← Back to home

Document 23509

AI Analysis

Summary: The document discusses the plaintiff's request to exceed the presumptive ten deposition limit in a civil case involving Jeffrey Epstein, arguing that the additional depositions are unnecessary and duplicative. The defendant objects, citing the cumulative nature of the testimony and the burden on witnesses and counsel. The court filing provides insight into the case's procedural posture and the parties' litigation strategies.
Significance: This document is potentially important because it reveals the plaintiff's strategy in pursuing additional depositions and the defendant's objections to those depositions, which could impact the scope and outcome of the case.
Key Topics: Deposition limits Cumulative and duplicative testimony Witness testimony in a civil case involving Jeffrey Epstein
Key People:
  • Johanna Sjoberg - Former Epstein employee and deponent
  • Maria Alessi - Former Epstein household employee and proposed deponent
  • Joe Recarey - Former Palm Beach Detective and proposed deponent
  • Michael Reiter - Former Palm Beach Police Chief and proposed deponent
  • The Plaintiff - The individual bringing the civil case against Epstein or related parties
Document Type
Court Filing
Date
07/01/21
Pages
1
Folder
IMAGES002

Full Text

Case 1:19-cv-03347-LAP Document 23509 Filed 07/01/21 Page 7 of 112 Weighing these factors, there is no basis for permitting more than the presumptive ten deposition limit. First, as highlighted by the motion, the information purportedly sought is cumulative and duplicative. By way of example, Plaintiff has already deposed Johanna Sjoberg (a former Epstein employee), Juan Alessi (a former Epstein employee), and David Rodgers 4 (former Epstein Pilot). She further seeks to depose Maria Alessi and Jo Fontanella (former Epstein household employees), as well as Dana Burns and Emmy Taylor (identified as assistants to Ms. Maxwell or Mr. Epstein). The information Plaintiff claims each of the witnesses may have is identical to that of each other - what they observed while working for Epstein. Plaintiff goes so far as to state that Maria Alessi's deposition is expected to "corroborate" the observations of her husband's. Plaintiff admits that the purpose in seeking the additional depositions is "obtaining witnesses, like Ms. Sjoberg, who can corroborate that [Plaintiff] is telling the truth." Yet, Ms. Sjoberg did not "corroborate that [Plaintiff] is telling the truth." Instead, she testified that Regardless, Plaintiff is looking in vain for more testimony of exactly the same character, precisely the type of testimony the presumptive limit is intended to prevent. Similarly, the expected deposition testimony of former Palm Beach Detective Joe Recarey and former Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter are duplicative of each other. 4 Mr. Rodgers deposition, held last Friday and requiring a separate trip to Florida for Colorado counsel after the scheduled court hearing on Thursday, served simply to authenticate flight logs. There are far more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive methods by which such information could have been obtained, such as a verifying affidavit, yet Plaintiff chose to unnecessarily burden counsel, the witness and counsel for the witness with a 3 hour deposition to accomplish the same end. 5 DOJ-OGR-00004208