Meredith Schultz
Snapshot
| Field | Documented information |
|---|---|
| Name and profession | Meredith L. Schultz, an attorney with Boies Schiller Flexner. Her July 18, 2016 declaration identifies her as an associate at that time. |
| Documented client | Virginia L. Giuffre, the plaintiff in Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433, Southern District of New York. |
| Verified work | April 22 and July 22, 2016 deposition appearances, signed discovery declarations, and March 31, 2017 courtroom argument. |
| Civil case outcome | A dismissal with prejudice signed May 25, 2017 followed a settlement. The order does not disclose the settlement amount or record a trial verdict. |
| Evidence limit | A counsel listing, service certificate, signed declaration, and spoken argument establish different kinds of participation. They must not be treated as interchangeable. |
Introduction
Meredith L. Schultz represented Virginia Giuffre in her civil defamation lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell. The records show her attending depositions, signing discovery declarations, and arguing an evidence motion. This profile focuses on that work in 2016 and 2017 and on the later release of case records. The deposition appearances and signed filings establish a professional legal role, not firsthand knowledge of the alleged abuse.
Key Takeaways
- Schultz appeared for Giuffre at both Maxwell depositions in 2016. The opening examinations in the reviewed copies were led by Sigrid McCawley in April and David Boies in July.
- The June 14, 2016 declaration about deposition limits was McCawley’s. Schultz personally signed separate declarations on July 18 and July 29.
- At the March 31, 2017 hearing, Schultz sought to exclude earlier assault material. Maxwell’s counsel opposed that request. Argument is not a final ruling.
- Judge Robert Sweet denied Maxwell’s summary judgment motion in an opinion dated March 22, 2017, filed publicly on April 27.
- The May 25, 2017 dismissal followed settlement. Later unsealing proceedings addressed public access, not a new trial of the settled claim.
Professional Identity
Schultz’s July 18, 2016 declaration, pages 1 and 2, identifies her as a Boies Schiller Flexner associate representing Giuffre. Her firm biography, accessed October 17, 2026, now lists her as a partner with a practice that includes data privacy and electronic discovery. These are descriptions from different dates; her current title should not be applied retroactively to the 2016 filings.
The Civil Case and the Legal Teams
Judge Sweet’s opinion, page 2, states that Giuffre filed the defamation complaint on September 21, 2015. The claim concerned a January 2015 public statement issued by Maxwell. It was a civil lawsuit in the Southern District of New York, case number 15 Civ. 7433.
The April deposition roster, page 2, lists Schultz and McCawley with Boies Schiller & Flexner for Giuffre, alongside Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell. Jeffrey Pagliuca and Laura Menninger appear for Maxwell. The identified client matters when reading a lawyer’s questions, objections, or arguments.
The April and July 2016 Depositions
The April 22, 2016 deposition excerpt, DOJ-OGR-00003556 through DOJ-OGR-00003599, lists Schultz on page 2. On page 3, McCawley introduces Schultz as her colleague and says they represent Giuffre. Page 4 begins an examination by McCawley. This verifies Schultz’s attendance, not that she led the questioning shown there.
The July 22, 2016 continued deposition excerpt, DOJ-OGR-00003600 through DOJ-OGR-00003620, again lists Schultz on page 2. She introduces herself as counsel for the plaintiff on page 3. The examination on page 4 is by David Boies.
The July copy also carries a filing stamp from United States v. Maxwell, Document 204-11, dated April 16, 2021. That later criminal case filing is a second use of the 2016 transcript, not a new deposition. It does not turn the civil lawyers into prosecutors. The release excerpts are not complete copies of every deposition page.
Discovery Declarations and Authorship
Document 212, filed June 14, 2016, is titled as McCawley’s corrected declaration supporting Giuffre’s request to exceed the usual ten deposition limit. The text names McCawley as the declarant and carries her signature. Schultz appears in the counsel block. A docket listing that associates the filing with Schultz does not override the document’s identified declarant and signature.
Schultz’s July 18 declaration, Document 291, is different. She signed it in opposition to Maxwell’s effort to strike Giuffre’s motion for an adverse inference under Rule 37. An adverse inference is a requested unfavorable conclusion based on an evidence dispute. Her declaration identifies correspondence submitted as exhibits; it is not a court finding that Maxwell broke a rule.
Schultz’s July 29 declaration, Document 316, supports Giuffre’s motion to enforce a court order and require Maxwell to answer deposition questions. Pages 1 and 2 identify the purpose and carry Schultz’s sworn signature. Parts of the exhibit descriptions are redacted. The filing establishes what she submitted and requested, not the contents of hidden passages or the motion’s final outcome.
The March 31, 2017 Courtroom Argument
EFTA00794556, the March 31, 2017 hearing transcript, records oral argument before Judge Sweet. Its native court copy is Document 851, filed April 12, 2017. On transcript pages 17 through 19, Schultz asks the court to exclude material about earlier alleged assaults, arguing that it is irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial. She renews the request on page 79.
Maxwell’s lawyer Menninger presents the opposing position on pages 51 and 52. She argues that the disputed material could bear on credibility and claimed damages. Those are the defense’s arguments, not findings that its factual assertions were true.
The transcript documents both sides’ advocacy. It does not, by itself, establish a final order granting Schultz’s request. A motion about what evidence may be heard at trial is distinct from testimony about the underlying events.
Summary Judgment and Settlement
Document 872, pages 1, 2, and 76, contains Sweet’s opinion denying Maxwell’s request for summary judgment, a decision without a trial. The signature page dates the opinion March 22, 2017; the public filing stamp is April 27, 2017. The denial left the civil claim to proceed rather than producing a verdict for either side.
Document 919, filed May 25, 2017, is the joint stipulation of dismissal that Sweet signed that day. It dismisses the case with prejudice pursuant to settlement, with each party bearing its own fees and costs. With prejudice means the dismissed claim cannot simply be filed again. The document does not set out a settlement amount or establish an admission of liability.
Schultz is listed with Giuffre’s counsel in the dismissal. Bradley Edwards and Jeffrey Pagliuca are the lawyers whose electronic signatures appear on the stipulation. A counsel listing is not the same as personally signing the agreement.
Later Public Access to the Records
The Second Circuit’s July 2, 2019 decision in Brown v. Maxwell, filed in the civil case as Document 968 on July 3, addressed the sealing of case records. On pages 3 and 25, the court orders the summary judgment record unsealed and sends other materials back for review document by document. It also calls for attention to the privacy interests of affected people.
This later ruling explains part of the record’s publication history. It did not reopen the settled defamation claim for a trial, and it does not mean that every statement in an unsealed filing was accepted as fact.
Reading Counsel Lists and Service Records
DOJ-OGR-00003804 is an appearance page from an April 21, 2016 hearing, within the release beginning DOJ-OGR-00003803. It names McCawley, Edwards, and Cassell for the plaintiff, but does not list Schultz. That page should not be used to establish her personal appearance at that hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00004202 through DOJ-OGR-00004213 contains Maxwell’s June 6, 2016 opposition to additional depositions, civil Document 189. Menninger signs the defense brief. Schultz is listed on the service certificate at the end, meaning the filing was sent to her as opposing counsel. It is not her argument or evidence that she represented Maxwell.
Chronology
| Date | Event and source |
|---|---|
| September 21, 2015 | Sweet’s opinion, page 2, records the filing of Giuffre’s defamation complaint. |
| April 22, 2016 | Maxwell deposition, pages 2 and 3: Schultz appears for Giuffre. |
| June 14, 2016 | Document 212: McCawley signs the corrected declaration about deposition limits; Schultz is listed as counsel. |
| July 18, 2016 | Document 291: Schultz signs her declaration opposing Maxwell’s motion to strike. |
| July 22, 2016 | Continued deposition, pages 2 through 4: Schultz identifies herself; Boies begins the examination. |
| July 29, 2016 | Document 316: Schultz signs her declaration supporting a request for further deposition answers. |
| March 22, 2017; filed April 27 | Document 872: Sweet dates the opinion denying Maxwell’s summary judgment motion on March 22; its public filing follows in April. |
| March 31, 2017 | EFTA00794556: Schultz argues for exclusion of disputed evidence. Court transcript Document 851 is filed April 12. |
| May 25, 2017 | Document 919: Sweet signs the settlement based dismissal with prejudice. |
| July 2, 2019; filed July 3 | Document 968: the appeals court orders unsealing and further review of other sealed materials. |
Evidence Appearances
| Record and locator | Meaning and limits |
|---|---|
| DOJ-OGR-00003556 through DOJ-OGR-00003599, PDF pages 1 through 4 | April 22, 2016 deposition. The roster and introduction establish Schultz’s presence as Giuffre’s lawyer; the opening examiner is McCawley. |
| DOJ-OGR-00003600 through DOJ-OGR-00003620, PDF pages 1 through 4 | July 22, 2016 deposition. Schultz introduces herself. The 2021 criminal filing stamp is not the deposition date. |
| Civil Document 212, pages 1 through 3 | June 14, 2016 declaration by McCawley. Schultz’s counsel listing does not make her the declarant. |
| Civil Document 291 and Civil Document 316, pages 1 through 3 of each | July 18 and July 29, 2016 declarations signed by Schultz. They document submissions and requests, not judicial findings. |
| EFTA00794556; civil Document 851, transcript pages 17 through 19, 51 and 52, and 79 | March 31, 2017 argument: Schultz’s exclusion request and Menninger’s response. No final exclusion ruling is established here. |
| DOJ-OGR-00003804, PDF page 2 of the release beginning DOJ-OGR-00003803 | April 21, 2016 hearing appearance page. Schultz is not among the lawyers listed. |
| DOJ-OGR-00004202 through DOJ-OGR-00004213, PDF pages 2, 11, and 12 | June 6, 2016 defense filing, signed by Menninger. Schultz appears as a service recipient, not its author. |
| Civil Document 872, pages 1, 2, and 76; Document 919, page 1 | The actual summary judgment opinion and signed dismissal distinguish the ruling, filing date, and settlement outcome. |
| Civil Document 968, pages 2, 3, and 25 | July 2, 2019 appellate decision about public access, filed July 3. It is not a merits ruling on the settled claim. |
Limitations and Open Questions
- The reviewed records establish Schultz’s professional participation. They do not show that she witnessed the alleged abuse or had a social relationship with Epstein.
- Legal arguments, sworn declarations, and court rulings have different evidentiary value. A motion’s title does not prove its allegations or show that the court granted it.
- The deposition releases contain excerpts, and some filings remain redacted. Missing text has not been reconstructed.
- The reviewed March 31 transcript does not establish a final ruling on Schultz’s exclusion request. The July discovery declarations likewise are not dispositions of the motions they support.
- The dismissal does not disclose financial settlement terms or privileged advice. No amount or private communication can be inferred from it.
- This profile covers the specified court records and professional biography checked through October 17, 2026. It is not a review of every later filing or every released Epstein record.
Conclusion
Schultz’s documented connection is her work as one of Giuffre’s civil lawyers. The strongest records identify her own deposition appearances, signed declarations, and courtroom argument. Reading the signatures, speakers, and filing dates prevents other lawyers’ work from being assigned to her and keeps the case’s settlement distinct from a trial verdict.
Questions and Answers
Whom did Meredith Schultz represent?
The cited deposition rosters and declarations identify her as a lawyer for Virginia Giuffre in Giuffre v. Maxwell.
Did she conduct the Maxwell depositions?
The reviewed copies establish her attendance. Their opening examinations are labeled as McCawley’s in April and Boies’s in July. Attendance alone does not establish that Schultz led the questioning.
Was she the declarant in the June 14, 2016 filing?
No. Document 212 identifies McCawley as its declarant and signer. Schultz signed the separate July 18 and July 29 declarations.
Did the civil case end in a verdict?
The signed May 25, 2017 order records dismissal with prejudice pursuant to settlement. It does not record a trial verdict or disclose the settlement amount.
Related EpsteinWiki Articles
Sources
- Maxwell deposition excerpt, April 22, 2016. DOJ-OGR-00003556 through DOJ-OGR-00003599, especially PDF pages 1 through 4.
- Maxwell continued deposition excerpt, July 22, 2016. DOJ-OGR-00003600 through DOJ-OGR-00003620, PDF pages 1 through 4. Later filed as criminal Document 204-11 on April 16, 2021.
- Corrected declaration of Sigrid S. McCawley. Giuffre v. Maxwell, Document 212, June 14, 2016, pages 1 through 3.
- Declaration of Meredith L. Schultz opposing the motion to strike. Document 291, July 18, 2016, pages 1 through 3.
- Declaration of Meredith Schultz supporting enforcement of a court order. Document 316, July 29, 2016, pages 1 through 3.
- March 31, 2017 oral argument before Judge Robert W. Sweet. EFTA00794556; civil Document 851, filed April 12, 2017. Transcript pages 17 through 19, 51 and 52, and 79.
- April 21, 2016 oral argument. DOJ-OGR-00003803 through DOJ-OGR-00003832, PDF page 2 bearing DOJ-OGR-00003804.
- Maxwell’s opposition to exceeding the deposition limit. Civil Document 189, June 6, 2016, reproduced at DOJ-OGR-00004202 through DOJ-OGR-00004213. PDF pages 2, 11, and 12.
- Opinion denying Maxwell’s summary judgment motion. Judge Sweet, Document 872, dated March 22, 2017, filed April 27, 2017. Pages 1, 2, and 76.
- Joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, signed by Judge Sweet. Document 919, filed and ordered May 25, 2017, page 1.
- Brown v. Maxwell, appellate public access decision. Second Circuit, decided July 2, 2019; filed in the district court as Document 968 on July 3. Pages 2, 3, and 25.
- Meredith L. Schultz, firm biography. Boies Schiller Flexner, accessed October 17, 2026. Used for current professional identity only.