Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch6_p00283.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-27 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 11 attorney work product. Nor did plaintiff's interrogatories and requests for admissions propounded on May 27, 2016. On January 6, 2017, Mr. Barden submitted a declaration in support of Ms. Maxwell’s motion for summary judgment. In the declaration, he stated, “I am not authorised to and do not waive Ms. Maxwell’s attorney-client privilege.” Doc.542-7, Ex.K § 3. Mr. Barden did not reference any communications with his client Ms. Maxwell, let alone disclose any attorney-client communications. See generally id., Ex.K. He did disclose his intent and strategy underlying his preparation of the statement he caused to be transmitted January 2, 2015, via press agent Ross Gow to various journalists. See id., Ex.K J 12-24, 26-30. PLAINTIFF’S FACTUAL ERRORS Plaintiff makes numerous factual errors in her motion’s factual “Background.” 1. Plaintiff says Mr. Barden’s submission is “‘a post hoc, self-serving declaration.” Mot. 2. Of course every declaration submitted in this litigation by witnesses to events that took place in 2012-2015 by definition is post hoc. Since Mr. Barden is a third-party witness and not one of the parties, by definition his declaration is not “self-serving.” In any event, calling a declaration “self-serving” is a legal canard. There is nothing improper even for litigants suing for money, such as plaintiff, to submit “self-serving” declarations so long as they are truthful, and there is nothing improper about a court’s considering—and giving due weight—to “self-serving” testimony. See Lupyan v. Corinthian Colls., 761 F.3d 314, 321 n.2 (3d Cir. 2014) (“As with any other kind of evidence, the declarant’s interest in the outcome is merely one factor .. . to weigh in determining the reliability of the evidence. It is not a reason to automatically reject the evidence. Indeed, the testimony of a litigant will almost always be self serving since few litigants will knowingly volunteer statements that are prejudicial to their case. However that has never meant that a litigant’s evidence must be categorically rejected by the fact finder.”). 2