WEBVTT 1 00:00:00.120 --> 00:00:03.520 What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. In 2 00:00:03.560 --> 00:00:06.120 this episode, we're going to start taking a look at 3 00:00:06.360 --> 00:00:12.039 more documents from the Virginia Roberts and Golaan Maxwell defamation battle. 4 00:00:12.400 --> 00:00:14.560 And to do that, we're taking a look at the 5 00:00:14.640 --> 00:00:18.399 motion for sanctions for violation of Rule number forty five, 6 00:00:19.480 --> 00:00:23.920 Case number fifteen DASH CV DASH zero seven four thirty 7 00:00:23.960 --> 00:00:31.800 three Dash RWs Virginia Roberts versus Glen Maxwell defendant Glen Maxwell, 8 00:00:31.879 --> 00:00:35.759 miss Maxwell files. This combined a response in opposition to 9 00:00:35.799 --> 00:00:40.079 plaintiff's motion to extend deadline to complete depositions and motion 10 00:00:40.240 --> 00:00:44.640 for sanctions for violation of Rule forty five and states 11 00:00:44.679 --> 00:00:50.320 as follows introduction. Apparently, plaintiff seeks to take six depositions 12 00:00:50.320 --> 00:00:54.200 beyond the scheduling order deadline of July first, yet has 13 00:00:54.240 --> 00:00:57.719 failed to demonstrate good cause or diligence as to any 14 00:00:58.960 --> 00:01:03.159 The witnesses include one redacted, a witness that plaintiff initiated 15 00:01:03.240 --> 00:01:07.840 informal attempts to depose on June ninth, and two Roscu, 16 00:01:07.920 --> 00:01:11.560 who plaintiff began steps to depose under the Hay Convention 17 00:01:12.040 --> 00:01:16.439 in London last Friday, June seventeenth. Plaintiff also seeks to 18 00:01:16.760 --> 00:01:20.959 untimely deposed three Jean Luke Brunel, a witness she had 19 00:01:21.000 --> 00:01:24.359 noticed for a mid June deposition, who apparently did not 20 00:01:24.439 --> 00:01:28.719 appear on that date with agreement and consent of Plaintiff's council. 21 00:01:29.280 --> 00:01:33.079 The remaining three witnesses plaintiff seeks to untimely depose are 22 00:01:33.159 --> 00:01:36.640 ones who reportedly have expressed their intention to take the 23 00:01:36.680 --> 00:01:40.560 fifth as to all questions posed council for four Jeffrey 24 00:01:40.560 --> 00:01:44.560 Epstein offered to accept service honor about April eleventh, but 25 00:01:44.680 --> 00:01:48.719 plaintiff ignored that offer for more than six weeks. Plaintiff 26 00:01:48.799 --> 00:01:52.519 only began on June twelfth any attempt to schedule that 27 00:01:52.560 --> 00:01:56.599 deposition in the Virgin Islands. Last week, mister Epstein's council 28 00:01:56.840 --> 00:02:01.040 filed a motion to quash his deposition subpoena. The final 29 00:02:01.159 --> 00:02:05.239 untimely depositions sought by plaintiff are for witnesses Sarah Kellen 30 00:02:05.519 --> 00:02:09.879 and Nadia Maarsenkova, about whom Plaintiff has made no public 31 00:02:09.879 --> 00:02:13.719 claims and thus have no testimony relevant to this defamation 32 00:02:13.800 --> 00:02:19.639 action concerning whether Plaintiff's public allegations about Maxwell are or 33 00:02:19.759 --> 00:02:24.360 rather are not true. The attempted service of subpoenas on Epstein, 34 00:02:24.759 --> 00:02:28.759 Kellen and Marsenkova all violated Rule forty five A four 35 00:02:29.159 --> 00:02:32.919 and should be sanctioned by this Court. As to these witnesses, 36 00:02:33.159 --> 00:02:36.479 Plaintiff has fallen far short of the good cause required 37 00:02:36.520 --> 00:02:40.000 by Rule sixteen B four to modify the scheduling order. 38 00:02:40.520 --> 00:02:43.360 In fact, for the most part, her failures to actively 39 00:02:43.439 --> 00:02:48.919 pursue depositions with these witnesses qualifies as inexcusable neglect. She 40 00:02:49.080 --> 00:02:52.360 frittered away seven of the eight months of the discovery 41 00:02:52.400 --> 00:02:55.520 period and now has placed Miss Maxwell, this Court and 42 00:02:55.599 --> 00:02:59.400 the witnesses in the untenable position of trying to accommodate 43 00:02:59.439 --> 00:03:03.520 her last minute scramble in the absence of any acceptable excuses, 44 00:03:03.759 --> 00:03:06.599 and for the limited evidentiary value that most of the 45 00:03:06.680 --> 00:03:10.439 requested witnesses can provide, this Court should deny the request 46 00:03:10.680 --> 00:03:14.439 for extra time to take these six depositions. The only 47 00:03:14.560 --> 00:03:18.759 witnesses for whom depositions should be permitted following the discovery 48 00:03:18.800 --> 00:03:22.960 cutoff are one Miss Sharon Churcher, Plaintiff's friend, advocate and 49 00:03:23.039 --> 00:03:25.759 form a journalist with The Daily Mail, who filed a 50 00:03:25.800 --> 00:03:28.759 motion to quash her subpoena on the day before her 51 00:03:28.800 --> 00:03:33.000 scheduled deposition, and two plaintiff who refused to answer questions 52 00:03:33.199 --> 00:03:38.840 at her deposition concerning highly relevant, non privileged information. Alternatively, 53 00:03:39.120 --> 00:03:42.319 if the court is to grant additional time for plaintiff 54 00:03:42.319 --> 00:03:46.639 to take depositions, Miss Maxwell will be unduly prejudiced without 55 00:03:46.719 --> 00:03:51.000 sufficient additional time to a secure any witnesses to rebut 56 00:03:51.080 --> 00:03:55.439 testimony glean from these witnesses, b conduct discovery of plaintiff 57 00:03:55.520 --> 00:03:59.719 retained experts c submit a summary judgment motion which includes 58 00:03:59.759 --> 00:04:04.360 fact learned from these late depositions, and d prepare for trial. Thus, 59 00:04:04.400 --> 00:04:07.759 if the court grants Plaintiff's motion, the remaining deadlines in 60 00:04:07.800 --> 00:04:12.560 the scheduling order ought to be extended accordingly. Background to 61 00:04:12.639 --> 00:04:15.840 divert attention away from her own lack of diligence, Plaintiff 62 00:04:15.960 --> 00:04:19.879 characteristically devotes much of her motion blaming Miss Maxwell and 63 00:04:19.959 --> 00:04:23.720 her counsel for her own problems with depositions. Not only 64 00:04:23.800 --> 00:04:27.040 is Plaintiff's acount factually inaccurate, none of it matters to 65 00:04:27.199 --> 00:04:31.240 whether she could timely complete the six depositions at issue. 66 00:04:31.319 --> 00:04:35.480 For example, the scheduling of Miss Maxwell's deposition, which depended, 67 00:04:35.519 --> 00:04:39.879 among other things on an historic snowstorm, a disputed protective order, 68 00:04:40.120 --> 00:04:44.920 Plaintiff's failure to timely produced documents, and Council's conflicting calendars, 69 00:04:44.959 --> 00:04:48.279 all of which have been amply documented with this court, 70 00:04:48.720 --> 00:04:52.720 does not inform any analysis regarding Plaintiff's lack of diligence 71 00:04:52.759 --> 00:04:57.040 in pursuing depositions of these six witnesses see Rule twenty 72 00:04:57.079 --> 00:05:01.639 six dy three, unless the party stipulate the court orders Otherwise, 73 00:05:01.879 --> 00:05:05.040 for the parties and witnesses convenience and in the interests 74 00:05:05.040 --> 00:05:08.600 of justice, A methods of discovery may be used in 75 00:05:08.680 --> 00:05:12.759 any sequence, and B discovery by one party does not 76 00:05:12.839 --> 00:05:17.319 require any other party to delay its discovery. Likewise, receipt 77 00:05:17.680 --> 00:05:21.639 of Miss Maxwell's Rule twenty six disclosures in February also 78 00:05:21.680 --> 00:05:25.160 had nothing to do with these witnesses. Notably, each of 79 00:05:25.199 --> 00:05:28.560 the witnesses who Plaintiff now seeks to depose were known 80 00:05:28.600 --> 00:05:32.480 to her from the outset all but redacted and redacted 81 00:05:32.680 --> 00:05:36.040 were included in her initial Rule twenty six disclosures on 82 00:05:36.120 --> 00:05:39.759 November eleventh, twenty fifteen, and two of the six were 83 00:05:39.759 --> 00:05:44.839 specifically mentioned in Plaintiff's complaint. Finally, the fact that witness Rinaldo. 84 00:05:44.920 --> 00:05:49.120 Rizzo had a deposition rescheduled from April until June, does 85 00:05:49.160 --> 00:05:52.160 not have any bearing on the issue presented by this motion. 86 00:05:52.720 --> 00:05:56.120 Mister Rizzo was deposed on June fourteenth, and he has 87 00:05:56.160 --> 00:05:59.600 nothing to do with the remaining depositions. Mister Rizzo is, 88 00:05:59.639 --> 00:06:03.839 in fact, practically gleeful to be a witness redacted redacted, 89 00:06:03.959 --> 00:06:08.439 redacted redacted. Plaintiff's claims that mister Rizzo is an example 90 00:06:08.480 --> 00:06:11.120 of delay that has harmed her ability to obtain all 91 00:06:11.160 --> 00:06:16.720 depositions in a timely manner is fecious. Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion. 92 00:06:16.920 --> 00:06:21.240 Discovery began in this case on October twenty three, twenty fifteen, 93 00:06:21.639 --> 00:06:25.839 following the party's Rule twenty six F conferral cfed dot 94 00:06:25.959 --> 00:06:29.040 or dot siev dot p Dot twenty six D one 95 00:06:29.759 --> 00:06:33.120 at the Rule sixteen B scheduling Conference. On October twenty eighth, 96 00:06:33.160 --> 00:06:36.800 twenty fifteen, This Court directed the parties to complete all 97 00:06:36.839 --> 00:06:41.839 fact discovery by July one, twenty sixteen. On November thirtieth, 98 00:06:41.839 --> 00:06:45.920 twenty fifteen, contemporaneous with the filing of a Rule twelve 99 00:06:45.959 --> 00:06:49.600 B motion to dismiss, Miss Maxwell also requested of this 100 00:06:49.720 --> 00:06:52.959 Court a stay of discovery pursue it to Rule twenty 101 00:06:53.000 --> 00:06:57.199 six C Document number seventeen. That motion was denied on 102 00:06:57.279 --> 00:07:01.240 January twentieth, twenty sixteen, with an additional two week period 103 00:07:01.560 --> 00:07:06.120 granted to respond the plaintiff's first request for production of documents. 104 00:07:06.639 --> 00:07:11.920 The discovery thus was never stayed. Plaintiff erroneously asserts that 105 00:07:11.959 --> 00:07:15.959 the discovery did not commence in this matter until February eighth. 106 00:07:16.360 --> 00:07:19.439 What she means is that she neglected to seek any 107 00:07:19.480 --> 00:07:22.920 non witness depositions until then. Nothing in the rules of 108 00:07:22.959 --> 00:07:26.720 civil procedure, this Court's orders, or the law prevented plaintiff 109 00:07:26.839 --> 00:07:30.319 from doing so at any point after October twenty three, 110 00:07:30.519 --> 00:07:35.240 twenty fifteen. Plaintiff is at over eight months to schedule witnesses, 111 00:07:35.439 --> 00:07:39.399 schedule depositions, and conduct them. Instead, she waited until the 112 00:07:39.480 --> 00:07:42.040 last minute and now complains of a lack of time. 113 00:07:42.600 --> 00:07:44.639 Any lack of time is a product of her own 114 00:07:44.680 --> 00:07:48.279 bad faith and negligent litigation tactics, and should not be 115 00:07:48.319 --> 00:07:51.759 sanctioned by this Court. The failure to timely secure the 116 00:07:51.800 --> 00:07:55.600 depositions of the remaining six witnesses is through no fault 117 00:07:55.600 --> 00:07:59.399 of Miss Maxwell or her council. As to these witnesses. 118 00:07:59.399 --> 00:08:02.360 Miss maxwell Well and their council have played no role 119 00:08:02.399 --> 00:08:06.040 in hindering Plaintiff's ability to depose the witnesses. In fact, 120 00:08:06.120 --> 00:08:08.759 as the four of the six plaintiffs attempted to serve 121 00:08:08.800 --> 00:08:13.199 subpoenas on the witnesses before ever providing notice to the defense, 122 00:08:13.680 --> 00:08:17.959 in clear violation of Rule forty five an four. The 123 00:08:18.040 --> 00:08:23.279 Legal Authority Rule sixteen B permits modification of a scheduling 124 00:08:23.360 --> 00:08:26.959 order only upon a showing of good cause. To satisfy 125 00:08:27.000 --> 00:08:30.079 the good cause standard, the party must show that, despite 126 00:08:30.240 --> 00:08:34.159 its having exercise diligence, the applicable deadline could not have 127 00:08:34.200 --> 00:08:39.159 been reasonably met. So Call Holdings Incorporated First BMD Moonai 128 00:08:39.240 --> 00:08:45.159 Incorporated five CIV Dot three seven four nine KMWDF two 129 00:08:45.200 --> 00:08:48.240 thousand and nine, w L two five two four six 130 00:08:48.279 --> 00:08:52.679 one one at seven SDN Y August fourteenth, two thousand 131 00:08:52.720 --> 00:08:57.639 and nine, citing Rent to Center Incorporated, Verse forty seven Corp. 132 00:08:57.799 --> 00:09:00.759 Two fifteen, f dot R dot D D one hundred 133 00:09:00.840 --> 00:09:05.639 one oh four SDNY two thousand three. J. McMahon Accord 134 00:09:05.720 --> 00:09:10.120 Parker versus Columbia Pictures Industrial, two thousand and four, f 135 00:09:10.200 --> 00:09:14.000 DOT three D three twenty six three forty Second Circuit 136 00:09:14.039 --> 00:09:17.200 two thousand. Good cause depends on the diligence of the 137 00:09:17.240 --> 00:09:21.759 moving party. Perfect Pearl Company Incorporated. Versus Majestic Pearl and 138 00:09:21.840 --> 00:09:26.279 Stone Incorporated. Eight eighty nine f Dot supp Dot two 139 00:09:26.399 --> 00:09:30.720 D four fifty three four fifty seven SDNY twenty twelve. 140 00:09:30.919 --> 00:09:34.639 Angelmeyer j. To show good cause, a movement must demonstrate 141 00:09:34.879 --> 00:09:37.840 that it has been diligent, meaning that despite its having 142 00:09:37.919 --> 00:09:42.480 exercise diligence, the applicable deadline could not have been reasonably met. 143 00:09:43.759 --> 00:09:46.679 Good cause depends on the diligence of the moving party 144 00:09:47.039 --> 00:09:51.639 in seeking to meet the scheduling order. Gratchkowski versus Phoenix 145 00:09:51.639 --> 00:09:55.639 Construction three eighteen f Dot three d eighty eighty six, 146 00:09:56.000 --> 00:09:59.559 Second Circuit, two thousand and three. The Oxford Dictionary defines 147 00:09:59.600 --> 00:10:04.320 diligence as careful and persistent work or effort. See diligence 148 00:10:04.519 --> 00:10:09.600 at Oxford Dictionaries dot com. Good cause and diligence were 149 00:10:09.639 --> 00:10:12.120 not shown when a party raised the prospect of a 150 00:10:12.159 --> 00:10:16.799 deposition nine days prior to the discovery deadline. Carlson versus 151 00:10:16.799 --> 00:10:20.279 Geneva City School District two seventy seven F Dot r 152 00:10:20.360 --> 00:10:26.840 D ninety WDNY, twenty eleven. Compare Rees versus Virginia International 153 00:10:26.960 --> 00:10:31.240 Terminals Incorporated. Two eighty six f dot r D two 154 00:10:31.279 --> 00:10:36.159 eighty two e dot D Virginia, twenty twelve. Depositions noticed 155 00:10:36.440 --> 00:10:40.440 very early in discovery period, and movement engaged in continuing 156 00:10:40.759 --> 00:10:44.000 meet and confer dialogue with the defendants throughout the five 157 00:10:44.039 --> 00:10:51.159 month discovery period. Ayanakoska versus. Benistar Administration Services Incorporated. Seven 158 00:10:51.240 --> 00:10:56.799 sixty five f dot supp Dot two D seventy nine, Massachusetts, 159 00:10:56.879 --> 00:11:01.480 twenty eleven. Correspondence indicated that the plaintiffs had tried on 160 00:11:01.600 --> 00:11:05.480 numerous occasions to schedule the depositions and to extend the 161 00:11:05.519 --> 00:11:09.120 discovery schedule, but that the defendants had either refused or 162 00:11:09.159 --> 00:11:12.840 felt to respond, and good cause was found. All right, 163 00:11:12.840 --> 00:11:15.279 we're going to wrap up episode one there, and in 164 00:11:15.320 --> 00:11:17.559 the next episode we're going to get to the meat 165 00:11:17.559 --> 00:11:19.720 and the potatoes of it and look at the argument. 166 00:11:20.519 --> 00:11:23.279 All of the information that goes with this episode can 167 00:11:23.320 --> 00:11:27.759 be found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and 168 00:11:27.879 --> 00:11:31.480 welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. We're going to pick 169 00:11:31.559 --> 00:11:35.080 up where we left off with Golen Maxwell and her 170 00:11:35.159 --> 00:11:39.240 motion for sanctions for the violation of Rule forty five. 171 00:11:40.360 --> 00:11:45.600 Argument one plaintiff's lack of diligence. Plaintiff is demonstrated in 172 00:11:45.720 --> 00:11:49.240 extreme lack of diligence in securing the six remaining depositions 173 00:11:49.279 --> 00:11:53.559 that she seeks a redacted. Plaintiff's motion failed to mension 174 00:11:53.840 --> 00:11:57.320 any desire to take the deposition of redacted and redacted. 175 00:11:57.799 --> 00:12:01.399 No notice of deposition has been so and no scheduling 176 00:12:01.480 --> 00:12:05.919 of his deposition has commenced. Indeed, redacted first appeared on 177 00:12:05.960 --> 00:12:09.799 Plaintiff's third revised Rule twenty six disclosures two weeks ago 178 00:12:10.000 --> 00:12:13.240 on June first, then last week. In her reply in 179 00:12:13.279 --> 00:12:17.600 support of motion to exceed ten depositions filed on June thirteenth, 180 00:12:17.840 --> 00:12:23.279 Plaintiff averred that redacted deposition is necessary because Miss Maxwell, 181 00:12:23.440 --> 00:12:27.679 in her deposition on April twenty fifth, raised Miss Roberts's 182 00:12:27.679 --> 00:12:31.000 comments about redacted as one of the obvious lies to 183 00:12:31.039 --> 00:12:34.080 which she was referring in her public statement that formed 184 00:12:34.080 --> 00:12:37.320 the basis of this suit. Reply at three, this is 185 00:12:37.399 --> 00:12:40.759 utter nonsense and nothing more than a transparent ploy by 186 00:12:40.799 --> 00:12:45.679 plaintiff to increase media exposure for her sensational stories through deposition. 187 00:12:45.799 --> 00:12:49.240 Side show. This witness has nothing relevant to add to 188 00:12:49.320 --> 00:12:52.480 this case and plaintiff has made no effort, much less 189 00:12:52.519 --> 00:12:56.519 won in good faith to timely secure his testimony. Plaintiff 190 00:12:56.559 --> 00:13:00.960 admits she has made not allegations of illegal actions by redacted, 191 00:13:01.279 --> 00:13:04.559 but plaintiff has asserted that she spent time with redacted 192 00:13:04.600 --> 00:13:07.879 on the island of Little Saint James Us Virgin Islands, 193 00:13:08.000 --> 00:13:10.399 and that she flew there with the redacted in a 194 00:13:10.440 --> 00:13:15.159 helicopter piloted by miss Maxwell. In one article authored by 195 00:13:15.240 --> 00:13:19.759 Sharon Churcher, plaintiff related on one occasion. She adds Epstein 196 00:13:19.960 --> 00:13:22.759 did invite two young brunettes to dinner, which he gave 197 00:13:23.080 --> 00:13:26.279 on his Caribbean island for mister Clinton shortly after he 198 00:13:26.399 --> 00:13:28.799 left office, but as far as she knows, the ex 199 00:13:28.879 --> 00:13:31.679 president did not take the bait. I'd have been about 200 00:13:31.720 --> 00:13:34.200 seventeen at the time, she says. I flew to the 201 00:13:34.240 --> 00:13:37.360 Caribbean with Jeffrey and then Glenn Maxwell went to pick 202 00:13:37.399 --> 00:13:40.600 up Bill in a huge black helicopter that Jeffrey bought her. 203 00:13:41.080 --> 00:13:43.720 She always wanted to fly, and Jeffrey paid for her 204 00:13:43.759 --> 00:13:46.840 to take lessons, and I remember she was very excited 205 00:13:47.399 --> 00:13:50.240 because she got her license around the first year we met. 206 00:13:50.799 --> 00:13:53.440 I used to get frightened flying with her, but Bill 207 00:13:53.679 --> 00:13:56.120 had the Secret Service with him, and I remember him 208 00:13:56.159 --> 00:13:58.600 talking about what a good job she did. I only 209 00:13:58.639 --> 00:14:01.639 met Bill twice, but Jeffrey told me they were good friends. 210 00:14:02.240 --> 00:14:05.120 We all dined together that night. Jeffrey was at the 211 00:14:05.120 --> 00:14:07.600 head of the table. Bill was at his left. I 212 00:14:07.639 --> 00:14:11.399 sat across from him. Emmy Taylor, Glaine's blonde British assistant, 213 00:14:11.639 --> 00:14:14.679 sat at my right. Glaine was at Bill's left, and 214 00:14:14.799 --> 00:14:17.799 at the left of Glaine. There were two olive skin 215 00:14:17.879 --> 00:14:20.840 brunettes who had flown in with us from New York. 216 00:14:21.240 --> 00:14:23.679 I'd never met them before. I'd say they were no 217 00:14:23.759 --> 00:14:27.600 older than seventeen, very innocent looking. They weren't there for me. 218 00:14:27.960 --> 00:14:30.879 They weren't there for Jeffrey or Glaine, because I was 219 00:14:30.879 --> 00:14:33.799 there to have sex with Jeffrey on that trip. Maybe 220 00:14:33.879 --> 00:14:36.720 Jeffrey thought he would entertain Bill, but I saw no 221 00:14:36.799 --> 00:14:39.639 evidence that he was interested in them. He and Jeffrey 222 00:14:39.679 --> 00:14:42.279 and Glane seemed to be having a good time, and 223 00:14:42.320 --> 00:14:45.399 they had a very good relationship. Bill was very funny. 224 00:14:45.799 --> 00:14:47.840 He made me laugh a few times, and he and 225 00:14:47.919 --> 00:14:51.679 Jeffrey and Golaine told blokey jokes and the brunettes listened 226 00:14:51.679 --> 00:14:55.840 politely and giggled. After dinner, I gave Jeffrey an erotic massage. 227 00:14:56.240 --> 00:14:58.480 I don't remember seeing Bill again on the trip, but 228 00:14:58.559 --> 00:15:02.480 I assume Glaine flew him back. Boy. That seems like 229 00:15:02.519 --> 00:15:06.039 a problem for Bill Clinton. No, didn't his spokesperson come 230 00:15:06.080 --> 00:15:07.919 out and tell us that he's never been on the island. 231 00:15:08.360 --> 00:15:12.480 So either Virginia's lying or Bill Clinton's lying. I'll leave 232 00:15:12.480 --> 00:15:15.120 it up to you to decide who you believe, But 233 00:15:15.240 --> 00:15:18.879 me personally, I don't believe Bill Clinton about a goddamn thing. 234 00:15:19.200 --> 00:15:21.679 And if Virginia saying she saw him on this island, 235 00:15:22.120 --> 00:15:24.279 I'm gonna go with Virginia and say he was on 236 00:15:24.360 --> 00:15:29.360 this island. See Sharon Churchier, teenage girl recruited by pedophile 237 00:15:29.440 --> 00:15:34.080 Jeffrey Epstein, reveals how she twice met Bill Clinton. The 238 00:15:34.159 --> 00:15:37.480 next big dinner on the island had another significant guest appearance, 239 00:15:37.720 --> 00:15:40.440 being the one and only Bill Clinton. He is the 240 00:15:40.440 --> 00:15:42.840 only president in the world to be dismissed from his 241 00:15:42.919 --> 00:15:45.399 role as a world leader because he was caught with 242 00:15:45.440 --> 00:15:48.080 his trousers down around his ankles and had the stain 243 00:15:48.200 --> 00:15:52.120 to prove it publicly humiliating his wife and himself. He 244 00:15:52.200 --> 00:15:55.320 retired from his title, but not from his lifestyle. This 245 00:15:55.519 --> 00:15:57.919 wasn't a big party as such, only a few of 246 00:15:58.000 --> 00:16:01.000 us eating at the dinner table. There was Jeffrey at 247 00:16:01.000 --> 00:16:03.840 the head of the table as always. On the left 248 00:16:04.000 --> 00:16:07.320 was Emmy Glayne, and I was Sitting Across the table 249 00:16:07.600 --> 00:16:10.320 from us was Bill with two lovely girls who were 250 00:16:10.399 --> 00:16:13.799 visiting from New York. Bill's wife, Hillary's absence from the 251 00:16:13.879 --> 00:16:17.159 night made it easy for his apparent provocative, cheeky side 252 00:16:17.200 --> 00:16:19.639 to come out, teasing the girls on either side of 253 00:16:19.679 --> 00:16:23.000 them with playful pokes and brassy comments. There was no 254 00:16:23.200 --> 00:16:26.360 modesty between any of them. We all finished our meals 255 00:16:26.639 --> 00:16:32.000 and scattered in our own different directions. Menager Declaration Exhibit p. 256 00:16:32.399 --> 00:16:35.960 At one ten. Each and every part of Plaintiff's claims 257 00:16:36.000 --> 00:16:40.840 regarding redacted has conclusively been proven false redacted or redacted, 258 00:16:40.879 --> 00:16:44.879 or redacted or redacted. Remarkably, Plaintiff now even denies telling 259 00:16:44.960 --> 00:16:49.000 Churcher that she ever witnessed Miss Maxwell redacted anywhere, or 260 00:16:49.120 --> 00:16:52.120 joking with redacted about what a good job she did. 261 00:16:52.879 --> 00:16:57.720 Menager Declaration Exhibit D. Plaintiff's council remarkably instructed plaintiff not 262 00:16:57.840 --> 00:17:01.799 to answer any additional question about the things that Shannon 263 00:17:01.879 --> 00:17:06.960 Church are inaccurately reported, lending even more incredibulity to Plaintiff's story. 264 00:17:07.319 --> 00:17:10.559 Miss Maxwell only received her pilot's license in mid nineteen 265 00:17:10.640 --> 00:17:16.359 ninety nine, casting insurmountable doubt that redacted, redacted, redacted, and redacted. 266 00:17:16.799 --> 00:17:20.000 The only purpose for seeking this deposition is for the 267 00:17:20.039 --> 00:17:24.039 calculated media strategy that plaintiff and her publicity seeking attorneys 268 00:17:24.359 --> 00:17:28.240 have devised. Plaintiff failed to disclose redacted as a witness 269 00:17:28.440 --> 00:17:31.839 until June first, failed to notice his deposition, failed to 270 00:17:31.880 --> 00:17:34.680 diligently pursue a subpoena on him, and he has no 271 00:17:34.759 --> 00:17:39.039 relevant testimony. It'll offer, accordingly, plaintiff's leave to modify the 272 00:17:39.079 --> 00:17:42.640 scheduling order to permit his deposition should be denied. And 273 00:17:42.680 --> 00:17:45.680 this person we're talking about redacted here is none other 274 00:17:45.960 --> 00:17:49.480 than Billy Boy Clinton. Isn't that nice? I wonder how 275 00:17:49.519 --> 00:17:51.519 many times we're going to see this dude's name in 276 00:17:51.559 --> 00:17:57.559 these documents. B ross Gal, as the court likely recalls, 277 00:17:57.680 --> 00:18:01.279 ross Gal actually issued the state meant pertinent to this 278 00:18:01.400 --> 00:18:04.839 defamation suit. Plaintiff is known about ross Gal and his 279 00:18:04.960 --> 00:18:08.200 role in this lawsuit since the outset She referenced him 280 00:18:08.279 --> 00:18:12.240 repeatedly by name in complaint filed on September twenty first, 281 00:18:12.319 --> 00:18:17.559 twenty fifteen, Complaint paragraph twenty nine. As part of Maxwell's campaign, 282 00:18:17.759 --> 00:18:22.000 she directed her agent, Ross Gal to attack Robert's honesty 283 00:18:22.079 --> 00:18:26.400 and truthfulness and accuse Roberts of lying. Plaintiff also has 284 00:18:26.440 --> 00:18:29.680 been well aware throughout that mister Go resides in London 285 00:18:30.039 --> 00:18:33.799 Plaintiff's motion to compel in proper privileges at eight. After 286 00:18:33.880 --> 00:18:36.960 filing that complaint in September and litigating the motion to 287 00:18:37.000 --> 00:18:40.160 compel based on privileges related to mister Gow in March, 288 00:18:40.599 --> 00:18:44.640 Plaintiff took exactly zero steps to depose mister Goo until 289 00:18:44.680 --> 00:18:48.519 she filed this motion, now nine months after filing her complaint. 290 00:18:48.640 --> 00:18:51.759 Plaintiff contends there is no sufficient time for her to 291 00:18:51.839 --> 00:18:54.799 go through the Hay Convention for service on mister Gal 292 00:18:55.400 --> 00:18:58.200 so as to complete this process before the June thirtieth, 293 00:18:58.200 --> 00:19:03.759 twenty sixteen deadline motion at four. Indeed, Plaintiff only initiated 294 00:19:03.759 --> 00:19:07.680 that process three days ago on Friday June seventeenth, two 295 00:19:07.759 --> 00:19:12.079 weeks shy of the discovery cutoff. Plaintiff once again tries 296 00:19:12.119 --> 00:19:14.759 to blame miss Maxwell for her own lack of diligence 297 00:19:14.960 --> 00:19:18.279 by misrepresenting to this court that Miss Roberts asks that 298 00:19:18.359 --> 00:19:22.359 defendant produce her agent, mister Gall for a deposition, but 299 00:19:22.440 --> 00:19:26.440 defendant has refused. Despite acknowledging that defendant plans to call 300 00:19:26.480 --> 00:19:30.759 mister Gal for testimony at trial in truth, plaintiff sent 301 00:19:30.759 --> 00:19:33.759 a letter on May twenty third, which read, in its entirety, 302 00:19:34.119 --> 00:19:36.880 this letter is to seek your agreement to produce Ross 303 00:19:36.880 --> 00:19:39.920 Gal for a deposition. As the agent for your client, 304 00:19:40.000 --> 00:19:43.079 Miss Maxwell, we can work with mister Gales's schedule to 305 00:19:43.160 --> 00:19:48.359 minimize inconvenience. Please advise by Wednesday, May twenty fifth, twenty sixteen, 306 00:19:48.720 --> 00:19:51.559 whether you will produce mister Gall or whether we will 307 00:19:51.559 --> 00:19:53.920 need to seek relief from the court with respect to 308 00:19:53.920 --> 00:19:58.920 his deposition Manager Declaration Exhibit E. That was the first 309 00:19:58.960 --> 00:20:03.440 communication regards varding any deposition of mister Gal. Two days later, 310 00:20:03.519 --> 00:20:07.400 defense counsel requested any legal authority that would allow Miss 311 00:20:07.480 --> 00:20:11.000 Maxwell to produce Ross Gal for a deposition, or any 312 00:20:11.119 --> 00:20:14.240 rule or case that would either enable or require her 313 00:20:14.279 --> 00:20:19.079 to do so. Plaintiff never responded. She also has not 314 00:20:19.119 --> 00:20:22.519 explained when or how Miss Maxwell acknowledged her plans to 315 00:20:22.559 --> 00:20:25.960 call mister Gal for testimony at trial, nor why that 316 00:20:26.079 --> 00:20:30.200 is relevant to whether plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for 317 00:20:30.240 --> 00:20:32.799 her own failure to take steps to depose a foreign 318 00:20:32.799 --> 00:20:37.079 witness deposition until June seventeenth, for a witness she was 319 00:20:37.119 --> 00:20:40.759 aware before even filing the complaint. During the hearing on 320 00:20:40.799 --> 00:20:44.519 March twenty fourth, this court stated that it would expect 321 00:20:44.519 --> 00:20:47.160 to see good Fay's showing of efforts to comply with 322 00:20:47.240 --> 00:20:50.680 the schedule and an inability because of Hay Convention problems 323 00:20:50.880 --> 00:20:54.519 before it would consider changing the scheduling order. Miss Maxwell 324 00:20:54.599 --> 00:20:58.200 submits that waiting until June seventeenth, two weeks before the 325 00:20:58.319 --> 00:21:01.480 end of discovery to even begin the Hey Convention process, 326 00:21:01.839 --> 00:21:05.000 falls far short of any such good face showing, and 327 00:21:05.039 --> 00:21:08.359 the request for leave to take mister Gal's testimony beyond 328 00:21:08.400 --> 00:21:13.480 July first should be denied. See Jean Luke Brunell. With 329 00:21:13.640 --> 00:21:16.880 regard to Jean Luke Brunell, plaintiff simply asserts that he 330 00:21:17.000 --> 00:21:20.359 was subpoenaed and set for mid June deposition, but through 331 00:21:20.400 --> 00:21:23.799 Council has requested we change the dates of his deposition 332 00:21:24.079 --> 00:21:27.960 motion at four. That's her entire argument. She emits key 333 00:21:28.039 --> 00:21:32.039 facts that would instead demonstrate her lack of diligence in 334 00:21:32.079 --> 00:21:35.640 securing mister Brunell's testimony, and also show that she has 335 00:21:35.640 --> 00:21:38.680 waived any right to seek an out of time deposition. 336 00:21:39.319 --> 00:21:42.640 Plaintiff first issued a notice of Rule forty five subpoena 337 00:21:42.839 --> 00:21:46.799 for documents from mister Brunell on February sixteenth at an 338 00:21:46.799 --> 00:21:52.000 address CEO attorney Joe Totone. No documents were ever produced 339 00:21:52.039 --> 00:21:57.720 pursuant to that subpoena Menager declaration example f Then on 340 00:21:57.759 --> 00:22:01.279 May twenty third, twenty sixteen, issued a new notice of 341 00:22:01.279 --> 00:22:05.839 subpoena duces techem attached to, which was actually a subpoena 342 00:22:05.960 --> 00:22:09.960 for deposition testimony to occur on June eighth at nine 343 00:22:10.000 --> 00:22:13.720 am in New York. Again, the subpoena was addressed COEO 344 00:22:13.880 --> 00:22:18.319 Attorney Robert Hatman. Then on June second, Plaintiff's council sent 345 00:22:18.359 --> 00:22:21.400 an email that they had received an email yesterday from 346 00:22:21.440 --> 00:22:25.079 mister Brunell's attorney saying that he needs to reschedule. I 347 00:22:25.160 --> 00:22:27.359 believe he is trying to get us new dates today 348 00:22:27.680 --> 00:22:31.079 or tomorrow. The scheduled date of June eighth came and 349 00:22:31.119 --> 00:22:35.000 went without any indication of any new dates. Provided by 350 00:22:35.079 --> 00:22:39.279 mister Brunell's council. The following week, Plaintiff's council stated in 351 00:22:39.319 --> 00:22:42.640 a phone conversation that mister Brunell's council said his client 352 00:22:42.839 --> 00:22:45.319 had gone to France and it was unclear when he 353 00:22:45.359 --> 00:22:49.640 would be returning to the United States. Following the filing 354 00:22:49.720 --> 00:22:53.480 of the instant motion, Council for Miss Maxwell requested copies 355 00:22:53.519 --> 00:22:56.799 of the certificates of service for all Plaintiff's Rule forty 356 00:22:56.799 --> 00:23:01.400 five subpoenas. In this case, Plaintiff's council provided certificates on 357 00:23:01.519 --> 00:23:05.319 June fourteenth. Notably absent was any certificate of service for 358 00:23:05.440 --> 00:23:09.519 mister Brunell. Thus, either mister Brunell was never served or 359 00:23:09.680 --> 00:23:13.279 he was served in plaintiff unilatterally extended his compliance date 360 00:23:13.480 --> 00:23:16.920 to an unscheduled time in the future. Either way, the 361 00:23:17.000 --> 00:23:21.240 time to complain about a witness's non compliance is at 362 00:23:21.359 --> 00:23:24.720 or near the time it occurs. Failure to timely complain 363 00:23:24.839 --> 00:23:28.640 regarding non compliance with the subpoena constitutes a waiver in 364 00:23:28.680 --> 00:23:32.880 any event, whether served or not, mister Brunell apparently promised 365 00:23:32.880 --> 00:23:35.799 to provide new dates before his deposition date came and went, 366 00:23:36.200 --> 00:23:39.000 did not do so. Has left the country and not 367 00:23:39.119 --> 00:23:43.640 indicated a present intention to ever return. Given Plaintiff's role 368 00:23:43.640 --> 00:23:46.240 in failing to compel him to attend a deposition, no 369 00:23:46.359 --> 00:23:49.720 good cause has been demonstrated to take the deposition of 370 00:23:49.759 --> 00:23:53.440 mister Brunell after July first. All right, folks, we're going 371 00:23:53.519 --> 00:23:56.000 to wrap up this episode here and in the next 372 00:23:56.000 --> 00:23:59.000 episode we'll pick up where we left off. All of 373 00:23:59.039 --> 00:24:02.039 the information that goes with this episode can be found 374 00:24:02.319 --> 00:24:05.799 in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome back 375 00:24:05.839 --> 00:24:09.319 to the Epstein Chronicles. We're going to pick up where 376 00:24:09.359 --> 00:24:13.400 we left off with Glen Maxwell's motion for sanctions for 377 00:24:13.480 --> 00:24:18.599 a violation of Rule number forty five D Jeffrey Epstein. 378 00:24:19.519 --> 00:24:22.599 As with the other witnesses, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate 379 00:24:22.640 --> 00:24:26.000 good cause for seeking to depose Jeffrey Epstein out of time. 380 00:24:26.400 --> 00:24:29.640 Plaintiff claims that she was unable to secure service on 381 00:24:29.759 --> 00:24:33.920 mister Epstein until May twenty seventh, twenty sixteen, because his 382 00:24:34.039 --> 00:24:37.400 counsel refused to accept service until she filed her motion 383 00:24:37.839 --> 00:24:42.519 for alternative service. The documents reflect the opposite. Mister Epstein's 384 00:24:42.519 --> 00:24:46.440 attorney agreed to accept service on April eleventh, twenty sixteen. 385 00:24:46.759 --> 00:24:49.640 And it was only on May twenty seventh, twenty sixteen, 386 00:24:49.920 --> 00:24:53.359 that Plaintiff agreed see POE Declaration in support of motion 387 00:24:53.640 --> 00:24:58.279 to quash Epstein Deposition Exhibit three, Document number two twenty 388 00:24:58.279 --> 00:25:03.680 three three. Plaintiff fails to explain her strategic decision or 389 00:25:03.759 --> 00:25:07.079 negligence in failing to respond for over six weeks to 390 00:25:07.200 --> 00:25:11.640 mister Weinberg's email offering to accept service. Indeed, in another 391 00:25:11.680 --> 00:25:15.240 failure of candor, Plaintiff's counsel also neglected to tell this 392 00:25:15.359 --> 00:25:18.519 court about the email from mister Weinberg, either in the 393 00:25:18.519 --> 00:25:21.720 instant motion or in her motion to serve mister Epstein 394 00:25:21.960 --> 00:25:26.400 by alternative means motion at two Document number one sixty. 395 00:25:27.039 --> 00:25:30.599 Plaintiff apparently now claims that she never received that email 396 00:25:30.640 --> 00:25:35.000 from Martin Weinberg. All of the preceding communications, however, indicate 397 00:25:35.079 --> 00:25:40.279 that mister Weinberg promptly responded to Miss McCauley's inquiries ceg 398 00:25:40.519 --> 00:25:44.319 PO Declaration Example two Email of April six from Weinberg 399 00:25:44.319 --> 00:25:47.920 to McCauley offering to let her know regarding acceptance of service. 400 00:25:48.039 --> 00:25:52.960 On April seventh, email of McCauley in response that works fine, 401 00:25:53.000 --> 00:25:55.920