HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011324

id.

ne)

life)

21 H3VOGIU1

before or after Ms. Giuffre was abused by defendant is

irrelevant to this action and should b xcluded under Rul

401. It is also, of course, highly prejudicial and should

b xcluded under Rule 403. Whether or not Ms. Giuffre ever

used drugs while not being abused by defendant does not go to any claim or defenses in this case.

Courts in the Southern District of New York routinely

xclud vidence of prior drug use under both of these rules, as fully briefed in the papers. Defendant attempts to admit this evidence of prescription drug use related to damages, specifically whether or not the emotional distress Ms. Giuffre

suffered is preexisting.

THE COURT: And why do you have it in your expert's

report?

MS. SCHULTZ: Well, our expert is -- I'm assuming you're referring to Dr. Kliman, who is a physician. He's a medical doctor. He took a full --

THE COURT: There's a whole thing about it. Are you

going to withdraw the -- MS. SCHULTZ: No, your Honor. We're only claiming

damages with respect to the emotional distress suffered from

the defamation. And also, taking drugs prescribed for various mental health issues is not the same thing as emotional

distress. They're two different issues. So any marginal

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011324