4
how young, Mr. Alessi stated they appeared to be sixteen or seventeen years of age at most.”
(emphasis added.) See Decl. of Sigrid McCawley at Composite Exhibit 5, Palm Beach Police
Incident Report at p. 57.
On November 21, 2005, the Palm Beach Police Department took a sworn statement from
house employee Juan Alessi in which he revealed that girls would come over to give “massages”
and he observed Ms. Maxwell going upstairs in the direction of the bedroom quarters. See Decl.
of Sigrid McCawley at Exhibit 7, November 21, 2005 Sworn Statement at 10. He also testified
that after the massages, he would clean up sex toys that were kept in “Ms. Maxwell’s closet.” Id.
at 12-13. He added that he and his wife were concerned with what was going on at the house (Id.
at 14) and that he observed girls at the house, including one named “Virginia.” Id. at 21.
Defendant also had naked pictures of girls performing sexual acts on her computer
according to Mr. Rodriguez. See Decl. of Sigrid McCawley at Exhibit 4, Alfredo Rodriguez
August 7, 2009 Dep. Tr. at 311-312.
Q. “Did they appear to be doing any sexual?
A. Yes, ma’am.
Q. And in these instances were there girls doing sexual things with other girls?
A. Yes, ma’am.
Q. And I’m still talking about the pictures on Ms. Maxwell’s computer.
A. Yes, ma’am.”
Upon leaving his employment, Rodriguez testified that Defendant threatened him that he should
not tell anyone about what happened at the house:
A. “I have to say something. Mrs. Maxwell called me and told me not to ever discuss or
contact her again in a threaten(ing) way.
Q. When was this?
A. Right after I left because I call one of the friends for a job and she told me this, but,
you know, I feel intimidated and so I want to keep her out…
Q. She made a telephone call to you and what precisely did she say?
A. She said I forbid you that you’re going to be – that I will be sorry if I contact any of
her friends again…She said something like don’t open your mouth or something like
that. I’m a civil humble, I came as an immigrant to service people, and right now you
feel a little –I’m 55 and I’m afraid. First of all, I don’t have a job, but I’m glad this is
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 20 Filed 12/10/15 Page 9 of 26

5
on tape because I don’t want nothing to happen to me. This is the way they treat you,
better do this and you shut up and don’t talk to nobody and—
Q. When you say this is the way they treat, who specifically are you talking about when
you say that word they?
A. Maxwell. ”
See Decl. of Sigrid McCawley at Exhibit 4, Alfredo Rodriguez July 29, 2009 Dep. Tr. at 169 –

This is not the first time Defendant has tried to avoid discovery about her conduct.
Notably, in 2009, an attorney representing some of Epstein’s sexual abuse victims served
Defendant Maxwell with a subpoena for a deposition in a civil case against Jeffrey Epstein.
After extensive discussion and coordinating a convenient time and place, as well as ultimately
agreeing to a confidentiality agreement prepared by Defendant’s then attorney, at the eleventh
hour Maxwell’s attorney informed the victims’ attorney that Maxwell’s mother was very ill and
that consequently Maxwell was leaving the country with no plans to return. The deposition was
cancelled. Yet a short time later, Maxwell was photographed at a high-profile wedding in
Rhinebeck, New York, confirming the suspicion that she was indeed still in the country and
willing to say virtually anything in order to avoid her deposition. See Decl. of Sigrid McCawley
at Composite Exhibit 8, Maxwell Deposition Notice; Subpoena and Cancellation Payment
Notice, and January 13, 2015 Daily Mail Article.
Simply put, given the mountain of evidence proving that the Defendant was heavily
involved in Epstein’s sex trafficking – and evaded answering questions about her involvement –
she is not entitled to any delay in the normal litigation process. There is no basis to grant
Defendant a stay of discovery.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 20 Filed 12/10/15 Page 10 of 26

6
II. ARGUMENT
A. Defendant Has Not Met Her Burden To Show Good Cause For A Stay In
Discovery.
Defendant’s main argument is that a stay should be granted because she believes she will
be successful in dismissing Ms. Giuffre’s defamation claim. If that were the standard, then
discovery in every civil case would be stayed at the commencement of the action until the court
ruled on the motion to dismiss because virtually all defendants in civil cases believe their
motions to dismiss will be successful. Of course, Defendant’s far-fetched position is not the law.
See Usov v. Lazar, No. 13 CIV. 818 (RWS), 2013 WL 3199652, at *8 (Sweet, J.) (S.D.N.Y. June
25, 2013) (citing Moran v. Flaherty, No. 92 Civ. 3200, 1992 WL 276913, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept.
25, 1992)) (“[D]iscovery should not be routinely stayed simply on the basis that a motion to
dismiss has been filed;”...“had the Federal Rules contemplated that a motion to dismiss under
FRCP 12(b)(6) would [automatically] stay discovery, they would contain a provision.”).
Defendant has not met her burden of showing good cause to justify a stay of discovery
pending a ruling on her motion to dismiss.4
“The pendency of a dispositive motion is not an
automatic ground for a stay5
; instead, courts consider three factors: (1) whether a defendant has
made a strong showing that the plaintiff's claim is unmeritorious, (2) the breadth of discovery
and the burden of responding to it, and (3) the risk of unfair prejudice to the party opposing the
stay.” Spinelli v. Nat'l Football League, No. 13 CIV. 7398 (RWS), 2015 WL 7302266, at *2

4 A party seeking a protective order has the burden to establish that such an order it warranted, showing
good cause. See Bank of New York v. Meridien Biao Bank Tanzania Ltd., 171 F.R.D. 135, 143 (S.D.N.Y.
1997); Salgado v. City of New York, No. 00 CIV. 3667 (RWS), 2001 WL 88232, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1,
2001).
5
“It, of course, is black letter law that the mere filing of a motion to dismiss the complaint does not
constitute ‘good cause’ for the issuance of a discovery stay.” Barrett v. Forest Labs., Inc., No. 12-CV-
5224 (RA), 2015 WL 4111827, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2015) (citing Chesney v. Valley Stream Union
Free Sch. Dist. No. 24, 236 F.R.D. 113, 115 (E.D.N.Y. 2006)).
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 20 Filed 12/10/15 Page 11 of 26