January 3, 2024

VIA ECF

The Honorable Loretta A. Preska District Court Judge United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007

Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell**, Case No. 15-cv-7433-LAP**

Dear Judge Preska,

Pursuant to the Court’s December 18, 2023, unsealing order, and following conferral with Defendant, Plaintiff files this set of documents ordered unsealed. The filing of these documents ordered unsealed will be done on a rolling basis until completed. This filing also excludes documents pertaining to Does 105 (see December 28, 2023, Email Correspondence with Chambers), 107, and 110 (see ECF No. 1319), while the Court’s review of those documents is ongoing.

Respectfully,

/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley

cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF)

EXHIBIT 4

From: Sent: To:

gmaxl@ellmax.com Saturday, January 10, 2015 9:00 AM Philip Barden; Ross Gow

I am out of my depth to understanding defamation and other legal hazards and don’t want to end up in a law suit aimed at me from anyone if I can help it. Apparently even saying Virginia is a lier has hazard! I have never been in a suit criminal or civil and want it to stay that way.

The US lawyers for the Jane Does are filling additional discovery motions and if I speak I open my self to being part of discovery apparently. I am trying to stay out of litigation and not have to employ lawyers for years as I get lost in US legal nightmare. I stand no legal risk currently on these old charges and civil suits against Jeffrey We need to consult with US lawyers on any statement I make and the complaints too

Perhaps we make a statement of the legal risk of saying anything for potential defamation or something that prevents a full and frank detailed rebuttal+ the press not being the place for that? Regardless, Philip plse call jeffrey lawyer and see what you can under.stand from him and pehaps craft something in conjunction with him? Either way I think you need to speak to him to understand my risk so you can help me understand it - too may cooks in the kitchen and l can’t make good decisions. Plse reach out to him today

• I have already suffered such a terrible and painful loss over the last few days that I can’t even see what life after press he’ll even looks like - statements that don’t address all just lead to more questions .. what is my relationship to clinton ? Andrew on and on.

Let’s rest till monday. I need head space

THE TERRAMAR PROJECT FACEBOOK TWITTER G+ PINTEREST INST AGRAM PLEDGE THE DAILY CATCH

PRIVILEGED GM_001044

United States District Court Southern District of New York

Virginia L. Giuffre,

Plaintiff,

Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS

V.

Ghislaine Maxwell,

Defendant. ^I—————

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS FILED UNDER SEAL ¹

Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions. During her recent deposition, Defendant refused to answer numerous questions about allegedly .. adult’’ sexual activity related to Jeffrey Epstein. Because this activity is highly relevant to this case, Defendant should be ordered to answer questions about it.

As the Court is aware, this defamation case involves Ms. Giuffre’s assertions that she and other females were recruited by Defendant to be sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein under the guise of being “massage therapists.” See Complaint, (DE 1). at 127 (Giuffre ‘·described Maxwell’s role as one of the main women who Epstein used to procure under-aged girls for sexual activities and a primary co-conspirator and participant in his sexual abuse and sex trafficking scheme’‘). In response to these assertions, Defendant has made the sweeping claim that Ms. Giuffre·s assertions are “entirely false’’ and ’·entirely untrue.” Complaint, DE 1, at 131.

¹ Defendant has labelled her entire deposition transcript as Confidential at this time. Counsel for the parties conferred at the deposition regarding answering questions.

Yet during her deposition, Defendant refused to answer any questions that she construed as having something to do with ’‘consensual adult sex.” Defem,e counsel supported that position that “frankly, [that’s] none of your business and I instruct the witness not to answer.” See Declaration of Sigrid S. Mccawley (“Mccawley Deel.’’) at Exhibit 1, Tr. of Maxwell Depo. (Apr. 22, 2016) at 21. The result was that at a number of points throughout her deposition,

Defendant refused to answer questions about subjects integral to this lawsuit, including questions

about what the alleged ’’massage therapists” were doing at Jeffrey Epstein’s house and the sexual

nature of those massages.

For example, Defendant refused to answer questions about whether she had given Jeffrey

Epstein a massage:

Q. Have you ever given Jeffrey Epstein a massage?

MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form, foundation. And I’m going to instruct you not to answer that question. I don’t have any problem with you asking questions about what the subject matter of this lawsuit is, which would be, as you’ve termed it, sexual trafficking of Ms. Roberts.

To the extent you are asking for information relating to any consensual adult interaction between my client and Mr. Epstein, I’m go;ng lo instruct her not to answer because it’s not part of this litigation and it is her private confidential information, not subject to this deposition.

MS. McCAWLEY: You can instruct her not to answer. That is your right. But I will bring her back for another deposition because it is part of the subject matter of this litigation so she should be answering these questions. This is civil litigation, deposition and she should be responsible for answering these questions.

MR. PAGLIUCA: I disagree and you anderstand the bounds that I put on it.

MS. McCA WLEY: No, I don’t. I will continue to ask my questions and you can continue to make your objections.

Q. Did you ever participate from the time period of 1992 to 2009, did you ever participate in a massage with Jeffrey Epstein and another female?

MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection. Do not am,wer that question. Again, to the extent you are asking for some sort of illegal activity as you’ve construed in

connection with this case I don’t have any problem with you asking that question. To the extent these questions involve consensual acts between adults, frankly, they’re none of your business and I will instruct the 1vztness not to answer.

MS. McCA WLEY: This case involves sexual trafficking, sexual abuse, questions about her having interactions with other females is relevant to this case. She needs to answer these questions.

MR. PAGLIUCA: I’m instructing her not to answer.

MS. McCA WLEY: Then we will be back here again.

See Mccawley Deel. at Exhibit 2, Tr. of Maxwell Depo. (Apr. 22, 2016) at 19-22 ( emphasis added).

Defendant’s participation in massages with Epstein is a central part of this case. Ms. Giuffre has explained that during her first sexual encounter with Jeffrey Epstein, it was Defendant who provided instruction on how to do it and how to turn the massage into a sexual event. Obviously, proof that Defendant had previously massaged Epstein - include massages with sexual component - would provide important corroboration for Ms. Giuffre’s testimony at trial. And proof that Defendant was involved in massages will further help prove that statements to the press that Virginia’s allegations were ’‘obvious lies’’ was itself an obvious lie.

As another example, Defendant refused to answer questions about her knowledge that Johanna Sjoberg was hired to work for Epstein and provided massages. fn the police report, Johanna admitted that Maxwell recruited her to work for Epstein. See Mccawley Deel. at Exhibit 3, Giuffre000076-77 (police report indicating that Johanna was recruited by Maxwell). Yet during Defendant’s deposition, she refused to answer questions regarding Johanna Sjoberg.

Q. Do you know what tasks Johanna was hired to performance?

A. She was tasked to answer telephones.

Q. Did you ever ask her to rub Jeffrey’s feet? .. .

A. I believe that J have read that, but I don’t have any memory of it.

Q. Did you ever tell Johanna that she would get extra money if she provided Jeffrey massages?

A. I was always happy to give career advice to people and I think that becoming somebody in the healthcare profession. either exercise instructor or nutritionist or professional massage therapist is an excellent job opportunity. Hourly wages are around 7, 8, $9 and as a professional healthcare provider you can earn somewhere between as we have established 100 to $200 and to be able to travel and have ajob that pays that is a wonderful job opportunity. So in the context of advising people for opportunities for work, it is possible that I would have said that she should explore that as an option.

Q. Did you tell her she would get extra money if she massaged Jeffrey?

A. I’m just saying, r cannot recall the exact conversation. I give career advice and I have done that.

Q. Did you ever have Johanna massage you?

A. 1 did.

Q. How many times?

A. I don’t recall how many times.

Q. Was there sex involved?

A.No ….

Q. Did you ever have sexual contact with Johanna?

MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form and foundation. You need to give me an opportunity to get in between the questions. Anything that involves consensual sex on your part, I’m instructing you not to answer.

Q. Did you ever have sexual contact with Johanna?

A. [MR. PAGLIUCA?] Again, she is an adult –

Q. I’m asking you, did you ever have sexual contact with Johanna?

A. I’ve just been instructed not to answer.

Q. On \.hat basis?

A. You have to ask my lawyer.

See Mccawley Deel. at Exhibit 4, Tr. of Maxwell Depo. (Apr. 22, 2016) at 60-62 (emphasis added).

Here again, this information is critical to the case. Among other things, these questions

are designed to show a modus operani (’’M.O”) for Epstein and Maxwell - specifically, how they

recruited for a non-sexual massage than converted the massage into sexual activities.

One last illustration comes from Defendant’s refusal to answer about her know ledge of Epstein’s sexual interests during massages:

Q. Does Jeffrey like to have his nipples pinched during sexual encounters?

MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form and foundation.

A. I’m not referring to any advice on my counsel. l’m not talking about any adult sexual things when I was with him.

Q. When Jeffrey would have a massage, would he request that the masseuse pinch his nipples while he was having a massage?

A. l’m not talking about anything with consensual adult situation.

See Mccawley Deel. at Exhibit 5, Tr. of Maxwell Depo. (Apr. 22, 2016) at 82.

While Epstein himself might also provide answers to these questions. it appears likely that he will assert his Fifth Amendment privilege regarding his sexual activities. Accordingly, Ms.. Giuffre must pursue questioning of Maxwell to obtain information on this subject. Here again, information about Epstein’s sexual idiosyncrasies will provide important corroboration to Ms. Giuffre’s testimony that she had sexual interactions of an identic:ll nature with Epstein.

These refusals are not an isolated instance. Instead, similar refusals to answer questions occurred repeatedly throughout the deposition. See, e.g, Mccawley Deel. at Composite Exhibit 6. 52-55; 64-65; 82: 92-93: 137-38: 307-09.

The Court should compel Defendant to answer all these questions. In addition to the specific points made above, the “big picture” here reveals how vital such discovery is. At the core of Ms. Giuffre’s allegations is the allegation that Defendant lured her into a sexual situation with the offer of a job making money as a massage therapist; that Epstein always habitually tried

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 10

to turn massages into sex (that was his modus operandi and plan all along); and that Maxwell recruited other females for an ostensibly proper position, such as therapeutic masseuse, with knowledge that the intent was for that person would be pressured to provide sexual gratification to Epstein. As a result, Epstein’s use of massages for sexual purposes is a central part of this case.

And Defendant’s role in those massages - and knowledge of the purposes of those massages - is a critical piece of evidence showing her state of mind when she attacked Ms. Giuffre’s assertions as ·‘entirely untrue.” Ms. Giuffre intends to prove at trial that Defendant knew full well the sexual purpose for which she was recruiting females - including underage females like Ms Giuffre. Ms. Giuffre is entitled to explore Defendant’s knowledge of the sexual activities that took place under the guise of “massages.’’ Otherwise Defendant will be able to portray to the jury an inaccurate picture of that what was happening at Epstein’s house what nothing more than run-of-the-mill massage therapy. See, e.g., Mccawley Deel. at Exhibit 7. Tr. of Maxwell Depo. (Apr. 22, 2016) at 51 (”‘Q: Did [the pay for massage therapists] vary on what sexual acts they performed? … A: No, it varied depending on how much time. some massage therapists charge more and some charge less.’’).

Defendant’s refusal to answer questions about alleged “adult” consensual sex also blocks Ms. Giuffre from seeking legitimate discovery in this case. By refusing to answer questions about her and Epstein’s sexual activities with alleged “adults,” Defendant is essentially given the ability to refuse to answer any sexual question she does not wish to answer. Defendant simply has to deem the question as involving “consensual adult sex” and no need be given. The result is to leave Ms. Giuffre with no way of exploring the identity of these alleged adults, the ages of these alleged adults, and indeed whether they were adults at all. This allows Defendant to claim

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 10

that she is unaware of any sexual activity im,olving underage females, because (she claims) the only sexual activity she was aware involved adults.

The Court should compel Ms. Maxwell to answer all questions about her knowledge relating to sexual activities with Epstein and other females while at Epstein’s various homes. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(i); see, e.g, Kel(v v. Al Tech , No. 09 CIV. 962 LAK MHD, 2010 WL 1541585, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2010) (“Under the Federal Rules, when a party refuses to answer a question during a deposition, the questioning party may subsequently move to compel disclosure of the testimony that it sought. The court must determine the propriety of the deponent’s objection to answering the questions. and can order the deponent to provide improperly withheld answers during a continued deposition” (internal citations omitted)). Of course, the party objecting to discovery must carry the burden of proving the validity of its objections, particularly in light of “the broad and liberal construction afforded the federal discovery rules …. “ John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Book Dog Books, LLC, 298 F.R.D. 184, 186 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). For purposes of a deposition, the information sought ’‘need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.’’ Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 293 F.R.D. 557, 561 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(6)(1)).

Defendant cannot carry her burden of showing that the questions asked are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This is a case in which sexual activities lie at the heart of the issues in dispute. As a result, it is hardly surprising to find that discovery pertains to alleged “adult” sexual activities - and questions about such subjects are entirely proper. See, e.g, Condit v Dunne, 225 r.R.D. 100, 113 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (in defamation case, ’·Plaintiff is hereby ordered to answer questions regarding his sexual relationships in so far

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 10

as they are relevant to a defense of substantial truth, mitigation of damages, or impeachment of plaintiff.“); Weber v. lvfultimedia Entm’t, Inc., No. 97 CIV. 0682 PKL THK, 1997 WL 729039, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 1997) (“While discovery is not unlimited and may not unnecessarily intrude into private matters, in the instant case inquiry into private matters is clearly relevant to the subject matter of the suit. Accordingly, plaintiff Misty Weber shall respond to defendants’ interrogatories concerning her sexual partners …. ‘’).

Generally speaking, instructions from attorneys to their clients not to answer questions at a deposition should be “limited to [issues regarding] privilege.” Morales v. Zonda, inc., 204 F.R.D. 50, 54 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). In this case, defense counsel ranged far beyond the normal parameters of objections and sought to decide for himself what issues were relevant. That was improper and the Court should order a resumption of the Defendant’s deposition so that she can answer questions about her knowledge of sexual activity relating to Jeffrey Epstein.

CONCLUSION

Defendant should be ordered to sit for a follow-up deposition and directed to answer questions regarding her knowledge of alleged “adult” sexual activity.

Dated: May 5, 2016

Respectfully Submitted,

LP

By: v-J

Sigrid cCawley (P. ac Vice) Meredith Schultz ( ro Hae Vice) Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011

David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP

333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504

Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hae Vice) FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820

Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hae Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 3 83 University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801 ) 585-5202²

² This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 5th day of May, 2016, I electronically filed the

foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the

foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission

of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.

Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com jpagliuca@hmflaw.com

EXHIBIT4

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-3 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 6

Pagel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - X

VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,

Plaintiff,

Case No.: 15-cv- 07433 - RWS

-against-

GHISLAINE MAXWELL ,

Defendants.

**CONFIDENTIAL**

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • X

Videotaped deposition of GHISLAINE MAXWELL, taken pursuant to subpoena , was held at the law offices of BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, 575 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York , commencing April 22, 2016, 9:04 a.m., on the above date, before Leslie Fagin, a Court Reporter and Notary Public in the State of New York.

MAGNA LEGAL SERVICES 12 00 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10026

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-3 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 6

Page 2
 1
 2 APPEARANCES:
 3
    BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
    Attorneys for Plaintiff
 4
              401 East Las Olas Boulevard
              Fort Lauderdatle, Florida, 33301
 5
             SIGRID MCCAWLEY, ESQUIRE
    BY:
             MEREDITH SCHULTZ, ESQUIRE
 6
              EMMA ROSEN, PARALEGAL
 7
 8
    FARMER JAFFE WEISSING EDWARDS FISTOS &
    LEHRMAN, P.L.
 9
              Attorneys for Plaintiff
             425 N. Andrews Avenue
10
             Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
            BRAD EDWARDS, ESQUIRE
11
    BY:
12
    PAUL G. CASSELL, ESQUIRE
13
    Attorneys for Plaintiff
              383 South University Street
14
            Salt Lake City, Utah 84112
15
16
    HADDON MORGAN FOREMAN
    Attorneys for Defendant
17
              150 East 10th Avenu
              Denver, Colorado 80203
18
             JEFFREY S. PAGLIUCA, ESQUIRE
    BY:
              LAURA A. MENNINGER, ESQUIRE
19
20
    Also Present:
21
       James Christe, videographer
22
23
24
25

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-3 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 6

1 2 A. G Maxwell - Confidential She was tasked to answer 3 telephones. ⁴Q. Did y ou ever ask her to rub 5 Jeffrey ¹ s feet? 6 7 8 MR . PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. A. I believe that I have read that , 9 but I don ¹ t have any memory of it. 10 Q. Did you ever tell Johanna that she 11 would get extra money if she provided Jeffrey 12 massages? 13 A. I was always happy to give career 14 advice to people and I think that becoming 15 somebody in the healthcare profession, either 16 exercise instructor or nutritionist or 17 professional massage therapist is an 18 excellent job opportunity. Hourly wages are 19 around 7 , 8, $9 and as a professional 20 healthcare provider you can earn somewhere 21 between as we have established 10 0 to $2 00 22 and to be able to travel and have a job that 23 pays that is a wonderful job opportunity. So 24 in the context of advising people for 25 opportunities for work, it is possible that I Page 60

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-3 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 6

1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 would have said that she should explore that 3 as an option. ⁴Q. Did you tell her she would get 5 extra money if she massaged Jeffrey? 6 7 A. I ’ m just saying, I cannot recall the exact conversation. I give career advice 8 and I have done that. Q. Did you ever have Johanna massage 1 0 you? 11 A. I did Q. How many times? A. I don’t recall how many times. 14 Q. Was there sex involved? 15 A. 16 Q. Did you ever instruct Johanna to 17 massage Glenn Dubin? 18 A. I don ’ t believe – I have no 19 recollection of it. ² 0 Q. Did you ever have sexual contact 21 with Johanna? 22 23 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form and foundation. You need to give me an opportunity to get in between the questions. Page 61

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-3 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 G Maxwell - Confidential Anything that involves consensual sex on your part , I ’m instructing you not to answer. Q. Did you ever have sexual contact 6 with Johanna? 7 8 A. Q. Again, she is an adult – I’m asking you, did you ever have 9 sexual contact with Johanna? 1 0 A. 11 answer. 12 13 14 Q. A. Q. ^I ’ ve just been instructed not to On what basis? You have to ask my lawyer . Did you ever have sexual contact 15 with Johanna that was not consensual on 16 Johanna ’ s part? 17 18 19 MR. PAGLIUCA: You can answer nonconsensual. A. I’ve never had nonconsensual sex 2 0 with anybody. 21 22 23 Q. A. Not Annie Farmer? MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection. I just testified I never had 24 nonconsensual sex with anybody ever, at any 25 time, at anyplace, at any time, with anybody. Page 62

EXHIBIT 6

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 17

Pagel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - X VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE ,

Plaintiff,

Case No . : 15 - cv- 07433-RWS

• against -

GHISLAINE MAXWELL,

Defendants .

**CONFIDENTIAL**

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • X

Videotaped deposition of GHISLAINE MAXWELL, taken pursuant to subpoena, was held at the law offices of BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, 575 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York, commencing April 22, 2016, 9:04 a.m., on the above date , before Leslie Fagin, a Court Reporter and Notary Public in the State of New York.

MAGNA LEGAL SERVICES 12 00 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10026

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 17

Page 2
 1
 2
    APPEARANCES :
 З
     BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
    Attorneys for Plaintiff
 4
              401 East Las Olas Boulevard
              Fort Lauderdatle, Florida, 33301
 5
              SIGRID MCCAWLEY, ESQUIRE
     BY:
               MEREDITH SCHULTZ, ESQUIRE
 6
              EMMA ROSEN, PARALEGAL
 7
 8
     FARMER JAFFE WEISSING EDWARDS FISTOS &
    LEHRMAN, P.L.
9
              Attorneys for Plaintiff
              425 N. Andrews Avenue
10
              Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
              BRAD EDWARDS, ESQUIRE
11
    BY:
12
    PAUL G. CASSELL, ESQUIRE
13
    Attorneys for Plaintiff
               383 South University Street
14
               Salt Lake City, Utah 84112
15
16
    HADDON MORGAN FOREMAN
    Attorneys for Defendant
17
               150 East 10th Avenu
              Denver, Colorado 80203
18
              JEFFREY S. PAGLIUCA, ESQUIRE
     BY:
              LAURA A. MENNINGER, ESQUIRE
19
20
    Also Present:
21
        James Christe, videographer
22
23
24
25

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 17

1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 for sexual acts. 3 4 acts? 5 6 7 Q. I ’m asking if they performed sexual MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form and foundation. Q. Did any of the massage therapists 8 who were at the home perform sexual acts for 9 Jeffrey Epstein? 1 0 A. I don ’ t know what you mean by 11 sexual acts. 12 Q. Did any of the massage therapists 13 who were working at the home perform sexual 14 acts, including touching the breasts, 15 touching the vaginal area , being touched 16 while Jeffrey is masturbating, having 17 intercourse, any of those things? 18 19 2 0 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection. foundation. Form and To the extent any of this is asking for to your knowledge any consensual sex act that may or may not have involved you, I’m instructing you not to answer the question. Q. I’m not asking about consensual sex Page 52

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 17

1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 acts. I ’ m asking whether any of the massage 3 therapists performed sexual acts for Mr. 4 Epstein, as I have just described? ⁵A. I have never seen anybody have ⁶sexual intercourse with with Jeffrey, ever. 7 8 Q. I ’m not asking about sexual intercourse. I ’m asking about any sexual ⁹act , touching of the breast – did you ever 10 see – can you read back the question? 11 (Record read. ) 12 A. I’m not addressing any questions 13 about consensual adult sex. If you want to 14 talk about what the subject matter, which is 15 defamation and lying, Virginia Roberts , that 16 you and Virginia Roberts are participating in 17 perpetrating her lies, I ’ m happy to address 18 those. I never saw any inappropriate 19 underage activities with Jeffrey ever . ² 0 Q. I’m not asking about underage. I ’m 21 asking about whether any of the masseuses 22 that were at the home perform sexual acts for 23 Jeffrey Epstein? 24 25 A . Q. I have just answered the question. No, you haven’t. Page 53

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 A. Q. A. Q. G Maxwell - Confidential I have. No, you haven’t. Yes , I have. You are refusing to answer the 6 question. 7 8 A. Q. Let ’ s move on. I ‘m in charge of the deposition. 9 say when we move on and when we don’t. 10 You are here to respond to my I 11 questions. If you are refusing to answer the 12 court will bring you back for another 13 deposition to answer these questions. 14 Do you understand that? 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: You don ’ t need to threaten the witness. MS. McCAWLEY: I ’ m not threatening her. I’ m making sure the record is clear. MR. PAGLIUCA: Certainly can you apply to have someone come back and the court may or may not have her come back again. Again , she is not answering questions that relate to adult consent Page 54

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 G Maxwell - Confidential sex acts. Period. And that ’ s the instruction and we can take it up with the court. Q. Ms. Maxwell , are you aware of any ⁶sexual acts with masseuses and Jeffrey ⁷Epstein that were nonconsensual? 8 9 1 0 A. Q. A. No . How do you know that? All the time that I have been in 11 the house I have never seen , heard, nor 12 witnessed , nor have reported to me that any 13 activities took place, that people were in 14 distress, either reported to me by the staff 15 or anyone else. I base my answer based on 16 that. 17 Q. Are you familiar with a person by 18 the name of Annie Farmer? 19 2 0 A. Q. I am. Has Annie Farmer given a statement 21 to police about you performing sexual acts on 22 her? 23 24 A. Q. I have not heard that . Has Annie Farmer given a statement 25 to police about Jeffrey Epstein performing Page 55

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 G Maxwell - Confidential Q. Did you have sex with her? MR. PAGLIUCA: This is the same instruction about consensual or nonconsensual. Q. Was Emmy under the age of 18 when 7 you hired her? ⁸A. No. I didn ’ t hire her, as I said, 9 Jeffrey did. 10 Q. Did Emmy ever have sex with 11 Jeffrey? 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 13 14 15 did. 16 form and foundation. A. How would I know what somebody else Q. You weren ¹ t involved in the sex 17 between Jeffrey, Emmy and yourself? 18 19 A. Q. We already – Were you involved with sex between 2 0 Jeffrey, Emmy and yourself? 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: Everyone is talking over each other. You heard the question. Again , you you know what the instruction is. If there is any Page 64

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 17

l 2 3 4 5 G Maxwell - Confidential consensual issue involved, I instruct you not to answer . A. Moving on. Q. So you are refusing to answer that 6 question? 7 8 A. Q. I ’ ve been instructed by my lawyer. Did you ever have sex with Jeffrey, 9 Emmy, Virginia and yourself when Virginia was 1 0 underage? 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 A. Absolutely not. MR. PAGLIUCA: We ’ ve been going for about an hour. I would like to take a five-minute break , please. MS. MCCAWLEY: I’m almost done. MR . PAGLIUCA: You are not going to allow a break. MS. MCCAWLEY: As soon as I get through my line of questioning , which is perfectly appropriate. Q. Did Emmy Taylor travel with you and 22 Jeffrey to Europe? 23 24 25 A. Q. A. I’m sure she did . What is she doing today? I have no idea. Page 65

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 17

1 2 Q. G Maxwell - Confidential Did you train Virginia on how to 3 recruit other girls to perform sexual 4 massages? 5 6 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. A. No. And it ’ s absurd and her entire 8 story is one giant tissue of lies and ⁹furthermore, she herself has if she says 10 that , you have to ask her about what she did . 11 Q. Does Jeffrey like to have his 12 nipples pinched during sexual encounters? 13 14 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form and foundation. A. I ’ m not referring to any advice on 16 my counsel. I’m not talking about any adult 17 sexual things when I was with him. 18 Q. When Jeffrey would have a massage, 19 would he request that the masseuse pinch his 2 0 nipples while he was having a massage? 21 A. I ’m not talking about anything with 22 consensual adult situation. 23 24 25 Q. A. Q. What about with underage I am not aware of anything. You are not aware of Jeffrey Page 8 2

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 17

1 2 Q. G Maxwell - Confidential In your responsibilities in working 3 for Jeffrey, would you book massages for him 4 on any given day so that he would have a 5 massage scheduled? Would you take a call for 6 example and book a massage for him? 7 8 9 1 0 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation . Q. A. You can answer. Typically, that was not my 11 responsibility. He would either book the 12 massage himself or one of his other 13 assistants would do that. 14 15 that? 16 17 18 Q. From time to time you had to do MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation . A. Like I said, typically it was 19 somebody else ¹ s responsibility. ² 0 Q. If you were unable to book a girl 21 for a massage on a given day , would that mean 22 that you were responsible for giving him a 23 sexual massage? 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: Obj ection to the form and foundation and I instruct you Page 92

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 17

1 2 3 4 G Maxwell - Confidential not to answer any questions about any of your consensual adult sexual activity. Q. So you are not going to answer that 5 question? 6 7 A. Q. You just heard my counsel. Have you ever said to anybody that 8 recruiting other girls to perform sexual 9 massages for Jeffrey Epstein takes the 1 0 pressure off you? 11 12 13 14 out . 15 MR . PAGLIUCA: Object to the form and foundation. A. Repeat the question and break it Q. Have you ever said to anybody that 16 you recruit girls – 17 A. Stop right there. I never 18 recruited girls, let’s stop there. Now 19 breakdown the question. 2 0 21 Q. A. Have you ever said to anybody – By girls, we are talking about 22 underage people – you said girls, are you 23 talking about underage – we are not talking 24 about consensual acts - - this is a defamation 25 suit. Page 93

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 17

1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 the flights? ³A. I can’t recollect having a meal 4 with them, but just so we are clear, the 5 allegations that Clinton had a meal on 6 Jeffrey ’ s island is 100 percent false. ⁷Q. But he may have had a meal on 8 Jeffrey ’ s plane? ⁹A. I ’m sure he had a meal on Jeffrey ’ s 1 0 plane. 11 Q. You do know how many times he flew 12 on Jeffrey’s plane? 13 14 15 16 17 A. Q. A. Q. A. I don’t. Do you know I do. How do you He used to 18 Bill Clinton. who Doug Band is? know him? work or still works for 19 Q. Did you ever have a relationship 20 with him? 21 A. We are talking about adult 22 consensual relationships, it ’ s off the 23 record . 24 Q. I ’m not asking what you did with 25 him , I ’m asking if you ever had a Page 137

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 17

1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 relationship with him? 3 4 5 6 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: If you understand the term relationship , certainly you can answer that. A. Q. Define relationship . Somebody that you would have spent 8 time together, either seeing them in a 9 romantic relationship or – 10 A. You need to be , what do you mean by 11 romantic . I was friends with Doug but you 12 are suggesting something more so I want to be 13 clear what you are actually asking me. 14 15 Q. You defined it. You said you were friends wi th him . If that ’ s what you were 16 that ’ s all I need to know. 17 While you were on the trip with 18 President Clinton, do you recall where you 19 stayed at these locations, in other words, ² 0 would you leave the jet and stay overnight at 21 a hotel , do you have a recollection of this 22 trip? ²³A. I recollect the trip but if y ou’ re 24 asking me where we stayed , you can see it ’ s a 25 very fast paced trip. It was very tiring and Page 138

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 G Maxwell - Confidential form and foundation. A. sorry - recognize Q. form A. Q. I I don’t know why the name is – ^I ’m can’t – I have no idea. I the name but that’s it. Was Johanna Sjoberg a masseuse? MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the and foundation . What are you asking me , I ’m sorr y? When Johanna Sjoberg worked for 11 Jeffrey Epstein, did she perform massages? 12 A. I’ve testified that when Johanna 13 came originally, she came to answer 14 telephones. I believe at some point she 15 became a masseuse. I don ’ t recollect when 16 and I personally had massages from Johanna . 17 Q. What did Johanna do for Jeffrey 18 Epstein, did she perform massages, anything 19 else? 20 21 22 MR . PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. A. When she came she answered phones 23 and at some point, I believe , I don’t have 24 any firm recollection, but I believe she went 25 to school and became a masseuse and I had Page 307

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 17

1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 massages from her. ³Q. Did you ever have any sexual 4 interaction with her? 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form and foundation and I ¹ m going to instruct you if we ¹ re talking about any consensual adult contact, you are not allowed to answer the question. Q. Did you have any sexual contact 11 with her in the presence of Jeffrey Epstein? 12 13 Q. MR. PAGLIUCA: Same instruction . Did you have any sexual contact 14 with her in the presence of anybody other 15 than Jeffrey Epstein? 16 17 Q. MR. PAGLIUCA: Same instruction. How many massages did you receive 18 from Johanna? 19 A. 2 0 amount. Q. I really don ¹ t recall but a fair Did the massages involve sex? MR. PAGLIUCA: I 1m going to 21 22 23 24 instruct you not to answer. Q. Have you ever engaged in sex with 25 any female? Page 308

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 G Maxwell - Confidential MR. PAGLIUCA: I’m going to instruct you not to answer. MS. MCCAWLEY: I want the record to reflect that Ms. Maxwell’s attorney is directing her not to answer this series of questions. MR. PAGLIUCA: It definitely does. Q. Were you responsible for 10 introducing Anuska to Jeffrey Epstein? 11 12 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. A. I already testified that I don ’ ^t 14 really recall Anuska. 15 Q. Were you responsible for 16 introducing Johanna to Jeffrey Epstein? 17 18 19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. A. Again, I don’t like the 2 0 characterization of introduction. Johanna 21 came to answer telephones. 22 Q. When did you – were you the person 23 who brought or introduced or met Johanna for 24 purposes of bringing her to Jeffrey Epstein ’ s 25 home? Page 3 09

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 56

COMPOSITE EXHIBIT A

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 56

Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,

Plaintiff,

Case No.: -against- 15-cv-07433-RWS

GHISLAINE MAXWELL,

Defendants.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • x

**CONFIDENTIAL**

Videotaped deposition of GHISLAINE MAXWELL, taken pursuant to subpoena, was held at the law offices of BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, 575 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York, commencing April 22, 2016, 9:04 a.m., on the above date, before Leslie Fagin, a Court Reporter and Notary Public in the State of New York.

MAGNA LEGAL SERVICES 1200 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10026

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 56

1
2 APPEARANCES:
3
    BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
4 Attorneys for Plaintiff
     401 East Las Olas Boulevard
5 Fort Lauderdatle, Florida, 33301
    BY: SIGRID McCAWLEY, ESQUIRE
6 MEREDITH SCHULTZ, ESQUIRE
     EMMA ROSEN, PARALEGAL
7
8
    FARMER JAFFE WEISSING EDWARDS FISTOS &
9 LEHRMAN, P.L.
     Attorneys for Plaintiff
10 425 N. Andrews Avenue
     Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
11 BY: BRAD EDWARDS, ESQUIRE
12
13 PAUL G. CASSELL, ESQUIRE
    Attorneys for Plaintiff
14 383 South University Street
     Salt Lake City, Utah 84112
15
16
    HADDON MORGAN FOREMAN
17 Attorneys for Defendant
     150 East 10th Avenu
18 Denver, Colorado 80203
    BY: JEFFREY S. PAGLIUCA, ESQUIRE
19 LAURA A. MENNINGER, ESQUIRE
20
21 Also Present:
22 James Christe, videographer
23
24
25

Questions About People Under the Age of 18 at Epstein’s Home

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 56

Page 13 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. You can answer. 3 A. I have not any idea exactly of the 4 youngest adult employee that I hired for 5 Jeffrey. 6 Q. When you say adult employee, did 7 you ever hire someone that was under the age 8 of 18? 9 A. Never. 10 Q. Did you ever bring someone who was 11 under – invite someone under the age of 18 12 to Jeffrey’s home, any of his homes? 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 14 foundation. 15 A. Can you repeat the question? 16 Q. Did you ever invite anybody who was 17 under the age of 18 to Jeffrey’s homes? 18 MR. PAGLIUCA: Same objections. 19 A. I have a number of friends that 20 have children and friends of mine that have 21 kids and in the invitation of my friends and 22 their kids, I’m sure I may have invited some 23 of my friend’s kids to come. 24 Q. Anybody that is not a friend of 25 yours.

Questions About Meeting the Plaintiff and Massages with Plaintiff

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 56

Page 16 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 A. Ms. Roberts held herself out – 3 Q. I’m not asking how she held herself 4 out. I’m asking how she arrived at the home. 5 Did you meet her and invite her to come to 6 the home or how did she arrive there? 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 8 and foundation. 9 A. Ms. Roberts held her to be a 10 masseuse and her mother drove her to the 11 house. 12 Q. When did you first meet Virginia 13 Roberts? 14 A. I don’t have a recollection of the 15 first meeting. 16 Q. Do you recall meeting her at 17 Mar-a-Lago? 18 A. Like I said, I don’t have a 19 recollection of meeting Ms. Roberts. 20 Q. So you recall Ms. Roberts being 21 brought to the home by her mother, is that 22 your testimony? 23 A. That is my testimony. 24 Q. And that is the first time you met 25 her?

MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 56

Page 17 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 A. Like I said, I don’t recall meeting 3 her the first time. I do remember her mother 4 bringing her to the house. 5 Q. Are you a member at Mar-a-Lago? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Have you visited Mar-a-Lago? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Did you visit Mar-a-Lago in the 10 year 2000? 11 A. I’m pretty sure I did. 12 Q. When Ms. Roberts arrived at the 13 home with her mother, what happened? 14 A. I spoke to her mother outside of 15 the house and she – what I don’t recall is 16 exactly what happened because I was talking 17 to her mother the entire she was in the 18 house. 19 Q. Did you introduce Ms. Roberts to 20 Jeffrey Epstein? 21 A. I don’t recall how she actually met 22 Mr. Epstein. As I said, I spoke to her 23 mother the entire time outside the house. 24 Q. Did you walk Ms. Roberts up to the 25 upstairs location at the Palm Beach house to

Page 19 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 absolutely everything that took place in that 3 first meeting. She has lied repeatedly, 4 often and is just an awful fantasist. So 5 very difficult for anything to take place 6 that she repeated because I was with her 7 mother the entire time. 8 Q. So did you have – did you give a 9 massage with Virginia Roberts and Mr. Epstein 10 during the first time Virginia Roberts was at 11 the West Palm Beach house? 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 13 and foundation. 14 Q. Yes or no? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Have you ever given a massage with 17 Virginia Roberts in the room and Jeffrey 18 Epstein? 19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 20 and foundation. 21 A. No. 22 Q. Have you ever given Jeffrey Epstein 23 a massage? 24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form, 25 foundation. And I’m going to instruct

Questions About Massages with Minors

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 56

Page 22 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 questions. 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: I’m instructing her 4 not to answer. 5 MS. McCAWLEY: Then we will be back 6 here again. 7 Q. Have you ever given a massage to 8 Mr. Epstein with a female that was under the 9 age of 18? 10 A. Can you repeat the question? 11 Q. Yes. Have you ever given a massage 12 to Mr. Epstein with a female that was under 13 the age of 18? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Have you ever observed Mr. Epstein 16 having a massage given by an individual, a 17 female, who was under the age of 18? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Have you ever observed females 20 under the age of 18 in the presence of 21 Jeffrey Epstein at his home? 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 23 and foundation. 24 A. Again, I have friends that have 25 children –

Questions About Hiring Massage Therapists

1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 – just another one of Virginia’s many 3 fictitious lies and stories to make this a 4 salacious event to get interest and press. 5 It’s absolute rubbish. 6 Q. Were you in charge of hiring 7 individuals to provide massages for Jeffrey 8 Epstein? 9 A. My job included hiring many people. 10 There were six homes. As I sit here, I hired 11 assistants, I hired architects, I hired 12 decorators, I hired cooks, I hired cleaners, 13 I hired gardeners, I hired pool people, I 14 hired pilots, I hired all sorts of people. 15 In the course and a very small part 16 of my job was from from time to time to find 17 adult professional massage therapists for 18 Jeffrey. 19 Q. When you say adult professional 20 massage therapists, where did you find these 21 massage therapists? 22 A. From time to time I would visit 23 professional spas, I would receive a massage 24 and if the massage was good I would ask that 25 man or woman if they did home visits.

Questions About Jane Doe 2 and Nadia Marcinkova

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 56

Page 37 G Maxwell - Confidential 1 2 here today I do not. Ms. Maxwell, when did you first 3 Ο. 4 meet 5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form and foundation. 6 7 Α. I have no idea when I met her. Do you know how old she was when 8 0. 9 you met her? I have no idea how old she was when 10 Α. 11 I met her. Q. Is it possible she was 13 years old 12 13 when you first met her? 14 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form and foundation. 15 16 Α. 18 may have been in the house when Jeffrey was 19 in the house. I have no idea how old she 20 was. 21 Q. I understand she was with 22 23 I’m asking if was 13 24 years old when you first met her? 25 I have no idea. Α.

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 56

Page 38 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. Was she under 18 when you first met 3 her? 4 A. I have no idea how old she was when 5 I first met her. 6 Q. Did she look like a child when you 7 first met her? 8 A. I don’t remember what she looked 9 like at the time she was in the house. 10 Q. How many years have you known her? 11 A. I can only recall the last time I 12 saw her. 13 Q. When was the first time you met 14 her? 15 A. Again, I just told you, I don’t 16 recall the first time I met her. 17 Q. Did travel with you 18 on Jeffrey’s planes? 19 A. I wouldn’t remember if was on 20 the plane or not. 21 Q. Did you ever have sex with 22 23 A. No. 24 Q. Did you ever observe Jeffrey having 25 sex with - -

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 56

Page 39 G Maxwell - Confidential 1 2 Α. No. 3 Ο. Were you aware that Jeffrey was having sexual contact with 4 when 5 she was 13 years old? MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 6 7 and foundation. I would be very shocked and 8 Α. 9 surprised if that were true. Were you in the house when 10 Ο. was in the house in a private area 12 with Jeffrey Epstein? 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 14 and foundation. 15 Can you repeat the question. Α. 16 Were you ever in the Palm Beach Q. 17 house when Jeffrey Epstein was in the house 18 with ? 19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 20 and foundation. 21 Α. I’ve already testified that I have 22 met her and that she was there 23 I don’t understand what your 24 question is asking. 25 Q. So you have never seen

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 56

Page 40 G Maxwell - Confidential 1 2 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 3 and foundation. 4 5 Is that your testimony? Q. I already said I don’t recall all 6 Α. 7 the times I’ve seen her and I have no memory of that. 8 9 Q. Have you ever seen in 10 the house with Jeffrey Epstein 11 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form and foundation. 13 I just told you I don’t recall 14 Α. 15 seeing 16 Were you ever involved in an orgy Q. 17 with 18 Α. No, absolutely not. 19 Can you tell me, do you know an Ο. 20 individual by the name of Nadia Marcinkova? 21 Α. I do. 22 How did you meet Nadia Marcinkova? 0. 23 At some point she was a friend of Α. 24 Jeffrey’s and I recall meeting her at some point. 25

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 56

Page 46 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. Did Jeffrey arrange for a visa for 3 Nadia Marcinkova? 4 A. I don’t know what Jeffrey did. I 5 cannot testify what Jeffrey did. 6 Q. Was Nadia involved in sex with 7 Jeffrey and other girls? 8 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 9 and foundation. 10 Q. Girls under the age of 18? 11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Same objection. 12 A. I have no idea. 13 Q. Was Nadia involved with sex with 14 Jeffrey and girls over the age of 18? 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: Same objection. 16 A. I have no idea. 17 Q. Did Nadia recruit other girls for 18 sex with Jeffrey? 19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 20 and foundation. 21 A. I have no idea. 22 Q. Do you still talk to Nadia? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Is she a pilot? 25 A. I have no idea.

Questions About Mr. Epstein and Sex

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 56

Page 53 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 acts. I’m asking whether any of the massage 3 therapists performed sexual acts for Mr. 4 Epstein, as I have just described? 5 A. I have never seen anybody have 6 sexual intercourse with with Jeffrey, ever. 7 Q. I’m not asking about sexual 8 intercourse. I’m asking about any sexual 9 act, touching of the breast – did you ever 10 see – can you read back the question? 11 (Record read.) 12 A. I’m not addressing any questions 13 about consensual adult sex. If you want to 14 talk about what the subject matter, which is 15 defamation and lying, Virginia Roberts, that 16 you and Virginia Roberts are participating in 17 perpetrating her lies, I’m happy to address 18 those. I never saw any inappropriate 19 underage activities with Jeffrey ever. 20 Q. I’m not asking about underage. I’m 21 asking about whether any of the masseuses 22 that were at the home perform sexual acts for 23 Jeffrey Epstein? 24 A. I have just answered the question. 25 Q. No, you haven’t.

MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES

Questions About Sarah Kellen, Glen Dubin, Plaintiff, Johanna Sjoberg, Annie Farmer and Sex

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 56

Page 54 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 A. I have. 3 Q. No, you haven’t. 4 A. Yes, I have. 5 Q. You are refusing to answer the 6 question. 7 A. Let’s move on. 8 Q. I’m in charge of the deposition. I 9 say when we move on and when we don’t. 10 You are here to respond to my 11 questions. If you are refusing to answer the 12 court will bring you back for another 13 deposition to answer these questions. 14 Do you understand that? 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: You don’t need to 16 threaten the witness. 17 MS. McCAWLEY: I’m not threatening 18 her. I’m making sure the record is 19 clear. 20 MR. PAGLIUCA: Certainly can you 21 apply to have someone come back and the 22 court may or may not have her come back 23 again. 24 Again, she is not answering 25 questions that relate to adult consent

Page 55 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 sex acts. Period. And that’s the 3 instruction and we can take it up with 4 the court. 5 Q. Ms. Maxwell, are you aware of any 6 sexual acts with masseuses and Jeffrey 7 Epstein that were nonconsensual? 8 A. No. 9 Q. How do you know that? 10 A. All the time that I have been in 11 the house I have never seen, heard, nor 12 witnessed, nor have reported to me that any 13 activities took place, that people were in 14 distress, either reported to me by the staff 15 or anyone else. I base my answer based on 16 that. 17 Q. Are you familiar with a person by 18 the name of Annie Farmer? 19 A. I am. 20 Q. Has Annie Farmer given a statement 21 to police about you performing sexual acts on 22 her? 23 A. I have not heard that. 24 Q. Has Annie Farmer given a statement 25 to police about Jeffrey Epstein performing

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 25 of 56

Page 57 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 asked and answered already. 3 Q. You can answer the question. 4 A. I have no idea what Sarah Kellen 5 did. 6 Q. You never observed Sarah Kellen 7 with girls under the age of 18 at Jeffrey’s 8 home? 9 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 10 and foundation. 11 A. The answer is no, I have no idea. 12 Q. Do you know Glenn Dubin? 13 A. I do. 14 Q. What is your relationship with 15 Glenn Dubin? 16 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form. 17 A. What do you mean what is my 18 relationship. 19 Q. Are you friendly with him, how do 20 you know him? 21 A. He is the husband of Eva Dubin. 22 Q. Is Eva Dubin one of your friends? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Did you ever send Virginia to 25 Glenn’s condo at the Breakers to give him a

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 26 of 56

Page 58 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 massage? 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 4 form and foundation. 5 A. No. 6 Q. Did you ever instruct Virginia 7 Roberts to have sex with Glenn? 8 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 9 form and foundation. 10 A. I have never instructed Virginia to 11 have sex with anybody ever. 12 Q. How old was Eva Anderson when she 13 met Jeffrey? 14 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 15 form and foundation. 16 A. I have no idea. 17 Q. What’s she under the age of 18? 18 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 19 form and foundation. 20 A. I just testified I have idea how 21 old she was. 22 Q. You testified she was your friend. 23 You don’t know how old she was when she met 24 Jeffrey? 25 A. That happened sometime in the ’70s,

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 27 of 56

Page 59 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 how would I know, or ’80s. I have no idea. 3 Can you testify to what your friends did 30 4 years ago? 5 Q. You don’t ask the questions here, 6 Ms. Maxwell. 7 What about Johanna Sjoberg, when 8 did you first meet Johanna? 9 A. I don’t recall the exact date. 10 Q. Did you hire Johanna? 11 A. I don’t hire people, she came to 12 work at the house to answer phones. 13 Q. Where did you meet her? 14 A. I just testified, I don’t recall 15 exactly when I met her. 16 Q. Was one of your job 17 responsibilities to interview people that 18 would be then hired by Jeffrey? 19 A. That was one of my 20 responsibilities. 21 Q. Do you recall interviewing Johanna? 22 A. I don’t recall the exact interview, 23 no. 24 Q. Do you know what tasks Johanna was 25 hired to performance?

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 28 of 56

Page 60 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 A. She was tasked to answer 3 telephones. 4 Q. Did you ever ask her to rub 5 Jeffrey’s feet? 6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 7 form and foundation. 8 A. I believe that I have read that, 9 but I don’t have any memory of it. 10 Q. Did you ever tell Johanna that she 11 would get extra money if she provided Jeffrey 12 massages? 13 A. I was always happy to give career 14 advice to people and I think that becoming 15 somebody in the healthcare profession, either 16 exercise instructor or nutritionist or 17 professional massage therapist is an 18 excellent job opportunity. Hourly wages are 19 around 7, 8, $9 and as a professional 20 healthcare provider you can earn somewhere 21 between as we have established 100 to $200 22 and to be able to travel and have a job that 23 pays that is a wonderful job opportunity. So 24 in the context of advising people for 25 opportunities for work, it is possible that I

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 29 of 56

Page 61 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 would have said that she should explore that 3 as an option. 4 Q. Did you tell her she would get 5 extra money if she massaged Jeffrey? 6 A. I’m just saying, I cannot recall 7 the exact conversation. I give career advice 8 and I have done that. 9 Q. Did you ever have Johanna massage 10 you? 11 A. I did. 12 Q. How many times? 13 A. I don’t recall how many times. 14 Q. Was there sex involved? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Did you ever instruct Johanna to 17 massage Glenn Dubin? 18 A. I don’t believe – I have no 19 recollection of it. 20 Q. Did you ever have sexual contact 21 with Johanna? 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 23 and foundation. You need to give me an 24 opportunity to get in between the 25 questions.

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 30 of 56

Page 62 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Anything that involves consensual 3 sex on your part, I’m instructing you 4 not to answer. 5 Q. Did you ever have sexual contact 6 with Johanna? 7 A. Again, she is an adult – 8 Q. I’m asking you, did you ever have 9 sexual contact with Johanna? 10 A. I’ve just been instructed not to 11 answer. 12 Q. On what basis? 13 A. You have to ask my lawyer. 14 Q. Did you ever have sexual contact 15 with Johanna that was not consensual on 16 Johanna’s part? 17 MR. PAGLIUCA: You can answer 18 nonconsensual. 19 A. I’ve never had nonconsensual sex 20 with anybody. 21 Q. Not Annie Farmer? 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection. 23 A. I just testified I never had 24 nonconsensual sex with anybody ever, at any 25 time, at anyplace, at any time, with anybody.

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 31 of 56

Page 63 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. So if Johanna were to testify that 3 she did not consent to a sexual act that you 4 participated in – 5 A. I just told you I have never ever 6 under any circumstances with anybody, at any 7 time, in anyplace, in any form had 8 nonconsensual relations with anybody. 9 Q. Did you introduce Johanna to Prince 10 Andrew? 11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 12 form and foundation. 13 A. I’ve, again, read that Johanna 14 claimed that she met or that she said she met 15 Prince Andrew. I don’t know if I was the one 16 who made the introduction or not. 17 Q. Do you know a female by the name of 18 Emmy Taylor? 19 A. I do. 20 Q. How do you know her? 21 A. Emmy was my assistant. 22 Q. So she worked for you? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Did you hire her? 25 A. Again, Jeffrey hired people.

Questions About Emmy, Virginia, and Ms. Maxwell Regarding Sex

Page 65 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 consensual issue involved, I instruct 3 you not to answer. 4 A. Moving on. 5 Q. So you are refusing to answer that 6 question? 7 A. I’ve been instructed by my lawyer. 8 Q. Did you ever have sex with Jeffrey, 9 Emmy, Virginia and yourself when Virginia was 10 underage? 11 A. Absolutely not. 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: We’ve been going for 13 about an hour. I would like to take a 14 five-minute break, please. 15 MS. McCAWLEY: I’m almost done. 16 MR. PAGLIUCA: You are not going to 17 allow a break. 18 MS. McCAWLEY: As soon as I get 19 through my line of questioning, which is 20 perfectly appropriate. 21 Q. Did Emmy Taylor travel with you and 22 Jeffrey to Europe? 23 A. I’m sure she did. 24 Q. What is she doing today? 25 A. I have no idea.

Questions About Outfits and Sex Toys

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 35 of 56

Page 69 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 about. 3 Q. So you didn’t provide her with 4 that? 5 A. As I just testified, I have no idea 6 what you are talking about. 7 Q. I was trying to interpret whether 8 you didn’t understand what a school girl 9 outfit was or you are saying that didn’t 10 happen? 11 A. I clearly know what a school girl 12 outfit is. I have no recollection of 13 providing anybody with a school girl outfit. 14 Q. Did you have a set of outfits used 15 by the massage therapists that would include 16 things like a school girl outfit or a black 17 patent leather outfit or anything of that 18 nature? 19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 20 and foundation. 21 A. That would be just another one of 22 Virginia’s lies. 23 Q. You didn’t have anything like that? 24 A. I did not. 25 Q. Did you have a basket of sex toys

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 36 of 56

Page 70 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 that you kept in the Palm Beach house? 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 4 form and foundation. 5 A. First of all what do you mean. 6 Q. A laundry basket that contained sex 7 toys in it? 8 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 9 form and foundation. 10 A. Can you ask the question again? 11 Q. Did you have a laundry basket that 12 contained sex toys in it, in the Palm Beach 13 House? 14 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 15 form and foundation. 16 Q. Did you have a laundry basket of 17 sex toys in the Palm Beach house? 18 MR. PAGLIUCA: Same objection. 19 Q. You can answer. 20 A. I don’t recollect anything about a 21 laundry basket of sex toys. 22 Q. Do you recollect having sex toys at 23 the Palm Beach house? 24 A. You have to define what are you 25 talking about.

MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES

Questions About Plaintiff and Epstein and Sex

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 38 of 56

Page 75 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. Do you recall having a basket full 3 of sex toys? 4 A. I already told you I did not. 5 Q. We were talking a moment ago about 6 Ms. Roberts and her position as a masseuse, 7 do you know what she was paid for working as 8 a masseuse for Jeffrey Epstein? 9 A. I do not. 10 Q. Did you ever pay her? 11 A. I don’t ever recall paying her. 12 Q. Do you know what happened during 13 the massage appointments with Jeffrey Epstein 14 and Virginia Roberts? 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 16 form and foundation. 17 A. No. 18 Q. Were you ever present to view a 19 massage between Jeffrey Epstein and Virginia 20 Roberts? 21 A. I don’t recollect ever seeing 22 Virginia and Jeffrey in a massage situation. 23 Q. Do you ever recollect seeing them 24 in a sexual situation? 25 A. I never saw them in a sexual

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 39 of 56

Page 76 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 situation. 3 Q. Did you ever participate in sex 4 with Virginia Roberts and Jeffrey Epstein? 5 A. I never ever at any single time at 6 any point ever at all participated in 7 anything with Virginia and Jeffrey. And for 8 the record, she is an absolute total liar and 9 you all know she lied on multiple things and 10 that is just one other disgusting thing she 11 added. 12 Q. Did you help her obtain an 13 apartment in Palm Beach to live in? 14 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 15 form and foundation. 16 Q. Was that part of your 17 responsibilities for Jeffrey? 18 A. First of all, I didn’t know she had 19 an apartment in Palm Beach. I only learned 20 that from the many times you guys have gone 21 to the press to sell stories, so no. 22 Q. Did you help her get a cell phone, 23 was that one of your responsibilities for 24 Jeffrey, to get her is a cell phone as part 25 of her masseuse obligations?

Questions About Training Plaintiff to Recruit Girls for Massages

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 41 of 56

Page 81 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 form and foundation. 3 A. Like I told you, I don’t recall her 4 being at the house at all. 5 Q. How many homes does Jeffrey have? 6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 7 form and foundation. 8 A. When I was working for him, I think 9 he had six maybe. 10 Q. Would Virginia stay with him in 11 those homes? 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 13 form and foundation. 14 A. I can only testify for when I was 15 present with him and I cannot say what she 16 did when I wasn’t present with him. 17 Q. When you were present, would 18 Virginia stay in the homes with him? 19 A. I don’t recall her staying in the 20 houses. 21 Q. Did you train Virginia on how to 22 recruit other girls for massages? 23 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 24 form and foundation. 25 A. No.

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 42 of 56

Page 82 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. Did you train Virginia on how to 3 recruit other girls to perform sexual 4 massages? 5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 6 form and foundation. 7 A. No. And it’s absurd and her entire 8 story is one giant tissue of lies and 9 furthermore, she herself has – if she says 10 that, you have to ask her about what she did. 11 Q. Does Jeffrey like to have his 12 nipples pinched during sexual encounters? 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form 14 and foundation. 15 A. I’m not referring to any advice on 16 my counsel. I’m not talking about any adult 17 sexual things when I was with him. 18 Q. When Jeffrey would have a massage, 19 would he request that the masseuse pinch his 20 nipples while he was having a massage? 21 A. I’m not talking about anything with 22 consensual adult situation. 23 Q. What about with underage – 24 A. I am not aware of anything. 25 Q. You are not aware of Jeffrey

Questions About Ms. Maxwell’s Relationship with Mr. Epstein

Page 91 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 has perpetrated, cannot tell you what is true 3 or factual or not. 4 Q. You said you were in the home a 5 very limited time, so average in the year for 6 example, 2004, how many times would you have 7 been in his Palm Beach home? 8 A. Very hard for me to state but very 9 little. 10 Q. How about his New York home? 11 A. Same. 12 Q. Were you his girlfriend in that 13 year, in 2004? 14 A. Define what you mean by girlfriend. 15 Q. Were you in a relationship with him 16 where you would consider yourself his 17 girlfriend? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Did you ever consider yourself his 20 girlfriend? 21 A. That’s a tricky question. There 22 were times when I would have liked to think 23 of myself as his girlfriend. 24 Q. When would that have been? 25 A. Probably in the early ’90s.

Questions About Recruiting Girls, an Underage Girl in London, and Foreign Girls

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 47 of 56

Page 98 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 that was underage in London specifically to 3 provide a massage to Jeffrey, is that your 4 question? 5 Q. Yes. 6 A. No. 7 Q. Do you know who Alexander Dixon is? 8 A. I don’t recall her right now. 9 Q. Do you know if – strike that. 10 During the time that you were 11 working for Jeffrey, did you ever observe any 12 foreign females, so in other words, not from 13 the United States, that were brought to 14 Jeffrey’s home to perform massages? 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 16 form and foundation. 17 A. Females, what age are we talking? 18 Q. Any age. 19 A. Can you repeat the question? 20 Q. During the time you were working 21 for Jeffrey, did you ever observe any foreign 22 females of any age that were at Jeffrey’s 23 home to perform a massage? 24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 25 form and foundation.

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 48 of 56

Page 99 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 A. Are you asking me if any foreigner, 3 not an American person, gave Jeffrey a 4 massage? 5 Q. Yes. 6 A. Well, as I sit here today, I can’t 7 think of anyone who is foreign. Certainly – 8 I just can’t think of anybody right this 9 second. 10 Q. How about any foreign girls who 11 were under the age of 18? 12 A. I already testified to not knowing 13 anything about underage girls. 14 Q. Were there foreign girls who were 15 brought to Jeffrey’s home by Jean Luc Brunel 16 for the purposes of providing massages? 17 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 18 form and foundation. 19 A. I am not aware of Jean Luc bringing 20 girls. I have not no idea what you are 21 talking about. 22 Q. You have never been around foreign 23 girls who are under the age of 18 at 24 Jeffrey’s homes? 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 49 of 56

Page 100 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 form and foundation. 3 A. I already testified about not 4 knowing about underage girls. 5 Q. Did you provide any assistance with 6 obtaining visas for foreign girls that were 7 under the age of 18? 8 A. I’ve never participated in helping 9 people of any age to get visas. 10 Q. Did Jeffrey, was it Jeffrey’s 11 preference to start a massage with sex? 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 13 form and foundation. 14 A. I think you should ask that 15 question of Jeffrey. 16 Q. Do you know? 17 A. I don’t believe that was his 18 preference. I think – you have to 19 understand, a massage – perhaps you are not 20 really familiar with what massage is. 21 Q. I am, I don’t need a lecture on 22 massage. 23 A. I think you do. 24 MR. PAGLIUCA: No question pending. 25 She will ask you another question now.

Questions About Underage Girls, Sex with Jon Luc Brunel, and Outfits

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 51 of 56

Page 116 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. Were you present on the island when 3 Prince Andrew visited? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. How many times? 6 A. I can only remember once. 7 Q. Were there any girls under the age 8 of 18 on the island during that one visit 9 that you remember that were not family or 10 friends of or daughters of your friends? 11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 12 form and foundation. 13 A. There were no girls on the island 14 at all. No girls, no women, other than the 15 staff who work at the house. Girls meaning, 16 I assume you are asking underage, but there 17 was nobody female outside of the cooks and 18 the cleaners. 19 Q. Did you, as part of your duties in 20 working for Jeffrey, ever arrange for 21 Virginia to have sex with John Luc Brunel? 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 23 form and foundation. 24 A. Just for the record, I have never 25 at any time, at anyplace, in any moment ever

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 52 of 56

Page 117 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 asked Virginia Roberts or whatever she is 3 called now to have sex with anybody. 4 Q. Did you ever provide Virginia 5 Roberts with an outfit, an outfit of a sexual 6 nature to wear for Les Wexner? 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 8 form and foundation. 9 A. I think we addressed the outfit 10 issue. 11 Q. I am asking you if you ever 12 provided her with an outfit of a sexual 13 nature to wear for Les Wexner? 14 A. Categorically no. You did get 15 that, I said categorically no 16 Q. Don’t worry I’m paying attention. 17 A. You seemed very distracted in that 18 moment. 19 (Maxwell Exhibit 6, flight logs, 20 marked for identification.) 21 A. Do you mind if I take a break for 22 the bathroom. 23 Q. It’s 11:08 and we are going to go 24 off the record now. 25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: It’s now 11:09.

Questions About Pictures of Naked Girls

Page 188 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 people could use – just like you would use 3 if you needed to go online to get something, 4 that people could use. 5 Q. Was that on a desk that you would 6 use in your work capacity when you were at 7 the house? 8 A. It was a desk, it was a room I was, 9 I didn’t really use that computer. 10 Q. Were there images of naked girls 11 whether they be under the age of 18 or over 12 the age of 18 on that computer? 13 A. I have no recollection of any naked 14 people on that computer when I was there in 15 2003, we are talking. 16 Q. What about from say ’99 to 2003? 17 A. No, I can’t recollect any naked 18 pictures. 19 Q. Why were the computers removed from 20 the house before the search warrant was 21 executed? 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 23 form and foundation. 24 A. I have no knowledge of anything 25 like that.

MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES

Questions About Topless Females

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 56 of 56

Page 404 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 form and foundation. 3 A. I mean I’ve been to his – in the 4 mid ’90s, I would have communicated with 5 people who worked for him. 6 Q. Have you communicated with Leslie 7 Wexner about this case? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Have you ever seen a topless female 10 at any one of Jeffrey Epstein’s properties? 11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 12 form and foundation. You’ve asked this 13 question, by the way, earlier on today. 14 A. Again, I testified that there are 15 people who from time to time in the privacy 16 of a swimming pool have maybe taken a bikini 17 top off or something but it’s not common and 18 certainly when I was at the house I don’t 19 really recollect seeing that kind of 20 activity. 21 Q. Have you ever smoked cigarettes? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Have you ever smoked cigarettes 24 with Virginia Roberts? 25 A. I don’t recall smoking cigarettes

United States District Court Southern District of New York

Virginia L. Giuffre,

Plaintiff,

Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS

v.

Ghislaine Maxwell,

Defendant.

PLAINTIFF’S UNREDACTED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS

Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this Reply in Support of her Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions. Instead of allowing Ms. Giuffre to take a full and complete deposition, Defendant flatly refused to answer questions critical to the key issues in this case. Contrary to Defendant’s assertions, Ms. Giuffre is not engaged in a “fishing expedition” but rather seeks to ask highly-focused questions specifically relevant to this case. In particular, Ms. Giuffre seeks to ask the Defendant questions regarding her participation in or knowledge of sexual activities connected with Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual abuse of females. Such questions are entirely appropriate in the discovery phase of this case, particularly where any answers will be maintained as confidential under the Protective Order entered in this case.

As the Court is aware from previous pleadings, at the heart of this case lies the issue of Defendant’s knowledge that Ms. Giuffre was sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein. Indeed, as the Defendant boldly acknowledges in her response (at p. 2), she intends to argue at trial that (among other things) she “never arranged for or asked [Ms. Giuffre] to have sex with anyone.” At trial,

Ms. Giuffre intends to strongly disprove Defendant’s false assertions and to demonstrate that Defendant recruited Ms. Giuffre to be involved in massages of a sexual nature with Epstein.

To develop evidence to support her position, Ms. Giuffre recently deposed Defendant about the central subjects in her case. Defendant flatly refused to answer a number of questions, and for the majority of the others, gave varying versions of “I don’t recall.” For example, when faced with the police report which contains statements from approximately thirty (30) different victims during a time frame which the Defendant acknowledges she was actively working for Epstein at his various homes, Defendant challenged the veracity of the victims’ reports:

“Q. Are you saying these 30 girls are lying when they gave these reports to police officers?

A. I’m not testifying to their lies. I’m testifying to Virginia’s lies.”

See Declaration of Sigrid McCawley (“McCawley Decl.”) at Exhibit 1, April 22, 2016 Deposition of Defendant at p. 89-90; 83-84. While Defendant was working with Epstein during the time period when these underage girls were visiting Jeffrey’s home, Defendant claimed to be at the house maybe once in 2005. Id. at p. 84. Yet, according to flight manifests, in that same general time period, Defendant was listed as a passenger at least eleven times either landing in or departing from West Palm Beach, Florida on Jeffrey Epstein’s private plane. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, April 22, 2016 Depo Tr. at p. 84; see also McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit 2, Flight Logs from Jeffrey Epstein’s private planes.

Moreover, again according to flight logs, Defendant was on Epstein’s planes over 300 times – including 23 times with Ms. Giuffre when Ms. Giuffre was underage. Yet, quite remarkably, Defendant claimed she “couldn’t recall” even one of those flights. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, April 22, 2016 Deposition of Defendant at p. 120-122.

Defendant even testified that she did not recall having Ms. Giuffre at her London townhome with Prince Andrew. Defendant stuck to this incredible story despite flight logs establishing her traveling to London with Ms. Giuffre and despite a photograph the three – Ms. Giuffre, Prince Andrew and Defendant – all standing together in Defendant’s home. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, April 22, 2016 Deposition of Defendant at p. 108-111. Defendant’s deposition consisted almost entirely of “I don’t recalls” or “I refuse to answer that question”1 and also included a physical outburst that knocked the court reporter’s computer off the conference room table. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, April 22, 2016 Deposition of Defendant at 207-208.

Among the many questions that Defendant refused to answer at her deposition were a number of questions designed to show that Defendant was well aware that, for Epstein, a “massage” was actually a code word sexual activity – i.e., not a therapeutic massage but rather activity that involved sexual gratification for Epstein. Defendant refused to answer all such questions, asserting that they involved “private adult sexual relationships” which did not “relate in any way” to Ms. Giuffre’s claims. Id. at p. 4. But Defendant’s involvement in such “relationships” with Epstein would show that she knew full well the fate that was in store for Ms. Giuffre when she accepted Defendant’s invitation to come and provide “massages” to Epstein. Defendant admitted that she worked for Epstein from 1992 to 2009. See McCawley Decl. at

¹ For example, when asked:

^"Q. Have you ever said to anybody that you recruit girls to take the pressure off you, so you won’t have to have sex with Jeffrey, have you said that?

A. You don’t ask me questions like that. First of all, you are trying to trap me, I will not be trapped. You are asking me if I recruit. I told you no. Girls meaning underage, I already said I don’t do that with underage people and as to ask me about a specific conversation I had with language, we talking about almost 17 years ago when this took place. I cannot testify to an actual conversation or language that I used with anybody at any time.“

See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, April 22, 2016 Depo Tr. at p. 94-95.

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-6 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 10

Exhibit 1, April 22, 2016 Deposition of Defendant at p. 10-11, 410. As the Court knows, the Palm Beach Police Report demonstrates multiple incidents of “massages” being given by untrained minor children that involved sexual acts. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3, Palm Beach Police Report. Defendant is also identified in that Palm Beach Police Report. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3, Palm Beach Police Report at p. 75-76. And the details of Epstein’s sexual activities with Defendant (for example) are highly relevant to this case, because they will help corroborate Ms. Giuffre’s testimony that, while she was underage, she also engaged in sexual activity of an identical nature with Epstein.

To allow Defendant to avoid answering these questions would preclude Ms. Giuffre from getting critical evidence in this case. Consider, for example, Defendant recruiting an eighteen year-old girl to be an “assistant,” bringing that girl to Epstein’s home, telling her she could make more money if she would give Epstein a massage, and then instructing her to give a massage that involved sexual acts. Under Defendant’s theory of discovery, Ms. Giuffre would be precluded from deposing her on that topic because the actions would culminate in “consensual adult sex.” Yet, that scenario would fully validate the pattern of events that occurred with Ms. Giuffre when she was under the age of eighteen. It would obviously show a “modus operandi” by Jeffrey Epstein and Defendant, which is clearly admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).

Moreover, such inquiries are crucial to impeaching the Defendant at trial. During her deposition, Defendant attempted to characterize her work for Epstein as nothing more than a normal job handling hiring for the various mansions. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, April 22, 2016 Deposition Tr. of Defendant at p. 9-12. Ms. Giuffre should be able to contest that assertion by having Defendant fully answer questions about whether that alleged “job” involved

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-6 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 10

sexual activities, including orchestrating the hiring of females and converting massages into sexual encounters.

Defendant attempts to paint the picture that Ms. Giuffre somehow is interested in all sexual relationships that the Defendant may have been involved with. That is not true. Ms. Giuffre has no intention of asking unbridled questions. To be clear, Ms. Giuffre intends to ask Defendant only questions that involve the following very narrow and crucial subject areas: (1) Defendant’s sexual relationship with Epstein from 1992 to 2009 – the time period in which she worked for Jeffrey Epstein and which Epstein (with the assistance of Defendant) was engaging in sexual acts with females under the cover of “massage”; (2) Defendant’s sexual interactions with any person in Epstein’s presence during that time period; (3) Defendant’s sexual activities at Epstein’s residences, including his private island “Little St. Jeff’s,” or his aircraft during that time period; (4) Defendant’s sexual activities with identified participants in Epstein’s sexual abuse during that time period; and (5) Defendant’s sexual interactions that occurred during or through what began as a “massage”; and (6) Defendant’s interactions with females to introduce to Jeffrey Epstein for the purpose of performing work, including sexual massages.

Defendant claims that such questions are a mere “fishing expedition” without acknowledging the fact that these questions go to critical issues in this case. Other witnesses have testified regarding Defendant’s involvement in recruiting females for sex under the cover of a “massage.“During the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, certain household staff was deposed. Alfredo Rodriguez, who was Jeffrey Epstein’s household manager, testified that the Defendant frequently stayed in Jeffrey Epstein’s home and assisted with bringing in young girls to act as “masseuses” for Jeffrey Epstein.

Q. “Okay. Going back to where we started here was, does Ghislaine Maxwell have knowledge of the girls that would come over to Jeffrey Epstein’s house that are in

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-6 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 10

roughly the same age group as C. and T. (minor children) and to have a good time as you put it?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was her involvement and/or knowledge about that?

A. She knew what was going on.”

See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, Alfredo Rodriguez July 29, 2009 Dep. Tr. at 176-177. See also McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, Alfredo Rodriguez July 29, 2009 Depo Tr. at 96-101 (noting that high school age girls come to the home where Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Maxwell reside). Juan Alessi, another household employee, also testified that young girls were regularly present at Jeffrey Epstein’s home where Ghislaine Maxwell resides. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, Juan Alessi November 21, 2005 Sworn Statement at p. 15-16, 21. Specifically, Juan Alessi informed the Palm Beach Police Detective as follows: “Alessi stated that towards the end of his employment, the masseuses were younger and younger. When asked how young, Mr. Alessi stated they appeared to be sixteen or seventeen years of age at most.” (emphasis added.) See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3, Palm Beach Police Report at p. 57.

During Juan Alessi’s November 21, 2005 Sworn Statement taken by the Palm Beach Police Department, Mr. Alessi revealed that girls would come over to give “massages” and he observed Ms. Maxwell going upstairs in the direction of the bedroom quarters. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, Juan Alessi November 21, 2005 Sworn Statement at 10. He also testified that after the massages, he would clean up sex toys that were kept in “Ms. Maxwell’s closet.” Id. at 11-13. See also McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 6, Juan Alessi September 8, 2009 Depo Tr. at p. 76- 77. He added that he and his wife were concerned with what was going on at the house (Id. at 14) and that he observed girls at the house, including one named “Virginia.” Id. at 21.

Mr. Rodriguez also testified that Defendant also had naked pictures of girls performing sexual acts on her computer. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7, Alfredo Rodriguez August 7, 2009 Dep. Tr. at 311-312; See also McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 6, Juan Alessi September 8, 2009 Depo Tr. at p. 40-41 (“I know she [Maxwell] went out and took pictures in the pool because later

on I would see them at the desk or at the house. And nude - 99.9 percent of the time they were

topless. They were European girls.“).

• Q. “Did they appear to be doing any sexual?
• A. Yes, ma’am.
• Q. And in these instances were there girls doing sexual things with other girls?
• A. Yes, ma’am.
• Q. And I’m still talking about the pictures on Ms. Maxwell’s computer.
• A. Yes, ma’am.”

Upon leaving his employment, Rodriguez testified that Defendant threatened him that he should

not tell anyone about what happened at the house:

• A. “I have to say something. Mrs. Maxwell called me and told me not to ever discuss or contact her again in a threaten(ing) way.
• Q. When was this?
• A. Right after I left because I call one of the friends for a job and she told me this, but, you know, I feel intimidated and so I want to keep her out…
• Q. She made a telephone call to you and what precisely did she say?
• A. She said I forbid you that you’re going to be that I will be sorry if I contact any of her friends again…She said something like don’t open your mouth or something like that. I’m a civil humble, I came as an immigrant to service people, and right now you feel a little –I’m 55 and I’m afraid. First of all, I don’t have a job, but I’m glad this is on tape because I don’t want nothing to happen to me. This is the way they treat you, better do this and you shut up and don’t talk to nobody and—
• Q. When you say this is the way they treat, who specifically are you talking about when you say that word they?
• A. Maxwell. “

See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, Alfredo Rodriguez July 29, 2009 Dep. Tr. at 169 – 172.

In sum, at the core of this case are statements made by Ms. Giuffre that she was recruited,

by Defendant, to be paid as a masseuse, yet was enticed or coerced into engaging in sexual acts

with Epstein and Defendant for money. She has further explained that the recruitment of females

through the offer of some legitimate position was the typical way in which Defendant and

Epstein lured unsuspecting females to the house before converting the relationship into a sexual

one. Ms. Giuffre has described the frequency of these “massages”, the sexual tendencies of the participants, the manner in which the massages became sexual in nature, and Defendant’s role at each stage.

In response, Defendant has called Ms. Giuffre’s entire account “untrue” and “obvious lies.” Defendant has instead tried to portray her role as nothing more than an Epstein employee performing typical household management duties. Any personal knowledge Defendant has of Epstein’s sexual tendencies, habits, and use of massage for sex is entirely relevant to either corroborate Ms. Giuffre’s account. Likewise, Defendant’s participation in any sexual acts with Epstein, in his presence, on his properties, using his mode of converting massages into sex, or with females will directly corroborate Ms. Giuffre’s account. On the other hand, without access to the answers to these inquiries, Ms. Giuffre will be unable to expose the bias of Defendant, unable to thoroughly cross-examine Defendant’s position that she was just a lowly employee, and most importantly unable to demonstrate through the Defendant’s own admissions that Ms. Giuffre’s statements about Epstein and Defendant were absolutely true – and not “obvious lies.”

Finally, Defendant fails to recognize that, for the discovery purposes at issue here, relevance “is an extremely broad concept.” Am. Fed’n of Musicians of the United States & Canada v. Sony Music Entm’t, Inc., No. 15CV05249GBDBCM, 2016 WL 2609307, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2016). And once relevance is shown, “the party resisting discovery bears the burden of demonstrating that, despite the broad and liberal construction afforded the federal discovery rules, the requests are irrelevant, or are overly broad, burdensome, or oppressive.” Id. Here, the requests are not “overly broad” as Ms. Giuffre’s specific explanations of the targets of her questions make clear. Moreover, answering the questions is not “oppressive,” particularly given the fact that Defendant has placed all substantive aspects of the Deposition under seal. Of course, once Defendant answers the question – and her answers are placed under seal – the parties can file any further motions that may be required to determine whether the answers may be introduced at trial.

CONCLUSION

Defendant should be ordered to answer questions regarding sexual activity connected

with Epstein’s sexual abuse and sexual trafficking organization as specifically identified above

Dated: May 11, 2016

Respectfully Submitted,

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011

David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504

Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820

Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 383 University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801) 585-5202²

² This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 11th day of May, 2016, I electronically filed the

foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the

foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission

of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.

Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com jpagliuca@hmflaw.com

/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley

EXHIBIT 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ? n 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Case No: 08-CV-80119 Plaintiff, Vs JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant . I JANE DOE NO. 3 / Case NO: 08-CV-80232 Plaintiff, Vs JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. I JANE DOE NO . 4, Case No: 08-CV-80380 Plaintiff, Vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant . I JANE DOE NO. 5, Case No : 08-CV-80381 Pl;:i-intiff Vs JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. I Page 1

Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688 7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141

2 (Pages 2 to 5)

Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688 7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141

25 (Pages 94 to 97)

Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688 7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141

26 (Pages 98 to 101)

Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688 7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141

43 (Pages 166 to 169)

Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688 7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141

44 (Pages 170 to 173)

Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688 7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141

45 (Pages 174 to 177)

Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688 7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141

68 (Pages 266 to 269)

Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688 7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141

United States District Court Southern District of New York

Virginia L. Giuffre,

Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS

v.

Ghislaine Maxwell,

Defendant. ________________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S NON-REDACTED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE THREE DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS BY MEANS OTHER THAN PERSONAL SERVICE

Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this Motion for Leave to Serve Three Deposition Subpoenas by Means Other Than Personal Service. The three persons to be subpoenaed – Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova – were each involved in the sexual abuse and sexual trafficking at issue in this case. It appears that all three of them have evaded attempts to personally serve them (and two of the persons, Epstein and Kellen, have attorneys who have not been authorized by their clients to accept service). Ms. Giuffre seeks leave to provide service by several alternative means that are designed to assure actual notice is provided to these persons. See Declaration of Sigrid McCawley (“McCawley Decl.”) at Composite Exhibit 1, Subpoenas for Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen (aka Sarah Kensington and Sarah Vickers) and Nadia Marcinkova. This Court has repeatedly held that Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 permits alternative service in appropriate circumstances, and this case presents such circumstances. Accordingly, the Court should grant Ms. Giuffre leave to serve deposition subpoenas by alternative means.

BACKGROUND

At the heart of this case lies Ms. Giuffre’s allegations that that she was sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein and the Defendant. Ms. Giuffre has also alleged that Epstein and the Defendant were aided by others who played keys roles in the sex trafficking organization, including Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova. Defendant has called Ms. Giuffre a “liar” and Ms. Giuffre is now in the process of assembling testimony and evidence to prove the truth of her allegations.

Apart from the Defendant in this case, Jeffrey Epstein is the most important person for Ms. Giuffre to depose. It was Epstein who gave the directions to Maxwell to recruit Ms. Giuffre and bring her to Epstein’s mansions to be sexually abused. At several points during her recent deposition, Ms. Maxwell refused to answer Ms. Giuffre’s questions about Epstein, but instead told her she should go ask Epstein about the subject. See, e.g., Tr. of Depo. of Defendant (Apr. 22, 2016) at 100 (“Q: … [W]as it Jeffrey’s preference to start a massage with sex? . . . A: I think you should ask that question of Jeffrey.”); id. at 146-47 (“Q: So would [Ms. Giuffre] be brought on trips that were for the purpose of work and decorating the house? A: Like I said, I never worked with her but you would have to ask Jeffrey what he brought her on the trip for.”); id. at 389-90 (“Q: Does [Epstein] . . . have any knowledge of any illegal activity that you’ve conducted? . . . A: If you want to ask Jeffrey questions about me, you would have to ask him.”). See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2.

Because of Epstein’s importance to this case, Ms. Giuffre has diligently tried to personally serve Epstein with a subpoena for his deposition. Epstein, however, appears to have no interest in answering questions under oath about the scope of his sex trafficking organization and he has not authorized his lawyer to accept service of the subpoena. On March 7, 2016, Ms.

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 12

Giuffre’s counsel contacted counsel for Epstein to seek agreement that he would accept service of the subpoena in this matter. See McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit 3, Electronic Correspondence to Attorney Marty Weinberg. Ms. Giuffre was unable to obtain that agreement so she retained an investigative company to attempt to locate Epstein for purposes of personal service¹ . As explained in the attached affidavit, the Alpha Group Investigators commenced efforts to personally serve Epstein on April 26, 2016. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4 Affidavit of Douglas G. Mercer, Chief Investigator Alpha Group. Those efforts have continued for weeks, and included over sixteen (16) attempts to personally serve Epstein, including as recently as May 18, 2016, at which time the investigator affixed the subpoena to the front door of Epstein’s residence and mailed copies of the subpoena to both of his New York addresses along with a witness check. Counsel for Ms. Giuffre also provided a copy of the subpoena to Marty Weinberg, Epstein’s attorney.

Jeffrey Epstein is not the only key witness who has been evading Ms. Giuffre’s efforts to depose them. The next echelon in the sex trafficking organization below Epstein and the Defendant includes Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova. Ms. Giuffre alleges that they were heavily involved in the sex trafficking. Both Kellen and Marcinkova appear repeatedly on the flight logs of Jeffrey Epstein’s aircraft. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida specifically identified both Kellen and Marcinkova as among four named “potential coconspirators of Epstein” in the non-prosecution agreement it executed with Epstein as part of his guilty plea to Florida state sex offense charges. See Non-Prosecution Agreement, In re: Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein at 7. Additionally, both Kellen and Marcinkova previously

¹ As recently as today, Ms. Giuffre’s counsel continues to attempt to negotiate acceptance of service of the subpoena for Mr. Epstein, which now includes a request that his deposition take place in the U.S. Virgin Islands but has still not received an agreement to accept service. See McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit 3, Correspondence with Marty Weinberg, counsel for Jeffrey Epstein.

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 12

invoked their 5th amendment privileges when asked about their involvement in Epstein and Defendant’s sex trafficking ring. At her recent deposition, Defendant appeared to be well aware of the fact that Epstein had potential co-conspirators. See,e.g., Tr. of Depo. of Defendant (Apr. 22, 2016) at 49 (“Q: Are you aware that Sarah Kellen was . . . named as a co-conspirator in the case involving Jeffrey Epstein? . . . A: I am aware.”). See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2.

As with Epstein, however, Kellen and Marcinkova appear to be evading efforts to serve them. On March 31, 2016, Ms. Giuffre’s counsel reached out to Sarah Kellen’s counsel to seek agreement that she would accept service of the subpoena in this matter. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, Electronic Correspondence with Bruce Reinhart, of McDonald Hopkins, LLP in West Palm Beach, Florida. Mr. Reinhart represented that Ms. Kellen refused to allow her counsel to accept service of the subpoena, so Ms. Giuffre was forced to commence the efforts to attempt to personally serve her with the subpoena. As explained in the attached affidavit, the Alpha Group Investigators commenced efforts to personally serve Kellen on April 26, 2016. See McCawley Decl. at 4, Affidavit of Douglas G. Mercer, Chief Investigator Alpha Group. Those efforts have continued with over nineteen (19) attempts at service and concluded as recently as May 18, 2016, at which time the investigator affixed the subpoena to the front door of Kellen’s residence and mailed copies of the subpoena to both of her New York addresses.Ms. Giuffre’s counsel also provided a copy of the subpoena to Kellen’s attorney.

Marcinkova has also been evading service. Ms. Giuffre has had her investigators make efforts to attempt to personally serve Marcinkova at her New York residence, and also made efforts to try to personally serve her while on a trip to California, but has been unable to obtain personal service. Ms. Giuffre’s investigators made over ten (10) attempts to personally serve Marcinkova. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, Affidavit of Douglas G. Mercer, Chief

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 12

Investigator Alpha Group. In addition, counsel for Ms. Giuffre reached out to Ms. Marcinkova’s

former counsel but he indicated that he could not accept service as he no longer represents her.

See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 6, Electronic Correspondence with Jack Goldberger, at

Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A., in West Palm Beach, Florida.

In other litigation relating to Jeffrey Epstein, both Marcinkova and Kellen asserted their

fifth amendment rights when asked questions about Defendant’s recruitment of underage girls.

Q Do you know Ghislaine Maxwell?

A Fifth.

Q Is that somebody who helped Jeffrey Epstein to devise the scheme to allow him access to various and a variety of underage minor females?

A Fifth.

Q Is Sarah Kellen somebody that was also involved in the planning of this scheme to gain access to underage minor females?

A Fifth.

See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7, Nadia Marcinkova April 13, 2010 Dep. Tr. at p. 29-30 (GIUFFRE001171-1172)

Q Isn’t it true that yourself, Ghislaine Maxwell and Sarah Kellen had access to a master of list of underage minor females names and phone numbers so they could be called for the purpose of coming to Jeffrey Epstein’s house to be sexually molested?

A Fifth.

See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7, Nadia Marcinkova April 13, 2010 Dep. Tr. at p. 33-34 (GIUFFRE001173)

Q Do you know Jane Doe-102 [Virginia Giuffre]? A Fifth.

See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7, Nadia Marcinkova April 13, 2010 Dep. Tr. at p. 47-48 (GIUFFRE001176)

Q Are you aware of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s sexual interaction with Jane Doe-102 when she was a minor?

Q This is one of many underage minor females that was trafficked basically around the globe to be sexually exploited and abused; is that correct?

A Fifth.

Q Was that typical of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to sexually abuse minors on Jeffrey Epstein’s airplane?

A Fifth.

Q And also typical of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein to prostitute or pimp out underage minors to friends?

A Fifth.

See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7, Nadia Marcinkova April 13, 2010 Dep. Tr. at p. 47-48 (GIUFFRE001176)

Q Ghislaine Maxwell is somebody who you know to be bi-sexual, true?

A Fifth.

Q You know that Ghislaine Maxwell engaged in sexual acts with underage minor females, true?

A Fifth.

See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7, Nadia Marcinkova April 13, 2010 Dep. Tr. at p. 58-59 (GIUFFRE001179)

Q. Did Ghislaine Maxwell introduce you to Jeffrey Epstein for the first time?

THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right.

See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 8, Sarah Kellen March 24, 2010 Dep. Tr. p.21 (GIUFFRE001676)

Q. All right. All right. Ms. Kellen, would you agree with me that there was an agreement between Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Jean-Luc Brunel, yourself and Nadia Marcinkova to bring in girls from out of state that were underage?

THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right.

See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 8, Sarah Kellen March 24, 2010 Dep. Tr. p. 38 (GIUFFRE001680)

Q. Would you agree with me that Ghislaine Maxwell provides underage girls to Mr. Epstein for sex?

THE WITNESS: Upon the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege.

See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 8, Sarah Kellen March 24, 2010 Dep. Tr. p. 100 (GIUFFRE001695). Both Marcinkova and Kellen are key witnesses in this action because they were present with Mr. Epstein and Maxwell during the time period when Virginia Giuffre was with Epstein and Maxwell.

ARGUMENT

A. The Court Should Permit Alternative Service

In the unique circumstances of this case, this Court should grant Ms. Giuffre leave to serve Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen, and Nadia Marcincova via means other than personal service, because they are evading service of process and there are other means to assure actual notice. Under Rule 45(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[s]erving a subpoena requires delivering a copy to the named person . . . .” The purpose of “requiring delivery to a named person is to ‘ensure receipt, so that notice will be provided to the recipient, and enforcement of the subpoena will be consistent with the requirements of due process.’” Aristocrat Leisure Ltd. v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, 262 F.R.D. 293, 304 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (quoting Med. Diagnostic Imaging, PLLC v. CareCore Nat., LLC, Nos. 06 Civ. 7764 & 06 Civ. 13516, 2008 WL 3833238, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.15, 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted)). See also First City, Texas-Houston, N.A. v. Rafidain Bank, 197 F.R.D. 250, 255 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (finding that attaching a subpoena to the door, and mailing another copy to counsel of record was sufficient). Cases not only from this Court, but also from others in the Second Circuit, have interpreted that rule “liberally” to allow service so long as the “the type of

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 12

service used ‘was calculated to provide timely actual notice.’” Aristocrat Leisure Ltd., 262 F.R.D. at 304 (quoting CareCore, 2008 WL 3833238, at *2 (noting that “nothing in the word ‘delivering’ [in Rule 45(b)(1)] indicates personal service, and a personal service requirement can be unduly restrictive”); see also Cordius Trust v. Kummerfeld, No. 99 Civ. 3200, 2000 WL 10268, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2000) (holding that because “alternative service by means of certified mail reasonably insures actual receipt of the subpoena by the witness, the ‘delivery’ requirement of Rule 45 will be met”); JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. IDW Grp., LLC, No. 08 CIV. 9116(PGG), 2009 WL 1313259, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2009) (“this Court joins other courts in this District in holding that effective service [of a deposition subpoena] under Rule 45 is not limited to personal service” (internal quotation omitted).

A prerequisite for using means other than personal service is typically that the party “requesting the accommodation diligently attempted to effectuate personal service.” OceanFirst Bank v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 794 F. Supp. 2d 752, 754 (E.D. Mich. 2011) (citing Franklin v. State Farm Afire and Casualty Co., 2009 WL 3152993, at *2 (E.D. Mich. 2009). Here, Ms. Giuffre has diligently attempted to make personal service on each of the three individuals, having made multiple attempts to personal service them, including going to different locations at different times on different days, and attempting to reach them through their attorneys. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, Affidavit of Douglas G. Mercer, Chief Investigator Alpha Group. Indeed, it appears that the only reason that personal service has been unsuccessful thus far is that the important witnesses Ms. Giuffre is attempting to serve are fully aware of her efforts and are attempting to evade service. This Court will recall that efforts to evade service are a familiar practice of Jeffrey Epstein and his colleagues. As described in earlier pleadings in this case, for example, the Defendant herself refused to comply with a deposition subpoena in an earlier case

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 12

brought by one of Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual assault victims. See Decl. of Sigrid McCawley at Composite Exhibit 9, Maxwell Deposition Notice; Subpoena and Cancellation Payment Notice, and January 13, 2015 Daily Mail Article.

Ms. Giuffre proposes that she be permitted to serve her deposition notices by means other than personal service. Ms. Giuffre asks this Court to rule that she be permitted to serve each of the three individuals in ways that are reasonably calculated to give them actual notice. The specific means that Ms. Giuffre proposes are the means that her investigators took on May 18th of posting the subpoenas to the addresses associated with each of the witnesses and mailing the subpoenas to those addresses with the witness fee check and providing copies of the subpoenas via e-mail to the witnesses known counsel. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, Affidavit of Douglas G. Mercer, Chief Investigator Alpha Group.

Means such as those described above have been approved by this Court in other cases. For example, in Medical Diagnostic Imaging, PLLC v. Carecore National, LLC, 2008 WL 3833238 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (Katz, J.), this Court allowed service of a deposition subpoena to be made through mailing a copy of the subpoena to the witness’ place of employment along with a copy of the Court’s order directing the witness to comply with the subpoena or face sanctions. Id. at *3. Similarly, in JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. IDW Grp., LLC, No. 08 CIV. 9116(PGG), 2009 WL 1313259, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2009), this Court allowed service of a deposition subpoena to be made by sending a copy of the deposition subpoena to the witness’ place of business and residence by certified mail; leaving a copy of the deposition subpoena at the witness’ residence and place of business with a person of suitable age and discretion; and remitting a copy of the deposition subpoena by electronic mail and certified mail to counsel for a related corporation. And, in at least two cases, this Court has found that certified mailing of a

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 12

subpoena to the witness alone satisfies Rule 45. See Cordius Trust v.. Kummerfeld, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 19980, *5–*6 (S.D.N.Y.1999); Ultradent Products, Inc. v. Hayman, No. M8-85 RPP, 2002 WL 31119425, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2002). Here, the means of service exceed those approved in those other cases and should be permitted.

CONCLUSION

Ms. Giuffre should be granted leave to serve Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen, and Nadia Marcincova with deposition subpoenas by means other than personal service. As Ms. Giuffre has made multiple attempts at personal service, Ms. Giuffre should be granted leave to serve deposition subpoenas by the means employed by her investigators of posting the subpoenas to the known locations and also sending the subpoenas via U.S. mail.

Dated: May 25, 2016

Respectfully Submitted,

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011

David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504

Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820

Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 383 University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801) 585-5202²

² This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 25th day of May, 2016, I electronically filed the

foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system.

Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com jpagliuca@hmflaw.com

Copies of this filing were also provided by e-mail to:

Marty Weinberg, counsel for Jeffrey Epstein Bruce Reinhart counsel for Sarah Kellen

/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 10

EXHIBIT C

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson

JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2

v.

UNITED STATES __________________________/

JANE DOE #3 AND JANE DOE #4’S MOTION PURSUANT TO RULE 21 FOR JOINDER IN ACTION

COME NOW Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4 (also referred to as “the new victims”), by and through undersigned counsel, to file this motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 to join this action, on the condition that they not re-litigate any issues already litigated by Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as “the current victims”). The new victims have suffered the same violations of their rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) as the current victims. Accordingly, they desire to join in this action to vindicate their rights as well. Because the new victims will not re-litigate any issues previously litigated by the current victims (and because they are represented by the same legal counsel as the current victims), the Government will not be prejudiced if the Court grants the motion. The Court may “at any time” add new parties to the action, Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Accordingly, the Court should grant the motion.¹

¹ As minor victims of sexual offenses, Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4 desire to proceed by way of pseudonym for the same reasons that Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 proceeded in this

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

As the Court is aware, more than six years ago, Jane Doe #1 filed the present action against the Government, alleging a violation of her rights under the CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. DE1. She alleged that Jeffrey Epstein had sexually abused her and that the United States had entered into a secret non-prosecution agreement (NPA) regarding those crimes in violation of her rights. At the first court hearing on the case, the Court allowed Jane Doe #2 to also join the action. Both Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 specifically argued that the government had failed to protect their CVRA rights (inter alia) to confer, to reasonable notice, and to be treated with fairness. In response, the Government argued that the CVRA rights did not apply to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 because no federal charges had ever been filed against Jeffrey Epstein.

The Court has firmly rejected the United States’ position. In a detailed ruling, the Court concluded that the CVRA extended rights to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 even though federal charges were never filed. DE 189. The Court explained that because the NPA barred prosecution of crimes committed against them by Epstein, they had “standing” to assert violations of the CVRA rights. Id. The Court deferred ruling on whether the two victims would be entitled to relief, pending development of a fuller evidentiary record. Id.

Two other victims, who are in many respects similarly situated to the current victims, now wish to join this action. The new victims joining at this stage will not cause any delay and their joinder in this case is the most expeditious manner in which to pursue their rights. Because the background regarding their abuse is relevant to the Court’s assessment of whether to allow them to join, their circumstances are recounted here briefly.

fashion. Counsel for the new victims have made their true identities known to the Government.

Jane Doe #3’s Circumstances

As with Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, Jane Doe #3 was repeatedly sexually abused by Epstein. The Government then concealed from Jane Doe #3 the existence of its NPA from Jane Doe #3, in violation of her rights under the CVRA. If allowed to join this action, Jane Doe #3 would prove the following:

In 1999, Jane Doe #3 was approached by Ghislaine Maxwell, one of the main women whom Epstein used to procure under-aged girls for sexual activities and a primary co-conspirator in his sexual abuse and sex trafficking scheme. In fact, it became known to the government that Maxwell herself regularly participated in Epstein’s sexual exploitation of minors, including Jane Doe #3. Maxwell persuaded Jane Doe #3 (who was then fifteen years old) to come to Epstein’s mansion in a fashion very similar to the manner in which Epstein and his other co-conspirators coerced dozens of other children (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2). When Jane Doe #3 began giving Epstein a “massage,” Epstein and Maxwell turned it into a sexual encounter, as they had done with many other victims. Epstein then became enamored with Jane Doe #3, and with the assistance of Maxwell converted her into what is commonly referred to as a “sex slave.” Epstein kept Jane Doe #3 as his sex slave from about 1999 through 2002, when she managed to escape to a foreign country and hide out from Epstein and his co-conspirators for years. From 1999 through 2002, Epstein frequently sexually abused Jane Doe #3, not only in West Palm Beach, but also in New York, New Mexico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, in international airspace on his Epstein’s private planes, and elsewhere.

Epstein also sexually trafficked the then-minor Jane Doe, making her available for sex to politically-connected and financially-powerful people. Epstein’s purposes in “lending” Jane Doe

(along with other young girls) to such powerful people were to ingratiate himself with them for business, personal, political, and financial gain, as well as to obtain potential blackmail information.

One such powerful individual that Epstein forced then-minor Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with was former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein’s and well-known criminal defense attorney. Epstein required Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with Dershowitz on numerous occasions while she was a minor, not only in Florida but also on private planes, in New York, New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In addition to being a participant in the abuse of Jane Doe #3 and other minors, Deshowitz was an eye-witness to the sexual abuse of many other minors by Epstein and several of Epstein’s co-conspirators. Dershowitz would later play a significant role in negotiating the NPA on Epstein’s behalf. Indeed, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement that provided immunity from federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida not only to Epstein, but also to “any potential coconspirators of Epstein.” NPA at 5. Thus, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement with a provision that provided protection for himself against criminal prosecution in Florida for sexually abusing Jane Doe #3. Because this broad immunity would have been controversial if disclosed, Dershowitz (along with other members of Epstein’s defense team) and the Government tried to keep the immunity provision secret from all of Epstein’s victims and the general public, even though such secrecy violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act.

Ghislaine Maxwell was another person in Epstein’s inner circle and a co-conspirator in Epstein’s sexual abuse. She was someone who consequently also appreciated the immunity granted by the NPA for the crimes she committed in Florida. In addition to participating in the sexual abuse of Jane Doe #3 and others, Maxwell also took numerous sexually explicit pictures of underage girls involved in sexual activities, including Jane Doe #3. She shared these photographs (which constituted child pornography under applicable federal laws) with Epstein. The Government is apparently aware of, and in certain instances possesses some of these photographs.

Perhaps even more important to her role in Epstein’s sexual abuse ring, Maxwell had direct connections to other powerful individuals with whom she could connect Epstein. For instance, one such powerful individual Epstein forced Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with was a member of the British Royal Family, Prince Andrew (a/k/a Duke of York). Jane Doe #3 was forced to have sexual relations with this Prince when she was a minor in three separate geographical locations: in London (at Ghislaine Maxwell’s apartment), in New York, and on Epstein’s private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands (in an orgy with numerous other under-aged girls). Epstein instructed Jane Doe #3 that she was to give the Prince whatever he demanded and required Jane Doe #3 to report back to him on the details of the sexual abuse. Maxwell facilitated Prince Andrew’s acts of sexual abuse by acting as a “madame” for Epstein, thereby assisting in internationally trafficking Jane Doe #3 (and numerous other young girls) for sexual purposes.

Another person in Epstein’s inner circle of friends (who becomes apparent with almost no investigative effort) is Jean Luc Brunel. Epstein sexually trafficked Jane Doe #3 to Jean Luc Brunel many times. Brunel was another of Epstein’s closest friends and a regular traveling companion, who had many contacts with young girls throughout the world. Brunel has been a model scout for various modeling agencies for many years and apparently was able to get U.S. passports for young girls to “work” as models. He would bring young girls (ranging to ages as young as twelve) to the United States for sexual purposes and farm them out to his friends, especially Epstein. Brunel would offer the girls “modeling” jobs. Many of the girls came from poor countries or impoverished backgrounds, and he lured them in with a promise of making good money. Epstein forced Jane Doe #3 to observe him, Brunel and Maxwell engage in illegal sexual acts with dozens of underage girls. Epstein also forced Jane Doe #3 to have sex with Brunel on numerous occasions, at places including Epstein’s mansion in West Palm Beach, Little St. James Island in the U.S. Virgin Islands (many including orgies that were comprised of other underage girls), New York City, New Mexico, Paris, the south of France, and California.

Epstein also trafficked Jane Doe #3 for sexual purposes to many other powerful men, including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known Prime Minister, and other world leaders. Epstein required Jane Doe #3 to describe the events that she had with these men so that he could potentially blackmail them.

The Government was well aware of Jane Doe #3 when it was negotiating the NPA, as it listed her as a victim in the attachment to the NPA. Moreover, even a rudimentary investigation of Jane Doe #3’s relationship to Epstein would have revealed the fact that she had been trafficked throughout the United States and internationally for sexual purposes. Nonetheless, the Government secretly negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein precluding any Federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida of Epstein and his co-conspirators. As with Jane Doe #1, and Jane Doe #2, the Government concealed the non-prosecution agreement from Jane Doe #3 – all in violation of her rights under the CVRA – to avoid Jane Doe #3 from raising powerful objections to the NPA that would have shed tremendous public light on Epstein and other powerful individuals and that would likely have been prevented it from being concluded in the secretive manner in which it was.

Jane Doe #4’s Circumstances

If permitted to join this action, Jane Doe #4 would allege, and could prove at trial, that she has CVRA claims similar to those advanced by Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, based on the following:

As with the other Jane Does, Jane Doe #4 was repeatedly sexually abused by Epstein. In or around the summer of 2002, Jane Doe #4, an economically poor and vulnerable sixteen-yearold child, was told by another one of Epstein’s underage minor sex abuse victims, that she could make $300 cash by giving an old man a massage on Palm Beach. An acquaintance of Jane Doe #4 (also a minor sexual abuse victim of Epstein) telephoned Epstein and scheduled Jane Doe #4 to go to Epstein’s house to give him a massage. During that call, Epstein himself got on the phone (a means of interstate communication) with Jane Doe #4, asking her personally to come to his mansion in Palm Beach.

Jane Doe #4 then went to Epstein’s mansion and was escorted upstairs to Epstein’s large bathroom by one of Epstein’s assistants. Shortly thereafter Jeffrey Epstein emerged and lay face down on the table and told Jane Doe #4 to start massaging him. Epstein asked Jane Doe #3 her age and she told him she had recently turned sixteen. Epstein subsequently committed illegal sexual acts against Jane Doe #4 on many occasions.

Epstein used a means of interstate communication (i.e., a cell phone) to arrange for these sexual encounters. Epstein also frequently travelled in interstate commerce (i.e., on his personal jet) for purposes of illegally sexually abusing Jane Doe #4.

January. In the meantime, however, counsel for the victims believe that it is no longer appropriate to delay filing this motion and accordingly file it at this time. Because the Government is apparently opposing this motion, Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4 have described the circumstances surrounding their claims so that the Court has appropriate information to rule on the motion.

CONCLUSION

Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4 should be allowed to join this action, pursuant to Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Their joinder should be conditioned on the requirement that they not re-litigate any issues previously litigated by Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. A proposed order to that effect is attached to this pleading.

DATED: December 30, 2014

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com

And

Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 13 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 10

Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu

Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that the foregoing document was served on December 30, 2014, on the following

using the Court’s CM/ECF system:

Dexter Lee A. Marie Villafaña 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 820-8711 Fax: (561) 820-8777 E-mail: Dexter.Lee@usdoj.gov E-mail: ann.marie.c.villafana@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for the Government

/s/ Bradley J. Edwards

United States District Court Southern District of New York

Virginia L. Giuffre,

Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS

v.

Ghislaine Maxwell,

Defendant. ________________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S NON-REDACTED MOTION TO EXCEED PRESUMPTIVE TEN DEPOSITION LIMIT IN FEDERAL RULE CIVIL PROCEDURE 30(A)(2)(a)(ii)

Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 356-0011

David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504

Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Tel: (954) 524-2820

Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 383 University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Tel: (801) 585-5202¹

¹ This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

Cases

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 28

Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this motion to take approximately seven additional depositions in this case beyond the presumptive ten deposition limit. Ms. Giuffre’s requests is still within the total number of hours allowed by the ten deposition limit because the parties have agreed that they will split the time for all third party witnesses such that Ms. Giuffre will only be expending at most 3 ½ hours at those additional depositions. In an abundance of caution, even though Ms. Giuffre will not likely be exceeding the total number of hours allowed for depositions, she seeks leave from this Court to confirm that she may proceed with the additional depositions for the reasons stated below.

Ms. Giuffre has alleged that Defendant recruited females for Mr. Epstein, including underage females like herself, under the guise of working in a legitimate position - such as an assistant or as a massage therapist - only to almost immediately be coerced or enticed into engaging in sex for money. Defendant has challenged the veracity of Ms. Giuffre, and appears to intend to argue that Ms. Giuffre cannot support the allegation that Ms. Maxwell recruited females for Mr. Epstein or that the females were coerced or enticed into sex. The sexual abuse that lies at the heart of this case took place behind closed doors – doors of Jeffrey Epstein’s various private mansions. Unsurprisingly, Ms. Giuffre must find supporting circumstantial evidence to support her claims. Moreover, because Mr. Epstein and Defendant were travelling between Mr. Epstein’s numerous homes and thus many of the events relevant to this case took place more than 100 miles from the courthouse, Ms. Giuffre cannot compel most of the witnesses to appear via a trial subpoena. Accordingly, Ms. Giuffre seeks leave to take more than the standard ten depositions in this case. At this time, she seeks leave to take seven additional depositions, as articulated below.2

² Ms. Giuffre’s counsel met and conferred with Defendant’s counsel both in person and by phone in an effort to obtain agreement to proceed with these depositions but was unable to obtain an agreement. See

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Court is aware of the scope of this case from earlier pleadings and numerous hearings. Initially, Ms. Giuffre anticipated the scope of discovery on this case would be narrow, because many of the events (such as flying to London on one of Epstein’s planes with Maxwell) were supported by seemingly indisputable evidence, such as flight logs, and because the Defendant’s counsel initially suggested that she may invoke her Fifth Amendment rights. Instead, during her recent deposition, Defendant simply failed to recall many of the most significant events in this case or refused to respond directly to many important questions. As a result, Ms. Giuffre is now in a position where she has to call multiple witnesses to establish fundamental facts in the case. For example, Defendant would not even admit that the initials

“GM” which are on the private plane flight logs over 300 times, represent her initials for

McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, May 17, 2016 Email Correspondence from Sigrid McCawley to Laura Menninger and Jeff Pagliuca with proposed deposition calendar. Ms. Giuffre’s ability to determine exactly which depositions would need to be taken was hamstrung by the Defendant’s refusal to sit for her deposition. As the Court will recall, Ms. Giuffre made efforts to set Defendant’s deposition starting in February 2016, yet Defendant did not sit for her deposition until after being ordered by the Court on April 22, 2016. During that deposition, Defendant refused to answer a number of questions and refused to acknowledge basic facts in this case, thereby causing Ms. Giuffre to have to depose a number of unanticipated witnesses. Ms. Giuffre’s counsel started conferring with Defendant’s counsel in February 2016 and has actively engaged in discussion about these depositions that Ms. Giuffre knew she needed to take. On May 9, 2016, the parties conferred regarding deposition scheduling and Ms. Giuffre noticed depositions in accordance with the dates and locations that Defendant’s counsel said were available, and, on May 17, 2016, provided her with a calendar outlining those dates. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, May 17, 2016 Email Correspondence from Sigrid McCawley. Ms. Maxwell waited until one day before the first deposition scheduled to take place on May 31, 2016 to inform Ms. Giuffre’s counsel that she refuses to attend the deposition of this subpoenaed witness unless Ms. Giuffre drops her request to seek additional depositions by way of this motion. “If you intend to seek more than 10 depositions or to continue the discovery cut-off post July 1, then we will not be appearing at the depositions next week…” See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, May 27, 2016 e-mail Correspondence from Laura Menninger to Bradley Edwards. This obstruction of discovery by refusing to attend subpoenaed depositions that were noticed to her about one month ago on May 4, 2016 should not be condoned. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3, May 4, 2016 Notice of Service and Subpoena to Juan Alessi. Defendant’s counsel is also apparently refusing to appear at the other two depositions set for next week, of Maria Alessi set for Wednesday, June 1, 2016 and originally noticed on May 4, 2016 and Dave Rodgers set for Friday, June 3, 2016 and originally noticed on May 4, 2016. While Ms. Giuffre had originally hoped to be able to conclude discovery on July 1, 2016, Defendant’s refusal to attend depositions and agree to scheduling is putting Ms. Giuffre in a position where she will need additional time to complete discovery. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, May 26, 2016 Letter from Sigrid McCawley.

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 28

Ghislaine Maxwell. Therefore, Ms. Giuffre is now required to take the deposition of pilot Dave Rodgers to authenticate his pilot logs and the identity of the individuals on various flights.

In addition, as the Court knows, this case involves allegations that Ms. Giuffre was a victim of sexual abuse when she was under the age of 18 after being recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. Ms. Giuffre has alleged that Defendant recruited her and other young females, unexperienced in massage, for sex with Jeffrey Epstein by lying to them and telling them that the job was to be her personal assistant or a massage therapist. That was a ruse. Instead, Defendant recruited these females for sex with Jeffrey Epstein and, often, with herself, and “massage” was a euphemism for sex in Defendant’s household. Defendant has stated that these claims are obvious lies.

Aside from the deposition of the Defendant, Ms. Giuffre has taken the deposition of one other witness, Johanna Sjoberg, on May 18, 2016. Ms. Sjoberg testified that, while a twentyyear-old college student with no massage training, Ms. Maxwell, a stranger to her, approached her on her college campus, and told her she would hire Ms. Sjoberg as her personal assistant. After Ms. Sjoberg began to work for Defendant inside the home she shared with Epstein, Defendant revealed that Ms. Sjoberg’s true “job” was to complete sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein. Defendant was explicit with her instructions, at one point scolding Ms. Sjoberg for failing to “finish [her] job” after Ms. Sjoberg massaged Epstein without completing the sex act, and because of this failure, Defendant, instead, had to “finish [her] job for her” and cause Epstein and complete the sex act. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, Deposition of Johanna Sjoberg. Accordingly, in this manner, Ms. Giuffre needs to depose other witnesses to show the veracity of her claim that Defendant recruited young females, unexperienced in massage, for sex with Jeffrey Epstein, proving that Defendant was lying when she called Ms. Giuffre a liar, and knew

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 28

at the time she made the defamatory statement that it was untrue. Testimony like that from Ms. Sjoberg’s refutes Defendant’s testimony, and goes to her credibility, and goes to the claim at the center of this case.

Additionally, to prove Ms. Giuffre’s allegations, that span multiple years, on multiple continents, and multiple locations, Ms. Giuffre has arranged a series of depositions of persons with direct knowledge of the relevant issues. To prove her case, Ms. Giuffre believes that a minimum of seventeen depositions will be required. In reviewing this list of depositions, it is important to understand that only one of them – the Defendant’s – will consume a full seven hours of questioning by Ms. Giuffre’s counsel, as permitted under the rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1). Apart from the Defendant’s deposition, all of the other depositions set by Ms. Giuffre have been pursuant to an agreement with Defendant’s counsel that Ms. Giuffre will be given half of the seven hours to ask questions. In the descriptions below, the time Ms. Giuffre will have to ask questions (or thus far has asked questions) is indicated:

A. Depositions Taken Thus Far By Ms. Giuffre

1. Ghislaine Maxwell (7 hours). The defendant, of course, has relevant information in this case. But when Defendant was deposed, she refused to answer numerous questions about alleged adult consensual sex. Those refusals are currently before the Court in a pending motion to compel. DE 155. And, more broadly, Defendant’s deposition makes it clear that she intends to contest many of the points that earlier had appeared to be potentially uncontested. For example, in pleadings before her deposition, Defendant had suggested that she might invoke her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent during questioning. Indeed, just a week before her deposition, Defendant filed a motion seeking the alternative relief of staying further proceedings so that she could get more information about whether to take the Fifth. See DE 101 at 2-4.

During her deposition, however, Defendant did not take the Fifth. Instead, she testified that she suffered from a series of memory lapses and could not recall many of the key issues in dispute in this case. As a result of Defendant’s inability to remember events, a variety of issues are now in dispute. For example, at her deposition, Defendant indicated that she lacked recollection of or was otherwise unable to specifically answer the following questions:

• Whether Defendant observed a female under the age of 18 at Jeffrey Epstein’s home in Palm Beach. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 6, Maxwell Depo. at 29.

• Whether Defendant had meet Ms. Giuffre and introduced her to Epstein. Id. at 33.

• Whether Defendant, in 2011, could recall having met Ms. Giuffre at the Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach and then writing that fact in an email. Id. at 35.

• Whether, when Defendant first met

• Whether Defendant could recall being on a plane with and Ms. Giuffre.

• Whether the Defendant knew what Nadia Marcinkova was doing at Epstein’s mansion. Id. at 41, 44.

• Whether Defendant knew the nature of the relationship between Epstein and Sarah Kellen. Id. at 47-48.

• Whether Defendant knew that Sarah Kellen recruited girls under the age of 18 to come to Epstein’s mansions. Id. at 56-57.

• Whether massage therapists at Epstein’s mansions performed sexual acts. Id. at 52-54.

• Whether Defendant knew the age of Eva Dubin when she (Dubin) met Epstein. Id. at 58-59.

• Whether Defendant advised Johanna Sjoberg that she (Sjoberg) could obtain extra money if she massaged Epstein. Id. at 61.

• Whether Defendant introduced Sjoberg to Prince Andrew. Id. at 63.

• Whether Defendant could recall Emmy Taylor brought masseuses to Epstein’s mansion. Id. at 67.

• ! Whether Defendant knew what Ms. Giuffre was required to wear while providing massages to Epstein. Id. at 68-69.

• ! Whether Defendant could recall having a laundry basket of sex toys in Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion, as described by Juan Alessi. Id. at 70-75.

• ! Whether Defendant could recall paying Ms. Giuffre. Id. at 75.

• ! Whether Defendant was ever present to view Ms. Giuffre massaging Epstein. Id. at 75.

• ! Whether Defendant could recall telling Ms. Giuffre that she needed a cell phone so that she could be on call regularly. Id. at 77.

• ! Whether Defendant was required to be on call to come to Epstein’s mansion when he wanted her to come. Id. at 79.

• ! Whether Defendant could recall Ms. Giuffre being at Epstein’s New York mansion when Prince Andrew came to visit. Id. at 80-81.

• ! Whether Defendant could recall Ms. Giuffre staying at any of Epstein’s six homes. Id. at 81.

• ! Whether Defendant was aware that there were over 30 individuals who were minors who gave reports to the Palm Beach Police Department who said they were sexually assaulted by Epstein during the years that Defendant was working with him. Id. at 89-91.

• ! Whether Defendant introduced Ms. Giuffre to Prince Andrew in London. Id. at 108.

• ! Whether Ms. Giuffre ever stayed at Defendant’s home in London. Id. at 108.

• ! Whether Defendant remembered taking a trip with Ms. Giuffre to travel over to Europe, including London. Id. at 108.

• ! Whether Defendant could recall Prince Andrew being present in New York for a party where Johanna Sjoberg was also present. Id. at 112-13.

• ! Whether a picture depicting Prince Andrew, Ms. Giuffre and Defendant was taken at Defendant’s London town home. Id. at 113-14.

• ! Whether Defendant ever flew on one of Epstein’s planes with a 17 year old. Id. at 121- 22.

• ! Whether the notation “GM” on flight logs for passengers on Epstein’s planes represented the Defendant (i.e., Ghislaine Maxwell). Id. at 122-23.

• ! Whether Defendant knew that the flight logs produced by Dave Rogers (one of Epstein’s pilots) were accurate. Id. at 128-29.

• ! Whether Defendant could recall ever being on a flight on one of Epstein’s planes with Ms. Giuffre. Id. at 132-33.

• ! Whether Defendant could recall Epstein and former President Clinton being friendly towards each other. Id. at 135-36.

• ! Whether Defendant could recall the purpose of a trip to Thailand with Epstein and former President Clinton was. Id. at 140.

• ! Whether Defendant could recall Ms. Giuffre taking pictures on trips. Id. at 144.

• ! Whether Defendant could recollect writing down messages on memo pads from various individuals at Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion. Id. at 150-57; 159-60.

• ! Whether Defendant could recall receiving a message on a memo pad concerning

• ! Whether Defendant could explain why a minor would be calling Epstein to say they had a female for him. Id. at 164.

• ! Whether Defendant could recall a sixteen-year-old Russian girl who came to Epstein’s mansion? Id. at 167.

• ! Whether Defendant believed that Epstein sexually abused minors. Id. at 171-80.

• ! Whether Defendant was present at Epstein’s Florida mansion when police executed a search warrant. Id. at 186.

• ! Whether Defendant took a picture at one of Epstein’s properties of a person in either a naked or semi-naked state. Id. at 193.

• ! Whether Defendant could recall what Epstein told her about the criminal investigation of him. Id. at 194-95.

• ! Whether Epstein told Defendant that he never had sex with Ms. Giuffre. Id. at 197.

• ! Whether it was an “obvious lie” that Epstein engaged in sexual conduct with Ms. Giuffre while she was under the age of 18. Id. at 202-06.

• ! Whether Defendant knew whether Epstein had sex with a minor. Id. at 239.

• ! Whether it was a lie for Ms. Giuffre to say that Defendant approached females to bring them to Epstein. Id. at 244-46.

• ! Whether Defendant knew Epstein had a sexual preference for minors. Id. at 251-53.

• ! Whether Defendant knew that asked girls to come over to see Epstein for purposes of sexual massage.

• ! Whether Defendant could recall seeing and Epstein together. .

• ! Whether Defendant was aware of any interstate or international transportation of women, aged 18 to 28, for purposes of having sex with Epstein where they would receive compensation. Id. at 278-79.

• ! Whether Defendant could recall anything about a puppet or caricature of Prince Andrew in Epstein’s home when Prince Andrew was there, including whether Ms. Giuffre was sitting on Prince Andrew’s lap with the puppet or caricature. Id. at 289-93.

• ! Whether Defendant could remember entering any telephone numbers into a contact book maintained by Epstein. Id. at 320-22.

• ! Whether a document with Epstein’s contacts (including “massage” contacts) was located on Defendant’s computer. Id. at 331-34.

• ! Whether, if Alfredo Rodriguez said that Defendant had knowledge that underage girls were coming over to Epstein’s Florida mansion for purposes of sex, that would be a true statement. Id. at 329-30.

• ! Whether Defendant could recall any representative of hers informing the press that Ms. Giuffre committed grand theft. Id. at 344-45.

• ! Whether Defendant knew what her press agent, Ross Gow, was referring to when he talked in an email about “helpful leakage.” Id. at 349-50, 406.

• ! Whether Defendant could recall interacting with anyone, other than Ms. Giuffre, under the age of 18 on any of Epstein’s properties. Id. at 384.

• ! Whether Defendant had discussed with Prince Andrew any of the details of Ms. Giuffre’s allegations against him. Id. at 400.

Because Defendant refused to answer those questions, Ms. Giuffre needs to depose other

witnesses who have the requisite knowledge to testify concerning those issues.

2. Johanna Sjorberg (3 ½ hours). Ms. Sjorberg’s deposition was taken on May 18,

2016, in Fort Lauderdale. She testified as follows:

• ! Johanna confirmed that Maxwell recruited her to work as an assistant but she was almost immediately converted into a massage therapist and worked for Maxwell and Epstein from 2001 – 2006. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, (May 18, 2016 Deposition Tr. at p. 8-9)

• ! Johanna confirms that she knew Virginia was underage when she met her on the trip to NY with Jeffrey in 2001 because Virginia couldn’t get into the casino and then later Johanna asked her and Virginia said she was 17. (p. 18). Johanna testified that Virginia looked young. (p. 18-19). Johanna added: “At the time I had the impression that she did not have a family or she had walked away from her family. And it seemed to me, you know, they had just sort of adopted her, not as a child, but they would take care of her.” (p. 88)

• ! Johanna testified that Jeffrey had to have three (3) massages a day from different girls. (p. 30)

• ! Johanna testified that Jeffrey told her that he had three (3) massages a day because “he needed to have three orgasms a day. It was biological, like eating.” (p. 32)

• ! Johanna testified that Maxwell “let me know that she was she would not be able to please him as much as he needed and that is why there were other girls around.” (p. 33) “She (Maxwell) said she doesn’t have the time or the desire to please him as much as he needs and that’s why there were other girls around.” (p. 150-151)

• ! Johanna confirmed that she witnessed Virginia when she was seventeen (17) in Jeffrey Epstein’s New York mansion with Prince Andrew and Ghislaine Maxwell. (p. 87) Johanna also testified that Prince Andrew sat with Virginia and Johanna and took a picture with a puppet in his image that had its hand and Prince Andrew’s hand on their respective breasts. (p. 83)

• ! Johanna testified that Maxwell bought a camera for her and asked her to take naked pictures of herself for Jeffrey. (p. 145)

• ! Johanna testified that Maxwell would not give her the camera because Johanna “didn’t finish the job” when massaging Jeffrey so Maxwell had to do it and was not happy. (p. 34) “She told me – called me after I had left and said, I have the camera for you but you cannot receive it yet because you came here and didn’t finish your job and I had to finish it for you…She was implying that I did not get Jeffrey off and so she had to do it.” Q When you say ‘get Jeffrey off’ do you mean bring him to orgasm?’ A. Yes.” (p. 34-35)

• ! Maxwell told Johanna to always act “grateful” to Jeffrey Epstein. (p. 35)

• ! Maxwell called Johanna and the other girls her “children” when they were on a trip to the USVI. (p. 36)

• ! David Copperfield was at a dinner at Epstein’s and there was another girl present who looked young and Johanna asked what school she went to and Johanna did not recognize the school name as being a college and she said it was possible it was a high school aged girl. Johanna said Copperfield “questioned me if I was aware that girls were getting paid to find other girls” (p. 37-38)

• ! Johanna testified she heard Jeffrey call someone to try to find girls in Hawaii to send over the Fredrick Fekkai. (p. 38-39)

• ! Johanna testified Jeffrey told her “Clinton likes them young, referring to girls.” (p. 41)

• ! Johanna testified that she was naked for 25 50% of all massages. (p. 42)

• ! Johanna testified that Jeffrey made her perform sexual acts during massages including sexual toys and she had intercourse with him. (p. 43, 146-147)

• ! Johanna testified that Nadia Marcinkova and Maxwell were both with her in the USVI in 2005. (p. 44).

• ! Johanna testified that Maxwell asked her to find other girls to perform massages at the house. (p. 141) She gave a name of a girl from a restaurant to Maxwell and Maxwell paid her $200.00 for the girls’ name. “Did Maxwell ever ask you to bring other girls over for Jeffrey” (p. 46) A. Yes….“And I recall Ghislaine giving me money to bring her over…” (p. 141)

• ! Johanna testified that if a massage involved sexual acts that Jeffrey paid Johanna more than the normal $200.00. (p. 100-101)

• ! She testified that Defendant called Emmy Taylor her “slave.” (p. 15). Later she testified that Jeffrey: “He told me one time Emmy was sleeping on the plane and they were getting ready to land and he went and woke her up and she thought that meant he wanted a [sex act], so she started to unzip his pants, and he said, No, no, no you just have to wake up for landing.” (p. 143-144)

• ! Johanna said Defendant flew her in the helicopter from the main island to the USVI. (p. 55)

• ! Johanna said she believes what Virginia is saying about being abused by Jeffrey and Maxwell. “Basically that I believed her, even though she never spoke to me specifically about what was going on; that once I learned everything that happened based on reading the police report, I believed her side of the story.” (p. 122-123). “Q. And what experience in the house helped you form your opinion that what Virginia is saying is true? A. You know, Jeffrey being open with me about what other girls did for him and

that I was not one of those girls. He was always trying to recruit me almost in a way that I could be one of them and travel with him and live the life of luxury if I only – if I only did this. So after five years of learning what was happening, I can look back knowing – I only knew Virginia a short time. Looking back, I can make assumptions about what was required of her.” (p. 123-124)

! She said she recalls that Defendant went to dinner with Governor Bill Richardson one time when Johanna was visiting the ranch in New Mexico (p. 110).

B. Future Depositions Sought by Ms. Giuffre

Ms. Giuffre has also scheduled the following depositions.

3. Juan Alessi (3 ½ hours). Mr. Alessi’s deposition is scheduled for May 31,

2016, in Florida³ . Mr. Alessi was one of the employees in Epstein’s mansion. Mr. Alessi provided witness statements to police during the criminal investigation in Palm Beach, and was previously deposed in civil cases previously brought against Mr. Epstein. Specifically, Juan Alessi informed the Palm Beach Police Detective as follows: “Alessi stated that towards the end of his employment, the masseuses were younger and younger. When asked how young, Mr. Alessi stated they appeared to be sixteen or seventeen years of age at most.” (emphasis added.) See McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit 7, Palm Beach Police Incident Report at p. 57.

On November 21, 2005, the Palm Beach Police Department took a sworn statement from house employee Juan Alessi in which he revealed that girls would come over to give “massages” and he observed Ms. Maxwell going upstairs in the direction of the bedroom quarters. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 8, November 21, 2005 Sworn Statement at 10. He also testified that after the massages, he would clean up sex toys that were kept in “Ms. Maxwell’s closet.” Id. at 12-13. He added that he and his wife were concerned with what was going on at the house (Id. at 14) and that he observed girls at the house, including one named “Virginia.” Id. at 21. It is anticipated that he will testify consistently with that previous testimony.

³ As explained above, as of today, Defendant’s counsel sent an email refusing to attend this deposition set for Tuesday, May 31, 2016 (Monday is Memorial Day). See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2.

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 28

4. Maria Alessi (3 ½ hours). Ms. Alessi’s deposition is scheduled for June 1, 2016, in Florida. She was, with her husband, household staff for Epstein in the Palm Beach home he shared with Defendant, and, it is anticipated, will corroborate many of the observations of her husband about minor girls and massages inside of Epstein’s Florida mansion. Mr. Alessi referenced during his prior deposition the things that Ms. Alessi observed with respect to the sexual massages and involvement of minor girls. Mrs. Alessi is also anticipated to testify regarding Ms. Maxwell’s close association with Mr. Epstein and knowledge the visitors.

5. Dave Rodgers (3 ½ hours). Mr. Rodgers’s deposition is scheduled for June 3, 2016, in Florida. Rodgers was one of the pilots for Epstein’s private jets and will, it is anticipated, authenticate his flight logs showing Defendant and Ms. Giuffre together on the same flights. Defendant refused to admit that her name is reflected in the flight logs despite her initials “GM” appearing over 300 times. Therefore, such authentication is necessary because Defendant testified at her deposition she could not remember even the most basic things about flights in the flight logs. For example, when asked if “GM” represented her initials on the flight log, Defendant responded**:** “How do you know GM is me,” (See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, Maxwell Depo. at 29 at. 122) and “GM can stand for any level, it could be Georgina, George.” (Id. at 123). Ms. Giuffre is also seeking additional flight logs in Mr. Rodgers possession that will further corroborate Defendant’s involvement with Jeffrey Epstein.

6. Rinaldo Rizzo (3 ½ hours). Mr. Rizzo is scheduled for June 10, 2016 and will be able to testify regarding his observations of Defendant and Epstein with underage girls (girls less than 18 years of age). Mr. Rizzo was originally set for deposition on May 13, 2016 which was noticed on April 11, 2016, and Defendant requested that Ms. Giuffre reschedule that deposition just days before the scheduled date.

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 28

7. Jean Luc Brunel (3 ½ hours). Mr. Brunel’s deposition is set for June 7, 2016, in New York. He has relevant information because he has known Maxwell and Epstein for many years and was present with Epstein and Defendant on many occasions at Epstein’s homes in New York, Palm Beach and the USVI, and he has personal knowledge of the disputed issues in this case

8. Ross Gow (3 ½ hours). Mr. Gow is Defendant’s press agent who issued the press statement at issue in this case on Defendant’s behalf. He will be able to testify regarding the defamatory statement, its distribution, any other defamatory statements that were distributed, and any information he had regarding the basis for the statement. Ms. Giuffre has requested that Defendant agree to produce Mr. Gow rather than requiring the time and expense of having to serve a subpoena on Mr. Gow, located in London, under the Hague convention, but counsel for Defendant has not agreed to produce Ross Gow for deposition.

9. Dana Burns (3 ½ hours). Ms. Burns’ deposition is set for June 8, 2016, in New

10. Jo Jo Fontanella (3 ½ hours). Jo Jo Fontanella is a critical witness because he has been working as Jeffrey Epstein’s butler in his New York mansion for a number of years

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 28

including during the time that Ms. Giuffre was staying the night at the mansion when she was a minor child. Virginia interacted with Mr. Fontanella frequently during the time she was with Mr. Epstein and the Defendant. Mr. Fontanella will be able to testify to what he observed at the New York mansion including his observation regarding the age and number of females who visited the house each day. Mr. Fontanella will be able to testify regarding Defendant’s presence at the home at various times and what he observed Defendant doing while she was at the New York mansion.

11. Detective Joe Recarey (3 ½ hours). During Defendant’s deposition,

Defendant questioned the veracity of the Palm Beach Police report containing the accounts of the numerous minor children who were also sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein. Defendant referred to at least one of those children as a prostitute, which is false. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, Maxwell Deposition at 173:8-12; 359:11-18. The Palm Beach police report also includes statements about the Defendant. Detective Recarey is expected to testify regarding his investigation, what he observed, the evidence he collected from Mr. Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion, the modus operandi of the Epstein organization, and the interviews he conducted with a number of females who were subject to abuse at the Palm Beach mansion. He will also testify regarding Jeffrey Epstein’s, who is in a joint defense with Defendant, and his campaign to attack the credibility of the numerous minor children who reported sex offenses against him. Attacking the credibility of their victims, including Ms. Giuffre, is a part of Epstein and Defendant’s modus operandi.

12. Former Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter (3 ½ hours). Chief Reiter is scheduled for deposition on June 20, 2016. He was the Police Chief who was responsible for overseeing the Palm Beach Epstein investigation. He has made public statements about the 40

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 28

victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse. He has made public statements about the fact that after he started the investigation into the crimes that took place at the Palm Beach mansion, he was followed by strange men and “investigated”. He also has made public statements that he sent to victims regarding the failure of the government to properly handle the matter. Reiter is relevant to many issues, among others, Defendant’s claimed innocence by the fact that she was never formally charged.

13. Emmy Taylor (3 ½ hours). Emmy Taylor was Defendant’s “assistant” during the time Ms. Giuffre was being abused. Ms. Taylor is on flight logs to Europe with Ms. Giuffre and other locations in the United States. Johanna Sjoberg testified that Emmy Taylor was referred to by the Defendant as “my slave” and that Ms. Taylor trained Ms. Sjoberg to give massages while Ms. Sjoberg was naked. Emmy Taylor will be able to testify as to what she observed and experienced during the years she was with Defendant and Epstein. Ms. Giuffre is still attempting to locate Ms. Taylor, but she is believed to reside in London.

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 28

15. Nadia Marcinkova (3 ½ hours). Ms. Marcinkova’s deposition is set for June 16, 2016, in New York.⁴ Ms. Marcinkova was specifically identified by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida as a “potential co-conspirator of Epstein” in the nonprosecution agreement it executed with Mr. Epstein as part of his guilty plea. She has relevant information because she observed the recruitment of underage girls for sex and, in fact, participated in sex acts with minors. She was also on numerous flights with Defendant (in contradiction to Defendant’s testimony), and she can provide valuable testimony about Maxwell’s role in the recruitment of females.

16. Sarah Kellen (a/k/a Sarah Kensignton or Sarah Vickers) (3 ½ hours). Ms.

Kellen’s deposition is set for June 22, 2016, in New York. Ms. Kellen specifically identified by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida as a “potential co-conspirator of Epstein” in the non-prosecution agreement it executed with Mr. Epstein as part of his guilty plea. She has relevant information because she was present during the time when Virginia was with Epstein and the Defendant, and she travelled with all of them during this critical time period. It is believed that she worked at the direction of, and directly under, Ms. Maxwell and was taught by Ms. Maxwell how to recruit females for sex with Mr. Epstein.

^<sup>4 Marcinkova, Kellen and Epstein have not been personally served and are all subject to Ms. Giuffre’s Motion for Alternative Service [D.E. 160].

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 28

17. Jeffrey Epstein (3 ½ hours). Ms. Giuffre’s counsel have been in touch with Epstein’s counsel and is continuing to work to schedule his deposition. Epstein lies at the center of this case, and he can testify that Defendant recruited females for sex with him, including Mrs. Giuffre, under the offer of being a massage therapist, and ultimately paid these females for sex. He can testify that Defendant lured dozens if not hundreds of young females, including many underage females, to his residences for sexual purposes.

II. DISCUSSION

Ms. Giuffre has attempted to conduct discrete, focused discovery in this case to limit any burdens on the Defendant and on the Court. Nonetheless, this case presents numerous challenges that require that she take more than ten depositions – not the least of which is Defendant’s extraordinary lack of memory about many events that would appear to have indisputably taken place. Ms. Giuffre, however, is not seeking to exceed the allotted hours for depositions under Rule 45 – only the number of depositions. Ms. Giuffre seeks leave of Court to 7 additional depositions, for a total of seventeen depositions. 1111

Under the rules, each party is entitled to take ten depositions which total seven hours each. Fed. R. Civ. P. 29(d)(1). Thus, the presumptive time limit for depositions is a total of seventy hours (10 depositions x 7 hours per deposition). For the convenience of opposing counsel, Ms. Giuffre has stipulated that they may have half of the seven hour deposition time for each third party witness. Thus, if the Court grants Ms. Giuffre’s motion, she will end up taking less than seventy hours of deposition testimony. Specifically, she will only take one deposition of seven hours (Defendant’s) and sixteen depositions of three-and-a-half hours – a total of 66 and ½ hours of depositions.

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 28

In light of the accommodation she had extended to opposing counsel, Ms. Giuffre requested that opposing counsel agree that both sides could schedule additional depositions beyond the presumptive limit of ten. Defendant refused to agree and is also in disagreement about the proposed schedule for depositions, despite the fact that Ms. Giuffre scheduled depositions based on the dates Defendant’s counsel represented were available for depositions in this case. At Defendant’s counsel’s request Ms. Giuffre scheduled depositions of witnesses who lived in the same geographical location on consecutive days to limit the travel time and expense. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1.

Sadly, it appears that Defendant’s counsel may be attempting to delay Ms. Giuffre’s ability to obtain depositions because certain witnesses are avoiding service and others were difficult to locate, and the time period for the close of discovery is swiftly approaching. The Court will recall that the Defendant managed to delay her deposition until April 22, 2016, through unnecessary motion practice. And now that the need to depose other witnesses has been established, Defendant’s counsel are employing other delay tactics. The Court currently has before it, for example, Ms. Giuffre’s motion for leave to serve three deposition subpoenas by means other than personal service. DE 160. As recounted at greater length in that motion, three of the critical witnesses in this case – Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellan, and Nadia Marcinkova – have all thus far managed to evade service of process, despite repeated, diligent, and expensive efforts at personal service. Of course, all three of these witnesses are persons who have worked very closely with Defendant in the past. Epstein is also in a joint defense agreement with Defendant.

In other situations, Ms. Giuffre has been forced to delay taking depositions because of Defense Counsel. For example, Ms. Giuffre served a subpoena on Mr. Rizzo and opposing

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 28

counsel on April 11, 2016 for a deposition a month later on May 13, 2016. Just days before the deposition, Defendant’s counsel said they didn’t realize the deposition was scheduled and that they could not proceed forward on that date. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 9, May 5, 2016 Email Correspondence Regarding Scheduled Depositions. This forced Ms. Giuffre’s counsel to have to reset the witness for June 10, 2016. Of course, with each delay, Ms. Giuffre is hamstrung in identifying which further witnesses need to be deposed.

Under Rule 30(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party who wishes to conduct more than ten depositions without stipulation by the opposing party must seek leave of the court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i). Once such a motion is made, “[t]he court must grant a request to exceed ten depositions unless the additional depositions would be unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, the requesting party had a prior opportunity in discovery to obtain the information sought, or the burden or expense of additional depositions would outweigh any likely benefit.” In re Weatherford Int’l Sec. Litig., No. 11 CIV. 1646 LAK JCF, 2013 WL 5762923, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2013) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C); Raniola v. Bratton, 243 F.3d 610, 628 (2d Cir.2001)). Given the liberal discovery allowed by the rules, the burden on the party seeking additional depositions is not great. Rule 30(a)(2)’s ten-deposition limit is “a useful and appropriate ‘Stop’ sign, not as a ‘Road Closed’ sign. Once any party has taken ten depositions, it makes perfect sense to require that party to demonstrate the need for more. But that showing need not be onerous. If the need exists, discovery should not be prevented.” Scott v. City of Sioux City, Iowa, 298 F.R.D. 400, 402-03 (N.D. Iowa 2014).

As the Court can readily determine from the summary of anticipated testimony above, none of the anticipated testimony is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative. Rather, all of the anticipated testimony goes to central and now-disputed issues in the case. The Court should be

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 28

aware that, at every turn, Defendant appears ready to brand Ms. Giuffre as a “liar” who cannot be believed. Thus, obtaining witnesses, like Ms. Sjoberg, who can corroborate that she is telling the truth is more important in this case than it would be in many others. It is equally important that Ms. Giuffre be able to depose the witnesses who can refute Defendant’s testimony.

The Court can also readily determine that Ms. Giuffre has not had any prior opportunity to obtain discovery of the witnesses she seeks to depose. The case is only now in the fact discovery phase, and she has had no opportunity to previously depose these third-party witnesses.

Finally, there is no substantial burden involved with deposing seven additional witnesses. Any assessment of burden must take into account the scope of the underlying case. Ms. Giuffre is seeking both compensatory and punitive damages that would total millions of dollars. Against that backdrop, a handful of additional depositions cannot be seen as unduly burdensome. Moreover, this is not a situation where Defendant lacks means to pay for counsel to attend the depositions. Defendant’s vast wealth does not appear to be in doubt.⁵

During the meet-and-confer on this issue, the Defendant’s substantive reason for not stipulating to these additional depositions is that, with regard to three of the witnesses (Epstein, Kellan, and Marcinkova), it appears likely that they will invoke their Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer some questions about Defendant’s involvement in in the sexual abuse of Ms. Giuffre. But until those witnesses actually take the Fifth, the conclusion that they will actually

⁵ Defendant has thus far refused produce documents regarding the extent of her assets, arguing that until the punitive damages phase of this proceeding is reached the discovery is not relevant. Nonetheless, public information suggests significant assets – and the possibility that she is transferring assets outside the reach of the Court’s jurisdiction. See, e.g., Alleged Epstein Madam Sells $16M Manhattan Townhouse, New York Post, Apr. 28, 2016 (available at http://nypost.com/2016/04/28/alleged-epsteinmadam-sells-16m-manhattan-townhouse/).

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 25 of 28

take the Fifth is, at a minimum, premature.⁶ The witness may, for example, answer some questions and not others. And, in any event, even if they take the Fifth when asked about Defendant’s sexual abuse of minors, those invocations will quite likely be admissible against the Defendant at trial.

The Second Circuit has squarely held that a witness’ invocation of Fifth Amendment rights can in proper circumstances be used against a party. The Second Circuit’s seminal decision is LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 1997), which upheld the drawing of adverse inferences based on a non-party’s invocation of a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The Second Circuit instructed that, the circumstances of given case, rather than status of particular nonparty witness, determines whether nonparty witness’ invocation of privilege against self-incrimination is admissible in course of civil litigation. Id. at122-23. The Circuit also held that, in determining whether nonparty witness’ invocation of privilege against self-incrimination in course of civil litigation and drawing of adverse inferences is admissible, court may consider the following nonexclusive factors:

(1) nature of witness’ relationship with and loyalty to party;

(2) degree of control which party has vested in witness in regard to key facts and subject matter of litigation;

(3) whether witness is pragmatically noncaptioned party in interest and whether assertion of privilege advances interests of witness and party in outcome of litigation; and

(4) whether witness was key figure in litigation and played controlling role in respect to its underlying aspects.

Id. at 124-25.

Clearly, many of these factors are going to weigh heavily in favor of drawing an adverse inference against Defendant. For example, Jeffrey Epstein is a “pragmatically noncaptioned

⁶ The Court should be aware that these are also the three witnesses who have been attempted to evade service of process.

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 26 of 28

party in interest” regarding issues of whether he and Defendant together sexually abused Ms. Giuffre. And Defendant is in a joint defense agreement with Epstein. Also, some of the most important events in this case took place in private bedroom where just three people were present – Ms. Giuffre, Defendant, and Epstein. With Defendant denying these events, the fact that Epstein may take the Fifth could provide decisive information to the jury.

But the Court need not make any determinations now as to precisely how these factors will play out. Instead, it is enough to note that very important and unique evidence may be secured from the deposition of each of these three individuals and therefore Ms. Giuffre should be permitted to take their deposition.

CONCLUSION

Ms. Giuffre respectfully requests that she be allowed to take a total seventeen depositions in this case.

Dated: May 27, 2016

Respectfully Submitted,

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011

David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504

Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820

Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 383 University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801) 585-5202⁷

⁷ This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 27th day of May, 2016, I electronically filed the

foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the

foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission

of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.

Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com jpagliuca@hmflaw.com

/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley

United States District Court Southern District of New York

Virginia L. Giuffre,

Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS

v .

Ghislaine Maxwell,

Defendant.

______________________________/

NON-REDACTED DECLARATION OF SIGRID S. McCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXCEED PRESUMPTIVE TEN DEPOSITION LIMIT IN FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 30(A)(2)(a)(ii), FILED UNDER SEAL

I, Sigrid S. McCawley, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my knowledge as follows:

1. I am a partner with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly

licensed to practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court’s September 29,

2015 Order granting my Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice.

2. I respectfully submit this Declaration in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Exceed

Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit In Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(A)(2)(a)(ii), Filed Under Seal.

3. Attached hereto as Composite Exhibit 1, is a true and correct copy of the May 17,

2016 Email Correspondence from Sigrid McCawley.

4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2, is a true and correct copy of the May 27, 2016

Email Correspondence from Laura Menninger.

5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3, is a true and correct copy of the Notice of Service

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-11 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 4

and Subpoena to Juan Alessi.

6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4, is a true and correct copy of the May 26, 2016 Correspondence from Sigrid McCawley.

7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5, is a true and correct copy of the May 18, 2016 Deposition Transcript of Johanna Sjoberg.

8. Attached hereto as Composite Exhibit 6, is a true and correct copy of the April 22, 2016 Deposition Transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell.

9. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7, is a true and correct copy of the Palm Beach Police

Report.

10. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8, is a true and correct copy of the November 21, 2005 Sworn Statement of Juan Alessi.

11. Attached hereto as Exhibit 9, is a true and correct copy of the May 4, 2016 Email Correspondence from Laura Menninger.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley_________ Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq.

Dated: May 27, 2016.

Respectfully Submitted,

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley________________

Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 356-0011

David Boies Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504

Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Tel: (954) 524-2820

Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 383 University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Tel: (801) 585-5202¹

¹ This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 27, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing

document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing

document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of

Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.

Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Paliuca, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com jpagliuca@hmflaw.com

/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq.

EXHIBIT 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CASE NO. 15-CV-07433-RWS

——————————————x

VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,

Plaintiff,

v.

GHISLAINE MAXWELL,

Defendant.

—————————————––x

May 18, 2016 9:04 a.m.

C O N F I D E N T I A L

Deposition of JOHANNA SJOBERG, pursuant to notice, taken by Plaintiff, at the offices of Boies Schiller & Flexner, 401 Las Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, before Kelli Ann Willis, a Registered Professional Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of Florida.

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 179

1 A P P E A R A N C E S:
2 BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
    Attorneys for Plaintiff
3 401 East Las Olas Boulevard
     Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
4 BY: SIGRID S. McCAWLEY, ESQ. and
     MEREDITH SCHULTZ, ESQ.
5
6 HADDON MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C.
    Attorneys for Defendant
7 150 East 10th Avenue
     Denver, Colorado 80203
8 BY: LAURA A. MENNINGER, ESQ.
9
10 SINCLAIR LOUIS & ZAVERTNIK, P.A.
    Attorneys for Deponent
11 40 NW Third Street
     Suite 200
12 Miami, Florida 33128
    BY: MARSHALL DORE LOUIS, ESQ.
13
14
15 ALSO PRESENT: Ryan Kick, Videographer
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 3 1 2 I N D E X 3 Examination by Ms. McCawley ………………. 5 Examination by Ms. Menninger ………………. 50 4 Further Examination by Ms. McCawley ………… 138 Further Examination by Ms. Menninger ……….. 147 5 6 7 E X H I B I T S 8 Deposition Exhibit 1 ……………………… 7 Deposition Notice 9 Deposition Exhibit 2 ……………………… 7 10 Subpoena 11 Deposition Exhibit 3 ……………………… 16 Flight log 12 Deposition Exhibit 4 ……………………… 49 13 Palm Beach Police Department Incident Report 14 Deposition Exhibit 5 ……………………… 117 15 Red Ice Creations web article 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the 2 record. This is begins Videotape No. 1 in the 3 deposition of Johanna Sjoberg, in the matter of 4 Virginia Giuffre versus Ghislaine Maxwell. 5 Today is May 18th, 2016. The time is 6 9:04 a.m. This deposition is being taken at 7 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, 8 Florida. 9 The videographer is Ryan Kick. The court 10 reporter is Kelli Ann Willis. We both 11 represent Magna Legal Services. 12 Will counsel and all parties present state 13 their appearance and whom they represent. 14 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. I’m Sigrid McCawley, 15 with the law firm of Boise Schiller & Flexner, 16 and I represent Virginia Giuffre. And I have 17 here two colleagues of mine, Meredith Schultz 18 and Sandra Perkins, from my firm as well. 19 MS. MENNINGER: Hi. I’m Laura Menninger 20 from Haddon Morgan & Foreman, and I represent 21 Ghislaine Maxwell. 22 MR. LOUIS: I’m Dore Louis from Sinclair 23 Louis & Zavertnik. I’m here on behalf of the 24 deponent. 25 Thereupon:

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 179

Page 5 1 JOHANNA SJOBERG 2 a witness named in the notice heretofore filed, 3 being of lawful age and having been first duly 4 sworn, testified on her oath as follows: 5 E X A M I N A T I O N 6 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 7 Q. Good morning, Johanna. Thank you for 8 coming. I’m going to talk to you a little bit about 9 the deposition process before we get started to make 10 sure you understand what’s going to happen here 11 today. 12 You just heard there’s a videographer, and 13 he’s going to be taking your video during this 14 deposition and generally what’s happening in the 15 course of the deposition. 16 And then you have a court reporter here 17 who takes down the words that we say. And it’s a 18 little bit tricky because I tend to speak quickly 19 sometimes and speak over people, and she needs to 20 get down all of the words. So I’ll try to do my 21 best to go slower and make sure I’m not talking over 22 you. 23 And, similarly, if you’ve got an answer to 24 a question, make sure that you’re verbally 25 responding, not just nodding or making a gesture

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 179

Page 6 1 because she can’t get that down. We want to make 2 sure our responses are verbal. I’ll try to remind 3 you of that if that happens. 4 Have you ever been deposed before? 5 A. No. 6 Q. No. Okay. 7 So what’s going to happen is I’m going to 8 ask questions, and you’ll give answers. And like I 9 said, everybody will be recording those. 10 Is there any reason, any medical reason, 11 anything you’ve taken today that would cause you to 12 not to be able to give truthful testimony today? 13 A. No. 14 Q. No. Okay. 15 All right. So we’re going to get started, 16 and if you have any questions during the deposition 17 or you need to stop to take a break, you can just 18 let me know and we’ll take that break. 19 So what I – the only thing I ask is if 20 we’re in the midst of a question, you finish the 21 answer before we take a break. 22 A. Sure. 23 Q. But I’ll try to make sure that I take 24 regular breaks, as well. 25 You stated your name for the record. Can

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 179

Page 7 1 you tell me your date of birth? 2 3 Q. That makes you how old now? 4 5 Q. Okay. And where are you currently living? 6 7 Q. And I’m going to show you what I’m going 8 to mark as the first two exhibits in the matter. 9 And I’m going to ask the court reporter if I can 10 mark those. 11 (The referred-to document was marked by 12 the court reporter for Identification as 13 Sjoberg Exhibits 1 and 2.) 14 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 15 Q. Okay. I’m going to show you what I’m 16 marking as Exhibit 1. It’s going to be the 17 re-notice of your videotaped deposition, which is 18 simply a notice I’m going to show you. And then 19 Exhibit 2 is the subpoena that we served on you. 20 So you’re here today pursuant to our 21 Notice of Deposition and the subpoena that we served 22 on you. 23 Are you familiar with the subpoena? Have 24 you seen that document before? 25 A. Yes.

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 179

Page 8 1 Q. Okay. Great. 2 All right. Do you know a female by the 3 name of Ghislaine Maxwell? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And when did you first meet Ms. Maxwell? 6 A. 2001. March probably. End of 7 February/beginning of March. 8 Q. And how did you meet her? 9 A. She approached me while I was on campus at 10 Palm Beach Atlantic College. 11 Q. And what happened when she approached you? 12 A. She asked me if I could tell her how to 13 find someone that would come and work at her house. 14 She wanted to know if there was, like, a bulletin 15 board or something that she could post, that she was 16 looking for someone to hire. 17 Q. And what did you discuss with her? 18 A. I told her where she could go to – you 19 know, to put up a listing. And then she asked me if 20 I knew anyone that would be interested in working 21 for her. 22 Q. Did she describe what that work was going 23 to be? 24 A. She explained that she lived in Palm Beach 25 and didn’t want butlers because they’re too stuffy.

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 179

Page 9 1 And so she just liked to hire girls to work at the 2 house, answer phones, get drinks, do the job a 3 butler would do. 4 Q. And did she tell you what she would pay 5 for that kind of a job? 6 A. At that moment, no, but later in the day, 7 yes. 8 Q. And what did she say? 9 A. Twenty dollars an hour. 10 Q. Was there anybody else with Ms. Maxwell 11 when you met her? 12 A. There was another woman with her. I don’t 13 recall her or what she looks like or how old she 14 was. 15 Q. And what happened next? 16 A. And then she asked me if I would be 17 interested in working for her. And she told me that 18 she was – I could trust her and that I could jump 19 in her car and go check out the house at that moment 20 if I wanted. 21 And so I said, Sure, let’s do it, and went 22 to her home with her. 23 Q. And where was that home? 24 A. In Palm Beach. 25 Q. And did she describe that home as being

Page 10 1 her home? 2 A. She described it as being her home and 3 alluded to the fact that it was her and Jeffrey’s 4 home and that she had homes all over the world. 5 Yes. 6 Q. And what happened when you arrived at the 7 home? 8 A. I believe she just showed me around. 9 Q. Do you recall meeting anybody at the home? 10 A. I don’t recall if I met Jeffrey at that 11 time or the next time that I was there. 12 Q. How did you meet Jeffrey? Did Maxwell 13 introduce you to Jeffrey? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. What do you recall of your first meeting 16 with Jeffrey? 17 A. I remember him being in a bathrobe. I 18 recall talking to him about how I was a major in 19 psychology. And he had studied psychology, and so 20 he spoke with me about different topics. 21 I remember thinking this guy is very 22 smart. That was my first impression. 23 Q. And when you refer to Jeffrey, are you 24 referring to Jeffrey Epstein? 25 A. Yes.

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 179

Page 11 1 Q. How did the meeting – you said Maxwell 2 took you to the home. Do you remember how that 3 meeting ended? 4 A. Well, she dropped me back off at campus. 5 Q. And did you – 6 A. She got my number and I took her number. 7 And then she called me the next weekend to work. 8 Q. So at that point you started working for 9 Ms. Maxwell? 10 A. At that time, yes. 11 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading. 12 Sorry. 13 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 14 Q. Did you then start working for Ms. Maxwell 15 after that first meeting? 16 A. She called me and I went over to the home 17 the next Sunday to work. 18 Q. And what work – can you describe for me 19 the first day at work, what work you performed? 20 A. Sure. I remember answering the phones and 21 taking messages. And at one point, she asked me to 22 go pick up printer ink, and I took her car to Office 23 Depot to get ink. 24 She asked me to go buy some magazines, so 25 I went to Palm Beach Daily News and bought a few

1 magazines. 2 She and I went – she wanted to take me 3 shopping to Worth Avenue, but it was a Sunday and 4 Nieman Marcus was closed, so we went back to, like, 5 a little book store. And I remember she bought, I 6 think, five pairs of reading glasses because she 7 thought Jeffrey would like them. He had them all 8 over the house. On every table there was reading 9 glasses. 10 And that’s about it. It was a pretty 11 simple day. 12 Q. Were you paid that day for that work? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And how much were you paid? Do you 15 remember? 16 A. I don’t remember how many hours I was 17 there – I was there. She paid me cash. 18 Q. So Maxwell paid you? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And then was she the one who trained you 21 with what – with respect to what you were supposed 22 to do during the day, directed you to, like you 23 said, go to – 24 A. I believe she was the one that was kind of 25 showing me around.

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 179

Page 13 1 Q. And how long did you work in that position 2 answering phones and doing – 3 A. Just that one day. 4 Q. Just that one day. 5 And did your duties change? 6 A. Well, the next time she called me, she 7 asked me if I wanted to come over and make $100 an 8 hour rubbing feet. 9 Q. And what did you think of that offer? 10 A. I thought it was fantastic. 11 Q. And did you come over to the house for 12 that purpose? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And when you came over to the house, was 15 Maxwell present? 16 A. I don’t recall. 17 Q. And what happened that second time you 18 came to the house? 19 A. At that point, I met Emmy Taylor, and she 20 took me up to Jeffrey’s bathroom and he was present. 21 And her and I both massaged Jeffrey. She was 22 showing me how to massage. 23 And then she – he took – he got off the 24 table, she got on the table. She took off her 25 clothes, got on the table, and then he was showing

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 179

Page 14 1 me moves that he liked. And then I took my clothes 2 off. They asked me to get on the table so I could 3 feel it. Then they both massaged me. 4 Q. So it was more than a foot massage at that 5 point? 6 A. Yeah, it was mostly, like, legs and back. 7 Q. Was everybody in the room without clothes 8 on? 9 A. When they were on the massage table, yes. 10 Q. Did they – when they got off the massage 11 table to perform the massage, did they dress or 12 did – 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. They dressed. 15 And do you recall who paid you for that 16 first day that you did the massages? 17 A. I don’t recall. 18 Q. Do you recall whether Maxwell was at the 19 house during that first day when you were doing the 20 massage with Emmy and Jeffrey? 21 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, asked and 22 answered. 23 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 24 Q. You can answer. 25 A. I don’t recall.

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 179

Page 15 1 Q. Who did Emmy work for? 2 A. Ghislaine. 3 Q. Did Maxwell ever refer to Emmy by any 4 particular term? 5 A. She called her her slave. 6 Q. You said your job duties changed. Did you 7 start to travel as part of your job with Jeffrey and 8 Ghislaine? 9 A. Yes. The next time they called me, they 10 asked me to go to New York. 11 Q. And did you – do you recall when that was 12 approximately? 13 A. That was Easter of 2001. 14 Q. And do you recall who was on the plane 15 with you for that trip? 16 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form. 17 MS. McCAWLEY: Actually, I’m going to stop 18 really quickly and I’m going to ask for the 19 next exhibit, please. 20 MS. MENNINGER: This is 3? 21 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. I’m going to mark 22 this as Exhibit 3 for purposes of the 23 deposition. 24 25

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 179

Page 16 1 (The referred-to document was marked by 2 the court reporter for Identification as 3 Sjoberg Exhibit 3.) 4 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 5 Q. Johanna, I’m going to direct you – I 6 flagged some pages, but for the record, I’m going to 7 say what pages they are before I hand you the 8 exhibit. 9 A. Sure. 10 Q. These are Giuffre 000748 and 000758, are 11 the two pages right now I may refer you to. The 12 document itself is 000721 through 789. 13 And these are flight logs from pilot David 14 Rogers that have been produced in this case. 15 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation, 16 asking the witness any questions about this 17 document. 18 THE WITNESS: Can I touch it? 19 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes, you may. 20 MS. MENNINGER: I just have to say things 21 every now and then. 22 THE WITNESS: Okay. 23 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 24 Q. So you mentioned that you traveled to New 25 York. If you turn to page – flagged page which

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 179

Page 17 1 should be 000748, at the top of that document you’re 2 going to see a date of April 2001. 3 I’m just going to ask you to go down to 4 the – if you look at the line on the left to where 5 it says 9 for the date, and look over where it has 6 the names. 7 Do you see – can you identify your name 8 on that list? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And can you tell me – I know there are 11 initials there – who else to the extent you 12 remember was on the plane with you? 13 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation, 14 leading, form of question. 15 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 16 Q. Johanna, do you recall who was on the 17 plane with you that day? 18 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation, 19 form, leading. 20 The witness is reading the document. 21 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 22 Q. You can answer. 23 A. Okay. JE, Jeffrey Epstein; ET, Emmy 24 Taylor; VR, Virginia Roberts; BK, I do not recall; 25 and myself.

Page 18 1 MS. MENNINGER: Objection. The witness is 2 reading the document. 3 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 4 Q. And do you recall where you flew when you 5 went to – when you traveled that first time with 6 Jeffrey Epstein? 7 A. We left from Palm Beach and landed in 8 Atlantic City for a few hours because there was a 9 storm in New York, and then got back on the plane a 10 few hours later and landed in Teterboro. 11 Q. And you said that you recall landing in 12 Atlantic City. Did you go into Atlantic City? 13 A. Yes, went to one of Trump’s casinos. 14 Q. Did you actually go into the casino 15 itself? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Do you recall Virginia – at the time 18 Virginia Roberts being present with you? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Do you recall if she went into the casino? 21 A. She was underage. I did not know anything 22 about how old you had to be to gamble legally. I 23 just knew she could not get in because of an ID 24 issue. So she and I did not gamble. 25 Q. In your opinion, did Virginia look young,

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 179

Page 19 1 in your view? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Did you ever – did you at that time 4 wonder why she was traveling with Jeffrey? 5 A. At that time, I did not. 6 Q. Did you later wonder that? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And what was your impression? 9 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, vague, 10 speculative. 11 THE WITNESS: I – we’re jumping ahead; is 12 that okay? 13 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 14 Q. Yes, that’s okay. 15 A. A few days later, I remember asking her 16 questions to try to figure out her role, why she was 17 there, and she gave me vague answers and was never 18 specific. 19 And so I thought perhaps she just was an 20 assistant, someone that did massages well. I wanted 21 to believe that she was innocent. 22 Q. Did you ever refer to her as being 23 orphan-like? 24 A. I did. 25 Q. And how did that come about?

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 179

Page 20 1 A. No, I only – to you, I said that to you. 2 I just saw her as perhaps someone who may not have 3 had a strong family, and they took her under their 4 wing. 5 Q. Now, you mentioned remembering going to 6 Atlantic City. 7 Did you go – where did you go after 8 Atlantic City? 9 A. Once we landed in New York, Emmy and I 10 went in a car and drove around the city for a half 11 hour or so, just to see some of the city. 12 Q. And then where did you go after doing the 13 sightseeing? 14 A. We went to the townhouse on East 71st. 15 Q. And can you describe that location for me? 16 A. Sure. Between Madison and Park. I think 17 the address might have been 9 East 71st Street. 18 Q. And who owned that home? 19 A. As far as I knew, Epstein. 20 Q. Can you describe for me physically what – 21 A. Palatial. When you walk up, it looks like 22 a normal door to a townhouse, and when you walk 23 in – I thought there were four floors. I heard 24 there were seven floors. I didn’t see them all. 25 Q. And do you recall who, if anybody, was at

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 179

Page 21 1 Jeffrey’s home when you arrived? 2 A. Yes. When I first walked in the door, it 3 was just myself, and Ghislaine headed for the 4 staircase and said – told me to come up to the 5 living room. 6 Q. And what happened at that point, when you 7 came up to the living room? 8 A. I came up and saw Virginia, Jeffrey, 9 Prince Andrew, Ghislaine in the room. 10 Q. And did you meet Prince Andrew at that 11 time? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And what happened next? 14 A. At one point, Ghislaine told me to come 15 upstairs, and we went into a closet and pulled out 16 the puppet, the caricature of Prince Andrew, and 17 brought it down. And there was a little tag on the 18 puppet that said “Prince Andrew” on it, and that’s 19 when I knew who he was. 20 Q. And did – what did the puppet look like? 21 A. It looked like him. And she brought it 22 down and presented it to him; and that was a great 23 joke, because apparently it was a production from a 24 show on BBC. And they decided to take a picture 25 with it, in which Virginia and Andrew sat on a

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 179

Page 22 1 couch. They put the puppet on Virginia’s lap, and I 2 sat on Andrew’s lap, and they put the puppet’s hand 3 on Virginia’s breast, and Andrew put his hand on my 4 breast, and they took a photo. 5 Q. Do you remember who took the photo? 6 A. I don’t recall. 7 Q. Did you ever see the photo after it was 8 taken? 9 A. I did not. 10 Q. And Ms. Maxwell was present during the – 11 was Ms. Maxwell present during that? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. What happened next? 14 A. The next thing I remember is just being 15 shown to which room I was going to be staying in. 16 Q. When you exited the room that you were in 17 where the picture was taken, do you recall who 18 remained in that room? 19 A. I don’t. 20 Q. Do you recall seeing Virginia exit that 21 room? 22 A. I don’t. 23 Q. During this trip to New York, did you have 24 to perform any work when you were at the New York 25 house?

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 179

Page 23 1 A. I performed at least one massage that I 2 recall. 3 Q. And who instructed you to give that 4 massage? 5 A. Jeffrey. 6 Q. And can you describe for me what happened 7 during that massage? 8 A. Near the end, he asked me to rub his 9 nipples while he masturbated. 10 Q. And did that take place? 11 A. It did not. 12 Q. And why not? 13 A. I was not comfortable with it. And so I 14 left the room. 15 Q. Did you have any – did you say anything 16 to him before leaving the room? 17 A. I believe I said, “I’m done.” 18 Q. Do you recall what his reaction was to 19 that? 20 A. I do not. At the time, at that moment, I 21 do not. 22 Q. Did you recall later what – 23 A. Well, we had a conversation a little 24 later, talking about his expectations, and that was 25 the conversation where he said that the next trip

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 25 of 179

Page 24 1 they were going on was to the island in the Virgin 2 Islands, and I would be invited; however, there 3 would be, quote, sex stuff happening. 4 Q. Can you describe for me – can you 5 describe for me what that – in New York, where you 6 massaged and what that looked like? 7 A. He had one room that was the massage room. 8 It was about the size of a spa room in a spa. It 9 had high ceilings. It had dark tapestry on the 10 walls. It was a very dark room. There was a very 11 large picture of a naked woman whom I don’t recall. 12 That’s all I remember. 13 Q. In the New York home, did you observe 14 photos around the house? 15 A. I don’t recall. 16 Q. In the Palm Beach home that we were 17 talking about earlier, did you recall seeing photos 18 in that? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And did you recall seeing photos of naked 21 females in that home? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Approximately – can you tell me where you 24 would see those in the home? 25 A. I definitely saw them in his bathroom.

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 26 of 179

Page 25 1 And I can’t recall if they were in the main living 2 areas. 3 Q. Did you see them in the stairwell up to 4 the second story of the house? 5 A. I can’t recall. 6 Q. Do you know who – who the people were in 7 those photos? Were you familiar with any of them? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Were you in any of those pho

This document was truncated for web display. See the linked source PDF for the complete record.