Case 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF

Document 35

Filed 08/13/21

Page 1 of 5

# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JANE DOE,
 Plaintiff,

v.

DARREN K INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in
their capacities as executors of THE ESTATE OF
JEFFERY E. EPSTEIN,
 Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF

## CO-EXECUTORS' STATEMENT ON PLAINTIFF'S
APPLICATION TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY

TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
875 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Tel: 212-704-6000
Fax: 212-704-6288

Attorneys for Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein

118390227

Case 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF

Document 35

Filed 08/13/21

Page 2 of 5

Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the “Co-Executors”)1, respectfully submit this Statement On Plaintiff Jane Doe’s (“Plaintiff”) Application to Proceed Anonymously (ECF No. 31) (the “Application”).

## I. The Co-Executors Have Never Opposed The Right Of Alleged Victims To Maintain Anonymity And Do Not Do So Here.

The Co-Executors have never sought to prevent any alleged victim of Mr. Epstein from proceeding anonymously; they do not do so here. To the contrary, after Mr. Epstein’s death, the Co-Executors established and funded in its entirety the independently administered Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program, which gave Mr. Epstein’s alleged victims the opportunity to resolve their claims in complete confidence if they so desired.2 The Program ultimately awarded nearly $125 million to approximately 150 eligible claimants.3

Nevertheless, in this unique situation, the Co-Executors have determined that it is appropriate to bring to the Court’s attention material facts not contained in Plaintiff’s Application, so that the Court can rule on it with the benefit of all relevant information, as follows: (1) Plaintiff

(2) Plaintiff has,

[x]

and (3) Plaintiff has

1 The captions in Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion to Proceed Anonymously (ECF No. 29), Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Anonymously (ECF No. 31), and the Declaration of Daniel J. Kaiser (ECF No. 30) list more than two dozen defendants who are not parties to this action. Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1), which has not been amended, was brought only against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein. Accordingly, this Statement is filed on behalf of the Co-Executors only.

2 No claimant who participated in the Program is bound by any rules of confidentiality—to the contrary, they are free to tell their stories publicly.

3 See https://www.epsteinvcp.com/documents/67. (The Declaration of Bennet J. Moskowitz, filed contemporaneously herewith, provides true and correct copies of all )

-2-

118390227

Case 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF

Document 35

Filed 08/13/21

Page 3 of 5

II. Plaintiff’s - As As Plaintiff explains in her Application, when determining whether to permit a party to proceed under a pseudonym, the Second Circuit considers at least ten non-exhaustive factors pursuant to Sealed Plaintiff. Doe v. Zinsou, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131520, at *7-8 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2019) (Ramos, J.) (citing Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 188-89 (2d Cir. 2008)). Relevant to this discussion are the factors related to Plaintiff’s identity.

- Context: Excerpt from Plaintiff’s application (discussion of identity; cites Sealed Plaintiff factors).
- Visible text (with redactions): "Plaintiff is [REDACTED] and has [REDACTED]. In fact, Plaintiff’s [REDACTED] [REDACTED], as follows:"
- Following content: two paragraph-length passages completely redacted (large black blocks).
- Key entities: Plaintiff (identity and details redacted).
- Note: Majority of substantive information in the image is redacted.

This

118390227

-3-

Case 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF Document 35 Filed 08/13/21 Page 4 of 5

Plaintiff also volunteered

Plaintiff has also

Plaintiff was also

Image content: solid black rectangle with white border; no visible text, chart, legend, axes, or identifiable elements.

Result: No data or key information can be extracted from the image as provided.

If you want extraction, please provide a higher-contrast or uncropped scan/photo (ensure the figure itself is visible).

Accordingly, it is subject to judicial notice. See, e.g.,Sharette v. Credit Suisse Int’l, 127 F. Supp. 3d 60, 75 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (“[A] court may take judicial notice of ‘a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.’” (citing Island Software & Computer Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257, 261 (2d Cir. 2005) (ellipsis in original)).

9 Id. at 5.

-4-

118390227

Case 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF

Document 35

Filed 08/13/21

Page 5 of 5

Plaintiff

## III. Conclusion

While the Co-Executors take no position on Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Anonymously, they believe the Court should decide it with the benefit of all relevant information.

Dated: New York, New York
August 13, 2021

Respectfully submitted,

TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON
SANDERS LLP
875 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022

By:  /s/ Bennet J. Moskowitz
Bennet J. Moskowitz

Attorneys for Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein

-5-

118390227
documents/doj-ea3e1331f40053dc.pdf
{}