Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch3_p00198.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 11 searched yet there is no RFP related to those names, nor the vast majority of the other listed first and surnames.' By correspondence of July 14, Ms. Maxwell’s counsel specifically identified the problematic terms, agreed to a limited list, and requested a substantive conferral call on this issue. See Menninger Decl., Ex. B. In that correspondence, Defendant’s counsel gave specific reasons for the objection to a number of the terms that were problematic in that they called for the search of common words, names or phrases that would likely result pulling documents completely unrelated to this case. Jd. Counsel also suggested proposed limiting terms with respect to names of individuals to appropriately limit the scope and target the search. Id. (suggesting limitations on searches of names to “make some effort to match them to actual people who have some relationship to this case (like first name /3 last name or some parts thereof”). After explaining the appropriate and well-reasoned objections to certain terms, defense Counsel agreed to search over 110 of Plaintiff's proposed search terms, despite the fact that many of those terms were objectionable. Jd. (“Although many of your other search terms are a ' On or about June 27, 2016, Plaintiff's counsel Bradley Edwards and Defendant’s counsel Jeffery Pagliuca held a telephone meet and confer conference on a number of issues. Among the issues raised by Mr. Pagliuca was the overbreadth of the proposed search terms. The discussion was left that Mr. Edwards would talk with Plaintiff's team of lawyers to narrow the scope, as Mr. Pagliuca understood it. Thus, contrary to the representation in the Motion, Ms. Maxwell’s counsel did inform Plaintiffs counsel of their disagreement with the proposed search terms. As well, Mr. Pagliuca informed Mr. Edwards that because he, Laura Menninger and Ms. Maxwell were all traveling on vacations in the weeks before and after the 4" of July holiday, that they would need additional time to comply with the Court’s Order and provide the production. Mr. Pagliuca and Mr. Edwards agreed that productions would be made prior to Ms. Maxwell’s second deposition, scheduled by agreement on July 22, 2016. Based on this discussion, defense counsel was blindsided when they received the Motion for Sanctions, anticipating that they would soon be receiving a substantially limited and modified list of proposed search terms to permit search and production prior to the July 22 deposition. In the interim, all of Ms. Maxwell’s electronic devices had been sent for imaging. Defense counsel corresponded with Plaintiff's counsel upon receipt of the Motion for Sanctions, requesting that it be withdrawn (without prejudice), pending completion of conferral on the search terms as required by this Court’s specific and general orders on conferral. It appears there was a miscommunication between Plaintiffs own counsel on this issue, as well as between counsel for both of the parties; but, it was clearly just that — a miscommunication and misunderstanding on where things stood. 4