Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch7_p00094.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-3 Filed 01/08/24 Page 9 of 21 There are other requests to which Barden documents are responsive, including: ° Document Request No. 17: All documents relating to communications with you and Ross Gow from 2005-—Present; ° Document Request No. 36: All documents you rely upon to establish that (a) Giuffre’s sworn allegations “against Ghislaine Maxwell are untrue.”; (b) the allegations have been “shown to be untrue.” and (c) Giuffre’s “claims are obvious lies.”; ° Document Request No. 8: Produce any documents concerning any of Your, or Your attorneys or agent’s, communications with Jeffrey Epstein’s attorneys or agents from 1999 to the present relating to the issue of sexual abuse of females, or any documents concerning any of Your, Your attorneys or agent’s, communications with Jeffrey Epstein’s attorneys or agents from 1999 to the present relating to the recruitment of any female under the age of 18 for any purpose, including socializing or performing any type of work or services; and ° Document Request No. 12: Produce all documents concerning Virginia Giuffre (a/k/a Virginia Roberts), whether or not they reference her by name. This request includes, but is not limited to, all communications, diaries, journals, calendars, blog posts (whether published or not), notes (handwritten or not), memoranda, mobile phone agreements, wire transfer receipts, or any other document that concerns Plaintiff in any way, whether or not they reference her by name. Defendant is clearly withholding Barden documents that are responsive to Ms. Giuffre’s discovery requests. IL. MS. GIUFFRE HAS NOT FAILED TO CONFER. During discovery, rather than contend that there were no Barden documents responsive to these requests, Defendant asserted attorney-client privilege. Thus, this is not a case where a party has simply failed to make discovery — something that a simple conferral might resolve. Cf Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) (requiring certification of conferral with a party “failing to make disclosure’). Instead, this is a case in which Defendant has made a disclosure — i.e., a privilege log asserting privilege over various documents. While that assertion may have been appropriate earlier in this case, when during summary judgment briefing and argument Defendant reversed course and made Barden’s legal strategy, plans, advice, mental impressions, and work product the keystone