Court hearing excerpts on evidentiary rulings in a defamation case involving Ms. Giuffre

10 id. 12 13 14 L5 16 ne) 18 life) 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 H3VOGIU1 before or after Ms. Giuffre was abused by defendant is irrelevant to this action and should b xcluded under Rul 401. It is also, of course, highly prejudicial and should b xcluded under Rule 403. Whether or not Ms. Giuffre ever used drugs while not being abused by defendant does not go to any claim or defenses in this case. Courts in the Southern District of New York routinely xclud vidence of prior drug use under both of these rules, as fully briefed in the papers. Defendant attempts to admit this evidence of prescription drug use related to damages, specifically whether or not the emotional distress Ms. Giuffre suffered is preexisting. = THE COURT: And why do you have it in your expert's report? MS. SCHULTZ: Well, our expert is -- I'm assuming you're referring to Dr. Kliman, who is a physician. He's a medical doctor. He took a full -- THE COURT: There's a whole thing about it. Are you going to withdraw the -- MS. SCHULTZ: No, your Honor. We're only claiming damages with respect to the emotional distress suffered from the defamation. And also, taking drugs prescribed for various mental health issues is not the same thing as emotional distress. They're two different issues. So any marginal SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011324