gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.378.0.pdf

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 1 of 50 United States District Court Southern District of New York Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. ________________________________/ PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS 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  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 2 of 50 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 II. DEFENDANT’S ENTIRE MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED...........................................1 III. MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES SHOULD BE DENIED...............................................................................................................................2 A. Interrogatory No. 5.................................................................................................. 2 1. ..............................................................................2 2. ...........................................................................................3 B. Interrogatory No. 6.................................................................................................. 5 C. Interrogatory No. 7.................................................................................................. 8 D. Interrogatory No. 8................................................................................................ 10 E. Interrogatory No. 13.............................................................................................. 10 1. Ms. Giuffre Has Answered This Interrogatory Completely.....................10 2. This Court Has Already Ruled Against Defendant on Pre-1999 Medical Records, so Defendant is Estopped From Bringing This Argument..................................................................................................15 3. This Request is Overly Burdensome and Disallowed Under New York Law..................................................................................................17 4. The Physician-patient Privilege Applies to These Documents ................19 F. Interrogatory No. 14.............................................................................................. 20 1. ......................................................20 2. .....21 3. This Request Seeks Irrelevant Information ..............................................22 i  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 3 of 50 4. ............................................................................................23 5. .........................................................................................24 6. Defendant Makes Misrepresentations to the Court ..................................25 7. ...............25 IV. PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ARE NOT DEFICIENT AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED ......26 A. Requests for Admission Nos. 1-8 and 13.............................................................. 26 B. Requests for Admission Nos. 12........................................................................... 28 V. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S OVERLY BROAD REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION ARE COMPLIANT WITH HER DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE APPLICABLE RULES AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED ....................................................................................30 A. Request for Production No. 1................................................................................ 30 B. Request for Production No. 4................................................................................ 36 C. Request for Production No. 9................................................................................ 36 D. Request for Production No. 10.............................................................................. 40 E. Requests for Production No. 11 and No. 12 ......................................................... 40 VI. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................42 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................................... 44 ii  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 4 of 50 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases Blodgett v. Siemens Industry, Inc., 2016 WL 4203490 (E.D.N.Y., 2016)......................................................................................... 2 Does 1 and 2 v. United States, 817 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (S.D. Fla. 2011) .................................................................................... 39 Does v. United States, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................. 39 Dubin, 125 F.R.D 372 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). ............................................................................................. 30 Elghanian v. Schachter, 1997 WL 607546 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)............................................................................................ 1 Evanko v. Electronic Systems Assoc., Inc., No. 91 Civ. 2851, 1993 WL 14458 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 1993)................................................... 17 Gibbons v. Food Lion, Inc., No. 98-1197-CIV-T-23F, 1999 WL 33226474 (M.D. Fla. Feb.19, 1999) .............................. 21 Havenfield Corp. v. H & R Block, Inc., 67 F.R.D. 93 (W.D.Mo.1973).................................................................................................. 30 Jane Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736 (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2008).............................................................................. 38 Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, 950 F. Supp. 2d 1262 (S.D. Fla. 2013) .................................................................................... 39 Manessis v. New York City Dep’t of Transp., No. 02 CIV. 359SASDF, 2002 WL 31115032 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2002) ............................. 17 S.E.C. v. Micro-Moisture Controls, 21 F.R.D. 164 (S.D.N.Y.1957) ................................................................................................ 30 Sgambellone v. Wheatley, 165 Misc.2d 954, 630 N.Y.S.2d 835 (N.Y. Sup.Ct. 1995) ...................................................... 17 Silva v. Pioneer Janitorial Servs., Inc., No. CIV.A. 10-11264-JGD, 2011 WL 4729783 (D. Mass. Oct. 4, 2011)......................... 21, 22 iii  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 5 of 50 Spin Master Ltd. v. Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Service, Inc., 2016 WL 690819 (W.D.N.Y., 2016) ....................................................................................... 30 T. Rowe Price Small-Cap Fund, Inc. v. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., 174 F.R.D. 38 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ............................................................................................... 31 Thalheim v. Eberheim, 124 F.R.D. 34 (D.Conn.1988).................................................................................................. 30 United States v. Consolidated Edison Co., 1988 WL 138275 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 1988) ........................................................................... 30 Wachtman v. Trocaire College, 532 N.Y.S.2d 943 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988) ............................................................................... 17 Statutes 18 U.S.C. § 3771..................................................................................................................... 38, 39 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(9).................................................................................................................. 39 Fla. Stat. § 39.202(6)..................................................................................................................... 25 Fla. Stat. § 480.041 ....................................................................................................................... 19 Fla. Stat. § 794.026 ....................................................................................................................... 25 Fla. Stat. § 985.036 ....................................................................................................................... 25 Fla. Stat. § 985.04 ......................................................................................................................... 25 Fla. Stat. § 985.054 ....................................................................................................................... 25 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 26................................................................................................................... passim Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i) ......................................................................................................... 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).......................................................................................................... passim Fed. R. Civ.P. 26(c) ...................................................................................................................... 21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 33.3.................................................................................................................. .9, 35 Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a)(5)................................................................................................................. 30 Fed. R. Civ. P. 36.......................................................................................................................... 30 iv  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 6 of 50 Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4)................................................................................................................. 29 Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(5)................................................................................................................. 29 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37............................................................................................................................ 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.1................................................................................................................ passim Fed. R. Evid. 412 ................................................................................................................... passim Other Authorities 8 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2258............................................... 30 Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771............................................................... 38 .............................................. 26 Pub. L. 114-22, Title I, § 113(a), (c)(1), May 29, 2015, 129 Stat. 240, 241................................. 39 v  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 7 of 50 Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre (“Ms. Giuffre”), by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel and her baseless Motion for Sanctions (DE 354). I. INTRODUCTION II. DEFENDANT’S ENTIRE MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED Defendant’s motion violates Local Rule 37.1, and should be denied for that reason before the Court even reaches the merits. Local Rule 37.1 states that, “upon any motion or application 1  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 8 of 50 involving discovery or disclosure requests or responses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, the moving party shall specify and quote or set forth verbatim in the motion papers each discovery request and response to which the motion or application is addressed.” For the majority of discovery items upon which Defendant moves, Defendant has wholly failed to do this. Instead, Defendant edits out a great deal of Ms. Giuffre’s answers and objections to the interrogatories, skipping entire data sets put forth in response to the interrogatories, and skipping Ms. Giuffre most cogent objections. This is improper conduct. Upon a motion to compel, a Court is called upon to evaluate the discovery requests as well as the responses and objections. Local Rule 37.1 is designed to protect against the exact type of self-serving editing of the opposing party’s objections that Defendant has done in this brief. Accordingly, the Court should deny Defendant’s motion in its entirety for failure to comply with Local Rule 37.1. See Blodgett v. Siemens Industry, Inc., 2016 WL 4203490, at *1 (E.D.N.Y., 2016) (denying motion without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 37.1 (which is the same rule in the Eastern District of New York)). III. MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES SHOULD BE DENIED A. Interrogatory No. 5 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 9 of 50 3 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 10 of 50 4 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 11 of 50 B. Interrogatory No. 6 5 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 12 of 50 6 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 13 of 50 othing lleged 7 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 14 of 50 C. Interrogatory No. 7 8 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 15 of 50 9 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 16 of 50 D. Interrogatory No. 8 E. Interrogatory No. 13 10 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 17 of 50 11 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 18 of 50 12 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 19 of 50 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 20 of 50 14 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 21 of 50 15 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 22 of 50 16 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 23 of 50 17 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 24 of 50 18 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 25 of 50 19 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 26 of 50 F. Interrogatory No. 14 20 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 27 of 50 21 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 28 of 50 22 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 29 of 50 23 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 30 of 50 24 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 31 of 50 25  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 32 of 50 IV. PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ARE NOT DEFICIENT AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED A. Requests for Admission Nos. 1-8 and 13 26 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 33 of 50 27 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 34 of 50 B. Requests for Admission Nos. 12 28 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 35 of 50 29  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 36 of 50 V. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S OVERLY BROAD REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTOIN ARE COMPLIANT WITH HER DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE APPLICABLE RULES AND DFEENDANT’S MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED A. Request for Production No. 1 30 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 37 of 50 31 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 38 of 50 32 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 39 of 50 33 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 40 of 50 34 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 41 of 50 35 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 42 of 50 B. Request for Production No. 4 C. Request for Production No. 9 36 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 43 of 50 37 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 44 of 50 38 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 45 of 50 39 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 46 of 50 D. Request for Production No. 10 E. Requests for Production No. 11 and No. 12 40 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 47 of 50 41  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 48 of 50 VI. CONCLUSION Defendant’s brief is bereft of case law, lacking the authority upon which this Court can grant her overly-broad requests, many of which have already been fully satisfied. Similarly, Defendant’s motion for sanctions is completely baseless, and should be denied. For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Giuffre respectfully requests Defendant’s Motion to Compel and for Sanctions be denied in its entirety. DATED: August 17, 2016. Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Meredith Schultz 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 42  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 49 of 50 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) 585-520218 18 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. 43  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 378 Filed 08/17/16 Page 50 of 50 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 17, 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 to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic Court Filing System 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/ Meredith Schultz Meredith Schultz 44