147 H3vlgiu2 ih invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege. She shouldn't be 2 penalized because the people who are concerned and are named in 3 this nonprosecution agreement can't testify because the 4 plaintiff's lawyers are trying to undo their agreement with the 5 government. 6 Ms. Maxwell has no ability to control these folks. 7 You know, we certainly weren't going to stand in the way of 8 plaintiff's trying to take their depositions, but we have no 9 control over them, in securing their testimony or requiring 10 them to cooperate in any sense. 1a I cite to the Court the case of Coquina Investments v. 12 Rothstein, which I didn't realize until I was reading this last 13 night is ironic because the defendant in the Rothstein case is 14 Mr. Edwards' former partner, who's doing 55 years in a federal 15 penitentiary right now. But in that case, which is very 16 similar here, the court wouldn't impose an adverse inference de against an employer for an employee, even though the employer 18 was paying for the representation of the employee. And that 19 case is I think significant because the court again focused on 20 the relationship at the time of the deposition and not some 21 prior relationship. 22 I talked about the co-conspirator issue. You know, 23 that's just attorney argument asserted as fact here, your 24 Honor. No one has ever found that these folks are 25 co-conspirators. It's Mr. Cassell's and Mr. Edwards' theory, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011450