Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch7_p00017.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-1 Filed 01/08/24 Page 16 of 42 Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell (“Ms. Maxwell”) files this Response to Plaintiff's Motion To Compel Data From Defendant’s (Non-Existent) Undisclosed Email Account and For an Adverse Inference Instruction and states as follow: INTRODUCTION Plaintiff continues in her course of re-litigating issues, multiplying these proceedings and misstating the record. In what amounts to the fourth Motion on forensic examination of Ms. Maxwell’s computers and email accounts, Plaintiff now trumps up a claim that some unidentified and “undisclosed” email account should have been searched and was not. To the contrary, Ms. Maxwell has spent thousands of dollars to forensically image all of her devices, searching every account to which she has access, conducting extremely broad and over-reaching searches for the search terms Plaintiff requested and in complying with this Court’s Orders. The result of these exercises proved, as Ms. Maxwell has always maintained, that all non-privileged relevant and responsive documents in her possession, custody and control had already been searched for and produced prior to the excessive and redundant briefing on these issues, resulting in no additional production. Plaintiff's Motion must be denied because no “undisclosed” email account exists and Ms. Maxwell has fully complied with this Court’s Orders. ARGUMENT I. PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO CONFER UNDER RULE 37(A)(1) OR THIS COURT’S ORDER Despite the clear requirements of Rule 37(a)(1) requiring a certificate of conferral prior to filing any motion to compel, and this Court’s standing order regarding conferral on all discovery issues prior to Motions practice, the sum total of Plaintiff's stated conferral attempt is a footnote stating that a letter was sent on September 23, 2016 “inquiring about the undisclosed account” — a letter not included in the exhibits to the Motion. Ms. Maxwell has been clear that she has