IT Case Document Filed Page of DIRECT DIAL DIRECT EMAI-7.9 rkaplan plan-6.1 hecker.com May BY EMAI-6.2 Bennet Moskowitz Troutman nders LLP Third Avenue New York New York Re Doe Indyke et al No S.D.N.Y KPF DCF Dear Bennet We write following our meet and confer on May the 223May Meet and Confer regarding Plaintiff 2s and De fendants First Interrogatori es and Requests for Production respectively 223Plaintiff 2s Request and 223Defendants Requests and parties res5.3 ectiv6.1 Responses and Objections theret This letter summari zes the agreements we reached during the May Meet and Confer as well as aintiff 2s pos ition on the areas of disput that remain I Defendants Responses to Plaintiff 2s In terrogatories and Requests for Production As we noted during the May Meet and Confer we are dismayed that Defendants failed to answer any of Pla4.3 ntiff 2s Interrog5.5 tories At this stage litiga4.5 tion5.7 and partic4.5 ular3.7 ly when Plaintif3.7 2s legations elate to crimin5.7 al tivit that has been the focu of investigation and litigation more than a decade fendan5.4 refusal to pro5.6 ide straigh5.6 forward clearly discoverable information such as Jeffrey Epstein email add5.6 esses appear ed to thing re than a continued effort at obstruction and de lay We therefore apprec iate your agreement to supplement many of Defendants responses to Plai ntiff 2s Requests as detailed below We ask that you do so no later than May Defendants General Obligation to Conduct a Reasonably Inquiry As a threshold issue and discussed ring Meet and Confer ecause Defendants have been sued in a rep5.5 esen5.5 tative capacity Defendants are obligated to provide reasonably obtainable information within the Estate 2s possession custody or control See Siegel Yates F.R.D S.D.N.Y It is not sufficient for Defendants to re spond to Plaintiff 2s Requests by simply relying on the Executors own personal nowledge although we note that as individuals who were closely asso5.6 ciated with Epstein and his fairs ring his life4.6 time the Case Document Filed Page of I APLAN HECl ER FINI LLP FIFTH AVENUE I SUITE NEW YORK NEW YORK TEL I FAX W.KAPLAN HECKER.COM Executors likely have personal know7.4 ledge well beyond what was reflected in their initial responses to Plaintiff 2s Requests Rather in answering Plaintif 2s Requests the Executors are obligated to consult relevant re cords and individuals who are subj to the Estate 2s ontrol and are reasonab5.3 accessib5.3 to the tate See e.g Tyler Suffolk Cty F.R.D Mass see a6 so In re Auction Houses Antitrust Litig F.R.D S.D.N.Y Such individuals may include for example past or current attorney and/or employees of Epstein See Chevron Corp Donziger F.R.D S.D.N.Y While we appreciate your invitation to suggest individuals and records th at the Estate should consult in responding to Plaintiff 2s Requests will do so wherever ssible Defendants have an independent legal obligation to identify potentially relevant re cords and individuals obtain responsive information from thos sources and provide that info rmation to Plaintiff Please confirm that you have complied or will comply with this obligation and that you will supplement your answers to Plain5.2 iff Requests accord5.8 ingly,5.8 if need5.8 Plaintiff 2s Interrogatory Nos These inte4.8 rroga4.7 tories seek entification of individuals with knowledge of Plai ntiff 2s claims or allegations Epstein 2s agents or employees who had contact with Plaintiff and payments de by Epstein or his agents to Plaintiff Defendants agreed to pplemen5.7 either in resp se to ese inte4.9 rroga tories or by providing relevant documents in respons to Plaintiff 2s Requests Plaintiff 2s Interrogatory Nos These inte4.8 rroga4.7 tories seek entification of Epstein 2s email accounts and addresses phone num bers and personal electronic devices used in connection with the subject matter of this litigation Defendants agreed to immediately provide Epstein 2s telephone number and email address es for the relevant time period and to provide additional detail regarding electronic device used by Jeffrey Epst ein during forthcoming discussions with Plaintiff about electronically stored inform6.2 ation and document discovery Plaintiff 2s Interrogatory No This inter3.5 ogatory seeks id entification of individuals who worked at Epstein mansion at East st reet New York NY between and Defendants agreed to consider upplementing their response to this Interrogatory Please notify us as to whether or ou will supp5.5 lemen5.5 by Plaintiff 2s Interrogatory No This interrogatory seeks id entification of individuals who hired solicited sought out or otherwise co ntacted women on Epstein 2s behalf Plaintiff agreed to consider narrowing or ot rwise rev5.9 sing this ogatory.5.9 Plaintiff 2s Request fo Production No This request seeks documents relating to 223Minor Vic4.7 im in the indic4.7 tmen5.9 issued by the4.6 United Sta4.6 es Attorney5.8 Office for the Southern District of New York against Epstein in July Defendants agreed to search for documents and communications relating to 223Minor Victim in the indi ctment issued by the United Sta4.5 Attorney5.7 Office for the Southern District of New York against Epstein in July Pleas4.8 confirm at any non-p5.6 ivileged do cuments res4.8 ponsive to this request will be produced to Plaintiff Case Document Filed Page of KAPLAN HECKER FINK LLP I Plaintiff 2s Responses to De fendants Interrog5.4 atories and Requests Productio5.4 Defendants Interrogatory No This interro5.825 gatory eks co mputation0.667 of the damages Plaintif4 in this se Plain iff main6 tain her position at she ha supplied all reasonably available information at this time and agr ees to supplement her re sponse as additional information mes ailab5.833 Defendants Interrogatory Nos rroga5.167 to ries eek tion individuals associated Epst ein with whom Plaintif interacted and identification of anything of value aintiff received from Epst6.3 ein Plaintiff has provid3.158 ed all info5.5 rmation available er at this time in her Responses and Objections To the extent that Plaint iff uncovers additional information during disco5.408 very she will pplement her respo5.425 nses rdingly Defendants Interrogatory Nos These terrogatories seek en tification all duties Epstein owed Plainti0.683 ff and each act or om ission by Epstein that eith er breached a duty to Plaintiff violated New York Penal Law or onstituted a tort Plaint iff maintains that these interrogatories request informa tion that is more a ppropriately obtained th rough other discovery devices ch as document productio5.5 and depo5.5 sition5.508 and further at in terrogatories of th is nature are reasonably used to narrow remain ing issues before trial not to deman1.417 a full catalog of facts and evidenc upporting a party 2s conten1.158 tions See Paster4.25 nak Dow Kim No Civ WL at D.N.Y Sept see ECF No permittin1 interrogatories beyond the scope of those pe rmitted by Local Rule a only to the extent onable Plaintiff remains willing to sider reasonab5.917 effor by efendan5.917 to narrow or otherwise revi se these interrogatories Defendants Interrogator Nos and Request Nos These interrogatories and requests seek information about Plaintiffs entire medical history without limita5 tion as time or ontent Plaintiff has sidered th arguments raised by Defendants during the May Meet and Confer Plaintiff 2s position is that sh is not obligated to provide Defendants with her entire medica history or related records See e.g Kunstler City ew York No Civ WL at S.D.N.Y Aug Manessis New York City Dep 2t of Transp No Civ WL at S.D.N.Y Sept Plaintiff has agreed to provide information relating to conditi ons treatments or services relevan5.6 to the claims an defenses in this action To the extent it alleviates the concerns Defendants expressed during the Ma Meet and Confer Plaintiff spec4.9 ifica4.9 lly repre4.9 sents at she interprets this agreement to encompass in formation relating to a ny condition treatment or service that concerns the same or similar conditions as thos she alleges re caused by Epstein5.2 nduct However Plaintiff is it her willing obligated to provide Defendants Indeed the case law by Defendants confirms this point See Rodriguez Folksameri-6.5 ca Reinsurance Co No Civ WL Conn May plai tiff 2s attorney required to state that plaintiff never receive treatment for 223emotional distress,-6.1 an injury alleged in the complaint Arthur Atkinson Freight Lines rp S.D.N.Y plaintiff requ3.7 ired to pro3.7 all records for phys ician eating specifically for inju3.5 ries tied to underlyin3.8 cident Case Document Filed Page of KAPLAN HECKER FINK LLP with a lete of ditio0.5 ns tr eatmen0.833 ts services at she has ex perienced as endants requested Defendants Request No As discussed during the May Meet and Confer to the extent at these ests ca ll for commun5.992 catio ns re late to stein or this litigation and that are solely in the custod0.683 of Plaintiff 2s attorneys these requests are overly broad and unduly burdensome in light of the fact that the overwhelming majority of ch documents will be protected by attorney-cli ent privilege and/or the work produc doctrine During May Meet and Confer Defendants identified two categorie of responsive communications in the custody of Plaintiff 2s counsel that Defe ndants believe are not privileged1.258 i communicatio)1.325 ns between Plaintiff 2s counsel and counsel plaintiffs in simil ar pending cases agai nst Epstein and ii communications between Plaintiff 2s counsel and journalists concernin3.658 aintiff 2s specific alleg6.583 ation6.583 With regard to the first categ ory communi cations between Plai ntiff 2s counsel counsel to plaintiffs in similar its against Def endants are in fact protected communications Plaintif0.508 2s counsel has communicated with counsel for ot her plaintiffs only about matters as to which they share a common interest and strate gy 227chiefly the proposed victim 2s compensation program A ccordingly those communicatio2.408 ns ch reflect Plaintif 2s counsel 2s mental impressions conclusions opinions or legal theories are ct to the ection0.583 the work product doctrine which is not waived by disclosure to a third party unle ss the disclosure makes disclosu6.167 re to an advers5.25 lly Favors Cuomo F.R.D E.D.N.Y Thai-L6.3 ao Lignite Thailand Gov 2t of Lao People 2s Democratic Republic Supp 2d In addition su ch communications are subject to the protectio1.925 of the common interest doctrine which pr otects the confidentiality of communications between attorneys with common legal interests undertaking a joint effort or strategy Fireman 2s Fund Ins Co Great Am Ins Co of New York F.R.D S.D.N.Y Schultz Milhorat No Civ WL at E.D.N.Y Apr holding that 223communications between plaintiffs in consolidated cases were cted by mon est With regard to the second categor1.517 as De fendants requested Plaintiff1.433 2s counsel can confirm that to the best of their knowledge,2.067 Plaintiff her counsel have not communicated with journalists about he specific allegation5.417 Accordingly5.583 Plaintiff mainta ins her objections to ese sts and ill ndertake to ew mmunicatio ns that elate to Epste4.667 i this litiga ion th at are solely in the custody of ain tiff 2s attorneys Plaintiff emain5.583 willi ng to discuss thes4.75 or er specific categories of communications that fenda nts are seeking through these requests Defendants Request No Plaintiff agreed to provide a copy of her birth certificate Defendants Request No Plain5.9 iff reed provide aca4.8 emic reco5.9 rds for middle school and high school if any Case Document Filed Page of KAPLAN HECKER FINK LLP 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 Case Document Filed Page of KAPLAN HECKER FINK LLP A A 4A E0 A4 DE a qr?q rq qrCX HhL Kg lg d?a d6U a M3 flW y??S m/y t0 I F/Z V/j 1a qC KS u?v vZ O5 a qr rCX qC 0V I I dc rM?M rM 10Cy n??m?n k?o?h I A I w?!ac qr MCX 10Cy ITy qr M3 Ґ??1rA5R h?H?T3P K?z X?K I v"x i X5 EO5 5a r?q CX 9r Cy rq rqC M3 ş?:c p/p0 5H V)V 6T Y2 G5 qrM?r?qr?r9 q?10Cy rCX qr l1 X?l 3K fm?Q Z2f CX CX gT L??T 2E Cy 3P EM3 J4T L?h??M q?ᡚ?Y r??O?rJt CTX i P!e i I CTX rC YY I 1e 2j CTX X0T1i k3v Jh/e0h1 H(K W/Q0 CTX j?!k 5B r2 P0 0Q X(P0s s(s p0 Pp CTX qq dR B/J Va A N?q qr NEeD K?i N?M?qr EeD k??O I CTX U3 U3 U3 U3 S6 E"L I I I5K7C:I 9O U3 Cn qrr qr q??r?q 9qr CTX G5 qr CX rC l0 WS zN pf1 ODV8L?m jC1DxV CTX CTX A qr 10Cy rYY Ң??P?V CTX C"C rqM?rq?q?qr qr CTX YY Jb?C.y CTX CTX GG4 A A G5 C.C M??r 10Cy rq YY C?J?yO c/XE?lgF GM??H p?ݡG Dp9Oh CTX CTX CJ4 I J6 CJ4 CK qrrM?q qq 9/CX?o CX qYqr rC dd?Z c6S ttcx A CTX CTX 10Cy rq rqYY X?qiX:4 3J Db ZH uD-8 1g?BH I vS 7Oo7u E?K?O J6 UJP U0 UT??ʴ UT UT UT O(p U(u UF1 iZ qr?r CX CX Yr zKW:E A K5M P-M UW VW L1J KJ56 N/Q SQ rC 6J ߵl ߵl 5TZ w8ĥDG oj?K _4 N)?Y Hp pRqc?W26 vz?WBrz?ZB??3X H4 CTX A CTX X4 U5 P8 5D qr qr 10Cy qr YY Mo?ANp D01jJ 9F bzEV 4O 8V CTX O!o CTX KK AA qr A C5 qr rYY 1A?CC V9 a c?F CTX A G5 qr EeD?M CTX 9?rY 10Cy rq qY ȠX1 a f??B CTX 9F I CTX 6D N?qr rrqq qC O?J RmA??b"0 M?.F q?D B?G CTX CTX F4 d6P A F4 qr rYY 4G AV8 CTX UY UL0 U0 U0 U0 UF UF UFAGA UA UA UAL UL UL UL UL UL UL U7 U7 U7 U7 U7 U7 U7 2EH GTU U/U OUoU UV G1 CTX TUV 1G 7A UA UAL X7 U7 U7 U77XL UL UL ULLYX KTX 8Y GJ A UMAT UD 7M GVW GF10 MWA LL MPM M?M 4M XY qr qr qr NEeD 10Cy qYY E2 GH l1 Pd h3V g?KIq V5kL O65S d_xKKU vV 5H p1 Z6 CTX U0 U1 CTX U0 U1 A0 1D qr qr 10Cy YY K??Kl 1B AMwv 1K F1 KV yW Gd T?H CTX CTX I CK M?qr K?SK?PQZ I IRZX 8YCX 10Cy qr CX kv zg S5kB??a iG wA CTX U2 6Y CTX U2 6Y I K,,j j,s 6Y P!p qr 10Cy qr YY G?O 9K mSd X0 9r?yal 1d bY0 XNf??qN D?J CTX P!Z b!o C,C qrM 10Cy qr8 I fX2 9R lO KV CTX Oo CTX A qr r?qr rq YY Lsy7H4 C,6E IL CTX U3 CTX J,O3_3xx qrM?r q?CX Y9/C 9CX CTX Y10Cy CX CX CX YC YY FV uTl bEWa ȓjJ-8 Gc G??Q9E 9Wq CTX CTX Up i I A 9_ qr qr YY D.X 7s F??Y bc3_c iH CTX CTX A qr 10Cy YY EMq 7H AY mK9Z BY A2 P6L N7 CTX CTX a I I i qr rC CTX CTX 7O I FMM qr qr i I I3 CTX Z6 I L(K4 P:u Z6P CTX y8
