Given that the FBI 302 satisfies the requirements for admission under Rule 803(8)(A), the Defendant can exclude the document only if she carries her burden of showing that the FBI 302 is untrustworthy pursuant to 803(8)(B). To determine trustworthiness, the Court should look to the following four factors: (1) the timeliness of the investigation, (2) the special skill or expertise of the official, (3) whether a hearing was held and at what level, and (4) possible motivational problems." Bingham v. Jefferson Cnty., No. 1:11-cv-48, 2013 WL 1312563, at *7 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2013) (quoting Moss v. Ole South Real Estate, Inc., 933 F.2d 1300, 1305 (5th Cir. 1991)). Defendant apparently bases her trustworthiness attack on the fact that the FBI 302 produced in this case was produced in a redacted format. Mot. at 3. However, the redactions do not alter any of the actual contents of the FBI 302. The identification, credentials, and qualifications of the Special Agent, and the contents of his report are not changed in any way as a result of redactions designed to protect confidentiality. Instead, the official Federal Bureau of Investigation seal and corresponding attestation that “[a]ll signatures have been verified by a certified FBI information system” establish that, far from being untrustworthy, this is in fact one of the most trustworthy documents that could be introduced in a trial. Any remaining issues about the significant of the redactions are left to the jury to decide. Defendant’s motion offers the example of passages in the 302 that read “Once upstairs_______” or “that _______ demonstrated massage techniques.” Mot. at 4. But, of course, there are other un-redacted statements that are highly significant in corroborating Ms. Giuffre’s testimony. For example, the FBI 302 notes that, while working at the Mar-A-Lago Club, “GIUFFRE started studying for her GED and wanted to become a massage therapist.” See Edwards Dec., Ex. 1 at 2. That statement will be useful to corroborate Ms. Giuffre’s allegations. More broadly, the jury 8

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 730 Filed 03/17/17 Page 12 of 14 can make appropriate inferences about the remaining statements that are not redacted, particularly given that Ms. Giuffre will be able to explain what information she provided to the FBI, as well as establishing that she was interviewed by FBI Agents, and that she provided the information to the FBI. And, of course, she will be available to testify at trial to answer any questions that the Defendant may have about all this. The presence of redactions in the 302 does not create a “trustworthiness” problem. Consequently, Defendant has failed to meet her burden of establishing the lack of trustworthiness of the FBI 302 under Rule 803(8)(B). Therefore, the FBI 302 should be admitted pursuant to Rule 803(8)(A)(ii). C. THE FBI 302 IS NOT UNDULY PREJUDICIAL Defendant closes her motion with a brief (four-sentence) argument that the FBI 302 is somehow unduly prejudicial. Mot. at 5. The only argument that Defendant advances, however, is that the jury might somehow be confused because of the redactions contained in the 302. But that is an issue that can be fully explored through cross-examination of Ms. Giuffre. Defendant can ask her what she told the FBI and thus clear up any confusion about the redactions. Indeed, Defendant also remains free to call the FBI Agents who were involved in the interview or the Assistant U.S. Attorney who listened. While these persons are not on the Defendant’s current witness list, Ms. Giuffre would have no objection to them being added. Moreover, the contact information is readily available. For example, Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Villafana who participated in the interview by phone is still employed at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida. In any event, Federal Rule of Evidence 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence only where probative values is “substantially outweighed” by risk of confusion. Given that the FBI 302 is being admitted for purposes of showing not the truth any particular sub-allegation contained in the document, but only the general fact that Ms. Giuffre made allegations of this 9

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 730 Filed 03/17/17 Page 13 of 14 IV. type to the FBI, the risk of confusion is virtually non-existent. And, of course, to the extent that Defendant wants appropriate cautionary instructions to clarify this point, Ms. Giuffre would have no objection to such instructions. Such instructions would reduce the already-insubstantial chance that the jury will misunderstand what its task is at the trial. See, e.g., United States v. Everett, 825 F.2d 658, 661 (2d Cir. 1987) (recognizing power of “cautionary instructions regarding how the jury was to consider this proof”). CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny Defendant’s Motion in Limine, and allow the FBI 302 to be introduced into evidence at trial. Dated: March 17, 2017 Respectfully Submitted, By: /s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011 David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 10

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 730 Filed 03/17/17 Page 14 of 14 383 University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112(801) 585-52021 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 17th day of March, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: [email protected] [email protected] By: /s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) 1 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.