Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch7_p00265.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-11 Filed 01/08/24 Page 4 of 9 Communic ’ns Co. v. Comcast Cable Communic ’ns, LLC, Nos. 11-2684-, 11-2685- & 11-2686- JWL, 2015WL11122119, at 1 (D. Kan. Apr. 21, 2015). The Motion to Compel is an example of an unnecessary motion and part of the “chaos” this Court described as characterizing this case. It resulted, yet again, from a disregard of the tules and practices of this Court intended to effectuate Rule 1 and minimize the parties’ use of judicial resources. The need to enforce the rules—to prevent the plaintiff from treating them as merely advisory and to bring some order to the chaos of this case—is a good and sufficient ground to deny the Motion to Compel. Il. PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENT THAT MS. MAXWELL HAS WAIVED HER ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE IS STILL FRIVOLOUS. As we demonstrated in our response, it was frivolous to argue that Ms. Maxwell waived her attorney-client privilege because her lawyer submitted a declaration saying: (a) he was not authorized to and was not waiving her attorney-client privilege; and (b) in preparing the January 2015 statement he did “not” ask Ms. Maxwell to respond point by point to plaintiff's allegations in the CVRA joinder motion.” In short, a lawyer cannot waive the attorney-client privilege— which belongs to the client—by saying he did not communicate with his client. To argue otherwise is fatuous. To try to improve on her argument, plaintiff argues on pages 2-3 of her reply there are four additional statements! in the Barden declaration that effected a waiver of the privilege because Ms. Maxwell “plac[ed] communications with her attorney at issue” (capitalization altered): ‘In the Motion to Compel, she said she was providing one example. In her reply, she says these four additional statements also are “example[s].” Plf’s Reply 1. We suggest the Court should read these statements by the plaintiff the way we do: “This is the best we can do to identify instances of alleged waiver.”