Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch7_p00024.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-1 Filed 01/08/24 Page 23 of 42 2016, the Court entered an Order adopting Plaintiff's expanded request and methodology. All accessible email accounts and devices, including deleted files and emails, were searched — again — at significant expense. Again, no additional non-privileged responsive documents were located. There is no non-compliance and no basis for any sanctions, let alone the draconian sanction of an adverse inference. a. Plaintiff Fails to Identify or Prove the Factors Required for Sanctions Based on Alleged Violation of a Court Order Absent from Plaintiff's motion is the actual legal standard required for imposition of sanctions, and certainly no argument or citation exist in this case to carry the burden of establishing the factors. In light of the fact that Ms. Maxwell has complied, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the minimum hurdle for any sanction. Thus, the factors are not addressed here, nor can they be addressed on Reply. What is clear is that the sanction of an adverse inference is not identified as a sanction that should or could be considered under the rules concerning the failure to comply with a Court Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). b. Controlling Law Prohibits an Adverse Inference Instruction An adverse inference instruction is considered an “extreme sanction” that “should not be given lightly.” Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 220 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). More importantly Plaintiff completely ignores the 2015 changes to Fed. R. Civ. P 37(e)(2), which now permits an adverse inference instruction only when the court finds that a spoliating party purposefully and willfully destroys evidence and that party “acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information's use in the litigation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2). The new Rule 37 “rejects cases such as Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306 F.3d 99