Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch5_p00206.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 43 clearly state the basis on which it sustains or rejects the defendant's objection to a particular question.”). Because this case is a diversity action state law generally provides the rule of decision for substantive privilege issues. See Giuffire v. Maxwell, DE 135 at 6, 2016 WL 175918 at * 6 (applying New York privilege law) (citing Allied Irish Banks y. Bank of Am., N.A., 240 F.R.D. 96, 102 (S.D.N.Y, 2007) (“Because this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction is based upon diversity .. . state law provides the rule of decision concerning the claim of attorney-client privilege.”)). In this case, Epstein’s inability to provide a basis for Fifth Amendment invocations does not turn on peculiarities of the law of any one jurisdiction, and thus authorities from various jurisdictions are cited interchangeably ARGUMENT I. EPSTEIN SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO PRODUCE THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS. A. It is Not Unduly Burdensome for Epstein to Produce the Requested Documents, If Epstein wishes to establish undue burdensomeness in producing documents, it is his burden to carry. As recounted above, however, Epstein has refused to answer questions regarding undue burdensomeness, See Statement of Fact, at § 10, Presumably this is because his vast wealth would make it difficult from him to prove that point. In any event, even were Epstein to attempt to show undue burdensomeness, he could not establish that any burden is “undue.” Epstein is a central figure in this case — the most central figure, apart from the two parties, the plaintiff and the defendant. And the defendant is feigning memory loss over many of the most significant events in this case — including many events that involved Epstein. Because of his central role in the case, it is important for Ms, Giuffre to have the requested documents from him. No undue burden exists. 9