Court Records
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27 Filed 05/07/20 Page 1 of 6
BSF'
VIA ECF
BOIES
SCHILLER
FLEXNER
The Honorable Debra Freeman
Daniel Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007-1312
Re:
Sigrid S. McCawley
Telephone: ([Phone Redacted]
Email: [Email Redacted]
May 7, 2020
v. Darren K. Indyke & Richard D. Kahn, 19-10479-ALC-DCF
Dear Judge Freeman:
We write on behalf of Plaintiff in the above-captioned litigation. Pursuant
to Individual Rule II.A and Local Civil Rule 37.2, Plaintiff respectfully requests a pre-motion
conference on Plaintiff's anticipated motion to compel Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard
D. Kahn (I) to produce responsive documents from the Relevant Period as defined in Plaintiff's
discovery requests; (2) to produce documents responsive to Plaintiff's requests, not simply
documents that directly mention Plaintiff's name; and (3) to respond to Plaintiff's interrogatories.'
The Court has made clear that discovery in this case would not be stayed pending the approval of
the claims administration program or a motion to dismiss absent a contrary order from the Court.
See Tr. of Nov. 21, 2019 Conf. at 26:10-12. Yet by failing to comply with their clear and
unequivocal discovery obligations, including not producing a single document to date, Defendants
are attempting to grant themselves a de facto stay of discovery. Defendants have provided no basis
for their delay.
I. Background
Plaintiff alleges that Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirators operated a decades-long
sex-trafficking scheme by which they recruited young women for sexual abuse. Comp1.11 27, 28.
Plaintiff was one of those women. Epstein and his associates trafficked her from South Africa in
2002 and sexually abused her for several years thereafter in New York, Florida, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, New Mexico, and France. Id. 11 41, 55. After years of suffering in silence due to fear and
Epstein's psychological manipulation, she filed a complaint against Defendants on November 14,
2019.
On January 23, 2020, the parties exchanged initial Rule 26 disclosures. Defendants' Rule
26 Disclosures were vacuous. Defendants provided the names of two witnesses—Plaintiff and her
ex-boyfriend—and stated that they were not aware of any documents, ESI, or tangible things in
Pursuant to Individual Rule I.C., Plaintiff states that she conferred in good faith
with Defendants about the issues raised in this letter by telephone on April 27, 2020.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
401 Eost Los Olos Boulevard. Suite 1200. Fort Lauderdale. FL 333011(t) [Phone Redacted] I (f) [Phone Redacted] I www bsfllp com
EFTA02732040
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27 Filed 05/07/20 Page 2 of 6
their possession, custody, or control that they would use to support their defenses. Exhibit A, Jan.
23, 2020 Initial Disclosures of Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn. In response to
Defendants' lack of information as to what relevant documents were in their possession, custody,
or control, on January 28, 2020, Plaintiff sent them a document preservation notice and identified
various email accounts used by Jeffrey Epstein. Exhibit B. Jan. 28, 2020 Document Preservation
Notice. Defendants responded on February 3, 2020, by stating that they were abiding by all of
their discovery obligations, including their preservation obligations. Exhibit C, Feb. 3, 2020 Letter
from B. Moskowitz to S. McCawley.
On March 10, 2020, Plaintiff served 91 Requests for Production ("RFPs") and 17
Interrogatories on Defendants (collectively, Plaintiff's "discovery requests"). In Plaintiff's
interrogatories, she again asked Defendants to identify potential witnesses, in addition to email
accounts used by Epstein, telephone numbers used by Epstein, and other information to aid
Plaintiff in identifying witnesses and the location of evidence necessary to prove her case. On
April 16, 2020, after Plaintiff provided Defendants a week-long extension, Defendants served
responses and objections in which they failed to respond to a single Interrogatory (aside from
identifying Plaintiff as a witness to her own abuse) and failed to produce a single document.
Exhibit D, Defendants' Apr. 16, 2020 Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of
Interrogatories; Exhibit E, Defendants' Apr. 16, 2020 Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's First
Request for Production of Documents.
On April 27, 2020, after sending Defendants a letter regarding the clear deficiencies in their
responses and objections, Plaintiff met and conferred with Defendants for an hour and a half.
See Ex. F, Apr. 20, 2020 Letter from S. McCawley to B. Moskowitz. Defendants stated that they
had not yet fully processed the ESI in their possession, had not run any searches on the ESI, and
were not in a position to provide information about the ESI, despite having received Plaintiff's
document retention notice in January and Plaintiff's discovery requests in March. During the meet
and confer, Plaintiff also explained her position on the relevance and necessity of each of her
discovery requests, and offered to answer any questions that Defendants had about the relevance
of any of her requests. Defendants refused to accept the Relevant Period that Plaintiff defined in
her discovery requests, and stated that they would only produce documents that reference Plaintiff.
They also stated, without providing any legal basis for their position, that they would not produce
anything relating to Epstein's sex trafficking or abuse of other victims.
As of today, May 7, 2020, Plaintiff has yet to receive a single document or piece of
information responsive to any of her discovery requests, including the documents that specifically
reference Plaintiff that Defendants agreed to produce. The only information Defendants have
provided to Plaintiff in the course of discovery is their statement that Plaintiff is a witness in this
case. Plaintiff has produced more than 10,000 pages of documents responsive to Defendants'
discovery requests to date, and has responded to all of Defendants' interrogatories to the best of
her ability.
II. Defendants' Objection to the Relevant Period is Improver.
Defendants have improperly objected to the Relevant Period that Plaintiff defined in her
discovery requests as January 1, 2001 to the present. Without providing any legal basis for their
EFTA02732041
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27 Filed 05/07/20 Page 3 of 6
position, Defendants contend that the relevant time period should be limited to the dates of
Plaintiff's abuse as alleged in the Complaint.2
Under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties may obtain discovery
"regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(b)(1). "[R]elevance for the purposes of discovery is an extremely broad concept." Melendez
v. Greiner, No. 01 CIV.07888 SAS DF, 2003 WL 22434101, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2003)
(Freeman, J.).
This case turns on (1) whether Jeffrey Epstein sexually trafficked and sexually assaulted
Plaintiff and (2) whether Plaintiff's claims are timely, an affirmative defense that Defendants have
already raised in a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 24. Discovery from the Relevant Period as defined
by Plaintiff is relevant to both Plaintiff's claims and Defendants' statute of limitations defense,
and is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Epstein's sexual trafficking and abuse of Plaintiff began in 2002 and lasted through
approximately 2004. But Plaintiff has reason to believe, based on publicly available documents,
that Epstein and his co-conspirators began trafficking and sexually abusing young girls and women
in the same manner that he trafficked and abused Plaintiff in the mid-1990s, and continued to do
so up until the date of Epstein's arrest on July 8, 2019. Documents relating to the sexual trafficking
and/or sexual assault of others at any point during that period would make the fact that Epstein
trafficked and sexually assaulted Plaintiff, the key fact that Plaintiff bears the burden of proving
in this case, more probable than it would be without such evidence. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. Plaintiff
also bears the burden of proving Epstein's intent to sexually assault her. See Cerilli v. Kezis, 16
A.D.3d 363, 364 (2d Dep't 2005) ("The elements of battery are bodily contact, made with intent,
and offensive in nature."). Evidence that he sexually trafficked and assaulted others would be
directly relevant to proving such intent. Such evidence would also likely be admissible at trial.
See Fed. R. Evid. 415.
Further, Defendants have raised a statute of limitations defense in this matter, ECF No. 24,
and Plaintiff contends that they should be equitably estopped from doing so based on Epstein's
misconduct. Compl. 1 15. Although Plaintiff disagrees with Defendants' interpretation of the case
law, Defendants contend that to invoke equitable estoppel, Plaintiff bears the burden of proving
that Epstein's "conduct caused her to delay bringing suit," that Epstein "made a definite
misrepresentation of fact and had reason to believe that the plaintiff would rely on it," and that
"plaintiff reasonably relied on that misrepresentation." ECF No. 24 at 13. Documents relating to
Epstein's misconduct after his abuse of Plaintiff ended could very well be relevant to equitable
estoppel, including to whether Plaintiff reasonably relied on that misconduct in staying silent about
her abuse until after Epstein's death.
The fact that Epstein and his co-conspirators carried out a sex-trafficking operation, which
directly injured Plaintiff, for 20 years does not mean that Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery about
that operation. Yet Defendants have taken that position and have not indicated any willingness to
change it. The Court should direct Defendants to search documents within their possession,
2 This is despite the fact that Defendants themselves served discovery requests on Plaintiff
in which they defined the relevant time period as "the date on which you first learned of Decedent
through the date of your responses to these requests."
EFTA02732042
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27 Filed 05/07/20 Page 4 of 6
custody, or control from the Relevant Period as described in Plaintiff's discovery requests-2001
to the present.
III. Defendants Must Produce More than Documents That Explicitly Reference Plaintiff.
In addition to their blanket objection to the production of documents from any year during
which Plaintiff was not herself sexually assaulted, Defendants contend that they will only produce
one category of documents—those that specifically mention . Defendants have
refused, without providing any legal basis for doing so, to produce any document that does not
directly reference Plaintiff, regardless of the year.
Defendant cannot broadly object to producing any documents that do not directly reference
Plaintiff. Documents relevant to Plaintiff's claims and Defendants' defenses go well beyond
documents that reference Plaintiff. The following is a small sampling of examples of relevant
documents that would not necessarily mention Plaintiff:
• As explained above, documents evidencing Epstein's trafficking and sexual
assaults of others, although not about Plaintiff herself, are directly relevant to
whether he trafficked and sexually assaulted Plaintiff.
• Epstein's communications with his co-conspirators are likely to evidence the
scheme by which Epstein recruited and abused Plaintiff, even if they do not
specifically mention Plaintiff. For example, documents in which Epstein and his
co-conspirators discuss recruiting young models or arranging for the travel of
foreign girls for sexual abuse would corroborate Plaintiff's allegations.
• Documents relating to payments from Epstein to his employees are relevant to
whether Epstein paid his employees to keep them quiet, and would be relevant in
impeaching witnesses in this case.
• Documents relating to Epstein's silencing, intimidation, and manipulation of
victims other than Plaintiff is relevant to establishing whether Plaintiff reasonably
feared Epstein, which is relevant to Defendants' statute of limitations defense and
Plaintiff's equitable estoppel theory.
• Documents relating to Epstein's recruitment of Plaintiff while on the following trip
to South Africa, including details about travel plans and itineraries, would not
mention Plaintiff's name but are nevertheless highly relevant to what transpired:
EFTA02732043
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27 Filed 05/07/20 Page 5 of 6
4-,40
2.1 ern:140 Ncicrivr& -rf y. L?A-2_ 136 VgVirtff,..Airt:-"ffcsiass_rdsc4"-n 52,a,2.1._ ,4 it On. Det•PM oi
net 114 17 1 11.1:74=6111 frt iAll
im
gity pn vitigirevivaysan ticruvav _ l:FmniatrAiii
• rot SAM& ?S Atlow Less Roe ilo gtu
23 1( I, BCTa 14. 0 NC 4 0
2 .4 1( 1( DAP, 0 HR yR •
25 it ii trIg lit Fe, MP) N o Semul‘ /111>vo PLUS ARA Alfratricees 94, II I I EC* MePr Fi3/4 r tylsnAya pis mum&
Ti ti ir 51) 4-1- ENS t,„ sswdur 4E, Ampki• (z-scatatn ict.. taittpiwris avows; ..srsitextm s 22 I,
•
I , A'SS ffi CT
rig-
(43 a 1u grA456.0.1 virT4 44,
7.ct - .. chtn" oGhi,; 14`1 g
?
i lt,. tec fi l3' it.34 VaiceilAp-
1.Ci ;( 1; 0Gflpr Ler 15 ac Ssifice As Fifioutt
Plaintiff explained these theories of relevance during a meet and confer call with
Defendants. Without any legal basis, and while purporting to understand Plaintiff's position,
Defendants consistently maintained that they would not produce any document that does not
directly mention I I. This position unwarranted, legally baseless, and unacceptable,
and Defendants have not indicated that they are willing to change it. The Court should direct
Defendants to search for documents within their possession, custody, or control and not allow
Defendants to unilaterally and arbitrarily limit their search to documents that reference Plaintiff's
name.
IV. Defendants Must Respond to Plaintiff's Interrogatories.
Plaintiff served 17 interrogatories on Defendants, and Defendants failed to answer a single
one, aside from listing Plaintiff as an "individual who may have knowledge concerning the issues
in this lawsuit." Ex. D at 3. Plaintiff asked Defendants to identify email accounts used by Epstein
or his employees or agents on his behalf—Defendants provided no answer. Id. Plaintiff asked
Defendants to identify telephone numbers used by Epstein or his employees or agents on his
behalf—Defendants provided no answer. Id. at 4. Plaintiff asked Defendants to provide a list of
Epstein's employees in an effort to identify potential witnesses to Epstein's abuse of Plaintiff and
other victims—Defendants provided no answer. Id. This is despite the fact that Defendant Kahn
is Epstein's longtime accountant and likely knows who was on Epstein's payroll. This total failure
to answer even basic questions about the location of documents and potential witnesses is
egregious.
When asked about their failure to respond to any interrogatories, in addition to raising their
meritless objections to the Relevant Period and to producing information that does not relate
directly to Plaintiff, Defendants stated that they do not have responsive information because
Epstein is dead and Defendants do not know where to look for responsive information. Defendants
also drew a distinction between their capacities as Epstein's lawyer and accountant, as opposed to
their capacities as executors of his Estate, but could not give Plaintiff a clear answer as to their
position on how that distinction affects their discovery obligations. For example, Defendants'
counsel could not tell Plaintiff whether Darren Indyke—Epstein's longtime lawyer who has ties to
EFTA02732044
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27 Filed 05/07/20 Page 6 of 6
Epstein's co-conspirators3—or Richard Kahn—Epstein's longtime accountant who assisted him
for years with both personal and professional accounting work—had ever been directly asked
whether they know of any individuals who might have information about Plaintiff's claims.
Plaintiff still has no understanding of how Defendants have attempted to fulfill their
discovery obligations, or of what documents or information are within their possession, custody,
or control. At this stage in the litigation, such opaqueness is unacceptable and a clear attempt by
Defendants to avoid their discovery obligations in the hopes that the claims administration process
comes to fruition. But Defendants cannot unilaterally decide to stay this case. The Court should
direct Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's interrogatories.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley
Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq.
cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF)
3 According to public records, Indyke, for example, helped Ghislaine Maxwell buy her
townhouse, was listed on documents relating to one of Maxwell's nonprofits, held a power of
attorney over one of Leslie Wexner's properties, and employed Lesley Groff as an executive
assistant for his law practice. See Julia La Roche et al., Jeffrey Epstein's Lawyers Deeply Involved
in His Business Dealings for Decades, Documents Show, Yahoo Finance (Aug. 13, 2019),
https://finance.yahoo.cominews/jeffrey-epstein-lawyers-darren-indyke-jeffrey-schantz-
164305188.html.
EFTA02732045
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-1 Filed 05/07/20 Page 1 of 5
Exhibit A
EFTA02732046
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-1 Filed 05/07/20 Page 2 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X
Plaintiff,
v.
Index No. 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF
DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D.
KAHN in their capacities as the executors of
the ESTATE OF JEFFREY EDWARD
EPSTEIN,
Defendants.
X
INITIAL DISCLOSURES OF DEFENDANTS DARREN K. INDYKE AND RICHARD D.
KAHN, CO-EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(aX1), Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn,
Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, the "Co-Executors"), make the
following initial disclosures to Plaintiff These disclosures are based on the
information reasonably available to the Co-Executors at present. The Co-Executors reserve the
right to supplement or modify these disclosures if additional, responsive information is obtained.
The Co-Executors provide this information without any concession, agreement,
admission or waiver of any ultimate determination of relevance or admissibility of particular
information or testimony for any purpose. The Co-Executors reserve the right to, at trial, call
any witness and present any exhibit or other evidence not listed here but identified through
discovery or investigation during this action. The Co-Executors do not waive their rights to
object to the production of any document or tangible thing based on the attorney-client privilege,
the work-product doctrine, relevance, undue burden or any other valid objection.
1
EFTA02732047
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-1 Filed 05/07/20 Page 3 of 5
INITIAL DISCLOSURES
Rule 26(a)(1)(A)
i. the name, and if known, the address and telephone number of each individual
likely to have discoverable information — along with the subjects of that information —
that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would
be solely for impeachment;
Response:
I. Plaintiff. Plaintiff is likely to have discoverable information concerning
Jeffrey E. Epstein's alleged conduct and Plaintiff's claimed damages,
which the Co-Executors may use to support their defenses.
2. Sven Stromnes. Mr. Stromnes is likely to have discoverable information
concerning Jeffrey E. Epstein's alleged conduct and Plaintiffs claimed
damages, which the Co-Executors may use to support their defenses.
Upon information and belief, Mr. Stromnes is located in South Africa.
ii. a copy — or a description by category and location — of all documents,
electronically stored information, and tangible things that the disclosing party has in its
possession, custody, or control and may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the
use would be solely for impeachment;
Response: At present, the Co-Executors are not aware of any such documents,
electronically stored information, and tangible things.
iii. a computation of each category of damages claimed by the disclosing party — who
must also make available for inspection and copying as under Rule 34 the documents or
other evidentiary material, unless privileged or protected from disclosure, on which each
computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries
suffered; and
Response: The Co-Executors do not claim damages.
iv. for inspection and copying as under Rule 34, any insurance agreement under
which an insurance business may be liable to satisfy all or part of a possible judgment in
the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment.
Response: At present, the Co-Executors are unaware of any such insurance
agreement.
2
EFTA02732048
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-1 Filed 05/07/20 Page 4 of 5
Dated: New York, New York Respectfully submitted,
January 23, 2020
TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
875 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022
By: Is/Bennet J. Moskowitz
Bennet J. Moskowitz
Attorneys for Defendants Darren K Indyke and
Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of
Jeffrey E. Epstein
3
EFTA02732049
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-1 Filed 05/07/20 Page 5 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that on January 23, 2020, I served a copy of the foregoing
Initial Disclosures of Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the
Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1), by sending them by email
to:
Sigrid McCawley
Boles, Schiller & Flexner LLP
401 E. Las Olas Blvd. Suite 1200
Fort Lauderdale, FL, 33301
([Phone Redacted]
Email: smccawley®bsfllp.com
s/Bennet J Moskowitz
4
EFTA02732050
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-2 Filed 05/07/20 Page 1 of 4
Exhibit B
EFTA02732051
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-2 Filed 05/07/20 Page 2 of 4
BCFiBOIES
SCHILLER
FLEXNER
January 28, 2020
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Bennet J. Moskowitz
875 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Telephone: ([Phone Redacted]
Email: [Email Redacted]
Re: Document Preservation Notice
v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, 19-10474;
Annie Farmer v. Darren K. Indyke, Richard D. Kahn, and
Ghislaine Manvell, 19-10475;
v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, 19-10476;
v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, 19-10479;
Jane Doe 1000 v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, 19-10577;
Dear Mr. Moskowitz:
This is a document preservation notice issued in connection with the above-captioned civil
actions. Please read this notice carefully and take all steps necessary to preserve all documents
that might be relevant to this dispute. You should take affirmative steps to suspend any automated
deletion. The documents covered by this notice are potentially subject to discovery and production
in the above-captioned litigation and will be needed as evidence and/or to enable us to prepare
fully to take your clients' sworn testimony in a deposition and/or at a trial
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, you were required to identify "all
documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that the disclosing party has in
its possession, custod or control and ma use to support its claims or defenses." In your Initial
Disclosures for , and , however, you stated that "[a]t
present, the Co-Executors are not aware of any such documents, electronically stored information,
and tangible things." I assume that you mean that you are not aware that any "documents,
electronically stored information, [or] tangible things" that would be supportive of your clients'
defenses. If instead you are taking the position that your clients do not have possession, custody,
or control over Mr. Epstein's documents (including his electronically stored information), please
state so in your reply so that we may bring that to the Court's attention immediately.
At the November 21, 2019, conference Judge Freeman stated: "Counsel should know what
their obligations are and those obligations are pretty clear under the law and counsel should take
them seriously. If you do not preserve evidence that should be preserved that you had a reason to
believe was relevant to claims or defense in the case and that you didn't take steps to preserve,
there can be negative consequences down the road." Nov. 21, 2019, Hearing Tr. at 33:4-10. The
Court instructed that your preservation efforts should be "broad enough" to documents located at
Mr. Epstein's "multiple residences in multiple countries across the world."
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
401 East Los alas Boulevard. Suite 1200. Fort Lauderdale. FL 333011(t) [Phone Redacted] I (f) [Phone Redacted] I www bsfIlp corn
EFTA02732052
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-2 Filed 05/07/20 Page 3 of 4
BSF Bennet J. Moskowitz
January 28, 2020
Page 12
Effective immediately, you should ensure that your clients preserve all documents, whether
they exist electronically or in paper files. This includes documents that presently exist, or that are
created in the future, in your clients' possession, custody or control, including in common files
maintained for your clients.
Subject Matter
Preserve all documents that refer to, relate to, mention, or discuss the allegations in Plaintiffs'
complaints, including but not limited to any concerning the following subjects and found in the
following repositories:
1. The allegations in the Complaints filed in the above referenced matters;
2. The Plaintiffs;
3. Mr. Epstein's sex-trafficking conspiracy;
4. Visitors and/or passengers at any of Mr. Epstein's multiple residences or aircraft where
the sex trafficking occurred;
5. Communications between Mr. Epstein and his co-conspirators;
6. Communications between Mr. Epstein and his employees;
7. Communications between Mr. Epstein and any government official regardless of
country;
8. Mr. Epstein's flight logs and helicopter logs;
9. Video tapes and photographs taken at Mr. Epstein's properties or on his planes;
10. Financial records;
11. Mr. Epstein's message pads and any phone call logs or phone/contact directories;
P. Amazon.com account details, including order history;
13. Electronic files Mark Lumberg managed on behalf of Mr. Epstein;
14. Mr. Epstein's email accounts, including but not limited to:
a. "[Email Redacted]";
b. leeproject®yahoo.com";
c. "[Email Redacted]";
d. "[Email Redacted]"; and
e. "[Email Redacted]";
15. Email accounts under the following domains: ®Mindspring.com; ®earthlin1c.net;
including those used by:
a. Ghislaine Maxwell;
b.
c.
EFTA02732053
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-2 Filed 05/07/20 Page 4 of 4
BSF Bennet J. Moskowitz
January 28, 2020
Page 13
16. Email accounts for " that Mr. Epstein controlled, including
"[Email Redacted]" and'
Please construe this notice as broadly as possible and carefully read the following
descriptions.
The definition of "document" is not limited to paper files. A document is literally any
kind of record, whether stored electronically or in paper form, whether useful to you or not. See
S.D.N.Y. Local Civil Rule 26.3 ("Uniform Definitions in Discovery Requests"). A document is
any object in your possession that relates to the subject matter identified in this notice, including:
• Email. All of your clients' emails relating to the subject matter, both internal and external,
whether in electronic or paper form; this includes anything created or stored on a wireless
device or smart phone.
• Computer Files. All other electronic records relating to the subject matter, including but
not limited to documents created using Microsoft Office (Word, PowerPoint, Excel,
Access, and Visio, for example), and stored anywhere; this includes files stored on your
clients' computers, in shared or network drives, home computers, hard disks, CDs, DVDs,
flash drives, or anywhere else.
• Video and Audio. Microfilm, audio and video or other visual records, including voice
mail, video tapes, DVDs, digital photographs, etc.
• Paper Documents. All paper records—presentations, notes, calendars, day planners, logs,
lists, agendas, correspondence, photographs, facsimiles, data or other computer printouts
and the like.
• Text Messages. All text or SMS messages, messages sent via WhatsApp or other
messaging services.
Please ensure that any of your clients' agents, such as administrative assistants, who may
have access to or know of records covered by this notice, are also made aware of the obligation to
preserve such material. Please confirm in writing by February 3. 2020, that your clients have
preserved and will continue to preserve all documents and communications described above, and
all other materials relevant or potentially relevant to the subject matter of the cases.
Sincerely,
/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley
Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq.
EFTA02732054
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-3 Filed 05/07/20 Page 1 of 2
Exhibit C
EFTA02732055
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-3 Filed 05/07/20 Page 2 of 2
Troutman Sanders LLP
875 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022
troutman.com
Bennet J. Moskowitz
bennetmoskowitz©troutman.com
February 3, 2020
E-MAIL
Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq.
Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
401 East Las Olas Boulevard
Suite 1200
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
troutmar? sanders
Re: -10476; 19-cv-10479; 19-cv-
10475; , 19-cv-10474; Jane Doe 1000, 19-cv-10577
Dear Ms. McCawley:
As you know, we represent Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of
the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, the "Co-Executors"), in the above-referenced actions
(the "Actions"). We are writing in response to your letter dated January 28, 2020.
You state: "If ... you are taking the position that your clients do not have possession, custody, or
control over Mr. Epstein's documents (including his electronically stored information), please
state so in your reply so that we may bring that to the Court's attention immediately." We have
never taken that position. Accordingly, there is nothing to raise with the Court.
Separately, we confirm that our clients are abiding by all of their discovery obligations including
preservation obligations. However, your list of subject matters is inappropriate because it is
argumentative, assumes many unproven facts not in evidence and is overly broad.' Your
interpretation of Local Rule 26.3 is likewise inappropriate; we defer to the rule itself.
Very truly yours,
Bennet J. Moskowitz
Bennet J. Moskowitz
'It bears mentioning that counsel in another action against the Co-Executors previously attempted to
extract positions from us concerning a similar list and, failing that, to obtain relief from Magistrate
Freeman. Such counsel obtained no such relief. Nor was any relief necessary given our identical
representation in that action that our clients are abiding by their preservation obligations.
EFTA02732056
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-4 Filed 05/07/20 Page 1 of 16
Exhibit D
EFTA02732057
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-4 Filed 05/07/20 Page 2 of 16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Plaintiff,
v.
DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN
in their capacities as the executors of the ESTATE
OF JEFFREY EDWARD EPSTEIN,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF
DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS
Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, as co-executors of the estate of Jeffrey
E. Epstein (the "Co-Executors"), by their attorneys, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
26 and 33, provide the following responses to Plaintiff ("Plaintiff') First Set of
Interrogatories to Defendants (the "Interrogatories").
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
These responses are made solely for the purpose of and in relation to discovery in the
above-captioned action. The Co-Executors submit these responses subject to, and without
intending to waive, and expressly preserving: (i) any objections as to relevancy, materiality,
competency, privilege and admissibility of any documents and information produced in discovery,
including without limitation herein; and (ii) the right to object to any other discovery requests. The
Co-Executors reserve their right to amend these responses if and when appropriate. Further, these
responses are neither an admission nor acceptance of any alleged facts, including without
limitation those stated in the Interrogatories.
EFTA02732058
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-4 Filed 05/07/20 Page 3 of 16
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS
The Co-Executors object to Plaintiff's definition of the term "Jeffrey Epstein" or "Epstein"
on the grounds that, insofar as it includes "any entities owned or controlled by Jeffrey Epstein, any
employee, agent, attorney, consultant, or representative of Jeffrey Epstein," it is overbroad, unduly
burdensome, vague and ambiguous. The Co-Executors will interpret "Jeffrey Epstein" or
"Epstein" as Jeffrey E. Epstein.
The Co-Executors also object to Plaintiffs definition of the term "Ghislaine Maxwell" or
"Maxwell" on the grounds that, insofar as it includes "any entities owned or controlled by
Ghislaine Maxwell, any employee, agent, attorney, consultant, or representative of Ghislaine
Maxwell," it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague and ambiguous. The Co-Executors will
interpret "Ghislaine Maxwell" or "Maxwell" as Ghislaine Maxwell.
The Co-Executors also object to Plaintiffs definition of the term "Massage" on the grounds
that it is more expansive than the common use of the term and is inconsistent with the term's usage
in the Complaint.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO INSTRUCTIONS
The Co-Executors object to the time period stated in the Instructions, which is inconsistent
with the time frame alleged in the Complaint. Unless otherwise indicated, the Co-Executors will
confine their searches to the time periods at issue in Plaintiff's Complaint.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1
List the names and addresses of all persons who arc believed or known by You, Your
agents, or Your attorneys to have any knowledge concerning any of the issues in this lawsuit, and
specify the subject matter about which the witness has knowledge.
2
EFTA02732059
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-4 Filed 05/07/20 Page 4 of 16
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Interrogatory No. 1 on the grounds and to the extent that it
calls for the production of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work
product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure. The Co-
Executors also object to Interrogatory No. I on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither
relevant to Plaintiff's claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and
unduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, the Co-Executors
identify the following individual who may have knowledge concerning the issues in this lawsuit:
Plaintiff. The Co-Executors will supplement this response if any additional responsive information
is ascertained.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2
Identify all email accounts used by Epstein or any of his employees or agents on his behalf.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Interrogatory No. 2 on the grounds that it seeks information
that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also
overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Co-Executors further object to this Interrogatory on
the grounds it seeks "discovery about discovery," which would result in unnecessary expense.
Such matters are more appropriately and cost-effectively addressed in the context of the parties'
discussions regarding document discovery. The Co-Executors also object to this Interrogatory on
the grounds and to the extent that it calls for the production of information protected by the
attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or
protection from disclosure. The Co-Executors further object to this Interrogatory on the grounds
3
EFTA02732060
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-4 Filed 05/07/20 Page 5 of 16
and to the extent that it calls for the production of information outside their possession, custody,
and control, and is unconstrained by time.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3
Identify all telephone numbers used by Epstein or any of his employees or agents acting
on his behalf, including beepers, Blackberry or PDA devices, cellular phones and land lines in any
of his residences, by stating the users name, complete telephone number(s), type of device and
name of the service provider.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Interrogatory No. 3 on the grounds that it seeks information
that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also
vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Co-Executors also object to this Interrogatory
on the grounds and to the extent that it calls for the production of information outside their
possession, custody, and control, and is unconstrained by time. The Co-Executors further object
to this Interrogatory on the grounds it seeks "discovery about discovery," which would result in
unnecessary expense. Such matters are more appropriately and cost-effectively addressed in the
context of the parties' discussions regarding document discovery. The Co-Executors also object
to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it calls for the production of information
protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, and any other
applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4
Identify all employees, including each employee's position and dates and locations of
employment, who performed work or services in or on any property owned, leased, occupied, or
used by Epstein, including but not limited Epstein's homes in Palm Beach, Florida, New York
City, the U.S. Virgin Islands, New Mexico, London and Paris, and provide the name and contact
information of the individual who hired, trained and supervised each employee.
4
EFTA02732061
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-4 Filed 05/07/20 Page 6 of 16
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Interrogatory No. 4 on the grounds that it seeks information
that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also
overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Co-Executors also object to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that it assumes facts not in evidence and that the phrase "performed work or services in
or on any property" is vague and ambiguous. The Co-Executors also object to this Interrogatory
on the grounds and to the extent that it calls for the production of information protected by the
attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or
protection from disclosure. The Co-Executors further object to this Interrogatory on the grounds
and to the extent that it calls for the production of information outside their possession, custody,
and control, and is unconstrained by time.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5
Identify all employees, including each employee's position and dates and locations of
employment, who performed work as an assistant, scheduler, secretary, masseuse or traveling
masseuse for Epstein and provide the name and contact information of the individual who hired,
trained and supervised each employee.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Interrogatory No. 5 on the grounds that it seeks information
that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also
overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Co-Executors also object to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that the terms "scheduler" and "traveling masseuse" are vague and ambiguous. The Co-
Executors also object to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts
not in evidence. The Co-Executors also object to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the
extent that it calls for the production of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
5
EFTA02732062
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-4 Filed 05/07/20 Page 7 of 16
The Co-Executors further object to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of information outside their possession, custody, and control, and is
unconstrained by time.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6
Identify all companies and/or persons who provided transportation services to Epstein,
whether as an employee or independent contractor, including without limitation drivers,
chauffeurs, boat captains, pilots, and aircraft crew, and provide the contact information for each
listed person or company.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Interrogatory No. 6 on the grounds that it seeks information
that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also
overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Co-Executors additionally object to this Interrogatory
on the grounds and to the extent that it calls for the production of information protected by the
attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or
protection from disclosure. The Co-Executors also object to this Interrogatory on the grounds that
the phrase "transportation services" is vague and ambiguous. The Co-Executors further object to
this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it calls for the production of information
outside their possession, custody, and control, and is unconstrained by time.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7
Identify all females by name and age for whom Epstein or his employees or agents provided
accommodations at 301 East 66th Street, New York, New York for any period of time.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Interrogatory No. 7 on the grounds that it seeks information
that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also
overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Co-Executors also object to this Interrogatory on the
6
EFTA02732063
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-4 Filed 05/07/20 Page 8 of 16
grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence and on the grounds that the phrase
"provided accommodations" is vague and ambiguous. The Co-Executors additionally object to
this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it calls for the production of information
protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, and any other
applicable privilege or protection from disclosure. The Co-Executors also object to this
Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence. The Co-
Executors further object to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it calls for the
production of information outside their possession, custody, and control, and is unconstrained by
time.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8
Identify by name and age all persons who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage
to Epstein, Maxwell or a guest, or to whom Epstein or Maxwell gave a massage, at any of Epstein's
residences and provide the location of each massage.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Interrogatory No. 8 on the grounds that it seeks information
that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also
overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Co-Executors also object to this Interrogatory on the
grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally
object to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it calls for the production of
information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, and any
other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure. The Co-Executors further object to this
Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it calls for the production of information outside
their possession, custody, and control, and is unconstrained by time.
7
EFTA02732064
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-4 Filed 05/07/20 Page 9 of 16
INTERROGATORY NO. 9
Identify all dates when Andrew Albert Christian Edward, of York (a/k/a Prince
Andrew) was present in any of Epstein's residences from 1995 to the present, and provide the
location and purpose of each visit.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Interrogatory No. 9 on the grounds that it seeks information
that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also
overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Co-Executors additionally object to this Interrogatory
on the grounds and to the extent that it calls for the production of information protected by the
attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or
protection from disclosure. The Co-Executors also object to this Interrogatory on the grounds and
to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally object to the
time period stated in this Interrogatory, which is inconsistent with the time frame alleged in the
Complaint. The Co-Executors further object to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent
that it calls for the production of information outside their possession, custody, and control.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10
Identify all dates when Alan Dershowitz was present in any of Epstein's residences from
1995 to the present, and provide the location and purpose of each visit.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Interrogatory No. 10 on the grounds that it seeks information
that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also
overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Co-Executors also object to this Interrogatory on the
grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence. The Co-Executors also object to
this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it calls for the production of information
protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, and any other
8
EFTA02732065
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-4 Filed 05/07/20 Page 10 of 16
applicable privilege or protection from disclosure. The Co-Executors additionally object to the
time period stated in this Interrogatory, which is inconsistent with the time frame alleged in the
Complaint. The Co-Executors further object to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent
that it calls for the production of information outside their possession, custody, and control.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11
Identify all dates when William "Bill" J. Clinton was present in any of Epstein's residences,
on any of Epstein's helicopters or planes, at any of Epstein's offices, or at any event hosted or
affiliated with Epstein from 1995 to the present, and provide the location and purpose of each
encounter.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Interrogatory No. II on the grounds that it seeks information
that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also
overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Co-Executors also object to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that the phrase "any event hosted or affiliated with Epstein" is vague and ambiguous. The
Co-Executors additionally object to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work
product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure. The Co-
Executors also object to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts
not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally object to the time period stated in this
Interrogatory, which is inconsistent with the time frame alleged in the Complaint. The Co-
Executors further object to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it calls for the
production of information outside their possession, custody, and control.
INTERROGATORY NO. 12
Identify any telecommunications, information technology, or audio-visual technology
company that Epstein hired for work in any of his residences or offices and provide the name and
9
EFTA02732066
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-4 Filed 05/07/20 Page 11 of 16
contact information for each individual or company listed, in addition to the residence or office
serviced.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Interrogatory No. 12 on the grounds that it seeks information
that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also
overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Co-Executors also object to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that the phrase "hired for work" is vague and ambiguous. The Co-Executors additionally
object to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it calls for the production of
information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, and any
other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure. The Co-Executors also object to this
Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence. The Co-
Executors further object to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it calls for the
production of information outside their possession, custody, and control, and is unconstrained by
time.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13
Identify the method or means in which Maxwell was paid by Epstein or any affiliated
entities from 1995 to the present.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Interrogatory No. 13 on the grounds that it seeks information
that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also
overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Co-Executors also object to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that the phrases "method or means in which Maxwell was paid" and "affiliated entities"
are vague and ambiguous. The Co-Executors also object to this Interrogatory on the grounds and
to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence. The Co-Executors also object to this
10
EFTA02732067
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-4 Filed 05/07/20 Page 12 of 16
Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it calls for the production of information
protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, and any other
applicable privilege or protection from disclosure. The Co-Executors additionally object to the
time period stated in this Interrogatory, which is inconsistent with the time frame alleged in the
Complaint. The Co-Executors further object to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent
that it calls for the production of information outside their possession, custody, and control.
INTERROGATORY NO. 14
Provide detailed quantification for all compensation Maxwell received for any services she
performed for the benefit of Epstein or any of his affiliated entities, broken down by year from
1995 to the present.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Interrogatory No. 14 on the grounds that it seeks information
that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also
overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Co-Executors also object to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that the phrase "services she performed for the benefit of Epstein or any of his affiliated
entities" is vague and ambiguous. The Co-Executors also object to this Interrogatory on the
grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence. The Co-Executors also object to
this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it calls for the production of information
protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, and any other
applicable privilege or protection from disclosure. The Co-Executors additionally object to the
time period stated in this Interrogatory, which is inconsistent with the time frame alleged in the
Complaint. The Co-Executors further object to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent
that it calls for the production of information outside their possession, custody, and control.
II
EFTA02732068
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-4 Filed 05/07/20 Page 13 of 16
INTERROGATORY NO. 15
Identify any loans or lines of credit issued to Maxwell from Epstein or any affiliated entities
from 1995 to the present, including the amount of the loans, the term of the loans, the interest rate
of the loans, and any payments made by Maxwell or on Maxwell's behalf to repay such loans.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Interrogatory No. 15 on the grounds that it seeks information
that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also
overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Co-Executors also object to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that the terms "lines of credit" and "any affiliated entitites" are vague and ambiguous.
The Co-Executors also object to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes
facts not in evidence. The Co-Executors also object to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to
the extent that it calls for the production of information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
the attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from
disclosure. The Co-Executors additionally object to the time period stated in this Interrogatory,
which is inconsistent with the time frame alleged in the Complaint.
INTERROGATORY NO. 16
Identify the dates, recipients, and purpose of the "two . payments, one in the amount of
$250,000 and another in the amount of $100,000 to . . . two employees or associates of Mr.
Epstein's" referenced by Assistant United States Attorney Alexander Rossmiller at Epstein's bail
hearing on July 15, 2019. See Transcript of July 15, 2019 Bail Hearing at 9:15-20, United States
v. Epstein, No. 19-cr-490 (RMB) (S.D.N.Y.).
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Interrogatory No. 16 on the grounds that it seeks information
that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's claims nor proportional to the needs of this case. The Co-
Executors also object to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it calls for the
production of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product
doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
12
EFTA02732069
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-4 Filed 05/07/20 Page 14 of 16
INTERROGATORY NO. 17
Identify all persons who have made a claim, complaint, demand or threat against Epstein
relating to alleged sexual abuse or misconduct on a female, and for each provide the following
information:
a. The person's full name, last known address and telephone number;
b. The person's attorney, if represented
c. The date of the alleged incident(s); and
d. If a civil case has been filed by or on behalf of the person, the case number and
identifying information.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Interrogatory No. 17 on the grounds that it seeks information
that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also
overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Co-Executors further object to this Interrogatory on the
grounds and to the extent that it calls for the production of information protected by the attorney-
client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or
protection from disclosure. The Co-Executors object to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it
seeks publicly available information and information already known to Plaintiff or her counsel.
The Co-Executors also object to this Interrogatory on the grounds that the terms "claim, complaint,
demand or threat" and "misconduct" are overly broad, vague and ambiguous. The Co-Executors
further object to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it calls for the production
of information outside their possession, custody, and control.
13
EFTA02732070
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-4 Filed 05/07/20 Page 15 of 16
Dated: New York, New York
April 16, 2020 TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
By: /s/Bennet Moskowitz
Bennet Moskowitz
875 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Tel: (212) 704- 6087
[Email Redacted]
Attorney for Darren K. Indyke and
Richard D. Kahn. as co-executors of the
estate ofJeffrey E. Epstein
14
EFTA02732071
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-4 Filed 05/07/20 Page 16 of 16
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that on April 16, 2020, 1 served a copy of the foregoing
Defendants' Objections and Responses to Plaint First Set of Interrogatories to
Defendants, by sending them by email to:
Sigrid McCawley
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
Fort Lauderdale, FL, 33301
Email: [Email Redacted]
TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
By: /sr
Mary W. Metcalfe
875 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Tel: ([Phone Redacted]
[Email Redacted]
Attorney for Darren K. Indyke and
Richard D. Kahn, as co-executors of the
estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein
15
EFTA02732072
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 1 of 59
Exhibit E
EFTA02732073
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 2 of 59
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Plaintiff,
v.
DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN
in their capacities as the executors of the ESTATE
OF JEFFREY EDWARD EPSTEIN,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF
DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF
FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO
DEFENDANTS
Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, as co-executors of the estate ofJeffrey
E. Epstein (the "Co-Executors"), by their attorneys, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
26 and 34, provide the following responses to Plaintiff ("Plaintiff") First Request
for Production of Documents (the "Requests").
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
These responses arc made solely for the purpose of and in 'elation to discovery in the
above-captioned action. The Co-Executors submit these responses subject to, and without
intending to waive, and expressly preserving: (i) any objections as to relevancy, materiality,
competency, privilege and admissibility of any documents and information produced in discovery,
including without limitation herein; and (ii) the right to object to any other discovery requests. The
Co-Executors reserve their right to amend these responses if and when appropriate. Further, these
responses are neither an admission nor acceptance of any alleged facts, including without
limitation those stated in the Requests.
EFTA02732074
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 3 of 59
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS
The Co-Executors object to Plaintiff's definition of the term "Jeffrey Epstein" or "Epstein"
on the grounds that, insofar as it includes "any entities owned or controlled by Jeffrey Epstein, any
employee, agent, attorney, consultant, or representative of Jeffrey Epstein," it is overbroad, unduly
burdensome, vague and ambiguous. The Co-Executors will interpret "Jeffrey Epstein" or
"Epstein" as Jeffrey E. Epstein.
The Co-Executors also object to Plaintiff's definition of the term "Ghislaine Maxwell" or
"Maxwell" on the grounds that, insofar as it includes "any entities owned or controlled by
Ghislaine Maxwell, any employee, agent, attorney, consultant, or representative of Ghislaine
Maxwell," it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague and ambiguous. The Co-Executors will
interpret "Ghislaine Maxwell" or "Maxwell" as Ghislaine Maxwell.
The Co-Executors also object to Plaintiff's definition of the term "Lesley Groff' or "Groff"
on the grounds that, insofar as it includes "any entities owned or controlled by Lesley Groff, any
employee, agent, attorney, consultant, or representative of Lesley Groff," it is overbroad, unduly
burdensome, vague and ambiguous. The Co-Executors will interpret "Lesley Groff" or "Groff'
as Lesley Groff.
The Co-Executors also object to Plaintiffs definition of the term '1' or
`a on the grounds that, insofar as it includes "any entities owned or controlled by
In any employee, agent, attorney, consultant, or representative of " it is
overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague and ambiguous. The Co-Executors will interpret =
=' or
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO REOUESTS
REOUEST NO. 1
All Documents relating to Plaintiff, whether or not they reference her by
2
EFTA02732075
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 4 of 59
name. This Request includes, but is not limited to, all communications, diaries, journals, calendars,
blog posts (whether published or not), notes (handwritten or otherwise), memoranda,
documentation of car services, airline tickets and/or travel itineraries, accommodations, wire
transfer receipts, or any other Documents that concern in any way, whether or not
they reference her by name.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 1 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls for
the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney
work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure. The Co-
Executors further object to Request No. 1 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks documents that
are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's claims nor
proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
Subject to and without waiving these objections and the parties' entry into a mutually
acceptable confidentiality agreement and (proposed) order and ESI protocol, the Co-Executors
will search for and produce non-privileged documents concerning Plaintiff, if any exist and are
located pursuant to mutually agreeable search parameters. The Co-Executors are working to
collect and process documents for these purposes and will meet and confer with counsel for
Plaintiff about the search as soon as practicable.
REOUEST NO. 2
All telephone records and other Documents reflecting telephone calls made by Epstein or
to Epstein, including without limitation cell phone records, telephone logs, and message pads, to
or from Epstein's employees.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 2 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls for
the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney
work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure. The Co-
3
EFTA02732076
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 5 of 59
Executors further object to Request No. 2 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks documents that
are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's claims nor
proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Co-
Executors further object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it calls for the
production of documents and information outside their possession, custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 3
All telephone records and other Documents reflecting telephone calls made by Epstein or
to Epstein, includirigout limitation cell phone records, telephone logs, and message pads, to
or from Maxwell, or Groff.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 3 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls for
the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney
work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure. The Co-
Executors further object to Request No. 3 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks documents that
are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's claims nor
proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Co-
Executors further object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it calls for the
production of documents and information outside their possession, custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 4,
All telephone records associated with Epstein, Maxwell, =, or Groff, includhii.
hone records, tele hone logs, and message pads, that show any communications with
or Virginia
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 4 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls for
the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney
4
EFTA02732077
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 6 of 59
work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure. The Co-
Executors further object to Request No. 4 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks documents that
are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's claims nor
proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Co-
Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it specifically
calls for the production of documents and information outside their possession, custody, and
control.
REOUEST NO. 5
All Documents relating to calendars, schedules, or appointments for Epstein.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 5 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls for
the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney
work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure. The Co-
Executors further object to Request No. 5 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks documents that
are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's claims nor
proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Co-
Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts not in
evidence.
REOUEST NO. 6
All Documents relating to contact lists, phone lists, or address books for Epstein.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 6 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls for
the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney
5
EFTA02732078
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 7 of 59
work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure. The Co-
Executors further object to Request No. 6 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks documents that
are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's claims nor
proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
REQUEST NO. 7
All Documents relating to any Amazon.com account associated with Epstein or
Maxwell, including without limitation the purchase order history for each account.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 7 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls for
the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney
work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure. The Co-
Executors further object to Request No. 7 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks documents that
are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's claims nor
proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Co-
Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it specifically
calls for the production of documents and information outside their possession, custody, and
control. The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it
assumes facts not in evidence.
REQUEST NO. 8
All video tapes, audio tapes, photographs, portraits, including film negatives or film slides,
CDs, or any other print or electronic media depicting Epstein, Maxwell, Groff, or in the
presence of
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 8 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls for
the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney
6
EFTA02732079
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 8 of 59
work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure. The Co-
Executors additionally object to this Request as duplicative of Request No. 9. The Co-Executors
additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it specifically calls for the
production of documents and information outside their possession, custody, and control. The Co-
Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts not in
evidence.
Subject to and without waiving these objections and the parties' entry into a mutually
acceptable confidentiality agreement and (proposed) order and ESI protocol, the Co-Executors
will search for and produce non-privileged documents concerning Plaintiff, if any exist and are
located pursuant to mutually agreeable search parameters. The Co-Executors are working to
collect and process documents for these purposes and will meet and confer with counsel for
Plaintiff about the search as soon as practicable.
REOUEST NO. 9
All video tapes, audio tapes, photographs, including film negatives or film slides, CDs, or
any other print or electronic media depicting or relating to I in any way.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 9 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls for
the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney
work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure. The Co-
Executors additionally object to this Request as duplicative of Request No. 8. The Co-Executors
further object to Request No. 9 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks documents that are not
related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's claims nor proportional
to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Co-Executors
additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it specifically calls for the
7
EFTA02732080
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 9 of 59
production of documents and information outside their possession, custody, and control. The Co-
Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts not in
evidence.
Subject to and without waiving these objections and the parties' entry into a mutually
acceptable confidentiality agreement and (proposed) order and ESI protocol, the Co-Executors
will search for and produce non-privileged documents concerning Plaintiff, if any exist and are
located pursuant to mutually agreeable search parameters. The Co-Executors are working to
collect and process documents for these purposes and will meet and confer with counsel for
Plaintiff about the search as soon as practicable.
REOUEST NO. 10
All Documents relating to any communications between Epstein, Groff, Maxwell, or
and or Virginia
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 10 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 10 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it
specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their possession,
custody, and control. The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it assumes facts not in evidence. The Co-Executors further object to this Request on
the grounds that it seeks information already known to Plaintiff or her counsel.
8
EFTA02732081
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 10 of 59
Subject to and without waiving these objections and the parties' entry into a mutually
acceptable confidentiality agreement and (proposed) order and ESI protocol, the Co-Executors
will search for and produce non-privileged documents concerning Plaintiff, if any exist and are
located pursuant to mutually agreeable search parameters. The Co-Executors are working to
collect and process documents for these purposes and will meet and confer with counsel for
Plaintiff about the search as soon as practicable.
REOUEST NO. 11
All Documents relating to any gifts or moneta payments provided to, or for the benefit
of, by Epstein, Maxwell, Groff, or any related entity.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 11 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it
specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their possession,
custody, and control. The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it assumes facts not in evidence. The Co-Executors further object to this Request on
the grounds that it seeks information already known to Plaintiff or her counsel.
Subject to and without waiving these objections and the parties' entry into a mutually
acceptable confidentiality agreement and (proposed) order and ESI protocol, the Co-Executors
will search for and produce non-privileged documents concerning Plaintiff, if any exist and are
located pursuant to mutually agreeable search parameters. The Co-Executors are working to
collect and process documents for these purposes and will meet and confer with counsel for
Plaintiff about the search as soon as practicable.
9
EFTA02732082
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 11 of 59
REOUEST NO. 12
All Documents relating to communications between Epstein and Maxwell, Groff, or
relating to
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 12 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it
specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their possession,
custody, and control. The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it assumes facts not in evidence.
Subject to and without waiving these objections and the parties' entry into a mutually
acceptable confidentiality agreement and (proposed) order and ESI protocol, the Co-Executors
will search for and produce non-privileged documents concerning Plaintiff, if any exist and are
located pursuant to mutually agreeable search parameters. The Co-Executors are working to
collect and process documents for these purposes and will meet and confer with counsel for
Plaintiff about the search as soon as practicable.
REOUEST NO. 13
All Documents relating to communications between Epstein and Jean-Luc Brunel relating
to
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 13 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
10
EFTA02732083
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 12 of 59
The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts
not in evidence.
Subject to and without waiving these objections and the parties' entry into a mutually
acceptable confidentiality agreement and (proposed) order and ESI protocol, the Co-Executors
will search for and produce non-privileged documents concerning Plaintiff, if any exist and are
located pursuant to mutually agreeable search parameters. The Co-Executors are working to
collect and process documents for these purposes and will meet and confer with counsel for
Plaintiff about the search as soon as practicable.
REOUEST NO. 14
All Documents relating to travel to and from the United States, U.S.
Virgin Islands, France, or South Africa.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 14 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it
specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their possession,
custody, and control. The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it assumes facts not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request
on the grounds and to the extent that it specifically calls for the production of documents and
information outside their possession, custody, and control. The Co-Executors further object to this
Request on the grounds that it seeks information already known to Plaintiff or her counsel.
Subject to and without waiving these objections and the parties' entry into a mutually
acceptable confidentiality agreement and (proposed) order and ESI protocol, the Co-Executors
II
EFTA02732084
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 13 of 59
will search for and produce non-privileged documents concerning Plaintiff, if any exist and are
located pursuant to mutually agreeable search parameters. The Co-Executors are working to
collect and process documents for these purposes and will meet and confer with counsel for
Plaintiff about the search as soon as practicable.
REQUEST NO. 15
All Documents relating to Epstein's 2002 trip to South Africa with President William
"Bill" J. Clinton, including but not limited to travel itineraries, information about speaking
engagements, lists of security staff and drivers, hotel information, and meeting information.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 15 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 15 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts
not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their
possession, custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 16
All Documents relating to Groff or obtaining or preparing travel documents for
travel to and from the United States.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 16 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
12
EFTA02732085
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 14 of 59
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it
specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their possession,
custody, and control. The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it assumes facts not in evidence. The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the
grounds that the term "travel documents" is vague and ambiguous.
Subject to and without waiving these objections and the parties' entry into a mutually
acceptable confidentiality agreement and (proposed) order and ESI protocol, the Co-Executors
will search for and produce non-privileged documents concerning Plaintiff, if any exist and are
located pursuant to mutually agreeable search parameters. The Co-Executors are working to
collect and process documents for these purposes and will meet and confer with counsel for
Plaintiff about the search as soon as practicable.
REOUEST NO. 17
All Documents relating to any accommodations made by Epstein or his employees for
at an apartment building located at 301 E. 66th Street, New York, NY.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 17 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts
not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their
possession, custody, and control.
Subject to and without waiving these objections and the parties' entry into a mutually
13
EFTA02732086
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 15 of 59
acceptable confidentiality agreement and (proposed) order and ESI protocol, the Co-Executors
will search for and produce non-privileged documents concerning Plaintiff, if any exist and are
located pursuant to mutually agreeable search parameters. The Co-Executors are working to
collect and process documents for these purposes and will meet and confer with counsel for
Plaintiff about the search as soon as practicable.
REOUEST NO. 18
All Documents relating to any modelin referral 'ob, audition, casting, or other
opportunity that Epstein or his employees assisted in obtaining.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 18 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts
not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their
possession, custody, and control. The Co-Executors further object to this Request on the grounds
that it seeks information in Plaintiff's possession.
Subject to and without waiving these objections and the parties' entry into a mutually
acceptable confidentiality agreement and (proposed) order and ESI protocol, the Co-Executors
will search for and produce non-privileged documents concerning Plaintiff, if any exist and are
located pursuant to mutually agreeable search parameters. The Co-Executors are working to
collect and process documents for these purposes and will meet and confer with counsel for
Plaintiff about the search as soon as practicable.
REOUEST NO. 19
14
EFTA02732087
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 16 of 59
All Documents relating to any service that Epstein, Maxwell, =, or Groff provided or
funded for including but not limited to hair appointments and dentist appointments.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 19 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it
specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their possession,
custody, and control. The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it assumes facts not in evidence. The Co-Executors further object to this Request on
the grounds that it seeks documents in Plaintiff's possession.
Subject to and without waiving these objections and the parties' entry into a mutually
acceptable confidentiality agreement and (proposed) order and ESI protocol, the Co-Executors
will search for and produce non-privileged documents concerning Plaintiff, if any exist and are
located pursuant to mutually agreeable search parameters. The Co-Executors are working to
collect and process documents for these purposes and will meet and confer with counsel for
Plaintiff about the search as soon as practicable.
REOUEST NO. 20
All Documents relating to any employee lists or records associated with Epstein or any
related entity.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 20 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
15
EFTA02732088
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 17 of 59
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 20 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
REOUEST NO. 21
All Documents relating to payments made from Epstein, or an related entity, to Maxwell
(a/k/a ), Groff, and (a/k/a
), including payments or bonuses for work performed, gifts, real estate purchases, living
expenses, business ventures, and payments to Maxwell's charitable endeavors, including the
TerraMar project.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 21 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 21 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
REQUEST NO. 22
All Documents relating to any credit card, business, or store account used by Maxwell,
Groff, I or that was paid for by Epstein or any related
entity.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 22 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 22 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
16
EFTA02732089
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 18 of 59
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts
not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their
possession, custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 23
All Documents relating to confidentiality or separation agreements between Epstein or
any associated entity and any employee or associate of Epstein.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 23 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 23 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts
not in evidence.
REOUEST NO. 24
All Documents relating to any house staff, employees, or individuals who were
compensated by Epstein or any individual or entity affiliated with Epstein, during and/or after
employment ceased, including but not limited to the followin individuals: Jean-Luc Brunel,
Groff, Luciano "Jojo"
Fontanilla, Rosalyn Fontanilla, Juan Alessi Maria Alessi Michael
Li ffman, Cathy and Miles Alexander, Floyd Brice
Michael O'Dell, Kate O'Dell, David Larry Visoski, David Rodgers, Andy
Stewart, Adam Lang, Ryon Dionne, Bill Peadon, Francis Peadon and Igor Zinoviev.
17
EFTA02732090
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 19 of 59
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 24 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 24 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it
specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their possession,
custody, and control.
REQUEST NO. 25
All Documents relating to Rinaldo Rizzo from 2002 to the present.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 25 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 25 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it
specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their possession,
18
EFTA02732091
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 20 of 59
custody, and control.
REQUEST NO. 26
All Documents identifying any employees that performed work or services in or on any
property owned, occupied, or used by Epstein.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 26 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 26 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors additionally object to Request No. 26 on the grounds of and to the extent it
seeks documents necessarily held in a capacity other than as Co-Executors of the Estate. The Co-
Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it specifically
calls for the production of documents and information outside their possession, custody, and
control.
REQUEST NO. 27
All Documents reflecting Your or Epstein's direct or indirect interest or control over
business or personal assets of any employee or associate of Epstein, including but not limited to
articles of incorporation, power of attorneys, contracts, and meeting minutes.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 27 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 27 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
19
EFTA02732092
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 21 of 59
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors additionally object to Request No. 27 on the grounds of and to the extent it
seeks documents necessarily held in a capacity other than as Co-Executors of the Estate. The Co-
Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts not in
evidence.
REOUEST NO. 28
All video tapes, audio tapes, photographs, portraits, including film negatives or film slides,
CDs, flash drives, meimirds, or any other print or electronic media depicting Epstein in the
presence of Maxwell, or Groff.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 28 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 28 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it
specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their possession,
custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 29
All Documents relating to Maxwell, =, or Groff including but not limited to all
Documents relating to communications between Epstein and Maxwell, M, or Groff.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 29 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
20
EFTA02732093
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 22 of 59
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 29 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it
specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their possession,
custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 30
All Documents relating to any agreements (including but not limited to confidentiality
agreements, insurance policies or indemnification agreements, employment agreements,
separation agreements, or agreements to pay legal fees) between Epstein and Maxwell, or
Groff, whether such agreements are written, verbal, or merely understood among the parties and
not otherwise expressed, and whether or not such agreements were ever executed or carried out.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 30 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 30 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts
not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their
possession, custody, and control. The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds
21
EFTA02732094
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 23 of 59
that the phrase "merely understood among the parties and not otherwise expressed" is vague and
ambiguous.
REOUEST NO. 31
All Documents relating to any Joint Defense Agreement entered into between Epstein
and Maxwell, =, or Groff.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 31 on the grounds and to the extent that it
calls for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 31 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts
not in evidence.
REOUEST NO. 32
All Documents relating to or describing any work Maxwell, =, or Groff performed
for or with Epstein or any affiliated entity.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 32 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 32 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
22
EFTA02732095
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 24 of 59
The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts
not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their
possession, custody, and control.
REQUEST NO. 33
All Documents relating to any communications between Epstein or Epstein's attorneys and
or attorneys related to the issue of sexual abuse of females.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 33 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 33 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts
not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their
possession, custody, and control.
REQUEST NO. 34
All Documents relating to any communications between Epstein or Epstein's attorneys and
Groff or Groff's attorneys related to the issue of sexual abuse of females.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 34 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
23
EFTA02732096
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 25 of 59
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 34 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts
not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their
possession, custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 35
All Documents relating to any communications between Epstein or Epstein's attorneys and
Maxwell or Maxwell's attorneys related to the issue of sexual abuse of females.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 35 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 35 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts
not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their
possession, custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 36
All Documents relating to any communications between Epstein or Epstein's attorneys and
24
EFTA02732097
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 26 of 59
or attorneys related to the recruitment of any female for any purpose, including
socializing or performing any type of work or service.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 36 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 36 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts
not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their
possession, custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 37
All Documents relating to any communications between Epstein or Epstein's attorneys and
Groff or Groff 's attorneys related to the recruitment of any female for any purpose, including
socializing or performing any type of work or service.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 37 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 37 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts
25
EFTA02732098
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 27 of 59
not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their
possession, custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 38
All Documents relating to any communications between Epstein or Epstein's attorneys and
Maxwell or Maxwell's attorneys related to the recruitment of any female for any purpose,
including socializing or performing any type of work or service.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 38 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 38 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts
not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their
possession, custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 39
All Documents relating to any bank account, household account, or financial account
identifying Maxwell in any way, including without limitation as an authorized user on the
account.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 39 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
26
EFTA02732099
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 28 of 59
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 39 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts
not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their
possession, custody, and control. The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds
that the terms "household account" and "financial account" are vague and ambiguous.
REOUEST NO. 40
All Documents or other media (including photographs) describing or depicting nude or
partially nude females, including but not limited to all Documents or other media describing or
depicting how such photographs were displayed in any of Epstein's various residences.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 40 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 40 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts
not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their
possession, custody, and control. The Co-Executors further object to this Request on the grounds
27
EFTA02732100
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 29 of 59
that it seeks publicly available information and information already known to Plaintiff or her
counsel.
REOUEST NO. 41
All Documents relating to any payments Epstein made to educational institutions or
programs, visual or performing arts schools, or scholarship programs and, to the extent the
payment was made for the benefit of another person, any Documents reflecting the identity of that
person.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 41 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 41 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts
not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their
possession, custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 42
All Documents relating to any request, proposal or inquiry made by Epstein, Maxwell, or
to any modeling agency for casting, recruitment, potential employment, and/or other
advancement opportunities and Documents reflecting the identity of any person responding to the
request, proposal, or inquiry.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 42 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
28
EFTA02732101
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 30 of 59
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 42 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it
specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their possession,
custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 43
All Documents relating to calendars, schedules, or appointments for Epstein that relate to
visits with or communications with females, excluding immediate family members.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 43 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 43 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts
not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their
possession, custody, and control.
REQUEST NO. 44
All Documents identifying any individuals who ever provided Epstein with a massage.
RESPONSE:
29
EFTA02732102
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 31 of 59
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 44 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 44 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it
specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their possession,
custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 45
All Documents identifying any individuals who Epstein paid for sexual acts, either with
Epstein or with other individuals.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 45 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 45 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts
not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their
possession, custody, and control.
30
EFTA02732103
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 32 of 59
REOUEST NO. 46
All Documents identifying any females recruited or referred by Maxwell, ME, or Groff
for work, sexual acts, or companionship for Epstein.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 46 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 46 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts
not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their
possession, custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 47
All Documents relating to any females Maxwell, or Groff introduced to Epstein
for work, sexual acts, or companionship for Epstein.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 47 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 47 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
31
EFTA02732104
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 33 of 59
The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts
not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their
possession, custody, and control.
REQUEST NO. 48
All Documents relating to any females Epstein paid to perform any kind of service,
including but not limited to work as an assistant, massage therapist, model, private exercise
instructor, dance instructor, or companion.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 48 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 48 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts
not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their
possession, custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 49
All Documents relating to massages, including but not limited to Documents reflecting
recruiting or hiring masseuses, advertising for masseuses, flyers created for distribution at high
schools or colleges, and Documents reflecting e-mails or calls to individuals relating to massages.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 49 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
32
EFTA02732105
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 34 of 59
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 49 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts
not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their
possession, custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 50
All Documents relating to passports applied for, obtained, or paid for by Epstein on behalf
of any female recruited to work for Epstein to perform any kind of service, including but not
limited to work as an assistant, massage therapist, model, private exercise instructor, dance
instructor, or companion.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 50 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 50 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts
not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their
possession, custody, and control.
33
EFTA02732106
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 35 of 59
REOUEST NO. 51
All Documents relating to or (a/k/a
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 51 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 51 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it
specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their possession.
custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 52
All Documents relating to Epstein's travel, when that travel was either with Maxwell,
Groff or other females or to meet Maxwell, MI Groff or other females, including but
not limited to documentation of commercial flights, private flights, helicopters, boat charters, and
car services, passport records, records indicating passengers traveling with Epstein, hotel records,
and credit card receipts.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 52 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 52 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
34
EFTA02732107
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 36 of 59
The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts
not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their
possession, custody, and control.
REQUEST NO. 53
All Documents relating to Epstein's travel to South Africa between 2001 and the present.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 53 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 53 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors additionally object to the time period stated in the Request, which is inconsistent
with the time frame alleged in the Complaint. The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the
grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally
object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it specifically calls for the production
of documents and information outside their possession, custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 54
All Documents relating to Epstein's travel to Florida between 2001 and the present.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 54 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
35
EFTA02732108
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 37 of 59
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 54 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors additionally object to the time period stated in the Request, which is inconsistent
with the time frame alleged in the Complaint. The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the
grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally
object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it specifically calls for the production
of documents and information outside their possession, custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 55
All Documents relating to Epstein's travel to the U.S. Virgin Islands between 2001 and
the present.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 55 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 55 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors additionally object to the time period stated in the Request, which is inconsistent
with the time frame alleged in the Complaint. The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the
grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally
object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it specifically calls for the production
of documents and information outside their possession, custody, and control.
36
EFTA02732109
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 38 of 59
REOUEST NO. 56
All Documents relating to Epstein's travel to France between 2001 and the present.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 56 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 56 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors additionally object to the time period stated in the Request, which is inconsistent
with the time frame alleged in the Complaint. The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the
grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally
object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it specifically calls for the production
of documents and information outside their possession, custody, and control.
REQUEST NO. 57
All Documents relating to Epstein's travel to New Mexico between 2001 and the present.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 57 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 57 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
37
EFTA02732110
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 39 of 59
The Co-Executors additionally object to the time period stated in the Request, which is inconsistent
with the time frame alleged in the Complaint. The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the
grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally
object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it specifically calls for the production
of documents and information outside their possession, custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 58
All Documents, including flight logs, identifying passengers, manifests, or flight plans for
any helicopter or plane ever owned, leased, chartered, or controlled by Epstein or any associated
entity, from 1995 to the present.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 58 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 58 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors additionally object to the time period stated in the Request, which is inconsistent
with the time frame alleged in the Complaint. The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the
grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally
object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it specifically calls for the production
of documents and information outside their possession, custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 59
All Documents relating to travel with Epstein of any female, including but not limited to
documentation of commercial flights, private flights, helicopters, boat charters, and car services,
passport records, records indicating passengers traveling with Epstein, hotel records, and credit
card receipts.
38
EFTA02732111
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 40 of 59
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 59 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 59 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts
not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their
possession, custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 60
All video tapes, audio tapes, photographs or any other print or electronic media depicting
any of Epstein's residences or aircrafts or inside of any of Epstein's residences or aircrafts.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 60 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 60 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
REOUEST NO. 61
All Documents relating to Epstein's ownership, lease, occupancy, use, or management of
property located at 301 East 66th Street, New York, New York.
39
EFTA02732112
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 41 of 59
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 61 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 61 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
REOUEST NO. 62
All Documents relating to any communications between Epstein or Maxwell and Alan
Dershowitz relating to
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 62 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 62 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it
specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their possession,
custody, and control. The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it assumes facts not in evidence.
Subject to and without waiving these objections and the parties' entry into a mutually
acceptable confidentiality agreement and (proposed) order and ESI protocol, the Co-Executors
40
EFTA02732113
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 42 of 59
will search for and produce non-privileged documents concerning Plaintiff, if any exist and are
located pursuant to mutually agreeable search parameters. The Co-Executors are working to
collect and process documents for these purposes and will meet and confer with counsel for
Plaintiff about the search as soon as practicable.
REQUEST NO. 63
All Documents relating to Eva or Glen
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 63 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 63 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it
specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their possession.
custody, and control.
REQUEST NO. 64
All Documents relating to Miles Alexander or Cathy Alexander.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 64 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 64 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
41
EFTA02732114
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 43 of 59
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it
specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their possession,
custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 65
All Documents relating to Michael Bay.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 65 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 65 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it
specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their possession,
custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 66
All Documents relating to former New Mexico Governor William "Bill" or
persons acting on his behalf.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 66 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
42
EFTA02732115
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 44 of 59
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 66 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it
specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their possession,
custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 67
All Documents relating to Naja E.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 67 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 67 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it
specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their possession,
custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 68
All Documents relating to Kevin Spacey or persons acting on his behalf.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 68 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
43
EFTA02732116
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 45 of 59
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 68 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it
specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their possession,
custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 69
All Documents relating to Chris Tucker or persons acting on his behalf.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 69 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
Ibr the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 69 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it
specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their possession,
custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 70
All Documents relating to William "Bill" J. Clinton or persons acting on his behalf.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 70 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
44
EFTA02732117
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 46 of 59
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 70 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it
specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their possession,
custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 71
All Documents relating to Andrew Albert Christian Edward, of York (a/k/a Prince
Andrew) or persons acting on his behalf.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 71 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 71 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it
specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their possession,
custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 72
All Documents relating to communications between You or Epstein and John Doe, the
intervenor in v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-07433-LAP (S.D.N.Y.), or John Doe's attorneys.
45
EFTA02732118
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 47 of 59
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 72 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 72 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds of and to the extent it seeks
documents necessarily held in a capacity other than as Co-Executors of the Estate. The Co-
Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it specifically
calls for the production of documents and information outside their possession, custody, and
control. The Co-Executors further object to this Request on the grounds that it seeks information
already known to Plaintiff or her counsel.
REOUEST NO. 73
All Documents relating to Frederic Fekkai, as an individual or as the owner of a hair-related
company, including information regarding accounts Epstein maintained for hair- related services
and the identity of any females who received hair-related services at Epstein's expense.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 73 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 73 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
46
EFTA02732119
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 48 of 59
The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it
specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their possession.
custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 74
All Documents relating to Dr. Radford Goto.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 74 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 74 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it
specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their possession,
custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 75
All Documents relating to
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 75 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 75 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
47
EFTA02732120
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 49 of 59
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it
specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their possession,
custody, and control.
REQUEST NO. 76
All Documents reflecting or consisting of communications between Jeffrey Epstein and
MC2 Models or Jean-Luc Brunel, relating or referring to females coming into the United States
from other countries to pursue a career in modeling, including, but not limited to, letters, notes,
and emails.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 76 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 76 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
REOUEST NO. 77
All Documents relating to Leslie Wexner or Abigail Wexner.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 77 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 77 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
48
EFTA02732121
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 50 of 59
The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds of and to the extent it seeks
documents necessarily held in a capacity other than as Co-Executors of the Estate. The Co-
Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it specifically
calls for the production of documents and information outside their possession, custody, and
control.
REOUEST NO. 78
All Documents reflecting Your or Epstein's direct or indirect interest or control over
business or personal assets of Leslie Wexner or Abigail Wexner, including but not limited to
articles of incorporation, power of attorneys, contracts, and meeting minutes.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 78 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 78 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds of and to the extent it seeks
documents necessarily held in a capacity other than as Co-Executors of the Estate. The Co-
Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts not in
evidence.
REOUEST NO. 79
All Documents relating to any business transactions, including real estate and other
financial transactions, between Epstein and Leslie Wexner from 1990 to the present.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 79 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
49
EFTA02732122
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 51 of 59
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 79 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors additionally object to the time period stated in the Request, which is inconsistent
with the time frame alleged in the Complaint. The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the
grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence.
REOUEST NO. 80
All Documents relating to Victoria's Secret models or actresses who were ever in the
presence of Epstein.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 80 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 80 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts
not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their
possession, custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 81
All Documents relating to any work that Epstein performed for Victoria's Secret or
50
EFTA02732123
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 52 of 59
authority that Epstein possessed over Victoria's Secret.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 81 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 81 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts
not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their
possession, custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 82
All Documents relating to modeling jobs, auditions, casting calls, or other opportunities
with Victoria's Secret or any modeling agency, that Epstein assisted any person in securing.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 82 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 82 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts
not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the
51
EFTA02732124
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 53 of 59
extent that it specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their
possession, custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 83
From January 2012 to the present, all Documents concerning any source of funding for the
TerraMar Project or any other not-for-profit entities for which Epstein provided funding, including
but not limited to funding for the Clinton Global Initiative, the Clinton Foundation (a/k/a William
J. Clinton Foundation, a/lc/a/ the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation), and the Clinton
Foundation Climate Change Initiative.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 83 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 83 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it assumes facts
not in evidence. The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their
possession, custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 84
All Documents relating to Epstein's estate planning, will, or any financial transactions that
occurred between the date of his arrest on July 6, 2019, and his death on August 10. 2019.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 84 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
52
EFTA02732125
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 54 of 59
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 84 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
REOUEST NO. 85
All Documents relating to communications between Epstein or Epstein's attorneys or
agents and any law enforcement entity, including the FBI, NYPD, Palm Beach Police Department,
and West Palm Beach Police Department, relating to any criminal investigation, cooperation in
any criminal investigation, potential criminal charges, immunity, deferred prosecution, or
suspected or known criminal activity.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 85 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 85 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors further object to this Request on the grounds that it seeks publicly available
information and information already known to Plaintiff or her counsel.
REOUEST NO. 86
All Documents relating to communications between Epstein and Epstein's attorneys or
agents and Alexander Acosta, Maria Villafana, or other attorneys associated with the United States
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 86 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
53
EFTA02732126
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 55 of 59
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 86 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors further object to this Request on the grounds that it seeks publicly available
information and information already known to Plaintiff or her counsel.
REOUEST NO. 87
All Documents concerning any action or lawsuit brought against Epstein, Maxwell, =,
or Groff, including, but not limited to, actions or lawsuits brought in foreign jurisdictions.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 87 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 87 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors further object to this Request on the grounds that it seeks publicly available
information and information already known to Plaintiff or her counsel.
REOUEST NO. 88
All Documents produced by Epstein or Maxwell in discovery in v. Maxwell, No.
15-cv-07433-LAP (S.D.N.Y.).
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 88 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
54
EFTA02732127
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 56 of 59
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 88 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors further object to this Request on the grounds that it seeks publicly available
information and information already known to Plaintiff or her counsel.
REOUEST NO. 89
All Documents seized by any government agency from Epstein's home located at 9 East
71st Street, New York, New York or at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 89 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 89 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it
specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their possession,
custody, and control.
REOUEST NO. 90
All Documents relating to the "two . . . payments, one in the amount of $250,000 and
another in the amount of $100,000 to ... two employees or associates of Mr. Epstein's" referenced
by Assistant United States Attorney Alexander Rossmiller at Epstein's bail hearing on July 15,
2019, including Documents sufficient to identify the recipients of those payments. See Transcript
of July 15, 2019 Bail Hearing at 9:15-20, United States v. Epstein, No. 19-cr-490 (RMB)
(S.D.N.Y.)
55
EFTA02732128
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 57 of 59
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 90 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 90 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
REOUEST NO. 91
All Documents relating to Shoppers Travel, including records of payment to Shoppers
Travel, communications with Shoppers Travel, or records of any airline tickets, hotel reservations,
or other travel accommodations booked through Shoppers Travel by Epstein or his agents or
employees for himself or any other person.
RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Request No. 91 on the grounds and to the extent that it calls
for the production of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure.
The Co-Executors further object to Request No. 91 on the grounds that, to the extent it seeks
documents that are not related to Plaintiff, it seeks information that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's
claims nor proportional to the needs of this case; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The Co-Executors additionally object to this Request on the grounds and to the extent that it
specifically calls for the production of documents and information outside their possession,
custody, and control. The Co-Executors also object to this Request on the grounds and to the
extent that it assumes facts not in evidence.
56
EFTA02732129
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 58 of 59
Dated: New York, New York
April 16, 2020 TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
By: /s/Bennet Moskowitz
Bennet Moskowitz
875 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Tel: (212) 704- 6087
[Email Redacted]
Attorneys for Darren K Indyke and
Richard D. Kahn, as co-executors of
the estate of.kikey E. Epstein
57
EFTA02732130
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-5 Filed 05/07/20 Page 59 of 59
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that on April 16, 2020, I served a copy of the foregoing
Defendants' Objections and Responses to Plaintiff-I First Request for Production
of Documents to Defendants, by sending them by email to:
Sigrid McCawley
Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
55 Hudson Yards
New York, New York 10001
Email: [Email Redacted]
TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
By: /sr.
Mary W. Metcalfe
875 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Tel: ([Phone Redacted]
[Email Redacted]
Attorneys for Darren K. Indyke and
Richard D. Kahn, as co-executors of the
estate ofJeffrey E. Epstein
58
EFTA02732131
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-6 Filed 05/07/20 Page 1 of 4
Exhibit F
EFTA02732132
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-6 Filed 05/07/20 Page 2 of 4
BSF Sigrid S. McCawley
Telephone: ([Phone Redacted]
Email: smccawley(4bsfilp.com
BOIES
SCHILLER
FLEXNER
April 20, 2020
VIA EMAIL
Bennet J. Moskowitz
Troutman Sanders LLP
875 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Tel: ([Phone Redacted]
bennet.moskowitzetroutman.com
Re: Intlylie et al.. Case No. 1:19-10-179
Dear Bennet:
I write on behalf of Plaintiff in response to Defendants Darren K. Indyke
and Richard D. Kahn, as co-executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the "Estate"), responses
and objections to the Plaintiff's discovery requests provided on April 16, 2020. As you likely have
anticipated, I specifically write in response to your total failure to respond to your discovery
obligations. I ask that we meet and confer about your lack of responses as soon as practicable.
First, as you are aware, Plaintiff served seventeen interrogatories on Defendants. You
answered none of them; rather, each interrogatory is met with an assortment of boilerplate
objections, ranging from objections to relevancy or "discovery about discovery" or assuming
"facts not in evidence" (which is especially puzzling, given that the very purpose of discovery is
to find such facts). At best, these objections are deficient; at worst, they are meritless and
borderline frivolous.
Similarly, you have failed to adequately respond to most of Plaintiff's document requests.
Again, your objections are premised on conclusory objections, ranging from objections to
relevancy and claims that certain documents are outside Defendants' possession, custody, and
control. As part of your discovery obligations, "generalized objections that discovery requests are
vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome are not acceptable." Shane/run Yu v. Diguojiaoyu,
Inc., 18-CV-7303, 2019 WL 6174204, *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2019) (granting plaintiffs' motion
to compel discovery after defendants "raised repeated and rote objections to Plaintiffs' document
requests, [] refused to provide Plaintiffs any documents whatsoever, and []answered the
interrogatories in [a] substantially similar fashion"); see also Harris v. Bronx Parent Housing
Network, Inc., 18-CV-11681, 2020 WL 763740, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2020) ("Boilerplate
objections that include unsubstantiated claims of undue burden, overbreadth and lack of relevancy,
accompanied by a lack of document production or interrogatory response, are a paradigm of
discovery abuse.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "A party resisting discovery
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
401 Eost Los Olos Boulevard. Suite 1200. Fort Lauderdale. FL 33301 1 (t) [Phone Redacted] 1 (f) [Phone Redacted] I www bsIllp com
EFTA02732133
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-6 Filed 05/07/20 Page 3 of 4
BSF April 20, 2020
Page 2
has the burden of showing specifically how, despite the broad and liberal construction afforded
the federal discovery rules, each interrogatory is not relevant or how each question is overly broad,
burdensome or oppressive . . . by submitting affidavits or offering evidence revealing the nature
of the burden." Harris, 2020 WL 763740, at *2 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Second, your relevance objections are meritless. All of Plaintiff's requests are relevant.
For example, please explain how documents relating to are not relevant to her
claims or are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See
Request I. Plaintiff alleges that Epstein abused her for years, organized her overseas travel on
many occasions, obtained travel documents for her, housed her in his apartment building, and
emailed her as recently as June 2019. She is entitled to any document relating to her. Plaintiff's
other requests are also directly relevant to her claims or the Estate's anticipated affirmative
defenses. She is entitled to discovery, for example, about Epstein's communications and
relationships with the people who accompanied him to South Africa when he recruited her to be a
part of his sex-trafficking operation (e.g., RFPs 15, 53, 67-70; Interrogatory 11); documents
relating to the employees who helped him transport Plaintiff to the United States and schedule
Plaintiff for sex (e.g., RFPs 3, 4, 29, 30, 31-38, 46-47); his pattern of enticing young models to fly
to the United States by falsely claiming that he could get them modeling opportunities (e.g., RFPs
18, 42, 76, 80-82); his communications with his associates who were present in Epstein's homes
when Plaintiff was abused (e.g., RFPs 63-66); and Epstein's travel to the places in which he abused
Plaintiff (e.g., RFPs 54-59).
Moreover, Plaintiff is entitled to know the breadth and nature the sex-trafficking operation
that she was victimized by. See Fed. R. Evid. 415 ("In a civil case involving a claim for relief
based on a party's alleged sexual assault or child molestation, the court may admit evidence that
the party committed any other sexual assault or child molestation."). Plaintiff alleges that Epstein
utilized his sex-trafficking operation to recruit and abuse countless young girls and women in a
methodical and similar fashion. Epstein's recruitment, trafficking, and assault of other girls in the
same way that he recruited, trafficked, and assaulted Plaintiff would make Plaintiff's allegations
more probable. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. Plaintiff's discovery requests are therefore directly relevant
to the allegations in her Complaint, or, at a minimum, are reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
Third, your objections to certain of the time periods stated in the Requests are meritless for
several reasons. As explained above, Epstein's other sexual assaults would be both relevant and
admissible in this case, regardless of time period. Further, you have raised a statute of limitations
defense in Plaintiff's case, and Plaintiff has made an equitable estoppel argument in response.
Plaintiff is entitled to discovery relevant to her equitable estoppel theory, including but not limited
to any threats or misrepresentations that Epstein made to Plaintiff to prevent her from filing this
lawsuit, outside of the time period during which Plaintiff was physically abused by Epstein.
Fourth, your objection to Plaintiff's definition of Jeffrey Epstein as including "any entities
owned or controlled by Jeffrey Epstein, any employee, agent, attorney, consultant, or
EFTA02732134
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 27-6 Filed 05/07/20 Page 4 of 4
BSF April 20, 2020
Page 3
representative of Jeffrey Epstein" is an improper attempt to narrow your discovery obligations in
this matter. Your objection directly contradicts the Local Rules of this Court, which define the
word "parties" as including a defendant's "employees, partners, . . . or affiliates." Local Rule
26.3(cX5). Plaintiff's definition is proper.
Fifth, your responses and objections state many times that certain documents and
information are outside of the Estate's possession, custody, and control. If that is the case, please
explain what is and is not within the Estate's possession and control. For example, please explain
in detail what computers, hard drives, email accounts, telephone records, or hard copy documents
you have reviewed and provide a list of search terms that were used and specifically list what items
you claim to not have access to. We know that Epstein at a minimum used the following email
accounts:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ieffrevelamindsrtring.com•
[Email Redacted];
jeevacation(agmail.com;
ieristein(4revonet.com•
[Email Redacted];
ceciliaRellmax.com;
ieffrev.ensteinaxenturvtel.net• and
[Email Redacted]
Confirm that you have accessed and searched each of these accounts and provide the
protocol used for the search. In the alternative, if the Estate contends that information that is
responsive to Plaintiff's discovery requests was destroyed, provide all details relating to the
destruction.
Please let us know your availability for a meet and confer on the following dates and times:
• Wednesday, April 22, 2020 between 2:00 and 3:00 EST;
• Thursday, April 23, 2020 between 3:00 EST and 6:00 EST; and
• Friday, April 24, 2020 between 3:00 EST and 5:00 EST.
Sincerely,
/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley
Sigrid S. McCawley
cc: Counsel of Record
EFTA02732135