Court Filing: 532
The defense argues that Exhibit 52, a document the government seeks to admit as evidence, is unreliable and lacks proper authentication. They contend that the government's attempt to authenticate it through Ghislaine Maxwell's 2016 deposition testimony fails because the deposition exhibit shown to Maxwell (Deposition Exhibit 13) is not the same as Exhibit 52, and Maxwell disclaimed knowledge of its origin or authenticity.
Summary
The defense argues that Exhibit 52, a document the government seeks to admit as evidence, is unreliable and lacks proper authentication. They contend that the government's attempt to authenticate it through Ghislaine Maxwell's 2016 deposition testimony fails because the deposition exhibit shown to Maxwell (Deposition Exhibit 13) is not the same as Exhibit 52, and Maxwell disclaimed knowledge of its origin or authenticity.
This document is from the epstein-docs Archive.
View Source CollectionPersons Referenced (5)
Related Documents (6)
[REDACTED - Survivor] Deposition May 2016
Case Document 1090-32 Filed 07/30/20 Page 1 of 89 EXHIBIT Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1090-32 Filed 07/30/20 Page 2 of 89 GIUFFRE VS. MAXWELL Deposition [REDACTED - Survivor] 05/03/2016 _______________________________________________________________________ Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. 216 16th Street, Suite 600 Denver Colorado, 80202 303-296-0017 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. Page 3 of 89 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1090-32 Filed 07/30/20 Page 1 IN THE UNI
Unsealed Jeffrey Epstein court papers
January 3, 2024 VIA ECF The Honorable Loretta A. Preska District Court Judge United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-7433-LAP Dear Judge Preska, Pursuant to the Court’s December 18, 2023, unsealing order, and following conferral with Defendant, Plaintiff files this set of documents ordered unsealed. The filing of these documents ordered unsealed will be done on a rolling basis until c
EFTA00014671
EFTA00029590
EXHIBIT Q
EXHIBIT Q EFTA00097394 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 189 Filed 06/06/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X INNIErt INIMINME, Plaintiff, v. GHISLATNE MAXWELL, Defendant. X 15-cv-07433-RWS DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCEED PRESUMPTIVE TEN DEPOSITION LIMIT Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca HADDON, MORGAN, AND FOREMAN, P.C. EFTA00097395 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 189 Filed 06/06/16 Page 2 of 11 Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Ms. Maxwell") files this Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit, and states as follows: INTRODUCTION Despite having taken only three depositions to date, Plaintiff prematurely requests permission to exceed the presumptive ten deposition limit imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(aX2)(A)(i) and to conduct 17 separate depositions, almost twice the limit. Without legal support, Plaintiff attempts to conflate the presumptive time limita
EFTA00038962
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.