diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750825/EFTA02750825.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750825/EFTA02750825.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f0445b58f85db8b113d26bcee15abbf7f1a6df9c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750825/EFTA02750825.md @@ -0,0 +1,247 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as the executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, + +Defendants. + +Case No. + +JURY TRIAL DEMANDED + +COMPLAINT + +Plaintiff Jane Doe ("Doe" or "Plaintiff') alleges, upon personal knowledge and information and belief, as follows: + +## INTRODUCTION + +I. Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") was one of the world's most powerful, prolific, and notorious pedophiles. For years, he exploited and sexually assaulted dozens if not hundreds of young vulnerable girls for his personal satisfaction. He molested, fondled, and raped them, luring them to his home under the pretext that they would be giving him a "massage," and then slowly escalated his abuse. He paid what was for them much needed, life-changing amounts of money so that they would return to him and he could continue his cycle of exploitation and abuse. + +2. A successful businessman, Epstein applied all of his finely honed skills to acquiring access to more and more young girls. His staff provided a seemingly endless series of children who would come to his home—often multiple girls at the same time. The girls would sit in a waiting room while Epstein finished assaulting the child who came before them. In just one day, Epstein would sexually assault multiple girls in his private, well-guarded homes. And, at least from in or around 2002 to in or around 2005, Epstein did so regularly. Each girl was paid by Epstein or his staff. + +3. Plaintiff Jane Doe is one of Epstein's many victims. She met him when she was fourteen years old or younger, in or around 2002. For the following three years, Epstein routinely abused and exploited Doe at his home in New York City. + +4. In July 2019, Epstein was arrested and charged for his abuse of Doe and others in an indictment filed by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (the "Indictment"). As alleged in the Indictment, over the course of many years, Epstein sexually exploited and abused dozens of minor girls at his homes in New York City, Palm + +Beach, Florida, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and other locations. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Jane Doe is the person described as "Minor Victim-1" in the Indictment. + +5. Not surprisingly, Epstein's abuse of Doe has forever scarred her and altered her life. As a result of his abuse, Doe never received a high school education. She suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression. Her severe emotional injuries manifest in myriad ways: she often finds herself crying; she is unable to form healthy emotional relationships with men; she often cannot sleep through the night or fall asleep at all; she has panic attacks; and she is constantly afraid for her young daughter. + +6. Epstein, by contrast, was able to operate his brazen sex trafficking scheme with relative impunity for most of his life. He used his money and connections to ensure that he and his co-conspirators would never face true justice for their heinous crimes. And, now, with his reported suicide on August 10, 2019, Epstein cannot be tried for being the criminal that he was. But, at the very least, the victims of his crimes, like Jane Doe, can obtain recovery for all the harm that he caused them. + +## THE PARTIES + +7. Plaintiff Jane Doe is a citizen of the State of New York. At all times relevant to this suit, Doe was a minor child living in New York City. + +8. Defendant Darren K. Indyke is sued in his capacity as an appointed executor of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein. + +9. Defendant Richard D. Kahn is sued in his capacity as an appointed executor of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein. + +## JURISDICTION AND VENUE + +10. Plaintiff is domiciled in New York. + +II. Jeffrey Epstein was a citizen of the United States domiciled in the U.S. Virgin Islands at the time of his death. As the legal representatives of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn are deemed citizens of the U.S. Virgin Islands, and jurisdiction in this Court is therefore proper. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(cX2). + +12. At all times material to the events alleged herein, Plaintiff resided in New York, New York, and Defendant maintained a residence in New York, New York. + +13. All of the events giving rise to these causes of action occurred in the Southern District of New York, thus venue in this district is proper. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). + +### JURY DEMAND + +14. Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all of her claims in this action. + +## FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS + +## Defendant Epstein's Scheme of Exploitation and Abuse + +15. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein was born in Brooklyn in 1953. + +16. Epstein graduated from a public high school in Brooklyn, and later took college classes at Union and New York University. After briefly working as a teacher at a prestigious private school in Manhattan and as a partner at Bear Stems, in 1981 Epstein established J. Epstein & Co., a money management business, which he operated until the time of his death. + +17. Little is known about the actual source or extent of Epstein's wealth, but by 1998 it is believed that Epstein owned: the largest private home in Manhattan at 9 East 71st Street; a 7,500 acre ranch in New Mexico; a mansion in Palm Beach, Florida; an apartment in Paris; a Boeing 727: and a private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands. By the early 2000s, Epstein became known as one of the wealthiest individuals in the United States, routinely socializing and working with many of the most powerful men in the world. + +IS. Epstein put his extraordinary resources and wealth to work exploiting and abusing teenage girls. Whether at his homes in New York City or Palm Beach, or on his private island, Epstein created a vast enterprise designed to lure vulnerable children to his house, where he would subject them to varying types of sexual abuse. + +19. Epstein believed there was nothing wrong with his conduct. He spoke openly about his "interest in young women." He told a New York Times reporter that "criminalizing sex with teenage girls was a cultural aberration and that at times in history it was perfectly acceptable." In an attempt to justify his sexual interest in children, "he pointed out that homosexuality had long been considered a crime and was still punishable by death in some parts of the world," thereby equating homosexual relations between consenting adults with the sexual abuse of children. + +20. In 2008, Epstein entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (the "Non-Prosecution Agreement") after he was investigated for his sexual assault of young girls in Florida. Epstein agreed to plead guilty to just two counts of solicitation of prostitution under Florida state law and served just over one year in a local jail. While briefly incarcerated, Epstein was afforded extraordinary privileges, including being able to leave the jail to work in his office twelve hours per day, six days per week. + +## Plaintiff Jane Doe Becomes a Victim of Epstein's Scheme of Exploitation and kithse + +21. Jane Doe was born in 1988. For most of her life, Doe was raised by a single mother who supported Doe and her younger sister. + +22. Doe had a difficult childhood that was in many ways marked by financial strain. Doe's sister suffered from serious medical conditions that required extensive medical care. Doe always worried about whether her family had enough money and thought about how she could help her sister then and into the future. + +23. When she was approximately fourteen years old, in or around 2002, Doe was approached by a teenage girl from her neighborhood who appeared to be slightly older than Doe. The girl told Doe about an opportunity to earn money and offered to introduce her to a wealthy man. Doe would subsequently learn that this man was Epstein. + +24. By that time, Doe's family was in serious financial straits. Her mother and sister were sharing a bedroom. In order to pay their monthly rent, her family rented the other bedrooms in their apartment to strangers, leaving no room for Doe. Doc was forced to move out. She stayed with a rotating cast of friends and took odd jobs after school to try to help her family pay rent. Hoping to help her family and support herself, Doe agreed to meet Epstein. + +25. The girl brought Doe to Epstein's mansion at 9 East 71st Street. When they entered the mansion, they were greeted by a maid who showed them into a waiting room near the entrance to the mansion. Doe can recall thinking that the mansion looked like the castle in the fairytale "Beauty and the Beast," one of her favorite Disney movies at the time. + +26. After waiting a short period, a maid escorted the two girls to an elevator and led them from the elevator to a dimly lit room with a massage table in the middle, where she left the girls alone. + +27. Minutes later, Epstein entered the room wearing only a robe. He introduced himself as "Jeffrey," and asked Doe her name. Epstein also asked Doe her age, and she responded truthfully. + +28. Epstein then removed his robe and laid face down on the massage table. + +29. The girl who recruited Doe removed her shirt and indicated to Doe that she should do the same. As instructed, Doe removed her shirt and began to massage Epstein's back, with the other girl coaching her through what Epstein expected. + +30. During the massage, Epstein turned over onto his back, exposing his penis to the two girls. Epstein then began to touch his penis and directed Doe to pinch his nipples. Doe followed orders and touched Epstein's chest while he stared intensely at her and masturbated. Finally, Epstein ejaculated and then cleaned himself off with a towel. + +31. Afterwards, Epstein put on a robe and retrieved three hundred-dollar bills from his robe pocket, which he handed to Doe. + +32. Within a day or two, the other girl contacted Doe, and told her that Epstein wanted to see her again. She provided Doe with a phone number she could use to schedule another visit. Doe called the number and spoke with a woman who arranged for her to return to the house and Epstein. + +33. Doe returned to Epstein's mansion on 71st Street a few days later. As before, Doe was led to the massage room. Epstein entered the room wearing a robe. Having been instructed by the girl who brought her the first time to remove her shirt, Doe removed her shirt when Epstein came into the room. Topless, she rubbed Epstein's back, until he turned over and masturbated. Again, Epstein handed Doe three hundred dollars. + +# Epstein's Abuse of Doe Escalates + +34. Doe returned to Epstein's home again and again. As described below, as her visits became more frequent, Epstein's sexual abuse of Doe became more severe. + +35. After several visits, Epstein began to touch Doe's bare chest while he masturbated at the conclusion of his massage. In earlier encounters, he touched Doe's chest only with his hands, but after a few visits he began to touch Doe's breasts with his lips and tongue. + +36. In subsequent visits, Epstein directed Doe to remove her pants, shirt, and bra so that she was massaging him while wearing only her underwear. + +37. Later, Epstein began to touch Doe's genitals over her underwear with a vibrator. In visits after that, he would pull Doe's underwear to the side and touch her genitals directly with a vibrator. + +38. Eventually, Epstein demanded that Doe be completely naked during his massages. On multiple occasions, Epstein demanded that Doe lay down on the massage table with him. Once she acquiesced, Epstein touched Doe's genitals with his fingers, inserting his fingers inside of her vagina and causing her pain. While hurting her, Epstein pushed Doe to moan in supposed pleasure and asked her whether she was "enjoying" what he was doing. He demanded that she orgasm and would not stop touching her until he believed that she had orgasmed. + +39. On other occasions, Epstein also placed Doe's hand on his penis and made her move her hand up and down his penis and fondle his testicles until he ejaculated. He moaned aggressively while forcing Doe to touch his penis and barked orders at her about how to touch him. + +40. On one occasion, Epstein brought Doe to a bedroom in his home instead of the massage room. In the bedroom, Doe encountered an unfamiliar naked adult woman lying in a bed. The woman appeared to be over the age of eighteen. Another young girl close in age to Doe was also in the room. Epstein directed Doe and the other girl to remove their clothing and get into the bed with the naked adult woman. While in the bed, Epstein directed Doe and the two others to touch his genitals and to touch one another's genitals. + +41. While Epstein physically and emotionally hurt and exploited Doe, a vulnerable young girl, she also became financially dependent on him. She stopped attending school and spent almost all her time "working" at his home, gratifying him sexually, or bringing other girls to do the same. + +42. All told, Doe was sexually assaulted by Epstein countless times over the course of three years. + +43. Doe's experience with Epstein fit within what is now known to have been a common pattern for the abuser. He would find vulnerable young girls who needed money and slowly test their boundaries—first asking them to remove their own clothes and massage him and then, over time, he would escalate his conduct, touching them in ways that would become more invasive, violent, and painful. As these children grew to rely financially on Epstein, he would only cause them more and more harm. + +44. As demonstrated by the above, Epstein treated the girls he abused in the same way Ghislaine Maxwell, his co-conspirator, viewed them: like "they[] [were] nothing, these girls," like "[t]hey [we]re trash." + +# Epstein's Abuse of Doe Was Directly and Indirectly Facilitated by His Co-Conspirators + +45. Epstein was only able to repeatedly abuse Doe and countless other girls with the aid of his many co-conspirators. Some of Epstein's co-conspirators directly enabled his abuse of Doe by, for example, arranging for Doe to come to Epstein's home to be assaulted or by participating in assaults of Doe alongside Epstein. Other co-conspirators indirectly aided Epstein's abuse of young women by giving Epstein access to young women, providing him with + +substantial funds, boosting his public profile, and helping to cleanse his public image after his 2008 prosecution. + +47. Two of Epstein's employees specifically facilitated his abuse of Doe. Epstein had two adult, female assistants who scheduled most of Doe's visits to Epstein's home and maintained regular contact with Doe. Upon information and belief, the assistants were and Lesley Groff. + +48. During scheduling phone calls, and Groff often asked Doe to bring other girls with her to Epstein's home. At times, and Groff directed Doe to bring with her specific girls who Epstein had assaulted before, requesting them by name. + +49. Though sometimes Epstein directly paid Doe after abusing her, Doe was often paid by or Groff. Doe was also paid by or Groff whenever she brought other girls to see Epstein. + +50. Upon information and belief, as described in Paragraph 40, Doe was sexually assaulted by another Epstein employee. + +51. Notably, and Groff were both listed in Epstein's 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement as potential co-conspirators in Epstein's crimes. + +52. Epstein paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to his potential co-conspirators in November 2018, shortly after a newspaper reported on the unusually lenient Non-Prosecution Agreement Epstein received in 2008, which suggests that Epstein was trying to buy his coconspirators' silence. + +53. In addition to assistance provided by Epstein's employees, Epstein built and benefined from a vast network of powerful supporters, including billionaires, prominent researchers, and former and current politicians, who provided him with access, opportunity, and means to abuse young women, and who helped to repair his public image after his 2008 prosecution. + +# Doe's Life Is Materia I IN and Negatively Altered by Epstein's Abuse + +54. When Doe turned seventeen, she decided to extricate herself from Epstein. But by that time, Epstein's abuse of Doe had already materially and negatively altered her life. + +55. Without a high school diploma, and with a very low sense of her own self-worth, Doe was forced to take dangerous and often degrading jobs. She still has not been able to complete high school, though she hopes to do so in the future. + +56. For more than a decade, Doe has suffered from severe mental anguish because of Epstein's abuse. She suffers from extreme anxiety and depression, which cause her to experience difficulty falling asleep, difficulty staying asleep (because she often wakes up with nightmares), difficulty eating, rapid heartbeat, and panic attacks. Her physical and emotional injuries impact her daily functioning, making it difficult to go to work and take care of her young daughter and her ailing mother. + +57. Doe has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in connection with Epstein's sexual abuse. She regularly experiences the symptoms of PTSD, including flashbacks to Epstein's abuse, which make it difficult for her to take care of herself and her family. + +58. Doe struggles to be physically and emotionally intimate with her husband because of the negative associations she now has with intimacy based on her traumatic experiences with Epstein. + +59. Doe also struggles to be the mother she wants to be for her daughter. She is terrified to let her daughter interact with adult men because all she can think about is what + +Epstein did to her. Doe also feels scared and uncomfortable when anyone—even a trusted loved one—touches her daughter because of her overwhelming fear that what happened to Doe might happen to her daughter. + +60. All of these harms can be traced directly to Epstein and his co-conspirators. + +### Epstein's Recent Criminal Case, Death, and Will + +61. In March 2019, Plaintiff was contacted by authorities investigating Epstein's decades-long scheme to abuse and exploit children. Plaintiff confidentially cooperated with the investigation, recounting Epstein's abuse in painstaking detail over the course of many meetings. + +62. In July 2019, Epstein was indicted by the Unites States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, based in large part on information provided by Plaintiff. Indeed, upon information and belief, Plaintiff was identified as "Minor Victim-I" in the Indictment and was the only victim in the Indictment who Epstein had assaulted in New York. + +63. On August 10, 2019, Epstein was found dead in his jail cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, where he was being held pending trial. Upon information and belief, New York City's medical examiner concluded Epstein died by suicide. + +64. On August 15, 2019, Epstein's last will and testament (the "Will") was filed in the Probate Division of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands. + +65. The Will indicated that it was executed by Epstein on August 8, 2019 at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, and that it was witnessed by Mariel Colon Miro and Gulnora Tali. The Will was accompanied by affidavits from Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn attesting to their "Oath of Willingness to Serve as Executor and Appointment of Local Counsel." Mr. Indyke and Mr. Kahn also filed a Petition for Probate and for Letters Testamentary in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands. + +66. The Will's first article directs Epstein's executors "to pay from my estate all expenses of my last illness, my funeral and burial expenses, the administration expenses of my estate and all of my debts duly proven and allowed against my estate." The Will further directs that "after the payments and distributions provided in Article FIRST," Epstein "give[s] all of my property, real and personal, wherever situated...to the then acting Trustees of The 1953 Trust." + +67. On August 26, 2019, Defendant Darren K. Indyke filed a Certificate of Trust with the Superior Court for the Virgin Islands, confirming that he and Defendant Richard D. Kahn are the two Trustees of The 1953 Trust. See Certificate of Trust, In the Matter of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Probate No. ST-19-PB-80 (Super. Ct. V.I. Aug. 26, 2019). + +68. On September 6, 2019, Magistrate Judge Carolyn P. Hermon-Percell of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands ordered that Epstein's will be admitted to probate and authorized Mr. Indyke and Mr. Kahn to administer the estate. See Order for Probate, In the Matter of the Estate of Jetey E. Epstein, Probate No. ST- I 9-PB-80 (Super. Ct. V.I. Sep. 6, 2019); Letters Testamentary, In the Matter of the Estate of Jeftey E. Epstein, Probate No. ST-19-PB-80 (Super. Ct. V.I. Sep. 6, 2019). + +# CAUSES OF ACTION + +#### COUNT ONE Sexual Assault + +69. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs and re-alleges them as if set forth fully herein. + +70. On numerous occasions over three years, Epstein made violent sexual demands on Plaintiff while placing his hands on her body in a position of dominance and control and while touching Plaintiff in violent and invasive ways. + +71. These demands, often made when Epstein and Plaintiff were alone, were intended to frighten Plaintiff into submitting to Epstein's sexual demands and placed Plaintiff in apprehension of harm. + +72. This conduct caused Plaintiff serious and persistent harm and contributed to injuries that Plaintiff continues to suffer. + +73. This cause of action is timely under the Child Victims Act, N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214-g (McKinney 2019), because it arises out of conduct perpetrated against Plaintiff when she was under the age of 18 that constitutes a sexual offense as defined in Article One Hundred Thirty of the New York Penal Law ("Article 130"). See N.Y. P.L. § 130.52; N.Y. P.L. § 130.55. + +#### COUNT TWO Sexual Battery + +74. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs and re-alleges them as if set forth fully herein. + +75. On numerous occasions over three years, Epstein intentionally, violently, and invasively used his fingers, lips, tongue, mouth, and foreign objects to make unwanted, unlawful, hannful, and offensive physical contact with Plaintiff's body. + +76. This conduct caused Plaintiff serious and persistent harm and contributed to injuries that Plaintiff continues to suffer. + +77. This cause of action is timely under the Child Victims Act, N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214-g (McKinney 2019), because it arises out of conduct perpetrated against Plaintiff when she was under the age of 18 that constitutes a sexual offense as defined in Article One Hundred Thirty of the New York Penal Law ("Article 130"). See N.Y. P.L. § 130.52; N.Y. P.L. § 130.55. + +#### COUNT THREE Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress + +78. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs and re-alleges them as if set forth fully herein. + +79. Epstein's three-year campaign of sexual abuse against a teenaged Plaintiff was extreme and outrageous conduct that shocks the conscience. + +80. Epstein's serial sexual assaults, committed during the course of a methodical plan of recruitment, enticement, and attack, inflicted severe pain and anguish upon Plaintiff. + +81. Epstein directed this conduct at Plaintiff and knew that it would cause severe and lasting emotional distress. Indeed, the conduct caused Plaintiff severe and lasting emotional distress and serious injuries to her mental health. + +82. This cause of action is timely under the Child Victims Act, N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214-g (McKinney 2019), because it arises out of conduct perpetrated against Plaintiff when she was under the age of 18 that constitutes a sexual offense as defined in Article One Hundred Thirty of the New York Penal Law ("Article 130"). See N.Y. P.L. § 130.52; N.Y. P.L. § 130.55. + +#### COUNT FOUR Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress + +83. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs and re-alleges them as if set forth fully herein. + +84. Epstein invited Plaintiff, then a teenaged girl, into his home for a period of three years. Once under his supervision, Epstein proceeded methodically to sexually abuse Plaintiff. + +85. Epstein's conduct was extreme and outrageous, breached a duty owed directly to Plaintiff, endangered her physical safety, and caused severe and lasting emotional distress and serious injuries to Plaintiff's mental health. + +86. This cause of action is timely under the Child Victims Act, N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214-g (McKinney 2019), because it arises out of conduct perpetrated against Plaintiff when she was under the age of 18 that constitutes a sexual offense as defined in Article One Hundred Thirty of the New York Penal Law ("Article 130"). See N.Y. P.L. § 130.52; N.Y. P.L. § 130.55. + +### PRAYER FOR RELIEF + +WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe prays for this Court to: + +87. Issue a judgment declaring that Defendants, as legal representatives of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, are liable for the violations of law alleged in this case; + +88. Award actual, compensatory, statutory, consequential and punitive damages; + +89. Award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest rate allowed by law; and + +90. Grant such further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. + +Dated: September 18, 2019 + +Roberta A. Kaplan Julie E. Fink Jenna M. Dabbs Justin Horton Alexandra K. Conlon (admission pending) + +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, New York 10118 Telephone: (212) 763-0883 Facsimile: (212) 564-0883 rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com jfink@kaplanheckencom jdabbs@kaplanhecker.com jhorton@kaplanhecker.com aconlon@kaplanhecker.com + +Attorneys for Plaintiffs \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750825/EFTA02750825.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750825/EFTA02750825.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8ef86354ac303a605c8197d9aa4189b37869e2d2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750825/EFTA02750825.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1039 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750825.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 16, + "chars": 25783, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.02, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTRODUCTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 255.204, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 356.9616394042969, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 356.9616394042969, + 141.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 255.204, + 141.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "THE PARTIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 349.81378173828125, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 349.81378173828125, + 472.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 472.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "JURISDICTION AND VENUE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 221.54399999999998, + 648.8100000000001 + ], + [ + 389.5322570800781, + 648.8100000000001 + ], + [ + 389.5322570800781, + 664.1030120849609 + ], + [ + 221.54399999999998, + 664.1030120849609 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "JURY DEMAND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 258.876, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 353.7546081542969, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 353.7546081542969, + 306.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 258.876, + 306.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 228.88800000000003, + 345.06 + ], + [ + 383.8851318359375, + 345.06 + ], + [ + 383.8851318359375, + 360.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 228.88800000000003, + 360.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Defendant Epstein's Scheme of Exploitation and Abuse", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 370.98 + ], + [ + 358.2493591308594, + 370.98 + ], + [ + 358.2493591308594, + 386.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 386.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Plaintiff Jane Doe Becomes a Victim of Epstein's Scheme of Exploitation and kithse", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 503.541748046875, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 503.541748046875, + 638.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 638.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Epstein's Abuse of Doe Escalates", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 594.54 + ], + [ + 243.65695190429688, + 594.54 + ], + [ + 243.65695190429688, + 610.4830169677734 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 610.4830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Epstein's Abuse of Doe Was Directly and Indirectly Facilitated by His Co-Conspirators", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 522.0701904296875, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 522.0701904296875, + 555.3630218505859 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 555.3630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Doe's Life Is Materia I IN and Negatively Altered by Epstein's Abuse", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 125.55000000000001 + ], + [ + 418.9159851074219, + 125.55000000000001 + ], + [ + 418.9159851074219, + 141.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 141.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Epstein's Recent Criminal Case, Death, and Will", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 325.0965270996094, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 325.0965270996094, + 196.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 196.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CAUSES OF ACTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 244.188, + 484.37999999999994 + ], + [ + 367.8373718261719, + 484.37999999999994 + ], + [ + 367.8373718261719, + 500.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 244.188, + 500.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT ONE \nSexual Assault", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 265.608, + 510.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 346.6932067871094, + 510.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 346.6932067871094, + 539.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 265.608, + 539.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT TWO \nSexual Battery", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 264.996, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 347.2320861816406, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 347.2320861816406, + 348.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 264.996, + 348.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT THREE \nIntentional Infliction of Emotional Distress", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 419.193603515625, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 419.193603515625, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT FOUR \nNegligent Infliction of Emotional Distress", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 197.06400000000002, + 468.98999999999995 + ], + [ + 415.443603515625, + 468.98999999999995 + ], + [ + 415.443603515625, + 498.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 197.06400000000002, + 498.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRAYER FOR RELIEF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 240.516, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 372.47991943359375, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 372.47991943359375, + 196.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 240.516, + 196.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 29 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750825" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750841/EFTA02750841.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750841/EFTA02750841.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0b8c9be3511ca109cadb0396e38573aca1b8af9d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750841/EFTA02750841.md @@ -0,0 +1,140 @@ +The JS-44 Ova cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings ce other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules or court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is reputed for use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the cml docket sheet. + +#### PLAINTIFFS Jane Doe + +### ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME. ADDRESS. AND TELEPHONE NUMBER + +Roberta A. Kaplan + +Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP + +350 Fifth Avenue. Suite 7110, New York, NY 10118 + +DEFENDANTS + +Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, as executors for Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein + +### ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN) + +Erika A. Kellerhals and William Blum, Kellerhals + +Palms Professional Building. 9053 Estate KroNin PLLC. . Suite 101 + +St. U.S. Virgin Islands 00802 + +## CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE) + +(DO NOT CITE JURISDICTIONAL STATUTES UNLESS DIVERSITY) + +28 USC 1332; New York causes of action + +Has this action, case, or proceeding, or one essentially the same been previously filed in SONY at any time? No OYes0 Judge Previously Assigned + +If yes. was this case Vol. O Invol. O Dismissed. No O Yes O If yes. give date & Case No. + +Is THIS AN INTONATIONAL AISITIMTION CAW + +### (PLACE AN NW ONE BOX ONLY) + +| TORTS | | PERSONAL INJURY | | PERSONAL INJURY | | FORFEITURE/PENALTY | | BANKRUPTCY | | OTHER STATUTES | | +|----------|--|---------------------------------------|--|----------------------------|--|-------------------------------------------------|--|-----------------------------------|--|------------------------------|--| +| CONTRACT | | PERSONAL INJURY | | PERSONAL INJURY | | FORFEITURE/PENALTY | | BANKRUPTCY | | OTHER STATUTES | | +| [ ] 110 | | INSURANCE | | [ ] 367 HEALTHCARE/ | | [ ] 625 DRUG RELATED | | [ ] 422 APPEAL | | [ ] 375 FALSE CLAIMS | | +| [ ] 120 | | MARINE | | PHARMACEUTICAL PERSONAL | | SEIZURE OF PROPERTY | | 28 USC 158 | | [ ] 376 QUI TAM | | +| [ ] 130 | | ACT | | INJURY/PRODUCT LIABILITY | | 21 USC 881 | | [ ] 423 WITHDRAWAL | | [ ] 400 STATE | | +| [ ] 140 | | NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT | | [ ] 365 PERSONAL INJURY | | PRODUCT LIABILITY | | 28 USC 157 | | REAPPORTIONMENT | | +| [ ] 150 | | RECOVERY OF OVERPAYMENT & ENFORCEMENT | | [ ] 368 ASBESTOS PERSONAL | | INJURY PRODUCT | | [ ] 690 OTHER | | [ ] 410 ANTITRUST | | +| [ ] 151 | | OF JUDGMENT | | [ ] 340 MARINE | | PROPERTY RIGHTS | | [ ] 480 CONSUMER CREDIT | | [ ] 430 BANKS & BANKING | | +| [ ] 152 | | MEDICARE ACT | | [ ] 345 MARINE PRODUCT | | [ ] 830 PATENT | | [ ] 470 RACKETEER INFLU- | | ENCED & CORRUPT | | +| [ ] 152 | | RECOVERY OF DEFAULTED | | [ ] 370 OTHER FRAUD | | [ ] 835 PATENT-ABBREVIATED NEW DRUG APPLICATION | | ORGANIZATION ACT | | (RICO) | | +| [ ] 153 | | STUDENT LOANS (EXCL VETERANS) | | [ ] 355 MOTOR VEHICLE | | [ ] 840 TRADEMARK | | [ ] 480 CONSUMER CREDIT | | [ ] 490 CABLE/SATELLITE TV | | +| [ ] 153 | | RECOVERY OF OVERPAYMENT | | [ ] 360 OTHER PERSONAL | | LABOR | | [ ] 861 HIA (1395ff) | | [ ] 850 SECURITIES/ | | +| [ ] 153 | | OF VETERANS' | | [ ] 362 PERSONAL INJURY - | | PROPERTY DAMAGE | | [ ] 862 BLACK LUNG (923) | | BENEFITS | | +| [ ] 160 | | SUITS | | [ ] 385 PROPERTY DAMAGE | | [ ] 710 FAIR LABOR | | [ ] 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) | | COMMODITIES/ | | +| [ ] 160 | | STOCKHOLDERS | | [ ] 385 PROPERTY DAMAGE | | [ ] 720 LABOR/MGMT | | [ ] 864 SSID TITLE XVI | | EXCHANGE | | +| [ ] 190 | | SUITS | | [ ] 385 PROPERTY DAMAGE | | [ ] 720 LABOR/MGMT | | [ ] 865 RSI (405(g)) | | [ ] 890 OTHER STATUTORY | | +| [ ] 190 | | OTHER | | [ ] 463 ALIEN DETAINEE | | [ ] 740 RAILWAY LABOR ACT | | [ ] 865 RSI (405(g)) | | ACTIONS | | +| [ ] 195 | | CONTRACT | | [ ] 510 MOTIONS TO | | [ ] 751 FAMILY MEDICAL | | [ ] 870 TAXES (U.S. Plaintiff or | | [ ] 891 AGRICULTURAL ACTS | | +| [ ] 195 | | CONTRACT | | VACATE SENTENCE | | [ ] 751 FAMILY MEDICAL | | [ ] 870 TAXES (U.S. Plaintiff or | | [ ] 893 ENVIRONMENTAL | | +| [ ] 196 | | PRODUCT | | 28 USC 2255 | | LEAVE ACT (FMLA) | | [ ] 871 IRS-THIRD PARTY | | MATTERS | | +| [ ] 196 | | LIABILITY | | [ ] 530 HABEAS CORPUS | | [ ] 790 OTHER LABOR | | [ ] 871 IRS-THIRD PARTY | | INFORMATION ACT | | +| [ ] 196 | | FRANCHISE | | [ ] 535 DEATH PENALTY | | [ ] 791 EMPL RET INC | | [ ] 870 TAXES (U.S. Plaintiff or | | [ ] 895 FREEDOM OF | | +| [ ] 196 | | [ ] 440 OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS | | [ ] 540 MANDAMUS & OTHER | | [ ] 791 EMPL RET INC | | [ ] 870 TAXES (U.S. Plaintiff or | | [ ] 896 ARBITRATION | | +| [ ] 196 | | (Non-Prisoner) | | [ ] 440 OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS | | [ ] 791 EMPL RET INC | | [ ] 870 TAXES (U.S. Plaintiff or | | [ ] 899 ADMINISTRATIVE | | +| [ ] 210 | | LAND | | [ ] 442 EMPLOYMENT | | [ ] 462 NATURALIZATION | | [ ] 869 PROCEDURE ACT/REVIEW OR | | [ ] 950 CONSTITUTIONALITY OF | | +| [ ] 220 | | CONDEMNATION | | [ ] 443 HOUSING/ | | APPLICATION | | [ ] 850 CONSTITUTIONALITY OF | | [ ] 950 CONSTITUTIONALITY OF | | +| [ ] 230 | | FORECLOSURE | | [ ] 445 AMERICANS WITH | | [ ] 550 CIVIL RIGHTS | | [ ] 560 CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT | | [ ] 950 CONSTITUTIONALITY OF | | +| [ ] 230 | | RENT LEASE & | | [ ] 445 AMERICANS WITH | | [ ] 555 PRISON CONDITION | | [ ] 465 OTHER IMMIGRATION | | [ ] 950 CONSTITUTIONALITY OF | | +| [ ] 240 | | EJECTMENT | | [ ] 445 DISABILITIES - | | [ ] 560 CIVIL DETAINEE | | [ ] 465 OTHER IMMIGRATION | | [ ] 950 CONSTITUTIONALITY OF | | +| [ ] 240 | | TORTS TO LAND | | [ ] 446 AMERICANS WITH | | [ ] 550 CIVIL RIGHTS | | [ ] 465 OTHER IMMIGRATION | | [ ] 950 CONSTITUTIONALITY OF | | +| [ ] 245 | | TORT PRODUCT | | [ ] | | | | | | | | + +No E Yes ❑ + +# NATURE OF SUIT + +Check if demanded in complaint: + +CHECK IF THIS IS ACLASS ACTION UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 + +DEMAND \$ OTHER JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER + +DO YOU CLAIM THIS CASE IS RELATED TO A CIVIL CASE NOW PENDING IN S.D.N.Y. AS DEFINED BY LOCAL RULE FOR DIVISION OF BUSINESS 13? IF SO, STATE: + +| 1 Original Proceeding | 2 Removed from State Court | 3 Remanded from Appellate Court | 4 Reinstated or Reopened | 5 Transferred from (Specify District) | 6 Multidistrict Litigation (Transferred) | 7 Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judge | | +|-----------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|--| +| a. all parties represented | | | | 8 Multidistrict Litigation (Direct File) | | | | +| b. At least one party is pro se. | | | | | | | | + +(PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX ONLY) + +**BASIS OF JURISDICTION** + + 1 U.S. PLAINTIFF 2 U.S. DEFENDANT 3 FEDERAL QUESTION 4 DIVERSITY +(U.S. NOT A PARTY) + +**IF DIVERSITY, INDICATE CITIZENSHIP BELOW.** + +**CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY)** + +(Place an [X] in one box for Plaintiff and one box for Defendant) + +| CITIZEN OF THIS STATE | PTF [X] 1 | DEF [ ] 1 | CITIZEN OR SUBJECT OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY | PTF DEF [ ] 3 [ ] 3 | INCORPORATED and PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ANOTHER STATE | PTF [ ] 5 | DEF [ ] 5 | +|--------------------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|-----------|-----------| +| CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE [ ] 2 | [X] 2 | | INCORPORATED or PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THIS STATE | [ ] 4 [ ] 4 | FOREIGN NATION | [ ] 6 | [ ] 6 | + +PLAINTIFF(S) ADDRESS(ES) AND COUNTY(IES) + +Jane Doe +Nassau County, New York +c/o Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP +350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110, New York, NY 10118 + +DEFENDANT(S) ADDRESS(ES) AND COUNTY(IES) + +DEFENDANT(S) ADDRESS UNKNOWN + +REPRESENTATION IS HEREBY MADE THAT, AT THIS TIME, I HAVE BEEN UNABLE, WITH REASONABLE DILIGENCE, TO ASCERTAIN THE RESIDENCE ADDRESSES OF THE FOLLOWING DEFENDANTS: + +Defendants are sued as executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. Per 28 USC 1332, Defendants are deemed citizens of the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), decedent Epstein's domicile. Defendants' residential addresses are unknown to Plaintiff. Defendants' counsel listed above. + +**COURTHOUSE ASSIGNMENT** + +I hereby certify that this case should be assigned to the courthouse indicated below pursuant to Local Rule for Division of Business 18, 20 or 21. + +Check one: THIS ACTION SHOULD BE ASSIGNED TO: [ ] PLAINS MANHATTAN + +DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD + +RECEIPT # + +ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN THIS DISTRICT + +[ ] NO + +[X] YES (DATE ADMITTED Mo.05 Yr. 1993 ) +Attorney Bar Code # + +Magistrate Judge is to be designated by the Clerk of the Court. + +Magistrate Judge \_\_\_\_\_ is so Designated. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750841/EFTA02750841.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750841/EFTA02750841.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d8d84e03fbb2a71162e2334b1c9864890018b336 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750841/EFTA02750841.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,335 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750841.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 12564, + "elapsed_seconds": 22.49, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "PLAINTIFFS \nJane Doe", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 35.4900016784668, + 82.128173828125 + ], + [ + 85.17119598388672, + 82.128173828125 + ], + [ + 85.17119598388672, + 100.11590576171875 + ], + [ + 35.4900016784668, + 100.11590576171875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME. ADDRESS. AND TELEPHONE NUMBER", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 35.496, + 121.5 + ], + [ + 290.6543884277344, + 121.5 + ], + [ + 290.6543884277344, + 131.615966796875 + ], + [ + 35.496, + 131.615966796875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 310.896, + 121.5 + ], + [ + 413.1933898925781, + 121.5 + ], + [ + 413.1933898925781, + 131.61590576171875 + ], + [ + 310.896, + 131.61590576171875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 35.496, + 164.628173828125 + ], + [ + 480.8994445800781, + 164.628173828125 + ], + [ + 480.8994445800781, + 175.76999999999998 + ], + [ + 35.496, + 175.76999999999998 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(PLACE AN NW ONE BOX ONLY)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 35.496, + 276.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 168.68272399902344, + 276.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 168.68272399902344, + 286.8659362792969 + ], + [ + 35.496, + 286.8659362792969 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NATURE OF SUIT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 245.61000061035156, + 274.1702880859375 + ], + [ + 332.2436828613281, + 274.1702880859375 + ], + [ + 332.2436828613281, + 287.5670471191406 + ], + [ + 245.61000061035156, + 287.5670471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ORIGIN", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 299.88, + 33.21 + ], + [ + 338.43600000000004, + 33.21 + ], + [ + 338.43600000000004, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 299.88, + 43.74 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BASIS OF JURISDICTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 257.03999999999996, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 381.276, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 381.276, + 121.5 + ], + [ + 257.03999999999996, + 121.5 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 145.656, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 482.86800000000005, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 482.86800000000005, + 166.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 145.656, + 166.85999999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COURTHOUSE ASSIGNMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 253.36799999999997, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 381.276, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 381.276, + 549.99 + ], + [ + 253.36799999999997, + 549.99 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 483 + ], + [ + "Line", + 218 + ], + [ + "Text", + 22 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 46 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "Form", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Table", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750841" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750843/EFTA02750843.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750843/EFTA02750843.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b092ec0bef8ddcb8df437d30ed62b23a54f69d75 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750843/EFTA02750843.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaintiff + +v. + +DARREN .. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, + +Defendants. + +Case No. 19 Civ. 8673 + +## [PROPOSED' ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYM + +WHEREAS Plaintiff Jane Doe ("Plaintiff') filed a Complaint in this action on September 18, 2019; + +WHEREAS by Notice of Motion dated September 18, 2019, and Memorandum of Law dated September 18, 2019, Plaintiff requested that the Court permit her to proceed under a pseudonym in this action until such time as the Court may order their names disclosed; + +IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff may proceed under a pseudonym in this action until such time as the Court may order her name disclosed. + +Dated: September 18, 2019 + +U.S.D.J. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750843/EFTA02750843.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750843/EFTA02750843.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..06b8ade83db6714d39f54b44c2fc3a367de334a3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750843/EFTA02750843.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750843.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 831, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.67, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 193.392, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 193.392, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "[PROPOSED' ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO \nPROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 159.732, + 328.86 + ], + [ + 453.4478454589844, + 328.86 + ], + [ + 453.4478454589844, + 358.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 159.732, + 358.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750843" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750844/EFTA02750844.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750844/EFTA02750844.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..31746d530b4aecd44d2471ff306bb2d67bd33aaf --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750844/EFTA02750844.md @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaint + +v. + +Case No. 19 Civ. 8673 + +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, + +Defendants. + +## NOTICE OF MOTION + +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the accompanying Memorandum of Law, dated September 18, 2019, Plaintiff Jane Doe will move this Court in a courtroom to be designated at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, at such convenient time as counsel may be heard, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 10(a), for an Order permitting Plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym in this action until such time as the Court may order her name disclosed, and for such other relief as the Court deems appropriate and just. + +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.1(b), any answering papers shall be served within fourteen days after service of the moving papers, and any reply papers shall be served within seven days after service of the answering papers. + +Dated: September 18, 2019 Respectfully submitted, + +AlidA\_ + +Roberta A. Kaplan + +Julie E. Fink + +Jenna M. Dabbs + +Justin Horton + +Alexandra K. Conlon (admission pending) + +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 + +New York, New York 10118 + +Telephone: (212) 763-0883 + +Facsimile: (212) 564-0883 + +rkaplan®kaplanhecker.com + +jfinIc®kaplanhecker.com + +jdabbs®kaplanhecker.com + +jhorton®kaplanhecker.com + +aconlon@kaplanhecker.com + +Attorneys for Plaintiff Jane Doe \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750844/EFTA02750844.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750844/EFTA02750844.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0a9279f00244520987da9bed922f7a4966206387 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750844/EFTA02750844.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,143 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750844.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1474, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.91, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NOTICE OF MOTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 242.35200000000003, + 316.71000000000004 + ], + [ + 369.35699462890625, + 316.71000000000004 + ], + [ + 369.35699462890625, + 331.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 242.35200000000003, + 331.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750844" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750846/EFTA02750846.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750846/EFTA02750846.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ef8980df0b6c636ac87cbd110cededadc773e118 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750846/EFTA02750846.md @@ -0,0 +1,215 @@ +### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaintiff + +v. + +Case No. 19 Civ. 8673 + +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, + +Defendants. + +## MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYM + +Roberta A. Kaplan + +Julie E. Fink + +Jenna M. Dabbs + +Justin Horton + +Alexandra K. Conlon (admission pending) + +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 + +New York, New York 10118 + +Telephone: (212) 763-0883 + +Facsimile: (212) 564-0883 + +Attorneys for Plaintiff Jane Doe + +## TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| PRELIMINARY STATEMENT | | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----| +| STATEMENT OF FACTS | 3 | +| ARGUMENT | 6 | +| A. The Risks to Plaintiff Favor Allowing Her to Proceed Under A Pseudonym | 8 | +| B. Public Policy and the Public Interest Favor Protecting Plaintiff's Privacy | 10 | +| C. Allowing Plaintiff to Proceed Pseudonymously Will Not Prejudice Defendant | 11 | +| D. PlaintiffJane Doe Has Diligently Worked to Keep Her Identity Confidential And | | +| There is No Alternative Mechanism For Protecting Her Confidentiality | 12 | +| CONCLUSION | 13 | + +### TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +| Doe 1 v. United States, | PAGE(S) CASES | +|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------| +| 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201 (S.D. Fla. 2019) Doe #1 v. Syracuse Univ., | 4, 5 | +| No. 18-cv-496, 2018 WL 7079489 (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 10, 2018) Doe No. 2 v. Kolko, | 11 | +| 242 F.R.D. 193 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) Doe v. Colgate Univ., | 8, 10, 12 | +| No. 15-cv-1069, 2016 WL 1448829 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2016) Doe v. Epstein, | 8, 9 | +| No. 08-cv-80119 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 7, 2009), ECF No. 253 Doe v. Epstein, | 1, 7 | +| No. 08-cv-80893 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 6, 2008), ECF No. 15 Doe v. Fedcap. Rehab. Services, Inc., | 1, 8 | +| No. 17-cv-8220, 2018 WL 2021588 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2018) Doe v. Greiner, | 13 | +| 662 F. Supp. 2d 355 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) Doe v. Indyke, | 8 | +| No. 19-cv-7772 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2019), ECF No.1 Doe v. Skyline Automobiles Inc., | 4 | +| 375 F. Supp. 3d 401 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) Doe v.M, | 8 | +| 105 F. Supp. 2d 40 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) Doe v. Solera Capital LLC, | 12 | +| No. 18-cv-1769, 2019 WL 1437520 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2019) Doe v. Szul Jewelry, Inc., | 9, 12 | +| No. 0604277/2007, 2008 WL 2157893 (N.Y. Cty. Sup. Ct. May 8, 2008) Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., | 7 | +| 214 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2000) | 9-10 | + +| E.W. v. N.Y. Blood Ctr., | | +|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------| +| 213 F.R.D. 108 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) Jane Doe I et at v. Epstein et at, | I 1, 12 | +| No. 19-cv-7675 (S.D.N.Y) Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein et at, | 5 | +| No. 17-cv-616 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2017), ECF No. 28 Jane Doe No. 103 v. Epstein, | I, 7 | +| No. 10-cv-80309 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 9, 2010), ECF No. 5 | 1, 8 | +| Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein, | and L.M., | +| No. 50-2009-CA-040800 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Palm Beach Cty. Dec. 7, 2009), ECF No. 5 | 4 | +| No. 19-cv-07772 (S.D.N.Y.) L.H. v. Schwanenegger, | 5 | +| No. 06-cv-2042, 2007 WL 662463 (ED. Cal. Feb. 8, 2007) | 9 | +| No. 19-cv-07773 (S.D.N.Y.) | 5 | +| No. 19-cv-07772 (S.D.N.Y.) Roe v. Wade, | 5 | +| 410 U.S. 113 (1973) Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, | 6 | +| 537 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2008) United States v. Epstein, | passim | +| No. 19-cr-490 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2019), ECF No. 2 United States v. Epstein, | 2 | +| No. 19-cr-490 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 12, 2019), ECF No. 11 United States v. Epstein, | 5 | +| No. 19-cr-490 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 12, 2019), ECF No. 53 United States v. Epstein, | 7 | +| No. 19-cr-490 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2019), ECF No. 32 VE v. Nine East 71st Street et at, | 5, 9 | +| No. 19-cv-7625 (S.D.N.Y.) | 5 | + +# STATUTES + +# RULES + +Plaintiff Jane Doe ("Plaintiff'), by her undersigned attorneys, respectfully submits this memorandum of law in support of her motion for leave to proceed under a pseudonym, until such time as the Court may order her name to be disclosed.' + +# PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +It can be unimaginably difficult for any person to publicly allege that they were sexually abused as a child. For Jeffrey Epstein's victims, the burden is extraordinary. Epstein's criminal sexual assault of young girls has become a public spectacle—garnering an extraordinary amount of public attention since Epstein's arrest on July 6, 2019, and his untimely death on August 10, 2019. And even before his most recent arrest, Epstein and his associates—many of whom are named in various civil complaints-used their vast resources and connections to harass and retaliate against any women who came forward to share their stories or seek help through courts. + +It is therefore not surprising that countless Epstein victims kept silent for decades. For those brave women who did come forward, courts have routinely allowed them to do so pseudonymously, ensuring that they could vindicate their rights without public prying or fear of retaliation. See, e.g., Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein et al., No. 17-cv-616 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2017), ECF No. 28; Jane Doe No. 103 v. Epstein,10-cv-80309 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 9, 2010), ECF No. 5; Doe v. Epstein, No. 08-cv-80119-1CAM (S.D. Fla. Aug. 7, 2009), ECF No. 253; Doe v. Epstein, No. 08 cv-80893 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 6, 2008), ECF No. 15 at 2-3. + +Plaintiff Jane Doe is one of Epstein's many victims. She kept Epstein's abuse a secret for most of her life until she recently agreed to confidentially assist the United States Attorney's + +I Plaintiff understands that at some point issues may arise regarding how to proceed with discovery of her claim. At that time, counsel for Plaintiff intend to meet and confer about these issues with counsel for Defendants and will bring disputes (if any) to the Court for resolution as appropriate. + +Office for the Southern District of New York in its investigation of Epstein's crimes. Plaintiff was identified as "Minor Victim-1" in the indictment in United States v. Epstein, No. 19-cr-490 (S.D.N.Y) (the "Indictment"), which details Epstein's assault of her and others beginning when she was only fourteen years old. See Indictment, United States v. Epstein, No. 19-cr-490 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2019), ECF No. 2. Plaintiff expects to continue to cooperate in the Government's stated ongoing investigation of Epstein's co-conspirators, see Statement of Manhattan U.S. Attorney on the Death of Defendant Jeffrey Epstein (Aug. 10, 2019), https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/statement-manhattan-us-attorney-death-defendant-jeffreyepstein (1OJur investigation of the conduct charged in the Indictment—which included a conspiracy count — remains ongoing."), and through this action seeks damages for the immense injuries she has and continues to suffer. + +The potential harm to Plaintiff if her identity were made public is manifest. Litigation will expose some of the most intimate and humiliating moments of Plaintiff's life, furthering her ongoing psychological harm and injuring her family and her young child, who is unaware of the abuse Plaintiff suffered. The public scrutiny and attention paid to her would be profound and exacerbate the harm. And the risk to her of retaliation—not to mention the risk of potential interference with the Government's investigation—remains notwithstanding Epstein's death. + +While in some cases the public interest or matters of fairness counsel against permitting anonymity, none of those concerns are present here. There is no public interest in revealing the identity of one of Epstein's many victims; to the contrary, allowing Plaintiff to proceed pseudonymously fosters the public interest in having victims come forward. Further, revealing Plaintiff's identity could interfere with the Government's ongoing investigation of Epstein's associates. Likewise, there is no harm to Epstein's estate in allowing her to proceed + +anonymously. The Court can establish procedures by which the estate will have the information necessary to defend the case, while avoiding public harassment of Plaintiff. + +Accordingly, and for all the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff Jane Doe respectfully requests that this Court permit her to proceed in this case under a pseudonym. + +## STATEMENT OF FACTS + +Jeffrey Epstein was a wealthy pedophile who, with the assistance of others, committed sexual assaults on countless young girls for decades. Plaintiff Jane Doe is one of Epstein's victims. As set out in detail in her Complaint, Plaintiff met Epstein when she was only fourteen years old, and Epstein sexually assaulted and abused her for the next three years. His conduct caused her severe emotional and economic injuries, including post-traumatic stress disorder, which she still suffers today. + +Epstein, by contrast, spent most of his life engaging in criminal sexual assault of minors like Plaintiff, with near-total impunity. Using his wealth and connections, and with the assistance of his co-conspirators and associates, Epstein avoided meaningful prosecution for his crimes until July 2019. He largely did so by harassing his victims and the lawyers who attempted to hold him accountable. According to Alexander Acosta, the former United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, after the FBI opened its first investigation into Epstein in 2006, Epstein's associates, whom Acosta described as "an army," ran "a year-long assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors" that included "investigat[ing] individual prosecutors and their families." See & Lee Aitken, Jeffrey Epstein: How the Hedge Fund Mogul Pedophile Got Off Easy, DAILY BEAST (Mar. 25, 2011), https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epstein-how-the-hedge-fund-mogul-pedophile-got-off- + +easy (reprinting letter Acosta "released exclusively to The Daily Beast").2 Epstein likewise attacked his victims' lawyers. In 2009, he brought a frivolous lawsuit against a lawyer for several victims. See Complaint, Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein, and L.M., No. 50-2009-CA-040800 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Palm Beach Cty. Dec. 7, 2009), ECF No. 5. Epstein later "admitted to wrongfully suing" and stated through counsel that "[t]he lawsuit that I filed was my unreasonable attempt to damage [Mr. I business reputation and stop M from pursuing cases against me." Patricia Mazzei, Jeffrey Epstein Settles Lawsuit, Avoiding Testimony From Accusers in Sex Case, NY TIMES (Dec. 4, 2018), https://nyti.ms/2zKIGro. + +On July 6, 2019, Epstein was arrested after landing in his private jet at Teterboro Airport in New Jersey. On July 8, 2019, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York unsealed an indictment charging Epstein with federal sex-trafficking crimes. Plaintiff features prominently in the Indictment, identified as "Minor Victim-1." See Indictment at 9. Plaintiff steadfastly maintained the confidentiality of her participation in the criminal investigation because of her very reasonable fear of the harms that would result if her identity were made public. + +Before Epstein's untimely death, Judge Richard Berman, hearing the criminal case, recognized the risks to victims posed by Epstein and his associates. In support of Epstein's pre- + +2 The result, as we now know, was that despite the fact that federal prosecutors had already "drafted an 82-page prosecution memorandum and a 53-page indictment outlining numerous federal sexual offenses committed by Epstein,"Doe I v. United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201, 1205 (S.D. Ha. 2019), the United States Attorney offered Epstein "a remarkable deal," that allowed him to sign a non-prosecution agreement that was unlawfully hidden from Epstein's victims, see Julie K. Perversion ofJustice: Undermining the Case, MIAMI HERALD (Nov. 28, 2018), https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article214210674.html (describing how "despite ample physical evidence and multiple witnesses corroborating the girls' stories, federal prosecutors and Epstein's lawyers quietly put together a remarkable deal for Epstein"); see also Doe I, 359 F. Supp. 3d at 1221 (finding violation of the Crime Victim Rights Act). Epstein was able to plead to lesser offenses and serve a lenient sentence that allowed him to spend most of his waking hours outside of jail, where he allegedly continued to sexually assault young girls. See, e.g., Complaint, Doe v. lndyke, No. 19-cv-7772 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2019), ECF No. 1 at 19-20. + +trial detention, the Government had cited "extensive allegations of obstruction and tampering in connection with civil lawsuits brought against [Epstein]," and a 2006 Palm Beach police report describing how "the parent of one of [Epstein's] victims was driven off the road by a private investigator." Gov't Letter in Further Supp. of Detention Mem., United States v. Epstein, No. 19-cr-490 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 12, 2019), ECF No. II at 11; see also id., ECF No. 11-2 (redacted copy of 2006 Palm Beach police report)? In his decision remanding Epstein to pre-trial detention, Judge Berman relied on this evidence and discussed at length how "Mr. Epstein or his representatives have intimidated, threatened, and/or made payments to potential witnesses." Decision and Order Remanding Def., id., (July 18, 2019), ECF No. 32 at 15, 15-18. + +On August 11, 2019, Epstein died by suicide at the Metropolitan Correctional Facility. See Statement of Manhattan U.S. Attorney on the Death of Defendant Jeffrey Epstein (Aug. 10, 2019), https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pestatement-manhattan-us-attorney-death-defendantjeffrey-epstein. Following his death, media attention to Epstein and his associates went into overdrive. Numerous other victims have now filed suit—many using a pseudonym to protect their identity. See Lisa Doe v. Darren K Indyke and Richard D. Kahn et at, No. 19-cv-07773 (S.D.N.Y.); Priscilla Doe v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn et at, No. 19-cv-07772 (S.D.N.Y.); Katlyn Doe v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn et at, No. I9-cv-07771 (S.D.N.Y.); VE v. Nine East 71' Street et at, No. 19-cv-7625 (S.D.N.Y.); Jane Doe I et at v. Epstein et at, No. 19-cv-07675 (S.D.N.Y). And the Government has publicly stated its intention + +I The same police report documented "further information regarding victim and witness threats and intimidation reported against an individual who was directly in contact with an assistant of [Epstein], followed `immediately' by a call to that same individual from a phone number associated with [Epstein's] businesses and acsfulates." Id. ECF No. II at II. A second Palm Beach police report, also attached in Ml to the Government's pretrial detention memorandum, stated that "one victim reported that 'she was personally contacted through a source that has maintained contact with Epstein,' who 'assured [the victim] that she would receive monetary compensation for her assistance in not cooperating with law enforcement.' Indeed, the victim reported having been told: 'Those who help him will be compensated and those who hurt him will be dealt with.— Id.; see also id., ECF No. 11-3 (second Palm Beach police report). + +to continue investigating Epstein's associates, many of whom have reportedly retained criminal defense lawyers and/or have been named as co-defendants in separate lawsuits. + +## ARGUMENT + +While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) provides that the "title of the complaint must name all the parties," courts have long understood this instruction as compatible with their discretion to permit a party with special privacy concerns to proceed under a pseudonym. See generally, e.g., Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). In deciding whether a plaintiff may be allowed to maintain an action under a pseudonym, courts balance the plaintiff's interest in anonymity against the public interest in disclosure and any prejudice to the defendant. Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 189 (2d Cir. 2008). This is a "factor-driven balancing inquiry [that] requires a district court to exercise its discretion in the course of weighing competing interests." Id. at 190. + +The Second Circuit has set forth a list of ten non-exhaustive factors that courts may consider in determining whether to permit a plaintiff to proceed pseudonymously: + +- (1) whether the litigation involves matters that are highly sensitive and of a personal nature; +- (2) whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm to the party seeking to proceed anonymously or even more critically, to innocent non-parties; +- (3) whether identification presents other harms and the likely severity of those harms, including whether the injury litigated against would be incurred as a result of the disclosure of the plaintiff's identity; +- (4) whether the plaintiff is particularly vulnerable to the possible harms of disclosure, particularly in light of the plaintiff's age; +- (5) whether the suit is challenging the actions of the government or that of private parties; + +(6) whether the defendant is prejudiced by allowing the plaintiff to press his claims anonymously, whether the nature of that prejudice (if any) differs at any particular stage of the litigation, and whether any prejudice can be mitigated by the district court; + +(7) whether the plaintiff's identity has thus far been kept confidential; + +(8) whether the public's interest in the litigation is furthered by requiring the plaintiff to disclose his identity; + +(9) whether, because of the purely legal nature of the issues presented or otherwise, there is an atypically weak public interest in knowing the litigants' identities; and + +(10) whether there are any alternative mechanisms for protecting the confidentiality of the plaintiff. + +Id. (internal quotation marks, citations, brackets, and ellipses omitted); see also Doe v. Szul Jewelry, Inc., No. 0604277/2007, 2008 WL 2157893, at \*5-6 (N.Y. Cty. Sup. Ct. May 8, 2008) (applying substantially identical test under New York state law). Courts are "not required to list each of the factors or use any particular formulation as long as it is clear that the court balanced the interests at stake in reaching its conclusion." Sealed Plaint(lf, 537 F.3d at 191 n.4. + +Here, all of the relevant factors strongly weigh in favor of granting Plaintiff's motion to file this case using a pseudonym. Indeed, for similar reasons to those discussed below, numerous courts have permitted Epstein's victims to proceed under pseudonyms in prior cases. See Order, Doe v. Epstein, No. 08-cv-80119 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 7, 2009), ECF No. 253 (consolidating 11 Doe cases against Epstein and every plaintiff to proceed anonymously in the style of the case); see also Hr'g Tr., United States v. Epstein, No. 19-cr-490 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2019), ECF No. 53 (allowing eight of Epstein's victims to present testimony under protective pseudonyms after Epstein's death in connection with criminal case); Joint Rule 26(0 Report, Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein et aL, No. 17-cv-616 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2017), ECF No. 28 at 4 (Rule 26 Report noting + +that "[d]ue to the nature of the claim, the Plaintiff has proceeded anonymously through a pseudonym"); Order, Jane Doe No. 103 v. Epstein, No. 10-cv-80309 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 9, 2010), ECF No. 5 (granting motion to proceed anonymously). These courts have recognized that, throughout their litigation again Epstein, these women "will be required to disclose highly sensitive and intimate information," and disclosure of their real names "will cause ... much additional embarrassment, humiliation, and psychological trauma," as well as "adverse professional and economic consequences." See Order, Doe v. Epstein, No. 08-cv-80893 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 6, 2008), ECF No. 15 at 2-3. + +Like her fellow victims, Plaintiff Jane Doe should be permitted to proceed pseudonymously here. + +# A. The Risks to Plaintiff Favor Allowing Her to Proceed Under A Pseudonym + +The first four factors set out by the Second Circuit in Sealed Plaintiff concern the plaintiff's privacy and the potential harm to the plaintiff if her identity is disclosed. See 537 F.3d at 190. Each of these factors counsels strongly in favor of allowing Plaintiff to proceed pseudonymously. + +Sexual assault claims are inherently "highly sensitive and of a personal nature." See id. Accordingly, courts have recognized that "sexual assault victims are a paradigmatic example of those entitled to a grant of anonymity." Doe No. 2 v. Kolko, 242 F.R.D. 193, 195 (E.D.N.Y. 2006); see also Doe v. Skyline Automobiles Inc., 375 F. Supp. 3d 401, 405 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (finding allegations of sexual assault and ongoing sexual harassment were "highly sensitive and of an extremely personal nature"); Doe v. Colgate Univ., No. 15-cv-1069, 2016 WL 1448829, at \*3 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2016); Doe v. Greiner, 662 F. Supp. 2d 355, 363 n.8 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (noting that "the identity of a minor who was the victim of a sex assault" is among the + +"exceptional circumstances" justifying anonymity in court materials). For that reason alone, permitting Plaintiff to proceed pseudonymously is warranted. + +All of these potential harms are compounded in this case due to the great deal of public attention surrounding Epstein's arrest and untimely death. See John Allsop, After Jeffrey Epstein's Death, Conspiracies—and Journalism—Flourish, COLUM. JOURNALISM REV.: THE MEDIA TODAY (Aug. 12, 2019), https://www.cjr.org/the\_media\_today/jeffrey\_epstein\_suicide\_ conspiracies.php; see also Doe v. Colgate Univ., 2016 WL 1448829, at •2 (recognizing that "significant media attention" poses "the risk of further reputational harm" to plaintiffs). The public identification of Jane Doe would undoubtedly lead to media scrutiny. That attention would not only exacerbate Plaintiff's psychological injury but also is likely to lead to harassment and cause further harm to her family and friends. Plaintiff has a legitimate fear that her public identification could put her job, relationships, and well-being at risk. + +In this case, identifying Plaintiff also "poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm." Sealed Plaintiff, 537 F.3d at 190. Although Epstein is deceased, a number of his associates are the subjects of potential criminal investigation and civil lawsuits. Many of these same individuals have already proven that they will intimidate and attempt to silence any of his identifiable victims. See Decision and Order Remanding Def., United States v. Epstein, No. 19 cr490 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2019), ECF No. 32 at 15, 15-18. This well-established history of retaliation justifies permitting Plaintiff to proceed pseudonymously. See, e.g., Doe v. Sclera Capital LLC, No. 18-cv-1769, 2019 WL 1437520, at \*5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2019) ("[C]ourts have allowed plaintiffs to proceed anonymously where disclosure of their identities created a risk of harm from third parties unaffiliated with the case."); L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, No. 06-cv-2042, 2007 WL 662463, at \*16 (ED. Cal. Feb. 8, 2007); see also Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced + +Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1070 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that plaintiffs may proceed anonymously "to protect themselves from retaliation by third parties"). + +## B. Public Policy and the Public Interest Favor Protecting Plaintiff's Privacy + +Under Sealed Plaintiff, courts balance the plaintiff's interest in privacy with the public's countervailing interest in the litigation. 537 F.3d at 190. + +Here, there simply is no public interest served by revealing the identity of one of Epstein's many victims. To the contrary, the public interest would be best served by permitting Plaintiff to seek justice under a protective pseudonym. New York State has a strong public policy interest in protecting the privacy interests of victims of sexual abuse, as demonstrated by Section 50-b of the Civil Rights Law, which protects sex-abuse survivors from undesired identification in a range of public administrative contexts, including certain court proceedings. See N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 50-b (McKinney 2019) (shielding sex-abuse victims from identification in, among other things, any "police report, court file, or other document"). Moreover, in addition to the public's general interest in protecting the well-being of victims, "the public generally has a strong interest in protecting the identities of sexual assault victims so that other victims will not be deterred from reporting such crimes." See Kolko, 242 F.R.D. at 195-96. In consideration of that strong public policy, federal courts have permitted victims of sexual assault to proceed anonymously in similar cases. + +Allowing Plaintiff to proceed pseudonymously would also avoid unnecessary interference with the federal government's ongoing criminal investigation into Epstein's network. This Court's decision to permit Plaintiff to proceed under a protective pseudonym would thus not only protect her privacy and security but advance an important public interest in facilitating the orderly administration of criminal justice. + +### C. Allowing Plaintiff to Proceed Pseudonymously Will Not Prejudice Defendant + +In considering whether to permit a plaintiff to proceed anonymously, courts also balance the harm to the plaintiff with the potential prejudice to the defendant. See Sealed Plaintiff; 537 F.3d at 189. The relevant considerations are the damage to the defendant's reputation caused by responding to anonymous allegations, difficulties in conducting discovery, and the fundamental fairness of proceeding in such a manner. E.W. v. N.Y. Blood Ctr., 213 F.R.D. 108, 112 (E.D.N.Y. 2009). None of these factors counsels against allowing Plaintiff to proceed pseudonymously here. + +As an initial matter, Epstein's reputation as a perpetrator of child sexual abuse is well established. He was a registered sex offender in New York as of 2010, see Romero and Nicholas Kulish, Jeffrey Epstein Registered as a Sex Offender in 1 States. In New Mexico, He Didn't Have To., N.Y. TIMES (July II, 2019), https://nyti.ms/2NS8D1Q, and the details of his crimes have been widely publicized. Indeed, rather than avoid this publicity during his lifetime, Epstein essentially admitted that he had committed the same type of conduct underlying Plaintiff's complaint. See James Stewart, The Day Jeffrey Epstein Told Me He Had Din on Powerful People, N.Y. TIMES (Aug. 12, 2019), https://nyti.ms/2OSpIcF (describing how Epstein told reporter that "criminalizing sex with teenage girls was a cultural aberration and that at times in history it was perfectly acceptable"). This case, more than any, is one in which "any reputational harm to defendants has already been inflicted." Doe #1 v. Syracuse Univ., No. 18 cv-496, 2018 WL 7079489, att8 (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 10, 2018). + +Permitting Plaintiff to proceed under a protective pseudonym also will not inhibit Epstein's estate from conducting discovery and reasonably defending this case. Plaintiff's counsel expects to make reasonable accommodations to facilitate the fair and orderly resolution of this case, including providing Plaintiff's name to Defendant's counsel under conditions that will reasonably protect the safety of Plaintiff, her family, and potential witnesses. Where a defendant's counsel is made aware of plaintiff's identity, there is no "prejudice to [defendant's] ability to conduct discovery or try the matter if plaintiff were to proceed under a pseudonym." See E. W, 213 F.R.D. at 112; see also Kolko, 242 F.R.D. at 198 (finding that where defendants know plaintiff's identity, "defendants will not be hampered or inconvenienced merely by plaintiff's anonymity in court papers"). As in other cases in which courts have permitted plaintiffs to proceed under a protective pseudonym, the requested order "may not and will not hinder defendant's ability to pursue his legal defense in any way." Doe v.M, 105 F. Supp. 2d 40, 45 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) (no prejudice to defendant where plaintiff's anonymity did not interfere with ability to take depositions, obtain documents, or limit defendant's trial rights or public's access rights). + +## D. Plaintiff Jane Doe Has Diligently Worked to Keep Her Identity Confidential And There is No Alternative Mechanism For Protecting Her Confidentiality + +Importantly, Plaintiff has worked diligently to safeguard her identity. She has never spoken to the press or publicly identified herself in any way associated with her allegations. In the related criminal case, federal prosecutors have carefully protected her identity. These efforts underscore the strength of her petition to proceed pseudonymously in her civil action. See, e.g., Solera Capital, 2019 WL 1437520, at •7 (finding that "the fact that Doe's anonymity to the public has been preserved to date counsels in favor of proceeding pseudonymously). This is not a case where Plaintiff has sought some perceived advantage by broadcasting her identity in public while attempting to shield it in court. Cf. Doe v. Fedcap. Rehab. Services, Inc., No. 17 cv-8220, 2018 WL 2021588, at •2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2018) (vacating grant of pseudonymity after plaintiff voluntarily participated in major news story using their real name). + +Moreover, allowing Plaintiff to proceed pseudonymously here is the only mechanism available to continue to protect her identity. See Sealed Plaintiff 537 F.3d at 190. Given the certain prospect of intensive media scrutiny of this case, anything less than full protection of Plaintiff's name will subject her to immediate and irreversible identification and all of its negative consequences described above. + +#### CONCLUSION + +For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant Plaintiff's motion and allow her to file her complaint using a pseudonym. + +Dated: September 18, 2019 Respectfully submitted, + +Roberta A. Kaplan Julie E. Fink Jenna M. Dabbs Justin Horton Alexandra K. Conlon (admission pending) + +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, New York 10118 Telephone: (212) 763-0883 Facsimile: (212) 564-0883 rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com jfmk@kaplanhecker.com jdabbs@kaplanhecker.com jhorton@kaplanhecker.com aconlon@kaplanhecker.com + +Attorneys for Plaintf f f Jane Doe \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750846/EFTA02750846.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750846/EFTA02750846.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..764b671e5fe020cefb4fa9d26af44e6330c1adc9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750846/EFTA02750846.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1027 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750846.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 18, + "chars": 31886, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.55, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION \nFOR LEAVE TO PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 116.28, + 320.76 + ], + [ + 495.73699951171875, + 320.76 + ], + [ + 495.73699951171875, + 350.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 116.28, + 350.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 238.68, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 374.138671875, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 374.138671875, + 86.103515625 + ], + [ + 238.68, + 86.103515625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 383.5578918457031, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 383.5578918457031, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "STATUTES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 270.504, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 341.156982421875, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 341.156982421875, + 86.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 270.504, + 86.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RULES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 282.13200000000006, + 122.30999999999999 + ], + [ + 329.9642639160156, + 122.30999999999999 + ], + [ + 329.9642639160156, + 137.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 282.13200000000006, + 137.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 219.70799999999997, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 391.8983154296875, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 391.8983154296875, + 169.10302734375 + ], + [ + 219.70799999999997, + 169.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "STATEMENT OF FACTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 234.39600000000002, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 378.304931640625, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 378.304931640625, + 196.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 234.39600000000002, + 196.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 344.936767578125, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 344.936767578125, + 141.06353759765625 + ], + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 141.06353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Risks to Plaintiff Favor Allowing Her to Proceed Under A Pseudonym", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 528.7234497070312, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 528.7234497070312, + 362.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 362.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Public Policy and the Public Interest Favor Protecting Plaintiff's Privacy", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 519.8804321289062, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 519.8804321289062, + 141.363037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 141.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Allowing Plaintiff to Proceed Pseudonymously Will Not Prejudice Defendant", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 539.784, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 539.784, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Plaintiff Jane Doe Has Diligently Worked to Keep Her Identity Confidential \nAnd There is No Alternative Mechanism For Protecting Her Confidentiality", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 536.3435668945312, + 401.76 + ], + [ + 536.3435668945312, + 431.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 431.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 262.548, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 350.8900146484375, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 350.8900146484375, + 223.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 262.548, + 223.93353271484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 14 + ], + [ + "Line", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750846" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750864/EFTA02750864.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750864/EFTA02750864.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..38c7b4a025e9d6b3ffb6a32c500710a24adf7fa8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750864/EFTA02750864.md @@ -0,0 +1,99 @@ +### PLAINTIFFS Jane Doe + +The JS.44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor Supplement the filing and service of pleadings a other papers as required by law. except as provided by local rules of court. This farm. approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974. is recpared for use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. + +ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME. ADDRESS. AND TELEPHONE NUMBER Roberta A. Kaplan Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110, New York, NY 10118 + +DEFENDANTS Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn. as executors for Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein + +ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN) Erika A. Keflerhals and William Blum, Kelerhals Palms Professional Building. 9053 Estate St. U.S. Virgin Islands 00802 Kroblin PLLC. . Suite 101 + +CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE) (DO NOT CITE JURISDICTIONAL STATUTES UNLESS DIVERSITY) + +28 USC 1332; New York causes of action + +Has this action, case, or proceeding, or one essentially the same been previously filed in SONY at any time? No ['Yes': Judge Previously Assigned + +If yes, was this case Vol. 0 Invol. ❑ Dismissed. No 0 Yes 0 If yes, give date & Case No. + +IS THIS AN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CASH No 13 Yes 0 + +# (PLACE AN lx) IN ONE BOX ONLY) NATURE OF SUIT + +# TORTS ACTIONS UNDER STATUTES + +## CONTRACT PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY FORFEITURE/PEP/ALT/ BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES + +367 HEALTHCARE/ PHARMACEUTICAL PERSONAL INJURY/PRCOUCT LIABILITY I 1825 DRUG RELATED ( )422 APPEAL SEIZURE OF PROPERTY 28 USC 158 ( ) 130 ACT LIABILITY I 1365 PERSONAL INJURY 21 USC 681 ( ) 423 WITHDRAWAL ( 1400 STATE PRODUCT LIABILITY f I I50 RECOVERY OF ( 1330 FEDERAL INJURY PRODUCT ( 1430 BANKS & BANKING OVERPAYMENTS EMPLOYERS LIABILITY PROPERTY RIGHTS ( 1450 COMMETICE ENFORCEMENT LIABILITY ( 1460 DEPORTATION OF JUDGMENT ( 1340 MARINE PERSONAL PROPERTY ( 1820 COPYRIGHTS ( 1470 RACKETEER INFLU. OVERPAYMENT INJURY I I 360 OTHER PERSONAL LABOR ( 1861 HIA (13ese!) 1 1850 SECURITIES/ OF VETERANS 11352 PERSONAL INJURY • PROPERTY DAMAGE ( 1862 BLACK LUNG (923) COMMODITIES/ BENEFITS MED MALPRACTICE 1 1385 PROPERTY DAMAGE I 710 FAIR LABOR ( 1863 DIWC/08VW (405(g)) EXCHANGE 11 180 STOCKHOLDERS PRODUCT LIABILITY STANDARDS ACT ( 1864 SSID TITLE XVI SUITS 1720 LABORMGMT ( 1865 R51 (406(9)) CONTRACT I I 453 AUER DETAINEE ) 740 RAILWAY LABOR ACT ACTIONS I 1510 MOTIONS TO VACATE SENTENCE I I 751 FAMILY MEDICAL FEDERAL LEAVE ACT (FIALA) LIABILITY 28 USC 2255 1870 TAXES (U.S. PISANI a ( ) 196 FRANCHISE CIVIL RIGHTS I 1530 HABEAS CORPUS 1790 OTHER LABOR Defendant) ( 1893 ENVIRONMENTAL 11535 DEATH PENALTY LITIGATION ( )871 IRSTHIRD PARTY MATTERS )440 OTHER GIRL RIGHTS I 1540 LIANDAMUS 8 OTHER 1 791 EMPL RET INC 26 USC 7609 ( 11996 FREEDOM OF (N441-PresoneN SECURITY ACT (ERISA) INFORMATION ACT REAL PROPERTY 8916 ARBITRATION PRISONER CML RIGHTS 1 1550 CIVIL RIGHTS IMMIGRATION I I 462 NATURALIZATION APPLICATION ( 1555 PRISON CONDITION 1 465 OTHER IMIAGRATION 1 1560 CML DETAINEE CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT + +( 110 ( 1 120 INSURANCE ( 1 310 A/RPLANE ( 1315 AIRPLANE PRODUCT ( 1 140 NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ( 1320 ASSAULT. UBEL SLANDER ( 1 152 RECOVERY OF DEFAULTED LIABILITY ( 1350 MOTOR VEHICLE ( 1 153 (EXCL VETERANS) RECOVERY OF PRODUCT LIABILITY is 360 OTHER PERSONAL 11195 CONTRACT PRODUCT ACTIONS UNDER STATUTES ( 210 ( )220 LAND CONDEMNATION FORECLOSURE ( 1441 VOTING 442 EMPLOYMENT 11 443 HOUSWG/ ACCOMMODATIONS ( 1230 ( 1240 RENT LEASES EJECTMENT TORTS TO LAND ( 1 445 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES. EMPLOYMENT ( )245 TORT PRODUCT ( 1446 AMERICANS WITH LIABILITY DISABILITIES OTHER ( )290 ALL OTHER 1448 EDUCATION REAL PROPERTY + +375 FALSE CLAIMS 1376 OUI TAM 1368 ASBESTOS PERSONAL 1690 OTHER ZS USC 157 REAPPORTIONMENT ( 1410 ANTITRUST 1151 MEDICARE ACT ( 1345 MARINE PRODUCT ( 1830 PATENT ENCED S CORRuPT 370 OTHER FRAUD 1 371 TRUTH IN LENDING 1 1835 PATENT-ABBREVIATED NEW DRUGAPPLICATION ORGANIZATION ACT (RICO) STUDENT LOANS f 1355 MOTOR VEHICLE 1 840 TRADEMARK ( 1480 CONSUMER CDIT SOCIAL SECURITY ( 1490 CABLE/SATELLREITE TV ( 190 OTHER PRISONER PETITIONS RELATIONS ( 1890 OTHER STATUTORY TAX SUITS ( 1891 AGRICULTURAL ACTS ( 1899 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACTT REVIEW OR APPEAL OF AGENCY DECISION 11950 CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE STATUTES + +Check if demanded in complaint: + +❑ CHECK IF THIS IS ACLASS ACTION UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 + +DEMAND \$ OTHER JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER + +DO YOU CLAIM THIS CASE IS RELATED TO A CIVIL CASE NOW PENDING IN S.D.N.Y. AS DEFINED BY LOCAL RULE FOR DIVISION OF BUSINESS 137 IF SO, STATE: + +| 1 Original Proceeding | 2 Removed from State Court | 3 Remanded from Appellate Court | 4 Reinstated or Reopened | 5 Transferred from (Specify District) | 6 Multidistrict Litigation (Transferred) | 7 Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judge | +|-----------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| a. all parties represented | | | | 8 Multidistrict Litigation (Direct File) | | | +| b. At least one party is pro se. | | | | | | | + +(PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX ONLY) + +**BASIS OF JURISDICTION** + + 1 U.S. PLAINTIFF 2 U.S. DEFENDANT 3 FEDERAL QUESTION 4 DIVERSITY +(U.S. NOT A PARTY) + +**IF DIVERSITY, INDICATE CITIZENSHIP BELOW.** + +**CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY)** + +(Place an [X] in one box for Plaintiff and one box for Defendant) + +| CITIZEN OF THIS STATE | PTF
[X] 1 | DEF
[ ] 1 | CITIZEN OR SUBJECT OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY | PTF DEF
[ ] 3 [ ] 3 | INCORPORATED and PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ANOTHER STATE | PTF DEF
[ ] 5 [ ] 5 | +|--------------------------|--------------|--------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------| +| CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE | [ ] 2 [X] 2 | | INCORPORATED or PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THIS STATE | [ ] 4 [ ] 4 | FOREIGN NATION | [ ] 6 [ ] 6 | + +PLAINTIFF(S) ADDRESS(ES) AND COUNTY(IES) + +Jane Doe +Nassau County, New York +c/o Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP +350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110, New York, NY 10118 + +DEFENDANT(S) ADDRESS(ES) AND COUNTY(IES) + +DEFENDANT(S) ADDRESS UNKNOWN + +REPRESENTATION IS HEREBY MADE THAT, AT THIS TIME, I HAVE BEEN UNABLE, WITH REASONABLE DILIGENCE, TO ASCERTAIN THE RESIDENCE ADDRESSES OF THE FOLLOWING DEFENDANTS: + +Defendants are sued as executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. Per 28 USC 1332, Defendants are deemed citizens of the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), decedent Epstein's domicile. Defendants' residential addresses are unknown to Plaintiff. Defendants' counsel listed above. + +**COURTHOUSE ASSIGNMENT** + +I hereby certify that this case should be assigned to the courthouse indicated below pursuant to Local Rule for Division of Business 18, 20 or 21. + +Check one: THIS ACTION SHOULD BE ASSIGNED TO: PLAINS MANHATTAN + +DATE 9/19/2019 + +SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD + +![]()ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN THIS DISTRICT + +[ ] NO + +RECEIPT # + +[X] YES (DATE ADMITTED Mo.05 Yr. 1993 ) +Attorney Bar Code # + +Magistrate Judge is to be designated by the Clerk of the Court. + +Magistrate Judge \_\_\_\_\_ is so Designated. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750864/EFTA02750864.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750864/EFTA02750864.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2bad779991d4b92482f805858aedd1905f9943cb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750864/EFTA02750864.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,423 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750864.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 8598, + "elapsed_seconds": 11.75, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "PLAINTIFFS \nJane Doe", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 35.49000549316406, + 81.81 + ], + [ + 85.1344223022461, + 81.81 + ], + [ + 85.1344223022461, + 99.6500244140625 + ], + [ + 35.49000549316406, + 99.6500244140625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "(PLACE AN lx) IN ONE BOX ONLY) NATURE OF SUIT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 35.496, + 273.67889404296875 + ], + [ + 332.39276123046875, + 273.67889404296875 + ], + [ + 332.39276123046875, + 287.6835632324219 + ], + [ + 35.496, + 287.6835632324219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 249.696, + 275.40000000000003 + ], + [ + 329.25600000000003, + 275.40000000000003 + ], + [ + 329.25600000000003, + 285.92999999999995 + ], + [ + 249.696, + 285.92999999999995 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TORTS ACTIONS UNDER STATUTES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 131.8800048828125, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 491.39691162109375, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 491.39691162109375, + 301.5562438964844 + ], + [ + 131.8800048828125, + 301.5562438964844 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 35.496, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 72.216, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 72.216, + 328.05 + ], + [ + 35.496, + 328.05 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 133.416, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 189.72, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 189.72, + 328.05 + ], + [ + 133.416, + 328.05 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 225.216, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 281.52, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 281.52, + 328.05 + ], + [ + 225.216, + 328.05 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 317.01599999999996, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 382.5, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 382.5, + 328.05 + ], + [ + 317.01599999999996, + 328.05 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONTRACT PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY FORFEITURE/PEP/ALT/ BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.91999816894531, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 557.0232543945312, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 557.0232543945312, + 329.3062438964844 + ], + [ + 36.91999816894531, + 329.3062438964844 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 500.616, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 556.9200000000001, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 556.9200000000001, + 328.05 + ], + [ + 500.616, + 328.05 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ORIGIN", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 299.88, + 33.21 + ], + [ + 338.43600000000004, + 33.21 + ], + [ + 338.43600000000004, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 299.88, + 43.74 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BASIS OF JURISDICTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 257.03999999999996, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 381.276, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 381.276, + 121.5 + ], + [ + 257.03999999999996, + 121.5 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 145.656, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 482.86800000000005, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 482.86800000000005, + 166.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 145.656, + 166.85999999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COURTHOUSE ASSIGNMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 253.36799999999997, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 381.276, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 381.276, + 549.99 + ], + [ + 253.36799999999997, + 549.99 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 356 + ], + [ + "Line", + 134 + ], + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 48 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "Form", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Table", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750864" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750866/EFTA02750866.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750866/EFTA02750866.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..12b5d5fc6de31942205790fc7d5393523b0433d2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750866/EFTA02750866.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaint + +v. + +Case No. 19 Civ. 8673 + +DARREN INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, + +Defendants. + +## NOTICE OF APPEARANCE + +To the Clerk of this court and all parties of record: + +Please enter my appearance as counsel in this case for PlaintiffJane Doe. I certify that I am admitted to practice in this Court. + +Dated: September 20, 2019 New York, New York + +/s/ Julie E. Fink + +Julie E. Fink + +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 + +New York, New York 10118 + +Telephone: (212) 763-0883 + +Facsimile: (212) 564-0883 + +jfink®kaplanhecker.com + +Counsel for Plaintiff Doe \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750866/EFTA02750866.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750866/EFTA02750866.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..06384aebdbdb9a33e8b202cc319e2615238d1cbd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750866/EFTA02750866.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750866.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 704, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.98, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NOTICE OF APPEARANCE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 227.052, + 320.76 + ], + [ + 385.0557861328125, + 320.76 + ], + [ + 385.0557861328125, + 335.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 227.052, + 335.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750866" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750867/EFTA02750867.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750867/EFTA02750867.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..06b80aaa4b008c0330a04a89462a5740e2e5acc3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750867/EFTA02750867.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaintiff; + +v. + +DARREN . INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, + +Defendants. + +Case No. 19 Civ. 8673 + +## NOTICE OF APPEARANCE + +To the Clerk of this court and all parties of record: + +Please enter my appearance as counsel in this case for PlaintiffJane Doe. I certify that I am admitted to practice in this Court. + +Dated: September 20, 2019 New York, New York + +/s/ Jenna M. Dabbs + +Jenna M. Dabbs + +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 + +New York, New York 10118 + +Telephone: (212) 763-0883 + +Facsimile: (212) 564-0883 + +jdabbs@kaplanhecker.com + +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750867/EFTA02750867.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750867/EFTA02750867.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a227c34bb9350b828f80f09b8f7b908b15148ffa --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750867/EFTA02750867.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750867.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 718, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.97, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NOTICE OF APPEARANCE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 227.052, + 320.76 + ], + [ + 385.0771484375, + 320.76 + ], + [ + 385.0771484375, + 335.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 227.052, + 335.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750867" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750868/EFTA02750868.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750868/EFTA02750868.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..499729cbb62b61ca0d1709ba7f788b4381458ab1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750868/EFTA02750868.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +Case No. 19 Civ. 8673 + +DARREN INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, + +Defendants. + +## NOTICE OF APPEARANCE + +To the Clerk of this court and all parties of record: + +Please enter my appearance as counsel in this case for Plaintiff Jane Doe. I certify that I am admitted to practice in this Court. + +Dated: September 20, 2019 New York, New York + +/s/ Justin Horton + +Justin Horton + +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 + +New York, New York 10118 + +Telephone: (212) 763-0883 + +Facsimile: (212) 564-0883 + +jhorton©,kaplanhecker.com + +Counsel for Plaintiff Doe \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750868/EFTA02750868.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750868/EFTA02750868.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..82a177588d49c8c155f4be91d7eec930a04fddd6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750868/EFTA02750868.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750868.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 712, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.01, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 192.168, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 192.168, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NOTICE OF APPEARANCE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 226.44, + 320.76 + ], + [ + 385.0771484375, + 320.76 + ], + [ + 385.0771484375, + 336.363037109375 + ], + [ + 226.44, + 336.363037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750868" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750869/EFTA02750869.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750869/EFTA02750869.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6d38c63d38596f4798a5e544c5dd0b21749bad4b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750869/EFTA02750869.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +Bennet J. Moskowitz + +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com + +October 4, 2019 + +ECF + +Hon. Katherine Polk Failla Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Re: Jane Doe v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as the Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, 1:19-cv-08673-KPF + +Dear Judge Failla: + +We represent Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, "Defendants"), in the referenced action. We write to respectfully request the Court's approval of the parties' agreement described below. + +On September 24, 2019, subject to the Court's approval: (1) we agreed to accept service of Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF #1) on Defendants' behalf; (2) Plaintiff consented to Defendants having through November 15, 2019 to answer, move or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint; and (3) Plaintiff consented to Defendants having through November 15, 2019 to answer, move or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym (ECF #3). + +There have been no other requests for adjournments or extensions of time in this action. + +Thank you for your attention to this matter. + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/Bennet J Moskowitz + +Bennet J. Moskowitz \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750869/EFTA02750869.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750869/EFTA02750869.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..357f7c314800e3595c9c9c1a5d3841eec6d5557a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750869/EFTA02750869.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750869.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1250, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.86, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750869" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750870/EFTA02750870.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750870/EFTA02750870.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..059e70d15d01e223fe80f3340e1c118424bb8671 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750870/EFTA02750870.md @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@ +Troutman Sanders LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 + +troutman.com + +![](_page_0_Picture_150.jpeg) + +**Bennet J. Moskowitz** +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com + +**MEMO ENDORSED** + +October 4, 2019 + +**ECF** + +Hon. Katherine Polk Failla +Thurgood Marshall +United States Courthouse +40 Foley Square +New York, NY 10007 + +**Re: *Jane Doe v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as the Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, 1:19-cv-08673-KPF*** + +Dear Judge Failla: + +We represent Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, "Defendants"), in the referenced action. We write to respectfully request the Court's approval of the parties' agreement described below. + +On September 24, 2019, subject to the Court's approval: (1) we agreed to accept service of Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF #1) on Defendants' behalf; (2) Plaintiff consented to Defendants having through November 15, 2019 to answer, move or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint; and (3) Plaintiff consented to Defendants having through November 15, 2019 to answer, move or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym (ECF #3). + +There have been no other requests for adjournments or extensions of time in this action. + +Thank you for your attention to this matter. + +Respectfully submitted, + +*s/Bennet J. Moskowitz* +Bennet J. Moskowitz + +Application GRANTED. + +SO ORDERED. + +![]()HON. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750870/EFTA02750870.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750870/EFTA02750870.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..58c13023e7c8d5ecbd05520c34a4af61b8ddeda3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750870/EFTA02750870.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750870.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1508, + "elapsed_seconds": 6.55, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_150.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 40 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750870" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750870/_page_0_Picture_150.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750870/_page_0_Picture_150.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0eb6395bff012875ff52e4a9a80f2c8eb0829cb1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750870/_page_0_Picture_150.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e92b42d2f0318bc68905537abf4675e1010b7211be2e195465e7d17d65cf2846 +size 7263 diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750871/EFTA02750871.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750871/EFTA02750871.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..895f03931672be750be39c675f06a4a7781e45b5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750871/EFTA02750871.md @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaintiff, + +DARREN K INDYKE, et al., + +Defendants. + +19 Civ. 8673 (KPF) + +## NOTICE OF INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE + +KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge: + +This case has been assigned to me for all purposes. It is hereby ORDERED that counsel for all parties appear for an initial pretrial conference with the Court on December 13, 2019, at 11:00 a.m., in Courtroom 618 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York. + +All counsel are required to register promptly as filing users on ECF. All pretrial conferences must be attended by the attorney who will serve as principal trial counsel. Counsel are further required to review and comply with the Court's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases ("Individual Rules") available at http: / / nysd.uscourts.gov/ judge / Failla. + +Counsel are directed to confer with each other prior to the conference regarding settlement and each of the other subjects to be considered at a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 conference. Additionally, in accordance with the Court's Individual Rules, the parties are hereby ORDERED to file by ECF and to submit via e-mail (Failla NYSDChambersOnvsd.uscourts.gov) a Proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order in PDF format by Thursday of the week prior to the initial pretrial conference. The parties shall use this Court's form Proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order, which is also available at http://nysd.uscourts.gov/judge/Failla. Any open legal issues can be addressed at the conference. + +IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that included with the Proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order, the parties jointly submit a letter, not to exceed five pages, providing the following information in separate paragraphs: + +- (i) A brief statement of the nature of the action, the principal defenses thereto, and the major legal and factual issues that are most important to resolving the case, whether by trial, settlement, or dispositive motion; +- (ii) A brief explanation of why jurisdiction and venue lie in this Court. In + +any action in which subject matter jurisdiction is founded on diversity of citizenship pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 1332, the letter must explain the basis for the parties' belief that diversity of citizenship exists. Where any party is a corporation, the letter shall state both the place of incorporation and the principal place of business. In cases where any party is a partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, or trust, the letter shall state the citizenship of each of the entity's members, shareholders, partners, and/or trustees. See, e.g., Handelsman v. Bedford Vill. Assocs. L.P., 213 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2000). + +- (iii) A statement of all existing deadlines, due dates, and/or cut-off dates; +- (iv) A brief description of any outstanding motions; +- (v) A brief description of any discovery that has already taken place and of any discovery that is necessary for the parties to engage in meaningful settlement negotiations; +- (vi) A statement describing the status of any settlement discussions and whether the parties would like a settlement conference; and +- (vii) Any other information that the parties believe may assist the Court in advancing the case to settlement or trial, including, but not limited to, a description of any dispositive issue or novel issue raised by the case. + +If this case has been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel are not required to submit such letter or to appear, provided that a stipulation of discontinuance, voluntary dismissal, or other proof of termination is sent prior to the date of the conference via e-mail to the Orders and Judgments Clerk at the following e-mail address: judgments®nysd.uscourts.gov. + +In accordance with the Court's Individual Rules and Practices, requests for an extension or adjournment may be made only by letter and must be received at least 48 hours before the deadline or conference. The written submission must state (i) the original date(s); (ii) the number of previous requests for adjournment or extension; (iii) whether these previous requests were granted or denied; (iv) the reason for the current request; and (v) whether the adversary consents and, if not, the reasons given by the adversary for refusing to consent. Unless counsel are notified that the conference has been adjourned, it will be held as scheduled. + +Counsel who have noticed an appearance as of the issuance of this order are directed (i) to notify all other parties' attorneys in this action by serving upon each of them a copy of this order and the Court's Individual Rules forthwith, and (ii) to file + +proof of such notice with the Court. If unaware of the identity of counsel for any of the parties, counsel receiving this order must forthwith send a copy of this order and the Court's Individual Rules to that party personally. + +The Court schedules initial pretrial conferences with the expectation that one or more of the parties would like an in-person opportunity to bring matters to the Court's attention, and it welcomes that opportunity. However, the Court recognizes that in certain circumstances — as, for example, where the parties are in agreement about the proposed discovery schedule and have no issues to raise with the Court — such conferences may represent less-efficient uses of the parties' time and resources. If the parties agree on a schedule that calls for the close of all discovery within six months, and have no other issues to raise with the Court, the parties can, if they wish, submit a Proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order and request in their joint letter that the initial pretrial conference be cancelled. The Court will ordinarily grant such requests. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: October 15, 2019 + +New York, New York + +KATHERINE POLK FAILLA United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750871/EFTA02750871.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750871/EFTA02750871.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..188c540c8a7886e4a070cc331c77ff1ec1d4047b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750871/EFTA02750871.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,193 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750871.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 5950, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.9, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 51.40800000000001, + 67.23 + ], + [ + 281.5348205566406, + 67.23 + ], + [ + 281.5348205566406, + 96.49249267578125 + ], + [ + 51.40800000000001, + 96.49249267578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NOTICE OF INITIAL \nPRETRIAL CONFERENCE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 326.196, + 160.38 + ], + [ + 491.4447021484375, + 160.38 + ], + [ + 491.4447021484375, + 188.73248291015625 + ], + [ + 326.196, + 188.73248291015625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Span", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750871" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750874/EFTA02750874.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750874/EFTA02750874.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..67cb0f850c96b11887caa96475ef16088a1ec534 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750874/EFTA02750874.md @@ -0,0 +1,76 @@ +## EXHIBIT A + +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +ICATLYN DOE, + +x + +Plaintiff, 19-cv-7771 (PKC) + +-against- ORDER + +DARREN K. INDYKE, et al.., + +Defendant. + +x + +CASTEL, U.S.D.J. + +Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in this action without disclosing her identity using instead a pseudonym. She alleges that Jeffrey Epstein, with the assistance of associates and entities, engaged in "manipulate[ion]," "control," "sexual exploitation," "sexual assault[]," "sexual abuse," and "forced... intercourse" of or with plaintiff; she was seventeen when the course of conduct began. (Complaint n 58-68.) At this juncture, no defendant has been served. + +Rule 10(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides that "[t]he title of [a] complaint must name all the parties." The Second Circuit has recognized that the use of a pseudonym is, however, appropriate in limited circumstances where the reasons for anonymity outweigh the public's right of access to judicial proceedings and any prejudice to a defendant. Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant. 537 F.3d 185, 189 (24 Cir. 2008). The Circuit's opinion in Sealed Plaintiff lays out ten non-exhaustive factors to be considered in determining whether to allow a case to proceed on an anonymous basis. M. at 190. The Court analyzes the Complaint in light of these factors. + +- (1) whether the litigation involves matters that are highly sensitive and of a personal nature. + +The Complaint alleges an on-going pattern of sexual assault and abuse beginning when plaintiff was seventeen years-old and asserts that she has and is continuing to suffer psychological injury as a result. (Complaint 11 52-65.) These are highly sensitive allegations of a personal nature. + +- (2) whether identification of the plaintiff poses a risk of physical or mental retaliation to the plaintiff or to a third party. + +No risk of retaliation is alleged. Jeffrey Epstein is dead and there is no credible evidence of a risk of retaliation from others. There is an allegation of threats of retaliation in the past if she did not comply with demands for sex acts that she would suffer financial, psychological, and reputational harm ad, 1 84) but no facts are alleged that those threats arc likely to continue after the death of Epstein. + +- (3) whether identification of plaintiff poses the risk of other harms, their likely severity and whether they are of the type that the litigation seeks to redress. + +The nature of the allegations make it logical to conclude at this early stage that disclosure of plaintiffs identity would cause further psychological harm to plaintiff which is the precise harm the litigation seeks, in part, to redress. + +(4) whether there are other factors that make the plaintiff particularly vulnerable to harm of disclosure, for example. because of her age. + +By the Court's calculation, the plaintiff is 29 or 30. She is described in the complaint as having physical conditions that make her particularly vulnerable. a 11 54-55.) She alleges that she has incurred and will continue to incur "medical and psychological expenses" as a result of the conduct alleged. ild. 9132.) + +(5) whether the action challenges the actions of government or government actors, or merely private parties. + +The actions alleged are not the actions of a government actor or instrumentality but rather those of private parties. + +(6) the nature of any prejudice to a defendant from allowing the plaintiff to proceed anonymously and whether any prejudice can be mitigated by the court. + +The Complaint alleges that the representatives of the estate of Epstein have liability for his actions. It also alleges that various non-natural persons are liable for acts and omissions causing plaintiff harm. In such circumstances it is critical that the accused defendants know the identity of the plaintiff in order to investigate and defend against the claim. The Court can mitigate the prejudice to defendants by requiring the disclosure of the actual name of the plaintiff in a document to be sewed on defendants and also filed under seal with the Court. Plaintiff does not object to disclosure "for discovery purposes on the condition that Defendants do not disclose Plaintiff's name to the general public." (P. Mem. 6; Doc 3-1.) + +(7) whether the plaintiffs identity has thus far been kept confidential, + +Insofar as the Court is aware, the identity of the plaintiff is not widely known. + +(8) whether there is a legitimate public interest or benefit in requiring the plaintiff to disclose her identity. + +There is public interest in the litigation because of the notoriety of Epstein and those with whom he associated, but disclosure of the identity of the plaintiff is not likely to be of a legitimate importance or benefit to the public. + +(9) Whether the issues in the action are predominately or purely legal nature suggesting that the public interest in the plaintiff's identity may be weak. + +The issues in the case are not purely or predominately of a legal nature. This case turns principally on its facts. + +(10) whether there are any alternative mechanisms for protecting the confidentiality of the plaintiff. + +It is the disclosure of her identity that would exacerbate any preexisting harm to plaintiff and hence there is not alternative mechanism for protecting her confidentiality. + +## CONCLUSION + +Factors 1 and 3 tilt strongly in favor of permitting plaintiff to proceed anonymously and are supported by factors 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10. Factors 2, 5, 9 are either neutral or + +weakly support denying the motion. The Court concludes that, at this juncture, the public right to know is substantially outweighed by the plaintiff's legitimate need for anonymity and that prejudice to a defendant can be mitigated by orders of the Court. The Court reserves the right to modify this Order as the case progresses. + +Plaintiff's motion (Doc 3) is GRANTED. Within seven days of the appearance of a defendant, plaintiff shall disclose her identity to the appearing defendant in a document to be submitted to the Court for sealing. No defendant may disclose the identity of plaintiff to any person other than counsel without further order of this Court. + +SO ORDERED. + +![]()Dated: New York, New York +September 11, 2019 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750874/EFTA02750874.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750874/EFTA02750874.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eda29fbbe58f0f9fff8d8f861c0a760596c26d72 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750874/EFTA02750874.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,318 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750874.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 6, + "chars": 6219, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.97, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 181.76399999999998, + 280.17437744140625 + ], + [ + 437.49151611328125, + 280.17437744140625 + ], + [ + 437.49151611328125, + 330.6527099609375 + ], + [ + 181.76399999999998, + 330.6527099609375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 70.38, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 289.033447265625, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 289.033447265625, + 102.11248779296875 + ], + [ + 70.38, + 102.11248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 66.708, + 624.51 + ], + [ + 149.1510772705078, + 624.51 + ], + [ + 149.1510772705078, + 640.2324981689453 + ], + [ + 66.708, + 640.2324981689453 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 3 + ], + [ + "Line", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 36 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750874" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750880/EFTA02750880.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750880/EFTA02750880.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e996a6de389569507f54e4aba2238e748e57d5dd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750880/EFTA02750880.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +KAPLAN HECKER FINK LLP + +Direct Dial: (929) 294-0883 + +Direct Email: rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla United States District Court Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Re: Doe v. Indyke et al., No. I 9-cv-08673 (KPF) + +Dear Judge Failla: + +350 Fifth Avenue + +Suite 7110 + +New York, NY 10118 + +(212) 763.0883 + +www.kaplanhecker.com + +October 15, 2019 + +We represent Plaintiff Jane Doe in the above-captioned action. In connection with our Motion for Leave to Proceed Under Pseudonym (ECF 3), we write to bring to the Court's attention a decision issued by Judge Castel in a related Epstein case granting the plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously. A copy is attached hereto as Exhibit A. See Katlyn Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 19-cv-7771 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2019). + +Respectfully submitted, + +Roberta A. Kaplan + +cc: Counsel of Record \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750880/EFTA02750880.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750880/EFTA02750880.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eb9278bb6c5d0cb3625489088ebebc6f06300586 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750880/EFTA02750880.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,90 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750880.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 940, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.93, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 77.00399999999999, + 215.952 + ], + [ + 131.55946350097656, + 215.952 + ], + [ + 131.55946350097656, + 230.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 77.00399999999999, + 230.7330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750880" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750881/EFTA02750881.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750881/EFTA02750881.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b4c4b59f87ef22be5c51ca4c1851bc28326e9c31 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750881/EFTA02750881.md @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +Bennet J. Moskowitz + +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com + +October 29, 2019 + +ECF + +Hon. Katherine Polk Failla Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Re: Jane Doe v. Darren.. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as the Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, 1:19-cv-08673-KPF + +Dear Judge Failla: + +We represent Darren,. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, "Defendants"), in the referenced action. We write to clarify the record in response to Plaintiff's counsel's October 15, 2019 letter (ECF # 12) attaching a copy of an Order that the Hon. P. Kevin Castel issued in Katlyn Doe v. Darren.. indyke and Richard D. Kahn as Joint Personal Representatives of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, et al., 1:19-cv-0777. Specifically, Judge Castel issued the aforementioned Order ex parte, before our clients timely appeared in Katlyn Doe. + +In accordance with Your Honor's Order dated October 7, 2019 (ECF #10), Defendants will respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym (ECF #3) by November 15, 2019. + +Thank you for your attention to this matter. + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/Bennet J. Moskowitz Bennet J. Moskowitz \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750881/EFTA02750881.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750881/EFTA02750881.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..67e25501db4d6cb354fb829d8ec37591563c5757 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750881/EFTA02750881.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750881.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1221, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.77, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750881" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750882/EFTA02750882.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750882/EFTA02750882.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7cc3fc73794f92fd8a9e6c76410b2e80caf8aacd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750882/EFTA02750882.md @@ -0,0 +1,426 @@ +# Exhibit A + +# KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +## By Email: + +Bennet J. Moskowitz Troutman Sanders LLP 785 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com + +Andrew Tomback & Case LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 andrew.tomback(4)whitecase.com + +Dear Bennet and Andy: + +350 FIFTH AVENUE I SUITE 7110 + +NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 + +TEL (212) 763-0863 FAX (212) 564-01385 + +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM + +October 11, 2019 + +Re: Doe v. lndyke et al., No. 19-cv-8673-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) + +We represent PlaintiffJane Doe in the above matter. We write in response to information we recently obtained regarding your client, Defendant Richard Kahn. + +More specifically, on October 7, 2019, the Daily Mail reported that Mr. Kahn was present at Jeffrey Epstein's 71' Street townhouse for about 45 minutes one day after Mr. Epstein committed suicide, and that when he left the townhouse, he took with him a medium-sized blue shopping bag. See Louise Boyle, Exclusive: Executor ofJeffrey Epstein's Estate - Named in Lawsuit - Was Seen Removing a Bag of-Itemsfrom the Pedophile's Mansion the Day After his Suicide. . . And After Millionaire had Admitted to Having "Damaging" Din on High-Powered House Guests, DAILY MAIL (Oct. 7, 2019). + +Please confirm whether this report is accurate. Is it true that Mr. Kahn entered Mr. Epstein's townhouse and removed documents? If so, we ask that you promptly (1) share with us a list of documents and/or materials Mr. Kahn removed from Mr. Epstein's townhouse that day and on any other occasion after Mr. Epstein's death and (2) confirm in writing that all documents and/or materials relevant to the matter are being retained and preserved pursuant to the requirements outlined in the enclosed notice. + +We look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible. + +Very truly yours, + +cc: Daniel H. Weiner + +Enclosure: Document Retention Notice + +Roberta A. Kaplan s / KASM + +# KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +# By Email• + +Bennet J. Moskowitz Troutman Sanders LLP 785 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com + +Andrew Tomback & Case LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 andrew.tomback@whitecase.com + +Daniel H. Weiner Hughes Hubbard & One Battery Park Plaza New York, NY 10004 daniel.weiner@hugheshubbard.com 350 FIFTH AVENUE I SUITE 7110 NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10118 TEL (212) 7630883 I FAX (212) 564-0883 WWW.KAPLANNECKER.COM + +October 11, 2019 + +### DOCUMENT RETENTION NOTICE DIRECTED TO THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN + +The Estate of Jeffrey Epstein ("You"), including executors Richard Kahn and Darren Indyke, is hereby put on formal notice of Your obligation to preserve all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things under Your possession, custody, or control that are relevant to this action and/or have been, or are reasonably likely to be, requested during discovery. Your agents, officers, employees, and other persons under their authority and control are not permitted to destroy such materials either, and materials are "considered to be under a party's control when that party has the right, authority, or practical ability to obtain [them] from a non-party to the action." In re IVTL, Inc. Sec. Litig., 244 F.R.D. 179, 195 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). + +The obligation to preserve relevant evidence covers all documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things in any form whatsoever, including, without limitation: writings; contracts; authorizations; business and financial records; inspections; notes; calendars; drafts; plans; drawings; charts; photographs; sound recordings; video recordings; images; emails; call + +records; voicemails; instant messages; text messages; computer files; spreadsheets; data created by the use of banking, asset management, or financial software; all internet and web browser-generated history files, caches, and “cookies”; flash drives; hard drives; cellphones; and other data or data compilations stored in any medium from which information can be obtained. + +Accordingly, the obligation requires You to suspend any destruction policies, including but not limited to the deletion of emails, instant messages, text messages, voicemails, and other electronic records, and take any and all measures necessary, including retaining archival documents in storage and backing up and/or mirroring electronic records and metadata, to ensure the retention of all materials that are relevant to this action, are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, or are reasonably likely to be requested during discovery. You must also refrain from causing, ordering, requesting, or suggesting that any third-party delete, alter or restrict access to any websites, social media accounts, or any other repositories containing information potentially relevant to this dispute. + +Please also note that electronically stored information typically contains relevant discoverable information beyond what is apparent to the viewer, including, for example, embedded data and metadata. Therefore, it is necessary to preserve all electronically stored information in its original electronic form, even where paper copies might exist. Moreover, electronically stored information can be easily modified, deleted, or corrupted, and You are required to take all reasonable steps to ensure that all relevant, discoverable electronically stored information is preserved. Because modification, deletion, or corruption may result from automatic functions within the routine operation of an electronic information system, or from routine upgrades or recycling of computer-related hardware or software, Your preservation obligation includes, but is not limited to, the obligation to suspend any such operations, upgrades, or recycling features or protocols (including any document or data destruction policies) pending resolution of this action. + +You should have already taken appropriate steps to preserve relevant materials. *See Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC*, 220 F.R.D. 212, 218 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (“Once a party reasonably anticipates litigation, it must suspend its routine document retention/destruction policy and put in place a ‘litigation hold’ to ensure the preservation of relevant documents.”). This includes, without limitation, any and all documents or other tangible materials at Mr. Epstein’s townhouse, as well as all of his other residences. It also covers any and all of Mr. Epstein’s computers, laptops, cell phones, smart phones, personal digital assistants and other devices, and the data stored therein. + +Please confirm to us in writing as soon as feasible that You have implemented an appropriate litigation hold with respect to all appropriate individuals and entities, and please further confirm that You intend to abide by the preservation obligations set forth in this letter. Should you refuse or fail to provide such confirmation, we reserve all rights to seek appropriate relief. + +Troutman Sanders LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 + +troutman.com + +Bennet J. Moskowitz bennet.moskowitz©Iroutman.com + +#### E-MAIL + +October 22, 2019 + +Roberta A. Kaplan Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 + +![](_page_5_Picture_3.jpeg) + +Re: Jane Doe v. Darren K. lndyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as the Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, 1:19-cv-08673-KPF + +Dear Roberta: + +As you know, we represent Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, "Defendants"), in the referenced action. We received your letter dated October 11, 2019 addressed to the undersigned and Andrew Tomback. We understand Mr. Tomback has addressed your questions about Mr. Kahn. + +As for your "Document Retention Notice Directed to the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein," Defendants fully intend to satisfy their discovery obligations. However, your Notice unreasonably and impermissibly attempts to broaden Defendants' preservation obligations beyond those in applicable law. Your Notice is also otherwise unduly burdensome, overly broad, and not proportional to the needs of the above referenced case. + +The foregoing is without prejudice to Defendants' rights and legal positions, all of which are hereby expressly preserved. + +Very truly yours, + +s/Bennet J. Moskowitz Bennet J. Moskowitz + +## Kyla Magun + +From: Julie Fink Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 6:27 PM To: Bennet.Moskowitz@troutman.com Cc: Roberta Kaplan; Kyla Magun Subject: FW: Letter from R. Kaplan + +Dear Bennet: + +Thank you for your email. + +Per your request, we previously provided you with a list of topics for which we requested that you retain all categories of documents. We then asked that you confirm your agreement with these requests. However, your response does not confirm your agreement and whether your client will be retaining all documents related to these topics. We would appreciate an answer to that question promptly. + +We are happy to discuss over the phone if you would prefer. If so, please let us know your availability to speak tomorrow morning. + +Very truly yours, + +Julie + +Julie Fink I Kaplan Hecker & Fink I.I.P 35o Fifth Avenue I Suite 7110 New York, New York totif3 (W) 212.761.0885 I 00646.856.6431 Ifinkmkaplanheeker.com + +From: Moskowitz, Bennet J. Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 8:30:57 AM To: Roberta Kaplan ; Kyla Magun Subject: RE: Letter from R. Kaplan + +Dear Roberta, + +While we continue to seek to accommodate your requests for information, as a courtesy and not because there is any legal obligation to do so, many of your "topics" provided on October 23 assume facts and are argumentative (e.g., "Efforts by Epstein to provide attorneys to persons who recruited girls for him or provided sex-related services to him"). + +Moreover, you now demand information that implicates the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. Accordingly, and while we will strive to be accommodating whenever possible — especially when, as we have informed you, the Estate is very close to establishing a claims administration process as an alternative to litigation- we decline to make any specific agreements or representations concerning your "topics." + +To further allay any concerns you may have, we assure you nothing has changed in terms of preservation since before you first reached out to us about a news article that, to the extent you believe suggested + +otherwise, was wrong. Further, and as we already advised, our clients take their preservation obligations seriously. There is therefore no urgency and, in turn, no justification for judicial intervention. + +If you nevertheless insist on seeking the Courts intervention, then we should first meet and confer by phone so we can better understand the relief you would seek and legal and factual bases for it. We do not want to unnecessarily burden the Court. + +Best regards, + +Bennet + +Bennet J. Moskowitz\* + +troutmansanders + +Direct: 212.704.6087 + +bennet.moskowitz©troutman.com + +\*Licensed to practice law in New York and Connecticut + +From: Roberta Kaplan + +Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2019 10:07 AM + +To: Moskowitz, Bennet J. ; Kyla Magun ckmagun@kaplanhecker.com> + +Subject: Re: Letter from R. Kaplan + +#### EXTERNAL SENDER + +Dear Bennet: + +Safe travels. We will expect a response before noon on Monday. Presumably, you are already aware of the documents and other information that you are preserving. + +Very truly yours, + +Robbie + +Roberta Kaplan + +Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP + +350 Fifth Avenue suite 7110 + +New York, NY 10118 + +212 763 0883 + +From: Moskowitz, Bennet J. + +Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2019 9:29 AM + +To: Kyla Magun; Roberta Kaplan + +Subject: Re: Letter from R. Kaplan + +Hi Roberta, + +I am traveling to Michigan today for an arbitration. However, we will be sure to get back to you by early next week. + +Bennet J. Moskowitz\* + +troutmansanders + +Direct: 212.704.6087 + +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com + +\*Licensed to practice law in New York and Connecticut + +On Oct 23, 2019, at 6:45 PM, Kyla Magun wrote: + +#### EXTERNAL SENDER + +#### ON BEHALF OF ROBERTA A. KAPLAN + +Dear Bennet: + +Thank you for your timely response. We write in response to the two aspects of our Document Retention Notice you have suggested are overly broad. + +First, regarding timing, in our Complaint, we allege that our client met Epstein in or around 2002. (See, e.g., ECF 1 3.) Accordingly, we request that you apply our retention request to documents from 2002 to the present. As you know, there is no statute of limitations with respect to our alleged causes of action, so this timeline is perfectly reasonable. + +Second, we request that you retain all categories of documents related to the following topics: + +- Epstein's financial records, including those of any and all entities associated with Epstein and those listed among his assets in his will; +- Any and all statements or representations made by Epstein regarding his sexual pursuits; +- Any and all payments made by Epstein related to his sexual pursuits; +- Any and all criminal investigations of Epstein, including the Non-Prosecution Agreement entered into by Epstein in 2008 and the US Attorney's 2019 investigation into Epstein; +- All persons who recruited girls to service Epstein; +- All persons who provided sex-related services to Epstein from 2002 to the present; +- Efforts by Epstein to provide attorneys to persons who recruited girls for him or provided sex-related services to him; +- All properties owned by Epstein on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, including his 71" Street mansion; +- Any and all employees of properties owned by Epstein on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, including his 71" Street mansion; +- Epstein's travel; +- Dates Epstein was present in New York; +- • +- Lesley Groff; and, +- Epstein's last will and testament. + +Please let us know within 48 hours whether you agree to these preservation requests. Given the sensitivity of this matter, if we do not hear from you within 48 hours, we will have no choice but to consider seeking the intervention of the Court. We reserve all rights. + +Very truly yours, + +Robbie + +Kyla Magun I Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP + +Associate 350 Fifth Avenue I Suite 7110 New York. New York 10118 (W) 929.469.28901(M) 646.784.4621 kinactin(dkaulanhecker.com + +From: Moskowitz, Bennet J. + +Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 4:24 PM + +To: Roberta Kaplan akaplan@kaplanhecker.com> + +Cc: Kyla Magun + +Subject: RE: Letter from R. Kaplan + +Dear Roberta, + +Happy to allay your concerns. Among other things, your Document Retention Notice in this action is (1) completely unlimited as to time and (2) ambiguous regarding the scope of subject matter your client contends should be preserved (see page 1, demanding preservation of all documents, ESI and tangible things that are relevant to the action or are "reasonably likely" to be requested during discovery). + +As we previously advised you, Defendants are fully aware of their discovery obligations (including document preservation) and will comport themselves accordingly. We trust your client will do the same. + +Best, Bennet + +Bennet J. Moskowitz\* + +troutmansanders + +Direct: 212.704.6087 + +bennet.moskowitza.troutman.com + +\*Licensed to practice law in New York and Connecticut + +From: Kyla Magun + +Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 2:57 PM + +To: Moskowitz, Bennet J. + +Cc: Roberta Kaplan ekaplan@kaplanhecker.com> + +Subject: RE: Letter from R. Kaplan + +EXTERNAL SENDER + +We have reviewed your letter dated October 22, 2019. + +In that letter, you write that while you fully intend to satisfy your discovery obligations, our document retention notice attached to our letter to you dated October 11, 2019 somehow "unreasonably and impermissibly attempts to broaden Defendants' preservation obligations beyond those in applicable law." + +In light of that response, we ask that you explain with reasonable specificity which components of our notice you find to be overly broad and whether there are particular requests in our October 11 letter or notice with which Defendants do not intend to comply. Again, please identify any such requests (including types of documents or other information as well as geographic/physical locations) with reasonable specificity so that we can actually understand what you are talking about. + +Given the risks of spoliation due to the lack of clarity in your response, we ask that you respond within 48 hours. + +Very truly yours, + +Robbie + +Kyla Magun I Kaplan Hecker & Fink LIP + +Associate + +350 Fifth Avenue I Suite Tun + +New York, New York ton8 + +(W) 929.469.2890 I (M) 646.784.4621 + +kmatt,un@kaplanhecker.com + +From: Moskowitz, Bennet J. + +Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 11:12 AM + +To: Kyla Magun + +Cc: Roberta Kaplan + +Subject: RE: Letter from R. Kaplan + +Please see the attached letter. + +Best regards, + +Bennet + +Bennet J. Moskowitz\* + +troutmansanderS + +Direct: 212.704.6087 + +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com + +\*Licensed to practice law in New York and Connecticut + +From: Kyle Magun + +Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 6:09 PM + +To: Moskowitz, Bennett + +Cc: Roberta Kaplan + +Subject: Letter from R. Kaplan + +ON BEHALF OF ROBERTA A. KAPLAN + +Dear Bennet, + +Attached, please find a letter relating to Doe v. Indyke et at, No. 19-cv-8673-KPF (S.D.N.Y.). + +Thank you, + +Robbie + +Kyle Magun I Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP + +Associate 35o Fifth Avenue I Suite 7110 New York, New York tou8 (W) 929469.2890 (M) 646.784.4621 kmagunkkaplanhecker.coin + +This email and its attachments may contain information that is confidential and/or protected from disclosure by the attorney-client. work product or other applicable legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient of the email, please be aware that any unauthorized review. use. disclosure. dissemination, distfibution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the message from your computer system. Thank you. + +This e-mail message (and any attachments) from Troutman Sanders LLP may contain legally privileged and confidential information solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error, please delete the message and notify the sender. Any unauthorized reading, distribution, copying, or other use of this message (and attachments) is strictly prohibited. + +This email and its attachments may contain information that is confidential and/or protected from disclosure by the attomey-client. work product or other applicable legal privilege. If you aro not the intended recipient of the email, please be aware that any unauthorized review. use, disclosure. dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the message from your computer system. Thank you. + +This e-mail message (and any attachments) from Troutman Sanders LLP may contain legally privileged and confidential information solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error, please delete the message and notify the sender. Any unauthorized reading, distribution, copying, or other use of this message (and attachments) is strictly prohibited. + +This email and its attachments may contain information that is confidential and/or protected from disclosure by the attomey-client. work product or other applicable legal privilege. If you aro not the intended recipient of the email, please be aware that any unauthorized review. use. disclosure. dissemination. distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error. please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the message from your computer system. Thank you. + +This e-mail message (and any attachments) from Troutman Sanders LLP may contain legally privileged and confidential information solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error, please delete the message + +This email and its attachments may contain information that is confidential and/or protected from disclosure by the attorney-client, work product or other applicable legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient of the email, please be aware that any unauthorized review, use. disclosure. dissemination. distribution. or copying of this communication. or any of its contents. is slimily prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the message from your computer system. Thank you. + +This e-mail message (and any attachments) from Troutman Sanders LLP may contain legally privileged and confidential information solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error, please delete the message and notify the sender. Any unauthorized reading, distribution, copying, or other use of this message (and attachments) is strictly prohibited. + +Bennet .1. Moskowitz bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com + +October 28, 2019 + +#### E-MAIL + +Roberta A. Kaplan Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 + +Re: Jane Doe v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as the Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, 1:19-cv-08673-KPF + +Dear Roberta: + +As you know, we represent Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, "Defendants"), in the referenced action (the "Action"). Without limiting or waiving your client Jane Doe's discovery obligations, we write to: (1) request immediate confirmation that your client has preserved all materials -- including without limitation hardcopy documents,' electronically stored information ("ESE') and tangible things -- relevant or potentially relevant to the subjects of Jane Doe's Complaint (ECF # 1); and (2) ensure Jane Doe continues to preserve such materials until the Action is fully concluded. + +Such materials include, without limitation, all documents and communications2 within Jane Doe's possession, custody or control concerning (i.e., embodying, mentioning, or concerning, directly or indirectly) Jeffrey E. Epstein. + +Please confirm in writing no later than November 4, 2019 that Jane Doe has preserved and will continue to preserve all documents and communications described above, and all other information relevant or potentially relevant to the subject matter of the Action. + +This letter contains only non-exhaustive references to relevant and potentially relevant information and is without prejudice to Defendants' rights and legal positions, all of which are expressly reserved. Specifically, and without limitation, this letter shall in no way limit what Defendants may + +'The term "document" is defined to be synonymous in meaning and equal in scope to the usage of the term "documents or electronically stored information" in Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1 )(A). A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning of this term. + +2 The term "communication" means the transmittal of information (in the form of facts, ideas, inquiries or otherwise). + +seek during discovery in the Action. It is essential that Jane Doe preserve -- and not alter, delete, discard, or otherwise destroy -- all information relevant or potentially relevant to the Action. + +Very truly yours, + +Bennet J. Moskowitz Bennet J. Moskowitz + +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +350 FIFTH AVENUE | SUITE 7110 +NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 +TEL (212) 763-0883 | FAX (212) 564-0883 +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM + +DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0883 +DIRECT EMAIL rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com + +October 29, 2019 + +**By Email:** + +Bennet J. Moskowitz +Troutman Sanders LLP +785 Third Avenue +New York, NY 10022 +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com + +*Re: Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 19-cv-8673-KPF (S.D.N.Y.)* + +Dear Counsel: + +As you know, we represent Plaintiff Jane Doe in the above matter. + +We write in response to your letter dated October 28, 2019. We can confirm that our client continues to abide by her discovery obligations and has preserved and will continue to preserve through the end of this matter all materials relevant to the subjects in her Complaint. It is worth noting, however, that our client's claims relate to crimes committed by Mr. Epstein **when our client was a child**—only 14 years old, 17 years ago. + +But unlike our client, Mr. Epstein was an adult during the relevant period. We have repeatedly asked that you confirm with us that you are preserving Mr. Epstein's documents related to the specific topics relevant to our Complaint, which we listed for you in our email dated October 23, 2019. We still have not received a simple answer from you on this. As stated in our emails dated October 23, 24, and 28, 2019, you need to respond immediately. In any event, we continue to reserve all rights. + +We look forward to hearing from you shortly. + +Very truly yours, + +![]()Roberta A. Kaplan \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750882/EFTA02750882.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750882/EFTA02750882.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7d087629158b38bc047f425495ec8fe21a36a1aa --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750882/EFTA02750882.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,941 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750882.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 16, + "chars": 25452, + "elapsed_seconds": 12.62, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_5_Picture_3.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 200.73600000000002, + 329.29437255859375 + ], + [ + 417.6115417480469, + 329.29437255859375 + ], + [ + 417.6115417480469, + 379.772705078125 + ], + [ + 200.73600000000002, + 379.772705078125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 67.32000000000001, + 46.17 + ], + [ + 305.1478576660156, + 46.17 + ], + [ + 305.1478576660156, + 67.53924560546875 + ], + [ + 67.32000000000001, + 67.53924560546875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "By Email:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 70.38, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 128.42349243164062, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 128.42349243164062, + 225.11248779296875 + ], + [ + 70.38, + 225.11248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 46.17 + ], + [ + 305.8978576660156, + 46.17 + ], + [ + 305.8978576660156, + 67.91925048828125 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 67.91925048828125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "By Email\u2022", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 70.992, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 128.61561584472656, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 128.61561584472656, + 225.363037109375 + ], + [ + 70.992, + 225.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DOCUMENT RETENTION NOTICE DIRECTED TO THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY \nEPSTEIN", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 84.456, + 494.09999999999997 + ], + [ + 527.3819580078125, + 494.09999999999997 + ], + [ + 527.3819580078125, + 523.863037109375 + ], + [ + 84.456, + 523.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E-MAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 179.01 + ], + [ + 112.97360229492188, + 179.01 + ], + [ + 112.97360229492188, + 192.68701171875 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 192.68701171875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Kyla Magun", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 33.660000000000004, + 49.41 + ], + [ + 106.93527221679688, + 49.41 + ], + [ + 106.93527221679688, + 64.8170166015625 + ], + [ + 33.660000000000004, + 64.8170166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXTERNAL SENDER", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 33.048, + 357.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 132.4608154296875, + 357.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 132.4608154296875, + 371.83056640625 + ], + [ + 33.048, + 371.83056640625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXTERNAL SENDER", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 33.048, + 227.61 + ], + [ + 132.31814575195312, + 227.61 + ], + [ + 132.31814575195312, + 241.5841064453125 + ], + [ + 33.048, + 241.5841064453125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ON BEHALF OF ROBERTA A. KAPLAN", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 33.048, + 253.53000000000003 + ], + [ + 203.49929809570312, + 253.53000000000003 + ], + [ + 203.49929809570312, + 267.4541015625 + ], + [ + 33.048, + 267.4541015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXTERNAL SENDER", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 33.660000000000004, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 132.31814575195312, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 132.31814575195312, + 49.5841064453125 + ], + [ + 33.660000000000004, + 49.5841064453125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E-MAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 212.6702880859375 + ], + [ + 112.97360229492188, + 212.6702880859375 + ], + [ + 112.97360229492188, + 226.0670166015625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 226.0670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "By Email:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.15599999999999, + 214.64999999999998 + ], + [ + 124.848, + 214.64999999999998 + ], + [ + 124.848, + 227.61 + ], + [ + 69.15599999999999, + 227.61 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 17 + ], + [ + "Line", + 9 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 31 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 22 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750882" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750882/_page_5_Picture_3.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750882/_page_5_Picture_3.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..76c3067c01f34475c17e6cf5a3bd118b912ad3a4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750882/_page_5_Picture_3.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:81a6fc6af32f5bd245ad46236e1f1db60368093d084b47b277c851c64587bdca +size 7564 diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750898/EFTA02750898.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750898/EFTA02750898.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d149e23d2720c36f9f2cfdb4f9e5b8dc63941a40 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750898/EFTA02750898.md @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +## KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 350 FIFTH AVENUE I SUITE 7110 + +NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 + +TEL (212) 763-0883 I FAX (212) 564-0883 + +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM + +October 31, 2019 + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla United States District Court Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Re: Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 19-cv-08673 (KPF) + +Dear Judge Failla: + +We represent Jane Doe in the above-captioned action. + +We write in response to the letter dated October 29, 2019, from Bennet Moskowitz, counsel for Defendants, representatives of the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein (ECF No. 13), in which Mr. Moskowitz argues that the Order that Judge Castel issued granting the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed anonymously in Katlyn Doe v. Darren indyke and Richard D. Kahn as Joint Personal Representatives of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, et al.,1:19-cv-7771, was issued ex pane, prior to Defendants' appearance in that case. It is not clear to us why Defendants would object to Plaintiff, a childhood victim of sexual assault, proceeding pseudonymously in this case, particularly when so many other courts have granted motions to proceed under pseudonym in analogous circumstances. It is also worth noting that although Mr. Moskowitz had 14 days to seek reconsideration of Judge Castel's ruling pursuant to Rule 6.3 of the Local Rules, he failed to do so. + +In addition, we would like to request a conference in this matter. Despite multiple rounds of email correspondence and an attempt to meet and confer, Defendants have failed to confirm that they are properly preserving relevant documents. See Ex. A (parties' correspondence). Although Defendants are not obligated to respond to the Complaint until November 15, 2019, given the risks + +of spoliation, we respectfully request that the Court calendar a conference in which this issue can be discussed with the Court as soon as possible. + +Respectfully submitted, + +cc: Counsel of Record + +Roberta A. Kaplan \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750898/EFTA02750898.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750898/EFTA02750898.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a05ee17c7e053d166e32cbe8dcc763cf06438cf0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750898/EFTA02750898.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,170 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750898.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2018, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.82, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 350 FIFTH AVENUE I SUITE 7110", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.884, + 39.69 + ], + [ + 496.08642578125, + 39.69 + ], + [ + 496.08642578125, + 63.82122802734375 + ], + [ + 34.884, + 63.82122802734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.768, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 124.91880798339844, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 124.91880798339844, + 251.73748779296875 + ], + [ + 69.768, + 251.73748779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER FINK HP 2", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 37.331999999999994, + 42.92999999999999 + ], + [ + 533.4800415039062, + 42.92999999999999 + ], + [ + 533.4800415039062, + 64.1080322265625 + ], + [ + 37.331999999999994, + 64.1080322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 16 + ], + [ + "Line", + 8 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750898" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750900/EFTA02750900.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750900/EFTA02750900.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..37fe8000e1a807e9bbd939106011bfbae375b707 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750900/EFTA02750900.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +v. + +Case No. 19 Civ. 8673 + +DARREN INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, + +Defendants. + +## NOTICE OF APPEARANCE + +To the Clerk of this court and all parties of record: + +Please enter my appearance as counsel in this case for Plaintiff Jane Doe. I certify that I am admitted to practice in this Court. + +Dated: November 1, 2019 New York, New York + +/s/ Kyla Magun + +Kyla Magun + +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 + +New York, New York 10118 + +Telephone: (212) 763-0883 + +Facsimile: (212) 564-0883 + +kmagun@kaplanhecker.com + +Counsel for Plaintiflane Doe \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750900/EFTA02750900.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750900/EFTA02750900.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..af08e087031106ea21535affe0a519893a851c94 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750900/EFTA02750900.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750900.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 693, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.14, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 193.392, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 193.392, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NOTICE OF APPEARANCE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 227.052, + 320.76 + ], + [ + 385.0557861328125, + 320.76 + ], + [ + 385.0557861328125, + 335.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 227.052, + 335.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750900" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750901/EFTA02750901.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750901/EFTA02750901.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d8f6abb96b41ae43f96968bf829b1ab62365fcf5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750901/EFTA02750901.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +## KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla United States District Court Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +NEW VORK, NEW YORK 10118 + +TEL (212) 763-0883 I FAX (212) 564-0883 + +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM + +DIRECT DIAL 212.7610885 + +DIRECT EMAIL jfink@kaplanhecker.com + +November 1, 2019 + +Re: VE v. Nine East 7 hiStreet et aL, No. 19-cv-07625 (S.D.N.Y.) (Nathan, J.); Doe I et aL V. Jeffrey Epstein et aL, No. 19-cv-07675 (S.D.N.Y) (Daniels, J.); Doe v. Darren K Indyke et aL, No. 19-cv-07771 (S.D.N.Y.) (Castel, J.); Doe v. Darren K. Indyke et at, No. 19-cv-07772 (S.D.N.Y.) (Carter, J.); Doe v. Darren K Indyke et at, No. 19-cv-07773 (S.D.N.Y.) (Ramos, J.); Doe v. Indyke et. aL, No. 19-cv-08673 (S.D.N.Y.) (Failla, J.). + +Dear Judge Failla: + +We represent PlaintiffJane Doe in Doe v. Indyke et. aL, No. 19-cv-08673 a case against the estate of Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"). We write to request that the Court mark the six above-captioned actions as related and assigned to a single judge pursuant to Rule 13 of the Rules for the Division of Business Among District Judges in the Southern District ("Rule 13"). + +Rule 13 permits the Court to designate cases as related when the interests of justice and efficiency will be served. Here, the interests of justice and efficiency will be served by designating the aboveentitled actions as related because: (1) the actions concern the same or substantially similar parties and events; (2) there is substantial factual overlap; and (3) there would be substantial duplication of effort and expense for both the Court and the parties absent a determination of relatedness. See Rule 13(a); see also Poindexter V. Cash Money Records, No. I3-cv-5882, 2014 WL 1383781, at '2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2014). + +More specifically, in each of these actions, plaintiffs bring claims against the Epstein estate relating to Epstein's systemic abuse of vulnerable, young girls or women. While the facts vary slightly with respect to each plaintiff, the overall alleged pattern is the same in every case: Epstein lured the young women to his home, where he exploited and sexually assaulted them for his own sexual pleasure. + +As a result, many of the issues related to pre-trial litigation in these actions will be the same, and the Court and the parties will benefit from the efficiency of having one judge consider and rule upon the discovery and other pre-trial issues that will inevitably arise. Indeed, the need for uniformity and consistency is arguably even more pronounced here given the complexity of issues surrounding Epstein's estate (being probated in St. [REDACTED]) and concerns that plaintiffs have regarding document preservation. *See Louise Boyle, Exclusive: Executor of Jeffrey Epstein's Estate – Named in Lawsuit – Was Seen Removing a Bag of Items from the Pedophile's Mansion the Day After his Suicide. . . And After Millionaire had Admitted to Having "Damaging" Dirt on High-Powered House Guests*, DAILY MAIL. (Oct. 7, 2019). + +Thank you for your consideration of this request. We copy on this letter all the Southern District of New York Judges currently assigned to these cases, the Chief Judge of the Southern District, and counsel in the other related cases. + +![]()cc: Counsel of Record +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan +The Honorable [REDACTED] B. Daniels +The Honorable P. Kevin Castel +The Honorable Andrew L. Carter +The Honorable Edgardo Ramos +The Honorable Colleen McMahon +Arick W. Fudali, Esq. +[REDACTED] James [REDACTED], Esq. +Brittany [REDACTED], Esq. +John Pottinger, Esq. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750901/EFTA02750901.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750901/EFTA02750901.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a275d7eb7d7f7415a86a728f31dde54f044f2854 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750901/EFTA02750901.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,139 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750901.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 3634, + "elapsed_seconds": 5.59, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.941, + 37.352 + ], + [ + 311.5762634277344, + 37.352 + ], + [ + 311.5762634277344, + 62.4361572265625 + ], + [ + 34.941, + 62.4361572265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 70.49499999999999, + 233.85599999999997 + ], + [ + 122.84521484375, + 233.85599999999997 + ], + [ + 122.84521484375, + 248.68701171875 + ], + [ + 70.49499999999999, + 248.68701171875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750901" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750903/EFTA02750903.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750903/EFTA02750903.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..638add5630fbef520d48e87c3cc4ce3b7f5ab5c1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750903/EFTA02750903.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +## KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +MEMO ENDORSED + +NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 + +TEL (212) 763-0883 I FAX (212) 564-0883 + +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM + +October 31, 2019 + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla United States District Court Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Re: Doe v. Indyke et aL, No. 19-cv-08673 (KPF) + +Dear Judge Failla: + +We represent Jane Doe in the above-captioned action. + +We write in response to the letter dated October 29, 2019, from Bennet Moskowitz, counsel for Defendants, representatives of the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein (ECF No. 13), in which Mr. Moskowitz argues that the Order that Judge Castel issued granting the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed anonymously in Katlyn Doe v. Darren Indyke and Richard D. Kahn as Joint Personal Representatives of the Estate ofJefIrey E. Epstein, et aL, 1:19-cv-7771, was issued ex pane, prior to Defendants' appearance in that case. It is not clear to us why Defendants would object to Plaintiff, a childhood victim of sexual assault, proceeding pseudonymously in this case, particularly when so many other courts have granted motions to proceed under pseudonym in analogous circumstances. It is also worth noting that although Mr. Moskowitz had 14 days to seek reconsideration of Judge Castel's ruling pursuant to Rule 6.3 of the Local Rules, he failed to do so. + +In addition, we would like to request a conference in this matter. Despite multiple rounds of email correspondence and an attempt to meet and confer, Defendants have failed to confirm that they are properly preserving relevant documents. See Ex. A (parties' correspondence). Although Defendants are not obligated to respond to the Complaint until November 15, 2019, given the risks + +of spoliation, we respectfully request that the Court calendar a conference in which this issue can be discussed with the Court as soon as possible. + +Respectfully submitted, + +![]()Roberta A. Kaplan + +cc: Counsel of Record + +Application GRANTED. The parties are hereby ORDERED to appear for a conference on **November 7, 2019, at 10:00 a.m.** in Courtroom 618 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY. + +Dated: November 1, 2019 +New York, New York + +SO ORDERED. + +![]()HON. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750903/EFTA02750903.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750903/EFTA02750903.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f66051bf170a3db757ea4ab6d8a34008c2ef069b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750903/EFTA02750903.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,151 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750903.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2333, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.57, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.884, + 39.69 + ], + [ + 310.45587158203125, + 39.69 + ], + [ + 310.45587158203125, + 63.82122802734375 + ], + [ + 34.884, + 63.82122802734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.15599999999999, + 235.70999999999998 + ], + [ + 124.91880798339844, + 235.70999999999998 + ], + [ + 124.91880798339844, + 251.73748779296875 + ], + [ + 69.15599999999999, + 251.73748779296875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750903" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750905/EFTA02750905.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750905/EFTA02750905.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..98322cca4ce6edc2dcbde8950c90163e5a50ad80 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750905/EFTA02750905.md @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@ +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +350 FIFTH AVENUE | SUITE 7110 +NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 +TEL (212) 763-0883 | FAX (212) 564-0883 +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM + +DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0885 +DIRECT EMAIL jfink@kaplanhecker.com + +November 5, 2019 + +**VIA ECF** + +The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla +United States District Court +Southern District of New York +Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse +40 Foley Square +New York, NY 10007 + +*Re: Doe 17 v. Indyke et al.*, No. 19-cv-9610 (Engelmayer, J.) + +Dear Judge Failla: + +We represent Plaintiff Jane Doe in *Doe v. Indyke et. al.*, No. 19-cv-08673. We write to supplement our November 1, 2019 Letter to the Court (ECF 16), in which we requested that the Court mark the following cases as related and assigned to a single judge: *VE v. Nine East 71st Street et al.*, No. 19-cv-07625 (S.D.N.Y.) (Nathan, J.); *Doe I et al. v. Jeffrey Epstein et al.*, No. 19-cv-07675 (S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.); *Doe v. Darren K. Indyke et al.*, No. 19-cv-07771 (S.D.N.Y.) (Castel, J.); *Doe v. Darren K. Indyke et al.*, No. 19-cv-07772 (S.D.N.Y.) (Carter, J.); *Doe v. Darren K. Indyke et al.*, No. 19-cv-07773 (S.D.N.Y.) (Ramos, J.); and, *Doe v. Indyke et. al.*, No. 19-cv-08673 (S.D.N.Y.) (Failla, J.). + +It has come to our attention that an additional case, *Doe 17 v. Indyke et al.*, No. 19-cv-9610 (S.D.N.Y.) (Engelmayer, J.), concerns similar parties and substantial factual overlap with the aforementioned cases. Therefore, we request that it too be marked as related. + +Thank you for your consideration of this request. We copy on this letter all the Southern District of New York Judges currently assigned to these cases, the Chief Judge of the Southern District, and counsel in the other related cases. + +Respectfully submitted. + +![]()cc: Counsel of Record + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan + +The Honorable [REDACTED] B. Daniels + +The Honorable P. Kevin Castel + +The Honorable Andrew L. Carter + +The Honorable Edgardo Ramos + +The Honorable Paul A. Engelmayer + +The Honorable Colleen McMahon + +Arick W. Fudali, Esq. + +[REDACTED] James [REDACTED], Esq. + +Brittany [REDACTED], Esq. + +John Pottinger, Esq. + +David H. Brodie Esq. + +Laura Jane Starr Esq. + +Andrew Scott Buzin Esq. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750905/EFTA02750905.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750905/EFTA02750905.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..34dd1339a79308d0ba3f9f04fbabfc58f7caf830 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750905/EFTA02750905.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,139 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750905.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2187, + "elapsed_seconds": 6.69, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 36.779999999999994, + 38.976 + ], + [ + 308.952, + 38.976 + ], + [ + 308.952, + 58.46399999999999 + ], + [ + 36.779999999999994, + 58.46399999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 71.72099999999999, + 235.47999999999996 + ], + [ + 121.37400000000001, + 235.47999999999996 + ], + [ + 121.37400000000001, + 248.47199999999998 + ], + [ + 71.72099999999999, + 248.47199999999998 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 32 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750905" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750907/EFTA02750907.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750907/EFTA02750907.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..396bf898e871f2e0011e260e9ebf0b9380e1bc49 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750907/EFTA02750907.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +Bennet J. Moskowitz bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com + +November 5, 2019 + +ECF + +Hon. Katherine Polk Failla Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Re: Jane Doe v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as the Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, 1:19-cv-08673-KPF + +Dear Judge Failla: + +We represent Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, "Defendants"), in the referenced action. We write in response to Plaintiff's counsel's November 1, 2019 letter (ECF # 16), which Ms. Fink submitted without first meeting and conferring with us, requesting the Court mark this and five other S.D.N.Y. actions pending before five different judges' related and assigned to a single judge. + +If approved, Plaintiff's request would have serious consequences for this and the other subject actions and parties thereto. Accordingly, we respectfully request that Defendants and all other parties to the actions—which so far include 7 different plaintiffs and 20 different defendants have thirty (30) days to respond to Plaintiff's request. That time would permit the various parties to the lawsuits to meet and confer regarding potential consolidation, thereby conserving judicial resources by reducing or eliminating the issues in dispute. The requested time would also provide the parties sufficient time to otherwise respond to Plaintiff's request. + +' See VE v. Nine East 71st Street, et at, 1:19-cv-07625 (AJN); Jane Doe 1 and 2 v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein, et at, 1:19-cv-07675 (GBD); Katlyn Doe v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn as Joint Personal Representatives of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, et al., 1:19-cv-07771 ( PKC); Priscilla Doe v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn as Joint Personal Representatives of The Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, et at, 1:19-cv-07772 (ALC); and Lisa Doe v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn as Joint Personal Representatives of The Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, et at, 1:19-cv-07773 (ER). + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/Bennet J. Moskowitz + +Bennet J. Moskowitz + +Cc: The Honorable Colleen McMahon + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan + +The Honorable B. Daniels + +The Honorable P. Kevin Castel + +The Honorable Andrew L. Carter + +The Honorable Edgardo Ramos + +iA l( VV. Fudali E + +m , Esq. + +Brittany , Esq. + +Stan Pottnger, Esq. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750907/EFTA02750907.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750907/EFTA02750907.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0d570ebc1680c5c48dcc3b6a83cdcf4181e32e03 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750907/EFTA02750907.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750907.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2382, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.03, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 44 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750907" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750909/EFTA02750909.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750909/EFTA02750909.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aeb64792b5d79de550213be4c1cf8e5a35a8a8c9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750909/EFTA02750909.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +Bennet J. Moskowitz bennelmoskowitz@troutman.com + +November 5, 2019 + +ECF + +Hon. Katherine Polk Failla Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Re: Jane Doe v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as the Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, 1:19-cv-08673-KPF + +Dear Judge Failla: + +We represent Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, "Defendants"), in the referenced action. In accordance with Your Honor's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases § 2(c) (providing 3 business days for parties to respond to letter motions), we write in response to Plaintiff's counsel's October 31, 2019 letter motion (ECF # 14) which they submitted without first meeting and conferring with us as we requested. Plaintiff's counsel: (i) requests an unnecessary court conference to discuss "risks of spoliation" based on a U.K. tabloid article that we already advised Plaintiff's counsel is, to the extent it suggests spoliation has occurred, false; and (ii) misstates Defendants' position on Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym (ECF# 3) and even though Plaintiff agreed, and the Court So Ordered, Defendants have until November 15, 2019 to respond to the Motion (See ECF# 10). + +On October 22, 2019, Plaintiff's counsel, Roberta Kaplan, citing a U.K. tabloid article implying one of the Co-Executors improperly removed materials in a bag from the decedent's property in Manhattan, asked us to confirm the tabloid's accuracy. An attorney for the Co-Executor promptly called Ms. Kaplan and explained to her that the tabloid article, to the extent it suggested spoliation, was wrong. The Co-Executor's attorney also specifically explained to Ms. Kaplan that the subject bag did not contain documents or any other materials relevant to this case. In fact, the Co-Executor referenced in the tabloid article was carrying a bag of decedent's clothing for purposes of laying decedent to rest. + +We have also advised Ms. Kaplan on multiple occasions, including in writing, that the Co-Executors are abiding by their discovery obligations. However, after we addressed the tabloid article and further confirmed Defendants' adherence to their discovery obligations, Ms. Kaplan then demanded we confirm Defendants are preserving various categories of documents that Ms. Kaplan labeled "topics." Many of the so-called topics are argumentative, assume facts that have not been proven and implicate information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. Ms. Kaplan failed to cite to us or the Court any legal authority supporting her demands, and we are not aware of any such authority. + +Despite being at an arbitration hearing in Southfield, Michigan (which Ms. Kaplan was aware of) and despite Ms. Kaplan's failure to cite any legal bases for her premature demands, we asked Ms. Kaplan to meet and confer with us by phone if she still insisted on seeking Court intervention regarding these issues, so we could better understand the basis of her position. Instead, Plaintiff's counsel submitted their Letter Motion to the Court last Thursday. + +Given Defendants' confirmation that they are abiding by their preservation obligations, and in light of Ms. Kaplan's failure to provide any support (beyond an erroneous tabloid article) for her speculative allegations of spoliation, we respectfully submit it is premature to address any discovery issues at this very early stage of this case—Defendants have until November 15, 2019 to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint and the Initial pre-trial conference is scheduled for December 13, 2019. + +Finally, Ms. Kaplan incorrectly asserts that Defendants object to Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym. To the contrary, and as we will further explain in Defendants' response brief due per the Court's Order on November 15, 2019, Defendants have no objection to Plaintiff's desire to prevent the public from discovering her identity. We never suggested otherwise to Ms. Kaplan. Defendants do intend to brief their position on anonymity so they are not, subject to measures preventing such public disclosure, deprived of a fair opportunity to defend against Plaintiff's claims. + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/Bennet J. Moskowitz Bennet J. Moskowitz \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750909/EFTA02750909.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750909/EFTA02750909.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a9fc739d85a271c0a5a181fe255a231096e52b0b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750909/EFTA02750909.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750909.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 4328, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.76, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750909" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750911/EFTA02750911.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750911/EFTA02750911.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f3642c4934403e0719a7322ea6b202a2d7705dc3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750911/EFTA02750911.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +## KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla United States District Court Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10118 + +TEL (212) 763-0883 I FAX (212) 564-0883 + +WW W KAPLANHECKER COM + +November 6, 2019 + +Re: Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 19-cv-08673 (S.D.N.Y.) (KPF) + +Dear Judge Failla: + +We represent Jane Doe in the above-captioned action. We write in response to Defendants' two letters filed yesterday regarding: (I) related case status (ECF 19); and (2) document preservation (ECF 20). + +Since we do not see any conceivable basis under Rule 13 of the Rules for the Division of Business Among District Judges in the Southern District to oppose designating these cases with overlapping defendants, legal issues, and factual allegations as related, we oppose Defendants' request for 30 days to respond. See Local Rule for the Division of Business Among District Judges in the Southern District 13(a); see also Poindexter v. Cash Money Records, No. 13-cv-5882, 2014 WL 1383781, at •2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2014); Pace v. Quante:nine:, No. 13-cv-91, 2013 WL 5405563, at •5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2013). Our client was understandably shocked by the suicide of Jeffrey Epstein in federal custody, and is eager to obtain a modicum of justice as soon as possible. All we have seen from Defendants, however, are efforts at delay. We very much want to push this case forward to trial as soon as possible, and it is essential to have a judge assigned who will preside over the entire progress of the case in order to do so. I + +Notably, contrary to the suggestion in Defendants' letter, Plaintiff is not seeking consolidation at this time. We further note that the cases that Plaintiff has proposed as related have now all been reassigned to the same magistrate judge, including: VE v. Nine East 71.0 Street et at, No. 19-cv-07625 (S.D.N.Y.) (Nathan, .1.); Doe I et at + +As for preservation, the issues we have raised regarding preservation present yet another compelling reason why these cases should be marked as related since the risks of spoliation face plaintiffs in all cases. While we appreciate Defendants' explanation about Mr. Epstein's clothing (which was not previously provided to us), that was not the point of our prior letters and emails to Defendants. (*See, e.g.*, ECF 14 Ex. A.) The point of our letters and emails was that we have asked Defendants to identify *which* categories of documents and other information we have specified for preservation they believe are "argumentative, assume facts that have not been proven and implicate information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine," and are therefore not being preserved. Defendants have failed to answer that simple question, which understandably causes us great concern about spoliation given Mr. Epstein's multiple residences across the globe, the fact that one of the two Defendant executors is a lawyer, and the fact that, as a result of a will he signed just before his death, Mr. Epstein's estate is being probated in the Virgin Islands. + +We look forward to discussing these issues with Your Honor in Court tomorrow. + +Respectfully submitted, + +![]()Roberta A. Kaplan + +cc: Counsel of Record + +--- + +*v. Jeffrey Epstein et al.*, No. 19-cv-07675 (S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.); *Doe v. Darren K. Indyke et al.*, No. 19-cv-07771 (S.D.N.Y.) (Castel, J.); *Doe v. Darren K. Indyke et al.*, No. 19-cv-07772 (S.D.N.Y.) (Carter, J.); *Doe v. Darren K. Indyke et al.*, No. 19-cv-07773 (S.D.N.Y.) (Ramos, J.); and *Doe 17 v. Indyke et al.*, No. 19-cv-9610 (S.D.N.Y.) (Engelmayer, J.). \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750911/EFTA02750911.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750911/EFTA02750911.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f435a100bc2525a36f3873414a8459a4f9d36622 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750911/EFTA02750911.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,151 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750911.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 3682, + "elapsed_seconds": 6.46, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 35.554, + 37.352 + ], + [ + 311.5762634277344, + 37.352 + ], + [ + 311.5762634277344, + 62.4361572265625 + ], + [ + 35.554, + 62.4361572265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 71.108, + 233.85599999999997 + ], + [ + 126.875, + 233.85599999999997 + ], + [ + 126.875, + 249.67999267578125 + ], + [ + 71.108, + 249.67999267578125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750911" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750913/EFTA02750913.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750913/EFTA02750913.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b93dc724de8ad5f1867dffc871b871c544ddda1a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750913/EFTA02750913.md @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ +## KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +MEM 0 ENDORSED + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla United States District Court Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10118 + +TEL (212) 763-0883 I FAX (212) 569-0883 + +WWW,KAPLANHECKER.COM + +November 6, 2019 + +Re: Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 19-cv-08673 (S.D.N.Y.) (KPF) + +Dear Judge Failla: + +We represent Jane Doe in the above-captioned action. We write in response to Defendants' two letters filed yesterday regarding: (I) related case status (ECF 19); and (2) document preservation (ECF 20). + +Since we do not see any conceivable basis under Rule 13 of the Rules for the Division of Business Among District Judges in the Southern District to oppose designating these cases with overlapping defendants, legal issues, and factual allegations as related, we oppose Defendants' request for 30 days to respond. See Local Rule for the Division of Business Among District Judges in the Southern District 13(a); see also Poindexter v. Cash Money Records, No. 13-cv-5882, 2014 WL 1383781, at •2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2014); Pace v. Quintanilla, No. 13-cv-91, 2013 WL 5405563, at •5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2013). Our client was understandably shocked by the suicide of Jeffrey Epstein in federal custody, and is eager to obtain a modicum of justice as soon as possible. All we have seen from Defendants, however, are efforts at delay. We very much want to push this case forward to trial as soon as possible, and it is essential to have a judge assigned who will preside over the entire progress of the case in order to do so. I + +Notably, contrary to the suggestion in Defendants' letter, Plaintiff is not seeking consolidation at this time. We further note that the cases that Plaintiff has proposed as related have now all been reassigned to the same magistrate judge, including: VE v. Nine East 71.0 Street et at, No. 19-cv-07625 (S.D.N.Y.) (Nathan, .1.); Doe 1 et at + +As for preservation, the issues we have raised regarding preservation present yet another compelling reason why these cases should be marked as related since the risks of spoliation face plaintiffs in all cases. While we appreciate Defendants' explanation about Mr. Epstein's clothing (which was not previously provided to us), that was not the point of our prior letters and emails to Defendants. (See, e.g., ECF 14 Ex. A.) The point of our letters and emails was that we have asked Defendants to identify which categories of documents and other information we have specified for preservation they believe are "argumentative, assume facts that have not been proven and implicate information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine," and are therefore not being preserved. Defendants have failed to answer that simple question, which understandably causes us great concern about spoliation given Mr. Epstein's multiple residences across the globe, the fact that one of the two Defendant executors is a lawyer, and the fact that, as a result of a will he signed just before his death, Mr. Epstein's estate is being probated in the Virgin Islands. + +We look forward to discussing these issues with Your Honor in Court tomorrow. + +Respectfully submitted, + +cc: Counsel of Record + +Roberta A. Kaplan + +v. Jeffrey Epstein et at, No. 19-cv-07675 (S.D.N.Y) (Daniels, J.); Doe v. Darren K Indyke et at, No. 19-cv-07771 (S.D.N.Y.) (Castel, J.); Doe v. Darren K Indyke et at, No. 19-cv-07772 (S.D.N.Y.) (Carter, JJ; Doe v. Darren K• Indyke et al, No. 19-cv-07773 (S.D.N.Y.) (Ramos, J.); and Doe 17 v. Indyke et al, No. 19-cv-9610 (S.D.N.Y.) (Engelmayer, L). + +The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's November 1, 2019 and November 5, 2019 letters (Dkt. #16, 18) regarding related cases, Defendants' November 5, 2019 letters responding to Plaintiff's letters regarding related cases and request for a discovery conference (Dkt. #19, 20), and Plaintiff's above reply (Dkt. #21). Given such, the Court is in discussion with the judges assigned to the related cases and this Court's Assignment Committee. As Plaintiff notes in the above letter, all of the related cases have now been assigned to a single magistrate judge. Accordingly, the discovery conference scheduled for November 7, 2019, is hereby ADJOURNED *sine die*. + +Dated: November 6, 2019 +New York, New York + +SO ORDERED. + +![]()HON. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA +UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750913/EFTA02750913.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750913/EFTA02750913.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ef1bf2e77e9978f3df6e90819a16b9d6002e93d6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750913/EFTA02750913.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,220 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750913.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 4445, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.81, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 35.554, + 37.352 + ], + [ + 311.5762634277344, + 37.352 + ], + [ + 311.5762634277344, + 62.4361572265625 + ], + [ + 35.554, + 62.4361572265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 71.108, + 233.85599999999997 + ], + [ + 126.36898040771484, + 233.85599999999997 + ], + [ + 126.36898040771484, + 249.99249267578125 + ], + [ + 71.108, + 249.99249267578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LIP 2", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 39.168000000000006, + 41.9837646484375 + ], + [ + 535.5182495117188, + 41.9837646484375 + ], + [ + 535.5182495117188, + 62.214599609375 + ], + [ + 39.168000000000006, + 62.214599609375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750913" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750916/EFTA02750916.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750916/EFTA02750916.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0398b7ec165fbefd877e4718b04d3bcf06200e7f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750916/EFTA02750916.md @@ -0,0 +1,80 @@ +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +350 FIFTH AVENUE | SUITE 7110 +NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 +TEL (212) 763-0883 | FAX (212) 564-0883 +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM + +DO SDNY +DOCUMENT +ECTRONICALLY FILED +FILED: 11/17/19 + +DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0885 +DIRECT EMAIL jfink@kaplanhecker.com + +November 5, 2019 + +VIA ECF **ECF ENCLOSED** + +The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla +United States District Court +Southern District of New York +Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse +40 Foley Square +New York, NY 10007 + +Re: Doe 17 v. Indyke et al., No. 19-cv-9610 (Engelmayer, J.) + +11/6/2019 +The netters will not be +assigned to a single judge - the +The judges have agreed & the +use of a single negistrate judge +to coordinate + +Dear Judge Failla: + +We represent Plaintiff Jane Doe in *Doe v. Indyke et al.*, No. 19-cv-08673. We write to supplement our November 1, 2019 Letter to the Court (ECF 16), in which we requested that the Court mark the following cases as related and assigned to a single judge: *VE v. Nine East 71st Street et al.*, No. 19-cv-07625 (S.D.N.Y.) (Nathan, J.); *Doe I et al. v. Jeffrey Epstein et al.*, No. 19-cv-07675 (S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.); *Doe v. Darren K. Indyke et al.*, No. 19-cv-07771 (S.D.N.Y.) (Castel, J.); *Doe v. Darren K. Indyke et al.*, No. 19-cv-07772 (S.D.N.Y.) (Carter, J.); *Doe v. Darren K. Indyke et al.*, No. 19-cv-07773 (S.D.N.Y.) (Ramos, J.); and, *Doe v. Indyke et al.*, No. 19-cv-08673 (S.D.N.Y.) (Failla, J.). + +It has come to our attention that an additional case, *Doe 17 v. Indyke et al.*, No. 19-cv-9610 (S.D.N.Y.) (Engelmayer, J.), concerns similar parties and substantial factual overlap with the aforementioned cases. Therefore, we request that it too be marked as related. + +Thank you for your consideration of this request. We copy on this letter all the Southern District of New York Judges currently assigned to these cases, the Chief Judge of the Southern District, and counsel in the other related cases. + +Respectfully submitted, + +Julie Fink, Esq. + +*[Handwritten signatures and names: Cela Fink, Chief Judge]* + +## KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +cc: Counsel of Record + +The Honorable Alison J. Nathan + +The Honorable B. Daniels + +The Honorable P. Kevin Castel + +The Honorable Andrew L. Carter + +The Honorable Edgardo Ramos + +The Honorable Paul A. Engelmaycr + +The Honorable Colleen McMahon + +Arick W. Fudali E + +James Esq. + +Brittany Esq. + +John Poninger, Esq. + +David H. Brodie Esq. + +Laura Jane Starr Esq. + +Andrew Scott Buzin Esq. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750916/EFTA02750916.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750916/EFTA02750916.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6c43aef258419fabcbe916980ae802b64712601b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750916/EFTA02750916.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,120 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750916.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2462, + "elapsed_seconds": 7.87, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 52.63199999999999, + 62.37 + ], + [ + 254.02996826171875, + 62.37 + ], + [ + 254.02996826171875, + 81.215576171875 + ], + [ + 52.63199999999999, + 81.215576171875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 424 + ], + [ + "Line", + 48 + ], + [ + "Text", + 36 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750916" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750918/EFTA02750918.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750918/EFTA02750918.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..faa7c69b84bde46c1aba82d89f7b568731ed220f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750918/EFTA02750918.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaintiff, + +19 Civ. 8673 (KPF) (DCF) + +DARREN K. INDYKE, and RICHARD D. KAHN, + +Defendant. + +## ORDER OF REFERENCE TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE + +KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, United States District Judge: + +The above entitled action is referred to the designated Magistrate Judge for the following purpose(s): + +General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, nondispositive pretrial motions, and settlement) + +Specific Non-Dispositive Motion/Dispute: + +If referral is for discovery disputes when the District Judge is unavailable, the time period of the referral: + +Settlement + +Inquest After Default/Damages Hearing + +Consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) for all purposes (including trial) + +Consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) for limited purpose (e.g., dispositive motion, preliminary injunction) Purpose: + +Habeas Corpus + +Social Security + +Dispositive Motion (i.e., motion requiring a Report and Recommendation) Particular Motion: + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: November 7, 2019 New York, New York rnak., 4A &to.\_ + +KATHERINE POLK FAILLA United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750918/EFTA02750918.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750918/EFTA02750918.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b21724580ffbe338001f22d10bf253195a7549f8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750918/EFTA02750918.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,143 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750918.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1103, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.04, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 57.50999999999999 + ], + [ + 299.9381103515625, + 57.50999999999999 + ], + [ + 299.9381103515625, + 87.11248779296875 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 87.11248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ORDER OF REFERENCE \nTO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 343.33200000000005, + 163.62 + ], + [ + 512.2457885742188, + 163.62 + ], + [ + 512.2457885742188, + 192.86248779296875 + ], + [ + 343.33200000000005, + 192.86248779296875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 18 + ], + [ + "Line", + 9 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750918" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750920/EFTA02750920.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750920/EFTA02750920.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..03c679721bc0cc647d6b95e8b7bef82c156da041 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750920/EFTA02750920.md @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@ +Troutman Sanders LLP +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 + +troutman.com + +![](_page_0_Picture_28.jpeg) + +**troutman** +sanders + +Kenneth J. Horrmann +kenneth.horrmann@troutman.com + +REMO ENDORSED + +11/8/2019 + +November 6, 2019 + +VIA HAND FEDEX + +Hon. Colleen McMahon +U.S. District Court, SDNY +Daniel [REDACTED] Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl St. +New York, NY 10007-1312 +(212) 805-6325 + +*This matter has already +been considered and invited on +by the court's Assignment +Committee. Any further action +must be taken by +the assigned judges.* + +Re: Doe v. Indyke et. al., 1:19-cv-08673-KPF + +Dear Judge McMahon: + +My firm represents the defendants in Doe v. Indyke et. al., 1:19-cv-08673-KPF, which is pending +in front of Judge Failla. + +Enclosed please find a courtesy copy of Defendants' counsel's response in that case to +Plaintiff's counsel's letter requesting that it be marked related to five other cases pending in the +Southern District, on which Your Honor was copied. A copy of the letter from Plaintiff's counsel +is also enclosed for your reference. + +Respectfully submitted, + +*Kenneth J. Horrmann* +Kenneth J. Horrmann +Managing Clerk & Litigation Docket Manager + +*of whom I am +not ne.* + +Enclosures + +cc: Bennet J. Moskowitz, Esq. + +*The decision of the Committee +is that the matters will NOT be +assigned to a single judge but the +Magistrate Judge Treeman will superintend +discovery in all matters. Collecting in the* \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750920/EFTA02750920.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750920/EFTA02750920.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..85ccf84bebe1f281caf4354270f3724265236a17 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750920/EFTA02750920.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750920.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1473, + "elapsed_seconds": 6.61, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_28.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 36 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 7 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750920" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750920/_page_0_Picture_28.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750920/_page_0_Picture_28.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a1d1e9a283d682419e34a17a0f21c13993457c4c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750920/_page_0_Picture_28.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:11fad1d301d117a9dea3736336a274febe28766b33ab38b68b490b47b6d0e4b8 +size 10730 diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750921/EFTA02750921.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750921/EFTA02750921.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b751cefefd2bbc8d74a929ef4a3d656db50141bb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750921/EFTA02750921.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +## EXHIBIT A + +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +CASE NO. 1:19-cv-09610-PAE + +JANE DOE 17, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +DARREN K. INDYKE AND +RICHARD D. KAHN, AS JOINT +PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF +THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, +NINE EAST 71st STREET CORPORATION, +LAUREL, INC., FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, +INC., NES, LLC, MAPLE, INC., LSJE, LLC, +HBRK ASSOCIATES, INC., NAUTILUS, INC., +CYPRESS, INC. and JEGE, INC. + +Defendants. + +**PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S +MOTION TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY** + +Upon the motion of Plaintiff for an order permitting the filing of the Complaint, +summons, civil cover sheet, and all future papers anonymously, it is hereby + +ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed Anonymously be GRANTED. + +![]()UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE + +Dated: November 8 , 2019 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750921/EFTA02750921.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750921/EFTA02750921.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1fafd0de82217a85e0ef923b958d8c51a18c4c57 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750921/EFTA02750921.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,158 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750921.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 824, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.28, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 181.76399999999998, + 280.17437744140625 + ], + [ + 437.49151611328125, + 280.17437744140625 + ], + [ + 437.49151611328125, + 330.6527099609375 + ], + [ + 181.76399999999998, + 330.6527099609375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.1, + 88.28999999999999 + ], + [ + 495.72, + 88.28999999999999 + ], + [ + 495.72, + 101.25 + ], + [ + 107.1, + 101.25 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 170.13600000000002, + 391.23 + ], + [ + 430.23599999999993, + 391.23 + ], + [ + 430.23599999999993, + 417.15000000000003 + ], + [ + 170.13600000000002, + 417.15000000000003 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 3 + ], + [ + "Line", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 23 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750921" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750923/EFTA02750923.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750923/EFTA02750923.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..989c29323b0b08cba575d387ca9b944bdacd0471 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750923/EFTA02750923.md @@ -0,0 +1,125 @@ +# EXHIBIT B + +SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK +NEW YORK COUNTY + +10-CVA + +PART \_\_\_\_\_ + +9500499-19 + +INDEX NO. \_\_\_\_\_ + +MOTION DATE \_\_\_\_\_ + +MOTION SEQ. NO. 1 + +PRESENT: George J. Silver + +Justice + +ARK 55 Doe + +Archdiocese of NY + +The following papers, numbered 1 to \_\_\_\_\_, were read on this motion to/for \_\_\_\_\_ + +Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause — Affidavits — Exhibits \_\_\_\_\_ No(s). \_\_\_\_\_ + +Answering Affidavits — Exhibits \_\_\_\_\_ No(s). \_\_\_\_\_ + +Replying Affidavits \_\_\_\_\_ No(s). \_\_\_\_\_ + +Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion is \_\_\_\_\_ + +Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion is decided in accordance with the annexed decision and order of the court dated 11/4/19. + +MOTION/CASE IS RESPECTFULLY REFERRED TO JUSTICE +FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S): + +Dated: 11/4/19 + +George J. Silver, J.S.C. +**HON. GEORGE J. SILVER** + +- 1. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED +- 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: MOTION IS: GRANTED DENIED +- 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER +- DO NOT POST FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE + +### SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK + +X + +ARK55 DOE + +Index JO. 950049/2019 + +Plaintiff, + +-against- + +# ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK, et at + +Defendants + +X + +HON. J. SILVER: + +With the instant application plaintiff ARK55 DOE ("plaintiff') moves, by Order to Show Cause, for permission from this court to proceed in anonymity during this action. Defendant Archdiocese of New York has submitted an agreed-upon stipulation waiving all objections to plaintiff's requested relief to proceed using a pseudonym. To date, defendant Fordham Preparatory School has not filed any opposition or otherwise noted an objection to the instant application. However, defendant USA Northeast Province of Society of Jesus (hereinafter referred to as "defendant") opposes the application, arguing that the anonymity protection sought by plaintiff would run athwart of defendant's basic due process rights. + +## ARGUMENT + +In support of the instant application to proceed anonymously, plaintiff argues that allowing plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym would spare plaintiff from the stigmatization and potential embarrassment that may arise as the result of the adjudication of this matter in a public forum. Plaintiff, like other similarly situated plaintiffs, is especially concerned about renewed scrutiny that may ensue due to New York State's enactment of the Child Victims Act (L. 2019 c.1 I) ("CVA") which, inter alia,(1) extends the statute of limitations on criminal cases involving certain sex offenses against children under 18 (see CPL §30.10 [fl ); (2) extends the time which civil actions based upon such criminal conduct may be brought until the child victim reaches 55 years old (see CPLR §208[b)); and (3) opens a one-year window reviving civil actions for which the statute of limitations has already run (even in cases that were litigated and dismissed on limitations grounds), commencing six months after the effective date of the measure, i.e. August 14, 2019 (see CPLR §214-g). Indeed, plaintiff maintains that this case is likely to draw attention from the media, and if plaintiff is not allowed to proceed under a pseudonym, increased media attention may lead to a chilling effect that may inhibit plaintiff and other alleged victims of abuse from coming forward. Plaintiff further highlights that the protection of anonymity is uniquely afforded to victims of sexual assault rather than to their alleged perpetrators. Moreover, plaintiff argues that revelation of defendant's name serves the public interest insofar as it alerts the public to potential institutional wrongdoing in the hopes that such wrongdoing is never repeated. + +In opposition, defendant argues that "[p]laintiff's request for this court to permit them [sic] to proceed anonymously should be denied because it is not justified in this case and would violate the defendant's due process rights." In particular, defendant contends that if defendant is unable to ascertain plaintiff's identity, defendant will be unable to defendant itself against plaintiff's claims because defendant will be incapable of connecting its alleged acts to any specific person. This, defendant avers, would violate "defendant's basic due process rights of notice and an opportunity to be heard." Citing Doe v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese, 64 Misc.3d 1220(A)(N.Y. Sup. Ct. West. County July 31, 2019), defendant submits that at least one trial court has concluded that potential embarrassment to a plaintiff does not outweigh a defendant's ability to defend itself against claims of alleged sexual abuse. + +In reply, plaintiff highlights that a number of defendants in this and other actions have already consented to allowing plaintiffs to proceed anonymously. Plaintiff argues that this case should be treated no differently. + +#### DISCUSSION + +In general, "[t]he determination of whether to allow a plaintiff to proceed anonymously requires the court to use its discretion in balancing plaintiffs privacy interest against the presumption in favor of open trials and against any prejudice to defendant" (Anonymous v. Lerner, 124 AD3d 487, 487 [1st Dept 2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see J. Doe No. I v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., 24 AD3d 215 [1st Dept 2005]; see also Doe v. Szul Jewelry, Inc., 2008 NY Slip Op 31382 [U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2008]). Among the recognized values of open access to civil proceedings is that "the bright light cast upon the judicial process by public observation diminishes the possibilities for injustice, incompetence, perjury, and fraud" (Danco Labs. v. Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter, 274 AD2d 1, 7 [1st Dept 2000]). Likewise, the very openness of the process should provide the public "with a more complete understanding of the judicial system and a better perception of its fairness" and serves to "ensure that the proceedings are conducted efficiently, honestly and fairly" (Danco, 274 AD2d at 7, supra). + +However, the right of the public, and the press, to access judicial proceedings is not absolute or unfettered, and involves judicial discretion (Lerner, 124 AD3d at 487, supra). Moreover, access may still be respected in keeping with constitutional requirements while sensitive information is restricted in keeping with "the State's legitimate concern for the well-being" of an individual (Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Ct., 457 U.S. 596, 606 [1982]). + +A plaintiffs privacy interests, although not recognized under New York State's common law, are found in the Civil Rights Law ("CRL") (see Stephano v. News Group Publications, Inc., 64 NY2d 174, 182 [1984]; Arrington v. New York Times Co., 55 NY2d 433, 440 [1982]). Indeed, pursuant to CRL §50-b "The identity of any victim of a sex offense, as defined in article one hundred thirty or section 255.25, 255.26, or 255.27 of the penal law, or of an offense involving the alleged transmission of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, shall be confidential...." However, this statute does not apply to everyone claiming to have been the victim of a sexual assault. Rather, the statute was enacted to spare victims of sexual assault the embarrassment of being publicly identified in the news media and to encourage such victims to cooperate in the prosecution of sexual offenses (see New York Bill Jacket, 1999 S.B. 5539, Ch. 643). Courts have afforded victims of sexual offenses protection under + +CRL §50-b where there has either been an arrest and prosecution, or there is an investigation (see People v. McDaniel, 81 NY2d 10 [1993]). + +In addition, while "[i]t is elementary that the primary function of a pleading is to apprise an adverse party of the pleader's claim" the same does not necessarily apply to a pleader's name (M v. Mandell Food Stores, Inc., 93 NY2d 34, 40 [1999][emphasis added]). + +Moreover, as highlighted by plaintiff in the present proceeding, the CVA was enacted with the protections codified under CRL §50-b in mind. To be sure, the legislature wanted to avoid exposing alleged victims to the lasting scars of broadcasted exposure while "help[ing] the public identify hidden child predators through civil litigation discovery, and shift the significant and lasting costs of child sexual abuse to the responsible parties." + +Considering the foregoing, it is axiomatic that plaintiff should be afforded the protection of anonymity. To be sure, the instant case involves alleged acts that will no doubt center on information about plaintiff of a sensitive and highly personal nature. The court recognizes that plaintiff, as the alleged victim of sexual abuse, has undoubtably suffered great emotional distress. Moreover, this case has not been brought against a government entity, a factor this court believes would militate in favor of the public's right to know. + +Instead, defendant is a private institution, and while revelation of its identity may be perceived as impinging upon an expectation of privacy, courts have long recognized that the anonymity protection afforded to a unique subset of plaintiffs oftentimes does not extend to defendants. Indeed, among the factors considered in permitting the use of a pseudonym are: " whether the justification asserted by the requesting party is merely to avoid the annoyance and criticism that may attend any litigation or is to preserve privacy in a matter of a sensitive and highly personal nature" (James v. Jacobson, id. at 238; see also Doe v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 176 F.R.D. 464, 467-8 [E.D.Pa.1997]). Defendant's request falls within the ambit of the former justification. To be sure, any embarrassment that stems from the publication of defendant's name is indistinguishable from the embarrassment that is likely to befall any defendant accused of wrongdoing in a civil action. Defendant's assumption is that a plaintiff and a defendant stand on an even plain as far as anonymity is concerned. This assumption is a false one under existing precedent. Moreover, as a private institution with scores of employees, defendant is by its nature and size already receives anonymity protection that would not inure to a private citizen accused of wrongdoing. + +Aesop, the Greek fabulist and storyteller, is credited with having said the oft-repeated aphorism that "the injuries we do and those we suffer are seldom weighed in the same scales." That principle applies here, where the legislature has codified specific protections for alleged victims of sexual assault that do not apply to alleged perpetrators of that abuse. While that principle may be viewed by defendant as unfair, it nonetheless is the state of the law by which this court is bound. Defendant overlooks the logic that underlies the present state of the law. To be sure, it has long been held that the victims of sexual assault stand in an inimitable position. The fortification sought by plaintiff here represents but one, carefully curated, protection that alleged victims of sexual assault can avail themselves of. + +Finally, defendant's reliance on Doe v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese, 64 Misc.3d 1220(A)(N.Y. Sup. Ct. West. County July 31, 2019) is misplaced. That case involved a plaintiff who + +was seeking to proceed under a pseudonym while simultaneously refusing to disclose his true identity to both defendants and the court. Unlike *Doe*, here plaintiff has agreed to share details about plaintiff's identity with defendant so that defendant's due process rights are not violated. In return, plaintiff is simply asking defendant not to reveal those details publicly – an arrangement that has notably been accepted in the lion share of CVA cases before this court. + +Notably, a grant of anonymity by this court impacts far less on the public's right to open proceedings than does the actual closing of a courtroom or the sealing of records. Ultimately, in this court's view, the public has an interest in seeing this case determined on its merits, after the parties have had an opportunity to fully and properly litigate the issues presented. Anonymity, at this juncture, will preserve the integrity of that stated objective. Accordingly, plaintiff's application seeking anonymity is granted. + +Accordingly, it is, for the reasons stated above, hereby + +ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to file a complaint and proceed herein under a pseudonym, rather than in plaintiff's legal name, and to proceed throughout this action under a pseudonym, rather than in plaintiff's own name, is granted; and it is further + +ORDERED that plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this decision, with notice of entry, upon defendants within 10 days of this court's decision and order; and it is further + +ORDERED that plaintiff personally serve defendants with the complaint within 20 days thereafter; and it is further + +ORDERED that plaintiff provide defendants with the abovenamed plaintiff's name (including maiden names, if any), date of birth, social security number, parents and/or guardians' names, current address, and address at the time of the alleged abuse; and it is further + +ORDERED that the time for defendants to appear and to answer, amend, or supplement their answers or to make any motion with relation to the summons or to the complaint in this action, be and the same hereby is extended to November 30, 2019; and it is further + +ORDERED that the parties are directed to appear for a preliminary conference on December 10, 2019 at the courthouse located at 111 Centre Street, New York, NY, Room 1227 at 2:00 P.M. + +The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of this court. + +Dated: 11/4/19 + +![]()**HON. [REDACTED] J. SILVER** \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750923/EFTA02750923.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750923/EFTA02750923.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4c7ebc69c5601a88c68f221cd51abaea27b0549d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750923/EFTA02750923.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,375 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750923.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 6, + "chars": 13652, + "elapsed_seconds": 9.93, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT B", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 183.6, + 280.17437744140625 + ], + [ + 437.7938232421875, + 280.17437744140625 + ], + [ + 437.7938232421875, + 330.6527404785156 + ], + [ + 183.6, + 330.6527404785156 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 106.57499999999999, + 33.0 + ], + [ + 529.83, + 33.0 + ], + [ + 529.83, + 70.125 + ], + [ + 106.57499999999999, + 70.125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK \nCOUNTY OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 58.23499999999999, + 62.831999999999994 + ], + [ + 349.8101501464844, + 62.831999999999994 + ], + [ + 349.8101501464844, + 93.363037109375 + ], + [ + 58.23499999999999, + 93.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK, et at", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 58.23499999999999, + 213.79200000000003 + ], + [ + 274.79986572265625, + 213.79200000000003 + ], + [ + 274.79986572265625, + 230.60302734375 + ], + [ + 58.23499999999999, + 230.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 264.816, + 419.4239999999999 + ], + [ + 342.36444091796875, + 419.4239999999999 + ], + [ + 342.36444091796875, + 435.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 264.816, + 435.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DISCUSSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 238.68, + 274.365 + ], + [ + 318.24, + 274.365 + ], + [ + 318.24, + 288.363037109375 + ], + [ + 238.68, + 288.363037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 3 + ], + [ + "Line", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 33 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 107 + ], + [ + "Line", + 50 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750923" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750929/EFTA02750929.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750929/EFTA02750929.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d55e8421f149198e34f258355264c1493e9cd69d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750929/EFTA02750929.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +## KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla United States District Court Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 + +TEL (212) 763-0883 I FAX (212) 564-0883 + +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM + +DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0884 + +DIRECT EMAIL rkaplan@kaplanhecker.corn + +November 12, 2019 + +Re: Doe v. Indyke a al., No. 19-cv-8673-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) + +Dear Judge Failla: + +As counsel for PlaintiffJane Doe in the above-captioned action, we write to advise the Court of two recent decisions relevant to our Motion for Leave to Proceed Under Pseudonym (ECF No. 3). First, Judge Engelmayer in a related Epstein case granted the plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously. See Doe 17 v. Ind ke et aL, No. 19-cv-09610-PAE (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2019), ECF No. 25. Similarly, Justice J. Silver of the New York State Supreme Court recently granted the plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously in a case with similar allegations of sexual contact with a minor. See ARKSS Doe v. Archdiocese of1V.Y., et aL, No. 950049/2019, (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Nov. 4, 2019), NYSCEF Doc. No. 18. We have attached these decisions as Exhibits A and respectively. + +Respectfully submitted, + +cc: Counsel of Record + +Roberta A. Kaplan \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750929/EFTA02750929.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750929/EFTA02750929.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4720613eebcf2791a2c2bfbff8fd85b4e30d7347 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750929/EFTA02750929.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750929.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1293, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.8, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 32.436, + 39.28936767578125 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 39.28936767578125 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 63.94818115234375 + ], + [ + 32.436, + 63.94818115234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 251.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 251.60302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750929" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750930/EFTA02750930.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750930/EFTA02750930.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4ae19296f332067e5dfb044cc473b65b0e7c9947 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750930/EFTA02750930.md @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@ +## EXHIBIT A + +From: R0Derta Kaplan To: Moskowitz Bennet • kyIajjaskth Cc: (army Marlys I • aprk • a alsodietvourfloridamuneel corn. abuzinebuzinlaw cora; Bnttanv Subject Re: Epstein Estate Date: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 5:15:48 PM + +p.s. Please be sure to attach this email to any filing you intend to make to Judge Failla seeking an extension. + +Roberta Kaplan Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP 350 Fifth Avenue suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 212 763 0883 + +From: Roberta Kaplan + +Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 5:14:21 PM + +To: Moskowitz, Bennet J. ; Kyla Magun + +Cc: Glover, Charles L. ; arick@thebloomfirm.com ; Brad ; dbrodie@yourfloridacounsel.com ; abuzin@buzinlaw.com ; Brittany + +Subject: Re: Epstein Estate + +Dear Bennett: + +We cannot agree to an extension for a number of reasons set forth below. + +First of all, you continue to refuse to explain what documents and information the Estate is preserving or not preserving. As we have now explained several times, that is extremely concerning to us. + +Second, you have no non-frivolous basis to file a motion to dismiss in our case. We believe that receiving an answer from your client on November 15 would actually facilitate a potential settlement process. And our client would like to start discovery as soon as possible, particularly given the concerns discussed above. + +Third and perhaps most troubling, we have asked you or your colleagues several times about what you envision in terms of a settlement process and have asked to participate in the formulation of whatever it is you propose. I have been involved in settlements like this many times in my career and I have never seen it done unilaterally like the Estate is trying to do here. Settlement, after all, is a two way street. We find it astonishing that you would go to the probate court for approval without first consulting with the lawyers for the many women Mr. Epstein abused. In fact, it feels very much like a continuation of his crimes and abuse after his death. + +Very truly yours, + +Robbie + +Roberta Kaplan Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP 350 Fifth Avenue suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 212 763 0883 + +From: Moskowitz, Bennet J. + +Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 4:55:45 PM + +To: Roberta Kaplan ; Kyla Magun + +Cc: Glover, Charles L. + +Subject: Epstein Estate + +Hi Roberta: + +This week, the Estate will file an application with the USVI court seeking its approval of the Co-Executors' decision to offer a voluntary claims resolution program as a confidential, nonadversarial alternative to litigation. The filing the Estate will be making in the USVI is not itself the detailed program design that will govern the program. Rather, independent claims administration experts will design a detailed program protocol after the filing, with input requested from all interested parties, including you on behalf of your client (and other claimants and their counsel). The claims process will be entirely voluntary, and will not affect any rights your client has unless and until she accepts an independent compensation determination. + +The goal is for the program to start receiving claims within around 90 days of approval of the program, with claims determinations made on a rolling basis. Further specifics will be contained in the program protocol. + +In light of the foregoing, we would appreciate your consent to extend our response deadline in your SDNY action by three weeks. We believe filing a request this week for a pre-motion to dismiss conference, thereby triggering your 3 business days response deadline, would be counterproductive for all parties and a waste of judicial resources, given the Co-Executors' decision to proceed with a voluntary alternative to litigation. + +Best regards, Bennet + +Bennet J. Moskowitz\* + +troutmai [sanders + +Direct: 212.704.6087 bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com + +'Licensed to practice law in New York and Connecticut + +This e-mail message (and any attachments) from Troutman Sanders LLP may contain legally privileged and confidential information solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error, please delete the message and notify the sender. Any unauthorized reading, distribution, copying, or other use of this message (and attachments) is strictly prohibited. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750930/EFTA02750930.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750930/EFTA02750930.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..743669439e1781dd4bd31df0ad0637c2cdf0a785 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750930/EFTA02750930.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,184 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750930.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 4571, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.98, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 181.76399999999998, + 280.17437744140625 + ], + [ + 437.49151611328125, + 280.17437744140625 + ], + [ + 437.49151611328125, + 330.6527099609375 + ], + [ + 181.76399999999998, + 330.6527099609375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 3 + ], + [ + "Line", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 11 + ], + [ + "Line", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750930" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750934/EFTA02750934.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750934/EFTA02750934.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bd705e39904e740e936ca4151217213cd3139453 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750934/EFTA02750934.md @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ +## KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla United States District Court Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 + +TEL (212) 763-0883 I FAX (212) 564-0883 + +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM + +DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0884 + +DIRECT EMAIL rkaplan@kaplanhecker.corn + +November 13, 2019 + +Re: Doe v. Indyke a al., No. I 9-cv-8673-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) + +Dear Judge Failla: + +We represent Plaintiff Jane Doe in the above-captioned action. We write in response to a request we received from Defendants yesterday, November 12, 2019, to extend their time to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint and Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym. We anticipate that Defendants will file a letter with the Court seeking an extension, as they did yesterday in four related cases: Defendants have offered no legitimate basis for their request, and their continued efforts to delay these proceedings and avoid their discovery obligations risks significant prejudice to Plaintiff. Plaintiff therefore cannot agree to any extension of Defendants' time to respond. + +As the Court is aware, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action and a Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym on September 18, 2019. (ECF Nos. I & 3.) On September 24, 2019, counsel for Defendants agreed to accept service of the Complaint, and we agreed, at Defendants' request, to extend Defendants' time to respond to the Complaint and to the Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym from October 15, 2019 to November 15, 2019, which the Court approved on October 7, 2019. (ECF No. 10.) On October 15, 2019, the Court scheduled the initial pretrial conference for December 13, 2019. (ECF No. II.) On November 12, 2019, merely three days + +Defendants have also sought additional time to respond to the complaints filed in almost all other pending cases against the Epstein estate in the Southern District of New York. See Doe v. Darren K. Indyke et al., No. 19 cv-07773 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2019), ECF No. 25; Doe v. Darren K. Indyke et al, No. 19-cv-07772 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2019), ECF No. 32; Doe v. Darren K. Indyke et aL, No. 19-cv-07771 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2019), ECF No. 38; Doe 1 et aL v. Jeffrey Epstein et aL, No. 19-ev-07675 (S.D.N.Y Nov. 12, 2019), ECF No. 20; VE v. Nine East 71st Street et cd., No. 19-ev-07625 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2019), ECF No. 27. + +before Defendants' responses are due, counsel for Defendants contacted us to request a three-week extension of the November 15 deadline. *See* Ex. A. + +Defendants' counsel asserts that the delay is necessary because Defendants are planning to seek approval of their decision to offer an alternative claims resolution program from a court in another jurisdiction. *Id.* Defendants offer no meaningful reason why their exploration of an alternative dispute resolution mechanism should delay litigation of Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff has no obligation to participate in any such program and, indeed, Plaintiff has significant concerns about the fairness and efficiency of the process Defendants are apparently developing.2 + +Regardless, Defendants have already had more time than should be necessary to file an answer to the Complaint. Defendants have no non-frivolous basis to file a motion to dismiss, and counsel for Defendants has told us that they are not likely to oppose the Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym. Essentially, by November 15, 2019, Defendants will have had sixty days to file a simple answer. There is no reason for continued delay. + +Finally, as we have made clear to Defendants and the Court, we have serious concerns about the Defendants' unwillingness to confirm that they are preserving documents relevant to this action. (ECF No. 14.) We are eager to begin discovery as soon as possible to limit the risk of spoliation in light of Defendants' refusal to confirm that they are preserving all relevant evidence. To the extent that Defendants' request would require that the Court push back any deadlines related to discovery, including the pretrial conference schedule for December 13, such a request would be prejudicial to Plaintiff. + +Plaintiff has already waited more than fifteen years for some semblance of justice for the harm Epstein wrought. She cannot agree to wait any longer for this action to move forward. + +Respectfully submitted, + +![]()Roberta A. Kaplan + +cc: Counsel of Record + +--- + +2 Despite our repeated requests to be informed of Defendants' efforts to arrange a resolution process, Defendants have kept us almost entirely in the dark. Yesterday, counsel for Defendants indicated that Defendants plan to seek approval from a U.S. Virgin Islands court of their decision to create a voluntary claims resolution program. *See* Ex. A. If approved, Defendants will then arrange for claims administration experts to design such a program. *Id.* Defendants have provided us with no timeline for when they will seek approval of their decision to establish this alternative process and for how long it will take to design the process. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750934/EFTA02750934.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750934/EFTA02750934.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bd62825d01cd4d5860812186f51b2766e39a843f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750934/EFTA02750934.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,182 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750934.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 5064, + "elapsed_seconds": 9.38, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 32.436, + 38.88 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 38.88 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 63.94818115234375 + ], + [ + 32.436, + 63.94818115234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 124.5919418334961, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 124.5919418334961, + 251.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 251.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 35.496, + 44.55 + ], + [ + 239.904, + 44.55 + ], + [ + 239.904, + 59.94 + ], + [ + 35.496, + 59.94 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750934" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750936/EFTA02750936.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750936/EFTA02750936.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..578141da05864926f6d736098d013450eb3df865 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750936/EFTA02750936.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +Bennet J. Moskowitz bennelmoskowitz@troutman.com + +November 14, 2019 + +ECF + +Hon. Katherine Polk Failla Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Re: Jane Doe v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as the Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, 1:19-cv-08673-KPF + +Dear Judge Failla: + +We represent Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, "Defendants"), in the referenced action. We write to respectfully request a two week extension of Defendants' time to answer, move or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint, from November 15, 2019 to November 29, 2019. The Initial Pretrial Conference in this matter is scheduled for December 13, 2019. The requested extension would not affect any other scheduled dates in this action. We request this short extension because motion practice at this time would be detrimental to the potential for a non-adversarial resolution of this action. + +Earlier today, Defendants sought expedited approval from the Superior Court of the U.S. Virgin Islands, where Decedent's will is in probate, to establish a voluntary claims resolution program that will allow Plaintiff the opportunity to seek to resolve her sexual abuse claims against Decedent through a voluntary, confidential, non-adversarial alternative to this litigation. Jordana (former Deputy Special of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund), Kenneth R. Feinberg (the nation's leading expert in fashioning effective dispute resolution alternatives) and Camille S. Biros (also an alternative dispute resolution expert) will design and administer the program. Plaintiff and her counsel will be invited to provide input on the program's design. + +This is the first request for an extension of this deadline. The Court previously So Ordered the parties' agreement whereby we accepted service of Plaintiff's Complaint, which Plaintiff filed on September 18, 2019, and selling the November 15 response deadline (ECF #10). + +Yesterday, Plaintiff's counsel submitted a letter to Your Honor preemptively objecting to this request and referring to our having made similar requests to other SDNY judges (ECF #27). It thus bears mentioning Judge Castel, Judge Daniels and Judge Ramos granted such requests. + +Thank you for your attention to this matter. + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/Bennet J. Moskowitz Bennet J. Moskowitz \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750936/EFTA02750936.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750936/EFTA02750936.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8c671dc4a7167a81700c7591f245400d86d1a41c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750936/EFTA02750936.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750936.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2424, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.75, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 21 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750936" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750938/EFTA02750938.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750938/EFTA02750938.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bccb95f49a35a5f6cf5f7f331e132665bcba42b6 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750938/EFTA02750938.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +DARREN K. INDYKE AND RICHARD D. KAHN, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS THE EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, + +Defendants. + +Case No. 1:19-cv-08673-KPF + +## ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S ANONYMITY + +IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any person subject to this Order, including the parties to this action and their respective counsel of record, shall adhere to the following terms: + +- I. Within three (3) days of entry of this Order, Counsel of Record for Plaintiff shall disclose Plaintiff's identity to Counsel of Record for Defendants, in writing. +- 2. Plaintiff's identity may be disclosed only to Defendants and any attorneys, paralegals, and clerical or other assistants working with or for Defendants on matters related to this action; and the recipients of such information shall not disclose it to any other persons. +- 3. Defendants shall not be permitted to further disclose Plaintiff's identity except as necessary to defend against this action. +- 4. All portions of pleadings, motions or other papers filed with the Court that disclose Plaintiff's identity shall be filed under seal with the Clerk of the Court and kept under seal until further order of the Court. The parties shall use their best efforts to minimize such sealing. Any party filing a motion or any other papers with the Court under seal shall also publicly file a redacted copy of the same, via the Court's Electronic Case Filing system, that redacts the Plaintiff's identity and text that would reveal Plaintiff's identity. +- 5. The parties may seek to modify or amend this Order at any time upon motion to the Court or by stipulation. + +SO ORDERED. + +Date: + +New York, New York HON. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750938/EFTA02750938.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750938/EFTA02750938.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..892679cce8248503e35a7b696f1e391876df05ce --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750938/EFTA02750938.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,117 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750938.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1782, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.74, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S ANONYMITY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 190.94400000000002, + 294.03 + ], + [ + 419.966796875, + 294.03 + ], + [ + 419.966796875, + 309.3630676269531 + ], + [ + 190.94400000000002, + 309.3630676269531 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750938" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750939/EFTA02750939.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750939/EFTA02750939.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eddb09c55423630732ccf22a0d6629f617395544 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750939/EFTA02750939.md @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +v. + +DARREN K. INDYKE AND RICHARD D. KAHN, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS THE EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, + +Defendants. + +Case No. 1:19-cv-08673-KPF + +## DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYM + +Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, "Defendants"), by their attorneys, submit this memorandum of law in response to Plaintiff's Motion For Leave To Proceed Under Pseudonym (the Motion) (ECF #3): + +## ARGUMENT + +Defendants do not object to Plaintiff proceeding under a pseudonym to prevent the disclosure of her identity to the general public. However, this response is necessary for two separate reasons. + +First, Plaintiff's Motion asserts numerous unproven statements, couched as facts already in evidence, as well as conclusions of law. Defendants object to these unproven and conclusory assertions. In any event, the Court does not need to consider such assertions to resolve Plaintiff's Motion. + +Second, it is imperative that Plaintiff's desire to shield her identity from the general public not come at the expense of Defendants' fundamental right to fully and fairly respond to Plaintiff's allegations in her Complaint. Therefore, Defendants respectfully request that the Court resolve Plaintiff's Motion by entering the proposed order annexed hereto as Exhibit A (the "Proposed Order"). The Proposed Order would protect Plaintiff's identity from public disclosure while enabling Defendants to fully respond to the Complaint with minimal prejudice. The Proposed Order would also permit the parties to seek to modify it as necessary to meet the needs of this case as it evolves.' + +The Proposed Order accords with well-established Second Circuit law because it balances Plaintiff's legitimate desire to maintain confidentiality with Defendants' right to fully defend themselves in this action. See Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F3d 185, 189 (2d + +'Should this matter proceed to discovery, the Parties would be able to address discovery issues implicated by Plaintiff's desire to proceed anonymously in a separate discovery order that otherwise addresses general confidentiality concerns. + +Cir. 2008) ("We agree that the interests of both the public and the opposing party should be considered when determining whether to grant an application to proceed under a pseudonym."); Doe v. Skyline Automobiles Inc., 375 F Supp 3d 401, 407 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ("Allowing Plaintiff [alleging sexual assault, harassment, and discrimination] to proceed anonymously would disadvantage Defendants at all stages of litigation, including settlement, discovery, and trial. Plaintiffs anonymity would make it more difficult to obtain witnesses and witness testimony, Defendants would have less leverage in settlement negotiations, and Defendants would not be able to fully and adequately cross-examine the Plaintiff."); Doe I v. Four Bros. Pizza, Inc., 13- CV-1505 VB, 2013 WL 6083414, at \*31 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2013) ("Significantly, it will not be feasible for the parties to proceed with discovery in a meaningful way while plaintiffs remain anonymous."). + +The Proposed Order is also consistent with Plaintiff's positions in her Motion. The Motion provides that Plaintiff's counsel "expects to make reasonable accommodations to facilitate the fair and orderly resolution of this case, including providing Plaintiff's name to Defendant's [sic] counsel under conditions that will reasonably protect the safety of Plaintiff, her family, and potential witnesses." (ECF #4 at pp. 16-17). The Motion also correctly recognizes that Plaintiff's ability to proceed under pseudonym must not "inhibit Epstein's estate from conducting discovery and reasonably defending this case." (Id. at 11). + +## CONCLUSION + +Based on the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request that the Court enter the Proposed Order and grant Defendants such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. + +Dated: November 15, 2019 Respectfully submitted, New York, New York + +TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP + +By:/s/Bennet J. Moskowitz + +Bennet J. Moskowitz 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 (212) 704-6000 bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com + +Attorneys for Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750939/EFTA02750939.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750939/EFTA02750939.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cc4c7e9ce69cb86802d3f51254ef80d404cea38f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750939/EFTA02750939.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,269 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750939.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 4425, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.74, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 99.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 99.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S \nMOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 113.83200000000001, + 446.31000000000006 + ], + [ + 535.5265502929688, + 446.31000000000006 + ], + [ + 535.5265502929688, + 474.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 113.83200000000001, + 474.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 344.61444091796875, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 344.61444091796875, + 169.10302734375 + ], + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 169.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 262.548, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 583.1030120849609 + ], + [ + 262.548, + 583.1030120849609 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 25 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 30 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750939" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750943/EFTA02750943.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750943/EFTA02750943.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4d6473a322d6d175eb0a978e047987fde0e1e249 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750943/EFTA02750943.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +Case No. 19 Civ. 8673 + +DARREN INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, + +Defendants. + +## NOTICE OF APPEARANCE + +To the Clerk of this court and all parties of record: + +Please enter my appearance as counsel in this case for Plaintiff Jane Doe. I certify that I am admitted to practice in this Court. + +Dated: November 19, 2019 New York, New York + +/s/ Kate L. Doniger + +Kate L. Doniger KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, New York 10118 Telephone: (212) 763-0883 Facsimile: (212) 564-0883 kdoniger®kaplanhecker.com + +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750943/EFTA02750943.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750943/EFTA02750943.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c24b8a419f4388839fd7d834671f37e1272376b3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750943/EFTA02750943.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750943.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 714, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.76, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NOTICE OF APPEARANCE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 227.052, + 320.76 + ], + [ + 385.0771484375, + 320.76 + ], + [ + 385.0771484375, + 335.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 227.052, + 335.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750943" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750944/EFTA02750944.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750944/EFTA02750944.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3ee9a112ff28e2495eaa000951d1970312a39e1b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750944/EFTA02750944.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaint + +v. + +Case No. 19 Civ. 8673 + +DARREN INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, + +Defendants. + +## NOTICE OF APPEARANCE + +To the Clerk of this court and all parties of record: + +Please enter my appearance as counsel in this case for Plaintiff Jane Doe. I certify that I am admitted to practice in this Court. + +Dated: November 19, 2019 New York, New York + +/s/ Alexandra Conlon + +Alexandra Conlon + +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 + +New York, New York 10118 + +Telephone: (212) 763-0883 + +Facsimile: (212) 564-0883 + +aconlon@kaplanhecker.com + +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750944/EFTA02750944.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750944/EFTA02750944.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..26623b1b8ea784037d7ea7d42030945c58c7dc2c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750944/EFTA02750944.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750944.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 717, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.98, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NOTICE OF APPEARANCE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 227.052, + 320.76 + ], + [ + 385.0557861328125, + 320.76 + ], + [ + 385.0557861328125, + 335.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 227.052, + 335.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750944" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750945/EFTA02750945.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750945/EFTA02750945.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..92f60ad1de412bf7c8cd679f259b8cc61ed0e054 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750945/EFTA02750945.md @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +Case No. 19 Civ 8673 + +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, + +Defendants. + +## PLAINTIFF'S REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYM + +Roberta A. Kaplan + +Kate L. er + +Kyla MI Magun + +Alexandra K. Conlon + +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 + +New York, New York 10118 + +Telephone: (212) 763-0883 + +Facsimile: (212) 564-0883 + +Attorneys for Plaintiff Jane Doe + +PlaintiffJane Doe ("Plaintiff'), by her undersigned attorneys, respectfully submits this memorandum of law in reply to the Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed Under Pseudonym (ECF No. 31 ("Resp.")), and in further support of her Memorandum of Law In Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Proceed Under Pseudonym (ECF No. 4 (the "Mem. In Supp.")). + +## ARGUMENT + +Defendants assert that they do not object to Plaintiff proceeding under a pseudonym. (See Resp. at I.) However, they ask the Court to enter an order ("Defendants' Proposed Order") (Ex. A to Resp.), that would render the protections of pseudonymous proceedings meaningless.' Defendants' Proposed Order expressly allows Defendants to disclose Plaintiff's identity to an unnecessarily broad list of individuals and, worse, vests in Defendants the unilateral discretion to disclose Plaintiff's identity even further whenever Defendants determine such disclosure is "necessary to defend against this action." (Ex. A to Rap. at 5.) These terms present too great a risk that Plaintiff's identity will be disclosed, exposing her to the serious risks of harm that pseudonymous filing is meant to prevent. (Mem. In Supp. at 8-10.) + +Further, Defendants have done nothing to show that these terms are necessary to protect their ability to conduct discovery and reasonably defend this case. Defendants do not explain, for example, why a generic category of "other assistants" who work with or for the Epstein Estate need to know the identity of a victim of child sexual abuse. Nor can they provide any justification for giving themselves carte blanche to disclose Plaintiff's identity whenever they see fit. If Defendants need to disclose Plaintiff's identity to someone other than Counsel in order to + +Notably, despite the fact that Plaintiff and Defendants have had multiple communications by email, letter, and phone, including most recently a meet and confer on November 14, Defendants never attempted to discuss with Plaintiff the changes they have proposed in the Proposed Order. + +defend against this action, Defendants should seek permission from this Court for that disclosure and require such individual to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement, to be agreed upon by the parties and the Court, stating that that person agrees not to disclose Plaintiff's identity under any circumstance. See, e.g., Doe et at v. The Trump Corp. et at, No. 18-cv-9936 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2019), ECF No. 112. Such a step imposes a minimal burden on Defendants and provides meaningful protection to Plaintiff. Indeed. in a related case, Judge Castel struck the precise balance Plaintiff aims to strike here by permitting the plaintiff, another victim of Jeffrey Epstein's sex abuse, to proceed under pseudonym and requiring the defendants to seek permission from the Court before disclosing the plaintiff's identity "to any person other than counsel." See Katlyn Doe v. Indyke et aL, No. 19-cv-7771 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2019), ECF No. 28 at 5; see also Jane Doe 17 v. Indyke et aL, No. 19-cv-9610 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2019), ECF No. 25; (Mem. In. Supp. at 1 (citing cases)). Notably, Defendants have not objected to Judge Castel's Order. + +Plaintiff recognizes that Defendants must be able to fully respond to her Complaint. In an effort at compromise and to strike the appropriate balance between the parties' respective interests, Plaintiff attaches a revised proposed order (the "Revised Proposed Order"), which incorporates several provisions of Defendants' Proposed Order while limiting the risk that Plaintiff's identity becomes publicly known. The Revised Proposed Order requires Plaintiff's counsel to disclose Plaintiff's identity to Defendants' counsel within three days of the entry of the order, as suggested by Defendants. (Ex. A to Resp. at 1.) Likewise, the Revised Proposed Order directs the parties to file under seal any pleadings, motions or papers that disclose Plaintiff's identity, to make their best efforts to minimize the use of sealing, and to publicly file a redacted copy of any document filed under seal. (Id. at 1-2.) However, the Revised Proposed + +Order limits disclosure of Plaintiff's identity to Defendants' counsel and requires Defendants to seek permission from the Court for any further disclosures. (Id.) These measures should ensure that the Defendants can fully defend themselves while ensuring that Plaintiff, a child sex abuse victim of an infamous predator, does not face unnecessary disclosure of her identity in this closely-watched litigation. + +## CONCLUSION + +For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant Plaintiff's motion and adopt Plaintiff's Revised Proposed Order. + +Dated: November 19, 2019 Respectfully submitted, + +Roberta A. Kaplan Kate L. Dorilw Kyla Magun Alexandra K. Conlon + +KAPLAN HECICER & FINK LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, New York 10118 Telephone: (212) 763-0883 Facsimile: (212) 564-0883 rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com kdoniger@kaplanhecker.com lunagun@lcaplanhecker.corn aconlon@kaplanhecker.com + +Attorneys for Plaintiff Jane Doe \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750945/EFTA02750945.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750945/EFTA02750945.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a56a97eabb7a793cbc29626ec328db5c14703076 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750945/EFTA02750945.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,273 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750945.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 5690, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.07, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PLAINTIFF'S REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION \nFOR LEAVE TO PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 80.172, + 320.76 + ], + [ + 532.1392211914062, + 320.76 + ], + [ + 532.1392211914062, + 350.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 80.172, + 350.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 344.61444091796875, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 344.61444091796875, + 224.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 224.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 262.548, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 350.49066162109375, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 350.49066162109375, + 223.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 262.548, + 223.93353271484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750945" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750949/EFTA02750949.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750949/EFTA02750949.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ffdbc3194462109ced533f36a2112250a6fdfd7a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750949/EFTA02750949.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +Bennet J. Moskowitz bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com + +December 2, 2019 + +ECF + +Hon. Katherine Polk Failla Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Re: Jane Doe v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as the Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, 1:19-cv-08673-KPF + +Dear Judge Failla: + +We represent Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, "Defendants"), in the referenced action. We write pursuant to Your Honor's Individual Rule 4(A) to request a conference in anticipation of filing a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims for punitive damages pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and New York Estates, Powers And Trusts Law § 11-3.2(a)(1). NY EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1) precludes Plaintiff from recovering punitive damages in this action because she alleges personal injury caused by a decedent tortfeasor. + +As a matter of context, Plaintiff alleges decedent Jefferey E. Epstein ("Decedent") sexually abused Plaintiff starting from in or around 2002 when Plaintiff was "approximately" fourteen years old and until she turned seventeen years old. (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 23, 54, 70.) Plaintiff asserts four causes of action based on the personal injuries she allegedly sustained because of that sexual abuse: sexual assault (Count I); sexual battery (Count II); intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count III): and negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count IV). + +Punitive damages are not available to Plaintiff. New York Estates, Powers And Trusts Law provides: "No cause of action for injury to person or property is lost because of the death of the person liable for the injury. For any injury, an action may be brought or continued against the personal representative of the decedent, but punitive damages shall not be awarded nor penalties adjudged in any such action brought to recover damages for personal injury." NY EPTL § 11-3.2 (a)(1) (emphasis added). "Also, 'there is a strong policy against the assessment of punitive ainst an estate on account of wrongful conduct of the decedent.- Graham v. , 224 F.R.D. 59, 63 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) (quoting Blissett v. Eisensmidt, 940 F. Supp. 449, 457 (N.D.N.Y. 1996)). + +Hon. Katherine Polk Faille December 2, 2019 Page 2 + +![](_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg) + +Plaintiff's Complaint is based entirely on her alleged personal injuries. New York General Construction Law § 37-a defines "personal injury" as including "an assault, battery, false imprisonment, or other actionable injury to the person either of the plaintiff, or of another." All of Plaintiffs causes of action seek damages for personal injury based on Plaintiff's core allegation that she "was sexually assaulted by [Decedent] countless times over the course of three years." (Compl. ¶ 42.) Therefore, under NY EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1), Plaintiff may not recover punitive damages from Decedent's estate. + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Bennet J. Moskowitz Bennet J. Moskowitz \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750949/EFTA02750949.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750949/EFTA02750949.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bd540b39550b4406cd357010cbf31512a6e97d9a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750949/EFTA02750949.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750949.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2999, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.75, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750949" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750949/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750949/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4269ed1a207bbd0f1ccf6f74de10c933d79d9f0c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750949/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c790833f335451b9def25fcabd80bed84cd4f15df2f76331cde6adba7f6060ca +size 5380 diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750951/EFTA02750951.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750951/EFTA02750951.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4a68a1aa866990cdbbda6af8d7fea8451491fcce --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750951/EFTA02750951.md @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +## KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla United States District Court Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +The Honorable Debra Freeman United States District Court Southern District of New York Daniel Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007-1312 + +NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 + +TEL (212) 763-0883 I FAX (212) 564-0883 + +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM + +DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0884 + +DIRECT EMAIL rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com + +December 4, 2019 + +Re: Doe v. Indyke et at, No. 19-cv-8673-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) + +Dear Judges Failla and Freeman: + +We represent Plaintiff Jane Doe in the above-captioned action. Pursuant to Rule 4(A) of Your Honor's Individual Rules of Practice, we write to respond to Defendants' letter, dated December 2, 2019, concerning their anticipated motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 35.) + +First and most importantly, some basic explanation of this case is in order. Plaintiff (who was fourteen years old when the relevant events began) has filed a Complaint sounding in diversity and containing the following four common law causes of action: (1) sexual assault; (2) sexual battery; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress. The factual allegations supporting these four causes of action are set forth in paragraphs 1-86 of the 90-paragraph Complaint. + +Federal Rule 12(b)(6) permits a defendant to file a motion to dismiss for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" (emphasis added). Here, however, Defendants have conceded that they have no viable, non-frivolous argument to dismiss any of Plaintiff's four causes of action, or "claims upon which relief can be granted," as we predicted in our prior letter to the Court dated November 13, 2019 (ECF No. 27). In other words, in contrast to many of the other + +cases in this District against Mr. Epstein's Estate, Defendants here have not identified a single reason to dismiss any of the four causes of action.' + +The only argument that Defendants have advanced in their December 2 letter relates to the question of damages. Defendants argue that the phrase "punitive damages" should be deleted from the "Prayer for Relief' section at the very end of the Complaint (1187-90). Because, as outlined above, none of Plaintiff's four claims for relief would actually be impacted even if Defendants were to succeed on this argument, we believe that Defendants' motion is more properly denominated as a motion to strike pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), rather than a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(bX6).2 Rule 12(0 motions, however, are strongly disfavored in this District, in large part because they are commonly used by litigants (as is the case here) to unreasonably delay proceedings. Wine Mkts. Intl, Inc. v. Bass, 177 F.R.D. 128, 133 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) ("Because striking a portion of a pleading is often sought by the movant as a dilatory tactic, motions under Rule 12(0 are viewed with disfavor."); see also ,e.g., Bank Brussels Lambert v. Credit Lyonnais (Suisse) S.A., No. 93 CIV. 6876 LMM, 2000 WL 1876916, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2000). Indeed, as Judge Kaplan has observed, Rule 12(f) motions "have been described aptly as ... time wasters." Carmona v. Spanish Broad. Sys., Inc., No. 08 Civ. 4475, 2009 WL 890054, at \*10 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2009). + +Defendants' proposed motion is precisely the sort of "time-waster" that Judge Kaplan criticized. Certainly, Plaintiff will oppose Defendants' motion on the merits: although Defendants contend that New York Estates, Powers, and Trusts Law § 11-3.2(a)(1) prohibits Plaintiff from seeking punitive damages, Defendants ignore the threshold question of whether New York probate law even applies to the question of punitive damages in this case, given that Mr. Epstein purposefully availed himself of the presumed benefits of Virgin Islands law when he chose to probate his Estate there just days before his death. It is therefore only reasonable that he and his beneficiaries should expect that USVI law would govern all matters relating to the estate, including the availability of punitive damages. See v. Car Rentals, Inc., 29 A.D.3d 205, 212 (2d Dep't 2006) (explaining importance of parties' reasonable expectations to choice-of-law analysis). + +But equally as important, there is no reason why resolution of this choice-of-law question should cause any further delay in this case beyond the sixty-day extension that Defendants have + +' See VE v. Nine East 71st Street et aL, No. 19 Civ. 7625 (Nathan, J.) (ECF No. 38) (Defendants filed motion to dismiss battery claim on statute-of limitations grounds and duplicativeness and negligence claims for failure to adequately allege sufficient facts); Doe v. Darren K. Indyke et at, No. 19 Civ. 7771 (Castel, J.) (ECF No. 43) (Defendants filed pre-motion to dismiss letter arguing that plaintiff failed to adequately allege claims against corporate defendants, among other grounds); Doe v. Darren K. Indyke et at, No. 19 Civ. 7772 (Carter, J.) (ECF No. 38) (Defendants filed pre-motion to dismiss letter arguing that plaintiff's claims are not adequately alleged, rely on impermissible group pleading, are duplicative, and are time-barred, among other grounds); Doe v. Darren K Indyke et aL, No. 19 Civ. 7773 (Ramos, J.) (ECF No. 31) (same). + +2 See, e.g., Rapay v. Chernov, No. 16 Civ. 4910, 2017 WL 892372, at (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2017); Com-Tech Assocs. v. Computer Assocs. Intl Inc., 753 F. Supp. 1078, 1093 (E.D.N.111(denying Rule 12(f) motion to strike punitive damages), aff'd, 938 F.2d 1574 (2d Cir. 1991); v. Ketchum Advert. Co., 865 F. Supp. 166, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). + +## KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP a + +already received. (ECF No. 10.) In addition to punitive damages, Plaintiff seeks actual, compensatory, statutory, and consequential damages, as well as a declaratory judgment that Defendants are liable for Mr. Epstein's violations of law, and Defendants have no legal basis to strike any of those. Complili 87-90. As a result, there is no question that Plaintiff would be entitled to damages if she proves her claims; the only question presented by Defendants is the type of damages available. There is no reason to decide that question before discovery begins. Indeed, it is not uncommon in this District for issues concerning the availability of certain forms of relief to be deferred for resolution until after the close of discovery. Stepski v. M/V NORASIA ALYA, No. 06 Civ. 1694, 2010 WL 6501649, at 4'11 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2010) (deciding availability of punitive damages at summary judgment stage); Light v. W2001 Metro. Hotel Realty LLC, No. 10 Civ. 4449, 2011 WL 2175778, at \*4 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2011) (same). + +In addition, because Defendants' anticipated motion concerns the availability of only a single aspect of the relief sought and does not relate to a single factual allegation in the Complaint, the Court should order Defendants to respond to those allegations by answering the Complaint while their motion to strike punitive damages is pending. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4) (setting forth impact of filing a Rule 12 motion on party's time to file a responsive pleading "unless the Court sets a different time.") Nor is there any justification for a continued delay in commencing discovery. See, e.g., Hollins v. U.S. Tennis Ass 469 F. Supp. 2d 67, 78 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (discovery should presumptively proceed during pendency of motion to dismiss). In fact, given the small number of anticipated witnesses, Mr. Epstein's obvious unavailability to testify, and the straightforward nature of Plaintiff's tort claims, minimal discovery is required. This case can and should be ready for trial within six months. + +Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests that either Judge Faille or Judge Freeman promptly schedule a Rule 16 conference, so that a discovery schedule can be established in this case in short order. In sum, regardless of whether Defendants' motion is construed as a motion to dismiss or a motion to strike, one thing is clear—there is no good reason for further delay in this case. + +Respectfully submitted, + +oberta A. Kaplan + +cc: Counsel of Record \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750951/EFTA02750951.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750951/EFTA02750951.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..56c86c6e283bd6dd369645ee194ab8d0e8694d4e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750951/EFTA02750951.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,239 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750951.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 8272, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.97, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 32.436, + 39.28936767578125 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 39.28936767578125 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 63.94818115234375 + ], + [ + 32.436, + 63.94818115234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 124.12138366699219, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 124.12138366699219, + 251.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 251.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 2", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.884, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 535.162841796875, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 535.162841796875, + 64.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 34.884, + 64.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP a", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.884, + 44.55 + ], + [ + 535.30126953125, + 44.55 + ], + [ + 535.30126953125, + 64.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 34.884, + 64.93353271484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750951" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750954/EFTA02750954.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750954/EFTA02750954.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cb2c1a8cd686de0951890a0dd1d885df42035f62 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750954/EFTA02750954.md @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@ +## KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +MEMO ENDORSED + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla United States District Court Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +The Honorable Debra Freeman United States District Court Southern District of New York Daniel Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007-1312 + +NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 + +TEL (212) 763-0883 I FAX (212) 564-0883 + +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM + +DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0884 + +DIRECT EMAIL rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com + +December 4, 2019 + +Re: Doe v. Indyke a at, No. 19-cv-8673-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) + +Dear Judges Failla and Freeman: + +We represent Plaintiff Jane Doe in the above-captioned action. Pursuant to Rule 4(A) of Your Honor's Individual Rules of Practice, we write to respond to Defendants' letter, dated December 2, 2019, concerning their anticipated motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 35.) + +First and most importantly, some basic explanation of this case is in order. Plaintiff (who was fourteen years old when the relevant events began) has filed a Complaint sounding in diversity and containing the following four common law causes of action: (1) sexual assault; (2) sexual battery; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress. The factual allegations supporting these four causes of action are set forth in paragraphs 1—86 of the 90-paragraph Complaint. + +Federal Rule 12(bX6) permits a defendant to file a motion to dismiss for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" (emphasis added). Here, however, Defendants have conceded that they have no viable, non-frivolous argument to dismiss any of Plaintiff's four causes of action, or "claims upon which relief can be granted," as we predicted in our prior letter to the Court dated November 13, 2019 (ECF No. 27). In other words, in contrast to many of the other + +cases in this District against Mr. Epstein's Estate, Defendants here have not identified a single reason to dismiss any of the four causes of action.' + +The only argument that Defendants have advanced in their December 2 letter relates to the question of damages. Defendants argue that the phrase "punitive damages" should be deleted from the "Prayer for Relief' section at the very end of the Complaint (II 87-90). Because, as outlined above, none of Plaintiff's four claims for relief would actually be impacted even if Defendants were to succeed on this argument, we believe that Defendants' motion is more properly denominated as a motion to strike pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), rather than a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(bX6).2 Rule 12(0 motions, however, are strongly disfavored in this District, in large part because they are commonly used by litigants (as is the case here) to unreasonably delay proceedings. Wine Mkts. Intl, Inc. v. Bass, 177 F.R.D. 128, 133 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) ("Because striking a portion of a pleading is often sought by the movant as a dilatory tactic, motions under Rule 12(0 are viewed with disfavor."); see also ,e.g., Bank Brussels Lambert v. Credit Lyonnais (Suisse) S.A., No. 93 CIV. 6876 LMM, 2000 WL 1876916, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2000). Indeed, as Judge Kaplan has observed, Rule 12(f) motions "have been described aptly as ... time wasters." Carmona v. Spanish Broad. Sys., Inc., No. 08 Civ. 4475, 2009 WL 890054, at \*10 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2009). + +Defendants' proposed motion is precisely the sort of "time-waster" that Judge Kaplan criticized. Certainly, Plaintiff will oppose Defendants' motion on the merits: although Defendants contend that New York Estates, Powers, and Trusts Law § 11-3.2(a)(1) prohibits Plaintiff from seeking punitive damages, Defendants ignore the threshold question of whether New York probate law even applies to the question of punitive damages in this case, given that Mr. Epstein purposefully availed himself of the presumed benefits of Virgin Islands law when he chose to probate his Estate there just days before his death. It is therefore only reasonable that he and his beneficiaries should expect that USVI law would govern all matters relating to the estate, including the availability of punitive damages. See v. Car Rentals, Inc., 29 A.D.3d 205, 212 (2d Dep't 2006) (explaining importance of parties' reasonable expectations to choice-of-law analysis). + +But equally as important, there is no reason why resolution of this choice-of-law question should cause any further delay in this case beyond the sixty-day extension that Defendants have + +' See VE v. Nine East 71st Street et aL, No. 19 Civ. 7625 (Nathan, J.) (ECF No. 38) (Defendants filed motion to dismiss battery claim on statute-of limitations grounds and duplicativeness and negligence claims for failure to adequately allege sufficient facts); Doe v. Darren K. Indyke el at, No. 19 Civ. 7771 (Castel, J.) (ECF No. 43) (Defendants filed pre-motion to dismiss letter arguing that plaintiff failed to adequately allege claims against corporate defendants, among other grounds); Doe v. Darren K. Indyke et at, No. 19 Civ. 7772 (Carter, J.) (ECF No. 38) (Defendants filed pre-motion to dismiss letter arguing that plaintiff's claims are not adequately alleged, rely on impermissible group pleading, are duplicative, and are time-barred, among other grounds); Doe v. Darren K Indyke a aL, No. 19 Civ. 7773 (Ramos, I) (ECF No. 31) (same). + +2 See, e.g., Rapay v. Chernov, No. 16 Civ. 4910, 2017 WL 892372, at (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2017); Com-Tech Assocs. v. Computer Assocs. Ina Inc., 753 F. Supp. 1078, 1093 (E.D.N.1.1(denying Rule 12(f) motion to strike punitive damages), aff'd, 938 F.2d 1574 (2d Cir. 1991); v. Ketchum Advert. Co., 865 F. Supp. 166, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). + +## KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP a + +already received. (ECF No. 10.) In addition to punitive damages, Plaintiff seeks actual, compensatory, statutory, and consequential damages, as well as a declaratory judgment that Defendants are liable for Mr. Epstein's violations of law, and Defendants have no legal basis to strike any of those. Complili 87-90. As a result, there is no question that Plaintiff would be entitled to damages if she proves her claims; the only question presented by Defendants is the type of damages available. There is no reason to decide that question before discovery begins. Indeed, it is not uncommon in this District for issues concerning the availability of certain forms of relief to be deferred for resolution until after the close of discovery. Stepski v. M/V NORASIA ALMA, No. 06 Civ. 1694, 2010 WL 6501649, at \*11 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2010) (deciding availability of punitive damages at summary judgment stage); Light v. W2001 Metro. Hotel Realty LLC, No. 10 Civ. 4449, 2011 WL 2175778, at \*4 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2011) (same). + +In addition, because Defendants' anticipated motion concerns the availability of only a single aspect of the relief sought and does not relate to a single factual allegation in the Complaint, the Court should order Defendants to respond to those allegations by answering the Complaint while their motion to strike punitive damages is pending. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(aX4) (setting forth impact of filing a Rule 12 motion on party's time to file a responsive pleading "unless the Court sets a different time.") Nor is there any justification for a continued delay in commencing discovery. See, e.g., Hollins v. U.S. Tennis Ass'n., 469 F. Supp. 2d 67, 78 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (discovery should presumptively proceed during pendency of motion to dismiss). In fact, given the small number of anticipated witnesses, Mr. Epstein's obvious unavailability to testify, and the straightforward nature of Plaintiff's tort claims, minimal discovery is required. This case can and should be ready for trial within six months. + +Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests that either Judge Failla or Judge Freeman promptly schedule a Rule 16 conference, so that a discovery schedule can be established in this case in short order. In sum, regardless of whether Defendants' motion is construed as a motion to dismiss or a motion to strike, one thing is clear—there is no good reason for further delay in this case. + +> Respectfully submitted, oberta A. Kaplan + +cc: Counsel of Record + +The Court is in receipt of Defendants' December 2, 2019 letter (Dkt. #35), and Plaintiff's above reply (Dkt. #36) . The parties are hereby ORDERED to appear for a conference before the undersigned on December 11, 2019 at 11:30 a.m. in Courtroom 26B of Daniel Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY. + +Dated: December 6, 2019 New York, New York SO ORDERED. + +fat + +HON. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750954/EFTA02750954.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750954/EFTA02750954.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d20b4b358bacf0ae9423bb4b724ca9776ec93fea --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750954/EFTA02750954.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,235 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750954.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 8718, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.04, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 33.048, + 39.28936767578125 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 39.28936767578125 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 63.94818115234375 + ], + [ + 33.048, + 63.94818115234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 124.12138366699219, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 124.12138366699219, + 251.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 251.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 2", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.884, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 535.162841796875, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 535.162841796875, + 64.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 34.884, + 64.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP a", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.884, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 535.30126953125, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 535.30126953125, + 64.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 34.884, + 64.93353271484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 119 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 101 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750954" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750957/EFTA02750957.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750957/EFTA02750957.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..54426cbba129dc9d0fad93d9665b4291ecc359db --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750957/EFTA02750957.md @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +## 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 JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, + +Defendants. + +Case No. 19 Civ. 8673 + +## NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT + +, acknowledge that I understand that the name of the Plaintiff in this action is confidential. I agree that: (1) I will hold in confidence Plaintiff's identity; (2) I will use Plaintiff's identity only for purposes of this litigation and for no other purpose whatsoever; and (3) I will take all due precautions to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of Plaintiff's identity. + +By acknowledging these obligations under this Non-Disclosure Agreement, I understand that I am submitting myself to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for the purpose of any issue or dispute arising hereunder, and that my willful violation of any term of the Non-Disclosure Agreement could subject me to punishment for contempt of court. + +Dated: + +[Signature] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750957/EFTA02750957.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750957/EFTA02750957.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..70c06ff8d5db1d890fdfd34502bff70fe151c40a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750957/EFTA02750957.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750957.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1069, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.66, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 202.572, + 67.05889892578125 + ], + [ + 409.27825927734375, + 67.05889892578125 + ], + [ + 409.27825927734375, + 94.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 202.572, + 94.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 209.304, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 405.8048095703125, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 405.8048095703125, + 279.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 209.304, + 279.7330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750957" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750958/EFTA02750958.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750958/EFTA02750958.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..edf6584b9520a289b41155edcf083772d0080123 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750958/EFTA02750958.md @@ -0,0 +1,50 @@ +## 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 JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, + +Defendants. + +Case No. 19 Civ. 8673 + +## JOINT STIPULATION AND IPROPOSEDI ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S ANONYMITY + +This stipulation is entered into by plaintiff Jane Doe ("Plaintiff") and defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Defendants"). + +WHEREAS, Plaintiff has moved this Court for an Order permitting Plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym in this action; + +IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Plaintiffs and Defendants, through their undersigned counsel, subject to the approval of the Court, that: + +- I . Within three (3) days of entry of this Order, Counsel of Record for Plaintiff shall disclose Plaintiff's identity to Counsel of Record for Defendants, in writing. +- 2. Counsel of Record for Defendants may disclose Plaintiff's identity only to Defendants and any attorneys, paralegals, and clerical or other assistants working with or for Counsel of Record for Defendants on this action; and the recipients of such information shall not disclose it to any other persons. +- 3. If Defendants wish to disclose Plaintiff's identity to any person not otherwise permitted to receive such information under this Order, Defendants are limited to doing so in connection with defending this action, and must require such person to first execute a non-disclosure agreement, in a form agreed to by the parties and attached to this Order as Exhibit A, that prevents such person from disclosing Plaintiff's identity to any other persons. Defendants must maintain a list of all such persons to whom Plaintiffs identity is disclosed and copies of the executed non-disclosure agreements, all of which are subject to in camera inspection. + +- 4. All portions of pleadings, motions or other papers filed with the Court that disclose Plaintiff's identity shall be filed under seal with the Clerk of the Court and kept under seal until further order of the Court. The parties shall use their best efforts to minimize such sealing. Any party filing a motion or any other papers with the Court under seal shall also publicly file a redacted copy of the same, via the Court's Electronic Case Filing system, that redacts the Plaintiff's identity and text that would reveal Plaintiffs identity. +- 5. The parties may seek to modify or amend this Order at any time upon motion to the Court or by stipulation. + +Dated: December 13, 2019 + +Respectfully submitted, + +Roberta A. Kaplan Kate L. Doniger Alexandra K. Conlon + +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, New York 10118 Telephone: (212) 763-0883 Facsimile: (212) 564-0883 rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com kdoniger®kaplanhecker.com kmagun®kaplanhecker.com aconlon@kaplanhecker.com + +Attorneys for Plaintiff-Jane Doe + +SO ORDERED. + +Date: New York, New York g: 51&4 KcP + +Bennet J Moskowitz + +TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 Telephone: (212) 704-6000 Bennet.Moskowitz@trouthman.com + +Attorneys for Defendants Darren K. lndyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffley E. Epstein. + +HON. DEBRA FREEMAN United States Magistrate Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750958/EFTA02750958.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750958/EFTA02750958.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..20d9849ea7b856b4b2174867224a32214c97bead --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750958/EFTA02750958.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,163 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750958.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 3301, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.9, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 197.06400000000002, + 87.48 + ], + [ + 410.0830078125, + 87.48 + ], + [ + 410.0830078125, + 114.603515625 + ], + [ + 197.06400000000002, + 114.603515625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "JOINT STIPULATION AND IPROPOSEDI ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S ANONYMITY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.29199999999999, + 286.74 + ], + [ + 520.5636596679688, + 286.74 + ], + [ + 520.5636596679688, + 301.3535461425781 + ], + [ + 86.29199999999999, + 301.3535461425781 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750958" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750960/EFTA02750960.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750960/EFTA02750960.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..74175da4fa60efdba3690e9262c191310f5e89b8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750960/EFTA02750960.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaintiff, + +19 Civ. 8673 (KPF) (DF) + +DARREN I. INDYKE, and RICHARD D. KAHN, + +Defendants. + +ORDER + +KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, United States District Judge: + +The Court held a conference on December 11, 2019, at which Defendants informed the Court of their intention to file a motion to dismiss the complaint in this case. The parties shall adhere to the following briefing schedule for Defendants' motion to dismiss: Defendants' motion to dismiss is due January 15, 2020. Plaintiff's opposition is due February 14, 2020. Defendants' reply is due February 28, 2020. + +The Court will not stay discovery while the motion is pending. Discovery in this case will proceed in accordance with the discovery schedule set by Magistrate Judge Freeman. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: December 11, 2019 + +New York, New York ithok.cd 4fit &fa.\_ + +KATHERINE POLK FAILLA United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750960/EFTA02750960.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750960/EFTA02750960.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..13d2bd99bf06f78c9d964f43f58b823aa7d06663 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750960/EFTA02750960.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750960.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 938, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.77, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 57.50999999999999 + ], + [ + 299.49652099609375, + 57.50999999999999 + ], + [ + 299.49652099609375, + 86.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 86.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750960" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750961/EFTA02750961.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750961/EFTA02750961.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4a93ceb1b72ad8342afd439f09ca33675760a62c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750961/EFTA02750961.md @@ -0,0 +1,391 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x + +JANE DOE, + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +Plaintiff, New York, N.Y. + +v. + +DARREN K. INDYKE, et al., + +Defendants. + +Before: + +19 CV 8673 (KPF) + +x Conference + +December 11, 2019 11:30 a.m. + +HON. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, + +District Judge + +## APPEARANCES + +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: ROBERTA KAPLAN ALEXANDRA CONLON KATE L. DONIGER LOUIS FISHER + +TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP Attorneys for Defendants BY: BENNET J. MOSKOWITZ CHARLES GLOVER + +4 5 6 MS. KAPLAN: Good morning. Roberta Kaplan for plaintiff from Kaplan Hecker & Fink. I am here with my colleagues Kate Doniger, Alex Conlon, and Louis Fisher. + +7 THE COURT: Good morning. + +8 9 10 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Good morning. Bennet Moskowitz, Troutman Sanders LLP, counsel for the co-executors of the Estate of Jeffrey D. Epstein. + +11 MR. GLOVER: And Charles Glover of the same firm. + +12 13 14 15 16 THE COURT: First of all, I thank you very much for your indulgence. As you could see, we did not know until we knew that plaintiff in our prior case did not speak English. He was comfortable with the dates of a conference and not more than that. So I appreciate your patience. + +17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Let me begin by noting that I'm surprised we are having this conference, even though I am the one who convened it. And that is because what I thought made sense from an efficiency perspective was to have the discovery assigned to a single magistrate judge, and which is what was done. The reason that I'm having this conference, and Judge Freeman is not, is it does not appear that the discussion of motions to strike or motion practice is occurring in all of the cases. And so for those in which it is happening, those judges have + +THE DEPUTY CLERK: In the matter of Doe v. Indyke. Counsel, please state your name for the record beginning with plaintiff. + +4 I'm asking in the first instance to speak with Mr. Moskowitz, unless he wants to pass the mic over to Mr. Glover. + +5 6 7 8 Mr. Moskowitz, I had understood, from a very sort of peripheral perspective, that the focus of your clients was on setting up a fund to perhaps fund the settlement of these claims. Am I correct? + +9 MR. MOSKOWITZ: That's absolutely correct. + +10 11 THE COURT: I'll ask you to stand only because there is a monitor in front of you. + +12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 MR. MOSKOWITZ: I prefer it. Thank you. That's absolutely correct. That is still a major focus of my clients. In fact, it's full steam ahead. I understand that, as has been described when we were before Judge Freeman and before then, I understand that the administrators-to-be, Ken Feinberg, Jordana , Camille Biyos, all leading people in the field of claims administration, has been in touch with or have reached out to various plaintiffs' counsel. And the administrators are working on the protocol, which is basically the nuts and bolts of that program. + +22 23 24 25 It's our hope and expectation that all plaintiffs will give it a shot. It doesn't require anything in terms of waiving any rights. They can go through the whole claims process, get an independent determination -- the estate doesn't + +decided to talk about it. + +4 control the program administrators or designers -- and if given plaintiff doesn't like that determination, they can say, you know what, I don't like this, I am going back to concentrate on my litigation. + +5 6 7 8 9 I too, although, you know, I'm hoping people come around, and I'm disappointed as of now no one has come to us and said I am going to give it a shot, let's stay the litigation in the meantime. But it's not required. The administrators aren't requiring that. + +10 11 12 13 14 15 THE COURT: This is the fork in the road where you and I diverge. I would have thought given your focus was on setting up a fund for claims administration you would not be focusing on motions to strike, which to me seemed to be a - not a distraction, but a detour in the path to resolution of the case. + +16 17 18 19 20 21 MR. MOSKOWITZ: I see. If I can, I gather, but I'll ask the question, your Honor is wondering that based on your Honor's understanding of what the law is, on whether what we are talking about here is, as Ms. Kaplan asserted in her letter a motion to strike, or as I'll gladly briefly go over is actually, no, a motion to dismiss. + +22 23 24 25 And the reason we made the motion is because I would have loved to push the time out more. But plaintiff's counsel wasn't willing to do that. We have preserved our rights. A critical threshold issue for us, I have six points to briefly + +4 5 THE COURT: Okay. But, that wouldn't get rid of all of the claims. + +6 MR. MOSKOWITZ: No. + +7 8 9 10 11 THE COURT: I am trying to figure out why expend -- I am not using the term waste -- why expend the resources when, at some point, perhaps, we can have a discussion about whether or not Virgin Islands permits law permits punitive damages or not. + +12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I am just trying to understand, because things were going so well, I thought. You've had your initial conference before Judge Freeman, there are discussions that I imagine were going on. There was, I presume, the establishment of protocols for discovery. And this, again, just seems like something that is inconsistent with everything that's been going on before her. + +19 20 So perhaps I need to hear some or all of your six points and I will listen to you. + +21 22 23 24 25 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Sure. Well, plaintiff's counsel generally, not all of them, but plaintiff's counsel here today included has made it clear to us that they are not yet sold, that's my wording, on the program. And unless and until they tell us otherwise, they are moving full steam ahead with their + +touch upon, I'll be very quick, that will address that. + +But, it's very important to us that we be able to move Lo dismiss, which is what it is, the punitive damages claims. + +4 5 6 7 8 In terms of making motions, your Honor is correct, we've again, if we had it our way, we wouldn't have to engage in this practice on either side. We would stay everything. But we're here, and the reason moving to dismiss punitive damages in this case is so important to us and worth the time and energy now we are already halfway there to briefing and having this issue decided is two fold. + +9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Number one, the scope of discovery, ever since the 2015 amendments, now expressly as I think it did previous to that contemplates that the amount in controversy is directly relevant to the scope of discovery. This is a very different case, from our perspective, because no punitive damages are available than plaintiff, if they do, we think incorrectly believe punitive damages are available. + +16 17 18 People, as I'm sure your Honor is aware, make very large claims for punitive damages. That's out of the case and should be as a threshold. + +19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The second is going to the claims program, or any other settlement because, you know, Judge Freeman asked me this, well, can someone talk to you about settlement separate from the claims program. Absolutely. They all have my phone number. Nothing is off the table. We hope everyone will give that claims program a shot. Why wouldn't you. I don't see why. In the meantime, if someone wants to talk about + +litigation. So we are basically having to react to that. + +4 5 6 How can the parties in this case see eye to eye if plaintiffs, again, I think clearly and incorrectly say and we are entitled to X millions punitive versus we are saying we are talking about compensatory damages. Let's have a discussion about that. + +7 8 9 10 11 12 THE COURT: Let's be clear. Assuming, as you'd like me to do, the exclusion of punitive damages, the claim's not going to be for ten dollars. It is going to be for millions upon millions of dollars. And do you really think the scope of discovery is going to change, given the nature of the damages sought and the nature of the claims raised? + +13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Well, I do -- part of the clarity that I don't have, which I welcome to get, not trying to make my own questions, don't have clarity on how much is plaintiff claiming is owed to her in terms of punitive versus compensatory damages. It's not clear to me from the complaint. I haven't heard that yet, so it's hard for me to answer that question. But, I'm happy to answer questions in the order that your Honor desires. + +21 22 23 24 25 There is one other, I mentioned I had these six points. It Is often the case we don't come in and do things how I want. I want to raise another critical threshold issue that came up entirely because of what was in the contents of plaintiff's counsel's response to my letter, and that is if + +settlement, fine. + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 they are correct that USVI law applies, this action is time barred. Every cause of action that is asserted in their complaint says it is timely because of the New York Child Victims Act. Well, it stands to reason that if U.S. Virgin Islands law applies in this case, then the plaintiff cannot avail herself of the New York Child Victims Act. That is certainly something that I also now need to brief, and would, like I said, that's a key threshold issue even more so than punitive damages. There can be no case if there is no New York Child Victims Act applying. It's time barred. + +11 12 13 14 15 16 17 THE COURT: Not to put words in your mouth, but what I'm understanding is that you believe your premotion letter is not inconsistent with your desire to have a claims resolution process. It is, rather, something you feel is thrust upon you by the fact that today, not all of the plaintiffs' counsel are interested in participating in the program that you're setting up. + +18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes. Let me clarify that, too. That's correct, but various plaintiffs' lawyers have indicated to me that they are interested. In fact, and a big issue before Judge Freeman was various plaintiffs' lawyers reached out to me and others that represent the executors before these actions got filed in the case, certainly before they began in earnest, to say they wanted a kind of claims program. It was something we were already thinking about on our end. This was 4 I don't want to rehash during Judge Freeman's hearing there was a disagreement about the way it's unfolded, etc., and that's not why we're here. + +5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Your Honor is correct, having the final motion to dismiss now, I wish we could put it off for three months and see if the claims program works and save the dockets, but here we are. And again, we think that punitive damages and now again USVI law applies as being time barred. These are key issues we can't avoid. These are straightforward legal issues. These will not be 50-page briefs. The motions I filed in other cases have all been on the concise side I'll call it, which I'm sure is something your Honor would appreciate. This can be done on a relatively short time frame. + +15 16 17 18 These are threshold issues. Certainly the time bar aspect, and I still argue the punitives and subject to I'd love to know what is plaintiff asking for in terms of punitive damages. + +19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Based on a collective, not in this case, what I've heard from the plaintiffs' side is, for example, there is one case out there where two plaintiffs, not this firm, claim \$100 million. They don't say what part is which, they don't even allege they were underage at the time of the alleged harms to them, but we have the complaint at the time. We request \$100 million or another amount to be determined. That tells me we + +not something that was just thrust out here. + +need to set clarity where we can on the front end to make things more efficient going forward. + +4 Ms. Kaplan, I'll hear from you in response. + +5 6 7 MS. KAPLAN: Yes, your Honor. So, I think I heard Mr. Moskowitz say that various plaintiffs' lawyers are not yet sold on the proposed settlement process. + +8 THE COURT: That's the word that was used, yes. + +9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 MS. KAPLAN: That might be the understatement of the day, your Honor. First of all, there is no fund. In response to questions from the plaintiffs, Mr. Moskowitz responded by saying that no amount of money is actually being set aside by the estate to settle these claims. That is something that is very, very concerning to the plaintiffs. It's one thing to agree to participate in a fund when you know that, say, 300 or 400 million of the 577 million in the estate is being set aside. But they have said that no amount is being set aside. They just want to settle claims, presumably, so they can settle as low as possible and have the rest for the estate. That's a huge problem. It is going to be a huge problem for the plaintiffs' lawyers. + +22 23 24 25 Number two, as Judge Freeman admonished Mr. Moskowitz when we met, settlement is a two-way street. There has to be consultation. The settlement -- the discussions that Mr. Moskowitz referred to, I was part of those, and I said to + +THE COURT: Thank you. + +4 5 the estate that the plaintiffs needed to be involved. That these women who, many of whom, like my client, were horribly abused as young children, have to have agency. And they have to help pick the administrator, be involved in who the administrator is. None of that has happened. + +6 7 8 9 Mr. Moskowitz and the estate picked Ken Feinberg on their own. There was no consultation with us. We have now asked them to put on an administrator on a panel that the plaintiffs select. We've gotten no answer to that. + +10 11 12 With all respect, your Honor, I'm someone who has settled cases for decades in this district. This does not look to me like a case that's going to settle. + +13 14 If your Honor would like, I can move on to the merits issues. + +15 THE COURT: Please. + +16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. KAPLAN: With respect to this motion, whether it's styled as a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6) or a motion to strike under 12(f), I've made those motions, I've always made them as 12(f) motions. I've never won one, but I've made them. However it's styled, your Honor said the fundamental important point here, which is not that it doesn't dismiss one claim, it dismisses no claims. We have compensatory damage sought in connection with all four of our claims. They have no motions to dismiss compensatory damage. They have no motion to dismiss any of the four underlying tort claims. + +4 5 6 7 8 9 For that reason, your Honor, there is really no reason not to get started. We are happy to have a conference with Judge Freeman, but the problem is the cases are in all different kind of configurations. There are many cases that don't require even responses until late January. There are cases with different defendants. There are cases with federal trafficking statutory claims. This is a simple diversity claim, common law claim. We are ready to get started. We don't think we should be delayed. + +10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 With all respect to the Southern District, the way this has been set up where there is one magistrate but I think at least nine, maybe a dozen different judges now, give the plaintiffs all the disadvantages of consolidation and none of the advantages of consolidation. Because various issues are being decided by various district court judges, most of the judges are deciding pseudonymity. Your Honor has deferred that to Judge Freeman. It's kind of a big mess. + +18 19 20 We understand that Judge Freeman has jurisdiction over discovery. We would just like to start, and maybe if we could set a trial date today that would help get that underway. + +21 THE COURT: I'm not setting a trial date today. + +22 23 24 MS. KAPLAN: Let me talk about the scope of discovery. I will hereby make representation there is nothing about the damages claim that will affect the scope of discovery. + +25 We expect this case will have at most four witnesses. + +Maybe five. Our plaintiff, the two women who booked meetings -- that's not a right term. But massages with 4 Mr. Epstein. I expect both of those women to take the Fifth, so that won't take very long, and maybe two experts. + +5 6 7 8 9 10 11 In terms of the documents that we are seeking, your Honor, again, it will be very limited. We don't know if they have written evidence about our client. We understand that these transactions were done in cash. I don't know if they kept records of who he met with when. Obviously, if he has that record, we'd like it. We don't expect a lot of documents from the plaintiff. + +12 13 14 15 16 17 And I should also add that we have opened a conversation with the U.S. attorney's office for the Southern District who may have one or two documents that corroborate our client's claims. They are thinking about how they can get those to us subject to grand jury requirements. And obviously the minute we get them, we will share them with the estate. + +18 19 20 21 22 23 The final issue, your Honor, has to do with choice of law and time bar. The issues are distinct. So whether Virgin Islands law applies to issues relating to what you can get from the estate, whether that's an estate choice of law issue, is entirely different from the question of what state substantive law applies to the underlying torts. + +24 25 I think there can be no question that given this happened on the streets of New York City, in his mansion, that + +the law, the substantive law of tort applies New York law, and we clearly get the benefit of the New York statute on that. + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 With respect to the estate and whether or not he purposefully availed himself two days before his death of the benefits Virgin Islands law, which he presumably thought was going to be an advantage to Mr. Epstein, and in fact it has been. It is incredibly difficult for us to deal with the Virgin Islands court, to get Virgin Island lawyers to file papers. There are 100 advantages to the estate being in the Virgin Islands. + +11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Having sought those advantages, they don't get to pick and choose and say for purposes of the punitive damages, we want New York law to apply. We're happy to brief that issue. Courts in the Southern District in civil cases apply different laws to different issues of cases in a single case all the time. There is nothing out of the ordinary about that, and there is no rule that requires that one state's law applies to all issues in the case, particularly when you have a particularized issue about estate law like this. + +20 21 I am happy to address anything else your Honor would want to address. + +22 23 24 25 Couple more points. Again, we don't think that discovery in this case should take very long, given the limited number of documents and witnesses. We would be willing to waive a jury trial, your Honor, to help expedite things. And + +4 again, we are very much eager to get things to happen here as quickly as possible. Our client has lived with this for many, many years, she's really desirous of putting this behind her, and I'm sure your Honor can appreciate that. + +5 6 7 8 9 10 11 THE COURT: Just before you sit down. I am understanding, as you began this discussion, the problems that you see and that your client sees in the process that's been identified by defense. I am assuming you've had the discussions with them, because you've told me that you have, regarding increased plaintiff involvement in the administration process. + +12 13 If they agreed, might you change your mind about the futility or not of the claims administration process? + +14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 MS. KAPLAN: I think if they were willing to have a panel of administrators, at least one of whom, maybe there would be two, Mr. Feinberg is the one chosen by the plaintiffs and a third neutral, I certainly would be open to participating. But I am not open in participating in something that's been done entirely by them, completely in secret, by someone they chose, and without denominated amounts that they are setting aside. + +22 23 24 THE COURT: There's two stumbling blocks. One is the composition of the panel and the other is the need for some defined amount. + +25 MS. KAPLAN: It is very hard for the plaintiffs to + +figure out what they can expect without understanding what the denominator is, if you will. + +4 5 6 7 8 9 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Thank you. Your Honor, it's interesting. First, as to the motion, we think we have a fundamental right to make and intend to make. Plaintiff's counsel does not dispute that under New York law, punitive damages are not available. USVI law appears to me to be in accord with that. By the way -- + +10 11 12 13 14 15 THE COURT: No. Let me understand why you think it's in accord. I found it, I found it an interesting issue. I didn't see much in the way of cases in the Virgin Islands that dealt with the issue. I thought I understood that the Virgin Islands law tends to be accepting of common law and the law of other jurisdictions that doesn't seem to conflict. + +16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 MR. MOSKOWITZ: What you'll find is many Virgin Islands cases, and I will tell you I'm not -- I can brief it, but I cannot tell you now the current state of Virgin Islands law with respect to restatement. You will find cases, including from as recent as 2009, that refer to the restatement on the issue of punitive damage against an estate, and the restatement as well as the majority of U.S. jurisdictions, because we looked into this, are in accord. + +24 25 THE COURT: So this will be Section 908 and Section 926? + +THE COURT: Understood. Thank you. Mr. Moskowitz. + +4 5 SPEAKER: I believe that's correct. I don't have it in front of me. I'm happy to pull that if I can after I finish speaking. But, there is 11111111 v. Dowson Holding, 51 VI 619, 628 (DVI 2009); there is Booth v. Bowen, 2008 WL 220067, at \*5 (DVI Jan. 10, 2008). + +6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Candidly not Supreme Court USVI cases, but they are the authority that you will find on this issue in the USVI, and they are supportive of that restatement position. Which is not surprising. When someone's dead, you are not trying to punish them. Others would argue what about deterrence. The few cases I found work in our favor saying deterrence doesn't work like that. When someone is alive thinking if they die perhaps their estate will be impacted by this. This is not some obscure position. This is statutory law in a lot of places, including New York. + +16 17 18 19 20 21 22 In terms of the time issue, plaintiff's counsel also doesn't deny that if U.S. -- if New York law doesn't apply to that issue, this action is time barred. I'm surprised and I agree with Ms. Kaplan, this should be briefed. It should be briefed now. I am surprised to hear that it's routine that you get to pick and choose from one part of the case that X law applies -- + +23 24 25 THE COURT: I think that's an overstatement of what her argument was. I didn't hear the word "routine" mentioned at all. I have had cases, I'm sure you have as well, even + +4 basic contract cases where there are certain provisions that are subject to one jurisdiction of law and other claims that could be made on the same contract that would be under a different jurisdiction of law. + +5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 MR. MOSKOWITZ: What I've seen, your Honor, is splits between procedural law and substantive law. We are talking about two very substantive issues here. Availability of a kind of damages and a right to revive a claim under New York statutory law that's part of a new trend but is, notwithstanding that, it relates to a reviving statute of limitations, gives it new vested substantive right to people to bring a claim that was otherwise previously time barred. + +13 14 15 THE COURT: To be clear, when you call it new trend, I'm sure you mean the law that actually provides for it. It's not like someone just woke up and decided let's do this. + +16 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Correct. + +17 18 THE COURT: Do you really think the tort issues in this case would be decided by Virgin Islands law? + +19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MOSKOWITZ: No. That's why we were surprised to hear that in the response to our letter, which is why we came here, point number one was going to be that surprised us. But because of that suggestion, we number one need to brief it, because, as I said, and as has been denied, if USVI law applies wholesale or even to the two issues we are talking about, the action is time barred. Certainly that's a threshold issue that + +4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I guess my question is, if you are hellbent on bringing this motion -- that's the legal term -- and it appears that you are, is it your belief that I should not have discovery while the motion is pending because, at most, well, you think possibly that instead of hitting the single of getting rid of punitive damages, you would hit the home run of getting rid of the case in its entirety? + +11 12 13 14 15 16 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Certainly something we would brief. Having heard it for the first time, in the response to our letter, and not wanting to do something which I don't like when other people do, which is seek leave to submit an unauthorized reply to your Honor, it's something we think needs to be dealt with now. But we think both issues need to be dealt with now. + +17 18 19 THE COURT: Let's step back. While your motion is being briefed, which, by the way, I haven't allowed just yet, what is the status of discovery? + +20 MR. MOSKOWITZ: So, number one -- + +21 THE COURT: What do you think it should be? + +22 23 24 25 MR. MOSKOWITZ: II sure. If it is limited, all the more reason not to get going with it now. Nothing is going to change in six weeks that's going to impact the plaintiff's rights. Look, I get it -- + +needs to be decided now. + +THE COURT: I understand. I wouldn't be -- I wouldn't De so sure that it is time barred. + +THE COURT: What is the six weeks that you are thinking? + +4 5 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Sorry. That was a ballpark guesstimation, if we're briefing, I don't know how long it will take to brief -- + +6 7 THE COURT: You haven't figured out my schedule yet, which is not six weeks, but okay, nice try. + +8 9 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Noted. And some judges look at me the other way if you say three weeks versus nine. Good to know. + +10 11 12 13 14 15 16 But in terms of discovery, Magistrate Freeman, number one, has ordered the parties to report back to her on January 10 including about the claims program and discovery. So that issue's to be determined. I am hoping we can come to some agreement. I know Judge Freeman threw out some ideas on the transcript, I don't have that transcript in front of me. She was in good control of that issue. + +17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 If I can, I'd like to take a brief moment to set some things clear about the claims program. It's the opposite of what plaintiff's counsel has asserted. That's correct, we haven't said only X million is devoted. What we have said in writing numerous times there is no aggregate cap on the amount that the independent administrator can deem appropriate to pay to people. If you say 10 million is in it, then it's 10 million spread across however many joined. We are saying, no, we want people to join this program. Everything we are doing + +4 5 6 7 8 Choosing Ken Feinberg. Ms. Kaplan did express extreme interest in having one person and one person only who was not Ken Feinberg. We vetted and interviewed many people, including that person. We made our own decision, that's true. Ken Feinberg has impeccable credentials. And this notion of appointing someone to a panel, this is not arbitration or mediation. This is an independent claims program. + +9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 The estate we have no control at the end of the day over when who is the designer and administrator of the fund, when she makes a determination that I think this person should get X, we can't veto that. We can't impact that. All we can do is, when we hear about a claim, is say here's what we know about this claim that we about, and claimants make, can do what she wants think you should know , just like she gets whatever evidence with it. She can find what we say not important. And she makes a determination. + +18 19 20 21 22 23 So I am hearing this notion like we put two people, two or three people up there, first of all, it's one. And she is independent. I mean, these people have, that we've selected, and we were so careful about it. I am just shocked, and this is perhaps the only case where I've heard repeated objections to Ken Feinberg being -- + +24 THE COURT: I know who he is. + +25 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Right. So candidly, I hear words get + +is we want people to join. + +4 5 6 7 8 thrown out. I'm honestly mystified by that. Who else better to ensure a successful claims program. It is not like we went out and hired our cousin. These are the leading people. Jordana , not as well known, worked on the 9/11 Fund for many, many years, just left the fund to do this program. She's very compassionate. She cares. They want this program to work and so do we. Various plaintiffs have told me they are interested too. + +9 10 11 12 13 14 THE COURT: To be clear, you don't have to sell me on it because I'm not participating one way or the other. Whatever PR work you are doing has failed, because here we are. And we are at motions practice and we are going with litigation because the efforts to sell folks on the claims resolution proceeding have not worked. + +15 16 MR. MOSKOWITZ: I don't think that's correct, your Honor. The time to sign up hasn't opened yet. + +17 18 19 20 THE COURT: All right. Why are you bringing this - is it because there is otherwise a response due that you are not waiting to hear whether the folks at the front table are joining in the process or not? + +21 22 MR. MOSKOWITZ: I'm sorry. I don't think I understood the question. + +23 24 25 THE COURT: You just said to me now that people do not have to elect to participate or not participate today, they have a period of time. Correct? + +4 5 6 7 8 MR. MOSKOWITZ: I'm not certain. I know the protocol comes out very soon. Like in days or a week or so. And then shortly thereafter, it is a matter of months, so I don't have the exact date. But it's soon, it's very soon, it's not months from now. + +9 10 11 12 13 THE COURT: My understanding is that, first of all, you'd like more plaintiffs and their counsel to participate in the program. But, in the absence of that, you need to do something, and if it's to proceed with the litigation, you will proceed with the litigation. + +14 15 16 17 18 19 20 I was trying to understand, and I was trying to understand when I began this conference, why it was that you were bringing the motion now, if you are in the process of trying to persuade, encourage, entice people to participate in the claims resolution process. And I am assuming it is because otherwise you are going to be in default, and you have to do something. + +21 22 23 24 25 MR. MOSKOWITZ: That's right. I would have loved again to put off the date. But this to us, and I have cases, Judge Batts, Judge Buchwald, Judge Sweet, it is a motion to dismiss. We had to move. We had to respond to the complaint, and this is an important motion for us to make. + +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Correct. + +THE COURT: Is that period of time the 10th of January or some date sooner than that? + +Yes, in fact, the last time we adjourned the date, it 4 was without consent. We've been saying since the start, hey, let's save resources on both sides. Let's get the claims program going. + +5 6 7 8 9 10 Again, I do want to be clear, it's not been -- I know your Honor said maybe it was a PR failure. I don't think that's the accurate way to look at it. Again, we've heard various plaintiffs express that they are very interested. Time to actually make that public -- or sorry, not public. Make that official hasn't happened yet. + +11 12 THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Kaplan, are you not going to join in? I just want to know. + +13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 MS. KAPLAN: I think it's very unlikely, your Honor. They keep referring to them as independent. I don't know how they properly use that adjective to describe Mr. Feinberg and his colleague here. They were chosen by the estate, they are being paid for by the estate, there was no - not only was there no participation by us, but any opportunity for us to weigh in on that was declined. And they have a fiduciary duty not to our clients, but to the estate. That's not independent under any definition of the word. + +22 23 24 25 And what I am hearing from him frankly causes me greater concern. This protocol, this is what we've heard all along. I don't know, maybe a week. Maybe two weeks. Maybe three weeks. We were supposed to participate in the protocol. + +4 5 So we have very, very low confidence in the process, in the integrity of the process, in the ability of these women to have agency in their fates, and I think my client is very likely to go forward with litigation. + +6 THE COURT: All right. + +7 MS. KAPLAN: Highly likely. + +8 9 10 THE COURT: I didn't want to set a motion schedule. If we are going forward with the litigation, the folks at the back table have to respond. + +11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 MS. KAPLAN: Understood. But nothing about their response is relevant to the motion about punitive damages. Again, it does not dismiss a single claim in the case. It doesn't relate to a single one of the one through 86 paragraphs of factual allegations in the complaint. All it relates to are three words in the prayer for relief at the end of the complaint, and we all acknowledge sitting here today that our client is entitled to compensatory damage. So I'm completely willing to brief the issue, your Honor. And I can talk about how the choice of law analysis would work here. But it shouldn't delay anything, frankly, your Honor. Because it won't change anything in terms of moving forward with discovery, and trial in the case. + +24 25 THE COURT: All right. I don't know I need to hear anything else. Mr. Moskowitz, last words? + +What's he talking about? + +4 5 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes. If I can just give three cites where judges in this district, again, I think I referred to them earlier, Batts, Buchwald, and Sweet did dismiss on 12(b)(6) motions claims for punitive damages. Happy to do so. If you want us to save it for the brief. + +6 7 8 9 THE COURT: That's fine. Well, I haven't yet scheduled the brief, and I want to think about the degree to which discovery runs concurrent with the brief. It is only for the punitive damages; is that not correct? + +10 MR. MOSKOWITZ: And the time bar issue which since + +11 THE COURT: We are back to that again. + +12 MR. MOSKOWITZ: It was a surprise to us. + +13 14 15 16 17 THE COURT: Of course. I make no final decisions but you're observing the skepticism with which I heard the time bar issue. Because I'm incapable of not expressing my emotions. So I understand that. But I don't think that's going to be carrying the day any time soon. + +18 19 20 21 I think I have what I need to go back and think about the issue and set a schedule. But I don't want to deprive either side the opportunity to say final words to me. Ms. Kaplan, anything else you wish me to know? + +22 23 24 25 MS. KAPLAN: Just briefly. I've become a student of the law of punitive damages and Mr. Moskowitz is right that the majority rule is to bar it, as we do in New York. But the jurisdictions that do that, at least in the United States, are + +4 5 6 all based on statute. New York has a statute that prohibits punitive damages against an estate. Virgin Islands has no such statute. We are not aware of any case, we researched the issue too in Virgin Islands, saying one way or the other whether that is the law. Although of course in other contexts, the courts in Virgin Islands refer to the restatement. + +7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 The factors that courts would look to in deciding this issue is kind of the traditional factors. So the purpose of punitive damages in a case is deterrence of future wrongdoing. It's really honestly hard to imagine a case in which deterrence of future wrongdoing is not a stronger interest, particularly given the fact that Mr. Epstein can no longer be prosecuted criminally. There is nothing more important than deterring criminal sexual acts against young children. + +15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 The countervailing perspective is whether it's unfair to punish the estate for the acts of the decedent. Typically, your Honor, as you can imagine, that comes up in the context of children. There is that famous line from Exodus in the Bible about punishing the children for the sins of the fathers. And since the Enlightenment in our country and in our world, we believe that you shouldn't punish children for the sins of the father. + +23 24 25 There is no children at issue in this estate. They have identified the sole beneficiary as Mr. Epstein's brother. At least since Mr. Epstein was prosecuted in Florida, his + +4 5 6 7 brother was fully aware of what Mr. Epstein did, and in fact, we have reason to believe his brother lives in a building owned partly owned by him, partly owned by Mr. Epstein, in which the the two women who did the booking of massages for these girls also lived. So, the idea that Mr. Epstein's brother is somehow innocent here, or should have the full benefits of the estate, based on those policy reasons, makes very, very little sense. + +8 9 10 And obviously, deterrence is really a huge factor here. This should never happen to any young girl ever again, certainly anywhere in New York or anywhere in this country. + +11 THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Moskowitz, final thoughts? + +12 13 14 15 16 17 18 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes. I have various law in front of me that I'm happy to brief that, number one, show there are plenty of jurisdictions that not based on statute bar punitive damages against an estate. I have cases such as Lohr v. Byrd, 522 So 2d 845, 846 (Fla. 1988), which is a Florida case that refutes any notion that deterrence is served by punishing a tortfeasor. And I am happy to brief all of those. + +19 20 21 22 THE COURT: All right. I will get back to the parties as soon as I can. I'm imagining one side or the other will be getting a transcript of this. If you do so, I'll receive it automatically. So I'll just imagine one of you will do that. + +23 Thank you very much. + +24 (Adjourned) + +25 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750961/EFTA02750961.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750961/EFTA02750961.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..83497f8c4c1ae15d6a698595692473888b2d7b58 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750961/EFTA02750961.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1004 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750961.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 28, + "chars": 38296, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.4, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "APPEARANCES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 281.52, + 413.09999999999997 + ], + [ + 371.562744140625, + 413.09999999999997 + ], + [ + 371.562744140625, + 427.08416748046875 + ], + [ + 281.52, + 427.08416748046875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 53 + ], + [ + "Text", + 39 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 108 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 109 + ], + [ + "Line", + 55 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 101 + ], + [ + "Line", + 51 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750961" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750989/EFTA02750989.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750989/EFTA02750989.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9c97fbe7dc8d8e5525f9c4b1c66d5f2d96e3da5e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750989/EFTA02750989.md @@ -0,0 +1,76 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +v. + +Plaintiff, + +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, + +Defendants. + +USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED D0C #: DATE FILO: /±.-P SP? + +Case No. 19 Civ. 8673 + +## JOINT STIPULATION AND IPROPOSED1 ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S ANONYMITY + +This stipulation is entered into by plaintiff Jane Doe ("Plaintiff') and defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Defendants"). + +WHEREAS, Plaintiff has moved this Court for an Order permitting Plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym in this action; + +IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Plaintiffs and Defendants, through their undersigned counsel, subject to the approval of the Court, that: + +- I. Within three (3) days of entry of this Order, Counsel of Record for Plaintiff shall disclose Plaintiff's identity to Counsel of Record for Defendants, in writing, +- 2. Counsel of Record for Defendants may disclose Plaintiff's identity only to Defendants and any attorneys, paralegals, and clerical or other assistants working with or for Counsel of Record for Defendants on this action; and the recipients of such information shall not disclose it to any other persons. +- 3. If Defendants wish to disclose Plaintiff's identity to any person not otherwise permitted to receive such information under this Order, Defendants are limited to doing so in connection with defending this action, and must require such person to first execute a non-disclosure agiv,,,tient, in a form agreed to by the parties and attached to this Order as Exhibit A, that prevents such person front disclosing Plaintiff's identity to any other persons. Defendants must maintain a list of all such persons to whom Plaintiff's identity is disclosed and copies of the executed non-disclosure agreements, all of which are subject to in camera inspection. + +- 4. All portions of pleadings, motions or other papers filed with the Court that disclose Plaintiff's identity shall be filed under seal with the Clerk of the Court and kept under seal until further order of the Court. The parties shall use their best efforts to minimize such sealing. Any party filing a motion or any other papers with the Court under seal shall also publicly file a redacted copy of the same, via the Court's Electronic Case Filing system, that redacts the Plaintiff's identity and text that would reveal Plaintiff's identity. +- 5. The parties may seek to modify or amend this Order at any time upon motion to the Court or by stipulation. + +Dated: December 13, 2019 + +Respectfully submitted, + +Roberta A. Kaplan Kate L. Doniger Alexandra K. Conlon + +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, New York 10118 Telephone: (212) 763-0883 Facsimile: (212) 564-0883 rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com kdoniger@kaptanhecker.com kmagun@kaplanhecker.com aconlon@kaplanhecker.cOrn + +Attorneys for PlaintiffJane Doe + +SO ORDERED. + +Date: /. 2-4,10f New York, New York 1; 5) 14/4 KcP + +Bennet J. Moskowitz + +TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 Telephone: (212) 704-6000 Bennet.Moskowitz@trouthman.com + +Attorneys for Defendants Darren K. indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate ofJeffrey E. Epstein. + +HON. DEBRA FREEMAN United States Magistrate Judge + +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +v. + +Plaintiff, + +Case No. 19 Civ. 8673 + +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, + +Defendants. + +## NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT + +acknowledge that 1 understand that the name of the Plaintiff in this action is confidential. I agree that: (1) I will hold in confidence Plaintiff's identity; (2) 1 will use Plaintiff's identity only for purposes of this litigation and for no other purpose whatsoever; and (3) I will take all due precautions to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of Plaintiff's identity. + +By acknowledging these obligations under this Non-Disclosure Agreement, I understand that I am submitting myself to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for the purpose of any issue or dispute arising hereunder, and that my willful violation of any term of the Non-Disclosure Agreement could subject me to punishment for contempt of court. + +Dated: + +[Signature] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750989/EFTA02750989.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750989/EFTA02750989.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b889ed159a79f58965e38c98a34187fa772ac9f1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750989/EFTA02750989.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,247 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750989.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 4459, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.93, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 196.452, + 94.77000000000001 + ], + [ + 401.5464782714844, + 94.77000000000001 + ], + [ + 401.5464782714844, + 122.0755615234375 + ], + [ + 196.452, + 122.0755615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "JOINT STIPULATION AND IPROPOSED1 ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S ANONYMITY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.74, + 285.92999999999995 + ], + [ + 507.6735534667969, + 285.92999999999995 + ], + [ + 507.6735534667969, + 300.945556640625 + ], + [ + 88.74, + 300.945556640625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 203.18400000000003, + 74.52 + ], + [ + 401.64300537109375, + 74.52 + ], + [ + 401.64300537109375, + 101.0985107421875 + ], + [ + 203.18400000000003, + 101.0985107421875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 209.91600000000003, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 398.4062805175781, + 264.06000000000006 + ], + [ + 398.4062805175781, + 278.9420471191406 + ], + [ + 209.91600000000003, + 278.9420471191406 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 92 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750989" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750992/EFTA02750992.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750992/EFTA02750992.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..309fc8425d6a3c737918746cbcea6e6d802cab0c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750992/EFTA02750992.md @@ -0,0 +1,105 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +•X Jane Doe Plaintiff(s), 19 Civ. 8673 (KPF) V. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn Defendant(s). : CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER + +This Civil Case Management Plan (the "Plan") is submitted by the parties in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3). + +- 1. All parties [consent / do not consent X ] to conducting all further proceedings before a United States Magistrate Judge, including motions and trial. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The parties are free to withhold consent without adverse substantive consequences. [If all parties consent, the remaining paragraphs need not be completed. Instead, the parties shall submit to the Court a fully executed SD1VY Form Consenting to Proceed for All Purposes Before a Magistrate Judge, available at the Court's website, hat's:// nusd.uscourts.00v/ hon-katherine-volk-failla, within three (3) days of submitting this Proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order.] +- 2. Settlement discussions [have / have not X ] taken place. +- 3. The parties [have X / have not ] conferred pursuant to Fed. R. + - Civ. P. 26(f). +- 4. Amended pleadings may not be filed and additional parties may not be joined except with leave of the Court. Any motion to amend or to join additional parties shall be filed within 30 days from the date of this Order. [Absent exceptional circumstances, a date not more than 30 days following the initial pretrial conference.] +- 5. Initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) shall be completed no later than 14 days from the date of this Order. [Absent exceptional circumstances, a date not more than 14 days following the initial pretrial conference.] + +- 6. [If applicable] The plaintiff(s) shall provide HIPAA-compliant medical records release authorizations to the defendant(s) no later than 14 days from the Defendants' request +- 7. Discovery + - a. The parties are to conduct discovery in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Southern District of New York. + - b. The parties are to discuss, if and as appropriate, provisions for the disclosure, discovery, or preservation of electronically stored information (ESI). Any agreement reached between the parties concerning ESI is to be filed within 30 days from the date of this Order. + - c. The parties are to discuss whether a procedure for designating materials as confidential is necessary in this matter. Any agreement between the parties for designating materials as confidential must conform to the Court's Individual Rules regarding the filing of materials under seal. Any confidentiality agreement between the parties is to be filed within 30 days from the date of this Order. + - d. The parties are also to discuss protocols for asserting claims of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material after such information is produced, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502. Any agreement reached between the parties concerning such protocols is to be filed within 30 days from the date of this Order. + - e. All fact discovery shall be completed no later than 120 days from the dale d INS Order [A date not more than 120 days following the initial pretrial conference, unless the Court fords that the case presents unique complexities or other exceptional circumstances] + - f. All expert discovery, including reports, production of underlying documents, and depositions, shall be completed no later than 180 days from the dated this order . [Absent exceptional circumstances, a date not more than 45 days from the date in paragraph 7(e) (Le., the completion of all fact discovery)] + +## 8. Interim Discovery Deadlines + +- a. Initial requests for production of documents shall be served by 30 days from date of order +- b. Interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33.3(a) of the Local Civil Rules of the Southern District of New York shall be served by 30 days from date of order No Rule 33.3(a) interrogatories need to be served with respect to disclosures automatically required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a). +- c. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, contention interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33.3(c) of the Local Civil Rules of the Southern District of New York must be served no later than 30 days before the close of discovery. No other interrogatories are permitted except upon prior express permission of the Court. +- d. Depositions of fact witnesses shall be completed by 9°daYs from the date ofIt" men, + - i. Absent an agreement between the parties or an order from the Court, depositions are not to be held until all parties have responded to initial requests for document production. + - ii. There is no priority in deposition by reason of a party's status as a plaintiff or a defendant. + - iii. Absent an agreement between the parties or an order from the Court, non-party depositions shall follow initial party depositions. +- e. Requests to admit shall be served by 90 days of the date of this order +- f. Any of the deadlines in paragraphs 8(a) through 8(e) may be extended by the written consent of all parties without application to the Court, provided that all fact discovery is completed by the date set forth in paragraph 7(e). No later than 30 days prior to the date in paragraph 7(e) (i.e., the completion of all fact discovery), the parties shall meet and confer on a schedule for expert disclosures, including reports, production of underlying documents, and depositions, provided that (i) expert report(s) of the party with the burden of proof shall be due before those of the opposing party's expert(s); and (ii) all expert discovery shall be completed by the date set forth in paragraph 7(f). + +- 9. All motions and applications shall be governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the Southern District of New York, and the Court's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases ("Individual Rules"), which are available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-katherine-polkfailla. +- 10. In the case of discovery disputes, parties should follow Local Civil Rule 37.2 with the following modifications. Any party wishing to raise a discovery dispute with the Court must first confer in good faith with the opposing party, in person or by telephone, in an effort to resolve the dispute. If this meet-and-confer process does not resolve the dispute, the party may submit a letter to the Court, no longer than three pages, explaining the nature of the dispute and requesting an informal conference. Such a letter must include a representation that the meetand-confer process occurred and was unsuccessful. If the opposing party wishes to respond to the letter, it must submit a responsive letter, not to exceed three pages, within three business days after the request is received. Counsel should be prepared to discuss with the Court the matters raised by such letters, as the Court will seek to resolve discovery disputes quickly, by order, by conference, or by telephone. +- 11. All counsel must meet in person for at least one hour to discuss settlement within 14 days following the close of fact discovery EXCEPT in cases brought as putative collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act, in which case counsel must meet to discuss settlement within 14 days following the close of the opt-in period. +- 12. Alternative dispute resolution/settlement + - a. Counsel for the parties have discussed an informal exchange of information in aid of early settlement of this case and have agreed upon the following: + - b. Counsel for the parties have discussed the use of the following alternate dispute resolution mechanisms in this case: (i) a settlement conference before a Magistrate Judge; (ii) participation in the District's Mediation Program; and/or (iii) retention of a privately retained mediator. Counsel for the parties propose the following alternate dispute resolution mechanism for this case: Claims resolution program + +- c. Counsel for the parties recommend that the alternate dispute resolution mechanism designated in paragraph 12(b) be employed at the following point in the case (e.g., within the next 60 days; after the deposition of plaintiff is completed (specify date); after the close of fact discovery): + +WA + +- d. The use of any alternative dispute resolution mechanism does not stay or modify any date in this Order. +- 13. Absent good cause, the Court will not ordinarily have summary judgment practice in a non jury case. Before filing a summary judgment motion, the moving party must file a pre-motion submission pursuant to Section 4(A) of the Court's Individual Rules. The submission shall be filed within 30 days of the close of fact or expert discovery, whichever comes later. +- 14. Similarly, any motion to exclude the testimony of experts pursuant to Rules 702-705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), line of cases, is to be filed within 30 days of the close of fact or expert discovery, whichever is later. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, opposition to any such motion is to be filed two weeks after the motion is served on the opposing party, and a reply, if any, is to be filed one week after service of any opposition. +- 15. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, within 30 days of the close of all discovery, or, if a dispositive motion has been filed, within 30 days of a decision on such motion, the parties shall submit to the Court for its approval a Joint Pretrial Order prepared in accordance with the Court's Individual Rules and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3). The parties shall also follow Paragraph 5 of the Court's Individual Rules, which paragraph identifies submissions that must be made at or before the time of the Joint Pretrial Order, including any motions in limine. +- 16. If this action is to be tried before a jury, joint requests to charge, joint proposed verdict forms, and joint proposed voir dire questions shall be filed on or before the Joint Pretrial Order due date in accordance with the Court's Individual Rules. Jury instructions may not be submitted after the Joint Pretrial Order due date, unless they meet the standard of Fed. + - R. Civ. P. 51(a)(2)(A). If this action is to be tried to the Court, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be filed on or before the + +Joint Pretrial Order due date in accordance with the Court's Individual Rules. + +1. 17. Unless the Court orders otherwise for good cause shown, the parties shall be ready for trial 30 days after the Joint Pretrial Order is filed. +2. 18. This case [is \_\_\_\_\_ / is not x\_\_\_\_] to be tried to a jury. +3. 19. Counsel for the parties have conferred and the present best estimate of the length of trial is one week \_\_\_\_\_. +4. 20. Other issues to be addressed at the Initial Pretrial Conference, including those set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3), are set forth below. + +\_\_\_\_\_ +\_\_\_\_\_ +\_\_\_\_\_ +\_\_\_\_\_ + +Counsel for the Parties: + +Roberta A. Kaplan \_\_\_\_\_ + +Bennet J. Moskowitz \_\_\_\_\_ + +Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP \_\_\_\_\_ + +Troutman Sanders \_\_\_\_\_ + +350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 \_\_\_\_\_ + +875 Third Avenue \_\_\_\_\_ + +New York, New York 10118 \_\_\_\_\_ + +New York, New York 10022 \_\_\_\_\_ + +## TO BE FILLED IN BY THE COURT IF APPLICABLE: + +shall file a motion for no later than Any opposition shall be filed by and any reply shall be filed by . One courtesy copy of all motion papers, marked as such, shall be mailed or hand delivered to the Court by the movant at the time the reply is served. All courtesy copies should be three-hole punched, tabbed, and placed in binders as specified in the Court's Individual Rules. + +The next pretrial conference is scheduled for in Courtroom 618 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York 10007. at + +By Thursday of the week prior to that conference, the parties shall submit via e-mail (Failla\_NYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov) a joint letter, not to exceed three pages, regarding the status of the case. The letter should include the following information in separate paragraphs: + +- (1) A statement of all existing deadlines, due dates, and/or cut-off dates; +- (2) A brief description of any outstanding motions; +- (3) A brief description of the status of discovery and of any additional discovery that needs to be completed; +- (4) A statement describing the status of any settlement discussions and whether the parties would like a settlement conference; +- (5) A statement of the anticipated length of trial and whether the case is to be tried to a jury; +- (6) A statement of whether the parties anticipate filing motions for summary judgment, including the basis of any such motion; and +- (7) Any other issue that the parties would like to address at the pretrial conference or any information that the parties believe may assist the Court in advancing the case to settlement or trial. + +This Order may not be modified or the dates herein extended, except by further Order of this Court for good cause shown. Unless the Court orders otherwise, parties engaged in settlement negotiations must proceed on parallel tracks, pursuing settlement and conducting discovery simultaneously. Parties should not assume that they will receive an extension of an existing deadline if settlement negotiations fail. Any application to modify or extend the dates herein (except as provided in paragraph 8(f)) shall be made in a written application in accordance with the Court's Individual Rules and must be made no fewer than two business days prior to the expiration of the date sought to be extended. + +SO ORDERED. + +DEBRA FREEMAN United States Magistrate Judge + +Dated: 2020 New York, New York \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750992/EFTA02750992.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750992/EFTA02750992.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6fdc251c1fe5016e4912a57b9b398cd780f4d309 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750992/EFTA02750992.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,418 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750992.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 8, + "chars": 13712, + "elapsed_seconds": 4.68, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 299.9381103515625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 299.9381103515625, + 100.61248779296875 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.61248779296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "8. Interim Discovery Deadlines", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 276.8389587402344, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 276.8389587402344, + 86.73248291015625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 86.73248291015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TO BE FILLED IN BY THE COURT IF APPLICABLE:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 71.905029296875 + ], + [ + 388.3665771484375, + 71.905029296875 + ], + [ + 388.3665771484375, + 85.99249267578125 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 85.99249267578125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 22 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 36 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02750992" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751000/EFTA02751000.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751000/EFTA02751000.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..623824ce6b5974b7714d68c10b45d795b3835e4d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751000/EFTA02751000.md @@ -0,0 +1,787 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x + +JANE DOE, + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +Plaintiff, New York, N.Y. + +v. + +DARREN K. INDYKE, et al., + +Defendants. + +Before: + +19 CV 8673 (KPF) + +x Conference + +December 11, 2019 11:30 a.m. + +HON. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, + +District Judge + +## APPEARANCES + +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: ROBERTA KAPLAN ALEXANDRA CONLON KATE L. DONIGER LOUIS FISHER + +TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP Attorneys for Defendants BY: BENNET J. MOSKOWITZ CHARLES GLOVER + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +a + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +THE DEPUTY CLERK: In the matter of Doe v. Indyke. Counsel, please state your name for the record beginning with plaintiff. + +MS. KAPLAN: Good morning. Roberta Kaplan for plaintiff from Kaplan Hecker & Fink. I am here with my colleagues Kate Doniger, Alex Conlon, and Louis Fisher. + +THE COURT: Good morning. + +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Good morning. Bennet Moskowitz, Troutman Sanders LLP, counsel for the co-executors of the Estate of Jeffrey D. Epstein. + +MR. GLOVER: And Charles Glover of the same firm. + +THE COURT: First of all, I thank you very much for your indulgence. As you could see, we did not know until we knew that plaintiff in our prior case did not speak English. He was comfortable with the dates of a conference and not more than that. So I appreciate your patience. + +Let me begin by noting that I'm surprised we are having this conference, even though I am the one who convened it. And that is because what I thought made sense from an efficiency perspective was to have the discovery assigned to a single magistrate judge, and which is what was done. The reason that I'm having this conference, and Judge Freeman is not, is it does not appear that the discussion of motions to strike or motion practice is occurring in all of the cases. And so for those in which it is happening, those judges have + +decided to talk about it. + +I'm asking in the first instance to speak with 4 Mr. Moskowitz, unless he wants to pass the mic over to Mr. Glover. + +5 6 7 a Mr. Moskowitz, I had understood, from a very sort of peripheral perspective, that the focus of your clients was on setting up a fund to perhaps fund the settlement of these claims. Am I correct? + +9 MR. MOSKOWITZ: That's absolutely correct. + +10 11 THE COURT: I'll ask you to stand only because there is a monitor in front of you. + +12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 MR. MOSKOWITZ: I prefer it. Thank you. That's absolutely correct. That is still a major focus of my clients. In fact, it's full steam ahead. I understand that, as has been described when we were before Judge Freeman and before then, I understand that the administrators-to-be, Ken Feinberg, Jordana , Camille Biyos, all leading people in the field of claims administration, has been in touch with or have reached out to various plaintiffs' counsel. And the administrators are working on the protocol, which is basically the nuts and bolts of that program. + +22 23 24 25 It's our hope and expectation that all plaintiffs will give it a shot. It doesn't require anything in terms of waiving any rights. They can go through the whole claims process, get an independent determination -- the estate doesn't + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +a + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +control the program administrators or designers -- and if given plaintiff doesn't like that determination, they can say, you know what, I don't like this, I am going back to concentrate on my litigation. + +I too, although, you know, I'm hoping people come around, and I'm disappointed as of now no one has come to us and said I am going to give it a shot, let's stay the litigation in the meantime. But it's not required. The administrators aren't requiring that. + +THE COURT: This is the fork in the road where you and I diverge. I would have thought given your focus was on setting up a fund for claims administration you would not be focusing on motions to strike, which to me seemed to be a - not a distraction, but a detour in the path to resolution of the case. + +MR. MOSKOWITZ: I see. If I can, I gather, but I'll ask the question, your Honor is wondering that based on your Honor's understanding of what the law is, on whether what we are talking about here is, as Ms. Kaplan asserted in her letter a motion to strike, or as I'll gladly briefly go over is actually, no, a motion to dismiss. + +And the reason we made the motion is because I would have loved to push the time out more. But plaintiff's counsel wasn't willing to do that. We have preserved our rights. A critical threshold issue for us, I have six points to briefly + +4 5 THE COURT: Okay. But, that wouldn't get rid of all of the claims. + +6 MR. MOSKOWITZ: No. + +7 a 9 10 11 THE COURT: I am trying to figure out why expend -- I am not using the term waste -- why expend the resources when, at some point, perhaps, we can have a discussion about whether or not Virgin Islands permits law permits punitive damages or not. + +12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I am just trying to understand, because things were going so well, I thought. You've had your initial conference before Judge Freeman, there are discussions that I imagine were going on. There was, I presume, the establishment of protocols for discovery. And this, again, just seems like something that is inconsistent with everything that's been going on before her. + +19 20 So perhaps I need to hear some or all of your six points and I will listen to you. + +21 22 23 24 25 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Sure. Well, plaintiff's counsel generally, not all of them, but plaintiff's counsel here today included has made it clear to us that they are not yet sold, that's my wording, on the program. And unless and until they tell us otherwise, they are moving full steam ahead with their + +touch upon, I'll be very quick, that will address that. + +But, it's very important to us that we be able to move to dismiss, which is what it is, the punitive damages claims. + +4 5 6 7 a In terms of making motions, your Honor is correct, we've again, if we had it our way, we wouldn't have to engage in this practice on either side. We would stay everything. But we're here, and the reason moving to dismiss punitive damages in this case is so important to us and worth the time and energy now we are already halfway there to briefing and having this issue decided is two fold. + +9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Number one, the scope of discovery, ever since the 2015 amendments, now expressly as I think it did previous to that contemplates that the amount in controversy is directly relevant to the scope of discovery. This is a very different case, from our perspective, because no punitive damages are available than plaintiff, if they do, we think incorrectly believe punitive damages are available. + +16 17 18 People, as I'm sure your Honor is aware, make very large claims for punitive damages. That's out of the case and should be as a threshold. + +19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The second is going to the claims program, or any other settlement because, you know, Judge Freeman asked me this, well, can someone talk to you about settlement separate from the claims program. Absolutely. They all have my phone number. Nothing is off the table. We hope everyone will give that claims program a shot. Why wouldn't you. I don't see why. In the meantime, if someone wants to talk about + +litigation. So we are basically having to react to that. + +4 5 6 How can the parties in this case see eye to eye if plaintiffs, again, I think clearly and incorrectly say and we are entitled to X millions punitive versus we are saying we are talking about compensatory damages. Let's have a discussion about that. + +7 a 9 10 11 12 THE COURT: Let's be clear. Assuming, as you'd like me to do, the exclusion of punitive damages, the claim's not going to be for ten dollars. It is going to be for millions upon millions of dollars. And do you really think the scope of discovery is going to change, given the nature of the damages sought and the nature of the claims raised? + +13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Well, I do -- part of the clarity that I don't have, which I welcome to get, not trying to make my own questions, don't have clarity on how much is plaintiff claiming is owed to her in terms of punitive versus compensatory damages. It's not clear to me from the complaint. I haven't heard that yet, so it's hard for me to answer that question. But, I'm happy to answer questions in the order that your Honor desires. + +21 22 23 24 25 There is one other, I mentioned I had these six points. It Is often the case we don't come in and do things how I want. I want to raise another critical threshold issue that came up entirely because of what was in the contents of plaintiff's counsel's response to my letter, and that is if + +settlement, fine. + +they are correct that USVI law applies, this action is time barred. Every cause of action that is asserted in their 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 complaint says it is timely because of the New York Child Victims Act. Well, it stands to reason that if U.S. Virgin Islands law applies in this case, then the plaintiff cannot avail herself of the New York Child Victims Act. That is certainly something that I also now need to brief, and would, like I said, that's a key threshold issue even more so than punitive damages. There can be no case if there is no New York Child Victims Act applying. It's time barred. + +11 12 13 14 15 16 17 THE COURT: Not to put words in your mouth, but what I'm understanding is that you believe your premotion letter is not inconsistent with your desire to have a claims resolution process. It is, rather, something you feel is thrust upon you by the fact that today, not all of the plaintiffs' counsel are interested in participating in the program that you're setting up. + +18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes. Let me clarify that, too. That's correct, but various plaintiffs' lawyers have indicated to me that they are interested. In fact, and a big issue before Judge Freeman was various plaintiffs' lawyers reached out to me and others that represent the executors before these actions got filed in the case, certainly before they began in earnest, to say they wanted a kind of claims program. It was something we were already thinking about on our end. This was 4 I don't want to rehash during Judge Freeman's hearing there was a disagreement about the way it's unfolded, etc., and that's not why we're here. + +5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 Your Honor is correct, having the final motion to dismiss now, I wish we could put it off for three months and see if the claims program works and save the dockets, but here we are. And again, we think that punitive damages and now again USVI law applies as being time barred. These are key issues we can't avoid. These are straightforward legal issues. These will not be 50-page briefs. The motions I filed in other cases have all been on the concise side I'll call it, which I'm sure is something your Honor would appreciate. This can be done on a relatively short time frame. + +15 16 17 18 These are threshold issues. Certainly the time bar aspect, and I still argue the punitives and subject to I'd love to know what is plaintiff asking for in terms of punitive damages. + +19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Based on a collective, not in this case, what I've heard from the plaintiffs' side is, for example, there is one case out there where two plaintiffs, not this firm, claim \$100 million. They don't say what part is which, they don't even allege they were underage at the time of the alleged harms to them, but we have the complaint at the time. We request \$100 million or another amount to be determined. That tells me we + +not something that was just thrust out here. + +need to set clarity where we can on the front end to make things more efficient going forward. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +a + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +THE COURT: Thank you. + +Ms. Kaplan, I'll hear from you in response. + +MS. KAPLAN: Yes, your Honor. So, I think I heard Mr. Moskowitz say that various plaintiffs' lawyers are not yet sold on the proposed settlement process. + +THE COURT: That's the word that was used, yes. + +MS. KAPLAN: That might be the understatement of the day, your Honor. First of all, there is no fund. In response to questions from the plaintiffs, Mr. Moskowitz responded by saying that no amount of money is actually being set aside by the estate to settle these claims. That is something that is very, very concerning to the plaintiffs. It's one thing to agree to participate in a fund when you know that, say, 300 or 400 million of the 577 million in the estate is being set aside. But they have said that no amount is being set aside. They just want to settle claims, presumably, so they can settle as low as possible and have the rest for the estate. That's a huge problem. It is going to be a huge problem for the plaintiffs' lawyers. + +Number two, as Judge Freeman admonished Mr. Moskowitz when we met, settlement is a two-way street. There has to be consultation. The settlement -- the discussions that Mr. Moskowitz referred to, I was part of those, and I said to + +4 5 the estate that the plaintiffs needed to be involved. That these women who, many of whom, like my client, were horribly abused as young children, have to have agency. And they have to help pick the administrator, be involved in who the administrator is. None of that has happened. + +6 7 a 9 Mr. Moskowitz and the estate picked Ken Feinberg on their own. There was no consultation with us. We have now asked them to put on an administrator on a panel that the plaintiffs select. We've gotten no answer to that. + +10 11 12 With all respect, your Honor, I'm someone who has settled cases for decades in this district. This does not look to me like a case that's going to settle. + +13 14 If your Honor would like, I can move on to the merits issues. + +15 THE COURT: Please. + +16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. KAPLAN: With respect to this motion, whether it's styled as a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6) or a motion to strike under 12(f), I've made those motions, I've always made them as 12(f) motions. I've never won one, but I've made them. However it's styled, your Honor said the fundamental important point here, which is not that it doesn't dismiss one claim, it dismisses no claims. We have compensatory damage sought in connection with all four of our claims. They have no motions to dismiss compensatory damage. They have no motion to dismiss any of the four underlying tort claims. + +For that reason, your Honor, there is really no reason not to get started. We are happy to have a conference with Judge Freeman, but the problem is the cases are in all different kind of configurations. There are many cases that don't require even responses until late January. There are cases with different defendants. There are cases with federal trafficking statutory claims. This is a simple diversity claim, common law claim. We are ready to get started. We don't think we should be delayed. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +a + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +With all respect to the Southern District, the way this has been set up where there is one magistrate but I think at least nine, maybe a dozen different judges now, give the plaintiffs all the disadvantages of consolidation and none of the advantages of consolidation. Because various issues are being decided by various district court judges, most of the judges are deciding pseudonymity. Your Honor has deferred that to Judge Freeman. It's kind of a big mess. + +We understand that Judge Freeman has jurisdiction over discovery. We would just like to start, and maybe if we could set a trial date today that would help get that underway. + +THE COURT: I'm not setting a trial date today. + +MS. KAPLAN: Let me talk about the scope of discovery. I will hereby make representation there is nothing about the damages claim that will affect the scope of discovery. + +We expect this case will have at most four witnesses. + +4 Maybe five. Our plaintiff, the two women who booked meetings -- that's not a right term. But massages with Mr. Epstein. I expect both of those women to take the Fifth, so that won't take very long, and maybe two experts. + +5 6 7 a 9 10 11 In terms of the documents that we are seeking, your Honor, again, it will be very limited. We don't know if they have written evidence about our client. We understand that these transactions were done in cash. I don't know if they kept records of who he met with when. Obviously, if he has that record, we'd like it. We don't expect a lot of documents from the plaintiff. + +12 13 14 15 16 17 And I should also add that we have opened a conversation with the U.S. attorney's office for the Southern District who may have one or two documents that corroborate our client's claims. They are thinking about how they can get those to us subject to grand jury requirements. And obviously the minute we get them, we will share them with the estate. + +18 19 20 21 22 23 The final issue, your Honor, has to do with choice of law and time bar. The issues are distinct. So whether Virgin Islands law applies to issues relating to what you can get from the estate, whether that's an estate choice of law issue, is entirely different from the question of what state substantive law applies to the underlying torts. + +24 25 I think there can be no question that given this happened on the streets of New York City, in his mansion, that + +the law, the substantive law of tort applies New York law, and we clearly get the benefit of the New York statute on that. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +a + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +With respect to the estate and whether or not he purposefully availed himself two days before his death of the benefits Virgin Islands law, which he presumably thought was going to be an advantage to Mr. Epstein, and in fact it has been. It is incredibly difficult for us to deal with the Virgin Islands court, to get Virgin Island lawyers to file papers. There are 100 advantages to the estate being in the Virgin Islands. + +Having sought those advantages, they don't get to pick and choose and say for purposes of the punitive damages, we want New York law to apply. We're happy to brief that issue. Courts in the Southern District in civil cases apply different laws to different issues of cases in a single case all the time. There is nothing out of the ordinary about that, and there is no rule that requires that one state's law applies to all issues in the case, particularly when you have a particularized issue about estate law like this. + +I am happy to address anything else your Honor would want to address. + +Couple more points. Again, we don't think that discovery in this case should take very long, given the limited number of documents and witnesses. We would be willing to waive a jury trial, your Honor, to help expedite things. And + +4 again, we are very much eager to get things to happen here as quickly as possible. Our client has lived with this for many, many years, she's really desirous of putting this behind her, and I'm sure your Honor can appreciate that. + +5 6 7 a 9 10 11 THE COURT: Just before you sit down. I am understanding, as you began this discussion, the problems that you see and that your client sees in the process that's been identified by defense. I am assuming you've had the discussions with them, because you've told me that you have, regarding increased plaintiff involvement in the administration process. + +12 13 If they agreed, might you change your mind about the futility or not of the claims administration process? + +14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 MS. KAPLAN: I think if they were willing to have a panel of administrators, at least one of whom, maybe there would be two, Mr. Feinberg is the one chosen by the plaintiffs and a third neutral, I certainly would be open to participating. But I am not open in participating in something that's been done entirely by them, completely in secret, by someone they chose, and without denominated amounts that they are setting aside. + +22 23 24 THE COURT: There's two stumbling blocks. One is the composition of the panel and the other is the need for some defined amount. + +25 MS. KAPLAN: It is very hard for the plaintiffs to + +figure out what they can expect without understanding what the denominator is, if you will. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +a + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +THE COURT: Understood. Thank you. Mr. Moskowitz. + +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Thank you. Your Honor, it's interesting. First, as to the motion, we think we have a fundamental right to make and intend to make. Plaintiff's counsel does not dispute that under New York law, punitive damages are not available. USVI law appears to me to be in accord with that. By the way -- + +THE COURT: No. Let me understand why you think it's in accord. I found it, I found it an interesting issue. I didn't see much in the way of cases in the Virgin Islands that dealt with the issue. I thought I understood that the Virgin Islands law tends to be accepting of common law and the law of other jurisdictions that doesn't seem to conflict. + +MR. MOSKOWITZ: What you'll find is many Virgin Islands cases, and I will tell you I'm not -- I can brief it, but I cannot tell you now the current state of Virgin Islands law with respect to restatement. You will find cases, including from as recent as 2009, that refer to the restatement on the issue of punitive damage against an estate, and the restatement as well as the majority of U.S. jurisdictions, because we looked into this, are in accord. + +THE COURT: So this will be Section 908 and Section 926? + +4 5 SPEAKER: I believe that's correct. I don't have it in front of me. I'm happy to pull that if I can after I finish speaking. But, there is v. Dm4sonHolding, 51 VI 619, 628 (DVI 2009); there is Booth v. Bowen, 2008 WL 220067, at \*5 (DVI Jan. 10, 2008). + +6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Candidly not Supreme Court USVI cases, but they are the authority that you will find on this issue in the USVI, and they are supportive of that restatement position. Which is not surprising. When someone's dead, you are not trying to punish them. Others would argue what about deterrence. The few cases i found work in our favor saying deterrence doesn't work like that. When someone is alive thinking if they die perhaps their estate will be impacted by this. This is not some obscure position. This is statutory law in a lot of places, including New York. + +16 17 18 19 20 21 22 In terms of the time issue, plaintiff's counsel also doesn't deny that if U.S. -- if New York law doesn't apply to that issue, this action is time barred. I'm surprised and I agree with Ms. Kaplan, this should be briefed. It should be briefed now. I am surprised to hear that it's routine that you get to pick and choose from one part of the case that X law applies -- + +23 24 25 THE COURT: I think that's an overstatement of what her argument was. I didn't hear the word "routine" mentioned at all. I have had cases, I'm sure you have as well, even + +4 basic contract cases where there are certain provisions that are subject to one jurisdiction of law and other claims that could be made on the same contract that would be under a different jurisdiction of law. + +5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 MR. MOSKOWITZ: What I've seen, your Honor, is splits between procedural law and substantive law. We are talking about two very substantive issues here. Availability of a kind of damages and a right to revive a claim under New York statutory law that's part of a new trend but is, notwithstanding that, it relates to a reviving statute of limitations, gives it new vested substantive right to people to bring a claim that was otherwise previously time barred. + +13 14 15 THE COURT: To be clear, when you call it new trend, I'm sure you mean the law that actually provides for it. It's not like someone just woke up and decided let's do this. + +16 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Correct. + +17 18 THE COURT: Do you really think the tort issues in this case would be decided by Virgin Islands law? + +19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MOSKOWITZ: No. That's why we were surprised to hear that in the response to our letter, which is why we came here, point number one was going to be that surprised us. But because of that suggestion, we number one need to brief it, because, as I said, and as has been denied, if USVI law applies wholesale or even to the two issues we are talking about, the action is time barred. Certainly that's a threshold issue that + +4 5 6 7 a 9 10 I guess my question is, if you are hellbent on bringing this motion -- that's the legal term -- and it appears that you are, is it your belief that I should not have discovery while the motion is pending because, at most, well, you think possibly that instead of hitting the single of getting rid of punitive damages, you would hit the home run of getting rid of the case in its entirety? + +11 12 13 14 15 16 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Certainly something we would brief. Having heard it for the first time, in the response to our letter, and not wanting to do something which I don't like when other people do, which is seek leave to submit an unauthorized reply to your Honor, it's something we think needs to be dealt with now. But we think both issues need to be dealt with now. + +17 18 19 THE COURT: Let's step back. While your motion is being briefed, which, by the way, I haven't allowed just yet, what is the status of discovery? + +20 MR. MOSKOWITZ: So, number one -- + +21 THE COURT: What do you think it should be? + +22 23 24 25 MR. MOSKOWITZ: II sure. If it is limited, all the more reason not to get going with it now. Nothing is going to change in six weeks that's going to impact the plaintiff's rights. Look, I get it -- + +needs to be decided now. + +THE COURT: I understand. I wouldn't be -- I wouldn't he so sure that it is time barred. + +THE COURT: What is the six weeks that you are thinking? + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +a + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Sorry. That was a ballpark guesstimation, if we're briefing, I don't know how long it will take to brief -- + +THE COURT: You haven't figured out my schedule yet, which is not six weeks, but okay, nice try. + +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Noted. And some judges look at me the other way if you say three weeks versus nine. Good to know. + +But in terms of discovery, Magistrate Freeman, number one, has ordered the parties to report back to her on January 10 including about the claims program and discovery. So that issue's to be determined. I am hoping we can come to some agreement. I know Judge Freeman threw out some ideas on the transcript, I don't have that transcript in front of me. She was in good control of that issue. + +If I can, I'd like to take a brief moment to set some things clear about the claims program. It's the opposite of what plaintiff's counsel has asserted. That's correct, we haven't said only X million is devoted. What we have said in writing numerous times there is no aggregate cap on the amount that the independent administrator can deem appropriate to pay to people. If you say 10 million is in it, then it's 10 million spread across however many joined. We are saying, no, we want people to join this program. Everything we are doing + +4 5 6 7 a Choosing Ken Feinberg. Ms. Kaplan did express extreme interest in having one person and one person only who was not Ken Feinberg. We vetted and interviewed many people, including that person. We made our own decision, that's true. Ken Feinberg has impeccable credentials. And this notion of appointing someone to a panel, this is not arbitration or mediation. This is an independent claims program. + +9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 The estate we have no control at the end of the day over when , who is the designer and administrator of the fund, when she makes a determination that I think this person should get X, we can't veto that. We can't impact that. All we can do is, when we hear about a claim, is say here's what we know about this claim that we about, and claimants make, can do what she wants think you should know , just like she gets whatever evidence with it. She can find what we say not important. And she makes a determination. + +18 19 20 21 22 23 So I am hearing this notion like we put two people, two or three people up there, first of all, it's one. And she is independent. I mean, these people have, that we've selected, and we were so careful about it. I am just shocked, and this is perhaps the only case where I've heard repeated objections to Ken Feinberg being -- + +24 THE COURT: I know who he is. + +25 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Right. So candidly, I hear words get + +is we want people to join. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +a + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +thrown out. I'm honestly mystified by that. Who else better to ensure a successful claims program. It is not like we went out and hired our cousin. These are the leading people. Jordana , not as well known, worked on the 9/11 Fund for many, many years, just left the fund to do this program. She's very compassionate. She cares. They want this program to work and so do we. Various plaintiffs have told me they are interested too. + +THE COURT: To be clear, you don't have to sell me on it because I'm not participating one way or the other. Whatever PR work you are doing has failed, because here we are. And we are at motions practice and we are going with litigation because the efforts to sell folks on the claims resolution proceeding have not worked. + +MR. MOSKOWITZ: I don't think that's correct, your Honor. The time to sign up hasn't opened yet. + +THE COURT: All right. Why are you bringing this - is it because there is otherwise a response due that you are not waiting to hear whether the folks at the front table are joining in the process or not? + +MR. MOSKOWITZ: I'm sorry. I don't think I understood the question. + +THE COURT: You just said to me now that people do not have to elect to participate or not participate today, they have a period of time. Correct? + +4 5 6 7 a MR. MOSKOWITZ: I'm not certain. I know the protocol comes out very soon. Like in days or a week or so. And then shortly thereafter, it is a matter of months, so I don't have the exact date. But it's soon, it's very soon, it's not months from now. + +9 10 11 12 13 THE COURT: My understanding is that, first of all, you'd like more plaintiffs and their counsel to participate in the program. But, in the absence of that, you need to do something, and if it's to proceed with the litigation, you will proceed with the litigation. + +14 15 16 17 18 19 20 I was trying to understand, and I was trying to understand when I began this conference, why it was that you were bringing the motion now, if you are in the process of trying to persuade, encourage, entice people to participate in the claims resolution process. And I am assuming it is because otherwise you are going to be in default, and you have to do something. + +21 22 23 24 25 MR. MOSKOWITZ: That's right. I would have loved again to put off the date. But this to us, and I have cases, Judge Batts, Judge Buchwald, Judge Sweet, it is a motion to dismiss. We had to move. We had to respond to the complaint, and this is an important motion for us to make. + +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Correct. + +THE COURT: Is that period of time the 10th of January or some date sooner than that? + +Yes, in fact, the last time we adjourned the date, it was without consent. We've been saying since the start, hey, let's save resources on both sides. Let's get the claims program going. + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +a + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +Again, I do want to be clear, it's not been -- I know your Honor said maybe it was a PR failure. I don't think that's the accurate way to look at it. Again, we've heard various plaintiffs express that they are very interested. Time to actually make that public -- or sorry, not public. Make that official hasn't happened yet. + +THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Kaplan, are you not going to join in? I just want to know. + +MS. KAPLAN: I think it's very unlikely, your Honor. They keep referring to them as independent. I don't know how they properly use that adjective to describe Mr. Feinberg and his colleague here. They were chosen by the estate, they are being paid for by the estate, there was no - not only was there no for us to weigh in on fiduciary duty not to not independent under participation by us, but any opportunity that was declined. And they have a our clients, but to the estate. That's any definition of the word. + +And what I am hearing from him frankly causes me greater concern. This protocol, this is what we've heard all along. I don't know, maybe a week. Maybe two weeks. Maybe three weeks. We were supposed to participate in the protocol. + +4 5 So we have very, very low confidence in the process, in the integrity of the process, in the ability of these women to have agency in their fates, and I think my client is very likely to go forward with litigation. + +6 THE COURT: All right. + +7 MS. KAPLAN: Highly likely. + +a 9 10 THE COURT: I didn't want to set a motion schedule. If we are going forward with the litigation, the folks at the back table have to respond. + +11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 MS. KAPLAN: Understood. But nothing about their response is relevant to the motion about punitive damages. Again, it does not dismiss a single claim in the case. It doesn't relate to a single one of the one through 86 paragraphs of factual allegations in the complaint. All it relates to are three words in the prayer for relief at the end of the complaint, and we all acknowledge sitting here today that our client is entitled to compensatory damage. So I'm completely willing to brief the issue, your Honor. And I can talk about how the choice of law analysis would work here. But it shouldn't delay anything, frankly, your Honor. Because it won't change anything in terms of moving forward with discovery, and trial in the case. + +24 25 THE COURT: All right. I don't know I need to hear anything else. Mr. Moskowitz, last words? + +What's he talking about? + +4 5 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes. If I can just give three cites where judges in this district, again, I think I referred to them earlier, Batts, Buchwald, and Sweet did dismiss on 12(b)(6) motions claims for punitive damages. Happy to do so. If you want us to save it for the brief. + +6 7 a 9 THE COURT: That's fine. Well, I haven't yet scheduled the brief, and I want to think about the degree to which discovery runs concurrent with the brief. It is only for the punitive damages; is that not correct? + +10 MR. MOSKOWITZ: And the time bar issue which since -- + +11 THE COURT: We are back to that again. + +12 MR. MOSKOWITZ: It was a surprise to us. + +13 14 15 16 17 THE COURT: Of course. I make no final decisions but you're observing the skepticism with which I heard the time bar issue. Because I'm incapable of not expressing my emotions. So I understand that. But I don't think that's going to be carrying the day any time soon. + +18 19 20 21 I think I have what I need to go back and think about the issue and set a schedule. But I don't want to deprive either side the opportunity to say final words to me. Ms. Kaplan, anything else you wish me to know? + +22 23 24 25 MS. KAPLAN: Just briefly. I've become a student of the law of punitive damages and Mr. Moskowitz is right that the majority rule is to bar it, as we do in New York. But the jurisdictions that do that, at least in the United States, are + +4 5 6 all based on statute. New York has a statute that prohibits punitive damages against an estate. Virgin Islands has no such statute. We are not aware of any case, we researched the issue too in Virgin Islands, saying one way or the other whether that is the law. Although of course in other contexts, the courts in Virgin Islands refer to the restatement. + +7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 The factors that courts would look to in deciding this issue is kind of the traditional factors. So the purpose of punitive damages in a case is deterrence of future wrongdoing. It's really honestly hard to imagine a of future wrongdoing is not a stronger given the fact that Mr. Epstein can no case in which deterrence interest, particularly longer be prosecuted criminally. There is nothing more important than deterring criminal sexual acts against young children. + +15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 The countervailing perspective is whether it's unfair to punish the estate for the acts of the decedent. Typically, your Honor, as you can imagine, that comes up in the context of children. There is that famous line from Exodus in the Bible about punishing the children for the sins of the fathers. And since the Enlightenment in our country and in our world, we believe that you shouldn't punish children for the sins of the father. + +23 24 25 There is no children at issue in this estate. They have identified the sole beneficiary as Mr. Epstein's brother. At least since Mr. Epstein was prosecuted in Florida, his + +4 5 6 7 brother was fully aware of what Mr. Epstein did, and in fact, we have reason to believe his brother lives in a building owned partly owned by him, partly owned by Mr. Epstein, in which the the two women who did the booking of massages for these girls also lived. So, the idea that Mr. Epstein's brother is somehow innocent here, or should have the full benefits of the estate, based on those policy reasons, makes very, very little sense. + +a 9 10 And obviously, deterrence is really a huge factor here. This should never happen to any young girl ever again, certainly anywhere in New York or anywhere in this country. + +11 THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Moskowitz, final thoughts? + +12 13 14 15 16 17 18 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes. I have various law in front of me that I'm happy to brief that, number one, show there are plenty of jurisdictions that not based on statute bar punitive damages against an estate. I have cases such as Lohr v. Byrd, 522 So 2d 845, 846 (Fla. 1988), which is a Florida case that refutes any notion that deterrence is served by punishing a tortfeasor. And I am happy to brief all of those. + +19 20 21 22 THE COURT: All right. I will get back to the parties as soon as I can. I'm imagining one side or the other will be getting a transcript of this. If you do so, I'll receive it automatically. So I'll just imagine one of you will do that. + +23 Thank you very much. + +24 (Adjourned) + +25 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751000/EFTA02751000.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751000/EFTA02751000.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..78a4a5d28513786be5c245eb6b8b6d6272502197 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751000/EFTA02751000.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1004 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751000.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 28, + "chars": 38489, + "elapsed_seconds": 3.6, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "APPEARANCES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 282.744, + 413.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 371.9327392578125, + 413.90999999999997 + ], + [ + 371.9327392578125, + 426.70416259765625 + ], + [ + 282.744, + 426.70416259765625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 53 + ], + [ + "Text", + 39 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 109 + ], + [ + "Line", + 55 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 104 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 112 + ], + [ + "Line", + 56 + ], + [ + "Text", + 28 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 103 + ], + [ + "Line", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 109 + ], + [ + "Line", + 55 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 101 + ], + [ + "Line", + 51 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751000" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751028/EFTA02751028.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751028/EFTA02751028.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6f2920cb90e5ef07068195b801fe64ad5a995285 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751028/EFTA02751028.md @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Tclaphonc: (954)356-0011 Email: smccawlevAballoscom + +November 22. 2019 + +## VIA EMAIL + +Bennet J. Moskowitz Troutman Sanders LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com + +Re: The Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein + +Dear Mr. Moskowitz: + +Pursuant to Judge Freeman's directive to engage in good faith discussions about the claims resolution program that Defendants have proposed, we ask that you provide answers to two questions: + +- I. What is the total value of Epstein's Estate? +- 2. How much of Epstein's Estate will be set aside for compensating victims through the proposed claims resolution program? + +We require the above information in order to assess whether such a program is in our clients' best interest. Please respond to this letter by December 3, 2019. We appreciate that the answers to these questions may change over time, and expect that you will supplement any information you provide if and when the facts change. + +We also anticipate having further questions about the claims resolution program after receiving this preliminary information, and look forward to a productive dialogue going forward. + +cc: David Brodie (via email) Andrew Buzin (via email) Kate Doilii(via email) Brad (via email) Julie Fink (via email) Arick Fudali (via email) Alan Goldfarb (via email) Brittany (via email) Daniel J. Kaiser (via email) Roberta Kaplan (via email) Jordan Merson (via email) Laura Starr (via email) Mariann Wang (via email) + +Sincerely, + +/s/ Sigrid S. McCawlev + +Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751028/EFTA02751028.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751028/EFTA02751028.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8aa491102bbb369393bd61ed1cff9c27fb41c1e8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751028/EFTA02751028.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,100 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751028.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1542, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.9, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA EMAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 132.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 140.61102294921875, + 132.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 140.61102294921875, + 146.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 146.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 48 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751028" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751028/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751028/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3736a6a176eb79ce990a0e141459ca496331e4c2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751028/_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b25fbe02d4b5333b88de80cb5e3c43fdd3b560a657523f7737ad6df974e15db4 +size 6904 diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751029/EFTA02751029.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751029/EFTA02751029.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b625cbfb4f8729b4e693ab40927e8fa0d8ac43d8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751029/EFTA02751029.md @@ -0,0 +1,66 @@ +Bennet J. Moskowitz bennet.moskowitz©troutman.com + +December 3, 2019 + +E-MAIL + +Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. Boies Schiller Flexner LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 + +Re: Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein + +Dear Ms. McCawley: + +We write in response to your letter dated November 22, 2019, posing two inquiries concerning the proposed Epstein Victims' Compensation Program (the "Program") presented by the Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the "Estate") on November 14, 2019 to the Superior Court of the United States Virgin Islands (the "USVI Court") for approval. Our response does not constitute the Co-Executors' position regarding discovery (e.g., whether discovery is appropriate at this time or the information you requested is discoverable in the actions pending in the Southern District of New York); rather, we respond in order to further the parties' discussions concerning the Program. + +Accordingly, we repeat your inquiries below and address them to the best of our ability based on currently available information. + +## 1. "What is the total value of Epstein's Estate?" + +The total assets held by the Estate are a matter of public record: the Co-Executors' Petition for Probate and for Letters Testamentary, filed on August 19, 2019 in the United States Virgin Islands, valued the Estate's assets in excess of \$577 million. + +However, the Estate is subject to substantial potential liabilities in an undetermined amount, which makes it impossible to accurately calculate the total value of the Estate. Among other things, (i) the Estate is subject to estate taxes in at least two jurisdictions, the United States and France; (ii) the United States Department of Justice has indicated that it may seek civil forfeiture of properties held by the Estate; and (iii) your clients and other claimants have lodged 17 separate lawsuits in New York state and federal courts, seeking multi-million-dollar damages awards. Moreover, the number and size of future claims is unknown: one plaintiffs' + +counsel recently predicted that "[p]otentially dozens" more additional lawsuits will be filed, without specifying exact numbers of such cases or the damages that may be sought.1 + +For these reasons, it is simply not possible at present for the Co-Executors to state the total value of the Estate. However, if you and other plaintiffs' counsel provide us with a complete report on how many additional claims your clients intend to assert — as well as a realistic assessment of damages to be sought in those claims — the Co-Executors can gain a better understanding of the Estate's potential liabilities. + +## **2. "How much of Epstein's Estate will be set aside for compensating victims through the proposed claims resolution program?"** + +--- + +The Co-Executors await approval of the Program by the USVI Court. In the interim, Program Administrator Jordana [REDACTED] and Program Designers Kenneth Feinberg and Camille Biros are proceeding with preparation of a detailed Program protocol to establish a fair, independent claims resolution process as a voluntary alternative to protracted civil litigation. As we understand it, the Program Administrator intends to reach out to your firm and other plaintiffs' counsel for input on the content of that protocol. + +Once the Program protocol is finalized, the Co-Executors will submit it to the USVI Court for approval and seek an order to formally commence claims resolution proceedings under the Program. It remains to be seen how many claimants — your clients included — will decide to participate in the Program. When the number of participating claimants become clearer, the Co-Executors anticipate being better able to estimate how much money will ultimately be required to adequately fund the Program. It is the Co-Executors' intent that the Program be "open-ended" regarding amounts awarded — *i.e.*, the Estate will not impose any absolute numerical cap on the Program's aggregate compensation payments. + +\* \* \* \* \* + +For any other questions you or your clients may have about the proposed Program, we urge you to contact [REDACTED] and her team as soon as possible. It is also in all parties' interests for you to begin a constructive dialogue with [REDACTED] and her team. We appreciate any assistance your firm and other plaintiffs' counsel can provide in enabling the Program to serve its desired function as a preferred, confidential, non-adversarial alternative to litigation, both for your clients and any other individuals seeking to resolve sexual abuse claims against Mr. Epstein or the Estate. + +--- + +1See November 21, 2019 transcript of proceedings held in *Doe v. Epstein, et al.*, 19-CV-07675 (GBD) (S.D.N.Y.) and *VE v. Nine East 71st Street, et al.*, 19-CV-07625 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y.), at 38:7-14. + +![](_page_2_Picture_10.jpeg) + +--- + +Sincerely, + +/s/ Bennet J. Moskowitz + +Bennet J. Moskowitz + +cc: David Brodie, Esq. (via Email) +Andrew Buzin, Esq. (via Email) +Kate Doniger, Esq. (via Email) +Brad [REDACTED], Esq. (via Email) +Julie Fink, Esq. (via Email) +Arick Fudali, Esq. (via Email) +Alan Goldfarb, Esq. (via Email) +Brittany [REDACTED], Esq. (via Email) +Daniel J. Kaiser, Esq. (via Email) +Roberta Kaplan, Esq. (via Email) +Jordan Merson, Esq. (via Email) +Josh Schiller, Esq. (via Email) +Laura Starr, Esq. (via Email) +Mariann Wang, Esq. (via Email) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751029/EFTA02751029.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751029/EFTA02751029.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..114000d46bcbf4872a55f8e1ff78945da0df2227 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751029/EFTA02751029.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,175 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751029.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 5391, + "elapsed_seconds": 9.54, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_2_Picture_10.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "1. \"What is the total value of Epstein's Estate?\"", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 524.0699999999999 + ], + [ + 346.78460693359375, + 524.0699999999999 + ], + [ + 346.78460693359375, + 539.1870574951172 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 539.1870574951172 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. \"How much of Epstein's Estate will be set aside for compensating victims through the proposed claims resolution program?\"", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 225.99000000000004 + ], + [ + 495.108, + 225.99000000000004 + ], + [ + 495.108, + 252.71999999999997 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 252.71999999999997 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751029" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751029/_page_2_Picture_10.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751029/_page_2_Picture_10.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..732d7e0088491b955b76c671cac9e69e4031d747 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751029/_page_2_Picture_10.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:5a7dad9ad0269f0d1abb75ee408a799874fca22134a23d86257d91392b211678 +size 5255 diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751032/EFTA02751032.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751032/EFTA02751032.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dd49af6422e20fa4f47b36a4ed4428f5b690a9cb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751032/EFTA02751032.md @@ -0,0 +1,142 @@ +#### Independent + +#### Epstein Victims' Compensation Program PROTOCOL DRAFT' + +December 13, 2019 + +#### I. Purpose and Overview + +The Epstein Victims' Compensation Program (the "Program") is a voluntary, independent Program that has been established to compensate and resolve the claims of victims/survivors of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"). + +The Estate of Jeffrey Epstein (the "Estate") has retained the services of nationally recognized claims administration experts Kenneth R. Feinberg, Camille S. Biros and Jordana H. to design the Program. will also serve as the Administrator of the Program (the "Administrator"). + +Through the Program, the Estate wishes to acknowledge the wrongs endured by victims/survivors and offer them an opportunity to voluntarily resolve their individual claims for such sexual abuse. + +The Program is governed by the following non-exclusive guiding principles: + +- The Program is purely voluntary. It does not affect any rights a victim may have unless and until the Claimant accepts the offered compensation and executes a Release. A Claimant may reject the offer of compensation and may stop participating in the Program and withdraw the claim at any time prior to execution of the Release. +- The Program is independent and will in no way be administered, controlled or overseen by the Estate. The Administrator is responsible for all decisions relating to the review, processing and evaluation of individual claims submitted to the Program. The Administrator will have final, binding and exclusive authority to determine Claimant eligibility and the valuation of each eligible individual claim. Decisions of the Administrator made pursuant to this Protocol are not subject to review or modification in any way by the Estate or any other party or entity. +- There is no cap or limitation on the aggregate amount of funds available to compensate all eligible Claimants or on the amount of compensation to be made to each individual Claimant. Each individual claim will be evaluated separately by the Administrator. The Administrator will determine, in her sole and exclusive discretion, issues of eligibility and the amount of compensation. + +This document is a draft of the Protocol governing the Program and is subject to input from victims/survivors, their lawyers, other potentially interested parties, and representatives of the Estate. + +- All Claimants will be treated with respect, dignity and fairness without regard to race, color, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, gender or disability. To ensure claims will be adjudicated fairly, the Administrator will manage the process so that all Claimants can equally access the Program's claim process. Individuals with disabilities will be given the opportunity to effectively communicate their claims and to request special process accommodations. + +The Program will be effective within 90 days of approval by the Superior Court of the U.S. Virgin Islands ("Effective Date")z and is available to all victims/survivors regardless of where they were harmed, when they were harmed, whether the claim is time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and whether they have previously filed a lawsuit against or settled with Epstein and/or the Estate. + +The exclusive claims period for filing a claim pursuant to this Protocol shall commence on the to-bedetermined Effective Date and shall conclude nine (9) months after that date ("Filing Deadline"). All individual claims filed with the Program must be postmarked within this period. + +#### II. Eligibility Requirements + +### A. Eligibility Criteria + +The persons eligible to participate in this Program are individuals who allege they were sexually abused by Epstein. In addition, the following criteria apply: + +- The claim of sexual abuse must be directed against Epstein. +- An individual whose claim is time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations may participate in the Program provided that other eligibility criteria are met. +- An individual who previously entered into a settlement agreement resolving a claim of sexual abuse against Epstein may participate in the Program provided that other eligibility criteria are met. +- An individual who allegedly assisted Epstein in procuring other victims/survivors may participate in the Program where there is a credible basis to determine that the individual acted under duress as a result of her own sexual abuse by Epstein, provided that other eligibility criteria are met. +- If the Claimant chooses to accept the offered compensation, the Claimant must dismiss with prejudice any existing lawsuits or legal actions or claims filed against the Estate or related entities and/or individuals. The Claimant must provide proof of such dismissal along with or prior to the signed acceptance letter and executed Release in order to receive payment. + +2 The final version of the Protocol will include dates certain identifying the commencement date of the Program and registration and filing deadlines, as explained below. + +## B. Legal Representatives of Claimants + +An individual may file a claim on a victim's behalf where that individual has been granted legal authority to act in a representative capacity pursuant to appropriate law. The "Legal Representative" of an individual Claimant shall mean: (1) in the case of a Claimant who is currently a minor, a parent or legal guardian authorized by law to serve as the minor's legal representative; (2) in the case of an incompetent or legally incapacitated Claimant, a person who has been duly appointed as the Claimant's legal representative in accordance with applicable law; or (3) an attorney authorized to represent the Claimant for purposes of pursuing a claim through this Program. + +Legal Representatives must provide proper documentation demonstrating representative capacity. Such proof may include a power of attorney, documentation showing the individual's appointment as guardian or guardian ad litem, or a copy of a retainer agreement showing legal representation signed by both the Claimant and the attorney. + +# Claims Administration - Submission, Evaluation and Determination + +# A. Claims Submission Process + +Individuals who have filed a lawsuit, legal action or claim against Epstein and/or the Estate on or before the Effective Date will be sent a Claim Form and other relevant Program information, including Instructions for completion and submission of the Claim Form and a list of Frequently Asked Questions. + +Individuals who have not filed a lawsuit, legal action or claim against Epstein and/or the Estate on or before the Effective Date may register to participate in this Program on the Program's website at www.EpsteinVictimsCompensationProgram.com.3 To register, such individuals must complete a questionnaire setting forth their name, contact information, a summary description of the nature of the claim and other requested information. Upon registration, the Administrator will perform a preliminary review to consider if the individual is eligible to participate in the Program. If the Administrator deems that the individual is eligible to participate in the Program, she will then send that individual a Claim Form and other relevant Program information. + +Note: The fact that an individual is sent a Claim Form and other relevant Program information indicates that the Administrator has determined that such individual is eligible to participate in the Program. It does not indicate that the Administrator has determined that such individual is eligible to receive compensation. That determination is made only after a Claim Form and all required documentation has been submitted and evaluated by the Administrator. + +Registrations will be accepted by the Administrator from the Effective Date through a date that is 45 days prior to the Filing Deadline ("Registration Deadline"). It is important to note that the Registration Deadline is separate from, and precedes, the Filing Deadline. As explained above, all claims must be filed by the Filing Deadline. + +3 This website is in the process of being developed and is yet operational. + +All Claim Forms must be completed and postmarked no later than the Filing Deadline. Claim Forms should be mailed via overnight courier (a pre-paid courier voucher will be included with each packet) to the Administrator at the following address or uploaded to the Program website at www.EpsteinVictimsCompensationProgram.com: + +> Epstein Victims' Compensation Program c/o Jordana H. Administrator [Address - To Be Inserted] + +Claimants are invited to provide documentation identified in the Claim Form, and any other corroborating or supporting information sufficient to substantiate the claim, satisfy eligibility requirements, and allow the Administrator to review, process and evaluate the claim. If the claim is being presented by a Legal Representative, then the Legal Representative will be responsible for submitting the necessary documentation relating to the represented Claimant. + +Additional documentation may be requested at the discretion of the Administrator. Both the Claimant and the Estate will be afforded the opportunity to submit to the Administrator any information deemed relevant to the Administrator's evaluation and determination of the claim before the Administrators final disposition of the claim. + +If a Claimant submits an incomplete or deficient claim, the Administrator will notify the Claimant, explain the additional information that is needed, and work with the Claimant or the Claimant's Legal Representative (where applicable) to assist in submitting a complete claim. + +### B. Claims Evaluation and Determination + +Claims will be evaluated in the order in which they are received, with the Administrator evaluating each submitted individual claim in a prompt and fair manner. Claims will only be determined once all required documentation has been submitted to the Administrator + +## 1. Factors Considered in Evaluating Claims + +As to each individual claim, the Administrator will determine, in her sole discretion based upon all of the information available, whether the allegations of sexual abuse are credible. The Administrator will consider appropriate factors and corroborative support, including but not limited to: + +- The level of documentation, corroboration or other circumstantial evidence regarding the nature and extent of the abuse, the frequency, location and other details of the abuse, and the age of the victim at the time of the abuse. Non-exhaustive examples of such evidence include (i) medical or psychiatric counseling/therapy records relevant to the abuse, and + - (ii) contemporaneous written notification or other correspondence (e.g., letters, emails) of the abuse by the Claimant to law enforcement authorities, parents, friends or others. +- Whether there exists any information and/or pertinent findings offered by the appropriate Office of the District Attorney or other law enforcement agency. + +- Whether the Administrator finds the claims of the individual to be credible after complete review of all relevant documentation and other evidence provided by the Claimant and the Estate. + +As to each individual claim, the Administrator will determine, in her sole discretion based upon all of the information available, the amount of compensation that should be offered to each eligible Claimant. The Administrator will consider appropriate factors and corroborative support, including but not limited to: + +- The nature, duration and extent of the sexual abuse suffered by the Claimant. +- The age of the Claimant at the time of the sexual abuse. +- The nature and extent of the Claimant's physical or psychological damage resulting from the sexual abuse, and the effect of the sexual abuse on the Claimant. +- The credibility of the claim based upon all of the facts and circumstances, supporting documentation and corroborating evidence. +- Whether the claim is time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations. +- Whether the Claimant previously entered into a settlement agreement with Epstein and received a payment pursuant to such agreement. + +The Administrator will confidentially send the Claimant a compensation determination letter including the following: (1) the Administrator's eligibility decision regarding the claim; (2) the amount of compensation offered; (3) a Release to be signed by the Claimant if the Claimant accepts the offered compensation; and (4) a Payment Option Form. The Administrator's offer shall be valid for 60 days from the date of the compensation determination letter. + +The Administrator's determinations in this Program will not be binding on any potential criminal investigation involving the same or similar allegations or Claimant. + +### 2. Opportunities to be Heard + +The Claimant will be afforded an opportunity to be heard, either before or after the Administrator renders her determination. Upon request by the Claimant, the Administrator will be available to meet in person, by video conference/Skype, or by teleconference to further discuss the claim. These meetings are completely optional and voluntary. Requests to meet with the Administrator should be sent by email claimantservices@epsteinvictimscompensationprogram.com4 and will be scheduled at a mutually convenient time and location. The Administrator may also request a meeting with a Claimant or her Legal Representative at a reasonable mutually convenient time and location, though the Claimant is not obligated to attend any such meeting. + +This email address is not yet active. + +## 3. Release + +By submitting a claim to the Program, a Claimant is seeking to resolve all claims relating to allegations of sexual abuse against Epstein and/or the Estate, related entities and/or individuals. If a Claimant chooses to accept the offer of compensation pursuant to the Program, the Claimant will be required to sign and execute a full Release, in a form satisfactory to the Estate, of all past and future claims relating to such allegations of sexual abuse against the Estate, related entities and/or individuals. A Claimant may reject the offer of compensation and may stop participating in the Program and withdraw the claim at any time prior to the execution of the Release. + +The Release will waive any rights the Claimant and her heirs, descendants, legatees or beneficiaries may have to assert any claims relating to allegations of sexual abuse against the Estate, related entities and/or individuals, to file an individual legal action relating to such allegations, or to participate in any legal action associated with such allegations, except as a witness. However, the Release will not operate to preclude or limit the Claimant's ability to report and discuss allegations of sexual abuse with law enforcement officials or anyone else. + +Before signing a Release, the Claimant must consult with an attorney. If the Claimant is not represented by an attorney, the Program will provide an attorney to provide free legal counseling to the Claimant for the sole purpose of advising the Claimant concerning the language and binding nature of the Release. + +No one affiliated with the Program will provide tax or legal advice to those receiving payments under the Program. Claimants are urged to consult with a tax advisor concerning any questions regarding tax liability for payments pursuant to the Program. + +# 4. Payments + +Upon the Claimant's acceptance of the Administrator's determination, the Administrator's receipt of the Claimant's executed Release and, where applicable, dismissal with prejudice of any existing lawsuit or legal actions or claims against the Estate or related entities and/or individuals, the Administrator will initiate payment by check or electronic funds transfer to each eligible Claimant as directed by the Claimant. Checks will be sent to Claimants via overnight courier service. + +# C. Program Integrity + +For the purpose of protecting both the integrity of the Program and financial resources for eligible Claimants, the Administrator will institute all necessary measures to prevent payment of fraudulent claims, including taking steps to verify claims and analyze submissions for inconsistencies, irregularities or duplication. + +Each Claimant who signs the Claim Form at the time of submission certifies that the information provided in the Claim Form is true and accurate to the best of the Claimant's knowledge, and that the Claimant understands that false statements or claims made in connection with such submission may result in fines, imprisonment and/or any other remedy available by law. Claims that appear to be potentially fraudulent or to contain false information will be forwarded to federal, state or local law enforcement agencies and/or the appropriate Office of the District Attorney for possible investigation and prosecution. + +# D. Confidentiality/Privacy + +The Program is confidential. By filing a claim with the Program, the Claimant or her Legal Representative (where applicable) agrees that information submitted by the Claimant pursuant to the Program will be used and/or disclosed by the Administrator and her designees only for the following purposes: + +- I) Processing and evaluating the Claimant's claim; +- 2) Administering the Program and other Program-related work; and +- 3) Reports to law enforcement where appropriate. + +When documents maintained or submitted by the Estate become part of a Claimant's file for purposes of the Program, such materials will be reviewed by the Administrator to assist in processing and evaluating the claim, but will otherwise remain confidential. These files are not available for inspection, review or copying by the Claimant or her representatives during or after the Program, and all pertinent settlement privileges and other privileges apply. + +To protect the privacy of Claimants participating in the Program, all personal information provided by the Claimant during this process will be returned or destroyed within one year after the conclusion of the Program. + +Individual Claimants are not bound by any rules of confidentiality. Claimants may, at their sole and voluntary option, disclose information in their possession regarding their claim, their compensation and their experience with the Program. + +All confidentiality requirements are subject to law, regulation and judicial process. + +The Administrator may, on a periodic basis, publish reports regarding the Program's claims processing or other activities in an effort to provide transparency. Such reports will report on an aggregate level only. No individual Claimant information will be published or disclosed in a way that compromises Claimant confidentiality. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751032/EFTA02751032.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751032/EFTA02751032.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8a3330605816a68b6bff4d586a628b67e0476ba4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751032/EFTA02751032.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,692 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751032.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 7, + "chars": 18730, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.13, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Independent", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 278.46000000000004, + 57.50999999999999 + ], + [ + 348.1361999511719, + 57.50999999999999 + ], + [ + 348.1361999511719, + 71.5670166015625 + ], + [ + 278.46000000000004, + 71.5670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Epstein Victims' Compensation Program \nPROTOCOL \nDRAFT'", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 210.52799999999996, + 81.81 + ], + [ + 416.09918212890625, + 81.81 + ], + [ + 416.09918212890625, + 125.947021484375 + ], + [ + 210.52799999999996, + 125.947021484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Purpose and Overview", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 72.216, + 179.82 + ], + [ + 224.59939575195312, + 179.82 + ], + [ + 224.59939575195312, + 193.8170166015625 + ], + [ + 72.216, + 193.8170166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Eligibility Requirements", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 72.828, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 229.77053833007812, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 229.77053833007812, + 317.9470520019531 + ], + [ + 72.828, + 317.9470520019531 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Eligibility Criteria", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 117.50399999999999, + 326.43 + ], + [ + 223.91873168945312, + 326.43 + ], + [ + 223.91873168945312, + 341.1870422363281 + ], + [ + 117.50399999999999, + 341.1870422363281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Legal Representatives of Claimants", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 56.7 + ], + [ + 317.887451171875, + 56.7 + ], + [ + 317.887451171875, + 71.5670166015625 + ], + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 71.5670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Claims Administration - Submission, Evaluation and Determination", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 72.216, + 294.03 + ], + [ + 438.6237487792969, + 294.03 + ], + [ + 438.6237487792969, + 309.3170471191406 + ], + [ + 72.216, + 309.3170471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Claims Submission Process", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 318.33 + ], + [ + 262.3659362792969, + 318.33 + ], + [ + 262.3659362792969, + 333.3170471191406 + ], + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 333.3170471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Claims Evaluation and Determination", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 108.93599999999999, + 422.82 + ], + [ + 314.1460876464844, + 422.82 + ], + [ + 314.1460876464844, + 437.5670471191406 + ], + [ + 108.93599999999999, + 437.5670471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Factors Considered in Evaluating Claims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 502.20000000000005 + ], + [ + 343.3683166503906, + 502.20000000000005 + ], + [ + 343.3683166503906, + 517.0670471191406 + ], + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 517.0670471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Opportunities to be Heard", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 533.79 + ], + [ + 278.3974304199219, + 533.79 + ], + [ + 278.3974304199219, + 548.5670623779297 + ], + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 548.5670623779297 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Release", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 56.7 + ], + [ + 188.1339111328125, + 56.7 + ], + [ + 188.1339111328125, + 71.5670166015625 + ], + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 71.5670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. Payments", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 471.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 198.635009765625, + 471.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 198.635009765625, + 486.3170471191406 + ], + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 486.3170471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Program Integrity", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 601.02 + ], + [ + 218.76171875, + 601.02 + ], + [ + 218.76171875, + 616.0670471191406 + ], + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 616.0670471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Confidentiality/Privacy", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 108.93599999999999, + 170.1 + ], + [ + 243.8201904296875, + 170.1 + ], + [ + 243.8201904296875, + 185.18701171875 + ], + [ + 108.93599999999999, + 185.18701171875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751032" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751039/EFTA02751039.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751039/EFTA02751039.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8dd271dd60df33ca51ef2ee3cfa0a992055cfc3e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751039/EFTA02751039.md @@ -0,0 +1,143 @@ +# Independent Epstein Victims' Compensation Program PROTOCOL DRAFT' + +Deeember-alanuary 9, 202049 + +#### I. Purpose and Overview + +The Epstein Victims' Compensation Program (the "Program") is a voluntary, independent Program that has been established to compensate and resolve the claims of victims/survivors of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"). + +The Estate of Jeffrey Epstein (the "Estate") has retained the services of nationally recognized claims administration experts Kenneth R. Feinberg, Camille S. Biros and Jordana H. to design the Program. will also serve as the Administrator of the Program (the "Administrator"). + +Through the Program, the Estate wishes to acknowledge the wrongs endured by victims/survivors and offer them an opportunity to voluntarily resolve their individual claims for such sexual abuse. + +The Program is governed by the following non-exclusive guiding principles: + +- The Program is purely voluntary. It does not affect any rights a victim may have unless and until the Claimant accepts the offered compensation and executes a Release. A Claimant may reject the offer of compensation and may stop participating in the Program and withdraw the claim at any time prior to execution of the Release. +- The Program is independent and will in no way be administered, controlled or overseen by the Estate. The Administrator is responsible for all decisions relating to the review, processing and evaluation of individual claims submitted to the Program. The Administrator will have final, binding and exclusive authority to determine Claimant eligibility and the valuation of each eligible individual claim. Decisions of the Administrator made pursuant to this Protocol are not subject to review or modification in any way by the Estate or any other party or entity. +- There is no cap or limitation on the aggregate amount of funds available to compensate all eligible Claimants or on the amount of compensation to be made to each individual Claimant. Each individual claim will be evaluated separately by the Administrator. The Administrator will determine, in her sole and exclusive discretion, issues of eligibility and the amount of compensation. + +'This document is a draft of the Protocol governing the Program and is subject to input from victims/survivors, their lawyers, other potentially interested parties, and representatives of the Estate. + +- All Claimants will be treated with respect, dignity and fairness without regard to race, color, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, gender or disability. To ensure claims will be adjudicated fairly, the Administrator will manage the process so that all Claimants can equally access the Program's claim process. Individuals with disabilities will be given the opportunity to effectively communicate their claims and to request special process accommodations. + +The Program will be effective within 90 days of approval by the Superior Court of the U.S. Virgin Islands ("Effective Date")Z and is available to all victims/survivors regardless of where they were harmed, when they were harmed, whether the claim is time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and whether they have previously filed a lawsuit against or settled with Epstein and/or the Estate. + +The exclusive claims period for filing a claim pursuant to this Protocol shall commence on the to-bedetermined Effective Date and shall conclude nine (9) months after that date ("Filing Deadline"). All individual claims filed with the Program must be postmarked within this period. + +### II. Eligibility Requirements + +## A. Eligibility Criteria + +The persons eligible to participate in this Program are individuals who allege they were sexually abused by Epstein. In addition, the following criteria apply: + +- The claim of sexual abuse must be directed against Epstein. +- An individual whose claim is time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations may participate in the Program provided that other eligibility criteria are met. +- An individual who previously entered into a settlement agreement resolving a claim of sexual abuse against Epstein may participate in the Program provided that other eligibility criteria are met. +- An individual who was over 21 at the time and who allegedly assisted Epstein in procuring other victims/survivors may participate in the Program where there is a credible basis to determine that the individual acted under duress as a result of her own sexual abuse by Epstein, provided that other eligibility criteria are met. For avoidance of doubt, the fact that an individual who was under 21 is alleged to have assisted Epstein in procuring other victims/survivors is not relevant to either eligibility or the amount of recovery under the Program. +- If the Claimant chooses to accept the offered compensation, the Claimant must dismiss with prejudice any existing lawsuits or legal actions or claims filed against the Estate or related entities and/or individuals. The Claimant must provide proof of such dismissal along with or prior to the signed acceptance letter and executed Release in order to receive payment. + +'The final version of the Protocol will include dates certain identifying the commencement date of the Program and registration and filing deadlines, as explained below. + +#### B. Legal Representatives of Claimants + +An individual may file a claim on a victim's behalf where that individual has been granted legal authority to act in a representative capacity pursuant to appropriate law. The "Legal Representative" of an individual Claimant shall mean: (1) in the case of a Claimant who is currently a minor, a parent or legal guardian authorized by law to serve as the minor's legal representative; (2) in the case of an incompetent or legally incapacitated Claimant, a person who has been duly appointed as the Claimant's legal representative in accordance with applicable law; or (3) an attorney authorized to represent the Claimant for purposes of pursuing a claim through this Program. + +Legal Representatives must provide proper documentation demonstrating representative capacity. Such proof may include a power of attorney, documentation showing the individual's appointment as guardian or guardian ad litem, or a copy of a retainer agreement showing legal representation signed by both the Claimant and the attorney. + +#### Claims Administration - Submission, Evaluation and Determination + +#### A. Claims Submission Process + +Individuals who have filed a lawsuit, legal action or claim against Epstein and/or the Estate on or before the Effective Date will be sent a Claim Form and other relevant Program information, including Instructions for completion and submission of the Claim Form and a list of Frequently Asked Questions. Individuals who have filed a lawsuit need not agree to a stay of litigation or make any other concession in a pending litigation to be eligible for participation in the Program. + +Individuals who have not filed a lawsuit, legal action or claim against Epstein and/or the Estate on or before the Effective Date may register to participate in this Program on the Program's website at www.EpsteinVictimsCompensationProgram.com.3 To register, such individuals must complete a questionnaire setting forth their name, contact information, a summary description of the nature of the claim and other requested information. Upon registration, the Administrator will perform a preliminary review to consider if the individual is eligible to participate in the Program. If the Administrator deems that the individual is eligible to participate in the Program, she will then send that individual a Claim Form and other relevant Program information. + +Note: The fact that an individual is sent a Claim Form and other relevant Program information indicates that the Administrator has determined that such individual is eligible to participate in the Program. It does not indicate that the Administrator has determined that such individual is eligible to receive compensation. That determination is made only after a Claim Form and all required documentation has been submitted and evaluated by the Administrator. + +Registrations will be accepted by the Administrator from the Effective Date through a date that is 45 days prior to the Filing Deadline ("Registration Deadline"). It is important to note that the Registration Deadline is separate from, and precedes, the Filing Deadline. As explained above, all claims must be filed by the Filing Deadline. + +3This website is in the process of being developed and is yet operational. + +All Claim Forms must be completed and postmarked no later than the Filing Deadline. Claim Forms should be mailed via overnight courier (a pre-paid courier voucher will be included with each packet) to the Administrator at the following address or uploaded to the Program website at www.EpsteinVictimsCompensationProgram.com: + +> Epstein Victims' Compensation Program c/o Jordana H. Administrator [Address - To Be Inserted] + +Claimants are invited to provide documentation identified in the Claim Form, and any other corroborating or supporting information sufficient to substantiate the claim, satisfy eligibility requirements, and allow the Administrator to review, process and evaluate the claim. If the claim is being presented by a Legal Representative, then the Legal Representative will be responsible for submitting the necessary documentation relating to the represented Claimant. + +Additional documentation may be requested at the discretion of the Administrator. Both the Claimant and the Estate will be afforded the opportunity to submit to the Administrator any information deemed relevant to the Administrator's evaluation and determination of the claim before the Administrator's final disposition of the claim. + +If a Claimant submits an incomplete or deficient claim, the Administrator will notify the Claimant, explain the additional information that is needed, and work with the Claimant or the Claimant's Legal Representative (where applicable) to assist in submitting a complete claim. + +## B. Claims Evaluation and Determination + +Claims will be evaluated in the order in which they are received, with the Administrator evaluating each submitted individual claim in a prompt and fair manner. Claims will only be determined once all required documentation has been submitted to the Administrator + +## 1. Factors Considered in Evaluating Claims + +As to each individual claim, the Administrator will determine, in her sole discretion based upon all of the information available, whether the allegations of sexual abuse are credible. The Administrator will consider appropriate factors and corroborative support, including but not limited to: + +- The level of documentation, corroboration or other circumstantial evidence regarding the nature and extent of the abuse, the frequency, location and other details of the abuse, and the age of the victim at the time of the abuse. Non-exhaustive examples of such evidence include (i) medical or psychiatric counseling/therapy records relevant to the abuse, and + - (ii) contemporaneous written notification or other correspondence (e.g., letters, emails) of the abuse by the Claimant to law enforcement authorities, parents, friends or others. The Administrator acknowledges that some Claimants may not be able to provide any documentation to corroborate their Claim based on the nature and circumstances Epstein's conduct.-. If a Claimant testifies credibly about Epstein's abuse, but cannot provide other + +evidence to corroborate her testimony, the Claimant is still eligible for compensation under the Program. + +- Whether there exists any information and/or pertinent findings offered by the appropriate Office of the District Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, or other law enforcement agency. + +- Whether the Administrator finds the claims of the individual to be credible after complete review of all relevant documentation and other evidence provided by the Claimant and the Estate. + +As to each individual claim, the Administrator will determine, in her sole discretion based upon all of the information available, the amount of compensation that should be offered to each eligible Claimant. The Administrator will consider appropriate factors and corroborative support, including but not limited to: + +- The nature, duration and extent of the sexual abuse suffered by the Claimant. +- The age of the Claimant at the time of the sexual abuse. +- The nature and extent of the Claimant's physical or psychological damage resulting from the sexual abuse, and the effect of the sexual abuse on the Claimant. +- The credibility of the claim based upon all of the facts and circumstances, supporting documentation and corroborating evidence. +- Whether--the-Glaire-s4ifee-bacce44ificlec-the-applica4le-statote-af-firwitatio4s, +- Whether the Claimant previously entered into a settlement agreement with Epstein and received a payment pursuant to such agreement. + +The Administrator will confidentially send the Claimant a compensation determination letter including the following: (1) the Administrator's eligibility decision regarding the claim; (2) the amount of compensation offered; (3) a Release to be signed by the Claimant if the Claimant accepts the offered compensation; and (4) a Payment Option Form. The Administrator's offer shall be valid for 60 days from the date of the compensation determination letter. + +The Administrator's determinations in this Program will not be binding on any potential criminal investigation involving the same or similar allegations or Claimant. + +## 2. Opportunities to be Heard + +The Claimant will be afforded an opportunity to be heard, either before or after the Administrator renders her determination. Upon request by the Claimant, the Administrator will be available to meet in person, by video conference/Skype, or by teleconference to further discuss the claim. These meetings are completely optional and voluntary. Requests to meet with the Administrator should be sent by email claimantservices@epsteinvictimscompensationprogram.com° and will be scheduled at a mutually convenient time and location. The Administrator may also request a meeting with a Claimant or her Legal Representative at a reasonable mutually convenient time and location, though the Claimant is not obligated to attend any such meeting. + +4 This email address is not yet active. + +#### 3. Release + +By submitting a claim to the Program, a Claimant is seeking to resolve all claims relating to allegations of sexual abuse against Epstein and/or the Estate, related and specific entities andler individuals to be identified by the Estate. If a Claimant chooses to accept the offer of compensation pursuant to the Program, the Claimant will be required to sign and execute a full Release, in a form satisfactory to the Estate, of all past and future claims relating to such allegations of sexual abuse against the Estate, related entities and/or individuals. A Claimant may reject the offer of compensation and may stop participating in the Program and withdraw the claim at any time prior to the execution of the Release. + +The Release will waive any rights the Claimant and her heirs, descendants, legatees or beneficiaries may have to assert any claims relating to allegations of sexual abuse against the Estate, related entities and/or individuals, to file an individual legal action relating to such allegations, or to participate in any legal action associated with such allegations, except as a witness. However, the Release will not operate to preclude or limit the Claimant's ability to report and discuss allegations of sexual abuse with law enforcement officials or anyone else. + +Before signing a Release, the Claimant must consult with an attorney. If the Claimant is not represented by an attorney, the Program will provide an attorney to provide free legal counseling to the Claimant for the sole purpose of advising the Claimant concerning the language and binding nature of the Release. + +No one affiliated with the Program will provide tax or legal advice to those receiving payments under the Program. Claimants are urged to consult with a tax advisor concerning any questions regarding tax liability for payments pursuant to the Program. + +## 4. Payments + +Upon the Claimant's acceptance of the Administrator's determination, the Administrator's receipt of the Claimant's executed Release and, where applicable, dismissal with prejudice of any existing lawsuit or legal actions or claims against the Estate or related entities and/or individuals, the Administrator will initiate payment by check or electronic funds transfer to each eligible Claimant as directed by the Claimant. Checks will be sent to Claimants via overnight courier service. All payments made under the Program shall be for a Claimant's physical injuries, physical sickness and resulting emotional distress within the meaning of Section 104(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. + +## C. Program Integrity + +For the purpose of protecting both the integrity of the Program and financial resources for eligible Claimants, the Administrator will institute all necessary measures to prevent payment of fraudulent claims, including taking steps to verify claims and analyze submissions for inconsistencies, irregularities or duplication. + +Each Claimant who signs the Claim Form at the time of submission certifies that the information provided in the Claim Form is true and accurate to the best of the Claimant's knowledge, and that the Claimant understands that false statements or claims made in connection with such submission may result in fines, imprisonment and/or any other remedy available by law. Claims that appear to be potentially fraudulent er-te-C-ORteill-faise-infermation-will be forwarded to federal, state or local law enforcement agencies and/or the appropriate Office of the District Attorney for possible investigation and prosecution. + +#### D. Confidentiality/Privacy + +The Program is confidential. By filing a claim with the Program, the Claimant or her Legal Representative (where applicable) agrees that information submitted by the Claimant pursuant to the Program will be used and/or disclosed by the Administrator and her designees only for the following purposes: + +- I) Processing and evaluating the Claimant's claim; +- 2) Administering the Program and other Program-related work; and +- 3) Reports to law enforcement where appropriate. + +When documents maintained or submitted by the Estate become part of a Claimant's file for purposes of the Program, such materials will be reviewed by the Administrator to assist in processing and evaluating the claim, but will otherwise remain confidential. These files are not available for inspection, review or copying by the Estate or the Claimant or her representatives during or after the Program, and all pertinent settlement privileges and other privileges apply. + +To protect the privacy of Claimants participating in the Program, all personal information provided by the Claimant during this process will be returned or destroyed within one year after the conclusion of the Program. + +Individual Claimants are not bound by any rules of confidentiality. Claimants may, at their sole and voluntary option, disclose information in their possession regarding their claim, their compensation and their experience with the Program. + +All confidentiality requirements are subject to law, regulation and judicial process. + +The Administrator Mayshall, on a periodic monthly basis, publish reports regarding the Program's claims processing or other activities in an effort order to provide transparency including, without limitation, the number of claims filed, the number of claims settled, the number of claims rejected, the number of claims referred to law enforcement, the aggregate amount of settlement payments made, and the amount of fees and costs incurred in administering the Program. Such reports will report on an aggregate level only. No individual Claimant information will be published or disclosed in a way that compromises Claimant confidentiality. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751039/EFTA02751039.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751039/EFTA02751039.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dfa09205902a3a89c8801dbce7ec840a7b1dc291 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751039/EFTA02751039.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,771 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751039.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 10, + "chars": 20173, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.22, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Independent \nEpstein Victims' Compensation Program \nPROTOCOL \nDRAFT'", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 209.91600000000003, + 57.50999999999999 + ], + [ + 416.09918212890625, + 57.50999999999999 + ], + [ + 416.09918212890625, + 126.31695556640625 + ], + [ + 209.91600000000003, + 126.31695556640625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Purpose and Overview", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 72.216, + 179.82 + ], + [ + 224.59939575195312, + 179.82 + ], + [ + 224.59939575195312, + 193.8170166015625 + ], + [ + 72.216, + 193.8170166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Eligibility Requirements", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 72.828, + 302.94 + ], + [ + 229.77053833007812, + 302.94 + ], + [ + 229.77053833007812, + 317.5670471191406 + ], + [ + 72.828, + 317.5670471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Eligibility Criteria", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 117.50399999999999, + 326.43 + ], + [ + 223.91873168945312, + 326.43 + ], + [ + 223.91873168945312, + 341.5670471191406 + ], + [ + 117.50399999999999, + 341.5670471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Legal Representatives of Claimants", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 57.50999999999999 + ], + [ + 317.887451171875, + 57.50999999999999 + ], + [ + 317.887451171875, + 71.5670166015625 + ], + [ + 126.68399999999998, + 71.5670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Claims Administration - Submission, Evaluation and Determination", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 72.828, + 294.84000000000003 + ], + [ + 438.2537536621094, + 294.84000000000003 + ], + [ + 438.2537536621094, + 309.3170471191406 + ], + [ + 72.828, + 309.3170471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Claims Submission Process", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 108.93599999999999, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 262.3659362792969, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 262.3659362792969, + 333.3170471191406 + ], + [ + 108.93599999999999, + 333.3170471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Claims Evaluation and Determination", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 422.82 + ], + [ + 313.75372314453125, + 422.82 + ], + [ + 313.75372314453125, + 437.5670471191406 + ], + [ + 108.32399999999998, + 437.5670471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Factors Considered in Evaluating Claims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 126.072, + 502.20000000000005 + ], + [ + 343.3683166503906, + 502.20000000000005 + ], + [ + 343.3683166503906, + 517.0670471191406 + ], + [ + 126.072, + 517.0670471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Opportunities to be Heard", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 126.072, + 532.98 + ], + [ + 278.3974304199219, + 532.98 + ], + [ + 278.3974304199219, + 548.5670471191406 + ], + [ + 126.072, + 548.5670471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Release", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 126.072, + 57.50999999999999 + ], + [ + 188.1339111328125, + 57.50999999999999 + ], + [ + 188.1339111328125, + 71.5670166015625 + ], + [ + 126.072, + 71.5670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. Payments", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 126.072, + 471.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 198.635009765625, + 471.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 198.635009765625, + 486.3170471191406 + ], + [ + 126.072, + 486.3170471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Program Integrity", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 108.93599999999999, + 633.4200000000001 + ], + [ + 218.78924560546875, + 633.4200000000001 + ], + [ + 218.78924560546875, + 648.3170471191406 + ], + [ + 108.93599999999999, + 648.3170471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Confidentiality/Privacy", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 108.93599999999999, + 170.1 + ], + [ + 243.8201904296875, + 170.1 + ], + [ + 243.8201904296875, + 184.447021484375 + ], + [ + 108.93599999999999, + 184.447021484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 9 + ], + [ + "Line", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 8 + ], + [ + "Line", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 19 + ], + [ + "Line", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751039" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751049/EFTA02751049.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751049/EFTA02751049.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..96e2c4460abed3d6b33983a76ba624f3c278aede --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751049/EFTA02751049.md @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@ +# KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +### VIA ECF + +The Honorable Debra Freeman United States District Court Southern District of New York Daniel Moynihan Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 + +Dear Judge Freeman: + +NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 + +TEL (212) 763-0883 I FAX (212) 569-0883 + +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM + +DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0889 + +DIRECT EMAIL rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com + +January 10, 2020 + +Re: Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 19-cv-8673-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) + +We represent PlaintiffJane Doe in the above-captioned action. As Your Honor requested on November 21, 2019, we write to provide an update on the status of this matter with respect to settlement discussions, motion practice, and discovery. + +We are pleased to report that progress has been made in all of these areas. Although Defendants have continued to decline to participate in meaningful discussions about the Victim's Compensation Program ("the Program"), Plaintiff has engaged in discussions about the Program with the selected program administrators.' After a conference with the parties on December 11, 2019, Judge Failla set a short briefing schedule for Defendants' contemplated motion to dismiss, which is limited to the issue of the availability of punitive damages. Judge Failla has further ordered that discovery should proceed while Defendants' motion concerning punitive damages is pending.2 (Doc. No. 39.) Accordingly, Plaintiff and Defendants have agreed to a proposed discovery schedule, attached as Exhibit A, which we respectfully request that this Court enter in this case. + +### I. Status of Settlement Discussions + +As Your Honor is aware, Defendants are in the process of establishing a Victim's Compensation Program ("the Program"), which they purport will allow Plaintiff and other + +I As the Court is aware, the Estate unilaterally selected three administrators for the proposed settlement program: Kenneth R. Feinberg, Camille S. Biros, and Jordana H. (the "Administrators"). + +2 A copy of the transcript of the conference before Judge Failla is attached as Exhibit B. + +victims of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein to settle their claims outside of litigation. (Doc. No. 28.) At the November 21 conference, Your Honor heard that Plaintiffs had been excluded from crucial decisionmaking about the Program and made suggestions for further discussions. + +As a result, immediately following the November 21 conference, counsel for Plaintiffs wrote a letter to Defendants' counsel requesting two pieces of information: the total value of the Estate and the amount of that Estate that will set aside to compensate victims. (Ex. C.) In response, Defendants' counsel informed Plaintiffs that it is "not possible at present for the Co-Executors to state the total value of the Estate" and that Defendants also cannot "estimate how much money will ultimately be required to adequately fund the Program." (Ex. D.) While Plaintiff understands the limitations described by Defendants in their letter, it is obviously impossible for Plaintiff to reconcile Defendants' repeated representations that all credible claims will be appropriately satisfied with Defendants' representation that they do not know how much money the Estate has or how much the Program will have access to.3 + +Nevertheless, Plaintiff has still made good-faith efforts to learn about the proposed Program. The Program Administrators developed a Draft Protocol, which purportedly set forth the proposed criteria and requirements for the evaluation of claims and the claims process. (Ex. E.) The Administrators sent the Draft Protocol to Plaintiffs on December 13, 2020, and then opened a "comment period" to run through January 31, 2020. On January 7, 2020, counsel for several plaintiffs met with the three Program Administrators. At that meeting, Plaintiffs' counsel voiced several concerns with Draft Protocol, including, most importantly, that it provides no information on whether there are funds available to adequately satisfy all claims. On this point, the Administrators admitted that they too are completely in the dark as to the size of the Estate or the specific amount of funds available to settle claims. They nevertheless stated that Defendants have confirmed to the Administrators, without providing details, that there will be sufficient money available to pay all claims. With respect to methodology, while the Draft Protocol lists "factors" that the Administrators may consider in rendering a settlement offer, it does not describe how those factors will be monetized. The Administrators did not provide any information in response to this question, other than instructing Plaintiffs that the only way to find out how claims would be valued is to go through the Program and receive a settlement offer. The Program Administrators agreed to consider proposed revisions to the Protocol, which Plaintiff, in turn, submitted on January 9, 2020. (Ex. F.) + +Although Plaintiff continues to have serious concerns about the Program, she remains open to continued dialogue. However, in light of the events described above, Plaintiff has no intention of agreeing to stay this litigation at this time and is ready to begin discovery. It is important to note that both the Administrators, who emphasized to us that a litigation stay is not a condition of participation in the program, and Judge Failla, who ordered that discovery will not be stayed pending Defendants' motion to dismiss, agree that discovery can and should begin in this case at this time. + +3 As described herein, other than sending this letter, Defendant? counsel has not participated in any other discussions with Plaintiffs about potential settlement. + +### KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 3 + +### I I. Defendants' Punitive Damages Motion + +On December 2, 2019, Defendants filed a letter in anticipation of filing a "motion to dismiss" Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages. (Doc. No. 35.) Defendants' anticipated motion—which is more appropriately styled as a motion to strike—concerns the availability of only a single aspect of the relief sought by Plaintiff and does not challenge the adequacy of any of the causes of actions or allegations in the Complaint. Consequently, Plaintiff filed a letter response arguing that although punitive damages are unavailable against an Estate under a New York statute, Virgin Islands law, which should apply to the question, contains no such statutory bar. (Doc. No. 36.) + +On December 16, 2019, Judge Failla set a briefing schedule for Defendants' motion: Defendants' motion to dismiss is due on January 15, 2020, Plaintiff's opposition is due on February 14, 2020, and Defendant's Reply is due February 28, 2020. Judge Failla further ordered that discovery in this case is not stayed and should proceed in accordance with a discovery schedule to be set by Your Honor. (Doc. No. 39.)° + +#### HI. Discovery + +Following Judge Failla's December 16 order, and in light of this Court's order that the parties submit a discovery proposal in today's status report, Plaintiff and Defendants have met and conferred on a discovery schedule. During the course of these discussions, and during the conference in front of Judge Failla, Plaintiff has represented that she expects discovery in this case to be extremely narrow. (Ex. B at 12:22-13:4.) Plaintiff has estimated that there will be approximately five fact witnesses, that she will proffer no more than two experts, and has stated that she is willing to waive a jury trial. (Id. at 12:22-13:4; 14:22-25.) + +In light of the foregoing, Defendants and Plaintiff have agreed on the proposed discovery schedule attached as Exhibit A, and respectfully request that this Court enter that schedule in this case. + +Respectfully submitted, + +Roberta A. Kaplan + +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) + +During the hearing on Defendants' anticipated motion, they raised, for the first time, their view that if Virgin Islands law applies to the question of punitive damages, it should apply to Plaintiff's entire claim, which would purportedly render it time-barred under Virgin Islands law. Judge Failla expressed great skepticism about this position (Ex. B at 26: 13-17) and, in any event, determined discovery should not be stayed even after Defendants' suggested they might advance this argument. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751049/EFTA02751049.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751049/EFTA02751049.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eb7d629c8f81290171be1acedbe3a3ad956bf6e7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751049/EFTA02751049.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,316 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751049.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 8278, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.07, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 32.436, + 38.88 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 38.88 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 63.9481201171875 + ], + [ + 32.436, + 63.9481201171875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 251.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 251.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Status of Settlement Discussions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 622.08 + ], + [ + 293.4581604003906, + 622.08 + ], + [ + 293.4581604003906, + 636.7330169677734 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 636.7330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 2", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.272, + 42.92999999999999 + ], + [ + 535.162841796875, + 42.92999999999999 + ], + [ + 535.162841796875, + 64.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 34.272, + 64.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 3", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.884, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 535.6787109375, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 535.6787109375, + 64.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 34.884, + 64.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I I. Defendants' Punitive Damages Motion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 76.14 + ], + [ + 326.5264587402344, + 76.14 + ], + [ + 326.5264587402344, + 90.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 90.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "HI. Discovery", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 311.04 + ], + [ + 179.6333465576172, + 311.04 + ], + [ + 179.6333465576172, + 325.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 325.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751049" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751052/EFTA02751052.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751052/EFTA02751052.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..150d105bba39fdc61585c7eb4a23d6cce8ff0848 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751052/EFTA02751052.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +Bennet J. Moskowitz bennet.moskowitz©troutman.com + +January 13, 2020 + +ECF + +Hon. Debra C. Freeman Daniel Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007 + +Re: Jane Doe v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as the Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF + +Dear Judge Freeman: + +We represent Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, the to -Executors"), in the above-referenced action. We write to correct several inaccuracies in Plaintiff Jane Doe's status report filed on Friday, January 10, 2020 (ECF Doc. 42). + +First, as we indicated to Your Honor on Friday, in a joint status report submitted on behalf of all parties in five other actions against the Estate,' we understand that the vast majority of the plaintiffs in these and other actions pending in this District will or are likely to participate in the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program (the "Program"). Although none is required to do so in order to participate in the Program, five plaintiffs have voluntarily stayed their actions pending their participation therein.2 Respective counsel for all have conferred extensively with the Program administrator and designers — Jordana , Kenneth Feinberg and Camille Biros — including in person, to consider the Program's design and to rovide specific input on the draft Program protocol circulated on December 13, 2019 by , Mr. Feinberg and Ms. Biros. As counsel for five plaintiffs wrote to Your Honor on Friday, "we agree with Defendants' assertion that our discussions with the designers and administrator of the ... Program have been positive and productive."3 + +' See VE, 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF (ECF No. 52). + +2 See Jane Doe 1, et at, 1:19-cv-07675-GBD-DCF (ECF No. 36): Jane Doe 17, 1:19-cv-09610PAE-DCF (ECF No. 39). + +3 See VE, 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF (ECF No. 51). + +Second, as noted above, the Co-Executors have not required any claimants to stay their actions in this Court (or in any other jurisdictions) as a pre-condition to participate in the wholly independent and completely voluntary Program; the Program administrator and designers have also made that point clear. While some plaintiffs have seen the wisdom in briefly putting their litigations on hold to participate in the Program, that is a choice that all claimants are entirely free to make at their sole discretion. The Co-Executors have not asked Plaintiff Jane Doe to stay this action, and in fact agreed on the proposed discovery schedule attached as Exhibit A to Ms. Kaplan's letter. + +Third, it was at the specific request of , Mr. Feinberg and Ms. Biro that counsel for the Co-Executors did not attend Ms. Kaplan's in-person meeting or participate in her other discussions with the Program administrator and designers. Collectively, they have several decades of experience in this field, and expressed their strong belief that Ms. Kaplan and other plaintiffs' counsel would be more candid in our absence. They also recommended that their discussions with plaintiffs' counsel be confidential, and the Co-Executors accepted that recommendation. We are encouraged that other plaintiffs' counsel — including David Boies, Lisa Bloom and Brad — have reacted positively to the Program as an alternative mechanism for resolving claims against the Estate. + +Fourth, the Court need only review my letter to Ms. McCawley of the Boies Schiller firm dated December 3, 2019 (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit D to Ms. Kaplan's letter) to recognize the inaccuracy of the statement that the Co-Executors "representjed] that they do not know how much money the Estate has or how much the Program will have access to." Only Ms. Kaplan and the other plaintiffs' counsel know the number of other individuals who intend to file additional claims, as well as the nature and scope of those claims. Once plaintiffs' counsel provides that information, the Co-Executors will be better able to assess the amount of money that will ultimately be required to adequately fund the Program. Morever, as I explained in my letter to Ms. McCawley (on which Ms. Kaplan and all other plaintiffs' counsel were copied), the Co-Executors intend that the Program be "open-ended" regarding amounts awarded — i.e., the Estate will not impose any absolute numerical cap on the Program's aggregate compensation payments. Inasmuch as Plaintiff is required neither to accept any award from the Program nor stay this litigation during the relatively short period that her participation in the Program is pending, fixation on the total amount available in the Program is misguided. If Plaintiff is ultimately dissatisfied with the results of the Program, she will have lost nothing .° + +Alone among plaintiffs in all of the actions pending in this Court, only Ms. Kaplan's client filed an application in the Superior Court of the U.S. Virgin Islands that requests an extension of the schedule for the Co-Executors' pending motion for formal approval of the Program. Such an extension would substantially delay implementation of the Program, which would be profoundly disappointing to all claimants who seek to participate in the Program, as well as to the Co-Executors. + +Finally, we understand that the Program administrator and designers are prepared to appear before Your Honor to explain the Program's goals, structure and planned implementation, if Your Honor believes it would be productive. + +Despite the skepticism evident in Ms. Kaplan's status report, the Co-Executors continue to believe that the Program will provide a singular opportunity to resolve Plaintiffs claims in a voluntary, confidential and non-adversarial manner. + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/Bennet J. Moskowitz Bennet J. Moskowitz + +cc: All Counsel of Record \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751052/EFTA02751052.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751052/EFTA02751052.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ad6cc54662d9312816233c9b62cdab35d6f8591c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751052/EFTA02751052.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,134 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751052.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 5827, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.11, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 93 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 32 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751052" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751055/EFTA02751055.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751055/EFTA02751055.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..61e421ff5ba1b118a4fbf0b5ea6d26372ec4c8b0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751055/EFTA02751055.md @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +The Clerk of Court of the Southern District of New York is directed to docket the within ORDER in each of the following actions: + +VE v. Nine East 71st Street et al., No. 1:19-cv-07625 (AJN) (DF) + +Katlyn Doe v. Indyke et at, No. 1:19-cv-07771 (PKC) (DF) + +Priscilla Doe v. Indyke et al, No. 1:19-cv-07772 (ALC) (DF) + +Lisa Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-07773 (ER) (DF) + +Jane Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-08673 (KPF) (DF) + +v. Indyke et aL, No. 1:19-cv-10475 (LGS) (DF) + +v. Indyke et aL, No. 1:19-cv-10476 (PGG) (DF) + +v. Indyke et aL, No. 1:19-cv-10479 (ALC) (DF) + +Jane Doe 1000 v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-10577 (LGS) (DF) + +Jane Doe 15 v. Indyke et aL, No. I :19-cv-10653 (PAE) (DF) + +Mary Doe v. Indyke et aL, No. 1:19-cv-I 0758 (PAE) (DF) + +v. Indyke et aL, No. 1:19-cv-10788 (GHW) (DF) + +Anastasia Doe v. Indyke et at, No. 1:19-cv-11869 (MN) (DF) + +![](_page_0_Picture_15.jpeg) + +## DEBRA FREEMAN, United States Magistrate Judge: + +The above-referenced cases — all brought by plaintiffs claiming that they were sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein and seeking damages from his estate — have been neither consolidated for any purpose, nor designated as "related" by the Court. Nonetheless, these cases (together with certain other, similar cases, not listed above) have been referred to the undersigned for general pretrial supervision, so that discovery — and potentially settlement — may be coordinated as reasonable. While, at the parties' request, discovery in the other Jeffrey Epstein cases referred to this Court has been stayed pending a further report on the parties' settlement efforts, the parties to each of the above-referenced cases have requested, by submissions dated January 10, 2020, that this Court set a discovery schedule. This Court's having reviewed the parties' submissions, it is hereby ORDERED that: + +1. In each of the above-referenced cases in which the parties have not yet submitted a jointly proposed discovery plan pursuant to Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties are directed to submit a proposed discovery schedule for this Court's review no later + +than February 6, 2020. This submission should address all of the matters set out in Rule 26(f)(3), and should specifically include proposed deadlines for: + +- a service of initial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1); +- b. service of initial document requests and interrogatories; +- c. any motion for joinder of other parties or amendment of the pleadings; +- d. completion of fact discovery; and +- e. expert disclosures and the completion of expert discovery, if any. + +2. As to each of the above-referenced cases, this Court will hold a pretrial conference pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on February 11, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 17A at the United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007. The parties should be aware, however, that the mere fact that this Court will be holding a single, joint case-management conference does not necessarily mean that this Court will set an identical discovery schedule in each case. At the conference, counsel should be prepared to address whether there are reasons why these cases should be treated differently for scheduling purposes. + +Dated: New York, New York January 14, 2019 + +SO ORDERED + +Ahleet A9-7 DEBRA FREEMAN United States Magistrate Judge + +Copies to: + +All counsel in the above-referenced cases (via ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751055/EFTA02751055.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751055/EFTA02751055.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8e699886d2685f450889a37ad9817e56391f2d0f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751055/EFTA02751055.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,134 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751055.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 3407, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.05, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_15.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "DEBRA FREEMAN, United States Magistrate Judge:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 336.15 + ], + [ + 350.9979553222656, + 336.15 + ], + [ + 350.9979553222656, + 352.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 352.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751055" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751055/_page_0_Picture_15.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751055/_page_0_Picture_15.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..32bb625d0fed56c5bfa6b92f70e535c15bb1e50c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751055/_page_0_Picture_15.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:dd8d4b35ec8a06932f1954f1672105b4c862a94b69ea1fdf2bbd8a8a230fd756 +size 25022 diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751057/EFTA02751057.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751057/EFTA02751057.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0d86b5d4a2afdbfeb7977c35f04b89515d22a380 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751057/EFTA02751057.md @@ -0,0 +1,854 @@ +**IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS +DIVISION OF ST. [REDACTED] AND ST. JOHN** + +GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES +VIRGIN ISLANDS, + +Case No.: + +PLAINTIFF, + +**ACTION FOR DAMAGES** + +V. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, THE 1953 +TRUST, PLAN D, LLC; GREAT ST. JIM, LLC; +NAUTILUS, INC.; HYPERION AIR, LLC; +POPLAR, INC., JOHN AND JANE DOES + +JURY TRIAL DEMANDED + +DEFENDANTS, + +RECEIVED +JAN 15 PM 1:01 +PH 1:01 + +**COMPLAINT** + +**COMES NOW**, the Government of the United States Virgin Islands ("Government") and files this Complaint against the above-named Defendants and in support thereof, would show unto the Court as follows: + +**JURISDICTION AND PARTIES** + +1. 1. The Attorney General of the United States Virgin Islands (herein after "Virgin Islands") brings this action on behalf of the Plaintiff, Government of the Virgin Islands, pursuant to 3 V.I.C. § 114 and her statutory authority to enforce the laws of the Virgin Islands, and advocate for the public interest, safety, health and well-being of persons in the Virgin Islands. +2. 2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this civil matter pursuant to 4 V.I.C. § 76 and 14 V.I.C. § 607. +3. 3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to 5 V.I.C. § 4903. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 2 of 48 + +4. The Virgin Islands is an unincorporated territory of the United States. It consists of St. Ma, St. Croix, St. John, and Water Island, and more than 40 surrounding islands and Cays, some of which are privately owned. Among these privately owned islands are Little St. James and Great St. James. + +5. Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Epstein") was aresident of the Virgin Islands and he maintained a residence on Little St. James, which he acquired in 1998 and in 2016 he also purchased Great St. James. + +6. Epstein registered as a sex offender in the Virgin Islands in 2010. He was aTier I offender under Virgin Islands law based upon his Florida conviction of procuring a minor for prostitution. As a Tier 1 offender, Epstein was required to register annually with the Virgin Islands Department of Justice ("VIDOJ") and give advance notice of his travel to and from the Virgin Islands. Epstein was also subject to random address verification by VIDOJ. + +7. Epstein was found dead on August 10, 2019 while in custody in New York for sex crimes. + +8. Defendant, Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein ("The Estate"), created upon Epstein's death, is domiciled in the Virgin Islands. On August 15, 2019, the Executors of The Estate, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, filed aPetition for Probate and Letters Testamentary which included Epstein's last will and testament with the Probate Division of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands. + +9. The Petition reports the value of the real and personal property in The Estate located in the Virgin Islands at \$577,672,654.00 dollars. + +10. According to the Petition, the assets in the Virgin Islands thus far includes: + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 3 of 48 + +- b. \$ I27 million in fixed income and equity investments; +- c. \$195 million in hedge fund and private equity investments; and +- d. \$18.5 million in planes, boats, and automobiles. + +The Estate has not yet valued his fine arts, antiques, and other valuables. + +II. The Estate also includes shares of various corporate entities which hold residences and real property used by Epstein, namely: + +- a. Brownstone in New York City valued at \$56 million; +- b. Ranch in New Mexico valued at \$72 million; +- c. Gated home in Palm Beach, Florida, valued at \$12 million; +- d. Seven units in an apartment building in Paris, valued at \$8 million; and +- e. Great St. James and Little St. James, collectively valued at \$86 million. + +12. The Estate is responsible to pay damages for the acts committed by Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise described below. + +13. Defendant, The 1953 Trust ("The Trust") was created by Epstein, who "amended and restated" its terms only two days before his suicide. That same day, Epstein revised his Last Will and Testament, transferring all of his "property, real and personal, wherever situated" to The Trust. + +14. The Trust also contains Epstein's financial assets and is also responsible to pay damages for the acts committed by Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise described below. The Trust's administrators, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, filed a Certificate of Trust in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands for The Trust on August 26, 2019. + +15. Epstein maintained adeliberately complex web of Virgin Islands corporations, limited liability companies, foundations, and other entities, not all of which are yet known to the + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein + +GVI's Complaint + +Page 4 of 48 + +Government of the Virgin Islands, through which he carried out and concealed his criminal conduct. + +16. Epstein regularly created new entities in the territory and transferred properties and funds between them in order to preserve and shield Epstein's assets and to facilitate and conceal the unlawful acts described in this Complaint. + +17. These entities held properties, including Little St. James and Great St. James, at which Epstein trafficked and sexually abused women and underage girls. Epstein owned and arranged for private planes, helicopters, boat and automobiles to transport victims to, from, and within the Virgin Islands, and provided money to pay these young women and underage girls. + +18. Epstein sat at the hub of this web, serving as president, member, manager, or director of each of the entities and, upon information and belief, directing their activities. + +19. Defendant, Nautilus, Inc., is acorporation established and organized under the laws of the Virgin Islands. It was incorporated on November 22, 2011. + +20. According to records of the Virgin Islands Recorder of Deeds, Nautilus, Inc. owns Little St. James, a/k/a Parcel Number 109803010100, a parcel of 3.1 million square feet valued at \$3.2 million, with buildings and improvements valued at \$4 million. + +21. Epstein was president and director of Nautilus, Inc., which corporate filings describe as "holding property for personal use." Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, Executors of the Estate, are the secretary and treasurer of Nautilus, Inc., respectively. The Estate values Epstein's holdings of Nautilus, Inc., which holds title to Little St. James at \$63.9 million. + +22. A deed recorded with the Virgin Islands Recorder of Deeds on December 30, 2011 reflects that the property was transferred from aDelaware entity, L.S.J., LLC, to Nautilus, Inc. for "TEN DOLLARS (\$10.00) and other good and valuable consideration." The quitclaim deed lists + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 5 of 48 + +Jeffrey Epstein as the sole member of L.S.J., LLC, which it acquired Little Saint James via a warranty deed dated April 27, 1998. + +23. As described below, Epstein engaged in apattern and practice of trafficking and sexually abusing young women and female children on this private, secluded island of Little St. James where Epstein and his associates could avoid detection of their illegal activity from Virgin Islands and federal law enforcement and prevent these young women and underage girls from leaving freely and escaping the abuse. + +24. Thus, Nautilus, Inc. participated in carrying out, facilitating and concealing Epstein's crimes, hence Little St. James became an instrumentality of those crimes. + +25. Defendant, Great St. Jim, LLC, is alimited liability company established and organized under the laws of the Virgin Islands. Great St. Jim, LLC was organized on October 26, 2015. Great St. Jim, LLC, according to records of the Virgin Islands Recorder of Deeds, owns at least three properties that make up Great St. James acquired on January 28, 2016: Parcel Number 109801010100, consisting of 3.5 million square feet and valued at \$17.5 million; Parcel Number 109801010200, consisting of 450,000 square feet of land, valued at \$2.8 million; and Parcel Number 109801010300, 1.2 million square feet of land, valued at \$2.7 million. According to a warranty deed filed with the Virgin Islands Recorder of Deeds, Epstein, through Great St. Jim, LLC, acquired the last two parcels for \$5 million. + +26. Epstein is listed as manager and amember of Great St. Jim, LLC and the nature of its business is described as "holding assets." + +27. Upon information and belief, Epstein purchased these Great St. James properties the island with closest proximity to Little St. James—to further shield his conduct on Little St. James from view, prevent his detection by law enforcement or the public, and allow him to GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 6 of 48 + +continue and conceal his criminal enterprise. Epstein's significant investment in the purchase of Great St. James demonstrates his intent to expand his illegal operation in the Virgin Islands for years to come. Thus, Great St. Jim, LLC participated in carrying out, concealing, facilitating and continuing Epstein's crimes, and Great St. James became an instrumentality of those crimes. + +28. Defendant, Poplar, Inc., is acorporation established and organized under the laws of the Virgin Islands. Poplar, Inc. was incorporated on November 22,2011. Epstein was president and director of Poplar, Inc., and its purpose was described in corporate filings as "holding property for personal use." Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, Executors of the Estate, are secretary and treasurer of Poplar, Inc., respectively. + +29. A certificate of incumbency provided to the Department of Planning and Natural Resources ("DPNR") also lists Epstein as president of Poplar, Inc. and expressly authorizes the incorporators to conduct "transactions related to permitting matters submitted on behalf of Great St. Jim, LLC." + +30. Poplar, Inc. is listed as the signatory for the 2017 Annual Report for Great St. Jim, LLC, and the signature appears to be Epstein's. The Petition for Probate and Letters Testamentary filed by The Estate lists Poplar, Inc. as holding title to Great St. James. Thus, Poplar, Inc. participated in carrying out, concealing, facilitating and continuing Epstein's crimes. + +31. Defendant, Plan D, LLC is alimited liability company established and organized under the laws of the Virgin Islands. In its original Articles of Organization, filed October 19, 2012, and Annual Report filings, Epstein's pilot, Larry Visoski, was listed as Plan D, LLC's sole manager/member. However, the July 31,2019 Annual Report revealed Epstein as the principal behind Plan D, LLC. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 7 of 48 + +32. Upon information and belief, Plan D, LLC owns one or more of the airplanes and helicopters that Epstein used to transport young women and children to and from the Virgin Islands to carry out the criminal pattern of activity described below. Among the airplanes owned by Plan D, LLC is a Gulfstream with N-number N2 I2JE. Flight logs and travel notices indicate that Epstein used this plane to traffic and transport and young women and underage girls to the Virgin Islands. + +33. Defendant, Hyperion Air, LLC is alimited liability company established and organized under the laws of the Virgin Islands on October 19, 2012. Jeffrey Epstein is a manager/member of Hyperion Air, LLC, along with his pilot, Larry Visoski. The purpose of Hyperion Air, LLC is listed in its Annual Report as "holding assets." + +34. Hyperion Air, LLC is the registered owner of aBell helicopter with N-number N33IJE and a Keystone helicopter with N-number N722JE. Upon information and belief, Epstein used these helicopters to transport young women and underage girls between St. and Little St. James. + +35. John and Jane Does represent individuals and entities whose identities or involvement with Epstein are currently unknown. The Government of the Virgin Islands will amend the Complaint to add these individuals and entities when discovered. + +36. The Attorney General brings this action to seek all remedies available to the Government of the Virgin Islands in enforcing its laws and protecting the public interest and public safety. These claims are distinct from, and are not intended to supplant, the claims of victims who were unconscionably harmed by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 8 of 48 + +#### FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS + +# A. The Conduct of the "Epstein Enterprise" in the Virgin Islands + +37. Epstein and his associates, including Defendants, identified and recruited female victims, including children, and transported them to the Virgin Islands where they were abused and injured. Epstein, through and in association with Defendants, trafficked, raped, sexually assaulted and held captive underage girls and young women at his properties in the Virgin Islands. + +38. Epstein created anetwork of companies and individuals who participated in and conspired with him in a pattern of criminal activity related to the sex trafficking, forced labor, sexual assault, child abuse, and sexual servitude of these young women and children. Epstein and his associates trafficked underage girls to the Virgin Islands, held them captive, and sexually abused them, causing them grave physical, mental, and emotional injury. + +39. To accomplish his illegal ends, Epstein formed an association in fact with multiple Defendants and others (both companies and individuals) who were willing to participate in, facilitate, and conceal Epstein's criminal activity in exchange for Epstein's bestowal of financial and other benefits, including sexual services and forced labor from victims. + +40. This illicit association of Epstein, Defendants, and his associates constitutes what is referred to herein as the "Epstein Enterprise." Epstein's associates in the Epstein Enterprise, including, but not limited to, those named as Defendants knowingly facilitated, participated in, and concealed Epstein's illegal conduct. + +41. Epstein used his wealth and power to create the Epstein Enterprise which engaged in a pattern of criminal activity in the Virgin Islands by repeatedly procuring and subjecting underage girls and young women to unlawful sexual conduct, sex trafficking, and forced labor. + +GVI v. Estate ofJeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 9 of 48 + +42. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in apattern of criminal activity in the Virgin Islands (and elsewhere) with the criminal purpose and goal of placing a steady supply of vulnerable female children and young women into sexual servitude in service of Epstein's desires, and those of his associates. The Epstein Enterprise maintained and made available young women and underage girls for the purpose of engaging them in forced labor and sexual activities and used coercion and deception to procure, abuse, and harbor its victims. + +43. Flight logs and other sources establish that between 2001 and 2019 the Epstein Enterprise transported underage girls and young women to the Virgin Islands, who were then taken via helicopter or private vessel to Little St. James where they were then deceptively subjected to sexual servitude, forced to engage in sexual acts and coerced into commercial sexual activity and forced labor. + +44. In furtherance of its criminal activities, the Epstein Enterprise used its aircrafts to transport the young women and underage girls to the Virgin Islands for purposes of sexual abuse and exploitation. + +45. The Epstein Enterprise facilitated and participated in the sexual molestation and exploitation of numerous girls between the age of 12 and 17 years old. + +46. On the pretext of providing modeling opportunities, careers and contracts, associates of the Epstein Enterprise, funded by the Epstein Enterprise, lured and recruited young women and underage girls to travel to locations including the Virgin Islands where, upon information and belief, based on the pattern and practice of the Epstein Enterprise, they were sexually abused and exploited. + +GVI v. Estate ofJeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 10 of 48 + +47. Associates in the Epstein Enterprise recruited both victims and abusers into the Epstein Enterprise, participated in sexual acts of rape and abuse of minors and witnessed Epstein and others engage in sexual acts with children. + +48. As recent as 2018, air traffic controllers and other airport personnel reported seeing Epstein leave his plane with young girls some of whom appeared to be between the age of II and 18 years. + +49. Upon information and belief, based on Epstein's pattern of trafficking and sexually abusing young girls, the Epstein Enterprise trafficked and abused these girls, and others, in the Virgin Islands through 2018. + +50. When sued in civil court for committing sex trafficking and sex crimes, Epstein never denied engaging in sexual acts with underage females and procuring underage females for prostitution, but instead consistently invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination. + +51. Upon information and belief, the Epstein Enterprise kept a computerized list of underage girls who were in or proximate to the Virgin Islands, and able to be transported to Epstein's residence at Little St. James in the Virgin Islands. + +52. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in apattern of criminal conduct by trafficking children and young women and placing them in sexual servitude and forced labor in the Virgin Islands. The Epstein Enterprise repeatedly violated 14 V.I.C. §§ 133 to 138, which prohibit trafficking and sexual abuse. The Epstein Enterprise also repeatedly violated laws against child abuse and neglect, including 14 V.I.C. § 505, which defines the crime of child abuse as knowingly or recklessly causing "a child to suffer physical, mental, or emotional injury," or causing a child to be placed in a situation where such injury is foreseeable, and 14 V.I.C. § 506, which applies, as + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 11 of 48 + +here, where the child suffers serious physical, mental, or emotional injury as a result of that abuse. The harm to Epstein's victims was both fully foreseeable and deeply damaging. + +53. The Epstein Enterprise knowingly recruited, transported, transferred, harbored, received, procured, obtained, isolated, maintained, and enticed young women and girls to engage in forced labor (such as providing massages) and, ultimately, sexual servitude at his little St. James residence. + +54. A 15 year old victim was forced into sexual acts with Epstein and others and then attempted to escape by swimming off the Little St. James island. Epstein and others organized a search party that located her and kept her captive by, among other things, confiscating her passport. + +55. Another victim, who was first engaged in provide massages to Epstein, was then forced to perform sexual acts at Little St. James in the Virgin Islands. When she attempted to escape from the "private island," Epstein and a search party found her, returned her to his house, and suggested physical restraint or harm if she failed to cooperate. + +56. The Epstein Enterprise deceptively lured underage girls and women into its sex trafficking ring with money and promises of employment, career opportunities and school assistance. The Epstein Enterprise preyed on their financial and other vulnerabilities, and promised victims money, shelter, gifts, employment, tuition and other items of value. For example, participants in the Epstein Enterprise targeted young and underage females under the pretext that they would be paid substantially merely to provide massages to him and others. However, once drawn in, victims were then pressured and coerced to engage in sexual acts. + +57. The Epstein Enterprise forced underage victims to recruit others to perform services and engage in sexual acts—a trafficking pyramid scheme. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 12 of 48 + +58. The Epstein Enterprise paid girls for each "meeting," with additional money if they brought additional girls. Epstein reportedly required three meetings per day. + +59. The Epstein Enterprise used the term "work" as acode for sexual abuse, and, upon information and belief, reportedly kept computer records of the contact information for the victims. + +60. Consistent with his creation and use of acomplex web of entities to carry out and conceal the criminal trafficking enterprise in the Virgin Islands, the Epstein Enterprise sometimes paid young women and underage girls he exploited and trafficked through his charitable foundations. + +61. Once the girls and women were recruited, participants in the Epstein Enterprise enforced their sexual servitude of victims by coercion, including but not limited to, confiscating passports, controlling and extinguishing external communications, and threatening violence. They also made fraudulent statements to family members of victims, claiming victims were being well cared for and supported financially in college and other educational opportunities. + +62. The Epstein Enterprise transported, held, sexually abused, trafficked, and concealed women and children at his property in the Virgin Islands dozens of times over nearly two decades. + +#### B. The "Epstein Enterprise" Abused Privileges of Residency to Carry out its Criminal Scheme + +63. The Epstein Enterprise in 1998 acquired Little St. James in the Virgin Islands as the perfect hideaway and haven for trafficking young women and underage girls for sexual servitude, child abuse and sexual assault. Little St. James is asecluded, private island, nearly two miles from St. with no other residents. It can be visited only by private boat or helicopter; no public or commercial transportation is available to carry persons on or off the island, and no + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 13 of 48 + +bridge connects the island to St. M. Epstein had easy access to Little St. James from the private airfield on St.lal, only 10 minutes away by his private helicopter, but the women and children he trafficked, abused, and held there were not able to leave without his permission and assistance, as it was too far and dangerous to swim to St.... + +64. In 2016, upon information and belief, using a straw purchaser to hide Epstein's identity, the Epstein Enterprise acquired Great St. James, the nearest island to Little St. James. By then, Epstein was a convicted sex offender. Upon information and belief, the Epstein Enterprise purchased the island for more than \$20 million because its participants wanted to ensure that the island did not become a base from which others could view their activities or visitors. By acquiring ownership and control of Great St. James to the exclusion of others, the Epstein Enterprise created additional barriers to prevent those held involuntarily on Little St. James from escaping or obtaining help from others. + +65. Great St. James and Little St. James are environmentally sensitive locations, with native coral and wildlife protected by federal and territorial law and enforcement authorities. The Department of Planning and Natural Resources ("DPNR") regulates and monitors construction in the Coastal Zone to protect, maintain and manage the precious natural resources of the Virgin Islands. Under its authority, DPNR repeatedly issued citations and assessed thousands of dollars of fines for violations of the Virgin Islands construction code and environmental protection laws on both Little St. James and Great St. James—significant penalties to the agency and to the average resident of the Virgin Islands. But because of Epstein's enormous wealth, these fines had little effect in curbing or stopping the Epstein Enterprise's unlawful conduct or conforming its activities to the law. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 14 of 48 + +66. As a result of illegal construction activity of the Epstein Enterprise, the Virgin Islands has incurred, and will incur, significant expenses to remove the illegal construction or remediate its effects on natural resources in and around Little St. James and Great St. James. The extent of the potential environmental damage is unknown at this time as the illegal construction has not been removed or remediated. + +67. The Epstein Enterprise continues to attempt to prevent or limit DPNR authorities from conducting random inspections on the Little St. James and Great St. James necessary to comply with Virgin Islands law. + +68. The Epstein Enterprise's violation of the construction and environmental laws was part of a pattern of behavior in flouting the laws of the Virgin Islands and holding itself above the law. Upon information and belief, as described above, the Epstein Enterprise undertook construction at Great St. James after 2016 to continue the scheme to carry out and conceal his trafficking and sexual abuse of young women and children in the Virgin Islands. These actions are also indicative of the Epstein Enterprise's disregard for Virgin Islands' law. The Epstein Enterprise used the Virgin Islands' land, resources, people, and laws for its illicit purposes. Rather than participating lawfully in this community, the Epstein Enterprise took advantage of the secluded nature of the islands in furtherance of its crimes. + +69. As a result of its deplorable and unlawful conduct, the Epstein Enterprise has subjected the Virgin Islands to public portrayals as ahiding place for human trafficking and sex crimes. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 15 of 48 + +# C. The "Epstein Enterprise" Fraudulently Concealed its Conduct + +70. The Epstein Enterprise fraudulently concealed its actions to prevent detection by the Government of the Virgin Islands. + +71. The secluded properties at Little St. James and Great St. James were repeatedly used by the Epstein Enterprise as the locations for unlawfully soliciting, transporting, transferring, harboring, receiving, providing, isolating, patronizing, maintaining, deceiving, coercing, and sexually abusing young women and children and concealing these crimes. + +72. The Epstein Enterprise was able to hide the trafficking ring from law enforcement, despite the fact that Epstein was aregistered sex offender. Given the isolation of the Little St. James and Great St. James and the nature of the crimes and of the victims targeted by the Epstein Enterprise, the activities of the Epstein Enterprise were not readily detectable. Moreover, Epstein's great wealth and power likely made witnesses reluctant to report their observations to the local law enforcement. + +73. Upon information and belief, the Epstein Enterprise prevented its employees from cooperating with law enforcement. Employees and others were required to sign confidentiality agreements that prohibited them from speaking to or sharing information with law enforcement. If they were contacted by law enforcement they were to notify the Epstein Enterprise and be represented by Epstein's counsel. + +74. The employees were directed not to communicate or interact with guests visiting Little St. James and were also directed not to disclose to anyone events that occurred on the island. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 16 of 48 + +75. Monitoring asex offender with his own private islands and the resources to fly victims in and out on private planes and helicopters presented unique challenges and allowed the Epstein Enterprise to limit scrutiny by the Government of the Virgin Islands. + +76. Sexual Offender Registration and Community Protection Act ("SORCPA") 14 V.I.C. § 1721, et. seq. requires sex offenders registered in the Virgin Islands to make periodic inperson appearances to verify and update their registration information. + +77. Epstein renewed his registration each year in the Virgin Islands. In addition, beyond this statutory requirement, the Virgin Islands periodically visited—or attempted to visit— Little St. James to conduct additional address verifications. + +78. At his last verification in July 2018, Epstein refused to permit Virgin Islands Department of Justice Investigators, assisted by United States Marshals, to enter Little St. James beyond its dock, claiming that the dock was his "front door." Instead, Epstein arranged to be met at his office on St. + +79. Epstein also misled the Government regarding his travel plans. On March 19, 2019, the Virgin Islands was notified that Epstein would be traveling to France for 10 days on the private plane owned by Plan D, LLC. His notification form did not disclose travel to any other countries. It was later discovered by law enforcement authorities that Epstein also travelled to Vienna and Monaco during that trip. + +80. Similarly, the Epstein Enterprise sought to prevent DPNR from conducting routine site visits to inspect unpermitted and potentially damaging construction activity on Great St. James. The Epstein Enterprise repeatedly objected to DPNR's inspections referring to them as "invasions" of Epstein's constitutional right to privacy in his home, which he described defined as the entire island. These DPNR inspections are required for all construction and Virgin Islands residents are + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 17 of 48 + +required to cooperate with the inspections to assure compliance with the law throughout the construction phases. + +81. These efforts represent Epstein Enterprise's intent to conceal its unlawful activity on Little St. James and Great St. James. + +82. The Epstein Enterprise also created numerous corporations and limited liability companies in the Virgin Islands to help conceal its unlawful activity. Most of these companies were created in 2011 and 2012, soon after Epstein registered as a sex offender in the Virgin Islands. + +83. Epstein's pilot, Larry Visoski is identified as member or co-member in companies that serviced and maintained the planes that the Epstein Enterprise used to traffick young women and children — Freedom Air Petroleum, LLC (registered November 28, 2011 to hold assets); and JEGE, LLC (registered October 19, 2012 to hold assets). + +84. Other Epstein entities include LSJ Employees, LLC (registered October 27, 2011 to provide services); Southern Financial, LLC (registered February 25, 2013 to provide services) and LSJ Emergency, LLC (registered December 2, 2015 to provide services). + +85. Some of these companies held considerable assets: Financial Informatics, Inc. (incorporated November 18, 2011, also known as Southern Trust Company, Inc.) had assets of approximately \$391 million in 2015; and Financial Trust Company, Inc. (incorporated November 6, 1998) had assets of \$212 million when it publicly filed its last balance sheet in 2012. + +86. Though often absent in the original incorporation or registration documents or annual filings, Epstein ultimately appeared as president, director, manager, or sole member of each of these companies. Upon information and belief, the purpose of this complex array of corporate entities—some of which may still be discovered—was to allow Epstein to shelter his assets in order to fund, carry out, and conceal his identity and pattern of criminal conduct. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein + +GVI's Complaint + +Page 18 of 48 + +87. The Estate continues to engage in acourse of conduct aimed at concealing the criminal activities of the Epstein Enterprise. On November 24, 2019, Epstein's Estate filed an Expedited Motion for Establishment of aVoluntary Claims Resolution Program in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands. ("Motion"). According to the Motion, the proposed program was to be designed to "establish an independent and voluntary claims resolution program for purposes of resolving sexual abuse claims against Jeffrey E. Epstein." (Motion, at I ). + +88. The program proposed by the Estate, whose executors are trustees of The 1953 Trust and officers in at least two Epstein entities, imposes confidentiality requirements and requires any claimant accepting an award under the program to sacrifice any other claims against "any person or entity arising from or related to Mr. Epstein's conduct." (Motion, at 5). It acts to conceal the criminal activities of the Epstein Enterprise and shield its participants from liability and accountability for the injury they caused to the victims. + +89. Two days before his death, Epstein amended The Trust and his Last Will and Testament. Upon information and belief, he did so, as part of apattern and ongoing effort to conceal and shield his assets from potential recovery by claimants. + +# D. The "Epstein Enterprise" Violated Numerous Virgin Islands Laws + +90. The pattern of criminal activity engaged in by Epstein and other participants in the Epstein Enterprise violated 14 V.I.C. §§ 605 and 607 of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"). + +91. The Epstein Enterprise also violated Title 14, Chapter 3A, The Virgin Islands Uniform Prevention of and Remedies for Human Trafficking Act relating to Trafficking of Persons; Title 14, Chapter 24, relating to Child Protection and Child Abuse and Neglect; Title 14, + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 19 of 48 + +Chapter 81, relating to Prostitution and Related Offenses; Title 18, Chapter 85, relating to Rape and Sexual Assault and other related offenses, as well as other Virgin Islands laws. + +92. The Epstein Enterprise violated Virgin Islands laws by engaging in the human trafficking of underage girls and young women and commercial sex with young women and underage girls by force, fraud, enticement, or coercion, which serve as predicates to the Epstein Enterprise's violations of CICO. + +93. Certain participants who recruited young women and underage girls to be trafficked and forced into sexual servitude themselves were sexually trafficked and abused by the Epstein Enterprise and may be afforded the protections of 14 V.I.C. § 145. + +94. Specifically, Plan D, LLC knowingly and intentionally facilitated the trafficking scheme by flying underage girls and young women into the Virgin Islands to be delivered into sexual servitude. Plan D, LLC repeatedly made flights from the mainland to St. with Epstein and underage girls and young women for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity on Little St. James. On some occasions, they would transport Epstein and female children by helicopter to Little St. James. On other occasions, Epstein and the young women and girls would be transported by boat. + +95. Great St. Jim, LLC and Nautilus, Inc. knowingly participated in the Epstein Enterprise and facilitated the trafficking and sexual servitude of young women and underage girls by providing the secluded properties at, from, or to which Epstein and his associates were able to transport, transfer, receive, maintain, isolate, harbor, provide, entice, deceive, coerce, and sexually abuse underage girls and young women. + +96. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in acontinuing course of unlawful conduct. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 20 of 48 + +97. After Epstein's suicide, the Epstein Enterprise continued to exist as each of the participants continued to conspire to prevent detection of the breadth and scope of the Epstein Enterprise's criminal wrongdoing and to prevent accountability. These conspiratorial acts are ongoing. + +98. The conduct of the Epstein Enterprise offends the core purpose of the Virgin Islands Uniform Prevention of and Remedies for Human Trafficking Act, 14 V.I.C. §131 et seq, and violates CICO, enacted to "curtail criminal activity and lessen its economic and political power in the Territory of the Virgin Islands by establishing new penal prohibitions and providing to law enforcement and the victims of criminal activity new civil sanctions and remedies." 14 V.I.C. § 601. + +99. The Epstein Enterprise is an illicit enterprise within the meaning of 14 V.I.C. §§ 604 and 605. + +100. The Government is entitled to recover civil penalties, damages and other remedies and to extinguish and recoup from the Epstein Enterprise any and all financial and other benefits, and any personal and real property that was used during the course of, or intended for use in the course of the conduct or criminal activity in violation of the laws of the Virgin Islands. The Government is entitled to obtain through divestiture, forfeiture, or other equitable relief all properties and instrumentalities used by the Epstein Enterprise in the criminal pattern of trafficking and sexual abuse in the Virgin Islands, including but not limited to, Great St. James and Little St. James, and all other remedies and penalties permitted by law in the interest of justice. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 21 of 48 + +#### COUNT ONE Human Trafficking —Trafficking an Individual Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; and 14 V.I.0 §133 + +101. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 to 100 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +102. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +103. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitutes criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, knowingly recruiting, transporting, transferring, harboring, receiving, providing, obtaining, isolating, maintaining, or enticing female children and young women in the furtherance and performance of forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity in violation of Virgin Islands laws codified in 14 V.I.C. §§ 133-138. + +104. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +105. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +106. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GV1's Complaint Page 22 of 48 + +#### COUNT TWO Human Trafficking — Trafficking an Individual Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 14V.I.C. § 600 et seq. and 14 V.I.0 §133 + +107. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs t-106 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +108. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in aconspiracy to violate laws prohibiting human trafficking. + +109. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy by recruiting, transporting, transferring, harboring, receiving, providing, obtaining, isolating, maintaining or enticing female children and young women in the furtherance and performance of forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity in violation of Virgin Islands laws codified in 14 V.I.C. § 133 -138. + +110. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands. + +ill. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(j). + +112. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 23 of 48 + +#### COUNT THREE Human Trafficking — Forced Labor Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), 14V.1.C. § 600 et seq.; and 14 V.I.0 §134 + +113. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-112 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein, + +114. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +115. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitutes criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, knowingly using coercion to compel underage girls and young women to provide labor or services by forced labor in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 134. + +116. The Epstein Enterprise knowingly provided or obtained the labor services of individuals by means of force, threats of force, physical restraint, and/or threats of physical restraint; by means of serious harm or threats of serious harm; by means of abuse or threatened abuse of law or legal processes; and by means of the Epstein Enterprise with the intent to cause individuals to believe that, if individuals did not perform such labor or services, individuals would suffer serious harm or physical restraint. + +117. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +118. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +119. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein + +GVI's Complaint + +Page 24 of 48 + +120. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +### COUNT FOUR Human Trafficking — Forced Labor Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 14V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; and 14 V.I.0 §134 + +121. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-120 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +122. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in aconspiracy to violate laws prohibiting human trafficking. + +123. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy by knowingly using coercion to compel underage girls and young women to provide labor or services by forced labor in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 134. + +124. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands. + +125. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(j). + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 25 of 48 + +126. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 es seq. + +### COUNT FIVE Human Trafficking — Sexual Servitude Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), 14V.I.C. § 600 et seg.; 14 V.I.0 §135 + +127. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-126 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +128. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +129. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitutes criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, knowingly maintaining or making available minors for the purpose of engaging the minors in commercial sexual activities or using coercion or deception to force young women to engage in commercial sexual activity in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 135. + +130. On the pretext of providing modeling opportunities, careers and contracts, Defendants facilitated the transporting or recruiting of young women and girls or lured and recruited young women and underage girls to travel to the Virgin Islands where they engaged in sexual acts with Epstein and others. In some instances, young women and underage girls were given scholarships, money, gifts or other items of value in exchange for engaging in sexual acts with Epstein and others. + +131. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 26 of 48 + +132. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +133. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +134. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +### COUNT SIX Human Trafficking— Sexual Servitude Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 14V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 §135 + +135. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-134 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +136. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in aconspiracy to violate laws prohibiting human trafficking. + +137. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join the criminal conspiracy by knowingly maintaining or making available minors for the purpose of engaging the minors in commercial sexual activities or using coercion or deception to force young women to engage in commercial sexual activity in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 135. + +138. On the pretext of providing modeling opportunities, careers and contracts, Defendants facilitated the transporting or recruiting of young women and girls or lured and recruited young women and underage girls to travel to the Virgin Islands where they engaged in sexual acts with Epstein and others. In some instances, young women and underage girls were + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 27 of 48 + +given scholarships, money, gifts or other items of value in exchange for engaging in sexual acts with Epstein and others. + +139. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands. + +140. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(j). + +141. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +## COUNT SEVEN Human Trafficking — Patronizing Minors and Victims of Sexual Servitude Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), 14V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 §§ 136-37 + +142. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-141 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +143. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +144. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitutes criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, knowingly giving, agreeing to give, or offering to give items of value to young women and minors so that the GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 28 of 48 + +young women and minors would engage in commercial sexual activity with Epstein, other Defendants, and other individuals in violation of 14 V.I.C. §§ 136-137. + +145. In some instances, young women and underage girls were given scholarships, money, gifts or other items of value in exchange for engaging in sexual acts with Epstein and others. + +146. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +147. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +148. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +149. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +### COUNT EIGHT Human Trafficking — Patronizing Minors and Victims of Sexual Servitude Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 14V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 §§ 136-37 + +150. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-149 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +151. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in aconspiracy to violate laws prohibiting human trafficking. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 29 of 48 + +152. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy by knowingly giving, agreeing to give, or offering to give items of value to young women and minors so that the young women and minors would engage in commercial sexual activity with Epstein, other Defendants, and other individuals in violation of 14 V.I.C. §§ 136-137. + +153. In some instances, young women and underage girls were given scholarships, money, gifts or other items of value in exchange for engaging in sexual acts with Epstein and others. + +154. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands. + +155. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise; human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. + +156. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO 14V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +### COUNT NINE Child Abuse and Neglect Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("CICO"), 14V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 §§ 505, 506 and 507 + +157. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-156 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 30 of 48 + +158. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +159. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitutes criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, knowingly or recklessly causing a child to suffer physical, mental or emotional injury, or knowingly or recklessly causing a child to be placed in asituation where it is reasonably foreseeable that such child may suffer physical, mental or emotional injury, in violation Virgin Islands criminal laws prohibiting Child Abuse and Neglect in Title 14 V.I.C. § 500 et. seq. + +160. As a result of the Epstein Enterprise's actions numerous young girls suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +161. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +162. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +163. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in apattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14V.1.C. §600 et seq. + +#### COUNT TEN + +# Child Abuse and Neglect + +## Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 14V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 §§ 505, 506 and 507 + +164. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-163 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 31 of 48 + +165. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in aconspiracy to violate laws prohibiting child abuse and neglect. + +166. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy as they knowingly or recklessly caused achild to suffer physical, mental or emotional injury, or knowingly or recklessly caused achild to be placed in asituation where it is reasonably foreseeable that such child may suffer physical, mental or emotional injury, in violation Virgin Islands criminal laws prohibiting Child Abuse and Neglect in Title 14 V.I.C. § 500 et seq. + +167. As a result of Defendants' actions, numerous young girls suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +168. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands. + +169. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(j). + +170. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in apattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 32 of 48 + +### COUNT ELEVEN Aggravated Rape Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("CICO"), 14V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 § 1700a + +171. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-170 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +172. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +173. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitutes criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, conduct that constituted or facilitated the rape of minors by force, intimidation, or the perpetrator's position of authority over the victim. + +174. Epstein and others, using force or intimidation, engaged in sexual intercourse with underage girls without their consent in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 1700a. + +175. As a result of the Epstein Enterprise's actions, numerous underage girls suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +176. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +177. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +178. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in apattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 33 of 48 + +#### COUNT TWELVE Aggravated Rape Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 14V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 § 1700a + +179. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-178 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +180. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in aconspiracy to violate laws prohibiting aggravated rape. + +181. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy by engaging in conduct that constituted or facilitated the rape of minors by force, intimidation, or the perpetrator's position of authority over the victim. + +182. Epstein and others, using force or intimidation, engaged in sexual intercourse with underage girls without their consent in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 1700a. + +183. As a result of Defendants' actions, numerous underage girls suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +184. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands. + +185. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(j). + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 34 of 48 + +186. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in apattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +#### COUNT THIRTEEN Rape in the Second Degree Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 § 1702 + +187. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1- 186 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +188. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +189. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitutes criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, conduct that constituted or facilitated the rape of girls under 18 years of age. + +190. Epstein and others who engaged in rape were over 18 years old at the time of the incidents. + +191. As a result of the Epstein Enterprise's actions, numerous minors suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +192. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +193. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 35 of 48 + +194. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in apattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +#### COUNT FOURTEEN Rape in the Second Degree Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 14V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 § 1702 + +195. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-194 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +196. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in aconspiracy to violate laws prohibiting rape in the second degree. + +197. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy by engaging in conduct that constituted or facilitated the rape of girls under 18 years of age. + +198. Epstein and others who engaged in rape were over 18 years old at the time of the incidents. + +199. As a result of Defendants' actions, numerous minors suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +200. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 36 of 48 + +201. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(j). + +202. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in apattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +### COUNT FIFTEEN Unlawful Sexual Contact in the First or Second Degree Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("CICO"), 14V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 §§ 1708 and 1709 + +203. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1- 202 of this Complaint as if as if fully set forth herein. + +204. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +205. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitutes criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, using or facilitating the use of force or coercion to accomplish sexual contact or engaging in sexual contact with a minor between 13 and 16 years of age. + +206. Epstein and others who engaged in the sexual contact were over 18 years old at the time of the incidents. + +207. As a result of the Epstein Enterprise's actions numerous young women and minors suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +208. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 37 of 48 + +209. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +210. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in apattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO 14V.I.C. §600 es seq. + +### COUNT SIXTEEN Unlawful Sexual Contact in the First or Second Degree Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 14V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 §§ 1708 and 1709 + +211. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 - 210 of this Complaint as if as if fully set forth herein. + +212. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in aconspiracy to violate laws prohibiting unlawful sexual contact. + +213. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy by using or facilitating the use of force or coercion to accomplish sexual contact or engaging in sexual contact with aminor between 13 and 16 years of age. + +214. Epstein and others who engaged in the sexual contact were over 18 years old at the time of the incidents. + +215. As a result of Defendants' actions, numerous young women and minors suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +216. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of minor girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 38 of 48 + +217. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(j). + +218. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in apattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +## COUNT SEVENTEEN Prostitution and Keeping House of Prostitution Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), 14V.I.C. § 600 et seq.: 14 V.I.C. §§ 1622, 1624 + +219. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 - 218 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +220. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +221. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitutes criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including the engaging in or facilitating the knowing and/or reckless abuse of minors through the acts alleged herein. + +222. The Epstein Enterprise knowingly persuaded, induced, enticed, and/or coerced young women and children to travel to the Virgin Islands to engage in prostitution and/or sexual activity, and/or attempted to do the same. + +223. The Epstein Enterprise kept, maintained, and/or permitted his property at Little St. James to be used for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness or assignation with knowledge or reasonable cause to know the same. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 39 of 48 + +224. The Epstein Enterprise received or offered or agreed to receive women and children at his property at Little St. James for the purposes of prostitution, lewdness or assignation, and/or permitted young women and children to remain there for such purposes. + +225. The Epstein Enterprise directed, took, transported, and or offered or agreed to take or transport young women and children to Little St. James with the knowledge or reasonable cause to know that the purpose of such directing, taking or transporting was prostitution, lewdness or assignation. + +226. The Epstein Enterprise knew or should reasonably have known that some of the individuals that were the subjects of the actions described in this Count were minors. + +227. As a result of Defendants' actions, numerous young women and minors suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +228. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +229. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +230. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in apattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein + +GVI's Complaint + +Page 40 of 48 + +#### COUNT EIGHTEEN + +# Prostitution and Keeping House of Prostitution + +## Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 14V.I.C. § 600 et seq.: 14 V.I.C. §§ 1622, 1624. + +231. The Government restates and realleges paragraph 1 - 230 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +232. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined aconspiracy to laws against prostitution. + +233. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy by engaging in or facilitating the persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of young women and children to travel to the Virgin Islands to engage in prostitution and/or sexual activity, and/or attempted to do the same; keeping, maintaining, and/or permitting Epstein's property at Little St. James, to be used for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness or assignation with knowledge or reasonable cause to know the same; receiving, offering, or agreeing to receive individuals at his property at Little St. James for the purposes of prostitution, lewdness or assignation, and/or permitted young women and children to remain there for such purposes; and directing, taking, transporting, and/or offering or agreeing to take or transport young women and children to Little St. James with the knowledge or reasonable cause to know that the purpose of such directing, taking or transporting was prostitution, lewdness or assignation, in violation of 14 V.I.C. §§ 1622 and 1624. + +234. Defendants knew or should reasonably have known that some of the individuals that were the subjects of the actions described in this Count were minors. + +235. As a result of Defendants' actions numerous young women and minors suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 41 of 48 + +236. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands. + +237. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(j). + +238. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in apattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +#### COUNT NINETEEN + +# Sex Offender Registry + +# Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), 14V.I.C. § 600 et seq.: 14 V.I.C. § 1721 et seq. + +239. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1- 238 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +240. Epstein was required to, and did, register under the Virgin Islands Sexual Offender Registration and Community Protection Act ("SORCPA") codified at 14 V.I.C. § 1721 et seq. + +241. SORCPA requires registered offenders to provide information relating to intended travel in foreign commerce. + +242. On at least two occasions, Epstein traveled to Vienna and Monaco without disclosing that travel to the Virgin Islands sex offender registry. + +243. Epstein's failure to disclose this travel before, during, or even after his travel was knowing. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 42 of 48 + +244. Epstein's violation SORPCA was part of apattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise. 14 V.I.C. §604(j). + +## COUNT TWENTY Fraudulent Conveyance + +# Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. § 600 a seq.: 14 V.I.C. §§ 832-833 + +245. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1- 244 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +246. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +247. Each Defendant engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitutes criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to transferring assets to and between various entities controlled by Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise to avoid, defeat, hinder or delay claims against them. + +248. Upon information and belief, in an effort to defeat the claims of creditors and avoid the oversight of the court probating his estate, Epstein, days before his death, transferred significant assets, including assets held by other Defendants, into The 1953 Trust. + +249. At the time of these transfers, Epstein had numerous actions pending against him related to his trafficking and sexual assaults seeking financial judgments. + +250. Through these transfers, Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise fraudulently removed property and effects beyond the jurisdiction of the probate court. + +251. Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise were parties to the fraudulent conveyance of the property, real or personal, and/or the interests or rights arising out of property, contracts, or conveyances of Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 43 of 48 + +252. Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise acted with the intent to defeat, hinder, or delay creditors and claimants, including the Government of the Virgin Islands, in collecting on their judgements, debts and demands. + +253. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +254. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +255. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in apattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +## COUNT TWENTY-ONE Fraudulent Conveyance Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.: 14 V.I.C. §§ 832-833 + +256. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs I to 255 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +257. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in aconspiracy to commit fraudulent conveyances. + +258. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy, including, but not limited to, transferring assets to and between various entities controlled by Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise to avoid, defeat, hinder or delay claims against them. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein + +GVI's Complaint + +Page 44 of 48 + +259. Upon information and belief, in an effort to defeat the claims of creditors and avoid the oversight of the court probating his estate, Epstein, days before his death, transferred significant assets, including assets held by other Defendants, into The 1953 Trust. + +260. At the time of this transfer, Epstein had numerous actions pending against him related to his trafficking and sexual assaults seeking financial judgments. + +261. Through this transfer, Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise fraudulently removed property and effects beyond the jurisdiction of the probate court. + +262. Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise were parties to the fraudulent conveyance of the property, real or personal, and/or the interests or rights arising out of property, contracts, or conveyances of Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise. + +263. Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise acted with the intent to defeat, hinder, or delay the Government of the Virgin Islands and other creditors and claimants to collect on their judgements, debts and demands. + +264. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands. + +265. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(j). + +266. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in apattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 45 of 48 + +### COUNT TWENTY-TWO Civil Conspiracy + +267. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs I - 266 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +268. Defendants acted in concert and joined with others to perform the wrongful acts identified in Counts 1 to 13, among others, concealing the sexual abuse of minor females by unlawful means. + +269. Each co-conspirator knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, about the conduct of the others and about the common unlawful scheme. + +270. These unlawful acts could not have been carried to the length and extent accomplished without the common understanding shared by Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise Defendants. + +271. Each of the Defendants had aduty to report, stop or terminate the wrongful conduct, but instead each Defendant concealed, assisted and furthered the wrongful acts by use of civil conspiracy. + +272. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conspiracy, the Virgin Island has been injured. + +273. Each co-conspirator is jointly and severally liable for the acts alleged herein. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 46 of 48 + +#### Notice of Allegation of PUNITIVE DAMAGES + +274. The purpose of punitive damages in the common law is to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct that is reckless or intentional and to deter others from engaging in such conduct in the future. + +275. This Complaint describes intentional conduct so egregious, persistent, and injurious that it shocks the conscience and offends acivilized society. + +276. Punitive damages are especially important in the case of persons or companies that have money, assets, and power that mere fines, penalties, and economic damages are simply not sufficient. + +277. At all times material herein, Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise engaged repeatedly in wrongful acts which were intentional and outrageous. The Government gives notice that it intends to pursue the possibility of punitive damages in any jury verdict. + +#### PRAYER FOR RELIEF + +WHEREFORE, the Government respectfully requests that the Court: + +A. Enter a judgment in favor of the Government and against Defendants on all counts; + +B. Declare that Defendants, through the Epstein Enterprise, have engaged in apattern of criminal activity in the Virgin Islands including but not limited to human trafficking, forced labor and sexual servitude of female children and young women, unlawful sexual contact, child sexual abuse, child abuse and neglect, rape, prostitution and other offenses related offenses, and civil conspiracy.; + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 47 of 48 + +C. Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 610, enforce and maintain the criminal activity liens the Government is filing contemporaneously with this lawsuit, or shall file in connection with this action; + +D. Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(a)(1) and 14 V.I.C. § 141, issue an order forfeiting and divesting in favor of the Government of the Virgin Islands all of Defendants' interests in any real and personal property within the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands used to facilitate the criminal enterprise carried out by the Epstein Enterprise, including but not limited to Little St. James Island and Greater St. James Island . + +E. Issue an order forfeiting to the Government of the Virgin Islands any proceeds or funds obtained by Defendants, whether directly or indirectly, during the course of the criminal activity of the Epstein Enterprise; + +F. Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(a)(1), require Defendants to divest themselves of any real property or other interests in favor of the Government of the Virgin Islands used to further the goals of the Epstein Enterprise; + +G. Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(a)(3) and (5), order the dissolution of the Epstein Enterprise, including but not limited to, order the dissolution of the corporate Defendants; + +H. Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(a)(2) enter an injunction to prevent the further criminal conduct, and concealment of the criminal conduct, by the Epstein Enterprise; + +I. Pursuant to 14 V.1.C. § 607(a)(4), order the revocation of any and all licenses, permits and approvals that had been granted by any agency of the Territory, and require the repayment of any tax benefits that had been bestowed on any Defendant; + +J. Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(a)(6)(e), award the Government the maximum civil penalty for each and every violation of law committed by the Epstein Enterprise; + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein +GVI's Complaint +Page 48 of 48 + +K. Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607, award treble damages and all other available remedies, including attorneys' fees and costs; + +L. Award compensatory and punitive damages for Defendants' civil conspiracy; + +M. Void the transfer of assets as fraudulently conveyed to the The 1953 Trust; + +N. Award such equitable relief, including disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains, as may be just and proper and appropriate, pursuant to 14 14 V.I.C. § 608(c)(4), to protect the rights of victims and innocent persons in the interest of justice and consistent with the purposes of CICO; + +O. Assess and award a judgment in favor of the Government and against the Defendants for attorneys' fees and costs and pre- and post-judgment interest; and + +P. Award any and all other relief this Court deems appropriate. + +**The Government demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.** + +**RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,** + +Dated: January 15, 2020 + +**GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES +VIRGIN ISLANDS** + +![]()**DENISE N. GEORGE, ESQUIRE +ATTORNEY GENERAL** + +V.I. Department of Justice +Office of the Attorney General +34-38 Kronprindsens Gade +GERS Building, 2nd Floor +St. ██████████, U.S.V.I. 00802 +Telephone: (340) 774-5666 + +RECEIVED +20 JAN 15 PM 1:01 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751057/EFTA02751057.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751057/EFTA02751057.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ed8b369cf8b772903a1885a8747fbb6fce693835 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751057/EFTA02751057.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,2712 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751057.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 49, + "chars": 82799, + "elapsed_seconds": 26.99, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. [REDACTED] AND ST. JOHN", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 130.356, + 91.643 + ], + [ + 488.98800000000006, + 91.643 + ], + [ + 488.98800000000006, + 124.89399999999999 + ], + [ + 130.356, + 124.89399999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COMPLAINT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 388.469 + ], + [ + 345.78, + 388.469 + ], + [ + 345.78, + 402.25600000000003 + ], + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 402.25600000000003 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "JURISDICTION AND PARTIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 217.26, + 497.954 + ], + [ + 392.292, + 497.954 + ], + [ + 392.292, + 511.741 + ], + [ + 217.26, + 511.741 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 227.052, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 389.00579833984375, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 389.00579833984375, + 123.93 + ], + [ + 227.052, + 123.93 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Conduct of the \"Epstein Enterprise\" in the Virgin Islands", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 108.93599999999999, + 136.89000000000001 + ], + [ + 476.6080322265625, + 136.89000000000001 + ], + [ + 476.6080322265625, + 153.3623046875 + ], + [ + 108.93599999999999, + 153.3623046875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The \"Epstein Enterprise\" Abused Privileges of Residency to Carry out its \nCriminal Scheme", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 102.81600000000002, + 562.9499999999999 + ], + [ + 537.948, + 562.9499999999999 + ], + [ + 537.948, + 591.32568359375 + ], + [ + 102.81600000000002, + 591.32568359375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. The \"Epstein Enterprise\" Fraudulently Concealed its Conduct", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 107.712, + 122.30999999999999 + ], + [ + 450.7945556640625, + 122.30999999999999 + ], + [ + 450.7945556640625, + 140.45074462890625 + ], + [ + 107.712, + 140.45074462890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. The \"Epstein Enterprise\" Violated Numerous Virgin Islands Laws", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.42800000000001, + 536.22 + ], + [ + 465.12, + 536.22 + ], + [ + 465.12, + 555.0211181640625 + ], + [ + 103.42800000000001, + 555.0211181640625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT ONE \nHuman Trafficking \u2014Trafficking an Individual \nViolation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (\"CICO\"), \n14 V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.; and 14 V.I.0 \u00a7133", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 99.144, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 520.2, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 520.2, + 167.67000000000002 + ], + [ + 99.144, + 167.67000000000002 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT TWO \nHuman Trafficking \u2014 Trafficking an Individual \nConspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act \n14V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq. and 14 V.I.0 \u00a7133", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 119.14500000000001, + 112.59 + ], + [ + 535.3613891601562, + 112.59 + ], + [ + 535.3613891601562, + 169.30706787109375 + ], + [ + 119.14500000000001, + 169.30706787109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT THREE \nHuman Trafficking \u2014 Forced Labor \nViolation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (\"CICO\"), \n14V.1.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.; and 14 V.I.0 \u00a7134", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 116.892, + 110.16000000000003 + ], + [ + 539.1094970703125, + 110.16000000000003 + ], + [ + 539.1094970703125, + 167.63873291015625 + ], + [ + 116.892, + 167.63873291015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT FOUR \nHuman Trafficking \u2014 Forced Labor \nConspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, \n14V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.; and 14 V.I.0 \u00a7134", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 114.444, + 219.51 + ], + [ + 533.5747680664062, + 219.51 + ], + [ + 533.5747680664062, + 277.69000244140625 + ], + [ + 114.444, + 277.69000244140625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT FIVE \nHuman Trafficking \u2014 Sexual Servitude \nViolation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (\"CICO\"), \n14V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seg.; 14 V.I.0 \u00a7135", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 114.444, + 204.93 + ], + [ + 537.5348510742188, + 204.93 + ], + [ + 537.5348510742188, + 262.9359130859375 + ], + [ + 114.444, + 262.9359130859375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT SIX \nHuman Trafficking\u2014 Sexual Servitude \nConspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act \n14V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 \u00a7135", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 25, + "polygon": [ + [ + 99.144, + 331.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 515.3941650390625, + 331.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 515.3941650390625, + 388.9359130859375 + ], + [ + 99.144, + 388.9359130859375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT SEVEN \nHuman Trafficking \u2014 Patronizing Minors and Victims of Sexual Servitude \nViolation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (\"CICO\"), \n14V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 \u00a7\u00a7 136-37", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 111.02000000000001, + 456.59299999999996 + ], + [ + 533.0716552734375, + 456.59299999999996 + ], + [ + 533.0716552734375, + 515.3197937011719 + ], + [ + 111.02000000000001, + 515.3197937011719 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT EIGHT \nHuman Trafficking \u2014 Patronizing Minors and Victims of Sexual Servitude \nConspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act \n14V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 \u00a7\u00a7 136-37", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 110.838, + 523.26 + ], + [ + 527.394, + 523.26 + ], + [ + 527.394, + 581.3905792236328 + ], + [ + 110.838, + 581.3905792236328 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT NINE \nChild Abuse and Neglect \nViolation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (\"CICO\"), \n14V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 \u00a7\u00a7 505, 506 and 507", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 28, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.92699999999999, + 620.46 + ], + [ + 511.8832702636719, + 620.46 + ], + [ + 511.8832702636719, + 678.1338119506836 + ], + [ + 95.92699999999999, + 678.1338119506836 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT TEN", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 29, + "polygon": [ + [ + 264.563, + 593.73 + ], + [ + 341.9512634277344, + 593.73 + ], + [ + 341.9512634277344, + 607.1558990478516 + ], + [ + 264.563, + 607.1558990478516 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Child Abuse and Neglect", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 29, + "polygon": [ + [ + 237.06799999999998, + 607.5 + ], + [ + 369.0768737792969, + 607.5 + ], + [ + 369.0768737792969, + 623.7068481445312 + ], + [ + 237.06799999999998, + 623.7068481445312 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, \n14V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 \u00a7\u00a7 505, 506 and 507", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 29, + "polygon": [ + [ + 94.094, + 619.6500000000001 + ], + [ + 512.3875122070312, + 619.6500000000001 + ], + [ + 512.3875122070312, + 651.1068267822266 + ], + [ + 94.094, + 651.1068267822266 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT ELEVEN \nAggravated Rape \nViolation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (\"CICO\"), \n14V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 \u00a7 1700a", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 31, + "polygon": [ + [ + 96.96000000000001, + 109.35000000000001 + ], + [ + 514.7147827148438, + 109.35000000000001 + ], + [ + 514.7147827148438, + 167.24853515625 + ], + [ + 96.96000000000001, + 167.24853515625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT TWELVE \nAggravated Rape \nConspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, \n14V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 \u00a7 1700a", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 32, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.838, + 111.78000000000002 + ], + [ + 524.3079223632812, + 111.78000000000002 + ], + [ + 524.3079223632812, + 168.7459716796875 + ], + [ + 104.838, + 168.7459716796875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT THIRTEEN \nRape in the Second Degree \nViolation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (\"CICO\"), \n14 V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 \u00a7 1702", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 33, + "polygon": [ + [ + 97.28, + 208.17000000000002 + ], + [ + 514.12109375, + 208.17000000000002 + ], + [ + 514.12109375, + 264.88946533203125 + ], + [ + 97.28, + 264.88946533203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT FOURTEEN \nRape in the Second Degree \nConspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, \n14V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 \u00a7 1702", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 34, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.184, + 207.36 + ], + [ + 524.4007568359375, + 207.36 + ], + [ + 524.4007568359375, + 264.88983154296875 + ], + [ + 105.184, + 264.88983154296875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT FIFTEEN \nUnlawful Sexual Contact in the First or Second Degree \nViolation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (\"CICO\"), \n14V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 \u00a7\u00a7 1708 and 1709", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 35, + "polygon": [ + [ + 96.06400000000001, + 275.40000000000003 + ], + [ + 513.6315307617188, + 275.40000000000003 + ], + [ + 513.6315307617188, + 333.5106201171875 + ], + [ + 96.06400000000001, + 333.5106201171875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT SIXTEEN \nUnlawful Sexual Contact in the First or Second Degree \nConspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, \n14V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 \u00a7\u00a7 1708 and 1709", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 36, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.57600000000001, + 261.63 + ], + [ + 524.71630859375, + 261.63 + ], + [ + 524.71630859375, + 319.2693176269531 + ], + [ + 104.57600000000001, + 319.2693176269531 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT SEVENTEEN \nProstitution and Keeping House of Prostitution \nViolation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (\"CICO\"), \n14V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.: 14 V.I.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1622, 1624", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.004, + 286.74 + ], + [ + 517.0745239257812, + 286.74 + ], + [ + 517.0745239257812, + 345.8163757324219 + ], + [ + 95.004, + 345.8163757324219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT EIGHTEEN", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 39, + "polygon": [ + [ + 249.47699999999995, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 365.59222412109375, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 365.59222412109375, + 124.3414306640625 + ], + [ + 249.47699999999995, + 124.3414306640625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Prostitution and Keeping House of Prostitution", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 39, + "polygon": [ + [ + 182.1, + 123.12 + ], + [ + 430.8852844238281, + 123.12 + ], + [ + 430.8852844238281, + 140.329833984375 + ], + [ + 182.1, + 140.329833984375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, \n14V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.: 14 V.I.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1622, 1624.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 39, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.61799999999998, + 137.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 526.5936889648438, + 137.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 526.5936889648438, + 168.23687744140625 + ], + [ + 105.61799999999998, + 168.23687744140625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT NINETEEN", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 40, + "polygon": [ + [ + 244.824, + 400.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 361.49200439453125, + 400.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 361.49200439453125, + 414.57940673828125 + ], + [ + 244.824, + 414.57940673828125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Sex Offender Registry", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 40, + "polygon": [ + [ + 244.824, + 414.72 + ], + [ + 363.5049743652344, + 414.72 + ], + [ + 363.5049743652344, + 430.6180419921875 + ], + [ + 244.824, + 430.6180419921875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (\"CICO\"), \n14V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.: 14 V.I.C. \u00a7 1721 et seq.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 40, + "polygon": [ + [ + 93.324, + 428.49 + ], + [ + 516.115234375, + 428.49 + ], + [ + 516.115234375, + 461.6077880859375 + ], + [ + 93.324, + 461.6077880859375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT TWENTY \nFraudulent Conveyance", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 41, + "polygon": [ + [ + 238.764, + 179.82 + ], + [ + 368.9273986816406, + 179.82 + ], + [ + 368.9273986816406, + 209.52886962890625 + ], + [ + 238.764, + 209.52886962890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (\"CICO\"), \n14 V.I.C. \u00a7 600 a seq.: 14 V.I.C. \u00a7\u00a7 832-833", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 41, + "polygon": [ + [ + 92.71799999999999, + 206.54999999999998 + ], + [ + 517.2196655273438, + 206.54999999999998 + ], + [ + 517.2196655273438, + 239.04974365234375 + ], + [ + 92.71799999999999, + 239.04974365234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT TWENTY-ONE \nFraudulent Conveyance \nConspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, \n14 V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.: 14 V.I.C. \u00a7\u00a7 832-833", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 42, + "polygon": [ + [ + 93.478, + 400.14 + ], + [ + 512.33447265625, + 400.14 + ], + [ + 512.33447265625, + 461.1565246582031 + ], + [ + 93.478, + 461.1565246582031 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT TWENTY-TWO \nCivil Conspiracy", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 44, + "polygon": [ + [ + 239.337, + 137.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 376.81451416015625, + 137.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 376.81451416015625, + 166.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 239.337, + 166.85999999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Notice of Allegation of \nPUNITIVE DAMAGES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 45, + "polygon": [ + [ + 260.652, + 110.16000000000003 + ], + [ + 388.87017822265625, + 110.16000000000003 + ], + [ + 388.87017822265625, + 137.8194580078125 + ], + [ + 260.652, + 137.8194580078125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRAYER FOR RELIEF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 45, + "polygon": [ + [ + 236.90099999999998, + 483.57 + ], + [ + 367.17578125, + 483.57 + ], + [ + 367.17578125, + 497.5219421386719 + ], + [ + 236.90099999999998, + 497.5219421386719 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 230 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 342 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 320 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 357 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 368 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 338 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 330 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 328 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 322 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 354 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 341 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 346 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 358 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 308 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 291 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 368 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 354 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 348 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 342 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 313 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 269 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 302 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 322 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 281 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 324 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 309 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 317 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 279 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 319 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 309 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 292 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 289 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 286 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 277 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 277 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 320 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 321 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 301 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 38, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 262 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 39, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 332 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 40, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 307 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 41, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 318 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 42, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 270 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 43, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 332 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 44, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 221 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 45, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 272 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 46, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 349 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 47, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 233 + ], + [ + "Text", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 48, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Span", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Line", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751057" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751106/EFTA02751106.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751106/EFTA02751106.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c78d3fb1c56322b86cc8b8982c93a53677942510 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751106/EFTA02751106.md @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +## KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla United States District Court Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +The Honorable Debra Freeman United States District Court Southern District of New York Daniel Moynihan Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 + +NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 + +TEL (212) 763-0883 I FAX (212) 564-0883 + +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM + +DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0884 + +DIRECT EMAIL rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com + +January 15, 2020 + +Re: Doe v. Indyke et at, No. 19-cv-8673-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) + +Dear Judges Failla and Freeman: + +We represent PlaintiffJane Doe in the above-captioned action. We write to respond to the letter submitted by Defendants on January 12, 2020 (Doc. No. 43), and to respectfully request that the Court enter the joint proposed discovery schedule in this case (Doc. No. 42-1), which will allow the parties to begin discovery before the conference that has been scheduled for February I I, 2020, at which time, of course, the Court may modify the schedule if it sees fit to do so for any reason. + +First, Defendants' letter typifies their relentless efforts to deflect plaintiffs' legitimate questions about how much money is in the Estate and how much the proposed Victim's Compensation Program (the "Program") will have access to. Defendants, through their counsel in this litigation and through the selected Program Administrators, have repeatedly asked plaintiffs to blindly accept their assurances that the Program will be allocated sufficient money to settle all claims and will be "open-ended" regarded amounts awarded. (See, e.g.. Doc. No. 42 at 2; Doc. No. 42-4 at 2; Doc. No. 42-5 at I.) But, as President Reagan is famous for saying, "Trust, but verify." Here, Defendants have repeatedly refused to provide the factual basis for these assurances. This time, they suggest that they cannot answer these questions because "only + +[Roberta] Kaplan and plaintiffs' counsel know the number of other individuals who intend to file additional claims, as well as the nature and scope of those claims." This assertion is, obviously, factually inaccurate, but it is also irrelevant: the number of claims that will be filed through the Program is a distinct question from the amount of money that is available to settle those claims. + +In their letter, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's "fixation on the total amount available in the Program is misguided." This could not be further from the truth. The amount of money available in the Program is critical to Plaintiff's ability to assess whether the Program is viable. This concern is underlined by a Complaint filed against the Estate only today by the Attorney General for the Virgin Islands, which seeks, among other things, forfeiture of Estate assets and compensatory, punitive, and treble damages against the Estate. (Ex. A at 48.) The Complaint specifically addresses the Program, describing it as a continuation of the Estate's "course of conduct aimed at concealing the criminal activities of the Epstein Enterprise . . . and shield[ing] its participants from liability and accountability." (Id., at 18.) The New York Times reports that this lawsuit "seeks to head off an effort by Mr. Epstein's executor, Mr. Indyke, to turn Mr. Epstein's vast wealth into a victim's compensatory fund."' Particularly in light of these recent developments, plaintiffs deserve to know whether the Program is viable before they decide to participate, and this Court deserves to know whether Defendants are negotiating in good faith. + +Second, with regard to the status of discovery, Plaintiff respectfully requests that she be allowed to move forward. The sixteen cases currently pending against the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of New York are all in very different stages of litigation. Two cases have already been stayed by agreement of the parties. Doe 1 et al v. Jeffrey Epstein et at, 19-cv-07675-GBD-DCF (S.D.N.Y.); Doe 17 v. Indyke et at, 19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF (S.D.N.Y.). One was filed recently, on December 27, 2019. Anastasia Doe v. Indyke et at 19 cv-11869 (MN). In twelve of the remaining thirteen cases, there are pending motions to dismiss challenging the adequacy of the plaintiffs' substantive claims and/or allegations. In those twelve cases, the parties mutually agreed to postpone the commencement of discovery for at least another month.2 + +Plaintiff's case is differently situated in significant respects. None of the causes of action or allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint has been challenged as a matter of law: Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss—which is more appropriately styled as a motion to strike under Fed. R. Civ. P. I2(0—concerns only the availability of punitive damages, a single aspect of the relief sought by Plaintiff and not even (obviously) the only damages being sought. (Doc. No. 35.). There is a short briefing schedule in place for this motion and in the interim Judge Failla ordered that discovery in this case is not stayed. (See Doc. No. 39.) As described in Plaintiff's status report, the scope of discovery in this case is narrow (Doc. No. 42) and, because + +I Lemma: Claims Epstein Trafficked Girls in Caribbean Until 2018, NEW YORK TIMES, Jan. 15, 2020. + +2 VE v. Nine East 71st Street et al., No. 19-cv-07625 (MN) (DF); Katlyn Doe v. Indyke et at, No. 19-cv-07771 (PKC) (DF); Priscilla Doe v. lndyke et at, NO. 19-cv-07772 (ALC) (OF); Lisa Doe v. lndyke et at, No. 19-cv-07773 (ER) 01 aF Jane Doe v. Indyke et at, No. 19-cv-08673 (Kai; v. lndyke et at, No. 19-cv-10475 (LGSXDF);= v. Indyke et at, No. I9-cv-10476 (PGG) (DF); v. Indyke et at., No. 19-cv-10479 (ALC) (DF); Jane Doe 1000 v. lndyke et at, No. 19-cv-10577 (LGS) (OF); Jane Doe 15 v. Indyke et al., No. 19-cv-10653 (PAE) (OF); Mary Doe v. Indyke et at, No. 19-cv-10758 (PAE) (DF); v. Indyke et at, No. 19-cv-10788 (GHW) (OF); Anastasia Doe v. Indyke et at, No. 19-cv-11869 (MN) (DF). + +## KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LEP + +Defendants' motion does not relate to any of the defendants or causes of action in Plaintiff's complaint, will not be influenced by the pending motion practice. + +a + +Accordingly, the parties in this case have met and conferred and have agreed on a proposed discovery schedule, which was submitted to Judge Freeman for approval on January 10, 2020. (Doc. No. 42-1.) Yesterday, Judge Freeman entered an Order scheduling a pretrial conference for February 11, 2020, and instructing the parties to the other twelve cases covered by the Order to submit a proposed discovery schedule before then. (Doc. No. 44.) As the parties in the other twelve cases make those submissions in advance of the conference, Plaintiff here respectfully requests that the Court enter the joint proposed discovery order already submitted in this case (Doc. No. 42-1), so that discovery may begin, consistent with Judge Failla's order that discovery is not stayed. Of course, Plaintiff will then attend the conference scheduled for February 1 I, 2020, and, as the Court has requested, will be prepared to address the question of whether the pending cases should be treated differently for scheduling purposes. At that time, of course, the Court may modify the discovery schedule in this case, should it see fit to do so. Plaintiff merely asks that she be allowed to move forward in the interim according to the agreed schedule submitted by both parties. + +Respectfully submitted, + +Roberta A. Kaplan + +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751106/EFTA02751106.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751106/EFTA02751106.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ec0a20e2eb05e81e9cd3c7b44863c0bd91279f3b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751106/EFTA02751106.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,235 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751106.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 7523, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.95, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 33.048, + 39.28936767578125 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 39.28936767578125 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 63.94818115234375 + ], + [ + 33.048, + 63.94818115234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 124.12138366699219, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 124.12138366699219, + 251.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 251.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLI) 2", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.884, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 534.3894653320312, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 534.3894653320312, + 64.3450927734375 + ], + [ + 34.884, + 64.3450927734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LEP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.884, + 44.55 + ], + [ + 242.49974060058594, + 44.55 + ], + [ + 242.49974060058594, + 63.40087890625 + ], + [ + 34.884, + 63.40087890625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 112 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751106" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751109/EFTA02751109.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751109/EFTA02751109.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..da530a00921287dbd05f7121d785732b9174548d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751109/EFTA02751109.md @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, v. Plaintiff, DARREN INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Defendants. X 19 Civ. 8673 (KPF) (DCF) X + +## NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS + +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the accompanying Memorandum of Law and all prior pleadings and proceedings in this action, Defendants Darren,. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, will move this Court before the Hon. Katherine Polk Failla, United States District Judge, at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York 10007, at a time and place to be scheduled by this Court, for an Order pursuant to Rule 124(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff Jane Doe's claim for punitive damages in her Complaint (ECF No. 1); and for such other and further relief as may be just and proper. + +Dated: New York, New York Respectfully submitted, January 15, 2020 + +TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 + +By: /s/ Bennet J. Moskowitz Bennet J. Moskowitz + +Attorney for Defendants Darren. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751109/EFTA02751109.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751109/EFTA02751109.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ddeb9a3cc7672e6033a4aaf028359d6734f3f3fc --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751109/EFTA02751109.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751109.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1271, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.54, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 112.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 112.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 162.792, + 318.33 + ], + [ + 451.0120849609375, + 318.33 + ], + [ + 451.0120849609375, + 333.3630676269531 + ], + [ + 162.792, + 333.3630676269531 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751109" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751110/EFTA02751110.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751110/EFTA02751110.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..253fd5517005d55f67d0371ceca3828fd3aac40f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751110/EFTA02751110.md @@ -0,0 +1,247 @@ +#### SUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, v. Plaintiff, DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Defendants. X 19 Civ. 8673 (KPF) (DCF) + +## DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES + +TROUTMAN 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 + +# TABLE OF CONTENTS + +| | Page | +|-------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| TABLE OF AUTHORITIES PRELIMINARY STATEMENT | ii | +| FACTS | 2 | +| I. PLAINTIFF SEEKS PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST AN ESTATE FOR | | +| ALLEGED PERSONAL INJURIES CAUSED BY A DECEDENT | 2 | +| ARGUMENT | 2 | +| I. PLAINTIFF DOES NOT DISPUTE THAT A NEW YORK STATUTE BARS | | +| HER CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES | 2 | +| II. NEW YORK LAW APPLIES TO THE ISSUE OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES | | +| BECAUSE PLAINTIFF ALLEGES THE TORTS OCCURRED IN NEW YORK | 3 | +| III. EVEN IF USVI LAW APPLIES - WHICH IT DOES NOT- PUNITIVE | | +| DAMAGES ARE STILL UNAVAILABLE | 4 | +| 1. | Banks factor one: previously, USVI courts favorably cited the | +| estates | 5 | +| 2. | Banks factor two: a majority of U.S. jurisdictions do not permit an | +| decedent. | 5 | +| 3. | Banks factor three: Post-Banks, USVI courts have favorably | +| damages | 6 | +| IV. THIS MOTION IS PROCEDURALLY PROPER | 7 | +| a. | Courts in this District routinely dismiss punitive damages claims on Rule | +| 12(b)(6) motions. | 7 | +| b. | Even if the Court deems this Motion a motion to strike, it should grant the | +| relief requested | 8 | +| CONCLUSION | 10 | + +#### TABLE OF AUTHORITIES + +| Cases 944 F. Supp. 240 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) Banks v. Int'l Rental & Leasing Corp., 55 V.I. 967 (V.I. 2011) Blasetti v. Pietropolo, 213 F. Supp. 2d 425 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) Blissett v. Eisensmidt, 940 F. Supp. 449 (N.D.N.Y. 1996) Booth v. Bowen, Brady v. Port Auth., Dist. LEXIS 16548 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 1998) Brandy v. Flamboyant Inv. Co., Ltd., 24 V.I. 249 (V.I. Ten. Ct. 1989) Carmona v. Spanish Broad. System, Inc., 2008) Crabtree v. Estate of Crabtree, | Page(s) 9 9 4, 5, 6 7 1, 2, 4 5 8 6 9 8 | +|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------| +| 837 N.E.2d 135 (Ind. 2005) v. Christian, | 5 | +| 46 V.I. 557 (D.V.I. App. Div. 2005) Deutsch v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., | 6 | +| 723 F. Supp. 2d 521 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) | 3 | + +Gemerek v. Buffalo Sewer Auth., + +No. 99-CV-0879E(M), 2001 U.S. Dim. LEXIS 7167 (W.D.N.Y. May 21, 2001) 7 + +Gov't of Virgin Islands v. + +No. S. CT. CIV. 2013-0095, 2014 WL 702639 (V.I. Feb. 24, 2014) 4 + +Graham v. + +224 F.R.D. 59 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) 1, 2 + +Guidi v. Inter-Continental Hotels Corp., + +No. 95-CV-9006, 2003 U.S. Dim. LEXIS 6390 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2003) 3 + +v. Dowson Holding Co., + +51 V.I. 619 (D.V.I. 2009) 5 + +Isaac v. Crichlow, + +63 V.I. 38, 2015 V.I. LEXIS 15 (V.I. Super. Ct. 2015) 6 + +Kunica v. St Jean Fin., + +No. 97 Civ. 3804, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11867 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 1998) 7 + +In re Merrill Auction Rate Sec. Litig., + +851 F. Supp. 2d 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) 8 + +Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. v. Imaging Diagnostic Sys., + +176 F. Supp. 2d 199 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 8 + +Nash v. Comm Healthcare Corp., + +No. 96 Civ. 0298, 19% U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9101 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 19%) 8 + +Pappas v. Hotel on the Cay Time-Sharing Ass'n, + +69 V.I. 3 (Super. Ct. 2015) 6 + +v. Consumers Distrib. Co., + +648 F. Supp. 980 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) 7 + +SJB v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., + +No. 03 Civ. 6653, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13227 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2004) 7 + +St House, Inc. v. Barrows, + +15 V.I. 435 (V.I. Terr. Ct. 1979) 6 + +Starr Indent & Liab. Co. v. Am. Claims Mgmt, + +No. 14-cv-0463-JMF, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60272 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2015) 3 + +The Cookware Co. (USA), LLC v. Austin, + +No. 15 Civ. 5796, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177691 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2016) 7 + +v. Rijos, 780 F. Supp. 2d 376 (D.V.I. 2011) 6 + +Wine Mkts. Int'l v. Bass, 177 F.R.D. 128 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) 9 + +#### Statutes + +EFTL § 11-3.2 (a)(1) 1,2,3,4 + +New York General Construction Law § 37-a 3 + +## Other Authorities + +C. & A. 5C Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1380 (3d ed.) 8 + +Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) I, 2, 7, 8 + +Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(t) 8, 10 + +2 Linda L. Schlueter, Punitive Damages § 20.4 (7th ed. 2015) 5 + +Timothy R. Robicheaux and Brian H. Bornstein, Punished, Dead Or Alive: Empirical Perspectives on Awarding Punitive Damages Against Deceased Defendants, 16 Psych. Pub. Pol. and L. 393, 398 2010) 5-6 + +Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the "Co-Executors"),respectfully submit this memorandum of law in support of their motion to dismiss plaintiff Jane Doe's ("Plaintiff") claim for punitive damages pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). + +#### PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) asserts four personal injury causes of action against the Co-Executors and seeks, among other things, punitive damages. However, the claim for punitive damages fails as a matter of law. + +New York law and public policy preclude Plaintiffs punitive damages claim. The New York Estates, Powers and Trusts Law unequivocally provides: "For any injury, an action may be brought or continued against the personal representative of the decedent, but punitive damages shall not be awarded nor penalties adjudged in any such action brought to recover damages for personal injury." NY EPTL § 11-3.2 (a)(1) (emphasis added). That is the law in most U.S. jurisdictions, as reflected in the Restatement (Second) of Torts. See Renal. (Second) Of Tons § 908 cmt. a ("Punitive damages are not awarded against the representatives of a deceased tortfeasor."). "Also, 'there is a strong policy against the assessment of punitive damages against an estate on account of wrongful conduct of the decedent.'" Graham v. . 224 F.R.D. 59, 63 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) (quoting Blissett v. Eisensmidt, 940 F. Supp. 449, 457 (N.D.N.Y. 1996)). Because there are no facts that would render Plaintiffs punitive damages claim proper, there is no reason to allow it to stand. + +Plaintiff has never disputed that New York law bars her punitive damages claim. Rather, she attacks this motion on erroneous procedural and choice-of-law grounds. However, as explained below: (1) courts in this District have routinely dismissed punitive damages claims on motions under Rule 12; (2) courts in this District do not hesitate to strike requests for punitive + +damages; (3) New York law applies because Plaintiff alleges the torts against her took place in this District; and (4) in any event, punitive damages are unavailable under the law of the United States Virgin Islands ("USVI"), where the estate is being administered. + +## FACTS + +#### I. PLAINTIFF SEEKS PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST AN ESTATE FOR ALLEGED PERSONAL INJURIES CAUSED BY A DECEDENT + +Plaintiff sued the Co-Executors alleging that Jefferey Epstein, now deceased, sexually assaulted Plaintiff in his New York City residence. (Compl. at 3, 45.) Plaintiff asserts four personal injury causes of action based on Mr. Epstein's alleged conduct: sexual assault; sexual battery; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and, negligent infliction of emotional distress. (Id. 69-86.) Plaintiff seeks "actual, compensatory, statutory, consequential and punitive damages." (kl. 1 88.) + +## ARGUMENT + +## I. PLAINTIFF DOES NOT DISPUTE THAT A NEW YORK STATUTE BARS HER CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES + +In her pre-motion letter, Plaintiff did not dispute that New York law precludes her from recovering punitive damages from the Estate. Nor could Plaintiff make such an argument. + +The New York Estates, Powers and Trusts Law provides: + +No cause of action for injury to person or property is lost because of the death of the person liable for the injury. For any injury, an action may be brought or continued against the personal representative of the decedent, but punitive damages shall not be awarded nor penalties adjudged in any such action brought to recover damages for personal injury. + +NY EPTL § 11-3.2 (a)(1) (emphasis added). "Also, 'there is a strong policy against the assessment of punitive damages against an estate on account of wrongful conduct of the decedent.' Graham, 224 F.R.D. at 63 (quoting Blissett, 940 F. Supp. at 457). + +Plaintiff's Complaint is based entirely on her alleged personal injuries. New York + +General Construction Law § 37-a defines "personal injury" as including "an assault, battery, false imprisonment, or other actionable injury to the person either of the plaintiff, or of another." All of Plaintiff's causes of action seek damages for personal injury based on Plaintiff's core allegation that she "was sexually assaulted by Epstein countless times." (Compl. 42.) Therefore, per NY EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1), Plaintiff may not recover punitive damages from Mr. Epstein's Estate as a matter of law. + +## II. NEW YORK LAW APPLIES TO THE ISSUE OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES BECAUSE PLAINTIFF ALLEGES THE TORTS OCCURRED IN NEW YORK + +Tacitly conceding that New York law bars her punitive damages claim, Plaintiff asserts in her pm-motion letter that USVI law applies to the availability of such damages merely because Mr. Epstein's will is being probated there. Plaintiff is wrong for two independent reasons. + +First Plaintiff alleges the acts and omissions giving rise to her causes of action occurred entirely in New York. (Comp]. ¶1 15, 22.) Therefore, New York law—including NY EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1)—applies to the issue of punitive damages. See Starr Indent. & Liab. Co. v. Am. Claims Mgtnt., No. 14-cv-0463-JMF, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60272, \*7 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2015) ("Because punitive damages are conduct-regulating, 'the law of the jurisdiction where the tort occurred will generally apply.") (quoting Deutsch v. Novartis Phatms. Corp., 723 F. Supp. 2d 521, 524 (E.D.N.Y. 2010); Guidi v. Inter-Continental Hotels Corp., No. 95-CV-9006, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6390, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2003)). + +Second,Plaintiff is not permitted to avail herself of parts of NY EPTL § I I-3.2(a)(1) while disregarding others. Plaintiff is only permitted to bring her causes of action against the Estate because of the first sentence of NY EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1): + +No cause of action for injury to person or property is lost because of the death of the person liable for the injury. For any injury, an action may be brought or continued against the personal representative of the decedent, but punitive damages shall not be awarded nor penalties adjudged in any such action brought to recover + +damages for personal injury. This section extends to a cause of action for wrongfully causing death and an action therefor may be brought or continued against the personal representative of the person liable therefor. + +NY EPTL § 11-3.2(aX1) (emphasis added). + +By arguing New York law does not apply to the issue of punitive damages, however, Plaintiff effectively asks the Court to apply the first sentence of § 11-3.2(a)(1), permitting her to bring this case, but to disregard the very next sentence precluding punitive damages. In Blissett, the Court expressly rejected such an "anomalous situation." 940 F. Supp. at 457 ("[I]t would be an anomalous situation indeed if plaintiff were allowed to proceed with this section 1983 action against the estate of because of section 11-3.2(aX1), while at the same time he was allowed to recover relief in the form of punitive damages, which clearly is beyond the scope of relief which that statute authorizes."). + +# III. EVEN IF USVI LAW APPLIES - WHICH IT DOES NOT - PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARE STILL UNAVAILABLE + +Even if USVI law applies, an award of punitive damages would not be available against Mr. Epstein's Estate. In 2011, the Supreme Court of the USVI effectively instructed USVI courts to apply what is now known as a "Banks analysis" to determine U.S.V.I. common law. Banks v. Int'l Rental & Leasing Corp., 55 V.I. 967, 979 (V.I. 2011). The Banks analysis includes consideration of three non-dispositive factors: (1) whether any USVI courts have previously adopted a particular rule; (2) the position taken by a majority of courts of other jurisdictions; and (3) most importantly, which approach represents the soundest rule for the USVI. Gov't of Virgin Islands v. M, No. S. CT. CIV. 2013-0095, 2014 WL 702639, at \*1 (V.I. Feb. 24, 2014). + +Applying the Banks factors here demonstrates that USVI courts would adopt the rule in the Restatement (Second) of Torts—which is also followed in the majority of United States + +jurisdictions, including New York—and hold that punitive damages are not available against a deceased tortfeasor's estate. + +## 1. Banks factor one: previously, USVI courts favorably cited the Restatement section that precludes punitive damages against estates. + +USVI courts have favorably recited the Restatement's rule precluding punitive damages against a decedent tortfeasor's estate. See, e.g., v. Dowson Holding Co., 51 V.I. 619, 628 (D.V.I. 2009); Booth v. Bowen, No. CIV. 2006-217, 2008 WL 220067, at \*5 (D.V.I. Jan. 10, 2008). In these cases, the U.S. District Court of the Virgin Islands considered the inverse of the issue here, i.e., whether the personal representatives of an estate may obtain punitive damages in an action arising from the decedent's wrongful death. In determining that punitive damages were not available under such circumstances, the courts cited the Restatement, which provides that "(pJunitive damages are not awarded against the representatives of a deceased tortfeasor nor, ordinarily, in an action under a death statute." Resta:. (Second) of Tons § 908 cmt. a (emphasis added). Accordingly, this Banks factor favors the Estate. + +#### 2. Banks factor two: a majority of U.S. jurisdictions do not permit an award of punitive damages based on the wrongful acts of a decedent. + +This Banks factor overwhelmingly supports the Estate's position. The majority of U.S. jurisdictions do not permit an award of punitive damages against the personal representatives of an estate based on the actions of the deceased tortfeasor. See Crabtree v. Estate of Crabtree, 837 N.E.2d 135, 138 (Ind. 2005) ("The majority view denies punitive damages."); 2 Linda L. Schlueter, Punitive Damages § 20.4 (7th ed. 2015) ("[A] majority of jurisdictions will not award punitive damages against a deceased tortfeasor's estate." (citing Alec A. Beech, Adding Insult to Death: Why Punitive Damages Should Not Be Imposed Against a Deceased Tortfeasor's Estate in Ohio, 49 Akron L. Rev. 553 (2016))); Timothy R. Robicheaux and Brian H. Bornstein, Punished, Dead Or Alive: Empirical Perspectives on Awarding Punitive Damages Against + +Deceased Defendants, 16 Psych. Pub. Pol. and L. 393, 398 (2010) ("The Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965) is one authority stating that punitive damages should not follow the death of a wrongdoer, and the majority of courts considering the issue have provided rulings consistent with this position."). + +## 3. Banks factor three: Post-Banks, USVI courts have favorably applied Restatement Section 908 to questions regarding punitive damages. + +The third Banks factor weighs strongly in favor of the Estate as well. Post-Banks, USVI Courts have already found that Section 908 of the Restatement is "the soundest rule for the Virgin Islands with respect to the imposition of an award of punitive damages." Pappas v. Hotel on the Cay Time-Sharing Ass'n, 69 V.I. 3, 15 n.8 (U.S.V.I. Super. Ct. 2015) (citing v. Christian, 46 V.I. 557 (D.V.I. App. Div. 2005), Isaac v. Crichlow, 63 V.I. 38, 2015 V.I. LEXIS 15 (V.I. Super. Ct. 2015), St. House, Inc. v. Barrows, 15 V.I. 435 (V.I. Tern Ct. 1979), Brandy v. Flamboyant Inv. Co., Ltd., 24 V.I. 249 (V.I. Ten. Ct. 1989), and v. Rijos, 780 F. Supp. 2d 376, 380 (D.V.I. 2011)); Powell v. Chi-Co's Distrib., No. ST-13-TOR-14, 2014 V.I. LEXIS 21, at \*5 n.13 (U.S.V.I. Super. Ct. Apr. 3, 2014) ("Applying a Banks analysis, the Court finds that Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908(2) reflects the common law of this jurisdiction."). + +\* \* \* + +In conclusion, every Banks factor favors the Estate: (1) pre-Banks, USVI courts expressed approval for the general rule that punitive damages cannot be recovered against a wrongdoer's estate; (2) the majority of courts from other jurisdictions preclude punitive damages against a wrongdoer's estate; and (3) post-Banks, USVI courts have held that Section 908 of the Restatement of Torts (Second) represents the soundest rule for the USVI with respect to the availability of punitive damages. + +#### IV. THIS MOTION IS PROCEDURALLY PROPER + +#### a. Courts in this District routinely dismiss punitive damages claims on Rule 12(6)(6) motions. + +Plaintiff's pm-motion letter also argues that a motion to dismiss punitive damages is more properly styled a motion to strike. However, courts in this District regularly grant motions to dismiss punitive damages. See, e.g., The Cookware Co. (USA), LLC v. Austin, No. 15 Civ. 5796, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177691, at \*17 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2016) (Batts, J.) (granting motion to dismiss claim for punitive damages without leave to replead because allegations regarding defendant's bad faith conduct were conclusory and did not rise to the required level of malice); SJB v. N.Y.C. Dept of Educ., No. 03 Civ. 6653, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13227, at \*25-26 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2004) (Buchwald, J.) (granting motion to dismiss punitive damages claims because punitive damages were not statutorily available); Kunica v. St. Jean Fin., 97 Civ. 3804, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11867, at \*26 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 1998) (Sweet, J.) (granting motion to dismiss claim for punitive damages because even if conduct alleged in complaint was true, it did not rise to the level necessary to award punitive damages); v. Consumers Distrib. Co., 648 F. Supp. 980, 981, 984 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (Cedarbaum, J.) (granting motion to dismiss claim for punitive damages); see also Gemerek v. Buffalo Sewer Auth., No. 99-CV-0879E(M), 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7167, \*14 (W.D.N.Y. May 21, 2001) (granting motion to dismiss punitive damages). Judge Kaplan, whom Plaintiff references in her pre-motion letter, has granted a motion to dismiss punitive damages. See Blasetti v. Pietropolo, 213 F. Supp. 2d 425, 431-32 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) ("The motion ... to dismiss the complaint is granted to the extent that plaintiff's claim for punitive damages ... is dismissed."). + +Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) provides for motions to strike "an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." The Estate does not contend that Plaintiff's request for punitive damages is redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous. Rather, Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages fails as a matter of law. + +## b. Even if the Court deems this Motion a motion to strike, it should grant the relief requested. + +Even if the Court deems this Motion a motion to strike pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), it should still grant the relief requested. See C. & A. 5C Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1380 (3d ed.) ("[T]he technical name given to a motion challenging a pleading is of little importance inasmuch as prejudice to the nonmoving party hardly can result from treating a motion that has been inaccurately denominated a motion to strike as a motion to dismiss the complaint."). + +Contrary to Plaintiffs assertions in her pre-motion letter, motions to strike punitive damages are not disfavored. Courts in the Second Circuit, including in this District, routinely grant motions to strike punitive damages at the pleadings stage. See, e.g., In re Merrill Auction Rate Sec. Litig., 851 F. Supp. 2d 512, 544 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (granting defendant's motion to strike sections of first amended complaint asserting punitive damages); Nash v. Corarn Healthcare Corp., No. 96 Civ. 0298 (LMM), 19% U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9101, at \*15 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 1996) ("The motion to strike the punitive damages prayer from the Complaint is granted."); Cerveceria Modelo, S.A. de C.V. v. USPA Accessories LLC, No. 07 Civ. 7998 (HB), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28999, at \*21-22 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2008) ("Because Defendant has failed to allege that Plaintiff's conduct was egregious and directed at the public generally, its claim for punitive damages cannot proceed."); Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. v. Imaging Diagnostic Sys., 176 F. Supp. 2d 199, 207 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (granting motion to strike punitive damages because plaintiff did not allege egregious conduct in complaint); see also Brady v. Port Auth., Nos. 87 CV 2702 (NG)(CLP), 93 CV 1679 (NG)(CLP), 95 CV 0442 (NG)(CLP), 1998 + +U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16548, at \*9 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 1998) (granting Port Authority's motion to strike plaintiff's claims for punitive damages). + +None of the cases cited in Plaintiff's pre-motion letter held that motions to strike punitive damages were disfavored or "time-wasters"; in fact, none of them involved motions to strike punitive damages at all. Plaintiffs first case, Wine Mkts. Int'l v. Bass, 177 F.R.D. 128, 133 (E.D.N.Y. 1998), involved a motion to strike all references to price-fixing in the complaint as immaterial because the price-fixing claims had been dismissed. The Wine Markets court observed that motions to strike "portions of a complaint" are disfavored because they are often sought by the movant as a dilatory tactic. Id. Notwithstanding its observation, the court granted the motion to strike in part. Id. at 135. + +Plaintiff's second case, Bank Brussels Lambert v. Credit Lyonnais (Suisse) S.A., No. 93 CIV 6876 LMM, 200 WL 1876916, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2000), involved a motion to strike affirmative defenses. The court summarily held that Rule 12(f) motions were disfavored, citing American Buying Insurance Services, Inc. v. S. Kornreich & Sons, Inc.—a case involving a motion to strike portions of a complaint that were deemed irrelevant. 944 F. Supp. 240, 250 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). + +Finally, Plaintiff's third case, Cannon v. Spanish Broad. System, Inc., No. 08 Civ. 4475, 2009 WL 890054, at \*10 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2009), involved a motion to strike an "immaterial" paragraph in the complaint. The court acknowledged that motions to strike are often disfavored but also addressed the motion on the merits, denying it because the paragraph in question had "possible bearing" on the allegations in the complaint and at any rate did not prejudice defendants. + +Here, the Estate does not seek merely to strike an insufficient defense or immaterial + +portion of Plaintiff's complaint. Rather, the Estate asks this Court to strike an improper claim for punitive damages that is unavailable by statute and otherwise, and which thus can and should be disposed of on the pleadings. + +Nor is the Estate's motion a dilatory tactic. On the contrary, removing Plaintiff's punitive damages demand will serve to streamline the issues here. The only "time-waster" would be if Plaintiff were permitted to seek to conduct discovery to support a prohibited claim for punitive damages. Further, if Plaintiff decides not to take part in the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program, striking the improper punitive damages request will substantially help the parties appropriately value their respective positions and thus aid in settlement. + +# CONCLUSION + +Based on the foregoing, the Co-Executors respectfully request that the Court grant their motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages with prejudice or, alternatively, strike that claim, together with such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. + +Dated: New York, New York Respectfully submitted, January 15, 2020 + +TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 + +By: /s/ Bennet J. Moskowitz Bennet J. Moskowitz + +Attorney for Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751110/EFTA02751110.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751110/EFTA02751110.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5b52c8bd8d4fbf4e3b8a7ddbbc7db8b8d4c1ae93 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751110/EFTA02751110.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1047 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751110.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 15, + "chars": 27970, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.5, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "SUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 112.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 112.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR \nMOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 102.81600000000002, + 318.33 + ], + [ + 509.80706787109375, + 318.33 + ], + [ + 509.80706787109375, + 347.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 102.81600000000002, + 347.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 239.29200000000003, + 51.84 + ], + [ + 374.5343933105469, + 51.84 + ], + [ + 374.5343933105469, + 68.60302734375 + ], + [ + 239.29200000000003, + 68.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 383.5578918457031, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 383.5578918457031, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Statutes", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.768, + 151.47 + ], + [ + 117.18220520019531, + 151.47 + ], + [ + 117.18220520019531, + 165.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.768, + 165.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Other Authorities", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.768, + 228.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 167.3088836669922, + 228.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 167.3088836669922, + 242.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.768, + 242.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 219.70799999999997, + 180.63 + ], + [ + 391.921630859375, + 180.63 + ], + [ + 391.921630859375, + 194.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 219.70799999999997, + 194.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FACTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 282.744, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 329.1360168457031, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 329.1360168457031, + 169.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 282.744, + 169.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. PLAINTIFF SEEKS PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST AN ESTATE FOR \nALLEGED PERSONAL INJURIES CAUSED BY A DECEDENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 180.63 + ], + [ + 499.8946228027344, + 180.63 + ], + [ + 499.8946228027344, + 208.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 208.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 385.55999999999995 + ], + [ + 344.63134765625, + 385.55999999999995 + ], + [ + 344.63134765625, + 400.10302734375 + ], + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 400.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. PLAINTIFF DOES NOT DISPUTE THAT A NEW YORK STATUTE BARS HER \nCLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 410.6700000000001 + ], + [ + 537.948, + 410.6700000000001 + ], + [ + 537.948, + 439.863037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 439.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. NEW YORK LAW APPLIES TO THE ISSUE OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES \nBECAUSE PLAINTIFF ALLEGES THE TORTS OCCURRED IN NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 526.4738159179688, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 526.4738159179688, + 265.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 265.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. EVEN IF USVI LAW APPLIES - WHICH IT DOES NOT - PUNITIVE \nDAMAGES ARE STILL UNAVAILABLE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 371.79 + ], + [ + 483.7373046875, + 371.79 + ], + [ + 483.7373046875, + 401.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 401.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Banks factor one: previously, USVI courts favorably cited the \nRestatement section that precludes punitive damages against estates.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 533.9591674804688, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 533.9591674804688, + 155.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 155.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Banks factor two: a majority of U.S. jurisdictions do not permit an \naward of punitive damages based on the wrongful acts of a decedent.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 442.26000000000005 + ], + [ + 535.0977172851562, + 442.26000000000005 + ], + [ + 535.0977172851562, + 470.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 470.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Banks factor three: Post-Banks, USVI courts have favorably applied \nRestatement Section 908 to questions regarding punitive damages.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 531.73291015625, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 531.73291015625, + 210.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 210.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. THIS MOTION IS PROCEDURALLY PROPER", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 365.3395690917969, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 365.3395690917969, + 86.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 86.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "a. Courts in this District routinely dismiss punitive damages claims on Rule \n12(6)(6) motions.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 97.19999999999999 + ], + [ + 520.63330078125, + 97.19999999999999 + ], + [ + 520.63330078125, + 125.68359375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 125.68359375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "b. Even if the Court deems this Motion a motion to strike, it should grant the \nrelief requested.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 526.9418334960938, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 526.9418334960938, + 155.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 155.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 350.49066162109375, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 350.49066162109375, + 334.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 334.18353271484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 43 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "TableOfContents", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 32 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751110" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751125/EFTA02751125.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751125/EFTA02751125.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..143c3f475c08e8414e780c1337520327f5e7ae15 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751125/EFTA02751125.md @@ -0,0 +1,71 @@ +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +350 FIFTH AVENUE | SUITE 7110 +NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 +TEL (212) 763-0883 | FAX (212) 564-0883 +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM + +![](_page_0_Picture_20.jpeg) + +DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0884 +DIRECT EMAIL rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com + +January 15, 2020 + +**VIA ECF** + +The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla +United States District Court +Southern District of New York +Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse +40 Foley Square +New York, NY 10007 + +*The parties to this action are directed to exchange initial disclosures present to Fed. R.Civ. P. 26(a)(1) no late then 2/5/2020. This court will take up additional schedule matter at the conference scheduled for 2/11/2020.* + +The Honorable Debra Freeman +United States District Court +Southern District of New York +Daniel [REDACTED] Moynihan Courthouse +500 Pearl Street +New York, NY 10007 + +**SO ORDERED: DATE: 1/21/2020** + +----- *[Signature]* ----- +DEBRA FREEMAN +UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE + +*Re: Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 19-cv-8673-KPF (S.D.N.Y.)* + +Dear Judges Failla and Freeman: + +We represent Plaintiff Jane Doe in the above-captioned action. We write to respond to the letter submitted by Defendants on January 12, 2020 (Doc. No. 43), and to respectfully request that the Court enter the joint proposed discovery schedule in this case (Doc. No. 42-1), which will allow the parties to begin discovery before the conference that has been scheduled for February 11, 2020, at which time, of course, the Court may modify the schedule if it sees fit to do so for any reason. + +First, Defendants' letter typifies their relentless efforts to deflect plaintiffs' legitimate questions about how much money is in the Estate and how much the proposed Victim's Compensation Program (the "Program") will have access to. Defendants, through their counsel in this litigation and through the selected Program Administrators, have repeatedly asked plaintiffs to blindly accept their assurances that the Program will be allocated sufficient money to settle all claims and will be "open-ended" regarded amounts awarded. (See, e.g., Doc. No. 42 at 2; Doc. No. 42-4 at 2; Doc. No. 42-5 at 1.) But, as President Reagan is famous for saying, "Trust, but verify." Here, Defendants have repeatedly refused to provide the factual basis for these assurances. This time, they suggest that they cannot answer these questions because "only + +[Roberta] Kaplan and plaintiffs' counsel know the number of other individuals who intend to file additional claims, as well as the nature and scope of those claims." This assertion is, obviously, factually inaccurate, but it is also irrelevant: the number of claims that will be filed through the Program is a distinct question from the amount of money that is available to settle those claims. + +In their letter, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's "fixation on the total amount available in the Program is misguided." This could not be further from the truth. The amount of money available in the Program is critical to Plaintiff's ability to assess whether the Program is viable. *This concern is underlined by a Complaint filed against the Estate only today by the Attorney General for the Virgin Islands, which seeks, among other things, forfeiture of Estate assets and compensatory, punitive, and treble damages against the Estate.* (Ex. A at 48.) The Complaint specifically addresses the Program, describing it as a continuation of the Estate's "course of conduct aimed at concealing the criminal activities of the Epstein Enterprise . . . and shield[ing] its participants from liability and accountability." (*Id.*, at 18.) The New York Times reports that this lawsuit "seeks to head off an effort by Mr. Epstein's executor, Mr. Indyke, to turn Mr. Epstein's vast wealth into a victim's compensatory fund."1 Particularly in light of these recent developments, plaintiffs deserve to know whether the Program is viable before they decide to participate, and this Court deserves to know whether Defendants are negotiating in good faith. + +Second, with regard to the status of discovery, Plaintiff respectfully requests that she be allowed to move forward. The sixteen cases currently pending against the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of New York are all in very different stages of litigation. Two cases have already been stayed by agreement of the parties. *Doe 1 et al v. Jeffrey Epstein et al.*, 19-cv-07675-GBD-DCF (S.D.N.Y.); *Doe 17 v. Indyke et al.*, 19-cv-09610-PAE-DCF (S.D.N.Y.). One was filed recently, on December 27, 2019. *Anastasia Doe v. Indyke et al.* 19-cv-11869 (AJN). In twelve of the remaining thirteen cases, there are pending motions to dismiss challenging the adequacy of the plaintiffs' substantive claims and/or allegations. In those twelve cases, the parties mutually agreed to postpone the commencement of discovery for at least another month.2 + +Plaintiff's case is differently situated in significant respects. None of the causes of action or allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint has been challenged as a matter of law: Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss—which is more appropriately styled as a motion to strike under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)—concerns only the availability of punitive damages, a single aspect of the relief sought by Plaintiff and not even (obviously) the only damages being sought. (Doc. No. 35.). There is a short briefing schedule in place for this motion and in the interim Judge Failla ordered that discovery in this case is not stayed. (See Doc. No. 39.) As described in Plaintiff's status report, the scope of discovery in this case is narrow (Doc. No. 42) and, because + +1 Lawsuit Claims Epstein Trafficked Girls in Caribbean Until 2018, NEW YORK TIMES, Jan. 15, 2020. + +2 *VE v. Nine East 71st Street et al.*, No. 19-cv-07625 (AJN) (DF); *Katlyn Doe v. Indyke et al.*, No. 19-cv-07771 (PKC) (DF); *Priscilla Doe v. Indyke et al.*, No. 19-cv-07772 (ALC) (DF); *Lisa Doe v. Indyke et al.*, No. 19-cv-07773 (ER) (DF); *Jane Doe v. Indyke et al.*, No. 19-cv-08673 (KPF) (DF); [REDACTED] v. *Indyke et al.*, No. 19-cv-10475 (LGS)(DF); [REDACTED] v. *Indyke et al.*, No. 19-cv-10476 (PGG) (DF); [REDACTED] v. *Indyke et al.*, No. 19-cv-10479 (ALC) (DF); *Jane Doe 1000 v. Indyke et al.*, No. 19-cv-10577 (LGS) (DF); *Jane Doe 15 v. Indyke et al.*, No. 19-cv-10653 (PAE) (DF); *Mary Doe v. Indyke et al.*, No. 19-cv-10758 (PAE) (DF); [REDACTED] v. *Indyke et al.*, No. 19-cv-10788 (GHW) (DF); *Anastasia Doe v. Indyke et al.*, No. 19-cv-11869 (AJN) (DF). + +## KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +Defendants' motion does not relate to any of the defendants or causes of action in Plaintiff's complaint, will not be influenced by the pending motion practice. + +3 + +Accordingly, the parties in this case have met and conferred and have agreed on a proposed discovery schedule, which was submitted to Judge Freeman for approval on January 10, 2020. (Doc. No. 42-1.) Yesterday, Judge Freeman entered an Order scheduling a pretrial conference for February I I, 2020, and instructing the parties to the other twelve cases covered by the Order to submit a proposed discovery schedule before then. (Doc. No. 44.) As the parties in the other twelve cases make those submissions in advance of the conference, Plaintiff here respectfully requests that the Court enter the joint proposed discovery order already submitted in this case (Doc. No. 42-1), so that discovery may begin, consistent with Judge Failla's order that discovery is not stayed. Of course, Plaintiff will then attend the conference scheduled for February I I, 2020, and, as the Court has requested, will be prepared to address the question of whether the pending cases should be treated differently for scheduling purposes. At that time, of course, the Court may modify the discovery schedule in this case, should it see fit to do so. Plaintiff merely asks that she be allowed to move forward in the interim according to the agreed schedule submitted by both parties. + +Respectfully submitted, + +Roberta + +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751125/EFTA02751125.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751125/EFTA02751125.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d21e2ba91a8ae3fbc2c0cdea56063d76c9a35254 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751125/EFTA02751125.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,225 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751125.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 8084, + "elapsed_seconds": 14.01, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_20.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 42.84, + 46.17 + ], + [ + 304.164, + 46.17 + ], + [ + 304.164, + 65.61 + ], + [ + 42.84, + 65.61 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 79.56, + 234.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 131.57999999999998, + 234.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 131.57999999999998, + 251.10000000000002 + ], + [ + 79.56, + 251.10000000000002 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 44.06399999999999, + 48.599999999999994 + ], + [ + 239.29200000000003, + 48.599999999999994 + ], + [ + 239.29200000000003, + 63.99000000000001 + ], + [ + 44.06399999999999, + 63.99000000000001 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 43.452, + 53.46 + ], + [ + 241.83255004882812, + 53.46 + ], + [ + 241.83255004882812, + 72.139404296875 + ], + [ + 43.452, + 72.139404296875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751125" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751125/_page_0_Picture_20.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751125/_page_0_Picture_20.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8ab7138e1f1095630b19a362b6171f68060d1b5e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751125/_page_0_Picture_20.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c12a2a9b82e8cfb55a286c08ab951210caf5d4a77aa9325dc794bd1561b50128 +size 21295 diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751128/EFTA02751128.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751128/EFTA02751128.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e62d9f56b86e04bbe291ce4dd7c3de04afb1ee23 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751128/EFTA02751128.md @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +The Clerk of Court of the Southern District of New York is directed to docket the within ORDER in each of the following actions: + +USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED Doc #: DATE FILEICallQ20\_. VE v. Nine East 71st Street et aL, No. 1:19-cv-07625 (AJN) (DF) + +Katlyn Doe v. Indyke et at, No. 1:19-cv-07771 (PKC) (DF) + +Priscilla Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 1:19-cv-07772 (ALC) (DF) + +Lisa Doe v. Indyke et at, No. 1:19-cv-07773 (ER) (DF) + +Jane Doe v. Indyke et at, No. 1:19-cv-08673 (KPF) (DF) + +v. Indyke et aL, No. 1:19-cv-10475 (LGS) (DF) + +v. Indyke et aL, No. 1:19-cv-10476 (PGG) (DF) + +v. Indyke et at, No. 1:19-cv-10479 (ALC) (DF) + +Jane Doe 1000 v. Indyke et aL, No. 1:19-cv-10577 (LGS) (DF) + +Jane Doe 15 v. Indyke et at, No. l:19-cv-10653 (PAE) (DF) + +Mary Doe v. Indyke et at, No. 1:19-cv-10758 (PAE) (DF) + +v. Indyke et at, No. l:19-cv-10788 (O1-IW) (DF) + +Anastasia Doe v. Indyke et aL, No. 1:19-cv-11869 (MN) (DF) + +## DEBRA FREEMAN, United States Magistrate Judge: + +The Court having held a case management conference on February 11, 2020, with counsel for all parties in the above-referenced cases, it is hereby ORDERED, as stated at the conference, that: + +- 1. To the extent not already made, the parties shall make initial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no later than February 25, 2020. +- 2. The parties shall serve their initial document requests and interrogatories no later than March 10, 2020. In their initial interrogatories, the parties may, as reasonable, seek information outside the scope of Local Civil Rule 33.3(a). +- 3. Any motions to amend the pleadings or to join any additional parties shall be filed no later than April 30, 2020. + - 4. All fact discovery shall be completed no later than June 10, 2020. + +- 5. Expert discovery shall be conducted on the following schedule: + - a. Plaintiffs' expert reports shall be served no later than June 10, 2020. + - b. Defendants' rebuttal reports shall be served no later than July 10, 2020. + - c. Expert discovery shall be completed no later than July 31, 2020. + +6. The parties may stipulate to modify interim deadlines in this Scheduling Order, without seeking prior leave of Court. + +7. The parties to the above-referenced cases shall submit joint status reports to the Court, regarding discovery and the progress of settlement discussions, no later than April 30, 2020. + +Dated: New York, New York February 11, 2020 + +SO ORDERED + +DEBRA FREEMAN United States Magistrate Judge + +Copies to: + +All counsel in the above-referenced cases (via ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751128/EFTA02751128.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751128/EFTA02751128.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6468afcdc290d5f3200da1cb639e1e282c40a940 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751128/EFTA02751128.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,136 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751128.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2547, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.95, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "DEBRA FREEMAN, United States Magistrate Judge:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 336.15 + ], + [ + 351.7479248046875, + 336.15 + ], + [ + 351.7479248046875, + 352.863037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 352.863037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 38 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751128" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751130/EFTA02751130.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751130/EFTA02751130.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..388dbf300aca367351ab15505dc04da49cfe6464 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751130/EFTA02751130.md @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as the executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Defendants. X Index No. 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF X + +## AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE + +I, Mary "Molly" S. DiRago, declare as follow: + +I. I am a member in good standing of the State Bar of Illinois and an associate with the law firm Troutman Sanders LLP, counsel for Defendants, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn as Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, the "Co-Executors"). I submit this affidavit in support of my Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice before this Court. + +2. I have never been convicted of a felony. + +3. I have never been censured, suspended, disbarred, or denied admission or readmission by any court. + +4. There are no disciplinary proceedings presently against me. + +I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. + +Dated: February 14, 2020 Respectfully Submitted, + +Is/ Mary "Molly" S. DiRago + +Mary "Molly" S. DiRago (Pro Hac Vice Pending) + +Troutman Sanders LLP + +One North Wacker Drive, Suite 2905 + +Chicago, 60606 + +(312) 759-1926 + +(312) 759-1939 (Fax) + +molly.dirago@troutman.com + +Attorneys for Defendants Darren K. Indyke and + +Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of + +Jeffrey E. Epstein \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751130/EFTA02751130.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751130/EFTA02751130.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7bf8459230f0fedc9ae63ec8cbe9261bffbb1b5c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751130/EFTA02751130.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,143 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751130.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1429, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.68, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 112.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 112.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 100.36800000000001, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 512.6567993164062, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 512.6567993164062, + 317.9830627441406 + ], + [ + 100.36800000000001, + 317.9830627441406 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 27 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751130" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751132/EFTA02751132.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751132/EFTA02751132.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..88167b44e1e9231cab8ab41788ee1c7a6c94879b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751132/EFTA02751132.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +## Certificate of Admission To the Bar of Illinois + +I, Carolyn Taft Grosboll, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Illinois, do hereby certify that + +Mary Sharon DiRago + +has been duly licensed and admitted to practice as an Attorney and Counselor at Law within this State; has duly taken the required oath to support the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES and of the STATE OF ILLINOIS, and also the oath of office prescribed by law, that said name was entered upon the Roll of Attorneys and Counselors in my office on 11/04/2004 and is in good standing, so far as the records of this office disclose. + +> IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the seal of said Court, this 31st day of January, 2020. + +> > Croy acieree + +Clerk, Supreme Court of the State of Illinois + +## CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING + +![](_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg) + +United States of America + +}ss. Mary S DiRago + +Northern District of Illinois + +G. Bruton , Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, + +DO HEREBY CERTIFY That Mary S DiRago was duly admitted to practice in said Court on (12/08/2004) and is in good standing as a member of the bar of said court. + +Dated at Chicago, Illinois on (01/29/2020 ) + +G. Bruton , Clerk, + +By: Tina Lag Deputy Clerk \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751132/EFTA02751132.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751132/EFTA02751132.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..064fdba9d6c50693e7096589f2e0bb963b39e480 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751132/EFTA02751132.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,153 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751132.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1267, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.67, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Certificate of Admission \nTo the Bar of Illinois", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 196.452, + 112.59 + ], + [ + 460.2667236328125, + 112.59 + ], + [ + 460.2667236328125, + 166.19854736328125 + ], + [ + 196.452, + 166.19854736328125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 149.94, + 54.269999999999996 + ], + [ + 467.3410339355469, + 54.269999999999996 + ], + [ + 467.3410339355469, + 74.53363037109375 + ], + [ + 149.94, + 74.53363037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 165 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751132" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751132/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751132/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7cb1b47ef2e537b83bb21bace548b5c1f327f0ee --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751132/_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c0615cbe0a23c56124e112f7d33300b5fd9e59d3dd43c718a790b159c30485f2 +size 13329 diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751134/EFTA02751134.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751134/EFTA02751134.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5769d083dfcfe323c601b73297a479f837b44f74 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751134/EFTA02751134.md @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as the executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Defendants. X Index No. 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF X + +## ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE + +The motion of Mary "Molly" S. DiRago for admission to practice Pro Hac Vice in the above captioned action is granted. + +Applicant has declared that she is a member in good standing of the bar(s) of the state(s) of Illinois; and that her contact information is as follows: + +Mary "Molly" S. DiRago Troutman Sanders LLP One North Wacker Drive, Suite 2905 Chicago, 60606 (312) 759-1926 (312) 759-1939 (Fax) molly.dirago@troutman.corn + +Applicant having requested admission Pro Hac Vice to appear for all purposes as counsel for Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn as Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, the "Co-Executors") in the above entitled action; + +IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Applicant is admitted to practice Pro Hac Vice in the above captioned case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. All attorneys appearing before this Court are subject to the Local Rules of this Court, including the Rules governing discipline of attorneys. + +Dated: + +United States District/Magistrate Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751134/EFTA02751134.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751134/EFTA02751134.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d2e74dbf8b183c7f9d6963215e91567f8075c849 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751134/EFTA02751134.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,143 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751134.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1325, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.59, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 112.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 112.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 186.048, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 426.3628845214844, + 303.75 + ], + [ + 426.3628845214844, + 317.9830627441406 + ], + [ + 186.048, + 317.9830627441406 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 13 + ], + [ + "Line", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751134" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751136/EFTA02751136.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751136/EFTA02751136.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0151baafbbea927b0679b86246c50562ed87bdb2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751136/EFTA02751136.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as the executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Defendants. X X + +Index No. 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF + +## MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE + +Pursuant to Rule 1.3 of the Local Rules of the United States Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, Molly S. DiRago hereby moves this Court for an Order for admission to practice Pro Hac Vice to appear as counsel for Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn as Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, the "Co-Executors"), in the above-captioned action. + +I am in good standing of the bar(s) of the state of Illinois and there are no pending disciplinary proceedings against me in any state or federal court. I have never been convicted of a felony. I have never been censured, suspended, disbarred or denied admission or readmission by any court. I have attached the affidavit pursuant to Local Rule 1.3. + +Dated: February 14, 2020 Respectfully Submitted, + +Is/ Mary "Molly" S. DiRago + +Mary "Molly" S. DiRago (Pro Hac Vice Pending) + +Troutman Sanders LLP + +One North Wacker Drive, Suite 2905 + +Chicago, 60606 + +(312) 759-1926 + +(312) 759-1939 (Fax) + +molly.dirago@troutman.com + +Attorneys for Defendants Darren K. Indyke and + +Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of + +Jeffrey E. Epstein \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751136/EFTA02751136.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751136/EFTA02751136.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2ebf8c22fc37854ed324a40cab5d02e113ae9a35 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751136/EFTA02751136.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,143 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751136.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1405, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.71, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.419189453125, + 112.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 112.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 182.37599999999998, + 305.37 + ], + [ + 430.1128845214844, + 305.37 + ], + [ + 430.1128845214844, + 319.863037109375 + ], + [ + 182.37599999999998, + 319.863037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 27 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751136" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751138/EFTA02751138.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751138/EFTA02751138.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..00623d5ab5cd89792653ef84aac4d3a4d21bd9ee --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751138/EFTA02751138.md @@ -0,0 +1,161 @@ +### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, + +Defendants. + +Case No. 19 Civ. 8673 (KPF) (DCF) + +### MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS + +Roberta A. Kaplan, Esq. Kate L. Doniger, Esq. Alexandra K. Conlon, Esq. Louis W. Fisher, Esq. + +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, New York 10118 Telephone: (212) 763-0883 Facsimile: (212) 564-0883 + +Attorneys for Plaintiff + +### PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +For decades, Jeffrey Epstein used his vast wealth to sustain a massive enterprise for the sexual abuse of young girls and to evade justice for his heinous crimes. But even the richest and most powerful men cannot treat the law as a restaurant menu, picking and choosing among its provisions to suit their interests. Although he owned properties all over the world, Jeffrey Epstein chose the United States Virgin Islands as his domicile, establishing an island retreat there where he could sexually abuse children in secret. He secured his enormous wealth in a byzantine network of corporations, limited liability companies, trusts, and other entities established under Virgin Islands law. And, in August 2019, two days before he committed suicide in a federal jail, Epstein executed a Will that expressly provides for his estate to be probated in the Virgin Islands. Despite Epstein's decision to subject his Estate to Virgin Islands probate law, the Executors now ask this Court to give them the benefit of a provision of New York probate law that would exempt them from paying punitive damages for Epstein's heinous crimes. But that is not how it works. + +This Court should deny Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages. t First, under New York choice-of-law rules, the Court must endeavor to achieve "justice, fairness, and the best practical result" by giving controlling effect to the law of the jurisdiction with the "greatest concern with the specific issue raised in the litigation." v. Philip Morris Inc., 124 F. Supp. 2d 46, 55 (E.D.N.Y. 2000). The circumstances of this case are as shocking as they are unique: Jeffrey Epstein, who chose to organize his estate under the laws + +Defendants' motion is properly denominated a motion to strike under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(0. (Dkt. 36.) Defendants' motion does not seek dismissal of any of Plaintiff's four causes of action. Instead, it merely seeks to excise Plaintiff's demand for punitive damages. Such a motion is better characterized as a Rule 12(0 motion to strike. See, e.g., Rapay v. Chernov, No. 16 Civ. 4910, 2017 WL 892372, at • I, 8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2017); Corn- Tech Assocs. v. Comput. Assoc. Intl, Inc., 753 F. Supp. 1078, 1093 (E.D.N.Y. 1990) (denying Rule 12(0 motion to strike punitive damages). + +of the Virgin Islands, committed suicide just as he became aware of the full scope of civil and criminal claims against him. See infra at 5-6. The pending motion now presents the question of whether his Estate should be liable for a punitive damages verdict that would have clearly been available against him if he were still alive. The Virgin Islands has a strong interest in applying its own law to its domiciliaries and in ensuring that an individual who chose to probate his estate under Virgin Islands law is subject to that law's burdens along with its benefits. New York, on the other hand, has no conceivable interest in applying its ban on punitive damages—which reflects a policy decision to protect innocent heirs from suffering for the wrongs of the decedent—to a non-domiciled estate in a case where there are no "innocent heirs" and where the decedent purposefully evaded liability of all kinds for his heinous acts by taking his own life. The most just, fair, and practical result is to apply Virgin Islands estates law to this question. + +Second, contrary to Defendants' arguments (Dkt. 4-6), Virgin Islands common law does permit punitive damages against Epstein's Estate. This is made especially clear by the fact that the Government of the Virgin Islands is currently seeking punitive damages against Epstein's Estate in a pending lawsuit. See infra at 7. Any reasonable analysis of the factors that this Court must consider in assessing questions of Virgin Islands common law leads to the same conclusion. Permitting punitive damages against Epstein's Estate clearly represents the "soundest rule" for the Virgin Islands, where punitive damages are viewed as a mechanism to punish wrongdoers and deter others from engaging in similar misconduct, and where the Attorney General of the Virgin Islands herself likewise seeks punitive damages against the Estate. See id. Indeed, given these facts and circumstances, it is impossible to conceive of a case where the need for deterrence is greater. + +### STATEMENT OF FACTS + +Decedent Jeffrey Epstein was a prolific and notorious pedophile who subjected dozens, if not hundreds, of young girls to sexual and psychological abuse. Comp/. 11 I. He was also one of the wealthiest individuals in the United States. Id. ¶ 17. While the total scope of his assets remains unknown, his estate has a current estimated value of at least \$600 million, Ex. 1 ¶¶ 10- 11,2 and he is believed to have owned. among other properties, a private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands; the largest private home in Manhattan; a 7,500 acre ranch in New Mexico; a mansion in Palm Beach, Florida; and an apartment in Paris. /di 17. Epstein leveraged this prodigious wealth to create a vast enterprise for the sexual exploitation and abuse of children, whether on his private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands, or at his homes in New York City or Palm Beach. Id. ¶ 18. For decades, he perpetrated these heinous acts without legal consequence, which he accomplished by targeting the most vulnerable victims he could find: young girls from impoverished backgrounds who would silently suffer his abuse in exchange for money they desperately needed. Id. ¶¶ 1, 22. Plaintiff Jane Doe in this case was one of these girls. + +## A. Epstein's Abuse of Doe + +Doe met Epstein when she was fourteen years old, in or around 2002. Id. ¶ 3. For the next three years, Epstein repeatedly abused and exploited her. Id. He regularly forced Doe to give him massages while she was completely naked, and during these massages, he touched Doe's breasts with his hands, lips and tongue. Id. 1 35. Over time, the abuse worsened. He touched Doe's vagina with his fingers and forcefully and painfully penetrated her. Id. ¶ 38. He made Doe watch while he masturbated and forced her to help him masturbate. Id.1 33, 39. He even recruited other adults to abuse Doe: on one occasion, Epstein and an adult woman sexually + +2 In support of this memorandum, Plaintiffs submit the Declaration of Roberta A. Kaplan ("Kaplan Declaration"), which collects other supporting exhibits referred to herein as "Ex,". + +abused Doe together. Id.1140. Epstein gave Doe cash at each of these encounters, money that she desperately needed to support her sister, who suffered from a serious medical condition, and her mother, who was unable to financially sustain their family. Id. ¶ 22-24. Epstein's relentless abuse persisted until Doe was seventeen years old, when she finally managed to slip his grasp. Id. 1 54. + +Doe suffered serious and foreseeable consequences as a result of Epstein's sexual abuse during her formative years. She dropped out of high school and, as a result, has been forced to take on dangerous and degrading work to make ends meet. Id. ¶¶ 41, 55. More than fifteen years after Epstein's abuse ended, Doe still suffers from extreme anxiety and depression. Id. ¶ 56. She has been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, which causes her to endure disruptive flashbacks to Epstein's abuse, forcing her to live through some of the worst moments of her life over and over again. Id. ¶ 57. She suffers from debilitating panic attacks and has difficulty sleeping and eating. Id. ¶¶ 56-57. The continuing effects of Epstein's sexual abuse make the basic and essential tasks of Doe's daily life—going to work, parenting her young daughter, and caring for her ailing mother—nearly impossible. Id. ¶¶ 57-60. + +But while Doe suffered and struggled to survive, Epstein flourished. Before his death, Epstein was believed to be one of the wealthiest people in the United States, and he owned vast estates around the world. Id. ¶ 17. He used this incredible wealth to facilitate his sexual abuse of young girls. Id. ¶ 17. He employed people to find children for him to abuse. He used that staff to schedule appointments for girls to visit him in his many homes, so that he could abuse them. He used that staff to maintain contact with girls he liked, so that he could summon them for more abuse at his whim. And he used that money to pay the children he abused, buying their silence along with their young bodies. Id. ¶ 32, 47. + +#### B. The 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement + +Despite the size and reach of his pedophilic enterprise, Epstein avoided criminal and civil consequences for his heinous conduct for most of his life. In 2008, his flagrantly illegal activities caught the attention of law enforcement, and he was investigated for sexually abusing minors. Id. ¶ 20. But, somehow, Epstein still managed to avoid facing any meaningful consequences: for his years-long scheme of sexually abusing and exploiting children, Epstein was allowed to plead guilty to two counts of solicitation of prostitution under Florida state law and entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. Id. ¶ 20. He was "incarcerated" for a year in a local jail, during which time he was afforded extraordinary privileges, including being allowed to leave the jail twelve hours per day, six days per week. Id. + +## C. Epstein's Will, Suicide, and Evasion of Liability + +In 2019, Epstein finally seemed poised to face real consequences for sexually abusing Doe and countless other girls. In July 2019, he was indicted by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York on serious sex trafficking charges. Id. ¶ 62. For Doe in particular, who was identified as "Minor Victim-1" in the indictment, it was extremely significant that Epstein would, at last, be criminally prosecuted for what he did to her. But on August 10, 2019, before he could be tried for his crimes, Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide in a federal jail in Manhattan. Id. ¶ 63 + +Two days before he took his own life, on August 8, 2019, Epstein amended his estate plan, executing a Will while in federal custody that identifies him as a domiciliary of the Virgin Islands and that names Defendants, Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, as the executors of his estate. Id. ¶ 65; Ex. 2. The Will identified Mark Epstein, his brother, as his heir, but directed the + +executors to give all of his property, after paying his debts, to the then-acting Trustees of his "1953 Trust," thereby effectively transferring all of his property and money to "The 1953 Trust." Id. ¶ 66; see also Ex. 2. Defendants Indyke and Kahn are also the Trustees of the 1953 Trust. Comp!. ¶ 67. On August 15, 2019, Defendants filed Epstein's Will with the Probate Division of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands. Id. ¶ 64. + +Epstein's suicide took place as he faced significant potential civil liability in addition to the pending criminal charges against him. Indeed, before Epstein's suicide, one of his victims filed an application for pre-action discovery in New York state court.. See v. Epstein et al., No. 156728/2019 (Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Doc No. 1). Further, six months earlier, on February 14, 2019, New York passed the Child Victim's Act, N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214-g, which provided that starting on August 14, 2019 (just days after Epstein's suicide), the civil claims of child sexual abuse victims would be revived for a one-year period, regardless of any previously applicable statutes of limitations. Consequently, before Epstein's suicide, it would have been obvious to him—given the scope of his crimes and number of his victims—that he would likely soon face a flood of civil litigation and considerable liability. + +## D. The Present Action against the Estate + +On September 18, 2019, Doe filed this diversity action against the Epstein Estate for sexual assault, sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. She seeks actual, compensatory, statutory, consequential. and punitive damages for her substantial injuries. Id. ¶ 88. + +On January 15, 2020, Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages, arguing that they should be exempt from paying punitive damages by virtue of a provision of the New York State Estates, Powers, and Trust Law ("NY EPTL"). Defendants + +argue that New York State law should apply to the question of whether Plaintiff may pursue punitive damages against an estate, and that, in the alternative, Virgin Islands law, even if it were to be applied, does not provide for punitive damages against an estate. (Dkt. 46.) On the same day Defendants filed their motion, the Attorney General of the United States Virgin Islands filed an action in Virgin Islands Superior Court against the Epstein Estate (the "Virgin Islands Action") alleging myriad violations of the Virgin Islands' Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO") and other Virgin Islands laws. See Ex. 1. Of most relevance here, the Virgin Islands Action seeks punitive damages against Epstein's Estate under Virgin Islands law because "economic damages are simply not sufficient" given Epstein's "egregious, persistent, and injurious" conduct and "money, assets, and power." Id. at 1 276. + +## ARGUMENT + +Defendants' argument is as simple as it is incorrect. They ask this Court to find that because the acts giving rise to Plaintiff's cause of action occurred entirely in New York, "New York law ... applies to the issue of punitive damages." (Dkt. 47 at 3.) But Defendants ignore that New York courts long ago eschewed this mechanical application of the "place of the injury" rule in favor of the "more just, fair, and practical result that may best be achieved by giving controlling effect to the law of the jurisdiction which has the greatest concern with, or interest in, the specific issue raised in the litigation." Neumeier v. Kuehner, 31 N.Y.2d 121, 127 (1972). + +This motion raises one specific issue: whether Plaintiff, a victim of child sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein, may seek punitive damages against his Estate. Just as Epstein once used his vast wealth to evade responsibility for his horrific crimes, the Executors of his Estate now seek to use his death—and a New York estate law proscribing punitive damages against a dead tortfeasor's estate—as a tool to protect that wealth from the valid civil claims of Plaintiff and Epstein's many other victims. But only two days before his death, Epstein chose to make himself a domiciliary of the Virgin Islands, and he chose to avail himself of the benefits of its estate law by probating his estate there, giving the Virgin Islands a significant interest in applying its estate law to this question. On the other hand, no interest of the State of New York is furthered by applying its punitive damages exemption for estates to the non-domiciled estate of a tortfeasor who committed suicide with knowledge of the scope of the potential civil claims pending against him. Accordingly, the Virgin Islands has the greatest concern with the specific issue raised in this litigation, and its estate law, which permits punitive damages against an Estate, must govern. + +### I. PLAINTIFF IS AUTHORIZED TO SEEK PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST THE ESTATE UNDER U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS LAW + +# A. USVI Law Governs Whether Punitive Damages Are Available in This Action + +It is well settled that a federal court must look to the choice-of-law rules of the forum state in resolving conflicts of law. See Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496 (1941); Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 363 F.3d 137, 143 (2d Cir. 2004). When a choice-of-law issue arises in a tort action, New York courts apply a flexible "interest analysis," which "eschew[s] mechanical rules in favor of a practical analysis of the interests of the various states involved." =, 124 F. Supp. 2d at 54. New York's interest analysis aims to achieve "Wustice, fairness, and the best practical result ... by giving controlling effect to the law of the jurisdiction which, because of its relationship or contact with the occurrence or the parties, has the greatest concern with the specific issue raised in the litigation." Id. at 55 (quoting Babcock v. M, 12 N.Y.2d 473, 481 (1963)); H. Lee Equity Fund V, L.P. v. Mayer & Maw LLP, 612 F. Supp. 2d 267, 283-84 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). + +Typically, to determine which jurisdiction has the prevailing interest in a conflict-of-law question arising in a tort action, New York courts consider whether the purpose of the rule in + +question is to regulate conduct or to allocate loss. Padula v. Lilarn Props. Corp., 84 N.Y.2d 519, 521-22 (1994). Here, Defendants argue in conclusory fashion that because punitive damages are "conduct-regulating," the law of the place of the tort controls. (Dkt. 47 at 3.) This argument vastly oversimplifies the analysis called for under New York law. It is settled that punitive damages rules are conduct-regulating: however, that means only that "as a general matter ... the law of the place of the tort governs unless there is good reason not to apply the rule of lex loci delecti." Nall Jewish Democratic Council v. Adelson, No. 18 Civ. 8787 (JPO), 2019 WL 4805719 at \*6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019) (emphasis added). In other words, the fact that punitive damages are conduct-regulating does not end the inquiry: "for punitive damages in particular ... a court must consider the object or purpose of the wrongdoing to be punished and give controlling weight to the law of the jurisdiction with the strongest interest in the resolution of the particular issue presented." Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). + +The unique circumstances presented here clearly give this Court "good reason" not to apply New York estate law. This case raises the question not of whether punitive damages should be available to punish perpetrators of sexual assault in New York (they are), but of whether the estate of a deceased tortfeasor should be obligated to pay such claims. The Virgin Islands clearly has the strongest interest in applying its law to resolve this issue. First, Defendants are domiciliaries of the Virgin Islands, which counsels in favor of applying Virgin Islands estate law. Id. at \*5-6 (that defendant is a domiciliary of Nevada "points in favor" of applying Nevada punitive damages law); see also, e.g., Stevens v. Shields, 499 N.Y.S.2d 351, 353 (Sup. Ct., Ulster Cty. 1986) (applying Florida law to a New York accident because + +defendant's "liability as a parent of a negligent minor driver is cast upon her by virtue of her choice to be a domiciliary of Florida" regardless of where the minor drove.)3 + +Second, the Virgin Islands has an overwhelming interest in preventing Epstein and his Estate from availing themselves of the benefits, but not the burdens, of Virgin Islands estate law. Epstein, who owned residences and property all over the world, chose to identify the U.S. Virgins Islands as his domicile and to probate his Estate in that jurisdiction. This was a deliberate choice to avail himself of the benefits of Virgin Islands probate law, which he presumably viewed as advantageous to his estate. Compl. ¶¶ I I, 65; see also Ex. 1 ¶ 89 ("Two days before his death, Epstein amended the Trust and his Last Will and Testament. Upon information and belief, he did so as part of a pattern and ongoing effort to conceal and shield his assets from potential recovery by claimants.").4 As a result, the Virgin Islands has a significant interest in applying all the provisions of its probate law to questions regarding Epstein's estate. Adelson, 2019 WL 4805719, at \*6; see also, e.g., v. Boy Scouts of Am., Inc., 65 N.Y.2d 189, 201 (1985) (deferring to state's interest in forcing litigant to accept "the burdens as well as the benefits" of that state's tort rules). Neither Epstein nor his Estate could have reasonably expected a different result. See Stevens, 499 N.Y.S.2d at 353; see also v. Car Rentals, Inc., 29 A.D.3d 205, 212 (2d Dep't 2006) (noting the relevance in choice-of-law analysis of the "parties' expectations" about what law would govern). + +3The Virgin Islands' interest in applying its estate law to Jeffrey Epstcin's estate is only enhanced by the profoundly detrimental impact on the U.S. Virgin Islands of the decedent's connection with that jurisdiction. See Ex. I ¶¶ IS. 68-69 (Epstein formed a "deliberately complex web of Virgin Islands corporations, limited liability companies, foundations, and other entities .. . through which he carried out and concealed his criminal conduct," "used the Virgin Islands' land, resources, people, and laws for [his enterprise's] illicit purposes," and "subjected the Virgin Islands to public portrayals as a hiding place for human trafficking and sex crimes.") + +The Courtaake judicial notice of this pleading, even at the motion to dismiss stage, as it is in the public record. See 2002 R. Buchalter Alaska Tr. v. Philadelphia Fin. Life Assur. Co., 96 F. Supp. 3d 182, 206 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). + +Together, these two factors counsel incontrovertibly in favor of applying Virgin Islands estate law. Indeed, when courts in this State and in this District have declined to apply the rule of lex loci delecti to the availability of punitive damages, they have done so in deference to precisely these interests. In Adelson, for example, the defendant filed a defamation suit under Nevada law in the Southern District of New York, and plaintiffs sought punitive damages for a violation of Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute. The district court concluded that Nevada law, rather than New York law, should determine the availability of punitive damages for two reasons: first, because the defendant was a domiciliary of Nevada, which "points in favor of applying Nevada law," and second, because the defendant had attempted to avail himself of the benefits of Nevada defamation law, giving Nevada "a corresponding interest" in ensuring the application of its defamation law's punitive damages provision. Adelson, 2019 WL 4805719, at \*6; see also Beasock v. Dioguardi Enters., Inc., 100 A.D.2d 50, 52-54 (4th Dep't 1984) (concluding that the law of two of defendants' respective domiciles should govern whether punitive damages were available in a survivorship action). + +In contrast to the Virgin Islands' strong interest in applying its estate law to this question, New York's interest in applying its own estate law is extremely attenuated. The Epstein Estate is not domiciled in New York and it is not being probated here. Moreover, even if New York has a policy interest in prohibiting the levying of punitive damages against an estate, that interest is clearly not furthered in the unique circumstances presented here. + +Generally, the prohibition on punitive damages against an estate exists because a dead tortfeasor cannot be punished by the judicial system and so courts or legislatures have made a policy decision to protect the decedent's "innocent heirs" from being punished for the wrongs they did not personally commit. See, e.g., Flaum v. Birnbaum, 177 A.D.2d 170 177 (4th Dep't + +1992); Lohr v. Byrd, 522 So. 2d 845, 846-47 (Fla. 1988). There can be no question that this policy interest is irrelevant where, as here, Epstein had no "innocent" heirs who will be unjustly punished by the levying of punitive damages against his Estate. Epstein reportedly had no children, and his Will identifies only his brother, Mark Epstein, who is widely reported to have considerable financial resources of his own, as his heir. Ex. 2 at 3.5 Importantly, Mark Epstein has been on notice of his brother's heinous crimes for—at a minimum—more than a decade, since Jeffrey Epstein's guilty plea in Florida in 2008. Compl. 20. What Jeffrey Epstein does leave behind is countless women whose lives have been deeply impacted by the sexual, emotional, and psychological abuse he wrought on them. Prohibiting punitive damages in this case would not protect innocent heirs; it would punish traumatized victims deserving of adequate compensation. + +More importantly, where a tortfeasor commits suicide to avoid imposition of punitive damages, considerations of fairness no longer counsel in favor of protecting his estate. Here, Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide while he was awaiting trial on serious federal sex trafficking charges. A high-profile civil case had already been initiated against him, see supra at 7, and, since Epstein was well aware of the full scope of his own misconduct, he was equally aware of the potential scope of his civil liability. His suicide appears designed, at least in part, to avoid the civil and criminal consequences of his heinous acts. In this unique situation, New York has no conceivable policy interest in permitting Epstein's continued efforts to evade justice. Indeed, some courts have commented that they would decline to apply a bar on punitive damages against an estate should they ever encounter the extreme and unusual circumstances presented here. See + +5 Jeffrey Epstein's Will, which is attached as Exhibit I to the Kaplan Declaration, is both incorporated by reference and integral to the Complaint in this action. See v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152-53 (2d Cir. 2002). + +Crabtree ex reL Kemp v. Estate of Crabtree, 837 N.E.2d 135, 139 (hid. 2005) (Indiana Supreme Court may decline to apply its normal bar on punitive damages "where a tortfeasor seems to have considered his own death as an escape from punitive damages incident to some intentional tort" by committing suicide); see also Estate of Mayer v. Lax, Inc., 998 N.E.2d 238, 259 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (noting a "possible exception" to the rule proscribing punitive damages against an estate "if the tortfeasor committed suicide to attempt to escape such damages"). + +#### B. Virgin Islands Law Permits Recovery of Punitive Damages against an Estate + +Defendants argue that even if Virgin Islands law applies to the question here, this Court should conclude that Virgin Islands law does not permit the recovery of punitive damages against an estate. That is plainly incorrect. In deciding how to apply Virgin Islands' common law, courts must consider what are known as the Banks factors: "(1) whether any Virgin Islands courts have previously adopted a particular rule; (2) the position taken by a majority of courts from other jurisdictions; and (3) which approach represents the soundest rule for the Virgin Islands." Gov't of the V.I. v. , 60 V.I. 597, 600 (V.I. 2014)). An accurate assessment of these three factors makes clear that punitive damages are available in this case. + +The third factor—which approach represents the soundest rule for the Virgin Islands-is the "most important" of the three. Antilles Sch., Inc. v. Lembach, 64 V.I. 400, 428 (V.I. 2016). Here, the "soundest rule" for the Virgin Islands is to permit punitive damages against Jeffrey Epstein's Estate. But this Court need not decide this question in a vacuum: the Virgin Islands Attorney General has articulated this very position on behalf of the Virgin Islands in her pending lawsuit against the Estate. The Attorney General states that, under Virgin Islands common law, the purpose of punitive damages is "to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct that is reckless or intentional and to deter others from engaging in such conduct in the future," and she + +further notes that "[p]unitive damages are especially important in the case of persons or companies that have money, assets, and power that mere fines, penalties, and economic damages are simply not sufficient." Ex. I ¶¶ 274, 276. The Attorney General states that Epstein engaged in "intentional conduct so egregious, persistent, and injurious that it shocks the conscience and offends a civilized society" and that therefore, the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands seeks punitive damages against the Estate. Id. ¶¶ 275, 277. + +The Attorney General's view that punitive damages are available against Epstein's Estate should dispose of the question for this Court, but any reasonable independent analysis of the interests of the Virgin Islands leads to the same conclusion. Punitive damages in the Virgin Islands are designed to both punish wrongdoers and to deter others from engaging in similar conduct. See, e.g., Guardian Ins. Co. v. Gumbs, No. ST-15-CV-195, 2016 WL 9525609, at •10 (V.I. Super. Aug. 22, 2016). It is hard to imagine a case where the need to deter others from engaging in similar misconduct is more significant than here. This is particularly true in the Virgin Islands, where Epstein not only abused countless girls and young women, but also "abused [the] privileges of residency," specifically choosing the Virgin Islands as the location for his heinous crimes because of its seclusion and isolation, and thereby contributing to a public perception that the Virgin Islands is "a hiding place for human trafficking and sex crimes." Ex. I ¶¶ 63, 69. The fact that Epstein would have been subject to punitive damages claims if he had not taken his own life—and that he committed suicide knowing he was subject to such claimsfurther militates in favor of permitting punitive damages against his Estate: as discussed above, even in a jurisdiction where punitive damages against a deceased tortfeasor's estate are normally barred, courts have acknowledged that such egregious conduct by a tortfeasor may warrant a departure from that rule. See Crabtree, 837 N.E.2d at 139; Estate of Mayer.998 N.E.2d at 259. + +Defendants fail to offer any countervailing reason why their rule would be sounder for the Virgin Islands—or, indeed, any reason at all. Instead, they assert only that Virgin Islands courts "have favorably applied Restatement Section 908 to questions regarding punitive damages." (Dkt. 47 at 6.) But none of the seven cases cited by Defendants address the question of whether punitive damages are available against an estate, nor do they even consider the Restatement's position on that question. That courts have favorably cited portions of the Restatement in considering other questions regarding punitive damages does not suffice to show that the Restatement's position on punitive damages against an estate is the rule in the Virgin Islands. Regardless, the Restatement is nothing more than non-binding secondary authority. See, e.g., Gov't of Virgin Islands v. No. Sup. Ct. Civ. No. 2013-0095, 2014 WL 702639, at \*1 (V.I. Feb. 24, 2014) (noting that the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands has instructed that courts should not "mechanistically follow[] the Restatements" in determining common law); see also Thorn v. Stephens, 646 N.Y.S.2d 597, 599 n.2 (Sup. Ct., Westchester Cty. 1995) ("The Restatement of Law is not binding."); Bellino v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 14-CV-3139 (NSR), 2015 WL 4006242, at •5 (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2015) ("[T]he Restatement is not binding on the Court."); Alain Ellis Living Tr. v. Harvey D. Ellis Living Tr., 308 Kan. 1040, 1055-58 (2018) (noting the Restatement's view on whether punitive damages are available against an Estate and declining to follow it). + +Nor do the other Banks factors provide any reason to adopt Defendants' view that punitive damages should not be permitted against Epstein's Estate. Regarding factor one, which asks whether Virgin Islands courts have previously adopted a particular rule, Plaintiff is not aware of any Virgin Islands decision on the question of whether to permit punitive damages against an estate, nor have Defendants cited any such case. The fact that, as Defendants point + +out, a Virgin Islands court has recited the Restatement rule on punitive damages against an estate while deciding a different question of law does not come close to showing that a court has considered and decided the precise question at issue here.° (Dkt. 47 at 5.) And Defendants exaggerate the degree to which Banks factor two—which weighs the position taken by the majority of other jurisdictions-favors prohibiting punitive damages against an estate. While it is true that this is the majority view, a considerable minority has reached the opposite conclusion: ten' of the approximately 35 jurisdictions to address the question have decided that punitive damages should be allowed against an Estate, including for reasons that are especially salient here: adequate compensation for victims, punishment of wrongdoers, deterrence of other future wrongdoers, and social condemnation of uniquely abhorrent behavior. Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc., 201 Ariz. I, 3-4 (2001) (en bane); see also generally Zitter, 30 A.L.R.4th 707; Barry A. Lindahl, 2 Modern Tort Law: Liability and Litigation § 20:24 (2d ed., June 2019 Update). And notably, most of the jurisdictions adopting the majority rule have—unlike the Virgin Islands—passed a statute codifying a prohibition on punitive damages against an estate. See Alain Ellis Living Tr., 308 Kan. at 1046 ("[A]t least 14 of the cases adopting the position that an injured party cannot recover punitive damages from the estate of a tortfeasor—the majority rule—reached that conclusion because their respective state legislatures had passed a statute stating that position."). + +6The cases Defendants cite do not address the question at issue here—namely, whether punitive damages are available against an Estate. Instead, both cases address the • arate question of whether punitive damages are available in survival actions for wrongful death. See v. Dowson Holding Co., No. CIV. 2008.2, 2009 WL 723134, at \*5-6 (D.V.I. Mar. 17, 2009), and Booth v. Bowen, No. CIV. 2006-217, 2008 WL 220067, at \*5 (D.V.1. Jan. 10, 2008). Defendants themselves point out this distinction, conceding that these cases address the "the inverse of the issue here" (Dkt. 47 at 5), rather than the actual question before the Court. + +7Arizona, Delaware, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Alabama, Montana, New Hampshire, and West Virginia all permit punitive damages against a decedent's Estate. See Jay M. Zitter, Claim for punitive damages in tort action as surviving death of tortfeasor or person wronged, 30 A.L.R.4th 707 (1984 ed., 2019 Suppl.). + +Thus, the most important Banks factor weighs strongly in favor of allowing punitive damages, and the other two factors are indeterminate. The Banks analysis therefore clearly counsels in favor of adopting the same position taken by the USVI Attorney General: that under USVI law, punitive damages are available against Jeffrey Epstein's Estate.8 + +### II. PLAINTIFF HAS A STATUTORY RIGHT TO SUE THE ESTATE UNDER EITHER U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS OR NEW YORK LAW. + +Defendants' argument that Plaintiff is "only permitted to bring her causes of action against the Estate" under NY EPTL § 1 I-3.2(a)(1), and therefore is subject to that statute's prohibition on punitive damages, is a red herring. (Dkt. No. 47 at 3.) First, the Complaint does not identify NY EPLT Section 11-3.2(a)( I), which provides that a cause of action for personal injury survives the death of the person liable, as the source of law enabling Plaintiff to bring her causes of action against the Estate. Virgin Islands law also expressly provides that personal injury claims against a tortfeasor survive his or her death. 15 V.I.C. § 601. Thus, whether Virgin Islands law or New York law applies to the Plaintiff's ability to sue the Estate of her deceased abuser, it is indisputable that Plaintiff is authorized to bring this action under the law of either jurisdiction. 15 V.I.C. § 601; N.Y. EPTL § 11-3.2(aX1). + +Second, even if NY EPTL were the authorizing source of law, Defendants' argument that Plaintiff's punitive damages claim must therefore also be governed by the NY EPTL is + +In the alternative, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court certify the question whether punitive damages are available against Epstein's Estate in the U.S. Virgin Islands to the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands. Rule 38 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that the Supreme "Court may answer a question certified by a court of the United States `if there is involved in any proceeding before the certifyjal court a question of law which may be determinative of the cause then pending in the certifying court.— v. M, S. Ct. Civ. No. 2018-0036, 2018 WL 1888496, at •1 (V.I. Apr. 18, 2018) (emphasis in original) (quoting V.I. It. APP. P. 38(a)). + +In the Second Circuit, questions about the availability of punitive damages are appropriate for certification to a jurisdiction's highest court, assuming that jurisdiction provides for such a procedure. See, e.g., Riordan v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 977 F.2d 47, 56-57 (2d Cir. 1992) (certifying to New York Court of Appeals question of whether provision of state insurance law preempts common law right to punitive damages standard), certified question withdrawn after settlement. 984 F.2d 69, 70 (2d Cir. 1993)). The U.S. Virgin Islands' certification procedure thus provides an alternative means by which the Court could, in its discretion, resolve this question of Virgin Islands' law. + +incompatible with New York's established choice-of-law rules, as the Court recognized at its last conference in this case on December 11, 2019 (Tr. at 17:23-18:4; 26:13-17). It is well-settled that "in a single action[,] different states may have different degrees of interests with respect to different operative facts and elements of a claim or defense." 2002 R. Buchalter Alaska Tr., 96 F. Supp. 3d at 200. This doctrine, known as depecage, expressly permits different jurisdictions' laws to govern the availability of punitive damages and the availability of a cause of action. Adelson, 2019 WL 4805719, at •6 ("Although it is clear that the measure of compensatory damages is determined by the same law under which the cause of action arises, this is not necessarily true with regard to [punitive] damages."); Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency v. Ally Fin. Inc., No. II Civ. 7010 (DLC), 2012 WL 6616061, at \*5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2012) ("The New York Court of Appeals has recognized that the doctrine [of depecage] may sometimes require that a plaintiff's demand for punitive damages be analyzed under the law of a state other than the one under whose law the cause of action arises."); In re Air Crash Near Clarence Ctr., New York, 798 F. Supp. 2d 481, 488 n.6 (W.D.N.Y. 2011) ("[T]he possibility that one state's law could apply to punitive damages and another's to compensatory damages is permitted under the doctrine of depecage.").9 + +In short, it is indisputable that Plaintiff is authorized to bring this action under Virgin Islands law or New York law, regardless of which jurisdiction's law authorizes Plaintiff to sue the Estate of her deceased abuser. 15 V.I.C. § 601; N.Y. EPTL § 11-3.2(aX1). And even if New + +9Defendants ask this Court to interpret a single line of dicta from Nissen v. Eisensmidt, 940 F. Supp. 449, 457 (N.D.N.Y. 19%) as supporting a position that would be entirely inconsistent with this well-settled principle of law. Blissett has no bearing on this case—there, the claims arose under Section 1983, and different principles of law govern choice of' law questions in federal civil rights cases. Id. In any event, whatever the Blissett court meant when it stated that it would be "incongruous" to allow the plaintiff in Blissett to rely on one part of the NY EPTL and not another, it cannot possibly have the meaning Defendants give it. As the foregoing case law on damage demonstrates, it is indisputable that a cause of action and a claim for punitive damages can be governed by two different bodies of law. + +York law is the source authorizing Plaintiff's cause of action, well-established choice-of-law principles make clear that a different jurisdiction's law may apply to the question of punitive damages. + +### CONCLUSION + +For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages. + +Dated: New York, New York By: February 14, 2020 + +Roberta A. Kaplan Kate L. Doniger Alexandra Conlon Louis W. Fisher KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, New York 10118 Tel: (212) 763-0883 Fax: (212) 564-0883 rkaplan®kaplanhecker.com + +Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751138/EFTA02751138.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751138/EFTA02751138.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e7bb0a362e703403252d1fc34da014fe0ea4f0a4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751138/EFTA02751138.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1095 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751138.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 20, + "chars": 40965, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.31, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 192.168, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 418.4738464355469, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 418.4738464355469, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 192.168, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO \nDISMISS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 89.964, + 300.51 + ], + [ + 521.2432250976562, + 300.51 + ], + [ + 521.2432250976562, + 330.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 89.964, + 330.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 219.70799999999997, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 391.8983154296875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 391.8983154296875, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 219.70799999999997, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "STATEMENT OF FACTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 234.39600000000002, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 378.2211608886719, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 378.2211608886719, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 234.39600000000002, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Epstein's Abuse of Doe", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 229.40025329589844, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 229.40025329589844, + 472.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 472.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 306.9854736328125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 306.9854736328125, + 86.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 86.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Epstein's Will, Suicide, and Evasion of Liability", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 356.53582763671875, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 356.53582763671875, + 389.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 389.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. The Present Action against the Estate", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 484.37999999999994 + ], + [ + 303.83013916015625, + 484.37999999999994 + ], + [ + 303.83013916015625, + 499.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 499.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 344.63134765625, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 344.63134765625, + 362.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 362.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. PLAINTIFF IS AUTHORIZED TO SEEK PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST THE \nESTATE UNDER U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS LAW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 542.7210693359375, + 290.78999999999996 + ], + [ + 542.7210693359375, + 320.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 320.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. USVI Law Governs Whether Punitive Damages Are Available in This Action", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 339.39 + ], + [ + 541.008, + 339.39 + ], + [ + 541.008, + 355.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 355.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Virgin Islands Law Permits Recovery of Punitive Damages against an Estate", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 539.172, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 539.172, + 251.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 251.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. PLAINTIFF HAS A STATUTORY RIGHT TO SUE THE ESTATE UNDER \nEITHER U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS OR NEW YORK LAW.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 506.8883972167969, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 506.8883972167969, + 210.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 210.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 162.81 + ], + [ + 349.4591369628906, + 162.81 + ], + [ + 349.4591369628906, + 177.363037109375 + ], + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 177.363037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 76 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751138" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751158/EFTA02751158.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751158/EFTA02751158.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8578b2b2ddb819fe14b2037c86f5e9735300f3b7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751158/EFTA02751158.md @@ -0,0 +1,817 @@ +**IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS +DIVISION OF ST. [REDACTED] AND ST. JOHN** + +GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES +VIRGIN ISLANDS, + +Case No.: + +PLAINTIFF, + +**ACTION FOR DAMAGES** + +V. + +ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, THE 1953 +TRUST, PLAN D, LLC; GREAT ST. JIM, LLC; +NAUTILUS, INC.; HYPERION AIR, LLC; +POPLAR, INC., JOHN AND JANE DOES + +JURY TRIAL DEMANDED + +DEFENDANTS, + +RECEIVED +JUN 15 PM 1:01 + +**COMPLAINT** + +**COMES NOW**, the Government of the United States Virgin Islands ("Government") and files this Complaint against the above-named Defendants and in support thereof, would show unto the Court as follows: + +**JURISDICTION AND PARTIES** + +1. 1. The Attorney General of the United States Virgin Islands (herein after "Virgin Islands") brings this action on behalf of the Plaintiff, Government of the Virgin Islands, pursuant to 3 V.I.C. § 114 and her statutory authority to enforce the laws of the Virgin Islands, and advocate for the public interest, safety, health and well-being of persons in the Virgin Islands. +2. 2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this civil matter pursuant to 4 V.I.C. § 76 and 14 V.I.C. § 607. +3. 3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to 5 V.I.C. § 4903. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GV1's Complaint Page 2 of 48 + +4. The Virgin Islands is an unincorporated territory of the United States. It consists of St. M, St. Croix, St. John, and Water Island, and more than 40 surrounding islands and Cays, some of which are privately owned. Among these privately owned islands are Little St. James and Great St. James. + +5. Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Epstein") was a resident of the Virgin Islands and he maintained a residence on Little St. James, which he acquired in 1998 and in 2016 he also purchased Great St. James. + +6. Epstein registered as a sex offender in the Virgin Islands in 2010. He was a Tier I offender under Virgin Islands law based upon his Florida conviction of procuring a minor for prostitution. As a Tier I offender, Epstein was required to register annually with the Virgin Islands Department of Justice ("VIDOJ") and give advance notice of his travel to and from the Virgin Islands. Epstein was also subject to random address verification by VIDOJ. + +7. Epstein was found dead on August 10, 2019 while in custody in New York for sex crimes. + +8. Defendant, Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein ("The Estate"), created upon Epstein's death, is domiciled in the Virgin Islands. On August 15, 2019, the Executors of The Estate, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, filed a Petition for Probate and Letters Testamentary which included Epstein's last will and testament with the Probate Division of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands. + +9. The Petition reports the value of the real and personal property in The Estate located in the Virgin Islands at \$577,672,654.00 dollars. + +10. According to the Petition, the assets in the Virgin Islands thus far includes: + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 3 of 48 + +- b. \$127 million in fixed income and equity investments; +- c. \$195 million in hedge fund and private equity investments; and +- d. \$18.5 million in planes, boats, and automobiles. + +The Estate has not yet valued his fine arts, antiques, and other valuables. + +- 11. The Estate also includes shares of various corporate entities which hold residences and real property used by Epstein, namely: + - a. Brownstone in New York City valued at \$56 million; + - b. Ranch in New Mexico valued at \$72 million; + - c. Gated home in Palm Beach, Florida, valued at \$12 million; + - d. Seven units in an apartment building in Paris, valued at \$8 million; and + - e. Great St. James and Little St. James, collectively valued at \$86 million. +- 12. The Estate is responsible to pay damages for the acts committed by Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise described below. +- 13. Defendant, The 1953 Trust ("The Trust") was created by Epstein, who "amended and restated" its terms only two days before his suicide. That same day, Epstein revised his Last Will and Testament, transferring all of his "property, real and personal, wherever situated" to The Trust. +- 14. The Trust also contains Epstein's financial assets and is also responsible to pay damages for the acts committed by Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise described below. The Trust's administrators, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, filed a Certificate of Trust in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands for The Trust on August 26, 2019. +- 15. Epstein maintained a deliberately complex web of Virgin Islands corporations, limited liability companies, foundations, and other entities, not all of which are yet known to the + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 4 of 48 + +Government of the Virgin Islands, through which he carried out and concealed his criminal conduct. + +16. Epstein regularly created new entities in the territory and transferred properties and funds between them in order to preserve and shield Epstein's assets and to facilitate and conceal the unlawful acts described in this Complaint. + +17. These entities held properties, including Little St. James and Great St. James, at which Epstein trafficked and sexually abused women and underage girls. Epstein owned and arranged for private planes, helicopters, boat and automobiles to transport victims to, from, and within the Virgin Islands, and provided money to pay these young women and underage girls. + +18. Epstein sat at the hub of this web, serving as president, member, manager, or director of each of the entities and, upon information and belief, directing their activities. + +19. Defendant, Nautilus, Inc., is a corporation established and organized under the laws of the Virgin Islands. It was incorporated on November 22, 2011. + +20. According to records of the Virgin Islands Recorder of Deeds, Nautilus, Inc. owns Little St. James, a/k/a Parcel Number 109803010100, a parcel of 3.1 million square feet valued at \$3.2 million, with buildings and improvements valued at S4 million. + +21. Epstein was president and director of Nautilus, Inc., which corporate filings describe as "holding property for personal use." Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, Executors of the Estate, are the secretary and treasurer of Nautilus, Inc., respectively. The Estate values Epstein's holdings of Nautilus, Inc., which holds title to Little St. James at \$63.9 million. + +22. A deed recorded with the Virgin Islands Recorder of Deeds on December 30, 2011 reflects that the property was transferred from a Delaware entity, L.S.J., LLC, to Nautilus, Inc. for "TEN DOLLARS (\$10.00) and other good and valuable consideration." The quitclaim deed lists GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 5 of 48 + +Jeffrey Epstein as the sole member of L.S.J., LLC, which it acquired Little Saint James via a warranty deed dated April 27, 1998. + +23. As described below, Epstein engaged in a pattern and practice of trafficking and sexually abusing young women and female children on this private, secluded island of Little St. James where Epstein and his associates could avoid detection of their illegal activity from Virgin Islands and federal law enforcement and prevent these young women and underage girls from leaving freely and escaping the abuse. + +24. Thus, Nautilus, Inc. participated in carrying out, facilitating and concealing Epstein's crimes, hence Little St. James became an instrumentality of those crimes. + +25. Defendant, Great St. Jim, LLC, is a limited liability company established and organized under the laws of the Virgin Islands. Great St. Jim, LLC was organized on October 26, 2015. Great St. Jim, LLC, according to records of the Virgin Islands Recorder of Deeds, owns at least three properties that make up Great St. James acquired on January 28, 2016: Parcel Number 109801010100, consisting of 3.5 million square feet and valued at \$17.5 million; Parcel Number 109801010200, consisting of 450,000 square feet of land, valued at \$2.8 million; and Parcel Number 109801010300, 1.2 million square feet of land, valued at \$2.7 million. According to a warranty deed filed with the Virgin Islands Recorder of Deeds, Epstein, through Great St. Jim, LLC, acquired the last two parcels for \$5 million. + +26. Epstein is listed as manager and a member of Great St. Jim, LLC and the nature of its business is described as "holding assets." + +27. Upon information and belief, Epstein purchased these Great St. James properties the island with closest proximity to Little St. James—to further shield his conduct on Little St. James from view, prevent his detection by law enforcement or the public, and allow him to + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 6 of 48 + +continue and conceal his criminal enterprise. Epstein's significant investment in the purchase of Great St. James demonstrates his intent to expand his illegal operation in the Virgin Islands for years to come. Thus, Great St. Jim, LLC participated in carrying out, concealing, facilitating and continuing Epstein's crimes, and Great St. James became an instrumentality of those crimes. + +28. Defendant, Poplar, Inc., is a corporation established and organized under the laws of the Virgin Islands. Poplar, Inc. was incorporated on November 22, 2011. Epstein was president and director of Poplar, Inc., and its purpose was described in corporate filings as "holding property for personal use." Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, Executors of the Estate, are secretary and treasurer of Poplar, Inc., respectively. + +29. A certificate of incumbency provided to the Department of Planning and Natural Resources ("DPNR") also lists Epstein as president of Poplar, Inc. and expressly authorizes the incorporators to conduct "transactions related to permitting matters submitted on behalf of Great St. Jim, LLC." + +30. Poplar, Inc. is listed as the signatory for the 2017 Annual Report for Great St. Jim, LLC, and the signature appears to be Epstein's. The Petition for Probate and Letters Testamentary filed by The Estate lists Poplar, Inc. as holding title to Great St. James. Thus, Poplar, Inc. participated in carrying out, concealing, facilitating and continuing Epstein's crimes. + +31. Defendant, Plan D, LLC is a limited liability company established and organized under the laws of the Virgin Islands. In its original Articles of Organization, filed October 19, 2012, and Annual Report filings, Epstein's pilot, Larry Visoski, was listed as Plan D, LLC's sole manager/member. However, the July 31, 2019 Annual Report revealed Epstein as the principal behind Plan D, LLC. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 7 of 48 + +32. Upon information and belief, Plan D, LLC owns one or more of the airplanes and helicopters that Epstein used to transport young women and children to and from the Virgin Islands to carry out the criminal pattern of activity described below. Among the airplanes owned by Plan D, LLC is a Gulfstream with N-number N212JE. Flight logs and travel notices indicate that Epstein used this plane to traffic and transport and young women and underage girls to the Virgin Islands. + +33. Defendant, Hyperion Air, LLC is a limited liability company established and organized under the laws of the Virgin Islands on October 19, 2012. Jeffrey Epstein is a manager/member of Hyperion Air, LLC, along with his pilot, Larry Visoski. The purpose of Hyperion Air, LLC is listed in its Annual Report as "holding assets." + +34. Hyperion Air, LLC is the registered owner of a Bell helicopter with N-number N33 I JE and a Keystone helicopter with N-number N7221E. Upon information and belief, Epstein used these helicopters to transport young women and underage girls between St. and Little St. James. + +35. John and Jane Does represent individuals and entities whose identities or involvement with Epstein are currently unknown. The Government of the Virgin Islands will amend the Complaint to add these individuals and entities when discovered. + +36. The Attorney General brings this action to seek all remedies available to the Government of the Virgin Islands in enforcing its laws and protecting the public interest and public safety. These claims are distinct from, and are not intended to supplant, the claims of victims who were unconscionably harmed by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. + +GV1 v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 8 of 48 + +#### FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS + +## A. The Conduct of the "Epstein Enterprise" in the Virgin Islands + +37. Epstein and his associates, including Defendants, identified and recruited female victims, including children, and transported them to the Virgin Islands where they were abused and injured. Epstein, through and in association with Defendants, trafficked, raped, sexually assaulted and held captive underage girls and young women at his properties in the Virgin Islands. + +38. Epstein created a network of companies and individuals who participated in and conspired with him in a pattern of criminal activity related to the sex trafficking, forced labor, sexual assault, child abuse, and sexual servitude of these young women and children. Epstein and his associates trafficked underage girls to the Virgin Islands, held them captive, and sexually abused them, causing them grave physical, mental, and emotional injury. + +39. To accomplish his illegal ends, Epstein formed an association in fact with multiple Defendants and others (both companies and individuals) who were willing to participate in, facilitate, and conceal Epstein's criminal activity in exchange for Epstein's bestowal of financial and other benefits, including sexual services and forced labor from victims. + +40. This illicit association of Epstein, Defendants, and his associates constitutes what is referred to herein as the "Epstein Enterprise." Epstein's associates in the Epstein Enterprise, including, but not limited to, those named as Defendants knowingly facilitated, participated in, and concealed Epstein's illegal conduct. + +41. Epstein used his wealth and power to create the Epstein Enterprise which engaged in a pattern of criminal activity in the Virgin Islands by repeatedly procuring and subjecting underage girls and young women to unlawful sexual conduct, sex trafficking, and forced labor. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 9 of 48 + +42. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in a pattern of criminal activity in the Virgin Islands (and elsewhere) with the criminal purpose and goal of placing a steady supply of vulnerable female children and young women into sexual servitude in service of Epstein's desires, and those of his associates. The Epstein Enterprise maintained and made available young women and underage girls for the purpose of engaging them in forced labor and sexual activities and used coercion and deception to procure, abuse, and harbor its victims. + +43. Flight logs and other sources establish that between 2001 and 2019 the Epstein Enterprise transported underage girls and young women to the Virgin Islands, who were then taken via helicopter or private vessel to Little St. James where they were then deceptively subjected to sexual servitude, forced to engage in sexual acts and coerced into commercial sexual activity and forced labor. + +44. In furtherance of its criminal activities, the Epstein Enterprise used its aircratis to transport the young women and underage girls to the Virgin Islands for purposes of sexual abuse and exploitation. + +45. The Epstein Enterprise facilitated and participated in the sexual molestation and exploitation of numerous girls between the age of 12 and 17 years old. + +46. On the pretext of providing modeling opportunities, careers and contracts, associates of the Epstein Enterprise, funded by the Epstein Enterprise, lured and recruited young women and underage girls to travel to locations including the Virgin Islands where, upon information and belief, based on the pattern and practice of the Epstein Enterprise, they were sexually abused and exploited. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 10 of 48 + +47. Associates in the Epstein Enterprise recruited both victims and abusers into the Epstein Enterprise, participated in sexual acts of rape and abuse of minors and witnessed Epstein and others engage in sexual acts with children. + +48. As recent as 2018, air traffic controllers and other airport personnel reported seeing Epstein leave his plane with young girls some of whom appeared to be between the age of II and 18 years. + +49. Upon information and belief, based on Epstein's pattern of trafficking and sexually abusing young girls, the Epstein Enterprise trafficked and abused these girls, and others, in the Virgin Islands through 2018. + +50. When sued in civil court for committing sex trafficking and sex crimes, Epstein never denied engaging in sexual acts with underage females and procuring underage females for prostitution, but instead consistently invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination. + +51. Upon information and belief, the Epstein Enterprise kept a computerized list of underage girls who were in or proximate to the Virgin Islands, and able to be transported to Epstein's residence at Little St. James in the Virgin Islands. + +52. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in a pattern of criminal conduct by trafficking children and young women and placing them in sexual servitude and forced labor in the Virgin Islands. The Epstein Enterprise repeatedly violated 14 V.I.C. §§ 133 to 138, which prohibit trafficking and sexual abuse. The Epstein Enterprise also repeatedly violated laws against child abuse and neglect, including 14 V.I.C. § 505, which defines the crime of child abuse as knowingly or recklessly causing "a child to suffer physical, mental, or emotional injury," or causing a child to be placed in a situation where such injury is foreseeable, and 14 V.I.C. § 506, which applies, as + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 11 of 48 + +here, where the child suffers serious physical, mental, or emotional injury as a result of that abuse. The harm to Epstein's victims was both fully foreseeable and deeply damaging. + +53. The Epstein Enterprise knowingly recruited, transported, transferred, harbored, received, procured, obtained, isolated, maintained, and enticed young women and girls to engage in forced labor (such as providing massages) and, ultimately, sexual servitude at his little St. James residence. + +54. A 15 year old victim was forced into sexual acts with Epstein and others and then attempted to escape by swimming off the Little St. James island. Epstein and others organized a search party that located her and kept her captive by, among other things, confiscating her passport. + +55. Another victim, who was first engaged in provide massages to Epstein, was then forced to perform sexual acts at Little St. James in the Virgin Islands. When she attempted to escape from the "private island," Epstein and a search party found her, returned her to his house, and suggested physical restraint or harm if she failed to cooperate. + +56. The Epstein Enterprise deceptively lured underage girls and women into its sex trafficking ring with money and promises of employment, career opportunities and school assistance. The Epstein Enterprise preyed on their financial and other vulnerabilities, and promised victims money, shelter, gifts, employment, tuition and other items of value. For example, participants in the Epstein Enterprise targeted young and underage females under the pretext that they would be paid substantially merely to provide massages to him and others. However, once drawn in, victims were then pressured and coerced to engage in sexual acts. + +57. The Epstein Enterprise forced underage victims to recruit others to perform services and engage in sexual acts—a trafficking pyramid scheme. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 12 of 48 + +58. The Epstein Enterprise paid girls for each "meeting," with additional money if they brought additional girls. Epstein reportedly required three meetings per day. + +59. The Epstein Enterprise used the term "work" as a code for sexual abuse, and, upon information and belief, reportedly kept computer records of the contact information for the victims. + +60. Consistent with his creation and use of a complex web of entities to carry out and conceal the criminal trafficking enterprise in the Virgin Islands, the Epstein Enterprise sometimes paid young women and underage girls he exploited and trafficked through his charitable foundations. + +61. Once the girls and women were recruited, participants in the Epstein Enterprise enforced their sexual servitude of victims by coercion, including but not limited to, confiscating passports, controlling and extinguishing external communications, and threatening violence. They also made fraudulent statements to family members of victims, claiming victims were being well cared for and supported financially in college and other educational opportunities. + +62. The Epstein Enterprise transported, held, sexually abused, trafficked, and concealed women and children at his property in the Virgin Islands dozens of times over nearly two decades. + +#### B. The "Epstein Enterprise" Abused Privileges of Residency to Carry out its Criminal Scheme + +63. The Epstein Enterprise in 1998 acquired Little St. James in the Virgin Islands as the perfect hideaway and haven for trafficking young women and underage girls for sexual servitude, child abuse and sexual assault. Little St. James is a secluded, private island, nearly two miles from St. with no other residents. It can be visited only by private boat or helicopter; no public or commercial transportation is available to carry persons on or off the island, and no GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 13 of 48 + +bridge connects the island to St. Epstein had easy access to Little St. James from the private airfield on St. only 10 minutes away by his private helicopter, but the women and children he trafficked, abused, and held there were not able to leave without his permission and assistance, as it was too far and dangerous to swim to St. + +64. In 2016, upon information and belief, using a straw purchaser to hide Epstein's identity, the Epstein Enterprise acquired Great St. James, the nearest island to Little St. James. By then, Epstein was a convicted sex offender. Upon information and belief, the Epstein Enterprise purchased the island for more than \$20 million because its participants wanted to ensure that the island did not become a base from which others could view their activities or visitors. By acquiring ownership and control of Great St. James to the exclusion of others, the Epstein Enterprise created additional barriers to prevent those held involuntarily on Little St. James from escaping or obtaining help from others. + +65. Great St. James and Little St. James are environmentally sensitive locations, with native coral and wildlife protected by federal and territorial law and enforcement authorities. The Department of Planning and Natural Resources ("DPNR") regulates and monitors construction in the Coastal Zone to protect, maintain and manage the precious natural resources of the Virgin Islands. Under its authority, DPNR repeatedly issued citations and assessed thousands of dollars of fines for violations of the Virgin Islands construction code and environmental protection laws on both Little St. James and Great St. James—significant penalties to the agency and to the average resident of the Virgin Islands. But because of Epstein's enormous wealth, these fines had little effect in curbing or stopping the Epstein Enterprise's unlawful conduct or conforming its activities to the law. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 14 of 48 + +66. As a result of illegal construction activity of the Epstein Enterprise, the Virgin Islands has incurred, and will incur, significant expenses to remove the illegal construction or remediate its effects on natural resources in and around Little St. James and Great St. James. The extent of the potential environmental damage is unknown at this time as the illegal construction has not been removed or remediated. + +67. The Epstein Enterprise continues to attempt to prevent or limit DPNR authorities from conducting random inspections on the Little St. James and Great St. James necessary to comply with Virgin Islands law. + +68. The Epstein Enterprise's violation of the construction and environmental laws was part of a pattern of behavior in flouting the laws of the Virgin Islands and holding itself above the law. Upon information and belief, as described above, the Epstein Enterprise undertook construction at Great St. James after 2016 to continue the scheme to carry out and conceal his trafficking and sexual abuse of young women and children in the Virgin Islands. These actions are also indicative of the Epstein Enterprise's disregard for Virgin Islands' law. The Epstein Enterprise used the Virgin Islands' land, resources, people, and laws for its illicit purposes. Rather than participating lawfully in this community, the Epstein Enterprise took advantage of the secluded nature of the islands in furtherance of its crimes. + +69. As a result of its deplorable and unlawful conduct, the Epstein Enterprise has subjected the Virgin Islands to public portrayals as a hiding place for human trafficking and sex crimes. + +GVI v. Estate ofJeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 15 of 48 + +## C. The "Epstein Enterprise" Fraudulently Concealed its Conduct + +70. The Epstein Enterprise fraudulently concealed its actions to prevent detection by the Government of the Virgin Islands. + +71. The secluded properties at Little St. James and Great St. James were repeatedly used by the Epstein Enterprise as the locations for unlawfully soliciting, transporting, transferring, harboring, receiving, providing, isolating, patronizing, maintaining, deceiving, coercing, and sexually abusing young women and children and concealing these crimes. + +72. The Epstein Enterprise was able to hide the trafficking ring from law enforcement, despite the fact that Epstein was a registered sex offender. Given the isolation of the Little St. James and Great St. James and the nature of the crimes and of the victims targeted by the Epstein Enterprise, the activities of the Epstein Enterprise were not readily detectable. Moreover, Epstein's great wealth and power likely made witnesses reluctant to report their observations to the local law enforcement. + +73. Upon information and belief, the Epstein Enterprise prevented its employees from cooperating with law enforcement. Employees and others were required to sign confidentiality agreements that prohibited them from speaking to or sharing information with law enforcement. If they were contacted by law enforcement they were to notify the Epstein Enterprise and be represented by Epstein's counsel. + +74. The employees were directed not to communicate or interact with guests visiting Little St. James and were also directed not to disclose to anyone events that occurred on the island. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 16 of 48 + +75. Monitoring a sex offender with his own private islands and the resources to fly victims in and out on private planes and helicopters presented unique challenges and allowed the Epstein Enterprise to limit scrutiny by the Government of the Virgin Islands. + +76. Sexual Offender Registration and Community Protection Act ("SORCPA") 14 V.I.C. § 1721, et seq. requires sex offenders registered in the Virgin Islands to make periodic inperson appearances to verify and update their registration information. + +77. Epstein renewed his registration each year in the Virgin Islands. In addition, beyond this statutory requirement, the Virgin Islands periodically visited—or attempted to visit— Little St. James to conduct additional address verifications. + +78. At his last verification in July 2018, Epstein refused to permit Virgin Islands Department of Justice Investigators, assisted by United States Marshals, to enter Little St. James beyond its dock, claiming that the dock was his "front door." Instead, Epstein arranged to be met at his office on St. + +79. Epstein also misled the Government regarding his travel plans. On March 19, 2019, the Virgin Islands was notified that Epstein would be traveling to France for 10 days on the private plane owned by Plan D, LLC. His notification form did not disclose travel to any other countries. It was later discovered by law enforcement authorities that Epstein also travelled to Vienna and Monaco during that trip. + +80. Similarly, the Epstein Enterprise sought to prevent DPNR from conducting routine site visits to inspect unpermitted and potentially damaging construction activity on Great St. James. The Epstein Enterprise repeatedly objected to DPNR's inspections referring to them as "invasions" of Epstein's constitutional right to privacy in his home, which he described defined as the entire island. These DPNR inspections are required for all construction and Virgin Islands residents are + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 17 of 48 + +required to cooperate with the inspections to assure compliance with the law throughout the construction phases. + +81. These efforts represent Epstein Enterprise's intent to conceal its unlawful activity on Little St. James and Great St. James. + +82. The Epstein Enterprise also created numerous corporations and limited liability companies in the Virgin Islands to help conceal its unlawful activity. Most of these companies were created in 2011 and 2012, soon after Epstein registered as a sex offender in the Virgin Islands. + +83. Epstein's pilot, Larry Visoski is identified as member or co-member in companies that serviced and maintained the planes that the Epstein Enterprise used to traffick young women and children — Freedom Air Petroleum, LLC (registered November 28, 2011 to hold assets); and JEGE, LLC (registered October 19, 2012 to hold assets). + +84. Other Epstein entities include LSJ Employees, LLC (registered October 27, 2011 to provide services); Southern Financial, LLC (registered February 25, 2013 to provide services) and LSJ Emergency, LLC (registered December 2, 2015 to provide services). + +85. Some of these companies held considerable assets: Financial Informatics, Inc. (incorporated November 18, 2011, also known as Southern Trust Company, Inc.) had assets of approximately \$391 million in 2015; and Financial Trust Company, Inc. (incorporated November 6, 1998) had assets of 5212 million when it publicly filed its last balance sheet in 2012. + +86. Though often absent in the original incorporation or registration documents or annual filings, Epstein ultimately appeared as president, director, manager, or sole member of each of these companies. Upon information and belief, the purpose of this complex array of corporate entities—some of which may still be discovered—was to allow Epstein to shelter his assets in order to fund, carry out, and conceal his identity and pattern of criminal conduct. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 18 of 48 + +87. The Estate continues to engage in a course of conduct aimed at concealing the criminal activities of the Epstein Enterprise. On November 24, 2019, Epstein's Estate filed an Expedited Motion for Establishment of a Voluntary Claims Resolution Program in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands. ("Motion"). According to the Motion, the proposed program was to be designed to "establish an independent and voluntary claims resolution program for purposes of resolving sexual abuse claims against Jeffrey E. Epstein." (Motion, at 1). + +88. The program proposed by the Estate, whose executors are trustees of The 1953 Trust and officers in at least two Epstein entities, imposes confidentiality requirements and requires any claimant accepting an award under the program to sacrifice any other claims against "any person or entity arising from or related to Mr. Epstein's conduct." (Motion, at 5). It acts to conceal the criminal activities of the Epstein Enterprise and shield its participants from liability and accountability for the injury they caused to the victims. + +89. Two days before his death, Epstein amended The Trust and his Last Will and Testament. Upon information and belief, he did so, as part of a pattern and ongoing effort to conceal and shield his assets from potential recovery by claimants. + +## D. The "Epstein Enterprise" Violated Numerous Virgin Islands Laws + +90. The pattern of criminal activity engaged in by Epstein and other participants in the Epstein Enterprise violated 14 V.I.C. §§ 605 and 607 of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"). + +91. The Epstein Enterprise also violated Title 14, Chapter 3A, The Virgin Islands Uniform Prevention of and Remedies for Human Trafficking Act relating to Trafficking of Persons; Title 14, Chapter 24, relating to Child Protection and Child Abuse and Neglect; Title 14, + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 19 of 48 + +Chapter 81, relating to Prostitution and Related Offenses; Title 18, Chapter 85, relating to Rape and Sexual Assault and other related offenses, as well as other Virgin Islands laws. + +92. The Epstein Enterprise violated Virgin Islands laws by engaging in the human trafficking of underage girls and young women and commercial sex with young women and underage girls by force, fraud, enticement, or coercion, which serve as predicates to the Epstein Enterprise's violations of CICO. + +93. Certain participants who recruited young women and underage girls to be trafficked and forced into sexual servitude themselves were sexually trafficked and abused by the Epstein Enterprise and may be afforded the protections of 14 V.I.C. § 145. + +94. Specifically, Plan D, LLC knowingly and intentionally facilitated the trafficking scheme by flying underage girls and young women into the Virgin Islands to be delivered into sexual servitude. Plan D, LLC repeatedly made flights from the mainland to St. with Epstein and underage girls and young women for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity on Little St. James. On some occasions, they would transport Epstein and female children by helicopter to Little St. James. On other occasions, Epstein and the young women and girls would be transported by boat. + +95. Great St. Jim, LLC and Nautilus, Inc. knowingly participated in the Epstein Enterprise and facilitated the trafficking and sexual servitude of young women and underage girls by providing the secluded properties at, from, or to which Epstein and his associates were able to transport, transfer, receive, maintain, isolate, harbor, provide, entice, deceive, coerce, and sexually abuse underage girls and young women. + +96. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in a continuing course of unlawful conduct. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 20 of 48 + +97. After Epstein's suicide, the Epstein Enterprise continued to exist as each of the participants continued to conspire to prevent detection of the breadth and scope of the Epstein Enterprise's criminal wrongdoing and to prevent accountability. These conspiratorial acts are ongoing. + +98. The conduct of the Epstein Enterprise offends the core purpose of the Virgin Islands Uniform Prevention of and Remedies for Human Trafficking Act, 14 V.I.C. §13I et seq, and violates CICO, enacted to "curtail criminal activity and lessen its economic and political power in the Territory of the Virgin Islands by establishing new penal prohibitions and providing to law enforcement and the victims of criminal activity new civil sanctions and remedies." 14 V.I.C. § 601. + +99. The Epstein Enterprise is an illicit enterprise within the meaning of 14 V.I.C. §§ 604 and 605. + +100. The Government is entitled to recover civil penalties, damages and other remedies and to extinguish and recoup from the Epstein Enterprise any and all financial and other benefits, and any personal and real property that was used during the course of, or intended for use in the course of the conduct or criminal activity in violation of the laws of the Virgin Islands. The Government is entitled to obtain through divestiture, forfeiture, or other equitable relief all properties and instrumentalities used by the Epstein Enterprise in the criminal pattern of trafficking and sexual abuse in the Virgin Islands, including but not limited to, Great St. James and Little St. James, and all other remedies and penalties permitted by law in the interest of justice. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 21 of 48 + +#### COUNT ONE Human Trafficking —Trafficking an Individual Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; and 14 V.I.0 §133 + +101. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 to 100 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +102. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +103. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitutes criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, knowingly recruiting, transporting, transferring, harboring, receiving, providing, obtaining, isolating, maintaining, or enticing female children and young women in the furtherance and performance of forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity in violation of Virgin Islands laws codified in 14 V.I.C. §§ 133-138. + +104. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +105. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +106. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 22 of 48 + +#### COUNT TWO Human Trafficking — Trafficking an Individual Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq. and 14 V.I.0 §133 + +107. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-106 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +108. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate laws prohibiting human trafficking. + +109. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy by recruiting, transporting, transferring, harboring, receiving, providing, obtaining, isolating, maintaining or enticing female children and young women in the furtherance and performance of forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity in violation of Virgin Islands laws codified in 14 V.I.C. § 133 -138. + +110. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands. + +III. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(j). + +112. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +GV1 v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 23 of 48 + +#### COUNT THREE Human Trafficking — Forced Labor Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; and 14 V.I.0 §134 + +113. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-112 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein, + +114. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +115. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitutes criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, knowingly using coercion to compel underage girls and young women to provide labor or services by forced labor in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 134. + +116. The Epstein Enterprise knowingly provided or obtained the labor services of individuals by means of force, threats of force, physical restraint, and/or threats of physical restraint; by means of serious harm or threats of serious harm; by means of abuse or threatened abuse of law or legal processes; and by means of the Epstein Enterprise with the intent to cause individuals to believe that, if individuals did not perform such labor or services, individuals would suffer serious harm or physical restraint. + +117. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +118. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +119. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 24 of 48 + +120. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +#### COUNT FOUR Human Trafficking — Forced Labor Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; and 14 V.I.0 §134 + +121. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-120 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +122. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate laws prohibiting human trafficking. + +123. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy by knowingly using coercion to compel underage girls and young women to provide labor or services by forced labor in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 134. + +124. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands. + +125. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(j). + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein + +GVI's Complaint + +Page 25 of 48 + +126. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 el seq. + +#### COUNT FIVE Human Trafficking — Sexual Servitude Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 §135 + +127. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-126 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +128. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +129. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitutes criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, knowingly maintaining or making available minors for the purpose of engaging the minors in commercial sexual activities or using coercion or deception to force young women to engage in commercial sexual activity in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 135. + +130. On the pretext of providing modeling opportunities, careers and contracts, Defendants facilitated the transporting or recruiting of young women and girls or lured and recruited young women and underage girls to travel to the Virgin Islands where they engaged in sexual acts with Epstein and others. In some instances, young women and underage girls were given scholarships, money, gifts or other items of value in exchange for engaging in sexual acts with Epstein and others. + +131. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 26 of 48 + +132. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +133. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +134. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +#### COUNT SIX Human Trafficking — Sexual Servitude Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 §135 + +135. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-134 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +136. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate laws prohibiting human trafficking. + +137. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join the criminal conspiracy by knowingly maintaining or making available minors for the purpose of engaging the minors in commercial sexual activities or using coercion or deception to force young women to engage in commercial sexual activity in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 135. + +138. On the pretext of providing modeling opportunities, careers and contracts, Defendants facilitated the transporting or recruiting of young women and girls or lured and recruited young women and underage girls to travel to the Virgin Islands where they engaged in sexual acts with Epstein and others. In some instances, young women and underage girls were GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 27 of 48 + +given scholarships, money, gifts or other items of value in exchange for engaging in sexual acts with Epstein and others. + +139. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands. + +140. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(j). + +141. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +#### COUNT SEVEN Human Trafficking — Patronizing Minors and Victims of Sexual Servitude Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 §§ 136-37 + +142. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-141 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +143. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +144. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitutes criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, knowingly giving, agreeing to give, or offering to give items of value to young women and minors so that the + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 28 of 48 + +young women and minors would engage in commercial sexual activity with Epstein, other Defendants, and other individuals in violation of 14 V.I.C. §§ 136-137. + +145. In some instances, young women and underage girls were given scholarships, money, gifts or other items of value in exchange for engaging in sexual acts with Epstein and others. + +146. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +147. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +148. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +149. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO 14V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +# COUNT EIGHT Human Trafficking — Patronizing Minors and Victims of Sexual Servitude Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 §§ 136-37 + +150. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-149 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +151. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in aconspiracy to violate laws prohibiting human trafficking. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 29 of 48 + +152. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy by knowingly giving, agreeing to give, or offering to give items of value to young women and minors so that the young women and minors would engage in commercial sexual activity with Epstein, other Defendants, and other individuals in violation of 14 V.I.C. §§ 136-137. + +153. In some instances, young women and underage girls were given scholarships, money, gifts or other items of value in exchange for engaging in sexual acts with Epstein and others. + +154. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands. + +155. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise; human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. + +156. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +#### COUNT NINE Child Abuse and Neglect Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 §§ 505, 506 and 507 + +157. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-156 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 30 of 48 + +158. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +159. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitutes criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, knowingly or recklessly causing a child to suffer physical, mental or emotional injury, or knowingly or recklessly causing a child to be placed in a situation where it is reasonably foreseeable that such child may suffer physical, mental or emotional injury, in violation Virgin Islands criminal laws prohibiting Child Abuse and Neglect in Title 14 V.I.C. § 500 et. seq. + +160. As a result of the Epstein Enterprise's actions numerous young girls suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +161. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +162. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +163. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +#### COUNT TEN Child Abuse and Neglect Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 14 V.I.C. § 600 a seq.; 14 V.I.0 §§ 505, 506 and 507 + +164. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-163 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 31 of 48 + +165. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate laws prohibiting child abuse and neglect. + +166. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy as they knowingly or recklessly caused a child to suffer physical, mental or emotional injury, or knowingly or recklessly caused a child to be placed in a situation where it is reasonably foreseeable that such child may suffer physical, mental or emotional injury, in violation Virgin Islands criminal laws prohibiting Child Abuse and Neglect in Title 14 V.I.C. § 500 el seq. + +167. As a result of Defendants' actions, numerous young girls suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +168. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands. + +169. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(j). + +170. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GV1's Complaint Page 32 of 48 + +#### COUNT ELEVEN Aggravated Rape Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 § 1700a + +171. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-170 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +172. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +173. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitutes criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, conduct that constituted or facilitated the rape of minors by force, intimidation, or the perpetrator's position of authority over the victim. + +174. Epstein and others, using force or intimidation, engaged in sexual intercourse with underage girls without their consent in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 1700a. + +175. As a result of the Epstein Enterprise's actions, numerous underage girls suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +176. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +177. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +178. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 33 of 48 + +#### COUNT TWELVE Aggravated Rape Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 § 1700a + +179. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-178 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +180. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate laws prohibiting aggravated rape. + +181. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy by engaging in conduct that constituted or facilitated the rape of minors by force, intimidation, or the perpetrator's position of authority over the victim. + +182. Epstein and others, using force or intimidation, engaged in sexual intercourse with underage girls without their consent in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 1700a. + +183. As a result of Defendants' actions, numerous underage girls suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +184. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands. + +185. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(j). + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 34 of 48 + +186. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +#### COUNT THIRTEEN Rape in the Second Degree Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 § 1702 + +187. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1- 186 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +188. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +189. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitutes criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, conduct that constituted or facilitated the rape of girls under 18 years of age. + +190. Epstein and others who engaged in rape were over 18 years old at the time of the incidents. + +191. As a result of the Epstein Enterprise's actions, numerous minors suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +192. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +193. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 35 of 48 + +194. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +#### COUNT FOURTEEN Rape in the Second Degree Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 § 1702 + +195. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1-194 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +196. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate laws prohibiting rape in the second degree. + +197. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy by engaging in conduct that constituted or facilitated the rape of girls under 18 years of age. + +198. Epstein and others who engaged in rape were over 18 years old at the time of the incidents. + +199. As a result of Defendants' actions, numerous minors suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +200. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 36 of 48 + +201. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(j). + +202. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +#### COUNT FIFTEEN Unlawful Sexual Contact in the First or Second Degree Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 §§1708 and 1709 + +203. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1- 202 of this Complaint as if as if fully set forth herein. + +204. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +205. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitutes criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, using or facilitating the use of force or coercion to accomplish sexual contact or engaging in sexual contact with a minor between 13 and 16 years of age. + +206. Epstein and others who engaged in the sexual contact were over 18 years old at the time of the incidents. + +207. As a result of the Epstein Enterprise's actions numerous young women and minors suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +208. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 37 of 48 + +209. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +210. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +#### COUNT SIXTEEN Unlawful Sexual Contact in the First or Second Degree Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 §§ 1708 and 1709 + +211. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs I - 210 of this Complaint as if as if fully set forth herein. + +212. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate laws prohibiting unlawful sexual contact. + +213. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy by using or facilitating the use of force or coercion to accomplish sexual contact or engaging in sexual contact with a minor between 13 and 16 years of age. + +214. Epstein and others who engaged in the sexual contact were over 18 years old at the time of the incidents. + +215. As a result of Defendants' actions, numerous young women and minors suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +216. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of minor girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 38 of 48 + +217. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(j). + +218. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +#### COUNT SEVENTEEN Prostitution and Keeping House of Prostitution Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.: 14 V.I.C. §§ 1622, 1624 + +219. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 - 218 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +220. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +221. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitutes criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including the engaging in or facilitating the knowing and/or reckless abuse of minors through the acts alleged herein. + +222. The Epstein Enterprise knowingly persuaded, induced, enticed, and/or coerced young women and children to travel to the Virgin Islands to engage in prostitution and/or sexual activity, and/or attempted to do the same. + +223. The Epstein Enterprise kept, maintained, and/or permitted his property at Little St. James to be used for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness or assignation with knowledge or reasonable cause to know the same. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 39 of 48 + +224. The Epstein Enterprise received or offered or agreed to receive women and children at his property at Little St. James for the purposes of prostitution, lewdness or assignation, and/or permitted young women and children to remain there for such purposes. + +225. The Epstein Enterprise directed, took, transported, and or offered or agreed to take or transport young women and children to Little St. James with the knowledge or reasonable cause to know that the purpose of such directing, taking or transporting was prostitution, lewdness or assignation. + +226. The Epstein Enterprise knew or should reasonably have known that some of the individuals that were the subjects of the actions described in this Count were minors. + +227. As a result of Defendants' actions, numerous young women and minors suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +228. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +229. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +230. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 40 of 48 + +#### COUNT EIGHTEEN Prostitution and Keeping House of Prostitution Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.: 14 V.I.C. §§ 1622, 1624. + +231. The Government restates and realleges paragraph I - 230 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +232. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined a conspiracy to laws against prostitution. + +233. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy by engaging in or facilitating the persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of young women and children to travel to the Virgin Islands to engage in prostitution and/or sexual activity, and/or attempted to do the same; keeping, maintaining, and/or permitting Epstein's property at Little St. James, to be used for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness or assignation with knowledge or reasonable cause to know the same; receiving, offering, or agreeing to receive individuals at his property at Little St. James for the purposes of prostitution, lewdness or assignation, and/or permitted young women and children to remain there for such purposes; and directing, taking, transporting, and/or offering or agreeing to take or transport young women and children to Little St. James with the knowledge or reasonable cause to know that the purpose of such directing, taking or transporting was prostitution, lewdness or assignation, in violation of 14 V.I.C. §§ 1622 and 1624. + +234. Defendants knew or should reasonably have known that some of the individuals that were the subjects of the actions described in this Count were minors. + +235. As a result of Defendants' actions numerous young women and minors suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GV1's Complaint Page 41 of 48 + +236. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands. + +237. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(j). + +238. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +## COUNT NINETEEN Sex Offender Registry Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.: 14 V.I.C. § 1721 et seq. + +239. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs I- 238 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +240. Epstein was required to, and did, register under the Virgin Islands Sexual Offender Registration and Community Protection Act ("SORCPA") codified at 14 V.I.C. § 1721 et seq. + +241. SORCPA requires registered offenders to provide information relating to intended travel in foreign commerce. + +242. On at least two occasions, Epstein traveled to Vienna and Monaco without disclosing that travel to the Virgin Islands sex offender registry. + +243. Epstein's failure to disclose this travel before, during, or even after his travel was knowing. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 42 of 48 + +244. Epstein's violation SORPCA was part of a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise. 14 V.I.C. §604(j). + +#### COUNT TWENTY Fraudulent Conveyance + +## Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.: 14 V.I.C. §§ 832-833 + +245. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1- 244 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +246. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise. + +247. Each Defendant engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitutes criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to transferring assets to and between various entities controlled by Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise to avoid, defeat, hinder or delay claims against them. + +248. Upon information and belief, in an effort to defeat the claims of creditors and avoid the oversight of the court probating his estate, Epstein, days before his death, transferred significant assets, including assets held by other Defendants, into The 1953 Trust. + +249. At the time of these transfers, Epstein had numerous actions pending against him related to his trafficking and sexual assaults seeking financial judgments. + +250. Through these transfers, Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise fraudulently removed property and effects beyond the jurisdiction of the probate court. + +251. Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise were parties to the fraudulent conveyance of the property, real or personal, and/or the interests or rights arising out of property, contracts, or conveyances of Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 43 of 48 + +252. Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise acted with the intent to defeat, hinder, or delay creditors and claimants, including the Government of the Virgin Islands, in collecting on their judgements, debts and demands. + +253. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property. + +254. Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal activity conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. + +255. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +## COUNT TWENTY-ONE Fraudulent Conveyance Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.: 14 V.I.C. §§ 832-833 + +256. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs Ito 255 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +257. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to commit fraudulent conveyances. + +258. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the criminal conspiracy, including, but not limited to, transferring assets to and between various entities controlled by Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise to avoid, defeat, hinder or delay claims against them. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 44 of 48 + +259. Upon information and belief, in an effort to defeat the claims of creditors and avoid the oversight of the court probating his estate, Epstein, days before his death, transferred significant assets, including assets held by other Defendants, into The 1953 Trust. + +260. At the time of this transfer, Epstein had numerous actions pending against him related to his trafficking and sexual assaults seeking financial judgments. + +261. Through this transfer, Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise fraudulently removed property and effects beyond the jurisdiction of the probate court. + +262. Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise were parties to the fraudulent conveyance of the property, real or personal, and/or the interests or rights arising out of property, contracts, or conveyances of Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise. + +263. Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise acted with the intent to defeat, hinder, or delay the Government of the Virgin Islands and other creditors and claimants to collect on their judgements, debts and demands. + +264. Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands. + +265. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(j). + +266. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 45 of 48 + +#### COUNT TWENTY-TWO Civil Conspiracy + +267. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs I - 266 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. + +268. Defendants acted in concert and joined with others to perform the wrongful acts identified in Counts 1 to 13, among others, concealing the sexual abuse of minor females by unlawful means. + +269. Each co-conspirator knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, about the conduct of the others and about the common unlawful scheme. + +270. These unlawful acts could not have been carried to the length and extent accomplished without the common understanding shared by Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise Defendants. + +271. Each of the Defendants had a duty to report, stop or terminate the wrongful conduct, but instead each Defendant concealed, assisted and furthered the wrongful acts by use of civil conspiracy. + +272. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conspiracy, the Virgin Island has been injured. + +273. Each co-conspirator is jointly and severally liable for the acts alleged herein. + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 46 of 48 + +#### Notice of Allegation of PUNITIVE DAMAGES + +274. The purpose of punitive damages in the common law is to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct that is reckless or intentional and to deter others from engaging in such conduct in the future. + +275. This Complaint describes intentional conduct so egregious, persistent, and injurious that it shocks the conscience and offends a civilized society. + +276. Punitive damages are especially important in the case of persons or companies that have money, assets, and power that mere fines, penalties, and economic damages are simply not sufficient. + +277. At all times material herein, Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise engaged repeatedly in wrongful acts which were intentional and outrageous. The Government gives notice that it intends to pursue the possibility of punitive damages in any jury verdict. + +## PRAYER FOR RELIEF + +WHEREFORE, the Government respectfully requests that the Court: + +- A. Enter a judgment in favor of the Government and against Defendants on all counts; +- B. Declare that Defendants, through the Epstein Enterprise, have engaged in a pattern of criminal activity in the Virgin Islands including but not limited to human trafficking, forced labor and sexual servitude of female children and young women, unlawful sexual contact, child sexual abuse, child abuse and neglect, rape, prostitution and other offenses related offenses, and civil conspiracy.; + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein GVI's Complaint Page 47 of 48 + +C. Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 610, enforce and maintain the criminal activity liens the Government is filing contemporaneously with this lawsuit, or shall file in connection with this action; + +D. Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(a)(1) and 14 V.1.C. § 141, issue an order forfeiting and divesting in favor of the Government of the Virgin Islands all of Defendants' interests in any real and personal property within the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands used to facilitate the criminal enterprise carried out by the Epstein Enterprise, including but not limited to Little St. James Island and Greater St. James Island . + +E. Issue an order forfeiting to the Government of the Virgin Islands any proceeds or funds obtained by Defendants, whether directly or indirectly, during the course of the criminal activity of the Epstein Enterprise; + +F. Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(a)( I ), require Defendants to divest themselves of any real property or other interests in favor of the Government of the Virgin Islands used to further the goals of the Epstein Enterprise; + +G. Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(a)(3) and (5), order the dissolution of the Epstein Enterprise, including but not limited to, order the dissolution of the corporate Defendants; + +H. Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(a)(2) enter an injunction to prevent the further criminal conduct, and concealment of the criminal conduct, by the Epstein Enterprise; + +I. Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(a)(4), order the revocation of any and all licenses, permits and approvals that had been granted by any agency of the Territory, and require the repayment of any tax benefits that had been bestowed on any Defendant; + +J. Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(a)(6)(e), award the Government the maximum civil penalty for each and every violation of law committed by the Epstein Enterprise; + +GVI v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein +GVI's Complaint +Page 48 of 48 + +K. Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607, award treble damages and all other available remedies, including attorneys' fees and costs; + +L. Award compensatory and punitive damages for Defendants' civil conspiracy; + +M. Void the transfer of assets as fraudulently conveyed to the The 1953 Trust; + +N. Award such equitable relief, including disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains, as may be just and proper and appropriate, pursuant to 14 14 V.I.C. § 608(c)(4), to protect the rights of victims and innocent persons in the interest of justice and consistent with the purposes of CICO; + +O. Assess and award a judgment in favor of the Government and against the Defendants for attorneys' fees and costs and pre- and post-judgment interest; and + +P. Award any and all other relief this Court deems appropriate. + +**The Government demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.** + +**RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,** + +Dated: January 15, 2020 + +**GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES +VIRGIN ISLANDS** + +![]()**DENISE N. GEORGE, ESQUIRE +ATTORNEY GENERAL** + +V.I. Department of Justice +Office of the Attorney General +34-38 Kronprindsens Gade +GERS Building, 2nd Floor +St. [REDACTED], U.S.V.I. 00802 +Telephone: (340) 774-5666 + +RECEIVED +20 JAN 15 PM 1:01 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751158/EFTA02751158.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751158/EFTA02751158.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..89633496e0bb2b01d0e4ebd5cb74c89e7a9be8ca --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751158/EFTA02751158.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,2582 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751158.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 49, + "chars": 82171, + "elapsed_seconds": 25.03, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. [REDACTED] AND ST. JOHN", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 94.076 + ], + [ + 485.928, + 94.076 + ], + [ + 485.928, + 125.705 + ], + [ + 127.29599999999999, + 125.705 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COMPLAINT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 389.28 + ], + [ + 345.16799999999995, + 389.28 + ], + [ + 345.16799999999995, + 403.06699999999995 + ], + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 403.06699999999995 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "JURISDICTION AND PARTIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 218.48399999999998, + 499.57599999999996 + ], + [ + 393.51599999999996, + 499.57599999999996 + ], + [ + 393.51599999999996, + 512.552 + ], + [ + 218.48399999999998, + 512.552 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 223.015, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 385.91680908203125, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 385.91680908203125, + 125.613037109375 + ], + [ + 223.015, + 125.613037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Conduct of the \"Epstein Enterprise\" in the Virgin Islands", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.703, + 138.51 + ], + [ + 473.89141845703125, + 138.51 + ], + [ + 473.89141845703125, + 153.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.703, + 153.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The \"Epstein Enterprise\" Abused Privileges of Residency to Carry out its \nCriminal Scheme", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 565.3799999999999 + ], + [ + 541.008, + 565.3799999999999 + ], + [ + 541.008, + 594.0635223388672 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 594.0635223388672 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. The \"Epstein Enterprise\" Fraudulently Concealed its Conduct", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 124.74 + ], + [ + 447.6069641113281, + 124.74 + ], + [ + 447.6069641113281, + 140.22802734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 140.22802734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. The \"Epstein Enterprise\" Violated Numerous Virgin Islands Laws", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 538.6500000000001 + ], + [ + 466.7445983886719, + 538.6500000000001 + ], + [ + 466.7445983886719, + 553.863037109375 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 553.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT ONE \nHuman Trafficking \u2014Trafficking an Individual \nViolation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (\"CICO\"), \n14 V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.; and 14 V.I.0 \u00a7133", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 96.084, + 112.59 + ], + [ + 517.6919555664062, + 112.59 + ], + [ + 517.6919555664062, + 168.3580322265625 + ], + [ + 96.084, + 168.3580322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT TWO \nHuman Trafficking \u2014 Trafficking an Individual \nConspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act \n14 V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq. and 14 V.I.0 \u00a7133", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 116.08999999999999, + 111.78000000000002 + ], + [ + 532.181, + 111.78000000000002 + ], + [ + 532.181, + 168.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 116.08999999999999, + 168.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT THREE \nHuman Trafficking \u2014 Forced Labor \nViolation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (\"CICO\"), \n14 V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.; and 14 V.I.0 \u00a7134", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 114.444, + 110.16000000000003 + ], + [ + 535.6634521484375, + 110.16000000000003 + ], + [ + 535.6634521484375, + 166.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 114.444, + 166.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT FOUR \nHuman Trafficking \u2014 Forced Labor \nConspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, \n14 V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.; and 14 V.I.0 \u00a7134", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 113.83200000000001, + 220.32000000000005 + ], + [ + 531.6296997070312, + 220.32000000000005 + ], + [ + 531.6296997070312, + 277.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 113.83200000000001, + 277.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT FIVE \nHuman Trafficking \u2014 Sexual Servitude \nViolation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (\"CICO\"), \n14 V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 \u00a7135", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 113.83200000000001, + 205.74 + ], + [ + 535.3219604492188, + 205.74 + ], + [ + 535.3219604492188, + 262.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 113.83200000000001, + 262.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT SIX \nHuman Trafficking \u2014 Sexual Servitude \nConspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act \n14 V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 \u00a7135", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 25, + "polygon": [ + [ + 98.532, + 330.48 + ], + [ + 514.1241455078125, + 330.48 + ], + [ + 514.1241455078125, + 388.10302734375 + ], + [ + 98.532, + 388.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT SEVEN \nHuman Trafficking \u2014 Patronizing Minors and Victims of Sexual Servitude \nViolation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (\"CICO\"), \n14 V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 \u00a7\u00a7 136-37", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 112.24, + 457.40399999999994 + ], + [ + 534.2203979492188, + 457.40399999999994 + ], + [ + 534.2203979492188, + 514.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 112.24, + 514.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT EIGHT \nHuman Trafficking \u2014 Patronizing Minors and Victims of Sexual Servitude Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 14 V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 \u00a7\u00a7 136-37", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 109.011, + 522.45 + ], + [ + 525.567, + 522.45 + ], + [ + 525.567, + 581.6560363769531 + ], + [ + 109.011, + 581.6560363769531 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT NINE \nChild Abuse and Neglect \nViolation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (\"CICO\"), \n14 V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 \u00a7\u00a7 505, 506 and 507", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 28, + "polygon": [ + [ + 98.371, + 620.46 + ], + [ + 514.3219604492188, + 620.46 + ], + [ + 514.3219604492188, + 677.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 98.371, + 677.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT TEN \nChild Abuse and Neglect \nConspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, \n14 V.I.C. \u00a7 600 a seq.; 14 V.I.0 \u00a7\u00a7 505, 506 and 507", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 29, + "polygon": [ + [ + 96.538, + 593.73 + ], + [ + 514.5523681640625, + 593.73 + ], + [ + 514.5523681640625, + 649.5585174560547 + ], + [ + 96.538, + 649.5585174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT ELEVEN \nAggravated Rape \nViolation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (\"CICO\"), \n14 V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 \u00a7 1700a", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 31, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.142, + 110.16000000000003 + ], + [ + 511.6634826660156, + 110.16000000000003 + ], + [ + 511.6634826660156, + 166.8580322265625 + ], + [ + 95.142, + 166.8580322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT TWELVE \nAggravated Rape \nConspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, \n14 V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 \u00a7 1700a", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 32, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.02000000000001, + 112.59 + ], + [ + 521.2739868164062, + 112.59 + ], + [ + 521.2739868164062, + 168.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 103.02000000000001, + 168.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT THIRTEEN \nRape in the Second Degree \nViolation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (\"CICO\"), \n14 V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 \u00a7 1702", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 33, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.456, + 208.17000000000002 + ], + [ + 512.44189453125, + 208.17000000000002 + ], + [ + 512.44189453125, + 264.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 95.456, + 264.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT FOURTEEN \nRape in the Second Degree \nConspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, \n14 V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 \u00a7 1702", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 34, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.96800000000002, + 207.36 + ], + [ + 522.3268432617188, + 207.36 + ], + [ + 522.3268432617188, + 264.35302734375 + ], + [ + 103.96800000000002, + 264.35302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT FIFTEEN \nUnlawful Sexual Contact in the First or Second Degree \nViolation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (\"CICO\"), \n14 V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 \u00a7\u00a71708 and 1709", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 35, + "polygon": [ + [ + 95.456, + 276.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 513.3933715820312, + 276.21000000000004 + ], + [ + 513.3933715820312, + 333.3580322265625 + ], + [ + 95.456, + 333.3580322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT SIXTEEN \nUnlawful Sexual Contact in the First or Second Degree \nConspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, \n14 V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.; 14 V.I.0 \u00a7\u00a7 1708 and 1709", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 36, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.96800000000002, + 260.82 + ], + [ + 523.0897216796875, + 260.82 + ], + [ + 523.0897216796875, + 319.10302734375 + ], + [ + 103.96800000000002, + 319.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT SEVENTEEN \nProstitution and Keeping House of Prostitution \nViolation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (\"CICO\"), \n14 V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.: 14 V.I.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1622, 1624", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 94.395, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 516.1919555664062, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 516.1919555664062, + 345.7330627441406 + ], + [ + 94.395, + 345.7330627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT EIGHTEEN \nProstitution and Keeping House of Prostitution \nConspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, \n14 V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.: 14 V.I.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1622, 1624.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 39, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.19, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 522.7739868164062, + 110.97 + ], + [ + 522.7739868164062, + 167.6080322265625 + ], + [ + 103.19, + 167.6080322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT NINETEEN \nSex Offender Registry \nViolation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (\"CICO\"), \n14 V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.: 14 V.I.C. \u00a7 1721 et seq.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 40, + "polygon": [ + [ + 93.324, + 400.14 + ], + [ + 516.3538818359375, + 400.14 + ], + [ + 516.3538818359375, + 460.18853759765625 + ], + [ + 93.324, + 460.18853759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT TWENTY \nFraudulent Conveyance", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 41, + "polygon": [ + [ + 236.946, + 179.82 + ], + [ + 366.0635986328125, + 179.82 + ], + [ + 366.0635986328125, + 208.17852783203125 + ], + [ + 236.946, + 208.17852783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (\"CICO\"), \n14 V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.: 14 V.I.C. \u00a7\u00a7 832-833", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 41, + "polygon": [ + [ + 90.294, + 208.17000000000002 + ], + [ + 514.1433715820312, + 208.17000000000002 + ], + [ + 514.1433715820312, + 238.1785888671875 + ], + [ + 90.294, + 238.1785888671875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT TWENTY-ONE \nFraudulent Conveyance \nConspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, \n14 V.I.C. \u00a7 600 et seq.: 14 V.I.C. \u00a7\u00a7 832-833", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 42, + "polygon": [ + [ + 94.692, + 400.14 + ], + [ + 513.42236328125, + 400.14 + ], + [ + 513.42236328125, + 460.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 94.692, + 460.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT TWENTY-TWO \nCivil Conspiracy", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 44, + "polygon": [ + [ + 235.074, + 139.32 + ], + [ + 375.2394104003906, + 139.32 + ], + [ + 375.2394104003906, + 167.613037109375 + ], + [ + 235.074, + 167.613037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Notice of Allegation of \nPUNITIVE DAMAGES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 45, + "polygon": [ + [ + 256.998, + 110.16000000000003 + ], + [ + 386.1649475097656, + 110.16000000000003 + ], + [ + 386.1649475097656, + 138.80853271484375 + ], + [ + 256.998, + 138.80853271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRAYER FOR RELIEF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 45, + "polygon": [ + [ + 238.119, + 483.57 + ], + [ + 370.10357666015625, + 483.57 + ], + [ + 370.10357666015625, + 498.80853271484375 + ], + [ + 238.119, + 498.80853271484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 276 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 38, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 39, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 40, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 41, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 42, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 43, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 44, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 45, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 46, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 47, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Text", + 29 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 48, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Line", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751158" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751207/EFTA02751207.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751207/EFTA02751207.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1fee8db9727e9a70241b14904316e71cbeca693c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751207/EFTA02751207.md @@ -0,0 +1,443 @@ +# LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN + +I, JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, a resident and domiciliary of St.' United States Virgin Islands, do make, publish and declare this to be my Will hereby revoking all prior Wills and Codicils made by me. + +1: I direct my Executor to pay from my estate all expenses of my last illness, my funeral and burial expenses, the administration expenses of my estate and all of my debts duly proven and allowed against my estate. + +A. I direct my Executor to pay from my estate, as compensation to each Executor for serving as Executor hereunder, the sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars (\$250,000) to each Executor upon the completion of probate of my estate. No Executor shall receive any other compensation for serving as Executor hereunder, provided, however, that my Executor shall be reimbursed from my estate for all reasonable costs, expenses, charges, and liabilities incurred or paid in respect thereto, including fees and expenses of counsel or any other agents hired by my Executor, and my Executor shall not be liable therefor individually. + +B. I direct my Executor to pay from my estate the federal and state transfer taxes described in Paragraph B(1) of Article SEVENTH. + +C. I direct my Executor to pay from my estate all expenses of storing, insuring, packing, shipping and delivering my tangible personal property in accordance with the provisions of Article SECOND. + +2: 1 give all of my property, real and personal, wherever situated, after the payments and distributions provided in Article FIRST, to the then acting Trustees of The 1953 Trust ("Truse) created under that certain Trust Agreement of The 1953 Trust (the "Trust Agreement') dated August 8, 2019, as the same may be amended from time to time, to be held in accordance with the provisions comprising the Trust Agreement at the time of my death. + +3: I appoint DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN to serve as the Executors of this Will. If any one or more of my Executors fails to qualify, is unable or unwilling to serve or ceases to act, I appoint BORIS NIKOLIC, as successor Executor. If any successor Executor fails to qualify, is unable or unwilling to serve or ceases to act, I authorize the last acting Executor to designate his or her successor. Such designation shall be made by written instrument delivered to such designated successor Executor. + +A. If my estate must be administered in whole or in part in any jurisdiction other than the state or territory of my domicile at the date of my death, and if my Execlitor is unable or unwilling to serve in such jurisdiction, then I appoint the successor Executor of my estate designated in Paragraph• A of Article THIRD as successor Executor in such + +jurisdiction only, provided that he or she is able and willing to serve in such jurisdiction. If no Executor or successor Executor is able and willing to serve in such jurisdiction, my Executor shall designate a successor Executor to serve in such jurisdiction. Such designation shall be made by written instrument delivered to such successor Executor. + +B. No bond or other security shall be required of any Executor in any jurisdiction. + +C. Any Executor may resign in the manner provided for by the governing statutes of the state or territory having jurisdiction of the administration of my estate or in the absence of such statutory guidance, by filing a written notice of resignation with the Court having jurisdiction of the administration of my estate. Any Executor who resigns shall not be entitled to any compensation hereunder for any services rendered as Executor prior to his or her resignation. + +D. My Executor shall not be accountable or responsible to any person interested in my estate for the manner in which my Executor in good faith exercises or declines to exercise any discretionary authority or power of my Executor. My Executor shall not be liable for any loss or depredation in value occasioned by reason of any negligence, error or mistake of judgment in entering into any transaction, in making any sale or investment, in continuing to hold any property or by reason of any action or omission, whether by my Executor or any other fiduciary, unless my Executor has acted in bad faith. In the absence of proof by affirmative evidence to the contrary, each Executor shall be deemed to have acted within the scope of my Executor's authority, to have exercised reasonable care, diligence and prudence and to have acted impartially as to all interested persons. An Executor shall not be liable for the acts or defaults of another Executor. + +- The following provisions shall apply to my estate and to my Executor, except as is otherwise specifically provided in this Will: + +A. My Executor has the entire care and custody of all assets of my estate. My Executor has the power to do everything my Executor in good faith deems advisable without necessity of any judicial authorization or approval, even though but for this power it would not be authorized or appropriate for fiduciaries under any statutory or other rule of law. My Executor shall exercise my Executor's best judgment and discretion for what my Executor believes to be in the best interests of the beneficiaries hereunder. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Will, if two Executors arc empowered to participate in the decision to exercise or not to exercise any fiduciary power granted by this Will or by law, such decision shall be made by such Executors acting unanimously. If more than two Executors are empowered to participate in the decision to exercise or not exercise any fiduciary power granted by this Will or by law, a majority of such Executors shall be empowered to make such decision. + +B. Except as otherwise provided herein, my Executor shall have the power: + +(I) to enter upon and take possession of the assets of my estate and collect the income and profits from such assets, and to invest and reinvest such assets in real, personal or mixed assets (including the common trust funds of a corporate + +fiduciary) or in undivided interests therein without being limited by any present or future investment laws; + +(2) to retain all or any part of the assets of my estate (without regard to the proportion that any one asset or class of assets may bear to the whole) in the form in which such assets were received or acquired by my Executor, + +(3) to sell or dispose of, exchange, transfer, invest or loan all or any part of the assets of my estate which may, at any time, be held by my Executor for such sums or upon such terms as to payment, security or otherwise as my Executor determines, either by public or private transactions; + +(4) to buy and sell options, warrants, puts, calls or other rights to purchase or sell (collectively "options") relating to any security or securities, regardless of whether such security or securities are then held by my Executor, and whether such options are purchased or sold on a national securities exchange, and to exercise with respect to such options all powers which an individual owner thereof could exercise, including, without limitation, the right to allow the same to expire; + +(5) with respect to oil, natural gas, minerals, and all other natural resources and rights to and interests therein (together with all equipment pertaining thereto), including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, oil and gas royalties, leases, or other oil and gas interests of any character, whether owned in fee, as lessee, lessor, licensee, concessionaire or otherwise, or alone or jointly with others as partner, joint tenant, or joint venture in any other noncorporate manner, (a) to make oil, gas and mineral leases or subleases; (b) to pay delay rentals, lease bonuses, royalties, overriding royalties, taxes, assessments, and all other charges; (c) to sell, lease, exchange, mortgage, pledge or otherwise hypothecate any or all of such rights and interests; (d) to,surrender or abandon, with or without consideration, any or all of such rights and interests; (e) tb make farm-out, pooling, and unitization agreements; (f) to make reservations or impose conditions on the transfer of any such rights or interests; (g) to employ the most advantageous business form in which properly to exploit such rights and interests, whether as corporations, partnerships, limited partnerships, mining partnerships, limited liability companies, joint ventures, co-tenancies, or otherwise exploit any and all such rights and interests; (h) to produce, process, sell or exchange all products recovered through the exploitation of such rights and interests, and to enter into contracts and agreements for or in respect of the installation or operation of absorption, reprocessing or other processing plants; (i) to carry any or all such interests in the name or names of a nominee or nominees; 0) to delegate, to the extent permitted by law, any or all of the powers set forth herein to the operator of such property; and (k) to employ personnel, rent office space, buy or lease office equipment, contract and pay for geological surveys and studies, procure appraisals, and generally to conduct and engage in any and all activities incident to the foregoing powers, with full power to borrow and pledge in order to finance such activities; together with the power to allocate between principal and income any net roceeds received as consideration, whether as royalties or otherwise, for the permanent from lands of oil, natural gas, minerals, and all other natural resources; + +(6) to hold all or any part of the assets of my estate in cash or in bank accounts without the necessity of investing the same; + +• + +(7) to improve, repair, partition, plat or subdivide all or any part of the assets of my estate; + +(8) to litigate, defend, compromise, settle, abandon or. submit to arbitration on such terms and conditions as my Executor determines any claims in favor of or against my estate or the assets of my estate; + +(9) to loan or borrow money in such amounts and upon such terms and conditions as my Executor determines, assume such obligations or give such guarantees as my Executor determines, for the purpose of the acquisition, improvement, protection, retention or preservation of the assets of my estate, or for the welfare of the beneficiaries of my estate; + +(10) to carry on for as long and in such manner as my Executor determines any business enterprise in which I owned any interest at my death, either individually, or as a partner, member, joint venture, stockholder or trust beneficiary; to sell such business enterprise as an ongoing business; to consolidate, merge, encumber, dissolve, liquidate or undertake any other extraordinary corporate transaction relating to such business enterprise; + +(11) to vote in person or by proxy any and all or securities and to become a part• to any voting trusts, reorganizition, consolidation or other capital or debt readjustment of any corporation, association, partnership, limited liability partnership, limited liability company or individual with respect to stocks, securities or debts held by my estate; + +• (12) except as provided for in Sections (20) and (21) of this Article Fourth, to enter into am• good faith transactions with any Executor individually or with any cqrporation, partnership or other entity in which any Executor has an ownership interest; + +(13) To purchase from my estate any stocks, bonds, securities, real or personal property, or other assets, or make loans to my estate even though the same person or persons occupy the office of my Trustee and the office of the Executor of my estate; + +(14) to lease, mortgage, pledge, grant a security interest in or otherwise encumber all or any part of the assets of my estate for any term of years whether or not beyond the duration of my estate (including, without limitation, any such action for the benefit of any of the beneficiaries of my estate); + +(15) to abandon any property of my estate, real or personal, which my Executor may deem worthless or not of sufficient value to warrant keeping or protecting; to abstain from the payment of taxes, water rents or assessments and to forego making repairs, maintaining or keeping up any such property; and to permit such property to be lost by tax sale or other proceedings or to convey any such property for a nominal consideration or without consi,deration so as to prevent the imposition of any liability by reason of the continued ownership thereof; + +(16) to elect the mode of distribution of the proceeds payable to my estate from any profit-sharing plan, pension plan, employee benefit plan, individual retirement plan, insurance contract or annuity contract pursuant to the terms of such plan; + +(17) to allocate, in my Executors discretion, any adjustment to basis provided to my estate under the provisions of Federal and State law with respect to property comprising my estate, without any obligation to make a compensatory• adjustment among the beneficiaries hereunder on account of such allocation; + +(18) to conduct any audit, assessment or investigation with respect to any asset of my estate regarding compliance with any law or regulation having as its object protection of public health, natural resources or the environment ("Environmental Laws"); to pay from the assets of my estate to remedy any failure to comply with any Environmental Law (even to the exhaustion of all of the assets of my estate); and, as may be required in my Executor's judgment by any Environmental Law, to notify any governmental authority of any past, present or future non-compliance with any Environmental I aw; and + +(19) to sell to the Trustee under the Trust Agreement any stocks, bonds, securities, real or personal property or other assets or borrow from the Trustee under the Trust Agreement even though the same person or persons occupy the office of the Executor of my estate and the Trustee under the Trust Agreement. + +(20) No executor shall directly or indirectly buy or sell any property for the estate from or to himself, or from or to his relative, employer, employee, partner, or other business associate. + +(21) No executor shall lend estate funds to himself, or to his relative, employer, employee, partner, or other business associate. + +C. Except as otherwise provided herein, my Executor shall have the power: + +(1) to employ agents, attorneys-at-law, consultants, investment advisers (to whom my Executor has discretion to delegate my Executor's investment authority and responsibility), other executors and other fiduciaries in the administration of my Executor's duties; to delegate to such persons, or to one or more of my Executors, the custody, control or management of any part of my estate as my Executor determines and to pay for such services from the assets of my estate, without obtaining judicial authorization or approval; + +(2) to delegate, in whole or in part, to any person or persons the authority and power to (a) sign checks, drafts or orders for the payment or withdrawal of funds, securities and other assets from any bank, brokerage, custody or other account in which funds, securities or other assets of my estate shall be deposited, (b) endorse for sale, transfer or deliver•, or sell, transfer or deliver, or purchase or otherwise acquire, any and all property, stocks, warrants, rights, options, bonds or other securities whatsoever, (c) gain access to any safe deposit box or boxes in which my assets or assets of my estate may be located or which may be in the name of my Executor and remove part or all of the contents of any such safe deposit box or boxes and release and surrender the same, and (d) take any other action that my Executor may have the power to take with respect to my estate and the property thereof; no person or corporation acting in reliance on any such delegation shall be charged with notice of any revocation or change of such delegation unless such person or corporation receives actual notice thereof; • + +(3) to pay any property distributable to a beneficiary under a legal disability or who has not attained the age of 21, without liability to my Executor, by paying such property (a) to such beneficiary, (b) for the use of such beneficiary, (c) to a legal representative of such beneficiary appointed by a court or if none, to a relative for the use of such beneficiary, or (d) to a custodian for such beneficiary designated by my Executor, to hold until age 21 or such earlier age as shall be the maximum permitted under applicable law; + +(4) to distribute to any of the beneficiaries of my estate in kind or in cash, or partly in kind and partly in cash, and to allocate different kinds or disproportionate shares of assets or undivided interests in assets among all of such beneficiaries; + +(5) to have evidence of ownership of any security maintained in the records of a Federal Reserve Bank under the Federal Reserve Book Entry System; to deposit funds in any bank or trust company; to carry in the name of my Executor or the nominee or nominees of my Executor and with or without designation of fiduciary capacity, or to hold in bearer form, securities or other property requiring or permitting of registration; and to cause any securities to be held by a depository• corporation of which an Executor is a member or by an agent under a safekeeping contract; provided, however, that the books and records of my Executor shall at all times show that such investments are part of my estate; + +(6) to renounce and disclaim, in whole or in part, and in accordance with applicable law, any assets, interests, rights or powers (including any power of appointmek) which are payable to (or exercisable by) me or my estate, which are includible in my estate or Gross Estate or over which I have any right, title, interest or power; and + +(7) to make, execute and deliver any and all such instruments in writing as shall be necessary or proper to carry out any power, right, duty or obligation of my Executor or any diSposition whatsoever of my estate or any asset of my estate and to exercise any and all other powers incidental or necessary to cart• out or to fulfill the terms, provisions and purposes of my estate. + +D. In connection with any insurance policy or annuity on the life of an Executor which is included in my estate, such Executor shall not participate in the decision to exercise or not exercise any fiduciary power in connection with any incidents of ownership for such policy or annuity, including, without limitation, any decision to continue, assign, terminate or convert such policy or annuity or to name the beneficiary of such policy or annuity. + +E. An Executor hereunder may by a written notice delivered to the other Executor decline to participate in the decision to exercise or not exercise any fiduciary powe, granted by this Will or by law. + +F. If 'an Executor is not empowered (because of a conflict of + +interest, declination to act or otherwise) to participate in the decision to exercise or not exercise any fiduciary power granted by this Will or by law, then the remaining Executor shall be empowered to make such decision. If no Executor is empowered to participate in such decision, then the successor Executor of my estate designated in Paragraph A of Article THIRD and able and willing to act shall be empowered to make such decision. If no Executor or successor Executor is empowered to participate in such decision, my Executor may designate a successor Executor to serve as Executor of my estate who shall be empowered to make such decision but shall have no other power or authority of my Executor. Such designation shall be by written notice delivered to such successor Executor. + +G. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Paragraph G(1) of this Article, and except as provided in Paragraph G(2) of this Article, my Executor shall allocate receipts and disbursements in accordance with sound trust accounting principles and shall have discretion to allocate receipts and disbursements when the treatment is uncertain under applicable laws or generally accepted accounting principles in the judgment of my Executor. + +(I) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Will, my Executor shall not treat any part of the principal amount of the proceeds of sale of any asset of my estate as income distributable to or for the benefit of any beneficiary entitled to distributions of income; provided, however, that my Executor shall treat a portion of any proceeds, of sale of any financial instrument originally issued or acquired at a discount equal to the amount which (a) has previously been characterized as ordinary income for income tax purposes or (b) will be characterized as ordinary income for income tax purposes in the year of such sale, as income for trust accounting purposes. + +5: Where a party to any proceeding with respect to my estate has the same interestas a person under a disability, it shall not be necessary to serve legal process on the person under a disability. + +6: If any beneficiary under the Trust shall in any way directly or indirectly (a) contest or object to the probate of my Will or to the validity of any disposition or provision of my Will or of the Trust or (b) institute or prosecute, or be in any way directly or indirectly instrumental in the institution or prosecution of, any action, proceeding, contest, objection or claim for the purpose of setting aside .or invalidating my Will or the Trust or any disposition therein or provision thereof, then I direct that (a) any and all provisions in the Trust for such beneficiary and his issue in any degree shall be null and void and (b) my estate, whether passing under my Will or the Trust or pursuant to the laws of intestacy, shall be disposed of as if such beneficiary and his issue in any degree had all failed to survive me. + +7: A. As used herein: + +(1) The term "Executor" of a person's estate means all persons or entities who occupy the office of executor, administrator, personal representative, or ancillary administrator while such persons or entities occupy such office, whether one or more persons or entities occupy such office at the same time or times, and includes any + +successor or successors to that office. The term "Trustee" means all persons or entities who occupy the office of Trustee under the Trust Agreement while such persons or entities occupy such office, whether one or more persons or entities occupy the office of Trustee at the same time or times, and includes any successor Trustee or Trustees. A reference to aperson's estate or probate estate means that person's estate which is subject to probate administration. A reference to aperson's Will means such person's Last Will and Testament and any Codicil or Codicils thereto. + +(2) The term "IRC section" means asection of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the corresponding provision of any successor Internal Revenue law, as in effect as of the date of my death. + +(3) A reference to any tax also includes any interest or penalties thereon. A reference to aperson's "Gross Estate" means such person's gross estate as finally determined for purposes of computing such person's federal estate tax. + +(4) Whenever the singular number is used, the same shall include the plural, and the masculine gender shall include the feminine and neuter genders. + +B. The federal and state transfer taxes which my Executor shall be obligated to pay pursuant to Paragraph B of Article FIRST shall consist of all federal and state estate, inheritance, succession, and similar taxes (including any federal or state generation-skipping transfer tax) imposed upon my probate estate or by reason of my death in respect to all assets which pass under this Will or the Trust Agreement. Subject to Paragraph B(2) of this Article, all federal estate taxes with respect to assets not passing under this Will or the Trust Agreement (such assets are referred to as the "Apportionment Assets') and any applicable state estate taxes with respect to the Apportionment Assets shall be apportioned among all persons interested in the Apportionment Assets. My Executor shall make reasonable efforts to collect all federal estate taxes and state estate, inheritance, succession and similar taxes allocable to the Apportionment Assets from the recipients of the Apportionment Assets. Without changing the apportionment of taxes in this Paragraph B(1), my Executor has discretion, but is not required, to pay all or pan of such taxes allocable to the Apportionment Assets. To the extent my Executor pays such taxes allocable to the Apportionment Assets, my Executor shall seek reimbursement for such taxes from the recipients of the Apportionment Assets. My Executor shall not be personally liable for any of such taxes if my Executor is unable, with reasonable efforts, to collect payment (or reimbursement) from any recipient of any Apportionment Assets for any or all of such taxes allocable to such assets. + +(1) My Executor has discretion to direct the Trustee of the Trust Agreement to pay all or any portion of the taxes which my Executor is directed or obligated to pay pursuant to Paragraph B of Article FIRST and this Paragraph B pursuant to a written direction delivered to the Trustee under the Trust Agreement. Any taxes which my Executor directs the Trustee under the Trust Agreement to pay shall be allocated and paid from the trusts under the Trust Agreement as provided under the Trust Agreement. + +C. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Will, abequest or devise to an individual who does not survive me shall lapse notwithstanding any law to the contrary. + +D. To the extent that the distribution to the Trustee under the Trust Agreement pursuant to Article SECOND shall not be effective, I give all the rest of my property, real and personal, wherever situated, after the payments and distributions provided in Article FIRST, to the person or persons named as Trustee or Trustees under the Trust Agreement, be to held • in trust under this Will in accordance with the provisions comprising the Trust Agreement at the time of my death, which provisions are incorporated in this Will by reference. + +IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have duly executed this Will this 8'h day of August, 2019. + +J EF : . EPSTEIN + +The foregoing instrument, consisting of eleven (11) pages, was signed in our presence by Jeffrey E. Epstein and was declared by him to be his last Will. We, at the request of and in the presence of Jeffrey E. Epstein and in the presence of each other, have subscribed our names below as witnesses. We declare that we are of sound mind and of the proper age to witness a will, that to the best of our knowledge the testator is of the age of majority, or is othenvise legally competent to make a will, and appears of sound mind and under no undue influence or constraint. Under penalty of perjury, we declare these statements are true and correct on this 8th clay of August, 2019 at New York, New York. + +t14/-Ackrie.coldvny,,,6 kg/iv a. 66ILNORA TAZI residing at residing at c3 OtAe,lci AytsP\ Z>Yook.-1\fn t NY iiaCA benme 9 apt lb 4/y fizz -1 + +AFFIDAVIT + +We, Jeffrey E. Epstein, Marie A. Col Miró and Gulnora Tali the Testator and the witnesses respectively, whose names are signed to the attached instrument in those capacities, personally appearing before the undersigned authority and first being duly sworn, do hereby declare to the undersigned authority under penalty of perjury that the Testator declared, signed, and executed the instrument as his last will; he signed it willingly; he/she executed it as his free and voluntary act for the purposes therein expressed; and each of the witnesses, at the request of the Testator, in his or her hearing and presence, and in the presence of each other, signed the will as witness and that to the best of his or her knowledge the testator was at that time eighteen (18) years of age or older, of sound mind and under no constraint or undue influence. + +JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN + +Marie E. Epstein residing at 600 Duffield Street Apt 8A + +Gulnora Tali residing at Brooklyn, NY 11201 +675 Avenue Z apt 1D +Brooklyn, NY 11203 + +STATE OF NEW YORK ) +)ss: +COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) + +Subscribed and sworn to before me by JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, the Testator, who is personally known to me or who has produced Personally known as identification, and by Marie A. Col Miró a witness who is personally known to me or who has produced \_\_\_\_\_ as identification, and Gulnora Tali, a witness who is personally known to me or who has produced \_\_\_\_\_ as identification, on August 8, 2019. + +Sworn to before me this 8th day of August, 201. + +Marlana Melendez +Notary Public + +MARLANA A. MELENDEZ +Notary Public, State of New York +No. 02MB6371741 +Qualified in New York County +Commission Expires March 5th, 202-2 + +# IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN 1st . ANDS DIVISION OF STEM AND ST. JOHN + +IN THE N1ATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN PROBATE. NO. ST-19-PB- + +) + +Deceased. ACTION FOR TESTATE ADMINISTRATION + +### OATH OF WILLINGNESS TO SERVE AS EXECUTOR AND APPOINTMENT OF LOCAL. COUNSEL + +1. Darren K. lndyke. hereby declare. certify . eriti). and state under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States Virgin Islands that: + +- I. lam an adult of sound mind. have never been convicted of any felony or of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. and I am not a judicial officer. +- 2. I am a resident of Florida. +- 3. The Last Will and Testament of Jeffrey Ii. Epstein nominates and appoints me as an Executor of the Estate of Jeffrey L. Epstein. deceased. +- 4. I am willing to act as Executor of the above-captioned Estate according to the law and tr the best of my ability and I will faithfully discharge the duties and obligations of Executor. +- 5. I vvifl render a true accounting of all monies and property coming into my possession for which I am responsible. +- 6. I am willing to act as Executor of the above-captioned Estate and request that the Court act upon and grant all the prayers of the Petition Mr Probate. +- 7. I am a non-resident of the Virgin Islands. and thus. I appoint the law office of KFAILKI1 Az.s KROBI. IN PIA.C. located in the Virgin Islands. specifically at Palms Professional Building. 9053 Estate . Suite 101. St. VI 00802. as my attorney upon whom service of all papers may be made. + +SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before + +me this day of • .2019. + +-NOTARY + +![](_page_11_Picture_15.jpeg) + +Darren K. Indy ke + +### IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* + +IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ) JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN ) ) Deceased. ) ) PROBATE NO. ST-19-PB-ACTION FOR TESTATE ADMINISTRATION + +### OATH OF WILLINGNESS TO SERVE AS EXECUTOR AND APPOINTMENT OF LOCAL COUNSEL + +I, Richard D. Kahn, hereby declare, certify, verify, and state under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States Virgin Islands that: + +- I. I am an adult of sound mind, have never been convicted of any felony or of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, and I am not a judicial officer. +- 2. I am a resident of New York, New York. +- 3. The Last Will and Testament of Jeffrey E. Epstein nominates and appoints me as an Executor of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, deceased. +- 4. I am willing to act as Executor of the above-captioned Estate according to the law and to the best of my ability and I will faithfully discharge the duties and obligations of Executor. +- 5. I will render a true accounting of all monies and property coming into my possession for which I am responsible. +- 6. I am willing to act as Executor of the above-captioned Estate and request that the Court act upon and grant all the prayers of the Petition for Probate. +- 7. I am a non-resident of the Virgin Islands, and thus, I appoint the law office of ICELLERHAL KROBLIN PLLC, located in the Virgin Islands, pecifically at Palms Professional Building, 9053 Estate attorney upon whom service of all papers may be made , Suite 101, /M, 150802, as my + +SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before + +me this day AtiA.514-4 , 2019. C-24/J4t4e41.1%-e4,1/144 NOTARY + +Richard D. Kahn + +MARIANNE BARNETT NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK NO. 01BA6276845 Qualified in Suffolk County Term expires February 25, 2021 + +### IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* + +IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ) JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN PROBATE NO. ST-I9-PB- + +) + +Deceased. ACTION FOR TESTATE ADMINISTRATION + +# PETITION FOR PROBATE AND FOR LETTERS TESTAMENTARY + +COME NOW Petitioners DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, by and through KELLERIIALS KROSLIN PLI,C, and petition this Honorable Court to grant the instant petition pursuant to V.I. CODE ANN. tit. 15, § 161 and Rule 3 of the Virgin Islands Rules for Probate and Fiduciary Proceedings. In support thereof, Petitioners state the following: + +- 1) That Petitioners Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn ("Petitioners") arc citizens of the United States of America and residents of Florida and New York, respectively. +- 2) The original Last Will and Testament of Decedent, dated August 8, 2019, which is attached hereto, appoints Petitioners as Executors of the Estate. +- 3) The Decedent, Jeffrey E. Epstein, died testate on August 10, 2019 in New York, New York, and was domiciled in and a resident of St. , Virgin Islands at the time of his death, as supported by the copy of Certificate of Death attached hereto.' +- 4) Decedent left certain assets in trust. +- 5) The Decedent died possessed of certain property• within the Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands and within the jurisdiction of the Court as herein described: + +' The original death certificate, or a certified copy thereof, will he filed with the Court upon Counsel's receipt of the same. + +# PERSONAL PROPERTY' VALUE + +Cash \$ 56,547773.00 + +Fixed Income Investments S 14,304,679.00 + +Equities \$ 112,679,138.00 + +Aviation Assets, Automobiles and Boats \$ 18,551,700.00 + +Fine Arts, Antiques, Collectibles, Valuables & Other TBD subject to Personal Property appraisal/valuation + +Hedge Funds & Private Equity Investments \$ 194,986,301.00 + +10,000 shares of Maple, Inc., a U.S. Virgin Islands corporation which holds title to 9 East 71" Street New York, NY 10021 S 55,931,000.00 + +10,000 shares of Cypress, Inc., a U.S. Virgin Islands Corporation, which holds title to 49 Zorro Ranch Road Stanley, New Mexico 8'O% S 17,246,208.00 + +10,000 shares of Laurel, Inc., a U.S. Virgin Islands Corporation, which holds title to 358 El Brillo Way Palm Beach, Florida 33480 \$ 12,380,209.00 + +999 shares of SCI JEP, a Company utith holds title to units 4' with mezzanine, 48 and 81 on the 2nd floor, units 63 and 74 on the 5Th floor and units 5 and 22 (cellars) in the basement 22 Avenue Foch Paris, France 75116 + +10,000 shares of Poplar, Inc., a U.S. Virgin Islands Corporation, which holds title to Great St. James Island No. GA Red I look Quarter St. MI, Virgin Islands \$ 22,498,600.00 + +\$ 8,672,823.00 + +10,000 shares of Nautilus, Inc., a U.S. Virgin Islands Corporation, which holds title to Little St. James Island No. 6B Red Hook Quarter Parcels A, B & C St. M, Virgin Islands \$ 63,874,223.00 + +TOTAL PERSONAL PROPERTY: S 577,672,654.00 + +TOTAL ESTATE PROPERTY: S 577,672,654.00 + +2 Values arc subject to appraisal and/or update to their date of death valuation, which will be confirmed in verified inventory to be filed with the Court. + +- 6) Petitioners are investigating potential debts and claims of the Estate and at this time they are unknown. +- 7) That the names and addresses, insofar as known to Petitioners, of the heirs and next of kin of the deceased, who would be entitled to share the estate if he had left no will; the relation of each such person to him; the proportion due each such person, and whether each of them is an adult or an infant are as follows: + +NAMES RELATIONSHIP M a rk Npstein Brother CAPACITY SHARE Adult 100% + +- 8) That Petitioners Darren K. lndyke and Richard D. Kahn be appointed Executors. They are adults of sound mind, are not convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude, and are not judicial officers of this Honorable Court. +- 9) Although Petitioners are not residents of the Virgin Islands, they are qualified to sen•c as Executors pursuant to 15 V.I.C. § 235(c) because they othenvise qualify under 15 V.I.C. § 235(a) and they have appointed the law firm of Kellerhals Ktoblin PI-LC, which has offices on St. , Virgin Islands, to accept sen-ice of all papers for purposes of the probate of Decedent's estate. +- 10) The Decedent's Last Will and Testament provides that "No bond or other security shall be required of any Executor in any jurisdiction." See original Last Will and Testament attached hereto at Article THIRD, subsection B on page 2. Accordingly, Petitioners pray that the bond be waived pursuant to V.I. R. Prob. 3. + +**WHEREFORE,** Petitioners pray: + +- A. That the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein be entered into Probate; +- B. That a citation be issued to any heir or next of kin who has not signed a Waiver; +- C. That this Honorable Court order the issuance of a notice to creditors and claims procedure order in substantial form of that which will be separately proposed to the court forthwith; +- D. That the Last Will and Testament of Jeffrey E. Epstein, attached hereto, be admitted to Probate; +- E. That Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn be appointed Executors and Letters Testamentary be issued to them; +- F. That the bond be waived; and +- G. That the Petition be granted. + +Respectfully, + +DATED: August 15, 2019 + +![]()*Estate of Jeffrey Epstein* +Petition for Probate and Letters Testamentary + +*Probate No. ST-19-PB-* + +**VERIFICATION OF PETITION** + +I, Darren K. Indyke, Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Jeffrey E. Epstein, hereby verify I have read and do hereby certify that the statements contained in the Petition for Probate and for Letters Testamentary are accurate in so far as my knowledge and insofar as my own records show. + +DATED: August 15, 2019 + +![]()SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me +this 15 day of August, 2019. + +![](_page_17_Picture_142.jpeg) + +VERIFICATION OF PETITION + +I, Richard D. Kahn, Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Jeffrey E. Epstein, hereby verify I have read and do hereby certify that the statements contained in the Petition for Probate and for Letters Testamentary are accurate in so far as my knowledge and insofar as my own records show. + +DATED: August 15th, 2019 + +![]()SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me +this 15th day of August, 2019. + +*Marianne Barnett* + +| MARIANNE BARNETT | +|----------------------------------| +| NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK | +| NO. 01BA6276845 | +| Qualified in Suffolk County | +| Term expires February 25, 2021 | + +![](_page_18_Picture_95.jpeg) + +IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS +DIVISION OF ST. [REDACTED] AND ST. JOHN + +\*\*\*\*\* + +SUPERIOR COURT +DIVISION OF ST. JOHN +AUG 15 PM 4:10 + +| IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF
JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN | )
)
) | PROBATE NO. ST-19-PB-____ | +|------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--------------------------------------| +| Deceased. | )
) | ACTION FOR TESTATE
ADMINISTRATION | + +AFFIDAVIT + +I, Erika A. Kellerhals, hereby depose or otherwise state that I do not know of any will or codicil of Jeffrey E. Epstein, deceased, other than the instrument in writing dated August 8, 2019; that I received the Last Will and Testament of Jeffrey E. Epstein from Jeffrey E. Epstein, and the said Jeffrey E. Epstein died on or about August 10, 2019. + +![]()SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me + +This 15th day of August, 2019. + +![]() + +| Brett A. Geary | +|---------------------------------------| +| Notary Public: NP-144-15 | +| Commission Expires: December 24, 2019 | +| St. [REDACTED] / St. John, USVI | + +## DEATH TRANSCRIPT + +DATE FILED THE CITY OF NEW YORK -- DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE + +AUG-11-2019 07:36 PM + +CERTIFICATE OF DEATH Certificate No. 156-19-032838 + +19 AUG 15 PM 4:10 +SUPERIOR COURT +THE VIRGINIA ISLANDS + +1. DECEDENT'S LEGAL NAME JEFFREY EDWARD EPSTEIN + +(First, Middle, Last) + +| Place Of Death | | 2a. New York City | 2b. Type of Place | 4 Nursing Home/Long Term Care Facility | 2d. Any Hospital care in last 30 days | 2e. Name of hospital or other facility (if not facility, street address) | | | +|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|-------------------------------| +| | Manhattan | | 1 Hospital Incident | 5 Hospital Facility | 1 Yes | New York-Presbyterian-Lower Manhattan Hospital | | | +| | | | 2 Emergency Dept/Outpatient | 6 Decedent's Residence | 2 No | | | | +| | | | 3 Dead on Arrival | 7 Other Specify | 3 Unknown | | | | +| Date and Time of Death or Found Dead | | 3a. (Month) | 3b. (Month) | (Day) | 3c. Time (Year-yrry) | 3d. AM | 4. Sex | 5. OCME Case No. | +| August 10 2019 | | | | | | | Male | M19019432 | +| 6. CAUSE FOR DEATH IN THE OCME | | a. Immediate cause | Pending Further Study | | | | | | +| | | b. Due to or as a consequence of | | | | | | | +| | | c. Due to or as a consequence of | | | | | | | +| | | Other significant conditions contributing to death but not resulting in the enduring cause given in Part I. Include operation information. | | | | | | | +| 7a. Injury Date (mm dd yyyy) | | 7b. Time | 7c. At Work | 1 Yes | 7d. Place of Injury | 7e. Location | | | +| *** | | | | 2 No | | | | | +| 7f. How Injury Occurred | | | | | | | | | +| 7g. If Transportation Injury Specify | | 8. Manner of Death | 9. Autopsy | 10. On the basis of examination and/or investigation, in my opinion, death occurred due to the causes and meaningful situation. | | | | | +| | Driver/Operator | Natural | Homeside | No Autopsy | Certifier Signature | D.O. M.D. Date AUG-11-2019 | | | +| | Passenger | Accident | Builds | Undetermined | Certifier Name (room) | KRISTIN ROMAN Medical Examiner | | | +| | Other Specify | | | | | Medical Examiner | | | +| 11a. Usual Residence State | | 11b. County | 11c. City or Town | 11d. State of Hospital | 11e. No. | ZIP Code | 11f. Inside City Limit? | | +| US Virgin Islands | | St. Thomas | St. Thomas | Little Saint Fernando Island | 00802 | | 1 Yes | 2 No | +| 12. Date of Birth | | (Month) | (Day) | 13. Age at last birthday (years) | | | | | +| January 20 1943 | | | | 66 | | | | 3348 | +| 15a. Usual Occupation (Type of work done during life) or associated life | | 15b. Your or your father's or mother's occupation or industry | | | | | | | +| Do not use 'outlined' Consultant | | 15c. Masses or AKAs | | | | | | | +| 17. Birthplace (City & State or Foreign Country) | | 18. Notice (Check the box if you deal details the highest degree or level of academic provision of the time of death) | | | | | | | +| Brooklyn, New York | | 1 In grade or less; tonic | 2 In grade or more; no diabetes | 3 Some college degree, but no degree | 4 Medical degree (e.g., MA, MS, MEng, MEC, MERK, MBA) | 5 Medical degree (e.g., PhD, BaCh) or | | | +| | | 6 High school degree or GED | 7 High school degree or GED | 8 Bachelor's degree (e.g., BA, AB, MB) | 9 Bachelor's degree (e.g., MD, DCB, LLB, JD) | | | | +| 19. Ever in U.S. Armed Forces? | | 20. Marital Partnership Status at line of deal | 21. Serving | | | | | | +| 1 Yes | 2 No | 1 Married | 2 Domestic Parenting | 3 Deferred | | | | | +| | | 4 Married, but separated | 5 Never Married | 6 Willing | | | | | +| | | 7 Other, Specify | | 7 Unknown | | | | | +| 22. Father's Name (First, Middle, Last) | | 23a. Married (Married to last marriage) (First, Middle, Last) | | | | | | | +| Mark Epstein | | Paula Stoiceky | | | | | | | +| 24a. Informant's Name | | 24b. Relationship to Disposition | | | | | | | +| Mark Epstein | | Brother | | | | | | | +| 25a. Method of Disposition | | 25b. Place of Disposition (Name of caretaker, enternatory, other place) | | | | | | | +| 1 Burial | | 2 Cremation | 3 Entombment | 4 City Cemetery | | | | | +| 5 Other Specify | | | | | | | | | +| 25c. Location of Disposition (City & State or Foreign Country) | | 25d. Date of Disposition | | | | | | | +| | | | | | | | | | +| | | | | | | | | | +| 26a. Funeral Establishment | | 26b. Address (Street and Number) | | | | | | | +| [Redacted] | | 1076 Madison Ave New York, NY 10028-0237 | | | | | | | +| No Correction History *** | | | | | | | | | + +EVT20190377726 + +Gretchen Van Wye, Ph.D., City Registrar as of 9/1/16 + +August 11, 2019 + +This is to certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a record on file in the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene does not certify to the truth of the statements made thereon, as no inquiry as to the facts has been provided by law. + +Do not accept this transcript unless it bears the security features listed on the [Redacted] Reproduction or alteration of this transcript is prohibited by §3.15(b) of the New York City Health Code if the purpose is the evasion or violation of any provision of the Health Code or any other law. + +Steven P. Schwartz, Ph.D., City Registrar + +![](_page_20_Picture_40.jpeg) + +![](_page_20_Picture_41.jpeg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751207/EFTA02751207.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751207/EFTA02751207.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b26f7dec4551657edc15dd6267a7499e88c38880 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751207/EFTA02751207.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1205 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751207.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 21, + "chars": 70827, + "elapsed_seconds": 25.31, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_11_Picture_15.jpeg", + "_page_17_Picture_142.jpeg", + "_page_18_Picture_95.jpeg", + "_page_20_Picture_40.jpeg", + "_page_20_Picture_41.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT \nOF \nJEFFREY E. EPSTEIN", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 199.72000122070312, + 63.714 + ], + [ + 407.592, + 63.714 + ], + [ + 407.592, + 135.33355712890625 + ], + [ + 199.72000122070312, + 135.33355712890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "AFFIDAVIT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 271.116, + 108.486 + ], + [ + 337.824, + 108.486 + ], + [ + 337.824, + 120.54 + ], + [ + 271.116, + 120.54 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN 1st . ANDS \nDIVISION OF STEM AND ST. JOHN", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 163.35000610351562, + 86.10000000000001 + ], + [ + 457.164, + 86.10000000000001 + ], + [ + 457.164, + 116.1905517578125 + ], + [ + 163.35000610351562, + 116.1905517578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "OATH OF WILLINGNESS TO SERVE AS EXECUTOR AND \nAPPOINTMENT OF LOCAL. COUNSEL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 154.05001831054688, + 220.41600000000003 + ], + [ + 468.115478515625, + 220.41600000000003 + ], + [ + 468.115478515625, + 247.4505615234375 + ], + [ + 154.05001831054688, + 247.4505615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS \nDIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 139.536, + 73.185 + ], + [ + 449.4085998535156, + 73.185 + ], + [ + 449.4085998535156, + 102.10302734375 + ], + [ + 139.536, + 102.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "OATH OF WILLINGNESS TO SERVE AS EXECUTOR AND \nAPPOINTMENT OF LOCAL COUNSEL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 128.51999999999998, + 210.945 + ], + [ + 460.1584167480469, + 210.945 + ], + [ + 460.1584167480469, + 238.60302734375 + ], + [ + 128.51999999999998, + 238.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS \nDIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 152.388, + 72.324 + ], + [ + 467.0081787109375, + 72.324 + ], + [ + 467.0081787109375, + 100.853515625 + ], + [ + 152.388, + 100.853515625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PETITION FOR PROBATE AND FOR LETTERS TESTAMENTARY", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 121.17600000000002, + 207.501 + ], + [ + 498.4031677246094, + 207.501 + ], + [ + 498.4031677246094, + 222.7335205078125 + ], + [ + 121.17600000000002, + 222.7335205078125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PERSONAL PROPERTY' VALUE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 125.46000000000001, + 70.602 + ], + [ + 443.75213623046875, + 70.602 + ], + [ + 443.75213623046875, + 86.3170166015625 + ], + [ + 125.46000000000001, + 86.3170166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 393.51599999999996, + 70.602 + ], + [ + 440.64, + 70.602 + ], + [ + 440.64, + 84.378 + ], + [ + 393.51599999999996, + 84.378 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VERIFICATION OF PETITION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 223.38, + 88.68299999999999 + ], + [ + 391.68, + 88.68299999999999 + ], + [ + 391.68, + 103.32 + ], + [ + 223.38, + 103.32 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VERIFICATION OF PETITION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 227.052, + 74.907 + ], + [ + 385.56000000000006, + 74.907 + ], + [ + 385.56000000000006, + 86.96100000000001 + ], + [ + 227.052, + 86.96100000000001 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. [REDACTED] AND ST. JOHN", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 155.448, + 71.46300000000001 + ], + [ + 461.448, + 71.46300000000001 + ], + [ + 461.448, + 99.015 + ], + [ + 155.448, + 99.015 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "AFFIDAVIT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 274.176, + 210.084 + ], + [ + 342.72, + 210.084 + ], + [ + 342.72, + 223.86 + ], + [ + 274.176, + 223.86 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "THE CITY OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 190.332, + 37.88399999999999 + ], + [ + 423.5039999999999, + 37.88399999999999 + ], + [ + 423.5039999999999, + 53.382 + ], + [ + 190.332, + 53.382 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DEATH TRANSCRIPT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 244.188, + 88.68299999999999 + ], + [ + 370.87199999999996, + 88.68299999999999 + ], + [ + 370.87199999999996, + 101.598 + ], + [ + 244.188, + 101.598 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 48 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 92 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 89 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 648 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 29 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 20 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 87 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 51 + ], + [ + "Text", + 17 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 111 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "Line", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 23 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 30 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Form", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751207" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751207/_page_11_Picture_15.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751207/_page_11_Picture_15.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dc36dd7d52f0e92d6ec7d896f5e7b8c6ef113034 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751207/_page_11_Picture_15.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:1e1ac8f789c4a9d429310d8a4e6d8444a8d90019e92d133787480e634e250386 +size 10442 diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751207/_page_17_Picture_142.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751207/_page_17_Picture_142.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0dd7debbdc6dee63000c222b05fd31fbcf132408 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751207/_page_17_Picture_142.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:6fb3afb1dd9c1bd26cb5677e1199d58a9f8f67533e5cc77a5845b242983cf70a +size 10665 diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751207/_page_18_Picture_95.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751207/_page_18_Picture_95.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d3ddfbdd430909af5bfe32dd767fedf637a3b195 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751207/_page_18_Picture_95.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:966cc5092b5463ec21359de855e9b491bde8bd3a97548d509733c71172a7b055 +size 49709 diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751207/_page_20_Picture_40.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751207/_page_20_Picture_40.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..66a6a8de271562397089b29c384c4899e1032bd4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751207/_page_20_Picture_40.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:246d6d48e0ec708751cb139e1ef0e839c7183972dff43f73bc20ad2dc126d92d +size 5356 diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751207/_page_20_Picture_41.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751207/_page_20_Picture_41.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ee6a177d6d132ec574f6686035b3c071d26a2db7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751207/_page_20_Picture_41.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:2ab95da43737f179ca7eeccc61ca76938ea23f7252934c383545a68fdd09cbb8 +size 10699 diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751228/EFTA02751228.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751228/EFTA02751228.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7eec1967ad58d61baefbed18d5ee9fa62d2f86d7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751228/EFTA02751228.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaintiff + +v. + +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, + +Defendants. + +Case No. 19 Civ. 8673 (KPF) (DCF) + +## DECLARATION OF ROBERTA A. KAPLAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS + +1, Roberta A. Kaplan, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declare as follows: + +1. I am a member of the Bar of the State of New York, and I am admitted to appear before this Court. I am a partner with the law firm Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP, counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe in the above-captioned action. I respectfully submit this Declaration in support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Unless stated otherwise, the facts stated herein are of my own personal knowledge, and if called as a witness I could competently testify thereto. + +2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Complaint filed in, Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. Estate of Jay E. Epstein, et al., ST-20-CV-14. + +3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the Last Will and Testament of Jeffrey E. Epstein. + +I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. + +Dated: February 14, 2020 /s/ Roberta A. Kaplan New York, New York Roberta A. Kaplan \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751228/EFTA02751228.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751228/EFTA02751228.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4dca5e948ca9f7e7da449f9e192861b444d3994c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751228/EFTA02751228.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,143 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751228.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1367, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.73, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 194.00400000000002, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 418.4738464355469, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 418.4738464355469, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 194.00400000000002, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DECLARATION OF ROBERTA A. KAPLAN IN SUPPORT OF \nPLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 108.93599999999999, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 504.22998046875, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 504.22998046875, + 316.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 108.93599999999999, + 316.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 9 + ], + [ + "Line", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751228" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751230/EFTA02751230.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751230/EFTA02751230.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..602bdbe72566d9fb2a70e4892dcac6178a77c571 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751230/EFTA02751230.md @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +## KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla United States District Court Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 + +TEL (212) 763-0883 I FAX (212) 564-0883 + +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM + +DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0884 + +DIRECT EMAIL rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com + +February 14, 2020 + +Re: Doe v. Indyke et aL, No. 19-cv-8673-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) + +Dear Judge Failla: + +We represent Plaintiff Jane Doe in the above-captioned action. Pursuant to Rule 4(E) of Your Honor's Individual Rules of Practice, we write to request oral argument on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 46.) + +Respectfully submitted, + +a — + +Roberta A. Kaplan + +cc: Counsel of Record \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751230/EFTA02751230.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751230/EFTA02751230.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7916dc18cac5afcf2cd3195b50fe50fec67bb195 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751230/EFTA02751230.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,113 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751230.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 749, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.8, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 33.048, + 39.28936767578125 + ], + [ + 310.2326965332031, + 39.28936767578125 + ], + [ + 310.2326965332031, + 63.94818115234375 + ], + [ + 33.048, + 63.94818115234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 124.12138366699219, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 124.12138366699219, + 251.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 251.60302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751230" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751231/EFTA02751231.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751231/EFTA02751231.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e36bbab82aeaca273751c48bf18ec118fa019ba1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751231/EFTA02751231.md @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +## KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +![](_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg) + +## VIA ECF + +The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla United States District Court Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +350 FIFTH AVENUE I SUITE 7110 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 TEL (212) 763-0883 I FAX (212) 564-0883 WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM + +DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0884 DIRECT EMAIL rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com + +February 14, 2020 + +Re: Doe v. Indyke et at, No. 19-cv-8673-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) + +Dear Judge Failla: + +We represent Plaintiff Jane Doe in the above-captioned action. Pursuant to Rule 4(E) of Your Honor's Individual Rules of Practice, we write to request oral argument on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 46.) + +Respectfully submitted, 7674e,A,\_\_ + +Roberta A. Kaplan + +cc: Counsel of Record + +The Court is in receipt of the above request from Plaintiff. (Dkt. #53). The Court will schedule oral argument if and when it believes oral argument will be useful to the Court in resolving the motion to dismiss. + +Dated: February 18, 2020 New York, New York SO ORDERED. + +thm. fitz \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751231/EFTA02751231.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751231/EFTA02751231.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..70e9bc04e8422f6e912f136b39bf5713a42c50f2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751231/EFTA02751231.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,119 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751231.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1095, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.97, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 33.048, + 39.28936767578125 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 39.28936767578125 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 63.94818115234375 + ], + [ + 33.048, + 63.94818115234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 124.12138366699219, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 124.12138366699219, + 251.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 251.60302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751231" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751231/_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751231/_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..71459da3a091ce6280657123290f14da781088d7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751231/_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:315c7b7bf36102354d7fdf8f2b6ace96560791c0179dd520ab4553cd6619c3d9 +size 10992 diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751232/EFTA02751232.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751232/EFTA02751232.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7dd40af9d01d1bc92778d1d36cc58fd1fbc8bf55 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751232/EFTA02751232.md @@ -0,0 +1,101 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, v. Plaintiff, DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Defendants. X • 19 Civ. 8673 (KPF) (DCF) x + +#### DEFENDANTS' REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES + +TROUTMAN 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 + +The Co-Executors' submit this reply memorandum of law in support of their motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). + +## PRELIMINARY STATEMENT + +The parties agree what the legal issue on this motion is: "The pending motion now presents the question of whether [Decedent's] Estate should be liable for a punitive damages verdict that would have clearly been available against him if he were still alive." (Opp. Br. 2.) The parties also agree that New York law prohibits the recovery of punitive damages against a deceased tortfeasor's estate. + +Plaintiff nevertheless asks the Court to permit her punitive damages claim to stand. (Opp. Br. 1.) Because no legal authority supports Plaintiff's request, Plaintiff devotes much of her opposition brief to policy arguments better directed to the New York Legislature, a lengthy narrative concerning Decedent's alleged conduct, and speculation (e.g., that Decedent has "no innocent heirs" (Op. Br. 2)). These are not grounds to ignore black-letter New York law on the legal issue presented on this motion. + +Permitting Plaintiff's punitive damages claim to remain in this action would delay its inevitable dismissal while simultaneously impeding settlement discussions by enabling Plaintiff to use the (legally baseless) prospect of obtaining punitive damages as (misplaced) leverage. + +Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the Co-Executors' moving brief (ECF Doc. 47). + +#### ARGUMENT + +### A. NEW YORK LAW APPLIES TO THE ISSUE OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES BECAUSE THE TORTS ALLEGEDLY OCCURRED IN NEW YORK + +As an initial matter, Plaintiff largely ignores the Co-Executors' showing that she may not have the Court simultaneously apply the first sentence of E.P.T.L. § 11-3.2(a)(1), permitting her to bring this case, but to disregard the very next sentence precluding punitive damages. See Blissett v. Eisensmidt, 940 F. Supp. 449, 457 (N.D.N.Y. 1996) ("[I]t would be an anomalous situation indeed if plaintiff were allowed to proceed with this section 1983 action against the estate of because of section 11-3.2(a)(1), while at the same time he was allowed to recover relief in the form of punitive damages, which clearly is beyond the scope of relief which that statute authorizes."). Instead, Plaintiff relegates her discussion of this principle -- which by itself resolves this motion in favor of the Co-Executors -- to a single footnote. (Op. Br. n. 9.) And, while Plaintiff claims without support that "whatever the Blissett court meant when it stated that it would be 'incongruous' to allow the plaintiff in Blissett to rely on one part of the NY EPTL and not another, it cannot possibly have the meaning Defendants give it," she does not explain why that case does not mean exactly what it says. The quoted language from Nissen is unambiguous and makes perfect sense. + +To escape the principle set forth in Blissett, Plaintiff now argues that she may pursue this action pursuant to a Virgin Islands Estates and Fiduciary Relations statute, 15 V.I.C. § 601. (Op. Br. 17.) This argument fails for four reasons. First Plaintiff does not cite any legal authority that permits a New York litigant to file a personal injury suit in New York, alleging torts occurring in New York, pursuant to 15 V.I.C. § 601. Second, even if that statute applies (it does not), New York choice-of-law principles would still result in application of New York law to the issue of punitive damages, as explained in the Co-Executors' moving brief and below. Third, Plaintiff + +does not set forth any law establishing that she could have brought this lawsuit in the USVI pursuant to 15 V.I.C. § 601 and avail herself of USVI laws on punitive damages while simultaneously maintaining the action is timely pursuant to the New York Child Victims' Act. Fourth. regardless of E.P.T.L. § I 1 -3.2(a)(1), New York has a "strong policy against the assessment of punitive damages against an estate on account of wrongful conduct of the decedent." Graham v. 224 F.R.D. 59, 63 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) (quoting Blissett, 940 F. Supp. at 457). + +Plaintiff does not cite any legal authority justifying a departure from the application of New York law regarding punitive damages to torts that allegedly occurred in New York. The Second Circuit has held that where, as here, alleged misconduct takes place in New York, New York law should apply to damages: + +> If conflicting conduct-regulating laws are at issue, the law of the jurisdiction where the tort occurred will generally apply because that jurisdiction has the greatest interest in regulating behavior within its borders. Cooney, 81 N.Y.2d at 72. In Licci a rel. Licci v. Lebanese Can. Bank, SAL, 739 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 2014) (per curiam), we observed that, under New York law, when the jurisdictions of the conduct and injury are distinct, "it is the place of the allegedly wrongful conduct that generally has superior 'interests in protecting the reasonable expectations of the parties who relied on the laws of that place to govern their primary conduct and in the admonitory effect that applying its law will have on similar conduct in the future.' Id. at 50- 51 (quoting = 65 N.Y.2d at 198) (alterations omitted). Here, the allegedly wrongful conduct—the misrepresentations by Citigroup and its officers—took place in New York, where Citigroup had its headquarters. We therefore conclude that New York's rules on fraud damages and negligent misrepresentation apply. + +AHW Inv. P'ship, MFS, Inc. v. Citigroup Inc., 661 F. App'x 2, 5 (2d Cir. 2016); see also Starr Indem. & Liab. Co. v. Am. Claims Mgmt., No. 14-cv-0463-JMF, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60272, \*7 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2015) ("Because punitive damages are conduct-regulating, 'the law of the jurisdiction where the tort occurred will generally apply."') (quoting Deutsch v. Novartis Pharms. + +Corp., 723 F. Supp. 2d 521, 524 (E.D.N.Y. 2010); Guidi v. Inter-Continental Hotels Corp., No. 95-CV-9006, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6390, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2003)). + +Plaintiff's heavy reliance on Na:'! Jewish Democratic Council v. Adelson, No. 18 Civ. 8787 (JPO), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168675, (S.D.N.Y. Sept 30, 2019), is based on an apparent misinterpretation of that action. In Adelson, the National Jewish Democratic Council and its chair sued Sheldon G. Adelson for damages based on Adelson's prior filing of a defamation suit against them in the same court pursuant to Nevada law. Id. at \*1-2. The court had dismissed Adelson's prior action pursuant to Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute, which has its own punitive damages provision. Id. at \* l -2, 11. In the action against Adelson, the court held that Nevada had a much stronger interest in applying its punitive damages law because Adelson had previously attempted to use Nevada's defamation law to chill First Amendment rights. Id. at \*14. By contrast, "New York's interest [was] relatively attenuated" in the second action because "[i]ts sole connection to this suit is that the suit was filed here." Id. at \*15. + +Here, the situation is effectively the opposite. New York has the strongest connection (indeed, the only material connection) to this lawsuit because: Plaintiff is suing for damages based on torts that occurred entirely in New York (Compl. I 13); Plaintiff alleges "[a]t all times material to the events alleged herein, Plaintiff resided in New York, New York, and [Decedent] maintained a residence in New York, New York" (Id.1 12); Plaintiff alleges she is a New York citizen (Id.1 7); Plaintiff alleges she is domiciled in New York (Id.1 10); Plaintiff chose to sue in New York (which is only possible pursuant to a New York statute, E.P.T.L. § 11-3.2(a)(1)); and, Plaintiff's causes of action are only timely, according to Plaintiff, by virtue of the New York Child Victims Act. + +By contrast, the USVI has no interest in applying its laws on punitive damages (which are the same as New York in any event) to the alleged torts that took place in New York. The sole connection to the USVI is that the Decedent's Estate is being probated there approximately fifteen years after the alleged tortious conduct took place—in other words, a connection much weaker than the one deemed "tenuous" in Adelson. Even under the framework of Adelson, New York, not the USVI, has the sole and thus greater interest in applying its laws and policies concerning Plaintiff's improper claim for punitive damages. + +Adelson is also factually distinguishable. Adelson did not involve E.P.T.L. § 11-3.2(a)(1) or New York's "strong policy against the assessment of punitive damages against an estate on account of wrongful conduct of the decedent." Graham, 224 F.R.D. at 63. + +The other cases on which Plaintiff relies provide clear support for the Co-Executors' positions on this motion. In v. Philip Morris, 124 F. Supp. 2d 46, 73 (E.D.N.Y. 2000), the court reaffirmed that New York has a greater interest in applying its law to punitive damages in matters involving misconduct within its borders, which is exactly the situation here: + +> New York's interest appears more significant in this action than that of any single other state. It has a greater interest in determining general compensatory liability issues since, like punitive damages, they may bear direct/ onon the regulation of dangerous conduct within its borders. Cf. J. Weintraub, Methods For Resolving Conflicts of law Problems in Mass Tort Litigation, 1989 U. Ill. L. Rev. 129 (1989) ("higher compensatory damages may also punish and deter"); see, e.g., American Law Institute: Complex Litigation: Statutory Recommendations and Analysis (choice of Law) § 6.01, comment a ("state where the defendant acted clearly may have a legitimate interest in regulating that conduct and in controlling defendant's potential tort liability"); see, e.g., Pescatore, 97 F.3d at 14 ("New York has an obvious interest in regulating the extent to which New York-corporations may be held liable for excessive or punitive damages"). (emphasis added). + +While the New York Court of Appeals adopted a "center of gravity" approach Babcock v. M, 12 NY2d 473 (N.Y. 1963), it later explained (as Plaintiff fails to explain in her brief): + +"This new method of analysis, however, was limited to competing loss-allocation—not conductregulating—rules." v. Erie Coach li nes Co., 17 N.Y.3d 306, 318-19 (N.Y. 2011) (emphasis added). Because punitive damages are conduct-regulating, Babcock is inapplicable. + +Also, even under the loss-allocation and center of gravity frameworks, which do not apply here, New York law must still apply. Plaintiff does not allege any torts or injuries occurring outside New York, whether in the USVI or elsewhere. + +H. Lee Equity Fund V, L.P. v. Mayer & Maw LIP, 612 F. Supp. 2d 267, 284 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), which Plaintiff also relies on, further confirms the site of the tort is what matters here: "When the confliet [sic] involves rules that regulate conduct—as here—the site of the tort, not the place of the loss, governs." (emphasis added) (citing Lee v. Bankers Trust Co., 166 F.3d 540, 543 (2d Cir. 1999); Sheldon v. PHH Corp., 135 F.3d 848, 853 (2d Cir. 1998)). Here, of course, the site of the loss and the site of the tort are the same: New York. + +The other cases cited by Plaintiff are in accord. See Padula v. Lilarn Props. Corp., 84 N.Y.2d 519, 521-22, (N.Y. 1994) ("As we stated in ... when the conflicting rules involve the appropriate standards of conduct ... the law of the place of the tort `will usually have a predominant, if not exclusive, concern' ... because the locus jurisdiction's interests in protecting the reasonable expectations of the parties who relied on it to govern their primary conduct and in the admonitory effect that applying its law will have on similar conduct in the future assume critical importance and outweigh any interests of the common-domicile jurisdiction.'" (emphasis added) (citing v. Boy Scouts of Am., 65 N.Y.2d 189 (N.Y. 1985), which Plaintiff also cites)). + +Plaintiff cites an old Ulster County decision, Stevens v. Shields, 131 Misc. 2d 145, 499 N.Y.S.2d 351 (Sup. Ct. Ulster Cnty. 1986), to support her flawed assertion that, merely because the Co-Executors are deemed domiciled in the USVI pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § I332(c)(2), USVI law should apply to the issue of punitive damages. (See Op. Br. 9 and Compl. 1 11). However, the issue and facts in Stevens were entirely different than those here. In Stevens, the court applied a Florida "post event loss or liability allocating provision" to a Florida resident who was liable under the provision due to her Florida resident son's automobile accident that occurred in New York. Id. at 352-53. Here, Plaintiff is asking the Court to apply USVI law to punitive damages, which are conduct regulating, notwithstanding that the alleged torts occurred entirely in New York. New York has the only interest in regulating conduct that occurred within its borders 15 years before Decedent died. Therefore, Stevens is irrelevant. + +Plaintiff also argues that, "where a tortfeasor commits suicide to avoid imposition of punitive damages, considerations of fairness no longer counsel in favor of protecting his estate." (Op. Br. 12.) However, much like Plaintiffs statement about the supposed lack of "innocent heirs," this is pure speculation. The only legal authority Plaintiff cites to support this argument are two Indiana state law cases—hardly persuasive. Plaintiff cites no New York authority supporting this Indiana concept, which in any event was dicta in a case in which Indiana joined the majority of jurisdictions (including New York) and held "Indiana law does not permit recovery of punitive damages from the estate of a deceased tortfeasor." Crabtree a rel. Kemp v. Estate of Crabtree, 837 N.E.2d 135, 139 (Ind. 2005). + +### B. USVI LAW IS IN ACCORD WITH THE MAJORITY POSITION PROHIBITING PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST A DECEDENT TORTFEASOR'S ESTATE. + +## a. Plaintiff's Banks analysis ignores what USVI courts have repeatedly held. + +As established in the Co-Executors' moving brief, every Banks factor favors the Estate: (I) pre-Banks, USVI courts expressed approval for the general rule that punitive damages cannot be recovered against the personal representatives of a wrongdoer's estate (see, e.g., v. Dowson Holding Co., 51 V.I. 619, 628 (D.V.I. 2009) (considering the inverse issue)); (2) a + +majority of courts from other jurisdictions preclude punitive damages against the personal representatives of a wrongdoer's estate (2 Linda L. Schlueter, Punitive Damages § 20.4 (7th ed. 2015)); and (3) post-Banks, USVI courts have held Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908 represents the soundest rule for the USVI (see, e.g., Powell v. Chi-Co's Distrib., No. ST-13-TOR-14, 2014 V.I. LEXIS 21, at \*5 n.13 (U.S.V.I. Super. Ct. Apr. 3, 2014)). + +Plaintiff ignores the first Banks factor and admits the second Banks factor is not in her favor. (See Op. Br. 16 ("While it is true that this is the majority view ... .").) Plaintiffs response to the post-Banks decisions is to belittle not only those courts' reliance on the Restatement but also the Restatement itself, a tacit admission that USVI courts have repeatedly deferred to Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908 when addressing damages issues. + +However, that is precisely what the third Banks factor calls for: to determine whether. post-Banks, USVI courts have determined that a particular approach represents the soundest rule for the USVI. On the issue of damages, USVI courts have determined that the approach in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908 is sound. None of those courts suggests that only part of § 908 is sound. Therefore, even if USVI law applies (which it does not), the result is the same: there can be no punitive damages in this action.' + +# b. The USVI AG's request for punitive damages in a CICO action is irrelevant. + +Plaintiff's reliance on the USVI Attorney General's request for punitive damages against Decedent's estate in an action alleging violations of the USVI' s Criminally Influenced and Corrupt + +=Plaintiff asks the Court to certify to the Supreme Court of the USVI the question of whether punitive damages are available against Decedent's Estate. (Op. Br. fn. 8.) As explained in the Co-Executors' moving brief and herein, New York law applies to this issue and, in any event, USVI law is in accord with New York law. There is. therefore, no need to certify that question. Should the Court nevertheless determine to certify this issue, this action should be stayed pending resolution of the certified question. + +Organizations Act ("CICO") fails for three reasons. First per black-letter New York law, USVI law does not apply. + +Second, even assuming USVI law does somehow apply, it is in accord with New York law and the majority of U.S. jurisdictions, as reflected in the Restatement (Second) of Torts. + +Third the fact that the USVI Attorney General asks for something in a lawsuit is not legal authority, let alone authority that somehow overrides the numerous USVI court decisions establishing that USVI law conforms to the majority of U.S. jurisdictions in prohibiting recovery of punitive damages from a deceased tortfeasor's estate. Even where an attorney general purports to interpret a law -- and here the USVI AG did no such thing -- the Supreme Court has warned against accepting such interpretation as authoritative. See Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 940, 120 S. Ct. 2597, 2614 (2000) ("our precedent warns against accepting as 'authoritative' an Attorney General's interpretation of state law when 'the Attorney General does not bind the state courts or local law enforcement authorities"). + +# CONCLUSION + +Based on the foregoing and the Co-Executors' moving brief, the Co-Executors respectfully request that the Court grant their motion to dismiss Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages or, alternatively, to strike that claim, together with such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. + +Dated: New York, New York Respectfully submitted, February 28, 2020 + +TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 + +By: Is/ Bennet J. Moskowitz Bennet J. Moskowitz + +Attorney for Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751232/EFTA02751232.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751232/EFTA02751232.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6059eaab427df04b5b104a9760e5c5752b141274 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751232/EFTA02751232.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,638 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751232.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 11, + "chars": 18913, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.41, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 83.42999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.0284118652344, + 112.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 112.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DEFENDANTS' REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR \nMOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 96.696, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 516.4907836914062, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 516.4907836914062, + 347.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 96.696, + 347.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 219.096, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 391.921630859375, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 391.921630859375, + 169.10302734375 + ], + [ + 219.096, + 169.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ARGUMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 344.61444091796875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 344.61444091796875, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 267.44399999999996, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. NEW YORK LAW APPLIES TO THE ISSUE OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES \nBECAUSE THE TORTS ALLEGEDLY OCCURRED IN NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 543.591552734375, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 543.591552734375, + 127.863037109375 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 127.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. USVI LAW IS IN ACCORD WITH THE MAJORITY POSITION PROHIBITING \nPUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST A DECEDENT TORTFEASOR'S ESTATE.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 539.600830078125, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 539.600830078125, + 568.9335174560547 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 568.9335174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "a. Plaintiff's Banks analysis ignores what USVI courts have repeatedly held.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 581.5799999999999 + ], + [ + 524.2431030273438, + 581.5799999999999 + ], + [ + 524.2431030273438, + 596.6835174560547 + ], + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 596.6835174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "b. The USVI AG's request for punitive damages in a CICO action is irrelevant.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 122.4, + 511.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 539.6973266601562, + 511.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 539.6973266601562, + 527.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 122.4, + 527.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 262.548, + 455.22 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 455.22 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 470.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 262.548, + 470.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 26 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751232" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751243/EFTA02751243.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751243/EFTA02751243.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4fecbc87e64b514c04e33ae52410a33ee9cc210b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751243/EFTA02751243.md @@ -0,0 +1,50 @@ +UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +----- X +JANE DOE, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. +KAHN, in their capacities as the executors of +the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, + +Defendants. + +----- X + +![](_page_0_Picture_128.jpeg) + +Index No. 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF + +**ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE** + +The motion of Mary "Molly" S. DiRago for admission to practice Pro Hac Vice in the above captioned action is granted. + +Applicant has declared that she is a member in good standing of the bar(s) of the state(s) of Illinois; and that her contact information is as follows: + +Mary "Molly" S. DiRago +Troutman Sanders LLP +One North Wacker Drive, Suite 2905 +Chicago, 60606 +(312) 759-1926 +(312) 759-1939 (Fax) +molly.dirago@troutman.com + +Applicant having requested admission Pro Hac Vice to appear for all purposes as counsel for Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn as Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, the "Co-Executors"), in the above entitled action; + +**IT IS HEREBY ORDERED** that Applicant is admitted to practice Pro Hac Vice in the above captioned case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. + +All attorneys appearing before this Court are subject to the Local Rules of this Court, including the Rules governing discipline of attorneys. (This resolves Skt. 50.) + +Dated: 3/6/2020 + +Debra Freeman +United States District/Magistrate Judge + +DEBRA FREEMAN +UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751243/EFTA02751243.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751243/EFTA02751243.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bf1e3484c351345bb2fa5beb8bca3cae0cf7f03f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751243/EFTA02751243.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,118 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751243.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1539, + "elapsed_seconds": 40.17, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_128.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 181.152, + 299.70000000000005 + ], + [ + 410.65200000000004, + 299.70000000000005 + ], + [ + 410.65200000000004, + 313.47 + ], + [ + 181.152, + 313.47 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 24 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751243" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751243/_page_0_Picture_128.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751243/_page_0_Picture_128.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2b0c7337fc5c7d5803e48a3a5dfe158e8277a085 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751243/_page_0_Picture_128.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:1b882a775a1841b186ad0da88d1a133a442348b5acd7824988857ea56298529c +size 24260 diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751245/EFTA02751245.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751245/EFTA02751245.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fd4fe5f7eab60ebce0bfe756328dee642ba5664e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751245/EFTA02751245.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE. + +Plaintiff, + +-against-DARREN. INDYKE and RICHARD 0. KAHN. in their capacities as executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN Defendant. Case No. 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF + +## NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS + +TO: ATTORNEY SERVICES CLERK AND ALL OTHER PARTIES + +I have cases pending I have no cases pending + +Pursuant to Local Rule 1.3 of this Court. please take notice of the following attorney information change (s) for: + +Mary "Molly' S. DiRago + +FILL IN ATTORNEY NAME + +My SDNY Bar Number is: My State Bar Number is 6282757 + +I am. + +An attorney A Government Agency attorney A Pro Hac Vice attorney + +FIRM INFORMATION (Include full name of finn (OLD AND NEW), address, telephone number and fax number): + +OLD FIRM: FIRM NAME: TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP FIRM ADDRESS: One North Wacker Drive. Suite 2905 Chicago. IL 60606 FIRM TELEPHONE NUMBER: 0121759.1926 FIRM FAX NUMBER:\_maggis + +NEW FIRM: FIRM NAME: TROUIMANSAIDERELLE\_\_\_ \_ FIRM ADDRESS:\_227391,Msmroe Streetluite\_390o, Chicago, it 60606 FIRM TELEPHONE NUM BER:\_isip\_Tse 1926 FIRM FAX NUMBER: IS' 2)7541920 + +I will continue to be counsel of record on the above-entitled cast at my new firm/agency. + +I am no longer counsel of record on the above-entitled case. An order withdrawing my appearance was entered on by Judge + +Dated: 03/20/2020 /s/ Mary \*Molly\* S. DiRago ATTORNEY'S SIGNATURE \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751245/EFTA02751245.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751245/EFTA02751245.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..11f64c618ecc4cb726c9639b73f35211604e624f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751245/EFTA02751245.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751245.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1403, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.04, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 245.77407836914062, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 245.77407836914062, + 95.48114013671875 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 95.48114013671875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 223.38, + 189.54000000000002 + ], + [ + 387.4317321777344, + 189.54000000000002 + ], + [ + 387.4317321777344, + 201.60113525390625 + ], + [ + 223.38, + 201.60113525390625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751245" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751246/EFTA02751246.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751246/EFTA02751246.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3c6225e6b20a9a4cf3d5a63e1faefeb54b9ec923 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751246/EFTA02751246.md @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +Bennet J. Moskowitz + +D: 212-704-6000 + +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com + +April 21, 2020 + +## VIA ELECTRONIC COURT FILING + +Hon. Debra C. Freeman Daniel Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007 + +Re: Jane Doe. 1:19-cv-8673 (KPF) (DCF) + +Dear Judge Freeman: + +We represent Defendants in the above-referenced action. In light of the ongoing pandemic and the various difficulties it has presented, we write with Plaintiff's consent to request that the Court extend the remaining deadlines in the above-refenced action, as set by this Court's Order dated February 11, 2020, by thirty (30) days, as follows: + +- the deadline for Plaintiff to file any motions to amend the pleadings or to join any additional parties be extended from April 30, 2020 to June 1, 2020; +- the deadline for the Parties to submit joint status reports to the Court, regarding discovery and the progress of settlement discussions, be extended from April 30, 2020 to June 1, 2020; +- the deadline for the completion of fact discovery be extended from June 10, 2020 to July 10, 2020; +- the deadline for service of Plaintiff's expert reports be extended from June 10, 2020 to July 10, 2020; +- the deadline for service of the Defendants' rebuttal reports be extended from July 10, 2020 to August 10, 2020; and +- the deadline for the completion of expert discovery be extended from July 31, 2020 to August 31, 2020. + +This is the first request for an extension of these deadlines. + +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/Bennet J. Moskowitz Bennet J. Moskowitz \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751246/EFTA02751246.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751246/EFTA02751246.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7f28152d6d3f57a486f018e619dd0dff6f3db097 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751246/EFTA02751246.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,128 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751246.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1567, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.75, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ELECTRONIC COURT FILING", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 213.790283203125 + ], + [ + 249.2187957763672, + 213.790283203125 + ], + [ + 249.2187957763672, + 227.18701171875 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 227.18701171875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 21 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751246" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751248/EFTA02751248.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751248/EFTA02751248.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6c2dbef263e022c68b3ac53dfbfd544a9fb8e42e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751248/EFTA02751248.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +Bennet J. Moskowitz + +D: 212-704-6000 + +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com + +April 21, 2020 + +## VIA ELECTRONIC COURT FILING + +Hon. Debra C. Freeman Daniel Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007 + +Re: Jane Doe. 1:19-cv-8673 (KPF) (DCF) + +Dear Judge Freeman: + +We represent Defendants in the above-referenced action. In light of the ongoing pandemic and the various difficulties it has presented, we write with Plaintiff's consent to request that the Court extend the remaining deadlines in the above-refenced action, as set by this Court's Order dated February 11, 2020, by thirty (30) days, as follows: + +- the deadline for Plaintiff to file any motions to amend the pleadings or to join any additional parties be extended from April 30, 2020 to June 1, 2020; +- the deadline for the Parties to submit joint status reports to the Court, regarding discovery and the progress of settlement discussions, be extended from April 30, 2020 to June 1, 2020; +- the deadline for the completion of fact discovery be extended from June 10, 2020 to July 10, 2020; +- the deadline for service of Plaintiffs expert reports be extended from June 10, 2020 to July 10, 2020; +- the deadline for service of the Defendants' rebuttal reports be extended from July 10, 2020 to August 10, 2020; and +- the deadline for the completion of expert discovery be extended from July 31, 2020 to August 31, 2020. + +This is the first request for an extension of these deadlines. + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/Bennet J. Moskowitz Bennet J. Moskowitz + +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) + +Dated: April 21, 2020 SO ORDERED + +DEBRA FREEMAN United States Magistrate Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751248/EFTA02751248.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751248/EFTA02751248.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..86f8629130d63446f4ebff73dbe878f3c9bc28b7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751248/EFTA02751248.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,128 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751248.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1646, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.74, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ELECTRONIC COURT FILING", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 212.22000000000003 + ], + [ + 249.2187957763672, + 212.22000000000003 + ], + [ + 249.2187957763672, + 227.18701171875 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 227.18701171875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 28 + ], + [ + "Line", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751248" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751250/EFTA02751250.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751250/EFTA02751250.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..979acc787775b7a98a08168c424f3d8620cc3b17 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751250/EFTA02751250.md @@ -0,0 +1,132 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +MARY DOE, + +Plaintiff, + +-v- + +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, as Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, and I + +Defendants. + +19 Civ. 10758 (PAE) + +### OPINION & ORDER + +PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: + +In this diversity action, plaintiff Mary Doe' brings tort claims under New York law against, inter alia, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, the executors of the estate of Jeffrey Epstein ("Indyke and Kahn" or "the executor defendants"). The executor defendants now move to dismiss Doe's claim against them for punitive damages, on the grounds that, as a matter of New York law, such damages are categorically unavailable in a personal injury action against the personal representative of an estate.2 For the reasons that follow, the Court grants that motion. + +## I. Background + +## A. Doe's Complaint + +Doe's Complaint, filed on November 20, 2019, alleges a horrific course of sexual and psychological abuse at Epstein's hands during 2004 and 2005. Cmplt. ¶¶ 1-15 (summary account); id. 11 38-106 (detailed account). It alleges that Doe came to the United States with her + +Doe has been granted leave to proceed pseudonymously. Dkt. 21. + +2 Doe also sues who is alleged to have served as Epstein's scheduler and assistant. See Dkt. 1 (Complaint, or "Cmplt.") ¶ 19. Doe's bid for punitive damages against is not implicated by this motion. + +parents as a young refugee from a war-tom country, and was working in pursuit of a promising career as a model when, in 2004, at age 16, she met Epstein through another model. Id. ¶ 2. + +Epstein made clear to Doe how important and powerful he was and promised to help her with her modeling career and college admissions. Id. ¶ 3. Doe, in turn, "believed she could trust him" and "that he could change her life." Id. ¶ 4. Epstein, however, "used his power over Mary to sexually abuse her, viciously and repeatedly." Id. ¶ 5. Aided by defendant Epstein's scheduler and assistant, Epstein "would summon Mary to his Manhattan townhouse, order her to give him massages, and then subject her to sexual acts, the severity of which increased over time." Id.; see also id. ¶ 19. The Complaint graphically chronicles Epstein's acts of sexual abuse in the townhouse, which included forcing Doe to perform oral sex on him and later raping her. Id. 9117-9; 56-105. + +In late 2005, the Complaint alleges, Doe—as a result of an incident at the townhouse— "suddenly saw the truth: she was not even a human being to Epstein, she was an object," and Epstein was treating her as a prostitute, "one of many girls he treated as sexual objects." Id. ¶ 11. Doe had a breakdown, almost immediately thereafter left New York City, returned to her parents' home across the country, and never saw Epstein again. Id. ¶ 12. Epstein's abuse caused Doe to abandon her modeling career and left her humiliated, angry, and suicidal, with debilitating panic attacks and "dramatic psychological scars." Id. ¶¶ 13-14. Epstein's arrest in July 2019 gave Doe "briefl] hope that he might finally face consequences," but his death in August 2019 at a federal jail in Manhattan "left Mary with the desolate sense that he has evaded justice yet again." Id. ¶ 15. + +In this action, Doe brings claims, under New York law, of battery, id. ¶¶ 108-13, assault, id. ¶¶ 114-19, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress, id. ¶¶ 120-27, against Indyke + +and Kahn, solely in their capacities as executors of Epstein's estate, id. ¶ 18, and against M, for her "integral role in operating Epstein's operation of sex trafficking Mary and other girls," id. 1 19. As its basis for personal jurisdiction over the executors, it alleges that "Epstein was subject to personal jurisdiction at the time of his death," id. 1 22, "because the tortious acts giving rise to Plaintiff's claims took place in New York State," id. 1 23. The Complaint seeks, in addition to compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs, "punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial." Id. p. 19. + +## B. The Executors' Partial Motion to Dismiss + +On January 21, 2020, the executor defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss, Dkt. 17, and a supporting memorandum of law, Dkt. 18 ("Def. Mem."). It sought dismissal of the prayer for punitive damages on the ground that such damages cannot, as a matter of New York law, be sought against the personal representatives of an estate. On March 3, 2020, Doe filed a memorandum of law in opposition, Dkt. 28 ("Doe Opp'n"), and a supporting declaration by Daniel Mullkoff, Esq., Dkt. 29 ("Mullkoff Decl."), which attached Epstein's will. On March 20, 2020, the executor defendants filed a reply. Dkt. 33 ("Def. Reply"). + +## H. Applicable Legal Standards Under Rule I.2(I))(6) + +To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell At!. Corp. v. 71vombIy, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim will only have "facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. lqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A complaint is properly dismissed where, as a matter of law, "the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 558. When resolving a motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Steginsky v. Xcelera Inc., 741 F.3d 365, 368 (2d Cir. 2014). That tenet, however, "is inapplicable to legal conclusions." lqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Pleadings that offer only "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. + +#### III. Discussion + +In moving to dismiss Doe's prayer for punitive damages against them, the executor defendants argue that New York law applies to this personal injury action and categorically prohibits an award of punitive damages against the personal representatives of an estate. Specifically, they note, § 11-3.2(a)(1) of New York's Estates, Powers and Trusts Law ("EPTL") provides: + +No cause of action for injury to person or property is lost because of the death of the person liable for the injury. For any injury, an action may be brought or continued against the personal representative of the decedent, but punitive damages shall not be awarded nor penalties adjudged in any such action brought to recover damages for personal injury. + +EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1) (emphasis added). + +Applying this statute, courts have held punitive damages unavailable in personal injury actions against executors or administrators of estates. These include federal courts determining the damages available for constitutional-tort claims under New York law, see, e.g., Graham v. , 224 F.R.D. 59, 63 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) (precluding, based on EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1), punitive damages claims in § 1983 action against estate administrators, and noting that New York law is "vet), clear" on this point); Blissett v. Eisensmidt, 940 F. Supp. 449, 457 (N.D.N.Y. 1996) (overturning, based on EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1), jury's punitive damages award in § 1983 case against estate, and noting "strong policy against the assessment of punitive damages against an estate on account of wrongful conduct of the decedent"), and state courts in personal injury actions governed by New York law, see, e.g., v. Nathan, 352 N.Y.S.2d 464, 464 + +(1st Dep't. 1974) (affirming dismissal of punitive damages claim because, under EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1), defendant's death precluded recovery of punitive damages from personal representatives of estate); cf. Flaum v. Birnbaum, 582 N.Y.S.2d 853, 857 (4th Dep't. 1992) (affirming denial of punitive damages in case against deceased executor; citing EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1) and the "strong policy against the assessment of punitive damages against an estate on account of the wrongful conduct of the decedent"). + +The law of a majority of states is in accord with EPTL § I I-3.2(a)(1), as reflected in the Restatement (Second) of Torts. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908 cmt. a (1979) ("Punitive damages are not awarded against the representatives of a deceased tortfeasor[.]"); see also Doe Opp'n at 12 (acknowledging that "a majority of states do not permit punitive damages against estates"). This majority rule aligns with "[t]he general rule under federal common law," that "an action survives the death of a party insofar as it is remedial[,] and not penal[,] in nature." See, e.g., Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Exeter Holdings, Ltd. v. Haltman, No. 13 Civ. 5475 (JS) (AICT), 2017 WL 9485707, at \*7 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2017) (collecting cases), report and recommendation adopted, 2017 WL 3981299 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2017). + +The justification commonly given for precluding punitive damage awards against estates is that punishment and deterrence—the recognized bases for imposing punitive damages on a tortfeasor—are not advanced by imposing punitive damages on his or her estate. As the New Mexico Supreme Court explained in adopting the majority rule: "[P]unishment and deterrence are not accomplished by enabling recovery of punitive damages from the estate of deceased tortfeasors"; "[w]hen the tortfeasor cannot be punished for his culpable behavior, punitive damages no longer have the desired effect and, therefore, the victim loses the legal entitlement to recover those damages." Jaramillo v. Providence Wash. Its. Co., 871 P.2d 1343, 1351 (N.M. 1994) (canvassing laws of other states). + +Doe does not dispute that EPTL § 11-3.2(aX1) precludes punitive damages in a personal injury action under New York law. Instead, Doe makes three arguments: (1) that defendants' motion is premature, Doe Mem. at 4; (2) that defendants' motion is improperly styled as a motion to dismiss, id. at 3; and (3) that the law of the United States Virgin Islands ("USVI"), not New York law, applies, and permits punitive damages against an estate, id. at 4-13. + +Doe's first argument is quickly dispatched. Doe cites cases where courts have declined to resolve motions to dismiss aimed at prayers for relief, finding such motions premature. See id. at 4 (citations omitted). But a review of these cases reflects that the motions in those cases were not based on categorical preclusions of punitive damages. In contrast, where punitive damages have been unavailable as a matter of law, courts have not hesitated to dismiss prayers for such damages at the threshold. See. e.g., Murtha v. N.Y. State Gaming Comm'n, No. 17 Civ. 10040 (NSR), 2019 WL 4450687, at \*19 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2019) (dismissing demand for punitive damages under the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL") because it "does not provide for punitive damages"); v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., No. 18 Civ. 6670 (AT), 2019 WL 4039958, at \*9 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2019) (granting motion to dismiss demand for punitive damages under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL") where neither statute permitted a plaintiff to recover punitive damages); Talarico v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 367 F. Supp. 3d 161, 172 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (dismissing demand for punitive damages against Port Authority where "the Third Circuit and the overwhelming majority of district courts within this Circuit have held that punitive damages are not available against" that defendant (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Canete + +v. Metro. Transp. Auth., No. 17 Civ. 3961 (PAE), 2018 WL 4538897, at \*9 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2018) (dismissing demand for punitive damages where such relief was "precluded as a matter of law"); Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Ctr. v. Gen. Reins. Corp., No. 16 Civ. 2063 (CM), 2016 WL 5793996, at \*6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2016) ("In this case, the circumstances surrounding the denial of the insurance indemnification claim do not warrant the rare exception provided for punitive damages under a breach of contract claim. For this reason, the Court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss the punitive damages claim."); SIB ex rd. Berkhout v. N.Y.C. Dept of Educ., No. 03 Civ. 6653 (NRB), 2004 WL 1586500, at \*8 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2004) (dismissing punitive damages claim because such damages are unavailable in § 1983 actions against municipalities). Provided that New York law applies to this action, this case, too, involves a categorical preclusion of such damages, under EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1), that can be adjudicated at the threshold. + +Doe's second argument is that the defendant-executors' challenge is improperly brought as a motion to dismiss. Doe Mem. at 3 & n.3. There is divided case authority on this point. Courts, including in the cases cited above, have granted motions to dismiss prayers for such relief. But others have declined to entertain such motions, stating that, "[b]ecause punitive damages are a form of damages, not an independent cause of action, a motion to dismiss a prayer for relief in the form of punitive damages is 'procedurally premature.' Farina v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 409 F. Supp. 3d 173, 220 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting Hunter v. Palisades Acquisition XVI, LLC, No. 16 Civ. 8779 (ER), 2017 WL 5513636, at \*9 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2017)); see also, e.g., Wiederman v. Spark Energy, Inc., No. 19 Civ. 4564 (PGG), 2020 WL 1862319, at \*9-10 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2020); v. City of New York, No. 18 Civ. 1937 (VSB), 2020 WL 1644009, at \*17 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2020); Range v. 535 Broadway Grp. LLC, No. 17 Civ. 423 (WHP), + +2019 WL 4182966, at \*7 n.4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2017); Okyere v. Palisades Collection, LLC, 961 F. Supp. 2d 522, 536 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). + +The Court has no occasion to resolve this conceptual debate, because the executors' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) alternatively can be treated as a motion to strike under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). See C. & A. MB 5C Federal Practice and Procedure § 1380 (3d ed.) ("[T]he technical name given to a motion challenging a pleading is of little importance inasmuch as prejudice to the nonmoving party hardly can result from treating a motion that has been inaccurately denominated a motion to strike as a motion to dismiss the complaint."). And under Rule 12(f), on a motion or sua sponte, a court may strike from a pleading an "insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Although motions to strike under Rule 12(O are generally "disfavored and granted only if there is a strong reason to do so," News, L.L.C. v. Am. Media, Inc., No. 09 Civ. 2227 (PAC), 2013 WL 1746062, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Roe v. City of New York, 151 F. Supp. 2d 495, 510 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)); see also Lipsky v. Commonwealth United Corp., 551 F.2d 887, 893 (2d Cir. 1976)), ample authority permits striking prayers for punitive damages where such relief is unavailable as a matter of law. See, e.g., In re Merrill Auction Rate Sec. Litig., 851 F. Supp. 2d 512, 544 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (granting motion to strike sections of complaint asserting punitive damages, because pleadings did not meet high bar for punitive damages in non-fraud case of breach of fiduciary duty), aff'd sub nom. La. Pac. Corp. v. Merrill & Co., 571 F. App'x 8 (2d Cir. 2014); Cerveceria Modelo, S.A. de C.V. v. USPA Accessories LLC, No. 07 Civ. 7998 (HB), 2008 WL 1710910, at \*5-9 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2008) (granting motion to strike prayer for punitive damages for failure to allege level of high moral culpability + +necessary to sustain punitive damages award in case involving fraud and deceit); Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. v. Imaging Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 176 F. Supp. 2d 199, 207 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (granting motion to strike punitive damages because complaint did not allege, inter alia, egregious conduct sufficient to sustain such an award); Brady v. Port. Auth. ofN.Y. & No. 93 Civ. 1679 (NG) (CLP), 1998 WL 724061, at \*2-3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 1998) (granting motion to strike punitive damages claims on grounds that Port Authority was immune from such damages); Nash v. Coram Healthcare Corp., No. 96 Civ. 0298 (LMM), 1996 WL 363166, at \*4 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 1996) (granting motion to strike prayer for punitive damages because complaint did not allege facts sufficient to support such damages in breach of contract case). + +Here, there is practical wisdom in treating defendant's motion as one to strike, if doing so is necessary to enable the Court to resolve at the jump the viability of Doe's prayer for punitive damages. With numerous personal injury actions pending against the Epstein estate as a result of the recent enactment of the New York Child Victims Act, there is value in clarifying—for the parties and settlors—the damages available in actions where the law permits a sure answer on this point. + +Doe's final argument is that USVI, not New York, law governs whether punitive damages are available. Because this Court sits in New York, it applies a New York choice of law analysis to that question. See Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496 (1941); Md. Cas. Co. v. Cont Cas. Co., 332 F.3d 145, 151 (2d Cir. 2003) ("A federal court sitting in diversity applies the choice-of-law rules of the forum state."). "Where, as here, the claims sound in tort, New York courts apply an `interest analysis' to determine choice-of-law issues." Golden v. Wyeth, Inc., No. 04 Civ. 2841 (JS), 2013 WL 4500879, at \*I (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2013). Under that analysis, punitive damages are considered to be conduct-regulating, and "the law of the jurisdiction where the tort occurred will generally apply." See, e.g., Starr Indem. & Liab. Co. v. Am. Claims Mgmt., Inc., No. 14 Civ. 0463 (JMF), 2015 WL 2152816, \*3 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2015) (quoting Guidi v. Inter-Conti Hotels Corp., No. 95 Civ. 9006 (LAP), 2003 WL 1907901, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16,2003)); Bauta v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., No. 14 Civ. 3725 (RER), 2019 WL 8060183, at \*10 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2019). Here, the tons alleged occurred entirely in New York. The personal injury claims which Doe's Complaint brings arise from sexual assaults and related conduct that, as alleged, occurred exclusively within New York City—in and around Epstein's Manhattan townhouse. + +Doe counters by noting that, while this rule applies as a general matter, it may be overcome if there is good reason not to apply it. Doe Mem. at 5 (citing Nat'l Jewish Democratic Council v. Adelson, 417 F. Supp. 3d 416, 424-25 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)). In arguing that there is reason not to apply New York law to the punitive damages question here, Doe relies on the doctrine of depecage, under which courts may treat the choice of law analysis for one (or more) issues in a case—in this instance, the availability of punitive damages—as distinct from the rest of its analysis, here the applicability of New York law to Doe's tort claims for compensatory damages. Id.; see also 2002 R. Buchalter Alaska Tr. v. Phila. Fin. Life Assurance Co., 96 F. Supp. 3d 182, 200 (S.D.N.Y. 2015); Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency v. Ally Fin. Inc., No. 11 Civ. 7010 (DLC), 2012 WL 6616061, at \*5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2012). + +Doe argues that, although New York may have the greater interest in resolving issues relating to compensatory damages, the USVI, where the executors are domiciled and where Epstein's will is to be probated, has the greater interest as to punitive damages, which, unlike compensatory damages, are defendant-focused. Doe Mem. at 7—8. Doe does not argue that the executor-defendants themselves merit punishment or are in need of deterrence. Instead, Doe + +argues that Epstein's decision to alter his will shortly before his suicide to provide that it would be probated in the USVI was strategically motivated. She argues that his executors "should not be permitted to selectively avail themselves of certain benefits of USVI law but avoid those aspects of USVI law that they do not like." Id. at 7. + +The Court is unpersuaded. Whatever benefits Epstein envisioned for his estate by virtue of probating his will in the USVI, Doe does not articulate any relevant to this litigation. Other than conclusorily, Doe does not argue that the decision to probate Epstein's will in the USVI will have any adverse bearing on a personal injury action brought against the estate in New York that involves tortious conduct in New York. Doe does not argue, for example, that the probating of Epstein's will in the USVI stands to insulate his assets from recovery from such a plaintiff, or otherwise impede her or others victimized in New York from recovering on meritorious claims. Doe's point that the estate may prosper from being probated in the USVI is disconnected from her claims.3 + +More fundamentally, Doe does not articulate any concrete interest that the USVI has in either vindicating the rights of a victim sexually abused in a Manhattan townhouse in 2004 and 2005 or, specially relevant to punitive damages, in assuring that the perpetrator of that abuse is adequately punished and deterred. In contrast, the Second Circuit has noted the strong interest that New York has with respect to "conduct-regulating" rules, including regarding damages, with respect to unlawful behavior within its borders: + +"If conflicting conduct-regulating laws are at issue, the law of the jurisdiction where the tort occurred will generally apply because that jurisdiction has the greatest interest in regulating behavior within its borders." Cooney v. Osgood + +3 If anything, the probating of the estate in the USVI may stand to benefit the estate's creditors, and thereby potentially Doe, to the extent that an estate probated in the USVI may avoid the high estate-tax rates imposed by New York State. + +Mach., Inc., 81 N.Y.2d 66, 72 (1993). In Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL[,] ... we observed that, under New York law, when the jurisdictions of the conduct and injury are distinct, "it is the place of the allegedly wrongful conduct that generally has superior `interests in protecting the reasonable expectations of the parties who relied on the laws of that place to govern their primary conduct and in the admonitory effect that applying its law will have on similar conduct in the future.'" [739 F.3d 45, 50-51 (2d Cir. 2013)] (quoting [v. Boy Scouts of Am., Inc., 65 N.Y.2d 189, 198 (1985)]) (alterations omitted). Here, the allegedly wrongful conduct .. . took place in New York .... We therefore conclude that New York's rules on fraud damages and negligent misrepresentation apply. + +AHW Inv. P'ship, MFS v. Citigroup, Inc., 661 F. App'x 2, 5 (2d Cir. 2016). New York's interest is also reinforced by the fact that Doe's suit is timely only by virtue of the state's recent enactment of the New York Child Victims Act, which temporarily revived time-barred suits. See Cmplt.11107. + +That New York law governs the availability of punitive damages is further reinforced by Doe's having sued the executor defendants under EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1). It is problematic for her to cherrypick within that provision, invoking the part that authorizes a personal injury suit against an executor while disclaiming the balance, which delimits the recovery available in such a suit.4 See Nissen, 940 F. Supp. at 457 ("[I]t would be an anomalous situation indeed if plaintiff were allowed to proceed with this [§] 1983 action against the estate of because of [§] 11-3.2(aX I), while at the same time he was allowed to recover relief in the form of punitive damages, which clearly is beyond the scope of relief which that statute authorizes."). Such a result is also inconsistent with the doctrine of dopecage, where one forum's law is "applied to regulate certain issues arising from a given transaction or occurrence, while those of another system regulate the other issues." v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 492 F. Supp. 2d 308, 328 + +4 Doe's claims undisputedly all qualify as personal injury claims. See N.Y. Gen. Constr. Law § 37-a. (defining "personal injury" as including "an assault, battery, false imprisonment, or other actionable injury to the person either of the plaintiff, or of another"). Doe does not argue otherwise. + +n.11 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (emphasis added), aff'd sub nom. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 539 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2008). Here, Doe, in selectively drawing upon EPTL § 11-3.2(aX1), seeks to invoke (14c-cage to apply two different sets of laws to a single issue. The doctrine does not invite such a result. + +Finally, Adelson, on which Doe relies in claiming that USVI law governs punitive damages, is inapposite. Adelson had brought an earlier action in this District for defamation, in breach of Nevada law, against the National Jewish Democratic Council and its chair (together, "NJDC"). Adelson, 417 F. Supp. 3d at 420-21. That action had been dismissed pursuant to Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute. NJDC then sued Adelson, seeking punitive damages under that same Nevada statute. Id. On Adelson's motion to dismiss the punitive damages prayer, Judge Oetken held that Nevada's interest was stronger than New York's as to punitive damages, because Adelson had brought the initial suit under Nevada law and because it had been dismissed under the Nevada SLAPP statute on which the NJDC now pursued punitive damages. He reasoned that "because the litigant has attempted to use Nevada's defamation law to chill First Amendment rights, Nevada has a corresponding interest in punishing the litigant for maliciously invoking Nevada law and in deterring future litigants from doing the same." Adelson, 417 F. Supp. 3d at 426 (citing =, 65 N.Y.2d at 198). Noting that "[p]unitive damages are designed to punish the defendant, not to compensate the plaintiff," Judge Oetken explained that "the choice-of-law inquiry for punitive damages provisions is necessarily defendant-focused" in this way. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Golden, 2013 WL 4500879, at \*3). By contrast, Judge Oetken concluded that New York's interest in the dispute was "relatively attenuated" and effectively limited to the fact that the suit was filed in federal district court in Manhattan where, notably, the claims were brought under Nevada + +defamation law. "After all, New York lacks a particularized interest either in protecting defendants from liability under Nevada defamation law or in controlling the behavior of litigants who file in the federal courts. And where the locus jurisdiction has a merely fortuitous relationship with the case, that jurisdiction's interest in the case is minimal." Id. at 426-27 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Doe's case in this District, in contrast to Adelson, does not build on a prior litigation in, or based on the law of, the USVI. + +In any event, the choice of law debate here appears academic. That is because, while the USVI does not have a statute on point and USVI courts have not squarely resolved the issue, it is likely that USVI common law would not permit an award of punitive damages against an estate. In 2011, the USVI Supreme Court instructed courts to apply what it terms a "Banks analysis" to determine USVI common law. This entails consideration of "three non-dispositive factors": (1) whether any USVI court has previously adopted a particular rule; (2) the position taken by a majority of courts of other jurisdictions; and (3) most importantly, which rule represents the soundest rule for the USVI. See Gov't of Virgin Islands v. M, 60 V.I. 597, 600 (2014); Matthew v. Herman, 56 V.I. 674, 680 (2012); Banks v. Intl Rental & Leasing Corp., 55 V.I. 967, 979 (2011). The parties differ as to how these factors apply, but the executors' assessment is the more persuasive. + +As to the first Banks factor, USVI courts have repeatedly cited the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908 favorably. Twice, albeit in dicta, they have expressly quoted the language in comment (a) to § 908 that bars an award of punitive damages against the estate of a decedent tortfeasor. See v. Dowson Holding Co., 51 V.I. 619, 628 (D.V.I. 2009) ("Punitive damages are not awarded against the representatives of a deceased tortfeasor nor, ordinarily, in an action under a death statute." (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908 cmt. a (1979)) + +(citing v. Atlas Motor Inn, Inc., 16 V.I. 367, 368-69 (D.V.I. 1979) (interpreting the Virgin Island's wrongful death statue, 5 V.I.C. § 76, to preclude punitive damages)); Booth v. Bowen, Civ. No. 2006-217 (CVG), 2008 WL 220067, at \*5 (D.V.I. Jan. 10, 2008) (same)5; see also Pappas v. Hotel on the Cay Time-Sharing Ass'n, 69 V.I. 3, 15 n.8 (V.I. Super. Ct. 2015) (applying Banks analysis to hold that USVI courts would adopt Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908, and citing five USVI cases in accord); Powell v. Chi-Co 's Distrib. Inc., No. ST-13-TOR-I4, 2014 WL 1394183, at \*2 n.I3 (V.I. Super. Ct. Apr. 3, 2014) ("Applying a Banks analysis, the Court finds that Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908(2) reflects the common law of this jurisdiction .... [C]onsidering the longstanding application of the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908(2) in this jurisdiction and the apparent widespread application of this rule in a majority of jurisdictions, the Court finds that the Restatement (Second) of Tons § 908(2) represents the soundest rule for the Virgin Islands, and is in accord with local public policy."). Doe has not cited any contrary authority. + +As to the second Banks factor, the parties agree that, consistent with the Restatement, most U.S. jurisdictions do not permit an award of punitive damages against a tortfeasor's estate. See, e.g., Crabtree a rel. Kemp v. Estate of Crabtree, 837 N.E.2d 135, 138 (hid. 2005) ("[t]he majority view denies punitive damages" from a deceased tortfeasor's estate); Jay Zitter, Annotation, Claim for punitive damages in ton action as surviving death of tortfeasor or person wronged, 30 A.L.R. 4th 707 (2020); 1 Punitive Damages: Law and Prac. 2d § 9:8 (2019 ed.) ("The prevailing view appears to be that punitive damages may not be recovered against the estate of a deceased wrongdoer."). Doe notes that some jurisdictions (like New York) have adopted this result by + +s The decisions in and Booth were dicta on this point, because the executor in each case was the plaintiff, not the defendant. + +statute while others have done so by court decision. Doe Mem. at 12. This distinction, however, does not appear germane to the Banks inquiry. + +As to the third Banks factor, the parties have not cited any evidence—beyond USVI courts having repeatedly cited Restatement § 908 with favor, including in the course of a Banks analysis—as to which rule would most soundly fit the USVI's interests. Beyond recognizing that USVI courts appear comfortable with the majority rule, the Court therefore cannot assign significant independent weight to this factor. Doe notes that the USVI's attorney general, in a separate lawsuit, is pursuing punitive damages against the Epstein estate based on alleged predations by Epstein in the USVI. See Mullkoff Decl. Ex. B ¶¶ 307-10. Doe further argues that because the only heir listed in Epstein's will—his brother Mark Epstein—allegedly knew or had constructive knowledge of Epstein's pattern of sexual abuse, it is just to deny him recovery from the estate by exposing the estate to punitive damages awards in cases such as hers. Doe Mem. at 11. But the decision by a government lawyer to attempt to obtain such damages in a high-profile case involving allegations of extreme conduct, or the alleged guilty knowledge of an heir in this case, do not speak to the question that the third Banks factor assays: which rule of law best durably serves the USVI's interests. The Court therefore has no basis to treats this Banks factor as countervailing, let alone outweighing, the first two. + +# CONCLUSION + +For the reasons above, the Court grants the defendant-executors' motion to dismiss the prayer for punitive damages against them. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending at docket 17. + +SO ORDERED. + +![]()Dated: April 28, 2020 +New York, New York \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751250/EFTA02751250.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751250/EFTA02751250.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0fc60bf212097fade0312e54aeb0eaef8189984d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751250/EFTA02751250.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,811 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751250.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 17, + "chars": 32259, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.95, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 281.8328552246094, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "OPINION & ORDER", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 395.964, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 509.0932922363281, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 509.0932922363281, + 197.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 395.964, + 197.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 486.0 + ], + [ + 173.96511840820312, + 486.0 + ], + [ + 173.96511840820312, + 501.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 501.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Doe's Complaint", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 511.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 233.48422241210938, + 511.9200000000001 + ], + [ + 233.48422241210938, + 527.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 527.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Executors' Partial Motion to Dismiss", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 359.6661376953125, + 263.25 + ], + [ + 359.6661376953125, + 279.06353759765625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 279.06353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "H. Applicable Legal Standards Under Rule I.2(I))(6)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 482.76 + ], + [ + 360.44342041015625, + 482.76 + ], + [ + 360.44342041015625, + 498.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 498.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Discussion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 182.17889404296875 + ], + [ + 165.37094116210938, + 182.17889404296875 + ], + [ + 165.37094116210938, + 196.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 196.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 262.548, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 349.43621826171875, + 555.7330169677734 + ], + [ + 262.548, + 555.7330169677734 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751250" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751267/EFTA02751267.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751267/EFTA02751267.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8f78472b5e0f97943ffb5e1b1ffe30205c47f060 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751267/EFTA02751267.md @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +Bennet J. Moskowitz bennelmoskowitz@troutman.com + +April 28, 2020 + +## VIA ELECTRONIC COURT FILING + +Hon. Katherine Polk Failla Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Re: Jane Doe, 1:19-cv-08673 (KPF) (DCF) + +Dear Judge Failla: + +We represent Defendants Darren'. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, the "Co-Executors"), in the above-referenced action. We write to supplement the Co-Executors' pending motion to dismiss (ECF Doc. 46) with the enclosed copy of the Opinion & Order entered today by The Hon. Paul A. Engelmayer in another personal injury action against the Co-Executors (Mary Doe v. Darren . Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, as executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, and , 19-civ-10758 (PAE) (DCF)). In His Honor's Opinion & Order, Judge Engelmayer grants the Co-Executors' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs punitive damages claim against them as a matter of law on grounds applicable to Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages in this action. + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/Bennet J. Moskowitz Bennet J. Moskowitz + +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751267/EFTA02751267.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751267/EFTA02751267.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..183e928e4fa30009442aff8a5ffc5e675af1e413 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751267/EFTA02751267.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751267.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1145, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.7, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ELECTRONIC COURT FILING", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 213.790283203125 + ], + [ + 249.2187957763672, + 213.790283203125 + ], + [ + 249.2187957763672, + 227.18701171875 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 227.18701171875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751267" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751268/EFTA02751268.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751268/EFTA02751268.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a6f1a1a8bf52256fc4d55e6f36fe6c10b22f6dbd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751268/EFTA02751268.md @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ +# KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +### VIA ECF + +The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla United States District Court Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 + +TEL (212) 763-0883 I FAX (212) 564-0883 + +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM + +DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0884 + +DIRECT EMAIL rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com + +April 29, 2020 + +Re: Doe v. lndyke et at, No. 19-cv-8673-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) + +Dear Judge Failla: + +We represent Plaintiff Jane Doe in the above-captioned action. Pursuant to Rule 2(B) of Your Honor's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, we write in response to Defendants' letter (Doc. No. 61) regarding Judge Engelmayer's recent opinion in Mary Doe v. Indyke et at, 19 Civ. 10758 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2020) (Doc. No. 38) ("Mary Doe Op.") submitted by Defendants to the Court yesterday. For the following reasons, Plaintiff respectfully submits that Judge Engelmayer's decision in Man• Doe incorrectly concludes that punitive damages are not available against Defendants under United States Virgin Islands ("USVI") law. + +First, while correctly acknowledging that the law of the jurisdiction with the greater interest in applying its punitive damages provision should control, the Mary Doe Opinion concludes that the plaintiff in that case failed to articulate "any concrete interest" that the USVI has in applying its punitive damages law to Jeffrey Epstein's Estate. (Mary Doe Op. at 11.) To the contrary, as Plaintiff in this action has made clear, the USVI has a strong interest in (1) applying its own law to its domiciliaries and (2) ensuring that estate of an individual who chose to probate his estate under USVI law is subject to that law's burdens along with its benefits. (Doc. No. 51 at 9-10.) The Mary Doe Opinion does not appear to consider the former interest, a salient oversight given that the domicile of defendants is a central consideration in the choice-oflaw analysis. (Id. at 9-10 (citing Nat'! Jewish Democratic Council v. Adelson, 417 F. Supp. 3d 416, 426 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (that defendant is a domiciliary of Nevada "points in favor" of applying Nevada punitive damages law).) And the Mary Doe Opinion disposes of the latter interest by purporting to require a nexus between the benefits of USVI probate law and the plaintiff, concluding that "[w]hatever benefits Epstein envisioned for his estate by virtue of probating his will in the USVI," Doe has not argued that those benefits have "adverse bearing" + +on her personal injury action. (*Mary Doe Op.* at 11.) The *Mary Doe* Opinion cites no case law in support of this nexus requirement, and Plaintiff is not aware of any. The central question is not whether Plaintiff has been disadvantaged by the specific benefits Epstein obtained by probating his estate in the USVI (though she certainly has been disadvantaged), but whether the USVI has an interest in preventing the Epstein Estate of availing itself of the benefits, but not the burdens, of its probate law.1 There can be no doubt that it does, and that such an interest is entitled to significant weight. (Doc. No. 51 at 10 (citing [REDACTED] v. *Boy Scouts of Am., Inc.*, 65 N.Y.2d 189, 201 (1985)). Indeed, to the extent there is any doubt on this issue, one need only look to the actions taken by the Attorney General of the USVI, who has filed an action in Virgin Islands Superior Court against the Epstein Estate based on Epstein's use of the Virgin Islands' "land, resources, people, and laws for [his enterprise's] illicit purposes" and his abuse of his "privileges of residency." (Doc. No. 52-1 at ¶¶ 63, 68-69.) + +The *Mary Doe* Opinion further reasons that New York has a strong countervailing interest in applying its "conduct-regulating" rules with respect to unlawful behavior within its borders. (*Mary Doe Op.* at 11.) That may be true as a general matter, but it is not dispositive of the particular question presented here. This case does not raise the question whether punitive damages should be available to punish perpetrators of sexual assault of children in New York (they are), but instead whether the estate of a deceased tortfeasor should be obligated to pay such claims. New York has no interest in applying its probate law to an estate that is neither domiciled nor being probated in New York; nor does it have a policy interest in prohibiting the levying of punitive damages against the estate of a tortfeasor who appears to have committed suicide, at least in part to avoid the civil and criminal consequences of his heinous criminal acts. (Doc. No. 51 at 12-13). Balancing New York's interests against those of the USVI makes clear that the most "just[], fair[], and the best practical result" is to apply USVI estates law to determine the availability of punitive damages. *See* [REDACTED] v. *Philip Morris Inc.*, 124 F. Supp. 2d 46, 55 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) (*quoting Babcock v.* [REDACTED], 12 N.Y.2d 473, 481 (1963)). This Court should therefore follow the reasoning in *Adelson*, which stands for the proposition that, under certain circumstances, the jurisdiction with the greatest interest in applying its punitive damages law will *not* be the jurisdiction where the harm occurred. *Adelson*, 417 F. Supp. 3d at 427.2 + +--- + +1 These burdens on Plaintiff include, among other things, the need to engage local counsel in the U.S. Virgin Islands to file a claim as an estate creditor there, the difficulty of responding to Epstein's efforts "conceal and shield his assets from potential recovery" through the 1953 Trust and an associated network of related entities, *see* Am. Compl. ¶ 88, *Gov't of the U.S. Virgin Islands v. Indyke, et al.*, No. St-19-PB0000080 (V.I. Sup. Ct. Feb. 11, 2020), and attempting to engage with the Estate's efforts to establish a Victim Compensation Program through the USVI probate court. + +2 *Adelson* is not, as the *Mary Doe* Opinion finds, "inapposite." (*Mary Doe Op.* at 13.) *Mary Doe* distinguishes *Adelson* on the ground that Doe's case, unlike *Adelson*, "does not build on a prior litigation in, or based on the law of, the USVI." (*Mary Doe Op.* at 14.) But, while the facts are certainly different than the ones presented here, *Adelson* does not apply a test under which the presence or absence of "prior litigation" is dispositive: instead, *Adelson* applied Nevada law rather than New York law (1) because the defendant had attempted to avail himself of the benefits of Nevada defamation law, giving Nevada "a corresponding interest" in ensuring the application of its defamation law's punitive damages provision; and (2) because the defendant was a domiciliary of Nevada, which "points in favor of applying Nevada law." *Adelson*, 417 F. Supp. 3d at 426. Here, too, these two factors counsel incontrovertibly in favor of applying Virgin Islands estate law. + +*Second*, the *Mary Doe* Opinion concludes that New York law governs the availability of punitive damages because Mary Doe sued the executor defendants under EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1) (which authorizes a personal injury suit against an executor), and therefore she may not “disclaim the balance [of that provision], which delimits the recovery available in such a suit.” (*Mary Doe Op.* at 12.) As an initial matter, the Complaint in this action does not cite EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1), and USVI law expressly provides that personal injury claims against a tortfeasor survive his or her death. (Doc. No. 51 at 17 (citing 15 V.I.C. § 601).) But even if the plaintiff’s cause of action did arise under EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1)—as the *Mary Doe* parties apparently assumed—the *Mary Doe* Opinion erred in concluding that the court must therefore apply that provision to the availability of punitive damages. + +Specifically, the *Mary Doe* Opinion concluded that applying USVI law to punitive damages would be inconsistent with the doctrine of dépeçage because such a result would “apply two different sets of laws *to a single issue*,” where dépeçage permits only the application of different laws to different issues. (*Mary Doe Op.* at 12-13 (emphasis added).) But the case law on dépeçage makes clear that the availability of punitive damages and the availability of a cause of action are *not* a “single issue”: “The New York Court of Appeals has recognized that the doctrine [of dépeçage] may sometimes require that a plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages be analyzed under the law of a state *other than the one under whose law the cause of action arises*.” *Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency v. Ally Fin. Inc.*, No. 11 Civ. 7010, 2012 WL 6616061, at \*5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2012) (emphasis added). In other words, there is nothing “incongruous” about applying New York law to the question of whether Plaintiff’s claim survives the tortfeasor’s death and USVI law to the question of whether punitive damages remain available. + +*Finally*, the *Mary Doe* Opinion concluded that “it is likely that USVI common law would not permit an award of punitive damages against an estate.” (*Mary Doe Op.* at 14.) The *Mary Doe* Opinion reaches this conclusion, however, by essentially eliminating the third *Banks* factor—*i.e.*, which approach represents the soundest rule for the USVI—from its analysis, although that factor is indisputably the “most important” of the three. *Antilles Sch., Inc. v. Lembach*, 64 V.I. 400, 428 (V.I. 2016). The *Mary Doe* Opinion finds that it cannot “assign significant independent weight” to this factor, because it does not credit the evidence cited by the parties in either direction. (*Mary Doe Op.* at 16.) Plaintiff respectfully urges that this Court assess which rule is the “soundest rule for the Virgin Islands” in conducting a *Banks* analysis. (*Id.* at 14.) The USVI Attorney General’s view that punitive damages are available against Epstein’s Estate should dispose of this question for the Court, and as Plaintiff’s Opposition makes clear, any reasonable independent analysis of the interests of the Virgin Islands should lead to the same conclusion. (Doc. No. 51 at 14.) A *Banks* analysis that does not weigh this factor, however, cannot possibly reach the correct conclusion on whether punitive damages are available under USVI law. As Plaintiff’s Opposition makes clear, they are. + +For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully submits that a different decision than the one reflected in *Mary Doe v. Indyke et al.* is appropriate in this case. To the extent that the Court has questions or would like further explanation, we would, of course, be happy to appear (by phone) for oral argument. + +Respectfully submitted, + +Roberta A. Kaplan + +cc: Counsel of Record \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751268/EFTA02751268.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751268/EFTA02751268.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9d30dd7a8158b1272eb798a5b6402cc224140f86 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751268/EFTA02751268.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,284 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751268.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 10660, + "elapsed_seconds": 14.17, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 33.048, + 39.28936767578125 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 39.28936767578125 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 63.94818115234375 + ], + [ + 33.048, + 63.94818115234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 251.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 251.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.884, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 239.904, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 239.904, + 59.129999999999995 + ], + [ + 34.884, + 59.129999999999995 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.884, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 239.904, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 239.904, + 59.94 + ], + [ + 34.884, + 59.94 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER FINK LLI)", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 33.660000000000004, + 42.92999999999999 + ], + [ + 242.82962036132812, + 42.92999999999999 + ], + [ + 242.82962036132812, + 62.9013671875 + ], + [ + 33.660000000000004, + 62.9013671875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 9 + ], + [ + "Line", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751268" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751272/EFTA02751272.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751272/EFTA02751272.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fd9b5a8fcd3b1d1dffa7e3a62dc9328039aa5239 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751272/EFTA02751272.md @@ -0,0 +1,187 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, + +Defendants. + +No. 19 Civ. 8673 (KPF) (DCF) + +## STIPULATED IPROPOSEDI PROTECTIVE ORDER + +WHEREAS, certain documents and information have been and may be sought, produced or exhibited by and between the Parties to this proceeding (the "Proceeding"), which relate to the Parties' personal identifying information, financial information, or other kinds of sensitive information that the Party (including any non-Party) making the production deems confidential; and + +WHEREAS, it has been agreed by and among the Parties to the Proceeding, through their respective counsel, that a Stipulated Protective Order ("Protective Order") preserving the confidentiality of certain documents and information should be entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; and + +WHEREAS, the Court has reviewed the terms and conditions of this Protective Order submitted by the Parties; + +IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any person subject to this Protective Order—including without limitation the Parties to the action; their attorneys, representatives, employees, agents, experts, investigators and consultants, acting as such; all third Parties providing discovery in this action; and all other interested persons with actual or constructive notice of this Order—shall adhere to the following terms, upon pain of contempt: + +# Plaintiff's Identity + +- I. The Order on Plaintiff's Anonymity (ECF No. 41) governs disclosure of Plaintiff's identity. Nothing in this Protective Order shall be construed as superseding or limiting the Order on Plaintiff's Anonymity. In the event of a conflict, the terms of the Order on Plaintiff's Anonymity shall govern. + +### Discovery Materials May Be Designated as Confidential Information + +- 2. A Party (the Plaintiff and Defendants, collectively the "Parties") producing "Discovery Material" (i.e., all documents, the information contained therein, and all other information produced or disclosed during the Proceeding, whether revealed in a document, deposition, other testimony, discovery response, or otherwise) (the "Supplying Party") to any other Party (the "Receiving Party") may, through counsel, designate as "Confidential Information" any confidential or private personal information (hereinafter "Designated Material"). +- 3. A non-Party producing Discovery Material voluntarily or pursuant to a subpoena or a court order may designate such material or information as Confidential Information or may redact Financial Information, as described in Paragraph 5, pursuant to the terms of this Protective Order. A non-Party's use of this Protective Order to protect its Confidential Information and/or Financial Information does not entitle that non-Party access to the Confidential Information and/or Financial Information produced by any Party in this case. +- 4. "Confidential Information" includes but is not limited to: + - a. personally identifying information, including but not limited to contact information, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, social security numbers, identification card numbers, driver's license numbers, passport numbers, or other government identification numbers, and any other similar information, but excluding Financial Information (as defined in Paragraph 5 below); + - b. medical information, including documents containing medical and/or psychological conditions, diagnoses, or treatment, communications with health care providers and their staff (including any doctor, surgeon, psychiatrist, dentist, nurse, psychologist, therapist, counselor, medical advisor, mental health provider, or specialist), and any information that would be protected under The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"); + - c. any material or portion thereof that contains trade secrets, proprietary business information, or other information the disclosure of which would, in the good faith judgment of the designating person, be seriously detrimental to the producing person's business or personal interests; + - d. any material or information that could be used to identify Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, images, recordings, names of family members, past or current employers; and + +- e. any other category of information given confidential status by this Court after the date of this Order. +- 5. The Supplying Party must redact unique identifiers pertaining to financial records, including bank account numbers, credit card numbers, usernames and passwords ("Financial Information"). Documents containing Financial Information shall be redacted but shall not be designated as Confidential Information in full solely on the grounds that they contain Financial Information. +- 6. In designating material as Confidential Information, the Supplying Party will make such designation only as to that material that it in good faith believes to be entitled to such treatment pursuant to this Protective Order. +- 7. Discovery Material produced by a Supplying Party shall, if appropriate, be designated as Confidential Information by marking the first page of the document and each subsequent page thereof containing Confidential Information as follows: + +# CONFIDENTIAL + +All Confidential Information not reduced to documentary, tangible, or physical form, or which cannot be conveniently designated by marking it shall be designated by the Supplying Party informing the Receiving Party of the designation in writing. + +- 8. A Party or non-Party (or its counsel) may designate as Confidential Information testimony disclosed at a deposition taken in connection with this Proceeding by: + - a. designating testimony given on the record during the taking of the deposition, in which case the court reporter shall mark each page as provided in Paragraph 7, above; or + - b. notifying all other Parties in writing, within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the transcript of a deposition of specific pages and lines of the transcript which are designated as Confidential Information. + +Whereupon each Party shall attach a copy of such written designation to the face of the transcript and each copy thereof in that Party's possession, custody, or control. During the 30-day period following a deposition, all Parties will treat the entire deposition transcript as if it had been designated Confidential Information. + +## Who May Receive Designated Material + +- 9. Designated Material shall be disclosed by the Receiving Party only to the following persons: + - a. the Parties to this action; + +- b. counsel retained specifically for this action, including any paralegal, clerical, or other assistant employed by such counsel to work on this action; +- c. as to any document, its author, its addressee, and any other person shown on the face of the document as having received a copy; +- d. any witness who counsel for a Party in good faith intends to call to testify at trial or deposition in this action, provided such person, other than those persons set forth in subparagraphs 9 (a), (b), and (c) has first executed a Non-Disclosure Agreement in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit A (the "Non-Disclosure Agreement") and only to the extent necessary to prepare the witness to testify; +- e. any person retained by a Party to serve as an expert witness or consultant or otherwise provide specialized advice to counsel in connection with this action, provided such person has first executed the Non-Disclosure Agreement, and further provided that any such support staff are subject to contractual or professional duties of confidentiality with respect to such material; +- f. stenographers and video technicians engaged to transcribe or record depositions conducted in this action, provided such persons are subject to contractual or professional duties of confidentiality with respect to such material; +- g. independent photocopying, graphic production services, or other litigation support services employed by the Parties or their counsel to assist in this action, including computer service personnel performing duties in relation to a computerized litigation system, provided such persons are subject to contractual or professional duties of confidentiality with respect to such material; +- h. the Court and its staff; +- i. any mediators engaged by the parties; +- J. any claims administrator for the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program and such administrator's support staff, if, and only if, Plaintiff chooses to participate in said program; and +- k. any other person whom the producing person, or other person designating the Discovery Material as Confidential, agrees in writing may have access to such Designated Material. +- 10. Counsel shall take all reasonable and necessary steps to ensure the security of any Designated Material and will limit access to Designated Material to those persons listed in Paragraph 9 of this Protective Order. + +- II. All persons to whom Designated Material is to be disclosed pursuant to Subparagraphs 9 (c)-(g) and (j) as applicable above, as well as Plaintiff and Defendants, shall, prior to disclosure, be advised of the contents of this Stipulation and Protective Order and be required to execute the Non-Disclosure Agreement evidencing their agreement to the terms of the Protective Order. To the extent that any such person refuses to sign the Non-Disclosure Agreement, a Party may seek proper recourse including, but not limited to, an order directing that such person is subject to the terms set forth herein. +- 12. Counsel for the Party that obtains signed Non-Disclosure Agreements, as required herein, shall retain them for six (6) months following the final termination of this Proceeding, including any appeals, and shall make them available to the other Party upon good cause shown. Counsel of record shall maintain a list of the names of all persons to whom such Designated Material is disclosed and such list shall be available for inspection by counsel for the Party claiming confidentiality upon order of the Court following a show of good cause. +- 13. Nothing shall prevent disclosure beyond the terms of this Protective Order if the Supplying Party (or its counsel) designating the material as Confidential Information consents in writing to such disclosure, or if the Court, after reasonable written notice to all affected Parties, orders such disclosure. +- 14. Any Party may request at any time permission to disclose Designated Material to a person other than those permitted under Paragraph 9 above or to use such information in a manner prohibited by this Protective Order, by serving a written request upon the Supplying Party's counsel. Any such request shall state the Designated Material the Party wishes to disclose, to whom it wishes to make disclosure, and the reason(s) and purpose(s) therefore. The Supplying Party or its counsel shall thereafter respond to the request in writing (by hand delivery, courier, or email transmission) as soon as practicable, but within ten (10) business days of its receipt of such request. If consent is withheld, the Supplying Party or its counsel shall state the reasons why it is withholding such consent. If, where consent is withheld, the requesting Party and the Supplying Party are subsequently unable to agree on the terms and conditions of disclosure, disclosure may only be made in accordance with the Supplying Party's designation of the material as Confidential Information (i.e., the requesting Party may disclose the Designated Material only as permitted under Paragraph 9 above) unless and until differing treatment is directed pursuant to an order of the Court. + +# Responding to a Subpoena + +IS. In the event a Party or non-party having possession, custody, or control of any Designated Material received as part of this Proceeding receives a subpoena or other process or order to produce such information, such subpoenaed Party or non-party shall promptly notify by e-mail the attorneys of record of the Supplying Party (or, if the subpoenaed person is a non-party, the Parties) and shall furnish those attorneys with a copy of said subpoena or other process or order. The Party or non-party receiving the subpoena or other process or order shall not produce the requested Designated Material unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction so directs, except if the Supplying Party (a) consents, or (b) fails to file a motion to quash or fails to notify the Party or non-party receiving the subpoena or other process in writing of the Supplying Party's intention to contest the production of the Designated Material prior to the date designated for production of the subpoenaed information, in which event the Party or non-party who received the subpoena or other process may produce on the designated production date, but no earlier. The Supplying Party asserting the confidential treatment shall have the burden of defending against such subpoena, process, or order. The Party or non-party receiving the subpoena or other process or order shall be entitled to comply with it except to the extent the Party asserting the confidential treatment is successful in obtaining an order modifying or quashing it. + +#### Later Designation of Confidential Information + +- 16. Any Supplying Party may designate as Confidential Information (or withdraw a designation regarding) any material that it has produced; provided, however, that such designation shall be effective only as of the date of such designation. Such designation shall be accomplished by providing written notice to counsel of record for each Party identifying (by production number, transcript line and page number, or other individually identifiable information) the document, testimony, or other information whose designation is to be changed and, promptly after providing such notice, by providing relabeled copies of the material to the Receiving Party reflecting the new designation. Upon receipt of any such written designation, counsel of record shall: (i) not make any further disclosure or communication of such newly Designated Material except as provided for in this Protective Order, (ii) take reasonable steps to notify any persons known to have possession of any newly Designated Material of the treatment of such material required under this Protective Order pursuant to the designation; (iii) promptly endeavor to procure all copies of such newly Designated Material from any persons known to have possession of any such Designated Material who are not entitled to receipt of Designated Material under Paragraph 9 above; and (iv) replace the newly Designated Material with the re-labeled copies of the material and make reasonable efforts to destroy the copies of the Designated Material produced prior to such designation. + +#### Objecting to Designations of Confidential Information + +- 17. Any Party may object to the propriety of the designation or the lack of designation of specific material as Confidential Information or Financial Information (the "Objecting Party"). A Party shall not be obliged to challenge the propriety of the designation at the + +time of production or later designation, and failure to do so shall not preclude a subsequent challenge thereto. The Objecting Party should serve a written objection upon the Supplying Party's counsel who shall thereafter, within ten (10) business days, respond to such objection in writing (by hand delivery, courier, or email transmission) by either: (i) agreeing to remove, change, or add the designation; or (ii) stating the reasons for such designation or lack thereof. If the Objecting Party and the Supplying Party are subsequently unable to agree upon the terms and conditions of disclosure for the material(s) in issue, the Objecting Party shall be free to move the Court for an Order removing or modifying the disputed designation or lack thereof. On such a motion, it will be the burden of the Party imposing a limitation on circulation of discovery materials to justify that limitation. The material(s) in issue shall continue to be treated in the manner imposing the greatest limitation on circulation sought by a Party until the Court orders otherwise. + +## Inadvertent Disclosure of Confidential Information + +- 18. If a Receiving Party receives documents or other materials that it has reason to believe are subject to a good faith claim of attorney-client privilege, work product protection, or other privilege or immunity from disclosure, the receiving party must refrain from examining the documents or other materials any more than is essential to ascertain whether the documents or other materials are reasonably subject to such a claim. The Receiving Party shall promptly notify the Supplying Party in writing that the Receiving Party possesses documents or other material that appears to be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. +- 19. If, in connection with this litigation, a Supplying Party inadvertently discloses information that is subject to a claim of attorney-client privilege, attorney work product protection, or any other privilege or immunity from disclosure ("Inadvertently Disclosed Information"), such disclosure shall not constitute or be deemed a waiver or forfeiture of any claim of privilege, work product protection, or other privilege or immunity from discovery with respect to the Inadvertently Disclosed Information or its subject matter. In addition, a Supplying Party may use its own document (e.g., as a deposition exhibit) containing material that is subject to a claim of privilege or immunity from disclosure for the purpose of establishing the basis of such claim without waiver of any applicable privilege or immunity from disclosure, unless the producing person affirmatively uses or relies upon the specific material contained in the document that is subject to the claim of privilege or immunity from disclosure for any purpose other than establishing the basis of such claim. +- 20. If a Supplying Party makes a claim of inadvertent disclosure, the Receiving Party shall, within five business days, return or destroy all copies of the Inadvertently Disclosed Information, and provide a certification of counsel that all such information has been returned or destroyed. + +- 21. Within five business days after the notification that such Inadvertently Disclosed Information has been returned or destroyed, the Supplying Party shall produce a privilege log with respect to the Inadvertently Disclosed Information. +- 22. The Receiving Party may move the Court for an Order compelling production of the Inadvertently Disclosed Information. Pursuant to the Parties' obligations set forth herein, the motion shall not quote or paraphrase the substance of the document subject to the motion to compel beyond the description of the document contained in the privilege log entry for the document. The motion shall be filed under seal, and shall not assert as a ground for entering such an Order the fact or circumstances of the inadvertent production in this action. +- 23. The Supplying Party retains the burden of establishing the privileged or protected nature of any Inadvertently Disclosed Information. Nothing in this Order shall limit the right of any Supplying Party or Receiving Party to request an in camera review of the Inadvertently Disclosed Information. + +### Filing Designated Material in This Action + +- 24. All Designated Material that is filed with the Court, or any pleadings, motions or other papers filed with the Court that reveals any information that has been designated as Confidential Information by any Party or non-Party, shall be filed as redacted or under seal consistent with Section 1.0 of Magistrate Judge Freeman's Individual Practices, Section 9 of Judge Failla's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, and the Court's Order on Plaintiff's Anonymity (ECF No. 41). +- 25. Prior to filing with the Court Designated Material, the Parties shall meet and confer concerning any redactions, and cooperate in seeking to resolve any disputed issues of confidentiality. The Party intending to file the Designated Material with the Court shall make all reasonable efforts to provide the redacted document(s) to the other Party for review two (2) business days prior to filing. If the Parties cannot resolve a dispute arising from this Paragraph, they shall follow the procedures set forth in Section 1.0 of Magistrate Judge Freeman's Individual Practices or Section 3.0 of Judge Failla's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases. + +## Use of Confidential Information/Designated Material + +- 26. Persons having knowledge of Confidential Information only by virtue of their participation in the Proceeding shall use that Confidential Information only in connection with the Proceeding or appeal thereof, and shall neither use such Confidential Information for any other purpose nor disclose such Confidential Information to any person who is not listed in Paragraph 9 of this Protective Order. + +- 27. Designated Material, any copies and/or extracts thereof, and anything derived therefrom, shall not be disclosed in any way for use in any other litigation or contemplated litigation, or for any other purpose extraneous to this Proceeding. +- 28. Nothing in this Protective Order shall restrict any Party's counsel from rendering advice to its clients with respect to this Proceeding and, in the course thereof, relying upon Designated Material, provided that in rendering such advice, counsel shall not disclose any other Party's Designated Material, other than in a manner provided for in this Protective Order. +- 29. If Designated Material is used during depositions or in preparing a witness for testimony, it shall not lose its status through such use, and counsel shall exercise their best efforts and take all steps reasonably required to protect its designated status during such use. +- 30. Nothing herein shall be construed to affect in any manner the admissibility at trial of any document, testimony or other evidence, or to affect any Party's right to assert that documents or information may be withheld on grounds of relevance, privilege, or any other ground. +- 31. Nothing contained in this Protective Order will be construed as: (a) a waiver by a Party or person of its right to object to any discovery request; (b) a waiver of any privilege or protection; or (c) a ruling regarding the admissibility at trial of any document, testimony, or other evidence. +- 32. Nothing contained in this Protective Order prejudices a Party's ability to seek discovery in this and any other legal proceeding, without prejudice to any other Party's right to object to such discovery. +- 33. Nothing in this Protective Order shall prevent any Party from seeking further protection with respect to the use of any such Designated Material in connection with the trial, a hearing, or other proceeding in this litigation. +- 34. Nothing contained herein shall preclude any Party from using its own Designated Material in any manner it sees fit, without prior consent of any Party or the Court. + +## Improper Disclosure of Designated Material + +- 35. If Designated Material is disclosed to any person other than in the manner authorized by this Protective Order, the Party responsible for the disclosure shall, immediately upon learning of such disclosure, inform the Supplying Party of all pertinent facts relating to such disclosure and make all reasonable efforts to recover all copies of the Designated Material and prevent further disclosure or dissemination by each unauthorized person who received such Designated Material. + +- 36. In the event of a proven willful violation of this Protective Order by any Party in this action or others designated in Paragraph 9 hereof, all Parties acknowledge that the offending Party or persons may be subject to sanctions determined in the discretion of the Court. + +### Destruction of Designated Material + +- 37. Upon the conclusion of the Proceeding, including any appeals related thereto, at the written request and option of the Supplying Party, all Designated Material and any and all copies shall be returned or destroyed within sixty (60) calendar days of receipt of the request to the Supplying Party; provided, however, that attorney work product, briefs and other court papers prepared for use in this Proceeding need not be returned or destroyed, but may be retained only by the Parties' counsel and, if so retained, shall continue to be maintained as Confidential in accordance with the provisions of this Stipulation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Designated Material that has been received electronically and that cannot be returned or destroyed must be electronically deleted and deleted from "trash" files, and the Receiving Party must take reasonable measures to ensure that unauthorized persons do not have access to Designated Material residing on the recipient's computer server and back-up media. + +## Retention of Jurisdiction + +- 38. The foregoing provisions concerning confidentiality of Designated Material shall continue through the trial and any appeals related to this Proceeding, unless otherwise modified by agreement of the Parties or order of the Court. The Parties shall be free to use any admissible Designated Material at trial and any appeals related to this Proceeding but shall work together to fashion appropriate measures to limit the disclosure of such Designated Materials to the general public. The Court shall issue any relief, if necessary, prior to trial or to the hearing in open court upon motion or agreement of the Parties. +- 39. The terms of this Protective Order may be amended or modified by written agreement of the Parties or upon motion and order of the Court. This Protective Order shall continue in force until amended or superseded by express order of the Court and shall survive any final judgment or settlement in this Proceeding. + +## Time of Effect + +- 40. This Protective Order shall become effective as between the Parties immediately upon submission to the Court for approval, notwithstanding the pendency of approval by the Court. If approval by the Court is ultimately denied, withheld, or made conditional, no Party shall treat any Designated Material produced prior to that time in a manner inconsistent with this Protective Order without giving the producing Party sufficient advance notice to allow for application to the Court for additional relief. + +The Parties, by their counsel, hereby consent to entry of the foregoing Order: + +Dated: New York, New York April 28, 2020 + +Respectfully Submittcd, + +By: S\_\_ + +Roberta A. Kaplan Kate L. Doniger Alexandra Conlon Kyla P.S. Magun Louis W. Fisher + +KAPLAN I IECKER & FINK LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 (212) 763-0883 rkaplan@kaplanheckcr.com kdoniger@kaplanhecker.com aconlon@kaplanhecker.com kmagun@kaplanhecker.com Ifisher@kaplanhecker.com + +Attorneys for Plaintiff Jane Doe + +51 - M K FPS rn + +Bennet J. Moskowitz + +TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 704-6000 Bennet.Moskowitz@troutman.com + +A mirney for Defendants indyke and Richard!). Kahn. Ca-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein + +IT IS SO ORDERED this day of , 2020 + +The Hon. Debra Freeman United States Magistrate Judge + +#### EXHIBIT A + +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaintifi; + +v. + +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, + +Defendants. + +No. 19 Civ. 8673 (KPF) (DCF) + +### NON-DISCIOSIIRE AGREEMENT + +I acknowledge that I have read and understand the Protective Order in this action governing the non-disclosure of Designated Material (the "Protected Material"). I agree that (1) I will hold in confidence all Protected Material to the extent required by the Protective Order and agree to be bound by the terms of that Order; (2) I will use such Protected Material only for purposes of this litigation and for no other purpose whatsoever; and (3)1 will take all due precautions to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of such Protected Material. + +By acknowledging these obligations under the Protective Order, I understand that I am submitting myself to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for the purpose of any issue or dispute arising hereunder, and that my willful violation of any term of the Protective Order could subject me to punishment for contempt of court. + +Dated: + +[Signature] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751272/EFTA02751272.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751272/EFTA02751272.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..295ebf5775fe8f8b7297106ff770dcd73327d93b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751272/EFTA02751272.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,970 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751272.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 12, + "chars": 28676, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.8, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "STIPULATED IPROPOSEDI PROTECTIVE ORDER", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 162.792, + 297.27 + ], + [ + 449.9879150390625, + 297.27 + ], + [ + 449.9879150390625, + 312.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 162.792, + 312.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Plaintiff's Identity", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 566.1899999999999 + ], + [ + 163.40988159179688, + 566.1899999999999 + ], + [ + 163.40988159179688, + 581.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 581.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Discovery Materials May Be Designated as Confidential Information", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 93.15 + ], + [ + 408.01605224609375, + 93.15 + ], + [ + 408.01605224609375, + 108.06353759765625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 108.06353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONFIDENTIAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 284.58, + 294.03 + ], + [ + 384.36187744140625, + 294.03 + ], + [ + 384.36187744140625, + 309.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 284.58, + 309.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Who May Receive Designated Material", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 580.77 + ], + [ + 265.34765625, + 580.77 + ], + [ + 265.34765625, + 596.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 596.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Responding to a Subpoena", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 593.73 + ], + [ + 203.79901123046875, + 593.73 + ], + [ + 203.79901123046875, + 609.4335174560547 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 609.4335174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Later Designation of Confidential Information", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 302.94 + ], + [ + 298.8955993652344, + 302.94 + ], + [ + 298.8955993652344, + 317.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 317.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Objecting to Designations of Confidential Information", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 601.8299999999999 + ], + [ + 337.51605224609375, + 601.8299999999999 + ], + [ + 337.51605224609375, + 616.5635375976562 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 616.5635375976562 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Inadvertent Disclosure of Confidential Information", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 272.97 + ], + [ + 320.3644714355469, + 272.97 + ], + [ + 320.3644714355469, + 287.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 287.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Filing Designated Material in This Action", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 276.495849609375, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 276.495849609375, + 334.863037109375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 334.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Use of Confidential Information/Designated Material", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 330.59613037109375, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 330.59613037109375, + 582.3630218505859 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 582.3630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Improper Disclosure of Designated Material", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 537.0300000000001 + ], + [ + 288.402587890625, + 537.0300000000001 + ], + [ + 288.402587890625, + 552.0635223388672 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 552.0635223388672 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Destruction of Designated Material", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 138.51 + ], + [ + 245.65025329589844, + 138.51 + ], + [ + 245.65025329589844, + 153.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 153.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Retention of Jurisdiction", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 348.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 194.61691284179688, + 348.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 194.61691284179688, + 363.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 363.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Time of Effect", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 555.6600000000001 + ], + [ + 146.11282348632812, + 555.6600000000001 + ], + [ + 146.11282348632812, + 570.8035125732422 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 570.8035125732422 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 271.728, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 339.9351501464844, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 339.9351501464844, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 271.728, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 193.392, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 127.863037109375 + ], + [ + 193.392, + 127.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NON-DISCIOSIIRE \nAGREEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 231.948, + 324.0 + ], + [ + 346.22430419921875, + 324.0 + ], + [ + 346.22430419921875, + 353.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 231.948, + 353.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 9 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 9 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 76 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751272" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751284/EFTA02751284.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751284/EFTA02751284.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..288a98d4ef4b45bdb15f72b5a8feb74bc3faa690 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751284/EFTA02751284.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE 15, + +Plaintiff, + +-v- + +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, as Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, + +Defendants. + +19 Civ. 10653 (PAE) + +## ORDER + +PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: + +In this diversity action, plaintiff Jane Doe 15 ("Doe")i brings claims of battery, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as co-executors of the estate of Jeffrey Epstein. These claims arise from Doe's allegations of sexual trafficking and abuse perpetrated against her by Epstein in 2004, when she was age 15. Doe alleges that Doe visited Epstein's Manhattan townhouse in New York City, where Epstein's secretary photographed her and groomed her for future sexual exploitation; on Epstein's behalf, the secretary later invited Doe to visit Epstein at his ranch in New Mexico, and arranged Doe's visit. See Dkt. 1 ("Cmplt.')Irg 2-4,25-26,30-37. Epstein's sexual abuse of Doe occurred during the visit to the New Mexico ranch that ensued. M.1115-6,41-69. + +The defendants have filed a partial motion to dismiss, directed solely at Doe's prayer for punitive damages. They argue that New Mexico law governs Doe's claims, and that under New Mexico law, punitive damages are unavailable in a personal injury action against the personal + +I Doe has been granted leave to proceed pseudonymously. Dkt. 22. + +representative of an estate. See Dkt. 18 (motion); Dkt. 19 (memorandum of law in support); Dkt. 34 (reply). Doe opposes that motion. Dkt. 29 (memorandum of law in opposition). + +The Court grants defendants' motion. The Court's analysis substantially tracks the analysis in a memorandum and opinion it issued earlier this week granting a motion seeking the same relief in another case in which a plaintiff has brought the same personal injury claims against the executors arising from sexual abuse Epstein allegedly perpetrated on her. See Mary Doe v. Indyke and Kahn, 19 Civ. 10758 (PAE) ("Mary Doe"); see id. Dkt. 38 ("Mary Doe Op.") (issued April 28, 2020). The Court here incorporates that decision by reference. + +In Mary Doe, Epstein's abuse was alleged to have occurred in his Manhattan townhouse. The Court noted that the New York statute that authorizes personal injury actions against the personal representative of the decedent precludes punitive damages in such actions, see Mary Doe Op. at 4 (citing New York Estates, Powers and Trusts Law ("EPTL") § 11-3.2(a)(1)), and required dismissal of Mary Doe's prayer for such damages, id. at 4-6. The Court rejected Mary Doe's counter-arguments: that defendants' motion was premature, id. at 6-7, and improperly styled as a motion to dismiss, id. at 7-9, and that the law of the United States Virgin Islands ("USVI"), where Epstein's estate is being probated, applies, and permits punitive damages against an estate in such an action, id. at 9-16. As to the final argument, the Court noted that under New York choice-of-law rules, the substantive law of the location of the tortious conduct occurred generally applies as to punitive damages, and that there was no reason to depart from that rule here, id. at 9-14. In any event, the Court held, it is likely that, as a matter of common law, the USVI—like New York, the majority of states, and Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908—would not allow imposition of punitive damages on a tortfeasor's estate, id. at 14-16. + +The parties in this case are represented by the same counsel as in Mary Doe, and make substantially the same arguments for and against dismissal. The one variation is that, because Epstein's abuse is alleged to have occurred at the New Mexico ranch, defendants argue that New Mexico law applies. See Dkt. 19 at 2-6; Dkt. 34 at 5—8. But that, defendants argue, does not change the result, because New Mexico common law as announced by the state supreme court, like EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1), bars punitive damages in a personal injury action against a tortfeasor's estate. See Jaramillo v. Providence Wash. Ins. Co., 871 P.2d 1343, 1351-52 (N.M. 1994) (canvassing laws; noting that "punishment and deterrence are not accomplished by enabling recovery of punitive damages from the estate of deceased tortfeasors"; and adopting majority rule that "[w]hen the tortfeasor cannot be punished for his culpable behavior, punitive damages no longer have the desired effect and, therefore, the victim loses the legal entitlement to recover those damages"); see also Barbara R. as next friend of S.R. v. No. 03 Civ. 1225 (MCA) (WDS), 2006 WL 8443923, at \*28 (D.N.M. Sept. 30, 2006) (citing Jaramillo and noting that "[t]he rationale behind this rule is that 'to punish the estate ignores the central purpose of punitive damages, which is to punish the tortfeasor and to deter him from repeating the wrongful act"). Doe, for her part, does not dispute that New Mexico law mirrors New York law. Instead, in opposing dismissal, she makes the same three arguments as in Mary Doe. + +The Court again finds punitive damages unavailable as a matter of law and plaintiffs' counter-arguments unavailing. As to the third argument, relating to choice of law, unlike in Mary Doe, there is indeed room for debate about which jurisdiction's law applies. But the debate is between New York (where the grooming process began) and New Mexico (where the sexual abuse occurred). And under either state's law, imposition of punitive damages on the + +Epstein estate is squarely prohibited. Doe does not have any stronger argument than did Mary Doe that USVI law applies in her case, or, if it did, that it would permit such damages. + +The Court, accordingly, grants defendants' motion to dismiss the prayer for punitive damages. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. 18. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: April 30, 2020 New York, New York + +Paul A. Engelmaye United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751284/EFTA02751284.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751284/EFTA02751284.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0f547128c2692f162beac723795d4f48eef57a09 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751284/EFTA02751284.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,215 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751284.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 5944, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.85, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.7991943359375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 281.7991943359375, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ORDER", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 431.46, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 479.4378662109375, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 479.4378662109375, + 197.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 431.46, + 197.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 27 + ], + [ + "Line", + 12 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751284" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751288/EFTA02751288.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751288/EFTA02751288.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..660e921eee016fffe4892516d0514b1ca2e9e531 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751288/EFTA02751288.md @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +Bennet J. Moskowitz bennelmoskowitz@troutman.com + +April 30, 2020 + +## VIA ELECTRONIC COURT FILING + +Hon. Katherine Polk Failla Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Re: Jane Doe, 1:19-cv-08673 (KPF) (DCF) + +Dear Judge Failla: + +We represent Defendants Darren,. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, the "Co-Executors"), in the above-referenced action. We write to further supplement the Co-Executors' pending motion to dismiss (ECF Doc. 46) with the enclosed copy of the Opinion & Order entered today by The Hon. Paul A. Engelmayer in another personal injury action against the Co-Executors (Jane Doe 15 v. Darren.. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, as executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, 19-civ-10653 (PAE) (DCF)). In His Honor's Opinion & Order, Judge Engelmayer grants the Co-Executors' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's punitive damages claim against them as a matter of law on grounds applicable to Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages in this action. + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/Bennet J. Moskowitz Bennet J. Moskowitz + +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751288/EFTA02751288.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751288/EFTA02751288.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..06ae7cfa4367e78fd08e2d2ab2a10808d67be117 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751288/EFTA02751288.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751288.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1151, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.69, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ELECTRONIC COURT FILING", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 213.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 249.2187957763672, + 213.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 249.2187957763672, + 227.18701171875 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 227.18701171875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751288" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751289/EFTA02751289.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751289/EFTA02751289.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..faa4a2a5ea831dc7c03752a7814e38e7cc4dd6cd --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751289/EFTA02751289.md @@ -0,0 +1,188 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, + +Defendants. + +No. 19 Civ. 8673 (KPF) (DCF) + +## STIPULATED IPROPOSEDI PROTECTIVE ORDER + +WHEREAS, certain documents and information have been and may be sought, produced or exhibited by and between the Parties to this proceeding (the "Proceeding"), which relate to the Parties' personal identifying information, financial information, or other kinds of sensitive information that the Party (including any non-Party) making the production deems confidential; and + +WHEREAS, it has been agreed by and among the Parties to the Proceeding, through their respective counsel, that a Stipulated Protective Order ("Protective Order") preserving the confidentiality of certain documents and information should be entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; and + +WHEREAS, the Court has reviewed the terms and conditions of this Protective Order submitted by the Parties; + +IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any person subject to this Protective Order—including without limitation the Parties to the action; their attorneys, representatives, employees, agents, experts, investigators and consultants, acting as such; all third Parties providing discovery in this action; and all other interested persons with actual or constructive notice of this Order—shall adhere to the following terms, upon pain of contempt: + +# Plaintiff's Identit + +- I. The Order on Plaintiff's Anonymity (ECF No. 41) governs disclosure of Plaintiff's identity. Nothing in this Protective Order shall be construed as superseding or limiting the Order on Plaintiff's Anonymity. In the event of a conflict, the terms of the Order on Plaintiff's Anonymity shall govern. + +## Discovery Materials May Be Designated as Confidential Information + +- 2. A Party (the Plaintiff and Defendants, collectively the "Parties") producing "Discovery Material" (Le., all documents, the information contained therein, and all other information produced or disclosed during the Proceeding, whether revealed in a document, deposition, other testimony, discovery response, or otherwise) (the "Supplying Party") to any other Party (the "Receiving Party") may, through counsel, designate as "Confidential Information" any confidential or private personal information (hereinafter "Designated Material"). +- 3. A non-Party producing Discovery Material voluntarily or pursuant to a subpoena or a court order may designate such material or information as Confidential Information or may redact Financial Information, as described in Paragraph 5, pursuant to the terms of this Protective Order. A non-Party's use of this Protective Order to protect its Confidential Information and/or Financial Information does not entitle that non-Party access to the Confidential Information and/or Financial Information produced by any Party in this case. +- 4. "Confidential Information" includes but is not limited to: + - a. personally identifying information, including but-not-limited-to contact Z:), information, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, social security numbers, identification card numbers, driver's license numbers, passport numbers, or other government identification numbers, and any other similar information, but excluding Financial Information (as defined in Paragraph 5 below); + - b. medical information, including documents containing medical and/or psychological conditions, diagnoses, or treatment, communications with health care providers and their staff (including any doctor, surgeon, psychiatrist, dentist, nurse, psychologist, therapist, counselor, medical advisor, mental health provider, or specialist), and any information that would be protected under The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"); + - c. any material or portion thereof that contains trade secrets, proprietary business information, or other information the disclosure of which would, in the good faith judgment of the designating person, be seriously detrimental to the producing person's business or personal interests; + - d. any material or information that could be used to identify Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, images, recordings, names of family members, past or current employers; and + +- e. any other category of information given confidential status by this Court after the date of this Order. +- 5. The Supplying Party must redact unique identifiers pertaining to financial records, including bank account numbers, credit card numbers, usernames and passwords ("Financial Information"). Documents containing Financial Information shall be redacted but shall not be designated as Confidential Information in MI solely on the grounds that they contain Financial Information. +- 6. In designating material as Confidential Information, the Supplying Party will make such designation only as to that material that it in good faith believes to be entitled to such treatment pursuant to this Protective Order. +- 7. Discovery Material produced by a Supplying Party shall, if appropriate, be designated as Confidential Information by marking the first page of the document and each subsequent page thereof containing Confidential Information as follows: + +# CONFIDENTIAL + +All Confidential Information not reduced to documentary, tangible, or physical form, or which cannot be conveniently designated by marking it shall be designated by the Supplying Party informing the Receiving Party of the designation in writing. + +- 8. A Party or non-Party (or its counsel) may designate as Confidential Information testimony disclosed at a deposition taken in connection with this Proceeding by: + - a. designating testimony given on the record during the taking of the deposition, in which case the court reporter shall mark each page as provided in Paragraph 7, above; or + - b. notifying all other Parties in writing, within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the transcript of a deposition of specific pages and lines of the transcript which are designated as Confidential Information. + +Whereupon each Party shall attach a copy of such written designation to the face of the transcript and each copy thereof in that Party's possession, custody, or control. During the 30-day period following a deposition, all Parties will treat the entire deposition transcript as if it had been designated Confidential Information. + +## Who May Receive Designated Material + +- 9. Designated Material shall be disclosed by the Receiving Party only to the following persons: + - a. the Parties to this action; + +- b. counsel retained specifically for this action, including any paralegal, clerical, or other assistant employed by such counsel to work on this action; +- c. as to any document, its author, its addressee, and any other person shown on the face of the document as having received a copy; +- d. any witness who counsel for a Party in good faith intends to call to testify at trial or deposition in this action, provided such person, other than those persons set forth in subparagraphs 9 (a), (b), and (c) has first executed a Non-Disclosure Agreement in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit A (the "Non-Disclosure Agreement") and only to the extent necessary to prepare the witness to testify; +- e. any person retained by a Party to serve as an expert witness or consultant or otherwise provide specialized advice to counsel in connection with this action, provided such person has first executed the Non-Disclosure Agreement, and further provided that any such support staff are subject to contractual or professional duties of confidentiality with respect to such material; +- f. stenographers and video technicians engaged to transcribe or record depositions conducted in this action, provided such persons are subject to contractual or professional duties of confidentiality with respect to such material; +- g. independent photocopying, graphic production services, or other litigation support services employed by the Parties or their counsel to assist in this action, including computer service personnel performing duties in relation to a computerized litigation system, provided such persons are subject to contractual or professional duties of confidentiality with respect to such material; +- h. the Court and its staff; +- i. any mediators engaged by the parties; is any claims administrator for the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program and such administrator's support staff, if, and only if, Plaintiff chooses to participate in said program; and +- k. any other person whom the producing person, or other person designating the Discovery Material as Confidential, agrees in writing may have access to such Designated Material. +- 10. Counsel shall take all reasonable and necessary steps to ensure the security of any Designated Material and will limit access to Designated Material to those persons listed in Paragraph 9 of this Protective Order. + +- II. All persons to whom Designated Material is to be disclosed pursuant to Subparagraphs 9 (c)-(g) and (j) as applicable above, as well as Plaintiff and Defendants, shall, prior to disclosure, be advised of the contents of this Stipulation and Protective Order and be required to execute the Non-Disclosure Agreement evidencing their agreement to the terms of the Protective Order. To the extent that any such person refuses to sign the Non-Disclosure Agreement, a Party may seek proper recourse including, but not limited to, an order directing that such person is subject to the terms set forth herein. +- 12. Counsel for the Party that obtains signed Non-Disclosure Agreements, as required herein, shall retain them for six (6) months following the final termination of this Proceeding, including any appeals, and shall make them available to the other Party upon good cause shown. Counsel of record shall maintain a list of the names of all persons to whom such Designated Material is disclosed and such list shall be available for inspection by counsel for the Party claiming confidentiality upon order of the Court following a show of good cause. +- 13. Nothing shall prevent disclosure beyond the terms of this Protective Order if the Supplying Party (or its counsel) designating the material as Confidential Information consents in writing to such disclosure, or if the Court, after reasonable written notice to all affected Parties, orders such disclosure. +- 14. Any Party may request at any time permission to disclose Designated Material to a person other than those permitted under Paragraph 9 above or to use such information in a manner prohibited by this Protective Order, by serving a written request upon the Supplying Party's counsel. Any such request shall state the Designated Material the Party wishes to disclose, to whom it wishes to make disclosure, and the reason(s) and purpose(s) therefore. The Supplying Party or its counsel shall thereafter respond to the request in writing (by hand delivery, courier, or email transmission) as soon as practicable, but within ten (10) business days of its receipt of such request. If consent is withheld, the Supplying Party or its counsel shall state the reasons why it is withholding such consent. If, where consent is withheld, the requesting Party and the Supplying Party are subsequently unable to agree on the terms and conditions of disclosure, disclosure may only be made in accordance with the Supplying Party's designation of the material as Confidential Information (i.e., the requesting Party may disclose the Designated Material only as permitted under Paragraph 9 above) unless and until differing treatment is directed pursuant to an order of the Court. + +# Responding to a Subpoena + +IS. In the event a Party or non-party having possession, custody, or control of any Designated Material received as part of this Proceeding receives a subpoena or other process or order to produce such information, such subpoenaed Party or non-party shall promptly notify by e-mail the attorneys of record of the Supplying Party (or, if the subpoenaed person is a non-party, the Parties) and shall furnish those attorneys with a copy of said subpoena or other process or order. The Party or non-party receiving the subpoena or other process or order shall not produce the requested Designated Material unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction so directs, except if the Supplying Party (a) consents, or (b) fails to file a motion to quash or fails to notify the Party or non-party receiving the subpoena or other process in writing of the Supplying Party's intention to contest the production of the Designated Material prior to the date designated for production of the subpoenaed information, in which event the Party or non-party who received the subpoena or other process may produce on the designated production date, but no earlier. The Supplying Party asserting the confidential treatment shall have the burden of defending against such subpoena, process, or order. The Party or non-party receiving the subpoena or other process or order shall be entitled to comply with it except to the extent the Party asserting the confidential treatment is successful in obtaining an order modifying or quashing it. + +#### Later Designation of Confidential Information + +- 16. Any Supplying Party may designate as Confidential Information (or withdraw a designation regarding) any material that it has produced; provided, however, that such designation shall be effective only as of the date of such designation. Such designation shall be accomplished by providing written notice to counsel of record for each Party identifying (by production number, transcript line and page number, or other individually identifiable information) the document, testimony, or other information whose designation is to be changed and, promptly after providing such notice, by providing relabeled copies of the material to the Receiving Party reflecting the new designation. Upon receipt of any such written designation, counsel of record shall: (i) not make any further disclosure or communication of such newly Designated Material except as provided for in this Protective Order, (ii) take reasonable steps to notify any persons known to have possession of any newly Designated Material of the treatment of such material required under this Protective Order pursuant to the designation; (iii) promptly endeavor to procure all copies of such newly Designated Material from any persons known to have possession of any such Designated Material who are not entitled to receipt of Designated Material under Paragraph 9 above; and (iv) replace the newly Designated Material with the re-labeled copies of the material and make reasonable efforts to destroy the copies of the Designated Material produced prior to such designation. + +### Objecting to Designations of Confidential Information + +- 17. Any Party may object to the propriety of the designation or the lack of designation of specific material as Confidential Information or Financial Information (the "Objecting Party"). A Party shall not be obliged to challenge the propriety of the designation at the + +time of production or later designation, and failure to do so shall not preclude a subsequent challenge thereto. The Objecting Party should serve a written objection upon the Supplying Party's counsel who shall thereafter, within ten (10) business days, respond to such objection in writing (by hand delivery, courier, or email transmission) by either: (i) agreeing to remove, change, or add the designation; or (ii) stating the reasons for such designation or lack thereof. If the Objecting Party and the Supplying Party are subsequently unable to agree upon the terms and conditions of disclosure for the material(s) in issue, the Objecting Party shall be free to move the Court for an Order removing or modifying the disputed designation or lack thereof. On such a motion, it will be the burden of the Party imposing a limitation on circulation of discovery materials to justify that limitation. The material(s) in issue shall continue to be treated in the manner imposing the greatest limitation on circulation sought by a Party until the Court orders otherwise. + +### Inadvertent Disclosure of Confidential Information + +- 18. If a Receiving Party receives documents or other materials that it has reason to believe are subject to a good faith claim of attorney-client privilege, work product protection, or other privilege or immunity from disclosure, the receiving party must refrain from examining the documents or other materials any more than is essential to ascertain whether the documents or other materials are reasonably subject to such a claim. The Receiving Party shall promptly notify the Supplying Party in writing that the Receiving Party possesses documents or other material that appears to be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. +- 19. If, in connection with this litigation, a Supplying Party inadvertently discloses information that is subject to a claim of attorney-client privilege, attorney work product protection, or any other privilege or immunity from disclosure ("Inadvertently Disclosed Information"), such disclosure shall not constitute or be deemed a waiver or forfeiture of any claim of privilege, work product protection, or other privilege or immunity from discovery with respect to the Inadvertently Disclosed Information or its subject matter. In addition, a Supplying Party may use its own document (e.g., as a deposition exhibit) containing material that is subject to a claim of privilege or immunity from disclosure for the purpose of establishing the basis of such claim without waiver of any applicable privilege or immunity from disclosure, unless the producing person affirmatively uses or relies upon the specific material contained in the document that is subject to the claim of privilege or immunity from disclosure for any purpose other than establishing the basis of such claim. +- 20. If a Supplying Party makes a claim of inadvertent disclosure, the Receiving Party shall, within five business days, return or destroy all copies of the Inadvertently Disclosed Information, and provide a certification of counsel that all such information has been returned or destroyed. + +- 21. Within five business days after the notification that such Inadvertently Disclosed Information has been returned or destroyed, the Supplying Party shall produce a privilege log with respect to the Inadvertently Disclosed Information. +- 22. The Receiving Party may move the Court for an Order compelling production of the Inadvertently Disclosed Information. Pursuant to the Parties' obligations set forth herein, the motion shall not quote or paraphrase the substance of the document subject to the motion to compel beyond the description of the document contained in the privilege log entry for the document. The motion shall be filed under seal, and shall not assert as a ground for entering such an Order the fact or circumstances of the inadvertent production in this action. +- 23. The Supplying Party retains the burden of establishing the privileged or protected nature of any Inadvertently Disclosed Information. Nothing in this Order shall limit the right of any Supplying Party or Receiving Party to request an in camera review of the Inadvertently Disclosed Information. + +## Filing Designated Material in This Action + +- 24. All Designated Material that is filed with the Court, or any pleadings, motions or other papers filed with the Court that reveals any information that has been designated as Confidential Information by any Party or non-Party, shall be filed as redacted or under seal consistent with Section 1.0 of Magistrate Judge Freeman's Individual Practices, Section 9 of Judge Failla's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, and the Court's Order on Plaintiff's Anonymity (ECF No. 41). +- 25. Prior to filing with the Court Designated Material, the Parties shall meet and confer concerning any redactions, and cooperate in seeking to resolve any disputed issues of confidentiality. The Party intending to file the Designated Material with the Court shall make all reasonable efforts to provide the redacted document(s) to the other Party for review two (2) business days prior to filing. If the Parties cannot resolve a dispute arising from this Paragraph, they shall follow the procedures set forth in Section I.0 of Magistrate Judge Freeman's Individual Practices or Section 3.0 of Judge Failla's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases. + +# Use of Confidential Information/Designated Material + +- 26. Persons having knowledge of Confidential Information only by virtue of their participation in the Proceeding shall use that Confidential Information only in connection with the Proceeding or appeal thereof, and shall neither use such Confidential Information for any other purpose nor disclose such Confidential Information to any person who is not listed in Paragraph 9 of this Protective Order. + +- 27. Designated Material, any copies and/or extracts thereof, and anything derived therefrom, shall not be disclosed in any way for use in any other litigation or contemplated litigation, or for any other purpose extraneous to this Proceeding. +- 28. Nothing in this Protective Order shall restrict any Party's counsel from rendering advice to its clients with respect to this Proceeding and, in the course thereof, relying upon Designated Material, provided that in rendering such advice, counsel shall not disclose any other Party's Designated Material, other than in a manner provided for in this Protective Order. +- 29. If Designated Material is used during depositions or in preparing a witness for testimony, it shall not lose its status through such use, and counsel shall exercise their best efforts and take all steps reasonably required to protect its designated status during such use. +- 30. Nothing herein shall be construed to affect in any manner the admissibility at trial of any document, testimony or other evidence, or to affect any Party's right to assert that documents or information may be withheld on grounds of relevance, privilege, or any other ground. +- 31. Nothing contained in this Protective Order will be construed as: (a) a waiver by a Party or person of its right to object to any discovery request; (b) a waiver of any privilege or protection; or (c) a ruling regarding the admissibility at trial of any document, testimony, or other evidence. +- 32. Nothing contained in this Protective Order prejudices a Party's ability to seek discovery in this and any other legal proceeding, without prejudice to any other Party's right to object to such discovery. +- 33. Nothing in this Protective Order shall prevent any Party from seeking further protection with respect to the use of any such Designated Material in connection with the trial, a hearing, or other proceeding in this litigation. +- 34. Nothing contained herein shall preclude any Party from using its own Designated Material in any manner it sees fit, without prior consent of any Party or the Court. + +## Improper Disclosure of Designated Material + +- 35. If Designated Material is disclosed to any person other than in the manner authorized by this Protective Order, the Party responsible for the disclosure shall, immediately upon learning of such disclosure, inform the Supplying Party of all pertinent facts relating to such disclosure and make all reasonable efforts to recover all copies of the Designated Material and prevent further disclosure or dissemination by each unauthorized person who received such Designated Material. + +- 36. In the event of a proven willful violation of this Protective Order by any Party in this action or others designated in Paragraph 9 hereof, all Parties acknowledge that the offending Party or persons may be subject to sanctions determined in the discretion of the Court. + +# Destruction of Designated Material + +- 37. Upon the conclusion of the Proceeding, including any appeals related thereto, at the written request and option of the Supplying Party, all Designated Material and any and all copies shall be returned or destroyed within sixty (60) calendar days of receipt of the request to the Supplying Party; provided, however, that attorney work product, briefs and other court papers prepared for use in this Proceeding need not be returned or destroyed, but may be retained only by the Parties' counsel and, if so retained, shall continue to be maintained as Confidential in accordance with the provisions of this Stipulation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Designated Material that has been received electronically and that cannot be returned or destroyed must be electronically deleted and deleted from "trash" files, and the Receiving Party must take reasonable measures to ensure that unauthorized persons do not have access to Designated Material residing on the recipient's computer server and back-up media. + +# Retention of Jurisdiction + +- 38. The foregoing provisions concerning confidentiality of Designated Material shall continue through the trial and any appeals related to this Proceeding, unless otherwise modified by agreement of the Parties or order of the Court. The Parties shall be free to use any admissible Designated Material at trial and any appeals related to this Proceeding but shall work together to fashion appropriate measures to limit the disclosure of such Designated Materials to the general public. The Court shall issue any relief, if necessary, prior to trial or to the hearing in open court upon motion or agreement of the Parties. +- 39. The terms of this Protective Order may be amended or modified by written agreement of the Parties or upon motion and order of the Court. This Protective Order shall continue in force until amended or superseded by express order of the Court and shall survive any final judgment or settlement in this Proceeding. + +## Time of Effect + +- 40. This Protective Order shall become effective as between the Parties immediately upon submission to the Court for approval, notwithstanding the pendency of approval by the Court. If approval by the Court is ultimately denied, withheld, or made conditional, no Party shall treat any Designated Material produced prior to that time in a manner inconsistent with this Protective Order without giving the producing Party sufficient advance notice to allow for application to the Court for additional relief. + +The Parties, by their counsel, hereby consent to entry of the foregoing Order: + +Dated: New York, New York April 28, 2020 + +Respectfully Submitted, + +By: S\_\_ + +Roberta A. Kaplan Kate L. Doniger Alexandra Conlon Kyle P.S. Magun Louis W. Fisher + +KAPLAN I IECKER & FINK LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 (212) 763-0883 rkaplan@kaplanheckcr.com kdoniger@kaplanhecker.com aconlon@kaplanhecker.com kmagun@kaplanhecker.com Ifisher@kaplanhecker.com + +Attorneys for Plaintiff Jane Doe + +IT IS SO ORDERED this 30 day of April , 2020 + +adiAtan- + +The Hon. Debra Freeman United States Magistrate Judge f3TM Rpsrn + +Bennet J. Moskowitz + +TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 704-6000 Bennet.Moskowitz@troutman.com + +Attorney for Defendants htdyke and Richard D. Kahn. Co-Executors of the Estate °Petty E Epstein + +As modified in paragraph 4(a). + +#### EXHIBIT A + +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, + +Defendants. + +No. 19 Civ. 8673 (KPF) (DCF) + +### JYON-DISCLOSIIRF, AGREEMENT + +I acknowledge that I have read and understand the Protective Order in this action governing the non-disclosure of Designated Material (the "Protected Material"). I agree that (1) I will hold in confidence all Protected Material to the extent required by the Protective Order and agree to be bound by the terms of that Order; (2) I will use such Protected Material only for purposes of this litigation and for no other purpose whatsoever; and (3) I will take all due precautions to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of such Protected Material. + +By acknowledging these obligations under the Protective Order, I understand that I am submitting myself to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for the purpose of any issue or dispute arising hereunder, and that my willful violation of any term of the Protective Order could subject me to punishment for contempt of court. + +Dated: + +[Signature] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751289/EFTA02751289.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751289/EFTA02751289.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..329a4b4d8b17b0ad2ca6447f89ba572f93900a19 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751289/EFTA02751289.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,974 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751289.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 12, + "chars": 28712, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.78, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "STIPULATED IPROPOSEDI PROTECTIVE ORDER", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 162.792, + 297.27 + ], + [ + 449.9879150390625, + 297.27 + ], + [ + 449.9879150390625, + 312.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 162.792, + 312.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Plaintiff's Identit", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 566.1899999999999 + ], + [ + 162.18, + 566.1899999999999 + ], + [ + 162.18, + 581.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 581.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Discovery Materials May Be Designated as Confidential Information", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 93.15 + ], + [ + 406.9944763183594, + 93.15 + ], + [ + 406.9944763183594, + 108.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 108.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONFIDENTIAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 284.58, + 294.03 + ], + [ + 384.36187744140625, + 294.03 + ], + [ + 384.36187744140625, + 309.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 284.58, + 309.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Who May Receive Designated Material", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 580.77 + ], + [ + 265.34765625, + 580.77 + ], + [ + 265.34765625, + 596.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 596.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Responding to a Subpoena", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 593.73 + ], + [ + 203.79901123046875, + 593.73 + ], + [ + 203.79901123046875, + 609.4335174560547 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 609.4335174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Later Designation of Confidential Information", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 302.94 + ], + [ + 298.8955993652344, + 302.94 + ], + [ + 298.8955993652344, + 317.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 317.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Objecting to Designations of Confidential Information", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 601.8299999999999 + ], + [ + 337.51605224609375, + 601.8299999999999 + ], + [ + 337.51605224609375, + 616.5635375976562 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 616.5635375976562 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Inadvertent Disclosure of Confidential Information", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 272.97 + ], + [ + 321.3861083984375, + 272.97 + ], + [ + 321.3861083984375, + 287.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 287.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Filing Designated Material in This Action", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 277.529541015625, + 319.14000000000004 + ], + [ + 277.529541015625, + 334.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 334.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Use of Confidential Information/Designated Material", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 566.1899999999999 + ], + [ + 331.5106506347656, + 566.1899999999999 + ], + [ + 331.5106506347656, + 582.0635375976562 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 582.0635375976562 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Improper Disclosure of Designated Material", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 537.0300000000001 + ], + [ + 288.402587890625, + 537.0300000000001 + ], + [ + 288.402587890625, + 552.0635223388672 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 552.0635223388672 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Destruction of Designated Material", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 137.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 245.2725830078125, + 137.70000000000002 + ], + [ + 245.2725830078125, + 153.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 153.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Retention of Jurisdiction", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 347.49 + ], + [ + 194.61691284179688, + 347.49 + ], + [ + 194.61691284179688, + 363.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 363.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Time of Effect", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 555.6600000000001 + ], + [ + 146.11282348632812, + 555.6600000000001 + ], + [ + 146.11282348632812, + 570.8035125732422 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 570.8035125732422 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 271.728, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 339.9351501464844, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 339.9351501464844, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 271.728, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 193.392, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 418.5074768066406, + 127.863037109375 + ], + [ + 193.392, + 127.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "JYON-DISCLOSIIRF,\nAGREEMENT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 231.33599999999998, + 324.0 + ], + [ + 343.3433837890625, + 324.0 + ], + [ + 343.3433837890625, + 353.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 231.33599999999998, + 353.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 9 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 9 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751289" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751301/EFTA02751301.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751301/EFTA02751301.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bd299db6829ea84a9bea3ef4b9a461f0c1b176b7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751301/EFTA02751301.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +Case No. 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF + +DARREN INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as the executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFEREY E. EPSTEIN, + +Defendants. + +## NOTICE OF APPEARANCE + +PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorney hereby appears as counsel for defendants Darren,. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, as co-executors of the estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein in the above-captioned action. I certify that I am admitted to practice in this Court. All notices given or required to be given in this case shall be served upon the undersigned. + +Dated: New York, New York. May 12, 2020 + +By: Is/ Charles L. Glover + +Charles L. Glover TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.704.6000 Charles.Glover@troutman.com + +Attorneys for Defendants + +To: All Counsel of Record (via ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751301/EFTA02751301.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751301/EFTA02751301.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b2abca0099a92a2a7dd53cfe29b247a0164b8a6d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751301/EFTA02751301.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751301.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 877, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.7, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 193.392, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 418.4738464355469, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 418.4738464355469, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 193.392, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NOTICE OF APPEARANCE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 356.79599999999994, + 214.64999999999998 + ], + [ + 514.0557861328125, + 214.64999999999998 + ], + [ + 514.0557861328125, + 229.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 356.79599999999994, + 229.4830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751301" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751302/EFTA02751302.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751302/EFTA02751302.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f0270f3bd0b08f2b07ef77705a2dd3261b49852f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751302/EFTA02751302.md @@ -0,0 +1,275 @@ +# EXHIBIT A + +#### IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. & ST. JOHN + +\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* + +IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, PROBATE NO. ST-19-PB-80 + +Deceased. + +ACTION FOR TESTATE ADMINISTRATION + +### CO-EXECUTORS' STATUS REPORT ON VOLUNTARY COMPENSATION PROGRAM AND PRESENTATION OF PROGRAM PROTOCOL + +On November 14, 2019, the Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the "Co-Executors") filed their Expedited Motion for Establishment of a Voluntary Claims Resolution Program (the "Expedited Motion") seeking to establish an independent and voluntary claims resolution program (the "Program") for purposes of resolving sexual abuse claims against Jeffrey E. Epstein, deceased. As promised in the Expedited Motion, the Co-Executors now submit to the Court the detailed Program protocol (the "Protocol," copy attached as Exhibit A hereto) designed and developed over several months by independent, nationally recognized claims administration experts with extensive input from the Co-Executors and other interested parties, including claimants and their legal representatives. Because the need for the Program has grown increasingly urgent and with the support of claimants' counsel and the Attorney General of the United States Virgin Islands, the Co-Executors intend to authorize commencement on Monday, June 15, 2020 of formal claims resolution proceedings under the Program, absent contrary direction from the Court. + +## 1. BACKGROUND + +As detailed in the Expedited Motion and the Co-Executors' subsequent filings with the Court, the Program will provide all eligible claimants an opportunity to receive compensation and voluntarily resolve their claims of sexual abuse against Mr. Epstein through a confidential, nonadversarial alternative to litigation, utilizing a process that is sensitive to the experiences and concern of claimants and treats them with compassion, dignity and respect.' + +On February 4, 2020, the Court heard extensive witness testimony concerning the Program (February 4, 2020 Hearing Tr. at 103:12-186:14); at that hearing, multiple claimants' counsel also spoke in favor of implementing the Program. (Id. 84:11-85:2; 85:6-19; 92:2493:8.) As Your Honor recognized, the Program is not only consistent with the fiduciary duties of the Co-Executors, but in fact "...we agreed that everybody believes this program is a great program..." (Id. at 113:24-25.) That drumbeat of approval continues to swell; since the Co-Executors' most recent filing with the Court concerning the Program,2 counsel for 69 individual claimants have come forward to the Court in support of the Program.3 + +- I. Expedited Motion at I; see also Co-Executors' Request for Ruling on Expedited Motion for Establishment of a Voluntary Claims Resolution Program (filed December 4, 2019); Co-Executors' Request for Immediate Hearing or Conference Regarding Expedited Motion for Establishment of a Voluntary Claims Resolution Program (filed December 13, 2019); Co-Executors' Reply to Creditor Jane Doe's Response to Co-Executors' Expedited Motion for Establishment of a Voluntary Claims Resolution Program (filed January IS, 2020); Co-Executors' Reply to Government's Opposition to Estate's Motion for Establishment of a Voluntary Claims Resolution Program (filed January 31, 2020); Co-Executors' Status Report on Continuing Efforts to Establish Voluntary Compensation Program and Request for Ruling (filed March 24, 2020); Co-Executors' Corrections to Attorney General's Status Report on Voluntary Compensation Program and Renewed Request for Ruling (filed April 10, 2020). +- 2. Co-Executors' Notice of Related Filing, dated April 17, 2020 (attaching Co-Executors' correspondence with claimants' New York counsel concerning commencement of the Program). +- 3. See Status Report from Claimants dated April 20, 2020 (urging on behalf of 12 claimants that "the Program can and should proceed without delay"); Status Report from Claimants dated April 21, 2020 (stating on behalf of 5 claimants that "permitting the Program to proceed would be in the best interests of the victims at this time"); Motion for Status Conference Regarding the Victim Compensation Program dated April 28, 2020 (seeking on behalf of 52 claimants an Order "permitting the Program to proceed as agreed amongst the parties"). + +## II. THE PROGRAM PROTOCOL + +The Program Administrator and Designers have now finalized the Protocol for the Program, in close consultation with claimants' counsel and the Co-Executors.4 As contemplated in the Expedited Motion, the Protocol sets forth the following non-exclusive guiding principles: + +- The Program is purely voluntary. It does not affect any rights a claimant may have unless and until she accepts the offered compensation and executes a release. A claimant may reject the offer of compensation and may stop participating in the Program and withdraw the claim at any time prior to execution of the release. +- The Program is independent and will in no way be administered, controlled, or overseen by the Co-Executors. The Program Administrator is responsible for all decisions relating to the review, processing and evaluation of individual claims submitted to the Program. The Administrator will have final, binding, and exclusive authority to determine claimant eligibility and the valuation of each eligible individual claim. Decisions of the Administrator made pursuant to the Protocol are not subject to review or modification in any way by the Co-Executors or any other party or entity. +- Subject to total Estate assets available, there is no cap or limitation on the aggregate amount of funds available to compensate all eligible claimants or on the amount of compensation to be made to each individual claimant. Each individual claim will be evaluated separately by the Program Administrator. The Administrator will determine, in her sole and exclusive discretion, issues of eligibility and the amount of compensation and the Estate will pay all eligible claims based on the Administrator's determination. +- All claimants will be treated with respect, dignity, and fairness without regard to race, color, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, gender, or disability. To ensure claims will be adjudicated fairly, the Program Administrator will manage the process so that all claimants can equally access the Program's claim process. Individuals with disabilities will be given the opportunity to effectively communicate their claims and to request special process accommodations. + +(See Protocol at pp. 1-2.) + +4. The Attorney General of the U.S. Virgin Islands also expressed her detailed views on the structure and formation of the Program, both through filings with the Court and direct communications with the Program Administrator. + +The Protocol also sets forth detailed aspects of the Program's administration, including eligibility criteria for the Program, proof requirements and claims procedures, the methodology for claims evaluation and determining compensatory awards, and timing and regular reports to the Court, as follows: + +- Eligibility. The Protocol identifies the criteria to determine whether a claimant is eligible to receive compensation under the Program. (See Protocol at pp. 3- 4.) +- Proof Requirements and Claims Procedures. The Protocol determines what types of supporting documentation or other evidence each individual will be required to submit to substantiate her claim, satisfy Program requirements, and allow the Program Administrator to review, process and evaluate that claim. (See Protocol at pp. 4-5.) +- Claims Evaluation and Determination Methodology. The Protocol defines the factors and considerations to be used to determine the amount of compensation to be offered to any eligible claimant. (See Protocol at pp. 5-6.) +- Timing. The Protocol sets forth the timeframe of the Program, including an effective commencement date and deadline for submission of all claims. (See Protocol at pp. 4-5.) +- Reporting. The Protocol reflects the Program Administrator's commitment to provide the Court with regular monthly reports regarding the aggregate number and total value of claims paid each month through the Program. (See Protocol at p. 9.) + +# III. URGENT NEED TO COMMENCE OF PROGRAM OPERATIONS + +In their fiduciary capacity, the Co-Executors engaged in extensive discussions with relevant parties in interest regarding the independent, fair, and timely resolution of the sexual abuse claims against Mr. Epstein. As noted above, many existing and potential claimants have expressed through their representatives their preference to participate in the Program rather than proceeding with litigation. Although there will be significant expense in administering the Program, the Co-Executors contemplate that the Program will substantially reduce the expenses to the Estate of litigating multiple lawsuits in numerous jurisdictions, and thus ultimately reduce expenses to the + +benefit of all parties with an interest in the Estate, including claimants and creditors.5 The expedited nature of the Program will also ensure resolution and compensation to claimants in a far more timely manner than through litigation. + +As described above, the Protocol is designed to ensure the proportionate restitution of approved claims for all claimants, in a manner that will provide similar compensation to similarly situated claimants. The Program is in the best interests of both claimants and the Estate because, among other things, it avoids the potential of disproportionate and inconsistent awards and should help to reduce the time, exposure and burden of handling claims through the courts, which could involve years of litigation and appeals and consume enormous resources, along with inflicting on all affected parties costs attendant to delay and uncertainty. + +# IV. FUNDING FOR THE PROGRAM + +As the Court is aware, the Attorney General on January 31, 2020 unilaterally imposed criminal activity liens on the Estate's bank account in the Virgin Islands, freezing then-available funds — funds over which this Court has exclusive jurisdiction — for administration of the Estate and implementation of the Program.6 On February 24, 2020, the Attorney General imposed similar liens against Southern Trust Company, Inc., one of the entities within the Estate. The Co-Executors have challenged the validity of the Attorney General's liens, and moved the Superior + +5. In the absence of the Program, litigation alleging sexual abuse by Mr. Epstein has increased in scope, pace and expense: there are now 22 separate lawsuits brought by 34 individual claimants pending against the Co-Executors, primarily in the state and federal courts of New York. Discovery proceedings in those actions including document demands, interrogatories, non-party subpoenas, and motions to compel — continue to ratchet up each passing week. + +6. Following the Co-Executors' resulting emergency motion for release of funds necessary for administration of the Estate, the Court directed the Attorney General to lift her liens in amounts sufficient to allow the Co-Executors to pay the Estate's operational expenses and legal fees. + +Court to vacate them in their entirety.7 However, pending determination of that motion — as well as this Court's approval of the estimated budget for and expenses of designing, implementing and administering the Program, submitted by the Co-Executors on February 4, 2020 — the Co-Executors and the Attorney General have reached consensual resolution in which the latter will promptly lift those liens to pay amounts owed for the Program and to begin funding of the Program's active operations, including payment of compensation determinations to eligible claimants.8 + +Because the need for the Program has grown increasingly urgent, and with the support of claimants' counsel and the USVI Attorney General — and because the remaining impediments have been resolved and the interested parties have consented to the Protocol attached as Exhibit A hereto — the Co-Executors intend to move forward with the Program on Monday, June 15, 2020, absent contrary direction from the Court, + +Dated: June I, 2020 + +Respectfully, + +/s/ Kroblin KROBLIN, ESQ. ANDREW W. HEYMANN, ESQ. WILLIAM L. BLUM, ESQ. SHARI N. D'ANDRADE, ESQ. MARJORIE WHALEN, ESQ. + +7. See Expedited Motion to Vacate Liens, dated March 17, 2020 (Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands vs. Indyke, et al., Case No. ST-20-CV-14). The Attorney General filed no response to that expedited motion. + +8. As part of that resolution, the Co-Executors agreed not to assert that the Attorney General's release of such limited funds will act as a waiver of Government's ability, if any, to object to the Program's administrative expenses, including those paid with these initial funds. + +9. The Co-Executors recognize the extraordinary difficulties imposed by the coronavirus pandemic on the functioning of the courts of the Virgin Islands. To the extent the Court wishes to conduct a remote conference in this matter, either telephonically or via videolink, the Co-Executors and their counsel will of course make themselves available. + +V.I. Bar Nos. 136. 966. 1221 & R2019 + +KELLERHALS KROBLIN PLLC + +Palms Professional Building + +9053 Estate • Suite 101 + +St. IIIII V.I. 00802 + +Telephone: (340) 779-2564 + +Facsimile: (888) 316-9269 + +Email: wblum@solblum.com + +ckroblin@kellfer.com + +sdandrade@kellfer.com + +mwhalen@kellfer.com + +## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 1st day of June 2020, I caused a true and exact copy of the foregoing Co-Executors' Status Report on Voluntary Claims Resolution Program and Presentation of Program Protocol to be served via electronic mail upon: + +John H. Benham, Esq. Law Office of John H. Benham, P.C. P.O. Box 11720 St. ffl , VI 00801 john®benhamlawvi.cotn + +Douglas B. Chanco, Esq. ChancoSchiffer P.C. 3355 Lenox Road, Suite 750 Atlanta, GA 30326 doug@csfinn.com + +Richard Bourne-Vanneck, Esq. Law Offices of Richard Bourne-Vannek 9800 Buccaneer Mall Suite #9 St., VI 00802 richard@rpvblawoffices.com + +John K. Dema Law Offices of John K. Dema 1236 Strand Street, Suite 103 St. Croix, VI jdema@demalaw.com + +Denise N. =, Esq. Attorney General Ariel M. ffi, Esq. Chief, Civil Division Virgin Islands Department of Justice 34-38 Krondprinsdens Gade GERS Complex, 2nd Floor St. , Virgin Islands 00804 + +A. Jeffrey Weiss, Esq. A.J. Weiss & Associates 6934 Vessup Lane St. , VI 00802 jeffiveiss@weisslaw-vi.net + +Sean , E Marjorie Rawls, P.C. P.O. Box 6347 St. ~ VI 00804 sean®marjorkrobertspc.com + +Kevin F. D'Amour Gaylin Vogel, Esq. 5143 Palm Passage, 18b & 19b St. , VI 00802 kevin.damour®comcastnet gaylin.vogel®comcastnet + +Melody D. Westfall, Esq. Westfall Law PLLC 5032 Anchor Way, Suite 8 Christiansted, St. Croix 00820 mwestfall@wesffalllaw.com + +Kevin Boyle, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice) Robert Glassman, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice) PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 boyle®psblaw.com glassman®psblaw.com + +/s/ Shari N. D'Andrade + +#### Epstein Victims' Compensation Program + +#### PROTOCOL + +May 29, 2020 + +#### I. PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW + +The Epstein Victims' Compensation Program (the "Program") is a voluntary, independent Program that has been established to compensate and resolve the claims of victims-survivors of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"). + +The Estate of Jeffrey Epstein (the "Estate") has retained the services of nationally recognized claims administration experts Kenneth R. Feinberg, Camille S. Biros and Jordana H. to design the Program. will also serve as the Administrator of the Program (the "Administrator"). This Protocol reflects input from victims-survivors, their lawyers, other potentially interested parties, and representatives of the Estate. + +Through the Program, the Estate wishes to acknowledge the wrongs endured by victims-survivors and offer them an opportunity to voluntarily resolve their individual claims for such sexual abuse. + +The Program is governed by the following non-exclusive guiding principles: + +- The Program is purely voluntary. It does not affect any rights a Claimant may have unless and until the Claimant accepts the offered compensation and executes a Release. A Claimant may reject the offer of compensation and may stop participating in the Program and withdraw the claim at any time prior to execution of the Release. +- The Program is independent and will in no way be administered, controlled or overseen by the Estate. The Administrator is responsible for all decisions relating to the review, processing and evaluation of individual claims submitted to the Program. The Administrator will have final, binding and exclusive authority to determine Claimant eligibility and the valuation of each eligible individual claim. Decisions of the Administrator made pursuant to this Protocol are not subject to review or modification in any way by the Estate or any other party or entity. +- There is no cap or limitation on the aggregate amount of funds available to compensate all eligible Claimants or on the amount of compensation to be made to each individual Claimant. Each individual claim will be evaluated separately by the Administrator. The Administrator will determine, in her sole and exclusive discretion, issues of eligibility and the amount of compensation and the Estate will pay all eligible claims based on the Administrator's determination. + +- All Claimants will be treated with respect, dignity and fairness without regard to race, color, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, gender or disability. To ensure claims will be adjudicated fairly, the Administrator will manage the process so that all Claimants can equally access the Program's claim process. Individuals with disabilities will be given the opportunity to effectively communicate their claims and to request special process accommodations. + +The Program is available to all victims-survivors regardless of where they were harmed, when they were harmed, whether the claim is time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and whether they have previously filed a lawsuit against or settled with Epstein and/or the Estate. + +The exclusive claims period for filing a claim pursuant to this Protocol shall commence on the to-bedetermined Effective Date and shall conclude nine (9) months after that date ("Filing Deadline"). All individual claims filed with the Program must be filed within this period. + +To complement the Program's resources, the Administrator will, at her discretion and with the consent of the Claimant, consult with Professor Marci A. a nationally recognized sexual abuse expert, leading legal academic and advocate of victims' rights. role will be to further inform the Administrator and her staff about the dynamics of sexual abuse, common responses to sexual abuse, and the impact of sexual abuse on victims; to serve as a resource for the Administrator in developing or updating policies and procedures; to advise the Administrator regarding sensitivities involved in interactions with victims; and to serve as a referral source for the Administrator in providing postdetermination information to claimants who seek guidance, counseling or other services. The Administrator may, at her discretion and with the Claimant's prior written consent, request that review an individual claimant file. The Administrator will determine on a case-by-case basis, in her discretion, the need to anonymize individual claimants' files before sharing them with As set forth above, the Administrator is solely responsible for all decisions relating to the administration of the Program, including the review, processing, evaluation, and determination of individual claims submitted to the Program. + +During the term of the Program, will not meet or speak with a Claimant or her representatives concerning any aspect of the Program without the Administrator present. will maintain in strict confidence and will not disclose outside the Program any information she obtains through her participation in the Program, including individual Claimants' submissions. + +#### II. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS + +## A. Eligibility Criteria + +The persons eligible to participate in this Program are individuals who allege they were sexually abused by Epstein. In addition, the following criteria apply: + +- The claim of sexual abuse must be directed against Epstein. +- An individual whose claim is time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations may participate in the Program provided that other eligibility criteria are met. +- An individual who previously entered into a settlement agreement resolving a claim of sexual abuse against Epstein may participate in the Program provided that other eligibility criteria are met. +- An individual who allegedly assisted Epstein in procuring other victims-survivors may participate in the Program where there is a credible basis to determine that the individual acted under duress as a result of her own sexual abuse by Epstein, provided that other eligibility criteria are met. +- If the Claimant chooses to accept the offered compensation, the Claimant must dismiss with prejudice any existing lawsuits, legal actions or claims filed against the Estate or related entities and/or related individuals. The Claimant must provide proof of such dismissal along with or prior to the signed acceptance of the compensation determination offer letter and executed Release in order to receive payment. + +## B. Legal Representatives of Claimants + +An individual may file a claim on a victim's behalf where that individual has been granted legal authority to act in a representative capacity pursuant to appropriate law. The "Legal Representative" of an individual Claimant shall mean: (1) in the case of a Claimant who is currently a minor, a parent or legal guardian authorized by law to serve as the minor's legal representative; (2) in the case of an incompetent or legally incapacitated Claimant, a person who has been duly appointed as the Claimant's legal representative in accordance with applicable law; (3) in the case of a deceased Claimant, a person who has been duly appointed to act as the personal representative of the Claimant's estate by a court of competent jurisdiction and is authorized to file and compromise a claim; or (4) an attorney authorized to represent the Claimant for purposes of pursuing a claim through this Program. + +Legal Representatives must provide proper documentation demonstrating representative capacity. Such proof may include a power of attorney; documentation showing the individual's appointment as guardian or guardian ad litem; documentation showing the individual's appointment as personal representative of the Claimant's estate (such as letters of administration); a copy of a retainer agreement showing legal representation signed by both the Claimant and the attorney or a signed statement by an adult Claimant and the attorney that a licensed/admitted attorney is acting on her behalf. + +## III. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION - SUBMISSION, EVALUATION AND DETERMINATION + +### A. Claims Submission Process + +Individuals who have filed a lawsuit, legal action or claim against Epstein and/or the Estate or have otherwise been identified as a victim of Epstein by their attorney to the Administrator on or before the Effective Date will be sent a Claim Form and other relevant Program information, including Instructions for completion and submission of the Claim Form and a copy of this Protocol. Individuals who have filed a lawsuit need not agree to a stay of litigation or make any other concession in any pending litigation to be eligible to participate in the Program. Likewise, individuals who have not yet filed a lawsuit remain free to file a lawsuit and engage in litigation concurrently with participation in the Program. Individuals must, however, dismiss with prejudice any and all existing lawsuits, legal actions and claims prior to or at the time of acceptance of a compensation determination offer in order to receive payment. + +Individuals who have not filed a lawsuit, legal action or claim against Epstein and/or the Estate or have not otherwise been identified as a victim of Epstein by their attorney to the Administrator on or before the Effective Date may register to participate in this Program on the Program's website at www.EpsteinVCP.com. To register, such individuals must complete a questionnaire setting forth their name, contact information, a summary description of the nature of the claim and other requested information. Upon registration, the Administrator will perform a preliminary review to consider if the individual is eligible to participate in the Program. If the Administrator deems that the individual is eligible to participate in the Program, she will then send that individual a Claim Form and other relevant Program information. + +Note: The fact that an individual is sent a Claim Form and other relevant Program information indicates that the Administrator has determined that such individual is eligible to participate in the Program. It does not indicate that the Administrator has determined that such individual is eligible to receive compensation. That determination is made only after a Claim Form and all required documentation has been submitted and evaluated by the Administrator. + +Registrations for individuals who have not filed a lawsuit, legal action or claim against Epstein and/or the Estate or have not otherwise been identified as a victim of Jeffrey Epstein by their attorney to the Administrator on or before the Effective Date will be accepted by the Administrator from the Effective Date through a date that is 45 days prior to the Filing Deadline ("Registration Deadline"). It is important to note that the Registration Deadline is separate from, and precedes, the Filing Deadline. As explained above, all claims must be filed by the Filing Deadline. + +All Claim Forms must be completed to the best of a Claimant's ability and filed no later than the Filing Deadline. Claim Forms should be uploaded to the Program website at www.EpsteinVCP.com, or mailed via overnight courier (a pre-paid courier voucher will be included with each packet) to the Administrator at the following address: + +> Epstein Victims' Compensation Program Attn: Jordana H. Administrator P.O. Box 65488 Washington, D.C. 20035 + +Claimants are invited to provide documentation identified in the Claim Form, and any other corroborating or supporting information sufficient to substantiate the claim, satisfy eligibility requirements, and allow the Administrator to review, process and evaluate the claim. If the claim is being presented by a Legal Representative, then the Legal Representative will be responsible for submitting the necessary documentation relating to the represented Claimant. + +Additional documentation may be requested at the discretion of the Administrator. Both the Claimant and the Estate will be afforded the opportunity to submit to the Administrator any information deemed relevant to the Administrator's evaluation and determination of the claim before the Administrator's final disposition of the claim. + +If a Claimant submits an incomplete or deficient claim, the Administrator will notify the Claimant, explain the additional information that is needed, and work with the Claimant or the Claimant's Legal Representative (where applicable) to assist in submitting a complete claim. + +# B. Claims Evaluation and Determination + +Claims will be evaluated in the order in which they are received, with the Administrator evaluating each submitted individual claim in a prompt and fair manner. Claims will only be determined once all required documentation has been submitted to the Administrator, with due consideration granted to Claimant's good faith explanations for delays and/or absence of documentation. + +# 1. Factors Considered in Evaluating Claims + +As to each individual claim, the Administrator will determine, in her sole discretion based upon all of the information available, whether the allegations of sexual abuse are credible. The Administrator will consider appropriate factors and corroborative support, including but not limited to: + +- The level of documentation, corroboration or other circumstantial evidence regarding the nature and extent of the abuse, the frequency, location and other details of the abuse, and the age of the victim at the time of the abuse. Non-exhaustive examples of such evidence include + - (i) medical or psychiatric counseling/therapy records relevant to the abuse, and + - (ii) contemporaneous written notification or other correspondence (e.g., letters, emails) of the abuse by the Claimant to law enforcement authorities, parents, friends or others. The Administrator acknowledges that some Claimants may not be able to provide any + +documentation to corroborate their Claim based on the nature and circumstances of Epstein's conduct. If a Claimant's written and oral presentation is deemed to be credible by the Administrator, the Claimant may still be eligible for compensation under the Program. + +- Whether there exists any information and/or pertinent findings offered by the appropriate Office of the District Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, or other law enforcement agency. +- Whether the Administrator finds the claims of the individual to be credible after complete review of all relevant documentation and other evidence provided by the Claimant and the Estate. + +As to each individual claim, the Administrator will determine, in her sole discretion based upon all of the information available, the amount of compensation that should be offered to each eligible Claimant. The Administrator will consider appropriate factors and corroborative support, including but not limited to: + +- The nature, duration and extent of the sexual abuse suffered by the Claimant. +- The age of the Claimant at the time of the sexual abuse. +- The nature and extent of the Claimant's physical or psychological damage resulting from the sexual abuse, and the effect of the sexual abuse on the Claimant. +- The credibility of the claim based upon all of the facts and circumstances, supporting documentation and corroborating evidence. +- Whether the Claimant previously entered into a settlement agreement with Epstein and received a payment pursuant to such agreement. + +The Administrator will confidentially send the Claimant a compensation determination offer letter including the following: (1) the Administrator's eligibility decision regarding the claim; (2) the amount of compensation offered; (3) a Release to be signed by the Claimant if the Claimant accepts the offered compensation; and (4) a Payment Option Form. The Administrator's offer shall be valid for 60 days from the date of the compensation determination offer letter. + +The Administrator's determinations in this Program will not be binding on any potential criminal investigation involving Claimant's claims. + +# 2. Opportunities to be Heard + +The Claimant will be afforded an opportunity to be heard, either before or after the Administrator renders her determination. Upon request by the Claimant, the Administrator will be available to meet in person (as practicable in light of the COVID-19 pandemic), by video conference, or by teleconference to further discuss the claim. These meetings are completely optional and voluntary. Requests to meet + +with the Administrator should be sent by email to ClaimantServices@EpsteinVCP.com and will be scheduled at a mutually convenient time and location. The Administrator may also request a meeting with a Claimant or her Legal Representative at a reasonable mutually convenient time and location, though the Claimant is not obligated to attend any such meeting. + +## 3. Release + +By submitting a claim to the Program, a Claimant is seeking to resolve all claims relating to allegations of sexual abuse against Epstein and/or the Estate, and related entities and individuals as set forth in the Release. If a Claimant chooses to accept the offer of compensation pursuant to the Program, the Claimant will be required to sign and execute a full Release, in a form satisfactory to the Estate, of all past and future claims (including Hs pendens, writs of attachment, etc.) relating to such allegations of sexual abuse against the Estate, related entities and/or related individuals. A Claimant may reject the offer of compensation and may stop participating in the Program and withdraw the claim at any time prior to the execution of the Release. + +The Release will waive any rights the Claimant and her heirs, descendants, legatees or beneficiaries may have to assert any claims relating to allegations of sexual abuse against the Estate, related entities and/or related individuals, to file an individual legal action relating to such allegations, or to participate in any civil legal action associated with such allegations, except as a witness. However, the Release will not operate to preclude or limit the Claimant's ability to report and discuss allegations of sexual abuse with law enforcement officials or anyone else. In other words, the Release will not impose any rules of confidentiality on claimants, who are expressly permitted to discuss their allegations without restriction, should they choose. + +Before signing a Release, the Claimant must consult with an attorney selected by the Claimant. If the Claimant is not represented by an attorney, the Program will provide an attorney to provide free legal counseling to the Claimant for the sole purpose of advising the Claimant concerning the language and binding nature of the Release. + +No one affiliated with the Program will provide tax or legal advice to those receiving payments under the Program. Claimants are urged to consult with a tax advisor concerning any questions regarding tax liability for payments pursuant to the Program. + +## 4. Payments + +Upon the Claimant's acceptance of the Administrator's determination, the Administrator's receipt of the Claimant's executed Release and, where applicable, dismissal with prejudice of any existing lawsuit, legal actions or claims against the Estate or related entities and/or related individuals, the Administrator will initiate payment by check or electronic funds transfer to each eligible Claimant as directed by the Claimant. Checks will be sent to Claimants via overnight courier service. All payments made under the Program shall be for a Claimant's physical injuries, physical sickness and + +resulting emotional distress within the meaning of Section 104(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. + +## C. Program Integrity + +For the purpose of protecting both the integrity of the Program and financial resources for eligible Claimants, the Administrator will institute all necessary measures to prevent payment of fraudulent claims, including taking steps to verify claims and analyze submissions for inconsistencies, irregularities or duplication. + +Each Claimant who signs the Claim Form at the time of submission certifies that the information provided in the Claim Form is true and accurate to the best of the Claimant's knowledge, and that the Claimant understands that false statements or claims made in connection with such submission may result in fines, imprisonment and/or any other remedy available by law. Claims that appear to be potentially fraudulent or to contain information known by the Claimant to be false when made will be forwarded to federal, state or local law enforcement agencies and/or the appropriate Office of the District Attorney and/or United States Attorney's Office for possible investigation and prosecution. + +# D. Confidentiality/Privacy + +The Program is confidential.' By filing a claim with the Program, the Claimant or her Legal Representative (where applicable) agrees that information submitted by the Claimant pursuant to the Program will be used and/or disclosed by the Administrator and her designees only for the following purposes: + +- I) Processing and evaluating the Claimant's claim; +- 2) Administering the Program and other Program-related work; and +- 3) Reports to law enforcement where appropriate, related to potentially fraudulent claims. + +When documents or other information maintained or submitted by the Estate become part of a Claimant's file for purposes of the Program, such materials will be reviewed by the Administrator to assist in processing and evaluating the claim, but will otherwise remain confidential. No information provided by Claimants will be provided to the Estate except for the Claimant's name and the date(s) and location(s) of the alleged abuse, for the sole purpose of processing and evaluating the claim and, for purposes of the Release, the names of any other individual(s) to whom or by whom the Claimant alleges she was trafficked or sexually abused. The Estate has agreed that no information obtained solely through the Program will be disclosed publicly or used by the Estate in defending itself from any claim, regardless of forum. The Program's files are not available for inspection, review or copying by the Estate or the Claimant or her representatives during or after the Program, and all pertinent mediation privileges, settlement privileges and other privileges apply. + +All parties agree that they are using the services of a third-party administrator to help reach a resolution of individual claims of sexual abuse, and that this Program is entitled to confidentiality, privileges (mediation, settlement and all other pertinent privileges), and protection from disclosure under applicable law. + +To protect the privacy of Claimants participating in the Program, all personal information provided by the Claimant during this process will be returned or destroyed within one year after the conclusion of the Program. + +Individual Claimants are not bound through the Program by any rules of confidentiality. Claimants may, at their sole and voluntary option, disclose information in their possession regarding their claim, their compensation and their experience with the Program. + +All confidentiality requirements are subject to law, regulation and judicial process. + +## E. Reporting + +The Administrator shall, on a monthly basis, confidentially provide reports regarding the number and total value of claims paid each month to the Probate Court of the United States Virgin Islands and the Attorney General of the United States Virgin Islands. Such reports will report on an aggregate level only. No individual Claimant information will be published or disclosed in a way that compromises Claimant confidentiality. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751302/EFTA02751302.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751302/EFTA02751302.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a6650f1e6e498e9d0813bcb40e057fdd2d333bbb --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751302/EFTA02751302.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1356 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751302.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 18, + "chars": 38746, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.29, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 180.54, + 337.92437744140625 + ], + [ + 449.193603515625, + 337.92437744140625 + ], + [ + 449.193603515625, + 388.4027099609375 + ], + [ + 180.54, + 388.4027099609375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS \nDIVISION OF ST. & ST. JOHN", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 151.776, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 461.0386047363281, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 461.0386047363281, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 151.776, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CO-EXECUTORS' STATUS REPORT ON VOLUNTARY COMPENSATION \nPROGRAM AND PRESENTATION OF PROGRAM PROTOCOL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 100.98000000000002, + 221.94 + ], + [ + 512.2032470703125, + 221.94 + ], + [ + 512.2032470703125, + 250.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 100.98000000000002, + 250.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 92.34 + ], + [ + 198.8994140625, + 92.34 + ], + [ + 198.8994140625, + 107.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 107.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. THE PROGRAM PROTOCOL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 92.34 + ], + [ + 274.442138671875, + 92.34 + ], + [ + 274.442138671875, + 107.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 107.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. URGENT NEED TO COMMENCE OF PROGRAM OPERATIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 510.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 464.9410400390625, + 510.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 464.9410400390625, + 526.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 526.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. FUNDING FOR THE PROGRAM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 367.74 + ], + [ + 289.5235595703125, + 367.74 + ], + [ + 289.5235595703125, + 383.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 383.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 223.38, + 92.34 + ], + [ + 388.4980773925781, + 92.34 + ], + [ + 388.4980773925781, + 107.60302734375 + ], + [ + 223.38, + 107.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Independent", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 270.504, + 51.03 + ], + [ + 341.0062255859375, + 51.03 + ], + [ + 341.0062255859375, + 64.447021484375 + ], + [ + 270.504, + 64.447021484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Epstein Victims' Compensation Program", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 203.18400000000003, + 74.6702880859375 + ], + [ + 408.9801940917969, + 74.6702880859375 + ], + [ + 408.9801940917969, + 88.0670166015625 + ], + [ + 203.18400000000003, + 88.0670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROTOCOL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 275.4, + 105.30000000000001 + ], + [ + 336.7948913574219, + 105.30000000000001 + ], + [ + 336.7948913574219, + 118.8170166015625 + ], + [ + 275.4, + 118.8170166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 65.484, + 172.9202880859375 + ], + [ + 237.34506225585938, + 172.9202880859375 + ], + [ + 237.34506225585938, + 186.3170166015625 + ], + [ + 65.484, + 186.3170166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 65.484, + 74.52 + ], + [ + 248.52745056152344, + 74.52 + ], + [ + 248.52745056152344, + 88.0670166015625 + ], + [ + 65.484, + 88.0670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Eligibility Criteria", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 110.77199999999999, + 105.30000000000001 + ], + [ + 216.79905700683594, + 105.30000000000001 + ], + [ + 216.79905700683594, + 119.947021484375 + ], + [ + 110.77199999999999, + 119.947021484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Legal Representatives of Claimants", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 119.34, + 472.23 + ], + [ + 310.3854064941406, + 472.23 + ], + [ + 310.3854064941406, + 487.8170471191406 + ], + [ + 119.34, + 487.8170471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION - SUBMISSION, EVALUATION AND DETERMINATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 64.872, + 121.5 + ], + [ + 497.4861755371094, + 121.5 + ], + [ + 497.4861755371094, + 136.0670166015625 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 136.0670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Claims Submission Process", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 101.59200000000001, + 145.8 + ], + [ + 255.23594665527344, + 145.8 + ], + [ + 255.23594665527344, + 160.0670166015625 + ], + [ + 101.59200000000001, + 160.0670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Claims Evaluation and Determination", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 101.59200000000001, + 428.49 + ], + [ + 306.6460876464844, + 428.49 + ], + [ + 306.6460876464844, + 444.3170471191406 + ], + [ + 101.59200000000001, + 444.3170471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Factors Considered in Evaluating Claims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 118.72800000000001, + 523.26 + ], + [ + 337.00341796875, + 523.26 + ], + [ + 337.00341796875, + 539.5670471191406 + ], + [ + 118.72800000000001, + 539.5670471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Opportunities to be Heard", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 118.72800000000001, + 627.75 + ], + [ + 271.2774353027344, + 627.75 + ], + [ + 271.2774353027344, + 643.8170471191406 + ], + [ + 118.72800000000001, + 643.8170471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Release", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 119.34, + 131.22 + ], + [ + 181.013916015625, + 131.22 + ], + [ + 181.013916015625, + 145.81707763671875 + ], + [ + 119.34, + 145.81707763671875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. Payments", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 119.34, + 593.73 + ], + [ + 191.5150146484375, + 593.73 + ], + [ + 191.5150146484375, + 608.9470520019531 + ], + [ + 119.34, + 608.9470520019531 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Program Integrity", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 101.59200000000001, + 85.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 211.6692352294922, + 85.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 211.6692352294922, + 100.447021484375 + ], + [ + 101.59200000000001, + 100.447021484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Confidentiality/Privacy", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 101.59200000000001, + 320.76 + ], + [ + 236.690185546875, + 320.76 + ], + [ + 236.690185546875, + 336.6870422363281 + ], + [ + 101.59200000000001, + 336.6870422363281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. Reporting", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 101.59200000000001, + 234.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 174.19895935058594, + 234.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 174.19895935058594, + 249.3170166015625 + ], + [ + 101.59200000000001, + 249.3170166015625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 3 + ], + [ + "Line", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 36 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 145 + ], + [ + "Line", + 68 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 31 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751302" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751320/EFTA02751320.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751320/EFTA02751320.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c79041418021e7e5cb0174b53fb136e58b09f654 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751320/EFTA02751320.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +## KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +## VIA ECF + +Hon. Judge aFreeman Daniel Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007 + +NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 + +TEL (212) 763-0883 I FAX (212) 564-0883 + +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM + +DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0884 + +DIRECT EMAIL rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com + +June I, 2020 + +Re: Doe v. Indyke et at, No. 19-cv-8673-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) + +Dear Judge Freeman: + +We write on behalf of both parties in the above-referenced action pursuant to this Court's Order dated April 21, 2020 (Doc. No. 60) to update the Court as to the status of discovery and the progress of settlement discussions. + +Discovery. As the Court is aware, fact discovery in this matter began on January 21, 2020 (Doc. No. 48), and the parties exchanged their First Sets of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents on March 10, 2020. Since that time, the parties have met and conferred repeatedly on the scope and timeline of discovery, including issues pertaining to specifically to electronically-stored information (ESI) discovery. The parties have made substantial progress on narrowing the areas of dispute between them and on agreeing to a process for searching and producing ESI. While some disputes remain, discussions between the parties are ongoing and, as a result, there are no issues that parties wish to raise with the Court at this time, though both parties reserves their rights to do so in future if necessary. + +Since the commencement of fact discovery, Plaintiff has made two productions of documents and is on track to substantially complete her production of documents by the week of June 8, 2020. Defendants have not yet produced any documents; however, they have represented to Plaintiff that they are working to remedy this and intend to begin production of documents this week. + +Settlement With respect to settlement, the parties have had no meaningful discussions since the last status conference before this Court on February 11, 2020. On May 29, 2020, Jordana M, the program administrator selected by the Estate, sent Plaintiff's counsel a final version of the protocol for the Program and indicated that she will be reaching out to plaintiffs' counsel directly to discuss the process. Earlier today, the Co-Executors filed in the + +Superior Court of the Virgin Islands the status report attached hereto as Exhibit A. As stated therein, the Co-Executors, with the support of claimants' counsel and the USVI Attorney General, intend to authorize commencement of the Program on Monday, June 15, 2020. + +While Plaintiff remains open to continued dialogue about the program, she continues to believe that her best option is to proceed to trial before Jud e Failla and is unlikely to agree to any stay of the proceedings pending any discussions with and her colleagues.' Indeed, at the conference before Judge Failla on December 11, 2019, Plaintiff already offered to waive her right to a jury trial and proceed with a bench trial. Plaintiff's view is that this concession should mitigate, if not eliminate, many of the logistical concerns presented by the current pandemic. + +Motion to Dismiss. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages has been fully briefed since February 8, 2020 and remains pending before Judge Failla. + +Respectfully submitted, + +Roberta A. Kaplan + +cc: Judge Failla Counsel of Record + +The protocol established by the claims administrator explicitly states that to claimants can or should be required to stay her case in order to participate in the claims program. See Ex. A at 13. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751320/EFTA02751320.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751320/EFTA02751320.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..30efa80f83a03cf82236fc2aa42383ddb99afde7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751320/EFTA02751320.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,178 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751320.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 3548, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.88, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 33.048, + 39.28936767578125 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 39.28936767578125 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 63.94818115234375 + ], + [ + 33.048, + 63.94818115234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 251.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 251.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 2", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.884, + 44.55 + ], + [ + 535.162841796875, + 44.55 + ], + [ + 535.162841796875, + 64.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 34.884, + 64.56353759765625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 44 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751320" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751322/EFTA02751322.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751322/EFTA02751322.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..498e575456eeccec1399e14569d44fe4c3a4f448 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751322/EFTA02751322.md @@ -0,0 +1,277 @@ +# EXHIBIT A + +#### IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. & ST. JOHN + +\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* + +IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Deceased. PROBATE NO. ST-19-PB-80 ACTION FOR TESTATE ADMINISTRATION + +#### CO-EXECUTORS' STATUS REPORT ON VOLUNTARY COMPENSATION PROGRAM AND PRESENTATION OF PROGRAM PROTOCOL + +On November 14, 2019, the Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the "Co-Executors") filed their Expedited Motion for Establishment of a Voluntary Claims Resolution Program (the "Expedited Motion") seeking to establish an independent and voluntary claims resolution program (the "Program") for purposes of resolving sexual abuse claims against Jeffrey E. Epstein, deceased. As promised in the Expedited Motion, the Co-Executors now submit to the Court the detailed Program protocol (the "Protocol," copy attached as Exhibit A hereto) designed and developed over several months by independent, nationally recognized claims administration experts with extensive input from the Co-Executors and other interested parties, including claimants and their legal representatives. Because the need for the Program has grown increasingly urgent and with the support of claimants' counsel and the Attorney General of the United States Virgin Islands, the Co-Executors intend to authorize commencement on Monday, June 15, 2020 of formal claims resolution proceedings under the Program, absent contrary direction from the Court. + +## I. BACKGROUND + +As detailed in the Expedited Motion and the Co-Executors' subsequent filings with the Court, the Program will provide all eligible claimants an opportunity to receive compensation and voluntarily resolve their claims of sexual abuse against Mr. Epstein through a confidential, nonadversarial alternative to litigation, utilizing a process that is sensitive to the experiences and concern of claimants and treats them with compassion, dignity and respect.' + +On February 4, 2020, the Court heard extensive witness testimony concerning the Program (February 4, 2020 Hearing Tr. at 103:12-186:14); at that hearing, multiple claimants' counsel also spoke in favor of implementing the Program. (Id. 84:11-85:2; 85:6-19; 92:2493:8.) As Your Honor recognized, the Program is not only consistent with the fiduciary duties of the Co-Executors, but in fact "...we agreed that everybody believes this program is a great program..." (Id. at 113:24-25.) That drumbeat of approval continues to swell; since the Co-Executors' most recent filing with the Court concerning the Program,2 counsel for 69 individual claimants have come forward to the Court in support of the Program.3 + +- I. Expedited Motion at 1; see also Co-Executors' Request for Ruling on Expedited Motion for Establishment of a Voluntary Claims Resolution Program (filed December 4, 2019); Co-Executors' Request for Immediate Hearing or Conference Regarding Expedited Motion for Establishment of a Voluntary Claims Resolution Program (filed December 13, 2019); Co-Executors' Reply to Creditor Jane Doe's Response to Co-Executors' Expedited Motion for Establishment of a Voluntary Claims Resolution Program (filed January IS, 2020); Co-Executors' Reply to Government's Opposition to Estate's Motion for Establishment of a Voluntary Claims Resolution Program (filed January 31, 2020); Co-Executors' Status Report on Continuing Efforts to Establish Voluntary Compensation Program and Request for Ruling (filed March 24, 2020); Co-Executors' Corrections to Attorney General's Status Report on Voluntary Compensation Program and Renewed Request for Ruling (filed April 10, 2020). +- 2. Co-Executors' Notice of Related Filing, dated April 17, 2020 (attaching Co-Executors' correspondence with claimants' New York counsel concerning commencement of the Program). +- 3. See Status Report from Claimants dated April 20, 2020 (urging on behalf of 12 claimants that "the Program can and should proceed without delay"); Status Report from Claimants dated April 21, 2020 (stating on behalf of 5 claimants that "permitting the Program to proceed would be in the best interests of the victims at this time"); Motion for Status Conference Regarding the Victim Compensation Program dated April 28, 2020 (seeking on behalf of 52 claimants an Order "permitting the Program to proceed as agreed amongst the parties"). + +## H. THE PROGRAM PROTOCOL + +The Program Administrator and Designers have now finalized the Protocol for the Program, in close consultation with claimants' counsel and the Co-Executors.4 As contemplated in the Expedited Motion, the Protocol sets forth the following non-exclusive guiding principles: + +- The Program is purely voluntary. It does not affect any rights a claimant may have unless and until she accepts the offered compensation and executes a release. A claimant may reject the offer of compensation and may stop participating in the Program and withdraw the claim at any time prior to execution of the release. +- The Program is independent and will in no way be administered, controlled, or overseen by the Co-Executors. The Program Administrator is responsible for all decisions relating to the review, processing and evaluation of individual claims submitted to the Program. The Administrator will have final, binding, and exclusive authority to determine claimant eligibility and the valuation of each eligible individual claim. Decisions of the Administrator made pursuant to the Protocol are not subject to review or modification in any way by the Co-Executors or any other party or entity. +- Subject to total Estate assets available, there is no cap or limitation on the aggregate amount of funds available to compensate all eligible claimants or on the amount of compensation to be made to each individual claimant. Each individual claim will be evaluated separately by the Program Administrator. The Administrator will determine, in her sole and exclusive discretion, issues of eligibility and the amount of compensation and the Estate will pay all eligible claims based on the Administrator's determination. +- All claimants will be treated with respect, dignity, and fairness without regard to race, color, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, gender, or disability. To ensure claims will be adjudicated fairly, the Program Administrator will manage the process so that all claimants can equally access the Program's claim process. Individuals with disabilities will be given the opportunity to effectively communicate their claims and to request special process accommodations. + +(See Protocol at pp. 1-2.) + +4. The Attorney General of the U.S. Virgin Islands also expressed her detailed views on the structure and formation of the Program, both through filings with the Court and direct communications with the Program Administrator. + +The Protocol also sets forth detailed aspects of the Program's administration, including eligibility criteria for the Program, proof requirements and claims procedures, the methodology for claims evaluation and determining compensatory awards, and timing and regular reports to the Court, as follows: + +- Eligibility. The Protocol identifies the criteria to determine whether a claimant is eligible to receive compensation under the Program. (See Protocol at pp. 3- 4.) +- Proof Requirements and Claims Procedures. The Protocol determines what types of supporting documentation or other evidence each individual will be required to submit to substantiate her claim, satisfy Program requirements, and allow the Program Administrator to review, process and evaluate that claim. (See Protocol at pp. 4-5.) +- Claims Evaluation and Determination Methodology. The Protocol defines the factors and considerations to be used to determine the amount of compensation to be offered to any eligible claimant. (See Protocol at pp. 5-6.) +- Timing. The Protocol sets forth the timeframe of the Program, including an effective commencement date and deadline for submission of all claims. (See Protocol at pp. 4-5.) +- Reporting. The Protocol reflects the Program Administrator's commitment to provide the Court with regular monthly reports regarding the aggregate number and total value of claims paid each month through the Program. (See Protocol at p. 9.) + +## HI. URGENT NEED TO COMMENCE OF PROGRAM OPERATIONS + +In their fiduciary capacity, the Co-Executors engaged in extensive discussions with relevant parties in interest regarding the independent, fair, and timely resolution of the sexual abuse claims against Mr. Epstein. As noted above, many existing and potential claimants have expressed through their representatives their preference to participate in the Program rather than proceeding with litigation. Although there will be significant expense in administering the Program, the Co-Executors contemplate that the Program will substantially reduce the expenses to the Estate of litigating multiple lawsuits in numerous jurisdictions, and thus ultimately reduce expenses to the + +benefit of all parties with an interest in the Estate, including claimants and creditors.5 The expedited nature of the Program will also ensure resolution and compensation to claimants in a far more timely manner than through litigation. + +As described above, the Protocol is designed to ensure the proportionate restitution of approved claims for all claimants, in a manner that will provide similar compensation to similarly situated claimants. The Program is in the best interests of both claimants and the Estate because, among other things, it avoids the potential of disproportionate and inconsistent awards and should help to reduce the time, exposure and burden of handling claims through the courts, which could involve years of litigation and appeals and consume enormous resources, along with inflicting on all affected parties costs attendant to delay and uncertainty. + +# IV. FUNDING FOR THE PROGRAM + +As the Court is aware, the Attorney General on January 31, 2020 unilaterally imposed criminal activity liens on the Estate's bank account in the Virgin Islands, freezing then-available funds — funds over which this Court has exclusive jurisdiction — for administration of the Estate and implementation of the Program.6 On February 24, 2020, the Attorney General imposed similar liens against Southern Trust Company, Inc., one of the entities within the Estate. The Co-Executors have challenged the validity of the Attorney General's liens, and moved the Superior + +5. In the absence of the Program, litigation alleging sexual abuse by Mr. Epstein has increased in scope, pace and expense: there are now 22 separate lawsuits brought by 34 individual claimants pending against the Co-Executors, primarily in the state and federal courts of New York. Discovery proceedings in those actions including document demands, interrogatories, non-party subpoenas, and motions to compel — continue to ratchet up each passing week. + +6. Following the Co-Executors' resulting emergency motion for release of funds necessary for administration of the Estate, the Court directed the Attorney General to lift her liens in amounts sufficient to allow the Co-Executors to pay the Estate's operational expenses and legal fees. + +Court to vacate them in their entirety.7 However, pending determination of that motion — as well as this Court's approval of the estimated budget for and expenses of designing, implementing and administering the Program, submitted by the Co-Executors on February 4, 2020 — the Co-Executors and the Attorney General have reached consensual resolution in which the latter will promptly lift those liens to pay amounts owed for the Program and to begin funding of the Program's active operations, including payment of compensation determinations to eligible claimants.8 + +Because the need for the Program has grown increasingly urgent, and with the support of claimants' counsel and the USVI Attorney General — and because the remaining impediments have been resolved and the interested parties have consented to the Protocol attached as Exhibit A hereto — the Co-Executors intend to move forward with the Program on Monday, June 15, 2020, absent contrary direction from the Court" + +Dated: June I, 2020 + +Respectfully, + +/s/ Kroblin KROBLIN, ESQ. ANDREW W. HEYMANN, ESQ. WILLIAM L. BLUM, ESQ. SHARI N. D'ANDRADE, ESQ. MARJORIE WHALEN, ESQ. + +7. See Expedited Motion to Vacate Liens, dated March 17, 2020 (Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands vs. Indyke, et al., Case No. ST-20-CV-14). The Attorney General filed no response to that expedited motion. + +8. As part of that resolution, the Co-Executors agreed not to assert that the Attorney General's release of such limited funds will act as a waiver of Government's ability, if any, to object to the Program's administrative expenses, including those paid with these initial funds. + +9. The Co-Executors recognize the extraordinary difficulties imposed by the coronavirus pandemic on the functioning of the courts of the Virgin Islands. To the extent the Court wishes to conduct a remote conference in this matter, either telephonically or via videolink, the Co-Executors and their counsel will of course make themselves available. + +V.I. Bar Nos. 136.966 1221 & R2019 + +ICELLERHALS KROBLIN PLLC + +Palms Professional Building + +9053 Estate M, Suite 101 + +St. Ela V.I. 00802 + +Telephone: (340) 779-2564 + +Facsimile: (888) 316-9269 + +Email: wblum@solblum.com + +ckroblin@kellfer.com + +sdandrade@kellfer.com + +mwhalen@kellfer.com + +## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 1st day of June 2020,1 caused a true and exact copy of the foregoing Co-Executors' Status Report on Voluntary Claims Resolution Program and Presentation of Program Protocol to be served via electronic mail upon: + +John H. Benham, Esq. Law Office of John H. Benham, P.C. P.O. Box 11720 St. ffl , VI 00801 john@benhamlawvi.cotn + +Douglas B. Chanco, Esq. ChancoSchiffer P.C. 3355 Lenox Road, Suite 750 Atlanta, GA 30326 doug@csfinn.com + +Richard Bourne-Vanneck, Esq. Law Offices of Richard Bourne-Vanneck 9800 Buccaneer Mall Suite #9 St., VI 00802 richard@rpvblawoffices.com + +John K. Dema Law Offices of John K. Dema 1236 Strand Street, Suite 103 St. Croix, VI jdema@demalaw.com + +Denise N.=, Esq. Attorney General Ariel M. ffi, Esq. Chief, Civil Division Virgin Islands Department of Justice 34-38 Krondprinsdens Gade GERS Complex, 2nd Floor St. , Virgin Islands 00804 + +A. Jeffrey Weiss, Esq. A.J. Weiss & Associates 6934 Vessup Lane St. , VI 00802 jeffiveiss@weisslaw-v!.net + +Sean , Bus , Marjorie Rawls P.C. P.O. Box 6347 St. VI 00804 sean@marjorkrobertspc.com + +Kevin F. D'Amour Gaylin Vogel, Esq. 5143 Palm Passage, 18b & 19b St. , VI 00802 kevin.damour®comcastnet gaylin.vogel@comcastnet + +Melody D. Westfall, Esq. Westfall Law PLLC 5032 Anchor Way, Suite 8 Christiansted, St. Croix 00820 mwestfall@wesffaillaw.com + +Kevin Boyle, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice) Robert Glassman, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice) PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 boyle@pstdaw.com glassman@psblaw.com + +/s/ Shari N. D'Andrade + +#### Epstein Victims' Compensation Program + +## PROTOCOL + +May 29, 2020 + +#### I. PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW + +The Epstein Victims' Compensation Program (the "Program") is a voluntary, independent Program that has been established to compensate and resolve the claims of victims-survivors of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"). + +The Estate of Jeffrey Epstein (the "Estate") has retained the services of nationally recognized claims administration experts Kenneth R. Feinberg, Camille S. Biros and Jordana H. to design the Program. will also serve as the Administrator of the Program (the "Administrator"). This Protocol reflects input from victims-survivors, their lawyers, other potentially interested parties, and representatives of the Estate. + +Through the Program, the Estate wishes to acknowledge the wrongs endured by victims-survivors and offer them an opportunity to voluntarily resolve their individual claims for such sexual abuse. + +The Program is governed by the following non-exclusive guiding principles: + +- The Program is purely voluntary. It does not affect any rights a Claimant may have unless and until the Claimant accepts the offered compensation and executes a Release. A Claimant may reject the offer of compensation and may stop participating in the Program and withdraw the claim at any time prior to execution of the Release. +- The Program is independent and will in no way be administered, controlled or overseen by the Estate. The Administrator is responsible for all decisions relating to the review, processing and evaluation of individual claims submitted to the Program. The Administrator will have final, binding and exclusive authority to determine Claimant eligibility and the valuation of each eligible individual claim. Decisions of the Administrator made pursuant to this Protocol are not subject to review or modification in any way by the Estate or any other party or entity. +- There is no cap or limitation on the aggregate amount of funds available to compensate all eligible Claimants or on the amount of compensation to be made to each individual Claimant. Each individual claim will be evaluated separately by the Administrator. The Administrator will determine, in her sole and exclusive discretion, issues of eligibility and the amount of compensation and the Estate will pay all eligible claims based on the Administrator's determination. + +- All Claimants will be treated with respect, dignity and fairness without regard to race, color, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, gender or disability. To ensure claims will be adjudicated fairly, the Administrator will manage the process so that all Claimants can equally access the Program's claim process. Individuals with disabilities will be given the opportunity to effectively communicate their claims and to request special process accommodations. + +The Program is available to all victims-survivors regardless of where they were harmed, when they were harmed, whether the claim is time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and whether they have previously filed a lawsuit against or settled with Epstein and/or the Estate. + +The exclusive claims period for filing a claim pursuant to this Protocol shall commence on the to-bedetermined Effective Date and shall conclude nine (9) months after that date ("Filing Deadline"). All individual claims filed with the Program must be filed within this period. + +To complement the Program's resources, the Administrator will, at her discretion and with the consent of the Claimant, consult with Professor Marci A. a nationally recognized sexual abuse expert, leading legal academic and advocate of victims' rights. role will be to further inform the Administrator and her staff about the dynamics of sexual abuse, common responses to sexual abuse, and the impact of sexual abuse on victims; to serve as a resource for the Administrator in developing or updating policies and procedures; to advise the Administrator regarding sensitivities involved in interactions with victims; and to serve as a referral source for the Administrator in providing postdetermination information to claimants who seek guidance, counseling or other services. The Administrator may, at her discretion and with the Claimant's prior written consent, request that ■ **review an individual claimant file. The Administrator will determine on a case-by-case basis, in her discretion, the need to anonymize individual claimants' files before sharing them with As set forth above, the Administrator is solely responsible for all decisions relating to the administration of the Program, including the review, processing, evaluation, and determination of individual claims submitted to the Program.** + +**During the term of the Program, will not meet or speak with a Claimant or her representatives concerning any aspect of the Program without the Administrator present. will maintain in strict confidence and will not disclose outside the Program any information she obtains through her participation in the Program, including individual Claimants' submissions.** + +#### II. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS + +## A. Eligibility Criteria + +The persons eligible to participate in this Program are individuals who allege they were sexually abused by Epstein. In addition, the following criteria apply: + +- The claim of sexual abuse must be directed against Epstein. +- An individual whose claim is time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations may participate in the Program provided that other eligibility criteria are met. +- An individual who previously entered into a settlement agreement resolving a claim of sexual abuse against Epstein may participate in the Program provided that other eligibility criteria are met. +- An individual who allegedly assisted Epstein in procuring other victims-survivors may participate in the Program where there is a credible basis to determine that the individual acted under duress as a result of her own sexual abuse by Epstein, provided that other eligibility criteria are met. +- If the Claimant chooses to accept the offered compensation, the Claimant must dismiss with prejudice any existing lawsuits, legal actions or claims filed against the Estate or related entities and/or related individuals. The Claimant must provide proof of such dismissal along with or prior to the signed acceptance of the compensation determination offer letter and executed Release in order to receive payment. + +## B. Legal Representatives of Claimants + +An individual may file a claim on a victim's behalf where that individual has been granted legal authority to act in a representative capacity pursuant to appropriate law. The "Legal Representative" of an individual Claimant shall mean: (1) in the case of a Claimant who is currently a minor, a parent or legal guardian authorized by law to serve as the minor's legal representative; (2) in the case of an incompetent or legally incapacitated Claimant, a person who has been duly appointed as the Claimant's legal representative in accordance with applicable law; (3) in the case of a deceased Claimant, a person who has been duly appointed to act as the personal representative of the Claimant's estate by a court of competent jurisdiction and is authorized to file and compromise a claim; or (4) an attorney authorized to represent the Claimant for purposes of pursuing a claim through this Program. + +Legal Representatives must provide proper documentation demonstrating representative capacity. Such proof may include a power of attorney; documentation showing the individual's appointment as guardian or guardian ad litem; documentation showing the individual's appointment as personal representative of the Claimant's estate (such as letters of administration); a copy of a retainer agreement showing legal representation signed by both the Claimant and the attorney or a signed statement by an adult Claimant and the attorney that a licensed/admitted attorney is acting on her behalf. + +## III. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION - SUBMISSION, EVALUATION AND DETERMINATION + +#### A. Claims Submission Process + +Individuals who have filed a lawsuit, legal action or claim against Epstein and/or the Estate or have otherwise been identified as a victim of Epstein by their attorney to the Administrator on or before the Effective Date will be sent a Claim Form and other relevant Program information, including Instructions for completion and submission of the Claim Form and a copy of this Protocol. Individuals who have filed a lawsuit need not agree to a stay of litigation or make any other concession in any pending litigation to be eligible to participate in the Program. Likewise, individuals who have not yet filed a lawsuit remain free to file a lawsuit and engage in litigation concurrently with participation in the Program. Individuals must, however, dismiss with prejudice any and all existing lawsuits, legal actions and claims prior to or at the time of acceptance of a compensation determination offer in order to receive payment. + +Individuals who have not filed a lawsuit, legal action or claim against Epstein and/or the Estate or have not otherwise been identified as a victim of Epstein by their attorney to the Administrator on or before the Effective Date may register to participate in this Program on the Program's website at www.EpsteinVCP.com. To register, such individuals must complete a questionnaire setting forth their name, contact information, a summary description of the nature of the claim and other requested information. Upon registration, the Administrator will perform a preliminary review to consider if the individual is eligible to participate in the Program. If the Administrator deems that the individual is eligible to participate in the Program, she will then send that individual a Claim Form and other relevant Program information. + +Note: The fact that an individual is sent a Claim Form and other relevant Program information indicates that the Administrator has determined that such individual is eligible to participate in the Program. It does not indicate that the Administrator has determined that such individual is eligible to receive compensation. That determination is made only after a Claim Form and all required documentation has been submitted and evaluated by the Administrator. + +Registrations for individuals who have not filed a lawsuit, legal action or claim against Epstein and/or the Estate or have not otherwise been identified as a victim of Jeffrey Epstein by their attorney to the Administrator on or before the Effective Date will be accepted by the Administrator from the Effective Date through a date that is 45 days prior to the Filing Deadline ("Registration Deadline"). It is important to note that the Registration Deadline is separate from, and precedes, the Filing Deadline. As explained above, all claims must be filed by the Filing Deadline. + +All Claim Forms must be completed to the best of a Claimant's ability and filed no later than the Filing Deadline. Claim Forms should be uploaded to the Program website at www.EpsteinVCP.com, or mailed via overnight courier (a pre-paid courier voucher will be included with each packet) to the Administrator at the following address: + +## Epstein Victims' Compensation Program + +Attn: Jordana H. Administrator + +P.O. Box 65488 + +Washington, D.C. 20035 + +Claimants are invited to provide documentation identified in the Claim Form, and any other corroborating or supporting information sufficient to substantiate the claim, satisfy eligibility requirements, and allow the Administrator to review, process and evaluate the claim. If the claim is being presented by a Legal Representative, then the Legal Representative will be responsible for submitting the necessary documentation relating to the represented Claimant. + +Additional documentation may be requested at the discretion of the Administrator. Both the Claimant and the Estate will be afforded the opportunity to submit to the Administrator any information deemed relevant to the Administrator's evaluation and determination of the claim before the Administrator's final disposition of the claim. + +If a Claimant submits an incomplete or deficient claim, the Administrator will notify the Claimant, explain the additional information that is needed, and work with the Claimant or the Claimant's Legal Representative (where applicable) to assist in submitting a complete claim. + +## B. Claims Evaluation and Determination + +Claims will be evaluated in the order in which they are received, with the Administrator evaluating each submitted individual claim in a prompt and fair manner. Claims will only be determined once all required documentation has been submitted to the Administrator, with due consideration granted to Claimant's good faith explanations for delays and/or absence of documentation. + +## 1. Factors Considered in Evaluating Claims + +As to each individual claim, the Administrator will determine, in her sole discretion based upon all of the information available, whether the allegations of sexual abuse are credible. The Administrator will consider appropriate factors and corroborative support, including but not limited to: + +- The level of documentation, corroboration or other circumstantial evidence regarding the nature and extent of the abuse, the frequency, location and other details of the abuse, and the age of the victim at the time of the abuse. Non-exhaustive examples of such evidence include + - (i) medical or psychiatric counseling/therapy records relevant to the abuse, and + - (ii) contemporaneous written notification or other correspondence (e.g., letters, emails) of the abuse by the Claimant to law enforcement authorities, parents, friends or others. The Administrator acknowledges that some Claimants may not be able to provide any + +documentation to corroborate their Claim based on the nature and circumstances of Epstein's conduct. If a Claimant's written and oral presentation is deemed to be credible by the Administrator, the Claimant may still be eligible for compensation under the Program. + +- Whether there exists any information and/or pertinent findings offered by the appropriate Office of the District Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, or other law enforcement agency. +- Whether the Administrator finds the claims of the individual to be credible after complete review of all relevant documentation and other evidence provided by the Claimant and the Estate. + +As to each individual claim, the Administrator will determine, in her sole discretion based upon all of the information available, the amount of compensation that should be offered to each eligible Claimant. The Administrator will consider appropriate factors and corroborative support, including but not limited to: + +- The nature, duration and extent of the sexual abuse suffered by the Claimant. +- The age of the Claimant at the time of the sexual abuse. +- The nature and extent of the Claimant's physical or psychological damage resulting from the sexual abuse, and the effect of the sexual abuse on the Claimant. +- The credibility of the claim based upon all of the facts and circumstances, supporting documentation and corroborating evidence. +- Whether the Claimant previously entered into a settlement agreement with Epstein and received a payment pursuant to such agreement. + +The Administrator will confidentially send the Claimant a compensation determination offer letter including the following: (1) the Administrator's eligibility decision regarding the claim; (2) the amount of compensation offered; (3) a Release to be signed by the Claimant if the Claimant accepts the offered compensation; and (4) a Payment Option Form. The Administrator's offer shall be valid for 60 days from the date of the compensation determination offer letter. + +The Administrator's determinations in this Program will not be binding on any potential criminal investigation involving Claimant's claims. + +## 2. Opportunities to be Heard + +The Claimant will be afforded an opportunity to be heard, either before or after the Administrator renders her determination. Upon request by the Claimant, the Administrator will be available to meet in person (as practicable in light of the COVID-19 pandemic), by video conference, or by teleconference to further discuss the claim. These meetings are completely optional and voluntary. Requests to meet + +with the Administrator should be sent by email to ClaimantServices@EpsteinVCP.com and will be scheduled at a mutually convenient time and location. The Administrator may also request a meeting with a Claimant or her Legal Representative at a reasonable mutually convenient time and location, though the Claimant is not obligated to attend any such meeting. + +## 3. Release + +By submitting a claim to the Program, a Claimant is seeking to resolve all claims relating to allegations of sexual abuse against Epstein and/or the Estate, and related entities and individuals as set forth in the Release. If a Claimant chooses to accept the offer of compensation pursuant to the Program, the Claimant will be required to sign and execute a full Release, in a form satisfactory to the Estate, of all past and future claims (including /is pendens, writs of attachment, etc.) relating to such allegations of sexual abuse against the Estate, related entities and/or related individuals. A Claimant may reject the offer of compensation and may stop participating in the Program and withdraw the claim at any time prior to the execution of the Release. + +The Release will waive any rights the Claimant and her heirs, descendants, legatees or beneficiaries may have to assert any claims relating to allegations of sexual abuse against the Estate, related entities and/or related individuals, to file an individual legal action relating to such allegations, or to participate in any civil legal action associated with such allegations, except as a witness. However, the Release will not operate to preclude or limit the Claimant's ability to report and discuss allegations of sexual abuse with law enforcement officials or anyone else. In other words, the Release will not impose any rules of confidentiality on claimants, who are expressly permitted to discuss their allegations without restriction, should they choose. + +Before signing a Release, the Claimant must consult with an attorney selected by the Claimant. If the Claimant is not represented by an attorney, the Program will provide an attorney to provide free legal counseling to the Claimant for the sole purpose of advising the Claimant concerning the language and binding nature of the Release. + +No one affiliated with the Program will provide tax or legal advice to those receiving payments under the Program. Claimants are urged to consult with a tax advisor concerning any questions regarding tax liability for payments pursuant to the Program. + +## 4. Payments + +Upon the Claimant's acceptance of the Administrator's determination, the Administrator's receipt of the Claimant's executed Release and, where applicable, dismissal with prejudice of any existing lawsuit, legal actions or claims against the Estate or related entities and/or related individuals, the Administrator will initiate payment by check or electronic funds transfer to each eligible Claimant as directed by the Claimant. Checks will be sent to Claimants via overnight courier service. All payments made under the Program shall be for a Claimant's physical injuries, physical sickness and + +resulting emotional distress within the meaning of Section 104(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. + +## C. Program Integrity + +For the purpose of protecting both the integrity of the Program and financial resources for eligible Claimants, the Administrator will institute all necessary measures to prevent payment of fraudulent claims, including taking steps to verify claims and analyze submissions for inconsistencies, irregularities or duplication. + +Each Claimant who signs the Claim Form at the time of submission certifies that the information provided in the Claim Form is true and accurate to the best of the Claimant's knowledge, and that the Claimant understands that false statements or claims made in connection with such submission may result in fines, imprisonment and/or any other remedy available by law. Claims that appear to be potentially fraudulent or to contain information known by the Claimant to be false when made will be forwarded to federal, state or local law enforcement agencies and/or the appropriate Office of the District Attorney and/or United States Attorney's Office for possible investigation and prosecution. + +# D. Confidentiality/Privacy + +The Program is confidential.' By filing a claim with the Program, the Claimant or her Legal Representative (where applicable) agrees that information submitted by the Claimant pursuant to the Program will be used and/or disclosed by the Administrator and her designees only for the following purposes: + +- I) Processing and evaluating the Claimant's claim; +- 2) Administering the Program and other Program-related work; and +- 3) Reports to law enforcement where appropriate, related to potentially fraudulent claims. + +When documents or other information maintained or submitted by the Estate become part of a Claimant's file for purposes of the Program, such materials will be reviewed by the Administrator to assist in processing and evaluating the claim, but will otherwise remain confidential. No information provided by Claimants will be provided to the Estate except for the Claimant's name and the date(s) and location(s) of the alleged abuse, for the sole purpose of processing and evaluating the claim and, for purposes of the Release, the names of any other individual(s) to whom or by whom the Claimant alleges she was trafficked or sexually abused. The Estate has agreed that no information obtained solely through the Program will be disclosed publicly or used by the Estate in defending itself from any claim, regardless of forum. The Program's files are not available for inspection, review or copying by the Estate or the Claimant or her representatives during or after the Program, and all pertinent mediation privileges, settlement privileges and other privileges apply. + +All parties agree that they are using the services of a third-party administrator to help reach a resolution of individual claims of sexual abuse, and that this Program is entitled to confidentiality, privileges (mediation, settlement and all other pertinent privileges), and protection from disclosure under applicable law. + +To protect the privacy of Claimants participating in the Program, all personal information provided by the Claimant during this process will be returned or destroyed within one year after the conclusion of the Program. + +Individual Claimants are not bound through the Program by any rules of confidentiality. Claimants may, at their sole and voluntary option, disclose information in their possession regarding their claim, their compensation and their experience with the Program. + +All confidentiality requirements are subject to law, regulation and judicial process. + +## E. Reporting + +The Administrator shall, on a monthly basis, confidentially provide reports regarding the number and total value of claims paid each month to the Probate Court of the United States Virgin Islands and the Attorney General of the United States Virgin Islands. Such reports will report on an aggregate level only. No individual Claimant information will be published or disclosed in a way that compromises Claimant confidentiality. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751322/EFTA02751322.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751322/EFTA02751322.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e0d60df917167d5601e1056c4fc3102c1bb3a721 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751322/EFTA02751322.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1379 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751322.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 18, + "chars": 38761, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.29, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 181.152, + 337.92437744140625 + ], + [ + 450.24151611328125, + 337.92437744140625 + ], + [ + 450.24151611328125, + 388.4027099609375 + ], + [ + 181.152, + 388.4027099609375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS \nDIVISION OF ST. & ST. JOHN", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 153.0, + 72.7315673828125 + ], + [ + 461.0386047363281, + 72.7315673828125 + ], + [ + 461.0386047363281, + 101.25 + ], + [ + 153.0, + 101.25 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CO-EXECUTORS' STATUS REPORT ON VOLUNTARY COMPENSATION \nPROGRAM AND PRESENTATION OF PROGRAM PROTOCOL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 100.98000000000002, + 222.75 + ], + [ + 512.2032470703125, + 222.75 + ], + [ + 512.2032470703125, + 251.10000000000002 + ], + [ + 100.98000000000002, + 251.10000000000002 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 92.34 + ], + [ + 198.8994140625, + 92.34 + ], + [ + 198.8994140625, + 107.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 107.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "H. THE PROGRAM PROTOCOL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 92.34 + ], + [ + 274.14752197265625, + 92.34 + ], + [ + 274.14752197265625, + 107.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 107.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "HI. URGENT NEED TO COMMENCE OF PROGRAM OPERATIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 511.11 + ], + [ + 464.9410400390625, + 511.11 + ], + [ + 464.9410400390625, + 526.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 526.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. FUNDING FOR THE PROGRAM", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 366.93 + ], + [ + 289.5235595703125, + 366.93 + ], + [ + 289.5235595703125, + 383.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 383.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 223.38, + 93.15 + ], + [ + 388.4980773925781, + 93.15 + ], + [ + 388.4980773925781, + 107.60302734375 + ], + [ + 223.38, + 107.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Independent", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 270.504, + 50.22 + ], + [ + 341.0062255859375, + 50.22 + ], + [ + 341.0062255859375, + 64.447021484375 + ], + [ + 270.504, + 64.447021484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Epstein Victims' Compensation Program", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 203.18400000000003, + 74.52 + ], + [ + 408.9801940917969, + 74.52 + ], + [ + 408.9801940917969, + 88.0670166015625 + ], + [ + 203.18400000000003, + 88.0670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROTOCOL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 275.4, + 104.49 + ], + [ + 336.4189758300781, + 104.49 + ], + [ + 336.4189758300781, + 118.81695556640625 + ], + [ + 275.4, + 118.81695556640625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 64.872, + 172.53 + ], + [ + 237.34506225585938, + 172.53 + ], + [ + 237.34506225585938, + 186.3170166015625 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 186.3170166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 65.484, + 74.52 + ], + [ + 248.52745056152344, + 74.52 + ], + [ + 248.52745056152344, + 88.0670166015625 + ], + [ + 65.484, + 88.0670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Eligibility Criteria", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 110.77199999999999, + 105.30000000000001 + ], + [ + 216.79905700683594, + 105.30000000000001 + ], + [ + 216.79905700683594, + 119.947021484375 + ], + [ + 110.77199999999999, + 119.947021484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Legal Representatives of Claimants", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 119.34, + 473.03999999999996 + ], + [ + 310.3854064941406, + 473.03999999999996 + ], + [ + 310.3854064941406, + 487.8170471191406 + ], + [ + 119.34, + 487.8170471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION - SUBMISSION, EVALUATION AND DETERMINATION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 64.872, + 121.5 + ], + [ + 497.4861755371094, + 121.5 + ], + [ + 497.4861755371094, + 136.0670166015625 + ], + [ + 64.872, + 136.0670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Claims Submission Process", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 101.59200000000001, + 145.8 + ], + [ + 255.23594665527344, + 145.8 + ], + [ + 255.23594665527344, + 160.0670166015625 + ], + [ + 101.59200000000001, + 160.0670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Epstein Victims' Compensation Program", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 155.448, + 123.12 + ], + [ + 356.4516296386719, + 123.12 + ], + [ + 356.4516296386719, + 137.5670166015625 + ], + [ + 155.448, + 137.5670166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Claims Evaluation and Determination", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 102.20400000000001, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 306.6460876464844, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 306.6460876464844, + 444.3170471191406 + ], + [ + 102.20400000000001, + 444.3170471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Factors Considered in Evaluating Claims", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 119.34, + 524.0699999999999 + ], + [ + 337.00341796875, + 524.0699999999999 + ], + [ + 337.00341796875, + 539.1870422363281 + ], + [ + 119.34, + 539.1870422363281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Opportunities to be Heard", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 118.72800000000001, + 627.75 + ], + [ + 271.2774353027344, + 627.75 + ], + [ + 271.2774353027344, + 643.8170471191406 + ], + [ + 118.72800000000001, + 643.8170471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. Release", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 119.34, + 131.22 + ], + [ + 181.013916015625, + 131.22 + ], + [ + 181.013916015625, + 145.81707763671875 + ], + [ + 119.34, + 145.81707763671875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "4. Payments", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 119.34, + 593.73 + ], + [ + 191.5150146484375, + 593.73 + ], + [ + 191.5150146484375, + 608.9470520019531 + ], + [ + 119.34, + 608.9470520019531 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Program Integrity", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 101.59200000000001, + 85.05 + ], + [ + 211.6692352294922, + 85.05 + ], + [ + 211.6692352294922, + 100.447021484375 + ], + [ + 101.59200000000001, + 100.447021484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Confidentiality/Privacy", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 101.59200000000001, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 236.690185546875, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 236.690185546875, + 336.6870422363281 + ], + [ + 101.59200000000001, + 336.6870422363281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. Reporting", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 101.59200000000001, + 234.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 174.19895935058594, + 234.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 174.19895935058594, + 249.3170166015625 + ], + [ + 101.59200000000001, + 249.3170166015625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 3 + ], + [ + "Line", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 36 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 145 + ], + [ + "Line", + 68 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 31 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751322" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751340/EFTA02751340.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751340/EFTA02751340.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eda5c4ea6cfb85ae174f3dd2e57c448973740b8a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751340/EFTA02751340.md @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ +## KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +## VIA ECF + +Hon. Jusllg eeman Daniel Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007 + +Dear Judge Freeman: + +NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10118 + +TEL (212) 763-0883 I FAX (212) 564-0883 + +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM + +DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0884 + +DIRECT EMAIL rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com + +June 1, 2020 + +Re: Doe v. Indyke et at, No. 19-cv-8673-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) + +We write on behalf of both parties in the above-referenced action pursuant to this Court's Order dated April 21, 2020 (Doc. No. 60) to update the Court as to the status of discovery and the progress of settlement discussions. + +Discovery. As the Court is aware, fact discovery in this matter began on January 21, 2020 (Doc. No. 48), and the parties exchanged their First Sets of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents on March 10, 2020. Since that time, the parties have met and conferred repeatedly on the scope and timeline of discovery, including issues pertaining to specifically to electronically-stored information (ES1) discovery. The parties have made substantial progress on narrowing the areas of dispute between them and on agreeing to a process for searching and producing ESI. While some disputes remain, discussions between the parties are ongoing and, as a result, there are no issues that parties wish to raise with the Court at this time, though the parties reserve their rights to do so in future if necessary. + +Since the commencement of fact discovery, Plaintiff has made two productions of documents and is on track to substantially complete her production of documents by the week of June 8, 2020. This week, Defendants will produce non-privileged, documents that hit on search terms reviewed and approved by Plaintiff's counsel. + +Settlement Plaintiff's statement: With respect to settlement, the parties have had no meaningful discussions since the last status conference before this Court on February 11, 2020. On May 29, 2020, Jordana M, the program administrator selected by the Estate, sent Plaintiff's counsel a final version of the protocol for the Program and indicated that she will be reaching out to plaintiffs' counsel directly to discuss the process. Earlier today, the Co-Executors filed in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands the status report attached hereto as + +Exhibit A. As stated therein, the Co-Executors, with the support of claimants' counsel and the USVI Attorney General, intend to authorize commencement of the Program on Monday, June 15, 2020. + +While Plaintiff remains open to continued dialogue about the program, she continues to believe that her best option is to proceed to trial before Jud e Failla and is unlikely to agree to any stay of the proceedings pending any discussions with and her colleagues.' Indeed, at the conference before Judge Failla on December 11, 2019, Plaintiff already offered to waive her right to a jury trial and proceed with a bench trial. Plaintiff's view is that this concession should mitigate, if not eliminate, many of the logistical concerns presented by the current pandemic. + +Defendants' statement: Plaintiff's statements above are regrettable and inaccurate. However, it would serve no purpose to engage in an unnecessary back-and-forth. We respectfully refer the Court to Exhibit A and the overwhelming support for the program among plaintiffs' counsel. + +Motion to Dismiss. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages has been fully briefed since February 8, 2020 and remains pending before Judge Failla. + +Defendants' statement: Judge Engelmayer dismissed two other plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages against the Co-Executors on grounds applicable to Plaintiff's punitive damages claim in this action. + +Respectfully submitted, + +Roberta A. Kaplan + +cc: Judge Failla Counsel of Record + +' The protocol established by the claims administrator explicitly states that to claimants can or should be required to stay her case in order to participate in the claims program. See Ex. A at 13. (Defendants note: That is not what the Protocol states. Claimants are not required to stay their actions to participate in the Program. However, they are permitted to stay their actions; and certainly discovery. Nor does the Protocol prevent this Court from making any discovery orders, including stays.) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751340/EFTA02751340.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751340/EFTA02751340.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..036f0580aff504591996486c2518a4b2c2d0b434 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751340/EFTA02751340.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,174 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751340.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 4321, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.14, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 33.048, + 39.28936767578125 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 39.28936767578125 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 63.94818115234375 + ], + [ + 33.048, + 63.94818115234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 237.29888916015625 + ], + [ + 124.64768981933594, + 237.29888916015625 + ], + [ + 124.64768981933594, + 251.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 251.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 2", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.884, + 44.55 + ], + [ + 535.162841796875, + 44.55 + ], + [ + 535.162841796875, + 64.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 34.884, + 64.56353759765625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751340" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751342/EFTA02751342.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751342/EFTA02751342.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..01b67fa306f75e817eab0a8ab377dec30940c9f8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751342/EFTA02751342.md @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +# EXHIBIT + +## IN THE SUPERIOR COURT TH VIRGIN ISLANDS District of St. /St. John + +In the Matter of the Estate of JEFFREY E. Case Number: ST-2019-PB-00080 EPSTEIN, deceased. Action: Administration of Testamentary Estates + +## NOTICE of ENTRY of ORDER + +To: Kroblin, Esq. John H. Benham, Esq. Douglas B. Chanco, Esq. Richard P. Bourne-Vanneck, Esq. John K. Dema Esq. Denise N. E l Esq. Melody D. West all, Esq. Sean E lei Esq. Gaylin Voge , Esq. A. Jeffrey Weiss, Esq. Ariel M. Esq. Kevin F. D'amour, Esq. Kevin Boyle, Esq. Robert Glassman, Esq. + +Please take notice that on June 3, 2020 + +a(n) ORDER dated June 2, 2020 was entered by the Clerk in the above-titled matter. + +Dated: June 03, 2020 Tamara Charles + +By: + +Clerk of the Court + +44114 + +Edotcia =Flodge t Court C erk + +### IN THE SUPERIOR COURT HE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN + +IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF: + +JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, + +PROBATE NO. ST-19-PB-80 + +) ACTION FOR TESTATE deceased. ) ADMINISTRATION + +#### ORDER + +THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Co-Executors' Status Report on Voluntary Compensation Program and Presentation of Program Protocol filed on June 1, 2020, wherein, in pertinent part, the Co-Executor notify that all interested parties have finalized and are in support of the protocol for the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program (hereinafter "the Program")) The Court having received testimony concerning the Program at the hearing held on February 4, 2020, and having reviewed said Status Report, it is hereby + +ORDERED that the Expedited Motion for Establishment of a Voluntary Claims Resolution Program filed on November 14, 2019, is GRANTED; and it is further + +ORDERED that the Co-Executors are AUTHORIZED to commence the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program on or about June 15, 2020. + +Dated: June , 2020 + +Magistrate ROLVN P. HER ON- ERCELL dge off e Superid Court of the Virgin Islands + +ATTEST: TAMARA CHARLES Clerk of the Court + +By: 311O k€ EDOTCIA T MAS-HODGE Court Clerk Supervisor 6, / 3 /2t,z1C + +CERTIFIE TR E COPY DATE 0 100.A0 TAMARA CHARLES CLERK g ilt= BY COURT CLERK + +'At the hearing held on February 4. 2020, while the Court did not allow the Attorney General of the U.S. Virgin Islands to intervene, the Court did request the Co-Executors and the Attorney General to resolve their differences concerning the proposed compensation program, which has garnered the support of all interested parties, including claimants' counsel. The Co-Executors now inform that lb)ecause the need for the Program has grown increasingly urgent, and with the support of claimants' counsel and the USV1 Attorney General - and because the remaining impediments have been resolved and the interested parties have consented to the Protocol.- they and the Attorney General have reached an agreement in which the latter will promptly lift previously imposed liens to pay amounts owed for the Program and to begin funding the Program's active operations, including payment of compensation determinations to eligible claimants. Co-Executors' Status Report on Voluntary Compensation Program and Presentation of Program Protocol, at 6. June 1. 2020. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751342/EFTA02751342.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751342/EFTA02751342.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9d714823f71589afb204301abc611ded4d817b70 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751342/EFTA02751342.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,254 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751342.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 3174, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.93, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 229.5, + 75.33 + ], + [ + 386.82025146484375, + 75.33 + ], + [ + 386.82025146484375, + 113.5496826171875 + ], + [ + 229.5, + 113.5496826171875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IN THE SUPERIOR COURT TH VIRGIN ISLANDS \nDistrict of St. /St. John", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 113.83200000000001, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 485.12713623046875, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 485.12713623046875, + 108.53999999999999 + ], + [ + 113.83200000000001, + 108.53999999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NOTICE of ENTRY \nof \nORDER", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 227.66400000000002, + 201.69 + ], + [ + 363.57525634765625, + 201.69 + ], + [ + 363.57525634765625, + 249.56744384765625 + ], + [ + 227.66400000000002, + 249.56744384765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IN THE SUPERIOR COURT HE VIRGIN ISLANDS \nDIVISION OF ST. AND ST. JOHN", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 76.94999999999999 + ], + [ + 450.1630859375, + 76.94999999999999 + ], + [ + 450.1630859375, + 105.9735107421875 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 105.9735107421875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ORDER", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 271.728, + 215.46000000000004 + ], + [ + 318.7691650390625, + 215.46000000000004 + ], + [ + 318.7691650390625, + 229.353515625 + ], + [ + 271.728, + 229.353515625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 180 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 106 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751342" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751345/EFTA02751345.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751345/EFTA02751345.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ef8f304de64c78195e465af23ccb2d4b85f65f66 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751345/EFTA02751345.md @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +Bennet J. Moskowitz bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com + +June 3, 2020 + +## VIA ECF + +Hon. Debra Freeman Daniel Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007 + +Re: Katlyn Doe, 1:19-cv-07771-PKC-DCF; Priscilla Doe, 1:19-cv-07772-ALC-DCF; Lisa Doe. 1:19-cv-07773 ER-DCF; VE. 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF; ithzt Doe. 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-D . 1:19-cv-10475-LGS-DCF; 1:19-cv-10476-PGG-DCF: 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF; Jane Doe 1000, 1:19-cv-10577-LGS-D F- Jane Doe 15, 1:19-cv-10653-PAE-DCF; Mary Doe, 1:19-cv-10758-PAE-DCF; 1:19-cv-10788-GHW-DCF; Anastasia Doe, 1:19-cv-11869-AJN-DCF; Jane Doe, 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF + +Dear Judge Freeman: + +We represent Defendants Darren,. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, the to -Executors"), in the above-referenced actions. We are pleased to inform the Court that, today, the Superior Court of the United States Virgin Islands entered an order granting the Co-Executors' Motion to establish the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program. A copy of the Order is attached hereto. + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Bennet J. Moskowitz Bennet J. Moskowitz + +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751345/EFTA02751345.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751345/EFTA02751345.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3da0aaaf0f80ba43bf4848697ab0b9b119953f54 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751345/EFTA02751345.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751345.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1158, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.72, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 212.22000000000003 + ], + [ + 118.67121887207031, + 212.22000000000003 + ], + [ + 118.67121887207031, + 226.0670166015625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 226.0670166015625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751345" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751346/EFTA02751346.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751346/EFTA02751346.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c2990a0eafe58142d6faae874d8e21d57b66efe9 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751346/EFTA02751346.md @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@ +Bennet J. Moskowitz + +D: 212-704-6000 + +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com + +June 10, 2020 + +## VIA ELECTRONIC COURT FILING + +Hon. Debra C. Freeman Daniel Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007 + +Re: Jane Doe. 1:19-cv-8673 (KPF) (DCF) + +Dear Judge Freeman: + +We represent Defendants in the above-referenced action. We write to request that the Court extend the remaining deadlines in the above-refenced action, as set by this Court's Order dated April 21, 2020, by thirty (30) days, as follows: + +- the deadline for completion of fact discovery be extended from July 10, 2020 to August 10, 2020; +- the deadline for service of Plaintiff's expert report(s) be extended from July 10, 2020 to August 10, 2020; +- the deadline for service of Defendants' rebuttal report[sj be extended from August 10, 2020 to September 10, 2020; and +- the deadline for completion of expert discovery be extended from August 31, 2020 to September 30, 2020. + +This is the second request for an extension of these deadlines. The prior requested extension of these deadlines was made on consent and So Ordered by the Court on April 21, 2020 (ECF Doc. 69). + +Plaintiff's counsel has summarily rejected the instant request, stating, erroneously: "Your failure to appropriately pursue the discovery you now apparently believe you need is no basis for requesting another 30-day extension." + +Plaintiffs statement mischaracterizes the history and status of fact discovery. It was not until last Friday, June 5, that, after weeks of meaningful efforts by the Co-Executors to resolve Plaintiffs refusal to, among other things, produce all of her medical records (and not only those records which her counsel deems relevant to this action) — among the most critical discovery in this action — that her counsel declared impasses regarding those, and other, issues. Regrettably, we now need the Court's assistance to resolve the parties' disputes. + +Meanwhile, neither side is finished searching for and producing documents. Yesterday, both sides proposed numerous additional ESI search terms to each other.' (Plaintiffs counsel did so in the very email in which they rejected our request for their consent to this extension.) + +Two days ago, Plaintiff's counsel provided notice, for the first time, that they were subpoenaing for depositions two non-parties known to them since before they filed this action. (We have no issue with the timing of such notice given the parties are in the midst of fact discovery and, until now, had been working cooperatively to resolve all discovery issues.) Yesterday — just one day later — counsel for Defendants, under the belief that the parties were working at the same pace and cooperatively, disclosed a list of nine non-parties they intend to subpoena for depositions that would occur prior to Plaintiffs Rule 35 examination and deposition. These non-parties comprise five healthcare providers who treated Plaintiff for alleged conditions for which she seeks compensatory and punitive damages in this action, and four fact witnesses. Plaintiff contends that, merely because the existence of these parties was known to Defendants since Plaintiff provided written discovery responses identifying them in April or, for one of them, earlier, Defendants' subpoenas were noticed too late. However, Plaintiff ignores that both sides have yet to complete their document productions — something which should generally occur before depositions take place, subject to narrow, reasonable exceptions — and that Plaintiff just noticed subpoenas late Monday evening. + +Further, it was not until late last week that Plaintiffs counsel proposed firm dates for Plaintiffs deposition and Rule 35 examination. It was also not until last Friday that Plaintiffs counsel announced an impasse regarding Plaintiffs failure to produce her complete medical records notwithstanding Plaintiff's ongoing failure to articulate any undue burden in producing them. Of course, Defendants would be unfairly prejudiced if they were forced to depose Plaintiff before the issue of her medical records is fully resolved. + +In sum, under the circumstances, a thirty-day extension is neither extreme nor unfairly prejudicial to anyone. + +Plaintiff's counsel has twice suggested ESI search terms for Defendants to use. Each time, Defendants accommodated Plaintiffs counsel's request. + +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/Bennet J. Moskowitz + +Bennet J. Moskowitz \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751346/EFTA02751346.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751346/EFTA02751346.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..46d08703de659e58de838b1aeaf41a2c3ae9945a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751346/EFTA02751346.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,166 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751346.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 4463, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.92, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ELECTRONIC COURT FILING", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 213.790283203125 + ], + [ + 249.2187957763672, + 213.790283203125 + ], + [ + 249.2187957763672, + 227.18701171875 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 227.18701171875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 19 + ], + [ + "Line", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751346" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751349/EFTA02751349.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751349/EFTA02751349.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..173221e4852834948e7697472cd2d8243e6d8b37 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751349/EFTA02751349.md @@ -0,0 +1,61 @@ +#### VIA ECF + +Hon. Jullgthreeman Daniel Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007 + +NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 + +TEL (212) 763-0883 I FAX (212) 564-0883 + +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM + +DIRECT DIAL 929.294.2528 + +DIRECT EMAIL kdoniger@kaplanhecker.com + +June 11, 2020 + +Re: Doe v. Indyke el at, No. I 9-cv-8673-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) + +Dear Judge Freeman: + +We write in response to Defendants' Letter of June 9, 2020 ("Defendants' Letter") requesting a 30-day extension of all remaining deadlines in the above-referenced action (Doc. No. 70). + +Defendants' Letter blatantly mischaracterizes both the status of discovery in this matter and the discussions between the parties leading to the instant dispute. In fact, Defendants waited until June 8, 2020 (the "June 8 Email"), five weeks before the end of fact discovery, to inform Plaintiff that they plan to take nine previously-undisclosed non-party depositions and to demand that Plaintiff vastly expand her review of ESI by running 16 new search terms—and then informed Plaintiff that a blanket 30-day extension of all remaining case deadlines is necessary to allow the parties to complete this remaining work.' There is no cause for the extension Defendants now request, aside from their own egregious and deliberate delay. Accordingly, Plaintiff refused to consent to Defendants' blanket request. Plaintiff did, however, offer to discuss any specific scheduling issues with Defendants, including by scheduling a deposition outside of the fact discovery deadline if necessary, an offer to which Defendants did not even respond before seeking this Court's intervention. + +Background. As the Court is aware, discovery in this case commenced on January 20, 2020. (Doc. No. 16). In March, the parties exchanged initial interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Plaintiff also attempted to initiate discussions regarding ESI discovery, + +I Plaintiff has not attached the June 8 Email or subsequent correspondence as an exhibit in deference to the privacy interests of certain potential fact witnesses whose names are reflected in the emails. However, Plaintiff will certainly provide the June 8 Email to the Court if it would assist the Court in rendering a decision. + +proposing an ESI and Privilege Protocol on March 25, which Defendants deemed premature. On April 8, 2020, Defendants requested a 30-day extension of all discovery deadlines due to the COVID- I 9 pandemic. Plaintiff initially objected to this request for a generalized extension of all deadlines, unmoored from any specific exigency, but, in the spirit of cooperation, ultimately consented to Defendants' request. (Doc. No. 59.) + +On April 16, 2020, the parties exchanged their responses and objections to their respective interrogatories and document requests. Plaintiff's responses disclosed, among other information, the names of the persons and entities whom Defendants now, for the first time, seek to depose. Defendants, however, refused to meaningfully answer a single interrogatory, including, for example, Plaintiff's straightforward request that Defendants identify Decedent Jeffrey Epstein's email addresses. Eventually, on May 21, 2020, Defendants provided supplemental responses to Plaintiff's interrogatories, which rectified this indefensible omission (and others). + +Throughout April and May, the parties conferred frequently by phone and in writing on a range of discovery issues, including the timeline for document production and matters related to ESI, and reached, among other productive developments, a mutual agreement to exchange proposed search terms. On May 19, 2020, Plaintiff provided Defendants with the search terms she intended to run against her ESI, and invited Defendants to propose any additional search terms, which they did not do. For her part, Plaintiff provided Defendants on May 29, 2020 with a narrow set of four additional search terms—all of which, it bears noting, were simply different iterations of terms Defendants had already used—to run against their ESI. In addition, Plaintiff made productions of documents on May 15 and May 30, 2020, and informed Defendants, repeatedly, that she was nearing substantial completion of her document productions. On June 5, 2020, Defendants made a small initial production of documents. + +During this time, the parties also discussed scheduling Defendants' deposition and Rule 35 examination of Plaintiff. Not once during any of these discussions did Defendants suggest that the timeline for document production or the scheduling of Plaintiff's deposition and examination would need to be adjusted to account for the nine non-party depositions that they now propose. Indeed, on June 1, 2020, the parties submitted a joint report to this Court noting, among other things, that Plaintiff expected to complete her document production imminently. (Doc. No. 68.) Again, Defendants made no mention of their planned depositions or need for additional ESI discovery from Plaintiff. + +Extension Request. On June 8, 2020, Defendants responded to Plaintiff's proposed dates for her deposition and Rule 35 exam by informing her, for the first time, that they intend to depose nine non-party individuals and entities and that they cannot depose Plaintiff prior to those other depositions. Defendants also requested, again for the first time, that Plaintiff run 16 entirely new search terms against her ESI. Defendants informed Plaintiff that, in order to accommodate the foregoing, they wished to schedule Plaintiff's deposition "during the second half of July," and to extend all remaining case deadlines by 30 days. In their email, Defendants also claimed that the remaining discovery disputes between the parties and the fact that New York City is in "Phase I" of re-opening from the COVID-19 lockdown further support their extension request. + +None of Defendants' purported reasons justify a discovery extension. First, although the COVID- I 9 pandemic presents a novel and challenging situation for all involved, Defendants have not identified a single specific challenge that New York City's reopening status poses to progress + +on the remaining discovery in this case. *Second*, there is no reason that the remaining discovery disputes between the parties necessitate a blanket 30-day extension of all case deadlines at this time. After weeks of discussion, the parties have resolved all but two disputed topics: (1) Defendants' demand for Plaintiff's complete physical medical history and associated records, regardless of whether those records relate in any way to the claims and defenses in this action, and (2) Defendants' demands for privileged materials in the custody of Plaintiff's counsel. While it is regrettable that the parties are apparently at an impasse on these issues, there is no reason to believe that this Court will be unable to resolve these disputes before the end of fact discovery, should Defendants in fact decide to burden this Court with these demands. (Doc. No. 70 at 2.) + +*Third*, Defendants' late-rising decision that nine more depositions and additional ESI discovery is necessary does not entitle them to yet another extension. There is absolutely no justification for Defendants' decision to wait until now to disclose their intention to conduct this battery of depositions, especially when the identities of the deponents were disclosed to them eight weeks ago (and, with respect to one proposed deponent, almost 18 weeks ago). Defendants' problem is wholly of their own making: if five weeks is not enough time, Defendants should not have waited until five weeks remained in fact discovery to announce their intention to conduct these depositions. *See Wega v. Ctr. for Disability Rights Inc.*, 395 F. App'x 782, 786 (2d Cir. 2010) (Party who "neglected to exercise due diligence in locating the witness prior to the discovery deadline" could "not demonstrate 'good cause' for an extension"). + +Indeed, Defendants offer no actual justification for this delay. Instead, Defendants' Letter argues that Plaintiff's objections to their timing are misplaced because Plaintiff noticed two non-party depositions only two days earlier. But Plaintiff has every expectation that the two depositions she noticed can easily be completed *within the time remaining for fact discovery*. Indeed, as Plaintiff has informed this Court and Defendants repeatedly, she expects that these witnesses will invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and decline to meaningfully answer nearly all questions. *See, e.g.*, Dec. 11, 2019 Hr'g Tr. at 12:24-13:4; Feb. 11, 2020 Hr'g Tr. 31:1-9. + +Defendants also point to the fact that "neither side is finished searching for and producing documents" in an attempt to justify their extension request. Defendants' Letter at 2. This assertion omits important context: as Defendants are well aware, Plaintiff is very close to substantially completing her document production, and has already produced, among other things, the medical records that she voluntarily collected from the medical providers Defendants now seek to depose in an effort to streamline discovery.2 Regardless, there is no merit to the Defendants' suggestion that they were somehow precluded from providing *notice* of their depositions until document production was complete. Indeed, had Defendants provided timely notice of these depositions and endeavored to schedule them in an appropriate manner, Plaintiff could have prioritized her review and production of documents to ensure that documents relevant to specific depositions were produced at the necessary time. This is entirely standard practice in civil litigation, as Defendants are no doubt fully aware. + +--- + +2 Defendants' suggestion that "both sides proposed numerous additional ESI search terms" on June 8 likewise misrepresents the course of events by omitting context. Defendants' Letter at 2. On June 8, *Defendants* proposed 16 additional ESI search terms for the first time. Plaintiff simply requested that Defendants reciprocally run a small subset of those search terms in response to Defendants' unexpected disclosure of their intention to conduct nine nonparty depositions. + +Plaintiff remains willing to confer about any of Defendants' specific scheduling needs, including those involved in scheduling the nine depositions Defendants now propose. She will also expedite any necessary and appropriate additional ES1 review in order to ensure that Defendants' request does not lead to further delay. But a 30-day extension of every applicable deadline in this case is simply not warranted at this time. Defendants' need for such an extension arises only from their own continued efforts to stall discovery in this case, and they should not be rewarded for this obstructionist conduct with additional time. See Schine v. Crown, No. 89 Civ. 3421, 1992 WL 162820, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 1992) (denying motion for extension in part because "moving papers do not demonstrate any legally sufficient reason why the discovery proposed to be taken could not have been completed" prior to the deadline and noting that "Plaintiffs failure vigorously to prosecute this action is their own fault, and they must bear the consequences"). Further delay is particularly prejudicial to Plaintiff, who has been seeking some modicum of justice for her abuse at Epstein's hands for years, and whose efforts in this litigation have been consistently hindered by Defendants' dilatory tactics. + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/ Kate L. Doniger + +Kate L. Doniger + +cc: Judge Failla Counsel of Record \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751349/EFTA02751349.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751349/EFTA02751349.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..af7c123a96ceda403a9d427fae197f5550709f9e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751349/EFTA02751349.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,292 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751349.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 11603, + "elapsed_seconds": 13.22, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 33.048, + 39.28936767578125 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 39.28936767578125 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 63.94818115234375 + ], + [ + 33.048, + 63.94818115234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 124.12138366699219, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 124.12138366699219, + 251.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 251.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 2", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.884, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 535.162841796875, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 535.162841796875, + 64.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 34.884, + 64.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.884, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 239.904, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 239.904, + 59.94 + ], + [ + 34.884, + 59.94 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 4", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.884, + 44.55 + ], + [ + 535.0933227539062, + 44.55 + ], + [ + 535.0933227539062, + 64.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 34.884, + 64.56353759765625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 100 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 44 + ], + [ + "Line", + 22 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751349" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751353/EFTA02751353.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751353/EFTA02751353.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..41cd878f1fb3d279b4725f05c6a782e13621e29a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751353/EFTA02751353.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +Bennet J. Moskowitz + +D: 212-704-6000 + +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com + +June 15, 2020 + +## VIA ELECTRONIC COURT FILING + +Hon. Debra C. Freeman Daniel Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007 + +Re: Jane Doe. 1:19-cv-8673 (KPF) (DCFI + +Dear Judge Freeman: + +We represent Defendants in the above-referenced action. We write to further update the Court on the status of the voluntary, independent Epstein Victims' Compensation Program (the "Program"). As we previously advised, on June 3, 2020, the Probate Court of the U.S. Virgin Islands approved the Program. Immediately upon receipt of funding, the Program designers and administrator accelerated their efforts to commence operations. We are pleased to report that the Program will begin receiving formal claims filings on June 25. This information and other details are now available on the Program's official website: https://epsteinvcp.com. + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/Bennet J Moskowitz + +Bennet J. Moskowitz + +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751353/EFTA02751353.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751353/EFTA02751353.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7e278083df2256cd08fe5ba694db38e7764abb16 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751353/EFTA02751353.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751353.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1021, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.81, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ELECTRONIC COURT FILING", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 213.790283203125 + ], + [ + 249.2187957763672, + 213.790283203125 + ], + [ + 249.2187957763672, + 227.18701171875 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 227.18701171875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751353" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751354/EFTA02751354.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751354/EFTA02751354.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6766d6d180c6dee491f9b9547787b5d75ff02563 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751354/EFTA02751354.md @@ -0,0 +1,1158 @@ +Bennet J. Moskowitz + +D: 212-704-6000 + +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com + +June 18,2020 + +#### VIA ELECTRONIC COURT FILING + +Hon. Debra C. Freeman + +Daniel Moynihan + +United States Courthouse + +500 Pearl Street + +New York, New York 10007 + +Re: Jane Doe, 1:19-cv-8673 (KPF) (DCF) + +Dear Judge Freeman: + +We represent Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, the "Co-Executors"), in the above-referenced action. We write pursuant to Your Honor's Individual Rule 2(A) and Local Rule 37.2 to request a conference in anticipation of filing a motion to compel Plaintiff to produce the following documents and information: + +- 1. in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) and the Co-Executors' interrogatories, a computation of the damages she seeks to recover in this action supported by documents, including an analysis supplying the underlying calculations ir fi nulas used in arriving at the damages claimed. See, e.g., Design Strategy, Inc. v. , 469 F.3d 284, 295 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Rule 26); +- 2. communications concerning Jeffrey Epstein ("Decedent" or "Mr. Epstein") which are to, from, or copy members of the press, media, or publishing industry; +- 3. documents concerning Mr. Epstein which are to, from, or copy other plaintiffs (or their attorneys) who have asserted claims against Mr. Epstein, his Estate, or the Co-Executors; +- 4. documents concerning all medical procedures and consultations Plaintiff received during the relevant time period, and not just those which Plaintiff deems relevant to her claims; and +- 5. documents concerning specific medical procedures and conditions, regardless of timeframe, and not just those which Plaintiff deems relevant to her claims. + +We have corresponded with Plaintiff's counsel multiple times via email, letter and telephonic conference. Regrettably, the parties remain at an impasse on these issues such that the Court's assistance is necessary. + +### **I. Relevant background** + +In September 2019, Plaintiff filed a four-count complaint alleging Mr. Epstein sexually abused her starting in or around 2002, when Plaintiff was "approximately" fourteen years old, until she turned seventeen years old. (Compl. ¶ 23 (ECF No. 1).) Plaintiff alleges she became financially dependent on Mr. Epstein and dropped out of high school as a result. (*Id.* ¶ 41.) She also claims she suffers from "extreme anxiety and depression, which cause her to experience difficulty falling asleep, difficulty staying asleep (because she often wakes up with nightmares), difficulty eating, rapid heartbeat, and panic attacks." (*Id.* ¶ 56.) According to Plaintiff, "[h]er physical and emotional injuries impact her daily functioning." (*Id.*) Plaintiff also alleges that she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder in connection with the alleged abuse and that she "regularly experiences the symptoms of PTSD, including flashbacks to [Mr. Epstein's] house." (*Id.* ¶ 57.) She further alleges that she "struggles to be physically and emotionally intimate with her husband." (*Id.* ¶ 58.) Her complaint requests actual, compensatory, statutory, consequential, and punitive damages, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. (*Id.* at 16.) + +#### **A. Plaintiff's initial disclosures** + +On February 5, 2020, Plaintiff served her Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures. However, Plaintiff's disclosure concerning her damages calculations was deficient: she did not provide a computation of each category of damages she seeks, nor did she identify any documents on which she bases her computations. Instead, she stated simply that she was "entitled to recover damages in the form of, *inter alia*, actual damages, compensatory damages, statutory damages, consequential damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest."1 By way of justification for her inadequate disclosure, Plaintiff stated that she "anticipate[d] that damages calculations will depend upon expert analyses and testimony to be developed and disclosed according to the schedule set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court." + +#### **B. Plaintiff's written discovery responses** + +On March 10, 2020, the Co-Executors served their First Request for Production of Documents ("Requests") and First Set of Interrogatories ("Interrogatories") to Plaintiff.2 Relevant here are the following Requests: + +- • **Request No. 1:** All documents and communications with or otherwise concerning Decedent. This includes, without limitation, all communications concerning Decedent which are to, from, or which copy: (i) members of the press, media or publishing industry; (ii) law enforcement personnel; (iii) government agents, including, without limitation, prosecutors and government attorneys; and communications which are to, + +1 A copy of Plaintiff's initial disclosures is attached hereto as **Exhibit A**. + +2 A copy of these discovery requests is attached hereto as **Exhibit B**. + +from, or which copy you or your attorneys, on the one hand, and other persons who have filed lawsuits or made claims against Decedent or his estate, or such other persons' attorneys, on the other hand. + +- Request No. 2: To the extent not otherwise produced in response to the foregoing, all documents and communications concerning any other legal proceeding or investigation that concerns Decedent. +- Request No. 13: All documents and communications concerning all medical procedures and consultations you received during the relevant time period.3 +- Request No. 14: Regardless of date and the relation (or lack thereof) to Decedent's acts and omissions alleged in the Complaint or otherwise, all documents and communications concerning all medical procedures and consultations you received evidencing or otherwise concerning the following conditions: (a) an eating disorder, (b) emotional distress, (c) psychological or psychiatric trauma, (d) mental anguish, (e) humiliation, (f) confusion, (g) embarrassment, (h) loss of self-esteem, (i) loss of dignity, + - (j) loss of enjoyment of life, (k) pain, (I) suffering, or (m) any condition that would require surgery to correct. + +Also of relevance here are the following Interrogatories: + +- Interrogatory No. 2: Identify and describe the computation of each category of damages for which you seek recovery in this litigation. +- Interrogatory No. 10: Identify all medical procedures and consultations you received, including the dates of each procedure and consultation, the locations of each procedure and consultation, and the identities of all medical providers who conducted or otherwise participated in each procedure and consultation. The relevant time period for this interrogatory is the date on which you first learned of Decedent through the date of your responses to these interrogatories. +- Interrogatory No. 11: Regardless of date and the relation (or lack thereof) to Decedent's acts and omissions alleged in the Complaint or otherwise, identify all medical procedures and consultations you received evidencing or otherwise concerning the following conditions: (a) an eating disorder, (b) emotional distress, (c) psychological or psychiatric trauma, (d) mental anguish, (e) humiliation, (f) confusion, (g) embarrassment, + - (h) loss of self-esteem, (i) loss of dignity, (j) loss of enjoyment of life, (k) pain, (I) suffering, or (m) any condition that would require surgery to correct. + +3 The relevant time period is defined as: "the date on which [Plaintiff] first learned of Decedent through the date of [her] responses to these requests." + +On April 16, 2020, Plaintiff served her responses to these Requests and Interrogatories .° Since that time, the parties have exchanged several deficiency letters and emails, and engaged in multiple telephonic meet-and-confer discussions. Despite these attempts to resolve the parties' differences, Plaintiff refuses to provide: + +- communications concerning Mr. Epstein sent to, from, or copying the press, media and publishing industry, in response to Request Nos. 1 and 2; +- documents and communications concerning Mr. Epstein sent to, from, or copying other persons (or their attorneys) who have filed lawsuits or asserted other claims against Mr. Epstein or his Estate, in response to Request Nos. 1 and 2; +- a list of all medical procedures and consultations Plaintiff received during the relevant time period and all documents and communications concerning these procedures and consultations, in response to Interrogatory No. 10 and Request No. 13; +- a list of all medical procedures and consultations Plaintiff received concerning specific medical procedures and consultations relating to emotional trauma and anxiety and all documents and communications concerning these procedures and consultations, in response to Interrogatory No. 11 and Request No. 14; and +- a computation of each category of damages for which she seeks recovery in this litigation in response to Interrogatory No. 2 (and as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26). + +Plaintiffs failure to provide such information and documents is improper, as explained below. + +#### II. Argument + +#### A. Plaintiff's damages disclosure leaves the Co-Executors in the dark. + +Plaintiff's 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) initial disclosure regarding her computation of damages, and her response to Interrogatory No. 2, which essentially requests the same information, are inadequate. Instead of providing the required computation of each category of damages and the documents on which she bases each computation, Plaintiff simply rattled off a laundry list of generic categories of damages, which, according to her, is not even exhaustive. In essence, the "disclosure" was anything but, as it disclosed nothing meaningful, which is contrary to the purpose of Rule 26. + +Plaintiff must amend her initial disclosures, and to the extent applicable, her response to Interrogatory No. 2, to provide "a 'computation,' supported by documents," including an analysis supplying the underlying calculations or formulas used in arriving at the damages claimed. See Design Strategy, Inc., 469 F.3d at 295 (quoting Rule 26); Max Impact, LLC v. Sherwood Grp., Inc., 2014 WL 902649, at \*6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2014) ("initial disclosures were wholly inadequate + +4 A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs responses to the Requests and Interrogatories is attached hereto as Exhibit C. + +because they merely provided [the other party] with total dollar figures for each category of damages and were unaccompanied by any analysis whatsoever" and "failed to provide a calculation or formula through which the figures were derived"); *Ritchie Risk-Linked Strategies Trading (Ir.), Ltd. v. Coventry First LLC*, 280 F.R.D. 147, 159 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (Rule 26 "does not merely require a plaintiff to describe its damages in general terms, such as 'compensatory,' but — as best as the party is able at an early stage in the case — to provide a 'computation' of each category of damages, and to produce the documents on which that computation is based."). + +Plaintiff claims that, because she has apparently hired an expert on this topic, she is relieved from having to provide to the Co-Executors a computation of damages or documents on which those calculations are based. Plaintiff is wrong. There is no "exception to Rule 26(a)(1) in cases in which damages will be proved by experts: the disclosing party still has the responsibility to provide each category of required disclosures based on the information it has at the time, and to supplement those disclosures as more information is gained." *U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n v. PHL Variable Ins. Co.*, No. 12 CIV. 6811 CM JCF, 2013 WL 5495542, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2013) (citing *Stemrich v. Zabiyaka*, No. 1:12-CV-1409, 2013 WL 4080310, at \*3 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 13, 2013) (stating that Rule 26 "explicitly contemplates a procedure" by which initial damages information is supplemented following an expert's review); *Allstate Ins. Co. v. Nassiri*, No. 2:08-cv-369, 2010 WL 5248111, at \*4 (D. Nev. Dec. 16, 2010) ("While the precise method of calculation need not be disclosed if it is properly the subject of future expert testimony, this does not relieve the plaintiff from providing reasonably available information concerning its damages computation."); *Hesco Parts, LLC v. ██████████ Motor Co.*, No. 3:02-CV-736-S, 2007 WL 2407255, at \*2 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 20, 2007) ("[A]lthough the defendants are not entitled to early disclosure of the plaintiff's expert report, the plaintiff's initial disclosures should provide its executives' assessment of damages in light of the information available to them in sufficient detail so as to inform the defendants of the contours of their potential exposure.")). + +Thus, regardless of whether Plaintiff plans to seek expert analysis in forming a final damages calculation, she must still provide "an estimate of damages and 'some analysis'" "based on the information [Plaintiff] has at the time." *Id.* at 3, 5. Given Plaintiff's recent refusal to consent to a short extension of discovery deadlines, it is inconceivable that she does not have this information already. + +**B. Plaintiff's responses to Request Nos. 1, 2, 13 and 14 and Interrogatory Nos. 2, 10 and 11 are inadequate and must be amended.** + +**i. Communications with the press, media and publishing industry about Mr. Epstein exist and are highly relevant; there is no basis for Plaintiff's refusal to produce them.** + +The Co-Executors' Request Nos. 1 and 2 seek communications concerning Mr. Epstein between Plaintiff or her counsel on the one hand and members of the press, media or publishing industry on the other hand. Plaintiff refuses to produce such documents based solely on her "best recollections"5 that no such documents exist. When the Co-Executors reminded + +5 See the June 5, 2020 letter from Ms. Kaplan attached hereto as Exhibit D. + +--- + +Plaintiff that her lead counsel, Roberta Kaplan, was recently interviewed by Arielle Levy and appeared on a September 5, 2019 episode of a podcast called *Broken*, in which Ms. Kaplan discussed Plaintiff, Mr. Epstein and his Estate, the Co-Executors, Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages, and Plaintiff's intention to file a civil suit against the Estate, Plaintiff responded that those topics are not relevant because they are not about "**Plaintiff's specific allegations**."6 (Emphasis in original). Plaintiff's position is both nonsensical and inappropriate. + +First, Request Nos. 1 and 2 are not limited to documents concerning only Plaintiff's "specific allegations." These Requests seek documents concerning Mr. Epstein, which are wholly proper, as they are relevant to the claims **and defenses** in this case. Plaintiff is not permitted to withhold documents unless they (as she determines) relate to the "specific allegations" in this case. Additionally, Plaintiff's notions about what relates to her "specific allegations" is tremendously narrow. An interview in which Plaintiff's counsel discusses, among other things, Plaintiff's injuries and damages and Mr. Epstein's Estate cannot legitimately be characterized as not relating to Plaintiff's "specific allegations." Plaintiff's semantics are no justification for denying the Co-Executors their fundamental right to obtain fulsome discovery, especially given Plaintiff's request for various significant damages (which she has yet to properly disclose). + +Second, Plaintiff is not entitled to rest on her counsel's "best recollections" to determine whether responsive documents exist. This is especially so when Plaintiff's counsel was interviewed just a few months ago about Mr. Epstein. + +In summary, Plaintiff must search and review documents her possession, custody or control, including in her counsel's possession, in accordance with her obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must amend her responses to Request Nos. 1 and 2 and produce all non-privileged documents in response thereto. + +**ii. Communications with counsel and other plaintiffs with claims against the Co-Executors are discoverable and highly relevant.** + +In Request Nos. 1 and 2, the Co-Executors requested documents and communications concerning Mr. Epstein between Plaintiff or her counsel, on the one hand, and other persons who have filed lawsuits or made claims against Mr. Epstein or his Estate, or such other persons' attorneys, on the other hand. Plaintiff claims all such documents or communications are protected by the work product doctrine and common interest privilege. Plaintiff is wrong. + +As an initial matter, Plaintiff bears the burden of proof to establish these claimed privileges. *See Campinas Found. v. Simoni*, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23580, at \*8 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2004) ("[T]he burden is upon the plaintiff, as the party invoking the protection of the common interest privilege, to establish the facts upon which the claimed privilege is based."). Plaintiff cannot meet her burden. + +--- + +6 *Id.* + +"The 'common interest' rule is a limited exception to the general rule that the attorney-client privilege is waived when a protected communication is disclosed to a third party outside the attorney-client relationship." *Shamis v. Ambassador Factors Corp.*, 34 F. Supp. 2d 879, 893 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). "The 'common interest' doctrine typically applies where multiple persons are represented by the same party — 'join representation — and accordingly both clients are working together with a single attorney toward a common goal.'" *Id.* (citing *Int'l Ins. Co. v. Newmont Mining Corp.*, 800 F. Supp. 1195, 1196 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)). "[T]he key consideration is that the nature of the interest be **identical**, not similar, and be legal, not solely commercial." *Campinas Found.*, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23580, at \*6 (emphasis added) (citing *Bank Brussels Lambert v. Credit Lyonnais (Suisse) S.A.*, 160 F.R.D. 437, 447 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)). Notably, "[s]haring a desire to succeed in an action does not create a 'common interest.'" *Id.* (citing *Shamis*, 34 F. Supp. 2d at 893). "What is important is not whether the parties theoretically share similar interests but rather whether they demonstrate actual cooperation toward a common legal goal." *Id.* + +*Shamis* is instructive here. In that action, the Southern District of New York held the doctrine did not apply, explaining: + +Although Shamis and BankBoston would both benefit from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, they do not share identical legal interests. ... Shamis has not produced any agreement between plaintiff and his counsel and BankBoston establishing a joint prosecution of plaintiff's claims. There is no evidence of a coordinated legal strategy between Shamis and BankBoston. BankBoston is not, and has never been a party to this action. BankBoston has not exercised control over the conduct of this action, nor has it contributed to Shamis' legal expenses. *See North River Ins. Co.*, 1995 WL 5792 at \*5 ("common interest" doctrine did not apply because the parties were not represented by same counsel; one party did not contribute to the other's legal expenses, nor exercise control over the conduct of the legal proceedings; and no evidence was presented of a coordinated legal strategy). Accordingly, the BankBoston documents are not privileged, and must be produced. + +34 F. Supp. 2d 879, 893. + +Similarly, in *Campinas*, which is also instructive here, plaintiff claimed the common interest doctrine protected communications between his counsel and counsel for other plaintiffs with claims against the same defendant that all arose from the same set of facts and circumstances, *i.e.*, the repurchase of certain shares, which allegedly harmed the various plaintiffs. 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23580, at \*5-6. In that action, the court held that the common interest doctrine did not apply, finding that "the interest common to all the pending actions is the desire by diverse litigants to succeed in recovering a sum of money from [defendant]." *Id.* The court found: + +the fact that the litigants share a desire to succeed in various civil actions does not mean that an identical legal interest is common to the various actions to which they are parties. Moreover, merely sharing a desire to + +succeed in various civil actions does not support the invocation of the common interest privilege to shield from disclosure statements that traditionally would not come within the ambit of the attorney-client privilege. + +2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23580, at \*7 (citing *Shamis*, 34 F. Supp. 2d 879, 893). + +Here, too, while it is theoretically possible (though unlikely given all plaintiffs are seeking recovery from the same limited pot of funds) that Plaintiff may desire for the other plaintiffs with claims against the Co-Executors to succeed in their lawsuits, they do not share identical legal interests for common interest purposes. Put another way, if a plaintiff in another case against the Co-Executors is unsuccessful, it has absolutely no bearing on whether Plaintiff is successful here, and vice-versa. That is because their legal interests are not remotely *identical*. + +Nor do the various plaintiffs' claims arise out of the same sets of facts and occurrences. The alleged conduct forming the basis of Plaintiff's claims in this action allegedly occurred in different years and in different states/countries as various other plaintiffs. Nor does Plaintiff allege, for example, that other plaintiffs were present during her alleged abuse. + +Further, (i) Plaintiff has not produced any agreement between her counsel and other plaintiffs' counsel establishing a joint prosecution of any claims; (ii) there is no evidence of a coordinated legal strategy between Plaintiff and other plaintiffs; (iii) the other plaintiffs have never been party to this action; and (iv) there is no contention that the other plaintiffs have exercised control over the conduct of this action, nor have they contributed to Plaintiff's legal expenses. See *Shamis*, 34 F. Supp. 2d 879, 893. Simply put, the plaintiffs alleging claims against the Co-Executors in other cases have no legal interest in this case, and vice-versa. The other plaintiffs' various legal rights are not dependent on the outcome of this case. (Further, Plaintiff's counsel previously asked the Southern District to assign this and other actions against the Co-Conspirators to a single judge and marked as "related." (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff made no mention of her legal interests being identical to the other plaintiffs in that request. (*Id.*) That request was denied. (ECF No. 23.) Likewise, this Court's January 14, 2020 Order (ECF No. 44), stated, "[t]he above referenced cases ... have neither been consolidated for any purpose, nor designated as "related" by the Court.") Accordingly, the common interest doctrine is inapplicable here. + +Plaintiff also claims communications with other plaintiffs' counsel are protected by the work product doctrine because they reflect Plaintiff's counsel's mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories. However, it is not credible that all such communications fall into those categories. Nor has Plaintiff met her burden to show her counsel acted consistent with the work product doctrine in attempting to keep communications with other counsel confidential. See *Spanierman Gallery, Profit Sharing Plan v. Merritt*, No. 00CIV5712LTSTHK, 2003 WL 22909160, at \*2, 5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2003) (finding work product doctrine did not apply where the production "was not made under circumstances which would ensure the confidentiality of the material"; the documents provided "were not identified as 'privileged'"; and "no agreement was reached with the [receiving party] to treat the information as privileged."). + +Accordingly, Plaintiff must produce these communications. Alternatively, and at minimum, given the critical importance of these communications to the Co-Executors' fundamental right to defend against Plaintiff's claims, it would be appropriate for the Court to review a random sample of such communications *in camera*, to determine whether any privilege applies. *See, e.g., Makhoul v. Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP, No. 11-CV-05108 (PKC) (VMS), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32239, at \*26-27 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2014)* (supporting Magistrate Judge Go's decision to review certain documents *in camera* to determine if they were privileged because, "despite Defendants' assertion of privilege, the Court determined that an *in camera* review of the documents was the best way to satisfy Plaintiff and the Court that Defendants did not invoke privilege in order to hide evidence...."). + +**iii. Plaintiff's medical history is critical to the Co-Executors' defenses.** + +Request Nos. 13 and 14 and Interrogatory Nos. 10 and 11 seek documents and information related to Plaintiff's medical history. Plaintiff's responses to these requests seek to limit her production to only those documents and information that she determines "relate to the allegations of the Complaint." This is improper. + +Plaintiff put her physical and mental health squarely at issue in this action by broadly alleging numerous afflictions, lasting over a decade, that she claims are the result of Mr. Epstein's alleged conduct. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that she suffers from "severe mental anguish" and "anxiety and depression"; "difficulty falling asleep"; "difficulty staying asleep"; nightmares; "difficulty eating, rapid heartbeat, and panic attacks"; has been diagnosed with PTSD, making it "difficult for her to take care of herself and her family"; and "struggles to be physically and emotionally intimate with her husband." (Compl. ¶¶ 56-58.) Information relating to Plaintiff's medical history is therefore critical to the Co-Executors' defense. Whether Plaintiff suffered any medical conditions—particularly the same or similar conditions she now alleges resulted from her interaction with Mr. Epstein—prior to her interactions with him is relevant to the Co-Executors' defenses, including that such conditions directly caused or contributed to Plaintiff's alleged damages for which she now seeks recovery. Moreover, given the breadth of the medical conditions Plaintiff alleges are relevant to her claimed damages, the Co-Executors are entitled to information concerning the entirety of the medical procedures and consultations Plaintiff received after she met Mr. Epstein. + +Plaintiff has no right to cherry-pick the medical records she wishes to disclose. "The disclosure provisions in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not permit a party to trim his duty of disclosure to suit [her] own view of what might be relevant to [her] adversary." *Arthur v. Atkinson Freight Lines Corp.*, 164 F.R.D. 19, 20–21 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (issuing sanctions against plaintiff for failing to produce certain medical records and holding meritless plaintiff's contention that he was "under no duty to turn over some of the undisclosed medical reports and records to his adversary on the ground that he did not view such material to be relevant to the plaintiff's case."); *see also Rodriguez v. Folksamerica Reinsurance Co.*, No. CIV-305-CV-01687-CFDTPS, 2006 WL 1359119, at \*3 (D. Conn. May 15, 2006) (ordering plaintiff's counsel to submit statement in writing under oath that the plaintiff never received treatment for emotional distress—"**whether the stress was due to the actions alleged in this lawsuit or otherwise.**") (emphasis added). Here, the Co-Executors are entitled to Plaintiff's medical history and to have their experts determine which conditions, if any, caused or contributed to Plaintiff's alleged + +damages, which she attributes to Mr. Epstein's abuse, regardless of which ones Plaintiff connects to him. Accordingly, Plaintiff must provide all documents and information responsive to these Requests and Interrogatories. + +#### Ill. Conclusion + +For the foregoing reasons, the Co-Executors request that the Court enter a briefing schedule for the Motion to Compel described herein, where the Co-Executors have two weeks to submit their motion, Plaintiff has two weeks therefrom to respond, and the Co-Executors have one week therefrom to reply. + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/Bennet J. Moskowitz + +Bennet J. Moskowitz + +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) + +# Exhibit A + +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as the executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, + +Defendants. + +No. 19-cv-08673 (KPF) + +#### PLAINTIFF'S RULE 26(a)(1) INITIAL DISCLOSURES + +Plaintiff, through her undersigned counsel, hereby makes the following initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. + +The following information reflects the current knowledge of Plaintiff and her counsel at this stage of the litigation and is subject to the reservation of all privileges and other immunities from discovery, including without limitation Plaintiff's right to assert any and all objections as to competency, relevancy, materiality, privilege, work product, use or admissibility as evidence. Plaintiff continues to investigate matters related to the litigation, may become aware of additional information through discovery or otherwise, may assert additional claims, and may become aware of new reasons why information presently known may be relevant to the claims in this action. Moreover, the issues raised in this matter may require analysis by retained experts. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement, revise, and/or correct these initial disclosures as appropriate. These disclosures do not purport to identify every document, tangible thing, or witness possibly relevant to all issues that may eventually be raised in this action and are made with the full reservation of rights to supplement, amend, correct or otherwise modify these disclosures, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e) or otherwise, if appropriate as investigation and discovery are conducted. The disclosures set forth + +below are organized to correspond to the general categories set forth in Rule 26(a)(1)(A) and are made subject to the above objections and qualifications. + +The following are the disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1XA): + +- 1. The name, and if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable information that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless solely for impeachment, identifying the subjects of the information. + +Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(aX1)(A)(i) and subject to the reservation of all rights and privileges described above, based on her current knowledge, information, and belief and subject to further investigation, discovery, and analysis by experts, Plaintiff discloses the following names and, if known, the address and telephone numbers of the following persons who are likely to have discoverable information that may be used to support Plaintiff's claims, along with the subjects of that information. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or supplement this list as discovery proceeds as the identities of additional individuals who are likely to have discoverable information that Plaintiff may use to support her claims becomes known to her. + +| | Unknown | The allegations in the | +|-----------------|------------------------------|------------------------| +| Lesley Groff | Unknown | | +| Dr. Dawn Hughes | do Kaplan Hecker & Fink, LLP | | + +| Luisa | de (347) 608-4943 Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse | +|-------------|--------------------------------------------------| +| Assistant | U.S. Attorney | +| Alexander | Rossmiller, | +| Diarmuid =, | Esq. Unknown Jeffrelistein's retention of | +| | Mr. to represent | + +Further expert disclosures will be made in accordance with the Court's forthcoming scheduling order and Rule 26(b)(2). Plaintiff reserves the right to use the testimony of other witnesses whose identity may be subsequently learned through discovery or other means. + +#### 2. A copy of, or description by category and location of, all documents, data compilations and tangible things in the possession, custody or control of the party, and that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless solely for impeachment. + +Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(aX I XA)(ii), based on current knowledge, and subject to further investigation, discovery, and analysis by experts, Plaintiff hereby discloses the following categories of documents and things in her possession, custody or control that she may use to support her claims. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or supplement these disclosures as provided under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). The following disclosures do not include documents and things that are likely to be offered solely for impeachment: + +- I. Documents concerning the identity, name, date of birth, age, citizenship and/or residency of Plaintiff. +- 2. Documents and ESI related to the allegations in the Complaint (ECF No. 1) including, but not limited to photographs, electronic communications, and written recollections. + +- 3. A computation of any category of damages claimed by the disclosing party, making available for inspection and copying as under Rule 34 the documents or other evidentiary material, not privileged or protected from disclosure, on which such computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered. + +Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(aX1)(A)(iii), Plaintiff discloses that she is entitled to recover damages in the form of, inter alia, actual damages, compensatory damages, statutory damages, consequential damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. Plaintiff anticipates that damages calculations will depend upon expert analyses and testimony to be developed and disclosed according to the schedule set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this list with any damages as she continues to investigate the claims in this action. Subject to the foregoing, Plaintiff has certain financial and employment records that may be relevant to damages calculations. + +- 4. Any insurance agreement under which any person carrying on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy all or part of a judgment which may be entered in the action to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment. + +Not applicable. + +Respectfully submitted, + +Roberta A. Kaplan Julie E. Fink Kate L. Doniger Alexandra K. Conlon KAPLAN HECKER & FINK, LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 763-0883 dcaplan@kaplanhecker.com jfinka,kaolanhecker.com kdoniger kaolanhecker.com aconlon@kaplanhecker.com Counsel for Plaintiff + +#### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I hereby certify that on February 5, 2020, I provided copies of the foregoing via email to the following: + +Bennet Jerome Moskowitz Troutman Sanders LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 (212)-704-6087 Fax: (212)-704-6288 Email: bennet.moskowitz@troutmansanders.com + +Counsel for Defendants + +Roberta A. Kaplan KAPLAN HECKER & FINK, LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 763-0883 + +Counsel for Plaintiff + +# Exhibit B + +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaint + +v. + +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, + +Defendants. + +Case No. 19 Civ. 8673 (KPF) (DCF) + +#### PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS + +Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Jane Doe hereby requests that Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Defendants") fully and completely answer in writing each of the following Interrogatories under oath, in accordance with the Definitions and Instructions herein, and serve such answers upon counsel for Plaintiff within thirty (30) days of service of this First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants (the "Interrogatories"). + +The Definitions and Instructions below form an integral part of the Interrogatories that follow and must be read in conjunction with the Interrogatories and followed when responding to the Interrogatories. + +#### DEFINITIONS + +Solely for the purpose of the Interrogatories, the following definitions shall apply, without regard to capitalization: + +1. The words and phrases used in these Interrogatories shall have the meanings ascribed to them under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In addition, the terms below have the meanings set forth below whenever used in any Interrogatory. + +2. Consistent with Local Civil Rule 26.3(a), the definitions set forth at Local Civil Rule 26.3(cXI)-(7) of "communication," "document," "identify," "parties," "person," and "concerning" are incorporated herein by reference. + +3. The "Complaint" means the complaint filed in the above-captioned litigation as ECF No. I. + +4. "Communication" is used in the broadest sense permissible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(IXA) and Local Civil Rule 26.3(c)(I) and includes any transmittal of information (in the form of facts, ideas, inquiries, or otherwise). + +5. "Defendants" refers to Damn K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (as defined by Local Civil Rule 26.3(c)(5)), including any other names, nicknames, images, or icons by which they are known. + +6. "Describe in Detail" means, in addition to its customary and usual meaning, to provide a complete description and explanation of the facts, circumstances, analysis, opinion and other information relating to the subject matter of a specific Interrogatory. + +7. "Epstein" refers to Jeffrey E. Epstein, the decedent whose Estate Defendants are charged with executing, including any other names, nicknames, images or icons by which he was known. + +8. The "Estate" means the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein. + +9. "Includes" and "including" mean "includes but not limited to" and "including but not limited to" respectively. + +10. "This litigation" means the above-captioned litigation, Jane Doe v. Darren K Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, No. 1:19-cv-08673 (KPF) (DCF) (S.D.N.Y.). + +11. "Relating" or "related" means affecting, concerning, constituting, dealing with, describing, embodying, evidencing, identifying, involving, providing a basis for, reflecting, regarding, respecting, stating, or in any manner whatsoever pertaining, in whole or in part, to that subject. + +12. "You," "your," and "yours" refers to Defendants, as defined above. + +## INSTRUCTIONS + +Solely for the purpose of these Interrogatories, the following instructions shall apply: + +1. In addition to the instructions and definitions contained herein, these Interrogatories incorporate the instructions contained in any applicable Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Local Rule, or Individual Practice of the presiding Judge. + +2. Please respond to each Interrogatory separately by setting forth the Interrogatory followed by your response to the Interrogatory. Unless otherwise indicated, no Interrogatory shall be construed to limit the scope of any other Interrogatory. + +3. In answering these Interrogatories, please furnish all information in the Estate's possession or that of Epstein's current or former agents, representatives, employees, or anyone acting on Epstein's behalf. + +4. If you object to any of these Interrogatories, state with specificity the legal and factual basis for your objection(s). If you object only to a portion of an Interrogatory, identify the specific portion of the Interrogatory to which you object and respond fully to the remainder. + +5. If any claim is made that the information requested in these Interrogatories is privileged or constitutes attorney work product such that you will not respond to the Interrogatory, please provide a written statement accompanying your responses, consistent with Rule 26(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, describing the factual basis of the purported privilege or claim of work product in sufficient detail to permit the Court to adjudicate the validity of the claim. + +6. The obligation to respond to these Interrogatories is a continuing obligation, pursuant to Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If, at any time after responding to these Interrogatories, you discover additional information that will make your responses to these Interrogatories more complete or correct, supplement or correct your responses as soon as is reasonably possible. + +7. These Interrogatories arc without prejudice to, or waiver of, Plaintiff's right to conduct further discovery. + +8. In order to bring within the scope of these Interrogatories all documents and information that might otherwise be construed to be outside of their scope, the following rules of construction apply: (i) the masculine, feminine, or neuter pronoun shall not exclude other genders; and (ii) the use of a verb in any tense shall be recognized as the use of that verb in all other tenses. In addition, consistent with Local Civil Rule 26.3(a), the rules of construction set forth at Local Civil Rule 26.3(dXI)—(3) of the terms "any/all/each," "and/or," and of words used to identify number are incorporated herein by reference. + +9. For purposes of these Interrogatories, the term "identify" means: + +(a) When referring to documents, to state, to the extent known: (i) the type of document; (ii) the title or general subject matter, (iii) the date of the document; and (iv) the authors, addressees, and recipients. + +(b) When referring to communications, to state the document or documents (as described in Instruction No. 9(a)) that constitute the communication if the communication was in the form of a document; and if the communication was oral or otherwise not in the form of a document, to state, to the extent known: (i) the time, date, and place of such communication; (ii) whether it was in person or by some other means; (iii) each person who was present at or who participated in such communication; (iv) the substance of such communication; and (v) each document replicating or summarizing such communication. + +(c) When referring to a natural person, to state: (i) that individual's full name; (ii) his or her present or last known address; (iii) the present or last known place of his or her employment; (iii) his or her job title or position; and (iv) his or her relationship to Plaintiff. If any of this information is unavailable, provide other available means of identifying such person. + +(d) When referring to any business organization or entity, to state: (i) the full name of such organization or entity; (ii) the address of its principal place of business; and (iii) the name of each employee, agent, or representative who acted for such organization or entity with respect to the matters that are relevant to the Interrogatory. If any of this information is unavailable, provide other means of identifying such business organization. + +10. To the extent you contend that you lack sufficient information with which to respond fully to any Interrogatory, respond to the extent that you are able and include a written statement describing the missing information and explaining why you are unable to obtain that information. + +11. If, in responding to any Interrogatory, any ambiguities in the Interrogatory's wording are encountered, the response shall set forth the matter deemed ambiguous, select a reasonable interpretation that You believe resolves the ambiguity, respond to the Interrogatory using that interpretation, and explain with particularity the construction or interpretation selected by You in responding to the Interrogatory. + +#### INTERROGATORIES + +1. Identify all individuals who may have knowledge of any kind relating to Plaintiffs claims in this litigation or the allegations in the Complaint. + +2. Identify all personal electronic devices Epstein used and the way in which Epstein used each of them (text, email, social media, etc.) to communicate regarding, or create material related to, the subject matter of this litigation. + +3. Identify each and every email account and each email address that Epstein created and used to communicate regarding, or create material related to, the subject matter of this litigation. + +4. Identify all individuals who worked for any period of time at Epstein's mansion at 9 East 71" Street, New York, NY between 2001 and 2005. + +5. Identify all individuals who hired, solicited, sought out, or otherwise contacted women on Epstein's behalf between 2001 and 2005. + +6. Identify all of Epstein's current or former agents, employees, or anyone acting on Epstein's behalf who had contact with Plaintiff and describe in detail the contact with Plaintiff including when, where, and how each contact took place, and the nature of the contact. + +7. Identify all payments made by Epstein or his current or former agents, employees, or anyone acting on Epstein's behalf to Plaintiff and describe in detail the date, amount, and reason for each payment. + +8. Identify all phone numbers that Epstein or his current or former agents, employees, or anyone acting on Epstein's behalf used to communicate with Plaintiff. + +9. Identify all attorneys Epstein retained for Plaintiff, including in connection with Plaintiff's receipt of a Grand Jury subpoena in 2008. + +10. Identify the beneficiaries of Epstein's Estate, including the "1953 Trust." + +Dated: New York, New York +March 10, 2020 + +By: + +![]()Roberta A. Kaplan +Kate L. Doniger +Alexandra Conlon +Kyla Magun +Louis W. Fisher +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP +350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 +New York, NY 10118 +(212) 763-0883 +rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com +kdoniger@kaplanhecker.com +aconlon@kaplanhecker.com +kmagun@kaplanhecker.com +lfisher@kaplanhecker.com + +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaint + +v. + +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, + +Defendants. + +Case No. 19 Civ. 8673 (KPF) (DCF) + +#### PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S FIRST REOUESTS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS + +Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rules 26.2 and 26.3 of the Local Rules of the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern District of New York, PlaintiffJane Doe hereby requests that Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Defendants") produce the following documents at the offices of Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP, 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110, New York, NY 10118, within thirty (30) days of service of these First Requests for the Production of Documents (the "Requests"). + +The Definitions and Instructions below form an integral pan of the Requests that follow and must be read in conjunction with the Requests and followed when responding to the Requests. + +#### DEFINITIONS + +Solely for the purpose of the Requests, the following definitions shall apply, without regard to capitalization: + +1. The words and phrases used in these Requests shall have the meanings ascribed to them under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In addition, the terms below have the meanings set forth below whenever used in any Request. + +2. Consistent with Local Civil Rule 26.3(a), the definitions set forth at Local Civil Rule 26.3(c)(1)-(7) of "communication," "document," "identify," "parties," "person," and "concerning" are incorporated herein by reference. + +3. The "Complaint" means the complaint filed in the above-captioned litigation as ECF No. I. + +4. "Communication" is used in the broadest sense permissible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(aXIXA) and Local Civil Rule 26.3(c)(I) and includes any transmittal of information (in the form of facts, ideas, inquiries, or otherwise). + +5. "Defendants" refers to Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as the Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (as defined by Local Civil Rule 26.3(c)(5)), including any other names, nicknames, images, or icons by which they are known. + +6. "Document" is defined as set forth in Local Civil Rule 26.3(c)(2) and is synonymous in meaning and equal in scope to the usage of the term "documents or electronically stored information" in Rule 34(a)(I)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A draft or nonidentical copy is a separate document within the meaning of this term. + +7. "Includes" and "including" mean "includes but not limited to" and "including but not limited to" respectively. + +8. "This litigation" means the above-captioned litigation, Jane Doe v. Darren K Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, No. 1:19-cv-08673 (KPF) (DCF) (S.D.N.Y.). + +9. "Person" is used in the broadest sense permissible under Local Civil Rule 26.3(c)(6) and includes any natural person or any legal entity, including, without limitation, any business or governmental entity or association. + +10. "Plaintiff" refers to Plaintiff Jane Doe (as defined by Local Civil Rule 26.3(c)(5)), including any other names, nicknames, images, or icons by which she is known. + +I I. "Epstein" refers to Jeffrey E. Epstein, the decedent whose estate Defendants are charged with executing, including any other names, nicknames, images or icons by which he was known. + +12. "Relating" or "related" means affecting, concerning, constituting, dealing with, describing, embodying, evidencing, identifying, involving, providing a basis for, reflecting, regarding, respecting, stating, or in any manner whatsoever pertaining, in whole or in part, to that subject. + +13. "You," "Your," or "Yours" refers to Defendants, as defined above. + +## INSTRUCTIONS + +Solely for the purpose of the Requests, the following instructions shall apply: + +1. The documents called for by these Requests are documents in Your possession, custody, or control, or the possession, custody, or control of anyone acting on your behalf. + +2. Your responses to these Requests shall be based on all knowledge and information in Epstein's possession, custody, or control or that of Epstein's current or former agents, representatives, employees, or anyone acting on Epstein's behalf and should be provided irrespective of the Federal Rules of Evidence. + +3. The singular includes the plural and vice versa, except as the context may otherwise require; any Request propounded in the present tense shall also be read as if propounded in the + +past tense and vice versa; whenever a term is used herein in the present, past, future, subjunctive, or other tense, voice, or mood, it shall also be construed to include all other tenses, voices, or moods; reference to any gender includes all genders; the words "any" and "or" shall be construed either conjunctively or disjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the Request all responses that might otherwise be construed to be outside its scope; the terms "all," "any," and "each" shall each be construed as encompassing "any" and "all"; the word "including" means "including but not limited to." + +4. These Requests seek production of all documents, in their entirety, along with any attachments, drafts, and non-identical copies. A document with handwritten, typewritten, or other recorded notes, editing marks, etc., is not and shall not be deemed identical to one without such modifications, additions, or deletions. + +5. Responsive documents should be produced in the manner prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including producing the requested documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or organized and labeled to correspond to the categories in the Requests, and in accordance with any order entered by the Court concerning the production of discovery materials. + +6. To the extent that responsive documents are located on a Social Media platform, Defendants should produce the documents directly from the platform. + +7. Questions regarding the interpretation of these Requests should be resolved in favor of the broadest possible construction. Any ambiguity in a Request shall be construed to bring within the scope of the Request all documents that otherwise could be construed to be outside of its scope. If, in responding to any of these Requests, You encounter any ambiguity or confusion in construing either a Request or a Definition or Instruction relevant to a Request, set forth the matter deemed ambiguous, select a reasonable interpretation that You believe resolves the ambiguity, respond to the Request using that interpretation, and explain with particularity the construction or interpretation selected by You in responding to the Request. + +8. If You object to the production of a document in relation to a specific Request, state with particularity the legal and factual basis for your objection(s) with respect to such Request. You should respond to all portions of that Request that do not fall within the scope of Your objection. If You object to a Request on the ground that it is overly broad, provide such documents that are within the scope of production that You believe is appropriate. If You object to a Request on the ground that to provide responsive documents would constitute an undue burden, provide such responsive documents as You believe can be supplied without undertaking an undue burden. + +9. Consistent with Local Civil Rule 26.2, to the extent You believe any Request does request a document that could be withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other right of non-disclosure, furnish a list identifying the documents or information for which the protection is claimed together with the following: (i) the type of document (e.g., letter or memorandum); (ii) the general subject matter of the document; (iii) the date of the document; (iv) the author of the document, the addressees of the document, and any other recipients, and, where not apparent, the relationship of the author, addressees, and recipients to each other; and (v) the nature of the privilege that is being claimed. To the extent a requested document contains non-privileged information, the privileged information shall be redacted from the same and the redacted version of the document or thing produced. + +10. If any requested document or other document potentially relevant to this action is subject to destruction under any document retention or destruction program, the document should + +be exempted from any scheduled destruction and should not be destroyed until the conclusion of this action or unless otherwise permitted by the Court. + +II. These Requests are continuing in nature. If, after producing the requested documents, You obtain or become aware of any further documents responsive to these Requests or if additional information You or any persons acting on Your behalf obtain would augment, clarify, or otherwise modify Your responses, You are required to supplement Your responses and produce such additional documents pursuant to Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. + +12. These Requests are without prejudice to, or waiver of, Plaintiff's right to conduct further discovery. + +13. Unless otherwise indicated, the Requests seek documents generated, created, received, or distributed on or after January 1, 2000. + +## DOCUMENT REQUESTS + +1. All documents and communications relating to Plaintiff's claims in this lawsuit or any of the allegations in the Complaint. + +2. All documents relating to Plaintiff. + +3. All communications relating to Plaintiff, including all communications involving Epstein and/or his current or former agents, employees, or anyone acting on his behalf. + +4. All communications with Plaintiff, including all communications between Epstein or his current or former agents, employees, or anyone acting on Epstein's behalf and Plaintiff + +5. All photographs, video recordings, audio recordings, or other images or recordings of Plaintiff. + +6. All statements made by Epstein about Plaintiff, and any documents or communications relating to such statements. + +7. All documents containing Plaintiff's address or telephone number, including any address book or list of contacts maintained by Epstein or his current or former agents, employees, or anyone acting on Epstein's behalf. + +8. Documents sufficient to show any phone numbers used by Epstein or his current or former agents, representatives, employees, investigators, attorneys, or anyone acting on Epstein's behalf to contact Plaintiff. + +9. All documents and communications reflecting any appointments, meetings, visits, phone calls or other communications or in-person contact between Epstein and Plaintiff, including Epstein's calendar and datebook. + +10. All documents and communications relating to any payments made to Plaintiff by Epstein or his current or former agents, representatives, employees, investigators, attorneys, or anyone acting on Epstein's behalf. + +II. All documents and communications relating to any gifts or other purchases made by Epstein or any of his current or former agents, representatives, employees, investigators, attorneys, or anyone acting on Epstein's behalf for Plaintiff, including documents and communications relating to a furniture delivery to Plaintiff's apartment in Astoria, Queens. + +12. All documents and communications relating to Plaintiff and the State of Florida's and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida's investigations into Epstein, including communications with the authorities and documents and communications relating to Epstein's retention of attorneys to represent Plaintiff. + +13. All documents and communications relating to Epstein's retention of attorneys to represent Plaintiff in any matter. + +14. All documents and communications relating to "Minor Victim 1" in the indictment + +issued by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York against Epstein in July 2019. + +15. All documents and communications relating to Epstein's decision to amend his will on August 8, 2019, including Epstein's prior wills. + +16. All documents and communications not produced in response to any other Request(s) that Defendants intend to, or do, identify, use, reference, or rely upon in answering any interrogatory, in any deposition, in preparing any motion or other filing, and at any Court conference, hearing, or trial in this case. + +17. All documents and communications not produced in response to any other Request(s) concerning any facts, circumstances, or allegations set forth in the Complaint. + +Dated: New York, New York +March 10, 2020 + +By: + +![]()Roberta A. Kaplan +Kate L. Doniger +Alexandra Conlon +Kyla Magun +Louis W. Fisher +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP +350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 +New York, NY 10118 +(212) 763-0883 +rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com +kdoniger@kaplanhecker.com +aconlon@kaplanhecker.com +kmagun@kaplanhecker.com +lfisher@kaplanhecker.com + +# Exhibit C + +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaint + +v. + +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, + +Defendants. + +Case No. 19 Civ. 8673 (KPF) (DCF) + +#### PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' FIRST REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS + +Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the Southern District of New York (together, the "Rules"), Plaintiff Jane Doe, by and through her attorneys, submits these responses and objections ("Responses") to Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Defendants") First Request for the Production of Documents dated March 10, 2020. + +The Definitions and Instructions below form an integral part of the Requests that follow and must be read in conjunction with the Requests and followed when responding to the Requests. + +#### GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES + +The following general objections and responses (the "General Objections") are incorporated into each specific objection and response (the "Specific Objections") as if fully set forth therein: + +- I. Plaintiff objects to the Requests to the extent they are duplicative, cumulative, or seek information that has been or will be provided through other means of discovery. + +2. Plaintiff objects to the Requests to the extent they are vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, seek information not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party, or are not proportional to the needs of the case. + +3. Plaintiff objects to the Requests to the extent they impose any obligations or requirements beyond the scope of the Rules or any case law interpreting them. + +4. Plaintiff's Responses are not intended to be and shall not be construed as an agreement or concurrence that all information provided is admissible. + +5. Plaintiff objects to each Request to the extent that it calls for documents that: (a) are already in Defendants' possession, custody, or control; (b) are publicly available; or (c) are otherwise independently available to Defendants or their counsel. + +6. Plaintiff objects to the Requests to the extent they purport to call for documents or information that: (a) are subject to the attorney-client privilege; (b) constitute attorney work product; (c) are protected from disclosure based on common interest or a similar privilege; or (d) are otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable privilege, law, or rule. Plaintiff will not produce such information in response to the Requests, and any inadvertent production thereof shall not be deemed a waiver of any privilege with respect to such information. + +7. Plaintiff objects to the Requests to the extent they seek information protected by federal or state law. Except to the extent permitted by an applicable exception or court order, Plaintiff will not disclose any information in violation of federal or state law. + +8. Plaintiff objects to the Requests to the extent they require unreasonable measures to locate and produce responsive documents. Plaintiff will construe the Requests to require a reasonable and diligent search of her reasonably-accessible files where she would reasonably expect to find information, documents, or things related to the Requests, and specifically states that she will limit her search for electronically stored information by use of identified search terms to be agreed upon by the Parties. + +9. Plaintiff objects to the Requests, and in particular, Definitions No. 4 and Instructions Nos. 2 and 4, to the extent that they seek information or documents that are not within Plaintiff's possession, custody, or control. Subject to this General Objection, in responding to the Requests, Plaintiff will provide only responsive, non-privileged documents within Plaintiff's own possession, custody, or control. + +10. Plaintiff objects to Instruction No. 3 insofar as it seeks to impose obligations greater than those imposed by the Rules or any other applicable law or rule. + +II. Plaintiff objects to Instruction No. 4 insofar as it imposes obligations greater than those imposed by the Rules and it seeks information or documents that are not within Plaintiff's possession, custody, or control. + +12. Plaintiff objects to Instruction No. 11 to the extent that it seeks information or documents beyond the time period relevant to the allegations listed in the Complaint (ECF I). + +13. Plaintiff objects to each Request to the extent that it asks Plaintiff to identify "all" documents, communications, information etc., on the ground that each such Request is overly broad and that compliance with each such Request would be unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of this case. + +14. Plaintiff objects to each Request to the extent that it seeks information or documents beyond the time period relevant to Plaintiff's claims. + +15. Plaintiff objects to the Requests to the extent they contain express or implied assumptions of fact or law with respect to matters at issue in this case. Plaintiff's Responses to the Requests are not intended to be and shall not be construed as an agreement or concurrence with Defendants' characterization of any facts, circumstances, or legal obligations. Plaintiff reserves the right to contest any such characterization as inaccurate. + +16. Plaintiff expressly reserves all rights and privileges under the Rules and any other applicable law or rule. The failure to assert such rights and privileges or the inadvertent disclosure by Plaintiff of information or documents protected by such rights or privileges shall not constitute a waiver thereof, either with respect to these Responses or with respect to any future discovery objections or responses. + +17. The fact that Plaintiff has responded to a particular Request shall not be interpreted as implying that Plaintiff acknowledges the propriety of that Request. + +18. Plaintiff's Responses to the Requests are made to the best of Plaintiff's present knowledge, information, and belief. These Responses are at all times subject to such additional or different information that discovery or further investigation may disclose and, while based on the present state of Plaintiff's knowledge and investigation, are subject to such additional knowledge of facts as may result from Plaintiff's further discovery or investigation. + +19. Plaintiff reserves the right to make any use of, or to introduce at any hearing and at trial, information responsive to the Requests but discovered subsequent to the date of these Responses, including, but not limited to, any such information obtained in discovery herein. + +20. Plaintiff reserves all objections or other questions as to the competency, relevance, materiality, privilege, or admissibility of Plaintiff's Responses herein and any documents produced subject thereto, as evidence in any subsequent proceeding in, or trial of, this or any other action, or for any other purpose whatsoever. + +21. Plaintiff's Responses to the Requests will be subject to the protections of any Protective Order entered by the Court governing the handling of confidential material in this case. + +22. Plaintiff will produce responsive documents pursuant to its General and Specific Objections on a rolling basis. + +23. Plaintiff is available to meet and confer with Defendants in an effort to resolve any disputes that may arise concerning these Responses. + +#### SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES + +#### REOUEST NO. I + +All documents and communications with or otherwise concerning Decedent. This includes, without limitation, all communications concerning Decedent which are to, from, or which copy: (i) members of the press, media or publishing industry; (ii) law enforcement personnel; (iii) government agents, including, without limitation, prosecutors and government attorneys; and communications which are to, from, or which copy you or your attorneys, on the one hand, and other persons who have filed lawsuits or made claims against Decedent or his estate, or such other persons' attorneys, on the other hand. + +#### RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. I + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 1 on the ground that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information not relevant to either party's claims or defenses in this litigation, and will withhold responsive documents and communications, if any, based on this objection. Plaintiff further objects to Request No. 1 to the extent it calls for the production of documents and communications that are subject to the attorney-client privilege, constitute attorney work product, or are otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable privilege, law, or rule, and will withhold responsive documents and communications, if any, based on this objection. + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents and communications concerning the claims and defenses in this litigation and responsive to this request, if any. + +#### REOUEST NO. 2 + +To the extent not otherwise produced in response to the foregoing, all documents and communications concerning any other legal proceeding or investigation that concerns Decedent. + +#### RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 2 + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents and communications that are responsive to this request, if any. + +#### REQUEST NO.3 + +To the extent not otherwise produced in response to the foregoing, all non-privileged documents and communications concerning this litigation. + +#### RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.3 + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 3 on the ground that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information not relevant to either party's claims or defenses to the extent that "concerning this litigation" has a meaning other than "concerning the claims and defenses in this litigation" and will withhold responsive documents and communications, if any, based on this objection. + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents and communications concerning the claims and defenses at issue in this litigation, if any. + +#### REOUEST NO.4 + +A copy of your birth certificate. + +#### RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO.4 + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 4 on the ground that it seeks information not relevant to either party's claims or defenses, and will withhold responsive documents and communications, i f any, based on this objection. + +#### REOUEST NO.5 + +Copies of all of your passports. + +#### RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO.5 + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 5 on the ground that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information not relevant to either party's claims or defenses to the extent it requests all Plaintiff's passports, and will withhold responsive documents and communications, if any, based on this objection. + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce a copy of her current passport, if any. + +#### REQUEST NO.6 + +Documents sufficient to establish your place of residency at all times during the relevant time period. + +## RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.6 + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 6 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined phrase "sufficient to establish." + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents, if any, that demonstrate Plaintiff's residency (1) during the period relevant to the allegations in the Complaint and (2) at present. + +#### REQUEST NO.7 + +Documents sufficient to establish your domicile at all times during the relevant time period. + +#### RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.7 + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 7 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined phrase "sufficient to establish." + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents, if any, that demonstrate Plaintiff's domicile (1) during the period relevant to the allegations in the Complaint and (2) at present. + +#### REOUEST NO. 8 + +Documents sufficient to identify the location, nature, and scope of your employment during the relevant time period. + +#### RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 8 + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 8 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined phrase "sufficient to identify" and the terms "nature" and "scope." + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents and communications demonstrating her employment that are responsive to this request, if any. + +#### REQUEST NO.9 + +Documents sufficient to identify the source, nature, and scope of all financial support or income you received during the relevant time period. + +#### RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.9 + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 9 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined phrase "sufficient to identify," and the terms "nature" and "scope." + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents and communications demonstrating her financial support and income that are responsive to this request, if any. + +#### REQUEST NO. 10 + +Documents sufficient to establish your complete academic history. + +#### RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 10 + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 10 on the ground that it seeks information not relevant to either party's claims or defenses to the extent that it seeks documents concerning Plaintiff's "complete academic history" (emphasis added). Plaintiff further objects to the Request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined phrases "sufficient to establish" and "academic history." + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents that demonstrate Plaintiff's academic history during the relevant time period, if any. + +#### REOUEST NO. 11 + +Documents sufficient to identify all telephone numbers you used during the relevant time period. + +#### RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11 + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 11 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined phrase "sufficient to identify." + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents to identify each of Plaintiff's telephone numbers during the relevant time period, if any. + +#### REOUEST NO. 12 + +Documents sufficient to identify all email addresses you used during the relevant time period. + +#### RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 12 + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 12 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined phrase "sufficient to identify." + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents to identify each of Plaintiff's email addresses during the relevant time period, if any. + +#### REQUEST NO. 13 + +All documents and communications concerning all medical procedures and consultations you received during the relevant time period. + +#### RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13 + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 13 on the ground that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information not relevant to either party's claims or defenses to the extent that it seeks documents and communications concerning "all medical procedures and consultations" (emphasis added) regardless of the relation to the allegations in the Complaint, and will withhold responsive documents and communications, if any, based on this objection. + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents and communications concerning medical procedures and consultations received by Plaintiff during the relevant time period that relate to allegations of the Complaint, if any. + +## REQUEST NO. 14 + +Regardless of date and the relation (or lack thereof) to Decedent's acts and omissions alleged in the Complaint or otherwise, all documents and communications concerning all medical procedures and consultations you received evidencing or otherwise concerning the following conditions: + +- a. an eating disorder, +- b. emotional distress, +- c. psychological or psychiatric trauma, +- d. mental anguish, +- e. humiliation, +- f. confusion, +- g. embarrassment, +- h. loss of self-esteem, +- i. loss of dignity, +- j. loss of enjoyment of life, +- k. pain, +- I. suffering, or +- m. any condition that would require surgery to correct. + +#### RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 14 + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 14 on the ground that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information not relevant to either party's claims or defenses to the extent that it seeks documents and communications concerning "all medical procedures and consultations" regardless of the relation to the allegations in the Complaint and to the extent it requests information for "any condition that would require surgery to correct," and will withhold responsive documents and communications, if any, based on this objection. Plaintiff further objects to Request No. 14 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined phrase "evidencing or otherwise concerning." + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents and communications concerning medical procedures and consultations received by Plaintiff concerning the aforementioned conditions that relate to the allegations in the Complaint, if any. + +#### REQUEST NO. 15 + +To the extent not otherwise produced in response to the foregoing request and regardless of date and the relation (or lack thereof) to Decedent's acts and omissions alleged in the Complaint or otherwise, all documents and communications evidencing or otherwise concerning your experience of the same or similar conditions and damages for which you seek recovery from Defendants in this litigation. + +#### RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 15 + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 15 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined phrase "similar conditions and damages" and the term "evidencing." + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents and communications concerning her experience of the same conditions and damages from which she seeks recovery in this litigation, if any. + +#### REOUEST NO. 16 + +To the extent not otherwise responsive to these requests, all documents and communications concerning anything of value you received from Decedent. + +#### RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 16 + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 16 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined phrase "anything of value." + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents and communications concerning anything of monetary value she received from Decedent, if any. + +#### REQUEST NO. 17 + +To the extent not otherwise responsive to these requests, all documents and communications concerning your allegations in the Complaint. + +#### RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 17 + +Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents and communications not otherwise responsive to other Requests concerning the allegations in the Complaint, if any. + +#### REQUEST NO. 18 + +To the extent not otherwise responsive to these requests, all documents and communications upon which you intend to rely in this litigation, including but not limited to in the course of depositions, in support of any motion, and at any hearing and trial. + +#### RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 18 + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 18 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined phrase "intend to rely." Plaintiff objects to Request No. 18 to the extent that it requires Plaintiff to speculate as to which documents and communications Plaintiff may or may not reference later in this litigation. + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents and communications not otherwise responsive to other Requests that Plaintiff presently plans to rely on in this litigation, if any. + +#### REOUEST NO. 19 + +To the extent not otherwise produced in response to these requests, all documents and communications evidencing or otherwise concerning any damages you allege you suffered concerning the allegations in your Complaint, including but not limited to all medical fees, attorneys' fees and lost wages. + +#### RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO.19 + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 19 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined phrase "evidencing or otherwise concerning." + +Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents and communications not otherwise responsive to other Requests concerning Plaintiff's damages suffered as a result of the allegations in the Complaint, if any. + +#### REOUEST NO.19 + +MI documents Identified in your response to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff. + +#### RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO.19 + +Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents not otherwise responsive to other Requests that Plaintiff identified in response to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories to Plainti fr. if any. + +Dated: April 16, 2020 Respectfully submitted, New York, NY + +By: + +Roberta A. Kaplan Kate L. Doniger Alexandra Conlon + +Kyla Magun Louis W. Fisher KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 (212) 763-0883 rkaplan@lcaplanhecker.com kdoniger@kaplanhecker.com aconlon@kaplanhecker.com kmagun@kaplanhecker.com Ifisher@kaplanhecker.com + +Attorneys for Plaintiff + +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaint + +v. + +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, + +Defendants. + +Case No. 19 Civ. 8673 (KPF) (DCF) + +#### PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES + +Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the Southern District of New York (together, the "Rules"), Plaintiff Jane Doe, by and through her attorneys, submits these responses and objections ("Responses") to Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Defendants") First Set of Interrogatories dated March 10, 2020 (the "Interrogatories"). + +#### GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES + +The following general objections and responses (the "General Objections") are incorporated into each specific objection and response (the "Specific Objections") as if fully set forth therein: + +- 1. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they are duplicative, cumulative, or seek information that has been or will be provided through other means of discovery. +- 2. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they are vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, seek information not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party, or are not proportional to the needs of the case. + +3. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they impose any obligations or requirements beyond the scope of the Rules or any case law interpreting them. + +4. Plaintiff's Responses are not intended to be and shall not be construed as an agreement or concurrence that all information provided is admissible. + +5. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they call for documents that: (a) are already in Defendants' possession, custody, or control; (b) are publicly available; or (c) are otherwise independently available to Defendants or their counsel. + +6. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they purport to call for documents or information that: (a) are subject to the attorney-client privilege; (b) constitute attorney work product; (c) are protected from disclosure based on common interest or a similar privilege; or (d) are otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable privilege, law, or rule. Plaintiff will not produce such information in response to the Interrogatories, and any inadvertent production thereof shall not be deemed a waiver of any privilege with respect to such information. + +7. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek information protected by federal or state law. Except to the extent permitted by an applicable exception or court order, Plaintiff will not disclose any information in violation of federal or state law. + +8. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they require unreasonable measures to locate and produce responsive documents. Plaintiff will construe the Interrogatories to require a reasonable and diligent search of her reasonably-accessible files where she would reasonably expect to find information, documents, or things related to the Interrogatories, and specifically states that she will limit her search for electronically stored information by use of identified search terms to be agreed upon by the Parties. + +9. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they include "discrete subparts" but are listed as one individual Interrogatory, pursuant to Rule 33(aX I). + +10. Plaintiff objects to Definition No. 1 to the extent that it imposes obligations greater than those imposed by the Rules. + +II. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories, and in particular, Definitions No. 4 and Instructions No. 5, to the extent that they seek information or documents that are not within Plaintiff's possession, custody, or control. Subject to this General Objection, in responding to the Requests, Plaintiff will provide only responsive, non-privileged documents within Plaintiff's possession, custody, or control. + +12. Plaintiff objects to Instruction No. 7 to the extent it calls for speculation. + +13. Plaintiff objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it asks Plaintiff to identify "each" or "all" persons, documents, communications, etc., on the ground that each such Interrogatory is overly broad and that compliance with each such Interrogatory would be unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of this case. + +14. Plaintiff objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information or documents beyond the time period relevant to the allegations in the Complaint. + +15. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they contain express or implied assumptions of fact or law with respect to matters at issue in this case. Plaintiff's Responses are not intended to be and shall not be construed as an agreement or concurrence with Defendants' characterization of any facts, circumstances, or legal obligations. Plaintiff reserves the right to contest any such characterization as inaccurate. + +16. Plaintiff expressly reserves all rights and privileges under the Rules and any other applicable law or rule. The failure to assert such rights and privileges or the inadvertent disclosure by Plaintiff of information or documents protected by such rights or privileges shall not constitute + +a waiver thereof, either with respect to these Responses or with respect to any future discovery objections or responses. + +17. The fact that Plaintiff has responded to a particular Interrogatory shall not be interpreted as implying that Plaintiff acknowledges the propriety of that Interrogatory. + +18. Plaintiff's Responses to the Interrogatories are made to the best of Plaintiff's present knowledge, information, and belief. These Responses are at all times subject to such additional or different information that discovery or further investigation may disclose and, while based on the present state of Plaintiff's knowledge and investigation, are subject to such additional knowledge of facts as may result from Plaintiff's further discovery or investigation. + +19. Plaintiff reserves the right to make any use of, or to introduce at any hearing and at trial, information responsive to the Interrogatories but discovered subsequent to the date of these Responses, including, but not limited to, any such information obtained in discovery herein. + +20. Plaintiff reserves all objections or other questions as to the competency, relevance, materiality, privilege, or admissibility of Plaintiff's Responses herein and any documents produced subject thereto, as evidence in any subsequent proceeding in, or trial of, this or any other action, or for any other purpose whatsoever. + +21. Plaintiff's Responses to the Interrogatories will be subject to the protections of any Protective Order entered by the Court governing the handling of confidential material in this case. + +#### SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES + +#### INTERROGATORY NO. 1 + +Identify all persons with knowledge of information concerning the subject matter of this litigation, and the subject matter of their knowledge. + +#### RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. I + +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. I as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information that is not relevant to any party's claims or defenses and disproportionate to the needs of this case to the extent it requests the identification of all persons with knowledge of information concerning "the subject matter of the litigation." Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. I on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the phrase "the subject matter of this litigation." Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 1 on the ground that it calls for Plaintiff to speculate as to the scope of someone else's knowledge. + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff identifies the following persons whom Plaintiff believes have direct, relevant knowledge or information about the allegations in the Complaint: + +| Name | Subjects of Information | +|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------| +| Lesley Groff | The allegations in the Complaint, including that Jeffrey | +| Dr. Dawn Hughes | Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of Plaintiff, including | +| Luisaale | Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of Plaintiff. | +| Diarmuid =, | Esq. Jeffrey Epstein's retention of Mr. to represent | +| Enisa Barisha | The allegations in the Complaint. | +| Leeighann = | The allegations in the Complaint. | + +| Gracileia Morris | The allegations in the Complaint. | +|------------------|-----------------------------------| +|------------------|-----------------------------------| + +#### INTERROGATORY NO.2 + +Identify and describe the computation of each category of damages for which you seek recovery in this litigation. + +#### RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.2 + +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 2 on the basis that it requires expert opinion to determine the computation of each category of damages. + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff discloses that she is entitled to recover damages in the form of, inter alia, actual damages, compensatory damages, statutory damages, consequential damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. + +## INTERROGATORY NO.3 + +Identify the existence, custodian and location of, and generally describe, all documents and communications concerning the subject matter of this litigation. + +#### RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.3 + +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 3 as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information that is not relevant to any party's claims or defenses and disproportionate to the needs of this case to the extent it requests the identification of all documents and communications concerning "the subject matter of the litigation." Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 3 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the phrases "generally describe" and "the subject matter of this litigation." + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will identify non-privileged, responsive documents and communications concerning the allegations in the Complaint, if any, when such communications are produced in response to Defendants' First Requests for Production ("Defendants' RFPs"), subject to Plaintiff's general and specific responses and objections thereto. + +Plaintiff refers Defendants to Plaintiffs Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First Requests for Production of Documents ("Plaintiff's RFP Responses"). + +#### INTERROGATORY NO.4 + +Identify each employee of, agent of, or other individual associated with Decedent with whom you communicated or interacted; and identify the date of, and describe the nature of, each such communication or interaction. + +#### RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.4 + +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 4 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the phrase "associated with." + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff first refers Defendants to the Complaint and the allegations therein. Plaintiff also identifies and Lesley Groff. Plaintiff states that she interacted with and Groff between approximately 2002 and 2005 to schedule her visits to Decedent's Upper East Side mansion, and that and Groff periodically made payments to Plaintiff on Decedent's behalf during that time. Plaintiff further states that she interacted with other individuals employed by and/or associated with Decedent in his Upper East Side mansion, including maids, butlers/doormen, and drivers, among others, between approximately 2002 and 2005. + +#### INTERROGATORY NO.5 + +Describe with particularity all duties owed to you by Decedent. + +## RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.5 + +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 5 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the phrase "duties owed to you." Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 5 on the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion. + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, for information concerning the nature of the relationship between Decedent and Plaintiff, Plaintiff refers Defendants to the Complaint and the allegations therein, as well as Plaintiff's RFP Responses. + +#### INTERROGATORY NO.6 + +Identify and describe with particularity each act or omission on the part of Decedent that you allege constitutes a breach of a duty owed to you. For each act or omission identified, identify the date of the alleged act or omission, all persons with knowledge of the facts set forth in your response to this interrogatory, and all documents evidencing or otherwise concerning the information set forth in your response to this interrogatory. + +#### RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.6 + +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 6 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined term "evidencing." Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 6 on the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion. Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 6 on the ground that it calls for Plaintiff to speculate as to the scope of someone else's knowledge. + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, for information concerning the interactions between Decedent and Plaintiff, Plaintiff refers Defendants to the Complaint and the allegations therein, as well as Plaintiff's RFP Responses. + +#### INTERROGATORY NO.7 + +Identify and describe with particularity each act or omission on the part of Decedent that you allege constitutes a violation of New York Penal Law § 130. For each act or omission identified, identify the date of the alleged act or omission, all persons with knowledge of the facts set forth in your response to this interrogatory, and all documents evidencing or otherwise concerning the information set forth in your response to this interrogatory. + +#### RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.7 + +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 7 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined term "evidencing." Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 7 on the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion. Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 7 on the ground that it calls for Plaintiff to speculate as to the scope of someone else's knowledge. + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff refers Defendants to Plaintiff's Response to Interrogatory No. 1, the Complaint and the allegations therein, as well as Plaintiff's RFP Responses. + +#### INTERROGATORY NO.8 + +Identify with particularity each act or omission on the part of Decedent that you allege constitutes a tort. For each act or omission identified, identify the date of the alleged act or omission, the tort you allege the act or omission constitutes, all persons with knowledge of the information set forth in your response to this interrogatory, and all documents evidencing or otherwise concerning such information. + +#### RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.8 + +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 8 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined term "evidencing." Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 8 on the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion. Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 8 on the ground that it calls for Plaintiff to speculate as to the scope of someone else's knowledge. + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff refers Defendants to Plaintiff's Response to Interrogatory No. 1, the Complaint and the allegations therein, as well as Plaintiff's RFP Responses. + +#### INTERROGATORY NO. 9 + +Identify all persons other than Decedent who have ever committed or attempted to commit sexual misconduct or offenses against or otherwise concerning you, including, without limitation, any unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature, sexual abuse, sexual assault, threats or intimidation of a sexual nature, or sexual exploitation, regardless of whether the misconduct or offenses involved physical touching. For each person identified, identify the misconduct or offense committed, and the date and location of the misconduct or offense. + +#### RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9 + +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 9 as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information that is not relevant to any party's claims or defenses and disproportionate to the needs of this case to the extent it requests the identification of "all persons" who have "committed or attempted to commit sexual misconduct or offenses against or otherwise concerning you," including, for example, "any unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature," regardless of the relation to the allegations in the Complaint and regardless of the severity of the behavior, and to the extent it requests the "location of the misconduct or offense." Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 9 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the phrases "unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature" and "threats or intimidation of a sexual nature." + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff states that her stepfather, Aderbal Felisbino, committed acts of sexual abuse against her on a number of occasions between when she was approximately eight years old and approximately thirteen years old. + +## INTERROGATORY NO. 10 + +Identify all medical procedures and consultations you received, including the dates of each procedure and consultation, the locations of each procedure and consultation, and the identities of all medical providers who conducted or otherwise participated in each procedure and consultation. The relevant time period for this interrogatory is the date on which you first learned of Decedent through the date of your responses to these interrogatories. + +#### RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10 + +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 10 as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information that is not relevant to any party's claims or defenses and disproportionate to the needs of this case to the extent it requests the identification of "all medical procedures and consultations," regardless of the relation to the allegations in the Complaint and "the identities of all medical + +providers who . . . otherwise participated in each procedure and consultation," regardless of his or her role in the procedure or consultation. + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff identifies the following mental and/or physical health care providers who provided treatment or services relevant to the claims and defenses in this action: + +| Provider | Treatment Type | +|---------------------------------|--------------------------------| +| Dr. Peter | Primary and Mental Health care | +| 535 West 110th Street, Suite 1E | | + +Plaintiff further refers Defendants to the documents produced in response to Request No. 13 of Defendants' RFPs. + +#### INTERROGATORY NO. 11 + +Regardless of date and the relation (or lack thereof) to Decedent's acts and omissions alleged in the Complaint or otherwise, identify all medical procedures and consultations you received evidencing or otherwise concerning the following conditions: + +- a. an eating disorder, +- b. emotional distress, +- c. psychological or psychiatric trauma, +- d. mental anguish, +- e. humiliation, +- f. confusion, +- g. embarrassment, + +- h. loss of self-esteem, +- i. loss of dignity, +- j. loss of enjoyment of life, +- k. pain, +- I. suffering, or +- m. any condition that would require surgery to correct + +#### RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11 + +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. II on the ground that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information not relevant to either party's claims or defenses to the extent that it seeks documents and communications concerning "all medical procedures and consultations" regardless of the relation to the allegations in the Complaint and to the extent it requests information for "any condition that would require surgery to correct." Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 11 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined term "evidencing." + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff refers Defendants to her Response to Interrogatory No. 10 and to the documents produced in response to Request No. 14 of Defendants' RFPs. + +#### INTERROGATORY NO. 12 + +State whether you have ever experienced the same or similar conditions and damages, for which you seek recovery from Defendants in this litigation, as a result of acts or omissions by persons other than Decedent. If you answer this interrogatory in the affirmative: identify each such person; describe the acts or omissions that resulted in the damages; identify the dates and locations of such acts and omissions; and describe the damages that resulted. + +#### RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12 + +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 12 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined phrase "similar conditions and damages." Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 12 on the ground that it calls for speculation. Plaintiff also objects to + +Interrogatory No. 12 on the basis that the determination as to whether Plaintiff has experienced "the same or similar conditions or damages . . .as a result of acts or omissions by persons other than Decedent" calls for an expert opinion. + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff refers Defendants to the forthcoming expert reports in this Litigation. + +#### INTERROGATORY NO. 13 + +Identify all things of value you received from Decedent, including a description of the thing, the date on which you received the thing, and the person who tendered the thing to you. + +#### RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13 + +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 13 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined phrase "things of value." + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff refers Defendants to the Complaint and the allegations therein, as well as Plaintiff's Response to RFP No. 16. Plaintiff states that she received numerous cash payments between 2002 and 2005 from Decedent and Decedent's associates, and Lesley Groff, on Decedent's behalf. Plaintiff further states that she received a shipment of furniture from Decedent to her home in Astoria between 2002 and 2005, delivered by men employed by Decedent. + +#### INTERROGATORY NO. 14 + +Identify all documents and communications upon which you intend to rely in this litigation, including but not limited to in the course of depositions, in support of any motion, and at any hearing or trial. + +#### RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14 + +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 14 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined phrase "intend to rely." Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory + +No. 14 to the extent that it requires Plaintiff to speculate as to which documents and communications Plaintiff may or may not reference later in this litigation. + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff refers Defendants to documents and communications produced in response to Defendants' RFPs, if any. + +#### INTERROGATORY NO. 15 + +Identify all documents and communications evidencing or otherwise concerning damages and everything else for which you seek recovery in this litigation, including but not limited to damages you allege in your Complaint, medical fees, attorneys' fees and lost wages. + +#### RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15 + +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 15 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined term "evidencing." + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff refers Defendants to documents and communications produced in response to Defendants' RFPs. + +Dated: April 16, 2020 Respectfully submitted, New York, NY + +By: + +Roberta A. Kaplan Kate L. Doniger Alexandra Conlon Kyla Magun Louis W. Fisher KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 (212) 763-0883 rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com kdoniger@kaplanhecker.com aconlon®kaplanhecker.com kmagun@kaplanhecker.com Ifisher@kaplanhecker.com + +Attorneys for Plaintiff' + +# Exhibit D + +#### BY EMAIL + +Bennet J. Moskowitz Troutman Sanders LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 + +Dear Bennet: + +NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 + +TEL (212) 763-0883 I FAX (212) 564-0883 + +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM + +DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0884 + +DIRECT EMAIL rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com + +June 5, 2020 + +Re: Doe v. Indyke et at, No. I9-cv-8673 (S.D.N.Y.) (KPF) (DCF) + +We write in response to Defendants' May 19, 2020 letter ("May 19 Letter") regarding Plaintiff's and Defendants' First Interrogatories and Requests for Production (respectively, "Plaintiff's Requests" and "Defendants' Requests") and the parties' respective Responses and Objections thereto. + +## I. Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Production + +#### A. Defendants' General Obligation to Conduct a Reasonable Inquiry + +As stated in our May 12, 2020 Letter ("May 12 Letter"), Plaintiff's position is simply that, in responding to Plaintiff's Requests, Defendants are obligated to provide reasonably obtainable information within the Estate's possession, custody, or control. It was necessary for Plaintiff to assert this uncontroversial principle only because, at the time of our letter, the Co-Executors had failed to meaningfully answer any of Plaintiff's Requests, although responsive information—such as, for example, Jeffrey Epstein's email address—was quite obviously within the custody or control of Epstein's Estate. Further, you repeatedly represented to us that Defendants' ability to identify responsive information was limited in light of Epstein's demise, a circumstance which in no way alleviates the Co-Executors' burden to take all reasonable steps to locate and produce responsive information, including by consulting records and individuals who are subject to the Estate's control. + +Since our May 12 Letter, Defendants have supplemented their responses, and it appears that, despite Defendants' lengthy argument that the cases Plaintiff cites for this principle are "inapplicable," Defendants agree that they must respond to discovery questions "using all + +reasonably obtainable information within their possession, custody or control." (May 19 Letter at 2.) We expect that the Co-Executors will comply with this obligation. + +#### I I. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendants' Interrogatories and Requests for Production + +#### A. Defendants' Interrogatories Nos. 10, 11 & 12 and Request Nos. 13 & 14: + +Defendants' Requests seek information about Plaintiff's entire medical history, without limitation as to time or content. Plaintiff has agreed to provide information relating to medical conditions, treatments, or services relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. Defendants are entitled to nothing more. + +Defendants' continued insistence that Plaintiff must produce her entire medical history and related records is flatly incorrect. Well-established precedent in this Circuit makes clear that Defendants do not have an "unfettered right to pursue discovery into [Plaintiff's] entire medical history." Manessis v. New York City Dep't of Transp., No. 02 Civ. 359, 2002 WL 31115032, at •2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2002) (Freeman, M.J.) (holding that, in an emotional distress claim, Defendants are "entitled to discover [Plaintiff's] mental health treatment records," but may "not pursue discovery into treatments [Plaintiff] may have received for any physical ailments." (emphasis added)); see also, e.g., Kunstler v. City of New York No. 04 Civ. 1145, 2006 WL 2516625, at •4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2006). + +In addition, Defendants' contention that Plaintiff "does not get to be the arbiter of what is 'relevant' to the claims and defenses in this matter, nor what is 'similar' to the conditions she alleges Mr. Epstein caused" is fundamentally incompatible with the principles and functional realities of civil discovery. (May 19 Letter at 4.) A responding party is not obligated to produce documents that are not "relevant to any party's claim or defense." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(bX1). And of course, it is Plaintiff who, through her counsel, must review her documents and information and determine what is responsive and discoverable and what is not. That does not mean that Defendants are without recourse to interrogate the completeness of Plaintiff's productions. As we explained during the meet and confer conference, Defendants may investigate Plaintiff's physical and mental health history through deposition testimony, her anticipated Rule 35 examination, and other discovery responses. If those or other discovery devices give Defendants' reason to believe that Plaintiff has additional, undisclosed medical problems that are relevant to the claims and defenses in this action, "then Defendants may appropriately seek medical records concerning that underlying medical problem." Manessis, 2002 WL 31115032, at \*2. + +To the extent Defendants continue to insist that Plaintiff's claims entitle them to dig unfettered through her entire medical history and records, despite clear case law to the contrary, we are, unfortunately, at an impasse. + +## B. Defendants' Requests No. 1 & 3: + +Defendants assert that they are "unconvinc[ed]" that communications solely in the custody of Plaintiff's attorneys and relating to this litigation and to Decedent will overwhelmingly be protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. (May 19 Letter at 4.) This assertion is ludicrous. To the extent these requests call for such communications, it is clear + +that the burden of attempting to identify non-privileged material in the entire universe of Plaintiff's counsel's communications concerning this case vastly outweighs the minimal potential benefit to Defendants in terms of discoverable information. For this reason, Plaintiff asked during the May 4, 2020 meet and confer that Defendants identify the specific categories of non-privileged, relevant counsel communications they are seeking. Defendants informed us that they are seeking (i) communications between Plaintiff's counsel and counsel for plaintiffs in similar pending cases against Epstein's Estate and (ii) communications between Plaintiff's counsel and journalists concerning Plaintiff's specific allegations. We address each category, and the related issues raised in the May 19 Letter, in turn. + +#### 1. Communications with counsel for other plaintiffs in similar pending cases + +As Plaintiffs May 12 Letter made clear, communications between Plaintiff's counsel and counsel to plaintiffs in similar suits against Defendants are protected from discovery by, at a minimum, the work product doctrine and the common interest privilege.' (May 12 Letter at 4.) + +Defendants' May 19 Letter fails to even address the fact that these communications are subject to the work product protection. As explained, Plaintiff's counsel has communicated with counsel for other plaintiffs about only matters of legal strategy—chiefly, regarding the proposed victim compensation program. Accordingly, those communications, which reflect Plaintiff's counsel's mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories, are subject to the protection of the work product doctrine. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3); In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated July 6, 2005, 510 F.3d 180, 183-84 (2d Cir. 2007). The fact that these communications involved nonparties to this case does not waive such protection. Spanierman Gallery, Profit Sharing Plan v. Merritt, No. 00 Civ. 5712, 2003 WL 22909160, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2003). Work product protection is waived by disclosure to a third partac vhen that disclosure makes disclosure to an adversary materially more likely. Favors v. 285 F.R.D. 187, 200 (E.D.N.Y. 2012). Disclosure of Plaintiff's strategy to counsel for other plaintiffs did not make disclosure to an adversary any more likely, given that all involved are similarly adverse to Defendants. See Thai-Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co. v. Gov't of Lao People's Democratic Republic, 945 F. Supp. 2d 431, 437 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (Freeman, Mi.); see also Costabile v. Westchester, New York, 254 F.R.D. 160, 166 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (holding work product protection was not waived in part because "there is very little chance that the report would be disclosed to defendants ... because plaintiffs and the [third party government agency] were aligned in interest"). Indeed, + +With respect to Plaintiff's assertion that these communications are also covered by a common interest privilege, Defendants' May 19 Letter argues that Plaintiff has failed to articulate an interest she shares with other plaintiffs' counsel. (May 19 Letter at 4.) To the contrary, as Plaintiff made clear, all plaintiffs in the pending cases, which have been consolidated for discovery purposes, share a common legal interest because they are bringing substantially similar claims against the same defendants. See v. Milhorat, No. 10 Civ. 103, 2011 WL 13305347, at \*3 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2011) (finding common interest privilege applicable where the issues + +I Plaintiff does not hereby waive her right to assert attorney-client privilege where applicable. See, e.g., FISH Nordbank AG New York Branch v. Swerdlow, 259 F.R.D. 64, 70 & n.6 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ("Under New York law, the attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between client and counsel where such communications are made for the purpose of providing or obtaining legal advice."). + +overlapped "to such an extent that the parties in each case have agreed to consolidate all of the cases for discovery purposes"); Costabile, 254 F.R.D. at 164-65 ("So long as transferor and transferee anticipate litigation against a common adversary on the same issue or issues, they have strong common interests in sharing the fruit of the trial preparation efforts.").2 Indeed, Judge Freeman has repeatedly expressed the view that the legal issues and the interests of the plaintiffs in these consolidated cases, like those in=, are overlapping.; + +Defendants further suggest that the communications between plaintiff.? counsel did not further any shared legal interest. To the contrary, all communications between plaintiffs' counsel were exchanged "in the course of formulating a common legal strategy." Fireman 's Fund Ins. Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York, 284 F.R.D. 132, 140 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). It is indisputable that, in discussions about the pending claims program, plaintiffs' counsel were "collaborating on a legal effort that is dependent on the disclosure of otherwise privileged information between the parties or their counsel." AU New Haven, LLC v. YKK Corp., No. 15 Civ. 03411, 2016 WL 6820383, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2016). That plaintiffs' counsels' communications are therefore protected is especially clear where, as here, all communications involve only attorneys for the respective plaintiffs. Id. (explaining courts often consider in assessing this factor whether an attorney for either party participated in the exchange of privileged information); Obeid v. Mack, No. 14 Civ. 6498, 2016 WL 7176653, at \*8 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2016). + +To the extent Defendants continue to take the position that communications between Plaintiff's counsel and counsel for plaintiffs in other similar cases are discoverable, despite the fact that they are protected by the work product doctrine and common interest doctrine, we are, unfortunately, at an impasse. + +## 2. Communications between Plaintiff's counsel and journalists + +With respect to Defendants' request for communications between Plaintiff's counsel and journalists concerning this litigation and Decedent, Defendants' May 19 Letter asserts that Plaintiff's May 12 Letter improperly limited the scope of this request to communications relating to Plaintiff's specific allegations. To the extent that this request seeks other communications between counsel and journalists—which might include, for example, requests for comment made by the press, inquiries by the press concerning hearings and case schedules, and statements by counsel in their personal capacities on subjects unrelated to Plaintiff's case—those communications are not related to the claims and defenses of either party to this action and are not discoverable. Indeed, during our meet and confer, Defendants made no effort to argue that such communications are discoverable, instead representing that this request was intended to solicit communications between Plaintiff's counsel and journalists regarding Plaintiff's specific allegations. + +2See also, e.g., Pampered Chef v. Alexanian, 737 F. Supp. 2d 958, 965 (N.D. III. 2010) ("[T]he common interest rule has been extended in a wide range of circumstances, frequently those involving civil co-defendants, companies individually summoned before a grand jury, potential co-parties to prospective litigation, plaintiffs filing separate actions in different states and civil defendants who were sued in separate actions." (emphasis added)) (collecting cases). + +3 See Nov. 21, 2019 Hr'g Tr. at 8:21-9: 3; 32:4-9; 41:3-6. + +With regard to that category of communications, Plaintiff's counsel represented in her May 12 Letter that "to the best of their knowledge," Plaintiff and/or her counsel have not communicated with journalists about her specific allegations. Defendants' May 19 Letter requested an explanation for this qualifying language. Plaintiff clarifies that this language was intended to communicate that this representation was made based on Plaintiff's and counsel's best recollections and not based on an unduly burdensome review of documents or communications. Defendants' May 19 Letter notes that Plaintiff's counsel has been interviewed by the media about Epstein, his estate, and this lawsuit, which Plaintiff's counsel does not dispute. However, Plaintiff's counsel has not discussed Plaintiff's specific allegations with the press, and the statements counsel has made, which primarily concern the settlement fund and the probate process, are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this matter. + +To the extent that Defendants continue to take the position that they are entitled to any communications between Plaintiff's counsel and journalists regarding Decedent or this litigation, regardless of whether those communications relate to the claims and defenses in this action, we are at an impasse. To the extent that Defendants are seeking communications concerning Plaintiffs specific allegations, we reiterate that, to the best of our knowledge, no such communications exist. + +\*\*\* + +Please let us know if you would like to confer further about these or any other issues related to discovery. We continue to reserve all rights. + +Very truly yours, + +Roberta A. Kaplan \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751354/EFTA02751354.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751354/EFTA02751354.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5198149864c10a74c5336ea0e1f7b1acef94b7d3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751354/EFTA02751354.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,5327 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751354.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 67, + "chars": 120504, + "elapsed_seconds": 21.81, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ELECTRONIC COURT FILING", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 213.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 249.2187957763672, + 213.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 249.2187957763672, + 227.18701171875 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 227.18701171875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Relevant background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 80.784, + 163.62 + ], + [ + 220.93199999999996, + 163.62 + ], + [ + 220.93199999999996, + 177.39000000000001 + ], + [ + 80.784, + 177.39000000000001 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Plaintiff's initial disclosures", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 366.12 + ], + [ + 290.08799999999997, + 366.12 + ], + [ + 290.08799999999997, + 379.08000000000004 + ], + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 379.08000000000004 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Plaintiff's written discovery responses", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 518.4000000000001 + ], + [ + 346.39199999999994, + 518.4000000000001 + ], + [ + 346.39199999999994, + 531.36 + ], + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 531.36 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Argument", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 446.31000000000006 + ], + [ + 163.39810180664062, + 446.31000000000006 + ], + [ + 163.39810180664062, + 460.8170471191406 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 460.8170471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Plaintiff's damages disclosure leaves the Co-Executors in the dark.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 471.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 498.66925048828125, + 471.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 498.66925048828125, + 486.3170471191406 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 486.3170471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Plaintiff's responses to Request Nos. 1, 2, 13 and 14 and Interrogatory Nos. 2, 10 and 11 are inadequate and must be amended.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 529.74 + ], + [ + 542.844, + 529.74 + ], + [ + 542.844, + 556.47 + ], + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 556.47 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "i. Communications with the press, media and publishing industry about Mr. Epstein exist and are highly relevant; there is no basis for Plaintiff's refusal to produce them.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 160.95600000000002, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 607.5 + ], + [ + 160.95600000000002, + 607.5 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ii. Communications with counsel and other plaintiffs with claims against the Co-Executors are discoverable and highly relevant.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 158.50799999999998, + 466.55999999999995 + ], + [ + 542.844, + 466.55999999999995 + ], + [ + 542.844, + 493.29 + ], + [ + 158.50799999999998, + 493.29 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "iii. Plaintiff's medical history is critical to the Co-Executors' defenses.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 155.448, + 251.10000000000002 + ], + [ + 530.604, + 251.10000000000002 + ], + [ + 530.604, + 265.68 + ], + [ + 155.448, + 265.68 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Ill. Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 163.62 + ], + [ + 171.488525390625, + 163.62 + ], + [ + 171.488525390625, + 179.18701171875 + ], + [ + 74.66399999999999, + 179.18701171875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Exhibit A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 159.12, + 162.55059814453125 + ], + [ + 465.5943603515625, + 162.55059814453125 + ], + [ + 465.5943603515625, + 238.85980224609375 + ], + [ + 159.12, + 238.85980224609375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 79.56, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 304.47381591796875, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 304.47381591796875, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 79.56, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PLAINTIFF'S RULE 26(a)(1) INITIAL DISCLOSURES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 156.67200000000003, + 250.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 456.25225830078125, + 250.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 456.25225830078125, + 265.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 156.67200000000003, + 265.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. A copy of, or description by category and location of, all documents, data \ncompilations and tangible things in the possession, custody or control of the \nparty, and that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, \nunless solely for impeachment.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 376.65000000000003 + ], + [ + 523.8583984375, + 376.65000000000003 + ], + [ + 523.8583984375, + 434.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 434.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.768, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 388.8902587890625, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 388.8902587890625, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 222.768, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Exhibit B", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 160.95600000000002, + 165.2572021484375 + ], + [ + 465.3250427246094, + 165.2572021484375 + ], + [ + 465.3250427246094, + 240.98028564453125 + ], + [ + 160.95600000000002, + 240.98028564453125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 193.392, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 418.7655029296875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 418.7655029296875, + 99.80352783203125 + ], + [ + 193.392, + 99.80352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S \nFIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 149.94, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 463.3011474609375, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 463.3011474609375, + 317.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 149.94, + 317.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DEFINITIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 263.772, + 587.25 + ], + [ + 349.48614501953125, + 587.25 + ], + [ + 349.48614501953125, + 601.5635223388672 + ], + [ + 263.772, + 601.5635223388672 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INSTRUCTIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 257.652, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 355.3839111328125, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 355.3839111328125, + 307.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 257.652, + 307.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTERROGATORIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 242.964, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 369.3242492675781, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 369.3242492675781, + 224.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 242.964, + 224.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 193.392, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 418.4738464355469, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 418.4738464355469, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 193.392, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S \nFIRST REOUESTS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 130.968, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 481.7156066894531, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 481.7156066894531, + 317.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 130.968, + 317.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DEFINITIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 263.772, + 614.79 + ], + [ + 349.419921875, + 614.79 + ], + [ + 349.419921875, + 629.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 263.772, + 629.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INSTRUCTIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 257.03999999999996, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 355.3839111328125, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 355.3839111328125, + 445.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 257.03999999999996, + 445.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DOCUMENT REQUESTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 29, + "polygon": [ + [ + 233.784, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 378.49932861328125, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 378.49932861328125, + 390.06353759765625 + ], + [ + 233.784, + 390.06353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Exhibit C", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 32, + "polygon": [ + [ + 160.95600000000002, + 165.17059326171875 + ], + [ + 464.91900634765625, + 165.17059326171875 + ], + [ + 464.91900634765625, + 241.84979248046875 + ], + [ + 160.95600000000002, + 241.84979248046875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 33, + "polygon": [ + [ + 193.392, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 418.4738464355469, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 418.4738464355469, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 193.392, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' \nFIRST REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 33, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.74, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 523.4982299804688, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 523.4982299804688, + 317.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 88.74, + 317.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 33, + "polygon": [ + [ + 182.37599999999998, + 558.9 + ], + [ + 430.765869140625, + 558.9 + ], + [ + 430.765869140625, + 574.4830169677734 + ], + [ + 182.37599999999998, + 574.4830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 183.6, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 428.7325439453125, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 428.7325439453125, + 196.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 183.6, + 196.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REOUEST NO. I", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 164.01600000000002, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 164.01600000000002, + 223.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 223.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. I", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 347.49 + ], + [ + 249.696, + 347.49 + ], + [ + 249.696, + 362.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 362.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REOUEST NO. 2", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 165.857421875, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 165.857421875, + 85.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 85.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 2", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 251.12115478515625, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 251.12115478515625, + 169.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 169.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REQUEST NO.3", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 166.4120330810547, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 166.4120330810547, + 251.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 251.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.3", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 306.18 + ], + [ + 252.66204833984375, + 306.18 + ], + [ + 252.66204833984375, + 320.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 320.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REOUEST NO.4", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 554.85 + ], + [ + 165.7778778076172, + 554.85 + ], + [ + 165.7778778076172, + 569.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 569.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO.4", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 609.9300000000001 + ], + [ + 252.44537353515625, + 609.9300000000001 + ], + [ + 252.44537353515625, + 624.3630218505859 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 624.3630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REOUEST NO.5", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 39, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 166.30076599121094, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 166.30076599121094, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO.5", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 39, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 252.98410034179688, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 252.98410034179688, + 141.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 141.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REQUEST NO.6", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 39, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 165.88685607910156, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 165.88685607910156, + 334.8630676269531 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 334.8630676269531 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.6", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 39, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 387.98999999999995 + ], + [ + 252.50685119628906, + 387.98999999999995 + ], + [ + 252.50685119628906, + 403.863037109375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 403.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REQUEST NO.7", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 39, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 554.04 + ], + [ + 166.5584259033203, + 554.04 + ], + [ + 166.5584259033203, + 569.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 569.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.7", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 39, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 252.80844116210938, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 252.80844116210938, + 638.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 638.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REOUEST NO. 8", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 40, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 165.8407440185547, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 165.8407440185547, + 169.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 169.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 8", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 40, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 222.75 + ], + [ + 252.67286682128906, + 222.75 + ], + [ + 252.67286682128906, + 238.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 238.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REQUEST NO.9", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 40, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 387.98999999999995 + ], + [ + 166.29550170898438, + 387.98999999999995 + ], + [ + 166.29550170898438, + 403.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 403.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.9", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 40, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 252.97982788085938, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 252.97982788085938, + 472.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 472.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REQUEST NO. 10", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 40, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 171.88418579101562, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 171.88418579101562, + 637.9335327148438 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 637.9335327148438 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 10", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 41, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 258.5141906738281, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 258.5141906738281, + 86.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 86.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REOUEST NO. 11", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 41, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 171.13900756835938, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 171.13900756835938, + 307.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 307.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 41, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 360.45000000000005 + ], + [ + 259.4302978515625, + 360.45000000000005 + ], + [ + 259.4302978515625, + 375.80352783203125 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 375.80352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REOUEST NO. 12", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 41, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 498.96 + ], + [ + 171.34063720703125, + 498.96 + ], + [ + 171.34063720703125, + 514.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 514.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 12", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 41, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 258.0705871582031, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 258.0705871582031, + 582.4335174560547 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 582.4335174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REQUEST NO. 13", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 42, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 172.08677673339844, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 172.08677673339844, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 42, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 140.94 + ], + [ + 258.3367919921875, + 140.94 + ], + [ + 258.3367919921875, + 155.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 155.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REQUEST NO. 14", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 42, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 387.98999999999995 + ], + [ + 171.39454650878906, + 387.98999999999995 + ], + [ + 171.39454650878906, + 403.863037109375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 403.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 14", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 43, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 257.5745849609375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 257.5745849609375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REQUEST NO. 15", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 43, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 430.11 + ], + [ + 171.7952880859375, + 430.11 + ], + [ + 171.7952880859375, + 444.80352783203125 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 444.80352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 15", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 43, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 540.27 + ], + [ + 258.4369201660156, + 540.27 + ], + [ + 258.4369201660156, + 555.0635223388672 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 555.0635223388672 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REOUEST NO. 16", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 44, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 171.7952880859375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 171.7952880859375, + 86.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 86.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 16", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 44, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 140.94 + ], + [ + 257.6124267578125, + 140.94 + ], + [ + 257.6124267578125, + 155.60302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 155.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REQUEST NO. 17", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 44, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 306.18 + ], + [ + 171.77235412597656, + 306.18 + ], + [ + 171.77235412597656, + 320.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 320.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 17", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 44, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 375.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 258.53240966796875, + 375.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 258.53240966796875, + 389.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 389.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REQUEST NO. 18", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 44, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 171.89413452148438, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 171.89413452148438, + 500.60302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 500.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 18", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 44, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 258.65869140625, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 258.65869140625, + 582.7330169677734 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 582.7330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REOUEST NO. 19", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 45, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 171.84457397460938, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 171.84457397460938, + 169.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 169.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO.19", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 45, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 251.10000000000002 + ], + [ + 258.5389099121094, + 251.10000000000002 + ], + [ + 258.5389099121094, + 265.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 265.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REOUEST NO.19", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 45, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 416.34000000000003 + ], + [ + 172.60658264160156, + 416.34000000000003 + ], + [ + 172.60658264160156, + 430.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 430.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO.19", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 45, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 258.5389099121094, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 258.5389099121094, + 500.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 500.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 47, + "polygon": [ + [ + 193.392, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 418.4738464355469, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 418.4738464355469, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 193.392, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO \nPLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 47, + "polygon": [ + [ + 132.804, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 479.9931945800781, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 479.9931945800781, + 317.6030578613281 + ], + [ + 132.804, + 317.6030578613281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 47, + "polygon": [ + [ + 182.37599999999998, + 469.79999999999995 + ], + [ + 430.765869140625, + 469.79999999999995 + ], + [ + 430.765869140625, + 484.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 182.37599999999998, + 484.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 51, + "polygon": [ + [ + 184.212, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 428.86932373046875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 428.86932373046875, + 86.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 184.212, + 86.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTERROGATORY NO. 1", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 51, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 216.9683074951172, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 216.9683074951172, + 113.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 113.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. I", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 51, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 301.716, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 301.716, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTERROGATORY NO.2", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 52, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 114.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 216.73397827148438, + 114.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 216.73397827148438, + 128.60302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 128.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.2", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 52, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 303.35394287109375, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 303.35394287109375, + 197.60302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 197.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTERROGATORY NO.3", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 52, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 347.49 + ], + [ + 217.4120330810547, + 347.49 + ], + [ + 217.4120330810547, + 363.363037109375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 363.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.3", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 52, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 417.15000000000003 + ], + [ + 304.0420227050781, + 417.15000000000003 + ], + [ + 304.0420227050781, + 432.363037109375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 432.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTERROGATORY NO.4", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 53, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 217.13339233398438, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 217.13339233398438, + 141.06353759765625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 141.06353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.4", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 53, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 303.705322265625, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 303.705322265625, + 223.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 223.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTERROGATORY NO.5", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 53, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 512.73 + ], + [ + 217.24290466308594, + 512.73 + ], + [ + 217.24290466308594, + 527.6835327148438 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 527.6835327148438 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.5", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 53, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 304.242919921875, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 304.242919921875, + 582.8035125732422 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 582.8035125732422 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTERROGATORY NO.6", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 54, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 217.66412353515625, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 217.66412353515625, + 169.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 169.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.6", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 54, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 278.64 + ], + [ + 304.242919921875, + 278.64 + ], + [ + 304.242919921875, + 292.9335632324219 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 292.9335632324219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTERROGATORY NO.7", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 54, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 498.96 + ], + [ + 217.13339233398438, + 498.96 + ], + [ + 217.13339233398438, + 513.8035278320312 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 513.8035278320312 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.7", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 54, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 304.1846008300781, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 304.1846008300781, + 637.9335174560547 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 637.9335174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTERROGATORY NO.8", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 55, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 217.66839599609375, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 217.66839599609375, + 224.18701171875 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 224.18701171875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.8", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 55, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 304.29840087890625, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 304.29840087890625, + 334.44708251953125 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 334.44708251953125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTERROGATORY NO. 9", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 55, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 540.27 + ], + [ + 216.8809814453125, + 540.27 + ], + [ + 216.8809814453125, + 554.9470520019531 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 554.9470520019531 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 56, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 303.7916259765625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 303.7916259765625, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTERROGATORY NO. 10", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 56, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 222.81626892089844, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 222.81626892089844, + 445.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 445.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 56, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 554.04 + ], + [ + 309.8841857910156, + 554.04 + ], + [ + 309.8841857910156, + 568.9335174560547 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 568.9335174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTERROGATORY NO. 11", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 57, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 543.51 + ], + [ + 222.08981323242188, + 543.51 + ], + [ + 222.08981323242188, + 558.7330169677734 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 558.7330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 58, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 168.29888916015625 + ], + [ + 310.8003234863281, + 168.29888916015625 + ], + [ + 310.8003234863281, + 182.68353271484375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 182.68353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTERROGATORY NO. 12", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 58, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 471.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 222.406005859375, + 471.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 222.406005859375, + 486.06353759765625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 486.06353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 58, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 595.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 309.0130615234375, + 595.3499999999999 + ], + [ + 309.0130615234375, + 610.1835174560547 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 610.1835174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTERROGATORY NO. 13", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 59, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 223.08677673339844, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 223.08677673339844, + 224.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 224.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 59, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 309.85882568359375, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 309.85882568359375, + 307.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 307.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTERROGATORY NO. 14", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 59, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 540.27 + ], + [ + 222.32456970214844, + 540.27 + ], + [ + 222.32456970214844, + 555.3630218505859 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 555.3630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 59, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 308.944580078125, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 308.944580078125, + 638.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 638.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTERROGATORY NO. 15", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 60, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 222.96051025390625, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 222.96051025390625, + 196.863037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 196.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 60, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 277.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 310.10809326171875, + 277.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 310.10809326171875, + 293.2330627441406 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 293.2330627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Exhibit D", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 61, + "polygon": [ + [ + 159.12, + 162.55059814453125 + ], + [ + 465.3691711425781, + 162.55059814453125 + ], + [ + 465.3691711425781, + 238.85980224609375 + ], + [ + 159.12, + 238.85980224609375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 62, + "polygon": [ + [ + 32.436, + 38.88 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 38.88 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 63.94818115234375 + ], + [ + 32.436, + 63.94818115234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY EMAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 62, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 135.36102294921875, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 135.36102294921875, + 251.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 251.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Production", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 62, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 453.6 + ], + [ + 526.1033325195312, + 453.6 + ], + [ + 526.1033325195312, + 469.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 469.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Defendants' General Obligation to Conduct a Reasonable Inquiry", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 62, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 479.52 + ], + [ + 484.4014587402344, + 479.52 + ], + [ + 484.4014587402344, + 494.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 494.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 2", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 63, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.272, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 535.162841796875, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 535.162841796875, + 64.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 34.272, + 64.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I I. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendants' Interrogatories and Requests for Production", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 63, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.05199999999999, + 115.01999999999998 + ], + [ + 526.9725341796875, + 115.01999999999998 + ], + [ + 526.9725341796875, + 129.80352783203125 + ], + [ + 74.05199999999999, + 129.80352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Defendants' Interrogatories Nos. 10, 11 & 12 and Request Nos. 13 & 14:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 63, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 140.94 + ], + [ + 514.7921142578125, + 140.94 + ], + [ + 514.7921142578125, + 155.68359375 + ], + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 155.68359375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Defendants' Requests No. 1 & 3:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 63, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 627.75 + ], + [ + 313.0779724121094, + 627.75 + ], + [ + 313.0779724121094, + 643.5635223388672 + ], + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 643.5635223388672 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 3", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 64, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.272, + 42.92999999999999 + ], + [ + 535.6390991210938, + 42.92999999999999 + ], + [ + 535.6390991210938, + 64.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 34.272, + 64.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Communications with counsel for other plaintiffs in similar pending cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 64, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 211.41 + ], + [ + 542.555908203125, + 211.41 + ], + [ + 542.555908203125, + 226.863037109375 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 226.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 4", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 65, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.272, + 42.92999999999999 + ], + [ + 535.0933227539062, + 42.92999999999999 + ], + [ + 535.0933227539062, + 64.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 34.272, + 64.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Communications between Plaintiff's counsel and journalists", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 65, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 419.58000000000004 + ], + [ + 472.9595947265625, + 419.58000000000004 + ], + [ + 472.9595947265625, + 435.363037109375 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 435.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER S.: FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 66, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.884, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 242.49974060058594, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 242.49974060058594, + 63.40087890625 + ], + [ + 34.884, + 63.40087890625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 82 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 40 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 38 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 23 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 38, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 39, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 40, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 41, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 42, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 43, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 44, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 45, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 46, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 27 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 47, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 48, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 49, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 50, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 51, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 52, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 53, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 54, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 55, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 56, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 57, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 86 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 58, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 59, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 60, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 61, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 62, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 63, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 64, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 65, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 66, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751354" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751421/EFTA02751421.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751421/EFTA02751421.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..793c852f85d9aa769996cd571fa7ac58d5ebf61d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751421/EFTA02751421.md @@ -0,0 +1,312 @@ +Bennet J. Moskowitz + +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com + +June 19, 2020 + +Via ECF + +Hon. Katherine Polk Failla Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 + +Re: Jane Doe, 1:19-cv-08673 (KPF) (DCF) + +Dear Judge Failla: + +We represent Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, as Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, the "Co-Executors"), in the above-referenced action. We write to further supplement the Co-Executors' pending motion to dismiss (ECF Doc. 47) with the enclosed copy of the Opinion & Order entered June 10, 2020 by The Hon. Edgardo Ramos in another personal injury action against the Co-Executors (Lisa Doe v. Darren K. lndyke and Richard D. Kahn, as Joint Personal Representatives of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, et at, 19-cv-07773 (ER) (DCF)). In His Honor's Opinion & Order, Judge Ramos grants the Co-Executors' motion to dismiss in part, including by dismissing the plaintiff's punitive damages claim against them as a matter of law on grounds applicable to Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages in this action. Therefore, there are now three decisions by two S.D.N.Y. judges dismissing claims for punitive damages against the Co-Executors. (See ECF Nos. 61 and 64.) + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/Bennet J. Moskowitz + +Bennet J. Moskowitz + +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) + +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +LISA DOE, + +Plaintiff, + +- against - + +DARREN K. INDYKE AND RICHARD D. KAHN, ET AL. + +Defendants. + +### OPINION & ORDFa + +19 Civ. 7773 (ER) + +Ramos. D.J.: + +Lisa Doe brings this action for alleged sex trafficking and abuse she suffered at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein (now-deceased) and three of his associated business entities, which are alleged to have facilitated and participated in Epstein's conduct. This action is one of several brought in this District by Epstein's alleged victims. + +The Amended Complaint alleges causes of action for battery, sexual assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violations of the Torture Victims Protection Act ("TVPA") against Epstein's estate, and for TVPA violations and negligence against Financial Trust Company, Inc. ("FTC"), NES, LLC ("NES") and HBRK Associates, Inc. ("HBRK," and together with FTC and NEC, the "Corporate Defendants"). Defendants move to dismiss two of the claims against Epstein's estate as being duplicative or time-barred, all of the claims against the Corporate Defendants for being improperly pled or time-barred, and the punitive damages claims against Epstein's estate on the grounds that punitive damages are not available against deceased defendants. + +For the reasons stated below, Defendants' motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. + +#### I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND + +The following facts are taken from Doe's Amended Complaint (Doc. 41). + +Epstein is alleged to have been a man of enormous wealth who "had a compulsive sexual preference for young females," some as young as 14 years old, and who is alleged to have acted on that sexual preference for decades. (Doc. 41 at 19.) According to the Amended Complaint, and as relayed in the criminal indictment against Epstein, which is cited in the Amended Complaint and included as an exhibit thereto (the "Indictment"), Epstein enticed and recruited minor girls to visit his mansion in Manhattan to engage in sex acts with him, after which they were given hundreds of dollars in cash. (Id. ¶ 26.) The Indictment also alleges that Epstein caused others to entice and recruit minor girls to engage in sex acts with him. (Id) In order to maintain a supply of victims, Epstein paid some of his victims to recruit other girls to be similarly abused by him. (Id. ¶ 27.) Victims were "initially recruited to provide 'massages' to Epstein, which would be performed nude or partially nude, would become increasingly sexual in nature, and would typically include one or more sex acts." (Id. ¶ 30.) + +## A. The Alleged Conduct Against Doe + +Doe alleges that she was one of these victims, and has been considered as such by the Government. (Id. ¶ 32.) Doe alleges that she was 17 when she was first sexually assaulted by Epstein in 2002. (Id ¶ 75.) An avid dancer aspiring to a professional career in the field, Doe was approached at a New York dance studio by an associate of Epstein's who wished to hire Doe to teach a dance-based exercise class to a wealthy individual, later revealed to be Epstein. (Id 76-77.) Doe went to Epstein's Manhattan property, where she met Epstein. (Id 178-80.) Epstein engaged Doe in conversation and told her that he was closely connected to major dance companies in New York City, was personal friends with influential figures in dance, and that he could use his resources to further Doe's dance career. (Id. ¶¶ 81-83.) After making these representations, Epstein required Doe "to engage in various sexually-charged stretching activities." (Id ¶ 84.) After the + +initial session, Epstein asked Doe to return the following day for another session, and when she did, Epstein "was again only interested in sexually-charged stretching activities that involved [Doe] sitting on top of his body and pressing her body up against his in other manners." (Id. ¶¶ 88-89.) Sometime thereafter, the associate who had initially approached Doe at her dance studio, called her on the telephone and told her that Epstein would like her to return to give him a massage. (Id. ¶ 92.) The associate explained that Doe would be paid \$100 per hour to conduct the massage if she kept her clothing on, or \$300 per hour if she performed the massage with her clothing off. (Id. 1 93.) Doe went to the Epstein property and met him in a massage room. (Id. ¶¶ 95-96.) Epstein instructed Doe on how he wished her to massage him, which Doe listened to "very intently, knowing that she had to comply with his demands if she wanted him to use his connections to help her—and, conversely, not punish her if she failed to comply—with her dance career." (Id.1 96.) During this massage, Epstein forcibly inserted a sex toy into Doe's vagina, instructed her to squeeze his nipples, and began to masturbate. (Id. 11 98-99.) Despite this sexual assault, Doe, "feeling she had no choice, especially in light of the promises and implied threats" made by Epstein, returned to the property on many occasions thereafter, where she was continually sexually abused, and after each such occasion was paid hundreds of dollars. (Id. ¶ 104.) This conduct continued for approximately eight years, until 2010. (Id. ¶¶ 108, 118.) + +# B. The Alleged Involvement of the Corporate Defendants + +Doe alleges that each of the Corporate Defendants performed actions or failed to perform actions that placed Doe in danger of being sexually abused by Epstein and assisted him in concealing his sexually abusive acts.' + +I FTC is a U.S. Virgin Islands corporation, conducting business in New York, among other places. (14.1 8.) NES is a domestic limited liability company, registered in and conducting business in, among other places, New York. (Id. 1 9.) And, HBRK is a domestic business corporation, also registered in and conducting business in multiple locations, including New York. (14.1 10.) Employees of Corporate Defendants were paid through funds provided by Epstein. (Id.1 137.) + +The allegations against HBRK and NES are nearly identical, but are alleged in separate sections with clear headings identifying the defendant to which they pertain. Doe alleges that HBRK and NES employees were hired by Epstein "strictly to perform functions to allow his sexual activity with young females," including Doe and other minors to continue. (Id. ¶¶ 40, 48.) HBRK and NES employees each kept large amounts of cash at Epstein's properties, including the one in Manhattan where Doe was allegedly sexually assaulted, in order for Epstein to have money to pay his victims, including Doe, for sexual activities. (Id. ¶¶ 41, 49.) These employees were also tasked with maintaining a list of names and phone numbers of young females, including Doe, to schedule them to go Epstein's properties to engage in sexual activities with him. (Id. ¶¶ 42, 43, 50, 51.) Employees were also expected to keep a schedule of appointment times for Doe and other young females so that a sexual encounter could occur at the exact place and time Epstein wanted. (Id. 1114445, 52-53.) HBRK and NES employees were also involved in recruiting additional victims and allegedly taught recruiters to inform Doe and other targeted young females that Epstein possessed great power and resources and that he would help them advance their education, careers, and lives if they provided Epstein with body massages. (Id. ¶ 68.) Doe also alleges that HBRK and NES employees helped conceal the sexual encounters between Epstein and Doe, and others, by: paying them; hiring lawyers for them; labeling them as masseuses in an attempt to describe the sexual encounters as innocuous; reminding them how powerful and wealthy Epstein was in order to prevent them from revealing the illegal nature of Epstein's sexual abuse; and maintaining damaging files on many of them that could be used against them if they were ever to turn on Epstein. (Id. ¶¶ 46, 54.) + +The Amended Complaint's allegations against FTC are also clearly identified by a particular heading. (Id. ¶¶ 55-67.) FTC is alleged to have employed Epstein. (Id. ¶ 55.) According to the Amended Complaint, FTC "knowingly turned a blind eye to the dangerous sexual addictive propensities of its employee, Jeffrey Epstein, despite + +knowledge that he would cause harm to many young females including Plaintiff, in order to retain him as its most valuable employee." (Id. ¶ 57.) The Amended Complaint alleges that FTC's "corporate objective ... was to provide Jeffrey Epstein with sexual massages" and the sexual massages Epstein required from young females, including Doe, were conducted in the course and scope of Epstein's employment with FTC. (Id. ¶¶ 56, 59.) The Amended Complaint alleges that FTC employees other than Epstein were involved in coordinating sexually explicit massages by Doe and other young females, often minor children, for Epstein. (Id. ¶ 62; see also ¶ 64.) FTC taught recruiters to inform Doe and other targeted young females that Epstein possessed great power and resources and that he would help them advance their education, careers, and lives if they provided Epstein with body massages. (Id. ¶ 68.) Epstein, allegedly, frequently utilized corporate finances in furtherance of his sexually explicit behavior and conducted business telephone calls on behalf of FTC while receiving sexually explicit massages. (Id. ¶¶ 61, 63.) Doe also alleges that FTC helped conceal the sexual encounters between Epstein and Doe, as well as other young females, by: paying them; hiring lawyers for them; and labeling them as masseuses in an attempt to describe the encounters as innocuous. (Id. ¶ 67.) + +# IL LEGAL STANDARD + +"To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. lqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Ad. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to show "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). However, this "flexible 'plausibility standard"' is not a heightened pleading standard, In re Elevator Antitrust Litig., 502 F.3d + +47, 50 n. 3 (2d Cir. 2007) (citation omitted), and "a complaint ... does not need detailed factual allegations" to survive a motion to dismiss, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. + +The question on a motion to dismiss "is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims." Sikhs for Justice v. Nath, 893 F. Supp. 2d 598, 615 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Villager Pond, Inc. v. Town of Darien, 56 F.3d 375, 378 (2d Cir. 1995)). "[T]he purpose of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is to test, in a streamlined fashion, the formal sufficiency of the plaintiffs statement of a claim for relief without resolving a contest regarding its substantive merits" or "weigh[ing] the evidence that might be offered to support it." Halebian v. Berv, 644 F.3d 122, 130 (2d Cir. 2011) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, when ruling on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule I2(b)(6), the Court accepts all factual allegations in the complaint as true and draws all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Nielsen v. Rabin, 746 F.3d 58, 62 (2d Cir. 2014); see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 ("[A] well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable...."). "For purposes of this rule, the complaint is deemed to include any written instrument attached to it as an exhibit or any statements or documents incorporated in it by reference." v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). + +# HI. DISCUSSION + +Defendants' motion argues that there are ten separate bases for dismissing certain of Doe's claims, or parts of those claims. Specifically, they argue that (a) the second cause of action, entitled "Sexual Assault," is duplicative of the first, titled "BatteryNiolation of Section 130 against the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein;" (b) Doe's fifth cause of action, titled "Battery" is time-barred; (c) each of Doe's TVPA claims is partially time-barred to the extent they relate to conduct before August 20, 2009; (d) the TWA claims against the Corporate Defendants fail to sufficiently allege the required intent + +requirements under 18 U.S.C. § 1591; (e) Doe's TVPA claims against the Corporate Defendants are conclusory and unsupported; (f) the negligence claims against the Corporate Defendants are time-barred; (g) the negligence claims against the Corporate Defendants should be dismissed because they fail to more than conclusorily plead damages; (h) the negligence claims against NES and HBRK rely on impermissible group pleading; (i) the Amended Complaint fails to allege a negligent supervision claim against FTC; and (j) the punitive damages claims against Epstein's estate are precluded by law because Epstein has died. The Court addresses each argument in turn. + +## A. Defendants' Argument that Count II is Duplicative of Count I + +Defendants seek to dismiss Doe's second cause of action, titled simply "Sexual Assault," as duplicative of her first, titled "Battery/Violation of Section 130 against the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein." (See Doc. 50 at 6-7; Doc. 1 at 38-40.) Defendants argue that both claims rest on the same legal and factual foundations. Specifically, Defendants point to statements made in the Amended Complaint in which Doe defends the timeliness of the second cause of action by invoking CPLR § 214-g. That section was enacted as part of the Child Victims Act ("CVA"), and created a one-year window to bring otherwise time-barred claims for conduct "which would constitute a sexual offense as defined in article one hundred thirty of the penal law" in certain circumstances, and, therefore, Defendants argue, it is clear that both claims rest on the same legal theory, Penal Law § 130. + +In response, Doe argues that her reference in the second cause of action to § 130 was a "typographical error" and that she intended for the claim to be based on New York common law, as she argues the title of the claim suggests. She also appears to suggest that the first and second causes of action rest on separate factual allegations, one concerns claims before Doe turned 18 and the other after she turned 18. + +Neither party cites any law in favor of their respective positions. While a plaintiff may not plead the same claim twice, a plaintiff can plead alternative bases for relief. In + +re Skat Tax Refund Scheme Litig., 356 F. Supp. 3d 300, 325 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). "A claim is alternative and not duplicative if a plaintiff may fail on one but still prevail on the other." Id. (citation omitted). + +Doe's invocation of CPLR § 214-g indeed suggests that the second cause of action is premised on a sexual offense as defined in § 130 of New York's penal law, as is the case with the first cause of action, and therefore that both claims rise and fall together. A reading of the Amended Complaint does not suggest that the two causes of action relate to different time periods. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the second cause of action without prejudice.2 + +## B. Defendants' Argument that Count V is Time-Barred + +Defendants ask the Court to dismiss the Amended Complaint's fifth cause of action, "Battery Against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahan as Joint Representatives of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein." Defendants argue that under New York law, claims of battery perpetrated on an adult must be commenced within one year, and claims perpetrated against minors must be commenced with one year of the victim turning 18. Defendants argue that the battery claim therefore expired when Doe turned 18 in either 2002 or 2003, or sometime in 2011, one year after the date of the last alleged offense. + +Doe argues the claims are timely pursuant to both the CVA and §CPLR § 215(8Xa). + +In their reply brief, Defendants argue that as Doe has described the second cause of action in her opposition brief, it is time-barred. But, Defendants did not raise this argument in their opening papers and "[t]he law in the Second Circuit is clear that arguments or requests for relief raised for the first time in reply briefs need not be considered." In re Various Grand Jury Subpoenas, 235 F. Supp. 3d 472, 485 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (citing ABN Aniro Venekeringen BV v. Geologistics Americas, Inc., 485 F.3d 85, 100 n.16 (2d Cir. 2007)). While, it is not immediately clear how Doe intends to escape the statute of limitations bar if she chooses to replead the cause of action, she is entitled to have an opportunity to present her position on the issue. Defendants can raise this statute of limitations issue then. + +2 Doe urges the Court to ignore the reference to § 130 "and construe the paragraph as referring to a New York common law sexual assault claim, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e) ("Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice") and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(0 (a "court may strike from a pleading any ... redundant .. . [or] immaterial. . . matter."). The Court does not find that justice requires ignoring parts of the Amended Complaint here because Doe has an opportunity to replead the second cause of action if she chooses. + +CPLR § 2I5(8)(a) allows civil plaintiffs, for a specified period of time, to bring actions against the same defendant and with respect to the same "event or occurrence" as was the subject of a criminal action, even if the statute of limitations on the civil claim has already run. CPLR § 215(8)(a) provides: + +Whenever it is shown that a criminal action against the same defendant has been commenced with respect to the event or occurrence from which a claim governed by this section arises, the plaintiff shall have at least one year from the termination of the criminal action as defined in section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law in which to commence the civil action, notwithstanding that the time in which to commence such action has already expired or has less than a year remaining. + +Section 215(8Xa) "is satisfied so long as `(1) a criminal action has been commenced, (2) against the same defendants, and (3) concerning the same event or transaction from which the civil action arose." Kashef v. BNP Paribas S.A., 925 F.3d 53, 62 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Clemens v. Nealon, 202 A.D.2d 747, 749 (1994)). + +Doe argues that the criminal action against Epstein triggers the application of § 215(8Xa). The Indictment accuses Epstein of engaging in sex trafficking and a sex trafficking conspiracy that led to the exploitation of dozens of minor girls, and Doe argues that she was one of these minor girls. She argues that the abuse she alleges here is the same as that charged in the Indictment, and that she was considered a victim of Epstein's by the Government. She further avers that as a victim, she delivered an impact statement before the Court presiding over Epstein's criminal case, and was identified as a victim by the Court. Thus according to Doe, this action is timely pursuant to § 215(8)(a) so long as it is was brought within one year of the termination of the criminal case against Epstein, which it clearly was. 3 + +In response, Defendants argue that Doe's reliance on § 215(8)(a) is misplaced because "to the extent Count V applies to conduct that occurred when Plaintiff was a + +3 Doe claims, and Defendants do not dispute, that the criminal action against Epstein terminated on August 27, 2019 when the Court dismissed the case following Epstein's death. (Doc. 55 at 10.) This action was filed on August 20, 2019, before the criminal case was dismissed. + +minor, it is duplicative of Count I [and] [t]o the extent Plaintiff suggests that Count V is based on torts that occurred when she was an adult, CPLR § 215(8)(a) is inapplicable" as the Indictment only concerned allegations that Epstein abused "minor girls" between 2002 and 2005. (Doc. 57 at 3.) + +Defendants do not elaborate on their claim that Count V is duplicative of Count I to the extent it relates to conduct that occurred when Doe was a minor, referring only to the argument "above" with respect to Count II. But Count II was duplicative of Count I because both were premised on a violation of Penal Code § 130. That is not obviously and necessarily so here: the Amended Complaint's description of Count V makes no mention of § 130, and Doe does not need to rely on the CVA, which references § 130, to avoid the statute of limitations here. Because it seems the legal foundations of the claims are different, they are not duplicative. Defendants' terse argument provides no reason to suggest otherwise. + +Defendants' argument that § 215(8Xa) is inapplicable to Epstein's alleged battery of Doe as an adult is more fleshed out. Defendants argue that for § 215(8)(a) to apply, the criminal action must relate to the "event or occurrence from which" the civil claim arises. Defendants argue that the Indictment concerned the alleged sex trafficking of minors between 2002 and 2005, and therefore does not relate to "torts allegedly committed against adults, whether Plaintiff or otherwise." (Doc. 57 at 3.) Defendants argue that New York courts apply § 2I5(8)(a) "narrowly," and cite to two decisions that found § 215(8)(a) inapplicable where the civil action related to events that happened on different dates than the criminal action, and a third where the Court found § 215(8)(a) inapplicable because the defendants in the civil action were not charged in the criminal action. (Id. (citing Christodoulou v. Terdeman, 262 A.D.2d 595, 596 (1999); Gallina v. Thatcher, No. 2017-52980, 2018 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 8435, at \*3 (Sup. Ct. Oct. 23, 2018); McElligott v. City of New York, No. 15 Civ. 7107 (LGS), 2017 WL 6210840, at \*5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2017).) + +Defendants, however, read the Indictment and the § 215(8Xa) caselaw too narrowly. Unlike in Christodoulou and Galling, the criminal case against Epstein did not relate to isolated events. One of the charges in the Indictment was for participation in a "Sex Trafficking Conspiracy." (Doc. 41-2.) Among other things, the Indictment alleges that Epstein "enticed, recruited, and caused to be enticed and recruited, minor girls to visit his mansion in Manhattan, New York ... to engage in sex acts with him, after which he would give the victims hundreds of dollars in case." (Id. ¶ 2.) The Indictment further alleges, however, that "once these minor victims were recruited, many were abused by Epstein on multiple subsequent occasions at" Epstein's New York residence. (Id.1 II.) Defendants do not dispute that Doe was one of the "minor girls" referenced in the Indictment, and the Court finds that the allegations in the Amended Complaint about battery Doe sustained as an adult are reasonably read as being referenced in the Indictment. + +Defendants, are correct, however that the conduct alleged in the Indictment spanned the period between 2002 and 2005, and therefore that the Indictment cannot for § 215(8Xa) purposes cover the allegations in the Amended Complaint between 2006 and 2010. See Christodoulou v. Terdeman, 262 A.D.2d 595, 596 (1999). + +In finding that § 215(8Xa) applies here to the claims between 2002 and 2005, the Court is guided by the Second Circuit's analysis in Kashel Plaintiffs in that case, alleged victims of atrocities in Sudan at the hands of the government there, brought tort claims relating to those atrocities against a financial services corporation that had previously been convicted for federal and state felonies for evading U.S. sanctions on Sudan. 925 F.3d 53. The Second Circuit determined that § 215(8)(a) could apply because the "causes of action ar[o]se out of the same occurrence as the criminal prosecution" because plaintiffs theorized that defendant was "illegally funding Sudan's commission of atrocities by avoiding U.S. sanctions put in place to protect the Plaintiffs and the purported class." 925 F.3d at 62-63. + +The Court therefore has no trouble finding that the alleged battery against Doe as an adult arose out of the conduct that was the subject of Epstein's criminal case, indeed the conduct is arguably explicitly referenced in the Indictment. Because a criminal action was commenced against Epstein, whose estate is being sued here,4 "concerning the same event or transaction from which" this action arises, the Court finds that § 215(8)(a) applies and renders the battery claim alleged in Count V of the Amended Complaint timely to the extent it concerns conduct between 2002 and 2005 inclusive. See Kashef, 925 F.3d at 62. + +To the extent the fifth cause of action relates to conduct between 2006 and 2010, the claim is dismissed with prejudice as time-barred. Section 215(8)(a) cannot cover these claims. Nor would it seem could the CVA, as relying on the CVA would render the claim duplicative of the first cause of action for the same reasons as discussed above. + +### C. Defendants' Argument that Doe's TVPA Claims Are Partially Time-Barred + +Defendants argue that Doe's civil TVPA claims, brought in separate counts against each of the Defendants, are time-barred. Section 1595 of Title 18, which provides for civil TVPA suits, requires that such claims be brought "not later than the later of (1) 10 years after the cause of action arose; or (2) 10 years after the victim reaches 18 years of age, if the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offense." 18 U.S.C. § 1595(c). Because, Defendants argue, Doe turned 18 in 2002 or 2003, and the Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants misconduct ended in 2010, any alleged conduct that occurred before August 20, 2009—ten years before Doe initiated this action—must be dismissed as time-barred. + +Doe responds that the substantive violation she alleges through 18 U.S.C. § 1595 is a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1591, and claims of conspiracy are not time-barred + +Defendants do not argue that because Doe sues Epstein's estate here, this action was not brought against the "same defendant" as the criminal case, as § 215(8Xa) requires. + +provided "at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiratorial agreement" occurred within the limitations period. (Doc. 55 at 18 (quoting United States v. Ben Zvi, 242 F.3d 89, 97 (2d. Cir. 2001).) + +Defendants appear to concede the law, but dispute that the Amended Complaint alleges an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy after August 20, 2009. The Court disagrees. For example, the Amended Complaint plainly states that, at Epstein's direction, Doe was paid to engage in commercial sex acts until 2010. (Doc. 41 at 108; see also 1 111 (alleging that "from the time she met [Epstein] through and including 2010," Epstein would direct Doe to engage in sex acts with other females, in exchange for money, while he pleasured himself).) + +Defendants dismiss these allegations as "hopelessly vague" and further argue that the allegations "only reference actions attributed to Decedent and unidentified 'employees or associates of the sex trafficking enterprise,"' and not the Corporate Defendants. The Court disagrees that Doe is required to allege more details at this stage of the litigation. And, it is not the law that a plaintiff is required to allege an overt action by every defendant or co-conspirator—one is enough. See United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608, 615 (2d Cir. 2003) ("[A]bsent withdrawal, a conspirator's 'participation in a conspiracy is presumed to continue until the last overt act by any of the conspirators.") (quoting United States v , 176 F.3d 52, 98 (2d Cir. 1999)). + +While the Court disagrees that the conspiracy claims are time-barred, Doe has not presented arguments as to why the non-conspiracy claims, such as attempt, referenced in Counts VI to IX are not time-barred and the Court dismisses those with prejudice. + +#### D. Defendants' Argument that Doe Has Failed to Allege the TVPA's Intent Requirements + +Defendants additionally argue that Doe's TVPA claims against the Corporate Defendants must be dismissed because Doe has failed to allege the required intent requirements under 18 U.S.C. § 1591. Defendants argue that Doe was required to allege that each Corporate Defendant both "(1) knowingly recruit[ed] a person (or knowingly benefit[ed] from such a venture); and (2) [knew] that means of force, threats of force, fraud or coercion [would] be used by a person or the venture to cause a person to engage in a commercial sex act." (Doc. 50 at 8 (citing Lawson v. Rubin, No. 17 Civ. 6404 (BMC), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71582, at \*35 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2018).) Defendants argue that Doe's Amended Complaint fails to allege either element. + +As relevant here, § 1591 contains two intent requirements. Section 1591(a) states: + +(a) Whoever knowingly— + +- (1) ... recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, obtains, advertises, maintains, patronizes, or solicits by any means a person; or +- (2) benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value, from participation in a venture which has engaged in an act described in violation of paragraph (1), + +Knowing, or ... in reckless disregard of the fact, that means of force, threats of force, fraud, coercion described in subsection (e)(2), or any combination of such means will be used to cause the person to engage in a commercial sex act, or that the person has not attained the age of 18 years and will be caused to engage in a commercial sex act, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). + +18 U.S.C. § 159I(a). Therefore, a plaintiff must allege that a defendant violated either § 1591(a)(1) by knowingly recruiting, enticing, transporting providing, obtaining advertising, patronizing or soliciting a person or (2) by knowingly benefiting from participation in a venture that has engaged in any act described in § 1591(a)(1). And, the plaintiff must allege that the defendant knew or acted in reckless disregard of the fact that force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion would be used to cause the person to engage in a commercial sex act, or that the person had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act. Id. + +With regards to the first intent requirement, described in § 159I(a)( I) and (2), Defendants argue that the Amended Complaint "does not articulate how the Corporate Defendants purportedly benefited or participated in a TVPA violation." (Doc. 57 at 6.) While the Amended Complaint includes conclusory allegations that Defendants benefited from the TVPA violation (see, e.g. Doc. 41 ¶ 215), Doe's opposition brief indicates that she does not argue the "benefited" prong of § 1591(a)(2), but rather that Defendants knowingly participated in the TVPA violations under § 1591(a)(1) by recruiting, enticing, and otherwise soliciting Doe and other young female victims . (Doc. 55 at 15.) Indeed, the Amended Complaint includes numerous allegations detailing how the Corporate Defendants knowingly participating in the TVPA violations. (See, e.g. Doc. 41 ¶¶ 39 & 47 (HBRK and NES employees were compensated specifically to help Epstein obtain young females, including Doe and other minors, with whom Epstein could engage in sex acts), ¶¶ 43 & 51 (HBRK and NES employees maintained a schedule for appointment times for young females, including Doe, to be at Epstein's Manhattan property for the purpose of making sure a sexual encounter occurred at the exact time Epstein wanted), ¶¶ 56, 62 & 64 (FTC employees, other than Epstein, were coordinating sexually explicit massages by Doe and other young females, often minor children, for Epstein), ¶ 68 (FTC, HBRK, and NES taught recruiters to inform Doe and other targeted young female victims that Epstein possessed great power and resources and that he would help them advance their education, careers, and lives if they provided Epstein with massages).) The Court finds that these allegations sufficiently allege that the Corporate Defendants knowingly participated in the alleged TVPA violations. + +Neither party dedicates any meaningful argument to assist the Court in determining whether Doe has sufficiently alleged the second intent requirement under § 1591, that the defendant knew or acted in reckless disregard of the fact that force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion would be used to cause a person to engage in a commercial sex act, or that the person had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act. Other than an incomplete description of this requirement (Defendants ignore the statutory language indicating that a plaintiff can satisfy this requirement by showing that defendants knew or should have known that the person engaged in the sex act "has not attained the age of 18 years"), Defendants simply state that "Plaintiff fails to allege either of [the] essential [intent] elements of a TVPA violation" (Doc. 50 at 8) and the Amended "Complaint is devoid of any specific allegations, and Plaintiff fails to point to allegations establishing [either of the intent] requirement." (Do. 57 at 6).5 + +The Court's independent analysis of the claims in the Amended Complaint suggests that Doe has adequately pled the second intent requirement. First, the Amended Complaint pleads facts from which it is reasonable to infer that the Corporate Defendants knew or acted in reckless disregard of the fact that the females they were recruiting to engage in sexual activities with Epstein had not yet reached the age of 18. (See, e.g., Doc. 41 ¶¶ 39 & 47 (HBRK and NES employees were compensated specifically to help Epstein obtain young females, including Doe and other minors, with whom Epstein could engage in sex acts), ¶¶ 45 & 53 (HBRK and NES employees communicated with young females, including Doe, in order to ensure that Doe and others were in Epstein's presence for sexual encounters to occur with him at the exact time he wanted), ¶¶ 56, 62 & 64 (FTC employees, other than Epstein, were coordinating sexually explicit massages by Doe and other young females, often minor children, for Epstein), ¶ 68 (FTC, HBRK, and NES taught recruiters to inform Doe and other targeted young female victims that Epstein possessed great power and resources and that he would help them advance their education, careers, and lives if they provided Epstein with massages), ¶ 71 (HBRK, NES, and FTC, through their employees and independent contractors, recruited or procured dozens if not hundreds of young females, including minors, for the purpose of Epstein's sexual gratification.") ¶146, 54, 67 (noting that each Corporate Defendant made payments to young females).) By including specific allegations that the Corporate Defendants intentionally targeted young and minor females, and further by including + +3 The Court shares in Doc's frustration that Defendants arguments arc "terse." These conclusory arguments complicate the Court's ability to evaluate Defendants' arguments as it is not always clear what precisely Defendants find insufficient about Doe's claims. + +allegations suggesting face-to-face interactions between employees of the Corporate Defendants and the young women that provided the Corporate Defendants an opportunity to see the victims, the Court finds that Doe has sufficiently pled that Defendants knew or acted in reckless disregard of the fact the individual recruited to participate in the sex act had not yet reached the age of 18. See United States v 702 F.3d 22, 36 (2d Cir. 2012) (finding that trier of fact could determine that defendant knew victim was underage because "the jury also had an opportunity to witness [victim's] appearance at trial in June 2010 when she was nineteen, and based on that appearance jurors could have inferred that [defendant] knew that [victim] was a minor both before and after the statutory amendment in December 2008.") + +Second, Doe sufficiently alleges that the Corporate Defendants were knowingly involved in coercing the sexual activity. For example, the Amended Complaint alleges that HBRK and NES reminded victims, including Doe how powerful and wealthy Jeffery Epstein was in order to prevent them from revealing the illegal nature of the sexual abuse they suffered at Epstein's hands. (Doc. 41 ¶¶ 46, 54.) And, in addition, that FTC, HBRK, and NES taught recruiters to inform Doe and other targeted young female victims that Epstein possessed great power and resources and that he would help them advance their education, careers, and lives if they provided Epstein with the massages (id. ¶ 68). See Geiss v. Weinstein Co. Holdings LLC, 383 F. Supp. 3d 156, 168 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ("TVPA extends to enticement of victims by means of fraudulent promises of career advancement, for the purpose of engaging them in consensual or, as alleged here, nonconsensual sexual activity.") + +The Court therefore finds that Doe has sufficiently pled § 1591's intent requirements. + +#### E. Defendants' Argument that Doe's TVPA Claims Are Conclusory and Unsupported + +Defendants argue that Doe's TVPA claims against the Corporate Defendants ought to be dismissed in their entirety because they are conclusory and unsupported. + +In support of their position, Defendants point to 17 paragraphs describing the causes of action alleged in the Amended Complaint that are indeed conclusory when viewed in isolation. (See, e.g. Doc. 50 at 9 (citing ¶¶ 213, 222, 230 (each Corporate Defendant "by and through its management and personnel, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States . .. knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, obtained maintained, patronized, solicited by any means Plaintiff.")).) + +But the 17 paragraphs Defendants point to are only a small fraction of those in the 288-paragraph Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint includes a lengthy discussion of factual allegations, some of which are discussed above and many of which provide far more than mere-formulaic recitations of the elements of a cause of action. Defendants acknowledge four of these paragraphs but dismiss them as vague because "Plaintiff fails to articulate who did these things or when they occurred." (Doc. 50 at 10.) + +The Court disagrees that more is required at this juncture. The Amended Complaint lays out in several paragraphs what specific actions were taken by employees of each Corporate Defendant, and provides the time period in which the actions are alleged to have occurred. While, the Amended Complaint does not identify which specific employees took the action (though it does, as previously mentioned, explain who they were employed by), Defendants point to no authority suggesting that such specificity is required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The Second Circuit recognized that Twombly rejected "a heightened standard that requires a complaint to include specific evidence, factual allegations in addition to those required by Rule 8." Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2010). Instead the Federal Rules require "only a short and + +**plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555) (internal quotation marks omitted).6** + +**Defendants also accuse Doe of engaging in group pleading, "impermissibly lump[ing] the Corporate Defendants' alleged conduct together." (Doc. 50 at 10.) While the Court suggested at a pre-motion conference that it agreed that Doe's first complaint engaged in group pleading (see Doc. 37 at 9:23-10:2), Doe amended her complaint to include numerous paragraph that separate the conduct of the various defendants and make clear what she alleges each specific Corporate Defendant did. (See, e.g. Doc. 41 ¶¶ 37- 67.) The Corporate Defendants are thus able to identify what each of them are alleged to have done.** + +**Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss the TVPA claims against the Corporate Defendants on the grounds that they are conclusory.** + +## **F. Defendants' Argument that Doe's Negligence Claims Against the Corporate Defendants are Time-Barred** + +**Defendants argue that Doe's negligence claims against the Corporate Defendants are time-barred because New York law provides that negligence claims must be brought within three years, or, in the case of a minor, three years after the minor turns 18. (Doc. 50 at 12.) Doe responds that the statute of limitations was clearly extended by the CVA, which references "negligent acts or omissions."'** + +**6 Later in their papers, Defendants take specific issue with certain allegations against FTC, which they believe to be conclusory. (Doc. 50 at II.) The Court agrees that some of the allegations, viewed in isolation, are conclusory. (See, e.g. Doc. 41 at 1 58 (FTC "operated to further Jeffrey Epstein's goal of to obtain, recruit, and procure young females for the purposes of providing him with sexually explicit massages.")) But, the Amended Complaint includes several other specific allegations against FTC, including, for example, that FTC employees coordinated sexually explicit massages for Epstein from underage young females, including Doe, and paid the young females. (See Doc. 41 dr 56, 62, 64, 67.)** + +**7 N.Y. CPLR 214-g, enacted as part of the CVA, provides in relevant part:** + +**Notwithstanding any provision of law which imposes a period of limitation to the contrary and the provisions of any other law pertaining to the filing of a notice of claim or a notice of intention to file a claim as a condition precedent to commencement of an action or special proceeding, every** + +Defendants do not respond to this argument in reply, and the Court deems them to have abandoned the argument. See Carlisle Ventures, Inc. v. Banco Espatiol de Credito, S.A., 176 F.3d 601, 609 (2d Cir. 1999) (holding that, because the defendant "does not respond to [the plaintiff's] [contrary argument] in its Reply Brief," the court should "decline to consider" such a response); see also Stephens v. 1199 SEW AFL-CIO, 45 F. Supp. 3d 284, 292 n. 14 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (same). + +### G. Defendants' Argument that Doe's Negligence Claims Against the Corporate Defendants Fail to More than Conclusorily Plead Damages + +Defendants also urge the Court to dismiss the negligence claims against the Corporate Defendants on the grounds that Doe "merely recites the damages element of negligence." (Doc. 50 at 12.) Reading Defendants' papers, it seems that Defendants are complaining not that Doe has failed to state how she was damaged, but how the Corporate Defendants' negligence caused the damages. (See, e.g., id. at 13 ("Plaintiff fails to articulate how any of the Corporate Defendants' alleged breaches of alleged duties contributed to Decedent's alleged conduct.")) + +Doe responds that the complaint is "replete" with detailed allegations explaining how the Corporate Defendant contributed to Epstein's abuse and "damaged Doe through their direct participation in Epstein's sex trafficking organization." (See Doc. 55 (citing Doc. 41 at ¶¶ 37-74).) Many of these allegations are considered in the Court's discussion above, and, based on the papers before it, the Court finds that the Amended Complaint + +civil claim or cause of action brought against any party alleging intentional or negligent ads or omissions by a person for physical, psychological, or other injury or condition suffered as a result of conduct which would constitute a sexual offense as defined in article one hundred thirty of the penal law committed against a child less than eighteen years of age ..., which conduct was committed against a child less than eighteen years of age, which is barred as of the effective date of this section because the applicable period of limitation has expired, and/or the plaintiff previously failed to file a notice of claim or a notice of intention to file a claim, is hereby revived, and action thereon may be commenced not earlier than six months after, and not later than one year and six months after the effective date of this section. + +(emphasis added). + +includes specific allegations about how the Corporate Defendants' conduct facilitated Epstein's abuse. + +Defendants' reply brief fails to respond to Doe's arguments, however, and the Court denies Defendants' motion with respect to this issue for the additional reason that Defendants' have abandoned the argument. See Carlisle Ventures, 176 F.3d at 609. Instead, Defendants' reply brief argues that Doe's negligence claims fail because the Amended Complaint does not sufficiently allege that the Corporate Defendants plausibly owed her a duty of care. (Doc. 57 at 7-9.) But, Defendants failed to raise this issue in their opening brief, Doe therefore has not had an opportunity to respond, and the Court declines to consider it. See v. First Am. Registry, 592 F. Supp. 2d 681, 683 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (declining to hear argument that should have been made in opening brief because to countenance "such action would promote litigation by ambush and, in any case, deprive defendant of a fair opportunity to respond.") + +## II. Defendants' Argument that Doe's Negligence Claims Against HBRK and NES Impermissibly Rely on Group Pleading + +Defendants argue that Doe's negligence claims against HBRK and NES impermissibly rely on group pleading, a similar argument to that discussed above with respect to Doe's TVPA claims. + +Again, the Court disagrees with Defendants' characterization of the Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint includes many specific allegations against both HBRK and NES, and notes with headings which actions are attributed to which inch\ 'dual ly. (See Doc. 41 ¶¶ 39-54.) While it is true that many of the allegations are repeated with respect to each Defendant, Defendants point to no authority suggesting that a plaintiff is not permitted to make the same allegations against different defendants, provided, as is the case here, the complaint pleads non-conclusory allegations such that each defendant is able to understand what they particularly are accused of doing. + +Defendants' citation to v. Bonanza.com, Inc. does not support their argument but rather underscores the difference between the allegations here and the undifferentiated allegations other courts have found insufficient. See No. 17 CIV. 8493 (LAP), 2019 WL 5199431, at \*10 n. 20 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019). There the Court found improper "several generalized allegations against all 'Defendants' collectively without separately and specifically identifying their individual alleged conduct" and where the "allegations d[id] not contain any specific facts to suggest that any individual" defendant ever engaged in the alleged wrongful conduct." Id. The Court reasoned that no individual defendant, therefore, "had fair notice of how it allegedly harmed Plaintiff because it was lumped together with other 'Defendants' without any distinction." Id. This is not the case here, the Amended Complaint clearly identifies, with headings and by specifically naming the relevant Defendant, what each of the Corporate Defendants are alleged to have done. + +## I. Defendants' Argument that Doe's Negligent Supervision Claim Against FTC Fails + +Defendants specifically challenge as conclusory the negligence claim against FTC, which they characterize as a negligent supervision claim because it is "predicated upon [FTC's] alleged employment of Epstein. (Doc. 50 at 14.) Doe does not dispute that her negligence claim against FTC is based on negligent supervision, "among other things." (Doc. 55 at 23.) + +To prevail on a negligent supervision claim, in addition to the traditional elements of negligence, a plaintiff must show "(1) that the tort-feasor and the defendant were in an employee-employer relationship; (2) that the employer knew or should have known of the employee's propensity for the conduct which caused the injury prior to the injury's occurrence; and (3) that the tort was committed on the employer's premises or with the employer's chattels." Ehrens v. Lutheran Church, 385 F.3d 232, 235 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (citing Kenneth R. v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 229 A.D.2d 159 (2d + +Dep't 1997); D'Amico v. Christie, 71 N.Y.2d 76 (1987)). "But," as recently recognized by the Second Circuit, "[t]he employee also must not be acting within the scope of his or her employment; [for] in that situation the employer [would] only be liable ... vicariously under the theory of respondeat superior, [and] not for negligent supervision or retention." Rich v. Fox News Network, LLC, 939 F.3d 112, 129-130 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Gray v. Schenectady City Sch. Dist., 86 A.D.3d 771, 927 N.Y.S.2d 442, 446 (3d Dep't 2011)) (alterations in Rich). + +In defending her negligent supervision claim, Doe cites to her allegations that the "very 'corporate objective of [FTC] was to provide Jeffrey Epstein with sexual massages.'" (Doc. 55 at 23 (citing Doc. 41 ¶¶ 59, 244) (alteration in Doc. 55).) And while she points to other allegations that support the assertion that FTC's "corporate purpose" was to provide Epstein with sexual massages and therefore that the "corporate purpose" allegation was not conclusory, these claims simply suggest that Epstein and other FTC employees' actions were undertaken in the scope of their employment with FTC and therefore do not support a negligent supervision theory, but one of respondeat superiors Plaintiffs are permitted to plead both theories, "leaving it up to the jury to decide the scope of employment question," but Doe's discussion of the claims confuses the two in a manner that suggests that the negligent supervision claim is not properly pled. + +Further, Defendants' opening brief specifically challenges as conclusory Doe's pleading with respect to showing that the torts were committed on FTC's property or using its chattels, and that FTC knew or should have known of Epstein's propensity for the conduct before Doe's injury. (Doc. 50 at 15.) Doe's opposition brief, seemingly + +8 Defendants did not address the respondeat superior theory in their opening brief, and mention it in their reply brief in an approximately page-long summary of an opinion by Judge Sweet on the issue. (See Doc. 57 (citing Doe v. Abdulaziz Bin Fand Alsaud, 12 F. Supp. 3d 674 679 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).) To the extent Defendants arc attempting to challenge Doe's claim of respondeat superior liability, the Court declines to consider the argument because it was not raised in Defendants' opening brief. See Carlisle Ventures, 176 F.3d at 609. + +confusing the elements of respondeat superior and negligent supervision, does not meaningfully address these asserted deficiencies. The Court agrees that Doe's allegations with respect to the use of FTC's property or chattels are conclusory. Doe alleges that "Epstein was frequently utilizing corporate finances in furtherance of his sexually explicit behavior" (Doc. 41 ¶ 61), but does not explain how he did so. The Court disagrees that Doe's claims with regards to FTC's knowledge of Epstein's propensity are conclusory given the allegations regarding its role in coordinating sexually explicit massages and urging young females to participate in these massages. (See, e.g. id. ¶¶ 62, 64, 67, 68.) + +Accordingly, the Court dismisses without prejudice Doe's negligent supervision claim against FTC. + +# J. Defendants' Argument that Doe's Punitive Damages Claims Fail + +Defendants seek dismissal of Doe's claims for punitive damages from Epstein's estate" Defendants challenge Doe's request for punitive damages as to both the claims under New York law and the federal TVPA. The Court addresses each in turn. + +## 1. Punitive Damages Under New York Law + +New York's Estates, Powers and Trusts law provides: + +No cause of action for injury to person or property is lost because of the death of the person liable for the injury. For any injury, an action may be brought or continued against the personal representative of the decedent, but punitive damages shall not be awarded nor penalties adjudged in any such action brought to recover damages for personal injury. + +N.Y. Est. Powers & Trusts Law § 11-3.2(aX1) (emphasis added). + +Applying this statute, courts have found that a plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages for personal injury tort actions against a decedent's estate. See, e.g., Doe v. Indyke, No. 19 Civ. 10758 (PAE), 2020 WL 2036707, at \*2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2020) + +9 While they do not say so explicitly, Defendants do not dispute Doe's point that Defendants' arguments for dismissal do not apply to Doe's request for punitive damages from the Corporate Defendants. + +(collecting cases).10 Doe suggests three reasons why the Court should not apply what would seem to be a clear statutory bar on punitive damages here. + +First, Doe argues the Court should read this provision "as presupposing that the 'death' at issue was not self-inflicted by the tortfeasor, particularly where the tortfeasor appears to have committed suicide precisely to avoid punitive financial liability for his wrongdoing." (Doc. 55 at 26.) Doe speculates that she will be able to show through discovery that "Epstein committed suicide to escape large punitive damages awards which would erode his estate and consequently his plans for named beneficiaries to inherit his wealth."11 (Id. at 27.) But, Doe provides no authority that would suggest that the Court can ignore the statute's clear text. See Guterman v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 927 F.3d 67, 69-70 (2d Cir. 2019) (rejecting interpretation of New York statute that conflicted with the "clear and unambiguous text" of the statute and noting that New York courts find that as "a general matter, [the] unambiguous language of a statute is alone determinative.") (quoting v. Cty. of Broome, 95 N.Y.2d 455, 463-64 (2000).) Doe cites one decision by the Indiana Supreme Court, where in deciding that Indiana law prohibited a plaintiff from recovering punitive damages from the estate of a deceased tortfeasor, the court speculated that if it were ever confronted with a scenario where "a tortfeasor seems to have considered his own death as an escape from punitive damages incident to some intentional tort" it would "address that issue at that time." See Crabtree ex rel. Kemp v. Estate of Crabtree, 837 N.E.2d 135, 139 (Ind. 2005). Whatever the persuasive value of this dicta, Crabtree considered Indiana common law and not a statute that is reasonably read to foreclose the interpretation Doe seeks. + +10 This case is one of several currently pending in this District brought by one of Epstein's alleged victims and also raises the issue of the availability of punitive damages against Epstein's estate. + +I I Doc argues that "Epstein initially attempted suicide in the Metropolitan Correction Center just one day after being served with a civil complaint seeking punitive damages." and thereafter executed a new will just two days before committing suicide. (Doc. 55 at 27-28.) + +Second, Doe argues that the Court should "permit discovery to move forward to allow Doe to establish the elements of equitable estoppel—specifically, that Epstein's estate is equitably estopped from raising the New York restriction on damages because of Epstein's own wrongful actions." (Doc. 55 at 29.) The "wrongful actions" Doe references are not those alleged in Amended Complaint, but Epstein's affirmative wrongdoing "in committing suicide," the wrongfulness of which Doe argues "has long been recognized." (Id. at 29-31) Doe analogizes to situations in which courts have found that the doctrine of equitable estoppel can be applied to preclude a defendant from asserting a statute of limitations defense, and argues that Epstein's conduct "now creates the grounds for his estate to try to raise a bar against punitive damages." (Id. at 29) While there may be multiple deficiencies in Doe's novel argument, even the cases Doe cites note that equitable estoppel is only applicable where a plaintiff reasonably relies on defendants "deception, fraud or misrepresentations," and Doe does not allege a "deception, fraud or misrepresentation" by Epstein with regards to his suicide and on which she reasonably relied. See N. Coast Outfitters, Ltd. v. Darling, 134 A.D.3d 998, 999 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015) (quoting Putter v. North Shore Univ. Hosp., 7 N.Y.3d 548, 552-553 (2006)). + +Third, Doe argues that "Virgin Island courts would not permit Epstein to escape punitive damages liability through self-murder" and further that the Court should allow the case to proceed to discovery to allow the parties to investigate which forum has a greater interest in adjudicating Doe's claims in order to resolve the choice of law decision that "lurks in this case." (Doc. 55 at 32-36.) Doe, however, nowhere explains why Virgin Islands law might apply to this case, which alleges torts under New York law committed entirely within New York. Federal courts in New York apply New York's choice of law analysis. Under that analysis "[b]ecause punitive damages are conduct-regulating, `the law of the jurisdiction where the tort occurred will generally apply.' Starr Indem. Liab. Co. v. Am. Claims Mgmt., Inc., No. 14 Civ. 0463 (JMF), 2015 WL 2152816, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2015) (quoting Deutsch v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 723 F.Supp.2d + +521, 524 (E.D.N.Y.2010)); see also Doe v. Indyke, No. 19 Civ. 10758 (PAE), 2020 WL 2036707, at \*5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2020). Accordingly, a choice of law analysis suggests that New York law applies here, and therefore that N.Y. Est. Powers & Trusts Law § 11- 3.2(a)(1) bars punitive damages here.12 + +## I. Punitive Damages Under the TVPA + +The parties cite no cases that have considered the availability of punitive damages under the TVPA from a deceased defendant, and the Court is aware of none. As a general matter with regards to claims brought under federal law, "[u]nless a statute directly addresses the issue, courts are generally guided by principles of federal common law, which prescribe that claims characterized as `penal' abate upon a party's death, while claims characterized as `remedial' survive." U.S. ex rel. Colucci v. Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 603 F. Supp. 2d 677, 680 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). Though both parties agree that punitive damages are available under the TVPA, the TVPA does not state whether claims for punitive damages survive a defendant's death. A remedial statute "do[es] not seek to punish but to compensate." Biatiu v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, No. 19 Civ. 822 (RA), 2019 WL 5448702, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2019) (citing S.E.0 v. Willy, 860 F. Supp. 2d 275, 283 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)). Even where a statute is characterized as remedial, however, courts have found punitive damages unavailable. See. e.g., Estwick v. U.S. Air Shuttle, 950 F. Supp. 493, 498 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) (The punitive damages are plainly penal.. ..); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, No. 97 Civ. 6484 (LMM), 2000 WL 1024700, at \*7 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2000). + +This law suggests that punitive damages under the TVPA are not available after a defendant has died. Doe argues, however, that Epstein's estate should not be able to take advantage of an abatement argument, first, pursuant to equitable estoppel principles, an + +12 Moreover, in another case brought by one of Epstein's alleged victims, Judge Engelmayer opined that Virgin Islands courts would also bar punitive damages against the estate of a deceased tortfeasor, suggesting that no conflict of law exists. See Doe v. Indyke, No. 19 CIV. 10758 (PAE), 2020 WL 2036707, at \*7 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2020) + +argument the Court addressed and rejected above; and, second, because "[a]llowing a notorious sex trafficker such as Epstein to avoid punitive damages through the expedient of suicide—common law `self-murder'—would thwart Congress's purpose of protecting victims from sex trafficking operations directed by wealthy individuals, who upon capture could simply commit suicide to evade the MI financial consequences of their crimes" and would "be contrary to common law principles underlying punitive damages." (Doc. 55 at 39.) + +The Court is not convinced that Doe's stated reason justifies deviating from the rule that punitive damages are unavailable after a defendant dies. The Supreme Court has recognized that the purpose of punitive damages it "to punish [the defendant] for his outrageous conduct and to deter him and others like him from similar conduct in the future." v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 54, (1983) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908(1) (1977)) (modification in M); see also Vasbinder v. Scott, 976 F.2d 118, 121 (2d Cir. 1992) (same). After a defendant dies, the first two purposes of punitive damages, punishment and specific deterrence, cannot be achieved. See Kahlily v. Francis, No. 08 C 1515, 2008 WL 5244596, at \*6 ("Even if Kahlily could prove that Francis had engaged in outrageous conduct that caused a constitutional deprivation, the imposition of punitive damages cannot punish him or deter him from engaging in similar conduct in the future.") Further, the general deterrence purpose of punitive damages for TVPA violations is served by the availability of punitive damages against defendants who are alive. It is highly doubtful that a would-be TVPA violator would be less dissuaded to violate the statute by the prospect that punitive damages could be avoided if he committed suicide. Even Doe appears to concede that this possibility is unlikely. (See Doc. 55 at 28 ("It is apparent that a well-developed suicide-to-escape-punitive-damages issue has not been decided in a reported New York case, and perhaps under any case in American law. That should come as no surprise given the unusual set of circumstances that must align to present the issue.").) + +Accordingly, Doe's claims for punitive damages against Epstein's estate are dismissed with prejudice. + +**II. CONCLUSION** + +For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED with respect to Count II, Count V to the extent it alleges conduct between 2006 and 2010, Counts VI-IX to extent they allege a TVPA violation, other than conspiracy, before August 20, 2009, Count X to the extent it alleges a claim of negligent supervision, and Doe's claims for punitive damages against Epstein's estate. The remainder of Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED.13 + +Doe is directed to file an amended complaint by June 30, 2020, if at all. If an amended complaint is filed, Defendants are directed to respond to that complaint by July 21, 2020. If no amended complaint is filed, by July 28, 2020 the parties are directed to file, on consent, a proposed discovery schedule and Defendants are directed to answer Doe's First Amended Complaint. + +The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at Docs. 49, 53, and 60. + +It is SO ORDERED. + +Dated: June 9, 2020 +New York, New York + +![]()\_\_\_\_\_ +EDGARDO RAMOS, U.S.D.J. + +--- + +13 Defendants' request for oral argument (Doc. 60) is denied as moot. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751421/EFTA02751421.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751421/EFTA02751421.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8b0c91048dfb8f718cfdf7b9cea1f23bbfed0e83 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751421/EFTA02751421.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1633 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751421.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 30, + "chars": 64735, + "elapsed_seconds": 7.6, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 311.1565246582031, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 311.1565246582031, + 100.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 100.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "OPINION & ORDFa", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 374.544, + 159.57000000000002 + ], + [ + 501.342041015625, + 159.57000000000002 + ], + [ + 501.342041015625, + 174.363037109375 + ], + [ + 374.544, + 174.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 80.19 + ], + [ + 276.53448486328125, + 80.19 + ], + [ + 276.53448486328125, + 94.863037109375 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 94.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Alleged Conduct Against Doe", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 439.02 + ], + [ + 337.7802429199219, + 439.02 + ], + [ + 337.7802429199219, + 454.863037109375 + ], + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 454.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Alleged Involvement of the Corporate Defendants", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 122.4, + 534.6 + ], + [ + 442.9248352050781, + 534.6 + ], + [ + 442.9248352050781, + 550.5635375976562 + ], + [ + 122.4, + 550.5635375976562 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IL LEGAL STANDARD", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 486.80999999999995 + ], + [ + 239.313232421875, + 486.80999999999995 + ], + [ + 239.313232421875, + 502.863037109375 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 502.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "HI. DISCUSSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 534.6 + ], + [ + 202.01638793945312, + 534.6 + ], + [ + 202.01638793945312, + 551.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 551.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Defendants' Argument that Count II is Duplicative of Count I", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 271.35 + ], + [ + 480.3563537597656, + 271.35 + ], + [ + 480.3563537597656, + 286.8630676269531 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 286.8630676269531 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Defendants' Argument that Count V is Time-Barred", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 294.84000000000003 + ], + [ + 432.0917663574219, + 294.84000000000003 + ], + [ + 432.0917663574219, + 310.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 310.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Defendants' Argument that Doe's TVPA Claims Are Partially Time-\nBarred", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 364.5 + ], + [ + 509.79599999999994, + 364.5 + ], + [ + 509.79599999999994, + 394.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 394.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Defendants' Argument that Doe Has Failed to Allege the TVPA's \nIntent Requirements", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 605.0699999999999 + ], + [ + 494.512451171875, + 605.0699999999999 + ], + [ + 494.512451171875, + 634.4830169677734 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 634.4830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. Defendants' Argument that Doe's TVPA Claims Are Conclusory and \nUnsupported", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 514.8154296875, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 514.8154296875, + 100.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 100.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "F. Defendants' Argument that Doe's Negligence Claims Against the \nCorporate Defendants are Time-Barred", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 387.98999999999995 + ], + [ + 494.92449951171875, + 387.98999999999995 + ], + [ + 494.92449951171875, + 418.2194519042969 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 418.2194519042969 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "G. Defendants' Argument that Doe's Negligence Claims Against the \nCorporate Defendants Fail to More than Conclusorily Plead Damages", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 220.32000000000005 + ], + [ + 522.7823486328125, + 220.32000000000005 + ], + [ + 522.7823486328125, + 250.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 250.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Defendants' Argument that Doe's Negligence Claims Against HBRK \nand NES Impermissibly Rely on Group Pleading", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 387.98999999999995 + ], + [ + 513.2730102539062, + 387.98999999999995 + ], + [ + 513.2730102539062, + 418.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 418.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Defendants' Argument that Doe's Negligent Supervision Claim \nAgainst FTC Fails", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 387.98999999999995 + ], + [ + 485.2590637207031, + 387.98999999999995 + ], + [ + 485.2590637207031, + 418.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 418.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "J. Defendants' Argument that Doe's Punitive Damages Claims Fail", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 122.4, + 316.71000000000004 + ], + [ + 494.80657958984375, + 316.71000000000004 + ], + [ + 494.80657958984375, + 332.9830017089844 + ], + [ + 122.4, + 332.9830017089844 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Punitive Damages Under New York Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 159.732, + 409.04999999999995 + ], + [ + 401.01898193359375, + 409.04999999999995 + ], + [ + 401.01898193359375, + 424.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 159.732, + 424.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Punitive Damages Under the TVPA", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 159.732, + 173.34 + ], + [ + 372.18267822265625, + 173.34 + ], + [ + 372.18267822265625, + 188.60302734375 + ], + [ + 159.732, + 188.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 29, + "polygon": [ + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 208.07999999999998, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 208.07999999999998, + 140.13 + ], + [ + 87.51599999999999, + 140.13 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 78 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 79 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 63 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 62 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751421" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751451/EFTA02751451.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751451/EFTA02751451.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fb3a084c5bd918bb156928a3997a6de162f8b13b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751451/EFTA02751451.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +Bennet J. Moskowitz + +D: 212-704-6000 + +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com + +June 19, 2020 + +## VIA ELECTRONIC COURT FILING + +Hon. Debra C. Freeman + +Daniel Moynihan + +United States Courthouse + +500 Pearl Street + +New York, New York 10007 + +Re: Jane Doe, 1:19-cv-8673 (KPF) (DCFI + +Dear Judge Freeman: + +We write on behalf of both parties in the above-referenced action pursuant to the Court's Order dated June 15, 2020 (ECF No. 73). The parties have conferred and agreed on the following discovery schedule, without prejudice to their respective rights to object to or seek any and all discovery. + +- Substantial completion of document production: o July 3, 2020 +- Proposed depositions to take place on the following dates: o June 30, 2020 o July 2, 2020 o July 7, 2020 o July 9, 2020 o July 13, 2020 o July 15, 2020 o July 17, 2020 o July 20, 2020 o July 22, 2020 o July 23, 2020 o July 27, 2020 +- Plaintiff's Rule 35 examination to take place: o July 24, 2020 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/Bennet J. Moskowitz + +Bennet J. Moskowitz + +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751451/EFTA02751451.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751451/EFTA02751451.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9b5e625e2133aca65f2f92bd3c73f6420a9ded7a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751451/EFTA02751451.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,128 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751451.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1046, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.95, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ELECTRONIC COURT FILING", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 213.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 249.2187957763672, + 213.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 249.2187957763672, + 227.18701171875 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 227.18701171875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 21 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751451" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751453/EFTA02751453.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751453/EFTA02751453.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9f7ac886ec943852fe8ce9c17b2cba617be0e245 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751453/EFTA02751453.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +## KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +## VIA ECF + +Hon. Jude Freeman Daniel Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007 + +Dear Judge Freeman: + +NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 + +TEL (212) 763-0883 I FAX (212) 564-0883 + +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM + +DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0884 + +DIRECT EMAIL rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com + +June 21, 2020 + +Re: Doe v. Indyke et at, No. 19-cv-8673-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) + +We write pursuant to ECF Rule 21.7 and Rule of this Court's Individual Practices to request that Docket Numbers 74-1 and 74-3 be sealed and re-filed on the public docket in redacted form. + +Plaintiff contends these two documents contain highly confidential and sensitive information. Accordingly, with Defendants' consent, we request that Docket Numbers 74-1 and 74-3 be sealed, and that Defendants be permitted to re-file in redacted form. This request is made without prejudice to the parties' rights and legal positions. + +Thank you for your attention to this matter. + +Respectfully submitted, + +Roberta A. Kaplan + +cc: Counsel of Record \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751453/EFTA02751453.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751453/EFTA02751453.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dde1d00968e05295e23316f5c82e4207c516b1df --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751453/EFTA02751453.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,113 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751453.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1015, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.94, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 32.436, + 39.28936767578125 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 39.28936767578125 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 63.94818115234375 + ], + [ + 32.436, + 63.94818115234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 237.29888916015625 + ], + [ + 124.64768981933594, + 237.29888916015625 + ], + [ + 124.64768981933594, + 251.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 251.30352783203125 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751453" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751454/EFTA02751454.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751454/EFTA02751454.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8f688561d638f373bb59d299ee60ce4680700ce2 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751454/EFTA02751454.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +## KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +## VIA ECF + +Hon. Juliaa Freeman Daniel Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007 + +Dear Judge Freeman: + +NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 + +TEL (212) 763-0883 I FAX (212) 564-0883 + +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM + +DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0884 + +DIRECT EMAIL rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com + +June 21, 2020 + +Re: Doe v. ',dyke et al., No. 19-cv-8673-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) + +We write pursuant to ECF Rule 21.7 and Rule of this Court's Individual Practices to request that Docket Numbers 74-1 and 74-3 be sealed and re-filed on the public docket in redacted form. + +Plaintiff contends these two documents contain highly confidential and sensitive information. Accordingly, with Defendants' consent, we request that Docket Numbers 74-1 and 74-3 be sealed, and that Defendants be permitted to re-file in redacted form. This request is made without prejudice to the parties' rights and legal positions. + +Thank you for your attention to this matter. + +cc: Counsel of Record + +Respectfully submitted, + +Roberta A. Kaplan + +Upon hearing from counsel on 6/19/20 that Dkt. 74 contained confidential information, this Court directed that the entire docket entry be placed under seal. Counsel should now refile the full submission, with the confidential exhibits redacted, so as to omit the confidential information. + +Dated: 6/22/2020 SO ORDERED + +Zat DEBRA FREEMAN United States Magistrate Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751454/EFTA02751454.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751454/EFTA02751454.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..73d8fd4f4da6a2e5d4ff314db04e3529fe5e91a3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751454/EFTA02751454.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,113 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751454.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1387, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.07, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 33.048, + 39.28936767578125 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 39.28936767578125 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 63.94818115234375 + ], + [ + 33.048, + 63.94818115234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 124.17080688476562, + 251.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 251.60302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 19 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751454" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751455/EFTA02751455.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751455/EFTA02751455.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2db4fcbbd1b2be9827202ce52bd10cee23329d6a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751455/EFTA02751455.md @@ -0,0 +1,74 @@ +# Exhibit A + +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as the executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, + +Defendants. + +No. 19-cv-08673 (KPF) + +# PLAINTIFF'S RULE 26(2)(1) INITIAL DISCLOSURES + +Plaintiff, through her undersigned counsel, hereby makes the following initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. + +The following information reflects the current knowledge of Plaintiff and her counsel at this stage of the litigation and is subject to the reservation of all privileges and other immunities from discovery, including without limitation Plaintiff's right to assert any and all objections as to competency, relevancy, materiality, privilege, work product, use or admissibility as evidence. Plaintiff continues to investigate matters related to the litigation, may become aware of additional information through discovery or otherwise, may assert additional claims, and may become aware of new reasons why information presently known may be relevant to the claims in this action. Moreover, the issues raised in this matter may require analysis by retained experts. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement, revise, and/or correct these initial disclosures as appropriate. These disclosures do not purport to identify every document, tangible thing, or witness possibly relevant to all issues that may eventually be raised in this action and are made with the full reservation of rights to supplement, amend, correct or otherwise modify these disclosures, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e) or otherwise, if appropriate as investigation and discovery are conducted. The disclosures set forth + +below are organized to correspond to the general categories set forth in Rule 26(aX1)(A) and are made subject to the above objections and qualifications. + +The following are the disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1XA): + +- 1. The name, and if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable information that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless solely for impeachment, identifying the subjects of the information. + +Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(aX1)(A)(i) and subject to the reservation of all rights and privileges described above, based on her current knowledge, information, and belief and subject to further investigation, discovery, and analysis by experts, Plaintiff discloses the following names and, if known, the address and telephone numbers of the following persons who are likely to have discoverable information that may be used to support Plaintiff's claims, along with the subjects of that information. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or supplement this list as discovery proceeds as the identities of additional individuals who are likely to have discoverable information that Plaintiff may use to support her claims becomes known to her. + +| | Unknown | The allegations in the | +|-----------------|------------------------------|--------------------------------| +| Lesley Groff | Unknown | | +| Dr. Dawn Hughes | do Kaplan Hecker & Fink, LLP | Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse | +| | 350 Fifth Ave, Suite 7110 | of Plaintiff, including | +| | New York, NY 10118 | psychological impact of that | + +| [REDACTED] | [REDACTED] | Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of Plaintiff. | +|----------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +| Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexander Rossmiller, Esq. | U.S. Attorney's Office Southern District of New York One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 (212) 637-2415 | The allegations in the Complaint. | +| Diarmuid [REDACTED], Esq. | Unknown | Jeffrey Epstein's retention of Mr. [REDACTED] to represent Plaintiff in connection with a criminal investigation into Epstein's sexual abuse of minors. | + +Further expert disclosures will be made in accordance with the Court's forthcoming scheduling order and Rule 26(b)(2). Plaintiff reserves the right to use the testimony of other witnesses whose identity may be subsequently learned through discovery or other means. + +# 2. A copy of, or description by category and location of, all documents, data compilations and tangible things in the possession, custody or control of the party, and that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless solely for impeachment. + +Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(IXA)(ii), based on current knowledge, and subject to further investigation, discovery, and analysis by experts, Plaintiff hereby discloses the following categories of documents and things in her possession, custody or control that she may use to support her claims. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or supplement these disclosures as provided under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). The following disclosures do not include documents and things that are likely to be offered solely for impeachment: + +- I. Documents concerning the identity, name, date of birth, age, citizenship and/or residency of Plaintiff. +- 2. Documents and ESI related to the allegations in the Complaint (ECF No. I) including, but not limited to photographs, electronic communications, and written recollections. + +- 3. A computation of any category of damages claimed by the disclosing party, making available for inspection and copying as under Rule 34 the documents or other evidentiary material, not privileged or protected from disclosure, on which such computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered. + +Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(aX1)(A)(iii), Plaintiff discloses that she is entitled to recover damages in the form of, inter alia, actual damages, compensatory damages, statutory damages, consequential damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. Plaintiff anticipates that damages calculations will depend upon expert analyses and testimony to be developed and disclosed according to the schedule set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this list with any damages as she continues to investigate the claims in this action. Subject to the foregoing, Plaintiff has certain financial and employment records that may be relevant to damages calculations. + +- 4. Any insurance agreement under which any person carrying on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy all or part of a judgment which may be entered in the action to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment. + +Not applicable. + +Respectfully submitted, + +Roberta A. Kaplan Julie E. Fink Kate L. Doniger Alexandra K. Conlon KAPLAN HECKER & FINK, LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 763-0883 rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com ifinkalanlanhecker.com kdoniger kaolanhecker.com aconlon@kaplanhecker.com Counsel for Plaintiff + +# CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +I hereby certify that on February 5, 2020, I provided copies of the foregoing via email to the following: + +Bennet Jerome Moskowitz Troutman Sanders LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 (212)-704-6087 Fax: (212)-704-6288 Email: bennet.moskowitz@troutmansanders.com + +Counsel for Defendants + +Roberta A. Kaplan KAPLAN HECKER & FINK, LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 763-0883 + +Counsel for Plaintiff \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751455/EFTA02751455.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751455/EFTA02751455.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f29ee25d6b483d1a7b000e1a8714e13905b62e0d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751455/EFTA02751455.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,392 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751455.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 6, + "chars": 8288, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.11, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit A", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 159.12, + 163.4637451171875 + ], + [ + 464.2647705078125, + 163.4637451171875 + ], + [ + 464.2647705078125, + 238.600830078125 + ], + [ + 159.12, + 238.600830078125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 80.172, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 304.47381591796875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 304.47381591796875, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 80.172, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PLAINTIFF'S RULE 26(2)(1) INITIAL DISCLOSURES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 156.67200000000003, + 250.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 456.25225830078125, + 250.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 456.25225830078125, + 265.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 156.67200000000003, + 265.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. A copy of, or description by category and location of, all documents, data \ncompilations and tangible things in the possession, custody or control of the \nparty, and that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, \nunless solely for impeachment.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 377.46000000000004 + ], + [ + 523.8583984375, + 377.46000000000004 + ], + [ + 523.8583984375, + 434.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 434.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.768, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 388.8902587890625, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 388.8902587890625, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 222.768, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 3 + ], + [ + "Line", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751455" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751461/EFTA02751461.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751461/EFTA02751461.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4609b358af82b27f555fc9423a8cc4e138994e41 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751461/EFTA02751461.md @@ -0,0 +1,280 @@ +# Exhibit B + +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +v. + +DARREN K. INDYKE AND RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as the executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, + +Defendants. + +Index No. I :19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF + +#### DEFENDANTS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF + +Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and subject to the following instructions and definitions, Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the "Co-Executors" or the "Defendants"), by and through their undersigned counsel, submit this First Set of Interrogatories (the "Interrogatories") to Plaintiff. Plaintiff shall provide answers to each individual interrogatory within thirty (30) days after the date of service hereof, to the offices of Troutman Sanders LLP. Attn: Bennet Moskowitz, 875 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022. + +#### DEFINITIONS + +The following terms herein have the following meanings: + +I. The definitions and rules of construction set forth in Rule 26.3(c) and (d) of the Local Rules of the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York are incorporated herein by reference. Without limitation to the foregoing, the term "document" specifically includes electronic documents and data -- whether such data has been "deleted" or not -- residing on any server, computer, terminal, hard drive, diskette, CD, DVD, tape, or other storage media. + +2. The term "Decedent" means Jeffrey Edward Epstein. + +3. The term "this litigation" means the above captioned action. + +4. The terms "you" or "your" means the Plaintiff in this litigation and all other persons acting for Plaintiff or on her behalf, including, without limitation, representatives, agents, employees, attorneys, accountants and investigators. + +5. The term "medical providers" means all persons who provide advice or treatment, or participate in evaluations or assessments, concerning an individual's health or well-being, whether mental or physical. This includes, but is not limited to, all doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, nurses, physical therapists, physicians' assistants, nurse practitioners, medical technicians, behavioral specialists, massage therapists, chiropractors, behavioral therapists, nutritionists, technicians and mental therapists, whether licensed or otherwise. + +6. The term "medical procedures and consultations" means all evaluations, consultations, procedures, examinations, and appointments conducted by, with or on behalf of one or more medical providers. This includes, but is not limited to, all doctors' appointments, or group therapy sessions, medical and psychiatric evaluations, lab work, surgeries, observations, prescriptions, tests, nutrition plans and diagnoses. + +- 7. The term "Complaint" means the complaint filed by Plaintiff in this litigation and all amendments thereto. + +## INSTRUCTIONS + +The following instructions apply to each individual interrogatory contained herein: + +- I. The provisions of Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules 26.2 and 26.3 of the Local Civil Rules for the United States District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. +- 2. If you object to any part of the following interrogatories and refuse to answer that part, state your objection and answer the remaining portions. +- 3. If any of the following interrogatories cannot be answered in full after exercising due diligence to secure the information, please so state and answer to the extent possible, specifying your inability to answer the remainder and stating whatever information you have concerning the unanswered portions. +- 4. If any of your answers to the following interrogatories are qualified in any manner. set forth the details of such qualification. +- 5. You must furnish all information responsive to these interrogatories that is in your actual or constructive possession, custody or control, including all responsive information within the actual or constructive possession, custody or control of all of your representatives, agents, employees, attorneys, accountants, investigators and all other persons acting for you or on your behalf. + +6. In the event you claim that any information called for in any interrogatory is immune from discovery on the grounds of attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other privilege or immunity from disclosure, you must provide in writing all information required by Local Civil Rule 26.2. + +7. Where an interrogatory asks that a date, an amount, or any other specific information be provided. your best approximation of the information requested and the basis upon which your approximation is grounded is to be given if the precise information requested is unknown. + +8. If, in responding to the interrogatories, you claim that there is any ambiguity in either a particular interrogatory or in a definition or an instruction applicable thereto, such claim shall not be used by you as a basis for refusing to answer, but you shall set forth as part of the response the language deemed to be ambiguous and the interpretation chosen or used in responding to the particular interrogatory. + +9. For purposes of interpreting or construing the following interrogatories, the terms used are to be given their most expansive and inclusive interpretation, unless otherwise specifically limited in the interrogatory itself. + +10. In the event it is claimed that any interrogatory is premature because your investigation of the subject matter of the interrogatory or your discovery is not completed, provide all the information now available to you and promptly supplement the response as soon as further information is found. + +11. The following interrogatories are continuing in nature, and you are must provide all additional responsive information by way of supplemental responses. + +### INTERROGATORIES + +I. Identify all persons with knowledge of information concerning the subject matter of this litigation, and the subject matter of their knowledge. + +2. Identify and describe the computation of each category of damages for which you seek recovery in this litigation. + +3. Identify the existence, custodian and location of, and generally describe, all documents and communications concerning the subject matter of this litigation. + +4. Identify each employee of, agent of, or other individual associated with Decedent with whom you communicated or interacted; and identify the date of, and describe the nature of, each such communication or interaction. + +5. Describe with particularity all duties owed to you by Decedent. + +6. Identify and describe with particularity each act or omission on the part of Decedent that you allege constitutes a breach of a duty owed to you. For each act or omission identified, identify the date of the alleged act or omission, all persons with knowledge of the facts set forth in your response to this interrogatory, and all documents evidencing or otherwise concerning the information set forth in your response to this interrogatory. + +7. Identify and describe with particularity each act or omission on the part of Decedent that you allege constitutes a violation of New York Penal Law § 130. For each act or omission identified, identify the date of the alleged act or omission, all persons with knowledge of the facts set forth in your response to this interrogatory, and all documents evidencing or otherwise concerning the information set forth in your response to this interrogatory. + +8. Identify with particularity each act or omission on the part of Decedent that you allege constitutes a tort. For each act or omission identified, identify the date of the alleged act or omission, the tort you allege the act or omission constitutes, all persons with knowledge of the information set forth in your response to this interrogatory, and all documents evidencing or otherwise concerning such information. + +9. Identify all persons other than Decedent who have ever committed or attempted to commit sexual misconduct or offenses against or otherwise concerning you, including, without limitation, any unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature, sexual abuse, sexual assault, threats or intimidation of a sexual nature, or sexual exploitation, regardless of whether the misconduct or offenses involved physical touching. For each person identified, identify the misconduct or offense committed, and the date and location of the misconduct or offense. + +10. Identify all medical procedures and consultations you received, including the dates of each procedure and consultation, the locations of each procedure and consultation, and the identities of all medical providers who conducted or otherwise participated in each procedure and consultation. The relevant time period for this interrogatory is the date on which you first learned of Decedent through the date of your responses to these interrogatories. + +II. Regardless of date and the relation (or lack thereof) to Decedent's acts and omissions alleged in the Complaint or otherwise, identify all medical procedures and consultations you received evidencing or otherwise concerning the following conditions: + +- a. an eating disorder, +- b. emotional distress, +- c. psychological or psychiatric trauma, +- d. mental anguish, +- e. humiliation, +- f. confusion, +- R. embarrassment, +- h. loss of self-esteem, +- i. loss of dignity, +- j. loss of enjoyment of life, +- k. pain, +- 1. suffering, or + +m. any condition that would require surgery to correct. + +12. State whether you have ever experienced the same or similar conditions and damages, for which you seek recovery from Defendants in this litigation, as a result of acts or omissions by persons other than Decedent. If you answer this interrogatory in the affirmative: identify each such person; describe the acts or omissions that resulted in the damages; identify the dates and locations of such acts and omissions; and describe the damages that resulted. + +13. Identify all things of value you received from Decedent, including a description of the thing, the date on which you received the thing, and the person who tendered the thing to you. + +14. Identify all documents and communications upon which you intend to rely in this litigation, including but not limited to in the course of depositions, in support of any motion, and at any hearing or trial. + +IS. Identify all documents and communications evidencing or otherwise concerning damages and everything else for which you seek recovery in this litigation, including but not limited to damages you allege in your Complaint, medical fees, attorneys' fees and lost wages. + +Dated: New York, New York + +March 10, 2020 TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP + +By: s/Rennet Moskowitz + +Bennet Moskowitz + +875 Third Avenue + +New York, New York 10022 + +Tel: (212) 704- 6087 + +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com + +Attorney for Defendants + +## CERTIFICATE OF SERVI\_CE + +The undersigned certifies that on March 10, 2020, I served a copy of the foregoing Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff, by sending them via email and Federal Express to: + +Roberta A. Kaplan KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, New York 10118 + +TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP + +By: shtV Me e Mary W. Metcalfe 875 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 Tel: (212) 704-6029 marygrace.metcalfe@troutman.com + +Attorney for Defendants + +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaintiff + +v. + +DARREN K. INDYKE AND RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as the executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, + +Defendants. + +Index No. I :19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF + +#### DEFENDANTS' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF + +Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and subject to the following instructions and definitions, Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the "Co-Executors" or the "Defendants"), by and through their undersigned counsel, make this First Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff. The documents shall be produced within thirty (30) days after the date of service hereof, at the offices of Troutman Sanders LLP, Attn: Bennet Moskowitz, 875 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022. + +#### DEFINITIONS + +The following terms have the following meanings and shall apply to each individual request for documents herein: + +I. The definitions and rules of construction set forth in Rules 26.3(c) and (d) of the Local Rules of the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York are incorporated herein by reference. Without limitation to the foregoing, the term "document" specifically includes electronic documents and data -- whether such data has been "deleted" or not -- residing on any server, computer, terminal, hard drive, diskette, CD, DVD, tape, or other storage media. + +2. The term "Decedent" means Jeffrey Edward Epstein. + +3. The term "this litigation" means the above-captioned action. + +4. The terms "you" or "your" means the Plaintiff in this litigation and all other persons acting for Plaintiff or on her behalf, including, without limitation, representatives, agents, employees, attorneys, accountants and investigators. + +5. The term "other legal proceeding" means, excluding this litigation, all currently pending, prior, threatened and proposed criminal and civil actions and alternative dispute resolution proceedings, whether arbitration, mediation or otherwise. + +6. The term "investigation" means any inquiry or investigation by any local, state, federal, or regulatory agency or authority. + +7. The term "medical providers" means all persons who provide advice or treatment, or participate in evaluations or assessments, concerning an individual's health or well-being, whether mental or physical. This includes, but is not limited to, all doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, nurses, physical therapists, physicians' assistants, nurse practitioners, + +medical technicians, behavioral specialists, massage therapists, chiropractors, behavioral therapists, nutritionists, technicians and mental therapists, whether licensed or otherwise. + +8. The term "medical procedures and consultations" means all evaluations, consultations, procedures, examinations, and appointments conducted by, with or on behalf of one or more medical providers. This includes, but is not limited to, all doctors' appointments, or group therapy sessions, medical and psychiatric evaluations, lab work, surgeries, observations, prescriptions, tests, nutrition plans and diagnoses. + +9. The term "Complaint" means the complaint filed by Plaintiff in this litigation, and all amendments thereto. + +10. The term "non-party" means any person other than the parties to this litigation. + +# INSTRUCTIONS + +The following instructions apply to each individual request for documents contained herein: + +I. The provisions of Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules 26.2 and 26.3 of the Local Civil Rules for the United States District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. + +2. You must produce all documents responsive to these requests which are in your actual or constructive possession, custody or control, including all documents within the actual or constructive possession, custody or control of all of your representatives, agents, employees, attorneys, accountants, investigators and all other persons acting for you or on your behalf. + +3. All documents are to be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business, in the files in which such documents have been maintained, and in the order within each file in which such documents have been maintained. All documents are to be produced along with copies of folders in which they are kept. + +4. If you know of the existence, past or present, of any document requested herein, but are unable to produce such document because it is not presently in your possession, custody or control, or in the possession, custody or control of your representatives, agents, employees, attorneys, accountants, investigators and all other persons acting for you or on your behalf, you shall so state in your response and shall identify (by title, if any, nature of document and subject matter) such document and shall identify (by name, address and telephone number) the person in whose possession, custody or control the document was last known to reside. + +5. For purposes of interpreting or construing the following requests, the terms used are to be given their most expansive and inclusive interpretation, unless otherwise specifically limited in the document request itself. + +6. You must respond fully to each document request. If you object to a document request, you must state with specificity all grounds for your objection. If an objection pertains only to a portion of a document request, or a word, phrase or clause contained therein, you must state your objection to that portion only and respond as completely as possible to the remainder of the document request. No part of any document request may be left unanswered merely because an objection is interposed to another part of the request. + +7. If your answer to any document request is qualified in any manner, you must set forth the reason for and details of such qualification. + +8. In the event you claim that any information called for in any document request is immune from discovery on the grounds of attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other privilege or immunity from disclosure, you must provide in writing all information required by Local Civil Rule 26.2. + +9. A complete original or copy of each document or thing must be produced, even if only a portion of such document or thing is responsive to a document request. Documents should not be edited, cut, redacted (except where you assert a claim of attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other privilege or immunity from disclosure with respect to a portion of a document), or expunged, and should include all attachments, appendices, tables and exhibits, in addition to all covering memoranda, letters, folders or documents. + +10. Electronically stored information should be produced in accordance with the Parties' agreed upon ESI protocols. + +11. The relevant time period for these requests, unless otherwise indicated by an individual request, is the date on which you first learned of Decedent through the date of your responses to these requests. + +12. These requests are continuing in nature. You must produce all additional responsive information and documents by way of supplemental responses. + +# DOCUMENT REOUESTS + +1. All documents and communications with or otherwise concerning Decedent. This includes, without limitation, all communications concerning Decedent which are to, from, or which copy: (i) members of the press, media or publishing industry; (ii) law enforcement personnel; (iii) government agents, including, without limitation, prosecutors and government attorneys; and communications which are to, from, or which copy you or your attorneys, on the one hand, and other persons who have filed lawsuits or made claims against Decedent or his estate, or such other persons' attorneys, on the other hand. + +2. To the extent not otherwise produced in response to the foregoing, all documents and communications concerning any other legal proceeding or investigation that concerns Decedent. + +3. To the extent not otherwise produced in response to the foregoing, all nonprivileged documents and communications concerning this litigation. + +4. A copy of your birth certificate. + +5. Copies of all of your passports. + +6. Documents sufficient to establish your place of residency at all times during the relevant time period. + +7. Documents sufficient to establish your domicile at all times during the relevant time period. + +8. Documents sufficient to identify the location, nature, and scope of your employment during the relevant time period. + +9. Documents sufficient to identify the source, nature, and scope of all financial support or income you received during the relevant time period. + +10. Documents sufficient to establish your complete academic history. + +I I. Documents sufficient to identify all telephone numbers you used during the relevant time period. + +12. Documents sufficient to identify all email addresses you used during the relevant time period. + +13. All documents and communications concerning all medical procedures and consultations you received during the relevant time period. + +14. Regardless of date and the relation (or lack thereof) to Decedent's acts and omissions alleged in the Complaint or otherwise, all documents and communications concerning all medical procedures and consultations you received evidencing or otherwise concerning the following conditions: + +- a. an eating disorder, +- b. emotional distress, +- c. psychological or psychiatric trauma, +- d. mental anguish, +- e. humiliation, +- f. confusion, +- g. embarrassment, +- h. loss of self-esteem, +- i. loss of dignity, +- j. loss of enjoyment of life, +- k. pain, +- 1. suffering, or +- m. any condition that would require surgery to correct. + +15. To the extent not otherwise produced in response to the foregoing request and regardless of date and the relation (or lack thereof) to Decedent's acts and omissions alleged in the Complaint or otherwise, all documents and communications evidencing or otherwise concerning your experience of the same or similar conditions and damages for which you seek recovery from Defendants in this litigation. + +16. To the extent not otherwise responsive to these requests, all documents and communications concerning anything of value you received from Decedent. + +17. To the extent not otherwise responsive to these requests, all documents and communications concerning your allegations in the Complaint. + +IS. To the extent not otherwise responsive to these requests, all documents and communications upon which you intend to rely in this litigation, including but not limited to in the course of depositions, in support of any motion, and at any hearing and trial. + +19. To the extent not otherwise produced in response to these requests, all documents and communications evidencing or otherwise concerning any damages you allege you suffered concerning the allegations in your Complaint, including but not limited to all medical fees, attorneys' fees and lost wages. + +20. All documents identified in your response to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff. + +Dated: New York, New York + +March 10, 2020 TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP + +By: s/Bennet Moskowitz Bennet Moskowitz 875 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 Tel: (212) 704- 6087 bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com Attorney for Defendants + +#### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + +The undersigned certifies that on March 10, 2020, I served a copy of the foregoing Defendants' First Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff, by sending them via email and Federal Express to: + +Roberta A. Kaplan Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, New York 10118 + +TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP + +By: slMa , W. Metcal e Mary W. Metcalfe 875 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 Tel: (212) 704-6029 marygrace.metcalfe@troutman.com + +Attorney for Defendants \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751461/EFTA02751461.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751461/EFTA02751461.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7f2b1747ab617447f4fe3850ad2737109a345bad --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751461/EFTA02751461.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1000 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751461.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 18, + "chars": 23453, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.08, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit B", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 160.95600000000002, + 163.38720703125 + ], + [ + 463.06500244140625, + 163.38720703125 + ], + [ + 463.06500244140625, + 239.11029052734375 + ], + [ + 160.95600000000002, + 239.11029052734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 418.09381103515625, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 418.09381103515625, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DEFENDANTS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES \nTO PLAINTIFF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 157.28400000000002, + 294.03 + ], + [ + 455.18621826171875, + 294.03 + ], + [ + 455.18621826171875, + 323.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 157.28400000000002, + 323.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DEFINITIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 264.384, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 349.435302734375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 349.435302734375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 264.384, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INSTRUCTIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 257.652, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 355.3839111328125, + 181.44 + ], + [ + 355.3839111328125, + 196.863037109375 + ], + [ + 257.652, + 196.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTERROGATORIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 244.188, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 369.3242492675781, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 369.3242492675781, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 244.188, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVI_CE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 223.38, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 388.65289306640625, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 388.65289306640625, + 113.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 223.38, + 113.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 418.09381103515625, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 418.09381103515625, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DEFENDANTS' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS \nTO PLAINTIFF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.652, + 294.03 + ], + [ + 508.3609924316406, + 294.03 + ], + [ + 508.3609924316406, + 323.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 104.652, + 323.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DEFINITIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 263.772, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 349.435302734375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 349.435302734375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 263.772, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INSTRUCTIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 257.652, + 345.87 + ], + [ + 355.3839111328125, + 345.87 + ], + [ + 355.3839111328125, + 362.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 257.652, + 362.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DOCUMENT REOUESTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 233.784, + 484.37999999999994 + ], + [ + 379.0392150878906, + 484.37999999999994 + ], + [ + 379.0392150878906, + 500.60302734375 + ], + [ + 233.784, + 500.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.768, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 389.619384765625, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 389.619384765625, + 85.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 222.768, + 85.93353271484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 45 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 64 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 12 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 44 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 48 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 18 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 37 + ], + [ + "Line", + 19 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751461" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751479/EFTA02751479.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751479/EFTA02751479.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d3d460547cac38a3bf9872b13172edbfc0f56e8c --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751479/EFTA02751479.md @@ -0,0 +1,550 @@ +# Exhibit C + +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaintiff + +v. + +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, + +Defendants. + +Case No. 19 Civ. 8673 (KPF) (DCF) + +## PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' FIRST REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS + +Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the Southern District of New York (together, the "Rules"), Plaintiff Jane Doe, by and through her attorneys, submits these responses and objections ("Responses") to Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Defendants") First Request for the Production of Documents dated March 10, 2020. + +The Definitions and Instructions below form an integral part of the Requests that follow and must be read in conjunction with the Requests and followed when responding to the Requests. + +## GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES + +The following general objections and responses (the "General Objections") are incorporated into each specific objection and response (the "Specific Objections") as if fully set forth therein: + +- I. Plaintiff objects to the Requests to the extent they are duplicative, cumulative, or seek information that has been or will be provided through other means of discovery. + +2. Plaintiff objects to the Requests to the extent they are vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, seek information not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party, or are not proportional to the needs of the case. + +3. Plaintiff objects to the Requests to the extent they impose any obligations or requirements beyond the scope of the Rules or any case law interpreting them. + +4. Plaintiff's Responses are not intended to be and shall not be construed as an agreement or concurrence that all information provided is admissible. + +5. Plaintiff objects to each Request to the extent that it calls for documents that: (a) are already in Defendants' possession, custody, or control; (b) are publicly available; or (c) are otherwise independently available to Defendants or their counsel. + +6. Plaintiff objects to the Requests to the extent they purport to call for documents or information that: (a) are subject to the attorney-client privilege; (b) constitute attorney work product; (c) are protected from disclosure based on common interest or a similar privilege; or (d) are otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable privilege, law, or rule. Plaintiff will not produce such information in response to the Requests, and any inadvertent production thereof shall not be deemed a waiver of any privilege with respect to such information. + +7. Plaintiff objects to the Requests to the extent they seek information protected by federal or state law. Except to the extent permitted by an applicable exception or court order, Plaint' if will not disclose any information in violation of federal or state law. + +8. Plaintiff objects to the Requests to the extent they require unreasonable measures to locate and produce responsive documents. Plaintiff will construe the Requests to require a reasonable and diligent search of her reasonably-accessible files where she would reasonably expect to find information, documents, or things related to the Requests, and specifically states that she will limit her search for electronically stored information by use of identified search terms to be agreed upon by the Parties. + +9. Plaintiff objects to the Requests, and in particular, Definitions No. 4 and Instructions Nos. 2 and 4, to the extent that they seek information or documents that are not within Plaintiff's possession, custody, or control. Subject to this General Objection, in responding to the Requests, Plaintiff will provide only responsive, non-privileged documents within Plaintiff's own possession, custody, or control. + +10. Plaintiff objects to Instruction No. 3 insofar as it seeks to impose obligations greater than those imposed by the Rules or any other applicable law or rule. + +II. Plaintiff objects to Instruction No. 4 insofar as it imposes obligations greater than those imposed by the Rules and it seeks information or documents that are not within Plaintiff's possession, custody, or control. + +12. Plaintiff objects to Instruction No. 11 to the extent that it seeks information or documents beyond the time period relevant to the allegations listed in the Complaint (ECF I). + +13. Plaintiff objects to each Request to the extent that it asks Plaintiff to identify "all" documents, communications, information etc., on the ground that each such Request is overly broad and that compliance with each such Request would be unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of this case. + +14. Plaintiff objects to each Request to the extent that it seeks information or documents beyond the time period relevant to Plaintiff's claims. + +15. Plaintiff objects to the Requests to the extent they contain express or implied assumptions of fact or law with respect to matters at issue in this case. Plaintiff's Responses to the Requests are not intended to be and shall not be construed as an agreement or concurrence with Defendants' characterization of any facts, circumstances, or legal obligations. Plaintiff reserves the right to contest any such characterization as inaccurate. + +16. Plaintiff expressly reserves all rights and privileges under the Rules and any other applicable law or rule. The failure to assert such rights and privileges or the inadvertent disclosure by Plaintiff of information or documents protected by such rights or privileges shall not constitute a waiver thereof, either with respect to these Responses or with respect to any future discovery objections or responses. + +17. The fact that Plaintiff has responded to a particular Request shall not be interpreted as implying that Plaintiff acknowledges the propriety of that Request. + +18. Plaintiff's Responses to the Requests are made to the best of Plaintiff's present knowledge, information, and belief. These Responses are at all times subject to such additional or different information that discovery or further investigation may disclose and, while based on the present state of Plaintiff's knowledge and investigation, are subject to such additional knowledge of facts as may result from Plaintiff's further discovery or investigation. + +19. Plaintiff reserves the right to make any use of, or to introduce at any hearing and at trial, information responsive to the Requests but discovered subsequent to the date of these Responses, including, but not limited to, any such information obtained in discovery herein. + +20. Plaintiff reserves all objections or other questions as to the competency, relevance, materiality, privilege, or admissibility of Plaintiff's Responses herein and any documents produced subject thereto, as evidence in any subsequent proceeding in, or trial of, this or any other action, or for any other purpose whatsoever. + +21. Plaintiff's Responses to the Requests will be subject to the protections of any Protective Order entered by the Court governing the handling of confidential material in this case. + +22. Plaintiff will produce responsive documents pursuant to its General and Specific Objections on a rolling basis. + +23. Plaintiff is available to meet and confer with Defendants in an effort to resolve any disputes that may arise concerning these Responses. + +#### SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES + +#### REOUEST NO. I + +All documents and communications with or otherwise concerning Decedent. This includes, without limitation, all communications concerning Decedent which are to, from, or which copy: (i) members of the press, media or publishing industry; (ii) law enforcement personnel; (iii) government agents, including, without limitation, prosecutors and government attorneys; and communications which are to, from, or which copy you or your attorneys, on the one hand, and other persons who have filed lawsuits or made claims against Decedent or his estate, or such other persons' attorneys, on the other hand. + +# RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 1 + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. I on the ground that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information not relevant to either party's claims or defenses in this litigation, and will withhold responsive documents and communications, if any, based on this objection. Plaintiff further objects to Request No. 1 to the extent it calls for the production of documents and communications that are subject to the attorney-client privilege, constitute attorney work product, or are otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable privilege, law, or rule, and will withhold responsive documents and communications, if any, based on this objection. + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents and communications concerning the claims and defenses in this litigation and responsive to this request, if any. + +#### REOUEST NO. 2 + +To the extent not otherwise produced in response to the foregoing, all documents and communications concerning any other legal proceeding or investigation that concerns Decedent. + +# RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 2 + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents and communications that are responsive to this request, if any. + +# REQUEST NO.3 + +To the extent not otherwise produced in response to the foregoing, all non-privileged documents and communications concerning this litigation. + +# RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.3 + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 3 on the ground that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information not relevant to either party's claims or defenses to the extent that "concerning this litigation" has a meaning other than "concerning the claims and defenses in this litigation" and will withhold responsive documents and communications, if any, based on this objection. + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents and communications concerning the claims and defenses at issue in this litigation, if any. + +# REOUEST NO.4 + +A copy of your birth certificate. + +# RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO.4 + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 4 on the ground that it seeks information not relevant to either party's claims or defenses, and will withhold responsive documents and communications, i f any, based on this objection. + +#### REQUEST NO. 5 + +Copies of all of your passports. + +# RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 5 + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 5 on the ground that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information not relevant to either party's claims or defenses to the extent it requests all Plaintiff's passports, and will withhold responsive documents and communications, if any, based on this objection. + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce a copy of her current passport, if any. + +## REOUEST NO.6 + +Documents sufficient to establish your Place of residency at all times during the relevant time period. + +# RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.6 + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 6 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined phrase "sufficient to establish." + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents, if any, that demonstrate Plaintiff's residency (1) during the period relevant to the allegations in the Complaint and (2) at present. + +#### REQUEST NO.7 + +Documents sufficient to establish your domicile at all times during the relevant time period. + +# RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.7 + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 7 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined phrase "sufficient to establish." + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents, if any, that demonstrate Plaintiff's domicile (1) during the period relevant to the allegations in the Complaint and (2) at present. + +#### REOUEST NO.8 + +Documents sufficient to identify the location, nature, and scope of your employment during the relevant time period. + +# RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO.8 + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 8 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined phrase "sufficient to identify" and the terms "nature" and "scope." + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents and communications demonstrating her employment that are responsive to this request, if any. + +# REQUEST NO.9 + +Documents sufficient to identify the source, nature, and scope of all financial support or income you received during the relevant time period. + +# RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.9 + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 9 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined phrase "sufficient to identify," and the terms "nature" and "scope." + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents and communications demonstrating her financial support and income that are responsive to this request, if any. + +## REQUEST NO. 10 + +Documents sufficient to establish your complete academic history. + +#### RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 10 + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 10 on the ground that it seeks information not relevant to either party's claims or defenses to the extent that it seeks documents concerning Plaintiff's "complete academic history" (emphasis added). Plaintiff further objects to the Request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined phrases "sufficient to establish" and "academic history." + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents that demonstrate Plaintiff's academic history during the relevant time period, if any. + +# REOUEST NO. 11 + +Documents sufficient to identify all telephone numbers you used during the relevant time period. + +# RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11 + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 11 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined phrase "sufficient to identify." + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents to identify each of Plaintiff's telephone numbers during the relevant time period, if any. + +# REOUEST NO. 12 + +Documents sufficient to identify all email addresses you used during the relevant time period. + +#### RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12 + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 12 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined phrase "sufficient to identify." + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents to identify each of Plaintiff's email addresses during the relevant time period, if any. + +#### REQUEST NO. 13 + +All documents and communications concerning all medical procedures and consultations you received during the relevant time period. + +#### RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13 + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 13 on the ground that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information not relevant to either party's claims or defenses to the extent that it seeks documents and communications concerning "all medical procedures and consultations" (emphasis added) regardless of the relation to the allegations in the Complaint, and will withhold responsive documents and communications, if any, based on this objection. + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents and communications concerning medical procedures and consultations received by Plaintiff during the relevant time period that relate to allegations of the Complaint, if any. + +# REQUEST NO. 14 + +Regardless of date and the relation (or lack thereof) to Decedent's acts and omissions alleged in the Complaint or otherwise, all documents and communications concerning all medical procedures and consultations you received evidencing or otherwise concerning the following conditions: + +- a. an eating disorder, +- b. emotional distress, +- c. psychological or psychiatric trauma, +- d. mental anguish, +- e. humiliation, +- f. confusion, +- g. embarrassment, +- h. loss of self-esteem, +- i. loss of dignity, +- j. loss of enjoyment of life, +- k. pain, +- I. suffering, or +- m. any condition that would require surgery to correct. + +#### RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 14 + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 14 on the ground that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information not relevant to either party's claims or defenses to the extent that it seeks documents and communications concerning "all medical procedures and consultations" regardless of the relation to the allegations in the Complaint and to the extent it requests information for "any condition that would require surgery to correct," and will withhold responsive documents and communications, if any, based on this objection. Plaintiff further objects to Request No. 14 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined phrase "evidencing or otherwise concerning." + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents and communications concerning medical procedures and consultations received by Plaintiff concerning the aforementioned conditions that relate to the allegations in the Complaint, if any. + +# REOUEST NO. 15 + +To the extent not otherwise produced in response to the foregoing request and regardless of date and the relation (or lack thereof) to Decedent's acts and omissions alleged in the Complaint or otherwise, all documents and communications evidencing or otherwise concerning your experience of the same or similar conditions and damages for which you seek recovery from Defendants in this litigation. + +# RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 15 + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 15 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined phrase "similar conditions and damages" and the term "evidencing." + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents and communications concerning her experience of the same conditions and damages from which she seeks recovery in this litigation, if any. + +#### REQUEST NO. 16 + +To the extent not otherwise responsive to these requests, all documents and communications concerning anything of value you received from Decedent. + +#### 141.SPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 16 + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 16 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined phrase "anything of value." + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents and communications concerning anything of monetary value she received from Decedent, if any. + +## REQUEST NO. 17 + +To the extent not otherwise responsive to these requests, all documents and communications concerning your allegations in the Complaint. + +## RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 17 + +Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents and communications not otherwise responsive to other Requests concerning the allegations in the Complaint, if any. + +## REQUEST NO. 18 + +To the extent not otherwise responsive to these requests, all documents and communications upon which you intend to rely in this litigation, including but not limited to in the course of depositions, in support of any motion, and at any hearing and trial. + +## RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 18 + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 18 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined phrase "intend to rely." Plaintiff objects to Request No. 18 to the extent that it requires Plaintiff to speculate as to which documents and communications Plaintiff may or may not reference later in this litigation. + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents and communications not otherwise responsive to other Requests that Plaintiff presently plans to rely on in this litigation, if any. + +# REOUEST NO. 19 + +To the extent not otherwise produced in response to these requests, all documents and communications evidencing or otherwise concerning any damages you allege yon suffered concerning the allegations in your Complaint, including but not limited to all medical fees, attorneys' fees and lost wages. + +# RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.19 + +Plaintiff objects to Request No. 19 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined phrase "evidencing or otherwise concerning." + +Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents and communications not otherwise responsive to other Requests concerning Plaintiff's damages suffered as a result of the allegations in the Complaint, if any. + +## REOUEST NO.19 + +MI documents identified in your response to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff. + +## RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO.19 + +Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents not otherwise responsive to other Requests that Plaintiff identified in response to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff, if any. + +Dated: April 16, 2020 Respectfully submitted, New York, NY + +By: + +Roberta A. Kaplan Kate L. Doniger Alexandra Conlon + +Kyla Magun Louis W. Fisher KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 (212) 763-0883 rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com kdoniger@kaplanhecker.com aconlon@kaplanhecker.com lunagun@kaplanhecker.coin Ifisher@kaplanhecker.com + +Attorneys for Plaintiff + +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaintiff + +v. + +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, + +Delem/ants. + +Case No. 19 Civ. 8673 (KPF) (DCF) + +## PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES + +Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the Southern District of New York (together, the "Rules"), Plaintiff Jane Doe, by and through her attorneys, submits these responses and objections ("Responses") to Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Defendants") First Set of Interrogatories dated March 10, 2020 (the "Interrogatories"). + +#### GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES + +The following general objections and responses (the "General Objections") are incorporated into each specific objection and response (the "Specific Objections") as if fully set forth therein: + +- 1. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they are duplicative, cumulative, or seek information that has been or will be provided through other means of discovery. +- 2. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they are vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, seek information not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party, or are not proportional to the needs of the case. + +3. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they impose any obligations or requirements beyond the scope of the Rules or any case law interpreting them. + +4. Plaintiff's Responses are not intended to be and shall not be construed as an agreement or concurrence that all information provided is admissible. + +5. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they call for documents that: (a) are already in Defendants' possession, custody, or control; (b) are publicly available; or (c) are otherwise independently available to Defendants or their counsel. + +6. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they purport to call for documents or information that: (a) are subject to the attorney-client privilege; (b) constitute attorney work product; (c) are protected from disclosure based on common interest or a similar privilege; or (d) are otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable privilege, law, or rule. Plaintiff will not produce such information in response to the Interrogatories, and any inadvertent production thereof shall not be deemed a waiver of any privilege with respect to such information. + +7. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek information protected by federal or state law. Except to the extent permitted by an applicable exception or court order, Plaintiff will not disclose any information in violation of federal or state law. + +8. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they require unreasonable measures to locate and produce responsive documents. Plaintiff will construe the Interrogatories to require a reasonable and diligent search of her reasonably-accessible files where she would reasonably expect to find information, documents, or things related to the Interrogatories, and specifically states that she will limit her search for electronically stored information by use of identified search terms to be agreed upon by the Parties. + +9. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they include "discrete subparts" but are listed as one individual Interrogatory, pursuant to Rule 33(aX I). + +10. Plaintiff objects to Definition No. 1 to the extent that it imposes obligations greater than those imposed by the Rules. + +II. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories, and in particular, Definitions No. 4 and Instructions No. 5, to the extent that they seek information or documents that are not within Plaintiff's possession, custody, or control. Subject to this General Objection, in responding to the Requests, Plaintiff will provide only responsive, non-privileged documents within Plaintiff's possession, custody, or control. + +12. Plaintiff objects to Instruction No. 7 to the extent it calls for speculation. + +13. Plaintiff objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it asks Plaintiff to identify "each" or "all" persons, documents, communications, etc., on the ground that each such Interrogatory is overly broad and that compliance with each such Interrogatory would be unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of this case. + +14. Plaintiff objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information or documents beyond the time period relevant to the allegations in the Complaint. + +15. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they contain express or implied assumptions of fact or law with respect to matters at issue in this case. Plaintiff's Responses are not intended to be and shall not be construed as an agreement or concurrence with Defendants' characterization of any facts, circumstances, or legal obligations. Plaintiff reserves the right to contest any such characterization as inaccurate. + +16. Plaintiff expressly reserves all rights and privileges under the Rules and any other applicable law or rule. The failure to assert such rights and privileges or the inadvertent disclosure by Plaintiff of information or documents protected by such rights or privileges shall not constitute a waiver thereof, either with respect to these Responses or with respect to any future discovery objections or responses. + +17. The fact that Plaintiff has responded to a particular Interrogatory shall not be interpreted as implying that Plaintiff acknowledges the propriety of that Interrogatory. + +18. Plaintiff's Responses to the Interrogatories are made to the best of Plaintiff's present knowledge, information, and belief. These Responses are at all times subject to such additional or different information that discovery or further investigation may disclose and, while based on the present state of Plaintiff's knowledge and investigation, are subject to such additional knowledge of facts as may result from Plaintiff's further discovery or investigation. + +19. Plaintiff reserves the right to make any use of, or to introduce at any hearing and at trial, information responsive to the Interrogatories but discovered subsequent to the date of these Responses, including, but not limited to, any such information obtained in discovery herein. + +20. Plaintiff reserves all objections or other questions as to the competency, relevance, materiality, privilege, or admissibility of Plaintiff's Responses herein and any documents produced subject thereto, as evidence in any subsequent proceeding in, or trial of, this or any other action, or for any other purpose whatsoever. + +21. Plaintiff's Responses to the Interrogatories will be subject to the protections of any Protective Order entered by the Court governing the handling of confidential material in this case. + +#### SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES + +#### INTERROGATORY NO. 1 + +Identify all persons with knowledge of information concerning the subject matter of this litigation, and the subject matter of their knowledge. + +#### RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. I + +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. I as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information that is not relevant to any party's claims or defenses and disproportionate to the needs of this case to the extent it requests the identification of all persons with knowledge of information concerning "the subject matter of the litigation." Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. I on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the phrase "the subject matter of this litigation." Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 1 on the ground that it calls for Plaintiff to speculate as to the scope of someone else's knowledge. + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff identifies the following persons whom Plaintiff believes have direct, relevant knowledge or information about the allegations in the Complaint: + +| Name | Subjects of Information | +|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------| +| Lesley Groff | The allegations in the Complaint, including that Jeffrey | +| Dr. Dawn Hughes | Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of Plaintiff, including | +| Diarmuid | , Esq. Jeffrey Epstein's retention of Mr. to represent | + +I The allegations in the Complaint. + +#### INTERROGATORY NO.2 + +Identify and describe the computation of each category of damages for %%hick you seek recovery in this litigation. + +#### RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.2 + +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 2 on the basis that it requires expert opinion to determine the computation of each category of damages. + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff discloses that she is entitled to recover damages in the form of, inter alia, actual damages, compensatory damages, statutory damages, consequential damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. + +# INTERROGATORY NO.3 + +Identify the existence, custodian and location of, and generally describe, all documents and communications concerning the subject matter of this litigation. + +# RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.3 + +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 3 as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information that is not relevant to any party's claims or defenses and disproportionate to the needs of this case to the extent it requests the identification of all documents and communications concerning "the subject matter of the litigation." Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 3 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the phrases "generally describe" and "the subject matter of this litigation." + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff will identify non-privileged, responsive documents and communications concerning the allegations in the Complaint, if any, when such communications are produced in response to Defendants' First Requests for Production ("Defendants' RFPs"), subject to Plaintiff's general and specific responses and objections thereto. + +Plaintiff refers Defendants to Plaintiff's Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First Requests for Production of Documents ("Plaintiff's RFP Responses"). + +# INTERROGATORY NO.4 + +Identify each employee of, agent of, or other individual associated with Decedent with whom you communicated or interacted; and identify the date of, and describe the nature of, each such communication or interaction. + +## RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.4 + +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 4 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the phrase "associated with." + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff first refers Defendants to the Complaint and the allegations therein. Plaintiff also identifies and Lesley Groff. Plaintiff states that she interacted with and Groff between approximately 2002 and 2005 to schedule her visits to Decedent's Upper East Side mansion, and that and Groff periodically made payments to Plaintiff on Decedent's behalf during that time. Plaintiff further states that she interacted with other individuals employed by and/or associated with Decedent in his Upper East Side mansion, including maids, butlers/doormen, and drivers, among others, between approximately 2002 and 2005. + +## INTERROGATORY NO.5 + +Describe with particularity all duties owed to you by Decedent. + +# RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.5 + +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 5 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the phrase "duties owed to you." Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 5 on the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion. + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, for information concerning the nature of the relationship between Decedent and Plaintiff, Plaintiff refers Defendants to the Complaint and the allegations therein, as well as Plaintiff's RFP Responses. + +#### INTERROGATORY NO.6 + +Identify and describe with particularity each act or omission on the part of Decedent that you allege constitutes a breach of a duty owed to you. For each act or omission identified, identify the date of the alleged act or omission, all persons with knowledge of the facts set forth in your response to this interrogatory, and all documents evidencing or otherwise concerning the information set forth in your response to this interrogatory. + +# RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.6 + +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 6 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined term "evidencing." Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 6 on the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion. Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 6 on the ground that it calls for Plaintiff to speculate as to the scope of someone else's knowledge. + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, for information concerning the interactions between Decedent and Plaintiff, Plaintiff refers Defendants to the Complaint and the allegations therein, as well as Plaintiff's RFP Responses. + +# INTERROGATORY NO.7 + +Identify and describe with particularity each act or omission on the part of Decedent that you allege constitutes a violation of New York Penal Law § 130. For each act or omission identified, identify the date of the alleged act or omission, all persons with knowledge of the facts set forth in your response to this interrogatory, and all documents evidencing or otherwise concerning the information set forth in your response to this interrogatory. + +## RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.7 + +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 7 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined term "evidencing." Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 7 on the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion. Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 7 on the ground that it calls for Plaintiff to speculate as to the scope of someone else's knowledge. + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff refers Defendants to Plaintiff's Response to Interrogatory No. 1, the Complaint and the allegations therein, as well as Plaintiffs RFP Responses. + +#### INTERROGATORY NO.8 + +Identify with particularity each act or omission on the part of Decedent that you allege constitutes a tort. For each act or omission identified, identify the date of the alleged act or omission, the tort you allege the act or omission constitutes, all persons with knowledge of the information set forth in your response to this interrogatory, and all documents evidencing or otherwise concerning such information. + +#### RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.8 + +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 8 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined term "evidencing." Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 8 on the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion. Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 8 on the ground that it calls for Plaintiff to speculate as to the scope of someone else's knowledge. + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff refers Defendants to Plaintiff's Response to Interrogatory No. 1, the Complaint and the allegations therein, as well as Plaintiff's RFP Responses. + +## INTERROGATORY NO. 9 + +Identify all persons other than Decedent who have ever committed or attempted to commit sexual misconduct or offenses against or otherwise concerning you, including, without limitation, any unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature, sexual abuse, sexual assault, threats or intimidation of a sexual nature, or sexual exploitation, regardless of whether the misconduct or offenses involved physical touching. For each person identified, identify the misconduct or offense committed, and the date and location of the misconduct or offense. + +**RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9** + +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 9 as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information that is not relevant to any party's claims or defenses and disproportionate to the needs of this case to the extent it requests the identification of "*all* persons" who have "committed or attempted to commit sexual misconduct or offenses against or otherwise concerning you," including, for example, "any unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature," regardless of the relation to the allegations in the Complaint and regardless of the severity of the behavior, and to the extent it requests the "location of the misconduct or offense." Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 9 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the phrases "unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature" and "threats or intimidation of a sexual nature." + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff states that her subject [REDACTED] +[REDACTED] +[REDACTED] + +**INTERROGATORY NO. 10** + +**Identify all medical procedures and consultations you received, including the dates of each procedure and consultation, the locations of each procedure and consultation, and the identities of all medical providers who conducted or otherwise participated in each procedure and consultation. The relevant time period for this interrogatory is the date on which you first learned of Decedent through the date of your responses to these interrogatories.** + +**RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10** + +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 10 as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information that is not relevant to any party's claims or defenses and disproportionate to the needs of this case to the extent it requests the identification of "*all* medical procedures and consultations," regardless of the relation to the allegations in the Complaint and "the identities of *all* medical + +providers who . .. otherwise participated in each procedure and consultation," regardless of his or her role in the procedure or consultation. + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff identifies the following mental and/or physical health care providers who provided treatment or services relevant to the claims and defenses in this action: + +| Provider | Treatment Type | +|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------| +| A decorative separator bar with a small rectangular box at the top left and a small rectangular box at the bottom right. | | +| | | + +Plaintiff further refers Defendants to the documents produced in response to Request No. 13 of Defendants' RFPs. + +# INTERROGATORY NO. 11 + +Regardless of date and the relation (or lack thereof) to Decedent's acts and omissions alleged in the Complaint or otherwise, identify all medical procedures and consultations you received evidencing or otherwise concerning the following conditions: + +- a. an eating disorder, +- b. emotional distress, +- c. psychological or psychiatric trauma, +- d. mental anguish, +- c. humiliation, +- f. confusion, +- g. embarrassment, + +- h. loss of self-esteem, +- i. loss of dignity, +- j. loss of enjoyment of life, +- k. pain, +- I. suffering, or +- m. any condition that would require surgery to correct + +# RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11 + +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 11 on the ground that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information not relevant to either party's claims or defenses to the extent that it seeks documents and communications concerning "all medical procedures and consultations" regardless of the relation to the allegations in the Complaint and to the extent it requests information for "any condition that would require surgery to correct." Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 11 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined term "evidencing." + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff refers Defendants to her Response to Interrogatory No. 10 and to the documents produced in response to Request No. 14 of Defendants' RFPs. + +# INTERROGA'l OR) NO. 12 + +State whether you have ever experienced the same or similar conditions and damages, for which you seek recovery from Defendants in this litigation, as a result of acts or omissions by persons other than Decedent. If you answer this interrogatory in the affirmative: identify each such person; describe the acts or omissions that resulted in the damages; identify the dates and locations of such acts and omissions; and describe the damages that resulted. + +# RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12 + +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 12 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined phrase "similar conditions and damages." Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 12 on the ground that it calls for speculation. Plaintiff also objects to + +Interrogatory No. 12 on the basis that the determination as to whether Plaintiff has experienced "the same or similar conditions or damages . . .as a result of acts or omissions by persons other than Decedent" calls for an expert opinion. + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff refers Defendants to the forthcoming expert reports in this Litigation. + +# INTERROGATORY NO. 13 + +Identify all things of value you received from Decedent, including a description of the thing, the date on which you received the thing, and the person who tendered the thing to you. + +# RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13 + +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 13 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined phrase "things of value." + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff refers Defendants to the Complaint and the allegations therein, as well as Plaintiff's Response to RFP No. 16. Plaintiff states that she received numerous cash payments between 2002 and 2005 from Decedent and Decedent's associates, and Lesley Groff, on Decedent's behalf. Plaintiff further states that she received a shipment of furniture from Decedent to her home in Astoria between 2002 and 2005, delivered by men employed by Decedent. + +## INTERROGATORY NO. 14 + +Identify all documents and communications upon which you intend to rely in this litigation, including but not limited to in the course of depositions, in support of any motion, and at any hearing or trial. + +## RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14 + +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 14 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined phrase "intend to rely." Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 14 to the extent that it requires Plaintiff to speculate as to which documents and communications Plaintiff may or may not reference later in this litigation. + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff refers Defendants to documents and communications produced in response to Defendants' RFPs, if any. + +#### INTERROGATORY NO. 15 + +Identify all documents and communications evidencing or otherwise concerning damages and everything else for which you seek recovery in this litigation, including but not limited to damages you allege in your Complaint, medical fees, attorneys' fees and lost wages. + +# RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15 + +Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 15 on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses the undefined term "evidencing." + +Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff refers Defendants to documents and communications produced in response to Defendants' RFPs. + +Dated: April 16, 2020 Respectfully submitted, New York, NY + +By: + +Roberta A. Kaplan Kate L. Doniger Alexandra Conlon Kyla Magun Louis W. Fisher KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 (212) 763-0883 rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com kdoniger@kaplanhecker.com aconlon@,Icaplanheckencom lcmagun@kaplanhecker.com Ifisher@kaplanhecker.com + +Attorneys for Plaintiff \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751479/EFTA02751479.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751479/EFTA02751479.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0dd28026218315f23f298a67e9dfd8526e89321a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751479/EFTA02751479.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,2960 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751479.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 29, + "chars": 46103, + "elapsed_seconds": 10.35, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit C", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 160.95600000000002, + 163.38720703125 + ], + [ + 462.66326904296875, + 163.38720703125 + ], + [ + 462.66326904296875, + 239.11029052734375 + ], + [ + 160.95600000000002, + 239.11029052734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 194.00400000000002, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 418.4738464355469, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 418.4738464355469, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 194.00400000000002, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' \nFIRST REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 89.352, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 523.4982299804688, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 523.4982299804688, + 317.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 89.352, + 317.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 182.988, + 559.71 + ], + [ + 430.765869140625, + 559.71 + ], + [ + 430.765869140625, + 574.4830169677734 + ], + [ + 182.988, + 574.4830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 184.212, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 428.7325439453125, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 428.7325439453125, + 196.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 184.212, + 196.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REOUEST NO. I", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 163.404, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 163.404, + 223.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 223.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 1", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 347.49 + ], + [ + 251.38803100585938, + 347.49 + ], + [ + 251.38803100585938, + 362.60302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 362.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REOUEST NO. 2", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 165.857421875, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 165.857421875, + 85.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 85.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 2", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 251.12115478515625, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 251.12115478515625, + 169.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 169.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REQUEST NO.3", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 166.4120330810547, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 166.4120330810547, + 251.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 251.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.3", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 305.37 + ], + [ + 252.60870361328125, + 305.37 + ], + [ + 252.60870361328125, + 320.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 320.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REOUEST NO.4", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 554.04 + ], + [ + 165.7778778076172, + 554.04 + ], + [ + 165.7778778076172, + 569.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 569.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO.4", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 609.12 + ], + [ + 252.44537353515625, + 609.12 + ], + [ + 252.44537353515625, + 624.3630218505859 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 624.3630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REQUEST NO. 5", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 165.36456298828125, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 165.36456298828125, + 85.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 85.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 5", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 252.93600463867188, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 252.93600463867188, + 141.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 141.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REOUEST NO.6", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 165.88685607910156, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 165.88685607910156, + 334.8630676269531 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 334.8630676269531 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.6", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 387.98999999999995 + ], + [ + 252.50685119628906, + 387.98999999999995 + ], + [ + 252.50685119628906, + 403.863037109375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 403.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REQUEST NO.7", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 554.85 + ], + [ + 166.5584259033203, + 554.85 + ], + [ + 166.5584259033203, + 569.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 569.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.7", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 252.80844116210938, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 252.80844116210938, + 638.2330169677734 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 638.2330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REOUEST NO.8", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 166.66412353515625, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 166.66412353515625, + 169.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 169.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO.8", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 222.75 + ], + [ + 252.86289978027344, + 222.75 + ], + [ + 252.86289978027344, + 238.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 238.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REQUEST NO.9", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 387.98999999999995 + ], + [ + 166.29550170898438, + 387.98999999999995 + ], + [ + 166.29550170898438, + 403.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 403.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.9", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 252.97982788085938, + 456.8399999999999 + ], + [ + 252.97982788085938, + 472.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 472.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REQUEST NO. 10", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 171.88418579101562, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 171.88418579101562, + 637.9335327148438 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 637.9335327148438 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 10", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 258.096923828125, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 258.096923828125, + 86.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 86.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REOUEST NO. 11", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 171.85401916503906, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 171.85401916503906, + 307.1030578613281 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 307.1030578613281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 360.45000000000005 + ], + [ + 258.9057922363281, + 360.45000000000005 + ], + [ + 258.9057922363281, + 375.80352783203125 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 375.80352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REOUEST NO. 12", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 498.96 + ], + [ + 171.34063720703125, + 498.96 + ], + [ + 171.34063720703125, + 514.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 514.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 258.0705871582031, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 258.0705871582031, + 582.4335174560547 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 582.4335174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REQUEST NO. 13", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 172.08677673339844, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 172.08677673339844, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 140.94 + ], + [ + 258.3367919921875, + 140.94 + ], + [ + 258.3367919921875, + 155.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 155.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REQUEST NO. 14", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 387.98999999999995 + ], + [ + 171.39454650878906, + 387.98999999999995 + ], + [ + 171.39454650878906, + 403.863037109375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 403.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 14", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 258.3563232421875, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 258.3563232421875, + 86.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 86.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REOUEST NO. 15", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 171.96051025390625, + 429.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 171.96051025390625, + 445.10302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 445.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 15", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 258.7280578613281, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 258.7280578613281, + 555.7330169677734 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 555.7330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REQUEST NO. 16", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 171.7952880859375, + 71.92889404296875 + ], + [ + 171.7952880859375, + 86.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 86.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "141.SPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 16", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 140.94 + ], + [ + 257.6124267578125, + 140.94 + ], + [ + 257.6124267578125, + 155.60302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 155.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REQUEST NO. 17", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 306.18 + ], + [ + 171.77235412597656, + 306.18 + ], + [ + 171.77235412597656, + 320.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 320.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 17", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 375.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 258.53240966796875, + 375.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 258.53240966796875, + 389.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 389.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REQUEST NO. 18", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 171.89413452148438, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 171.89413452148438, + 500.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 500.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 18", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 258.65869140625, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 258.65869140625, + 582.7330169677734 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 582.7330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REOUEST NO. 19", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 171.59019470214844, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 171.59019470214844, + 169.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 169.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.19", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 250.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 258.5389099121094, + 250.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 258.5389099121094, + 265.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 265.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "REOUEST NO.19", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 416.34000000000003 + ], + [ + 171.908935546875, + 416.34000000000003 + ], + [ + 171.908935546875, + 431.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 431.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO.19", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 258.5389099121094, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 258.5389099121094, + 500.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 500.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 418.4738464355469, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 418.4738464355469, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PLAINTIFF JANE DOE'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO \nPLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 132.804, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 479.9931945800781, + 287.54999999999995 + ], + [ + 479.9931945800781, + 317.6030578613281 + ], + [ + 132.804, + 317.6030578613281 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 182.37599999999998, + 469.79999999999995 + ], + [ + 430.765869140625, + 469.79999999999995 + ], + [ + 430.765869140625, + 484.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 182.37599999999998, + 484.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 183.6, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 428.86932373046875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 428.86932373046875, + 86.60302734375 + ], + [ + 183.6, + 86.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTERROGATORY NO. 1", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 216.9683074951172, + 99.63 + ], + [ + 216.9683074951172, + 113.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 113.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. I", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 301.716, + 168.48 + ], + [ + 301.716, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTERROGATORY NO.2", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 114.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 216.73397827148438, + 114.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 216.73397827148438, + 128.60302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 128.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.2", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 303.35394287109375, + 183.06 + ], + [ + 303.35394287109375, + 197.60302734375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 197.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTERROGATORY NO.3", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 348.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 217.4120330810547, + 348.29999999999995 + ], + [ + 217.4120330810547, + 363.363037109375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 363.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.3", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 417.15000000000003 + ], + [ + 304.0420227050781, + 417.15000000000003 + ], + [ + 304.0420227050781, + 432.363037109375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 432.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTERROGATORY NO.4", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 217.13339233398438, + 126.35999999999999 + ], + [ + 217.13339233398438, + 141.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 141.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.4", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 304.1333923339844, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 304.1333923339844, + 223.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 223.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTERROGATORY NO.5", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 512.73 + ], + [ + 217.24290466308594, + 512.73 + ], + [ + 217.24290466308594, + 527.6835327148438 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 527.6835327148438 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.5", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 304.242919921875, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 304.242919921875, + 582.8035125732422 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 582.8035125732422 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTERROGATORY NO.6", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 217.66412353515625, + 154.71 + ], + [ + 217.66412353515625, + 169.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 169.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.6", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 277.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 304.242919921875, + 277.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 304.242919921875, + 292.9335632324219 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 292.9335632324219 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTERROGATORY NO.7", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 498.15000000000003 + ], + [ + 217.13339233398438, + 498.15000000000003 + ], + [ + 217.13339233398438, + 513.8035278320312 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 513.8035278320312 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.7", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 304.1846008300781, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 304.1846008300781, + 637.9335174560547 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 637.9335174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTERROGATORY NO.8", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 217.66412353515625, + 209.79000000000002 + ], + [ + 217.66412353515625, + 224.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 224.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.8", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 304.2940979003906, + 319.95000000000005 + ], + [ + 304.2940979003906, + 334.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 334.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTERROGATORY NO. 9", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 540.27 + ], + [ + 216.8906707763672, + 540.27 + ], + [ + 216.8906707763672, + 555.0635223388672 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 555.0635223388672 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 301.716, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 301.716, + 85.05 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 85.05 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTERROGATORY NO. 10", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 430.11 + ], + [ + 220.32, + 430.11 + ], + [ + 220.32, + 443.88 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 443.88 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 554.85 + ], + [ + 307.224, + 554.85 + ], + [ + 307.224, + 567.81 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 567.81 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTERROGATORY NO. 11", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 25, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 543.51 + ], + [ + 222.6850128173828, + 543.51 + ], + [ + 222.6850128173828, + 558.7330169677734 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 558.7330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 167.67000000000002 + ], + [ + 309.3050231933594, + 167.67000000000002 + ], + [ + 309.3050231933594, + 182.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 182.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTERROGA'l OR) NO. 12", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 470.6099999999999 + ], + [ + 221.89527893066406, + 470.6099999999999 + ], + [ + 221.89527893066406, + 486.363037109375 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 486.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 594.54 + ], + [ + 308.5152893066406, + 594.54 + ], + [ + 308.5152893066406, + 610.4830169677734 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 610.4830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTERROGATORY NO. 13", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 223.08677673339844, + 208.98 + ], + [ + 223.08677673339844, + 224.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 224.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 309.706787109375, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 309.706787109375, + 307.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 307.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTERROGATORY NO. 14", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 540.27 + ], + [ + 222.69973754882812, + 540.27 + ], + [ + 222.69973754882812, + 555.0635223388672 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 555.0635223388672 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 309.34869384765625, + 622.89 + ], + [ + 309.34869384765625, + 637.9335174560547 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 637.9335174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTERROGATORY NO. 15", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 28, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 222.82444763183594, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 222.82444763183594, + 196.863037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 196.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 28, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 277.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 309.96051025390625, + 277.83000000000004 + ], + [ + 309.96051025390625, + 293.2330627441406 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 293.2330627441406 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 5 + ], + [ + "Line", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 58 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 65 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 13 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 27 + ], + [ + "Line", + 14 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 70 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 42 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Table", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751479" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751508/EFTA02751508.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751508/EFTA02751508.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6a2756feb03ca0467442f91e4e612582d636143b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751508/EFTA02751508.md @@ -0,0 +1,91 @@ +# Exhibit D + +## KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +#### BY EMAIL + +Bennet J. Moskowitz Troutman Sanders LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 + +Dear Bennet: + +NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 + +TEL (212) 763-0883 I FAX (212) 564-0883 + +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM + +DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0884 + +DIRECT EMAIL rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com + +June 5, 2020 + +Re: Doe v. lndyke et at, No. I9-cv-8673 (S.D.N.Y.) (KPF) (DCF) + +We write in response to Defendants' May 19, 2020 letter ("May 19 Letter") regarding Plaintiff's and Defendants' First Interrogatories and Requests for Production (respectively, "Plaintiff's Requests" and "Defendants' Requests") and the parties' respective Responses and Objections thereto. + +#### I. Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Production + +#### A. Defendants' General Obligation to Conduct a Reasonable Inquiry + +As stated in our May 12, 2020 Letter ("May 12 Letter"), Plaintiff's position is simply that, in responding to Plaintiff's Requests, Defendants are obligated to provide reasonably obtainable information within the Estate's possession, custody, or control. It was necessary for Plaintiff to assert this uncontroversial principle only because, at the time of our letter, the Co-Executors had failed to meaningfully answer any of Plaintiff's Requests, although responsive information—such as, for example, Jeffrey Epstein's email address—was quite obviously within the custody or control of Epstein's Estate. Further, you repeatedly represented to us that Defendants' ability to identify responsive information was limited in light of Epstein's demise, a circumstance which in no way alleviates the Co-Executors' burden to take all reasonable steps to locate and produce responsive information, including by consulting records and individuals who are subject to the Estate's control. + +Since our May 12 Letter, Defendants have supplemented their responses, and it appears that, despite Defendants' lengthy argument that the cases Plaintiff cites for this principle are "inapplicable," Defendants agree that they must respond to discovery questions "using all + +reasonably obtainable information within their possession, custody or control." (May 19 Letter at 2.) We expect that the Co-Executors will comply with this obligation. + +#### II. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendants' Interrogatories and Requests for Production + +#### A. Defendants' Interrogatories Nos. 10, 11 & 12 and Request Nos. 13 & 14: + +Defendants' Requests seek information about Plaintiff's entire medical history, without limitation as to time or content. Plaintiff has agreed to provide information relating to medical conditions, treatments, or services relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. Defendants are entitled to nothing more. + +Defendants' continued insistence that Plaintiff must produce her entire medical history and related records is flatly incorrect. Well-established precedent in this Circuit makes clear that Defendants do not have an "unfettered right to pursue discovery into [Plaintiff's] entire medical history." Manessis v. New York City Dep't of Transp., No. 02 Civ. 359, 2002 WL 31115032, at •2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2002) (Freeman, M.J.) (holding that, in an emotional distress claim, Defendants are "entitled to discover [Plaintiff's] mental health treatment records," but may "not pursue discovery into treatments [Plaintiff] may have received for any physical ailments." (emphasis added)); see also, e.g., Kunstler v. City of New York No. 04 Civ. 1145, 2006 WL 2516625, at •4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2006). + +In addition, Defendants' contention that Plaintiff "does not get to be the arbiter of what is 'relevant' to the claims and defenses in this matter, nor what is 'similar' to the conditions she alleges Mr. Epstein caused" is fundamentally incompatible with the principles and functional realities of civil discovery. (May 19 Letter at 4.) A responding party is not obligated to produce documents that are not "relevant to any party's claim or defense." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(bX1). And of course, it is Plaintiff who, through her counsel, must review her documents and information and determine what is responsive and discoverable and what is not. That does not mean that Defendants are without recourse to interrogate the completeness of Plaintiff's productions. As we explained during the meet and confer conference, Defendants may investigate Plaintiff's physical and mental health history through deposition testimony, her anticipated Rule 35 examination, and other discovery responses. If those or other discovery devices give Defendants' reason to believe that Plaintiff has additional, undisclosed medical problems that are relevant to the claims and defenses in this action, "then Defendants may appropriately seek medical records concerning that underlying medical problem." Manessis, 2002 WL 31115032, at \*2. + +To the extent Defendants continue to insist that Plaintiff's claims entitle them to dig unfettered through her entire medical history and records, despite clear case law to the contrary, we are, unfortunately, at an impasse. + +#### B. Defendants' Requests No. 1 & 3: + +Defendants assert that they are "unconvinc[ed]" that communications solely in the custody of Plaintiff's attorneys and relating to this litigation and to Decedent will overwhelmingly be protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. (May 19 Letter at 4.) This assertion is ludicrous. To the extent these requests call for such communications, it is clear + +## KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LEP 3 + +that the burden of attempting to identify non-privileged material in the entire universe of Plaintiff's counsel's communications concerning this case vastly outweighs the minimal potential benefit to Defendants in terms of discoverable information. For this reason, Plaintiff asked during the May 4, 2020 meet and confer that Defendants identify the specific categories of non-privileged, relevant counsel communications they are seeking. Defendants informed us that they are seeking (i) communications between Plaintiff's counsel and counsel for plaintiffs in similar pending cases against Epstein's Estate and (ii) communications between Plaintiff's counsel and journalists concerning Plaintiff's specific allegations. We address each category, and the related issues raised in the May 19 Letter, in turn. + +#### 1. Communications with counsel for other plaintiffs in similar pending cases + +As Plaintiff's May 12 Letter made clear, communications between Plaintiff's counsel and counsel to plaintiffs in similar suits against Defendants are protected from discovery by, at a minimum, the work product doctrine and the common interest privilege.' (May 12 Letter at 4.) + +Defendants' May 19 Letter fails to even address the fact that these communications are subject to the work product protection. As explained, Plaintiff's counsel has communicated with counsel for other plaintiffs about only matters of legal strategy—chiefly, regarding the proposed victim compensation program. Accordingly, those communications, which reflect Plaintiff's counsel's mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories, are subject to the protection of the work product doctrine. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3); In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated July 6, 2005, 510 F.3d 180, 183-84 (2d Cir. 2007). The fact that these communications involved nonparties to this case does not waive such protection. Spanierman Gallery, Profit Sharing Plan v. Merritt, No. 00 Civ. 5712, 2003 WL 22909160, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2003). Work product protection is waived by disclosure to a third part .ro vhen that disclosure makes disclosure to an adversary materially more likely. Favors v. 285 F.R.D. 187, 200 (E.D.N.Y. 2012). Disclosure of Plaintiff's strategy to counsel for other plaintiffs did not make disclosure to an adversary any more likely, given that all involved are similarly adverse to Defendants. See Thai-Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co. v. Gov't of Lao People's Democratic Republic, 945 F. Supp. 2d 431, 437 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (Freeman, M.J.); see also Castabile v. Westchester, New York, 254 F.R.D. 160, 166 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (holding work product protection was not waived in part because "there is very little chance that the report would be disclosed to defendants ... because plaintiffs and the [third party government agency] were aligned in interest"). Indeed, + +With respect to Plaintiff's assertion that these communications are also covered by a common interest privilege, Defendants' May 19 Letter argues that Plaintiff has failed to articulate an interest she shares with other plaintiffs' counsel. (May 19 Letter at 4.) To the contrary, as Plaintiff made clear, all plaintiffs in the pending cases, which have been consolidated for discovery purposes, share a common legal interest because they are bringing substantially similar claims against the same defendants. See v. Milhorat, No. 10 Civ. 103, 2011 WL 13305347, at \*3 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2011) (finding common interest privilege applicable where the issues + +I Plaintiff does not hereby waive her right to assert attomey-client privilege where applicable. See, e.g., FISH Nordbank AG New York Branch v. Swerdlow, 259 F.R.D. 64, 70 & n.6 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ("Under New York law, the attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between client and counsel where such communications are made for the purpose of providing or obtaining legal advice."). + +overlapped "to such an extent that the parties in each case have agreed to consolidate all of the cases for discovery purposes"); Costabile, 254 F.R.D. at 164-65 ("So long as transferor and transferee anticipate litigation against a common adversary on the same issue or issues, they have strong common interests in sharing the fruit of the trial preparation efforts.").2 Indeed, Judge Freeman has repeatedly expressed the view that the legal issues and the interests of the plaintiffs in these consolidated cases, like those in=, are overlapping.; + +Defendants further suggest that the communications between plaintiff.? counsel did not further any shared legal interest. To the contrary, all communications between plaintiffs' counsel were exchanged "in the course of formulating a common legal strategy." Fireman 's Fund Ins. Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York, 284 F.R.D. 132, 140 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). It is indisputable that, in discussions about the pending claims program, plaintiffs' counsel were "collaborating on a legal effort that is dependent on the disclosure of otherwise privileged information between the parties or their counsel." AU New Haven, LLC v. YKK Corp., No. 15 Civ. 03411, 2016 WL 6820383, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. IS, 2016). That plaintiffs' counsels' communications are therefore protected is especially clear where, as here, all communications involve only attorneys for the respective plaintiffs. Id. (explaining courts often consider in assessing this factor whether an attorney for either party participated in the exchange of privileged information); Obeid v. Mack, No. 14 Civ. 6498, 2016 WL 7176653, at \*8 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2016). + +To the extent Defendants continue to take the position that communications between Plaintiff's counsel and counsel for plaintiffs in other similar cases are discoverable, despite the fact that they are protected by the work product doctrine and common interest doctrine, we are, unfortunately, at an impasse. + +#### 2. Communications between Plaintiff's counsel and journalists + +With respect to Defendants' request for communications between Plaintiff's counsel and journalists concerning this litigation and Decedent, Defendants' May 19 Letter asserts that Plaintiff's May 12 Letter improperly limited the scope of this request to communications relating to Plaintiff's specific allegations. To the extent that this request seeks other communications between counsel and journalists—which might include, for example, requests for comment made by the press, inquiries by the press concerning hearings and case schedules, and statements by counsel in their personal capacities on subjects unrelated to Plaintiff's case—those communications are not related to the claims and defenses of either party to this action and are not discoverable. Indeed, during our meet and confer, Defendants made no effort to argue that such communications are discoverable, instead representing that this request was intended to solicit communications between Plaintiff's counsel and journalists regarding Plaintiff's specific allegations. + +2See also, e.g., Pampered Chef v. Alexanian, 737 F. Supp. 2d 958, 965 (N.D. III. 2010) ("[T]he common interest rule has been extended in a wide range of circumstances, frequently those involving civil co-defendants, companies individually summoned before a grand jury, potential co-parties to prospective litigation, plaintiffs filing separate actions in diflirent states and civil defendants who were sued in separate actions." (emphasis added)) (collecting cases). + +3 See Nov. 21, 2019 Hr'g Tr. at 8:21-9: 3; 32:4-9; 41:3-6. + +With regard to that category of communications, Plaintiff's counsel represented in her May 12 Letter that "to the best of their knowledge," Plaintiff and/or her counsel have not communicated with journalists about her specific allegations. Defendants' May 19 Letter requested an explanation for this qualifying language. Plaintiff clarifies that this language was intended to communicate that this representation was made based on Plaintiff's and counsel's best recollections and not based on an unduly burdensome review of documents or communications. Defendants' May 19 Letter notes that Plaintiff's counsel has been interviewed by the media about Epstein, his estate, and this lawsuit, which Plaintiff's counsel does not dispute. However, Plaintiff's counsel has not discussed Plaintiff's specific allegations with the press, and the statements counsel has made, which primarily concern the settlement fund and the probate process, are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this matter. + +To the extent that Defendants continue to take the position that they are entitled to any communications between Plaintiff's counsel and journalists regarding Decedent or this litigation, regardless of whether those communications relate to the claims and defenses in this action, we are at an impasse. To the extent that Defendants are seeking communications concerning Plaintiff's specific allegations, we reiterate that, to the best of our knowledge, no such communications exist. + +\*\*\* + +Please let us know if you would like to confer further about these or any other issues related to discovery. We continue to reserve all rights. + +Very truly yours, + +a\_ Roberta A. Kaplan \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751508/EFTA02751508.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751508/EFTA02751508.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..de955f7e8d48368436e5030c61bc1181b73740c1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751508/EFTA02751508.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,579 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751508.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 6, + "chars": 14767, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.45, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "Exhibit D", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 159.12, + 163.4637451171875 + ], + [ + 465.0612487792969, + 163.4637451171875 + ], + [ + 465.0612487792969, + 238.600830078125 + ], + [ + 159.12, + 238.600830078125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 32.436, + 38.88 + ], + [ + 310.2326965332031, + 38.88 + ], + [ + 310.2326965332031, + 63.94818115234375 + ], + [ + 32.436, + 63.94818115234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY EMAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 135.36102294921875, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 135.36102294921875, + 251.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 251.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Production", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 453.6 + ], + [ + 525.6585083007812, + 453.6 + ], + [ + 525.6585083007812, + 469.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 469.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Defendants' General Obligation to Conduct a Reasonable Inquiry", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 479.52 + ], + [ + 484.35821533203125, + 479.52 + ], + [ + 484.35821533203125, + 495.363037109375 + ], + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 495.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER S.: FINK LLP 2", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.272, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 535.162841796875, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 535.162841796875, + 64.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 34.272, + 64.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendants' Interrogatories and Requests for Production", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.05199999999999, + 115.01999999999998 + ], + [ + 526.1033325195312, + 115.01999999999998 + ], + [ + 526.1033325195312, + 130.10302734375 + ], + [ + 74.05199999999999, + 130.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Defendants' Interrogatories Nos. 10, 11 & 12 and Request Nos. 13 & 14:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 140.94 + ], + [ + 514.8820190429688, + 140.94 + ], + [ + 514.8820190429688, + 155.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 155.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Defendants' Requests No. 1 & 3:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 627.75 + ], + [ + 313.38873291015625, + 627.75 + ], + [ + 313.38873291015625, + 643.8630218505859 + ], + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 643.8630218505859 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LEP 3", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.884, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 535.6390991210938, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 535.6390991210938, + 64.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 34.884, + 64.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Communications with counsel for other plaintiffs in similar pending cases", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.76, + 211.41 + ], + [ + 542.555908203125, + 211.41 + ], + [ + 542.555908203125, + 226.863037109375 + ], + [ + 140.76, + 226.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER S.: FINK LEP 4", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.272, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 535.0933227539062, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 535.0933227539062, + 64.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 34.272, + 64.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Communications between Plaintiff's counsel and journalists", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 140.148, + 419.58000000000004 + ], + [ + 472.9595947265625, + 419.58000000000004 + ], + [ + 472.9595947265625, + 435.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 140.148, + 435.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER Sz.. FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.884, + 44.55 + ], + [ + 242.49974060058594, + 44.55 + ], + [ + 242.49974060058594, + 63.40087890625 + ], + [ + 34.884, + 63.40087890625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 3 + ], + [ + "Line", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 102 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 95 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751508" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751514/EFTA02751514.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751514/EFTA02751514.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d04633eef3b1d0494e127e0297c8475c241fcbc5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751514/EFTA02751514.md @@ -0,0 +1,175 @@ +Bennet J. Moskowitz + +D: 212-704-6000 + +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com + +June 22, 2020 + +# VIA ELECTRONIC COURT FILING + +Hon. Debra C. Freeman + +Daniel Moynihan + +United States Courthouse + +500 Pearl Street + +New York, New York 10007 + +Re: Jane Doe, 1:19-cv-8673 (KPF) (DCFI + +Dear Judge Freeman: + +We represent Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, the "Co-Executors"), in the above-referenced action. We write pursuant to Your Honor's Individual Rule 2(A) and Local Rule 37.2 to request a conference in anticipation of filing a motion to compel Plaintiff to produce the following documents and information: + +- 1. in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) and the Co-Executors' interrogatories, a computation of the damages she seeks to recover in this action supported by documents, including an analysis supplying the underlying calculations iimulas used in arriving at the damages claimed. See, e.g., Design Strategy, Inc. v. , 469 F.3d 284, 295 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Rule 26); +- 2. communications concerning Jeffrey Epstein ("Decedent" or "Mr. Epstein") which are to, from, or copy members of the press, media, or publishing industry; +- 3. documents concerning Mr. Epstein which are to, from, or copy other plaintiffs (or their attorneys) who have asserted claims against Mr. Epstein, his Estate, or the Co-Executors; +- 4. documents concerning all medical procedures and consultations Plaintiff received during the relevant time period, and not just those which Plaintiff deems relevant to her claims; and +- 5. documents concerning specific medical procedures and conditions, regardless of timeframe, and not just those which Plaintiff deems relevant to her claims. + +We have corresponded with Plaintiff's counsel multiple times via email, letter and telephonic conference. Regrettably, the parties remain at an impasse on these issues such that the Court's assistance is necessary. + +### I. Relevant background + +In September 2019, Plaintiff filed a four-count complaint alleging Mr. Epstein sexually abused her starting in or around 2002, when Plaintiff was "approximately" fourteen years old, until she turned seventeen years old. (Compl. ¶ 23 (ECF No. 1).) Plaintiff alleges she became financially dependent on Mr. Epstein and dropped out of high school as a result. (*Id.* ¶ 41.) She also claims she suffers from "extreme anxiety and depression, which cause her to experience difficulty falling asleep, difficulty staying asleep (because she often wakes up with nightmares), difficulty eating, rapid heartbeat, and panic attacks." (*Id.* ¶ 56.) According to Plaintiff, "[h]er physical and emotional injuries impact her daily functioning." (*Id.*) Plaintiff also alleges that she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder in connection with the alleged abuse and that she "regularly experiences the symptoms of PTSD, including flashbacks to [Mr. Epstein's] house." (*Id.* ¶ 57.) She further alleges that she "struggles to be physically and emotionally intimate with her husband." (*Id.* ¶ 58.) Her complaint requests actual, compensatory, statutory, consequential, and punitive damages, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. (*Id.* at 16.) + +#### A. Plaintiff's initial disclosures + +On February 5, 2020, Plaintiff served her Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures. However, Plaintiff's disclosure concerning her damages calculations was deficient: she did not provide a computation of each category of damages she seeks, nor did she identify any documents on which she bases her computations. Instead, she stated simply that she was "entitled to recover damages in the form of, *inter alia*, actual damages, compensatory damages, statutory damages, consequential damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest."1 By way of justification for her inadequate disclosure, Plaintiff stated that she "anticipate[d] that damages calculations will depend upon expert analyses and testimony to be developed and disclosed according to the schedule set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court." + +#### B. Plaintiff's written discovery responses + +On March 10, 2020, the Co-Executors served their First Request for Production of Documents ("Requests") and First Set of Interrogatories ("Interrogatories") to Plaintiff.2 Relevant here are the following Requests: + +- • **Request No. 1:** All documents and communications with or otherwise concerning Decedent. This includes, without limitation, all communications concerning Decedent which are to, from, or which copy: (i) members of the press, media or publishing industry; (ii) law enforcement personnel; (iii) government agents, including, without limitation, prosecutors and government attorneys; and communications which are to, from, or which + +1 A copy of Plaintiff's initial disclosures is attached hereto as **Exhibit A**. + +2 A copy of these discovery requests is attached hereto as **Exhibit B**. + +copy you or your attorneys, on the one hand, and other persons who have filed lawsuits or made claims against Decedent or his estate, or such other persons' attorneys, on the other hand. + +- Request No. 2: To the extent not otherwise produced in response to the foregoing, all documents and communications concerning any other legal proceeding or investigation that concerns Decedent. +- Request No. 13: All documents and communications concerning all medical procedures and consultations you received during the relevant time period.3 +- Request No. 14: Regardless of date and the relation (or lack thereof) to Decedent's acts and omissions alleged in the Complaint or otherwise, all documents and communications concerning all medical procedures and consultations you received evidencing or otherwise concerning the following conditions: (a) an eating disorder, (b) emotional distress, (c) psychological or psychiatric trauma, (d) mental anguish, (e) humiliation, (f) confusion, (g) embarrassment, (h) loss of self-esteem, (i) loss of dignity, (j) loss of enjoyment of life, (k) pain, (I) suffering, or (m) any condition that would require surgery to correct. + +Also of relevance here are the following Interrogatories: + +- Interrogatory No. 2: Identify and describe the computation of each category of damages for which you seek recovery in this litigation. +- Interrogatory No. 10: Identify all medical procedures and consultations you received, including the dates of each procedure and consultation, the locations of each procedure and consultation, and the identities of all medical providers who conducted or otherwise participated in each procedure and consultation. The relevant time period for this interrogatory is the date on which you first learned of Decedent through the date of your responses to these interrogatories. +- Interrogatory No. 11: Regardless of date and the relation (or lack thereof) to Decedent's acts and omissions alleged in the Complaint or otherwise, identify all medical procedures and consultations you received evidencing or otherwise concerning the following conditions: (a) an eating disorder, (b) emotional distress, (c) psychological or psychiatric trauma, (d) mental anguish, (e) humiliation, (f) confusion, (g) embarrassment, (h) loss of self-esteem, (i) loss of dignity, (j) loss of enjoyment of life, (k) pain, (I) suffering, or (m) any condition that would require surgery to correct. + +On April 16, 2020, Plaintiff served her responses to these Requests and Interrogatories .° Since that time, the parties have exchanged several deficiency letters and emails, and engaged + +3 The relevant time period is defined as: -the date on which [Plaintiff] first learned of Decedent through the date of [her] responses to these requests." + +4 A true and correct copy of Plaintiff's responses to the Requests and Interrogatories is attached hereto as Exhibit C. + +in multiple telephonic meet-and-confer discussions. Despite these attempts to resolve the parties' differences, Plaintiff refuses to provide: + +- communications concerning Mr. Epstein sent to, from, or copying the press, media and publishing industry, in response to Request Nos. 1 and 2; +- documents and communications concerning Mr. Epstein sent to, from, or copying other persons (or their attorneys) who have filed lawsuits or asserted other claims against Mr. Epstein or his Estate, in response to Request Nos. 1 and 2; +- a list of all medical procedures and consultations Plaintiff received during the relevant time period and all documents and communications concerning these procedures and consultations, in response to Interrogatory No. 10 and Request No. 13; +- a list of all medical procedures and consultations Plaintiff received concerning specific medical procedures and consultations relating to emotional trauma and anxiety and all documents and communications concerning these procedures and consultations, in response to Interrogatory No. 11 and Request No. 14; and +- a computation of each category of damages for which she seeks recovery in this litigation in response to Interrogatory No. 2 (and as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26). + +Plaintiff's failure to provide such information and documents is improper, as explained below. + +### II. Argument + +## A. Plaintiff's damages disclosure leaves the Co-Executors in the dark. + +Plaintiff's 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) initial disclosure regarding her computation of damages, and her response to Interrogatory No. 2, which essentially requests the same information, are inadequate. Instead of providing the required computation of each category of damages and the documents on which she bases each computation, Plaintiff simply rattled off a laundry list of generic categories of damages, which, according to her, is not even exhaustive. In essence, the "disclosure" was anything but, as it disclosed nothing meaningful, which is contrary to the purpose of Rule 26. + +Plaintiff must amend her initial disclosures, and to the extent applicable, her response to Interrogatory No. 2, to provide "a 'computation,' supported by documents," including an analysis supplying the underlying calculations or formulas used in arriving at the damages claimed. See Design Strategy, Inc., 469 F.3d at 295 (quoting Rule 26); Max Impact, LLC v. Sherwood Grp., Inc., 2014 WL 902649, at '6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2014) ("initial disclosures were wholly inadequate because they merely provided [the other party] with total dollar figures for each category of damages and were unaccompanied by any analysis whatsoever" and "failed to provide a calculation or formula through which the figures were derived"); Ritchie Risk-Linked Strategies Trading (Ir.), Ltd. v. Coventry First LLC, 280 F.R.D. 147, 159 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (Rule 26 "does not merely require a plaintiff to describe its damages in general terms, such as 'compensatory,' but + +--- + +— as best as the party is able at an early stage in the case — to provide a 'computation' of each category of damages, and to produce the documents on which that computation is based."). + +Plaintiff claims that, because she has apparently hired an expert on this topic, she is relieved from having to provide to the Co-Executors a computation of damages or documents on which those calculations are based. Plaintiff is wrong. There is no "exception to Rule 26(a)(1) in cases in which damages will be proved by experts: the disclosing party still has the responsibility to provide each category of required disclosures based on the information it has at the time, and to supplement those disclosures as more information is gained." *U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n v. PHL Variable Ins. Co.*, No. 12 CIV. 6811 CM JCF, 2013 WL 5495542, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2013) (citing *Stemrich v. Zabiyaka*, No. 1:12-CV-1409, 2013 WL 4080310, at \*3 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 13, 2013) (stating that Rule 26 "explicitly contemplates a procedure" by which initial damages information is supplemented following an expert's review); *Allstate Ins. Co. v. Nassiri*, No. 2:08-cv-369, 2010 WL 5248111, at \*4 (D. Nev. Dec. 16, 2010) ("While the precise method of calculation need not be disclosed if it is properly the subject of future expert testimony, this does not relieve the plaintiff from providing reasonably available information concerning its damages computation."); *Hesco Parts, LLC v. ██████████ Motor Co.*, No. 3:02-CV-736-S, 2007 WL 2407255, at \*2 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 20, 2007) ("[A]lthough the defendants are not entitled to early disclosure of the plaintiff's expert report, the plaintiff's initial disclosures should provide its executives' assessment of damages in light of the information available to them in sufficient detail so as to inform the defendants of the contours of their potential exposure.")). + +Thus, regardless of whether Plaintiff plans to seek expert analysis in forming a final damages calculation, she must still provide "an estimate of damages and 'some analysis'" "based on the information [Plaintiff] has at the time." *Id.* at 3, 5. Given Plaintiff's recent refusal to consent to a short extension of discovery deadlines, it is inconceivable that she does not have this information already. + +**B. Plaintiff's responses to Request Nos. 1, 2, 13 and 14 and Interrogatory Nos. 2, 10 and 11 are inadequate and must be amended.** + +**i. Communications with the press, media and publishing industry about Mr. Epstein exist and are highly relevant; there is no basis for Plaintiff's refusal to produce them.** + +The Co-Executors' Request Nos. 1 and 2 seek communications concerning Mr. Epstein between Plaintiff or her counsel on the one hand and members of the press, media or publishing industry on the other hand. Plaintiff refuses to produce such documents based solely on her "best recollections"5 that no such documents exist. When the Co-Executors reminded Plaintiff that her lead counsel, Roberta Kaplan, was recently interviewed by Arielle Levy and appeared on a September 5, 2019 episode of a podcast called *Broken*, in which Ms. Kaplan discussed Plaintiff, Mr. Epstein and his Estate, the Co-Executors, Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages, and Plaintiff's intention to file a civil suit against the Estate, Plaintiff responded that those topics are + +--- + +5 See the June 5, 2020 letter from Ms. Kaplan attached hereto as Exhibit D. + +not relevant because they are not about "Plaintiff's specific allegations."6 (Emphasis in original). Plaintiff's position is both nonsensical and inappropriate. + +First, Request Nos. 1 and 2 are not limited to documents concerning only Plaintiff's "specific allegations." These Requests seek documents concerning Mr. Epstein, which are wholly proper, as they are relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Plaintiff is not permitted to withhold documents unless they (as she determines) relate to the "specific allegations" in this case. Additionally, Plaintiff's notions about what relates to her "specific allegations" is tremendously narrow. An interview in which Plaintiff's counsel discusses, among other things, Plaintiff's injuries and damages and Mr. Epstein's Estate cannot legitimately be characterized as not relating to Plaintiff's "specific allegations." Plaintiff's semantics are no justification for denying the Co-Executors their fundamental right to obtain fulsome discovery, especially given Plaintiff's request for various significant damages (which she has yet to properly disclose). + +Second, Plaintiff is not entitled to rest on her counsel's "best recollections" to determine whether responsive documents exist. This is especially so when Plaintiff's counsel was interviewed just a few months ago about Mr. Epstein. + +In summary, Plaintiff must search and review documents her possession, custody or control, including in her counsel's possession, in accordance with her obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must amend her responses to Request Nos. 1 and 2 and produce all non-privileged documents in response thereto. + +### ii. Communications with counsel and other plaintiffs with claims against the Co-Executors are discoverable and highly relevant. + +In Request Nos. 1 and 2, the Co-Executors requested documents and communications concerning Mr. Epstein between Plaintiff or her counsel, on the one hand, and other persons who have filed lawsuits or made claims against Mr. Epstein or his Estate, or such other persons' attorneys, on the other hand. Plaintiff claims all such documents or communications are protected by the work product doctrine and common interest privilege. Plaintiff is wrong. + +As an initial matter, Plaintiff bears the burden of proof to establish these claimed privileges. See Campinas Found. v. Simoni, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23580, at \*8 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2004) ("[T]he burden is upon the plaintiff, as the party invoking the protection of the common interest privilege, to establish the facts upon which the claimed privilege is based."). Plaintiff cannot meet her burden. + +"The 'common interest' rule is a limited exception to the general rule that the attorneyclient privilege is waived when a protected communication is disclosed to a third party outside the attorney-client relationship." Shamis v. Ambassador Factors Corp., 34 F. Supp. 2d 879, 893 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). "The 'common interest' doctrine typically applies where multiple persons are represented by the same party — loin representation — and accordingly both clients are working together with a single attorney toward a common goal.'" Id. (citing Intl Ins. Co. v. Newmont Mining + +6 Id. + +--- + +*Corp.*, 800 F. Supp. 1195, 1196 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)). "[T]he key consideration is that the nature of the interest be **identical**, not similar, and be legal, not solely commercial." *Campinas Found.*, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23580, at \*6 (emphasis added) (citing *Bank Brussels Lambert v. Credit Lyonnais (Suisse) S.A.*, 160 F.R.D. 437, 447 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)). Notably, "[s]haring a desire to succeed in an action does not create a 'common interest.'" *Id.* (citing *Shamis*, 34 F. Supp. 2d at 893). "What is important is not whether the parties theoretically share similar interests but rather whether they demonstrate actual cooperation toward a common legal goal." *Id.* + +*Shamis* is instructive here. In that action, the Southern District of New York held the doctrine did not apply, explaining: + +Although Shamis and BankBoston would both benefit from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, they do not share identical legal interests. ... Shamis has not produced any agreement between plaintiff and his counsel and BankBoston establishing a joint prosecution of plaintiff's claims. There is no evidence of a coordinated legal strategy between Shamis and BankBoston. BankBoston is not, and has never been a party to this action. BankBoston has not exercised control over the conduct of this action, nor has it contributed to Shamis' legal expenses. *See North River Ins. Co.*, 1995 WL 5792 at \*5 ("common interest" doctrine did not apply because the parties were not represented by same counsel; one party did not contribute to the other's legal expenses, nor exercise control over the conduct of the legal proceedings; and no evidence was presented of a coordinated legal strategy). Accordingly, the BankBoston documents are not privileged, and must be produced. + +34 F. Supp. 2d 879, 893. + +Similarly, in *Campinas*, which is also instructive here, plaintiff claimed the common interest doctrine protected communications between his counsel and counsel for other plaintiffs with claims against the same defendant that all arose from the same set of facts and circumstances, *i.e.*, the repurchase of certain shares, which allegedly harmed the various plaintiffs. 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23580, at \*5-6. In that action, the court held that the common interest doctrine did not apply, finding that "the interest common to all the pending actions is the desire by diverse litigants to succeed in recovering a sum of money from [defendant]." *Id.* The court found: + +the fact that the litigants share a desire to succeed in various civil actions does not mean that an identical legal interest is common to the various actions to which they are parties. Moreover, merely sharing a desire to succeed in various civil actions does not support the invocation of the common interest privilege to shield from disclosure statements that traditionally would not come within the ambit of the attorney-client privilege. + +2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23580, at \*7 (citing *Shamis*, 34 F. Supp. 2d 879, 893). + +Here, too, while it is theoretically possible (though unlikely given all plaintiffs are seeking recovery from the same limited pot of funds) that Plaintiff may desire for the other plaintiffs with + +--- + +claims against the Co-Executors to succeed in their lawsuits, they do not share identical legal interests for common interest purposes. Put another way, if a plaintiff in another case against the Co-Executors is unsuccessful, it has absolutely no bearing on whether Plaintiff is successful here, and vice-versa. That is because their legal interests are not remotely **identical**. + +Nor do the various plaintiffs' claims arise out of the same sets of facts and occurrences. The alleged conduct forming the basis of Plaintiff's claims in this action allegedly occurred in different years and in different states/countries as various other plaintiffs. Nor does Plaintiff allege, for example, that other plaintiffs were present during her alleged abuse. + +Further, (i) Plaintiff has not produced any agreement between her counsel and other plaintiffs' counsel establishing a joint prosecution of any claims; (ii) there is no evidence of a coordinated legal strategy between Plaintiff and other plaintiffs; (iii) the other plaintiffs have never been party to this action; and (iv) there is no contention that the other plaintiffs have exercised control over the conduct of this action, nor have they contributed to Plaintiff's legal expenses. See *Shamis*, 34 F. Supp. 2d 879, 893. Simply put, the plaintiffs alleging claims against the Co-Executors in other cases have no legal interest in this case, and vice-versa. The other plaintiffs' various legal rights are not dependent on the outcome of this case. (Further, Plaintiff's counsel previously asked the Southern District to assign this and other actions against the Co-Conspirators to a single judge and marked as "related." (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff made no mention of her legal interests being identical to the other plaintiffs in that request. (*Id.*) That request was denied. (ECF No. 23.) Likewise, this Court's January 14, 2020 Order (ECF No. 44), stated, "[t]he above referenced cases ... have neither been consolidated for any purpose, nor designated as "related" by the Court.") Accordingly, the common interest doctrine is inapplicable here. + +Plaintiff also claims communications with other plaintiffs' counsel are protected by the work product doctrine because they reflect Plaintiff's counsel's mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories. However, it is not credible that all such communications fall into those categories. Nor has Plaintiff met her burden to show her counsel acted consistent with the work product doctrine in attempting to keep communications with other counsel confidential. See *Spanierman Gallery, Profit Sharing Plan v. Merritt*, No. 00CIV5712LTSTHK, 2003 WL 22909160, at \*2, 5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2003) (finding work product doctrine did not apply where the production "was not made under circumstances which would ensure the confidentiality of the material"; the documents provided "were not identified as 'privileged'"; and "no agreement was reached with the [receiving party] to treat the information as privileged."). + +Accordingly, Plaintiff must produce these communications. Alternatively, and at minimum, given the critical importance of these communications to the Co-Executors' fundamental right to defend against Plaintiff's claims, it would be appropriate for the Court to review a random sample of such communications *in camera*, to determine whether any privilege applies. See, e.g., *Makhoul v. Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP*, No. 11-CV-05108 (PKC) (VMS), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32239, at \*26-27 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2014) (supporting Magistrate Judge Go's decision to review certain documents *in camera* to determine if they were privileged because, "despite Defendants' assertion of privilege, the Court determined that an *in camera* review of the documents was the best way to satisfy Plaintiff and the Court that Defendants did not invoke privilege in order to hide evidence...."). + +--- + +**iii. Plaintiff's medical history is critical to the Co-Executors' defenses.** + +Request Nos. 13 and 14 and Interrogatory Nos. 10 and 11 seek documents and information related to Plaintiff's medical history. Plaintiff's responses to these requests seek to limit her production to only those documents and information that she determines "relate to the allegations of the Complaint." This is improper. + +Plaintiff put her physical and mental health squarely at issue in this action by broadly alleging numerous afflictions, lasting over a decade, that she claims are the result of Mr. Epstein's alleged conduct. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that she suffers from "severe mental anguish" and "anxiety and depression"; "difficulty falling asleep"; "difficulty staying asleep"; nightmares; "difficulty eating, rapid heartbeat, and panic attacks"; has been diagnosed with PTSD, making it "difficult for her to take care of herself and her family"; and "struggles to be physically and emotionally intimate with her husband." (Compl. ¶¶ 56-58.) Information relating to Plaintiff's medical history is therefore critical to the Co-Executors' defense. Whether Plaintiff suffered any medical conditions—particularly the same or similar conditions she now alleges resulted from her interaction with Mr. Epstein—prior to her interactions with him is relevant to the Co-Executors' defenses, including that such conditions directly caused or contributed to Plaintiff's alleged damages for which she now seeks recovery. Moreover, given the breadth of the medical conditions Plaintiff alleges are relevant to her claimed damages, the Co-Executors are entitled to information concerning the entirety of the medical procedures and consultations Plaintiff received after she met Mr. Epstein. + +Plaintiff has no right to cherry-pick the medical records she wishes to disclose. "The disclosure provisions in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not permit a party to trim his duty of disclosure to suit [her] own view of what might be relevant to [her] adversary." *Arthur v. Atkinson Freight Lines Corp.*, 164 F.R.D. 19, 20–21 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (issuing sanctions against plaintiff for failing to produce certain medical records and holding meritless plaintiff's contention that he was "under no duty to turn over some of the undisclosed medical reports and records to his adversary on the ground that he did not view such material to be relevant to the plaintiff's case."); *see also Rodriguez v. Folksamerica Reinsurance Co.*, No. CIV-305-CV-01687-CFDTPS, 2006 WL 1359119, at \*3 (D. Conn. May 15, 2006) (ordering plaintiff's counsel to submit statement in writing under oath that the plaintiff never received treatment for emotional distress—"**whether the stress was due to the actions alleged in this lawsuit or otherwise.**") (emphasis added). Here, the Co-Executors are entitled to Plaintiff's medical history and to have their experts determine which conditions, if any, caused or contributed to Plaintiff's alleged damages, which she attributes to Mr. Epstein's abuse, regardless of which ones Plaintiff connects to him. Accordingly, Plaintiff must provide all documents and information responsive to these Requests and Interrogatories. + +### **III. Conclusion** + +For the foregoing reasons, the Co-Executors request that the Court enter a briefing schedule for the Motion to Compel described herein, where the Co-Executors have two weeks to submit their motion, Plaintiff has two weeks therefrom to respond, and the Co-Executors have one week therefrom to reply. + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/Bennet J. Moskowitz + +Bennet J. Moskowitz + +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751514/EFTA02751514.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751514/EFTA02751514.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e531b7950c5b4b6e932a7266544c5a6627777d64 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751514/EFTA02751514.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,646 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751514.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 10, + "chars": 28354, + "elapsed_seconds": 14.59, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ELECTRONIC COURT FILING", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 212.22000000000003 + ], + [ + 249.2187957763672, + 212.22000000000003 + ], + [ + 249.2187957763672, + 227.18701171875 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 227.18701171875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Relevant background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 80.784, + 163.62 + ], + [ + 220.93199999999996, + 163.62 + ], + [ + 220.93199999999996, + 177.39000000000001 + ], + [ + 80.784, + 177.39000000000001 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Plaintiff's initial disclosures", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 366.12 + ], + [ + 290.08799999999997, + 366.12 + ], + [ + 290.08799999999997, + 379.08000000000004 + ], + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 379.08000000000004 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Plaintiff's written discovery responses", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 518.4000000000001 + ], + [ + 346.39199999999994, + 518.4000000000001 + ], + [ + 346.39199999999994, + 531.36 + ], + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 531.36 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Argument", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 421.20000000000005 + ], + [ + 162.9645538330078, + 421.20000000000005 + ], + [ + 162.9645538330078, + 435.3170471191406 + ], + [ + 78.33600000000001, + 435.3170471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Plaintiff's damages disclosure leaves the Co-Executors in the dark.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 446.31000000000006 + ], + [ + 498.66925048828125, + 446.31000000000006 + ], + [ + 498.66925048828125, + 460.8170471191406 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 460.8170471191406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Plaintiff's responses to Request Nos. 1, 2, 13 and 14 and Interrogatory Nos. 2, 10 and 11 are inadequate and must be amended.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 467.37 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 467.37 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 493.29 + ], + [ + 123.01200000000001, + 493.29 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "i. Communications with the press, media and publishing industry about Mr. Epstein exist and are highly relevant; there is no basis for Plaintiff's refusal to produce them.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 161.568, + 505.43999999999994 + ], + [ + 542.844, + 505.43999999999994 + ], + [ + 542.844, + 544.3199999999999 + ], + [ + 161.568, + 544.3199999999999 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "ii. Communications with counsel and other plaintiffs with claims against \nthe Co-Executors are discoverable and highly relevant.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 158.50799999999998, + 405.0 + ], + [ + 543.2531127929688, + 405.0 + ], + [ + 543.2531127929688, + 431.9470520019531 + ], + [ + 158.50799999999998, + 431.9470520019531 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "iii. Plaintiff's medical history is critical to the Co-Executors' defenses.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 154.836, + 113.4 + ], + [ + 529.992, + 113.4 + ], + [ + 529.992, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 154.836, + 127.17 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.05199999999999, + 606.6899999999999 + ], + [ + 168.912, + 606.6899999999999 + ], + [ + 168.912, + 618.84 + ], + [ + 74.05199999999999, + 618.84 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 102 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 5 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 21 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751514" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751524/EFTA02751524.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751524/EFTA02751524.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8aee791d1201e4d38acff904fc3de5832e1d9517 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751524/EFTA02751524.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +## EXHIBIT 1 + +## KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +## BY EMAIL + +Bennet J. Moskowitz Troutman Sanders LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 + +Dear Bennet: + +NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 + +TEL (212) 763-0883 I FAX (212) 564-0883 + +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM + +DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0889 + +DIRECT EMAIL rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com + +April 27, 2020 + +Re: Jane Doe v. Darren K Indyke and Richard D. Kahn in their capacities as the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Case No. I :19-cv-08673(KPFXDCF) + +We write in response to your letter dated March 20, 2020 (the "March 20 Letter"), in which you continue to argue that Plaintiff's Initial Disclosures are deficient with respect to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) because they do not contain (i) a computation and analysis for each category of damages at issue, or (ii) the documents or other evidentiary material upon which the computations are based. + +As we explained in our letter dated March 6, 2020 (the "March 6 Letter"), Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 requires a party to make its initial disclosures based on the information then reasonably available to it and to supplement its disclosures as additional information is acquired. See US Bank Nat. Ass'n v. PHL Variable Ins. Co, 2013 WL 5495542, at \*2, 3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2013). That is exactly what Plaintiff has done, and intends to do, here. Specifically, Plaintiff has disclosed that she will seek damages in the form of, inter alia, actual damages, compensatory damages, statutory damages, consequential damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. See Plaintiff's Initial Disclosures. We have explained that Plaintiff expects those damages to be comprised of medical expenses, lost wages, and compensation for pain and suffering (which includes both mental and emotional harm),' among other categories of damages + +I In the March 20 Letter, you assert that it is "ironic" that Plaintiff cited a case concerning damages for emotional harm but did not disclose emotional harm as a category of damages she intends to collect. However, we made clear in the March 6 Letter that Plaintiff expects damages to include pain and suffering which, of course, includes emotional harm. See Rounds v. Rush Trucking Corp., 211 F.3d 185, 189 (2d Cir. 2000) ("[W]c have no doubt that [precedents] establish that pain and suffering encompasses [plaintiff's] alleged emotional distress."). + +that may be identified in the course of discovery. See March 6, 2020 Letter at 2. And, of course, Defendants have long known the nature of the harm Plaintiff alleges that she suffered as a result of Mr. Epstein's conduct, as that information is detailed in Plaintiff's Complaint. See, e.g., Comp1.111 56, 58-59 (detailing the mental anguish and emotional distress suffered by Plaintiff as a result of Epstein's abuse). + +It is obvious that you are well-aware of the nature of Plaintiff's disclosure obligations at this stage: indeed, every case quotation provided in your March 20 Letter makes explicitly clear that Plaintiff's disclosures need only be based on the information "reasonably available" to her at the time. See March 20 Letter at 2 quoting U.S. Bank Nat. Ass 'n v. PHL Variable Ins. Co., 2013 WL 5495542, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2013) (A party "has the responsibility to provide each category of required disclosures based on the information it has at the time, and to supplement those disclosures as more information is gained."), and Allstate Ins. Co. v. Nassiri, 2010 WL 5248111, at \*4 (D. Nev. Dec. 16, 2010) ("While the precise method of calculation need not be disclosed if it is properly the subject of future expert testimony, this does not relieve the plaintiff from providing reasonably available information concerning its damages computation."). + +Nonetheless, without any basis to suggest that such information is or should be reasonably available to Plaintiff at this stage of the litigation, you continue to demand that Plaintiff "immediately" provide a "computation, supported by documents, including an analysis supplying the underlying calculations or formulas used in arriving at the damages claimed." March 30 Letter at 1-2. This demand is entirely premature. As we have explained, a computation of damages in this case depends on detailed expert analysis of the harm that Epstein caused Plaintiff and its impact on her physical and mental health, employment prospects, and other areas of her life. Such computation also depends on documents and materials that will be collected during discovery, including medical, financial, and employment records. + +Plaintiff has been working diligently to obtain the necessary expert analyses and to collect documents relevant to her damages claims, and she will continue to make all reasonable efforts to obtain such information promptly. Plaintiff will supplement her Initial Disclosures to reflect this information when it is available. + +Very truly yours, + +Roberta A. Kaplan + +cc: Kate Doniger Alexandra Conlon Kyla Magun \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751524/EFTA02751524.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751524/EFTA02751524.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4e083cdefa83bcd4171fe7e5da6c896a504c135f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751524/EFTA02751524.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,231 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751524.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 3, + "chars": 4970, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.91, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 1", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 180.54, + 337.77 + ], + [ + 444.6927185058594, + 337.77 + ], + [ + 444.6927185058594, + 388.4027099609375 + ], + [ + 180.54, + 388.4027099609375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 32.436, + 38.88 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 38.88 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 63.94818115234375 + ], + [ + 32.436, + 63.94818115234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY EMAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 135.36102294921875, + 236.51999999999998 + ], + [ + 135.36102294921875, + 251.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 251.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER S.: FINK LEP 2", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.272, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 535.162841796875, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 535.162841796875, + 64.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 34.272, + 64.56353759765625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 3 + ], + [ + "Line", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 83 + ], + [ + "Line", + 39 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751524" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751527/EFTA02751527.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751527/EFTA02751527.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..54734826e12d93ffb18e6f38827af1ee6635cf59 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751527/EFTA02751527.md @@ -0,0 +1,107 @@ +# EXHIBIT 2 + +Bennet J. Moskowitz + +bennelmoskowitz@troutman.com + +May 19, 2020 + +#### VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL + +Roberta Kaplan, Esq. Kaplan Heckler & Fink, LLP 350 Fifth Ave., Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 + +Re: Jane Doe v. Darren K. lndyke and Richard D. Kahn in their capacities as the executors of the Estate of Jefferey E. Epstein, Case No. 1:19 cv-08673(KPF)(DCF) + +Dear Roberta: + +We write in response to your May 12, 2020 letter regarding our meet and confer conference on May 4, 2020, which you did not attend, concerning Plaintiffs and the Co-Executors' First Interrogatories and Requests for Production and the parties' respective Responses and Objections thereto. + +As a threshold matter and as discussed during the meet and confer, the Co-Executors plan to supplement their discovery responses and will do so this week. Accordingly, there is no justification for your seeking court intervention on any matters related to the Co-Executors' discovery responses. We further address the points you raise in your letter below. + +#### t. Co-Executors' Responses to Plaintiffs Interrogatories and Requests for Production + +# A. General Obligations + +There must have been a misunderstanding during the meet and confer conference. We do not believe, as you suggest in your letter, that it is "sufficient for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs Requests by simply relying on the Executors' own personal knowledge." On the contrary, and as you are aware, we do not represent the Co-Executors in their personal capacities. Nor were the discovery requests directed towards the Co-Executors in their individual capacities. + +The cases you cite on this point are inapplicable in any event. First, none of your cases were decided after the 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which emphasize the pre-existing but often-unheeded requirement that all civil discovery be proportional to the needs of the case. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Fayda, No. 14CIV9792WHPJCF, 2015 WL 7871037, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2015) ("[T]he amended rule is intended to encourage judges to be more aggressive in identifying and discouraging discovery overuse; by emphasizing the need to analyze proportionality before ordering production of relevant information."). + +Second, your cases do not stand for much more than the proposition that a party needs to use reasonable methods to obtain information—a notion with which the Co-Executors do not disagree. For example, Siegel (a case from 1951) held that the defendant must produce information within her attorneys' possession, custody, and control, but also that plaintiff was noiraired to answer responses regarding what other individuals knew or said. Siegel v. , 11 F.R.D 129, 130-31 (S.D.N.Y. 1951). Such questions were more appropriately asked in depositions of those individuals. Id. at 131. In Siegel, it was sufficient that plaintiff "furnish the names and addresses, known to her attorney, of any persons who ha[d] knowledge of the subjects encompassed within the interrogatories." Id. + +Additionally, in Tyler v. Suffolk Cty., 256 F.R.D. 34, 38 (D. Mass. 2009), which you also cite, the court held that defendants who were sued in their official capacities as sheriff and superintendent of a correctional facility (notably, not as executors) were required to respond to discovery questions "using all reasonably obtainable information within their possession, custody or control, including records maintained by [the correctional facility]." Id. (emphasis added). The Co-Executors do not disagree. Indeed, as represented during the meet and confer conference, the Co-Executors are in the process of searching over 730,000 documents in their possession, custody, and control. + +As stated on the meet and confer call, the Co-Executors are using all reasonable methods, proportional to the needs of the case, to search for and identify potentially responsive materials and information. + +## B. Plaintiff's Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 & 8' + +As stated above, the Co-Executors plan to supplement their responses this week. We suggest that you review those supplemental responses and if, upon such review, you want to further discuss the Co-Executors' responses, please let us know. We would view any motion practice without such a discussion as contrary to the Court's meet and confer requirements. + +' To the extent Plaintiff attempts to describe or summarize any specific Interrogatory or Document Request. we defer to the actual Interrogatories and Document Requests, which speak for themselves, and the Co-Executors' written responses thereto. + +#### C. Plaintiffs Interrogatory No. 5 + +We agree with your characterization that Plaintiff agreed to consider narrowing or otherwise revising this Interrogatory. We will wait for Plaintiff to narrow Interrogatory No. 5. + +# D. Plaintiffs Interrogatory No. 14 + +This Interrogatory seeks documents relating to "Minor Victim 1." As you know, we have already conducted a search for this term. We searched specifically for: + +- "Minor Victim #1"; +- "Minor Victim No. One"; and +- "Minor Victim Number One." + +We returned no hits on any of these variations, per the hit report we sent you on May 7, 2020. + +#### II. The Co-Executors' Responses to Plaintiffs Interrogatories and Requests for Production + +#### A. The Co-Executors' Interrogatory No. 2 + +The parties agree they are at an impasse on Plaintiff's failure to sufficiently disclose her alleged damages. + +## B. The Co-Executors' Interrogatory Nos. 4 & 13 + +Plaintiff has confirmed she has provided all information available to her at this time but will supplement her responses to these Interrogatories should she uncover additional information. + +# C. The Co-Executors' Interrogatory Nos. 5-8 + +Plaintiff asserts these are contention interrogatories. We disagree. + +In the case you cite in support of your assertion, Pasternak v. Dow M, No. 10 CIV. 5045 LTS JLC, 2011 WL 4552389, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2011), the court held that "contention interrogatories, unlike other types of discovery, are not designed to reveal new information to the opposing side. Rather, they are 'designed to assist parties in narrowing and clarifying the disputed issues' in advance of summary judgment practice or trial." However, unlike in Pasternak, here, we do seek information designed to reveal new information and not to necessarily narrow the disputes. + +Plaintiffs Complaint alleges numerous encounters with Mr. Epstein that are not described or identified in any way. (e.g., "Doe returned to Epstein's home again and again."; "After several visits..."; "In subsequent visits..."; "On other occasions..." Compl. ¶¶ 34-39.) The Co-Executors have a right to know every incident or occasion on which Mr. Epstein breached a duty to Plaintiff, committed a tort, or violated Penal Law § 130. These Interrogatories seek information that is readily knowable to Plaintiff and her attorneys but not to the Co-Executors. Accordingly, we are at an impasse. + +#### D. The Co-Executors' Interrogatory Nos. 10, 11 & 12 and Request Nos. 13 &14 + +Plaintiffs letter represents that she will "provide information relating to conditions, treatments, or services relevant to the claims and defenses in this action," including "information relating to any condition, treatment, or service that concerns the same or similar conditions as those she alleges were caused by Epstein's conduct." (Emphasis in original.) This is insufficient. As we stated during the meet and confer conference, Plaintiff does not get to be the arbiter of what is "relevant" to the claims and defenses in this matter, nor what is "similar" to the conditions she alleges Mr. Epstein caused. + +This information is critical. Unless Plaintiff immediately agrees to provide all requested information, we will seek the Court's assistance to compel her to do so. + +# E. The Co-Executors' Request Nos. 1 & 3 + +Plaintiffs letter represents that "to the extent these requests call for communications that relate to Epstein or this litigation and that are solely in the custody of Plaintiffs attorneys, these requests are overly broad and unduly burdensome in light of the fact that the overwhelming majority of such documents will be protected by attorneyclient privilege and/or the work product doctrine." However, you have provided no details to support these claims. Therefore, these assertions are unconvincing. + +Moreover, communication between you and your colleagues, on the one hand, and counsel to plaintiffs in other lawsuits arising from entirely separate claims of abuse allegedly committed by Mr. Epstein, on the other hand, are not privileged. + +Your assertion of a "common interest" privilege is dubious. To obtain protection under the common interest doctrine, a party must show "(1) it shares a common legal interest with the party with whom the information was shared and (2) the statement for which protection is sought must have been designed to further that interest." v. Milhorat, No. 10 Civ. 103, 2011 WL 13305347, at \*3 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2011). You have not even attempted to articulate a legitimate interest you share with other Plaintiffs' counsel or, more importantly, how your communications with them furthered that interest. Your suggestion that all of your communications with other Plaintiffs' counsel necessarily satisfy these criteria is unsupported. + +Barring a prompt, sufficient explanation of the "common interest" privilege you have asserted, we will seek the Court's assistance to obtain these communications. + +With respect to communications between Plaintiffs counsel and journalists concerning Plaintiffs specific allegations, your letter insists that "to the best of their knowledge, Plaintiff and/or her counsel have not communicated with journalists about her specific allegations." This response is deficient for at least two reasons. First, it is unclear what "to the best of their knowledge" means. Please clarify the reason you qualified your statement in this regard. + +Second, Plaintiff has improperly narrowed the scope of the Co-Executors' Requests. The Requests do not ask merely for communications related to Plaintiffs "specific allegations." Rather, Request No. 1 requests documents and communications "with or otherwise concerning Decedent [i.e., Mr. Epstein]" and Request No. 3 requests "documents and communications concerning this litigation." You have been interviewed by the media about Mr. Epstein, his estate, and even this lawsuit (for example, by Arielle Levy in the Broken podcast). Please immediately amend Plaintiffs response to this Request to include all documents or communications concerning Mr. Epstein or this litigation. Otherwise, we will seek the Court's assistance to obtains these materials, too. + +# F. The Co-Executors' Request No. 4 + +Plaintiffs letter represents that "Plaintiff agreed to provide a copy of her birth certificate." Please let us know when you will be producing Plaintiffs birth certificate. + +## G. The Co-Executors' Request No. 10 + +Plaintiffs letter represents that "Plaintiff agreed to provide academic records for middle school and high school, if any." Please let us know when you will be producing those records. + +As explained above, the Co-Executors plan to supplement their responses this week. Please let us know if you need to confer on any further discovery issues after you have had a chance to review those responses. + +Sincerely, + +/s/ Bennet J. Moskowitz + +Bennet J. Moskowitz \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751527/EFTA02751527.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751527/EFTA02751527.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a41c9e1bf3ad57b63dd69ab7beab4e1ef801d27b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751527/EFTA02751527.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,606 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751527.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 6, + "chars": 11465, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.25, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 2", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 181.152, + 337.92437744140625 + ], + [ + 437.4696960449219, + 337.92437744140625 + ], + [ + 437.4696960449219, + 388.4027099609375 + ], + [ + 181.152, + 388.4027099609375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 213.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 209.3344268798828, + 213.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 209.3344268798828, + 228.06353759765625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 228.06353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "t. Co-Executors' Responses to Plaintiffs Interrogatories and Requests for \nProduction", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 550.8000000000001 + ], + [ + 543.6468505859375, + 550.8000000000001 + ], + [ + 543.6468505859375, + 580.5635223388672 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 580.5635223388672 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. General Obligations", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 589.6800000000001 + ], + [ + 261.4498596191406, + 589.6800000000001 + ], + [ + 261.4498596191406, + 606.4335174560547 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 606.4335174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Plaintiff's Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 & 8'", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 389.7648620605469, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 389.7648620605469, + 582.4335174560547 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 582.4335174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Plaintiffs Interrogatory No. 5", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 114.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 312.0834045410156, + 114.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 312.0834045410156, + 129.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 129.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Plaintiffs Interrogatory No. 14", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 196.02 + ], + [ + 318.9913330078125, + 196.02 + ], + [ + 318.9913330078125, + 211.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 211.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. The Co-Executors' Responses to Plaintiffs Interrogatories and Requests for \nProduction", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 363.69 + ], + [ + 544.1128540039062, + 363.69 + ], + [ + 544.1128540039062, + 394.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 394.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. The Co-Executors' Interrogatory No. 2", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 405.0 + ], + [ + 364.44091796875, + 405.0 + ], + [ + 364.44091796875, + 420.06353759765625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 420.06353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. The Co-Executors' Interrogatory Nos. 4 & 13", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 470.6099999999999 + ], + [ + 399.2220764160156, + 470.6099999999999 + ], + [ + 399.2220764160156, + 486.06353759765625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 486.06353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. The Co-Executors' Interrogatory Nos. 5-8", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 549.99 + ], + [ + 381.4984436035156, + 549.99 + ], + [ + 381.4984436035156, + 565.9335174560547 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 565.9335174560547 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. The Co-Executors' Interrogatory Nos. 10, 11 & 12 and Request Nos. 13 \n&14", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 222.75 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 222.75 + ], + [ + 544.068, + 253.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 253.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "E. The Co-Executors' Request Nos. 1 & 3", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 413.09999999999997 + ], + [ + 366.02685546875, + 413.09999999999997 + ], + [ + 366.02685546875, + 429.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 429.43353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "F. The Co-Executors' Request No. 4", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 387.18 + ], + [ + 337.6820373535156, + 387.18 + ], + [ + 337.6820373535156, + 403.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 403.18353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "G. The Co-Executors' Request No. 10", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 453.6 + ], + [ + 343.9594421386719, + 453.6 + ], + [ + 343.9594421386719, + 469.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 469.18353271484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 3 + ], + [ + "Line", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751527" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751533/EFTA02751533.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751533/EFTA02751533.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0c5f56929ffe1c47274e205fe56ab04898bb239d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751533/EFTA02751533.md @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +## EXHIBIT 3 + +![](_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg) + +Telaphonc: (954)356-0011 Email: smccawlev@ballIv.com + +November 22. 2019 + +## VIA EMAIL + +Bennet J. Moskowitz Troutman Sanders LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com + +Re: The Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein + +Dear Mr. Moskowitz: + +Pursuant to Judge Freeman's directive to engage in good faith discussions about the claims resolution program that Defendants have proposed, we ask that you provide answers to two questions: + +- I. What is the total value of Epstein's Estate? +- 2. How much of Epstein's Estate will be set aside for compensating victims through the proposed claims resolution program? + +We require the above information in order to assess whether such a program is in our clients' best interest. Please respond to this letter by December 3, 2019. We appreciate that the answers to these questions may change over time, and expect that you will supplement any information you provide if and when the facts change. + +We also anticipate having further questions about the claims resolution program after receiving this preliminary information, and look forward to a productive dialogue going forward. + +cc: David Brodie (via email) Andrew Buzin (via email) Kate Doili(via email) Brad (via email) Julie Fink (via email) Arick Fudali (via email) Alan Goldfarb (via email) Brittany (via email) Daniel J. Kaiser (via email) Roberta Kaplan (via email) Jordan Merson (via email) Laura Starr (via email) Mariann Wang (via email) + +Sincerely, + +/s/ Sigrid S. McCawlev + +Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751533/EFTA02751533.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751533/EFTA02751533.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..139eaeaed5de323b1513920a7906d852aa12f892 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751533/EFTA02751533.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,157 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751533.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1556, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.91, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 3", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 180.54, + 337.77 + ], + [ + 441.803955078125, + 337.77 + ], + [ + 441.803955078125, + 388.4027099609375 + ], + [ + 180.54, + 388.4027099609375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA EMAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 132.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 140.61102294921875, + 132.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 140.61102294921875, + 146.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 146.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 3 + ], + [ + "Line", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 48 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751533" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751533/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751533/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..67d1e6e88bbd0ac2db243804e797a47ff56c853b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751533/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:cc04889818f4aef3f1200aed7d0f9f4a08d4e2b2f4cee2dc010df2d49b9ea9ba +size 6862 diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751535/EFTA02751535.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751535/EFTA02751535.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e79027d9409dd7766f3e3e18383d14bdea2d107b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751535/EFTA02751535.md @@ -0,0 +1,77 @@ +# EXHIBIT 4 + +#### BY EMAIL + +Bennet J. Moskowitz Troutman Sanders LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 + +Dear Bennet: + +NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 + +TEL (212) 763-0883 I FAX (212) 564-0883 + +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM + +DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0884 + +DIRECT EMAIL rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com + +May 12, 2020 + +Re: Doe v. Indyke et al.. No. 19-cv-8673 (S.D.N.Y.) (KPF) (DCF) + +We write following our meet and confer on May 4, 2020 (the "May 4 Meet and Confer") regarding Plaintiff's and Defendants' First Interrogatories and Requests for Production (respectively, "Plaintiff's Requests" and "Defendants' Requests") and the parties' respective Responses and Objections thereto. This letter summarizes the agreements we reached during the May 4 Meet and Confer, as well as Plaintiff's position on the areas of dispute that remain. + +#### I. Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Production + +As we noted during the May 4 Meet and Confer, we are dismayed that Defendants failed to answer any of Plaintiff's Interrogatories. At this stage of the litigation—and particularly when Plaintiff's allegations relate to criminal activity that has been the focus of investigation and litigation for more than a decade—Defendants' refusal to provide straightforward, clearly discoverable information, such as Jeffrey Epstein's email addresses, appeared to be nothing more than a continued effort at obstruction and delay. We therefore appreciate your agreement to supplement many of Defendants' responses to Plaintiff's Requests, as detailed below. We ask that you do so no later than May 14, 2020. + +Defendants' General Obligation to Conduct a Reasonably Inquiry: As a threshold issue, and as discussed during the May 4 Meet and Confer, because Defendants have been sued in a representative capacity, Defendants are obligated to provide reasonably obtainable information within the Estate's possession, custody or control. See Siegel v.M, 11 F.R.D, 129, 130-31 (S.D.N.Y. 1951). It is not sufficient for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's Requests by simply relying on the Executors' own personal knowledge (although we note that, as individuals who were closely associated with Epstein and his affairs during his lifetime, the + +Executors likely have personal knowledge well beyond what was reflected in their initial responses to Plaintiff's Requests). Rather, in answering Plaintiffs Requests, the Executors are obligated to consult relevant records and individuals who are subject to the Estate's control and are reasonably accessible to the Estate. See, e.g., Tyler v. Suffolk Cty., 256 F.R.D. 34, 37-38 (D. Mass. 2009); see also In re Auction Houses Antitrust Litig., 196 F.R.D. 444, 445 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). Such individuals may include, for example, past or current attorneys and/or employees of Epstein. See Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 296 F.R.D. 168, 186 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). While we appreciate your invitation to suggest individuals and records that the Estate should consult in responding to Plaintiff's Requests, and will do so wherever possible, Defendants have an independent legal obligation to identify potentially relevant records and individuals, obtain responsive information from those sources, and provide that information to Plaintiff. Please confirm that you have complied or will comply with this obligation, and that you will supplement your answers to Plaintiff's Requests accordingly, if needed. + +Plaintiff's Interrogatory Nos. 1, 6 & 7: These interrogatories seek identification of individuals with knowledge of Plaintiff's claims or allegations, Epstein's agents or employees who had contact with Plaintiff, and payments made by Epstein or his agents to Plaintiff. Defendants agreed to supplement either in response to these interrogatories or by providing relevant documents in response to Plaintiff's Requests. + +Plaintiff's Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3 & 8: These interrogatories seek identification of Epstein's email accounts and addresses, phone numbers, and personal electronic devices used in connection with the subject matter of this litigation. Defendants agreed to immediately provide Epstein's telephone number(s) and email address(es) for the relevant time period and to provide additional detail regarding electronic devices used by Jeffrey Epstein during forthcoming discussions with Plaintiff about electronically stored information and document discovery. + +Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 4: This interrogatory seeks identification of individuals who worked at Epstein's mansion at 9 East 71' Street, New York, NY between 2001 and 2005. Defendants agreed to consider supplementing their response to this Interrogatory. Please notify us as to whether or not you will supplement by May 14, 2020. + +Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 5: This interrogatory seeks identification of individuals who hired, solicited, sought out, or otherwise contacted women on Epstein's behalf. Plaintiff agreed to consider narrowing or otherwise revising this interrogatory. + +Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 14: This request seeks documents relating to "Minor Victim 1" in the indictment issued by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York against Epstein in July 2019. Defendants agreed to search for documents and communications relating to "Minor Victim I" in the indictment issued by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York against Epstein in July 2019. Please confirm that any non-privileged documents responsive to this request will be produced to Plaintiff. + +#### I. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendants' Interrogatories and Requests for Production + +Defendants' Interrogatory No. 2: This interrogatory seeks computation of the damages Plaintiff seeks in this case. Plaintiff maintains her position that she has supplied all reasonably available information at this time, and agrees to supplement her response as additional information becomes available. + +Defendants' Interrogatory Nos. 4 & 13: These interrogatories seek identification of individuals associated with Epstein with whom Plaintiff interacted and identification of anything of value Plaintiff received from Epstein. Plaintiff has provided all information available to her at this time in her Responses and Objections. To the extent that Plaintiff uncovers additional information during discovery, she will supplement her responses accordingly. + +Defendants' Interrogatory Nos. 5-8: These interrogatories seek identification of all duties Epstein owed Plaintiff, and each act or omission by Epstein that either breached a duty to Plaintiff, violated New York Penal Law § 130, or constituted a tort. Plaintiff maintains that these interrogatories request information that is more appropriately obtained through other discovery devices, such as document productions and depositions, and, further, that interrogatories of this nature are more reasonably used to narrow remaining issues before trial, not to demand a full catalog of facts and evidence supporting a party's contentions. See Pasternak v. Dow., No. 10 Civ. 5045, 2011 WL 4552389, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2011); see also ECF No. 49 (permitting interrogatories beyond the scope of those permitted by Local Rule 33(a) only to the extent "reasonable"). Plaintiff remains willing to consider any reasonable efforts by Defendants to narrow or otherwise revise these interrogatories. + +Defendants' Interrogatory Nos. 10, 11 & 12 and Request Nos. 13 & 14: These interrogatories and requests seek information about Plaintiffs' entire medical history, without limitation as to time or content. Plaintiff has considered the arguments raised by Defendants during the May 4 Meet and Confer. Plaintiff's position is that she is not obligated to provide Defendants with her entire medical history or related records. See, e.g., Kunstler v. City of New York, No. 04 Civ. 1145, 2006 WL 2516625, at \*3.4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2006); Manessis v. New York City Dep't of Transp., No. 02 Civ. 359, 2002 WL 31115032, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2002)' + +Plaintiff has agreed to provide information relating to conditions, treatments, or services relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. To the extent it alleviates the concerns Defendants expressed during the May 4 Meet and Confer, Plaintiff specifically represents that she interprets this agreement to encompass information relating to any condition, treatment, or service that concerns the same or similar conditions as those she alleges were caused by Epstein's conduct. However, Plaintiff is neither willing nor obligated to provide Defendants + +Indeed, the case law cited by Defendants confirms this point. See Rodriguez v. Folksamerica Reinsurance Co., No. 305 Civ. 1687, 2006 WI. 1359119, at \*3 (D. Conn. May 15, 2006) (plaintiff's attorney required to state that plaintiff never received treatment for "emotional distress," an injury alleged in the complaint); Arthur v. Atkinson Freight Lines Corp., 164 F.R.D. 19, 20-21 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (plaintiff required to provide all records for physician treating specifically for injuries tied to the underlying incident). + +with a complete list of conditions, treatments, or services that she has experienced, as Defendants requested. + +Defendants' Request Nos. 1 & 3: As discussed during the May 4 Meet and Confer, to the extent that these requests call for communications that relate to Epstein or this litigation and that are solely in the custody of Plaintiff's attorneys, these requests are overly broad and unduly burdensome in light of the fact that the overwhelming majority of such documents will be protected by attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. During the May 4 Meet and Confer, Defendants identified two categories of responsive communications in the custody of Plaintiff's counsel that Defendants believe are not privileged: (i) communications between Plaintiff's counsel and counsel for plaintiffs in similar pending cases against Epstein and (ii) communications between Plaintiff's counsel and journalists concerning Plaintiff's specific allegations. + +With regard to the first category, communications between Plaintiff's counsel and counsel to plaintiffs in similar suits against Defendants are, in fact, protected communications. Plaintiff's counsel has communicated with counsel for other plaintiffs only about matters as to which they share a common interest and strategy—chiefly, the proposed victim's compensation program. Accordingly, those communications, which reflect Plaintiff's counsel's mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories, are subject to the protection of the work product doctrine, which is not waived by disclosure to a third unless the disclosure makes disclosure to an adversary materially more likely. Favors v. 285 F.R.D. 187, 200 (E.D.N.Y. 2012); Thai-Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co. v. Gov't of Lao People's Democratic Republic, 945 F. Supp. 2d 431, 437 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). In addition, such communications are subject to the protection of the common interest doctrine, which protects the confidentiality of communications between attorneys with common legal interests undertaking a joint effort or strategy. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. ofNew York, 284 F.R.D. 132, 139 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); v. Milhorat, No. 10 Civ. 103, 2011 WL 13305347, at \*43 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. II, 2011) (holding that "communications between plaintiffs in ... consolidated cases [were] protected by the common interest privilege"). + +With regard to the second category, as Defendants requested, Plaintiff's counsel can confirm that, to the best of their knowledge, Plaintiff and/or her counsel have not communicated with journalists about her specific allegations. + +Accordingly, Plaintiff maintains her objections to these Requests, and will not undertake to review communications that relate to Epstein or this litigation and that are solely in the custody of Plaintiff's attorneys. Plaintiff remains willing to discuss these or any other specific categories of communications that Defendants are seeking through these requests. + +Defendants' Request No. 4: Plaintiff agreed to provide a copy of her birth certificate. + +Defendants' Request No. 10: Plaintiff agreed to provide academic records for middle school and high school, if any. + +\*\*\* + +Please let us know if you would like to confer further about these or any other issues related to discovery. We continue to reserve all rights. + +Very truly yours, + +Roberta A. Kaplan \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751535/EFTA02751535.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751535/EFTA02751535.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..35b835b6f092fb8a5f4ba03da56d448a81ac0414 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751535/EFTA02751535.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,464 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751535.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 6, + "chars": 12476, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.14, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "EXHIBIT 4", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 180.54, + 337.77 + ], + [ + 438.3902587890625, + 337.77 + ], + [ + 438.3902587890625, + 388.4027099609375 + ], + [ + 180.54, + 388.4027099609375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER 8/. FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 33.048, + 38.90936279296875 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 38.90936279296875 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 63.9481201171875 + ], + [ + 33.048, + 63.9481201171875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BY EMAIL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 135.36102294921875, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 135.36102294921875, + 251.60302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 251.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Production", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 468.18 + ], + [ + 526.1179809570312, + 468.18 + ], + [ + 526.1179809570312, + 483.363037109375 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 483.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 2", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.272, + 42.92999999999999 + ], + [ + 535.162841796875, + 42.92999999999999 + ], + [ + 535.162841796875, + 64.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 34.272, + 64.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.272, + 42.92999999999999 + ], + [ + 242.99688720703125, + 42.92999999999999 + ], + [ + 242.99688720703125, + 63.53033447265625 + ], + [ + 34.272, + 63.53033447265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendants' Interrogatories and Requests for Production", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 75.33 + ], + [ + 525.7031860351562, + 75.33 + ], + [ + 525.7031860351562, + 90.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 78.94800000000001, + 90.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 4", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.272, + 42.92999999999999 + ], + [ + 535.0933227539062, + 42.92999999999999 + ], + [ + 535.0933227539062, + 64.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 34.272, + 64.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 5", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.272, + 42.92999999999999 + ], + [ + 535.5256958007812, + 42.92999999999999 + ], + [ + 535.5256958007812, + 64.8170166015625 + ], + [ + 34.272, + 64.8170166015625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 3 + ], + [ + "Line", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 81 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 88 + ], + [ + "Line", + 41 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 96 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 84 + ], + [ + "Line", + 42 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 14 + ], + [ + "Line", + 7 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751535" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751541/EFTA02751541.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751541/EFTA02751541.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eccda74e00b3e609f72567af65cfba95cec6537a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751541/EFTA02751541.md @@ -0,0 +1,141 @@ +#### VIA ECF + +Hon. Juliaa Freeman Daniel Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007 + +NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 + +TEL (212) 763-0883 I FAX (212) 564-0883 + +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM + +DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0884 + +DIRECT EMAIL rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com + +June 22, 2020 + +Re: Doe v. Indyke et at,No. 19-cv-8673-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) + +Dear Judge Freeman: + +On behalf of Plaintiff Jane Doe in the above-referenced action, we write in response to Defendants' letter dated June 18, 2020 (Doc No. 74 (the "June 18 Letter")) requesting a conference concerning Defendants' anticipated motion to compel. + +As an initial matter, Defendants' purported request for a conference is, in reality, a tenpage brief which advances in great detail their legal arguments on each issue in their anticipated motion to compel. Accordingly, Plaintiff sees no reason that the Court should order an extended five-week briefing schedule, which would only serve to cause further delay. Plaintiff provides her opposition to Defendants' anticipated motion below. These papers, together with this week's telephonic conference, should provide a more than adequate opportunity for the parties to make their arguments. + +To date, Defendants' approach to discovery in this case has been transparently calculated to impose unreasonable burdens on Plaintiff and to delay adjudication on the merits. (See, e.g., Doc No. 71.) Defendants' discovery requests are no different. As their June 18 Letter lays bare, Defendants' discovery requests are strikingly unreasonable: they include, for example, a demand for all communications in the custody of Plaintiff's counsel concerning Jeffrey Epstein and this litigation, even though such communications are obviously overwhelmingly privileged or irrelevant, as well as a demand for records and information about every medical procedure and condition that Plaintiff has ever had, despite clear precedents prohibiting such an invasive and unnecessary request. (Ex. C to June 18 Letter, at 6-7, 11-12.) These patently overbroad requests necessitated lengthy negotiations between the parties, at the conclusion of which Defendants + +continue to demand three categories of documents that are either privileged, not relevant to the claims and defenses in this litigation, or both: (1) communications between Plaintiff's counsel and members of the press, media, and the publishing industry; (2) communications between Plaintiff's counsel and counsel for the other plaintiffs with pending cases against Mr. Epstein; and (3) documents and information 'elated to Plaintiff's entire physical medical history. (June 18 Letter.) + +Notably, throughout the parties' negotiations, as in their June 18 Letter to this Court, Defendants have failed to articulate the relevance of the documents or information they demand, relying on nothing more than conclusory assertions that such documents are "critical" or "highly relevant." (June 18 Letter at 5, 6, 9.) But Defendants are not permitted to go on a "fishing expedition with expansive, potentially burdensome requests" when they have not met their initial burden of demonstrating relevance. Maxon Hyundai Mazda v. Carfax, Inc., No. 13 Civ. 2680, 2015 WL 4510416, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2015); see also Indovino v. Tassinari, No. 05 Civ. 4167, 2010 WL 11629191, at \*I, 4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2010) (holding it is "incumbent upon the [moving party] to provide the necessary linkage between the discovery sought and the claims brought and/or other defenses asserted in the case" and finding "conclusory statements" insufficient to support relevance). And Defendants have failed to rebut Plaintiff's clear showing that at least one category of communications sought by Defendants—communications between her counsel and counsel for other plaintiffs—are privileged in their entirety. Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court deny Defendants' motion to compel at this time.' + +#### A. Plaintiff's Rule 26 Damages Disclosure Is Appropriate. + +Defendants' assertion that Plaintiff has refused to provide anything more than a "laundry list of generic categories of damages" (June 18 Letter at 4) mischaracterizes Plaintiff's disclosures to date, as well as her position on her ongoing disclosure obligations. In fact, Plaintiff has disclosed all information reasonably available to her, and has informed Defendants—repeatedly—that she will supplement her disclosures as additional information, including crucial expert testimony and analysis, becomes available. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require nothing more. + +Specifically, pursuant to Rule 26, Plaintiff is obligated to disclose a computation of each category of damages suffered based on the information reasonably available to her, and to supplement those disclosures as additional information is acquired. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A), (E); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A); see also, e.g., U.S. Bank Nat. Ass 'n v. PHL Variable Ins. Co, No. 12 Civ. 6811, 2013 WL 5495542, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2013). That is precisely what Plaintiff has done here. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges, in great detail, the nature of the harm Plaintiff suffered as a result of Mr. Epstein's conduct. (Doc. No. I, 7J 54-60.) In February of this year, Plaintiff informed Defendants that she will seek damages in the form of, inter alia, actual damages, compensatory damages, statutory damages, consequential damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. (See Ex. A to June 18 Letter) On March 6, 2020 and again on April 27, she informed Defendants that her damages will be comprised of medical expenses, lost + +Defendants' request that Plaintiff be forced to supplement her damages disclosure fares no better: Plaintiff has fully complied with her obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the information she has provided—which is all the information that she has—is more than sufficient to enable Defendants to adequately prepare their defense. Plaintiff has stated repeatedly that she will supplement her disclosures as more information becomes available to her and an order on this issue would be premature, particularly as Defendants cannot show that they have suffered any prejudice at this stage. + +wages, and compensation for pain and suffering (including both mental and emotional harm), as well as any other categories of damages that may be identified in the course of discovery. *See* Ex. 1 at 12. And, as Defendants are well-aware, Plaintiff has been producing to them all of the underlying medical, financial, and employment records that may be relevant to her damages calculation on a rolling basis. + +Plaintiff has also explained to Defendants that a more specific computation of damages in this case depends on detailed expert analyses of the harm that Epstein caused Plaintiff and its impact on her physical and mental health, employment prospects, and other areas of her life. For example, as Plaintiff informed Defendants in February, she has retained an experienced clinical and forensic psychologist (Ex. A to June 18 Letter, at 2), who is evaluating the psychological impact of Epstein's abuse on Plaintiff and the way that harm manifests in her personal and professional life. The results of this expert analysis are essential to Plaintiff's ability to provide a specific estimate of her damages; without such an assessment, Plaintiff cannot possibly accurately estimate, for example, the cost of her future medical treatment or the extent to which the trauma she has suffered will continue to impact her mental health. Indeed, for this reason, courts have widely recognized that "calculating damages for emotional harm 'is an inherently imprecise and difficult undertaking,'" [REDACTED] v. [REDACTED], No. 06 Civ. 2540, 2010 WL 11586681, at \*5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2010), and it is routine for plaintiffs to seek to calculate and prove damages in sexual assault cases through "psychological evaluations" prepared by experts. *See, e.g., Kovalchik v. City of New York*, No. 09 Civ. 4546, 2016 WL 11270091, at \*2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2016), *report and recommendation adopted*, 2017 WL 3105873 (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2017). + +Not surprisingly, the cases cited by Defendants in their June 18 letter do not suggest otherwise. As an initial matter, all of Defendants' cases arose in the context of motions to preclude, not motions to compel. *See e.g. Max Impact, LLC v. Sherwood Grp., Inc.*, No. 09 Civ. 902, 2014 WL 902649, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2014); *Ritchie Risk-Linked Strategies Trading (Ireland), Ltd. v. Coventry First LLC*, 280 F.R.D. 147, 151 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). Moreover, many of Defendants' cases involve claims with straightforward economic damages calculation, unlike the claims in this case. *See Design Strategy, Inc. v. [REDACTED]*, 469 F.3d 284, 295 (2d Cir. 2006) (excluding lost profits damages, where such damages were not mentioned in initial disclosures); *Max Impact, LLC*, 2014 WL 902649, at \*1 (lost sales, lost future sales and lost profits); *Ritchie Risk-Linked Strategies Trading (Ireland), Ltd.*, 280 F.R.D. at 150 (calculation of attorney's fees and costs). And in the few cases cited by Defendants in which expert analysis is actually required to calculate damages, every one explicitly recognizes that the plaintiff is obligated to provide "the best information then available to it . . . , however limited and potentially changing it may be," and that "a precise and ultimate computation of damages is more properly to be produced as part of the plaintiff's expert disclosures." *Hesco Parts, LLC v. [REDACTED] Motor Co.*, No. 02 Civ. 736, 2007 WL 2407255, at \*2 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 20, 2007); *see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Nassiri*, No. 08 Civ. 369, 2010 WL 5248111, at \*4 (D. Nev. Dec. 16, 2010) ("While the precise method of calculation need not be disclosed if it is properly the subject of future expert testimony," plaintiff must "provid[e] reasonably available information concerning its damages computation."); *U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n*, 2013 WL 5495542, at \*3. That is precisely what Plaintiff has done in this case. + +2 Citations to "Ex. \_\_" refer to Exhibits to this letter. Citations to Exhibits to Defendants' June 18 Letter take the following form: "June 18 Letter, Ex. \_\_." + +Indeed, other than their assertion (made in the caption to the relevant argument section) that they are left "in the dark," Defendants have not even attempted to argue that they are in any way prejudiced by the damages disclosure Plaintiff has made thus far. See, e.g., Supreme Showroom, Inc. v. Branded Apparel Grp. LLC, No. 16 Civ. 5211, 2018 WL 3148357, at • 14 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2018) ("[T]his is not a case in which the defendant waited until the eve of trial to disclose an entirely new category of damages."). Defendants have requested, and Plaintiff has produced, documents concerning Plaintiff's employment history, financial history, academic history, and medical history (Ex. C to June 18 Letter, at 9-12). Defendants have proposed a deposition schedule that includes depositions of Plaintiff's medical providers, including ones who treated Plaintiff on only one occasion. And expert discovery in this case is scheduled to commence on July 10, 2020. (Doc. No. 60.) As a result, Defendants cannot plausibly argue that receiving a specific numerical estimate of damages would change their approach to discovery. Indeed, Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages (Doc. No. 46.), which would drastically affect any calculation of damages, has not yet been decided, so the question of the precise scope of their potential liability is currently unanswerable. + +#### B. Communications of Plaintiff's Counsel + +Defendants' motion to compel targets two categories of documents that are in the sole possession of Plaintiff's counsel: (1) Plaintiff's counsel's communications with the press, and (2) Plaintiff's counsel's communications with other plaintiffs and their counsel. But as this Court is no doubt aware, "[c]ourts have been especially concerned about the burdens imposed on the adversary process when lawyers themselves have been the subject of discovery requests, and have resisted the idea that la should routinely be subject to broad discovery." In re Subpoena Issued to Dennis , 350 F.3d 65, 70 (2d Cir. 2003). Here, as explained below, Defendants have not identified a single good reason why they believe that these requests are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and non-privileged information such that their production would outweigh the substantial burden on Plaintiff. + +#### 1. Plaintiff's Counsel's Communications with the Press + +Request No. 1 of Defendants' First Set of Requests for Production calls for "[a]ll documents and communications with or otherwise concerning Decedent. This includes, without limitation, all communications concerning Decedent which are to, from, or which copy: (i) members of the press, media or publishing industry . . . and communications which are to, from, or which copy you or your attorneys, on the one hand, and other persons who have filed lawsuits or made claims against Decedent or his estate, or such other persons' attorneys, on the other hand." (Ex. C to June 18 Letter, at 6.) Plaintiff agreed to produce all communications she has had concerning Jeffrey Epstein, including with members of the press, but no such communications exist, since Plaintiff is proceeding pseudonymously and has not spoken to the press. (Ex. D to June 18 Letter, at 5.) + +With respect to counsel's communications, at a meet and confer on May 4, 2020, Plaintiff informed Defendants that this Request is overly broad and seeks plainly irrelevant communications, such as media requests for comment on any topic related to Jeffrey Epstein or logistical inquiries regarding scheduled hearings or filings. Plaintiff therefore asked Defendants whether there were any specific categories of non-privileged and arguably relevant counsel communications they sought. At that time, Defendants indicated that they were seeking counsel's + +communications with journalists concerning Plaintiff's specific allegations. (Ex. D to June 18 Letter, at 4-5.) Plaintiff's counsel then informed Defendants that, to the best of their knowledge, they have not had communications with journalists or members of the media about Plaintiff's specific allegations, which makes sense since Plaintiff is proceeding pseudonymously. (Id. at 5.) + +It is unclear to us whether Defendants dispute this recollection, or have simply changed their minds. In any event, Defendants have since taken the position that they are seeking all of counsel's communications with the press relating to Jeffrey Epstein and this litigation. (Ex. 2 at 5). But Defendants have not, and cannot, explain why all statements made by counsel to the media regarding Epstein or this litigation are discoverable. The fact that a document concerns the subject matter of a litigation is insufficient: Following the 2000 and 2015 amendments to Rule 26, parties are entitled only to discovery that is relevant to the claims and defenses in the litigation. See O'Garra v. Northwell Health, No. 16 Civ. 2191, 2018 WL 502656, at \*1-2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2018). In light of Plaintiff's representations that Plaintiff's counsel have not spoken to the press about Plaintiff's specific allegations, it is impossible to imagine what communications Defendants believe exist that satisfy this standard. + +In the May 19 Letter, Defendants point to Plaintiff's counsel's six-minute appearance on Arielle Levy's Broken podcast as an example of statements by counsel that are responsive. But that podcast provides a clear example of the absurdity of Defendants' position. As an initial matter, Plaintiff is not obligated to provide Defendants with publicly available documents and communications. See Alexander Interactive, Inc. v. Adorama, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 6608, 2013 WL 6283511, at \*6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2013) (declining to order litigant to produce documents that are "publicly available on the interne"). But more importantly, statements of counsel's personal opinion about, for example, the complexity of Virgin Islands probate court ("the Virgin Islands is obviously a small jurisdiction, I'm quite sure they've never really handled something like this before") and the process of compensating victims of sexual assault through litigation ("obviously these women were terribly damaged, my client was terribly damaged, our judicial system has ways of putting a dollar figure on that and it should") are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this action: they in no way make it "more or less probable" that any fact "of consequence in determining the action" is true. See Vaigasi v. Solow Mgmt. Corp., No. 11 Civ. 5088, 2016 WL 616386, at \*11 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2016). + +It goes without saying that identifying responsive communications and documents in the custody of counsel would be extremely burdensome and that high burden is not justified where there is a correspondingly low probability of discovering relevant material. Requiring the numerous attorneys who have worked on this case to review all of their communications over the span of more than a year is plainly not justified given the marginal utility of the communications sought. See Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309, 322-23 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (explaining that cost-shifting is appropriate where discovery requests "impose an undue burden or expense," balancing how important the sought-after evidence [is] in comparison to the cost of production"). Defendants' motion to compel Plaintiff's review and production of these communications should be denied. + +### 2. Plaintiff's Counsel's Communications with Counsel for Other Plaintiffs + +Defendants next seek all communications between Plaintiff's counsel and counsel for plaintiffs with similar claims against Defendants concerning Jeffrey Epstein and this litigation. + +(Defendants' RFPs 1 and 2.) These demands are equally overbroad and unduly burdensome on their face, especially since the material they seek is protected by the work product doctrine and the common interest doctrine. + +As an initial matter, Defendants again fail to articulate the relevance of these communications to the claims and defenses *in this case*. Plaintiff has explained to Defendants that her counsel's communications with counsel for other plaintiffs relate to the development and implementation of the voluntary claims resolution program. *See* Letter from R. Kaplan to B. Moskowitz (May 12, 2020), at 4. By the very design of that program, Defendants and Defendants' counsel in the case will have essentially nothing to do with it.3 It is therefore difficult to imagine why Defendants believe discussions among counsel about the program would bear on the claims and defenses in this action. Nor do Defendants have any reason to believe that counsel in this case have had communications with other counsel on any other topics. *See Chembulk Mgmt. PTE Ltd. v. Vedanta Ltd.*, No. 16 Civ. 9799, 2018 WL 3410013, at \*5 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2018) (further discovery denied where no record basis existed beyond party's "mere hunch"). But even if Defendants could establish that these communications are somehow relevant to the claims and defenses—which they cannot—they are nonetheless barred from attempting to discover communications that are subject to the protections of the work product and common interest doctrines. + +Indeed, Defendants' June 18 Letter mischaracterizes the nature of the protection that Plaintiff asserts here. Plaintiffs do not assert a free-standing protection arising out of the common interest doctrine. Instead, Plaintiff asserts, correctly, that her counsel's communications with other plaintiffs' counsel are protected by the work product doctrine, and the common interest doctrine operates to confirm that counsel did not waive the benefits of that protection by disclosing their opinion work product to counsel for other plaintiffs. *See, e.g., City of Almaty, Kazakhstan v. Ablyazov*, No. 15 Civ. 5345, 2019 WL 2865102, at \*7 (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2019). + +There can be little doubt that the communications Defendants seek reflect the "mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of a party's attorney or other representative concerning the litigation" and are therefore protected against disclosure under the work product doctrine. Fed. R. Civ P. 26(b)(3)(B); *Hickman v. Taylor*, 329 U.S. 495, 510–11 (1947). There is no question that counsel's emails were prepared "*because of anticipated litigation*, and would not have been prepared in substantially similar form but for the prospect of that litigation," as the work product doctrine requires. *Bloomingburg Jewish Educ. Ctr. v. Vill.*, 171 F. Supp. 3d 136, 142 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (quoting *Haugh v. Schroder Inv. Mgmt. N. Am. Inc.*, No. 02 Civ. 7955, 2003 WL 21998674, at \*4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2003) (emphasis added).4 Indeed, the communications in question are core "opinion work product," as they contain counsel's opinions and impressions about strategy, in particular vis-à-vis the victim's compensation program; as such, they enjoy "virtually absolute protection." *Favors v.* ██████████, 285 F.R.D. 187, 200 (E.D.N.Y. 2012). + +3 *See, e.g.*, Nov. 21, 2019 Hr'g Tr. at 10:23-11:1 (Defendants' counsel "encourage[ing] anyone who has questions on the plaintiff's side to reach out to the program administrators and designers for whom I don't speak because they're fully independent."). + +4 Of course, documents relating to legal strategy "in connection with *ongoing* litigation" are also protected by the work product doctrine. *Magee v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co.*, 172 F.R.D. 627, 640 (E.D.N.Y. 1997); *see also In re Initial Pub. Offering Sec. Litig.*, 220 F.R.D. 30, 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). + +Defendants do not and cannot meaningfully dispute that work product protection applies to these communications; instead, they claim, without elaboration, that it is "not credible that all such communications" are work product. June 18 Letter at 8 (emphasis added). But Defendants fail to explain why they believe Plaintiff's counsel have communicated with other plaintiffs' attorneys about topics somehow relevant to this litigation but that do not involve counsel's "mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories." Defendants' mere "hunch" that unprotected, relevant communications between counsel exist is not sufficient to justify further discovery. See Chembulk Mgml.., 2018 WL 3410013, at \*5. + +Unable to challenge the application of the work product doctrine, Defendants instead attempt to argue that work product protection was waived because counsel shared their opinions and strategy with nonparties. Defendants' waiver argument is meritless. + +"Unlike waiver of the attorney-client privilege, work product is not automatically waived once produced to a third party." Spanierman Gallery, Profit Sharing Plan v. Merritt, No. 00 Civ. 5712, 2003 WL 22909160, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2003). Work product may be shown to others, "'simply because there was some good reason to show it' without waiving the privilege." Id. (quoting United States v. Adlman, 134 F.3d 1194, 1200 n. 4 (2d Cir.1998)); see also Costabile v. Westchester County, New York, 254 F.R.D. 160, 164 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ("Work product immunity is not automatically waived by production to a third party; it is waived when its production to another is inconsistent with the protection."). + +Spanierman—the only work product case Defendants cite, June 18 Letter at 8—is not to the contrary. 2003 WL 22909160, at \*4 ("[D]isclosure of work product to a third party does not necessarily waive work product protection if it was not disclosed to an adversary or one who stands in a potentially adversarial position to the client, or if did not substantially increase the likelihood of it being revealed to an adversary."). In Spanierman, work product protection was waived by defendant's voluntary production to the FBI, where the FBI had an "obligation to perform an objective investigation of [defendant's] allegations," and where the voluntary disclosure "substantially increased the likelihood that privileged information would be secured by [the party's] adversaries." Id. at 5. In short, "[defendant] and her attorneys consciously disregarded the possibility that an adversary might obtain the protected materials" via her disclosure to the FBI. Id. No comparable facts exist here. + +Furthermore, the common interest doctrine provides an alternative, independently sufficient basis to conclude that Plaintiff has not waived work product protection. The common interest doctrine "serves to protect the confidentiality of communications passing from one party to the attorney for another party where a joint defense effort or strategy has been decided upon and undertaken by the parties and their respective counsel." Fireman 's Fund Ins. Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York, 284 F.R.D. 132, 139 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). "Obtaining the protections of the common interest doctrine requires a two-part showing": (I) a common legal interest, and (2) cooperation in formulating a common legal strategy. Id. Both elements are satisfied here. + +First, Plaintiff and the other plaintiff-victims share "a common legal, rather than commercial, interest." Id. Contrary to Defendants' argument, June 18 Letter at 7, which cites outdated caselaw for the proposition that there must be "identical legal interests" among the parties asserting the common interest, "more recent cases have held that the parties need not have 'total + +identity of interest' as long as 'a limited common purpose necessitates disclosure to certain parties.'" Egiazaryan v. Zalmayev, 290 F.R.D. 421, 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). A common legal interest exists where "parties ... have come to an agreement, though not necessarily in writing, embodying a cooperative and common enterprise towards an identical legal strategy," as demonstrated by any evidence of "the existence of coordinated legal efforts." Fireman's Fund, 284 F.R.D. at 139-40 (alteration omitted).5 Here, the various plaintiffs with cases pending against the Estate, all of which have been consolidated for discovery purposes, share a common legal interest because they are bringing substantially similar claims against the same defendants. See v. Milhorat, No. 10 Civ. 103, 2011 WL 13305347, at \*3 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2011) (finding common interest privilege applicable where the issues in consolidated cases overlapped "to such an extent that the parties in each case have agreed to consolidate all of the cases for discovery purposes"); Costabile, 254 F.R.D. at 165 ("So long as transferor and transferee anticipate litigation against a common adversary on the same issue or issues, they have strong common interests in sharing the fruit of the trial preparation efforts."); see also Pampered Chef v. Alexanian, 737 F. Supp. 2d 958, 965 (N.D. Ill. 2010) ("[T]he common interest rule has been extended in a wide range of circumstances, frequently those involving civil co-defendants, companies individually summoned before a grand jury, potential co-parties to prospective litigation, plaintiffs filing separate actions in different states and civil defendants who were sued in separate actions." (emphasis added)) (collecting cases). Indeed, as this Court has recognized 6 the legal issues and the interests of the plaintiffs in these consolidated cases, like those in are overlapping. This substantial overlap in issues is sufficient to give rise to a common legal interest among plaintiffs in these consolidated cases. + +Defendants do not even address the second prong of the common interest exception, namely, whether the exchange of privileged information "was made in the course of formulating a common legal strategy, and [] the parties understood that the communication would be in furtherance of the shared legal interest." Fireman's Fund, 284 F.R.D. at 140 (alterations omitted). Here, "[I]he key question is whether the parties are collaborating on a legal effort that is dependent on the disclosure of otherwise privileged information between the parties or their counsel." AU New Haven, LLC v. YKK Corp., No. 15 Civ. 03411, 2016 WL 6820383, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2016). + +s Relying on Shamis, Defendants argue that the various plaintiffs lack a common legal interest because "(i) Plaintiff has not produced any agreement between her counsel and other plaintiffs' counsel establishing a joint prosecution of any claims; (ii) there is no evidence of a coordinated legal strategy between Plaintiff and other plaintiffs; (iii) the other plaintiffs have never been party to this action; and (iv) there is no contention that the other plaintiffs have exercised control over the conduct of this action, nor have they contributed to Plaintiff's legal expenses." June 18 Letter at 8. But Shamis is inapplicable. As an initial matter, Sham is appears to deal with waiver of attorney-client privilege, see Shamis v. Ambassador Factors Corp., 34 F. Supp. 2d 879, 892 (S.D.N.Y 1999), which is more easily waived by thirdparty disclosure than the work product protection Plaintiff asserts here. See Spanierman, WL 22909160, at \*2. The same is true of Defendants' reliance on Campinas Foundation v. Simoni, No. 02 Civ. 3965, 2004 WL 2709850, at '2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2004) ("The common interest privilege, sometimes referred to as the joint defense privilege, is an extension of the attorney-client privilege." (internal quotation marks omitted)). + +Furthermore, the list of factors Defendants derive from Shamis are neither exhaustive nor mandatory. See Fireman's Fund, 284 F.R.D. at 139-40 (no agreement in writing is necessary; any evidence of common legal strategy is acceptable); see also Homeward Residential. Inc. v. Sand Canyon Corp., No. 12 Civ. 5067, 2017 WL 4676806, at \*6 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2017) ("[p]arties may share a `common legal interest' even if they are not parties in ongoing litigation."). Moreover, for the reasons explained above, Plaintiff has clearly established "evidence of a coordinated legal strategy" with other plaintiffs vis-ii-vis the proposed victims' compensation program, reaffirming the existence of a common legal interest. Shamis, 34 F. Supp. 2d at 893. + +6 See Nov. 21, 2019 Hr'g Tr. at 8:21-9:3; 32:4-9; 41:3-6. + +There can be no doubt that this is true of communications between Plaintiff's counsel and counsel for other plaintiffs in similar actions. To give one example, on November 22, 2019, following a conference before this Court in which Your Honor urged the parties to work collaboratively towards settlement,7 counsel for plaintiffs sent counsel for Defendants a letter posing three questions concerning the size of Mr. Epstein's Estate and of the funds to be made available through the claims program. (Ex. 3.) Naturally, drafting that joint letter required communications between counsel for the plaintiffs whose cases are before this Courts; such communications clearly related to a collaborative legal effort and would reflect counsel's otherwise privileged individual opinions on strategic issues—as such, they are classic examples of communications subject to common interest protection. See, e.g., Bank Brussels Lambert v. Credit Lyonnais (Suisse) S.A., 160 F.R.D. 437, 447 (S.D.N.Y. 1995); see also Fireman's Fund, 284 F.R.D. at 140 (collecting cases noting the significance of attorney participation to the determination of whether communications qualify for common interest protection). + +Given that Plaintiff's counsel's communications with other plaintiff's counsel are extremely likely to be subject to the work product protection, the enormous burden of searching through all of counsel's correspondence with other plaintiffs' counsel is clearly unjustified by the corresponding potential benefit to Defendants, which they have yet to articulate. See Am. Broad. Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 1540, 2013 WL 139560, at \*1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2013) ("[A] court must limit the extent of discovery if the burden of discovery outweighs its likely benefit."). Accordingly, Defendants' motion to compel these documents and communications should also be denied. + +### C. Plaintiff is Not Obligated to Produce Unrelated Medical Information and Records + +Finally, Defendants argue that because Plaintiff alleges Epstein's sexual abuse caused her emotional and psychological harm, they are entitled to discover her entire medical history. But again, well-established precedent prohibits Defendants from conducting an overbroad fishing expedition into Plaintiff's private medical records, unconstrained by time period or type of treatment or condition. + +Plaintiff's mental health is what is at issue in this action. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff has suffered from psychiatric conditions, including anxiety, depression, panic attacks, as well as continuing emotional distress, caused by Epstein's sexual abuse during her childhood. See June 18 Letter at 9. Appropriately, therefore, in response to Defendants' Request for Production Nos. 13 and 14 and Interrogatory Nos. 10 and 11, Plaintiff has agreed to produce all records and information "relating to any condition, treatment, or, service that concerns the same or similar conditions as those she alleges" in the Complaint. (See Ex. 4 at 3.) Plaintiff has already begun producing such records (Doc. No. 71 at 2), and expects to complete her production of those records by June 24, 2020. + +Defendants are entitled to nothing more. As this Court has explained in analogous circumstances, Plaintiff's "emotional distress claim does not . . . give Defendants an unfettered right to pursue discovery into [Plaintiff's] entire medical history." Manessis v. New York City + +7 See Nov. 21, 2019 Hr'g Tr. at 8:21-9:3;43:13-44:3; 49:21-24. + +\$ Counsel for a plaintiff suing the Executors in New York County Supreme Court also signed the letter. + +Dep't of Transp., No. 02 Civ. 359, 2002 WL 31115032, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2002); see also Evanko v. Elec. Sys. Assocs., Inc., No. 91 Civ. 2851, 1993 WL 14458, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 1993) (emotional distress allegations do not give "defendants a ►icense **to rummage through all aspects of the plaintiff's life in search of a possible source of stress or distress.") Instead, Defendants are entitled to discovery only of "[Plaintiff's] mental health treatment records, whether they are the records of psychiatrists, psychologists, mental health therapists or counselors, or other medical practitioners." Manessis, 2002 WL 31115032, at \*2. Defendants, however, insist on receiving records of "any medical conditions" that "Plaintiff may have suffered . . . prior to her interactions with [Epstein]," and "information concerning the entirety of the medical procedures and consultations Plaintiff received after she met Mr. Epstein. June 18 Letter at 9 (emphasis added).** + +**With respect to records from before Plaintiff met Epstein, to the extent Defendants are "seeking records of all medical care rendered to the plaintiff[] starting . . . years before [her injuries] and irrespective of what maladies the plaintiffs were being treated for, the request is selfevidently overbroad." Kunstler v. City of New York, No. 04 Civ. 1145, 2006 WL 2516625, at \*4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2006) (emphasis added). Defendants hypothesize, without any factual basis, that some prior underlying condition might have "directly caused or contributed to Plaintiff's alleged damages." June 18 Letter at 9. But precedent forecloses Defendants from relying on the generalized and speculative notion "that any physical malady might cause emotional distress" to justify their overbroad discovery expedition into Plaintiff's past conditions during her childhood. Evanko, 1993 WL 14458, at \*2 (emphasis added). Where, as here, a plaintiff claims only emotional distress damages, "Defendants . . . are not entitled to pursue discovery into treatments [Plaintiff] may have received for any physical ailments, unless [Plaintiff] has first indicated through deposition testimony or other discovery responses that a particular physical ailment or ailments caused [her] emotional distress during the relevant period." Manessis, 2002 WL 31115032, at \*2.** + +**For the same reasons, Defendants' claimed entitlement to "the entirety of the medical procedures and consultations Plaintiff received after she met Mr. Epstein" fares no better. June 18 Letter at 9 (emphasis added). Beyond gesturing at "the breadth of the medical conditions Plaintiff alleges,"—all of which relate to her mental health—Defendants make no effort to explain how treatment for any physical ailment after Epstein's abuse would be relevant to any claim or defense in this action. See Evanko, 1993 WL 14458, at \*2. Given that Plaintiff alleges no physical harm from her abuse by Epstein, Defendants cannot seriously contend that records relating to her physical health over the last twenty years—such as, for example, records from treatment for a sinus infection or the results of her most recent pap smear—are relevant and discoverable. Manessis, 2002 WL 31115032, at \*2.** + +**Not surprisingly given the above, both of the cases cited by Defendants concern disputes over precisely the sorts of documents Plaintiff has already agreed to produce. In Arthur v. Atkinson Freight Lines Corporation, a personal injury plaintiff failed to turn over medical records from the physician who treated plaintifffor the accident underlying the suit and failed to supplement his responses as further medical records, including "progress notes," were generated during litigation. 164 F.R.D. 19, 20 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). Such records were indisputably relevant, and Plaintiff has already agreed to provide their precise analogue here by producing records of "any condition, treatment, or, service that concerns the same or similar conditions as those she alleges." (Ex. 4 at 3.) Similarly, in Rodriguez v. Folksamerica Reinsurance Corporation, the defendant sought** + +"records from the plaintiffs' medical care providers concerning any treatment they have ever received for emotional distress, whether the stress was due to the actions alleged in this lawsuit or otherwise." No. 305 Civ. 01687, 2006 WL 1359119, at \*3 (D. Conn. May 15, 2006) (emphasis added). Again, Plaintiff has already agreed to provide all such records here. Rodriguez only reaffirms that Plaintiff has fully satisfied her discovery obligations in this regard. + +In sum, Defendants' effort to rummage through Plaintiffs entire medical history is nothing more than an abusive tactic designed to exact the maximum amount of embarrassment and harm on Plaintiff for having brought this claim in the first place. Such tactics find no support in the case law and should not be permitted here. + +#### D. Conclusion + +For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendants' request for a five-week briefing schedule and decide these discovery disputes based on the comprehensive letters already submitted by the parties, as well as the telephonic conference that the Court already scheduled. Plaintiff further requests that the Court deny Defendants' motion to compel. + +Respectfully submitted, + +Roberta A. Kaplan + +cc: Counsel of Record \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751541/EFTA02751541.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751541/EFTA02751541.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..67e761aadc895c5ab3445f06208c984ac55ff6c3 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751541/EFTA02751541.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,865 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751541.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 11, + "chars": 39478, + "elapsed_seconds": 14.41, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 33.048, + 39.28936767578125 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 39.28936767578125 + ], + [ + 310.6139221191406, + 63.94818115234375 + ], + [ + 33.048, + 63.94818115234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 237.29888916015625 + ], + [ + 124.64768981933594, + 237.29888916015625 + ], + [ + 124.64768981933594, + 251.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 251.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER S.: FINK LLP 2", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.884, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 535.162841796875, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 535.162841796875, + 64.56353759765625 + ], + [ + 34.884, + 64.56353759765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Plaintiff's Rule 26 Damages Disclosure Is Appropriate.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 364.5 + ], + [ + 410.73492431640625, + 364.5 + ], + [ + 410.73492431640625, + 380.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 380.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.884, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 239.904, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 239.904, + 59.129999999999995 + ], + [ + 34.884, + 59.129999999999995 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 4", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.884, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 535.0596313476562, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 535.0596313476562, + 64.5634765625 + ], + [ + 34.884, + 64.5634765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Communications of Plaintiff's Counsel", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 295.65 + ], + [ + 327.4441223144531, + 295.65 + ], + [ + 327.4441223144531, + 311.2330627441406 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 311.2330627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. Plaintiff's Counsel's Communications with the Press", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 468.98999999999995 + ], + [ + 380.2606201171875, + 468.98999999999995 + ], + [ + 380.2606201171875, + 484.863037109375 + ], + [ + 88.12799999999999, + 484.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 5", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.272, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 535.55712890625, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 535.55712890625, + 64.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 34.272, + 64.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. Plaintiff's Counsel's Communications with Counsel for Other Plaintiffs", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 86.904, + 681.21 + ], + [ + 476.9605407714844, + 681.21 + ], + [ + 476.9605407714844, + 697.8630142211914 + ], + [ + 86.904, + 697.8630142211914 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.884, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 239.904, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 239.904, + 59.129999999999995 + ], + [ + 34.884, + 59.129999999999995 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 7", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.272, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 534.9471435546875, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 534.9471435546875, + 64.863037109375 + ], + [ + 34.272, + 64.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 8", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.884, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 535.5907592773438, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 535.5907592773438, + 64.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 34.884, + 64.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER S.: FINK LEP 9", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.884, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 535.2902221679688, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 535.2902221679688, + 63.40087890625 + ], + [ + 34.884, + 63.40087890625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "C. Plaintiff is Not Obligated to Produce Unrelated Medical Information and Records", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 405.81000000000006 + ], + [ + 543.3168334960938, + 405.81000000000006 + ], + [ + 543.3168334960938, + 421.863037109375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 421.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLI) I0", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.884, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 539.5275268554688, + 43.74 + ], + [ + 539.5275268554688, + 65.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 34.884, + 65.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLI) 11", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 34.884, + 44.55 + ], + [ + 536.2593994140625, + 44.55 + ], + [ + 536.2593994140625, + 64.863037109375 + ], + [ + 34.884, + 64.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "D. Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 227.61 + ], + [ + 185.8949737548828, + 227.61 + ], + [ + 185.8949737548828, + 242.60302734375 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 242.60302734375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 77 + ], + [ + "Line", + 38 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 94 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 98 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 109 + ], + [ + "Line", + 46 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 90 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 111 + ], + [ + "Line", + 51 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 101 + ], + [ + "Line", + 44 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 97 + ], + [ + "Line", + 47 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 46 + ], + [ + "Line", + 21 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751541" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751552/EFTA02751552.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751552/EFTA02751552.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..706732e5bbf832ab58050149c5b1fc8cc98b432b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751552/EFTA02751552.md @@ -0,0 +1,169 @@ +#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaintiff, + +19 Civ. 8673 (KPF) + +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, + +Defendants. + +#### OPINION AND ORDER + +KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge': + +Plaintiff Jane Doe2 brings this action under New York law against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn in their capacities as appointed executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein (together, "Defendants"). Plaintiff asserts tort claims for sexual assault, sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress, for which she seeks actual, compensatory, statutory, consequential, and punitive damages. Defendants seek to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages, arguing that: (i) New York law applies to the punitive damages claim because the torts allegedly occurred in New York; (ii) New York law bars the recovery of punitive damages against a decedent tortfeasor's estate; and (iii) even if the law of the United States Virgin Islands rusvn were to apply, it also would prohibit the recovery of punitive damages against a decedent tortfeasor's estate. For the + +Sarah n, a rising second-year student at Fordham Law School and an intern in my , provided substantial assistance in researching and drafting this Opinion. + +2Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed pseudonymously. (Dkt. #26). + +reasons explained below, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages. + +## BACKGROUND 3 + +# A. Factual Background + +The Court accepts as true the well-pleaded allegations of the Complaint for purposes of this motion. In broad summary, Plaintiff presents a disturbing and corrosive pattern of sexual abuse and emotional manipulation of herself and others over the course of three years by Jeffrey Epstein. (Compl. ¶¶ 15- 60). At all times relevant to this suit, Plaintiff was an economically disadvantaged minor child living in New York City. (Id. at ¶¶ 12, 22). She was raised by her single mother for the majority of her life. (Id. at ¶ 21). Financial hardships afflicted Plaintiff and her family throughout her childhood, in part because of the extensive medical care required to treat Plaintiffs younger sister, who suffered from serious medical conditions. (Id. at ¶ 22). + +In or around 2002, when Plaintiff was approximately fourteen years old, she learned of Epstein through an older teenage girl from her neighborhood, who approached Plaintiff with an opportunity to meet a "wealthy man" and earn money. (Compl. ¶ 23). By that time, Plaintiff had been forced to move out of her home and take on certain jobs after school to help support her family. (Id. at ¶ 24). As a result, Plaintiff agreed to meet Epstein. (Id.). The older + +3 The facts contained in this Opinion are drawn primarily from Plaintiff's Complaint ("Complaint" or "Compl." (Dkt. #1)), which is the operative pleading in this case. + +For ease of reference, the Court refers to Defendants' opening brief as "Def. Br." (Dkt. #47); Plaintiffs opposition brief as "Pl. Opp." (Dkt. #51); Defendants' reply brief as "Def. Reply" (Dkt. #55); and Plaintiff's Reply Letter as "Pl. Rep. Lt." (Dkt. #62). + +teenage girl brought Plaintiff to Epstein's Upper East Side mansion, where they waited in a room until Epstein arrived, wearing only a robe. (Id. at ¶¶ 25-27). Epstein asked Plaintiff her name and age, to which she responded truthfully. (Id.). With this knowledge, Epstein began to test Plaintiff's boundaries by engaging in escalating levels of sexual abuse on numerous occasions, paying her several hundred dollars after each encounter. (Id. at ¶¶ 42-43). + +The Complaint is harrowing in its detail of how Epstein's actions and demands intensified over the course of three years, to the point where he caused Plaintiff physical pain by forcing her to express pleasure as he violated her. (Compl. ¶¶ 34-44). The Complaint further alleges that Epstein was aided by his associates, who allowed, facilitated, and participated in his abuse of Plaintiff and other young women. (Id. at ¶¶ 45-53). As Plaintiff grew financially reliant on Epstein, she stopped attending school to spend her time "working" at his home, gratifying him sexually, or bringing other girls to do the same, just as she had been brought to him initially. (Id. at ¶ 41). Epstein's conduct, for which the adjective egregious seems an understatement, caused Plaintiff to develop post-traumatic stress disorder; she continues to suffer from lasting emotional repercussions that have affected her mental health, family life, and education. (Id. at ¶¶ 54-80). + +Plaintiff was one of several minor victims who suffered sexual abuse and exploitation at the hands of Epstein. (Compl. ¶¶ 43-44). In July 2019, Epstein was indicted in this District for his decades-long child abuse scheme after an investigation to which Plaintiff contributed by cooperating, confidentially, with + +authorities. (Id. at ¶¶ 61-62). On August 8, 2019, two days before his reported suicide, Epstein executed his last will and testament (the "Will"), which provided for his Estate to be probated in the USVI. (Id. at ¶¶ 63-65). Epstein appointed Defendants to administer his Estate. (Id. at ¶¶ 65, 67-68). Plaintiff seeks to obtain recovery from the Estate for the years of pain and suffering Epstein inflicted on her. (Id. at ¶¶ 6, 63). + +## B. Procedural History + +Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action on September 18, 2019. (Dkt. #1). The Complaint seeks relief for actual, compensatory, statutory, consequential, and punitive damages. (Compl. ¶ 88). On November 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed a letter notifying the Court of several cases brought by other plaintiffs against the Epstein Estate alleging similar claims of sexual abuse. (Dkt. #16). All such cases, including the present one, were later consolidated for discovery purposes before Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman. (Dkt. #23). + +On December 2, 2019, Defendants filed a letter requesting a pre-motion conference concerning their anticipated motion to dismiss Plaintiff's punitive damages claim. (Dkt. #35). Plaintiff filed a letter in opposition on August 4, 2019. (Dkt. #36). The Court held a pre-motion conference on December 11, 2019. (Dkt. #40 (transcript)). Following the conference, the Court set a briefing schedule and denied a stay of discovery pending resolution of Defendants' motion to dismiss. (Dkt. #39). + +On January 15, 2020, Defendants filed their partial motion to dismiss, arguing that New York law applies to the issue of punitive damages because + +the alleged torts occurred in New York and, further, that as a matter of New York law, punitive damages cannot be recovered against personal representatives of an estate. (Dkt. #46, 47).4 Defendants further argue that even if USVI law were to apply, as Plaintiff claims, punitive damages would still be unavailable. (Id.). On February 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in opposition to Defendants' motion. (Dkt. #51). The memorandum was supported by a declaration from Roberta A. Kaplan, Esq., that attached copies of Epstein's Will and the Complaint filed in Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, et al., ST-20-CV-14 (V.I. Super. Ct. Jan. 15, 2020). (Dkt. #52). Defendants filed a reply brief on February 28, 2020. (Dkt. #55). + +On April 28, 2020, Defendants filed a letter notifying the Court of supplemental authority from a sister court in this District. (Dkt. #61). Plaintiff filed a reply letter on April 29, 2020. (Dkt. #62). On April 30, 2020, Defendants filed a letter with additional supplemental authority. (Dkt. #64). And on June 19, 2020, Defendants filed a letter with still further supplemental + +4Plaintiff contends that Defendants' motion is more properly denominated a motion to strike under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), inasmuch as the motion does not seek to dismiss any of Plaintiff's four causes of action, but rather seeks to excise Plaintiff's demand for punitive damages. (See Pl. Opp. 1 n.1). As a sister court in this District concluded in Mary Doe v. Indyke, — F. Supp. 3d —, No. 19 Civ. 10758 (PAE), 2020 WL 2036707, at \*4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2020), this Court need not weigh in on this conceptual debate because Defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) can, alternatively, be treated as a motion to strike under Rule 12(f). See 5C Charles A. & Alan R. , FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1380 (3d ed.) Mlle technical name given to a motion challenging a pleading is of little importance inasmuch as prejudice to the nonmoving party hardly can result from treating a motion that has been inaccurately denominated a motion to strike as a motion to dismiss the complaint."). + +authority. (Dkt. #75). Accordingly, the motion is fully briefed and ripe for decision. + +## DISCUSSION + +## A. Applicable Law + +When a court considers a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), it must "draw all reasonable inferences in Plaintiffrsj favor, assume all well-pleaded factual allegations to be true, and determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Faber v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 648 F.3d 98, 104 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Selevan v. N.Y. Thruway Auth., 584 F.3d 82, 88 (2d Cir. 2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted). A plaintiff will survive a motion to dismiss if she alleges "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see also In re Elevator Antitrust Litig., 502 F.3d 47, 50 (2d Cir. 2007) ("While Twombly does not require heightened fact pleading of specifics, it does require enough facts to nudge [a plaintiff's' claims across the line from conceivable to plausible." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). + +The Court is not, however, bound to accept "conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions." Rolon v. Henneman, 517 F.3d 140, 149 (2d Cir. 2008) (citation omitted); see also Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) ("[A]lthough a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint, that tenet is inapplicable to legal conclusions, and threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, + +supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted)).5 + +# B. Analysis + +The issue before the Court concerns whether the executors of Epstein's Estate may be held liable for punitive damages — recovery that would indisputably be available were Epstein still alive. (Pl. Opp. 2; Def. Reply 1). Defendants assert at the outset that New York estate law, rather than USVI law, applies to bar punitive damages against executors of an estate in a personal injury suit. (See Def. Br. 1-2). Plaintiff maintains that USVI law governs her punitive damages claim and allows it to stand, but that even if New York law applied, relevant choice-of-law rules enable her to bring this action under USVI law. (See P1. Opp. 1-2, 17-18). By contrast, Defendants argue that, even under USVI law, punitive damages are unavailable. (See Def. Br. 4- 6). The Court addresses each of these arguments in turn. + +A similar analysis would obtain were the motion construed as one to strike Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages. Under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may move to "strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Courts in this District have found that "[title standard that applies to a motion to strike is the `mirror image' of the standard on a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim." Bd. of Managers of Trump Tower at City Ctr. Condo. v. Palazzolo, 346 F. Supp. 3d 432, 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (internal citations and quotations omitted); see generally Rosa v. TCC Corninc'ns, Inc., No. 15 Civ. 1665 (WHP), 2016 WL 67729, at \*7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2016) (granting motion to strike punitive damages claim). Courts have also observed that such motions are "generally disfavored." Oram v. SoulCycle LLC, 979 F. Supp. 2d 498, 511 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). + +#### 1. The New York Statute Authorizing Personal Injury Actions Against a Decedent's Estate Precludes Punitive Damages Claims in Such Actions + +To begin, Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiff's punitive damages claim on the ground that New York law bars such claims in personal injury suits against representatives of a decedent's estate. The statute in question, § 11- 3.2(a)(1) of New York's Estates, Powers and Trusts Law ("EPTL"), provides: + +> No cause of action for injury to person or property is lost because of the death of the person liable for the injury. For any injury, an action may be brought or continued against the personal representative of the decedent, but punitive damages shall not be awarded nor penalties adjudged in any such action brought to recover damages for personal injury. + +EPTL § 11-3.2 (a)(1) (emphasis added). + +As three recent cases in this District, presenting similar claims against the same Defendants, have recognized, this provision clearly prohibits the award of punitive damages in the situation at hand. See Mary Doe v. Indyke, — F. Supp. 3d —, No. 19 Civ. 10758 (PAE), 2020 WL 2036707, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2020) (holding that EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1) involves a categorical preclusion of punitive damages against a deceased tortfeasor's estate); see also Lisa Doe v. Indyke, No. 19 Civ. 7773 (ER), 2020 WL 3073219, at \*14-15 (S.D.N.Y. June 9, 2020) (same); Doe 15 v. Indyke, No. 19 Civ. 10653 (PAE), 2020 WL 2086194, at \*2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2020) ("New Mexico common law as announced by the state supreme court, like EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1), bars punitive damages in a personal injury action against a tortfeasor's estate."). Both federal courts addressing constitutional-tort claims under New York law, and + +state courts in personal injury actions governed by New York law, have concluded similarly. See Mary Doe, 2020 WL 2036707, at \*2 (collecting New York federal and state cases). + +This position is also reflected in the majority of United States jurisdictions, as the Restatement (Second) of Torts indicates. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908 cmt. a (Am. Law Inst. 1979) ("Punitive damages are not awarded against the representatives of a deceased tortfeasor."). The common justification for the majority rule is that "punishment and deterrence — the recognized bases for imposing punitive damages on a tortfeasor — are not advanced by imposing punitive damages on his or her estate." Mary Doe, 2020 WL 2036707, at \*3; see also Blissett v. Eisertsmidt, 940 F. Supp. 449, 457 (N.D.N.Y. 1996) (brackets and citation omitted) ("There is a strong policy against the assessment of punitive damages against an estate on account of wrongful conduct of the decedent."). + +Thus, as a threshold matter under New York law, punitive damages are unavailable in a case against personal representatives of a decedent tortfeasor's estate. + +# 2. New York Law Governs Plaintiff's Punitive Damages Claim + +Plaintiff does not dispute that she would be barred from recovering punitive damages if her claim were strictly governed by EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1).6 + +In Lisa Doe v. Indyke, No. 19 Civ. 7773 (ER), 2020 WL 3073219, at \*14 (S.D.N.Y. June 9, 2020), the court rejected the plaintiff's argument that New York's "clear statutory bar on punitive damages" should not apply because Epstein's death was selfinflicted. + +Instead, Plaintiff makes two distinct arguments: (i) New York choice-of-law rules allow Plaintiff to seek punitive damages under USVI law, even if she pursues her personal injury claims under New York law; and (ii) Plaintiff has a statutory right to sue Epstein's estate under either USVI or New York law. (See Pl. Opp. 1-2, 17-18). + +With respect to Plaintiffs first argument, this Court, like many courts before it, recognizes New York choice-of-law rules, which apply an "interest analysis" to resolve conflicts of law in tort actions. See, e.g., Mary Doe, 2020 WL 2036707, at \*5; Golden v. Wyeth, Inc., No. 04 Civ. 2841 (JS), 2013 WL 4500879, at \*1-2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2013). As construed by the Second Circuit, the "interest analysis" requires application of the law of the jurisdiction with the greatest interest in the litigation. In re Thelen LLP, 736 F.3d 213, 219 (2d Cir. 2013) (brackets, alteration, and internal quotation marks omitted). Further, the jurisdiction with more "significant contacts" relating to the purpose of the law in conflict has the greater interest. See GlobalNet Financial.Corn, Inc. v. Crystal & Co., 449 F.3d 377, 384 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing v. Boy Scouts of Am., Inc., 65 N.Y.2d 189, 197 (1985)). + +Torts are divided into two types: conduct-regulating rules, such as "rules of the road," and loss-allocation rules, "such as those limiting damages in wrongful death actions, vicarious liability rules, or immunities from suit." In re Thelen, 736 F.3d at 220 (citation omitted). "If conflicting conduct-regulating laws are at issue, the law of the jurisdiction where the tort occurred will generally apply because that jurisdiction has the greatest interest in regulating + +behavior within its borders." Id. (quoting Cooney v. Osgood Mach., Inc., 81 N.Y.2d 66, 72 (1993)) (emphasis added). + +The parties do not dispute that punitive damages rules are conductregulating. See, e.g., Mary Doe, 2020 WL 2036707, at \*5 (collecting cases reaching the same conclusion). Defendants argue that because Plaintiff's causes of action occurred entirely in New York, EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1) applies to bar punitive damages. (Def. Br. 3). Plaintiff counters that the conductregulating classification does not end the inquiry, because a court must still consider whether there is a "good reason not to apply" the law of the jurisdiction where the tort occurred. (Pl. Opp. 9 (quoting Nat'l Jewish Democratic Council v. Adelson, 417 F. Supp. 3d 416, 426 (S.D.N.Y. 2019))). + +In particular, Plaintiff identifies two circumstances that, she claims, give the Court "good reason" to apply USVI law to the issue of punitive damages. (See Pl. Opp. 8-11). First, Plaintiff contends that the fact that Defendants are USVI domiciliaries counsels in favor of applying USVI estate law. (See id. at 9- 10). And in this regard, Plaintiff relies on Adelson to argue the importance of deferring to a defendant's domicile in applying a particular jurisdiction's law. (See id. at 9, 11; P1. Rep. Lt. 1, 2 n.2 (citing Adelson, 417 F. Supp. at 426 (reasoning that defendant's domiciliary, Nevada, "points in favor" of applying Nevada punitive damages law))). But while Plaintiff's invocation of Adelson's "points in favor" language is well-argued, that language is ultimately only a partial recitation of the interest-analysis test described above. See GlobalNet, 449 F.3d at 384 (quotations and citations omitted) (explaining how under the + +interest-analysis test, significant contacts are, almost exclusively, the parties' domiciles and the locus of the tort). In context, the weight afforded to domicile in Adelson was largely due to the irrelevance of the locus of the tort factor, as the suit's sole connection to New York was that it was filed there. Adelson, 417 F. Supp. 3d at 426. Furthermore, Adelson's previous attempt to avail himself of the benefits of Nevada defamation law granted Nevada the greater interest in governing punitive damages as compared to New York. Id. + +To describe Adelson is thus to highlight its insignificance to the instant case. At all times material to the conduct alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiff was domiciled in New York. All of the alleged torts took place in the home Epstein maintained in New York. (Cf. Compl. ¶ 13 ("All of the events giving rise to these causes of action occurred in the Southern District of New York, thus venue in this district is proper.")). Further, Plaintiff chose to sue in New York, where her causes of action are timely pursuant to the New York Child Victims Act, N.Y.P.L. § 130.52-55. (See id. at ¶¶ 73, 77, 82, 86). And Plaintiffs case, like Mary Doe and unlike Adelson with Nevada law, "does not build on a prior litigation in, or based on the law of, the USVI." Mary Doe, 2020 WL 2036707, at \*7. These facts, taken together, demonstrate that New York's interest in applying its punitive damages rules to this case outweighs the USVI's interest, which exists only because of Epstein's decision to probate his estate there. See Lisa Doe, 2020 WL 3073219, at \*15 (concluding that New York punitive damages law, rather than USVI punitive damages law, applied to plaintiffs case "alleg[ing] torts under New York law committed entirely within New York"). If + +anything, it is the USVI, and not New York, that has a "merely fortuitous relationship with the case," minimizing its interest in governing punitive damages. Adelson, 417 F. Supp. 3d at 427 (citation omitted). + +In addition to her domicile argument, Plaintiff asserts that the USVI has a greater interest than New York in preventing Epstein and his Estate from availing themselves of the benefits, but not the burdens, of USVI probate law. Despite her plausible policy concerns, Plaintiff provides little in the way of precedential support for her contention that "where a tortfeasor commits suicide to avoid imposition of punitive damages, considerations of fairness no longer counsel in favor of protecting his estate." (Pl. Opp. 12). Nor does she substantiate her claim that "Ipirohibiting punitive damages in this case would not protect innocent heirs; it would punish traumatized victims deserving of adequate compensation." (Id.). In Mary Doe, the plaintiff asserted a comparable argument, claiming that Epstein's decision to alter his Will shortly before his suicide was strategically motivated, and thus his executors should not be permitted to selectively avail themselves of certain benefits of USVI law but avoid aspects that they do not like. Mary Doe, 2020 WL 2036707, at \*5. But, as with the Mary Doe court, this Court is left unpersuaded. Id. at \*6 ("[Mary] Doe's point that the estate may prosper from being probated in the USVI is disconnected from her claims."). + +Meanwhile, New York's interest in governing Plaintiff's punitive damages claim remains clear, as the place of the allegedly wrongful conduct "generally has superior interests in protecting the reasonable expectations of the parties + +who relied on the laws of that place to govern their primary conduct and in the admonitory effect that applying its law will have on similar conduct in the future." Mary Doe, 2020 WL 2036707, at \*6 (quoting AHW Inv. P'ship, MFS v. Citigroup, Inc., 661 F. App'x 2, 5 (2d Cir. 2016) (internal quotations and citations omitted)). With numerous personal injury actions pending against the Epstein Estate under New York law for alleged conduct that largely occurred in New York, the state has abundant interest in "vindicating the rights of (these) victim[s]" and "assuring that the perpetrator of that abuse is adequately punished and deterred." Id. And as previously noted, New York's interest is reinforced by the fact that Plaintiffs suit is timely only by virtue of the New York Child Victims Act. (See Compl. q¶ 73, 77, 82, 86). Cf. 5 V.I.C. § 31(5)(A) (specifying two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions in the USVI). + +Separate and distinct from her choice-of-law argument, Plaintiff asserts a statutory right to sue Epstein's Estate under either USVI or New York law. First, Plaintiff claims a right to sue under USVI law because the Complaint does not specifically invoke EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1). The Court rejects this argument out of hand: Plaintiff's ability to sue Defendants originates from EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1), as her causes of action are all personal injury claims based on alleged conduct that occurred exclusively in New York. (Compl. ¶¶ 12-13).7 Plaintiffs strategic decision to omit reference to the provision in her Complaint + +7See generally N.Y. Gen. Constr. Law § 37-a (defining "personal injury" as including "an assault, battery, false imprisonment, or other actionable injury to the person either of the plaintiff, or of another"). + +does not change this fact, let alone preclude New York law from applying. See Mary Doe, 2020 WL 2036707, at \*6 ("It is problematic for [plaintiff] to cherrypick within [EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1)], invoking the part that authorizes a personal injury suit against an executor while disclaiming the balance, which delimits the recovery available in such a suit."). As the district court in Blissett recognized, "it would be an anomalous situation indeed if plaintiff were allowed to proceed with this [§] 1983 action ... because of 1§1 11-3.2(a)(1), while at the same time he was allowed to recover relief, in the form of punitive damages, which clearly is beyond the scope of relief which that statute authorizes." Blissett, 940 F. Supp. at 457. Plaintiff asserts that Blissett is inapplicable, as the claim there sought punitive damages for federal civil rights violations, which are governed by different choice-of-law principles than personal injury cases. (Pl. Opp. 18 n.9). However, the Blissett court concluded that this was a distinction without a difference: The plaintiff there argued that the statute was irrelevant because he sought redress for a constitutional violation, not a personal injury. Id. The court disagreed because "stripped to its core, in essence, [the plaintiff's] claim is one for personal injury." Id. It is only logical, therefore, to infer that the anomaly identified in Blissett would counsel against the grant of punitive damages that are disallowed under EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1). + +Second, Plaintiff asserts that she possesses a statutory right under USVI law because it, specifically 15 V.I.C. § 601, allows personal injury claims against a decedent tortfeasor's estate. Whether Virgin Islands law or New York law applies to her ability to sue the Estate, Plaintiff claims she is authorized to + +bring this action under the law of either jurisdiction. But this argument fails for several reasons, including that: (i) Plaintiff cites no legal authority permitting a New York litigant to file a personal injury suit under § 601 in New York in order to recover for torts occurring in New York; and (ii) Plaintiff does not explain how she can bring this lawsuit pursuant to § 601 and avail herself of USVI law governing punitive damages, while simultaneously maintaining that the action is timely pursuant to the New York Child Victims Act. + +Finally, echoing her choice-of-law argument, Plaintiff asserts that the doctrine of depecage permits different jurisdictions' laws to govern the availability of punitive damages and the availability of a cause of action. (See Pl. Opp. 19).8 The Mary Doe court resolved the same question by holding that depecage does not invite the application of two different sets of laws to a single issue, and thus may not be invoked to cherrypick from EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1). Mary Doe, 2020 WL 2036707, at \*6. Plaintiff argues that the availability of punitive damages and the availability of a cause of action are not a "single issue," and therefore that depecage may be invoked. (See Pl. Rep. Lt. 3). In particular, Plaintiff points out that the "New York Court of Appeals has recognized that the doctrine Id depecage] may sometimes require that a plaintiff's demand for punitive damages be analyzed under the law of a state other than the one under whose law the cause of action arises." Fed. Hous. + +8Under the doctrine of depecage, "the rules of one legal system are applied to regulate certain issues arising from a given transaction or occurrence, while those of another system regulate the other issues." Hunter v. , 734 F.2d 896, 901 (2d Cir. 1984) (citation omitted). + +Fin. Agency v. Ally Fin. Inc., No. 11 Civ. 7010 (DLC), 2012 WL 6616061, at \*5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2012). In such an analysis, "a court must consider the object or purpose of the wrongdoing, and give controlling effect to the law of the jurisdiction with the strongest interest in the resolution of the particular issue presented." Id. (citation omitted). While this statement may be persuasive in a vacuum, the Ally Financial court still applied the punitive damages law of the states in which the alleged fraud took place, reasoning that the states where the "primary conduct allegedly took place ha[d] a stronger interest in deterring such [fraud]." Id. at \*5. By extension, and regardless of whether Plaintiffs alleged causes of action and prayer for punitive damages are considered a single issue, New York has the stronger interest in resolving Plaintiff's punitive damages claim. Thus, depecage would be inapplicable here. + +## 3. USVI Law Is Likely in Accord with New York Law Under a Banks Analysis + +Even if the Court assumed, arguendo, that USVI law applied, the outcome would be the same. The USVI does not have a statute addressing the availability of punitive damages against a decedent tortfeasor's estate. See Powell v. Chi-Co's Distrib., Inc., No. ST-13-TOR-14, 2014 WL 1394183, at \*2 n.11 (V.I. Super. Ct. Apr. 3, 2014) (pointing out the lack of standard for asserting punitive damages in the USVI). When considering a question not foreclosed by statute or precedent, USVI courts apply three "non-dispositive" factors: (i) whether any USVI courts have previously adopted a particular rule; (ii) the position taken by a majority of courts from other jurisdictions; and (iii) + +most importantly, which approach represents the soundest rule for the USVI. Gov't of Virgin Islands v. 60 V.I. 597, 600 (2014) (citing Matthew v. Herman, 56 V.I. 674, 680 (2012)). The test, known as the "Banks analysis," determines the common-law disposition of the USVI on a given issue. See id. (citing Banks v. Int'l Rental & Leasing Corp., 55 V.I. 967, 979 (2011)). + +Plaintiff argues that the Banks analysis makes "clear that punitive damages are available in this case." (Pl. Opp. 13). Defendants champion the opposite conclusion. (Def. Br. 4-5). This Court is ultimately persuaded by the position taken by its sister court, viz., that the USVI would not allow the imposition of punitive damages on a tortfeasor's estate, thereby aligning itself with New York, the majority of states, and § 908 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. See Mary Doe, 2020 WL 2036707, at \*7-8 (citing supporting cases); accord Doe 15, 2020 WL 2086194, at \*1. + +As to the first factor, multiple courts in the USVI have recited the Restatement's rule precluding punitive damages. See, e.g., v. Dowson Holding Co., 51 V.I. 619, 628 (D.V.I. 2009); Booth v. Bowen, Civ. No. 2006-217 (CVG), 2008 WL 220067, at \*5 (D.V.I. Jan. 10, 2008). While these cases address punitive damages in wrongful death actions, they are still relevant, in spite of Plaintiff's objections, as support for the USVI's longstanding application of § 908 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts within the USVI. See Pappas v. Hotel on the Cay Time-Sharing Ass'n, 69 V.I. 3, 15 n.8 (V.I. Super. Ct. 2015) (relying on this accepted application in finding the Restatement's provision to be the soundest rule for USVI courts with respect to the imposition of punitive + +damages and local public policy). Plaintiff has not cited any countervailing authority within the USVI. + +Plaintiff claims that Defendants exaggerate the degree to which the second Banks factor favors prohibiting punitive damages against an estate, but concedes that this is the majority rule. (Pl. Opp. 16). That "most of the jurisdictions adopting the majority rule" have passed a statute codifying a prohibition of punitive damages against a decedent's estate, and the USVI has not, does not suggest that the majority rule would not apply in the USVI. This is especially true considering that, before the adoption of the Banks analysis less than a decade ago, USVI courts strictly followed the Restatements. See Isaac v. Crichlow, 63 V.I. 38, 58-60 (V.I. Super. Ct. 2015) (concluding, pursuant to a Banks analysis, that § 222A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts reflects the common law of the USVI, despite the fact that the Restatements "no longer constitute binding legal authority in this jurisdiction"); Mary Doe, 2020 WL 2036707, at \*7 (explaining how the distinction between adopting this result by statute or by court decision "does not appear germane to the Banks inquiry"). + +Plaintiff focuses on the third factor, asserting that the Mary Doe court reached its conclusion by "essentially eliminating the third Banks factor — i.e., which approach represents the soundest rule for the USVI - from its analysis, even though that factor is the 'most important' of the three." (Pl. Rep. Lt. 3 (citing Antilles Sch., Inc. v. Lembach, 64 V.I. 400, 428 (V.I. 2016))). The soundest rule, according to Plaintiff, is to permit punitive damages because: + +(i) the USVI Attorney General has articulated this very position on behalf of the Virgin Islands in her pending lawsuit against the Estate; and (ii) punitive damages in the USVI are designed both to punish wrongdoers and to deter others from engaging in similar conduct. This Court does not give weight to the Attorney General's suit, as "the decision by a government lawyer to attempt to obtain such damages in a high-profile case involving allegations of extreme conduct ... do[es] not speak to the question that the third Banks factor assays." Mary Doe, 2020 WL 2036707, at \*8. And while the Court does not deny the USVI's interest in punishing tortfeasors on its land, or even its interest in holding Epstein's Estate accountable for his tortious actions in the USVI, Plaintiff's alleged causes of action arose exclusively in New York. The Court is skeptical that that it would be the policy of the USVI to regulate conduct occurring in New York.9 Thus, consideration of the Banks factors leads the Court to conclude that USVI law, if applied, would likely be in accord with New York law and bar Plaintiff's recovery of punitive damages in this action. to + +Notably, none of the available cases from the USVI relying on the Restatement questions the validity of its prohibition against punitive damages recovery from a decedent's estate. But courts have held that it is that "the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908(2) represents the soundest rule for the Virgin Islands, and is in accord with local public policy." Powell v. CM-Co's Distrib., Inc., No. ST-13-TOR-14, 2014 WI. 1394183, at \*2 n.11 (V.I. Super. Ct. Apr. 3, 2014). + +ill Because the Court finds New York law applies to this issue, and USVI law would be in accord, it declines PlaintitTs request to certify the question to the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands. + +#### CONCLUSION + +To be clear, the conduct alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint is as shocking as it is reprehensible. That said, even for egregious fact patterns, the Court is not free to overlook the law, and the law here is clear. For the reasons detailed above, Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Docket No. 46. + +SO ORDERED. + +Dated: June 23, 2020 New York, New York KovA4A, fia, la,&\_ + +KATHERINE POLK FAILLA United States District Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751552/EFTA02751552.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751552/EFTA02751552.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..36d9bce7ba473528ce2fea91beb06156af9dc12f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751552/EFTA02751552.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,1083 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751552.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 21, + "chars": 35420, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.49, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 299.49652099609375, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 299.49652099609375, + 100.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 100.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "OPINION AND ORDER", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 382.5, + 184.68 + ], + [ + 525.9985961914062, + 184.68 + ], + [ + 525.9985961914062, + 199.10302734375 + ], + [ + 382.5, + 199.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "BACKGROUND 3", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 253.98, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 354.96, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 354.96, + 142.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 253.98, + 142.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Factual Background", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 153.09 + ], + [ + 236.43722534179688, + 153.09 + ], + [ + 236.43722534179688, + 169.10302734375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 169.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Procedural History", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 240.57 + ], + [ + 229.24012756347656, + 240.57 + ], + [ + 229.24012756347656, + 255.363037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 255.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "DISCUSSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 348.52471923828125, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 348.52471923828125, + 142.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 142.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "A. Applicable Law", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 5, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 204.4090118408203, + 153.89999999999998 + ], + [ + 204.4090118408203, + 168.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 168.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "B. Analysis", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 164.1582489013672, + 127.17 + ], + [ + 164.1582489013672, + 142.863037109375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 142.863037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1. The New York Statute Authorizing Personal Injury Actions \nAgainst a Decedent's Estate Precludes Punitive Damages \nClaims in Such Actions", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 513.3411254882812, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 513.3411254882812, + 114.363037109375 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 114.363037109375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "2. New York Law Governs Plaintiff's Punitive Damages Claim", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 549.99 + ], + [ + 510.5909423828125, + 549.99 + ], + [ + 510.5909423828125, + 565.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 105.26399999999998, + 565.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "3. USVI Law Is Likely in Accord with New York Law Under a \nBanks Analysis", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 409.04999999999995 + ], + [ + 502.7147521972656, + 409.04999999999995 + ], + [ + 502.7147521972656, + 438.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 105.87599999999998, + 438.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CONCLUSION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 261.936, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 351.06982421875, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 351.06982421875, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 261.936, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 66 + ], + [ + "Line", + 32 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 25 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Text", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 31 + ], + [ + "Line", + 16 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751552" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751573/EFTA02751573.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751573/EFTA02751573.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d6c14223a91863a8098ba1b23ede0d758284b304 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751573/EFTA02751573.md @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@ +Troutman Sanders LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 + +troutman.com + +Bennet J. Moskowitz + +D: 212-704-6000 + +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com + +June 24, 2020 + +# VIA ELECTRONIC COURT FILING + +Hon. D Freeman Daniel Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007 + +Re: Jane Doe, 1:19-cv-8673 (KPF) (DCF) + +![](_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg) + +Dear Judge Freeman: + +We represent Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, the "Co-Executors"), in the above-referenced matter. We write in reply to Plaintiffs letter filed June 23, 2020 [ECF 80) in response to the Co-Executors' pre-motion letter [ECF 79]. + +Plaintiff repeats two false premises throughout her June 23 letter: (i) the Co-Executors failed to articulate reasons why the information they seek is relevant, and (ii) it "goes without saying" that the Co-Executors' Requests are "highly burdensome." These arguments are unsupported and incorrect for at least two key reasons. First, the parties have had numerous conversations in which the Co-Executors have explained the relevance of the material sought, including, for example, to the extent the materials include discussions among various plaintiffs' counsel or with the press regarding an alleged "trafficking scheme" or the relative strengths of claims asserted by numerous individuals against the Estate. Although Plaintiff's counsel may not wish the Co-Executors to see such communications, that is not a valid basis to withhold them. Second,Plaintiff never articulates why a search for the documents at issue is "highly burdensome." Absent a showing of undue burden or a legitimate privilege, Plaintiff is required to produce the materials. + +Given the importance of the discovery at issue, the Co-Executors request that the Court either compel Plaintiff to produce the subject documents or permit the parties to more fully brief these issues followed by an opportunity to present oral argument. As an alternative, the Co-Executors request that the Court inspect in camera a random sample of the requested documents that Plaintiff contends are subject to a common interest privilege to determine if they are in fact immune from disclosure. See, e.g., Samad Bros. v. Bokara Rug Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132446, at '8 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2010) (after in camera inspection, finding "very little in [at issue] correspondence ... that could be characterized as 'mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of a party's attorney or other representative concerning the litigation,- as alleged). + +![](_page_1_Picture_15.jpeg) + +--- + +**I. Plaintiff's Damages Disclosures are Inadequate and Therefore Prejudice the Co-Executors' Ability to, Among Other Things, Depose Plaintiff Concerning the Propriety of the Amounts She Seeks to Recover from the Estate.** + +Plaintiff attempts to redefine her obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 by refusing to provide computations for her claimed categories of damages. There is no justification for her failure to comply. (Before Plaintiff filed her complaint, and while Mr. Epstein was alive, she demanded a specific amount of money from him.) Now that Judge Failla has dismissed Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages [ECF 81], there is no reason Plaintiff cannot quantify the damages she seeks. + +Plaintiff justifies her failure to comply with Rule 26 by contending that "calculating damages for emotional harm is an inherently imprecise and difficult undertaking." (Plf's Ltr. at 3, citing [REDACTED] v. [REDACTED], No. 06 Civ. 2540, 2010 WL 11586681, at \*5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2010)). That may well be, but Plaintiff did not—because she cannot—cite **a single** case permitting her to ignore her obligation to provide her best computation of damages under Rule 26. + +For example, [REDACTED] v. [REDACTED] did not concern Rule 26 disclosures and merely stated that "calculating damages for emotional harm is an inherently imprecise and difficult undertaking." No. 06CIV2540LAPDF, 2010 WL 11586681, at \*5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2010). Similarly, *U.S. Bank* expressly held that there is no "exception to Rule 26(a)(1) in cases in which damages will be proved by experts: **the disclosing party still has the responsibility to provide each category of required disclosures based on the information it has at the time**, and to supplement those disclosures as more information is gained." *U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n v. PHL Variable Ins. Co.*, No. 12 CIV. 6811 CM JCF, 2013 WL 5495542, at \*3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2013) (emphasis added). Plaintiff's last case, *Kovalchik v. City of New York*, involves the admissibility of expert reports at trial and has nothing to do with Rule 26 damages computations. No. 09 Civ. 4546, 2016 WL 11270091, at \*2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2016). Plaintiff has no support for her contention that she is excused from her Rule 26 obligations. + +Plaintiff further justifies her attempts to circumvent Rule 26 by arguing that the Co-Executors are not prejudiced by her failure to comply because she has "produced documents concerning [her] employment history, financial history, academic history, and medical history." (Plf's Ltr. p. 4.) However, Plaintiff substantially overstates her document production (e.g., her employment history and financial history consists of only a few 1099 tax forms). With respect to her medical history, Plaintiff has not produced documents supporting her myriad of claimed harms, including her alleged PTSD diagnosis and her claim that she has sexual and emotional difficulties with her husband. Accordingly, Plaintiff's assertion that the Co-Executors are not prejudiced by her flouting of Rule 26 rings hollow. + +**II. Communications with Journalists, Media, and the Press Are Relevant and Not Privileged; They are Therefore Discoverable.** + +The Co-Executors' Request No. 1 seeks all documents and communications related to Mr. Epstein. Such documents are likely to contain relevant, discoverable information related to the claims **and defenses** in this case. In response, Plaintiff inexplicitly clings to her arbitrary, self-imposed limitation that she need only produce documents relating to her "specific allegations." + +![](_page_2_Picture_17.jpeg) + +(Plf's Ltr. at 5.) This ambiguous limitation is improper and unsupported by the Federal Rules.1 + +Plaintiff's counsel's non-privileged communications about Mr. Epstein—the subject of this litigation—are relevant to the extent they contain information about, *inter alia*, the relative strength of the various plaintiffs' allegations, Plaintiff's alleged emotion abuse and injuries, individuals who were friends with Plaintiff during the time she was allegedly abused, or other potential sources of the injuries Plaintiff alleges, such as sexual abuse by other individuals besides Mr. Epstein. + +On the other hand, Plaintiff fails to articulate why collecting such documents would be "extremely burdensome," positing simply that it "goes without saying." (Plf's Ltr. at 5.) Plaintiff even admits the timeframe of such communications is limited to the last year. (*Id.*) In a case where Plaintiff presumably seeks millions of dollars, and has levied extremely harsh accusations, a search of communications for a one-year period is reasonable. For their own part, the Co-Executors have searched over 730,000 documents, spanning well over a decade, to locate potentially relevant documents. + +### **III. Plaintiff's Counsel's Communications with Other Plaintiffs' Counsel Are Relevant and Unprotected.** + +Plaintiff's broad application of the work product doctrine is baseless. Applying a blanket "work product" doctrine classification to all communications by counsel about the subject of active litigation (without even performing a search or analysis) turns the doctrine on its head. The work-product doctrine is not meant to shield every one of a lawyer's communications to third parties. Yet, that is how Plaintiff asks the Court to apply it here. + +Plaintiff's counsel refers to the voluntary claims program as an example of what they have discussed with other counsel and then extrapolates that all of their communications with other counsel must necessarily be deemed irrelevant and protected. However, ***Plaintiff's counsel has not unequivocally represented that the claims program is the exclusive subject of all of their communications with other plaintiffs' counsel.*** Nor does Plaintiff explain why those discussions are necessarily non-responsive to the Co-Executors' document requests in this action or privileged. An *in-camera* inspection of a random selection of Plaintiff's counsel's communications with other plaintiffs' counsel would permit the Court to resolve this dispute. + +### **IV. Plaintiff Has Put her Physical Health at Issue Here.** + +Plaintiff has placed her physical and psychological health at issue in this case by alleging a wide range of physical and psychological symptoms resulting from Mr. Epstein's alleged conduct. (Compl. ¶¶ 56-58 [ECF 1].) Plaintiff now asserts that only her mental health is at issue here, however, she alleges numerous ***physical*** symptoms, including difficulty sleeping, difficulty falling asleep, rapid heartbeat, panic attacks, and trouble being physically intimate with her husband, all + +1 Plaintiff admits Request No. 1 seeks documents concerning Mr. Epstein but argues that the Co-Executors limited the request to seek only those documents related to "Plaintiff's specific allegations." (Plf's Ltr. at 4-5.) This is not so and Plaintiff cites nothing from the Co-Executors to support this position. The Co-Executors have disabused her of this misguided notion on many occasions and repeat here that they seek documents concerning Mr. Epstein, consistent with their document requests. + +as a direct result of Mr. Epstein's alleged conduct. The Co-Executors' experts are entitled to independently determine the cause of her many symptoms that she attributes to Mr. Epstein. + +## V. Conclusion + +For the foregoing reasons, the Co-Executors request that the Court grant their motion to compel described in their pre-motion letter [ECF No. 79], or enter a briefing schedule for the Motion, or, in the alterative, review in camera a sampling of the communications at issue. + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/Bennet J. Moskowitz + +Bennet J. Moskowitz + +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751573/EFTA02751573.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751573/EFTA02751573.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d7ac5f008d1e01bbdc043d5bbfec4394c073d79e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751573/EFTA02751573.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,319 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751573.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 4, + "chars": 10390, + "elapsed_seconds": 12.7, + "image_assets": [ + "_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg", + "_page_1_Picture_15.jpeg", + "_page_2_Picture_17.jpeg" + ], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ELECTRONIC COURT FILING", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 213.84 + ], + [ + 249.2187957763672, + 213.84 + ], + [ + 249.2187957763672, + 228.3170166015625 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 228.3170166015625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "I. Plaintiff's Damages Disclosures are Inadequate and Therefore Prejudice the Co-Executors' Ability to, Among Other Things, Depose Plaintiff Concerning the Propriety of the Amounts She Seeks to Recover from the Estate.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 80.784, + 114.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 114.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 152.28 + ], + [ + 80.784, + 152.28 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "II. Communications with Journalists, Media, and the Press Are Relevant and Not Privileged; They are Therefore Discoverable.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 77.724, + 605.0699999999999 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 605.0699999999999 + ], + [ + 542.232, + 630.99 + ], + [ + 77.724, + 630.99 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "III. Plaintiff's Counsel's Communications with Other Plaintiffs' Counsel Are Relevant and Unprotected.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 74.05199999999999, + 313.47 + ], + [ + 542.844, + 313.47 + ], + [ + 542.844, + 339.39 + ], + [ + 74.05199999999999, + 339.39 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "IV. Plaintiff Has Put her Physical Health at Issue Here.", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 72.828, + 538.6500000000001 + ], + [ + 372.70799999999997, + 538.6500000000001 + ], + [ + 372.70799999999997, + 553.23 + ], + [ + 72.828, + 553.23 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "V. Conclusion", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 76.5, + 151.47 + ], + [ + 171.488525390625, + 151.47 + ], + [ + 171.488525390625, + 165.68701171875 + ], + [ + 76.5, + 165.68701171875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 91 + ], + [ + "Line", + 45 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 2 + ], + [ + "Picture", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 34 + ], + [ + "Line", + 17 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751573" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751573/_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751573/_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a9913a5a5656ee7ec0fca620f05e3b7e03279ac1 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751573/_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c322dbf75de9d25a01cfbec9a1bf55a2999f994b24584723ca74660d0323ad89 +size 7442 diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751573/_page_1_Picture_15.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751573/_page_1_Picture_15.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e76ef1590a1310a8aa2715243ab7713e464fae88 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751573/_page_1_Picture_15.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:5fd44489d8065907950e240ad960ad02caee3dca6a6380a51efc31bd1ad977c1 +size 5204 diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751573/_page_2_Picture_17.jpeg b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751573/_page_2_Picture_17.jpeg new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c6f2aa128facfd7ec59ede20d95c3f6eb6f00f43 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751573/_page_2_Picture_17.jpeg @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:25cb907711df565824b9ba8c9e4fc63e870eb53d9b3afa0d7ffa1f59c41ebeb9 +size 5190 diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751577/EFTA02751577.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751577/EFTA02751577.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..160e80c9e2ccdada931b37f5886fc04e42dae490 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751577/EFTA02751577.md @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ +Bennet J. Moskowitz + +D: 212-704-6000 + +bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com + +June 19, 2020 + +## VIA ELECTRONIC COURT FILING + +Hon. Debra C. Freeman + +Daniel Moynihan + +United States Courthouse + +500 Pearl Street + +New York, New York 10007 + +Re: Jane Doe, 1:19-cv-8673 (KPF) (DC9 + +Dear Judge Freeman: + +The proposed schedule is adopted, except that, as stated at the telephone conference held on 6/24/20, counsel are directed to work together in good faith to conserve resources, and may have until 8114/20 to complete the depositions contemplated by this schedule. The deadlines for the completion of expert discovery are extended as follows: Plaintiffs expert reports shall be served no later than August 14, 2020; Defendants' rebuttal reports shall be served no later than September 14, 202; expert discovery shall be completed no later than October 5, 2020. + +Dated: 6/24/2020 + +SO ORDERED + +ado( DEBRA FREEMAN United States Magistrate Judge + +We write on behalf of both parties in the above-referenced action pursuant to the Court's Order dated June 15, 2020 (ECF No. 73). The parties have conferred and agreed on the following discovery schedule, without prejudice to their respective rights to object to or seek any and all discovery. + +- Substantial completion of document production: o July 3, 2020 +- Proposed depositions to take place on the following dates: o June 30, 2020 o July 2, 2020 o July 7, 2020 o July 9, 2020 o July 13, 2020 o July 15, 2020 o July 17, 2020 o July 20, 2020 o July 22, 2020 o July 23, 2020 o July 27, 2020 +- Plaintiff's Rule 35 examination to take place: o July 24, 2020 + +Respectfully submitted, + +s/Bennet J. Moskowitz + +Bennet J. Moskowitz + +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751577/EFTA02751577.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751577/EFTA02751577.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..336412a4b3b72d7a675f2930843c9e41c9256ef4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751577/EFTA02751577.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,128 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751577.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1686, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.06, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ELECTRONIC COURT FILING", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 213.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 249.2187957763672, + 213.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 249.2187957763672, + 227.18701171875 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 227.18701171875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 111 + ], + [ + "Line", + 56 + ], + [ + "Text", + 16 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 21 + ], + [ + "Line", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751577" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751579/EFTA02751579.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751579/EFTA02751579.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9ae5a0e394580518d4685af65991e96b24c96f0e --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751579/EFTA02751579.md @@ -0,0 +1,1557 @@ +### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +In re: + +Docket #1:19-cv-08673- + +DOE, JANE, : KPF-DCF + +Plaintiff, + +- against - + +INDYKE, et al., : New York, New York + +June 24, 2020 + +Defendants. + +TELEPHONE CONFERENCE + +PROCEEDINGS BEFORE + +THE HONORABLE JUDGE DEBRA C. FREEMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAGISTRATE JUDGE + +### APPEARANCES: + +For Plaintiff: + +For the Defendants: + +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +BY: ROBERTA A. KAPLAN, ESQ. + +KATE L. DONIGER, ESQ. + +350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 + +New York, New York 10118 + +212-763-0883 + +TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP + +BY: BENNET J. MOSKOWITZ, ESQ. + +875 Third Avenue + +New York, New York 10022 + +212-704-6087 + +TROUTMAN SANDERS + +BY: MOLLY S. DIRAGO, ESQ. + +227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3900 + +Chicago, Illinois 60606 + +312-759-1926 + +Transcription Service: Carole Ludwig, Transcription Services + +155 East Fourth Street #3C + +New York, New York 10009 + +Phone: (212) 420-0771 + +Email: Transcription420@aol.com + +Proceedings conducted telephonically and recorded by electronic sound recording; + +Transcript produced by transcription service + +# INDEX + +# EXAMINATIONS + +Witness + +None + +Exhibit Number + +None + +Re- Re- + +Direct Cross Direct Cross + +# EXHIBITS + +Description + +Voir ID In Dire + +2 HONORABLE DEBRA C. FREEMAN (THE COURT): So this + +3 is Judge Freeman. This is Doe v. Indyke, and it is 19-cv- + +4 8673. The case is before Judge Failla. + +5 Can I have counsels' appearances, please, for this + +6 record, starting on plaintiffs' side? + +7 MS. ROBERTA KAPLAN: Yes, your Honor. For + +8 plaintiffs you have Roberta Kaplan. And I'm here with my + +9 colleague -- or I shouldn't say "I'm here" -- I'm on the + +10 phone with my colleague, Kate Doniger. + +11 THE COURT: Okay. And on defendants' side? + +12 MR. BENNET MOSKOWITZ: Hi, your Honor, Bennet + +13 Moskowitz. + +14 THE COURT: Hold on a second. if others could + +15 please mute their lines if they're not speaking? It sounds + +16 like someone is maybe monitoring another call at the same + +17 time. So I'd appreciate it if you could just mute. + +18 Thank you. On defendant's side? + +19 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes, thank you, your Honor. I was + +20 waiting for that to play out; I heard the same thing. + +21 Bennet Moskowitz, Troutman Sanders, for the co-executors. + +22 And my colleague, Molly DiRago, is also on the line. + +23 THE COURT: Okay. Is there anyone else on the + +24 line who is a participant in this call, an attorney for one + +25 of the parties in this case? + +2 + +3 + +4 + +5 + +6 + +7 + +8 + +9 + +10 + +11 + +12 + +13 + +14 + +15 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 + +THE COURT: All right, we have a number of people on the line apparently. I probably have some people from my [REDACTED] who are listening in, including student interns. And there may be press on the call and others. I'm just going to ask anyone who's listening, again please keep your lines on mute so that it doesn't interfere with the conference with the participants. + +So the reason I wanted to have a conference in this case -- well, there are a few reasons. There are discovery disputes on the docket that need attention, there's a scheduling matter that needs attention. There's a bigger issue that I wanted to raise about what's going on with this case and the potential settlement of claims through the program that's been set up. + +So let me start there because of all of the many cases that have been filed in the court, most of which have been referred to me to supervise, far and away most of those are now temporarily stayed because the plaintiffs are planning to pursue remedies in the claims program, now that it's gotten off the ground, and have voluntarily consented to stays. Obviously, there's no obligation that a plaintiff voluntarily consent to a stay, but I did want to understand why this case pretty much stands alone as being aggressively litigated at this time and understand if + +2 plaintiff has decided not to participate in the program or 3 is considering and hasn't decided yet whether to 4 participate or wants to do both things simultaneously or 5 what the story is with this particular plaintiff. So can I 6 have that addressed first? + +7 MS. KAPLAN: Sure, your Honor; it's Roberta 8 Kaplan. Let me -- first, to answer your question directly, 9 let me tell you that our client is still considering 10 whether to participate in the program. But -- + +11 THE COURT: I'm sorry, is still considering? + +12 MS. KAPLAN: Yes, whether or not to -- + +13 THE COURT: Okay. + +14 MS. KAPLAN: And she may indeed well do that. But 15 I think it's very important for the Court to understand 16 that the program itself is not a settlement discussion of 17 this case in the sense that the defendants in this case, as 18 we understand it, have no role in relationship to ability 19 to interfere in any way -- in any way -- with the 20 settlement program. So essentially the way it works, as we 21 understand, is Ken Feinberg and his colleagues will come up 22 with a number. That's the number, and it's either take it 23 or leave it. There's no subsequent negotiation with the 24 estate or anyone else. And so it's not like it's really a 25 settlement discussion of this case; it's not. It's an + +1 PROCEEDINGS 6 2 amount of money that Mr. Feinberg thinks is appropriate 3 under the settlement fund. + +4 For many reasons, including the fact that we 5 believe our client is differently situation than many if 6 not all of the other plaintiffs, she believes that there is 7 a very strong likelihood that she is likely to receive more 8 in this case at trial than she would from whatever 9 Mr. Feinberg determines on his own is the appropriate 10 number. + +11 And that's for a couple of reasons. One, very few 12 of the cases or not many of the cases have plaintiffs who 13 were underage at the time the acts happened. So there is 14 no statute of limitations problem in this case. And, two, 15 there is no issue in this case, as there are in many of the 16 other cases, about whether or not our client settled any 17 prior claims with either Mr. Epstein or the estate. And 18 the facts are straightforward. She was, as your Honor 19 knows, was witness No. 1, victim No. 1 in the indictment. 20 The U.S. Attorney's Office was fully satisfied in her 21 story. We believe that, whether it's a bench trial, as 22 we've requested, or a jury, that either the judge or the 23 jury will be, too. + +24 THE COURT: If she does participate in the program 25 and an amount is offered to her and she decides to accept + +2 it, does that have the result of resolving this litigation? + +3 + +MS. KAPLAN: Absolutely. And the minute that + +4 happens, we would obviously voluntarily dismiss this case. + +5 I think that's a condition of participation in the program. + +6 + +THE COURT: All right. So -- + +7 + +MS. KAPLAN: We also don't know, your Honor, how + +8 quickly the program's going work, how many women have been + +9 in it. And, again, based on our understanding of the kind + +10 of damages awards that Mr. Feinberg and his colleagues have + +11 given in analogous circumstances -- and I'm thinking of the + +12 Catholic church cases -- we think it's unlikely, very + +13 unlikely that our client is willing to accept the kind of + +14 amounts that he's previously offered in similar situations. + +15 + +THE COURT: Well, I assume if you decide to + +16 participate in it, you'd participate in it, consider any + +17 amount that may be offered, you know, in full good faith, + +18 and mull it over and make a decision. You're not going to + +19 go into it saying we're not going to accept it whatever it + +20 is; you find out what it is. + +21 + +[REDACTED], no, no, no, no. + +22 + +THE COURT: You find out what it is. + +23 + +MS. KAPLAN: Of course, your Honor. We've + +24 basically done a lot of work on this, so we're basing this + +25 on what we understand to be amounts that similar funds that + +2 Mr. Feinberg has administered have offered to plaintiffs 3 who've experienced things similar to what our client has 4 experienced. And the numbers tend to be actually quite 5 low. + +6 THE COURT: Okay. Well, I can't speak to that. I 7 don't know what may be offered in this case. Here are some 8 concerns that I have. One concern that I have is that the 9 underlying reasoning for the Court to make the 10 institutional decision to refer a lot of these cases -- I 11 mean, I shouldn't say that, actually, because it was still 12 an individual judge's decision to refer or not to refer -- 13 most of the judges decided that they would refer cases to 14 me so that there could be coordination among the cases 15 where appropriate in discovery to conserve resources, both 16 for the estate, for the Court, just generally to have 17 coordination so that you didn't have, for example -- and I 18 think it's the most obvious example -- a witness who was 19 going to testify to something that would be relevant to all 20 of the different plaintiffs have to testify on multiple 21 occasions if that could be avoided. And that seems to me 22 still to be a laudable goal. And if it's possible that 23 your client may -- + +24 I just want to make sure that we didn't gain -- 25 that sounds like someone joining the call -- we didn't gain + +2 any attorney who wants to be participating in this case. 3 Did anyone just join in who wants to be speaking on this 4 call? No. If not, please keep your phone line mute; I 5 appreciate that. + +6 If your client decides to participate in the 7 program, then, you know, query why we're spending a lot of 8 resources now, as opposed to in a couple of months. Most 9 of the stays that have been put in effect are only for a 10 couple of months; they're not infinite stays. There are a 11 couple, I think, that were signed by district judges 12 separately that might say Pending Further Order of the 13 Court. The ones that I've signed recently I think have 14 been 60 days. Mr. Moskowitz, correct me if I'm wrong on 15 that. + +16 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Your Honor, it's been both, 17 actually. I think the majority are even, I would argue, 18 more flexible than that. I believe the majority, including 19 even more recent ones, just say on the plaintiffs deciding 20 that they no longer want the case stayed, they're 21 essentially free to go back to court and ask for the stay 22 to be lifted. I think there are three or so that include a 23 specific 60 days, which I suppose could be renewed or just 24 let lapse. + +25 THE COURT: Yes, I think the most recent ones were + +2 60 days, the most recent ones that i signed off on. So 3 those are the ones most recent in my memory. But I've 4 asked for status reports on all of them by sometime mid-5 August because I don't want it to stretch out forever. + +6 So the first issue is should we be conserving 7 resources in case your client ends up resolving the claims 8 through the program. And the second is if your client 9 really is unlikely to participate, unlikely to resolve the 10 claims that way, is there a possibility, and how likely is 11 this, that one of the other plaintiffs or more than one of 12 the other plaintiffs will make a similar decision and will 13 want to come back and litigate maybe in a couple of months, 14 and at that point, would it make sense to try to have some 15 coordinated discovery, particularly again with respect to 16 certain depositions perhaps or certain discovery from the 17 estate or some of the discovery plaintiff by plaintiff is 18 going to be different -- and I understand that -- but some 19 of it is likely to have some common threads; is there a 20 distinct prejudice to waiting for some reasonable limited 21 period of time to see if somebody else comes back into the 22 mix before we go forward with a slew of depositions? And 23 part of the reason for the call was when I asked you to see 24 if you could work out a schedule that included dates for 25 depositions and stop just squabbling about it, you came + +2 back with nearly a dozen depositions over a relatively 3 short period of time. And that sort of jumped out at me as 4 wait a second; does it make sense for any of those, at a 5 minimum even if not all of them, to be put on hold to see 6 whether they're the kinds of things that should include 7 parties in more than one of these cases in order to have a 8 more efficient running of multiple cases to conserve 9 resources, including resources of the estate, which after 10 all, maybe can and should be going towards plaintiffs as 11 opposed to litigation costs. + +12 And so, you know -- and there are a lot of things 13 that factor into that kind of thought process. One of them 14 is when you have a delay, you know, how likely is it that 15 documents won't be preserved or that memories will fail. 16 Here we have a very long time since the underlying events, 17 and so the likelihood that, you know, memories will fail 18 now that haven't failed already or that documents won't be 19 preserved now when there's a litigation hold when they 20 weren't preserved already -- when they weren't previously 21 preserved, that seems unlikely. And in terms of how fast 22 could this case otherwise get to trial, since I'm sure 23 plaintiff, you know, doesn't want to delay any longer than 24 necessary to reach a resolution, we have the COVID-19 25 issue, which means that we're set back as a court with + +2 respect to how fast we can get cases tried. And that's 3 just a current fact of life. + +4 And I was speaking to Judge Failla about this to 5 try to get a sense from her as to what she thought, and I 6 don't know if this would be a bench trial or a jury trial. 7 which would it be, by the way? + +8 MS. KAPLAN: Plaintiffs have waived a jury trial. + +9 THE COURT: Okay. So with a bench trial + +10 MR. MOSKOWITZ: We have -- I'm sorry, we -- + +11 MS. KAPLAN: It's hard for me to believe, your 12 Honor, it's hard for me to believe that + +13 THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait just a second. Did 14 defendant -- + +15 MS. KAPLAN: Can I finish what I was going to say? 16 It's hard -- defendants have not responded to that -- it's 17 hard for me to believe that the defendants truly believe 18 that they're going to insist on a jury, given the facts and 19 circumstances of this case, but they have refused to tell 20 us whether or not they agree to waive a jury trial. + +21 THE COURT: What is defendants' position on this? 22 Because if you didn't -- + +23 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yeah, the position -- + +24 THE COURT: -- answer -- + +25 MR. MOSKOWITZ: -- was not file -- no, that's not + +2 correct, your Honor. The plaintiffs' last exchange on this 3 was they -- they said, "Will you waive a jury trial?" We 4 said we're not prepared at this time to make that decision 5 and waive a jury trial. And they said, "Fine. Let us know 6 by the 30th; otherwise, our offer of waiving the bench 7 trial is no longer there." What I'm hearing now is that 8 they are absolutely committed to waiving jury trial. I 9 still am not prepared at this time to make that waiver on 10 my side, nor do I see why it has to be decided at this 11 time. + +12 MS. KAPLAN: Yes, what you're hearing, 13 Mr. Moskowitz, is that you are delaying again in bad faith 14 because there's no reason -- + +15 THE COURT: All right, wait, wait, wait, wait, 16 wait, please. Everybody stop. I don't need to get into an 17 argument about whether there is or is not a jury trial. 18 I'm going to say this about that. I was raising it only 19 because it's going to be harder to get a trial quickly on 20 this case in light of the COVID-19 problem than it would be 21 otherwise. What's happening in the court is this. With 22 respect to juries, right now we don't have jury trials 23 because we can't get jurors safely in the court. When we 24 eventually get juries safely in the court, odds are there 25 will be fewer jurors coming in than had been before in the + +2 initial jury pools because we have to make sure people will + +3 be socially distanced. The cases that will go first with + +4 juries are undoubtedly going to be the criminal cases where + +5 there's a constitutional right to a speedy trial. There's + +6 going to be something of a backlog on that. Any cases that + +7 are large, that involve large numbers of people in the + +8 courtroom are probably going to have to be held in certain + +9 designated courtrooms that are particularly large that will + +10 enable social distancing. Courtrooms are currently being + +11 measured so we can figure out how trials can safely be + +12 held, and so on and so forth. In terms of how quickly a + +13 civil jury case can be held, the answer is not that fast. + +14 Just we're going to have to -- we have a lag time to get + +15 jurors, we have a lag time to get enough jurors, we're + +16 going to have to deal with the criminal cases, we're going + +17 to have to deal with things like Court size. And odds are + +18 that that is not happening just -- I can't tell you when it + +19 will, but it's not going to be all that fast. + +20 With respect to bench trials, there are some + +21 judges who are venturing into the world of holding remote + +22 bench trials. I believe Judge McMahon has one scheduled. + +23 There are some others who have been making efforts and + +24 figuring out remote platforms that will work. And there's + +25 also the possibility of sort of hybrid trials where you + +2 have some people in person and you have some people hooked 3 in remotely, you know, certain witnesses or something like 4 that. That is certainly a possibility. But everybody's 5 schedule for trials has also been affected so that if, for 6 example, Judge Failla, who has this case for trial -- and I 7 can't speak to this -- but if, for example, Judge Failla 8 had three criminal trials that she was unable to try 9 because of this period of time when ordinarily trials would 10 be happening, and so those have to be scheduled, then even 11 a bench trial may be difficult to schedule, even if it is 12 logistically possible, because of other things that are 13 going to be on the judge's plate. + +14 So when I look at the issue about delay, there are 15 two main questions that come up with respect to potential 16 delay. One is is it prejudicial to the plaintiff, or to 17 the defendant for that matter, because we're likely to lose 18 evidence, we're likely to have a witness who is + +19 MS. KAPLAN: Your Honor, can I argue the rest of 20 the factors that you talked about earlier? Because we have 21 things to say about all of them. + +22 THE COURT: Yes. Let me finish what I'm saying, 23 and I'll absolutely hear from you. Okay? + +24 MS. KAPLAN: Okay. + +25 THE COURT: I keep hearing people joining the + +2 call. I'm just going to issue the reminder please keep 3 4 5 your line mute unless -- on mute unless you're a participant in this call, in which case please speak up and let us know you are here. + +6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 With respect to the loss of evidence, it may be -- and it's a question I usually ask -- you know, it may be there is a particular witness who is ill or very elderly or you know is about to move out of the jurisdiction, you need to preserve evidence, something like that, and those are issues in any case where there is any stay, any delay, that I always want to know about because it may be important to address those particular issues with particular witnesses or particular evidence. + +15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The second thing I look at is what is the end of the road in the case. Is it -- would it, you know, be triable next month, or would it be waiting, anyway, for trial. Here, odds are, even with a bench trial, there's going to be some wait. And so where does the end end up. And that is a factor to think about here and whether it makes sense to hold off on any of the discovery that's currently on the table to see whether either plaintiff resolves the claims through the program or anyone else whose case is currently stayed comes back into the court and says, "Please lift the stay. I want to go forward with + +2 discovery to give us a chance of coordinating that 3 discovery if it makes sense for the particular discovery. + +4 Now, having said all that, I will absolutely hear 5 from you. Counsel? + +6 MS. KAPLAN: Okay. So, number one, on prejudice, 7 your Honor, there will be prejudice to my client even with 8 respect to the Feinberg settlement fund. One of the issues 9 that the Feinberg settlement funds says they will look to 10 in deciding whether or not to award fees or award damages 11 and how much to award is based on the corroborating 12 evidence for the particular person. In our case at this 13 point, we have produced all the documents that we have from 14 our plaintiffs to the other side. Mr. Moskowitz, on the 15 other hand, has produced barely nothing. So that if 16 discovery is stayed at this point, our rights to get a 17 higher award from the Feinberg fund are severely 18 prejudiced. We know they have corroborating information. 19 They have hits that show our client's name and contact with 20 our client. We should be able to obtain those documents, 21 which should have been produced to us long ago, in order to 22 use that if we agree to proceed with the fund to 23 corroborate and to make our claim toward the fund stronger. 24 And by this delay tactic that's gone on and on and on, what 25 they've done is have us produce everything but us not have + +2 the information that we should have that Feinberg, Ken 3 Feinberg, has said is relevant to a determination under the 4 fund. So under no circumstances should there be any stay 5 or delay of document discovery. In fact, that would be 6 severely unfair, given our alacrity and our good faith in 7 producing everything, and unfair to our opportunity to 8 participate in the fund, number one. + +9 THE COURT: Okay. Just let me interrupt you there 10 for one second, because I was not talking so much about 11 documents regarding the particular plaintiff in this case 12 or discovery, for that matter, regarding the particular 13 plaintiff in this case. What I was talking about was 14 whether there -- whether we should still look for any 15 potential opportunities that may come up down the road to 16 coordinate discovery where it made sense because it was 17 common discovery for all of the cases, probably not 18 plaintiff specific. + +19 MS. KAPLAN: So on that issue, your Honor, I'm 20 frankly not aware of any real discovery or evidence in this 21 case that is not plaintiff specific. The trial, when and 22 if it takes place, will last no longer than two, three 23 days. The witnesses will be our clients, psychological 24 forensic experts, maybe one or two people who she told 25 about what happened. And the only two people who + +2 possibly -- we don't have claims against anyone else, we 3 don't have claims against Ms. Maxwell, we don't allege any 4 kind of wider conspiracy regarding Prince Andrew the way 5 the other cases do. It's a very simple, very 6 straightforward case. The only possible overlap that I can 7 possibly think of -- and Ms. Doniger should correct me if 8 I'm wrong -- are two of the women who worked for 9 Mr. Epstein who helped book the so-called massages that our 10 client participated in, both of whose lawyers have told us 11 they intend to plead the Fifth. So we could honestly get a 12 letter from them telling they intend to take the Fifth. 13 And there is, therefore, no overlapping evidence, either in 14 terms of documents or witnesses. + +15 THE COURT: Are they included or not included in 16 the 11 depositions that you listed? + +17 MS. KAPLAN: They are. We have very few + +18 depositions. Most of the depositions are ones that 19 Mr. Moskowitz is noticing of my client's doctors, family 20 members and friends. + +21 THE COURT: And why do you think that those might 22 not be witnesses who would testify at trial such that the 23 trial might have more witnesses than what you've described? 24 You've got 11 people to be deposed. That sounds to me like 25 there might be 11 witnesses at trial except for maybe a + +2 couple who take the Fifth. + +3 MS. KAPLAN: No. It's highly unlikely, your 4 Honor. Most of the people, as we notified Mr. Moskowitz 5 many times, like doctor's offices that she's gone to where 6 they told us they have no records; or friends that, you 7 know, barely remember. We were very, as your Honor can 8 imagine, we were very overinclusive to be extremely careful 9 on our 26(a) disclosures. And they just noticed everyone 10 on the 26(a) disclosures, not -- it's very unlikely that 11 any of those people are going -- or most of those people 12 are going to testify at trial. We're certainly not going 13 to put them on. And i would suggest that the point of 14 deposing them is to, again -- I don't know what the point 15 of deposing them is, but I guess he wants to depose all 16 these people under oath and ask them questions. It's very 17 unlikely that any of them will say anything that's going to 18 be relevant to his defenses. + +19 THE COURT: Let me hear briefly on the other side 20 about these witnesses. + +21 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes, your Honor, Bennet Moskowitz. 22 I feel like I'm talking about a different case than the one 23 Ms. Kaplan is talking about. And part of this may be 24 because the day-to-day of discovery is not handled by 25 Ms. Kaplan. I've been dealing exclusively with her + +2 colleague who is on the line. So I'd just like to back up 3 and clarify a few things. + +4 One is they have not substantially completed their 5 document production, even putting aside the disputes we 6 have over what they say they don't have to do. In fact, 7 the latest -- and maybe Ms. Kaplan, although she was copied 8 on these emails, wasn't aware of it -- is that they refused 9 to review 7,000 documents that hit on search terms to be 10 proposed. And we suggested ways they can narrow that. And 11 we haven't yet reached a resolution of that. + +12 In terms of our production, the documents -- we 13 did already produce most of the few documents among over 14 730,000 that hit on their client's name. And they 15 definitively showed why that is, that such few documents 16 exist; not because we didn't find them, but rather because 17 the decedent didn't even have any knowledge of their client 18 when she appeared in more recent history regarding making 19 some kind of pre-litigation settlement demand when he was 20 still alive. So there's been no stonewalling; I'm not sure 21 where that's coming from. + +22 And I want to correct one other thing. You know, 23 I'm hearing this -- and you're right; this plaintiff stands 24 alone. Her counsel now stands alone. So these complaints 25 about the program, they fall flat, given that every other + +2 attorney who was likewise very skeptical, as your Honor +3 knows, has voluntarily stayed their action, with the +4 exception of two cases other than this one that were filed +5 much later, and I'm actually confident we'll reach similar +6 resolutions in those cases. But we will see. It's not the +7 Feinberg fund. Mr. Feinberg's not the administrator. It's +8 Jordana [REDACTED]. Kaplan knows that. I don't know why +9 she insists on saying that as if it's some kind of ding +10 against the program. Mr. Feinberg, who's the preeminent +11 person who designed such programs, is indeed one of the +12 designers of the program. But there is one administrator, +13 Jordana [REDACTED], who has full independence. And Ms. Kaplan +14 is right; we don't get to tell [REDACTED] what should be +15 awarded to this plaintiff. It is solely [REDACTED] who +16 makes that determination. I don't know why that is viewed +17 as a bad thing; and, again, plaintiff here stands alone in +18 saying that. + +19 Look, your Honor, raised this, as well. This is +20 the world we live in, not as we want it. There is going to +21 be no trial around the corner, whether it's bench trial or +22 jury trial. The estate is not -- is not in favor of +23 dragging things out. That's part of the reason that the +24 program is designed the way it's designed. It's a much +25 speedier resolution of claims than any litigation, + +2 including this one. And the fact that we're now having 3 these disputes in this case while the plaintiff, for 4 whatever reason, wants to rocket through the docket to 5 have, I guess, what they view as, you know, the first crack 6 at a payment of judgment, I get why they want that. But 7 it's not realistic, number one, because of all the reasons 8 your Honor went over; and the other realistic factor that 9 we're ignoring is the money spent on this, it's just not 10 going to be available to the program. That's a harm to 11 this plaintiff if she's going to join -- and I believe she 12 is -- they've struggled in many different ways to avoid 13 saying yes, they're going to do the program. I'm very 14 confident they will, based on my understanding of their 15 heavy involvement in discussions with and 16 Mr. Feinberg. But that money is not going to go to this 17 plaintiff, it's not going to go to any other plaintiff. 18 That's their choice. We haven't sought a stay; it's not 19 required. That was one of the other benefits of the 20 program. But the fact that everyone else, for the most 21 part, has seen the wisdom in staying their action but this 22 plaintiff is the outlier speaks volumes to their intent, 23 not ours. + +24 In terms of these depositions, look, they can't 25 have it both ways. They said we were very careful in only + +2 disclosing the people that really have anything of 3 knowledge. Yeah, they did that, and we need to speak to 4 these people. This is a serious case, they're seeking 5 serious damages. They haven't told us how much and, you 6 know, that's part of our letter, which is just unbelievable 7 now that we're nearly a year out from when they filed it. 8 But the fact that their client saw so many doctors related 9 to their myriad of alleged harms is what drives our need to 10 depose so many people. + +11 There are only a couple of fact witnesses, and 12 then they mentioned family members like we're trying to 13 bully people, well, paragraph 58 of the complaint brings 14 the plaintiff's husband directly into this case because she 15 alleges that Mr. Epstein's abuse that allegedly occurred 16 caused her issues in her marriage. We didn't bring him 17 into the case; they did. So, yes, we do need to depose the 18 husband. We're not going out and deposing relatives that 19 have not been brought into the case and that we have no 20 reason to believe know anything, but it is going to be more 21 than two witnesses and this. You know, you hear a lot of, 22 II, it will be this, so a day later we'll be done. That's 23 how they want it. But we have a lot more to do. + +24 And we're very unhappy that they're just, after 25 many weeks where we had what I thought were very productive + +2 conversations, it was really just between me and Kate and 3 some of her colleagues -- Ms. Kaplan was not part of those 4 discussions. They turned around and basically said to us, 5 "All right, well, it's your fault you waited so long; you 6 really better finish your depositions in, you know, record 7 time." What is the rush? Like your Honor said, there is 8 not going to be any trial tomorrow. It's not going to be 9 next month. There is time to do this. There's even time, 10 if the Court sees the wisdom in it, for a 30- or 60-day 11 stay, just like in all the other actions. No one will be 12 harmed. The only harm that for certain will happen if this 13 case continues to go forward in this fashion is that we 14 will have to burn through litigation fees having to deal 15 with disputes over documents, depositions that may be avoid 16 altogether. + +17 So the situation is clear, and your Honor already 18 got it exactly right. You don't need me to explain to you 19 what the situation is. Your Honor already correctly 20 understands it. + +21 MS. KAPLAN: Your Honor, when my client was + +22 THE COURT: Who are the -- who -- + +23 MS. KAPLAN: -- a 14-year-old girl -- + +24 THE COURT: Hold on, please. These 11 witnesses 25 for deposition, can I just make a list of who they are by + +2 kind of the category? In other words, a plaintiff's 3 doctor, a plaintiff's doctor, a plaintiff's relative, and 4 how many are not directly connected to plaintiff in that 5 sort of way. + +6 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Sure, I could do that. And it was 7 actually -- plaintiff's counsel asked us not to put the 8 names in the submissions, so we + +9 THE COURT: No, I don't want the names + +10 MR. MOSKOWITZ: -- abided by that. + +11 THE COURT: -- I just want -- + +12 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yeah, I won't do that. + +13 THE COURT: -- just like the concept of who they 14 are. + +15 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Sure. So four individuals are, I 16 believe, friends of plaintiff that they disclosed as having 17 knowledge of plaintiff's allegations. I believe there are 18 three treating physicians that they disclosed. There is 19 also the plaintiff's husband, which I just went over. And 20 then there's the plaintiff's deposition and Rule 35 21 examination. And then the other two are the alleged co-22 conspirators that -- and those are depositions that the 23 plaintiff seeks, not us. And those are people that are 24 in + +25 MS. KAPLAN: Your Honor, exactly -- exactly as I + +2 explained, there is no overlapping witnesses in this case, 3 other than the two co-conspirators, again, both of whose 4 attorneys have told me they intend to take the Fifth. And 5 they're not co-conspirators in the sense that we're suing 6 them; they're co-conspirators in the sense they were the 7 two women who booked so-called massages for my client with 8 Mr. Epstein when she was a child of 14 years old. + +9 Our client has waited, your Honor, a very long 10 time to get justice from Mr. Epstein and now from his 11 estate. The idea there's a \$350 million estate -- or at 12 least that's what they say it is -- that our client should 13 wait so that the estate can save on litigation costs, given 14 what Mr. Epstein has done to my client, is not only 15 unconstitutional but offensive. All these depositions are 16 depositions they want to take. There's no overlap with 17 other cases. The reason -- the explanation he gave you 18 about documents, they gave us one woman's name and said, 19 "Search the name Maria," for example. And we had 7,000 20 hits, and we said, "That's not the way to do it. Give us 21 some limiter. Maria within 5 of X or 5 of y. That's the 22 way people do litigation, as I'm sure your Honor knows as a 23 magistrate in the Southern District. And they refused to 24 do that. + +25 So the idea that we should have to wait for the + +2 settlement fund when an explicitly bargained term of the 3 settlement fund was that no one would have to wait, that no 4 one would have to stay their claim, it's written into the 5 fund itself, when there's no overlap and when we've 6 completed our document production and we're waiting for 7 theirs is frankly unfair, especially because it will 8 prejudice us with respect to the fund. Mr. Feinberg and 9 Jordana have said very clearly they're looking for all the 10 documents they can get their hands on. + +11 THE COURT: Okay. Okay. I am -- I would like it 12 if you could try to pin down if in fact these two witnesses 13 are planning to take the Fifth because, if so, that will be 14 a very short deposition. I'm sure it can be -- maybe it 15 can be done in writing ahead of time; or if you must have 16 somebody on the record, I'm assuming you can say, you know, 17 general questions, "If I were to ask you any questions 18 about this or that, would the answer be the same?" And it 19 would be very short -- + +20 MS. KAPLAN: Of course, your Honor. + +21 THE COURT: I'm sorry -- that would be very short. 22 And that does not trouble me in terms of a lot of cost or 23 time. + +24 I'm satisfied with respect to the other witnesses 25 that they are very case specific and that there would not + +2 be any lost opportunity -- if I have those depositions go 3 forward, there would not be any lost opportunity for 4 coordinating depositions with other cases because it sounds 5 like these other witnesses would not be relevant to other 6 cases. If it is -- if there are people who are 7 particularly friends of the plaintiff and they're being 8 asked to testify about things other than what plaintiff's 9 told them, you know, they may have been friends of others, 10 as well, you know, but I'm satisfied that the questioning 11 here will just relate to this plaintiff. Treating 12 physicians are obviously this plaintiff's doctors. 13 Plaintiff's husband is obviously this plaintiff's husband. 14 And the plaintiff is obviously the plaintiff. So it does 15 not sound like there are efficiencies or economies there 16 that I should be concerned about with respect to 17 depositions, which was my first reaction when I saw that 18 long -- a list of deposition dates. Okay? + +19 It may be also, if some of these witnesses really 20 do not have much information, you will have -- you can 21 either work out a substitute way to depose them that makes 22 it simpler -- you don't have to retain a court reporter and 23 you can just get some written statement or something or 24 maybe you can have more than one in a day or something to 25 make these take less time and be less costly. And I will + +1 2 say that I 3 4 5 6 7 8 PROCEEDINGS am charged, under Rule 1 of 30 the Federal Rules, with trying to make sure that they are interpreted and administered in a way that not only is efficient but that is -- that keeps the economies in mind and keeps the cost in mind. And I need to do that need to do that need to do that with respect to in general. as I look at a case. I document production. I + +9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 With respect to document production, it's hard for me to tell exactly what's been going on here. Each side claims that it's been, you know, highly forthcoming and the other side has not been. I don't really want to hear that. I really just want to hear that you're working cooperatively and in an efficient manner to get the productions done. If they are productions that are specifically related to plaintiff, then I don't really see the reason to hold it up. I mean, I do think that it would be nice if every last dime in the estate could be kept there and be used for compensating victims if there's, you know, it's demonstrated that people have been victims, that they should get the money as opposed to the lawyers getting the money. But, you know, if it's very case specific, if it's very plaintiff specific and plaintiff wishes to proceed with it, I'm going to let that proceed. If there are any documents that are not case specific and where + +2 there would be any efficiencies to doing it differently, I 3 don't see it the same way as I see it with respect to 4 depositions where you might want to have other lawyers in 5 the room asking questions. I see less reason to hold off 6 on the document production. But if there's something I'm 7 not thinking of that you want to bring to my attention, 8 bring it to my attention. + +9 But I'm going to resolve the disputes that are in 10 front of me about documents in particular. And I'm going 11 to, you know, urge you to move forward civilly and without, 12 you know, name calling or finger pointing or charging the 13 other with any kind of shenanigans and just try to get it 14 done. + +15 MS. KAPLAN: Agreed, your Honor. + +16 THE COURT: I don't know that I have a motion to 17 compel from the plaintiff. I know I have a motion to 18 compel or a request for a conference in connection with a 19 motion to compel on the defendants' side seeking more from 20 plaintiff. But plaintiff's counsel was complaining on this 21 call. Do you also have ripe issues on your side that 22 you -- + +23 MS. KAPLAN: I anticipate -- no, no, your Honor. 24 I anticipate we'll be able to work out whatever remaining 25 issues we have -- + +2 THE COURT: Perfect. + +3 MS. KAPLAN: -- on our side. We do not have a 4 motion to compel at this time. + +5 The only other thing I wanted to clarify, your 6 Honor, is it's not my understanding that all -- let's 7 assume the estate has \$350 million. It's very clearly not 8 my understanding that the estate has committed to pay the 9 entire amount of the estate to Mr. Epstein's victims. And 10 that's not the way the Feinberg fund was set up or will be 11 administered. Rather, it's my understanding, that any 12 amounts that are not paid to victims will go to the heirs 13 under the estate, who we understand is Mr. Epstein's 14 brother. So your Honor's under a misconception if you 15 think that legal fees saved by the estate necessarily go 16 into a fund that's all going to be distributed to victims. 17 That is not the way it's been set up. + +18 THE COURT: Well, it was my understanding, which 19 may be incorrect -- and, by the way, let's not refer to it 20 as the "Feinberg fund." It's just -- it's claims, it's the 21 victims' compensation claims program or something like 22 that. It's got a name. We'll just call it "the fund." It 23 was my understanding that the claims would be paid out of 24 whatever there is. Whether it all goes to claimants or not 25 is not really the question that I had in my mind; that + +2 there is a universe out there, there is an amount of money 3 or assets out there which is available as the administrator 4 sees fit to pay. The larger it is, the more that is 5 arguably available for the administrator to decide would be 6 appropriate for different victims. It may be that more 7 will come forward, it may be that more victims will not 8 come forward, it may be there's money left over, and it may 9 be there's no money left over. But any money that is 10 currently in the estate, you know, you don't want to see it 11 shrink. Why would anyone want to see it shrink? If the 12 administrator would like to say that, you know, more should 13 be paid, wouldn't it be better that there's more there that 14 could potentially be tapped than having it pay for 15 litigation costs? + +16 MS. KAPLAN: Understood, your Honor. But I have 17 seen settlement funds, for example, in Michigan and other 18 places where the commitment was made that all the funds 19 that were available were going to be paid out to victims. 20 That was very clearly not what was done here. And the only 21 assumption that anyone can make is that once -- and it's 22 not limitless number of victims -- that once the 23 settlement administrators and have made 24 whatever determinations they make, that -- we have been 25 told by them that they would see that as being less than + +2 the amount in the estate, and the remainder in the estate 3 will be paid to Mr. Epstein's brother. + +4 THE COURT: They don't have any -- they don't have 5 a particular limit on the amount, do they? + +6 MS. KAPLAN: No, but they -- + +7 MR. MOSKOWITZ: No. Your Honor -- sorry. Go 8 ahead. I could clarify this. + +9 THE COURT: Okay. + +10 MS. KAPLAN: This is something that was 11 negotiated, quite clearly, by the side and something 12 there was proposals made by the plaintiffs to set up a fund 13 where there would be a commitment that all the money in the 14 estate would be paid out to victims. It's my 15 understanding, after many conversations, that is not the 16 commitment. And in fact, there was Mr. Feinberg and 17 told us that they didn't even have a full 18 understanding of the full amount in the estate. + +19 THE COURT: Let me just put some numbers on this 20 hypothetically. And, obviously, these are not the correct 21 numbers; I'm sure there are, you know, millions of 22 dollars -- actually, I'm not sure of anything, but I'm 23 going to assume there are millions of dollars in the 24 estate. But let's just call it a million dollars. There's 25 a million dollars in the estate -- or let's even make it + +1 PROCEEDINGS 35 2 even simpler than that. Say it's \$100,000 in the estate. 3 And so it's S100,000 that could be paid out. And maybe 4 80,000 of it gets paid out to victims, and there's 20,000 5 left over and it goes to somebody else. Okay. But if 6 30,000 gets spent on legal fees or other things, now 7 there's no longer the ability to pay out 80,000. Now 8 there's only 70,000 there. You certainly don't want that 9 to happen. And if there's + +10 MS. KAPLAN: Yes, but we were -- + +11 THE COURT: -- if there's 90,000 left, you know, 12 maybe it could be the administrator would say, you know 13 what, let's pay out 90. That may be, and it's there, and 14 it's available. + +15 MS. KAPLAN: But, your Honor, we were told quite 16 explicitly -- quite explicitly by Mr. Feinberg and 17 that that is not the case here. There is more 18 than sufficient funds, as they said, to pay out everyone 19 with excess. And so for the implication to be that by my 20 client incurring litigation costs for the estate, she's 21 taking money from other victims is not the case. If she's 22 taking money from anyone, she's taking it from 23 Mr. Epstein's brother. + +24 MR. MOSKOWITZ: That's -- your Honor, Bennet 25 Moskowitz. That's not correct. And no one -- and I wish + +2 we would not speak for other people who are not on this + +3 call. I highly doubt Mr. Feinberg or said any + +4 of those things. First of all, I don't know where + +5 Ms. Kaplan's getting her information about who's receiving + +6 what money under the will. It's not based on any facts + +7 that I'm actually aware of. So perhaps she knows something + +8 I don't. + +9 But your Honor has it exactly correct. What's + +10 available to the fund -- and it's called the Epstein + +11 Victims Compensation Program -- is not all the money in the + +12 world. Right? There's an estate. Within that is a pool + +13 of assets available to a program which has no artificial + +14 cap to it because we don't know how many victims are out + +15 there. That's part of the problem. If Ms. Kaplan does, I + +16 would love to know the number. We don't know. But it is + +17 absolutely correct what your Honor said. If a million + +18 dollars is spent on this case on legal fees, that's taken + +19 out of a pot of assets that is there if ever needed for the + +20 fund while it's ongoing; that's gone because it's spent on + +21 lawyers. So your example was -- absolutely got it correct. + +22 It's about what's actually available to pay the people. + +23 So make no mistake. This is not good for the fund + +24 process, the spending of assets, which is why -- + +25 MS. KAPLAN: Is that why the case -- + +2 MR. MOSKOWITZ: -- other people stayed their + +3 actions in part. They know that. + +4 MS. KAPLAN: If that were the case, your Honor, + +5 then the estate could have made the commitment, which they + +6 refused to make and refused to say to the fund + +7 administrators that all the amounts in the estate, subject + +8 to whatever secure claims are out there, would be devoted + +9 to this fund. They have not said that. + +10 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yeah, and we could debate trusts + +11 and estates law and the, you know, theory of how it works + +12 in law school, but that's correct, we don't control -- we + +13 don't get to willy-nilly say forget what a will says or any + +14 other legal instruments; we're going to do what we think is + +15 right under Ms. Kaplan's notion of justice. What we've + +16 done is voluntarily gone out of our way to work very hard + +17 to design a program that so many see the value in that you + +18 now -- that this plaintiff now stands alone. And -- + +19 THE COURT: Okay. Wait. Hold on a minute. It + +20 sounds to me like what you are saying are different spins + +21 are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It may be -- and I + +22 don't know because I haven't read the documentation about + +23 how the program is going to work -- but it may be that it + +24 is not required that all assets will be paid to claimants + +25 once it's clear how many are coming forward, that every + +2 asset that there is will be distributed to victims. That 3 may well be the case. It may also be that the decisions as 4 to how much to offer and to then distribute is going to be 5 capped at whatever the assets are. And if the assets are 6 X, then that's as much as there could be available to the 7 administrator to make decisions based on if there's less, 8 then there's less available to make the decision based on. 9 And it may be that it's anticipated that not all of the 10 money will be paid out. And maybe that's because there's a 11 concern that some other victim may come forward at a later 12 date, and they want to hold back some money; or it may just 13 be that they think there is so much money that there will 14 be left over. It may be that they're just going to take it 15 as it comes without any kind of artificial limits other 16 than what's in the assets of the estate. But it does seem 17 to me that the more costly the litigation gets -- and 18 everyone knows that litigation can be very costly and it 19 could be meaningfully costly. I don't know if it is a drop 20 in the bucket or if it costs a million dollars, if that is 21 a meaningful million. But it could be that the continuing 22 costs of litigating the case could deplete assets to some 23 extent that could otherwise potentially ends up in the 24 hands of victims being compensated through the fund. And 25 even if that's not -- even if they anticipated that there's + +2 going to be more than enough, the universe is not 3 absolutely infinite of what there is to pay. It is 4 whatever is in the estate. That is the outer bound of what 5 there is that's possible. So if money is paid out of the 6 estate for lawyers, then there is necessarily less money in 7 the estate. + +8 I am going to urge counsel to litigate this case, 9 what remains of it, in as efficient a way as possible with 10 as much cost savings as possible. Not to -- you know, I'm 11 not going to tell lawyers how to staff matters, but keep an 12 eye on it. I'm not going to tell lawyers how much to spend 13 on squabbling, but try to keep it down. Everyone knows 14 where money gets spent in litigation. It gets spent on 15 electronic discovery. Well, try to work together on a 16 protocol so that you don't have to do it twice, because do-17 overs are costly. Try to figure it out the first time, and 18 try to live with what you agree on. And if you need to 19 make some minor adjustments later because something 20 surfaces, you know, try to focus on keeping the costs under 21 control. Okay? Because, you know, no offense to counsel, 22 but that's not where we really want to see money go. + +23 I'm going to address the disputes that I have in 24 front of me. I'm glad to hear that on plaintiff's side you 25 think you can resolve your issues through good-faith + +2 consultation. That's great. Please try to do it in as, 3 you know, civil and efficient way as possible. + +4 I have three clusters of information that have + +5 been brought to me by defendants that need my attention. + +6 One has to do with the Rule 26(a) disclosure on computation + +7 of damages by plaintiff. One category has to do with + +8 communications with either the press or with other counsel. + +9 That's really two categories, but it's -- yeah, I guess + +10 it's two categories. And then the last one has to do with + +11 plaintiff's medical records during the relevant time, + +12 thereafter, whatever. + +13 So let me just take them in order. With respect + +14 to computation of damages, I've taken a look at plaintiff's + +15 Rule 26(a) disclosure that was attached to the papers. + +16 I've taken a look at the arguments made by counsel in the + +17 letters. The computation of damages that was provided on + +18 its face does not comply with the rules. Now, I understand + +19 that there may be an expert coming down the pike who may + +20 have something to say about damages, and it may be that + +21 there'll be a need to supplement as evidence comes out. + +22 But that does not excuse a computation that, to the best of + +23 the plaintiff's ability, complies with the rules at the + +24 time the disclosure is made, which means you set out the + +25 amounts that are known to you in different categories so + +2 that if you, for example, have doctor expenses, medical +3 expenses that you think are a proper category, you pull +4 together the evidence that you have and you put down the +5 number that's the total of what you believe the medical +6 expenses are, and you say I'm going to be providing to you +7 the support for this. If more comes out, you supplement it +8 under Rule 26(e). And you say, "I have more. It was +9 incomplete. That number's going up. Here it is." And if +10 you want to flag for defendant that there's a likelihood +11 that certain numbers may rise as you, you know, uncover +12 more documents, that's fine. You supplement it. That's +13 what supplementation is all about. + +14 If you have a category of lost wages or something, +15 again, you quantify it, you put it down, you provide the +16 documentation that supports it. You don't just say, "We +17 can't do it," because of course you can; you just can't do +18 it perfectly yet. You can do it to the extent you can, and +19 you supplement it later. I have had cases where someone +20 says an expert is needed, and sometimes I've moved the +21 expert discovery up so that the damages computation could +22 be done before all the rest of fact discovery was over so +23 that the defendant could have the benefit of understanding +24 what the claim was before then deposing certain fact +25 witnesses about it. + +2 That may or may not make sense, but the + +3 computation of damages in the disclosure does need to be + +4 modified; it is not adequate under the rules. + +5 Understanding that it may change and understanding there + +6 may need to be the need for expert testimony to modify some + +7 of the numbers or to add in certain figures, you lay out + +8 what you can and you lay it out with specificity as the + +9 rule requires. + +10 MS. KAPLAN: Your Honor, we will do that. The + +11 vast majority of the damages here is going to be pain and + +12 suffering and future mental health costs. + +13 THE COURT: You put a number on it -- you put a + +14 number on it as best as you can; and if it gets changed, it + +15 gets changed. But you -- + +16 MS. KAPLAN: Well, I was just going to say 18 following up on what you said. We were going to put that 19 in. We have retained a very illustrious expert, Dr. Don 20 Hughes, who's testified many, many times about these 21 issues. We would be happy, if defendant prefers, to move 22 up the expert discovery so that they can get that. But 23 without Dr. Hughes's report, it really will be guesswork 24 for the vast majority of it on our part. 25 THE COURT: Well, it's not going to be guesswork + +17 something. I was just going to say something, your Honor, + +2 if there was + +3 MS. KAPLAN: That's just the reality of it. + +4 THE COURT: -- an out-of-pocket medical expense; 5 it's not going to be guesswork if there's lost income, that 6 she says, "I would have had this job, and I couldn't have 7 this. I lost my job. I was making this much money in the 8 past." You know, you can make some estimates, and you can 9 say these are estimates to the best of our ability now, and 10 it may get modified with an expert. But you can't just -- + +11 MS. KAPLAN: We understand. As long as they're 12 aware that the vast majority of it is probably going to 13 come through Dr. Hughes, that's fine with us. We just 14 don't want to be charged, when the number goes way up with 15 Dr. Hughes, with being -- in any accusation that we're not 16 being full and complete. + +17 THE COURT: Well, you've retained this person. 18 You can talk to this expert and you can say, "Give me 19 something ballpark that you think is, you know, based on 20 what you already know is likely to, you know, to hold." 21 And you don't have to make up a number from counsel's head 22 and then totally separate from the expert's head. You've 23 hired somebody; presumably you're in consultation. + +24 MS. KAPLAN: All right, well, we will do that, 25 your Honor. I just offered to move up expert discovery if + +2 they want to do that. That's exactly what we were + +3 THE COURT: Well, that's what -- you talk with 4 your adversary about it because there's no absolute magic 5 that this must happen first and then that must happen. YOU 6 know, what you're trying to do is litigate the case 7 efficiently, save unnecessary costs. Experts can be very 8 expensive. If you think you might want to participate in 9 the claims program and you decide to do that, then it may 10 make sense at that point to have at least a brief stay to 11 avoid the clock running so that you avoid unnecessary 12 expert expenses or something else that can really, you 13 know, rachet up the dollars spent on the case. So -- + +14 MS. KAPLAN: That's not an issue from our side, 15 your Honor. Our expert has already -- is drawn and willing 16 to do it. So that's not an issue. + +17 THE COURT: All right. It may be an issue on 18 defendants' side if they're going to have a counter-expert 19 or a rebuttal expert; they may want some time to save those 20 costs. And I might be favorably inclined to say if you're 21 participating in the program, yes, I'm going to hold off on 22 certain of this discovery. I want you to be able to have 23 good-faith conversations about where the particular high-24 expense items are that maybe could be done later, like, in 25 30 days or in 60 days if, you know, if you do decide to + +2 participate in the program, if it doesn't result in a 3 resolution and you have to come back with the 4 understanding, like I said, the case is not going to be 5 tried that fast. It's not going to be tried in 30 days or 6 60 days no matter what. So, you know, having that much of 7 a delay is probably not going to affect the ultimate 8 resolution date. + +9 So think about it, talk about it, keep an eye on 10 the expenses. And come back to me, either of you or both 11 of you, with rational proposals if you think something 12 should be put on hold. + +13 with respect to communications with the press, I 14 didn't quite understand -- I mean, I think that the parties 15 are -- one seems to be talking about if anything was said 16 that relates to the case, and the other seems to be saying 17 anything that may have related to plaintiff's specific 18 allegations. And it's neither one of those for the test 19 for relevance. It's whether it's related to a claim or 20 defense that's been asserted in the case. And it may well 21 be that there are statements that were made that relate to 22 a claim that's been made in this case and that would be 23 relevant and that could be identified, could be found. 24 Maybe it was in, you know, an email or something. And it 25 should be produced. On the other hand, if it's just + +2 anything at all, like including about the claims program or 3 something, that wouldn't be relevant to a claim in the case 4 or to a defense that's been asserted in the case. So I 5 think there's probably a middle ground there. I don't 6 think it's good enough for plaintiff just to say, you know, 7 we object to providing anything that's not related to the 8 specific allegations because I don't know that specific 9 allegations means the same thing as claim, which is a 10 relevance test. That sounds -- + +11 MS. KAPLAN: Yes, we have no problem producing 12 documents with journalists relating to the claims in the 13 case. I'm quite confident there won't be any, but we 14 understand, your Honor, that -- + +15 THE COURT: Well, go do a reasonable search. + +16 MS. KAPLAN: Yes. Well, we have, but we will 17 again, your Honor. The real debate here was statements 18 that were made by me to members of the press about the 19 claims fund. + +20 THE COURT: Okay. You've been jumping in on these 21 points, and I haven't really given an opportunity to 22 defense counsel to jump in on these points. Before I get 23 to the next category, do you want to say anything further 24 about the damages computation or about the 25 communications -- + +2 + +MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yeah. So, first, if I could just +back -- Bennet Moskowitz, your Honor. I apologize -- get +into that habit. + +5 + +If your Honor recalls, the reason this all came +about this way with this jammed-up deposition schedule is +because we had originally just asked for what we thought +was quite reasonable, let's move all of these out 30 days +so we can get all this done in a reasonable fashion. My +one concern that I haven't heard addressed yet -- and +perhaps because I hadn't expressly raised it -- is, you +know, I'm still of the view that, look, we're trying to get +these depos done on this schedule; that's what we agreed to +strive for with opposing counsel. They have indicated to +me that you'd better get them done by July 27 because we +think that's how long you should have. + +17 + +I'd like to just say now and confront the issue +that, look, we will try to hold these dates, but already +we're having trouble, say, serving one of the people in +particular, one of plaintiff's friends. There's no reason +that if we must, based on deponent's reasonable +availability, these depositions can't go into August. +There's no magic number. And I would just like to include +within the directive of the court to confirm that my +understanding of that is that that would probably include, + +2 if it makes sense, to having some of the depositions go 3 beyond July 27, not five months from now, but some time in 4 August. I don't see any problem with that, and I figure 5 while we're talking about this, that I'd love to get 6 clarity about that point. So I could stop there because 7 that's one of about three points I wanted to raise. + +8 THE COURT: Yes. Raise your other points. So far 9 we're up to computation of damages and communications with 10 the press on the specific document issues. + +11 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Sure. I believe the -- I 12 apologize; the calendar was addressed before this. I don't 13 want to lose sight. + +14 THE COURT: Right. + +15 MR. MOSKOWITZ: So as for the press statements, 16 we're not looking for statements about the -- we didn't say 17 give us everything you said about the claims program. What 18 we want is the good-faith search for things that may be 19 relevant, not just to a claim, right, but to our defenses. 20 If, for example, plaintiff's counsel spoke to the press or 21 other plaintiff's counsel -- I know we're not there yet, 22 but it's the same issue -- about their view of the alleged 23 trafficking scheme, about the relative strength of claims 24 against the estate, it's not that we're trying to get all 25 discovery about all the other actions; it's just that, to + +2 the extent this plaintiff's counsel was part of those + +3 discussions and made statements, that is necessarily + +4 informed by this plaintiff's allegations even if in that + +5 communication it's not the express, "This plaintiff says + +6 Mr. Epstein did X, Y, Z." It may not say that, which is + +7 what I understood plaintiff's counsel's position was, + +8 "Well, we didn't say anything about specific claims." But + +9 your Honor is correct that's not the limit on discovery. + +10 But it would be highly relevant if, for example, + +11 plaintiff's counsel says to members of the press, you know, + +12 "Our view of claims against Epstein are X, Y and Z." I get + +13 why they may not want us to see that, but it's not + +14 privileged, it's highly relevant and should be produced. + +15 So I look forward to the reasonable search for those, and + +16 I'm just informing the Court of how I view the potential + +17 relevance there. It's not just the claims; it's also the + +18 defense. + +19 THE COURT: I didn't understand -- + +20 MR. MOSKOWITZ: I will -- + +21 THE COURT: I didn't understand how you define + +22 what the defenses are and what's relevant to your defenses. + +23 What are the estate's defenses that you're looking for + +24 documents that it's relevant to? + +25 MR. MOSKOWITZ: It would -- yes, sure -- it would + +2 really go, for the most part, to issues of damages, you 3 know, alleged harms. There could be, among plaintiff's 4 counsel, discussion of the claims relative to each other. 5 And to the extent that -- + +THE COURT: But that's not what the -- + +MR. MOSKOWITZ: -- statements like -- + +THE COURT: -- that's your category about talking 9 with other counsel. + +10 MR. MOSKOWITZ: I don't know. I mean, I haven't 11 seen a single email from the press. I was -- you know, we 12 were given the categorical, you know, "You don't need it." + +13 THE COURT: Do you think there's going to be an 14 email to the press where this plaintiff's counsel said, 15 "Our client's claims are, you know, less severe than the 16 other plaintiffs' claims"? The odds of that seem to me + +18 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes, no, that would certainly 19 surprise me, your Honor. But statements of that nature 20 going the other way would still be relevant. And I see a 21 lot of press stories with this plaintiff's counsel and with 22 other plaintiff's counsel. + +23 THE COURT: Going the other way -- + +24 MR. MOSKOWITZ: No, just in general, that all 25 allegations that are (indiscernible). + +2 THE COURT: Wait a minute. You're not looking + +3 for + +4 MS. KAPLAN: Your Honor -- + +5 THE COURT: -- you're not looking for -- wait a + +6 minute. I don't even understand what defense counsel is + +7 saying here. When you say "going the other way," you mean + +8 communications from the press to plaintiff's counsel? + +9 MR. MOSKOWITZ: No, no, I apologize. Going the + +10 other way in terms of the substance. So even if + +11 plaintiff's counsel says, "Our claim is stronger for the + +12 following reasons," well, it's said to a member of the + +13 press, it's not privileged, and that's highly relevant to + +14 their view of this case. It could well be that the expert + +15 report's going to echo some of the sentiments. We're + +16 entitled to see that information. + +17 THE COURT: Ms. Kaplan? + +18 MS. KAPLAN: Your Honor, I think I can cut this + +19 short. I've been a member of the bar and this court for 25 + +20 years, I'm an officer of the court. I'm very well aware of + +21 my obligations and a duty of candor to the Court. I'm the + +22 only one on our team who spoke to the press. And every + +23 statement that I made to the press, which you can Google + +24 and find out, is about the settlement fund. No statements + +25 were made to the press, particularly because they are + +2 privileged, about our client's claims, her facts, relative 3 claims. And here where we're even more sensitive, putting 4 aside the privilege issue, because she's pseudonymous. So 5 there was -- + +6 THE COURT: I'm sorry, because what? + +7 MS. KAPLAN: So there was absolutely zero 8 conversation about -- + +9 THE COURT: Wait, wait. I'm sorry because + +10 MS. KAPLAN: Our client is pseudonymous. She's 11 anonymous. We couldn't say -- + +12 THE COURT: II, she's anonymous, anonymous. + +13 MS. KAPLAN: -- even if we wanted to have a 14 nonprivileged conversation, anything we could have said 15 could have potentially divulged her identity. There were 16 no such conversations with anyone in the press. Every 17 conversation, which is what Mr. Moskowitz has seen, if you 18 Google my name, is about the settlement fund. + +19 THE COURT: Okay. So + +20 MS. KAPLAN: And this is what's frustrating, your 21 Honor, because we've said this to them countless times. I 22 don't even know why we're still on this issue. + +23 THE COURT: All right, I will take that 24 representation, and I'm going to assume that there are no 25 statements of the sort that Mr. Moskowitz is suggesting + +2 could be out there. You know, make a diligent search of 3 what you've got, if you have emails or anything like that. 4 If there's something that relates to a claim that you've 5 asserted or a defense that's been asserted, that's the 6 test; produce it. If there really isn't, there is nothing, 7 you make a representation there really isn't, I've searched 8 and there just isn't. And you can have a more specific 9 conversation with each other, and Mr. Moskowitz can say, 10 "Did you look for anything that might have talked about 11 this or that or the other thing?" And you can clear it up. 12 And I'm not going to waste time ordering production of 13 documents that don't exist or that you can figure out 14 between you exist or not. + +15 All I was saying was that when you talked about 16 particular allegations, that sounded too narrow. All 17 right -- + +18 MS. KAPLAN: Understood, your Honor. + +19 THE COURT: Okay. With respect to communications 20 with other counsel representing other plaintiffs in this 21 case, at a first level of analysis, I suspect that we have 22 a valid common interest privilege or work product privilege 23 that there's just been no showing that it would be -- that 24 there's need to overcome that work product immunity. It 25 seems to me the kind of case where, you know, if there were + +2 communications among counsel about their clients' claims, 3 they would likely be protected under a common interest 4 doctrine or they would likely be talking about litigation 5 strategy, and that would likely be protected as work 6 product. So, you know, absent some particularized showing 7 of something that you're trying to get at that you know 8 exists or you've heard about or something, I'm not going to 9 direct plaintiff to be making production there. + +10 This is not -- this is without prejudice. There 11 could be a further application on this if there's something 12 more specific, but I'm just not going to say as a wholesale 13 matter go and produce all your communications with other 14 counsel about your client's claims. So I'm ruling in favor 15 of plaintiff on that one, at least at this time. + +16 The medical records, this I find a little bit 17 confusing. Certainly, medical records from the time of the 18 alleged abuse and thereafter, if there is a claim of 19 lasting emotional harm, certainly any records regarding 20 mental health care have been put at issue. And I'm 21 assuming she's alleging much more than garden-variety 22 emotional distress and that -- that's correct, right? + +23 MS. KAPLAN: Yes, your Honor. + +24 THE COURT: Yes. Okay. So she's put her mental 25 health, her emotional state, at issue. She is going to + +2 have to produce the mental health records both from the 3 time it was contemporaneous with any alleged abuse and 4 going forward into the future if she's claiming that her 5 injury has lasted, because that's what she says, that's 6 entitled to be tested. And to the extent there is 7 privilege, that would be waived. + +8 Now, with respect to physical issues for other 9 sorts of doctors, they're a little unsure because when I 10 looked at the complaint because defendants directed me to 11 allegations in the complaint and now unfortunately my -- 12 II, here it is. I've got it. + +13 we just lost someone. Let's make sure we didn't 14 lose counsel. Do we still have Ms. Kaplan? + +15 MS. KAPLAN: I'm still here, your Honor, yes. + +16 THE COURT: Mr. Moskowitz, are you still there? + +17 MR. MOSKOWITZ: I'm still here, your Honor. + +18 THE COURT: All right, we'll go with the two of 19 you. + +20 So I have here the complaint. And defendants 21 referred me to paragraph 56, for example, where it says, 22 for example, that plaintiff had symptoms such as a rapid 23 heartbeat. Now that, obviously -- I'm not a doctor, but I 24 think it's pretty commonly known that can be related to, 25 you know, anxiety or fear or something like that; people's + +2 hearts can race. On the other hand, there might be an 3 underlying medical condition or it might have caused a 4 medical condition, or it might be treated by a doctor who's 5 not a psychiatrist. She may have gone to a cardiologist 6 it's possible. + +7 There's an issue here about difficulty eating. 8 Well, that may be a symptom of a psychiatric condition. On 9 the other hand, she may have had a physical problem. She 10 may have had, I don't know, some reflux or something where 11 she had to take medication, where she was treated. There 12 could have been something related to that. Unclear simply 13 from the allegations. + +14 Difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep. And 15 it may be that she went a general practitioner who 16 prescribed her with sleeping medication or who monitored 17 that and, you know, tried different kinds of, you know, 18 sleeping pills if that was going to help her or not help 19 her. So it may not only be mental health care providers 20 who might have knowledge relevant to particular things that 21 are alleged in the complaint. Not clear. + +22 Now, that doesn't mean -- II, and another thing is 23 if she is claiming that she was sexually abused, I don't 24 know if she ever was examined by a medical professional in 25 connection with any alleged rape. If that happened, if + +2 there was a rape kit, for example, it would be relevant for 3 sure. + +4 MS. KAPLAN: Of course. + +5 THE COURT: It may not have happened that way, 6 right, but there may be medical records; I mean, you know, 7 God forbid if she was sexually abused and she got pregnant 8 and there was -- you know, and she had an abortion. I'm 9 making this up. + +10 MS. KAPLAN: Right. No, no, no. We + +11 THE COURT: Okay? I know nothing about the case. 12 But my point is there may be medical records from doctors 13 other than mental health providers that would be highly 14 relevant to the claims that she's asserting in this case. 15 That said -- + +16 MS. KAPLAN: We agree. + +17 THE COURT: Okay. That said, if she had twisted 18 her ankle, you know, walking down the street one day and 19 went to an orthopedist, that would have no relevance to 20 anything, okay, unless -- + +21 MS. KAPLAN: Correct, your Honor. + +22 THE COURT: -- somehow it came out at a deposition 23 that it's relevant to something. So the medical -- I think 24 that the line for only mental health care might be too 25 narrow, but all medical records from any kind of provider + +2 seems to me to be overly broad. And I think there needs to 3 be some discussion about that to sort that out. And 4 certainly, if the plaintiff is deposed and something comes 5 out that opens the door to some additional records, the 6 risk there is that if I say yeah, you know, she said this 7 thing now about some -- about being, you know, treated for 8 digestion problems or something and now there are 9 additional records and now once you get those records, she 10 might have to go back and sit for deposition round two, 11 which nobody wants. Nobody wants it because it's more 12 costly, and plaintiff certainly doesn't want to have to go 13 through this twice. + +14 MS. KAPLAN: So we understand that, your Honor. 15 We are absolutely willing to give all medical records, not 16 only for mental health treatment but for any physical 17 symptoms that we allege arise from the abuse and from the 18 mental health problems that she has suffered from. I don't 19 think that's the dispute here. I think they just say they 20 want all of her medical records. + +21 THE COURT: Well, it may be a little bit difficult 22 to parse out because if she has a general practitioner and 23 she sees that person for complaints like I can't sleep and 24 that person prescribes sleeping medication, and she also 25 goes to that person because, well, I don't know, she -- you + +1 PROCEEDINGS 59 2 know, she's got lower back pain or something, she's got a 3 headache, something else, you know, that doctor may not 4 parse it out in his or her records that -- you know, and to 5 ask the doctor to go through and produce this but not that 6 can sometimes be difficult. So that's -- + +7 MS. KAPLAN: But, your Honor, I don't -- I 8 don't -- with respect, I don't think we have that problem 9 here. Our client is very poor. She was a street kid when 10 she was raped by Jeffrey Epstein, a 14-year-old street kid. 11 She's not a wealth -- she's a very poor person today. She 12 does not go to doctors, certainly, for everyone who knows 13 me, the way that I go to doctors when I have a medical 14 condition to be treated. There's very few doctor records 15 here, and the doctor records that she does go to are for 16 people like when her child was born or to get regular 17 obstetrics exams, etc. So it's not like there's this huge 18 universe and she's going to a zillion different doctors the 19 way, quite frankly, I do, your Honor. She is a very low 20 resources, very low income, does not frequent doctors in 21 her -- + +22 THE COURT: What is the -- what is the dispute 23 really about here? What are the records that you do not 24 want to produce that exist -- + +25 MS. KAPLAN: We don't want to give all of the + +2 records -- + +3 THE COURT: -- but are not relevant? + +4 MS. KAPLAN: Every year she goes in for a pap 5 smear. I don't think they're entitled to her pap smear 6 records. It's just -- I mean, people go to regular doctors 7 that have nothing to do with what happened here. She's not 8 alleging -- she's alleging no physical injury from the 9 rape. And I don't think they're entitled to that. + +10 THE COURT: Okay. But if she alleges that she was 11 raped and she saw a gynecologist about that who did + +12 MS. KAPLAN: She was -- didn't happen. If she 13 had, we would have given it. She was a 14-year-old street 14 kid. + +15 THE COURT: Okay. + +16 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Your Honor, may I respond to this? + +17 THE COURT: Yes. + +18 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yeah, so this is the problem 19 again. Here we get again a blanket assertion of, "You get 20 these; you don't get these." Here's the problem -- and 21 your Honor actually alluded to this a little earlier. It 22 may be that I, as a layperson when it comes to medicine, 23 goes to what I think is a regular exam. But there could be 24 ten close reasons that that exam is then relevant to 25 something I didn't know it was relevant to. Doctors take + +2 notes, often sometimes about mental health, even when 3 they're not the mental health care provider. Doctors 4 prescribe things. You can go for a "regular" dental 5 procedure and get prescribed opioids that could very well 6 lead into things that are very relevant here. And because 7 it's a small universe, what we are saying is please don't 8 be so exclusive in saying wholesale that you get these but 9 not these. We need our experts to look and say what is 10 relevant. We can't have that decision made on the 11 plaintiff's side. + +12 THE COURT: Okay. All right. + +13 MS. KAPLAN: Your Honor, that's -- + +14 THE COURT: No, no, no, no. Stop. No. + +15 MS. KAPLAN: If she goes to a dentist -- + +16 THE COURT: Before you jump in -- before you jump 17 in, I'm going to side with you. You don't have to jump in. 18 Okay? So stop for a second. + +19 MS. KAPLAN: Thank you, your Honor. + +20 THE COURT: All right, there is a -- once again, 21 there is a middle ground here. First of all, all the 22 mental health records get produced. Second, if she had a 23 primary care physician and, you know, she was having 24 difficulty sleeping, if this was the person that she was 25 talking to about that or any of the symptoms that are + +2 alleged in the complaint, then that person's records should 3 probably be produced unless there is something that is, you 4 know, easily carve-outable from it or something. But it's 5 very hard for a doctor to parse through records and produce 6 some and not produce the rest. + +7 Other kinds of care providers, such as a dentist, 8 no. You don't just get a dentist's records because you're 9 speculating that maybe she got opioids from a dentist. If 10 you have a psychiatrist's records, if she had psychiatric 11 care or some kind of therapist records for mental health 12 care, and you see in the notes something like, you know, 13 "She's really upset today about her cancer diagnosis," 14 right? Well, it's going to open the door that there's 15 something else that's a major stressor and is affecting her 16 emotional health. Right? If there's some indication that 17 she is on medication in the mental health records or in the 18 general practitioner's records where that medication can 19 affect somebody's mental status in some way, okay, it might 20 open the door to a little further discovery about what the 21 deal is with this medication. But you don't just get to 22 fish; you don't just get to speculate and get any and all 23 providers. + +24 So you try to figure out where the rational line 25 is, because I hear a lot on defendant's side in any kind of + +2 case that involves mental health -- or emotional distress, + +3 I should say, pain and suffering -- mental pain and + +4 suffering, that, II, maybe she had a terrible medical + +5 condition or maybe something else was going on medically + +6 that could have affected that. Well, sure, lots of things + +7 could go on in a person's life that's a stressor. They + +8 could have lost a job, they could have had a death in the + +9 family, there could have been something else. It doesn't + +10 meant you get to fish for everything about their lives. If + +11 you get some discovery that suggests that she was in fact, + +12 you know, significantly affected by something else that's + +13 going on in her life, yes, it can open the door to + +14 discovery about that something else. But you don't get to + +15 fish for everything. + +16 So I don't know how many providers there are here. + +17 You have identified three treating physicians as witnesses. + +18 These are all mental healthcare professionals? For the + +19 depositions? + +20 MS. KAPLAN: No, I don't think any of them are. + +21 Is that correct, Kate? + +22 MS. KATE DONIGER: They are, I think, almost + +23 exclusively primary care physicians who she consulted about + +24 primary care issues and also mental health issues. + +25 THE COURT: Okay. So you've got the primary care + +2 physicians identified, I guess, in your Rule 26(a) 3 disclosures because that's why defendants asked for their 4 depositions. Right? + +5 MS. KAPLAN: Yes. + +6 THE COURT: So they have some relevant knowledge. + +7 Unless there's a way for them to parse their records and 8 produce only those things that relate to a mental health 9 issue, sleeping issues, diet issues, you know, rapid 10 heartbeat issues, unless there's a way where they can 11 segregate that out, or maybe it's easier to do it the other 12 way that, you know, if she had a fracture, you separate and 13 say, "We don't have to produce the documents related to the 14 orthopedist that we sent her to for a consult." But I 15 think you're going to have to produce the records of the 16 doctors you identified as potentially having knowledge 17 relevant to the case. And I don't know how many other 18 doctors there really are. I'm going to say no on dentists, 19 if she went to a dentist. If she went to a regular OB-GYN 20 type provider on a regular basis, if there was nothing 21 related to her -- to any allegations she's making here, if 22 there's no -- if she's not claiming any physical harm, if 23 she's not claiming that she was ever examined in connection 24 with any rape here or anything, then I'm going to say no 25 for now. I'll say that with respect to a gynecologist, + +2 I'll say that without prejudice if defendants want to show 3 me some case law that in a case alleging sexual abuse, that 4 opens up the door to all gynecological records. I have my 5 doubts, but that may be possible, and I'd look at law if 6 you can find me something. But any doctor you + +7 MS. KAPLAN: Understood, your Honor. We -- + +8 THE COURT: Yes? + +9 MS. KAPLAN: -- we're not alleging any physical 10 injury from Mr. Epstein's rape of her when she was 14. + +11 THE COURT: And you said she was not -- she was 12 not examined at that time? + +13 MS. KAPLAN: She -- it's not -- no, it's not our 14 understanding that she was examined. Again, she was a 15 homeless street kid. + +16 THE COURT: So there's no -- there's no physical 17 evidence as to whether or not she actually was raped at 18 that time? That doesn't exist, as far as you know? + +19 MS. KAPLAN: That's correct, your Honor. We have 20 none to offer, and I don't think any exists. + +21 THE COURT: Okay. All right. So I'm not sure 22 what doctors are going to still be at issue here in terms 23 of what there is to argue about. It doesn't sound like 24 there's that much to argue about. Defendant's being 25 overbroad, but if you've identified the person as having, + +1 PROCEEDINGS 66 2 you know, somebody who's got relevant knowledge, then their 3 records should probably be produced. Right? + +4 MS. DONIGER: Kate Doniger, your Honor. + +5 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Your Honor -- + +6 MS. DONIGER: If I could just add one thing? We 7 have produced all of the records for the providers that we 8 identified in our disclosures. That is our understanding 9 as far as -- + +10 THE COURT: You produced the records or you -- you 11 produced the records, or you -- + +12 MS. DONIGER: All of the records. + +13 THE COURT: -- produced the HIPAA release? + +14 15 already. MS. DONIGER: We've produced the complete records + +16 THE COURT: Well, then, you should produce the 17 HIPAA release because the defendant's entitled -- + +18 MS. DONIGER: We've also -- we've also done that. 19 We've also produced the HIPAA release -- + +20 THE COURT: Okay. So you did -- + +21 MS. DONIGER: -- so that they can get the records 22 from these -- yes -- + +23 THE COURT: From the providers -- + +24 MS. DONIGER: -- we've already done that. + +25 THE COURT: Hold on. Talking simultaneously even + +2 when it's me is not a good idea. + +3 So with respect to the doctors who you've 4 identified in Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures as people with 5 potential knowledge, you've already provided, a, records; 6 and b, releases, and defendants are free to get those 7 records from those doctors. + +8 MS. DONIGER: That's correct. + +9 THE COURT: And, number two, if there's any mental 10 health records other than those, you've provided releases 11 for those. So what's left? Dentists and OB-GYN? Is there 12 anything else? + +13 MS. DONIGER: Well, dentists, OB-GYN. Part of the 14 way that you know, plaintiff did not have one primary 15 care doctor who she sees consistently for all her issues. 16 That's just not how she accesses medical care. So she has 17 gone to urgent care for various issues. She may have gone 18 to the ER for, you know, colds, sinus infections. We 19 actually don't have a specific list, and we think it would 20 be very difficult and burdensome to -- + +21 THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on, please. + +22 MS. DONIGER: -- to create one, but -- + +23 THE COURT: Hold on. Mr. Moskowitz, are you still 24 there? + +25 MR. MOSKOWITZ: I'm still here, your Honor. + +2 THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Kaplan, are you still 4 MS. KAPLAN: I am, your Honor. 5 THE COURT: Okay. I heard somebody drop off. 18 health for which she may have sought care. So -- 22 alleges in the complaint, and we've specifically 24 relating specifically to those conditions. So -- 25 THE COURT: I'm left with the same question, which + +3 there? + +6 Okay, so urgent care, hospital emergency rooms, 7 urgent care, i don't care; I don't think defendants should 8 care about a sinus infection. On the other hand, if she 9 went to urgent care because she couldn't sleep and needed 10 sleeping medication or because she was having panic attacks 11 or something and she needed to go somewhere and she didn't 12 have a primary care physician so she went to an urgent care 13 clinic, that might be a place that has records. I don't 14 know why she was going wherever she was going, but that 15 needs a little bit of exploration because defendants are 16 entitled to records regarding mental health and regarding 17 these various conditions that may be associated with mental + +19 MS. DONIGER: And we don't disagree with that, 20 your Honor. We're not aware of any other place where she 21 has received treatment related to the conditions that she 23 represented that we would produce documents and records + +2 is what exactly are you guys arguing about here? + +3 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes, your Honor -- + +4 THE COURT: What's the universe of documents that 5 plaintiffs will not produce? + +6 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Your Honor, if I may, Bennet + +7 Moskowitz. Part of the problem here is until this call, + +8 they would never tell us this. We at one point said, + +9 "Well, will you list out the other things that are out + +10 there that you don't think are relevant?" That was + +11 declined. So perhaps we could have avoided this back-and- + +12 forth. We're seeking all of it because we don't know. + +13 This is the most I'm hearing about this. So, you know, + +14 this warrants further conversation along that line that we + +15 suggested perhaps a month or so ago. + +16 THE COURT: Look, look, do yourself + +17 MS. DONIGER: I think that -- + +18 THE COURT: -- save yourself time at plaintiff's + +19 deposition. All right? At plaintiff's deposition + +20 defendant's counsel will say, "Tell me all the places + +21 you've gone and tell me the reasons you've gone there," + +22 because if some place is identified where counsel thinks + +23 that, you know, she may have actually gone for mental + +24 health care or for, you know, to try to get a sleeping pill + +25 prescription or something, then counsel's going to go back + +2 and ask for a release for that place, and then you're going 3 to circle around. And once again, you don't want to have 4 to have plaintiff come back. + +5 Go through the different places with plaintiff 6 that she went to for care, the different providers, a 7 dentist, an urgent care facility, an emergency room or 8 whatever it may have been. Go through the places, tell 9 defense counsel what you understand about them and why you 10 think that it's not necessary to produce releases for the 11 records there. If you have a particular discrete 12 disagreement on something, you know, it may have to come to 13 head after a deposition. But you want to try to avoid the 14 testimony of, "II, yeah, I went there because, you know, I 15 was worried I was having a heart attack because my heart 16 was beating so fast," well, then it's going to be relevant. 17 Right? And then you're going to have to go back and 18 produce it. If she says, "I went there because I burned 19 myself by accident with some hot water from the stove," you 20 know, then it's not going to be relevant, and nobody's 21 going to say you're going to get the releases. But if you 22 have a little bit more of a conversation ahead of time, you 23 should be able to it off, because I don't hear 24 plaintiff's counsel being, you know, completely -- to be 25 completely resistant or refusing to produce records from + +2 doctors for physical care to the extent they might have any 3 bearing on the claims that are being asserted here. + +4 MS. KAPLAN: No, no, absolutely not, your Honor. + +5 For example, we've given -- there are cardiology tests that 6 are clearly relevant to the allegations we have, and we've 7 produced those. We don't disagree. + +8 THE COURT: So -- right. And once again, it's not 9 just the tests, it's also the release for that provider. + +10 MS. KAPLAN: Yes, no, we understand. + +11 THE COURT: The defendant's entitled to get it 12 to get the documents on their own and to make sure the 13 universe is complete. Okay? + +14 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Your Honor, I have one more 15 related but different point on medical records that I would 16 like to raise, because I think some clarity, with the 17 Court's assistance, would be helpful. I can't get into the 18 specifics because it pertains to some of the information 19 that's been redacted now from one of the exhibits, but 20 there is disclosure by plaintiff that relates to certain 21 things with potential other medical implications. And I 22 want to be careful here because what I'm hearing 23 plaintiff's counsel continue to talk about is they are 24 going to look for things that relate to medical, either 25 physical or mental, related to the claims of what + +2 Mr. Epstein allegedly did to this plaintiff. However, what 3 someone else may have done is also going to be highly 4 relevant to my experts. And we're entitled to see + +5 THE COURT: I don't quite understand -- I don't 6 quite understand what you're trying to tell me here. + +7 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes. + +8 MS. KAPLAN: I don't want -- and I'm very 9 uncomfortable, especially given the nature of the 10 allegation in this case, if we want to have a -- if your 11 Honor wants to schedule an ex parte conversation or you 12 want me to talk to mister -- I mean, without reporters on 13 the phone or you want me to talk to Mr. Moskowitz 14 separately, I'm happy to do that. But because I don't know 15 what he's talking about now, I'm quite concerned about 16 the -- + +17 THE COURT: Yes. It sounds to me like defendants' 18 counsel is trying to tread carefully, which leads me to 19 believe there may be something of a confidential nature. 20 Talk to each other first; see if you can reach a resolution 21 on it with the guidance that, look, if it bears on the 22 claims that are going to be made, she's going to have 23 waived any privilege or confidentiality, and she's going to 24 have to produce it. If it really doesn't bear on the 25 claims that are being made, then I'm not going to require + +2 it to be produced because just because someone has put +3 certain mental health or even medical conditions at issue +4 doesn't necessarily open the door to anything and +5 everything about medical records. And if you're talking +6 about something other than medical records, talk to +7 plaintiff's counsel about it first before you raise it with +8 me. Okay? + +9 I want to say something -- + +10 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes, will do, your Honor. + +11 THE COURT: Okay, so summarizing on these various +12 issues that were raised, I'm directing plaintiff to modify +13 the computation of damages and the Rule 26(a) disclosure +14 with the best numbers they've got at this time and the +15 documents specifically that support the different numbers. +16 If you're making a rolling production, explain as you do +17 this is further documentation to support that number we put +18 in here. And if you need to supplement as you go, even +19 more than once, supplement under Rule 26(e). If you want +20 to move up an expert report, talk to opposing counsel about +21 whether it makes sense or it doesn't make sense. Keep cost +22 in mind; keep the overall trajectory of the case in mind +23 and try to do something that is intelligent and cost +24 efficient. + +25 With respect to communications with the press, I + +2 accept plaintiff's representation that there were no 3 communications with the press about claims or defenses, 4 only about the settlement fund. But take a check, you 5 know, at emails or any other communications you may have 6 had. Double-check; don't be overly narrow on what's 7 related to a claim or defense by only looking for what's 8 related to plaintiff-specific allegations, because it's 9 broader than that in terms of a claim, and it's certainly 10 broader than that in terms of a defense. And have a 11 further conversation with counsel if you have any doubt on 12 that issue. + +13 I'm not requiring plaintiff to produce documents 14 concerning communications II, somebody has dropped off. 15 Did we lose either Ms. Kaplan or Mr. Moskowitz? + +16 MS. KAPLAN: You're still stuck with me, your 17 Honor. I'm here. + +18 THE COURT: Mr. Moskowitz? + +19 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes, I'm still here, your Honor. + +20 THE COURT: Good. Okay. I'm not requiring 21 plaintiff at this time to produce communications with other 22 counsel on other cases in this court that are cases like 23 this one. That's without prejudice to coming back later to 24 say, "Look, I am aware of something more particular here 25 that I have concern about that I don't think is either + +2 privileged"; or if it is work product, it's -- "We have a 3 substantial need. It's information we can't get by other 4 means, and it should be overcome." But for now I'm saying 5 no. + +6 And on the medical records, we've just had a lot 7 of discussion. Talk to each other. Yes, produce all the 8 mental health records; yes, produce anything relevant 9 and releases for anything relevant to any of the 10 assertions that are being made. But that's not free rein 11 for defendants to be asking for any and all medical records 12 of any kind. + +13 Now, I want to address the timing of the close of 14 discovery in the case and the timing of depositions. What 15 I was trying to get you to do when I said go talk to each 16 other about it, I'm willing -- obviously, I'm willing to be 17 flexible with the close of discovery. Close of fact 18 discovery, close of expert discovery, whatever it may be, 19 I'm willing to work with you to accommodate you with 20 deadlines that make sense. Honestly, I think that if 21 plaintiff may be participating in the program, it may make 22 sense to put certain things off that might be particularly 23 costly to see if by any chance it's not necessary to spend 24 that money. + +25 In terms of depositions, I care more about your + +2 working well together and having a plan to get them done 3 than I care about squeezing them into the month of July. 4 If you've got some clear difficulty getting ahold of 5 somebody, if you think it makes more sense to put some a 6 little bit later because you're hoping you can do an in-7 person deposition instead of a remote deposition and you're 8 hoping things will open up a little bit more and it will be 9 a little easier and a little safer, I'll work with you on 10 that. There isn't a huge rush because it's not getting 11 tried so fast and because there is a possibility of a 12 resolution to the plaintiff's program, and both of those 13 things counsel in favor of doing it, you know, sensibly as 14 opposed to unnecessarily, you know, rushed and slammed 15 through to get it done fast. That doesn't mean it should 16 drift forever; that doesn't mean, you know, the case 17 shouldn't get resolved in a reasonably prompt fashion. It 18 just means that Mr. Epstein is correct, if somebody -- if 19 it's easier to get someone deposed in August or if there's 20 some more records coming in that you think would be 21 relevant to that deposition and you want to have them fully 22 in hand before the deposition, be sensible. Work together. 23 Come up with a schedule that makes sense, that works, and 24 preferably that allows there to be some savings of money in 25 case the case can get resolved through the claims program. + +2 I don't think that the anticipated length of time +3 in the claims program is -- I don't know that much about +4 it, but I didn't think it was going to be something where +5 it would be months and months before there's a dollar +6 number put on a claim. Is that right? + +7 MR. MOSKOWITZ: That's correct. And, your Honor, +8 if I can for the record, you said Mr. Epstein when I +9 believe you went to refer to me, Mr. Moskowitz, so -- + +10 THE COURT: █, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I +11 certainly did not mean to call you Mr. Epstein. + +12 MR. MOSKOWITZ: No, that's okay. I just wanted a +13 clear record. + +14 THE COURT: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. +15 Well, Mr. Epstein cannot be on this call, in any event. + +16 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Correct. + +17 THE COURT: So I could not possibly have been +18 referring to him. + +19 MR. MOSKOWITZ: That's right. So -- + +20 THE COURT: Mr. Moskowitz -- I'm sorry. + +21 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes, correct. And he's not even +22 the client. But, in any event, yes, the claims program's +23 speed. That's correct, it's not supposed to be months on +24 end. In fact, it's done on a rolling basis. If someone -- +25 the way I understand it is if someone comes in, say, + +2 tomorrow, when they start receiving the actual, you know, 3 here's our claims submission, if person A comes in with a 4 complete set of documents for purposes of the administrator 5 being able to in her judgment determine that claim, it 6 could be weeks, six weeks, you know, less than two months, 7 for sure, potentially -- like I said, even closer to a 8 month. If someone else comes in and it's all incomplete, 9 well, then, it's on that person to fill the gap. But it's, 10 in any event, not months on end and much quicker than 11 litigation. + +12 THE COURT: Here is my suggestion. Plaintiff's 13 counsel says plaintiff needs certain information through 14 the discovery process in order to present her claim in the 15 fullest light and maximize her chances of having a 16 favorable recovery with the fund. So prioritize that so 17 that she feels comfortable going and presenting the claim. 18 The depositions of her doctors, of her friends is not 19 something that plaintiff is going to need; it's not 20 evidence plaintiff needs. That's the evidence defendant 21 wants to, you know, make sure the i's are dotted and the 22 t's are crossed before going to trial in this case. That's 23 evidence defendant wants. So that's not needed by 24 plaintiff to go forward with the claims process. If there 25 are documents in particular that plaintiff wants to get + +1 PROCEEDINGS 79 2 ahold of or if you want to pin down the testimony from 3 these women who booked massages and find out if they're 4 really taking the Fifth and get that, you know, get that 5 down on paper, you know, then maybe you'll have in hand 6 what you feel you need. If at that point you decide that 7 you want to take a shot at the claims process, maybe at 8 that point we stay some of the discovery that defendant 9 wants, with the understanding it will happen in a pretty 10 expedited fashion if you come back to the court. But we 11 save that money, you know, save unnecessary expense. + +12 All of these things are things that you should 13 talk about and that you should try to work on cooperatively 14 with the -- you know, the logical goals of getting 15 plaintiff what plaintiff feels is needed for this. You 16 know, if plaintiff's going to go to the claims process, 17 make it most likely to be successful for her to resolve the 18 claims, to save some money. You know, if we can save the 19 cost of defendant having an expert here, that's money. If 20 we can move a few depositions to August instead of July, 21 I'm willing to give you that time to do that; you know, to 22 get some records in hand first that might be outstanding 23 to, you know, do it at a pace that's not breakneck. I 24 realize it's not necessarily breakneck to do 11 depositions 25 in a month, but -- especially if some of them are less than + +2 a full day; but, you know, does it make sense in light of 3 what's going on with the other cases, does it make sense in 4 light of the fact she might participate in the program, 5 does it make sense in trying to conserve resources for the 6 fund, why not conserve resources for the fund, for the 7 estate, if possible. Right? + +8 Have these conversations. Think about it. Talk 9 to your clients. Talk to each other. Take a look at the 10 whole picture. Stop squabbling. Stop finger pointing. 11 Stop racking up legal fees, writing me letters that have a 12 paragraph here, a paragraph there that's just accusatory in 13 tone; I don't need that, you don't need that. Just see 14 what you can do that makes the most sense. And if you have 15 thoughts, you know, come back and tell me those thoughts. + +16 Right now you've got all these depositions 17 happening. I think it was by the end of July is that 18 right? + +19 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Correct, your Honor. That was 20 July 27th. + +21 THE COURT: Well, by all means, if this is the 22 best schedule and this schedule makes sense, so just go do 23 it. But I'll give you until August 14, which is a couple 24 of weeks into August, if you want a little breathing room 25 and you can work together well with that in mind. It + +1 PROCEEDINGS 81 4 case; it just means be sensible in terms of planning and 5 thinking about what you're doing instead of reflexive on 6 both sides. Okay? 8 just so it's clear, these are not decisions that we take 9 lightly. Without waiver of any privilege, we have talked 10 very carefully with our client about all these issues. 11 This is her decision to go forward with this case. And, 12 again, I believe she's entitled to do that under the law. 14 competing considerations. I mean, you mentioned before a 15 constitutional right. You know, nobody is trying to 17 we're here, she's entitled to bring a claim. You know, 18 we'll hear her claim. But the Court also is charged with 19 managing its own docket; and, as I said, under the very 21 but should -- I'm going to look it up because I'm 22 particularly fond of Rule 1. Rule 1, Scope and Purpose of 23 the Rules. Let me see if I can get that to open up for me 25 in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States + +2 doesn't mean just put things off for the sake of putting it 3 off. It doesn't mean, you know, be lax with respect to the + +7 MS. KAPLAN: Understood, your Honor. And, again, + +13 THE COURT: She's entitled to do it, but there are 16 deprive anybody of any rights that they have here. I mean, 20 first Rule of Civil Procedure, which I don't have memorized 24 somewhere here. Rule 1: "These rules govern the procedure + +2 District Court," except as stated in Rule 81. "They should 3 be construed, administered and employed by the Court and 4 the parties to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive 5 determination of every action and proceeding." So we have 6 these conflicting issues here. Speedy, that's plaintiff, 7 "Let's go. Let's go." Inexpensive, that's, "Do we have to 8 spend this money? Might the case be resolved separately? 9 Does it make sense when we're talking about an estate where 10 we would like to see the most available money possible for 11 victims of Mr. Epstein?" Those are competing 12 considerations. Might others be coming back to the court? 13 Are they all going to resolve the case? I don't know. You 14 know, is there any way in which it makes sense to 15 coordinate; maybe it does not. But these are things to 16 think about. Nobody is intending to violate anybody's 17 rights here through a just resolution of -- + +18 MS. KAPLAN: No. And the first part of that rule 19 that your Honor didn't repeat is justice and just, and 20 that's what my client is seeking here. + +21 THE COURT: Just, speedy and inexpensive, those 22 are the three concerns. We're going to keep them all, all 23 three, in mind as we construe the rules. You know, speedy 24 is going to be difficult because of COVID, whatever we do. 25 That's out of our control. Just, nobody's going to say + +2 that she can't have a fair trial and a just determination. + +3 Inexpensive is largely dependent upon how we look at the + +4 scope of discovery and how the parties conduct themselves. + +5 Keep it in mind and try to keep the cost down and try to + +6 work together without squabbling. Okay? + +7 MS. KAPLAN: Thank you, your Honor. + +8 THE COURT: Is there anything outstanding or is + +9 there anything that lacks clarity where before we get off + +10 this call you want me to cover it or you want me to make + +11 something clear for the record? Or you think we're good? + +12 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Your Honor, Bennet Moskowitz. I + +13 do have one question. Given what your Honor said about the + +14 depositions going into August, is the Court going to + +15 formally reset the deadlines that flow from that, you know, + +16 expert disclosure -- + +17 THE COURT: I'm going to -- yes, I'm going to -- I + +18 mean, if you have through the end of July, I'm just going + +19 to kick you out another couple of weeks just to give you a + +20 little breathing room on the depositions. I expect you to + +21 work together on them. I expect you'll be able to work + +22 that out. If the dates you've already agreed to work, then + +23 they work. If there's something there that doesn't quite + +24 work and there's a good reason for it, then, you know, kick + +25 it a little bit. And keep talking; and if plaintiff + +2 decides to participate in this process, I may rethink the 3 extent to which things are going forward. I may rethink 4 whether everything should be stayed in whole or in part for 5 at least a short period of time. I don't know. But right 6 now she's not participating, and right now it looks like 7 the discovery is very plaintiff specific; and so under 8 those circumstances, right now I'm not staying anything. 9 Okay? + +10 MS. KAPLAN: Just as a reminder, your Honor, 11 again, a bargain for very clear term in the settlement fund 12 is that no plaintiff should be required to stay anything in 13 order to participate in the fund. + +14 THE COURT: I understand that. But that doesn't 15 bind the Court in what it thinks is sensible. So I 16 understand that, and I'm not at the moment -- + +17 MS. KAPLAN: No, it actually -- it may impact my 18 client -- if you're telling me that you're going to stay if 19 she participates in the fund, that actually may impact her 20 decision to participate in the fund. + +21 THE COURT: I'm saying I don't know what I will 22 do. What I'm saying is if she decides to do it and I 23 don't know at what point you'll be in discovery at that 24 point; I don't know what will be left -- if the only thing 25 that's left, for example, is defendants' retaining an + +2 expert and examining the plaintiff, she might say, "Yeah, I 3 actually would like to hold off on having to sit for a 4 psychiatric exam by defendants' expert. I don't mind 5 having that held off." Okay? + +6 MS. KAPLAN: Understood, your Honor. I just 7 need to tackle whether if what I'm hearing is -- + +8 THE COURT: I'm not -- I'm not making -- I'm not 9 making any advance ruling. What I'm saying is keep me 10 apprised, tell me what you both think is sensible. + +11 Hopefully you got from this call that I'm listening to both 12 of you and I'm trying to do what makes sense for the case 13 and what makes sense potentially for other cases. Had I 14 heard that there were depositions where it would be likely 15 that other plaintiffs, should they end up not settling, 16 would want to be at the table for the same witness, I would 17 have said let's stay that particular deposition. I didn't 18 hear that, so I'm not doing it. Okay? + +19 So right now I don't see a basis for a stay, but I 20 do see a reason for you to keep talking and keep 21 communicating and to try to keep thinking about what's 22 sensible. And depending upon where we are, if she decides 23 to participate, there may be two different applications 24 that come in that I may have to weigh. And, like I said, 25 if the only thing that's left is the expensive expert and + +she's not raring to go with it, it may make sense to hold it off, you may stipulate to it. It [REDACTED] + +KAPLAN: You're right -- you're right, your Honor. The reason I'm raising it is because if I have to tell her that participating in the fund means this case will be stayed, I think that will affect her decision to -- + +THE COURT: I am not saying that. I am not saying that. I am saying that if circumstances change and anyone has an application to make, bring it to my attention, and I will hear what everyone has to say, and I will do what I think makes the most sense at that time in those circumstances without prejudging it. I'm not ruling out a potential stay or a partial one. And I am not saying I would do it, either. I'm just saying if things change, tell me what's going on and let me look at it anew with everybody's input. And I will have another conference, and I will hear from everybody. I can't assure her that she will do both simultaneously and this will go absolutely full speed ahead, but I'm not saying right now that I see a basis for a stay. Okay? + +MS. KAPLAN: Thank you, your Honor. + +THE COURT: All right? No guarantees on the future. We'll take it as it comes. + +All right, enough said. I'll probably do a text + +2 order or two on what's outstanding on the docket. And if 3 more issues come up, you know, bring them to my attention. 4 All right? + +5 MS. KAPLAN: Thank you, your Honor. + +6 THE COURT: Thank you, both. Thank you, all. + +7 MS. KAPLAN: Good afternoon. + +8 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Thank you, your Honor. + +9 (Whereupon, the matter is recessed.) + +4 + +5 I, Carole Ludwig, certify that the foregoing 6 transcript of proceedings in the case of Doe v. Indyke et 7 al, Docket #19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF, was prepared using digital 8 transcription software and is a true and accurate record of 9 the proceedings. + +10 + +11 + +12 + +eadt.e& ae-vt 13 Signature + +14 Carole Ludwig + +15 Date: June 29, 2020 + +16 + +17 + +18 + +19 + +20 + +21 + +22 + +23 + +24 + +25 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751579/EFTA02751579.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751579/EFTA02751579.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..10fc1a62e3defd0f4b56bf8c23fc593076640830 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751579/EFTA02751579.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,5273 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751579.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 88, + "chars": 111790, + "elapsed_seconds": 91.85, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 241.74, + 49.41 + ], + [ + 460.8189697265625, + 49.41 + ], + [ + 460.8189697265625, + 75.70416259765625 + ], + [ + 241.74, + 75.70416259765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "APPEARANCES:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 121.17600000000002, + 308.61 + ], + [ + 218.10748291015625, + 308.61 + ], + [ + 218.10748291015625, + 321.7041931152344 + ], + [ + 121.17600000000002, + 321.7041931152344 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INDEX", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 327.42, + 75.33 + ], + [ + 374.4227600097656, + 75.33 + ], + [ + 374.4227600097656, + 89.1 + ], + [ + 327.42, + 89.1 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXAMINATIONS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 262.548, + 114.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 433.29599999999994, + 114.20999999999998 + ], + [ + 433.29599999999994, + 128.20416259765625 + ], + [ + 262.548, + 128.20416259765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "EXHIBITS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 291.312, + 191.96999999999997 + ], + [ + 404.532, + 191.96999999999997 + ], + [ + 404.532, + 206.54999999999998 + ], + [ + 291.312, + 206.54999999999998 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 3", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 102.6199951171875, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 528.5812377929688, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 528.5812377929688, + 49.08416748046875 + ], + [ + 102.6199951171875, + 49.08416748046875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROCEEDINGS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 3, + "polygon": [ + [ + 291.924, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 375.76800000000003, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 375.76800000000003, + 47.79 + ], + [ + 291.924, + 47.79 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 5", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 4, + "polygon": [ + [ + 102.62000274658203, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 528.9158935546875, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 528.9158935546875, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 102.62000274658203, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROCEEDINGS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 6, + "polygon": [ + [ + 291.924, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 375.76800000000003, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 375.76800000000003, + 47.79 + ], + [ + 291.924, + 47.79 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 8", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 7, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 528.04638671875, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 528.04638671875, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 9", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 529.3253173828125, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 529.3253173828125, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 10", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.12999725341797, + 35.78167724609375 + ], + [ + 523.0899047851562, + 35.78167724609375 + ], + [ + 523.0899047851562, + 48.9505615234375 + ], + [ + 103.12999725341797, + 48.9505615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 11", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.12999725341797, + 35.78167724609375 + ], + [ + 525.6976318359375, + 35.78167724609375 + ], + [ + 525.6976318359375, + 48.9505615234375 + ], + [ + 103.12999725341797, + 48.9505615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 12", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 528.186767578125, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 528.186767578125, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 13", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.294921875, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.294921875, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 14", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 13, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.69000244140625, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.419677734375, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.419677734375, + 50.713134765625 + ], + [ + 104.69000244140625, + 50.713134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 15", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 14, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.2693481445312, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.2693481445312, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 16", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 15, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.12999725341797, + 35.78167724609375 + ], + [ + 523.4817504882812, + 35.78167724609375 + ], + [ + 523.4817504882812, + 48.9505615234375 + ], + [ + 103.12999725341797, + 48.9505615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 17", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 16, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.62999725341797, + 36.16168212890625 + ], + [ + 529.4210815429688, + 36.16168212890625 + ], + [ + 529.4210815429688, + 50.3331298828125 + ], + [ + 104.62999725341797, + 50.3331298828125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 18", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 17, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 527.6043701171875, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 527.6043701171875, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 19", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 18, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.4443969726562, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.4443969726562, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 20", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 19, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 528.006591796875, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 528.006591796875, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 21", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 20, + "polygon": [ + [ + 100.87999725341797, + 35.40167236328125 + ], + [ + 523.3174438476562, + 35.40167236328125 + ], + [ + 523.3174438476562, + 48.9505615234375 + ], + [ + 100.87999725341797, + 48.9505615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROCEEDINGS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 21, + "polygon": [ + [ + 291.924, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 375.76800000000003, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 375.76800000000003, + 47.79 + ], + [ + 291.924, + 47.79 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 23", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 22, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.12999725341797, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 528.6244506835938, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 528.6244506835938, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 103.12999725341797, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 24", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 23, + "polygon": [ + [ + 102.62000274658203, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 527.239013671875, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 527.239013671875, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 102.62000274658203, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 25", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 24, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 527.9395751953125, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 527.9395751953125, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 26", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 25, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.12000274658203, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 529.9256591796875, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 529.9256591796875, + 50.713134765625 + ], + [ + 104.12000274658203, + 50.713134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 27", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 26, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.12000274658203, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 529.7466430664062, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 529.7466430664062, + 50.3331298828125 + ], + [ + 104.12000274658203, + 50.3331298828125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 28", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 27, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.26000213623047, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 524.4556884765625, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 524.4556884765625, + 50.4505615234375 + ], + [ + 104.26000213623047, + 50.4505615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 29", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 28, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.62999725341797, + 36.16168212890625 + ], + [ + 525.0189819335938, + 36.16168212890625 + ], + [ + 525.0189819335938, + 50.4505615234375 + ], + [ + 104.62999725341797, + 50.4505615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 31", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 30, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.26000213623047, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.4234008789062, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.4234008789062, + 50.713134765625 + ], + [ + 104.26000213623047, + 50.713134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 32", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 31, + "polygon": [ + [ + 100.94000244140625, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 526.0271606445312, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 526.0271606445312, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 100.94000244140625, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 33", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 32, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.62999725341797, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 529.8933715820312, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 529.8933715820312, + 50.713134765625 + ], + [ + 104.62999725341797, + 50.713134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 34", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 33, + "polygon": [ + [ + 100.87999725341797, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 524.769775390625, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 524.769775390625, + 48.9505615234375 + ], + [ + 100.87999725341797, + 48.9505615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 35, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 382.02215576171875, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 382.02215576171875, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 37", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 36, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.69000244140625, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 529.513427734375, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 529.513427734375, + 50.713134765625 + ], + [ + 104.69000244140625, + 50.713134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 38", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 37, + "polygon": [ + [ + 100.94000244140625, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 525.4506225585938, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 525.4506225585938, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 100.94000244140625, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 39", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 38, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.5349731445312, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.5349731445312, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 40", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 39, + "polygon": [ + [ + 102.62000274658203, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 527.8311767578125, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 527.8311767578125, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 102.62000274658203, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROCEEDINGS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 40, + "polygon": [ + [ + 291.924, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 375.76800000000003, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 375.76800000000003, + 47.79 + ], + [ + 291.924, + 47.79 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 42", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 41, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.3369750976562, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.3369750976562, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 43", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 42, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 528.4451293945312, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 528.4451293945312, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 44", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 43, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 527.0657958984375, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 527.0657958984375, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 45", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 44, + "polygon": [ + [ + 100.37000274658203, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 525.5242309570312, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 525.5242309570312, + 49.5831298828125 + ], + [ + 100.37000274658203, + 49.5831298828125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 46", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 45, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.69000244140625, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 529.7601928710938, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 529.7601928710938, + 50.713134765625 + ], + [ + 104.69000244140625, + 50.713134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROCEEDINGS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 46, + "polygon": [ + [ + 291.924, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 375.76800000000003, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 375.76800000000003, + 47.79 + ], + [ + 291.924, + 47.79 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 48", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 47, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 527.7525634765625, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 527.7525634765625, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 49", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 48, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 528.5928344726562, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 528.5928344726562, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 50", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 49, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.12999725341797, + 35.78167724609375 + ], + [ + 527.9393310546875, + 35.78167724609375 + ], + [ + 527.9393310546875, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 103.12999725341797, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 51", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 50, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 527.0657958984375, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 527.0657958984375, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 52", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 51, + "polygon": [ + [ + 100.94000244140625, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 526.1969604492188, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 526.1969604492188, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 100.94000244140625, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 53", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 52, + "polygon": [ + [ + 102.62000274658203, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.5570068359375, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.5570068359375, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 102.62000274658203, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 54", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 53, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 527.1640625, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 527.1640625, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 55", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 54, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.69000244140625, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 530.0137329101562, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 530.0137329101562, + 50.713134765625 + ], + [ + 104.69000244140625, + 50.713134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 56", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 55, + "polygon": [ + [ + 102.62000274658203, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 528.3602294921875, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 528.3602294921875, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 102.62000274658203, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 57", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 56, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.17333984375, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.17333984375, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 58", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 57, + "polygon": [ + [ + 102.62000274658203, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 527.8487548828125, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 527.8487548828125, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 102.62000274658203, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 60", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 59, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 528.1123657226562, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 528.1123657226562, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 61", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 60, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 527.2252197265625, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 527.2252197265625, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 62", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 61, + "polygon": [ + [ + 102.62000274658203, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.6316528320312, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.6316528320312, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 102.62000274658203, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 63", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 62, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.62999725341797, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 530.2457275390625, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 530.2457275390625, + 50.713134765625 + ], + [ + 104.62999725341797, + 50.713134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 64", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 63, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.69000244140625, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 528.8274536132812, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 528.8274536132812, + 50.713134765625 + ], + [ + 104.69000244140625, + 50.713134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 65", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 64, + "polygon": [ + [ + 102.62000274658203, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.6946411132812, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.6946411132812, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 102.62000274658203, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 67", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 66, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 528.3562622070312, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 528.3562622070312, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 68", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 67, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.0178833007812, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.0178833007812, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 69", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 68, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.69000244140625, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 530.37158203125, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 530.37158203125, + 50.713134765625 + ], + [ + 104.69000244140625, + 50.713134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 70", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 69, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.12999725341797, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 522.9873657226562, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 522.9873657226562, + 48.9505615234375 + ], + [ + 103.12999725341797, + 48.9505615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 71", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 70, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.62999725341797, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 526.947509765625, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 526.947509765625, + 50.070556640625 + ], + [ + 104.62999725341797, + 50.070556640625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 72", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 71, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.12999725341797, + 35.78167724609375 + ], + [ + 522.9204711914062, + 35.78167724609375 + ], + [ + 522.9204711914062, + 48.9505615234375 + ], + [ + 103.12999725341797, + 48.9505615234375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROCEEDINGS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 72, + "polygon": [ + [ + 291.924, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 375.76800000000003, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 375.76800000000003, + 47.79 + ], + [ + 291.924, + 47.79 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 74", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 73, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 527.0774536132812, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 527.0774536132812, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 75", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 74, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.4213256835938, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.4213256835938, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 76", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 75, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.2718505859375, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.2718505859375, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROCEEDINGS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 76, + "polygon": [ + [ + 292.536, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 375.76800000000003, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 375.76800000000003, + 47.79 + ], + [ + 292.536, + 47.79 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 78", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 77, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.69000244140625, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 529.2642822265625, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 529.2642822265625, + 50.713134765625 + ], + [ + 104.69000244140625, + 50.713134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 80", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 79, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.0297241210938, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.0297241210938, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 80, + "polygon": [ + [ + 293.76, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 520.2, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 520.2, + 48.599999999999994 + ], + [ + 293.76, + 48.599999999999994 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 82", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 81, + "polygon": [ + [ + 102.62000274658203, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.5391235351562, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.5391235351562, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 102.62000274658203, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 83", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 82, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.6611938476562, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 528.6611938476562, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 84", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 83, + "polygon": [ + [ + 104.62999725341797, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 528.7545776367188, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 528.7545776367188, + 50.713134765625 + ], + [ + 104.62999725341797, + 50.713134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 85", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 84, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 527.9607543945312, + 36.45 + ], + [ + 527.9607543945312, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 103.19000244140625, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PROCEEDINGS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 85, + "polygon": [ + [ + 292.536, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 375.76800000000003, + 35.64 + ], + [ + 375.76800000000003, + 46.980000000000004 + ], + [ + 292.536, + 46.980000000000004 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "1 PROCEEDINGS 87", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 86, + "polygon": [ + [ + 103.12999725341797, + 36.16168212890625 + ], + [ + 528.2696533203125, + 36.16168212890625 + ], + [ + 528.2696533203125, + 49.213134765625 + ], + [ + 103.12999725341797, + 49.213134765625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 85 + ], + [ + "Line", + 43 + ], + [ + "Text", + 42 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 28 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Text", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Text", + 33 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 55 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 105 + ], + [ + "Line", + 53 + ], + [ + "Text", + 43 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 99 + ], + [ + "Line", + 50 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 16, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 17, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 18, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 19, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 20, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 21, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 22, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 23, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 24, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 25, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 26, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 27, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 28, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 29, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 121 + ], + [ + "Line", + 61 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 30, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 31, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 32, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 33, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 34, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 35, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 69 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 36, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Text", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 37, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 38, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 39, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 40, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 41, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Text", + 35 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 42, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 43, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 44, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 45, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 46, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 47, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 48, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 49, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 60 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 50, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Text", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 51, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 52, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 53, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 54, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 55, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 56, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 57, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 58, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 59, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 60, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 61, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 62, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 63, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 64, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 65, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 59 + ], + [ + "Line", + 30 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 66, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 67, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 68, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 25 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 69, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 70, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 71, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 72, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 13 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 73, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 74, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 75, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 52 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 76, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 24 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 77, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 78, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 79, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 80, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 81, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 82, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 83, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 84, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 85, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 15 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 86, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 54 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 87, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Span", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 18 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751579" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751667/EFTA02751667.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751667/EFTA02751667.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ca53da4c9990595ba2b6e3f8d56c375d2ecab647 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751667/EFTA02751667.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +## IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +DOE, JANE, + +INDYKE et al.. + +) ) ) v. ) Case No.: 19-cv-08673 + +USA / Plaintiff(s) ) + +) ) ) ) ) + +Defendant(s) ) + +## NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT + +Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 6/24/2020 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. + +Redaction responsibilities apply to the attorneys of record or pro se parties, even if the person requesting the transcript is a judge or a member of the public or media. + +The parties have seven (7) calendar days from the date of filing of this NOTICE to file with the court any NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION of this transcript. A copy of said NOTICE must also be served on the court reporter. If no such NOTICE is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after ninety (90) calendar days. + +This process may only be used to redact the following personal data identifiers: Social-Security numbers; dates of birth; minors' names; and financial account numbers. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1. Parties wishing to request redaction of other information may proceed by motion. + +Carole Ludwig + +Court Reporter + +Date: 6/29/2020 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751667/EFTA02751667.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751667/EFTA02751667.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9a116ccf0e92cc98fb1c33347f0ffb9b31d1105b --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751667/EFTA02751667.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751667.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1348, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.79, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 173.808, + 85.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 438.5828857421875, + 85.85999999999999 + ], + [ + 438.5828857421875, + 114.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 173.808, + 114.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 312.65999999999997 + ], + [ + 445.89361572265625, + 312.65999999999997 + ], + [ + 445.89361572265625, + 327.363037109375 + ], + [ + 166.46400000000003, + 327.363037109375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 68 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751667" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751668/EFTA02751668.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751668/EFTA02751668.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cae7e7847959c793288ce199ce7c4d62b7c107e0 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751668/EFTA02751668.md @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +Jane Doe Plaintiff, + +-against- + +DARREN I. INDYKE and RICHARD + +D. KAHN. et al., Defendant. + +Case No. 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF + +## NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS + +TO: ATTORNEY SERVICES CLERK AND ALL OTHER PARTIES + +I have cases pending I have no cases pending + +Pursuant to Local Rule 1.3 of this Court. please take notice of the following attorney information change (s) for: + +## Bennet J. Moskowitz + +## FILL IN ATTORNEY NAME + +My SDNY Bar Number is: 6M1024 My State Bar Number is 4693842 + +lam. + +An attorney + +A Government Agency attorney + +A Pro Hac Vice attorney + +FIRM INFORMATION (Include full name of firm (OLD AND NEW), address, telephone number and fax number): + +OLD FIRM: FIRM NAME: Troutman Sanders LLP + +FIRM ADDRESS: 875 Third Avenue New YokNY 10022 + +FIRM TELEPHONE NUMBER:A212) 704-6000 + +FIRM FAX NUMBER:4M)704.6288 + +NEW FIRM: FIRM NAME: Troutman Pepper Sanders LLP + +FIRM ADDRESS: 875 Third Avenue New York NY 10022\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ + +FIRM TELEPHONE NUMBER:4212) 704-6000 + +FIRM FAX NUMBER: (212) 704-6288 + +I will continue to be counsel of record on the above-entitled case at my new firm/agency. + +I am no longer counsel of record on the above-entitled case. An order withdrawing my appearance was entered on by Judge + +Dated: July 8, 2020 sfilen net J. Moskowitz + +ATTORNEY'S SIGNATURE \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751668/EFTA02751668.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751668/EFTA02751668.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0aed0ec08e404c3c7049385279374b49df53efd4 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751668/EFTA02751668.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,155 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751668.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1340, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.94, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 246.1814727783203, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 246.1814727783203, + 95.48114013671875 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 95.48114013671875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 223.38, + 189.54000000000002 + ], + [ + 387.4317321777344, + 189.54000000000002 + ], + [ + 387.4317321777344, + 201.60113525390625 + ], + [ + 223.38, + 201.60113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Bennet J. Moskowitz", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 184.82399999999998, + 292.9718933105469 + ], + [ + 310.999755859375, + 292.9718933105469 + ], + [ + 310.999755859375, + 310.0159606933594 + ], + [ + 184.82399999999998, + 310.0159606933594 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FILL IN ATTORNEY NAME", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 311.85 + ], + [ + 340.94061279296875, + 311.85 + ], + [ + 340.94061279296875, + 323.4811706542969 + ], + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 323.4811706542969 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Text", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751668" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751669/EFTA02751669.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751669/EFTA02751669.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3ce6bda5a724b6a15f18d91a5f4ca488cc4f8782 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751669/EFTA02751669.md @@ -0,0 +1,61 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +Jane Doe Plaintiff, + +-against- + +DARREN I. INDYKE and RICHARD + +D. KAHN. et al., Defendant. + +Case No. 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF + +## NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS + +TO: ATTORNEY SERVICES CLERK AND ALL OTHER PARTIES + +I have cases pending I have no cases pending + +Pursuant to Local Rule 1.3 of this Court. please take notice of the following attorney information change (s) for: + +## Charles L. Glover + +My SDNY Bar Number is: CG0117 + +lam. + +## FILL IN ATTORNEY NAME + +My State Bar Number is 5329909 + +An attorney + +A Government Agency attorney + +A Pro Hac Vice attorney + +FIRM INFORMATION (Include full name of firm (OLD AND NEW), address, telephone number and fax number): + +OLD FIRM: FIRM NAME: Troutman Sanders LLP + +FIRM ADDRESS: 875 Third Avenue New YodcNY 10022 + +FIRM TELEPHONE NUMBER:J.212) 704-6000 + +FIRM FAX NUMBER:SI ?) 704.6288 + +NEW FIRM: FIRM NAME: Troutman Pepper Sanders LLP + +FIRM ADDRESS: 875 Third Avenue New York NY 10022 + +FIRM TELEPHONE NUMBER:42.12) 704-6000 + +FIRM FAX NUMBER: (212) 704-6288 + +I will continue to be counsel of record on the above-entitled case at my new firm/agency. + +I am no longer counsel of record on the above-entitled case. An order withdrawing my appearance was entered on by Judge + +Dated: July 8, 2020 s/Charles L Glover + +ATTORNEY'S SIGNATURE \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751669/EFTA02751669.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751669/EFTA02751669.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1cc945c318f458c50dc164deaf924118e22c7969 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751669/EFTA02751669.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,155 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751669.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1326, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.89, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 69.156, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 246.1814727783203, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 246.1814727783203, + 95.48114013671875 + ], + [ + 69.156, + 95.48114013671875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 223.38, + 189.54000000000002 + ], + [ + 387.4317321777344, + 189.54000000000002 + ], + [ + 387.4317321777344, + 201.60113525390625 + ], + [ + 223.38, + 201.60113525390625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "Charles L. Glover", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 184.82399999999998, + 292.6018981933594 + ], + [ + 289.20458984375, + 292.6018981933594 + ], + [ + 289.20458984375, + 310.01593017578125 + ], + [ + 184.82399999999998, + 310.01593017578125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FILL IN ATTORNEY NAME", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 311.85 + ], + [ + 340.52984619140625, + 311.85 + ], + [ + 340.52984619140625, + 323.48114013671875 + ], + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 323.48114013671875 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 74 + ], + [ + "Text", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 35 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751669" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751670/EFTA02751670.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751670/EFTA02751670.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4e5a1836a2411508cafb6150760d481e426b83db --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751670/EFTA02751670.md @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +Jane Doe Plaintiff, + +-against- + +DARREN I. INDYKE and RICHARD + +D. KAHN. et al., Defendant. + +Case No. 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF + +## NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS + +TO: ATTORNEY SERVICES CLERK AND ALL OTHER PARTIES + +I have cases pending I have no cases pending + +Pursuant to Local Rule 1.3 of this Court. please take notice of the following attorney information change (s) for: + +Mary "Molly" S. Dirago + +FILL IN ATTORNEY NAME + +My SDNY Bar Number is: My State Bar Number is + +I am. + +An attorney + +A Government Agency attorney + +A Pro Hac Vice attorney + +FIRM INFORMATION (Include full name of firm (OLD AND NEW), address, telephone number and fax number): + +OLD FIRM: + +NEW FIRM: + +FIRM NAME: Troutman Sanders1LP FIRM ADDRESS: 227 W. Monroe Street. Suite 3900. Chicago, IL 60606 FIRM TELEPHONE NUMBER: (3121756-1920 FIRM FAX NUMBER: (312) 759-1939 + +FIRM NAME: Troutman Pepper Sanders LLP FIRM ADDRESS: 227 W. Monroe Street. Suite 3900. ChisaggiLBM FIRM TELEPHONE NUMBER: j312)759.1920 FIRM FAX NUMBER: (312) 759-1939 + +I will continue to be counsel of record on the above-entitled case at my new firm/agency. + +I am no longer counsel of record on the above-entitled case. An order withdrawing my appearance was entered on by Judge + +Dated: July 8, 2020 a/Mary 'Molly" S. Dirago ATTORNEY'S SIGNATURE \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751670/EFTA02751670.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751670/EFTA02751670.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a4c9f8f81c22ff2bfe20bc21a295023ecba48a51 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751670/EFTA02751670.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751670.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1338, + "elapsed_seconds": 1.56, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 246.1814727783203, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 246.1814727783203, + 95.48114013671875 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 95.48114013671875 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 222.768, + 189.54000000000002 + ], + [ + 387.4317321777344, + 189.54000000000002 + ], + [ + 387.4317321777344, + 201.60113525390625 + ], + [ + 222.768, + 201.60113525390625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 72 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 34 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751670" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751671/EFTA02751671.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751671/EFTA02751671.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f5d7f7f6c4dfb2d57ed85bafee4510ed3d796298 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751671/EFTA02751671.md @@ -0,0 +1,250 @@ +### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 1:19-cv-08673 (KPF) (DCF) + +v. + +DARREN K. INDYKE AND RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as the executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, + +Defendants. + +## CO-EXECUTORS' ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT + +Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the "Co-Executors"), through their undersigned counsel, hereby respond to the numbered paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF Doc. 1) as follows: + +# INTRODUCTION + +- I. Paragraph 1 of the Complaint states legal conclusions to which no responses are required. To the extent responses to those legal conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph are required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint. +- 2. Paragraph 2 of the Complaint states legal conclusions to which no responses are requited. To the extent responses to those legal conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph are required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint. +- 3. Paragraph 3 of the Complaint states legal conclusions to which no responses are required. To the extent responses to those legal conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph are + +required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint. + +4. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, except admit the existence of the 2019 indictment (U.S. v. Epstein, 19-cr-490 (S.D.N.Y.)) (the "Indictment") of Jeffrey E. Epstein, now deceased (the "Decedent") and refer thereto for the full text, terms and meaning thereof. + +5. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint. + +6. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint. + +## THE PARTIES + +7. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint. + +8. The Co-Executors admit the allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint. + +9. The Co-Executors admit the allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint. + +### JURISDICTION AND VENUE + +10. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint. + +11. The Co-Executors admit the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 11 of the Complaint. The second sentence of Paragraph 11 of the Complaint states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Co-Executors deny the allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 11 of the Complaint insofar as they purport to characterize 28 USC § 1332, and refer thereto for the full text, terms and meaning thereof. + +12. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint. + +13. Paragraph 13 of the Complaint states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint; except the Co-Executors deny the allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint insofar as they purport to characterize 28 USC § 1391, and refer thereto for the full text, terms and meaning thereof. + +# JURY DEMAND + +14. Paragraph 14 of the Complaint purports to state Plaintiff's jury demand to which no response is required. + +# FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS' + +15. The Co-Executors deny the allegations Paragraph 15 of the Complaint, except admit that Decedent, who is not a defendant in this action, was born in Brooklyn, New York in 1953. + +16. The Co-Executors, upon information and belief, admit the allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint, except deny that J. Epstein & Co. was a money management business and deny that Decedent operated it until his death. + +17. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint, except admit that, in 1998, Decedent + +The Complaint utilizes subheadings throughout this section. No response is required. However, to the extent the subheadings present factual allegations, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations. The subheadings also state legal conclusions, no responses are required. To the extent responses to these legal conclusions arc required. the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of these allegations. + +beneficially owned residences in Manhattan, New Mexico, Palm Beach, Florida and a private island in the United States Virgin Island; and admit that Decedent at one time beneficially owned a Boeing 727 and an apartment in Paris. + +18. Paragraph 18 of the Complaint states legal conclusions to which no responses are required. To the extent responses to those legal conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph are required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint. + +19. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, except admit that the New York Times published a story attributing the quoted language to Decedent. + +20. The Co-Executors deny the first and second sentences of Paragraph 20 of the Complaint to the extent they purport to characterize a 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (the "NPA") entered by Decedent, and refer thereto for the full text, terms and meaning thereof. The Co-Executors deny the remainder of the allegations of Paragraph 20 of the Complaint except admit that, following entry of the NPA, Decedent served 13 months in jail during a portion of which time he was given 12 hours of work release for six days a week. + +21. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint. + +22. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint. + +23. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint. + +24. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint. + +25. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint. + +26. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint. + +27. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in paragraph 27 of the Complaint. + +28. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint. + +29. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint. + +30. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint. + +31. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint. + +32. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint. + +33. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint. + +34. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint. + +35. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint. + +36. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint. + +37. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 37 of the Complaint. + +38. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint. + +39. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint. + +40. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint. + +41. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint. + +42. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 42 of the Complaint. + +43. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Complaint. + +44. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 44 of the Complaint. + +45. Paragraph 45 of the Complaint states legal conclusions to which no responses are required. To the extent responses to those legal conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph are required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint. + +46. The Complaint does not contain a paragraph numbered 46. + +47. Paragraph 47 of the Complaint states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response to that legal conclusion or the remainder of the paragraph is required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 47 of the Complaint. + +48. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 48 of the Complaint. + +49. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 49 of the Complaint. + +50. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 50 of the Complaint. + +51. The Co-Executors admit that the NPA refers to Groff as potential co-conspirators of Decedent, and refer thereto for the full text, terms and meaning thereof. + +52. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 52 of the Complaint. The Co-Executors further state that, to the extent the allegations in Paragraph 52 of the Complaint characterize a newspaper report, the report speaks for itself. + +53. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 53 of the Complaint. + +54. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 54 of the Complaint. + +55. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in paragraph 55 of the Complaint. + +56. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 56 of the Complaint. + +57. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 57 of the Complaint. + +58. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 58 of the Complaint. + +59. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 59 of the Complaint. + +60. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 60 of the Complaint. + +61. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 61 of the Complaint. + +62. The Co-Executors admit that Decedent was indicted in July 2019, and refer to the Indictment for the full text, terms and meaning thereof. Paragraph 62 of the Complaint also states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response to that legal conclusion or the remainder of the paragraph is required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 62 of the Complaint. + +63. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 63 of the Complaint, except admit that Decedent died on + +August 10, 2019 and that New York City's chief medical examiner has concluded that Decedent's cause of death was suicide. + +64. The Co-Executors admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 64 of the Complaint. + +65. The Co-Executors deny the allegations in Paragraph 65 of the Complaint to the extent they purport to characterize Decedent's last will and testament and accompanying affidavits, as well as a probate petition, except admit the existence of the foregoing documents and refer thereto for their full text, terms and meanings thereof. + +66. The Co-Executors deny the allegations in Paragraph 66 of the Complaint to the extent they purport to characterize Decedent's last will and testament, except admit the existence of the last will and testament and refer thereto for the full text, terms and meaning thereof. + +67. The Co-Executors deny the allegations in Paragraph 67 of the Complaint to the extent they purport to characterize a court filing, except admit the existence of the court filing and refer thereto for the full text, terms and meaning thereof. + +68. The Co-Executors deny the allegations in Paragraph 68 of the Complaint to the extent they purport to characterize court filings, except admit the existence of the court filings and refer thereto for the full text, terms and meanings thereof. + +# CAUSES OF ACTION + +## COUNT ONE Sexual Assault + +69. The Co-Executors incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. + +70. Paragraph 70 of the Complaint states legal conclusions to which no responses are required. To the extent responses to those conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph are required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 70 of the Complaint. + +71. Paragraph 71 of the Complaint states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response to those conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph is required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 71 of the Complaint. + +72. Paragraph 72 of the Complaint states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response to those conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph is required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 72 of the Complaint. + +73. Paragraph 73 of the Complaint states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response to those conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph is required, the Co-Executors deny the allegations of Paragraph 73 of the Complaint to the extent they characterize statutes, and refer to the statutes for the full text, terms and meanings thereof. + +### COUNT TWO Sexual Battery + +74. The Co-Executors incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. + +75. Paragraph 75 of the Complaint states legal conclusions to which no responses are required. To the extent responses to those conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph are required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 75 of the Complaint. + +76. Paragraph 76 of the Complaint states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response to those conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph is required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 76 of the Complaint. + +77. Paragraph 77 of the Complaint states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response to those conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph is required, the Co-Executors deny the allegations of Paragraph 77 of the Complaint to the extent they characterize statutes, and refer to the statutes for the full text, terms and meanings thereof. + +### COUNT THREE Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress + +78. The Co-Executors incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. + +79. Paragraph 79 of the Complaint states legal conclusions to which no responses are required. To the extent responses to those conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph are required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 79 of the Complaint. + +80. Paragraph 80 of the Complaint states legal conclusions to which no responses are required. To the extent responses to those conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph are required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 80 of the Complaint. + +81. Paragraph 81 of the Complaint states legal conclusions to which no responses are required. To the extent responses to those conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph are required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 81 of the Complaint. + +82. Paragraph 82 of the Complaint states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response to those conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph is required, the Co-Executors deny the allegations of Paragraph 82 of the Complaint to the extent they characterize statutes, and refer to the statutes for the full text, terms and meanings thereof. + +### COUNT FOUR Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress + +83. The Co-Executors incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. + +84. The Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 84 of the Complaint. The second sentence of Paragraph 84 of the Complaint states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response to those conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph is required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 84 of the Complaint. + +85. Paragraph 85 of the Complaint states legal conclusions to which no responses are required. To the extent responses to those conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph are required, the Co-Executors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 85 of the Complaint. + +86. Paragraph 84 of the Complaint states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response to those conclusions or the remainder of the paragraph is required, the Co-Executors deny the allegations of Paragraph 84 of the Complaint to the extent they characterize statutes, and refer to the statutes for the full text, terms and meanings thereof. + +### PRAYER FOR RELIEF + +The "WHEREFORE" paragraph following Paragraph 86 of the Complaint purports to state Plaintiffs prayers for relief, to which responses are not required. Moreover, on June 23, 2020, the Court entered an Order dismissing plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages against the Co-Executors (ECF Doc. 84). Therefore, and for that additional reason, no response to that prayer for relief is required. To the extent a response to the "WHEREFORE" paragraph is required, the Co-Executors, based on lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of Plaintiff's allegations, deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief described therein, or to any relief whatsoever. + +The Co-Executors deny any and all allegations in the Complaint not expressly admitted herein. + +## AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES + +The Co-Executors, to the extent required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c), assert the following affirmative defenses. By pleading these defenses, the Co-Executors do not assume the burden of proving any fact, issue, or element of a cause of action where such burden belongs to Plaintiff. Moreover, nothing stated herein is intended to or shall be construed as a concession that any particular issue or subject matter is relevant to Plaintiff's allegations. + +- I . Failure to State a Claim. Plaintiff's Complaint fails, in whole or in part, to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. +- 2. No Damages and Failure to Mitigate. Plaintiff's claims are barred to the extent Plaintiff has not suffered any damages; alternatively, Plaintiff's claims are barred to the extent Plaintiff has not been damaged to the extent alleged, and failed to mitigate any damages she may have suffered. + +3. Contributory Negligence. If Plaintiff suffered or sustained any loss, injury, damage or detriment, and the same was directly and proximately caused and contributed to by the conduct, acts, omissions, activities, carelessness, negligence, and/or intentional misconduct of Plaintiff. Plaintiff's recovery herein is partially or completely barred. + +4. Assumption of Risk. Plaintiff's claims are barred to the extent that, at the time and place of the incidents alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint, Plaintiff knew of and fully understood the danger and risks incident to their undertaking; but despite such knowledge, Plaintiff freely and voluntarily assumed and exposed herself to all risks of harm and the consequential injuries and resultant damages, if any. + +5. Comparative Fault of Third Parties. If and to the extent that the Co-Executors are subjected to any liability to Plaintiff due, in whole or in part, to the acts, omissions, activities, carelessness, recklessness, negligence, and intentional misconduct of persons or entities other than Decedent, any recovery obtained by Plaintiff against the Co-Executors should be reduced in proportion to the respective negligence and fault and legal responsibility of all such other persons and entities, and their agents, servants and employees who contributed to or caused any such injury or damages, in accordance with the law of comparative negligence; the liability of the Co-Executors, if any, is limited in direct proportion to the percentage of fault actually attributed to Decedent. + +6. Statute of Limitations. The Complaint, and each and every cause of action contained therein, is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, including without limitation because the New York Child Victims' Act, including without limitation CPLR 214-g, violates the New York Constitution and the U.S. Constitution. + +7. Intervening/Superseding Causes. To the extent the injuries and damages which Plaintiff alleges were proximately caused by, or contributed to by, the acts of other persons or other entities, and said acts were intervening or superseding causes of the injuries and damages, if any, which Plaintiff alleges, Plaintiff is barred from any recovery against the Co-Executors. + +8. Waiver, Estoppel, Laches. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel and laches. + +9. Punitive Damages Barred. To the extent Plaintiff seeks damages that are punitive in nature, they are barred including without limitation pursuant to N.Y. E.P.T.L. § 11-3.2 and the Court's June 23, 2020 Order (ECF Doc. 84). + +10. Duplicative Claims. Plaintiffs claims are barred to the extent she is simultaneously prosecuting her claims in the Southern District of New York and the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands Division of St. and St. John. + +The Co-Executors have not knowingly or intentionally waived any applicable affirmative defenses and reserve the right to assert and rely upon such affirmative defenses as they may become available or apparent during discovery. The Co-Executors further reserve the right to amend their Answer accordingly. + +Dated: New York, New York July 14, 2020 + +By: /s/ Bennet J. Moskowitz Bennet J. Moskowitz TROUTMAN PEPPER LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 + +> Attorneys for Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, as Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751671/EFTA02751671.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751671/EFTA02751671.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..01e499b7ce6dfb02ea3aaf4a708cab8fb2bd06ad --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751671/EFTA02751671.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,943 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751671.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 16, + "chars": 25712, + "elapsed_seconds": 2.06, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 199.512, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 411.89825439453125, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 411.89825439453125, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 199.512, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CO-EXECUTORS' ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO \nPLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 294.03 + ], + [ + 488.9931945800781, + 294.03 + ], + [ + 488.9931945800781, + 323.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 123.62400000000002, + 323.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "INTRODUCTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 272.34000000000003, + 418.77 + ], + [ + 374.9649658203125, + 418.77 + ], + [ + 374.9649658203125, + 434.60302734375 + ], + [ + 272.34000000000003, + 434.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "THE PARTIES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 349.77545166015625, + 346.68 + ], + [ + 349.77545166015625, + 362.30352783203125 + ], + [ + 263.15999999999997, + 362.30352783203125 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "JURISDICTION AND VENUE", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 1, + "polygon": [ + [ + 221.54399999999998, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 390.35906982421875, + 485.18999999999994 + ], + [ + 390.35906982421875, + 499.93353271484375 + ], + [ + 221.54399999999998, + 499.93353271484375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "JURY DEMAND", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 258.264, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 353.7546081542969, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 353.7546081542969, + 307.4830322265625 + ], + [ + 258.264, + 307.4830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS'", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 2, + "polygon": [ + [ + 225.82799999999997, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 385.60498046875, + 374.22 + ], + [ + 385.60498046875, + 389.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 225.82799999999997, + 389.9830322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "CAUSES OF ACTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 243.57600000000002, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 367.8373718261719, + 539.46 + ], + [ + 367.8373718261719, + 555.7330169677734 + ], + [ + 243.57600000000002, + 555.7330169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT ONE \nSexual Assault", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 8, + "polygon": [ + [ + 266.21999999999997, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 346.284423828125, + 567.0 + ], + [ + 346.284423828125, + 596.9830169677734 + ], + [ + 266.21999999999997, + 596.9830169677734 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT TWO \nSexual Battery", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 9, + "polygon": [ + [ + 265.608, + 471.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 347.2320861816406, + 471.41999999999996 + ], + [ + 347.2320861816406, + 500.60302734375 + ], + [ + 265.608, + 500.60302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT THREE \nIntentional Infliction of Emotional Distress", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 10, + "polygon": [ + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 419.193603515625, + 291.6 + ], + [ + 419.193603515625, + 320.9830627441406 + ], + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 320.9830627441406 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "COUNT FOUR \nNegligent Infliction of Emotional Distress", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 11, + "polygon": [ + [ + 197.06400000000002, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 415.443603515625, + 182.25 + ], + [ + 415.443603515625, + 210.7330322265625 + ], + [ + 197.06400000000002, + 210.7330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "PRAYER FOR RELIEF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 241.12800000000001, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 372.47991943359375, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 372.47991943359375, + 86.2330322265625 + ], + [ + 241.12800000000001, + 86.2330322265625 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 12, + "polygon": [ + [ + 228.276, + 375.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 384.989990234375, + 375.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 384.989990234375, + 389.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 228.276, + 389.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 3 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 2, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "Footnote", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 3, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 4, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 5, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 6, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 10 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 7, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 53 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 9 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 8, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 9, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 10, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 56 + ], + [ + "Line", + 28 + ], + [ + "Text", + 6 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 11, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 12, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 51 + ], + [ + "Line", + 27 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 13, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 50 + ], + [ + "Line", + 26 + ], + [ + "Text", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 14, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 39 + ], + [ + "Line", + 20 + ], + [ + "Text", + 5 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 15, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 29 + ], + [ + "Line", + 15 + ], + [ + "Text", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751671" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751687/EFTA02751687.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751687/EFTA02751687.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..27cbbff612070b1a5337824fbfa9084fb5adf1be --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751687/EFTA02751687.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as the executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, + +Defendants. + +Case No. 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF + +## JOINT STIPULATION AND I PROPOSED, ORDER STAYING ACTION + +IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned counsel for the Parties, that: + +- I. The captioned action is hereby stayed pending Plaintiff's participation in the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program (the "Program"). +- 2. Should the Plaintiff cease her participation in the Program for any reason (including but not limited to by declining any monetary settlement offered by the Program), the stay will be lifted within one week (seven calendar days) after Plaintiff provides Defendants with written notice of her intent not to participate in the Program. +- 3. After the lifting of the stay, if any, the Parties will confer on a schedule for the remaining discovery in this action. + +Dated: July 29, 2020 Respectfully submitted, New York, New York + +TROUTMAN PEPPER SANDERS LLP + +By: /s/ Bennet J. Moskowitz + +Bennet J. Moskowitz 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 212.704.6000 Bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com + +Attorneys for Darren K Indyke and D. Richard Kahn, as Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein + +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK, LLP + +By: Is/Roberta A. Kaplan + +Roberta A. Kaplan Julie E. Fink Kate L. Doniger Alexandra K. Conlon 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 212.763.0883 rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com j fink®kaplanhecker.com kdoniger@kaplanhecker.com aconlon@kaplanhecker.com + +Attorneys for Plaintiff + +Date: , 2020 + +New York, New York HON. DEBRA C. FREEMAN United States Magistrate Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751687/EFTA02751687.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751687/EFTA02751687.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c572d3928c82f0d2650c5a45a73deec3e70408ac --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751687/EFTA02751687.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,151 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751687.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1725, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.82, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 418.4738464355469, + 72.08999999999999 + ], + [ + 418.4738464355469, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "JOINT STIPULATION AND I PROPOSED, ORDER STAYING ACTION", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 111.99600000000001, + 281.07 + ], + [ + 500.2173767089844, + 281.07 + ], + [ + 500.2173767089844, + 295.8630676269531 + ], + [ + 111.99600000000001, + 295.8630676269531 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 47 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 71 + ], + [ + "Line", + 34 + ], + [ + "Text", + 12 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751687" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751689/EFTA02751689.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751689/EFTA02751689.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4608e266b3dfe82f42d9a34b8a4cb14e6489fd86 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751689/EFTA02751689.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK + +JANE DOE, + +Plaintiff, + +v. + +DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in their capacities as the executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, + +Defendants. + +Case No. 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF + +## JOINT STIPULATION AND 1PROPOSEDI ORDER STAYING ACTION PP + +IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned counsel for the Parties, that: + +- I. The captioned action is hereby stayed pending Plaintiff's participation in the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program (the "Program"). +- 2. Should the Plaintiff cease her participation in the Program for any reason (including but not limited to by declining any monetary settlement offered by the Program), the stay will be lifted within one week (seven calendar days) after Plaintiff provides Defendants with written notice of her intent not to participate in the Program. +- 3. After the lifting of the stay, if any, the Parties will confer on a schedule for the remaining discovery in this action. + +Dated: July 29, 2020 Respectfully submitted, New York, New York + +TROUTMAN PEPPER SANDERS LLP + +By: /s/ Bennet J. Moskowitz + +Bennet J. Moskowitz 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 212.704.6000 Bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com + +Attorneys for Darren K Indyke and D. Richard Kahn, as Co-Executors of the Estate ofieffrey E. Epstein + +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK, LLP + +By: /s/ Roberta A. Kaplan + +Roberta A. Kaplan Julie E. Fink Kate L. Doniger Alexandra K. Conlon 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 212.763.0883 rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com jfinIc@kaplanhecker.com kdoniger@kaplanhecker.com aconlon@kaplanhecker.com + +Date: July 29 , 2020 New York, New York + +Attorneys for Plaintiff The parties are directed to submit a joint status report no later than 8/14/2020. + +HON. DEBRA e FREEMAN United States Magistrate Judge \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751689/EFTA02751689.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751689/EFTA02751689.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fd64fb19a3ee0a1f5c9ac9061700dc0e9edabedf --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751689/EFTA02751689.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,151 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751689.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1816, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.88, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 418.4738464355469, + 71.28 + ], + [ + 418.4738464355469, + 100.10302734375 + ], + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 100.10302734375 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "JOINT STIPULATION AND 1PROPOSEDI ORDER STAYING ACTION PP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 111.99600000000001, + 280.26 + ], + [ + 554.525146484375, + 280.26 + ], + [ + 554.525146484375, + 296.9830322265625 + ], + [ + 111.99600000000001, + 296.9830322265625 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 49 + ], + [ + "Line", + 24 + ], + [ + "Text", + 8 + ], + [ + "ListItem", + 3 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "ListGroup", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + }, + { + "page_id": 1, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 80 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 14 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 3 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751689" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751691/EFTA02751691.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751691/EFTA02751691.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..10b036f78577f3d0af6e9fd281deb068648b5b2d --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751691/EFTA02751691.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP + +350 FIFTH AVENUE | SUITE 7110 +NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 +TEL (212) 763-0883 | FAX (212) 564-0883 +WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM + +DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0884 +DIRECT EMAIL rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com + +August 14, 2020 + +**VIA ECF** + +Hon. Judge Freeman +Daniel [REDACTED] Moynihan +United States Courthouse +500 Pearl St. +New York, NY 10007 + +*Re: Doe v. Indyke et al., No. 19-cv-8673-KPF (S.D.N.Y.)* + +Dear Judge Freeman: + +We write on behalf of all parties in the above-referenced action pursuant to this Court's Order dated July 29, 2020 (Doc. No. 92) to provide the Court with an update as to the status of a settlement. + +Two weeks ago, on July 29, 2020, the parties submitted a joint stipulation to this Court staying the matter pending Plaintiff's participation in the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program (the "Program"). There have been no changes to the parties' status since that time. The parties will notify the Court promptly if and when Plaintiff decides to cease her participation in the Program or, alternatively, to resolve her case through those means. + +Respectfully submitted, + +![]()Roberta A. Kaplan + +![]()Bennet Moskowitz \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751691/EFTA02751691.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751691/EFTA02751691.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9310c5b4e12316e9ec553ce5ea1ff4624db651b7 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751691/EFTA02751691.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,113 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751691.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1156, + "elapsed_seconds": 5.19, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 33.048, + 39.69 + ], + [ + 306.0, + 39.69 + ], + [ + 306.0, + 59.129999999999995 + ], + [ + 33.048, + 59.129999999999995 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 122.4, + 237.32999999999998 + ], + [ + 122.4, + 250.28999999999996 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 250.28999999999996 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 57 + ], + [ + "Line", + 29 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751691" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751692/EFTA02751692.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751692/EFTA02751692.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a3c7cec87a483915a211325a49362a4640fc0b32 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751692/EFTA02751692.md @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +The Clerk of Court of the Southern District of New York is directed to docket the within ORDER in each of the following actions: + +> VE v. Nine East 71st Street et at, No. 1:19-cv-07625 (MN) (DF) Doe I et at v. Indyke et at, No. 1:19-cv-7675 (GBD) (DF) Katlyn Doe v. Indyke et at, No. 1:19-cv-0777 I (PKC) (DF) Priscilla Doe v. Indyke et at, No. 1:19-cv-07772 (ALC) (DF) Lisa Doe v. Indyke et at, No. I :19-cv-07773 (ER) (DF) Jane Doe v. Indyke et at, No. 1:19-cv-08673 (KPF) (DF) Doe 17 v. Indyke et at, No. 1:19-cv-09610 (PAE) (DF) 11v. Indyke et at, No. 1:19-cv-10475 (LOS) (DF) v. Indyke a at, No. 1:19-cv- 10476 (PGG) (DF) v. Indyke et at, No. 1:19-cv-10479 (ALC) (DF) Jane Doe 1000 v. Indyke et at, No. 1:19-cv-10577 (LOS) (DF) Jane Doe IS v. Indyke et at, No. 1:19-cv-10653 (PAE) (DF) Mae v. Indyke et at, No. 1:19-cv-10758 (PAE) (DF) v. Indyke et at, No. 1:19-cv-10788 (GI-IW) (DF) Anastasia Doe v. Indyke a at, No. 1:19-cv-11869 (MN) (DF) Doe v. hulyke et al., No. 1:20-cv-02365 (L.IL) (DF) Doe v. Indyke a at, No. 1:20-cv-2365 (LJL) (DF) + +## DEBRA FREEMAN, United States Magistrate Judge: + +This Court, at the joint request of the parties in each of the above-referenced cases, having issued stays of the proceedings in those cases so that the plaintiffs may pursue the potential settlement of their claims through the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties to each of the referenced cases shall provide this Court with a status report by October 1, 2020, and then, if the matter remains unresolved, by the first day of each month thereafter (or, if the first of the month falls on a weekend or Court holiday, then by the next business day). + +Dated: New York, New York September 4, 2020 + +SO ORDERED + +did, an DEBRA FREEMAN United States Magistrate Judge + +Copies to: All counsel in the above-referenced cases (via ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751692/EFTA02751692.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751692/EFTA02751692.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c0bd8a4f7d99fbdb65c361a21c3fecb5db534843 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751692/EFTA02751692.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751692.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1862, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.54, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "DEBRA FREEMAN, United States Magistrate Judge:", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 352.35 + ], + [ + 351.7024841308594, + 352.35 + ], + [ + 351.7024841308594, + 367.18353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 367.18353271484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 75 + ], + [ + "Line", + 37 + ], + [ + "Text", + 7 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751692" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751693/EFTA02751693.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751693/EFTA02751693.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3213e8e1766815d8e1b84c4c323a45f24bc74832 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751693/EFTA02751693.md @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +Bennet J. Moskowitz bennelmoskowitz©Iroutman.com + +October 1, 2020 + +## VIA ECF + +Hon. Debra C. Freeman Daniel Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007 + +Re: Jane Doe v. Darren Indyke and Richard D. Kahn in their capacities as the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, et at, No. 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF; Status Report + +Dear Judge Freeman: + +Pursuant to the Court's September 4, 2020 Order (ECF No. 94), Plaintiff and Defendants Darren'. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein jointly submit this status report. + +Plaintiff has submitted her claim to the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program; it is currently under review. + +The parties respectfully request that this case remain stayed at this time. + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Bennet J. Moskowitz Bennet J. Moskowitz + +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751693/EFTA02751693.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751693/EFTA02751693.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1ce8c9a9e2ffd9edb47cf8f6d3b93d097824378a --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751693/EFTA02751693.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751693.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 868, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.97, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 213.84 + ], + [ + 122.64892578125, + 213.84 + ], + [ + 122.64892578125, + 228.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 228.43353271484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 61 + ], + [ + "Line", + 31 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751693" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751694/EFTA02751694.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751694/EFTA02751694.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..872203bda82526c2a37df70124dfd046d85d2f71 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751694/EFTA02751694.md @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +Bennet J. Moskowitz bennet.moskowitz©Iroutman.com + +November 2, 2020 + +## VIA ECF + +Hon. Debra C. Freeman Daniel Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007 + +Re: Jane Doe v. Darren Indyke and Richard D. Kahn in their capacities as the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, et at, No. .1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF; Status Report + +Dear Judge Freeman: + +Pursuant to the Court's September 4, 2020 Order (ECF No. 94), Plaintiff and Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, jointly submit this status report. + +Plaintiff has submitted her claim to the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program and received a compensation amount. Plaintiff has not yet accepted the compensation award. + +The parties respectfully request that this case remain stayed at this time. + +Respectfully submitted, + +/s/ Bennet J Moskowitz Bennet J. Moskowitz + +cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751694/EFTA02751694.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751694/EFTA02751694.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f5a9e77a4bf8b47e1e22e843cc3b0a9e85aa1ed5 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751694/EFTA02751694.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751694.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 932, + "elapsed_seconds": 0.8, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "VIA ECF", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 68.544, + 213.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 122.64892578125, + 213.03000000000003 + ], + [ + 122.64892578125, + 228.43353271484375 + ], + [ + 68.544, + 228.43353271484375 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "pdftext", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 67 + ], + [ + "Line", + 33 + ], + [ + "Text", + 11 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 2 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 1 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751694" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751695/EFTA02751695.md b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751695/EFTA02751695.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..10dfc1c0ff7d6133261c21c96669c4cc81e63030 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751695/EFTA02751695.md @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ +**UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT +SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK** + +JANE DOE, + +*Plaintiff,* + +*v.* + +DARREN █. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, in +their capacities as the executors of the Estate of +Jeffrey E. Epstein, + +*Defendant.* + +Case No. 19 Civ. 8673 (KPF) (DCF) + +**STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL** + +Plaintiff, JANE DOE, and Defendants, Darren █. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree that pursuant to Plaintiff's acceptance of an offer of compensation from the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), this action shall be dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs. + +![]()Roberta A. Kaplan +350 5th Avenue, Suite 7110 +New York, NY 10118 +(212) 763-0883 +[rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com](mailto:rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com) + +*Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe* + +Dated: November 12, 2020 + +![]()Molly S. DiRago +875 Third Avenue +New York, New York 10022 +(212) 704-6000 +molly.dirago@troutman.com + +*Counsel for Defendants Darren █* +*Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-* +*Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey* +*Epstein* \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751695/EFTA02751695.metadata.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751695/EFTA02751695.metadata.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3fcb531428938ea20a37d926aa5a91c595a4d90f --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751695/EFTA02751695.metadata.json @@ -0,0 +1,113 @@ +{ + "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751695.pdf", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1198, + "elapsed_seconds": 5.33, + "image_assets": [], + "marker_metadata": { + "table_of_contents": [ + { + "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 416.77200000000005, + 72.9 + ], + [ + 416.77200000000005, + 98.82 + ], + [ + 192.78000000000003, + 98.82 + ] + ] + }, + { + "title": "STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL", + "heading_level": null, + "page_id": 0, + "polygon": [ + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 302.13 + ], + [ + 396.576, + 302.13 + ], + [ + 396.576, + 315.09000000000003 + ], + [ + 212.97599999999997, + 315.09000000000003 + ] + ] + } + ], + "page_stats": [ + { + "page_id": 0, + "text_extraction_method": "surya", + "block_counts": [ + [ + "Span", + 73 + ], + [ + "Line", + 36 + ], + [ + "Text", + 26 + ], + [ + "SectionHeader", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageFooter", + 4 + ], + [ + "PageHeader", + 2 + ], + [ + "Caption", + 2 + ] + ], + "block_metadata": { + "llm_request_count": 0, + "llm_error_count": 0, + "llm_tokens_used": 0, + "previous_text": "", + "previous_type": "", + "previous_order": 0 + } + } + ], + "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02751695" + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/ocr-manifest.json b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/ocr-manifest.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7343e001d8b666db6b7c2873cca39a3dd7fd95a8 --- /dev/null +++ b/marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/ocr-manifest.json @@ -0,0 +1,3508 @@ +{ + "source_dir": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673", + "output_dir": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673", + "created_at": "2026-09-18T03:57:25.074457+00:00", + "updated_at": "2026-09-18T08:44:22.600790+00:00", + "tasks": { + "f8f5aa85be1da45e96811309a7a07c6926c9df6b72fb621f58b154a01a992f07": { + "sha": "f8f5aa85be1da45e96811309a7a07c6926c9df6b72fb621f58b154a01a992f07", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750825.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750825.pdf", + "size": 1550413, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 16, + "chars": 25783, + "elapsed": 2.0234998820815235, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750825/EFTA02750825.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "ae34df66883e3fe0c0fa9a8063c581e00b7c8953877dddedc7bcf0f4d4de600e": { + "sha": "ae34df66883e3fe0c0fa9a8063c581e00b7c8953877dddedc7bcf0f4d4de600e", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750841.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750841.pdf", + "size": 289912, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 12564, + "elapsed": 22.489182399003766, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750841/EFTA02750841.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "f99034d8915159867d2a21c3cf4eaf4451748d2f4615ebd55bb5250775f092d9": { + "sha": "f99034d8915159867d2a21c3cf4eaf4451748d2f4615ebd55bb5250775f092d9", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750843.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750843.pdf", + "size": 62919, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 831, + "elapsed": 0.6697500830050558, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750843/EFTA02750843.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "6a8515689d13ab7fa3c24fa8f90de2f2c2075c952ec59981b370684c48dbbbd5": { + "sha": "6a8515689d13ab7fa3c24fa8f90de2f2c2075c952ec59981b370684c48dbbbd5", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750844.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750844.pdf", + "size": 109433, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1474, + "elapsed": 0.9086003119591624, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750844/EFTA02750844.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "bb3ec6eba788c7cf5bf15e0bc6a89e0b3bb13bb74cef03b3248309f9afad1cc6": { + "sha": "bb3ec6eba788c7cf5bf15e0bc6a89e0b3bb13bb74cef03b3248309f9afad1cc6", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750846.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750846.pdf", + "size": 1788729, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 18, + "chars": 31886, + "elapsed": 2.5490921119926497, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750846/EFTA02750846.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "07f91816df2509b15edd8cc82cba0d2872d4b83d8e4525185aaa02dfcb95c9f6": { + "sha": "07f91816df2509b15edd8cc82cba0d2872d4b83d8e4525185aaa02dfcb95c9f6", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750864.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750864.pdf", + "size": 290307, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 8598, + "elapsed": 11.750020163017325, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750864/EFTA02750864.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "8006c6dff09b35be4be098731e8f83ad9dca5278475d2a1a1557538de451ef85": { + "sha": "8006c6dff09b35be4be098731e8f83ad9dca5278475d2a1a1557538de451ef85", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750866.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750866.pdf", + "size": 55007, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 704, + "elapsed": 0.9788073159288615, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750866/EFTA02750866.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "036df441082e9e34867a925790d7a33c60c96a4078acac58bb6a25123fcff9e3": { + "sha": "036df441082e9e34867a925790d7a33c60c96a4078acac58bb6a25123fcff9e3", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750867.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750867.pdf", + "size": 55424, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 718, + "elapsed": 0.9667590929893777, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750867/EFTA02750867.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "eac492ccd03ddbda11eaf50262285235fe8cb9762ce541370ef51bc854549b18": { + "sha": "eac492ccd03ddbda11eaf50262285235fe8cb9762ce541370ef51bc854549b18", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750868.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750868.pdf", + "size": 55300, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 712, + "elapsed": 1.0139921139925718, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750868/EFTA02750868.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "f1f07c1e542c721d2243c8bd387f584eb15b4e3fa3ce3ebd733b490d689d6779": { + "sha": "f1f07c1e542c721d2243c8bd387f584eb15b4e3fa3ce3ebd733b490d689d6779", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750869.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750869.pdf", + "size": 86806, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1250, + "elapsed": 0.8646685989806429, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750869/EFTA02750869.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "6efb0f2fd1ac369762f6d7d31bcceaea0a302f0b61f94f7ca2622e3a091da600": { + "sha": "6efb0f2fd1ac369762f6d7d31bcceaea0a302f0b61f94f7ca2622e3a091da600", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750870.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750870.pdf", + "size": 102690, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1508, + "elapsed": 6.548069422948174, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750870/EFTA02750870.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "22e05c064e6474917f6c0adb2d5c5fa898c3e14a9f745c06cbec5d82ac3c60ee": { + "sha": "22e05c064e6474917f6c0adb2d5c5fa898c3e14a9f745c06cbec5d82ac3c60ee", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750871.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750871.pdf", + "size": 422462, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 3, + "chars": 5950, + "elapsed": 0.8983108900720254, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750871/EFTA02750871.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "5394bc3f055de05ed2aae3191793dc615bc049d2033e28b9c8e1e612813ffd86": { + "sha": "5394bc3f055de05ed2aae3191793dc615bc049d2033e28b9c8e1e612813ffd86", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750874.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750874.pdf", + "size": 466215, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 6, + "chars": 6219, + "elapsed": 3.9671887030126527, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750874/EFTA02750874.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "7006ef410b551c8b7f6f3a604963880e48dbe91efe6ee5d556074b010d71e526": { + "sha": "7006ef410b551c8b7f6f3a604963880e48dbe91efe6ee5d556074b010d71e526", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750880.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750880.pdf", + "size": 82032, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 940, + "elapsed": 0.9271694830385968, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750880/EFTA02750880.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "0749fef9a18fc09b6c7554e8f41154be7e2142b0115a1dc586e831f90b27af6c": { + "sha": "0749fef9a18fc09b6c7554e8f41154be7e2142b0115a1dc586e831f90b27af6c", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750881.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750881.pdf", + "size": 85723, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1221, + "elapsed": 0.773607674986124, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750881/EFTA02750881.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "b47119ab278b001b5ca5cc8027da132195a9188e0e8f71ea577750ff54fd8f45": { + "sha": "b47119ab278b001b5ca5cc8027da132195a9188e0e8f71ea577750ff54fd8f45", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750882.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750882.pdf", + "size": 1565160, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 16, + "chars": 25452, + "elapsed": 12.619457090971991, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750882/EFTA02750882.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "f6cb5f6a2921f96a760abfc8aed180270c5fd105295ec047a2b26ceb2285730b": { + "sha": "f6cb5f6a2921f96a760abfc8aed180270c5fd105295ec047a2b26ceb2285730b", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750898.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750898.pdf", + "size": 178143, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2018, + "elapsed": 0.8174207099946216, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750898/EFTA02750898.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "efed88219ff413ff6fccd7e38cd96c7fd0a93444d5179a2e62cad2b0604118e1": { + "sha": "efed88219ff413ff6fccd7e38cd96c7fd0a93444d5179a2e62cad2b0604118e1", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750900.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750900.pdf", + "size": 54944, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 693, + "elapsed": 1.142604632070288, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750900/EFTA02750900.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "451c7a2d07dae380d96a743d54be7a016094cfd8080364ea0fbebe95e2393443": { + "sha": "451c7a2d07dae380d96a743d54be7a016094cfd8080364ea0fbebe95e2393443", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750901.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750901.pdf", + "size": 265180, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 3634, + "elapsed": 5.589776076027192, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750901/EFTA02750901.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "7447875af4cadd70760e3f863f13d1d3e07fb68aa9ee8ef313ad0366b3d8a275": { + "sha": "7447875af4cadd70760e3f863f13d1d3e07fb68aa9ee8ef313ad0366b3d8a275", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750903.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750903.pdf", + "size": 205722, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2333, + "elapsed": 3.5685403029201552, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750903/EFTA02750903.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "ea3c754d574f3bffe8c6ede8cc8e0bd019ca2ad13464689fcf226c7b15cee87e": { + "sha": "ea3c754d574f3bffe8c6ede8cc8e0bd019ca2ad13464689fcf226c7b15cee87e", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750905.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750905.pdf", + "size": 166090, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2187, + "elapsed": 6.691025894018821, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750905/EFTA02750905.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "6a6a6ef2f7988f7a64936207bc75b9314829e205a00b182592931eaf8b0254a3": { + "sha": "6a6a6ef2f7988f7a64936207bc75b9314829e205a00b182592931eaf8b0254a3", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750907.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750907.pdf", + "size": 154347, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2382, + "elapsed": 1.0284603349864483, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750907/EFTA02750907.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "fadbd8dd8407d1036cad2411aa692b54d519a6c540619b95df0b7bd9a9542609": { + "sha": "fadbd8dd8407d1036cad2411aa692b54d519a6c540619b95df0b7bd9a9542609", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750909.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750909.pdf", + "size": 259354, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 4328, + "elapsed": 0.7602362460456789, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750909/EFTA02750909.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "02a851fccd2fa4d4b7fdc5fa8a85f7e4c41072aaf00aafffb10b3cf73a818ab1": { + "sha": "02a851fccd2fa4d4b7fdc5fa8a85f7e4c41072aaf00aafffb10b3cf73a818ab1", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750911.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750911.pdf", + "size": 283748, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 3682, + "elapsed": 6.457804854027927, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750911/EFTA02750911.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "8a874ac7fe403df58af07c91500f2a23e28c812fde2b6e6f1a029e5c1632b9f5": { + "sha": "8a874ac7fe403df58af07c91500f2a23e28c812fde2b6e6f1a029e5c1632b9f5", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750913.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750913.pdf", + "size": 340884, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 3, + "chars": 4445, + "elapsed": 3.8148524439893663, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750913/EFTA02750913.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "776772a5f1037de6c6c23b83889c08539e0eb78cdf1584a4c559ce450a679f03": { + "sha": "776772a5f1037de6c6c23b83889c08539e0eb78cdf1584a4c559ce450a679f03", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750916.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750916.pdf", + "size": 207815, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2462, + "elapsed": 7.870180440018885, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750916/EFTA02750916.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "695542f3aa3aa7dfd6a7aac14f5cb4cc1fd62229474b10fad2cc5821b96f2bfa": { + "sha": "695542f3aa3aa7dfd6a7aac14f5cb4cc1fd62229474b10fad2cc5821b96f2bfa", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750918.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750918.pdf", + "size": 102512, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1103, + "elapsed": 1.0399281850550324, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750918/EFTA02750918.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "003d1ea019a102f87aea7db60d05744f6f2da6a40f134c363c64c3152abb6349": { + "sha": "003d1ea019a102f87aea7db60d05744f6f2da6a40f134c363c64c3152abb6349", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750920.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750920.pdf", + "size": 167735, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1473, + "elapsed": 6.605677347979508, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750920/EFTA02750920.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "f5fa07f5b7e651532a4b5db0459089a551232faf8f6b0f7804246693578daae0": { + "sha": "f5fa07f5b7e651532a4b5db0459089a551232faf8f6b0f7804246693578daae0", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750921.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750921.pdf", + "size": 94064, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 824, + "elapsed": 4.283627263037488, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750921/EFTA02750921.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "086125244cb3050c7d2878aafe6db34cf20afa038b984ed66a8b893d216a5fde": { + "sha": "086125244cb3050c7d2878aafe6db34cf20afa038b984ed66a8b893d216a5fde", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750923.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750923.pdf", + "size": 930113, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 6, + "chars": 13652, + "elapsed": 9.927442082902417, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750923/EFTA02750923.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "3277e88ea38c05e670dbda035dbff9f5bae9181acfe3efeff619de7dea13fb8b": { + "sha": "3277e88ea38c05e670dbda035dbff9f5bae9181acfe3efeff619de7dea13fb8b", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750929.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750929.pdf", + "size": 86067, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1293, + "elapsed": 0.7964369509136304, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750929/EFTA02750929.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "2bfa98f22ea16faa8dcb0483d07f26299d200227e40add4e25bfad5dc4add69e": { + "sha": "2bfa98f22ea16faa8dcb0483d07f26299d200227e40add4e25bfad5dc4add69e", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750930.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750930.pdf", + "size": 268935, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 4, + "chars": 4571, + "elapsed": 0.9803634679410607, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750930/EFTA02750930.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "c265a01c9aae92f651ce16c5e1844889132f4bdd22f232076a0078e95e164606": { + "sha": "c265a01c9aae92f651ce16c5e1844889132f4bdd22f232076a0078e95e164606", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750934.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750934.pdf", + "size": 277483, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 5064, + "elapsed": 9.382381950039417, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750934/EFTA02750934.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "adf009da568fb3eaeba82ae4c6c91d5a4d34b7fa50a51993b655c0bfdac96f0f": { + "sha": "adf009da568fb3eaeba82ae4c6c91d5a4d34b7fa50a51993b655c0bfdac96f0f", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750936.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750936.pdf", + "size": 161268, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2424, + "elapsed": 0.7546919489977881, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750936/EFTA02750936.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "a35827e941977b4c484519200e53f2af5ed554bc15f3cecf9d2c2ab719b72889": { + "sha": "a35827e941977b4c484519200e53f2af5ed554bc15f3cecf9d2c2ab719b72889", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750938.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750938.pdf", + "size": 109111, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1782, + "elapsed": 0.7430268710013479, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750938/EFTA02750938.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "04cb73fe2bf2d5fee1e65b4cf6a33336ed9dbd1ec42276b574ef0d8df783daff": { + "sha": "04cb73fe2bf2d5fee1e65b4cf6a33336ed9dbd1ec42276b574ef0d8df783daff", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750939.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750939.pdf", + "size": 283682, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 4, + "chars": 4425, + "elapsed": 0.7449925589608029, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750939/EFTA02750939.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "535bf965f2eae4b630390fc1a52d96c3404f6439c0be940126dc3eb1062a6db7": { + "sha": "535bf965f2eae4b630390fc1a52d96c3404f6439c0be940126dc3eb1062a6db7", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750943.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750943.pdf", + "size": 55497, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 714, + "elapsed": 0.7600750769488513, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750943/EFTA02750943.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "87625c5121bcbf57c587b1c585977f1a5be2bfb88f7bcd5736e4bbd6f681bdaf": { + "sha": "87625c5121bcbf57c587b1c585977f1a5be2bfb88f7bcd5736e4bbd6f681bdaf", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750944.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750944.pdf", + "size": 55477, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 717, + "elapsed": 0.9796397819882259, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750944/EFTA02750944.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "47d5ecbb5ae320d9a40451186ccae1173c8a0c08909739ca5db91d54bf47521d": { + "sha": "47d5ecbb5ae320d9a40451186ccae1173c8a0c08909739ca5db91d54bf47521d", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750945.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750945.pdf", + "size": 357515, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 4, + "chars": 5690, + "elapsed": 1.0666253139497712, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750945/EFTA02750945.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "3a6276002abb2c5588d1733feac4af43a4214d82c222c7c7ce8ce15e2d8b7100": { + "sha": "3a6276002abb2c5588d1733feac4af43a4214d82c222c7c7ce8ce15e2d8b7100", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750949.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750949.pdf", + "size": 187583, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2999, + "elapsed": 0.7488130220444873, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750949/EFTA02750949.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "d949b246c5beb57aaef9bd32e180e42b45689f0434f242366e8554912f3e42a1": { + "sha": "d949b246c5beb57aaef9bd32e180e42b45689f0434f242366e8554912f3e42a1", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750951.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750951.pdf", + "size": 475172, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 3, + "chars": 8272, + "elapsed": 0.9690546030178666, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750951/EFTA02750951.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "29d2d18b90ff074bac8575dc025bffe8d64a957bfe4fd595a72f4d8e821fd672": { + "sha": "29d2d18b90ff074bac8575dc025bffe8d64a957bfe4fd595a72f4d8e821fd672", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750954.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750954.pdf", + "size": 505875, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 3, + "chars": 8718, + "elapsed": 1.0411452379776165, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750954/EFTA02750954.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "609d69f0c543d42dbd40fec25327908cbb691d0db85755d623350723ab753984": { + "sha": "609d69f0c543d42dbd40fec25327908cbb691d0db85755d623350723ab753984", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750957.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750957.pdf", + "size": 70056, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1069, + "elapsed": 0.6589934569783509, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750957/EFTA02750957.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "38ddc3eaaba5968c312d045bbaae0ed306a050e9685f4dd8c096c54c8c16f407": { + "sha": "38ddc3eaaba5968c312d045bbaae0ed306a050e9685f4dd8c096c54c8c16f407", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750958.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750958.pdf", + "size": 263276, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 3301, + "elapsed": 0.8979709889972582, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750958/EFTA02750958.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "3e24404bab2c084e2bef1813c271c50dc859a4cb4330ea9e6756bf50a4a5f0b6": { + "sha": "3e24404bab2c084e2bef1813c271c50dc859a4cb4330ea9e6756bf50a4a5f0b6", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750960.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750960.pdf", + "size": 77434, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 938, + "elapsed": 0.7668408849276602, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750960/EFTA02750960.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "85be2045aa0c8966a9ad910d373f6bf5185e279788b42fa8fa5c6a25c0e4dc87": { + "sha": "85be2045aa0c8966a9ad910d373f6bf5185e279788b42fa8fa5c6a25c0e4dc87", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750961.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750961.pdf", + "size": 2477084, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 28, + "chars": 38296, + "elapsed": 3.4038071329705417, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750961/EFTA02750961.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "90488be35ca5be3c81e2bdc2818a40120f666170e26674ebab85648bd16493bc": { + "sha": "90488be35ca5be3c81e2bdc2818a40120f666170e26674ebab85648bd16493bc", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750989.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750989.pdf", + "size": 337595, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 3, + "chars": 4459, + "elapsed": 0.9296542049851269, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750989/EFTA02750989.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "000279d68d40b4984dfd2f65196a58a995e5319ce2b6c546b1e7431306a4e131": { + "sha": "000279d68d40b4984dfd2f65196a58a995e5319ce2b6c546b1e7431306a4e131", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750992.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02750992.pdf", + "size": 916890, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 8, + "chars": 13712, + "elapsed": 4.6843507890589535, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02750992/EFTA02750992.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "4f2175e62629f8b24c7dc5a91fbe400230cc73ab866f1f82db5253888f2227e6": { + "sha": "4f2175e62629f8b24c7dc5a91fbe400230cc73ab866f1f82db5253888f2227e6", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751000.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751000.pdf", + "size": 2473459, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 28, + "chars": 38489, + "elapsed": 3.5953955659642816, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751000/EFTA02751000.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "486c49a6b30f8d29d1f774455eede3d384e267c813ef29bf092b258d7a636528": { + "sha": "486c49a6b30f8d29d1f774455eede3d384e267c813ef29bf092b258d7a636528", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751028.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751028.pdf", + "size": 106812, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1542, + "elapsed": 0.9033015050226822, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751028/EFTA02751028.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "0d753730bfa4e51fd231be5994737815d3c2214a359374da8182ab1262df64b8": { + "sha": "0d753730bfa4e51fd231be5994737815d3c2214a359374da8182ab1262df64b8", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751029.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751029.pdf", + "size": 316963, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 3, + "chars": 5391, + "elapsed": 9.542766093974933, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751029/EFTA02751029.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "33d68aa9b149a77122fcf011fd8b726e6d7be02cf8693cab9a1a1d6b583cef6c": { + "sha": "33d68aa9b149a77122fcf011fd8b726e6d7be02cf8693cab9a1a1d6b583cef6c", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751032.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751032.pdf", + "size": 1018795, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 7, + "chars": 18730, + "elapsed": 1.1348688650177792, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751032/EFTA02751032.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "f62c1ad303972d4234d0de7c6ea2e21e596079b4b951c263d203ba1a637c7a6c": { + "sha": "f62c1ad303972d4234d0de7c6ea2e21e596079b4b951c263d203ba1a637c7a6c", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751039.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751039.pdf", + "size": 1087934, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 10, + "chars": 20173, + "elapsed": 1.2221102879848331, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751039/EFTA02751039.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "1f5cbde8e72b0ecdc738a2e0901669ae230a08446141b79c9f4b1744dd25d2c9": { + "sha": "1f5cbde8e72b0ecdc738a2e0901669ae230a08446141b79c9f4b1744dd25d2c9", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751049.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751049.pdf", + "size": 460752, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 3, + "chars": 8278, + "elapsed": 1.0660927640274167, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751049/EFTA02751049.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "93a48d3603e36614c71c22837f73f5d35320740029ca02272b44c2b97274b7f5": { + "sha": "93a48d3603e36614c71c22837f73f5d35320740029ca02272b44c2b97274b7f5", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751052.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751052.pdf", + "size": 339393, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 3, + "chars": 5827, + "elapsed": 1.1144061150262132, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751052/EFTA02751052.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "a80a9131af63ec84fda712d2ab6e9a25245b5b5f93448bda20fd1bae96a88ce4": { + "sha": "a80a9131af63ec84fda712d2ab6e9a25245b5b5f93448bda20fd1bae96a88ce4", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751055.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751055.pdf", + "size": 256972, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 3407, + "elapsed": 1.04989426699467, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751055/EFTA02751055.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "23e45eb1ade1e2bd28b384d623c98103ec0057bab66b4767d87c33db30274367": { + "sha": "23e45eb1ade1e2bd28b384d623c98103ec0057bab66b4767d87c33db30274367", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751057.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751057.pdf", + "size": 5990769, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 49, + "chars": 82799, + "elapsed": 26.98773337190505, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751057/EFTA02751057.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "6f099b51e6d38dfbf2c363cbd4e386421d7b2e84bb1a9c5d86c5e7ddb6664af2": { + "sha": "6f099b51e6d38dfbf2c363cbd4e386421d7b2e84bb1a9c5d86c5e7ddb6664af2", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751106.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751106.pdf", + "size": 429027, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 3, + "chars": 7523, + "elapsed": 0.9513736140215769, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751106/EFTA02751106.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "a5d17f1a33f754caf924a528d9ebae41c2b06e7e8bf353ef953153d2631c2d8c": { + "sha": "a5d17f1a33f754caf924a528d9ebae41c2b06e7e8bf353ef953153d2631c2d8c", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751109.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751109.pdf", + "size": 86748, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1271, + "elapsed": 0.538785417098552, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751109/EFTA02751109.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "e5a865607aad6586de7795ac8c4878a957cc5b689a3f85d3e88090bee6293179": { + "sha": "e5a865607aad6586de7795ac8c4878a957cc5b689a3f85d3e88090bee6293179", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751110.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751110.pdf", + "size": 1505145, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 15, + "chars": 27970, + "elapsed": 2.500876598060131, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751110/EFTA02751110.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "6088cb47cc39a69097636aaa1853391ffe1797440efa559044ff7168093230b7": { + "sha": "6088cb47cc39a69097636aaa1853391ffe1797440efa559044ff7168093230b7", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751125.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751125.pdf", + "size": 528146, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 3, + "chars": 8084, + "elapsed": 14.006574064027518, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751125/EFTA02751125.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "61c5290572abdaab20aa888878ef67b2a2f33e94e4af0f05d2833158586b27c2": { + "sha": "61c5290572abdaab20aa888878ef67b2a2f33e94e4af0f05d2833158586b27c2", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751128.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751128.pdf", + "size": 177957, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 2547, + "elapsed": 0.9512043800204992, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751128/EFTA02751128.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "3cc65ab85f8ba55cbf3b105df9642448ea91e288b500364aa566488f8445296f": { + "sha": "3cc65ab85f8ba55cbf3b105df9642448ea91e288b500364aa566488f8445296f", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751130.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751130.pdf", + "size": 104593, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1429, + "elapsed": 0.6815696079283953, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751130/EFTA02751130.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "4afe7f0341094f02c24a7a29d6a98294772a3c3f37582a6889fc264d21ab6f09": { + "sha": "4afe7f0341094f02c24a7a29d6a98294772a3c3f37582a6889fc264d21ab6f09", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751132.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751132.pdf", + "size": 149040, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1267, + "elapsed": 0.6656521289842203, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751132/EFTA02751132.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "87ee0a20b4a02931d11062cc3771d27a3a21bee86b8a373d4d878e5b0a5aac2e": { + "sha": "87ee0a20b4a02931d11062cc3771d27a3a21bee86b8a373d4d878e5b0a5aac2e", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751134.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751134.pdf", + "size": 99785, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1325, + "elapsed": 0.5930152270011604, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751134/EFTA02751134.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "2ad0246988bcbb38f942beaf16634a2d147cc11cefaff36218b5156a226fdafc": { + "sha": "2ad0246988bcbb38f942beaf16634a2d147cc11cefaff36218b5156a226fdafc", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751136.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751136.pdf", + "size": 103036, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1405, + "elapsed": 0.710852192947641, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751136/EFTA02751136.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "f2668664658567087caacb53692edac97d8b8ca248e28cc9f47255a8f30ac4e1": { + "sha": "f2668664658567087caacb53692edac97d8b8ca248e28cc9f47255a8f30ac4e1", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751138.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751138.pdf", + "size": 2347920, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 20, + "chars": 40965, + "elapsed": 2.3136506469454616, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751138/EFTA02751138.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "c6da64ba542ab7573320b04bc3b49e494211ec469cf0353844b602afa835a65f": { + "sha": "c6da64ba542ab7573320b04bc3b49e494211ec469cf0353844b602afa835a65f", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751158.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751158.pdf", + "size": 5975732, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 49, + "chars": 82171, + "elapsed": 25.0336536859395, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751158/EFTA02751158.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "868aaa3067e773b4614b561856dae451c896fc545dcae64e2d05327d3ceb0f27": { + "sha": "868aaa3067e773b4614b561856dae451c896fc545dcae64e2d05327d3ceb0f27", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751207.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751207.pdf", + "size": 4004762, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 21, + "chars": 70827, + "elapsed": 25.30662966100499, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751207/EFTA02751207.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "e51ce937717c7a0f1e52b7aa4e80f67b8fb39d206fee9124bc84ee9bb987eec2": { + "sha": "e51ce937717c7a0f1e52b7aa4e80f67b8fb39d206fee9124bc84ee9bb987eec2", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751228.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751228.pdf", + "size": 100189, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1367, + "elapsed": 0.7275498169474304, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751228/EFTA02751228.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "0df30d726b259341b831e2950ca624d6699badaca042e411ea022a8dd1f6c253": { + "sha": "0df30d726b259341b831e2950ca624d6699badaca042e411ea022a8dd1f6c253", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751230.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751230.pdf", + "size": 58841, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 749, + "elapsed": 0.79601754702162, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751230/EFTA02751230.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "9c86ee795f8e8b4e6b9ea221c1dac477ecc8636ca2e22b07326ffb207caf5539": { + "sha": "9c86ee795f8e8b4e6b9ea221c1dac477ecc8636ca2e22b07326ffb207caf5539", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751231.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751231.pdf", + "size": 81504, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1095, + "elapsed": 0.9709766979794949, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751231/EFTA02751231.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "9f1844bad6e820b1dcadbae46c6b164de373d16a3b339847551e7971df6630a5": { + "sha": "9f1844bad6e820b1dcadbae46c6b164de373d16a3b339847551e7971df6630a5", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751232.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751232.pdf", + "size": 1124115, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 11, + "chars": 18913, + "elapsed": 1.4061375190503895, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751232/EFTA02751232.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "195311381742c93a1d60f47c21677b09e606a0d1d19c88330c140e18135bfd69": { + "sha": "195311381742c93a1d60f47c21677b09e606a0d1d19c88330c140e18135bfd69", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751243.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751243.pdf", + "size": 149285, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1539, + "elapsed": 40.16826668404974, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751243/EFTA02751243.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "aa513ba46d29e289075ffee0aeeade79836cc38c9df33ef7626f1c2c9fb4b55d": { + "sha": "aa513ba46d29e289075ffee0aeeade79836cc38c9df33ef7626f1c2c9fb4b55d", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751245.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751245.pdf", + "size": 77435, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1403, + "elapsed": 1.0372243819292635, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751245/EFTA02751245.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "46be860f8d9e1e5545be5d3040c50872850927c2a593005c1d1fcd05fc4b72f2": { + "sha": "46be860f8d9e1e5545be5d3040c50872850927c2a593005c1d1fcd05fc4b72f2", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751246.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751246.pdf", + "size": 117171, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1567, + "elapsed": 0.7476440409664065, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751246/EFTA02751246.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "123178e8ffe108e4ee2fdc163c2e43e6101aa3e39e38d0311742fc4c80412de1": { + "sha": "123178e8ffe108e4ee2fdc163c2e43e6101aa3e39e38d0311742fc4c80412de1", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751248.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751248.pdf", + "size": 129726, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1646, + "elapsed": 0.7388084459817037, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751248/EFTA02751248.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "edf1ee2bdca0bfdc499e0d53fa3a7f22b55cbe245fb605fd9c2755fc01eec683": { + "sha": "edf1ee2bdca0bfdc499e0d53fa3a7f22b55cbe245fb605fd9c2755fc01eec683", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751250.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751250.pdf", + "size": 1949214, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 17, + "chars": 32259, + "elapsed": 2.9526080009527504, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751250/EFTA02751250.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "4c5be8c6d0b708f955eb94c0a65947b675cf5863f3a67564dd98a9b4f9ab0dbe": { + "sha": "4c5be8c6d0b708f955eb94c0a65947b675cf5863f3a67564dd98a9b4f9ab0dbe", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751267.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751267.pdf", + "size": 79696, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1145, + "elapsed": 0.7005183660658076, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751267/EFTA02751267.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "85a2cdb769f9e78cc6dfbaa28c9390139bfdcd300bc7485fdca77290a8c77f42": { + "sha": "85a2cdb769f9e78cc6dfbaa28c9390139bfdcd300bc7485fdca77290a8c77f42", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751268.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751268.pdf", + "size": 610016, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 4, + "chars": 10660, + "elapsed": 14.171018630964682, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751268/EFTA02751268.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "9642bae68d54acfde6d6688531d3f23234368176b8de4570933b0bc944c95aa4": { + "sha": "9642bae68d54acfde6d6688531d3f23234368176b8de4570933b0bc944c95aa4", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751272.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751272.pdf", + "size": 1697410, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 12, + "chars": 28676, + "elapsed": 1.8014919849811122, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751272/EFTA02751272.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "af6db7733dbcb002b9ce436e3e710f5512ed003e3f28f1d08385b45bd796fa66": { + "sha": "af6db7733dbcb002b9ce436e3e710f5512ed003e3f28f1d08385b45bd796fa66", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751284.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751284.pdf", + "size": 375820, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 4, + "chars": 5944, + "elapsed": 0.8531767120584846, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751284/EFTA02751284.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "e37ff08dda5a331a67165b29d5681b1bdca237c6d90f6f6108346d4ebee77ba7": { + "sha": "e37ff08dda5a331a67165b29d5681b1bdca237c6d90f6f6108346d4ebee77ba7", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751288.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751288.pdf", + "size": 80344, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1151, + "elapsed": 0.6898965279106051, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751288/EFTA02751288.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "e41099351d7cf71473df7337c168aa78fc4f126a28304b84393c0269aaaef384": { + "sha": "e41099351d7cf71473df7337c168aa78fc4f126a28304b84393c0269aaaef384", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751289.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751289.pdf", + "size": 1723067, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 12, + "chars": 28712, + "elapsed": 1.7791676770430058, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751289/EFTA02751289.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "585dff64272bb9d6a4b197d08baab3de86f493b16557230d6d56c9ec2737bb53": { + "sha": "585dff64272bb9d6a4b197d08baab3de86f493b16557230d6d56c9ec2737bb53", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751301.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751301.pdf", + "size": 64567, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 877, + "elapsed": 0.7013534168945625, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751301/EFTA02751301.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "e3df63a0c4133a6bd28f7001a9847e3bbefaf8e93e99e26af258a24a907db98d": { + "sha": "e3df63a0c4133a6bd28f7001a9847e3bbefaf8e93e99e26af258a24a907db98d", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751302.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751302.pdf", + "size": 2231063, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 18, + "chars": 38746, + "elapsed": 2.2884052289882675, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751302/EFTA02751302.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "d5df18520224ab86a9d327796d7dc6c10f67687897b87421ed5ff9c7cffd0815": { + "sha": "d5df18520224ab86a9d327796d7dc6c10f67687897b87421ed5ff9c7cffd0815", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751320.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751320.pdf", + "size": 214147, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 3548, + "elapsed": 0.8844835880445316, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751320/EFTA02751320.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "06c39917db7410dbccbe54a7ecce6fa1305dccebf59ef210ab6f32686a7adab6": { + "sha": "06c39917db7410dbccbe54a7ecce6fa1305dccebf59ef210ab6f32686a7adab6", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751322.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751322.pdf", + "size": 2230650, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 18, + "chars": 38761, + "elapsed": 2.2925308879930526, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751322/EFTA02751322.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "189247734eef27c1e4c07212929ab1a142cb6cb02fcf70f2f5e3b98bd6c22226": { + "sha": "189247734eef27c1e4c07212929ab1a142cb6cb02fcf70f2f5e3b98bd6c22226", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751340.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751340.pdf", + "size": 248922, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 4321, + "elapsed": 1.1430477310204878, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751340/EFTA02751340.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "375aea89692a3aa0c9bef2b074fdaedd0935f60718bbefa20b7fde55f5b9adc7": { + "sha": "375aea89692a3aa0c9bef2b074fdaedd0935f60718bbefa20b7fde55f5b9adc7", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751342.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751342.pdf", + "size": 260806, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 3, + "chars": 3174, + "elapsed": 0.9279656989965588, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751342/EFTA02751342.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "24fde189d79fa49ad2d9594c8f3571c9cc9dd2a8e213c7b2ea1412a0003ba360": { + "sha": "24fde189d79fa49ad2d9594c8f3571c9cc9dd2a8e213c7b2ea1412a0003ba360", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751345.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751345.pdf", + "size": 87356, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1158, + "elapsed": 0.7212494909763336, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751345/EFTA02751345.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "8590b5295c0e2b4607fcf6b9587043aad96ca954f209e41ccfba7b2e1cf988e0": { + "sha": "8590b5295c0e2b4607fcf6b9587043aad96ca954f209e41ccfba7b2e1cf988e0", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751346.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751346.pdf", + "size": 280022, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 3, + "chars": 4463, + "elapsed": 0.9185337510425597, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751346/EFTA02751346.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "55e1a9bdb138f7513337f96d46557f27dd590a502f944652eb05d71e6961d702": { + "sha": "55e1a9bdb138f7513337f96d46557f27dd590a502f944652eb05d71e6961d702", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751349.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751349.pdf", + "size": 655223, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 4, + "chars": 11603, + "elapsed": 13.217424039030448, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751349/EFTA02751349.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "9a469f2ac6a90304bf7b408ee50b0755de043e53cd8d624791ce3e938f787418": { + "sha": "9a469f2ac6a90304bf7b408ee50b0755de043e53cd8d624791ce3e938f787418", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751353.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751353.pdf", + "size": 73249, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1021, + "elapsed": 0.8056746170623228, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751353/EFTA02751353.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "535183ea25069967f1fc231b2a006d5d339959bc5c0625622bfcf252b3c0b5b5": { + "sha": "535183ea25069967f1fc231b2a006d5d339959bc5c0625622bfcf252b3c0b5b5", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751354.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751354.pdf", + "size": 7217065, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 67, + "chars": 120504, + "elapsed": 21.810797496000305, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751354/EFTA02751354.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "50cf5ae4c01995b7c9c7b1ee6a2987433a5f1ff155a18de6048c243fd682ecaa": { + "sha": "50cf5ae4c01995b7c9c7b1ee6a2987433a5f1ff155a18de6048c243fd682ecaa", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751421.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751421.pdf", + "size": 3741698, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 30, + "chars": 64735, + "elapsed": 7.601766597945243, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751421/EFTA02751421.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "b93f0ca0b781bba65079e04fb7e7c861d1e8dea0aa1cfb64e1a2feef7827ced4": { + "sha": "b93f0ca0b781bba65079e04fb7e7c861d1e8dea0aa1cfb64e1a2feef7827ced4", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751451.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751451.pdf", + "size": 92047, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1046, + "elapsed": 0.9504337729886174, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751451/EFTA02751451.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "c588c7bf78aba68c5d15c2de06f2c581de47aa96e3a070c4539039cb9577a5f5": { + "sha": "c588c7bf78aba68c5d15c2de06f2c581de47aa96e3a070c4539039cb9577a5f5", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751453.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751453.pdf", + "size": 70110, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1015, + "elapsed": 0.941786378971301, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751453/EFTA02751453.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "505c0694cd4a9fee82d8dead1fc9755a1c02a4510377cc9d4557094d95cb2b56": { + "sha": "505c0694cd4a9fee82d8dead1fc9755a1c02a4510377cc9d4557094d95cb2b56", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751454.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751454.pdf", + "size": 94496, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1387, + "elapsed": 1.0689089419320226, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751454/EFTA02751454.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "2405d66dc4bac057fd1db8f5925ffe6db2760a6159aa87d8ac4186a46dec4ff3": { + "sha": "2405d66dc4bac057fd1db8f5925ffe6db2760a6159aa87d8ac4186a46dec4ff3", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751455.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751455.pdf", + "size": 482282, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 6, + "chars": 8288, + "elapsed": 2.1138014110038057, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751455/EFTA02751455.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "667507cc7982c72f8eab9256cbd694a187f87b5c7151e3eedd18a8b5a0a100c0": { + "sha": "667507cc7982c72f8eab9256cbd694a187f87b5c7151e3eedd18a8b5a0a100c0", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751461.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751461.pdf", + "size": 1415281, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 18, + "chars": 23453, + "elapsed": 2.082728844950907, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751461/EFTA02751461.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "8fe78f32eec10f8e56ace86eae366fb1d1035cd2a2f14ad9d275c112db60a42a": { + "sha": "8fe78f32eec10f8e56ace86eae366fb1d1035cd2a2f14ad9d275c112db60a42a", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751479.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751479.pdf", + "size": 2790328, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 29, + "chars": 46103, + "elapsed": 10.352941978024319, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751479/EFTA02751479.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "0705abfc42a32e8d19970f3fef5a5b860aacc1790ea8acad3290034e5a3fe384": { + "sha": "0705abfc42a32e8d19970f3fef5a5b860aacc1790ea8acad3290034e5a3fe384", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751508.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751508.pdf", + "size": 845008, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 6, + "chars": 14767, + "elapsed": 1.452924965065904, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751508/EFTA02751508.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "2e488039531102fc4f40745f03d9e712ac19f571ed7f949dd82004a65aa5201e": { + "sha": "2e488039531102fc4f40745f03d9e712ac19f571ed7f949dd82004a65aa5201e", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751514.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751514.pdf", + "size": 1609599, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 10, + "chars": 28354, + "elapsed": 14.589268109062687, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751514/EFTA02751514.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "0a0b02b455be6be33bb5845f5551c9031fcc69444bdf4aaaa07dd8f787262943": { + "sha": "0a0b02b455be6be33bb5845f5551c9031fcc69444bdf4aaaa07dd8f787262943", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751524.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751524.pdf", + "size": 293751, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 3, + "chars": 4970, + "elapsed": 0.912020216928795, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751524/EFTA02751524.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "023121b7e3d66ec7630d0685a449ba43528d8bbcb42895e3505c3ef450e3a860": { + "sha": "023121b7e3d66ec7630d0685a449ba43528d8bbcb42895e3505c3ef450e3a860", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751527.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751527.pdf", + "size": 737052, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 6, + "chars": 11465, + "elapsed": 1.2452343199402094, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751527/EFTA02751527.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "bc770bc6aba2540d1d3fe127ad1e98c1498fe51e408f54716a68b37879e21237": { + "sha": "bc770bc6aba2540d1d3fe127ad1e98c1498fe51e408f54716a68b37879e21237", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751533.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751533.pdf", + "size": 119455, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1556, + "elapsed": 0.9106591179734096, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751533/EFTA02751533.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "761185f4770fdc228511b8b5a607b21578707fdc6a88116b741e99105238ab92": { + "sha": "761185f4770fdc228511b8b5a607b21578707fdc6a88116b741e99105238ab92", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751535.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751535.pdf", + "size": 745409, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 6, + "chars": 12476, + "elapsed": 1.139190137037076, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751535/EFTA02751535.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "465d98aac278d3d912cb849213e167402ce4dcbb4f6fbfe98dce343b5f5ecf5f": { + "sha": "465d98aac278d3d912cb849213e167402ce4dcbb4f6fbfe98dce343b5f5ecf5f", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751541.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751541.pdf", + "size": 2189303, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 11, + "chars": 39478, + "elapsed": 14.405625905958004, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751541/EFTA02751541.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "a2d3d9bbfbb826eadd32c1ad39c0ffc228b77aa05c8386d1c68ce77d9ebde4a7": { + "sha": "a2d3d9bbfbb826eadd32c1ad39c0ffc228b77aa05c8386d1c68ce77d9ebde4a7", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751552.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751552.pdf", + "size": 2400330, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 21, + "chars": 35420, + "elapsed": 2.4935416789958254, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751552/EFTA02751552.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "1ff55a3e822e0c3231c21edcbeec4b68bc1c89df884115ee2120dd78f09d7460": { + "sha": "1ff55a3e822e0c3231c21edcbeec4b68bc1c89df884115ee2120dd78f09d7460", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751573.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751573.pdf", + "size": 590475, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 4, + "chars": 10390, + "elapsed": 12.7028991720872, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751573/EFTA02751573.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "bb3182dca5a72d54f8431b115406279847dcfdd3c775e0a992eca329b3faa935": { + "sha": "bb3182dca5a72d54f8431b115406279847dcfdd3c775e0a992eca329b3faa935", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751577.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751577.pdf", + "size": 131900, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1686, + "elapsed": 1.0603893520310521, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751577/EFTA02751577.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "c851ad5c5dbe9706aef20ee9de088c7517b03afb5d24246849d0e2dade0c0371": { + "sha": "c851ad5c5dbe9706aef20ee9de088c7517b03afb5d24246849d0e2dade0c0371", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751579.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751579.pdf", + "size": 7504765, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 88, + "chars": 111790, + "elapsed": 91.85200873401482, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751579/EFTA02751579.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "5891c58cdbde3b6a280a072c0f31a6a2451c9b1679855c87965b27772b2a2527": { + "sha": "5891c58cdbde3b6a280a072c0f31a6a2451c9b1679855c87965b27772b2a2527", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751667.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751667.pdf", + "size": 86244, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1348, + "elapsed": 0.793647354003042, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751667/EFTA02751667.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "898fb2e11f6cf9897326edd37f07e09c7a39712d9609df19b3d4167a127c6d88": { + "sha": "898fb2e11f6cf9897326edd37f07e09c7a39712d9609df19b3d4167a127c6d88", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751668.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751668.pdf", + "size": 78056, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1340, + "elapsed": 1.9350414560176432, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751668/EFTA02751668.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "0ac5a36d1dfb6d69e22b9c0dce702f83573a50a0ea8d81069748cb4db7a12d43": { + "sha": "0ac5a36d1dfb6d69e22b9c0dce702f83573a50a0ea8d81069748cb4db7a12d43", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751669.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751669.pdf", + "size": 77444, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1326, + "elapsed": 1.8859743409557268, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751669/EFTA02751669.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "89711acbb1469167762f0426e633de7ee8582644d3441384476eb58ca0a57e4f": { + "sha": "89711acbb1469167762f0426e633de7ee8582644d3441384476eb58ca0a57e4f", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751670.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751670.pdf", + "size": 78614, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1338, + "elapsed": 1.5627869250020012, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751670/EFTA02751670.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "a6401b7b838eee39f81d525fa5c8e6d83673bbaebf5e57eb2f2d41de78afbbce": { + "sha": "a6401b7b838eee39f81d525fa5c8e6d83673bbaebf5e57eb2f2d41de78afbbce", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751671.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751671.pdf", + "size": 1511448, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 16, + "chars": 25712, + "elapsed": 2.0649735840270296, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751671/EFTA02751671.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "f1fe11b4dbd8dced540bb89e58559d74dbcc73ee1805e9b94387125eecbe8adf": { + "sha": "f1fe11b4dbd8dced540bb89e58559d74dbcc73ee1805e9b94387125eecbe8adf", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751687.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751687.pdf", + "size": 126669, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1725, + "elapsed": 0.8181205010041595, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751687/EFTA02751687.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "34e07d23e955e30017fcbc4c59a05d65b1a5325a108438ece65ed32220737c70": { + "sha": "34e07d23e955e30017fcbc4c59a05d65b1a5325a108438ece65ed32220737c70", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751689.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751689.pdf", + "size": 135522, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 2, + "chars": 1816, + "elapsed": 0.8817283870885149, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751689/EFTA02751689.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "55d53d24989a5558c8dbef57b2d5e24d843625174931d4144221a8fa56effe58": { + "sha": "55d53d24989a5558c8dbef57b2d5e24d843625174931d4144221a8fa56effe58", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751691.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751691.pdf", + "size": 78207, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1156, + "elapsed": 5.191041982034221, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751691/EFTA02751691.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "3d11a72db0df1b8db6712ebdc6b291fa62aa7af9ca90246b8dd436559113529e": { + "sha": "3d11a72db0df1b8db6712ebdc6b291fa62aa7af9ca90246b8dd436559113529e", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751692.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751692.pdf", + "size": 113835, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1862, + "elapsed": 0.5362876600120217, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751692/EFTA02751692.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "1bf6ec11ec8d0b5cc7fc1f7798783616eb21b42b5960498b26996670f877d860": { + "sha": "1bf6ec11ec8d0b5cc7fc1f7798783616eb21b42b5960498b26996670f877d860", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751693.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751693.pdf", + "size": 69125, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 868, + "elapsed": 0.9678226319374517, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751693/EFTA02751693.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "bbeff4cd5113a6e5abafe4b88604346b65bb9d11c5c1ce48f56252343417aa69": { + "sha": "bbeff4cd5113a6e5abafe4b88604346b65bb9d11c5c1ce48f56252343417aa69", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751694.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751694.pdf", + "size": 73849, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 932, + "elapsed": 0.8047084850259125, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751694/EFTA02751694.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + }, + "c42ad09bd08126d233c76e9b436125b104a1044a7d04fa9e1f9b8d44493a5665": { + "sha": "c42ad09bd08126d233c76e9b436125b104a1044a7d04fa9e1f9b8d44493a5665", + "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751695.pdf", + "name": "EFTA02751695.pdf", + "size": 81558, + "status": "done", + "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4", + "engine": { + "marker_major": "2", + "marker_version": "2.0.0", + "mode": "balanced", + "use_llm": false, + "force_ocr": false, + "disable_ocr": false, + "output_format": "markdown", + "preserve_source": false + }, + "worker": null, + "claimed_at": null, + "pages": 1, + "chars": 1198, + "elapsed": 5.332519668969326, + "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-doe-v-indyke-08673/EFTA02751695/EFTA02751695.md", + "error": "", + "backend": "local", + "attempts": 1, + "warnings": [] + } + } +} \ No newline at end of file