{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "2018-00333-RWS-Document-23509",
    "date": "07/30/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:18-cv-00333-RWS Document 23509 Filed 07/30/21 Page 6 of 12\n\nPlaintiff makes a bizarre argument that somehow this testimony can be used to create an adverse inference against Ms. Maxwell,2 despite the fact that Ms. Maxwell did not invoke the Fifth Amendment and she testified fully and answered every question posed to her with the only exception the irrelevant and harassing questions Plaintiff posed to her concerning her adult, consensual sexual activities. In other words, depositions of Marcincova, Kellen and Epstein would serve Plaintiff's goal to make a convoluted legal argument, not to actually seek discoverable information. In light of this, the \"burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.\" Atkinson v. Goord, No. 01 CIV. 0761 LAKHBP, 2009 WL 890682, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2009); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). If Plaintiff chooses to use her depositions in this manner, she risks utilizing three of her available 10 depositions for an illegitimate purpose. She should not be rewarded with a pre-emptive carte blanche in advance to take additional depositions.\n\nII. THE PROPOSED DEPOSITIONS ARE CUMULATIVE, DUPLICATIVE, AND NOT RELEVANT TO THE CENTRAL ISSUES OF THE DISPUTE\n\nPlaintiff has not met the requisite showing to permit in excess of 10 depositions. In Sigala v. Spikouris, 00 CV 0983(ILG), 2002 WL 721078 at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2002), the Court set forth the general principles relevant to a party's application to conduct more than ten depositions:\n\n2 Invocation of the Fifth Amendment by a third party witness cannot be used to create an adverse inference against a party in a civil action. See United States v. Dist. Council of New York City & Vicinity of United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., No. 90 CIV. 5722 (CSH), 1993 WL 159959, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 12, 1993) (\"the general rule [is] that an individual's claim of Fifth Amendment protection is personal, and does not give rise to adverse inferences against others.\"); Brenner v. World Boxing Council, 675 F.2d 445, 454 n. 7 (2d Cir.), cert denied, 459 U.S. 835 (1982) (\"Furthermore, since King was a non-party witness, no adverse inference against appellees could have been drawn from his refusal to testify.\")\n\n3\nDOJ-OGR-00004206",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:18-cv-00333-RWS Document 23509 Filed 07/30/21 Page 6 of 12",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Plaintiff makes a bizarre argument that somehow this testimony can be used to create an adverse inference against Ms. Maxwell,2 despite the fact that Ms. Maxwell did not invoke the Fifth Amendment and she testified fully and answered every question posed to her with the only exception the irrelevant and harassing questions Plaintiff posed to her concerning her adult, consensual sexual activities. In other words, depositions of Marcincova, Kellen and Epstein would serve Plaintiff's goal to make a convoluted legal argument, not to actually seek discoverable information. In light of this, the \"burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.\" Atkinson v. Goord, No. 01 CIV. 0761 LAKHBP, 2009 WL 890682, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2009); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). If Plaintiff chooses to use her depositions in this manner, she risks utilizing three of her available 10 depositions for an illegitimate purpose. She should not be rewarded with a pre-emptive carte blanche in advance to take additional depositions.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "II. THE PROPOSED DEPOSITIONS ARE CUMULATIVE, DUPLICATIVE, AND NOT RELEVANT TO THE CENTRAL ISSUES OF THE DISPUTE",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Plaintiff has not met the requisite showing to permit in excess of 10 depositions. In Sigala v. Spikouris, 00 CV 0983(ILG), 2002 WL 721078 at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2002), the Court set forth the general principles relevant to a party's application to conduct more than ten depositions:",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2 Invocation of the Fifth Amendment by a third party witness cannot be used to create an adverse inference against a party in a civil action. See United States v. Dist. Council of New York City & Vicinity of United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., No. 90 CIV. 5722 (CSH), 1993 WL 159959, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 12, 1993) (\"the general rule [is] that an individual's claim of Fifth Amendment protection is personal, and does not give rise to adverse inferences against others.\"); Brenner v. World Boxing Council, 675 F.2d 445, 454 n. 7 (2d Cir.), cert denied, 459 U.S. 835 (1982) (\"Furthermore, since King was a non-party witness, no adverse inference against appellees could have been drawn from his refusal to testify.\")",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004206",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Marcincova",
      "Kellen",
      "Epstein",
      "King"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am.",
      "World Boxing Council"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York City",
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "E.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/30/21",
      "Apr. 2, 2009",
      "Mar. 7, 2002",
      "May 12, 1993"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:18-cv-00333-RWS",
      "Document 23509",
      "No. 01 CIV. 0761 LAKHBP",
      "00 CV 0983(ILG)",
      "No. 90 CIV. 5722 (CSH)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004206"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear structure and formatting. The text is mostly printed, with some footnotes and a header. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}