Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch1_p00617.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 32 As already documented in previous pleadings, Ms. Maxwell’s counsel has engaged in significant and repeated efforts to conduct discovery in this case in a professional, civil manner, especially as it relates to the depositions of non-parties. On February 25, 2016, counsel for Ms. Maxwell requested that the lawyers confer by telephone to arrange a schedule for the non-party depositions to occur in various states and countries.'” Plaintiff ignored that request, and requests of the same ilk made on at least 6 different occasions in March and April. It was only on two and 2 months later, on May 5, 2016, when Plaintiffs counsel finally responded with “as is becoming clear, both sides are going to be needing to be coordinating a number of depositions.”!? She then proposed a calendar which scheduled 13 additional depositions for Plaintiff and only 2 days (actually % days) for defendant to depose her remaining witnesses. ‘4 Defendant provided a calendar which allowed for both sides to take remaining depositions, but Plaintiff ignored it and continued to schedule depositions on dates for witnesses without consulting defense counsel for their availability first. Menninger Decl., Ex. M. Because of the breakdown in communications, defense counsel was left with little choice but to (a) show up at each of Plaintiff's noticed depositions, in Florida and New York, and (b) issue subpoenas for witness depositions on other dates in June. For example, Plaintiff issued a v McCawley Decl. in Support of Request to Exceed Ten Deposition Limit, Exhibit 1 (Doc. # 173-1) at 28 (Letter of Menninger to McCawley (Feb. 25, 2015) (“I would suggest that rather than repeated emails on the topic of scheduling the various depositions in this case, or the unilateral issuance of deposition notices and subpoenas, you and I have a phone conference wherein we discuss which depositions are going to be taken, where, and a plan for doing them in an orderly fashion that minimizes travel and inconvenience for counsel and the witnesses. As you are well aware from your own practice of law, attorneys have other clients, other court dates and other commitments to work around. The FRCP and Local Rules contemplate courtesy and cooperation among counsel in the scheduling and timing of discovery processes. This rule makes even more sense in a case such as this spanning various parts of the country where counsel must engage in lengthy travel and the attendant scheduling of flights, hotels and rental cars.”)). 8 Td. at 19. 4 id. at 1-3. 21