https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.164.0.pdf

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------X
VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,
Plaintiff,
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
15-cv-07433-RWS
--------------------------------------------------X
MOTION TO COMPEL ALL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS AND
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
PLACED AT ISSUE BY PLAINTIFF AND HER ATTORNEYS
Laura A. Menninger
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
HADDON, MORGAN, AND FOREMAN, P.C.
East 10th Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
303.831.7364
..
.............................................

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................................... ii
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL............................................................................................ 1
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1
BACKGROUND FACTS RELEVANT TO DISPUTE................................................................. 2

1. Correspondence re: Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States.................................... 2
2. Correspondence re: Giuffre v. Maxwell, 15-cv-07433-RWS.............................................. 2
3. Correspondence re: Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell v. Alan Dershowitz ...................... 3
4. Correspondence re: Jane Doe No. 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein.................................................... 3
5. Categorical Entry re: correspondence potential legal action against entities and individuals
   3
   I. The Attorney-Client and Work Product Privilege Standards and Limitations............. 7
   a. The Attorney-Client Privilege .............................................................................................. 7
   b. Work Product Privilege ....................................................................................................... 7
   II. Plaintiff and her Attorneys Waived Attorney-Client and Work Product Privileges by
   Putting Plaintiff’s Representation At Issue in the Dershowitz Case............................... 8
   a. Plaintiff’s Waiver of the Attorney-Client Privilege ........................................................... 10
   b. Edwards and Cassell’s Waivers of Attorney-Client and Work Product Privilege in the
   Dershowitz Case ............................................................................................................ 15
   c. The elements for finding an at issue waiver are satisfied.................................................. 18
   III. There is No Privilege as to Communications with Scarola ............................................ 22
   a. There is no Attorney-Client Relationship .......................................................................... 22
   b. Work Product Privilege has been Waived ......................................................................... 23
   c. There is no basis to claim common interest or joint defense privilege.............................. 23
   CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 24
   CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................................... 25

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Bank Brussels Lambert v. Credit Lyonnais (Suisse), S.A., 210 F.R.D. 506, 509-10 (S.D.N.Y.

1. ........................................................................................................................................... 9
   Bowne of New York City, Inc. v. AmBase Corp., 150 F.R.D. 465, 488 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)....... 15, 21
   Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v. Wachner, 198 F.R.D. 53, 55 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) .......................... 8
   Chevron Corp. v. Salazar, 275 F.R.D. 437, 445-46 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).......................................... 10
   Chin v. Rogoff & Co., P.C., No. 05 CIV. 8360(NRB), 2008 WL 2073934, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. May
   8, 2008) ..................................................................................................................................... 21
   Drimmer v. Appleton, 628 F.Supp. 1249, 1252 (S.D.N.Y.1986).................................................. 20
   In re Horowitz, 482 F.2d 72, 82 (2d Cir.)..................................................................................... 20
   In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d ...................................................................................................... 15, 20
   In re. Steinhardt Partners, 9 F.3d 230, 235 (2d Cir. 1993) …………………………………….9
   Koumoulis v. Indep. Fin. Mktg. Grp., Inc., 295 F.R.D. 28, 39-40 (E.D.N.Y. 2013). ..................... 9
   McGrath v. Nassau Cty. Health Care Corp., 204 F.R.D. 240, 244 (E.D.N.Y. 2001).............. 9, 22
   Schaeffler v. United States, 806 F.3d 34, 40 (2d Cir.2015)………………………………..........16
   S.E.C. v. Yorkville Advisors, LLC, 300 F.R.D. 152, 162 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)................................... 25
   United States ex rel Edney v. Smith, 425 F.Supp. 1038, 1052 (E.D.N.Y. 1976).......................... 20
   United States v. Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 1285, 1292 (2d Cir.1991................................................. 9, 15
   United States v. Mejia, 655 F.3d 126, 132 (2d Cir. 2011).............................................................. 8

iii
United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 (1975). ....................................................................... 9
United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82, 89 (2d Cir. 1997) ............................................................ 15
Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981)................................................................. 8
Urban Box Office Network, Inc. v. Interfase Managers, L.P., No. 01 Civ. 8854, 2004 WL
2375819, at *3–4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2004) ............................................................................. 10
Wultz v. Bank of China Ltd., 304 F.R.D. 384, 391 (S.D.N.Y.2015)......................................... 8, 24

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