Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch1_p00485.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 38 of 40 Defendant can also get information from her close friend, Epstein, about the circumstances of the interactions. Defendant and Epstein are not only good friends but they have a “common interest agreement” that facilitates transfer of information between the two of them. Finally, to make her showing that she is unable to obtain “equivalent information” from other sources, Defendant would have to explain in detail what other steps she has taken to secure information from other sources, including not only Epstein but other witnesses present at Epstein’s mansion. Having failed to do any of this, Defendant has not made a sufficient showing to obtain work-product information. Pupillo, 54 So.3d at 614. IV. COMMUNICATIONS WITH ATTORNEY JACK SCAROLA ARE COVERED BY A JOINT DEFENSE AGREEMENT AND ARE THUS PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND WORK-PRODUCTION PROTECTION. As a tag-along argument at the end of her motion, Defendant argues that Ms. Giuffre has not established the existence of a common interest or joint defense agreement that embraces Jack Scarola, the attorney for Cassell and Edwards in the Dershowitz litigation. Mot. to Compel at 23-24. Disclosure of that agreement involved notice to the parties to the agreement. Now that appropriate notice has been provided, the agreement can be — and has been — disclosed. See McCawley Decl., Ex. 16, common interest agreement. In view of the existence of the valid agreement, it is clear that the referenced communications involving Scarola are protected. See, e.g., Guiffre v. Maxwell, No. 15 CIV. 7433 (RWS), 2016 WL 1756918, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2016) (noting common interest agreement protection) (citing GUS Consulting GMBH v. Chadbourne & Parke LLP, 20 Misc. 3d 539, 542, 858 N.Y.S.2d 591, 593 (Sup. Ct. 2008)). CONCLUSION Defendant’s motion to compel should be denied in its entirety. 31