Back to Results

Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch6_p00235.png

Source: GIUFFRE_MAXWELL  •  Size: 295.6 KB  •  OCR Confidence: 95.1%
View Original Image

Extracted Text (OCR)

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 12 reference Barden’s “intent” (and other synonymous phrases) regarding his legal advice to Defendant at least 62 times. The Declaration also reveals attorney client legal advice given to Defendant, such as: “T did not ask Ms. Maxwell to respond point by point...what we needed to do was...” (...) Moreover, throughout (1) the Barden Declaration; (2) Defendant’s summary judgment briefing; and (3) Defendant’s attorney’s statements at oral argument heard on February 16, 2017, Defendant represented to this Court that Barden issued the defamatory statement to the press. Defendant repeatedly made that false statement despite the fact that the documents show that Defendant authorized the statement and gave express approval to her press agent to publish the press release — not Barden — with Barden nowhere to be found on any of these communications. Defendant persists with this false representation not only despite the documents that prove otherwise, but also despite the fact that Defendant’s press agent’s sworn testimony states otherwise. Ross Gow testified that Defendant authorized the statement, “command[ed]” him to release it, and that Barden was wholly out of the loop during the lead up to Defendant’s decision to publish her defamatory statement. Gow’s testimony is backed up by the email communications among Defendant and Gow. Yet, despite both documentary and testimonial evidence that Barden did not issue the defamatory statement to the press, Defendant persists in making these representations to the Court. By submitting Barden’s declaration, Defendant has clearly waived the privilege. As the Court will recall, Defendant has claimed a privilege in this litigation as to all email communications between herself and Barden, claiming attorney-client privilege, a privilege that this Court explicitly upheld. See DE 135 March 2, 2016 Opinion Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Motion to Compel for Improper Claim of Privilege.

Document Preview

Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch6_p00235.png

Click to view full size

Document Details

Filename Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch6_p00235.png
File Size 295.6 KB
OCR Confidence 95.1%
Has Readable Text Yes
Text Length 2,032 characters
Indexed 2026-02-04 12:46:24.248372