gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1137.14_2.pdf

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1137-14 Filed 10/22/20 Page 1 of 40 United States District Court Southern District of New York Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. ________________________________/ RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT MATERIALS BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 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  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1137-14 Filed 10/22/20 Page 2 of 40 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................................................... iii INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 2 The CVRA Case ........................................................................................................................................... 2 The Dershowitz case ........................................................................................................................ 4 The Florida Court Rejects a Waiver of Attorney Clients Privilege Argument ................................ 5 Ms. Giuffre’s Deposition in the Defamation Case........................................................................... 7 The Settlement of the Defamation Case .......................................................................................... 7 LEGAL STANDARDS FOR WAIVER....................................................................................................... 8 A. Federal Rule of Evidence 502 Controls on the Issue of Waiver ................................................. 8 B. Florida Law ................................................................................................................................. 9 C. Federal Law.............................................................................................................................. 11 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................. 14 I. MS. GIUFFRE DID NOT WAIVE HER ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE WHEN EDWARDS AND CASSELL FILED AND PURSUED THEIR OWN DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST ALAN DERSHOWITZ. .............................................. 14 A. The Florida Court Presiding over the Defamation Action Has Already Rejected the Same Waiver Claim that Defendant is Advancing Here. ................................................ 14 B. Actions by Cassell and Edwards Do Not Waive Ms. Giuffre’s Attorney-Client Privilege. ......................................................................................................................... 18 C. Ms. Giuffre’s Confidential Communications With Her Attorneys Were Never “At Issue” in the Florida Dershowitz Litigation. ................................................................... 19 D. Defendant Has Not Met the Other Requirements for Showing Waiver of Attorney- Client Privilege................................................................................................................ 21 E. Ms. Giuffre Will Not Seek to Use Confidential Attorney-Client Communications in her Action Here. .......................................................................................................... 23 II. MS. GIUFFRE DID NOT WAIVE HER ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE BY DENYING FABRICATED EVICENCE DURING HER DEPOSITION. ............................... 25 III.EDWARDS AND CASSELL HAVE NOT WAIVED WORK-PRODUCT PROTECTION AND MAXWELL HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED NEED TO PENETRATE THE PROTECTION. ........................................................................................ 27 A. Work Product Protection Has Not Been Waived. ........................................................... 27 B. Defendant Has Not Proven “Need” to Penetrate Work-Product Protection.................... 29 i  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1137-14 Filed 10/22/20 Page 3 of 40 IV.COMMUNICATIONS WITH ATTORNEY JACK SCAROLA ARE COVERED BY A JOINT DEFENSE AGREEMENT AND ARE THUS PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY- CLIENT AND WORK-PRODUCTION PROTECTION. ........................................................ 31 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................................... 31 ii  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1137-14 Filed 10/22/20 Page 4 of 40 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Allen v. West Point-Pepperell, Inc., 848 F.Supp. 423 (S.D.N.Y.1994) ............................................................................................................ 13 Allied Irish Banks v. Bank of Am., N.A., 240 F.R.D. 96 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) .............................................................................................................. 12 Am. Re-Ins. Co. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 40 A.D.3d 486, 837 N.Y.S.2d 616 (2007) .............................................................................................. 22 Aristocrat Leisure Ltd. v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, No. 04 CIV 10014 PKL, 2009 WL 3111766 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2009) ........................................................................................ 14 Bank Brussels Lambert v. Credit Lyonnais (Suisse), S.A., 210 F.R.D. 506 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) ................................................................................................ 10, 13, 14 Brookings v. State, 495 So.2d 135 (Fla. 1986)....................................................................................................................... 23 Bus. Integration Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Corp., No. 06 CIV. 1863 (JGK), 2008 WL 318343 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2008) ................................................... 18 Butler v. Harter, 152 So.3d 705 (Fla. 1st DCA, 2014)....................................................................................................... 30 Charter One Bank, F.S.B. v. Midtown Rochester, L.L.C., 191 Misc. 2d 154, 738 N.Y.S.2d 179 (Sup. Ct. 2002) ............................................................................ 28 Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., 940 So.2d 504 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2006) .......................................................................................... 11, 12, 20 Columbia Hosp. Corp. of S. Broward v. Fain, 16 So.3d 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) ......................................................................................................... 31 Connell v. Bernstein-Macaulay, Inc., 407 F.Supp. 420 (S.D.N.Y.1976) ............................................................................................................ 13 Coyne v. Schwartz, Gold, Cohen, Zakarin & Kotler, P.A., 715 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) ...................................................................................................... 21 CSX Transp., Inc. v. Carpenter, 725 So.2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) ........................................................................................................ 30 Delap v. State, 440 So.2d 1242 (Fla. 1983)..................................................................................................................... 22 Diaz–Verson v. Walbridge Aldinger Co., 54 So.3d 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ........................................................................................................ 20 Dillenbeck v. Hess, 73 N.Y.2d 278, 290, 536 N.E.2d 1126 (N.Y. 1989) ............................................................................... 14 Does 1 and 2 v. United States, 817 F.Supp.2d 1337 (S.D. Fla. 2011) ....................................................................................................... 2 Does v. United States, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014).................................................................................................................... 3 Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Gellert, 431 So.2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) ........................................................................................................ 28 Elliott Associates, L.P. v. Banco de la Nacion, 194 F.3d 363 (2d Cir. 1999).................................................................................................................... 18 iii  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1137-14 Filed 10/22/20 Page 5 of 40 Falco v. N. Shore Labs. Corp., 866 So.2d 1255 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)...................................................................................................... 31 Ferreira v. Capitol Specialty Ins. Corp., 31 Misc. 3d 1209(A), 929 N.Y.S.2d 199 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011) ................................................................................................. 14 First Union National Bank v. Turney, 824 So.2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)........................................................................................................ 10 Ford Motor Co. v. Hall-Edwards, 997 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) ...................................................................................................... 10 Genovese v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., 74 So.3d 1064 (Fla. 2011)........................................................................................................... 12, 20, 29 Giuffre v. Maxwell, DE 135, 2016 WL 175918 ................................................................................... 12, 32 Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. Blondis, 412 F.Supp. 286 (N.D.Ill.1976) .............................................................................................................. 28 Guarantee Ins. Co. v. Heffernan Ins. Brokers, Inc., 300 F.R.D. 590 (S.D. Fla. 2014) ................................................................................................. 10, 11, 21 GUS Consulting GMBH v. Chadbourne & Parke LLP, 20 Misc. 3d 539, 858 N.Y.S.2d 591 (Sup. Ct. 2008) .............................................................................. 32 Hagans v. Gatorland Kubota, LLC/Sentry Ins., 45 So.3d 73 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) ............................................................................................................ 10 Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574 (E.D. Wash. 1975) ............................................................................................... 10, 13, 16 HSH Nordbank AG New York Branch v. Swerdlow, 259 F.R.D. 64 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) .............................................................................................................. 26 In re Bank of New York Mellon Corp. Forex Transactions Litig., 66 F. Supp. 3d 406 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)....................................................................................................... 14 In re Bank of New York Mellon, 42 Misc. 3d 171, 177, 977 N.Y.S.2d 560 (Sup. Ct. 2013) ...................................................................... 14 In re Cnty. of Erie, 546 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2008)........................................................................................................ 12, 13, 25 In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1987)................................................................................................................ 14, 23 Jane Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736 (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2008) .............................................................................................. 2 Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, 950 F.Supp.2d 1262 (S.D. Fla. 2013) ....................................................................................................... 3 Jenney v. Airdata Wiman, Inc., 846 So.2d 664 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) ........................................................................................................ 22 Jenney v. Airdata Wiman, Inc., 846 So.2d 664 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2003) ...................................................................................................... 11 Koon v. State, 463 So.2d 201 (Fla. 1985)................................................................................................................. 19, 22 Lynch v. State, 2 So.3d 47 (Fla. 2008)............................................................................................................................. 23 McCullough v. Kubiak, 158 So. 3d 739 (Fla. 4th DCA, 2015) ...................................................................................................... 22 McWatters v. State, 36 So.3d 613 (Fla. 2010)......................................................................................................................... 12 iv  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1137-14 Filed 10/22/20 Page 6 of 40 Mitchell v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. 3d 591, 691 P.2d 642 (Cal. 1984) ............................................................................................... 26 Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147 (1979) ................................................................................................................................ 17 Montanez v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 135 So. 3d 510 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014) .............................................................................................. 26 N. Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Button, 592 So.2d 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) ....................................................................................................... 31 Niesig v. Team I, 76 N.Y.2d 363, 558 N.E.2d 1030 (1990) ................................................................................................ 23 Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, 62 A.D.3d 581, 880 N.Y.S.2d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) ..................................................................... 25 O'Brien v. Fed. Trust Bank, F.S.B., 727 So. 2d 296 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999) .............................................................................................. 17 Paradise Divers, Inc. v. Upmal, 943 So. 2d 812 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) ........................................................................................ 28, 29 Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979) ................................................................................................................................ 17 Pereira v. United Jersey Bank, Nos. 94 Civ 1565 & 94 Civ 1844, 1997 WL 773716 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.11, 1997)..................................... 13 Perrignon v. Bergen Brunswig Corp., 77 F.R.D. 455 (N.D. Cal.1978) ............................................................................................................... 28 Procacci v. Seitlin, 497 So. 2d 969 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986) .............................................................................................. 28 Procter & Gamble Co. v. Swilley, 462 So.2d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)...................................................................................................... 30 Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc. v. Home Indem. Co., 32 F.3d 851 (3d Cir.1994)....................................................................................................................... 13 Rhone–Poulenc Rorer, Inc. v. Home Indemnity Co., 32 F.3d 851 (3d Cir. 1994)...................................................................................................................... 11 Rogers v. State, 742 So.2d 827 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) ........................................................................................................ 12 Rousso v. Hannon, 146 So.3d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) .......................................................................................................... 10 Savino v. Luciano, 92 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1957)................................................................................................................... 12, 20 Schetter v. Schetter, 239 So.2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970) .......................................................................................................... 18 Schnell v. Schnall, 550 F. Supp. 650 (S.D.N.Y.1982) ........................................................................................................... 19 Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Deason, 632 So.2d 1377 (Fla.1994)...................................................................................................................... 30 State v. T.A., 528 So.2d 974 (Fla. 2d DCA, 1988) ....................................................................................................... 30 Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So.2d 108 (Fla. 1970)....................................................................................................................... 28 Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399 (1998) .................................................................................................................................. 8 v  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1137-14 Filed 10/22/20 Page 7 of 40 Taylor v. State, 855 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2003)........................................................................................................................... 22 Ulico Cas. Co. v. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 1 A.D.3d 223, 767 N.Y.S.2d 228 (2003) ................................................................................................ 26 Universal City Development Partners, Ltd. v. Pupillo, 54 So.3d 612, 614 (Fla. 5th DCA, 2011) ........................................................................................... 28, 31 West Bend Mutual Ins. Co. v. Higgins, 9 So.3d 655 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) ........................................................................................................... 29 Zirkelbach Const. Inc. v. Rajan, 93 So.3d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) ........................................................................................................ 30 Zois v. Cooper, 268 B.R. 890 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ................................................................................................................ 17 Statutes 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(9) .................................................................................................................................. 3 Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771 ............................................................................... 2 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502 .............................................................................................................................. 26 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(1)(c) ....................................................................................................................... 9 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(2) .................................................................................................................... 11, 22 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(3) .......................................................................................................................... 11 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(4) .......................................................................................................................... 26 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.507 .............................................................................................................................. 12 N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 4503(a) ............................................................................................................................. 14 Pub. L. 114-22, Title I, § 113(a), (c)(1), May 29, 2015, 129 Stat. 240 ......................................................... 3 Rules Fed. R. Evid. 502(c) ................................................................................................................................ 9, 18 Fed. R. Evid. 502(c)(1) ............................................................................................................................... 27 Fed. R. Evid. 502(c)(2) ............................................................................................................................... 27 Fed. R. Evid. 502 ................................................................................................................................ 1, 8, 27 Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(3) .......................................................................................................................... 27 Treatises Charles W. Ehrhardt, 1 Fla. Prac., Evidence § 502.6 (2015 ed.) ................................................................ 18 Paul G. Cassell, Nathanael J. Mitchell & Bradley J. Edwards, Crime Victims’ Rights During Criminal Investigations? Applying the Crime Victims’ Rights Act before Criminal Charges are Filed, 104 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 59 (2014) .......................................................................................................................... 2 Other Authorities N.Y. C.P.L.R. 4503 (McKinney) ................................................................................................................ 19 vi  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1137-14 Filed 10/22/20 Page 8 of 40 Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel All Attorney-Client Communications and Attorney Work Product Placed at Issue by Plaintiff and Her Attorneys (DE 164). The motion should be denied in its entirety. INTRODUCTION Defendant argues Ms. Giuffre and two of her attorneys (Cassell and Edwards) have somehow placed “at issue” her confidential attorney-client communications and therefore have made a “sweeping waiver” of attorney-client privilege in this case. Defendant, however, fails to cite the controlling law on this issue: Federal Rule of Evidence 502. Enacted in 2008, Rule 502 was designed to block exactly the kind of argument Defendant is making. Rule 502 provides that litigants are entitled to the most protective law on attorney-client privilege, either state law where the disclosure was made or federal law. The alleged disclosures in this case were made in Florida, and under Florida law did not constitute any waiver of attorney-client privilege. Indeed, Defendant does not reveal to the Court that the Florida judge who handled the case during which the alleged “waivers” occurred (the Dershowitz case) has already considered – and rejected in their entirety – the very arguments that Defendant is advancing here. In addition, none of the alleged disclosures were made by Ms. Giuffre, who as the holder of the privilege is the only individual with authority to waive it. Moreover, none of the alleged disclosures concerned the substance of confidential attorney-client communications. And finally, Ms. Giuffre will not be seeking to introduce or otherwise take advantage of any confidential attorney-client communications in this case. Accordingly, for these and other reasons, the Court should deny Defendant’s motion in its entirety. 1  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1137-14 Filed 10/22/20 Page 9 of 40 FACTUAL BACKGROUND The CVRA Case The facts relevant to this issue begin in 2008, when attorney Bradley J. Edwards (soon joined by co-counsel Professor Paul Cassell) filed a pro bono action in the Southern District of Florida under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. Filed on behalf of Jane Doe 1 (and later Jane Doe 2) the CVRA action alleged that federal government had failed to protect the rights of Jane Doe 1 and other similarly situated victims of sex offenses committed by Jeffrey Epstein. See Declaration of Sigrid McCawley (“McCawley Decl.”) at Exhibit 1, Complaint filed in Jane Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736 (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2008). Jane Does 1 and 2 achieved many victories in the case, including a ruling that the CVRA rights of victims could apply before charges were filed, Does 1 and 2 v. United States, 817 F.Supp.2d 1337 (S.D. Fla. 2011);1 that they had standing to challenge the non-prosecution agreement reached between the Government and Epstein, Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, 950 F.Supp.2d 1262 (S.D. Fla. 2013); and that plea negotiations were not protected from disclosure by any federal rule of evidence, Does v. United States, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014). Congress has also followed the developments in the case closely, recently amending the CVRA to insure that in the future crime victims receive notice of any non-prosecution agreement entered into by the Government. See Pub. L. 114-22, Title I, § 113(a), (c)(1), May 29, 2015, 129 Stat. 240, 241 (adding 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(9) to give crime victims “[t]he right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement). 1 See generally Paul G. Cassell, Nathanael J. Mitchell & Bradley J. Edwards, Crime Victims’ Rights During Criminal Investigations? Applying the Crime Victims’ Rights Act before Criminal Charges are Filed, 104 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 59 (2014). 2  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1137-14 Filed 10/22/20 Page 10 of 40 On December 30, 2014, Cassell and Edwards filed a Motion Pursuant to Rule 21 for Joinder in the Action on behalf two additional victims: Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4. (Jane Doe 3, Virginia Giuffre, subsequently decided to reveal her name). The joinder motion argued that Jane Does 3 and 4 should be allowed to join the two existing plaintiffs in the action because they had suffered the same violations of their rights under the CVRA. Mccawley Deel. , Exhibit 2, Jane Does' 3 and 4 Joinder Motion.2 To establish that they were "victims" of Epstein's sex crimes with standing to join the suit, Jane Does 3 and 4 alleged that they had suffered sexual abuse from Epstein. For example, Jane Doe 3 alleged that she had been forced by Epstein to have sexual relations with various persons - Mccawley Deel., Exhibit 2 at 4. Jane Doe 3 also alleged that Defendant (i.e., Ghislaine Maxwell) had pat1icipated in the sexual abuse of Jane Doe 3. Id. at 4-5. - 2 The Joinder Motion attached as an exhibit is a "con-ected" motion, filed on Janua1y 2, 2015. As discussed below, several paragraphs in this motion were later stricken by Judge Ma1rn. 3 This document is cmTently restricted/under seal in the CVRA case, although an order sealing it is not found in the Cowt record so far as can be detennined. In light of the sealing of the document, we have marked aspects of this pleading dealing with the document as confidential. 3  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1137-14 Filed 10/22/20 Page 11 of 40 • sworn testimony from another of Epstein's household employees - - that - was present alone at the home of Eps~ out his family, in the presence of young girls; • invocations of Fifth Amendment ri hts to remain silent b identified co-conspirators - when asked questions about whether with massages by young girls; • refusals by Jeffrey Epstein to discuss involvement but instead to invoke his Fifth Amendment right. Id. at 26-38. Several months later, on April 7, 2015 , th e Court (Maim, J.) denied Jane Doe 3 an d Jane Doe 4's motion for joinder. Mccawley Deel., Exhibit. 4, Order denying Jan e Doe 3's motion to join. With regard to the eight separate issues as to which th e allegations were relevant, the Comt addressed only the first (establishing "victim" status) and found that the "factual details regai·ding with whom and where the Jane Does engaged in sexual activities are immaterial and impe1tinent to this central claim (i.e., that they were known victims of Mr. Epstein and the Government owed them CVRA duties), especially considering that these details involve non-paities who ai·e not related to the respondent Government." Id. at 5.4 Accordingly, the Comt shuck the factual details from the victims ' pleading as unnecessaiy at that time. The Comt specifically recognized, however, that the details could be reasse1ted by the paities to the action- i.e. , Jane Doe 1 an d Jan e Doe 2 - if they could "demonsu-ate a good faith basis for believing that such details are pe1tinent to a matter presented for the Comt's consideration." Id. at 6. Following th e Court's mling, additional litigation has proceeded in the CVRA case. The Dershowitz case 4 In asserting that the non-parties were "not related to the respondent Government," the Court did not address Jane Doe 3 's argument that 4  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1137-14 Filed 10/22/20 Page 12 of 40 While the CVRA case was moving forward in the Southern District of Florida on behalf of Jane Does 1 and 2, separate litigation developed between the pro bono attorneys who had filed the lawsuit (Cassell and Edwards) and Dershowitz. After the filing of the joinder motion in the CVRA case, Dershowitz took the airwaves to attack not only Jane Doe 3, but also Cassell and Edwards. Typical of these attacks was one levelled on CNN, in which Dershowitz alleged: If they [Cassell and Edwards] had just done an hours’ worth of research and work, they would have seen she is lying through her teeth. . . . They’re prepared to lie, cheat, and steal. These are unethical lawyers. . . . They can’t be allowed to have a bar card to victimize more innocent people. Hala Gorani – CNN Live (Jan. 5, 2015).5 Cassell and Edwards then filed a state law defamation action against Dershowitz in Broward County, Florida. See McCawley Decl., Exhibit. 5, Complaint in Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz. The complaint alleged that Dershowitz had engaged in a “massive public media assault on the reputation and character” of Cassell and Edwards. Id. at 4. Ms. Giuffre was not a party to this defamation lawsuit. The Florida Court Rejects a Waiver of Attorney Clients Privilege Argument As Cassell and Edwards’ Florida defamation action moved forward, Dershowitz sought to make an argument that they had somehow waived their client’s (Ms. Giuffre’s) attorney-client privilege. On September 8, 2015, Dershowitz filed a motion to compel Cassell and Edwards to produce documents and additional responses to interrogatories. McCawley Decl., Exhibit. 6, Motion to Compel. In his motion, Dershowitz argued that Cassell and Edwards “have waived any privilege or protection that would otherwise attach to responsive documents and information 5 Available at http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/01/05/wrn-uk-sex-abuse-allegations-alan-dershowitz- intv.cnn. 5  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1137-14 Filed 10/22/20 Page 13 of 40 by bringing this defamation action placing at issue the truthfulness of Jane Doe No. 3’s allegations against Dershowitz . . . .” Id. at 3-5. In his motion and reply pleading (McCawley Decl., Exhibit 8, Reply in Support of Motion to Compel), Dershowitz argued that Cassell and Edwards’ actions throughout the case constituted a waiver of attorney-client privilege. Cassell and Edwards responded, arguing that Ms. Giuffre was not a party of the defamation action and that she was the only person who could waive her privilege. McCawley Decl., Exhibit 7 at 4-6, Response in Opposition to Motion to Compel. Cassell and Edwards also argued that there had been no waiver because confidential attorney-client communications with Ms. Giuffre were not “at issue” in the defamation case. Id. at 6-9. Cassell and Edwards also later filed a sur-reply, further elaborating on the argument that Ms. Giuffre had not waived any attorney-client privilege by publicly discussing her sexual abuse by Epstein and his associates. McCawley Decl., Exhibit 9, Sur-Reply in Support Opposition to Motion to Compel. Cassell and Edwards also explained that communications with Ms. Giuffre were protected not only beginning in March 2014, but even earlier than that date when Ms. Giuffre understood that she was obtaining legal services from Cassell and Edwards. Id. at 1. Following this extensive briefing on waiver issues,6 on December 8, 2015, the Florida Court (Lynch, J.) ruled, denying Dershowitz’s argument that attorney-client privilege had been waived. McCawley Decl., Exhibit 10, Order Denying Motion to Compel. Specifically, the Court denied the motion to compel, explaining “Pre March 2014 communications are protected by the work product privilege and the witness has not waived the communications that were protected by the attorney-client privilege. Also, there was no waiver by the [Cassell and Edwards] by filing suit.” Id. at 1. 6 And following the filing of Cassell and Edwards’ summary judgment motion, filed on November 26, 2015. 6  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1137-14 Filed 10/22/20 Page 14 of 40 Ms. Giuffre's Deposition in the Defamation Case As the defamation action moved fo1ward,_ subpoenaed Ms. Giuffre to a deposition. Mccawley Deel., Exhibit 11, Composite Exhibit of excerpts from transcript of deposition of Ms. Giuffre. Dming the deposition, held in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Ms. Giuffre was represented by the undersigned legal counsel, who asserted objections to revealing attorney- client info1mation where the questions called for revealing confidential attorney client communications. See, e.g., id. at22-23; 131-32; 173-74; 183;208. Dming thedeposition, Ms. Giuffre specifically stated that "I decide not to waive my [attorney-client] privilege at this time." Id. at 174. Ms. Giuffre also denied that Cassell and Edwards had ever pressmed her into identifying someone as being involved in her sexual abuse. Id. at 200-12 The Settlement of the Defamation Case Ultimately, Cassell, Edwards, and Dershowitz agreed to settle their defamation case. That settlement included both a public statement and confidential moneta1y payments. As paii of the settlement, Cassell and Edwai·ds withdrew their allegations against Dershowitz in the defamation case contained in the then-pending summaiy judgment motion. Mccawley Deel. , Exhibit 12, Notice of Withdrawal of Summa1y Judgment Motion. As explained in the notice of withdrawal of this motion, "the withdrawal of the referenced filings is not intended to be, and should not be construed as being, an acknowledgement by Edwai·ds and Cassell that the allegation made by Ms. Giuffre were mistaken. Edwai·ds and Cassell do acknowledge that the public filing in the Crime Victims' Rights Act case of their client's allegation against Defendant Dershowitz became a major distraction from the merits of the well-founded Crime Victims' Rights Act by causing delay and, as a consequence, turned out to be a tactical mistake." Id. All these actions settling the Florida defamation case took place in Florida. 7  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1137-14 Filed 10/22/20 Page 15 of 40 LEGAL STANDARDS FOR WAIVER A. Federal Rule of Evidence 502 Controls on the Issue of Waiver Defendant asks this Court to find that Ms. Giuffre has somehow waived her attorney- client privilege regarding various communications in this case. This is no small step. The attorney-client privilege is one of the “oldest recognized privileges for confidential communications.” Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399, 403 (1998)). The privilege’s purpose is to “encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and the administration of justice.” 524 U.S. at 403 (internal quotation marks omitted). In setting out the legal standards pertaining to waiver of attorney-client privilege, Defendant fails to cite the controlling – and protective – law on the issue. In a federal case, issues of alleged waiver of attorney-client privilege must be resolved under the new standards in Federal Rule of Evidence 502. In 2008, Congress enacted Federal Rule of Evidence 502, which is entitled “Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product; Limitations on Waiver.” New rule 502 places a number of protections in place to reduce litigation over claims that a party has somehow “waived” attorney client privilege. See generally Adv. Comm. Note, Rule 502. Notably, Defendant does not discuss, or even cite, Rule 502 in her motion. The issue currently before the Court is specifically controlled by Rule 502(c), which covers situations where a disclosure in a state proceeding is alleged, in a federal proceeding, to establish waiver. Rule 502(c) provides the greater of protections found in federal or state law: (c) Disclosure Made in a State Proceeding. When the disclosure is made in a state proceeding and is not the subject of a state-court order concerning waiver, the disclosure does not operate as a waiver in a federal proceeding if the disclosure: (1) would not be a waiver under this rule if it had been made in a federal proceeding; or (2) is not a waiver under the law of the state where the disclosure occurred. 8  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1137-14 Filed 10/22/20 Page 16 of 40 As is readily apparent from the text of the rule, there are two separate ways in which a party can prove that no waiver of attorney-client privilege has occurred: (1) by demonstrating that no waiver exists under federal law; or (2) by demonstrating that no waiver exists under the state law where the disclosure occurred. Between these two possibilities, the drafters of the rule decided to apply the most protective law that governs waiver. See Fed. R. Evid. 502(c), Adv. Comm. Notes (“The [Advisory] Committee [on the Federal Rules of Evidence] determined that the proper solution for the federal court is to apply the law that is most protective of privilege and work product” (emphasis added)). B. Florida Law C. Florida’s protective law on the attorney-client privilege provides that neither an attorney nor a client may be compelled to divulge confidential communications between a lawyer and client which were made during the rendition of legal services. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(1)(c). Communication denotes more than just giving legal advice; it also includes giving information to the lawyer to enable him to render sound and informed advice. Hagans v. Gatorland Kubota, LLC/Sentry Ins., 45 So.3d 73, 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Under Florida law, while the burden of establishing the attorney-client privilege usually rests on the party claiming it, First Union National Bank v. Turney, 824 So.2d 172, 185 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), when communications appear on their face to be privileged, the burden is on the party seeking disclosure to prove facts which would make an exception to the privilege applicable. Ford Motor Co. v. Hall-Edwards, 997 So.2d 1148, 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Rousso v. Hannon, 146 So.3d 66, 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). In this case, Defendant does not appear to dispute that an attorney-client privilege exists with regard to the communications between Ms. Giuffre and her attorneys. Rather, Defendant’s argument is that the privilege has somehow been 9  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1137-14 Filed 10/22/20 Page 17 of 40 waived. See Motion to Compel at 1-2. Therefore, under Florida law, Defendant must shoulder the burden of overcoming the privilege. (Of course, because Defendant failed to even cite, much less discuss, Florida law, she has not carried that burden.) Defendant asserts that she can force disclosure of the privileged communications between Ms. Giuffre and her counsel under the “at issue” doctrine. To establish this alleged waiver, Defendant’s motion relies on a federal district court case – Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574 (E.D. Wash. 1975), which was cited in Bank Brussels Lambert v. Credit Lyonnais (Suisse), S.A., 210 F.R.D. 506. 509-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (Ellis, M.J.). See Motion to Compel at 8. As discussed below, as a matter of controlling federal authority, these cases have been repudiated by the Second Circuit. And to the same effect, Florida law also rejects the expansive Hearn approach to waiver. See Guarantee Ins. Co. v. Heffernan Ins. Brokers, Inc., 300 F.R.D. 590, 593-95 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (discussing Florida authorities). Florida law disfavors waiver of the attorney-client privilege and will not readily find an “at issue” waiver. See Guarantee Ins. Co. v. Heffernan Ins. Brokers, Inc., 300 F.R.D. 590, 593 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (citing Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., 940 So.2d 504, 508 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2006) (refusing to find waiver based on the at- issue doctrine)). In contrast to Hearn, under Florida law, at-issue waiver only occurs “when a party ‘raises a claim that will necessarily require proof by way of a privileged communication.’” Coates, 940 So.2d at 508 (quoting Jenney v. Airdata Wiman, Inc., 846 So.2d 664, 668 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2003)) (emphasis in original). Indeed, in 2014, the Southern District of Florida rejected the Hearn “at issue” analysis and instead, adopted the analysis of the Third Circuit as outlined in Rhone–Poulenc Rorer, Inc. v. Home Indemnity Co., 32 F.3d 851 (3d Cir. 1994). Guarantee Ins, 300 F.R.D. at 595. The Third Circuit deemed the Hearn test to be of “dubious validity” because, although it “dress[es] up [its] analysis with a checklist of factors, [it] appear[s] to rest on a 10  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1137-14 Filed 10/22/20 Page 18 of 40 conclusion that the information sought is relevant and should in fairness be disclosed.” Id. at 864. The Third Circuit specifically rejected Hearne because relevance is not the standard for determining whether or not evidence should be protected from disclosure as privileged. Rhone, 32 F.3d at 863. Florida law tracks that of the Third Circuit. See 300 F.R.D. at 593-95 (citing Florida case law). Also, under Florida law, the client – not her attorneys – holds the attorney-client privilege. See Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(3); see also Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(2) (a client has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent any other person from disclosing, the contents of confidential communications when such other person learned of the communications because they were made in the rendition of legal services to the client). Some Florida courts have even recognized serious due process issues could be created by a procedure through which a client lost their privilege without an opportunity to be heard in the proceedings. See, e.g., Rogers v. State, 742 So.2d 827, 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Under Florida law, so long as a client has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the communication, under § 90.507, the privilege is protected. McWatters v. State, 36 So.3d 613, 636 (Fla. 2010). Also under Florida law, only the client – not her attorney – can waive attorney-client privilege. See Savino v. Luciano, 92 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1957), Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Edison, P.A., 940 So.2d 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), and Genovese v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., 74 So.3d 1064 (Fla. 2011). C. Federal Law Rather than discuss Florida privilege law, Defendant exclusively cites federal case law. See Mot. to Compel at ii-iii (table of authorities citing only federal cases). Yet as this Court has previously held in ruling on an earlier privilege motion made by the Defendant, state law generally provides the rule of decision in this diversity case. See Giuffre v. Maxwell, DE 135 at 11  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1137-14 Filed 10/22/20 Page 19 of 40 6, 2016 WL 175918 at * 6 (applying New York privilege law) (citing Allied Irish Banks v. Bank of Am., N.A., 240 F.R.D. 96, 102 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (“Because this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction is based upon diversity . . . state law provides the rule of decision concerning the claim of attorney-client privilege.”)). Accordingly, an argument can be made that New York state law applies in this case7 – but Defendant does not explain why she jumps to federal law. As explained above, in the particular context of a waiver argument, Federal Rule of Evidence 502 applies the more protective of state law or federal law in determining whether a waiver of privilege has occurred. In this case, the controlling federal law is at least as protective as Florida law. The controlling federal law here comes from the Second Circuit, including In re Cnty. of Erie, 546 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2008) – a case not even cited, much less discussed, by the Defendant. In view of the importance of the attorney-client privilege, the Second Circuit in that case held that any finding of waiver should be made with “caution.” Id. at 228. Rather than cite this controlling Second Circuit precedent, Defendant relies on a 2002 case from this Court applying the Hearn “at issue” doctrine. See Mot. to Compel at 8 (citing Bank Brussels Lambert v. Credit Lyonnais (Suisse), S.A., 210 F.R.D. 506. 509-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (Ellis, Magistrate Judge) (quoting Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574, 581 (E.D. Wash. 1975)). Defendant goes on to argue that “courts have generally applied the Hearn [at issue] doctrine liberally, finding a broad waiver of attorney-client privilege where a party asserts a position ‘the truth of which can only be assessed by examination of the privilege communication.” Mot. to Compel at 8 (internal quotation omitted). Defendant fails to recognize that the Second Circuit has explicitly disavowed the Hearn doctrine. In In re Cnty. of Erie, 546 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2008), the Second Circuit explained that “[c]ourts in our Circuit and others have criticized Hearn and have applied its tests unevenly.” Id. 7 As a protective matter, Ms. Giuffre will also provide citations to New York state authorities in this response. 12  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1137-14 Filed 10/22/20 Page 20 of 40 at 227-28.8 The Second Circuit also noted that the Hearn test “has been subject to academic criticism. See, e.g., Richard L. Marcus, The Perils of Privilege: Waiver and the Litigator, 84 MICH. L. REV. 1605, 1628-29 (1986); Note, Developments in the Law-Privileged Communications, 98 HARV. L. REV. 1650, 1641-42 (1985) (identifying “the faults in the Hearn approach”). In light of these strong criticisms of Hearn, the Second Circuit decided that “[w]e agree with its critics that the Hearn test cuts too broadly and therefore conclude that the Distric