Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch3_p00229.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 6 initials. With regards tof, you told me that is ‘J and there is no standalone request for communications with her. -Laura Laura A. Menninger Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Main 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 Imenninger@hmflaw.com www.hmflaw.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving it in any manner. Thank you. From: Laura Menninger Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 2:27 PM To: 'Meredith Schultz’ Cc: Jeff Pagliuca; 'Sigrid S. McCawley - Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (smccawley@bsfllp.com)'; "brad@pathtojustice.com' (brad@pathtojustice.com)' Subject: RE: Giuffre - Conferral regarding search terms Dear Meredith, lam in receipt of your opposition to the Letter Motion to Strike your Motion for an Adverse Inference. The representations in the Response are perplexing, particularly in light of the below email communication in which | specifically 1) informed you of the search terms that we would run derived from your list, and 2) specifically requested a telephone conference on the issue of search terms pursuant to the Court’s Order and prior to any such search. Your representation to the Court that we are running “secret search terms unilaterally chosen by Defendant” is simply inaccurate. As clearly set forth in the below email communication, in order to move production forward, we invited discussion regarding our plan to run a subset of the search terms that you selected. The items excluded from the search were those terms you proposed that were unattached to any discovery request, or would result in the selection irrelevant documents due to the commonality of the term or their irrelevance to this case, such as TerraMar. The terms run are not “secret” and not selected by the defense — they are “the remainder of the terms” not specifically discussed in the below email. For avoidance of doubt, it is your proposed list, excluding items 49, 50, 51, 64, 66-72, 93-94, 113, 114-116, 119-120, 121-122, 124-341, 355, 358, 360, 361, and 365, 366-368. Second, and again contrary to the representation in your Response, | specifically requested a time for a telephone conferral to discuss the search terms. Specifically, | stated “! am available by telephone today and tomorrow to discuss the issues raised herein.” Despite this clear request for a call if there were issues you wished to discuss, or if you had specific RFP’s to which the excluded terms related, | heard nothing from you on Thursday afternoon or Friday to set a 2