Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch6_p00337.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-31 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 27 to discoverable evidence relevant to the Defamation Action. Ransome objects to this Request in that it represents a complete invasion of privacy. A non-party should not be subjected to undue harassment serving no admissible purpose. Ransome objects to Defendant’s attempt to abuse subpoena power to seek private and confidential financial information or other confidential information of any kind from this non- party. Ransome further objects on the basis that the confidential and private financial records sought by Defendant relating to this non-party have no relevance to proving the allegations in the complaint, and are not discoverable. DeLeonardis v. Hara, 25 N.Y.S.3d 185, 185 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). 23. Any calendar, receipt, Communication or Document reflecting your whereabouts during the calendar years 2006-2007. RESPONSE: In addition to the Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Ransome objects to this request in that she is a non-party and this requests seeks information that is clearly not relevant to the underlying action. Ransome objects to Defendant being permitted to utilize the underlying action to obtain backdoor discovery into a separate action entirely unrelated to whether or not Maxwell defamed Virginia Roberts Giuffre. Ransome further objects to this request in that the face of the request demonstrates that the Defendant is abusing the subpoena power by serving a subpoena on a non-party that seeks discovery unrelated to the underlying matter, but instead allegedly relevant to another Federal Action styled JANE DOE 43 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, Lesley Groff, and Natalya Malyshev Case Number 1:17-cv-00616-JGK (S.D.N.Y.). Ransome objects to this Request as overbroad, harassing, and not calculated to lead to discoverable evidence relevant to the Defamation Action. Ransome objects to this Request in 20