Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch6_p00063.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 21 Tellingly, Defendant cites no case law — in any jurisdiction — to support the proposition that any duty to preserve materials for a federal crime victim’s right case in the past (let alone one that involved wholly different parties and wholly different causes of action) somehow transfers to a New York state law defamation claim involving a different party that arose years later. To the contrary, even rulings in the Southern District of New York hold the opposite, but Defendant failed to cite those rulings. Instead, Defendant’s brief quotes extensively from cases in which parties destroyed evidence after the cause of action accrued and after the parties had notice of a duty to preserve. Those are inapposite. Because this is a losing argument for the Defendant, unsupported by law or logic, Defendant’s brief turns to fiction and fancy, making inflammatory claims against Ms. Giuffre and her attorneys that have absolutely no basis in fact. For example, Defendant’s brief states that “there is reason to suspect that Plaintiff acted in concert with or was encouraged by her attorneys to embellish her story.” Motion at 12. Tellingly absent from Defendant’s brief are any “reasons” or supporting facts for that allegation. This Court has previous instructed Defendant to discontinue filing “frivolous or vexatious motions” based upon nothing but “a supposing of bad faith,” “lacking sufficient factual support to support a colorable argument:” Having provided no grounds to doubt the sworn representations of Plaintiff's counsel, Defendant’s motion to compel these communications is denied. Defendant is granted leave to refile the motions with respect to media and business advice on the basis of relevant and non-specious factual support. Court intervention should not be invoked to resolve routine discovery matters on the basis of a supposition of bad faith. Further filing of frivolous or vexatious motions lacking sufficient factual support to support a colorable argument (or on the basis of misrepresented or false facts or law) will be met with sanctions. June 20, 2016, Sealed Order at 13-14. The Defendant ignored this Order, and her motion should be denied.