Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 122-cv-10904 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)/059.pdf

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ____________________________________ ) GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED ) STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS, ) Case No. 1:22-cv-10904-JSR ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES CONCERNING TEMPORAL SCOPE AND DOCUMENT CUSTODIAN i TABLE OF CONTENTS FACTUAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 2 A.Discovery Through 2019 is Relevant to the Government’s Claims. .................................. 2 B.Mr. Dimon is a Source of Relevant Information for Whom Documents Should Be Produced for the Entire Time Period. ................................................................................. 5 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 8 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Giuffre v. Maxwell, 2020 WL 6947435 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2020) ................................................ 4 Iowa Pub. Employees Retirement System v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., 2020 WL 6273396 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2020) ..................................................................................... 7 Lindsey v. Butler, 2017 WL 4157352 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2017) .................................................. 5 Maritime Cinema Serv. Corp. v. Movies En Route, Inc., 60 F.R.D. 587 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) ............ 2 Martin v. Town of Westport, 558 F. Supp. 2d 228 (D. Conn. 2008) .............................................. 2 Milione v. CUNY, 950 F. Supp. 2d 704 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ............................................................... 6 Rosinbaum v. Flowers Foods, Inc., 238 F. Supp. 3d 738 (E.D.N.C. 2017).................................... 6 United Illuminating Co. v. Whiting-Turner Contracting Co., 2020 WL 7585873 (D. Conn. Nov. 19, 2020) ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Zelaya v. UNICCO Serv. Co., 682 F. Supp. 2d 28 (D.D.C. 2010) ................................................. 2 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)............................................................................................................... 2, 4 FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff, the Government of the United States Virgin Islands (“Government”), brought this civil action against Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JPMorgan”) as part of its ongoing effort to protect public safety and to hold accountable those who facilitated or participated in, directly or indirectly, the trafficking enterprise of Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein”). The Government’s investigation has revealed that JPMorgan knowingly, recklessly, and unlawfully provided and pulled the levers through which Epstein’s recruiters and victims were paid and was indispensable to the operation and concealment of the Epstein trafficking enterprise. Financial institutions can connect—or choke—human trafficking networks, and enforcement actions filed and injunctive relief obtained by attorneys general are essential to ensure that enterprises like Epstein’s cannot flourish in the future. The Government alleges that Chase’s wrongful conduct continued through at least August 2019. First Amended Complaint (FAC) (Doc. 47-1), ¶¶ 6, 85-91, 94, 99, 101, 116, 120-28, 134- 35. JPMorgan nevertheless objects to discovery requests for post-2013 material as overly broad and unduly burdensome and refuses to provide any or virtually any post-2013 or 2014 discovery. See Ex. A (Resp. and Obj. to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories) at 7-8, Obj. 2; Ex. B (Resp. and Obj. to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production) at 3, Gen. Obj. 10; id. at 8, Obj. 4. The Government designated a number of document custodians for whom JPMorgan must produce documents, including JPMorgan’s CEO, James (Jamie) Dimon. Mr. Dimon was personally involved both in decisions to retain Epstein’s accounts in the face of acknowledged high-risk activity, Ex. C (JPM-SDNYLIT-00003706), and in meetings and review related to Epstein’s referrals of prominent and high-wealth potential clients, Ex’s D-F (JPM-SDNYLIT- 2 00002151, 00005443 & 00006005, 00022475-77). Despite Mr. Dimon’s close connections to this highly relevant subject matter, JPMorgan agrees to provide documents for him only through the year 2014. 1 ARGUMENT A.Discovery Through 2019 is Relevant to the Government’s Claims. The Government alleges that JPMorgan’s unlawful conduct in facilitating Epstein’s criminal sex-trafficking continued until at least August 2019. FAC ¶¶ 90-91; see also id. ¶¶ 6, 85- 89, 94, 99, 101, 116, 120-28, 134-35. Information and documents for the entire time period through and including 2019 therefore are relevant to the Government’s claims and fall well within the bounds of permissible discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]”); Martin v. Town of Westport, 558 F. Supp. 2d 228, 233 (D. Conn. 2008) (“The relevant time period in this case can be discovered from the complaint[.]”). The Government’s Complaint provides a baseline, not a ceiling, for the permissible temporal scope of discovery. See Zelaya v. UNICCO Serv. Co., 682 F. Supp. 2d 28, 36 (D.D.C. 2010) (permitting employment discrimination plaintiff discovery covering one year before and two years after her employment); see generally Maritime Cinema Serv. Corp. v. Movies En Route, Inc., 60 F.R.D. 587, 589 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) (“[D]iscovery under the Federal Rules, particularly in antitrust cases, is extremely broad, and not limited to the allegations of the pleadings.”). JPMorgan has argued that its termination of Epstein’s accounts in 2013 marks the outer temporal boundary of discovery. It does not. The Government’s allegation that certain of JPMorgan’s unlawful conduct with respect to Epstein’s activity continued through at least August 1 The parties held meet and confer calls on February 21 and 22, 2023, in which JPMorgan offered for the first time to provide custodial discovery for 2014. See Ex. G (2/21/2023 email of counsel). 3 2019, FAC ¶¶ 90-91, is central to its claims. See id. ¶¶ 94, 99, 101, 116, 120-28, 134-35. JPMorgan’s conduct and knowledge between 2013, when it exited Epstein’s accounts (but not its relationship with Epstein), , are important to the Government’s claims. Additionally, in 2013, JPMorgan entered into a Consent Order with the Office of Comptroller of Currency related to deficiencies in the same BSA/AML program that was responsible for ensuring compliance with respect to Epstein’s accounts. As part of that Consent Order, JPMorgan was required to conduct look-backs on accounts for compliance deficiencies. Whether that review included Epstein – who was a high-risk account holder – and, if so, what was found are highly relevant and discoverable. Indeed, Ex. H (2/16/23 OCC letter). Thus, the Government is entitled to discover what JPMorgan did and learned regarding Epstein and the applicable compliance program between 2013 and 2019. It also is entitled to learn what if anything became clear to JPMorgan in 2019 regarding Epstein’s conduct that would