United States District Court Southern District of York Virginia Giuffre,-5 Plaintiff Case No Ghislain6 axwell,6 Defendant RESPONS-4.1 TO MOTION TO COMPEL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS-4.4 AND RNEY RK PR ODUCT MATERIALS BOIES SCHILLER EXNER Sigrid McC7.6 wley Pro Hac Vice Meredith Schultz Pro Hac Vice Boies Schiller Flexner LLP Las Olas Blvd Suite Ft Lauderdale FL David Boies Boies Schiller Flexner LLP Main Street onk NY Case Document Filed Page of i TABLE OF NTENTS-6.3 TABLE OF CONTENTS i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES i INTROD-4.9 TION CTU3.2 GROUN3.2 The CVRA ase The Dershow-4.3 itz cas-4 The Florida Court Rejects a Waiver of Attorney Clients Privilege Argument Ms Giuffre s2 Deposition the Defam8.1 tion Case The Settlem7.8 nt of the Defamation Case LEGAL NDAR-4.9 DS WAIVE-6.4 A Federal Rule of Evidence ontrols on the Issue of Waiver Florida Law Federal Law DISCUSSION I MS GIUFFRE DID NOT WAIVE HER ATTORNE-6 CLIENT IVILEGE WHEN RDS AND CASSELL FILED AND RSUED EIR OWN DEFAMATI-5.8 ON ACTI-5.8 AGAINST ALAN HOWITZ A The Florida Court Presiding over the Defa mation tion Has Alre-3.7 Rejected the iver-5.3 Clai-5.8 that fendant is Advancing Here Actions Cassell and Edwards Do Waive Ms Giuffre Attorne7.2 Client Privilege Ms Giuffre Confidential mm8 unicati-5.6 ons With Her Attorne7.4 Were Never Issue in the Florida Dershowitz Litigation Defendant Has Not Met the Other Requirem8.2 nts for Showing Waiver of Attorne7.6 Client Privilege Ms Giuffre Will Not Seek to Use Confid ential Attorney-7.8 Client unicati-5.9 ons in her Action Here II MS GIUFFRE DID NOT WAIVE HER ATTORNEY-CLIE-5.9 PRIVILEGE BY DENYI-5.9 NG BRIC-5.2 EVICEN-4.7 DURIN-4.7 HER DEPOS-6.8 ITION I.EDWARDS AND CASSELL HAVE NOT ED WORK-PRODUCT PROTECTION AND XWELL HAS NOT ONSTRATE-6.1 NEED TO Case Document Filed Page of ii IV.COMMU-4.5 NICATI-5.7 WITH ATTORNEY JAC-5 K1 SCAR-5 A ARE RED BY JOINT DEFE-6.4 NSE AGREE-6.4 MENT AND ARE THUS PROTECTE-6.4 BY ATTO-4.4 RNEY CLIENT WORK-P-6.8 RODU-4.7 CTIO-4.7 PROTECT-6.7 ION CONCL-6.8 SI-6 ON Case Document Filed Page of i TABLE OF AUTHORI-5.4 Cases Allen West Point-Pepperell Inc upp4.6 Allied Irish Banks Bank of Am N.A F.R.D S.D.N.Y Am Re-Ins Co U.S Guar Co A.D.3d 2d Aristocrat isure Ltd Deutsche Bank Trust Co Americas No CIV PKL WL S.D.N.Y Sept Bank Brussels Lambert Credit Lyonnais Suisse S.A F.R.D S.D.N.Y Brookings State Fla Bus Integration Servs Inc AT rp No CIV JGK WL Feb Butler Harter Fla 1st DCA Charter One Bank F.S.B Midtown Rochester L.L.C Misc N.Y.S.2d Ct Coates Akerman Senterfitt Eidson P.A S6 Fla DCA Columbia sp Corp of Broward Fain 3d Fla 4th DCA Connell Bernstein-M3.1 ulay Inc upp4.6 Coyne Schwartz Gold Cohen Zakar in Kotler P.A Fla th DCA CSX Transp Inc Carpenter Fla 2d A Delap Stat5.9 Fla Diaz 226Verson lbridge Aldinger Co 3d Fla 2d A Dillenbeck Hess N.Y.2d E.2d N3 Does and United Stat5.7 es upp4.6 S.D Fla Does Unite-3.5 States 3d th Cir Eastern Air Lines Inc Gellert Fla 3d A Elliott Associates L.P anco de la Nacion 3d 2d Cir Case Document Filed Page of iv Falco hore Labs rp Fla 1st D8 C2 A Ferrei-5.8 ra Capitol Specialty Ins Corp Misc 3d A N.Y up Ct First Union National Turney Fla 1st DCA Ford Motor Co Hall-Edwards Fla DCA Genovese Provident Life and Accident Ins Co 3d Fla Giuffre Maxwell DE WL Goldman hs Co Blondis F.S6 upp4.5 Guarantee Ins Co Heffernan Ins Brokers Inc F.R.D S.D Fla GUS Consulting BH Chadb3.9 ourne Parke LLP Misc 3d S.2d Ct Hagans torland ta LLC/Sentr7.6 Ins 3d la st DCA Hearn Rhay F.R.D E.D Wash HSH Nordbank AG New York Branch Swerdlow F.R.D S.D.N.Y In re Bank of New York Mellon Corp Forex Transacti-5.8 ons Litig S6 S.D.N.Y In re Bank of New York llon Misc 3d N.Y.S.2d Sup Ct In re Cnty of Erie 3d 2d Cir In re von Bulow 2d 2d Cir Jane Doe United States No S.D Fla July Jane Does and Unit5.7 ed States upp4.6 S.D Fla Jenney Airdata iman Inc Fla 2d A Jenney Airdata iman Inc S6 Fla DCA Koon ate Fla Lynch Stat So.3 F6 la Cullough Kubiak S6 Fla th A Watters State 3d Fla Case Document Filed Page of itchell Superior Court Cal 3d Cal ontana ited States U.S Montanez Publix Super Market-5.9 Inc Fla Dist Ct App Broward Hosp Dist Button Fla 4th A Niesig Team I N.Y.2d Nomura Asse-3.3 Capital Cor7.5 Cadwalader Wick-4 ersh-8 am Taft A.D.3d 2d N.Y App Div OBrien Fed Trust Bank7.9 Fla Dist Ct App Paradise Divers Inc mal Fla Dist Ct App Parklane Hosiery Co Inc Shore U.S Pereira ited Jers-4.2 ey ank Nos Civ Civ4.4 WL D.N.Y Dec.11 Perrignon Bergen Brunswig Corp F.R.D N.D Procacci Seitlin Fla Dist Ct App Procter Gamble Co Swilley Fla 1st D8 C2 A Rhone-Poule7.5 Rorer Inc Home Indem Co 3d Rhone 226Poulenc Rorer Inc Home Indemnity Co 3d Cir Rogers State Fla 2d A Rousso Hannon Fla 3d DCA Savino ciano 2d Fla Schetter Schetter S6 Fla th DCA Schnell Sch3.8 nall Sup4.5 Southern Bell5.8 Tel Tel Co Deason State T.A S6 Fla 2d A Surf Drugs Inc Vermett-5.7 Fla Swidler Berlin United States U.S Case Document Filed Page of vi Taylor Stat5.8 la Ulico Cas Co Wilson Elser owitz Edelman A.D.3d Universal lopme-3.7 Partners Ltd Pupillo 3d Fla th DCA est Bend tual Co Higgi6 ns th DCA Zirkelbach Const Inc Rajan 3d Fla 2d A Zois Coope8 B.R S.D.N.Y Statutes U.S.C a Cri-6 Vi-6 cti-6 Rights Act CVRA U.S.C Fla Stat Ann Fla Stat Ann Fla Stat Ann Fla Stat Ann Fla Stat Ann Fla Stat Ann N.Y C.P.L.R a Pub Title I a Stat Rules Fed Evid.5.3 Fed Evid.5.4 Fed Evid.5.4 Fed Evid.5.7 Fla Civ Treatises Charles rhardt Fla Prac Evidence ed Paul Cass-4 ell Nathanael-6 Mitchell Bradley-7.9 Edwards Crime Victims Rights During Criminal Investigation3.5 s2 Applying Crime Victims Rights Act before Criminal Charges are File-3.7 RI6 RIMINOLOG-5.4 Other Authorities N.Y C.P.L.R McKinne7.9 Case Document Filed Page of Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre by and through her undersigned counsel hereby files this response to Defendant 2s Motion to Com8.3 el All Attorney-C7.5 lien Communications and Attorney Work Product Placed at Issue by Pl aintiff and Her Attorneys DE The tion should be denied in its entirety INTRODUCTION Defendant argues Ms uffre and two of her attorneys Cassell and Edwards have som8.2 how placed issu5.4 her confidential attorn ey-client comm8.2 unications and therefore have ade a 223sweeping waive4.9 atto6.1 rne4.9 client ile ge in is case Def3.8 ndant however fails to cite the controlling law on this issue Fede ral Rule of Evidence Enacted in Rule was designed to block exactly the kind of argu ment Defendant is king Rule provides that litigan6.1 are titled to the most protec4.7 tive on attorne4.7 client ilege eith5.9 er state law where the disclosure was de or federal law Th alleged disclosures in this case were de in Florida and under Florida law did no constitute any waiver of atto rney-client privilege Indeed Defendant does not reveal to the Court th6 at th6 Florida judg6 ho handled the case during which the alleged 223waivers curred he Dershowitz case already considered and rejected in their entirety the very argum8.3 ents th at Defendant is advancing here In addition none of the alleged disclosures we re de by Giuffre who as the holder of the privilege is the only individual with auth ority to waive it Moreover none of the alleged disclosures concerned the substance of confiden tial attorney-client communications And finally Ms Giuffre will not eeking to introduce or herwise take advantage any confidential atto6 rney-c4.8 lie4.8 nt comm8.8 unication6 in th6 is case A ccordingly for these and other reasons the Court should deny Defendant 2s ti on in its entirety Case Document Filed Page of FACT-3.5 UAL BACKGROUND The CVRA Case The facts relevant to this issue begin in when attorney Bradley E6 dwards soon joined by co-counsel ofe ssor Paul Cassell filed a pro bono action in the Sout hern District of Florida under the Crim8.3 Victim8.3 Rights Act VR A U.S.C Filed on behalf of Jane Doe and later Jane Doe the CVRA action al leged that federal governm7.9 ent had ed to protec4.6 the rights Jane Doe and other s5 ila rly situa4.2 ed victim8.2 sex nses committed by Jeffrey Epstein See Declaration of Sigrid McC7.1 wley 223McCawley Decl at Exhibit Com8.3 laint filed in Jane Doe United States No S.D Fla July Jane Does and achieved ny victories in the case including a ruling that the CVRA rights of victim8.3 could apply before charges were filed Does and United States F.Supp.2d S.D Fla that they had standing to chal lenge the non-prosecution agreem7.9 ent reached tween the Governm8.3 nt and Epstein Jane Does and United States F.Supp.2d S.D Fla and that plea negotia tions were not protected from8.1 disclosure by any federal rule of evidence Does United States F.3d th Cir Congress has also followed the developm8.1 ents in the case closely recen5.5 tly ending the CVRA to insure that in the ture crim8.7 victim8.7 receiv5.9 notice of any non-prosecution agreem8.2 ent entered into by the Governm8 nt See Pub Title I a May Stat adding U.S.C a to give crim)8.2 vic tim8.4 223the right to be infor-6.4 ed in a tim8.4 ely nner of ny plea bargain or defe rred prosecution agreem7.9 ent See ner7.1 Paul Cas5.5 sell Nat8 anael Mitch-4.7 ll Brad-4.7 ley Edwards Crime Victims Righ-4.2 ts Crimin-4.8 vestig-4.8 ns Crime Victims Act3.6 bef9.6 re nal3.6 arge7.9 are7.9 RIM RIMIN-8 OGY Case Document Filed Page of Case Document Filed Page of On December Cassell and Edwards filed a Motion Pursuant to Rule for Joinder in the Action on behalf two additional victims Jane Doe and Jane Doe Jane Doe Virginia Giuffre subsequently decided to reveal her name The joinder motion argued that Jane Does and 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 Jane Does and Joinder Motion To establish that they were victims of Epstein sex crimes with standing to join the suit Jane Does and alleged that they had suffered sexual abuse from Epstein For example Jane Doe alleged that she had been forced by Epstein to have sexual relations with various persons Mccawley Deel Exhibit at Jane Doe also alleged that Defendant i.e Ghislaine Maxwell had paiticipated in the sexual abuse of Jane Doe Id at The Joinder Motion attached as an exhibit is a corrected motion filed on Janua1y A discussed below several parngraphs in this motion were later stricken by Judge Mana This document is restricted/under seal in the CVRA case although an order sealing it is not found in the Corut record so far as can be detennined In light of the sealing of the documen we ha marked aspects of this pleading dealing with the document as confidential Case Document Filed Page of sworn testimony from another of Epsteins 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 identified co-conspirators when asked questions about whether with massages by young girls refusals by Jeffrey Epstein to discuss invoke his Fifth Amendment right Id at involvement but instead to Several months later on April the Comt Mana denied Jane Doe and Jane Doe motion for joinder Mccawley Deel Exhibit Order denying Jane Doe motion to join With regard to the eight separate issues as to which the 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 impe1iinent 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-paies who ai not related to the respondent Government Id at Accordingly the Comt shuck the factual details from the victims pleading as unnecessary at that time The Comt specifically recognized however that the details could be reasse1ted by the pa1iies to the action-i.e Jane Doe and Jane Doe 2-ifthey could demonsti 267ate a good faith basis for believing that such details are pertinent to a matter presented for the Courts consideration Id at Following the Camis rnling additional litigation has proceeded in the CVRA case The Dershowitz case In asserting that the non-parties were not related to the respondent Government the Court did not address Jane Doe argument that 鋢Ǣ?E sa mn?ꖯ Xd?M FT??p OcNMx 4l?N BVӒ K?j?w jvTG??ۋ??z pj??QBj4 dM??Ϛsp??u?l Fش?F ni Nv ћP I Q??rԁ UY k?,A knnN X?,y?u?ǰ i Z?J I Ls n3I ZO CM p?dz O_Fg??I Y??k 氵?s Q?v a?C??sa4 b?l Z?S sݠ?J o?_S l3 W?Z?ķ9Ɵkn k5 BDSoas ik5??e W?(v 6F Z?O rX??n?G ɣci A Y?n??TʶJ?ߢ i vm R8 P?ՑU ui4 cm9fq qn 7v J?E ב䵰i?I??R;F?t r3 h-?r da գ??k?S 豩?w.t z?-K e?a??W A D?ak eec E?y?Q յQ Gx??Bx??B?D wP?,wP?Q LL kci.?G uˍ I Z,?,wP?Q A Gx??Bx??B?D a 8z?T X?H R?;Ŏ c?c X?H v?u??n 6?qվ 0aN R?;Ŏ S2x?ݾ0?s M?v A tH ٳ?C F?f X䈰 Gx??Bx??B?D wP 5魀 DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DA hb?k??E i ix j?Z٣ln ŶT J?D v??Da?RHڌ fR Bܟ T??v ow Z?Dr Gzڨ 6?SN v?p D?l Ml 8jb Xl B??fX dQt?GOQ X_?K Ẇ۵ Ɯz UUGE PH?Q pkG JS??V Ħn3K kD da PK 4H?RsѸ?M eK hl?Xk Sb FM A nv 4T?GF p?U bl pd?1q y?J?I4?4aš M.?v?Ѳ?D gnr q?N i kCs I q??t Wf?K Z?p?h y?ZR Z2 I m??p nh QC??U a r/?lPcq?O 1k L?v y?r Y?Xl?cC?e-i m?m 0ܬ w?n zH AV R?pHp X8 ia?j줏 Qbԕu Ț6 tyn/?ˢEɲYb iq Qs BCH?P?S4 i vh?TO z?ޢ?wid?z?9??Y5?KZ by?hR??y 7P?kv?ØӏP?m i 1I?Dک ژj QA?k?G GTk Yl E?Xu 6X h?Y2?n Vnk I?UA dol B?0m ai A Eޖ6UE _Qq?F eK m??l TDȬ c?A LU 4Y l?y S1m fv F?3x W;r6 A?U?WE Ώsxt??-M??wEC mC s??s?X w9?s WL??4?vRG p?B??B vlMh??oĵ li Ů??ݤ Y??i An ȝ?g n?8t h?Ax?vS I?A??M 3H?K F?A x?TT?ǴK lk lr?H Cc i?r jb?Fbk sX h)e?eK se6 m?C C??EI d?Ak Cf?p uqL M?R??i wd?ZFf??Ά??p f?ŃB R)ÛU h?wp?k l?A pH m?d AҬu 5ӉZUX qcc?G?la Ou y?o 9Xr?/?K??nvYp?j FY I Az ٯ?r eL?4 7ǰ еQ r?d EC?a?ó6 º??N?헕 QI??M l5n Y?U 0F 0q jH S5f?T f?T8 NL I VB)KSU1 ێ??q ȘZZA o?ݟ?Lr?Տ O?S?U C?aƆ Ϝ?b?ߕց??e AS3 n?z??wȕ??O??jsUx?5U i?B?Q vRc a ysQ xn7M 5Qkz뫐?18q c7 H:ҲG?r m?M RW kX Eע?juQf??A vQ SHȜ ms?uh?m cX iX7q fF h?3cq i??Z i2?v?ô Hm 4Rb?MTX?M bt?h?C O?T1?tm?e Z??u odp?x ǵ??im ڬߝTC uS?M kp Îb sV Z?x??O DO wӪҥ ln?E I lNq-s?k 5QVc?,?V撓 Hp A HɳD?4?k I q3a zJ7 ϟq b??z?qKS qQ bW ND I/qh?i V0 qQ k?E??d f鲐wS q??qV,S6v byX?Gď cu?di õ?s H?x 쭄9 nƩ)i??w?drJ?dd?Ƃ?FQ k?i Khq n?V?2V tN h?ɸ cW a i zu G?c sS V??w rbv?С G?c oI??FK?ɼ?ڰ N9yۂ q?V m?i zJ ps?6 po V0 qQ ӭ?ޡ ygt?w qh Nk b?Y?JQ?V0 uג a 5ǝ bGv O?Q?o X?V0 qQ bԒWa 7;Dn E?ǭs V0 qQ j1?EI1 wd X?Gď i Td,k?yk MT bW ND I/qh G?c f鲐wS q??qS V0 qQ i V?C G?c zZ??KY v?1w VC kn6?KyX?Gď X??k?bsu?q?R??Xh l?!??kHp V0 qQ J??L?eC 6ŤDᨷB OMS R?x Fɕ V0 qQ t?K?M M?M H??A i YP Zo RL Is 3g G?c H?Boκ??玙??pk ؼr?9獙??p?R4Y G?c 4ոES)?c TE?P Wnn k?Q?Y?G?MO R?i?c?h N?os Φ?f?v A om.GE śݮ?z byX?Gď BZ?5 3Z v??Xv Ǵ?M?K mu??c bE 3t?K?5Ydi a?p7 u"گ rR-?)N 4?ss?F sEi L??cn z?Zj ѵQ RI Mk jX nl eGO mq w?el lk אր lA貆bT?Շob MEeE A I 7EJں??ӳ ٲn xh sr?8 ǽj n?R uq48?N G?J?WA F9 e?i?CD a1?m ev??P?I Ŏq t!j C3 hy Nq r?Wm TN r?4F?FnA QM n?ˁW ak?d-pmÁyq?۹Ga z?W?Y?v?G?i V?Z ڢ?kp?Z v?!h tkK f?s nr _N Y?z A 7Y?p nVۦ?b Lw ŭ?Zx?t cs Ha6 Elt u?cԌ?Ũ jB?O VT SdcC H?qsHq?.m?T?E?V P??fx E!??m?EL2K A dӑqh WT?s?T g//i M?Z??_ەO?Ŀ UU TD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD ҵQ r?e G?K?z 3W 8J s?Smz ښjyh B8?E vK i Ň3 vn?JY"?wI B??X?Ɩ YQ?G A eC?T p?yǮ a A??Qȑa fj?d??卜??ty?ot?qc sff ss?_ Pȑbn?q ZI dN JXFE Zxk K?x u?d Йو w??LSR?F Mk ѯp?kU?T?32 I i i?oZ?vƼ??B?R8?w tȢ?hZ mK uF??Q R?ര?f omx G?l h?d?q2 7?іY?fSh?m M?ʘ?_ەO?Ŀ 杯?6Y _t?qh?O 5ŧY Ѝc K??g?Zyľ V??E?yľ k??d _t?qh?O AŢ _t _t?qh?O aE I?kZ.I q?oY njc K??g?Zyľ d??Ǵ?i ZXo H9t K??g?Zyľ Qu vWIa _t?qh?O AŢ _t a _t?qh?O AūW 6A y?rCm Ǎ?τI??PM JxD i?C x_h4?T DD DD DD DD DD DA?ӵQ r?e G?K?z?ծS X??DD DD DD DA nS Jl nS vlBWԾ?1?1 sq WP?I86 Ե?Y?sC s)?I 6c h?I rl?6 q?E3vi?f Jjc4??tD c6?Ԥ?c?S f6 x3?,uE yw mn Bx qw zJ Kn KS or yHϻ??ξ hX nz k??E?ع c??N?s ѩڧAO çl?k IӿE g7vF F?q Rcs Nm 1Vamm?s?xc d3 M?AM!.k5qk B??W?c qk z?l ak i t?u1 E??ߒFm 0F?c?v ݑbm?0 Od?H Zlև4 j㫡??F rԓk asܡ Dq?ɟ)w ᕶ?P Xe i Ն??l i M?Q??G si?w us?N?t?ڙ?qV AkPc?SF _?ۉk yڙ??i SC Gy C?v dk Ԗ?v?Btl A?d Ln ٸ?Zpm 8l L?C?q fm9 A c?K?al t2 ZCƄ oܤ ǹc lcX?Lt2D p?a Z?Hc ޥ?MIS?Xs?2 43zG nx??VF 7d NH?mO f?f?X ӕԋ?џz?;snb?IY?S Y?G X?z Or??ڨ?F Nc?v A I?ωQVB ݝ?UGMQ V?oZ?1??wg d?ˇx;?n l?eEv?9 륅?u?T S?c v?cR p,ok?-UN/i I F?K s?MLf Nj?p?حNy?f?ڔ?lwT?Jav??d _?IaX?F Ͽ5 iس?j?DD DD DD DD H??H?I W5 K?s L7 ǟU i csc?Y0 2J ɘƽ I"ݜ?7ԷQ V?ȟ kX A ǿ??mu Uʴ?5 4l?dڜ lG V?h ѕ?f Ə?J T??pP Ya NR5 H6?o?e?a t?W R?j V?c?s 9b Pr??v e?M j2 D?f?Ⳟz狡 Db7 S?N?D7 EQ a?1Ѹ_G K?/k va?A?t A ƃ?ɲ s?F?H ph I ec Bs67M;c ϚE??gy6??I w?ě hv?Z?4 fo ڛX u?Gg VHc?w?ϊF l?u?n ٱ5?f屴dvr Ii vsݢ?8 Θ??ސ;gK s?t?G Z?M sJ zOr PD 4qԱ?Ι Zڞ??Z ƅ??SU?O?S i F?R4l KZo?Ee ޢyj?:?c Dm?L ԵQ r?e G?K?z?լ5T??Fb Sl csfg??s iڵŻ ð??奊 i 6w Ħ?:W V?Ӥ c??Z?cZm th?Q F?s??ә A g??c?l?n p??x5頷z?D?SE F??QkPC5 I?x?ݔ2 VT F/r??wk f?ES QM I V³ YJ 7ŏ c?c X??I RH?7ŏ c?c X??I RH?7ŏ c?c UE zA _J Ҟ??zA kE zA _J X??I RH?7ŏ c?c X??I RH?7ŏ c?c X??I RH?7ŏ DD DD DD DD DD DD յQ M?T g?ұ??Kt E?bR ph o?X Бnv?q x?q A9 iݳ I hO;?ݞmuc RU1?c?kC 2Y?I?Š GC i?Ӿ MM j?k oa?vZ Fm p.k 8j?qbN A nfC4??v 6h6?բyD?nS M5OmV?B?T6 Jz??v?N i?K AO Q6Y i X?E 8wpZ?E?6v?pw6 JF p??Ds pq SE C??M fP 5h bѹ?;?p?hůF i s?/sb 4a 7e ced?NC rm ؤ,k k?q L2 A ASD?B?9 KM u?M pcX e?H I ܒ?rI?J A n?vn G??q j__j?p VI?F uY po?ژw ȥ/s 5?qL Ai U?Qญ0?hc 0?ۇe?qן l?ٶ ˢ?)p I x?q o?kts a?AN Y?"pp v?;.Q?WS?QF 盐/?h G?Y J?b T??BX É?L??!r??D?Όbq X6s 7N Q??t I a 튮i 퐃qb rgj?DBM?d?s fv C??t x?ww I??M V?ɴƮ dM?dq t?m?Qc?RGg L?sH??lo ŧ??y H??Zdvg 3iK F6Cw Sau yݷ vރ 7m yݷ vރ 7m yݷ vރ 7m yݷ vރ 7m yݷ vރ 7m yݷ vރ 7m yݷ vރ 7m yݷ vރ 7m yݷ vރ 7m s?E s?E s?E s?E s?E s?E s?E s?E s?E s?E s?E s?E QW?Z?O W?Z?O W?Z?O W?Z?O W?Z?O W?Z?O W?Z?O W?Z?O s?E s?E s?E s?E s?E s?E s?E s?E Pn еQ hb?k??E sq VH a kid uX߄ rc?a?d I h?SM6 mAd vRO I qH?;?Ͳ??uh?h bNl??P?a?2 G8 y?Wd?6 s?ch u.??hew vV??1xo _I i q??k bc I r?oYSk x?SK 1Ň?V ZFks??_d?W L?"Y A?t cC p??O.g SWU H?F wvU?cx?pZW?8_ p?O?G ln?ݤ 4R ҵ?N H?Y êb e?H?H7 _Rj??E Ur 4?gu?qqkBO k7/c Ho?2 Bz?I lF?a SN W9 q?o i?V?E1w ulx FY zɰ W/W s?k C?ۆ E?Ӆ d?鮘Э?Uݯ cl lύ ACV?L??ß o?ޕ?p??mSp gq 1:u?PT??I?cp M?Õ?r?cuى?uD?tĆ Tp pnbn q-n H??g p?D I bH ӹNbu c?o Y?r mR?Qrx CRe?2 CGhX 5CY G8 1c F?I n?ӂɋ?KF?d?z?a y?F PC??X PxN?M?M?g ٸv?_N Z?B K?sÌҙ??A?:ߒ u??Y mح/MtX(?Lx A l?k i??Q 8ߘI?uU P??5S?VSB i u??s?阷w 1Xq 7a8?e?Hb?k?C?y k??X l?e r?P8?Ρ l??cx 孂C y??Y?v?R Xhn I?V nOr Ma??ڣ DsD 7HZ P?d.?HX??qi n?o E?Ğ X1 I??s?iu?H j?xI?R?T?"?k eFl B4?y xd A wVHh?Xh lћ?ױ??뎣c C?y eq n?ca u??Ng?ß I YH E?zj 0k Y?r vzg?)?p ǰ?a q?Uu Tȋ cIwl?8 f7?Z?U?S?Β I ϐH?O Jں??GAE 7hs u_?UN?v f?H s??Ģy?x Xt X??T?N i7 ħ?h??p eJ?U?A i q?K?M??z??dh ߒ7 wh ѵQ Fc?F PrXN?P?Eƞ mܤ?σG?G dS x4 e?t n?X?6Zh?QIR?7??hcdi PX??ˋҶ??dh s?h 9?b?CX Y?kz z?ZUx I A k??J/ث QYK a??z hptY??lH ic?ma8dx u7 xxa HCn??l ge l4 Ohp 5u kE F9CH i JS?t5 Oq s?s _բ wf?Jɲ4 Is7 W?Ҋw?ql m?z?h q7Y1 Jw??Ogk1G SBn 5О bh h;?h?tT k.?v 舟.C hc g?Z?j?De A H?4??bpkY 6ӻ d0 d?x?ʦ iɄ Jy F?es3 iM??R5 cis Ŷm??㝓 A 䕥?,E vRE U?D ܧ?ӿ oR Fx i?"?Zû 1Ѹ I ӑP?iHp RT?v We Н?h ZـeA9?Z B?Ny?rׯ Zf nW iU?A id y??B?k?WH?Ѵ lC G??B kF Qu Kq _M Qu Kq _M Qu Kq _M i?q?h p??;WI D?v T?e ދU ۓ?ٳ V?r ǐ?8X m9?i lM?ps?.?i 鷃G?G k?Ai?5?q?d?i e?G A??X L?y?s Aq MK x?u?G?G??r f?ee?l26s A??l?Mm f?ӏ i n6p?h I?P?W H?vQ?6x 7M d2 gii7?b:?Ժ I t?p??f?h X)ݘ p?fL G?G l² K?f?g?ɻ nA?t U?8o 洱?u Wg?G?G?vƼ??B?R8?w nT h?6K Zq?N??R KM NI kX n;H?b K?G?G?G j?p dkt m?I q??I G?G??E m7 dDD DD DD DD DD DD DA?ҵQ r;촩??j?)j?Oف fZ??M?v 5A wG??ևne W?E??pz 4?r?sR?ɮ A?m4 s??b?E?Gi?r 湅?q nC ME??e I?x cg Em h?깻?kYV?3 3I M.?OE a??D b,?q e?H Mi?xkܦ??E?O?T?L?3r oM?"?jv??S?h??ـϞϱ9sd?k_ C?Z a?j o?x?m L7 ǟU էD L?m?m m?ɮ Z?Oc S??n f3GW Xk نղ?b U??h 3w mb3z A c?V xe?i y.I J??FJp M?e wO?ρ?N ϣ?X Ű?ĺ ˬ??m,fB 9ޠ?IVsW 5B j?l6 nM h6m k;R mT??y?Y??H v?kӈ n"?o YM?i ǩj??j m;?2oc s6 L?rۂ Ӷ?F/팆 ޤ??Rl lwT?Jav??d WTG?"dii g?Q CZ??i w60l V??M QcA P?jxĎ 5ĸ?b lS x?K 1ϱ Ůh K?J??z燊Fh vr?G oH Z2 JF VҾ8d g3ctӶ9Ll?K A?Y I N?-T we?Ǧ?v i xK 쨌Q nv klG??e v9S ccZ?E ZK IͿ gak y?r jo WG?9 KZG?j?ұ Cij0??f Ql?TEN?O Ou??ܛ7C ܞ?qon?Ge??c?Mu?wqmI??憩 i vc?r?ly b?uQn D?9?qx??ksvA qәZu Q5 X?B?һ v?sl?p ӵQ _Ĥ g?d _Ğ x?N?JM _Ĥ g?d _Ğ x?N?JM _Ĥ g?d _Ğ x?N?JM _Ĥ g?d _Ğ x?N?JM _Ĥ g?d _Ģ?ي?Ժ hsda a 2V I i B?D DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD ԵQ յQ Zӥ H?L?sO 1p?Jݓ x.h?CAnc?P q6 4?nŵ b?r Sh?k zR/M??lpv kp xh ڐ2 6XKsg aw Xs zH j,r?y M?X m??RQ Z?AU mO s?l kI a lι ĝB?/0Έ?eC?R sb y7 g?:I vmE x??O?R OS??S?ȳ?ek?p2?s?ǐ l?o 7i s3Y Xۅ?ykq?U ZH W?SE;??TC(?q g?X?L?.u?s Mp7 ZsT?W H?Gc u?Q EO vN e?tF r??f x??O?Jޥ-Dv 9ó A Ԃ?r w뭴 DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD еQ GVc??R d??c lr?c m??Q DD DQ5 KOM?G?J a?N?hL A D?Z?xcr0?w M??J DD DX y?X?I DXh q?O A?O?Q??h?kd?gvs v?i M?Y?O de?2H _?ZG c??A AQ8cʹ??E O??R 2NWR?r I 舀??q l?浠?Ƃ W?RH EŮ9 t8 fd ZfvV y??ΑE?)D Zu ġ?b3K?4q-c䶗 F9 C?DʑL na?Ǚ v??m n??CE C?s?ݦ?K?ƂI jb k??L?km K"V x?A K?N I Qhax M?N ӧL?_?t v?i)?j QC A?N?s KF C??E ѵQ px H??n u8 4"G0Z?zYM am?)ݙ??x b9 a zp?eC vg ܬi Sk?V t?PC e??tVda c?Xeډ??SQP舒 6k?o?Fw9 w?kp F??M Y?R 앴Q2?R 7?xŃOq bs nf??wjp akc?to KZ o??E?u Dm d?y kG I Z?j Rk?F S?ā nz t!?x 8?lq dp I??l?J ÝI3?f w??罏x S?U?KHco s?O c?ƺ1 o?xi ǨZ?Ef?S?1ZGTq idE d?I X?岑 G?fVS 狴ZA?6 r?mf?t k??pc K??j?pZ F?b R?r??ct 5n l5 o??ªjj3??l ڒ-skq W1?a ԡ?H ف7ioi??x8 1C e?b qÜ e??sn?Oohkq8 K?W x?b??h a HvW l4 oi ʸٸ?ZFo q?!??D"?"Hhxxu Ԭ5r lL??u EY 8K lֆ Ŏ!O x?ZӦ D??fp W?a an em p?1J w?NF?b??F9 a sN 4h 4"mV?gP R?c?L Y?O a q??쾇Q?z x-V GU?N?Q z?MW5 K?Ev o?sZ Mf S?qxE 4X?z vH t?6n Q?Y mL J!q U?G ZH ji쮾 Mz?hhs?ng óT/??cc jB fk?7 i??c vǧ3??h y??sӞ h?t B??U B?īq 3?ρl o?l Jko?4 G6 V?f 0S 4_ U?KQ s?Z sbz v?e OK V?m n;Oi?r A p?s M??I Vykd Ƶ?pp l5n?K?ע su!?ɳTS?Ҿ jhE Ҽ?i p?;Zz8k GPG?B?t Ca?m A b?Gu 4s?xP?ww??A;j Ʋ?bJ?Fd?r KZ pƖ Ks BGɫ WIS??W r?v?qsO1pZ h??V f9 5?XqPX v??iY p"ǛC vޡ?t dd?s??I h??ۯ 蘃?㗇.j Kgp?hq W?Sb WN?4?q u?0l xeFW ٶnS Un?wH Gz p?ok?I?KS,p?r 0y?h P9XXY Va SK lK s)b3?-tm I 官篂 kN G?O vCXx O4O-vb?۷ݯՎp:j5??b j?1MJ?GGq!?4 qgD?I?إtu i??FI6 ԛ?tP lů êޛ MD a17t 3s ټTl??LL r?-E 2R?D ݹ?Cz?_?QWc?CN?䅷 ib e9?X?osq lИ ps7MG.!4G:WL CC aQ GrOh?v vqF n??en Xy?Fs V?J mf mm tm je2 l?dqQ?n Fx?x Ug Kn ai g?8F 6ǿ?p?G I??Y m?j wOJ J??C I?D?c muM Fɠ?Ѱ9ϩ M??Cu aX?F CJ?W禒 aQ cx d?o?V EI?ם i s??t TC3 c3fh i?s qf r1 Ic t?YL?S?4 l?g??ss kk ł)C??h ӭ?Sik)q:ZH s?vs AVl Y??A m3?C?hm?Kl C?ωP W?R5 K?L V?H?mL??VSU TT dO l2 F?5?ei?Dq ٸq u?t mZ0 Xk N3 s2 6K?K q,e Kۊ qj m8h 4zI Ƈ?q?b 2A N??z?N sˬ 2?ܒnl U?lQUL??d lN?6Ъ?fq D?kԉ 5??qu?nN?nA dA kOI?I Wx L??H p?㪗 Tb X;f?F a Di A ܮt SH i?g q?B tѵ ql??r Z??k?kRa 9WMQ au efk 娤?X Lc?Tx?t 1W t"?Jǻ H??S Z?e r?U 잜??F lO ҵQ KM?z hc VQ 0E I?N"i nW?6 Gq?eD DD X??d.s?I s?r Gp 8t Ga?IP w9 ѷА:?gS?m ӵQ ԵQ P?Y fr 垟ki?R l?J na o??kK?H ae?v i 6H Ჱ?rFև bi b.?ƶ 16RsO chh l?2G5αtl ӵѽ?g?r i?V ZƸ F3 iēs??Aեx?k1 rim WUwM E?a kS k?H?U 3SN bp RM삼o?9 meU g1?Z O2m 5?uUizk bx eu ҭ/NzR?Z h?hm??n??N ʚd?rb?T?ߡ??j e?M ȩ?ɜBl V??h cX S?!e E??m Mtf WN j?q Hi Wm dը?G ٶѭ wI1 I un V??h n??ҷ K?s Uc 鮘U Boă DG-t?:ٲ i ۍx cv3 Jl sėh?_ jxZɤ kl 8j r?e?ǏO I L?b?A?md5 p6 x9i?d O??Ke??c?уp I?rOy7 u??k I I l?8f Jy XCJ 3?ORR 橢g??tU P(b3?O p??nvS hp yx6k Mtm?T?GH?1Lc K?t 9Ay N?s i j1T R?W?T8J YX feΙ gY K?n?ھB DŽ?d TK ps?tF7 pA0 hݖ YBi?t rA2?z?V JS?Q f?U Cf??r Qp??f KV??H IS q0p QD y?u s?mp s.B Fǹt Z?x 1l?c?Țc h?t lq?Զ?Jyb/k UDRxud tN?X?8q S?hd F?MHnQ Jch xڒ 1VT 0Y ԟJ Mq DX M?f5)xۅ 7Hb fm I?G 9?i9Oc H?ӯ if 6W D?Se?l2 F?k??ÆB??pc I v?k Am i i Nz1?T?Y Jgl,??cZ M?bG tg lpHc?H ڙZ cl 4v I V?g?y?dq?vH Ci?v?P Ȥc MQJ w??X Ӟz?Siǽ?B??ѻ tF ҵ߉ό?R?a l?X?K h6 ec g??We ӟ5 R?J r.?Qp qm?f 9c ca Sv KK V?O rP C?U cv?kp??RVkj?T?5 R??I zsfkj?wM4 V?zi yc I 7b J?z ڢ?Z E?opz Ӈd A??ljG vgKJ?r8j5?F nGT sF i ؿ??O N?H g?F N?R 6W b?ߌpzs fs a Y!t p?Ak j?Sm qs?R G?W tn Y?T Ml?Y I?vQ1 K?O i?eݚ Kd j2 3nX Wh i crZF YK?s ro H?B ZUu piks mnᦆ?űZ?C Ħ??j 8?Gq J?ji?7 OT??O n??q ry Z?b5?X v??U UZp?c _?YW SJ6 e?d4 p?ZKO??J?LRH DD DD DD DD DA?յQ n??t?jj A A?Do wr blu B?p?v 4w?s WEQO r4 dD??g hcZ kLS j?l R?bn??plF A??w f;:G CD ϳ?qv?w o??ͻ Q?R uT Mc ʖǣ?c gFѧ uK?1 F9 q?wQBb s?Z ԥ?g e?xw IN 9Ͱ X?z?D??P?Vl I m?U4?k?s MJ??U MSci dos?s u?5EL?Jd Mǡtu_ py?p?TV I Vc ֈ??w ݮZ 9X0lN H?mc?h MT??o t??Efk5?q?v??X R?k bt lb"?h ݘX?h ߨ?բF?N n?6v Bc Ӥ?oc tج cK z4 Bi ƶU?φ qIےV WF K??ZS Uqbº"ǰ?vfk Cg?0 k?Zxn?x6 QE 㕗s?8q V0?a Ǽ?t fH?Q R?Y??I k8n l?ǻE??x h?gX?g?Թ??ǚ??vn?g??K sh Һ?M54Q?b AT X_?W jvd nɰ m-?Q Q??X pcm к?gF wu kl 7b m?b?P??Ӊ?I YA?꺘 i P??x Nbw ǻ_J B??T i em QX?TD?D w?푲 p?Y i6?a?b tq?CQ?kk a 5ύ?/sXE?R M??gw xa Xc?lw?v PᘥE A akl s?J M??U f?E nX c(s lcك I1lrǐ??q G曖 g?i Gh?w WA?v?P VJ Y?psZ?m U;kb 7mv b?r C?DDusB?ck QY9d A??E?C?N o?E?U8 Dg!u?ns Lc E?-k Q6 YZ?d?إ 7:ny E?Z?v s??o DT Vv?湮s ak?³Q??P??bx fys??u?瞖i U?B НN kCD 7a HKY?p H?7jb?쁬s 1Ѻ к?A PR H"p B?eQ v?P A G?W A?ص L??p KD Ό?od ӽJ3 _N FO j??SC??e np?V?.p 9r vh ӂ?ƶo п??QO 9ѹ?C??ˡ?DžUIR ipIp i??朠 p??J?D s?Ƹ8 o?t蔵 x4p X?Db I ɺ?DI s??m?y E??x A?巴?bx H??ٽ g?X vW iy??a?h A While the RA case was oving forward in th Southern District of Florida on behalf of Jane Does and separate litigation developed between the pro bono attorneys who had filed the lawsu5.7 it assell and Edwards Dershowitz ter the iling the joinde4.7 tion in the CVRA case Dershowitz took the airwaves to a ttack not only Jane Doe but also Cassell and Edwards Typical of these attacks one le velled on CNN in which Dershowitz alleged If they Cassell and Edw7.7 rds had just done an hours worth of research and work they would have seen she is lying through her teeth They 2re prepared to lie cheat and eal These are unethical lawyers They can 2t be allowed to have a bar card to victim8.3 i ze more innocent people Hala Gorani CNN Live Jan Cassell and Edwards the4.4 iled a state law defamation action against Dershowitz in Broward County Florida See McC7.5 wley Decl Exhibit Com8.3 laint in Edwards and Cassell Dershowitz The complain5.7 allege4.5 that Dersh5.7 witz had engaged in a assive public dia assault on the reputation and charac ter of Cassell and Edwards Id at Ms Giuffre was not a party to this defa-6.2 tion lawsuit The Florida Court Rejec4.7 a aiver Attorney Clien5.9 Priv5.9 ile4.7 ge Argum8.7 ent As Cassell and Edwards Florida defam8 ti on action oved ard Dershowitz sought to ke an argum8.2 ent that they had som8.2 how ved their client 2s Ms G8 uffre 2s tto5.8 rney-c4.6 lien5.8 privilege Septem8.2 ber Dershowitz file a tion to com8.3 el ssell and Edwards to produce docum8.2 ents and additional responses to in terrogatories McCawley Decl Exhibit Motion to Com8.3 el In his tion Dershowitz argued that Cassell and Edwards 223have waived any privilege or protection that would otherwise attach to responsive docum8.2 ents and infor-6.6 ation ailable at h3 n3 videos/w3.6 o3 k4 b4 use-allegati9.4 ons6.9 alan-4.7 rsh4 o4 itz Case Document Filed Page of by bringing this defam8.2 tion action placing at i ssue the truthfulness of Jane Doe No 2s allegations against Dershowitz Id at In his otion and reply pleading McCawley Decl Exhibit Reply in Support of Motion to Com8 pel Dershowitz argued that Cassell and Edwards actions throughout the case constitute a waiver of attorney client privilege Cassell and Edwards responded arguing that Ms Giuffre not a party of the defa-6 m8 tion action and that she was the only pers on who could waive her privilege McCawley Decl Exhib5.6 it at sponse in Opposition to Motion to Com8.4 el Cassell and wards also argued at there had been no waiver because co idential atto5.8 rney-clien5.8 comm7.9 unications with Ms Giuffre were not issue in the defam8.1 tion case Id at Cassell and Edw7.6 rds also late4.7 filed a sur-reply further elaborating on the argum7.9 ent that Ms Giuffre had not waived any atto6.3 rney-c5.1 lie5.1 nt priv6.3 ileg6.3 by public ly discussing her sexual abuse by Epstein and his associates McCawley Decl Exhibit Sur-Reply in Support Opposition to Motion to Com8.7 el Cassell and Edwards als4.8 explain5.6 that comm8.4 unications with Ms Giuffre were protected not only beginning in March but even earlier than that date when Ms Giuffre understood that she was obtaining legal services from8.2 Cassell and Edwards Id at Following this extensive br iefing on waiver issues on December the Florida Court Lynch ruled denying Dershowitz 2s argument that atto rney-client privilege had been waived McCawley Decl Exhibit Order Denying Motion to Com8.1 pel Specifically the Court denied the motion to compel explaining 223Pre March comm7.9 uni cations are protected by the work product privilege and the itness has not ived the communi cations that were protected by the attorn5.6 ey-client ivilege Also5.6 there was no waiver by the Cassell and Edwards by filing suit Id at An-5 fo-5 llowing th-5 filin-5 of ssell an-5 Ed-5 ward-5 su-5 mm ary er Case Document Filed Page of Case Document Filed Page of Ms Giuffres os i tio in the Defamation Case As the defamati action oved fo1ward,_ ubp oe naed Ms Giuffre a dep os i tio Mccawley Deel Exhibit Composite Exhibit of excerpts from transcript deposition of Ms Giuffre Durin the deposition held in o1t a ud rdal Fl rid a Ms Giuffre was repre se nted by the under igned legal co un se who asserte object i re vea ling attorney clie nt info1m atio where the questions called for revealin confidential attorney client co mmunic ations See e.g id a t2 Durin thed epos iti Ms Giuffre ec ifically state th at I decide ot waive my att rne client pri vi le ge at thi time Id at Ms Giuffre also denied that Casse ll and Edwards a ever pressured her int id ntifying so meone as bein in volve in her sexua abuse I at Th Settleme nt of the efamat i Case Ultim ate Cassell Edwards a nd Der owitz agreed settle heir defamation case That sett lement includ ed both a public stateme an confidential neta1 payments As pait of the se ttlement Cassell and Edwai withdrew their a lle gatio aga in st ers ow itz in he defa ation case con tain ed in the then-pending summaiy judgment motion Mccawley De Exhibit No tic of Withdrawal of Summaiy Judgment Motio As explained in the ti ce of ithdra wa of this motion the ithd rawa of the re fe ren ced filin gs is in tended to be and ou not be co tmed as being an acknowledgement by Edwai and Casse ll th at the allega ti made by Ms Giuffre were mi staken Edwards and Cassell ac kn owle ge at pub li filin in the rime i ctims Rights Act case of their clients a lle gation aga in st Defendant Dershowitz became a major distraction fr om the merits of the we ll fo und ed Cr ime Vict im Rights Act by ca in delay an as a co seq uenc turned out to be a tactical mi stake Id All these actio settling th Florida defamation case took pl ace in or ida 789:DEFGHIJUVWXYZcefghijuvwxyz 1Aaq?Q?2 i6?ѱ?L ѵ??j N?ua q?UƷC J,u b-ũbd i ed kE U7kp ʇnj A?/?rpf A ZƞdŢ솮 cn踺 vl өZ?k qf?F??a n?NP asmme શM h?2F t?KZ?v 6ԅmIT??Y3 C?p?Эf zW u?;f 3?EP?H p?z r?_?sE rC wM yr kn??f7 su?/bz?1 ZC q?tW l??ӲI??h.n iQ M?h?w cdkI O?u I Lt?c yƖ N?(d?ཅ?ě?X A?v U4m?I U??ɹ z?i ju?M?AO0?H pqq i Z?TI 7륕 VT?c no?Z H??w qq?O?h Jӑ??3B y,?X KfD5k?f L??nu7o É?W?M_?Jj?CO?z s?-kA I?sH FL b?a 0?G?zy?Dm?psA uh W?u A nx k?6?Ue u?Epl-4?H ik Î?O XK I YL hL t?b?S??eT r?mf?t m?o??jNH?Vl7 Ko?ěh-?q?4F??i r5 Hb DbFIN Ťg DtS6??F?ĦT?M?L Ό6??oMS dbH i 0A co GP1 j?p?eC d?m軾?T?F kxL??m?6 9N u5 s?LWkj b?N Angf??m?9c?ں??Z?D wl G?4s?א m?-Z?ij?Hh N5 qn K?P?bLB Ue K3 Iq DN?A S?w σgE y/y K6 ɺ?u??d?o Z??PꚚ 8?GS8?kk Xܠ F1d?4?IY bX n?C?Y z?o 9G!q?B?Y欂 m?p??s bT??Z bE?2?c?eu Qp??b?3Օ?p U6 ds Z?F??s r8 eh?l 9?WL xp7?R x?Z p?N!P U??h mn drB h?ı?tO?v o?_ڡ?e U??jV N?E Z?o OS5?m a C?x?wi??u ZY Ee??p U??i Ԍ9?Yǝ Qɖ??sl 5t F??K u?VO f??n A b?G?Z 8c?WI ѶF f?j0 sidtP My f??n 4GG?i?y?pj 6ɒ U??j5w?E?U 8?YI m?dž y,ߙn jg wA sC X?m5s d??p U??i ΪYǝv w??v 綶?ۂ Ա9 1e?sY D?R?O?ٻ e??L pࡋ HČ1??h-qi U??i ռ?ҹ??MOO??Zid1 Ɛ?nK5?Ou J??C Qas??m 5?µW j?w Ԙl0 c??P U??έly㒘Gp m?b??p U??i nm h1 I?W c?l Hc?GU U??jf x?q?U i kp?i??Ҿf V_٦T Sl?e CL Gv ds?q Q?H Vo f??n A B??p?nN y?rY 5o O5 i F??I U??jF x?M M?i?D F5 U??i Y_CQ sǘ k?R f??n LN?X Gq?7 k?:?LCh?AQ I U??i p?y?a?U U??i s??窓v?f Q,F/m?g f??n a O9 e??F LN ؾs w5??l?aT pS?zs M?,I f??n wR4 O?Ӷ I楠 vȾ??Y Ⱦ??N 1hq?v?E Ⱦ??N j?c Ⱦ??N kR?q?f??f oφ we x?d ӶE r?nl x?L vȾ??U vȾ??U vȾ??T?N?p ɘ?Ǚ a?w ӶE ӶE ӶE ӶE vS0?q b??h ܣ?X ӶE ӶE ӶE ӶE ӶE ӶE l?m qk?nS j?r Ⱦ??N Ⱦ??N Ⱦ??N j?V 4Di ƪq pDU dqhp b?F?-l J_?楀 G?R??p A jX J_?楀 G?R??p A ԥ?v vȾ??U vȾ??U ͱ9?Sn6 A?vȾ??N re ۉs d_K?l 5PM?T Bʲ RL?H gl ii j?A?q I1vP?wE Y;?u?r g?n Z??e?й ӶE a vȾ??U a vZ vǕ nG ܛ?Z vJ K?_v qm 7?WTg lR2V s??k 8s Ŷ?ܖ Ajv sV t?ٷm?tP le?FC S?U?v??VN e??AkZ?p R?f??y??TH I F?Uݰ?T?8 ioε?1S?c0?a?qtoa.i sd DA??Oq x?r X6 i.ԟp E??OM ۑԬ?b a??c өC?bxeL?QI wgs ljn ys?ã P?N??Xv Ũ?K c?f?ϑ?n?7ѭk??A?n WSOUh a??ee5 m?2k Q?b xsS ai?ݬ?w KM 6?Hp?w xy I?V R?ɝ sKZ 3s?J??bմ"?GL"tz րK?2 g?p?K ىq E?Zp?V F?t f?V?ౡı?I ju?5x??کii HclFl?Y1 9Ŏ 4k?Z S?O I??ji?RY qsa?WP?5XML?Sdtu 8?Ta滑??yL sFb k??ڝ ѻ?ni 3?ik A a??k Gf B?մ?D A"?V ޙ9?d5Gc?t3R j?ڌj d0?ݭk?q J?w 5N QV?H p-?e U?R f?i?R g??V?UTq6 qZ6 ed?7k.??X?oo ҰEjw?!?x??:Ft Jbm V?ƴ?k?UUA Ss?OD d?sH?H Qq j?w??sZ V/YA K?3ۆckۆl bU?mL J?_?V??bBM kr Au?C??Y0 n?y?U?5?U?QPZ b-?o fb wÀ Jz?SE??QLAl?cl??۵?kx J??cs Kx8 N?RI Xs??E p?Nq F3 RR oh Ý?a?pZ?z?VP??e HɃ od?w?5h?l h7ɯ Ybx FN ST g?Ku x?Ni??f?G 4UUO??O5?fX?mte UMO P??P Loq ym,X eV!G tE osπ AR k?G _1 e??G E??d J?m?X r?E?MO?OM4?tm z?ϫX.??pU U??ɜB Nn??Nz ψGC N?ZH T??WLٳ??G Uc HKN?LŒ X?Z lZ-k 7v?l?-WW A X?kr 6a 8i 䓡cmk?Y x?6c u?ȟ?G u?ȟ?G Ae ƇX?e ip?U?P 5Š u?c rƛ ߪ?S?b 9L_t?V Z?!JİLG r??w g??v?Ԗ aih??k ɢ7w F?m r??q t?Ȧ O?Umf F?3䝯 U?I ݶ8 d?On 1Lbd2 ە?q.h 8v oj?6?fRY Og 6GGP??l?s j?Q n??S WPhq?F 5K?q I?TQ S??jj l1?d m?p ƧN Aö?X)k t?H?e 4??d?aea Mk??L i M?ꢛIQ?M v?XX A ik x??S TRD Q?c گ??m?g?v莦?Y?Ұ?T o?v HQ?0?F,Q??l9dcXZ UL?۹ d?Ť?I sʛ k?j wMlx U8f q?x?s ds?x n3S?VT H?AA LxL?tŀ?5 X?PZ?X?)7S V3 YI arum H?f a?zYe?G ωCV sl e??լ V??q os H?Nqc I 8i?R4o?Yӻ nZ HpsK/nv UC R3 kb 1Lbd2 ە?q.h 8v oj?_ lE?dnc Jl o?9?wc b??J ķ??P?cU5 A??H 3f?ր aq y??s kb,-?f G?ts?JW?w tR X?ض k?A RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ D?d bX i ZNv7P U??k V/ٯ X?f U??k dy O2 BI S?E O2 S?E O2 S?E O2 S?E ݣ?ʈ i h?zJ i h?zJ i h?zJ i h?zJ i h?zJ i h?zJ i h?zJ i h?zJ i h?zJ i h?zJ i h?zJ i h?zJ i h?zJ i h?zJ i h?zJ i h?zJ i h?zJ i h?zJ i h?zJ i h?zJ i h?zJ i h?zJ i h?zJ i h?zJ i h?zJ i h?zJ i h?zJ if r?ܒ??q 6Gr pq?X?sm I.W VSvE?C68 O_ Ĝ٣?Rd K?B靍?ӾW u??ye?kr Sϰ _?V?Y?Fo?ya?p ѓy??w??Kf oc 2T Nb3H?o?G 6vzyb?G2Y ĐA駂??2j?J??Y?s ou?n ff a I A m?o?VӰ fg6 f?A uo??x?T?cY8N?m v?t ܮ?b?J?k?p m?f ou?E f??Ny??Z Q,b yE ýkd ZZ?.r xq lN k?gU xZ D??;旀?iwt ۻk?F m4 Ƹۆ s,.u Nt?fd 4Zv 6k 9Ym w?q??I T4?EYW i a W?Z?u HجKn I?2N nK T?uW?Y?s Z?V l?ᄰ o?U S:YZ e?ݷR?eF r?M _?co ӺĞ?g??H??Fc?FW nZ?Ăװ ꟈW z:3l uŅ 7cu B?F??A i f?:F n_ I w?G M??y R3ƿ sO:i?s z?C k?UT d?qԸ ԩ??c d?I Թ?I 2ۦ f3uv??c a?6?Yf i-iq wr?F??y 4F k3f N?P6 G??fDD 3A:_Qkx?L fY os2?X A?Ŗhu l?A 7kO UD?d nE?a yDѶG?o n?l s?c?d Ŧ?KK fs?d?H9x?ױ dv U6 Z??g AX w?Z Bm6?h I"ϝ??M H?V?d Fy c?J?Wu?D oz?E??b is sa??BI H??f?x 4TN F?g??Z xpPp A 8?f?OV?u WU g1 P3 4?MůU ey?Ѷ7vy2 Yـm?apo ZLJL9 K?oa??U a?X?j?wݕr4 T?S?ˇ Xܛf!?GO L?f GYM?k 4nrsju Bg36 Z?k i K?H Hh?q HĜ kid b??g a?a f2n k?I A 2?w?sݔ p,G??S 5Q7G K?A b??G?QӲiDr z?m-k s??w ȋY?Wˇod 馩?gMc 8Ht oȵ Z?j CT ybk?y?C Аu ܬ?_Q lT Y,O?7G p7?u Z?jE I ou?n?ۑiX i sjF??煯?I??ƛz ZzX W?A Q6X?yK_?e xZ l??s ji B?t?H eᠰ V?0ʩs bH?ŏ?B 4R UW G??mE Vbuo??vI sA-xm?i fs5 U?I;K gT!J?ZP s1?yf h?V?ɛ Hf L?Sˑ?fq??4 I3 h,k ES A v?3K A?hp?:S cKY Y?k K??A hi go g杆.?g旍?:?g 3G c?uȾ?Ql T?Bv TZ u?a?a?p?K 7v o?b i?b h5J n?w a vb X9 O3?N O3?A?a ii 1y RG??N ۰?Ӱ?jU Ha?.RCC?6 T?iq a?a lu0?kGT縌?p 7Y ms?m?.?g杆.?g故 y??k??RA?s?K?x Z??F o5 y??v iq t?u MT k??j j?NZ?Nf?5?i?K?hl GU Vڈ eH O3?N O3?L?K?6bYj?-C VLOeيR?H??n??t nV O3?N O3?M i3T ds Z?q6/p Oj a??fn??y l?Lڈɨxs Za?p CX Ry y??v ff?7 z?LA??vfdy2?b O3?N O3?A?P 0?.vrsY?ý?o g杆.?g?Qf C?5R?D kx-ð?Ӱ?MS ǽsq?A?Vr a?a?6w Ch fH w?v y??v CI u?b y??v R?Ht O?u y??v A YD?8 Ӱ?i8?b NI lK?M fi ah KX C?a?I??t?a.o BN?V?M y?ͳ Pգ??2K r??l nO srI wþ?x?w 3?Xfvk OK R3 y??v y??V z?K dD 5w?b i?b e??w I7 O-s Ɲ4Ӫ?E??tUs?6v TZ u?a?a robnG?6?f?S 82?ZSv J?di ٹh Cd?Hڧ9 a i?b h5 i?b i8 sç sd 潮n TL n?8p!F?0z?Ay?kHfh?փk wa?a?j?fj SI3L tA c2 ɍA?0 uXy a?a?p a?O wv ۋs_Ki Wa?a?p K_?d/q soms?O i?b h4?ݞ Oa?a?գ nNk y??v y??P x?P n?ó i?b iXQx?J?f _M okE A gj?j g杆.?g?E A ٳL??IR y??v y??N I p?d xm?p fi go Mn k?v XX 㑡??Y x?vﲽ?e wy v?rƖ ә??B Kf Wl?4Ԑ ڂ?k dI?"(DD DD DD DD DD DD DD b?s a cq l4 ҟW??P ҟW??P vA3j ٸ??Ao?O ب??V XHb7 Y?j O??A vP?h4Ao?O bzS l?iv??e??Pn bzS nC ش?)?jध mH R3X ҟW??P ŪÌ?c ȝ??H s9?fU?ST A3j o?HA?ҟW??OJ kCC b??ki HK4 kCï m?Ub b?S?O y?q o?M4h?O 8U tլnY??,W 6Ae?O ҟW??Tsb?EV?K??5ε WM3Û p?O bzS _N Ѕ?SL ҟW??OJ A?ҟW??OJ c?c??eq l??ҟW??OJ u??is bzS bzS?Yںʌ I?pk n?O KA Pm?!W?P Z?v ث?n Pax dq iO pM4h?O 㘀.mk?ҟW??OJ bzS?O?kqLf??BHZdi dZ Y?FW D??ҟW??OJ I?bq?K flc X?.q?Y?O ҟW??P WV tN bzS?ڊ b?H?y xt3?s 6OJ e?q H?xp??K??t?c?E w??LJ Il bzS?P J?i I bzS b?N ҟW??OJ յ?m C?n FʋY?G F??O ش?ohj RC alL Sml أqi kAn??w ǵ?H??նд?O?Pl bzS fP2?o??HA?ҟW??OJ x?Y?c Ah e?և??wZ Z?Vv?e Va E?KR u?Q?r F?q?ĸ?B?p uDo?I u??Zl E?O??PR wHê;?I??C D??A sU xL?p ፰uD??G Z?X c?b zX uo?S?DȬY c9 h,u?D/T?K!s pם?f Uqd imDg3 I üE?z?xpV ϑ??ZXǸ z?V?d/x w?À Ut??Q:wvڇd0?ih ffgu?E??ͱ Q0 x?M GF m?e?ei Ær zV?lok I SzZm?knm?Ի.疡 g?ى g?1F?lO ekN?7?Y1 2H yҨ??m i 8r N?j tur5?4 Ge/Ӆ??E?k 2i qs??d uw tߠ Y۲ aw PO?yYy PH?g?W y?S ak y?F?Ee?qy?3?f Cm hb18 x?i??U2v?Ѹ7G py J??xܞ i?zzfT GQ?"FQ XM g??sS A i T??W?Y 4?Z-qc Ʊ?J??I?aOCG p??Ӵ 2I?n/b t!mT z?V?d/x w?À U??N F?9q hh.?Gv??H?Y?Z?z㲚?;K 9O de on YqM i?-i A?o L?zﱘ K?8e a-o_T VlR??U?P 7R?d i aU2 l?G 4u A?0I I?օ?EKآlY?٤9 Cr QC o,??Y?O?X??anjQ8?OJ?m 5ŠZ?p w5?i9Y Gb)DR kgq/?g4 iNJ?p0h crt a?AN 4tΞl o?V v?Z ߊ?vr?Zj?ٷ?;??r q6 I LB յ?rӐඌ ZHK t.V SO?P S?i Bn5 Ìb Y?EYRʬ?k?im Ǟ?y ÜZێY?x?m?H?Z x?,J A(?Nj j?dRM3 w?E?jւ ͺU?d??uTO ƶY r?4F?I a 4T?Կ FRs o?Q?U?b M_3g HZ M?U zj OM F?k?Rz gcd zn??Z A k?ϭŰ?I ã??oZ?Z Ά?qНJ W?p8x py?g t2Ǽ?5G??gp?e hЦV1 L5LR?)p j?i"?c nx?uhvV ж?ϑ ٦?RE aZ Tu sI.?eK qe u?a U?G oxt!?sM??X??n WR YA Z?x?rҡ UG I ܖpy kr?O F?EDlb?_ e??B??-sui S?s i?K?:з H?w U?d??uTO ƶY r?4F?I u?T Iv J?B ıh?e tX?Tq?4C C?z:?ӝ YZZ na H,mŜ A Ӛw??k?l?A y?e_Q?L P??m sZ 尌iￊ??PzJ N;?Y a?R X??3pD CnB PA X?G 0f _a P8 w?Y d?cC 5q s?.H ӽip wM df rێ?l gg 1da V?I xE?u?د??h?dk sĹ l?c??H??G??vaw A CW4S ӕ?W?N??Ni 1m fq G?c?k I lØ?٦s?r?4thsKG c??a L?լi?Ĕ?x?5 d?l x/q KC 8v Dz4 r?kϭ?p x5V _?kb C?ݰ q9 nrXf9?k q?Z l.jz?3 o?c psZ BF??A L2 M?Gq by z?Է O-?α?E m6 Soda Kps psC2 pq W?l U?d?qj fF jۼ Zt ã?k ت76f A uqj?qئ??Pb?L s?7?ROP 8X?f?Ø??Yp?I to O?O?b G?FԷd?YX?!?i?m ݙ_ kG ѧ?X X?LKf??Բ?DI gʭ ۻm qc ѽ?x bu 2Eql O??ER B4 QKK f?q u?U pv LEGAL ANDARDS-4.7 FOR WAIVER A Federal Rule of Evidence Cont rols on the Issue of iver Defendant asks this Court to find that Ms Giuffre has som8.2 how waived her attorney5.4 client privilege regarding various-2 communications in this case This is no all step The atto6 rney-c4.8 lie4.8 nt priv6 ileg6 is one of4 the reco6 gnized pr4 ivileges f4 o1 con6 f4 identia4.8 communications Swid5.7 ler rlin5.7 United States U.S The privilege 2s rpose is to 223encourag5.7 full and frank communication betwee attorneys and their clients and thereby prom8.3 ote br oad5.9 er public inte4.7 sts in the servanc4.7 law and the adm8 nistration of justice U.S at internal quotation rks tted In setting the legal sta ndards pertaining to waiver of attorney-client ivilege Defendant fails to cite the controlling and pr otectiv5.4 law on the issu5.4 In a federal case issues of alleged waiver of attorney-client privil ege m8 ust be resolved under the new standards in Federal Rule of Evidence In Congress enacted Federal Rule of Evidence which is entitled 223Attorney-C7.4 lient Pr ivilege and ork Product Lim8 ita tions on Waiver New rule places a mber of protection5.7 in place to reduce litiga tion er claim8.5 that a party as som8.5 ehow 223waived attorney client privilege See generally Adv Comm Note Rule Notably Defendant does not discuss or ev en cite Rule in her m8 otion The issue currently before the Court is specifically controlled by Rule which covers situations where a disclosu5.3 re in a state pro5.5 ceeding is alleged in a federal proceeding to estab5.6 lish iver Rule provides the greater of protections found in federal or state law Disclosure Made in a St ate Proceeding hen the disclosure is de in a state proceed5.7 ing and is not subject of a state-cou5.2 order con5.2 erning waiver the disclosu5.6 re es not operate as a waiver in a federal pro5.3 ceed5.3 ing if the dis4.5 losure would not be a waiver under this ru le if it had been in a federal proceed6 ing or is not a waiver under the law of the state where the disclosure occurred.5.3 Case Document Filed Page of As is readily apparent from the text the rule there are two separate ways in which a party can prove that no waiver of attorney-client priv ileg6.1 has occurred6.1 by dem8.1 onstrating that no waiver exists under federal law or by ns trating that no waiver ex ists under the state law where the sclosure occurred Betw7.9 een thes4.9 possibilities the drafters2.7 of the rule decided to apply the most protective law th at governs waiver See Fed Evid Adv Comm Notes A3 dvisory3.8 Comm8.6 ittee on the Feder3.8 al Rules Evidence3.8 determ8.6 ined at the proper solution for the federal cour is to apply law tha4.5 is most protective of privilege and work product phasis added Florida Law Florida 2s protective law on the attorn5.4 ey-client privilege provides that neither an attorney nor a client be compelled to div6 u1 lge conf4 ide4.8 n1 tia4.8 comm8.8 uni cations between a lawyer and client which were de during the rendition of legal services Fla Stat nn Communication denotes more than just giving legal advice it also includes giving inform8.1 ation to the lawyer to enable him to render sound and infor-6.9 ed advice Hagans Gatorland Kubota LLC/Sentry Ins So.3d Fla st DCA Under Florida law while the burden of esta blishing the attorney-client privilege usually rests on the party claim8.6 ng it First Union National Bank Turney So.2d Fla 1st DCA when communications appear on their face to be priv5.6 ileged the burden is on the party seeking disclosure to prove facts which would ke an exception to the privilege applic4.8 able Ford Motor Co Hall-Edwards So.2d Fla 3d DCA Rousso Hannon So.3d Fla 3d DCA In this case Defendant does no appear to dispute that an atto6.1 rney-4.1 clien6.1 ivile4.9 exis5.3 ts with regard to the communications betw7.4 een Ms Giuffre and her attorneys Rather fendant 2s argum8.3 ent is that the ilege has somehow been Case Document Filed Page of waived See Motion to Com8 pel at Therefore under Florida law Defendant ust shoulder the burden overcom8.1 ing the privilege Of cour se becaus4.8 Defendant failed to even5.6 cite ch less discuss,5.6 Florida she has not carried that burden Defendant asserts that can force disclosu re of the privileged communications between Ms Giuffre and her counsel under the issue doctrine establis this alleged waiver Defendant 2s otion relies on a federal district cou5.6 cas4.8 Hearn Rhay F.R.D E.D Wash which was cited in Bank Brussels ambert Credit Lyonnais Suisse S.A F.R.D S.D.N.Y Ellis M.J See Motion to Com8 pel at As discussed below as a tter of controlling federal aut hority these cases have been repudiated by the Second Circuit And to the sam8.1 effect Florida law also rejects the expansive Hearn approach to waiver See Guarantee Ins Co Heffernan Ins Brokers Inc F.R.D S.D Fla discussing Florida authorities Flor ida law disfavors waiver of the attorney-client privilege will not adily nd issue w8 aiver See Guarantee Ins Co Heffernan Ins Brokers Inc F.R.D S.D Fla citing oates Akerman Senterfitt Eidson P.A So.2d Fla 2nd DCA refusing to find waiver base on the at issue doctrine In contrast to Hearn under Florida law at-issue waiver only occurs 223when a party a5 ses5.4 a cla5 m9 that will necessarily require proof by way of a privileged communication Coates So.2d at quoting Jenney Airdata Wiman Inc So.2d Fla 2nd DCA phasis in original Indeed in the Southern District of Florida rejected the Hearn sue analysis and instead adopted the an alys4.9 is of the Third Circuit as tlin5.7 ed in Rhone 226Poulenc Rorer Inc Home Indemnity F.3d 3d Cir Guarantee Ins F.R.D at The Third Circuit deem8.2 ed the Hearn test to be of 223dubious validity5.4 because although it 223dresses up its analysis with a checklist of factors it appears to rest on a Case Document Filed Page of conclusion that the inform8.1 ation sought is rele vant and should in fa irness be disclosed Id at The Third Circu5.7 it spe4.5 cif3.7 ically rejecte4.5 Hearne because relevance is standard for determ8.4 ining whether or not evidence should be protected from disclosure as privileged Rhone F.3d at Florida law tracks that of the Third Circuit ee F.R.D at citing Florida case law Also under Florida law the client not her attorneys holds the attorney-client privilege ee Fla Stat Ann ee also Fla Stat Ann a client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from8 disclosing the contents of confidential communications when such other person learned of the communications because they were de in the rendition of gal serv6.3 ice5.1 to the lien6.3 Som8.2 Florida courts have even recognized serious due process issu es 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 State So.2d Fla 2d DCA nder Florida law so long as a client has a reasonable expectation of privacy in th comm7.9 unication under the privilege is protected McWatters State o.3d Fla Also under Florida law only the client not her attorney can waive atto6 rney-c4.8 lie4.8 nt priv6 ileg6 See Savino Luciano So.2d Fla Coates Akerm7.6 an Senterfitt Edison P.A So.2d Fla 2d DCA and Genovese Provident fe and Accident Ins Co So.3d Fla Federal Rather an discuss Flo5.8 ida priv5.8 ilege law Defendant exclusively ci tes eral case la5 See Mot to Com8.7 el at ii-i able of authorities citing only federal cases Yet as th6 is Court has previous5.2 ly h6 eld in ruling6 on an ear4 lie4.8 priv ilege motion de by th Defendant state law generally provides the rule of ecision in this diversity case See Giuffre Maxwell DE at Case Document Filed Page of W9 L1 at applying Ne York privilege law citing Allied Irish Banks Bank of Am N.A F.R.D S.D.N.Y ecau5.4 se this Court 2s subject tter jurisdiction is based upon divers ity state law provides the rule of decision concerning the claim8.6 of attorney-clien5.8 ivileg Accordingly an argument can be de that New York state law ap6 plies in th6 is case but Defendant does not explain why she jumps to federal law As explained above in the particular cont ext of a waiver argum7.9 nt Federal Rule of Evidence applie4.6 the4.6 more protective of state law or federa law in eterm8.5 ining whether a waiver of privilege has ccurred In this case the contro6.2 lling edera5 law at le5 ast a5 otec5 tive as Florida law The controlling federal law here com8.6 es from8.6 the econd Circuit including In re Cnty of Erie F.3d 2d Cir a case not even cited uch less discussed by the Defendant In view of the portance of the atto rney-client privilege th Second Circuit in that case held that any finding of waiver should be made with 223caution Id at Rather an cite this controlling Seco nd Circuit precedent Def8.2 ndant relies on a case from8.2 this Court applying the Hearn issue doctrine See Mot to Com8.1 pel at citing Bank Brussels Lambert Credit Lyonnais Suisse S.A F.R.D S.D.N.Y Ellis Magistrate Judge quoting Hearn Rhay F.R.D E.D sh Defendant goes on to argue that urts have generally applied the Hearn at issue4.1 doctr4.1 ine liberally finding a broad waiver of attorney-clien privilege ere a rt asserts a position 221the truth of which can only be assessed by exam8 ina tion of the privilege mmunication Mot to Com8.6 el at interna4.6 otation itted Defendant fails to recognize that the econd Circuit has explicitly disavowed the Hearn doctrine In In re Cnty of Erie 3d 2d Cir the Second Circuit explained that 223courts in our Circuit a nd others have criticized Hearn and have applied its tests unevenly Id As a ectiv-4.1 tter Ms Giuffre will also-4.1 itatio-3.8 to New York state au thorities is respo-4.5 Case Document Filed Page of at The Second Circuit also noted that the Hearn test 223has been su6 bject to acad6 ic critic5.1 ism9.1 See e.g Richard Marcus The Perils of Privilege Waiver and the Litigator ICH EV Note Developments in the Law-Privileged Communications ARV EV identifying 223the faults in the Hearn approach In light of these strong criticism8.1 of Hearn the Second Circuit decided that agree with its critic4.5 tha4.5 the Hearn test cuts too broadly and theref ore con6 clude th6 at th6 District Court erred in applying it here Nowhere in the Hearn test is found the essential elem7.9 ent of relian6.3 ce on privileged advice in the asse rtion of the claim8.3 or defense in order to effect a waiver F.3d at em8 pha-6 sis added The Second Circ uit held that for an issue waiver to occur p6 rty u1 st rely on privileged advice from his counsel to ke his claim8.3 or defense Id phasis added In ligh5.4 of Second Circuit 2s lding recen cases from8.6 this Court have explain5.8 ed at 223reliance on privileged advice in th assertion of the claim8.2 or defens is a5 tia5 elem9 ent a claim8.8 of waiver.6 Aristocrat Leisure Ltd Deut sche Bank Trust Co Americas No CIV PKL at S.D.N.Y Sept For the sake of com8.8 p1 leteness it ay be relev6 ant to n6 o1 te tha4.8 New York state privilege law applies sam8.3 Secon-4.5 Circu-4.5 it cited-4.5 cases clud-4.5 cases is e.g a rsey ank7.7 Civ at S.D.N.Y arn is lematic far as there6.7 are6.7 ry few instance6.7 in whic6.7 Hear7.8 factors taken at face value do not ply and ere6.5 ore6.5 a large m7 jori4 t4 cl4 of pri10 i4 l4 oul10 be ect4 t4 wai10 er Allen-4 West7.4 Po-4 t-Pep-4 rell In-4 Su5 pp5 not4.1 is Circu-4.5 it reach-4.5 ed conflicti-5.1 ecisi6.9 in appl4.1 cat4.1 of Hear8.2 rejectin-4.8 relian-4.8 ce a cases in ich ts sitatin-4.8 lied-4.8 a vari4.3 of arn balan-4.3 test Connell Bernstein--4.4 actu-5.3 is no-5 o1 in-5 ecau-5 rty th-5 ere assertin-5 th-5 leg-5 exp-5 essly relied-5 pon-5 th-5 adv-5 ice of co-5 un-5 sel as a fen-5 to the lain-5 tiffs actio-5 one6.5 Poulenc rer5.7 Inc me nde8.1 ng to of ubious6 validit8.5 becau se alt7.4 ough it es up its alysis with-4.5 a list facto-4.5 it pe8 ars5 rest3.7 a ncl3.7 ati3.7 on ght3.7 re8 e2 vant3.7 a8 shoul8.3 in fairness discl8.3 Aristo-4.3 crat Leisu-4.3 se accordingly jected a party reliance on the e1 authority that De7 fe7 nda7 nt relies Aristo-5.7 WL cussi4.3 ssels Lambert Cred-4.9 it is Sui4 sse en noting in xt ntence the test relied-4.8 by6 ank8.4 uss7.6 tly has criticized-4.4 econ-4.2 Circu-4.2 it is ery issu-4.2 Case Document Filed Page of specific and protective standard See In re Bank of New York Mellon Misc 3d N.Y.S.2d Sup Ct 2at issue waiv er occurs 221when the party has asserted a claim8.1 or defense that he intends to prove by use of the privileged m8 terials An example of an ative act at does5.3 constitute at issu6.1 waiv er of privilege is a party 2s 221asserting as an affir-6.6 ative defense its reliance upon the advice of counsel DISCUSSI-5.9 ON I MS GIUFFRE NOT WAIVE HER TORNE-3.5 Y-CLIENT IVILEGE-3.5 WHEN EDWARDS AND CASS-4.5 LL FIL-4 E1 AND UED THEIR OWN DEFAM-7.3 ON ACTI-6.9 AGAINST AN DERSHO-8.3 Defendant 2s lead argument is that ssell and E6 dwards waiv5.2 ed Ms Giuffre 2s attorney client privilege when they filed and pursued a def8.3 tion action against Alan Dershow7.5 itz See Mot to mpel at This claim8.4 is ritle ss num8.5 erous reasons including fact disclosed by Defendant that this very argum8 ent has been fully litigated before the Florida court handling that defam8.2 tion action which specifically rejected any finding of waiver A The Florida Court Presiding over the Defamation Action Has Alread6.4 Rejected Same Waiver Claim that Defendant is Advancing Here The claim8.5 that Cassell Edwards som8.5 ehow waived Ms Giuffre 2s atto5.5 rney-client pursuing their own personal defam8 tion action agai3.9 nst Dershowitz has already been the subject of extensive briefing ultim8.6 ately5.8 a Florid a court ling Defendant has scoured the docket New e5 ral horities also-4.7 at en atto-4.7 eys are actin-4.7 clien-4.7 2s e5 lf ey eir-4 cli6.7 pr-4 ileg-4.7 N.Y a llenbeck Hes5.9 sine a tiar-4.6 ileg-5.3 is at it is al can priv-4.6 ilege er al4 re l4 Cir se the ileg-5.6 bel3.9 onl3.9 be wai3.9 not3.9 wai9.9 hout3.9 client6.5 consent8.4 re New rk Mello-4.9 rp Forex s4 tion-4.9 Litig Supp 3d Ferreira-4.8 itol eci6.6 lty rp Mis6.8 3d 2d Ct CPLR clear-4.4 at an attorney annot waive atto ey-clien-3.9 priv-3.9 ileg-3.9 rat7.5 er wai7.5 er is onl3.9 ffect3.9 whe8.2 one8.2 bene8.2 ary4.5 pri9.9 rep4.5 ese8.2 Case Document Filed Page of in the Dersh5.9 witz def3.9 amation ase colle4.7 ct ev ery flyspeck of infor-7 ation that she believes support her argum8.7 ent that a aiver has taken place See Mot to Compel at and num8.1 rous associated exhibits But rem8.1 rkabl she has not revealed to this Court the most relev6 ant inf4 o6 ation f4 om the docke4.8 th6 at th6 Florida cou6 onsidered th6 sam8.8 waiver issu6 es and rejecting the sam8.2 argum8.2 ents that the Defe ndant now advances This Florida court ruling applying Florida law is controlling here As discussed above in the factual section of this response in the Florida case Dershowitz filed a tion to com8.4 el advancing legal and fact ual argum9 ents iden6.2 tic5 al to those the Defendant is advancing here See McCawley Decl Ex at Dershowitz tion to com8.5 el arguing that Cassell and Edwards 223have waived any privilege or protection that would otherwise atta4.8 ch to responsive docum8 nts and inform8 ation by bringing this defamation action placing at issue the truthfulness of Jane Doe 2s allegations against Dershow7.5 itz Id at Citing Hearn Rhay F.R.D E.D Wash Ders howitz claim8.3 that inform8.3 ation Ms Giuffre had confidentially provided to Cassell an Edwards as her attorneys had becom8 issue in the defa-6 m8 tion action Mc Cawley Decl Ex at De rshowitz argued broadly that a whole host of alleged attorney-client comm7.9 unic-6.1 a tions were issue in the case including Jane Doe No 2s allegations agai nst Dershow7.6 itz asserted in the action caption5.9 ed Jane Doe et al United States of A6 erica Case No S.D Fla the 223Federal Action assell Edwards investigatio5.7 into Jane Doe No 2s allegations against Dershowitz Cassell and Edwards asser3.8 tion in the Com8.6 laint tha4.6 Ders5 how itz was an alleged articipan5.8 in the crim8.5 inal con5.7 duct comm8.5 itted by Jef3.7 Epst ein Epstein nd Jane Doe No 2s whereabouts and activities during the tim7.8 when she claims to have been 223sex slave for stein.5.9 Case Document Filed Page of Ex at As the briefing on the issue ontinued in an October response filing Dershowitz argued that Ms Giuffre 2s pub lic ents waived the ivilege along w8 ith action5.9 by er attorney5.9 Cassell and Edwards Ex at Af4 ter all the4.8 se argum8.8 ents were f4 u1 lly briefed the Florida court Lynch rejected Dershowitz 2s argum8.1 ents that any waiver of the attorney-client privilege had taken place McCawley Decl Ex at ndant/Coun terc4.6 laim8.6 Plaintif3.8 Motion to Com8.6 el Production of docum8.4 ents and com8.4 lete responses to interrogatories is hereby denied In a Decem8.2 ber order,5.4 Judge Lynch provided a hort exp5.1 anation of his reasoning and entered an order denying Dershowitz 2s waiver otion Id In her pending otion to com7.8 pel fenda nt recy6 cles the sam8.7 argum8.7 ents that Dershowitz ade such as the claim8.5 that Cass ell and Edwards waived privilege by filing suit Mot Com8.2 el at that her March interv iew with Scarola and Edwards was a waiver id at and other ilar claim8.6 id at But Dershowitz alr eady litigated ese issues a few onths ago in the rshowitz case and his claim8.2 were rejected by the Florida court Defendant is now collaterally estopped from8.1 re litigating thes5 identical iss5 es here cause Dershowitz had a full and fair opportunity to li tigate those issues and Defendant was in a 223common interest agreem8 ent with Dershowitz at the tim8.4 The doctrine of collateral estoppel protects litigants and the cour ts relitigating identical i ssues and prom7.9 otes effi-7.1 ciency by barring unnecessary litigation See Parklane Hosiery Co Inc Shore U.S As this Court has explained for collateral estoppel to apply there ust have been a full Dershowitz specifically listed-10.1 llowing-4.1 lic stat ts Ms Giuffre as illu-4.3 strati7.1 of waiv-5.2 priv-5.2 ileg-5.2 Ms Giuffre March-4.6 iew with-4.6 the ily il 2s il reco-4.5 ed telep-4.5 terv-4.5 iew with attorneys ack Sca6.5 ola Bra6.5 Edwa rd-6 th-6 Janu-6 ar lease fre8.9 2s ary5.2 Rada-6.2 fre 2s state-6.6 ts rties clud-4.3 form10.5 er frien-3.9 s5 FBI Ms Giuffre 2s filin-4 of is it Defend-5.5 at Dershowitz specifically at e6 illu-3.7 stra Cassell 2s an-4 swers terro-4 ries and testi-4.6 y2 de8 posi3.7 case8 had4.3 wai9.7 e2 ge a8 Case Document Filed Page of and fair opportunity to litigate the cision that controls a nd the issu5.8 in the action must be identical to and decisive of the issue in the instant action Zois Cooper B.R S.D.N.Y affd sub nom In re Zois App 2x 2d Cir A non-party can be bound by a decision so long as her terests were 223effectively represented Zois B.R at As this Court can readily determ8.1 ine from8.3 reviewing the pleadings Dershowitz iled in Florida case,6.1 see McCawley Decl at Ex De rshowitz lly ief3.8 ed identic4.6 al issues to those presented here And he was ffectively rep5.5 enting ell at the tim8.3 The elem8.5 ents of collate ral estoppel apply Moreover entirely apart from8.5 collateral es toppel doctrine Judge Lynch 2s decision is highly persuasive Judge Lynch was the presidin judge over the Dershowitz m8 tter so he was intim9.2 ately iliar with exam9.2 ple what atters were issue in that particula4.4 se Moreover Judge Lynch is of course a Florida ju dge skilled in applying orida legal principles His ruling on whether a waiver of attorney clie nt privilege existed under orida law should be given heavy weight here See Elliott Associates L.P Banco de la Nacion F.3d 2d Cir Finally Defenda nt 2s briefing entirely ignores even the existence of Judge Lynch 2s ruling In such circum8.2 stances where th Defendant has failed to offer any reason for questioning Judge Lynch 2s holding this Court sh ould follow Judge Lynch lead and hold that no waiver of the attorney5.5 client ivilege exists nder Florida law And because Flo5.2 ida law contro5.3 lled hen the disclosures took place under Fe Evid waiver ists in this proceed5.6 ing is-4 relied on New York law a law is effect as is ral ctrine ee Bri3.3 F7 Tru3.9 Bank F6 S.B Fla Dist Ct llateral esto-4.7 el prev-4.7 ts relitig-4.7 atio-4.7 of issu-4.7 es ere t7 entical issu-4.4 es prev-4.4 ly been-4.4 litig-3.8 ated-3.8 tween-3.8 arti7.6 es or es a ited es Case Document Filed Page of Actions by Cassell and Edw7.5 ard Do Not Waive Ms Giuffre 2s Attorney-C7.5 lient Privilege Not only has Judge Lynch already ruled on the attorney-client privilege issue but his ruling was entirely correct Defendant 2s argum nt rests on the proposition that Cassell and Edwards had authority to waive Ms Gi uffre 2s privilege while they pursu5.4 ed their orida defa-5.8 tion action But in filing their own perso5.4 al defam8.5 ation claim8.5 against Dersho5.7 witz in a lawsuit where Ms Giuffre was not a party Cassell and Edwards were not acting on Ms Giuffre 2s behalf Defendant never attem8 pts to even explain uch less prove how that defa-6.1 tion action could have bene fitted Ms Giuffre And or ida law is clea4.6 tha4.6 when attorneys are not acting on the cl ient 2s behalf they cannot a ive their client 2s privilege See Charles Ehrhardt Fla Prac vidence ed Schetter Schetter So.2d Fla th DCA To nd that an atto5.9 rney waived his lien5.9 2s ivilege a clear record st exist con5.5 ern5.5 ng the attorney5.9 atto5.9 rney waive priv5.9 ilege See Bus Integration Servs Inc AT Corp No CIV JGK at S.D.N.Y Feb Here to the contrary the record clear that Giuffre did not authorize any waiver of her attorney-clien5.4 privilege See McCawley Decl Ex affidavit of Ms Gi uffre Ms Giuffre did not authorize any waiver Accordingly under Florida law Ca ssell and Edwards actions did not waive Ms Giuffre 2s privilege The in exam8.2 ples Defe-5.8 ndant offers in support her waiver argum8.6 ent com8.6 from8.6 a summary judgm8.4 nt on that Cassell and Edw7.8 rds filed ee Mot to Com7.8 pel at Of ke ness w5 not9.8 ng ral law New state law ewise requ-4.6 ire at a clien-4 wai7.4 atto-4 rn-4 ey-clien-4 ileg-4 See8.7 e.g5 hnel4.4 hn5 waiv-4.5 er attorn-4.5 ey-clien-4.5 ileg-4.5 ere attorn-4.5 ey testifie at i6 ithou-5.4 esen-5.4 ce ization-4.4 of clien-4.4 t1 C.P.L.R cK-4 inney less the clien-4.6 es ileg-4.5 attorn-4.5 ey all scl6.9 se or allo-5 wed to-5 isclo-5 se su-5 ch co-5 icatio-5 o1 sh-5 all th-5 client co-5 elled-5 to-5 iscl6.4 se su-5 ch-5 co-5 icati-5.6 in an-5 action discipli7.9 nary trial or hearing or nistrative action proceedi8.1 or he aring conducted by or on behalf of any uni3.8 pal3.8 cal3.8 agenc8.1 legi7.8 slature or any mmittee or body the6.1 eof Case Document Filed Page of course that motion was filed on their behalf not Ms Giuffre 2s To be sure that otion contained ong other supporting infor-6.6 ati on a sworn affidavit from)8 Ms Giuffre But the routin6.1 step subm8.9 ittin6.1 an davit is not a wa iver atto5.7 ey-client ections as discussed at greater length in Part II.D infra And in any event Defendant does not include that affidavit ong her upporting terials to her tion much less explain how the recitation of factual inf3.8 ation in tha4.6 davit cons5 titutes a waiv er by Ms Giuffre with re ect to communications with her tto6 rneys See oon State So.2d Fla no waiver when the client rely discloses facts which were part of the comm8.5 unication with th client 2s ttorn5.7 ey Ms Giuffre has not waived her priv5.7 ilege Ms Giuffr3.9 2s Confidential Comm unication6.8 With Her Attorneys Were Never Issue in the Florida Dershow7.3 z9 Litigation Defendant 2s argum8.2 ent that Ms Giuffre 2s atto rney-client privilege has been waived under the issu5.4 doctrine also fails under Florid a law because confidential comm8 uni-7 cation5.2 were never at issue in th Dershowitz litigation Florida law on when conf3.8 identia4.6 atto5.8 rney-c4.6 lie comm8.3 unications are at sue com8.3 the Florida Suprem8.7 Court 2s ecis5.1 in Savino Luciano So.2d Fla There the Florida Suprem8.2 Court announced the test for de term8.2 ining whether confidential communications were issue as whether a claim8.1 or defense would neces5.3 sarily require that the ivileged atter be offered in evid5.8 ence Id at sis added ee also Diaz 226Verson Walbridge Aldinger Co So.3d Fla 2d DCA More recent decisions from Florida i6 ti6 supp-5.4 mm9 m9 m9 ti-6 sted-5.4 itio-5.4 exhib-5.4 its clud-5.4 ing obviously non-pri8.1 ileged aterials as a Palm11.4 Beach Police partm11.4 nt repor flight logs from11 Epstein jet cerp-4.9 sition-4.9 testim9.5 stei6.5 Ale ssi Alfredo-4.4 driqu-4.4 ez Alan-4.4 Dersho-4.4 witz and4.6 st4 ei4 t4 l4 one8.3 di10 rect4 ory4.6 See7.9 Menninge6.5 Dec at Case Document Filed Page of have sized that Savino does ean that a party es attorney5.8 clien5.8 ivile4.6 erely by bringing or defending a lawsuit Coates Akerman Se nterfitt Edison P.A So.2d Fla 2d DCA Instead waiv)5.3 er occurs ly when a party ust necessarily use the privilege inf4 o1 ation to estab6 lish its claim8.8 or def4 ense Id at emphasis added Most recen6.1 tly in Genovese Provident fe and Accident Ins Co So 3d Fla as revised on denial of reh 2g Nov the Florida Suprem)7.9 Court cited both Coates and Savino to ho6 ld tha4.8 the at issu6 doc4.8 trin6 allo ws discovery privileged terial only when the holder of the privilege the clie-0.8 nt raises the advice of counsel as a claim or defense in the action and the communication is essen tia5 to the claim9 or def4.2 ense Id Under these restrictive standa rds Ms Giuffre 2s comm8 unicati ons were never at issue in her attorneys personal defa-5.8 tion case against Dershowitz Consider for exam8.4 ple a typical alleg5.6 tion ssell and wards mplaint Imm8.1 diately following the filing of what Defendant Dershowitz knew to be an entirely proper and well-founded pleading Dershowitz initiated a ssive public dia assault on the reputation and characte of Bradley E6 dwards and Paul Cassell accu5.8 sing them8.6 of inten5.8 tionally ly ing in eir filing of having lev5.5 led knowingly false accusations against the Defendant Dershowitz without ever conducting any investig5.7 ation of the credib ility the accusations and of having acted unethically to the extent that their willful sconduct warranted and required disbarm8.2 nt McCawley Decl Ex at As is imm8.3 diately apparent th is allegation does not require an exam8.2 ination of Ms Giuffre 2s confidential com8.2 unications with her attorneys Instead it requires an assessm8.3 ent of Dershowitz 2s state of mind with regard to his knowledge of the inf3.8 ation that Cass5 ell and Edwards had to sup5.8 port ilin5.8 the alle4.6 gations as supporting exhibits to th pleadings Cassell and Edwards filed de clear the adequacy of their investigation could be readily es tablished from8.3 ny sources that did not have any connection to what Ms Giuffre m8 or m8 not ha ve told them in conf3.6 iden5.6 ce See e.g McCawley Decl Ex Case Document Filed Page of at recounting infor-6.8 m8 ati on supporting allegations agains Dershow7.4 itz such as sworn testim8.4 ony household ployees and invocati ons of the Fifth endm8.7 ent by Epstein and his co-conspirators To be sure Dershowitz tried to ke an argum8.3 ent that Ms Giuffre 2s communicatio5.5 ns with her attorneys ght have som8.3 arguable rele vance to the case But Judge Lynch rejected that very argum8 nt and quite properly so Re levance is insufficient to waive privilege under Florida law Guarantee Ins F.R.D at citing Coyne Schwartz Gold Cohen Zakarin Kotler A So.2d Fla th C2 A A client does not waive the atto5.8 rney-client priv5.8 ileg5.8 sim8.6 ly because her cr edibility could be peached by communications with her er attorney5.9 See Jenney Airdata Wiman Inc So.2d Fla 2d DCA Accordingly under Florida law Ms Gi uffre 2s confidential communications ith her atto5.9 rneys re neve4.7 at issue in Florid5.9 a litiga4.7 ion Defendant Has Not the Oth er Requirements for Sho5.5 ng Waiver of Attorney-C7.5 lient Privilege For the foregoing reasons Defendant has failed to ke the required showing for an issue waiv5.7 attorn5.7 client ivilege But even re fundam8.3 entally Defendant has failed to estab5.6 lish elem8.4 ents necessary find a wa iver of attorney-client privilege Defendant repea4.6 edly ers to rou5.8 ine litiga4.6 tion action5.8 suc4.6 as the filing of in-court affidavits as a basis for finding som8 kind of waiver of privilege See Mot to Compel at But it is obvious that such actions4.7 do not waiv5.5 atto5.5 rney-client otection Litigation requires lim8.3 ited communication to third parties including the court and opposi ng counsel of inform8.1 ation learn6.1 ed in course the atto6.1 rney-4.1 clien6.1 la tionship Therefore Flor a law recogn5.8 izes an The7.4 resu3.7 lt uld tain3.7 nde7.4 state law ee C4 Guar7.6 C4 lies a acts places privileged aterial at issue has selectively disclose6.5 the6.5 dvice Case Document Filed Page of absolute privilege to pro5.9 ect atto5.9 rney5.9 statem8.7 en ts ade in communicatio5.8 ns that are elim8.6 inary to a proposed judicial oceeding in the institu tion of or during cour se and as a part of a judicial proceeding Fl a Stat Ann ee also McCullough ubiak So 3d Fla th DCA A waiver of th attorney-client pr ivilege occurs only if the client voluntarily discloses in ourt the substance of a communica5.5 tion with her4.7 attorney See e.g Delap State So.2d Fla crim8 nal de fendant sought to use in court favorably testim8 ony from his investigator whil blocking inquiry into other testim8.2 ony No waiver occu5.7 rs when the clien5.7 erely disclos4.9 es facts which were part of the comm8.3 unication with the client 2s ttorn5.7 ey See Koon State So.2d Fla see also ylor State o.2d Fla Thus the priv ilege attaches to th communication with counsel not to the underlying facts Brookings State o.2d Fla see a6 so Lynch State So.3d Fla As a result allegations that Giuffre disclosed to third parties the sam8.3 facts that she have related to Cassell and Edwards without any evidence that she dis4.7 los4.7 the subs4.7 tance of her confidential consultation with Edwards and Cassell cannot overcom8.1 her privilege To hold otherwise would eviscerate the atto5.9 rney-client privilege Such a ruling would ean that every tim8.5 an atto5.7 rney filed a declara tion by his client that contained the factual basis for the client 2s claim8.1 the opposing party woul have the right to exam8.1 ine all privileged communications Defendant has no cited any authority eith6 er4 in Florid6 a o1 elsewhe4.9 to New York state priv-3.7 ileg-3.7 la is to effect Niesig am N.Y.2d ecau-4.9 ileg-4.9 lies ly tial catio-4.9 coun-4.9 sel see6.4 CPLR i4 t4 es not4 i4 m7 uni4 ze t4 rl4 i4 ng act4 ual4 i4 rm13 ati4 on om13 di4 scl4 re adve8.3 rsa8.3 As illu-4.5 ratio-4.5 Defend-4.5 es at in Ms Giuffre terview il Mot el Def5.2 nda8.2 doe8.2 expl3.9 scl3.9 sed uni3.9 cat3.9 ons because such disclos5.7 res5.7 would ve en tr udicial they would be rrowly nstrue6.8 low Cir-5 Case Document Filed Page of support his extrem8.1 assertion that Ms Giuffre waived her privilege sim8.3 ly by allowing an affidavit to be filed in a court proceeding Defendant also claim8.2 Cassell at his depositi on in the Dersho5.6 witz cas4.8 waived ttorn5.6 ey client privilege by discussing fact inf4.1 ation rela4.9 ted to investigation of Ms Giuffre 2s allegations for exam8.1 ple flight log infor-6.7 ation Cassell 2s deposition testim)8.3 ony did not constitute a waiver Ms Giuf3.8 2s atto5.8 rney client privilege Ind eed Ms Giuffre 2s own separate attorney unders igned counsel Ms McC7.5 wley from8.3 th law firm8.2 of Boies Schiller Flexner LL6 raised a standing objection to Ca ssell answering any quest ion that would require divulging any attorney/client co unications McCawley Decl Ex deposition excerpt of Paul Cassell Volum8 I dated Oct at 223Virginia1.9 oberts does not waive her attorney5.6 clien5.6 ivile4.4 with her lawyers and they not entitled to stif3.9 as to inform8 ation that she intended to be confiden tial that she com8.2 unicated to her lawyers Defendant also argue4.4 at becau5.6 se Cassell id at som8.8 unspecified po)6 in6 in his d6 epo6 sition tha4.8 he 223knew som8 unidentified inform8 ation about Ms Giuffre he m8 ust have been revealing atto5.9 rney-c4.7 lie4.7 nt comm8.7 unication5.9 to Com8.7 el at course the ation assell and Edwards 223knew about Ms Giuffre-6.2 was a direct result of her attorney-client comm8 unications with them8.2 But Cassell knew a vast ount of information about Ms Giuffre from8.2 the factual record in the case such as the flight ogs dem7.9 onstrating flights that she took with Epstein and Defendant on Epstein 2s jet Defenda nt 2s log6.1 is ly incorr4.1 ect Ms Giuf3.6 Will Not eek to Us Confidentia5.6 Attorney-3.6 lient Communic4.3 tions in Action re For all the reasons just explained Ms Gi uffre has not waived her attorney-client privilege through events that oc curred in the Dershowitz cas4.7 But one dition5.5 poin5.5 bears her xce8.1 ssel3.8 fen4.4 has7.3 Menninger ec E6 Case Document Filed Page of phasis Defendant attem8.5 ts to argue that the trial in this se will som8.6 ehow be unfair she does not receive access to confiden tial attorney5.6 lien5.6 comm8.4 unications Ms Giuf3.6 had with her lawyers earlier Mot to Co m8 pel at ut regardless of what or not have been at issu5.8 in Dershowitz case conf3.8 identia4.6 co mmunications4.9 will not at issu5.7 her3.7 For exam8 ple De-6 fendant writes that would be prej udicial for Ms Giuffre-5.9 to be able to support her claim8 in this case that she is not a liar using her attorney 2s testim8.2 ony Id at To be clear Ms Giuffre has no intention of calling for exam8.2 ple ssell and Edward to testify at trial in an attem8.4 to support her claim8.4 Thus this ill no6 be a case where it will be isleading to the court or any jury to hear te stim8.3 ony from8.3 Ms Giuffre 2s couns el about all the factual basis work product and thought process on which they re lied in king the allegations in the Joinder Motion to Com8.4 el at for the sim8.4 le eason that at Ms Giuffre 2s coun5.6 sel will not witnesses in the cas5.1 Nor will Giuf3.5 be presenting a state nd def3.5 nse that ght require a re extensive inquiry in to attorney-client comm7.8 cations See In re Cty of Erie F.3d 2d Cir noting absence of good faith or state of nd issues as a reason for not finding issue waiver of privilege Nomura Asset Capital Corp Cadwalader Wick4.4 ersham Taft LLP A.D.3d N.Y.S.2d N.Y App Div finding no waiver where plainti ff disavowed any intention to us confidential attorn5.7 ey-client communications relev5.7 nce alone sufficient to put priv6.3 ileg6.3 ateria5.1 a issue because that were case a ivilege would have little effect To be sure at trial Ms Giuffre will pres ent factual testim8.4 ony supporting5.6 her vers4.8 ion of events just as no doubt Defendant will try to esent testimony supporting her vers4.6 ion But such testim8 ony from8 bot-7 sides does not create a ny waiver of attorney-client privilege Instead such testim8.6 ony is sim8.6 ly the pres entation of com7.8 eting facts fr which the jury can decide Case Document Filed Page of who is telling the truth None of this creates any need for Defendant to force Ms Giuffre to reveal confidential communications II MS GIUFFRE NOT WAIVE HER TORNE-3.5 Y-CLIENT IVILEGE-3.5 BY DENYING FABRI-6.5 ATED EVICEN CE DURING HER DEPOSITI-5.9 ON Defendant spends signif8.7 cant tim8.5 arguing th at Ms Giuffre 2s answers several deposition questions about the abs4.9 ce of any communications from8.3 sell and Edwards that she provide false information constituted a waiver of attorn6 ey6 clien6 pr4 ivilege Mot to6 Com8.8 p1 el at arguing that 223never answ er to the question 223Has Brad Edwards ever pressured you or encouraged you in any way or under any circumstan ces at any tim8.2 to provide false infor-6.6 ation about Jeffrey Epstein constitu5.4 ted a waiver of at torney-clien5.4 privilege While the argum)8.2 nts above are sufficient to dispose of this claim8.4 it is worth ph asizing several additional points about this specific testimony First los5 ng the absence of communication is not the sam7.9 as expos-5.7 ing any communication It is a undam8.3 ntal requirem8.3 nt of a waiver argum8.3 ent that a comm8.3 unication be exposed see Fla Stat nn extending privileg to a cation between lawyer and client not the absence of such a communication See Montanez Publix Super Markets Inc So 3d Fla Dist Ct App reje cting argum8.1 ent that client waived her atto6.2 rney-c5 lie5 nt priv6.2 ileg6.2 by stating at an te rro5.6 atory answ7.8 er was not 223her answer because this did not disclose the substance he comm8.2 unications with her a5 tto6.2 ey Cf Mitchell Superior Court Cal 3d P.2d Cal 223Relevant case law kes it clear that mere dis4.7 losu5.5 re of the fact that a communication tween cl ient and attorney had occurred es not ount to disclosure of the specific content of that communication and as such does necess4.8 rily constitute a waiver of the priv5.6 ilege.5.6 Case Document Filed Page of Case Document Filed Page of Second the questions highlighted by Defendant asked Ms Giuffre whether she had ever communicated with her attorneys Cassell and Edwards for purposes of committing a crime or fraud See Mot to Compel at recounting questions If such a communication involving pe1jmy had existed it would not have been covered by the attorney-client privilege in the first instance because it would have involved an on going crime or fraud See Fla Stat Ann There is no lawyer client privilege under this section when the services of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client knew was a crime or fraud Answering those questions by denying the existence of a crime or fraud accordingly did not constitute waiver of confidentiality over any otherwise protected communication Indeed any other conclusion would essentially abolish the attorney client privilege A party could simply accuse the opposing side of fabricating evidence and when that accusation was denied argue that attorney-client privilege had been waived This is not the law Finally it is imp01tant to note that throughout her deposition Ms Giuffre attorney strenuously objected to any effort by to obtain attorney client inf01mation See Mccawley Deel Exhibit Composite Exhibit of Deposition Excerpts from the Deposition of Virginia Giuffre at Clearly at her deposition Ms Giuffre did not voluntarily waive any attorney client_privilege she held Again for ake of completenes i i orth noting th a federal and Ne York st ate la also contain a crime-fraud ception to the a ttorne clien pri ilege No rd an AG ew Yo rk ran ch werdl D.N Uli Cas Co Wi ls on El ser Mo ko witz Edelm a ic er A.D.3d N.Y.S.2d attorney-client pri ilege a not be in oked he it in ol client communic a tion th a may ha been in furtherance of a fraudulen cheme an alleged breach of fiduciary duty or an accu ation of ome othe wrongful conduct Once again the objec ions are not included in Defendan exce1pt from the deposition I EDWARDS AND CASSELL HAVE NOT WAIVED RK-PRODUCT PROTECT-4 ON AND MAXWEL-4 HAS NO-8 DEMONSTRATE-3.8 TO Case Document Filed Page of voluntary disclosure of confidential infor-6.9 ation effectively waives the ivilege as to all conversations or the whole breadth of di scussion which m8 have taken place Pro5.6 cacci Seitlin So 2d Fla Dist Ct App citing Goldman Sachs Co Blondis F.Supp Instead waiv er by disclosure is confined to 223that specific subject during that particular conversation Procacci So 2d at quoting Perrignon Bergen Brunswig Corp F.R.D N.D As with her atto6.1 rney-c4.9 lie4.9 nt priv6.1 ileg6.1 argum8.9 en Defendant has not even cited Florida law on waiver of work-product protection m8 uch less explained how she eets its dem8.2 nding requirem8 nts Moreover the illustrations she pr ovides do not prove any general waiver of work product protection For exam8 ple De-6 fendant reli es on the claim that Cassell and Edwards have waived work-product protection by disclosing a transcript of a portion of a telephone inte4.2 rview with Ms Giuf3.4 by attorne4.2 ys Jack carola and Brad5.5 Edwards But that recorded inte4.5 rview was never a onf3.7 identia4.5 unicati on between Mr Giuffre and the lawyers but rathe5 a5 trans5.4 pt the call itself4.2 m9 a kes clear a unication that could be presented to any jury4.4 that might ultima tely ave to hear these facts McCawley Decl Ex at transcript of Scarola/Edwards interview on April hasis added In other ords the record6 ed call was sim8.8 p1 ly the f4 unction6 al equiv6 alen6 of an affidavit and affidavits are routinely disclosed with waiving work product protecti ons under the law of Florida and elsewhere Defendant also argues that Cassell and Edwards waived work-product protection by filing a sum8.5 ary judgment tion in the Dersho witz case which contained supporting exhibits e.g flight logs sworn testim8 ony by third-party witnesses and othe evidence Mot to Com)8 pel state law is t9 the7.3 sam12 effect ee art3 Midt8.3 own Rochester L.L.C Misc Ct isclo-5.1 a tected rodu-5.1 ct rul4.1 es not4.1 sul4.1 er of ge doc8.4 ent4.1 Case Document Filed Page of at But providing inform8.3 ation in support of a su mmary judgm8.3 nt on is a routine step that atto6 rneys take every day6 h1 ile the aterial produced are obviously not subject to ork product protection other teri als and communications do not som8.1 how becom8.1 subject to discovery Paradise Divers Inc So 2d at Defendant Has Not Proven 223Need to Penetrate Work-P6 oduct Protection Defendant 2s argum8 ent on work product protection also sim8.4 ly assum8.4 that it is the sam8.4 as the attorney-client privilege and can be waived under an issue theory But the issue legal theory Defendant relies on to argue orrectly5.2 that attorney-client privilege has been waived applies only to that privilege The work product doc trine is quite distin ct from attorney client privilege and application of the privileges and exceptions to them8 differ See West Bend Mutual Ins Co Higgins So.3d Fla th DCA Geno5.5 vese Provident Life Accident Ins Co So 3d Fla as revised on denial of reh 2g The function of the work product doctrine is to protect counsel 2s ntal essions West Bend Mutual o.3d at To pierce th privilege Defendant must show 223that the substantial equivalent of the terial ca nnot be obtained by other eans Southern Bell Tel Tel Co Deason So.2d Defendant has no even identified any specific work product she claim8.4 to need ch less shown why she cannot get the underlying inform8 ation from8.6 other sources Under the law of Florida and elsewhere to establish 223need a party st present testim8.1 ony or evidence demonstrating the terial requested is critical to the theory of the Bot8.4 ral and York state law exte6.7 nd work produc ection-4.1 milar ose in Florida law See Hick6.9 man Taylor N.Y Civ Practi7.7 ce Law Ru Indee6.4 York state law may go eve6.4 furt8.1 her tha6.4 orida 2s exte6.4 nds lute ct tectio-5.3 See hart3.7 e2 nk che8 e2 Misc t4 sect10 i4 on sol10 t4 im7 uni4 t4 from7 di4 scl4 re of t4 t4 rney4.6 duct4 Case Document Filed Page of requestor 2s case or to som8.1 si gnificant aspect of the case Zirkelbach Const Inc R6 ajan So.3d Fla 2d DCA ell establis hed in Florida is th principle that the unsworn analysis of a party 2s attorney and/or a bare assertion of need and undue hardship to obtain the substantial equiva lent is insufficient to satisfy this showing Butler rter So.3d Fla 1st DCA see Proc4.3 ter4.7 Gamble Co Swille4.3 So.2d Fla 1st DCA Sta5.5 A So.2d Fla 2d DCA 223Representations by counsel not de under oath and not subject to cr oss-exam8.3 ination absent a stipu5.4 ation5.4 are not evidence Further Florid a courts have held that 223the showing of need encom8.4 asses a showing diligence by the par3.6 seeking overy another rty5.7 work product utler Harter So.3d Fla 1st DCA see also CSX Transp Inc Carpenter So.2d Fla 2d DCA quashing order granting otion to com8.6 el discovery becau5.8 se the record5.8 did not co n5 ain affidavits supporti plain5.5 tiff 2s argum8.3 ent that it was unable to obtain the substantially equivalent inform8.1 ation by other eans without undue hardship Falco Shore Labs Corp So.2d Fla 1st DCA holding that need and undue hardship ust be dem8.2 onstrated by affidavit or sworn testim8.2 ony Broward Hosp Dist Button So.2d Fla 4th DCA 223The unsworn assertions plaintiff 2s counsel were insufficient to constitu te a showing of need and undue hardship called into doubt on othe grounds as stated in Columbia Hosp Corp of Broward Fain So.3d Fla 4th DCA Here Defendant has ple inform8.3 ation from8.3 wh ich she can present her case At the core of this case is whether Ms Giuffre 223lied when she said that Def3.9 enda nt recruited her to be sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein Defendant can of course testif to her tera5.2 ct ions with Ms Giuffre as well as call other witnesses regard the circumstances of those interactions Case Document Filed Page of Defendant can also get infor-6.7 ation from8.1 her clos3 friend Epstein about the circum8.1 stances of the interactions Defendant and Ep stein are not only good friends but they have a 223common interest agreem8.4 ent that facilitates tran5.6 sfer infor-6.4 ati on between the two of them Finally to ake her showing that she is unable to obtain 223equivalent inform8 ation from8.1 other sources Defendant would have to explain in detail what other eps h1 has tak6 en6 to secure infor-6.4 ation from8.4 other sources including not only Epstein but other itnesses present at Epst ein 2s nsion Having failed to do any of this Defendant has not a de a sufficient showing to obtain work-product inform8.5 ation Pupillo So.3d at IV COMMUNICATIONS-4.4 WITH TO ACK SCAROLA ARE COVE-3.8 RED BY A JOINT NS-5 AGRE-4.2 EN AND ARE US PROTECTED BY ATTORNE-3.9 CLIENT-3.9 AND RK PRODUCTION OTECTION As a tag-along argum8.2 ent at the end of her tion Defendant argues that Ms Giuffre has not established the existence of a common interest or jo6 int d6 f4 ense agree4.8 ent that embraces Jac4.8 k1 Scarola the atto5.8 rney for Cassell and Edwards in the Dershowitz litig5.3 ation Mot to mpel at Disclosure of that agreem7.9 ent involved noti ce to the parties to the agreem8.1 ent Now that appropriate notice has been provided the agre ent can be and has been disclosed See McCawley Decl Ex common interest agreem7.9 ent In view of the existence of the valid agreem8.4 ent it is clear that the referen5.6 ced comm7.9 unications involving Scarola are protected See e.g Guiffr4.9 Maxwell No CIV WL at S.D.N.Y May noting common interest agreem7.9 ent protection citing GUS Consul-7.4 ting GMBH Chadbourne Parke LLP Misc 3d N.Y.S.2d Sup Ct CONCL-4.1 ION Defendant 2s tion to com8.4 el hould be denied in its entirety Case Document Filed Page of Dated June Respectf4.3 lly6.3 Subm9.1 itted,6.3 BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP By grid McCawley Sigrid McC7.4 wley Pro Hac Vice Meredith Schultz Pro Hac Vice Boies Schiller Flexner LLP Las Olas Blvd Suite Ft Lauderdale FL David Boies Boies Schiller Flexner LLP Main Street onk NY Bradley dwards Pro Hac Vice FARMER FFE SSING,-6.1 EDWARDS FISTOS LEHRMAN P.L North Andrews Avenue Suite Fort Lauderdale Florida Paul Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J Quinney College of Law University Utah University St Salt Lake City UT CERTIFICATE OF I HEREBY CERTIFY hat on the 1st day of June I electronically filed the foregoing docum8.3 ent with the Clerk of Court by using the M/ECF system8.4 I also certify that foregoing docum8 ent is being served this day on th indiv6.1 dua4.9 ls iden6.1 tif4.1 ied below via transm8.1 ission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF Laura A Menninger Esq Thi4.3 day4.9 busi10.3 ess ss pro4.9 cat4.3 rres7.8 nde8.6 nce onl4.3 not4.3 im9 ly stitu-11.4 endo-5.4 rsemen-5.4 ers ity for is private represen-4.3 tatio-4.3 Case Document Filed Page of Jeffrey Pagliuca Esq HADDON MORGAN FOREM-6.6 AN East th Avenue Denver Colorado Tel Fax ail enninger flaw.com jpagliuca flaw.com Sigrid McCawley Case Document Filed Page of
