Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch4_p00531.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-31 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 13 Defendant, and containing explicit references to Ms. Giuffre, are irrelevant and not subject to discovery. What should be reviewed and produced are the documents in Defendant’s possession concerning Ms. Giuffre that are outside the scope of privilege. This would include, for example, Defendant’s communications with third parties that concern Ms. Giuffre. The Court has already seen examples of some of these communications in its in camera review, and it ordered Defendant to produce Defendant’s communications concerning Ms. Giuffre that she exchanged with Epstein, Ross Gow, and others. This request targets documents like those. Defendant has not argued any burden applies to such a collection. Furthermore, if Defendant had collected her electronic data pursuant to this Court’s order, an electronic search - few key strokes - would both identify these documents and eliminate the communications to/from Defendant’s attorneys that fall under the ambit of privilege. This is a basic request for documents concerning one of the parties, and one that would be issued in almost any litigation. Defendant’s continued refusal to produce documents concerning Ms. Giuffre is made in bad faith and shows that she is hiding additional incriminating documents’ (including those regarding a recently-discovered defamatory statement in the January 8, 2015, article, discussed, infra, at p. 6-7). An adverse inference instruction is appropriate in this circumstance, as more fully briefed in Ms. Giuffre’s August 8, 2016, Memorandum of Law on the same (DE 338). * After the close of discovery and after the depositions have been taken in this matter, just days ago, Defendant produced a critical e-mail asserting that it’s exclusion from production was a “clerical error.” The e-mail proves that the Defendant has continued to use Ross Gow as her “image consultant” and media relations agent during the course of this lawsuit to interface with the media. See McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 1, GM_01141, November 10, 2015 email from Ross Gow to Defendant. This runs directly contrary to Defendant’s representations to this Court that she has no ability to produce Ross Gow for a deposition and instead has forced Ms. Giuffre to spend thousands of dollars to track down a person who is in Defendant’s employ. 5