Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch4_p00534.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-31 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 13 1891, 95 L.Ed.2d 498 (1987); Bowne of N.Y.C., Inc. v. AmBase Corp., 150 F.R.D. 465, 472 (S.D.N.Y.1993). Egiazaryan v. Zalmayev, 290 F.R.D. 421, 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). A “declaration” from Dershowitz’s counsel stating that she “believe[s] Professor Dershowitz and Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell have a common interest” is not evidence of a joint defense agreement, and Defendant still fails to carry her burden. Accordingly, this Court should compel the production communications with Dershowitz’s counsel. The “declaration” of Epstein’s counsel similarly falls short. See Indyke Dec. at 4 (“I consider Mr. Epstein and his lawyers and Ms. Maxwell and her lawyers to have a common interest.””) Therefore, if the Court finds that these declarations do not satisfy Defendant’s burden under Egiazaryan, it should compel Defendant to produce those documents. F. A Forensic Review is Appropriate in these Circumstances Since filing the instant motion, Defendant has produced another communication between her and Ross Gow, and another email between her and Jeffrey Epstein. Defendant explained that they were not produced “following the Court’s in camera review in April” due to “clerical error.” See McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 3, August 16, 2016 letter form Laura Menninger.° One of these documents is an April 2015, email between Defendant and Epstein. Defendant complains to the Court that a forensic review would invade her privacy (br. at 20-21), while at the same time, she and her joint defense partner both seek to strip away Ms. Giuffre’s privacy by revealing confidential documents under the Protective Order. However, > Declaration of Mary E. Borja (DE 387). ° In one of the communications, she states that she would like “Barden” to reply to “one further allegation” and Epstein writes back, “ok.” This document was not produced until after the close of discovery, and therefore, Defendant was never deposed on (1) why she was seeking Epstein’s permission for a having Barden make a “reply;” (2) what Epstein’s relationship was with Barden; (3) or who drafted the original communication at the bottom of the email, as it does not appear to have been created by either Defendant or Epstein. (Pending before this Court is Ms. Giuffre’s motion to reopen Defendant’s deposition.) (DE 315/356). See GM_01143-1144. 8