Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch7_p00039.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-1 Filed 01/08/24 Page 38 of 42 starting in 1999, in contravention of this Court’s Order (DE 352). This behavior, combined with all of the previous refusals to search for and produce documents (which, after litigation, resulted in this Court’s Order to Defendant to search for and produce documents), is sufficient grounds for this Court to give an adverse inference instruction under prevailing case law, as detailed in the moving brief. At some point, Defendant should be held accountable for her gamesmanship. Ms. Giuffre respectfully submits that time is now.’ The Court should deliver to the jury an adverse inference instruction.° Il. MS. GIUFFRE MADE EFFORTS TO CONFER THAT WERE DISREGARDED BY DEFENDANT Rather than explain why she has failed to produce all relevant emails, Defendant spends much of her opposition suggesting to the Court — quite incorrectly — that Ms. Giuffre did not try to confer with Defendant on this discovery issue. But the only failure to confer here is on the part of Defendant. As explained in the moving brief, Ms. Giuffre sent a letter to Defendant conferring on this very issue. Defendant wholly failed to respond to this letter. Sadly, this is not an isolated occurrence. Defendant has simply failed to respond to a number of conferral letters Ms. Giuffre’s counsel have sent. Indeed, as the Court is aware from previous filings (DE 290, July 18, 2016, Letter Response in opposition to Motion to Strike), Defendant has made a habit of ignoring Deposition Questions (DE 315), and Pending; Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Defendant’s Deposition (DE 466), Pending. > Defendant also has the temerity to seek attorneys’ fees and costs from Ms. Giuffre. Of course, for the reasons articulated here, that request is frivolous. ° Ms. Giuffre proposes the following instruction: Defendant had a duty to collect and produce relevant data from her email accounts from 1999 to the present. Defendant failed to collect and produce relevant emails from some of those accounts. You may consider that this evidence would have been unfavorable to Defendant on the issue of her defense that her alleged defamatory statements were true. 8