2021.03.29%20Response%20to%20Order.pdf

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DISTRICT OF ST. THOMAS & ST. JOHN
****************************
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, )
) CIVIL NO. ST-2020-CV-00155
Plaintiff, )
)
)
v. )
)
ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, DARREN )
K. INDYKE, in his capacity as EXECUTOR OF )
THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, )
RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as )
EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY )
E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC, a New York )
Limited Liability Company, )
)
Defendants. )
_________________________________________ )
BRIEF PURSUANT TO COURT’S MARCH 17, 2021 ORDER
COME NOW the Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the “Estate”),
DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, and hereby submit this brief pursuant to
the Court’s March 17, 2021 Order.
DISCUSSION
The Court’s March 17, 2021 Order requests that the Estate address whether this case
should be: (i) designated as complex, and (ii) assigned to the same judge as Case No. ST-2020-
CV-00014 to avoid delay or inconsistent rulings.
The Court should not designate this matter complex. A “complex” case “requires
exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the court or the
litigants and to expedite the case, keep costs reasonable, and promote effective decision making
by the court, the parties, and counsel.” V.I. R. Civ. P. 92(a). This is not such a case. Rather,
it is a simple, one (1) issue dispute—whether Maxwell is entitled to indemnification of legal
fees. Moreover, the Rule 92(c) factors do not weigh in favor of complex designation: the action
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
FILED
March 29, 2021
ST-2020-CV-00155
TAMARA CHARLES
CLERK OF THE COURT

Ghislaine Maxwell v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, et al. Case No. ST-20-CV-155
Brief Pursuant to Court’s March 17, 2021 Order Page 2
does not involve a large number of parties, claims, or claimants; the case does not require
special expertise or case processing by the Complex Litigation Division judge or staff; and the
case does not implicate the various potential efficiencies of coordinated proceedings.
Nor would coordination of this matter with Case No. ST-2020-CV-00014 (the “CICO
action”) significantly advance judicial efficiency. As noted above, this matter is a simple one,
based on a nine (9) page complaint asserting three (3) indemnification claims and seeking as
its sole remedy indemnification of legal fees and costs. The pending motion to dismiss in this
matter raises two (2) arguments. By contrast, the Government’s proposed Second Amended
Complaint in the CICO action is seventy-six (76) pages long, asserts twenty-six (26) CICO
claims, alleges a multi-decade long criminal enterprise, and seeks a laundry list of remedies,
including forfeiture, divestiture, the dissolution of entities, injunctions, revocation of licenses,
receivership, monetary penalties, and punitive damages. The Defendants’ motion to dismiss
the Amended Complaint raises at least ten (10) separate legal issues, none of which overlap
with the issues raised in the motion to dismiss in this matter. Given the distinct nature of the
claims and legal issues presented in the two matters, there is little risk of inconsistent rulings
should the cases remain assigned to different judges. Nor are there issues of delay in either
matter that would be alleviated by coordination of both matters before a single judge.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court should not designate this matter complex nor
assign the case to the same judge assigned to the CICO action.

Ghislaine Maxwell v. Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, et al. Case No. ST-20-CV-155
Brief Pursuant to Court’s March 17, 2021 Order Page 3
Respectfully,
Dated: March 29, 2021 /s/ Christopher Allen Kroblin
CHRISTOPHER ALLEN KROBLIN, ESQ.
SHARI N. D’ANDRADE, ESQ.
MARJORIE WHALEN, ESQ.
V.I. Bar Nos. 966, 1221 & R2019
KELLERHALS FERGUSON KROBLIN PLLC
Royal Palms Professional Building
9053 Estate Thomas, Suite 101
St. Thomas, V.I. 00802
Telephone: (340) 779-2564
Facsimile: (888) 316-9269
Email: ckroblin@kellfer.com
sdandrade@kellfer.com
mwhalen@kellfer.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 29th day of March 2021, I caused a true and exact
copy of the foregoing Brief in Response to Court’s March 17, 2021 Order, which complies
with the page or word limitation set forth in Rule 6-1(e), to be served via VIJEFS upon:
Kyle R. Waldner, Esq.
Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A.
9300 S. Dadeland Blvd., 4th Floor
Miami, FL 33156
kwaldner@qpwblaw.com
Ariel M. Smith, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
Virgin Islands Department of Justice
Office of the Attorney General
34-38 Kronprindsens Gade
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00802
ariel.smith@doj.vi.gov /s/ Christopher Allen Kroblin