Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch2_p00251.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-14 Filed 01/04/24 Page 23 of 30 deliberately “withheld” or “hidden” are things that Ms. Giuffre provided to Defendant in the normal course of discovery, as described at length above. Defendant cannot claim any prejudice regarding the manner in which she received this information, and, indeed, does not.!? Accordingly, sanctions are wholly inappropriate. Il. MS. GIUFFRE HAS FULFILLED HER REQUIREMENTS REGARDING HER RULE 26 DISCLOSURES" Regarding Ms. Giuffre’s computation of damages, Ms. Giuffre has pled defamation per se under New York law, where damages are presumed. Robertson v. Dowbenko, 443 F. App'x 659, 661 (2d Cir. 2011). Plaintiff provided amounts, damage calculations and supporting evidence required under Rule 26. Plaintiff is retaining experts to support her Rule 26 Disclosures, and expert reports and disclosures are not due at this time. Defendant takes issues with Ms. Giuffre’s computation of damages in her Rule 26 disclosures but fails to cite to a single case that requires more from her, let alone more from a Plaintiff claiming defamation per se. Indeed, the case law supports that Plaintiff has fully complied with her Rule 26 obligations. See Naylor v. Rotech Healthcare, Inc., 679 F. Supp. 2d 505, 510 (D. Vt. 2009). In good faith, Ms. Giuffre has produced a multitude of documents and information regarding her damages. Defendant does not cite to a single case that even suggests she is required to do more. What Defendant purports to lack is expert discovery and an expert report on 8 This is particularly true regarding the timing of Ms. Giuffre’s deposition, as Ms. Giuffre has agreed to reopen her deposition concerning any medical information that Defendant did not receive in advance of her deposition. 4 Defendant references her Motion to Compel Rule 26(a) disclosures (DE 64) that she filed on March 22, 2016, but failed to mention that, after a hearing, this Court denied that motion with leave to refile (DE 106). 'S Defendant repeatedly attempts to conflate the required disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) and the disclosures ordered by this Court on April 21, 2016, in an apparent effort to ‘backdate’ those required disclosures. 19