Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch4_p00105.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) informs discovery over the boundaries of the proper inquiry into an alleged sexual assault victim's sexual conduct and history. Silva v. Pioneer Janitorial Servs., Inc., No. CIV.A. 10- 11264-JGD, 2011 WL 4729783, at *1 (D. Mass. Oct. 4, 2011). See also Gibbons v. Food Lion, Inc., No. 988-1197—CIV-T-23F, 1999 WL 33226474, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb.19, 1999) (stating that a majority of courts that have considered whether Fed. R. Evid. 412 is applicable to discovery “have found that Rule 412 has significance in the resolution of a discovery dispute’’). “As explained in the Advisory Committee Notes regarding the 1994 amendments to Rule 412, ‘[t]he rule aims to safeguard the alleged victim against the invasion of privacy, potential embarrassment and sexual stereotyping that is associated with public disclosure of intimate sexual details and the infusion of sexual innuendo into the factfinding process.’ Moreover, although the Advisory Committee Notes acknowledge that the procedures set forth in the Rule for determining the admissibility of evidence relating to an alleged victim's past sexual conduct or predisposition do not apply to discovery, they nevertheless provide as follows: In order not to undermine the rationale of Rule 412 ... courts should enter appropriate orders pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) to protect the victim against unwarranted inquiries and to ensure confidentiality. Courts should presumptively issue protective orders barring discovery unless the party seeking discovery makes a showing that the evidence sought to be discovered would be relevant under the facts and theories of the particular case, and cannot be obtained except through discovery. In an action for sexual harassment, for instance, while some evidence of the alleged victim's sexual behavior and/or predisposition in the workplace may perhaps be relevant, non-workplace conduct will usually be irrelevant. Silva, 2011 WL 4729783, at *1. (emphasis added). Accordingly, Ms. Giuffre objects to this request based on the Federal Rules of Evidence and prevailing case law applying such Rules. Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Rule 33 as it, in combination with the other interrogatories, exceed the allowable twenty-five interrogatories. Ms. Giuffre 20