Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 122-cv-10904 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)/326-157.pdf

EXHIBIT 157 Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 326-157 Filed 09/08/23 Page 1 of 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Government of the United States Virgin Islands, Plaintiff, vs. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Defendant. CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-10904 (JSR) JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES IN LIEU OF RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION TESTIMONY Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26, 30, and 33, and by agreement of the parties as an alternative to cer tain topics in Plaintiff’s request for deposition testimony under Rule 30(b)(6), Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JPMC”) hereby serves its first supplemental objections and responses to the topics set forth below, based on information reasonably available to JPMC at this time and without prejudice to JPMC’s right to revise, supplement, or amend these objections and responses in accordance with Rules 26 and 33. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT These objections and responses are made solely for the purposes of the above-captioned case. Each of JPMC’s objections and responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories is based on information and documents presently available to JPMC after reasonable inquiry. Discovery is ongoing and JPMC specifically reserves the right to amend or supplement these objections and responses as necessary, including in the event further information and documents are discovered or produced by JPMC after discovery has been completed. In addition, JPMC’s objections and       Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 326-157 Filed 09/08/23 Page 2 of 22 Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 326-157 Filed 09/08/23 Page 3 of 22 DocuSign Envelope ID: F53388A0-0889-4D0F-98DF-F0C139986BEA responses are given without prejudice to its rights to introduce at trial evidence of any subsequently discover ed or unintentionally omitted facts or documents . To the extent JPMC responds to a specific inten ogato1y below, JPMC does not admit to Plainti ffs cha ra cterization of any documents, facts, theories, or conclusions. JPMC's responses to the Inten ogatories do not constitute acquiescence or agreement to any definition proposed by Plainti ff. JPMC's objections and responses are made without in any way waiving or intending to waive, but to the contr aiy, are intended to preserve: 1. All questions as to competency, relevancy, materiality, privilege, and admissibility as evidence for any purpose of the responses or subject matter thereof, in this action or any subsequent proceeding associated with this action or any other matter; 2. The right to object on any ground to the use of said responses, or the subject matter thereof, in any subsequent proceeding associated with this action or any other matter; a nd 3. The right to object at any time to other requests or other discove1y procedures involving or r elating to the subject matter of these Inten ogatories. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. JPMC incorporates by reference all General Objections stated in its Responses and Objections to Plainti ffs Notice of Deposition to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., which JPMC served on Febrnaiy 15, 2023. OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS 1. JPMC inco1porates by reference all Objections to Definitions stated in its Responses and Objections to Plainti ffs Notice of Deposition to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., which JPMC served on Febrnaiy 15, 2023. - 2 - Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 326-157 Filed 09/08/23 Page 4 of 22 DocuSign Envelope ID: F53388A0-0889-4D0F-98DF-F0C139986BEA SPECIFIC RESPONSES TOPIC NO. 7 Any discussion of Epstein or Epstein Accounts by Your compliance-related committees, senior executives, and/or Board members and committees, including any documentation, including, but not limited to, notes, memorandum, electronic mail about these discussions and decisions, if any, made as a r esul t. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 7: In addition to and specifically incorporating its foregoing General Objections and Objections to Definitions, JPMC objects to Topic No. 7 on the grounds that complying with this topic would impose undue burden and expense that is dispropo1i ionate to the issues in the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 2 6(b)(l ). That is especially so where t he infonnation sought in Topic No. 7 can be obtained from a more convenien t, less burdensome, or l ess expensive source, su ch as requests for production of documents under Rule 34 or depositions under Rule 30(b)(l ). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i); Blackrock, 2017 WL 9400671 at *2 ("[A] Rule 30(b)(6) deposition should not be a 'memo1y contest' of topics better sui ted to a written response or a supplemental document productio n." (citation omitted)). JPMC also objects to Topic No. 7 to the extent it seeks in fonnation prohibited from disclosure under federa l law. See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 6802; 31 U.S.C. § 5318. JPMC is prohibited by the Bank Secrecy Act and federal regulation from disclosing infonnation related to SARs, including any material t hat would disclose whether or not a paiiicular SAR was filed. The prohibition against disclosure cannot be waived by JPMC. See 31 U.S.C. § 5318(g)(2)(A)(i); 12 C.F.R. § 21.11; 31 C.F .R. § 1020.320. JPMC fmi her objects to Topic No. 7 to the extent t hat it seeks testimony pe1iaining to matters subject to attorney-client privilege, bank examiner privilege, work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. JPMC also objects to Topic No. 7 as vague and ambiguous because the topic preface " [ a ]ny discussion" is not defined and vastly overbroad, and so the scope of the - 3 - Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 326-157 Filed 09/08/23 Page 5 of 22 DocuSign Envelope ID: F53388A0-0889-4D0F-98DF-F0C139986BEA testimony sought is not limited with any reasonable particularity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6); City of Almaty v. Sater, 2022 WL 10374082, *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2022). It would be impossible to educate a corporate representative on literally "any discussion" pertaining to Topic No. 7. JPMC further objects on the grounds that the tenns "compliance-related committee" and "senior executives" are vague and ambiguous. In the paiiies' meet and confers, JPMC agreed to provide, and USVI agreed to accept in lieu of testimony, an intenogato1y answer identifying any meetings of JPMC's Board of Directors between 2000 and 2019 in which Epstein-related issues were discussed and, for any such meetin gs, to produce board minutes and presentations on those issues (redacting unrelated issue s). Subject to and without waiving its objections, and based upon a reasonable and diligent investigation, JPMC states that Epstein-related issues were not discussed at any of its Board of Directors' meetings between Januaiy 1, 2000 and August 31, 2019. Between September 2019 and December 31, 2019, Epstein-related issues were discussed at two of its B oai·d of Directors' meetings. Each of those discussions, and related documents, ai·e protected by attorney-client privilege. JPMC will not produce these documents. JPMC will, however, identify them on a privilege log in due course. In addition, Epstein related issues were addressed in an August 2019 update to the Board of Directors ' Risk Committee and in a meeting of that committee held on September 16, 2019. JPMC will produce related documents with unrelated issues redacted. TOPICN0.16 Your handling of customers or accounts associated with potential commercial sex or human trafficking, including child sex trafficking, sex trafficking, forced labor, and child exploitation or child abuse or sex offenses unrelated to Epstein Accounts including the number of customers or accounts that were mon