030.pdf

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

VE,
Plaintiff,

v.

DARREN K. INDYKE AND RICHARD D. KAHN,
AS JOINT PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, NINE
EAST 71st STREET, CORPORATION, FINANCIAL
TRUST COMPANY, INC., NES, LLC,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-07625-AJN

DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY

Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF Document 30 Filed 11/15/19 Page 1 of 4

Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey
E. Epstein (incorrectly named herein as “Joint Personal Representatives” of the Estate of Jeffrey
E. Epstein), Nine East 71st Street, Corporation, Financial Trust Company, Inc., and NES, LLC
(together, “Defendants”), by their attorneys, submit this memorandum of law in response to
Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To Proceed Anonymously (the Motion) (ECF #4):

ARGUMENT

Defendants do not object to Plaintiff proceeding under a pseudonym to prevent the
disclosure of her identity to the general public. However, this response is necessary for two
separate reasons.

First, Plaintiff’s Motion asserts numerous unproven statements, couched as facts already
in evidence, as well as conclusions of law. Defendants object to these unproven and conclusory
assertions. In any event, the Court does not need to consider such assertions to resolve Plaintiff’s
Motion.

Second, it is imperative that Plaintiff’s desire to shield her identity from the general
public not come at the expense of Defendants’ fundamental right to fully and fairly respond to
Plaintiff’s allegations in her Complaint. Therefore, Defendants respectfully request that the
Court resolve Plaintiff’s Motion by entering the proposed order annexed hereto as Exhibit A (the
“Proposed Order”). The Proposed Order would protect Plaintiff’s identity from public disclosure
while enabling Defendants to fully respond to the Complaint with minimal prejudice. The
Proposed Order would also permit the parties to seek to modify it as necessary to meet the needs
of this case as it evolves.¹

The Proposed Order accords with well-established Second Circuit law because it

________________
¹Should this matter proceed to discovery, the Parties would be able to address discovery issues implicated by
Plaintiff’s desire to proceed anonymously in a separate discovery order that otherwise addresses general
confidentiality concerns.

Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF Document 30 Filed 11/15/19 Page 2 of 4

balances Plaintiff’s legitimate desire to maintain confidentiality with Defendants’ right to fully
defend themselves in this action. See Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F3d 185, 189 (2d
Cir. 2008) (“We agree that the interests of both the public and the opposing party should be
considered when determining whether to grant an application to proceed under a pseudonym.”);
Doe v. Skyline Automobiles Inc., 375 F Supp 3d 401, 407 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (“Allowing Plaintiff
[alleging sexual assault, harassment, and discrimination] to proceed anonymously would
disadvantage Defendants at all stages of litigation, including settlement, discovery, and trial.
Plaintiff's anonymity would make it more difficult to obtain witnesses and witness testimony,
Defendants would have less leverage in settlement negotiations, and Defendants would not be
able to fully and adequately cross-examine the Plaintiff.”); Doe I v. Four Bros. Pizza, Inc., 13-
CV-1505 VB, 2013 WL 6083414, at *31 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2013) (“Significantly, it will not be
feasible for the parties to proceed with discovery in a meaningful way while plaintiffs remain
anonymous.”).

The Proposed Order is also consistent with Plaintiff’s positions in her Motion. The
Motion provides that Plaintiff’s counsel “will cooperate with the court and the Defendants and
reveal Plaintiff’s true identity to defendants for discovery purposes on the condition that
Defendants do not disclose Plaintiff’s name to the general public.” (ECF #4-1 at p. 7).

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request that the Court enter the Proposed
Order and grant Defendants such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF Document 30 Filed 11/15/19 Page 3 of 4

Dated: November 15, 2019
New York, New York

Respectfully submitted,

TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP

By:/s/ Bennet J. Moskowitz
Bennet J. Moskowitz
875 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
(212) 704-6000
bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com

Attorneys for Darren K. Indyke and Richard D.
Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E.
Epstein, Nine East 71st Street, Corporation,
Financial Trust Company, Inc., and NES, LLC.

Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF Document 30 Filed 11/15/19 Page 4 of 4