Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch1_p00615.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 32 for example, witnesses Andrea Mitrovich and Dara Preece, but added Senators George Mitchell, Bill Richardson and Les Wexner. Then between March 11 and June 1, a few weeks before the discovery cut-off, Plaintiff added 20 more witnesses, including President Clinton, Palm Beach officers Recarey and Reiter, and purported “victims of sexual abuse” including a client of Mr. Edwards, who he has clearly known about for years.'° As to several of these newly added witnesses, in particular ay Recarey and Reiter, Plaintiff promptly scheduled their depositions in June, despite having just disclosed their names on June 1. And last Friday, on the business day just before the depositions of i and Recarey, Plaintiff disclosed 623 new documents, including for the first time the “unredacted” police reports from Palm Beach, that Plaintiff clearly has had in her possession, or her counsel’s possession, for years. Menninger Decl. Ex. K. This is precisely the type of hide-and-seek that Rule 26 is designed to prevent. While Ms. Maxwell anticipates filing in the near future a separate motion concerning Plaintiff's latest Rule 26 violations and seeking sanctions for the same, this Court can and should consider this behavior in determining whether Plaintiff has “good cause” to extend the discovery cut-off so that she can continue her gamesmanship. 2. Plaintiff’s Recurrent Rule 45 Violations As this Court has previously held: Rule 45(b)(1) requires a party issuing a subpoena for the production of documents to a nonparty to “provide prior notice to all parties to the litigation,” which has been interpreted to “require that notice be given prior to the issuance of the subpoena, not prior to its return date.” Murphy v. Board of Educ., 196 F.R.D. 220, 222 (W.D.N.Y.2000). At least one court in this circuit has held that notice provided on the same day that the subpoenas have been served constitutes inadequate notice under Rule 45. See, e.g., Fox Industries, Inc. v. Gurovich, No. 03-—CV-5 166, 2006 WL 2882580, *11 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2006). ... The ' Rather than list his client’s address in the custody of the U.S. Marshal’s Office, Mr. Edwards said her address is “c/o” himself. 19