Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch7_p00023.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-1 Filed 01/08/24 Page 22 of 42 control is contested, the party seeking production of documents bears the burden of establishing the opposing party's control over those documents.” Alexander Interactive, Inc. v. Adorama, Inc., No. 12 CIV. 6608 (PKC) (JCF), 2014 WL 61472, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2014). Plaintiff has made no showing that Ms. Maxwell has any control over the hypothetical documents she suspects may be on Mr. Epstein’s private server. As has been made clear by Mr. Epstein’s refusal to produce any documents in this matter or provide any testimony, instead invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege, there is no manner in which Ms. Maxwell could require Mr. Epstein to provide any information on Mr. Epstein’s private server. Notably, no such “messages” were located on any of Ms. Maxwell’s devices or within her email accounts. Simply put, there are no emails from any accounts, systems or electronic storage devices over which Ms. Maxwell has possession, custody or control that have not been searched and from which responsive non-privileged documents produced. Il. SANCTIONS AGAINST MS. MAXWELL NOT WARRANTED, RATHER COSTS OUGHT TO BE AWARDED TO HER Plaintiff completely fails to identify which, if any, of the Rules of Civil Procedure she relies on to claim any right to request sanctions, let alone to receive an adverse inference instruction. The argument appears premised on a claim that Ms. Maxwell has not complied with the Court’s Order — a completely inaccurate claim: On June 20, 2016, this Court ordered: Defendant is ordered to collect all ESI by imaging her computers and collecting all email and text messages on any devices in Defendant's possession or to which she has access that Defendant used between the period of 2002 to present. Defendant is further directed to run mutually- agreed upon search terms related to Plaintiff's requests for production over the aforementioned ESI and produce responsive documents within 21 days of distribution of this opinion. This was done. Plaintiff then expanded her request, imposed additional search terms, and added conditions concerning the manner in which she wanted devices searched. On August 9, 7