Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch3_p00199.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 11 tremendous stretch, I can agree to them in the interest of getting the search done on a timely basis.”).? Having heard nothing from Plaintiffs counsel by the close of business on July 15, 2016, Ms. Maxwell’s counsel ran the 110 of Plaintiff's proposed terms on the forensic images of Ms. Maxwell’s electronic devices and email accounts, including both eC Because of the breadth of the 110 terms proposed by Plaintiff, the original search resulted in approximately 9,000 documents and communications containing one or more term in the content or meta-data. The volume of the documents is explained by the breadth of the terms searched, resulting in pulling non-relevant, non-responsive information from Ms. Maxwell’s electronic devices and emails, including thousands of underwater photos related to Ms. Maxwell’s non-profit, the word “passport” due to the fact that the Terramar Project includes an “ocean passport” program, as well as numerous family holiday photos. All of the documents were reviewed individually by counsel for Ms. Maxwell for responsiveness to Plaintiffs discovery request, pursuant to this Court’s Order. Of those documents, the only responsive documents were either communications between Ms. Maxwell and current counsel or were communications with, or prepared at the request of, Ms. Maxwell’s UK Counsel, Philip Barden, > Defense counsel specifically requested a telephone conference to discuss any of the other terms, noting that the search would need to proceed over the weekend to permit review and production of any documents prior to Defendant’s deposition on July 22, 2016. Jd. (“Iam available by telephone today and tomorrow to discuss the issues raised herein. \f 1 do not hear from you, I will presume that you are in agreement to the remainder of the terms being run on the devices.”). Plaintiff's counsel did not timely respond to the July 14, 2016 letter, the clearly articulated counter-proposed terms (over 110 of the 368 proposed by Plaintiff), or set a time to discuss the articulated objections to other terms. Instead, on July 18, 2016, Plaintiff's filed a response to the Letter Motion to Strike for Failure to Confer, inexplicably and inaccurately claiming 1) that defendant is running “secret search terms” and 2) claiming that defendant’s counsel refused to confer despite the clear conferral letter and request for telephone conference. See July 18, 2016 Letter to the Court from M. Shultz. * Plaintiff also requested searches of old email accounts of Defendant as Ee ©. Ms. Maxwell has been able to access the J” account and it contains no responsive documents. Ms. Maxwell has been unable to access my and does not recall ever using that account.