Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch1_p00426.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 25 OBJECTIONS TO INSTRUCTIONS 15. Ms. Maxwell objects to Instruction No. 1, in particular the definition of the “Relevant Period” to include July 1999 to the present, on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Complaint at paragraph 9 purports to describe events pertaining to Plaintiff and Defendant occurring in the years 1999 — 2002. The Complaint also references statements attributed to Ms. Maxwell occurring in January 2015. Defining the “Relevant Period” as “July 1999 to the present” is vastly overbroad, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and as to certain of the Requests, is intended for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell and it implicates her privacy rights. Thus, Ms. Maxwell interprets the Relevant Period to be limited to 1999-2002 and December 30, 2014 - January 31, 2015, except to the extent that any the answers “relate to any activity of defendant with respect to the practice which has been alleged and the duties alleged to be performed by Defendant, ‘activities’ being defined as sexual abuse or trafficking of any female,” in which case her answers reflect the period 2000-today. Ms. Maxwell specifically objects to production of any documents outside that period, except as specifically noted. 16. Ms. Maxwell objects to Instruction No. 3 on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome and is intended for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell cannot possibly recall the specific disposition of documents, particularly electronic documents, dating back over 16 years. However, Ms. Maxwell, prior to this litigation has long had a practice of deleting emails after they have been read. 17. Ms. Maxwell objects to Instruction Nos. 5, 8, 9, 12, 17 to the extent they seek to impose obligations to supply explanations for the presence or absence of such documents, to specifically identify persons or documents, to provide information concerning who prepared documents, the location of any copies of such documents, the identities and contact information for persons who have custody or control of such documents, the reasons for inability to produce portions of documents, and the “natural person in whose possession they were found,” beyond the requirements of Rule 34. This Instruction improperly seeks to propound Interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33. 18. Ms. Maxwell objects to Instructions No. 13 on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome and is intended for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell cannot possibly recall the specific circumstances upon which a document dating back 16 years has ceased to exist. 19. Ms. Maxwell objects to Instruction No. 15 to the extent that it calls for documents or information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. 20. Ms. Maxwell objects to Instruction Nos. 18 & 19 to the extent they require information on any privilege log above and beyond the requirements of Local Civil Rule 26.2.