Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch6_p00065.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 21 The key fact is that Defendant fails to offer any explanation whatsoever for her delay in bringing this motion. Therefore, this Court should reject Defendant’s motion as untimely. See Gutman v. Klein, 2010 WL 4916722, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2010) (denying sanctions motion, in part, as untimely). B. There Was No Duty to Preserve The Journal Because There Was No Pending or Reasonably Foreseeable Litigation to Which Ms. Giuffre Was a Party Turning to the merits of Defendant’s motion, Ms. Giuffre could not have violated any duty to preserve her journal because no such duty existed. “Spoliation is the destruction or significant alteration of evidence, or the failure to preserve property for another's use as evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation.” Kraus v. General Motors Corp., 2007 WL 3146911, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2007) (denying sanctions). Defendant fails to meet her burden because when Ms. Giuffre burned her journal in 2013, this litigation (filed in 2015) was not “pending.” Nor was this litigation “reasonably foreseeable.” In 2013, Ms. Giuffre had no way of foreseeing that, two years later in 2015, the Defendant would maliciously defame her. Defendant’s motion should be denied on this ground alone. Attempting to manufacture such a duty, Defendant points to the fact that in 2013, Ms. Giuffre was considering joining the CVRA case in Florida. It is also important to understand the context of that case. As the Court will recall from earlier briefing, in 2008, two child sexual abuse victims of Jeffrey Epstein brought suit against the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. The cause of action was premised upon the U.S. Attorney Office’s failure to timely notify Epstein’s victims of Epstein’s non-prosecution agreement, as required under 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a). Six years after the lawsuit’s inception, on December 30, 2014, Ms. Giuffre filed a motion to join the CVRA Privilege (DE 33) (granted in part), and Defendant’s Motion to Compel for Improper Claim of Privilege (DE 155) (denied).