Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch1_p00480.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 33 of 40 Second, the questions highlighted by Defendant asked Ms. Giuffre whether she had ever communicated with her attorneys Cassell and Edwards for purposes of committing a crime or fraud. See Mot. to Compel at 11 (recounting questions). If such a communication involving perjury had existed, it would not have been covered by the attorney-client privilege in the first instance because it would have involved an on-going crime or fraud. See Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(4) (“There is no lawyer-client privilege under this section when . . . [t]he services of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client knew was a crime or fraud.”).”° Answering those questions by denying the existence of a crime or fraud accordingly did not constitute waiver of confidentiality over any otherwise- protected communication. Indeed, any other conclusion would essentially abolish the attorney- client privilege. A party could simply accuse the opposing side of fabricating evidence and, when that accusation was denied, argue that attorney-client privilege had been waived. This is not the law. Finally, it is important to note that throughout her deposition, Ms. Giuffre’s attorney strenuously objected to any effort by Dershowitz to obtain attorney-client information. See McCawley Decl., Exhibit 11, Composite Exhibit of Deposition Excerpts from the Deposition of Virginia Giuffre at 131-32; 173-74; 183; 200-12.7! Clearly, at her deposition, Ms. Giuffre did not voluntarily waive any attorney-client privilege she held. °° Again, for sake of completeness, it is worth noting that federal and New York state law also contain a crime-fraud exception to the attorney client privilege. HSH Nordbank AG New York Branch v. Swerdlow, 259 F.R.D. 64, 73 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); Ulico Cas. Co. v. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, | A.D.3d 223, 224, 767 N.Y.S.2d 228 (2003) (attorney-client privilege “may not be invoked where it involves client communications that may have been in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme, an alleged breach of fiduciary duty or an accusation of some other wrongful conduct”). >! Once again, these objections are not included in Defendant’s excerpts from the deposition. 26