gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1202.0_2.pdf

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202 Filed 01/27/21 Page 1 of 1 January 27, 2021 VIA ECF The Honorable Loretta A. Preska District Court Judge United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-7433-LAP Dear Judge Preska, Pursuant to the Court’s orders dated January 19 and January 26, 2021 (ECF No. 1193), Plaintiff files the documents ordered unsealed listed in Exhibit F to Defendant’s Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Objections to Unsealing Sealed Materials Related to Docket Entries 231, 279, 315, 320, and 335 (ECF No. 1167-2), as attachments hereto. Material subject to this Court’s January 26, 2021, order remains redacted. ECF No. 1193. Sincerely, /s/ Sigrid McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF)  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-1 Filed 01/27/21 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------X ............................................. VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, v. 15-cv-07433-RWS GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. --------------------------------------------------X DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSION REGARDING “SEARCH TERMS” AND NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER CONCERNING FORENSIC EXAMINATION OF DEVICES Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca HADDON, MORGAN, AND FOREMAN, P.C. East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 303.831.7364 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-1 Filed 01/27/21 Page 2 of 11  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-1 Filed 01/27/21 Page 3 of 11  documents relating otherwise to Plaintiff including her hospital records (RFP 25), passport (RFP 26), monetary payments made to her (RFP 27), her employment (RFP 28), and any person to whom she gave a massage (RFP 29). Ms. Maxwell conducted a thorough search of her email systems and her devices prior to her production on February 8, 2016. All documents identified as responsive were reviewed by counsel and either produced or placed on a privilege log. The First Responses were the subject of litigation in March and April 2016. This Court limited the scope of a number of the requests (see Transcript of March 17, 2016 and Order of April 15, 2016 (Doc. # 098), and Ms. Maxwell later produced, pursuant to this Court’s Order, documents that originally had been withheld pursuant to privilege. As of April 18, Ms. Maxwell’s production of documents responsive to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents was complete. Plaintiff served a Second set of Requests for Production on April 14. Those Requests primarily concerned police reports about Plaintiff’s various contacts with law enforcement and how the defense was able to obtain those publicly-available documents (RFP’s 1-5, 19). The Second Requests also sought:  Joint Defense Agreements with Mr. Epstein and Mr. Dershowitz (RFPs 6, 7, 9 and 10) and communications with Mr. Dershowitz’s counsel (RFP 11);  “all documents concerning Virginia Giuffre” (RFP 12);  any contracts with or agreement for legal fees to be paid by Epstein (RFP 13-15);  documents concerning public statements made by Ms. Maxwell (RFP 17-18). Again, Ms. Maxwell and her counsel conducted a thorough search and produced any responsive non-privileged documents. To date, Ms. Maxwell has produced 1,130 pages of documents. Litigation concerning whether the searches conducted were thorough enough then ensued leading to the instant submission. 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-1 Filed 01/27/21 Page 4 of 11  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-1 Filed 01/27/21 Page 5 of 11 searched yet there is no RFP related to those names, nor the vast majority of the other listed first and surnames.1 By correspondence of July 14, Ms. Maxwell’s counsel specifically identified the problematic terms, agreed to a limited list, and requested a substantive conferral call on this issue. See Menninger Decl., Ex. B. In that correspondence, Defendant’s counsel gave specific reasons for the objection to a number of the terms that were problematic in that they called for the search of common words, names or phrases that would likely result pulling documents completely unrelated to this case. Id. Counsel also suggested proposed limiting terms with respect to names of individuals to appropriately limit the scope and target the search. Id. (suggesting limitations on searches of names to “make some effort to match them to actual people who have some relationship to this case (like first name /3 last name or some parts thereof)”). After explaining the appropriate and well-reasoned objections to certain terms, defense Counsel agreed to search over 110 of Plaintiff’s proposed search terms, despite the fact that many of those terms were objectionable. Id. (“Although many of your other search terms are a 1 On or about June 27, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel Bradley Edwards and Defendant’s counsel Jeffery Pagliuca held a telephone meet and confer conference on a number of issues. Among the issues raised by Mr. Pagliuca was the overbreadth of the proposed search terms. The discussion was left that Mr. Edwards would talk with Plaintiff’s team of lawyers to narrow the scope, as Mr. Pagliuca understood it. Thus, contrary to the representation in the Motion, Ms. Maxwell’s counsel did inform Plaintiff’s counsel of their disagreement with the proposed search terms. As well, Mr. Pagliuca informed Mr. Edwards that because he, Laura Menninger and Ms. Maxwell were all traveling on vacations in the weeks before and after the 4th of July holiday, that they would need additional time to comply with the Court’s Order and provide the production. Mr. Pagliuca and Mr. Edwards agreed that productions would be made prior to Ms. Maxwell’s second deposition, scheduled by agreement on July 22, 2016. Based on this discussion, defense counsel was blindsided when they received the Motion for Sanctions, anticipating that they would soon be receiving a substantially limited and modified list of proposed search terms to permit search and production prior to the July 22 deposition. In the interim, all of Ms. Maxwell’s electronic devices had been sent for imaging. Defense counsel corresponded with Plaintiff’s counsel upon receipt of the Motion for Sanctions, requesting that it be withdrawn (without prejudice), pending completion of conferral on the search terms as required by this Court’s specific and general orders on conferral. It appears there was a miscommunication between Plaintiff’s own counsel on this issue, as well as between counsel for both of the parties; but, it was clearly just that – a miscommunication and misunderstanding on where things stood. 4 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-1 Filed 01/27/21 Page 6 of 11 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-1 Filed 01/27/21 Page 7 of 11  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-1 Filed 01/27/21 Page 8 of 11 with anyone that Plaintiff believed was or might be a witness, although no discovery requests called for such communications. Consequently, during the conferral call, Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to withdraw the vast majority of objectionable terms. She also agreed to supply a list of witnesses who she believes truly might in some way relate to “massages” and submit that to defense counsel. See Menninger Decl., Ex. D. Plaintiff thereafter provided an additional 66 terms, all names, which Plaintiff claims she has some reason to believe are “related to massages.” Menninger Decl. Ex. E. Ms. Maxwell does not believe that searching these terms is appropriate, because, for example, the names include a journalist (Vicky Ward), Mr. Epstein’s elderly secretary, and various business people that form part of Plaintiff’s false narrative regarding her “sex trafficking,” and searching for names in the absence of a topic (i.e., massages) is well-beyond the actual requests for production. Nevertheless, Ms. Maxwell did in fact run all of the names proposed by Plaintiff against the forensic images of Ms. Maxwell’s computers and her email accounts. The second search yielded 284 additional documents, each of which were reviewed individually by counsel for Ms. Maxwell. Menninger Decl. paragraph 8 and 9. Again, not a single responsive, non-privileged document was located; the vast majority of documents were pleadings from this case. The complete list of terms run against Ms. Maxwell’s electronic devices and email accounts as agreed to by the parties is attached. Menninger Decl., Ex. F. Compliance with the Court’s Order to run agreed to terms was completed by July 21, 2016, prior to Ms. Maxwell’s second deposition. 7 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-1 Filed 01/27/21 Page 9 of 11  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-1 Filed 01/27/21 Page 10 of 11 Ms. Maxwell hereby respectfully requests that: i. Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre’s Motion for an Adverse Inference Instruction Pursuant to Rule 37(b), (e) and (f), Fed. R. Civ. P., be stricken; ii. Ms. Maxwell be awarded the costs of engaging the forensic examiner. Dated: August 1, 2016. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Laura A. Menninger Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374) Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice) HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303.831.7364 Fax: 303.832.2628 [email protected] Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell 9  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-1 Filed 01/27/21 Page 11 of 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on August 1, 2016, I electronically served this Defendant’s Submission regarding “Search Terms” and Notice of Compliance with Court Order Concerning Forensic Examination of Computer Device via ECF on the following: Sigrid S. McCawley Paul G. Cassell Meredith Schultz 383 S. University Street BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP Salt Lake City, UT 84112 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 [email protected] Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 [email protected] [email protected] J. Stanley Pottinger Bradley J. Edwards 49 Twin Lakes Rd. FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, South Salem, NY 10590 FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. [email protected] 425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 [email protected] /s/ Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons 10 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-2 Filed 01/27/21 Page 1 of 10  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-2 Filed 01/27/21 Page 2 of 10 accounts.” II. APPLYING THE SEARCH TERMS Ms. Giuffre requested that Defendant apply the search terms in such a way that they would yield documents responsive to Ms. Giuffre’s requests and in such a way wherein responsive documents would not be “missed” as a result of Defendant’s behind-the-scenes maneuvering with the syntax of the search terms. Specifically, Ms. Giuffre requested: When applying the search terms, the search terms need to “hit” on documents even if the terms are embedded within other words. So, for example, the term “acuity” would yield a hit on the document, even if the word in the document is “acuityreputation.” To return a hit on those embedded terms, I request that you use “wildcards” to ensure that embedded terms are located. (Wildcard characters are used to expand word searches into pattern searches by “replacing” single or multiple characters.) Where there are a specific number of characters needed to be included, a single wildcard will achieve that purpose. For example, in some programs, ! is used for single character wildcards, and * is used for multiple character wildcards. For instance: (a) Single character wildcard example: a search for L!n! will return “long,” “link,” “lane,” “lone,” etc. (b) Multiple character wildcard example: a search for chil* will return “children,” “chill,” “chilling,” etc. (c) Mixed use of wildcards: a search for L!n* will return “lines,” “lining,” “linty,” etc. Accordingly, the below search terms are submitted with wildcard characters to be applied in the manner of the examples above. Please apply them as such with whatever characters is required by the software/platform that you will be using. Similarly, regarding how the terms are combined (AND or OR). OR should expand your results while AND will restrict result to only those which include all the terms. Additionally, I want to clarify that I would like all of the metadata to be searched in addition to the text of the documents. For example, if the search term is “acuity,” “hits” should include all the document that include the word “acuity” in their text OR in their metadata (this includes words in items such as email subjects, filenames, as well as any documents which include that word somewhere within their text). 2  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-2 Filed 01/27/21 Page 3 of 10 I also wanted to point out another special syntax with regard to proximity searching. This is a search that finds words within a specified distance from one another. On some software, this is represented as w/#, so a search for “meet w/2 greet” will return “meet and greet,” “greet and meet” and “meet and nicely greet.” Please apply accordingly. Additionally, for searches for people’s initials in the search terms, please use “exact matches,” “stand alone,” or “literal” terms (see, e.g., PA, AD, JE, GM). Finally, the search terms are not to be treated as case-sensitive, meaning that the terms should be searched according to their letters, regardless of whether they are represented in the list as containing upper case or lower case letters. Should the Court, again, order Defendant to run search terms over her data, Ms. Giuffre respectfully requests that the Court direct Defendant to employ the above methods in applying search terms. III. PROPOSED SEARCH TERMS Running search terms necessarily involves some trial-and-error and some negotiation among the parties. Typically, if a proposed term yields an enormous number of “hits,” and the first 50 randomly-chosen documents from different parts of the body of these hit are clearly unresponsive, the party running the term informs the party requesting the term of that fact and further discussions follows. For example, the requesting party might refine the term or eliminate the term entirely. A term can be refined by attaching another term to it or putting other limitations on the term. By the method proposed by Ms. Giuffre, no party’s search terms can yield an undue number of documents or an undue number of “false hits” for the other party to labor to review, since the search terms are crafted in a dynamic, “negotiated” fashion as describe above. Also, such a method, performed in good faith, does not necessitate motion practice or Court intervention. 33  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-2 Filed 01/27/21 Page 4 of 10 In this case, counsel for Defendant has not disclosed to counsel for Ms. Giuffre the number of hits yielded by the terms to which they object. It is unclear whether or not Defendant’s counsel has “run” the terms to which they object to see what sort of results are produced. Without taking that step, Defendant simply cannot put forth valid objections to Ms. Giuffre’s proposed terms. Many of Ms. Giuffre’s proposed search terms are derived from the names listed in Defendant’s Rule 26 disclosures and Plaintiff’s Rule 26 disclosures, who, under Rule 26, are “individual[s] likely to have discoverable information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i). Ms. Giuffre has previously agreed to winnow that group down by omitting their first names as search terms. Those changes are reflected in the terms listed below. Regarding Ms. Giuffre’s refinement of those terms - eliminating the first names derived from individuals in the Rule 26 Disclosures - Ms. Giuffre noted to Defendant’s counsel: “The vast majority of the surnames are fairly uncommon (e.g., “Kucukkoylu”), therefore, I assume from the outset that any “hits” they yield will relate to the individual, and be limited in number. For those surnames that are more common, or have other meanings (e.g., Grant, Hall), I have noted the full name [below in this email] for ease of reference. For those names, please use a reasonable, good-faith syntax to capture communications with those individuals -- for example: “Alex* w/50 Hall.” Sometimes that takes some trial-and-error – I’m happy to be of any assistance with regard to that process. Please let me know what your syntax you ended up using for those terms.” Ms. Giuffre’s proposal of such syntax limitations shows that Ms. Giuffre is not trying to bury Defendant in a document review, but, instead, trying with precision to obtain relevant and responsive documents. 44 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-2 Filed 01/27/21 Page 5 of 10 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-2 Filed 01/27/21 Page 6 of 10 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-2 Filed 01/27/21 Page 7 of 10  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-2 Filed 01/27/21 Page 8 of 10 term. IV. CONCLUSION Should this Court Order Defendant to run particular search terms, Ms. Giuffre respectfully requests that the Defendant be directed to run the terms set forth above, incorporating Ms. Giuffre’s previous instructions reiterated above so that relevant data is captured. However, it is Ms. Giuffre’s position that such a production - long after the close of fact discovery - would be untimely and prejudicial. Accordingly, based on Defendant’s systematic foot-dragging and obstructionism during the entire discovery period, and based on the prejudice to Ms. Giuffre concerning the late production, Ms. Giuffre respectfully requests that this Court, also, grant her motion for an adverse inference jury instruction pursuant to Rule 27(b), (e), and (f), with respect to the electronic documents and electronic communications Defendant failed to produce in defiance of this Court’s order. The time to negotiate search terms has long passed; this Court should not countenance Defendant profiting from her refusal to comply with her discovery obligations and from her refusal to obey this Court’s Order. Dated: August 1, 2016 Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011 David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 8  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-2 Filed 01/27/21 Page 9 of 10 Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 383 University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801) 585-52021 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation. 9  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-2 Filed 01/27/21 Page 10 of 10 I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 1st day of August, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: [email protected] [email protected] /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley 10  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-3 Filed 01/27/21 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------X .......................................... VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, v. 15-cv-07433-RWS GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. --------------------------------------------------X Declaration Of Laura A. Menninger In Support Of Defendant’s Submission Regarding “Search Terms” And Notice Of Compliance With Court Order Concerning Forensic Examination Of Computer Devices I, Laura A. Menninger, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed in the State of New York and admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. I am a member of the law firm Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C., counsel of record for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell (“Maxwell”) in this action. I respectfully submit this declaration in support of Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion To Reopen Plaintiff’s Deposition. 2. Attached as Exhibit A (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of correspondence from Meredith Schultz to me dated June 30, 2016. 3. Attached as Exhibit B (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of correspondence from me to Meredith Schultz dated July 14, 2016. 4. Attached as Exhibit C (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of correspondence from me to Meredith Schultz dated July 18, 2016. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-3 Filed 01/27/21 Page 2 of 4  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-3 Filed 01/27/21 Page 3 of 4 or other document transmissions or photography. Those devices did not contain any responsive documents. Dated: August 1, 2016 By: /s/ Laura A. Menninger Laura A. Menninger 3  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-3 Filed 01/27/21 Page 4 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on August 1, 2016, I electronically served this Declaration Of Laura A. MenningerIn Support Of Defendant’s Submission Regarding “Search Terms” And Notice Of ComplianceWith Court Order Concerning Forensic Examination Of Computer Devices via ECF on the following: Sigrid S. McCawley Paul G. Cassell Meredith Schultz 383 S. University Street BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP Salt Lake City, UT 84112 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 [email protected] Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 [email protected] [email protected] J. Stanley Pottinger Bradley J. Edwards 49 Twin Lakes Rd. FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, South Salem, NY 10590 FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. [email protected] 425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 [email protected] /s/ Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons 4 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-4 Filed 01/27/21 Page 1 of 13 EXHIBIT A Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-4 Filed 01/27/21 Page 2 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-4 Filed 01/27/21 Page 3 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-4 Filed 01/27/21 Page 4 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-4 Filed 01/27/21 Page 5 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-4 Filed 01/27/21 Page 6 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-4 Filed 01/27/21 Page 7 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-4 Filed 01/27/21 Page 8 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-4 Filed 01/27/21 Page 9 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-4 Filed 01/27/21 Page 10 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-4 Filed 01/27/21 Page 11 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-4 Filed 01/27/21 Page 12 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-4 Filed 01/27/21 Page 13 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-5 Filed 01/27/21 Page 1 of 4 EXHIBIT B  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-5 Filed 01/27/21 Page 2 of 4 From: Laura Menninger Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 2:35 PM To: Meredith Schultz Cc: Jeff Pagliuca; Sigrid S. McCawley - Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP ([email protected]); '[email protected]' ([email protected]) Subject: Giuffre - Conferral regarding search terms M eredith– Iam w ritingtoyou,incom pliancew iththeCourt’sO rder,tonegotiatethesearchterm sforthesearchofourclient’s electronicdevices.W hileJeffraisedm any oftheseissuesorally w ithBrad lastw eek,Iam includingthem inw rittenform sothattherecanbenodisputeaboutourposition. Idoobjecttothevastnum berofyour368 searchterm s.M ostarenottied toany R equestforP roductionservedonM s. M axw ell,northeCourt’sO rderslim itingthoserequests. T erram ar– S earchterm 49 is“ T erram ar.” W hilew earesearchingourclient’sterram arem ailaddressforotherw iseresponsive docum ents,thissearchterm w ould pullupthousandsofdocum entsrelated toherw orkforthatorganizationw hichare (a)non-responsiveand(b)irrelevanttothisaction.W ew illnotagreetothisstandalonesearchterm . W itnessN am es W ithregardtothesearchterm snum bered 124-341,insofarasIcantell,you havesim ply brokenapartthefirstand last nam esofevery w itnessincluded w ithinyourR ule26 disclosures.How ever,you neversubm itted aR FP seekingall com m unicationsbetw eenourclientand yourw itnesses.T herearesom eR FP sw hichidentify individualw itnessesw hose com m unicationsw ithourclientyou sought(e.g.,1 – Epstein,2,-P laintiff and Iw illincludethosenam esw ithinoursearches. Astoothernam esincluded onthelist,m any areincredibly com m onnam es w hichyou areaskingtosearchasstandaloneterm s,i.e.,divorced from theaccom panyingsurnam esorfirstnam es.You haveincludedthenam e“ m ax*” w ellaw arethatourclient’ssurnam e,and thatofallofherpaternalfam ily m em bers, w illbeginw iththosethreeletterstogether.Yoursearchterm sthusarelikely toyield every singleem ailsentorreceived by ourclient,orherfam ily m em bers,orany otherdocum entinherpossessionw ithherow nnam eonthedocum entor inthem etadata,inotherw ordshundredsofthousandsofnon-responsivedocum ents.Yoursearchterm sinclude“ and thusarelikely toincludeevery billthatourclienthasreceivedorsentordiscussed.Yoursearchterm sinclude w hothecourthasalready ruledm aintainsanattorney-clientrelationshipw ithourclient(and totheextent othersarecopiedonhisem ails,thosew ould becaptured by searchesfortheotherpeople’snam es). thoughheisnotonany w itnesslistorinany R FP . Insum ,Iw illnotagreetothesearchterm sregardingw itnessnam esnum bered124-341 unlessyou (a)providem ew ith anactualR FP tow hichthey eachrelate,and (b)m akesom eefforttom atchthem toactualpeoplew hohavesom e relationshiptothiscase(likefirstnam e/3 lastnam eorsom epartsthereof). L aw yerN am es W hatisyourbasisforsearchterm snum bered366-368:M cCaw ley,S chultzand Boies? L ikew isetotheextentM r. Edw ardsand Cassellarealsoincluded inthew itnesslist,w hatisyourbasisforsearchingfordocum entsreferencing them ? T hesesearchterm sseem ed designed topullprivileged attorney-clientcom m unicationsand donotcorrespond to any R FP .W ew illnotagreetotheseterm s. 1  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-5 Filed 01/27/21 Page 3 of 4 Com m onW ords You haveincludedanum berofw ordsthatrelatetocom m onitem sand placenam es.P leaseexplainw hichR FP allow s forasearchofthefollow ingterm s: 50 – S outhernDistrict(w hichw illpullupevery attorney-clientcom m unicationthatreferstoourcaseand includesany pleading) 51 – P alm Beach(aplaceourclientlived form any years) 64 – N ew M exico 66-72 – U S VIby variousnam es 113 – hospital 114 – 116 – hotel,suite,villa(every singletravelrecord relatedtoourclient’stravelw hichtheCourthasnotordered) 119 – 120 – P aris,France 121 – 122 – Zoro,R anch 360 – Bed 361 – Bath 365 -L ingerie O therW ords M any otherw ordshavenorelationshiptothiscase.P leaseadvisem easto(a)w hichR FP they correspond toand (b) yourgoodfaithbasisforseekingthesesearchterm sinrelationtoany suchR FP : 93 – Abernathy 94 – Brillo 355 – Guggenheim 358 -Gerbil Conferral Althoughm any ofyourothersearchterm sareatrem endousstretch,Icanagreetothem intheinterestofgettingthe searchdoneonatim ely basis.Accordingtoourforensicexpert,runningasearchonM s.M axw ell’sdevicesofall368 term sw illtakem orethanaw eek.Iam availableby telephonetoday andtom orrow todiscusstheissuesraised herein.If Idonothearfrom you,Iw illpresum ethatyou areinagreem enttotherem ainderoftheterm sbeingrunonthedevices. T hatshould allow aproductionofdocum entsintim eforM s.M axw ell’scontinued depositionnextw eek. Iam intentionally nottakingapositionregardingtheotherdem andsyou provided inyourletterofJune30 atpages1-2. T hesearchesw illbeconducted inaccordancew ithstandard practicesintheindustry andtheCourtorderedusto negotiatesearchterm sonly. -Laura L auraA .M enninger Haddon,M organand Forem an,P .C. 150 East10thA venue Denver,Colorado80203 M ain303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 lm enninger@ hm flaw .com w w w .hm flaw .com CO N FIDEN T IAL IT Y N O T ICE:T hise-m ailtransm ission,and any docum ents,filesorpreviouse-m ailm essages attached toitm ay containinform ationthatisconfidentialorlegally privileged.Ifyou arenottheintended 2  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-5 Filed 01/27/21 Page 4 of 4 recipient,orapersonresponsiblefordeliveringittotheintended recipient,you arehereby notifiedthatyou m ustnotread thistransm issionand thatany disclosure,copying,printing,distributionoruseofany ofthe inform ationcontained inorattached tothistransm issionisS T R ICT L Y P R O HIBIT ED.Ifyou havereceived this transm issioninerror,pleasenotify thesenderby telephoneorreturne-m ailand deletetheoriginal transm issionand itsattachm entsw ithoutreadingorsavingitinany m anner.T hankyou. 3 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-6 Filed 01/27/21 Page 1 of 5 EXHIBIT C  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-6 Filed 01/27/21 Page 2 of 5 From: Laura Menninger Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 2:27 PM To: 'Meredith Schultz' Cc: Jeff Pagliuca; 'Sigrid S. McCawley - Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP ([email protected])'; ''[email protected]' ([email protected])' Subject: RE: Giuffre - Conferral regarding search terms DearM eredith, Iam inreceiptofyouroppositiontotheL etterM otiontoS trikeyourM otionforanAdverseInference.T he representationsintheR esponseareperplexing,particularly inlightofthebelow em ailcom m unicationinw hichI specifically 1)inform edyou ofthesearchterm sthatw ew ould runderived from yourlist,and2)specifically requested a telephoneconferenceontheissueofsearchterm spursuanttotheCourt’sO rderand priortoany suchsearch. YourrepresentationtotheCourtthatw earerunning“ secretsearchterm sunilaterally chosenby Defendant” issim ply inaccurate.Asclearly setforthinthebelow em ailcom m unication,inordertom oveproductionforw ard,w einvited discussionregardingourplantorunasubsetofthesearchterm sthatyou selected.T heitem sexcluded from thesearch w erethoseterm syou proposedthatw ereunattached toany discovery request,orw ould resultintheselection irrelevantdocum entsduetothecom m onality oftheterm ortheirirrelevancetothiscase,suchasT erraM ar.T heterm s runarenot“ secret” and notselected by thedefense– they are“ therem ainderoftheterm s” notspecifically discussed inthebelow em ail.Foravoidanceofdoubt,itisyourproposed list,excluding item s49,50,51,64,66-72,93-94,113, 114-116,119-120,121-122,124-341,355,358,360,361,and 365,366-368. S econd,and againcontrary totherepresentationinyourR esponse,Ispecifically requested atim eforatelephone conferraltodiscussthesearchterm s.S pecifically,Istated “ I am available by telephone today and tomorrow to discuss the issues raised herein.” Despitethisclearrequestforacalliftherew ereissuesyou w ishedtodiscuss,orifyou had specificR FP ’stow hichtheexcluded term srelated,Iheard nothingfrom you onT hursday afternoonorFriday toseta tim etodiscusstheterm sortheissuesraised regardingoverbreadth.Assuch,w eproceeded processingyourlistw ith theexceptionssetforth. Iw illreiteratem y offertosetacalltodiscusstheexcluded term stodeterm ineifthereareagreeableadditions.Inlight ofthedepositionscheduled forFriday and thetim eittakestorunsearches,any callw ould needtobesetpriortonoon M T tom orrow .P leaseadvise,onew ay ortheother,ifyou aresatisfiedw iththelistorifyou w ould liketosetacall. -Laura Laura A. Menninger Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Main 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 [email protected] www.hmflaw.com CO N FIDEN T IAL IT Y N O T ICE:T hise-m ailtransm ission,and any docum ents,filesorpreviouse-m ailm essages attached toitm ay containinform ationthatisconfidentialorlegally privileged.Ifyou arenottheintended 1  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-6 Filed 01/27/21 Page 3 of 5 recipient,orapersonresponsiblefordeliveringittotheintended recipient,you arehereby notifiedthatyou m ustnotread thistransm issionand thatany disclosure,copying,printing,distributionoruseofany ofthe inform ationcontained inorattached tothistransm issionisS T R ICT L Y P R O HIBIT ED.Ifyou havereceived this transm issioninerror,pleasenotify thesenderby telephoneorreturne-m ailand deletetheoriginal transm issionand itsattachm entsw ithoutreadingorsavingitinany m anner.T hankyou. From: Laura Menninger Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 2:35 PM To: Meredith Schultz Cc: Jeff Pagliuca; Sigrid S. McCawley - Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP ([email protected]); '[email protected]' ([email protected]) Subject: Giuffre - Conferral regarding search terms M eredith– Iam w ritingtoyou,incom pliancew iththeCourt’sO rder,tonegotiatethesearchterm sforthesearchofourclient’s electronicdevices.W hileJeffraisedm any oftheseissuesorally w ithBrad lastw eek,Iam includingthem inw rittenform sothattherecanbenodisputeaboutourposition. Idoobjecttothevastnum berofyour368 searchterm s.M ostarenottied toany R equestforP roductionservedonM s. M axw ell,northeCourt’sO rderslim itingthoserequests. T erram ar– S earchterm 49 is“ T erram ar.” W hilew earesearchingourclient’sterram arem ailaddressforotherw iseresponsive docum ents,thissearchterm w ould pullupthousandsofdocum entsrelated toherw orkforthatorganizationw hichare (a)non-responsiveand(b)irrelevanttothisaction.W ew illnotagreetothisstandalonesearchterm . W itnessN am es W ithregardtothesearchterm snum bered 124-341,insofarasIcantell,you havesim ply brokenapartthefirstand last nam esofevery w itnessincluded w ithinyourR ule26 disclosures.How ever,you neversubm itted aR FP seekingall com m unicationsbetw eenourclientand yourw itnesses.T herearesom eR FP sw hichidentify individualw itnessesw hose com m unicationsw ithourclientyou sought(e.g.,1 – Epstein,2, and Iw illincludethosenam esw ithinoursearches. Astoothernam esincluded onthelist,m any areincredibly com m onnam es ) w hichyou areaskingtosearchasstandaloneterm s,i.e.,divorced from theaccom panyingsurnam esorfirstnam es.You haveincludedthenam e“ m ax*” w ellaw arethatourclient’ssurnam e,and thatofallofherpaternalfam ily m em bers, w illbeginw iththosethreeletterstogether.Yoursearchterm sthusarelikely toyield every singleem ailsentorreceived by ourclient,orherfam ily m em bers,orany otherdocum entinherpossessionw ithherow nnam eonthedocum entor inthem etadata,inotherw ordshundredsofthousandsofnon-responsivedocum ents.Yoursearchterm sinclude“ and thusarelikely toincludeevery billthatourclienthasreceivedorsentordiscussed.Yoursearchterm sinclude w hothecourthasalready ruledm aintainsanattorney-clientrelationshipw ithourclient(and totheextent othersarecopiedonhisem ails,thosew ould becaptured by searchesfortheotherpeople’snam es). thoughheisnotonany w itnesslistorinany R FP . Insum ,Iw illnotagreetothesearchterm sregardingw itnessnam esnum bered124-341 unlessyou (a)providem ew ith anactualR FP tow hichthey eachrelate,and (b)m akesom eefforttom atchthem toactualpeoplew hohavesom e relationshiptothiscase(likefirstnam e/3 lastnam eorsom epartsthereof). L aw yerN am es 2  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-6 Filed 01/27/21 Page 4 of 5 W hatisyourbasisforsearchterm snum bered366-368:M cCaw ley,S chultzand Boies? L ikew isetotheextentM r. Edw ardsand Cassellarealsoincluded inthew itnesslist,w hatisyourbasisforsearchingfordocum entsreferencing them ? T hesesearchterm sseem ed designed topullprivileged attorney-clientcom m unicationsand donotcorrespond to any R FP .W ew illnotagreetotheseterm s. Com m onW ords You haveincludedanum berofw ordsthatrelatetocom m onitem sand placenam es.P leaseexplainw hichR FP allow s forasearchofthefollow ingterm s: 50 – S outhernDistrict(w hichw illpullupevery attorney-clientcom m unicationthatreferstoourcaseand includesany pleading) 51 – P alm Beach(aplaceourclientlived form any years) 64 – N ew M exico 66-72 – U S VIby variousnam es 113 – hospital 114 – 116 – hotel,suite,villa(every singletravelrecord relatedtoourclient’stravelw hichtheCourthasnotordered) 119 – 120 – P aris,France 121 – 122 – Zoro,R anch 360 – Bed 361 – Bath 365 -L ingerie O therW ords M any otherw ordshavenorelationshiptothiscase.P leaseadvisem easto(a)w hichR FP they correspond toand (b) yourgoodfaithbasisforseekingthesesearchterm sinrelationtoany suchR FP : 93 – Abernathy 94 – Brillo 355 – Guggenheim 358 -Gerbil Conferral Althoughm any ofyourothersearchterm sareatrem endousstretch,Icanagreetothem intheinterestofgettingthe searchdoneonatim ely basis.Accordingtoourforensicexpert,runningasearchonM s.M axw ell’sdevicesofall368 term sw illtakem orethanaw eek.Iam availableby telephonetoday andtom orrow todiscusstheissuesraised herein.If Idonothearfrom you,Iw illpresum ethatyou areinagreem enttothe rem ainderoftheterm sbeingrunonthedevices. T hatshould allow aproductionofdocum entsintim eforM s.M axw ell’scontinued depositionnextw eek. Iam intentionally nottakingapositionregardingtheotherdem andsyou provided inyourletterofJune30 atpages1-2. T hesearchesw illbeconducted inaccordancew ithstandard practicesintheindustry andtheCourtorderedusto negotiatesearchterm sonly. -Laura Laura A. Menninger Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Main 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 [email protected] 3  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-6 Filed 01/27/21 Page 5 of 5 www.hmflaw.com CO N FIDEN T IAL IT Y N O T ICE:T hise-m ailtransm ission,and any docum ents,filesorpreviouse-m ailm essages attached toitm ay containinform ationthatisconfidentialorlegally privileged.Ifyou arenottheintended recipient,orapersonresponsiblefordeliveringittotheintended recipient,you arehereby notifiedthatyou m ustnotread thistransm issionand thatany disclosure,copying,printing,distributionoruseofany ofthe inform ationcontained inorattached tothistransm issionisS T R ICT L Y P R O HIBIT ED.Ifyou havereceived this transm issioninerror,pleasenotify thesenderby telephoneorreturne-m ailand deletetheoriginal transm issionand itsattachm entsw ithoutreadingorsavingitinany m anner.T hankyou. 4 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-7 Filed 01/27/21 Page 1 of 6 EXHIBIT D  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-7 Filed 01/27/21 Page 2 of 6 From: Laura Menninger Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 11:33 AM To: 'Meredith Schultz' Subject: RE: Giuffre - Conferral regarding search terms M eredith: Iw ritetoconfirm ouroralconferral.P leaseletm eknow ifyou disagreew iththefollow ingorifthereissom eother agreem entyou thinkw ereached: 1. Iw illendeavortohavem y clientgainaccesstoanearthlinkaccountthatyou believeishers.Yourbasisforthat beliefisadiskyou produced lastw eek,obtained pursuanttoaFO IA request,thatcontained atP age2035 an addressbookfrom approxim ately 2005 w hichhasthatearthlinkaccountnam enexttoM s.M axw ell’snam e. 2. T erram ar– You havew ithdraw nthatasastandalonesearchterm .Ihaverepresented toyou thatw ehave searched allT erram arem ailsforotherw iseresponsivedocum entsasw ellas 3. W itnessnam es– You believethatsearchterm s124-341,w hicharew itnessnam esbrokenupintofirstand last nam esfrom yourR ule26 list,relatetoyourR FP num ber5 (“ Alldocum entsrelatingtom assages… ” ).I represented toyou thatIhavesearchedfortheterm s“ m assage, ” “ m asseur, ” “ therapy” etc.asyou requested, butyou w ould stilllikem etosearchasubsetof124-341 surnam esnam esforallcom m unicationsw ithcertain w itnessesthatyou believerelateto“ m assages.” IsaidIw ould lookatyourlist,w henyou send it,and evaluate w hetherw estillobjecttorunningthosem orelim itednam estoseeifthereareany com m unicationsthat“ relate tom assages.” Istillobjectthatthesearchterm sinvolvingnam esistoobroad andburdensom eform etohave toreview allcom m unicationsw iththoseindividualstotry todiscernw hatyou believem ay orm ay notrelateto a“ m assage.” 4. L aw yernam es– You havew ithdraw n. 5. Com m onw ords– You havew ithdraw nw iththeexceptionof“ lingerie, ” w hichIw illruntoseeifitrelatesin som ew ay toR FP 5 (“ m assages”). 6. O therw ords– a. You havew ithdraw n#93 Abernathy and #94 Brillo. b. Im aintainm y objectiontoGuggenheim ,thenam eofam useum w hichyou represented tom epertains insom ew ay toallegationsm adeby w itnesses butforw hichnodocum entsorotherinform ation hasbeenshared (i.e.,Ihaveneverseenany allegationsby .BecausethereisnoR FP to w hichIbelievethatterm relates,and itisthenam eofam useum ,Iobjecttorunningthatsearchterm . c. Gerbil– You havew ithdraw n. 7. Additionally: a. Iadvisedyou thatIw asnotabletosearchfor# becausethoselettersarethefirstpartofm y client’slongstandingem ailaddress,and searchforthatterm w illyield literally every singleem ailshehas sentorreceived.Ibelieveyou havew ithdraw nthatrequested searchterm . b. Iadvisedyou thatIw asnotabletosearchforinitialsat#16-21 and75-77.T otheextentthoseinitials representpeoplefrom w hom you haverequestedallcom m unications(and w hichtheCourthaslim ited to1999-2002 and post-2002 asthey relatetosex trafficking),forexam ple,Jeffrey Epstein ,Iam searchingforand producingresponsivedocum ents,sothereisnoneed tosearchforthe 1  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1202-7 Filed 01/27/21 Page 3 of 6 initials.W ithregardsto ,you toldm ethatis and thereisnostandalonerequestfor com m unicationsw ithher. -Laura L auraA .M enninger Haddon,M organand Forem an,P .C. 150 East10thA venue Denver,Colorado80203 M ain303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 lm enninger@ hm flaw .com w w w .hm flaw .com CO N FIDEN T IAL IT Y N O T ICE:T hise-m ailtransm ission,and any docum ents,filesorpreviouse-m ailm essages attached toitm ay containinform ationthatisconfidentialorlegally privileged.Ifyou arenottheintended recipient,orapersonresponsiblefordeliveringittotheintended recipient,you arehereby notifiedthatyou m ustnotread thistransm issionand thatany disclosure,copying,printing,distributionoruseofany ofthe inform ationc