Giuffre v. Dershowitz

Opinion

Cooper & Kirk Lawyers A Professional Limited Liability Company Nicole J. Moss 1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. (202) 220-9636 nmoss@cooperkirk.com Washington, D.C. 20036 Fax (202) 220-9601 December 3, 2021 Defendant shall file a respons vin ce if ne later, shan vonday Honorable Loretta A. Preska nell . 41 ’ 1 □ by United States District Court sna 1le a reply, , 1 Southern District of New York Wednesday December 15, 2021. 500 Pearl Street New York. NY 10007-1312 Plaintiff's motion to seal (dk nos. 371, 372) is granted. Re: Giuffre v. Dershowitz, Case No.: 19-cv-033'77-LAP Motion for Pre-Motion Discovery Conference SO ORDERED. Dear Judge Preska: OZ OC CLtA Cf Yuwkg 12/6/2 I write on behalf of Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre to request a pre-motion discovery conference concerning several discovery disputes between Plaintiff and Defendant, including Defendant’s refusal to produce discovery to which Plaintiff is entitled under the rules, and Defendant’s attempt to take Ms. Guiuffre’s deposition before he fulfills his discovery obligations. The parties have conferred on these discovery disputes and have been unable to reach a resolution. We outline the disputes below. I. Defendant Wrongfully Asserts Privilege Over Non-Privileged Documents. Defendant has withheld an extraordinary number of documents on privilege grounds. Defendant has produced approximately 10,000 communications. In contrast, he has withheld approximately 20,000 documents, consisting of approximately 16,000 communications with over sixty law firms and individual lawyers with whom he claims an attorney-client relationship, and scores of third parties. Many of these privilege assertions are facially invalid. Common _Interest__ with Epstein. Defendant has improperly asserted a joint- defense/common-interest privilege over approximately two thousand communications between himself and Jeffrey Epstein or Epstein’s attorneys. These assertions of privilege are premised on the purported existence of a common interest that Defendant and Epstein shared in connection with the CVRA Action, Edwards v. Dershowitz, Giuffre v. Maxwell, this action, and “related matters.” The common-interest rule serves to protect the confidentiality of communications passing from one party to counsel for another party where a joint defense effort has been decided on and undertaken. Schaeffler v. United States, 806 F.3d 34, 40 (2nd Cir. 2015). For the common interest rule to apply: “(1) the party who asserts the rule must share a common legal interest with the party with whom the information was shared and (2) the statements for which protection is sought [must have been] designed to further that interest.” Egiazaryan v. Zalmayev, 290 F.R.D. 421, 434