Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch4_p00528.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-31 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 13 made by law enforcement or any state attorney.”” (Br. at 9). Ms. Giuffre understands this winding sentence to mean that documents responsive to Requests Nos. 2-3 constitute communications between Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein and Alan Dershowitz or their counsel. As discussed at length in the moving brief, Defendant bears the burden to show that there is a joint defense agreement among them, but she refuses to disclose the joint defense agreement, and this Court, months ago, has already ordered Defendant to turn over her communications with Epstein and Dershowitz that she purported were privileged. (See April 15, 2016 Order). Accordingly, this Court should grant Ms. Giuffre’s requests Nos. 2-3. B. This Court should Order Production of Documents Responsive to Requests Nos. 6-7; 9-10; and 11. These requests concern joint defense agreements between and among Defendant, Epstein, and Dershowitz, and communications among counsel for Defendant and Epstein and Dershowitz. In Defendant’s objections submitted to Ms. Giuffre in response to the request for the joint defense agreement between her and Dershowitz, she stated that she “has been unable to locate any documents responsive to this Request.” In her brief, she says that “there is no joint defense agreement to produce.” (Br. at 9). There are two problems with this position. First, Defendant is withholding responsive documents consisting of communications between Dershowitz/Dershowitz’s counsel and Epstein/Epstein’s counsel. Defendant does not, and cannot, refute the case law that puts the burden on establishing a joint defense privilege applies on the party claiming it, which must be shown through evidence. Defendant has put forth no evidence of these agreements. In fact, Defendant states that no such agreement exists with Dershowitz, and she is refusing to reveal the agreement with Epstein. Even if any privileges apply to the actual joint defense agreement with Epstein (and, in many cases, Courts find no privilege applies whatsoever), Defendant has to make that showing. This response brief does not