Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch1_p00475.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 28 of 40 3 at 26-38 (recounting information supporting allegations against Dershowitz, such as sworn testimony from household employees and invocations of the Fifth Amendment by Epstein and his co-conspirators). To be sure, Dershowitz tried to make an argument that Ms. Giuffre’s communications with her attorneys might have some arguable relevance to the case. But Judge Lynch rejected that very argument — and quite properly so. Relevance is insufficient to waive privilege under Florida law. Guarantee Ins, 300 F.R.D. at 594 (citing Coyne v. Schwartz, Gold, Cohen, Zakarin & Kotler, P.A., 715 So.2d 1021, 1022 (Fla. 4° DCA 1998)). A client does not waive the attorney-client privilege simply because her credibility could be impeached by communications with her former attorney. See Jenney v. Airdata Wiman, Inc., 846 So.2d 664, 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Accordingly, under Florida law, Ms. Giuffre’s confidential communications with her attorneys were never at issue in the Florida litigation.'° D. Defendant Has Not Met the Other Requirements for Showing Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant has failed to make the required showing for an “at issue” waiver of attorney-client privilege. But even more fundamentally, Defendant has failed to establish other elements necessary to find a waiver of attorney-client privilege. Defendant repeatedly refers to routine litigation actions, such as the filing of in-court affidavits, as a basis for finding some kind of waiver of privilege. See Mot. to Compel at 16. But it is obvious that such actions do not waive attorney-client protection. Litigation requires some limited communication to third parties — including the court and opposing counsel — of information learned in the course of the attorney-client relationship. Therefore, Florida law recognizes an ‘6 The same result would obtain under New York state law. See, e.g., Am. Re-Ins. Co. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 40 A.D.3d 486, 492, 837 N.Y.S.2d 616, 622 (2007) (the at-issue “doctrine applies where a party, through its affirmative acts, places privileged material at issue and has selectively disclosed the advice”). 21