Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch2_p00152.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-7 Filed 01/04/24 Page 16 of 30 purposes. It was a formality since both sides already had the record. Defendant states: “Despite requests, legible copies have not been provided.” Defendant uses the passive voice here, presumably to avoid making clear the fact that the requests for legible copies would need to be made to Dr. Olson, who controls the records, not to Ms. Giuffre, who long ago authorized the release of all records. The existence of a record that a witness failed to produce prior to a deposition is not a discovery violation from Ms. Giuffre. Il. MS. GIUFFRE HAS PROVIDED DISCOVERY IN ACCORDANCE WITH HER DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS The fact is that Ms. Giuffre has executed a release form for each and every medical care provides that Defendant asked for. Defendant cannot contradict this statement. Ms. Giuffre produced medical records she had in her possession (such as New York Presbyterian records), early in discovery. From that point, other medical records were sought and obtained, with Ms. Giuffre facilitating their production from the providers by executing and sending release forms and paying all applicable fees for their release. Moreover, counsel for Ms. Giuffre has kept Defendant fully apprised of such efforts, even giving Defendant copies of all releases that have been issued, and providing updates on Ms. Giuffre’s continued efforts to obtain medical records beyond signing releases. See McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibits 5 and 6. Executing and sending medical release forms to all of the medical providers satisfies Ms. Giuffre’s discovery obligations with regard to her medical records, and Defendant cannot cite to a case that states otherwise. See, e.g., Candelaria v. Erickson, 2006 WL 1636817, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (requiring the execution of updated medical release forms to satisfy discovery obligations). The fact that Defendant has presented this weak tea to the Court - concerning the actions of third-parties Ms. Giuffre does not control - shows just how baseless the motion is. IV. DEFENDANT CAN SHOW NO PREJUDICE 12