Two of Prince Andrew’s efforts to prevent or stall the progression of Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s sex assault lawsuit against him were blocked on Saturday when a US federal judge ordered the prince’s lawyers to turn over key legal documents, increasing pressure to settle claims before a crucial court hearing this week. Judge Lewis A Kaplan, in a written order, told the prince’s lawyers they must turn over documents on the schedule that has been set in the lawsuit brought by Guiffre who claims she was abused – aged 17 – by the prince on multiple occasions in 2001 while she was being sexually abused by financier Jeffrey Epstein. Kaplan also rejected arguments by the prince’s lawyer, Andrew Brettler, on jurisdiction grounds after they argued last week that the lawsuit should be dismissed because Giuffre, a US citizen, no longer lives in the US. Brettler has called the lawsuit “baseless”. NThe prince’s lawyers claimed evidence was so strong that Giuffre does not reside in the US that it was pointless to exchange evidence until that question is resolved because it could result in the lawsuit’s dismissal. They argued that Giuffre has lived in Australia for all but two of the past 19 years, has an Australian driver’s licence and lives in a $1.9m (£1.4m) home in Perth, Western Australia, where she and her husband, an Australian national, live with their three children. In a statement, Giuffre’s attorney, Sigrid McCawley, called the request to halt the case “just another in a series of tired attempts by Prince Andrew to duck and dodge the legal merits of the case Virginia Giuffre has brought against him. All parties in litigation are subject to discovery and Prince Andrew is no exception.” Judge Kaplan, in a written order on Friday, noted the prince’s lawyers have requested that “extensive” materials be turned over by Giuffre by 14 January, including documents related to where she has lived. The rulings come before an important case hearing in New York on Tuesday, one day after the scheduled public release on Monday of a 2009 settlement agreement between Epstein and Giuffre that lawyers for Andrew had hoped would protect him from Guiffre’s claims. The developments follow revelations that Giuffre’s lawyers are reportedly claiming they have up to six witnesses linking the duke to his accuser on the eve of the hearing into a civil lawsuit filed by the 38-year-old, in which she accuses Prince Andrew of sexual assault. In a separate development, Andrew’s lawyers are also reported to have not provided documentary evidence that he has the “inability to sweat”, despite the claim supporting his denial against allegations he had sex with Giuffre. The duke is also said not to have so far named any witnesses to support his alibi that he was in Pizza Express in Woking on the night in 2001 he was accused of having sex with Giuffre. The developments intensify Andrew’s predicament as he faces intense pressure over his friendship with Ghislaine Maxwell. Last Thursday Maxwell, 60, was found guilty of recruiting and trafficking young girls to be sexually abused by Epstein. The verdict, which has no direct bearing on the Giuffre civil action, could increase public pressure for further prosecutions and push men in Epstein and Maxwell’s orbit to settle actions against them. “As to whether Prince Andrew is in greater jeopardy in terms of the civil suit now being stronger there could be some pressure on the court because the public wants to know why the users of these young girls were not held accountable,” former sex crimes prosecutor Wendy Murphy told the Observer. “The public wants a pound of flesh from the rapists – not just the pimps – but the civil suit is all about money and when the right numbers are paid the case will go away, assuming it survives the jurisdictional challenges,” Murphy added. But the duke was not named during the Maxwell proceedings and his lawyers are likely to seize on testimony from the key witness “Carolyn”, who said it was Giuffre who introduced her to Epstein and Maxwell. Separately, it is reported that Giuffre could be permitted to deliver a victim impact statement at Maxwell’s sentencing. Sigrid McCawley, a lawyer for Giuffre, told the Telegraph on Saturday that she anticipates the court will hear from “many, many other women who were not able to be heard at the trial”. At the same time, government prosecutors have made no indication since Maxwell’s conviction that they intend to prosecute further, either other members of Epstein’s staff or alleged customers of the Epstein-Maxwell sex trafficking conspiracy. Instead, they have given signs that they are closing the book. Last week, prosecutors dropped charges against the two detention guards who failed to check on Epstein the night of his suicide. Lawyers representing Epstein’s former PA Lesley Groff, named in Epstein’s 2007 non-prosecution agreement, have said they have been informed that no criminal charges will be brought against their client. On Saturday, it was revealed that David Boies, lawyer for Giuffre, said Maxwell should have “cut a deal”, a decision that indicates she could have become a state witness in a wider investigation into the elite social circle of Epstein, her ex-boyfriend. Boies told the Times: “She could have cut a very good deal early on but she passed up that opportunity. I think that’s proven to be a fatal mistake.” Giuffre’s legal team have made requests for new information in readiness for a possible longer hearing, including proof of his claim during his infamous Newsnight interview that he cannot sweat. Giuffre had stated that the prince was “sweating profusely all over me” at a London club on a night she alleges they had sex. The duke told Newsnight that her account could not be true “because I have a peculiar medical condition which is that I don’t sweat or I didn’t sweat at the time”. He also said that on the day in question he had taken his daughter Beatrice to a children’s party at Pizza Express in the late afternoon and was at home with his children for the rest of the night. As pressure mounts on the duke, he may be gambling on three outcomes – that the Giuffre case is thrown out after jurisdictional or other challenges, that it fails on its own merits, or that he may never have to pay the price if a judgment is made against him. “International proceedings have so much political content. They may be couched in legal terms, but when you trying to do something internationally, it’s always political,” Murphy says. “You can say I’ve got a judgement and I’d like it enforced, but for political reasons a foreign country can says that’s nice but we don’t intend to do anything about it. Why would we?”