Exhibit Case Document Filed Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT-4.5 SOUT-5.3HERN DISTRICT YORK VIRGINIA GIUFFRE,-5.9 Plaintiff agains5t-.2 GHISLAINE MAXWELL Defendant Index No Civ ECF CASE REPLY M-5.9E2.5MORANDUM OF LAW FURTHER SUPPO-7R.7T OF NON-PARTY SHARO-7.3N CHURCH-7.3ER?S MO-7.3TION TO SUBPOENA DAVIS WRIGHT TRE-5.3M-1.5AINE LLP Laura Handm8.2an Eric Feder Avenue of the Americas 21st Floor New York NY Telephone Facsim8.1ile laurahandman dwt.com ericfeder dwt.com8.1 Attorneys for Non-Party Sharon Churcher Case Document Filed Page of i TABLE CONTENTS Page PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ARGUMENT I MAXWELL HAS FAILED TO SHOW9 THAT CHURCHER WAS NOT ENGAGED IN PROTECTED NEWSGATHERING ACTIVITY A The Prim7.9a-1.1ry Betw5.7een Churcher and Plaintiff Was Reporter and Source The Record Does Not Support Maxw7.5ell?s Contention that Churcher Is a Fact W8.7itness and Not a Journalist II MAXWELL-5.1 HAS NOT MADE A CLEAR SHOW7.9I-7.7NG OVERCOM-6.3E THE PROTECTIONS OF 7.7THE SHIELD LAW CONCLUSI-7.1ON Case Document Filed Page of ii TABLE OF AUTHORI-5.4T2.2IES Page Cases In re ABC Misc 2d N.Y.S.2d Sup Ct N.Y Cnty Application of CBS Inc A.D.2d N.Y.S.2d In re Application to Quash Subpoena to NBC F.3d 2d Cir Baker Goldman Sachs Co F.3d 2d Cir Beach Shanley N.Y.2d N.E.2d Brown Williamson To5.3bacco Corp Wigand No WL N.Y Sup Ct Feb Flynn NYP Holdings Inc A.D.2d N.Y.S.2d 3d Dep?t Gonzales NBC F.3d 2d Cir Guice-Mills Forbes Misc 3d N.Y.S.2d Sup Ct N.Y Cnty In re McCra5.5y-.9 Richardso5.5n Santana Wise Litig Supp 2d S.D.N.Y People Iannaccone Misc.2d N.Y.S.2d Sup Ct N.Y Cty United States Marcos No CR JFK S.D.N.Y June von Bulow von Bulow F.2d 2d Cir Other Auth7.2o-.2rities5.2 Fed Civ Case Document Filed Page of Non-party S6.6h.2aron Churcher Churcher through her counsel respectfully subm)7.8its this Reply Memorandum7.9 of Law in Further Support of her m8o.4tion under Fed Civ to quash the Supoena served by D7.7e-1.1fendant Ghislaine Maxwell the Motion PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Nothing in Maxwell?s filings rebu5.4ts4.8 the core sworn statem8ent from8 Sharon Churcher that at all tim7.8es when she was in comm7.8unication with Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre referred to as Virgin5.4i-2a Roberts her agen7.2ts Churcher was acting in her capacity as a jou5.4r-1.6nalist with Ms Roberts or her agen5.3ts as her sources always with ultim7.9ate goal of gathering inform7.8ation to dissem7.8i-2.2nate to the public as news Churcher Decl Maxwell attaches a series of email comm7.9unications betw7.7een Churcher and Plaintiff to her response to the Motion the Response in an effort to show that 5.7Churcher was not gathering news but was instead serving as a friend and advisor to Plaintiff in part to aid Plai-6.3ntiff in her efforts to publish a book about her experiences with Jeffrey Epstein Response at the fact that not every exchange between the two was an on-the-record interview does 6.2not transform7.9 the fundam7.9e-.6ntal nature of the relationship from8.1 what it plainly is a reporter an5.5d a source Nor can the fact that Churcher may have at tim7.8es conveyed advice on certain issues which were directly related to newsgathering in any event obscu)5.2re the reality that Churcher indisputably a professional journalist published articles num8e-6r-1.6ous m8a-1ss m8e-.9dia publications based on information provided to her by Plaintiff throughout the period5.4 in which th5.4ose comm8unications place In her Response Maxwell pulls individual fragm7.7e-6.3n.1ts of the communications out of context to try to show that Churcher was acting as a fact witness and a jou5.3r-1.7nalist But the inferences she draws are not reasonable?and certainly not sufficient to overcom7.9e the indisputable fact that Churcher was a reporter engaged in gathering news to publish Because the Shield Law applies confidential inform7.9ation is absolutely protected and Maxwell a clear showing of all the elem8.1ents to overcom8.1e the protection for non De7.1fine7.1d ca7.1pitalized bear the7.1 in C8.6h3.3urcher?s of Law in Support 6of the Case Document Filed Page of confidential inform7.8ation Section As set forth in Churche5.4r?s opening brief and at oral argum7.9ent Maxwell has not this showing Even Maxwell?s far-fetched accusations of Churcher?s involvem7.9e-1.1nt in Plaintiff?s alleged fabrication and expansion of claim7.9s Response at cannot establish that Maxwell?s defense virtually rises or falls with the inform)7.8ation sought particularly when the degree to which Plaintiff?s story did or did change over tim7.7e is evident already from8.3 the public record In re Application to Q7.6uash Subpoena to NBC Graco F.3d 2d Cir And as recent developm)7.8ents in the m7.8o.2tion practice for the case have clear Maxwell has from8.2 exhausted all availab5.6le sources for the inform8.2ation she seeks from7.8 Churcher a professional journalist.8.6 Maxwell also continues to understate the scope of protection for confidential infor-6.7m7.9ation That6.3 protection is not lim7.9ited to the identities of confidential sources but any inform7.9a-6.1tion conveyed in confidence?even if that source is not anonym8ous or also conveyed non-confidential infor-6.7m7.9ation See Section In Maxwell has not dem8.1onstrated that this S6.9ubpoena is anything than a fishing expedition based on a vague hope that inform7.8ation 10.7that Churcher gathered in the course of reporting news stories will som8e-1how cast doub5.4t Plaintiff?s claim7.9s The Shield Law protects such information and the Subpoena should be quashed ARGUMENT Notwithstanding the assertions of Maxwell?s cou5.2n.2sel th5.2at she is not seeking newsgathering m8a-1terials protected by the Shie6.3ld Law the Response m8a-1kes unam8b.4iguously clear that that is precisely what Maxwell is seeking Maxwell?s Response states several times that what she prim8a-.2rily seeks are interview notes recordings and other docum8entation in Churcher?s possession regarding P6.7l-2.1aintiff Response at These are quintessential newsgathering m7.7a-1.3terials that fall squarely within the Shield Law?s protection See e.g Flynn NYP Holdings Inc A.D.2d N.Y.S.2d 3d Dep?t affirm7.7ing quashing of subpoena for reporter?s research 4.6files and reporter?s notes People Iannaccone Misc.2d N.Y.S.2d Sup Ct N.Y Cty discussing application Shield Law to unpublished notes Case Document Filed Page of In her Response Maxwell raises two argum8.1ents why the inform8.1ation she seeks is no5.5t protected from8.2 disclosu5.6re th)5.6at the Shield La9.2w does not apply at all b5.6ecause at point Churcher ceased to be a reporter with respect to the Plaintiff and to the exten)5.2t the Shield Law applies Maxwell has the 8.7three elem8.1ents to overcom8.1e the qualified privilege for non confidential m8.1aterials Neither 7.6argum8.1ent holds up to scrutiny I.-2360.4MAXWELL HAS FAI-5.8LED TO SHOW CHURCHER WAS NOT ENGAGED IN PROTECTED NEWSGATHERING ACTIVITY Prima5.2r-.3y Relation6.6ship Between Churcher and Plaintiff Wa5.2s Reporter and Source The Second Circuit instructs that in determ8i-.3n5.8i-.1ng whether the reporter?s privilege applies the Court should look to the natu5.6re of the prim8a-1ry relationship between the respective parties to determ8.4ine whether it has as its th5.8e in5.8tent to dis5.2s.2em8.4inate th5.8e inform8.4ation to the public garnered from that relationship von Bulow von Bulow F.2d 2d Cir That intent must exist at the inception of the newsgathering process Id at Here there can be no dispute that the prim7.8a-1.2ry relationship between Churcher and Pl-10.9ain5.2tiff was that of a professional reporter gathering inform7.9ation from a source for news articles that were in fact subsequently published under Churcher?s by7.5line over the next several years In von Bulow the court held that the reporter?s pr-5.7ivilege did not apply to notes that a Andrea Reynolds took while watching the crim7.9inal trial of Claus von Bulow nor to investigative reports she had comm7.7is-5.5sioned about von Bulow?s wife?s children Although Reynolds had been in negotiations at various po7ints to publish articles and was tentatively putting together a m8a-1nuscript of a book about the trial based on the inform8ation she had gathered th5.6e court rejected her reporter?s priv13.9ilege argum8.2ent because sh5.6e did not the inten5.7t to diss5.1em8.3inate inform8.3ation to the public the tim8.3e that the information was gathered Id at On the contrary Reynolds an intim7.9ate 5.8friend of von Bulow?s had stated that her prim7.7a-1.3ry concern in commissioning the reports was vindicating Claus von Bulow and her Case Document Filed Page of own peace Id Even if she later decided to collect the inform7.9ation and publish it in a book her intent at the tim7.8e she gathered the inform7.9ation was not to publish it Subsequent decisions in this di-5.8strict have clarified that the relevant tim7.7e is not when any fact gathering for the subject of the subpoena began but when the information sought by the subpoena at issue was gathered In re McCray Richardson Santana Wise Salaam Litig McC7.9r.3ay Supp 2d S.D.N.Y In McCray the City of New York sought outtakes from the of a docum10.7entary on the Central Park Five case in connection with the civil lawsuit the individuals who were wrongfully convicted in that case The City arg5.5u.5ed that the privilege not apply b5.5e.2cause the filmm8.1akers fi-6.9rst conducted interviews with one of the plain5.3tiffs for a college thesis and had gathered other inform7.9ation when she was briefly employed as a paralegal the plaintiffs counsel?s law firm7.9 Id The district court affirmed the m7.9a-1.1gistrate?s6.4 quashing the subpoena The court explained that whereas in von Bulow all of the inform7.8ation at issue had been gathered by Reynolds before she form7.9ed any intent to distribute infor-6.7m7.9ati11.3on to the public the subpoenaed information in McCray nam8.2e-.8ly the content of the interv5.6iews was collected after the filmmakers decided to m8a-1ke a fil-7m8 that they woul5.2d distribute to the public Id em7.9phasis added here The court therefore rejected the City?s attem8.1pt to use the fact that one of the filmm8.1akers had previously gathered inform7.9ation unconnected to newsgathering as a backdoor to obtain m7.9a-1.1terial that clearly was obtained in the course of classic newsgathering This is an ev5.5en less close case Max5.5w2.9ell cannot dispute that Churcher is first and a professional journalist that her intent from8 the very beginning of her relationship with the Plaintiff was to gather inform7.8ation to publish news stories and that she in fact The7 court distinguis6.6h3.5ed 6because i8.1n-3.1terest in inves6tiga8ting re6.4porting 6on a matter which from11 a previ8ously established 6bu attenuated 6professional relations5.9hip not a 6pe6.3rsonal project m10.8o-3.4tivated by 6the vindication of 6friends McCray Supp 2d at 6court also expl7.7ained investigative journalists have previous with a 6subj-4.6ect before beginning 6work 6on a 47.9severely the 6standard hi8.7nge7d on whet8.7her 6the7 6re7port er 6had pr-3.8ev-4.5iously resear-3.8ched-4.5 subj-5.3ect the for a school or college7.3 6whet9her 6she i9n-2.2tended to dissem12i na6.9te inform11.3ation the public9.7 at early stage Case Document Filed Page of publish news stories based on the inform8.1ation she learned from8.1 Plaintiff and other sources over the next several years In other words the primary relationship between them8.1 has always had at its basis the intent to dissem7.7i-2.3nate the infor-6.9m7.7a-.1tion to the public garnered from that relationship von Bulow F.2d at em7.8phasis added The fact not every isolated exchange within 6that relationship took the form of the source conveying specific news to the reporter does not alter the fundam8e0n11.1tal nature of the relationship?and certainly does not perm8it Maxw6.8ell to access pure newsgathering materials such as interview notes Successful journalists must cultivate extensive networks of sources and communicate with them8 regularly on a variety of topics See e.g United States Marcos No CR JFK at June The underpinning of the reporter?s privilege lies in the recog5.5n.5ition th at 6.2effective gathering of newsworthy inform8ation in great m8easure relies upon the repo5.4rter?s ab5.4ility secure the trust of news sources Indeed frequent often informal communication with sources even if not for the immediate purpose of gathering in5.4form8ation for a specific article is an integral part of the overall newsgathering process Accordingly the Shield Law does not narrowly apply only to the specific exchanges where the source conveys news Instead as the Second Circuit has 5.6held the Shield law protects journalists from7.8 inquiries into the newsgathering process as a whole Baker Goldman Sachs Co F.3d 2d Cir holding that Shield Law applied to unpublished details of the newsgathering proces10.5s such as who calls and interviewed particular sources techniques for the reporters12.3?-.2 investigation and the backgrounds of the co authors and editorial staf8.4f See ge7ner6.6a-2.5lly Beth tips for journalists who 6want do a better job 6of cultivating 6sources P5o-3.5ynter Jun-4.3e Sources are one 6of a reporter?s bi7.8ggest assets you cover a re gular beat 6you?ll fi8.2nd yourself talking of the7.1 people 6pretty oft8.8en tim11.8e if rel8.2a.5tions6.1hips 6with the 6right sources you?ll find that can the 6gateway to career-m10.9ak ing 6scoops6.4 If find 6som11.5e.8one think 6will be a gol8.3dm11.3ine of check in with them11.3 regularly even if you need to inte rvi7.6e0w them10.6 This 6is another good tim10.9e for small talk and to ask if th ere have been developm10.8ents 6on 6a t8.6opic disc6.9usse6.9d 6before6.9 Churcher does not cite this article for truth of 6what st8.1ated 6but as reflecting 6comm11.1on sense c7.5o4nve7.5ntional Case Document Filed Page of In any even5.6t the that M5a-.8xwell subm10.8its to dem8.2onstrate that Churcher was not acting as a journalist in fact show that even as she was consulting with the Plaintiff on seem8ingly separate topics her ove5.7rarching intent rem7.9a-1.1ined newsgatherin5.4g For example in the am7.9ong Churcher Plaintiff and possible collaborators for Plaintiff?s contem7.9plated book Churcher states that the newspaper she was then working for was hoping to buy first serial to the book of course Menninger Decl Ex A at In other words Churcher?s m7.8o.2tivation in providing ad5.6vice to P7l-1.8ain5.6tiff on her book was clas5sic cu5.7ltiv5.7ation of a source in ord5.7er to best position Churcher to receive further inform7.9(ation i.e the book itself or portions thereof to dissem8i-2nate to the pub5.4lic Sim8ilarly in an em8ail where Churcher helped connect Plaintiff to law enforcem8.2ent she explain5.6s that sh5.6e previously wo5.6rked at an Am8.2erican m8.2a-.8gazine and states Frankly if I still worked there I would publish everything that I believe happened to Virginia and that now be happening to a new generati-8.7on of But I now run the NY bureau for a UK paper and I restrained because of the UK?s libel laws Id at In other w7.9o.5rds again Churcher?s underlying motivation rem7.9a-1.1ined reporting the news even as she assured the recipient of the em8.2ail that with respect the initial m8.2eetin5.6g with Plain5.6t3.2iff Churcher would be there for support not as a journalist Id at And of course Plaintiff reporting her claim7.7s to law enforcem8ent would m8a-1ke the story that m8u.4ch more publishable Because Churcher was and is a jou)5.4r-1.6nalist Plaintiff as a source Maxwell shou5.4ld not be perm8.1itted to explo5.5it her access4.9 to Plain5.5tiff?s communications?5.5t-1.9hat show unsurprising5.5ly that not every exchange with Churcher involved immediate provision of publishable inform7.7ation?to an end-run around the clear protections of the Shield Law Record Does Not Support Maxw7.4ell?s Contention that Churcher Is a Fact Witn6.7ess and Not a Journalist As an initial m8.2a-.8tter M5a4.2xwell cites decis5io5.6ns standing the principle that the reporter?s privilege does not exist the newsm8an is called to testify what he personally observed Response at those decisions predate the am7.7endment of the Shield Law to apply to non5.5-confidential inform8.1ation And recen5.5t New York appellate decision5.5s.2 Case Document Filed Page of clear that th Shield Law does not even excep situations ere th rep rter ob serv es a crimina act Beach Shanley N.Y.2d N.E.2d emphasis added see also Application of CBS Inc A.D.2d N.Y.S.2d Thus the notion th at Churcher may be com elled to tes tif sim ly because she ob served firsthand som of the events about which Maxwell is inquiring in this civil case is not well founded In any even the various accusations of Churcher being perso nally involv in chang i ng stories and Plaintiff?s alleged fabrication and expansion of claim are not supported by the record Response at For example Maxwell accuses Churcher of rom8 pting plain tiff to fabricate stories regarding and invent stories regarding Alan Dershowitz Response at But the em ails she cites and th overall timeline show nothing of the sort For exam8 ple Churcher working with Plaintiff to piece together evidence she co uld use to a ck up her claim about do not show that-7 she is fabricating a story?she is sim ply exploring how the story can be proven The fact that the article that was published in hedged risks by stating?in the face of strict U.K libel laws and a staunch denial from that there was no suggestion that there was any sexual contact between Virginia and does not show that Virginia?s story changed It shows that what the press could report changed In addition although Maxwell states that Virginia wrote the diary stating that she had sex with at som point between March and January The tual exchange of info rmation bet ee a re porter a6 a source6 is not at all controversial For exa-6 ple a police beat re porter a be the one to inform a de7 pa rtm nt source a out a pendi ng in tern al affai investi atio in to en ab le th sou ce i stig ate th situ atio and report back to journalist Thus urch sh ari inform ation from docum ents with Plain8 tiff i order to help jog he ry and piece ogether story from ove a decade earlier is pe rfectly sta nda rd news6 gat eri activity See ge7 ner a lly Edward Klein The Trouble with Andrew Vanity Fair August av ai lable at ttp-5 a ityfair.co-5 ews i ce-and-5 British libel laws are a ong the st stringent i the world so when Th Ma il on und a and wsp a pers ran th st ab ou Andrew?s ren ezvous with Virginia Robe ts in Ghis laine Maxwell?s London hom they carr ied strong disclaim ers saying the wa no suggestion of a se xual o3 ntact betwee ince Andre a Roberts This is confi med by the arti cles them selves See urc her Decl E6 The Palace ha em phatically denie that the ince has had relations ith unde ra ge girls tha ks the court doc um ents Miss Roberts dged in Flori a last week The Mail on Sunday can publish the st com lete story yet of how this young wom a was expl oited by E6 stein hutter world of see se a in fl uence Whil fra gm ents of her testim ony to us were reprodu ced last week on ly now can we esen co rehe iv accoun with prev i npu lish material Case Document Filed Page of Plaintiff herself testified at her deposition that she wrote the docum7.9ent at a week before Churcher cam7.8e out to interview her in February in advance of the publication of the firs5t articles id5.6entifying Plaint9.6i.3ff and provide Churcher with the docum8.3ent at that tim8.3e Menninger Decl Ex at Plaintiff also testified that what she wrote was true Id at In a sim8.1ilar regard the notion that C7.5hurcher orchestrated Plaintiff?s claim8.1s about Alan Dershowitz is not rem7.9o.3tely supported by the evidence Maxwell cites In the em8ail Maxwell relies on Churcher sim7.8p.2ly suggests including Dershowitz?s in Plaintiff?s book pitch which Churcher hoped to ultim8ately gain firs4.8t serial rights to publish as an exam)8ple of a prom8inent figure associated with Epstein?som11.6ething that Dershowitz as Epstein5.4?s lawyer indisputably was Churcher no suggestion that Plaintiff ha-6d sexual contact with Dershowitz To the contrary she states that there was no proof that he was a pedo5.4?-1?which directly contradicts such a suggestion in itself?but only that Plaintiff probably met him when he was hanging out with JE Jeffrey Epstein Menninger Decl Ex A at em7.9phasis added Maxwell acknowledges that Plaintiff did indeed refer in her m)7.7a-1.3nuscript to Dershowitz as a business acquaintance of Mr Epstein?s R7.2e-1.1sponse at Conversely Maxwell has no basis whatso5.6e-.2ver to conn5.6ect Churcher to th5.7e subs5.1tance of the claim8.2s in the Joinder Motion in Decem8.1be-5.9r Maxwell canno5.5t defeat th5.5e stri11.3ct pro5.5tections of the Shield Law on groundless speculation and the accu5.6sation that C7.6hurcher is not a jou5.6r-1.4nalist bu5.6t rath5.6er a conspirator in plaintiff?s public5.8ation of false statem7.9ents is unfounded and frankly offensive Finally Maxwell?s conclusory assertion that none the comm7.7unications between Churcher an5.6d Plaintiff?s atto5.6rneys/ag5.6ents or la6w enforcem8.2ent are in a newsgathering5.6 capacity Response at is belied by Churcher?s clear statem7.9ents to the contrary and by the fact that individuals in those categories are q5.2uoted in the articles them7.8selves both by a-6nd anonym7.8ousl-7.2y.2 as sources See Churcher Decl and Exs Maxwell suggests that Churcher provid inform11.4ation law e6.7n-2.8forcem11.4ent results 6of any 6protection of the Shield Law the case she cites 10.7also 6states that wer this 13of whethe6.6r 6or not a 6journal8.3i2.3st waives Case Document Filed Page of In Ma-6.1xwell utterly fails to support her contention that Churcher was not engaged in the news-gathering process and the very fact7.3 that Churcher did in fact gather and publish news alone rebuts th5.5is claim8.1 Because Churcher indisputably5.5 was engaged in the new8s-gathering process the Shield Law applies.5.2 II.-1970.8MAXWELL HAS MADE A CLE-5AR SHOWING TO OVERCOME THE PROTECTIONS OF THE SHIELD LAW As set forth in Churcher?s opening brief Maxwell cannot the clear showing necessary to overcom7.8e the Shield Law protections for non-confidential newsgathering m7.8a-1.2terial The unredacted Response does not alter this conclusion Maxwell argues that the infor-6.9m7.7ation sought from8 Churcher is highly m8a-1terial in proving that each tim8e Plaintif8.4f?s story is told new salacious detail are added Response at see also id at arguing that the inform7.9ation is critical to establishing that fact But Churcher?s newsgathering m)7.8a-1.2terials and testimony are not needed to prove assertion ab8.9out the allegedly changing nature of a public story Sim7.7ilarly to the extent that the Joinder Motion is inconsistent with published articles by Churcher th5.4at would be apparen5.4t-2 from the face the articles them8selves and would not justify invading the Shield Law7.7-protected newsgathering process And Maxwell?s argum8.1ent that Churcher?s testim8ony is critical or n5.4ecessary because it is relevan5.4t to Plaintiff?s credibility which is th5.6e central iss5u.6e in the cas5e sim8.2p.6ly proves too In alm8.2ost any civil lawsuit the the Shield La6.3w by 6fact chec6.3ki8ng sources ascertain the 6veracity of information 6used in news 6reports pri8or to publicatio-3.8n court 6woul7.4d 6not 6waiv-3.8er as a jo an sources publishi8.1ng an article Anything less 6woul8.1d likely rende6.1r them10.8 6liable in a court 6of law Guice-Mills 6Forbes Misc Ct N.Y Cn-5.1ty And the extent th at waiver 6occurs as to any particula6.3r 5.6piece of inform11atio-9.2n it is only as to the 5.6speci8fic inform11ation wa6.3s 5.6disclos5.9e.3d.-239.3Shield Law Tob-5a-5cco-5 Wiga-5nd No-5 6WL at N.Y Su-5p Feb Maxwell does not arti)7.5cu late any specific inform10.7a11.5tion 6for 6which 6protec tion 6was waived and cert7.7ainly has 6not established that all of C7.6h-3.7urcher?s newsgathering ac8.9tiv ities 6were disclosed and are therefore unprotected The argum11ent 6that Churcher is a witness 6wi8th inform11ati14.6on fi xing Plainti8.5ff claim11.5s.3 to ha6.8ve Epstein no se6.7nse is 6no dis6.3pute 6first Plaintiff a 6dec6.3a.3de the events 6question She is not in any 6better 6pos ition to provide first7.9h-3.3and testim10.9ony or 6inform10.9ation about sequence6.9 of e6.9v3.4ents in Plaint8.6iff 6hersel8.6f pa6.4rticularly since6.4 Churc6.4her w3.7ould only ha6.4ve le6.4arne6.4d inform11ation in 6the first place 6from11 speaki8n.7g 6with Plaintiff 6Equally confus5.9ing Plaintiff?s 10.4contention t8h2.8at Churche6.4r is necessa6.9ry to 6explain inc6.9o3.4nsistencies 6publishe6.9d and P5.9l2.6aintiff?s 6disclos6.5u-2.6res6.5 in this6.5 case Res5.3p2.2onse at 6Needless to say Churc5.7her is 6not 6.7privy to the7 strat8.7e1gic decisi8.7ons 6of Plaintiffs6 la6.4wyers and Maxwell 6does6.7 6not asse7.1rt8.8 Case Document Filed Page of credib5.7ility a party or witness will be a cen5.7tral issue??all the so in a libel cas5.1e where truth or falsity of the underlying statem7.8ents is at issue Yet Maxwell cannot point to any authority for a wholesale libel excep5.4tion??5.4l-2et alone a plaintiff?s credib5.4ility exceptio5.4n to the Shield Law Cf In re Misc 2d N.Y.S.2d Sup Ct N.Y Cnty The privilege yield only when the party seeking the m7.9a-1.1terial can define the specific issue other than genera8.8l credibility as to which the sought-after interview provides truly necessary proof citing U.S Burke F.2d 2d Cir Finally even if the inform7.8ation sought were as critical as Maxwell contends she has not yet established that she has turned to Churcher only as a last resort Id For example as subsequent motion practice shows Maxwell is pressing to reopen 10.7Plaintiff?s deposition and to obtain her em8ails directly from8 the internet service providers and is still awaiting further docum7.9ent production from Plaintiff See Dkt Nos Minute Entry June There are also outstanding subpoenas to Plainti5.1ff?s counsel with m7.8o.2(tions to quash pending see Utah and the Court already denied Jef)8.4f3.4rey Epstein?s m8o.4tion to quash Dkt No And all that Maxwell has done to exhaust law enforcement sources apparently is to file a single FOIA request.-502.4R.2esponse at There thus num7.8e-6.1rous alternative sources Section for the inform)8.2ation Maxw9ell seeks She not conscript Churcher as her investigative in the meantim8.1e Gonzales F.3d 2d Cir CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons Ms Churcher respectfully requests that her m7.8o.2tion to quash Ms Maxwell?s Subpoena be granted Dated York New York-5.4 July Respectfully5.7 subm8.3itted DAVIS WRIGHT TRE-5.4M-1.6AINE LLP By Eric Feder Case Document Filed Page of Laura Handm8.2an Eric Feder Avenue of the Americas 21st Floor New York New York Tel Fax laurahandman dwt.com ericfeder dwt.com Attorneys for Non-Party Sharon Churcher Case Document Filed Page of
26,951 characters
