Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch4_p00090.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) on hundreds (if not thousands) of matters, and collectively have well over 100 years of combined practice experience. Accordingly, a request that each of these attorneys list all communications with the media is facially overbroad. Additionally, Ms. Giuffre objects to this Interrogatory because a response would cause Ms. Giuffre the incredible and undue burden of having to catalogue literally hundreds of communications that she has already produced in this case. Moreover, Ms. Giuffre objects because this interrogatory calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Communications with the media regarding cases that bear no relation to the subject matter of this case, from decades in the past, are facially invalid and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Giuffre additionally objects to the extent that this interrogatory seeks the communications of her attorneys, any author, reporter, correspondent, columnist, writer, commentator, investigative journalist, photojournalist, newspaper person, freelance reporter, stringer, or any other employee of any media organization or independent consultant as such interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Furthermore, Ms. Giuffre is not obligated to produce anything currently in the possession of Defendant Maxwell or her attorneys. Notwithstanding such objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced her responsive communications, which are found in documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE007566. 6. Identify any “false statements” attributed to Ghislaine Maxwell which were “published globally, including within the Southern District of New York” as You contend in paragraph 9 of Count I of Your Complaint, including: