EFTA00028850.pdf

EXHIBIT B EFTA00028850 App.-0805 G4LMGIUC 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 2 3 4 Plaintiff, 5 v. 6 GHISLAINE MAXWELL, 7 Defendant. 8 9 x x 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS) New York, N.Y. April 21, 2016 11:05 a.m. 10 Before: 11 HON. ROBERT W. SWEET, 12 District Judge 13 APPEARANCES 14 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 15 Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: SIGRID STONE McCAWLEY 16 -and- FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 17 BY: BRAD EDWARDS -and- 18 PAUL G. CASSELL 19 HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN Attorneys for Defendant 20 BY: LAURA A. MENNINGER JEFF PAGLUICA 21 22 23 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00028851 App.-0806 2 G4LMGIUC 1 (Case called) 2 THE COURT: Welcome back. I have read the papers. 3 Who knows. I might have missed something, but I think I've got 4 it fairly well under control. I would be pleased to hear 5 anything anybody wants to tell me in addition to what you've 6 already given me. 7 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, this is Sigrid McCawley. I 8 would like to start, if it's convenient with the Court, with 9 the pro hac vice motions that are pending because we would like 10 counsel to be able to anticipate in these proceedings. Would 11 that be all right if I started with that? 12 THE COURT: I don't care. 13 MS. McCAWLEY: Thank you. Your Honor, you have before 14 you two pro hac vice motions. My client, 15 would like to have counsel of record in the case be added as 16 Professor Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards. We have presented 17 those pro hacs to your Honor. This is the first time in my 18 years of practice that I've had a contested one, so I've looked 19 at the case law surrounding that and I think it is very clear 20 that a client is entitled to counsel of choice in a case. 21 In this matter she has selected these lawyers. They 22 have been working with her. They had been working on this 23 matter for many months now. We need them as counsel of record 24 in the case now because we are going to have depositions 25 throughout the country where, for example, Professor Cassell is SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00028852 App.-0807 3 G4LMGIUC 1 in Utah. He will be able to handle the Colorado depositions 2 and things of that nature. We are here because those pro hac 3 vice motions are being contested. The core piece of that is 4 the argument that they should not be allowed to seek 5 confidential information in this case. 6 Your Honor will remember that I was before you a 7 couple of weeks ago again trying to get the deposition of the 8 defendant, which is set for tomorrow, but still hasn't occurred 9 yet. And in order to expedite that process I agreed to the 10 protective order that was put in front of the Court and I 11 waived all of my objections to that in order to be able to 12 facilitate and move that deposition forward. That protective 13 order provides that attorneys who are actively working on the 14 case can receive confidential material. 15 My opposing counsel has interpreted that to mean that 16 that must be a counsel of record in the case. We disagree with 17 that interpretation. I wouldn't have agreed to a protective 18 order knowing that they were already working on the case. If 19 that were the situation, as your Honor can understand in this 20 case, the majority of the material has been marked 21 confidential, so it would prohibit my cocounsel from working on 22 behalf of their client. 23 Your Honor, I'm here to request on behalf of my 24 client, that she be entitled to have her 25 counsel of record of choice in this matter. If your Honor will SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00028853 App.-0808 4 G4LMGIUC 1 indulge me, I would like Mr. Cassell to address his pro hac 2 motion, please. 3 MR. CASSELL: Good morning, your Honor, Paul Cassell. 4 I'm a law professor. 5 THE COURT: I don't want to hear it. Sorry. No. 6 Thanks very much. 7 MR. CASSELL: Thank you, your Honor. 8 THE COURT: Anything from the defense. 9 MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, your Honor. Jeff Pagliuca on 10 behalf of Ms. Maxwell. 11 Your Honor, I have never opposed a pro hac motion in 12 my 34 years of practice, so this is a first for me. But it is 13 clear, your Honor, that these lawyers will be witnesses in this 14 case. 15 THE COURT: This we don't know. I can't make that 16 determination now. Anything else? 17 MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. 18 THE COURT: You may be totally right, but I don't 19 know. 20 MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, here is the problem. This 21 case is about the plaintiff's false allegations. 22 THE COURT: Yes. I think I picked up on that. 23 MR. PAGLIUCA: These are the lawyers that wrote the 24 false allegations. 25 THE COURT: I think I picked up on that, too. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00028854 App.-0809 5 G4LMGIUC 1 MR. PAGLIUCA: These are the lawyers that admitted 2 that these were false allegations. 3 THE COURT: I know. I don't have to tell you, you 4 know, there is going to be all kinds of privilege issues, all 5 kinds of issues about whether or not they have to testify. We 6 are not at that stage. I cannot and I will not decide that 7 now. 8 What else? 9 MR. PAGLIUCA: There is a problem with the sharing of 10 confidential information with these lawyers. These lawyers 11 have both personal and professional interests. 12 THE COURT: I understand that. I get that point. 13 Anything else? 14 MR. PAGLIUCA: No, your Honor. 15 THE COURT: This is what we will do on the pro hac. 16 Everybody agrees, nobody, maybe in the world, but nobody in 17 this courtroom, including me, has dealt with this kind of 18 problem before. That's perhaps only one of a number of issues 19 that are unique about this case. That's neither here nor 20 there. Clearly, the plaintiff has the right to consult with 21 any lawyer she chooses. However, the materials here are 22 sensitive. I don't know the extent to which they have been 23 designated confidential, but I'm quite sure that a substantial 24 number of them have been, by the very nature of the case, I 25 guess. Let me put it this way. I want to be sure that we SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00028855 App.-0810 6 G4LMGIUC 1 enforce the confidentiality appropriately. 2 Now, with those preliminary thoughts in mind I am 3 going to deny the motion at this time because I know that there 4 is a statement, some kind of a statement from the mediator in 5 the Florida action. When I get a piece of paper that says the 6 Florida action is dismissed, a court order or whatever, then 7 this motion can be renewed. 8 Also, I want an affidavit from the two lawyers that 9 there is no matter in which they are personally involved, that 10 they are making no claim, there is no claims, there is no 11 litigation in which they are involved. The reason I say that 12 is that I would not grant the application for a pro hac status 13 to a party in this or a related litigation. If I get those 14 affidavits and the statement about the closure of the Florida 15 case in which they are a party, then the application can be 16 renewed and at that point I would be probably inclined, unless 17 something else comes up or unless the defense tells me 18 something that I don't now know, I would grant the application 19 that brings us to the order itself and the meaning of the 20 order. I think active in the litigation is the key phrase. 21 The plaintiff has listed the people that she considers would be 22 appropriate and it's these two gentleman and I think one other 23 person, and that's fine. That is the definition. 24 However, I'm also going to ask the parties to agree 25 upon an order that would expand the confidentiality agreement SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00028856 App.-0811 7 G4LMGIUC 1 to this extent, to require the plai