Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch6_p00287.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-27 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 11 2015 statement prepared on her behalf by Mr. Barden and issued on her behalf by Mr. Gow at Mr. Barden’s direction. ARGUMENT Plaintiff is entitled to no discovery of Mr. Barden’s work product or Ms. Maxwell’s attorney-client communications. A. Plaintiff has violated every rule governing motions to compel, including the one requiring the existence of an unsatisfied request for production. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) provides that any motion to compel must be accompanied by a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred with the “party failing to make... discovery” (emphasis supplied). Rule 37(a)(3) provides that “[a] party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling ... production... if...a party fails to produce documents . . . as requested under Rule 34” (emphasis supplied). Local Civil Rule 37.1 provides that in any motion brought under Rule 37, including a motion to compel, “the moving party shall specify and quote or set forth verbatim in the motion papers each discovery request and response to which the motion . . . is addressed” (emphasis supplied). Plaintiff failed to comply with any of these rules. On the last page of the motion plaintiff counsel certifies she “raised” “the failure to produce issue [sic]” when she ““oppos[ed]” Ms. Maxwell’s summary judgment and when she presented “oral argument” on summary judgment. Mot. 12 (emphasis supplied). That is not a Rule 37(a)(1) certification. Plaintiff's counsel fails to certify she (a) “in good faith” (b) “conferred” with the defense. Instead, she certifies she (a) “raised” (b) an “issue.” The failure to comply with Rule 37(a)(1) warrants denial of the motion. Dorchester Fin. Holdings Corp. v. Banco BRJ, S.A., 11-CV-1529 KMW KNF, 2014 WL 3747160, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2014). 6