EFTA01184082

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. 
a 
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. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA01184082

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. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA01184083

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. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA01184084

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. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA01184085

5 
G3hdgium 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
should be a protective order in this case. You are good 
lawyers and you have been around this track more times than I 
have and so you can prepare consensually a better protective 
order than I can, and I urge you to do that. And, in fact, I 
will give you two weeks to do that. Should you fail, you can 
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. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA01184086

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. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA01184087

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. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA01184088

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. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA01184089

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. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA01184090

10 
G3hdgium 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
agreed 
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. 
MR. PAGLIUCA: It is not as simple as that, your 
Honor, because this quid pro quo, I'll agree to their 
protective order if I can have the deposition on the 25th, 
doesn't solve the problem. 
THE COURT: At least we've separated it. She has 
to the protective order. OK? So that's done. OK? 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA01184091

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. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA01184092

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. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA01184093

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. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA01184094

14 
G3hdgium 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
MS. McCAWLEY: I think she's referring to a broader 
request. My client doesn't have a diary, which is what she's 
addressing right now. I don't have my requests in front of me, 
your Honor. We were here on their requests. But if you want 
to read the whole request, I can try and remember what 
THE COURT: What are we talking --
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. 
objects 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. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA01184095

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. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA01184096

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. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA01184097

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. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA01184098

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. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA01184099

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. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA01184100

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 -- I 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 
25 
THE COURT: OK. 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA01184101