File 011463

Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Omnibus Motion in Limine - Giuffre v. Maxwell (File 011463)

Legal brief filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team opposing Virginia Giuffre's motions in limine, arguing for admissibility of evidence regarding Giuffre's credibility, character, and allegations against various public figures.

Summary

This is Ghislaine Maxwell's response brief to Virginia Giuffre's omnibus motion in limine in the defamation case 15-cv-07433-RWS in the Southern District of New York. Maxwell's defense counsel from Haddon, Morgan and Foreman argues that under Federal Rule of Evidence 405(b), evidence of Giuffre's specific instances of lying, deceit, and fraudulent conduct should be admitted to impeach her credibility. The brief addresses 20 enumerated motions in limine, arguing for admissibility of evidence concerning Giuffre's allegations about various public figures (Dershowitz, Clinton, Prince Andrew), her sexual history, criminal history, drug use, tax obligations, age discrepancies, medical records, and statements made through the advocacy organization Victims Refuse Silence.

Images
Text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X
VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,
Plaintiff,
V.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
X
15-cv-07433-RWS
Defendant's Response in Opposition to
Plaintiffs Omnibus Motion in Limine
Laura A. Menninger
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
Ty Gee
HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
303.831.7364
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 011463
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1
I. FED. R. EVID. 405(B) REQUIRES ADMISSION OF ALL SPECIFIC INCIDENTS OF
PLAINTIFF LYING OR ENGAGING IN DECEITFUL OR FRAUDULENT CONDUCT 1
A. All allegations or comments made by Plaintiff are "connected to" the alleged defamatory
statement..............................................................................................................................4
B. Responses to Enumerated Motions In Limine.....................................................................6
1. Stories and allegations concerning Dershowitz, foreign presidents, and world leaders
are highly relevant and admissible (Motion in Limine 1)...............................................6
2. Meeting Bill Clinton at Jeffrey Epstein's private island twice (Motion in Limine 2)..... 8
3. FOIA responses and related materials are admissible (Motion in Limine 3)................... 8
4. Louis Freeh's testimony and report are admissible evidence (Motion in Limine 4).......9
5. Prince Andrew and Buckingham Palace's denials of Plaintiff's claims are not offered
for the truth of the matter asserted (Motion in Limine 5).............................................. 11
6. Evidence Regarding Plaintiff's Sexual History and Reputation is Admissible (Motion in
Limine 6)....................................................................................................................... 14
7. Plaintiff cannot prohibit use of words such as "prostitute," which she used to describe
herself, or any other "derogatory" terms that describe her reputation (Motion in Limine
7).................................................................................................................................... 14
8. Plaintiff's drug use is relevant to her memory and lack of damages (Motion in Limine
8).................................................................................................................................... 16
9. Information regarding Plaintiff's criminal history is relevant and admissible evidence
when character is an essential element of the claim (Motion in Limine 9)................... 18
10. Evidence concerning school attendance is relevant to Plaintiff's allegations of how she
spent her time in 1999 to 2002 (Motion in Limine 10)................................................. 19
11. Plaintiff put her full childhood history and character at issue (Motion in Limine 11) .. 20
12. Victims Refuse Silence is a sham not-for-profit established to create a claim for
defamation per se (Motion in Limine 12)......................................................................20
i
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 011464
13. Plaintiff's failure to pay her personal tax obligations is relevant to her character for
truthfulness (Motion in Limine 13)...............................................................................22
14. Plaintiff's husband's domestic violence against her in March 2015 is probative of other
intervening causes of emotional distress and related damages (Motion in Limine 14) 23
15. Plaintiff's lies about her age and the year she met Mr. Epstein must be exposed to the
jury (Motion in Limine 15)............................................................................................24
16. All of Plaintiff's medical records are relevant to Plaintiff's damages claims (Motion in
Limine 16).....................................................................................................................25
17. The Parties agree to preclusion of all documents and discussion of the Jane Doe 102
case, including the settlement of those claims (Motion in Limine 17).........................26
18. The Cassell/Edwards v. Dershowitz litigation is relevant and admissible (Motion in
Limine 18).....................................................................................................................26
19. Judge Marra's ruling is relevant and admissible (Motion in Limine 19).......................29
20. The transcript of the tape recording of Mr. Dershowitz's conversation with Rebecca
Boylan is admissible (Motion in Limine 20).................................................................31
C. Plaintiff's Remaining Motions In Limine Are Premature and Request an Unnecessary
Advisory Opinion (Motions in Limine 21-29)..................................................................32
1. "Bad Acts" by Plaintiff's counsel..................................................................................34
2. Discussion of missing witnesses and absence of evidence is appropriate, and missing
witness instruction may be requested............................................................................35
CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................36
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.....................................................................................................38
ii
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 011465
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Brady v. Chemical Construction Corp., 740 F.2d 195 (2d Cir. 1984).......................................... 10
Cannistraci v. Kirsopp, No. 1:10-CV-980 MAD/DRH, 2012 WL 2089687, at *1-2 (N.D.N.Y.
June 8, 2012)............................................................................................................................. 11
Cardillo v. Doubleday & Co., Inc., 518 F.2d 638, 639-40 (2d Cir.1975).................................... 13
Chamblee v. Harris & Harris, Inc., 154 F. Supp. 2d 670, 681 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).........................22
Chnapkova v. Koh, 985 F.2d 79, 82 (2d Cir. 1993)......................................................................22
Daniels by Glass v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 634 So.2d 88, 93 (Miss. 1993)...................................4
DeVaul v Carvigo Inc., 526 N.Y.S.2d 483 (2d Dept. 1988).........................................................35
Doddy v. Oxy USA, Inc., 101 F.3d 448, 459-60 (5th Cir. 1996)................................................... 10
Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 646-47, 94 S.Ct. 1868, 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974)........33
Edwards v. City of N.Y , No. 08-2199 TLM, 2011 WL 2748665, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. July 13, 2011)
...................................................................................................................................................22
EEOC v. Grief Brothers Corp., 218 F.R.D. 59, 61-62 (W.D.N.Y. 2003)....................................25
Equal Employment Opportunity Comm 'n v. Reed Pierce 's Sportsman's Grille, LLC, No. 3:10-
CV-541-WHB-LRA, 2013 WL 12123370, at *1 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 11, 2013)...........................24
Gaillard v. Jim's Water Service, Inc., 535 F.3d 771, 778-779 (8th Cir. 2008)............................22
Gallo v. Ricci, 814 N.Y.S.2d 422, 423 (2006)..............................................................................36
Geraty v. Vill. of Antioch, No. 09 C 6992, 2015 WL 127917, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 8, 2015).........9
Gordy Co. v. Mary Jane Girls, Inc., No. 86 CIV. 6814 (RWS), 1989 WL 28477, at *6 (S.D.N.Y.
Mar. 24, 1989)........................................................................................................................... 17
Gov't of Virgin Islands v. Grant, 775 F.2d 508, 511 & n. 4 (3d Cir. 1985)...................................3
Grasso v. Mathew, 564 N.Y.S.2d 576, 578 (3d Dep't 1991)......................................................30
Guccione v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 800 F.2d 298, 303 (2d Cir. 1986)....................................... 13
iii
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 011466
Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 116 S.Ct. 1923, 135 L.Ed.2d 337 (1996)...................................22
Kadant Johnson Inc. v. D'Amico, No. CIV.A. 10-2869, 2012 WL 2190897, at *1 (E.D. La. June
14, 2012).....................................................................................................................................3
Kevorkian v. Am. Med. Ass'n, 237 Mich. App. 1, 12, 602 N.W.2d 233, 239 (1999).................... 13
Longmire v. Ala. State Univ., 151 F.R.D. 414, 419 (M.D.Ala. 1992)..................................3
Minemyer v. R-Boc Representatives, Inc., No. 07 C 1763, 2012 WL 379904, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb.
6, 2012)..................................................................................................................................... 12
O'Brien v. Alexander, 898 F.Supp. 162, 171 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)....................................................30
Palmieri v. Defaria, 88 F.3d 136, 141 (2d Cir. 1996)..................................................................33
People v Thomas, 21 N.Y.3d 226 (2013)......................................................................................35
People v. Williams, 5 N.Y.3d 732, 734 (2005).............................................................................35
Preferred Properties, Inc. v. Indian River Estates, Inc., 276 F.3d 790, 799 n.5 (6th Cir. 2002) .13
Rowe v. DPI Specialty Foods, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-00708-DN, 2015 WL 3533844, at *5 (D. Utah
June 4, 2015)....................................................................................................................... 13, 28
S.E.C. v. Collins & Aikman Corp., 256 F.R.D. 403, 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).................................. 19
Schafer v. Time, Inc., 142 F.3d 1361, 1364-75 (11th Cir. 1998)...................................................3
Seligson, Morris & Neuburger v Fairbanks Whitney Corp., 257 N.Y.S.2d 706 (1st Dept. 1965)35
Sidor v. Reno, 95 CIV. 9588 (KMW), 1998 WL 164823, *2 (S.D.N.Y. April 7, 1998)..............25
United States v. Dukes, 727 F.2d 34, 37 (2d Cir. 1984)............................................................... 17
United States v. Hatchett, 918 F.2d 631, 641 (6th Cir. 1990)......................................................22
United States v. Lujan, No. 05-CR-924 (RB) (D.N.M. Mar. 25, 2011)......................................32
United States v. Piche, 981 F.2d 706, 713 (4th Cir. 1992).............................................................3
United States v. Rabbani, 382 F. App'x 39, 42 (2d Cir. 2010).....................................................35
United States v. Robinson, 583 F.3d 1265, 1272 (10th Cir. 2009)...............................................17
United States v. Van Meerbeke, 548 F.2d 415, 417-18 (2d Cir. 1976)........................................ 17
iv
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 011467
United States v. West, 58 F.3d 133, 141 (5th Cir. 1995)..............................................................22
United States v. Wexler, 79 F.2d 526, 529-30 (2d Cir. 1935)......................................................33
United States v. Wilson, No. 04-CR-1016 NGG, 2013 WL 2948034, at *4-6 (E.D.N.Y. June 14,
2013).........................................................................................................................................32
World Wide Ass 'n of Specialty Programs v. Pure, Inc., 450 F.3d 1132, 1138 (10th Cir. 2006)....3
Zamora v. GC Servs., L.P., 647 F. App'x 330 (5th Cir. 2016).......................................................9
Rules
Fed. R. Evid. 403............................................................................................................................7
Fed. R. Evid. 405 and 608...............................................................................................4, 6, 15, 20
Fed. R. Evid. 405(b)...............................................................................................................passim
Fed. R. Evid. 801 .......................................................................................................................... 12
Fed. R. Evid. 801 (d)(2)(D)....................................................................................................29, 31
Fed. R. Evid. 803(6)...................................................................................................................... 19
Fed. R. Evid. 803(8)........................................................................................................................8
Fed. R. Evid. 902(4) and 902(11)................................................................................................. 19
V
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 011468
PAGES 1-36
REDACTED
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 011469
Dated: March 17, 2017
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Laura A. Menninger
Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice)
Ty Gee (pro hac vice)
HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
Phone:
Fax:
Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
37
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 011470
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on March 17, 2017, I electronically served this Defendant's Response in
Opposition to Plaintiff's Omnibus Motion In Limine via ECF on the following:
Sigrid S. McCawley
Meredith Schultz
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Bradley J. Edwards
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS,
FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Paul G. Cassell
383 S. University Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
J. Stanley Pottinger
49 Twin Lakes Rd.
South Salem, NY 10590
/s/ Nicole Simmons
Nicole Simmons
38
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 011471