Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch6_p00072.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 21 E. No Alleged Spoliation in the Context of an Unrelated Claim Attaches to a Future Defamation Claim Yet another fatal problem for Defendant’s motion is that it rests on the premise that Ms. Giuffre violated a duty to preserve evidence that arose in a different case. The attenuated chain of reasoning is that Ms. Giuffre’s duty to preserve this journal with respect to this case arose in 2013, when she heard about another case — the CVRA case (long before she and her attorneys made the decision to attempt to join that litigation). However, Southern District of New York courts have rejected this very argument that a duty to preserve can arise from unrelated litigation. See, e.g., In re Pfizer Inc. Securities Litigation, 288 F.R.D. at 316 (holding no breach in duty to preserve where documents allegedly relevant to a previous litigation were not retained). In Pfizer, this Court explained: I conclude that Pfizer's duty to preserve in this case arose in 2004, not in 2001. The 2001 lawsuit was a patent action related to the identification of the enzyme that led to the development of Celebrex and Bextra. As such, it raised different factual issues from the instant action and would not have given Pfizer reasonable notice of the foreseeability of this securities fraud litigation. Id. at 316. Similarly, in 2013, Ms. Giuffre had not even made her application to join the CVRA case, a case that raises different factual issues from the instant action, namely, whether the United States District Attorney for the Southern District of Florida failed to discharge its statutorily-mandated duty to Epstein’s victims upon entering into a plea agreement with Epstein. Ms. Giuffre’s supposed 2013 contemplation of the CVRA litigation against the government under an unfamiliar federal victims’ rights statute would not have given Ms. Giuffre (a non- lawyer who was not a party to that action) reasonable notice of the foreseeability of Ms. Maxwell defaming her on a global stage two years later. Cf Kraus v. Gen. Motors Corp., 03 Civ. 4467 (CM), 2007 WL 3146911, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2007) (McMahon, D.J.) (defendant was under no duty to preserve a car as evidence in products liability suit before complaint was filed 13