Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Epstein Survivors And Their Memorandum Seeking to Amend Lawsuit Against USVI Officials (Part 2) (11/8/26)

Transcript

Epstein Survivors And Their Memorandum Seeking to Amend Lawsuit Against USVI Officials (Part 2) (11/8/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: In this episode we're picking up where we left off
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: with a memorandum of law in support of plaintiffs cross
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: motion for leave to amend pursuant to FRCP R15A3 and
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: for discovery addressed to jurisdiction and venue. Point two. This
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: court should exercise its broad discretion and direct discovery concerning
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: the scope and extent of defendants activities in New York.
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: In the event that the court finds plaintiff's allegations in
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: the SAC concerning jurisdiction and or venue lacking, or to
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: forestall yet another round of motion practice by defendants, plaintiffs
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: respectfully request an opportunity to conduct discovery addressing these issues.
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: In general, a district court may allow discovery to aid
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: in determining whether it has personal jurisdiction over a defendant.
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: Winston & Strawn v. Dong Wan Si's Company, 2002 WL
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: 314-2 4-4-6-2-5 at 5, SDNY, November 1st, 2002. Where, as here,
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: jurisdictional and venue-specific discovery lies exclusively in the possession of
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: the move-ins, the District Court orders discovery concerning these issues.
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: For example, in Winston v. Strawn and Dongwan Security Company LTD,
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: 02-CIV-0183-RWS-2002-WL-314- The court granted leave to conduct jurisdictional and venue-specific discovery.
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: Premotion discovery should be permitted where the facts necessary to
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: establish personal jurisdiction and propriety of venue lie exclusively within
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: the defendant's knowledge. See Wells Fargo & Company v. Wells
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: Fargo Express Company, 556 F. 2D 406 430 N. 4, 2nd Circuit 1977.
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: Gelfand v. Tanner Motors, LTD, 339, F. 2D, 317, 323, 2nd Circuit, 1964.
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: Here there is an issue of whether Dong Wan is
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: doing and or transacting business in the state of New
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: York and this judicial district. Discovery will lead to a
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: more accurate judgment than one made solely on the basis
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: of affidavits in response to the motion. C. Peterson v.
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: Spartan Industries, Inc., 33, 34. NY 2D 463 354, NYS
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: 2D 905 310, and E2D 513 1974. CF Scott vs.
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: Proclaim AM Inc. 14 CV 06003 DRH ARL 2015 WL
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: 38 51243 at 5, Eastern District, NY June 22, 2015. Moreover,
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: unlike in the cases cited by the plaintiff, where a
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: further jurisdictional discovery was warranted, here there is no dispute
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: as to the facts material to the determination of the jurisdiction.
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: For example, in Wafio's Mock Corp. v. Newcoil Industrial Company,
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: one of the defendants submitted an affidavit containing several alleged
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: facts that were within its exclusive knowledge, including that it
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: allegedly did not target the New York market. 2004 WL
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: 162 7168 at 5. SDNY, July 21st, 2004. Because the
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: affidavit contained facts within the defendant's exclusive control and raised
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: further questions which were not answered by the affidavit, the
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: court allowed limited jurisdictional discovery concerning the defendant's New York contacts.
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: In Unisystems LLC v. United States Tennis Association, 350 F.S.U.P.P.
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: 3D 143, 159 and 160, Eastern District of New York, 2018,
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: the court granted the plaintiff's request for venue-specific discovery reasoning.
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: As plaintiff has requested the opportunity to conduct a limited
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: venue-specific discovery and seeks an evidentiary hearing on venue, the
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: court grants plaintiff limited discovery as to whether these defendants
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: have an established place of business in the Eastern District
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: of New York under the supervision of the magistrate judge
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: assigned to the case. Allied Dynamics Corporation, 965 FSUPP, 2D
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: at 288, citing Murphy v. Schneider, National Incorporated, 362, F. 3D, 1133, 1139,
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: 9th Circuit, 2004. Stating that if there are any disputed
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: facts relevant to determining venue, the district court may exercise
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: their discretion to determine whether to hold an evidentiary hearing
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: to resolve the dispute. The motions of the Morgan defendants
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: and Rossetti Incorporated to dismiss for improper venue are denied
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: without prejudice to renew. It's well established that a plaintiff
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: need not first make out a prima facie showing of
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: personal jurisdiction as a prerequisite to conducting jurisdictional discovery. Texas
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: International Magnetics Incorporated v. BASF 31 Federal Appendix 738-739 2nd
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: Circuit 2002 Although plaintiffs did not show the defendant is
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: subject to the court's jurisdiction, we believe they are entitled
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: to jurisdictional discovery to develop the factual record requisite for
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: such a showing. Accordingly, noted above, the district court's holding
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: that any request by plaintiffs to conduct jurisdictional discovery must
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: be conditioned upon plaintiffs first establishing a prima facie case
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: for jurisdiction was clear error. Indeed, such a requirement would
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: render jurisdictional discovery pointless. In Danesfeller v. Flexi, North America, LLC, 22-CV-6608-SIL,
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: 2024 WL 640025 at 12 and 13, Eastern District of
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: New York, February 15, 2024. The court reasoned as follows
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: in granting such discovery. Where a plaintiff has established a
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: genuine issue of jurisdictional fact, the court may in its
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: discretion order jurisdictional discoveries. C. RSM Production Corp v. Friedman
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: 643 F.S.U.P.P. 2D 382 402 S.D.N.Y. 2009 387 F.A.P.P.X. 72
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: 2nd Circuit 2010 Moreover, the District Court has considerable latitude
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: in devising the procedures it will follow to ferret out
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: the facts pertinent to jurisdiction. Broidy Cap Management LLC v.
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: Benamar 944 F. 3D 436-446 2nd Circuit, 2019, quoting foremost McKesson, Inc. v.
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: Islamic Republic of Iran, 905 F. 2D 438-449 D.C. Circuit, 1990.
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: Here the court concludes that Danesfeller is entitled to limited
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: jurisdictional discovery. For one, plaintiff alleges that Bogdan uses Amazon
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: to sell its products in New York, CPSAC at 1920,
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: and the only facts rebutting that allegation came from the
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: declaration of Flexi and Bogdan's general managers. See Decker Declaration
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: 4 and 5, Cruz Declaration at 13. Discovery, however, may
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: reveal evidence to the contrary, such that personal jurisdiction is
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: proper over Bogdan under NYCPLR Section 302a and 3. See
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: EnviroCare Texts 2012 WL2001443 at 3. quoting Baschetto 539 F. 3d
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: at 1019. With respect to Flexi, Danesfelser also may uncover
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: further facts regarding Flexi's sale of products to Petco such
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: that personal jurisdiction is proper under NY CPLR Section 302
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: A1 in addition to A and 3. Further, Danesfelser has
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: asserted that Flexi's sole member, Betel Lunges and Bogdan are
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: in fact the same entity and that such a sufficient
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: level of control exists such that personal jurisdiction over Bogdan
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: is appropriate. See PSAC 11 and 1. See Lindy 262
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: FRD at 142. Concluding courts can acquire personal jurisdiction over
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: parents based on subsidiary presence in New York where the
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: degree of control is considerable. Although Bogdan asserts that Flexi
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: is not a subsidiary, see Cruz Declaration at 14, Discovery
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: may uncover evidence to the contrary. As such, Danesfeller may
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: obtain jurisdictional discovery regarding the relationship between Betalungus, Bogdan, and Flexi. Accordingly,
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery is granted. Here,
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: at a minimum, plaintiffs have raised allegations sufficient to allow
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: plaintiffs to engage in limited jurisdictional discovery as to whether
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: there is personal jurisdiction over defendants. It is indisputable that
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: the evidence pertaining to the activities of those involved in
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: the scheme and or defendant's actions concerning Epstein has been
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: shielded from public view as a result of a broadly
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: applied protective order. It is further undisputed that plaintiffs, the
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: victims of sex trafficking, lacked any access to the evidence
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: proving their claims. Until plaintiffs are granted access to the
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: documents in that action pursuant to the same protective order
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: or discovery herein, they're hamstrung by the successful efforts of
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: others to shield the protectors of the sex trafficking enterprise
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: from the public. Accordingly, at the very least, plaintiffs should
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: be allowed to engage in limited discovery concerning issues relevant
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: to whether there is personal jurisdiction, such as whether and
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: the extent to which defendants conducted business with Epstein and
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: his companies in New York, visited him in New York
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: for the purpose of securing financial support from his sex
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: trafficking enterprise, and owned properties in New York. See Winston
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: 2002 WL 314-44-625 at 5. allowing limited jurisdictional discovery where
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: there is an issue whether defendant is going and or
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: transacting business in the state of New York and discovery
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: will lead to more accurate judgment than one made solely
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: on the basis of affidavits. Defendants can hardly deny that
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: this case is unique in that the evidence pertaining to
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: Epstein's activities in the USVI in New York, as well
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: as defendants and those others who conspired with him to
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: continue the enterprise is largely beyond the public's purview. For
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: this reason, plaintiffs have been forced to properly plead allegations
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: upon information and belief, which is in accord with federal law.
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: As the Second Circuit explained in Arista Records, LLC v.
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: Doe 3, 604 F3D, 110-120, Second Circuit, 2010, such pleading
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: is proper where the defendants are exclusive possessions of key facts.
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: The Twombly Plausibility Standard, which applies to all civil actions,
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: see Iqbal 129 Supreme Court, At 1953, does not prevent
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: the plaintiff from pleading facts alleged upon information and belief
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: where the facts are within the possession and control of
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: the defendant. C.E.G. Boykin v. Keycorp 521 F. 3D 202 215
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: 2nd Circuit 2008. Or where belief is based on factual
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: information that makes the inference of culpability plausible. C. Iqbal
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: 129 Supreme Court at 1949. A claim has plausibility when
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: the misconduct alleged. The Twombly Court stated that asking for
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: plausible grounds to infer an agreement does not impose a
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: probability requirement at the pleading stage. It simply calls for
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: reveal evidence of illegal behavior. 550 U.S. at 556-127 Supreme Court, 1955. Consequently,
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: plaintiff asked this court order such discovery just as the
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: court did in Patel v. Klain-Gessel Studio, 2023, WL 828-0498-1, SDNY,
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: November 30, 2023. There, the plaintiff made the same request,
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: which was granted with the court reasoning. In his opposition
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: to the motion to dismiss, plaintiff took the position that
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: the court should order jurisdictional discovery if it found plaintiff
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: showing that to be insufficient to find that the court
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: has personal jurisdiction over defendants and that venue is proper
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: in this district. On November 20th, 2023, I held a
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: telephonic conference during which I informed the parties that based
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: on my preliminary review of their motion papers, I believe
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: that jurisdictional discovery would be appropriate because there appeared to
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: be a genuine factual dispute about whether the court has
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: personal jurisdiction over the defendants and whether the venue is
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: proper in this district. See APWU v. Potter 343, F. 3D 619-627,
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: 2nd Circuit, 2003. Courts possess considerable latitude in devising the
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: procedures they will follow to ferret out the facts pertinent
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: to jurisdiction. Internal quotation marks and citations omitted. See also
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: Wilson & Wilson Holdings LLC v. DTH LLC, No. 22-CV-02941, PGG-SDA.
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: 2023 WL 344-9163 at 3 SDNY May 15, 2023. I
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: advise defendants that they could choose to withdraw the motion
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: to dismiss without prejudice to refiling it after the close
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: of the jurisdictional discovery, but defendants have declined to do so.
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: See 1127-23 Status Report ECF 45. Plaintiff now argues that
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: jurisdictional discovery is unnecessary. In light of my preliminary view
• 13:33
  Speaker 1: that jurisdictional discovery is appropriate here, on providing plaintiff with
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: the opportunity to take such discovery and to make a
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: supplemental filing in connection with defendant's motion to dismiss on
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. Accordingly,
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: plaintiff may propound up to five document requests covering personal
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: jurisdiction and venue in this district, and he may depose
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: Gessel for up to two hours on those subjects. In sum,
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: plaintiffs are entitled to limited discovery targeting at adducing evidence
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: establishing jurisdiction and venue. Conclusion. For the reasons stated herein,
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: plaintiffs respectfully request that this court enter an order granting
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: plaintiffs motion for leave to amend deeming the SAC timely
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: filed and or for jurisdictional and venue specific discovery together
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: with such other and further relief as this court deems
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: just and appropriate. Dated May 8th, 2024 and this was
• 14:28
  Speaker 1: signed by Jordan Merson. All right. Well, that's going to
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: do it for this document as a whole. And we're
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: just going to keep it moving. We have plenty more
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: to get to. So with that said, all of the
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: the description box.