Full Text
occurred or that they occurred with the people she claims to have been involved. Rather, each witness identified as being able to provide their observations regarding "other" allegedly underage girls, their own personal experience,6 or beliefs about Plaintiff's credibility. None of this is relevant. This is not a case about Jeffery Epstein or the alleged "modus operandi of the Epstein organization." This is a simple case of if Ms. Maxwell's denial of the allegations made by Plaintiff about Plaintiff's own interactions with Maxwell was defamatory, and if Ms. Maxwell acted with actual malice in issuing the denial. Plaintiff's attempt to amplify this proceeding into something broader should not be condoned.
Because the evidence sought is nothing more than extraneous inadmissible "circumstantial evidence"7 irrelevant to proving the essential elements of the claim, "the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues." Atkinson, 2009 WL 890682, at *1. As such, the request for the additional depositions should be denied.
WHEREFORE, Ms. Maxwell requests that the Motion to permit in excess of the presumptive ten deposition limit be denied; alternatively, if in excess of ten depositions are permitted, Ms. Maxwell requests that Plaintiff be required to pay all costs and attorney's fees
6 The information sought is also inadmissible. Plaintiff seeks testimony from witness who she claims will testify to experience similar to her stories and this will Motion at 15-16. Such evidence is prohibited by FRE 404(b), which states "Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character." Furthermore, no other witness has claimed as Plaintiff does that Ghislaine Maxwell sexually abused them, sexually trafficked them, or that she partook in daily sex with any underage girls. Plaintiff's claim stands in isolation because it is fictional.
7 This "circumstantial evidence" has no bearing on the truthfulness of the stories published by Plaintiff. It is equally likely to show that Plaintiff became aware of the allegations of others and decided to hop on the band wagon. She then made up similar claims for the purpose of getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the media for publicizing her allegations and identifying well know public figures whose names she has seen documents that she reviewed or other stories she had read.
8