In July 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ordered the unsealing of significant portions of Ghislaine Maxwell’s 2016 deposition taken in the civil case Giuffre v. Maxwell. The release came one month after Maxwell’s July 2, 2020 arrest on federal charges. It represented the most significant document release in the case to that point.
The Deposition’s Origin
Maxwell had been deposed in 2016 as part of the civil defamation and sex trafficking lawsuit Virginia Giuffre filed against her in 2015. The deposition ran for many hours over multiple days. Maxwell was represented by counsel and questioned extensively about her relationship with Epstein, her knowledge of his activities, and specific named individuals.
What Was Revealed
The released portions showed Maxwell:
Denying fundamental facts: Maxwell denied extensive knowledge of Epstein’s activities with underage girls, denied having witnessed abuse, and denied any role in recruiting or grooming victims.
Evasive on specific individuals: When asked about specific named associates alleged to have participated in abuse, Maxwell gave carefully hedged answers — neither clearly confirming nor denying, but qualifying responses extensively.
Specific named figures: The depositions included questioning about Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz, Bill Richardson, and other named individuals. Maxwell’s responses to questions about these individuals were widely reported.
Claims of ignorance: Maxwell expressed apparent shock at allegations against Epstein and claimed her relationship with him was primarily professional and social rather than operationally involved in anything criminal.
What Remained Sealed
Significant portions of the deposition remained sealed, protecting identifying information for Jane Does and other third parties. The Second Circuit’s unsealing was partial; further unsealing orders came in subsequent years.
Impact and Timing
The release occurring one month after Maxwell’s arrest was strategically timed by advocates who had sought unsealing for years. The contrast between Maxwell’s 2016 denials and the federal indictment she now faced was stark and contributed to public understanding of her case.