EFTA00605165.pdf
dataset_9 pdf 432.8 KB • Feb 3, 2026 • 2 pages
CIIISeeliTh(01$00016-1tai< ClatatilifffIglfi ilerrliSdar464511geffigP21 of 2
Michael C. /afar
212 508 3955
romtkeastera eon Steptoe
.........
1114 Avenue of the Americas
New Yorks NY 10038
212 506 3900 main
wevateroloo USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOCH
DATE FILED. 10.4-ri
October 4, 2017
VIA ECF
Hon. John O. 'Coal
United States District Court
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007.1312
Re: Jane Doe 43 v. Jeffrey Epstein, et al.
Civil Action No. 17-cv-616
Dear Judge Koeltl:
We are counsel for Defendants Jeffit
ji b.E stein and In the above-referenced
matter. We write jointly with Defendant (toge”ifendants") to request an
adjournment of the conference schedul or cto er 10, 2017. This is our first request for
adjournment of this conference.
As Your Honor may recall, the Court issued an Order on July 17, 2017 concerning the
Ili on and documents Plaintiff produced as a non-party witness in an action captioned
v. Mayen, 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS), pending before Judge Robert Sweet ("July 17 Order"
and "Jane Doe Evidence", respectively). Pursuant to the July 17 Order, we have sought consent
from Plaintiff's counsel to use the Jane Doe Evidence, but with only limited success.
Specifically, on July 24, I spoke with Plaintiff's counsel Brad Edwards concerning the
Jane Doe Evidence. I informed Mr. Edwards that we would like to make an application to Judge
Sweet for relief from the Protective Order as it applies to the Jane Doe Evidence. On August 8, I
wrote to Mr. Edwards reiterating our request. On August 10, Mr. Edwards informed me that he
would consent to the use of Plaintiff's deposition she gave in the .l ematter, but that he
would need an itemized list of the documents we want to use, even thou documents totaled
only 557 pages. On August 17, I wrote to Mr. Edwards reiterating our belief that all of the Jane
Doe Evidence is relevant to the Motions to Dismiss, but that I would nonetheless provide him
with a list of the documents. On September I, T wrote to Mr. Edwards and reiterated that we
want to use all of the Jane Doe Evidence and provided him with copies of the documents that we
want to use. We also detailed the reasons as to why the documents are relevant to the
ojawl_Adeo rd vdeavesoerri
OCI0054 If / /71- 10:3,0A.A.
i011
$ 0 of 0 &VCI
664a
t/ S 9
EFTA00605165
CCIatee.11317/-4MfroOtkla.lical< DWPtiPiini6PileElilitSi019196/113gePiae22 of 2
Hon. John G. Kocltl Steptoe
llieeot • Arivalt;
October 4, 2017
Page 2
Defendants' contemplated Motions to Dismiss. On September 18, Plaintiff's counsel (whose
response was delayed due to hurricane damages in Florida) agreed to allow Defendants to use
Plaintiff's deposition and only sonic of the documents she produced, but Plaintiff would not,
however, consent to the use of all of the Jane Doe Evidence.
On October 3, 2017, we submitted a letter motion to Judge Sweet seeking permission to
file under seal a motion to modify the Protective Order entered in the Giuffre matter before him.
On October 4, 2017, Judge Sweet granted the letter motion to file under seal. As a result, we
will be filing tomorrow the motion seeking a modification of the Protective Order so as to permit
the use of all of the Jane Doe Evidence to support Defendants' contemplated Motions to Dismiss
("Motion to Modify').'
In view of the above, we believe that it would make sense to adjourn the conference Your
Honor scheduled for October 10, 2017 pending a decision by Judge Sweet on the Motion to
Modify. Once Judge Swett issues his ruling, Defendants will submit their Motions to Dismiss
within seven days of the ruling as provided for in the July 17 Order.
Even if the Court were not inclined to adjourn the conference pending Judge Sweet's
ruling, Defendants request that the conference be scheduled for a date other than October 10.
Counsel for both sets of Defendants have scheduling conflicts on that date.
Plaintiff has not agreed to an adjournment.
Respectfully submitted,
vitedliCt_
Michael C. Miller
Counselfor lindifisieftiey
Epstein and
I Once the motion to modify the Protective Order is submitted to Judge Sweet, we will provide
Your Honor with a courtesy copy.
EFTA00605166
Entities
0 total entities mentioned
No entities found in this document
Document Metadata
- Document ID
- 066343b9-a904-4e69-9ec4-40a4288711cd
- Storage Key
- dataset_9/EFTA00605165.pdf
- Content Hash
- 23f9dacec4e06e58e612f276d2f39b4a
- Created
- Feb 3, 2026