Case Document Filed Page of Robert Glassman Esq August troutman pepper Page The parties document productions should be completed before the deposition proceeds This will necessarily happen in short order the Courts Order requires the parties to complete their document productions within one week of entry of the protective order Doc at Ir Second for the same reasons that this Court stayed document production pending entry of a protective order it makes no sense to have any depositions proceed until the ground rules regarding confidentiality including with respect to deposition testimony and exhibits are set Third having the deposition next week would be unduly prejudicial to the Co Executors as the result of Plaintiffs prior failures to provide proper notice of non-party discovery Yesterday counsel for Plaintiff confirmed for the first time that she has in fact received various documents from subpoenaed witnesses stating in an email Although responsive documents were not produced by these witnesses pursuant to the subpoenas we have recently obtained documentary evidence from these witnesses through their counsel Indeed we received what we expect to be the last of the evidence yesterday In light of the Courts Order regarding the current stay of document production in this case we will produce such materials to you once we are permitted to do so by the Court However the fact remains that we do not know the universe of so-called documentary evidence that Plaintiff received when she received it or from whom The deposition of Mr lndyke should not proceed while Plaintiff is improperly in sole possession of discovery The Co-Executors have a fundamental right to review discovery materials that may form the basis for Plaintiffs deposition questions Fourth Plaintiff has failed to provide topics about which she will depose Mr lndyke in his capacity as Co-Executor of Mr Epsteins Estate See Fed Civ In its notice or subpoena a party may name as the deponent a public or private corporation a partnership an association a governmental agency or other entity and must describe with reasonable particularity the matters for examination emphasis added We raised this straightforward uncontroversial issue multiple times including by email on August and Plaintiffs counsel never responded During the parties meet and-confer telephone call on August counsel for Plaintiff said he would confer with his The Committee Notes to the amendment of Fed Civ provide Other entity is added to the list of organizations that may be named as deponent The purpose is to ensure that the deposition process can be used to reach information known or reasonably available to an organization no matter what abstract fictive concept is used to describe the organization Nothing is gained by wrangling over the place to fit into current rule language such entities as limited liability companies limited partnerships business trusts more exotic common-law creations or forms developed in other countries emphasis added Mr lndyke is being deposed as the fiduciary of an estate not solely in his individual capacity Case Document Filed Page of Robert Glassman Esq August Page troutman pepper colleagues and then provide us with a response Despite this representation and our follow-up inquiries Plaintiff counsel has still not confirmed whether he will be providing a list of topics for Mr lndyke in his capacity as Co-Executor much less actually provided one If Plaintiffs counsel does not provide such a list we will be forced to seek relief from this Court and the deposition should not proceed until that issue is resolved Even if Plaintiff provides such a list today we will not have sufficient time between now and next Wednesday to consider it meet and confer with Plaintiff regarding any issues and if necessary raise such issues with the Court Fifth yesterday evening Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell moved to stay this lawsuit in light of her ongoing criminal matter which is currently scheduled for trial next summer There is no reason that discovery should proceed in a piecemeal fashion either while the motion for a stay is pending or during the stay itself When we raised these issues with Plaintiffs counsel we did not receive a substantive response to our concerns Rather Plaintiff counsel stated they would still like to proceed with the deposition on since that date has already been cleared by the parties and has been on calendar for some time now and would still like to proceed with Mr lndyke deposition next week even if the Co-Executors still haven given Plaintiff documents before then Despite our requests no further explanation for Plaintiff position has been provided We have not received an answer to our repeated requests for a time to meet-and confer today by phone about these and other pressing issues related to Plaintiffs discovery deficiencies which are not as time-sensitive and thus we do not raise at this time However given the rapidly approaching deposition date and the issues listed above we are left with no choice but to seek the intervention of the Court We therefore respectfully request that the Court order Plaintiff to reschedule Mr lndykes deposition for a mutually agreeable date after resolution of Ms Maxwells motion to stay Plaintiffs disclosure of deposition topics entry of a protective order and the parties substantial completion of their document productions Very truly yours Bennet Moskowitz cc Laura Menninger Esq
5,462 characters
