Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch2_p00246.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-14 Filed 01/04/24 Page 18 of 30 actually wanted to dep 0s i ee ee ee Defendant’s claims concerning deposing Dr. Donahue are similarly specious. First, despite knowing about Dr. Donahue since at least April 29, 2016 (a fact she admits in her brief “Dr. Donahue may have been named” (Mtn. at 16)): Defendant has never issued a Notice of Deposition for Dr. Donahue. Defendant cannot claim any prejudice with respect to Dr. Donahue. Additionally, Defendant acts in bad faith when she claims that medical records from Dr. Donahue were “purposefully hidden by Plaintiff’ (Mtn. at 11) when Defendant knows that Ms. Giuffre executed and sent a medical release for Dr. Donahue on April 5, 2016, for all of his records. See McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit 6, Dr. Donahue Medical Release. As stated above, this argument is moot because the records concerning Dr. Donahue (and other providers at his practice) have been produced to Defendant. Finally, though Ms. Giuffre does not control how quickly providers respond to her releases (though her counsel has spent considerable time following-up with providers, urging their speedy release, and paying all applicable fees), Ms. Giuffre has agreed to reopen her deposition for questions concerning provider records that were produced subsequent to her deposition. Therefore, Ms. Giuffre has eliminated any prejudice Defendant could claim to suffer with respect to taking Ms. Giuffre’s deposition. See Giuffre00663 1-006635. A factor relevant to the appropriateness of sanctions under Rule 37 for discovery violations is the “prejudice suffered by the opposing party.” Design Strategy, Inc. v. Davis, 469 14