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 Epstein Chronicles.
We're going to pick up where we left off with
Glen Maxwell's motion for sanctions for a violation of Rule
number forty five D Jeffrey Epstein. As with the other witnesses,
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause for seeking to
(00:20):
depose Jeffrey Epstein out of time. Plaintiff claims that she
was unable to secure service on mister Epstein until May
twenty seventh, twenty sixteen, because his counsel refused to accept
service until she filed her motion for alternative service. The
documents reflect the opposite. Mister Epstein's attorney agreed to accept
service on April eleventh, twenty sixteen, and it was only
(00:43):
on May twenty seventh, twenty sixteen that plaintiff agreed. See
Poe Declaration in support of motion to quash Epstein Deposition
Exhibit three, Document number two twenty three three. Plaintiff fails
to explain her strategic decision or no negligence in failing
to respond for over six weeks to mister Weinberg's email
(01:05):
offering to accept service. Indeed, in another failure of candor,
Plaintiff's counsel also neglected to tell this court about the
email from mister Weinberg, either in the instant motion or
in her motion to serve mister Epstein by alternative means
motion at two Document number one sixty. Plaintiff apparently now
claims that she never received that email from Martin Weinberg.
(01:28):
All of the preceding communications, however, indicate that mister Weinberg
promptly responded to Miss McCauley's inquiries ceg PO declaration Example
two email of April six from Weinberg to McCauley offering
to let her know regarding acceptance of service. On April seventh,
email of McCauley in response that works fine, thank you. Thus,
(01:50):
if Miss McCauley received no follow up response from mister Weinberg,
as she now claims, when she had been corresponding with
her previously, therefore she had a duty to follow up
on that inquiry. A failure to do so is plain
vanilla neglect. Even after agreeing to the terms proposed by
Epstein's council on May twenty seventh, that is, the location
(02:11):
of the deposition in the US Virgin Islands and subject
to write to oppose the subpoena. Plaintiff then waited an
additional three weeks until June twelfth to even attempt to
schedule Epstein's deposition Epstein memorandum in support of motion to
clash at two Document number two twenty two, agreeing to
take a deposition in the Virgin Islands on May twenty seventh,
(02:33):
then waiting until June twelfth to try to schedule a
date for that deposition when numerous other depositions had already
been scheduled in New York, Florida, and California for the
balance of June is either neglect or strategic posturing by plaintiff.
Either way, it does not amount to good cause for
such depositions to take place beyond July first. Finally, plaintiff suggests,
(02:57):
without factual foundation, that Miss Maxwell played some role in
mister Epstein's Council's refusal to accept service see motion at two.
Forced to personally serve the defendant's former boyfriend, employer, and
co conspirator, as the timeline in documents now reveal. However,
plaintiff failed to provide notice to Miss Maxwell that she
(03:17):
was even attempting to serve or rule forty five subpoena
on mister Epstein for more than seven weeks. Plaintiff states
that she began her service attempts on March seventh, twenty sixteen.
The very first notice of subpoena and deposition served on
Miss Maxwell, however, is dated April twenty seventh, Manager Declaration
Exhibit H. Thus, between March seventh and April twenty seventh,
(03:40):
Miss McCauley engaged in repeated attempts to serve mister Epstein
or Rule forty five subpoena, including a request for documents,
without providing the proper notice to the parties. Pursuant to
Rule forty five A and four. If the subpoena commands
the production of documents, then before it is served on
the person to whom it is directed, a notice and
(04:00):
a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party,
as detailed below. That was not an isolated incident and
merit sanction. In any event, it is difficult to imagine
how it is Miss Maxwell's fault that plaintiff cannot serve
mister Epstein when she has never put on notice of
any attempt to do so. Given that plaintiff knew as
of April eleventh the conditions pursuant to which mister Epstein
(04:23):
would accept service through council, yet waited until May twenty
seventh to agree to those terms, and then waited another
nearly three weeks to attempt to schedule mister Epstein's deposition
on a date available for his counsel and Miss Maxwell's council.
Plaintiff has fallen far short of demonstrating good cause for
taking mister Epstein's deposition beyond the end of the fact
(04:44):
discovery cutoff e Nadia Marsonkova and Sarah Kellen. Finally, plaintiff
seeks the depositions of two other witnesses, Sarah Kellen and
Nadia Marsonkova, who she complains, despite being represented by count
have refused to accept service motion at three. Plaintiff claims
that her process servers tried for three weeks from April
(05:07):
twenty fifth until May eighteenth, to personally serve Miss Kellen
and Miss Marsonkova, with subpoena's deuces to come. She did
not explain, however, why she waited until April to try
to serve these two witnesses, about whom her attorneys have
known since two thousand and eight. She also has not
explained to this court any legally irrelevant or admissible evidence
(05:28):
that either possess, nor how she intends to introduce that
evidence in a trial of this defamation claim between Plaintiff
and Miss Maxwell. Apart from these witnesses stated intent to
take the Fifth Amendment, which renders their testimony inadmissible. As
discussed more fully below, neither witness has any relevant testimony
to offer because Plaintiff never made any public statement about
(05:51):
either one of them. Imagine trying to say that Marsonkova
and Sarah Kellen have nothing to offer. They were really
taking some liberties here, but this response weren't they. Plaintiff
did not include either woman in her Sharon Churchier paid interviews,
nor were they mentioned, and Plaintiff's joined her motion of
December thirtieth, twenty fourteen. Thus, neither Plaintiff's allegations about Miss
(06:14):
Maxwell nor Miss Maxwell's denial of the same based on
her personal knowledge, are implied by anything that Sarah Kellen
or Miss Marson Cova may have done with anyone else.
Their testimony cannot corroberate Plaintiff's account, nor can it shed
light on whether Miss Maxwell's denial of that account is
accurate because Plaintiff's account did not mention either one of
(06:35):
them technicalities and loopholes the tools of the guilty. Finally,
as to these witnesses, Plaintiff once again documented her own
failure to comply with Rule forty five in regard to
attempts to serve these two witnesses. Six of the service
attempts occurred on April twenty fifth and April twenty sixth,
Yet Plaintiff only provided notice to Miss Maxwell of her
(06:58):
intent to serve the subpoenas on April twenty seventh. Menager
declaration Example one, Part two Fifth Amendment by Epstein, Kellen
or Marsenkova not admissible in this case against Miss Maxwell.
The depositions of Epstein, Kellen, and Marsenkova do not constitute
good cause to modify the scheduling order in this case
(07:19):
for the additional reason that they all have represented to
Plaintiff their attention to assert the Fifth Amendment protection as
to all questions, and such assertion will not be admissible
evidence in this trial. Indeed, counsel for mister Epstein recently
filed a motion to quash a subpoena based on the
same legal principle that his deposition is unduly burdensome in
(07:40):
light of the fact that it will not lead to
admissible evidence Document number two twenty one to twenty two
and two twenty three. The Court should consider this additional
factor or decline a finding of good cause for extending
the discovery deadline. Plaintiff wrongfully contends that any assertion of
the Fifth Amendment during the deposition of Epstein, Kellen, and
(08:01):
Martsenkova will be admissible in the trial of this defamation
matter where none of those individuals or parties based on
an adverse inference that can be drawn against Miss Maxwell
see Liebett versus United States, one oh seven f Dot
three D one ten one twenty one, Second Circuit, nineteen
ninety seven. In fact, none of the lebooty factors support
(08:24):
her argument. While noting that Miss Maxwell anticipates more extensive
briefing on this issue in support of mister Epstein's motion aquash,
a few facts bear mentioning here Miss Maxwell was the
employee of mister Epstein in the nineties, not the other
way around. Mister Epstein has never worked for or been
in control of Miss Maxwell. Miss Maxwell and mister Epstein
(08:46):
have had no financial, professional, or employment relationship in more
than a decade, many years before twenty fifteen, when the
purportedly defamatory statement was published. Miss Maxwell testified that she
has not spoken to mister Epstein in two years. Maxwell
has not vested any control in mister Epstein in regard
(09:06):
to key facts and subject matter of litigation. As the
Court is well aware from review of emails submitted in
camera and later produced a plaintiff, Mister Epstein and his
council gave advice to Maxwell regarding whether she should issue
a statement after January two, twenty fifteen. In one mister
Epstein even suggested what such a statement might say. Maxwell
(09:28):
never issued any additional statement. Maxwell had her own counsel
who operated independently of mister Epstein and his counsel. Epstein
is not, pragmatically a non caption party in interest in
this litigation, nor has he played controlling role in respect
to its underlying aspects. Epstein is not despite Plaintiff's suggestion
(09:48):
paying Miss Maxwell's legal fees. Plaintiff sought by ways of
discovery any contracts, identification agreements, employment agreements between Miss Maxwell
and Epstein or any entity associated with Epstein from nineteen
ninety nine to the present. Miss Maxwell responded under oath
that there are no such documents. Epstein played no role
(10:09):
in issuance of the January second statement, nor has he
issued any public statement regarding plaintiff. Indeed, plaintiff in Epstein
fully resolved any claims against one another by way of
a confidential settlement in two thousand and nine, another action
in which Miss Maxwell had no role. Assertion of the
privilege by Epstein does not advance any interests of Miss Maxwell's.
(10:30):
Quite the contrary, Epstein would be a key witness in
her support, exonerating her from plaintiff's allegations regarding sex abuse,
sexual trafficking, and acting as his madam to the stars.
As proof, one need look no further than emails already
reviewed by this Court. In an email sent by Epstein
to Miss Maxwell on January twenty fifth, twenty fifteen, while
(10:52):
the media maelstrom generated by plaintiff's false claims continued to foment,
he wrote, you have done nothing wrong. Would urge you
to start acting like it. Go outside head high, not
as an escaping convict. Go to parties, deal with it
Menager Declaration Exhibit Jay. Likewise, Epstein drafted a statement from
miss Maxwell to issue, though she never did. In that statement,
(11:15):
Epstein wrote, presumably what his testimony would reflect should he
not take the fifth Since ju was charged in two
thousand and seven for solicitation of a prostitute, I have
been the target of outright lies, innuendo, slander, defamation, and
salacious gossip and harassment, headlines made up of quotes. I
have never given statements. I have never made trips with
(11:37):
people to places I have never been holidays with people.
I have never met, false allegations of impropriety and offensive
behavior that I abhor, and have never ever been party
two witnesses to events that I have never seen, living
off trust funds that I have never had, party to
stories that have changed materially, both in time, place, and
(11:57):
event depending on what paper you read, and the list
goes on, I have never been a party to any
criminal action pertaining to Jae. For the record, at the
time of Jeffrey's plea, I was in a long term
committed a relationship with another man and no longer working
with Jeffrey, whilst I remained on friendly terms with him
up until his plea. I have had limited contact since.
(12:20):
Every story in the press, innuendo in comment has been
taken from civil depositions against Jae, which were settled many
years ago. None of the depositions were ever the subject
to cross examination, not one any standard of truth, and
were used for those who claimed they were victims to
receive financial payment to be shared between them and their
lawyers redacted, redacted or redacted. Need I say more? The
(12:44):
so called new revelations stemmed from an alleged diary from
Virginia Roberts that reads like the memoir she is purporting
to be selling, also perhaps pertinent in a previous complaint
against others. Her claims were rejected by the police due
to VR's lack of credibility. The new interest in this
old settled case results from lawyers representing some of the
(13:05):
Jae victims filed a suit against the US government, not Jae.
They contend that the US government violated their rights. The
documents and deal with Je negotiated with the government was
given to the lawyers six years ago and as a
public document. I am no part of, nor did you
have anything to do with Je's plea bargain. I have
(13:26):
never even seen the proceedings nor any of the depositions.
I reserve my right to file a complaint and sue
for defamation and slander. These correspondences demonstrate that Miss Maxwell
has no control over Epstein in regards to the alleged
defamation statement. He had no role in issuance of the statement.
He has no benefit in the outcome of this litigation,
(13:48):
and he played no controlling role in its respect. Talk
about a bunch of bullshit. Imagine filing that in the
court and doing it with a straight face. Similarly, there
is not any evidence at all to support and adverse
inference to be drawn from either Sarah Kellen nor Nadia
Marsonkova assertion of the fifth. Miss Maxwell hardly knows either
(14:09):
a woman, never work with them. They have had nothing
to do with this litigation and do not stand to
benefit from it, especially as plaintiff has never made any
allegations about her involvement with either of the two of them.
They are simply irrelevant to this defamation action. That couldn't
be further from the truth, could it. And just in
these filings here that we see Maxwell putting forward. Look
(14:31):
at all of the lies, the actual lies that she
was telling under oath, and then you'll wonder why she
was charged with perjury. Part three, Plaintiff's bad faith discovery
tactics should not be rewarded with extra time. One. Plaintiff's
Rule twenty six revolving door Plaintiff's army of lawyers who
collectively have been litigating matters related to Jeffrey Epstein since
(14:53):
two thousand and eight, serve their Rule twenty six initial
disclosures on November eleventh, twenty fifteen. Those disclosures listed ninety
four individuals witnesses with knowledge regarding the facts of this case,
yet provided addresses only of their council as to two
Jeffrey Epstein and Alan Dershowitz. Plaintiff then also listed categories
(15:15):
of witnesses such as all other than minor girls whose
identities Plaintiff will attempt to determine, and all pilots, chauffeurs, chefs,
and other employees of miss Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. Plaintiff claimed,
as to her Rule twenty six disclosures, that only a
fraction of those individuals will actually be witnesses in this case,
(15:36):
and as discovery progresses, the list will further narrow document
number twenty at seventeen. The opposite has happened. Between November
eleventh and March eleventh, Plaintiff trimm to Rule twenty six
list of persons with knowledge from ninety four to sixty nine,
inexplicably removing thirty four names but adding twelve more. She removed,
(15:57):
for example, witnesses Andrew Mitrovich and Darra Priest, but added
Senators George Mitchell, Bill Richardson, and Les Wexner. Then, between
March eleventh and June first, a few weeks before the
discovery cutoff, plaintiff added twenty more witnesses, including redacted Palm
Beach officers Ricarry and Rider, and purported victims of sexual abuse,
(16:20):
including a client of mister Edwards who he has clearly
known for years. As to several of these new As
to several of these newly added witnesses, in particular redacted
Ricarrey and Rioter, plaintiff promptly scheduled their depositions in June,
despite having just disclosed their names. On June first, and
last Friday on the business day just before the depositions
(16:43):
of redacted and Ricarry, Plaintiff disclosed six hundred and twenty
three new documents, including for the first time the unredacted
police reports from Palm Beach that plaintiff clearly is ad
in her possession or her council's possession for years Menager
Declaration example K. This is precisely the type of hide
and seek that Rule twenty six is designed to prevent.
(17:06):
While Miss Maxwell anticipates filing in the near future a
separate motion concerning plaintiffs latest Rule twenty six violations and
seeking sanctions for the same, this Court can and should
consider this behavior in determining whether a plaintiff has good
cause to extend the discovery cutoff so that she can
continue her gamesmanship. Two plaintiffs recurrent Rule forty five violations.
(17:31):
As this Court is previously held, Rule forty five B
one requires a party issuing a subpoena for the production
of documents to a non party to provide prior notice
to all parties to the litigation, which has been interpreted
to require that notice be given prior to the issuance
of the subpoena, not prior to its return date. Murphy
(17:52):
versus Board of Education, one ninety six f dot R
dot D two twenty two, twenty two WDNY two thousand.
At least one court in this circuit has held that
notice provided on the same day that the subpoenas have
been served constitute inadequate notice under Rule forty five. Sea
Fox Industries Incorporated. Versus Gerovich number zero three Dash cv
(18:17):
Dash five to one sixty six, two thousand and six,
WL two eight eight two five eight zero eleven ed
n Y October six, two thousand and six. The requirement
that prior notice must be given has important underpinnings of
fairness and deficiency. Coots Drive, LLC. First Internet Law Library
Incorporated Number zero one cv Dash nine eight seven seven,
(18:41):
two thousand and two. WL forty two forty six forty
seven two SDNY March nineteenth, two thousand and two. Plaintiff
fails to provide an adequate explanation or argument for how
a same day notification satisfies Rule forty five's requirement. CEG
Council for the offending party offered no explanation or excuse
(19:03):
for their failure to comply with the rule strictures. They
did not attempt to defend the timeliness of their notice.
The offending parties admitted violation cannot be countenanced USSAV versus
Lazar thirteen Dash CV Dash eight eighteen RWs twenty fourteen,
WL forty three fifty four six ninety one at fifteen
(19:24):
SDN y September two, twenty fourteen, granting motion to quash
the subpoenas where notice given on the same day and
served beyond one hundred mile limitation of Rule forty five.
In that case, plaintiff had provided same day notice of
the issuance of a subpoena. Here, we have repeated attempts
to serve a subpoena over the course of days before
(19:46):
any notice was given to Miss Maxwell. As described previously,
Plaintiff has amply documented her own violations of the rule
by detailing her attempts to serve subpoenas deuces Techem before
ever providing notice to Miss Maxwell. With regards to witnesses Epstein, Kellen,
and Marson Cova. Likewise, with respect to witness Alexandra Hall,
(20:09):
plaintiffs served the subpoena prior to providing notice see Menager
declaration example L serve subpoenas before providing notice under rule
forty five. Accordingly, plaintiff moves to quash the subpoenas on Epstein, Kellen,
and Marson Cova as violations of Rule forty five's notice provision.
Miss Maxwell further request sanctions pursue it to Rule thirty
(20:31):
seven for these documented violations. With respect to Miss Hall,
who was deposed already earlier today, Miss Maxwell believes that
she did not offer any admissible testimony at her deposition.
If plaintiff seeks to introduce her testimony, the defense reserves
the right to exclude such testimony, both on evidentiary grounds
(20:52):
as well as in violation of Rule forty five's notice
provision four. Miss Maxwell's good faith efforts to conduct the
discovery as already documented in previous pleadings, Miss Maxwell's council
has engaged in significant and repeated efforts to conduct discovery
in this case in a professional civil manner, especially as
(21:12):
it relates to the deposition of non parties. On February
twenty fifth, twenty sixteen, Council for Miss Maxwell requested that
lawyers confer by telephone to arrange a schedule for the
non party depositions to occur in various states and countries.
Plaintiff ignored that request and request of the same Milk
made on at least six different occasions in March and
(21:34):
in April. It was only on two and a half
months later, on May fifth, twenty sixteen, when Plaintiff's council
finally responded with as is becoming clear both sides are
going to be needing to be coordinating a number of depositions.
She then proposed a calendar which schedule thirteen additional depositions
for plaintiff and only two days actually half days for
(21:57):
defendant to depose her remaining witnesses. Defendant provided a calendar
which allowed for both sides to take remaining depositions, but
Plaintiff ignored it and continued to schedule depositions on dates
for witnesses without consulting Defense Council for their availability first
manager declaration example m Because of the breakdown in communication,
(22:19):
Defense Council was left with little choice but to show
up at each of Plaintiff's notice depositions in Florida and
New York, and b issued supoenas for witness depositions on
other dates in June. For example, Plaintiff issued a notice
of deposition for Juan A. Lessi on May thirty first,
twenty sixteen, without any conferral with Council in Florida and
(22:43):
fully aware that the Defense Council would be traveling from Colorado.
Defense Council, in fact, did have to travel on Memorial
Day to Florida for the nine am May thirty first deposition.
Mister Alessi, however, did not appear on that date, believing
that his deposition was for June first, the same day
that his wife had been subpoenad to appear, and because
(23:03):
he and his wife live an hour away from Fort Lauderdale. Thus,
despite Defense counsels herculean efforts, no deposition occurred on May
thirty first. On June first, mister Alessi appeared, but was
insufficient time to take his wife's deposition, who presumably made
the one hour drive for naught. Also, Defense Council then
(23:24):
had to travel to New York for June's second hearing,
and back to Florida for a deposition of another witness,
mister Rogers, that had been scheduled without input from the
Defense Council. Counsel for plaintiff makes much of her efforts
to serve witnesses Epstein, Marsenkova, and Kellen, she fails to
advise the court that Miss Maxwell has been forced to
(23:45):
expend great time, money, and resources to serve Plaintiff's on mother, father,
former fiancee, and former boyfriend. As described before, the defense
even rescheduled the deposition of plaintiff's former fiance due to
the last minute on availability of plaintiff's council. Although all
council were already in Florida and had expended hundreds of
(24:06):
dollars to serve them, Plaintiff made no effort to help
serve those closest to her, including her own family members.
Unlike plaintiff, however, Miss Maxwell and her counsel are fully
aware that such are the difficulties of litigation. We do
not ascribe the plaintiff the blame. Having flown to Florida
a total of four separate times to attend depositions of
(24:28):
five of plaintiff's notice witnesses, defense Council has borne the
brunt of Plaintiff's mismanagement of council and witness time. Defense
councils scheduled their own Florida depositions of three witnesses to
occur during two of the four trips. Defense Council offered
to and did schedule the two Colorado non party witnesses
(24:49):
the same week in May, so as minimize plaintiff councils
travel obligations. Plaintiff, however, reschedule the deposition of mister Rizzo
in New York for a wee a week after this
Court had a hearing, rather than accommodating any attempt to
have the New York deposition occur when all council were
already present in New York. To the extent the Court
(25:11):
wishes to consider the good faith efforts of defense counsel
in conducting depositions when deciding whether the grand plaintiff additional
time defense has more than met their burden. Five good
cause exists to take redepose plaintiff and to depose Sharon
Churchier exists in contrast to the lack of good cause
(25:32):
to extend discovery for a plaintiff's six witnesses. Miss Maxwell
seeks leave of the court to take depositions beyond June thirtieth. First,
Miss Maxwell properly served a deposition subpoena and provided appropriate
notice to Plaintiff's council on Plaintiff's friend, confidant and former
Deli mel journalist Sharon Churchier for a deposition to occur
(25:55):
in New York on June sixteenth. Manager Declaration exam. On
June fifteenth, the day before her scheduled deposition, Miss Churcher's
council filed a motion to quash. That motion is to
be heard by this Court on June twenty three. Should
the Court deny the motion to quash, Miss Churcher's deposition
would need to be rescheduled. Dates in early July would
(26:18):
be sufficient for counsel. Similarly, Miss Maxwell is filing simultaneously
with this motion a request to reopen the deposition of
plaintiff on the grounds, inter alia, that she failed to
provide numerous documents ordered to be produced by the Court
until after her deposition, and still failed to provide others.
She materially changed substantiative and significant portions of her testimony
(26:42):
after the fact through her orata sheet on May thirty first,
and she refused to answer material questions at her deposition
on the advice of Council, including, for example, which of
Miss Churcher's many quotes attributed to her were incorrect see
Menager declaration. Example Dan referenced Supra. As with Miss Churchill's deposition,
(27:04):
the reopen deposition of plaintiff could occur in early July,
assuming she provides the court order documents timely. Six Alternatively,
all other deadlines need to be extended. Finally, plaintiff glibly
asserts that she seeks only thirty extra days to conduct
her depositions, but does not want any other dates moved.
(27:26):
Of course, that ensures to her benefit and to Miss
Maxwell's detriment. July already was scheduled for expert disclosures. Plaintiff
has yet to disclose her retained expert, and thus the
defense has been unable to secure a rebuttal expert. Miss
Maxwell will be unable to secure such evidence on a
timely basis. Further, summary judgment motions are due in this
(27:50):
case on August third. If depositions continue throughout August, Miss
Maxwell's ability to include any late learned information in her
anticipated motion will be jeopardized. Finally, the trial is scheduled
for October. Continuing fact finding until August seriously impinges on
Miss Maxwell's ability to prepare for that trial, including preparing witnesses, exhibits,
(28:14):
and testimony. Wherefore, Miss Maxwell requests that the motion to
extend the deadline to complete depositions be denied. Alternatively, if
the deadline is extended for any of the listed six witnesses,
Miss Maxwell requests that the dates for expert discovery, dispositive motions,
and the trial date be extended as well. Further, Miss
(28:38):
Maxwell requests sanctions for plaintiff's failures to comply with the
notice provisions of Rule forty five A four, respectfully submitted
Laura A. Meninger, And that concludes our look at the
defendant's memorandum of law in opposition to extending the deadline
to complete depositions, and motion for sanctions for violation of
(29:01):
Rule forty five. In the next big gigantic dump we're
gonna dive into, we're gonna start taking a look at
Gallaine Maxwell's deposition. My suggestion, have your barf bags ready.
All of the information that goes with this episode can
be found in the description box
What's up everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
We're going to pick up where we left off with
Glen Maxwell's motion for sanctions for a violation of Rule
number forty five D Jeffrey Epstein. As with the other witnesses,
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause for seeking to
(00:20):
depose Jeffrey Epstein out of time. Plaintiff claims that she
was unable to secure service on mister Epstein until May
twenty seventh, twenty sixteen, because his counsel refused to accept
service until she filed her motion for alternative service. The
documents reflect the opposite. Mister Epstein's attorney agreed to accept
service on April eleventh, twenty sixteen, and it was only
(00:43):
on May twenty seventh, twenty sixteen that plaintiff agreed. See
Poe Declaration in support of motion to quash Epstein Deposition
Exhibit three, Document number two twenty three three. Plaintiff fails
to explain her strategic decision or no negligence in failing
to respond for over six weeks to mister Weinberg's email
(01:05):
offering to accept service. Indeed, in another failure of candor,
Plaintiff's counsel also neglected to tell this court about the
email from mister Weinberg, either in the instant motion or
in her motion to serve mister Epstein by alternative means
motion at two Document number one sixty. Plaintiff apparently now
claims that she never received that email from Martin Weinberg.
(01:28):
All of the preceding communications, however, indicate that mister Weinberg
promptly responded to Miss McCauley's inquiries ceg PO declaration Example
two email of April six from Weinberg to McCauley offering
to let her know regarding acceptance of service. On April seventh,
email of McCauley in response that works fine, thank you. Thus,
(01:50):
if Miss McCauley received no follow up response from mister Weinberg,
as she now claims, when she had been corresponding with
her previously, therefore she had a duty to follow up
on that inquiry. A failure to do so is plain
vanilla neglect. Even after agreeing to the terms proposed by
Epstein's council on May twenty seventh, that is, the location
(02:11):
of the deposition in the US Virgin Islands and subject
to write to oppose the subpoena. Plaintiff then waited an
additional three weeks until June twelfth to even attempt to
schedule Epstein's deposition Epstein memorandum in support of motion to
clash at two Document number two twenty two, agreeing to
take a deposition in the Virgin Islands on May twenty seventh,
(02:33):
then waiting until June twelfth to try to schedule a
date for that deposition when numerous other depositions had already
been scheduled in New York, Florida, and California for the
balance of June is either neglect or strategic posturing by plaintiff.
Either way, it does not amount to good cause for
such depositions to take place beyond July first. Finally, plaintiff suggests,
(02:57):
without factual foundation, that Miss Maxwell played some role in
mister Epstein's Council's refusal to accept service see motion at two.
Forced to personally serve the defendant's former boyfriend, employer, and
co conspirator, as the timeline in documents now reveal. However,
plaintiff failed to provide notice to Miss Maxwell that she
(03:17):
was even attempting to serve or rule forty five subpoena
on mister Epstein for more than seven weeks. Plaintiff states
that she began her service attempts on March seventh, twenty sixteen.
The very first notice of subpoena and deposition served on
Miss Maxwell, however, is dated April twenty seventh, Manager Declaration
Exhibit H. Thus, between March seventh and April twenty seventh,
(03:40):
Miss McCauley engaged in repeated attempts to serve mister Epstein
or Rule forty five subpoena, including a request for documents,
without providing the proper notice to the parties. Pursuant to
Rule forty five A and four. If the subpoena commands
the production of documents, then before it is served on
the person to whom it is directed, a notice and
(04:00):
a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party,
as detailed below. That was not an isolated incident and
merit sanction. In any event, it is difficult to imagine
how it is Miss Maxwell's fault that plaintiff cannot serve
mister Epstein when she has never put on notice of
any attempt to do so. Given that plaintiff knew as
of April eleventh the conditions pursuant to which mister Epstein
(04:23):
would accept service through council, yet waited until May twenty
seventh to agree to those terms, and then waited another
nearly three weeks to attempt to schedule mister Epstein's deposition
on a date available for his counsel and Miss Maxwell's council.
Plaintiff has fallen far short of demonstrating good cause for
taking mister Epstein's deposition beyond the end of the fact
(04:44):
discovery cutoff e Nadia Marsonkova and Sarah Kellen. Finally, plaintiff
seeks the depositions of two other witnesses, Sarah Kellen and
Nadia Marsonkova, who she complains, despite being represented by count
have refused to accept service motion at three. Plaintiff claims
that her process servers tried for three weeks from April
(05:07):
twenty fifth until May eighteenth, to personally serve Miss Kellen
and Miss Marsonkova, with subpoena's deuces to come. She did
not explain, however, why she waited until April to try
to serve these two witnesses, about whom her attorneys have
known since two thousand and eight. She also has not
explained to this court any legally irrelevant or admissible evidence
(05:28):
that either possess, nor how she intends to introduce that
evidence in a trial of this defamation claim between Plaintiff
and Miss Maxwell. Apart from these witnesses stated intent to
take the Fifth Amendment, which renders their testimony inadmissible. As
discussed more fully below, neither witness has any relevant testimony
to offer because Plaintiff never made any public statement about
(05:51):
either one of them. Imagine trying to say that Marsonkova
and Sarah Kellen have nothing to offer. They were really
taking some liberties here, but this response weren't they. Plaintiff
did not include either woman in her Sharon Churchier paid interviews,
nor were they mentioned, and Plaintiff's joined her motion of
December thirtieth, twenty fourteen. Thus, neither Plaintiff's allegations about Miss
(06:14):
Maxwell nor Miss Maxwell's denial of the same based on
her personal knowledge, are implied by anything that Sarah Kellen
or Miss Marson Cova may have done with anyone else.
Their testimony cannot corroberate Plaintiff's account, nor can it shed
light on whether Miss Maxwell's denial of that account is
accurate because Plaintiff's account did not mention either one of
(06:35):
them technicalities and loopholes the tools of the guilty. Finally,
as to these witnesses, Plaintiff once again documented her own
failure to comply with Rule forty five in regard to
attempts to serve these two witnesses. Six of the service
attempts occurred on April twenty fifth and April twenty sixth,
Yet Plaintiff only provided notice to Miss Maxwell of her
(06:58):
intent to serve the subpoenas on April twenty seventh. Menager
declaration Example one, Part two Fifth Amendment by Epstein, Kellen
or Marsenkova not admissible in this case against Miss Maxwell.
The depositions of Epstein, Kellen, and Marsenkova do not constitute
good cause to modify the scheduling order in this case
(07:19):
for the additional reason that they all have represented to
Plaintiff their attention to assert the Fifth Amendment protection as
to all questions, and such assertion will not be admissible
evidence in this trial. Indeed, counsel for mister Epstein recently
filed a motion to quash a subpoena based on the
same legal principle that his deposition is unduly burdensome in
(07:40):
light of the fact that it will not lead to
admissible evidence Document number two twenty one to twenty two
and two twenty three. The Court should consider this additional
factor or decline a finding of good cause for extending
the discovery deadline. Plaintiff wrongfully contends that any assertion of
the Fifth Amendment during the deposition of Epstein, Kellen, and
(08:01):
Martsenkova will be admissible in the trial of this defamation
matter where none of those individuals or parties based on
an adverse inference that can be drawn against Miss Maxwell
see Liebett versus United States, one oh seven f Dot
three D one ten one twenty one, Second Circuit, nineteen
ninety seven. In fact, none of the lebooty factors support
(08:24):
her argument. While noting that Miss Maxwell anticipates more extensive
briefing on this issue in support of mister Epstein's motion aquash,
a few facts bear mentioning here Miss Maxwell was the
employee of mister Epstein in the nineties, not the other
way around. Mister Epstein has never worked for or been
in control of Miss Maxwell. Miss Maxwell and mister Epstein
(08:46):
have had no financial, professional, or employment relationship in more
than a decade, many years before twenty fifteen, when the
purportedly defamatory statement was published. Miss Maxwell testified that she
has not spoken to mister Epstein in two years. Maxwell
has not vested any control in mister Epstein in regard
(09:06):
to key facts and subject matter of litigation. As the
Court is well aware from review of emails submitted in
camera and later produced a plaintiff, Mister Epstein and his
council gave advice to Maxwell regarding whether she should issue
a statement after January two, twenty fifteen. In one mister
Epstein even suggested what such a statement might say. Maxwell
(09:28):
never issued any additional statement. Maxwell had her own counsel
who operated independently of mister Epstein and his counsel. Epstein
is not, pragmatically a non caption party in interest in
this litigation, nor has he played controlling role in respect
to its underlying aspects. Epstein is not despite Plaintiff's suggestion
(09:48):
paying Miss Maxwell's legal fees. Plaintiff sought by ways of
discovery any contracts, identification agreements, employment agreements between Miss Maxwell
and Epstein or any entity associated with Epstein from nineteen
ninety nine to the present. Miss Maxwell responded under oath
that there are no such documents. Epstein played no role
(10:09):
in issuance of the January second statement, nor has he
issued any public statement regarding plaintiff. Indeed, plaintiff in Epstein
fully resolved any claims against one another by way of
a confidential settlement in two thousand and nine, another action
in which Miss Maxwell had no role. Assertion of the
privilege by Epstein does not advance any interests of Miss Maxwell's.
(10:30):
Quite the contrary, Epstein would be a key witness in
her support, exonerating her from plaintiff's allegations regarding sex abuse,
sexual trafficking, and acting as his madam to the stars.
As proof, one need look no further than emails already
reviewed by this Court. In an email sent by Epstein
to Miss Maxwell on January twenty fifth, twenty fifteen, while
(10:52):
the media maelstrom generated by plaintiff's false claims continued to foment,
he wrote, you have done nothing wrong. Would urge you
to start acting like it. Go outside head high, not
as an escaping convict. Go to parties, deal with it
Menager Declaration Exhibit Jay. Likewise, Epstein drafted a statement from
miss Maxwell to issue, though she never did. In that statement,
(11:15):
Epstein wrote, presumably what his testimony would reflect should he
not take the fifth Since ju was charged in two
thousand and seven for solicitation of a prostitute, I have
been the target of outright lies, innuendo, slander, defamation, and
salacious gossip and harassment, headlines made up of quotes. I
have never given statements. I have never made trips with
(11:37):
people to places I have never been holidays with people.
I have never met, false allegations of impropriety and offensive
behavior that I abhor, and have never ever been party
two witnesses to events that I have never seen, living
off trust funds that I have never had, party to
stories that have changed materially, both in time, place, and
(11:57):
event depending on what paper you read, and the list
goes on, I have never been a party to any
criminal action pertaining to Jae. For the record, at the
time of Jeffrey's plea, I was in a long term
committed a relationship with another man and no longer working
with Jeffrey, whilst I remained on friendly terms with him
up until his plea. I have had limited contact since.
(12:20):
Every story in the press, innuendo in comment has been
taken from civil depositions against Jae, which were settled many
years ago. None of the depositions were ever the subject
to cross examination, not one any standard of truth, and
were used for those who claimed they were victims to
receive financial payment to be shared between them and their
lawyers redacted, redacted or redacted. Need I say more? The
(12:44):
so called new revelations stemmed from an alleged diary from
Virginia Roberts that reads like the memoir she is purporting
to be selling, also perhaps pertinent in a previous complaint
against others. Her claims were rejected by the police due
to VR's lack of credibility. The new interest in this
old settled case results from lawyers representing some of the
(13:05):
Jae victims filed a suit against the US government, not Jae.
They contend that the US government violated their rights. The
documents and deal with Je negotiated with the government was
given to the lawyers six years ago and as a
public document. I am no part of, nor did you
have anything to do with Je's plea bargain. I have
(13:26):
never even seen the proceedings nor any of the depositions.
I reserve my right to file a complaint and sue
for defamation and slander. These correspondences demonstrate that Miss Maxwell
has no control over Epstein in regards to the alleged
defamation statement. He had no role in issuance of the statement.
He has no benefit in the outcome of this litigation,
(13:48):
and he played no controlling role in its respect. Talk
about a bunch of bullshit. Imagine filing that in the
court and doing it with a straight face. Similarly, there
is not any evidence at all to support and adverse
inference to be drawn from either Sarah Kellen nor Nadia
Marsonkova assertion of the fifth. Miss Maxwell hardly knows either
(14:09):
a woman, never work with them. They have had nothing
to do with this litigation and do not stand to
benefit from it, especially as plaintiff has never made any
allegations about her involvement with either of the two of them.
They are simply irrelevant to this defamation action. That couldn't
be further from the truth, could it. And just in
these filings here that we see Maxwell putting forward. Look
(14:31):
at all of the lies, the actual lies that she
was telling under oath, and then you'll wonder why she
was charged with perjury. Part three, Plaintiff's bad faith discovery
tactics should not be rewarded with extra time. One. Plaintiff's
Rule twenty six revolving door Plaintiff's army of lawyers who
collectively have been litigating matters related to Jeffrey Epstein since
(14:53):
two thousand and eight, serve their Rule twenty six initial
disclosures on November eleventh, twenty fifteen. Those disclosures listed ninety
four individuals witnesses with knowledge regarding the facts of this case,
yet provided addresses only of their council as to two
Jeffrey Epstein and Alan Dershowitz. Plaintiff then also listed categories
(15:15):
of witnesses such as all other than minor girls whose
identities Plaintiff will attempt to determine, and all pilots, chauffeurs, chefs,
and other employees of miss Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. Plaintiff claimed,
as to her Rule twenty six disclosures, that only a
fraction of those individuals will actually be witnesses in this case,
(15:36):
and as discovery progresses, the list will further narrow document
number twenty at seventeen. The opposite has happened. Between November
eleventh and March eleventh, Plaintiff trimm to Rule twenty six
list of persons with knowledge from ninety four to sixty nine,
inexplicably removing thirty four names but adding twelve more. She removed,
(15:57):
for example, witnesses Andrew Mitrovich and Darra Priest, but added
Senators George Mitchell, Bill Richardson, and Les Wexner. Then, between
March eleventh and June first, a few weeks before the
discovery cutoff, plaintiff added twenty more witnesses, including redacted Palm
Beach officers Ricarry and Rider, and purported victims of sexual abuse,
(16:20):
including a client of mister Edwards who he has clearly
known for years. As to several of these new As
to several of these newly added witnesses, in particular redacted
Ricarrey and Rioter, plaintiff promptly scheduled their depositions in June,
despite having just disclosed their names. On June first, and
last Friday on the business day just before the depositions
(16:43):
of redacted and Ricarry, Plaintiff disclosed six hundred and twenty
three new documents, including for the first time the unredacted
police reports from Palm Beach that plaintiff clearly is ad
in her possession or her council's possession for years Menager
Declaration example K. This is precisely the type of hide
and seek that Rule twenty six is designed to prevent.
(17:06):
While Miss Maxwell anticipates filing in the near future a
separate motion concerning plaintiffs latest Rule twenty six violations and
seeking sanctions for the same, this Court can and should
consider this behavior in determining whether a plaintiff has good
cause to extend the discovery cutoff so that she can
continue her gamesmanship. Two plaintiffs recurrent Rule forty five violations.
(17:31):
As this Court is previously held, Rule forty five B
one requires a party issuing a subpoena for the production
of documents to a non party to provide prior notice
to all parties to the litigation, which has been interpreted
to require that notice be given prior to the issuance
of the subpoena, not prior to its return date. Murphy
(17:52):
versus Board of Education, one ninety six f dot R
dot D two twenty two, twenty two WDNY two thousand.
At least one court in this circuit has held that
notice provided on the same day that the subpoenas have
been served constitute inadequate notice under Rule forty five. Sea
Fox Industries Incorporated. Versus Gerovich number zero three Dash cv
(18:17):
Dash five to one sixty six, two thousand and six,
WL two eight eight two five eight zero eleven ed
n Y October six, two thousand and six. The requirement
that prior notice must be given has important underpinnings of
fairness and deficiency. Coots Drive, LLC. First Internet Law Library
Incorporated Number zero one cv Dash nine eight seven seven,
(18:41):
two thousand and two. WL forty two forty six forty
seven two SDNY March nineteenth, two thousand and two. Plaintiff
fails to provide an adequate explanation or argument for how
a same day notification satisfies Rule forty five's requirement. CEG
Council for the offending party offered no explanation or excuse
(19:03):
for their failure to comply with the rule strictures. They
did not attempt to defend the timeliness of their notice.
The offending parties admitted violation cannot be countenanced USSAV versus
Lazar thirteen Dash CV Dash eight eighteen RWs twenty fourteen,
WL forty three fifty four six ninety one at fifteen
(19:24):
SDN y September two, twenty fourteen, granting motion to quash
the subpoenas where notice given on the same day and
served beyond one hundred mile limitation of Rule forty five.
In that case, plaintiff had provided same day notice of
the issuance of a subpoena. Here, we have repeated attempts
to serve a subpoena over the course of days before
(19:46):
any notice was given to Miss Maxwell. As described previously,
Plaintiff has amply documented her own violations of the rule
by detailing her attempts to serve subpoenas deuces Techem before
ever providing notice to Miss Maxwell. With regards to witnesses Epstein, Kellen,
and Marson Cova. Likewise, with respect to witness Alexandra Hall,
(20:09):
plaintiffs served the subpoena prior to providing notice see Menager
declaration example L serve subpoenas before providing notice under rule
forty five. Accordingly, plaintiff moves to quash the subpoenas on Epstein, Kellen,
and Marson Cova as violations of Rule forty five's notice provision.
Miss Maxwell further request sanctions pursue it to Rule thirty
(20:31):
seven for these documented violations. With respect to Miss Hall,
who was deposed already earlier today, Miss Maxwell believes that
she did not offer any admissible testimony at her deposition.
If plaintiff seeks to introduce her testimony, the defense reserves
the right to exclude such testimony, both on evidentiary grounds
(20:52):
as well as in violation of Rule forty five's notice
provision four. Miss Maxwell's good faith efforts to conduct the
discovery as already documented in previous pleadings, Miss Maxwell's council
has engaged in significant and repeated efforts to conduct discovery
in this case in a professional civil manner, especially as
(21:12):
it relates to the deposition of non parties. On February
twenty fifth, twenty sixteen, Council for Miss Maxwell requested that
lawyers confer by telephone to arrange a schedule for the
non party depositions to occur in various states and countries.
Plaintiff ignored that request and request of the same Milk
made on at least six different occasions in March and
(21:34):
in April. It was only on two and a half
months later, on May fifth, twenty sixteen, when Plaintiff's council
finally responded with as is becoming clear both sides are
going to be needing to be coordinating a number of depositions.
She then proposed a calendar which schedule thirteen additional depositions
for plaintiff and only two days actually half days for
(21:57):
defendant to depose her remaining witnesses. Defendant provided a calendar
which allowed for both sides to take remaining depositions, but
Plaintiff ignored it and continued to schedule depositions on dates
for witnesses without consulting Defense Council for their availability first
manager declaration example m Because of the breakdown in communication,
(22:19):
Defense Council was left with little choice but to show
up at each of Plaintiff's notice depositions in Florida and
New York, and b issued supoenas for witness depositions on
other dates in June. For example, Plaintiff issued a notice
of deposition for Juan A. Lessi on May thirty first,
twenty sixteen, without any conferral with Council in Florida and
(22:43):
fully aware that the Defense Council would be traveling from Colorado.
Defense Council, in fact, did have to travel on Memorial
Day to Florida for the nine am May thirty first deposition.
Mister Alessi, however, did not appear on that date, believing
that his deposition was for June first, the same day
that his wife had been subpoenad to appear, and because
(23:03):
he and his wife live an hour away from Fort Lauderdale. Thus,
despite Defense counsels herculean efforts, no deposition occurred on May
thirty first. On June first, mister Alessi appeared, but was
insufficient time to take his wife's deposition, who presumably made
the one hour drive for naught. Also, Defense Council then
(23:24):
had to travel to New York for June's second hearing,
and back to Florida for a deposition of another witness,
mister Rogers, that had been scheduled without input from the
Defense Council. Counsel for plaintiff makes much of her efforts
to serve witnesses Epstein, Marsenkova, and Kellen, she fails to
advise the court that Miss Maxwell has been forced to
(23:45):
expend great time, money, and resources to serve Plaintiff's on mother, father,
former fiancee, and former boyfriend. As described before, the defense
even rescheduled the deposition of plaintiff's former fiance due to
the last minute on availability of plaintiff's council. Although all
council were already in Florida and had expended hundreds of
(24:06):
dollars to serve them, Plaintiff made no effort to help
serve those closest to her, including her own family members.
Unlike plaintiff, however, Miss Maxwell and her counsel are fully
aware that such are the difficulties of litigation. We do
not ascribe the plaintiff the blame. Having flown to Florida
a total of four separate times to attend depositions of
(24:28):
five of plaintiff's notice witnesses, defense Council has borne the
brunt of Plaintiff's mismanagement of council and witness time. Defense
councils scheduled their own Florida depositions of three witnesses to
occur during two of the four trips. Defense Council offered
to and did schedule the two Colorado non party witnesses
(24:49):
the same week in May, so as minimize plaintiff councils
travel obligations. Plaintiff, however, reschedule the deposition of mister Rizzo
in New York for a wee a week after this
Court had a hearing, rather than accommodating any attempt to
have the New York deposition occur when all council were
already present in New York. To the extent the Court
(25:11):
wishes to consider the good faith efforts of defense counsel
in conducting depositions when deciding whether the grand plaintiff additional
time defense has more than met their burden. Five good
cause exists to take redepose plaintiff and to depose Sharon
Churchier exists in contrast to the lack of good cause
(25:32):
to extend discovery for a plaintiff's six witnesses. Miss Maxwell
seeks leave of the court to take depositions beyond June thirtieth. First,
Miss Maxwell properly served a deposition subpoena and provided appropriate
notice to Plaintiff's council on Plaintiff's friend, confidant and former
Deli mel journalist Sharon Churchier for a deposition to occur
(25:55):
in New York on June sixteenth. Manager Declaration exam. On
June fifteenth, the day before her scheduled deposition, Miss Churcher's
council filed a motion to quash. That motion is to
be heard by this Court on June twenty three. Should
the Court deny the motion to quash, Miss Churcher's deposition
would need to be rescheduled. Dates in early July would
(26:18):
be sufficient for counsel. Similarly, Miss Maxwell is filing simultaneously
with this motion a request to reopen the deposition of
plaintiff on the grounds, inter alia, that she failed to
provide numerous documents ordered to be produced by the Court
until after her deposition, and still failed to provide others.
She materially changed substantiative and significant portions of her testimony
(26:42):
after the fact through her orata sheet on May thirty first,
and she refused to answer material questions at her deposition
on the advice of Council, including, for example, which of
Miss Churcher's many quotes attributed to her were incorrect see
Menager declaration. Example Dan referenced Supra. As with Miss Churchill's deposition,
(27:04):
the reopen deposition of plaintiff could occur in early July,
assuming she provides the court order documents timely. Six Alternatively,
all other deadlines need to be extended. Finally, plaintiff glibly
asserts that she seeks only thirty extra days to conduct
her depositions, but does not want any other dates moved.
(27:26):
Of course, that ensures to her benefit and to Miss
Maxwell's detriment. July already was scheduled for expert disclosures. Plaintiff
has yet to disclose her retained expert, and thus the
defense has been unable to secure a rebuttal expert. Miss
Maxwell will be unable to secure such evidence on a
timely basis. Further, summary judgment motions are due in this
(27:50):
case on August third. If depositions continue throughout August, Miss
Maxwell's ability to include any late learned information in her
anticipated motion will be jeopardized. Finally, the trial is scheduled
for October. Continuing fact finding until August seriously impinges on
Miss Maxwell's ability to prepare for that trial, including preparing witnesses, exhibits,
(28:14):
and testimony. Wherefore, Miss Maxwell requests that the motion to
extend the deadline to complete depositions be denied. Alternatively, if
the deadline is extended for any of the listed six witnesses,
Miss Maxwell requests that the dates for expert discovery, dispositive motions,
and the trial date be extended as well. Further, Miss
(28:38):
Maxwell requests sanctions for plaintiff's failures to comply with the
notice provisions of Rule forty five A four, respectfully submitted
Laura A. Meninger, And that concludes our look at the
defendant's memorandum of law in opposition to extending the deadline
to complete depositions, and motion for sanctions for violation of
(29:01):
Rule forty five. In the next big gigantic dump we're
gonna dive into, we're gonna start taking a look at
Gallaine Maxwell's deposition. My suggestion, have your barf bags ready.
All of the information that goes with this episode can
be found in the description box
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.