DOJ-OGR-00019319.jpg

Case 1:19-cv-10475-LGS-DCF Document 72 Filed 05/18/20 Page 3 of 3

The Honorable Debra C. Freeman
May 18, 2020
Page 3

General’s Status Report on Voluntary Compensation Program, Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Probate No. ST-19-PB-80 (Apr. 14, 2020, V.I. Super. Ct.); Notice of Joinder of Motion for Status Conference Regarding Victim Compensation Fund, Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Probate No. ST-19-PB-80 (Apr. 29, 2020, V.I. Super. Ct.). The claims resolution program is therefore not a valid basis to stay this action without Plaintiff’s consent.²

Third, Maxwell contends that her motion to dismiss is “strong and warrants a stay of discovery pending its resolution.” Plaintiff has already addressed the merits of Maxwell’s motion to dismiss in her response to Maxwell’s letter requesting a pre-motion conference on that motion. ECF No. 48. Judge Schofield’s words at the pre-motion conference—in which she suggested that Maxwell’s counsel not file a motion to dismiss—speak for themselves, and demonstrate that Maxwell’s motion to dismiss is anything but “strong”: “I’ve reviewed the letter from defendant Maxwell’s counsel, and this particular motion doesn’t strike me as any more meritorious” than the one previously contemplated by the Estate, which eventually filed an Answer in lieu of a motion to dismiss after a similar pre-motion conference before Judge Schofield. Tr. of Apr. 16, 2020 Conf. at 3:22–24. Further, this Court has explicitly stated that the default in this Court is that dispositive motions do not stay discovery, which is also consistent with Judge Schofield’s individual rules. Tr. of Nov. 21, 2019 Conf. at 26:10–12; Judge Schofield’s Individual Rule III.C.2. (“Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court does not stay discovery or any other case management deadlines during the pendency of a motion to dismiss.”). Maxwell’s anticipated motion to dismiss should not stay discovery in this matter, just as the Estate’s motions to dismiss have not stayed discovery in any other matter against it in this District.

The Court should deny Maxwell’s motion for a pre-motion conference, and deny her anticipated motion to stay discovery in this matter in its entirety. Nor is full briefing necessary to address the above issues—the anticipated motion to stay borders on frivolous in light of this Court’s clear statements about staying cases against Epstein’s Estate and Judge Schofield’s advice to Maxwell to refrain from filing a motion to dismiss. Maxwell has already failed to comply with her discovery obligations in this matter, in effect granting herself a de facto stay, and providing for a full, three-week briefing schedule on her anticipated motion to stay will only give her another incentive to continue to delay. Fact discovery in this matter ends in less than two months, and we respectfully submit that her delay tactics should end now.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ David Boies
David Boies, Esq.

cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF)

² Maxwell also argues that the fact that Plaintiff’s sister (and a few other victims) have voluntarily stayed their cases in light of a potential claims resolution program warrants a ruling that Plaintiff must stay her case as well. This makes no sense. Plaintiff and her sister filed separate actions and are separate litigants. Plaintiff’s sister’s decisions do not bind Plaintiff, nor do any other victims’ decisions.

DOJ-OGR-00019319