EFTA01105448

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