What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the program.

In this episode, we're going to start taking a look at more documents from the Virginia Roberts and Golaan Maxwell defamation battle.

And to do that, we're taking a look at the motion for sanctions for violation of Rule number forty five, Case number fifteen DASH CV DASH zero seven four thirty three Dash RWs Virginia Roberts versus Glen Maxwell defendant Glen Maxwell, miss Maxwell files.

This combined a response in opposition to plaintiff's motion to extend deadline to complete depositions and motion for sanctions for violation of Rule forty five and states as follows introduction.

Apparently, plaintiff seeks to take six depositions beyond the scheduling order deadline of July first, yet has failed to demonstrate good cause or diligence as to any The witnesses include one redacted, a witness that plaintiff initiated informal attempts to depose on June ninth, and two Roscau, who plaintiff began steps to depose under the Hay Convention in London last Friday, June seventeenth.

Plaintiff also seeks to untimely deposed three Jean Luke Brunel, a witness she had noticed for a mid June deposition, who apparently did not appear on that date with agreement and consent of Plaintiff's council.

The remaining three witnesses plaintiff seeks to untimely depose are ones who reportedly have expressed their intention to take the fifth as to all questions posed council for four Jeffrey Epstein offered to accept service honor about April eleventh, but plaintiff ignored that offer for more than six weeks.

Plaintiff only began on June twelfth any attempt to schedule that deposition in the Virgin Islands.

Last week, mister Epstein's council filed a motion to quash his deposition subpoena.

The final untimely depositions sought by plaintiff are for witnesses Sarah Kellen and Nadia Maarsenkova, about whom Plaintiff has made no public claims and thus have no testimony relevant to this defamation action concerning whether Plaintiff's public allegations about Maxwell are or rather are not true.

The attempted service of subpoenas on Epstein, Kellen and Marsenkova all violated Rule forty five A four and should be sanctioned by this Court.

As to these witnesses, Plaintiff has fallen far short of the good cause required by Rule sixteen B four to modify the scheduling order.

In fact, for the most part, her failures to actively pursue depositions with these witnesses qualifies as inexcusable neglect.

She frittered away seven of the eight months of the discovery period and now has placed Miss Maxwell, this Court and the witnesses in the untenable position of trying to accommodate her last minute scramble in the absence of any acceptable excuses, and for the limited evidentiary value that most of the requested witnesses can provide, this Court should deny the request for extra time to take these six depositions.

The only witnesses for whom depositions should be permitted following the discovery cutoff are one Miss Sharon Churcher, Plaintiff's friend, advocate and form a journalist with The Daily Mail, who filed a motion to quash her subpoena on the day before her scheduled deposition, and two plaintiff who refused to answer questions at her deposition concerning highly relevant, non privileged information.

Alternatively, if the court is to grant additional time for plaintiff to take depositions, Miss Maxwell will be unduly prejudiced without sufficient additional time to a secure any witnesses to rebut testimony glean from these witnesses, b conduct discovery of plaintiff retained experts c submit a summary judgment motion which includes fact learned from these late depositions, and d prepare for trial.

Thus, if the court grants Plaintiff's motion, the remaining deadlines in the scheduling order ought to be extended accordingly.

Background to divert attention away from her own lack of diligence, Plaintiff characteristically devotes much of her motion blaming Miss Maxwell and her counsel for her own problems with depositions.

Not only is Plaintiff's acount factually inaccurate, none of it matters to whether she could timely complete the six depositions at issue.

For example, the scheduling of Miss Maxwell's deposition, which depended, among other things on an historic snowstorm, a disputed protective order, Plaintiff's failure to timely produced documents, and Council's conflicting calendars, all of which have been amply documented with this court, does not inform any analysis regarding Plaintiff's lack of diligence in pursuing depositions of these six witnesses see Rule twenty six D three, unless the party stipulate the court orders Otherwise, for the parties and witnesses convenience and in the interests of justice, A methods of discovery may be used in any sequence, and B discovery by one party does not require any other party to delay its discovery.

Likewise, receipt of Miss Maxwell's Rule twenty six disclosures in February also had nothing to do with these witnesses.

Notably, each of the witnesses who Plaintiff now seeks to depose were known to her from the outset all but redacted and redacted were included in her initial Rule twenty six disclosures on November eleventh, twenty fifteen, and two of the six were specifically mentioned in Plaintiff's complaint.

Finally, the fact that witness Rinaldo.

Rizzo had a deposition rescheduled from April until June, does not have any bearing on the issue presented by this motion.

Mister Rizzo was deposed on June fourteenth, and he has nothing to do with the remaining depositions.

Mister Rizzo is, in fact, practically gleeful to be a witness redacted redacted, redacted redacted.

Plaintiff's claims that mister Rizzo is an example of delay that has harmed her ability to obtain all depositions in a timely manner is fecious.

Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion.

Discovery began in this case on October twenty three, twenty fifteen, following the party's Rule twenty six F conferral cfed dot or dot siev dot p Dot twenty six D one at the Rule sixteen B scheduling Conference.

On October twenty eighth, twenty fifteen, This Court directed the parties to complete all fact discovery by July one, twenty sixteen.

On November thirtieth, twenty fifteen, contemporaneous with the filing of a Rule twelve B motion to dismiss, Miss Maxwell also requested of this Court a stay of discovery pursue it to Rule twenty six C Document number seventeen.

That motion was denied on January twentieth, twenty sixteen, with an additional two week period granted to respond the plaintiff's first request for production of documents.

The discovery thus was never stayed.

Plaintiff erroneously asserts that the discovery did not commence in this matter until February eighth.

What she means is that she neglected to seek any non witness depositions until then.

Nothing in the rules of civil procedure, this Court's orders, or the law prevented plaintiff from doing so at any point after October twenty three, twenty fifteen.

Plaintiff is at over eight months to schedule witnesses, schedule depositions, and conduct them.

Instead, she waited until the last minute and now complains of a lack of time.

Any lack of time is a product of her own bad faith and negligent litigation tactics, and should not be sanctioned by this Court.

The failure to timely secure the depositions of the remaining six witnesses is through no fault of Miss Maxwell or her council.

As to these witnesses.

Miss maxwell Well and their council have played no role in hindering Plaintiff's ability to depose the witnesses.

In fact, as the four of the six plaintiffs attempted to serve subpoenas on the witnesses before ever providing notice to the defense, in clear violation of Rule forty five an four.

The Legal Authority Rule sixteen B permits modification of a scheduling order only upon a showing of good cause.

To satisfy the good cause standard, the party must show that, despite its having exercise diligence, the applicable deadline could not have been reasonably met.

So Call Holdings Incorporated First BMD Moonai Incorporated five CIV Dot three seven four nine KMWDF two thousand and nine, w L two five two four six one one at seven SDN Y August fourteenth, two thousand and nine, citing Rent to Center Incorporated, Verse forty seven Corp.

Two fifteen, f dot R dot D D one hundred one oh four SDNY two thousand three.

J.

McMahon Accord Parker versus Columbia Pictures Industrial, two thousand and four, f DOT three D three twenty six three forty Second Circuit two thousand.

Good cause depends on the diligence of the moving party.

Perfect Pearl Company Incorporated.

Versus Majestic Pearl and Stone Incorporated.

Eight eighty nine f Dot supp Dot two D four fifty three four fifty seven SDNY twenty twelve.

Angelmeyer j.

To show good cause, a movement must demonstrate that it has been diligent, meaning that despite its having exercise diligence, the applicable deadline could not have been reasonably met.

Good cause depends on the diligence of the moving party in seeking to meet the scheduling order.

Gratchkowski versus Phoenix Construction three eighteen f Dot three d eighty eighty six, Second Circuit two thousand three.

The Oxford Dictionary defines diligence as careful and persistent work or effort.

See diligence at Oxford Dictionaries dot com.

Good cause and diligence were not shown when a party raised the prospect of a deposition nine days prior to the discovery deadline.

Carlson versus Geneva City School District two seventy seven f Dot r D ninety WDNY twenty eleven.

Compare Rees versus Virginia International Terminals Incorporated.

Two eighty six f dot r D two eighty two e dot D Virginia, twenty twelve.

Depositions noticed very early in discovery period and movement engaged in continuing meet and confer dialogue with the defendants throughout the five month discovery period.

Ayanakoska versus Benistar Administration Services Incorporated.

Seven sixty five f dot supp Dot two D seventy nine, Massachusetts, twenty eleven.

Correspondence indicated that the plaintiffs had tried on numerous occasions to schedule the depositions and to extend the discovery schedule, but that the defendants had either refused or failed to respond, and good cause was found.

Argument one Plaintiff's lack of diligence.

Plaintiff is demonstrated in extreme lack of diligence in securing the six remaining depositions that she seeks.

A redacted.

Plaintiff's motion failed to mention any desire to take the deposition of redacted and redacted.

No notice of deposition has been served, and no scheduling of his deposition has commenced.

Indeed, Redacted first appeared on plaintiff's third revised Rule twenty six disclosures two weeks ago on June first, then last week.

In her reply in support of motion to exceed ten depositions filed on June thirteenth, Plaintiff averred that redacted deposition is necessary because Miss Maxwell, in her deposition on April twenty fifth, raised Miss Roberts comp about redacted as one of the obvious lies to which she was referring in her public statement that formed the basis of this suit.

Reply at three.

This is utter nonsense and nothing more than a transparent ploy by plaintiff to increase media exposure for her sensational stories through deposition.

Side show.

This witness has nothing relevant to add to this case, and Plaintiff has made no effort, much less won in good faith to timely secure his testimony.

Plaintiff admits she has made not allegations of illegal actions by redacted, but plaintiff has asserted that she spent time with redacted on the island of Little Saint James Us Virgin Islands, and that she flew there with the redacted in a helicopter piloted by Miss Maxwell.

In one article authored by Sharon Churcher plaintiff related on one occasion, she adds Epstein did invite two young brunettes to dinner, which he gave on his Caribbean island for mister Clinton shortly after he left office.

Far as she knows, the ex president did not take the bait.

I'd have been about seventeen at the time, she says.

I flew to the Caribbean with Jeffrey and then Glene Maxwell went to pick up Bill in a huge black helicopter that Jeffrey bought her.

She always wanted to fly, and Jeffrey paid for her to take lessons, and I remember she was very excited because she got her license around the first year we met.

I used to get frightened flying with her, but Bill had the Secret Service with him, and I remember him talking about what a good job she did.

I only met Bill twice, but Jeffrey told me they were good friends.

We all dined together that night.

Jeffrey was at the head of the table.

Bill was at his left.

I sat across from him.

Emmy Taylor, Glaine's blonde British assistant, sat at my right.

Glaine was at Bill's left and at the left of Golaine.

There were two olive skin brunettes who had flown in with us from New York.

I'd never met them before.

I'd say they were no older than seventeen, very innocent looking.

They weren't there for me.

They weren't there for Jeffrey or Glaine, because I was there to have sex with Jeffrey on that trip.

Maybe Jeffrey thought he would entertain Bill, but I saw no evidence that he was interested in them.

He and Jeffrey and Glane seemed to be having a good time, and they had a very good relationship.

Bill was very funny.

He made me laugh a few times, and he and Jeffrey and Glaine told blokey jokes, and the brunettes listened politely and giggled.

After dinner, I gave Jeffrey an erotic massage.

I don't remember seeing Bill again on the trip, but I assume Glaine flew him back.

Boy, that seems like a problem for Bill Clinton.

No, didn't his spokesperson come out and tell us that he's never been on the island.

So either Virginia's lying or Bill Clinton's lying.

I'll leave it up to you to decide who you believe.

But me personally.

I don't believe Bill Clinton about a goddamn thing.

And if Virginia saying she saw him on this island, I'm gonna go with Virginia and say he was on this island.

See Sharon Churcher, girl recruited by pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, reveals how she twice met Bill Clinton.

The next big dinner on the island had another significant guest appearance, being the one and only Bill Clinton.

He is the only president in the world to be dismissed from his role as a World Leader because he was caught with his trousers down around his ankles and had the stain to prove it publicly humiliating his wife and himself.

He retired from his title, but not from his lifestyle.

This wasn't a big party as such, only a few of us eating at the dinner table.

There was Jeffrey at the head of the table as always.

On the left was Emmy Galainne, and I was sitting across the table from us was Bill with two lovely girls who were visiting from New York.

Bill's wife, Hillary's absence from the night made it easy for his apparent provocative, cheeky side to come out teasing the girls on either side of them with playful pokes and brassy comments.

There was no modesty between any of them.

We all finished our meals and scattered in our her own different directions Menager Declaration Exhibit B at one ten.

Each and every part of Plaintiff's claims regarding redacted has conclusively been proven false.

Redacted, redacted, or redacted or redacted.

Remarkably, Plaintiff now even denies telling Churcher that she ever witnessed Miss Maxwell redacted anywhere, or joking with redacted about what a good job she did.

Menager Declaration, Exhibit D.

Plaintiff's council remarkably instructed plaintiff not to answer any additional questions about the things that Shannon Church are inaccurately reported, lending even more incredibulity to Plaintiff's story.

Miss Maxwell only received her pilot's license in mid nineteen ninety nine, casting insurmountable doubt that redacted, redacted, redacted, and redacted.

The only purpose for seeking this deposition is for the calculated media strategy that plaintiff and her publicity seeking attorneys have devised.

Plaintiff fell to disclose redacted as a witness until June first, failed to notice his deposition, failed to diligently pursue a subpoena on him, and he has no relevant testimony.

It'll offer.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's leave to modify the scheduling order to permit his deposition should be denied.

And this person we're talking about redacted here is none other than Billy Boy Clinton.

Isn't that nice?

I wonder how many times we're going to see this dude's name in these documents.

B ross Gal, as the court likely recalls, ross Gal, actually issued the statement pertinent to this defamation suit.

Plaintiff is known about ross Gal and his role in this lawsuit since the outset.

She referenced him repeatedly by name in complaint filed on September twenty first, twenty fifteen, Complaint paragraph twenty nine.

As part of Maxwell's campaign, she directed her agent Rosscal to attack Robert's honesty and truthfulness and accuse Roberts of lying.

Plaintiff also has been well aware throughout that mister Goo resides in London.

Plaintiff's motion to compel in proper privileges at eight after filing that complaint in September and litigating the motion to compel based on privileges related to mister Gow in March.

Plaintiff took exactly zero steps to depose mister Goo until she filed this motion, now nine months after filing her complaint.

Plaintiff contends there is no sufficient time for her to go through the Hay Convention for service on mister Gal so as to complete this process before the June thirtieth, twenty sixteen deadline motion at four.

Indeed, Plaintiff only initiated that process three days ago on Friday, June seventeenth, two weeks shy of the discovery cutoff.

Plaintiff once again tries to blame Miss Maxwell for her own lack of diligence by misrepresenting to this court that Miss Roberts asks that defendant produced her agent, mister Gall for a deposition, but defendant has refused, despite acknowledging that defendant plans to call mister Gal for testimony at trial.

In truth, Plaintiff sent a letter on May twenty third which read, in its entirety, this letter is to seek your agreement to produce Ross Gall for a deposition as the agent for your client, Miss Maxwell, we can work with mister Gallo's schedule to minimize inconvenience.

Please advise by Wednesday, May twenty fifth, twenty sixteen, whether you will produce mister Gao or whether we will need to seek relief from the court with respect to his deposition Manager Declaration Exhibit E.

That was the first communication regarding any deposition of mister gall Two days later, defense counsel requested any legal authority that would allow Miss Maxwell to produce Ross gall for a deposition, or any rule or case that would either enable or require her to do so.

Plaintiff never responded.

She also has not explained when or how Miss Maxwell acknowledged her plans to call mister gall for testimony at trial, nor why that is relevant to whether plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for her own failure to take steps to depose a foreign witness deposition until June seventeenth, for a witness she was aware before even filing the complaint.

During the hearing on March twenty fourth, this court stated that it would expect to see good Fay's showing of efforts to comply with the schedule and an inability because of Hay Convention problems before it would consider changing the scheduling order.

Miss Maxwell submits that waiting until June seventeenth, two weeks before the end of discovery, to even begin the Hey Convention process falls far short of any such good fay showing, and the request for leave to take mister Gal's testimony beyond July first should be denied.

See Jean Luke Brunell.

With regard to Jean Luke Brunell, plaintiff simply asserts that he was subpoen hood and set for mid June deposition, but through Council has requested we change the dates of his deposition motion at four.

That's her entire argument.

She emits facts that would instead demonstrate her lack of diligence in securing mister Brunell's testimony and also show that she has waived any right to seek an out of time deposition.

Plaintiff first issued a notice of Rule forty five subpoena for documents from mister Brunell on February sixteenth, at an address CEO Attorney Joe Totone.

No documents were ever produced pursuant to that subpoena.

Menager declaration example f Then on May twenty third, twenty sixteen, plaintiff issued a new notice of subpoena duces techem attached to, which was actually a subpoena for deposition testimony to occur on June eighth at nine am in New York.

Again, the subpoena was addressed CEO Attorney Robert Hatman.

Then on June second, Plaintiff's council sent an email that they had received an email yesterday from mister Brunell's attorney saying that he needs to reschedule.

I believe he is trying to get us new dates today or tomorrow.

The scheduled date of June eighth came and went without any indication of any new dates provided by mister Brunell's council.

The following week, Plaintiff's council stated in a phone conversation that mister Brunell's council said his client had gone to France and it was unclear when he would be returning to the United States.

Following the filing of the instant motion, Council for miss Maxwell requested copies of the certificates of service for all Plaintiff's Rule forty five subpoenas.

In this case, Plaintiff's council provided certificates on June fourteenth.

Notably absent was any certificate of service for mister Brunell.

Thus, either mister Brunell was never served or he was served in plaintiff unilatterally extended his compliance date to an unscheduled time in the future.

Either way, the time to complain about a witness's non compliance is at or near the time it occurs.

Failure to timely complain regarding non compliance with the subpoena constitutes a way in any event, whether served or not.

Mister Brunell apparently promised to provide new dates before his deposition date came and went, did not do so, has left the country and not indicated a present intention to ever return.

Given Plaintiff's role in failing to compel him to attend a deposition, no good cause has been demonstrated to take the deposition of mister Brunell after July first,