The documents were unsealed Friday in the Manhattan federal court legal battle between Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz and Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre.
Dershowitz claims Giuffre is trying to extort him by claiming he had sex with her while she was underage — and is battling to prove she did the same thing to Wexner.
According to a phone call transcript, Wexner’s attorney, John Zeiger, discussed the sexual abuse allegation against him with Dershowitz is 2015.
Dershowitz opened the call by saying he remembered that a lawyer for Giuffre had told Zeiger that her client knew Wexner’s “sexual hang ups.”
“My recollection is [Giuffre’s attorney] did … say something about how he liked his girls dressed in — I don’t know what, negligees or,” Dershowitz said.
“I think there was a general reference to the type of lingerie and — and things like that, but no specifics,” Zeiger responded.
“It sounds like, you know, she knows he — he owns Victoria’s Secret, and imagines that as a result of that, he must be into the kind of lingerie that’s sold in the company. But I mean, she has a good imagination,” Dershowitz said.
Later in the call, Dershowitz claims he has a recording of one of Giuffre’s friends who allegedly admitted they were trying to squeeze the underwear baron for money.
Zeiger responds by asking if he knows if other men are being “shaken down” — a point Dershowitz’s lawyers say support their claim that he was being extorted.
In other documents that were unsealed earlier this week, however, Wexner claimed to have no knowledge that he could share in a deposition that backs up Dershowitz’s claim he was extorted by Giuffre.
In a June 19 letter to Dershowitz’s attorney, a lawyer for Wexner said he could provide no information “relevant” to the claim.
“We believe Mr. Wexner has no non-privileged information relevant to a claim or defense on Mr. Dershowitz’s allegations of an extortion scheme,” the letter states.
“As for the remaining allegations in the Lawsuit, we believe Mr. Wexner’s deposition would impose an unreasonable burden on him as his testimony would not be relevant and/or proportional to the needs of the Lawsuits and, in fact, is at best merely inadmissible extrinsic, collateral evidence,” it adds.