Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch7_p00177.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-8 Filed 01/08/24 Page 22 of 27 that it represents a complete invasion of privacy. A non-party should not be subjected to undue harassment serving no admissible purpose. Without waiving such objections, all responsive electronic communications in non-party Sarah Ransome’s possession are attached hereto as RANSOME _000001-000015, which should be treated as Confidential pursuant to the parties’ Protective Order. 24. Any Documents reflecting Your medical, mental health or emergency care or other treatment for any eating disorder, malnourishment, kidney malfunction, emotional problems, psychological or psychiatric disorders, sexually transmitted diseases, and therapy records, and any prescriptions for any of the above categories. RESPONSE: In addition to the Preliminary Statement and General Objections, Ransome objects to this request in that she is a non-party and this requests seeks information that is clearly not relevant to the underlying action. Ransome objects to Defendant being permitted to utilize the underlying action to obtain backdoor discovery into a separate action entirely unrelated to whether or not Maxwell defamed Virginia Roberts Giuffre. Ransome further objects to this request in that the face of the request demonstrates that the Defendant is abusing the subpoena power by serving a subpoena on a non-party that seeks discovery unrelated to the underlying matter, but instead allegedly relevant to another Federal Action styled JANE DOE 43 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, Lesley Groff, and Natalya Malyshev Case Number 1:17-cv-00616-JGK (S.D.N.Y.). Ransome objects to this Request as overbroad, harassing, and not calculated to lead to discoverable evidence relevant to the Defamation Action. Ransome objects to this Request in that it represents a complete invasion of privacy. A non-party should not be subjected to undue harassment serving no admissible purpose. 25. Any Documents containing any Communications You have had with any law enforcement agency. RESPONSE: 21