helicopter piloted by miss Maxwell. In one article authored by
Speaker 1: Sharon Churcher, plaintiff related on one occasion. She adds Epstein
Speaker 1: did invite two young brunettes to dinner, which he gave
Speaker 1: on his Caribbean island for mister Clinton shortly after he
Speaker 1: left office, but as far as she knows, the ex
Speaker 1: president did not take the bait. I'd have been about
Speaker 1: seventeen at the time, she says. I flew to the
Speaker 1: Caribbean with Jeffrey and then Glenn Maxwell went to pick
Speaker 1: up Bill in a huge black helicopter that Jeffrey bought her.
Speaker 1: She always wanted to fly, and Jeffrey paid for her
Speaker 1: to take lessons, and I remember she was very excited
Speaker 1: because she got her license around the first year we met.
Speaker 1: I used to get frightened flying with her, but Bill
Speaker 1: had the Secret Service with him, and I remember him
Speaker 1: talking about what a good job she did. I only
Speaker 1: met Bill twice, but Jeffrey told me they were good friends.
Speaker 1: We all dined together that night. Jeffrey was at the
Speaker 1: head of the table. Bill was at his left. I
Speaker 1: sat across from him. Emmy Taylor, Glaine's blonde British assistant,
Speaker 1: sat at my right. Glaine was at Bill's left, and
Speaker 1: at the left of Glaine. There were two olive skin
Speaker 1: brunettes who had flown in with us from New York.
Speaker 1: I'd never met them before. I'd say they were no
Speaker 1: older than seventeen, very innocent looking. They weren't there for me.
Speaker 1: They weren't there for Jeffrey or Glaine, because I was
Speaker 1: there to have sex with Jeffrey on that trip. Maybe
Speaker 1: Jeffrey thought he would entertain Bill, but I saw no
Speaker 1: evidence that he was interested in them. He and Jeffrey
Speaker 1: and Glane seemed to be having a good time, and
Speaker 1: they had a very good relationship. Bill was very funny.
Speaker 1: He made me laugh a few times, and he and
Speaker 1: Jeffrey and Golaine told blokey jokes and the brunettes listened
Speaker 1: politely and giggled. After dinner, I gave Jeffrey an erotic massage.
Speaker 1: I don't remember seeing Bill again on the trip, but
Speaker 1: I assume Glaine flew him back. Boy. That seems like
Speaker 1: a problem for Bill Clinton. No, didn't his spokesperson come
Speaker 1: out and tell us that he's never been on the island.
Speaker 1: So either Virginia's lying or Bill Clinton's lying. I'll leave
Speaker 1: it up to you to decide who you believe, But
Speaker 1: me personally, I don't believe Bill Clinton about a goddamn thing.
Speaker 1: And if Virginia saying she saw him on this island,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna go with Virginia and say he was on
Speaker 1: this island. See Sharon Churchier, teenage girl recruited by pedophile
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein, reveals how she twice met Bill Clinton. The
Speaker 1: next big dinner on the island had another significant guest appearance,
Speaker 1: being the one and only Bill Clinton. He is the
Speaker 1: only president in the world to be dismissed from his
Speaker 1: role as a world leader because he was caught with
Speaker 1: his trousers down around his ankles and had the stain
Speaker 1: to prove it publicly humiliating his wife and himself. He
Speaker 1: retired from his title, but not from his lifestyle. This
Speaker 1: wasn't a big party as such, only a few of
Speaker 1: us eating at the dinner table. There was Jeffrey at
Speaker 1: the head of the table as always. On the left
Speaker 1: was Emmy Glayne, and I was Sitting Across the table
Speaker 1: from us was Bill with two lovely girls who were
Speaker 1: visiting from New York. Bill's wife, Hillary's absence from the
Speaker 1: night made it easy for his apparent provocative, cheeky side
Speaker 1: to come out, teasing the girls on either side of
Speaker 1: them with playful pokes and brassy comments. There was no
Speaker 1: modesty between any of them. We all finished our meals
Speaker 1: and scattered in our own different directions. Menager Declaration Exhibit p.
Speaker 1: At one ten. Each and every part of Plaintiff's claims
Speaker 1: regarding redacted has conclusively been proven false redacted or redacted,
Speaker 1: or redacted or redacted. Remarkably, Plaintiff now even denies telling
Speaker 1: Churcher that she ever witnessed Miss Maxwell redacted anywhere, or
Speaker 1: joking with redacted about what a good job she did.
Speaker 1: Menager Declaration Exhibit D. Plaintiff's council remarkably instructed plaintiff not
Speaker 1: to answer any additional question about the things that Shannon
Speaker 1: Church are inaccurately reported, lending even more incredibulity to Plaintiff's story.
Speaker 1: Miss Maxwell only received her pilot's license in mid nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety nine, casting insurmountable doubt that redacted, redacted, redacted, and redacted.
Speaker 1: The only purpose for seeking this deposition is for the
Speaker 1: calculated media strategy that plaintiff and her publicity seeking attorneys
Speaker 1: have devised. Plaintiff failed to disclose redacted as a witness
Speaker 1: until June first, failed to notice his deposition, failed to
Speaker 1: diligently pursue a subpoena on him, and he has no
Speaker 1: relevant testimony. It'll offer, accordingly, plaintiff's leave to modify the
Speaker 1: scheduling order to permit his deposition should be denied. And
Speaker 1: this person we're talking about redacted here is none other
Speaker 1: than Billy Boy Clinton. Isn't that nice? I wonder how
Speaker 1: many times we're going to see this dude's name in
Speaker 1: these documents. B ross Gal, as the court likely recalls,
Speaker 1: ross Gal actually issued the state meant pertinent to this
Speaker 1: defamation suit. Plaintiff is known about ross Gal and his
Speaker 1: role in this lawsuit since the outset She referenced him
Speaker 1: repeatedly by name in complaint filed on September twenty first,
Speaker 1: twenty fifteen, Complaint paragraph twenty nine. As part of Maxwell's campaign,
Speaker 1: she directed her agent, Ross Gal to attack Robert's honesty
Speaker 1: and truthfulness and accuse Roberts of lying. Plaintiff also has
Speaker 1: been well aware throughout that mister Go resides in London
Speaker 1: Plaintiff's motion to compel in proper privileges at eight. After
Speaker 1: filing that complaint in September and litigating the motion to
Speaker 1: compel based on privileges related to mister Gow in March,
Speaker 1: Plaintiff took exactly zero steps to depose mister Goo until
Speaker 1: she filed this motion, now nine months after filing her complaint.
Speaker 1: Plaintiff contends there is no sufficient time for her to
Speaker 1: go through the Hay Convention for service on mister Gal
Speaker 1: so as to complete this process before the June thirtieth,
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen deadline motion at four. Indeed, Plaintiff only initiated
Speaker 1: that process three days ago on Friday June seventeenth, two
Speaker 1: weeks shy of the discovery cutoff. Plaintiff once again tries
Speaker 1: to blame miss Maxwell for her own lack of diligence
Speaker 1: by misrepresenting to this court that Miss Roberts asks that
Speaker 1: defendant produce her agent, mister Gall for a deposition, but
Speaker 1: defendant has refused. Despite acknowledging that defendant plans to call
Speaker 1: mister Gal for testimony at trial in truth, plaintiff sent
Speaker 1: a letter on May twenty third, which read, in its entirety,
Speaker 1: this letter is to seek your agreement to produce Ross
Speaker 1: Gal for a deposition. As the agent for your client,
Speaker 1: Miss Maxwell, we can work with mister Gales's schedule to
Speaker 1: minimize inconvenience. Please advise by Wednesday, May twenty fifth, twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: whether you will produce mister Gall or whether we will
Speaker 1: need to seek relief from the court with respect to
Speaker 1: his deposition Manager Declaration Exhibit E. That was the first
Speaker 1: communication regards varding any deposition of mister Gal. Two days later,
Speaker 1: defense counsel requested any legal authority that would allow Miss
Speaker 1: Maxwell to produce Ross Gal for a deposition, or any
Speaker 1: rule or case that would either enable or require her
Speaker 1: to do so. Plaintiff never responded. She also has not
Speaker 1: explained when or how Miss Maxwell acknowledged her plans to
Speaker 1: call mister Gal for testimony at trial, nor why that
Speaker 1: is relevant to whether plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for
Speaker 1: her own failure to take steps to depose a foreign
Speaker 1: witness deposition until June seventeenth, for a witness she was
Speaker 1: aware before even filing the complaint. During the hearing on
Speaker 1: March twenty fourth, this court stated that it would expect
Speaker 1: to see good Fay's showing of efforts to comply with
Speaker 1: the schedule and an inability because of Hay Convention problems
Speaker 1: before it would consider changing the scheduling order. Miss Maxwell
Speaker 1: submits that waiting until June seventeenth, two weeks before the
Speaker 1: end of discovery to even begin the Hey Convention process,
Speaker 1: falls far short of any such good face showing, and
Speaker 1: the request for leave to take mister Gal's testimony beyond
Speaker 1: July first should be denied. See Jean Luke Brunell. With
Speaker 1: regard to Jean Luke Brunell, plaintiff simply asserts that he
Speaker 1: was subpoenaed and set for mid June deposition, but through
Speaker 1: Council has requested we change the dates of his deposition
Speaker 1: motion at four. That's her entire argument. She emits key
Speaker 1: facts that would instead demonstrate her lack of diligence in
Speaker 1: securing mister Brunell's testimony, and also show that she has
Speaker 1: waived any right to seek an out of time deposition.
Speaker 1: Plaintiff first issued a notice of Rule forty five subpoena
Speaker 1: for documents from mister Brunell on February sixteenth at an
Speaker 1: address CEO attorney Joe Totone. No documents were ever produced
Speaker 1: pursuant to that subpoena Menager declaration example f Then on
Speaker 1: May twenty third, twenty sixteen, issued a new notice of
Speaker 1: subpoena duces techem attached to, which was actually a subpoena
Speaker 1: for deposition testimony to occur on June eighth at nine
Speaker 1: am in New York. Again, the subpoena was addressed COEO
Speaker 1: Attorney Robert Hatman. Then on June second, Plaintiff's council sent
Speaker 1: an email that they had received an email yesterday from
Speaker 1: mister Brunell's attorney saying that he needs to reschedule. I
Speaker 1: believe he is trying to get us new dates today
Speaker 1: or tomorrow. The scheduled date of June eighth came and
Speaker 1: went without any indication of any new dates. Provided by
Speaker 1: mister Brunell's council. The following week, Plaintiff's council stated in
Speaker 1: a phone conversation that mister Brunell's council said his client
Speaker 1: had gone to France and it was unclear when he
Speaker 1: would be returning to the United States. Following the filing
Speaker 1: of the instant motion, Council for Miss Maxwell requested copies
Speaker 1: of the certificates of service for all Plaintiff's Rule forty
Speaker 1: five subpoenas. In this case, Plaintiff's council provided certificates on
Speaker 1: June fourteenth. Notably absent was any certificate of service for
Speaker 1: mister Brunell. Thus, either mister Brunell was never served or
Speaker 1: he was served in plaintiff unilatterally extended his compliance date
Speaker 1: to an unscheduled time in the future. Either way, the
Speaker 1: time to complain about a witness's non compliance is at
Speaker 1: or near the time it occurs. Failure to timely complain
Speaker 1: regarding non compliance with the subpoena constitutes a waiver in
Speaker 1: any event, whether served or not, mister Brunell apparently promised
Speaker 1: to provide new dates before his deposition date came and went,
Speaker 1: did not do so. Has left the country and not
Speaker 1: indicated a present intention to ever return. Given Plaintiff's role
Speaker 1: in failing to compel him to attend a deposition, no
Speaker 1: good cause has been demonstrated to take the deposition of
Speaker 1: mister Brunell after July first. All right, folks, we're going
Speaker 1: to wrap up this episode here and in the next
Speaker 1: episode we'll pick up where we left off. All of
Speaker 1: the information that goes with this episode can be found
Speaker 1: in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome back
Speaker 1: to the Epstein Chronicles. We're going to pick up where
Speaker 1: we left off with Glen Maxwell's motion for sanctions for
Speaker 1: a violation of Rule number forty five D Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 1: As with the other witnesses, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate
Speaker 1: good cause for seeking to depose Jeffrey Epstein out of time.
Speaker 1: Plaintiff claims that she was unable to secure service on
Speaker 1: mister Epstein until May twenty seventh, twenty sixteen, because his
Speaker 1: counsel refused to accept service until she filed her motion
Speaker 1: for alternative service. The documents reflect the opposite. Mister Epstein's
Speaker 1: attorney agreed to accept service on April eleventh, twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: And it was only on May twenty seventh, twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: that Plaintiff agreed see POE Declaration in support of motion
Speaker 1: to quash Epstein Deposition Exhibit three, Document number two twenty
Speaker 1: three three. Plaintiff fails to explain her strategic decision or
Speaker 1: negligence in failing to respond for over six weeks to
Speaker 1: mister Weinberg's email offering to accept service. Indeed, in another
Speaker 1: failure of candor, Plaintiff's counsel also neglected to tell this
Speaker 1: court about the email from mister Weinberg, either in the
Speaker 1: instant motion or in her motion to serve mister Epstein
Speaker 1: by alternative means motion at two Document number one sixty.
Speaker 1: Plaintiff apparently now claims that she never received that email
Speaker 1: from Martin Weinberg. All of the preceding communications, however, indicate
Speaker 1: that mister Weinberg promptly responded to Miss McCauley's inquiries ceg
Speaker 1: PO Declaration Example two Email of April six from Weinberg
Speaker 1: to McCauley offering to let her know regarding acceptance of service.
Speaker 1: On April seventh, email of McCauley in response that works fine,
Speaker 1: thank you. Thus, if Miss McCauley received no follow up
Speaker 1: response from mister Weinberg, as she now claims, when she
Speaker 1: had been corresponed bonding with her previously. Therefore, she had
Speaker 1: a duty to follow up on that inquiry. A failure
Speaker 1: to do so is plain vanilla neglect. Even after agreeing
Speaker 1: to the terms proposed by Epstein's Council on May twenty seventh,
Speaker 1: that is, the location of the deposition in the US
Speaker 1: Virgin Islands and subject to write to oppose the subpoena,
Speaker 1: plaintiff then waited an additional three weeks until June twelfth
Speaker 1: to even attempt to schedule Epstein's deposition Epstein Memorandum in
Speaker 1: support of Motion to clash at two Document number two
Speaker 1: twenty two, agreeing to take a deposition in the Virgin
Speaker 1: Islands on May twenty seventh, then waiting until June twelfth
Speaker 1: to try to schedule a date for that deposition when
Speaker 1: numerous other depositions had already been scheduled in New York, Florida,
Speaker 1: and California for the balance of June, is either neglect
Speaker 1: or strategic posturing by plaintiff. Either way, it does not
Speaker 1: amount to good cause for such depositions to take place
Speaker 1: beyond July first, finally, to suggest without factual foundation, that
Speaker 1: Miss Maxwell played some role in mister Epstein's counsel's refusal
Speaker 1: to accept service see motion at two. Forced to personally
Speaker 1: serve the defendant's former boyfriend, employer, and co conspirator, as
Speaker 1: the timeline in documents now reveal. However, Plaintiff failed to
Speaker 1: provide notice to Miss Maxwell that she was even attempting
Speaker 1: to serve or Rule forty five subpoena on mister Epstein
Speaker 1: for more than seven weeks. Plaintiff states that she began
Speaker 1: her service attempts on March seventh, twenty sixteen. The very
Speaker 1: first notice of subpoena and deposition served on Miss Maxwell, however,
Speaker 1: is dated April twenty seventh, Manager Declaration Exhibit H. Thus,
Speaker 1: between March seventh and April twenty seventh, Miss McCauley engaged
Speaker 1: in repeated attempts to serve mister Epstein a Rule forty
Speaker 1: five subpoena, including a request for documents, without providing the
Speaker 1: proper notice to the parties. Pursuant to Rule forty five
Speaker 1: A and four, if the subpoena commands the production of documents,
Speaker 1: then before it is served on the person to whom
Speaker 1: it is directed. A notice and a copy of the
Speaker 1: subpoena must be served on each party as detailed below,
Speaker 1: that was not an isolated incident and merit sanction. In
Speaker 1: any event, it is difficult to imagine how it is
Speaker 1: Miss Maxwell's fault that plaintiff cannot serve mister Epstein when
Speaker 1: she has never put on notice of any attempt to
Speaker 1: do so. Given that Plaintiff new as of April eleventh,
Speaker 1: the conditions pursuant to which mister Epstein would accept service
Speaker 1: through council, yet waited until May twenty seventh to agree
Speaker 1: to those terms, and then waited another nearly three weeks
Speaker 1: to attempt to schedule mister Epstein's deposition on a date
Speaker 1: available for his counsel and Miss Maxwell's council. Plaintiff has
Speaker 1: fallen far short of demonstrating good cause for taking mister
Speaker 1: Epstein's deposition beyond the end of the fact discovery cutoff
Speaker 1: e Nadia Marsenkova and Sarah Kellen. Finally, plaintiff seeks the
Speaker 1: depositions of two other witnesses, Sarah Kellen and Naudium Arsonkova,
Speaker 1: who she complains despite being represented by Council have refused
Speaker 1: to accept service motion at three. Plaintiff claims that her
Speaker 1: process servers tried for three weeks from April twenty fifth
Speaker 1: until May eighteenth, to personally serve Miss Kellen and Miss
Speaker 1: Marsonkova with subpoena's deuces to come. She did not explain, however,
Speaker 1: why she waited until April to try to serve these
Speaker 1: two witnesses, about whom her attorneys have known since two
Speaker 1: thousand and eight. She also has not explained to this
Speaker 1: court any illegally irrelevant or admissible evidence that either possess,
Speaker 1: nor how she intends to introduce that evidence in a
Speaker 1: trial of this defamation claim between Plaintiff and Miss Maxwell.
Speaker 1: Apart from these witnesses stated intent to take the Fifth Amendment,
Speaker 1: which renders their testimony inadmissible, as discussed more fully below,
Speaker 1: neither witness has any relevant testimony to offer because Plaintiff
Speaker 1: never made any public statement about either one of them.
Speaker 1: Imagine trying to say that Marsonkova and Sarah Kellen have
Speaker 1: nothing else offer. They were really taking some liberties here
Speaker 1: with this response, weren't they? Plaintiff did not include either
Speaker 1: woman in her Sharon Churchier paid interviews, nor were they mentioned,
Speaker 1: and Plaintiff's joined her motion of December thirtieth, twenty fourteen. Thus,
Speaker 1: neither Plaintiff's allegations about Miss Maxwell nor Miss Maxwell's denial
Speaker 1: of the same based on her personal knowledge, are implied
Speaker 1: by anything that Sarah Kellen or Miss marson Cova may
Speaker 1: have done with anyone else. Their testimony cannot corroberate Plaintiff's account,
Speaker 1: nor can it shed light on whether Miss Maxwell's denial
Speaker 1: of that account is accurate, because Plaintiff's account did not
Speaker 1: mention either one of them. Technicalities and loopholes the tools
Speaker 1: of the guilty. Finally, as to these witnesses, Plaintiff once
Speaker 1: again documented her own failure to comply with Rule forty
Speaker 1: five in regard to attempts to serve these two witnesses.
Speaker 1: Six of the service attempts occurred on April twenty fifth
Speaker 1: and April twenty sixth, Yet Plaintiff only per in notice
Speaker 1: to Miss Maxwell of her intent to serve the subpoenas
Speaker 1: on April twenty seventh. Menager Declaration Example one, Part two
Speaker 1: fifth Amendment by Epstein, Kellen or Marsenkova not admissible in
Speaker 1: this case against Miss Maxwell. The depositions of Epstein, Kellen,
Speaker 1: and Marsenkova do not constitute good cause to modify the
Speaker 1: scheduling order in this case for the additional reason that
Speaker 1: they all have represented to plaintiff their attention to assert
Speaker 1: the Fifth Amendment protection as to all questions, and such
Speaker 1: assertion will not be admissible evidence in this trial. Indeed,
Speaker 1: counsel for mister Epstein recently filed a motion to quash
Speaker 1: a subpoena based on the same legal principle that his
Speaker 1: deposition is unduly burdensome in light of the fact that
Speaker 1: it will not lead to admissible evidence Document number two
Speaker 1: twenty one to twenty two and two twenty three. The
Speaker 1: Court should consider this additional factor or decline a finding
Speaker 1: of good cause for extending the discovery deadline. Plaintiff wrongfully
Speaker 1: content that any assertion of the Fifth Amendment during the
Speaker 1: depositions of Epstein, Kellen, and Martsenkova will be admissible in
Speaker 1: the trial of this defamation matter where none of those
Speaker 1: individuals or parties based on in adverse inference that can
Speaker 1: be drawn against Miss Maxwell. See Liebett versus United States,
Speaker 1: one oh seven f. Dot three d one ten one
Speaker 1: twenty one Second Circuit nineteen ninety seven. In fact, none
Speaker 1: of the le booty factors support or argument. While noting
Speaker 1: that Miss Maxwell anticipates more extensive briefing on this issue
Speaker 1: in support of mister Epstein's motional squash, a few facts
Speaker 1: bear mentioning here Miss Maxwell was the employee of mister
Speaker 1: Epstein in the nineties, not the other way around. Mister
Speaker 1: Epstein has never worked for or been in control of,
Speaker 1: Miss Maxwell. Miss Maxwell and mister Epstein have had no financial, professional,
Speaker 1: or employment relationship in more than a decade, many years
Speaker 1: before twenty fifteen, when the purportedly defamatory statement was published.
Speaker 1: Miss Maxwell testified that she has not spoken to mister
Speaker 1: Epstein in two years. Maxwell has not vested any control
Speaker 1: in mister Epstein in regard to key facts and subject
Speaker 1: matter of litigation. As the Court is well aware from
Speaker 1: review of emails submitted in camera and later produced a plaintiff,
Speaker 1: Mister Epstein in his council gave advice to Maxwell regarding
Speaker 1: whether she should issue a statement after January TEWOD twenty fifteen.
Speaker 1: In one mister Epstein even suggested what such a statement
Speaker 1: might say. Maxwell never issued any additional statement. Maxwell had
Speaker 1: her own counsel who operated independently of mister Epstein and
Speaker 1: his council. Epstein is not, pragmatically a non caption party
Speaker 1: in interest in this litigation, nor has he played controlling
Speaker 1: role in respect to its underlying aspects. Epstein is not,
Speaker 1: despite Plaintiff's suggestion paying Miss Maxwell's legal fees. Plaintiff sought
Speaker 1: by waves of discovery any contracts, identification, agreements, employment agreed
Speaker 1: between Miss Maxwell and Epstein or any entity associated with
Speaker 1: Epstein from nineteen ninety nine to the present. Miss Maxwell
Speaker 1: responded under oath that there are no such documents. Epstein
Speaker 1: played no role in issuance of the January second statement,
Speaker 1: nor has he issued any public statement regarding plaintiff. Indeed,
Speaker 1: plaintiff in Epstein fully resolved any claims against one another
Speaker 1: by way of a confidential settlement in two thousand and nine,
Speaker 1: another action in which Miss Maxwell had no role. Assertion
Speaker 1: of the privilege by Epstein does not advance any interests
Speaker 1: of Miss Maxwell's. Quite the contrary, Epstein would be a
Speaker 1: key witness in her support exonerating her from plaintiff's allegations
Speaker 1: regarding sex abuse, sexual trafficking and acting as his madam
Speaker 1: to the stars. As proof, one need look no further
Speaker 1: than emails already reviewed by this court. In an email
Speaker 1: sent by Epstein to Miss Maxwell on January twenty fifth,
Speaker 1: twenty fifteen, while the media maelstrom generated by plaintiff's false
Speaker 1: claims can continued to foment, he wrote, you have done
Speaker 1: nothing wrong, and I would urge you to start acting
Speaker 1: like it. Go outside head high, not as an escaping convict.
Speaker 1: Go to parties, deal with it, Menager declaration Exhibit JAY. Likewise,
Speaker 1: Epstein drafted a statement from Miss Maxwell to issue, though
Speaker 1: she never did. In that statement, Epstein wrote, presumably what
Speaker 1: his testimony would reflect should he not take the fifth
Speaker 1: since Ju was charged in two thousand and seven for
Speaker 1: solicitation of a prostitute, I have been the target of
Speaker 1: outright lies, innuendo, slander, defamation, and salacious gossip and harassment,
Speaker 1: headlines made up of quotes. I have never given statements.
Speaker 1: I have never made trips with people to places, I
Speaker 1: have never been holidays with people. I have never met
Speaker 1: false allegations of impropriety and offensive behavior that I abhor,
Speaker 1: and have never ever been party. Two witnesses to events
Speaker 1: that I have never seen living off trust funds that
Speaker 1: I have never had, party to stories that have changed
Speaker 1: material both in time, place, and event depending on what
Speaker 1: paper you read, and the list goes on. I have
Speaker 1: never been a party to any criminal action pertaining to Jaye.
Speaker 1: For the record, at the time of Jeffrey's plea, I
Speaker 1: was in a long term, committed a relationship with another
Speaker 1: man and no longer working with Jeffrey. Whilst I remained
Speaker 1: on friendly terms with him up until his plea, I
Speaker 1: have had limited contact since. Every story in the press,
Speaker 1: innuendo and comment has been taken from civil depositions against Jaye,
Speaker 1: which were settled many years ago. None of the depositions
Speaker 1: were ever the subject to cross examination, not one any
Speaker 1: standard of truth, and were used for those who claimed
Speaker 1: they were victims to receive financial payment to be shared
Speaker 1: between them and their lawyers redacted, redacted or redacted. Need
Speaker 1: I say more. The so called new revelations stemmed from
Speaker 1: an alleged diary from Virginia Roberts that reads like the
Speaker 1: memoir she is purporting to be selling, also perhaps pertinent
Speaker 1: in a previous complaint against other Her claims were rejected
Speaker 1: by the police due to VR's lack of credibility. The
Speaker 1: new interest in this old settled case results from lawyers
Speaker 1: representing some of the JAE victims filed a suit against
Speaker 1: the US government, not Je. They contend that the US
Speaker 1: government violated their rights. The documents and deal with JE
Speaker 1: negotiated with the government was given to the lawyers six
Speaker 1: years ago and as a public document. I am no
Speaker 1: part of, nor did you have anything to do with
Speaker 1: Je's plea bargain. I have never even seen the proceedings
Speaker 1: nor any of the depositions. I reserve my right to
Speaker 1: file a complaint and sue for defamation and slander. These
Speaker 1: correspondences demonstrate that miss Maxwell has no control over Epstein
Speaker 1: in regards to the alleged defamation statement. He had no
Speaker 1: role in issuance of the statement. He has no benefit
Speaker 1: in the outcome of this litigation, and he played no
Speaker 1: controlling role in its respect. Talk about a bunch of bullshit.
Speaker 1: Imagine filing that in the court and doing it with
Speaker 1: a straight face. Similarly, there is not any evidence at
Speaker 1: all to support and adverse inference to be drawn from
Speaker 1: either Sarah Kellen nor Nadia Marsenkova assertion of the fifth.
Speaker 1: Miss Maxwell hardly knows either woman, never work with them.
Speaker 1: They have had nothing to do with this litigation and
Speaker 1: do not stand to benefit from it, especially as plaintiff
Speaker 1: has never made any allegations about her involvement with either
Speaker 1: of the two of them. They are simply irrelevant to
Speaker 1: this defamation action. That couldn't be further from the truth,
Speaker 1: could it. And just in these filings here that we
Speaker 1: see Maxwell putting forward, look at all of the lies,
Speaker 1: the actual lies that she was telling under oath, and
Speaker 1: then you'll wonder why she was charged with perjury. All Right, folks,
Speaker 1: we're gonna wrap this one up here and in the
Speaker 1: next episode we'll pick up where we left off. All
Speaker 1: of the information that goes with this episode can be
Speaker 1: found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome
Speaker 1: back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're gonna
Speaker 1: pick right back up where we left off with Glenn
Speaker 1: Maxwell's motion for sanctions for the violation of Rule forty five,
Speaker 1: Part three, Plaintiff's bad faith discovery tactics should not be
Speaker 1: rewarded with extra time one Plaintiff's Rule twenty six revolving
Speaker 1: door Plaintiff's army of lawyers who collectively have been litigating
Speaker 1: matters related to Jeffrey Epstein since two thousand and eight,
Speaker 1: served their Rule twenty six initial disclosures on November eleventh,
Speaker 1: twenty fifteen. Those disclosures listed ninety four individuals witnesses with
Speaker 1: knowledge regarding the facts of this case, yet provided addresses
Speaker 1: only of their council as to two Jeffrey Epstein and
Speaker 1: Alan Dershowitz. Plaintiff then also listed categories of witnesses, such
Speaker 1: as all other than minor girls whose identities Plaintiff will
Speaker 1: attempt to determine, and all pilots, chauffeurs, chefs, and other
Speaker 1: employees of Miss Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. Plaintiff claimed, as
Speaker 1: to a Rule twenty six disclos that only a fraction
Speaker 1: of those individuals will actually be witnesses in this case,
Speaker 1: and as discovery progresses, the list will further narrow. Document
Speaker 1: number twenty at seventeen. The opposite has happened between November
Speaker 1: eleventh and March eleventh. Plaintiff trim to Rule twenty six
Speaker 1: list of persons with knowledge from ninety four to sixty nine,
Speaker 1: inexplicably removing thirty four names but adding twelve more, she removed,
Speaker 1: for example, witnesses Andrea Mitrovitch and Dara Priest, but added
Speaker 1: Senators George Mitchell, Bill Richardson and Les Wexner. Then, between
Speaker 1: March eleventh and June first, a few weeks before the
Speaker 1: discovery cutoff, plaintiff added twenty more witnesses, including redacted Palm
Speaker 1: Beach officers Rickerry and Ryder, and purported victims of sexual abuse,
Speaker 1: including a client of mister Edwards who he has clearly
Speaker 1: known for years. As to several of these new As
Speaker 1: to several of these newly added witnesses, in particular redacted
Speaker 1: Carrie and Rioder, plaintiff promptly schedule their depositions in June,
Speaker 1: despite having just disclosed their names. On June first, and
Speaker 1: last Friday, on the business day just before the depositions
Speaker 1: of redacted and Ricarry, plaintiff disclosed six hundred and twenty
Speaker 1: three new documents, including for the first time the unredacted
Speaker 1: police reports from Palm Beach that plaintiff clearly is at
Speaker 1: in her possession or her council's possession for years Menager
Speaker 1: Declaration example K. This is precisely the type of hide
Speaker 1: and seek that Rule twenty six is designed to prevent.
Speaker 1: While Miss Maxwell anticipates filing in the near future a
Speaker 1: separate motion concerning plaintiffs latest Rule twenty six violations and
Speaker 1: seeking sanctions for the same. This Court can and should
Speaker 1: consider this behavior in determining whether a plaintiff has good
Speaker 1: cause to extend the discovery cut off so that she
Speaker 1: can continue her gamesmanship two plaintiff's recurrent Rule forty five violations.
Speaker 1: As this Court is previously held, Rule forty five B
Speaker 1: one requires a party issuing a subpoena for the production
Speaker 1: of documents to a non party to provide prior notice
Speaker 1: to all parties to the litigation, which has been interpreted
Speaker 1: to require that notice be given prior to the issuance
Speaker 1: of the subpoena, not prior to its return date Murphy
Speaker 1: versus Board of Education, one ninety six F dot R
Speaker 1: dot D two twenty two, twenty two WDNY two thousand.
Speaker 1: At least one court in this circuit has held that
Speaker 1: notice provided on the same day that the subpoenas have
Speaker 1: been served constitute inadequate notice under Rule forty five. See
Speaker 1: Fox Industries Incorporated versus Gurrevich Number zero three Dash cv.
Speaker 1: Dash five to one. Sixty six, two thousand and six
Speaker 1: WL two eight eight two five eight zero eleven E
Speaker 1: d N Y, October six, two thousand and six. The
Speaker 1: requirement that prior notice must be given has important underpins
Speaker 1: of fairness and deficiency. Coots Drive LLC, First Internet Law Library, Incorporated.
Speaker 1: Number zero one CV Dash nine eight seven seven, two
Speaker 1: thousand and two, WL forty two forty six forty seven
Speaker 1: two SDNY March nineteenth, two thousand and two. Plaintiff fails
Speaker 1: to provide an adequate explanation or argument for how a
Speaker 1: same day notification satisfies Rule forty five's requirement. CEG Council
Speaker 1: for the offending party offered no explanation or excuse for
Speaker 1: their failure to comply with the rule strictures. They did
Speaker 1: not attempt to defend the timeliness of their notice. The
Speaker 1: offending parties admitted violation cannot be countenanced. USAV Versus Lazar
Speaker 1: thirteen Dash CV Dash eight eighteen RWs twenty fourteen, WL
Speaker 1: forty three fifty four six ninety one at fifteen SDN Y,
Speaker 1: September two, twenty fourteen, granting motion to quash the subpoenas
Speaker 1: where notice given on the same day and serve beyond
Speaker 1: one hundred mile limitation of Rule forty five. In that case,
Speaker 1: plaintiff had provided same day notice of the issuance of
Speaker 1: a subpoena. Here, we have repeated attempts to serve a
Speaker 1: subpoena over the course of days before any notice was
Speaker 1: given to Miss Maxwell. As described previously, Plaintiff has amply
Speaker 1: documented her own violations of the rule by detailing her
Speaker 1: attempts to serve subpoenas deuces Techem before ever providing notice
Speaker 1: to Miss Maxwell with regards to witnesses Epstein, Kellen, and
Speaker 1: Marson Cova. Likewise, with respect to witness Alexandra Hall, Plaintiff
Speaker 1: served the subpoena prior to providing notice see Menager declaration
Speaker 1: example L serve subpoenas before providing notice under Rule forty five. Accordingly,
Speaker 1: Plaintiff moves to quash the subpoenas on Epstein, Kellen, and
Speaker 1: Marson Cova as violations of Rule forty five's notice provision.
Speaker 1: Miss Maxwell further request sanctions pursue it Rule thirty seven
Speaker 1: for these documented violations. With respect to Miss Hall, who
Speaker 1: was deposed already earlier today, Miss Maxwell believes that she
Speaker 1: did not offer any admissible testimony at her deposition. If
Speaker 1: plaintiff seeks to introduce her testimony, the defense reserves the
Speaker 1: right to exclude such testimony, both on evidentiary grounds as
Speaker 1: well as in violation of Rule forty five's notice Provision four.
Speaker 1: Miss Maxwell's good faith efforts to conduct discovery. As already
Speaker 1: documented in previous pleadings, Miss Maxwell's council has engaged in
Speaker 1: significant and repeated efforts to conduct discovery in this case
Speaker 1: in a professional civil manner, especially as it relates to
Speaker 1: the deposition of non parties. On February twenty fifth, twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: Council for Miss Maxwell requested that lawyers confer by telephone
Speaker 1: to arrange a schedule for the non party depositions to
Speaker 1: occur in various states and countries. Plaintiff ignored that request
Speaker 1: and request of the same milk made on at least
Speaker 1: six different occasions in March and in April. It was
Speaker 1: only on two and a half months later, on May fifth,
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen, when Plaintiff's council finally responded with as is
Speaker 1: becoming clear both sides are going to be needing to
Speaker 1: be coordinating a number of depositions She then proposed a
Speaker 1: calendar which scheduled thirteen additional depositions for plaintiff and only
Speaker 1: two days actually half days for defendant to depose her
Speaker 1: remaining witnesses. Defendant provided a calendar which allowed for both
Speaker 1: sides to take remaining depositions, but Plaintiff ignored it and
Speaker 1: continued to schedule depositions on dates for witnesses without consulting
Speaker 1: Defense Council for their availability. First manager Declaration example m
Speaker 1: Because of the breakdown in communication, Defense Council was left
Speaker 1: with little choice but to show up at each of
Speaker 1: Plaintiff's noticed depositions in Florida and New York and b
Speaker 1: issu su poenis for witness depositions on other dates in June.
Speaker 1: For example, Plaintiff issued a notice of deposition for Juan
Speaker 1: Alessi on May thirty first, twenty sixteen, without any conferral
Speaker 1: with Council in Florida and fully aware that the Defense
Speaker 1: Council would be traveling from Colorado. Defense Council in fact
Speaker 1: did have to travel on Memorial Day to Florida for
Speaker 1: the nine am May thirty first deposition. Mister Alessi, however,
Speaker 1: did not appear on that date, believing that his deposition
Speaker 1: was for June first, the same day that his wife
Speaker 1: had been subpoenaed to appear, and because he and his
Speaker 1: wife live an hour away from Fort Lauderdale. Thus, despite
Speaker 1: Defense councils herculean efforts, no deposition occurred on May thirty first.
Speaker 1: On June first, mister Alessi appeared, but was insufficient time
Speaker 1: to take his wife's deposition, who presumably made the one
Speaker 1: hour drive for naught. Also, defense council then had to
Speaker 1: travel to New York for June's second hearing and back
Speaker 1: to Florida for a deposition of another witness, mister Rogers,
Speaker 1: that had been scheduled without input from the defense council.
Speaker 1: Counsel for plaintiff makes much of her efforts to serve
Speaker 1: witnesses Epstein, Marsenkova, and Kellen. She fails to advise the
Speaker 1: court that Miss Maxwell has been forced to expend great time, money,
Speaker 1: and resources to serve Plaintiff's own mother, father, former fiancee,
Speaker 1: and former boyfriend, as described before. The defense even rescheduled
Speaker 1: the deposition of plaintiff's former fiance due to the last
Speaker 1: minute on availability of plaintiff's council although all counsel were
Speaker 1: already in Florida and had expended hundreds of dollars to
Speaker 1: serve them, Plaintiff made no effort to help serve those
Speaker 1: closest to her, including her own family members. Unlike plaintiff, however,
Speaker 1: Miss Maxwell and her counsel are fully aware that such
Speaker 1: are the difficulties of litigation. We do not ascribe the
Speaker 1: plaintiff the blame. Having flown to Florida a total of
Speaker 1: four separate times to attend depositions of five of Plaintiff's
Speaker 1: notice witnesses, Defense Council has borne the brunt of Plaintiff's
Speaker 1: mismanagement of council and witness time. Defense councils scheduled their
Speaker 1: own Florida depositions of three witnesses to occur during two
Speaker 1: of the four trips. Defense Council offered to and did,
Speaker 1: schedule the two Colorado non party witnesses the same week
Speaker 1: in May so as minimize plaintiff Council's travel obligations. Plaintiff, however,
Speaker 1: reschedule the deposition of mister Rizzo in New York for
Speaker 1: a week after this Court had a hearing, rather than
Speaker 1: accommodating any attempt to have the New York deposition occur
Speaker 1: when all council were already present in New York. To
Speaker 1: the extent the Court wishes to consider the good faith
Speaker 1: efforts of defense counsel in conducting depositions when deciding whether
Speaker 1: the grand plaintiff additional time defense has more than met
Speaker 1: their burden. Five good cause exists to take redepose plaintiff
Speaker 1: and to depose Sharon Churchier exists in contrast to the
Speaker 1: lack of good cause to extend discovery for a plaintiff's
Speaker 1: six witnesses. Miss Maxwell seeks leave of the court to
Speaker 1: take depositions beyond June thirtieth. First, Miss Maxwell properly served
Speaker 1: a deposition subpoena and provided appropriate notice to Plaintiff's council
Speaker 1: on Plaintiff's friend, confidant, and former Deli Mal journalist Sharon Churchier,
Speaker 1: for a deposition to occur in New York on June sixteenth.
Speaker 1: Manager declaration example end. On June fifteenth, the day before
Speaker 1: her scheduled deposition, Miss Churcher's council filed a motion to quash.
Speaker 1: That motion is to be heard by this Court on
Speaker 1: June twenty three. Should the Court deny the motion, to
Speaker 1: quash Miss Churcher's deposition would need to be rescheduled. Dates
Speaker 1: in early July would be sufficient for counsel. Similarly, Miss
Speaker 1: Maxwell is filing simultaneously with this motion a request to
Speaker 1: reopen the deposition of plaintiff on the grounds, inter alia,
Speaker 1: that she failed to provide numerous documents ordered to be
Speaker 1: produced by the Court until after her deposition, and still
Speaker 1: failed to provide others. She materially changed substantiative and significant
Speaker 1: portions of her testimony after the fact through her orata
Speaker 1: sheet on May thirty first, and she refused to answer
Speaker 1: material questions at her deposition on the advice of Council,
Speaker 1: including for example, which of Miss Churcher's many quotes attributed
Speaker 1: to her were incorrect see manager declaration example D referenced Supra.
Speaker 1: As with Miss Churcher's deposition, the reopened deposition of plaintiff
Speaker 1: could occur in early July, assuming she provides the court
Speaker 1: ordered documents timely. Six Alternatively, all other deadlines need to
Speaker 1: be extended. Finally, Plaintiff glibly asserts that she seeks only
Speaker 1: thirty extra days to conduct her depositions, but does not
Speaker 1: want any other dates moved. Of course, that ensures to
Speaker 1: her benefit and to Miss Maxwell's detriment. July already was
Speaker 1: scheduled for expert disclosures. Plaintiff has yet to disclose her
Speaker 1: retained expert, and thus the defense has been unable to
Speaker 1: secure a rebuttal expert. Miss Maxwell will be unable to
Speaker 1: secure such evidence on a timely basis. Further, summary judgment
Speaker 1: motions are due in this case on August third. If
Speaker 1: depositions continue throughout August, Miss Maxwell's ability to include any
Speaker 1: late learned information in her anticipated motion will be jeopardized. Finally,
Speaker 1: the trial is scheduled for October. Continuing fact finding until
Speaker 1: August seriously impinges on Miss Maxwell's ability to prepare for
Speaker 1: that trial, including preparing witnesses, exhibits, and testimony. Wherefore, Miss
Speaker 1: Maxwell requests that the motion to extend the deadline to
Speaker 1: complete depositions be denied. Alternatively, if the deadline is extended
Speaker 1: for any of the listed six witnesses, Miss Maxwell requests
Speaker 1: that the date for expert discovery, dis positive motions and
Speaker 1: the trial date be extended as well. Further, Miss Maxwell
Speaker 1: requests sanctions for Plaintiff's failures to comply with the notice
Speaker 1: provisions of Rule forty five A four, respectfully submitted Laura A. Meninger,
Speaker 1: And that concludes our look at the defendant's memorandum of
Speaker 1: law in opposition to extending the deadline to complete depositions
Speaker 1: and motion for sanctions for violation of Rule forty five.
Speaker 1: In the next big, gigantic dump, we're going to dive
Speaker 1: into we're going to start taking a look at Gallaine
Speaker 1: Maxwell's deposition. My suggestion, have your barf bags ready. All
Speaker 1: of the information that goes with this episode can be
Speaker 1: found in the description box.