Case Document Filed Page of Case Document Filed Page of KAPLAN HECKER FINK LLP 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 Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs 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 The Complaint specifically addresses the Program describing it as a continuation of the Estates course of conduct aimed at concealing the criminal activities of the Epstein Enterprise and shielding its participants from liability and accountability Id at The New York Times reports that this lawsuit seeks to head off an effort by Mr Epsteins executor Mr Indyke to tum Mr Epsteins vast wealth into a victims 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 South em District of New York are all in very different stages of litigation Two cases have already been stayed by agreement of the parties Doe et al Jeffrey Epstein et al S.D.N.Y Doe Indyke et al S.D.N.Y One was filed recently on December Anastasia Doe Indyke et al 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 Plaintiffs case is differently situated in significant respects None of the causes of action or allegations in Plaintiffs 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 Civ concems 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 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 As described in Plaintiffs status report the scope of discovery in this case is narrow Doc No and because Lawsuit Claims Epstein Trafficked Girls in Caribbean Until NEW YORK TIMES Jan VE Nine Ea st Street et al No AJN DF Katlyn Doe lndyke et al No I PKC DF Pnsc1lla Doe Indyke et al No ALC DF Lisa Doe lndyke et al No ER DF Jane Doe Indyke et al No KPF DF Farmer ndyke et al No 9-cv-l LGS DF Helm lndyke et al No PGG DF Bryant Indyke et al No ALC DF Jane Doe Indyke et al No LGS DF Jane Doe ndyke et al No PAE DF Mary Doe lndyke et al No PAE DF Davies Indyke et al No GHW DF Anastasia Doe Indyke et al No AJN DF Case Document Filed Page of Case Document Filed Page of KAPLAN HECKER FINK LLP Defendants motion does not relate to any of the defendants or causes of action in Plaintiffs complaint will not be influenced by the pending motion practice 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 Doc No Yesterday Judge Freeman entered an Order scheduling a pretrial conference for February and instructing the parties to the other twelve cases covered by the Order to submit a proposed discovery schedule before then Doc No 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 so that discovery may begin consistent with Judge Faillas order that discovery is not stayed Of course Plaintiff will then attend the conference scheduled for February and as the Court has requested will be prepared to address the question of whether the 267pending 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
5,088 characters
