DOJ-OGR-00019318.jpg

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LGS-DCF Document 720 Filed 05/18/20 Page 2 of 3

The Honorable Debra C. Freeman
May 18, 2020
Page 2

Further, Maxwell has provided no information about the subject matter of the criminal investigation into Epstein’s co-conspirators, the status of the investigation, or even disclosed whether she herself is a target of the Southern District’s investigation. When Plaintiff’s counsel asked Maxwell’s counsel for information about the criminal investigation during their meet and confer, Maxwell’s counsel refused to provide any details. “A civil defendant urging such a stay [pending a parallel criminal prosecution] bears the burden of establishing its need.” Rex & Roberta Ling Living Tr. v. B Commc’ns Ltd., 346 F. Supp. 3d 389, 400 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). Maxwell therefore cannot use the existence of a criminal investigation to dodge her discovery obligations in this matter, particularly while at the same time refusing to provide any details or reasons as to why the investigation is a reason to stay the action under the law of this Circuit.¹

Second, the potential claims resolution program does not justify a stay of discovery. As this Court knows, the program cannot go forward due to the current criminal activity lien on Jeffrey Epstein’s Estate in the U.S. Virgin Islands (“USVI”). See Tr. of Feb. 11, 2020 Conf. at 36:15–18 (“[T]he two cases where discovery has been stayed, in light of what’s happening in the Virgin Islands, they may end up unstayed.”). But even if the lien were lifted and the program could go forward tomorrow, both Epstein’s Estate (Maxwell’s co-defendant) and this Court have recognized that victims would still not be required to stay discovery in their cases in order to participate in the program. Tr. of Feb 11, 2020 Conf. at 6:10–18 (Estate explaining that staying litigation is not required in order to participate in the program); Tr. of Feb 11, 2020 Conf. at 17:2–3 (Court recognizing that Defendants cannot ask victims to stay their cases in order to participate in the program); Tr. of Nov. 21, 2019 Conf. at 26:10–11 (“The default in this Court is that it does not stay discovery.”). Accordingly, this Court has not stayed any other action against Jeffrey Epstein’s Estate in light of a potential claims administration program unless all the parties agreed to such a stay, and there is no reason to treat this case differently merely because Maxwell is named as a Defendant in addition to the Estate. Further, this Court has recognized that some discovery might, in fact, be necessary to inform the claims resolution program. Tr. of Nov. 21, 2019 Conf. at 27:8–11 (“[I]t may be that you need discovery in the litigation to have in hand certain discovery before you can figure out the right settlement for a particular case.”).

Maxwell also contends that if the program moves forward and Plaintiff chooses to participate, Maxwell will be released from liability for sexually assaulting Plaintiff when she was a child. But, again, the contours of the program have not been finalized. Even if the program moves forward and even if Plaintiff chooses to participate, it is not clear that Maxwell would be released for her torts against Plaintiff. In fact, the scope of the release that participants in the program would be required to sign is the very issue, and the sole issue, that the USVI Attorney General and Epstein’s Estate are still negotiating. See Co-Executors’ Corrections to Attorney

¹ The pending criminal investigation did not inhibit Maxwell from filing her own lawsuit against the Estate for indemnification, even though her criminal conduct would be directly at issue in that case, and the case would require discovery concerning such conduct. Maxwell v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, et al., ST-20-CV-155 (V.I. Super. Ct.); Willie v. Amerada Hess Corp., 66 V.I. 23, 92 (Super. Ct. 2017) (common law indemnification is only available “where an innocent party is held vicariously liable for the actions of the true tortfeasor” (emphases in original) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).

DOJ-OGR-00019318