Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch7_p00092.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-3 Filed 01/08/24 Page 7 of 21 salacious, defamatory allegations of criminal sexual abuse during the period 1999-2002. Summary Judgment Motion at 35; e Second, Mr. Barden intended the January 2015 statement to be “‘a shot across the bow” of the media, which he believed had been unduly eager to publish plaintiff's allegations without conducting any inquiry of their own. This was the purpose of repeatedly stating that plaintiffs allegations were “defamatory.” The statement was intended as a cease and desist letter to the media-recipients, letting the media-recipients understand the seriousness with which Ms. Maxwell considered the publication of plaintiff’s obviously false allegations and the legal indefensibility of their own conduct. Summary Judgment Motion at 35-36; and e At the time Mr. Barden directed the issuance of the statement, he was contemplating litigation against the media-recipients as an additional means to mitigate and prevent harm to Ms. Maxwell. Toward this end, he prepared the statement so that it made clear Ms. Maxwell “strongly denie[d] the allegations of an unsavoury nature,” declared the republications of the allegations to be false, gave the press-recipients notice that the republications of the allegations “are defamatory,” and informed them that Ms. Maxwell was “reserv[ing] her right to seek redress.” Summary Judgment Motion at 35-36. Based on Defendant’s disclosures, both in the Barden Declaration and in Defendant’s Summary Judgment papers, Ms. Giuffre is entitled to have the Court compel production of communications and documents related to these disclosures. Some of those documents are specifically identified in the privilege logs prepared by Defendant, while Defendant has withheld other documents and communications. Defendant provides no good reason why she should not be compelled to produce that information, along with her attorney for a deposition. Accordingly, the motion to compel should be granted. ARGUMENT I. DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE RESPONSIVE DISCOVERY MATERIALS BASED ON ASSERTIONS OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. In her motion, Ms. Giuffre explained that she sought production of communications between Defendant and her attorney, Philip Barden, which “Defendant listed on her privilege log.” Plaintiff's Motion to Compel All Work Product and Attorney Client Communications with Philip Barden at 2 (hereinafter “Mot.”). Ms. Giuffre also sought deposition on these