Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch7_p00268.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-11 Filed 01/08/24 Page 7 of 9 not the absence of such a communication.” /d. at 25 (italics in original; underscoring supplied). Compare plaintiffs argument at page 9 of the reply that Mr. Barden waived the attorney-client privilege when he stated in his declaration, “J did not ask Ms. Maxwell to respond point by point . . .” (emphasis supplied). We cannot say this any better. So we incorporate herein by reference the cases and arguments at pages 9-14, 18-19 and 21-22 of Doc.184. Plaintiff's cases and argument are a resounding self-refutation of her own Motion to Compel. If no attorney-client communication was disclosed, then axiomatically the privileged communication was not used as a sword and the communication is not placed in issue. See, e.g., AIU Ins. Co. v. TIG Ins. Co., 2008 WL 5062030, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2008) (holding that “[t]he at-issue doctrine is construed narrowly” and requires proof of three elements, including that the privilege holder “put the protected information at issue by making it relevant to the case”) (emphasis supplied). Plaintiff also argues in passing that Ms. Maxwell waived the attorney-client privilege by “fail[ing] to properly log communications on her privilege log.” PIf’s Reply 12. This does not appear to be a serious argument. There was not even a whisper of this claim in the Motion to Compel. Regardless, the argument presupposes that oral communications between an attorney and his client must be included in a privilege log. That is not the law. That is why plaintiff herself has not logged all her oral communications with her attorneys. Additionally, plaintiff forgets we have produced email communications predating January 10, 2015, involving Mr. Barden, Mr. Gow and Ms. Maxwell. Indeed, plaintiff attached a number of such communications to her Motion to Compel. See Doc.638-4. I. PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO MR. BARDEN’S WORK PRODUCT. As noted in Argument I, above, the Motion to Compel failed to identify a single unsatisfied discovery request. Accordingly, in our response we argued that plaintiff could not “compel” production of Mr. Barden’s work product when she failed to identify an unsatisfied 6