044.pdf

Case 1:19-cv-10476-PGG-DCF Document 44 Filed 05/14/20 Page 1 of 4
BSF BOIES
SCHILLER
FLEXNER
Sigrid S. McCawley
Telephone: (954) 377-4223
Email: smccawley@bsfllp.com
May 14, 2020
VIA ECF
The Honorable Debra Freeman
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007-1312
Re: Teresa Helm v. Darren K. Indyke & Richard D. Kahn, 19-10476-PGG-DCF
Dear Judge Freeman:
We submit on behalf of Plaintiff Teresa Helm this reply in further support of her letter
motion for a conference to address Defendants’ failure to comply with their discovery obligations
(ECF No. 37), and in response to Defendants’ second letter in opposition, filed on May 13, 2020
(ECF No. 43). As an initial matter, the Court should disregard Defendants’ latest response as
untimely. Pursuant to Individual Rule 1.D., “[u]nless the Court orders otherwise, opposition to
any letter motion shall be filed within three (3) days of the moving letter.” Notwithstanding this
rule, Defendants filed an incomplete and non-substantive opposition on May 8, and requested
“permission to submit a response to the substantive issues raised in the Letters by May 13, 2020.”
ECF No. 38. Defendants’ letter did not comply with Individual Rule 1.B., which governs “requests
for adjournments or extensions of time.” In any event, the Court did not issue an order extending
Defendants’ time to respond, much less grant Defendants leave to file two oppositions as opposed
to one. But even if the Court were to consider Defendants’ untimely filing, each of their arguments
is meritless, and confirms the need for immediate Court intervention to resolve the parties’ disputes.
First, Defendants refuse to engage in discovery for more than a narrow, less than one-year
period in 2002. This is improper, as information concerning Epstein’s abuse of other girls and
young women throughout the span of his sex-trafficking conspiracy is plainly relevant, and
therefore discoverable under Rule 26. Defendants deride Plaintiff’s allegations as a “sex
trafficking scheme–which,” according to Defendants, “is based on unproven allegations in the
S.D.N.Y.’s 2019 indictment of Mr. Epstein.” ECF No. 43 at 2 (emphases added). But given all
that has been discovered about the scope of Epstein’s operations and the numerous ways in which
Plaintiff’s abuse mirrored Epstein’s abuse of others, Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff “does not
need discovery about Mr. Epstein’s interactions with other individuals” is baseless. As set forth
in Plaintiff’s opening letter, “[d]ocuments relating to the sexual trafficking and/or sexual assault
of others at any point during that period would make the fact that Epstein trafficked and sexually
assaulted Plaintiff, the key fact that Plaintiff bears the burden of proving in this case, more probable
than it would be without such evidence.” ECF No. 37 at 2. Moreover, Rule 415 (which Defendants
fail to address) unambiguously provides that “[i]n a civil case involving a claim for relief based on
a party’s alleged sexual assault or child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the party
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
401 East Las Olas Boulevard. Suite 1200. Fort Lauderdale. FL 33301 1 (t) 954 356 0011 I (f) 954 356 0022 I www.bsfllp.com
Case 1:19-cv-10476-PGG-DCF Document 44 Filed 05/14/20 Page 2 of 4
The Honorable Debra C. Freeman
May 14, 2020
Page 2
committed any other sexual assault or child molestation.” Fed. R. Evid. 415. Defendants are free
to attempt to prove Epstein innocent, and can try to prove that the allegations set forth in Plaintiff’s
complaint and the S.D.N.Y.’s indictment are false. They cannot, however, prevent Plaintiff from
accessing the information that would prove otherwise.
Defendants argue that allowing discovery into a period of time greater than a few months
is somehow “not proportional to the needs of this case and would impose an undue burden on the
Co-Executors.” ECF No. 43 at 1. But “unsubstantiated claims of undue burden, overbreadth and
lack of relevancy” in situations where a party has “produced no documents and answered no
interrogatories . . . are a paradigm of discovery abuse.” Jacoby v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co.,
254 F.R.D. 477, 478 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). Defendants do not even attempt to quantify what the burden
of reviewing documents through the present would be, or how that number would compare to that
for the time period they propose. The only information Defendants offer in their letter is a
representation that they are “reviewing a database of over 730,000 documents.” ECF No. 43 at 1
(emphasis in original). That representation is ambiguous, however, as it sheds no light on (i) how
many of those documents Defendants will review (as opposed to just being a number of documents
housed on a “database”); (ii) how those documents were collected; or (iii) whether any of those
documents are currently being reviewed in response to the discovery requests Plaintiff served in
this case (as opposed to those served in cases brought by other victims). And the fact that Epstein’s
Estate is “large and complicated” does not change Defendants’ discovery obligations or the
deadlines that this Court imposed. Absent any particularized showing that compliance with
Plaintiff’s discovery requests would pose an undue burden, Defendants’ proposal to limit the
discovery period to less than a year is unfounded. Again, to date Defendants have not produced a
single document—not one.
Second, Defendants improperly refuse to answer interrogatories or produce documents that
do not specifically reference Plaintiff or the specific instances in which she was abused.
Defendants claim that they “have and will continue to search for and produce documents that relate
to Plaintiff and her claims of battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress, regardless of
whether they specifically reference Plaintiff.” ECF No. 43 at 3. As set forth above, however,
Plaintiff is entitled to information concerning Epstein’s sex-trafficking conspiracy as a whole,
including his abuse of others, his communications with his co-conspirators, and the various ways
in which he operated his scheme throughout the years. Because the parties’ disagreement hinges
on whether or not defined topics are discoverable under Rule 26, Defendants’ suggestion that the
dispute can be resolved by exchanging “bilateral search-term proposals” is disingenuous at best.1
Id. at 3. Court intervention is required now so that Defendants can begin reviewing and producing
documents concerning the sex-trafficking conspiracy they are trying to keep secret.
Third, the Court should compel Defendants to answer Plaintiff’s interrogatories in full. In
a desperate attempt to convince the Court that this issue is somehow “moot” or that Plaintiff’s
pre-motion letter was “premature,” Defendants claim that Plaintiff’s request was merely “that Co-
1 Plaintiff already offered to provide a list of search terms to Defendants, and their counsel
responded by stating that Defendants would only consider any other names Plaintiff goes by as
search terms. If that was not Defendants’ position, they never corrected it or otherwise indicated
that they would change it.
Case 1:19-cv-10476-PGG-DCF Document 44 Filed 05/14/20 Page 3 of 4
The Honorable Debra C. Freeman
May 14, 2020
Page 3
Executors supplement their interrogatory responses.” ECF No. 43 at 3. To be clear, Plaintiff’s
anticipated motion will be to compel Defendants to respond meaningfully to all of Plaintiff’s
interrogatories, which has still not happened despite Defendants’ belated “supplementation.”
Defendants’ “supplemental responses,” attached hereto as Exhibit A, remain deficient, and only
insert cosmetic changes based on information that should have been obvious to Defendants at the
time they served their “initial” responses, 2 or parrot back information taken from Plaintiff’s
complaint and Plaintiff’s own production of documents. In any event, each of Defendants’
“supplemental” responses “is limited to the Relevant Time Period,” which means that Defendants
still refuse to answer Plaintiff’s interrogatories for more than a one year period. Court
intervention is required to compel Defendants to answer these interrogatories in full.
Finally, although irrelevant to the pending motion concerning Defendants’ discovery
efforts, Plaintiff has fully complied with her discovery obligations to date, and will continue to do
so. Defendants complain that Plaintiff included within her productions what they claim are
“irrelevant documents from another case,” ECF No. 43 at 4, but Plaintiff produced these
documents because Defendants specifically asked for the documents identified in Plaintiff’s initial
disclosures, and Plaintiff correctly produced those documents. Plaintiff has and will continue to
engage with opposing counsel in good faith to answer any questions they may have.3
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant her request
for a conference.
2 Together with their “supplemental responses,” Defendants’ served verifications for their “initial
responses” on May 13, 2020. Ex. B. Whereas the initial responses were served on April 16, the
signatures for the verifications for those responses are dated May 12, 2020, which is the same date
as the verifications for the supplemental responses.
3
In a footnote, Defendants mention a ruling in Giuffre v. Dershowitz, which disqualified Boies
Schiller Flexner LLP (“BSF”) as counsel for another Epstein victim, Virginia Giuffre, in a
defamation case brought by that victim against Alan Dershowitz. Giuffre v. Dershowitz, 410 F.
Supp. 3d 564, 578-79 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). Judge Preska’s disqualification of the law firm was not a
sanction. Instead, it was based on the advocate-witness rule because Dershowitz claimed that a
BSF attorney (while representing the victim) said something to him during a settlement negotiation
that would implicate the truth or falsity of one of Dershowitz’s allegedly defamatory statements.
Id. at 579. Indeed, BSF continues to represent Virginia Giuffre before Judge Preska in the Giuffre
v. Maxwell matter. Defendants disingenuously state that “[t]he Court should be aware” of that
ruling, despite the fact that it has nothing to do with whether or not Plaintiff herself was a victim
of Epstein’s sex-trafficking conspiracy. If Defendants and their counsel are actually seeking to
prove Epstein innocent or otherwise insulated from accounting for his misconduct, they should
drop their baseless objections to discovery, stop ad hominem attacks on counsel, cease their delay
tactics, and welcome a trial on the merits.
Case 1:19-cv-10476-PGG-DCF Document 44 Filed 05/14/20 Page 4 of 4
The Honorable Debra C. Freeman
May 14, 2020
Page 4
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley
Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq.
cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF)
Exhibit A
Case 1:19-cv-10476-PGG-DCF Document 44-1 Filed 05/14/20 Page 1 of 14
42245383v6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
TERESA HELM,
Plaintiff,
v.
DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN
in their capacities as the executors of the ESTATE
OF JEFFREY EDWARD EPSTEIN,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:19-cv-10476-PGG-DCF
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF
TERESA HELM’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS
Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, as co-executors of the estate of Jeffrey
E. Epstein (the “Co-Executors”), by their attorneys, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
26 and 33, provide the following supplemental responses to Plaintiff Teresa Helm’s (“Plaintiff”)
First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants (the “Interrogatories”).
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
These supplemental responses are made solely for the purpose of and in relation to
discovery in the above-captioned action. The Co-Executors submit these supplemental responses
subject to, and without intending to waive, and expressly preserving: (i) any objections as to
relevancy, materiality, competency, privilege and admissibility of any documents and information
produced in discovery, including without limitation herein; and (ii) the right to object to any other
discovery requests. The Co-Executors have been placed in charge of a large and complex estate
and are working to determine the existence of responsive information concerning the affairs of
Jeffrey E. Epstein (“Decedent”) and those efforts are continuing. Much of the requested
information is outside of their knowledge, possession or control. To the extent non privileged
Case 1:19-cv-10476-PGG-DCF Document 44-1 Filed 05/14/20 Page 2 of 14
2
42245383v6
responsive information would be available to them at all, access to such information has been
severely hampered by the current pandemic. Accordingly, Co-Executors reserve their right to
amend or further supplement these responses if and when appropriate. Further, these supplemental
responses are neither an admission nor acceptance of any alleged facts, including without
limitation those stated in the Interrogatories.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS
The Co-Executors incorporate their initial objections to the definitions and instructions as
if stated fully herein.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1
List the names and addresses of all persons who are believed or known by You, Your
agents, or Your attorneys to have any knowledge concerning any of the issues in this lawsuit, and
specify the subject matter about which the witness has knowledge.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Interrogatory No. 1 on the grounds and to the extent that it
calls for the production of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work
product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure. The Co Executors also object to Interrogatory No. 1 on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither
relevant to Plaintiff’s claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and
unduly burdensome.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Co-Executors identify the
following individual who has knowledge concerning the battery and intentional infliction of
emotional distress allegedly committed by Decedent against Plaintiff: Plaintiff.
In addition, in her Complaint, Plaintiff identifies the following individuals with whom she
Case 1:19-cv-10476-PGG-DCF Document 44-1 Filed 05/14/20 Page 3 of 14
3
42245383v6
alleges she interacted with or communicated with: Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, and the
unidentified fellow massage therapy student described in paragraph 36 of the Complaint. Co Executors do not know whether these individuals ever spoke with or interacted with Plaintiff, or
have knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s claims.
In addition, the Co-Executors identify the following individuals, believed to have worked
at Decedent’s home in New York, which is the only place where Plaintiff alleges she encountered
Decedent, during the period from June 1, 2002, to December 31, 2002, which based upon the
allegations of the Complaint, appears to cover the entire time period during which Plaintiff’s
claims could have accrued (the “Relevant Time Period”): Luciano Fontanilla, Rosalyn Fontanilla,
Richard Barnett, Ghislaine Maxwell and Adam Perry Lang. Co-Executors do not know whether
these individuals ever spoke with or interacted with Plaintiff, or have knowledge concerning
Plaintiff’s allegations.
To the extent additional individuals are identified in response to other interrogatories, those
individuals may, but not necessarily, have such knowledge. The Co-Executors’ search for relevant
information remains ongoing; they will supplement this response if and when any additional
responsive information is ascertained.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2
Identify all email accounts used by Epstein or any of his employees or agents on his behalf.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Interrogatory No. 2 on the grounds that it seeks information
that is neither relevant to Plaintiff’s claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also
overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Co-Executors further object to this Interrogatory on
Case 1:19-cv-10476-PGG-DCF Document 44-1 Filed 05/14/20 Page 4 of 14
4
42245383v6
the grounds and to the extent that it is unconstrained by time. Accordingly, Co-Executors’
response is limited to the Relevant Time Period.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Co-Executors state that it is
their understanding that the email addresses listed below were created for or on behalf of Decedent,
but only jeevacation@gmail.com and jeeproject@yahoo.com were actively used by Decedent
himself. Moreover, Co-Executors currently do not believe that jeevacation@gmail.com existed or
was in use during the Relevant Time Period and do not know whether jeeproject@yahoo.com was
in use during the Relevant Time Period:
• columbiadental1@yahoo.com
• jeevacation@me.com
• jeevacation1@me.com
• jeeproject@yahoo.com
• jeevacation@gmail.com
• jeffrey@jeffreyepstein.org
• jeffreyepsteinorg@gmail.com
• jeffreyepsteinorg@yahoo.com
• jeffreyepstein@live.com
• jeeitunes@gmail.com
• littlestjeff@yahoo.com
The Co-Executors’ search for relevant information remains ongoing; they will supplement
this response if and when any additional responsive information is ascertained.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3
Identify all telephone numbers used by Epstein or any of his employees or agents acting
on his behalf, including beepers, Blackberry or PDA devices, cellular phones and land lines in any
of his residences, by stating the users name, complete telephone number(s), type of device and
name of the service provider.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Interrogatory No. 3 on the grounds that it seeks information
that is neither relevant to Plaintiff’s claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also
overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Co-Executors further object to this Interrogatory on
Case 1:19-cv-10476-PGG-DCF Document 44-1 Filed 05/14/20 Page 5 of 14
5
42245383v6
the grounds and to the extent that it is unconstrained by time. Accordingly, Co-Executors’
response is limited to the Relevant Time Period.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Co-Executors state that it is
their understanding that the following phone numbers were used by Decedent or registered to
properties where Decedent stayed at different times, but are unaware of the specific time period
that the numbers were in use:
Case 1:19-cv-10476-PGG-DCF Document 44-1 Filed 05/14/20 Page 6 of 14
340-775-8111
340-77 5-8112
340-775-8113
340-775-8114
340-775-8100
340-775-8101
340-775-8102
340-775-8103
340-775-8104
340-775-8105
340-775-8106
340-775-8107
340-775-8108
1340-775-8109
340-775-8110
340-775-8115
340-775-8116
340-775-8117
340-775-8118
340-775-8119
340-775-8120
340-775-8121
340-775-8122
340-775-8123
340-775-8124
340-775-8125
340-775-8126
340-775-8127
340-775-8128
340-775-8129
340-775-8130
340-775-8131
340-775-8132
340-775-8133
340-775-8134
340-775-8135
340-775-8136
340-775-8137
340-775-8138
340-775-8139
340-775-81 40
340-775-8141
340-775-8142
340-77 5-8143
340-775-8144
340-775-8145
340-77 5-8146
340-775-8147
340-775-8148
340-775-8149
561-655-7626
561-655-7629
561-832-2104
561-805-8663
561-655-3572
561-655-3 704
561-655-2312
561-655-2779
505-938-2929
505-938-2930
505-938-2928
505-938-3065
505-938-3066
505-938-3069
505-938-301.1_
347-603-2935
505-377-3854
505-934-1256
(212) 533-3739
6
42245383v6
The Co-Executors’ search for relevant information remains ongoing; they will supplement
this response if and when any additional responsive information is ascertained.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4
Identify all employees, including each employee’s position and dates and locations of
employment, who performed work or services in or on any property owned, leased, occupied, or
used by Epstein, including but not limited Epstein’s homes in Palm Beach, Florida, New York
City, the U.S. Virgin Islands, New Mexico, London and Paris, and provide the name and contact
information of the individual who hired, trained and supervised each employee.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Interrogatory No. 4 on the grounds that it seeks information
that is neither relevant to Plaintiff’s claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also
overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Co-Executors further object to this Interrogatory on
the grounds and to the extent that it is unconstrained by time. Accordingly, Co-Executors’
response is limited to those individuals who are believed to have worked during the Relevant Time
Period at Decedent’s home in New York, which is the only place where Plaintiff alleges she
encountered Decedent. Co-Executors do not know whether these individuals ever spoke with or
interacted with Plaintiff during the Relevant Time Period.
Case 1:19-cv-10476-PGG-DCF Document 44-1 Filed 05/14/20 Page 7 of 14
I - ' ' 505-938-3072 212-472-1411
505-988-3071 212-472-4883
505-832-4900 212-535-5198
505-832-4970
505-832-4983
505-832-5369
212-535-5297
212-717-4672
212-249-1122
212-327-1608
505-832-5401 212-879-3281
212-772-9416 212-750-9895
212-249-1113
212-249-1166
212-249-9457
7
42245383v6
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Co-Executors identify the
following individuals: Luciano Fontanilla, Rosalyn Fontanilla, Richard Barnett, Ghislaine
Maxwell and Adam Perry Lang.
The Co-Executors’ search for relevant information remains ongoing; they will supplement
this response if and when any additional responsive information is ascertained.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5
Identify all employees, including each employee’s position and dates and location of
employment, who performed work as an assistant, scheduler, secretary, masseuse or traveling
masseuse for Epstein and provide the name and contact information of the individual who hired,
trained and supervised each employee.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Interrogatory No. 5 on the grounds that it seeks information
that is neither relevant to Plaintiff’s claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also
overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Co-Executors also object to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that the terms “scheduler” and “traveling masseuse” are vague and ambiguous. The Co Executors further object to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it is
unconstrained by time. Accordingly, Co-Executors’ response is limited to the Relevant Time
Period.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Co-Executors identify Lesley
Groff and Sarah Kellen, who were Decedent’s assistants during a portion of the Relevant Time
Period. Co-Executors do not know whether Ms. Groff or Ms. Kellen ever spoke with or interacted
with Plaintiff. Co-Executors also refer Plaintiff to the documents produced by Plaintiff at Bates
Nos. THELM 3736-3832, which purports to list contact information for masseuses. Co-Executors
do not know whether any individuals identified therein are masseuses or if those individuals
provided massages to Decedent during the Relevant Time Period. The Co-Executors’ search for
Case 1:19-cv-10476-PGG-DCF Document 44-1 Filed 05/14/20 Page 8 of 14
8
42245383v6
relevant information remains ongoing; they will supplement this response if and when any
additional responsive information is ascertained.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6
Identify all companies and/or persons who provided transportation services to Epstein,
whether as an employee or independent contractor, including without limitation drivers,
chauffeurs, boat captains, pilots, and aircraft crew, and provide the contact information for each
listed person or company.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Interrogatory No. 6 on the grounds that it seeks information
that is neither relevant to Plaintiff’s claims nor proportional to the needs of this case, as Plaintiff
does not allege that she traveled anywhere with Decedent; it is also overly broad and unduly
burdensome. The Co-Executors also object to this Interrogatory on the grounds that the phrase
“transportation services” is vague and ambiguous. The Co-Executors further object to this
Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that is unconstrained by time. Accordingly, Co Executors’ response is limited to the Relevant Time Period.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Co-Executors identify Shoppers
Travel, Inc., which is a travel agency that provided travel-related services to Decedent at certain
times, although Co-Executors do not know if services were provided by Shoppers Travel, Inc.
during the Relevant Time Period.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7
Identify all females by name and age for whom Epstein or his employees or agents provided
accommodations at 301 East 66th Street, New York, New York for any period of time.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Interrogatory No. 7 on the grounds that it seeks information
that is neither relevant to Plaintiff’s claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also
Case 1:19-cv-10476-PGG-DCF Document 44-1 Filed 05/14/20 Page 9 of 14
9
42245383v6
overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Co-Executors also object to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that the phrase “provided accommodations” is vague and ambiguous. The Co-Executors
further object to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it is unconstrained by time.
Accordingly, Co-Executors’ response is limited to the Relevant Time Period.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Co-Executors state the
following individuals stayed at 301 East 66th Street, New York, New York for some period of time,
but it is unknown whether any of them stayed at 301 East 66th Street, New York, New York during
the Relevant Time Period:
• Roslyn Fontanilla
• Susan Hamblin
• Sarah Kellen
Co-Executors do not know whether the individuals listed have ever spoke with or interacted
with Plaintiff during the Relevant Time Period. The Co-Executors’ search for relevant information
remains ongoing; they will supplement this response if and when any additional responsive
information is ascertained.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8
Identify by name and age all persons who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage
to Epstein, Maxwell or a guest, or to whom Epstein or Maxwell gave a massage, at any of Epstein’s
residences and provide the location of each massage.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Interrogatory No. 8 on the grounds and to the extent that it
calls for the production of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work
product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure. The Co Executors further object on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant to
Plaintiff’s claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly
Case 1:19-cv-10476-PGG-DCF Document 44-1 Filed 05/14/20 Page 10 of 14
10
42245383v6
burdensome. The Co-Executors further object to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent
that it is unconstrained by time. Accordingly, Co-Executors’ response is limited to the Relevant
Time Period.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Co-Executors refer Plaintiff to
the documents produced by Plaintiff at Bates Nos. THELM 3736-3832, which purports to list
contact information for masseuses. Co-Executors do not know whether any individuals identified
therein are masseuses or if those individuals provided massages to Decedent during the Relevant
Time Period. The Co-Executors’ search for relevant information remains ongoing; they will
supplement this response if and when any additional responsive information is ascertained.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9
Identify any telecommunications, information technology, or audio-visual technology
company that Epstein hired for work in any of his residences or offices and provide the name and
contact information for each individual or company listed, in addition to the residence or office
serviced.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Interrogatory No. 12 on the grounds that it seeks information
that is neither relevant to Plaintiff’s claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also
overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Co-Executors also object to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that the phrase “hired for work” is vague and ambiguous. The Co-Executors further object
to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it is unconstrained by time. Accordingly,
Co-Executors’ response is limited to the Relevant Time Period.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Co-Executors believe that
Mark Lundberg may have performed information technology work in some or all of Decedent’s
homes during the Relevant Time Period.
Case 1:19-cv-10476-PGG-DCF Document 44-1 Filed 05/14/20 Page 11 of 14
11
42245383v6
The Co-Executors’ search for relevant information remains ongoing; they will supplement
this response if and when any additional responsive information is ascertained.
Dated: New York, New York
May 13, 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 Darren K. Indyke and
Richard D. Kahn, as co-executors of the
estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein
Case 1:19-cv-10476-PGG-DCF Document 44-1 Filed 05/14/20 Page 12 of 14
Case 1:19-cv-10476-PGG-DCF Document 44-1 Filed 05/14/20 Page 13 of 14
TERESA HELM.
V.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Plaimtff,
Case No. 1: 19-cv-l 04 76-PGG-DCF
DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN
in their capacities as the exe-eutors of the EST A TE
OF JEFFREY EDWARD EPSTEIN,
Defendants.
VERlFICA TION
Darren K. lndyke and Richard D. Kahn. as Co-Executors of the estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein
(the ··Co-Executors'). have read the foregoing Co-Executors· Objections and Supplemental
Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and are familiar with its contents. The
responses are subject to inadvertent and undiscovered errors and are based on information
available at this stage of discovery. The Co-Executors reserve the right to amend the responses if
it appears at any time that omissions or errors have been made therein or that more accurate or
additional information is available. Subject to the limitations set forth herein aud to the best of
their knowledge and belief, Mr. lndyke and Mr. Kahn. solely in their capacities as Co-Executors,
state that the answers contained therein are true and correct.
422l 1324v3
May 12, 2020
May 12, 2020
Case 1:19-cv-10476-PGG-DCF Document 44-1 Filed 05/14/20 Page 14 of 14
I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on ---
Darren K. Indyke
Co-Executor of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein
I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and co t. Executed on ---
422 ll 324v3
Richard D. Kahn
Co-Executor of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein
- 2 -
Exhibit B
Case 1:19-cv-10476-PGG-DCF Document 44-2 Filed 05/14/20 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:19-cv-10476-PGG-DCF Document 44-2 Filed 05/14/20 Page 2 of 3
TERESA HELM,
V.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1: 19-cv-l 04 76-PGG-DCF
DARREN K. lNDYKE and RJCHARD D. KAHN
in their capacities as the executors of the ESTA TE
OF JEFFREY EDWARD EPSTEIN,
Defendants.
VERIFICATION
Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, as Co-Executors of the estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein
(the "Co-Executors"), have read the Co-Executors · Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs First
Set of Interrogatories, dated April 16, 2020, and are fan1iliar with its contents. The responses are
subject to inadvertent and undiscovered errors and are based on information available at thjs stage
of discovery. The Co-Executors reserve the right to amend the responses if it appears at any time
that omissions or errors have been made therein or that more accurate or additional information is
available. Subject to the limitations set forth herein and to the best of their knowledge and belief,
Mr. Indyke and Mr. Kahn, solely in their capacities as Co-Executors, state that the answers
contwned therein are true and correct.
422l l324v3
May 12, 2020
May 12, 2020
Case 1:19-cv-10476-PGG-DCF Document 44-2 Filed 05/14/20 Page 3 of 3
I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on __ _
Darren K. lndyke
Co-Executor of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein
I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on __ _
42211324v3
Richard D. Kahn
Co-Executor of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein
- 2 -