House Oversight — Estate records
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014788
Microsoft Word - 2017.03.16 Deft Resp IO to Ptfs Omnibus Motn in Limine (MASTER)
- Pages
- 9
- Text
- Searchable
Text as released
Machine-read from the scan. Names, dates and numbers can be misread — check anything you rely on against the original page.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 749 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------X VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. ............................................. 15-cv-07433-RWS --------------------------------------------------X Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Omnibus Motion in Limine Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Ty Gee HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10 th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 303.831.7364 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 749 Filed 03/17/17 Page 2 of 9 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 i […]