Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch4_p00193.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 21 showing that their filing was reasonably investigated and substantially justified.” Def.’s Reply in Supp. Mot. to Compel all Att’ y-Client Comms. and Att’y Work Product at 8-9 (Def.’s Reply on AC”). The Broward County, Florida Court ruled on this argument in Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz and Defendant argues in reply that this order is non-binding, and was issued prior to Plaintiff’s testimony. Id. at 1. Defendant was not a party to the Florida case. Nevertheless, Defendant’s argument is nearly identical to Dershowitz’s. Defendant argues Plaintiff’s testimony arose after the ruling in the Florida case, however, the principle of that argument is the same: Defendant placed her attorney-client communications with Edwards and Cassell at issue by relying on the content of those communications in Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz. The Florida Court’s ruling is therefore highly relevant privilege has not been waived.* The motion is accordingly denied. 2 The Court declines to address the choice of law issue, as application of Florida or New York at-issue doctrines are not outcome determinative in this instance and thus no determination is necessary. Compare Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., 940 So. 2d 504, 510 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) (“for waiver to occur under the at issue doctrine, the proponent of a privilege must make a claim or raise a defense based upon the privileged matter and the proponent must necessarily use the privileged information in order to establish its claim or defense.”) with Chin v. Rogoff & Co., P.C., No. 05 CIV. 15