Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch1_p00616.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 32 requirement that prior notice “must be given has important underpinnings of fairness and efficiency.” Cootes Drive LLC v. Internet Law Library, Inc., No. 01— CV-9877, 2002 WL 424647, *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2002). Plaintiff fails to provide an adequate explanation or argument for how a same-day notification satisfies Rule 45's requirements. See, e.g., id. (“[C]ounsel for the [offending party] offered no explanation or excuse for their failure to comply with the rule's strictures. They did not attempt to defend the timeliness of their notice. The [offending party's] admitted violation ... cannot be countenanced.”). Usov v. Lazar, 13-cv-818 (RWS), 2014 WL 4354691, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014) (granting motion to quash the subpoenas where notice given on the same day and served beyond 100 mile limitation of Rule 45). In that case, Plaintiff had provided same day notice of the issuance of a subpoena. Here, we have repeated attempts to serve a subpoena over the course of days before any notice was given to Ms. Maxwell. As described previously, Plaintiff has amply documented her own violations of the Rule by detailing her attempts to serve subpoenas duces tecum before ever providing notice to Ms. Maxwell with regards to witnesses Epstein, Kellen and Marcincova. Likewise, with respect to witness, Alexandra Hall, Plaintiff served the subpoena prior to providing notice. See Menninger Decl. Ex. L. Served subpoenas before providing Notice under Rule 45. Accordingly, Plaintiff moves to quash the subpoenas on Epstein, Kellen and Marcincova as violations of Rule 45’s notice provision. Ms. Maxwell further requests sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 for these documented violations. With respect to Ms. Hall, who was deposed already earlier today, Ms. Maxwell believes that she did not offer any admissible testimony at her deposition. If Plaintiffs seek to introduce her testimony, the defense reserves the right to exclude such testimony both on evidentiary grounds as well as in violation of Rule 45’s notice provision.'! IV. MS. MAXWELL’S GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY "| Counsel for Ms. Maxwell only learned of the Rule 45 violation this past weekend after reviewing certificates of service provided by Plaintiffs counsel last week, without sufficient time to file a motion to quash the subpoena on Ms. Hall. 20