EFTA00102404

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re: Docket #1:19-cv-08673- DOE, JANE, KPF-DCF Plaintiff, - against - INDYKE, et al., : New York, New York June 24, 2020 Defendants. TELEPHONE CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUDGE DEBRA C. FREEMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAGISTRATE JUDGE APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff: KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP BY: ROBERTA A. KAPLAN, ESQ. KATE L. DONIGER, ESQ. 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, New York 10118 212-763-0883 For the Defendants: TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP BY: BENNET J. MOSKOWITZ, ESQ. 875 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 212-704-6087 TROUTMAN SANDERS BY: MOLLY S. DIRAGO, ESQ. 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3900 Chicago, Illinois 60606 312-759-1926 Transcription Service: Carole Ludwig, Transcription Services 155 East Fourth Street #3C New York, New York 10009 Phone: (212) 420-0771 Email: Transcription420@aol.com Proceedings conducted telephonically and recorded by electronic sound recording; Transcript produced by transcription service EFTA00102404 INDEX EXAMINATIONS Re- Re- Witness Direct Cross Direct Cross None EXHIBITS Exhibit Voir Number Description ID In Dire None EFTA00102405 1 PROCEEDINGS 3 2 HONORABLE DEBRA C. FREEMAN (THE COURT): So this 3 is Judge Freeman. This is Doe v. Indyke, and it is 19-cv- 4 8673. The case is before Judge Failla. 5 Can I have counsels' appearances, please, for this 6 record, starting on plaintiffs' side? 7 MS. ROBERTA KAPLAN: Yes, your Honor. For 8 plaintiffs you have Roberta Kaplan. And I'm here with my 9 colleague -- or I shouldn't say "I'm here" -- I'm on the 10 phone with my colleague, Kate Doniger. 11 THE COURT: Okay. And on defendants' side? 12 MR. BENNET MOSKOWITZ: Hi, your Honor, Bennet 13 Moskowitz. 14 THE COURT: Hold on a second. If others could 15 please mute their lines if they're not speaking? It sounds 16 like someone is maybe monitoring another call at the same 17 time. So I'd appreciate it if you could just mute. 18 Thank you. On defendant's side? 19 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes, thank you, your Honor. I was 20 waiting for that to play out; I heard the same thing. 21 Bennet Moskowitz, Troutman Sanders, for the co-executors. 22 And my colleague, Molly DiRago, is also on the line. 23 THE COURT: Okay. Is there anyone else on the 24 line who is a participant in this call, an attorney for one 25 of the parties in this case? EFTA00102406 1 PROCEEDINGS 4 2 THE COURT: All right, we have a number of people 3 on the line apparently. I probably have some people from 4 my chambers who are listening in, including student 5 interns. And there may be press on the call and others. 6 I'm just going to ask anyone who's listening, again please 7 keep your lines on mute so that it doesn't interfere with 8 the conference with the participants. 9 So the reason I wanted to have a conference in 10 this case -- well, there are a few reasons. There are 11 discovery disputes on the docket that need attention, 12 there's a scheduling matter that needs attention. There's 13 a bigger issue that I wanted to raise about what's going on 14 with this case and the potential settlement of claims 15 through the program that's been set up. 16 So let me start there because of all of the many 17 cases that have been filed in the court, most of which have 18 been referred to me to supervise, far and away most of 19 those are now temporarily stayed because the plaintiffs are 20 planning to pursue remedies in the claims program, now that 21 it's gotten off the ground, and have voluntarily consented 22 to stays. Obviously, there's no obligation that a 23 plaintiff voluntarily consent to a stay, but I did want to 24 understand why this case pretty much stands alone as being 25 aggressively litigated at this time and understand if EFTA00102407 1 PROCEEDINGS 5 2 plaintiff has decided not to participate in the program or 3 is considering and hasn't decided yet whether to 4 participate or wants to do both things simultaneously or 5 what the story is with this particular plaintiff. So can I 6 have that addressed first? 7 MS. KAPLAN: Sure, your Honor; it's Roberta 8 Kaplan. Let me -- first, to answer your question directly, 9 let me tell you that our client is still considering 10 whether to participate in the program. But -- 11 THE COURT: I'm sorry, is still considering? 12 MS. KAPLAN: Yes, whether or not to -- 13 THE COURT: Okay. 14 MS. KAPLAN: And she may indeed well do that. But 15 I think it's very important for the Court to understand 16 that the program itself is not a settlement discussion of 17 this case in the sense that the defendants in this case, as 18 we understand it, have no role in relationship to ability 19 to interfere in any way -- in any way -- with the 20 settlement program. So essentially the way it works, as we 21 understand, is Ken Feinberg and his colleagues will come up 22 with a number. That's the number, and it's either take it 23 or leave it. There's no subsequent negotiation with the 24 estate or anyone else. And so it's not like it's really a 25 settlement discussion of this case; it's not. It's an EFTA00102408 1 PROCEEDINGS 6 2 amount of money that Mr. Feinberg thinks is appropriate 3 under the settlement fund. 4 For many reasons, including the fact that we 5 believe our client is differently situation than many if 6 not all of the other plaintiffs, she believes that there is 7 a very strong likelihood that she is likely to receive more 8 in this case at trial than she would from whatever 9 Mr. Feinberg determines on his own is the appropriate 10 number. 11 And that's for a couple of reasons. One, very few 12 of the cases or not many of the cases have plaintiffs who 13 were underage at the time the acts happened. So there is 14 no statute of limitations problem in this case. And, two, 15 there is no issue in this case, as there are in many of the 16 other cases, about whether or not our client settled any 17 prior claims with either Mr. Epstein or the estate. And 18 the facts are straightforward. She was, as your Honor 19 knows, was witness No. 1, victim No. 1 in the indictment. 20 The U.S. Attorney's Office was fully satisfied in her 21 story. We believe that, whether it's a bench trial, as 22 we've requested, or a jury, that either the judge or the 23 jury will be, too. 24 THE COURT: If she does participate in the program 25 and an amount is offered to her and she decides to accept EFTA00102409 1 PROCEEDINGS 7 2 it, does that have the result of resolving this litigation? 3 MS. KAPLAN: Absolutely. And the minute that 4 happens, we would obviously voluntarily dismiss this case. 5 I think that's a condition of participation in the program. 6 THE COURT: All right. So -- 7 MS. KAPLAN: We also don't know, your Honor, how 8 quickly the program's going work, how many women have been 9 in it. And, again, based on our understanding of the kind 10 of damages awards that Mr. Feinberg and his colleagues have 11 given in analogous circumstances -- and I'm thinking of the 12 Catholic church cases we think it's unlikely, very 13 unlikely that our client is willing to accept the kind of 14 amounts that he's previously offered in similar situations. 15 THE COURT: Well, I assume if you decide to 16 participate in it, you'd participate in it, consider any 17 amount that may be offered, you know, in full good faith, 18 and mull it over and make a decision. You're not going to 19 go into it saying we're not going to accept it whatever it 20 is; you find out what it is. 21 MS. KAPLAN: Oh, no, no, no, no. 22 THE COURT: You find out what it is. 23 MS. KAPLAN: Of course, your Honor. We've 24 basically done a lot of work on this, so we're basing this 25 on what we understand to be amounts that similar funds that EFTA00102410 1 PROCEEDINGS 8 2 Mr. Feinberg has administered have offered to plaintiffs 3 who've experienced things similar to what our client has 4 experienced. And the numbers tend to be actually quite 5 low. 6 THE COURT: Okay. Well, I can't speak to that. I 7 don't know what may be offered in this case. Here are some 8 concerns that I have. One concern that I have is that the 9 underlying reasoning for the Court to make the 10 institutional decision to refer a lot of these cases -- I 11 mean, I shouldn't say that, actually, because it was still 12 an individual judge's decision to refer or not to refer -- 13 most of the judges decided that they would refer cases to 14 me so that there could be coordination among the cases 15 where appropriate in discovery to conserve resources, both 16 for the estate, for the Court, just generally to have 17 coordination so that you didn't have, for example -- and I 18 think it's the most obvious example -- a witness who was 19 going to testify to something that would be relevant to all 20 of the different plaintiffs have to testify on multiple 21 occasions if that could be avoided. And that seems to me 22 still to be a laudable goal. And if it's possible that 23 your client may -- 24 I just want to make sure that we didn't gain -- 25 that sounds like someone joining the call -- we didn't gain EFTA00102411 1 PROCEEDINGS 9 2 any attorney who wants to be participating in this case. 3 Did anyone just join in who wants to be speaking on this 4 call? No. If not, please keep your phone line mute; I 5 appreciate that. 6 If your client decides to participate in the 7 program, then, you know, query why we're spending a lot of 8 resources now, as opposed to in a couple of months. Most 9 of the stays that have been put in effect are only for a 10 couple of months; they're not infinite stays. There are a 11 couple, I think, that were signed by district judges 12 separately that might say Pending Further Order of the 13 Court. The ones that I've signed recently I think have 14 been 60 days. Mr. Moskowitz, correct me if I'm wrong on 15 that. 16 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Your Honor, it's been both, 17 actually. I think the majority are even, I would argue, 18 more flexible than that. I believe the majority, including 19 even more recent ones, just say on the plaintiffs deciding 20 that they no longer want the case stayed, they're 21 essentially free to go back to court and ask for the stay 22 to be lifted. I think there are three or so that include a 23 specific 60 days, which I suppose could be renewed or just 24 let lapse. 25 THE COURT: Yes, I think the most recent ones were EFTA00102412 1 PROCEEDINGS 10 2 60 days, the most recent ones that I signed off on. So 3 those are the ones most recent in my memory. But I've 4 asked for status reports on all of them by sometime mid- 5 August because I don't want it to stretch out forever. 6 So the first issue is should we be conserving 7 resources in case your client ends up resolving the claims 8 through the program. And the second is if your client 9 really is unlikely to participate, unlikely to resolve the 10 claims that way, is there a possibility, and how likely is 11 this, that one of the other plaintiffs or more than one of 12 the other plaintiffs will make a similar decision and will 13 want to come back and litigate maybe in a couple of months, 14 and at that point, would it make sense to try to have some 15 coordinated discovery, particularly again with respect to 16 certain depositions perhaps or certain discovery from the 17 estate or some of the discovery plaintiff by plaintiff is 18 going to be different -- and I understand that -- but some 19 of it is likely to have some common threads; is there a 20 distinct prejudice to waiting for some reasonable limited 21 period of time to see if somebody else comes back into the 22 mix before we go forward with a slew of depositions? And 23 part of the reason for the call was when I asked you to see 24 if you could work out a schedule that included dates for 25 depositions and stop just squabbling about it, you came EFTA00102413 1 PROCEEDINGS 11 2 back with nearly a dozen depositions over a relatively 3 short period of time. And that sort of jumped out at me as 4 wait a second; does it make sense for any of those, at a 5 minimum even if not all of them, to be put on hold to see 6 whether they're the kinds of things that should include 7 parties in more than one of these cases in order to have a 8 more efficient running of multiple cases to conserve 9 resources, including resources of the estate, which after 10 all, maybe can and should be going towards plaintiffs as 11 opposed to litigation costs. 12 And so, you know -- and there are a lot of things 13 that factor into that kind of thought process. One of them 14 is when you have a delay, you know, how likely is it that 15 documents won't be preserved or that memories will fail. 16 Here we have a very long time since the underlying events, 17 and so the likelihood that, you know, memories will fail 18 now that haven't failed already or that documents won't be 19 preserved now when there's a litigation hold when they 20 weren't preserved already -- when they weren't previously 21 preserved, that seems unlikely. And in terms of how fast 22 could this case otherwise get to trial, since I'm sure 23 plaintiff, you know, doesn't want to delay any longer than 24 necessary to reach a resolution, we have the COVID-19 25 issue, which means that we're set back as a court with EFTA00102414 1 PROCEEDINGS 12 2 respect to how fast we can get cases tried. And that's 3 just a current fact of life. 4 And I was speaking to Judge Failla about this to 5 try to get a sense from her as to what she thought, and I 6 don't know if this would be a bench trial or a jury trial. 7 Which would it be, by the way? 8 MS. KAPLAN: Plaintiffs have waived a jury trial. 9 THE COURT: Okay. So with a bench trial -- 10 MR. MOSKOWITZ: We have -- I'm sorry, we -- 11 MS. KAPLAN: It's hard for me to believe, your 12 Honor, it's hard for me to believe that -- 13 THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait just a second. Did 14 defendant -- 15 MS. KAPLAN: Can I finish what I was going to say? 16 It's hard -- defendants have not responded to that -- it's 17 hard for me to believe that the defendants truly believe 18 that they're going to insist on a jury, given the facts and 19 circumstances of this case, but they have refused to tell 20 us whether or not they agree to waive a jury trial. 21 THE COURT: What is defendants' position on this? 22 Because if you didn't -- 23 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yeah, the position -- 24 THE COURT: -- answer -- 25 MR. MOSKOWITZ: -- was not file -- no, that's not EFTA00102415 1 PROCEEDINGS 13 2 correct, your Honor. The plaintiffs' last exchange on this 3 was they -- they said, "Will you waive a jury trial?" We 4 said we're not prepared at this time to make that decision 5 and waive a jury trial. And they said, "Fine. Let us know 6 by the 30th; otherwise, our offer of waiving the bench 7 trial is no longer there." What I'm hearing now is that 8 they are absolutely committed to waiving jury trial. I 9 still am not prepared at this time to make that waiver on 10 my side, nor do I see why it has to be decided at this 11 time. 12 MS. KAPLAN: Yes, what you're hearing, 13 Mr. Moskowitz, is that you are delaying again in bad faith 14 because there's no reason -- 15 THE COURT: All right, wait, wait, wait, wait, 16 wait, please. Everybody stop. I don't need to get into an 17 argument about whether there is or is not a jury trial. 18 I'm going to say this about that. I was raising it only 19 because it's going to be harder to get a trial quickly on 20 this case in light of the COVID-19 problem than it would be 21 otherwise. What's happening in the court is this. With 22 respect to juries, right now we don't have jury trials 23 because we can't get jurors safely in the court. When we 24 eventually get juries safely in the court, odds are there 25 will be fewer jurors coming in than had been before in the EFTA00102416 1 PROCEEDINGS 14 2 initial jury pools because we have to make sure people will 3 be socially distanced. The cases that will go first with 4 juries are undoubtedly going to be the criminal cases where 5 there's a constitutional right to a speedy trial. There's 6 going to be something of a backlog on that. Any cases that 7 are large, that involve large numbers of people in the 8 courtroom are probably going to have to be held in certain 9 designated courtrooms that are particularly large that will 10 enable social distancing. Courtrooms are currently being 11 measured so we can figure out how trials can safely be 12 held, and so on and so forth. In terms of how quickly a 13 civil jury case can be held, the answer is not that fast. 14 Just we're going to have to -- we have a lag time to get 15 jurors, we have a lag time to get enough jurors, we're 16 going to have to deal with the criminal cases, we're going 17 to have to deal with things like Court size. And odds are 18 that that is not happening just -- I can't tell you when it 19 will, but it's not going to be all that fast. 20 With respect to bench trials, there are some 21 judges who are venturing into the world of holding remote 22 bench trials. I believe Judge McMahon has one scheduled. 23 There are some others who have been making efforts and 24 figuring out remote platforms that will work. And there's 25 also the possibility of sort of hybrid trials where you EFTA00102417 1 PROCEEDINGS 15 2 have some people in person and you have some people hooked 3 in remotely, you know, certain witnesses or something like 4 that. That is certainly a possibility. But everybody's 5 schedule for trials has also been affected so that if, for 6 example, Judge Failla, who has this case for trial -- and I 7 can't speak to this -- but if, for example, Judge Failla 8 had three criminal trials that she was unable to try 9 because of this period of time when ordinarily trials would 10 be happening, and so those have to be scheduled, then even 11 a bench trial may be difficult to schedule, even if it is 12 logistically possible, because of other things that are 13 going to be on the judge's plate. 14 So when I look at the issue about delay, there are 15 two main questions that come up with respect to potential 16 delay. One is is it prejudicial to the plaintiff, or to 17 the defendant for that matter, because we're likely to lose 18 evidence, we're likely to have a witness who is 19 MS. KAPLAN: Your Honor, can I argue the rest of 20 the factors that you talked about earlier? Because we have 21 things to say about all of them. 22 THE COURT: Yes. Let me finish what I'm saying, 23 and I'll absolutely hear from you. Okay? 24 MS. KAPLAN: Okay. 25 THE COURT: I keep hearing people joining the EFTA00102418 1 PROCEEDINGS 16 2 call. I'm just going to issue the reminder please keep 3 your line mute unless -- on mute unless you're a 4 participant in this call, in which case please speak up and 5 let us know you are here. 6 With respect to the loss of evidence, it may 7 be -- and it's a question I usually ask -- you know, it may 8 be there is a particular witness who is ill or very elderly 9 or you know is about to move out of the jurisdiction, you 10 need to preserve evidence, something like that, and those 11 are issues in any case where there is any stay, any delay, 12 that I always want to know about because it may be 13 important to address those particular issues with 14 particular witnesses or particular evidence. 15 The second thing I look at is what is the end of 16 the road in the case. Is it -- would it, you know, be 17 triable next month, or would it be waiting, anyway, for 18 trial. Here, odds are, even with a bench trial, there's 19 going to be some wait. And so where does the end end up. 20 And that is a factor to think about here and whether it 21 makes sense to hold off on any of the discovery that's 22 currently on the table to see whether either plaintiff 23 resolves the claims through the program or anyone else 24 whose case is currently stayed comes back into the court 25 and says, "Please lift the stay. I want to go forward with EFTA00102419 1 PROCEEDINGS 17 2 discovery to give us a chance of coordinating that 3 discovery if it makes sense for the particular discovery. 4 Now, having said all that, I will absolutely hear 5 from you. Counsel? 6 MS. KAPLAN: Okay. So, number one, on prejudice, 7 your Honor, there will be prejudice to my client even with 8 respect to the Feinberg settlement fund. One of the issues 9 that the Feinberg settlement funds says they will look to 10 in deciding whether or not to award fees or award damages 11 and how much to award is based on the corroborating 12 evidence for the particular person. In our case at this 13 point, we have produced all the documents that we have from 14 our plaintiffs to the other side. Mr. Moskowitz, on the 15 other hand, has produced barely nothing. So that if 16 discovery is stayed at this point, our rights to get a 17 higher award from the Feinberg fund are severely 18 prejudiced. We know they have corroborating information. 19 They have hits that show our client's name and contact with 20 our client. We should be able to obtain those documents, 21 which should have been produced to us long ago, in order to 22 use that if we agree to proceed with the fund to 23 corroborate and to make our claim toward the fund stronger. 24 And by this delay tactic that's gone on and on and on, what 25 they've done is have us produce everything but us not have EFTA00102420 1 PROCEEDINGS 18 2 the information that we should have that Feinberg, Ken 3 Feinberg, has said is relevant to a determination under the 4 fund. So under no circumstances should there be any stay 5 or delay of document discovery. In fact, that would be 6 severely unfair, given our alacrity and our good faith in 7 producing everything, and unfair to our opportunity to 8 participate in the fund, number one. 9 THE COURT: Okay. Just let me interrupt you there 10 for one second, because I was not talking so much about 11 documents regarding the particular plaintiff in this case 12 or discovery, for that matter, regarding the particular 13 plaintiff in this case. What I was talking about was 14 whether there -- whether we should still look for any 15 potential opportunities that may come up down the road to 16 coordinate discovery where it made sense because it was 17 common discovery for all of the cases, probably not 18 plaintiff specific. 19 MS. KAPLAN: So on that issue, your Honor, I'm 20 frankly not aware of any real discovery or evidence in this 21 case that is not plaintiff specific. The trial, when and 22 if it takes place, will last no longer than two, three 23 days. The witnesses will be our clients, psychological 24 forensic experts, maybe one or two people who she told 25 about what happened. And the only two people who EFTA00102421 1 PROCEEDINGS 19 2 possibly -- we don't have claims against anyone else, we 3 don't have claims against Ms. Maxwell, we don't allege any 4 kind of wider conspiracy regarding Prince Andrew the way 5 the other cases do. It's a very simple, very 6 straightforward case. The only possible overlap that I can 7 possibly think of -- and Ms. Doniger should correct me if 8 I'm wrong -- are two of the women who worked for 9 Mr. Epstein who helped book the so-called massages that our 10 client participated in, both of whose lawyers have told us 11 they intend to plead the Fifth. So we could honestly get a 12 letter from them telling they intend to take the Fifth. 13 And there is, therefore, no overlapping evidence, either in 14 terms of documents or witnesses. 15 THE COURT: Are they included or not included in 16 the 11 depositions that you listed? 17 MS. KAPLAN: They are. We have very few 18 depositions. Most of the depositions are ones that 19 Mr. Moskowitz is noticing of my client's doctors, family 20 members and friends. 21 THE COURT: And why do you think that those might 22 not be witnesses who would testify at trial such that the 23 trial might have more witnesses than what you've described? 24 You've got 11 people to be deposed. That sounds to me like 25 there might be 11 witnesses at trial except for maybe a EFTA00102422 1 PROCEEDINGS 20 2 couple who take the Fifth. 3 MS. KAPLAN: No. It's highly unlikely, your 4 Honor. Most of the people, as we notified Mr. Moskowitz 5 many times, like doctor's offices that she's gone to where 6 they told us they have no records; or friends that, you 7 know, barely remember. We were very, as your Honor can 8 imagine, we were very overinclusive to be extremely careful 9 on our 26(a) disclosures. And they just noticed everyone 10 on the 26(a) disclosures, not -- it's very unlikely that 11 any of those people are going -- or most of those people 12 are going to testify at trial. We're certainly not going 13 to put them on. And I would suggest that the point of 14 deposing them is to, again -- I don't know what the point 15 of deposing them is, but I guess he wants to depose all 16 these people under oath and ask them questions. It's very 17 unlikely that any of them will say anything that's going to 18 be relevant to his defenses. 19 THE COURT: Let me hear briefly on the other side 20 about these witnesses. 21 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes, your Honor, Bennet Moskowitz. 22 I feel like I'm talking about a different case than the one 23 Ms. Kaplan is talking about. And part of this may be 24 because the day-to-day of discovery is not handled by 25 Ms. Kaplan. I've been dealing exclusively with her EFTA00102423 1 PROCEEDINGS 21 2 colleague who is on the line. So I'd just like to back up 3 and clarify a few things. 4 One is they have not substantially completed their 5 document production, even putting aside the disputes we 6 have over what they say they don't have to do. In fact, 7 the latest -- and maybe Ms. Kaplan, although she was copied 8 on these emails, wasn't aware of it -- is that they refused 9 to review 7,000 documents that hit on search terms to be 10 proposed. And we suggested ways they can narrow that. And 11 we haven't yet reached a resolution of that. 12 In terms of our production, the documents -- we 13 did already produce most of the few documents among over 14 730,000 that hit on their client's name. And they 15 definitively showed why that is, that such few documents 16 exist; not because we didn't find them, but rather because 17 the decedent didn't even have any knowledge of their client 18 when she appeared in more recent history regarding making 19 some kind of pre-litigation settlement demand when he was 20 still alive. So there's been no stonewalling; I'm not sure 21 where that's coming from. 22 And I want to correct one other thing. You know, 23 I'm hearing this -- and you're right; this plaintiff stands 24 alone. Her counsel now stands alone. So these complaints 25 about the program, they fall flat, given that every other EFTA00102424 1 PROCEEDINGS 22 2 attorney who was likewise very skeptical, as your Honor 3 knows, has voluntarily stayed their action, with the 4 exception of two cases other than this one that were filed 5 much later, and I'm actually confident we'll reach similar 6 resolutions in those cases. But we will see. It's not the 7 Feinberg fund. Mr. Feinberg's not the administrator. It's 8 Jordana Feldman. Ms. Kaplan knows that. I don't know why 9 she insists on saying that as if it's some kind of ding 10 against the program. Mr. Feinberg, who's the preeminent 11 person who designed such programs, is indeed one of the 12 designers of the program. But there is one administrator, 13 Jordana Feldman, who has full independence. And Ms. Kaplan 14 is right; we don't get to tell Ms. Feldman what should be 15 awarded to this plaintiff. It is solely Ms. Feldman who 16 makes that determination. I don't know why that is viewed 17 as a bad thing; and, again, plaintiff here stands alone in 18 saying that. 19 Look, your Honor, raised this, as well. This is 20 the world we live in, not as we want it. There is going to 21 be no trial around the corner, whether it's bench trial or 22 jury trial. The estate is not -- is not in favor of 23 dragging things out. That's part of the reason that the 24 program is designed the way it's designed. It's a much 25 speedier resolution of claims than any litigation, EFTA00102425 1 PROCEEDINGS 23 2 including this one. And the fact that we're now having 3 these disputes in this case while the plaintiff, for 4 whatever reason, wants to rocket through the docket to 5 have, I guess, what they view as, you know, the first crack 6 at a payment of judgment, I get why they want that. But 7 it's not realistic, number one, because of all the reasons 8 your Honor went over; and the other realistic factor that 9 we're ignoring is the money spent on this, it's just not 10 going to be available to the program. That's a harm to 11 this plaintiff if she's going to join -- and I believe she 12 is -- they've struggled in many different ways to avoid 13 saying yes, they're going to do the program. I'm very 14 confident they will, based on my understanding of their 15 heavy involvement in discussions with Ms. Feldman and 16 Mr. Feinberg. But that money is not going to go to this 17 plaintiff, it's not going to go to any other plaintiff. 18 That's their choice. We haven't sought a stay; it's not 19 required. That was one of the other benefits of the 20 program. But the fact that everyone else, for the most 21 part, has seen the wisdom in staying their action but this 22 plaintiff is the outlier speaks volumes to their intent, 23 not ours. 24 In terms of these depositions, look, they can't 25 have it both ways. They said we were very careful in only EFTA00102426 1 PROCEEDINGS 24 2 disclosing the people that really have anything of 3 knowledge. Yeah, they did that, and we need to speak to 4 these people. This is a serious case, they're seeking 5 serious damages. They haven't told us how much and, you 6 know, that's part of our letter, which is just unbelievable 7 now that we're nearly a year out from when they filed it. 8 But the fact that their client saw so many doctors related 9 to their myriad of alleged harms is what drives our need to 10 depose so many people. 11 There are only a couple of fact witnesses, and 12 then they mentioned family members like we're trying to 13 bully people, well, paragraph 58 of the complaint brings 14 the plaintiff's husband directly into this case because she 15 alleges that Mr. Epstein's abuse that allegedly occurred 16 caused her issues in her marriage. We didn't bring him 17 into the case; they did. So, yes, we do need to depose the 18 husband. We're not going out and deposing relatives that 19 have not been brought into the case and that we have no 20 reason to believe know anything, but it is going to be more 21 than two witnesses and this. You know, you hear a lot of, 22 oh, it will be this, so a day later we'll be done. That's 23 how they want it. But we have a lot more to do. 24 And we're very unhappy that they're just, after 25 many weeks where we had what I thought were very productive EFTA00102427 1 PROCEEDINGS 25 2 conversations, it was really just between me and Kate and 3 some of her colleagues -- Ms. Kaplan was not part of those 4 discussions. They turned around and basically said to us, 5 "All right, well, it's your fault you waited so long; you 6 really better finish your depositions in, you know, record 7 time." What is the rush? Like your Honor said, there is 8 not going to be any trial tomorrow. It's not going to be 9 next month. There is time to do this. There's even time, 10 if the Court sees the wisdom in it, for a 30- or 60-day 11 stay, just like in all the other actions. No one will be 12 harmed. The only harm that for certain will happen if this 13 case continues to go forward in this fashion is that we 14 will have to burn through litigation fees having to deal 15 with disputes over documents, depositions that may be avoid 16 altogether. 17 So the situation is clear, and your Honor already 18 got it exactly right. You don't need me to explain to you 19 what the situation is. Your Honor already correctly 20 understands it. 21 MS. KAPLAN: Your Honor, when my client was -- 22 THE COURT: Who are the -- who -- 23 MS. KAPLAN: -- a 14-year-old girl -- 24 THE COURT: Hold on, please. These 11 witnesses 25 for deposition, can I just make a list of who they are by EFTA00102428 1 PROCEEDINGS 26 2 kind of the category? In other words, a plaintiff's 3 doctor, a plaintiff's doctor, a plaintiff's relative, and 4 how many are not directly connected to plaintiff in that 5 sort of way. 6 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Sure, I could do that. And it was 7 actually -- plaintiff's counsel asked us not to put the 8 names in the submissions, so we 9 THE COURT: No, I don't want the names 10 MR. MOSKOWITZ: -- abided by that. 11 THE COURT: -- I just want -- 12 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yeah, I won't do that. 13 THE COURT: -- just like the concept of who they 14 are. 15 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Sure. So four individuals are, I 16 believe, friends of plaintiff that they disclosed as having 17 knowledge of plaintiff's allegations. I believe there are 18 three treating physicians that they disclosed. There is 19 also the plaintiff's husband, which I just went over. And 20 then there's the plaintiff's deposition and Rule 35 21 examination. And then the other two are the alleged co- 22 conspirators that -- and those are depositions that the 23 plaintiff seeks, not us. And those are people that are 24 in -- 25 MS. KAPLAN: Your Honor, exactly -- exactly as I EFTA00102429 1 PROCEEDINGS 27 2 explained, there is no overlapping witnesses in this case, 3 other than the two co-conspirators, again, both of whose 4 attorneys have told me they intend to take the Fifth. And 5 they're not co-conspirators in the sense that we're suing 6 them; they're co-conspirators in the sense they were the 7 two women who booked so-called massages for my client with 8 Mr. Epstein when she was a child of 14 years old. 9 Our client has waited, your Honor, a very long 10 time to get justice from Mr. Epstein and now from his 11 estate. The idea there's a $350 million estate -- or at 12 least that's what they say it is -- that our client should 13 wait so that the estate can save on litigation costs, given 14 what Mr. Epstein has done to my client, is not only 15 unconstitutional but offensive. All these depositions are 16 depositions they want to take. There's no overlap with 17 other cases. The reason -- the explanation he gave you 18 about documents, they gave us one woman's name and said, 19 "Search the name Maria," for example. And we had 7,000 20 hits, and we said, "That's not the way to do it. Give us 21 some limiter. Maria within 5 of X or 5 of y. That's the 22 way people do litigation, as I'm sure your Honor knows as a 23 magistrate in the Southern District. And they refused to 24 do that. 25 So the idea that we should have to wait for the EFTA00102430 1 PROCEEDINGS 28 2 settlement fund when an explicitly bargained term of the 3 settlement fund was that no one would have to wait, that no 4 one would have to stay their claim, it's written into the 5 fund itself, when there's no overlap and when we've 6 completed our document production and we're waiting for 7 theirs is frankly unfair, especially because it will 8 prejudice us with respect to the fund. Mr. Feinberg and 9 Jordana have said very clearly they're looking for all the 10 documents they can get their hands on. 11 THE COURT: Okay. Okay. I am -- I would like it 12 if you could try to pin down if in fact these two witnesses 13 are planning to take the Fifth because, if so, that will be 14 a very short deposition. I'm sure it can be -- maybe it 15 can be done in writing ahead of time; or if you must have 16 somebody on the record, I'm assuming you can say, you know, 17 general questions, "If I were to ask you any questions 18 about this or that, would the answer be the same?" And it 19 would be very short -- 20 MS. KAPLAN: Of course, your Honor. 21 THE COURT: I'm sorry -- that would be very short. 22 And that does not trouble me in terms of a lot of cost or 23 time. 24 I'm satisfied with respect to the other witnesses 25 that they are very case specific and that there would not EFTA00102431 1 PROCEEDINGS 29 2 be any lost opportunity -- if I have those depositions go 3 forward, there would not be any lost opportunity for 4 coordinating depositions with other cases because it sounds 5 like these other witnesses would not be relevant to other 6 cases. If it is -- if there are people who are 7 particularly friends of the plaintiff and they're being 8 asked to testify about things other than what plaintiff's 9 told them, you know, they may have been friends of others, 10 as well, you know, but I'm satisfied that the questioning 11 here will just relate to this plaintiff. Treating 12 physicians are obviously this plaintiff's doctors. 13 Plaintiff's husband is obviously this plaintiff's husband. 14 And the plaintiff is obviously the plaintiff. So it does 15 not sound like there are efficiencies or economies there 16 that I should be concerned about with respect to 17 depositions, which was my first reaction when I saw that 18 long -- a list of deposition dates. Okay? 19 It may be also, if some of these witnesses really 20 do not have much information, you will have -- you can 21 either work out a substitute way to depose them that makes 22 it simpler -- you don't have to retain a court reporter and 23 you can just get some written statement or something or 24 maybe you can have more than one in a day or something to 25 make these take less time and be less costly. And I will EFTA00102432 1 PROCEEDINGS 30 2 say that I am charged, under Rule 1 of the Federal Rules, 3 with trying to make sure that they are interpreted and 4 administered in a way that not only is efficient but that 5 is -- that keeps the economies in mind and keeps the cost 6 in mind. And I need to do that as I look at a case. I 7 need to do that with respect to document production. I 8 need to do that in general. 9 With respect to document production, it's hard for 10 me to tell exactly what's been going on here. Each side 11 claims that it's been, you know, highly forthcoming and the 12 other side has not been. I don't really want to hear that. 13 I really just want to hear that you're working 14 cooperatively and in an efficient manner to get the 15 productions done. If they are productions that are 16 specifically related to plaintiff, then I don't really see 17 the reason to hold it up. I mean, I do think that it would 18 be nice if every last dime in the estate could be kept 19 there and be used for compensating victims if there's, you 20 know, it's demonstrated that people have been victims, that 21 they should get the money as opposed to the lawyers getting 22 the money. But, you know, if it's very case specific, if 23 it's very plaintiff specific and plaintiff wishes to 24 proceed with it, I'm going to let that proceed. If there 25 are any documents that are not case specific and where EFTA00102433 1 PROCEEDINGS 31 2 there would be any efficiencies to doing it differently, I 3 don't see it the same way as I see it with respect to 4 depositions where you might want to have other lawyers in 5 the room asking questions. I see less reason to hold off 6 on the document production. But if there's something I'm 7 not thinking of that you want to bring to my attention, 8 bring it to my attention. 9 But I'm going to resolve the disputes that are in 10 front of me about documents in particular. And I'm going 11 to, you know, urge you to move forward civilly and without, 12 you know, name calling or finger pointing or charging the 13 other with any kind of shenanigans and just try to get it 14 done. 15 MS. KAPLAN: Agreed, your Honor. 16 THE COURT: I don't know that I have a motion to 17 compel from the plaintiff. I know I have a motion to 18 compel or a request for a conference in connection with a 19 motion to compel on the defendants' side seeking more from 20 plaintiff. But plaintiff's counsel was complaining on this 21 call. Do you also have ripe issues on your side that 22 you -- 23 MS. KAPLAN: I anticipate -- no, no, your Honor. 24 I anticipate we'll be able to work out whatever remaining 25 issues we have -- EFTA00102434 PROCEEDINGS 32 2 THE COURT: Perfect. 3 MS. KAPLAN: -- on our side. We do not have a 4 motion to compel at this time. 5 The only other thing I wanted to clarify, your 6 Honor, is it's not my understanding that all -- let's 7 assume the estate has $350 million. It's very clearly not 8 my understanding that the estate has committed to pay the 9 entire amount of the estate to Mr. Epstein's victims. And 10 that's not the way the Feinberg fund was set up or will be 11 administered. Rather, it's my understanding, that any 12 amounts that are not paid to victims will go to the heirs 13 under the estate, who we understand is Mr. Epstein's 14 brother. So your Honor's under a misconception if you 15 think that legal fees saved by the estate necessarily go 16 into a fund that's all going to be distributed to victims. 17 That is not the way it's been set up. 18 THE COURT: Well, it was my understanding, which 19 may be incorrect -- and, by the way, let's not refer to it 20 as the "Feinberg fund." It's just -- it's claims, it's the 21 victims' compensation claims program or something like 22 that. It's got a name. We'll just call it "the fund." It 23 was my understanding that the claims would be paid out of 24 whatever there is. Whether it all goes to claimants or not 25 is not really the question that I had in my mind; that EFTA00102435 1 PROCEEDINGS 33 2 there is a universe out there, there is an amount of money 3 or assets out there which is available as the administrator 4 sees fit to pay. The larger it is, the more that is 5 arguably available for the administrator to decide would be 6 appropriate for different victims. It may be that more 7 will come forward, it may be that more victims will not 8 come forward, it may be there's money left over, and it may 9 be there's no money left over. But any money that is 10 currently in the estate, you know, you don't want to see it 11 shrink. Why would anyone want to see it shrink? If the 12 administrator would like to say that, you know, more should 13 be paid, wouldn't it be better that there's more there that 14 could potentially be tapped than having it pay for 15 litigation costs? 16 MS. KAPLAN: Understood, your Honor. But I have 17 seen settlement funds, for example, in Michigan and other 18 places where the commitment was made that all the funds 19 that were available were going to be paid out to victims. 20 That was very clearly not what was done here. And the only 21 assumption that anyone can make is that once -- and it's 22 not limitless number of victims -- that once the 23 settlement administrators and Ms. Feldman have made 24 whatever determinations they make, that -- we have been 25 told by them that they would see that as being less than EFTA00102436 1 PROCEEDINGS 34 2 the amount in the estate, and the remainder in the estate 3 will be paid to Mr. Epstein's brother. 4 THE COURT: They don't have any -- they don't have 5 a particular limit on the amount, do they? 6 MS. KAPLAN: No, but they -- 7 MR. MOSKOWITZ: No. Your Honor sorry. Go 8 ahead. I could clarify this. 9 THE COURT: Okay. 10 MS. KAPLAN: This is something that was 11 negotiated, quite clearly, by the side and something 12 there was proposals made by the plaintiffs to set up a fund 13 where there would be a commitment that all the money in the 14 estate would be paid out to victims. It's my 15 understanding, after many conversations, that is not the 16 commitment. And in fact, there was Mr. Feinberg and 17 Ms. Feldman told us that they didn't even have a full 18 understanding of the full amount in the estate. 19 THE COURT: Let me just put some numbers on this 20 hypothetically. And, obviously, these are not the correct 21 numbers; I'm sure there are, you know, millions of 22 dollars -- actually, I'm not sure of anything, but I'm 23 going to assume there are millions of dollars in the 24 estate. But let's just call it a million dollars. There's 25 a million dollars in the estate -- or let's even make it EFTA00102437 1 PROCEEDINGS 35 2 even simpler than that. Say it's $100,000 in the estate. 3 And so it's $100,000 that could be paid out. And maybe 4 80,000 of it gets paid out to victims, and there's 20,000 5 left over and it goes to somebody else. Okay. But if 6 30,000 gets spent on legal fees or other things, now 7 there's no longer the ability to pay out 80,000. Now 8 there's only 70,000 there. You certainly don't want that 9 to happen. And if there's 10 MS. KAPLAN: Yes, but we were 11 THE COURT: -- if there's 90,000 left, you know, 12 maybe it could be the administrator would say, you know 13 what, let's pay out 90. That may be, and it's there, and 14 it's available. 15 MS. KAPLAN: But, your Honor, we were told quite 16 explicitly -- quite explicitly by Mr. Feinberg and 17 Ms. Feldman that that is not the case here. There is more 18 than sufficient funds, as they said, to pay out everyone 19 with excess. And so for the implication to be that by my 20 client incurring litigation costs for the estate, she's 21 taking money from other victims is not the case. If she's 22 taking money from anyone, she's taking it from 23 Mr. Epstein's brother. 24 MR. MOSKOWITZ: That's -- your Honor, Bennet 25 Moskowitz. That's not correct. And no one -- and I wish EFTA00102438 1 PROCEEDINGS 36 2 we would not speak for other people who are not on this 3 call. I highly doubt Mr. Feinberg or Ms. Feldman said any 4 of those things. First of all, I don't know where 5 Ms. Kaplan's getting her information about who's receiving 6 what money under the will. It's not based on any facts 7 that I'm actually aware of. So perhaps she knows something 8 I don't. 9 But your Honor has it exactly correct. What's 10 available to the fund -- and it's called the Epstein 11 Victims Compensation Program -- is not all the money in the 12 world. Right? There's an estate. Within that is a pool 13 of assets available to a program which has no artificial 14 cap to it because we don't know how many victims are out 15 there. That's part of the problem. If Ms. Kaplan does, I 16 would love to know the number. We don't know. But it is 17 absolutely correct what your Honor said. If a million 18 dollars is spent on this case on legal fees, that's taken 19 out of a pot of assets that is there if ever needed for the 20 fund while it's ongoing; that's gone because it's spent on 21 lawyers. So your example was -- absolutely got it correct. 22 It's about what's actually available to pay the people. 23 So make no mistake. This is not good for the fund 24 process, the spending of assets, which is why -- 25 MS. KAPLAN: Is that why the case -- EFTA00102439 1 PROCEEDINGS 37 2 MR. MOSKOWITZ: -- other people stayed their 3 actions in part. They know that. 4 MS. KAPLAN: If that were the case, your Honor, 5 then the estate could have made the commitment, which they 6 refused to make and refused to say to the fund 7 administrators that all the amounts in the estate, subject 8 to whatever secure claims are out there, would be devoted 9 to this fund. They have not said that. 10 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yeah, and we could debate trusts 11 and estates law and the, you know, theory of how it works 12 in law school, but that's correct, we don't control -- we 13 don't get to willy-nilly say forget what a will says or any 14 other legal instruments; we're going to do what we think is 15 right under Ms. Kaplan's notion of justice. What we've 16 done is voluntarily gone out of our way to work very hard 17 to design a program that so many see the value in that you 18 now that this plaintiff now stands alone. And -- 19 THE COURT: Okay. Wait. Hold on a minute. It 20 sounds to me like what you are saying are different spins 21 are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It may be -- and I 22 don't know because I haven't read the documentation about 23 how the program is going to work -- but it may be that it 24 is not required that all assets will be paid to claimants 25 once it's clear how many are coming forward, that every EFTA00102440 1 PROCEEDINGS 38 2 asset that there is will be distributed to victims. That 3 may well be the case. It may also be that the decisions as 4 to how much to offer and to then distribute is going to be 5 capped at whatever the assets are. And if the assets are 6 X, then that's as much as there could be available to the 7 administrator to make decisions based on if there's less, 8 then there's less available to make the decision based on. 9 And it may be that it's anticipated that not all of the 10 money will be paid out. And maybe that's because there's a 11 concern that some other victim may come forward at a later 12 date, and they want to hold back some money; or it may just 13 be that they think there is so much money that there will 14 be left over. It may be that they're just going to take it 15 as it comes without any kind of artificial limits other 16 than what's in the assets of the estate. But it does seem 17 to me that the more costly the litigation gets -- and 18 everyone knows that litigation can be very costly -- and it 19 could be meaningfully costly. I don't know if it is a drop 20 in the bucket or if it costs a million dollars, if that is 21 a meaningful million. But it could be that the continuing 22 costs of litigating the case could deplete assets to some 23 extent that could otherwise potentially ends up in the 24 hands of victims being compensated through the fund. And 25 even if that's not -- even if they anticipated that there's EFTA00102441 1 PROCEEDINGS 39 2 going to be more than enough, the universe is not 3 absolutely infinite of what there is to pay. It is 4 whatever is in the estate. That is the outer bound of what 5 there is that's possible. So if money is paid out of the 6 estate for lawyers, then there is necessarily less money in 7 the estate. 8 I am going to urge counsel to litigate this case, 9 what remains of it, in as efficient a way as possible with 10 as much cost savings as possible. Not to -- you know, I'm 11 not going to tell lawyers how to staff matters, but keep an 12 eye on it. I'm not going to tell lawyers how much to spend 13 on squabbling, but try to keep it down. Everyone knows 14 where money gets spent in litigation. It gets spent on 15 electronic discovery. Well, try to work together on a 16 protocol so that you don't have to do it twice, because do- 17 overs are costly. Try to figure it out the first time, and 18 try to live with what you agree on. And if you need to 19 make some minor adjustments later because something 20 surfaces, you know, try to focus on keeping the costs under 21 control. Okay? Because, you know, no offense to counsel, 22 but that's not where we really want to see money go. 23 I'm going to address the disputes that I have in 24 front of me. I'm glad to hear that on plaintiff's side you 25 think you can resolve your issues through good-faith EFTA00102442 1 PROCEEDINGS 40 2 consultation. That's great. Please try to do it in as, 3 you know, civil and efficient way as possible. 4 I have three clusters of information that have 5 been brought to me by defendants that need my attention. 6 One has to do with the Rule 26(a) disclosure on computation 7 of damages by plaintiff. One category has to do with 8 communications with either the press or with other counsel. 9 That's really two categories, but it's -- yeah, I guess 10 it's two categories. And then the last one has to do with 11 plaintiff's medical records during the relevant time, 12 thereafter, whatever. 13 So let me just take them in order. With respect 14 to computation of damages, I've taken a look at plaintiff's 15 Rule 26(a) disclosure that was attached to the papers. 16 I've taken a look at the arguments made by counsel in the 17 letters. The computation of damages that was provided on 18 its face does not comply with the rules. Now, I understand 19 that there may be an expert coming down the pike who may 20 have something to say about damages, and it may be that 21 there'll be a need to supplement as evidence comes out. 22 But that does not excuse a computation that, to the best of 23 the plaintiff's ability, complies with the rules at the 24 time the disclosure is made, which means you set out the 25 amounts that are known to you in different categories so EFTA00102443 1 PROCEEDINGS 41 2 that if you, for example, have doctor expenses, medical 3 expenses that you think are a proper category, you pull 4 together the evidence that you have and you put down the 5 number that's the total of what you believe the medical 6 expenses are, and you say I'm going to be providing to you 7 the support for this. If more comes out, you supplement it 8 under Rule 26(e). And you say, "I have more. It was 9 incomplete. That number's going up. Here it is." And if 10 you want to flag for defendant that there's a likelihood 11 that certain numbers may rise as you, you know, uncover 12 more documents, that's fine. You supplement it. That's 13 what supplementation is all about. 14 If you have a category of lost wages or something, 15 again, you quantify it, you put it down, you provide the 16 documentation that supports it. You don't just say, "We 17 can't do it," because of course you can; you just can't do 18 it perfectly yet. You can do it to the extent you can, and 19 you supplement it later. I have had cases where someone 20 says an expert is needed, and sometimes I've moved the 21 expert discovery up so that the damages computation could 22 be done before all the rest of fact discovery was over so 23 that the defendant could have the benefit of understanding 24 what the claim was before then deposing certain fact 25 witnesses about it. EFTA00102444 1 PROCEEDINGS 42 2 That may or may not make sense, but the 3 computation of damages in the disclosure does need to be 4 modified; it is not adequate under the rules. 5 Understanding that it may change and understanding there 6 may need to be the need for expert testimony to modify some 7 of the numbers or to add in certain figures, you lay out 8 what you can and you lay it out with specificity as the 9 rule requires. 10 MS. KAPLAN: Your Honor, we will do that. The 11 vast majority of the damages here is going to be pain and 12 suffering and future mental health costs. 13 THE COURT: You put a number on it -- you put a 14 number on it as best as you can; and if it gets changed, it 15 gets changed. But you -- 16 MS. KAPLAN: Well, I was just going to say 17 something. I was just going to say something, your Honor, 18 following up on what you said. We were going to put that 19 in. We have retained a very illustrious expert, Dr. Don 20 Hughes, who's testified many, many times about these 21 issues. We would be happy, if defendant prefers, to move 22 up the expert discovery so that they can get that. But 23 without Dr. Hughes's report, it really will be guesswork 24 for the vast majority of it on our part. 25 THE COURT: Well, it's not going to be guesswork EFTA00102445 1 PROCEEDINGS 43 2 if there was -- 3 MS. KAPLAN: That's just the reality of it. 4 THE COURT: -- an out-of-pocket medical expense; 5 it's not going to be guesswork if there's lost income, that 6 she says, "I would have had this job, and I couldn't have 7 this. I lost my job. I was making this much money in the 8 past." You know, you can make some estimates, and you can 9 say these are estimates to the best of our ability now, and 10 it may get modified with an expert. But you can't just -- 11 MS. KAPLAN: We understand. As long as they're 12 aware that the vast majority of it is probably going to 13 come through Dr. Hughes, that's fine with us. We just 14 don't want to be charged, when the number goes way up with 15 Dr. Hughes, with being -- in any accusation that we're not 16 being full and complete. 17 THE COURT: Well, you've retained this person. 18 You can talk to this expert and you can say, "Give me 19 something ballpark that you think is, you know, based on 20 what you already know is likely to, you know, to hold." 21 And you don't have to make up a number from counsel's head 22 and then totally separate from the expert's head. You've 23 hired somebody; presumably you're in consultation. 24 MS. KAPLAN: All right, well, we will do that, 25 your Honor. I just offered to move up expert discovery if EFTA00102446 1 PROCEEDINGS 44 2 they want to do that. That's exactly what we were 3 THE COURT: Well, that's what -- you talk with 4 your adversary about it because there's no absolute magic 5 that this must happen first and then that must happen. YOU 6 know, what you're trying to do is litigate the case 7 efficiently, save unnecessary costs. Experts can be very 8 expensive. If you think you might want to participate in 9 the claims program and you decide to do that, then it may 10 make sense at that point to have at least a brief stay to 11 avoid the clock running so that you avoid unnecessary 12 expert expenses or something else that can really, you 13 know, rachet up the dollars spent on the case. So -- 14 MS. KAPLAN: That's not an issue from our side, 15 your Honor. Our expert has already -- is drawn and willing 16 to do it. So that's not an issue. 17 THE COURT: All right. It may be an issue on 18 defendants' side if they're going to have a counter-expert 19 or a rebuttal expert; they may want some time to save those 20 costs. And I might be favorably inclined to say if you're 21 participating in the program, yes, I'm going to hold off on 22 certain of this discovery. I want you to be able to have 23 good-faith conversations about where the particular high- 24 expense items are that maybe could be done later, like, in 25 30 days or in 60 days if, you know, if you do decide to EFTA00102447 1 PROCEEDINGS 45 2 participate in the program, if it doesn't result in a 3 resolution and you have to come back with the 4 understanding, like I said, the case is not going to be 5 tried that fast. It's not going to be tried in 30 days or 6 60 days no matter what. So, you know, having that much of 7 a delay is probably not going to affect the ultimate 8 resolution date. 9 So think about it, talk about it, keep an eye on 10 the expenses. And come back to me, either of you or both 11 of you, with rational proposals if you think something 12 should be put on hold. 13 With respect to communications with the press, I 14 didn't quite understand -- I mean, I think that the parties 15 are -- one seems to be talking about if anything was said 16 that relates to the case, and the other seems to be saying 17 anything that may have related to plaintiff's specific 18 allegations. And it's neither one of those for the test 19 for relevance. It's whether it's related to a claim or 20 defense that's been asserted in the case. And it may well 21 be that there are statements that were made that relate to 22 a claim that's been made in this case and that would be 23 relevant and that could be identified, could be found. 24 Maybe it was in, you know, an email or something. And it 25 should be produced. On the other hand, if it's just EFTA00102448 1 PROCEEDINGS 46 2 anything at all, like including about the claims program or 3 something, that wouldn't be relevant to a claim in the case 4 or to a defense that's been asserted in the case. So I 5 think there's probably a middle ground there. I don't 6 think it's good enough for plaintiff just to say, you know, 7 we object to providing anything that's not related to the 8 specific allegations because I don't know that specific 9 allegations means the same thing as claim, which is a 10 relevance test. That sounds -- 11 MS. KAPLAN: Yes, we have no problem producing 12 documents with journalists relating to the claims in the 13 case. I'm quite confident there won't be any, but we 14 understand, your Honor, that -- 15 THE COURT: Well, go do a reasonable search. 16 MS. KAPLAN: Yes. Well, we have, but we will 17 again, your Honor. The real debate here was statements 18 that were made by me to members of the press about the 19 claims fund. 20 THE COURT: Okay. You've been jumping in on these 21 points, and I haven't really given an opportunity to 22 defense counsel to jump in on these points. Before I get 23 to the next category, do you want to say anything further 24 about the damages computation or about the 25 communications -- EFTA00102449 1 PROCEEDINGS 47 2 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yeah. So, first, if I could just 3 back -- Bennet Moskowitz, your Honor. I apologize -- get 4 into that habit. 5 If your Honor recalls, the reason this all came 6 about this way with this jammed-up deposition schedule is 7 because we had originally just asked for what we thought 8 was quite reasonable, let's move all of these out 30 days 9 so we can get all this done in a reasonable fashion. My 10 one concern that I haven't heard addressed yet -- and 11 perhaps because I hadn't expressly raised it -- is, you 12 know, I'm still of the view that, look, we're trying to get 13 these depos done on this schedule; that's what we agreed to 14 strive for with opposing counsel. They have indicated to 15 me that you'd better get them done by July 27 because we 16 think that's how long you should have. 17 I'd like to just say now and confront the issue 18 that, look, we will try to hold these dates, but already 19 we're having trouble, say, serving one of the people in 20 particular, one of plaintiff's friends. There's no reason 21 that if we must, based on deponent's reasonable 22 availability, these depositions can't go into August. 23 There's no magic number. And I would just like to include 24 within the directive of the court to confirm that my 25 understanding of that is that that would probably include, EFTA00102450 1 PROCEEDINGS 48 2 if it makes sense, to having some of the depositions go 3 beyond July 27, not five months from now, but some time in 4 August. I don't see any problem with that, and I figure 5 while we're talking about this, that I'd love to get 6 clarity about that point. So I could stop there because 7 that's one of about three points I wanted to raise. 8 THE COURT: Yes. Raise your other points. So far 9 we're up to computation of damages and communications with 10 the press on the specific document issues. 11 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Sure. I believe the -- I 12 apologize; the calendar was addressed before this. I don't 13 want to lose sight. 14 THE COURT: Right. 15 MR. MOSKOWITZ: So as for the press statements, 16 we're not looking for statements about the -- we didn't say 17 give us everything you said about the claims program. What 18 we want is the good-faith search for things that may be 19 relevant, not just to a claim, right, but to our defenses. 20 If, for example, plaintiff's counsel spoke to the press or 21 other plaintiff's counsel -- I know we're not there yet, 22 but it's the same issue -- about their view of the alleged 23 trafficking scheme, about the relative strength of claims 24 against the estate, it's not that we're trying to get all 25 discovery about all the other actions; it's just that, to EFTA00102451 1 PROCEEDINGS 49 2 the extent this plaintiff's counsel was part of those 3 discussions and made statements, that is necessarily 4 informed by this plaintiff's allegations even if in that 5 communication it's not the express, "This plaintiff says 6 Mr. Epstein did X, Y, Z." It may not say that, which is 7 what I understood plaintiff's counsel's position was, 8 "Well, we didn't say anything about specific claims." But 9 your Honor is correct that's not the limit on discovery. 10 But it would be highly relevant if, for example, 11 plaintiff's counsel says to members of the press, you know, 12 "Our view of claims against Epstein are X, Y and Z." I get 13 why they may not want us to see that, but it's not 14 privileged, it's highly relevant and should be produced. 15 So I look forward to the reasonable search for those, and 16 I'm just informing the Court of how I view the potential 17 relevance there. It's not just the claims; it's also the 18 defense. 19 THE COURT: I didn't understand -- 20 MR. MOSKOWITZ: I will -- 21 THE COURT: I didn't understand how you define 22 what the defenses are and what's relevant to your defenses. 23 What are the estate's defenses that you're looking for 24 documents that it's relevant to? 25 MR. MOSKOWITZ: It would -- yes, sure -- it would EFTA00102452 1 PROCEEDINGS 50 2 really go, for the most part, to issues of damages, you 3 know, alleged harms. There could be, among plaintiff's 4 counsel, discussion of the claims relative to each other. 5 And to the extent that -- 6 THE COURT: But that's not what the -- 7 MR. MOSKOWITZ: -- statements like -- 8 THE COURT: -- that's your category about talking 9 with other counsel. 10 MR. MOSKOWITZ: I don't know. I mean, I haven't 11 seen a single email from the press. I was -- you know, we 12 were given the categorical, you know, "You don't need it." 13 THE COURT: Do you think there's going to be an 14 email to the press where this plaintiff's counsel said, 15 "Our client's claims are, you know, less severe than the 16 other plaintiffs' claims"? The odds of that seem to me 17 none. 18 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes, no, that would certainly 19 surprise me, your Honor. But statements of that nature 20 going the other way would still be relevant. And I see a 21 lot of press stories with this plaintiff's counsel and with 22 other plaintiff's counsel. 23 THE COURT: Going the other way -- 24 MR. MOSKOWITZ: No, just in general, that all 25 allegations that are (indiscernible). EFTA00102453 PROCEEDINGS 51 2 THE COURT: Wait a minute. You're not looking 3 for -- 4 MS. KAPLAN: Your Honor -- 5 THE COURT: -- you're not looking for -- wait a 6 minute. I don't even understand what defense counsel is 7 saying here. When you say "going the other way," you mean 8 communications from the press to plaintiff's counsel? 9 MR. MOSKOWITZ: No, no, I apologize. Going the 10 other way in terms of the substance. So even if 11 plaintiff's counsel says, "Our claim is stronger for the 12 following reasons," well, it's said to a member of the 13 press, it's not privileged, and that's highly relevant to 14 their view of this case. It could well be that the expert 15 report's going to echo some of the sentiments. We're 16 entitled to see that information. 17 THE COURT: Ms. Kaplan? 18 MS. KAPLAN: Your Honor, I think I can cut this 19 short. I've been a member of the bar and this court for 25 20 years, I'm an officer of the court. I'm very well aware of 21 my obligations and a duty of candor to the Court. I'm the 22 only one on our team who spoke to the press. And every 23 statement that I made to the press, which you can Google 24 and find out, is about the settlement fund. No statements 25 were made to the press, particularly because they are EFTA00102454 1 PROCEEDINGS 52 2 privileged, about our client's claims, her facts, relative 3 claims. And here where we're even more sensitive, putting 4 aside the privilege issue, because she's pseudonymous. So 5 there was -- 6 THE COURT: I'm sorry, because what? 7 MS. KAPLAN: So there was absolutely zero 8 conversation about -- 9 THE COURT: Wait, wait. I'm sorry because 10 MS. KAPLAN: Our client is pseudonymous. She's 11 anonymous. We couldn't say -- 12 THE COURT: Oh, she's anonymous, anonymous. 13 MS. KAPLAN: -- even if we wanted to have a 14 nonprivileged conversation, anything we could have said 15 could have potentially divulged her identity. There were 16 no such conversations with anyone in the press. Every 17 conversation, which is what Mr. Moskowitz has seen, if you 18 Google my name, is about the settlement fund. 19 THE COURT: Okay. So -- 20 MS. KAPLAN: And this is what's frustrating, your 21 Honor, because we've said this to them countless times. I 22 don't even know why we're still on this issue. 23 THE COURT: All right, I will take that 24 representation, and I'm going to assume that there are no 25 statements of the sort that Mr. Moskowitz is suggesting EFTA00102455 1 PROCEEDINGS 53 2 could be out there. You know, make a diligent search of 3 what you've got, if you have emails or anything like that. 4 If there's something that relates to a claim that you've 5 asserted or a defense that's been asserted, that's the 6 test; produce it. If there really isn't, there is nothing, 7 you make a representation there really isn't, I've searched 8 and there just isn't. And you can have a more specific 9 conversation with each other, and Mr. Moskowitz can say, 10 "Did you look for anything that might have talked about 11 this or that or the other thing?" And you can clear it up. 12 And I'm not going to waste time ordering production of 13 documents that don't exist or that you can figure out 14 between you exist or not. 15 All I was saying was that when you talked about 16 particular allegations, that sounded too narrow. All 17 right -- 18 MS. KAPLAN: Understood, your Honor. 19 THE COURT: Okay. With respect to communications 20 with other counsel representing other plaintiffs in this 21 case, at a first level of analysis, I suspect that we have 22 a valid common interest privilege or work product privilege 23 that there's just been no showing that it would be -- that 24 there's need to overcome that work product immunity. It 25 seems to me the kind of case where, you know, if there were EFTA00102456 1 PROCEEDINGS 54 2 communications among counsel about their clients' claims, 3 they would likely be protected under a common interest 4 doctrine or they would likely be talking about litigation 5 strategy, and that would likely be protected as work 6 product. So, you know, absent some particularized showing 7 of something that you're trying to get at that you know 8 exists or you've heard about or something, I'm not going to 9 direct plaintiff to be making production there. 10 This is not -- this is without prejudice. There 11 could be a further application on this if there's something 12 more specific, but I'm just not going to say as a wholesale 13 matter go and produce all your communications with other 14 counsel about your client's claims. So I'm ruling in favor 15 of plaintiff on that one, at least at this time. 16 The medical records, this I find a little bit 17 confusing. Certainly, medical records from the time of the 18 alleged abuse and thereafter, if there is a claim of 19 lasting emotional harm, certainly any records regarding 20 mental health care have been put at issue. And I'm 21 assuming she's alleging much more than garden-variety 22 emotional distress and that -- that's correct, right? 23 MS. KAPLAN: Yes, your Honor. 24 THE COURT: Yes. Okay. So she's put her mental 25 health, her emotional state, at issue. She is going to EFTA00102457 1 PROCEEDINGS 55 2 have to produce the mental health records both from the 3 time it was contemporaneous with any alleged abuse and 4 going forward into the future if she's claiming that her 5 injury has lasted, because that's what she says, that's 6 entitled to be tested. And to the extent there is 7 privilege, that would be waived. 8 Now, with respect to physical issues for other 9 sorts of doctors, they're a little unsure because when 10 looked at the complaint because defendants directed me to 11 allegations in the complaint and now unfortunately my -- 12 oh, here it is. I've got it. 13 We just lost someone. Let's make sure we didn't 14 lose counsel. Do we still have Ms. Kaplan? 15 MS. KAPLAN: I'm still here, your Honor, yes. 16 THE COURT: Mr. Moskowitz, are you still there? 17 MR. MOSKOWITZ: I'm still here, your Honor. 18 THE COURT: All right, we'll go with the two of 19 you. 20 So I have here the complaint. And defendants 21 referred me to paragraph 56, for example, where it says, 22 for example, that plaintiff had symptoms such as a rapid 23 heartbeat. Now that, obviously -- I'm not a doctor, but I 24 think it's pretty commonly known that can be related to, 25 you know, anxiety or fear or something like that; people's EFTA00102458 1 PROCEEDINGS 56 2 hearts can race. On the other hand, there might be an 3 underlying medical condition or it might have caused a 4 medical condition, or it might be treated by a doctor who's 5 not a psychiatrist. She may have gone to a cardiologist 6 it's possible. 7 There's an issue here about difficulty eating. 8 Well, that may be a symptom of a psychiatric condition. On 9 the other hand, she may have had a physical problem. She 10 may have had, I don't know, some reflux or something where 11 she had to take medication, where she was treated. There 12 could have been something related to that. Unclear simply 13 from the allegations. 14 Difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep. And 15 it may be that she went a general practitioner who 16 prescribed her with sleeping medication or who monitored 17 that and, you know, tried different kinds of, you know, 18 sleeping pills if that was going to help her or not help 19 her. So it may not only be mental health care providers 20 who might have knowledge relevant to particular things that 21 are alleged in the complaint. Not clear. 22 Now, that doesn't mean -- oh, and another thing is 23 if she is claiming that she was sexually abused, I don't 24 know if she ever was examined by a medical professional in 25 connection with any alleged rape. If that happened, if EFTA00102459 1 PROCEEDINGS 57 2 there was a rape kit, for example, it would be relevant for 3 sure. 4 MS. KAPLAN: Of course. 5 THE COURT: It may not have happened that way, 6 right, but there may be medical records; I mean, you know, 7 God forbid if she was sexually abused and she got pregnant 8 and there was -- you know, and she had an abortion. I'm 9 making this up. 10 MS. KAPLAN: Right. No, no, no. We -- 11 THE COURT: Okay? I know nothing about the case. 12 But my point is there may be medical records from doctors 13 other than mental health providers that would be highly 14 relevant to the claims that she's asserting in this case. 15 That said -- 16 MS. KAPLAN: We agree. 17 THE COURT: Okay. That said, if she had twisted 18 her ankle, you know, walking down the street one day and 19 went to an orthopedist, that would have no relevance to 20 anything, okay, unless -- 21 MS. KAPLAN: Correct, your Honor. 22 THE COURT: -- somehow it came out at a deposition 23 that it's relevant to something. So the medical -- I think 24 that the line for only mental health care might be too 25 narrow, but all medical records from any kind of provider EFTA00102460 1 PROCEEDINGS 58 2 seems to me to be overly broad. And I think there needs to 3 be some discussion about that to sort that out. And 4 certainly, if the plaintiff is deposed and something comes 5 out that opens the door to some additional records, the 6 risk there is that if I say yeah, you know, she said this 7 thing now about some -- about being, you know, treated for 8 digestion problems or something and now there are 9 additional records and now once you get those records, she 10 might have to go back and sit for deposition round two, 11 which nobody wants. Nobody wants it because it's more 12 costly, and plaintiff certainly doesn't want to have to go 13 through this twice. 14 MS. KAPLAN: So we understand that, your Honor. 15 We are absolutely willing to give all medical records, not 16 only for mental health treatment but for any physical 17 symptoms that we allege arise from the abuse and from the 18 mental health problems that she has suffered from. I don't 19 think that's the dispute here. I think they just say they 20 want all of her medical records. 21 THE COURT: Well, it may be a little bit difficult 22 to parse out because if she has a general practitioner and 23 she sees that person for complaints like I can't sleep and 24 that person prescribes sleeping medication, and she also 25 goes to that person because, well, I don't know, she -- you EFTA00102461 1 PROCEEDINGS 59 2 know, she's got lower back pain or something, she's got a 3 headache, something else, you know, that doctor may not 4 parse it out in his or her records that -- you know, and to 5 ask the doctor to go through and produce this but not that 6 can sometimes be difficult. So that's -- 7 MS. KAPLAN: But, your Honor, I don't -- I 8 don't -- with respect, I don't think we have that problem 9 here. Our client is very poor. She was a street kid when 10 she was raped by Jeffrey Epstein, a 14-year-old street kid. 11 She's not a wealth -- she's a very poor person today. She 12 does not go to doctors, certainly, for everyone who knows 13 me, the way that I go to doctors when I have a medical 14 condition to be treated. There's very few doctor records 15 here, and the doctor records that she does go to are for 16 people like when her child was born or to get regular 17 obstetrics exams, etc. So it's not like there's this huge 18 universe and she's going to a zillion different doctors the 19 way, quite frankly, I do, your Honor. She is a very low 20 resources, very low income, does not frequent doctors in 21 her -- 22 THE COURT: What is the -- what is the dispute 23 really about here? What are the records that you do not 24 want to produce that exist -- 25 MS. KAPLAN: We don't want to give all of the EFTA00102462 1 PROCEEDINGS 60 2 records -- 3 THE COURT: -- but are not relevant? 4 MS. KAPLAN: Every year she goes in for a pap 5 smear. I don't think they're entitled to her pap smear 6 records. It's just -- I mean, people go to regular doctors 7 that have nothing to do with what happened here. She's not 8 alleging -- she's alleging no physical injury from the 9 rape. And I don't think they're entitled to that. 10 THE COURT: Okay. But if she alleges that she was 11 raped and she saw a gynecologist about that who did -- 12 MS. KAPLAN: She was -- didn't happen. If she 13 had, we would have given it. She was a 14-year-old street 14 kid. 15 THE COURT: Okay. 16 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Your Honor, may I respond to this? 17 THE COURT: Yes. 18 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yeah, so this is the problem 19 again. Here we get again a blanket assertion of, "You get 20 these; you don't get these." Here's the problem -- and 21 your Honor actually alluded to this a little earlier. It 22 may be that I, as a layperson when it comes to medicine, 23 goes to what I think is a regular exam. But there could be 24 ten close reasons that that exam is then relevant to 25 something I didn't know it was relevant to. Doctors take EFTA00102463 1 PROCEEDINGS 61 2 notes, often sometimes about mental health, even when 3 they're not the mental health care provider. Doctors 4 prescribe things. You can go for a "regular" dental 5 procedure and get prescribed opioids that could very well 6 lead into things that are very relevant here. And because 7 it's a small universe, what we are saying is please don't 8 be so exclusive in saying wholesale that you get these but 9 not these. We need our experts to look and say what is 10 relevant. We can't have that decision made on the 11 plaintiff's side. 12 THE COURT: Okay. All right. 13 MS. KAPLAN: Your Honor, that's -- 14 THE COURT: No, no, no, no. Stop. No. 15 MS. KAPLAN: If she goes to a dentist -- 16 THE COURT: Before you jump in -- before you jump 17 in, I'm going to side with you. You don't have to jump in. 18 Okay? So stop for a second. 19 MS. KAPLAN: Thank you, your Honor. 20 THE COURT: All right, there is a -- once again, 21 there is a middle ground here. First of all, all the 22 mental health records get produced. Second, if she had a 23 primary care physician and, you know, she was having 24 difficulty sleeping, if this was the person that she was 25 talking to about that or any of the symptoms that are EFTA00102464 1 PROCEEDINGS 62 2 alleged in the complaint, then that person's records should 3 probably be produced unless there is something that is, you 4 know, easily carve-outable from it or something. But it's 5 very hard for a doctor to parse through records and produce 6 some and not produce the rest. 7 Other kinds of care providers, such as a dentist, 8 no. You don't just get a dentist's records because you're 9 speculating that maybe she got opioids from a dentist. If 10 you have a psychiatrist's records, if she had psychiatric 11 care or some kind of therapist records for mental health 12 care, and you see in the notes something like, you know, 13 "She's really upset today about her cancer diagnosis," 14 right? Well, it's going to open the door that there's 15 something else that's a major stressor and is affecting her 16 emotional health. Right? If there's some indication that 17 she is on medication in the mental health records or in the 18 general practitioner's records where that medication can 19 affect somebody's mental status in some way, okay, it might 20 open the door to a little further discovery about what the 21 deal is with this medication. But you don't just get to 22 fish; you don't just get to speculate and get any and all 23 providers. 24 So you try to figure out where the rational line 25 is, because I hear a lot on defendant's side in any kind of EFTA00102465 1 PROCEEDINGS 63 2 case that involves mental health -- or emotional distress, 3 I should say, pain and suffering -- mental pain and 4 suffering, that, oh, maybe she had a terrible medical 5 condition or maybe something else was going on medically 6 that could have affected that. Well, sure, lots of things 7 could go on in a person's life that's a stressor. They 8 could have lost a job, they could have had a death in the 9 family, there could have been something else. It doesn't 10 meant you get to fish for everything about their lives. If 11 you get some discovery that suggests that she was in fact, 12 you know, significantly affected by something else that's 13 going on in her life, yes, it can open the door to 14 discovery about that something else. But you don't get to 15 fish for everything. 16 So I don't know how many providers there are here. 17 You have identified three treating physicians as witnesses. 18 These are all mental healthcare professionals? For the 19 depositions? 20 MS. KAPLAN: No, I don't think any of them are. 21 Is that correct, Kate? 22 MS. KATE DONIGER: They are, I think, almost 23 exclusively primary care physicians who she consulted about 24 primary care issues and also mental health issues. 25 THE COURT: Okay. So you've got the primary care EFTA00102466 1 PROCEEDINGS 64 2 physicians identified, I guess, in your Rule 26(a) 3 disclosures because that's why defendants asked for their 4 depositions. Right? 5 MS. KAPLAN: Yes. 6 THE COURT: So they have some relevant knowledge. 7 Unless there's a way for them to parse their records and 8 produce only those things that relate to a mental health 9 issue, sleeping issues, diet issues, you know, rapid 10 heartbeat issues, unless there's a way where they can 11 segregate that out, or maybe it's easier to do it the other 12 way that, you know, if she had a fracture, you separate and 13 say, "We don't have to produce the documents related to the 14 orthopedist that we sent her to for a consult." But I 15 think you're going to have to produce the records of the 16 doctors you identified as potentially having knowledge 17 relevant to the case. And I don't know how many other 18 doctors there really are. I'm going to say no on dentists, 19 if she went to a dentist. If she went to a regular OB-GYN 20 type provider on a regular basis, if there was nothing 21 related to her -- to any allegations she's making here, if 22 there's no -- if she's not claiming any physical harm, if 23 she's not claiming that she was ever examined in connection 24 with any rape here or anything, then I'm going to say no 25 for now. I'll say that with respect to a gynecologist, EFTA00102467 1 PROCEEDINGS 65 2 I'll say that without prejudice if defendants want to show 3 me some case law that in a case alleging sexual abuse, that 4 opens up the door to all gynecological records. I have my 5 doubts, but that may be possible, and I'd look at law if 6 you can find me something. But any doctor you -- 7 MS. KAPLAN: Understood, your Honor. We -- 8 THE COURT: Yes? 9 MS. KAPLAN: -- we're not alleging any physical 10 injury from Mr. Epstein's rape of her when she was 14. 11 THE COURT: And you said she was not -- she was 12 not examined at that time? 13 MS. KAPLAN: She it's not -- no, it's not our 14 understanding that she was examined. Again, she was a 15 homeless street kid. 16 THE COURT: So there's no -- there's no physical 17 evidence as to whether or not she actually was raped at 18 that time? That doesn't exist, as far as you know? 19 MS. KAPLAN: That's correct, your Honor. We have 20 none to offer, and I don't think any exists. 21 THE COURT: Okay. All right. So I'm not sure 22 what doctors are going to still be at issue here in terms 23 of what there is to argue about. It doesn't sound like 24 there's that much to argue about. Defendant's being 25 overbroad, but if you've identified the person as having, EFTA00102468 1 PROCEEDINGS 66 2 you know, somebody who's got relevant knowledge, then their 3 records should probably be produced. Right? 4 MS. DONIGER: Kate Doniger, your Honor. 5 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Your Honor -- 6 MS. DONIGER: If I could just add one thing? We 7 have produced all of the records for the providers that we 8 identified in our disclosures. That is our understanding 9 as far as -- 10 THE COURT: You produced the records or you -- you 11 produced the records, or you -- 12 MS. DONIGER: All of the records. 13 THE COURT: -- produced the HIPAA release? 14 MS. DONIGER: We've produced the complete records 15 already. 16 THE COURT: Well, then, you should produce the 17 HIPAA release because the defendant's entitled -- 18 MS. DONIGER: We've also -- we've also done that. 19 We've also produced the HIPAA release -- 20 THE COURT: Okay. So you did -- 21 MS. DONIGER: -- so that they can get the records 22 from these -- yes -- 23 THE COURT: From the providers 24 MS. DONIGER: -- we've already done that. 25 THE COURT: Hold on. Talking simultaneously even EFTA00102469 1 PROCEEDINGS 67 2 when it's me is not a good idea. 3 So with respect to the doctors who you've 4 identified in Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures as people with 5 potential knowledge, you've already provided, a, records; 6 and b, releases, and defendants are free to get those 7 records from those doctors. 8 MS. DONIGER: That's correct. 9 THE COURT: And, number two, if there's any mental 10 health records other than those, you've provided releases 11 for those. So what's left? Dentists and OB-GYN? Is there 12 anything else? 13 MS. DONIGER: Well, dentists, OB-GYN. Part of the 14 way that you know, plaintiff did not have one primary 15 care doctor who she sees consistently for all her issues. 16 That's just not how she accesses medical care. So she has 17 gone to urgent care for various issues. She may have gone 18 to the ER for, you know, colds, sinus infections. We 19 actually don't have a specific list, and we think it would 20 be very difficult and burdensome to -- 21 THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on, please. 22 MS. DONIGER: -- to create one, but -- 23 THE COURT: Hold on. Mr. Moskowitz, are you still 24 there? 25 MR. MOSKOWITZ: I'm still here, your Honor. EFTA00102470 1 PROCEEDINGS 68 2 THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Kaplan, are you still 3 there? 4 MS. KAPLAN: I am, your Honor. 5 THE COURT: Okay. I heard somebody drop off. 6 Okay, so urgent care, hospital emergency rooms, 7 urgent care, I don't care; I don't think defendants should 8 care about a sinus infection. On the other hand, if she 9 went to urgent care because she couldn't sleep and needed 10 sleeping medication or because she was having panic attacks 11 or something and she needed to go somewhere and she didn't 12 have a primary care physician so she went to an urgent care 13 clinic, that might be a place that has records. I don't 14 know why she was going wherever she was going, but that 15 needs a little bit of exploration because defendants are 16 entitled to records regarding mental health and regarding 17 these various conditions that may be associated with mental 18 health for which she may have sought care. So -- 19 MS. DONIGER: And we don't disagree with that, 20 your Honor. We're not aware of any other place where she 21 has received treatment related to the conditions that she 22 alleges in the complaint, and we've specifically 23 represented that we would produce documents and records 24 relating specifically to those conditions. So -- 25 THE COURT: I'm left with the same question, which EFTA00102471 1 PROCEEDINGS 69 2 is what exactly are you guys arguing about here? 3 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes, your Honor 4 THE COURT: What's the universe of documents that 5 plaintiffs will not produce? 6 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Your Honor, if I may, Bennet 7 Moskowitz. Part of the problem here is until this call, 8 they would never tell us this. We at one point said, 9 "Well, will you list out the other things that are out 10 there that you don't think are relevant?" That was 11 declined. So perhaps we could have avoided this back-and- 12 forth. We're seeking all of it because we don't know. 13 This is the most I'm hearing about this. So, you know, 14 this warrants further conversation along that line that we 15 suggested perhaps a month or so ago. 16 THE COURT: Look, look, do yourself -- 17 MS. DONIGER: I think that -- 18 THE COURT: -- save yourself time at plaintiff's 19 deposition. All right? At plaintiff's deposition 20 defendant's counsel will say, "Tell me all the places 21 you've gone and tell me the reasons you've gone there," 22 because if some place is identified where counsel thinks 23 that, you know, she may have actually gone for mental 24 health care or for, you know, to try to get a sleeping pill 25 prescription or something, then counsel's going to go back EFTA00102472 1 PROCEEDINGS 70 2 and ask for a release for that place, and then you're going 3 to circle around. And once again, you don't want to have 4 to have plaintiff come back. 5 Go through the different places with plaintiff 6 that she went to for care, the different providers, a 7 dentist, an urgent care facility, an emergency room or 8 whatever it may have been. Go through the places, tell 9 defense counsel what you understand about them and why you 10 think that it's not necessary to produce releases for the 11 records there. If you have a particular discrete 12 disagreement on something, you know, it may have to come to 13 head after a deposition. But you want to try to avoid the 14 testimony of, "Oh, yeah, I went there because, you know, I 15 was worried I was having a heart attack because my heart 16 was beating so fast," well, then it's going to be relevant. 17 Right? And then you're going to have to go back and 18 produce it. If she says, "I went there because I burned 19 myself by accident with some hot water from the stove," you 20 know, then it's not going to be relevant, and nobody's 21 going to say you're going to get the releases. But if you 22 have a little bit more of a conversation ahead of time, you 23 should be able to ward it off, because I don't hear 24 plaintiff's counsel being, you know, completely -- to be 25 completely resistant or refusing to produce records from EFTA00102473 1 PROCEEDINGS 71 2 doctors for physical care to the extent they might have any 3 bearing on the claims that are being asserted here. 4 MS. KAPLAN: No, no, absolutely not, your Honor. 5 For example, we've given -- there are cardiology tests that 6 are clearly relevant to the allegations we have, and we've 7 produced those. We don't disagree. 8 THE COURT: So -- right. And once again, it's not 9 just the tests, it's also the release for that provider. 10 MS. KAPLAN: Yes, no, we understand. 11 THE COURT: The defendant's entitled to get it -- 12 to get the documents on their own and to make sure the 13 universe is complete. Okay? 14 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Your Honor, I have one more 15 related but different point on medical records that I would 16 like to raise, because I think some clarity, with the 17 Court's assistance, would be helpful. I can't get into the 18 specifics because it pertains to some of the information 19 that's been redacted now from one of the exhibits, but 20 there is disclosure by plaintiff that relates to certain 21 things with potential other medical implications. And I 22 want to be careful here because what I'm hearing 23 plaintiff's counsel continue to talk about is they are 24 going to look for things that relate to medical, either 25 physical or mental, related to the claims of what EFTA00102474 1 PROCEEDINGS 72 2 Mr. Epstein allegedly did to this plaintiff. However, what 3 someone else may have done is also going to be highly 4 relevant to my experts. And we're entitled to see -- 5 THE COURT: I don't quite understand -- I don't 6 quite understand what you're trying to tell me here. 7 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes. 8 MS. KAPLAN: I don't want -- and I'm very 9 uncomfortable, especially given the nature of the 10 allegation in this case, if we want to have a -- if your 11 Honor wants to schedule an ex parte conversation or you 12 want me to talk to mister -- I mean, without reporters on 13 the phone or you want me to talk to Mr. Moskowitz 14 separately, I'm happy to do that. But because I don't know 15 what he's talking about now, I'm quite concerned about 16 the -- 17 THE COURT: Yes. It sounds to me like defendants' 18 counsel is trying to tread carefully, which leads me to 19 believe there may be something of a confidential nature. 20 Talk to each other first; see if you can reach a resolution 21 on it with the guidance that, look, if it bears on the 22 claims that are going to be made, she's going to have 23 waived any privilege or confidentiality, and she's going to 24 have to produce it. If it really doesn't bear on the 25 claims that are being made, then I'm not going to require EFTA00102475 1 PROCEEDINGS 73 2 it to be produced because just because someone has put 3 certain mental health or even medical conditions at issue 4 doesn't necessarily open the door to anything and 5 everything about medical records. And if you're talking 6 about something other than medical records, talk to 7 plaintiff's counsel about it first before you raise it with 8 me. Okay? 9 I want to say something -- 10 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes, will do, your Honor. 11 THE COURT: Okay, so summarizing on these various 12 issues that were raised, I'm directing plaintiff to modify 13 the computation of damages and the Rule 26(a) disclosure 14 with the best numbers they've got at this time and the 15 documents specifically that support the different numbers. 16 If you're making a rolling production, explain as you do 17 this is further documentation to support that number we put 18 in here. And if you need to supplement as you go, even 19 more than once, supplement under Rule 26(e). If you want 20 to move up an expert report, talk to opposing counsel about 21 whether it makes sense or it doesn't make sense. Keep cost 22 in mind; keep the overall trajectory of the case in mind 23 and try to do something that is intelligent and cost 24 efficient. 25 With respect to communications with the press, I EFTA00102476 1 PROCEEDINGS 74 2 accept plaintiff's representation that there were no 3 communications with the press about claims or defenses, 4 only about the settlement fund. But take a check, you 5 know, at emails or any other communications you may have 6 had. Double-check; don't be overly narrow on what's 7 related to a claim or defense by only looking for what's 8 related to plaintiff-specific allegations, because it's 9 broader than that in terms of a claim, and it's certainly 10 broader than that in terms of a defense. And have a 11 further conversation with counsel if you have any doubt on 12 that issue. 13 I'm not requiring plaintiff to produce documents 14 concerning communications -- oh, somebody has dropped off. 15 Did we lose either Ms. Kaplan or Mr. Moskowitz? 16 MS. KAPLAN: You're still stuck with me, your 17 Honor. I'm here. 18 THE COURT: Mr. Moskowitz? 19 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes, I'm still here, your Honor. 20 THE COURT: Good. Okay. I'm not requiring 21 plaintiff at this time to produce communications with other 22 counsel on other cases in this court that are cases like 23 this one. That's without prejudice to coming back later to 24 say, "Look, I am aware of something more particular here 25 that I have concern about that I don't think is either EFTA00102477 1 PROCEEDINGS 75 2 privileged"; or if it is work product, it's -- "We have a 3 substantial need. It's information we can't get by other 4 means, and it should be overcome." But for now I'm saying 5 no. 6 And on the medical records, we've just had a lot 7 of discussion. Talk to each other. Yes, produce all the 8 mental health records; yes, produce anything relevant 9 and releases for -- anything relevant to any of the 10 assertions that are being made. But that's not free rein 11 for defendants to be asking for any and all medical records 12 of any kind. 13 Now, I want to address the timing of the close of 14 discovery in the case and the timing of depositions. What 15 I was trying to get you to do when I said go talk to each 16 other about it, I'm willing -- obviously, I'm willing to be 17 flexible with the close of discovery. Close of fact 18 discovery, close of expert discovery, whatever it may be, 19 I'm willing to work with you to accommodate you with 20 deadlines that make sense. Honestly, I think that if 21 plaintiff may be participating in the program, it may make 22 sense to put certain things off that might be particularly 23 costly to see if by any chance it's not necessary to spend 24 that money. 25 In terms of depositions, I care more about your EFTA00102478 1 PROCEEDINGS 76 2 working well together and having a plan to get them done 3 than I care about squeezing them into the month of July. 4 If you've got some clear difficulty getting ahold of 5 somebody, if you think it makes more sense to put some a 6 little bit later because you're hoping you can do an in- 7 person deposition instead of a remote deposition and you're 8 hoping things will open up a little bit more and it will be 9 a little easier and a little safer, I'll work with you on 10 that. There isn't a huge rush because it's not getting 11 tried so fast and because there is a possibility of a 12 resolution to the plaintiff's program, and both of those 13 things counsel in favor of doing it, you know, sensibly as 14 opposed to unnecessarily, you know, rushed and slammed 15 through to get it done fast. That doesn't mean it should 16 drift forever; that doesn't mean, you know, the case 17 shouldn't get resolved in a reasonably prompt fashion. It 18 just means that Mr. Epstein is correct, if somebody -- if 19 it's easier to get someone deposed in August or if there's 20 some more records coming in that you think would be 21 relevant to that deposition and you want to have them fully 22 in hand before the deposition, be sensible. Work together. 23 Come up with a schedule that makes sense, that works, and 24 preferably that allows there to be some savings of money in 25 case the case can get resolved through the claims program. EFTA00102479 1 PROCEEDINGS 77 2 I don't think that the anticipated length of time 3 in the claims program is -- I don't know that much about 4 it, but I didn't think it was going to be something where 5 it would be months and months before there's a dollar 6 number put on a claim. Is that right? 7 MR. MOSKOWITZ: That's correct. And, your Honor, 8 if I can for the record, you said Mr. Epstein when I 9 believe you went to refer to me, Mr. Moskowitz, so 10 THE COURT: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I 11 certainly did not mean to call you Mr. Epstein. 12 MR. MOSKOWITZ: No, that's okay. I just wanted a 13 clear record. 14 THE COURT: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. 15 Well, Mr. Epstein cannot be on this call, in any event. 16 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Correct. 17 THE COURT: So I could not possibly have been 18 referring to him. 19 MR. MOSKOWITZ: That's right. So -- 20 THE COURT: Mr. Moskowitz -- I'm sorry. 21 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes, correct. And he's not even 22 the client. But, in any event, yes, the claims program's 23 speed. That's correct, it's not supposed to be months on 24 end. In fact, it's done on a rolling basis. If someone 25 the way I understand it is if someone comes in, say, EFTA00102480 1 PROCEEDINGS 78 2 tomorrow, when they start receiving the actual, you know, 3 here's our claims submission, if person A comes in with a 4 complete set of documents for purposes of the administrator 5 being able to in her judgment determine that claim, it 6 could be weeks, six weeks, you know, less than two months, 7 for sure, potentially -- like I said, even closer to a 8 month. If someone else comes in and it's all incomplete, 9 well, then, it's on that person to fill the gap. But it's, 10 in any event, not months on end and much quicker than 11 litigation. 12 THE COURT: Here is my suggestion. Plaintiff's 13 counsel says plaintiff needs certain information through 14 the discovery process in order to present her claim in the 15 fullest light and maximize her chances of having a 16 favorable recovery with the fund. So prioritize that so 17 that she feels comfortable going and presenting the claim. 18 The depositions of her doctors, of her friends is not 19 something that plaintiff is going to need; it's not 20 evidence plaintiff needs. That's the evidence defendant 21 wants to, you know, make sure the i's are dotted and the 22 t's are crossed before going to trial in this case. That's 23 evidence defendant wants. So that's not needed by 24 plaintiff to go forward with the claims process. If there 25 are documents in particular that plaintiff wants to get EFTA00102481 1 PROCEEDINGS 79 2 ahold of or if you want to pin down the testimony from 3 these women who booked massages and find out if they're 4 really taking the Fifth and get that, you know, get that 5 down on paper, you know, then maybe you'll have in hand 6 what you feel you need. If at that point you decide that 7 you want to take a shot at the claims process, maybe at 8 that point we stay some of the discovery that defendant 9 wants, with the understanding it will happen in a pretty 10 expedited fashion if you come back to the court. But we 11 save that money, you know, save unnecessary expense. 12 All of these things are things that you should 13 talk about and that you should try to work on cooperatively 14 with the -- you know, the logical goals of getting 15 plaintiff what plaintiff feels is needed for this. You 16 know, if plaintiff's going to go to the claims process, 17 make it most likely to be successful for her to resolve the 18 claims, to save some money. You know, if we can save the 19 cost of defendant having an expert here, that's money. If 20 we can move a few depositions to August instead of July, 21 I'm willing to give you that time to do that; you know, to 22 get some records in hand first that might be outstanding 23 to, you know, do it at a pace that's not breakneck. I 24 realize it's not necessarily breakneck to do 11 depositions 25 in a month, but -- especially if some of them are less than EFTA00102482 1 PROCEEDINGS 80 2 a full day; but, you know, does it make sense in light of 3 what's going on with the other cases, does it make sense in 4 light of the fact she might participate in the program, 5 does it make sense in trying to conserve resources for the 6 fund, why not conserve resources for the fund, for the 7 estate, if possible. Right? 8 Have these conversations. Think about it. Talk 9 to your clients. Talk to each other. Take a look at the 10 whole picture. Stop squabbling. Stop finger pointing. 11 Stop racking up legal fees, writing me letters that have a 12 paragraph here, a paragraph there that's just accusatory in 13 tone; I don't need that, you don't need that. Just see 14 what you can do that makes the most sense. And if you have 15 thoughts, you know, come back and tell me those thoughts. 16 Right now you've got all these depositions 17 happening. I think it was by the end of July -- is that 18 right? 19 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Correct, your Honor. That was 20 July 27th. 21 THE COURT: Well, by all means, if this is the 22 best schedule and this schedule makes sense, so just go do 23 it. But I'll give you until August 14, which is a couple 24 of weeks into August, if you want a little breathing room 25 and you can work together well with that in mind. It EFTA00102483 1 PROCEEDINGS 81 2 doesn't mean just put things off for the sake of putting it 3 off. It doesn't mean, you know, be lax with respect to the 4 case; it just means be sensible in terms of planning and 5 thinking about what you're doing instead of reflexive on 6 both sides. Okay? 7 MS. KAPLAN: Understood, your Honor. And, again, 8 just so it's clear, these are not decisions that we take 9 lightly. Without waiver of any privilege, we have talked 10 very carefully with our client about all these issues. 11 This is her decision to go forward with this case. And, 12 again, I believe she's entitled to do that under the law. 13 THE COURT: She's entitled to do it, but there are 14 competing considerations. I mean, you mentioned before a 15 constitutional right. You know, nobody is trying to 16 deprive anybody of any rights that they have here. I mean, 17 we're here, she's entitled to bring a claim. You know, 18 we'll hear her claim. But the Court also is charged with 19 managing its own docket; and, as I said, under the very 20 first Rule of Civil Procedure, which I don't have memorized 21 but should -- I'm going to look it up because I'm 22 particularly fond of Rule 1. Rule 1, Scope and Purpose of 23 the Rules. Let me see if I can get that to open up for me 24 somewhere here. Rule 1: "These rules govern the procedure 25 in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States EFTA00102484 1 PROCEEDINGS 82 2 District Court," except as stated in Rule 81. "They should 3 be construed, administered and employed by the Court and 4 the parties to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive 5 determination of every action and proceeding." So we have 6 these conflicting issues here. Speedy, that's plaintiff, 7 "Let's go. Let's go." Inexpensive, that's, "Do we have to 8 spend this money? Might the case be resolved separately? 9 Does it make sense when we're talking about an estate where 10 we would like to see the most available money possible for 11 victims of Mr. Epstein?" Those are competing 12 considerations. Might others be coming back to the court? 13 Are they all going to resolve the case? I don't know. You 14 know, is there any way in which it makes sense to 15 coordinate; maybe it does not. But these are things to 16 think about. Nobody is intending to violate anybody's 17 rights here through a just resolution of -- 18 MS. KAPLAN: No. And the first part of that rule 19 that your Honor didn't repeat is justice and just, and 20 that's what my client is seeking here. 21 THE COURT: Just, speedy and inexpensive, those 22 are the three concerns. We're going to keep them all, all 23 three, in mind as we construe the rules. You know, speedy 24 is going to be difficult because of COVID, whatever we do. 25 That's out of our control. Just, nobody's going to say EFTA00102485 1 PROCEEDINGS 83 2 that she can't have a fair trial and a just determination. 3 Inexpensive is largely dependent upon how we look at the 4 scope of discovery and how the parties conduct themselves. 5 Keep it in mind and try to keep the cost down and try to 6 work together without squabbling. Okay? 7 MS. KAPLAN: Thank you, your Honor. 8 THE COURT: Is there anything outstanding or is 9 there anything that lacks clarity where before we get off 10 this call you want me to cover it or you want me to make 11 something clear for the record? Or you think we're good? 12 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Your Honor, Bennet Moskowitz. I 13 do have one question. Given what your Honor said about the 14 depositions going into August, is the Court going to 15 formally reset the deadlines that flow from that, you know, 16 expert disclosure -- 17 THE COURT: I'm going to -- yes, I'm going to -- I 18 mean, if you have through the end of July, I'm just going 19 to kick you out another couple of weeks just to give you a 20 little breathing room on the depositions. I expect you to 21 work together on them. I expect you'll be able to work 22 that out. If the dates you've already agreed to work, then 23 they work. If there's something there that doesn't quite 24 work and there's a good reason for it, then, you know, kick 25 it a little bit. And keep talking; and if plaintiff EFTA00102486 1 PROCEEDINGS 84 2 decides to participate in this process, I may rethink the 3 extent to which things are going forward. I may rethink 4 whether everything should be stayed in whole or in part for 5 at least a short period of time. I don't know. But right 6 now she's not participating, and right now it looks like 7 the discovery is very plaintiff specific; and so under 8 those circumstances, right now I'm not staying anything. 9 Okay? 10 MS. KAPLAN: Just as a reminder, your Honor, 11 again, a bargain for very clear term in the settlement fund 12 is that no plaintiff should be required to stay anything in 13 order to participate in the fund. 14 THE COURT: I understand that. But that doesn't 15 bind the Court in what it thinks is sensible. So I 16 understand that, and I'm not at the moment -- 17 MS. KAPLAN: No, it actually -- it may impact my 18 client -- if you're telling me that you're going to stay if 19 she participates in the fund, that actually may impact her 20 decision to participate in the fund. 21 THE COURT: I'm saying I don't know what I will 22 do. What I'm saying is if she decides to do it and I 23 don't know at what point you'll be in discovery at that 24 point; I don't know what will be left -- if the only thing 25 that's left, for example, is defendants' retaining an EFTA00102487 1 PROCEEDINGS 85 2 expert and examining the plaintiff, she might say, "Yeah, 3 actually would like to hold off on having to sit for a 4 psychiatric exam by defendants' expert. I don't mind 5 having that held off." Okay? 6 MS. KAPLAN: Understood, your Honor. I just 7 need to tackle whether if what I'm hearing is -- 8 THE COURT: I'm not -- I'm not making -- I'm not 9 making any advance ruling. What I'm saying is keep me 10 apprised, tell me what you both think is sensible. 11 Hopefully you got from this call that I'm listening to both 12 of you and I'm trying to do what makes sense for the case 13 and what makes sense potentially for other cases. Had I 14 heard that there were depositions where it would be likely 15 that other plaintiffs, should they end up not settling, 16 would want to be at the table for the same witness, I would 17 have said let's stay that particular deposition. I didn't 18 hear that, so I'm not doing it. Okay? 19 So right now I don't see a basis for a stay, but I 20 do see a reason for you to keep talking and keep 21 communicating and to try to keep thinking about what's 22 sensible. And depending upon where we are, if she decides 23 to participate, there may be two different applications 24 that come in that I may have to weigh. And, like I said, 25 if the only thing that's left is the expensive expert and EFTA00102488 1 PROCEEDINGS 86 2 she's not raring to go with it, it may make sense to hold 3 it off, you may stipulate to it. It may -- 4 MS. KAPLAN: You're right -- you're right, your 5 Honor. The reason I'm raising it is because if I have to 6 tell her that participating in the fund means this case 7 will be stayed, I think that will affect her decision to -- 8 THE COURT: I am not saying that. I am not saying 9 that. I am saying that if circumstances change and anyone 10 has an application to make, bring it to my attention, and I 11 will hear what everyone has to say, and I will do what 12 think makes the most sense at that time in those 13 circumstances without prejudging it. I'm not ruling out a 14 potential stay or a partial one. And I am not saying I 15 would do it, either. I'm just saying if things change, 16 tell me what's going on and let me look at it anew with 17 everybody's input. And I will have another conference, and 18 I will hear from everybody. I can't assure her that she 19 will do both simultaneously and this will go absolutely 20 full speed ahead, but I'm not saying right now that I see a 21 basis for a stay. Okay? 22 MS. KAPLAN: Thank you, your Honor. 23 THE COURT: All right? No guarantees on the 24 future. We'll take it as it comes. 25 All right, enough said. I'll probably do a text EFTA00102489 1 PROCEEDINGS 87 2 order or two on what's outstanding on the docket. And if 3 more issues come up, you know, bring them to my attention. 4 All right? 5 MS. KAPLAN: Thank you, your Honor. 6 THE COURT: Thank you, both. Thank you, all. 7 MS. KAPLAN: Good afternoon. 8 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Thank you, your Honor. 9 (Whereupon, the matter is recessed.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EFTA00102490 1 88 2 3 CERTIFICATE 4 5 I, Carole Ludwig, certify that the foregoing 6 transcript of proceedings in the case of Doe v. Indyke et 7 al, Docket #19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF, was prepared using digital 8 transcription software and is a true and accurate record of 9 the proceedings. 10 11 12 13 Signature ea44:4 Ladelit- 14 Carole Ludwig 15 Date: June 29, 2020 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EFTA00102491