Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch6_p00068.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 21 claim you finished being sexually trafficked, correct?” A. “Yes.” Jd. at 206:16-22). Even if Ms. Giuffre contemplated any litigation having anything to do whatsoever with what was in that journal, she had no notice of any duty to preserve notes she had written as a healing exercise. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion fails for this reason as well. D. Defendant Cannot Show That the Journal Was Favorable to Her Ms. Giuffre did not act willfully (or even negligently in 2013) when she burned some memories she wrote down as a healing exercise from her childhood sexual abuse, an exercise undertaken long before becoming at all involved in any litigation, and long before Defendant defamed her. However, even if we assume that Ms. Giuffre was negligent (which she wasn’t), Defendant is only entitled to pursue relief if the materials destroyed were favorable to her case. Defendant cannot come close to meeting that burden. “Tf the spoliating party has acted only negligently, the moving party can satisfy the final requirement of the spoliation analysis if it can show that the lost materials were relevant.” Jn re Pfizer Inc. Securities Litigation, 288 F.R.D. 297, 315 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (denying sanctions). “{T]he Court of Appeals has held that for the destroyed evidence to be ‘relevant’ it must be ‘more than sufficiently probative to satisfy Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.’” Jd. A «ee party may establish relevance by “‘adduc[ing] sufficient evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could infer that ‘the destroyed [or unavailable] evidence would have been of the nature alleged by the party affected by its destruction.’” Jd. Put more succinctly, a plaintiff must present extrinsic evidence that tends to show that the destroyed documents would have been favorable to her case. See Cedar Petrochemicals, Inc. v. Dongbu Chem. Co., 769 F. Supp. 2d 269, 292 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (denying sanctions). Indeed, “relevance requires a showing beyond > The Pfizer Court applies a negligence standard which is applicable to the documents at issue here, should this Court find that any duty attaches, which it does not, as explained above. 9