Court Records
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 35 Filed 05/14/20 Page 1 of 4
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 14, 2020
v. Darren K. Indyke & Richard D. Kahn, 19-10479-ALC-DCF
Dear Judge Freeman:
We submit on behalf of Plaintiff this reply in further support of her letter
motion for a conference to address Defendants' failure to comply with their discovery obligations
(ECF No. 27), and in response to Defendants' second letter in opposition, filed on May 13, 2020
(ECF No. 34). As an initial matter, the Court should disregard Defendants' latest response as
untimely. Pursuant to Individual Rule 1.D., "[u]nless the Court orders otherwise, opposition to
any letter motion shall be filed within three (3) days of the moving letter." Notwithstanding this
rule, Defendants filed an incomplete and non-substantive opposition on May 8, and requested
"permission to submit a response to the substantive issues raised in the Letters by May 13, 2020."
ECF No. 28. Defendants' letter did not comply with Individual Rule 1.B., which governs "requests
for adjournments or extensions of time." In any event, the Court did not issue an order extending
Defendants' time to respond, much less grant Defendants leave to file two oppositions as opposed
to one. But even if the Court were to consider Defendants' untimely filing, each of their arguments
is meritless, and confirms the need for immediate Court intervention to resolve the parties' disputes.
First, Defendants refuse to engage in discovery for more than a narrow, two-year period
(2002-2004). This is improper, as information concerning Epstein's abuse of other girls and young
women throughout the span of his sex-trafficking conspiracy is plainly relevant, and therefore
discoverable under Rule 26. Defendants deride Plaintiff's allegations as a "sex trafficking
scheme—which," according to Defendants, "is based on unproven allegations in the S.D.N.Y.'s
2019 indictment of Mr. Epstein." ECF No. 34 at 2 (emphases added). But given all that has been
discovered about the scope of Epstein's operations and the numerous ways in which Plaintiff's
abuse mirrored Epstein's abuse of others, Defendants' argument that Plaintiff "does not need
discovery about Mr. Epstein's interactions with other individuals" is baseless. As set forth in
Plaintiff's opening letter, "[d]ocuments 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." ECF No. 27 at 2. Moreover, Rule 415 (which Defendants
fail to address) unambiguously provides that "[i]ri 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
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
EFTA02732179
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 35 Filed 05/14/20 Page 2 of 4
The Honorable Debra C. Freeman
May 14, 2020
Page 2
committed any other sexual assault or child molestation." Fed. R. Evid. 415. Defendants are free
to attempt to prove Epstein innocent, and can try to prove that the allegations set forth in Plaintiff's
complaint and the S.D.N.Y.'s indictment are false. They cannot, however, prevent Plaintiff from
accessing the information that would prove otherwise.
Defendants argue that allowing discovery into a period of time greater than two years is
somehow "not proportional to the needs of this case and would impose an undue burden on the
Co-Executors." ECF No. 34 at 1. But "unsubstantiated claims of undue burden, overbreadth and
lack of relevancy" in situations where a party has "produced no documents and answered no
interrogatories . . . are a paradigm of discovery abuse." Jacoby v. Hanford Life & Acc. Ins. Co.,
254 F.R.D. 477, 478 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). Defendants do not even attempt to quantify what the burden
of reviewing documents through the present would be, or how that number would compare to that
for the two-year time period they propose. The only information Defendants offer in their letter is
a representation that they are "reviewing a database of over 730,000 documents." ECF No. 34 at
1 (emphasis in original). That representation is ambiguous, however, as it sheds no light on (i)
how many of those documents Defendants will review (as opposed to just being a number of
documents housed on a "database"); (ii) how those documents were collected; or (iii) whether any
of those documents are currently being reviewed in response to the discovery requests Plaintiff
served in this case (as opposed to those served in cases brought by other victims). And the fact
that Epstein's Estate is "large and complicated" does not change Defendants' discovery obligations
or the deadlines that this Court imposed. Absent any particularized showing that compliance with
Plaintiff's discovery requests would pose an undue burden, Defendants' proposal to limit the
discovery period to two years is unfounded. Again, to date Defendants have not produced a single
document —not one.
Second, Defendants improperly refuse to answer interrogatories or produce documents that
do not specifically reference Plaintiff or the specific instances in which she was abused.
Defendants claim that they "have and will continue to search for and produce documents that relate
to Plaintiff and her claims of battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress, regardless of
whether they specifically reference Plaintiff." ECF No. 34 at 3. As set forth above, however,
Plaintiff is entitled to information concerning Epstein's sex-trafficking conspiracy as a whole,
including his abuse of others, his communications with his co-conspirators, and the various ways
in which he operated his scheme throughout the years. Because the parties' disagreement hinges
on whether or not defined topics are discoverable under Rule 26, Defendants' suggestion that the
dispute can be resolved by exchanging "bilateral search-term proposals" is disingenuous at best.'
Id. at 3. Court intervention is required now so that Defendants can begin reviewing and producing
documents concerning the sex-trafficking conspiracy they are trying to keep secret.
Third, the Court should compel Defendants to answer Plaintiff's interrogatories in full. In
a desperate attempt to convince the Court that this issue is somehow "moot" or that Plaintiff's pre-
motion letter was "premature," Defendants claim that Plaintiffs request was merely "that Co-
I Plaintiff already offered to provide a list of search terms to Defendants, and their counsel
responded by stating that Defendants would only consider any other names Plaintiff goes by as a
search term. If that was not Defendants' position, they never corrected it or otherwise indicated
that they would change it.
EFTA02732180
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 35 Filed 05/14/20 Page 3 of 4
The Honorable Debra C. Freeman
May 14, 2020
Page 3
Executors supplement their interrogatory responses." ECF No. 34 at 3. To be clear, Plaintiff's
anticipated motion will be to compel Defendants to respond meaningfully to all of Plaintiff's
interrogatories, which has still not happened despite Defendants' belated "supplementation."
Defendants' "supplemental responses," attached hereto as Exhibit A, remain deficient, and only
insert cosmetic changes based on information that should have been obvious to Defendants at the
time they served their "initial" responses,2 or parrot back information taken from Plaintiff's
complaint and Plaintiff's own production of documents. In any event, each of Defendants'
"supplemental" responses "is limited to the Relevant Time Period," which means that Defendants
still refuse to answer Plaintiff's interrogatories for more than a two-year period. Court
intervention is required to compel Defendants to answer these interrogatories in full.
Finally, although irrelevant to the pending motion concerning Defendants' discovery
efforts, Plaintiff has fully complied with her discovery obligations to date, and will continue to do
so. Defendants complain that Plaintiff included within her productions what they claim are
"irrelevant documents from another case," ECF No. 34 at 4, but Plaintiff produced these
documents because Defendants specifically asked for the documents identified in Plaintiff's initial
disclosures, and Plaintiff correctly produced those documents. Plaintiff has and will continue to
engage with opposing counsel in good faith to answer any questions they may have.3
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant her request
for a conference.
2 Together with their "supplemental responses," Defendants' served verifications for their "initial
responses" on May 13, 2020. Ex. B. Whereas the initial responses were served on April 16, the
signatures for the verifications for those responses are dated May 12, 2020, which is the same date
as the verifications for the supplemental responses.
In a footnote, Defendants mention a ruling in v. Dershowitz, which disqualified Boies
Schiller Flexner LLP ("BSF") as counsel for another Epstein victim, in a
defamation case brought by that victim against Alan Dershowitz. v. Dershowitz, 410 F.
Supp. 3d 564, 578-79 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). Judge Preska's disqualification of the law firm was not a
sanction. Instead, it was based on the advocate-witness rule because Dershowitz claimed that a
BSF attorney (while representing the victim) said something to him during a settlement negotiation
that would implicate the truth or falsity of one of Dershowitz's allegedly defamatory statements.
Id. at 579. Indeed, BSF continues to represent before Judge Preska in the
v. Maxwell matter. Defendants disingenuously state that "[t]he Court should be aware" of that
ruling, despite the fact that it has nothing to do with whether or not Plaintiff herself was a victim
of Epstein's sex-trafficking conspiracy. If Defendants and their counsel are actually seeking to
prove Epstein innocent or otherwise insulated from accounting for his misconduct, they should
drop their baseless objections to discovery, stop ad hominem attacks on counsel, cease their delay
tactics, and welcome a trial on the merits.
EFTA02732181
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 35 Filed 05/14/20 Page 4 of 4
The Honorable Debra C. Freeman
May 14, 2020
Page 4
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley
Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq.
cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF)
EFTA02732182
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 35-1 Filed 05/14/20 Page 1 of 15
Exhibit A
EFTA02732183
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 35-1 Filed 05/14/20 Page 2 of 15
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 SUPPLEMENTAL 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 supplemental responses to Plaintiff ("Plaintiff")
First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants (the "Interrogatories").
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
These supplemental responses are made solely for the purpose of and in relation to
discovery in the above-captioned action. The Co-Executors submit these supplemental 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 have been placed in charge of a large and complex estate
and are working to determine the existence of responsive information concerning the affairs of
Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Decedent") and those efforts are continuing. Much of the requested
information is outside of their knowledge, possession or control. To the extent non privileged
42245537
EFTA02732184
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 35-1 Filed 05/14/20 Page 3 of 15
responsive information would be available to them at all, access to such information has been
severely hampered by the current pandemic. Accordingly, Co-Executors reserve their right to
amend or further supplement these responses if and when appropriate. Further, these supplemental
responses are neither an admission nor acceptance of any alleged facts, including without
limitation those stated in the Interrogatories.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
The Co-Executors incorporate their initial objections to the definitions and instructions as
if stated fully herein.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. I
List the names and addresses of all persons who are 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.
SUPPLEMENTAL 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 objections, the Co-Executors identify the
following individuals who have knowledge concerning the battery and intentional infliction of
emotional distress allegedly committed by Decedent against Plaintiff: Plaintiff and Sven
2
42245537
EFTA02732185
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 35-1 Filed 05/14/20 Page 4 of 15
Stromnes.
In addition, in her Complaint, Plaintiff identifies the following individuals with whom she
alleges she interacted with or communicated with: M, "the former high U.S. Government
official, the famous actor, and the well-known comedian" described in paragraph 39 of Plaintiff's
Complaint, Lesley Groff, Plaintiff's mother, the "other young girl" described in
paragraph 44 of Plaintiff's Complaint, and Ghislaine Maxwell. Co-Executors do not know
whether these individuals ever spoke with or interacted with Plaintiff, or have knowledge
concerning Plaintiff's claims.
In addition, the Co-Executors identify the following individuals, believed to have worked
at Decedent's homes in New York, Paris, New Mexico, Palm Beach, Florida and United States
Virgin Islands, which where Plaintiff alleges she encountered Decedent, during the period from
2002 to 2004, which based upon the allegations of the Complaint, appears to cover the entire time
period during which Plaintiff's claims accrued (the "Relevant Time Period"): Luciano Fontanilla,
Rosalyn Fontanilla, Richard Barnett, Valdson Cotrin, Brice
M , Floyd M, Miles Alexander, Catherine Alexander, Ghislaine Maxwell, Alvin M,
Juan Alessi, Maria Alessi, Adam Lang, Michael
and Alfredo Rodriguez. Co-Executors do not know whether these individuals ever spoke
with or interacted with Plaintiff, or have knowledge concerning Plaintiff's allegations.
To the extent additional individuals are identified in response to other interrogatories, those
individuals may, but not necessarily, have such knowledge. The Co-Executors' search for relevant
information remains ongoing; they will supplement this response if and when any additional
responsive information is ascertained.
3
42245537
EFTA02732186
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 35-1 Filed 05/14/20 Page 5 of 15
INTERROGATORY NO. 2
Identify all email accounts used by Epstein or any of his employees or agents on his behalf.
SUPPLEMENTAL 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 and to the extent that it is unconstrained by time. Accordingly, Co-Executors'
response is limited to the Relevant Time Period.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Co-Executors state that it is
their understanding that the email addresses listed below were created for or on behalf of Decedent,
but only ieevacationlaernail.com and jeevroiectavahoo.com were actively used by Decedent
himself. Moreover, Co-Executors currently do not believe that ieevacationAgmail.com existed or
was in use during the Relevant Time Period and do not know whether jeeprojectOyahoo.com was
in use during the Relevant Time Period:
• columbiadental I ®yahoo.com
• jeevacation®me.com
• [Email Redacted]
• jeeproject®yahoo.com
• [Email Redacted]
• jeffrey®jeffreyepstein.org
• jeffreyepsteinorg®gmail.com
• jeffreyepsteinorg®yahoo.com
• jeffreyepstein®live.com
• jeeitunes®gmail.com
• littlestjeff®yahoo.com
The Co-Executors' search for relevant information remains ongoing; they will supplement
this response if and when any additional responsive information is ascertained.
4
42245537
EFTA02732187
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 35-1 Filed 05/14/20 Page 6 of 15
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.
SUPPLEMENTAL 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
overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Co-Executors further object to this Interrogatory on
the grounds and to the extent that it is unconstrained by time. Accordingly, Co-Executors'
response is limited to the Relevant Time Period.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Co-Executors state that it is
their understanding that the following phone numbers were used by Decedent or registered to
properties where Decedent stayed at different times, but are unaware of the specific time period
that the numbers were in use:
5
42245537
EFTA02732188
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 35-1 Filed 05/14/20 Page 7 of 15
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]„
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted]
([Phone Redacted]
The Co-Executors' search for relevant information remains ongoing; they will supplement
this response if and when any additional responsive information is ascertained.
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
6
42245537
EFTA02732189
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 35-1 Filed 05/14/20 Page 8 of 15
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.
SUPPLEMENTAL 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 further object to this Interrogatory on
the grounds and to the extent that it is unconstrained by time. Accordingly, Co-Executors'
response is limited to those individuals who are believed to have worked during the Relevant Time
Period at Decedent's homes in New York, the United States Virgin Islands, Paris, Palm Beach,
Florida and New Mexico, where Plaintiff alleges she encountered Decedent. Co-Executors do not
know whether these individuals ever spoke with or interacted with Plaintiff during the Relevant
Time Period.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Co-Executors identify the
following individuals:
• Luciano Fontanilla
• Rosalyn Fontanilla
• Richard Barnett
• Valdson Cotrin
• Brice
I
• I 10> (I
• Miles Alexander
• Catherine Alexander
• Ghislaine Maxwell
• Alvin
• Juan Alessi,
• Maria Alessi,
• Adam Lan
• Michael
7
42245537
EFTA02732190
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 35-1 Filed 05/14/20 Page 9 of 15
•
• Alfredo Rodriguez
The Co-Executors' search for relevant information remains ongoing; they will supplement
this response if and when any additional responsive information is ascertained.
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.
SUPPLEMENTAL 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 further object to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it is
unconstrained by time. Accordingly, Co-Executors' response is limited to the Relevant Time
Period.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Co-Executors identify Lesley
Groff and who were Decedent's assistants during the Relevant Time Period. Co-
Executors do not know whether Ms. Groff or ever spoke with or interacted with
Plaintiff. Co-Executors also refer Plaintiff to the documents produced by Plaintiff at Nos.
JBRYANT 3736-3832, which purports to list contact information for masseuses. Co-Executors
do not know whether any individuals identified therein are masseuses or if those individuals
provided massages to Decedent during the Relevant Time Period. The Co-Executors' search for
8
42245537
EFTA02732191
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 35-1 Filed 05/14/20 Page 10 of 15
relevant information remains ongoing; they will supplement this response if and when any
additional responsive information is ascertained.
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.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Interrogatory No. 6 on the grounds that it seeks information
that is neither relevant to Plaintiff's claims; it is also overly broad and unduly burdensome. 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 is unconstrained by time. Accordingly, Co-Executors' response is
limited to the Relevant Time Period.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Co-Executors state the
following individuals provided transportation services to Decedent during the Relevant Time
Period:
• David Rodgers
• Larry Visoski
• Larry r
• Alvin
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Co-Executors identify Shoppers
Travel, Inc., which is a travel agency that provided travel-related services to Decedent during the
Relevant Time Period. The Co-Executors' search for relevant information remains ongoing; they
will supplement this response if and when any additional responsive information is ascertained.
9
42245537
EFTA02732192
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 35-1 Filed 05/14/20 Page 11 of 15
INTERROGATORY NO. 7
Identify all females by name and age for whom Epstein or his employees or agents provided
accommodations at 301 East 66'h Street, New York, New York for any period of time.
SUPPLEMENTAL 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
grounds that the phrase "provided accommodations" is vague and ambiguous. The Co-Executors
further object to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it is unconstrained by time.
Accordingly, Co-Executors' response is limited to the Relevant Time Period.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Co-Executors state the
following individuals stayed at 301 East 66th Street, New York, New York for some period of time,
but it is unknown whether any of them stayed at 301 East 66th Street, New York, New York during
the Relevant Time Period:
• Rosl Fontanilla
•
•
Co-Executors do not know whether the individuals listed have ever spoke with or interacted
with Plaintiff during the Relevant Time Period. The Co-Executors' search for relevant information
remains ongoing; they will supplement this response if and when any additional responsive
information is ascertained.
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.
10
42245537
EFTA02732193
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 35-1 Filed 05/14/20 Page 12 of 15
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
The Co-Executors object to Interrogatory No. 8 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 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 is unconstrained by time. Accordingly, Co-Executors' response is limited to the Relevant
Time Period.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Co-Executors refer Plaintiff to
the documents produced by Plaintiff at Nos. JBRYANT 3736-3832, which purports to list
contact information for masseuses. Co-Executors do not know whether any individuals identified
therein are masseuses or if those individuals provided massages to Decedent during the Relevant
Time Period. The Co-Executors' search for relevant information remains ongoing; they will
supplement this response if and when any additional responsive information is ascertained.
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
contact information for each individual or company listed, in addition to the residence or office
serviced.
SUPPLEMENTAL 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 further object
II
42245537
EFTA02732194
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 35-1 Filed 05/14/20 Page 13 of 15
to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it is unconstrained by time. Accordingly,
Co-Executors' response is limited to the Relevant Time Period.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Co-Executors believe that
Jermaine Ruan performed information technology work at Decedent's home in the United States
Virgin Islands during the Relevant Time Period. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing
objections, the Co-Executors also believe that Mark Lundberg may have performed information
technology work in some or all of Decedent's homes during the Relevant Time Period.
The Co-Executors' search for relevant information remains ongoing; they will supplement
this response if and when any additional responsive information is ascertained.
Dated: New York, New York
May 13, 2020 TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
By: /s/Bennet Moskowitz
Bennet Moskowitz
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 ofJeffrey E. Epstein
12
42245537
EFTA02732195
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 35-1 Filed 05/14/20 Page 14 of 15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
v.
DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN
in their capacities as the executors of the ESTATE
OF JEFFREY EDWARD EPSTEIN.
Defendants.
Case No. l : I 9-cv-10479-ALC-DCF
VERIFICATION
Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, as Co-Executors of the estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein
(the "Co-Executors"), have read the foregoing Co-Erecutors' Objections and Supplemental
Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and are familiar with its contents. The
responses are subject to inadvertent and undiscovered errors and are based on information
available at this stage of discovers. the Co-Executors reserve the right to amend the responses if
it appears at any time that omissions or errors have been made therein or that more accurate or
additional information is available. Subject to the limitations set forth herein and to the best of
their knowledge and belief, Mr. Indyke and Mr. Kahn. solely in their capacities as Co-Executors.
state that the answers contained therein are true and correct.
4221B24%3
EFTA02732196
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 35-1 Filed 05/14O0 Page 15 of 15
I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 12, 2020
--- a.,..rt 1 0. jK
Darren K. Indyke
Co-Executor of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein
I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 12, 2020
Richard D. Kahn
Co-Executor of the Estate ofleffrey E. Epstein
- 2 - 4221132Av3
EFTA02732197
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 35-2 Filed 05/14/20 Page 1 of 3
Exhibit B
EFTA02732198
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 35-2 Filed 05/14/20 Page 2 of 3
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. I :19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF
VERIFICATION
Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, as Co-Executors of the estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein
(the "Co-Executors"). have read the Co-Eveciaors ' Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs First
Set of Interrogatories, dated April 16. 2020. and are familiar with its contents. The responses are
subject to inadvertent and undiscovered errors and are based on information available at this stage
of discovery. The Co-Executors reserve the right to amend the responses if it appears at any time
that omissions or errors have been made therein or that more accurate or additional information is
available. Subject to the limitations set forth herein and to the best of their knowledge and belief,
Mr. Indyke and Mr. Kahn. solely in their capacities as Co-Executors, state that the answers
contained therein are true and correct.
42211324%3
EFTA02732199
Case 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF Document 35-2 Filed 05/14/20 Page 3 of 3
I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 12, 2020
l a_Luazg
Darren K.Indyke
Co-Executor of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein
I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 12, 2020
Richard D. Kahn
Co-Executor of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein
-2-42211324,7
EFTA02732200