Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 1 of 57

1

K5m2FarC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ANNIE FARMER,

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300

Plaintiff,

v.

DARREN K. INDYKE, in his
capacity as executor of the
Estate of Jeffrey Edward
Epstein; RICHARD D. KAHN, in
his capacity as executor of
the Estate of Jeffrey Edward
Epstein; and GHISLAINE
MAXWELL,

Defendants.
----------------------X
TERESA HELM,
Plaintiff,

V.

DARREN K. INDYKE, in his
capacity as executor of the
Estate of Jeffrey Edward
Epstein and RICHARD D. KAHN, in
his capacity as executor of
the Estate of Jeffrey Edward
Epstein,

Defendants.
X JULIETTE BRYANT,

JULIETTE BRYANT,

Plaintiff,

V.

DARREN K. INDYKE, in his
capacity as executor of the
Estate of Jeffrey Edward
Epstein and RICHARD D. KAHN, in
his capacity as executor of
the Estate of Jeffrey Edward
Epstein,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

New York, N.Y.

19 CV 10475 (LGS)

Teleconference

May 22, 2020
11:00 a.m.

19 CV 10476 (PGG)

19 CV 10479 (ALC)

Defendants.
X

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 2 of 57

2

K5m2FarC

----------------------X
JANE DOE 1000,
19 CV 10577(LJL)
Plaintiffs,

V.

DARREN K. INDYKE, in his
capacity as executor of the
Estate of Jeffrey Edward
Epstein and RICHARD D. KAHN, in
his capacity as executor of
the Estate of Jeffrey Edward
Epstein,

Defendants.
X

Before:
HON. DEBRA C. FREEMAN,
Magistrate Judge

APPEARANCES

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
BY: SIGRID S. McCAWLEY
SABINA MARIELLA
ANDREW VILLACASTIN

TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP
Attorneys for Defendants Indyke and Kahn

BY: BENNET J. MOSKOWITZ
MATTHEW J. AARONSON
VALERIE SIROTA

HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendant Maxwell
BY: LAURA A. MENNINGER

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300

1

2

3

4

5 сл

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 20

21 21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 3 of 57

3

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 20

21 21

22

23

24

THE COURT: This is Judge Freeman. We might have a court reporter, but I'm going to record this call anyway, so hold on while I set that up.

All right. So this is Judge Freeman, and this is a conference in four of the cases against the Jeffrey Epstein estate: Farmer v. Indyke, 19 Civ. 10475; Helm v. Indyke, 19 Civ. 10476; Bryant v. Indyke, 19 Civ. 10479; and Doe 1000 v. Indyke, 19 Civ. 10577.

If you are here for some other case or you think I got those numbers wrong, please make sure I know about it.

But I'm going to ask for your appearances. We have quite a number of people on the line. Let me have the appearance first by plaintiff's counsel in these cases.

MS. McCAWLEY: Yes, your Honor. Good morning. This is Sigrid McCawley from the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, and I'm representing the plaintiffs in the actions that you listed. Along with me, I have my colleague Sabina Mariella and Andrew Villacastin. We also have a few of our summer associates who have joined the line as well.

THE COURT: All right. Do I have a court reporter on the line? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. Good morning, Judge. This is Kristen Carannante.

THE COURT: I'm going to ask anyone who is giving 25 appearances for the record to please spell your name. So,

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 4 of 57

4

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 20

21 21

22

23

24

25

Ms. McCawley, if you could please spell your name and the names of your colleagues.

MS. McCAWLEY: Of course. Sigrid McCawley, which is spelled S-I-G-R-I-D, and the last name is McCawley, M-c-C-A-W-L-E-Y. I also have with me Sabina Mariella, which is S-A-B-I-N-A M-A-R-I-E-L-L-A and Andrew Villacastin, and that's A-N-D-R-E-W and Villacastin is V-I-L-L-A-C-A-S-T-I-N.

THE COURT: You are counsel in all of the cases that are on for today?

MS. McCAWLEY: Correct. Correct, your Honor.

THE COURT: Can I have defendants' counsel, please?

MR. MOSKOWITZ: Hi, your Honor. Again, this is Bennet Moskowitz, B-E-N-N-E-T, last name M-O-S-K-O-W-I-T-Z, at Troutman Sanders, for the co-executors in each of these cases.

My colleagues who handle the day-to-day discovery, Matthew Aaronson and Valerie Sirota, are on. That's Matthew is M-A-T-T-H-E-W, last name is Aaronson, A-A-R-O-N-S-O-N; and Valerie, V-A-L-E-R-I-E, last name Sirota, S-I-R-O-T-A, and we are counsel for the co-executors in each of these cases.

THE COURT: All right.

Do I have any other attorneys who are on or representing plaintiffs in any of the other cases that are pending before the court? No. All right.

MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor --

THE COURT: Yes.

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 5 of 57

5

K5m2FarC

1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MS. MENNINGER: Sorry. This is a defendant's counsel for Ms. Maxwell, Laura Menninger.

THE COURT: Oh, yes. MS. MENNINGER: I am in the 10475 case. THE COURT: Can you spell your name, please? MS. MENNINGER: Yes. It is L-A-U-R-A M-E-N-N-I-N-G-E-R.

THE COURT: Okay. And, again, are there any other attorneys on the line in any of the cases?

All right. I'm going to assume, then, that anyone else on the phone is public or press and just ask you to please keep your lines muted.

Sometimes on these calls we hear beeps which suggest that someone else may have joined in the call. It can also suggest that someone may have dropped off the call. And because of that, I will probably interrupt anyone who is speaking just to try to make sure that we didn't lose anybody or we didn't gain anyone we should know about. It is not a courtroom where I can see people coming and going, so I just like to make sure we didn't accidentally lose one of the counsel who is supposed to be present. And I apologize in advance for the interruptions.

Do I have Hanna Martin on? MS. MARTIN: Yes, Judge, I'm here. THE COURT: Okay. That's one of my law clerks, just

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 6 of 57

6

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

22
24

so you know.

All right. So I have letters in these cases. They have come in clusters of letter and response and reply in the three cases where Ms. Maxwell is not a party, and then there are letters relating to her in the case where she is a party.

Let me start with the other cases where she is not the party and deal with those letters first.

Can I have, from Ms. McCawley, just a status update from you where things stand with your current request, with your understanding about potential settlements?

MS. McCAWLEY: Yes, your Honor.

So with respect to the requests, we have presented to the court a main threshold issue which has been unresolved at this point by the parties, and that is the issue of the time period within which the defendants, the estate, will produce documents. That issue remains unresolved.

It is the plaintiffs' position that documents for the entire relevant time period for each plaintiff, which runs from the date of their abuse, that year, to the present, are responsive and relevant to discovery in the case. That goes to the evidence with respect to any of the conduct that Epstein was engaging in over those years that would prove the abuse, 23 not simply, as in a car crash case, you don't just get the evidence of the date of the car crash, you get all evidence 25 relating to anything that's relevant and could be used

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 7 of 57

7

K5m2FarC

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 potentially at trial. Similarly, here, the defendants have attempted to limit the production to simply the year of the abuse or years of the abuse, if it happened in more than one year. It is our position that all evidence relating to the over 20-year span of Epstein's abuse of not only our clients but other clients that are similarly situated, other women that are similarly situated, is highly relevant to the discovery in this matter.

And of course, as your Honor knows, the plaintiff has the burden of proving her case in each of these instances, and the estate has taken the position of attempting to prove Epstein's innocence, therefore making all of this information highly relevant for the entire time period.

This is similar to other cases that have come before in the Southern District of New York. For example, Judge Sweet, in his case with one of the victims, allowed discovery for the entire time period from 2000 to the present; and that is, again, because, under 415, evidence of other abuse can be admissible at trial. So we believe that the entire time period is highly relevant, and those documents need to be produced.

The status of this, as of the date of filing our letters, no documents have been produced. In the last couple of days, in Ms. Helm's case and in the Jane Doe 1000 case, there has been one document produced by the defendants. In the case of Annie Farmer there have been three documents produced,

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 8 of 57

8

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 20

22

23

24

25

one of which was clawed back. And in the case of Juliette Bryant, there have been 90 documents produced, and that is on their side.

So we are still in a position where we have not received any substantial document production in this case. The court will remember that, back on January 28 -- the cases were filed in November. Back on January 28 we sent -- after your hearing that you had in December asking them to preserve documents, we sent a document preservation letter that outlined in very specific detail the e-mail accounts for which we were aware of that Mr. Epstein had utilized.

You are going to hear today, and you saw in the filings from the defendant about their claims of burdens, they have not justified burden at this point. They have thrown around a number of 700,000 documents. I will tell you that we have already gone through 600,000 documents in just Annie's case alone for our production. They have not produced a hit list to show burden or otherwise establish why our request would be so burdensome.

So with respect to -- and that is only -- now, they 21 are only still responding to the time period that is the one- or two-year window, depending on the particular plaintiff. So at this stage we do not have that is still the threshold issue that we are asking this court to resolve. We need that issue resolved before we can undertake depositions or get this

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 9 of 57

9

K5m2FarC

1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

case moving, because we at this point have no documents of any substance from the other side. So that is the key issue that we have put before the court for resolution.

They have produced supplemental interrogatory responses. Again, those are still limited to the time period that they have set forth. They have not agreed to produce information for the entire time period at this point.

So that is the key issue that we put before the court that we need resolution on it in order to be able to move these cases forward at this point.

THE COURT: All right. Before I ask some questions about that, let me just ask about potential for settlement of these cases. What is plaintiffs' understanding?

MS. McCAWLEY: Potential for settlement in these cases, as your Honor knows, there was the proposal of a potential claims administration program that came about in the fall of this past year. That program has been through a series of back-and-forth between the U.S. Virgin Islands' A.G. and the estate, with input from the various plaintiffs' attorneys, as well. The program has not yet been approved. It has made headway, but it has not yet been approved to move forward. There are still issues with respect to a release and other matters, so that has not gotten off the ground at all. So there have been no substantive settlement discussions of any kind in these cases.

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 10 of 57

10

K5m2FarC

(212) 805-0300

And, again, if

THE COURT: If the program

MS. McCAWLEY: Sorry.

THE COURT: If the program gets off the ground, the program as you understand it to be fashioned, would these plaintiffs be likely to participate in it?

MS. McCAWLEY: We would still have to have those final conversations with the clients pending what the final outcome of the program is, but they have all been interested in trying to participate in a program if it does go forward.

Our concern, of course, is that that program has been delayed and has not moved forward, so we have had the need to press forward with our case. Of course, in that program, too, any offer that could be made could be very substandard, where our clients would want to proceed with the merits of their action, which is why we are here before the court trying to seek resolution of our clients' claims, because there is no guarantee with respect to that program whatsoever. So we are in a position where we need to and want to move forward with discovery without further delay to be able to get to the merits of our clients' claims.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Any discovery they would receive in these matters would be relevant anyway to those discussions with our presenting claims to the claims administrator. So we see that as coinciding and being relevant and responsive to Epstein

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 11 of 57

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

K5m2FarC 

being able to establish our claim, again, before the claims

administrator.

THE COURT: All right. And going back to your request to compel discovery from defendant, you say that the time frame is the issue. I believe the letter was presented, it appeared to say in general you hadn't gotten discovery responses to document requests or interrogatories, and then you highlighted this issue. Is this really the key issue or the only issue or are there other issues with respect to just not getting responses?

MS. McCAWLEY: Well, you are correct, your Honor. At the time we wrote the initial letter, the responses were -- there were not responses, there were just objections. They have since supplemented their responses but, again, limiting it only to the time frame. So we still may have issues with those responses, because at this point we only can see them as to the time period within which they are saying the abuse victims -- that time period where they were abused, so we don't believe that they are fulsome at this point. But if the court could resolve the threshold issue of whether or not they have to produce for the entire time period, they would then supplement, or our assumption is that they would supplement their responses both to interrogatories and to the requests for production, and then we could evaluate at that point if it appears there is anything missing.

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 12 of 57

12

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

24
22

25

THE COURT: And why would it not be the case that, document request by document request or interrogatory by interrogatory, the inquiry might be different as to what time frame would be appropriate to look at? There might be some, depending upon how the request is framed, where it would be appropriate to look at a longer time frame; and there may be some, based on the nature of the request, where that would not make sense to look at a longer time frame. Why should I be doing this on a global basis?

MS. McCAWLEY: Well, that's a very fair question, your Honor. So the requests, for example, seek information related -- like the request number one is information related to the plaintiff including diary, diaries, journals, calendars, any information, travel itineraries that relate to that plaintiff, and that could be in any time period. For example, if Epstein's last year was talking about one of our client's and had information that he had recorded in an e-mail about one of our clients, that would be responsive.

So the time period does pertain, in my view, to all of the requests. We have not they have not come to us and said a particular request only applies for these reasons to one particular year. In my view, the request, for example, for 23 flight logs, if there are not flight logs in a certain year, they would only produce what they have, obviously. But if they have flight logs for the entire time period, we would want

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 13 of 57

13

K5m2FarC

those. So it is -- your Honor is correct that there can be some request-specific issues, but they haven't agreed to produce anything outside of the year of the abuse at this point.

(212) 805-0300

THE COURT: Are there some requests that relate to people other than your clients?

MS. McCAWLEY: Yes.

THE COURT: Other than

MS. MCCAWLEY: For example yes.

So as I said before, it is our position that, with respect to our clients' claims in each of the cases, information relating to Epstein's abuse of other victims is highly relevant under 415, particularly to establish that this pattern of luring in young girls in the same way, for example, with saying they are interviewing for a modeling job or saying they are coming for an assistant's interview, the pattern of how he lured girls in, then abused them is relevant to our clients presenting their claims to the jury to prove the truth of the fact that they have before, as well, abused in a similar manner. So we firmly believe that that information is highly relevant to the case.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 20

21

22

23

24

25

Again, the estate has taken the position, and you have seen it in our filings, that Epstein is innocent, and we have to prove the truth of that, as well as with respect to all of these cases. So we are in a position where we are having to

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 14 of 57

14

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

fight to get discovery from the estate. I would was certainly hoping it would not be this kind of a battle. I was hoping that now that he is no longer taking his Fifth Amendment privileges, no longer with us, that we would be able to get substantive discovery in a more streamlined manner, but that is not the case.

And any threshold issue is very important because it implicates our clients' ability to be able to present their case and to be able to substantively be able to depose witness. As your Honor knows our discovery deadline is looming in early July. We need to be able to take the depositions of various people who either interacted with our clients or who were witnesses to the abuses that occurred in Epstein's various homes, and we need the information and the documents from his files that establish and relate to the abuse, and those are the requests that we have put forward.

THE COURT: All right. I have some thoughts on this, but let me hear from defendants first.

MR. MOSKOWITZ: Hi, your Honor. Bennet Moskowitz. If I may, I would like to address the program issue first, which I think is much quicker than the discovery. My colleague, Matt Aaronson, will discuss the discovery issues, if that's okay.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. McCAWLEY: So I am very, very surprised to hear

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 15 of 57

15

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 20

21 21

22

23

24

25

Ms. McCawley give a presentation that seems like her clients are lukewarm on the program. She is on the e-mails from this week where Brad Edwards, who represents five plaintiffs and we understand the vast majority of claimants all of whom want to participate in the program according to him, announced to us on the estate side that he was able to get the Attorney General to finally step aside and let the program move forward. So my first surprise is hearing that Ms. McCawley thinks that the program is still in some vast limbo. It is not for all of the reasons that I discussed this morning, which Ms. McCawley is aware of.

THE COURT: Hold on a second. We have two separate conferences. One was at 10:00 and this one is 11:00. So when you say that we discussed this morning, Ms. McCawley, unless she didn't announce herself, was not on that call and doesn't know what you said at that conference.

MR. MOSKOWITZ: Sure.

MS. McCAWLEY: (Inaudible). THE COURT: I'm sorry? MS. McCAWLEY: I'm sorry. This is Sigrid McCawley. I was unaware of the 10:00 conference call. I'm sorry.

THE COURT: We had a conference call in certain of the other cases with different plaintiffs' counsel where there were somewhat different issues raised.

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 16 of 57

16

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. MOSKOWITZ: Sure. And I am trying -- THE COURT: I'm trying to cluster these so we don't have to have a marathon session with all cases at once.

MR. MOSKOWITZ: I am happy to concisely, as best I can, go through the same points, and I will say now that I know Ms. McCawley knows all of the following with perhaps one exception, which I will explain.

Ms. McCawley knows that around 69 individual claimants, including her clients, have publicly come forward to voice overwhelming support for the program, including to the USVI probate court. We know that is the vast majority of known claimants. We are aware of only one claimant who is a state court plaintiff who has publicly said that she is not participating, and that was through her counsel, and I don't even know if that's that person's current position.

Ms. McCawley also knows that seven plaintiffs in the SDNY action, including one of her clients, Maria Farmer, most recently stayed their actions in favor of the program. It bears mentioning that Maria Farmer's -- you know, the stipulation in that regard goes contrary to everything Ms. McCawley just said.

Your Honor entered that order, so I don't think I need to repeat it verbatim. But mentioned in there was the notion of conserving resources, and in that regard, as a side note, it bears mentioning that Boies Schiller has been the biggest

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 17 of 57

17

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

culprit in driving up the estate's litigation cost, money that will never be available for their clients or other alleged victims in the program. We don't understand that. We were staffed very leanly until recently, just me and an associate. Five attorneys on their side, including three partners. I have lawyers, my colleagues are on now for the team more recently, because Boies Schiller takes the most unreasonable positions on discovery, grossly overbroad view -- again, Mr. Aaronson will get to that -- and they make the most constant threat to motion practice notwithstanding their clients participating in the program.

Ms. McCawley also knows that the protocol for the program, which was done in close consultation between the administrator and designers and claimants' counsel, including hers, her firm, and with -- in between co-executors is nearly finalized.

And Ms. McCawley also knows the only reason this hasn't gone forward until now was because of the USVI Attorney General. But again, Mr. Edwards announced a couple of days ago in an email that Ms. McCawley is on that that last, quote, lingering issue, as Mr. Edwards put it, is now resolved. And, again, there are a few less contentious matters to iron out, but it is our firm expectation that by sometime next week that resolution in principle will be formalized.

The sole thing that Ms. McCawley may not be aware of

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 18 of 57

18

K5m2FarC

1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

is that if something unexpected happens and that resolution in principle is not finalized, then by June 15, our current intent on the estate side is to move forward with the program absent the probate court entering an order directing us not to or otherwise impeding that, and I don't think that's going to happen because another person who has voiced support for the program is the probate judge who, on February 4, at a hearing that Ms. McCawley attended, as did David Boies, the probate judge said the following: "I think we agreed that everybody believes this program is a great program."

So I will say that I don't understand why we get one display of overwhelming support from Boies Schiller and others when we are not before your Honor, and then we come before your Honor and I hear a different story. The program is going to go forward very soon. I am confident of that. And I'm confident that, per Ms. McCawley's own statements, all of her clients, not just the one who stayed her action already, are going to participate. So, again, every dollar we are spending in the meantime is money that will never be available for that program.

That's all I have to say on the program aspect. Unless your Honor has questions, I will refer to my colleague, Mr. Aaronson, to address the discovery issues.

THE COURT: Let me hear the discovery issues. MR. AARONSON: Good morning, your Honor. Matthew

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 19 of 57

19

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 20

21

22

23

24

25

Aaronson.

I want to correct a couple of misstatements that Ms. McCawley made.

It is not the estate's position that documents that relate to the claims asserted by the plaintiffs will not be produced. In fact, all of our discovery responses have identified that to the extent the request seeks information about plaintiffs, they will be produced.

We also identified to your Honor in the letter that we sent to you --

THE COURT: Hold on. Let me interrupt you. Without regard to time frame or only within a specific time frame?

MR. AARONSON: I was about to clarify that. We said in our letter to your Honor without regard to time frame with respect to the plaintiffs. And in fact, that is something that, your Honor, the problem we have here is, we were still under the impression we were meeting and conferring with plaintiffs' counsel on these issues, and we put that in our letter. And before we could even -- you know, we told them we would consider their positions, and before we could even conclude that, they filed a letter with the court. I think you are aware, our initial letter to the court said that we were sort of surprised by that and we are saying it is premature. We still think these issues are premature.

But the simple fact is, your Honor, our position is we

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 20 of 57

20 20 20

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 20

21

22

23
22
24

25

are producing any documents that reference orally to the plaintiffs. And in fact we have searched documents for that. So there is no dispute there, there is no issue there.

We are not saying that the time period for documents relating to plaintiff is limited in that way, shape, or form. What we did say was, these are events in some situations, Theresa Helm, incidents that happened on one day in 2002, and we are saying it is not proportional to ask for our client, the estate, to search for documents relating to a 20 -- I guess it would be a 19-year period, your Honor, relating to people who may have worked at a property that Mr. Epstein owned and in fact property that Mr. Epstein -- Ms. Helm doesn't allege she ever visited. You know, it's a scope issue.

But, again, to the extent there is an allegation that Ms. Helm -- I'm sorry, there is a document that references Ms. Helm, we have agreed to produce it. We searched for those documents. And the same applies for all of the plaintiffs.

So I want to make it very clear that that is a misstatement of what our position is.

You know, again, the scope here is just so overbroad, beyond plaintiff, that we think it is not proportional to the case. We disagree completely with Ms. McCawley's statement that any of that discovery is necessary for her to prove her claims. Her claims in this case are a simple claim of battery. That's the claim in this case. That's her burden to prove and

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 21 of 57

21 21 21

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24
22

25

that is it. And we have agreed to provide documents that relate to her claims. If she says she was at a property on a certain date, we have identified to the best of our ability people who may have been at that property that date.

You know, I'm not sure what more we are obligated to do, your Honor. And this is a part of the problem. If they have complaints about search terms, then meet with us to talk about search terms. Before we could finish the process, they ran into court. We are open to a dialogue. We have always been open to a dialogue to try to resolve these issues. But, as we told you, they prematurely went to court to try to -- you know, to try to get in front of your Honor before we could even finish that.

We have a lot of requests, your Honor, that are just completely unrelated to these cases. I don't think it's appropriate now to go through each one right now. But I just wanted to clarify that this concept that it is a -- we are not agreeing to produce documents about the plaintiffs is wholly untrue, and I just wanted to make that very clear.

THE COURT: Okay. So let me go back on plaintiffs' side. I'm not going to make any blanket ruling, and I'm not persuaded that you have conferred fully in good faith before bringing the motion, in part, because you have already said that some of it is moot because in fact when you got responses, you no longer had a complete absence of information, and now

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 22 of 57

22 22 22

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

you are really just focused on the time frame issue. That tells me that when you wrote the initial letter you hadn't conferred fully in good faith to see what really had to be put before the court.

With respect to the time frame issue, it sounds like defendant is prepared to and planning to produce documents without regard to time frame that refer to your clients or relate to your clients, and it also sounds like defendants are willing to confer with respect to other requests.

As far as those other requests go, the test for relevance is not whether something is relevant to a general subject matter of a case, it's whether it is relevant to a claim or defense asserted in the case. It may be with respect to some of the requests where time frame is at issue that the documents sought are in fact highly relevant to a defense that's been asserted in the case, for example. It may be that they are tangentially relevant. It may be the burden is great. It may be the burden is modest. It may be that -- let me just make sure I didn't lose counsel.

Do I still have plaintiffs' counsel? MS. McCAWLEY: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Do I still have defendants' counsel? MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. If anyone joined from the public or press, I will please ask you to mute your phone.

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 23 of 57

23

K5m2FarC

Did anyone join who is an attorney in one of the cases in front of me? No. All right.

I lost the thread a little bit of what I was saying, but the point is that if this is in front of me with particularized disputes, I'm going to have to look at each document request at issue or each interrogatory at issue, hear from the parties about the particular relevance to a claim or a defense, hear from the defendant about the particular arguable lack of relevance or burden, and make item-by-item determinations. I'm not going to do it in a blanket fashion, and you are going to have to confer on that kind of level to get it focused for me, if it comes back to me, so that I understand just what the documents are that are being sought, just what the claim of relevance is, just what the purported burden is, just what the proportionality is so that I can make that assessment balancing relevant factors.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Now, the other issue that we have is resources and settlement and whether the dollars that are spent by defendants in litigating the case and responding to discovery requests might be better spent by being put into a fund if plaintiffs are planning to participate in that and whether it is a consideration that I should take into account, whether we should have any kind of extended period of time for the responses so that you can see if you are going to participate in the program if the kinks are worked out.

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 24 of 57

24

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 20

21

22

23

24

25

In the earlier conference we had today, what I did was allow the parties to have a bit of a hiatus in their cases, to conserve resources, asking for a status letter by June 19 with the understanding that the estate was planning to move forward with the program no later than June 15 absent something they thought would be extraordinary to stop it from doing so.

So on plaintiffs' side, let me hear whether you think it makes sense to give it a window of time before there is increased attorney's fees spent to see if in fact that program is moving forward and you might be participating in it.

And in any event, let me hear what you have to say about my view that perhaps you should be conferring further in good faith about these time frame issues on a request-by-request basis.

MS. McCAWLEY: Of course, your Honor. This is Sigrid McCawley for the plaintiff.

With respect to the issue of a hiatus, my concern there would be that we, as you know, back in November, talked about this program, and while Mr. Moskowitz has made representations on this call, you will understand that those were the same representations that he was making back in December and January and, for a number of reasons, that program has just not moved forward. Now I'm hearing for the first time this June 15 date that I have not heard before.

The problem I see with any kind of hiatus -- and, to

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 25 of 57

25 25 25

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 20

22

24 24

25 25

be clear, we don't want to, of course, expend unnecessary estate resources. The issue that I have with that is it is the continued delay and the part of the disadvantage to my clients in that they don't have information, all of the information they need relevant to their claims because they haven't received -- even though we have tried diligently, they have not received substantial production in the case of any kind.

So with respect to a hiatus, my concern would be that right now our discovery deadline is set for early July. We were hoping to get documents in order to be able to start taking some of the necessary depositions to get information for our case to be able to move it forward, and I believe that is something that we would be entitled to. I think that my concern is that, again, it would be a July 15 date, then it would be -- I'm sorry, a June 15 date, then a July 15 date, and it would continue without us being able to move the case forward.

Also, as you know, the claims program is voluntary. So to the extent that a client does participate in that and gets paused, we don't know what that claims administration 21 program is going to ultimately prove to be. So to the extent that a client participates and is offered something or not 23 offered anything, their case should be moving forward so that they are able to go to trial on the merits of their claims, if they need to, against the estate. So that would be my concern

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 26 of 57

26

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 20

21 21

22

23

24
22

with making any change at this point.

Again, we are not -- the discovery, in my view, has moved very, very slowly. So just to pull back and not have them continue to engage with us on discovery, in my view, would be problematic, because it would just further delay the case.

So those are my concerns generally with respect to that.

And, again, I'm hearing from the other side this June 15 date that I have no confidence that that is something that will necessarily move forward because we don't have anything in writing with respect to that or any statement from the court in the USVI that they have approved that or anything of that nature. So that was my concern there.

With respect to the issue before the court, we are in a position where the time frame issue is significantly problematic to us for the reasons that I have outlined. While they are representing to the court today that they will produce documents related to the plaintiff, you will remember that we have --

THE COURT: What did they say in their responses that you got in? Did they say these documents will be produced or is it just they are saying this for the first time to the court today?

MS. MCCAWLEY: With respect to the plaintiff, they 25 represented they would run the name of the plaintiff in their

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 27 of 57

27

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

discovery searches and produce with respect to the plaintiff, yes, that they did.

THE COURT: Why

MS. MCCAWLEY: But the problem

THE COURT: Why did you tell me earlier on in the call that they were refusing to produce any documents for the later time frame even with regard to the plaintiff?

MS.McCAWLEY: That is my understanding of their position, your Honor. I am hearing now that they are saying -- well, first of all, they have only produced one document for Theresa Helm's case, one document for Jane Doe's case.

THE COURT: Wait a minute, wait a minute. This is complete lack of meaningful dialogue between the parties, because I'm hearing opposite things from the parties about what defendants' position is. Defendant, as I understand it from this call, has said that they will, and have told you that they will, produce documents regardless of time frame if they refer or relate to the plaintiff, and that they are doing that in fact in all cases and have not taken a position that they would not. And you are saying that is your understanding of their position, that they will not.

How can that be if you have had a good conference between you?

MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, as we set forth in our letter, we did have a two-hour conference where we asked them

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 28 of 57

28

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 20

21

22

23

24

25

about the time frame issues and made sure to get the full position on that because that was our biggest concern. And that is what we discretely presented to the court because that was the concern we have, that they were not going to be producing anything beyond the time period of the abuse.

(Indiscernible crosstalk)

THE COURT: -- discretely presented to the court. You presented to the court in your opening letter that there was a complete failure to respond to any of the requests, and now you tell me on the call that since then there has been a response, and so what is now being discretely presented on this telephone call is what you say is a remaining issue, which seems like it is only a remaining issue in part because it seemed like if there are documents specifically relating or referring to the plaintiff, defendants have agreed to produce it and according to defendants have told you they have agreed to produce it in their responses that you have since gotten. Now, I haven't seen those responses. If they have been put before me, I'm sorry, I have not reviewed them. I don't think I have them. For that matter, I'm not sure I have all of the requests, I'm not sure I have an item-by-item explanation of relevance, and I'm not sure that your discussion has been adequate between the lawyers.

MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, this is Sigrid McCawley for the plaintiff.

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 29 of 57

29

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

I appreciate that. I am hearing your Honor. We will go back and address these issues again with the defendants in the hopes of being able to resolve them and not hopefully have to come before the court with respect to them. We are, again, hopeful to be able to get discovery in this case. We do not believe that has been the situation that we are in presently, and that's why we have presented it to the court. But I understand your point, your Honor, and we will make sure to engage further in the hopes of being able to resolve this.

THE COURT: All right. Let me ask, on defendants' side, by when do you plan to produce -- assuming we have no stay of discovery here and no hiatus, by when do you plan to produce the documents referring or relating to plaintiff?

MR. MOSKOWITZ: We have already started that, your Honor. Bennet Moskowitz, excuse me. And in fact, I apologize. Let me let Mr. Aaronson address that question. And then, if I can, I would like to just very quickly respond to something Ms. McCawley said about the program.

THE COURT: Let me hear first about the documents -- MR. AARONSON: Yes --

THE COURT: regarding the production.

MR. AARONSON: Yes, your Honor. Matthew Aaronson. We have already started the production. We made a production I believe on Wednesday of documents, and I think in particular Ms. Bryant it was over 100 documents.

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 30 of 57

30

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 20

21

22

23

24

25 45

So with the process underway -- and, again, I think, your Honor, you have gotten this correct, is that we have told them that we will produce and search for -- search for and produce documents that relate to their clients. To the extent that they think we need to add additional search terms, we searched the individual plaintiffs' names. If there are additional search terms, we are open to a dialogue to discuss that. If there are additional terms, as in every case, whether or not we can reach agreements on those terms. You know, the thing --

THE COURT: I would like to put a deadline on getting the production complete with respect to any documents that in any way refer or relate to the plaintiffs after you have had some further discussion perhaps on search terms, if necessary. But I would like to have a firm date when you are not just producing a few documents and a few documents and say it is underway, that that actually gets produced. Once --

MR. AARONSON: That's fair, your Honor. Part of that goes back to the same issue you raised earlier about the expenditure of time and money on discovery issues versus putting it towards the program.

So to the extent the court is not inclined to issue a pause or some sort of temporary issue on that, it's hard to say. The problem we have is that, you know, it is difficult to search all of our files, given the pandemic. Some files have

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 31 of 57

31

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

not been able to be collected yet. So I can tell you that, of the electronic documents that we have collected, I think we can keep that probably within 30 days of what we have collected already.

But I will tell you, we have done the initial pass of that, and we have made those productions. As I said, Juliette Bryant there was a significant number of documents. Presumably other plaintiffs there were not. So, again, we do believe that it would be appropriate (unintelligible) some of this, but to the extent the court is not inclined to do that, you know, I think 30 days for what we have. But to be clear, your Honor, I don't know that we have collected every, you know, source at this point in time, given our inability to collect documents dues to the pandemic.

THE COURT: How has the pandemic affected your ability to collect documents specifically?

MR. AARONSON: I will let Mr. Moskowitz speak to that, but my understanding is, you know, that we have not been able to access and people are not traveling to different locations. So we have collected electronic documents. I'm not -- again, I'm deferring to Mr. Moskowitz on that, whether or not the additional documents are still out there.

MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes. Bennet Moskowitz. Happy to clarify that point, your Honor.

There are two -- let me take a step back. Yes. It is

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 32 of 57

32 32 32

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 20

21

22

23

24

25

true that we have collected over 700 and I think 40,000 documents, and we did search them for the plaintiffs' names. And we did produce what we found that wasn't privileged, and we will go back and make sure that that is complete. But the fact that we located many documents for Juliette Bryant, which were dated to as late as I believe last year and have already been produced, so I don't understand Ms. McCawley's confusion about the time frame issue. But in any event, the fact that we found those but didn't find such documents for the other cases just evidences a lack of documents, not something wrong with the search process.

In terms of the pandemic difficulties, my problem with making a 30-day blanket representation is that there are at least some hard copy files that I would like certain people to look through, and while I have no reason one way or the other to expect their responsive materials are there, I would like that to happen before such deadline, and I'm not 100 percent certain that it can, because at least some of the documents are in places that are still under lockdown or there are still health concerns.

In addition to that, this is somewhat subject to the disputes about the scope of the discovery. If Ms. McCawley is, let's say, correct and these cases -- everything related to any allegedly bad thing Mr. Epstein ever did is relevant in each action, well, then, it could take me, you know, six months or a

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 33 of 57

33

K5m2FarC

(212) 805-0300

year to finish looking for every piece of paper and every property Mr. Epstein owned. So, again, it's with the context of just searching for names. Mr. Aaronson is correct, that can be done in the next 30 days, with the exception of anything that we can't actually access to look through.

And again I have

THE COURT: You have already

MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes.

THE COURT: You already have the documents electronically, at least certain of the documents, most of the documents.

MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes. THE COURT: And you have already gone through them and you have already made some production. Why would you need another 30 days before you can get to the end of that particular road?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 20

21

22 22

23

24 24

25

MR. MOSKOWITZ: We may not. It really depends on the rest of the meet-and-confer process which never completed. It depends on the search terms that are proposed, whether there are any additional search terms proposed. For example, what we wanted to happen during a full meet-and-confer process, which is what we strive to do in every case, and what we are actually doing in other actions against the estate, that Boies Schiller is not involved with, is suggest search terms to us that you think would satisfy your view of what a particular request

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 34 of 57

34

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 20

21

22

23

24

25

entails, let us run the report. If the report comes back and says 500 documents or even a thousand, we may deem that reasonable for that request. If it comes back at 10,000, we may not deem that reasonable.

So this is part of what an ongoing discussion, I hope, would have entailed, which gives me pause to, again, say a blanket yes, we will get it all done in 30 days. As to searching for things, I mentioned the plaintiffs in what we have already collected, to the extent we didn't complete that, you know, we don't need 30 days. But I don't know that that will satisfy Ms. McCawley.

THE COURT: Okay.

If this case goes all the way forward in litigation and goes to trial, you are going to try this case. You are not going to try ever case that is before this court or any other court at the same trial. That doesn't mean that evidence regarding others who are claiming to have been victims of Mr. Epstein might not have relevance to some claim or defenses being raised, and I understand that it may, in some documents, may have relevance.

But you are going to have to get, on plaintiffs' side, a lot more focused with what you want and why you want it. And if you are going to come back and make a renewed application to me, that application is going to have to be more focused on what kind of documents you are talking about, what claim or

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 35 of 57

35

K5m2FarC

defense they are relevant to, why they are relevant to that claim or defense, giving me an example of some case law that shows how it could be relevant, and I will make a decision on a request-by-request basis about what appropriate time frames should be used. And with respect to search terms, in the first instance you need to talk to each other about that because you don't want the court coming up with search terms or trying to make judgment calls on that if it's not necessary. You know, you are much better off trying to figure it out between you, getting an agreed protocol, an agreed list of custodians, an agreed list of search terms, and then go from there, as generally happens in cases where there might be a lot of documents that are kept electronically. So I expect you to go through that process as you would in any other case.

I am open to kicking out your deadlines a bit to give you time to talk this through and to see if we can get some progress. I'm going to ask defendants, to the extent you already have a known universe of documents, if there are any you have not yet produced, get them produced within two weeks. If there are additional search terms, you will talk with each other in good faith about time frame for running any additional searches and getting any additional documents produced. And if plaintiff wanted to come back to me on a renewed motion that's more specifically laid out on particular categories of documents or responses to interrogatories, you will do that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23
22
24

25

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 36 of 57

36

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 20

21

22

23

24

25

after you have tried to work these things through with an eye toward what is what is reasonable. Plaintiff may reasonably need more than defendants want to give. Defendants may have a reasonable point about conserving resources for the sake of a settlement program which should be taken seriously because it seems that very serious efforts are underway to try to get that program off the ground.

I'm going to ask for a status letter by June 19, which is the date that I gave in other cases. It is geared to Mr. Moskowitz's representation that this program should launch, he thinks, by June 15. So it seems to me by June 19 you will have a better idea and you will also have a better idea of where you are with respect to these discovery issues.

I'm going to caution plaintiffs' counsel in the future, please do not send me something without being sure you are at the end of the road in talking to your adversary. I don't want to get a response that says it is premature, we haven't really talked. Make sure you are clear on a point-by-point basis that you have talked about specific relevance, that you have talked about specific burden issues, that you have talked about specific search terms, at least you have try to engage in that kind of dialogue. If you are stymied, you are stymied, and I will hear from you. But I don't think you are at that point.

And I think that's it with respect to those disputes,

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 37 of 57

37

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

and I should probably turn to the dispute regarding Ms. Maxwell. What I am going to do is I am going to -- I don't know if the letters were framed as a motion for a conference or a motion to compel. If they were framed as a motion for a conference, I will say granted. We had a conference. As to the underlying issue about compelling, go talk or in if actually framed as a motion, I will say denied without prejudice to renew, and I'm going to ask for a status letter by June 19.

Anybody want to say anything else on that before I turn to Ms. Maxwell's issue?

No? Okay. I'm hearing no, or I am hearing nothing. Hopefully I haven't lost everybody on the entire call. I'm hearing laughs, so hopefully that means not.

Let me turn to Ms. Menninger's issue. One thing I want to understand, because there was a reference to a potential criminal prosecution which of course could impact whether there should be a stay as to a defendant who is being criminally prosecuted. Currently, if I'm understanding correctly, Ms. Maxwell may be the target of an investigation, or you may be concerned she is the target of an investigation but there are no actual criminal charges pending, is that right?

MS. MENNINGER: Yes, that's correct, your Honor. We do not have any criminal charges pending anywhere, but we have

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 38 of 57

38

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 22

23

24

25 25

a number of public statements by the U.S. Attorney's office in the Southern District, as well as statements made by plaintiffs' counsel to the press that suggest that those -- that that investigation is underway and that it would encompass Ms. Maxwell, and so that is our concern. But it is correct to say that there is no active criminal charges that I am aware of.

THE COURT: All right. So if there were active criminal charges filed or if that should happen, that might influence the thinking about whether or not there should be a stay, because of course if a defendant ends up taking the Fifth, that could have consequences in a civil case and defendant may feel there is little choice but to do that if the person is under a criminal indictment or if plaintiffs have filed.

So I just want to just note that if that circumstance change -- if that circumstance changes, let me know. If it affects any ruling I make, let me know, because I may need to revisit a ruling.

Let me hear what -- given the last conference, the last subject, where there seem to be some changed landscapes since the application was initially made, let me make sure that I am aware of the current circumstance.

Let me just hear from Ms. Maxwell's counsel first on this.

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 39 of 57

39

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MS. MENNINGER: Thank you, your Honor, Ms. Menninger here on behalf of Ms. Maxwell.

The landscape has not changed since our letters. We have filed a motion to dismiss the claims which we believe are distinct and different from any sort of example that the estate may have, and we believe that they are strong grounds for dismissal. The case -- the allegations against Ms. Maxwell in this case involve an allegation of battery that occurred one time in 1996 in New Mexico, and the statute of limitations and venue issues, you know, in New York versus New Mexico are very different for Maxwell than perhaps for the estate and we think provide the grounds for dismissal.

The other two bases that we raise for a stay are the claims program that your Honor has already spent some time discussing on this call and the earlier call today. We believe -- we don't have any independent information. We were not party to the calls in the Virgin Islands, as were counsel for plaintiffs and for the estate. But I have heard on the call today the representations made by the estate that they believe that the program will be getting off the ground in a matter of a few weeks, June 15, or three weeks or so from today.

Given that plaintiff has indicated an intent to participate in that program, at least in filings in the Virgin Islands, and the fact that that program would -- if she

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 40 of 57

40 40 40

K5m2FarC

participates and it is successful, would render this entire lawsuit moot, we think we believe balancing that fact against the extremely broad discovery demands that your Honor has heard something about, although not with respect to Ms. Maxwell yet, would counsel in favor of at least a short stay similar to the ones that other plaintiffs' counsel have agreed to, promoted, or even stipulated to in other cases pending before your Honor.

We have received extensive discovery demands. We have been advised that plaintiffs' counsel intends to take a number of depositions, including around the country, including for people that plaintiff in our case never met and had no dealings with. And, your Honor, I can speak from personal experience with that same type of discovery happening with the same plaintiffs' counsel in the Giuffre v. Maxwell action that I was counsel for in front of Judge Sweet. We had a number of significant discovery disputes in that case and we had depositions that occurred not only across the country, from California to New York and Florida and many places in between, but also abroad in that case, and the litigation costs were in the hundreds of thousands easily in that case. And so looking at the pattern of discovery that I believe plaintiff intends to pursue here, balancing the costs of those to someone like my client, who is not a multimillionaire, and then viewing the claims program as something that could be successful in resolving this case in a short period of time, we would ask

1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 41 of 57

41

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 20

21

22

23

24

25

your Honor to consider putting a stay on discovery in the Farmer case that I am party to, or I am counsel for a party to.

I think I can second or third some of the things that have already been said earlier, so I don't want to waste the court's time with those. But we have concerns that any money spent on this litigation is going to reduce the amount of money that would be available to any of the accusers in the Virgin Islands, and we don't think it makes sense to spend the money on these broad discovery requests if we can get the case resolved shortly.

I think the only objection that I heard from plaintiffs' counsel to something like a hiatus was that there's a pending discovery cutoff of early July, and it seems to me reasonable that of course if the claims program gets off the ground in a few weeks, that discovery cutoff could be set out to see if it is successful or not. And so it is sort of a false premise to say that the discovery cutoff in July is the reason we should be forging ahead full steam with this expensive discovery, rather than just taking the more logical approach, to me, which would be to at least put it on hold to see if the claims program is successful in the first instance; and, if not, then the cases can proceed with the court's blessing, pick back up where we left off.

In this particular case, I think it also bears noting that the claim allegedly occurred in 1996, so it has been some

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 42 of 57

42

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24 years since the allegations supposedly happened, and so I don't see that waiting one or two or three months balanced against 24 years is -- it's not as though we think documents will go missing in those three months that weren't already somehow lost to the winds of time over the last 24 years, your Honor.

THE COURT: So you are -- I will just note, by the way, that in your initial letter you ask for an opportunity to do full briefing, but it is all laid out in the letters. So let me just get some clarification on that. What more briefing would you be looking to do beyond what's in these letters? You have case citations in these letters and you lay out the bases for a stay. What would you be looking to do when you are trying to conserve resources? Do you really need full briefing.

MS. MENNINGER: I think it could be abbreviated briefing; but, yes, there are more cases in support of the request that we are making. There are more cases in terms of the criminal investigation versus active prosecution, and then there is certainly a fair amount of exhibits that I could tender to your Honor to display the breadth of discovery that is part of the traditional balancing test when looking at a motion to stay -- or good cause -- of grounds for good cause as balanced against the breadth of discovery.

THE COURT: I don't remember if at the beginning of

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 43 of 57

43

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 20

22

23

24

25

this call I asked if my law clerk Hanna Martin was on. Hanna, are you there?

MS. MARTIN: Yes, I'm here, Judge.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, for the court reporter, it is Hanna Martin, H-A-N-N-A.

And Hanna and I were conferring before this conference about some case law about some criminal prosecution as opposed to criminal investigation, and we weren't finding, at least on an initial look, cases where the courts tended to stay civil proceedings when there was an investigation proceeding. You have cases that say the opposite?

MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I have some. They are not in the Southern District, so there are --

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. MENNINGER: -- cases that have occurred in various federal and state cases across the country.

THE COURT: And you are looking for a stay of the entire case, not just as to proceedings against your client?

MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, it seems to me best to stay the case, but I would be amenable just in regards to my 21 client or, as I said towards the end of my letter, there are other alternatives that, you know, I think I would view as intermediate steps, for example, bifurcation of discovery on the statute of limitations issue, for example, if that were something the court thought were appropriate or a stay on party

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 44 of 57

44

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 25

depositions until later in the discovery process to see where the claims program and the criminal investigation end up, and certainly with regard to the motion to dismiss, that should be, I would think, decided at some point.

THE COURT: I might consider, because there is a lot to do in this case, I might consider putting a hold on Ms. Maxwell having to make statements, so either responding to substantive interrogatories or being deposed because of Fifth Amendment issues, because it may be that she ends up the subject of prosecution even if she is not yet and because there are other things that can meanwhile be going forward. If we put her deposition further down the pike, maybe we will have greater clarity on that before that issue actually comes to the fore.

I'm also thinking that there are other interests besides hers in this case. There are plaintiffs' interests and I'm sure that although your point is well taken that it's not that likely that documents will now not be preserved within these few months as opposed to not being preserved over the years, I'm sure plaintiff does not want to hear that after all of these years she must wait more time in order to have what she considers to be serious wrongs redressed. So the factors can cut in more than one direction.

So right now I'm not inclined to stay the whole case, but I am inclined to keep one eye on settlement, to keep one

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 45 of 57

45 45 55

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

23
22

25

eye -- I'm not sure how many eyes I have -- to keep an eye on the -- any criminal investigation and ask to have updates if there are charges filed, and maybe put some things more at the front end of the discovery period, some things more at the back end of the discovery period. And I am willing to move the dates out some to accommodate the parties if the parties are engaged in good-faith discussions, if there is a desire to conserve resources because it looks like the claims program is in fact going forward. I am willing to do that. I have done that another cases. I have stayed other cases. I have extended deadlines in other cases. I don't really want to see resources going to litigation if it's not necessary. But right now I'm not inclined to have a complete stay of everything.

Ms. Menninger, what would be your reaction to saying hold off on anything that could be in the category of affirmative statements made by Ms. Maxwell for now and having other discovery going forward?

MS. MENNINGER: It does address -- this is Ms. Menninger, again, Laura Menninger.

It does address many of my concerns. I would say, you know, the costs related to the broad discovery demands that 22 were propounded, written discovery requests and the like, are still of concern to me. As I mentioned, we have been asked for 24 every calendar she has had for the last 24 years and every Amazon account she has ever used for the last 24 years. So

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 46 of 57

46

K5m2FarC

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 20

21

22

23

24

25

THE COURT: That sounds to me, again, like you need to have a discussion with plaintiffs' counsel and, plaintiffs' counsel, it sounds like you need to have a discussion with Ms. Menninger about what you really need, why you really need it, how it can be done in a way that's manageable with no absolute yeses and no absolute nos with respect to those sorts of requests.

It may be that there is something about Amazon accounts that's really critical, and you can explain that. And maybe there is something else that's not really critical, and you can, you know, bend a bit on it. So you need to have that kind of discussion to keep, you know -- you know, to keep discovery tailored to the case and proportionate to the needs of the case. That has to do with time frame, that has to do with the scope of what's being claimed in a particular case, and to some extent it has to do with Mr. Epstein's accused conduct over time. So you are going to have to try to have that conversation and try to balance it. And if you can't, then I will.

MS. MENNINGER: I appreciate that, your Honor. MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, this is -- THE COURT: Yes.

MS. MCCAWLEY: I'm sorry. This is Ms. McCawley. Can

I address

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 47 of 57

47

K5m2FarC

THE COURT: Absolutely.

MS. McCAWLEY: Thank you.

THE COURT: Please go ahead.

(212) 805-0300

MS. McCAWLEY: With respect to the motion to stay that Ms. Maxwell is proposing, one of the bases that she has filed motion to dismiss, Judge Schofield held a premotion conference with respect to that --

THE COURT: Hold on a moment, please. Do I still have -- do I still have -- I know I still have Ms. McCawley. Do I still have Ms. Menninger?

MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Do I still have Mr. Moskowitz? MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Did anyone join us who is another attorney? Okay. Hopefully we didn't lose anybody. If anyone joined from the public or press, welcome. Please keep your phone on mute.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 20

21

22

23

24

25

Okay. Go ahead. You were saying, Ms. McCawley? MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. So we did hold in front of Judge Schofield a premotion conference on Ms. Maxwell's motion to dismiss. As Judge Schofield did with the estate, she discouraged Ms. Maxwell from filing a motion to dismiss, giving her preliminary views that they -- the arguments that she was putting forth were not meritorious. Ms. Maxwell insisted on filing a motion to dismiss and has done that now, just this

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 48 of 57

48

K5m2FarC

week. So in my view, that is -- bodes against any sort of stay based on the motion to dismiss because the district judge has set forth her views with respect to that at least as an initial matter.

With respect to the case law, your Honor is correct, the case law in New York is clear that unless there is an indictment put forward, which there has not been, it doesn't allow somebody in a civil case to stay the case on the basis of a possible investigation.

With respect to your Honor's statements about the investigation and potentially allowing Ms. Maxwell to not have to make statements in this civil action, the concern I have there is that we have no indication of any time frame with respect to the Southern District of New York, how long that investigation could go on or will go on or anything of that nature. So the concern, for me, is Ms. Maxwell, as we have alleged, worked in concert with Mr. Epstein to abuse my client. We brought those claims under the Child Victims Act, as we are allowed to do, because she was a minor, and to not be able to get a discovery and ask Ms. Maxwell questions and get responses and keep the case moving forward puts us in handcuffs with respect to being able to establish our claims because, as your Honor has seen from the complaint, the allegations are that they worked together hand in hand with respect to the abuse of Annie Farmer. So I would have concerns about some form of that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23
22
24

25

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 49 of 57

49

K5m2FarC

1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

kind of a path for defendant Maxwell in the case at this time until there is a criminal indictment that's put forward.

THE COURT: All right. Let me just say a few things about that.

First of all, if the investigation is going on here in New York, or for that matter wherever it may be going on, because what we have in New York is not only in New York with respect to COVID-19, the grand jury process is understandably delayed because it is very difficult to have jurors convene. So there may be additional time before any case that is being investigated is indicted, and so we just have to recognize that we are in somewhat unusual circumstances.

The second thing is that any stay that I might put in place with respect to any aspect of the claims against Ms. Maxwell would be temporary and would be revisited. I would not allow it to drag on indefinitely. But in a case where some things can be done to move the case forward and the case is not completely stalled, I don't see any harm in putting some things a little bit further down the road.

The third thing I will say is this is also an unusual circumstance because of the potential of this claims process in which plaintiff may well participate and which may well get off the ground soon; and, if it does, I'm not sure whether it would moot claims against Ms. Maxwell or not, but it might. And as you balance those factors, you have this situation where we may

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 50 of 57

50

50

K5m2FarC

know in the relatively near future whether plaintiff is actively participating in the claims process, whether it looks like it is going to resolve her claims, and we may never have to get to the point where we jeopardize, potentially jeopardize somebody's Fifth Amendment rights.

So I might be inclined to do this, to say, look, you can carry on with discovery in the case after a conference on all kinds of things, to try to keep costs under control and try to focus on what's most important. I will extend deadlines out if you would like if you are feeling pressure from that. We will hold off on -- not on production of documents from Ms. Maxwell but on the statements that she makes, whether sworn statements or interrogatories or deposition, we will put that a little bit further down. You will give me status report regarding the process of settlement, and we will take stock.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 20

21

22

23

24

25

And with respect to holding off on interrogatory responses or deposition by Ms. Maxwell, that will not be a permanent situation, that will be revisited. And if time is stretching out too far and if there is no indictment, then I may take further briefing on the subject and I will make a decision as to whether in fact that part of the case should also go forward. But I will not let it drag out indefinitely. That is my current thinking.

What say both of you on that? MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, this is Laura Menninger.

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 51 of 57

51

K5m2FarC

That would be -- we would welcome that ruling, your Honor.

(212) 805-0300

THE COURT: Plaintiff?

MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, obviously we disagree with that because we believe that it's important to have Ms. Maxwell's participation in this case. We have noticed her for a deposition already and that got moved because she -- you know, the issue of just being able to be in person, things of that nature. We were trying to accommodate. So we are concerned about there being extended delay and are concerned about not being able to get information from her through her testimony.

We respect the court's concerns about a Fifth Amendment privilege but, again, we would ask that if you are going to be inclined to do something like this, you tie it to a date like the June 15 date, or something along those lines, so that we are not in a position where she is able to take depositions of all of our people and we are, you know, handcuffed with respect to any discovery with respect to Ms. Maxwell.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

THE COURT: Like I said, I have no desire to have this drag out. If all things if we didn't have this potential claim process out there with a fairly soon, seemingly likely, start date, according to defendants, then I think the balance would be different. Because I don't think the case law in this 25 circuit would generally support the stay when there is no

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 52 of 57

52 52 42

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

24

25

prosecution pending yet.

But nonetheless, there are a number of factors one might look at on that, and whether or not an indictment is pending is only one of the factors. There are several factors that could be relevant, including, and I'm going to refer you to the Louis Vuitton Malletier case. For the court reporter, L-O-U-I-S V-U-I-T-T-O-N M-A-L-L-E-T-I-E-R v. Ly, L-Y, U.S.A., Inc., and the case number is 676 F.3d 83 from 2011. So the Second Circuit noted that courts often take a look at a number of factors in deciding whether there should be a stay, including the extent to which the issues in the criminal case overlap with those presented in the civil case. Here, there would be, I assume, a very strong overlap to the status of the case, including whether the defendants have been indicted. So that's a factor.

Three, the private interests of the plaintiff in proceeding expeditiously weighed against the prejudice to plaintiffs caused by the delay. Here I'm looking at the potential settlement process and that, to me, is an unusual factor that suggests that the plaintiffs' interests may be divided here in proceeding fast with this case when there is a potential settlement within the next few months potentially 23 available to plaintiffs and plaintiff may go for that.

Another factor is the private interest of and burden on the defendants. We do have an individual here. We are not

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 53 of 57

53

1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

K5m2FarC 

talking about the estate, and there is somewhat more burden for

discovery.

There are the interests of the courts. The interest of the court is not to have unnecessary litigation if the matters can be resolved amicably, and not to have it stretch out forever. That's also an interest of the court.

We also have this strange overlay of COVID-19 which affects the ability for criminal prosecutors to take matters to a grand jury.

The public interest, I think the public interest is -- would be well served by a claims process. If you look at this case in terms of there being a number of claim victims, and that is something that I definitely am looking at and is weighing into my consideration as to how any and all of these cases should be litigated. And in several of the cases, which claims that are no more recent than the claims here, a lot of plaintiffs' counsel have agreed to stays or partial stays or are holding off on certain things to conserve resources and allow that process to play out a bit, and I think that those are factors that are unusual in this case. This is a case-by-case, specific analysis that has to be made as to whether there should be a stay.

So in this particular case, at this particular time, with these particular circumstances, it seems to me to make sense not to stay the case in its entirety, to send counsel

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 54 of 57

54

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 20

21

22

23
22

24

25

off to have the kind of good-faith conference you should have had before contacting me in the first place and that you should always have about anything and everything as you try to work through discovery issues, but to hold off on the most serious of the issues with respect to Ms. Maxwell, which are her constitutional rights, and not forever, but at least long enough to let us know whether the claims process is likely to go forward. And I will revisit it, and I will revisit it at intervals that are reasonable and that does not put you in limbo where you will never be able to get discovery from Ms. Maxwell if this case proceeds. All right?

So let me ask straight out, are you, under the circumstances I have described and the way in which I would envision this, which is some discovery going forward, good-faith conference, report to me by June 19 about the status, are you looking to have me move out the discovery schedules at all and, if so, by how long?

MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, this is Sigrid McCawley.

Would it be possible to have some time to consider that? Right now the discovery deadline is set for July 10, I believe, and I of course have anticipated taking depositions throughout June and into early July. So if I could have some time to consider what that would look like and confer with the other side, then if we can't agree, then maybe present something to the court with the timing of that?

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 55 of 57

55 55 55

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23
22
24

25

THE COURT: Yeah. I mean, I'm not usually in the habit of suggesting extensions, but I think here, rather than be crunched with depositions and panicking at the end of June and beginning of July, putting another 30 days on it to give you time to talk through your issues and for me to have fuller briefing on the issue of a stay, should it come to that, it might make sense to at least give you another 30.

MS. McCAWLEY: That would be fine, your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Moskowitz, do you want to say anything?

MS. McCAWLEY: Just very quickly, your Honor.

That 30-day initial extension for the further discussion makes perfect sense to us. I would say you laid out -- your Honor laid out very compelling reasons, one of which is unique to this action, but the others equally apply to the other actions that we are here now before you on, so I would hope that we could also discuss with Ms. McCawley keeping the extensions in line for each case with those other considerations in mind. It's something we will discuss.

The only other thing I wanted to mention is -- which I didn't get a chance to mention earlier is that Ms. McCawley mentioned various concerns about the program. That could be more convincing from someone but for the fact that they already stayed one of their clients' actions in favor of the program. So I just don't -- it doesn't square with us that those

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 56 of 57

56

K5m2FarC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 20

21

22

23

24

25

concerns are such that they can't take the same reasoned approach in the other actions when they found it reasonable for one of them already.

But other than that, I have nothing to add, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. So I'm going to ask for a status report by June 19. In that status report, I not only want to hear about how discovery is going and how settlement prospects are looking. I also want to hear about further discussions with counsel for Ms. Maxwell and mapping out of how the parties would anticipate things moving further from that point, and, you know, Ms. Maxwell permitting not to respond to interrogatories and not to have her deposition until the parties have had a chance to confer, until I have had that status report June 19, until I hear again from counsel as to the next logical way to proceed with that, and I will kick out discovery deadlines 30 days, which is modest. Others, I think, are going to be kicked out longer. You can do whatever planning you do for depositions to be happening a little further down the road in July, and you will get back to me. As need be, we will have another conference and we will take in the next piece. Okay?

MS. McCAWLEY: Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Anything else -- MS. MENNINGER: Thank you, your Honor.

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF

Document 40

Filed 06/03/20

Page 57 of 57

57

K5m2FarC

THE COURT: -- before we end this call? All right. Let me just say one last thing, which is, I did record this call into the conferencing system, but you also have a court reporter on the call. You don't need to have a transcript made from the telephone recording. And just be aware that if there are two transcripts made -- one from AT&T and one from the court reporter -- and there is any discrepancy, the court reporter's transcript will be the official transcript and will control. Okay?

MS. McCAWLEY: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. MOSKOWITZ: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you all. Take care, everybody.

oOo

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
court-records/Bryant v. Indyke, No. 119-cv-10479 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)/040.pdf
{"year":"2019","court":"S.D.N.Y","people":["annie farmer","darren indyke","jeffrey epstein","richard kahn","ghislaine maxwell","teresa helm","juliette bryant","debra c. freeman","sigrid s. mccawley","sabina mariella","andrew villacastin","bennett moskowitz","matthew j. aaronson","valerie sirota","laura a. menninger","kristen carannante","hannah martin"]}