DOJ-OGR-00019317.jpg
873 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal correspondence (response to pre-motion conference request)
File Size:
873 KB
Summary
This is a legal letter from attorney David Boies representing plaintiff Annie Farmer, addressed to Judge Debra C. Freeman on May 18, 2020. The letter argues against Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's request to stay discovery in the civil case pending a criminal investigation, citing case law that characterizes such stays as extraordinary remedies when no indictment has yet been issued. Boies asserts that Maxwell's motion is an unjustified attempt to delay litigation.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| David Boies | Attorney/Sender |
Attorney for Plaintiff Annie Farmer, writing to Judge Freeman.
|
| Debra C. Freeman | Judge/Recipient |
Honorable Judge presiding over the matter at the US Courthouse.
|
| Annie Farmer | Plaintiff |
Plaintiff in the civil case against Maxwell, Indyke, and Kahn.
|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Defendant seeking to stay discovery due to a pending criminal investigation.
|
| Darren K. Indyke | Defendant |
Named as a co-defendant in the case caption.
|
| Richard D. Kahn | Defendant |
Named as a co-defendant in the case caption.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Boies Schiller Flexner LLP |
Law firm representing the Plaintiff.
|
|
| United States Courthouse |
Venue for the legal proceedings.
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice Office of Government Relations (indicated by footer stamp).
|
Timeline (1 events)
May 18, 2020
Plaintiff Annie Farmer files opposing response to Ghislaine Maxwell's request for pre-motion conference regarding a stay of discovery.
New York, NY
Locations (2)
Relationships (2)
Plaintiff Annie Farmer hereby responds to Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell’s request
David Boies signing the letter on behalf of Plaintiff Annie Farmer
Key Quotes (3)
"The Court should deny Maxwell’s motion for a pre-motion conference and deny her anticipated motion in its entirety because... each of Maxwell’s reasons for staying discovery is meritless and the motion is simply another attempt to unjustifiably delay this litigation."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019317.jpg
Quote #1
"“[A] stay of a civil case to permit conclusion of a related criminal prosecution has been characterized as an extraordinary remedy.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00019317.jpg
Quote #2
"The Court should deny Maxwell’s motion for a stay without prejudice to her ability to renew her application if she is arrested. Until that happens, however, there are no grounds for a stay."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019317.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,698 characters)
Case 1:19-cv-10475-LGS-DCF Document 72 Filed 05/18/20 Page 1 of 3
Case 20-3961, Document 20, 09/10/2020, 2928891, Page 3 of 4
Case 20-3961, Document 20, 09/10/2020, 2928891, Page 3 of 4
BSF
BOIES
SCHILLER
FLEXNER
BOIES
SCHILLER
FLEXNER
David Boies
Telephone: (914) 749-8200
Email: dboies@bsfllp.com
Telephone: (914) 749-8200
Email: dboies@bsfllp.com
May 18, 2020
VIA ECF
The Honorable Debra C. Freeman
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007-1312
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007-1312
Re: Annie Farmer v. Darren K. Indyke, Richard D. Kahn, & Ghislaine Maxwell,
19-10475-LGS-DCF
19-10475-LGS-DCF
Dear Judge Freeman:
Pursuant to Individual Rule I.D, Plaintiff Annie Farmer hereby responds to Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell’s request for a pre-motion conference in connection with her anticipated motion to stay discovery in this matter. The Court should deny Maxwell’s motion for a pre-motion conference and deny her anticipated motion in its entirety because, as explained below, each of Maxwell’s reasons for staying discovery is meritless and the motion is simply another attempt to unjustifiably delay this litigation.
First, a pending criminal investigation of Maxwell does not justify a stay of discovery. “[A] stay of a civil case to permit conclusion of a related criminal prosecution has been characterized as an extraordinary remedy.” Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83, 98 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). In this Circuit, courts balance the following six factors when considering whether to stay a civil case pending related criminal proceedings:
1) the extent to which the issues in the criminal case overlap with those presented in the civil case; 2) the status of the case, including whether the defendants have been indicted; 3) the private interests of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously weighed against the prejudice to plaintiffs caused by the delay; 4) the private interests of and burden on the defendants; 5) the interests of the courts; and 6) the public interest.
Id. at 99. And according to the very case Maxwell cites in support of staying this action pending a criminal investigation: “The weight of authority in this Circuit indicates that courts will stay a civil proceeding when the criminal investigation has ripened into an indictment, but will deny a stay of the civil proceeding where no indictment has issued.” In re Par Pharm., Inc. Sec. Litig., 133 F.R.D. 12, 13–14 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted). The Court should deny Maxwell’s motion for a stay without prejudice to her ability to renew her application if she is arrested. Until that happens, however, there are no grounds for a stay.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
333 Main Street, Armonk, NY 10504 | (t) 914 749 8200 | (f) 914 749 8300 | www.bsfllp.com
333 Main Street, Armonk, NY 10504 | (t) 914 749 8200 | (f) 914 749 8300 | www.bsfllp.com
DOJ-OGR-00019317
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document