1
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell (“Ms. Maxwell”) files this Motion to Compel All
Attorney-Client Communications and Attorney Work Product Placed At Issue By Plaintiff and
Her Attorneys (“Motion”), and as grounds therefore states as follows:
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1), undersigned counsel certifies that
she conferred with opposing counsel regarding the issues contained herein and was unable to
resolve the matter.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff and her attorneys have tied a Gordian knot of overlapping litigations, client
representations and joint defense agreements. Through these multiple litigations and
representations, they attempt to strategically leverage attorney-client communications and
attorney work product to their tactical advantage by selectively disclosing information.
Simultaneously, they desperately seek to avoid disclosure of related materials they know are
unfavorable, would destroy Plaintiff’s claim that she has been truthful, and reveal her attorneys’
knowledge of Plaintiff’s false statements in multiple sworn filings and her concerted media
campaign. The law, however, does not permit such a manipulation of the attorney-client and
work product privileges. Rather, the selective disclosure of privileged materials results in a
waiver of privilege as to all such material. This waiver is broad-sweeping when, as here, the
persons asserting the privileges have affirmatively put the subject matter of the materials at issue.
In the most recent of their serial litigations (apart from this case), Plaintiff’s own
attorneys Bradley Edwards (“Edwards) and Paul Cassell (“Cassell”) sued Harvard Law Professor
Alan Dershowitz (“Dershowitz”) for defamation in Florida state court. The subject matter of that
litigation concerned whether Mr. Dershowitz defamed Plaintiff’s attorneys by claiming
a) Plaintiff is lying; b) Edwards and Cassell knew Plaintiff is lying; c) Edwards and Cassell helped

2
Plaintiff lie and helped her concoct her stories; d) Edwards and Cassell failed to properly
investigate Plaintiff’s allegations before filing pleadings and sworn statements on Plaintiff’s
behalf; and e) Edwards and Cassell were motivated to take these actions by a desire to achieve
personal economic gain. This litigation put at issue all communications between Plaintiff and
her attorneys as well as her attorneys’ complete work product in the investigations of Plaintiff’s
stories and accusations. The truth of the matters put at issue in the Dershowitz litigation can only
be tested by examination of privileged materials, resulting in a sweeping waiver.
BACKGROUND FACTS RELEVANT TO DISPUTE
In her privilege log, Plaintiff has “categorically” logged five separate groups of
documents she has withheld on the basis of “AC Privilege and Work Product/joint
defense/common interest.” The documents are identified as:

1. Correspondence re: Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Case No. 08-
   80736-CIV-Marra, pending in the Southern District of Florida. ("CVRA Case")
   Plaintiff withheld documents purportedly to and from her attorneys (and others) related to
   legal advice regarding the CVRA Case (to which Plaintiff is not a party), and documents
   purportedly giving attorney mental impressions related to the CVRA Case and
   “evidence” related thereto. Declaration of Laura A. Menninger (“Menninger Decl..”),
   Exhibit A.
   (i) The date range of the documents is 2011 – Present. Id.
   (ii) Persons identified as involved in the communications are: Plaintiff Virginia
   Giuffre (“Giuffre”), Brad Edwards (“Edwards”), Paul Cassell (“Cassell”),
   Brittany Henderson (“Henderson”), Sigrid McCawley (“McCawley”),
   Meredith Schultz (“Shultz”), David Boies (“Boies”), Jack Scarola (“Scarola”),
   Stan Pottinger (“Pottinger”), Ellen Brockman (“Brockman”), Legal Assistants
   (“Legal Assistants”), Professionals retained by attorneys to aid in the rendition
   of legal advice and representation (“Other Professionals”). Id.
2. Correspondence re: Giuffre v. Maxwell, 15-cv-07433-RWS, pending in the
   Southern District of New York (“Maxwell Case”). Id.
   (i) The date range of the documents is September 21, 2015– Present. Id.

3
(ii) Persons identified as involved in the communications are: Giuffre, Edwards
Cassell, Henderson, McCawley, Schultz, Boies, Pottinger, Stephen Zach
(“Zach”), Brockman, Legal Assistants and Other Professionals. Id.

1. Correspondence re: Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell v. Alan Dershowitz
   (“Dershowitz Case”), Case No. 15000072, pending in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
   Broward County, Florida. (“Dershowitz Case”). Id.
   (i) The date range of the documents is January 2015 -Present. Id.
   (ii) Persons identified as involved in the communications are: Giuffre, Edwards
   Cassell, Henderson, McCawley, Schultz, Boies, Pottinger, Zach, Brockman,
   Legal Assistants and Other Professionals. Id.
2. Correspondence re: Jane Doe No. 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein Case”), Case
   No. 09-80656-CIV-Marra/Johnson (Southern District of Florida) (“Epstein case”)
   (i) The date range of the documents is 2009 – Present
   (ii) Persons identified as involved in the communications are: Giuffre, Bob
   Josefsberg, Katherine W. Ezell, Amy Ederi, other Podhurst attorneys, Legal
   Assistants, and Professionals retained by attorneys to aid in the rendition of
   legal advice. Id.
3. “This categorical entry is regarding correspondence potential legal action against
   entities and individuals.” (same description re potential litigation)
   (i) The date range of the documents is from January 2015 –Present.
   (ii) Persons identified as involved in the communications are: Giuffre, Edwards
   Cassell, Henderson, McCawley, Schultz, Boies, Pottinger, Zach, Brockman,
   Legal Assistants and Other Professionals.
   Plaintiff is withholding “Approx. 1.3 kilobytes [of documents] overlapping with other
   cases” based on the categorically logged entries in Paragraph 1.
   According to her most recent interrogatory response, Plaintiff has been represented in
   various litigation matters identified above as follows:
   (a) Pottinger, Boies, and McCawley (along with other Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
   (“Boies Schiller”) attorneys represent Ms. Giuffre as a non-party in the Dershowitz Case,
   starting in February 2015.
   (b) Edwards (along with other Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman,
   P.L. attorneys), Cassell, Pottinger, Boies and McCawley and Boies Schiller attorneys
   represent Ms. Giuffre in the Maxwell case, “the complaint of which was filed in
   September, 2015.” Id.

4
(c) Cassell represents Ms. Giuffre as a non-party in the CVRA Case, starting in May
of 2014. Id.
(d) Edwards and other Farmer, Jaffe attorneys represent Ms. Giuffre as a non-party in
the CVRA Case, starting in 2011. Id.
(e) Cassell provided Ms. Giuffre with legal advice concerning potential legal action
starting in early 2011. Id.
(f) Cassell, Edwards and other Farmer, Jaffe attorneys, Pottinger, Boies (along with
other Boies Schiller attorneys) represent Ms. Giuffre regarding investigations into
potential legal action starting in the second half of 2014. Id.
(g) According to Plaintiff, she has never been represented by Scarola.
Menninger Decl., Ex. B at 4.
The CVRA Case
In the CVRA Case, Edwards (starting in 2011) and Cassell (starting in May 2014) have
represented Plaintiff in attempting to obtain joinder in the pending action. On December 30,
2014, Cassell and Edwards filed a pleading titled "Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4's Motion
Pursuant to Rule 21 for Joinder in Action" in the CVRA Case. Menninger Decl., Ex C (the
"Joinder Motion"). The Joinder Motion contained a number of allegations on behalf of “Jane
Doe # 3,” who is actually Ms. Giuffre, the Plaintiff in this case. The allegations include that
“Epstein also sexually trafficked the then-minor Jane Doe [#3], making her available for sex to
politically-connected and financially-powerful people." The "politically-connected and
financially powerful people" identified by Edwards and Cassell by name in the Joinder Motion
as having had sexual relations with Jane Doe #3 were Prince Andrew, Duke of York ("Prince
Andrew"), Ms. Maxwell, Jean Luc Brunel ("Brunel") and Alan Dershowitz (“Dershowitz”). Id.
at 3-6.1

1 The judge in the CVRA case subsequently struck these allegations, stating “[a]t this juncture in the proceedings,
these lurid details are unnecessary to the determination of whether Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 should be permitted
to join Petitioners’ claim that the Government violated their rights under the CVRA. The factual details regarding
with whom and where the Jane Does engaged in sexual activities are immaterial and impertinent to this central claim