179.pdf

PAUL G. CASSELL Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 383 S. University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 cassellp@law.utah.edu * * This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah. December 13, 2018 VIA CM/ECF Honorable Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn United States District Court Thurgood Marshall Courthouse 40 Foley Square, Rm 430 New York, NY 10007 Re: Jane Doe 43 v. Jeffrey Epstein, et al., Case No.: 17-cv-00616 (JGK) – Letter Motion Seeking Pre-Motion Conference Dear Judge Netburn, We write today to request a pre-motion conference, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 37.2, to seek the Court’s guidance as to compelling defendant Maxwell to produce requested documents. As the Court will recall, this is a case in which the plaintiff, Ms. Sarah Ransome, has alleged that she was sexually trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and his co-defendants, including defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. Maxwell is the only one of the four defendants who did not invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to refuse to produce documents. But in response to Ms. Ransome’s requests for production, Ms. Maxwell produced very little information. Following that limited production, counsel for Ms. Ransome clarified her requests for production, via email. See Attachment A. Counsel for Ms. Ransome and Ms. Maxwell then conferred via telephone on November 21, 2018, but were unsuccessful in narrowing many of the substantive disputes. While there are various individual issues about the requests for production, there are several overarching disputes that we think might usefully be discussed in a pre- motion conference. Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK-SN Document 179 Filed 12/13/18 Page 1 of 14 2 The Relevant Time Period for Production The parties dispute the relevant time period for production. Ms. Ransome believes that the relevant time period extends for the multiple years during which the sex trafficking organization operated. But Ms. Maxwell has refused to produce for years that organization was in operation, taking the position that the “relevant period” for this case is narrowly confined to just September 2006 through April 2007. Ms. Ransome’s complaint spans a much broader time period than those eight months. For example, paragraph 14 of the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges that “Defendant Maxwell was for decades the highest-ranking employee of the Defendants’ sex trafficking venture and enterprise.” And with regard to events following 2007, the First Amended Complaint specifically alleges that (among other things) “In and after May 2007, Defendants actively concealed and covered up what they had done to Plaintiff and other similarly situated females. Defendant’s coverup included efforts to intimidate witnesses who might provide corroborating testimony to Plaintiff as well as destruction of documents and other evidence regarding what they had done.” FAC at ¶ 65. Judge Koeltl has already recognized the breadth of the allegations in denying a motion to strike a part of the complaint dealing with earlier events. In particular, Judge Koeltl recognized that under Rule 404(b), evidence of trafficking other girls or women by the sex trafficking organization could be relevant to showing what happened to Ms. Ransome: The portion of the amended complaint subject to the motion to strike provides specific facts in support of the plaintiff's allegations that she was recruited an enticed into performing sex acts with Epstein as part of a larger enterprise to provide Epstein with young females for sex, in which each defendant allegedly played a specific role. The defendants contend that the plaintiff was a younger woman who willingly accepted the blandishments of a wealthy older man. The knowledge and intent of the defendants will plainly be an issue. The paragraphs of the amended complaint that the defendants seek to strike may be evidence of the defendants' knowledge and intent in their dealings with the plaintiff. See Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Accordingly, the motion to strike is denied. Transcript (“Tr.”) of Aug. 7, 2018, hearing at 47-48. Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK-SN Document 179 Filed 12/13/18 Page 2 of 14 3 In light of the breadth Ms. Ransome’s complaint – and Judge Koeltl’s earlier ruling – Ms. Maxwell should produce documents for a much broader period of time, as indicated in particular requests for production. For example, Request for Production Number 1 requests Maxwell’s passport entries from 2000 to 2008. Ms. Maxwell should produce for that entire time period, as that may assist in showing her traveling in connection with sexually trafficking women and girls. Ms. Maxwell’s Financial Information Ms. Ransome has sought financial information from Ms. Maxwell, including her tax returns. See, e.g. RFP 16 (requesting tax returns and related information). Ms. Maxwell has declined to produce such information. Ms. Maxwell has taken the position that the request is “harassing” because, in her view, her “financial information is not at issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant.” But numerous financial issues are interwoven into this case. For example, as alleged in ¶ 62 of the First Amended Complaint, “Defendants Epstein and Maxwell continued to provide Plaintiff with things of value in exchange for Plaintiff’s continued compliance with Epstein’s sexual demands ....” Maxwell’s financial ability to provide things of value is thus directly at issue. In addition, as alleged in ¶ 66 of the First Amended Complaint, “Defendants knowingly benefitted financially and received things of value as a result of coercing and inducing Plaintiff into sexual compliance and otherwise participating in their illegal venture and enterprise.” These things of value she received from being a leader in Epstein’s sex trafficking organization may very well appear in income or other entries on Ms. Maxwell’s tax returns. The “things of value” addressed in the Complaint tie directly into the statutory provisions that Ms. Ransome relies upon in filing her complaint. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1591, anyone who “benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value from participation in a [sex trafficking] venture” is potentially covered by the statute (emphasis added). Thus, Ms. Maxwell’s receipt (or distribution) of “things of value” may be an element of the cause of action that Ms. Ransome has to prove at trial. Of course, tax returns frequently reflect “things of value.” Employee or Business Records Associated with Jeffrey Epstein Ms. Ransome has asked Ms. Maxwell to produce “[a]ll documents relating to any employee lists or records associated with you, Jeffrey Epstein or any related entity.” In addition to raising the question of the relevant time period discussed above, Ms. Maxwell has argued that the term “entity” is unduly broad. Ms. Ransome has responded by clarifying that “[w]ith regard to ‘entity,’ an entity associated with Ms. Case 1:17-cv-00616-JGK-SN Document 179 Filed 12/13/18 Page 3 of 14 4 Maxwell might be a means for receiving or transmitting ‘things of value’ that are the subject of this litigation, as specifically discussed in the complaint.” See Attachment A. Maxwell still has declined to produce. Information in Ms. Maxwell’s possession regarding employee or business records associated with Jeffrey Epstein is clearly relevant in a case involving an alleged sex trafficking organization. And the use of such terms as “entity” as appropriate, given that Mr. Epstein has invoked his Fifth Amendment rights rather than ex