Filed 12/12/22 Page 1 of 29
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Plaintiff,
Case No.: 15-cv-07433-R WS
V.
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant.
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF NON-PARTY'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S COMBINED MOTION TO COMPEL NON-PARTY
WITNESS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND RESPOND TO DEPOSITION


Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1296-9 Filed 12/12/22 Page 2 of 29
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
BACKGROUND
ARGUMENT....
I.
NON-PARTY
HAS PRODUCED DOCUMENTS OF AND DOES NOT
HAVE DOCUMENTS FOR A NUMBER OF REQUESTS.
DEFENDANT'S SUBPOENA SEEKS DOCUMENTS SOLELY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF INTIMIDATING AND HARASSING THIS NON-PARTY
WITNESS REQUEST 10 (CURRENT PASSPORT/CURRENT VISAS):
DEFENDANT SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM ASKING ANY ADDITIONAL
DEPOSITION QUESTIONS THAT ARE SOLELY MEANT TO EMBARRASS,
INTIMIDATE AND HARASS THIS NON-PARTY
IV.
NON-PARTY
SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO INCUR THE
BURDEN AND EXPENSE OF PRODUCING A PRIVILEGE LOG
V. NON-PARTY
JANE DOE 43.
HAS PRODUCED DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO
CONCLUSION
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Page
.. ii
1
12
..15
.17
.20
.22
23
24


Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1296-9 Filed 12/12/22 Page 3 of 29
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
Cases
Amini Innovation Corp. v. McFerran Home Furnishings, Inc.,
300 F.R.D. 406 (C.D. Cal. 2014)
Blodgett v. Siemens Industry, Inc.,
2016 WL 4203490 (E.D.N.Y. 2016).
Buck v. Indian Mountain Sch.,
2017 WL 421648 (D. Conn. Jan. 31, 2017)
City of Pontiac Gen. Employee's Ret. Sys. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,
2012 WL 4202657 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2012)..
DaCosta v. City of Danbury,
298 F.R.D. 37 (D. Conn. 2014).
Dart Industries Co., Inc. v. Westwood Chemical Co.,
649 F.2d 646 (9th Cir. 1980) .
Gerber v. Down E. Cmty. Hosp.,
266 F.R.D. 29 (D. Me. 2010).
Hickman v. Taylor,
329 U.S. 495, 67 S. Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947)
Katz v. Batavia Marine & Sporting Supplies, Inc.,
984 F.2d 422 (Fed.Cir.1993).
Liz Claiborne, Inc., v. Mademoiselle Knitwear, Inc.,
No. 96 CIV 2064 (RWS), 1997 WL 53184
Medical Components, Inc. v. Classic Medical, Inc.,
210 F.R.D. 175 (M.D.N.C. 2002).............
Night Hawk Limited v. Briarpatch Limited,
No. 03 CIV. 1382 (RWS), 2003 WL 23018833 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2003).
S.E.C. v. NIR Grp., LLC,
283 F.R.D. 127 (E.D.N.Y. 2012).
Smartix International LLC v. Garrubbo, Romankow & Capese,
No. 06 CIV 1501 (JGK), 2007 WL 41666035 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2007)
12
12
, 22
22
13,18
12
.22
22
12
22
21
23
22
.. 12
ii


Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1296-9 Filed 12/12/22

Solarex Corp. v. Arco Solar, Inc.,
121 F.R.D. 163 (E.D.N.Y. 1988)
Tucker v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc.,
281 F.R.D. 85 (D. Conn. 2012).
United States v. Jacques Dessange, Inc.,
2000 WL 310345 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2000)
Upjohn Co. v. United States,
449 U.S. 383 (1981).
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Konover,
2009 WL 585434 (D. Conn. Mar. 4, 2009)
William A. Gross Const., Assoc., Inc. v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co.,
262 F.R.D. 354 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
Rules
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37...
21
20,21
22
22
20
...21
... 12
ili


Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1296-9 Filed 12/12/22 Page 5 of 29
Non-party,
by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this Reply
in Support of Her Motion for Protective Order (DE 640) and Opposition to Defendant's Combined
Motion to Compel Non-Party Witness to Produce Documents and Respond to Deposition (DE 655).
BACKGROUND
Non-party
has already provided significant discovery in this case. She
previously flew from Barcelona to New York, sat for a ten-hour deposition, and produced many
relevant documents. Indeed, witness
has provided more significant evidence, including
photographic evidence and electronic communications, than Defendant has produced in the two years
she has been litigating this matter. Defendant has not produced a single document prior to 2009 and
not a single photograph, despite testimony that she was an avid photographer of the young girls at
Epstein's mansions, including taking nude photographs.
Specifically, and by way of example, non-party
produced the following types
of highly relevant information about Defendant's involvement in the sex trafficking and abuse:
Jeffrey Epstein in 2006 on Little
St. James Island
Various females on Island in 2006 including|
1


Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1296-9 Filed 12/12/22

Various females on Island in 2006 including
Various females on Island in 2006 including
CONFIDENTIA
IDENTIAL
Defendant on Little St. James Island in 2006
Defendant on Little St. James Island in 2006
2


Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1296-9 Filed 12/12/22 Page 7 of 29
Defendant on Little St. James Island in 2006 Defendant with
in 2006
Various females on Little St. James in 2006
Jeffrey Epstein and male friend in 2006 on Island
3


Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1296-9 Filed 12/12/22 Page 8 of 29
Non-Party l
in 2006 on Little St. James Island
4


Filed 12/12/22 Page 9 of 29
From:
Sent:
Te:
Subject:
08, 2007 2:43 PM
LE FIT website
I will fax my application to you later on today as 1 am not able to email it. Could you also please tell Jeffery to
phone me on the number i gave asap as 1 am not prepared to go under 56kg in order to study at FIT. 1 also
need a flight booked back to New York so could you please check with Jeffery. The date that I would like to fly
back is the 27th Feb.
hanks very much
Be a PS3 game guru
ict your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previces at Yahoo' Gamss
2 3006 837 PM
Here is your flight detai
You will be going with a girl named
as well. I have a car picking you all
this. thanks!
am if you
THey will both be staying at 301 E. 66
the lobby... Please let me know you got
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Continental Airlines 1884
Depart: 9:25am
morning Newark, NJ
Newark Liberty Infl (EWR)
Arrive: 2:43
home cyriley a blade (US
Economy | Boring 737-700 Passenger (73G) | 4hr 18min | 1635 miles
Seat: 20F
5


Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1296-9 Filed 12/12/22 Page 10 of 29
Moreover,
sat for ten hours of deposition and gave critical testimony showing
Defendant's direct involvement in Epstein's sex abuse and sex trafficking conspiracy:
Maxwell provided
with
massaging training.
Massage was a key
word for sex.
The girls were on
rotation for the
purpose of giving
Epstein sexual
massages each day.
Maxwell was
Epstein's main
right-hand woman
in 2006-2007;
Maxwell ran the
house like a brothel
with girls on
rotation for the
purpose of giving
Epstein sexual
massages each day.
| Transcript Citation
Dep. Tr. at 331 (Q. What did Ghislaine say to you? A. I can't
remember the specific conversation. But the fact that she helped me refine
my massage skills to satisfy Jeffrey, I think it's pretty self-explanatory.)
Dep. Tr. at 330 (Q. Does that have something to do with body
massages? A. Can you repeat -- let me read the question again. So I
would just like to clarify, body massages meant sex, okay? That's like a
key word for sex. So as soon as you stop having sex with Jeffrey and his
friends and his girls, you're out, because otherwise there's no reason for
you to be associated with Jeffrey, because you're just there to have sex
with him, so...)
Dep. Tr. at 152 (Q. Did you see
having any type of
sexual relations with Jeffrey during the trip? A. Yes, I did. Q. When did
you see that? A. I didn't see it in the bedroom, but we were called on, like,
a rotation visit for Jeffrey throughout the day and evening.)
Dep. Tr. at 290-292 (Q. So we have
having a
discussion with Ghislaine about girls. *** There was a constant influx of
girls. There were so many girls. There were girls in Miami. There were
guests coming. There were -- It's like, I'm sure if you go into a
brothel and see how they run their business, I mean, it's just general
conversation about who's going to have sex with who and, you know --
what do you talk about when all do you is have sex every day on
rotation? I mean, what is there to talk about? *** Q. Apart from general
conversation, do you recall any specifies of any female reporting to
Ghislaine? A. Yes, I saw. And with my own eyes, I saw how Ghislaine
and
and the other girls reported to them. *** And we were
told by Jeffrey Epstein to listen to Ghislaine. So Ghislaine was the main
right-hand woman of Jeffrey Epstein. We were told by Jeffrey Epstein to
listen to Ghislaine.)
***
Dep. Tr. at 311-312 (Q. And when you say you were on
rotation, you mean you were having sex with Jeffrey multiple times per
day? A. No. As in when I was finished, another girl was called by
Ghislaine. And when they had finished, another girl was called. Q. How
do you know that another girl was called by Ghislaine? A. Because I was
there, and I saw it and heard it with all my senses. I saw Ghislaine call
another girl, and she called me herself, to go give Jeffrey Epstein a sexual
massage. Q. What do you mean by call? I guess I'm thinking like
telephone. That may be my - A. No. As in going up to the person and
going, Jeffrey wants to see you in his bedroom, which meant it's your turn
to be abused. That kind of thing. Q. And this is on the island? A. This is
6


Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1296-9 Filed 12/12/22 Page 11 of 29
reported to
Maxwell.
All the girls
providing sexual
massages to Epstein
reported to
Maxwell; Maxwell
"called the shots."
Girls were paid to
recruit other girls;
Maxwell was the
main lady.
Maxwell recruited
girls to the island;
Maxwell was the
"mamma bear."
Transcript Citation
on the island. Q. You heard -- as soon as you were done with Jeffrey, you
heard Ghislaine go up to another girl and say, it's your turn with Jeffrey?
A. So every single day *** So, I mean, our rotation changed every day
that specific trip we had in December. So, for example, I would be called.
Maybe a couple hours when Jeffrey had a little, you know, break, another
girl was called,
. Then another girl was called. Every single day.
We tried to hide on different -- like, so we wouldn't have to get called.
We'd generally have to sit in the main area. There was like a big pool, the
main seating area. There was a big table. We'd sit there and do kind of art
on the table, and we always had to be around. We weren't allowed to go
very far on the island. We always had to report to Ghislaine and Jeffrey
and tell them if we were going down to the beach to swim because they
had an inflatable trampoline. So they -- I mean, we always had to tell
Ghislaine and Jeffrey where we were at all times.
Dep. Tr. at 289 (A. everyone was afraid of Ghislaine. All the
girls were afraid of her, so everyone --
reported to her.)
Dep. Tr. at 288-290 (Q. You said that the girls reported to
Ghislaine. What did you see or hear that caused you to say that? A. Well,
it's pretty obvious. I mean, Ghislaine called the shots. *** So, for
example, there was one occasion where Jeffrey didn't like my hair and
Ghislaine told me to change it. So there was -- everyone was afraid of
Ghislaine. All the girls were afraid of her, so everyone -
reported to her.
reported to her. I don't know how to tell you.
So when I say reporting, I witnessed with my own two eyes
reporting to Ghislaine in front of me, but I can't remember specifics. They
were talking about girls. I can't remember the specific conversation. But
every single person 100 percent, 200 percent reported to Ghislaine. 100
percent.)
Dep. Tr. at 387 (Q. Apart from what Ms.
told you, do
you have any other basis for knowing that
reported to
and Maxwell and was paid for her recruitment of young females,
including you? A. What she told me. Q. Apart from what she told you, do
you have any other basis for that? A. Well, I saw it with my own eyes. I
was a witness. Q. What did you witness? A. I witnessed the same thing
all the other girls did, the same thing I had to do, was go and report to
and Ghislaine. Ghislaine was the main lady...)
Dep. Tr. at 287-288 (Q. You said, "Watching her interact with
the other girls on the island, it became clear to me that she recruited all or
many of them to the island." What do you mean that? A. That she
recruited a lot of the girls. Q. What did you see? A. I saw how she
interacted with all the girls. You know, if you walk into any -- I mean,
common sense wise, if you walk into a firm, you kind of know who the
boss is. You know, all the girls kind of reported to Ghislaine. Ghislaine
was like the mama bear, if you know what I mean. She called the shots;
we had to listen to Ghislaine. And Ghislaine was Jeffrey's right-hand
7


Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1296-9 Filed 12/12/22 Page 12 of 29
witnessed Epstein
having sex with
on his
plane in plain view.
Maxwell and
Epstein used
promises to assist
in
getting into FIT and
paying for her in
return for being
Epstein's sex slave.
Maxwell bullied the
girls if they didn't
comply with
Epstein's sexual
demands.
Transcript Citation
woman, so, you know, whatever Jeffrey wanted went through Ghislaine
and then filtered through.)
Dep. Tr. at 121-123 (Q. Describe for me what happened on the
plane ride? A.
walked in, sat down in front of me,
We all
buckled up, we took off. The rest of the passengers in the -- I think it's
towards the front of the plane where all the seats are -- we all -- all the
guests were -- fell asleep. I pretended to be asleep. Jeffrey then went --
Jeffrey went to his -- was in his bed on the plane, having open sex with
for everyone to see, on display. ***Q. What types of sexual
relationship did Jeffrey and
have on the plane in your presence? A.
Well,
was straddling Jeffrey for quite some time. I watched them
both ejaculate with each other. They were having quite a good time
together.)
Dep. Tr. at 234-235 (Q. Did you apply for any financial aid for
FIT? A. No. Jeffrey was covering FIT. Q. That's what Jeffrey told
you? A. Multiple, multiple times. Q. Did Ghislaine Maxwell say anything
to you with regards to FIT? A. It was various conversations. It was
known among everyone that I was going to FIT, and Jeffrey -- everyone
knew he was helping me to get into FIT. It was common knowledge. Q.
You described earlier that Ghislaine was helping review your application
and your essay. Was there something else that she was doing to help
you? A. Well, she said she would, but whether she did, I have no idea.
She said she would. Whether she made calls, I doubt, because I didn't end
up at FIT. So...)
Dep. Tr. at 332 (A. Well, the fact that she used to personally call
me herself to give Jeffrey sexual massages. Not body massages; sexual
massages. It should be rephrased. I mean, it was pretty obvious. I mean,
the whole weight thing. I tried to swim off the island. I tried to escape
from an island during the evening to try and escape from her because if I
didn't lose weight, they would cut me out of their -- financially off. I
would lose the place that I was staying at. I would lose my education. You
name it. They bullied me with everything, just like they did with the other
girls.)
Dep. Tr. at 333-334 (Q. ... What was the threat that was made to
you by Maxwell? A. The fact that I would lose everything that they
promised me. They -- they were really naughty. You know, they took girls
from very underprivileged families. They gave them accommodation, they
gave them food, gave them money for transportation, you know, private
planes, etcetera, etcetera. So if I didn't have sex with Jeffiey, I would be
homeless and starving in New York, so -- and my dream of getting a fulltime education at one of the top fashion institutes in the world would be
diminished. And that's what he held over my head, exactly like he did
with
and the other girls. He was paying for all of their educations.
Q. How do you know that? A. Because they were telling me. It was
common knowledge amongst all the girls. No other girl would be there
8


Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1296-9 Filed 12/12/22 Page 13 of 29
Victoria Secret
outfits were
provided to the girls
on the Island
testified that she is
fearful for her life
after coming
forward.
Transcript Citation
willingly just to have sex with Jeffrey.)
Dep. Tr. at 350 (Q. They were supplied to you? A. Yes. All of
the outfits -- there were clothes that were provided on the island by Jeffrey
Epstein, which were all Victoria's Secret clothing: bikinis, nightwear. )
Dep. Tr. at 40 (There were two people following me after I
came forward to Maureen Callahan. I went to - I walked downstairs. I
walked around -- I have a usual routine that I do. In the morning I went
out, I saw the same two people. Later on that afternoon, I saw the same
two people again. I was frightened. I'm frightened for my life, absolutely
frightened. So there you go.)
provided clear testimony as a non-party victim of sex trafficking that her
motivating factor for testifying is to hold her traffickers accountable:
Q. I'm just asking your understanding.
A. Nothing's been promised to me about money.
Q. Were you seeking money when you authorized this complaint to be filed on
your behalt?
A. No. I just wanted a pedophile behind bars, really, and for him to stop abusing
young girls. Seeing as I'm going to be a parent myself, I can't really live with
myself, knowing that there's a pedophile with my kids on the planet. So as a
responsible human being, I thought that I would come forward.
See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1,
Dep. Tr. at 324:10 - 325:21.
Non-party
further testified during her deposition about her motivation in
coming forward and speaking openly: "I wanted to tell my story, and I want to run a campaign in
which all the girls that have been abused by Ghislaine and Jeffiey can come forward. And I
wanted to run a campaign with the New York Post to get these girls to have the courage to come
forward, because I know a lot of them are frightened like myself." See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1,
Dep. Tr. at 39:19 to 40:22.
Despite this straightforward and commonsense explanation, Defendant uses her briefing to
repeatedly suggest that non-party
is motivated by "money" and that she "fabricated"
9


Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1296-9 Filed 12/12/22 Page 14 of 29
her story. From this dubious premise, Defendant then argues that
should therefore be
punished by having to make burdensome and invasive disclosures of such things as her boyfriend's
cell phone number and information from her current bank account. Unwilling to confine her attacks
tol
Defendant then levels attacks on the professionalism of
legal counsel,
stating in her brief: "One can hardly imagine a better motive to fabricate testimony that the type of
lottery win. To make it even better, there is no purchase price for the ticket, because the people who
want the testimony are willing to front the cost of the litigation either on a contingency or pro-bono
basis." Defendant's Combined Motion at 7. Any suggestion of "fabrication" is directly refuted by
the multiple pictures and e-mails non-party
produced - documentary evidence that
Defendant fails to discuss in her brief. Moreover, non-party
is identified as a passenger
on Epstein's own flight logs:
Non-party
fulsome production included items such as multiple e-mails with
These e-mails are direct
evidence of the trafficking of females for the purpose of sex, and the use of fraud and manipulation to
accomplish that purpose.
also produced numerous photographs of her travels to
Epstein's Little Saint James Island, which unequivocally establish Defendant's presence during the
years that she swore under oath that she was hardly around
testimony proves that
what little Defendant did say during her deposition was far from the truth.
10


Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1296-9 Filed 12/12/22 Page 15 of 29
These documents do not lie, and moreover make it abundantly clear that Defendant was far
from truthful during her deposition when she denied being a part of Epstein's sexual abuse
conspiracy. Rather than engage
allegations on the merits, Defendant responds with
technicalities. For example, Defendant attempts to suggest that
counsel was not diligent
in disclosing
Yet if there was any failure of disclosure here, it was entirely
Defendant's failure. Clearly, witness
is someone who has relevant evidence in this
case, as her many photographs, e-mails, and other documents undoubtedly establish. And yet
Defendant failed to disclose
existence not only in her Rule 26 disclosures, but also
through (to put it mildly) her inaccurate testimony during her deposition. As a result,
legal counsel did not leam of
existence and whereabouts until November.
Furthermore, as
counsel informed the Court, it was not until the first week in January
that non-party
was able to meet with counsel in person in Barcelona.
counsel was not going to petition to bring a new witness before this Court without conducting
complete due diligence to assure that her testimony was credible. As soon as that in-person meeting
was accomplished in early January,
filed the appropriate papers with this Court and
immediately offered to make
available to Defendant for a deposition. After first
delaying in taking that deposition, Defendant then made this victim of sex trafficking, who had flown
to the United States from Barcelona, sit for ten hours at a deposition and be subject to harassing
questions.


Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1296-9 Filed 12/12/22 Page 16 of 29
ARGUMENT
In light of non-party
diligent efforts to satisfy Defendant's needs for
discovery, the Court should enter a protective order against further discovery (DE 640) and deny
Defendant's Combined Motion to Compel' (DE 655).
As explained in Non-Party
Motion for Protective Order, Defendant should not
be allowed to use the discovery process as a means of intimidating and harassing a non-party.
Counsel is not permitted to intentionally harass or embarrass a non-party witness during a
deposition. See Smartix International LLC v. Garrubbo, Romankow & Capese, No. 06 CIV 1501
(JGK), 2007 WL 41666035 at *2 (S.D.N.Y Nov. 20, 2007) (court protecting deponent from
annoyance, embarrassment and harassment by denying party's attempt to obtain personnel
records relating to non-party).
Courts are more vigilant with these protections when the discovery is being sought from a
non-party. "IT]he fact of non-party status may be considered by the Court in weighing the
burdens imposed in the circumstances." Katz v. Batavia Marine & Sporting Supplies, Inc., 984
F.2d 422, 424 (Fed.Cir. 1993); accord Amini Innovation Corp. v. McFerran Home Furnishings,
Inc., 300 F.R.D. 406, 409 (C.D. Cal. 2014); see also Dart Industries Co., Inc. v. Westwood
' In her Motion to Compel, Defendant failed to comply with Local Rule 37.1 and only inserted
selected text from certain objections. Rule 37.1 requires: "upon any motion or application
involving discovery or disclosure requests or responses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, the moving
party shall specify and quote or set forth verbatim in the motion papers each discovery request
and response to which the motion or application is addressed." For all of the discovery items
upon which Defendant moves, Defendant has wholly failed to do this. Upon a motion to compel,
a court is called upon to evaluate the discovery requests as well as the responses and objections.
Local Rule 37.1 is designed to protect against the exact type of self-serving omission of the
responding party's objections that Defendant has done in her brief. Accordingly, the Court
should deny Defendant's motion in its entirety for failure to comply with Local Rule 37.1. See
Blodgett v. Siemens Industry, Inc., 2016 WL 4203490, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) (denying motion
without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 37.1 (which is the same rule in the
Eastern District of New York)); see also Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 2, Non-Party
Responses and Objections to Defendant's Subpoena Requests.
12


Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1296-9 Filed 12/12/22 Page 17 of 29
Chemical Co., 649 F.2d 646 (9th Cir. 1980) ("While discovery is a valuable right and should not
be unnecessarily restricted, the "necessary' restriction may be broader when a non-party is the
target of discovery.").
Courts have routinely denied the discovery of non-parties when it is clear that the purpose
is to obtain personal information for intimidating or harassing the witness. See DaCosta v. City
of Danbury, 298 F.R.D. 37 (D. Conn. 2014) (protective order granted with respect to personal
information of nonparties, including home addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, dates of
birth, children's names, financial account numbers, and social security numbers).
Despite
robust production, Defendant comes before this Court to seek
additional information solely for the purpose of harassing and intimidating this witness.
Defendant's onerous subpoena contained thirty (30) separate categories of requests.
Nevertheless,
produced the documents she had and sat in a deposition for over ten
hours with Defendant's counsel. In fact,
testified that she had produced all of the
photographs and documents that she has that relate to Defendant and Epstein.
02/17/17 Dep. Tr. at 364:17 to 367:6
Q. Okay. If I could have you tum to | A. Mm-hmm.
the last three pages, where it says
"Documents to be Produced."
Q. Have you seen that list before?
LA. Yes, I have.
Q. Did you conduct a search of
A. Yes, I believe that I produced every single document
your records to produce documents?
I can.
Q. After looking at this list, did you go
A. As I said, I looked at everything I had during that
back and look through your
time frame and I produced everything I can during that
photographs in Barcelona?
time frame that I was with Jeffrey.
Q. Just tell me what you did in
A. Okay. So I went through a box of about over 5,000
order to make sure you had produced
photos that I had, and I went through every single photo,
everything that was called for in this
every single disk, everything that I had. I went through
list.
all my emails. I tried to look for the BlackBerry sim
card, which I had hoped that I had kept, which had all
Ghislaine's messages on and Jeffrey's and
and stupidly I misplaced that, which is really annoying.
But I myself, you know, considering my objective is to
13


Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1296-9 Filed 12/12/22 Page 18 of 29
get these people and get justice for the abuse that
Ghislaine caused me - and Jeffrey - I have given as
sufficient evidence that I have.
Q. Did you look for all photographs
A. Yes.
taken by you or containing any image
of you at or near any home, business,
private vehicle or any other property
owned or controlled by Jeffrey
Epstein, as indicated in paragraph 7?
Q. Likewise in paragraph 8, did you
A. Yes.
look for any photographs that depict
any home, business, private
vehicle or any other property owned or
controlled by Jeffrey Epstein?
Q. And you did that after reviewing
this list of documents?
A. Yeah, I mean, I received the list and I've complied
with everything. I have given absolutely everything
that I can to you guys.
02/17/17 Dep. Tr. at 370:16 to 370:18
Q. Where are these photographs?
A. I have given all the photographs to my lawyers.
| 02/17/17 Dep. Tr. at 371:9 to 371:13
Q. Were there photographs of other
A. I have given all the photos that I have.
people taken around the same time that
vou have?
02/17/17 Dep. Tr. at 371:14 to 371:19.
Q. In other words, if you were
messing around with
at this
time and there's a photo of
that you have, did you provide that?
A. I provided every single photograph that I have.
02/17/17 Dep. Tr. at 379:9 to 380:13.
Q. Okay. So you believed that
you produced six emails of
***
conversation between yourself and
***
Q. Okay. So you believe you gave six
emails between yourself and
to your attorneys?
A. Yeah, I collected all -- all -- everything I had, I gave
to my lawyers.
A. Yes, I gave all my evidence.


Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1296-9 Filed 12/12/22 Page 19 of 29
02/17/17 Dep. Tr. at 382:14 to 386:16.
Q. So did you produce the
A. I've given all my email correspondence to my
February 04, '07, 4:01 p.m. email
lawyers.
from yourself to
to
your attorneys?
Q. Did you give that email to your A. I've given all my emails to my lawyers.
lawyer?
Q. Okay. The next email down
A. Mm-hmm.
says
February 5,
2007, at 10:09 p.m." - Can you read
the text of that email on this
document?
Q. What does the 10:09 p.m. email
say?
A. As I've specified before, this is a screenshot,
okay,
of the actual Yahoo email. This is a screenshot. So
technically I can't read that anyways, seeing as it's a
screen shot.
***
Q. Did you search your Inbox for A. I did. I wanted to be thorough with my research, so I,
documents responsive to the
during that time frame, went through every single email.
subpoena that I showed you a little
while ago?
Q. You went through each one?
A. I went through all of my emails to make sure I gave
all my evidence to my lawyers.
Q. Did you search for keywords or did | A. I read each email.
you just read each email?
Q. And did you print out each email?
A. I didn't print out. I saved them to a USB stick.
Q. All of them or just the ones that you
A. Just the ones that were for - just anything related to
thought were needed?
Jeffrey, I sent over.
1.
NON-PARTY
HAS PRODUCED DOCUMENTS OF AND DOES NOT
HAVE DOCUMENTS FOR A NUMBER OF REQUESTS.
Defendant's Motion to Compel' is misleading because it suggests that non-party
refused to produce documents in response to all thirty categories in the subpoena. That is
produced both screen shots and the associated emails. Defendant asked about the
screenshots during the deposition, rather than about the supplemental production of the actual
emails. Defendant also requested additional pieces of the email chains which non-party |
has provided the Defendant the additional pieces of the email chains to the extent they were
responsive to the Defendant's subpoena.
" Defendant also requested a copy of the CD of photographs that non-party
already
produced in hard copy. A copy of said CD has been made and sent to Defendant.
15


Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1296-9 Filed 12/12/22 Page 20 of 29
incorrect. To be clear,
produced documents, or responded that no documents exist,
to Requests 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 20, 23. Request 24 was withdrawn by Defendant
and non-party
does not have any documents responsive to Request 26. As to the
remaining requests:
• Request 12 -
testified that she does not have any credit card receipts,
cancelled checks, or documents reflecting travel from 2006-2007, other than what she has
already produced. See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1,
Tr. at 367, 402-403.
• Request 15 - She testified that she does not have any documents reflecting the money
paid to her by Jeffrey Epstein (she was paid in cash). See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1,
Tr. at 151-152, 415.
• Request 16 - She testified that she was given cash by Epstein during the years 2006-2007
while she was being trafficked by Defendant and Epstein. See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1,
Tr. at 415-416.
• Request 17 - She testified that she lived in Epstein's apartment and thereafter lived with a
male friend, but she does not have any leases, deeds, or rental agreements for 2006-2007..
See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1,1
Tr. at 76-78, 228-229.
• Request 19
produced a copy of her FIT essay but testified that she does
not believe she has the application but Jeffrey Epstein or the Defendant likely have a
copy because they claimed to be assisting her with the application and submission
process for FIT). See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1,
Tr. at 171-172, 179-180.
• Request 21 -
testified she did very little modeling because she wasn't
successful at it and has no documents relating to her modeling) See Pottinger Dec. at
Exhibit 1,
Tr. at 82, 85, 112-113, 216, 415.
• Request 25 - She testified she has not had any communication with law enforcement. See
Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1,
Tr. at 183-184, 189.
• Request 27 - She testified that she has never written a book or any similar writings about
her time with Defendant. See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1,
Tr. at 9, 12-13, 35-38.
• Request 28 - Defendant already has her civil complaint in Jane Doe 43, and
already testified that she is involved in that litigation.
• Request 30 —
testified that she does not have a current account on Twitter
or any other social media platform, and does not have the information for any for the
years 2006-2007. See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1,
Tr. at 61.
16


Filed 12/12/22 Page 21 of 29
Il.
DEFENDANT'S SUBPOENA SEEKS DOCUMENTS SOLELY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF INTIMIDATING AND HARASSING THIS NON-PARTY
WITNESS
Request 10 (Current Passport/Current Visas):
As to Request 10.
produced her passport during the time that she was being
trafficked by Defendant and Epstein. She does not have Visas from that time period, as she
testified. Non-party
should not have to produce her current passport, and
Defendant has given no good faith reason for why she should have to.
The remainder of Request 10 is overly broad, seeking "all communications regarding any
of Your passports, visas, visa applications or to her permissions to live, work or study in a
foreign country for the years 2005 - present." What is responsive and relevant to this case - the
passport she held during the years 2006 and 2007 - has been produced. The reminder is simply
being sought in order to learn the patterns of
travel for purposes of harassing and
intimidating her.
Request 18 (Current Driver's License):
Despite non-party
having produced her passport showing her travel during the
period she was being trafficked by Defendant and Epstein, Defendant seeks a "copy of her
current driver's license." Non-party
is already fearful for her life and has been
followed at least once since she disclosed the abuse she endured at the hands of Defendant and
Epstein. Obtaining a copy of this non-party's current driver's license is solely for the purpose of
harassing and intimidating her and should not be permitted. The evidence that is relevant to the
claims from 2006-2007 has already been produced, including the copy of her passport.
Request 29 (Current Bank Statement, Paycheck, Credit Card Statements):
Non-party
testified that she is presently unemployed and is living with her
boyfriend. Nevertheless, Defendant insists on moving to compel highly personal financial
17


Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1296-9 Filed 12/12/22 Page 22 of 29
information from this non-party as set forth in Request 29: "A copy of your most recent
paycheck, paycheck stub, earnings statement and any bank statement, credit card statement and
any document reflecting any money owed by you to anyone." This type of current financial
information is only being sought for the improper purpose of embarrassing, intimidating, and
harassing this non-party. See DaCosta v. City of Danbury, 298 F.R.D. 37 (D. Conn. 2014)
(protective order granted with respect to personal information of nonparties, including home
addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, children's names, financial account
numbers, and social security numbers).
Request 22 (All Modeling Contracts Signed or Entered into By You):
Non-party
provided testimony that she did very little modeling while in New
York because she was not successful at it, and she also testified that it was mostly freelance
modeling. See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1,
Tr. at 82, 85, 112-113, 216, 415. Despite
receiving this testimony, Defendant is now insisting that she conduct a search for any modeling
contract that
has signed and produce them. This search is solely for the improper
purpose of embarrassing, harassing, and intimidating this non-party witness, and should be
precluded.
Accordingly, non-party
objects to these Requests which are only being sought
for the purpose of harassing and intimidating this non-party witness, and requests that the Court
protect her from this clearly, highly personal and harassing discovery.
III. DEFENDANT SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM ASKING ANY ADDITIONAL
DEPOSITION QUESTIONS THAT ARE SOLELY MEANT TO EMBARRASS,
INTIMIDATE AND HARASS THIS NON-PARTY.
Defendant had
present for a deposition for over ten hours with breaks,
ensuring that Defendant got a full seven (7) hours of tape time as provided by the Rules. Despite
this, Defendant seeks to compel
to sit for additional questions. The following are
18


Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1296-9 Filed 12/12/22 Page 23 of 29
the categories of deposition testimony that Defendant seeks for which non-party
contends are sought only for the purpose of harassment and intimidation:
• Current paycheck records and other banking records. Defendant has now added to
this that she wants her boyfriend's current income and financial position since nonparty
testified that she is living with her boyfriend. See Pottinger Dec at

Dep. Tr. at 8-9, 13-14.
• Boyfriend's cell phone number. See Pottinger Dec at Exhibit 1, |
Dep. Tr. at
27-28
• Her parent's current address information. See Pottinger Dec at Exhibit 1,
Dep. Tr. at 14.
• Communications that non-party
testified she recalls having with a
reporter in the fall of 2016. See Pottinger Dee at Exhibit 1,
Dep. Tr. at 37-
43, 386-388.
• Privileged communications with Alan Dershowitz when he was meeting with
about a legal matter. See Pottinger Dec at Exhibit 1,
Dep. Tr. at
182-186.
• Her partner's occupation. See Pottinger Dec at Exhibit 1,
Dep. Tr. at 13-14.
What hotel
Pottinger Dec at Exhibit 1,
was staying at in New York for her deposition. See
Dep. Tr. at 30-34.
•
Whether Alan Dershowitz contacted anyone on
Dec at Exhibit 1,
Dep. Tr. at 199.
behalf. See Pottinger
• Her stepmother's phone, e-mail address and physical address - despite the fact that
non-party
already gave testimony at her lengthy deposition that she
does not have her stepmother's contact information. See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1,
Dep. Tr. at 239-240.
•
When
provided her photos to her lawyer. See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit
Dep. Tr. at 363.
testified that she believed that Alan Dershowitz had been retained to be her
lawyer in a legal matter that she was having. Accordingly, counsel objected on privilege grounds
when Defendant's counsel attempted to obtain specifics about those meetings. In addition,
Defendant attempted to obtain privileged and work product information about
19


Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1296-9 Filed 12/12/22 Page 24 of 29
meetings with her counsel in this matter. As the Court can see, the other questions relate to a
number of personal family information that a non-party witness should not be required to
disclose, particularly when she has a justified fear of Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein. Defendant
also requests documents relating to
testimony that she recently had conversations
with a reporter when she was trying to encourage other victims of Defendant and Epstein to
come forward with their stories. After giving fulsome testimony on this topic, Defendant is now
demanding that
conduct a search for documents relating to this reporter. Again,
non-party
has produced a significant amount of discovery and has given her
testimony and she should not be forced to undertake an additional burden. Finally, prying into
her current personal financial information or her boyfriend's personal financial information
should not be condoned. Simply put, all of these categories above for which Defendant seeks
additional testimony have nothing to do with this action and are being sought solely to
embarrass, harass, and intimidate this non-party, which should not be condoned.
IV. NON-PARTY
SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO INCUR THE
BURDEN AND EXPENSE OF PRODUCING A PRIVILEGE LOG.
Despite being given less than seven days to respond to Defendant's subpoena and
produce documents, Defendant also wrongly demands that this non-party undertake the burden
and expense of producing a privilege log. New York law protects non-parties from the
significant burden and expense of producing a privilege log. "The burden on the party from
which discovery is sought must, of course, be balanced against the need for the information
sought." Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Konover, 2009 WL 585434, at *5 (D. Conn. Mar. 4, 2009)
(denying Rule 45 motion to compel production of documents from non-party). "In performing
such a balance, courts have considered the fact that discovery is being sought from a third or
non-party, which weighs against permitting discovery." Tucker v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc., 281
20


Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1296-9 Filed 12/12/22 Page 25 of 29
F.R.D. 85, 92 (D. Conn. 2012) (finding request for production on non-party - including creation
of privilege log - too burdensome); see also Medical Components, Inc. v. Classic Medical, Inc.,
210 F.R.D. 175, 180 n.9 (M.D.N.C. 2002) (*the court should give special weight to the unwanted
burden thrust upon non-parties when evaluating the balance of competing needs.")). "Within this
[Second] Circuit, courts have held nonparty status to be a "significant' factor in determining
whether discovery is unduly burdensome." Tucker, 281 F.R.D. at 92 (citing Solarex Corp. v.
Arco Solar, Inc., 121 F.R.D. 163, 179 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (status as non-party "significant" factor
in denying defendant's discovery demand)).
is a victim of sex trafficking who bravely came forward to help another
victim of abuse. She is not a large corporation with a team of in-house lawyers. In these
circumstances, imposing the burden of producing a privilege log on this non-party is inherently
unfair. A non-party is not required to undertake the burden of filing a privilege log. Defendant is
only seeking to try to have this Court force non-party
to produce a privilege log in
this matter to impose additional burden on
In addition, Defendant wrongly argues that she is entitled to any communications and
witness interviews between
lawyers and non-party
It is well settled
that documents relating to witness interviews are protected by the work product privilege. In
addition, Defendant wrongly argues that she is entitled to any communications and witness
interviews between
lawyers and non-party
See William A. Gross
Const., Assoc., Ine. v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 262 F.R.D. 354, 359 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (upholding
work-product privilege, finding doctrine "'extends to notes, memoranda, witness interviews, and
other material*" created in preparation for litigation and trial (emphasis added) (internal citation
omitted)). Indeed, "protection of witness interviews has been one of the focuses of the attorney
21


Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1296-9 Filed 12/12/22 Page 26 of 29
work-product privilege since its inception in American law." Gerber v. Down E. Caty. Hosp.,
266 F.R.D. 29, 31 (D. Me. 2010) (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 497, 510-11, 67 S.
Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947)). Courts have continuously found an attorney's communications
and notes of witness interviews to be privileged work product. See, e.g., City of Pontiac Gen.
Employee's Ret. Sys. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2012 WL 4202657, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18,
2012) (denying motion to compel, upholding work-product privilege with respect to witness
interviews and accompanying notes, emails, and memoranda; United States v. Jacques
Dessange, Inc., 2000 WL 310345, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2000) (finding notes of witness
interviews to be core work product); S.E.C. v. NIR Grp., LLC, 283 F.R.D. 127, 134 (E.D.N.Y.
2012) (work product privilege applied to interviews - along with accompanying notes and
memoranda - conducted by attorney); Buck v. Indian Mountain Sch., 2017 WL 421648, at *7 (D.
Conn. Jan. 31, 2017) ("the disclosure of witness interviews and documents related thereto, is
"particularly disfavored"" (quoting Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 399 (1981))).
V. NON-PARTY
JANE DOE 43.
Defendant also claims that non-party
HAS PRODUCED DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO
has not produced all documents
covered in the subpoena that relate to Jane Doe 43 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell,
, Case Number 1:17 - cv-0016-JGK, which involves
a claim under the sexual trafficking statute. Regarding the Jane Doe 43 documents,
testified that she produced everything that she had that relates to Defendant. See Chart
supra. The case law is clear that a party cannot use the subpoena power in this litigation to gather
discovery for a different litigation which is exactly what Defendant is trying to do here. See Liz
Claiborne, Inc., v. Mademoiselle Knitwear, Inc., No. 96 CIV 2064 (RWS), 1997 WL 53184 at *5
(Sweet, J.) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 1997) (this Court limiting deposition questioning of party because
22


Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1296-9 Filed 12/12/22 Page 27 of 29
relevance of the questions were tenuous at best and appeared to be directed at improperly
gathering information for a different lawsuit); Night Hawk Limited v. Briarpatch Limited, No. 03
CIV. 1382 (RWS), 2003 WL 23018833 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2003). Irrespective of this case law
that says a party should not wrongfully seck a non-party's documents for use in a different
matter, non-party
did produce the documents that she has that relate directly to
Defendant and Epstein as she testified.
CONCLUSION
Non-party
respectfully requests that this Court grant her protection from
having to produce any additional discovery or sit for any additional deposition testimony (DE
650). Non-party
also respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendant's
Combined Motion to Compel (DE 655).
Dated: March 7, 2017
Respectfully Submitted,
By: Is/ J. Stanley Pottinger
J. Stanley Pottinger (Pro Hac Vice)
Counsel for
23


Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1296-9 Filed 12/12/22 Page 28 of 29
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 7th of March, 2017, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission
of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10*h Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
Tel: (303) 831-7364
Fax: (303) 832-2628
Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
Sigrid McCawley, Esq.
Meredith Schultz, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard
Suite 1200
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 356-0011
Fax: (954) 956-0022
smccawley@bsfllp.com
mschultz@bsfllp.com
David Boies
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
dboies@ bstlip.com
(Pro Hac Vice)
AFFE, WEISSING,
FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
(954) 524-2820
brad@pathtojustice.com
24


Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1296-9 Filed 12/12/22 Page 29 of 29
Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
S.J. Quinney College of Law
University of Utah
383 University St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
(801) 585-52024
cassellp@law.utah.edu
Peter Guirguis, Esq.
MINTZ & GOLD, LLP
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
(212) 696-4848
guirguis@mintzandgold.com
Is/ J. Stanley Pottinger
J. Stanley Pottinger
4 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only
and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private
representation.
25