Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch5_p00214.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 27 of 43 Epstein was served with a subpoena from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. That Court also requires production of a privilege log at the time of any objection to a subpoena. As that Court has explained: Both Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5) and 45(c) and S.D.N.Y. Civ. R. 26.2 require the submission of a privilege log where a person served with a document request or subpoena objects to the production of requested documents on the ground of privilege, Rule 26(b)(5) does not explicitly state exactly when the privilege log must be provided. Rule 45 is more precise, requiring that a person objecting to a subpoena must serve either written objections or move to quash within the earlier of the time fixed for compliance or fourteen days after service and, if withholding subpoenaed material on the ground of privilege, must provide a privilege log.“* It thus suggests strongly that the privilege log, absent judicial relief, must accompany any objections or motion to quash, But Local Rule 26.2 is even more explicit. Paragraph (c) states: “Where a claim of privilege is asserted in response to discovery or disclosure other than a deposition, and information is not provided on the basis of such assertion, the information set forth in paragraph (a) above shall be furnished in writing at the time of the response to such discovery or disclosure, unless otherwise ordered by the court.” This reflects a 1997 modification to the local rules “to specifically require that the privilege list ... be furnished at the time of the response unless otherwise ordered by the court.” In re Chevron Corp., 749 F, Supp. 2d 170, 180-81 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd sub nom. Lago Agrio Plaintiffs v, Chevron Corp., 409 F. App’x 393 (2d Cir. 2010). Epstein should, at a minimum, be required to produce a privilege log for each of the 22 questions in the subpoena and explain the basis for his Fifth Amendment invocations. At that point, Ms, Giuffre will be in a position to further respond and show why his invocations are not well-founded. I. EPSTEIN SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT FACIALLY POSE NO REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF SELF- INCRIMINATION.