Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch4_p00060.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 40 previously produced documents or identified witness lists.”), appeal dismissed (Mar. 30, 2016); Smith v. Trawler Capt. Alfred, Inc., No. 2:12-CV-2866-DCN, 2014 WL 1912067, at *3 (D.S.C. May 13, 2014) (“Smith’s cursory references to the pleadings, his deposition, and his medical records are not responsive answers to defendants’ interrogatories.”); DirectTV, Inc. v. Puccinelli, 224 F.R.D. 677, 680 (D. Kan. 2004) (“defendant may not direct plaintiffs to find answers from previously produced documents or identified witness lists”) (internal quotations omitted). Interrogatory No. 13. Identify any Health Care Provider from whom You received any treatment for any physical, mental or emotional condition, including addiction to alcohol, prescription or illegal drugs, that You suffered from prior to the Alleged Defamation by Ghislaine Maxwell, including: a. the Health Care Provider’s name, address, and telephone number; b. the type of consultation, examination, or treatment provided; c. the dates You received consultation, examination, or treatment; d. whether such treatment was on an in-patient or out-patient basis; e. the medical expenses to date; f. whether health insurance or some other person or organization or entity has paid for the medical expenses; and g. For each such Health Care Provider, please execute the medical and mental health records release attached hereto as Exhibit A. Response: Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory because it violates this Court’s Order. The Court has excluded the production of medical records from prior to 1999, stating, “the damage issue relates, in my view, solely to the defamation.” (April 21, 2016, Hearing Transcript at 20:23-24). This holding applies to pre-1999 medical records. As this interrogatory is not limited to the time period ordered by this Court, Ms. Giuffre objects. Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory in that it is overbroad and not limited in scope to the medical information relating to the abuse she suffered from Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein. Ms. Giuffre objects because Rule 26 does not allow discovery that is so burdensome as to require a Herculean effort by an adult to track down every possible prescription ever written for Ms. Giuffre, or every physician who ever treated Ms. Giuffre, even as a small child. Such a request is not only impractical 13