Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch6_p00064.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 21 Il. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. Defendant’s Motion Should Be Denied Because it is Untimely and Defendant is Merely Trying to Deflect from Her Own Discovery Misconduct The first reason the Court should deny this motion is that it is simply and obviously untimely. Defendant complained to this Court at least as early as May 2016, that Ms. Giuffre had a bonfire two years prior to Defendant’s defamation. As counsel for Ms. Giuffre said at the time: There is absolutely no reason why my client should reasonably anticipate that her sex abuser would defame her in the global stage at that point [when she held the bonfire]. She is a child victim of sex abuse at the hands of the defendant [and] co- conspirators, and she decided to burn certain memories as a step toward the healing process. That is outside the control of counsel and certainly unrelated to anything going on in an action filed in 2015. May 12, 2016 Hr. Tr. at 10:1-8. Yet while these issues were before the Court by (at least) May, Defendant waited an additional seven months to file this motion that she claims should result in the complete dismissal of this action. Such delay is unreasonable. The Second Circuit has held that “a motion for Rule 37 sanctions should be promptly made thereby allowing the judge to rule on the matter when it is still fresh in his mind.” Mercy v. County of Suffolk, 748 F.2d 52, 56 (2d Cir.1984). Defendant gives no reason why she did not present this issue to the Court last May, and she cites no new information in her brief that developed during that time. Instead, the only intervening development with some connection to the motion may be this Court’s November 2, 2016, Order, which concluded that the Defendant had withheld discovery materials. A few weeks later, the Defendant filed this motion accusing Ms. Giuffre of withholding discovery materials.” ? Defendant appears to have a pattern of filing seemingly tit-for-tat motions. In many such motions, Defendant copies the language of Plaintiffs briefs word-for-word, despite there being few, if any, factual similarities. See, e.g., Plaintiff's Motion to Compel for Improper Claim of 5