In October 2020, Ghislaine Maxwell filed a combined memorandum opposing Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s request to extend the deposition deadline and, separately, moved for sanctions under Federal Rule 45. Maxwell argued that Giuffre served subpoenas in ways that directly violated Rule 45(a)(4), which requires timely pre-notice to all parties before serving a non‑party subpoena for documents. Specifically, Maxwell noted that Giuffre attempted to subpoena witnesses—such as Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen, and Nadia Marcincova—without providing proper advance notice to the defense, including issuing subpoenas before notifying Maxwell’s counsel
Maxwell framed this as part of a broader pattern of bad‑faith discovery tactics: she emphasized that Giuffre squandered the discovery period, failed to diligently schedule depositions, and attempted to secure depositions well past the court‑ordered cutoff without showing good cause. In support, she detailed her own efforts to coordinate schedules and comply with rules, contrasted with Giuffre’s “last‑minute scramble,” and urged the court to reject the extension of deadlines and impose sanctions under Rule 45 and Rule 37 for the procedural violations
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1137.19.pdf (free.law)
Maxwell framed this as part of a broader pattern of bad‑faith discovery tactics: she emphasized that Giuffre squandered the discovery period, failed to diligently schedule depositions, and attempted to secure depositions well past the court‑ordered cutoff without showing good cause. In support, she detailed her own efforts to coordinate schedules and comply with rules, contrasted with Giuffre’s “last‑minute scramble,” and urged the court to reject the extension of deadlines and impose sanctions under Rule 45 and Rule 37 for the procedural violations
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1137.19.pdf (free.law)
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
this episode, we're going to start taking a look at
more documents from the Virginia Roberts and Golaan Maxwell defamation battle.
And to do that, we're taking a look at the
motion for sanctions for violation of Rule number forty five,
Case number fifteen DASH CV DASH zero seven four thirty
(00:23):
three Dash RWs Virginia Roberts versus Glen Maxwell defendant Glen Maxwell,
miss Maxwell files. This combined a response in opposition to
plaintiff's motion to extend deadline to complete depositions and motion
for sanctions for violation of Rule forty five and states
(00:44):
as follows introduction. Apparently, plaintiff seeks to take six depositions
beyond the scheduling order deadline of July first, yet has
failed to demonstrate good cause or diligence as to any
The witnesses include one redacted, a witness that plaintiff initiated
informal attempts to depose on June ninth, and two Roscau,
(01:07):
who plaintiff began steps to depose under the Hay Convention
in London last Friday, June seventeenth. Plaintiff also seeks to
untimely deposed three Jean Luke Brunel, a witness she had
noticed for a mid June deposition, who apparently did not
appear on that date with agreement and consent of Plaintiff's council.
(01:29):
The remaining three witnesses plaintiff seeks to untimely depose are
ones who reportedly have expressed their intention to take the
fifth as to all questions posed council for four Jeffrey
Epstein offered to accept service honor about April eleventh, but
plaintiff ignored that offer for more than six weeks. Plaintiff
only began on June twelfth any attempt to schedule that
(01:52):
deposition in the Virgin Islands. Last week, mister Epstein's council
filed a motion to quash his deposition subpoena. The final
untimely depositions sought by plaintiff are for witnesses Sarah Kellen
and Nadia Maarsenkova, about whom Plaintiff has made no public
claims and thus have no testimony relevant to this defamation
(02:13):
action concerning whether Plaintiff's public allegations about Maxwell are or
rather are not true. The attempted service of subpoenas on Epstein,
Kellen and Marsenkova all violated Rule forty five A four
and should be sanctioned by this Court. As to these witnesses,
Plaintiff has fallen far short of the good cause required
(02:36):
by Rule sixteen B four to modify the scheduling order.
In fact, for the most part, her failures to actively
pursue depositions with these witnesses qualifies as inexcusable neglect. She
frittered away seven of the eight months of the discovery
period and now has placed Miss Maxwell, this Court and
the witnesses in the untenable position of trying to accommodate
(02:59):
her last minute scramble in the absence of any acceptable excuses,
and for the limited evidentiary value that most of the
requested witnesses can provide, this Court should deny the request
for extra time to take these six depositions. The only
witnesses for whom depositions should be permitted following the discovery
cutoff are one Miss Sharon Churcher, Plaintiff's friend, advocate and
(03:23):
form a journalist with The Daily Mail, who filed a
motion to quash her subpoena on the day before her
scheduled deposition, and two plaintiff who refused to answer questions
at her deposition concerning highly relevant, non privileged information. Alternatively,
if the court is to grant additional time for plaintiff
to take depositions, Miss Maxwell will be unduly prejudiced without
(03:46):
sufficient additional time to a secure any witnesses to rebut
testimony glean from these witnesses, b conduct discovery of plaintiff
retained experts c submit a summary judgment motion which includes
fact learned from these late depositions, and d prepare for trial. Thus,
if the court grants Plaintiff's motion, the remaining deadlines in
(04:07):
the scheduling order ought to be extended accordingly. Background to
divert attention away from her own lack of diligence, Plaintiff
characteristically devotes much of her motion blaming Miss Maxwell and
her counsel for her own problems with depositions. Not only
is Plaintiff's acount factually inaccurate, none of it matters to
whether she could timely complete the six depositions at issue.
(04:31):
For example, the scheduling of Miss Maxwell's deposition, which depended,
among other things on an historic snowstorm, a disputed protective order,
Plaintiff's failure to timely produced documents, and Council's conflicting calendars,
all of which have been amply documented with this court,
does not inform any analysis regarding Plaintiff's lack of diligence
(04:52):
in pursuing depositions of these six witnesses see Rule twenty
six D three, unless the party stipulate the court orders Otherwise,
for the parties and witnesses convenience and in the interests
of justice, A methods of discovery may be used in
any sequence, and B discovery by one party does not
(05:12):
require any other party to delay its discovery. Likewise, receipt
of Miss Maxwell's Rule twenty six disclosures in February also
had nothing to do with these witnesses. Notably, each of
the witnesses who Plaintiff now seeks to depose were known
to her from the outset all but redacted and redacted
were included in her initial Rule twenty six disclosures on
(05:36):
November eleventh, twenty fifteen, and two of the six were
specifically mentioned in Plaintiff's complaint. Finally, the fact that witness Rinaldo.
Rizzo had a deposition rescheduled from April until June, does
not have any bearing on the issue presented by this motion.
Mister Rizzo was deposed on June fourteenth, and he has
(05:56):
nothing to do with the remaining depositions. Mister Rizzo is,
in fact, practically gleeful to be a witness redacted redacted,
redacted redacted. Plaintiff's claims that mister Rizzo is an example
of delay that has harmed her ability to obtain all
depositions in a timely manner is fecious. Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion.
(06:16):
Discovery began in this case on October twenty three, twenty fifteen,
following the party's Rule twenty six F conferral cfed dot
or dot siev dot p Dot twenty six D one
at the Rule sixteen B scheduling Conference. On October twenty eighth,
twenty fifteen, This Court directed the parties to complete all
fact discovery by July one, twenty sixteen. On November thirtieth,
(06:41):
twenty fifteen, contemporaneous with the filing of a Rule twelve
B motion to dismiss, Miss Maxwell also requested of this
Court a stay of discovery pursue it to Rule twenty
six C Document number seventeen. That motion was denied on
January twentieth, twenty sixteen, with an additional two week period
granted to respond the plaintiff's first request for production of documents.
(07:06):
The discovery thus was never stayed. Plaintiff erroneously asserts that
the discovery did not commence in this matter until February eighth.
What she means is that she neglected to seek any
non witness depositions until then. Nothing in the rules of
civil procedure, this Court's orders, or the law prevented plaintiff
(07:26):
from doing so at any point after October twenty three,
twenty fifteen. Plaintiff is at over eight months to schedule witnesses,
schedule depositions, and conduct them. Instead, she waited until the
last minute and now complains of a lack of time.
Any lack of time is a product of her own
bad faith and negligent litigation tactics, and should not be
(07:48):
sanctioned by this Court. The failure to timely secure the
depositions of the remaining six witnesses is through no fault
of Miss Maxwell or her council. As to these witnesses.
Miss maxwell Well and their council have played no role
in hindering Plaintiff's ability to depose the witnesses. In fact,
as the four of the six plaintiffs attempted to serve
(08:08):
subpoenas on the witnesses before ever providing notice to the defense,
in clear violation of Rule forty five an four. The
Legal Authority Rule sixteen B permits modification of a scheduling
order only upon a showing of good cause. To satisfy
the good cause standard, the party must show that, despite
(08:30):
its having exercise diligence, the applicable deadline could not have
been reasonably met. So Call Holdings Incorporated First BMD Moonai
Incorporated five CIV Dot three seven four nine KMWDF two
thousand and nine, w L two five two four six
one one at seven SDN Y August fourteenth, two thousand
(08:52):
and nine, citing Rent to Center Incorporated, Verse forty seven Corp.
Two fifteen, f dot R dot D D one hundred
one oh four SDNY two thousand three. J. McMahon Accord
Parker versus Columbia Pictures Industrial, two thousand and four, f
DOT three D three twenty six three forty Second Circuit
(09:14):
two thousand. Good cause depends on the diligence of the
moving party. Perfect Pearl Company Incorporated. Versus Majestic Pearl and
Stone Incorporated. Eight eighty nine f Dot supp Dot two
D four fifty three four fifty seven SDNY twenty twelve.
Angelmeyer j. To show good cause, a movement must demonstrate
(09:34):
that it has been diligent, meaning that despite its having
exercise diligence, the applicable deadline could not have been reasonably met.
Good cause depends on the diligence of the moving party
in seeking to meet the scheduling order. Gratchkowski versus Phoenix
Construction three eighteen f Dot three d eighty eighty six,
(09:56):
Second Circuit two thousand three. The Oxford Dictionary defines diligence
as careful and persistent work or effort. See diligence at
Oxford Dictionaries dot com. Good cause and diligence were not
shown when a party raised the prospect of a deposition
nine days prior to the discovery deadline. Carlson versus Geneva
(10:17):
City School District two seventy seven f Dot r D
ninety WDNY twenty eleven. Compare Rees versus Virginia International Terminals Incorporated.
Two eighty six f dot r D two eighty two
e dot D Virginia, twenty twelve. Depositions noticed very early
in discovery period and movement engaged in continuing meet and
(10:41):
confer dialogue with the defendants throughout the five month discovery period.
Ayanakoska versus Benistar Administration Services Incorporated. Seven sixty five f
dot supp Dot two D seventy nine, Massachusetts, twenty eleven.
Correspondence indicated that the plaintiffs had tried on numerous occasions
(11:02):
to schedule the depositions and to extend the discovery schedule,
but that the defendants had either refused or failed to respond,
and good cause was found. Argument one Plaintiff's lack of diligence.
Plaintiff is demonstrated in extreme lack of diligence in securing
the six remaining depositions that she seeks. A redacted. Plaintiff's
(11:24):
motion failed to mention any desire to take the deposition
of redacted and redacted. No notice of deposition has been served,
and no scheduling of his deposition has commenced. Indeed, Redacted
first appeared on plaintiff's third revised Rule twenty six disclosures
two weeks ago on June first, then last week. In
her reply in support of motion to exceed ten depositions
(11:48):
filed on June thirteenth, Plaintiff averred that redacted deposition is
necessary because Miss Maxwell, in her deposition on April twenty fifth,
raised Miss Roberts comp about redacted as one of the
obvious lies to which she was referring in her public
statement that formed the basis of this suit. Reply at three.
(12:09):
This is utter nonsense and nothing more than a transparent
ploy by plaintiff to increase media exposure for her sensational
stories through deposition. Side show. This witness has nothing relevant
to add to this case, and Plaintiff has made no effort,
much less won in good faith to timely secure his testimony.
Plaintiff admits she has made not allegations of illegal actions
(12:32):
by redacted, but plaintiff has asserted that she spent time
with redacted on the island of Little Saint James Us
Virgin Islands, and that she flew there with the redacted
in a helicopter piloted by Miss Maxwell. In one article
authored by Sharon Churcher plaintiff related on one occasion, she
adds Epstein did invite two young brunettes to dinner, which
(12:54):
he gave on his Caribbean island for mister Clinton shortly
after he left office. Far as she knows, the ex
president did not take the bait. I'd have been about
seventeen at the time, she says. I flew to the
Caribbean with Jeffrey and then Glene Maxwell went to pick
up Bill in a huge black helicopter that Jeffrey bought her.
She always wanted to fly, and Jeffrey paid for her
(13:15):
to take lessons, and I remember she was very excited
because she got her license around the first year we met.
I used to get frightened flying with her, but Bill
had the Secret Service with him, and I remember him
talking about what a good job she did. I only
met Bill twice, but Jeffrey told me they were good friends.
We all dined together that night. Jeffrey was at the
(13:37):
head of the table. Bill was at his left. I
sat across from him. Emmy Taylor, Glaine's blonde British assistant,
sat at my right. Glaine was at Bill's left and
at the left of Golaine. There were two olive skin
brunettes who had flown in with us from New York.
I'd never met them before. I'd say they were no
older than seventeen, very innocent looking. They weren't there for me.
(14:00):
They weren't there for Jeffrey or Glaine, because I was
there to have sex with Jeffrey on that trip. Maybe
Jeffrey thought he would entertain Bill, but I saw no
evidence that he was interested in them. He and Jeffrey
and Glane seemed to be having a good time, and
they had a very good relationship. Bill was very funny.
He made me laugh a few times, and he and
Jeffrey and Glaine told blokey jokes, and the brunettes listened
(14:23):
politely and giggled. After dinner, I gave Jeffrey an erotic massage.
I don't remember seeing Bill again on the trip, but
I assume Glaine flew him back. Boy, that seems like
a problem for Bill Clinton. No, didn't his spokesperson come
out and tell us that he's never been on the island.
So either Virginia's lying or Bill Clinton's lying. I'll leave
(14:44):
it up to you to decide who you believe. But
me personally. I don't believe Bill Clinton about a goddamn thing.
And if Virginia saying she saw him on this island,
I'm gonna go with Virginia and say he was on
this island. See Sharon Churcher, girl recruited by pedophile Jeffrey Epstein,
reveals how she twice met Bill Clinton. The next big
(15:06):
dinner on the island had another significant guest appearance, being
the one and only Bill Clinton. He is the only
president in the world to be dismissed from his role
as a World Leader because he was caught with his
trousers down around his ankles and had the stain to
prove it publicly humiliating his wife and himself. He retired
from his title, but not from his lifestyle. This wasn't
(15:27):
a big party as such, only a few of us
eating at the dinner table. There was Jeffrey at the
head of the table as always. On the left was
Emmy Galainne, and I was sitting across the table from
us was Bill with two lovely girls who were visiting
from New York. Bill's wife, Hillary's absence from the night
made it easy for his apparent provocative, cheeky side to
(15:49):
come out teasing the girls on either side of them
with playful pokes and brassy comments. There was no modesty
between any of them. We all finished our meals and
scattered in our her own different directions Menager Declaration Exhibit
B at one ten. Each and every part of Plaintiff's
claims regarding redacted has conclusively been proven false. Redacted, redacted,
(16:13):
or redacted or redacted. Remarkably, Plaintiff now even denies telling
Churcher that she ever witnessed Miss Maxwell redacted anywhere, or
joking with redacted about what a good job she did.
Menager Declaration, Exhibit D. Plaintiff's council remarkably instructed plaintiff not
to answer any additional questions about the things that Shannon
(16:34):
Church are inaccurately reported, lending even more incredibulity to Plaintiff's story.
Miss Maxwell only received her pilot's license in mid nineteen
ninety nine, casting insurmountable doubt that redacted, redacted, redacted, and redacted.
The only purpose for seeking this deposition is for the
calculated media strategy that plaintiff and her publicity seeking attorneys
(16:56):
have devised. Plaintiff fell to disclose redacted as a witness
until June first, failed to notice his deposition, failed to
diligently pursue a subpoena on him, and he has no
relevant testimony. It'll offer. Accordingly, Plaintiff's leave to modify the
scheduling order to permit his deposition should be denied. And
this person we're talking about redacted here is none other
(17:18):
than Billy Boy Clinton. Isn't that nice? I wonder how
many times we're going to see this dude's name in
these documents. B ross Gal, as the court likely recalls,
ross Gal, actually issued the statement pertinent to this defamation suit.
Plaintiff is known about ross Gal and his role in
this lawsuit since the outset. She referenced him repeatedly by
(17:41):
name in complaint filed on September twenty first, twenty fifteen,
Complaint paragraph twenty nine. As part of Maxwell's campaign, she
directed her agent Rosscal to attack Robert's honesty and truthfulness
and accuse Roberts of lying. Plaintiff also has been well
aware throughout that mister Goo resides in London. Plaintiff's motion
(18:03):
to compel in proper privileges at eight after filing that
complaint in September and litigating the motion to compel based
on privileges related to mister Gow in March. Plaintiff took
exactly zero steps to depose mister Goo until she filed
this motion, now nine months after filing her complaint. Plaintiff
contends there is no sufficient time for her to go
(18:24):
through the Hay Convention for service on mister Gal so
as to complete this process before the June thirtieth, twenty
sixteen deadline motion at four. Indeed, Plaintiff only initiated that
process three days ago on Friday, June seventeenth, two weeks
shy of the discovery cutoff. Plaintiff once again tries to
(18:44):
blame Miss Maxwell for her own lack of diligence by
misrepresenting to this court that Miss Roberts asks that defendant
produced her agent, mister Gall for a deposition, but defendant
has refused, despite acknowledging that defendant plans to call mister
Gal for testimony at trial. In truth, Plaintiff sent a
letter on May twenty third which read, in its entirety,
(19:06):
this letter is to seek your agreement to produce Ross
Gall for a deposition as the agent for your client,
Miss Maxwell, we can work with mister Gallo's schedule to
minimize inconvenience. Please advise by Wednesday, May twenty fifth, twenty sixteen,
whether you will produce mister Gao or whether we will
need to seek relief from the court with respect to
his deposition Manager Declaration Exhibit E. That was the first
(19:31):
communication regarding any deposition of mister gall Two days later,
defense counsel requested any legal authority that would allow Miss
Maxwell to produce Ross gall for a deposition, or any
rule or case that would either enable or require her
to do so. Plaintiff never responded. She also has not
(19:51):
explained when or how Miss Maxwell acknowledged her plans to
call mister gall for testimony at trial, nor why that
is relevant to whether plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for
her own failure to take steps to depose a foreign
witness deposition until June seventeenth, for a witness she was
aware before even filing the complaint. During the hearing on
(20:12):
March twenty fourth, this court stated that it would expect
to see good Fay's showing of efforts to comply with
the schedule and an inability because of Hay Convention problems
before it would consider changing the scheduling order. Miss Maxwell
submits that waiting until June seventeenth, two weeks before the
end of discovery, to even begin the Hey Convention process
(20:34):
falls far short of any such good fay showing, and
the request for leave to take mister Gal's testimony beyond
July first should be denied. See Jean Luke Brunell. With
regard to Jean Luke Brunell, plaintiff simply asserts that he
was subpoen hood and set for mid June deposition, but
through Council has requested we change the dates of his
(20:55):
deposition motion at four. That's her entire argument. She emits
facts that would instead demonstrate her lack of diligence in
securing mister Brunell's testimony and also show that she has
waived any right to seek an out of time deposition.
Plaintiff first issued a notice of Rule forty five subpoena
for documents from mister Brunell on February sixteenth, at an
(21:18):
address CEO Attorney Joe Totone. No documents were ever produced
pursuant to that subpoena. Menager declaration example f Then on
May twenty third, twenty sixteen, plaintiff issued a new notice
of subpoena duces techem attached to, which was actually a
subpoena for deposition testimony to occur on June eighth at
(21:41):
nine am in New York. Again, the subpoena was addressed
CEO Attorney Robert Hatman. Then on June second, Plaintiff's council
sent an email that they had received an email yesterday
from mister Brunell's attorney saying that he needs to reschedule.
I believe he is trying to get us new dates
today or tomorrow. The scheduled date of June eighth came
(22:03):
and went without any indication of any new dates provided
by mister Brunell's council. The following week, Plaintiff's council stated
in a phone conversation that mister Brunell's council said his
client had gone to France and it was unclear when
he would be returning to the United States. Following the
filing of the instant motion, Council for miss Maxwell requested
(22:25):
copies of the certificates of service for all Plaintiff's Rule
forty five subpoenas. In this case, Plaintiff's council provided certificates
on June fourteenth. Notably absent was any certificate of service
for mister Brunell. Thus, either mister Brunell was never served
or he was served in plaintiff unilatterally extended his compliance
date to an unscheduled time in the future. Either way,
(22:49):
the time to complain about a witness's non compliance is
at or near the time it occurs. Failure to timely
complain regarding non compliance with the subpoena constitutes a way in
any event, whether served or not. Mister Brunell apparently promised
to provide new dates before his deposition date came and went,
did not do so, has left the country and not
(23:11):
indicated a present intention to ever return. Given Plaintiff's role
in failing to compel him to attend a deposition, no
good cause has been demonstrated to take the deposition of
mister Brunell after July first,
What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
this episode, we're going to start taking a look at
more documents from the Virginia Roberts and Golaan Maxwell defamation battle.
And to do that, we're taking a look at the
motion for sanctions for violation of Rule number forty five,
Case number fifteen DASH CV DASH zero seven four thirty
(00:23):
three Dash RWs Virginia Roberts versus Glen Maxwell defendant Glen Maxwell,
miss Maxwell files. This combined a response in opposition to
plaintiff's motion to extend deadline to complete depositions and motion
for sanctions for violation of Rule forty five and states
(00:44):
as follows introduction. Apparently, plaintiff seeks to take six depositions
beyond the scheduling order deadline of July first, yet has
failed to demonstrate good cause or diligence as to any
The witnesses include one redacted, a witness that plaintiff initiated
informal attempts to depose on June ninth, and two Roscau,
(01:07):
who plaintiff began steps to depose under the Hay Convention
in London last Friday, June seventeenth. Plaintiff also seeks to
untimely deposed three Jean Luke Brunel, a witness she had
noticed for a mid June deposition, who apparently did not
appear on that date with agreement and consent of Plaintiff's council.
(01:29):
The remaining three witnesses plaintiff seeks to untimely depose are
ones who reportedly have expressed their intention to take the
fifth as to all questions posed council for four Jeffrey
Epstein offered to accept service honor about April eleventh, but
plaintiff ignored that offer for more than six weeks. Plaintiff
only began on June twelfth any attempt to schedule that
(01:52):
deposition in the Virgin Islands. Last week, mister Epstein's council
filed a motion to quash his deposition subpoena. The final
untimely depositions sought by plaintiff are for witnesses Sarah Kellen
and Nadia Maarsenkova, about whom Plaintiff has made no public
claims and thus have no testimony relevant to this defamation
(02:13):
action concerning whether Plaintiff's public allegations about Maxwell are or
rather are not true. The attempted service of subpoenas on Epstein,
Kellen and Marsenkova all violated Rule forty five A four
and should be sanctioned by this Court. As to these witnesses,
Plaintiff has fallen far short of the good cause required
(02:36):
by Rule sixteen B four to modify the scheduling order.
In fact, for the most part, her failures to actively
pursue depositions with these witnesses qualifies as inexcusable neglect. She
frittered away seven of the eight months of the discovery
period and now has placed Miss Maxwell, this Court and
the witnesses in the untenable position of trying to accommodate
(02:59):
her last minute scramble in the absence of any acceptable excuses,
and for the limited evidentiary value that most of the
requested witnesses can provide, this Court should deny the request
for extra time to take these six depositions. The only
witnesses for whom depositions should be permitted following the discovery
cutoff are one Miss Sharon Churcher, Plaintiff's friend, advocate and
(03:23):
form a journalist with The Daily Mail, who filed a
motion to quash her subpoena on the day before her
scheduled deposition, and two plaintiff who refused to answer questions
at her deposition concerning highly relevant, non privileged information. Alternatively,
if the court is to grant additional time for plaintiff
to take depositions, Miss Maxwell will be unduly prejudiced without
(03:46):
sufficient additional time to a secure any witnesses to rebut
testimony glean from these witnesses, b conduct discovery of plaintiff
retained experts c submit a summary judgment motion which includes
fact learned from these late depositions, and d prepare for trial. Thus,
if the court grants Plaintiff's motion, the remaining deadlines in
(04:07):
the scheduling order ought to be extended accordingly. Background to
divert attention away from her own lack of diligence, Plaintiff
characteristically devotes much of her motion blaming Miss Maxwell and
her counsel for her own problems with depositions. Not only
is Plaintiff's acount factually inaccurate, none of it matters to
whether she could timely complete the six depositions at issue.
(04:31):
For example, the scheduling of Miss Maxwell's deposition, which depended,
among other things on an historic snowstorm, a disputed protective order,
Plaintiff's failure to timely produced documents, and Council's conflicting calendars,
all of which have been amply documented with this court,
does not inform any analysis regarding Plaintiff's lack of diligence
(04:52):
in pursuing depositions of these six witnesses see Rule twenty
six D three, unless the party stipulate the court orders Otherwise,
for the parties and witnesses convenience and in the interests
of justice, A methods of discovery may be used in
any sequence, and B discovery by one party does not
(05:12):
require any other party to delay its discovery. Likewise, receipt
of Miss Maxwell's Rule twenty six disclosures in February also
had nothing to do with these witnesses. Notably, each of
the witnesses who Plaintiff now seeks to depose were known
to her from the outset all but redacted and redacted
were included in her initial Rule twenty six disclosures on
(05:36):
November eleventh, twenty fifteen, and two of the six were
specifically mentioned in Plaintiff's complaint. Finally, the fact that witness Rinaldo.
Rizzo had a deposition rescheduled from April until June, does
not have any bearing on the issue presented by this motion.
Mister Rizzo was deposed on June fourteenth, and he has
(05:56):
nothing to do with the remaining depositions. Mister Rizzo is,
in fact, practically gleeful to be a witness redacted redacted,
redacted redacted. Plaintiff's claims that mister Rizzo is an example
of delay that has harmed her ability to obtain all
depositions in a timely manner is fecious. Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion.
(06:16):
Discovery began in this case on October twenty three, twenty fifteen,
following the party's Rule twenty six F conferral cfed dot
or dot siev dot p Dot twenty six D one
at the Rule sixteen B scheduling Conference. On October twenty eighth,
twenty fifteen, This Court directed the parties to complete all
fact discovery by July one, twenty sixteen. On November thirtieth,
(06:41):
twenty fifteen, contemporaneous with the filing of a Rule twelve
B motion to dismiss, Miss Maxwell also requested of this
Court a stay of discovery pursue it to Rule twenty
six C Document number seventeen. That motion was denied on
January twentieth, twenty sixteen, with an additional two week period
granted to respond the plaintiff's first request for production of documents.
(07:06):
The discovery thus was never stayed. Plaintiff erroneously asserts that
the discovery did not commence in this matter until February eighth.
What she means is that she neglected to seek any
non witness depositions until then. Nothing in the rules of
civil procedure, this Court's orders, or the law prevented plaintiff
(07:26):
from doing so at any point after October twenty three,
twenty fifteen. Plaintiff is at over eight months to schedule witnesses,
schedule depositions, and conduct them. Instead, she waited until the
last minute and now complains of a lack of time.
Any lack of time is a product of her own
bad faith and negligent litigation tactics, and should not be
(07:48):
sanctioned by this Court. The failure to timely secure the
depositions of the remaining six witnesses is through no fault
of Miss Maxwell or her council. As to these witnesses.
Miss maxwell Well and their council have played no role
in hindering Plaintiff's ability to depose the witnesses. In fact,
as the four of the six plaintiffs attempted to serve
(08:08):
subpoenas on the witnesses before ever providing notice to the defense,
in clear violation of Rule forty five an four. The
Legal Authority Rule sixteen B permits modification of a scheduling
order only upon a showing of good cause. To satisfy
the good cause standard, the party must show that, despite
(08:30):
its having exercise diligence, the applicable deadline could not have
been reasonably met. So Call Holdings Incorporated First BMD Moonai
Incorporated five CIV Dot three seven four nine KMWDF two
thousand and nine, w L two five two four six
one one at seven SDN Y August fourteenth, two thousand
(08:52):
and nine, citing Rent to Center Incorporated, Verse forty seven Corp.
Two fifteen, f dot R dot D D one hundred
one oh four SDNY two thousand three. J. McMahon Accord
Parker versus Columbia Pictures Industrial, two thousand and four, f
DOT three D three twenty six three forty Second Circuit
(09:14):
two thousand. Good cause depends on the diligence of the
moving party. Perfect Pearl Company Incorporated. Versus Majestic Pearl and
Stone Incorporated. Eight eighty nine f Dot supp Dot two
D four fifty three four fifty seven SDNY twenty twelve.
Angelmeyer j. To show good cause, a movement must demonstrate
(09:34):
that it has been diligent, meaning that despite its having
exercise diligence, the applicable deadline could not have been reasonably met.
Good cause depends on the diligence of the moving party
in seeking to meet the scheduling order. Gratchkowski versus Phoenix
Construction three eighteen f Dot three d eighty eighty six,
(09:56):
Second Circuit two thousand three. The Oxford Dictionary defines diligence
as careful and persistent work or effort. See diligence at
Oxford Dictionaries dot com. Good cause and diligence were not
shown when a party raised the prospect of a deposition
nine days prior to the discovery deadline. Carlson versus Geneva
(10:17):
City School District two seventy seven f Dot r D
ninety WDNY twenty eleven. Compare Rees versus Virginia International Terminals Incorporated.
Two eighty six f dot r D two eighty two
e dot D Virginia, twenty twelve. Depositions noticed very early
in discovery period and movement engaged in continuing meet and
(10:41):
confer dialogue with the defendants throughout the five month discovery period.
Ayanakoska versus Benistar Administration Services Incorporated. Seven sixty five f
dot supp Dot two D seventy nine, Massachusetts, twenty eleven.
Correspondence indicated that the plaintiffs had tried on numerous occasions
(11:02):
to schedule the depositions and to extend the discovery schedule,
but that the defendants had either refused or failed to respond,
and good cause was found. Argument one Plaintiff's lack of diligence.
Plaintiff is demonstrated in extreme lack of diligence in securing
the six remaining depositions that she seeks. A redacted. Plaintiff's
(11:24):
motion failed to mention any desire to take the deposition
of redacted and redacted. No notice of deposition has been served,
and no scheduling of his deposition has commenced. Indeed, Redacted
first appeared on plaintiff's third revised Rule twenty six disclosures
two weeks ago on June first, then last week. In
her reply in support of motion to exceed ten depositions
(11:48):
filed on June thirteenth, Plaintiff averred that redacted deposition is
necessary because Miss Maxwell, in her deposition on April twenty fifth,
raised Miss Roberts comp about redacted as one of the
obvious lies to which she was referring in her public
statement that formed the basis of this suit. Reply at three.
(12:09):
This is utter nonsense and nothing more than a transparent
ploy by plaintiff to increase media exposure for her sensational
stories through deposition. Side show. This witness has nothing relevant
to add to this case, and Plaintiff has made no effort,
much less won in good faith to timely secure his testimony.
Plaintiff admits she has made not allegations of illegal actions
(12:32):
by redacted, but plaintiff has asserted that she spent time
with redacted on the island of Little Saint James Us
Virgin Islands, and that she flew there with the redacted
in a helicopter piloted by Miss Maxwell. In one article
authored by Sharon Churcher plaintiff related on one occasion, she
adds Epstein did invite two young brunettes to dinner, which
(12:54):
he gave on his Caribbean island for mister Clinton shortly
after he left office. Far as she knows, the ex
president did not take the bait. I'd have been about
seventeen at the time, she says. I flew to the
Caribbean with Jeffrey and then Glene Maxwell went to pick
up Bill in a huge black helicopter that Jeffrey bought her.
She always wanted to fly, and Jeffrey paid for her
(13:15):
to take lessons, and I remember she was very excited
because she got her license around the first year we met.
I used to get frightened flying with her, but Bill
had the Secret Service with him, and I remember him
talking about what a good job she did. I only
met Bill twice, but Jeffrey told me they were good friends.
We all dined together that night. Jeffrey was at the
(13:37):
head of the table. Bill was at his left. I
sat across from him. Emmy Taylor, Glaine's blonde British assistant,
sat at my right. Glaine was at Bill's left and
at the left of Golaine. There were two olive skin
brunettes who had flown in with us from New York.
I'd never met them before. I'd say they were no
older than seventeen, very innocent looking. They weren't there for me.
(14:00):
They weren't there for Jeffrey or Glaine, because I was
there to have sex with Jeffrey on that trip. Maybe
Jeffrey thought he would entertain Bill, but I saw no
evidence that he was interested in them. He and Jeffrey
and Glane seemed to be having a good time, and
they had a very good relationship. Bill was very funny.
He made me laugh a few times, and he and
Jeffrey and Glaine told blokey jokes, and the brunettes listened
(14:23):
politely and giggled. After dinner, I gave Jeffrey an erotic massage.
I don't remember seeing Bill again on the trip, but
I assume Glaine flew him back. Boy, that seems like
a problem for Bill Clinton. No, didn't his spokesperson come
out and tell us that he's never been on the island.
So either Virginia's lying or Bill Clinton's lying. I'll leave
(14:44):
it up to you to decide who you believe. But
me personally. I don't believe Bill Clinton about a goddamn thing.
And if Virginia saying she saw him on this island,
I'm gonna go with Virginia and say he was on
this island. See Sharon Churcher, girl recruited by pedophile Jeffrey Epstein,
reveals how she twice met Bill Clinton. The next big
(15:06):
dinner on the island had another significant guest appearance, being
the one and only Bill Clinton. He is the only
president in the world to be dismissed from his role
as a World Leader because he was caught with his
trousers down around his ankles and had the stain to
prove it publicly humiliating his wife and himself. He retired
from his title, but not from his lifestyle. This wasn't
(15:27):
a big party as such, only a few of us
eating at the dinner table. There was Jeffrey at the
head of the table as always. On the left was
Emmy Galainne, and I was sitting across the table from
us was Bill with two lovely girls who were visiting
from New York. Bill's wife, Hillary's absence from the night
made it easy for his apparent provocative, cheeky side to
(15:49):
come out teasing the girls on either side of them
with playful pokes and brassy comments. There was no modesty
between any of them. We all finished our meals and
scattered in our her own different directions Menager Declaration Exhibit
B at one ten. Each and every part of Plaintiff's
claims regarding redacted has conclusively been proven false. Redacted, redacted,
(16:13):
or redacted or redacted. Remarkably, Plaintiff now even denies telling
Churcher that she ever witnessed Miss Maxwell redacted anywhere, or
joking with redacted about what a good job she did.
Menager Declaration, Exhibit D. Plaintiff's council remarkably instructed plaintiff not
to answer any additional questions about the things that Shannon
(16:34):
Church are inaccurately reported, lending even more incredibulity to Plaintiff's story.
Miss Maxwell only received her pilot's license in mid nineteen
ninety nine, casting insurmountable doubt that redacted, redacted, redacted, and redacted.
The only purpose for seeking this deposition is for the
calculated media strategy that plaintiff and her publicity seeking attorneys
(16:56):
have devised. Plaintiff fell to disclose redacted as a witness
until June first, failed to notice his deposition, failed to
diligently pursue a subpoena on him, and he has no
relevant testimony. It'll offer. Accordingly, Plaintiff's leave to modify the
scheduling order to permit his deposition should be denied. And
this person we're talking about redacted here is none other
(17:18):
than Billy Boy Clinton. Isn't that nice? I wonder how
many times we're going to see this dude's name in
these documents. B ross Gal, as the court likely recalls,
ross Gal, actually issued the statement pertinent to this defamation suit.
Plaintiff is known about ross Gal and his role in
this lawsuit since the outset. She referenced him repeatedly by
(17:41):
name in complaint filed on September twenty first, twenty fifteen,
Complaint paragraph twenty nine. As part of Maxwell's campaign, she
directed her agent Rosscal to attack Robert's honesty and truthfulness
and accuse Roberts of lying. Plaintiff also has been well
aware throughout that mister Goo resides in London. Plaintiff's motion
(18:03):
to compel in proper privileges at eight after filing that
complaint in September and litigating the motion to compel based
on privileges related to mister Gow in March. Plaintiff took
exactly zero steps to depose mister Goo until she filed
this motion, now nine months after filing her complaint. Plaintiff
contends there is no sufficient time for her to go
(18:24):
through the Hay Convention for service on mister Gal so
as to complete this process before the June thirtieth, twenty
sixteen deadline motion at four. Indeed, Plaintiff only initiated that
process three days ago on Friday, June seventeenth, two weeks
shy of the discovery cutoff. Plaintiff once again tries to
(18:44):
blame Miss Maxwell for her own lack of diligence by
misrepresenting to this court that Miss Roberts asks that defendant
produced her agent, mister Gall for a deposition, but defendant
has refused, despite acknowledging that defendant plans to call mister
Gal for testimony at trial. In truth, Plaintiff sent a
letter on May twenty third which read, in its entirety,
(19:06):
this letter is to seek your agreement to produce Ross
Gall for a deposition as the agent for your client,
Miss Maxwell, we can work with mister Gallo's schedule to
minimize inconvenience. Please advise by Wednesday, May twenty fifth, twenty sixteen,
whether you will produce mister Gao or whether we will
need to seek relief from the court with respect to
his deposition Manager Declaration Exhibit E. That was the first
(19:31):
communication regarding any deposition of mister gall Two days later,
defense counsel requested any legal authority that would allow Miss
Maxwell to produce Ross gall for a deposition, or any
rule or case that would either enable or require her
to do so. Plaintiff never responded. She also has not
(19:51):
explained when or how Miss Maxwell acknowledged her plans to
call mister gall for testimony at trial, nor why that
is relevant to whether plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for
her own failure to take steps to depose a foreign
witness deposition until June seventeenth, for a witness she was
aware before even filing the complaint. During the hearing on
(20:12):
March twenty fourth, this court stated that it would expect
to see good Fay's showing of efforts to comply with
the schedule and an inability because of Hay Convention problems
before it would consider changing the scheduling order. Miss Maxwell
submits that waiting until June seventeenth, two weeks before the
end of discovery, to even begin the Hey Convention process
(20:34):
falls far short of any such good fay showing, and
the request for leave to take mister Gal's testimony beyond
July first should be denied. See Jean Luke Brunell. With
regard to Jean Luke Brunell, plaintiff simply asserts that he
was subpoen hood and set for mid June deposition, but
through Council has requested we change the dates of his
(20:55):
deposition motion at four. That's her entire argument. She emits
facts that would instead demonstrate her lack of diligence in
securing mister Brunell's testimony and also show that she has
waived any right to seek an out of time deposition.
Plaintiff first issued a notice of Rule forty five subpoena
for documents from mister Brunell on February sixteenth, at an
(21:18):
address CEO Attorney Joe Totone. No documents were ever produced
pursuant to that subpoena. Menager declaration example f Then on
May twenty third, twenty sixteen, plaintiff issued a new notice
of subpoena duces techem attached to, which was actually a
subpoena for deposition testimony to occur on June eighth at
(21:41):
nine am in New York. Again, the subpoena was addressed
CEO Attorney Robert Hatman. Then on June second, Plaintiff's council
sent an email that they had received an email yesterday
from mister Brunell's attorney saying that he needs to reschedule.
I believe he is trying to get us new dates
today or tomorrow. The scheduled date of June eighth came
(22:03):
and went without any indication of any new dates provided
by mister Brunell's council. The following week, Plaintiff's council stated
in a phone conversation that mister Brunell's council said his
client had gone to France and it was unclear when
he would be returning to the United States. Following the
filing of the instant motion, Council for miss Maxwell requested
(22:25):
copies of the certificates of service for all Plaintiff's Rule
forty five subpoenas. In this case, Plaintiff's council provided certificates
on June fourteenth. Notably absent was any certificate of service
for mister Brunell. Thus, either mister Brunell was never served
or he was served in plaintiff unilatterally extended his compliance
date to an unscheduled time in the future. Either way,
(22:49):
the time to complain about a witness's non compliance is
at or near the time it occurs. Failure to timely
complain regarding non compliance with the subpoena constitutes a way in
any event, whether served or not. Mister Brunell apparently promised
to provide new dates before his deposition date came and went,
did not do so, has left the country and not
(23:11):
indicated a present intention to ever return. Given Plaintiff's role
in failing to compel him to attend a deposition, no
good cause has been demonstrated to take the deposition of
mister Brunell after July first,
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.