Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch6_p00060.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 21 By and through her undersigned counsel, Ms. Giuffre hereby submits her Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions. Defendant’s frivolous motion should be denied. As part of a therapeutic exercise, Ms. Giuffre burned a personal journal with memories of her sexual abuse in 2013 — two years before the defamation in this case occurred and three years before this litigation began. Sanctions are, accordingly, obviously not appropriate. L INTRODUCTION On November 2, 2016, this Court entered an Order granting Ms. Giuffre an adverse inference instruction due to Defendant’s willful refusal to turn over electronic discovery. Just one month later, the Defendant filed this frivolous motion, asking for an adverse inference against Ms. Giuffre because Ms. Giuffre burned an emotionally painful journal as part of a healing process — healing from Defendant’s sex abuse — two years before this defamation cause of action accrued and three years before the start of this litigation,’ and because Ms. Giuffre could not find a notebook in which she recorded her dreams, an item for which there is no evidence of having evidentiary value whatsoever. Significantly, there is no evidence that the dream journal became missing after she had a duty to preserve it, and Defendant has made no showing that Ms. Giuffre had this dream journal in her possession while she had a duty to preserve. Ms. Giuffre testified that she thought it was located in her child’s closet, but upon searching for it, she was not able to find it. It is unknown even to Ms. Giuffre when it was lost. The basic facts appear to be uncontested. As Ms. Giuffre testified in her depositions, she was sexually abused by Epstein and the Defendant in and around 2000. Then, a decade after her sexual abuse, in around 2011 and 2012, she wrote some memories of that sexual abuse in a journal. Then in 2013, she burned that journal as a “spiritual” exercise to help her heal from the ' Indeed, Defendant raised this same issue at this Court’s hearing back in May of 2016, yet Defendant waited seven months, until after the Court issued an adverse inference against her, to file this motion for sanctions.