Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 115-cv-07433 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)/1256-20.pdf

Exhibit 3 (File Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1256-20 Filed 05/03/22 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------X VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. 15-cv-07433-RWS --------------------------------------------------X DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SUBJECT TO IMPROPER OBJECTIONS Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN, AND FOREMAN, P.C. East 10 th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 303.831.7364 ............................................... Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 45 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 17 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1256-20 Filed 05/03/22 Page 2 of 18 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 3 I. PLAINTIFF’S CHOSEN RELEVANT PERIOD FOR DISCOVERY IS GROSSLY OVERBROAD AND NOT REASONABLY RELATED TO HER CLAIM ........................ 3 II. MS. MAXWELL’S SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS ARE PROPER ............................................ 4 III. EACH OF MS. MAXWELL’S OBJECTIONS IS APPROPRIATE ..................................... 6 IV. PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO CONFER WITH MS. MAXWELL PRIOR TO FILING HER MOTIONS TO COMPEL IS DISPOSITIVE ............................................................. 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 45 Filed 03/07/16 Page 2 of 17 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1256-20 Filed 05/03/22 Page 3 of 18 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Avante Int’l Tech., Inc. v. Hart Intercivic, Inc., No. CIV. 07-169-DRH, 2008 WL 2074093 ........ 5 Cotracom Commodity Trading Co. v. Seaboard Corp., 189 F.R.D. 655, 665 (D. Kan. 1999) ...... 5 Estee Lauder, Inc. v. Fragrance Counter, Inc., 189 F.R.D. 269, 273-74 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) ........... 2 Gomez v. Martin Marietta Corp., 50 F.3d 1511, 1520 (10th Cir.1995) ......................................... 2 Hardrick v. Legal Services Corp., 96 F.R.D. 617, 618 (D.D.C.1983) ........................................... 2 In re Urethane Antitrust Litig., No. 04-MD-1616-JWL-DJW, 2008 WL 110896 ......................... 5 McGee v. Hayes, 43 Fed.Appx. 214, 217 (10th Cir. 2002) ............................................................ 2 Meeker v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., No. 14-CV-02101-WYD- NYW, 2015 WL 4400533 .............. 4 Parsons v. Jefferson-Pilot Corp., 141 F.R.D. 408, 412 (M.D.N.C. 1992) ..................................... 5 Piacenti v. Gen. Motors Corp., 173 F.R.D. 221, 223 (N.D.I11.1997) ........................................... 3 Roda Drilling Co. v. Siegal, No. 07-CV-400-GFK-FHM, 2008 WL 2234652 .............................. 5 Tottenham v. Trans World Gaming Corp., No. 00 Civ. 7697 (WK), 2002 WL 1967023 .............. 2 Zenith Electronics Corp. v. Exzec, Inc., No. 93 C 041, 1998 WL 9181 ......................................... 3 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 45 Filed 03/07/16 Page 3 of 17 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1256-20 Filed 05/03/22 Page 4 of 18 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Plaintiff initiated this action purportedly in reaction to statements attributed to Ghislane Maxwell on January 3, and 4, 2015. The first of the two statements, according to Plaintiff’s complaint, was issued by Ross Gow in the United Kingdom. The second was made by Ms. Maxwell in New York when she was accosted by reporters on the street. Both statements were brief, contained no factual content, and can best be described as general denials of allegations made by Plaintiff against Ms. Maxwell, to wit, that Ms. Maxwell “assisted” and participated in sexual abuse of the Plaintiff between 1999 and 2002. Plaintiff does not claim that any sexual abuse occurred after 2002 or that she had any contact with Ms. Maxwell after 2002. Indeed, according to Plaintiff, in 2002 she relocated, first to Thailand and then to Australia, where she married and started a family. Given that she has been thousands of miles away from the United States for more than a decade it is unlikely that Plaintiff has any personal knowledge about events involving Jeffrey Epstein after she left the country and broke off all contact with both Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. It would seem, then, that this lawsuit presents one relatively simple question: is Plaintiff’s claim that she was sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein between 1999 and 2002 “with the assistance and participation of” Ms. Maxwell true? Discovery that might be relevant to this relatively simple question could, theoretically, include the names of people that observed the Plaintiff from 1999 to 2002; records establishing the Plaintiff’s whereabouts between 1999 and 2002; communications about the Plaintiff from 1 Ms. Maxwell previously submitted a joint response (Doc. #42) to Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel in which she argues that Plaintiff’s failure to confer prior to filing her motions is, alone, grounds for this Court to deny her Motions. If the Court is inclined, however, to decide Plaintiff’s Motions on the merits, Ms. Maxwell hereby submits a response to the merits of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents Subject to Improper Objections. This response is timely to Plaintiff’s Motion, filed electronically on February 26, 2016. Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 45 Filed 03/07/16 Page 4 of 17 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1256-20 Filed 05/03/22 Page 5 of 18 2 1999 to 2002; and where Ms. Maxwell was located in relation to the Plaintiff during this time frame. Plaintiff, however, does not seem to be interested in her claim. Rather, Plaintiff’s pleadings are filled with other, more newsworthy and salacious allegations about which Plaintiff has no personal knowledge. And, because her core claim has no merit, Plaintiff like a remora, has repeatedly attempted to attach herself to these events that purportedly occurred while she was on another continent raising a family. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides, in relevant part, that "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party ....” Although the scope of discovery is deliberately broad, a Court is not "required to permit plaintiff to engage in a `fishing expedition' in the hope of supporting his claim." McGee v. Hayes, 43 Fed.Appx. 214, 217 (10th Cir. 2002) (unpublished opinion); see Tottenham v. Trans World Gaming Corp., No. 00 Civ. 7697 (WK), 2002 WL 1967023, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 21, 2002) ("Discovery, however, is not intended to be a fishing expedition, but rather is meant to allow the parties to flesh out allegations for which they initially have at least a modicum of objective support") (quotations omitted); Hardrick v. Legal Services Corp., 96 F.R.D. 617, 618 (D.D.C.1983) (courts should remain concerned about "fishing expeditions, discovery abuse and inordinate expense involved in overbroad and far-ranging discovery requests") (quotation omitted). "[B]road discovery is not without limits and the trial court is given wide discretion in balancing the needs and rights of both plaintiff and defendant." Gomez v. Martin Marietta Corp., 50 F.3d 1511, 1520 (10th Cir.1995) (quotation omitted); see also Estee Lauder, Inc. v. Fragrance Counter, Inc., 189 F.R.D. 269, 273-74 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (J. Sweet) (“[W]hile discovery rules are broad, they do not permit discovery of matters that are [not] relevant to the Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 45 Filed 03/07/16 Page 5 of 17 Case 1