Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch1_p00606.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 32 Gow, for a deposition but Defendant has refused...despite acknowledging that Defendant plans to call Mr. Gow for testimony at trial.” Jd. In truth, Plaintiff sent a letter on May 23 which read in its entirety, “This letter is to seek your agreement to produce Ross Gow for deposition, as the agent for your client, Ms. Maxwell. We can work with Mr. Gow’s schedule to minimize inconvenience. Please advise by Wednesday, May 25, 2016, whether you will produce Mr. Gow or whether we will need to seek relief from the Court with respect to his deposition.” Menninger Decl. Ex. E. That was the first communication regarding any deposition of Mr. Gow. Two days later, defense counsel requested any “legal authority that would allow Ms. Maxwell to ‘produce’ Ross Gow for a deposition” or “any rule or case that would either enable or require her to do so.” Id. Plaintiff never responded. She also has not explained when or how Ms. Maxwell “acknowledged” her “plans to call Mr. Gow for testimony at trial,” nor why that is relevant to whether Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for her own failure to take steps to depose a foreign witness deposition until June 17, for a witness she was aware before even filing the Complaint. During the hearing on March 24, this Court stated that it would consider expect to see “good faith showing” of efforts to comply with the schedule and “an inability because of Hague Convention problems,” before it would consider changing the Scheduling Order. Ms. Maxwell submits that waiting until June 17, two weeks before the end of discovery, to even begin the Hague Convention process falls far short of any such good faith showing and the request for leave to take Mr. Gow’s testimony beyond July 1 should be denied. Cc. Jean Luc Brunel With regard to Jean Luc Brunel, Plaintiff simply asserts that he was “subpoenaed,” and “set for mid-June deposition[],” but “through counsel” has “requested we change the dates of [his] deposition.” Mot. at 4. That is her entire argument. She omits key facts that would, 10