EFTA01105448.pdf

1 G3hdgium 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 2 3 4 Plaintiff, New York, N.Y. 5 v. 15 Civ. 7433(RWS) 6 GHISLAINE MAXWELL, 7 Defendant. 8 9 March 17, 2016 2:18 p.m. 10 Before: 11 HON. ROBERT W. SWEET, 12 District Judge 13 APPEARANCES 14 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 15 Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: SIGRID S. McCAWLEY 16 HADDON MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 17 Attorneys for Defendant BY: JEFFREY PAGLIUCA 18 LAURA A. MENNINGER 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105448 EFTA01105449  2 G3hdgium 1 THE COURT: Thank you all very much. I'm sorry for 2 the inconvenience that I have imposed upon you. I'm sorry 3 about the inconvenience that you have imposed upon me. 4 But having said all of that, this really is the first 5 time that we've had an opportunity, I think, to get together on 6 this case. And let me just say, I think -- I mean, I'm not 7 sure but I think I understand the difficulties of this case. 8 There is an emotional element, obviously, throughout the case 9 on both sides, and I understand that. Fortunately, we're 10 blessed by excellent counsel and it would be nice if they can 11 avoid adopting the emotional flavor of their clients, and I 12 presume that they will be able to do that, it certainly will 13 help, because these issues are going to be difficult and I'm 14 well aware of it. 15 Now, at the outset, there is some discussion in these 16 papers about meet and confer. Let me make clear what I would 17 like from this day forward. On any discovery issues, I would 18 like to have a meet and confer. Now, I understand that defense 19 counsel are living in God's country and they're not cursed with 20 the metropolitan residence. I salute their good judgment in 21 that. And so I will say that I will not require you to meet in 22 person, but I will require you to meet. 23 And I would say this. If you have a meet and confer, 24 I would like to have correspondence between the parties as to 25 what the subject is so that there is an agreed agenda that's SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105450 EFTA01105451  3 G3hdgium 1 written and we know that both sides know what it is, and that 2 will help me if, ultimately, the problem gets back to me. So I 3 would say exchange writing as to what it's going to be and have 4 a meeting. It doesn't have to be in person, but it certainly 5 has to be a significant meeting; it can't be just one 6 ten-minute telephone call. 7 So that's how I feel about the meet and confer. 8 Now, I'm not going to get into whether that's relevant 9 or not to the problems which we face today. That's just going 10 forward. As I say, I do hope that you all can -- it won't be 11 easy, but if you deal with these problems as the excellent 12 professionals that you are without the emotional implications, 13 having said that. 14 Now, how to go forward today? My thought is the 15 following. I have read your papers, and to say that I 16 understand the problems would be, I guess, a lie, but I'm 17 trying and you'll help me. I have a list of what I think our 18 issues are and I would like to go through this with you, and 19 then when I'm finished, if we have missed something, I'm sure 20 you will correct me. And I'd be pleased to hear if I determine 21 something, if you think that I'm wrong, that's fine, too. I 22 mean, you can tell me why you think I'm wrong. 23 Now, the first problem is the document -- the issue 24 about improper privilege claims. As I understand that issue, 25 it is the presence of Gow, Cohen and maybe somebody else as SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105452 EFTA01105453  4 G3hdgium 1 defeating the privilege, on the one hand. On the other hand, 2 the assertion by the defense that their participation as 3 whatever they are, managers, public relations people, whatever, 4 is necessary for the rendering of legal advice. 5 Parenthetically, there is a subtext there about whose 6 law applies. Let me say, I think we are going to apply New 7 York law in this case. British law may become relevant in some 8 way or other down the road, but for this privilege purpose, I 9 think that's where we are. 10 I think what I would like is I would like any 11 materials that -- the obligation to establish this privilege is 12 obviously Ms. Maxwell's, and I would like any materials that 13 she wants to present to me about these meetings to establish 14 that it was necessary for the rendering of legal advice, I'll 15 review those materials in camera and try to reach a decision. 16 I may need something further after I have looked at them, but I 17 think that's the way I ought to deal with that particular 18 privilege issue. 19 There is a list of documents as to which objections 20 have been made on a variety of bases. I will say probably a 21 catalog of every objection known to the mind of excellent 22 attorneys, and I think we will try to deal with those this 23 afternoon and maybe we'll fail, but let's put those aside just 24 for the moment. 25 The question about a protective order, of course there SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105454 EFTA01105455  5 G3hdgium 1 should be a protective order in this case. You are good 2 lawyers and you have been around this track more times than I 3 have and so you can prepare consensually a better protective 4 order than I can, and I urge you to do that. And, in fact, I 5 will give you two weeks to do that. Should you fail, you can 6 present whatever materials you wish to me and I will decide 7 what the protective order is going to be. That's not a good 8 idea because you know the case better than I do, obviously, and 9 so I urge you to resolve it by your litigation skills and not 10 leave it up to the ignorant district court judge who doesn't 11 really get into this kind of thing very often. So you run a 12 risk if you leave it to me. 13 Now, I would say two weeks, and then if you can't get 14 an agreement, maybe three weeks from now we wrestle with that. 15 Hopefully we won't. I have to do that. 16 The deposition -- the defendant of course will be 17 deposed, and we can work out right now when. Obviously, you 18 don't want that deposition until the protective order is 19 completed. So what do we do about that? Do you want to deal 20 with that today, the actual date of the deposition, or should 21 we pass that until we accomplish the protective order? What do 22 you all think about that? 23 MS. McCAWLEY: Can I be heard on that, your Honor? 24 This is Sigrid McCawley. I am counsel for Ms. 25 With respect to the deposition date, the 25th was the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105456 EFTA01105457  6 G3hdgium 1 date that my opposing counsel proposed as possibly being 2 available. So we set it for that date, which is next Friday. 3 We also offered to hold that deposition transcript confidential 4 until such time as the protective order could be issued so that 5 there is no barrier to us being able to take this deposition. 6 THE COURT: How about that? Is that OK? 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Frankly, it is not, your Honor, and the 8 reason is we, clearly from the papers submitted so far and the 9 exchange of counsel, we have a significant disagreement at this 10 point as to what the word "confidential" actually means, and we 11 have proposed to the plaintiff a protective order that we 12 believe is appropriate and neutral -- 13 THE COURT: Well, maybe I can -- can we get over -- if 14 that's the primary issue on the protective order, can we deal 15 with that now? 16 MR. PAGLIUCA: I think there is a secondary -- well, 17 it may not even be secondary. There is another issue that is 18 directly related to that, your Honor, and that is the lack of 19 production of documents from the plaintiff. The Court has not 20 seen these papers yet, but there are in my view significant 21 deficiencies with the Rule 26 disclosures. There have been 22 failure to produce documents. And it is unfair at this point 23 to push these depositions forward without the required exchange 24 of discovery. 25 THE COURT: Let me ask the plaintiff. You really -- SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105458 EFTA01105459  7 G3hdgium 1 MS. McCAWLEY: Could I be heard on that? Thank you, 2 your Honor. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. 3 THE COURT: What do you think? 4 MS. McCAWLEY: Right. The issue is so I issued my 5 deposition notice before they even served discovery requests. 6 THE COURT: OK. All right. 7 MS. McCAWLEY: I've done 3,000 pages. They've done 8 two emails. 9 THE COURT: Look, doesn't it make sense to resolve any 10 document discovery issues perhaps before the deposition? 11 MS. McCAWLEY: I don't think so, your Honor. I want 12 the testimony of this defendant in order to move this case 13 forward. Our discovery closes in July. I issued my discovery 14 requests in October. I have not gotten the deposition of the 15 defendant yet. This is a date she is available. She is not 16 leaving the country. She is not going anywhere. I have her in 17 town next Friday. 18 I'll even agree to their protective order if it means 19 I can get her deposition, your Honor. I just need to get this 20 case moving forward. I need one deposition, the deposition of 21 the defendant in this case, who has called my client a liar. 22 We are entitled to depose her and see if she is going to answer 23 the questions about why she was 24 THE COURT: All right. OK. 25 MS. McCAWLEY: I am entitled to answers. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105460 EFTA01105461  8 G3hdgium 1 THE COURT: Well -- 2 MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I think this is a good 3 meeting and it is a meeting that should have happened a long 4 time ago. Let me say to the Court that we proposed to meet 5 with plaintiff's counsel early on in this case to put together 6 a discovery schedule that made sense. We proposed that orally 7 and in writing. That proposal was ignored and rebuffed. And 8 counsel for the plaintiff then unilaterally scheduled a bunch 9 of depositions without conferring on dates. Unilaterally, 10 here's the dates, here are the depositions. We then tried to 11 work through that issue, at the same time trying to work 12 through the protective order issue and the document issue, and 13 we get no response. And I think the agenda here is to gain a 14 tactical advantage by not responding to these requests. 15 THE COURT: Well, I can't believe that lawyers would 16 seek a tactical advantage. I can't believe such a thing. 17 MR. PAGLIUCA: I am shocked. 18 THE COURT: OK. Tell you what we're going to do. 19 We'll -- three weeks, let's see. Her deposition -- this 20 question about document production, that hasn't been teed up, 21 so I don't know -- 22 MS. McCAWLEY: And can I be heard on that really 23 quickly? I mean, If that were the standard, that they could 24 wait to -- 25 THE COURT: No. It hasn't been teed up, I agree. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105462 EFTA01105463  9 G3hdgium 1 (Pause) 2 OK. Then I think what we should do is I'm assuming we 3 will resolve the protective order problem we've sort of slug 4 over the -- can we resolve what's confidential? Is that 5 possible? Could we do that this afternoon, or is that too 6 complicated? 7 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, I can have the deposition 8 of the defendant in this case and move this case forward. I 9 will agree to their protective order. I just want that 10 deposition. 11 THE COURT: Yes. 12 MS. McCAWLEY: It is that important to me. 13 THE COURT: I get your point. I understand that. But 14 at the same time, I think, given the nature of all that lies in 15 this, I think it is fair to say no side would like to have this 16 aired, and so we've got to have a protective order that 17 everybody feels comfortable with. 18 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, you can today enter the 19 protective order that they submit. I will disregard my 20 objections if I get the deposition. 21 THE COURT: Will you agree now to the protective 22 order? 23 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. If it means I can get her 24 deposition, yes, I will do that. 25 THE COURT: Oh, OK. Good. Well, that solved that. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105464 ( EFTA01105465  10 G3hdgium 1 MR. PAGLIUCA: It is not as simple as that, your 2 Honor, because this quid pro quo, I'll agree to their 3 protective order if I can have the deposition on the 25th, 4 doesn't solve the problem. 5 THE COURT: At least we've separated it. She has 6 agreed to the protective order. OK? So that's done. OK? 7 Now, why can't we have her deposition upon, whatever 8 it is, a week from Friday? 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Friday, the 25th, this coming Friday, a 10 week from tomorrow. 11 THE COURT: Oh, a week from tomorrow, yes. 12 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. 13 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, we served discovery 14 requests on plaintiff on February 12th. 15 THE COURT: Well, look, that's nice. That's good. 16 But I don't have that, and I think she's right that there is no 17 rule that says you have to get your discovery requests 18 satisfied before the deposition, so 19 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, the responses were due 20 last night yesterday, so that is prior to Ms. Maxwell for the 21 25th. However, as a part of producing that discovery response, 22 they have said they're going to take a month to roll out their 23 production, not just 24 THE COURT: Look. I'll tell you what let's do. I 25 don't have that, but let's -- we'll hold the deposition date. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105466 EFTA01105467  11 G3hdgium 1 When we get through with the rest of this stuff, we'll find out 2 if there is something in particular that you want prior to next 3 Friday and see what that is and see if we can get it. How is 4 that? 5 (Pause) 6 OK. Who pays for what and counsel, all of that? 7 Those are interesting problems and who knows how they all come 8 out. I think all of that is best served by reserving them 9 until the conclusion of the case, which is what I shall do. 10 The plaintiff wants to produce on a rolling basis and 11 to amend or add to the privilege log as the production goes 12 forward. I don't see any problem with that. 13 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, that's actually the issue 14 I was just alluding to. I understand -- and I have said I 15 don't have a problem with plaintiff producing her documents 16 over the course of the month because she has said that it is a 17 hardship for her to produce them all last night, which is when 18 they were due. However, she's trying to take our client's 19 deposition in the middle of her rolling production, in other 20 words, show up at the deposition with the documents she happens 21 to get -- 22 THE COURT: That's what I'm saying. Maybe what we'll 23 do is to deal with the document production issue separately. 24 MS. MENNINGER: OK. 25 THE COURT: And if there are some documents that SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105468 EFTA01105469  12 G3hdgium 1 really seem to be important and they cannot be produced, then 2 maybe we'll put over the -- we'll see how that works. 3 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, I may be able to short 4 circuit this. 5 THE COURT: Pardon me? 6 MS. McCAWLEY: I may be able to short circuit this a 7 little bit. We produced 3,000 pages last night. We are 8 continuing that production. We are moving as fast as we can. 9 We produced a privilege log with over 134 entries on it. We 10 are continuing to move that forward as quickly as we can. 11 With respect to her deposition, your Honor, I'm happy 12 to provide them in advance every document I will be using at 13 her deposition. In other words, if that is their issue, if it 14 means I can get her deposition next Friday, I will share with 15 them any document I intend to use at that deposition. 16 THE COURT: That seems to solve the problem, don't you 17 think? 18 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I have to disagree. I got 19 this responsive objection last night at 9:30 p.m., while I was 20 here in New York. I've taken a look at it, and I can give your 21 Honor a sense of the types of objections that plaintiff has 22 lodged to our document request. For example, their client sold 23 her diary to Radar Online. It was published on Radar Online. 24 This diary contains plaintiff's allegations against my client. 25 So I asked for the diary that was sold to Radar Online. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105470 EFTA01105471  13 G3hdgium 1 THE COURT: You get it. 2 MS. MENNINGER: It is copyright and proprietary 3 protected. We're not going to produce it. So that's the kind 4 of example -- 5 THE COURT: No. You get it. 6 MS. McCAWLEY: She doesn't have a diary. She might be 7 referring to something else. I mean, my client doesn't have a 8 diary to produce. She doesn't have one. Those were 9 handwritten notes that she gave a reporter. She doesn't have 10 one. 11 THE COURT: So you are saying -- 12 MS. McCAWLEY: That request is broader. I mean 13 THE COURT: No. 14 MS. McCAWLEY: I didn't know we were going to be 15 addressing my requests today -- 16 THE COURT: as to the diary, you say it doesn't 17 exist. There is no diary, there are no notes, and whatever 18 there is has been the subject of the printed material? 19 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. 20 MS. MENNINGER: Excerpts -- excerpts, your Honor, with 21 my client's name on them in plaintiff's handwriting were sold 22 to Radar Online, not the entire document. And when I asked for 23 the entire document, I was told that it is proprietary and 24 copyright protected. 25 THE COURT: What is "proprietary"? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105472 EFTA01105473  14 G3hdgium 1 MS. McCAWLEY: I think she's referring to a broader 2 request. My client doesn't have a diary, which is what she's 3 addressing right now. I don't have my requests in front of me, 4 your Honor. We were here on their requests. But if you want 5 to read the whole request, I can try and remember what 6 THE COURT: What are we talking -- 7 MS. McCAWLEY: Did they say I was withholding 8 documents? I don't think I said I was withholding documents on 9 that request. But, again, I don't have it in front of me and I 10 apologize. 11 MS. MENNINGER: The request number 16 reads: "Any 12 diary, journal, or calendar concerning your activity between 13 '96 and '02." 14 Response: Ms. ejects to this request to the 15 extent it seeks proprietary- and copyright-protected material. 16 Ms. objects in that it seeks information protected by 17 the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product 18 privilege, the joint defense, interest privilege, the agency 19 privilege, the investigative privilege, the spousal privilege, 20 the accountant/client privilege, and any other applicable 21 privilege." 22 THE COURT: Hot dog. I tell you, that's great. 23 MS. McCAWLEY: But did I say I didn't have -- 24 THE COURT: Shall we use that as the standard 25 objection to every document request and then let's forget about SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105474 EFTA01105475  15 G3hdgium 1 it? OK, let's do this. 2 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, may I be heard on just one 3 point on this issue? 4 If the standard were that someone could wait in a case 5 to request documents and then push off depositions by 6 continuing to file new requests, it's apparently -- 7 THE COURT: Yes. I hear you. I understand that 8 point. Look, obviously if there are documents that are covered 9 by the privilege, they have to be identified and logged. So 10 that's the privilege. 11 I don't know, what is this proprietary thing? What is 12 that all about? 13 MS. McCAWLEY: To the extent she has commercially 14 valuable material that she has written, that's covered by -- 15 it's covered by the protective order basically, that it would 16 be produced in a confidential format with a copyright-protected 17 format. So it is a general objection -- 18 THE COURT: So she will produce that, she will produce 19 everything -- 20 MS. McCAWLEY: If she has something like that, yes. 21 Like I said, we produced 3,000 pages yesterday. 22 THE COURT: And calendars and all of the rest of them? 23 MS. McCAWLEY: To the extent she has any of that, we 24 will produce it, your Honor. 25 THE COURT: All right. In other words, you are going SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105476 EFTA01105477  16 G3hdgium 1 to produce everything except anything that you have that you 2 claim privilege as to which you will log? 3 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. We have been logging -- 4 THE COURT: Well -- 5 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, on this particular one, 6 she says her client does not have any nonprivileged documents 7 created during the time period responsive to this request, and 8 then there are no privileged documents related to this log on 9 the privilege log. So I don't have any way to read this 10 request in a privilege log and figure out whether there are 11 noncopyright materials that weren't withheld or there are 12 privileged because all of these privileges were raised -- 13 THE COURT: I take it that what's being said is that 14 she has no privileged documents that would be covered by that 15 request? 16 MS. MENNINGER: That's not what the objection says. 17 And, your Honor, since she sold her handwritten notes about my 18 client to Radar Online, I know they exist because they were 19 excerpted on the Internet. 20 THE COURT: Yes, but she said she doesn't have them. 21 She said -- I mean, correct me if I am wrong. 22 MS. McCAWLEY: No, she doesn't have them. But, your 23 Honor, I am happy to have -- first of all, she hasn't conferred 24 on these issues that we are talking about here today. I am 25 happy to address them fully. I feel very comfortable with our SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105478 EFTA01105479  17 G3hdgium 1 discovery production in this case. We will continue to roll it 2 out; we have done it timely. Unlike like the defendants, who I 3 served their discovery requests October 27th, your Honor. We 4 are now in March. I received two emails, two emails in 5 response. I produced 3,000 pages -- 6 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, she is -- 7 (Unintelligible crosstalk) 8 THE COURT: Ladies, we're not going to get anywhere if 9 we "who struck John." 10 MS. McCAWLEY: I understand, your Honor. 11 I think I proposed something very fair by saying that 12 I would share with her any document I intend to use at that 13 deposition. I just need the deposition. 14 THE COURT: I understand. I got you. OK. 15 Now, you will identify any document -- I mean, you 16 tell them -- give them any documents that you are going to use 17 in the deposition. 18 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. 19 THE COURT: OK. Now, is there -- the business of this 20 production on -- you are going to have to -- well, wait a 21 minute. Let me put it this way. The objections to this 16 are 22 overruled except for the privilege. OK? 23 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I've proposed dates for my 24 client to be available in two or three weeks, once we have 25 received a complete document production, which was due last SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105480 EFTA01105481  18 G3hdgium 1 night, and I have been told we're not going to talk about dates 2 in two or three weeks. We haven't asked to set them out into 3 May or June. We've just asked for the documents that were due 4 last night to be produced to us before our client's deposition. 5 This isn't some kind of game. It's just she's been litigating 6 this case for seven years -- 7 THE COURT: OK. Well, we've dealt with the first 8 objection. Now, is there another one? 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Right. So we're here on my motion to 10 compel production of documents. I am just getting a little 11 confused because I don't -- we are here -- my motion to compel 12 production of documents from her based on my request that -- 13 THE COURT: Let's not worry about the -- 14 MS. McCAWLEY: OK. I just wanted to be clear. I 15 don't have in front of me the request that she is referring to. 16 THE COURT: OK. Anything else that you think you need 17 besides the documents she is going to use, the response to 16? 18 Anything else -- 19 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor -- 20 THE COURT: -- that is critical for the deposition? 21 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, these were filed last 22 night at 9:30 p.m., the 3,000 pages were produced to my office, 23 which is in Colorado. I haven't looked at the 3,000 pages that 24 were produced last night. I will have to ask leave of the 25 Court to go back, look at the documents that were produced and SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105482 EFTA01105483  19 G3hdgium 1 see what I am missing. 2 THE COURT: All right. If you want to, you can come 3 back on Thursday next week and we can argue about whether or 4 not the deposition should go forward on Friday. 5 MS. MENNINGER: OK. 6 THE COURT: That is all right with me. 7 MS. MENNINGER: That is acceptable, your Honor. 8 THE COURT: OK. So maybe we've solved that problem. 9 OK. Maybe. 10 Now, on the improper objections by the defendants. I 11 suppose I can assume that the defendants' objections are just 12 exactly the same as the plaintiff's objections. 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: No, your Honor. They are not. 14 MS. McCAWLEY: Oh, I'm sorry. This is my motion to 15 compel. Can I just address it initially so that I can lay out 16 for the Court what the issues are that we are raising on the 17 motion to compel? 18 THE COURT: I'm sorry. 19 MS. McCAWLEY: This is my motion to compel now. Can I 20 address -- am I able to address that? 21 THE COURT: Yes. 22 MS. McCAWLEY: So with respect to our motion to compel 23 the documents from the defendant, as you know, your Honor, 24 there are two main objections that I think have to be overcome 25 in order for us to get that production properly. The first SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105484 EFTA01105485  20 G3hdgium 1 main objection is the fact that they are objecting to the time 2 period. So we have sought requests from 1999, which is in 3 around the time when my client contends she was involved with 4 these individuals, to the present. They objected that that 5 time period is overly broad. They only agreed to produce for 6 the period of 1999 to 2002 and for one month, from December 31, 7 2014 to January 31, 2015. So they cut out all the years in 8 between and anything post January 31, 2015. 9 Now, with respect to your Honor maybe saying why would 10 that time period be relevant, the entire time period is 11 relevant for a number of reasons. First, in 1999, that's when 12 my client first recalls being -- 13 THE COURT: We can agree think we can agree at 14 the outset that '99 to what is it? 15 MS. McCAWLEY: 2002. 16 THE COURT: 2002 is relevant. 17 MS. McCAWLEY: Right. 18 THE COURT: So what we're talking about is the what 19 happened in 2002? 20 MS. McCAWLEY: My client was sent to Thailand by 21 Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell for a training and to pick up 22 another -- 23 THE COURT: So she is no longer -- 24 MS. McCAWLEY: And she left. She fled to Australia. 25 THE COURT: OK. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105486 EFTA01105487  21 G3hdgium 1 MS. McCAWLEY: So with respect to these requests, I 2 just want to -- you know, because the Court has mentioned this 3 and it is worthy of referencing, that if you look at the 4 defendants' request to us, they actually request a longer time 5 period; they request from 1996 to the present. So while they 6 don't want us to -- they don't want to produce to us except for 7 that short window, they are requesting the entire period. In 8 some cases they request and I did a chart. Your Honor, 9 would you mind if I just pass this up to you for reference? 10 THE COURT: OK. 11 MS. McCAWLEY: I did a chart, I believe it is on page 12 10, and it has for you the various requests and what the time 13 periods are, and for many of the requests there is no time 14 period at all. 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: I have it. I don't need it. 16 MS. McCAWLEY: Oh, you have that? 17 MR. PAGLIUCA: I do not need it. 18 MS. McCAWLEY: OK. I'm sorry. 19 So that time period shows that many of those requests 20 don't have a time period at all; so it is even broader, from 21 infancy to present. So, in fairness, our requests are 1999 to 22 the present, which we believe is the critical time period. 23 Now, what happens in 2002? So my client does flee to 24 Australia away from these individuals, but the conduct 25 continues. So we have, for example, the law enforcement trash SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105488 EFTA01105489  22 G3hdgium 1 pulls that show the message pads of the back and forth of 2 arranging these underaged minors to come for massages, things 3 of that nature. We have the flight logs that show Ms. Maxwell 4 flying 360 times with Jeffrey Epstein, 20 of which were with my 5 client when she was underage. We have the Palm Beach police 6 report, which shows over 30 minors who reported during that 7 time period, to up until now 2006, being abused in that 8 circumstance in Palm Beach. Then we have the arrest that 9 happens of Jeffrey Epstein in 2006. 10 Thereafter, my client in 2008 is -- I'm sorry, she 11 receives from the U.S. government a victim notification letter. 12 At that point, in 2009, Ms. Maxwell's deposition is sought in 13 underlying civil cases. She flees from that deposition, says 14 her mother is ill in England, she has to leave the country, 15 cannot be deposed. She then shows up three weeks later at 16 Chelsea Clinton's wedding. So clearly she was around, she was 17 able to do something, but she avoided that deposition. Her 18 testimony was never taken in that case. 19 So that's in 2009. Then we have in 2011 my client is 20 interviewed by the FBI about the issues that have happened. 21 Then we have in 2011 Ms. Maxwell starts issuing different 22 statements to the press. She continues that, issues a 23 statement in 2015, which is the statement that we are here 24 about in this case. 25 So I contend, your Honor, that all of those years have SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105490 EFTA01105491  23 G3hdgium 1 relevant information in them with respect to my client. 2 THE COURT: OK. I understand. 3 Let's hear from the defendant. 4 MR. PAGLIUCA: So, your Honor, I have tried to refrain 5 from responding in kind, but the problem here is all of this -- 6 the agenda behind all of this is not really the issue in this 7 case but it is to make inflammatory statements like counsel 8 just made as fact when they are speculation, at best, your 9 Honor, and to pack into the record things that are demonstrably 10 not true but counsel says them like they are true and then 11 refers to her own declaration to support the fact of what she 12 is saying may or may not be true. So let's get to the issue 13 here in terms of the relevant timeframe. 14 First, the plaintiff goes to Thailand on her own 15 volition, gets married, and moves to Australia, where she 16 resides for some 12/13 years after, and has no contact with 17 Ms. Maxwell or Mr. Epstein. So everything that happens from 18 2002 forward has absolutely nothing to do with the plaintiff in 19 this case, and she has absolutely no personal knowledge about 20 what did or didn't happen in Florida or elsewhere from that 21 timeframe forward. 22 You know, I carefully, your Honor, read your ruling on 23 the motion to dismiss, and I believe that you characterized the 24 issue in this case very narrowly, and that is is what the 25 plaintiff said about Ms. Maxwell, and from 1999 to 2002, true SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105492 EFTA01105493  24 G3hdgium 1 or not. Those two individuals have the facts that relate to 2 that, and anything outside of that, quite frankly, is opinion 3 and not a subject matter of this litigation. 4 Now, you have to focus not only on this expansive 5 timeframe in which the plaintiff is not even in this 6 hemisphere, which is combined with the overbroad requests that 7 don't ask for things that might be arguably relevant under a 8 404(b) analysis -- you know, for example, did this happen with 9 Ms. Maxwell and someone else in 2005, let's say -- those aren't 10 what the requests are. The requests are for all communications 11 for 17 years with plug in the individual, all documents 12 relating to whatever you want to plug in there for 17 years. 13 And so those two things combined create a grossly overbroad and 14 unmanageable document request. Hence, the objections. 15 Now, had we had the ability to confer about this, we 16 may have been able to get down to, here, these are really the 17 relevant timeframes, or you need to modify your requests for 18 production to say things like any communication with Jeffrey 19 Epstein related to the plaintiff, any communication with this 20 person related to the plaintiff. But that's not what the 21 requests are. And so what you are left with is an unmanageable 22 pile of requests for production of documents. 23 I will note, your Honor, so the Court has this in 24 context, there are 39 requests that have been proposed to 25 Ms. Maxwell. She has no responsive documents, and I've so SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105494 EFTA01105495  25 G3hdgium 1 indicated to 17 of those requests. So we then winnow this down 2 to the ones that we are objecting to for very good reason. The 3 timeframe we have proposed is the appropriate timeframe. If 4 there are narrowly tailored requests for production for 5 something that may be relevant outside that timeframe, then 6 they should propose that and not what they are proposing 7 currently, which makes the entire process unwieldy and 8 unreliable. 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, the underlying issue in 10 this case is whether or not Ms. Maxwell lied when she said my 11 client was not subject to the abuse that she said she was 12 subject to. So in order to prove that, for defamation with 13 malice, we have to prove that my client was abused by these 14 individuals, that these individuals did take advantage of her 15 in the way that she expressed. 16 What's relevant to that is the sexual trafficking 17 ring. If after my client left they are also trafficking other 18 underaged girls repetitively, that is relevant to prove the 19 truth of my client's allegations as well. We are entitled to 20 that in discovery, your Honor. One of the requests is the 21 documents relating to communications of Jeffrey Epstein. If 22 she is e-mailing Jeffrey Epstein about the girls she's going to 23 send over to him in 2004, before he is arrested, that's 24 relevant to my client's claim, your Honor. So we shouldn't be 25 told that we're not entitled to these documents or that we're SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105496 EFTA01105497  26 G3hdgium 1 only entitled to two emails out of all of our requests. 2 In addition, he says that there are 17 requests that 3 they have no documents for, your Honor, but, again, they have 4 restricted the time period to this very short window and then 5 they answered in their responses. OK. So -- 6 MR. PAGLIUCA: That is not true. If you read -- 7 actually read the response, there is no restriction because we 8 have looked and there are no documents. We're actually trying 9 to move this ball forward, your Honor, and what's happening 10 here is we keep getting sucked back into this morass of maybe 11 something happened. If you listen to the words that counsel is 12 saying, your Honor, it is very illustrative of the fishing 13 expedition. If there is this, then it is relevant. But that 14 is not what they are asking for. And you have to go back to 15 the request. "All documents" -- Request No. 1: "All documents 16 relating to communications with Jeffrey Epstein from 1990 to 17 present." Well, that's not all documents concerning 18 trafficking or underaged girls, that's all documents relating 19 to, which could be anything in the universe. 20 Those are the reasons why I objected. 21 Request No. 3: "All documents relating to 22 communications with Andrew Albert Christian Edward, Duke of 23 York, from 1990 to present." You know, what the heck does a 24 communication with the Duke in 2013, any old communication, 25 have to do with anything in this case? Nothing. If you SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105498 EFTA01105499  27 G3hdgium 1 said -- if you give me a request for production of documents 2 that said give me any documents that talk about your press 3 release with the Duke, well, that might be relevant and 4 discoverable, but these are grossly overbroad. 5 If they had conferred with us, we would have been able 6 to narrow this down, but they haven't because there is an 7 agenda here that, quite frankly, I don't understand, your 8 Honor. But what I think it is is to simply pack the record, 9 the written record and the oral record, with these very 10 specious, quite frankly, disgusting allegations about my 11 client, and that's not what we're here for. If they want 12 something, they should ask for it specifically. If they just 13 want to, you know, kind of throw things around -- if this, then 14 that -- then that's what we're about here. 15 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor -- 16 THE COURT: All right. I think I understand this 17 issue. 18 What else do we have? We have the timeframe and the 19 specificity. 20 MS. McCAWLEY: Right. So, your Honor, there is the 21 timeframe for the request, and then, right, I assume that they 22 are alleging that these are overbroad in some way as 23 THE COURT: I would rather think I just heard that. 24 MS. McCAWLEY: Right. Exactly. So, your Honor, just 25 to touch on that very quickly. Not only -- and you will see it SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105500 EFTA01105501  28 G3hdgium 1 in our papers, but we also give specific examples of why these 2 are relevant, for example, and not overbroad. For example, two 3 of the people we asked for documents and communications with, 4 and , when they were asked in 5 their depositions about Ms. Maxwell sexually trafficking 6 underaged girls, both of those individuals took the Fifth. If 7 there are documents between Ms. Maxwell and 8 discussing those issues at any time from 1990 to present, we 9 want those documents, your Honor. And while they say that 10 day-to-day communications with Jeffrey Epstein wouldn't be 11 relevant, they would. If they're communicating on a daily 12 basis, that's relevant. 13 THE COURT: I understand that point. 14 MS. McCAWLEY: So, your Honor, those are the two key 15 issues as I understand it, the time period and then the 16 overbreadth of the request, that they have been objecting to. 17 And, your Honor, we just obviously want discovery in 18 this case to move it forward. 19 THE COURT: All right. So we've got that. I 20 understand that. Is there any other broad category? 21 MS. McCAWLEY: No. Those are the two issues, as I 22 understand it, the date range which they've limited -- 23 THE COURT: If we resolve those two, have we resolved 24 the objections to the document demand? 25 MS. McCAWLEY: That's my understanding, that they SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105502 EFTA01105503