Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch4_p00123.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 39 of 45 This document is CONFIDENTIAL under the Court’s Protective Order (DE 62) With regard to communications by Ms. Giuffre's attorneys, this request seeks clearly privileged materials (or materials covered by the work product doctrine). With regard to "witnesses" or “potential witnesses,” the request is vague, unduly burdensome, and overbroad. The Dershowitz case centers on issues surrounding whether the Ms. Giuffre's lawyers (Edwards and Cassell) had conduct a sufficient investigation before filing a motion to join Jane Doe 3 (and Jane Doe 4) into the CVRA case. That investigation involves not only attorney-client materials, but also work product protections for Jane Doe | and Jane Doe 2. This request, then, covers communications going back eight years, and it would involve a review of several hundreds of thousands of emails over that time to identify communications relevant to the potential "witnesses" who might have been able to shed light on the claims in the CVRA case and, in turn, whether sex abuse had been committed by Alan Dershowitz. The burden would be substantial and the relevance would be essentially non-existent. Such a burden is not countenanced by Rule 26 or the prevailing case law. Whatever communications Ms. Giuffre's attorneys may have had as part of their (work product protected) investigation would not shed light on whether Defendant Maxwell defames Ms. Giuffre in attacking her as, for example, a liar. The request is also vague because it is not clear precisely what "witnesses" Defendant Maxwell is concerned about. There have, for example, between communications between Ms. Giuffre's lawyers and lawyers for Mr. Epstein and Mr. Dershowitz Again, the relevance of such communications seems basically non-existent to the action. But because their investigations have spanned eight years, collecting such communications would be difficult. Moreover, Defendant Maxwell has a close working relationship and/or joint defense arrangement with both Mr. Epstein and Mr. Dershowitz. There is no reason to burden Ms. Giuffre's attorneys with 38