Draft: efta02804315

United States District Court Southern District of New York¶

Plaintiff,¶

v.¶

Ghislaine Maxwell,¶

Defendant.¶

/¶

Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS¶

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION TO COMPEL NON-PARTY WITNESS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND RESPOND TO DEPOSITION OUESTIONS AND TO COMPLETE SEARCH OF ESI¶

TABLE OF CONTENTS¶

I I •¶

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES¶

█	█
█	█
█	█
█	█
█	█
█	█
█	█
█	█
█	█
█	█
█	█
█	█
█	█

Non-party, [REDACTED], by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this reply in Opposition to Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Compel Non-Party Witness to Produce Documents and Respond to Deposition Questions and to Complete Search of ESI (DE 864)¹.¶

BACKGROUND¶

Despite the way the instant motion is styled by Defendant, it is little more than an improper Motion for Reconsideration, as Defendant attempts to re-litigate her previous motion to compel [REDACTED] documents -- a motion upon which this Court has already ruled. This is Defendant’s second such effort in as many weeks. As the Court will recall, Defendant recently filed another Motion for Reconsideration (DE 844) on April 11, 2016. This Court summarily denied that motion the day after it was filed. See DE 853, April 12, 2017 Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration (“The Defendant’s motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 844, is denied.”). And now, a mere eight days later, on April 20, 2017, Defendant filed yet another Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s Order regarding discovery of non-party witness, [REDACTED] but styled it as a “Motion to Compel.” This motion requires the same treatment.¶

[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]¶

[Redacted text block consisting of several lines, mostly completely blacked out for visibility prevention.]¶

ARGUMENT¶

[Redacted text block consisting of one line of text and a short horizontal line at the bottom.]¶

[REDACTED] See Smartix International LLC v. Garrubbo, Romankow & Capese, No. 06 CIV 1501 (JGK), 2007 WL 41666035 at *2 (S.D.N.Y Nov. 20, 2007) (court protecting deponent from annoyance, embarrassment and harassment by denying party’s attempt to obtain personnel records relating to non-party).¶

Courts are more vigilant with these protections when the discovery is being sought from a non-party. “[T]he fact of non-party status may be considered by the Court in weighing the burdens imposed in the circumstances.” Katz v. Batavia Marine & Sporting Supplies, Inc., 984 F.2d 422, 424 (Fed.Cir.1993); accord Amini Innovation Corp. v. McFerran Home Furnishings, Inc., 300 F.R.D. 406, 409 (C.D. Cal. 2014); see also Dart Industries Co., Inc. v. Westwood Chemical Co., 649 F.2d 646 (9th Cir. 1980) (“While discovery is a valuable right and should not be unnecessarily restricted, the ‘necessary’ restriction may be broader when a non-party is the target of discovery.”).¶

Courts have routinely denied the discovery of non-parties when it is clear that the purpose is to obtain personal information for intimidating or harassing the witness. See DaCosta v. City of Danbury, 298 F.R.D. 37 (D. Conn. 2014). [REDACTED]¶

[REDACTED]¶

![](_page_8_Picture_4.jpeg)¶

![](_page_9_Picture_31.jpeg)¶

[Redacted line]¶

[REDACTED]¶

•¶

![](_page_11_Picture_2.jpeg)¶

![](_page_12_Picture_4.jpeg)¶

[Redacted text block]¶

[Redacted text block] Tucker v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc., 281¶

F.R.D. 85, 92 (D. Conn. 2012) (finding request for production on non-party - including creation of privilege log - too burdensome). "Within this [Second] Circuit, courts have held nonparty status to be a 'significant' factor in determining whether discovery is unduly burdensome."¶

Tucker, 281 F.R.D. at 92 (citing Solarex Corp. v. Arco Solar. Inc., 121 F.R.D. 163, 179 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (status as non-party "significant" factor in denying defendant's discovery demand¶

CONCLUSION¶

Dated: April 26, 2017¶

Respectfully Submitted,¶

By: /s/ J. Stanley Pottinger¶

J. Stanley Pottin er Pro Hac Vice) Counsel for¶

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE¶

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 26th of April, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.¶

Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Paglio, HADDON, & 150 East 10 Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com jnagliuca@hinflaw.com, P.C.¶

Sigrid Mc vley, Esq. Meredith Esq. BOLES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 356-0011 Fax: (954) 956-0022 smccawley@bsflIp.com mschultz@bsfllp.com ¶

David Boies BOLES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 dboies@bsflIp.com ¶

(Pro Hac Vice) JAFFE, WEISSING, , FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 brad@pathtojustice.com ¶

Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 383 University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801) 585-52023 cassellpelaw.utah.edu¶

Peter Guirguis, Esq. MINTZ & GOLD, LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 (212) 696-4848 guirguis®mintzandgold.com¶

/s/ J. Stanley Pottinger¶

J. Stanley Pottinger¶

³ This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.¶

Keyboard shortcuts

Go to a page: `g` then