Epstein Secrets

United States District Court Southern District of Florida Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No.: 9:16-mc-81608-DMM Underlying Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS (Southern District of New York) (Sweet, J.) v. Jeffrey Epstein, Defenda

Jepuy "4 -ose UNBULYy enw suods Odd oipe, ‘ziuig UWerol €ve-l2 0 wew3a J gneage pena cmeele e ne Se Hated per pecan coors eeteeen 20 E001592 GIUFFRE! HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014146 (y) 8628 229-2020 EMS Vopusy aSeuD eut €o epujon ‘|espy poe 28 22 00 (0) eb88 22 82b0 jneg ‘uoyog WA PO! LMS ein aienb

ates District Court Southern District of Florida Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No.: 9:16-mc-81608-D

PSTEIN I, Sigrid McCawley, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my knowledge as follows: 1, I am a Partner with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly licensed to practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court’s Order granting my Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice. 2. I r

First Class U.S. Mail Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell. No. 15-cv-07433-RWS (S.D.N.Y.1 Dear Ms. McCawley: This firm represents Jeffrey Epstein with respect to the enclosed subpoena duces tecu

W., SUITE 58O WEST WASHINGTON, D.C. 2OOO5 www.gpoelaw.com Tel: Fax: June 9, 2016 Via Email and First Class U.S. Mail Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell. No. 15-cv-07433-RWS (S.D.N.Y.1 Dear Ms. McCawley: This fi

Page 3 Giuffre V. Maxwell 1:15cv7433 401 East Las Olas Boulevar

, Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA 33301 954-356-0011 Fax: 954-356-0022 Email:[email protected] Meredith L Schultz [ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED] Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (FL) 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA 33301 (954)-356-0011 Fax: (954)-356-0022 Email:[email protected] Bradley J

first met Epstein in 1999 and that Epstein "kept Jane Doe #3 as his sex slave from about 1999 through 2002, w

n behalf of Jane Doe No. 3. even though they represent her in connection with the Federal Action. Plaintiffs referred Dershowitz to the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, which is representing Jane Doe No. 3 for purposes of this action. Boies, Schiller & Flexner likewise declined to accept service on behalf of Jane

first met Epstein in 1999 and that Epstein "kept Jane Doe #3 as his sex slave from about 1999 through 2002, w

n behalf of Jane Doe No. 3, even though they represent her in connection with the Federal Action. Plaintiffs referred Dershowitz to the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, which is representing Jane Doe No. 3 for purposes of this action. Boies, Schiller & Flexner likewise declined to accept service on behalf of Jane D

cuments concerning your retention of the law firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, including but not limited to: signed letter of r

12, 2016, and in support thereof states the following: On January 16, 2016, Defendant Alan M. Dershowitz began the deposition of non-party Virginia Roberts Giuffre (“Roberts”). Pursuant to this Court’s January 12, 2016 Confidentiality Order, that transcript currently is under seal. The Confidentiality Order shou

n M. Dershowitz began the deposition of non-party Virginia Roberts Giuffre (“Roberts”). Pursuant to this Court’s January 12,

support thereof states the following: On January 16, 2016, Defendant Alan M. Dershowitz began the deposition of non-party Virginia Roberts Giuffre (“Roberts”). Pursuant to this Court’s January 12, 2016 Confidentiality Order, that transcript currently is under seal. The Confidentiality Order should be modi

poena, as to the law firm, is quashed As to the "Jane Doe #3" subpoena: The motion is granted as to request #9

Dated: February 8, 2016 Respectfully submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200 Fort Lau

RSHOWITZ, Defendant. RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT ALAN DERSHOWITZ’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER OR RELIEF FROM THAT ORDER Non-Party Virginia Giuffre, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby responds to Defendant Alan Dershowitz’s Motion for Clarification of Confidentiality Order or Relief From

ief From that Order and states as follows: FACTUAL BACKGROUND On November 12, 2015 this Court issued an Order granting in part, non-party Virginia Giuffre’s Motion to Quash the subpoena served by Defendant Alan Dershowitz and ordered protective limits relating to her deposition. See Exhibit A, November

“Evidence” of Perjury And Instead Is Simply Trying To Bully This Victim As explained above, Defendant Dershowitz wrongly suggests to this Court that non-party Virginia Giuffre has committed perjury in an effort to taint the Court against this victim. His only “evidence” of this alleged perjury is a self-serving opinion fro