EpsteinProject.org

Court records

037_14

Format
pdf
Set
Court Records
Text
Searchable

View at the original source

Text as released

Machine-read from the scan. Names, dates and numbers can be misread — check anything you rely on against the original page.

       Case 1:19-cv-10476-PGG-DCF Document 37 Filed 05/07/20 Page 1 of 5


BSF
                          BOIES
                          SCH ILLER
                          FLEXNER
                                                                                               Sigrid S. McCawley
                                                                                       Telephone: (954) 377-4223
                                                                                     Email: smccawley@bsfllp.com

                                                         May 7, 2020

VIA ECF
The Honorable Debra Freeman
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007-1312

        Re:       Teresa Helm v. Darren K. Indyke & Richard D. Kahn, 19-10476-PGG-DCF

Dear Judge Freeman:
        We write on behalf of Plaintiff Teresa Helm in the above-captioned litigation. Pursuant to
Individual Rule II.A and Local Civil Rule 37.2, Plaintiff respectfully requests a pre-motion
conference on Plaintiff’s anticipated motion to compel Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard
D. Kahn (1) to produce responsive documents from the Relevant Period as defined in Plaintiff’s
discovery requests; (2) to produce documents responsive to Plaintiff’s requests, not simply
documents that directly mention Plaintiff’s name; and (3) to respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories.1
The Court has made clear that discovery in this case would not be stayed pending the approval of
the claims administration program or a motion to dismiss absent a contrary order from the Court.
See Tr. of Nov. 21, 2019 Conf. at 26:10–12. Yet by failing to comply with their clear and
unequivocal discovery obligations, including not producing a single document to date, Defendants
are attempting to grant themselves a de facto stay of discovery. Defendants have provided no basis
for their delay.
  I.    Background

        Plaintiff alleges that Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirators operated a de

[…]

Open in the archive