HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011339

id.

ne)

life)

36 H3VOGIU1

without getting into the details of another separate lawsuit

that did not involve Ms. Giuffre as a party, and so we've moved in limine.

And let me make clear that I emphasize the narrowness

of our motion here. We seek to preclud vidence involving that litigation. Your Honor has already heard from my

colleague, Ms. McCawley, who has presented our argument for why

Dershowitz should not be in this case at all, and of course, if

we prevail on point 1, this point becomes irrelevant.

But in addition to point 1, we don't need to be getting into the details of the separate lawsuit. It's not relevant to the case of Giuffre versus Maxwell. Defendants, in their responsive brief, if I understand correctly what they say is, oh, well look. Why didn't Ms. Giuffre join the lawsuit or

why hasn't she filed a lawsuit against Dershowitz? What's

going on there? Well, of course, your Honor is aware, there are a

variety of statutes of limitation around the country, and

indeed around the world. Ms. Giuffre has not -—- those statutes

have not all run at this point. There are varying

considerations that go into whether or not someone like

Ms. Giuffre would file a lawsuit, and these issues shouldn't be

discussed in front of the jury. That's nothing to do with this

particular lawsuit.

Moreover, defendant apparently argues that statements

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

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011339