Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / The Joint Letter Regarding Discovery Dispute In The Leon Black/Jane Doe Lawsuit (9/12/26)

Transcript

The Joint Letter Regarding Discovery Dispute In The Leon Black/Jane Doe Lawsuit (9/12/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode we're going to dive right
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: back into that Leon Black lawsuit that was filed against
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: him by Jane Doe. And in this episode we're taking
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: a look at a letter that was sent by the
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: lawyer for Leon Black, Dania Perry, to Judge Clark. Dear
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: Judge Clark, Pursuant to Rule 4K, Your Honor's individual rules
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: and practices in civil cases, the parties respectfully submit this
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: joint letter raising a discovery dispute concerning defendant Leon Black's
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: request to quash or modify a deposition and subpoena plaintiff
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: seeks to serve on three of Mr. Black's attorneys and Mr.
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: Black's wife. Per Rule 4K, defendant would request an informal conference.
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: Plaintiff does not agree that a conference is necessary. On
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: the evening of October 16, 2024, counsel for plaintiff gave
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: notice that she would be serving at least 16 non-party subpoenas.
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: The 11 document subpoenas were all returnable on November 15th
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: and the five depositions were noticed for dates between November
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: 19th and November 23rd, including the depositions of Ms. Black
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: on November 20th and three attorneys in question on November
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: 21st through 23rd and on October 22nd, 2024, counsel for
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: defendants and counsel for plaintiff and email setting forth the
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: basis for defendant's objections to the subpoenas. Counsel for the
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: parties thereafter met and conferred, telephonically, for 30 minutes on
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: October 25, 2024. In attendance were Peter Gwynn, Alexander Parshini,
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: Susan Estrich, and Ryan Rackower. For Mr. Black and Jeannie
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: Christensen and Meredith Firetog for plaintiff. After defendants and plaintiff's
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: portion of his draft letter on November 11, 2024, the
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: parties agreed to postpone the depositions pending resolution of this dispute,
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: the parties were unable to resolve this dispute on their own.
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: The Plaintiff's Position Ample Second Circuit base law exists to
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: show the plaintiff squarely within Rule 26 to conduct depositions
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: of Ms. Black, Mr. Karp, Mr. Ehrlich, and Mr. Laufer.
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: Plaintiff is entitled to depose Deborah Black. Plaintiff seeks to
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: depose Black's spouse because she has relevant information on about
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: the frequency and nature of his socialization, business dealings, and
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: overall relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Spouses regularly testify in depositions
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: and at trial in civil matters. Adverse spousal testimony privilege
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: permits an individual to refuse to testify in a criminal
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: proceeding against her or his spouse, but in civil cases
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: such as this one, that privilege does not apply. A narrower,
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: more limited privilege applies to Ms. Black. Chevron Corp v.
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: Donziger Number 11, CV 0691. Syosset, Woodbury Road, Woodbury, New York, 71, F. 3D, 1070,
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: 2nd Circuit, 1995. In Chevron-Donziger, the defendant's wife asserted spousal
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: privilege in refusing to respond to written questions and appear
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: at a deposition, but the court required her to appear
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: at the deposition and held that privilege must be asserted
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: in response to particular questions and a proper foundation for
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: it established. plaintiff alleges that Black's sexual assault of her
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: took place in a home owned by Epstein and that
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: it was very close to the Black residence. Public articles
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: report that Epstein frequently hosted Black at his mansion, usually
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: for breakfast or for lunch. Ms. Black can testify to
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: her personal observations regarding how often Black went to Epstein's
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: and for what purposes. If she knows, she can testify
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: about whether she went with Black to Epstein's and if so,
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: who was there and about conversations. Ms. Black's conversations with
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: Epstein are not privileged. Additionally, from 1998 to 2012, Ms.
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: Black was the vice president of the Leon Black Family Foundation, Inc.,
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: where Black was the president and treasurer, and Epstein served
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: as the director. For these 14 years, he was the
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: only other officer alongside Ms. Black and Mr. Black. Her
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: communications with Epstein regarding the family office from 1998 through
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: 2012 are not privileged. The Deckert Report speaks about the
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: various charities that Black and Epstein contributed to for one
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: another and the family office gave to numerous charities. Black
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: admits in the report that Epstein provided substantive advice to
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: the family office on various topics. To the extent Ms.
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: Black was involved in philanthropic endeavors with Black and Epstein,
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: whether through the family office or otherwise, she can testify
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: without invoking privilege. Finally, the report confirms that Ms. Black
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: travel with Black to visit Epstein at his other homes
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: outside NYC, including Paris, New Mexico, and St. James Island
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: in USVI. These subjects and others that will be detailed
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: in plaintiff's response to defendant's motion to quash all that
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: falls squarely outside the common law material privilege and are
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: relevant to this case. Plaintiff is entitled to depose Brad Karp,
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: Andrew Ehrlich, and Gregory Laufer. Plaintiff seeks to depose Karp, Ehrlich,
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: and Laufer as fact witnesses concerning relevant information about Black's
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: relationship with Epstein, Paul Weiss's involvement, and the knowledge of
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: the Deckert Report, and to depose Karp about his general
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: knowledge of Black, given their friendship, which spans multiple decades.
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: To be covered under the attorney-client privilege, Karp, Ehrlich, and
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: Laufer have to show that a communication was made in
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: confidence between Black and themselves for the purpose of obtaining
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: legal assistance for the client. Even if a communication contained
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: both legal and business advice, it's not covered unless the
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: primary purpose of the communication was to obtain legal advice. Here,
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: Karp is a fact witness whose testimony does not necessarily
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: involve attorney-client privilege. Indeed, according to a July 26, 2022
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: Business Insider profile of Karp, he no longer represents Black.
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: He's not Black's lawyer of record in this litigation. Therefore,
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: any conversations Karp has had with Black about or concerning
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: potentially relevant information about the action would not be privileged.
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: This is also true for Ehrlich and Laufer. Additionally, Paul
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: Weiss attorneys were part of the Deckert report, assisting in
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: the collection of more than 60,000 records and documents for
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: Deckert and participating as witnesses in the investigation. The report
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: notes that interviews with current and former legal counsel were
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: conducted to obtain their recollection of events that may have
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: been relevant to Deckert's investigation. To the extent these lawyers
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: have information about the report, these communications are not privileged,
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: given that the publication and filing of the report waived
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: any such privilege. And as such, Karp and likely Ehrlich
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: and Laufer have relevant information as fact witnesses to Black's
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: relationship with Epstein. Plaintiff is entitled to ask about the
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: documents provided to Deckert at their depositions and to seek
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: and examine anything if relevant. Communications between Karp and Epstein
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: would not be subject to attorney-client privilege. Communications between Karp
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: and any agents for Epstein, including lawyers for Epstein, are
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: not privileged. Furthermore, Karp, Ehrlich, and Laufer's communications with Susan Estrich,
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: Dania Perry, or the Quinn Emanuel lawyers serving as counsel
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: of record in this action would not be privileged. Their
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: communications with any public relations firms regarding Black are similarly
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: not privileged. because plaintiff brings asserts a GMBA claim, proof
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: regarding gender-based animus is relevant, and evidence suggesting or tending
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: to bolster the inference of animus towards women by Black
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: and any patterns of such animus is relevant. Karp is
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: known Black for decades and has served on foundations, non-profits,
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: and other private groups alongside Black. To the extent Karp
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: has personal knowledge regarding Black's treatment of women and or
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: any specific instances that would be relevant to suggest or
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: infer gender-based animus or a pattern engaged in by black
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: with other women. Such knowledge is not protected under attorney-client privilege. Similarly,
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: Ehrlich and Laufer have worked with and alongside black for
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: a number of years. Numerous publications show carp and black
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: in social situations together, including with spouses, and conversations in
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: any social setting with black would not be privileged. Ultimately,
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: retainer agreements for legal services are not privileged documents, and therefore,
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: if CARP or other attorneys wish to demonstrate that they
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: are in fact serving as legal counsel in Dover's Black,
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: that they otherwise have an attorney-client relationship concerning any of
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: these topics, they can produce the retainer. But numerous interactions
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: between these lawyers in Black and agents of Black, as
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: well as Black's family members, show that ample communications have
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: nothing to do with the confidential legal advice that took place.
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: Plaintiff is entitled to conduct the depositions, and if privilege
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: regarding a certain question exists, it can be raised and
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: objected to at the time. Plaintiff's Compromised Position Defendant seeks
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: to quash deposition subpoenas, and he should brief the issues.
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: We do not agree that asking the court to engage
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: in an informal conference to essentially limit scope of discovery
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: at depositions is proper. Plaintiff's proposal is to allow discovery
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: to take place during which counsel can make appropriate objections
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: on the basis of privilege as it arises. Defendant's Position
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: Plaintiff's attempt to subpoena Mr. Black's attorneys and his wife
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: is an attempt to annoy, embarrass, and harass the recipients
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: and Mr. Black without the slightest chance of obtaining evidence
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: that is relevant to plaintiff's claim or that could not
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: be obtained from other sources. Instead, the subpoenas demand information
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: and materials that are clearly protected by the attorney-client and
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: spousal privileges, respectively. from individuals who are indisputably not witnesses
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: to any of the events at issue in the case.
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: Any non-privileged information these individuals possess is irrelevant to Plaintiff's
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: loan claim that she was purportedly raped by defendant in
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: 2022 at Jeffrey Epstein's residence in New York City. and
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: that plaintiff has refused or is unable to provide any
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: legitimate relevance for the requested testimony. The subpoenas should be quashed.
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: The subpoenas not only seek information that is both privileged
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: and irrelevant, plaintiff seeks to issue deposition subpoenas to three
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: of Mr. Black's attorneys at the law firm of Paul Weiss,
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: Brad Karp, Andrew Ehrlich, and Gregory Laufer. but any knowledge
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: they could conceivably have that is in any way relevant
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: to the claims any defense in this matter would have
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: been obtained exclusively in the course of their representation of Mr. Black,
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: and any communications that they had with Mr. Black or
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: any of his agents or representatives are by consequence privileged.
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: None of those attorneys are recipient witnesses to any of
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: the events at issue, and they certainly had no connection
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: to the case in 2001 or 2002 when those supposed
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: events occurred. Neither Mr. Ehrlich nor Mr. Laufer had yet
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: even begun the practice of law, and Mr. Cart did
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: not even meet Mr. Black until 2008. Nor does the
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: Deckert report provide a basis to depose Mr. Black's counsel.
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: The information these three lawyers may have had is a
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: result of representing Mr. Black in that investigation, and thus privileged.
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: and plaintiff is flat wrong that communications between Mr. Black's
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: lawyers in other matters, and counsel of record in this case,
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: would not be privileged. Indeed, any information these lawyers could
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: possibly provide in response to the subpoenas is necessarily privileged,
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: or at a minimum, could be obtained through other, more
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: direct sources. Perhaps even more remarkably, the plaintiff seeks to
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: serve a deposition, subpoena on Mr. Black's wife, in a
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: transparent and offensive attempt to harass, embarrass, burden, and annoy Mr.
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: and Mrs. Black, Ms. Black is also not a precipitant
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: witness and plaintiff has refused to provide any reason beyond
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: rank speculation as to why her testimony would have any relevance.
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: Any knowledge she might have was obtained through her confidential
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: communications with Mr. Black. She has no independent knowledge of
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: any potentially relevant information and is not mentioned in plaintiff's complaint. Accordingly,
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: any information she could provide is in response to the subpoena,
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: is protected by the marital communications privilege, is irrelevant, or
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: could be obtained through other, more direct sources. For all
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: of these reasons, defendant's initial position is that the court
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: should quash the subpoenas in their entirety, or enter a
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: protective order pursuant to Rule 26C1, precluding the depositions of
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: Brad Karp, Andrew Ehrlich, Gregory Laufer, and Deborah Black. Defendant's
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: Compromised Position Pursuant to your Honor's Individual Rule 4K, during
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: the meet and confer, the defendant's counsel repeatedly asked plaintiff
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: counsel to explain what relevant non-privileged information any of these
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: witnesses could provide. In response, plaintiff's counsel refused to provide
• 13:12
  Speaker 1: any meaningful response other than to speculate that Mr. Black
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: and Ms. Black, one of the attorneys subject to the
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: proposed subpoenas, may have communicated with Mr. Black and Jeffrey
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: Epstein many years ago. But even if this were true,
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: plaintiffs professed explanation in no way supports her sweeping and
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: intrusive subpoenas, not to mention the fact that any such
• 13:33
  Speaker 1: communications would still have no material bearing on the allegations
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: in this case. Counsel for defendant also raised the possibility
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: of the parties agreeing to a protective order that expressly
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: prohibited plaintiffs from seeking information from the deponents related to
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: specific irrelevant and or privileged topics. But again, plaintiff's counsel
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: refused to explain how any topic or document request was
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: relevant or not subject to privilege. Without this information, it
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: is impossible to craft language that would adequately protect the
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: deponents and Mr. Black. In short, while we tried to
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: have a substantive, good-faith discussion in an attempt to reach
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: some resolution, counsel's highly unusual position, coupled with their failure
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: to meaningfully engage in the meet-and-confer process, leaves us with
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: no choice but to make this application. The party sank
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: the court for its attention to this matter, respectfully signed
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: by Dania Perry, and this was submitted on November 26, 2024.
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: All of the information that goes with this episode can
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: be found in the description box.